Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Cristobell wrote:

pennylane wrote:

ultimaThule wrote:

PeterMac wrote:The last case where they ignored the alerts of the dog was Tia.

The Met have a lot to answer for and it beggars belief that they couldn't find an officer slim enough, or brave enough, to fit any more than his/her head into the loft hatch where Tia Sharp's body had been concealed by her murderer on the day her disppearance was reported to the police.

The image of the Met's finest drinking tea on a daily basis with the child's depraved killer for a week in the house where her body lay, while police dogs barked at the ceiling and Commander Neil Basu bigged himself up to the assembled press/tv cameras outside the premises is one which, as a hard-pressed London council tax payer, I prefer not to conjure with. 

Tia Sharp was failed because of political directives which instruct the police to treat lower class dysfunctional families with kid gloves a respect that is rarely, if ever, reciprocated.

Madeleine McCann was failed because neither Tony Blair or Gordon Brown were fit to hold high office and because of the public's continued refusal to recognise that those who become doctors can be unworthy of the esteem the title confers on the holder.

and neither is David Cameron (imho)

I agree with your view of public perception re esteemed doctors.  As far as I can see we are still looking at depraved paedophiles as being greasy, spotty, smelly, swarthy, etc etc.... so what's changed there? Not a thing as far as I can see.

Plenty has changed Penny, the McCanns no longer have their abductor, courtesy of Jane Tanner's sighting, and DCI Redwood has suggested that Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment.

The correct headline should have been 'Madeleine may have died in the apartment'.  That little bombshell was overlooked by the MSM and of course Clarence stepped in to bump up smelly man.  Smelly man is as worthless to the investigation as all the swarthy prototypes that have gone before him.  Someone wants that lead investigated and I doubt its the DCI and his team.  

His decision to mention the 'death in the apartment' theory in his press conference is curious.  I wouldn't rule out his snapping back at Goncalo Amaral's challenge to show political courage, as it didn't form part of the Crimewatch program which may have been recorded earlier.  

Crimewatch have sent another huge shot across the bows of the McCanns sinking (or has it sunk?) libel claim.  During its sojourn, we have had the revelation that the McCanns suppressed a crucial sighting and now that SY have suggested Madeleine may be dead they are singing from the same song book as Goncalo Amaral.  Oops, although it was unlikely before that the Judge would find in the McCanns favour, its downright impossible now.  

No wonder Goncalo looked so relaxed.

Watching wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

tigger wrote:Once upon a time there was a gathering of people, some of  importance, some representing people of importance and some servants of people of importance. Some, but not all, had brought their dogs with them.
The object of this meeting was to find a way to control all the dogs on an entire continent and after that - the world.
The problem was how to convince all dog owners this was a good and benificial plan.

Then a servant of the important people thought he would rise to their level if he supplied the means to execute their plan and in one fell swoop would convince the whole world that all dogs should be controlled.

So this servant who had three dogs, saw to it that one of these was lost and irretrievably lost. He expected praise and promotion, but his masters were distraught. It was clear to all  that the dog could not have been lost by accident.
He stated that the dog had been taken by a gang of caniphiles, a great danger to all canines but his masters knew that the dog could not have left by itself nor could anyone have stolen it.

But only by making the whole world believe that the meeting had been nothing but families taking their dogs to a sunny resort could their plan be kept safe. So they supported the story of the servant, who had believed he could be one of them by playing this simple trick. But he would never be one of them, he was still a servant, but a rich one. Yet that was not enough.

Many years later the important people are still looking for the lost dog and the caniphiles who might have taken it, in time they may suppose the dog has died, but will always have to declare the servant innnocent.

------

My apologies for the silly story, Latinists will be able to correct or improve on caniphile- caniophile?   

I believe it has to be a whitewash.

Now that Scotland Yard have introduced the idea of death in the apartment, there can be no whitewash.  Convincing the public an abduction occurred was impossible, now they have to persuade the public that the child was murdered and carried away sometime between the half hour checks.

Clarence put down his buttered scone and china teacup to come out and steer the medial's focus into the right direction - Smelly Man.  As an aside, I think the target on his back was a nice touch, clearly someone is keeping it real   

The cat, or should we say the 'death', word is out of the bag Tigger, and that is the word the McCanns hate the most.

"The cat, or should we say the 'death', word is out of the bag Tigger"



Redwood/SY introduced the idea of death right at the beginning of their investigative review.  When he said there were two possibilities - dead or alive (not verbatim)  So this is not new at all, this 'death now being out of the bag'


His comment yesterday will make no difference to the result of the libel trial - he said dead or alive right at the start nearly 3 years ago now!

He just happens to have gone along with the 'alive' version!



https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=R6d1FQMC6T8

PeterMac wrote:Assume it was Bin-man, and let us go along with the Crapwatch explanation and what then 'logically follows'

He still has to get in - How, and when ?
He then has to sit on the bed to talk to her in English - no evidence of this
He then has to do whatever he did - no evidence of this
He then has to kill her - how, when, no evidence of this
He then has to remain in situ for long enough for cadaverine to become detectable some months later - when
He then has to exit - how, when
He then has to leave the area - how, when
He then has to dispose of a body - how, when ?

All this either between Gerry's leaving the immediate vicinity about 9.20 pm and MO sticking his head in around 9.30
OR
between MO's visit and the first walk past of the next one - can't just remember who that was - in both directions
which happened midway between MO and Kate's visit.  
What they have done by including other things apart from the seizing of a living child is to reduced the "Window of Opportinuty" ad absurdam.,

It was already impossible and ludicrous.
Now it is totally ludicrous and completely impossible.

PeterMac wrote:Assume it was Bin-man, and let us go along with the Crapwatch explanation and what then 'logically follows'

He still has to get in - How, and when ?
He then has to sit on the bed to talk to her in English - no evidence of this
He then has to do whatever he did - no evidence of this
He then has to kill her - how, when, no evidence of this
He then has to remain in situ for long enough for cadaverine to become detectable some months later - when
He then has to exit - how, when
He then has to leave the area - how, when
He then has to dispose of a body - how, when ?

All this either between Gerry's leaving the immediate vicinity about 9.20 pm and MO sticking his head in around 9.30
OR
between MO's visit and the first walk past of the next one - can't just remember who that was - in both directions
which happened midway between MO and Kate's visit.  
What they have done by including other things apart from the seizing of a living child is to reduced the "Window of Opportinuty" ad absurdam.,

It was already impossible and ludicrous.
Now it is totally ludicrous and completely impossible.

Woofer wrote:@ Cristobel - "The correct headline should have been 'Madeleine may have died in the apartment'. That little bombshell was overlooked by the MSM and of course Clarence stepped in to bump up smelly man. "

Yes, if that was from a press conference Andy must have known it could have been headlines the next day - I wonder if that`s what he was hoping?   The MSM couldn`t be sued because it would have been a factual headline and I`ve never understood to this day why Editors don`t tell Clarence Mitchell to b***er off.

RIPM wrote:Operation Grange's 'elite' detectives have examined everything, excepting nothing and after months of painstaking analysis, have concluded 5 things are certainly not in dispute and have put them in the public domain.

The last poolside photo is genuine and undoctored or altered in any way.

The weather around 1pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007 was hot and sunny.

The photo shows M alive and well on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

The weather remained warm well into the late hours of Thursday 3rd May 2007.

JT is a completely reliable witness with remarkable powers of observation, it is just unfortunate the person she saw was an innocent 
holidaymaker.

Redwood and his team of 'elite' detectives have so far spent 7 million pounds accessing all this data so either certain posters are being mischevious by stating the weather was cold and not sunny, or Redwood is running a whitewash, ignoring anything which does not help the Macs case, ie.  the weather or dogs etc;

so its a whitewash for me.

russiandoll wrote:This was in the Guardian last week :

 [size=12.727272033691406] Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.[/size]


[size=12.727272033691406] Any ideas as to what SY might have uncovered in their investigation which has brought about this statement from AR?[/size]

[size=12.727272033691406]  he is not ref to a typical abduct_ assault - murder- dump scenario but a death prior to body removal.[/size]

[size=12.727272033691406] They have found some evidence suggestive of a corpse in the apartment. What could it be?[/size]

Cristobell wrote:

russiandoll wrote:This was in the Guardian last week :

 [size=12.727272033691406] Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.[/size]


[size=12.727272033691406] Any ideas as to what SY might have uncovered in their investigation which has brought about this statement from AR?[/size]

[size=12.727272033691406]  he is not ref to a typical abduct_ assault - murder- dump scenario but a death prior to body removal.[/size]

[size=12.727272033691406] They have found some evidence suggestive of a corpse in the apartment. What could it be?[/size]

The dogs would be too obvious, it may be 7 years on, forensic science has advanced to a point where the original evidence has proved conclusive.

I don't think DCI Redwood can suggest death in the apartment without something substantial to back it up.  Look how quickly the McCanns leapt on The Mirror for including Madeleine in with their 'Mysteries' feature, and the speed with which the Guardian corrected their article.  There must have been a hell of a fight over the exact wording of the Guardian piece, but it looks as though SY won, because the suggestion that Madeleine died in the apartment remains the same and hasn't been withdrawn.

The papers may be full of Smellyman nonsense, but I doubt for one moment the McCanns feel as though they are home and dry.  They are about to lose what remains of their fortune on ill advised proceedings they brought against another detective for saying the same thing as DCI Redwood!

If DCI Redwood is referring to the evidence of the dogs, then it must include Kate's clothes and the hire car.

Cristobell wrote:

RIPM wrote:Operation Grange's 'elite' detectives have examined everything, excepting nothing and after months of painstaking analysis, have concluded 5 things are certainly not in dispute and have put them in the public domain.

The last poolside photo is genuine and undoctored or altered in any way.

The weather around 1pm on Thursday 3rd May 2007 was hot and sunny.

The photo shows M alive and well on Thursday 3rd May 2007.

The weather remained warm well into the late hours of Thursday 3rd May 2007.

JT is a completely reliable witness with remarkable powers of observation, it is just unfortunate the person she saw was an innocent 
holidaymaker.

Redwood and his team of 'elite' detectives have so far spent 7 million pounds accessing all this data so either certain posters are being mischevious by stating the weather was cold and not sunny, or Redwood is running a whitewash, ignoring anything which does not help the Macs case, ie.  the weather or dogs etc;

so its a whitewash for me.

Sometimes we get caught up in the minutiae when we should really be looking at the bigger picture.  Scotland Yard are dealing with criminal minds, ergo they are probably having to tell quite a few porkies of their own in order to maintain a dialogue with the principal players.

russiandoll wrote:This was in the Guardian last week :

  Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.


 Any ideas as to what SY might have uncovered in their investigation which has brought about this statement from AR?

  he is not ref to a typical abduct_ assault - murder- dump scenario but a death prior to body removal.

 They have found some evidence suggestive of a corpse in the apartment. What could it be?

Woofer wrote:

russiandoll wrote:This was in the Guardian last week :

  Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.


 Any ideas as to what SY might have uncovered in their investigation which has brought about this statement from AR?

  he is not ref to a typical abduct_ assault - murder- dump scenario but a death prior to body removal.

 They have found some evidence suggestive of a corpse in the apartment. What could it be?

Are you daring to wonder if SY have finally seen the elephant in the room ?  And had an `Ah-ha` moment?.

russiandoll wrote:This was in the Guardian last week :

  Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.


 Any ideas as to what SY might have uncovered in their investigation which has brought about this statement from AR?

  he is not ref to a typical abduct_ assault - murder- dump scenario but a death prior to body removal.

 They have found some evidence suggestive of a corpse in the apartment. What could it be?

dantezebu wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

russiandoll wrote:This was in the Guardian last week :

 [size=12.727272033691406] Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.[/size]


[size=12.727272033691406] Any ideas as to what SY might have uncovered in their investigation which has brought about this statement from AR?[/size]

[size=12.727272033691406]  he is not ref to a typical abduct_ assault - murder- dump scenario but a death prior to body removal.[/size]

[size=12.727272033691406] They have found some evidence suggestive of a corpse in the apartment. What could it be?[/size]

The dogs would be too obvious, it may be 7 years on, forensic science has advanced to a point where the original evidence has proved conclusive.

I don't think DCI Redwood can suggest death in the apartment without something substantial to back it up.  Look how quickly the McCanns leapt on The Mirror for including Madeleine in with their 'Mysteries' feature, and the speed with which the Guardian corrected their article.  There must have been a hell of a fight over the exact wording of the Guardian piece, but it looks as though SY won, because the suggestion that Madeleine died in the apartment remains the same and hasn't been withdrawn.

The papers may be full of Smellyman nonsense, but I doubt for one moment the McCanns feel as though they are home and dry.  They are about to lose what remains of their fortune on ill advised proceedings they brought against another detective for saying the same thing as DCI Redwood!

If DCI Redwood is referring to the evidence of the dogs, then it must include Kate's clothes and the hire car.

Cristobell, I believe the Guardian corrected their article because they misquoted Andy Redwood. Not because of any pressure from the MCs.
The correction in my opinion added the doubt about the abduction into the scenario, as well as keeping the doubt about Madeleine being alive when removed from 5a. Hardly something TM would be happy about.

eta he didn't suggest she may have died in the apartment, only that she was maybe not alive when removed.

Cristobell wrote:

dantezebu wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

russiandoll wrote:This was in the Guardian last week :

 [size=12.727272033691406] Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood admitted that what they have uncovered means Madeleine might not have left the apartment alive.[/size]


[size=12.727272033691406] Any ideas as to what SY might have uncovered in their investigation which has brought about this statement from AR?[/size]

[size=12.727272033691406]  he is not ref to a typical abduct_ assault - murder- dump scenario but a death prior to body removal.[/size]

[size=12.727272033691406] They have found some evidence suggestive of a corpse in the apartment. What could it be?[/size]

The dogs would be too obvious, it may be 7 years on, forensic science has advanced to a point where the original evidence has proved conclusive.

I don't think DCI Redwood can suggest death in the apartment without something substantial to back it up.  Look how quickly the McCanns leapt on The Mirror for including Madeleine in with their 'Mysteries' feature, and the speed with which the Guardian corrected their article.  There must have been a hell of a fight over the exact wording of the Guardian piece, but it looks as though SY won, because the suggestion that Madeleine died in the apartment remains the same and hasn't been withdrawn.

The papers may be full of Smellyman nonsense, but I doubt for one moment the McCanns feel as though they are home and dry.  They are about to lose what remains of their fortune on ill advised proceedings they brought against another detective for saying the same thing as DCI Redwood!

If DCI Redwood is referring to the evidence of the dogs, then it must include Kate's clothes and the hire car.

Cristobell, I believe the Guardian corrected their article because they misquoted Andy Redwood. Not because of any pressure from the MCs.
The correction in my opinion added the doubt about the abduction into the scenario, as well as keeping the doubt about Madeleine being alive when removed from 5a. Hardly something TM would be happy about.

eta he didn't suggest she may have died in the apartment, only that she was maybe not alive when removed.

Hi Dantezebu, I still think Guardian were lean't on, but the McCanns did not get the result they wanted.  Once a newspaper has gone to print they won't correct anything unless someone tells them.  It was only a few weeks ago, that the Times too, had to print a correction on behalf of the McCanns, and only last week, the Mirror were forced to whoosh a story that suggested Madeleine's disappearance was a mystery.  Those libel lawyers are still beavering away but I doubt its pro bono.

As for not alive when removed from the apartment, err, doesn't that mean dead?  Ie, died in the apartment.

Doug D wrote:Keeping interpretation options open I think Cristobell.

Yes, dead when removed from apartment, but not necessarily died in the apartment, (could have been moved in & then out again).