Why do they keep ignoring the vital information I have given three times.

by studulike 05.04.11 16:16

I have written to Kate and Gerry McCann three times to inform them of some tape recorded material that I know the Metropolitan police in London have pertaining to the abduction/murder of their daughter. (The most recent letter was written on 28/03/11). The Met police are trying to keep this material concealed for their own selfish reasons. I have also given this info to the PJ, DI Mick Graham of Leicestershire police, The Leicester mercury and Mrs Justice Hogg at the High court. I recently wrote to the Met police asking for a copy of the tape using the FOI Act, their response was that they can not give it to me because to do so would breach other people’s rights under the Data protection Act. Why do the McCanns keep ignoring this vital piece of evidence ? Why don’t they go to the High Court and ask for an injunction to be served on the Met police as I have suggested they do ? Do the McCanns know something they are not telling us ?

by Guest 05.04.11 16:21

Good Afternoon studulike,

Welcome to the forum welcome

Although I see you joined quite some time ago but haven't posted before.

Can I ask if you know what is on these tapes, and how you know that the police have these tapes?

by studulike 05.04.11 16:23

I know what is on the tape (s) but I can not go into detail for legal reasons. I used to be an officer in the metropolitan police.

by Guest 05.04.11 16:36

studulike wrote:I know what is on the tape (s) but I can not go into detail for legal reasons. I used to be an officer in the metropolitan police.

Very interesting.
So you have written to all these people you mentioned above and not had a reply, that is very strange then. I would have thought the PJ would have been very interested, especially as you must have mentioned you were a former police officer.

by studulike 05.04.11 16:53

I have had a reply from DI mick Graham from Leicestershire police who assured me he would look into what I had told Paolo Rebelo of the PJ. My understanding is that the met police told him (Graham) that the tape I have informed him of does not exist, which is completely at odds with what they have told me. On Monday 7th June 2010 I had a visit from a couple of heavies from the local nick warning me to keep my mouth shut. (I made a note of the visit in my diary). I e-mailed Mick Graham again on 28/03/11, repeating my information and informing him that the met's response to my FOI request is very different to what they have told him. So far no reply !

by Guest 05.04.11 16:57

studulike wrote:I have had a reply from DI mick Graham from Leicestershire police who assured me he would look into what I had told Paolo Rebelo of the PJ. My understanding is that the met police told him (Graham) that the tape I have informed him of does not exist, which is completely at odds with what they have told me. On Monday 7th June 2010 I had a visit from a couple of heavies from the local nick warning me to keep my mouth shut. (I made a note of the visit in my diary). I e-mailed Mick Graham again on 28/03/11, repeating my information and informing him that the met's response to my FOI request is very different to what they have told him. So far no reply !

Have you tried contacting Goncalo Amaral?

by studulike 05.04.11 17:02

Coincidentally, that thought crossed my mind earlier today, but I do not know how to contact him.

by Guest 05.04.11 17:04

I think he has a facebook account. Alternatively, Tony Bennett, I'm sure will have his details. You could pm him?

by studulike 05.04.11 17:44

I will try and contact him via facebook. I have just been reading Tony Bennet's 163 questions for the publisher of the McCann's book. Very interesting reading.

by Guest 05.04.11 17:59

studulike wrote: The Met police are trying to keep this material concealed for their own selfish reasons.

One more question, re the above - why??

by studulike 05.04.11 18:04

Because the the people on the tape talk about the McCann case, AND OTHER UNRELATED MATTERS, which are of a sensitive nature. Having said this, there is nothing to stop the McCanns going to the High court and asking a judge to serve an injunction on the Met police requiring them to hand over the relevant part of the tape.

by littlepixie 05.04.11 18:12

Edited as didnt make sense Why do they keep ignoring the vital information I have given three times? 110921

by studulike 05.04.11 18:31

What does that mean ?

by littlepixie 05.04.11 18:39

I posted a reply which didnt make sense but thought why would the Police give evidence to the McCanns. Do the Police usually give evidence to ex-suspects? Surely it would never see the light of day unless it was of benefit to them and help the "abduction" story. If it incriminated them they would make sure it was put in a cupboard never to be seen again.

I wonder if Mr Halligen ever mentioned the case.

by studulike 05.04.11 19:04

I can see your point, but what's stopping the McCanns seeking an injunction requiring the Met police to hand over what they have to Leicestershire police? As I understand it, the Met police have told Leicestershire police that they don't have a tape. They have told me they will not let me have it because of the Data Protection Act. I'ts as clear as day they are trying to hide something.

by The Shelfstacker 06.04.11 0:09

studulike wrote:I know what is on the tape (s) but I can not go into detail for legal reasons. I used to be an officer in the metropolitan police.

Your former status as a warranted officer of the law would not now disbar you from speaking freely and truthfully on matters within your knowledge. Especially so if you were unconnected with the original enquiry into the case. Unless your previous employment took you into the realms of Royal Protection or MOD policing I cannot see that you are bound by any legislation. I stand to be corrected by PeterMac should the need arise.

A civil action for libel might be something to consider but as I understand it the truth remains an absolute defence in the UK.

Therefore, if you have confidence in what you say, speak away.

by aiyoyo 06.04.11 5:46

Why do they keep ignoring the vital information I have given three times? 977352

Studulike,

My pennies worth.

For a start, if you were visited by locak nicks, perhaps your diary should be kept in a safe place away from home or at least give copies of entries that matter to someone for safekeeping if it is to serve its purpose.

The way I see it, it all depends where Met got that tape?
Did someone (as in another official authority or informant) give it to them?
Or was it a recording of meeting/review of cases including that of the mccanns by govt officials (including members of Met Police), or Met Police internal meeting?

Even if the mccanns were to ask the Met Police for it or go to Court over it, why should the MET Police hand it over to them? Maddie's disappearance is a case for the law enforcers, and not mccanns especially since they were suspects albeit x. There is no way the Met will hand it over to the Public or Ex Police and especially not the mccann - well it hasnt happened in history yet.

At most, if Leicestershire Police and/or PJ or even Amaral were informed of the existence of the tape they could ask the Met Police about it. Whether Met Police decide to deny, or share content with them, or yield up the tape is another matter; but at the very basic the MET cannot deny those askers know of its existence.

The logic is: if the Met Police had so far not shared the tape with regional police and/or PJ, the content of the tape isnt going to be about Maddie but about mccann, and it is staying put with the Met if they can help it.

Question is: being x-police are you free of confidentiality clause.
What do you know? Do you have idea of the possible content in the tape?
Would info in the tape be enough reason for PJ to reopen the case or to expose the lid keepers?

I second poster nonentity - if you are confident of it, speak away.

by **PeterMac** 06.04.11 8:17

Potentially an interesting story, but as with all things to do with the McCann case, where is the evidence ?

by studulike 06.04.11 8:32

Hi all, thanks for taking an interest in what I have said. Aiyoyo, the 4th paragraph of your last posting doesn't make much sense. Petermac, as I have said in an earlier posting, I do have a written reply from the Met police in response to my request under FOI for a copy of the tape. I would be more than happy to send you a copy.

by aiyoyo 06.04.11 8:38

studulike wrote:Hi all, thanks for taking an interest in what I have said. Aiyoyo, the 4th paragraph of your last posting doesn't make much sense. Petermac, as I have said in an earlier posting, I do have a written reply from the Met police in response to my request under FOI for a copy of the tape. I would be more than happy to send you a copy.

Why? can you elaborate?

by studulike 06.04.11 8:42

Sorry my mistake, I was reading the word "deny" in the context of "refuse" rather than "deny".

by The Shelfstacker 06.04.11 8:53

Studulike, the FOI does not provide carte blanche for Joe Public and his mum to go demanding any and every piece of information held by public bodies, including the police. Surely you, as a former police officer in the Senior Service of UK policing, would understand that such requests could undermine the administration of justice. If the tape does indeed exist I'm not surprised they didn't give you a copy. That doesn't stop you, however, from speaking about your knowledge of the contents of the tape. If it exists.

I don't frequently put my opinions here but I read every day as those with the stats for this forum will attest. I do the same with the Maddie Case Files forum. I have followed this case since the Mirror Forum days and whilst I bow to the superior knowledge and dogged hard work of many on this forum and elsewhere I consider myself pretty much up to speed. I understand the issues and I'm sorry to say your story (IMO) lacks credilibility. You need to put more flesh on the bones.

by aiyoyo 06.04.11 9:04

Any idea how MET got hold of that tape?
You said tape pertained to Maddie's abduction/murder, you also said MET kept if for selfish reasons.
So if I read it correctly it means possibly a public member gave the recording about Maddie's abduction and/or murder to the MET and for the life of me I cant understand why the MET would want to keep this piece of info to themselves? What is in it for them and who are they protecting?

If they were protecting the mccanns then why would mccann need to ask for the tape?

If it's not about protecting the mccanns, then who's the MET protecting? cant be a stranger perpetrator?
How do you know mccanns were not already told of the tape by MET?

All in all if you know something, why not speak up.

by studulike 06.04.11 9:10

I do understand that The FOI Act does not give Joe public the right to be demanding any and all information from public bodies. When I made the request, I did not for one moment expect that they were going to give it to me, but at least they have given me a half-hearted admission that they have the tape I was asking for.

I will not go into detail about what is on the tape, but what I can tell you is that I have been asked questions about this tape in a court case before, and I mentioned this in my FOI request.

Another thing that I find quite remarkable, is that you and other people on this forum have taken far more interest in what I have said than the McCanns have. If I was in Gerry McCann's shoes, I would have been at the High court demanding an injunction a year ago, when I first gave them the info. What's stopping him asking for the court to serve an injunction requiring the tape to be handed to the court ? After all, Maddie McCann is a ward of court at the present time.

I have given the McCanns this info along with my e-mail address three times, and so far they haven't even acknowledged that they've received the info let alone asked any questions about it.