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

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.

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.

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.

Tony Bennett wrote:


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

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'

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.

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.

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?

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'

Richard IV wrote:

Theresa gave the McCanns short shrift.

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...'

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,

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.

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.

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.

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?

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.