Re: Sky News - 6 months to find Maddie

by Rogue-a-Tory 03.04.16 21:06

HiDeHo wrote:Is it necessary to be negative about this? We know NOTHING about SY investigation and if they DID have an answer, what are they able to do? Can they only make charges relating to anything in UK? eg Fund?

Isn't it ONLY the PJ that have the ability to charge them for a crime of being complicit in Madeleine's disappearance?

Even if SY were able to would they do so BEFORE the PJ have completed their investigation?

I could be very wrong but we are all putting a lot of effort here and I prefer to be positive or I may as well do something else...

I want to see PROOF that SY haven't got anything to charge them

Even the Express was 'helpful'

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

They could also make charges for attempting to pervert the course of justice should statements given to a UK police force be found to be deliberate lies.

by Richard IV 03.04.16 21:10

It always bugs me that the media forget to say that all this money is coming from the TAX PAYER not `the government`. Each one of us is paying for the McCanns to carry on this farce.

However, it`s always stuck in my mind that it was said (by the Mirror and maybe other papers) that this money is coming from "a special Home Office Fund" and I`ve wondered what is `special` about it. Is it being funded by someone `special` who wants to manipulate the end result but keep it looking kosher. I`m sure this goes on all the time, e.g. all these supposed government `Inquiries` that always conclude in favour of the establishment.

"Operation Grange has cost almost £8million. More than £100,000 has been spent on the transport of British authorities to and from Portugal. The money comes from a special Home Office fund."
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 21:28

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:

As you know, I've called Operation Grange an 'expensive charade' from Day 1, and have seen absolutely nothing since to change my view. But that most certainly doesn't stop me from carrying on researching...
But what's the point, Tony?

inspirespirit wrote:According to the Operation Grange official Remit, they are looking at the WHOLE investigation. So surely that covers everything as well as abduction.

Tony...You know a lot more about the workings of the UK. I'm in Canada and don't really have access to any UK news and politics and whitewashes etc except on here.

However, I have spent a good deal of time on the phone to Operation Grange and spoke to three different detectives (two of them answered the direct line when the detective I was in contact with was away) they were not only helpful they encouraged me to send in my research including my videos.

I approached them about what was being said at the time...that it was a whitewash. I knew that I was not going to be told specific information but he told me himself (during the time Andy Redwood was giving media interviews) that they were not releasing any of the investigation (for obvious reasons) but made a point of saying that regarding what WAS in the media that different people hear it differently....basically to read between the lines. He emphasized the importance about that.

I have done this and CAN see many positives in what has been said as opposed to just 'hear' what it sounds like.

eg. McCanns are not suspects = The McCanns are not suspects in THIS line of inquiry (there are MANY lines of Inquiry

McCanns are not suspects = They are not suspects TODAY

Was the time and effort and expense of digging in PdL to FIND the suspects or to ELIMINATE every possible avenue and therefore ensuring that if the PJ (being the jurisdiction that can charge them with being complicit in the disappearance) CHARGE the McCanns and it goes to trial they cannot use the defence of not everything was done...not everything was followed up?

I was ASSURED with emphasis they include everything, EVERYTHING in the investigation and it is ALL entered into the computer just like any other investigation. He chuckled and said 'No stone is left unturned'

As mentioned before, I am not familiar with the 'darker' side of corruption in the UK and you may well be correct about it being a whitewash from the higher echelons, but after speaking to the detectives I was assured (as well as reading between the lines) that it was an investigation that the 'men on the ground' were treating as a full blown investigation and NO credible evidence was discounted.

There is no question that they were extremely helpful and the assurance about how the investigation would be kept 'under the radar, and to read between the lines in any media interview.

He answered the phone... 'Homicide'

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

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 21:31

by willowthewisp 03.04.16 21:33

Pardon me for being cynical in regard to Operation Grange and the dodgy senior elements of Scotland Yard as Mr T Bennett has stipulated,as some how "Not being the finest Police Force", take a long look at the unsolved Daniel Morgan Murder and the manipulation of evidence by the UK Police force, then ask the question if "Scotland Yard" had ever been the finest in the world with all the chicanery coming to light of what they had been involved in all along?
Isn't it funny how there is to be an "Extension time period" for Operation Grange and the demise of the Mr Goncalo Amaral defamation trial still not decided,also note how many times their decisions taken in regard to when likely announcements for the defamation case, then supposedly looking for an alive Madeleine with Tracker Dogs,"ask the dog's Sandra" eh Gerry!?
The UK Government cannot afford for the Portugal PJ to have a different conclusion of their investigation case findings,can they or will both Countries care politely to disagree?
Another point is, how come the MSM are afraid to mention the Find Madeleine fund being swindled/conned out of donations being misappropriated by Kevin Haligen,Metodo3 and how they had paid £500,000.00 to have the Madeleine story kept in the headlines to Bell, Pottinger,Leveson Inquiry?

by Verdi 03.04.16 22:03

Anyone still clinging to the hope that Operation Grange is working for the good of little Madeleine McCann, I strongly advise that you again study carefully the Crimewatch 2013 - Madeleine McCann Special..

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

Two and a half years down the line, discounting the previous months since Grange was launched in May 2011 (curiously about the same time as madeleine by Kate McCann was released), and they are still talking of significant progress?

The latest (cough!) news gives Scotland Yard another six months to find Madeleine - does that really sound like significant progress? They might engage the services of third rate journalists to keep regurgitating the same old rubbish but still the government and police have a very close working relationship with the media. How else can they get their message out there?

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 22:13

I do recognise that I may be alone, and ultimately wrong about having a positive hope for Scotland Yard. I have to be true to my own thoughts and accept being wrong if that is the case.

As I mentioned, being in Canada I am not familiar with previous 'troubles' and though I believe it is an above board investigation regarding the detectives on the case, I realise the higher echelons may manipulate it.

What I would be interested to know...

In the best case scenario...and Operation Grange came to a conclusion finding the McCanns involved then WHAT could their conclusions be?

Surely they could not be involved in charging them regarding the disappearance.

Would they only be involved in the Fund? We 'know' that the PJ have no jurisdiction over the fund.

What would the final conclusions be in a best case scenario?

by Verdi 03.04.16 22:16

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: However, I have spent a good deal of time on the phone to Operation Grange and spoke to three different detectives (two of them answered the direct line when the detective I was in contact with was away) they were not only helpful they encouraged me to send in my research including my videos.

I approached them about what was being said at the time...that it was a whitewash. I knew that I was not going to be told specific information but he told me himself (during the time Andy Redwood was giving media interviews) that they were not releasing any of the investigation (for obvious reasons) but made a point of saying that regarding what WAS in the media that different people hear it differently....basically to read between the lines. He emphasized the importance about that.

Since it's establishment in May 2011, can you imagine how many people have had the temerity to contact Operation Grange regarding the case of Madeleine McCann. Genuine callers with information they think may help, hoax callers who think they may hinder, realistic sightings, unrealistic sightings etc. I don't believe the switchboard or desk duty officer would/could differentiate between on caller and another as regards usefulness. I think it more likely they treat each caller with the same due deference and apply extreme caution as to what information they reveal to chance callers.

Who knows who might be at the other end of the phone. Journalists for one use this kind of method for gaining confidential information.

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.16 22:22

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
As you know, I've called Operation Grange an 'expensive charade' from Day 1, and have seen absolutely nothing since to change my view. But that most certainly doesn't stop me from carrying on researching...
But what's the point, Tony?

The same point as with every past cover-up:

Jimmy Savile; Stephen Lawrence; the Cullen Report (Dunblane); the Bloody Sunday cover-ups; the Iraq War cover-ups...do whatever is necessary to bury the truth

by hogwash 03.04.16 22:34

HiDeHo: He answered the phone... 'Homicide'

As opposed to "Good morning. Whitewash, how may I help you?" onphone

by Liz Eagles 03.04.16 22:51

hogwash wrote:HiDeHo: He answered the phone... 'Homicide'

As opposed to "Good morning. Whitewash, how may I help you?"

Does a UK police department answer a phone 'Homicide'? If they do I've learned something today.

by Guest 03.04.16 23:34

On a direct line it's possible. I have no reason to doubt HiDeHo.

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 23:36

Verdi wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote: However, I have spent a good deal of time on the phone to Operation Grange and spoke to three different detectives (two of them answered the direct line when the detective I was in contact with was away) they were not only helpful they encouraged me to send in my research including my videos.

I approached them about what was being said at the time...that it was a whitewash. I knew that I was not going to be told specific information but he told me himself (during the time Andy Redwood was giving media interviews) that they were not releasing any of the investigation (for obvious reasons) but made a point of saying that regarding what WAS in the media that different people hear it differently....basically to read between the lines. He emphasized the importance about that.

Since it's establishment in May 2011, can you imagine how many people have had the temerity to contact Operation Grange regarding the case of Madeleine McCann. Genuine callers with information they think may help, hoax callers who think they may hinder, realistic sightings, unrealistic sightings etc. I don't believe the switchboard or desk duty officer would/could differentiate between on caller and another as regards usefulness. I think it more likely they treat each caller with the same due deference and apply extreme caution as to what information they reveal to chance callers.

Who knows who might be at the other end of the phone. Journalists for one use this kind of method for gaining confidential information.

I'm not sure if you are suggesting I was being 'fluffed' off. I wasn't privy to information, obviously but I had initially approached them about some information. Information from a friend, a non Maddie case member, who lives in Faro.

He advised me it would need to be checked for credibility (an MSN chat between myself and my friend) and once established that it WAS credible it was entered into the investigation...

After chatting for a while he suggested I send more of my research info, which I did.

I offered him my personal info/business etc so he could verify who I was.

Apart from the phone calls I received approx 10 or more emails from him covering various issues. I asked if I may quote him regarding some of the issues but he requested I did not. Understandably. I have only discussed the phone calls in a general sense and only fairly recently.

A couple of times I sent emails with information and specifically mentioned that I did not require a reply. I always received one back within hours, regardless, and reading between the lines learned a lot Wink

He gave me information regarding online abuse regarding the McCanns and that it was not in their remit. The only involvement they had was when one of our facebook members 'trivial' comments was sent by the pros as a 'threat' and appeared in Sun, Star, Mail and Express.

I was able to confirm the context of the comment in the full thread and they realised it was not a threat and that all the police security involvement in the Marathon was unnecessary...

That was reported in news March 16th 2013... It was quickly resolved...

However, a month later the Star issued front page headline just before the Marathon

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

As he explained, the reason SY were involved is because it was perceived as a 'threat'. The dossier was not in their remit. winkwink

Hogwash wrote:
HiDeHo: He answered the phone... 'Homicide'

As opposed to "Good morning. Whitewash, how may I help you?" [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

He may have said good morning, I can't recall but it was a direct line and probably used mostly for internal calls maybe?

One other comment when asking about whether or not they consider the discrepancy of Gerry claiming in May 4th they used the front door and then changing it to patio doors... His reply included 'Thats why it's a murder squad. (or similar)

by Liz Eagles 03.04.16 23:38

Ladyinred wrote:On a direct line it's possible. I have no reason to doubt HiDeHo.

Please don't misunderstand my post.

HiDeHo says it was a direct line. How does one get a direct line?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.16 23:42

HiDeHo wrote:I do recognise that I may be alone, and ultimately wrong about having a positive hope for Scotland Yard. I have to be true to my own thoughts and accept being wrong if that is the case.

REPLY: I was almost alone in the early days (May 2011), when so many people's hopes were high. I was constantly criticised on here for my 'negative' stance, not least by a former Moderator here. A poll on CMOMM in the early days was overwhelmingly favouring the view that this was a genuine attempt to uncover the truth. For such people, the first sign of a problem came when Scotland Yard was forced by repeated FOI Act requests from a number of individuals to disclose its remit: 'to investigate the abduction'. Bit by bit, most people have lost confidence in SY along the way.

As I mentioned, being in Canada I am not familiar with previous 'troubles' and though I believe it is an above board investigation regarding the detectives on the case, I realise the higher echelons may manipulate it.

REPLY: DougD, myself and a few others on here have often brought up the subject of police corruption on the forum. A look at the article on here about Operation Tiberius would be instructive; after a long internal investigation they found widespread corruption not only in the Met, but also in the Crown Prosecution Service, the Inland Revenue, Customs and Excise and even amongst court staff.

You wrote:  "...though I believe it is an above board investigation regarding the detectives on the case, I realise the higher echelons may manipulate it."

REPLY: I think, HideHo, this is the key to understanding Operation Grange. In any determined cover-up operation, it only needs say the Senior Investigating Officer, his deputy, the Investigating Officer, and two or three hand-picked Detective Inspectors or Sergeants to be corrupt...the other more junior officers are sent off to investigate disparate lines of enquiry but never see the full picture. There were 38 staff on this enquiry at its height. Maybe 6 or 7 could be corrupt; the rest might well be as honest as the day is long but not realise that are being manipulated (your word) as cover-up fodder.

What I would be interested to know...

In the best case scenario...and Operation Grange came to a conclusion finding the McCanns involved then WHAT could their conclusions be?

REPLY: No comment, as it won't happen.

Surely they could not be involved in charging them regarding the disappearance.

REPLY: As one says, these are 'uncharted waters' - bringing charges in a case involving a reported disappearance overseas and with an overseas force having precedence. I believe in lawm however, that a foreign country (in his case Portugal) can consent in exceptional circumstances to the U.K. undertaking the prosecution of an offence committed on its soil, if a British citizen is involved (as in this case). IIRC there have been cases of British paedophiles who have abused children in Thailand being successfully prosecuted in the U.K.

Would they only be involved in the Fund? We 'know' that the PJ have no jurisdiction over the fund.

REPLY: If there is proven criminality by any or all of the Directors of the Fund, that could certainly be prosecuted here. So I think could offences of perjury or perverting the course of justice. For example, if it can be proved that a British witness lied during the Madeleine investigation, I see no reason why a perjury charge could not be brought here.

What would the final conclusions be in a best case scenario?

REPLY: No comment.

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 23:43

aquila wrote:
hogwash wrote:HiDeHo: He answered the phone... 'Homicide'

As opposed to "Good morning. Whitewash, how may I help you?"
Does a UK police department answer a phone 'Homicide'? If they do I've learned something today.

LadyinRed wrote:
On a direct line it's possible. I have no reason to doubt HiDeHo

I will go back and check my notes and confirm it :)

aquila wrote:Please don't misunderstand my post.

HiDeHo says it was a direct line. How does one get a direct line?

I initially called the desk clerk and was put through to the detective.

Having asked me for further information he probably thought it was easier for me to call direct from Canada, although he did sometimes call me at a scheduled time

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.16 23:46

HiDeHo wrote:
He gave me information regarding online abuse regarding the McCanns and that it was not in their remit...

As he explained, the reason SY were involved is because it was perceived as a 'threat'. The dossier was not in their remit...

Reinforcing my point, HideHo, that Granges's only remit is to identify the abductor

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 23:48

Thanks for your reply Tony.

The reason I asked about the best case scenario is to find out what we should have been expecting from SY if it WASN'T a whitewash?

Are many under the illusion that SY would suddenly conclude with charges to the McCanns?

What CAN/COULD they charge apart from the fund?

by Liz Eagles 03.04.16 23:59

Snipped from Tony's post

REPLY: I think, HideHo, this is the key to understanding Operation Grange. In any determined cover-up operation, it only needs say the Senior Investigating Officer, his deputy, the Investigating Officer, and two or three hand-picked Detective Inspectors or Sergeants to be corrupt...the other more junior officers are sent off to investigate disparate lines of enquiry but never see the full picture. There were 38 staff on this enquiry at its height. Maybe 6 or 7 could be corrupt; the rest might well be as honest as the day is long but not realise that are being manipulated (your word) as cover-up fodder.

......................

I have repeatedly commented about the 38 staff. Were they seconded to OG for a few weeks, a few months, a few years? I'd like to know how many of the original team of OG staff are still in position. Switching staff after a few weeks, months etc is not good (for Madeleine). There has never been to my knowledge any report of how many of the original OG team is still in place or how OG has operated its staff.

by Liz Eagles 04.04.16 0:06

HiDeHo wrote:
aquila wrote:
hogwash wrote:HiDeHo: He answered the phone... 'Homicide'

As opposed to "Good morning. Whitewash, how may I help you?"
Does a UK police department answer a phone 'Homicide'? If they do I've learned something today.

LadyinRed wrote:
On a direct line it's possible. I have no reason to doubt HiDeHo

I will go back and check my notes and confirm it :)

aquila wrote:Please don't misunderstand my post.

HiDeHo says it was a direct line. How does one get a direct line?

I initially called the desk clerk and was put through to the detective.

Having asked me for further information he probably thought it was easier for me to call direct from Canada, although he did sometimes call me at a scheduled time

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], are you saying that a UK police officer called you?

by **HiDeHo** 04.04.16 0:15

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

aquila wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], are you saying that a UK police officer called you?

Yes a few times. Why? Is that odd?

by Liz Eagles 04.04.16 0:16

HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
aquila wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], are you saying that a UK police officer called you?

Yes a few times. Why? Is that odd?

Did you take notes of the conversations?

by **HiDeHo** 04.04.16 0:18

aquila wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
aquila wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], are you saying that a UK police officer called you?

Yes a few times. Why? Is that odd?
Did you take notes of the conversations?

Well yes of course and I have explained above some of the conversations content.

by Liz Eagles 04.04.16 0:20

HiDeHo wrote:
aquila wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
aquila wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], are you saying that a UK police officer called you?

Yes a few times. Why? Is that odd?
Did you take notes of the conversations?

Well yes of course and I have explained above some of the conversations content.

Publish your notes HiDeHo. If a UK police officer telephoned you and you took notes there's nothing to stop you publishing them.

I might sound pretty challenging but if you have information then publish it.

by **HiDeHo** 04.04.16 0:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:
He gave me information regarding online abuse regarding the McCanns and that it was not in their remit...

As he explained, the reason SY were involved is because it was perceived as a 'threat'. The dossier was not in their remit...
Reinforcing my point, HideHo, that Granges's only remit is to identify the abductor

Tony...you may be absolutely correct in your assessment of them, but I don't see social media abuse not being in their remit as confirmation they were only looking for the abductor.

Why did they accept all the information that I sent them including the videos?

Maybe if their remit was to only identify the abductor then thats a positive... with no stone unturned, they have as good as proven that there wasn't one :)