Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

by **Tony Bennett** 29.05.12 20:30

A POLL IS ATTACHED

by Guest 29.05.12 21:27

I don't see how it can be given the resources it's reported to have. Redwood stated he has a Detective Chief Inspector (himself), 3 Detective Inspectors, 5 Detective Sergeants, 19 Detective Constables and 6 or 7 civilian staff working on it. The sums of money reported to be available are barely enough to cover the wages of a team that large I'd think.

by nomendelta 29.05.12 22:12

Andy Pandy of the Yard's highly public statements lead me to believe that it's a whitewash.

Considering that he didn't have to say ANYTHING or if he felt compelled to he could just have said that work was ongoing and they are confident they can solve the case. But he didn't - he played right into the McCanns hands with an updated photo on how she "might" look which is about as helpful as using a negative of Mother Teresa. He unequivocably stated he believed Maddie was alive which in the face of what evidence and statistics we have about such cases is quite ludicrous but curiously helps keep the fund moving.

Given also that it seems the McCanns got their buddy Rebekah Brooks to bully the Prime Minister into ordering the review - we previously felt the McCanns were just putting a brave face on the news of the review whilst secretly bricking it but since THEY requested it AND Brooks called in a favour to get it done then we have to look at the McCanns being confident of the result.

by Widows Son 29.05.12 22:19

NSY made no attempt to interview any of the Tapas 9: real evil begins, not when people do horrid things, but when cannot bother themselves to lie about it properly. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Ribisl 29.05.12 22:29

nomendelta wrote:
Given also that it seems the McCanns got their buddy Rebekah Brooks to bully the Prime Minister into ordering the review - we previously felt the McCanns were just putting a brave face on the news of the review whilst secretly bricking it but since THEY requested it AND Brooks called in a favour to get it done then we have to look at the McCanns being confident of the result.

Yes, but it's always only a review, never a proper reopening of the case. Therein lies the true RB-TM agenda imo. The longer it goes on, the more papers sold and the more donations given to the fund, keeping the McCanns in the celebrity lifestyle they have become accustomed to.

by Ashwarya 29.05.12 22:32

Just hugely disappointed that after millions of tax payers' money being poured into this operation it looks as though there will be no justice for Maddie. Also disappointed that someone who has reached the rank of Detective Chief Inspector in the Met can apparently willingly sacrifice his integrity and credibility by spouting such nonsense, and horrified that politicians, journos and police can think we are all so gullible. Nevertheless there is still a tiny part of me that hopes that I am wrong, so I have voted probably not rather than definitely not.

by T4two 29.05.12 22:56

There is actually no valid reason for this review. The constant referrals to the Portuguese police as having jurisdiction are an insult to the intelligence of every member of the British public whose tax money is being wasted on this sham. British law is quite clear on this point and there are sufficient precedences - British courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes which are committed against British citizens irrespective of whether the crime was committed at home or abroad, if sufficient grounds exist to indicate that the crime was perpetrated by a British citizen or citizens. This does not interfere in any way shape or form with the jurisdiction of the police and courts in the country where the crime was committed. In other words, the Portuguese authorities are still free to bring a prosecution under their own laws if they see fit. It is therefore a lie to maintain that the British authorities have no say in the matter. In the case of the disappearance and feared demise of the British citizen Madeleine McCann in Portugal, I would submit that based on the Leicestershire Constabulary files and Portuguese files, there are sufficient grounds to suspect that a crime or crimes were perpetrated against her by British citizens and that therefore the British authorities are in fact duty bound to investigate this crime "as though it were perpetrated in Britain." The fact that they are not doing so, but have seconded the leading crime investigation agency in Britain to replace the hapless Edgar and Cowley as the McCanns' provate investigators and at the public's expense speaks volumes.

by uppatoffee 29.05.12 23:22

Widows Son wrote:NSY made no attempt to interview any of the Tapas 9: real evil begins, not when people do horrid things, but when cannot bother themselves to lie about it properly. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I do wonder if, when the Tapas 9 are called in for interview, the public will be told about this. It is inconceivable that a "review" of the case would not interview the key witnesses, Tanner especially, given her key role! But the McCanns are unlikely to publicise this, given their previous failure to attend any kind of reconstitution which would only highlight the discrepancies in their various and ever changing testimonies. Do we actually know that it hasn't already happened?

by **PeterMac** 29.05.12 23:34

uppatoffee wrote: Do we actually know that it hasn't already happened?

Quite !

by jd 29.05.12 23:45

I think SY are too busy investigating all the physics & mediums visions and last nights dreams that the PJ didn't follow up on winkwink

by Ribisl 29.05.12 23:47

T4two wrote:British law is quite clear on this point and there are sufficient precedences - British courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes which are committed against British citizens irrespective of whether the crime was committed at home or abroad, if sufficient grounds exist to indicate that the crime was perpetrated by a British citizen or citizens. This does not interfere in any way shape or form with the jurisdiction of the police and courts in the country where the crime was committed.

This is very interesting. Are you saying that British courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes abroad only if both the victim and the perpetrator(s) are British citizens? What if then there is not sufficient evidence to prove such crime was perpetrated by British citizens but thought just as likely committed by a person(s) of another nationality, for example, by a non-British abductor? In other words, is it possible that SY are seen to be so ineffective precisely because they adhere to the abduction theory purported by the McCanns which largely excludes the likelihood of the crime being committed by British citizens?

by Angelique 29.05.12 23:47

Unfortunately I don't expect any information about the Review to be publicised and voted "Def. Not". I think they said they wouldn't do in a statement right at the beginning. TM and Cameron get the "Official Whitewashing Completed" and all parties wave goodbye pensioned to the hilt!

I doubt very much if anyone is interviewed either. This is a paper shuffling exercise.

by friedtomatoes 30.05.12 0:34

I voted not sure either way. I cant believe this is just a paper shuffling exercise, I mean all those experienced detectives just fluffing around? with a given end game? All of them with no integrity or care or concern? What about the dogs? Im sure half their eyebrows will have been raised on this issue alone.

I prefer to stay optimistic, for the time being anyway.

by T4two 30.05.12 0:51

Ribisl wrote:
T4two wrote:British law is quite clear on this point and there are sufficient precedences - British courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes which are committed against British citizens irrespective of whether the crime was committed at home or abroad, if sufficient grounds exist to indicate that the crime was perpetrated by a British citizen or citizens. This does not interfere in any way shape or form with the jurisdiction of the police and courts in the country where the crime was committed.
This is very interesting. Are you saying that British courts can exercise jurisdiction for crimes abroad only if both the victim and the perpetrator(s) are British citizens? What if then there is not sufficient evidence to prove such crime was perpetrated by British citizens but thought just as likely committed by a person(s) of another nationality, for example, by a non-British abductor? In other words, is it possible that SY are seen to be so ineffective precisely because they adhere to the abduction theory purported by the McCanns which largely excludes the likelihood of the crime being committed by British citizens?

1. To the first part of your question: The following is from the current CPS website. I am actually wrong in maintaining that the victim must also be British. Apparently this is not so - it is sufficient that the perpetrators of the crime or those suspected of such crime be British. (apologies for the rather haphazard result of cut and paste - a formatting problem)

Resolving jurisdictional
conflicts

Where the offence occurred on
a single territory

Generally, an offence will only be triable in the jurisdiction in which the
offence takes place, unless there is a specific provision to ground
jurisdiction, for instance where specific statutes enable the UK to exercise
extra-territorial jurisdiction:

sexual offences against children (section 72 of
the Sexual Offences Act 2003) A new section 72 was substituted by the
Criminal Justice and Immigration Act 2008 which came into effect from 14
July 2008 onwards. It is important to ensure that any prosecution is
brought under the provision in force at the time the alleged conduct
occured as the terms of the substantive provisions and details of the
offences they cover are not identical;
murder and manslaughter (subsection 9 and 10 of
the Offences Against the Person Act 1861)
fraud (the 2006 Act imposes extra territorial
jurisdiction in respect od offences in subsection. 1, 6, 7, 9 and 11 of
the Fraud Act 2006) and dishonesty (Criminal Justice Act 1993 Part 1 still
applies to the remaining unrepealed sections of the Theft Act 1968);
terrorism (subsection 59, 62-63 of the Terrorism
Act 2000 and section 17 of the Terrorism Act 2006);
bribery (The Bribery Act 2010 repeals the common
law and the statutory offences of corruption. For future offences the
Bribery Act imposes extra-terratorial jurisdiction although section 109 of
the Anti-terrorism Crime and Security Act 2011 still exists in respect of
offences committed wholly or partially before 1 July 2011

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

Subsection 9 and 10 of the
Offences Against the Person Act 1861

9 Murder or
manslaughter abroad.

Where any
murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom,
whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed
were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of
Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the
offence of murder or of manslaughter, . . . F9, may be dealt with, inquired of,
tried, determined, and punished . . . in
England or Ireland . . . : Provided, that nothing herein contained shall
prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for
any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same
manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

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

To the second part of your question: The following is a statement made under oath by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire before the Family Court, judge Hogg, as reason for not releasing the Leicestershire Constabulary files to the McCanns following their application to the court after their return to England.

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
In other words, both of them are suspects. If this was valid then and still is valid, then the English police are duty-bound to carry out a full investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. A full investigation - not a so-called review.

by nomendelta 30.05.12 8:10

T4two in answer to that last paragraph...

How does that tally with Redwood's statement that a "forensic review of the timeline" that allows for an abduction to take place? Something which we on this forum largely think is impossible based on OUR various reviews of the timeline(s).

How does it tally with Redwood stating unequivocably that he believe Maddie to be alive?

Further, how does it tally with Redwood stating that he wants to "bring closure for the family". Not "find the truth" or get "justice for Maddie".

I think after a year to be no further forward, to not be wanting to plug the gaping holes in the various statements by the T9 and to be encouraging yet more false sightings with a bland "everygirl" photo...it's obvious the direction this review is taking.

by uppatoffee 30.05.12 8:41

But we don't know they are no further forward do we? SY are hardly going to come out and announce that this week they are investigating the tapas 9 statements and are going to haul them all in for questioning! Until the review's findings are announced, I am trying to remain hopeful!

by Ribisl 30.05.12 8:53

T4two wrote:
To the second part of your question: The following is a statement made under oath by the Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire before the Family Court, judge Hogg, as reason for not releasing the Leicestershire Constabulary files to the McCanns following their application to the court after their return to England.

“While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
In other words, both of them are suspects. If this was valid then and still is valid, then the English police are duty-bound to carry out a full investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. A full investigation - not a so-called review.

I think we need to bear in mind the distinction between the term suspect we use commonly and the legal definition of the same word. As I understand it, a person is considered a suspect in criminal law when he/she is under investigation by law enforcement officials who believe there to be sufficient evidence for a crime to have been committed by that person.

The fact that the files were not released to the McCanns does not necessarily imply they were being treated as 'suspects'. They were never investigated in the UK then, and they are not now by the SY review team led by Redwood.

by nomendelta 30.05.12 9:04

uppatoffee wrote:But we don't know they are no further forward do we? SY are hardly going to come out and announce that this week they are investigating the tapas 9 statements and are going to haul them all in for questioning! Until the review's findings are announced, I am trying to remain hopeful!

We KNOW they are no further forward - they have said they have another THREE years at least before reviewing all the evidence! It took me a day of looking thru the various threads and file links to reach my conclusion that the T9 stories stink! We may not expect them to announce they are investigating the T9 statements BUT they decided to announce that a "forensic analysis of the timeline" allowed for an abduction. They are clealry on the side of TM.

Remember every public statement by Redwoord pointed to abduction and that helped the McCanns AND the fund. SY had absolutely NO reason to do this if it's a fair, balanced, impartial review they would want to keep a distance from the McCann publicity machine. The fact that they jumped on so enthusiastically speaks volumes.

by **PeterMac** 30.05.12 9:36

uppatoffee wrote:But we don't know they are no further forward do we? SY are hardly going to come out and announce that this week they are investigating the tapas 9 statements and are going to haul them all in for questioning! Until the review's findings are announced, I am trying to remain hopeful!

Quite.

by Snifferdog 30.05.12 9:40

PeterMac wrote:
uppatoffee wrote:But we don't know they are no further forward do we? SY are hardly going to come out and announce that this week they are investigating the tapas 9 statements and are going to haul them all in for questioning! Until the review's findings are announced, I am trying to remain hopeful!
Quite.

The best tactics include the Element of SURPRISE!

by sami 30.05.12 9:41

As soon as it was decided that Redwood would speak publically, the only way it was going to go was in the family's favour. I would not expect SY to comment any other way. If they were to sit on the fence with their comments, this too could be considered an unspoken accusation of guilt, imo. Therefore they need to appear to be supportive or say nothing at all.

That is more interesting to me. Not what Redwood said, but why he chose or was chosen to speak at all, at that time.

I cannot decide whether the McCanns have played a clever game or have just been lucky. Whichever it is, it will take a very clever game to catch them. I hope SY are playing that game.

by Guest 30.05.12 9:54

I'm still trying to keep positive about this review. Firstly, they have to be seen to be checking everything, all angles, leaving no stone unturned so to speak, to cover themselves against any accusation of just looking in one direction. I am almost sure, they will have interviewed those closely connected to that night, or will do in the near future. We did have those headlines about the Tapas 7 being re-interviewed. I supposed Andy Redwood, has to check into everything, otherwise any defence can bring up these things and say they were leads but not investigated. The only thing that didn't seem right was AR parking his bum on the breakfast sofa and giving interviews. I have never seen that in any case before. However, this could be a tactic, whilst people are looking here, the police are actually looking elsewhere? As Snifferdog said, the element of surprise. Still hopeful, especially with confidence in the police at an all time low, and with leveson, and all the arrests for payments and corruption happening, I just cannot see how anyone would even attempt to cover this up. These things always come out in the end and it would totally ruin SY. I just have to believe and keep the faith with our boys in blue.

by **PeterMac** 30.05.12 11:07

Indeed. How many people knew that Andy Coulson was going to be arrested this morning for perjury ?
It is on its own thread, but it makes the point I think.
The police often like people to think they are plodding and slow and stupid.
Harold Shipman thought so, and carried on lying until they showed him that they knew more about computers than he did.
At which point he refused to answer any more questions. Ever.
Sound familiar ?

It used to be one of the most rewarding moments of the job. That moment when the suspect puts his head in his hands and realises that the game is over.
Even experienced officers cannot help smiling, often in the direction of the solicitor who has up to that moment been demanding that you release his client immediately !
The picture of the police officer in Bali standing behind the woman with all that cocaine tells its own story.
She is white and western and therefore invincible.
He is dark and eastern and eats sardines and bean sprouts, and is therefore by definition useless.
Tell that to the firing squad, madam ! They probably can't shoot straight anyway.

by ShuBob 30.05.12 11:18

IMO it is inconceivable that Redwood would have found a window of opportunity after "forensically" analysing the timeline WITHOUT speaking to key witnesses. It makes no sense!

by nomendelta 30.05.12 11:26

Those hopeful of SY establishing the truth and thinking Redwood was playing the game forget one pertinent fact.

The McCanns WANTED the review. Through seemingly nefarious means they got the review as part of their deal with NI for serialising the bewk. Hardly a card they would play if they thought they'd come off worst.

by Hummingbird 30.05.12 11:29

nomendelta wrote:Those hopeful of SY establishing the truth and thinking Redwood was playing the game forget one pertinent fact.

The McCanns WANTED the review. Through seemingly nefarious means they got the review as part of their deal with NI for serialising the bewk. Hardly a card they would play if they thought they'd come off worst.

Yeah see now that's what I can never put my finger on, why if you are guilty would you ask for a review unless you already knew what the outcome would be?

by nomendelta 30.05.12 11:58

Hummingbird wrote:
nomendelta wrote:Those hopeful of SY establishing the truth and thinking Redwood was playing the game forget one pertinent fact.

The McCanns WANTED the review. Through seemingly nefarious means they got the review as part of their deal with NI for serialising the bewk. Hardly a card they would play if they thought they'd come off worst.

Yeah see now that's what I can never put my finger on, why if you are guilty would you ask for a review unless you already knew what the outcome would be?

Exactly!

Most of us had assumed the McCanns were publicly being seen to be happy about the review when in fact they were bricking it behind the scenes. This was when we thought that they hadn't expected a review to happen and had been taken by surprise. It seems very much to be exactly the opposite.

by Guest 30.05.12 12:08

nomendelta wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:
nomendelta wrote:Those hopeful of SY establishing the truth and thinking Redwood was playing the game forget one pertinent fact.

The McCanns WANTED the review. Through seemingly nefarious means they got the review as part of their deal with NI for serialising the bewk. Hardly a card they would play if they thought they'd come off worst.

Yeah see now that's what I can never put my finger on, why if you are guilty would you ask for a review unless you already knew what the outcome would be?

Exactly!

Most of us had assumed the McCanns were publicly being seen to be happy about the review when in fact they were bricking it behind the scenes. This was when we thought that they hadn't expected a review to happen and had been taken by surprise. It seems very much to be exactly the opposite.

If the review was already happening as stated by Theresa May, and Alan Johnson had begun it the year before that, and the McCanns weren't allowed to see the report which was deemed "sensitive" then perhaps this was maybe just put out there as spin to make it look like they had pressed for it?

by Hummingbird 30.05.12 12:21

candyfloss wrote:
nomendelta wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:
nomendelta wrote:Those hopeful of SY establishing the truth and thinking Redwood was playing the game forget one pertinent fact.

The McCanns WANTED the review. Through seemingly nefarious means they got the review as part of their deal with NI for serialising the bewk. Hardly a card they would play if they thought they'd come off worst.

Yeah see now that's what I can never put my finger on, why if you are guilty would you ask for a review unless you already knew what the outcome would be?

Exactly!

Most of us had assumed the McCanns were publicly being seen to be happy about the review when in fact they were bricking it behind the scenes. This was when we thought that they hadn't expected a review to happen and had been taken by surprise. It seems very much to be exactly the opposite.

If the review was already happening as stated by Theresa May, and Alan Johnson had begun it the year before that, and the McCanns weren't allowed to see the report which was deemed "sensitive" then perhaps this was maybe just put out there as spin to make it look like they had pressed for it?

Well that would be the same as most of the games TM play now wouldn't it, make the 'public' feel sorry for them and think they are doing everything in their power to find their daughter, when in fact the truth is, as nomendelta put it, they are bricking themselves!!!!!
Let's hope and pray you are right and that SY are doing a worthy job and waiting (as I always hoped) for the right time to pounce - 'with the sensitive info'!

by T4two 30.05.12 12:27

candyfloss wrote:
nomendelta wrote:
Hummingbird wrote:
nomendelta wrote:Those hopeful of SY establishing the truth and thinking Redwood was playing the game forget one pertinent fact.

The McCanns WANTED the review. Through seemingly nefarious means they got the review as part of their deal with NI for serialising the bewk. Hardly a card they would play if they thought they'd come off worst.

Yeah see now that's what I can never put my finger on, why if you are guilty would you ask for a review unless you already knew what the outcome would be?

Exactly!

Most of us had assumed the McCanns were publicly being seen to be happy about the review when in fact they were bricking it behind the scenes. This was when we thought that they hadn't expected a review to happen and had been taken by surprise. It seems very much to be exactly the opposite.

If the review was already happening as stated by Theresa May, and Alan Johnson had begun it the year before that, and the McCanns weren't allowed to see the report which was deemed "sensitive" then perhaps this was maybe just put out there as spin to make it look like they had pressed for it?

Bernard Hogan-Howe is the present head of Scotland Yard and he is the man who as Chief Constable of Liverpool led the release of balloons on behalf of the McCanns as recently as 2011. I just cannot see this man ordering a no holds barred investigation which by definition would have to include the exclusion of the parents as a very first step.

Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Is Operation Grange a no-holds-barred search for the truth re Madeleine?

Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Amelie McCann (aged 2): "Maddie's jammies!".

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Re: Is Operation Grange, the 37-strong Scotland Yard Review Team reviewing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, a wholehearted, no-holds-barred search for the truth?

Latest topics