Sky News - 6 months to find Maddie

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

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

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.

whodunit wrote: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.

There are several lines of Inquiry so are they just referring to them not being suspects during THAT  line of Inquiry at the time?

Not a suspect.  True on that day.  What about a day in the future?

Remember the PJ told them they were not suspects.....a few days before they were declared Arguidos 








Convinced she was abducted?  Have you seen a quote saying that (I only believe quotes in context when it comes to news articles)

I took some 'facts' from SY investigation and put them together...

They have shown some very thought provoking POSITIVE suggestions... In my opinion lol





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

Google.Gaspar.Statements wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Throw in the towel

Meaning

Give up, to avoid further punishment when facing certain defeat.

Origin

This little expression of course derives from boxing. When a boxer is suffering a beating and his corner want to stop the fight they literally throw in the towel to indicate their conceding of the fight. This earliest citation that I have found of this is in the American newspaper The F ort Wayne Journal-Gazette, January 1913:

Murphy went after him, landing right and left undefended face. The crowd importuned referee Griffin to stop the fight and a towel was thrown from Burns' corner as a token of defeat.

It was very soon after that that the phrase began to be used in a figurative sense, to indicate giving up in non-boxing contexts; for example, in the Australian author Clarence James Dennis's WWI patriotic novel, The Moods of Ginger Mick, 1916:

No matter wot 'e done. It's jist a thing
I knoo 'e'd do if once 'e got the show.
An' it would never please 'im fer to sling
Tall tork at 'im jist cos 'e acted so.
"Don't make a song uv it!" I 'ear 'im growl,
"I've done me limit, an' tossed in the tow'l."

Throwing in the towel was preceded by throwing in the sponge. Sponges were a common ringside accessory as early as the 18th century. Throwing in the sponge was then the preferred method of conceding defeat. This is recorded in the mid-19th century, in The Slang Dictionary, 1860:

'To throw up the sponge,' to submit, give over the struggle, - from the practice of throwing up the sponge used to cleanse the combatants' faces, at a prize-fight, as a signal that the 'mill' is concluded.

A 'token of defeat'?

Who has 'beaten them'?

whodunit wrote: these are the facts as reported in the press:

Now there lies the perfect oxymoron 

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

whodunit wrote: these are the facts as reported in the press:

Now there lies the perfect oxymoron 

Well, I am with you on that but I've not seen anything to refute these facts. Have we not had direct quotes from officials that the McC's and the tapas 9 are not suspects? Do we not have proof that they keep questioning suspects whom they believe had the motive, means, and opportunity to abduct Madeleine? Have we ever heard a Met official refer to the evidence that Maddie is dead? Did Crimewatch even mention the dogs evidence? These are some of the things lead me to believe the press reports are accurate insofar as how the Met is treating the investigation.

HiDeHo wrote:

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.

I do not believe for one second that the PJ and Operation Grange are working in tandem.  That opinion is not based on idle gossip but the total lack of any progress leading to a prosecution in relation to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

If a prosecution was on the horizon after five years diligence, they wouldn't still be talking of a six month extension.

"Eliminated Jane Tanner's abductor"

Yes, and replaced him with an absolutely unverifiable 'creche dad'.

If they claim MBM may never have left the apartment alive, it is only because they blame a laughable 'burglary gone bad', not the parents.

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

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.

I do not believe for one second that the PJ and Operation Grange are working in tandem.  That opinion is not based on idle gossip but the total lack of any progress leading to a prosecution in relation to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

If a prosecution was on the horizon after five years diligence, they wouldn't still be talking of a six month extension.

As I asked earlier.  In a best case scenario what could SY prosecute the McCanns for?

Would they release anything before the PJ investigation is complete?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] wrote:   BTW... I haven't yet seen any FACTS that Scotland Yard have not investigated any or all of the above list.

And I haven't seen any evidence FACTS that they HAVE investigated any or all of the above list!

In the words of Gerry McCann - 'how do you prove a negative'?

That is a good question. WHY are they investigating this crime when they can't actually arrest or prosecute any suspects, and at such great expense to the British public? SY actually have no business investigating this crime. It is not in their jurisdiction. The fact that they have taken it upon themselves while allowing the British press to rubbish the PJ's efforts speaks volumes in my opinion.

HiDeHo wrote:

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

Hmmm, @ HideHo, I do have a good few comments on THAT graphic!

Viz:

1. Tanner's abductor NOT eliminated but cunningly replaced by Crecheman 

2. Smithman sighting regarded as so credible that it is announced as the 'centre of our focus'   

3. ONE of the Smithman efits bears a passing resemblance to Gerry McCann - but no more so than for hundreds of thousands of other European men

4. The OTHER efit looks nothing like Gerry McCann 

5, Claiming that Madeleine 'may not have left the apartment alive' may simply be paving the way for Grange to declare that the abductor may have killed Madeleine in the apartment - thus hoping to 'explain away' Martin Grime's findings...

6. ...and conveniently, Redwood managed to extend the 'window' for the abduction from 5 to 50 minutes   

7. Digging for a body with TV cameras blazing all round the waste ground and 'searching' with a top military Alouette Mark III helicopter may just have been pure 'threatre'   

8.  ST bringing in 'RELIABLE cadaver dogs'? @ HideHo?    Were Eddie & Keela not reliable?

9. A wholly inaccurate 'reconstruction' exercise on Crimewatch 

10. A procession of highly unlikely abductors like tractor man, smelly bin man, OC staff with keys, 6 men in a white van etc. etc. - all nonsense for public consumption.


It looks like we are much further apart on Operation Grange than I thought

HiDeHo wrote:

Verdi wrote:

HiDeHo wrote:

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.

I do not believe for one second that the PJ and Operation Grange are working in tandem.  That opinion is not based on idle gossip but the total lack of any progress leading to a prosecution in relation to Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

If a prosecution was on the horizon after five years diligence, they wouldn't still be talking of a six month extension.

As I asked earlier.  In a best case scenario what could SY prosecute the McCanns for?

Would they release anything before the PJ investigation is complete?

The UK law enforcement agencies can't prosecute the McCanns or any other suspect in relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann per se.  What further proof is require that Operation Grange is a farce pure and simple.

Operation Grange was initially established to undertake a review of all the information collated by the Portuguese investigation - what unprecedented arrogance on behalf of the UK authorities !?!  That review then morphed into a full blown re-investigation - what unprecedented arrogance on behalf of the UK authorities.  Unless they know without doubt that the crime committed can lead to a prosecution on UK territory, then they have no jurisdiction to investigate the crime.  IF that be the case, unless the crime being investigated is an element of a major nation/worldwide crime syndicate (possible but I doubt they would have established Operation Grange in the first place), then what further proof is required that Operation Grange is a joke.

@Tony Bennett--"
8.  ST bringing in 'RELIABLE cadaver dogs'? @ HideHo?    Were Eddie & Keela not reliable?"


I missed this bit. What were the findings of these 'RELIABLE' dogs--as opposed to the unreliable dogs?

HiDeHo wrote:

whodunit wrote: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.

There are several lines of Inquiry so are they just referring to them not being suspects during THAT  line of Inquiry at the time?

Not a suspect.  True on that day.  What about a day in the future?

Remember the PJ told them they were not suspects.....a few days before they were declared Arguidos 








Convinced she was abducted?  Have you seen a quote saying that (I only believe quotes in context when it comes to news articles)

I took some 'facts' from SY investigation and put them together...

They have shown some very thought provoking POSITIVE suggestions... In my opinion lol





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

Sorry HiDeHo but what the flippin' heck has this got to do with public opinion?  I haven't a clue how things go on in your neck of the woods but I can't say I've ever heard of the proceeds of a police criminal investigation being guided by public opinion.

The above post is supposed to relate to this..

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

I've got this new laptop - we're not bonding.  The damn thing is totally self controlled and ignores my instructions, I've never known the like.  The cursor flits about nillywilly deleting here adding there, moving text around and it even finds stuff to add when I'm not looking - it's driving me bonkers.

You know what they say - a bad worker always blames the tools.