This just gone on to Daily Mail.

Daryl Dixon wrote:Is there any evidence that the flat was cleaned, with or without bleach? My understanding is that there were hundreds of strands of unidentified hair found in the apartment. This hardly seems to support the cleaning thesis.

Daryl Dixon wrote:Is there any evidence that the flat was cleaned, with or without bleach? My understanding is that there were hundreds of strands of unidentified hair found in the apartment. This hardly seems to support the cleaning thesis.

Joss wrote:

Daryl Dixon wrote:Is there any evidence that the flat was cleaned, with or without bleach? My understanding is that there were hundreds of strands of unidentified hair found in the apartment. This hardly seems to support the cleaning thesis.

Then why did G.McC have to go back to the U.K. to get something with Maddie's DNA on it? That's if my memory is correct on that.

mysterion wrote:I`m surprised there wasn`t a hairbrush with strands in it. Or maybe I shouldn`t in this case.

Daryl Dixon wrote:

Joss wrote:

Daryl Dixon wrote:Is there any evidence that the flat was cleaned, with or without bleach? My understanding is that there were hundreds of strands of unidentified hair found in the apartment. This hardly seems to support the cleaning thesis.

Then why did G.McC have to go back to the U.K. to get something with Maddie's DNA on it? That's if my memory is correct on that.

Because a reference sample was required which was not contaminated in any way by other family members. The apartment would have had dna from all the McCann family, plus dna from previous holidaymakers. It's unusual I imagine, but maybe it was thought that a reference sample would be easier to obtain from home.

woodforthetrees wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion . OK

Point 1   SY are being told IMO to appear to look for an abduction as if it happened in the UK [ either they are working to an order from above ] or they are just saying that because like Huntley , Mathews , they know its them , but they have to play smart . Im not quite sure how else to put this... Scotland Yard are looking for a paedo, not a live abduction, not a burglary gone wrong and certainly not the McCanns (as much as i would love them to)

2. Does not make any sense . No Peado would take such a risk , besides sadly most are foreign aid workers these days. 'Most are foreign aid workers'? not heard that one before. Maybe, the perp thought he would be in and out of there after committing his act in a considerably shorter timeframe, only when things went wrong did his 'stay' get extended, a clean up ensue and the decision to take the body.

3 . possible . he panicked it looked dark from what I can see , took a risk ,it was either that or have a corps lying about . RE the press media watching , NO THEY WERE NOT , I had associates over there they were left to go about there business , even the Police WERE NOT WATCHING THEM that is the biggest mistake in this whole situation . The Portuguese police weren't watching them, but the UK police were, whether you wish to deny that or not  IMO she was transported with the missing posters in Plain sight when they decided to do a leaflet drop ON A PUBLIC HOLIDAY !!! RED FLAG **. again calculated risk . And you think a paedo taking a big risk in a dark apartment on his own is less of a risk that that?

4 Unlocked door  This one makes me laugh .It is only there world that the door was unlocked why does everybody on this forum , believe this statement as fact . There is no way any door or window was unlocked . Hence no break in hence NO ABDUCTION . Front door unlocked, shutters opened from the inside, hence no break in evidence (IMO)

5  Don't even get me started on reward's,  ransoms etc , somebody would have talked by now . Yeah, paedos love to chat about what their peodo mates have been doing, whilst discussing it on paedo networks don't they. Jimmy Saville abused hundreds of people over the years and how many of them who knew about it blabbed....zero. 

Panic makes people do crazy things , IMO seconds after Kate found Maddie dead due to over sedation , , and was restrained forcefully  , By Gerry [ Hence the Bruising on Her arms , everything they have done has been a risk , but because the cleaned the crime scene , nearly enough [ one day those markers will do for them ] . they have managed by fluke luck , cunning , and lies to get away with it . throw in mega bucks lawyers and the cult of celebrity , and they are now bullet proof . the UK are loath to arrest"  celebrities " so for now we are in a limbo . there will never be a body found . Luck again Portugal/ southern Spain  has many places to conceal a body . so for now its stale mate . and this is not far off my thinking up until recently, however, if this theory is true, then are following leads/evidence (that we don't know exactly what) that is barking them up the wrong tree

Finally SY either playing a blinder , or bowing to the cult of celebrity , with possibly a dark secret to hide . don't forget it[ as cases coming to light now are showing ] wouldn't be the first time. They are not 'playing a blinder' and suddenly going to say "ha ha! We had you all fooled all along, it is those nasty McCanns after all" as they are not looking at them as suspects whatsoever. I'd like to think that this could happen, but after so long and with the McCanns being in plain sight/close proximity of SY, its very clear that that will never happen (unfortunately).

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:
You are entitled to your opinion . OK

Point 1   SY are being told IMO to appear to look for an abduction as if it happened in the UK [ either they are working to an order from above ] or they are just saying that because like Huntley , Mathews , they know its them , but they have to play smart . Im not quite sure how else to put this... Scotland Yard are looking for a paedo, not a live abduction, not a burglary gone wrong and certainly not the McCanns (as much as i would love them to)

2. Does not make any sense . No Peado would take such a risk , besides sadly most are foreign aid workers these days. 'Most are foreign aid workers'? not heard that one before. Maybe, the perp thought he would be in and out of there after committing his act in a considerably shorter timeframe, only when things went wrong did his 'stay' get extended, a clean up ensue and the decision to take the body.

3 . possible . he panicked it looked dark from what I can see , took a risk ,it was either that or have a corps lying about . RE the press media watching , NO THEY WERE NOT , I had associates over there they were left to go about there business , even the Police WERE NOT WATCHING THEM that is the biggest mistake in this whole situation . The Portuguese police weren't watching them, but the UK police were, whether you wish to deny that or not  IMO she was transported with the missing posters in Plain sight when they decided to do a leaflet drop ON A PUBLIC HOLIDAY !!! RED FLAG **. again calculated risk . And you think a paedo taking a big risk in a dark apartment on his own is less of a risk that that?

4 Unlocked door  This one makes me laugh .It is only there world that the door was unlocked why does everybody on this forum , believe this statement as fact . There is no way any door or window was unlocked . Hence no break in hence NO ABDUCTION . Front door unlocked, shutters opened from the inside, hence no break in evidence (IMO)

5  Don't even get me started on reward's,  ransoms etc , somebody would have talked by now . Yeah, paedos love to chat about what their peodo mates have been doing, whilst discussing it on paedo networks don't they. Jimmy Saville abused hundreds of people over the years and how many of them who knew about it blabbed....zero. 

Panic makes people do crazy things , IMO seconds after Kate found Maddie dead due to over sedation , , and was restrained forcefully  , By Gerry [ Hence the Bruising on Her arms , everything they have done has been a risk , but because the cleaned the crime scene , nearly enough [ one day those markers will do for them ] . they have managed by fluke luck , cunning , and lies to get away with it . throw in mega bucks lawyers and the cult of celebrity , and they are now bullet proof . the UK are loath to arrest"  celebrities " so for now we are in a limbo . there will never be a body found . Luck again Portugal/ southern Spain  has many places to conceal a body . so for now its stale mate . and this is not far off my thinking up until recently, however, if this theory is true, then are following leads/evidence (that we don't know exactly what) that is barking them up the wrong tree

Finally SY either playing a blinder , or bowing to the cult of celebrity , with possibly a dark secret to hide . don't forget it[ as cases coming to light now are showing ] wouldn't be the first time. They are not 'playing a blinder' and suddenly going to say "ha ha! We had you all fooled all along, it is those nasty McCanns after all" as they are not looking at them as suspects whatsoever. I'd like to think that this could happen, but after so long and with the McCanns being in plain sight/close proximity of SY, its very clear that that will never happen (unfortunately).

Please could you expand on how you know the bit I've highlighted in red. Perhaps share how you know what SY are looking at. I would also be much obliged if you could explain what you think an alleged abductor was doing for the approx. 45-75 mins it takes for cadaver odour to develop. Washing the curtains perhaps

ScarletLaw wrote:Woodfortrees- My response and evidence for why i believe Scotland Yards remit to set up somebody as a patsy. Thankyou to the original investigator who put this information together.

Those those who set up Operation Grange were clear. From the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary to the then head of the Met, Sir Paul Stephenson, abduction was the only hypothesis to be investigated. The review, as the Prime Minister’s spokesman clarified, was ‘to help the family’  (the McCanns).
Sir Paul Stephenson decided to appoint one Hamish Campbell as the SIO, with an additional requirement for the SIO to present his report to one Simon Foy. Andy Redwood, a Detective Chief Inspector, was appointed as the IO. Before long, Campbell and Redwood determined that they would need a staff of around 35 to 40 to carry out the review.


Clarence Mitchell - who was at the time working for the BBC as their senior crime reporter. He was apparently the very first reporter at the scene of the crime, and covered the investigation into Jill Dando’s murder in the months following her death Hamish Campbell - who was the investigation’s IO - placed in charge of the day-to-day investigation into Jill Dando’s murder in 1999. He was primarily responsible for the arrest and charging of Barry Bulsara, known also as ‘Barry George’, with the murder of Dando. Bulsara was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Jill Dando but subsequently acquitted, seven years later, on appeal

Years later…


Clarence Mitchell, three days after Madeleine McCann was reported missing, was asked by then Prime Minister Tony Blair to cease his full-time job as Head of the Media Monitoring Unit and work full-time on public relations and reputation management for the McCanns and Hamish Campbell was appointed in May 2011 as the SIO for Operation Grange, the review - now re-investigation - into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann being conducted by Scotland Yard

The Jill Dando investigation was run out of Belgravia Police Station, London. So is Operation Grange.

Barry Bulsara was wrongly convicted by a jury and served several years  in jail for an offence he didn’t commit.

In November 1999, a detective named Brian Moore was promoted from the rank of Detective Superintendent (DS) to Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS). At the same time, he left a top secret and very corrupt intelligence unit, CIB3, known as ‘The Untouchables’. The corrupt nature of ‘The Untouchables’ is dealt with at length in a book of the same name by Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn, published in late 2004, nearly 10 years ago. Michael Gillard has recently been at the centre of exposes in the national print media about extensive corruption at the heart of the Metropolitan Police Force. He has researched links between very senior officers in the Met, and a number of leading drugs lords

Belgravia Police Station is close to Harrods, owned by Al-Fayed. Al-Fayed did favours for Begravia-based police officers. Police officers returned the favours. Indeed, there was already an anti-corruption investigation at that time into the so-called ‘Hamper Squad’, a group of Belgravia-based officers who would arrest and harass anyone, including his own employees, suspected of aiding and abetting his bitter business enemy, Lonrho tycoon ‘Tiny’ Rowland. The greedy officers had a continuous supply of free hampers and huge discounts on Harrods goods. Indeed, one honest officer, Bob Loftus, gave the anti-corruption unit the actual names of police officers who had accepted these bribes. No police officer, however, was ever prosecuted for these criminal offences.



DCI Hamish Campbell appeared on CrimeWatch to reinforce in the public’s mind that it was an obsessive loner they were looking for. He asked for the public’s help in identifying such a person.

During the trial, it emerged that during the forensic procedure, Bulsara’s coat was first of all taken to a police studio where it was photographed on a tailor’s dummy. Firearms had previously been photographed at the same studio, raising the possibility of accidental contamination. This extraordinary decision, according to Detective Sergeant Andy Rowell, was made by DCI Hamish Campbell. Campbell he later denied this, but since he was the IO, this convinced no-one.
The question obviously arose as to whether the police might have fabricated the case against Bulsara by deliberately placing a speck of firearm residue in his coat pocket. This suggestion has been given added credibility by the involvement of DCS Brian Moore, the SIO in this case, in another case of a man being fitted up - Ira Thomas.
Given that senior Met officers chose Brian Moore to act as the SIO in the case of Jill Dando’s murder, it is instructive to look at his major role in another case where it was accepted that an innocent man had been ‘fitted up’.
On 30 June 1988, one Freddy Brett was shot at close range in the thigh by a tall black man wearing, according to a witness, a light-coloured coat. It happened outside the Hope & Anchor pub on the River Lee Navigation in north London, an area covered by what later became the very notorious Stoke Newington Police Station.


Ira Thomas was also a tall black man. But he was not the person who shot and injured Brett.


Ira Thomas was convicted of the shooting a year later - but on 13 February 1992, after 2½ years in prison, the Appeal Court, most unusually, quashed the jury’s verdict. The Appeal judges’ verdict was withering: “The victim’s account of events was simply ludicrous”, but also, more relevantly to this article, “The so-called forensic evidence was unavailing”.


Brian Moore, who together with Hamish Campbell may have organised the placing of firearms residue in Barry Bulsara’s pocket, was, in 1988, a senior officer in the Crime Squad in the corruption-ridden Stoke Newington police station. An anti-corruption probe, Operation Jackpot, was set up later and resulted in the conviction of several officers for co-operating with drugs and crime lords in the area. Many corrupt officers, however, escaped conviction.


The original SIO in the Ira Thomas case was Detective Sergeant Gordon Livingstone. Shortly after the shooting of Freddy Brett, however, Livingstone was promoted to the Flying Squad at Rigg Approach, another group of senior officers also riddled with corruption.


On 25 April 1989, two officers, acting on an anonymous but false tip-off, arrested Ira Thomas for the attempted murder of Freddy Brett. One Terry McGuinness searched Thomas’s flat, finding nothing of interest. He did not believe there was any evidence against Thomas. Later that day, at 4.15pm, McGuinness released Thomas, stating on the custody record that the matter had been ‘dealt with’.    


Livingstone had meanwhile recently been replaced as the Head of the Stoke Newington Crime Squad by Brian Moore, now an acting Detective Inspector. At this point in the investigation into the shooting of Freddy Brett, he took over the reins of the investigation. 


At 7.25pm, Brian Moore amended the custody record in ink, as follows:


“With reference to the entry [by McGuinness] timed at 4.15pm, I have now traced a number of statements, which were not available to DC McGuinness at the time he advised the custody officer that this matter had been dealt with. The grievous bodily harm and firearms offences have NOT been concluded and my enquiries are ongoing”.


For whatever reason, maybe to protect the real shooter of Brett, Moore was determined to charge Thomas with the shooting. He refused to release Thomas from custody.


He asked two other detectives, Peter McCullough and Dave Edwards, to search Thomas’s flat again for a ‘light-coloured coat’ which a witness claimed to have seen a black man wearing after the shooting incident with Brett. Two such coats were found and taken for forensic evidence



That same night, police officers McCullough and Edwards searched Thomas’s flat again and, contrary to police procedures, did so without an independent person present. They removed two coats, a beige mac, and a camel-haired coat, shown to Thomas the following morning. Thomas and his flat-mate both insisted they belonged to his flat-mate.  


On 6 June, Moore ’phoned Thomas’s solicitor, Anne Chiarini, to say that no firearms residue had been found on either coat.


Yet less than two months later, on 2 August, Thomas was re-arrested and told that “a second forensic test had found firearms residue in both cuffs of the beige mac, because the scientist carrying out the first test hadn’t rolled down the cuffs properly the first time”.


Thomas was asked to comment on the new evidence against him. He replied: “Yes. You are trying to fit me up”.


Subsequently Stoke Newington Police blocked the release of the original April custody record, but were eventually forced to release it. This caused g Thomas to ‘go ballistic’, because it was evidently wholly false.


The prosecution of Thomas came to court on 19 March 1990 at the Old Bailey.



The Appeal Court heard the appeal on 13 February 1992 and quashed the jury’s majority decision. Thomas was immediately released from prison.
After the trial, new evidence came to light. One Lee Pritchard approached Thomas’s solicitors and told them that officers from Stoke Newington Police Station had approached him and offered him sizeable quantities of heroin if he would make a false statement, saying that he had seen Ira Thomas on the same toad where Brett was shot, carrying a gun in his hand. The offer had been repeated many times, but Pritchard refused to help the police.   


Moore’s career then took a steep upward path, despite his actions in the Ira Thomas case. He was promoted to a top anti-corruption intelligence unit, CIB3, known as ‘The Untouchables’, and later left that elite but corrupt squad to become a DCS at Belgravia Police Station in the Met, soon afterwards becoming the SIO on the Dando case. One would have to raise a question about how a man who was deeply involved with what looked like a deliberate plot to frame an innocent man by planting firearms residue on a coat could ever have been chosen to lead such a high-profile investigation as the Jill Dando murder hunt.

Moore’s career had become entwined with that of Roy Clark.


In 1998, Roy Clark put Moore in charge of investigating allegations of serious corruption at the Flying Squad, based at Rigg Approach. This was a highly questionable appointment because “Moore knew many of the detectives he was now investigating because they had previously worked together at Stoke Newington Police Station” (“The Untouchables, p. 427). 


Brian Moore, as we have seen, was central to the ‘fitting-up’ of Ira Thomas, and the SIO in charge of the deeply flawed arrest and charging of Brian Bulsara over the murder of Jill Dando.


What sort of man put Brian Moore in charge of investigating corruption of a group of officers (at Stoke Newington Police Station), amongst whom he had worked, and where he had been involved in the ‘fitting up’ of a man who wrongly served 2½ years in prison for an offence he did not commit?

By 1996 Clark had been promoted to the dizzy rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, in which capacity he was later to appoint Brian Moore and Hamish Campbell to lead the Jill Dando enquiry.


In 1997, after the election of the new Labour government that year, the Ghost Squad was split up into two units: CIBIC, an intelligence unit, which reported to the core of the ‘Ghost Squad’, now called CIB3. Both units were also subsequently shown to have been corrupt in a number of respects




It is legitimate to examine the career background of Hamish Campbell to try and establish why he was the man chosen by the then Head of the Met Police, Sir Paul Stephenson, to act as the co-ordinator for the "Madeleine McCann" investigation.


He first comes to our notice as the man who bungled the investigation into the killing of Jill Dando, sending an innocent man to jail for 7 years.


But now, on further examination, we find that the co-ordinator of the Dando investigation, with whom Hamish Campbell obviously worked closely, was Brian Moore, who can be shown to have been a participant in the deliberate fitting up of another innocent man, Ira Thomas, in 1999 and 2000.


Moreover, we see that Moore, who was certainly responsible for the wrongful conviction of Ira Thomas, was rapidly fast-tracked in his career by Roy Clark. Clark may well have been the Director of Investigations for the IPCC from 2004 to 2009, and may well be Director of Criminal Investigations for HM Revenue and Customs at the moment. But just a brief examination of his career suggests that he, too, is at the very least a highly controversial character with a number of suspicions concerning him from his time in the Met’s Ghost Squad and in CIB3.



The public has been asked to trust these two men. One of them, Hamish Campbell, was for two years (May 2011 to May 2013) placed in charge of DCI Andy Redwood and around 40 other staff in Operation Grange. Andy Redwood who has changed the timeline to an hour, even though parents evidence suggests otherwise, to include the proof that the little girl was dead and fits in the body scent left. Since when has a timeline excluded the parents evidence to be false, but they aren't being investigated?
 
Crime watch

Now DCI Redwood who has miraculously stated to a TV audience of 6.7 million people, that the girl was being taken home by a man whose child was attending a crèche. DCI Redwood’s CrimeWatch programme told Britain that indeed, according to Redwood, a man from the creche was doing just that, taking his daughter home from the creche at 9.15pm, barefoot, and dressed only in her pyjamas.

 So tell me this Woods for trees, "Did this ‘man from the creche’ take her there in his pyjamas? If he took her there in her clothes, then why was he not carrying her clothes back with him?"

I'm a mother and regularly took my daughters to creche. But never, ever in their pyjamas.  The crèche man doesn't exist and the team have supported Jane Tanner with one thing in mind only- to cover up the McCanns as possible suspects.

Again Grange is falsifying and misleading the public down a crooked path. 

This is just a brief history of the people in charge of the McCanns case, corrupt people with a history of submitting false evidence and are not fit to lead an honest enquiry for a little girl.


Do i have faith in them to be honest?= No, because they have proven themselves not to be.

Do i feel like Barry George and the others that someone will be fitted up as a patsy?

 Yes, because here is my evidence and shows for certain, all these men have been linked to trials where people have been fitted up in the past.

Silverspeed wrote: Smokeandmirrors and stillsloppingout.


woodforthetrees - I've no idea what goes on behind closed doors at SY therefore wouldn't know who they genuinely regard as suspects in this case. But I would imagine that if they seriously suspected the McCanns they wouldn't exactly go shouting about it from the rooftops until they had an abundance of irrefutable evidence to nail them. I could be wrong of course.

## Im sure that everyone would like to believe that they are secretly suspecting the McCanns, but they are not.

Also, if as you suggest someone else is responsible for taking Madeleine, why would the McCanns tell such a pack of lies about the shutters?

## Panic, after discovering your child had been taken and you know deep inside that you left doors unlocked 

ScarletLaw wrote:Woodfortrees- My response and evidence for why i believe Scotland Yards remit to set up somebody as a patsy. Thankyou to the original investigator who put this information together.

Those those who set up Operation Grange were clear. From the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary to the then head of the Met, Sir Paul Stephenson, abduction was the only hypothesis to be investigated. The review, as the Prime Minister’s spokesman clarified, was ‘to help the family’  (the McCanns).
Sir Paul Stephenson decided to appoint one Hamish Campbell as the SIO, with an additional requirement for the SIO to present his report to one Simon Foy. Andy Redwood, a Detective Chief Inspector, was appointed as the IO. Before long, Campbell and Redwood determined that they would need a staff of around 35 to 40 to carry out the review.


Clarence Mitchell - who was at the time working for the BBC as their senior crime reporter. He was apparently the very first reporter at the scene of the crime, and covered the investigation into Jill Dando’s murder in the months following her death Hamish Campbell - who was the investigation’s IO - placed in charge of the day-to-day investigation into Jill Dando’s murder in 1999. He was primarily responsible for the arrest and charging of Barry Bulsara, known also as ‘Barry George’, with the murder of Dando. Bulsara was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Jill Dando but subsequently acquitted, seven years later, on appeal

Years later…


Clarence Mitchell, three days after Madeleine McCann was reported missing, was asked by then Prime Minister Tony Blair to cease his full-time job as Head of the Media Monitoring Unit and work full-time on public relations and reputation management for the McCanns and Hamish Campbell was appointed in May 2011 as the SIO for Operation Grange, the review - now re-investigation - into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann being conducted by Scotland Yard

The Jill Dando investigation was run out of Belgravia Police Station, London. So is Operation Grange.

Barry Bulsara was wrongly convicted by a jury and served several years  in jail for an offence he didn’t commit.

In November 1999, a detective named Brian Moore was promoted from the rank of Detective Superintendent (DS) to Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS). At the same time, he left a top secret and very corrupt intelligence unit, CIB3, known as ‘The Untouchables’. The corrupt nature of ‘The Untouchables’ is dealt with at length in a book of the same name by Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn, published in late 2004, nearly 10 years ago. Michael Gillard has recently been at the centre of exposes in the national print media about extensive corruption at the heart of the Metropolitan Police Force. He has researched links between very senior officers in the Met, and a number of leading drugs lords

Belgravia Police Station is close to Harrods, owned by Al-Fayed. Al-Fayed did favours for Begravia-based police officers. Police officers returned the favours. Indeed, there was already an anti-corruption investigation at that time into the so-called ‘Hamper Squad’, a group of Belgravia-based officers who would arrest and harass anyone, including his own employees, suspected of aiding and abetting his bitter business enemy, Lonrho tycoon ‘Tiny’ Rowland. The greedy officers had a continuous supply of free hampers and huge discounts on Harrods goods. Indeed, one honest officer, Bob Loftus, gave the anti-corruption unit the actual names of police officers who had accepted these bribes. No police officer, however, was ever prosecuted for these criminal offences.



DCI Hamish Campbell appeared on CrimeWatch to reinforce in the public’s mind that it was an obsessive loner they were looking for. He asked for the public’s help in identifying such a person.

During the trial, it emerged that during the forensic procedure, Bulsara’s coat was first of all taken to a police studio where it was photographed on a tailor’s dummy. Firearms had previously been photographed at the same studio, raising the possibility of accidental contamination. This extraordinary decision, according to Detective Sergeant Andy Rowell, was made by DCI Hamish Campbell. Campbell he later denied this, but since he was the IO, this convinced no-one.
The question obviously arose as to whether the police might have fabricated the case against Bulsara by deliberately placing a speck of firearm residue in his coat pocket. This suggestion has been given added credibility by the involvement of DCS Brian Moore, the SIO in this case, in another case of a man being fitted up - Ira Thomas.
Given that senior Met officers chose Brian Moore to act as the SIO in the case of Jill Dando’s murder, it is instructive to look at his major role in another case where it was accepted that an innocent man had been ‘fitted up’.
On 30 June 1988, one Freddy Brett was shot at close range in the thigh by a tall black man wearing, according to a witness, a light-coloured coat. It happened outside the Hope & Anchor pub on the River Lee Navigation in north London, an area covered by what later became the very notorious Stoke Newington Police Station.


Ira Thomas was also a tall black man. But he was not the person who shot and injured Brett.


Ira Thomas was convicted of the shooting a year later - but on 13 February 1992, after 2½ years in prison, the Appeal Court, most unusually, quashed the jury’s verdict. The Appeal judges’ verdict was withering: “The victim’s account of events was simply ludicrous”, but also, more relevantly to this article, “The so-called forensic evidence was unavailing”.


Brian Moore, who together with Hamish Campbell may have organised the placing of firearms residue in Barry Bulsara’s pocket, was, in 1988, a senior officer in the Crime Squad in the corruption-ridden Stoke Newington police station. An anti-corruption probe, Operation Jackpot, was set up later and resulted in the conviction of several officers for co-operating with drugs and crime lords in the area. Many corrupt officers, however, escaped conviction.


The original SIO in the Ira Thomas case was Detective Sergeant Gordon Livingstone. Shortly after the shooting of Freddy Brett, however, Livingstone was promoted to the Flying Squad at Rigg Approach, another group of senior officers also riddled with corruption.


On 25 April 1989, two officers, acting on an anonymous but false tip-off, arrested Ira Thomas for the attempted murder of Freddy Brett. One Terry McGuinness searched Thomas’s flat, finding nothing of interest. He did not believe there was any evidence against Thomas. Later that day, at 4.15pm, McGuinness released Thomas, stating on the custody record that the matter had been ‘dealt with’.    


Livingstone had meanwhile recently been replaced as the Head of the Stoke Newington Crime Squad by Brian Moore, now an acting Detective Inspector. At this point in the investigation into the shooting of Freddy Brett, he took over the reins of the investigation. 


At 7.25pm, Brian Moore amended the custody record in ink, as follows:


“With reference to the entry [by McGuinness] timed at 4.15pm, I have now traced a number of statements, which were not available to DC McGuinness at the time he advised the custody officer that this matter had been dealt with. The grievous bodily harm and firearms offences have NOT been concluded and my enquiries are ongoing”.


For whatever reason, maybe to protect the real shooter of Brett, Moore was determined to charge Thomas with the shooting. He refused to release Thomas from custody.


He asked two other detectives, Peter McCullough and Dave Edwards, to search Thomas’s flat again for a ‘light-coloured coat’ which a witness claimed to have seen a black man wearing after the shooting incident with Brett. Two such coats were found and taken for forensic evidence



That same night, police officers McCullough and Edwards searched Thomas’s flat again and, contrary to police procedures, did so without an independent person present. They removed two coats, a beige mac, and a camel-haired coat, shown to Thomas the following morning. Thomas and his flat-mate both insisted they belonged to his flat-mate.  


On 6 June, Moore ’phoned Thomas’s solicitor, Anne Chiarini, to say that no firearms residue had been found on either coat.


Yet less than two months later, on 2 August, Thomas was re-arrested and told that “a second forensic test had found firearms residue in both cuffs of the beige mac, because the scientist carrying out the first test hadn’t rolled down the cuffs properly the first time”.


Thomas was asked to comment on the new evidence against him. He replied: “Yes. You are trying to fit me up”.


Subsequently Stoke Newington Police blocked the release of the original April custody record, but were eventually forced to release it. This caused g Thomas to ‘go ballistic’, because it was evidently wholly false.


The prosecution of Thomas came to court on 19 March 1990 at the Old Bailey.



The Appeal Court heard the appeal on 13 February 1992 and quashed the jury’s majority decision. Thomas was immediately released from prison.
After the trial, new evidence came to light. One Lee Pritchard approached Thomas’s solicitors and told them that officers from Stoke Newington Police Station had approached him and offered him sizeable quantities of heroin if he would make a false statement, saying that he had seen Ira Thomas on the same toad where Brett was shot, carrying a gun in his hand. The offer had been repeated many times, but Pritchard refused to help the police.   


Moore’s career then took a steep upward path, despite his actions in the Ira Thomas case. He was promoted to a top anti-corruption intelligence unit, CIB3, known as ‘The Untouchables’, and later left that elite but corrupt squad to become a DCS at Belgravia Police Station in the Met, soon afterwards becoming the SIO on the Dando case. One would have to raise a question about how a man who was deeply involved with what looked like a deliberate plot to frame an innocent man by planting firearms residue on a coat could ever have been chosen to lead such a high-profile investigation as the Jill Dando murder hunt.

Moore’s career had become entwined with that of Roy Clark.


In 1998, Roy Clark put Moore in charge of investigating allegations of serious corruption at the Flying Squad, based at Rigg Approach. This was a highly questionable appointment because “Moore knew many of the detectives he was now investigating because they had previously worked together at Stoke Newington Police Station” (“The Untouchables, p. 427). 


Brian Moore, as we have seen, was central to the ‘fitting-up’ of Ira Thomas, and the SIO in charge of the deeply flawed arrest and charging of Brian Bulsara over the murder of Jill Dando.


What sort of man put Brian Moore in charge of investigating corruption of a group of officers (at Stoke Newington Police Station), amongst whom he had worked, and where he had been involved in the ‘fitting up’ of a man who wrongly served 2½ years in prison for an offence he did not commit?

By 1996 Clark had been promoted to the dizzy rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, in which capacity he was later to appoint Brian Moore and Hamish Campbell to lead the Jill Dando enquiry.


In 1997, after the election of the new Labour government that year, the Ghost Squad was split up into two units: CIBIC, an intelligence unit, which reported to the core of the ‘Ghost Squad’, now called CIB3. Both units were also subsequently shown to have been corrupt in a number of respects




It is legitimate to examine the career background of Hamish Campbell to try and establish why he was the man chosen by the then Head of the Met Police, Sir Paul Stephenson, to act as the co-ordinator for the "Madeleine McCann" investigation.


He first comes to our notice as the man who bungled the investigation into the killing of Jill Dando, sending an innocent man to jail for 7 years.


But now, on further examination, we find that the co-ordinator of the Dando investigation, with whom Hamish Campbell obviously worked closely, was Brian Moore, who can be shown to have been a participant in the deliberate fitting up of another innocent man, Ira Thomas, in 1999 and 2000.


Moreover, we see that Moore, who was certainly responsible for the wrongful conviction of Ira Thomas, was rapidly fast-tracked in his career by Roy Clark. Clark may well have been the Director of Investigations for the IPCC from 2004 to 2009, and may well be Director of Criminal Investigations for HM Revenue and Customs at the moment. But just a brief examination of his career suggests that he, too, is at the very least a highly controversial character with a number of suspicions concerning him from his time in the Met’s Ghost Squad and in CIB3.



The public has been asked to trust these two men. One of them, Hamish Campbell, was for two years (May 2011 to May 2013) placed in charge of DCI Andy Redwood and around 40 other staff in Operation Grange. Andy Redwood who has changed the timeline to an hour, even though parents evidence suggests otherwise, to include the proof that the little girl was dead and fits in the body scent left. Since when has a timeline excluded the parents evidence to be false, but they aren't being investigated?
 
Crime watch

Now DCI Redwood who has miraculously stated to a TV audience of 6.7 million people, that the girl was being taken home by a man whose child was attending a crèche. DCI Redwood’s CrimeWatch programme told Britain that indeed, according to Redwood, a man from the creche was doing just that, taking his daughter home from the creche at 9.15pm, barefoot, and dressed only in her pyjamas.

 So tell me this Woods for trees, "Did this ‘man from the creche’ take her there in his pyjamas? If he took her there in her clothes, then why was he not carrying her clothes back with him?"

I'm a mother and regularly took my daughters to creche. But never, ever in their pyjamas.  The crèche man doesn't exist and the team have supported Jane Tanner with one thing in mind only- to cover up the McCanns as possible suspects.

Again Grange is falsifying and misleading the public down a crooked path. 

This is just a brief history of the people in charge of the McCanns case, corrupt people with a history of submitting false evidence and are not fit to lead an honest enquiry for a little girl.


Do i have faith in them to be honest?= No, because they have proven themselves not to be.

Do i feel like Barry George and the others that someone will be fitted up as a patsy?

 Yes, because here is my evidence and shows for certain, all these men have been linked to trials where people have been fitted up in the past.

woodforthetrees wrote:

noseyparker wrote: WOODFOR THE TREES...Point to one single piece of evidence to support your pedo theory

Known paedos operating in the area
Witness reports of the apartment being watched throughout the week
Cleaned scene/prepared perp = expert, not a novice, or an accident
Targeted one child of a certain age, leaving the twins alone, shows the 'event' and the victim were specifically targeted
and here is the most obvious one....................

That SY are searching for an intruder who acted alone, killed Madeleine 'most likely not alive when left the apartment'...whilst also interviewing  paedos who are known to know other paedos who were operating in the area at the time.

They do not do that without having evidence to back that up.

ScarletLaw wrote:Woodfortrees- My response and evidence for why i believe Scotland Yards remit to set up somebody as a patsy. Thankyou to the original investigator who put this information together.

Those those who set up Operation Grange were clear. From the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary to the then head of the Met, Sir Paul Stephenson, abduction was the only hypothesis to be investigated. The review, as the Prime Minister’s spokesman clarified, was ‘to help the family’  (the McCanns).
Sir Paul Stephenson decided to appoint one Hamish Campbell as the SIO, with an additional requirement for the SIO to present his report to one Simon Foy. Andy Redwood, a Detective Chief Inspector, was appointed as the IO. Before long, Campbell and Redwood determined that they would need a staff of around 35 to 40 to carry out the review.


Clarence Mitchell - who was at the time working for the BBC as their senior crime reporter. He was apparently the very first reporter at the scene of the crime, and covered the investigation into Jill Dando’s murder in the months following her death Hamish Campbell - who was the investigation’s IO - placed in charge of the day-to-day investigation into Jill Dando’s murder in 1999. He was primarily responsible for the arrest and charging of Barry Bulsara, known also as ‘Barry George’, with the murder of Dando. Bulsara was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Jill Dando but subsequently acquitted, seven years later, on appeal

Years later…


Clarence Mitchell, three days after Madeleine McCann was reported missing, was asked by then Prime Minister Tony Blair to cease his full-time job as Head of the Media Monitoring Unit and work full-time on public relations and reputation management for the McCanns and Hamish Campbell was appointed in May 2011 as the SIO for Operation Grange, the review - now re-investigation - into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann being conducted by Scotland Yard

The Jill Dando investigation was run out of Belgravia Police Station, London. So is Operation Grange.

Barry Bulsara was wrongly convicted by a jury and served several years  in jail for an offence he didn’t commit.

In November 1999, a detective named Brian Moore was promoted from the rank of Detective Superintendent (DS) to Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS). At the same time, he left a top secret and very corrupt intelligence unit, CIB3, known as ‘The Untouchables’. The corrupt nature of ‘The Untouchables’ is dealt with at length in a book of the same name by Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn, published in late 2004, nearly 10 years ago. Michael Gillard has recently been at the centre of exposes in the national print media about extensive corruption at the heart of the Metropolitan Police Force. He has researched links between very senior officers in the Met, and a number of leading drugs lords

Belgravia Police Station is close to Harrods, owned by Al-Fayed. Al-Fayed did favours for Begravia-based police officers. Police officers returned the favours. Indeed, there was already an anti-corruption investigation at that time into the so-called ‘Hamper Squad’, a group of Belgravia-based officers who would arrest and harass anyone, including his own employees, suspected of aiding and abetting his bitter business enemy, Lonrho tycoon ‘Tiny’ Rowland. The greedy officers had a continuous supply of free hampers and huge discounts on Harrods goods. Indeed, one honest officer, Bob Loftus, gave the anti-corruption unit the actual names of police officers who had accepted these bribes. No police officer, however, was ever prosecuted for these criminal offences.



DCI Hamish Campbell appeared on CrimeWatch to reinforce in the public’s mind that it was an obsessive loner they were looking for. He asked for the public’s help in identifying such a person.

During the trial, it emerged that during the forensic procedure, Bulsara’s coat was first of all taken to a police studio where it was photographed on a tailor’s dummy. Firearms had previously been photographed at the same studio, raising the possibility of accidental contamination. This extraordinary decision, according to Detective Sergeant Andy Rowell, was made by DCI Hamish Campbell. Campbell he later denied this, but since he was the IO, this convinced no-one.
The question obviously arose as to whether the police might have fabricated the case against Bulsara by deliberately placing a speck of firearm residue in his coat pocket. This suggestion has been given added credibility by the involvement of DCS Brian Moore, the SIO in this case, in another case of a man being fitted up - Ira Thomas.
Given that senior Met officers chose Brian Moore to act as the SIO in the case of Jill Dando’s murder, it is instructive to look at his major role in another case where it was accepted that an innocent man had been ‘fitted up’.
On 30 June 1988, one Freddy Brett was shot at close range in the thigh by a tall black man wearing, according to a witness, a light-coloured coat. It happened outside the Hope & Anchor pub on the River Lee Navigation in north London, an area covered by what later became the very notorious Stoke Newington Police Station.


Ira Thomas was also a tall black man. But he was not the person who shot and injured Brett.


Ira Thomas was convicted of the shooting a year later - but on 13 February 1992, after 2½ years in prison, the Appeal Court, most unusually, quashed the jury’s verdict. The Appeal judges’ verdict was withering: “The victim’s account of events was simply ludicrous”, but also, more relevantly to this article, “The so-called forensic evidence was unavailing”.


Brian Moore, who together with Hamish Campbell may have organised the placing of firearms residue in Barry Bulsara’s pocket, was, in 1988, a senior officer in the Crime Squad in the corruption-ridden Stoke Newington police station. An anti-corruption probe, Operation Jackpot, was set up later and resulted in the conviction of several officers for co-operating with drugs and crime lords in the area. Many corrupt officers, however, escaped conviction.


The original SIO in the Ira Thomas case was Detective Sergeant Gordon Livingstone. Shortly after the shooting of Freddy Brett, however, Livingstone was promoted to the Flying Squad at Rigg Approach, another group of senior officers also riddled with corruption.


On 25 April 1989, two officers, acting on an anonymous but false tip-off, arrested Ira Thomas for the attempted murder of Freddy Brett. One Terry McGuinness searched Thomas’s flat, finding nothing of interest. He did not believe there was any evidence against Thomas. Later that day, at 4.15pm, McGuinness released Thomas, stating on the custody record that the matter had been ‘dealt with’.    


Livingstone had meanwhile recently been replaced as the Head of the Stoke Newington Crime Squad by Brian Moore, now an acting Detective Inspector. At this point in the investigation into the shooting of Freddy Brett, he took over the reins of the investigation. 


At 7.25pm, Brian Moore amended the custody record in ink, as follows:


“With reference to the entry [by McGuinness] timed at 4.15pm, I have now traced a number of statements, which were not available to DC McGuinness at the time he advised the custody officer that this matter had been dealt with. The grievous bodily harm and firearms offences have NOT been concluded and my enquiries are ongoing”.


For whatever reason, maybe to protect the real shooter of Brett, Moore was determined to charge Thomas with the shooting. He refused to release Thomas from custody.


He asked two other detectives, Peter McCullough and Dave Edwards, to search Thomas’s flat again for a ‘light-coloured coat’ which a witness claimed to have seen a black man wearing after the shooting incident with Brett. Two such coats were found and taken for forensic evidence



That same night, police officers McCullough and Edwards searched Thomas’s flat again and, contrary to police procedures, did so without an independent person present. They removed two coats, a beige mac, and a camel-haired coat, shown to Thomas the following morning. Thomas and his flat-mate both insisted they belonged to his flat-mate.  


On 6 June, Moore ’phoned Thomas’s solicitor, Anne Chiarini, to say that no firearms residue had been found on either coat.


Yet less than two months later, on 2 August, Thomas was re-arrested and told that “a second forensic test had found firearms residue in both cuffs of the beige mac, because the scientist carrying out the first test hadn’t rolled down the cuffs properly the first time”.


Thomas was asked to comment on the new evidence against him. He replied: “Yes. You are trying to fit me up”.


Subsequently Stoke Newington Police blocked the release of the original April custody record, but were eventually forced to release it. This caused g Thomas to ‘go ballistic’, because it was evidently wholly false.


The prosecution of Thomas came to court on 19 March 1990 at the Old Bailey.



The Appeal Court heard the appeal on 13 February 1992 and quashed the jury’s majority decision. Thomas was immediately released from prison.
After the trial, new evidence came to light. One Lee Pritchard approached Thomas’s solicitors and told them that officers from Stoke Newington Police Station had approached him and offered him sizeable quantities of heroin if he would make a false statement, saying that he had seen Ira Thomas on the same toad where Brett was shot, carrying a gun in his hand. The offer had been repeated many times, but Pritchard refused to help the police.   


Moore’s career then took a steep upward path, despite his actions in the Ira Thomas case. He was promoted to a top anti-corruption intelligence unit, CIB3, known as ‘The Untouchables’, and later left that elite but corrupt squad to become a DCS at Belgravia Police Station in the Met, soon afterwards becoming the SIO on the Dando case. One would have to raise a question about how a man who was deeply involved with what looked like a deliberate plot to frame an innocent man by planting firearms residue on a coat could ever have been chosen to lead such a high-profile investigation as the Jill Dando murder hunt.

Moore’s career had become entwined with that of Roy Clark.


In 1998, Roy Clark put Moore in charge of investigating allegations of serious corruption at the Flying Squad, based at Rigg Approach. This was a highly questionable appointment because “Moore knew many of the detectives he was now investigating because they had previously worked together at Stoke Newington Police Station” (“The Untouchables, p. 427). 


Brian Moore, as we have seen, was central to the ‘fitting-up’ of Ira Thomas, and the SIO in charge of the deeply flawed arrest and charging of Brian Bulsara over the murder of Jill Dando.


What sort of man put Brian Moore in charge of investigating corruption of a group of officers (at Stoke Newington Police Station), amongst whom he had worked, and where he had been involved in the ‘fitting up’ of a man who wrongly served 2½ years in prison for an offence he did not commit?

By 1996 Clark had been promoted to the dizzy rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, in which capacity he was later to appoint Brian Moore and Hamish Campbell to lead the Jill Dando enquiry.


In 1997, after the election of the new Labour government that year, the Ghost Squad was split up into two units: CIBIC, an intelligence unit, which reported to the core of the ‘Ghost Squad’, now called CIB3. Both units were also subsequently shown to have been corrupt in a number of respects




It is legitimate to examine the career background of Hamish Campbell to try and establish why he was the man chosen by the then Head of the Met Police, Sir Paul Stephenson, to act as the co-ordinator for the "Madeleine McCann" investigation.


He first comes to our notice as the man who bungled the investigation into the killing of Jill Dando, sending an innocent man to jail for 7 years.


But now, on further examination, we find that the co-ordinator of the Dando investigation, with whom Hamish Campbell obviously worked closely, was Brian Moore, who can be shown to have been a participant in the deliberate fitting up of another innocent man, Ira Thomas, in 1999 and 2000.


Moreover, we see that Moore, who was certainly responsible for the wrongful conviction of Ira Thomas, was rapidly fast-tracked in his career by Roy Clark. Clark may well have been the Director of Investigations for the IPCC from 2004 to 2009, and may well be Director of Criminal Investigations for HM Revenue and Customs at the moment. But just a brief examination of his career suggests that he, too, is at the very least a highly controversial character with a number of suspicions concerning him from his time in the Met’s Ghost Squad and in CIB3.



The public has been asked to trust these two men. One of them, Hamish Campbell, was for two years (May 2011 to May 2013) placed in charge of DCI Andy Redwood and around 40 other staff in Operation Grange. Andy Redwood who has changed the timeline to an hour, even though parents evidence suggests otherwise, to include the proof that the little girl was dead and fits in the body scent left. Since when has a timeline excluded the parents evidence to be false, but they aren't being investigated?
 
Crime watch

Now DCI Redwood who has miraculously stated to a TV audience of 6.7 million people, that the girl was being taken home by a man whose child was attending a crèche. DCI Redwood’s CrimeWatch programme told Britain that indeed, according to Redwood, a man from the creche was doing just that, taking his daughter home from the creche at 9.15pm, barefoot, and dressed only in her pyjamas.

 So tell me this Woods for trees, "Did this ‘man from the creche’ take her there in his pyjamas? If he took her there in her clothes, then why was he not carrying her clothes back with him?"

I'm a mother and regularly took my daughters to creche. But never, ever in their pyjamas.  The crèche man doesn't exist and the team have supported Jane Tanner with one thing in mind only- to cover up the McCanns as possible suspects.

Again Grange is falsifying and misleading the public down a crooked path. 

This is just a brief history of the people in charge of the McCanns case, corrupt people with a history of submitting false evidence and are not fit to lead an honest enquiry for a little girl.


Do i have faith in them to be honest?= No, because they have proven themselves not to be.

Do i feel like Barry George and the others that someone will be fitted up as a patsy?

 Yes, because here is my evidence and shows for certain, all these men have been linked to trials where people have been fitted up in the past.

j.rob wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

noseyparker wrote: WOODFOR THE TREES...Point to one single piece of evidence to support your pedo theory

Known paedos operating in the area
Witness reports of the apartment being watched throughout the week
Cleaned scene/prepared perp = expert, not a novice, or an accident
Targeted one child of a certain age, leaving the twins alone, shows the 'event' and the victim were specifically targeted
and here is the most obvious one....................

That SY are searching for an intruder who acted alone, killed Madeleine 'most likely not alive when left the apartment'...whilst also interviewing  paedos who are known to know other paedos who were operating in the area at the time.

They do not do that without having evidence to back that up.

All the evidence points towards the parents and their friends as having an involvement in Madeleine's suspicious disappearance. There IS no evidence of a mystery 'abductor'. The SY may well have quite a good idea about what happened.

As Scarletlaw points out, SY are corrupt. The Mcs have been protected. And the whitewash continues. At public expense.

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

woodforthetrees wrote:

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

How do I know? Read previous posts, no sense in repeating it all again,

Less public support would give SY more reason to bring them in if they thought they were guilty. They do not, hence they are looking for a lone paedo.

Agreed, SY know they have lied in their statements, particularly regarding the rota for checking the kids, however, this does not automatically then mean they killed their daughter and disposed of the body, it simply means they thought they had to cover their arses against neglect charges.

Daryl Dixon wrote:

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

Whether there is little public support for the McCanns, or public mistrust of their version of events, is immaterial. DCI Andy Redwood stated clearly that neither Madeleine's parents, or any of the members of the group that were with her, are either persons of interest or suspects. I personally do not believe that SY are corrupt, or involved in a whitewash. They will have information we are not privy to and their investigation will be based on this, and this alone.

Joss wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

How do I know? Read previous posts, no sense in repeating it all again,

Less public support would give SY more reason to bring them in if they thought they were guilty. They do not, hence they are looking for a lone paedo.

Agreed, SY know they have lied in their statements, particularly regarding the rota for checking the kids, however, this does not automatically then mean they killed their daughter and disposed of the body, it simply means they thought they had to cover their arses against neglect charges.

If SY have no evidence of a burglar/paedo or whatever, which they haven't, and they have no firm evidence against the McC's in the death & disposal of Madeleine either, only that they lied to the police, then is it just a game to SY of pin the tail on the donkey as to who killed and got rid of Maddie? In a wild goose chase to the tune of a cool $10 million? Then i guess this BS will just go on forever?

woodforthetrees wrote:

Joss wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

How do I know? Read previous posts, no sense in repeating it all again,

Less public support would give SY more reason to bring them in if they thought they were guilty. They do not, hence they are looking for a lone paedo.

Agreed, SY know they have lied in their statements, particularly regarding the rota for checking the kids, however, this does not automatically then mean they killed their daughter and disposed of the body, it simply means they thought they had to cover their arses against neglect charges.

If SY have no evidence of a burglar/paedo or whatever, which they haven't, and they have no firm evidence against the McC's in the death & disposal of Madeleine either, only that they lied to the police, then is it just a game to SY of pin the tail on the donkey as to who killed and got rid of Maddie? In a wild goose chase to the tune of a cool $10 million? Then i guess this BS will just go on forever?

I never said they don't have evidence, quite the opposite. I said they don't have evidence which implicates the McCanns or a live abduction. Which means......

They do have evidence for something else...

woodforthetrees wrote:

Daryl Dixon wrote:

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

Whether there is little public support for the McCanns, or public mistrust of their version of events, is immaterial. DCI Andy Redwood stated clearly that neither Madeleine's parents, or any of the members of the group that were with her, are either persons of interest or suspects. I personally do not believe that SY are corrupt, or involved in a whitewash. They will have information we are not privy to and their investigation will be based on this, and this alone.

Exactly Daryl Dixon, thank you.

As much as we all would like to believe they are secretly looking at the McCanns, they have evidence which is pointing them to someone else.

j.rob wrote:

woodforthetrees wrote:

Daryl Dixon wrote:

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

Whether there is little public support for the McCanns, or public mistrust of their version of events, is immaterial. DCI Andy Redwood stated clearly that neither Madeleine's parents, or any of the members of the group that were with her, are either persons of interest or suspects. I personally do not believe that SY are corrupt, or involved in a whitewash. They will have information we are not privy to and their investigation will be based on this, and this alone.

Exactly Daryl Dixon, thank you.

As much as we all would like to believe they are secretly looking at the McCanns, they have evidence which is pointing them to someone else.

I don't agree. The police can't be that thick. What I suspect is that there was a peado network. So I do not believe they are looking for a lone paedo. However it may be there is someone/several people who might squeal. And that, imo, could be very incriminating for the Mcs and their friends. 

Obviously, the parents and their friends are going to be 'people of interest' as they are they last people who saw her alive. And in cases where children disappear mysteriously, it is very often something to do with family and/or close friends and those known to the child.

There is no evidence that the Madeleine McCann case does not fit into the typical scenario. When parents cry 'abduction' and refuse to entertain any other scenario, it is highly suggestive that they have faked an abduction in order to cover up what happened.

This is precisely what happened in this case, imo. It's what Detective Amaral thought. SY know this too. Of course they do.

Who knows what the police are up to? Wasting public money and engaging in a charade I would say.

A complete farce.

woodforthetrees wrote:

Daryl Dixon wrote:

j.rob wrote:woodfortrees wrote: 


Fact is, if they though it was them (which they don't), why spend all that time and money looking for NOT the McCanns, whilst having the McCanns on their doorstep. The answer...they hold evidence which exonerates them.


------


How do you know? There is very little public support now for the McCanns and a great many people seem to mistrust their version of events. The police can't be so thick that they believe the Mcs version of events. 


They know they are lying, imo, but are carrying on with a charade. It's a disgrace.

Whether there is little public support for the McCanns, or public mistrust of their version of events, is immaterial. DCI Andy Redwood stated clearly that neither Madeleine's parents, or any of the members of the group that were with her, are either persons of interest or suspects. I personally do not believe that SY are corrupt, or involved in a whitewash. They will have information we are not privy to and their investigation will be based on this, and this alone.

Exactly Daryl Dixon, thank you.

As much as we all would like to believe they are secretly looking at the McCanns, they have evidence which is pointing them to someone else.

woodforthetrees wrote:

I never said they don't have evidence, quite the opposite. I said they don't have evidence which implicates the McCanns or a live abduction. Which means......

They do have evidence for something else...