Met Police (Operation Grange) - Bollocks or not bollocks?

Hi Verdi, thanks for your reply.
Mark Rowley must cringe"Every time"that he either hears his verbal response or if he ever has to re-read his statement as actual explanation,not known facts of the case,just top flight Metropolitan Police Force Work?
CMMoM members now know what a "Cesspitt"looks like,with all these fine highly Ranked Officers,with years of experience in Crime Detection,clearly unable for Cognitive dissonance to come to the Conclusions they have given to the public,via their statements?

It's a travesty, that's what it is - he should have been told to clear his desk by the end of the day after that embarrassing display of ineptitude and unconvincing excuse to explain away expenditure of in excess of 15 million of public money on a pseudo case review/investigation.

Take for example, I quote..

"... the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of.  In terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life...."


If, as Rowley says, they were happy that the Portuguese investigation had satisfactorily dealt with it all. The PJ made the McCanns arguidos, effectively meaning suspects.  They concluded by evidence and intelligence that the McCanns, in my words, could be guilty of faking an abduction and concealment of a corpse.  Good so far ... what then?  Do Britain's finest think that to be the end of the matter - do they conclude that the McCanns are totally innocent of any involvement in their daughters disappearance based on the PJ investigation?  That doesn't compute, no matter how you try to twist and turn the evidence.

In addition, does AC Mark Rowley with his vast policing experience, think the only two possibilities to explain the disappearance of a three year old child are a) wandering off alone in quest of a new life or b) abduction?

Unbelievable - Rowley should be struck off!

" However she left that apartment , she was abducted " 

This sentence alone , without all the rest of the rubbish he spouts tells us exactly what Operation Grange is all about !  

How many " last throws of the dice " are we on now ?

Are " bungling burglars " still on that dice ? Is there a dead man still under suspicion ?

Have you found the " woman in purple " yet ? 

Has E. T turned up ? How about a " Quantum Leap " , a timeslip ?

As a plot for films or TV , your sorry story would be laughed out of the building ! 

For " bungling sardine munchers " read " bungling fish and chips munchers "  ( sea bass of course )

According to AC Mark Rowley, the work of six or eight private investigators was incorporated in the review/investigation of the case of Madeleine McCann by Operation Grange

I'd be interested to learn from Operation Grange, why they included the work of dubious private detectives hired by the Find Madeleine Fund - none of which have any expertise in missing persons.  At best frauds - at worse criminals + implications of money laundering.

If Operation Grange is a legitimate investigative force - why are they considering the evidence of a selection of unauthorized crooks?

Verdi wrote:According to AC Mark Rowley, the work of six or eight private investigators was incorporated in the review/investigation of the case of Madeleine McCann by Operation Grange

I'd be interested to learn from Operation Grange, why they included the work of dubious private detectives hired by the Find Madeleine Fund - none of which have any expertise in missing persons.  At best frauds - at worse criminals + implications of money laundering.

If Operation Grange is a legitimate investigative force - why are they considering the evidence of a selection of unauthorized crooks?

Exactly!  Operation Grange is not a legitimate investigation. They know it, we know it, they know we know it but for some unknown reason, they are getting away with it.

Cmaryholmes wrote:Exactly!  Operation Grange is not a legitimate investigation. They know it, we know it, they know we know it but for some unknown reason, they are getting away with it.

With Home Office seal of approval!

Verdi wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:Exactly!  Operation Grange is not a legitimate investigation. They know it, we know it, they know we know it but for some unknown reason, they are getting away with it.

With Home Office seal of approval!

Hi Verdi,so that concludes that there is a massive Cover up by the Establishment of what has happened to Madeleine McCann,but what is not clear is the reason for the Cover Up in the First place(Gasper statements stalled from Portugal PJ)?

willowthewisp wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:Exactly!  Operation Grange is not a legitimate investigation. They know it, we know it, they know we know it but for some unknown reason, they are getting away with it.

With Home Office seal of approval!

Hi Verdi,so that concludes that there is a massive Cover up by the Establishment of what has happened to Madeleine McCann,but what is not clear is the reason for the Cover Up in the First place(Gasper statements stalled from Portugal PJ)?

  Everything comes to he who waits ....

willowthewisp wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Cmaryholmes wrote:Exactly!  Operation Grange is not a legitimate investigation. They know it, we know it, they know we know it but for some unknown reason, they are getting away with it.

With Home Office seal of approval!

Hi Verdi,so that concludes that there is a massive Cover up by the Establishment of what has happened to Madeleine McCann,but what is not clear is the reason for the Cover Up in the First place(Gasper statements stalled from Portugal PJ)?

Still those who support the McCanns continue to call the Portuguese Police corrupt .

Blinkered , heads in sand , fingers in ears !

Is it possible to ask someone at OG or anyone in authority what action was taken on the Gasper statements.

Surely they were investigated?

Anyone got channels that won't get ignored?

Is it possible to ask someone at OG or anyone in authority what action was taken on the Gasper statements.

Tricky one that. 

Firstly you have to remember that the Gaspar allegation (at least missus), cannot be in any way directly connected to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  If there is any truth in the allegation, which I've no reason to doubt, the incident occurred a long time prior to Madeleine's alleged disappearance.  Plus, in fairness to the police in general, if any attention was/is paid to the Gaspar allegation, it would be investigated by a separate force concerned with child sex abuse.  The likelihood of any detail being revealed by the police hovers around zero - for obvious reasons  I feel.

Also, if I remember rightly, Dr Katherine Gaspar warned her husband to watch their children at bath time as David Payne was said to be one of the fathers that supervised communal child bathing on that particular holiday.  She also said that they met the McCanns again, after this holiday, at a child's birthday party.  Seriously, would any right minded parent allow a man to bathe their child/ren having witnessed the Payne sexual gestures - or indeed to again meet up with the other person involved, Gerry McCann?  If it ever came to that stage, which I doubt, I believe the Gaspar statements would be laughed out of court.  Important intelligence maybe - conclusive evidence most definitely not!

I wouldn't trust David Payne further than I could poke him but sometimes, as a member of the public, you have to look at matters through the eyes of the law - at least when considering asking pertinent questions about a delicate policing issue.  I don't see the harm in raising questions on an internet forum or suchlike, to expect a positive response from the authorities about every curious detail is however another matter altogether.

Despite the yearning for a positive satisfactory conclusion to this never ending case, I can't help but think that flooding the authorities with requests for information on every case detail, no matter how trivial, is more detrimental to the overall aim than beneficial.  Can't think of any example off the top of my head but it can't be denied, there have been some pretty stupid FOIs and petitions submitted by well meaning folk over the years.  I think it ruins the chances of any positive response from the authorities when a well constructed, coherent evidence based request is put forward.

It's a pretty important "case detail".

It's a "case detail" that was bizarrely withheld from the PJ for quite a while.

I think it's a fair question to ask what was done about it.

Especially as taxpayers we have spent a lot of money on this.  

It wouldn't exactly be flooding the authorities to ask.

BlueBag wrote:It's a pretty important "case detail".

It's a "case detail" that was bizarrely withheld from the PJ for quite a while.

I think it's a fair question to ask what was done about it.

Especially as taxpayers we have spent a lot of money on this.  

It wouldn't exactly be flooding the authorities to ask.

Hi Bluebag,the connection to the Gasper statements is the"Bathing of other peoples children"and the videos/accountability of how the parents perceived these events,Crying Incident,Was this when they were being Bathed,tired before bed?
Perhaps it may be too much studying of the case,to conclude as to what actually happened to Madeleine McCann,but of the Tapas 7/9,at least one person made a statement not confirming where he was at the time but the other Parent didn't raise any objection,when they offered to assist,at Bath Time 3 May 2007,only there for 30 Seconds,Minutes?
Would that be pertinent to a different forum,eh DP?
That is if the claimant still states where he was on that day,at that time offering assistance?

Just imagine for a moment that the O.C. holiday had been adults and no children. Imagine Gerry returns to the apartment and Kate is missing, vanished into thin air. Now, it is unlikely that abduction would immediately spring to mind (although possible) but accident, suicide, having gone out to down town and met with foul play would probably be in the running. Now imagine that Gerry and his friends' stories of what they were doing that evening and who had last seen Kate and when were full of contradictions, holes and changes of story. Then imagine that Eddie and Keela are sent for and alert to cadaver odour and blood matching Kate's D.N.A. in the apartment and hire car. Where would Gerry most likely be by now? Would it be acceptable if Op. Grange did not at least re-examine Gerry's contradictions and changes of story? Why is it different because the victim is a child?

Because :
A).  Madeleine's body betrays something unsavoury
B).  There is another big cover up that may or may not be exposed by Madeleine's body

According to the Police Oracle weekly newsletter, the Metropolitan Police are advertising for an Assistant Commissioner to be based in 'taking pride in' London - a cool basic salary of circa. 190,000k per annum (that's about 200,000 in pounds shillings and pence).

No wonder Mark Rowley doesn't want to rock the boat - his lifestyle and pension might just topple overboard.  Which reminds me - Andy who?

ETA:  What a pity PeterMac is otherwise engaged on more important matters - like doing the job of a 200,000 pounder, free gratis and for nothing, solving the mystery of Madeleine McCann's alleged disappearance.

For the blinkered and hard of hearing lest they forget..

Update on the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

 [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]   •  Oct 28, 2015 14:49 GMT

The Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) has today, 28 October announced the new structure and changes to the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

The investigation into what happened to Madeleine continues but with a smaller team of officers. Officers investigating her disappearance have completed the huge task of bringing together and investigating the massive amount of information held by colleagues in Portugal, the United Kingdom investigation and the private investigators working on behalf of the McCann family.

They are now following a small number of focused lines of inquiry that have allowed them to reduce the size of the Home Office funded team.

Detectives investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007 have been working through material and following investigative inquiries since the Home Office requested a review of the case in May 2011.

Operation Grange is working to support the Portuguese investigation and this work continues.

While there remain lines of inquiry to follow, the vast majority of the work by Operation Grange has been completed.

This work included reviewing all the material relating to the case which were brought together for the first time and amounted to collating over 40,000 documents from United Kingdom and foreign law enforcement agencies, as well as various private investigation companies.

Officers worked meticulously through the information. Some of the material had to be translated into English, facts had to be cross-referred and diligently analysed to ensure an oversight of what the MPS was examining and to search for new lines of inquiry.

Once this work had been completed the review became a full investigation in July 2012.

The investigation team has taken 1,338 statements and collected 1,027 exhibits. Having reviewed all of the documents, 7,154 actions were raised and 560 lines of enquiry identified, and over thirty international request to countries across the world asking for work to be undertaken on behalf of the Met.

Officers have investigated more than 60 persons of interest. A total of 650 sex offenders have also been considered as well as reports of 8,685 potential sightings of Madeleine around the world.

The Grange team received on average two hundred emails a week, and following the media appeal in October 2013 across three countries, received over 7,000 responses.

For an investigation of this size, the extraordinary circumstances of investigating a missing child four years later in another country, the vast wealth of information and theories, it was always going to be an immense task and required a full team of 29 staff working on it.


With the significant amount of work approaching completion, as with all investigations the MPS has reviewed the staff required to progress the remaining work.

A team of four officers will continue to work solely on the Grange investigation, funded by the Home Office. The enquiry has not reached a conclusion, there are still focused lines of investigation to be pursued.

The officers will continue to be overseen by Detective Chief Inspector Nicola Wall, the current senior investigating officer, and sit within an existing major investigation team on the Homicide and Major Crime Command. This will give them access to officers within that team should they be required to support further operational activity.

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley, from the MPS said: "The Met investigation has been painstaking and thorough and has for the first time brought together in one place what was disparate information across the world.

"This work has enabled us to better understand events in Praia da Luz the night Madeleine McCann went missing and ensure every possible measure is being taken to find out what happened to her.

"We still have very definite lines to pursue which is why we are keeping a dedicated team of officers working on the case. We have given this assurance to Madeleine's parents, Kate and Gerry McCann.

"The Portuguese police remain the lead investigators and our team will continue to support their inquiry. They have extended every courtesy to Operation Grange and we maintain a close working relationship. I know they remain fully committed to investigating Madeleine's disappearance with support from the Metropolitan Police.

"The Met was asked to take on this exceptional case as one of national interest. We were happy to bring our expertise to bear only on the basis that it would not detract from the policing of London; and the Home Office have additionally funded the investigation above normal grants to the Met. That will continue at the reduced level.

"I have overseen this investigation since 2012 and am very grateful for the enormous assistance of the media and public so far which, through the appeals, have generated new information and lines of Inquiry. "

Our decision and rationale has been discussed with Mr and Mrs McCann.

Mr and Mrs McCann said: "We would like to thank all the staff from Operation Grange for the meticulous and painstaking work that they have carried out over the last four and a half years. The scale and difficulty of their task has never been in doubt.
"We are reassured that the investigation to find Madeleine has been significantly progressed and the MPS has a much clearer picture of the events in Praia da Luz leading up to Madeleine's abduction in 2007.

"Given that the review phase of the investigation is essentially completed, we fully understand the reasons why the team is being reduced.

"We would also like to thank the Home Office for continuing to support the investigation.


"Whilst we do not know what happened to Madeleine, we remain hopeful that she may still be found given the ongoing lines of enquiry. "

The remaining Operation Grange officers will be deployed to other enquiries within Specialist Crime and Operations.

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

[Note:  This press release has been reproduced for research and study purposes]

Watch my lips - investigation investigation investigation.

Here's an interesting little snippet I unearthed whilst browsing Kate Healy-McCann's autobiographical chiclit - otherwise known as Exhibit A.  It's worth noting, Bob 'Bob' Small of Leicestershire Constabulary, was seconded to Praia da Luz within days of Madeleine's alleged disappearance as a contact point to act between the PJ and the McCanns...

As our main liaison with the British police, Bob was not privy to the investigation details. This was for our protection, he told us, as sharing knowledge we would otherwise not have had could potentially compromise us. In the light of the volume of information being released into the public domain by police sources via the media, this seems farcical now. It did emerge, however, that Bob had concerns of his own. He explained that the British police regarded the use of sniffer dogs as intelligence rather than evidence, and he was perplexed at the apparent fixation of the PJ on the idea that Madeleine had died in the apartment. He told Gerry he thought they’d [the PJ ?]  get a shock when the forensic results came back.

The next day Gerry rang Ken Jones, head of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers.  He, too, was beginning to despair of the investigation and the way it was being handled.  It was good to know we weren’t alone, and that we weren’t going totally mad, but why wouldn’t anyone speak out about this? Many people in top positions were saying the right things to us privately but it seemed nobody could – or would – do anything about it. If someone had stood up and said, ‘Stop! This is all wrong!’ things could have been very different.

Verdi wrote:Here's an interesting little snippet I unearthed whilst browsing Kate Healy-McCann's autobiographical chiclit - otherwise known as Exhibit A.  It's worth noting, Bob 'Bob' Small of Leicestershire Constabulary, was seconded to Praia da Luz within days of Madeleine's alleged disappearance as a contact point to act between the PJ and the McCanns...

As our main liaison with the British police, Bob was not privy to the investigation details. This was for our protection, he told us, as sharing knowledge we would otherwise not have had could potentially compromise us. In the light of the volume of information being released into the public domain by police sources via the media, this seems farcical now. It did emerge, however, that Bob had concerns of his own. He explained that the British police regarded the use of sniffer dogs as intelligence rather than evidence, and he was perplexed at the apparent fixation of the PJ on the idea that Madeleine had died in the apartment. He told Gerry he thought they’d [the PJ ?]  get a shock when the forensic results came back.

The next day Gerry rang Ken Jones, head of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers.  He, too, was beginning to despair of the investigation and the way it was being handled.  It was good to know we weren’t alone, and that we weren’t going totally mad, but why wouldn’t anyone speak out about this? Many people in top positions were saying the right things to us privately but it seemed nobody could – or would – do anything about it. If someone had stood up and said, ‘Stop! This is all wrong!’ things could have been very different.

Oh the irony is painful. "If someone had stood up and said, ‘Stop! This is all wrong!’ things could have been very different."

Keitei wrote:

Verdi wrote:Here's an interesting little snippet I unearthed whilst browsing Kate Healy-McCann's autobiographical chiclit - otherwise known as Exhibit A.  It's worth noting, Bob 'Bob' Small of Leicestershire Constabulary, was seconded to Praia da Luz within days of Madeleine's alleged disappearance as a contact point to act between the PJ and the McCanns...

As our main liaison with the British police, Bob was not privy to the investigation details. This was for our protection, he told us, as sharing knowledge we would otherwise not have had could potentially compromise us. In the light of the volume of information being released into the public domain by police sources via the media, this seems farcical now. It did emerge, however, that Bob had concerns of his own. He explained that the British police regarded the use of sniffer dogs as intelligence rather than evidence, and he was perplexed at the apparent fixation of the PJ on the idea that Madeleine had died in the apartment. He told Gerry he thought they’d [the PJ ?]  get a shock when the forensic results came back.

The next day Gerry rang Ken Jones, head of ACPO, the Association of Chief Police Officers.  He, too, was beginning to despair of the investigation and the way it was being handled.  It was good to know we weren’t alone, and that we weren’t going totally mad, but why wouldn’t anyone speak out about this? Many people in top positions were saying the right things to us privately but it seemed nobody could – or would – do anything about it. If someone had stood up and said, ‘Stop! This is all wrong!’ things could have been very different.

Oh the irony is painful. "If someone had stood up and said, ‘Stop! This is all wrong!’ things could have been very different."

that's the 64,000 dollar question though isn't it,Stop! this is all wrong,"things could have been very different"?

We are where we are today,because of other peoples actions,signed depositions,Duplicity,Deceitfulness oh and not to forget Six years of a so called Investigation farce Operation Grange,is it now Four Special Crime Watch programmes October 2013,Two Male e-fits but now looking for a Women dressed in Purple last seen loitering with intent around apartment block 5a Ocean Club 3 May 2007?
As highlighted in Red,"Forensic Results"so what if the Results were doctored FFS quickly disbanded after the result published(Bob Small)isn't this"Perverting the Court of Justice"?

willowthewisp wrote:As highlighted in Red,"Forensic Results"so what if the Results were doctored FFS quickly disbanded after the result published(Bob Small)isn't this"Perverting the Court of Justice"?

I was going to add a comment at the foot of the post but the OCD in me wouldn't allow - couldn't get rid of giant red bold letters, didn't want my comments to appear as such.

As I read it, 'Bob's' aside about the forensic results (if indeed one can believe Kate McCann's version of events - she may have been only reinforcing the rubbish trained dogs storyline), implies prior knowledge.  This case seems to be riddled with examples of perverting the course of justice and that includes Gerry McCann's call to the ACPO.

Can a prime suspect in a serious criminal investigation pervert the course of justice?  I rather think they can - and do!

Perverting the course of justice 

Misconduct in Public Office 

It's all there for those who want to see it !

" Stop , this is all wrong " 

Exactly what folk here on CMOMM and other places have been shouting for 10 years and will continue to shout until the truth is told and Madeleine has justice .

Amazing isn't it ? The next day, Gerry picks up the phone and calls the head of the ACPO.....simples !

All on speed dial : Sky, Gordon Brown, UK Consular General to Portugal to name but a few

polyenne wrote:Amazing isn't it ? The next day, Gerry picks up the phone and calls the head of the ACPO.....simples !

Big flashing sign... "Establishment cover-up".

FFS why?

This is why Madeleine's body can never/will never be found. If it isn't, cause of death cannot be established, perpetrators cannot be identified and the can of worms, as to why the whole convoluted cover-up is necessary, need not be opened.

Unless of course, someone in the know becomes loose-lipped.

But why the cover up in the first place ?

Does Madeleine's body give up a dirty secret that implicates someone very important ?
Does Madeleine's body give up proof of medical experimentation ?
Does Madeleine's body give up proof of sexual molestation and, if so, by whom ?

Poor Madeleine, the fight for the truth will not wane or waver.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I think if it were just a matter of conscience; friendship; reputation, etc, that someone might eventually talk. Perhaps someone who was close to, or after the event became close to, someone who is in the know, such as an x-partner or friend. However the words of someone I don't know but who I have an immense amount of respect for, the humble Professor Phil Scraton of Hillsborough disaster campaign 'fame', give an indication of what might well be going on behind the scenes in the Madeleine case:

'I remembered a more sinister call to my ex-directory number. This was a quite different, well-spoken male voice, which calmly and accurately listed the projects I had researched, ending with the comment “apologist for football hooligans”. Without pausing he named my children, their schools and what time they left home in the morning. Before putting down the phone he told me none of us were safe'.

Chilling is the only word for it. This brave man (with many others) persisted and came through 'triumphant' (remembering that 96 lost their lives and that a whole stadium full of Liverpool supporters were labelled as hooligans and worse), but they were blocked for endless years by ALL in a position to be able to do so - government; police; inquiries; etc. The Sun newspaper spread the lies as gospel.

I'll add that the police officers (and ambulance crews) in the front line on the day did not start out or intend to deceive - their written recollections (rather than sworn statements) were collected and systematically altered by a team of higher officers and lawyers (under the direct orders of the Chief Constable) to contrive a version of events which transferred blame away from poor police control and response, to the 'ramapaging', 'inebriated' (lies) fans. Statements were typed up and front line officers' signatures forged. Who can imagine the sort of pressure or threats they were under to keep quiet.

I am 100% convinced that this is a cover up of the highest order.

skyrocket wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - I think if it were just a matter of conscience; friendship; reputation, etc, that someone might eventually talk. Perhaps someone who was close to, or after the event became close to, someone who is in the know, such as an x-partner or friend. However the words of someone I don't know but who I have an immense amount of respect for, the humble Professor Phil Scraton of Hillsborough disaster campaign 'fame', give an indication of what might well be going on behind the scenes in the Madeleine case:

'I remembered a more sinister call to my ex-directory number. This was a quite different, well-spoken male voice, which calmly and accurately listed the projects I had researched, ending with the comment “apologist for football hooligans”. Without pausing he named my children, their schools and what time they left home in the morning. Before putting down the phone he told me none of us were safe'.

Chilling is the only word for it. This brave man (with many others) persisted and came through 'triumphant' (remembering that 96 lost their lives and that a whole stadium full of Liverpool supporters were labelled as hooligans and worse), but they were blocked for endless years by ALL in a position to be able to do so - government; police; inquiries; etc. The Sun newspaper spread the lies as gospel.

I'll add that the police officers (and ambulance crews) in the front line on the day did not start out or intend to deceive - their written recollections (rather than sworn statements) were collected and systematically altered by a team of higher officers and lawyers (under the direct orders of the Chief Constable) to contrive a version of events which transferred blame away from poor police control and response, to the 'ramapaging', 'inebriated' (lies) fans. Statements were typed up and front line officers' signatures forged. Who can imagine the sort of pressure or threats they were under to keep quiet.

I am 100% convinced that this is a cover up of the highest order.

Hi Skyrocket,thanks for your post on Mr Scraton's mysterious phone call,emphasising knowledge of his family,surely a phone call of this nature must have been reported to the Police with the"Threats"to his family,was it someone from MI5/6 offering such timely advice?
Paul Foot was castigated for years as being an IRA sympathiser,during his investigations into the Birmingham Six and the way the Police had extracted the confessions from these innocent men!  
Suffice to say,the Police then knowingly altered the Sworn statements to fit the Crime,who then went into a Court of Justice and then gave their version of events of the Pub Bombings?
There has been another Cover Up of an unsolved Murder by the UK Government of Daniel Morgan 10 March 1987,found bludgeoned to Death in a Publican parking area,with an Axe?
To this date well over £600 million pounds is thought to have been spent on collapsed Criminal Court actions and there is a very long list of associations to Employees from Rupert Murdoch's News Papers,Andy Coulson,Rebecca Brooks,the Cameron Brothers,also linking in the phone Hacking into this Equation,via Yates of the Yard,yes it is a very Murky World within the Metropolitan Police Service,just ask Area Commander Cressida Dick and Assistant Commander Mark Rowley,Operation Grange,statement of Not having interviewed under Caution Mr and Mrs McCann,Tapas crew over Madeleine's disappearance,reported as 3 May 2007?

Operation Grange announced that it was going to investigate the abduction as if it had happened in the U.K. but the fact is, it hasn't done so. Don' t the police still look closely at motive, means and opportunity when seeking the most likely suspects?  They believe Madeleine was abducted so let's start with opportunity. Who knew that (allegedly)  A) There were no adults in 5G that night, B) that the patio doors had been left open to facilitate entry? Answer - the Tapas 9. Who had the opportunity to be seen in or around 5G without raising suspicion? Answer - the Tapas 9. Who (besides the "not suspects" parents) was, by their own admission, in or around 5G that night? Well Matthew Oldfield admits entering 5G during the "window of opportunity" between 9 and 10 p.m., Russell O Brien and Jane Tanner were also in the vicinity during this critical time. None have alibis to confirm what they were doing so all three definitely had the opportunity. Means - well, they had even better means than any outside kidnapper. They could walk in like anyone else but had the added advantage of knowing how much time they would have before the next check and, if caught in the act, had the best means of making the removal of Madeleine seem innocent. (heard her crying and decided to take her outside to calm her/bring her to her mother). Even if they left behind forensic traces these could be readily explained away. Motive? For all S.Y. knows they could have been motivated by covert spite, revenge, anger, whatever, against Madeleine or her family. The point is they were the ones with the most opportunity and means yet it appears that none of them were investigated despite accounts of their actions during the time-frame being contradictory and confused. Instead S.Y. ignored them and focused fruitlessly on bungling burglars and passing paedophiles who had much more dubious opportunity, means or motive. It seems traditional police methods don't apply to Operation Grange.

A bit like Eddie & Keela, I have a very keen nose.

I don't even have to be in the same room but I can get a whiff of BS from many miles away. 

The stench from Operation Grange is off the sphincter oops I mean Richter Scale.