The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Page 3 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Xavier on 06.10.11 15:35

@aiyoyo wrote:
My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

xavier, I take it you dont always understand fully what you read (no offence) - which bit indicates SY didnt take TB or MF's work seriously may I ask?

Would it be this bit "....You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team...."

Selective reading is not prohibited rightfully but selective reading to suit your agenda is quite something else. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but unfortunately for you, your opinion gives you away, if I am entitled to say that - which I think I am, just as you to yours!
None taken, of course. And nothing wrong with my understanding of what I read.

No, it was this bit "However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information."

I fail to see how this could be interpreted in anything other than a very dismissive way.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I fail to see how it "gives me away" - I am entirely supportive of the work of Mr Bennett and the foundation, but this does not extend to being uncritically upbeat about the reception given to him by SY on Monday. I am a realist. Perhaps you need to be more perceptive as to who is on your side. (if I am allowed to say such things).

Xavier

Posts : 130
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by jimuck on 06.10.11 17:06

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from
the available information.


Hi all, just a little query , did Tony ever mention it was a "she"?

jimuck

Posts : 24
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-10

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Invinoveritas on 06.10.11 17:22

@jimuck wrote:My understanding is that the [Scotland
Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that
would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand
information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators.
This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they
would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her
if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information
regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The
team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the
myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from
the available information.



Hi all, just a little query , did Tony ever mention it was a "she"

Who knows? SY/MP said that, not Tony

Invinoveritas

Posts : 374
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-13
Location : Nowereland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by aiyoyo on 06.10.11 17:41

@Xavier wrote:[
No, it was this bit "However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information."

I fail to see how this could be interpreted in anything other than a very dismissive way.

(B) of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I fail to see how it "gives me away" - I am entirely supportive of the work of Mr Bennett and the foundation, but this does not extend to being uncritically upbeat about the reception given to him by SY on Monday. I am a realist. Perhaps you need to be more perceptive as to who is on your side. (if I am allowed to say such things).

So you think that when Inspector Bentley made that bit of general comment he was refering specifically to TB and dismissive of MF's work, yet Police Officer met up with TB so as to collect his parcel in person?

In other words you're implying the Police OFficer is so inept that he would meet someone (in this case TB) he was dismissive of just to collect something he's also dismissive of.

Well, let's put it this way: either the parcel was of great interest to the review team hence deemed important that a Police Officer collected it in person off TB or it wasnt - you cant have it both ways.

Surely no one would think that an Police Officer would waste time on someone or something he's dismissive of - SO, either you think the review team is a moron or it is you (rather than SY) who is dismissive of TB's work. I'm inclined to think the latter.

Perceptive is all very well but I believe truthseekers (and no one is more hardworking than TB in that aspect) are not out to get anyone, let alone Police, on their side. WE credit people with intelligence to discern for themselves.

As for getting people on side - well that is undoubtedly the distinct speciality of the lying pairs. For them it isnt about truth for Maddie b/c they knew the truth about her fate. For them it's about getting all sorts of people on their side for self preservation reason.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Angelique on 07.10.11 1:32

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they
would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The
team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

This seems quite dismissive of the File that TB has presented except for the "insider".

Are we to assume that this is the only part they are interested in? If so, I wonder that they have zero'd in on this alone.

Do I smell fish? Sea bass?

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 07.10.11 7:18

Well looking on the bright side there is well documented EVIDENCE that there are glaring contradictions in the McCanns and their Tapas mates accounts (you only have to look at the eye defect issue - if printing t-shirts and posters and choice of songs isn't making a big deal out of something Kate DENIED making a big deal of on TV, ) then SY will no doubt be looking into it, because I repeat, it exsists as hard evidence. However Tanners ever changing alleged sighting of an egg, bundle, pinkish aspect, smart shoes all in the dimly lit streets of PDL, can only be regarded as a view or a belief and therefore will be discounted by SY surely? And the prints on the shutters, which were smashed or not, is evidence is it not? And who's were they then! Hmmm....

So in terms of EVIDENCE of an abduction, well there are some much repeated views and beliefs and little else, but in hard copy are phone records of texts being deleted, which the McCanns denied on TV (I know what I saw!) and so on.

This review might get quite interesting....

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by aiyoyo on 07.10.11 19:36

@Angelique wrote:My understanding is that the [Scotland
Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that
would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand
information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators.
This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they
would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her
if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information
regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The
team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the
myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from
the available information.

This seems quite dismissive of the File that TB has presented except for the "insider".

Are we to assume that this is the only part they are interested in? If so, I wonder that they have zero'd in on this alone.

Do I smell fish? Sea bass?


Even if the Police were only interested in TB's file just for the 'insider' so to speak, they needn't have to agree to meet with TB. They could always ask for the file to be handed over at the counter and it would still serve their purpose wouldn't you agree?

If Inspector Bentley message was anything else other than that, one would think the team isn't serious about a comprehensive review and the scopes they received probably restricted to fishy whitewash. However, the fact that he stated that they have to sieve chaff from grain is very normal police practice ie it is their practice not to waste time with useless info.

After all Police cant afford to waste time and resources chasing every lead phoned in by every joe public during investigation - they are obliged to decide which is worth chasing and which not. Similarly, the same principle applies to 'new evidence' coming in for the review - clarifying that they wont be interested in mccann-skeptics myraid views from interpretation of available information is to be expected.

Besides, the sequence seems to be: DI Dobson had already met with TB before Inspector Steve Bentley reverted to say they were interested to follow up with TB's source - am I not right? If that being the case, it is indicative they definitely deemed TB's file of interest to them, and I would hardly call that dismissive.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 07.10.11 20:07

If that being the case, it is indicative they definitely deemed TB's file of interest to them, and I would hardly call that dismissive

Yes, and they could just have easily just asked TB to leave it at the desk or drop it in the post. We must also remember that approx. 1000 copies of the DVD PJ files were distributed to media outlets and who nows what undercover stuff has been dug up since then and submitted to the police. Because it hasn't hit the news, doesn't mean nothing significant has been discovered. Also, Pat Brown has been quiet on her blog since July, you have that Lunke guy, Lee Rainbow and goodness knows who else who may well have had correspondence with the police, who may have been sought out by the police.

I have always been of the opinion that individuals who have activeley spoken out of their suspicions and beliefs in this case, particularly those who have a professional reputation to maintain which could be significantly damaged if they get it wrong, must truly and sincerely believe in their viewpoint, in other words they are not just spouting off casually from their armchairs at home or between friends, but really could be putting their careersat stake. Like Snr Amaral. I imagine there have been numerous submissions that are of interest to the police.

In the same vein, TB has been a practicing solicitor has put his own financial wellbeing on the line as well as becomming a well known name and being subject to a lot of stress and antagonism over this. Unless the police are just humouring Tony, they would have given some consideration to his tenacity and the reasons behind it.

If this review is a "whitewash" and fails to examine all the contradictory elements and report on their analysis of all elements within the PJ files, however "awkward" that is, THEN I think there would be a media backlash about wasting public money in times of hardship and recession. Perhaps this is what the seemingly "mute" media are waiting for.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Tony Bennett on 07.10.11 22:33

@Xavier wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:
My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry...[SNIPPED]

xavier, I take it you dont always understand fully what you read (no offence) - which bit indicates SY didn't take TB or MF's work seriously may I ask?

Would it be this bit "....You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team...."

Selective reading is not prohibited rightfully but selective reading to suit your agenda is quite something else. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but unfortunately for you, your opinion gives you away, if I am entitled to say that - which I think I am, just as you to yours!
None taken, of course. And nothing wrong with my understanding of what I read.

No, it was this bit "However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information."

I fail to see how this could be interpreted in anything other than a very dismissive way.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I fail to see how it 'gives me away' - I am entirely supportive of the work of Mr Bennett and the Foundation, but this does not extend to being uncritically upbeat about the reception given to him by SY on Monday. I am a realist. Perhaps you need to be more perceptive as to who is on your side. (if I am allowed to say such things).

EVIDENCE

The theme of this post will be the word 'evidence'. I doing so I will reply to a number of points on this thread, but I choose to reply to Xavier's posts, as s/he has certainly put his/her finger on a vital point.

I will express the point that Xavier has made as follows (and by the way for this purpose it matters not whether Xavier is friend, for or neutral):

"Does the very short interview Tony Bennett (and one other) had on 3 October with DI Dobson of Operation Grange, and the reference made by Inspector Steve Bentley of the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department to 'repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information' mean that the Metropolitan Police are not in the slightest bit interested in any evidence (or purported) evidence that points to the possibillity that Madeleine was not abducted, but instead died in her parents' apartment?"

First let me get one point out of the way, raised I think by jimuck. I have indeed said on the record that our informant within the McCann Team is female. However, our position is that we will neither confirm nor deny whether our source is female or male.

In case it should be thought that we are inventing this source, let me just say here and now that our source has both spoken to us verbally and given us very valuable information in writing. The information we have received from the source has been seen by all members of The Madeleine Foundation and by one or two others. I will mention one name here: 'spudgun'. 'Spudgun' spent the best part of a whole day with me here in Harlow earlier in the year and on the basis that he said nothing about what he had seen to anybody at any time, we disclosed to him the written information we received from that source.

I truly wish I could say more, but I cannot. We have already read in the article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard in August 2009 references to potential witnesses being intimidated into not giving witness statements to the Portuguese Police. If I say any more than I have done, both our source and ourselves fear repercussions.

I will add one further matter for the record. Since Monday, DI Dobson has indeed asked us in writing for the contact details of the source. I have replied, stating that we are unwilling to do so but that we shall be contacting our source again to see if she would now be willing to help the Scotland Yard Review Team.

The e-mail from Inspector Steve Bentley

Someone up the thread asked why Inspector Bentley, as a member of Professional Standards, was commenting on the internal workings of a criminal case review. If I may say so, I think that was a very good point.

What Inspector Bentley has done is to contrast 'evidence' with 'repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information'.

His reply may be taken as a hint - as Xavier interprets and so do all the McCann-believers - that this is a not-too-subtle dig at The Madeleine Foundation. It could well be seen, and maybe this was indeed his intention, as a calculated 'snub' to the Madeleine Foundation for allegedly putting forward 'views', 'beliefs' and 'interpretations'.

I will say this by way of reply.

We will not be disclosing the evidence we submitted in our first dossier, submitted on 16 August to the SY Review Team. Nor shall we say what was included within our second dossier, save to say that it dealt in detail with what we have uncovered (so far) about the conduct of all the private investigations initiated by the McCann Team, from September 2007 (or earlier) to the present day.

Inspector Steve Bentley does not have the advantage of having seen either of the dossiers we have submitted.

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood and his team do have that advantage. I can be certain that they would be bound to acknowledge that what we have supplied to them is 'evidence'. For more about the definition of 'evidence', please see below.

It is no secret that the hypothesis of The Madeleine Foundation is that Madeleine was not abducted but died in her parents' apartment in Praia da Luz.

Equally, the McCann Team, through their reputation manager Clarence Mitchell (ex-Head of Tony Blair's Media Unit and ex-Assistant to former News of the World Editor Andy Coulson when Coulson worked for David Cameron on 2010), have made it clear that their 'working hypothesis', or assumption, is that Madeleine was abducted.

I can assure everyone reading this post that our two dossiers, now received by DCI Redwood and his team, do include a very significant amount of evidence which suggests that our hypothesis (and that of Goncalo Amaral and Tavares de Almeida) is to be preferred to what evidence the McCanns can bring to bear that Madeleine was abducted.

Quotes about 'evidence' in the McCann case

Google 'Madeleine' 'McCann' and 'evidence', and numerous quotes come up - far too numerous to list here.

So here's just a few:

1. In a heated exchange with reporters outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann insisted there was 'absolutely no evidence' to support the claim that his daughter was dead, before the court heard more challenges to the McCanns' account of events.

2. Clarence Mitchell confessed that there was 'no evidence of a break-in'.

3. Dr Gerald McCann said: "There is no evidence to implicate us in her death".

4. (Newspaper headline): Madeleine McCann: No evidence our daughter has been harmed, says Gerry

5. Dr Gerald McCann's blog, 14 August 2008: "It will be clear to everyone now, that there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Madeleine has been seriously harmed. Knowing this, we strongly believe that Madeleine is out there and can be found".

6. McCanns' appeal for funds because the Find Madeleine Fund was 'running dry' (3 November 2010): "There's absolutely no evidence Madeleine has been seriously harmed and without that we've got to believe we can still find her", said Gerry McCann.

7. Amazon, this year: "There is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed and it is therefore vital to keep looking for her and those who took her. It is for this reason that all royalties earned from the sales of this book will be donated to Madeleine’s Fund".


The dictionary definition of evidence

Many people, most notably on the McCann-believer side of the argument, confuse (perhaps deliberately) the word 'evidence' with the word 'proof'.

Googling 'evidence', 'definition', here is the very first definition I came to:


1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

Examples:
The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place.
Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

2. Something indicative; an outward sign:

Example: Evidence of grief on a mourner's face.


Let me say very clearly to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of the SY Review Team, and for that matter to Inspector Steve Bentley of the Met Police Professional Standards Department, and to everyone else, that what The Madeleine Foundation has supplied to the SY Review Team is evidence, both forensic and circumstantial. If he is a fair man, DCI ewdwood would most certainly have to acknowledge that.

Inspector Bentley referred to 'a myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information'.

In truth, whether he realises it or not, he is referring here not to the type of evidence we have taken great care to submit to the SY Review Team, but to the myriad of speculations as to who might have abducted Madeleine, where she might have been taken, and what might have happened to her. In this process of 'views, beliefs and speculations', there has probably been no worse offender than the British media, making profits on a succession of baseless speculations about what might have happened to Madeleine. The Sun and the late News of the World, both Murdoch-owned, being the worst offenders in this respect.

We may never see DCI Andy Redwood's final report. But I hope and expect that it will deal both robustly and fairly with the evidence in the case.



Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13966
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Gillyspot on 07.10.11 22:45

Well put Tony. As you say evidence is not proof, it simply leads, if there is enough of it, to proof.

____________________
Kate McCann "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances"

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 07.10.11 23:05

The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh? i don\'t know


TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team

Post by Tony Bennett on 07.10.11 23:37

@TheTruthWillOut wrote:The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh?
'TheTruthWillOut' (great username by the way), you were not being too harsh but accurately stated that Inspector Bentley had indeed stepped outside his brief.

His brief is to deal with complaints, not to make pronouncements about the way a cold case review is conducted.

On the subject of my correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, one issue that I have raised - and continue to raise - is the subject of the Scotland Yard Review Team failing to even acknowledge written evidence supplied to them.

I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

I have never suggested to them that they should reply, unless it was of critical importance to their review, but I have attempted to insist that given the importance of this review and the necessity to record all the evidence submitted, they should at least send a reply postcard to anyone who writes to them - something like:

"Thank you for your communication of 16 August 2011, the contents of which have been noted".

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit. I have (though this really should not be necessary) suggested to both DCI Redwood's team and to the Met's Professional Standards Unit that there must be a clear audit trail in a case of such national importance. Not only is it basic common courtesy to acknowldege all communications, but there must be an audit trail to show how each parcel of evidence has been evaluated. Police regulations, policies, procedures and guidance require this.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:

QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.

UNQUOTE

Make of that what you will.

I do appreciate though that if the Editor of the Sun or ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, supremo of the Brian Kennedy-led McCanninvestigation team, were to bombard DCI Redwood and DI Dobson and co with 'a myriad of views, beliefs, speculations and interpretations of the available information' such as the following, they might well lose patience and say: 'Keep your ludicrous speculations to yourself':

* The secret of who took Madeleine is contained in a letter that Wayne Hewlett burnt

* Basketball-playing Angolan bouncer and part-time 'amateur sleuth' Marcelinho Aneglino knows that Maddie is in America

* Brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar is 'convinced' that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair within 10 miles of praia da Luz

* A British banker who agonised for two years before telling the police the McCanns says that a Victoria-Beckham lookalike he met after several hours drinking in downtown Barcelona and who had an Oz accent may have taken Madeleine on a boat to Australia, or

* A friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child who had longish black hair and was wearing mustard chinos, but changed her evidence 10 days later to say it was Robert Murat she saw, then months later said it wasn't Robert Murat she saw after all, then (although she said she had never seen the man's face) said that the man she saw looked like the artists's sketch of Gail Cooper's 'Monsterman'...only for brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar to ruin it all at a Crimewatch-style press call by Clarence Mitchell by saying that 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman'.

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13966
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by TheTruthWillOut on 08.10.11 1:03

Thanks Tony.

Here's hoping they uncover the truth.

I just can't shake off the fact that this review was "forced" upon SY by DC. Will they just go through the motions to satisfy DC?

It is encouraging to hear you have an insider that has given you information to pass on to the case review, so that is something! ( I do wonder how compelling that information is I must say!)


TheTruthWillOut

Posts : 733
Reputation : 16
Join date : 2011-09-26

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by mexx on 08.10.11 4:37

I still squirm to think that they are going to spend that much money just to read through documents and not do any investigation...

mexx

Posts : 50
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-09-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Guest on 08.10.11 9:49

@Tony Bennett wrote:
I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.
Make that now three. thumbup

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by pennylane on 08.10.11 10:55

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@TheTruthWillOut wrote:The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh?
'TheTruthWillOut' (great username by the way), you were not being too harsh but accurately stated that Inspector Bentley had indeed stepped outside his brief.

His brief is to deal with complaints, not to make pronouncements about the way a cold case review is conducted.

On the subject of my correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, one issue that I have raised - and continue to raise - is the subject of the Scotland Yard Review Team failing to even acknowledge written evidence supplied to them.

I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

I have never suggested to them that they should reply, unless it was of critical importance to their review, but I have attempted to insist that given the importance of this review and the necessity to record all the evidence submitted, they should at least send a reply postcard to anyone who writes to them - something like:

"Thank you for your communication of 16 August 2011, the contents of which have been noted".

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit. I have (though this really should not be necessary) suggested to both DCI Redwood's team and to the Met's Professional Standards Unit that there must be a clear audit trail in a case of such national importance. Not only is it basic common courtesy to acknowldege all communications, but there must be an audit trail to show how each parcel of evidence has been evaluated. Police regulations, policies, procedures and guidance require this.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:

QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.

UNQUOTE

Make of that what you will.

I do appreciate though that if the Editor of the Sun or ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, supremo of the Brian Kennedy-led McCanninvestigation team, were to bombard DCI Redwood and DI Dobson and co with 'a myriad of views, beliefs, speculations and interpretations of the available information' such as the following, they might well lose patience and say: 'Keep your ludicrous speculations to yourself':

* The secret of who took Madeleine is contained in a letter that Wayne Hewlett burnt

* Basketball-playing Angolan bouncer and part-time 'amateur sleuth' Marcelinho Aneglino knows that Maddie is in America

* Brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar is 'convinced' that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair within 10 miles of praia da Luz

* A British banker who agonised for two years before telling the police the McCanns says that a Victoria-Beckham lookalike he met after several hours drinking in downtown Barcelona and who had an Oz accent may have taken Madeleine on a boat to Australia, or

* A friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child who had longish black hair and was wearing mustard chinos, but changed her evidence 10 days later to say it was Robert Murat she saw, then months later said it wasn't Robert Murat she saw after all, then (although she said she had never seen the man's face) said that the man she saw looked like the artists's sketch of Gail Cooper's 'Monsterman'...only for brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar to ruin it all at a Crimewatch-style press call by Clarence Mitchell by saying that 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman'.

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team.

You are quite right Tony, the "ludicrous speculations" emanating from Team McCann and their paid mouthpiece Mitchell are second to none!

Well done for raising the issue with the Met's Professional Standards Unit regarding the failure to acknowledge written evidence supplied to them. Most certainly an alarmingly inefficient approach by the Met, and even more shocking in light of the very recent scandal of John Yates' alleged avoidance in opening a bag of evidence during the hacking investigation. It's unbelievable that the standards have not been sharpened up all around at the Met following the shameful resignations of Yates and Stephenson due to sloppy practice (and probably something far worse..... truth be known).

pennylane

Posts : 2529
Reputation : 1189
Join date : 2009-12-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by PeterMac on 08.10.11 11:54

Stella wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.
Make that now three.
Four.
And five if you count individual submissions.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 143
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by aiyoyo on 08.10.11 12:27

The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office.

Geez, I didnt know till now that the police POLICY is for them to call to acknowledge correspondence...blimney if people were to send in tittle tattle nonsense like for example where Maddie can be found and they know who held Maddie yada yada ...the police would be very busy having to ring team mccanns just to acknowledge their bogus claims.

One would have thought the Police should have at least 'a standard acknowledgement-type template' ready-for-use where admin or secretarial staff can send out whenever 'evidence' is received.

Not acknowledging is so shoddy and in a way negligence as no one knows whether incoming mail/evidence is recorded. Hence no on knows whether 'evidence' gets passed onto relevant person/unit to be looked at or were they just languishing in a back room unsorted and forgotten.

You would have thought that the Police more than any organisation should have sorted out their mail promptly and acknowledge accordingly. On top of the basic courtesy issue it's imperative Police look at every piece of info coming in, what they decide or not decide to do with it is another matter altogether.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by aiyoyo on 08.10.11 12:31

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@TheTruthWillOut wrote:The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh?
'TheTruthWillOut' (great username by the way), you were not being too harsh but accurately stated that Inspector Bentley had indeed stepped outside his brief.

His brief is to deal with complaints, not to make pronouncements about the way a cold case review is conducted.

On the subject of my correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, one issue that I have raised - and continue to raise - is the subject of the Scotland Yard Review Team failing to even acknowledge written evidence supplied to them.

I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

I have never suggested to them that they should reply, unless it was of critical importance to their review, but I have attempted to insist that given the importance of this review and the necessity to record all the evidence submitted, they should at least send a reply postcard to anyone who writes to them - something like:

"Thank you for your communication of 16 August 2011, the contents of which have been noted".

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit. I have (though this really should not be necessary) suggested to both DCI Redwood's team and to the Met's Professional Standards Unit that there must be a clear audit trail in a case of such national importance. Not only is it basic common courtesy to acknowldege all communications, but there must be an audit trail to show how each parcel of evidence has been evaluated. Police regulations, policies, procedures and guidance require this.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:

QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.

UNQUOTE

Make of that what you will.

I do appreciate though that if the Editor of the Sun or ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, supremo of the Brian Kennedy-led McCanninvestigation team, were to bombard DCI Redwood and DI Dobson and co with 'a myriad of views, beliefs, speculations and interpretations of the available information' such as the following, they might well lose patience and say: 'Keep your ludicrous speculations to yourself':

* The secret of who took Madeleine is contained in a letter that Wayne Hewlett burnt

* Basketball-playing Angolan bouncer and part-time 'amateur sleuth' Marcelinho Aneglino knows that Maddie is in America

* Brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar is 'convinced' that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair within 10 miles of praia da Luz

* A British banker who agonised for two years before telling the police the McCanns says that a Victoria-Beckham lookalike he met after several hours drinking in downtown Barcelona and who had an Oz accent may have taken Madeleine on a boat to Australia, or

* A friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child who had longish black hair and was wearing mustard chinos, but changed her evidence 10 days later to say it was Robert Murat she saw, then months later said it wasn't Robert Murat she saw after all, then (although she said she had never seen the man's face) said that the man she saw looked like the artists's sketch of Gail Cooper's 'Monsterman'...only for brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar to ruin it all at a Crimewatch-style press call by Clarence Mitchell by saying that 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman'.

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team.

TB, thanks for the clarification. Good Luck to DCI Redwood and team indeed. Hopefully they will return justice to Madeleine.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by littlepixie on 08.10.11 19:37

Stella wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.
Make that now three.

oops now seven

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Jolly difficult

Post by Tony Bennett on 14.10.11 14:44

At our meeting with D.I. Dobson of Operation Grange (Scotland Yard Madeleine McCann Review) on 3 October, we asked who was the point of contact for the Portuguese investigation, since D.I. Dobson took pains to emphasise: "This remains a Portuguese investigation; we are merely carrying out a review".

He did say that the Head of the Portuguese criminal investigation was a lady, but said to us (a) he didn't know her name and (b) that even if he did know her name and contact details, he would not give them to us.

We asked again in writing if we could have the contact details for the head of the Portuguese criminal investigation, saying we may wish to submit evidence direct to them.

That has drawn the following response (reproduced verbatim) from D.I. Dobson today:

We are the single point of contact in the UK for all information in this case. Again I believe this has already been made clear to you. It is a Portuguese investigation and it is not in my remit to release information concerning their jurisdiction.


I wonder if the lady Senior Investigating Officer in Portugal is also keeping her identity and contact details secret over there in Portugal. If so, it would be jolly difficult for anyone to supply information to them, wouldn't it?

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13966
Reputation : 2141
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by aiyoyo on 14.10.11 14:57

Geez, such secrecy and mystery surrounding such an expensive review for such a high profile case, and the final report will be divulged to the public?
So even evidence for the prime investigators in Portugal has to go through SY. In effect they are controlling centre for evidence. Call me cynical but is it going to a repeat of "Gaspars statements"?

Even if this review is funded directly out of the Home Office's treasury, isnt it still public money?

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Guest on 14.10.11 15:03

I seem to remember this woman who I think he is referring to, in taking over the investigaton, but I cannot remember her name. Will have a look round to see if I can locate it.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Guest on 14.10.11 15:36

Does anyone remember seeing her photo on MCF's some time last year I think. She was looking out of a window with a rather pensive look on her face. Brown hair, shoulder length maybe. I cannot find that photo right now, but maybe her name is attached to it !!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

Post by Smokeandmirrors on 14.10.11 18:26

Not very encouraged by the SY refusal to divulge the Portuguese investigator, unless because of legal action pending against Tony it has a more "personal" flavour. If SY's remit is to review ONLY and the investigation remains Portuguese, but SY say that any new evidence be passed to them, then this does not sound legally correct to me. I suspect any new material should be submitted to Amarals solicitor and to the head of the PJ if that is known.

____________________
The truth will out.

Smokeandmirrors
Moderator

Posts : 2428
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2011-07-31

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 9 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum