Daily Telegraph story on 4/5/2007

by Guest 10.12.11 0:06

It has been established somewhere else on the site that the timing of this story was 12.01 PM and not 12.01 AM. If it was one minute after midnight, the time would show as 00.01. The story refers to searches going on until 4.30 AM and a breakfast TV interview on the morning of the 4th so clearly the reference to 12.01 AM is simply a mistake.

by dragonfly 10.12.11 0:16

Anders wrote:
Miraflores wrote:
honeybunch wrote:Is this the one. Although dated "12:01AM BST 04 May 2007" it seems to have rather a lot of info for that time.

Honeybunch - yes that's the one. As you say there is an astonishing amount of detail - as though they were talking about something which had happened 24 hours before and not two hours before.

To put it into context, compare this with the tragedy we are seeing now in Norway - information at this level of detail took more than a couple of hours to start coming out.

They certainly are getting more careful these days, everyone has HDTV recorders in their pockets

Plenty of evidence there was more than one shooter in Norway, Colombians too, in fact most of these staged shows are certainly not the work of crazed loners..

yes I agree and the same with Dunblane

by Anders 10.12.11 1:08

Miraflores wrote:
......
Plenty of evidence there was more than one shooter in Norway, Colombians too, in fact most of these staged shows are certainly not the work of crazed loners..

More than one shooter in Norway? I have not read this. Could you elaborate Anders?

Hi

Many sites

Try a angiirfan

Lotta blackmail and factions and brinkmanship going on

Very very complicated

Before norways worst day in history, you will find that they defied the state of Israel

By definition that means they defied the USA, Sis elements within the uk, all on board with the NATO message

What I saying is Norway was both a punishment and a warning

Do not step out of line

Question for you?

Do you think this obvious patsy set off a huge bomb and did the massacre all on his own?

Check out the fact that the Norwegian cos were doing an "excersise" the same day! We had identical excersises going on on 911 and uk 77

This is all pertinent because the Maddie atrocity might have been planned for years, investigat Tavistock, ask yourself what sort of social engineering has surrounded and cosseted the Maddie car?

It all smacks of premeditation and psyops

If I am wrong at the very minimum I go with Detective GM.

by Anders 10.12.11 1:20

I really DO apologise for my spelling, I an on an iPhone and it has a mind of its own .. . Would not surprise me at all if certain words/phrases were carter phucked if u get my meaning!

by Miraflores 10.12.11 8:33

Shibboleth wrote:So are you telling us, that the Norway tragedy was made by Israel?

I don't think he's saying that - I certainly think that he is saying that forces allied to NATO are - ones with links to the US and possibly UK governments. I am quite prepared to believe this.

by pennylane 10.12.11 11:24

Shibboleth wrote:So are you telling us, that the Norway tragedy was made by Israel?

Now I've heard everything! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Scuse me for saying this, but isn't this excellent thread being taken way off topic! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 10.12.11 12:58

Hi people,
Just to clear ONE thing up, there where no involvment from any one in the Norwegian shooting except from one man ABB !! No goverment, no Israel. Just one sick mans mind believing that everyone that do not have blue eyes and blond hair do not deserve to breath in our country !

So keep your conspiray theory to yourself and dont speak out if you really do not have a clue or any evidence !

No one but one man was involved in this shooting, there where never more than one shooter, but he used different weapons therefor at times it did sound as two shooters !

Dont you ever in any way try to blame any one else but this one sick minded man !!

If you wherent there, if you dont live in our country and don't know EVERY detail from the case, please do not speak out !!

And please , from all of us who acually was there : Please do not give him the pleasure even mentioning this sick basterds name !! Because that gives him pleasure and we do not want to do that !

by Guest 10.12.11 13:07

Tony Bennett wrote:Considerations:

1. The Met failed to investigate 'phone hacking
2. Stephenson, and Assistant Commissioners Heyman and Yates accepted hospitality, dinners etc. from the Murdoch executives, at a time when they were investigating crimes by the NOTW
3. Hayman went on, after retiring, to receive large sums for writing in Murdoch papers
4. Stephenson appointed arrested NOTW executive Niall Wallis and paid him £1,000 a day for 'advice' and speech-writing - and didn't tell the Met Police Authority
5. The Met failed to investigate payments by NOTW to police for informtation after Rebekah Brooks admitted them to a Commons Select Committee
6. Stephenson accepted free care at Champneys, whose marketing company was owned by Niall Wallis
7. Stephenson accepted directions from David Cameron and Theresa May to spend £3.5 million in a Madeleine McCann Review whose awowed intention was 'to support the family'
8. The announcement of the Scotland Yard Review was made by David Cameron in the Sun, who simultaneously published Dr Gerald McCann's letter asking for a Review
9. The Sun serialised Dr Kate McCann's book: 'madeleine'

Just to remind everyone what this thread is really about.

Any futher comments that have nothing to do with SY will be deleted.

by Guest 10.12.11 13:16

Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:Considerations:

1. The Met failed to investigate 'phone hacking
2. Stephenson, and Assistant Commissioners Heyman and Yates accepted hospitality, dinners etc. from the Murdoch executives, at a time when they were investigating crimes by the NOTW
3. Hayman went on, after retiring, to receive large sums for writing in Murdoch papers
4. Stephenson appointed arrested NOTW executive Niall Wallis and paid him £1,000 a day for 'advice' and speech-writing - and didn't tell the Met Police Authority
5. The Met failed to investigate payments by NOTW to police for informtation after Rebekah Brooks admitted them to a Commons Select Committee
6. Stephenson accepted free care at Champneys, whose marketing company was owned by Niall Wallis
7. Stephenson accepted directions from David Cameron and Theresa May to spend £3.5 million in a Madeleine McCann Review whose awowed intention was 'to support the family'
8. The announcement of the Scotland Yard Review was made by David Cameron in the Sun, who simultaneously published Dr Gerald McCann's letter asking for a Review
9. The Sun serialised Dr Kate McCann's book: 'madeleine'

Just to remind everyone what this thread is really about.

Any futher comments that have nothing to do with SY will be deleted.

TY STELLA !

That was my point too, noncens do not belong in this thread or in the forum for that matter !!!

by Shibboleth 10.12.11 13:19

And there is now more nonsense, on the *political support* thread. I suspect that this forum is under attack, again.

by **Jill Havern** 10.12.11 13:42

Yes, the Carter Ruck 'well wishers' are here yes

by Xavier 12.12.11 23:00

I think you know the answer to that already...... [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 12.12.11 23:02

This topic is titled "Is Scotland Yard fit to carry out Madeleine McCann Review?" The last few posts have gone completely off topic. Further posts off topic will be deleted.

by Shibboleth 12.12.11 23:05

n that case, I would be obliged if you would remove the last half page of personal insults, directed at my self.

by Anders 12.12.11 23:21

Post deleted

by Anders 12.12.11 23:24

My apologies for iPhone spellings!!!

by Shibboleth 12.12.11 23:26

Post deleted off topic.

by anil39200 12.12.11 23:54

In reply to the title of the thread, I believe it is an awful lot of money to waste on a couple of people who are relatively unimportant, ie the McCanns. However if they are out to do a whitewash then no, they are not fit to do the review. If however they find information by looking at the files from a fresh perspective and this leads to the child's return then I guess that would be justification, as would if their review led to criminal proceedings against those who actually were responsible for the disappearance of the child.whoever that may be. However, can someone answer what may seema naive question please
Do the SY team have any powers to recommend to the PJ to reopen the case if they find there is involvement by any members of the group of people who were associating together that evening at the Tapas Restaurant while the children were left alone? if indeed that was the case, as there seem to be so many inconsistencies about who was or was'nt there, who saw who etc etc that it is difficult to know what to think about it all at times.
In other words how far does the SY remit go?

Edited to change name please use peoples correct names. Thanks.

by Shibboleth 12.12.11 23:58

anil39200 wrote:In reply to the title of the thread, I believe it is an awful lot of money to waste on a couple of people who are relatively unimportant, ie the McCanns. However if they are out to do a whitewash then no, they are not fit to do the review. If however they find information by looking at the files from a fresh perspective and this leads to the child's return then I guess that would be justification, as would if their review led to criminal proceedings against those who actually were responsible for the disappearance of the child.whoever that may be. However, can someone answer what may seema naive question please
Do the SY team have any powers to recommend to the PJ to reopen the case if they find there is involvement by any members of the group of people who were associating together that evening at the Tapas Restaurant while the children were left alone? if indeed that was the case, as there seem to be so many inconsistencies about who was or was'nt there, who saw who etc etc that it is difficult to know what to think about it all at times.
In other words how far does the SY remit go?

This is a very good question. I do not remember seeing an answer to it. Also, are they simply making a review of the "sightings" that have been discounted, or any "new" sightings that the PJ did not examine? If so, where did the "new" sightings come from, who supplied this information?

by littlepixie 13.12.11 0:16

I don't know whether Scotland Yard are fit to conduct a review into this case. I am more interested in WHY they are conducting a review.

Local Authorities are penny-pinching in every way they can just to carry on providing care for the multitiude of children they are legally responsible for. Cheaper alternatives are being sought right across the board - yet 3.5 MILLION pounds is being spent on just one child alone.

Every childs life is priceless to me personally, but believe it or not, in reality there is a price put on everything, however unsavoury that may be. There is because there HAS to be.

So why is THIS child different?

by Liz Eagles 13.12.11 1:15

littlepixie wrote:I don't know whether Scotland Yard are fit to conduct a review into this case. I am more interested in WHY they are conducting a review.

Local Authorities are penny-pinching in every way they can just to carry on providing care for the multitiude of children they are legally responsible for. Cheaper alternatives are being sought right across the board - yet 3.5 MILLION pounds is being spent on just one child alone.

Every childs life is priceless to me personally, but believe it or not, in reality there is a price put on everything, however unsavoury that may be. There is because there HAS to be.

So why is THIS child different?

I just wanted to add something to your post...why is it called a 'review'...it's like a public enquiry....and I agree with your sentiments.

by anil39200 13.12.11 2:27

anil39200 wrote:In reply to the title of the thread, I believe it is an awful lot of money to waste on a couple of people who are relatively unimportant, ie the McCanns. However if they are out to do a whitewash then no, they are not fit to do the review. If however they find information by looking at the files from a fresh perspective and this leads to the child's return then I guess that would be justification, as would if their review led to criminal proceedings against those who actually were responsible for the disappearance of the child.whoever that may be. However, can someone answer what may seema naive question please
Do the SY team have any powers to recommend to the PJ to reopen the case if they find there is involvement by any members of the group of people who were associating together that evening at the Tapas Restaurant while the children were left alone? if indeed that was the case, as there seem to be so many inconsistencies about who was or was'nt there, who saw who etc etc that it is difficult to know what to think about it all at times.
In other words how far does the SY remit go?

Sorry, I am sure I am not the first to use an incorrect name but I cannot recall anyone else being corrected. Still rules are rules as long as they are consistent.

Edited to change name please use peoples correct names. Thanks.

by Gillyspot 13.12.11 7:46

From the Home Office website regarding the Review dated 12th May 2011

"The Home Office today announced that the Metropolitan Police Service will be bringing their expertise to the case regarding the search for Madeleine McCann.

A Home Office spokesperson said: 'The government's primary concern has always been and remains the safe return of Madeleine. Although she disappeared in Portugal, and the Portuguese retain the lead responsibility in the case, law enforcement agencies here have continued to follow up leads and pass information to the Portuguese authorities as appropriate.

The Prime Minister and the Home Secretary have today agreed with Sir Paul Stephenson that the Metropolitan Police will bring its particular expertise to this case. Clearly, the detail of what that will entail will be a matter of operational judgment and it would not be appropriate to discuss at this stage.'

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

by sijm 26.02.12 20:32

Hi all.

Did you know another name for Freemasons is Oddfellows and some interesting links to Police insurance, just tap in Oddfellows and police.

by russiandoll 17.06.12 12:41

Have searched 3 times and can't find my original post re UK police forces' policy and procedures re reported missing persons, would like to highlight a few major points:

Definitions
3.2.1 Missing Person
A missing person is anyone whose whereabouts is
unknown whatever the circumstances of the
disappearance. They will be considered missing until
located and their well being or otherwise established.”
(ACPO definition)
It follows therefore that there are two dimensions to a
missing person enquiry:-
Ensuring the well-being of the missing person;
• Providing appropriate support to the complainant/
Family.

The
details required are name, DOB, as much
descriptive information as possible (i.e. marks,
scars, tattoos), brief circumstances of
disappearance & clothing items worn (including
make, colour etc.)
Most missing persons are found locally
Photographs and dental records, if available,
should be forwarded as soon as
possible after notification

why murder detectives are involved in the review:

The majority of missing person enquiries will be quickly
resolved. In a few cases, however, the report of a
missing person is the first step in a major crime case.
Therefore the initial stages of any missing person
enquiry should commence on the basis that the case
may escalate into a serious crime investigation. In cases
where the circumstances are suspicious or unexplained
use the maxim: IF IN DOUBT THINK MURDER. It is
easier to rein back from the early stages of a major
enquiry than it is to recover missed opportunities
resulting from miscalculating in the early stages

At the earliest opportunity after the initial report, the
matter should be reviewed by an SIO (Senior
Investigating Officer) to assess if, on the
information available, there is any possibility that
the missing person is the victim of a crime.

Responsibilities
3.3.1 First Report
Sufficient information shall be obtained to determine how
swiftly a police officer needs to attend to commence the
initial investigation. If the circumstances of the initial
report indicate that the missing person is at risk of
coming to harm or of harming others then a police officer
should be dispatched as soon as possible, a police
officer should always attend a report of a missing
person.
Minimum information that should be gathered on first
report is:
• Name
• Age
• Date of birth
• Descriptive details of missing person
• Home address
• Location missing from / last seen
• Circumstances of disappearance
• Is this behaviour out of character?
• Details of any vehicle or other transport used
• Assessment of person reporting
• Name address and telephone number of person
reporting

Officer First Attending
a) The officer attending the scene will obtain full
particulars of the missing person and complete the
Missing Person Enquiry Form. In particular, the
officer will ensure that all of the details surrounding
the disappearance are fully recorded. The officer
must understand that they are conducting an
investigation and not merely taking details for a
report.
b) In all cases the full Missing Persons Form will be
completed immediately.
c) The officer will make an assessment of the
circumstances of the disappearance in order to
make a judgement regarding the risks to which that
person or the community are likely to be exposed

The officer will gather sufficient information about
the missing person to enable an effective and
thorough investigation to be conducted. The extent
of the information will vary according to the
assessment of the risk. Very detailed information
and a lifestyle profile will be needed in high-risk
cases.
e) If appropriate, consideration should be given to
obtaining a sample of the missing persons DNA
(e.g. tooth brush/ hairbrush). If DNA is obtained
then The PNC Bureau must be informed.

Officers should ensure that the home address of
the missing person is searched as a priority, even if
family or friends have already conducted a search
of their own. Officers should be sensitive to and
respect any cultural issues and explain fully the
reasons why a search of the home address is
preferable.
l) The objective of the search is to discover:
• The Missing Person,Evidence relating to their disappearance
• Intelligence that may lead to their discovery
The officer will ensure that a recent photograph or
other captured image of the missing person is
obtained for circulation purposes

In every case of a reported missing person the
officer attending the scene should consider the
possibility of ‘foul play’.

Role of Detective Inspector
a) Where foul play is suspected the duty detective
inspector will carry out an immediate review of the
case and assess whether there are any criminal
offences involved and decide upon the appropriate
course of action.

Investigating officers should use the following as a guide
in reaching a professional judgement on whether the
missing person fits into a low, medium or high risk. None
of the factors are weighted or scored.

Factors that should be considered:-

Personal Circumstances
♦ Age of the person;
♦ On the Child Protection Register;
♦ Requires essential medication or treatment
♦ At risk due to mental impairment or physical condition;
♦ Drug dependency;
♦ Suicidal tendencies;
♦ Alcohol dependency.
♦ Cultural and Religious

Circumstances of Disappearance
♦ Suspect murder or abduction;
♦ Involvement in violent incidents prior to report;
♦ Out of character;
♦ Family or relationship problems;
♦ Employment problems;
♦ Financial problems;
♦ School or college problems;
♦ Bullying or harassment problems;
♦ Previously disappeared and subjected to harm;
♦ Normally resident in UK but travelled abroad;
♦ Normally resident abroad but gone missing in UK;
♦ Other special factors identified by the family/friends;
♦ Any factors considered critical by the Investigating
Officer;
♦ Validity of the information provided by person
reporting

High Risk
a) The risk posed is immediate and there are
substantial grounds for believing that the subject is
in danger through their own vulnerability or mental
state,
May have been the victim of a serious crime

Guidance on Factors for Risk Assessment
Many of the factors included under “Personal circumstances” and
“Circumstances of disappearance” need little explanation. However the
following points may prove helpful in considering certain of the factors:-
Factor - Age of the person
This may be a very significant factor in determining the level of risk. It will be
of potentially great importance with a child of tender years for a number of
reasons: -
• The child is so young that it is physically unable to interact safely with the
environment or its surrounding
• The child may be unable to prevent itself being exploited for a criminal
purpose i.e. trafficking for the vice industry
The child may be the victim of a predatory paedophile. This is a particularly
important matter to consider. The time since disappearance could be
vital for the survival of the child. Statistics show that in the case of
abduction in such circumstances the child is unlikely to be alive after six
hours. (CATCHEM Index). Urgent action is essential

Factor – Suspicion of Abduction
Consider:
In the case of a child believed taken by an estranged parent who may take the
child abroad, the need for an urgent ‘all ports’ warning?

Factor – The validity of the information provided by the person reporting
Consider:
Why is this person being reported missing, is there a hidden motive?
How well does the reporting person know the missing person, how reliable is
their information?

by **tigger** 17.06.12 12:55

Don't want to quote the above post, but very interesting! It seems - and Petermac would know anyway and has told us too! - that what we've been told so far is in line with normal police procedure.
It's just taking a very long time.... great find, RD!

by russiandoll 17.06.12 21:08

Very frustrating as I posted almost identical months back and it has to be here somewhere. This is not specific to SY it is a UK force procedure which all must follow. So that is what happens when a person is reported missing in the UK. Given that an abduction was reported, not just " our daughter has disappeared" I would imagine, although I can't find it listed, that it would raise a red flag but I guess it comes under the umbrella of evaluation of circumstances and judging the person reporting to the police......are they reliable, is there an ulterior motive or agenda behind the report? It is same the wording of the remit was sloppy, but I choose to read " as if the abduction happened in the UK" as " as if the abduction was reported in the UK"

I do not see how or why SY would deviate from standard practice, everything done /not done needs documenting and justifying.
I still maintain that Redwood was in the media, given the review had been going for a year, for some misjudged PR and I have to take note of the predatory paedophile scenario mentioned, that most abductees are no longer alive after 6 hours. It is not credible that he believes if that is what happened, that Madeleine is alive, there is every reason for him to strongly believe the opposite. He looked unconvincing when put on the spot and replying yes so unequivocally.
I have looked but can't find anything directly from him dismissing as one newspaper put it theories re the parents.
I note he did not say anything other than a stranger went into the apartment and took her.
No date, no specific apartment [even if he said " that apartment " it refers to the one he is thinking about not necessarily the one we all think of.....] no mention of a break in.WENT INTO. A stranger is someone Maddie did not know or if she did know him or her, only slightly. So walked into the apartment she was in and walked out with her. He did not say while she was sleeping.....so perhaps Maddie was not alive. A viewer listening to him speaking about the parallel investigations....one where she is alive, the other dead and then hearing his view about what happened would think he meant if Maddie was dead it was post abduction, a typical scenario if taken by a paedophile. Or anyone without that agenda but who got wind of the publicity about her eye. He knows what he means and he could have been referring by "took her"....to a live child or one deceased at the time of removal.
I think he chose his words very carefully.

by **tigger** 17.06.12 22:08

Petermac will love your clear appraisal - many overreacted to the Panorama and subsequent publicity - I certainly did. Steam was coming out of my ears, it will be lovely to have my opinion at the time proved wrong!

by jd 18.06.12 5:16

tigger wrote:Petermac will love your clear appraisal - many overreacted to the Panorama and subsequent publicity - I certainly did. Steam was coming out of my ears, it will be lovely to have my opinion at the time proved wrong!

This is the truth of the Channel 4 documentary...How they disugustngly deceived the viewing public, changed the Smith sighting to their agenda....they are sick unbalanced creatures and totally abusing our free speech and facts

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