Re: Faith in Op Grange

by HelenMeg 27.03.15 12:13

Interesting discussion....

The Home Secretary opened the review and continues to fund the review / investigation.
Whether it will be closed or continued has to be down to DC..
Whether it reveals truth, partial truth or lies is surely down to DC.

As another poster pointed out the other day, if it is closed or performs a whitewash, that closure / whitewash will simply be one step in a continuing process... whtewash today.. truth tomorrow (or at some stage).

The only way to put this to bed properly is to produce the truth - is DC up to that?

by jeanmonroe 27.03.15 13:05

The Home Secretary opened the review
--------------------------------------

The Home Secretary, T May, was er, umm,'threatened' with front page 'exposures' about HER, until she er, 'relented', by RB, and did DC's 'bidding'

Possibly after him having a 'country supper' with the Brooks.

The Home Secretary, T May, was er 'persuaded' by RB/CM, NI (and Murdoch?), to supply, ensure, 'unlimited taxpayer funding' to instigate a 'review' which CHANGED to an 'investigation', (McS never 'saw that coming', imo) which has NEVER been 'explained' by the Home Office OR the MPS.

Afaik, to date, the HS, T May seems to have been rather 'incurious', these past 4 YEARS, about the case she has authorised 'unlimited taxpayers funding' for.

However, she, T May 'knows' that she and DC will be 'right in the frame' should the case they 'champion', go 'pear shaped'

Hence the 'focus' on 'something, anything', to avoid THAT, at ANY 'cost'!

Even to the extent of 'appointing' a known McCann 'sympathiser' BHH, after Stephenson, as MET Commissioner, THE ultimate 'big cheese' for OG?

£11 1/2 MILLION, to date!

"INCURIOUS GEORGE" (Entwhistle) DG @ the BBC regards SaVILE.

"INCURIOUS THERESA" (May) HS @ the Home Office regards McCanns?

by rustyjames 27.03.15 13:46

jeanmonroe wrote:
"........I find hard to believe in the current climate is that a team the size of OG will not have people currently or previously in it that have not read the files..."

rj 'finds' it hard to believe OG 'staff' HAVE NOT 'read the files'.

Exactly - in fact the whole sentence wasn't so much finding it improbable that members of the team hadn't read the files or been aware of discussions on sites like this, as I'm sure they have, but more that they wouldn't have then also questioned the lines of enquiry or remit if their scope was restricted, and what kind of answer could have been supplied to them.

by Guest 27.03.15 20:15

The story of our faith in operacao casa velha.

Long, long time ago there was a leader of a nation that send a urgent message to his men, we need to win a race so get me a horse.

A lady of his clan said, okay, i will ask for a horse, so she send out a message to the stables please send me a horse.

What horse do you need milady? I do not mind, any horse will do, so the message was send out through the continent: our leader need a horse, any will one will do.

Somewhere on the iberian peninsula a small nation said, ho ho, we are the master of all the horses of this kind. But okay, for old times sake we will look into your horse quest.

After a lot of talking this little nation decide to send out a old criple nag, because that is what any horse will do is, just that one you won’t miss. They had tried and tested this horse for a long time and it was not fit for their own quest.

Over the sea, in the land of the leader, there was hurrah everywhere, the horse is found, let bring it to the start!

Okay, said the horse master bring it to my stables and i will train it.

As you can not look a given horse at his teeth, the horse master just did what he promised. And so the story of a horse called operação casa velha started.

But any time the stable master brought the horse out to race it, it was still cripple, month after month , year after year, the old cripple nag was brought to the start but every time is did go out, it was taken out as unfit to race.

So 4 years later and the any horse will do did not get to take up racing. Every man in the street could see why and should have known, that sending a cripple old nag to the start, would be useless. For racing you need a fit horse!

Except there were 2 citizens that still keep on screaming: you have to look into this horse, keep up his training, even if the fee is to high, it must start, we know it have to. This is not any horse, this is the any horse that will do. We know it cann! Why, just because we told you so!

But it was not the horse for a leader to bring the nation proud, he did send his best people to get the horse in and train it, feed it and pamper it, to the best, by the best.
The stable master even give it a female jockey.
But in the end the old crippled nag would never be fit to race at all.

So they get very nervous, the people of the nation let go their believe in the any horse that will do. So what now?

Lets paint it white so it looks nice and shining, said the painter, no that would not work, said a stable lad,it still would be cripple. Better to kill all the other horses in the race, so only this horse could win, said the butcher. But that would look to obvious, the people would not accept that, said the stable master.

Okay, said a little voice, lets run it in smoke and fog, we just tell the people how good it had raced, even nobody could have seen it run, they will believe it, they always will believe what we tell them. So it always has been and always will be.

And so the old crippled nag was brought out to race under cover of a smokescreen, and the story of his well run race was outed to the people of the nation and all of then did believe it.

The singers and musicians made it known through the whole of the nation, even the swans and ducks in the ponds of scotland had heard it!
The 2 happy citizens said as a comment: See, we told you so, this was a very good horse, it won the race, it was doable, we always keep faith in this horse. We always said it was a winner and it was.

And for now all people of brittain, get your eyes shut, shut up your mouths and let your fingers rest from the keyboard and sleep well. And tomorrow we bring you the story of the piedpiper in parlement. Nighty night to you all!

by missbeetle 27.03.15 20:22

What a cracking post, Onehand!

Thank you.

by cbeagle 27.03.15 20:53

I wonder what is said about Operation Grange on the "closed online forum for serving or ex-Met staff" ...

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

by jeanmonroe 28.03.15 12:58

cbeagle wrote:I wonder what is said about Operation Grange on the "closed online forum for serving or ex-Met staff" ...

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

You don't have to 'wonder' what 'serving' and ex MET police 'staff' are saying in 'closed' online forums, here's a 'comment' from a serving MET police officer, posted on an OPEN online forum.............HERE!

"OG and Redwood are a f**king embarrassment, a f**king JOKE, to all us honest serving MET cops and MPS"

Now WHY would a serving MET cop, say THAT?

thinking

by Liz Eagles 28.03.15 17:37

Going to the original thread title.

Faith in Operation Grange.

I lack any faith, just as I lack faith in the media, the government and those who make a mint out of writing about the demise of a little girl for their own financial reward.

by Guest 28.03.15 18:38

"OG and Redwood are a f**king embarrassment, a f**king JOKE, to all us honest serving MET cops and MPS"

If they didn't start with the bleedin' obvious then they are a f joke.

by Guest 28.03.15 20:08

Commander Simon Foy was in charge of the Jill Dando review and also in charge of the McCann review.

by XTC 29.03.15 0:03

rustyjames wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
"........I find hard to believe in the current climate is that a team the size of OG will not have people currently or previously in it that have not read the files..."

rj 'finds' it hard to believe OG 'staff' HAVE NOT 'read the files'.

Exactly - in fact the whole sentence wasn't so much finding it improbable that members of the team hadn't read the files or been aware of discussions on sites like this, as I'm sure they have, but more that they wouldn't have then also questioned the lines of enquiry or remit if their scope was restricted, and what kind of answer could have been supplied to them.

They should have read the files.

It takes a lot of chutzpah for the British to come riding in like White Knight on a steed thereby inferring that the Portuguese didn't know what they were doing - the poor fools. We are here to save you from ridicule.

Not only had they ( the Portuguese ) misled sad Brunty and his acolytes, it also looked like they had misled themselves.

For my money Mr Amaral and his merry men were ( and are no fools) on the right lines.

The greatest diversion was to discredit the initial investigation. They succeeded but only for British public consumption.

It is the reason why no publisher would have touched Amaral's book with a bargepole.

The PR battle has always been between the UK and the rest of the world. Not even in the US has The Truth of the Lie been published in
English. Only through the net has an English version been seen.

This is the game being played in the media.

In the real world the PJ SY and others need more evidence to secure a solid conviction.

The public ( read British ) remit is to investigate as if THE ABDUCTION happened in the UK.

Generally parents do not abduct their own children unless their is a problem. Madeleine's parents did not have that problem ergo " abduction "
takes on a separate and very clear meaning. i.e. - It wasn't the parents.

This inevitably leads to the public statement that the parents are not being investigated- despite reading the files etc etc.

If they ( there is that possibility of the other 7 being investigated by the way) are not being investigated then some ' others ' are.

As yet the ' others ' have produced a big fat zero. The question for SY and the PJ is where do you go now?

Personally I don't see where the investigation can go other than back on the shelf.

The ball lies firmly in the Portuguese's court. They either accept more wild goose chases or they don't.

Or they defend the initial investigation and add their own evidence to it or they declare that there is not enough evidence to take any process to the Criminal Courts for a successful prosecution and shelve it pending better evidence.

The decisions to do X and Y has always been in the Portuguese Governments hands.

They knackered it up in the first place by getting rid of Amaral and only they can undo the stupidity of that.

All opinion though.

by DaSteelMan 29.03.15 14:44

Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.

by Guest 29.03.15 14:56

DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.

I do hope so. Do you believe the arrests will happen whatever the outcome of the court case? Why not arrest now?

by HelenMeg 29.03.15 14:59

DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.

I hope you 're right ! I also tend to think that the outcome of the Lisbon trial is a milestone which will have to be reached before the Police investigation proceeds.

I would hope something happens soon after the outcome. thumbsup

by DaSteelMan 29.03.15 15:07

Ladyinred wrote:
DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.
I do hope so. Do you believe the arrests will happen whatever the outcome of the court case? Why not arrest now?

Good afternoon,

Yea, I do believe arrests will happen whatever the outcome, although I think its almost certain Amaral will win.

I think the results of the court case will benefit Operation Grange on the British public psyche when arrests are made. You have to bear in mind, once the truth outs it will be a MASSIVE shock to the Great British public, probably the biggest shock to the Great British mindset since the death of Princess Diana. The inevitable verdict in the Lisbon Damages trial will aid this.

Secondly, I believe it is an ideal situation for Operation Grange and PJ to see Amaral win his case on a personal level for him, before the arrests and media circus.

by Guest 29.03.15 15:21

Thanks for your reply, DaSteelMan. Hope you continue posting here

It would appear from an Express article (quoted in topic on the forum, "Yes, it's time to stop looking for Maddie") that the MCs want OG to continue.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.03.15 20:15

DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.

@DaSteelMan

I wonder what makes you think that?

A hunch, maybe?

Given that you are in a prophetic frame of mind about the case, could you perhaps add more detail, e.g.

1. Will arrests be made in the U.K., or in Portugal, or both?

2. Will charges foillow the arrests?

3. Who exactly will be arrested, the McCanns, the schizophrenic bloke, the teenager, smelly bin-man, or some burglars?

4. Where will the trial take place?

Thanks

by **sharonl** 29.03.15 21:00

DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.

There are a number of reasons that I have no faith in this investigation. Here are just 14, there are many more.

1. The reason that it was set up in the first place - to satisfy the demands of Rebekah Brooks who "persuaded" David Cameron and Theresa May to set up the review, else she would put them on the front pages of the press for a week.

2. The fact that David Cameron openly said that the review had been set up to "assist the family",

3. The reluctance of the Portuguese to work alongside Operation Grange

4. The crazy media reports that have allegedly come from the review

5. The ridiculous stories put out by DCI Redwood on Crimewatch - Tannerman appearing after 6 years, Smithman & those e-fits.

6. The fact that the MET seem to be taking the findings of the Private investigators far too seriously, despite a number of them having been proven to be corrupt or bogus.

7. The fact that crucial evidence such as the dogs findings, appears to have been ignored.

8. That fact that a dossier of evidence handed into the Met appears to have been ignored

9. The claim that arrests were imminent appears to have been false

10. The fact that the contents of the Gaspar statement have not been investigated, (outside the McCann case), and those mentioned in it suspended from their jobs pending investigation.

11. The fact that those heading the case were nearing retirement

12. The level of corruption at NSY, in other cases

13. The fact that after a long and expensive review, Operation Grange appear to have achieved nothing apart from supplying the media and the woman who demanded the review in the first place with a lot of ridiculous stories.

14. The allegations that Rebekah Brooks had (in other cases) paid police officers for information.

by DaSteelMan 29.03.15 22:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.
@DaSteelMan

I wonder what makes you think that?

A hunch, maybe?

Given that you are in a prophetic frame of mind about the case, could you perhaps add more detail, e.g.

1. Will arrests be made in the U.K., or in Portugal, or both?

2. Will charges foillow the arrests?

3. Who exactly will be arrested, the McCanns, the schizophrenic bloke, the teenager, smelly bin-man, or some burglars?

4. Where will the trial take place?

Thanks

Hi Tony,

I would like to thank you for the work you brought to the masses. Your material was/is invaluable for myself and probably 1000s of others.

It is a hunch I had at back in Autumn 2013 and the hunch has looked more and more likely since then.

1. Will arrests be made in the U.K., or in Portugal, or both?

Both

2. Will charges foillow the arrests?

Some will, some maybe released

3. Who exactly will be arrested, the McCanns, the schizophrenic bloke, the teenager, smelly bin-man, or some burglars?

I believe between 6-16 will be arrested and it will include persons who holidayed at Ocean Club; ex employees of OC and persons who assisted PJ in 2007. A second phase of arrests may then lead to a total of upto 20 arrests.

4. Where will the trial take place?

I think the main trial will take place at the Old Bailey, in England.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.03.15 22:13

DaSteelMan wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.
@DaSteelMan

I wonder what makes you think that?

A hunch, maybe?

Given that you are in a prophetic frame of mind about the case, could you perhaps add more detail, e.g.

1. Will arrests be made in the U.K., or in Portugal, or both?

2. Will charges foillow the arrests?

3. Who exactly will be arrested, the McCanns, the schizophrenic bloke, the teenager, smelly bin-man, or some burglars?

4. Where will the trial take place?

Thanks

Hi Tony,

I would like to thank you for the work you brought to the masses. Your material was/is invaluable for myself and probably 1000s of others.

It is a hunch I had at back in Autumn 2013 and the hunch has looked more and more likely since then.

1. Will arrests be made in the U.K., or in Portugal, or both?

Both

2. Will charges foillow the arrests?

Some will, some maybe released

3. Who exactly will be arrested, the McCanns, the schizophrenic bloke, the teenager, smelly bin-man, or some burglars?

I believe between 6-16 will be arrested and it will include persons who holidayed at Ocean Club; ex employees of OC and persons who assisted PJ in 2007. A second phase of arrests may then lead to a total of up to 20 arrests.

4. Where will the trial take place?

I think the main trial will take place at the Old Bailey, in England.

@ DaSteelMan

Many thanks for your replies.

And Peace yes

by XTC 29.03.15 22:16

DaSteelMan wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:
DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.
I do hope so. Do you believe the arrests will happen whatever the outcome of the court case? Why not arrest now?

Good afternoon,

Yea, I do believe arrests will happen whatever the outcome, although I think its almost certain Amaral will win.

I think the results of the court case will benefit Operation Grange on the British public psyche when arrests are made. You have to bear in mind, once the truth outs it will be a MASSIVE shock to the Great British public, probably the biggest shock to the Great British mindset since the death of Princess Diana. The inevitable verdict in the Lisbon Damages trial will aid this.

Secondly, I believe it is an ideal situation for Operation Grange and PJ to see Amaral win his case on a personal level for him, before the arrests and media circus.

Hi DaSteelMan

In my opinion you are linking a few things together which have only tenous connections.

The Damages case is not the same as the Criminal Investigation SY and the PJ are conducting ( for better or worse).

I like you think Mr Amaral may win the Civil case. The Criminal investigation is another matter.

There is a a PR link as I mentioned in another post but that is for British public and meda consumption.

If Amaral wins very little will be said in the MSM of the UK.

If the McCanns win a lot will be said in the same media.

In my view that will alter absolutely nothing re: Scotland Yard's search for THE abductor.

That is a UK led re-investigation of what the hapless PJ got wrong initially.

The remit is simple and has been very publicly announced on Crimewatch and via the media - that is - The parents are
not being investigated.

That's it for me and unless some dramatic new evidence rears it's fateful head it's going back on the shelf.

Sorry to be so pessemistic but save the new evidence appearing which left SY with nowhere to hide that's your lot.

Where do they all go from here no matter what the outcome of the Civil case ?

by **sharonl** 29.03.15 22:20

DaSteelMan wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DaSteelMan wrote:Just something to add. I am on my own on this.

I think arrests will be made almost immediately after Lisbon damages trial result is known.
@DaSteelMan

I wonder what makes you think that?

A hunch, maybe?

Given that you are in a prophetic frame of mind about the case, could you perhaps add more detail, e.g.

1. Will arrests be made in the U.K., or in Portugal, or both?

2. Will charges foillow the arrests?

3. Who exactly will be arrested, the McCanns, the schizophrenic bloke, the teenager, smelly bin-man, or some burglars?

4. Where will the trial take place?

Thanks

Hi Tony,

I would like to thank you for the work you brought to the masses. Your material was/is invaluable for myself and probably 1000s of others.

It is a hunch I had at back in Autumn 2013 and the hunch has looked more and more likely since then.

1. Will arrests be made in the U.K., or in Portugal, or both?

Both

2. Will charges foillow the arrests?

Some will, some maybe released

3. Who exactly will be arrested, the McCanns, the schizophrenic bloke, the teenager, smelly bin-man, or some burglars?

I believe between 6-16 will be arrested and it will include persons who holidayed at Ocean Club; ex employees of OC and persons who assisted PJ in 2007. A second phase of arrests may then lead to a total of upto 20 arrests.

4. Where will the trial take place?

I think the main trial will take place at the Old Bailey, in England.

Da-Steelman

I am intrigued

Here we have no evidence of any abductor but you say that there will be 20 arrests, 20 arrests for one crime in which there is not even evidence of one person being at the scene of the crime.

Surely the police will eliminate at least 18 of these people before making any arrests?

Can you tell us how you came to these conclusions please.

by DaSteelMan 29.03.15 22:26

@sharonnl

There are a number of reasons that I have no faith in this investigation. Here are just 14, there are many more.

1. The reason that it was set up in the first place - to satisfy the demands of Rebekah Brooks who "persuaded" David Cameron and Theresa May to set up the review, else she would put them on the front pages of the press for a week.

Reply: Yes, Brooks bullied Cameron & May. Where is Brooks now?

2. The fact that David Cameron openly said that the review had been set up to "assist the family",

Reply: Standard, expected, professional statement. Would not say otherwise to jeopardise a trial. Obvious really.

3. The reluctance of the Portuguese to work alongside Operation Grange

Reply: Understandably, however it looks like PJ & SY have been getting along very well for a year now. Even embracing each other last Summer.

4. The crazy media reports that have allegedly come from the review

Reply: All from media, not SY or PJ

5. The ridiculous stories put out by DCI Redwood on Crimewatch - Tannerman appearing after 6 years, Smithman & those e-fits.

Reply: Ive covered the reasons for this in the original post within this thread

6. The fact that the MET seem to be taking the findings of the Private investigators far too seriously, despite a number of them having been proven to be corrupt or bogus.

Reply: Does not mean that some of the findings from some of the PIs are not worthy of use.

7. The fact that crucial evidence such as the dogs findings, appears to have been ignored.

Reply: We don't know that they have been ignored, again why would you give culprits an advantage to get one step ahead. I also have a sneaky feeling that 2007 dog evidence may not be needed too, as there maybe more prominent evidence of which we don't know about. I think we will be surprised by the evidence that could be revealed this year.

8. That fact that a dossier of evidence handed into the Met appears to have been ignored

Reply: What dossier of evidence?

9. The claim that arrests were imminent appears to have been false

Reply: You mean the Daily Star, Express and Mirror claims? There have been no claims by Operation Grange

10. The fact that the contents of the Gaspar statement have not been investigated, (outside the McCann case), and those mentioned in it suspended from their jobs pending investigation.

Reply: We don't know that the Gasper statement evidence has not been investigated, we dont know that further action needs to be taken on the Gaspers Statement. It is actually my opinion that the Gaspers statement would not stand up in court and would be thrown out of court.

11. The fact that those heading the case were nearing retirement

Reply: Standard practice for someone to retire. No great shakes, simply pass the baton. Redwood I believe has done the majority of the work and Wall may out the icing on the cake. We knew Redwood was retiring since June 2014

12. The level of corruption at NSY, in other cases

Reply: Yes, agreed. However we are in a different era with a different climate. We are in an era of Social Media and people power. The opportunity to corrupt a case has been dramatically reduced, thankfully.

13. The fact that after a long and expensive review, Operation Grange appear to have achieved nothing apart from supplying the media and the woman who demanded the review in the first place with a lot of ridiculous stories.

Reply: There is no evidence Operation Grange have supplied rubbish stories to any media. Whatever Op Grange has achieved they are not going to tell you, I or the media, for obvious reasons. You would not give the suspects the ability to get one step ahead or an unfair trial.

14. The allegations that Rebekah Brooks had (in other cases) paid police officers for information.

Reply: Where is she now?

by DaSteelMan 29.03.15 22:36

Da-Steelman

I am intrigued

Here we have no evidence of any abductor but you say that there will be 20 arrests, 20 arrests for one crime in which there is not even evidence of one person being at the scene of the crime.

Surely the police will eliminate at least 18 of these people before making any arrests?

Can you tell us how you came to these conclusions please.

I have not stated crime is 'abduction', in fact I don't believe there was an abduction.

My hunch is there are multiple crimes, which will involve multiple people.

I came to these conclusions in the standard way many others have:

1) Reading various books & literature both on and off line.

2) Reading the PJ files

3) Watching lots of videos

4) Studying over and over again everything DCI Redwood has said on camera and in print since 2013; then comparing this to other cases from the past where the NOT suspects then became SUSPECTS.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.03.15 23:11

DaSteelMan wrote:@sharonnl

There are a number of reasons that I have no faith in this investigation. Here are just 14, there are many more.

1. The reason that it was set up in the first place - to satisfy the demands of Rebekah Brooks who "persuaded" David Cameron and Theresa May to set up the review, else she would put them on the front pages of the press for a week.

Reply: Yes, Brooks bullied Cameron & May. Where is Brooks now?

TB: On 1 March this year, a series of articles informed us that she has been appointed to a key role in Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, this time based in New York, and responsible for digital communications, see e.g. here
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

2. The fact that David Cameron openly said that the review had been set up to "assist the family",

Reply: Standard, expected, professional statement. Would not say otherwise to jeopardise a trial. Obvious really.

TB: You would be a brave man indeed who said that David Cameron was fooling the entire British public by his statement, and that the top brass in the Met were also fooling us all with their remit of investigating an abduction

3. The reluctance of the Portuguese to work alongside Operation Grange

Reply: Understandably, however it looks like PJ & SY have been getting along very well for a year now. Even embracing each other last Summer

TB: All the evidence is that the two forces have never got on, public utterances just paper over the cracks between the two forces, an last year one newspaper spoke openly (and I believe correctly) of 'open warfare' between the two forces and Portuguese contempt for Scotland Yard

4. The crazy media reports that have allegedly come from the review

Reply: All from media, not SY or PJ

TB: I think sharonl is right, most of the media stories were probably sourced from Operation Grange and amounted to deliberate leaks, besides which many of the stories: smelly bin man, Monteiro, 'burglary gone wrong' etc. etc. were direct from Scotland Yard

5. The ridiculous stories put out by DCI Redwood on Crimewatch - Tannerman appearing after 6 years, Smithman & those e-fits.

Reply: I've covered the reasons for this in the original post within this thread

TB: Crecheman AND Smithman e-fits were fabricated IMO

6. The fact that the MET seem to be taking the findings of the private investigators far too seriously, despite a number of them having been proven to be corrupt or bogus.

Reply: Does not mean that some of the findings from some of the PIs are not worthy of use

TB: Really?? Can you name at least ONE such finding?

7. The fact that crucial evidence such as the dogs findings, appears to have been ignored.

Reply: We don't know that they have been ignored, again why would you give culprits an advantage to get one step ahead. I also have a sneaky feeling that 2007 dog evidence may not be needed too, as there maybe more prominent evidence of which we don't know about. I think we will be surprised by the evidence that could be revealed this year

TB: I'll wait and see

8. That fact that a dossier of evidence handed into the Met appears to have been ignored

Reply: What dossier of evidence?

TB: Two large dossiers from The Madeleine Foundation in 2011 - and numerous analyses sent in by PeterMac here - and a good many others

9. The claim that arrests were imminent appears to have been false

Reply: You mean the Daily Star, Express and Mirror claims? There have been no claims by Operation Grange

TB: I think you'll find that talk of possible arrests, which the media admittedly hyped up, were often sourced from Scotland Yard

10. The fact that the contents of the Gaspar statements have not been investigated (outside the McCann case), and those mentioned in it [were] suspended from their jobs pending investigation.

Reply: We don't know that the Gaspar statement evidence has not been investigated, we don't know that further action needs to be taken on the Gaspars' statements. It is actually my opinion that the Gaspars statement would not stand up in court and would be thrown out of court

TB: I don't think for one moment it would be used in court because their evidence is not proof or even evidence of a criminal offence; however, these are two General Practitioners who acted as soon as they became aware that their evidence was relevant - UNLIKE e.g. Martin Smith, the Smiths, and 'Crecheman' (if he exists)

11. The fact that those heading the case were nearing retirement

Reply: Standard practice for someone to retire. No great shakes, simply pass the baton. Redwood I believe has done the majority of the work and Wall may put the icing on the cake. We knew Redwood was retiring since June 2014

TB: Much more relevant, perhaps, is putting the bloke in charge of the Jill Dando/Barry Bulsara fiasco - Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell - in charge of Grange

12. The level of corruption at NSY, in other cases

Reply: Yes, agreed. However we are in a different era with a different climate. We are in an era of Sscial media and people power. The opportunity to corrupt a case has been dramatically reduced, thankfully.

TB: Tom Harper's article in the Independent in October last year spoke of an internal police report which suggests there were over 2,000 corrupt officers in the U.K., maybe many more. Operation Tiberius suggested the same. The Times and Sunday Times suggested four years ago that Britain's biggest drugs gangster was 'untouchable'. Hillsborough was only recently uncovered as a corrupt cover-up. The Daniel Morgan cover-up remains unsolved after 28 years. And it's obvious to all of us that the Home Office continues to cover up Ministers and MPs who have committed depraved and cruel crimes against vulnerable children

13. The fact that after a long and expensive review, Operation Grange appear to have achieved nothing apart from supplying the media and the woman who demanded the review in the first place with a lot of ridiculous stories.

Reply: There is no evidence Operation Grange have supplied rubbish stories to any media. Whatever Op Grange has achieved they are not going to tell you, I or the media, for obvious reasons. You would not give the suspects the ability to get one step ahead or an unfair trial

TB: Grange have made plain statements that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are NOT suspects. They have said they are looking for an abductor. They have said the abduction took place between 9.10pm and 10.00pm. They say that Madeleine may have been dead when she 'left the apartment'. Their remit is to find the abductor. They have made numerous statements, and produced maps and wodges of info about a smelly pot-bellied man who was entering holiday apartments looking for young girls to abuse. Has all that been for show, @ DaSteelMan?

14. The allegations that Rebekah Brooks had (in other cases) paid police officers for information.

Reply: Where is she now?

TB: I repeat Point 1 above>>>>    On 1 March this year, a series of articles informed us that she has been appointed to a key role in Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, this time based in New York, and responsible for digital communications, see e.g. here
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by DaSteelMan 29.03.15 23:46

Tony Bennett wrote:
DaSteelMan wrote:@sharonnl

There are a number of reasons that I have no faith in this investigation. Here are just 14, there are many more.

1. The reason that it was set up in the first place - to satisfy the demands of Rebekah Brooks who "persuaded" David Cameron and Theresa May to set up the review, else she would put them on the front pages of the press for a week.

Reply: Yes, Brooks bullied Cameron & May. Where is Brooks now?

TB: On 1 March this year, a series of articles informed us that she has been appointed to a key role in Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, this time based in New York, and responsible for digital communications, see e.g. here
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DS: Not in UK though

2. The fact that David Cameron openly said that the review had been set up to "assist the family",

Reply: Standard, expected, professional statement. Would not say otherwise to jeopardise a trial. Obvious really.

TB: You would be a brave man indeed who said that David Cameron was fooling the entire British public by his statement, and that the top brass in the Met were also fooling us all with their remit of investigating an abduction

DS: I stand by my belief

3. The reluctance of the Portuguese to work alongside Operation Grange

Reply: Understandably, however it looks like PJ & SY have been getting along very well for a year now. Even embracing each other last Summer

TB: All the evidence is that the two forces have never got on, public utterances just paper over the cracks between the two forces, an last year one newspaper spoke openly (and I believe correctly) of 'open warfare' between the two forces and Portuguese contempt for Scotland Yard

DS: thats your opinion

4. The crazy media reports that have allegedly come from the review

Reply: All from media, not SY or PJ

TB: I think sharonl is right, most of the media stories were probably sourced from Operation Grange and amounted to deliberate leaks, besides which many of the stories: smelly bin man, Monteiro, 'burglary gone wrong' etc. etc. were direct from Scotland Yard

DS: thats your opinion, no proof.

5. The ridiculous stories put out by DCI Redwood on Crimewatch - Tannerman appearing after 6 years, Smithman & those e-fits.

Reply: I've covered the reasons for this in the original post within this thread

TB: Crecheman AND Smithman e-fits were fabricated IMO

DS: Thats your opinion

6. The fact that the MET seem to be taking the findings of the private investigators far too seriously, despite a number of them having been proven to be corrupt or bogus.

Reply: Does not mean that some of the findings from some of the PIs are not worthy of use

TB: Really?? Can you name at least ONE such finding?

DS: Well, it is proven in the past that bogus, corrupt and dodgy people have provided police with vital intelligence of which they can work with. IRA informers, Mafia etc. Therefore even though some of the PIs are dodgy, one cannot dismiss some of the information they can provide.

7. The fact that crucial evidence such as the dogs findings, appears to have been ignored.

Reply: We don't know that they have been ignored, again why would you give culprits an advantage to get one step ahead. I also have a sneaky feeling that 2007 dog evidence may not be needed too, as there maybe more prominent evidence of which we don't know about. I think we will be surprised by the evidence that could be revealed this year

TB: I'll wait and see

8. That fact that a dossier of evidence handed into the Met appears to have been ignored

Reply: What dossier of evidence?

TB: Two large dossiers from The Madeleine Foundation in 2011 - and numerous analyses sent in by PeterMac here - and a good many others

DS: Ok, fair enough. Have they not contacted yourself or Peter Mac or sent you a reply or letter of receipt? Arnt you not subject to some legal ruling on your input into the case?

9. The claim that arrests were imminent appears to have been false

Reply: You mean the Daily Star, Express and Mirror claims? There have been no claims by Operation Grange

TB: I think you'll find that talk of possible arrests, which the media admittedly hyped up, were often sourced from Scotland Yard

DS: again this is just hearsay, no evidence

10. The fact that the contents of the Gaspar statements have not been investigated (outside the McCann case), and those mentioned in it [were] suspended from their jobs pending investigation.

Reply: We don't know that the Gaspar statement evidence has not been investigated, we don't know that further action needs to be taken on the Gaspars' statements. It is actually my opinion that the Gaspars statement would not stand up in court and would be thrown out of court

TB: I don't think for one moment it would be used in court because their evidence is not proof or even evidence of a criminal offence; however, these are two General Practitioners who acted as soon as they became aware that their evidence was relevant - UNLIKE e.g. Martin Smith, the Smiths, and 'Crecheman' (if he exists)

DS: Doesn't matter if the Gaspers were toilet cleaners, the statements would not stand up in court even if they are Doctors.

11. The fact that those heading the case were nearing retirement

Reply: Standard practice for someone to retire. No great shakes, simply pass the baton. Redwood I believe has done the majority of the work and Wall may put the icing on the cake. We knew Redwood was retiring since June 2014

TB: Much more relevant, perhaps, is putting the bloke in charge of the Jill Dando/Barry Bulsara fiasco - Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell - in charge of Grange

DS: What has Redwood's standard retirement got to do with Campbell & Dando case - totally irrelevant

12. The level of corruption at NSY, in other cases

Reply: Yes, agreed. However we are in a different era with a different climate. We are in an era of Social media and people power. The opportunity to corrupt a case has been dramatically reduced, thankfully.

TB: Tom Harper's article in the Independent in October last year spoke of an internal police report which suggests there were over 2,000 corrupt officers in the U.K., maybe many more. Operation Tiberius suggested the same. The Times and Sunday Times suggested four years ago that Britain's biggest drugs gangster was 'untouchable'. Hillsborough was only recently uncovered as a corrupt cover-up. The Daniel Morgan cover-up remains unsolved after 28 years. And it's obvious to all of us that the Home Office continues to cover up Ministers and MPs who have committed depraved and cruel crimes against vulnerable children

DS: Those cases were prior to the Social Media climate we are living in now. In fact we are seeing the fall out of CSA coverups, Hillsborough coverups, Lawrence coverups thanks to the new era we live in - former police are now allowed to speak out. This is why I believe Operation Grange will be impossible to whitewash.

13. The fact that after a long and expensive review, Operation Grange appear to have achieved nothing apart from supplying the media and the woman who demanded the review in the first place with a lot of ridiculous stories.

Reply: There is no evidence Operation Grange have supplied rubbish stories to any media. Whatever Op Grange has achieved they are not going to tell you, I or the media, for obvious reasons. You would not give the suspects the ability to get one step ahead or an unfair trial

TB: Grange have made plain statements that the McCanns and the Tapas 7 are NOT suspects. They have said they are looking for an abductor. They have said the abduction took place between 9.10pm and 10.00pm. They say that Madeleine may have been dead when she 'left the apartment'. Their remit is to find the abductor. They have made numerous statements, and produced maps and wodges of info about a smelly pot-bellied man who was entering holiday apartments looking for young girls to abuse. Has all that been for show, @ DaSteelMan?

DS: I'm flabbergasted that you would expect Op Grange to say Tapas 9 were suspects at the start of even during an investigation where they are trying to ensure a watertight case for court. I'm truly flabbergasted Tony.

14. The allegations that Rebekah Brooks had (in other cases) paid police officers for information.

Reply: Where is she now?

TB: I repeat Point 1 above>>>>    On 1 March this year, a series of articles informed us that she has been appointed to a key role in Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation, this time based in New York, and responsible for digital communications, see e.g. here
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

DS: So she is not in UK, aye?

by HelenMeg 30.03.15 9:41

It is very informative and interesting to see the points for and against a whitewash listed in the post above.

If a person is firmly of the belief that the operation will be a whitewash then there is a lot of stuff to hold them to that belief.

I do share Da Steel Man's opinion that this is not a whitewash and that, with the existence of social media / forums/ public police files it would be unfeasible to perform one.
We have seen steps of progress from OG since at least around OCTOBER 13 - when Redwood made sure the 'e-fits' were displayed above Gerry's head on Crimewatch / Admitting that the girl could have died in the apartment thus blowing away the abductor scenario / Using sniffer dogs on the searches in PdL / Re-Interview of Rob Murat. ETC ETC . None of those highly visible steps appear to be heading in a whitewash direction.
Even the media tends not to use 'abduction' but 'disappearance' in their reporting.
Also DCI Wall has ensured no commentary - any whitewash would be using a lot of 'commentary' IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.03.15 9:50

DaSteelMan wrote:DaSteelMan: Well, it is proven in the past that bogus, corrupt and dodgy people have provided police with vital intelligence of which they can work with, IRA informers, Mafia etc. Therefore even though some of the PIs are dodgy, one cannot dismiss some of the information they can provide

TB: What I was looking for, @DaSteelMan, is any evidence that you can provide of even ONE bit of information that the McCanns' investigators have provided that is of ANY practical use in this case whatsoever (I accept what you say about OTHER cases).

Just ONE please.

The ONLY bit of information that the private investigators have provided to Operation Grange which they have used are those two highly controversial e-fits of two different men which were supposed to have been drawn up by the Smiths. Let us all remember that these two e-fits were arranged by Oakley International, a one-man band run by serial con-man, fraudster and criminal Kevin a.k.a. Richard Halligen, and that they were drawn up by Henri Exton, former Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5 who was sacked after stealing perfume from Manchester Airport. So you can't count those two e-fits as 'useful information provided by the McCanns' PIs.

Please give us just ONE example of a useful bit of information about Madeleine that ANY of the McCanns' PIs have unearthed in the past eight years.

DaSteelMan: OK, fair enough. Have they not contacted yourself or Peter Mac or sent you a reply or letter of receipt? Aren't you not subject to some legal ruling on your input into the case?

TB: Right, two questions there. R

egarding the two Madeleine Foundation dossiers, the first was acknowledged by Grange and surrounded by quite a lot of e-mail correspondence and 'phone calls to their staff, including DI Tim Dobson. The second was hand-delivered by myself and another Madeleine Foundation member to the HQ of Grange, Belgravia Police Station, on Goncalo Amaral Day [2 October], 2011. We met and discussed the case with D.I. Tim Dobson, the second-in-command, and another officer.

All e-mail communications by PeterMac, myself, 'Kikoratton', 'HideHo' and many others are acknowledged by e-mail from Grange.

On your second question, let me reiterate for your benefit and any more recent members of CMOMM what the McCanns and the High Court allow me to do and do not allow me to do. I am not allowed to break any of the injunctions and court orders e.g. sell my first book on the case, make libellous accusations against them etc.

What the McCanns repeatedly confirmed via Carter Ruck over many years, however, and which they confirmed on oath via Isobel Martorell in the High Court in the proceedings against me that lasted from 2011 to 2013, is that they have absolutely no objection whatsoever to my exercising my right as a citizen to write to anyone in an official capacity offering my hypotheses, or facts, or representations to any relevant agency, be it the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Met Police, the IPCC, HM Inspector of Constabulary, the Portuguese Police, my M.P, etc. etc.

What I am not at liberty to do is to openly publish any such letters, if they contain any suggestions that might be regarded by the McCanns or the Court as libellous.

DaSteelMan: I'm flabbergasted that you would expect Op Grange to say Tapas 9 were suspects at the start of even during an investigation where they are trying to ensure a watertight case for court. I'm truly flabbergasted Tony.

TB: There is no need for you to get so excited and for your flabber to be so gasted. You've actually completely misrepresented my point. Which is this: that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Head of the Met, Andy Redwood and everyone else should have said: "We are setting up Grange to review all lines of enquiry about what really happened to Madeleine McCann".

Instead of which they said: "It is to help the family and to investigate the abduction".

by HelenMeg 30.03.15 9:57

TB: There is no need for you to get so excited and for your flabber to be so gasted. You've actually completely misrepresented my point. Which is this: that the Prime Minister, the Home Secretary, the Head of the Met, Andy Redwood and everyone else should have said: "We are setting up Grange to review all lines of enquiry about what really happened to Madeleine McCann".

Instead of which they said: "It is to help the family and to investigate the abduction".

I agree that this was not professional and that the announcement should have been as Tony indicated.

However, I believe the reason for this was that Cameron and the Home Secretary genuinely believed, at that stage, that the girl had been abducted. They had been persuaded to open the review -it was a legacy from the previous Labour government, and they did not realise that they were actually opening a can on worms. It was still a stupid statement and not professional - but I believe it was made in all innocence. I suspect it came from government rather than SY -

by **Tony Bennett** 30.03.15 10:26

HelenMeg wrote:If a person is firmly of the belief that the operation will be a whitewash then there is a lot of stuff to hold them to that belief.

Reply: Yes.

I do share Da Steel Man's opinion that this is not a whitewash and that, with the existence of social media / forums/ public police files it would be unfeasible to perform one.

Reply: I agree that social media pose new challenges for those who wish to cover up things. Arguably the investigations into historic child sexual abuse by certain celebrities has been hastened by the rise of the internet and social media in the past two decades. However, there is every indication that historic child abuse by Ministers and MPs has been continuously covered up by the highest in the land for decades, and right up to the present. If your are suggesting that a high-level cover-up is near impossible in today's environment, then sadly - and based on my experience of ongoing police cover-ups, e.g. the Daniel Morgan and Lee Balkwell cases, then I'm afraid we must agree to disagree

We have seen steps of progress from OG since at least around OCTOBER 13 - when Redwood made sure the 'e-fits' were displayed above Gerry's head on Crimewatch

Reply: This is back to the theories that (a) Gerry McCann was carrying his newly-dead daughter through the streets of Praia da Luz at 10pm on 3 May 2007 just as his wife and Tapas 7 friends were raising the alarm and (b) that the Smiths' sighting was genuine. As you know, I don't buy all his for one second

Admitting that the girl could have died in the apartment thus blowing away the abductor scenario

Reply: On the contrary, an alternative very plausible explanation is that DCI Redwood introduced this idea because Grange, one way or another, has to face up to the evidence of Martin Grime's sniffer dogs, Eddie & Keela. Doing my best to read between the lines, I suggest he is trying to find a possible explanation for the smell of a corpse and body fluids in G5A: the burglar/abductor killed Madeleine in the apartment and fled with her body

Using sniffer dogs on the searches in PdL

Reply: 1. Do we know that they were actually used? 2. If so, where in Praia da Luz were they used? 3. What would be the point of sending dogs into G5A again, after a delay of 7 years?

Re-Interview of Rob Murat. ETC ETC.

Reply: Just for show? Like the helicopter rides and the police digging for bones on waste ground?

None of those highly visible steps appear to be heading in a whitewash direction.

Reply: Yes, picking up your words, 'appear to be' is correct. But is this not a case above all others where all is not what it seems? Is it not all about public perception?

Even the media tends not to use 'abduction' but 'disappearance' in their reporting.

Reply: This is not new. Over the past 7 years I've seen a gradual drift from 'abducted' to 'disappeared' or 'vanished'. I don't think for one moment that Grange has influenced the public to think this is NOT an abduction. Surely the evidence of the past 4 years is totally the other way? What was that CrimeWatch programme, with its 6.7 million viewers, and its phoney 'reconstruction' all about? Surely you must fully concede that the show massively reinforced the belief rooted in the public's mind hat Madeleine was abducted?

Also DCI Wall has ensured no commentary - any whitewash would be using a lot of 'commentary' IMO.

Reply: DCI Wall will speak sooner or later. Or her boss will. Or her boss's boss. And then we'll all get a further idea of whether this is an expensive charade or, as some here think, one of the most cunning and brilliant investigations ever run by a police force anywhere in the world