Sky News - 6 months to find Maddie

aquila wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

aquila wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

aquila wrote:@HiDeHo, 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:

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...



...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.

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)

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.

@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?

@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 ?

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

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

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.

@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.


As recently asked of April28th on another thread, why would an authority give out information to a member of the public and then ask that they do not share that information?

@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?

What would they be able to do?  Refer their findings to the UK government who have commissioned this inquiry/investigation at the tax payers expense and let them refer the case back to Portugal for conclusion.  Within Europe there are reciprocal procedures to be followed, in addition it is possible, I believe,  for the UK to prosecute for a crime committed overseas if that crime concerns child abuse.

As we are talking here of Operation Grange, they fall within the confines of the Homicide and Serious Crimes Unit - this does not include fraud which would be investigated by the fraud squad.

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

Since five years has elapsed since the initiation of Operation Grange with no apparent progress to this day, I think we can safely conclude the answer to that question is YES!

whodunnit wrote: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?

Are you suggesting that I am duty bound to recall my entire communication with SY?

5 years later, with the detective likely no longer on the case and with the case winding down I chose to offer my interpretation of my communication regarding the remarks about the 'whitewash' to give as credible a reason as to why I believe it.  

That doesn't make me right, but it gives part of the the reason as to why I think the way I do.

As for being 'duty bound' to release the contents of my communications I disagree.

I was not given a special privilege to speak to them nor did I receive any information that is 'secret'.  Anyone could have called as I did and asked the same questions that I did, and would have, presumably, received similar replies.

Verdi wrote:

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

Since five years has elapsed since the initiation of Operation Grange with no apparent progress to this day, I think we can safely conclude the answer to that question is YES!

They have kept 'under the radar' regarding the investigation and possibly required by PJ to not issue details and compromise their investigation.

We know nothing about the investigation so I fail to see how anyone can draw conclusions.

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

How could they?

Scotland Yard targets 12 British suspects in new investigation into disappearance of Madeleine McCann as top detectives says there is no evidence to suggest she is dead

• Arrests could be made within weeks by detectives probing 38 suspects
  
  
• Officers preparing to swoop on individuals 'scattered across Europe'
  
  
• Includes a dozen British nationals visiting or living in Algarve in 2007
  
  
• Investigators identify 'genuinely new' leads after two-year £5m review
  
  
• Convinced girl was abducted - and find no evidence she was murdered
  
  
• Parents Gerry and Kate McCann and the 'Tapas Nine' are not suspects
  
  
  
• Prime Minister David Cameron welcomes new evidence and leads
  
  

HiDeHo wrote:

whodunnit wrote: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?

Are you suggesting that I am duty bound to recall my entire communication with SY?

5 years later, with the detective likely no longer on the case and with the case winding down I chose to offer my interpretation of my communication regarding the remarks about the 'whitewash' to give as credible a reason as to why I believe it.  

That doesn't make me right, but it gives part of the the reason as to why I think the way I do.

As for being 'duty bound' to release the contents of my communications I disagree.

I was not given a special privilege to speak to them nor did I receive any information that is 'secret'.  Anyone could have called as I did and asked the same questions that I did, and would have, presumably, received similar replies.

I am suggesting that you not make claims about communications with public servants concerning matters of public interest unless you are prepared to back up those claims.

You can disagree all you like, but you are not entitled to a presumption of credibility if you are unprepared to back up your claims.

I hope 'anyone' who calls and asks the same questions that you ask are 1. prepared to take, and share, notes 2. Prepared not to make promises of secrecy and 3. prepared not to make claims they refuse to back up.

I believe PeterMac also sent a long letter to Operation Grange listing all the irregularities with this investigation. It`s on here somewhere but I wouldn`t know where to start looking.

whodunnit...

It was my interpretation of what he said during a private conversation that was not just about what he said but based on how he said it..  I have already stated that.

I was explaining MY reason for not blindly believing in a whitewash just because others do.

I don't even recall what was said, I only remember my reaction to it at the time.

Noone has to believe me if they choose not to...

It was to explain my reasons for thinking as I do...not that I need to justify them.

I try to base my opinions on as much knowledge as possible.

Anyone else could have done the same.

HiDeHo wrote:whodunnit...

It was my interpretation of what he said during a private conversation that was not just about what he said but based on how he said it..  I have already stated that.

I was explaining MY reason for not blindly believing in a whitewash just because others do.

I don't even recall what was said, I only remember my reaction to it at the time.

Noone has to believe me if they choose not to...

It was to explain my reasons for thinking as I do...not that I need to justify them.

I try to base my opinions on as much knowledge as possible.

Anyone else could have done the same.

So you are making an argument for trusting in this investigation based on your reactions to a personal conversation you had with a public servant several years ago, while refusing to share his name or details of the conversation? Stacked up against the explicit facts, some of which are detailed in the above press story, that have been released for public consumption by SY itself, I'd say that people who argue for a whitewash are not the blind believers.

dottyaussie wrote:@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 ?

Thanks for the compliment.

Unfortunately the Freedom of Information Act can't usually be used to ask those awkward 'why' questions.

It is about the public's right - limited as it is of course - to information which is held by a government department or local authority or other public body.

I could ask, for example, information questions like:

1. Who decided to grant this extension of time?

2. When was the decision taken?

3. Was any reason for the extension of time given by the person who made the decision?


Perhaps I will do this

@TonyBennett 

whodunit wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:whodunnit...

It was my interpretation of what he said during a private conversation that was not just about what he said but based on how he said it..  I have already stated that.

I was explaining MY reason for not blindly believing in a whitewash just because others do.

I don't even recall what was said, I only remember my reaction to it at the time.

Noone has to believe me if they choose not to...

It was to explain my reasons for thinking as I do...not that I need to justify them.

I try to base my opinions on as much knowledge as possible.

Anyone else could have done the same.

So you are making an argument for trusting in this investigation based on your reactions to a personal conversation you had with a public servant several years ago, while refusing to share his name or details of the conversation? Stacked up against the explicit facts, some of which are detailed in the above press story, that have been released for public consumption by SY itself, I'd say that people who argue for a whitewash are not the blind believers.

I did NOT say others were blind believers I was referring to myself.  I have mentioned many times that I am in Canada and not privy to the good, the bad and the ugly of what goes on in UK.

I took the opportunity of asking a detective directly and have used my interpretation/assessment of his response to me as  a guideline.

I have seen no major details from the investigation and until I do I won't be making any assumptions.

I am FULLY aware that I could be wrong but  a fear of making a mistake and being wrong does not control my thought pattern..

whodunnit and any others.... I give you permission to say 'i told you so!' if /when I am shown to have been wrong. I can't manufacture how I feel, I just tried to explain why...and obviously not very well

BTW... I haven't yet seen any FACTS that Scotland Yard have not investigated any or all of the above list.

HiDeHo wrote:You have...got 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?

REPLY: I wouldn't expect the police to do anything other than to say a non-committal 'thank you' for providing any information. Which they did. I say 'none of it will be used' because I believe the remit absolutely ties the whole of the Operation Grange team to investigating only 'the abduction'. 

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.

REPLY: Agreed - so stay 'on the case', Lizzie

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)

REPLY: No, I didn't ask them this. I confined myself, in the limited time allowed, to explaining the key elements of the information I was providing

NOTE:

This thread is about an extension of Operation Grange for a further 6 months and its possible closure and archiving after that.

Who on here will be satisfied if that's it - no report, no explanation, no accounting for what they've done with their time and our money - nothing?   

Therefore, may I please remind all members and guests looking in here that a stated purpose of this official petition on the Prime Minister's website is as follows:

QUOTE

"The public is now entitled to a full report on how that has been spent. The report should cover the role of the government, the security services & UK police forces."

UNQUOTE

Is there anyone left who can doubt that as this £13-million plus, expensive, 5-year-long investigation nears its close - and has achieved nothing - that the public is entitled to the fullest possible explanation of what this money and time has been spent on...

...and can anyone doubt that the public has a right to know exactly why the government and various arms of the security services, including MI5, MI6, Special Branch and the government-funded Control Risks Group have been all over this case like a rash from the very first day Madeleine was reported missing?

May I also remind you that, by arrangements made through Charing Cross Police Station in the usual way, I do intend to present the results of this petition in person at 10 Downing Street, together with a covering letter. Five other people will be allowed to join me, if you are at all interested, please send me a 'pm'.


P.S. Not signed yet? LINK:     https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562

As far as I can tell, these are the facts as reported in the press:

SY is convinced the girl was abducted.

SY can find no evidence the girl was murdered.


As far as SY are concerned Kate and Gerry McCann and the 'Tapas 9' are not suspects.

~~

As far as I can tell, for people who have studied this case in depth for years on end---and I admit I am not one of those people---these facts, which so far have not been refuted by SY, run counter to the reality of the case. What is it called when an investigation runs counter to the reality of a case? Oh yeah, a whitewash.