Operation Grange Remit

The remit for the Madeleine McCann review is now online.

"Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.  

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’.  This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.  

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End "

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness. - We better hold them to that
as if the abduction occurred in the UK  Note the use of the "abduction" word - this is what the Daily Star must be on about.

And there is a memo also on the met site


"For the information of all UK law enforcement agencies.

The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting an Investigative Review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3yrs on the 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz Portugal.

At 12.00hrs on Tuesday 14th June 2011 UK primacy for this matter formally passed from Leicestershire Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police Service under Operation GRANGE.

All future communication should be sent to the incident room at:-  

Major Investigation Team 5
Homicide and Serious Crime Command
Belgravia Police station
202-206 Buckingham Palace Rd
London SW1W 9SX

Tel  020 7321 9251
Fax 020 7321 6994
E-mail : [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
             Operation.Grange@met.pnn.police.uk


Urgent out of hours contact can be made via the Serious Crime Directorate Reserve at New Scotland Yard on 020 7230 8666."

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

Thanks Gillyspot.

Who/what is the Gold Group?

"The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure,
which will also manage the central relationships with other key
stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the
investigative remit."

I don't think anyone should be suprised by the use of the word "abduction". This review is a McCann review, "abduction" is therefore the assumption. As with the "review" of Jersey abuse case I am sure the McCann/Scotland Yard review is to discredit the original Police Investigation. Then the report will make recommendations based on UK Policing Best Practice in the event of an abduction. However, despite £3.5million being spent, even SY will not be able to produce Madeleine like a rabbit out of a hat!

Gillyspot wrote:"Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter...

The words I've highlighted in blue leave absolutely no room for doubt.

The Scotland Yard Review Team, by those words, has nailed its colours unequivocally and irrevocably to the mast: THE ABDUCTION OF MADELEINE IS A FACT.

It would have made all the difference if the SY Review remit had said 'as if the disappearance occurred in the UK'.

But they didn't. They chose their words very carefully and deliberately: 'as if the abduction occurred in the UK'.

That means that all stories of abductors and 'sightings' will be eagerly received by them.

And that also means that all evidence that there was no abduction will be consigned to the waste paper basket.

I cannot imagine that there has ever been such a police review in this country of a missing person's case, where a huge review has ruled out from the beginning anything else except an abdcution - one which is said to hve occurred in a 3-minute time frame, with no forensic evidence of an abdutor and no witness except Jane Tanner.

It's as simple as that - and just in fact precisely as our Prime Minister promised to the British people:

"The purpose of the review is to help the family".

Cheshire Cat wrote:I don't think anyone should be suprised by the use of the word "abduction". This review is a McCann review, "abduction" is therefore the assumption.

I don't think that's correct, Cheshire Cat. The remit does not use words like 'assumption', 'working assumption' or 'hypothesis' in relation to the McCanns' claims that Madeleine was abducted. The SY Review Team/Operation Grange detectives are, on the contrary, emphatic in their explicit reference to 'the abduction'.

Daisy wrote:Thanks Gillyspot. Who/what is the Gold Group?

The Gold Group is a group of a force's most senior officers who take all the major decisions in all of the 'big' cases.

RE: Taken conference
Tuesday, 19 January, 2010 11:45:18From: CEOP Training Add
To:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED//

Dear Mr xxxx

Thank you for your interest in the work of CEOP and your comments. We hope that the fact that you disagree with our choice of speaker at one of our conferences will not affect your interest in our work once you have read this message.

The courses and conferences which we run are mainly for the benefit of those working in law enforcement and public protection and, as a result, we invite a variety of speakers who have relevant knowledge or experience of the conference topic. The fact that we invite a speaker does not mean that we endorse their views. Our conferences allow people to exchange and challenge views. The current position regarding the McCanns is that they are the parents of a missing child who is presumed to have been abducted: that being the case anything that Gerry McCann has to say will be of interest to those who work in this area and will attend the conference.

I hope this clarifies our position in relation to Gerry McCann’s presence at the conference.

Regards,
CEOP Training

Cheshire Cat wrote:RE: Taken conference
Tuesday, 19 January, 2010 11:45:18From: CEOP Training Add
To:

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Classification: NOT PROTECTIVELY MARKED//

Dear Mr xxxx

Thank you for your interest in the work of CEOP and your comments. We hope that the fact that you disagree with our choice of speaker at one of our conferences will not affect your interest in our work once you have read this message.

The courses and conferences which we run are mainly for the benefit of those working in law enforcement and public protection and, as a result, we invite a variety of speakers who have relevant knowledge or experience of the conference topic. The fact that we invite a speaker does not mean that we endorse their views. Our conferences allow people to exchange and challenge views. The current position regarding the McCanns is that they are the parents of a missing child who is presumed to have been abducted: that being the case anything that Gerry McCann has to say will be of interest to those who work in this area and will attend the conference.

I hope this clarifies our position in relation to Gerry McCann’s presence at the conference.

Regards,
CEOP Training

Yes, and this conference was very much about paedophilia, as these extracts from the notes from the conference brochure make clear:

Developments in technology have allowed children access to uncensored material and information that can influence their behaviour and there is growing evidence to suggest viewing certain types of material may influence their sexual developmental trajectories. Through a growing variety of technologies, children have begun to push boundaries as part of their natural social, emotional and sexual development.

Whilst the opportunities afforded by mobile and internet technology vastly outweigh these risks, they are nevertheless real. Indeed, as in the real, physical world, there are areas online that young people frequent, which will be attractive to those who seek to corrupt and exploit vulnerable children and young people for their own sexual gratification. Consequently, the online grooming of children became so concerning that new UK legislation had to be introduced in an attempt to protect them. Despite these preventative measures, offenders are still using an array of technologies and strategies to groom children with a view to abusing them virtually, by way of inciting a child to commit sexual acts to be captured on still images of webcam or indeed, to prepare children for an offline meeting.

This type of behaviour is becoming more common as a precursor to child abduction.


Conference objectives

This one day conference will explore the issues associated with a variety of child abduction cases, predominantly focussing on sexually motivated stranger abductions...[SNIPPED]

I think even the McCanns would be forced to concede that there is zero evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. So how could his input inform that conference?

Tony Bennett wrote:
ue]]This one day conference will explore the issues associated with a variety of child abduction cases, predominantly focussing on sexually motivated stranger abductions...[SNIPPED][/b][/color]

I think even the McCanns would be forced to concede that there is zero evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. So how could his input inform that conference?

What evidence is there of abduction in the McCann case let alone "sexually motivated stranger abduction"? I agree with you Tony the McCanns shouldn't be able to state that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile then insist she has come to no harm.

Although the remit uses the word abduction, in a seemingly emphatic way, it is not a cut and dry issue. Some points to bear in mind:

The Stephen Lawrence case led to the police being widely pilloried yet convictions were made in the end, albeit 18 years later.
The review may yet receive new information, or information may be on file which leads them to look at "other possibilities". Also, if the review finds nothing to support the abduction theory they will not be able to draw that conclusion. Insurance companies use recorded phone messages from claimants and voice analysts when considering payouts to avoid fraud, so why not the police? If us wee mortals cant spot the red flags, then why not law enforcers? There is enough to keep many forumers busy over a period of 4 1/2 years, please don't lose heart that the police on this case might also find this equally interesting, after all, most of the discussions are focussed on the files, and only part of the files at that. And perhaps PB and other profilers, body language experts, forensic psychologists and so forth have already submitted their views to the police and we also do not know what if anything, will be done regarding the Gaspar statements, Exeter connections etc.

And lastly, when the cops do a dawn raid on a house, they don't phone the night before to tell the suspects to be sure and set their alarm for 5am!

I am keeping optimistic one way or t'other that this will not be a total whitewash.

Gillyspot wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
ue]]This one day conference will explore the issues associated with a variety of child abduction cases, predominantly focussing on sexually motivated stranger abductions...[SNIPPED][/b][/color]

I think even the McCanns would be forced to concede that there is zero evidence that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile. So how could his input inform that conference?

What evidence is there of abduction in the McCann case let alone "sexually motivated stranger abduction"? I agree with you Tony the McCanns shouldn't be able to state that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile then insist she has come to no harm.

Absolutely spot-on.

Just out of interest, are guest speakers financially rewarded for their attendance?

Hi aquila CEOP is exempt from the FOI act.

"Openness and Transparency
CEOP derives its statutory powers from the Serious Organised Crime and Police Act 2005 and CEOP is therefore exempt from The Freedom of Information Act 2000. Nevertheless it is the policy of CEOP to be as open and transparent in our dealings with the public where possible and each request for information will be considered on a case by case basis"

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

So I wouldn't hold your breath getting an answer from them as to how much Gerry got. I would imagine he is getting something though (at least generous expenses).

Dont be fooled by the word "abduction". Read between the lines.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process. bduction occured in the UK" in parenthesis

I notice the parenthesis.
Firstly, "as if the abduction occurred in UK" - well, think about it?
Who recommended to the Portugual authorities that the mccanns should be looked at since Gerry was the last to have seen Maddie.
When the investigation process reveals the crime isnt as reported, how many UK crime experts recommended to the PJ that they should look at it as a homicide, look in inward for the perpetrators, and who brought in the dogs.

In short, if the crime had taken place on UK soil, that is what the UK police would have done. They look beyond that, they look where the evidence leads them.

Secondly they state that "it is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter."
Two things stood out for me in this statement 1) progressing the matter - note the use of the word "matter" and not the "case" - could well mean the case is solved, but the matter is yet to progress to court; and 2) based on examination of the files (meaning evidence) they will decide what additional new approaches they would adopt which can help Portuguese in progressing the matter - again two points here i) they are looking for new approaches which can help the Portuguese; and ii) in progressing the matter..meaning progress it to fruition.

Since the PJ's thesis is Maddie died in 5A any new approach that the Yard is going to recommend would have to progress that direction of investigation. Anything short of it would be useless to the PJ in terms of "in progressing the matter" for obvious reasons - they had stop searching because they knew she is dead and they are not going to start now just on Yard say so.
So logically it would have to mean the Yard are helping the Portuguese to find and to use new approaches to progress the matter to prosecution stage.

"Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach."
This statement is the most curious to me? Any one else want to attempt to understand it?

To me, it is saying:
Whereas a review in the ordinary sense does not have investigative remit, however this review HAS, because the scale and extent of this case is exceptional. In short, the mccanns' case is exceptional in every aspect and cannot be treated in the normal way - it has to be treated as an exception, as in a review with investigative remit ,as opposed to one without investigative remit which is otherwise the norm.

I think the mccanns should be careful what they wished for.

I have always thought this review's purpose was to whitewash the scam into the ground and this remit imo proves this. Though a lot of the remit sounds positive, it gives itself away when they say "as if the abduction occurred in the UK"...The police know that officially it is not an abduction case, it is a missing persons case, but this review team are saying it is an abduction and without a single shred of evidence of one

I hope I am proven wrong and made to eat my words but I won't be, they will whitewash it. The powers haven't gone this far to be upstaged by a SY review team, they will use their powers to make sure it is whitewashed....but we will keep fighting on

jd wrote:I have always thought this review's purpose was to whitewash the scam into the ground and this remit imo proves this. Though a lot of the remit sounds positive, it gives itself away when they say "as if the abduction occurred in the UK"...The police know that officially it is not an abduction case, it is a missing persons case, but this review team are saying it is an abduction and without a single shred of evidence of one

I hope I am proven wrong and made to eat my words but I won't be, they will whitewash it. The powers haven't gone this far to be upstaged by a SY review team, they will use their powers to make sure it is whitewashed....but we will keep fighting on

But they are saying they will treat it as if the abduction occurred in the UK, and how do they treat abduction in UK? By eliminating nearest and closest and in this case this is not done.

aiyoyo wrote: But they are saying they will treat it as if the abduction occurred in the UK, and how do they treat abduction in UK? By eliminating nearest and closest and in this case this is not done.

We don't know the results yet. I hope you are right but I guarantee that they will say there is no evidence to suggest that the mccanns or their friends are in anyway involved, thus eliminating them from the inquiry. They are planting the seeds by using the term 'as if the abduction occurred in the UK', they are saying it is an abduction but just not in the UK. When have you ever seen a 'review' or 'inquiry' in the past that revealed the truth or changed the original verdict? This is a governments way of whitewashing the truth coming out. I know this is negative and pessimistic but in reality it is the proven truth....but one can hope in this case things might change

jd wrote:I have always thought this review's purpose was to whitewash the scam into the ground and this remit imo proves this. Though a lot of the remit sounds positive, it gives itself away when they say "as if the abduction occurred in the UK"...The police know that officially it is not an abduction case, it is a missing persons case, but this review team are saying it is an abduction and without a single shred of evidence of one

I hope I am proven wrong and made to eat my words but I won't be, they will whitewash it. The powers haven't gone this far to be upstaged by a SY review team, they will use their powers to make sure it is whitewashed....but we will keep fighting on

NSY are aware of Goncalo Amaral - he has been in contact with them and said he would fly to London to help them. Surely NSY are aware of what is happening to Goncalo, and what he is doing, and how he will not give up. Surely if NSY whitewash this case then it will give Goncalo the go-ahead to make a lot of noise and expose them? After the phone hacking case etc can NSY afford another scandal?

I was feeling a bit disheartened about this until I read aiyoyo's post....positive as always.

I think I'm going to keep my faith in Goncalo...while he's working away in the background ("Justice works in silence") then I have to believe he won't allow this case to be covered up without exposing it...although I appreciate that will be very difficult when the UK media don't report anything unfavourable about the McCann case.

And unless the UK authorities do a 'David Kelly' on him, Goncalo also said that if he "disappears in the process" then he has people who will see this through to conclusion.

Get 'em Gonçalo

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

jd wrote:I have always thought this review's purpose was to whitewash the scam into the ground and this remit imo proves this. Though a lot of the remit sounds positive, it gives itself away when they say "as if the abduction occurred in the UK"...The police know that officially it is not an abduction case, it is a missing persons case, but this review team are saying it is an abduction and without a single shred of evidence of one

I hope I am proven wrong and made to eat my words but I won't be, they will whitewash it. The powers haven't gone this far to be upstaged by a SY review team, they will use their powers to make sure it is whitewashed....but we will keep fighting on

NSY are aware of Goncalo Amaral - he has been in contact with them and said he would fly to London to help them. Surely NSY are aware of what is happening to Goncalo, and what he is doing, and how he will not give up. Surely if NSY whitewash this case then it will give Goncalo the go-ahead to make a lot of noise and expose them? After the phone hacking case etc can NSY afford another scandal?

I was feeling a bit disheartened about this until I read aiyoyo's post....positive as always.

I think I'm going to keep my faith in Goncalo...while he's working away in the background ("Justice works in silence") then I have to believe he won't allow this case to be covered up without exposing it...although I appreciate that will be very difficult when the UK media don't report anything unfavourable about the McCann case.

And unless the UK authorities do a 'David Kelly' on him, Goncalo also said that if he "disappears in the process" then he has people who will see this through to conclusion.

Get 'em Gonçalo

Excellent Get 'em, and it's not just Goncalo, he says the British police came to the same conclusions, so SY must do a thorough job. I just can't understand why they didn't use the word "disappearance"

Good point aiyoyo

I think I'm going to keep my faith in Goncalo...while he's working away in the background ("Justice works in silence") then I have to believe he won't allow this case to be covered up without exposing it

This is the faith I have too

aiyoyo wrote:Dont be fooled by the word "abduction". Read between the lines.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process. bduction occured in the UK" in parenthesis

I notice the parenthesis.
Firstly, "as if the abduction occurred in UK" - well, think about it?
Who recommended to the Portugual authorities that the mccanns should be looked at since Gerry was the last to have seen Maddie.
When the investigation process reveals the crime isnt as reported, how many UK crime experts recommended to the PJ that they should look at it as a homicide, look in inward for the perpetrators, and who brought in the dogs.

In short, if the crime had taken place on UK soil, that is what the UK police would have done. They look beyond that, they look where the evidence leads them.

Secondly they state that "it is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter."
Two things stood out for me in this statement 1) progressing the matter - note the use of the word "matter" and not the "case" - could well mean the case is solved, but the matter is yet to progress to court; and 2) based on examination of the files (meaning evidence) they will decide what additional new approaches they would adopt which can help Portuguese in progressing the matter - again two points here i) they are looking for new approaches which can help the Portuguese; and ii) in progressing the matter..meaning progress it to fruition.

Since the PJ's thesis is Maddie died in 5A any new approach that the Yard is going to recommend would have to progress that direction of investigation. Anything short of it would be useless to the PJ in terms of "in progressing the matter" for obvious reasons - they had stop searching because they knew she is dead and they are not going to start now just on Yard say so.
So logically it would have to mean the Yard are helping the Portuguese to find and to use new approaches to progress the matter to prosecution stage.

"Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach."
This statement is the most curious to me? Any one else want to attempt to understand it?

To me, it is saying:
Whereas a review in the ordinary sense does not have investigative remit, however this review HAS, because the scale and extent of this case is exceptional. In short, the mccanns' case is exceptional in every aspect and cannot be treated in the normal way - it has to be treated as an exception, as in a review with investigative remit ,as opposed to one without investigative remit which is otherwise the norm.

I think the mccanns should be careful what they wished for.

I think you've hit the nail on the head, aiyoyo. I interpreted the wording the same as you have especially your last 2 paragraphs. It sounds like that although that it is essentially a revue there are too many other areas/concerns to be looked at and explored that can't be ignored.

I am sure SY are aware of all the anomalies in this case that have been highlighted and discussed over the past 4 years on numerous blogs, especially this one, that can't be wiped under the carpet and have been read by thousands of people not only in the UK but from all over the World. The SY must have also received numerous emails and letters from concerned people giving them certain information that can't be ignored. If it is I think there would be an enormous outcry, well I hope there would be anyway. There must also be numerous journalists that have had their hands tied who probably know more than they can let on about at the moment. If this case is whitewashed would they just sit on their hands and not say anything.

Dont be discouraged.

I cant see how the Yard can deploy 30 homicide detectives from the Homicide & Serious Crime Command to review " an abduction" just to white wash it. Why involved homicide detectives at all if it is abduction they are looking at?

Well, Fund fraud is indeed a serious crime, while Homicide is self explanatory.
Nope they are not looking at abduction, they are looking at homicide "as if the abduction crime occurred in UK.

Initially this remit refers to a disappearance [line 4] I am a bit bewildered at the use of the word abduction in a phrase which is in parentheses, a little later on.
It is rather crucial isn't it, that it is clarified whether they are dealing with a disappearance [ inarguable fact] or an abduction [arguable hypothesis].
It surely has to be the former, so why use the abduction word anywhere in this remit?
Maybe it is because that is how the disappearance was reported to the police force of the country in which it occurred , and as that is how it was officially logged in the police files. That was the start point for the PJ and I assume it will be for the UK.

Wasn't sure where else to put this... I never noticed this before. Inspector Pavia wrote up his observations on the McCanns behaviour which makes interesting reading. In particular, this paragraph about Kate's reaction at having been told she would be questioned a second time is astonishing... When she was to go back for questioning is when she refused to answer questions...


Today, when the undersigned went to the McCann's temporary residence to notify them of the need to present themselves at the police station to make statements, being able to take their lawyer with them, Kate McCann immediately reacted in a negative manner, making comments such as 'what are my parents going to think?' and 'what is the press going to say when they find out?' and that 'the Portuguese police is under pressure from the government to finish the investigation quickly'.

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

So even at that stage they were fully aware of the pressure from the government onto the police.. and not long after this Goncalo was removed..

Hopefully the Yard aren't under similar pressure to finish quickly....

the word used in their memo is disappearance , not abduction :

For the information of all UK law enforcement agencies.

The
Metropolitan Police Service is conducting an Investigative Review into
the disappearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3yrs on the 3rd May 2007 in
Praia da Luz Portugal.

At 12.00hrs on Tuesday 14th June 2011 UK
primacy for this matter formally passed from Leicestershire Constabulary
to the Metropolitan Police Service under Operation GRANGE.

so there has to be a reason why this changed to abduction in the middle of the publication, it is bookended by the use of disappearance.

Thank you russiandoll, you are right the wording is very clear......................

"Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.



That is the remit, no abduction word - just disappearance.

I really believe 100% that they will look at all possibilities, not just the abduction thesis. And I don't believe the review will be wholly stacked in the McCanns favour. They have accused 3 home secretaries of not doing enough, of sitting on a report for six months (in an interview where the McCanns tutted a lot and appeared fairly dismissive), they have accused the PJ of doing naff all even though it was the biggest manhunt ever launched in Portugal, accused the LP of not doing enough, and gone on tour all over the world broadcasting their perceived lack of action from everyone but themselves. You've got them criticising pretty much everyone when it suits (apart from themselves who only managed about an hour of physical searching for M) yet demanding this that and the other, appearing on every TV show and committee that will have them, brandishing Amber alerts at the European Parliament and slagging off the press at the LI (although they happily took huge pay-off from the press - kerching£$£$).

I don't see the review taking just the McCanns version into account when they have Rucked off so many people. I wouldn't be surprised if this review finds a way of silencing these people once and for all, which would be a blessing.

Would the PJ allow a whitewash? After the way they have been slandered at the LI and in the British press, wouldn't they start shouting from the rooftops that SY have covered up and ignored evidence. Remember there is still a lot of information from the files that were withheld. I don't believe they would handover all the files and just say there you go, that's all of it. SY must have had meetings with the PJ to discuss this.

from the remit :

the focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy):

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

bearing in mind what is in the files relating to the first 2, interesting reading.

and as they have declared a transparent process, SY should not object to responding to any questions as to why they have used both disappearance and abduction in this remit, as the latter has not been established, whereas the former is undisputed fact.

russiandoll wrote:Initially this remit refers to a disappearance [line 4] I am a bit bewildered at the use of the word abduction in a phrase which is in parentheses, a little later on.
It is rather crucial isn't it, that it is clarified whether they are dealing with a disappearance [ inarguable fact] or an abduction [arguable hypothesis].
It surely has to be the former, so why use the abduction word anywhere in this remit?
Maybe it is because that is how the disappearance was reported to the police force of the country in which it occurred , and as that is how it was officially logged in the police files. That was the start point for the PJ and I assume it will be for the UK.

I agree with you Russiandoll, that the heading and opening lines are significant as these are reflective of what the MET thought they are dealing with, and they had made it clear they are dealing with a disappearance.

When I think over the phrase in parentheses again, I have to hand it to the MEt at. being quite brilliant in choosing the wordings of the remit. Although the Remit is kept short and simple the essential points that mattered were put across if you think about it.

The heading defines it as a Review into a "Disappearance".
However when describing the job scopes, the Yard had also included albeit in parentheses that they were going to perform their job scopes of collating, examining, determining, and what have you, as if the abduction occurred in UK. Meaning as if the abduction was reported in UK coming naturally under UK jurisdiction with UK Police force as prime investigators, investigating it as any UK reported abduction.

Very clever that - 1) it is the officially lodged that way 2) the mccanns cant no longer say the foreign police fitted them up, if the Yard were to conclude that the evidence points to Maddie died in the Apt and they were involved.

The mccanns planted in the public's mind that the Portuguese Police were a bunch of beers downing incompetent sardine munchers who are (removed bad language) as well who didn't want a murder on their hands and since they didnt have proper anti paedophile law so they got blamed instead.

Brilliant that - the phrase in parentheses.
Considering the remit comprises studying the works of all 3 stakeholders, can anyone see the mccanns using the media to insinuate anything about the MET or insiinuate that the MET framed them, in the same manner they blamed the PJ?
The Yard has pre-empted them. Effectively shutting them up from their spins.

Having the UK primacy of the matter passed from LP to the Yard is another smart move.
LP were seen as biased and too friendly with the mccanns, breaking precedence by allowing their site to be linked to mccanns paypal.
People complained about that ,and the Yard must be aware of the complaint
Neutralising that element is a plus point and good move as well.

I really hope this review takes the disappearance of Madeleine onto another level as the Mccanns and friends/families/allies have had their way for far too long. Their obsession for the media spotlight and unrelenting onslaught on the Portuguese Police has got them into this position of SY being called in. After the hacking scandal, leaks and now the Stephen Lawrence murder/convictions are in the news, I honestly think SY aren't going to let this one slip.

I agree sammyc. Under the new Government, who will benefit greatly from the truth coming out, I have a funny feeling this year will be a very bad year for the T9 group, their backers and associates and also the Labour Government.
There should be a full public Inquiry.
Gordon Brown, Tony Blair, Cherie Blair and Jackie Smith, should all be called in to give evidence.
It's about time our Ministers became more transparent, for the good of the country.

Stella wrote:
It's about time our Ministers became more transparent, for the good of the country.

Transparent, as in - We can see right through them ?