*** Days from its closure, Operation Grange is extended by £100.000 and 6 more months - 18.9.2016 *** (was: There are just 15 days left to the closure of Operation Grange)

MayMuse wrote:Very bold, next it may be reported these were the "3 mysterious shadowy figures entering the church with a bag" ? 

Everything needs to be 'accounted' for it seems whether it is outrageously unbelievable or not! 

woodbine wrote:Maybe now the McCanns can finally launch their own super-duper investigation. Or has that ship sailed now they have to pay court costs?

paddinton wrote:I've followed this from the very beginning, Mirror forum then  3 Arguidos. I read occasionally but very rarely post because the views seem so incredibly negative.

Do you all really believe that British coppers are happy to collude in a 'cover up' involving the demise of a toddler?

What does 'conclusion' mean to you?

Bishop Brennan wrote:

suzyjohnson wrote:Whatever your views on why, and how, Redwood dismissed Tannerman as a suspect on Crimewatch, he has drawn attention to the man seen by the Smiths at around 10 pm as being the most likely person of interest to the enquiry. He didn't need to do that, but he did.

With the benefit of hindsight and the imminent closure, we can see that there were in fact 2 reasons for dismissing Tannerman.

1.  It created a much bigger time-window for the abduction to take place.  As many on here had shown, the timeline as provided by the T9 meant that there was only a window of about 2 or 3 minutes for Tannerman to have taken Maddie.  AND he had to have been in the flat with Gerry, just before taking her. An unsustainable story.

2. Smithman taking Maddie later in the evening tied in with the phone / SMS records that Redwood had already looked at.  These records were used to link 3 entirely unconnected people (the driver, the drug addict and the boy) and create SY's main arguidos. The phone records did not tie in with a Tannerman abduction, but could be made to fit, IF and ONLY IF the abduction took place later (i.e. Smithman).

So in many ways he did have to do it.  And that's why he broadcast it as his big "revelation moment".    

Portia wrote:
Isn't BHH saying, in essence, that if the Mecs fork out 95.000 he can continue the search?

Well, as they still sit on around 795K, they will only be happy to oblige!

Have they yet?

No?

Why on earth not?

loopzdaloop wrote:

paddinton wrote:I've followed this from the very beginning, Mirror forum then  3 Arguidos. I read occasionally but very rarely post because the views seem so incredibly negative.

Do you all really believe that British coppers are happy to collude in a 'cover up' involving the demise of a toddler?

What does 'conclusion' mean to you?

I think you and I are on the same page.

paddinton wrote:I've followed this from the very beginning, Mirror forum then  3 Arguidos. I read occasionally but very rarely post because the views seem so incredibly negative.

Do you all really believe that British coppers are happy to collude in a 'cover up' involving the demise of a toddler?

What does 'conclusion' mean to you?

Bishop Brennan wrote:

paddinton wrote:I've followed this from the very beginning, Mirror forum then 3 Arguidos. I read occasionally but very rarely post because the views seem so incredibly negative.

Do you all really believe that British coppers are happy to collude in a 'cover-up' involving the demise of a toddler?

What does 'conclusion' mean to you?

Collusion was never required of any of the British police. The restrictive remit given to SY meant that none of the team were allowed to investigate the parents or the T7.  By carefully misdirecting the team right from the start, and making sure that they stayed misdirected - no actual 'cover-up' was ever needed.  The team would instead spend 4 years and £12m trying to find an imaginary abductor.  

My 'conclusion' therefore  : a total waste of everyone's time and money.

Verdi wrote:@TonyBennett:  ...what next??

At a guess I could say production of the long awaited grand exposé - The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann? 

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote:@TonyBennett:  ...what next??

At a guess I could say production of the long awaited grand exposé - The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann? 

Ah, yes!

But also...

1. New appeals by Kate & Gerry: 'We must continue the search - no-one is now looking for Madeleine'

2. Rush of tabloid articles and even some more new books, along the lines of "Where it all went wrong - the disastrous Portuguese Police investigation and how 'chance after chance was missed'"

Tony Bennett wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote:

paddinton wrote:I've followed this from the very beginning, Mirror forum then 3 Arguidos. I read occasionally but very rarely post because the views seem so incredibly negative.

Do you all really believe that British coppers are happy to collude in a 'cover-up' involving the demise of a toddler?

What does 'conclusion' mean to you?

Collusion was never required of any of the British police. The restrictive remit given to SY meant that none of the team were allowed to investigate the parents or the T7.  By carefully misdirecting the team right from the start, and making sure that they stayed misdirected - no actual 'cover-up' was ever needed.  The team would instead spend 4 years and £12m trying to find an imaginary abductor.  

My 'conclusion' therefore  : a total waste of everyone's time and money.

I beg to differ with both of the above views.

I differ only slightly from @ Bishop Brennan, however. Where I disagree is with this statement of his: "Collusion was never required of any of the British police".

MY REPLY:   Top Metropolitan Police officers may be corrupt (Operation Tiberius, Plebgate, Jimmy Savile, Stephen Lawrence, Daniel Morgan etc. etc.) - but they are certainly not fools.

Rebekah Brooks ordered David Cameron who ordered Theresa May who ordered the then Met Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson to set up the Operation Grange review.

First off, Sir Paul Stephenson could have said: 'No, I am not doing this'.

He didn't.

He asked Commander Simon Foy to be the overall co-ordinator of the review. He also could have said 'No'.

He didn't.

The pair of them then chose Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, the Investigating Officer who negligently or deliberately botched the investigation into the murder of Jill Dando, to become the Senior Investigating Officer for this review. Campbell too could have said 'I refuse'.

He didn't.

The three of them - or maybe the entire senior management team of the Met - then approached Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, telling him in terms, 'We'd like you to be the Investigating Officer for this. Ignore the 17 alerts of Eddie and Keela to cadaver odour and blood. Ignore all the lies and contradictions. Spin this out until you've completed your 30 years' service in three years' time'. He also could have refused to accept this poisoned chalice.

He didn't. 
 
Every single one of the above-named colluded in this expensive charade.

And now, by my calculations, Operation Grange has 72 days left.

It was announced on 3 April that six months' further work only was being authorised (by Theresa May), at a further cost of £94,582. That was another 182 days' work (3 April to 2 October 2016), or just under £520 per day.

With 72 days left, they have just over £37,000 left to spend.

Tick tock, tick tock, until 2 October 2016, nine years to the day after Dr Goncalo Amaral was booted off the Madeleine McCann enquiry - on his birthday.  

So, after 2 October 2016...

...what next??

Tony Bennett wrote:
Bumping this thread as there are now only 67 days left to the closure of Operation Grange - and as yet there has been no positive suggestion for what McCann-sceptics can do next, if and when it closes...

plebgate wrote:Will it be closed if there is STILL no news about the Supreme court ruling?

Just how long does it take to give a verdict on a point of law?

Forever it seems!

Verdi wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Bumping this thread as there are now only 67 days left to the closure of Operation Grange - and as yet there has been no positive suggestion for what McCann-sceptics can do next, if and when it closes...

Don't understand what you're asking.  Do you mean suggestions by forum members or are you alluding to possible scenarios in the next episode of the McCann saga?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
Bumping this thread as there are now only 67 days left to the closure of Operation Grange - and as yet there has been no positive suggestion for what McCann-sceptics can do next, if and when it closes...

Don't understand what you're asking.  Do you mean suggestions by forum members or are you alluding to possible scenarios in the next episode of the McCann saga?

OK, let me try and speak more plainly.

When Operation Grange was set up in May 2011 - I make that 1,902 days ago - many people on this and other forums were full of hope.

I wasn't one of them. I was roundly condemned by many on this very forum for being 'so negative'. My mantra always was: 'This is an expensive charade'.

Although the number of those who had high hopes of Grange has greatly diminished, there are no doubt still some here and elsewhere who are hoping against hope that Grange will bring about some kind of 'breakthrough', and that one or more persons will be arrested and charged with the crime of being responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

For one thing, some on here, and many elsewhere, have submitted evidence to Grange. PeterMac was one such. I was another. There have been many others who have done so.

If Grange closes in 67 days' time, or whenever, where do people who think they have relevant evidence go now?

Also, what happens to all the evidence that has been collected? There must be a room full of those hundreds of lines of enquiry, over 1,000 statements taken, and tens of thousands of documents and mobile 'phone records, lists of paedophiles and so on. Is this passed to the Portuguese Police? - it ought to be, as they are the 'lead' investigators. Is it going to be archived? For how long? Where? 

If someone does have credible 'new evidence', where do they go? Portugal ? Scotland Yard?

Where does all this leave the research work being undertaken e.g. here and by Dr Martin Roberts?   

These are some of the questions I was trying to open up for discussion.