cause for optimism?

by russiandoll 06.01.12 14:30

What is below in bold italics I find very interesting.

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

Unless I misread the last 2 lines, the objective appears to be to progress to an "action stage" , hence the investigative part of the review.
Could Peter Mac please inform us of the stages of a police investigation and what might constitute an action stage?

by Guest 06.01.12 14:46

Well they shouldn't need to do to much investigating and should be quite aware already, because according to what Goncalo Amaral has written in the book, SY were involved in the investigation anyway..............

[snipped]
When we requested the collaboration of the English police, our request was passed on, according to practice, via the liaison officer of SOCA* We thought that a case of abduction was within the jurisdiction of Scotland Yard, who are much more experienced than others in the fight against violent crime. We learned that in Great Britain, investigations are consigned to the sector where the victim resides. Nevertheless, Scotland Yard will intervene later on.

[snipped]
Then the two police officers arrive who are assigned to psychological support and communication with the family. Little by little, the number of English police officers grows exponentially. We place at their disposal a room next to our crisis unit, Task Portugal. These are specialists from various police services, including Scotland Yard. Special surveillance teams as well as information and telecommunications technicians turn up with their laptops and various high-tech equipment. Others will come to join us, notably profilers: they will develop a profile of the alleged abductor from which a number of possible scenarios will be constructed. The analysts trace timelines and patterns of connections based on the witness statements gathered. They produce giant summary boards that cover the walls of the offices. They attend all our meetings and collaborate in decision-making. They are the intermediary through which requests for information are sent to Great Britain, and it is they who receive the responses and enquiries.

by russiandoll 06.01.12 14:55

Quote below from an earlier post . I have never read this, have read words from Cameron saying of a review, he wished to do what he could to support the family[ acceding to their request for a review]. Not the same as stating this support to be the purpose of the review.
I have never read what he wrote to the Met, is it online anywhere as I would be surprised to read that a prime minister has formally asked for a review, in order to support the parents of a missing minor, rather than in order to discover what has happened to a missing British child. I suspect what he says for the media and what he formally stated to the Met are 2 different things.

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

by aiyoyo 06.01.12 15:00

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

Borrowed from kate mccann btw the bad language that was removed.

by Cheshire Cat 07.01.12 11:20

I have been reading Rico Sordas blog and it is apparent that when Rico describes the McCann case as a 'mirror image' of the Jersey Abuse case he is talking about many aspects of the case. One thing that stands out is how the word of PR men trumps scientific and credible evidence, the spin is accepted as the truth.

Of course the spin is repeated over and over again with the other side of the argument ignored or 'trashed'. Reading Rico's blog one also sees how the the Independent British Police Review was used to destroy the original child abuse investigation and trample over the evidence. If anyone doubts that the Met would not try something similar with the McCann case then you should read Rico's blog. I would love to hear Rico's views on the Met review.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, I would expect to see a Met press conference where the original Amaral lead investigation is completely trashed. The SY remit does nothing to dispel those fears. But as Rico says the truth is out there. Maddie has an amazing lady called Pat Brown speaking up for her and a lot of people listening.

It is going to be a long, hard fight but given time the truth will proveil.

by jd 07.01.12 11:29

Yes I am afraid that 'reviews' and 'inquires' are set up with one goal to quash the evidence & the investigation of the truth. They always have been and always will be, until the day they are proven to the public what they really are. Maybe the Maddie case will be the one to do it?

by aiyoyo 07.01.12 14:53

Cheshire Cat wrote:I have been reading Rico Sordas blog and it is apparent that when Rico describes the McCann case as a 'mirror image' of the Jersey Abuse case he is talking about many aspects of the case. One thing that stands out is how the word of PR men trumps scientific and credible evidence, the spin is accepted as the truth.

Of course the spin is repeated over and over again with the other side of the argument ignored or 'trashed'. Reading Rico's blog one also sees how the the Independent British Police Review was used to destroy the original child abuse investigation and trample over the evidence. If anyone doubts that the Met would not try something similar with the McCann case then you should read Rico's blog. I would love to hear Rico's views on the Met review.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, I would expect to see a Met press conference where the original Amaral lead investigation is completely trashed. The SY remit does nothing to dispel those fears. But as Rico says the truth is out there. Maddie has an amazing lady called Pat Brown speaking up for her and a lot of people listening.

It is going to be a long, hard fight but given time the truth will proveil.

That's mccanns biggest mistake, trying to stop Pat Brown's voice, and she has a big audience in America.
I cant wait for the Brown vs Mccanns Court case to come up. It will be another media hurricane for the mccanns when that happens.

This can only get worst for them when they lost to Amaral (the writing is on the wall).

The truth will out if MET do their job properly.

Pat may cause people to sit up and listen, but that will not be enough to take the mccanns to book for their deed - only the police can prosecute them, unless Pat Brown stumbles upon Maddie's remains of course, then there will be reason to reopen the case.

I have confident the Yard will find the "new approach" necessary to complete "progressing the matter", despite their corrupted reputation they are known for solving crimes.

by Cheshire Cat 07.01.12 19:02

aiyoyo wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:I have been reading Rico Sordas blog and it is apparent that when Rico describes the McCann case as a 'mirror image' of the Jersey Abuse case he is talking about many aspects of the case. One thing that stands out is how the word of PR men trumps scientific and credible evidence, the spin is accepted as the truth.

Of course the spin is repeated over and over again with the other side of the argument ignored or 'trashed'. Reading Rico's blog one also sees how the the Independent British Police Review was used to destroy the original child abuse investigation and trample over the evidence. If anyone doubts that the Met would not try something similar with the McCann case then you should read Rico's blog. I would love to hear Rico's views on the Met review.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, I would expect to see a Met press conference where the original Amaral lead investigation is completely trashed. The SY remit does nothing to dispel those fears. But as Rico says the truth is out there. Maddie has an amazing lady called Pat Brown speaking up for her and a lot of people listening.

It is going to be a long, hard fight but given time the truth will proveil.

That's mccanns biggest mistake, trying to stop Pat Brown's voice, and she has a big audience in America.
I cant wait for the Brown vs Mccanns Court case to come up. It will be another media hurricane for the mccanns when that happens.

This can only get worst for them when they lost to Amaral (the writing is on the wall).

The truth will out if MET do their job properly.

Pat may cause people to sit up and listen, but that will not be enough to take the mccanns to book for their deed - only the police can prosecute them, unless Pat Brown stumbles upon Maddie's remains of course, then there will be reason to reopen the case.

I have confident the Yard will find the "new approach" necessary to complete "progressing the matter", despite their corrupted reputation they are known for solving crimes.

I want to be wrong. But I believe the whole Met review is a PR exercise with a £3.5million price tag.

by russiandoll 07.01.12 19:20

jd wrote:Yes I am afraid that 'reviews' and 'inquires' are set up with one goal to quash the evidence & the investigation of the truth. They always have been and always will be, until the day they are proven to the public what they really are. Maybe the Maddie case will be the one to do it?

Well.. they said they would be open and transparent, so maybe they can openly answer a simple question if it is posed to them.

Dear Sir,
With reference to your recent online remit for the Madeleine McCann review, there is mention of both a disappearance and an abduction. Would you kindly clarify which of these you will be reexamining?

by aiyoyo 08.01.12 2:13

Cheshire Cat wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:I have been reading Rico Sordas blog and it is apparent that when Rico describes the McCann case as a 'mirror image' of the Jersey Abuse case he is talking about many aspects of the case. One thing that stands out is how the word of PR men trumps scientific and credible evidence, the spin is accepted as the truth.

Of course the spin is repeated over and over again with the other side of the argument ignored or 'trashed'. Reading Rico's blog one also sees how the the Independent British Police Review was used to destroy the original child abuse investigation and trample over the evidence. If anyone doubts that the Met would not try something similar with the McCann case then you should read Rico's blog. I would love to hear Rico's views on the Met review.

Taken to it's logical conclusion, I would expect to see a Met press conference where the original Amaral lead investigation is completely trashed. The SY remit does nothing to dispel those fears. But as Rico says the truth is out there. Maddie has an amazing lady called Pat Brown speaking up for her and a lot of people listening.

It is going to be a long, hard fight but given time the truth will proveil.

That's mccanns biggest mistake, trying to stop Pat Brown's voice, and she has a big audience in America.
I cant wait for the Brown vs Mccanns Court case to come up. It will be another media hurricane for the mccanns when that happens.

This can only get worst for them when they lost to Amaral (the writing is on the wall).

The truth will out if MET do their job properly.

Pat may cause people to sit up and listen, but that will not be enough to take the mccanns to book for their deed - only the police can prosecute them, unless Pat Brown stumbles upon Maddie's remains of course, then there will be reason to reopen the case.

I have confident the Yard will find the "new approach" necessary to complete "progressing the matter", despite their corrupted reputation they are known for solving crimes.

I want to be wrong. But I believe the whole Met review is a PR exercise with a £3.5million price tag.

You could be right. I just want to be positive.

I reason $3.5 million is astronomical wash tag, which no government should need or want to spend doing that (white wash) after all what else is there to prove in that since the mccanns are home and relatively save from prosecution if they (the government involved in a conspiracy is protecting them, if allegation is true) already knew Maddie is dead.

Spending the money wont stop the inevitable and will make the government look progressively worst when the truth is out, which it will given time and given Amaral and certain quarters' (MF or Pat Brown for example) tenacity.

Thus It stands to reason the review is anything but that. I know the Police and Government have a wrecked reputation but ...

by Willo 08.01.12 8:08

Congrats on your 3000th post. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

Posts: 3000
Join date: 2009-11-29

by **Tony Bennett** 24.01.12 13:27

Following the publication on 4 January of the official remit of the Scotland Yard Review Team under D.C.I. Andy Redwood, I wrote to the Metropolitan Police the following day with a couple of Freedom of Information Act questions, which this time have been answered in full. Here's the reply I got (my highlighting in blue below):

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Dear Mr Bennett,

Freedom of Information Request Reference No: 2012010000814

I respond in connection with your request for information dated 5th January 2012 which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on the same date. I note you seek access to the following information:

1. On what date was the Operation Grange remit agreed?
2. Who agreed the remit?

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within Operation Grange.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full.

The Operation Grange remit was formally agreed in December 2011, just prior to publication on the MPS website. The remit was taken from Lines of Command documents originally drawn up by Detective Chief Superintendent Campbell in May 2011.The remit was agreed by Commander Simon Foy who has oversight of the Homicide Command.

COMPLAINT RIGHTS

Your attention is drawn to the attached sheet which details your right of complaint.

Should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email or contact me on telephone number 020 7230 2372 quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

James Young
SCD Information Manager

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Just a reminder that, as Gillyspot noted when first posting the Metropolitan Police press release back on 4 January (OP), their remit included the following words:

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

I think that gives us two main alternatives:

A. Just as David Cameron proclaimed when announcing the £3.5 million review on 12 May 2011, co-incidentally the date of publication of Dr Kate McCann's book 'madeleine', the review is 'to support the family' i.e. Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann - and the review team will therefore bin, burn or otherwise destroy any evidence which appears to conflict with the McCanns' claim of abduction, or

B. This is a genuine search for the truth, and really Scotland Yard should have used the words 'as if the disappearance occurred in the UK', but chose to use the word 'abduction' in order to string along the McCanns and their advisers and disguise the fact that theirs is a serious investigation into alternative explanations for Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

by sijm 24.01.12 14:16

But surely all the new information and photographs they have received during the review is the copyright of the owners ( the contributors of that info/photographs/documents etc ) bet they have had thousands in and they (the GrangeTeam) have no legal right to destroy such evidence.

If they did, would not the team run the risk of all new evidence being flooded onto the web and exposing the review for the sham it would have been if they did destroy such evidence?

After all is not copy right of such evidence put into play here?

by russiandoll 24.01.12 17:04

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

I would not have expected them to say "alleged abduction" here, but am hoping that the word used means simply that this will be investigated according to UK procedures for reported abducted children.
All UK police forces surely have a procedures chart, flowchart for when abductions of minors are reported?
I cannot imagine if I were to go in and report my young 3 year old taken from her bed that a professional police force would think oh well then lets get hunting for the abductor without myself being under suspicion. I would be questioned surely while searches etc were being organised........so I am hoping the start point for this reexamination has been an open mind, that includes.......we are being spun a yarn as one of the possibilities.
It would have been a lot better to have kept to the facts....use either disappearance or alleged abduction. That is what it is isn't it, without evidence that points to an abduction having taken place?

Has anyone written and asked why they have used this word implying it is a fact when bookending it in this remit they have stuck to the correct word, disappearance?

Wonder what they reply would be. My printer is broken and I can't write currently.....can SY be contacted via e mail?

by **tigger** 10.03.13 6:51

I think this is a very informative topic - seeing that we are approaching two years of activity of SY in this matter I thought I'd bump it up.
It's always good to go over the remit of Operation Grange again.

Imo the performance last year which was:
1) at a time near the 3rd May/ a promotional day for TM - the 'new' book was also being promoted
2) highly supportive of the McCann version of events - to the extend of stating that the age-advanced photo was done in consultation with the McCanns
3) in conjunction with a Panorama documentary
4) followed up by appearances of the leading detective in the case on a morning show
5) followed by press conferences given by the McCanns.

In addition I'm copying the post by JD from the Russia/Hewlett topic here as well:
quote:
There is a comment from 14th February 2010 in a Textusa article that she/he quoted in her article about half way through as someone in the 'know'. This comment appears to now be spot on and was made before david cameron won the election and 15 months before the review was asked for. Roll forward just exactly 3 years to today (15th February 2013). The comment was...

".....I made note of some comments on blogs, some of which are now defunct, relating to the semen/saliva debate, as some people appeared to have inside knowledge. Second comment on 14.2.10. “The problem with the case is the amount of support given by the very top of the British Government. They will ask for a review, not a re-opening of the case by the British Police. There is one DNA sample described by the FSS as allegedly matching a profile from another crime, but could not be pinned on a name. Once they have the authority to review the case, this will be attributed to Raymond Hewlett and the case will be solved” This second commentator seems to have had the gift of foresight! ………..

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

by BigRon 10.10.13 20:44

Who is fooling who here?
Quick precis of OG's remit

- set up to support the family (as said by David Cameron)
- investigate the ABDUCTION - so Crimewatch are just regurgitating from SY's own terms of reference for Operation Grange

Apparently SY are working on the premise that they are investigating an abduction. And one of the main objectives of their work (at the expense of us taxpayers) is the succour of the McCanns. Nice.

Let us assume that their work is thorough (they have enough people working on it and have spent plenty of cash). Do they follow the evidence? Or if the evidence does not fit the remit do they ignore it? Do they just continue throwing out 'possibilities' and 'suspects' ad infinitum? How much of our cash are they ultimately prepared to spend?

Do they ignore:

Lack of care in the first place
Much changed testimony incl locking doors or not; shutters broken or not; seeing a man/woman walking North/South carrying a child
Peculiar behaviour esp in relation to Cuddle Cat (washing it)
Alerts by cadaver and blood dogs
Giveaway statements by McCanns re search going on for long time
McCann's financial position at time of abduction
Refusal to answer Portuguese detectives' questions
Refusal to take part in reconstruction
Taking a LOT of time and trouble to defend their 'reputation' incl employing a PR guru

And are they REALLY happy allowing the McCanns to dictate where the reconstruction takes place (i.e. devaluing it totally)
Is our world class police force that stupid? What evidence have they collected of abduction in over 6 years?

Fingerprints/forensics of an opportunist abductor? NO
True corroborated sightings? NO
Mobile phone patterns? (other than that of the McCanns and the T7) PROBABLY NOT

Or is this just one huge bluff?

Has anyone asked the Met to commence another Operation to run side by side with Operation Grange (or Own Goal if you like your football abbreviations) called Greater Operation The Yard Owes Us (or GOT YOU!) where someone actually pursues the real evidence already in the public domain?

I know which one my money would be on to find the truth - and more quickly!

by Woofer 11.10.13 4:38

Is it possible to do an FOI request asking who made the decision to review abduction only and the reasons why?

by Angelique 11.10.13 11:54

BigRon

This is only what I think is going on.

I think we have a lot of history we can refer to in this case.

Yes, “they” are happy to let it seem like the McCanns dictate the reconstruction – well everything.

As you say we can list all the things that don't add up. Not answering truthfully or not answering at all. The contradictions, the Statements, the Rogatory Statements, the dogs, the evidence even, the way the SY and Leicester Police handle them (K & G) with kid gloves.

It all, to me anyway, seems as though its an on-going protection exercise. Not just PR but "official protection". PR is only part of the package.

Maybe top of the list at the moment is the Investigation by SY. I think “they” were waiting for us to get fed up with wasting taxpayer’s money and were hoping we would ask for it to cease. Let the matter drop. But even after spending copious amounts of our money unfortunately for them this has not occurred. Instead we have been patiently waiting for some sort of result!

They want us to swallow their hype but when we don’t react accordingly they get impatient.

So it has dragged on for long enough, in their estimation, and has reached a point where they have to intervene and instigate some sort of flashpoint – hence the Crimewatch programme. It serves its purpose. It may well result with some poor soul maybe long dead being blamed. So depending on our reaction or what happens in the media (one can never tell what will interfere at any one time) they await the resulting outcome and will react accordingly again. But really is just another "in your face" insult to our intelligence.

I have tried to explain before why I think they have allowed the McCanns to have a fund without it sounding vile and despicable that they would do this. It’s horrible to think this but I think it is with permission from those that are helping them.

by morse 11.10.13 12:32

The only hope I have now is that Portugal will not give up on little Maddie. The Portuguese Co-ordinator said that they don't close the files on missing children ( or similar to that)

What has me puzzled though if the end to this sick farce comes from Portugal eventually- and I think it will, wont that make the Met look proper plonkers and more corrupt than they do now.

IMO- WOOF WOOF

by BigRon 11.10.13 18:20

OK

So if the MPS are the McCanns prime protectors then we need someone else to rattle the cage. Possibly someone like Boris Johnson could be persuaded get someone to account for the spending on Grange. Surely it is inconceivable that a missing persons enquiry would proceed without seemingly investigating the parents in great depth. I can't believe they haven't? Someone needs to remind them of their duty to Madeleine - I'll try and get a communication to Boris about it (not that I know him btw!!)

by BigRon 11.10.13 18:32

Have tweeted to BoJo's @MayorofLondon Twitter account - already getting retweets and favourites in less than 20 seconds. Tweet reads:

Can MOPAC explain why Op Grange has spent over £3 million of public funds without investigating the McCanns? #McCann

Let's see how this one goes....

by tiny 11.10.13 19:25

BigRon wrote:Have tweeted to BoJo's @MayorofLondon Twitter account - already getting retweets and favourites in less than 20 seconds. Tweet reads:

Can MOPAC explain why Op Grange has spent over £3 million of public funds without investigating the McCanns? #McCann

Let's see how this one goes....

Any chance it will be be for I peg out:biggrin: only this case is taking its toll on me

by lj 11.10.13 20:49

Isn't amazing: a high ranking law enforcement officer uses the power of his organization plus ca 40 men, plus > 3 million ₤ plus the media to influence a trial in another country.

Unbelievable.

I hope they all get what they deserve, sooner rather than later.

by chillyheat 09.11.13 22:01

Tony Bennett wrote:
Gillyspot wrote:"Op Grange Remit

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

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

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

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

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

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter...
The words I've highlighted in blue leave absolutely no room for doubt.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Cheshire Cat wrote:I don't think anyone should be suprised by the use of the word "abduction". This review is a McCann review, "abduction" is therefore the assumption.
I don't think that's correct, Cheshire Cat. The remit does not use words like 'assumption', 'working assumption' or 'hypothesis' in relation to the McCanns' claims that Madeleine was abducted. The SY Review Team/Operation Grange detectives are, on the contrary, emphatic in their explicit reference to 'the abduction'.

Daisy wrote:Thanks Gillyspot. Who/what is the Gold Group?
The Gold Group is a group of a force's most senior officers who take all the major decisions in all of the 'big' cases.

And you have been correct about it to this day. thumbup

by bellum 10.11.13 1:22

How many persons of interest are left over?
The Scotland Yard started with 38,it went up to 41 and and please don't tell me that there are 92 now.

by Guest 22.11.13 10:58

I am not sure where to put this, so Admin, please move if necessary.

I've just seen a FOI doc on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

which clearly demonstrates to on the very day that the Sun published McCs bombshell-letter to Cameron, May 12, 2011, Theresa May wrote a letter to Sir Paul Stephenson requesting the Met to take up the offer of the PJ to co-operate wit them on their review [started March 2011] on the McCann case ...

She mentions that
- the HO had continued to liaise with the Portuguese authorities
- the offer of of co-operation resulted from discussion between the UK ambassador and the PJ
- the request is supported by PM Cameron and
- the full costs will be covered by a Special Grant [HO]

by Guest 22.11.13 11:59

Angelique wrote:BigRon

This is only what I think is going on.

I think we have a lot of history we can refer to in this case.

Yes, “they” are happy to let it seem like the McCanns dictate the reconstruction – well everything.

As you say we can list all the things that don't add up. Not answering truthfully or not answering at all. The contradictions, the Statements, the Rogatory Statements, the dogs, the evidence even, the way the SY and Leicester Police handle them (K & G) with kid gloves.

It all, to me anyway, seems as though its an on-going protection exercise. Not just PR but "official protection". PR is only part of the package.

Maybe top of the list at the moment is the Investigation by SY. I think “they” were waiting for us to get fed up with wasting taxpayer’s money and were hoping we would ask for it to cease. Let the matter drop. But even after spending copious amounts of our money unfortunately for them this has not occurred. Instead we have been patiently waiting for some sort of result!

They want us to swallow their hype but when we don’t react accordingly they get impatient.

So it has dragged on for long enough, in their estimation, and has reached a point where they have to intervene and instigate some sort of flashpoint – hence the Crimewatch programme. It serves its purpose. It may well result with some poor soul maybe long dead being blamed. So depending on our reaction or what happens in the media (one can never tell what will interfere at any one time) they await the resulting outcome and will react accordingly again. But really is just another "in your face" insult to our intelligence.

I have tried to explain before why I think they have allowed the McCanns to have a fund without it sounding vile and despicable that they would do this. It’s horrible to think this but I think it is with permission from those that are helping them.

As in: how were two penniless fledgling doctors able to make a down payment of 185.000.00 on their Queniborough house?
IIRC that payment showed up when someone examined their mortgage histories.
Correct me if I'm wrong

by Guest 22.11.13 12:05

Châtelaine wrote:I am not sure where to put this, so Admin, please move if necessary.

I've just seen a FOI doc on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

which clearly demonstrates to on the very day that the Sun published McCs bombshell-letter to Cameron, May 12, 2011, Theresa May wrote a letter to Sir Paul Stephenson requesting the Met to take up the offer of the PJ to co-operate wit them on their review [started March 2011] on the McCann case ...

She mentions that
- the HO had continued to liaise with the Portuguese authorities
- the offer of of co-operation resulted from discussion between the UK ambassador and the PJ
- the request is supported by PM Cameron and
- the full costs will be covered by a Special Grant [HO]

So, someone pre-empted the in-depth and unbiased inquiry intended by Theresa May, catapulting in on the very same day she ordered it: the Abduction remit and the open threats agains mrs May herself by Rupert Murdochs flunkies?

by Guest 22.11.13 12:09

Interesting, isn't it ...?

by Cristobell 22.11.13 13:07

Châtelaine wrote:I am not sure where to put this, so Admin, please move if necessary.

I've just seen a FOI doc on [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

which clearly demonstrates to on the very day that the Sun published McCs bombshell-letter to Cameron, May 12, 2011, Theresa May wrote a letter to Sir Paul Stephenson requesting the Met to take up the offer of the PJ to co-operate wit them on their review [started March 2011] on the McCann case ...

She mentions that
- the HO had continued to liaise with the Portuguese authorities
- the offer of of co-operation resulted from discussion between the UK ambassador and the PJ
- the request is supported by PM Cameron and
- the full costs will be covered by a Special Grant [HO]

So its possible that the McCanns hastily wrote that front page letter to Cameron to make it appear it was THEY who were requesting the review, not that it was already a done deal?

I got the impression that the McCanns would have been happy to 'stick' at the Petition stage. That is, it was a nice little earner with its paypal button, and the target of 100,000 could have dragged on for years. I've always felt that the Review and the Investigation were a case of 'be careful what you wish for'. The McCanns had to appear as if they wanted the case re-opened - we all know they didn't - in order to get the media spotlight, the annual Madeleine Day, not having taken off. We can only imagine their predicament. They needed the media to appeal for cash, but even they couldn't be that tacky, so they have had to keep up the pretence of a search for a live child.

I sometimes wonder if we will ever know the magnitude of the lies they have told, but I am sure for years to come we will be watching and re-watching, the ease with which these two lunatics hoodwinked three prime ministers and a nation's press to the extent that their word was accepted in a Public Enquiry and used as part of a sinister campaign to curb our rights to Freedom of Speech.

Scotland Yard pronouncements of the McCanns' innocence and spurious abductor stories in the tabloids have not made one iota of difference to public opinion, few now believe the McCann party line after the 'suppression' story and their greedy demands for damages. The Crimewatch program appears to have had the effect of more people suspecting the parents than ever before.

I apologise, I have gone off topic. If the Review was a 'done deal' before the pleading letter appeared on the front page of the Sun, then it suggests it was a PR exercise and a quick 'it was our idea anyway' gesture.