Faith in Op Grange

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.

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.

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 
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/03/8563151/reports-rebekah-brooks-officially-returning-news-corp

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
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/03/8563151/reports-rebekah-brooks-officially-returning-news-corp

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 
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/03/8563151/reports-rebekah-brooks-officially-returning-news-corp

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
http://www.capitalnewyork.com/article/media/2015/03/8563151/reports-rebekah-brooks-officially-returning-news-corp

DS: So she is not in UK, aye?

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".   

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 

HelenMeg wrote: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

2nd reply:  No. Redwood carefully made room for the scenario that Madeleine was murdered by an abductor who then fled with her body

No I don't buy the theory that Gerry was carrying a newly-dead daughter around the streets either. But I am of the opinion that he carried a 'live' girl around the streets to give the abduction scenario greater credibility... 

2nd reply:  A theory with zero evidence to support it, unless you count ONE of the two Smith e-fits as looking like Gerry McCann - with which I cannot agree 

hence for me, the Crimewatch showing the e-fits above GM's head was an encouraging move.  Especially seeing the look of discomfort / horror on the McCann faces

2nd reply:  I didn't see any 'look of horror'. They did seem a bit more tense and nervous than usual, though. But why would they be 'horror-struck' or 'discomforted'? They had seen Exton's e-fits for well over 5 years, and had used the claimed Smith 'sightings' to their advantage for the same period...in the Channel 4 'Mockumentary'...on their website...in Kate's book...and so on.

The McCanns have nothing to fear from Grange. The Prime Minister said Grange was 'to help the family'. The official remit (dragged out of Grange by a series of FOI Act questions) was to pursue only 'the abduction'. The taxpayer funded the age-progressed image of Madeleine aged 9. Every single utterance by Grange, every single leak, has reinforced the message that we are looking for a girl who was abdcuted betweeen 9.10pm and 10pm on 3 May 2007.

To believe that all of this has been an expensive, cunning deception to catch out the McCanns may be no more than wishful thinking, however understandable that may be       

DaSteelMan wrote:

aquila wrote:I'm still in camp whitewash.

Lot's are.

However no one can give credible evidence of whitewash based upon fact - only hearsay, feeling and insinuation.

It's the British way to be pessimistic, I understand that.

Doubter wrote:

DaSteelMan wrote:

aquila wrote:I'm still in camp whitewash.

Lot's are.

However no one can give credible evidence of whitewash based upon fact - only hearsay, feeling and insinuation.

It's the British way to be pessimistic, I understand that.

Could not agree more .

Great opening post by the way DSM

aquila wrote:

Doubter wrote:

DaSteelMan wrote:

aquila wrote:I'm still in camp whitewash.

Lot's are.

However no one can give credible evidence of whitewash based upon fact - only hearsay, feeling and insinuation.

It's the British way to be pessimistic, I understand that.

Could not agree more .

Great opening post by the way DSM

To say 'it's the British way to be pessimistic' is a bit of a cop out to a discussion when there is so much out and out reason to believe Operation Grange is not the real deal.

To label pessimism as a British trait simply doesn't cut the mustard. It smacks of 'always look on the bright side of life', 'the seven steps to successful (add your own sunny cause) etc to put across a positive opinion - and it's only an opinion. It's akin to saying 'my opinion is positive, keep the faith all you non-believers, OG is doing a grand job and is getting to the end game and will find justice for Madeleine'.

Operation Grange didn't even begin with a decent remit dedicated to finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Pessimistic? No, realistic.

aquila wrote:When did SY/OG ever say 'we are here to find justice for Madeleine McCann', when did Andy Redwood ever say that? He didn't.

What he did say was....help the parents, look into the abduction as though it had happened in the UK and then in TWO bizarre 'reconstructions' that bore little relevance to the disappearance of Madeleine took it to Crime Watch after a build up of weeks about a 'revelation moment'.

What followed was 'the big dig', 'hanging out of a helicopter', 'dogs from South Wales Police', the 'Alison Saunders CPS big meet with the Portuguese authorities' and many other things.

Operation Grange leaks like a sieve. Nicola Wall might be saying little but then again she doesn't have to say anything as the Police Confederation, the national media, the pre-emptive stuff written by senior police allied to Westminster and Missing People are all doing their damndest to close down OG and court public opinion to the conclusion in so many slimy ways.

I want to know what happened to this little girl. I want to know why, after all this money and expertise not a bloody thing of value has come to light.

HelenMeg wrote:Snipped "would you not at least make an illusion that it looks like a serious investigation / review?"

In other words - because it has the very appearance of an incompetent whitewash - it surely cannot be ..

Knitted wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:Snipped "would you not at least make an illusion that it looks like a serious investigation / review?"

In other words - because it has the very appearance of an incompetent whitewash - it surely cannot be ..

If you posed the question "Is the UK Police's hunt for Madeleine genuine or part of a cover up?" I suspect that the very great majority people wandering around any given shopping centre on any given day would say "Eh? Of course it's genuine the Police have been digging up everywhere to find her", (or something like that).  So, for most people (which is what counts) Grange does indeed give off the necessary reassurances of being anything but a bona fide serious investigation/review, (albeit, now, an overly expensive one). Thus those who view Grange as a whitewash are very much the minority.

As it happens I have an open mind, but I do lean a fair way into the "something isn't right, somewhere" scenario based upon the seemingly restrictive remit. (i.e. If the obvious word 'crime' had been instead of the word 'abduction' I'd personally not be concerned by comments made in the media by who the Police might say are out of scope).

jeanmonroe wrote:Doubter wrote:

But no one knows what may or may not have come to light . Yet .
=========================

"Miss!, Miss!, i know!, i know!. The 8 day 'dig' on the 'snail', in PDL, Portugal, by 29 full time cops/staff from the UK's elite SY/MET and other UK  police forces, last year, found a single, tattered, SOCK, Miss"

sar wrote:Post deleted