Re: Faith in Op Grange

by String 05.04.15 17:51

Post deleted

by String 05.04.15 20:02

Post deleted

by Guest 05.04.15 20:08

String, no need for personal insults and rudeness. Let's get back on topic, please.

by Guest 05.04.15 20:48

It's very rare there is any such thing as a new member after 8 years of this debacle...

Reinvented members yes... and reinvented reinvented members...

Which is why some people see a new member and go "ok..."...

by Lands_end 05.04.15 21:14

String, you are not disruptive, but please bear in mind that the McCann crew are watching the members here like hawks. The mods are terrified of exposure given what has happened even in the last year. People who get outed in criticism of the McCann official line usually come off worse.

by Angelique 06.04.15 0:42

If RogerRabbit is still a member I would like to reply to his comment to me which I have only just seen. You asked:

"If their actions end up resulting in charges brought against the people who you seem to hope would be charged, would you switch your support in the name of utterly transparent, publicly accountable police investigations?

Or would you regard their deceit and underhandedness as a necessary and cunning tool in catching criminals?

Do you fundamentally oppose undercover police investigation and infiltration techniques? Do you oppose honeytrap intelligence gathering, bait and switch, catch and release, good cop bad cop, and all the other tried , tested and universally employed (pragmatically, of course) tactics?

Are you universally opposed, or do the ends justify the means?"

My answer is if SY behaved in this manner the charges against anyone would fall at the first fence.

They would not, as far as I know, prosecute this case.

And finally I actually don't believe Gerry and Kate are in any way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter. I bet that comes as a shock, but it's my opinion.

by Guest 06.04.15 8:49

Hi Angelique. I was interested in your last paragraph so read some of your posts where in one (28th May 2014) you state that, in your opinion, there was no neglect and it was the babysitter who was responsible. Responsible for MBM's death? On 29th July 2014 you posted that you believed that the Mcs were involved with dealing with the aftermath.

What do you believe happened to MBM?

by **PeterMac** 06.04.15 9:50

Angelique wrote:
And finally I actually don't believe Gerry and Kate are in any way responsible for the disappearance of their daughter. I bet that comes as a shock, but it's my opinion.

do we therefore assume that you do not believe they left the children alone in an unlocked apartment
do we therefore assume that you believe that they have all LIED repeatedly throughout the last 8 years

If so, then you may find many people who believe as you do.

But that would relate only to the death of Madeleine, not to the subsequent disposal of the body.
If you posit a death at the hands of, or in the presence of a babysitter, you are still left with the concealment of the death and the disposal of the cadaver.

For the parents not to be responsible in any way must exclude them from involvement in that, or indeed in knowledge of what occurred.
I would be fascinated to hear your wider view

by jeanmonroe 06.04.15 12:02

XTC on Sat Apr 04, 2015 11:42 pm
.
I won't repeat what has been said in past posts but which part of " As if THE abduction happened in the UK " do we not understand?

It's not a pompous question I hope.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------

I don't 'understand'!

"THE abduction'?

What 'abduction'?

"THE" = DEFINITE (article)

Was there a definite 'abduction' proven beyond contestation,?

WHO has 'proved' Madeleine McCann WAS 'abducted' by anyone?

The Foreign and Commonwealth Office (UK) stated, in writing, that Madeleine McCann is classed as a 'missing' person, as they have no PROOF Madeleine McCann is an 'abducted' person.

OG, in their last 'update' only referred to 'missing' Madeleine McCann's case, as a 'disappearance' NOT 'an abduction'

(istbc)

The 'remit' SHOULD have been 'worded', imo, as 'if AN/A 'abduction' happened in the UK"

NOT "THE abduction"

Is there any DEFINITIVE proof, anywhere, that Madeleine McCann 'was DEFINITELY abducted', beyond her own parents 'say so', provided by OG or anyone else?

I have NEVER heard ex DCI Redwood, in charge of OG for 3 1/2 YEARS, refer to Madeleine McCann's 'disappearance' as a case of 'abduction' let alone 'THE abduction'

Again istbc.

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

"COULD of", not "DID".

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

NOTICE, the use of the word, 'disappearance', NOT 'abduction', let alone 'THE abduction', as per 'OG 'remit' by ex DCI A Redwood.

He (DCI AR) 'believed'

Did the 37 other police/staff at OG, 'share' his 'belief', unquestionally, or did they have OTHER 'explanations' about 'possibilities' surrounding Madeleine McCann's 'disappearance'

Has ex DCI Redwood ever 'provided' irrefutable 'evidence' that Madeleine McCann's 'disappearance' WAS 'a criminal act by a stranger'?

As he , solely?, 'believes'?

And that is what i don't 'understand'

The words 'as if THE abduction........', in OG 'remit'

Show me PROOF that Madeleine McCann 'WAS definitely abducted' by anyone, let alone a 'stranger'

and i'll gladly believe, 'THE abduction' of Madeleine McCann.

'PROOF', of ' THE abduction' PLEASE.

What i do 'understand', is that, both, R O'B AND DP 'cast DOUBT' on the McCann's 'claim' of 'abduction' of their daughter!

by Bishop Brennan 06.04.15 13:13

As Sir Humphrey famously said: "... never start an enquiry unless you know what its findings will be.”

Setting a remit that steers an enquiry exactly where you need it to go is nothing new. It's very effective and it provides wide-eyed deniability for all those involved if ever it emerges that the answer lay outside the bounds of the enquiry.

by comperedna 06.04.15 14:40

Very well put, BB.

by Liz Eagles 06.04.15 15:45

comperedna wrote:Very well put, BB.

I'll second that. It sums things up perfectly for me. Well said Bishop Brennan.

by logical 06.04.15 16:00

Off topic - Post deleted

by comperedna 06.04.15 16:30

The thread isn't locked on my machine. Anyone can write in.

by comperedna 06.04.15 16:42

"I personally didnt /dont view Roger Rabbit as a disrupter to the contrary I see him as one of the best articulate posters ever on this forum who should be encouraged to keep posting instead of being hounded out by false accusations from members not up to his intellectual level,all in My Opinion of course."

Just shows, in the last few words of the above, how very different opinions on here can be. I found Mr Rabbit's postings to be opaque and rather confused... ah well. I guess everyone is entitled to post if their contributions are not libellous or otherwise disobeying of the admin rules.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.15 16:50

logical wrote:I thought this forum was meant to be open and democratic? Why has this thread been locked?

I have been a reader of this forum since its foundation and in my opinion Roger Rabbits' post on this thread have been among the top posts ever

He has certainly brought out some 'Senior Members' colours here whom because they had no answers or factual rebuttals to his posts

had to resort to insults and ridiculous 2-liners yes aquila I'm talking about you.

I noticed Tony hasn't been able to debate with Roger Rabbit either.

REPLY: I have zero interest in doing so, as he posts as an apologist for Operation Grange and all those behind it - and IMO IS disrupting (as I think you are).

I personally didn't/don't view Roger Rabbit as a disrupter, to the contrary I see him as one of the best articulate posters ever on this forum

who should be encouraged to keep posting instead of being hounded out by false accusations from members not up to his intellectual level

all in My Opinion of course

REPLY: Of course

by Liz Eagles 06.04.15 16:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
logical wrote:I thought this forum was meant to be open and democratic? Why has this thread been locked?

I have been a reader of this forum since its foundation and in my opinion Roger Rabbits' post on this thread have been among the top posts ever

He has certainly brought out some 'Senior Members' colours here whom because they had no answers or factual rebuttals to his posts

had to resort to insults and ridiculous 2-liners yes aquila I'm talking about you.

I noticed Tony hasn't been able to debate with Roger Rabbit either.

REPLY: I have zero interest in doing so, as he posts as an apologist for Operation Grange and all those behind it - and IMO IS disrupting (as I think you are).

I personally didn't/don't view Roger Rabbit as a disrupter, to the contrary I see him as one of the best articulate posters ever on this forum

who should be encouraged to keep posting instead of being hounded out by false accusations from members not up to his intellectual level

all in My Opinion of course

REPLY: Of course

You don't have to be an intellectual to smell bullshit.

by **sharonl** 06.04.15 18:09

Please remember that this forum is about seeking truth and justice for a little girl, it is not a battleground.

We will not tolerate disruption or attacks on any poster.

Two obvious disruptors have already been excluded

Please stay on topic.

by Liz Eagles 06.04.15 18:27

On topic.

How many cases of missing children have the senior officer seated in a helicopter having his photo taken by a selected agency?

Is it normal for a SIO to take a front seat in a search helicopter or is it usually done by officers who are better placed in that discipline?

by **sharonl** 06.04.15 19:55

aquila wrote:On topic.

How many cases of missing children have the senior officer seated in a helicopter having his photo taken by a selected agency?

Is it normal for a SIO to take a front seat in a search helicopter or is it usually done by officers who are better placed in that discipline?

Answer A: One

Answer B: it depends on whether it is a genuine investigation or just a staged event for the media.

by **Tony Bennett** 06.04.15 21:00

How about this?

How common is it for a review of an investigation with three declared suspects in the case already to begin with a remit completely ruling out two of the three suspects from the get-go?

Or this?

How common is it for a Senior Investigating Officer to spend six months and about £2 million of BBC and Met Police money organising a show with:
a) a grossly misleading reconstruction,
b) two e-fits of distrinctly different blokes,
c) allegedly drawn up a year after the person who saw the bloke in the dark for a few seconds said he'd never be able to recognise him again,
d) and which had been kept under wraps for well over 5 years?

----------------------------

@ Roger Rabbit if he's still here:

To save you supplying an anwser, your answer to the above question would be: "Are you too thick to see (as I can) that this is a cunning plot by the best detectives in the country to find the people really responsible for Madeleine's disappearance?".

Then 'scrants', 'TheTruthWillOut' and 'logical' will follow up with "How brilliant thou art, Roger"

by Angelique 06.04.15 23:43

Ladyinred wrote:Hi Angelique. I was interested in your last paragraph so read some of your posts where in one (28th May 2014) you state that, in your opinion, there was no neglect and it was the babysitter who was responsible. Responsible for MBM's death? On 29th July 2014 you posted that you believed that the Mcs were involved with dealing with the aftermath.

What do you believe happened to MBM?

Hi Ladyinred

Sorry for the delay in replying.

My opinion hasn't changed from my previous posts you mention. I am still of the opinion that K & G were not responsible for whatever occurred which meant that the discovery of Madeleine would not be possible. I don't agree with neglect at all.

@PeterMac

I do still think they had to deal with the aftermath but I also believe that they had no choice and that they would never be held responsible for whatever they did do. I think this is what Ironside aka SteelMagnolia was told when she spoke to OG. That K & G would never see the inside of a Court room with respect to anything regarding the disappearance of Madeleine. But this is only my opinion at this time.

by Guest 07.04.15 0:04

Thanks for your response, Angelique. I'm a little confused (it's very late for me to be still awake), could you be more specific?

by Angelique 07.04.15 0:28

Ladyinred wrote:Thanks for your response, Angelique. I'm a little confused (it's very late for me to be still awake), could you be more specific?

Hello again Ladyinred

Sorry if I was being too brief.

I think someone else within the group was responsible for what happened to Madeleine. Although GA said, at the time he was in charge of investigation, that Madeleine had suffered an accident and fell off the sofa in the apartment and landed on the floor undiscovered until too late. I don't believe this and maybe GA will think differently now, who knows. With what he has already gone through and is going through as we speak he must have some inkling of what he is up against, not just the McCanns. He has even suggested it's Political. So he does know. I also think that Gerry's "smirking" although it looks like "dupers delight" - well, yes in a way it is, but it's because he knows he is untouchable, they both are IMO.

As the person involved in whatever happened to Madeleine whoever it is, is important, the whole HMG machinery swung into action and arrived very quickly on the scene. This does not happen for the normal holiday-maker. As we have seen and continue to see no matter what evidence anyone has it will be destroyed or discredited, in the case of the dogs, totally ignored. I do think that whatever happened to Madeleine happened before May 3rd. It would necessarily have taken some time even for HMG to get all necessary people on board. For some reason they decided on a course of action that required K & G to state that Madeleine had been abducted. I think this is the bit that I don't like, if I am right in what I think it is about. I can't put it into this reply in words but I think it relates to The Fund if you see what I mean. They had to be In front of the cameras, reporting, pleading, etc. How else could they have The Fund?

I hope this explains my theory of what I think happened.

by jeanmonroe 07.04.15 15:55

Angelique wrote:

"As the person involved in whatever happened to Madeleine whoever it is, is important, the whole HMG machinery swung into action and arrived very quickly on the scene. This does not happen for the normal holiday-maker. As we have seen and continue to see no matter what evidence anyone has it will be destroyed or discredited, in the case of the dogs, totally ignored. I do think that whatever happened to Madeleine happened before May 3rd. It would necessarily have taken some time even for HMG to get all necessary people on board. For some reason they decided on a course of action that required K & G to state that Madeleine had been abducted. I think this is the bit that I don't like, if I am right in what I think it is about. I can't put it into this reply in words but I think it relates to The Fund if you see what I mean. They had to be In front of the cameras, reporting, pleading, etc. How else could they have The Fund?"
--------------------------------------------------------------------

I'm none the 'clearer', sorry.

Are you 'saying' the 'Fund' is, somehow, their 'recompense' for er, 'keeping schtum' about what 'happened' to Madeleine by a V.I.P. to the Labour government, of the day?

And that the Labour HMG, of the day, 'conspired' with the McCann's, to have all the 'donators' to the 'fund', including handicapped kiddies, 'duped' into 'donating' to the 'fund'?

Is the 'fund' then, iyo, 'fraudulent'?

"Set up" AFTER the McS and HMG 'knew' what had happened to Madeleine 'on or before' 3rd May 2007.

WHY the 'pretence' then, of ongoing, taxpayers, £12 million+, OG?

If all HMG, and previous HMG, 'know' what 'happened' to Madeleine McCann, on or before, 3rd May 2007.

WHY would the Conservatives have any 'truck', whatsoever, with what a V.I.P. to a LABOUR 'government' did, or did not, 'do' to a defenceless 3 years old child?

If you 'know' a 'name' just 'mis-spell' or initial who you 'think' was 'involved'.

Save us a lot of 'time'..............'searching' for a 'name', wouldn't it?

The only 'name' i can think of, remotely associated, with Labour goverment, at the time, is MP MH's 'nephew', PME.

Who was 'booked' in Praia da Luz, as his choice of holiday venue, for the week 28 April to 5 May 2007.

PME 'left' a day earlier than scheduled, on 4th May 2007.

But that, is all 'on record'

Although PME has 'said' this: "'In fact one of the most terrible parts of this tragedy is that there are people out there who are questioning this, just adding further to the nightmare that the McCann family have suffered. I cannot imagine anything crueller."

WHY he thinks people, 'out there', should NOT 'be questioning' the yet UNEXPLAINED 'disappearance', by the UK's er, umm, 'finest' Police force, SY/MET, of a 3 years old child, is another 'matter' entirely! (imo)

by Guest 07.04.15 18:59

Angelique wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:Thanks for your response, Angelique. I'm a little confused (it's very late for me to be still awake), could you be more specific?

Hello again Ladyinred

Sorry if I was being too brief.

I think someone else within the group was responsible for what happened to Madeleine. Although GA said, at the time he was in charge of investigation, that Madeleine had suffered an accident and fell off the sofa in the apartment and landed on the floor undiscovered until too late. I don't believe this and maybe GA will think differently now, who knows. With what he has already gone through and is going through as we speak he must have some inkling of what he is up against, not just the McCanns. He has even suggested it's Political. So he does know. I also think that Gerry's "smirking" although it looks like "dupers delight" - well, yes in a way it is, but it's because he knows he is untouchable, they both are IMO.

As the person involved in whatever happened to Madeleine whoever it is, is important, the whole HMG machinery swung into action and arrived very quickly on the scene. This does not happen for the normal holiday-maker. As we have seen and continue to see no matter what evidence anyone has it will be destroyed or discredited, in the case of the dogs, totally ignored. I do think that whatever happened to Madeleine happened before May 3rd. It would necessarily have taken some time even for HMG to get all necessary people on board. For some reason they decided on a course of action that required K & G to state that Madeleine had been abducted. I think this is the bit that I don't like, if I am right in what I think it is about. I can't put it into this reply in words but I think it relates to The Fund if you see what I mean. They had to be In front of the cameras, reporting, pleading, etc. How else could they have The Fund?

I hope this explains my theory of what I think happened.

Thanks for taking the time to explain your theory, Angelique.

by logical 07.04.15 21:11

Post deleted

by **Tony Bennett** 07.04.15 21:55

logical wrote:Is this Tony's forum ?

I seem to recall that the topic here is 'Faith in Operation Grange'.

So you've strayed off-topic again.

But this is where you came in, isn't it, 'logical'?

You were one of a dozen or so (mostly proven disruptors) who suddenly rushed to join this forum the moment I popped my head above the parapet and raised serious doubts about the 'Smith sighting'.

You first posted on CMOMM at 3.43pm on Friday 18 October - 4 days after the BBC Crimewatch-cum-Met Police McCann Show, with the message: "Hi! I'm new here!"

12 minutes later [3.55pm], you began your attack as follows:

"So the entire Smith family made up the story Tony??? Young Aoife Smith made up her discription of the clothes the man was wearing which happens to be identical to Gerry McCann's uncommon buttons on the side trousers??

"You and PeterMac therefore disagree with Goncalo Amaral and Pat Brown's belief in this Smith sighting??"

Things have still not changed over the past 18 months.

You, Roger Rabbit and a few others have an apparently undying faith in (a) the utter, wholehearted sincerity of the Operation Grange team and (b) the reliability of what the Smiths say.

You probably also believe that 'Crecheman' is genuine.

On all these issues I have a wholly different view.

As has been plain for the past 18 months, the forum-owner and the Mods here ave continued to allow a free flow of debate about whether Grange is a whitewash or not and whether or not the Smiths really did produce those 2 e-fits of different-looking men.

I saw that sharonl referred to two disruptors having been shown the door, a decision of which I heartily approve. If one of them was 'Roger Rabbit', so much the better.

'comperenda' was very kind to decribe the Rabbit's posts as 'opaque'. I still suggest that 'rubbish' was much nearer the mark

by Knitted 07.04.15 23:16

logical wrote:Snipped:

Has Roger Rabbit been barred for being too Articulate with his posts That Tony and Aquila couldn't (not wouldn't) respond to ?

Snipped: Is this Tonys Forum ?

Hi Logical,

For what it's worth...I don't think there's any bias in this forum. There are undoubtedly dominant voices and characters, (Tony and Aquila fit into that category), but so what? It takes all sorts and people bring different things to the forum. I can get as much value out of some of the very short postings from more succinct posters on here as much as any 1000 word post from those who like me can sometimes be prone to using 100 words instead of 10. What matters is the rationality and logic of the point(s) being made, nothing else.

Online we don't get the nonverbal signals that we pick up on when talking face to face, and so online discussions inevitably descend into (perceived) negativity. Various scientific experiments have shown that recipients tend to (mis)interpret positive online messages as being more neutral than the sender intended, and by the same token they (mis)interpret neutral text as being more negative. Those experiments showed this is especially true when criticism or challenge is being received, (n.b. Interestingly on dating sites the 'flow' often goes the other way and readers interpret poster's neutral comments as being more positive and along the likes of "he/she likes me" when they shouldn't). So, my mantra when I read things in forums that I disagree with, especially when they are directed at me, is to force on some big rose-tinted specs and re-read it, because the science tells me that my brain is inevitably reading the text far more negatively than was intended by whoever wrote it.

My personal experience on this site: I think I've incurred Aquila's wrath (& mistrust!) once or twice, but I've also had Aquila saying they agree with. So the evidence suggests they're fair. When it comes to Tony, he's got a vast knowledge of the case but I don't agree with all his analysis and opinions.. However, I'd rather a site where healthy argument happens, than a site where it doesn't and where shills and/or misguided individuals get to freely post all manner of chaff without challenge and thus the important stuff is swamped and buried.

Rest assured most readers will probably make their own minds up (or remain on the fence) based upon the merit of respective arguments... and not who's making them, nor how many words are typed or the quality of the grammar. Rationality and logic are ultimately what count.

My point, therefore, is that we shouldn't take anything too personally.

As regards shills and trouble-makers. I'm sure we've all got a few names logged in our grey cells as to who we think (know!) are up to no good, and of course I'm sure we all (think we) see 'suspicious patterns' from time to time. It's inevitable they're here and are no doubt motivated for different reasons... but ultimately it's the debate, the exchange and the challenge and counter-challenge that matters. Facts can't be buried when robust challenge happens... It's a shame when things get personal, but it's unfortunately par-for-the-course online but thankfully this site seems to be much better at avoiding it than most...& I'd suggest that ironically it's exactly because of the healthy, logical, challenging that goes on, (other sites seem to entertain less 'fact based' debates and thus descend more quickly into emotion and silliness).

by Angelique 08.04.15 2:10

Ladyinred

:)

jeanmonroe

I think I have explained as much as I am able to in the circumstances.

I don't believe it was the nephew PME.

I don't believe it was an MP.

I think the Fund is fraudulent but allowed to be.

At the time of the request for a Review/Investigation SY were facing cuts - it solved a problem of manpower.

The suggestion that "enough is enough" has come at a point when, how did they put it "we are facing increased terrorists threats" - how convenient!

If OG is wound up the men can return to their previous posts.

This is only IMO.