Disciples

by **tigger** 01.10.11 15:07

I think that much of the fanaticism of the pros is due to the well known phenomenon of people in search of a cause to believe in.

The McCanns are defended with a fervour worthy of any religion. Their bible seems to be the press and the 'world according to Kate', or Mein Kampf, as I like to call it.

by Guest 01.10.11 18:39

I wonder how many lawless hills there are in PDL for Dave Edgar to search. With acknowledgemets to Ufercoffy who put the idea in my head, perhaps he could round up a motley gang of trolls - Garth and his chums, Ringo, Happy Larry, Murat Fan, Jayelles and the unknown charmless guests who've graced this forum from time to time - and head for the hills. Come on guys, surely it would be worth getting out of your basements for a while to do something worthwhile (not to mention a chance to claim the 2 milllion plus reward) and prove that we sceptics were talking trollocks (or something like that) all along.

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

by **tigger** 01.10.11 21:23

Marian wrote:I wonder how many lawless hills there are in PDL for Dave Edgar to search. With acknowledgemets to Ufercoffy who put the idea in my head, perhaps he could round up a motley gang of trolls - Garth and his chums, Ringo, Happy Larry, Murat Fan, Jayelles and the unknown charmless guests who've graced this forum from time to time - and head for the hills. Come on guys, surely it would be worth getting out of your basements for a while to do something worthwhile (not to mention a chance to claim the 2 milllion plus reward) and prove that we sceptics were talking trollocks (or something like that) all along.

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

Wasn't it the case that both Richard Branson and J.K. Rowling put up a million each as a reward in 2007. But I never see that mentioned anywhere, is it anywhere on their website? I wouldn't be too surprised to find both had withdrawn their offers.
J.K. Rowling isn't too fond of the Ms I think, she has been quick to state that she had nothing to do with the book.
But the reward is never mentioned in their many many interviews. Why not? It would get a lot more people looking.

by aiyoyo 02.10.11 16:14

The offerers probably did that as gesture only to advance or promote their names and did not expect to spend the money for they probably knew Maddie will never be found. It was just a symbolic gesture and nothing else cause you dont see them offering reward for other missing child do you?

by happychick 03.10.11 7:14

Good luck today TB clapping

by **tigger** 03.10.11 8:13

aiyoyo wrote:The offerers probably did that as gesture only to advance or promote their names and did not expect to spend the money for they probably knew Maddie will never be found. It was just a symbolic gesture and nothing else cause you dont see them offering reward for other missing child do you?

I overlooked the fact that advertising these offers wouldn't exactly make people donate to the Fund, would it?
The McCanns must have been really cheesed off, not getting their hands on the money. Branson is a businessman, too canny to donate. Now he looks good, free advertising for him and not a penny spent. Well done!

by **Jill Havern** 03.10.11 19:59

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

More to come....

by pennylane 03.10.11 20:52

Thanks for posting the pictures, Jilly [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Tony, I hope things went really well for you today, and that you achieved a great deal during your visit to NSY. Thank you on behalf of those of us that are longing for this epic façade to be exposed and the perpetrators brought to justice. I am looking forward to reading a report on the day's events, when you have the time to submit one. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

In my opinion you are a hero. Thanks again! [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **Tony Bennett** 03.10.11 21:14

A visit by The Madeleine Foundation
to Operation Grange at Belgravia Police Station
to mark Goncalo Amaral Day 2011

Last year The Madeleine Foundation marked Goncalo Amaral Day (2 October) by handing in a petition at No. 10 Downing Street calling on Prime Minister David Cameron to set up a full public enquiry, with the power to summon witnesses, into all aspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. We still believe that one day, something like that will be needed. At the moment our petition calling for the public enquiry has attracted 880 signatures.

In the event, the Prime Minister did something very different. On 12 May 2011, on the very day that Dr Kate McCann published her book, ‘madeleine’, David Cameron announced that he was setting up a £3.5 million review by Scotland Yard into Madeleine’s disappearance. The purpose of this, he said, and we quote, was not to get to the truth, but ‘to support the family’. That review, it is now known, is called ‘Operation Grange’.

The Madeleine Foundation has taken the view that, given that several senior Metropolitan Police detectives are engaged on what purports to be a comprehensive review of the evidence, it is important that we (and anyone else who is in a position to do so) submit any evidence to that review that may point the Review Team towards the indications that Madeleine McCann died in her parents’ apartment and that there has been a cover-up of that fact.

Accordingly, on 24 August, following two earlier letters dated 11 & 21 July, we sent by recorded delivery post to the Senior Investigating Officer, Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood, a lengthy dossier of evidence, together with several enclosures. Our dossier also included information relating to a source within the McCann Team who had disclosed evidence to us which suggested that the main purpose of the McCann Team’s private investigations may not have been to find Madeleine. We did not disclose that person’s identity.

We thought that an appropriate way to mark Goncalo Amaral Day this year was to seek to deliver more evidence, this time in person, to a member of Operation Grange. One of the team, Detective Inspector Tim Dobson, kindly agreed a couple of weeks back to receive the dossier in person.

Accordingly, and by arrangement, the dossier was formally handed in to him at around 12.35pm today.

It took a little while before we could see him. Only one person was on the front desk, a man of Middle Eastern or Mediterranean appearance who was busy filling in a car accident insurance form in quadruplicate for someone, and was intent on completing the task before looking up at the queue in front of him. After several minutes, I asked if he could let D.I. Dobson know we were here.

He still wanted more time to complete his form, which he did. I then asked him again if I could speak to D.I. Dobson or D.C.I. Redwood, and he said he’d never heard of them. I said they were from ‘Operation Grange’. “Never heard of them”, was his reply. Eventually he summoned a colleague of southern Asian appearance, and after a further wait of about 10 minutes, D.I. Dobson appeared and showed myself and a fellow Madeleine Foundation Committee member into a small interview room.

D.I. Dobson was polite and correct throughout. We were allowed time to explain briefly what was in the dossier (see below). A covering letter was attached to the dossier, which he scanned. We had time to raise one or two questions. One point he emphasised very strongly was that, and I quote: “This is a review, not an investigation”.

The difference, I think, can be summarised thus: “A review is a look at the evidence to see if there should be a formal re-investigation”.

Asked if the review could pursue specific lines of investigation or, for example, interview people of interest, he stuck to the script and said: “This is only a review”, adding that: “Any lines of enquiry will be incorporated in the final recommendations we will be making to the Portuguese Police”. I said: “But presumably you will not only be reporting to the Portuguese Police, but also to those who commissioned this report?” He said: “Oh yes, to them as well, of course”.

We asked who was the current co-ordinator of the Portuguese Police investigation, and he said: “I don’t actually know, but even if I did know, I wouldn’t tell you”. My colleague queried this, to which he replied: “Actually, I don’t know her name, but I can tell you that it’s a woman”.

At that point, the ’phone in the interview room rang. D.I. Dobson said: “I’m sorry, I’m being called upstairs on something urgent, I’ll have to close this now”.

And away we went.

We are not going to disclose the contents of the dossier nor of the covering letter, but we can say that it included a great deal of detail about the actions of the following individuals:

* Brian Kennedy

* Francisco Marco, boss of Metodo 3

* Antonio Jimenez/Gimenez, employed as the chief detective for Metodo 3 and Brian Kennedy during 2007 and 2008. Jimenez/Gimenez is now in prison for corruption and theft of £25 million of cocaine, offences committed whilst he was a top (but corrupt) police officer in Barcelona

* Marcos Aragao Correia, a lawyer from Madeira

* Francisco Pagarate

* Edward Smethurst, the McCanns’ co-ordinating lawyer

* Kevin Halligen, who has been in custody facing serious fraud charges for nearly two years

* Dave Edgar, the current ‘senior private investigator’ for Brian Kennedy and the McCann Team

* Those who created the shell company, ALPHAIG.

Finally, we hereby once again put on record our thanks to D.C.I. Redwood for agreeing to receive the material and, as we have said before, and no doubt will again, insofar as this Scotland yard Review Team is a genuine search for the truth, we wish them well and every success.

The Madeleine Foundation
9pm
Monday 3 October 2011

by Guest 03.10.11 21:55

Thanks for the info Tony. Well done to you. clapping

They all seem to be a bit vague as to who's who, and what's what, but I hope they will look at all your evidence, and the evidence in the files, and get this investigation re-opened and moving again. Thank you to you and the researchers for all the hard work you have put in thanks

by Ollie 03.10.11 22:00

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

by Guest 04.10.11 10:04

Tony and the rest of your team, for taking the mountain to mohammed. :fingerscrossed

by Xavier 04.10.11 10:35

I am not sure about this. Sorry to be a wet blanket but this is absolutely disgraceful.

First of all Mr Bennet was kept waiting by front desk staff, and then he only had a short interview with DI Dobson, interrupted by a phone call. Which sounds to me like a dubious ploy to cut the interview short. In short Mr Bennet was given the brush off.

Do these people not know how important and influential Mr Bennet and the Madeleine Foundation is? And that Mr Bennet is a solicitor? And how many people signed their petition? And how many supporters they have?

One thing that puzzles me. Surely New Scotland Yard would have more than one person on the front desk?

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.11 11:01

Xavier wrote:I am not sure about this. Sorry to be a wet blanket but this is absolutely disgraceful.

First of all Mr Bennett was kept waiting by front desk staff...

This is a local police station, NOT Scotland Yard HQ, which is about a mile away on Victoria Street. Operation Grange is based in offices within that building; as is clear from my account, the front desk officer had no knowledge of their existence. Anyone who has had dealings with police station front desks will know that these are a notoriously weak aspect of modern policing. Sometimes you are lucky even to see a person on the front desk at all; you may be confronted by a buzzer and even then it is not uncommon for police to take several minutes to appear. It is also very common for police officers to be engaged on front desks completing a variety of incident forms, sometimes for crime recording purposes, at other times merely to assist a person in making an insurance claim. They generally do not want to be interrupted whilst completing them.

...and then he only had a short interview with DI Dobson,

We have absolutely no complaints about DI Dobson having a short interview with us; indeed he went beyond what was strictly necessary by taking us into an interview room and having a short chat. He could simply and politely received our dossier and covering letter, and said 'Thank you and goodbye'. He did more than that, and for that we are grateful.

interrupted by a phone call. Which sounds to me like a dubious ploy to cut the interview short.

Who knows?

In short Mr Bennett was given the brush off.

We disagree. We arranged the hand-over of the dossier in advance, we met DI Dobson, and we had a short chat including questions about the review process. If it were a 'brush-off', DI Dobson could (a) have refused permission for us to hand over the dossier in person and (b) refused to have a chat with us.

Do these people not know how important and influential Mr Bennett and the Madeleine Foundation is?

Hmmm. We are neither important nor influential, indeed certain sections of the media seem to regard as 'sickos'. However, we have amassed a considerable volume of evidence dealing in particular with numerous contradictions among the statements of the McCanns and the 'Tapas 7' and to that we have added detailed research into the activities of those connected with the McCann Team's private investigations which we say reveals many significant indications. Under standard police policies, guidelines and procedures, a senior police officer MUST evaluate the significance of what we have now (on two separate occasions) provided by way of evidence - and any report and recommendations made in D.C.I. Redwood's final report will need to include an evaluation of the significance of the information supplied - and as to whether or not it might lead to new lines of enquiry being opened into possible criminal acts by anyone or even to a full re-investigation, either in Portugal, or in the U.K., or both.

And that Mr Bennett is a solicitor?

I practised as a Solicitor only between September 1993 and November 1999.

And how many people signed their petition?

880 so far, not hugely impressive, but 880 better than none.

And how many supporters they have?

Depends how you define 'supporters'.

One thing that puzzles me. Surely New Scotland Yard would have more than one person on the front desk?

No. see above.

by Xavier 04.10.11 13:22

Oh I see. Thank you very much Mr Bennett. I got the impression that you presented it at Scotland Yard from the photograph of you under the iconic sign. My mistake.

But are they treating the Madeleine Foundation with the respect it deserves?

by aiyoyo 04.10.11 14:02

xavier

your tail is showing.

by Guest 04.10.11 14:04

Aiyoyo: you've got there before me with that observation!

by Xavier 04.10.11 14:30

aiyoyo wrote:xavier

your tail is showing.

I am sorry. I don't understand.

by pennylane 04.10.11 14:55

Hello Tony, :bye:

Thank you for reporting on yesterday's achievements and your meeting with DI Dobson at Belgravia Police Station. Well done to you and anyone who helped bring this meeting together. I hope that the information contained in your dossier is given the respect it deserves. yes

I'm afraid my own feeling is that the 'Review' is a big hoax, just like the abduction... a shady end to a horrid crime!

RIP Madeleine roses

by Ollie 04.10.11 15:41

If this review turns out to be a whitewash or hoax then DC will be accountable considering the millions it is costing. I know there are police of the highest integrity and so hope this review will not be a whitewash.

by Cheshire Cat 04.10.11 15:47

Xavier wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:xavier

your tail is showing.

I am sorry. I don't understand.

I understand, so does GA, so does my cat.

Well done Tony.

I expect to live at least another 50 years and I will wait that long for the truth if I have to!

by littlepixie 04.10.11 15:48

I would just like to say well done Tony and the MF for taking the trouble to present your information in person. Whether the review is a hoax or not remains to be seen, but at least there is a record of the Police having received the information.

I know there are others who have sent their info to the SY and as Tony has already said anyone who has information should send it to the investigation and let the Police decide if it is relevant or not.

You never know, contained in that information may be that "one missing piece of the jigsaw" that helps solve this case.

by **Jill Havern** 04.10.11 16:03

littlepixie wrote:You never know, contained in that information may be that "one missing piece of the jigsaw" that helps solve this case.

Indeed, littlepixie...you would think the pro's would be delighted with any effort to try to help Maddie, yet all they do is laugh and poke fun. I wonder what evidence they've submitted to the Review Team?

by **PeterMac** 04.10.11 16:33

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:Indeed, littlepixie...you would think the pro's would be delighted with any effort to try to help Maddie, yet all they do is laugh and poke fun. I wonder what evidence they've submitted to the Review Team?

Evidence of the Abduction, of course.
Which means - nil.

by Daisy 04.10.11 19:52

I've already made my feelings clear about what I think of 'the review', so keeping it positive, I'll just say much respect to Tony and Team for at least trying to expose and challenge the corruption that this case is riddled with.

"All that is necessary for evil to triumph is for good men to do nothing" (atrributed to) Edmund Burke

by Gillyspot 04.10.11 20:04

As you say Ollie DC will be held accountable (as he should). He is spending over £3 million of tax payers money and if it is anything other than an honest review with no preconceived ideas then I would go so far as to say it is fraud.

by pennylane 04.10.11 20:46

Ollie wrote:If this review turns out to be a whitewash or hoax then DC will be accountable considering the millions it is costing. I know there are police of the highest integrity and so hope this review will not be a whitewash.

I hope so too Ollie pray2

I agree with you that there are some excellent policemen, but they can only work within the parameters they are given. Goncalo Amaral was baffled by the seeming U-turn of the British police who suddenly all upped sticks when the McCanns credibility took a nose dive. It seems to me that someone high up decided they didn't want this dodgy pair going on trial, whatever their crimes.

I respect Teresa May, so lets hope she has changed things dramatically since the pathetic Jacqui Smith was in office. It seemed to me that The Home Office did everything to scupper the PJ's investigation by denying the most basic background information on the McCanns, and it would be a deeply depressing end to this saga if the British police had to undertake this review with both hands tied behind their backs.

I'm really grateful to Tony Bennett and The Madeleine Foundation, and wish them the very best as they continue to work exceedingly hard against difficult and often hostile circumstances. Bravo! clapping

by **Tony Bennett** 04.10.11 21:41

Ollie wrote:If this review turns out to be a whitewash or hoax then DC will be accountable considering the millions it is costing. I know there are police of the highest integrity and so hope this review will not be a whitewash.

Responding to Ollie and to the last few points on this thread (many thanks for the nice comments by the way), I fully agree that there are a great many reasons for thinking that the Scotland Yard Review Team is, as it were, stuck with a brief that they may not revisit claims that Madeleine McCann died in her parents' apartment and that there has been a cover-up.

David Cameron saying on the day Dr Kate McCann's book was published that the review was 'to support the family' hardly encouraged the many of us who have never believed the McCanns' claim that Madeleine was abducted.

However, as PeterMac, a retired Police Superintendent, has explained more than once, Police Officers these days must note all the evidence that comes in (whether they are engaged on a live investigation or on a 'cold case' review (rereading the files in other words). They must also explain, for the record, their reasons for either accepting or rejecting certain evidence. And those reasons must be sound. If Police Officers do not follow such procedures, they lay themselves open to misconduct or disciplinary charges - or even an investigation by the Independent Police Complaints Commission.

There have in recent decades been many examples of widespread police corruption. It is becoming clearer all the time that - in breach of the law and their codes of conduct - officers at various levels in the Met Police have been paid by private investigators or newspaper editors for information. Confidence in the police has been plummering, while complaints to the IPCC have been rising. Maybe an honest, no-holds-barred review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, with Bernard Hogan-Howe calling up Andy Redwood for a regular brieifng on how things are going, would help to restore the Met's increasingly tattered reputation.

For example, Andy Redwood's team would be bound by now to have read:

* The 10 September 2007 report by Tavares de Almedia

* 'The Truth About a Lie' by Goncalo Amaral

* The report of Lee Rainbow

* The report by Martin Grime and the video made by Portuguese Police of his sniffer dogs in action.

There is no way on earth that Redwood and his team can avoid confronting the hugely significant evidential issues in those reports.

Now we have given him and his team a great deal of additional information about the conduct of the McCanns' private investigations - evidence again that cannot be discounted and must be properly and conscientiously evaluated by Andy Redwood and his team.

Our position is that we must give Andy Redwood and his team an opportunity. We must trust them to act in accordance with their police oaths, namely to investigate and prosecute all alleged crimes robustly and without fear or favour.

There is one other issue that I want to mention: timing. It could be, for all we know, that the Scotland Yard Review Team share our sceptical views about the McCanns' claims that Madeleine was abducted. As professional officers, particularly in this very sensitive, highly-charged case that has been over-saturated with media coverage, not in a million years would they give even a smidgeon of a hint that they were thinking that way.

But things can change. Two years on, Cameron might not be Prime Minister. The new Metropolitan Police Commissioner, Bernard Hogan-Howe, might prove to be a robust, honest, successful Head of the Met who will ensure that his police officers do their job thoroughly and without fear or favour. Someone with knowledge of the case might speak out. Other new evidence might come to light. All manner of things might change.

And if they do, someone like Andy Redwood might just feel that the moment is right for him to complete his report and conclude it by recommending certain lines of enquiry which might not be the ones that Cameron and the McCanns were thinking of when this Review was set up.

In summary, to alter slightly John Lennon's words, we must 'Give Redwood a Chance'.

There is evidence which should interest Andy Redwood and his team within this very forum. Let us politely, concisely and helpfully continue to share that with him, giving his team of officers more raw material to work on.

And let us all keep digging.

by Angelique 04.10.11 23:09

Tony

May I give my belated "Well Done" for your efforts and presenting your evidence in person as well.

I agree that having now received this evidence that they must include it. Not to do so would be a breach of their remit. It's part of the Review.

Whatever the outcome your file of written evidence forms part of it. yes

by aiyoyo 05.10.11 5:48

Xavier wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:xavier

your tail is showing.

I am sorry. I don't understand.

Let me put it this way:

If you were the 'one' going with the evidence, DI Dobson wouldn't have given you the time of the day.
You would (very likely, in fact more than 110% likely) be told like any general public member to leave your 'evidence parcel' at the reception and get a receipt for it!

TB got more than any public member could ever bargain for ...in fact he did v well.
Not only DI Dobson agreed to collect the evidence off TB personally but they managed a brief chat which is a lot, and I mean plenty.
In other words, he was well aware of TB's work and imo by agreeing to meet TB it indicates he acknowledges the research work of TB and the MF. And why shouldn't Police acknowledge research work of campaigners for the Truth? No reason at all!
It's only the mccanns who are against people finding out the truth. No one has the right to insist people believe in only one theory.

BTW, what did you imagine it was going to be? Did you think DI Dobson was going to discuss the case in depth with TB?
Either you are naive, obtuse, or deliberately being sutbly rude - that much is obvious.

Well, let me put it another way:
Even the mccanns were to ring up for DI, they might not get Dobson's time of the day. Unless they want to offer new information or offer themselves up for elimination - then that might be a different matter.
Besides the point of observance of secrecy or confidentiality clause, prohibiting discussion of the case with non-involved personnel, Police most certainly will never discuss the case at any stage be it investigation or review with 'suspects' yet to be eliminated in a court of law.

Remember the case is cold, not closed, hence the review. It isn't an investigation per se but a review is potent to cold case.
Historically, cold cases do get solved from periodic reviews; and in this particular case of the mccanns it is a specially ordered review, more reason to believe Police were given the special task of digging into the truth hopefully with no hold barrel and no behind closed door 'secret instructions' from any quarters of the Authority.