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

by TheTruthWillOut 07.10.11 23:05

The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh? $i don\'t know$

by **Tony Bennett** 07.10.11 23:37

TheTruthWillOut wrote:The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh?

'TheTruthWillOut' (great username by the way), you were not being too harsh but accurately stated that Inspector Bentley had indeed stepped outside his brief.

His brief is to deal with complaints, not to make pronouncements about the way a cold case review is conducted.

On the subject of my correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, one issue that I have raised - and continue to raise - is the subject of the Scotland Yard Review Team failing to even acknowledge written evidence supplied to them.

I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

I have never suggested to them that they should reply, unless it was of critical importance to their review, but I have attempted to insist that given the importance of this review and the necessity to record all the evidence submitted, they should at least send a reply postcard to anyone who writes to them - something like:

"Thank you for your communication of 16 August 2011, the contents of which have been noted".

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit. I have (though this really should not be necessary) suggested to both DCI Redwood's team and to the Met's Professional Standards Unit that there must be a clear audit trail in a case of such national importance. Not only is it basic common courtesy to acknowldege all communications, but there must be an audit trail to show how each parcel of evidence has been evaluated. Police regulations, policies, procedures and guidance require this.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:

QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.

UNQUOTE

Make of that what you will.

I do appreciate though that if the Editor of the Sun or ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, supremo of the Brian Kennedy-led McCanninvestigation team, were to bombard DCI Redwood and DI Dobson and co with 'a myriad of views, beliefs, speculations and interpretations of the available information' such as the following, they might well lose patience and say: 'Keep your ludicrous speculations to yourself':

* The secret of who took Madeleine is contained in a letter that Wayne Hewlett burnt

* Basketball-playing Angolan bouncer and part-time 'amateur sleuth' Marcelinho Aneglino knows that Maddie is in America

* Brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar is 'convinced' that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair within 10 miles of praia da Luz

* A British banker who agonised for two years before telling ~~the police~~ the McCanns says that a Victoria-Beckham lookalike he met after several hours drinking in downtown Barcelona and who had an Oz accent may have taken Madeleine on a boat to Australia, or

* A friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child who had longish black hair and was wearing mustard chinos, but changed her evidence 10 days later to say it was Robert Murat she saw, then months later said it wasn't Robert Murat she saw after all, then (although she said she had never seen the man's face) said that the man she saw looked like the artists's sketch of Gail Cooper's 'Monsterman'...only for brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar to ruin it all at a Crimewatch-style press call by Clarence Mitchell by saying that 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman'.

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team.

by TheTruthWillOut 08.10.11 1:03

Thanks Tony.

Here's hoping they uncover the truth.

I just can't shake off the fact that this review was "forced" upon SY by DC. Will they just go through the motions to satisfy DC?

It is encouraging to hear you have an insider that has given you information to pass on to the case review, so that is something! ( I do wonder how compelling that information is I must say!)

by mexx 08.10.11 4:37

I still squirm to think that they are going to spend that much money just to read through documents and not do any investigation...

by Guest 08.10.11 9:49

Tony Bennett wrote:
I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

Make that now three. thumbup

by pennylane 08.10.11 10:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh?
'TheTruthWillOut' (great username by the way), you were not being too harsh but accurately stated that Inspector Bentley had indeed stepped outside his brief.

His brief is to deal with complaints, not to make pronouncements about the way a cold case review is conducted.

On the subject of my correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, one issue that I have raised - and continue to raise - is the subject of the Scotland Yard Review Team failing to even acknowledge written evidence supplied to them.

I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

I have never suggested to them that they should reply, unless it was of critical importance to their review, but I have attempted to insist that given the importance of this review and the necessity to record all the evidence submitted, they should at least send a reply postcard to anyone who writes to them - something like:

"Thank you for your communication of 16 August 2011, the contents of which have been noted".

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit. I have (though this really should not be necessary) suggested to both DCI Redwood's team and to the Met's Professional Standards Unit that there must be a clear audit trail in a case of such national importance. Not only is it basic common courtesy to acknowldege all communications, but there must be an audit trail to show how each parcel of evidence has been evaluated. Police regulations, policies, procedures and guidance require this.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:

QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.

UNQUOTE

Make of that what you will.

I do appreciate though that if the Editor of the Sun or ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, supremo of the Brian Kennedy-led McCanninvestigation team, were to bombard DCI Redwood and DI Dobson and co with 'a myriad of views, beliefs, speculations and interpretations of the available information' such as the following, they might well lose patience and say: 'Keep your ludicrous speculations to yourself':

* The secret of who took Madeleine is contained in a letter that Wayne Hewlett burnt

* Basketball-playing Angolan bouncer and part-time 'amateur sleuth' Marcelinho Aneglino knows that Maddie is in America

* Brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar is 'convinced' that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair within 10 miles of praia da Luz

* A British banker who agonised for two years before telling ~~the police~~ the McCanns says that a Victoria-Beckham lookalike he met after several hours drinking in downtown Barcelona and who had an Oz accent may have taken Madeleine on a boat to Australia, or

* A friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child who had longish black hair and was wearing mustard chinos, but changed her evidence 10 days later to say it was Robert Murat she saw, then months later said it wasn't Robert Murat she saw after all, then (although she said she had never seen the man's face) said that the man she saw looked like the artists's sketch of Gail Cooper's 'Monsterman'...only for brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar to ruin it all at a Crimewatch-style press call by Clarence Mitchell by saying that 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman'.

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team.

You are quite right Tony, the "ludicrous speculations" emanating from Team McCann and their paid mouthpiece Mitchell are second to none!

Well done for raising the issue with the Met's Professional Standards Unit regarding the failure to acknowledge written evidence supplied to them. Most certainly an alarmingly inefficient approach by the Met, and even more shocking in light of the very recent scandal of John Yates' alleged avoidance in opening a bag of evidence during the hacking investigation. It's unbelievable that the standards have not been sharpened up all around at the Met following the shameful resignations of Yates and Stephenson due to sloppy practice (and probably something far worse..... truth be known).

by **PeterMac** 08.10.11 11:54

Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.
Make that now three.

Four.
And five if you count individual submissions.

by aiyoyo 08.10.11 12:27

The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office.

Geez, I didnt know till now that the police POLICY is for them to call to acknowledge correspondence...blimney if people were to send in tittle tattle nonsense like for example where Maddie can be found and they know who held Maddie yada yada ...the police would be very busy having to ring team mccanns just to acknowledge their bogus claims.

One would have thought the Police should have at least 'a standard acknowledgement-type template' ready-for-use where admin or secretarial staff can send out whenever 'evidence' is received.

Not acknowledging is so shoddy and in a way negligence as no one knows whether incoming mail/evidence is recorded. Hence no on knows whether 'evidence' gets passed onto relevant person/unit to be looked at or were they just languishing in a back room unsorted and forgotten.

You would have thought that the Police more than any organisation should have sorted out their mail promptly and acknowledge accordingly. On top of the basic courtesy issue it's imperative Police look at every piece of info coming in, what they decide or not decide to do with it is another matter altogether.

by aiyoyo 08.10.11 12:31

Tony Bennett wrote:
TheTruthWillOut wrote:The reason I questioned why Inspector Bentley was even making the comment he did was that I see his role as a sort of internal affairs. IMO, it is his role to police the police, not lecture people.

But maybe I'm being too harsh?
'TheTruthWillOut' (great username by the way), you were not being too harsh but accurately stated that Inspector Bentley had indeed stepped outside his brief.

His brief is to deal with complaints, not to make pronouncements about the way a cold case review is conducted.

On the subject of my correspondence with the Metropolitan Police Professional Standards Department, one issue that I have raised - and continue to raise - is the subject of the Scotland Yard Review Team failing to even acknowledge written evidence supplied to them.

I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.

I have never suggested to them that they should reply, unless it was of critical importance to their review, but I have attempted to insist that given the importance of this review and the necessity to record all the evidence submitted, they should at least send a reply postcard to anyone who writes to them - something like:

"Thank you for your communication of 16 August 2011, the contents of which have been noted".

I can only say that I have had a series of evasive replies from DCI Redwood's team on this very point, which is why I raised it with the Met's Professional Standards Unit. I have (though this really should not be necessary) suggested to both DCI Redwood's team and to the Met's Professional Standards Unit that there must be a clear audit trail in a case of such national importance. Not only is it basic common courtesy to acknowldege all communications, but there must be an audit trail to show how each parcel of evidence has been evaluated. Police regulations, policies, procedures and guidance require this.

Here is another extract from Inspector Steve Bentley's letter:

QUOTE

You have also stated you wish to make a complaint against DCI Redwood and DI Dobson for failing to ensure acknowledgement is given to members of the public providing information. The policy is that a courtesy call should be made acknowledging any correspondence that is sent into the office. This policy has been circulated to the review team and if there are occasions where this has not occurred then I apologise. I have passed your observations back to DI Dobson to allow him the opportunity of reviewing the compliance of this policy.

UNQUOTE

Make of that what you will.

I do appreciate though that if the Editor of the Sun or ex-Detective Inspector Dave Edgar, supremo of the Brian Kennedy-led McCanninvestigation team, were to bombard DCI Redwood and DI Dobson and co with 'a myriad of views, beliefs, speculations and interpretations of the available information' such as the following, they might well lose patience and say: 'Keep your ludicrous speculations to yourself':

* The secret of who took Madeleine is contained in a letter that Wayne Hewlett burnt

* Basketball-playing Angolan bouncer and part-time 'amateur sleuth' Marcelinho Aneglino knows that Maddie is in America

* Brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar is 'convinced' that Madeleine is being held in a prison lair within 10 miles of praia da Luz

* A British banker who agonised for two years before telling ~~the police~~ the McCanns says that a Victoria-Beckham lookalike he met after several hours drinking in downtown Barcelona and who had an Oz accent may have taken Madeleine on a boat to Australia, or

* A friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, saw a man carrying a child who had longish black hair and was wearing mustard chinos, but changed her evidence 10 days later to say it was Robert Murat she saw, then months later said it wasn't Robert Murat she saw after all, then (although she said she had never seen the man's face) said that the man she saw looked like the artists's sketch of Gail Cooper's 'Monsterman'...only for brilliant ex-cop Dave Edgar to ruin it all at a Crimewatch-style press call by Clarence Mitchell by saying that 'Jane Tanner might have seen a woman'.

Good luck in establishing the truth, DCI Redwood and team.

TB, thanks for the clarification. Good Luck to DCI Redwood and team indeed. Hopefully they will return justice to Madeleine.

by littlepixie 08.10.11 19:37

Stella wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
I raised this again recently when two McCann-sceptics reported to me that they had written to the SY Review Team but had received no acknowledgement from them.
Make that now three. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

oops now seven

by **Tony Bennett** 14.10.11 14:44

At our meeting with D.I. Dobson of Operation Grange (Scotland Yard Madeleine McCann Review) on 3 October, we asked who was the point of contact for the Portuguese investigation, since D.I. Dobson took pains to emphasise: "This remains a Portuguese investigation; we are merely carrying out a review".

He did say that the Head of the Portuguese criminal investigation was a lady, but said to us (a) he didn't know her name and (b) that even if he did know her name and contact details, he would not give them to us.

We asked again in writing if we could have the contact details for the head of the Portuguese criminal investigation, saying we may wish to submit evidence direct to them.

That has drawn the following response (reproduced verbatim) from D.I. Dobson today:

We are the single point of contact in the UK for all information in this case. Again I believe this has already been made clear to you. It is a Portuguese investigation and it is not in my remit to release information concerning their jurisdiction.

I wonder if the lady Senior Investigating Officer in Portugal is also keeping her identity and contact details secret over there in Portugal. If so, it would be jolly difficult for anyone to supply information to them, wouldn't it?

by aiyoyo 14.10.11 14:57

Geez, such secrecy and mystery surrounding such an expensive review for such a high profile case, and the final report will be divulged to the public?
So even evidence for the prime investigators in Portugal has to go through SY. In effect they are controlling centre for evidence. Call me cynical but is it going to a repeat of "Gaspars statements"?

Even if this review is funded directly out of the Home Office's treasury, isnt it still public money?

by Guest 14.10.11 15:03

I seem to remember this woman who I think he is referring to, in taking over the investigaton, but I cannot remember her name. Will have a look round to see if I can locate it.

by Guest 14.10.11 15:36

Does anyone remember seeing her photo on MCF's some time last year I think. She was looking out of a window with a rather pensive look on her face. Brown hair, shoulder length maybe. I cannot find that photo right now, but maybe her name is attached to it !!

by Smokeandmirrors 14.10.11 18:26

Not very encouraged by the SY refusal to divulge the Portuguese investigator, unless because of legal action pending against Tony it has a more "personal" flavour. If SY's remit is to review ONLY and the investigation remains Portuguese, but SY say that any new evidence be passed to them, then this does not sound legally correct to me. I suspect any new material should be submitted to Amarals solicitor and to the head of the PJ if that is known.

by **Nina** 14.10.11 19:51

Smokeandmirrors wrote:Not very encouraged by the SY refusal to divulge the Portuguese investigator, unless because of legal action pending against Tony it has a more "personal" flavour. If SY's remit is to review ONLY and the investigation remains Portuguese, but SY say that any new evidence be passed to them, then this does not sound legally correct to me. I suspect any new material should be submitted to Amarals solicitor and to the head of the PJ if that is known.

Hi there Smokeandmirrors, I too am not very encouraged.
Sooooooooo go straight to Portugal but requires translation and also to GA. Simples[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] In that way at least TB will know it has arrived there.

by Smokeandmirrors 14.10.11 20:22

Nina wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:Not very encouraged by the SY refusal to divulge the Portuguese investigator, unless because of legal action pending against Tony it has a more "personal" flavour. If SY's remit is to review ONLY and the investigation remains Portuguese, but SY say that any new evidence be passed to them, then this does not sound legally correct to me. I suspect any new material should be submitted to Amarals solicitor and to the head of the PJ if that is known.

Hi there Smokeandmirrors, I too am not very encouraged.

Sooooooooo go straight to Portugal but requires translation and also to GA. Simples[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] In that way at least TB will lnow it has arrived there.

If the English police are being in any way obstructive, yup, straight to Portugal!! They have had their reputions dragged through the mud IMO, a probably care more than anyone about the truth.

by Cheshire Cat 14.10.11 20:53

Stella wrote:Does anyone remember seeing her photo on MCF's some time last year I think. She was looking out of a window with a rather pensive look on her face. Brown hair, shoulder length maybe. I cannot find that photo right now, but maybe her name is attached to it !!

The team at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in Portimão is going to stop being led by Paulo Rebelo and will soon be headed by inspector Ana Paula Rito, a source at the Polícia Judiciária told Lusa.

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

by Gillyspot 14.10.11 21:43

aiyoyo wrote:Geez, such secrecy and mystery surrounding such an expensive review for such a high profile case, and the final report will be divulged to the public?
So even evidence for the prime investigators in Portugal has to go through SY. In effect they are controlling centre for evidence. Call me cynical but is it going to a repeat of "Gaspars statements"?

Even if this review is funded directly out of the Home Office's treasury, isnt it still public money?

It is not looking good in my eyes. After writing to my MP around 20th July (no response) I then sent another on 15th Sept (got limited response from an Aide - thought they'd sent me a letter back in August but would be back to me straight away) Again nothing. So now I have sent a less than cordial letter today insisting on a speedy response to all of my questions as this lack of response to sensible questions seems suspicious (particularly as it appears the McCanns only have to put an "open letter" in a Murdoch paper to get a £3.5 million review the very next day).

by **kikoraton** 14.10.11 21:45

I hope it is Inspector Ana Paula Rito, because thru a third party, I have offered to give a presentation to her.

by littlepixie 14.10.11 21:56

I find the fact that British Police are refusing to disclose who is in charge of an investigation into the disappearance of a little British girl absolutely disgusting!!

The ONLY way that it would be remotely acceptable is if it was being done to protect the Portuguese investigation, ( but how can they investigate if they dont have all the evidence) as we all know what happened to Dr Amaral when he tried finding out what happened to the child!!

This is a childs' LIFE and possible DEATH we are talking about here, a CRIME has been committed, lets not forget that British Police.

How on earth can her disappearance be investigated when no-one is allowed to know who to submit their evidence to?

Why are Scotland Yard spending their time reviewing evidence, that has been already looked at (to appease the McCanns?) and why are they being obstructive to citizens who wish to supply information to the investigating force in Portugal that may help find out what happened to that child?

I smell a rat and it is now 4 years old!!

ETA a sentence

by Gillyspot 14.10.11 22:21

I am 100 % sure that DC agreed to the review before 12th May 2011 but why he let himself be manipulated by the McCanns into appearing to agree the very next day makes me very suspicious of what the review will "find".

Lets hope that the members of SY police actually carrying out the "review" are more honest than those that have appeared in our papers lately if not then B & Q will be selling out of whitewash very soon. Actually £3.5 million worth of whitewash.

by Guest 15.10.11 9:07

Cheshire Cat wrote:
Stella wrote:Does anyone remember seeing her photo on MCF's some time last year I think. She was looking out of a window with a rather pensive look on her face. Brown hair, shoulder length maybe. I cannot find that photo right now, but maybe her name is attached to it !!

The team at the Criminal Investigation Department (CID) in Portimão is going to stop being led by Paulo Rebelo and will soon be headed by inspector Ana Paula Rito, a source at the Polícia Judiciária told Lusa.

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

Yes, that's the girl. Thank you Cheshire Cat. It's Ana, no wonder I could not find a Anna. laughat

by Guest 15.10.11 9:13

kikoraton wrote:I hope it is Inspector Ana Paula Rito, because thru a third party, I have offered to give a presentation to her.

kiko, this is the best news yet !!! woohooo

by AskTheDogsSandra 15.10.11 9:20

I agree, Stella. The only way to get this case reopened is to approach the Portuguese because we all know the Brits are supporting the McCanns to get them permanently off the hook at the taxpayers expense, which will give the McC's the green light to carry on their Fund indefinitely. Madeleine's life means nothing to her parents or our government and police. I trust TB has also sent his dossiers to the PJ/Portuguese prosecutor/Goncalo/. If not, why not?

by Guest 15.10.11 9:26

I have a funny feeling that a few influential people have blackened Tony's name with the Portuguese Judiciary. I sensed that whilst over at MCF's.

by aiyoyo 15.10.11 17:39

Stella wrote:I have a funny feeling that a few influential people have blackened Tony's name with the Portuguese Judiciary. I sensed that whilst over at MCF's.

That's impossible b/c if the PJ believed Madeleine is dead, then someone like TB campaigning for the truth cannot ever be in the black book of the PJ. The PJ would understand that a proactive campaigner like TB would doubtless get the full brunt of team mccanns or whoever those influential be who are abetting the mccanns in their cover up.

by Maive 15.10.11 18:47

Hi everybody!

My first post here! But I read you since a long time (with MM forum). I agree with all of you, this case is sooooo fishy.. But I wanted to respond to this one:

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:I agree, Stella. The only way to get this case reopened is to approach the Portuguese because we all know the Brits are supporting the McCanns to get them permanently off the hook at the taxpayers expense, which will give the McC's the green light to carry on their Fund indefinitely.

I 100% agree with that, only the Portuguese can do something about this case. I am not a big fan of the SY review; IMO, their actions, words, the link with DC (and his relation to the MC) are too much suspicious..

But the problem is IMO, the Portuguese can't do nothing without the help of the British. The evidence in this case are almost all from Britain (forensics, phone records, credit cards records, witnesses (Tapas 7), medical records, fraudulent fund, etc..). So the Portuguese are stuck, they can't do nothing without evidence, and the British have stopped their cooperation somewhere (IMO before the delivery of the second forensic report, which was «inconclusive»).

By a miracle, if the SY review is genuine and they come forward with all the evidence, then the Portuguese could bring that evil couple in a court of law. But I doubt that the SY review is a genuine one..

I appologize for all my mistake, I am a non-native. Finally, I would like to thank everyone who fights to bring justice for Madeleine.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]