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

Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Page 3 of 36 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 19 ... 36  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Mirage on 28.01.14 16:10

As for Clarence Mitchell, I feel sick each time I see a photograph of him.
--------------------------------------------
Try looking through your fingers and creeping up on it slowly. 
Works for me!  big grin 

____________________
Kate McCann: "It's too 'ot. Give 'im a minute."

Mirage

Posts : 1665
Reputation : 382
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by bobbin on 28.01.14 16:21

Ladyinred wrote:
@aiyoyo wrote:.

ETA: CM knew right from the get on what exactly happened to Madeleine.

Aiyoyo, how do you know this?

I read it as Aiyoyo saying Pinkie knew, not 'she' knew.

Why would a SECOND RATE JOURNALIST / CAUGHT-SLEEPING-on-the-job-BROADCASTER, who had FINALLY made the BIG TIME and got to the highest position in the land, controlling the information that comes out of Government, in the whole of the Media, and who is ONCE AGAIN, seeking to get back into POLITICS as an MP and would no doubt know that a POSITION in the CABINET would be almost GUARANTEED, go off to an unknown part of southern Portugal to protect 2 negligent second rate doctors who had lost one of their three children whilst passing the bottle at a bar away from their sleeping children ?

Why would he, the most ardent and energetic supporter of such a 'caring' family, so betray such family principles and leave his own wife to get on with the job of 'losing their own baby' all by herself, back in the UK, because he was so busy, too far away in a land called Portugal to get back to be with her, and was committed to supporting the 'other' family who had lost 'their' little girl.

Why would he state that there would be an innocent explanation for anything that would or would not be found. Such a crass statement and so open to accusation of prejudice and judicial-outcome manipulation.

If one does not extrapolate from that, that there was some very big reason why the government and its varied entourage sallied forth, putting their most voluble candidate forward, to keep the truth covered up with whatever lies may be deemed necessary, then the hopes of justice for Madeleine will never be fruitful.

To deal with corruption, it is necessary first to recognise corruption, and then to face up to the forces that one perceives, not to wait for 'proof' that such forces abide, but to work on the 'most likely scenario' as presented by a multitude of gathered observations.

Even as the PJ describe Mitchell as a man who lies through as many teeth as he has in his mouth, we can accept that some of the most 'criminally' aware people on this earth, acknowledge this man's 'unseemly attributes'.

After the 'dogs' it is evident that Madeleine met her fate on that family holiday, never to return alive.

Something is being concealed, acceptance of this allows one to move forward to find justice for Madeleine.

Mitchell is no torrid fool, he is a marksman, capable of saying anything, however dishonest, to portray a media controlled outcome. That is his own acclaimed job.

bobbin

Posts : 2030
Reputation : 119
Join date : 2011-12-05

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by MissDaisy on 28.01.14 16:33

I think CM was there to essentially control the media out there and ensure that journalists didn't get hold of another story - as in who was out there and what they were doing out there. Just my opinion.

MissDaisy

Posts : 123
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-05-30

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Guest on 28.01.14 16:41

@MissDaisy wrote:I think CM was there to essentially control the media out there and ensure that journalists didn't get hold of another story - as in who was out there and what they were doing out there. Just my opinion.

Then why is he still being retained 7 years on?

Alex Woolfall cum suis aren't, are they?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by jeanmonroe on 28.01.14 16:50

@Portia wrote:
@MissDaisy wrote:I think CM was there to essentially control the media out there and ensure that journalists didn't get hold of another story - as in who was out there and what they were doing out there. Just my opinion.

Then why is he still being retained 7 years on?

Alex Woolfall cum suis aren't, are they?

Yep. Mitchell still lining his pockets with 'donations' paid from the 'fund'

40% of his 'salary' as a 'retainer' from the Find Madeleine Fund.

At least £28,000 pa.

Not bad for not saying a lot, is it?

Keep 'donating' kiddies and OAP's. Clarrie needs your money to pay for his £28,000 pa, 'retainer'!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5132
Reputation : 885
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by mysterion on 28.01.14 16:51

Never looked at it like that before. I had always tried to link the Tapas9 with "the big security issue".

mysterion

Posts : 358
Reputation : 11
Join date : 2013-11-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Guest on 28.01.14 17:33

I'm desperately looking for the 12:00 am May 4, 2007, press release that the Home Office has reported a British girl has been abducted in Portugal ....

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Woofer on 28.01.14 17:41

Is it this one? Telegraph at 12.01 - but says a report from Foreign Office.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/1may7/Telegraph_04_05_07.htm

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Daisy on 28.01.14 17:49

Châtelaine wrote:I'm desperately looking for the 12:00 am May 4, 2007, press release that the Home Office has reported a British girl has been abducted in Portugal ....
I thought it had been worked out the 12:am time was an error and the time was 12:pm?

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by aiyoyo on 28.01.14 17:55

@Daisy wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I'm desperately looking for the 12:00 am May 4, 2007, press release that the Home Office has reported a British girl has been abducted in Portugal ....
I thought it had been worked out the 12:am time was an error and the time was 12:pm?

!2:00am (May 4th) is vastly different from 12:00pm hence the 24-hour clock usage for clarity in Police Reports.

12:00am(May 4th) would be 24:00hrs on May 3rd.

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Daisy on 28.01.14 18:39

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Daisy wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I'm desperately looking for the 12:00 am May 4, 2007, press release that the Home Office has reported a British girl has been abducted in Portugal ....
I thought it had been worked out the 12:am time was an error and the time was 12:pm?

!2:00am (May 4th) is vastly different from 12:00pm hence the 24-hour clock usage for clarity in Police Reports.

12:00am(May 4th) would be 24:00hrs on May 3rd.
Yes that's my point.

Woofer (Ta) just provided this link to the report I believe Châtelaine's looking for. The time says 12:01am 4th May, but if you read it, it can't be . It must 12:01pm 4th May

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1550571/Three-year-old-feared-abducted-in-Portugal.html

____________________
“Before you criticize someone, you should walk a mile in their shoes. That way when you criticize them, you are a mile away from them and you have their shoes.”   

Unknown


“And those who were seen dancing were thought to be insane by those who could not hear the music.” 

Friedrich Nietzsche

Daisy

Posts : 1245
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-15
Location : Yorkshire, England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Hobs on 28.01.14 23:21

12 am midnight would be 00:00 so half past midnight would be 00:30. I use the 24 hr clock all the time due to work

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

Hobs

Posts : 713
Reputation : 286
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 52
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by aiyoyo on 28.01.14 23:51

@Hobs wrote:12 am midnight would be 00:00 so half past midnight would be 00:30. I use the 24 hr clock all the time due to work

You are right.

aiyoyo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Okeydokey on 28.01.14 23:59

@aiyoyo wrote:
@Hobs wrote:12 am midnight would be 00:00 so half past midnight would be 00:30. I use the 24 hr clock all the time due to work

You are right.

There has been a lot of confusion about this. I recall a long discussion before now.

What happened I think is that the Telegraph grouped old news stories by day with the minute after midnight time stamp.  Others here have been confused by archived Daily Mail stories which have today's date! 

The time stamp is a big red herring.

Okeydokey

Posts : 919
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Whitewash or Coverup ?

Post by PeterMac on 02.03.14 15:08

I am aware that there is a strong and sincere school of thought that Operation Grange is designed to Whitewash or to cover up whatever happened,
and that good and valid reasons for that view have been advanced.

BUT

Consider this
You are a DCI with a good career behind you, given the job of finding nothing.
You have all the PJ stuff including a sighting of a man carrying a child within a vague timeframe, which fits with some of the available statements.
The man is unidentified, and given the vacuity of the description is likely to remain unidentifiable.
The person giving the description is vague to the point of being entirely useless should anyone ever be tentatively identified, and has in fact already firmly identified another man and then gone back on her identification.
She can therefore for the purposes of a trial be safely ignored.  She could never be used by the Prosecution.

But for the purposes of a whitewash / coverup she is therefore perfect.
Scatty, stupid, but idiot enough to stick to her story, with all the embellishments of "swearing by all things that are holy" and "I am telling the truth, you know", breaking down in tears at opportune moments.

You are given the brief so long after the event that no forensic evidence can be obtained, and there are no serious further enquiries which could possibly assist.
Your job is to find nothing, and eventually to "archive" it as undetected, and undetectable.
What do you do ?
Surely spend that amount of time and money allocated to you translating documents, putting it all into HOLMES and ANACAPA in case the Home Secretary brings reporters with her when she visits
(and success is measured by activity, not by results as Sir Humphrey famously said.)
Visit Portugal to speak to 'foreigners', assurances of assistance, local difficulties, meetings with biscuits, lunches with sardines, all the normal parapheralia of what
people would expect to see.   A couple of Cartes Rogatoires add a certain spice to the mix.

And then gradually you slow it down and regretfully report that you have been unable to trace and identify the man seen carrying the child, and conclude, sadly, that he is the most likely suspect, but that at this length of time it is no longer possible to continue . . .

Perfect surely.

But DCI Redwood has not done that. He specifically rules out Tannerman - whether he existed or not is beside the point here.
He has now moved the focus to Smithman, who again may or may not exist.
Smithman is actually a slightly better prospect in one way.  More than one witness, correct and more likely direction of travel and so on.
But in another way is much worse.
The witnesses might just stick to their story, and identify someone you did not wish to be identified.   Dare you now raise the stakes with an i.d. parade ?
Very doubtful
Smithman also messes up the carefully calculated timeline available, and so another one has to be thought up.

In either case the final 'archiving' or "Undetected crime report" must set out a likely scenario.
Leaving a serious crime 'undetected' is a positive step, not a default option, and has to be passed by a senior officer, or it gets chucked back.

And here Grange have a significant problem.
Starting with the lack of evidence of point of entry, point of exit, MO, the impossibility of the Tannerman 1 minute and 20 second time frame, or the Smithman 3 minute slot
serious concerns about sedation, evidence of human cadaverine and blood, and all the rest that we have discussed for years.
In addition Grange also have evidence of blatant lying.
They know, because they have been told, that the Last Photo is nothing of the sort.
They know, because they have been told, how it was done and they may suspect who did it.
They know, because they have been told, of the exact timings and the route that photo took before it reached the press agency
They know, because they have read for themselves, the gibbering inconsequentiality of the Rogatory interviews, and have drawn their own conclusions as 37 hardened and cynical detectives.
and so on and on, as recorded here and elsewhere for a long time, and archived on the net for all time.

There is no possible scenario which Grange can put forward which will stand up to the final Crimewatch programme, to interviews, and increasingly to FOI requests and letters to the Home Secretary.

So how is Grange going to finalise this ?
Who can write the first paragraph of the Archiving whitewash ?

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Woofer on 02.03.14 15:27

Great to hear the perspective of an ex-policeman PM - and heartening.  What gave me more optimism is the fact that their conclusions have to stand up to FOI requests.   roses

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Penfold on 02.03.14 15:57

thanks   It seems rather patronising to write  goodpost to PeterMac, [ because they always are] but  it was. A very  goodpost indeed !

Penfold

Posts : 140
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-07-02
Age : 68
Location : Manchester.

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by PeterMac on 02.03.14 16:03

Now write the opening paragraph !

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by Cristobell on 02.03.14 16:14

@PeterMac wrote:I am aware that there is a strong and sincere school of thought that Operation Grange is designed to Whitewash or to cover up whatever happened,
and that good and valid reasons for that view have been advanced.

BUT

Consider this
You are a DCI with a good career behind you, given the job of finding nothing.
You have all the PJ stuff including a sighting of a man carrying a child within a vague timeframe, which fits with some of the available statements.
The man is unidentified, and given the vacuity of the description is likely to remain unidentifiable.
The person giving the description is vague to the point of being entirely useless should anyone ever be tentatively identified, and has in fact already firmly identified another man and then gone back on her identification.
She can therefore for the purposes of a trial be safely ignored.  She could never be used by the Prosecution.

But for the purposes of a whitewash / coverup she is therefore perfect.
Scatty, stupid, but idiot enough to stick to her story, with all the embellishments of "swearing by all things that are holy" and "I am telling the truth, you know", breaking down in tears at opportune moments.

You are given the brief so long after the event that no forensic evidence can be obtained, and there are no serious further enquiries which could possibly assist.
Your job is to find nothing, and eventually to "archive" it as undetected, and undetectable.
What do you do ?
Surely spend that amount of time and money allocated to you translating documents, putting it all into HOLMES and ANACAPA in case the Home Secretary brings reporters with her when she visits
(and success is measured by activity, not by results as Sir Humphrey famously said.)
Visit Portugal to speak to 'foreigners', assurances of assistance, local difficulties, meetings with biscuits, lunches with sardines, all the normal parapheralia of what
people would expect to see.   A couple of Cartes Rogatoires add a certain spice to the mix.

And then gradually you slow it down and regretfully report that you have been unable to trace and identify the man seen carrying the child, and conclude, sadly, that he is the most likely suspect, but that at this length of time it is no longer possible to continue . . .

Perfect surely.

But DCI Redwood has not done that. He specifically rules out Tannerman - whether he existed or not is beside the point here.
He has now moved the focus to Smithman, who again may or may not exist.
Smithman is actually a slightly better prospect in one way.  More than one witness, correct and more likely direction of travel and so on.
But in another way is much worse.
The witnesses might just stick to their story, and identify someone you did not wish to be identified.   Dare you now raise the stakes with an i.d. parade ?
Very doubtful
Smithman also messes up the carefully calculated timeline available, and so another one has to be thought up.

In either case the final 'archiving' or "Undetected crime report" must set out a likely scenario.
Leaving a serious crime 'undetected' is a positive step, not a default option, and has to be passed by a senior officer, or it gets chucked back.

And here Grange have a significant problem.
Starting with the lack of evidence of point of entry, point of exit, MO, the impossibility of the Tannerman 1 minute and 20 second time frame, or the Smithman 3 minute slot
serious concerns about sedation, evidence of human cadaverine and blood, and all the rest that we have discussed for years.
In addition Grange also have evidence of blatant lying.
They know, because they have been told, that the Last Photo is nothing of the sort.
They know, because they have been told, how it was done and they may suspect who did it.
They know, because they have been told, of the exact timings and the route that photo took before it reached the press agency
They know, because they have read for themselves, the gibbering inconsequentiality of the Rogatory interviews, and have drawn their own conclusions as 37 hardened and cynical detectives.
and so on and on, as recorded here and elsewhere for a long time, and archived on the net for all time.

There is no possible scenario which Grange can put forward which will stand up to the final Crimewatch programme, to interviews, and increasingly to FOI requests and letters to the Home Secretary.

So how is Grange going to finalise this ?
Who can write the first paragraph of the Archiving whitewash ?





Brilliant analysis Petermac, well worth a read and a re-read.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by marconi on 02.03.14 16:37

Thank you, Peter Mac.  I always suspected the last photo( a too young Madeleine) and now I understand that it is known that it is fake.

marconi

Posts : 1082
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-05-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by worriedmum on 02.03.14 16:48

Great post PeterMac,

and I would like to add that any opportunity for whitewash, fizzling out or whatever, disappeared the moment the British trained, British commissioned dogs with 100% success rate arrived in Apartment 5a...

worriedmum

Posts : 1628
Reputation : 248
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by sami on 02.03.14 17:20

Great to read such a well reasoned, positive post  thumbsup

sami

Posts : 962
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2012-04-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by diatribe on 02.03.14 17:30

@worriedmum wrote:Great post PeterMac,

and I would like to add that any opportunity for whitewash, fizzling out or whatever, disappeared the moment the British trained, British commissioned dogs with 100% success rate arrived in Apartment 5a...



I agree, a good analysis from Peter, but the 'fizzling out or whatever' aspect of the dog's findings appears to have been adequately dealt with by simply consigning them to the 'anals' of history and ignoring them. During the course of the last 2. whatever yrs. since the inception of Operation Grange, can anyone recollect the dogs getting a mention from any Met. Police representative involved in the aforementioned investigation.

Have any attempts been made to reinterview the McCanns, their friends or Catriona Baker, all central to a genuine enquiry. Although I stringently disagree, some on this forum are of the opinion that the Met. Police have the legal right to do so, despite the Portugese police being unable to do so without giving them arguido status, which according to Casey, is the equivalent of the right to silence under the 5th amendment of the US constitution. If they are correct and I am wrong, then surely the aforementioned would be the first port of call, particularly in the vein that Inspector(I'll refrain from referring to him as Deadwood) Redwood has put stringent emphasis on the fact that he is going back to basics and treating this matter as if it were a crime committed within the jurisdiction of the UK.

I think that Peter appears to be stating in his synopsis(no doubt he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that no matter how sincere Inspector Redwood's intentions may be, he has been placed in an impossible situation where there is very little he can do bar go through the motions on the basis that a kidnapping occurred with the final scenario not yet having been written. It may be that many people involved in this matter from the inception are simply hoping that everything will be alright on the night and that it will resolve itself without leaving too much egg on their faces. In the immortal words of Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, ''our readers have the brains of ants and memory retentions of 10 secs.''

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by worriedmum on 02.03.14 17:44

Diatribe,
forget the ants. It's the non-ants who are vocal.

Ps, while 'anals' may be apt, isn't the spelling 'annals'?   big grin

worriedmum

Posts : 1628
Reputation : 248
Join date : 2012-01-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Post by diatribe on 02.03.14 17:48

@worriedmum wrote:

Ps, while 'anals' may be apt, isn't the spelling 'annals'?   big grin

It is indeed, Worriedmum, but I decided to opt for the apt spelling. big grin

diatribe

Posts : 602
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-15
Location : London

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 of 36 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4 ... 19 ... 36  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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