Re: Sky News - 6 months to find Maddie

by Guest 03.04.16 13:03

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 13:13

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 Guest 03.04.16 13:16

[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 13:22

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 13:34

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

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

by Liz Eagles 03.04.16 13:51

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 14:34

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

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 14:36

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 14:38

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 14:42

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 14:43

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 14:46

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 14:48

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 14:59

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 03.04.16 15:06

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** 03.04.16 15:15

[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 03.04.16 15:16

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** 03.04.16 15:18

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 03.04.16 15:20

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** 03.04.16 15:23

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 :)

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 15:29

aquila wrote:
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.

There is no need for me to 'publish' them and as for 'information' I did not receive 'special' information. I was able to use my own judgement which many of us do when we ask questions and receive answers. It's not only the words that are important.

As mentioned I had asked if I may quote him and he asked that I did not. I have honoured that and even though he is likely no longer on the case I would not compromise his trust in me.

There was nothing of interest to the case except the comments I have already mentioned, today and at other times.

by Liz Eagles 03.04.16 16:04

HiDeHo wrote:
aquila wrote:
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.

There is no need for me to 'publish' them and as for 'information' I did not receive 'special' information. I was able to use my own judgement which many of us do when we ask questions and receive answers. It's not only the words that are important.

As mentioned I had asked if I may quote him and he asked that I did not. I have honoured that and even though he is likely no longer on the case I would not compromise his trust in me.

There was nothing of interest to the case except the comments I have already mentioned, today and at other times.

HiDeHo wrote:

It's not only the words that are important.

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

But HiDeHo it is the words that are important. It is important to know whether a telephone call to UK police was answered with the word 'homicide'. Words are important.

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

HiDeHo wrote:

As mentioned I had asked if I may quote him and he asked that I did not. I have honoured that and even though he is likely no longer on the case I would not compromise his trust in me.

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

Why would a UK police officer who answers the phone 'homicide' calls a person in Canada, asks them to not quote him and you won't compromise his trust to publish what was exchanged in these conversations? How does that work?

by **Tony Bennett** 03.04.16 16:30

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

Back in 2011, they accepted and acknowledged a lengthy dossier of evidence I sent them in August that year.

Two months later, by arrangement, they accepted a personal visit from me and another member of the Madeleine Foundation to their HQ in Belgravia...

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

...which dealt mostly with a second dossier of evidence concentrating on the activities of the various detective agencies and public relations officers used by the McCanns and the Directors of the Fund. On that occasion I met with Det Inspector Tim Dobson, Andy Redwood's No. 2, and another colleague, in one of the downstairs interview rooms, during which time I was able to highlight the most relevant aspects of the dossier. I recall that the planning and execution of the two Arade Dam searches for Madeleine's bones, in late January and March 2008, was high on my list of things to mention.

Later I corresponded with D.I. Dobson about the evidence that McCann Team investigator Gary Hagland, the money laundering expert, might be able to provide.

During all of this activity, I was under no illusions about what would happen to my material.

However, it is on the record, and maybe one day it will be produced as proof of evidence that was made available in person to one of the Met's top officers.

Incidentally it is part of the iron injunction and court orders against me that I am strictly bound never to reveal the contents of those dossiers - unless, of course, there is a wholly unexpected and exceptional turn of events in the case.

PeterMac has sent numerous mini-dossiers, his e-book and numerous letters containing much evidence, and I know that you and not a few others have also done so.

I think all of our work has gone into a great big bin, probably marked something like: 'NOT IN OUR REMIT', and possibly shredded by now.

But should any police force ever set out to investigate this case afresh, without a strictly limited remit, I - and everyone else - will be free to re-submit our material.

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 17:21

You have made a HUGE effort to get the info to Operation Grange.

Why do you say that 'none' of it was used?

Was there something they told you to make you feel that way?

My initial contact with them went through the screening progress and was accepted and sent to the Major Incident Room to be added to the computer.

Its difficult for any of us to be sure about how they have treated the investigation and it's good to see that although we disagree on our thoughts towards it, that it gives everyone the opportunity to see all possibilities.

None of us know until some time in the future and I will have no regrets continuing to believe even if ultimately I am proven wrong.

Did you ask them at the time about what a lot of people were thinking regarding the 'Whitewash' and did you get a response? (knowing that you couldn't tell us what they said)

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 17:23

Aquila

I had several communications with a detective (and two others) from Operation Grange.

I knew ahead of time that he was not going to give me any 'inside info' it would be ridiculous to expect that but I was alert to not only what he said but HOW he said it and the words he used.

I have only ever posted about my communication with them in regard to suggestions of a whitewash.

Living in Canada, I have no idea how many SY investigations are questionable and how many are successful, but I based my opinion on the response to directly having the opportunity to inform of the suggestion it was a 'whitewash'. Has anyone else asked directly?

There was nothing odd about my calls and they most certainly were justified and could not have been considered 'harassment' or anything of that nature. He answered any questions I posed during the course of the conversations and I noted his reply and the manner in which he replied. He contacted me on occasions but often scheduled calls as time in Canada is 5 hrs behind.

I would imagine he (they?) answered the call 'Homicide' because that is their department.

Nothing sinister about him asking me to not quote him. The internet comments are open to scrutiny and would seem obvious to me that he did not wish to have them published..

I posted his response in a forum at one time, but removed after reading the notice at the bottom of each email but felt I should make him aware of my mistake.

I was trying to encourage forum members at that time. Now I just accept that many DO believe it to be a whitewash... but I hold the hope that it isn't. Unless/untill I get specific info that it isnt.

With the circumstances as they are and only using my portion of the communication, I have chosen to post part of my interaction regarding the 'whitewash'.

Again, keep in mind when I hear a response there is more to it than just listening to the words...

email content TO Operation Grange wrote:'....As you are probably aware, the review is spoken about often and not always in a positive way.

After speaking to you I feel very confident, knowing you prefer to keep under the radar. I try to encourage forum/blog members about the validity of the review despite their reservations...particularly regarding the wording in the 'remit' about the 'abduction'.

Consequently I posted your response (without your name) to give them encouragement and then shortly after saw the 'copyright' notice, so I removed my posts, but in the short time it was showing I'm not sure if anyone copied it.

It's not earth shattering info, of course, but I feel it does give a positive reflection of Operation Grange and I really think that is important.

May I use it or would you prefer I didn't? (without name of course)

Apologies for mistakenly posting without permission.

Thanks for your time....'

He responded that he would prefer I didn't post publicly as the legal notice is in place for a reason, but he assured me that he was more than happy to receive my emails.

Regarding emails...

Metropolitan Police Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SC&O1 - MIT5 | Belgravia Police Station | 202-206 Buckingham Palace Road London SW1W 9SX
NOTICE - This email and any attachments may be confidential, subject to copyright and/or legal privilege and are intended solely for the use of the intended recipient. If you have received this email in error, please notify the sender and delete it from your system. To avoid incurring legal liabilities, you must not distribute or copy the information in this email without the permission of the sender. MPS communication systems are monitored to the extent permitted by law. Consequently, any email and/or attachments may be read by monitoring staff. Only specified personnel are authorised to conclude any binding agreement on behalf of the MPS by email. The MPS accepts no responsibility for unauthorised agreements reached with other employees or agents. The security of this email and any attachments cannot be guaranteed. Email messages are routinely scanned but malicious software infection and corruption of content can still occur during transmission over the Internet. Any views or opinions expressed in this communication are solely those of the author and do not necessarily represent those of the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS).

I'm not sure why the curiosity about the communications. Like any other communication it should not be made public, particularly if requested not to and as usual, I only discuss the communication in reference to why I believe (and hope) that the investigation is conducted as we hope and that ALL the relative info has been sent to the Major Incident Room, and investigated.

by whodunit 03.04.16 18:15

@HiDeHo "I'm not sure why the curiosity about the communications. Like any other communication it should not be made public, particularly if requested not to and as usual, I only discuss the communication in reference to why I believe (and hope) that the investigation is conducted as we hope and that ALL the relative info has been sent to the Major Incident Room, and investigated."

It's perfectly understandable. You've made a claim of communicating with a representative of a major investigation, an investigation everyone here is concerned with. Curiosity about this communication is perfectly rational as is a demand for more detail.

As I tried to explain to April28 in another thread, a police officer who communicates with a member of the public----as opposed to say, a member of an intelligence agency, or a credentialed journalist who has promised anonymity in exchange for a quote or a bit of 'background information'---has no expectation of privacy. If he said it to you it's no different than if he were broadcasting it to the world. Put another way, he would not tell you, a random member of the public, anything he wouldn't say on a television or radio broadcast for public consumption.

The thing that baffles me is how people get the idea that their communications with public servants are in some way privileged information. If a member of the public communicates with public servants on a matter of of public interest, the person has 2 choices: Either keep the entire exchange to yourself or, if you can't help but tell others that you have communicated with a public servant on a matter of public interest, you are duty bound to report what you are told and to back it up with evidence. Promising secrecy when communicating with a public servant should never enter one's mind. Either refrain altogether from communicating with public servants or be prepared to face rejection when you tell the public servant that you cannot promise secrecy. Otherwise, why are you communicating with the public servant? To satisfy your own private curiosity? What good is that?

by dottyaussie 03.04.16 19:34

@TonyBennett

As you are very good at these things would it be worth sending an FOI request to find out why the further funding was requested? Would it tell us anything ?

by whodunit 03.04.16 20:05

Here is a comment by John Coxon on the Madeleine McCann: Abduction or Scam Facebook group which explains perfectly why the Op Grange 'investigation' cannot be trusted:

I wish to register a formal complaint in regard to Operation Grange , the so called Met Police search for Madeleine McCann.
I do so on the following grounds.

1/ It has blatantly and inexplicably failed to look at the parents and accompanying party as suspects in the investigation.
This is in complete disregard to the findings in the original Portuguese investigation.
Namely A/ multiple and significant discrepancies in their accounts
B/ deletion of mobile phone data and obstruction of evidence
C/ multiple indications by forensic cadaver and blood dogs in their apartment on KMs clothing , the child's toy and on a vehicle they hired 3 weeks after her disappearance.Also a close DNA match found in the boot of the same vehicle.
D/ An eye witness account naming Gerry McCann as the so called prime suspect, Smith man.
E/ The MCcanns refusal to cooperate , answer questions and take part in a reconstruction which shelved the original enquiry
F/ Allegations from two healthcare professionals that at least one of the party , doctor David Payne [and, it must be said, Gerry McCann~whodunit] is a paedophile.

[G. Here I would add the 48 questions KM refused to answer]

They were made suspects for all these perfectly valid reasons , it is apparent that Operation Grange has failed to address a single one of them. The Portuguese closing report does not exonerate them at all , I presume during the 5 years of its existence Grange was aware of these matters , yet has acted as if none of this ever happened.
More specifically , Met police chief Hogan Howe has on at least one occasion claimed the MCcanns have been " ruled out" , firstly , this is at complete odds with Granges opening statement which claims " treat the abduction as if it happened yesterday" clearly implying they were totally off the table from the start , secondly it is simply impossible as there is no independent evidence that exonerates them and if there was the MCcanns publicity machine would be screaming it from the roof tops.
2/ It is apparent lines of enquiry have been leaked to the media. If this were the case and a live child were being held captive , it would clearly endanger that individuals life, obviously a totally unacceptable situation. Furthermore these leaks have frequently coincided with an ongoing civil case the MCcanns are fighting in Portugal , too frequently for comfort.
3/ This failure to investigate properly has boosted the MCcanns public profile, helped promote KMs book sales and enabled them to take on further projects. Do you believe , for instance KM would have been made an ambassador for a charity had the Met asked her the same 48 questions she refused to answer in Portugal? I doubt it.
4/ Grange has wasted huge amounts of public money and police time chasing shadows in Portugal which its legal advisors must surely have told them were not viable lines of enquiry. In other words it has done a lot of work and spent a lot of money for the sake of doing it , no other credible reason.
The conclusions here are blatantly obvious.
Operation Grange is a whitewash - a vast PR exercise to promote an abduction scenario that not one shred of evidence exists to support ever even happened.
The implications are equally obvious .
A/ It obstructs the real police investigation going on in Portugal
B/ It potentially supports a criminal fraud of huge proportions the MCcanns ongoing business.
C/ It undermines the entire credibility of the whole Metropolitan Police Service ( as if it needed any further help)
D/ It threatens the credibility of the entire UK criminal justice system.
In summary Grange is simply corrupt , it has misappropriated huge amounts of public money , it potentially lets child murderers walk free, it is beyond a disgrace, it is worthy of extensive investigation in itself , that day can't come soon enough.
........................ PLEASE SHARE WE NEED TO GET OUR MESSAGE OUT ENOUGH IS ENOUGH..............................

by **HiDeHo** 03.04.16 20:20

Do we know for a fact that Scotland Yard have dealt with none of the above?

by Guest 03.04.16 20:24

From my knowledge and limited experience of UK policing in connection within the remit of a major criminal investigation, this is not how it works. If a member of the public thinks they have information that may assist the police in an investigation, the duty officer will take details, thank you for calling and ask for a contact point should they (the police) wish to follow up your call or visit. The police do not give information appertaining to a criminal investigation over the telephone, electronic communication or in person - that is not how the system works. As I previously said, how would they know who they are talking to?

Whether or not they take information provided by a chance caller seriously is a matter of conjecture but one thing for sure - the UK police do not freely give out information relative to an investigation to a chance caller. Any nudge nudge wink wink connotation I think is in the eye of the beholder.

Again, from my limited experience, the police and/or court of law are more likely to grill you in order to ascertain your motive rather than take what you say prima facie. As for Operation Grange, who knows - could be they are only interested in squashing the notions of interfering members of the public or could be they are interested in knowing what the general public are thinking in order to cover all angles when the case is finally ~~archived~~ buried - or could be they are just following orders.

I don't think we will ever know.