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?

by nomendelta 30.05.12 12:57

candyfloss wrote:

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?

Or is it more likely Theresa May is spinning it? After all she was the one threatened by NI. Front page promised every day.

by monkey mind 30.05.12 13:05

nomendelta wrote: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.

Exactly!

by T4two 30.05.12 13:11

nomendelta wrote:
candyfloss wrote:

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?

Or is it more likely Theresa May is spinning it? After all she was the one threatened by NI. Front page promised every day.

A politician and particularly a member of the government could never admit to even being influenced by the media let alone pressured or blackmailed. If people at Murdoch's News International or a woman accused of perverting the course of justice intimated otherwise I'd react in exactly the same way as Theresa May and gently point out that decisions they claim to have influenced were already taken via normal decision-making processes without outside interference by the media. I'll never forget the line which was spun after Blair's first election victory, "It was the Sun wot won it". Making a big thing of your own importance no doubt helps to sell newspapers.

by ShuBob 30.05.12 13:12

T4two wrote:
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.

Where is the evidence for this? As far as I know, NONE exists but I'll be happy to be put right.

by monkey mind 30.05.12 13:15

PeterMac wrote: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 Guest 30.05.12 13:16

ShuBob wrote:
T4two wrote:
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.

Where is the evidence for this? As far as I know, NONE exists but I'll be happy to be put right.

Perfectly true..........

The balloons will cost a pound to sponsor and all money will go to the Madeleine appeal fund.

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police - Bernard Hogan Howe will lead the release of balloons on the highest point of Liverpool inner city on Mossley Hill Field at 1400 BST.

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

by ShuBob 30.05.12 13:18

candyfloss wrote:
ShuBob wrote:
T4two wrote:
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.

Where is the evidence for this? As far as I know, NONE exists but I'll be happy to be put right.

Perfectly true..........

The balloons will cost a pound to sponsor and all money will go to the Madeleine appeal fund.

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police - Bernard Hogan Howe will lead the release of balloons on the highest point of Liverpool inner city on Mossley Hill Field at 1400 BST.

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

What part of that REPORT is "perfectly true"? Did he lead the balloons release? If so, where is the evidence that he did so?

by T4two 30.05.12 13:27

monkey mind wrote:
nomendelta wrote: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.

Exactly!

Exactly! exactly! The answer to all questions is that it does not tally and this is a very strong reason to suspect that the whole review is a sham. In the case of a missing infant, the first thing that any investigation must ascertain without the shadow of a doubt is that the parents are not involved. If this is not being done then the question why is it not being done is a perfectly legitimate question. Why are the McCanns off limits? Why is the detective leading this 'review' appearing on TV programmes talking as though he were the successor to Dave Edgar? Why call it a review - why isn't it a criminal investigation?

by bobbin 30.05.12 14:51

Shuhbob said

"What part of that REPORT is "perfectly true"? Did he lead the balloons release? If so, where is the evidence that he did so?"

I have looked and all reports refer back to the BBC one, even the
Joanna Morais member posting reference back to the one BBC report,
namely that Hogan-Howe 'WILL' release the balloons. So far I have not
been able to find any report that he actually did.

I found one entry for Bernard Hogan-Howe linked with the Red Balloon, learning centres for bullied children

Could this reference to B.H-H be more McCann/N.I./BBC spin to make it sound more important
and that the police force thinks that the McCs are kosher. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 30.05.12 14:55

bobbin wrote:Shuhbob said

"What part of that REPORT is "perfectly true"? Did he lead the balloons release? If so, where is the evidence that he did so?"

I have looked and all reports refer back to the BBC one, even the
Joanna Morais member posting reference back to the one BBC report,
namely that Hogan-Howe 'WILL' release the balloons. So far I have not
been able to find any report that he actually did.

I found one entry for Bernard Hogan-Howe linked with the Red Balloon, learning centres for bullied children

Could this reference to B.H-H be more McCann/N.I./BBC spin to make it sound more important
and that the police force thinks that the McCs are kosher. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Yes, you are right, I have googled and nothing comes up but that BBC report I posted earlier, and other articles and blogs that link to it. I even looked at GM's blogs, where it mentions the balloon launch etc, being held in various locations, asking for people to upload their photos, but no mention of that one or Bernard Hogan-Howe.

by ShuBob 30.05.12 15:07

Thanks Bobbin.

You confirm the point I was making that no evidence in the public domain exists that links BH-H to the actual balloon release. There are already many evidenced dodgy characters and dodgy dealings associated with this case and I don't think it helps to make such accusations as has been repeatedly made against BH-H without any basis in fact.

by bobbin 30.05.12 15:10

ShuBob wrote:Thanks Bobbin.

You confirm the point I was making that no evidence in the public domain exists that links BH-H to the actual balloon release. There are already many evidenced dodgy characters and dodgy dealings associated with this case and I don't think it helps to make such accusations as has been repeatedly made against BH-H without any basis in fact.

It would be good now, if he is kosher, and if he will oversee a police force that can actually carry out an honest investigation....can only hope. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Guest 30.05.12 15:18

ShuBob wrote:Thanks Bobbin.

You confirm the point I was making that no evidence in the public domain exists that links BH-H to the actual balloon release. There are already many evidenced dodgy characters and dodgy dealings associated with this case and I don't think it helps to make such accusations as has been repeatedly made against BH-H without any basis in fact.

ShuBob, no-one was making accusations as far as I could tell, it was mentioned he led the balloon launch, which actually is mentioned and still there on the BBC website. Perhaps someone should email the BBC and ask if this happened, or where the info came from?

by ShuBob 30.05.12 15:55

The actual report claimed he "will lead" and not that he "led" which are two different things.

I will not labour the point any further.

by jd 30.05.12 17:59

If his name is in line to release the balloons & in the press about it, then this is enough information to know the SY review is a whitewash. Unless he became ill on the day or something then by saying he will lead means he has agreed to do it. I guess SY won't be getting Maddie her justice

by Snifferdog 01.06.12 11:32

Things are falling apart for some, and things previously hidden are coming out into the light to be examined and acted upon. I wonder how far up the sack will unravell, exposing the Worm within. I hope there are still some honest and upstanding people who are able to pull the string further and expose the whole rotten system in all its shame. An uncorrupted brave informed individual who is ambitious (in a healthy way), may stand to gain a lot in the eyes of the public...Here's hoping that such a person exists within the present system.

by Liz Eagles 01.06.12 12:33

Snifferdog wrote:Things are falling apart for some, and things previously hidden are coming out into the light to be examined and acted upon. I wonder how far up the sack will unravell, exposing the Worm within. I hope there are still some honest and upstanding people who are able to pull the string further and expose the whole rotten system in all its shame. An uncorrupted brave informed individual who is ambitious (in a healthy way), may stand to gain a lot in the eyes of the public...Here's hoping that such a person exists within the present system.

I hope they exist in every country Snifferdog. How is South Africa doing for these types of folk?

by Snifferdog 01.06.12 13:00

Do you mean corruption gvt wise Aquila? The same usual stuff, though the press does expose it here though sure what we get to hear is only the tip of the iceberg. Some new interesting corruption expose re. the new Gauteng Toll Road...

by Liz Eagles 01.06.12 13:08

Snifferdog wrote:Do you mean corruption gvt wise Aquila? The same usual stuff, though the press does expose it here though sure what we get to hear is only the tip of the iceberg. Some new interesting corruption expose re. the new Gauteng Toll Road...

Perhaps we could have this conversation in the Members Lounge and not railroad this topic.

by friedtomatoes 01.06.12 14:08

Snifferdog wrote:Things are falling apart for some, and things previously hidden are coming out into the light to be examined and acted upon. I wonder how far up the sack will unravell, exposing the Worm within. I hope there are still some honest and upstanding people who are able to pull the string further and expose the whole rotten system in all its shame. An uncorrupted brave informed individual who is ambitious (in a healthy way), may stand to gain a lot in the eyes of the public...Here's hoping that such a person exists within the present system.

You never know. Police have been arresting people left right and centre around this phone hacking enquiry, the whole Leveson inquiry, then the Mets review. Maybe one of them will set something off. Who knows, perhaps soca will get involved if the fund is shown to have holes in it. Halligen is in custody, surely the Met at some stage will question him too. What happened to the satellite images the yanks have apparently handed over to the British police recently, the ones they refused to give to the PJ when asked? And not forgetting C Mitchell who has not been invited to speak at Levesons inquiry.....yet. That would be interesting. And lastly, I dont believe for a nanosecond they will ignore the dog findings.

by jd 01.06.12 14:29

I heard somewhere that clarence mitchell gave his evidence privately. Not sure how true this is though

by Guest 01.06.12 14:36

jd wrote:I heard somewhere that clarence mitchell gave his evidence privately. Not sure how true this is though

I don't think that can be right, otherwise they would all choose to do that wouldn't they, instead of being on the telly in front of millions, being grilled and squirming in their seats.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by jd 01.06.12 14:44

candyfloss wrote:
jd wrote:I heard somewhere that clarence mitchell gave his evidence privately. Not sure how true this is though

I don't think that can be right, otherwise they would all choose to do that wouldn't they, instead of being on the telly in front of millions, being grilled and squirming in their seats.[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I know, but I am sure they said it on the BBC News 24 that he just submitted his so called 'evidence' and was never called up to appear. I just remember thinking how corrupt this was. I could well be wrong but I am sure this is what they said...unless I dreamt it

by friedtomatoes 01.06.12 19:35

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

Mitchell, who is Burson-Marsteller's MD, added that he did not rule out being called up to speak in the inquiry in the future.

though further down it says:

W Communications founder Warren Johnson added: ‘The appearances of Max Clifford and Clarence Mitchell before the Leveson inquiry have highlighted the surprisingly low turn out from the rest of the PR industry.
-------
I think he has not been called, just made comments

by jd 01.06.12 19:44

What I am sure I heard on News 24 was over the last 10 days

by Guest 01.06.12 19:44

I'm sure I read that Pinky [for insiders] Clarence Mitchell HAS testified, but not before camera.
Cannot find a link at the moment, sorry.
Or, maybe, I've just misunderstood at the time and reference with was to his witness statement ...

by Guest 01.06.12 20:07

Here are all the people with initial M for surname that have given evidence.........

m

by jd 01.06.12 20:09

Châtelaine wrote:I'm sure I read that Pinky [for insiders] Clarence Mitchell HAS testified, but not before camera.
Cannot find a link at the moment, sorry.
Or, maybe, I've just misunderstood at the time and reference with was to his witness statement ...

Yes this is what I am sure I heard them say on News 24. It rings a bell that I have knowledge we will never see him testify on camera

by ShuBob 01.06.12 22:12

During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons and their names are not listed as witnesses.

by Guest 01.06.12 22:19

ShuBob wrote:During the testimony of McCann supporter Sir Christopher Meyer at the Leveson Inquiry, he did respond to a question by saying he understood (or was it believed?) Clarence Mitchell WOULD also be testifying at the inquiry. It is common knowledge that certain witnesses have elected to give evidence "off camera" for a variety of reasons.

So how would that work then I wonder? How can that be fair to those who are on camera. Some have gone through intense grilling sessions, namely the Murdochs and Rebecah Brooks and a lot more in front of the millions of viewing public. Did they get a choice, and if they didn't why not? How could some ask not to be on camera? Surely that is not a fair way to conduct proceedings?

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?