Logical

by logical 03.04.14 10:29

"Not Strctly True" meens just that.

Because as we all know the dogs didnt indicate that Madeleine Died in the spots indicated only indicated that (more than likely) Madeleines Blood and Cadaver had been in contact with these indications.

The detective saying thats not strictly true is saying in other words that its partially connected to the truth in my opinion. thumbup

by HelenMeg 03.04.14 11:14

Actually, in all other references to Madeleine on the website, it does state 'disappearance'. So , hopefully they will change this reference to abduction in the near future as it is inconsistent.

by lj 03.04.14 11:18

Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246745782

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"

I think I can safely start drinking that bottle of the finest tequila I put up.
I do need it, although no surprises here.

by lj 03.04.14 11:30

HelenMeg wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246745782

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"
Glad you called ! I dont see how it makes any difference if he is a father as to whether he believes the case wlil get solved. Regarding the dogs.... 'that's not strictly true' OK, then is it partially true? Or is it 'unstrictly' true?

It's like being just a bit pregnant, or not strictly dead. GMAB

by **PeterMac** 03.04.14 11:44

It does sound like Police-speak. Desperately NOT wanting to let anything quotable go out, whilst keeping options open.
His comment about the dogs is strictly correct, as has been pointed out. The dogs merely indicated that a body had been at those locations.
Not that it was Madeleine, and not that she died there. That is deductive reasoning, which needs a human mind.

Redwood's contorted use of language indicated to me someone who desperately wanted to say
"Of course everyone knows she is dead and the body has been concealed. That is obvious even to someone of the meanest intellect . . "
but he can't.
Not yet anyway.
And to me he fouled up his case by not having rehearsed what he was going to say when asked that particular set of questions, and ended up gibbering
in exactly the same way as the Tapasniks did during their rogatories when for the first time some very mild questions were asked of them.
Despite the meeting in Rothley and a general idea of the official story they were still unable to speak coherently,and began to babble and gibber.
And that has been preserved on tape for all time.

by Garrincha 03.04.14 11:49

Very well done Andrew - IMO the response to your E-Fit question is even more significant than the “not strictly true” comment

and both comments cast doubt on the title of this particular thread.....

by lj 03.04.14 17:59

PeterMac wrote:It does sound like Police-speak. Desperately NOT wanting to let anything quotable go out, whilst keeping options open.
His comment about the dogs is strictly correct, as has been pointed out. The dogs merely indicated that a body had been at those locations.
Not that it was Madeleine, and not that she died there. That is deductive reasoning, which needs a human mind.

Redwood's contorted use of language indicated to me someone who desperately wanted to say
"Of course everyone knows she is dead and the body has been concealed. That is obvious even to someone of the meanest intellect . . "
but he can't.
Not yet anyway.
And to me he fouled up his case by not having rehearsed what he was going to say when asked that particular set of questions, and ended up gibbering
in exactly the same way as the Tapasniks did during their rogatories when for the first time some very mild questions were asked of them.
Despite the meeting in Rothley and a general idea of the official story they were still unable to speak coherently,and began to babble and gibber.
And that has been preserved on tape for all time.

As I just posted on the Crimewatch thread, it's sad that for 6 million quid you cannot even come up with good excuses.

by sallypelt 03.04.14 18:46

ultimaThule wrote:I don't see that the police officer you spoke to 'wanted to dismiss the dogs findings', Andrew, and he was correct to say 'that's not strictly true' when you stated that 'the dogs indicated MBM died in the apartment' as, although one of the EVRD dogs indicated that a corpse had been present behind the sofa and by a bedroom wardrobe, 'the dogs' did not indicate who had died or where and when they met their end.

All in all, I see your conversation as 'indication' that the policeman/parent you spoke to is confident that justice will be done in this case.

I totally agree, Ulti. What the dogs did was indicate that there was the scent of death in the apartment. They didn't say how it got there, or whose scent it was. It's a case of the dogs "saying" we can smell death, it's up to you to find out whose it is. In law one cannot surmise. It has to be proved beyond all reasonable doubt

by Doug D 04.04.14 4:20

Met Police has 'culture of fear', officers say

'There is a "culture of fear" in the Metropolitan Police because of the "draconian" use of performance targets, a report into the force has said'

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-26878761

So are Grange & Redwood meeting their targets I wonder?

by unchained melody 04.04.14 6:17

Maybe SY are solely working on abduction theory, whilst PJ are working on accidental death in the
apartment. And then they will join together when the abduction theory is rejected, for the conclusion
of the case.

by Cristobell 04.04.14 6:56

Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246745782

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"

Brilliant Andrew! thumbup

I take quite a lot of hope from his reply 'as a policeman and a father myself', as I interpret it, as justice and the child being at the forefront of this investigation. It must be frustrating for the officers of Operation Grange to read the criticism and accusations of cover up and being unable to reply. In a way Andrew, I think this policeman's reply to you says as much as he can, if you were to add extra words to it, it could read 'I'm a dad ffs, and many of the team are parents, do you honestly think we would cover up the death of a child?'. I am taking complete liberty with his words obviously, and using the word 'father' as a signifier, but of course, everything is open to interpretation.

by coco 04.04.14 7:27

Cristobell wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:http://content.met.police.uk/Appeal/Madeleine-McCann-Appeal--October-2013/1400020463601/1257246745782

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"
Brilliant Andy!

Well done Andy roses

I'll bet inspector plod would have seen fit to 'comment further' had the question been.....

'Are you fully aware the McCanns are totally innocent?' sarcastic

'Yes, yes indeed, we are fully aware Mr and Mrs McCann are totally innocent!'

by aiyoyo 04.04.14 8:03

If I were gutsy to call I would have asked :

Why did you discard Mccanns & friends as Persons of Interest?

What about the dogs findings ? Will police be using dogs in future cases ?

Have you interviewed Brian Kennedy and Ed Smethurst, you might beget some interesting answers and unexpected nugget-leads from them ?

by jeanmonroe 04.04.14 8:31

unchained melody wrote:Maybe SY are solely working on abduction theory, whilst PJ are working on accidental death in the
apartment. And then they will join together when the abduction theory is rejected, for the conclusion
of the case.

But WHY are the MET 'SOLELY WORKING ON THE ABDUCTION THEORY'?

To the total 'exclusion' of ALL OTHER 'theories' which could EXPLAIN why Madeleine is not here.

There are 'MANY THEORIES' according to the only 'professional' McCann's hired, PI Dave 'Grabbit' Edgar.

10th February 2010
Gerald McCann: "Where... where, you know... where is... where... where is... where is... where is the child? We're looking for that evidence. Where is the child? What other explanation can explain how she's not here?"

What OTHER 'explanation' indeed, as ASKED by the 'missing' childs own father, GM, other than the sole 'remit' of 'abduction', by the MET, can there be, Mr Redwood?.

I can think of 'some'.

And i'm not a '30 year career' Detective!

by Gillyspot 04.04.14 10:26

In response to "Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash"
From an interview with Sky's Martin Brunt

"Martin Brunt An independent report on the Madeleine case was commissioned by a previous Home Secretary. The author, Jim Gamble of the Child Exploitation and online center delivered the report this summer to the new government and its believed he recommends a detailed review but the Home Office won’t tell the McCanns what’s in the CEOP report.
Gerry McCann I don’t see any reason why the contents of that report should not be made available to us. We’ve been very clear all along the way that we’ll only divulge information if and when its valuable to the search and the government know that we have kept lots of information, erm, quiet. So I don’t see, even if there is sensitive elements within it, why we shouldn’t be given it. As Madeleine’s parents I think it is wrong."

What type of "information" has Gerry McCann kept "erm, quiet"?

by aiyoyo 04.04.14 10:42

Gillyspot wrote:In response to "Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash"
From an interview with Sky's Martin Brunt

"Martin Brunt An independent report on the Madeleine case was commissioned by a previous Home Secretary. The author, Jim Gamble of the Child Exploitation and online center delivered the report this summer to the new government and its believed he recommends a detailed review but the Home Office won’t tell the McCanns what’s in the CEOP report.
Gerry McCann I don’t see any reason why the contents of that report should not be made available to us. We’ve been very clear all along the way that we’ll only divulge information if and when its valuable to the search and the government know that we have kept lots of information, erm, quiet. So I don’t see, even if there is sensitive elements within it, why we shouldn’t be given it. As Madeleine’s parents I think it is wrong."

What type of "information" has Gerry McCann kept "erm, quiet"?

The info he refers to must be just garbage gathered by his PIs, not worth the ink used.
Common sense dictates if he's sensitive-to-the-government info that would be his bargain leverage long ago.
Instead he was repeated rejected by home office and it took Mdm Brooks to plea on his behalf to get the review.

He must think he's an emperor or he's extremely challenged in the intellect department.
To expect to be given data even sensitive data just on plain basis they are Madeleine's parents is ludicrous.

Has it not crossed his mind that may be exactly the reason why they couldn't give him the data?
It's not that he can't go figure, he shows himself to be an arrogant PRAT.

by j.rob 04.04.14 12:30

Both the McCanns have delusions of grandeur, imo. I actually think this personality disorder is not uncommon in the higher echelons of the medical profession and indeed in other professions and careers (law/education) which are intensely competitive, hierarchical and hold positions of power over large numbers of other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

It really is astonishing how many people that this mediocre couple (and their friends) managed to hoodwink, and for so long too. I only really became suspicious when I saw the media coverage of Tony Bennett after the McCann legal case. I thought: 'what's all this about.'

Given the level and scale of deception and the length of time it has been going on, imo, I wonder what would/will happen if the full and true story ever comes out? Perhaps that is too much to hope for.

by aiyoyo 04.04.14 13:35

j.rob wrote:

Given the level and scale of deception and the length of time it has been going on, imo, I wonder what would/will happen if the full and true story ever comes out? Perhaps that is too much to hope for.

Perhaps they will be given a new pop-up channel dedicated specially for their trial, just like that of Oscar Pistorius.
That's how important the nation views OP's case.
The Mccanns case is not far off if not worst in notoriety.

by lj 04.04.14 13:36

Gillyspot wrote:In response to "Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash"
From an interview with Sky's Martin Brunt

"Martin Brunt An independent report on the Madeleine case was commissioned by a previous Home Secretary. The author, Jim Gamble of the Child Exploitation and online center delivered the report this summer to the new government and its believed he recommends a detailed review but the Home Office won’t tell the McCanns what’s in the CEOP report.
Gerry McCann I don’t see any reason why the contents of that report should not be made available to us. We’ve been very clear all along the way that we’ll only divulge information if and when its valuable to the search and the government know that we have kept lots of information, erm, quiet. So I don’t see, even if there is sensitive elements within it, why we shouldn’t be given it. As Madeleine’s parents I think it is wrong."

What type of "information" has Gerry McCann kept "erm, quiet"?

The efits to start with.

by Gillyspot 04.04.14 14:26

My post was meant to point out that Gerry thought he had kept something secret & the government were aware (or why would he say it) therefore he could be trusted to keep more of them on behalf of the government.

I am sure that is the gist of what he was saying.

by Monty Heck 04.04.14 14:42

Gillyspot wrote:My post was meant to point out that Gerry thought he had kept something secret & the government were aware (or why would he say it) therefore he could be trusted to keep more of them on behalf of the government.

I am sure that is the gist of what he was saying.

I read it the same way. GMcC keeping some things secret is hardly a rational argument for the Government releasing confidential information to him and his wife, but G seems to think it should be a clincher nontheless.

by Guest 04.04.14 15:18

Gillyspot wrote:In response to "Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash"
From an interview with Sky's Martin Brunt

"Martin Brunt An independent report on the Madeleine case was commissioned by a previous Home Secretary. The author, Jim Gamble of the Child Exploitation and online center delivered the report this summer to the new government and its believed he recommends a detailed review but the Home Office won’t tell the McCanns what’s in the CEOP report.
Gerry McCann I don’t see any reason why the contents of that report should not be made available to us. We’ve been very clear all along the way that we’ll only divulge information if and when its valuable to the search and the government know that we have kept lots of information, erm, quiet. So I don’t see, even if there is sensitive elements within it, why we shouldn’t be given it. As Madeleine’s parents I think it is wrong."

What type of "information" has Gerry McCann kept "erm, quiet"?

And, even worse, which pieces of private information have the McCanns decided to make public because they deem the information shared in good faith to be relevant to the search? Who the hell are they to decide if sensitive information should be released or not? A sure-fire way to ensure all sorts of periphery leads that exist in files but are certain to lead away from the truth are, erm, leaked. Hence the never-ending procession of gaily-coloured we are still seeing today? So that's what Clarrie's been reading. Own opinion.

by lj 04.04.14 15:25

Gillyspot wrote:My post was meant to point out that Gerry thought he had kept something secret & the government were aware (or why would he say it) therefore he could be trusted to keep more of them on behalf of the government.

I am sure that is the gist of what he was saying.

Oh you mean outside the crime that made Madeleine disappear.
Sorry, I misunderstood you.

I think there will be nothing. Really this conning couple is of no importance. They have nothing on anyone. All their influence is in their head.

by Cristobell 04.04.14 16:10

j.rob wrote:Both the McCanns have delusions of grandeur, imo. I actually think this personality disorder is not uncommon in the higher echelons of the medical profession and indeed in other professions and careers (law/education) which are intensely competitive, hierarchical and hold positions of power over large numbers of other people.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Grandiose_delusions

It really is astonishing how many people that this mediocre couple (and their friends) managed to hoodwink, and for so long too. I only really became suspicious when I saw the media coverage of Tony Bennett after the McCann legal case. I thought: 'what's all this about.'

Given the level and scale of deception and the length of time it has been going on, imo, I wonder what would/will happen if the full and true story ever comes out? Perhaps that is too much to hope for.

I sometimes wonder how much of the God Complex comes into play here. Doctors are among the few left in society to possess a title. We all naturally defer to them, address them by their titles and accept that they know best. In that early interview with Eileen McCann (Gerry's mother), through her tears expresses that she is angry 'doctors' could be targeted in such a way. From this I would perceive that the family have Gerry and Kate on pedestals by virtue of their professional status.

In the case of Gerry, he is the youngest child with 4 doting older siblings. It may be, as often happens with large families, that the older sisters took care of him as he was growing up. The youngest child in such situations can often grow up to be spoilt and demanding adults with little sense of responsibility - he will be accustomed to others doing things for him, including taking the blame. Kate is an only child, she has had the undivided attention of both parents, she hasn't had to fight for what she wanted nor did she had other siblings to take her down a few pegs when she got too big for her boots. Imo, the place an individual has in a family, influences their adult personalities.

by Guest 04.04.14 16:22

Cristobell wrote: [...] Imo, the place an individual has in a family, influences their adult personalities.

***
Oh, absolutely. I won't give you any details of personal experience, because that's what it is: personal. BUT, yeah, right, the place in the family has BIG influences on adult behaviour.

Log in for more topics