Re: Faith in Op Grange

by **PeterMac** 31.03.15 17:29

Portia wrote:Most importantly -IMO- OG failed to find any evidence of the much trumpeted abduction

Indeed.
BS in his latest piece shows how even the MSM are now refusing to use the word.

The Express, Mar 25, “Hunt Should Go On”, sob, sob: “…money which has been spent on investigating the ~~abduction of~~ disappearance of Madeleine McCann…the trouble is that the ~~abduction~~ unexplained disappearance of a child is never a cold, unemotional event…”
Sunday Post, March 29, Lorraine Kelly, “This utterly heartbreaking case,” honk, honk, “…was ~~abducted~~ disappeared on May 4, [sic] 2007…exactly how all the parents of ~~abducted~~ disappeared sons and daughters feel.”
Daily Mail, March 19, Ian Drury, “Time We Ended.”, bleat, bleat, “…investigating the ~~abduction~~ disappearance…Since the girl, who would now be 11, ~~was abducted~~ vanished, every possible theory has been explored, including that she was kidnapped by a paedophile…”
The Sun, March 29, Mike Hamilton, “…the parents of Madeleine McCann plan to plough their own money into the search for their ~~abducted~~ missing daughter if police halt their investigation…”
Sunday Express, March 22, James Murray, “… time is running out for Scotland Yard to question three Portuguese suspects in connection with the ~~abduction~~ disappearance of Madeleine McCann.”
The Telegraph, March 17, Gordon Rayner, “Madeleine McCann Latest”, “…hours and days after Madeleine’s ~~abduction~~ disappearance…on the day she was ~~abducted~~ vanished…area on the night of the ~~abduction~~ disappearance…

They are getting there.
Somewhere in a thousand newspaper computer discs are dozens of 8 page pull out 'exposés' and somewhere in another thousand hard discs are many, many definitive books
looking at the case from almost all angles.

by Doug D 31.03.15 18:03

Wishful thinking? (from the Ian Watkins thread)

IPCC Misconduct Case

‘detectives ……………. have cases to answer for misconduct, a police watchdog has recommended.

did not progress the investigation adequately.

failed to record decision-making and pursue all lines of inquiry.

did not take immediate steps to investigate

there were some more investigative steps detectives could have taken

was reported to authorities four times in the four years before he was arrested’

So I wonder what gave the IPCC cause to investigate and then pass judgement on this case if the reasons given for disqualifying our complaints about Grange are valid?

by Knitted 31.03.15 18:39

There have been interesting views expressed in this thread on both sides of the discussion on whether or not Grange is/is not a valid investigation or a whitewash. The arguments made on both sides make for an interesting debate.

Sadly, one thing is guaranteed... and that is that no matter what the outcome is/what gets reported it will be unquestioningly accepted by the majority and then forgotten about. This is what worries me: it all seems far too easy it is to cover things up and get away with things, (Yes... I know child abuse cover ups are now being exposed, but for how many generations were they effective?). Those that even care about whether or not Grange is a quality investigation make up only a very, very, small minority of people with a voice in this country).

I don’t know how effective Grange is. The nub of most people’s concerns, unsurprisingly, stem from the choice of the word ‘abduction’ in the remit. That choice of wording may have been accidental... or it may have been intentional, (whether to protect the McCanns, or to create a false impression of protecting the McCanns, etc. ). Either way it’s right and proper that it’s questioned. Any concerns any of us have should surely be raised through those formal channels that have been set up to safeguard against repeats of the corruption and malpractice (accidental or intentional) that have happened before?

I’m currently awaiting my response from PSD/SMIU following my complaint to the IPCC. I fully accept that if it’s a whitewash no one’s going to admit it, and I by the same token, if it’s a live investigation that's not restricted to an ‘abduction’ (thus all of a sudden placing the T9 within scope), then equally no one’s going to admit that either. The point however is that through having the complaint/challenge logged and on record a formal audit trail now exists in the public record, (and I’m going to tenaciously pursue getting a definitive answer...although I recognise one is unlikely to be given... so the audit trail will grow).

If Grange is legitimate (as I hope it is) then our formal complaints were (thankfully) unnecessary... but if Grange is not legitimate then having such questions and complaints form a formal audit trail is what’s critical. Formal audit trails are an effective means of facilitating change. They might be effective simply through something as innocuous as making just one person in a bureaucratic administrative position raise an eyebrow and filter something into the right person’s in-tray ... they might possibly make just one more bead of sweat appear on the brow of someone who’s up to their neck in it. It matters not... formal audit trails are simply effective ways of keeping things on the straight and narrow.

I’ve said before. I’m more or less on the fence, (though lean towards something being iffy, due to the restrictive official remit)... but I have personally found it incredibly motivating to have raised my concerns by formally complaining about the remit, than to continue to think about what I'll say to myself in the future if I had instead continued to do nothing but decry the state of the Britain today. Democracy, justice and honesty in public service sadly don’t just happen and we all need to do what we can to keep things on the right track. Nine times out of ten our complaints and challenges may be unwarranted... but what matters are the ones that hit the mark and counter the acts of corruption and malpractice. I think this case warrants the effort to make sure that formal audit trail of challenge/complaint exists.... just in case!

by Lands_end 01.04.15 8:41

Quoting a line from the OP

3) The twins were getting older and they knew the twins would one day think for themselves <---- I think this scares the hell out of them.

If ever there is going to be a weak link in the mechanism then this is it IMMHO. They cannot cocoon their children when they reach their teenage years and one can only imagine the Facebook, Youtube Twits Tweets Likedin Yumbled Mumbled snippets of information they will be bombarded with. As I'm sure it has been mentioned on this medium before, to Social Services; Please Please look after these 2 children, IMMHO they are "at risk". You do not need concrete evidence proof of vulnerability to take precautionary action.

by Lands_end 01.04.15 8:45

Portia wrote:Most importantly -IMO- OG failed to find any evidence of the much trumpeted abduction

This is where the case rests

The McCanns will be branded to have been somehow involved in their little girls disappearance ad perpetuam

A sorry fate indeed, what with the Twins growing up in due course, poor mites

Portia, see my post above.

by RogerRabbit 01.04.15 16:44

Mariita wrote:@DaSteelMan

Why do You think Andy Redwood said The McCanns and the other Tapas were no suspects? To me this statement fits with the whitewash.

Actually I'd argue that making a statement initially which publicly affirms a whitewash agenda would be the last thing a whitewash would do.

This is an investigation, played much like a game of poker. I don't believe SY have shown their cards yet. They've given away a few telltales (killing off Tannerman, affirming Smithman, the verbal slips from AR and BHH) and made a few bluffs, but the cards are still close to the chest.

Arguably their whole strategy fulfils two purposes: diversion and reinforcement. The PJ are already as far on down the primary line of investigation as any police force can get. For them to be anything but certain about their previous findings would weaken their position and cost them support. SY are being used to eliminate the trivia and leave only the PJ theory standing. After all the simplest way to use the SY investigation to cast doubt on the PJ case would have been to stage a review OF the PJ case, not the all and sundry offerings of every alternate theory. SY appear to be eliminating the impossible by investigating it and ruling it out - good, albeit slow detective work.

Why did he say it? To set a trap? To create a diversion? Because his mandate was 'the other stuff' and the illusion that there was nothing more and the Portuguese where not even a factor, let alone a credible, authoritative investigation.

by Lands_end 01.04.15 18:22

RogerRabbit wrote:
Mariita wrote:@DaSteelMan

Why do You think Andy Redwood said The McCanns and the other Tapas were no suspects? To me this statement fits with the whitewash.

Actually I'd argue that making a statement initially which publicly affirms a whitewash agenda would be the last thing a whitewash would do.

This is an investigation, played much like a game of poker. I don't believe SY have shown their cards yet. They've given away a few telltales (killing off Tannerman, affirming Smithman, the verbal slips from AR and BHH) and made a few bluffs, but the cards are still close to the chest.

Arguably their whole strategy fulfils two purposes: diversion and reinforcement. The PJ are already as far on down the primary line of investigation as any police force can get. For them to be anything but certain about their previous findings would weaken their position and cost them support. SY are being used to eliminate the trivia and leave only the PJ theory standing. After all the simplest way to use the SY investigation to cast doubt on the PJ case would have been to stage a review OF the PJ case, not the all and sundry offerings of every alternate theory. SY appear to be eliminating the impossible by investigating it and ruling it out - good, albeit slow detective work.

Why did he say it? To set a trap? To create a diversion? Because his mandate was 'the other stuff' and the illusion that there was nothing more and the Portuguese where not even a factor, let alone a credible, authoritative investigation.

I wondered this as well. Cast memory back to AR statement along the lines of "this is the first time that all the investigations are under the same roof, we have the Portuguese , the British Police service and the private investigators all working together". Sound Credible or just a load of BOLLOX. Forgive the rude word but has anyone got a tangible alternative.

by **Tony Bennett** 01.04.15 18:57

Lands_end wrote:
Cast your memory back to AR statement along the lines of "this is the first time that all the investigations [have been put together in one investigation], e same route, we have the Portuguese, the British police and the private investigators all working together". Sounds credible or just a load of BOLLOX? Forgive the rude word but has anyone got a tangible alternative?

@ Lands_end

Your recollection of Redwood's words is not quite right, but near enough.

Let me suggest that Redwood speaks a load of ~~BOLLOX~~ pure, unadulterated, extreme hype...

...as in these extracts from the Crimewatch transcript:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

CRIMEWATCH
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Transcript of Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood

18 35

AMROLIWALA

In 2011, the McCanns made a direct appeal to Prime Minister David Cameron for help in the search for Madeleine. In an unprecedented move, a team from the Metropolitan Police was given the go-ahead to review the mass of evidence that had come from Praia da Luz. Would the U.K.’s top detectives be able to crack a case that had baffled the world?

DRAMATIC MUSIC

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood is leading the investigation.

REDWOOD

Primarily what we sought to do from the beginning is to try and draw everything back to – to zero, if you like, try and sort of take everything back to the beginning – and then re-analyse and re-assess everything – accepting nothing.

AMROLIWALA

The work of the detectives in receiving thousands of documents paid off when they were finally given the green light to launch a full-blown enquiry.

DRAMATIC MUSIC

What follows is the result of this painstaking new investigation by Scotland Yard elite detectives: the truest account yet of what really happened that night.

19 55

SOUNDS AND VIDEO OF WAVES

Tell me now about the crime scene itself…

REDWOOD

Yes, I mean [SNIPPED]

20 55

The careful and critical analysis of the timeline has been absolutely key. Primarily, we’re focused on the area between 8.30 and 10. We know that at 8.30, that was the time that Mr and Mrs McCann went down to the Tapas area for their dinner and we know that at around 10pm that night was when Mrs McCann found that Madeleine was missing.

AMROLIWALA

[SNIPPED} This man was widely thought to have been Madeleine’s abductor, but the team was taking nothing for granted.

21 40

REDWOOD

One of the things that we picked up very quickly was the fact that there was a night crèche that was operating from the main Ocean Club reception – and 8 families had left 11 children in there – and one particular family we spoke to us gave us information that was really interesting and exciting. In fact, I would say it was – it was a revelation moment when, having discussed with them what hey were doing on the night, they themselves believed that they could be the Tanner sighting.

[PASSAGES SNIPPED]

REDWOOD

We’re almost certain, now, that this sighting is not the abductor. But very importantly, what it says is that from 9.15, we are able to allow the clock…

TICKING CLOCK

…to move forward and in doing so, things that have not been quite as significant or received quite the same degree of attention are now the centre of our focus.

AMROLIWALA

This was an enormous discovery for the team: an innocent explanation for the suspect who’s been at the centre of the case for six years.

23 30

Their attention quickly turned to another sighting, which could now be the key to the entire mystery.

It was here…

[PASSAGES SNIPPED]

Two of the witnesses [i.e. from the Irish family] helped create e-fits of the man they saw. Today, for the first time, we can reveal the true significance of these images.

[MORE PASSAGES SNIPPED]

AMROLIWALA

As part of their exhaustive investigation, the detectives are particularly interested in a number of blond-haired men who were seen near the McCanns’ apartment. Do they hold the answer to her disappearance?

[MORE PASSAGES SNIPPED]

REDWOOD

Madeleine McCann’s disappearance does on one reading of the evidence have the hallmarks of a pre-planned abduction. That would undoubtedly have involved reconnaissance, and so we’re really keen to see who these people were. They may all be separate, so it’s really important those viewing to say to the public that if you recognise yourself, then please have the courage to come forward, because it’s really important for us to eliminate any sightings that are innocent and nothing to do with Madeleine’s disappearance.

26 30

AMROLIWALA

As well as that line of enquiry by an Irish family of man carrying a child, the police are also looking at a third important strand of their investigation.

[MORE PASSAGES SNIPPED]

REDWOOD

Yes, we do, we are making good progress. There is still much to do, but our revision of the timeline and a re-emphasis on events beyond 9.15 mean that we are bringing in new information this evening to the public.

[SNIPPED]

Well, at 10pm, we see a man walking down towards the sea, a white man, in his 30s, with brown hair, and in his arms is a child, three to four years of age, blonde hair, wearing pyjamas - very close description to that of Madeleine McCann. Two efits that have never been in the public domain of this one individual – really important for us to understand who he is...

by Lands_end 01.04.15 19:46

Tony B, My attention was drawn to his association with the PI teams. I ask you , when if ever has a professional detective as AR presumably was, taken the advice of a PI. Especially metodo the mumbleheads. Not even keystone would dare that one.

by Richard IV 01.04.15 21:04

Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?

by **Tony Bennett** 01.04.15 21:13

Lands_end wrote:Tony B, My attention was drawn to his association with the PI teams. I ask you, when if ever has a professional detective, as AR presumably was, taken the advice of a PI? Especially Metodo the mumbleheads. Not even Keystone would dare that one.

This is a very very important point which I have tried to highlight before on this forum, but without much success so far.

I believe that a game even more cunning than we could ever imagine is being played out here, and the game involves the powers-that-be giving unjustified credit to the McCanns' PIs.

My first evidence for this is the Channel 4 film put out in the spring of 2013 which basically featured Kevin Halligen. It portrayed Halligen's side-kick. Henri Exton - former Head of Covert Intelligence for MI5 but later sacked by them after stealing perfume from Manchester Airport - as a dedicated seeker after the truth.

I don't know if anyone has a link to this video? - I think MCF might have it in their large video collection.

The programme suggested, very directly, that information supplied by the Halligen and Exton team had yielded 'the most important information yet' about who abducted Madeleine. The viewer was left with the impression that folk like Halligen and Exton were brilliant, hard-working detectives - who were contrasted in the programme with the bungling Portuguese detectives.

Then came the Ace of Spades in the BBC CrimeWatch McCann Show!

The 'centre of our focus', as a result of 'our careful and critical analysis' of 'a mass of evidence', etc. etc., said DCI Redwood, turned out to be two e-fits of different-looking men prepared by one of the McCanns' top PIs - Henri Exton.

Anyone who watched these two programmes, and who knew relatively little of all the nackground facts, would come away with the impression:

"My goodness. The poor McCanns! They had to put up with those useless Portuguese sardine-munchers. It's a good job that the McCanns set up that fund and scraped up enough money to be able to afford a brilliant team like Halligen and Exton!"

(The more enlightened ones might have thought: so why were those e-fits gathering dust for over five years? The remarkably brilliant Redwood supplied the answer, though: 'Due to my careful and critical analysis, drawing everything back to zreo and taking nothing for granted, etc. etc., I found Crecheman!' Thus the case is solved by the combined efforts of 'crack' detectives Exton and Redwood...)

by jeanmonroe 02.04.15 0:49

Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?

Operation Oxborough?

The Metropolitan Police 'investigation' into Jill Dando's 'death'.

I agree, actually not at the 'start', of the 'investigation' but pretty damn quickly after investigation began, the MET 'ruled out' EVERYONE, being 'not guilty', except Barry George.

NO Serbian 'hitman/men', NO ex 'boyfriend', NO Mr 'Big' in UK gangster 'underground' (possible Grimewatch 'exposure').

NO NOBODY except............. BG.

NOBODY 'guilty' except...............BG.

And the MET 'team' led by the same DS, as Op Oxborough. assigned to OG, at the outset.(almost 4 YEARS ago!)

EVERYBODY, it 'seems' is 'guilty' ( to many 'suspects' to list) EXCEPT................... 9 holidaying 'friends'

by Richard IV 02.04.15 8:22

jeanmonroe wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?

Operation Oxborough?

The Metropolitan Police 'investigation' into Jill Dando's 'death'.

I agree, actually not at the 'start', of the 'investigation' but pretty damn quickly after investigation began, the MET 'ruled out' EVERYONE, being 'not guilty', except Barry George.

NO Serbian 'hitman/men', NO ex 'boyfriend', NO Mr 'Big' in UK gangster 'underground' (possible Grimewatch 'exposure').

NO NOBODY except............. BG.

NOBODY 'guilty' except...............BG.

And the MET 'team' led by the same DS, as Op Oxborough. assigned to OG, at the outset.(almost 4 YEARS ago!)

EVERYBODY, it 'seems' is 'guilty' ( to many 'suspects' to list) EXCEPT................... 9 holidaying 'friends'

But the MET didn`t actually specify the name of a person who is not guilty for example, in Jill Dando`s murder they didn`t say "Alan Farthing is not being investigated" or in Joanna Yeates murder "Greg Reardon is not being investigated" etc. So why the need to announce it in the Maddie murder/disappearance ?

by j.rob 02.04.15 9:07

Lands_end wrote:Quoting a line from the OP

3) The twins were getting older and they knew the twins would one day think for themselves <---- I think this scares the hell out of them.

If ever there is going to be a weak link in the mechanism then this is it IMMHO. They cannot cocoon their children when they reach their teenage years and one can only imagine the Facebook, Youtube Twits Tweets Likedin Yumbled Mumbled snippets of information they will be bombarded with. As I'm sure it has been mentioned on this medium before, to Social Services; Please Please look after these 2 children, IMMHO they are "at risk". You do not need concrete evidence proof of vulnerability to take precautionary action.

I agree. The cameos of 'normal' family life chez McCann as depicted in the 'madeleine was Here' C4 series are alarming. Given the highly suspicious circumstances of Madeleine's 'dis appearance' I would put Amelie, in particular (especially given Gaspar statements) as at high risk of abuse. The case is a disgrace and shows how the state fails to protect vulnerable children.

by j.rob 02.04.15 9:19

H

jeanmonroe wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?

Operation Oxborough?

The Metropolitan Police 'investigation' into Jill Dando's 'death'.

I agree, actually not at the 'start', of the 'investigation' but pretty damn quickly after investigation began, the MET 'ruled out' EVERYONE, being 'not guilty', except Barry George.

NO Serbian 'hitman/men', NO ex 'boyfriend', NO Mr 'Big' in UK gangster 'underground' (possible Grimewatch 'exposure').

NO NOBODY except............. BG.

NOBODY 'guilty' except...............BG.

And the MET 'team' led by the same DS, as Op Oxborough. assigned to OG, at the outset.(almost 4 YEARS ago!)

EVERYBODY, it 'seems' is 'guilty' ( to many 'suspects' to list) EXCEPT................... 9 holidaying 'friends'

Yes the population of the entire world are potential suspects...with the exception of the parents, family and friends who were the last people to see madeleine.

Well done operation grange! Sterling work. Not.

Pathetic. As are the truly nauseating press stories peddling the utterly absurd random mystery abductor theory.

What truly nasty dirty secrets must lie behind such an obvious cover-up of such monumental proportions?

Paedo rings is part of it, imo, plus maybe medical experimentation/ cover up of environmental hazards (nuclear stuf?) madeleine was 'sacrificed' at the alter of human greed and depravity, imo. All those 'reputations' to protect. So cynical to pretend this was ever about 'rescuing' a missing child. Quite the contrary. But the public's naivety was milked for all it was worth.

by Cheshire Cat 02.04.15 9:27

j.rob wrote:H
jeanmonroe wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?

Operation Oxborough?

The Metropolitan Police 'investigation' into Jill Dando's 'death'.

I agree, actually not at the 'start', of the 'investigation' but pretty damn quickly after investigation began, the MET 'ruled out' EVERYONE, being 'not guilty', except Barry George.

NO Serbian 'hitman/men', NO ex 'boyfriend', NO Mr 'Big' in UK gangster 'underground' (possible Grimewatch 'exposure').

NO NOBODY except............. BG.

NOBODY 'guilty' except...............BG.

And the MET 'team' led by the same DS, as Op Oxborough. assigned to OG, at the outset.(almost 4 YEARS ago!)

EVERYBODY, it 'seems' is 'guilty' ( to many 'suspects' to list) EXCEPT................... 9 holidaying 'friends'
Yes the population of the entire world are potential suspects...with the exception of the parents, family and friends who were the last people to see madeleine.

Well done operation grange! Sterling work. Not.

Pathetic. As are the truly nauseating press stories peddling the utterly absurd random mystery abductor theory.

What truly nasty dirty secrets must lie behind such an obvious cover-up of such monumental proportions?

Paedo rings is part of it, imo, plus maybe medical experimentation/ cover up of environmental hazards (nuclear stuf?) madeleine was 'sacrificed' at the alter of human greed and depravity, imo. All those 'reputations' to protect. So cynical to pretend this was ever about 'rescuing' a missing child. Quite the contrary. But the public's naivety was milked for all it was worth.

Hamish Campbell, Alison Saunders - two names that ensured the "successful" conviction of Barry George. And both names feature in the story of op.Grange. Worth a quick Google of Jill Dando + Alison Saunders. No wonder Jim Gamble has stated that the right Police force is now investigating Maddie - he recommended SY.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.04.15 10:09

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Hamish Campbell, Alison Saunders - two names that ensured the "successful" conviction of Barry George.

And both names feature in the story of Op.Grange. Worth a quick Google of Jill Dando + Alison Saunders. No wonder Jim Gamble has stated that the right police force is now investigating Maddie - he recommended SY.

And while we're on the subject of Alison Saunders, I recommend that everyone read this article in the Evening Standard in 2013:

HILLSBOROUGH FAMILIES' FURY AS ALISON SAUNDERS IS APPOINTED THE NEW DIRECTOR OF PUBLIC PROSECUTIONS:

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

And I don't want people to forget that she was the one who shut down the trial of three men for murdering Daniel Morgan in 1987 either. Here is Alison Saunders' official statement justifying here decision:

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

See also this Wikipedia entry about his killing:

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

Any government wanting to cover up uncomfortable truths needs the right person at the head of the Crown Prosecution Service. It looks like they've got someone who will do that job for them nicely. Small wonder she was the one sent to Portugal two years ago - since when nothing has happened on the case...

...apart, that is, from a Crimewatch programme with an untruthful reconstruction and two e-fits of different men allegedly drawn up by a bloke who saw a bloke for a few seconds in the dark and said he would never be able to recognise him again (oh, and waited 13 days to disclose his claimed sighting)

by DaSteelMan 02.04.15 12:35

Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?

1) Tracie Andrews

2) Phillpotts

3) And indeed McCann's in 2007

by Guest 02.04.15 12:36

I finally got the wave off letter from IPCC.

Thanks for nothing IPCC.

by **Tony Bennett** 02.04.15 12:47

DaSteelMan wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?
@ DaSteelMan

1) Tracie Andrews

REPLY: Please supply a link to any reference to the police announcing that Tracie Andrews was not guilty before the start of the investigation. I cannot recall any such statement

2) Phillpotts

REPLY: Please supply a link to any reference to the police announcing that the Philpotts were not guilty before the start of the investigation. I cannot recall any such statement

by RogerRabbit 03.04.15 9:01

Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?

This one hasn't either. No investigation prejudices the case with references to presumed guilt or non-guilt prior to investigation. An informal paraphrased and potentially 'diplomatic' exposition of remit or principal lines of enquiry are not the same thing, and are valid and authoritative only in the moment they were uttered for the person who uttered them and in the context they were uttered. For very necessary reasons the police and intelligence services alike do not and will not ever keep the public honestly apprised of where they're at.

by Liz Eagles 03.04.15 9:17

RogerRabbit wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?
This one hasn't either. No investigation prejudices the case with references to presumed guilt or non-guilt prior to investigation. An informal paraphrased and potentially 'diplomatic' exposition of remit or principal lines of enquiry are not the same thing, and are valid and authoritative only in the moment they were uttered for the person who uttered them and in the context they were uttered. For very necessary reasons the police and intelligence services alike do not and will not ever keep the public honestly apprised of where they're at.

Didn't OG (DCI Redwood) say it was to help the family and the family were regularly kept informed? What was the point in stating this?

by RogerRabbit 03.04.15 9:22

Richard IV wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?

Operation Oxborough?

The Metropolitan Police 'investigation' into Jill Dando's 'death'.

I agree, actually not at the 'start', of the 'investigation' but pretty damn quickly after investigation began, the MET 'ruled out' EVERYONE, being 'not guilty', except Barry George.

NO Serbian 'hitman/men', NO ex 'boyfriend', NO Mr 'Big' in UK gangster 'underground' (possible Grimewatch 'exposure').

NO NOBODY except............. BG.

NOBODY 'guilty' except...............BG.

And the MET 'team' led by the same DS, as Op Oxborough. assigned to OG, at the outset.(almost 4 YEARS ago!)

EVERYBODY, it 'seems' is 'guilty' ( to many 'suspects' to list) EXCEPT................... 9 holidaying 'friends'

But the MET didn`t actually specify the name of a person who is not guilty for example, in Jill Dando`s murder they didn`t say "Alan Farthing is not being investigated" or in Joanna Yeates murder "Greg Reardon is not being investigated" etc. So why the need to announce it in the Maddie murder/disappearance ?

Because this case was a review of a five year old case conducted by another nation's police force which already drew hugely controversial conclusions spawning a whole raft of conspiracy theories and media speculation and for reasons which are quite apparently not conformitive or friendly to the narrative carefully devised and doggedly pursued by ALL the parties involved with the McCann's, the review chose to present itself as something of a non-starter where the conspiracy theory was concerned. Scotland Yard failed to mention at the public declaration of intent that they had absolutely no authority or jurisdiction to pursue any of their supposed leads to any conclusions, and yet they proceed like they do, which can only mean that either complete idiots are engaged in political and career suicide to cover up a crime by leaving nothing but gaping holes in a critically shambolic process and inviting the world's media to spend a decade making documentaries about the conspiracy, or their remit has an ulterior motive and they are acting as a secondary investigation which seeks to bring a consolidated case across international borders.

Whatever the media reports about any of this is untrustworthy, and if subterfuge and deception is an operational part of the investigation, then actually all we know about Grange is that it HAS to be producing something, sometime or the people who instituted it and ran it will be facing a public firing squad. The pay day for the principals to take such a dive would have to be so vast that the cover up would have to be enormous and thus not for the benefit of the Mc's and frankly, if that were the case, the cheaper option would be to have the papers reporting on the tragic run of misfortune that dogged one family following a terrible accident, and thus we end up in the territory of the ridiculous.

by RogerRabbit 03.04.15 9:34

aquila wrote:
RogerRabbit wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Can anyone think of a police investigation anywhere in the world when the police have announced that certain parties are not guilty before the start of the investigation ?
This one hasn't either. No investigation prejudices the case with references to presumed guilt or non-guilt prior to investigation. An informal paraphrased and potentially 'diplomatic' exposition of remit or principal lines of enquiry are not the same thing, and are valid and authoritative only in the moment they were uttered for the person who uttered them and in the context they were uttered. For very necessary reasons the police and intelligence services alike do not and will not ever keep the public honestly apprised of where they're at.
Didn't OG (DCI Redwood) say it was to help the family and the family were regularly kept informed? What was the point in stating this?

I can think of a hundred reasons for police investigating this crime to be playing all kinds of games. 2 years and 10 millions to achieve a less effective non-solution than simply doing nothing is not precedented as being the kind of thing that either a politician or a policeman would stake their career on so wholly. Redwood was, quite simply, the distraction in an illusionists act. The ones doing the real work are the ones working in silence. The rest is set dressing and manipulating the scene. Given that SY have no remit to prosecute the crime alone, any time a Scotland Yard mouth is opening and making noise, it isn't safe to believe that anything is what it seems.

by Liz Eagles 03.04.15 9:43

Perhaps I'm being naiive but I think of things in simpler terms.

Operation Grange was formed when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, allowed himself to be bullied by Rebekah Brooks into instructing (without any authority!!!) The Metropolitan Police to conduct a review.

Operation Grange's remit is still not questioned by the media or the general public. It is simply accepted that 'Britain's finest' are doing the job 'for one of ours' that the Portuguese police 'bungled' and hence the ridiculous charade began.

It began with the garbled declaration of the parents/T7 not being suspects (absolutely no need whatsoever to state that), it was the parents who asked/demanded for the review in the first place. The parents were backed by the Murdoch media. It went on to say it was to help the parents and the parents were kept regularly updated.

OG then proceeded to do photoshoots of themselves removing files from Metodo3 offices (I mean, really was that necessary?) then they proceeded to Portugal with the commissioning of a helicopter, GPR equipment, snifferdogs etc (and a whole load of media stuff in between).

It's my opinion that it will be very easy to close OG, stick it on the back burner and blame it on the need for greater resources within the Metropolitan area. Even better is to get the Police Federation to start the grumble and then court public opinion within the media that money is better spent elsewhere. It CAN go away. No need for embarrassment on the part of OG, just let it dwindle which is what I suspect (my opinion only) is the grand design.

by RogerRabbit 03.04.15 18:07

aquila wrote:Perhaps I'm being naiive but I think of things in simpler terms.

Operation Grange was formed when the Prime Minister, David Cameron, allowed himself to be bullied by Rebekah Brooks into instructing (without any authority!!!) The Metropolitan Police to conduct a review.

Operation Grange's remit is still not questioned by the media or the general public. It is simply accepted that 'Britain's finest' are doing the job 'for one of ours' that the Portuguese police 'bungled' and hence the ridiculous charade began.

It began with the garbled declaration of the parents/T7 not being suspects (absolutely no need whatsoever to state that), it was the parents who asked/demanded for the review in the first place. The parents were backed by the Murdoch media. It went on to say it was to help the parents and the parents were kept regularly updated.

OG then proceeded to do photoshoots of themselves removing files from Metodo3 offices (I mean, really was that necessary?) then they proceeded to Portugal with the commissioning of a helicopter, GPR equipment, snifferdogs etc (and a whole load of media stuff in between).

It's my opinion that it will be very easy to close OG, stick it on the back burner and blame it on the need for greater resources within the Metropolitan area. Even better is to get the Police Federation to start the grumble and then court public opinion within the media that money is better spent elsewhere. It CAN go away. No need for embarrassment on the part of OG, just let it dwindle which is what I suspect (my opinion only) is the grand design.

I've seen no evidence that the world, or it's figures of influence, operate on 'simpler terms.'

Operation Grange was formed by people unknown, for reasons unknown, due to political pressure from sources unknown at the request of unknown.

That's the objective truth.

The rest is a story.

One thing I know for sure… if this were a whitewash, and it was a significant enough issue that a Prime Minister would spend ten million and stake the reputation of himself, the most prestigious police force in the UK, and the intelligence services on their collective ability to cover something up and leave no trace which could be later uncovered and used to embarrass them, there isn't a journalist, newspaper editor or media mogul on earth who would be safe as the agent of force or blackmail, friend or not, if the demand to do such a deed was accompanied with a threat of some form of exposure. People have been killed for less. If you think that someone as utterly dispensable as Rebekah Brooks was single-handedly and for reasons of commercial interest to Rupert Murdoch able to force Cameron into this shambles, then I think you've underestimated the nature of politics. The ability of the Cameron government to preside over giving Brooks and co, and indeed the Murdochs a black eye and a permanently tarnished reputation is proof that this is not the result of Newscorp pressure. Newscorp plays catch-up very quickly, and places bets in order to try to be the first, but they do NOT write the news before it happens.

Until you can rule out that the whole 'Brooks/Cameron' narrative is not simply hogwash designed to amuse the public, you've simply no idea what kind of animal Grange really is.

Operation Grange's 'remit' is known only to the insiders who instigated Grange and those at the top level of running the operation. It is not known whether Grange is an isolated and complete operation, or whether it is merely a compartment, a stage, a component within something larger. The evidence, including the very intricate levels of cooperation with other government departments, possibly intelligence services, prosecutors and numerous departments of the Portuguese authorities, not to mention the massive expenditure, indicate the latter. If it were the former, and the dead end that the operation appears to be reaching were indeed the end goal, then the end goal could have been achieved far sooner, far more cheaply, and without any of the elaborate play-acting. It is not safe to believe that Grange is anything short of a convenient front, and thus it cannot be presumed that any 'remit' has been honestly stated, and that the ends might justify the means in respect of deception.

Operation Grange's supposedly stated remit has been questioned by all kinds of media and all kinds of members of the general public. That these lines of enquiry go unreported, or left as enigmas, is not unusual and most certainly would not be unusual if Grange were, in fact, merely one thread in a multi-threaded pursuit of an end game which needed to be obscured from public scrutiny until a final reveal.

The remit began with nothing less than whatever beginning place the ruse called for, assuming I'm right. It served it's purpose. The theorists and speculators have been hung up on that 'opening statement' ever since, blissfully unaware that it is quite probably the first most successful distraction of the operation, an effective misdirection. Then you have another irrelevant misdirection… that 'the parents' asked for it. Connecting the dots between the parents asking for it and Grange being instituted is erroneous. As erroneous as the idea that Newscorp asking for it would get a ten million pound police operation which would be counter productive and fall foul of the public and MP's alike. Where is the evidence that grieving parents ever get elaborate two year, ten million pound investigations having seized control of the investigation themselves, been caught out in underhand behaviour, failed to cooperate with police investigations and failed to provide a scrap of credible evidence TO investigate? Newspapers that chase pet issues ALWAYS bill themselves as the ones who demanded investigation and then claim credit when the authorities proceed. And as for the McCann's, they couldn't afford NOT to be seen begging for investigations. The scrutiny they're under? They were probably stunned when someone said 'actually, yes, we're going to investigate' and all evidence is that they then proceeded to re-engage the publicity machine in order to try to steer the direction by having the police chase the media, or have the police chased by the media. The whole thing is a PR game, and for my eye, little more.

One other thing is certain. The media does not 'back' anyone. The media curries favour, it attempts to influence, it associates itself wherever it sees the opportunity to sell. And it turns just as quickly. It rarely says 'they fooled us', because it doesn't care about being fooled or not. But it will be the first to change sides at just the right time. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. That's how you stay on top of the news. It's how you get exclusives. The McCann's are valuable for exclusives… If you can't publish something damning about them, then play nice and make sure you get the kind of scoops that only friends would get. For all the support the McCann's had from the Murdoch media, according to you, it didn't stop them biting the hand that fed them with Hacked Off and Leveson.

As for OG photoshoots, police investigators don't do photoshoots. Illusionists do photoshoots. They make you look at what they want you to see. To plant a thought. To send a message. To manipulate a scene. To create a diversion. To simply waste time. To play politics. Helicopters. GPR. Dogs. Personnel. If they did it, it had a purpose. One thing they were not was clueless and inept. If they'd have made a judgement, and attempted a conviction, and HADN'T been seen doing ALL those things, the defence would tear the case apart. Someone will pay for this with their job and their future career if this expenditure is NOT deemed to be serving the public interest.

"It's my opinion that it will be very easy to close OG, stick it on the back burner and blame it on the need for greater resources within the Metropolitan area. "

Ridiculous. They could have killed OG off after six months by stating there was no evidence. The grumbling about Grange isn't coming from the people running Grange, it's coming from the people impatient for results, or anxious to avoid being implicated. It is a provocation, not an epitaph for the Op.

If the purpose was to make Grange go away without any embarrassment or questions, then it has failed big time, and is eighteen months too late. Grange is beyond a point of no return. It is only a matter of time until the reveal.

by plebgate 03.04.15 18:24

Could they have killed it off in six months? I don't know, but Portugal has the lead in this case so IMO it would have been very difficult to kill it off in six months by saying there was no evidence.

As JeanMunroe frequently posts, at the end of this review/investigation if it is shelved again without being solved, the Pt. police will release the files as they did before.

Can the Met finish it off? Again, I don't really know but I do not think that Aquilla's suggestion of how it COULD be killed off (from the Met's participation) is as ridiculous as you seem to think RogerRabbit.

by Liz Eagles 03.04.15 18:31

@RogerRabbit

Operation Grange has been running for 4 years.

I'm afraid I don't have the debating skills or the inclination to tackle the rest of your post other than to say I disagree with quite a lot of it.

by plebgate 03.04.15 18:37

I hate long posts and I do not have the debating skills either, but it gets my goat when posters use words such as ridiculous when replying to another poster. Admittedly some posters here have posted things which could be termed ridiculous but it is normally from people who join to cause disruption. I don't think posters with a proven track record deserve to be replied to in such a manner.

Not expecting a reply but sometimes one has to say something (IMO) of course.

by String 03.04.15 18:40

RogerR......
Outstanding analysis of current situation. thanks

How do you think these poor hardworking Met staff feel when reading this forum? This is not a whitewash - the original remit was restricted. I believe that things have changed and in many ways feel that Kate wished she had taken the two year deal.

The MCann's must be in a living hell - Karma!