OPERATION GRANGE: A COMPLAINT TO THE IPCC

by **Jill Havern** 06.03.15 22:04

6 March 2015

A member of the public has sent us a copy of a detailed letter sent to the Head of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Dame Ann Owers, about Operation Grange.

The letter alleges that the remit of Operation Grange was wrongly limited to investigating only the ‘abduction’ of Madeleine McCann, thereby excluding other possibilities. As such, the letter suggests that Operation Grange is operating wholly contrary to police principles of investigation, in ruling out other lines of enquiry from the start.

The letter also refers to evidence received by Operation Grange since May 2011 which tends to suggest that the McCanns may know what happened to Madeleine and may have hidden her body.

Further, the letter alleges that there is grave doubt about whether ‘Creche Man’ exists, and questions whether the e-fits shown by DCI Redwood on a BBC Crimewatch programme in 2013 could possibly have been drawn up by members of an Irish family, as claimed.

The letter suggests that the above issues, which involve several senior Metropolitan Police officers, constitute serious misconduct.

The letter asks for a full investigation by the IPCC. The same letter has also been sent to H M Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Thomas Winsor.

If you support the aims of such a letter, you might wish to say so in a short e-mail to the IPCC, using this e-mail address:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk

The e-mail address I gave - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk - is the one to use for anyone who has a legitmate complaint about the actions of any police force or individual police officer. If you, for example, have good reasons for believing that any police officer involved in Operation Grange may have been guilty of misconduct, you can write at any time to that e-mail address, setting out the reasons for your concerns. It may be that your concerns about Grange differ from those expressed by the member of the public who contacted us. Don't let that stop you from sending an e-mail addressed to Dame Anne Owers explaining, in your own words, why you think there may have been misconduct in any aspect of Grange, either in the wording of the remit, or in their conduct over the past four years.

I have heard again from the member of the public, who has not yet had a reply from Dame Anne Owers. However, the member of the public has also written to HM Inspector of Constabulary, and has received an acknowledgement.

I will keep members informed when I hear more.

by aiyoyo 06.03.15 23:35

The letter alleges that the remit of Operation Grange was wrongly limited to investigating only the ‘abduction’ of Madeleine McCann, thereby excluding other possibilities.

That is open to interpretation, hence it is subjective IMO. I doubt the IPCC will concede that the interpretation to be a limited one, limited per se to author's interpretation.

It is good that a public member has taken the effort to address the issue thereby obliging IPCC to look into OG. They are taking far too long, showing no sign of nearing completion, no update news of any development in any firm direction whatsoever; and more importantly no hurry to recover the child. It can only mean one thing - they know Madeleine is dead.

It's odd that the Mcs are not urging OG to hurry up either. It's as if Madeleine can wait and as if they are not anxious about recovering an alive Madeleine from the clutches of paedophile.

It will be interesting to see what sort of reply will be forthcoming from IPCC.

by columbostogeys 07.03.15 5:25

aiyoyo wrote:
The letter alleges that the remit of Operation Grange was wrongly limited to investigating only the ‘abduction’ of Madeleine McCann, thereby excluding other possibilities.

That is open to interpretation, hence it is subjective IMO. I doubt the IPCC will concede that the interpretation to be a limited one, limited per se to author's interpretation.

It is good that a public member has taken the effort to address the issue thereby obliging IPCC to look into OG. They are taking far too long, showing no sign of nearing completion, no update news of any development in any firm direction whatsoever; and more importantly no hurry to recover the child. It can only mean one thing - they know Madeleine is dead.

It's odd that the Mcs are not urging OG to hurry up either. It's as if Madeleine can wait and as if they are not anxious about recovering an alive Madeleine from the clutches of paedophile.

It will be interesting to see what sort of reply will be forthcoming from IPCC.

'abduction' by whom....it doesnt say specifically......they could see be investigating the McCanns but are hardly going to put it out on a banner.......

by PMR 07.03.15 10:21

So people are being asked to support a letter ,that's (supposedly )been sent by someone they don't know. There is no evidence as to what this letter ,if indeed it exists, actually says what is reported and if it does then some allegations are potentially libellous . You've got to love armchair experts ,very few on these forums know how a police investigation is carried out. If the Mc's are being investigated OG aren't going to shout it from the roof tops .

by whatsupdoc 07.03.15 12:02

PMR wrote:So people are being asked to support a letter ,that's (supposedly )been sent by someone they don't know. There is no evidence as to what this letter ,if indeed it exists, actually says what is reported and if it does then some allegations are potentially libellous . You've got to love armchair experts ,very few on these forums know how a police investigation is carried out. If the Mc's are being investigated OG aren't going to shout it from the roof tops .

We need to know the exact wording of OG remit.

We can speak for ourselves or by way of a petition if the remit doesn't cover all possibilities.

Please don't scoff at armchair experts. Many people on fora are highly qualified in a whole range of subjects and in some cases more so that the self-proclaimed "Expert".

We don't need to know how a police investigation is carried out, just as we don't need to know the inner workings of a computer to be able to use it. What we do expect is to see some results after nearly eight years given the evidence we have before us.

by PMR 07.03.15 14:36

There are lots of people with a vast range of knowledge on forums. I've used them and, to a degree, been one. By armchair experts I probably mean the same as you do by 'self proclaimed ' experts. As the saying goes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I have to wonder who this member of the public is who has contacted the IPCC and HMIC Tom Winsor then thinks to send a copy to a random , albeit the most read , internet forum

by Guest 07.03.15 14:58

PMR wrote:There are lots of people with a vast range of knowledge on forums. I've used them and, to a degree, been one. By armchair experts I probably mean the same as you do by 'self proclaimed ' experts. As the saying goes a little knowledge is a dangerous thing.
I have to wonder who this member of the public is who has contacted the IPCC and HMIC Tom Winsor then thinks to send a copy to a random , albeit the most read , internet forum

A member of this forum, IMO.

by Guest 07.03.15 18:29

[quote="PMR"]So people are being asked to support a letter ,that's (supposedly )been sent by someone they don't know. There is no evidence as to what this letter ,if indeed it exists, actually says what is reported and if it does then some allegations are potentially libellous . You've got to love armchair experts ,very few on these forums know how a police investigation is carried out. If the Mc's are being investigated OG aren't going to shout it from the roof tops .[/quote]

Nor will anybody else.

Though the Paynes' recent hightailing it into a Ltd, might give us a clue as to (un)foreseen future claimabilities

Time will tell: it always does, doesn't it?

by **Jill Havern** 18.03.15 14:02

Just added another paragraph to the OP. thumbsup

by **PeterMac** 18.03.15 17:24

I think the IPCC has now got its hands full.
Cover up of historical child abuse, involvement of SB, MI 5/6/7/8, Cabinet, . . .
where are they going to start/
How can they possibly break through the many levels of loyalty / threats / Official Secrets Act / happy and contented retirement ?

I would love to think they could do something, and have half-written a letter with other allegations of corruption and/or crass and gross incompetence
drawn from my background experience of managing enquiries,
but am hesitating to send it, on the grounds that it may simply be a waste of a stamp.

by plebgate 18.03.15 17:32

Prob. waste of a stamp PeterM as at this rate we will all have passed to the other side no doubt. smilie

by G-Unit 18.03.15 18:38

From Met Website;

Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

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.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

by Liz Eagles 18.03.15 18:50

G-Unit wrote:
From Met Website;

Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.
The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.
The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.
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.
The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.
The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

Apart from the completely tacky and inappropriate use of the term 'stakeholders' - at what point has it ever been declared by the MET that Portuguese law enforcement agencies (who apparently take the lead in order of primacy) have offered up their complete files for review by the MET?

The Gold Group iirc were managing things even when Leicestershire constabulary were involved.

What an absolute crock.

ETA: I've given up with the promise of/lie transparency. It doesn't exist.

by Tilly-flop 08.04.15 17:37

From:	!enquiries
To:
Subject:	IPCC Reference: 2015/045891
Date:	Wed, 8 Apr 2015 9:53

Dear Mrs ***** (I've blanked my surname)

Thank you for contacting the Independent Police Complaints
Commission (IPCC) in your email of 27 March 2015. Your views have been
noted.

The IPCC is not currently investigating officers involved with
Operation Grange. Should any conduct or complaint matter be referred to us by
the Metropolitan Police then we would decide the appropriate method of
investigation.

Kind regards

Elly Goodman
Customer Contact
Adviser
Independent Police Complaints Commission
Tel: 0300 020 0096
Email:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk<[email=enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk?]mailto:enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk[/email]>
Address: IPCC, PO
Box 473, Sale, M33 0BW
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>

IPCC
Statutory Guidance on the handling of police
complaints<[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]>

The original
of this email was scanned for viruses by the Government Secure Intranet virus
scanning service supplied by Vodafone in partnership with Symantec. (CCTM
Certificate Number 2009/09/0052.) This email has been certified virus
free.
Communications via the GSi may be automatically logged, monitored and/or
recorded for legal purposes.

by DaSteelMan 08.04.15 17:42

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:6 March 2015

A member of the public has sent us a copy of a detailed letter sent to the Head of the Independent Police Complaints Commission, Dame Ann Owers, about Operation Grange.

The letter alleges that the remit of Operation Grange was wrongly limited to investigating only the ‘abduction’ of Madeleine McCann, thereby excluding other possibilities. As such, the letter suggests that Operation Grange is operating wholly contrary to police principles of investigation, in ruling out other lines of enquiry from the start.

The letter also refers to evidence received by Operation Grange since May 2011 which tends to suggest that the McCanns may know what happened to Madeleine and may have hidden her body.

Further, the letter alleges that there is grave doubt about whether ‘Creche Man’ exists, and questions whether the e-fits shown by DCI Redwood on a BBC Crimewatch programme in 2013 could possibly have been drawn up by members of an Irish family, as claimed.

The letter suggests that the above issues, which involve several senior Metropolitan Police officers, constitute serious misconduct.

The letter asks for a full investigation by the IPCC. The same letter has also been sent to H M Inspector of Constabulary, Sir Thomas Winsor.

If you support the aims of such a letter, you might wish to say so in a short e-mail to the IPCC, using this e-mail address:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk

The e-mail address I gave - [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk - is the one to use for anyone who has a legitmate complaint about the actions of any police force or individual police officer. If you, for example, have good reasons for believing that any police officer involved in Operation Grange may have been guilty of misconduct, you can write at any time to that e-mail address, setting out the reasons for your concerns. It may be that your concerns about Grange differ from those expressed by the member of the public who contacted us. Don't let that stop you from sending an e-mail addressed to Dame Anne Owers explaining, in your own words, why you think there may have been misconduct in any aspect of Grange, either in the wording of the remit, or in their conduct over the past four years.

I have heard again from the member of the public, who has not yet had a reply from Dame Anne Owers. However, the member of the public has also written to HM Inspector of Constabulary, and has received an acknowledgement.

I will keep members informed when I hear more.

The remit does not state abduction at all.

by Knitted 08.04.15 18:06

DaSteelMan wrote:
The remit does not state abduction at all.

The remit states "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... ".

I think it not at all unreasonable to seek clarification as to why the use of the word 'abduction' was used and not, for example, 'disappearance' or 'crime'.

by DaSteelMan 08.04.15 18:27

apologies, yes it does.

My eyesight is getting worse.

by Knitted 08.04.15 18:49

Easily done!

Interestingly my complaint (sent 20th March) to the IPCC was forwarded by them to the Professional Standards Dept of the Serious Misconduct Investigations unit (PSD/SMIU) at the Met. The line the IPCC used in their reply to me was "...our role at this stage is to forward your complaint to...". It's odd that I seem to be the lucky one to have had the IPCC take some action, albeit it's only allocating a case reference number and forwarding it to the PSD/SMIU.

I am therefore currently waiting the designated 15 working days for a reply from the Met as to whether or not their remit is restricted to an 'abduction' scenario.

The IPCC advised me if I am not happy with the reply from the Met I have "the right to appeal" back via the IPCC.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.04.15 10:33

Knitted wrote:Easily done!

Interestingly my complaint (sent 20th March) to the IPCC was forwarded by them to the Professional Standards Dept of the Serious Misconduct Investigations Unit (PSD/SMIU) at the Met. The line the IPCC used in their reply to me was "...our role at this stage is to forward your complaint to...". It's odd that I seem to be the lucky one to have had the IPCC take some action, albeit it's only allocating a case reference number and forwarding it to the PSD/SMIU.

I am therefore currently waiting the designated 15 working days for a reply from the Met as to whether or not their remit is restricted to an 'abduction' scenario.

The IPCC advised me if I am not happy with the reply from the Met I have "the right to appeal" back via the IPCC.

I have also written to Dane Ann Owers in support of the member of the public, and in my letter I pointed out that for Operation Grange staff (and those above them) to set a remit which excluded in advance many obvious lines of investigation and which appears, since it was set up, to have continued to do so, could very clearly amount to the crimianl offence of 'perverting the course of justice'.

Yesterday I had a similar reply to the one sent to 'Knitted' - minde came from Detective Sergeant Lewis, who is a member of the 'Complaints Support Team'.

My complaint was apparently forwarded from the IPCC to the Met Police without me being informed. The Met Police's letter was dated 2 April and so it took a whole week to reach me.

The relevant parts of his letter were as follows:

"It was my role to review the information in [your letter] and consider whether to formally record it as a complaint or not. By this I mean whether or not to accept it as a formal complaint and investigate it in more detail. Whilst reviewing your complaint it became clear to me that it didn't meeet the requirements of a complaint under the Police Reform Act 2002. I referred it to my chief inspector, who has delegated authority from the [IPCC] Commissioner. They confirmed that your complamt didn't need to be officially recorded. We will therefore not be taking it forward for investigation. The reason I made this decision is because: you do not constitute a complainant under the Police Reform Act 2002 as you have not been adversely affected by the matter".

It then adds: "Please be assured that we take any complaint against the police seriously...If you think you have reason to appeal this decision, you can do so through the IPCC. The IPCC consider all appeals when a complaint is not recorded. You have 28 days from the date after the date of this letter to make your appeal..."

Well, I have already exercised my right of appeal.

My appeal letter included the following reasons:

"Where credible evidence is presented to the IPCC and to the Head of the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department that senior Met Police officers have committed crimes, as I have done in my two letters, the IPCC and Met have no option other than to ensure that those crimes are appropriately and robustly investigated... I am not aware of any Section of the Police Reform Act which authorises anyone, whether IPCC or any police force, to refuse to record and investigate a credible complaint of a serious crime known to British law, viz., perverting the course of justice. If you say there is such a Section of the Act, please inform me which".

by Richard IV 10.04.15 10:57

Met Police reply to Tony Bennett says "you do not constitute a complainant under the Police Reform Act 2002 as you have not been adversely affected by the matter".

I`m surprised by this - so you have to be personally adversely affected before you`re even allowed to complain huh

That would mean no one could complain on someone else`s behalf and it would mean the police could get away with all sorts if only the victim is allowed to complain. Maybe I`ve not understood it correctly.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.04.15 11:01

Richard IV wrote:Met Police reply to Tony Bennett says "you do not constitute a complainant under the Police Reform Act 2002 as you have not been adversely affected by the matter".
I`m surprised by this - so you have to be personally adversely affected before you`re even allowed to complain

That would mean no one could complain on someone else`s behalf and it would mean the police could get away with all sorts if only the victim is allowed to complain. Maybe I`ve not understood it correctly.

Actually, I do not think that the Met Police's interpretation is a correct interpretation of the Police Reform Act and I have, in addition therefore, asked urgently for full clarification as to where exactly in the Act that is supposed to be set out

by Guest 10.04.15 11:06

Richard IV wrote:Met Police reply to Tony Bennett says "you do not constitute a complainant under the Police Reform Act 2002 as you have not been adversely affected by the matter".

I`m surprised by this - so you have to be personally adversely affected before you`re even allowed to complain

That would mean no one could complain on someone else`s behalf and it would mean the police could get away with all sorts if only the victim is allowed to complain. Maybe I`ve not understood it correctly.

Taxpayers are adversely affected if the Police are wasting OUR money!!!

This is a cop-out (so to speak).

by roy rovers 10.04.15 11:54

Richard IV wrote:Met Police reply to Tony Bennett says "you do not constitute a complainant under the Police Reform Act 2002 as you have not been adversely affected by the matter".

I`m surprised by this - so you have to be personally adversely affected before you`re even allowed to complain

That would mean no one could complain on someone else`s behalf and it would mean the police could get away with all sorts if only the victim is allowed to complain. Maybe I`ve not understood it correctly.

So if a person is killed by the police nobody but the dead person can complain?

by Angelique 10.04.15 12:17

These Regulations are written precisely so the user can interpret them to fit any scenario.

It's whether you can understand and realise that they are doing it.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.04.15 12:19

roy rovers wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Met Police reply to Tony Bennett says "you do not constitute a complainant under the Police Reform Act 2002 as you have not been adversely affected by the matter".

I`m surprised by this - so you have to be personally adversely affected before you`re even allowed to complain

That would mean no one could complain on someone else`s behalf and it would mean the police could get away with all sorts if only the victim is allowed to complain. Maybe I`ve not understood it correctly.

So if a person is killed by the police nobody but the dead person can complain?

The surviving close relatives can certainly complain e.g. in the cases of the deaths of Stuart Lubbock, Alex Barrack and Lee Balkwell which I've personally investigated.

But my complaint to the IPCC was not that I had been personally affected - rather that senior Met Police officers might be guilty of the crime of perverting the course of justice. And credible allegations of crimes MUST be investigated.

Just like those evil Met Police officers of days not-so-long-gone-by are now being investigated - senior Met POlice officers who protected the savage and cruel Westminster paedophiles who abused young and vulnerable children to satisfy their unbridled, perverted lusts

by Joss 10.04.15 14:34

Tony Bennett wrote:
roy rovers wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Met Police reply to Tony Bennett says "you do not constitute a complainant under the Police Reform Act 2002 as you have not been adversely affected by the matter".

I`m surprised by this - so you have to be personally adversely affected before you`re even allowed to complain

That would mean no one could complain on someone else`s behalf and it would mean the police could get away with all sorts if only the victim is allowed to complain. Maybe I`ve not understood it correctly.

So if a person is killed by the police nobody but the dead person can complain?
The surviving close relatives can certainly complain e.g. in the cases of the deaths of Stuart Lubbock, Alex Barrack and Lee Balkwell which I've personally investigated.

But my complaint to the IPCC was not that I had been personally affected - rather that senior Met Police officers might be guilty of the crime of perverting the course of justice. And credible allegations of crimes MUST be investigated.

Just like those evil Met Police officers of days not-so-long-gone-by are now being investigated - senior Met POlice officers who protected the savage and cruel Westminster paedophiles who abused young and vulnerable children to satisfy their unbridled, perverted lusts

ITA, and those responsible for their dastardly deeds in the matter need to be held fully accountable for their criminal behaviour and punished by the full extent of the law in crimes against the vulnerable child victims they did not protect as officers sworn to uphold the laws. What a cruel and unjust world we live in where things like this happen around us secretly to the most vulnerable members of our societies.

by Joss 10.04.15 14:36

BlueBag wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Met Police reply to Tony Bennett says "you do not constitute a complainant under the Police Reform Act 2002 as you have not been adversely affected by the matter".

I`m surprised by this - so you have to be personally adversely affected before you`re even allowed to complain

That would mean no one could complain on someone else`s behalf and it would mean the police could get away with all sorts if only the victim is allowed to complain. Maybe I`ve not understood it correctly.

Taxpayers are adversely affected if the Police are wasting OUR money!!!

This is a cop-out (so to speak).

I would think so.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.04.15 22:04

Read this powerful argument from 'lazz' today...

...especially if you still have the remotest hint of a belief that Operation Grange is an honest investigation into the truth...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Then send it, with a covering e-mail, to Dame Ann Owers at the IPCC:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].uk

saying: "I demand that you investigate Operation Grange forthwith".

Don't leave it to a few to do this...

...go on, resolve to help make it many -

and do your bit for the cause

by hentie 20.04.15 7:38

Agree it shouldn't be left to the few.

Email as you suggest Tony, sent .

'lazz' says it all! Excellent.

by Carrry On Doctor 20.04.15 8:24

The overriding theme of Lazz is frustration. We are all frustrated at the apparent lack of progress.

There is no new information in it, just venting anger about what we all know.

The article does nothing to change my view about OG, and I keep the faith.

Just my opinion.