British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Maddie Case - important information
Page 5 of 5 • Share
Page 5 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
sharonl wrote:I thought that I would just bump this thread at the moment
isn't it odd that the Met seem to be looking only at the abduction scenario when it was British police who developed the evidence against it
On Sky News last night, I think it was a review of the newspapers regarding missing Tia, one person (can't remember who he was) reviewing today's newspapers really laid into the Met Police and said what a terrible shambles they were in and it really needed disbanding and starting afresh as the right hand didn't know what the left hand was doing in the organisation. He also said that the fact they had had 3 police commissioners in 3 years tells you something about how bad the whole organisation is.
That sort of comment doesn't bode well for their review of Madeleine' case, if in fact there is an actual review taking place, and it's not just some sort of fudge and a pretence that something is actually going on behind the scenes.
ETA: I think I recall now that it was Andrew Gilligan, London Editor of the Telegraph who was pulling the Met apart.
Newintown- Posts : 1597
Activity : 1622
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2011-07-19
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
This is a topic worth bringing to the fore, for anyone who hasn't read it page 1 is the place start for very good posts and discussion
GA's book
Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that's true, the Portuguese police were never informed.
http://thetruthaboutthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/announcement-of-disappearance-first.html
The PJ kept in the dark again!! What were the secret service listening for?
Sometimes in fact many times now you click on a link and iit's gone, so I was suprised to find this, although it may have been posted before.
Who was listening to Kate and Gerry McCann?
A few days ago I received an interesting letter from Leicestershire police about the Madeleine McCann investigation.
I had asked them, in July, if they had got any warrants (under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to use surveillance powers - such as phone tapping and email interception on behalf of the Portuguese police.
The force initially stalled saying it needed to "consult other Agencies" before replying.
After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".
I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.
To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".
A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Hmm.
After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".
I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.
To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".
A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Hmm.
After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".
I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.
To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".
A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Hmm.
Despite claiming these exemptions, Leicestershire seem at pains to neither confirm nor deny they hold any information relevant to my request anyway.
Check out (slowly I suggest) the tortuous conclusion to the three page letter explaining their stance.
"It is our decision that the Leicestershire Constabulary must maintain a position of neither confirming nor denying that any relevant information is held and that this response, which neither confirms nor denies that information is held, should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or does not exist".
Thanks, but I think that is a rather long-winded way of saying Foxtrot Oscar.
However, it does beg the question just who was bugging the McCanns after they returned from Praia da Luz?
And what has the answer got to do with national security?
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/anything-you-say/2009/02/who-was-listening-to-kate-and.html
Kate and Gerry McCann, and national security - update
I've just spoken to the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell who has declined to comment.
Quite sensible, really.
After all, you never know who's listening do you?
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/anything-you-say/2009/02/kate-gerry-and-national-securi.html
GA's book
Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that's true, the Portuguese police were never informed.
http://thetruthaboutthelie.blogspot.co.uk/2009/09/announcement-of-disappearance-first.html
The PJ kept in the dark again!! What were the secret service listening for?
Sometimes in fact many times now you click on a link and iit's gone, so I was suprised to find this, although it may have been posted before.
Who was listening to Kate and Gerry McCann?
A few days ago I received an interesting letter from Leicestershire police about the Madeleine McCann investigation.
I had asked them, in July, if they had got any warrants (under the Regulation of Investigatory Powers Act) to use surveillance powers - such as phone tapping and email interception on behalf of the Portuguese police.
The force initially stalled saying it needed to "consult other Agencies" before replying.
After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".
I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.
To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".
A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Hmm.
After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".
I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.
To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".
A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Hmm.
After a six month delay, Leicestershire has now claimed it is exempt from Freedom of Information laws in this case due to "national security".
I've put in dozens of FoI requests to police forces over the years, some you get and some you don't but "national security" is a new one on me.
To make matters even murkier, Leicestershire claimed a second exemption because the information I requested could relate to "the Security bodies".
A quick look at the FoI Act reveals "Security bodies" are MI5, MI6, GCHQ (pictured above), special forces (such as the SAS) and the Serious Organised Crime Agency.
Hmm.
Despite claiming these exemptions, Leicestershire seem at pains to neither confirm nor deny they hold any information relevant to my request anyway.
Check out (slowly I suggest) the tortuous conclusion to the three page letter explaining their stance.
"It is our decision that the Leicestershire Constabulary must maintain a position of neither confirming nor denying that any relevant information is held and that this response, which neither confirms nor denies that information is held, should not be taken as conclusive evidence that the information you have requested exists or does not exist".
Thanks, but I think that is a rather long-winded way of saying Foxtrot Oscar.
However, it does beg the question just who was bugging the McCanns after they returned from Praia da Luz?
And what has the answer got to do with national security?
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/anything-you-say/2009/02/who-was-listening-to-kate-and.html
Kate and Gerry McCann, and national security - update
I've just spoken to the McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell who has declined to comment.
Quite sensible, really.
After all, you never know who's listening do you?
http://blogs.mirror.co.uk/anything-you-say/2009/02/kate-gerry-and-national-securi.html
Guest- Guest
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
Re Security Services as in internal one, as in M15, I have always thought Clazza Mitchell might be called the McCann's spooksman rather than their spokesman.
comperedna- Posts : 709
Activity : 781
Likes received : 56
Join date : 2012-10-29
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
It would be tres amusing if the pink poser had been parachuted into the McCanns' camp in order to hide in plain sight by spinning Gerry's garbled words into something approaching an intelligble form, while whispering tales of G&K's private communications into the shell-like receptacle of a 'Ministry' bod over a regular clandestine snifter at the Goring.
Like the vast majority of his ilk, puffed up little Clarrie prides himself on knowing where the bodies are hidden but has he been clever enough to discover where the body is concealed?
Perhaps the bigger question is who can Gerry and Kate trust? They've always struck me as being a pair who'd eagerly sell their grandmothers down the river if it meant their skins stayed dry and, given that apples rarely fall far from the tree, can they be sure they haven't got any relatives who'll do the same to them should collars get felt?
I predict more tense times in Rothley Towers and the pressure ain't gonna let up until the dawn of a memorable morning in the not too distant future.
Like the vast majority of his ilk, puffed up little Clarrie prides himself on knowing where the bodies are hidden but has he been clever enough to discover where the body is concealed?
Perhaps the bigger question is who can Gerry and Kate trust? They've always struck me as being a pair who'd eagerly sell their grandmothers down the river if it meant their skins stayed dry and, given that apples rarely fall far from the tree, can they be sure they haven't got any relatives who'll do the same to them should collars get felt?
I predict more tense times in Rothley Towers and the pressure ain't gonna let up until the dawn of a memorable morning in the not too distant future.
ultimaThule- Posts : 3355
Activity : 3376
Likes received : 7
Join date : 2013-09-18
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
sharonl wrote:I thought that I would just bump this thread at the moment
isn't it odd that the Met seem to be looking only at the abduction scenario when it was British police who developed the evidence against it
Isn't it odd that the met are STILL looking at an abduction scenario after all this time.
tiny- Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
Are they ? I recall Redwood saying that on one reading of the evidence this had all the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction. Implication : there are alternative readings of the evidence.
I did not interpret that as meaning if it was not pre-planned, the alternative was an opportunistic abduction, because Redwood did not mention this iirc.
Leaving it open to interpretation, one alternative to the pre-planned scenario being that there was not an abduction at all.
Just thinking about 3 burglars , I can't fit Smithman in here and anyway burglars would have used a car, whether they had objects or people in their swagbags.
I did not interpret that as meaning if it was not pre-planned, the alternative was an opportunistic abduction, because Redwood did not mention this iirc.
Leaving it open to interpretation, one alternative to the pre-planned scenario being that there was not an abduction at all.
Just thinking about 3 burglars , I can't fit Smithman in here and anyway burglars would have used a car, whether they had objects or people in their swagbags.
____________________
The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy
russiandoll- Posts : 3942
Activity : 4058
Likes received : 15
Join date : 2011-09-11
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
Who is looking for these 3 burglars then.
tiny- Posts : 2274
Activity : 2311
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-02-03
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
IMO, I wouldn't be surprised to hear that they were under telephone surveillance before they went to Portugal. If you're interested in the national security angle, have a look at the more recent entries on the thread Easter break, Donegal, 2007 in purporting theories.Cherry Blossom wrote:This is a topic worth bringing to the fore, for anyone who hasn't read it page 1 is the place start for very good posts and discussion
GA's book
Later I learn that the English secret service had already placed the couple under telephone surveillance. If that's true, the Portuguese police were never informed.
MissDaisy- Posts : 123
Activity : 126
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-05-30
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
MissDaisy, I've been reading your post and tend to agree with what you say on the role of Jim Gamble.
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3749p500-mccanns-easter-break-donegal-2007
Why would the any of the secret service place the McCanns under surveillance, were they listening ect to find out if they were emailing / talking about what had been going on at the Ocean Club Resort and giving the names of high profile people? Would this have coursed embarrassment or even brought the government of the day down? Why would (I’ll call them) spookes be so interested, after all imo they knew what had happened to MBM, and who was responsible, they helped with the removal of her body along with help from T7. What was GM’s role was he part of secret experimental medicine being carried out by the government or something else? Whatever it was the spookes didn’t trust the McCanns or their friends if they had done then why put them under surveillance? IMO a big secret had to be covered up and it had nothing to do with what happened to Madeleine!
Maybe a bit off topic but relevant, the phone hacking trial recommenced yesterday after the seasonal break and it got me thinking about the McCann’s phones haven’t they always said their phones weren’t hacked, well and this is just my opinin I think they were, where did all those early stories come from. What if their names had been in Mulcair's notebook and when the Levison enquiry was announced they were asked if they wanted to give evidence about their phones being hacked, but they couldn’t do that could they? otherwise they would have had to say how when the press turned against them they had got hold of the stories, like Max Mosley and the other celebs did when giving evidence.
When it was said "Theresa May would be put on the front page" until a review was opened I’ve often thought surely they wouldn’t put on the front page “TM won’t open review into missing Madeleine” every day, imo and just a thought, what if this person and others knew the truth about that holiday and what had happened to Madeleine, would they have been prepared to publish, is this how Cameron was persuaded to open the review?
Off topic but interesting
How a Former Army intelligence officer’s computer was hacked by NOW (he worked in Ireland)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTrPrC2sJE
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3749p500-mccanns-easter-break-donegal-2007
Why would the any of the secret service place the McCanns under surveillance, were they listening ect to find out if they were emailing / talking about what had been going on at the Ocean Club Resort and giving the names of high profile people? Would this have coursed embarrassment or even brought the government of the day down? Why would (I’ll call them) spookes be so interested, after all imo they knew what had happened to MBM, and who was responsible, they helped with the removal of her body along with help from T7. What was GM’s role was he part of secret experimental medicine being carried out by the government or something else? Whatever it was the spookes didn’t trust the McCanns or their friends if they had done then why put them under surveillance? IMO a big secret had to be covered up and it had nothing to do with what happened to Madeleine!
Maybe a bit off topic but relevant, the phone hacking trial recommenced yesterday after the seasonal break and it got me thinking about the McCann’s phones haven’t they always said their phones weren’t hacked, well and this is just my opinin I think they were, where did all those early stories come from. What if their names had been in Mulcair's notebook and when the Levison enquiry was announced they were asked if they wanted to give evidence about their phones being hacked, but they couldn’t do that could they? otherwise they would have had to say how when the press turned against them they had got hold of the stories, like Max Mosley and the other celebs did when giving evidence.
When it was said "Theresa May would be put on the front page" until a review was opened I’ve often thought surely they wouldn’t put on the front page “TM won’t open review into missing Madeleine” every day, imo and just a thought, what if this person and others knew the truth about that holiday and what had happened to Madeleine, would they have been prepared to publish, is this how Cameron was persuaded to open the review?
Off topic but interesting
How a Former Army intelligence officer’s computer was hacked by NOW (he worked in Ireland)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=_TTrPrC2sJE
Guest- Guest
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
It is such a tangled web isn't it. I just find it very interesting that Jim Gamble was once head of Special Branch in Northern Ireland.Theresa May is quoted as saying with regard to files held by the Home Office that there would be "specific detriment to the UK’s relationship with Portugal” if the four files were released. I understand that there will always be problems of jurisdiction when a crime happens in another country but I have also been thinking about diplomatic immunity. Of course, am probably barking up the wrong tree but I do find the establishment involvement intriquing. All in my opinion.
MissDaisy- Posts : 123
Activity : 126
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2013-05-30
Re: British police 'developed evidence' against McCanns - Wikileaks
http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jcZ2X3XpjwA
This says they are innocent!
This says they are innocent!
Seek truth- Posts : 447
Activity : 449
Likes received : 2
Join date : 2013-06-04
evidence against mcscams
if that,s the best you can do gerry,then you are going down.Seek truth wrote:http://m.youtube.com/watch?v=jcZ2X3XpjwA
This says they are innocent!
travis macbickle- Posts : 51
Activity : 51
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2013-11-27
Age : 76
Location : nyc
Page 5 of 5 • 1, 2, 3, 4, 5
Similar topics
» British Police said McCanns should be Investigated - Daily Mail 11.02.2010
» Daily Mail - article MUST READ: Web trolls raise £50,000 for the Portuguese detective who wrote a book claiming the McCanns killed their daughter Madeleine - and even British police donated
» MCCANNS REJECT WIKILEAKS CLAIMS : Sunday Express
» Take note Operation Grange: not one British Police Officer on the Police Oracle forum believes your pretendy investigation!
» Police report into Madeleine's disappearance is leaked online as McCanns threaten to sue police over bungled probe
» Daily Mail - article MUST READ: Web trolls raise £50,000 for the Portuguese detective who wrote a book claiming the McCanns killed their daughter Madeleine - and even British police donated
» MCCANNS REJECT WIKILEAKS CLAIMS : Sunday Express
» Take note Operation Grange: not one British Police Officer on the Police Oracle forum believes your pretendy investigation!
» Police report into Madeleine's disappearance is leaked online as McCanns threaten to sue police over bungled probe
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Maddie Case - important information
Page 5 of 5
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum