Re: New DCI

by jeanmonroe 22.02.15 23:55

I've asked this many times:

WHO 'drew up' OG's 'remit'?

And why was DCI Mahogany constantly drawing up lists of 'suspects/burglators' for the PJ to 'interview'?

Why was DCI Mahogany 'trying' to find 'patsies' to FIT the 'remit'?

"arrests in the morning, arrests next week, we KNOW who done it" etc.,

Yet NOBODY was 'arrested' on DCI Mahog's 3 1/2 YEARS 'watch' were they?

by mad world 23.02.15 0:07

jeanmonroe cause investigating the mccanns and tapas 9 is not the remit. Now question who sets the remit and we have the answer imo

by noseyparker 23.02.15 0:14

The remit is to - to treat the abduction ( my italics ) as if it happened in the UK.

By definition treating the investigation as an abduction means that SY are not investigating any of the Tapas 9.

But what if there is circumstancial evidence of the T9 beng involved in this so called abduction would she be allowed to interveiw them if only to clear up the blatant discrepancies in their statements

by mad world 23.02.15 0:19

Nope...that is not their remit

.ask who set the remit!

by noseyparker 23.02.15 0:23

Rebekah Brookes the husband beater?

by **Tony Bennett** 23.02.15 0:26

jeanmonroe wrote:I've asked this many times:

WHO 'drew up' OG's 'remit'?

Actually @ jeanmonroe I've answered this many times.

But one more time won't do any harm:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

From the Metropolitan Police Freedom of Information Section to Tony Benentt, 20 January 2012

Dear Mr Bennett

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012010000814

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 5th January 2012 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on the same date. I note you seek access to the following information:

1. On what date was the Op Grange remit agreed?

2. Who agreed the remit?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within Operation Grange.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

The Operation Grange remit was formally agreed in December 2011, just prior to publication on the MPS website. The remit was taken from lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell in May 2011.

The remit was agreed by Commander Simon Foy who has oversight of the Homicide Command.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COMMENT BY T.B.:

As this matter (the remit) has been raised once again on the forum, please allow me to repeat these points I've made many times before, as they are of the utmost significance in this case:

1. No police officer is allowed to go beyond his/her remit

2. It follows that DCI Andy Redwood was not and DCI Nicola Wall is not allowed to investigate anything except 'the abduction', because the remit specified that they have been told to investigate the abduction as if it happened in the U.K.

3. I have highlighted many times the gross unsuitability of former D C S Hamish Campbell to be the person who set the remit (see above) - please use the search tool on here to access my articles re 'Campbell' on CMOMM, and please also refer to his actions in leading the investigation into the professional killing of Jill Dando and his prosecution of the wrong man (Barry Bulsara/George), making him serve 8 years in jail for an offence he did not commit. Campbell's prosecution of him was based on one speck of firearms residue which may well have been planted in his coat pocket by the police.

The above are classic hallmarks of a govermnent-organised whitewash

by noseyparker 23.02.15 0:37

Thank you Mr.Bennett but what evidence is their of abduction for them to claim it

by jeanmonroe 23.02.15 10:15

Thankyou Mr Bennett.

RE: Commander Simon Foy...............

At the time of Tia Sharp/Stuart Hazell case:

"Mr Foy said "Of course, obviously, Mr Hazell, as the LAST 'family' PERSON, to see Tia, is a 'major' suspect. Tia is 'missing' and he was the last 'family' person to see her"

Strangely, Commander Simon Foy, of OG, and DCI Mahogany, did not ever say "of course, obviously, Mr McCann, as the very LAST 'family' person, to see Madeleine, in her bed, is a 'major' suspect"

Quite the OPPOSITE, in fact.

DCI Mahogany stated, publicly, that the McCann's (both) AND their 'friends' were NOT 'suspects' in any way, shape or form'!

WHY did Commander Simon Foy 'think' that Hazell should "obviously" be a 'major suspect' but McCann's, and ALL their 'friends', WERE definitely NOT?

As @noseyparker says: "on what 'EVIDENCE' did Simon Foy and DCI Mahogany 'base' their claim that 'the McCanns AND their 'friends' were NOT 'involved', somehow, in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

The McCann's and their 'friends' just SAYING SO..............dosen't count! (imo)

As an aside:

Lots of 'pro shills' are 'citing' Jaycee Duggard, at the moment.

But they are NOT 'mentioning' that her step father, Carl Probyn, took and PASSED 4 (four) lie detector 'tests' to PROVE he wasn't 'involved' in her 'disappearance/abduction'

by Guest 23.02.15 11:53

Thank you mr Bennett,

Taking onto consideration what you just wrote, wouldn't it be very awkward for some people if the conclusion of the AR/SY Hall investigation turned out to be: 'Sorry Folks, there was no abduction'

by noseyparker 23.02.15 15:51

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

COMMENT BY T.B.:

3. I have highlighted many times the gross unsuitability of former D C S Hamish Campbell to be the person who set the remit (see above) - please use the search tool on here to access my articles re 'Campbell' on CMOMM, and please also refer to his actions in leading the investigation into the professional killing of Jill Dando and his prosecution of the wrong man (Barry Bulsara/George), making him serve 8 years in jail for an offence he did not commit. Campbell's prosecution of him was based on one speck of firearms residue which may well have been planted in his coat pocket by the police.

The above are classic hallmarks of a govermnent-organised whitewash

The court of appeal ruled that Barry George was NOT INNOCENT ENOUGH to be cleared of murdering Jill Dandohttp://www.independent.co.uk/news/uk/crime/not-innocent-enough-to-be-compensated-barry-george-loses-legal-battle-for-compensation-over-wrongful-conviction-for-jill-dandos-murder-8697397.html Maybe the same reasoning coould be applied to the Mcscamms

by plebgate 23.02.15 16:45

I have asked before, but didn't get a reply (AFAIK) - was the remit set before the case became a SY INVESTIGATION?

Started off as a review but turned into an investigation.

by Guest 23.02.15 17:54

plebgate wrote:I have asked before, but didn't get a reply (AFAIK) - was the remit set before the case became a SY INVESTIGATION?

Started off as a review but turned into an investigation.

It looks as if the remit was to allow the review to progress to an investigation.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

Also the Portuguese retain the lead.

Operation Grange
On 12 May 2011 the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) announced that, at the request of the Home Secretary, it had agreed to bring its particular expertise to the Madeleine McCann case.
The then Commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, considered the request and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do. This was subject to funding being made available by the Home Office, as this case is beyond the MPS's jurisdiction.
The Portuguese authorities retain the lead.

While the MPS will not provide a running commentary on its involvement, known as Operation Grange, it is felt appropriate to make the remit available to the public and it is available in the related publications.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.02.15 18:05

plebgate wrote:I have asked before, but didn't get a reply (AFAIK) - was the remit set before the case became a SY INVESTIGATION?

Started off as a review but turned into an investigation.

Yes, very much so.

In fact, the answer was contained in trhe FOI Act response I posted above, namely:

The Operation Grange remit was formally agreed in December 2011, just prior to publication on the MPS website. The remit was taken from lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell in May 2011.

+++++++++++++

Everything happened at once in May 2011:

* Big publicity build-up to the publication of Kate's book
* Sun starts serialising the book
* McCanns increase pressure on government to set up review
* Rebekah Brooks, CEO of Rupert Murdoch's News International empire, badgers/threatens/persuades Cameron to hold review
* Cameron orders Home Secretary Theresa May to set up review
* Theresa May orders Sir Paul Stephenson, Met Police Commissioner, to set up review
* Stephenson sets up review, claiming he'd done it off his own bat 'for operational reasons'
* Cameron's spokesman says 'the review is the help the family'
* Stephenson puts DCS Hamish Campbell in charge - bloke who, incompetently or possible deliberately, bungled the investigation into Jill Dando's killing
* Hamish Campbell (see above) devises 'lines of Command documents' - setting down the parameters of the review i.e. this is to be regarded as an abduction and no other theory can be looked at.

All of these things - and more - happened in just that one month.

Although I suspect that a number of top people had met a few times in secrecy and planned all this months beforehand.

Then the outline remit determined by DCS Campbell was formally agreed 7 months later, in December 2011 - and how revealing it would be if we knew which top persons were involved in drawing up and agreeing this remit!

@ plebgate

So to answer your question, the remit was drawn up in outline in May 2011 and formally agreed in December 2011 - long before the review morphed into an investigation which I think occurred in late 2012

by jeanmonroe 24.02.15 10:54

Should DCI Wall 'come up with' NEW 'suspects' (after trawling the 'files'...AGAIN! well, what else do 38 full time police 'staff' have to do?) will that mean DCI Mahog 'missed' those 'suspects' during his £10 million, 3 1/2 YEARS (in charge) investigation?

Where would that leave his 30 year, experienced, elite, investigative, 'reputation'?

As i type this SP is on Sky News 'discussing' school uniforms.

Back to 'suspects'.

There ARE THREE, possibly, four, 'named' by SY/OG 'arguidos' in this case.

What's 'happening' there?

If none of THEM are 'charged' with 'anything' is there huge compensation 'claims' (totally damaged reputations) heading the MPS's way?

by plebgate 24.02.15 20:28

Thanks Rusty James and Tony B.

I was thinking along the lines that maybe the remit might have changed once the case moved from review to investigation, but there has been no press release to that effect that I know of and Rusty J. posted it was always intended to progess to an investigation anyway.

by Doug D 24.02.15 20:48

Whilst on the subject of ‘remits’, I have just posted on the Cliff Richard thread, this evenings Guardian article criticizing the Mail for their front page report this morning.

‘Former chief constable Andy Trotter says paper’s claims of South Yorkshire police incompetence and BBC dishonesty are wrong’

However in the article it is interesting to note that he says:

'I made no comment, whatsoever, about the BBC. That was not part of my remit.'

by XTC 24.02.15 22:55

plebgate wrote:I have asked before, but didn't get a reply (AFAIK) - was the remit set before the case became a SY INVESTIGATION?

Started off as a review but turned into an investigation.

Thanks to Tony for the info.

I hope I'm not being flippant here but which part of " as if THE abduction occurred in the UK "
are we not understanding?

From memory Alan Johnson ( Labour ) set up a ' Scoping ' exercise possibly to explore what was required by SY.

This developed into a Review ( Conservative/ Lib Dem Coalition) of the scoping?

Then after the remit was laid out ( Tony Bennett is right I think ) by Hamish Campbell et al, then the above the parameters
of the- as if the abduction occurred in the UK ' Investigation ' commenced.

Here we are and here SY are.

Because of the original abduction remit only other suspects can be considered as suspects. That is; the ' abductors ' ( in the crime of " abduction ") can only be away from someone who cannot be accused of abduction. Removal ( occultation - PJ ) maybe? but not abduction.

A parent can abduct their own child of course but this doesn't appear to be where the remits aim is, as the other potential removers are not at odds or in dispute with each other. That's what make the International Family Law Group interesting. They deal in cases of one parent taking a child away from the other parent. They don't deal with stranger abdcuction. It's curious as is the WOC issue vis ' ownership '
of the child who is missing.

I don't know how OG and SY are going to wrap this up - they have nowhere to go at this stage. Some say if Mr Amaral loses his case it will be easier to wwrap it up. If he wins the damages case it makes it harder. The fact is that SY can come up with as much potential evidence and as many " significant leads " as they like. The question is whether the PJ and the Portuguese legal Authorities will add this evidence to the files and proceed to the Prosecution phase? For a successful prosecution you need a lot of evidence. Oh and a suspect or suspects who
aren't ' the others.' outwith the remit parameters of the Investigation.

Basically as it's always been - you need more credible and useful evidence to progress further towards a prosecution in Portugal.

With SY's limited remit it is doomed to fail. How long this failure goes on for I don't know.

All opinion of course.

by jeanmonroe 02.03.15 13:59

'memo's' to DCI Wall:

Have you asked your 37 police staff, at OG, individually, "is it possible the McCanns or their T7 friends, or persons they know, were involved in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?"

Have you asked your 37 police staff, at OG, individually, "why is it impossible that the McCanns, or their T7 friends, or persons they know, were not involved, in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?"

by **Tony Bennett** 02.03.15 14:32

jeanmonroe wrote:'memos' to DCI Wall:

Have you asked your 37 police staff, at OG, individually, "is it possible the McCanns or their T7 friends, or persons they know, were involved in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?"

Have you asked your 37 police staff, at OG, individually, "why is it impossible that the McCanns, or their T7 friends, or persons they know, were not involved, in Madeleine's 'disappearance'?"

Further memo to DCI Nicola Wall:

1. Have you satisfied yourself that (a) 'Crecheman is a real person and (b) if so, have you satisfied yourself that he is telling you the God's honest truth about the man he says he saw carrying a child?

2. How sure are you that Martin Smith is telling you the truth?

3. Have you asked him why he kept changing his ideas about how old the man he saw was, '35-40', then '40', then '34 or 35' when he agreed for his evidence to go on the McCanns' website

4. Have you asked why he first of all said 'I never noticed what he was wearing above his waist', then said 'he was wearing a dark jacket', then said 'I didn't notice what he was wearing'?

5. Have you asked Marcos Aragao Correia and Antonio Giminez Raso who put them both up to carrying out the 'Arade Dam search for Maddie's bones' stunt?

6. Have you asked Brian Kennedy about his alleged intimidation of witnesses (Mark Hollingsworth article, August 2009)

7. Have you made a formal application to change your remit?

8. Are you aware of the criteria under which a police officer can be prosecuted for the criminal offences of (a) perverting the course of justice and (b) misconduct in public office?

Further memo to follow

by Loving Mom 04.03.15 8:11

Tony Bennett wrote:Further memo to DCI Nicola Wall:

7. Have you made a formal application to change your remit?

8. Are you aware of the criteria under which a police officer can be prosecuted for the criminal offences of (a) perverting the course of justice and (b) misconduct in public office?

Further memo to follow

Tony, I snipped the above because in my opinion, if DCI Wall answers yes to either of these two questions I feel certain the truth of whatever happened to Madeleine will come out. I'm wondering, if anyone involved has a conscience, someone has to do the right by Madeleine and I hope it's soon.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.03.15 9:00

Loving Mom wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Further memo to DCI Nicola Wall:

7. Have you made a formal application to change your remit?

8. Are you aware of the criteria under which a police officer can be prosecuted for the criminal offences of (a) perverting the course of justice and (b) misconduct in public office?

Further memo to follow

Tony, I snipped the above because in my opinion, if DCI Wall answers yes to either of these two questions I feel certain the truth of whatever happened to Madeleine will come out. I'm wondering, if anyone involved has a conscience, someone has to do the right by Madeleine and I hope it's soon.

Look at all the police officers who received allegations from the public and were told to go no further by their senior officers.

Look at the corruption of senior police officers over Hillsborough.

Look at ongoing police corruption cases like those surrounding the killings of Daniel Morgan and Lee Balkwell.

Look at the Operation Tiberius report and the report on police corruption that wasburied by Leveson.

I am not optimistic.

But I will say that a group of us is actively raising these serious issues in the right quarters.

And there are still nearly 4 weeks left to add your name to this petition calling for an enquiry into Operation Grange and all the other strange 'investigations' in this case:

http://epetitions.direct.gov.uk/petitions/69944

There are 1,871 signatures on it already, and it has climbed to 144th in a list of over 6,000 petitions on the Prime Minister's website

by jeanmonroe 04.03.15 13:56

@TB

"Look at the corruption of senior police officers over Hillsborough"
------------------------------------------------

Police officers were told to put the blame for Hillsborough on "drunken, ticketless Liverpool supporters", the inquests into the disaster have heard.

Mr Davis said Ch Insp Bettison had told him it was "the biggest thing to happen in South Yorkshire Police" and it would benefit them "to be a part of what was going to happen in the wake of it".

He told the hearing Ch Supt Wain opened the briefing, held on the fifth floor of South Yorkshire Police headquarters in Sheffield.

Mr Davis said he was told by his boss to attend the meeting as it was a good chance to get noticed "career-wise".

Mr Davis said: "This was a very high-level briefing. It was, if you like, a lead-off, a start-off... I suppose it would be like a call to arms almost."

He told the hearing Ch Supt Wain had "clearly" been "given a job to do" and his orders would ONLY have come from the chief constable. ............................BETTISON?

Mr Davis said: "His words were, and I can almost remember them verbatim, that 'we were going to put the blame for this disaster where it belongs: on the drunken, ticketless Liverpool fans'.''

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-england-merseyside-31729366
-----------------------------------------

Bettison, for me, was the 'bentest' Cop, ever, to ever wear a police uniform!

"proviso" Jury's 'out' on HC/SF/AR @ OG.

by Loving Mom 05.03.15 7:26

The majority of members of this forum are here for Madeleine and want the truth, whatever the truth is, and for the person(s) who know what happened to come forward. I am optimistic that someone will come forward, just my opinion.

@Tony: In order to sign the petition you have to be a UK citizen, since I am a USA citizen I am not able to sign...
Thanks for all you do to help find the truth.

by jeanmonroe 05.03.15 12:00

Just going back to DCI Redwood's 'tenure' at OG:

He (DCI Andrew Redwood) said "officers had carried out a forensic analysis of the timeline of events, and had identified opportunities when the child could have been taken in a criminal act."

Dismissing conspiracy theories about Madeleine's parents' involvement, Redwood said he believed, ('I believe'?) the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".

http://www.theguardian.com/uk/2012/apr/25/madeleine-mccann-case-reopen-call
--------------------------------------------------------------------------

DCI Redwood said he believed the girl's disappearance was the result of "a criminal act by a stranger".
-----------------------------------------------

So,

HE 'BELIEVED'?

Does that mean that ALL officers, at OG, also all 'believed' the 'only' scenario feted, stated. 'put forward', by DCI Redwood?

and WHY would they?

Surely his 'belief' is ONLY his own, personal, 'opinion'

What did the other officers, at OG, 'believe'?

And did they 'discuss', possibly OTHER 'beliefs' WITH DCI Redwood?

"slapped down"?

Is DCI Wall, at OG, still ONLY 'investigating' Madeleine's 'disappearance' as 'a criminal act by a stranger' as 'stated/believed' by the ex lead investigator at OG, DCI Redwood?

Imo, DCI Redwood's 'beliefs/investigation' do not add up.

And i am not alone in this 'belief'

Many, many, serving and ex police officers, at the MET, also 'agree', with me, that there is something very, very, 'strange' about Operation 'Grange'.

What IF DCI Wall 'believes' something, er, 'different' from DCI Redwood, about Madeleine's 'disappearance'?

Will she be 'allowed' TV 'airtime', ala DCI Redwood, to 'put forward' her 'belief/revelation' moment?

If OG is ONLY 'investigating' Madeleine's 'disappearance' on their lead investigator's 'personal' belief, does that make OG a 'cult'?

With 'dissenters' banished to 'traffic duties'? winkwink

Are all future 'operations' at SY/MET 'now' only to be conducted on lead 'investigator' 'beliefs held', 'say so' and 'hearsay'?

by HelenMeg 05.03.15 12:03

Well in that case, with reference to the questions below put to Kate, I believe Redwood was perhaps not in the right job..

43.   In the case files you were SHOWN CANINE forensic testing films, where you can see them marking due to detection of the scent of human corpse and blood traces, also human, and only human, as well as all the comments of the technician in charge of them.
After watching and after the marking of the scent of corpse in your bedroom beside the wardrobe and behind the sofa, pushed up against the sofa wall, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
44.   When the sniffer dog also marked human blood behind the sofa, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
45. When the sniffer dog marked the scent of corpse coming from the vehicle you hired a month after the disappearance, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
46. When human blood was marked in the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
47.   When confronted with the results of Maddie’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out in a British laboratory, collected from behind the sofa and the boot of the vehicle, did you say you couldn’t explain any more than you already had?
48.   Did you have any responsibility or intervention in your daughter’s disappearance?