Re: If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent

by Liz Eagles 04.05.16 0:31

The enormous spin on this is that somehow the British public have been given their voice by the media to say 'no more taxpayers' money'.

It's perfect.

by whodunit 04.05.16 1:54

roy rovers wrote:Is Operation Grange the Warren Commission of the Madeleine McCann case? The Warren Commission was set up by the US Government to investigate the assassination of JFK but its methodology and conclusions have been criticised since it reported and it has been accused of being a cover up. It gave the establishment the finding it required - that Lee Harvey Oswald acted alone and was not part of a wider conspiracy (the 'lone nut' theory).
IMO Operation Grange is not going to get to the truth and is a bit of a diversion. The truth will come out as more and more information enters the public domain - Goncalo Amaral, Richard Hall etc.. The genie is squeezing out of the bottle.

For lack of a better word, the 'remit' of the Warren Commission was skewed from the start, just like OG. Their mission was not to find out "who killed JFK" but to ask "Why did Lee Harvey Oswald kill President Kennedy?"

by whodunit 04.05.16 2:09

@Pat Brown--"So, since they ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent."

Lord have mercy, but Ms. Brown is the master of the false dichotomy. There is another alternative: How about the McCanns are the beneficiaries of a political collusion that began way above their pay grade? Except Ms. Brown can't go there because then she'd have to ask other, far more uncomfortable questions, the likely answers to which she seems to believe do not exist.

by Guest 04.05.16 6:00

I think Pat Brown doesn't actually believe what she said is the case.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.05.16 6:58

whodunit wrote:@Pat Brown--"So, since they ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent."

Lord have mercy, but Ms. Brown is the master of the false dichotomy. There is another alternative: How about the McCanns are the beneficiaries of a political collusion that began way above their pay grade? Except Ms. Brown can't go there because then she'd have to ask other, far more uncomfortable questions, the likely answers to which she seems to believe do not exist.

You may argue with the way Pat has put her two alternatives, but this is the core of her argumemt, snipped from Pat's article, above:

"If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, the McCanns must then be innocent".

The corollary of that proposition is this:

"If there was some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, the McCanns must then be guilty".

That's a simple argument with which many people agree.

Pat is actually putting the case that there IS 'political collusion'

by ChippyM 04.05.16 7:01

MaryB wrote:If they try and put the blame on some hapless pock marked burglar lurking in the stairwell they will be a laughing stock. Taken by person or persons unknown might be a bit better but it's still a fudge. And the world knows it.

Or they just say it's 'unsolvable', all the leads ran cold and the message is that even the finest police force in the world can't solve this particular case. You might have some members of the public riled but then you just have some sort of enquiry that drags on and on......all the time certain people will keep spinning stories about gypsies and burglars to keep the public guessing.

by Guest 04.05.16 7:22

Tony Bennett wrote:

Pat is actually putting the case that there IS 'political collusion'

Of course she is.

by Mirage 04.05.16 7:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
whodunit wrote:@Pat Brown--"[size=37]So, since they ASKED for this review; they put their trust in the outcome. If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, if nothing has changed politically to overturn a remit, if they went in without such a remit and Scotland Yard is completely following the evidence, I will say right here, I have been wrong about the McCanns and the evidence of the dogs must be undependable and all their weird behaviors are just odd behaviors of two very ununusual people, not two guilty people. The McCanns must then be innocent."[/size]

[size=37]Lord have mercy, but Ms. Brown is the master of the false dichotomy. There is another alternative: How about the McCanns are the beneficiaries of a political collusion that began way above their pay grade? Except Ms. Brown can't go there because then she'd have to ask other, far more uncomfortable questions, the likely answers to which she seems to believe do not exist.
[/size]
You may argue with the way Pat has put her two alternatives, but this is the core of her argumemt, snipped from Pat's article, above:

"If there wasn't some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, the McCanns must then be innocent".

The corollary of that proposition is this:

"If there was some political collusion going on when the McCanns asked for this Scotland Yard review, the McCanns must then be guilty".

That's a simple argument with which many people agree.

Pat is actually putting the case that there IS 'political collusion'

Technically this is the corollary, Tony. But at this stage why hide the kernel of what she really means behind sophistry. Previously, she has prided herself on plain speaking, in tv interviews particularly. A no punches pulled lady.

She knows fine well the effect her choice of words will have. The juxtaposition of McCanns and innocent is an example. She doesn't say innocent of what incidentally. Right at the outset she warns of disappointment ahead and the attendant anger at her summation.. Unless I had direct evidence to the contrary, I might be tempted to think this was a softening up process.. The whole tone reeks of rubbing our noses in a remit that , alas, we are stuck with, and we will just have to follow her massive experience of disappointments in cold cases and suck it up. Sorry lady, it's gone too far for the British stomach.

by Carrry On Doctor 04.05.16 8:34

I think it is important to separate the investigation from the political will behind it.

Too much emphasis is put on the OG remit of seemingly 'abduction only'. Yes, it is publicly understood as an abduction, but it is an IMPOSSIBILITY that OG do not genuinely suspect the TM's. To suggest that a vast team of murder squad detectives, with all their experience, have been genuinely chasing pimplemen seems unfair and quite disrespectful.

OG was commissioned to find answers and I believe it has a pretty good idea of what happened, but that is a totally different thing to what the politicians choose do with that information. It seemed quite apparent from the BHH interview last week that he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. BHH emphasised that OG was requested by the government, and it seems they will now have to deal the consequences of their findings, however unpalatable.

Post GA ruling, DC and the politicians know that the genie is out of the bottle, and its only going to get worse. The truth WILL come out at some point. If the politicians decide to shelve the findings of OG, then SY and the government face huge criticism and Operation Grange should be renamed Operation Whistleblower. Too many people are in the know, and Hillsborough has changed a lot.

by Guest 04.05.16 8:36

I don't know how anyone can read what Pat Brown said and think she's changed her mind.

by Mirage 04.05.16 9:16

As this entire argument pivots on the remit. Does anyone know if an identifiable offence has been committed by the body politic in imposing it?

I ask because Judge Tugendhat clearly thought it a pertinent question for the McCann lawyer to cough up an answer to in the witness box.
She was forced to admit that she was proceeding only on the word of her clients that it was an abduction.

With regard to the police side of the equation, why couldn't they simply refuse loaded terms?

These to me are the fundamental questions that need to be addressed.

by dottyaussie 04.05.16 9:46

This case is not only political its also diplomatic. Its not a case between local US police forces or even US State police forces. It is the equivalent of a case between the US and say Brazil. So how many cases of this magnitude has she worked on ?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.05.16 10:33

Mirage wrote:As this entire argument pivots on the remit, does anyone know if an identifiable offence has been committed by the body politic in imposing it?

I ask because Judge Tugendhat clearly thought it a pertinent question for the McCann lawyer to cough up an answer to in the witness box.
She was forced to admit that she was proceeding only on the word of her clients that it was an abduction.

With regard to the police side of the equation, why couldn't they simply refuse loaded terms?

These to me are the fundamental questions that need to be addressed.

Agreed.

Everything was set in stone on 12 May 2011 when David Cameron's spokesman said, and I quote:

"The purpose of the review is to help the [McCann] family".

Normally, the purpose of a cold case review, which is how this began, would be: "To pursue all available lines of enquiry to establish how Madeleine disappeared and who was responsible".

Instead, with the Prime Minister's spokesman stating on the record that the purpose of the review was to 'help the family', he effectively instructed the Met Police to:

"Ignore any lines of evidence which suggest that Madeleine might have died in Apartment G5A, ignore any lines of evidence that the parents might have hidden or conspired to hide her body, ignore claims that she might have wandered off, in fact you must start from the FACT of the abduction and if possible find out who abducted her, given that the Portuguese Police have over 4 years miserably failed to do so".

If Sir Paul Stephenson, then the Met Police Commissioner, had had a bone of integrity in his body, he wouldn't have touched such a remit with a thirty-foot bargepole.

Same goes for a succession of pliant puppets like DCS Hamish Campbell, DCI Andy Redwood and DCI Nicola Wall, whose only possible defence could be: 'I was only obeying orders'

by willowthewisp 04.05.16 10:57

A bit like the hit from Ac/DC,"Dirty deeds not done dirt cheap"?
What is it that the successive UK Governments are afraid to reveal to the public over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

by Guest 04.05.16 11:02

ChippyM wrote:
MaryB wrote:If they try and put the blame on some hapless pock marked burglar lurking in the stairwell they will be a laughing stock. Taken by person or persons unknown might be a bit better but it's still a fudge. And the world knows it.

Or they just say it's 'unsolvable', all the leads ran cold and the message is that even the finest police force in the world can't solve this particular case. You might have some members of the public riled but then you just have some sort of enquiry that drags on and on......all the time certain people will keep spinning stories about gypsies and burglars to keep the public guessing.

Amen! That's been on the cards since day one in my opinion. Since when did the UK government and/or it's minions give a fig about public opinion - outside of the polling booth?

Last I saw, different bodies are still digging away trying to uncover the truth about the death of Princess Dianna, Dr. David Kelly and more. People can twitter ( big grin

) away for eternity but if the lid is on that's where it stays - hermetically sealed away from prying eyes.

by Guest 04.05.16 11:07

I don't know why so much emphasis is placed on Pat Brown's opinion of this case, because that's all it is - opinion. She doesn't know anymore than the rest of us, probably less than many so why is her opinion considered to be so important? You may as well discuss every minute detail of Textusa's weekly monologues, or the spasmodic contradictory ramblings of she who shall remain nameless.

The race is on to see who can claim overall responsibility for being behind the hoped for exposé of Operation Grange's raison d'etre and why they have been authorised to expend inordinate sum of money under the pretext of reviewing/re-investigating the case of Madeleine McCann.

Sorry mates, you're too late - Mr. Tony Bennett got in there first despite your attempts to ridicule and belittle him!

by Guest 04.05.16 11:11

willowthewisp wrote:A bit like the hit from Ac/DC,"Dirty deeds not done dirt cheap"?
What is it that the successive UK Governments are afraid to reveal to the public over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?

'Money for nothing - that's the way to do it...'

by Richard IV 04.05.16 12:06

Tony Bennett wrote:
Richard IV wrote:Who decided on the wording of the remit? Anyone know.
Yes - Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell - answer given by way of a response to a Freedom of Information request, a few years back.

Of course, above him, who needed to approve his remit, were:

...his bosses at the Met

...the Home Secretary

...the Prime Minister

...the Prime Minister's riding companion, Rebekah Brooks

...and her boss, Rupert Murdoch

"We're all in this together'

Thanks Tony.
Blimey. All those people ...... basing their action on what the McCanns told them. wow

Amazing. Can`t be that simple surely.

Not so sure Theresa May or Cameron wanted to be part of the gang initially; Theresa gave the McCanns short shrift.

by **Tony Bennett** 04.05.16 12:28

Richard IV wrote:
Theresa gave the McCanns short shrift.

Hmmn, Theresa is a powerful woman.

As Home Secretary, it was in her gift to refuse a Review, which she did for the first year of her tenure as Home Secretary.

Kate McCann angrily blasted her refusal to give way.

But then an evil and more powerful woman came into view: ~~Jezebel~~ Rebekah

by Joss 04.05.16 12:38

Verdi wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:A bit like the hit from Ac/DC,"Dirty deeds not done dirt cheap"?
What is it that the successive UK Governments are afraid to reveal to the public over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
'Money for nothing - that's the way to do it...'

Dire Straits, big grin

by Guest 04.05.16 12:39

Let's say we do get this 'innocent' line, and the case is wrapped up as unsolvable in the UK, and the Portuguese case closes concurrently (I don't think either is likely, just hypothesising here). What then happens if Mr. Amaral does take them to court, would we then get extradition controversy? That would create legitimate tensions on both sides and possibly escalate things further.

Whatever the case it's lucky for us, for justice most importantly for Madeleine that Mr. Amaral is willing to play the long game.

by Guest 04.05.16 14:31

Joss wrote:
Verdi wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:A bit like the hit from Ac/DC,"Dirty deeds not done dirt cheap"?
What is it that the successive UK Governments are afraid to reveal to the public over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
'Money for nothing - that's the way to do it...'
Dire Straits,

Quite so - and in more ways than one if I might add. Now who can we nominate for 'Sultans of Swing'...?

thing

by MaryB 04.05.16 14:44

I don't know what she's getting at. But it's hardly helpful. Whatever the outcome of OG it doesn't change the truth.

by HelenMeg 04.05.16 16:08

Carrry On Doctor wrote:I think it is important to separate the investigation from the political will behind it.

Too much emphasis is put on the OG remit of seemingly 'abduction only'. Yes, it is publicly understood as an abduction, but it is an IMPOSSIBILITY that OG do not genuinely suspect the TM's. To suggest that a vast team of murder squad detectives, with all their experience, have been genuinely chasing pimplemen seems unfair and quite disrespectful.

OG was commissioned to find answers and I believe it has a pretty good idea of what happened, but that is a totally different thing to what the politicians choose do with that information. It seemed quite apparent from the BHH interview last week that he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. BHH emphasised that OG was requested by the government, and it seems they will now have to deal the consequences of their findings, however unpalatable.

Post GA ruling, DC and the politicians know that the genie is out of the bottle, and its only going to get worse. The truth WILL come out at some point. If the politicians decide to shelve the findings of OG, then SY and the government face huge criticism and Operation Grange should be renamed Operation Whistleblower. Too many people are in the know, and Hillsborough has changed a lot.

I dont think we can separate the investigation from the political will behind it - unfortunately. From the start, Buck was raising red flags as to the integrity of the family Mc Cann + friends. To then subsequently assign a remit such as 'investigate the 'abduction' as if.... etc' to the Op Grange review / investigation was a clear intent to constrain findings. OG cannot suspect Mc Cann under a remit of 'abduction' and will never do so unless the remit has been changed.
If the investigation was being done properly and not part of a PR / Propoganda strategy then we would never have been subject to the cringingly twisted updates by Redwood. We would only receive updates in teh media along similar lines as to how Claudia Lawrence case is reported. Factual, timely and professional. OG will only find and reveal what DC decides it can reveal. DC cant seem to decide how to play it and obviously lacks any 'courage'. He seems unable to rise above the twisted networks of power and corruption that lie across the establishment. Only when he decides will we see what he is made of. I dont hold much hope.
Can you honestly see the day when the Mc Canns and associates are questioned?

by Mirage 04.05.16 20:06

Various thoughts have occurred to me today with regard to the police and politicians.

First, the remit of the Hutton Inquiry: "The circumstances surrounding the death of Dr David Kelly". Sounds open-ended. Until you realise it was the case of a suspicious death being denied an inquest in a coroner's court. The Hutton inquiry called the people they wanted to hear from and ignored others. Result: a finding of suicide from someone without the qualifications to do so, and despite objections from a group of doctors. This case was exceptional in that it was the first time a suspicious death has been denied an inquest in the history of British coroners' courts.

Secondly the mysterious case of Gareth Williams (the spy in the bag). His inquest found that his death was "unnatural and likely to have been criminally mediated". There was subsequently a re-investigation by the MET which concluded his death was "probably an accident". His family believe that crucial DNA was interfered with and that fingerprints left at the scene were wiped off as part of a cover up. No fingerprints, palm-prints, footprints or traces of William's DNA were found on the rim of the bath, the bag zip or the bag padlock. The key to the padlock was inside the bag, underneath his body.

Given all this alleged wiping of DNA I listened carefully when Assistant Commissioner Martin Hewitt justified the Met's re-investigation, a result that over-rode that of a coroner. He said no DNA of any "third party" was found in that flat! All depressingly familiar isn't it?

by Bishop Brennan 05.05.16 2:14

April28th wrote:Let's say we do get this 'innocent' line, and the case is wrapped up as unsolvable in the UK, and the Portuguese case closes concurrently (I don't think either is likely, just hypothesising here). What then happens if Mr. Amaral does take them to court, would we then get extradition controversy? That would create legitimate tensions on both sides and possibly escalate things further.

Whatever the case it's lucky for us, for justice most importantly for Madeleine that Mr. Amaral is willing to play the long game.

I think that Amaral is smart enough to realise that McCanns will never be brought to trial (insufficient evidence, no body, active interference from UK). He's been fighting all these years for his reputation, his livelihood and his right to be heard. He didn't seek the fight - he simply wrote a book. Everything that happened since was defending himself against the sustained and well-financed attacks from the McCanns.

So I don't think he's playing a "long game" as you put it. There is no pathway now to convict the McCanns of anything. They wanted full exoneration from SY and the destruction of Amaral. They will probably get the SY exoneration in a few months, but so far at least Amaral has managed to defeat them. His long game I suspect will be to live a quiet, peaceful life - promoting his book, writing another and never having to see the McCanns ever again.

by MaryB 05.05.16 8:28

They want to be 'somebodies'. That was clear from the outset with the photoshoots balloons, staged appearances and so on. They want the interviews the celeb following and the TV appearances. They like the limelight. And anyone who stands in the way of that will be a problem.

by HelenMeg 05.05.16 8:42

MaryB wrote:They want to be 'somebodies'. That was clear from the outset with the photoshoots balloons, staged appearances and so on. They want the interviews the celeb following and the TV appearances. They like the limelight. And anyone who stands in the way of that will be a problem.

Actually I disagree. I think they want to be exonerated and that they cannot bear the thought of leading the remainder of their lives with the public thinking that they are guilty of something. I think that fuels their
public appearances. Yes at first, when they were treated like celebrities and made to feel important - they appeared to enjoy that - but they have a deeper wish to be 'respected' and until that happens (which it never will because the doubt will always be hanging over them) there will always be publicity stunts to try and win over a 'positive' public image. They will always be tainted though - no matter what.

by Carrry On Doctor 05.05.16 9:19

HelenMeg wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:I think it is important to separate the investigation from the political will behind it.

Too much emphasis is put on the OG remit of seemingly 'abduction only'. Yes, it is publicly understood as an abduction, but it is an IMPOSSIBILITY that OG do not genuinely suspect the TM's. To suggest that a vast team of murder squad detectives, with all their experience, have been genuinely chasing pimplemen seems unfair and quite disrespectful.

OG was commissioned to find answers and I believe it has a pretty good idea of what happened, but that is a totally different thing to what the politicians choose do with that information. It seemed quite apparent from the BHH interview last week that he was stuck between a rock and a hard place. BHH emphasised that OG was requested by the government, and it seems they will now have to deal the consequences of their findings, however unpalatable.

Post GA ruling, DC and the politicians know that the genie is out of the bottle, and its only going to get worse. The truth WILL come out at some point. If the politicians decide to shelve the findings of OG, then SY and the government face huge criticism and Operation Grange should be renamed Operation Whistleblower. Too many people are in the know, and Hillsborough has changed a lot.
I dont think we can separate the investigation from the political will behind it - unfortunately. From the start, Buck was raising red flags as to the integrity of the family Mc Cann + friends. To then subsequently assign a remit such as 'investigate the 'abduction' as if.... etc' to the (1). Op Grange review / investigation was a clear intent to constrain findings. OG cannot suspect Mc Cann under a remit of 'abduction' and will never do so unless the remit has been changed.
If the investigation was being done properly and not part of a PR / Propoganda strategy then we would never have been subject to the cringingly twisted updates by Redwood. We would only receive updates in teh media along similar lines as to how Claudia Lawrence case is reported. Factual, timely and professional. (2) OG will only find and reveal what DC decides it can reveal. DC cant seem to decide how to play it and obviously lacks any 'courage'. He seems unable to rise above the twisted networks of power and corruption that lie across the establishment. Only when he decides will we see what he is made of. I dont hold much hope.
(3) Can you honestly see the day when the Mc Canns and associates are questioned?

Hello @HelenMeg, and thank you for your (as always) polite and reasoned response.
My own responses to bolded & numbered as follows;

1. As per my original post, I think too much is made of the description of the remit. What else could they say ? SY couldn't publicly describe OG as an 'Investigation into the T9'. I cant see investigators showing their hand or providing an honest running commentary.
2. Agreed, irrespective of the authenticity of OG.
3. Yes. Even if OG does turn out to be a whitewash, there are far too many people involved in OG for this not to happen in the future.

I must admit I do have my dark days, and the howls of conspiracy are particularly loud at the moment, but I am a great believer in the truth coming out in the end.

by Guest 05.05.16 9:25

Bishop Brennan wrote:
April28th wrote:Let's say we do get this 'innocent' line, and the case is wrapped up as unsolvable in the UK, and the Portuguese case closes concurrently (I don't think either is likely, just hypothesising here). What then happens if Mr. Amaral does take them to court, would we then get extradition controversy? That would create legitimate tensions on both sides and possibly escalate things further.

Whatever the case it's lucky for us, for justice most importantly for Madeleine that Mr. Amaral is willing to play the long game.

I think that Amaral is smart enough to realise that McCanns will never be brought to trial (insufficient evidence, no body, active interference from UK). He's been fighting all these years for his reputation, his livelihood and his right to be heard. He didn't seek the fight - he simply wrote a book. Everything that happened since was defending himself against the sustained and well-financed attacks from the McCanns.

So I don't think he's playing a "long game" as you put it. There is no pathway now to convict the McCanns of anything. They wanted full exoneration from SY and the destruction of Amaral. They will probably get the SY exoneration in a few months, but so far at least Amaral has managed to defeat them. His long game I suspect will be to live a quiet, peaceful life - promoting his book, writing another and never having to see the McCanns ever again.

You make good points. But I mean, Amaral knows a lot that we don't. He knows details that were withheld from the files, lines of enquiry that weren't seen through etc.

He could have blurted these out at the outset. He didn't. He released his book on the investigation and only included what was already released in the files.

He holds a lot of bullets. If he'd used them in the early days, he'd have been discredited in a shot on both sides of the sea. This is what I mean by the long game. He could quite possibly sink them in a courtroom but knows enough not to play his hand.

You could be right that he won't want to pursue this. Then again, when you've experienced losing everything that can give you a nothing to lose attitude. This, pride, empathy and the desire to be remembered for the right reasons, well, I think we'd be guessing what he must be thinking either way.

If the Scotland Yard Review is Legitimate, Then the McCanns are Likely Innocent