SY Review Team - Includes STATEMENT 6 Oct by Inspector Steve Bentley

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!

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.

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?

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.

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

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.

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 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!

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.

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.

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.

And Redwood could get a promotion out of this.

Tony Bennett wrote:

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.

A very informative post indeed! I understand absolutely your encouraging views regarding the police and how things can change dramatically from one year to the next. I don't think I would be here after all this time if I didn't feel there was considerable mileage to be gained from chipping away at this case, and the mountain of lies the public have been inundated with.

Thank you for putting things in a very clear perspective, Tony.

Been off ill for a few days so missed this. THANK YOU TONY for your hard work and dedication to justice for MBM.
Even if the review does turn out to be less than hoped, at least many people - Sr Amaral and team, Tony, moSt of the posters on this site - we can all hold our heads up high. We refuse to look the other way in the face of lies and wickedness!
Well done to all :-)

STATEMENT BY THE METROPOLITAN POLICE 6 OCTOBER 2011

Reproduced below without comment.

STATEMENT by Steve Bentley, Inspector, Directorate of Professional Standards, Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard

QUOTE

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

UNQUOTE

aiyoyo wrote:

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.

"Either you are naive, obtuse, or deliberately being sutbly rude - that much is obvious".

None of those things, thank you aiyoyo. Merely expressing an opinion (I assume that is allowed on this forum?). And from Inspector Bentley's comments (above) it would seem I was spot on. The police review team are not taking the research work of the Madeleine Foundation sufficiently seriously.

Tony Bennett wrote:STATEMENT BY THE METROPOLITAN POLICE 6 OCTOBER 2011

Reproduced below without comment.

STATEMENT by Steve Bentley, Inspector, Directorate of Professional Standards, Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard

QUOTE

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

UNQUOTE

I find that statement rather strange. He uses the word evidence. Evidence is gathered by the police. Surely, it is not up to the public to gather evidence. Members of the public can assist with information. How many times do we see that the police have followed up leads resulting from a tip off, or information from an informant etc. You only have to watch Crime and Investigation channel every night, to see that police act on information received from the public. They act on peoples suspicions and investigate them if they are of any relevance at all to the enquiry.

My understanding is that the [Scotland
Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that
would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand
information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators.
This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they
would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her
if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information
regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The
team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the
myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from
the available information.

xavier
I take it you dont always understand fully what you read (no offence) - which bit indicates SY didnt take TB or MF's work seriously may I ask?

Would it be this bit "....You state that you have a first hand
information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators.
This information would obviously be of interest to the team...."

Selective reading is not prohibited rightfully but selective reading to suit your agenda is quite something else.

Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but unfortunately for you, your opinion gives you away, if I am entitled to say that - which I think I am, just as you to yours!

Tony Bennett wrote:STATEMENT BY THE METROPOLITAN POLICE 6 OCTOBER 2011

Reproduced below without comment.

STATEMENT by Steve Bentley, Inspector, Directorate of Professional Standards, Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard

QUOTE

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

UNQUOTE

It sounds to me like someone is getting a bit worried in the upper ranks, that you may have something of real importance.

Why is an inspector that works for the Met complaints department even commenting on a on-going review?

candyfloss wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:STATEMENT BY THE METROPOLITAN POLICE 6 OCTOBER 2011

Reproduced below without comment.

STATEMENT by Steve Bentley, Inspector, Directorate of Professional Standards, Metropolitan Police/Scotland Yard

QUOTE

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

UNQUOTE

I find that statement rather strange. He uses the word evidence. Evidence is gathered by the police. Surely, it is not up to the public to gather evidence. Members of the public can assist with information. How many times do we see that the police have followed up leads resulting from a tip off, or information from an informant etc. You only have to watch Crime and Investigation channel every night, to see that police act on information received from the public. They act on peoples suspicions and investigate them if they are of any relevance at all to the enquiry.

If you read back in the thread, you will see that Mr Bennett introduced the term "evidence" in connection with the dossier of evidence provided by the Madeleine Foundation. I cannot see anything wrong with that personally, but maybe that is why Inspector Bentley uses the term.

aiyoyo wrote:

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

xavier, I take it you dont always understand fully what you read (no offence) - which bit indicates SY didnt take TB or MF's work seriously may I ask?

Would it be this bit "....You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team...."

Selective reading is not prohibited rightfully but selective reading to suit your agenda is quite something else. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but unfortunately for you, your opinion gives you away, if I am entitled to say that - which I think I am, just as you to yours!

None taken, of course. And nothing wrong with my understanding of what I read.

No, it was this bit "However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information."

I fail to see how this could be interpreted in anything other than a very dismissive way.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I fail to see how it "gives me away" - I am entirely supportive of the work of Mr Bennett and the foundation, but this does not extend to being uncritically upbeat about the reception given to him by SY on Monday. I am a realist. Perhaps you need to be more perceptive as to who is on your side. (if I am allowed to say such things).

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from
the available information.

Hi all, just a little query , did Tony ever mention it was a "she"?

jimuck wrote:My understanding is that the [Scotland
Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that
would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand
information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators.
This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they
would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her
if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information
regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The
team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the
myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from
the available information.


Hi all, just a little query , did Tony ever mention it was a "she"

Who knows? SY/MP said that, not Tony[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Xavier wrote:[
No, it was this bit "However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information."

I fail to see how this could be interpreted in anything other than a very dismissive way.

(B) of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I fail to see how it "gives me away" - I am entirely supportive of the work of Mr Bennett and the foundation, but this does not extend to being uncritically upbeat about the reception given to him by SY on Monday. I am a realist. Perhaps you need to be more perceptive as to who is on your side. (if I am allowed to say such things). [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

So you think that when Inspector Bentley made that bit of general comment he was refering specifically to TB and dismissive of MF's work, yet Police Officer met up with TB so as to collect his parcel in person?

In other words you're implying the Police OFficer is so inept that he would meet someone (in this case TB) he was dismissive of just to collect something he's also dismissive of.

Well, let's put it this way: either the parcel was of great interest to the review team hence deemed important that a Police Officer collected it in person off TB or it wasnt - you cant have it both ways.

Surely no one would think that an Police Officer would waste time on someone or something he's dismissive of - SO, either you think the review team is a moron or it is you (rather than SY) who is dismissive of TB's work. I'm inclined to think the latter.

Perceptive is all very well but I believe truthseekers (and no one is more hardworking than TB in that aspect) are not out to get anyone, let alone Police, on their side. WE credit people with intelligence to discern for themselves.

As for getting people on side - well that is undoubtedly the distinct speciality of the lying pairs. For them it isnt about truth for Maddie b/c they knew the truth about her fate. For them it's about getting all sorts of people on their side for self preservation reason.

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they
would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The
team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information.

This seems quite dismissive of the File that TB has presented except for the "insider".

Are we to assume that this is the only part they are interested in? If so, I wonder that they have zero'd in on this alone.

Do I smell fish? Sea bass?

Well looking on the bright side there is well documented EVIDENCE that there are glaring contradictions in the McCanns and their Tapas mates accounts (you only have to look at the eye defect issue - if printing t-shirts and posters and choice of songs isn't making a big deal out of something Kate DENIED making a big deal of on TV, ) then SY will no doubt be looking into it, because I repeat, it exsists as hard evidence. However Tanners ever changing alleged sighting of an egg, bundle, pinkish aspect, smart shoes all in the dimly lit streets of PDL, can only be regarded as a view or a belief and therefore will be discounted by SY surely? And the prints on the shutters, which were smashed or not, is evidence is it not? And who's were they then! Hmmm....

So in terms of EVIDENCE of an abduction, well there are some much repeated views and beliefs and little else, but in hard copy are phone records of texts being deleted, which the McCanns denied on TV (I know what I saw!) and so on.

This review might get quite interesting....

Angelique wrote:My understanding is that the [Scotland
Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that
would assist with the enquiry. You state that you have a first hand
information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators.
This information would obviously be of interest to the team and they
would welcome details of this individual to allow them to interview her
if she is able to provide relevant evidence. However, information
regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The
team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the
myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from
the available information.

This seems quite dismissive of the File that TB has presented except for the "insider".

Are we to assume that this is the only part they are interested in? If so, I wonder that they have zero'd in on this alone.

Do I smell fish? Sea bass?

Even if the Police were only interested in TB's file just for the 'insider' so to speak, they needn't have to agree to meet with TB. They could always ask for the file to be handed over at the counter and it would still serve their purpose wouldn't you agree?

If Inspector Bentley message was anything else other than that, one would think the team isn't serious about a comprehensive review and the scopes they received probably restricted to fishy whitewash. However, the fact that he stated that they have to sieve chaff from grain is very normal police practice ie it is their practice not to waste time with useless info.

After all Police cant afford to waste time and resources chasing every lead phoned in by every joe public during investigation - they are obliged to decide which is worth chasing and which not. Similarly, the same principle applies to 'new evidence' coming in for the review - clarifying that they wont be interested in mccann-skeptics myraid views from interpretation of available information is to be expected.

Besides, the sequence seems to be: DI Dobson had already met with TB before Inspector Steve Bentley reverted to say they were interested to follow up with TB's source - am I not right? If that being the case, it is indicative they definitely deemed TB's file of interest to them, and I would hardly call that dismissive.

If that being the case, it is indicative they definitely deemed TB's file of interest to them, and I would hardly call that dismissive

Yes, and they could just have easily just asked TB to leave it at the desk or drop it in the post. We must also remember that approx. 1000 copies of the DVD PJ files were distributed to media outlets and who nows what undercover stuff has been dug up since then and submitted to the police. Because it hasn't hit the news, doesn't mean nothing significant has been discovered. Also, Pat Brown has been quiet on her blog since July, you have that Lunke guy, Lee Rainbow and goodness knows who else who may well have had correspondence with the police, who may have been sought out by the police.

I have always been of the opinion that individuals who have activeley spoken out of their suspicions and beliefs in this case, particularly those who have a professional reputation to maintain which could be significantly damaged if they get it wrong, must truly and sincerely believe in their viewpoint, in other words they are not just spouting off casually from their armchairs at home or between friends, but really could be putting their careersat stake. Like Snr Amaral. I imagine there have been numerous submissions that are of interest to the police.

In the same vein, TB has been a practicing solicitor has put his own financial wellbeing on the line as well as becomming a well known name and being subject to a lot of stress and antagonism over this. Unless the police are just humouring Tony, they would have given some consideration to his tenacity and the reasons behind it.

If this review is a "whitewash" and fails to examine all the contradictory elements and report on their analysis of all elements within the PJ files, however "awkward" that is, THEN I think there would be a media backlash about wasting public money in times of hardship and recession. Perhaps this is what the seemingly "mute" media are waiting for.

Xavier wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

My understanding is that the [Scotland Yard Madeleine Mc Cann Review Team] would welcome any evidence that would assist with the enquiry...[SNIPPED]

xavier, I take it you dont always understand fully what you read (no offence) - which bit indicates SY didn't take TB or MF's work seriously may I ask?

Would it be this bit "....You state that you have a first hand information from an insider from the McCann's private investigators. This information would obviously be of interest to the team...."

Selective reading is not prohibited rightfully but selective reading to suit your agenda is quite something else. Of course you are entitled to your opinion, but unfortunately for you, your opinion gives you away, if I am entitled to say that - which I think I am, just as you to yours!

None taken, of course. And nothing wrong with my understanding of what I read.

No, it was this bit "However, information regarding peoples views and suspicions do not constitute evidence. The team are obliged to consider evidence rather than repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information."

I fail to see how this could be interpreted in anything other than a very dismissive way.

Of course everyone is entitled to their opinion. I fail to see how it 'gives me away' - I am entirely supportive of the work of Mr Bennett and the Foundation, but this does not extend to being uncritically upbeat about the reception given to him by SY on Monday. I am a realist. Perhaps you need to be more perceptive as to who is on your side. (if I am allowed to say such things).

EVIDENCE

The theme of this post will be the word 'evidence'. I doing so I will reply to a number of points on this thread, but I choose to reply to Xavier's posts, as s/he has certainly put his/her finger on a vital point.

I will express the point that Xavier has made as follows (and by the way for this purpose it matters not whether Xavier is friend, for or neutral):

"Does the very short interview Tony Bennett (and one other) had on 3 October with DI Dobson of Operation Grange, and the reference made by Inspector Steve Bentley of the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department to 'repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information' mean that the Metropolitan Police are not in the slightest bit interested in any evidence (or purported) evidence that points to the possibillity that Madeleine was not abducted, but instead died in her parents' apartment?"

First let me get one point out of the way, raised I think by jimuck. I have indeed said on the record that our informant within the McCann Team is female. However, our position is that we will neither confirm nor deny whether our source is female or male.

In case it should be thought that we are inventing this source, let me just say here and now that our source has both spoken to us verbally and given us very valuable information in writing. The information we have received from the source has been seen by all members of The Madeleine Foundation and by one or two others. I will mention one name here: 'spudgun'. 'Spudgun' spent the best part of a whole day with me here in Harlow earlier in the year and on the basis that he said nothing about what he had seen to anybody at any time, we disclosed to him the written information we received from that source.

I truly wish I could say more, but I cannot. We have already read in the article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard in August 2009 references to potential witnesses being intimidated into not giving witness statements to the Portuguese Police. If I say any more than I have done, both our source and ourselves fear repercussions.

I will add one further matter for the record. Since Monday, DI Dobson has indeed asked us in writing for the contact details of the source. I have replied, stating that we are unwilling to do so but that we shall be contacting our source again to see if she would now be willing to help the Scotland Yard Review Team.

The e-mail from Inspector Steve Bentley

Someone up the thread asked why Inspector Bentley, as a member of Professional Standards, was commenting on the internal workings of a criminal case review. If I may say so, I think that was a very good point.

What Inspector Bentley has done is to contrast 'evidence' with 'repetition of the myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information'.

His reply may be taken as a hint - as Xavier interprets and so do all the McCann-believers - that this is a not-too-subtle dig at The Madeleine Foundation. It could well be seen, and maybe this was indeed his intention, as a calculated 'snub' to the Madeleine Foundation for allegedly putting forward 'views', 'beliefs' and 'interpretations'.

I will say this by way of reply.

We will not be disclosing the evidence we submitted in our first dossier, submitted on 16 August to the SY Review Team. Nor shall we say what was included within our second dossier, save to say that it dealt in detail with what we have uncovered (so far) about the conduct of all the private investigations initiated by the McCann Team, from September 2007 (or earlier) to the present day.

Inspector Steve Bentley does not have the advantage of having seen either of the dossiers we have submitted.

Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood and his team do have that advantage. I can be certain that they would be bound to acknowledge that what we have supplied to them is 'evidence'. For more about the definition of 'evidence', please see below.

It is no secret that the hypothesis of The Madeleine Foundation is that Madeleine was not abducted but died in her parents' apartment in Praia da Luz.

Equally, the McCann Team, through their reputation manager Clarence Mitchell (ex-Head of Tony Blair's Media Unit and ex-Assistant to former News of the World Editor Andy Coulson when Coulson worked for David Cameron on 2010), have made it clear that their 'working hypothesis', or assumption, is that Madeleine was abducted.

I can assure everyone reading this post that our two dossiers, now received by DCI Redwood and his team, do include a very significant amount of evidence which suggests that our hypothesis (and that of Goncalo Amaral and Tavares de Almeida) is to be preferred to what evidence the McCanns can bring to bear that Madeleine was abducted.

Quotes about 'evidence' in the McCann case

Google 'Madeleine' 'McCann' and 'evidence', and numerous quotes come up - far too numerous to list here.

So here's just a few:

1. In a heated exchange with reporters outside the court in Lisbon, Gerry McCann insisted there was 'absolutely no evidence' to support the claim that his daughter was dead, before the court heard more challenges to the McCanns' account of events.

2. Clarence Mitchell confessed that there was 'no evidence of a break-in'.

3. Dr Gerald McCann said: "There is no evidence to implicate us in her death".

4. (Newspaper headline): Madeleine McCann: No evidence our daughter has been harmed, says Gerry

5. Dr Gerald McCann's blog, 14 August 2008: "It will be clear to everyone now, that there is absolutely no evidence that suggests Madeleine has been seriously harmed. Knowing this, we strongly believe that Madeleine is out there and can be found".

6. McCanns' appeal for funds because the Find Madeleine Fund was 'running dry' (3 November 2010): "There's absolutely no evidence Madeleine has been seriously harmed and without that we've got to believe we can still find her", said Gerry McCann.

7. Amazon, this year: "There is no evidence to suggest that Madeleine has been harmed and it is therefore vital to keep looking for her and those who took her. It is for this reason that all royalties earned from the sales of this book will be donated to Madeleine’s Fund".


The dictionary definition of evidence

Many people, most notably on the McCann-believer side of the argument, confuse (perhaps deliberately) the word 'evidence' with the word 'proof'.

Googling 'evidence', 'definition', here is the very first definition I came to:


1. A thing or things helpful in forming a conclusion or judgment:

Examples:
The broken window was evidence that a burglary had taken place.
Scientists weigh the evidence for and against a hypothesis.

2. Something indicative; an outward sign:

Example: Evidence of grief on a mourner's face.


Let me say very clearly to Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of the SY Review Team, and for that matter to Inspector Steve Bentley of the Met Police Professional Standards Department, and to everyone else, that what The Madeleine Foundation has supplied to the SY Review Team is evidence, both forensic and circumstantial. If he is a fair man, DCI ewdwood would most certainly have to acknowledge that.

Inspector Bentley referred to 'a myriad of views and beliefs that individuals choose to interpret from the available information'.

In truth, whether he realises it or not, he is referring here not to the type of evidence we have taken great care to submit to the SY Review Team, but to the myriad of speculations as to who might have abducted Madeleine, where she might have been taken, and what might have happened to her. In this process of 'views, beliefs and speculations', there has probably been no worse offender than the British media, making profits on a succession of baseless speculations about what might have happened to Madeleine. The Sun and the late News of the World, both Murdoch-owned, being the worst offenders in this respect.

We may never see DCI Andy Redwood's final report. But I hope and expect that it will deal both robustly and fairly with the evidence in the case.

Well put Tony. As you say evidence is not proof, it simply leads, if there is enough of it, to proof. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]