Aha! What Operation 'Strange' really 'said' to S&S

http://asaucesaid.blogspot.de/2014/09/premature-ejaculation.html?m=1

"At Scotland Yard, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood met with us at the outset, spoke frankly, but made it clear that he and his colleagues could not favour us – or any part of the media community – over any other parties."

- A Note on Sources in 'Looking for Madeleine' by Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

According to a Metropolitan Police document seen by this blog, DCI Andy Redwood and another unnamed MPS Detective Inspector met with Anthony Summers and Rubby (sic) Swan at 1200 on Friday 15th February 2013.

The (MET Police) Incident Message notes that the authors:

".. are researching a book on Madeleine with the knowledge of Mr and Mrs MCCANN and our contact details were supplied by them."

The (MET Police) message states, in bold type:

"It was made absolutely clear that any approach to nominals in this case would be detrimental to our objective of building up a productive working relationship with the Portuguese. Our clear priority is to find out what happened to Madeleine and nothing should distract from that."

It goes on to say:

"Absolutely no “off the record” comments or other information were made/given. They were politely advised that all the information is in the public domain via the PJ files on the internet, and whilst we understood the interest and value in such a book that would extend to telling the story of this investigative review, their time would be best spent getting up to speed on the available files and forming their own opinion on it."

The (MET Police) internal message, for Officers Information and classified as Low Priority, was revealed under the Freedom of Information Act.

The (MET Police) message also states:

"It was explained that despite agreeing to meet them, we were unable to assist in anyway re their project, even as far as giving them timescale’s for the review’s completion. (This was requested in order that they could tie in the publication of the book to that of our process’s end result.)"

In their book, Summers & Swan write, in July 2014:

The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat were at any stage – in May 2007 or subsequently – guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann’s disappearance or the repercussions that followed."

Three years and three months after they launched their review, now a fully-fledged investigation,  a 37 strong team of Met officers have yet to draw their own final conclusion.

The Met, it seems,  were unable to fall in line with the publisher’s marketing plans.

Can it be that Summers and Swan’s book , described as ‘the definitive account of the Madeleine McCann case’,  came rather too soon?
===================================================
The message also states:

"It was explained that despite agreeing to meet them, we were unable to assist in anyway re their project, even as far as giving them timescale’s for the review’s completion. (This was requested in order that they could tie in the publication of the book to that of our process’s end result.)"
-------------------------------------------------------
The (Met Police/OG) message also states:

"THIS WAS REQUESTED IN ORDER THAT THEY COULD 'TIE IN' THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'BOOK' TO THAT OF 'OUR' PROCESS'S 'END RESULT'."

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT!

S&S 'book' TIMED to 'TIE IN' with OG/Met Police 'END RESULT'

So, imo, the 'book' was 'supposed' to have 'chimed' WITH the McCanns LAST libel 'date, (they weren't to know the Portuguese legal 'system' was to go belly up!)

OG were 'supposed' with great 'fanfare', in Portugal, to 'interview' 4 'suspects' a few days before McCanns finale of libel claim.

THEY (Grange) weren't to know the Portuguese legal system would go 'belly up' either!

But, like Arnie, 'they'll be back' in the few days before, WHEN they do KNOW the final date of their 'clients' libel 'claim'

OG was 'supposed' to say, after their finale in Portugal "we THINK somebody abducted Madeleine, but we have absolutely no evidence of that, so sadly, due to financial constraints, we're, sadly, going to have to 'close' this case'

Look's like somebody's surely 'shot their bolt' early!

Does that mean OG are advising people to research the PJ files on the net?!? Wow!
IMO

"They were politely advised that all the information is in the public domain via the PJ files on the internet, and whilst we understood the interest and value in such a book that would extend to telling the story of this investigative review, their time would be best spent getting up to speed on the available files and forming their own opinion on it."

Interesting choice of words.
It suggests that Grange have got nothing other than what is on the internet.
We know know this is not correct as various people have sent them stuff which has not ben released - yet !

IMO the Mcs are wholly involved in some way with this "book".

".....their (S&S) time would be best spent getting up to speed on the available files and forming their own opinion on it."

So, Grange 'actively' INVITING 'OTHERS' to form their own 'OPINIONS' on it (the 'case')?

BUT, Grange, IS NOT, going to listen to anybody else's 'opinion' other than what's in their REMIT........."AS IF THE "ABDUCTION" HAPPENED IN THE UK" ARE THEY?

I WONDER what DCI Mahogany and his 37, THINK, of GA's 'OPINION' of what he thinks happened to Madeleine McCann?

HAVE THEY ASKED HIM ABOUT HIS FORMED 'OPINION'?

(rhetorical!)

PeterMac wrote:"They were politely advised that all the information is in the public domain via the PJ files on the internet, and whilst we understood the interest and value in such a book that would extend to telling the story of this investigative review, their time would be best spent getting up to speed on the available files and forming their own opinion on it."

Interesting choice of words.
It suggests that Grange have got nothing other than what is on the internet.
We know know this is not correct as various people have sent them stuff which has not ben released - yet  !

Although I remain in the whitewash camp, I find this wholly encouraging!

"Go and read the PJ files", is what the Met are saying. All the evidence (and conclusions) are there! This is astonishing.

However, judging from the book, it is obvious the McCa S&S didn't heed that advice too much.

".....their (S&S) time would be best spent getting up to speed on the available files and forming their own opinion on it."
------------------------------------------------

Pamela Gurney has just spent everyday (and night?) since the S&S 'book' launch desperately 'fire fighting', and 'diverting' people's attention AWAY from the PJ 'files', on the S&S FB page!

Ooopppss!

PMac: "It suggests that Grange have got nothing other than what is on the internet."

and, AND, The McCanns 'translated' PJ 'files' that COST 'somebody' £100,000 to 'translate' according to K McCann

I 'WONDER' who, exactly, got the £100,000 'translation' er, um, 'fee'?

If Hobs is 'in the house' would love to hear the analysis of the Met Police's er, 'exchanges/advice' with/to S&S.

£100,000? That sounds excessive, although I don't know how long the PJ files are or whether the translating was done as an urgent job. How many pages are we talking here?

Moreover you can get a better deal if you allow translators to bid for the project on sites such as Elance, that is, unless you have a 'Fighting Fund' and money is no object. In my opinion.

plebgate wrote: and whilst we understood the interest and value in such a book that would extend to telling the story of this investigative review, .....................


Can't quite work out what this is supposed to mean.    Why would the police understand the interest and VALUE in such a book  -  interest maybe, but VALUE, ???????


Not getting it at all.

Nor me.   He must have meant valuable to someone`s cause .... who`s ?

'all the information is in the public domain via the PJ files on the internet'

So nothing else in the withheld files that are not on the internet? Why withhold them then?

sharonl wrote:

roy rovers wrote:'all the information is in the public domain via the PJ files on the internet'
So nothing else in the withheld files that are not on the internet? Why withhold them then?

IIRC, (and I could be wrong) Goncalo Amaral recently made a reference to this and the withheld material is that of the UK sex offenders register that was presented to the PJ on the agreement that it would not be made public.

I am sure that is part of the answer.
In any major enquiry you find all sorts of "stuff' about all sorts of people, fascinating, but totally irrelevant to the subject in hand.
In England all that "stuff' is simply kept in the cabinets, unless offences are revealed which should be looked at independently by another enquiry.
In the Portuguese system it is however right that this material was not released, since it bore no relation to the investigation.

There MAY however be other 'stuff'
For example the detail of the telephone and credit card transactions, which - IIRC - were obtained, but which a judge refused to allow them to use as evidence.
In English law sometimes the judge will not allow evidence which has been unlawfully obtained to be put before the court.
The case of McCanns -v- Bennett is unusual in that His Honour Mr Justice Tugendhat allowed himself to listen to evidence which had clearly been Obtained by Fraud (Deception) and which had then and therefore been unlawfully Handled as Stolen Goods (which includes goods obtained by Fraud / Deception) by the very Solicitors who were acting for the McCanns, and who were in turn making statements under Oath about matters about which a simple but trenchant question was able to revel they had no evidence AT ALL.
Whether he was right to do so has never been tested !
My personal view is that he may have been wrong, and although R. -v- Sang has been modified since Diplock J's dictum (in the right direction !) by the ECHR and other legislation, my present level of knowledge is not sufficient to give a firm opinion.
Obviously Tugendhat J thought he was right to accept evidence from an odious spotted thieving and deceiving reptile !

jeanmonroe wrote:

"THIS WAS REQUESTED IN ORDER THAT THEY COULD 'TIE IN' THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'BOOK' TO THAT OF 'OUR' PROCESS'S 'END RESULT'."

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT!

S&S 'book' TIMED to 'TIE IN' with OG/Met Police 'END RESULT'

The met clearly told them they would NOT give S&S an end date so l don't know how you can say the last sentence.

All in all l think the mets response to S&S has been encouraging - 'go and read the original police files'. Rothley towers will be furious.

margaret wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:

"THIS WAS REQUESTED IN ORDER THAT THEY COULD 'TIE IN' THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'BOOK' TO THAT OF 'OUR' PROCESS'S 'END RESULT'."

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT!

S&S 'book' TIMED to 'TIE IN' with OG/Met Police 'END RESULT'

The met clearly told them they would NOT give S&S an end date so l don't know how you can say the last sentence.

All in all l think the mets response to S&S has been encouraging - 'go and read the original police files'. Rothley towers will be furious.

Agree Margaret, I was taken back by the go and read the PJ files! Wow! S&S must be thinking along the whitewash line, as in when the investigation ends, we'll release the book which will also help the mcs. Nope, go and read the PJ files that's on the internet and come to your own conclusion! That should've been a hint not to release it.
Imo

jeanmonroe wrote:

Snip: ""THIS WAS REQUESTED IN ORDER THAT THEY COULD 'TIE IN' THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'BOOK' TO THAT OF 'OUR' PROCESS'S 'END RESULT'."

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT!

S&S 'book' TIMED to 'TIE IN' with OG/Met Police 'END RESULT'"

But forgive if I am wrong but if it is to tie in with the Met's end result then the Met's end result must be the same as S&S

Snip: "In their book, Summers & Swan write, in July 2014:

The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat were at any stage – in May 2007 or subsequently – guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann’s disappearance or the repercussions that followed."

Does this mean Met will say "not a shred of evidence etc." if so, then it confirms a whitewash or am I reading this wrong?

How can any honest investigation know when the result will be to time anything with it ?

Angelique wrote:jeanmonroe wrote:

Snip: ""THIS WAS REQUESTED IN ORDER THAT THEY COULD 'TIE IN' THE PUBLICATION OF THE 'BOOK' TO THAT OF 'OUR' PROCESS'S 'END RESULT'."

SO THERE YOU HAVE IT!

S&S 'book' TIMED to 'TIE IN' with OG/Met Police 'END RESULT'"

But forgive if I am wrong but if it is to tie in with the Met's end result then the Met's end result must be the same as S&S

Snip: "In their book, Summers & Swan write, in July 2014:

The authors wish to make clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat were at any stage – in May 2007 or subsequently – guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann’s disappearance or the repercussions that followed."

Does this mean Met will say "not a shred of evidence etc." if so, then it confirms a whitewash or am I reading this wrong?

You could be right too, Angelique. But the only thing there is that they've released the book already. If you think about it, they could've held it back for awhile, they might have made a lot more money that way too.
IMO

noddy100 wrote:How can any honest investigation know when the result will be to time anything with it ?

Imagine S&S going to the mcs and saying OG aren't whitewashing anything.... Your in deep shit
IMO  

Palm tree

Thank you for your reply.

Yes they could have delayed as you say - but perhaps they were only prepared to wait a few months as who knows when the trial will start.

Or it could be that they were worried another author may pip them to publish then they would make even less of an impact! Difficult in the circumstances, I know! How could one do any worse than they have.

PeterMac wrote:"They were politely advised that all the information is in the public domain via the PJ files on the internet, and whilst we understood the interest and value in such a book that would extend to telling the story of this investigative review, their time would be best spent getting up to speed on the available files and forming their own opinion on it."

Interesting choice of words.
It suggests that Grange have got nothing other than what is on the internet.
We know know this is not correct as various people have sent them stuff which has not ben released - yet  !

As ever with this case, nothing is simple and straighforward.

Firstly, we have these journos being given privileged access to the Police. Is that really procedurally correct? It doesn't seem so to me. The only basis for it seems to be that former suspects in the case have given the journos contact details for the Police.

Secondly, although the Police are prepared to tell the British public that the parents are not suspects, they are not prepared to tell the journos the same. Odd.

Thirdly, they are advising them to read the PJ files as being a sufficient basis on which to form a judgement...the files of an investigation that has been much criticised in the UK media - and even though that criticism seems to have been smiled on by the Met Police. Odd.

Finally, how did this get into the public domain? It doesn't seem a friendly act. Someone perhaps thinks the book is a travesty and wants to show the Met Police gave no encouragement to it? Not necessarily at a senior level of course...

jeanmonroe wrote:http://asaucesaid.blogspot.de/2014/09/premature-ejaculation.html?m=1

"At Scotland Yard, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood met with us at the outset, spoke frankly, but made it clear that he and his colleagues could not favour us – or any part of the media community – over any other parties."

- A Note on Sources in 'Looking for Madeleine' by Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan

According to a Metropolitan Police document seen by this blog, DCI Andy Redwood and another unnamed MPS Detective Inspector met with Anthony Summers and Rubby (sic) Swan at 1200 on Friday 15th February 2013.

The (MET Police) Incident Message notes that the authors:

".. are researching a book on Madeleine with the knowledge of Mr and Mrs MCCANN and our contact details were supplied by them."

So Kate & Gerry gave Redwood's contact details to Swan & Summers then?  So how "independent" is their book?

Dear Robbyn & Anthony Redwoods contact details are ALL OVER the internet you didn't do your research very well, OR is your "research" just asking the McCanns' what to say. Perhaps now you should read the files as he has suggested!

Gillyspot wrote:
Dear Robbyn & Anthony Redwoods contact details are ALL OVER the internet you didn't do your research very well, OR is your "research" just asking the McCanns' what to say. Perhaps now you should read the files as he has suggested!

Operation Grange is hardly a secret. They have email and phone lines and feature both in every 'Appeal' for information, and it doesn't take much effort to find DCI Redwood's private extension.
This is rather like their saying "The authors had access to all the Portuguese files" as if they alone did. The phrase - to the extent that it is available to researchers - springs out
It is accurate but dishonest at the same time.

Gillyspot wrote:

So Kate & Gerry gave Redwood's contact details to Swan & Summers then?  So how "independent" is their book?

Dear Robbyn & Anthony Redwoods contact details are ALL OVER the internet you didn't do your research very well, OR is your "research" just asking the McCanns' what to say. Perhaps now you should read the files as he has suggested!

Not only that, going by the selective few they interviewed (enablers of Mccanns) BK and JG contacts must have been given to them by the Mccanns too.

The order the authors went about preparing their book is just wrong.
Had they interviewed random people of their own choice first as part of their research for the book before interviewing the Mcs, at least one can afford them the benefit of doubts that there might be some sense of independent thoughts and/or objectivity.  
But they'd done it in the reverse order.  They met with the Mccanns first, presumably came to a mutual understanding the book will be onside with Mccanns - one side giving undertaking whilst other side endorsing it - and then they interviewed people recommended by the Mcs with contact details supplied by Mcs.  That's clear indication of plain biased right from the word go; not normal behavior of independent writers mindful of being objective.  The sequence in which they went about their interviews and research suggests they set out to write a half baked self deceived "definitive" account to complement and/or complete Kate's other half baked version of one account of the truth.

You'd think S&S are some wanabe-writers trying to ride on the back of Kate & Gerry notoriety to make a name for themselves and not some experienced journos / writers with something to their names.  Incredulous what they put themselves through for a pair of odious doctors who are strangers to them.  

It must be fragrant Kate oozing charm that Summers couldn't resist falling under her spells.  
Or, might it be Kate and Swan know each other? Or, might be it Summers is a patient of Gerry?

Very hard to believe intelligent people can be fooled by those two. I won't be surprised if we should find out they know one another.