Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Tangled Web 25.03.14 12:28

Bishop Brennan wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Doug D wrote:Completely agree RD.
If someone fell & was injured behind the sofa, the action would be to push the sofa out of the way & tend to the injuries in situ.
Every first aider has it drummed into them not to move a victim, unless in danger of further injuries, until a proper examination has been carried out as you could do more harm than good, and maybe even doctors would be aware of that!

But if a doctor found a body s/he would know know that it was dead.
And if it was found the morning after the night before ( the night of the argument and the stomping off in all directions and sleeping apart and not waking the children by putting the light on and not checking the children) and it was already cold and stiff and 'leaking' cadaverine . . .
Then it is all a bit different, and now you need a tennis bag big enough to hide a . . . tennis racquet

And there indeed you have it. If she was unconscious she would at some stage be moved to a bed. But if she had 'been taken' (leaving aside the time of discovery for now) then moving her to a bed is something you would never do. You either call for help, or go down another much darker path.

'Normal' parents would be unable to go down this darker path but it's quite obvious that we're not dealing with 'normal' parents here. We're dealing with parents who care more about what others think of them than they do their own child sad

by Mirage 25.03.14 12:40

Courtesy of Duarte Levy, this statement on McCann Files:
----------------------------------

DC Ferguson interviews Matthew Oldfield... with "Technical problems" Duarte Levy Wordpress

Duarte Levy
February 5, 2009 • 11:47 am

I am Detective Constable 4078 FERGUSON of the Leicestershire Constabulary currently stationed on the Major Crime Unit and engaged on enquiries on Operation Task.

At 10:19 hours on Wednesday 9th April 2008 I was present at an interview suite at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters when I commenced a recorded interview with the witness Matthew OLDFIELD.

The interview ceased at 11:22 hours.

This interview was recorded onto DVD and a master copy and a working copy were produced.

I produce the master copy of this DVD as exhibit reference S.V.F.115 and the working copy as exhibit reference S.V.F.116

I have had the opportunity to read and check through a transcript made of this interview and I produce the transcript of the interview as exhibit reference S.V.F.116A

At 11:54 hours on Wednesday 9th April 2008 I was present at an interview suite at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters when I commenced a recorded interview with the witness Matthew OLDFIELD.

The interview ceased at 13:08 hours.

This interview was recorded onto DVD and a master copy and a working copy were produced.

I produce the master copy of this DVD as exhibit reference S.V.F.117 and the working copy as exhibit reference S.V.F.118

I have had the opportunity to read and check through a transcript made of this interview and I produce the transcript of the interview as exhibit reference S.V.F.118A.

At 14:14 hours on Wednesday 9th April 2008 I was present at an interview suite at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters when I commenced a recorded interview with the witness Matthew OLDFIELD.

The interview ceased at 14:51 hours.

This interview was recorded onto DVD and a master copy and a working copy were produced. (Page 1)

I produce the master copy of this DVD as exhibit reference S.V.F.119 and the working copy as exhibit reference S.V.F.120

Technical problems were experienced during this interview and no data was recorded.

At 15:18 hours on Wednesday 9th April 2008 I was present at an interview suite at Leicestershire Police Force Headquarters when I commenced a recorded interview with the witness Matthew OLDFIELD.

The interview ceased at 15:38 hours.

This interview was recorded onto DVD and a master copy and a working copy were produced.

I produce the master copy of this DVD as exhibit reference S.V.F.121 and the working copy as exhibit reference S.V.F.122

I have had the opportunity to read and check through a transcript made of this interview and I produce the transcript of the interview as exhibit reference S.V.F.122A.

During this interview process the witness Matthew OLDFIELD marked on a copy of exhibit D.M.2 (a plan of the area) which is now produced as exhibit reference M.O.1.

Later the same day I returned to Barunstone Police Station where I placed all of the discs for the interviews and exhibit M.O.1 into a secure store.

At 15:10 hours on Monday 14th April 2008 I it out of the secure store and handed exhibit M.O.1 to exhibits officer 7383 CRAVEN.

At 15:50 hours on Monday 14th April 2008 I handed exhibits S.V.F.115, 116, 117, 118, 119, 120, 121 and 122 to exhibits officer 7383 CRAVEN having taken them out of the secure store.

AT 8:15 hours on 8th May 2008 I took exhibits S.V.F.116, S.V.F.118 and S.V.F.122 from Exhibits Officer CRAVEN and retained possession of them until 09:00am on Friday 9th May 2008 when I returned them to Exhibits Officer CRAVEN.

This statement is made by myself and is true to the best of my knowledge and belief.

Signed: S FERGUSON
----------------------------------------------------------

Right, I think this statement is interesting. Ferguson records 4 interviews in toto.
The format is that Ferguson records an interview. There is a break. She produces a master copy and a working copy DVD of the interview. She reads and checks the transcript of the interview and produces the transcript. From her setting out one is to conclude this activity is carried out during the breaks between interview.

So:
Interview 1 produces Master Copy SVF 115: Working Copy SVF 116: Transcript SVF116A
Interview 2 produces Master Copy SVF 117: Working Copy SVF 118: Transcript SVF118A
After both these operations note that Ferguson states the following using exactly the same phraseology, viz: 'I have had the opportunity to read and check through a transcript made of this interview and I produce the transcript of the interview as exhibit reference. (and she fills the applicable ref for transcripts with the suffix A)'

Now this:
Interview 3 Master Copy SVF 119: Working Copy: SVF 120:
Technical difficulties were experienced during this interview and no data was recorded.

I'm a little surprised that with such diligence paid to the letter of what was done recorded in this rigid format, there is sudden and unexpected deviation in language. DC Ferguson did not state the expected 'I have had the opportunity to check etc.........' She might have continued: but was unable to make a transcript as no data had recorded due to technical difficulties. I can only deduce that this dropping of 'the opportunity to' is significant. After all when all five of Russell O'Brien's interviews taken over a period of five hours the next day ALL failed to record, I would have expected a similar signed statement from the interviewing officer laying out in terms what has happened as DC Ferguson was clearly asked to do, or herself requested to do, in order to cover herself.

Interview 4 Master Copy SVF 121: Working Copy: SVF 122: Transcript: SVF 122A : Exhibit MO1 (where MO marks on a plan of the area , DM2)

It is helpful to remember that the numbers run 115 through 122. The odds are the Master DVDs, the evens are the working copy, the evens+A are the transcripts.

On the following Monday ( 18th April) at 3.10 pm the exhibits officer 7383 Craven asks Ferguson for the plan MO1 that Oldfield has marked. She takes it from secure store.
At 3.50pm (40 mins later) he returns and asks for all Master Copies and Working Copy DVDs (including the two duds 119 and 120) For the record these are 115 through 122. She hands them over from secure store.

Fast forward nearly a month. And at 8.15am on 8th May she receives back 116, 118, 122 from Craven and 'retains possession' of them until Friday 9am when she returns them to Officer Craven. Now Ferguson has been meticulous about stating when these items have been whisked in and out of the secure store right up until this point. Now the language changes and she keeps them in her possession overnight. There is no further reference to them being returned to Ferguson's keeping so future handling of these DVDs is not known. The recorded exchanges end with these three being handed back to Craven.

So, Craven took all DVDs 115 through 122. Briefly returns Nos 116, 118 and 122 overnight (remember these are three working copies that are returned to her, their twin master copies remain with Craven).. Why do that? He's had them nearly a month.

Remember also Craven retains both the Master Copy and the Working copy (119 and 120) which are the duds, never returning them within the recorded history of Ferguson. He comes back the next morning for Nos 116,118, 122 which for some inexplicable reason needed to reside overnight with Ferguson when he had retained their Master Copy twins of 115,117 and 121 plus the the Master copy and Working Copy duds.

There is no mention of the transcripts (A) going into secure store. They were elsewhere.

Given that these 4 interviews with Matthew Oldfield were done on the 8th April and one failed to record would it have been too much to expect Leicester Police to get their act together THE VERY NEXT DAY? On the 9th April Russell O'Brien spent from just before 10 am until 8.15pm giving a series of 5 interviews spaced out over TEN HOURS THE DAY AFTER THE TECHNICAL FAILURE OF 1/4 OF OLDFIELD'S INTERVIEWS LEFT A GAPING HOLE IN THE NARRATIVE.

A new tongue twister for y'all: The Leicester Police displeaseth us.

by Cristobell 25.03.14 13:36

j.rob wrote:There is often a huge culture of cover-up within large organisations and institutions and the whistle blower is often hounded down and metaphorically shot in the back. The NHS is bad in this respect as I myself have witnessed at first hand. Education is another area where there can be a culture of bullying and narcissistic behaviour - and I'm not just talking about the pupils! Again, I have had first hand experience of this and it ain't pretty. It only takes one psychopath (or similar) quite high up in the organization to infect practically the whole organization. The fall out can be astounding as staff are bullied and targeted with psychological 'mind games' (often the attacker will accuse the target of the precise behaviour that they themselves are guilty of - for instance: 'you are unprofessional', 'you can't cope with the pressure', 'it's all in your head', 'you have an attitude problem'.

I've seen it again and again so now I can spot it a mile off. It's toxic behaviour and, unless you are clued up on it, it can leave you blind-sided. And attackers will often target those in a weak position, those who are not able to walk away easily, those who are dependent. They will carefully chose their 'victims' who will tend to have certain qualities that they themselves lack.

Hence the sexual abuse of children in children's homes (for instance Casa Pia). Those children are some of the most vulnerable in society.

The McCann story relies very heavily on the fact that this was a large group of professional people on a summer holiday with their young children at a holiday camp. To the average non-psychopathic person this will lead to a number of assumptions about the holiday. For instance, that the professionals will be respectable, caring parents who will be devoted to their children's well-being and happiness. That the parents will put a high priority on their children's emotional, physical and psychological well-being.

And so on.

After all, if you thought that your GP or your Consultant was the type of person who neglected or was abusive in some way towards children, or who had a deviant or anti-social characteristics you would not be able to trust them with your health or your children's health - the most important things you have, probably.

Unfortunately, there will be those in all fields who will abuse their position of trust to gain a perverted advantage over others. It only takes a gullible public who has been brainwashed into certain assumptions and prejudices.

But I do think that in Britain our sickness has been pretty bad for some time. The McCann Fiasco is the icing on the giant pile of dung.

So true Rob, I've seen it many times as well, within all sorts of environments. Strangely I saw it more in the education and care industries than I ever did when I worked in the private sector.

by Doug D 25.03.14 13:43

MO interview part 3 at 14.14, technical problems, therefore no recording & no transcript of an interview that lasted 37 minutes.

Yet RO’B:

‘The interviews were visually recorded, however I understand that due to technical difficulties the equipment failed to record……….

I have been informed that this statement has been made from the monitoring notes which were taken at the time of the interviews being conducted.’

So they managed to come up with seemingly comprehensive transcripts for a whole days worth of interviews, yet couldn’t do the same for 37 minutes worth.

As with most things in this case, it just does not ring true & how convenient that the technical failures arise in order to not provide an effective audit trail of evidence and therefore enable ‘whooshability’ to any statements that may fall outside the party line.

The comprehensive nature of the RO’B transcripts leads me to conclude that either:

a/. a stenographer was present during the interview (but would surely have been introduced at the beginning, which didn’t happen & also the ‘taken from monitoring notes’ statement seems to preclude this)

b/. Technical failures happened after the event and after the transcripts were made (and adjusted or doctored?).

Maybe BHH, with his anti-corruption cap on, should be asked some further questions about general procedures for interviews & methods employed for checking that the vital recording equipment is working (I know this wasn’t the Met. but the principle is the same).

by j.rob 25.03.14 15:50

"So true Rob, I've seen it many times as well, within all sorts of environments. Strangely I saw it more in the education and care industries than I ever did when I worked in the private sector."

Yes Cristobell, couldn't agree more. I have worked in the private sector in some pretty cut-throat environments but I never saw the same level of outright bullying and victimization that I saw in the education and care industries. There needs to be a more robust screening process to weed out the psychopaths/sadists and other assorted wierdos who can wreak absolute havoc in these supposedly 'caring' environments. Hiding their perverted tendencies behind smokescreens of 'care'.

Astonishingly, or perhaps not, there are also more than a few nutters in among the ranks of the therapy/counselling/mental health industries. So there is not even necessarily any respite there for those who have been exposed to victimization, bullying or abuse. It really is quite a sorry state of affairs.

I blame it partly on an intensely competitive culture that places emphasis on profit and achievement as opposed to other values. As recent scandals have shown, the screening processes simply are not robust enough for highly sensitive roles such as caring for vulnerable children and so on. And if (at least some of) the politicians, senior police and other high ranking officers and professionals are going to close ranks and protect the guilty, then what hope is there? The legal and medical professions in the UK are pretty much self-regulating. Which has lead to all sorts of abuses of power. And there are countless stories of errant police (or social workers etc) being pensioned off on full salary. And all paid for by the tax payer! Nice work if you can get it.

And now we have Clarence Mitchell standing as an MP - really, that says it all!

by Cristobell 25.03.14 16:16

j.rob wrote:"So true Rob, I've seen it many times as well, within all sorts of environments. Strangely I saw it more in the education and care industries than I ever did when I worked in the private sector."

Yes Cristobell, couldn't agree more. I have worked in the private sector in some pretty cut-throat environments but I never saw the same level of outright bullying and victimization that I saw in the education and care industries. There needs to be a more robust screening process to weed out the psychopaths/sadists and other assorted wierdos who can wreak absolute havoc in these supposedly 'caring' environments. Hiding their perverted tendencies behind smokescreens of 'care'.

Astonishingly, or perhaps not, there are also more than a few nutters in among the ranks of the therapy/counselling/mental health industries. So there is not even necessarily any respite there for those who have been exposed to victimization, bullying or abuse. It really is quite a sorry state of affairs.

I blame it partly on an intensely competitive culture that places emphasis on profit and achievement as opposed to other values. As recent scandals have shown, the screening processes simply are not robust enough for highly sensitive roles such as caring for vulnerable children and so on. And if (at least some of) the politicians, senior police and other high ranking officers and professionals are going to close ranks and protect the guilty, then what hope is there? The legal and medical professions in the UK are pretty much self-regulating. Which has lead to all sorts of abuses of power. And there are countless stories of errant police (or social workers etc) being pensioned off on full salary. And all paid for by the tax payer! Nice work if you can get it.

And now we have Clarence Mitchell standing as an MP - really, that says it all!

Your words should be in the national newspapers Rob, these people will continue to work in these jobs unless they do.

by j.rob 25.03.14 17:22

I've done my best but people don't want to believe these things, preferring to point the finger at the whistle-blower. We've seen it with the McCanns. People would rather believe in fairy tales of the big bogey-man abductor than accept that parents (and doctors) might sometimes cause harm to those in their care. It is unpalatable. There is, or certainly has been, a massive cover-up culture in the NHS. There are unlimited resources (tax payers money) available whereas individuals, in general, who have been damaged by the 'care' received, will have limited time and resources. Not to mention limited resilience.

In my opinion this is what we saw with the Dr Wakefield MMR scenario. He raised a few questions that were quite simply 'too hot to handle' and was thrown to the wolves when in reality why it it wrong to investigate possible health risks associated with vaccines? Surely the health and well-being of healthy babies and children is paramount? The Health Protection Agency is a pretty dodgy body, imo, and has more to do with pushing commercial interests than protecting health. The press were also effectively gagged over this and a Murdoch hack, Brian Deer, was encouraged to carry out an extraordinarily vindictive vendetta against Dr Wakefield who was only, as Amaral might say 'doing his job'.

It was extraordinary the degree to which Wakefield's study was criticized when the reality is that huge number of drug studies are manipulated to come up with the required results.

It was interesting to observe the tactics used in order to discredit anyone who was prepared to keep an open mind in the Wakefield case. Anyone who did not buy the Health Protection Agency spin was labelled an 'anti' or an 'extremist'. The attacks were positively savage when in reality why is it wrong to be concerned about possible risks associated with medical procedures that are routine? Dr Roberts did an excellent job of following the Wakefield case and writing intelligently about it.

In the earlier years of the McCann story, we saw a similar type of attack on anyone who questioned the McCann version of events. And the McCanns were able to use the full weight of the legal system to silence their critics.

But the tide is turning. The McCanns, rather like Brian Deer, are looking shabby, creepy, a national embarrassment, imo.

by HelenMeg 26.03.14 10:33

j.rob wrote:I've done my best but people don't want to believe these things, preferring to point the finger at the whistle-blower. We've seen it with the McCanns. People would rather believe in fairy tales of the big bogey-man abductor than accept that parents (and doctors) might sometimes cause harm to those in their care. It is unpalatable. There is, or certainly has been, a massive cover-up culture in the NHS. There are unlimited resources (tax payers money) available whereas individuals, in general, who have been damaged by the 'care' received, will have limited time and resources. Not to mention limited resilience.

In my opinion this is what we saw with the Dr Wakefield MMR scenario. He raised a few questions that were quite simply 'too hot to handle' and was thrown to the wolves when in reality why it it wrong to investigate possible health risks associated with vaccines? Surely the health and well-being of healthy babies and children is paramount? The Health Protection Agency is a pretty dodgy body, imo, and has more to do with pushing commercial interests than protecting health. The press were also effectively gagged over this and a Murdoch hack, Brian Deer, was encouraged to carry out an extraordinarily vindictive vendetta against Dr Wakefield who was only, as Amaral might say 'doing his job'.

It was extraordinary the degree to which Wakefield's study was criticized when the reality is that huge number of drug studies are manipulated to come up with the required results.

It was interesting to observe the tactics used in order to discredit anyone who was prepared to keep an open mind in the Wakefield case. Anyone who did not buy the Health Protection Agency spin was labelled an 'anti' or an 'extremist'. The attacks were positively savage when in reality why is it wrong to be concerned about possible risks associated with medical procedures that are routine? Dr Roberts did an excellent job of following the Wakefield case and writing intelligently about it.

In the earlier years of the McCann story, we saw a similar type of attack on anyone who questioned the McCann version of events. And the McCanns were able to use the full weight of the legal system to silence their critics.

But the tide is turning. The McCanns, rather like Brian Deer, are looking shabby, creepy, a national embarrassment, imo.

Yes it does seem that they have developed into a national embarrassment. I also agree that some people prefer not to contemplate that parents (and doctors) might sometimes cause harm to those in their care. They prefer to live in a very safe 'children's program' type world rather than acknowledge that there are
disturbed people out there. I remember watching endless installments of Bob the Builder and Postman Pat and thinking how great it would be to live in those very safe worlds. I remember wondering whether there should be a syndrome named for people whop would prefer to live in makebelieve 'Enid Blyton' worlds.

It is hard for many members of the public to believe that this bunch of dotors could 'cover up' the death of one of their children.

by notlongnow 26.03.14 11:01

If we go down the whitewash route will this leave sniffer dogs as useless evidence in any British courtroom?

Also if the PJ come to a different conclusion than SY, will the UK hand over UK citizens if they have found them not guilty from there investigation?

by Bishop Brennan 26.03.14 14:07

notlongnow wrote:If we go down the whitewash route will this leave sniffer dogs as useless evidence in any British courtroom?

Also if the PJ come to a different conclusion than SY, will the UK hand over UK citizens if they have found them not guilty from there investigation?

I think it will depend on the strength of the evidence. If they can prove that she died before 9:10pm or find evidence of her body linked to a mccann then yes, extradition will happen. But I can't see it. What additional evidence can they find? The hair? Unlikely to be good enough. That's what makes a whitewash a high risk. The simple fact that no other evidence is likely to be found confirming amaral's initial theory.

My fear is that they both plan to abandon the case soon, declaring her "probably dead, and probably killed by a dead or unfindable sex offender". They may argue over which one but will agree in principle.

Shocking waste of money if that's what happens!

by Liz Eagles 26.03.14 20:55

Scotland Yard's Andy Redwood has said the McCanns and the T7 are not suspects. He hasn't said once that during the review and subsequent opening of an investigation that his team have interviewed and cleared them and they are categorically not guilty of anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I find that strange. It would have been a very simple thing to state if that were the case. There would be absolutely no doubt left that the T9 had been investigated and eliminated by SY.

by **PeterMac** 27.03.14 15:33

No 1362 21 March - 3 April
p.24

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]" />

by jeanmonroe 27.03.14 15:46

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

Enlarged for my tired old eyes.

by petunia 27.03.14 21:16

Brings to mind.A Leopard doesn't change it's spots overnight if BHH told me it was sunny outside I would go look out of the window rather than take his word for it.

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 13:14

aquila wrote:Scotland Yard's Andy Redwood has said the McCanns and the T7 are not suspects. He hasn't said once that during the review and subsequent opening of an investigation that his team have interviewed and cleared them and they are categorically not guilty of anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I find that strange. It would have been a very simple thing to state if that were the case. There would be absolutely no doubt left that the T9 had been investigated and eliminated by SY.

That is a strange move Redwood made I must say.
At that stage unless he'd unearthed names of the suspects/perpetrators who held Madeleine or responsible for Madeleine's fate (ie death) provided also that he knew at that stage it would only be a question of time before they close in on the suspects/perpetrators, then it seems ODD that he should proclaim anything at all.

The Pertinent question is undoubtedly - what made Redwood come to the conclusion that the Mccanns and friends were not POI when it is apparent from CW and two appeals his team remains clueless about the identity of the e-fit-guys or whether they are connected to Madeleine disappearance or not ?

It makes no sense to announce her parents & friends not under Police radar yet at the same time demonstrate by their appeals they're clueless who had Madeleine or what happened to her. You can't eliminate any factor without already having a known factor.

by lj 28.03.14 13:57

aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:Scotland Yard's Andy Redwood has said the McCanns and the T7 are not suspects. He hasn't said once that during the review and subsequent opening of an investigation that his team have interviewed and cleared them and they are categorically not guilty of anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I find that strange. It would have been a very simple thing to state if that were the case. There would be absolutely no doubt left that the T9 had been investigated and eliminated by SY.

That is a strange move Redwood made I must say.
At that stage unless he'd unearthed names of the suspects/perpetrators who held Madeleine or responsible for Madeleine's fate (ie death) provided also that he knew at that stage it would only be a question of time before they close in on the suspects/perpetrators, then it seems ODD that he should proclaim anything at all.

The Pertinent question is undoubtedly - what made Redwood come to the conclusion that the Mccanns and friends were not POI when it is apparent from CW and two appeals his team remains clueless about the identity of the e-fit-guys or whether they are connected to Madeleine disappearance or not ?

It makes no sense to announce her parents & friends not under Police radar yet at the same time demonstrate by their appeals they're clueless who had Madeleine or what happened to her. You can't eliminate any factor without already having a known factor.

I don't think it was a conclusion, it was their starting point that all tapaszniks were not persons of interest. Time and again they reinforced that, emphasizing that the pathetic parents suffered a lot/enough.

How can a starting point like that give any other result than serious flawed.

by Guest 28.03.14 14:49

I don't put [too much] weight on that. Didn't also the PJ in 2007 say the McCs were not suspects, shortly before making them arguidos ...?

by Guest 28.03.14 15:04

lj wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:Scotland Yard's Andy Redwood has said the McCanns and the T7 are not suspects. He hasn't said once that during the review and subsequent opening of an investigation that his team have interviewed and cleared them and they are categorically not guilty of anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I find that strange. It would have been a very simple thing to state if that were the case. There would be absolutely no doubt left that the T9 had been investigated and eliminated by SY.

That is a strange move Redwood made I must say.
At that stage unless he'd unearthed names of the suspects/perpetrators who held Madeleine or responsible for Madeleine's fate (ie death) provided also that he knew at that stage it would only be a question of time before they close in on the suspects/perpetrators, then it seems ODD that he should proclaim anything at all.

The Pertinent question is undoubtedly - what made Redwood come to the conclusion that the Mccanns and friends were not POI when it is apparent from CW and two appeals his team remains clueless about the identity of the e-fit-guys or whether they are connected to Madeleine disappearance or not ?

It makes no sense to announce her parents & friends not under Police radar yet at the same time demonstrate by their appeals they're clueless who had Madeleine or what happened to her. You can't eliminate any factor without already having a known factor.

I don't think it was a conclusion, it was their starting point that all tapaszniks were not persons of interest. Time and again they reinforced that, emphasizing that the pathetic parents suffered a lot/enough.

How can a starting point like that give any other result than serious flawed.

Perhaps they bought into KM's idea of "there would be riots" if declared suspects.
Or they wanted to get on with their investigation without all the evidence available in the PJ files being thrashed out in the tabloids interfering with the process. The media frenzy that would follow does not bear thinking about. Look that way not this way.
And when the time comes they will just be arrested, quietly.
Something that they cannot do until all possible escape routes have been firmly sealed off.
Or maybe they needed to include the MCs to some degree to get them onside to prevent they lawyering up even more so that they could get some questions answered indirectly.
Or maybe it's one great big cover-up, as ordered by persons who value their own reputations more than the life of a defenceless little girl.
If this last option is the case I hope there is at least one person left in this sorry mess with the vestiges of a conscience who has the guts to whistleblow.

by lj 28.03.14 15:05

Châtelaine wrote:I don't put [too much] weight on that. Didn't also the PJ in 2007 say the McCs were not suspects, shortly before making them arguidos ...?

Yeah, that was at a direct question however. With SY these statement were mostly made without a direct question about that, and garnished with a lot of pain and suffering carp. If Sy had kept their statements a bit more as the PJ did at that time it would not have become such a farce as it is now.

by Watching 28.03.14 15:17

Châtelaine wrote:I don't put [too much] weight on that. Didn't also the PJ in 2007 say the McCs were not suspects, shortly before making them arguidos ...?

PJ were in process of thoroughly investigating Mr & Mrs when asked. Then shortly after made their statement, made Mr & Mrs arguido

SY - Did they investigate thoroughly Mr & Mrs before declaring that they were not suspects or persons of interest before they made their statement? Would seem not!

That might be difference in two scenarios - the 'starting point' as lj said?

by jeanmonroe 28.03.14 15:24

SY = TOTALLY 'abduction' ONLY (because ONLY the McCanns TOLD them THAT)

PJ = TOTALLY 'parental/friends involvement' ONLY (because the 'lies' from the parents/friends and the DOGS told them THAT)

by **PeterMac** 29.03.14 10:35

A significant amount of new evidence of Abduction was delivered by hand to Operation Grange yesterday.

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

by Guest 29.03.14 11:40

Refreshing, after having had to "wade" selectively through lengthy threads this morning in order to catch up with discussion after yesterday afternoon.

by **tigger** 29.03.14 13:29

PeterMac wrote:A significant amount of new evidence of Abduction was delivered by hand to Operation Grange yesterday.

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

I don't know PeterMac, if it was sent by TNT there might have been contents which were lost in transit.
Or wouldn't it be lovely just to have the tiniest vital clue in the middle of that box? Dog biscuit?

Which takes me off topic but does anyone remember TNT losing the personal details of millions of Britons? Not once but twice, about 10 years ago. All data on cds/dvds.

by aiyoyo 29.03.14 23:29

dantezebu wrote:
lj wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:Scotland Yard's Andy Redwood has said the McCanns and the T7 are not suspects. He hasn't said once that during the review and subsequent opening of an investigation that his team have interviewed and cleared them and they are categorically not guilty of anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I find that strange. It would have been a very simple thing to state if that were the case. There would be absolutely no doubt left that the T9 had been investigated and eliminated by SY.

That is a strange move Redwood made I must say.
At that stage unless he'd unearthed names of the suspects/perpetrators who held Madeleine or responsible for Madeleine's fate (ie death) provided also that he knew at that stage it would only be a question of time before they close in on the suspects/perpetrators, then it seems ODD that he should proclaim anything at all.

The Pertinent question is undoubtedly - what made Redwood come to the conclusion that the Mccanns and friends were not POI when it is apparent from CW and two appeals his team remains clueless about the identity of the e-fit-guys or whether they are connected to Madeleine disappearance or not ?

It makes no sense to announce her parents & friends not under Police radar yet at the same time demonstrate by their appeals they're clueless who had Madeleine or what happened to her. You can't eliminate any factor without already having a known factor.

I don't think it was a conclusion, it was their starting point that all tapaszniks were not persons of interest. Time and again they reinforced that, emphasizing that the pathetic parents suffered a lot/enough.

How can a starting point like that give any other result than serious flawed.

Perhaps they bought into KM's idea of "there would be riots" if declared suspects.
Or they wanted to get on with their investigation without all the evidence available in the PJ files being thrashed out in the tabloids interfering with the process. The media frenzy that would follow does not bear thinking about. Look that way not this way.
And when the time comes they will just be arrested, quietly.
Something that they cannot do until all possible escape routes have been firmly sealed off.
Or maybe they needed to include the MCs to some degree to get them onside to prevent they lawyering up even more so that they could get some questions answered indirectly.
Or maybe it's one great big cover-up, as ordered by persons who value their own reputations more than the life of a defenceless little girl.
If this last option is the case I hope there is at least one person left in this sorry mess with the vestiges of a conscience who has the guts to whistleblow.

Sad to say there can be one million and one reasons why Redwood proclaimed Mccanns & Co as NOT persons of interest.
When there is not one single reason why he should need to make any proclamation at all about them one way or another.
Why not say NOTHING? What difference would it make in the grand scheme of things ?

by lj 02.04.14 5:53

aiyoyo wrote:
dantezebu wrote:
lj wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
aquila wrote:Scotland Yard's Andy Redwood has said the McCanns and the T7 are not suspects. He hasn't said once that during the review and subsequent opening of an investigation that his team have interviewed and cleared them and they are categorically not guilty of anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

I find that strange. It would have been a very simple thing to state if that were the case. There would be absolutely no doubt left that the T9 had been investigated and eliminated by SY.

That is a strange move Redwood made I must say.
At that stage unless he'd unearthed names of the suspects/perpetrators who held Madeleine or responsible for Madeleine's fate (ie death) provided also that he knew at that stage it would only be a question of time before they close in on the suspects/perpetrators, then it seems ODD that he should proclaim anything at all.

The Pertinent question is undoubtedly - what made Redwood come to the conclusion that the Mccanns and friends were not POI when it is apparent from CW and two appeals his team remains clueless about the identity of the e-fit-guys or whether they are connected to Madeleine disappearance or not ?

It makes no sense to announce her parents & friends not under Police radar yet at the same time demonstrate by their appeals they're clueless who had Madeleine or what happened to her. You can't eliminate any factor without already having a known factor.

I don't think it was a conclusion, it was their starting point that all tapaszniks were not persons of interest. Time and again they reinforced that, emphasizing that the pathetic parents suffered a lot/enough.

How can a starting point like that give any other result than serious flawed.

Perhaps they bought into KM's idea of "there would be riots" if declared suspects.
Or they wanted to get on with their investigation without all the evidence available in the PJ files being thrashed out in the tabloids interfering with the process. The media frenzy that would follow does not bear thinking about. Look that way not this way.
And when the time comes they will just be arrested, quietly.
Something that they cannot do until all possible escape routes have been firmly sealed off.
Or maybe they needed to include the MCs to some degree to get them onside to prevent they lawyering up even more so that they could get some questions answered indirectly.
Or maybe it's one great big cover-up, as ordered by persons who value their own reputations more than the life of a defenceless little girl.
If this last option is the case I hope there is at least one person left in this sorry mess with the vestiges of a conscience who has the guts to whistleblow.

Sad to say there can be one million and one reasons why Redwood proclaimed Mccanns & Co as NOT persons of interest.
When there is not one single reason why he should need to make any proclamation at all about them one way or another.
Why not say NOTHING? What difference would it make in the grand scheme of things ?

Exactly

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 15:20

Pat Brown's latest entry in her blog

:sigh:: A lot of really nice people desperately want to believe that DCI Andy Redwood and Scotland Yard are about to shock the world with a brilliant check and mate that is going to see Kate and Gerry McCann led off in handcuffs, arrested for the death and disappearance of their daughter Madeleine McCann. In fact, they are so desperate for there to be a proper resolution to this case, they actually find sense in the twisted logic of some fellow who spends a good portion of his pro-Scotland Yard blog post slandering me and mocking my grammar abilities (he doesn't recognize a typo when he sees one...but, whatever). Normally, I don't respond to haters (especially if they have something useful to say outside of denigrating me) but I want to respond to the Kool-Aid he is selling to hopeful folk who normally don't believe in fairy tales.

Yes, of course he (Redwood) is eliminating all other possibilities - that is his job and any scenario he overlooks and fails to eliminate could be used by the McCanns in any future trial to demonstrate police incompetence and could be part of their (undoubtedly extensive) defence.

BWAHAHAHA!

Dude, it's NOT a British case! It doesn't matter what the heck Scotland Yard detectives do or don't do because it is not going to be an issue in a Portuguese court of law. Secondly, following solid evidentiary leads may well support a prosecutorial case as far as not leaving the door open for the defence to shed doubt on the police work, but ignoring all the evidence and spending a silly amount of time and money on totally unrelated leads is a sign of incompetence; the defence could completely destroy the detectives in court by pointing out that they clearly had so little viable evidence against the defendants that they found it necessary to follow-up on every ridiculous tip and possible alternative scenario.

The solution is determined from the evidence, not Pat Brown's rather less than exhaustive list of options.

I had commented that you can't eliminate every possible scenario because there can always be another ridiculous scenario someone can dream up that could be the cause for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. So, this fellow is claiming here that it isn't about how many scenarios one can come up with but determining which scenario is correct from the evidence. Evidence? Ummm...yeah, that is the evidence from the apartment and the Tapas 9, so why would one need to eliminate a dozen scenarios to which the evidence does not point? Again, eliminating a whole bunch of scenarios is pointless because this means the detectives are not working FROM the crime scene evidence. In fact, all they are appearing to do is to be searching for that one scenario they can link BACK to the crime (confession, body on property, Maddie's clothing.etc,....but you can bet it will in the end just be confession or circumstantial evidence). This proves, yet again, Scotland Yard is indicating that they have already determined that evidence from the scene and the Tapas 9 has no validity.

Who says that they haven't reviewed the physical behavioural evidence from the crime scene?

Really? Didn't Redwood state that the McCanns are not suspects and that this was an abduction?

Yes, he did, so this could mean only one of two things: one, he is ignoring the evidence, or, two, he is lying about ignoring the evidence. It appears my detractor believes Redwood is telling a piles of lies in order to lull the McCanns into a sense of complacency and then, somehow, come up with enough evidence (from where?) to the arrest the duo....yeah, some awesomely clever police strategy that has no precedent in all of police investigative history.

Alright, let us take a look at how he is trying to trap the McCanns.

He did a fake reconstruction on Crimewatch during which time he bolstered the McCanns' veracity by "proving" Tannerman to be real and not a kidnapper cooked up by Tapas 9 conspirators.

Ah, yes, you say, but, this now means Tannerman can't be Gerry's alibi! Redwood eliminated Gerry's alibi and then he focused right in on the guy seen by the Smith family, the one they say they think is Gerry. Doesn't that mean that Scotland Yard is cannily pointing to Gerry as the one seen carrying off a Maddie-like child at a time when he has no real alibi?

Not at all. Think back to the statement by Redwood that the McCanns are not suspects and that this is an abduction. He is TELLING the world that the man the Smiths saw that looked like Gerry cannot possibly be Gerry, so don't call in any tips that would implicate Gerry McCann. If you saw that same man come out of the McCann flat and walk directly toward the point where the Smiths witnessed a man carrying a little girl, it doesn't matter because you will not be believed; you are a fabricator or a McCann hater; it is not Gerry, so don't say it is. Hence, right up front, Redwood has prevented any and all information that might have corroborated the Smith sighting as Gerry from being brought to their attention. Right there is massive proof the McCanns are not being considered in the mix. In fact, it is clear as a bell that Redwood is fishing for a look-alike that will clear Gerry, another version of Tannerman, a man carrying his kid home from some location near the McCanns' flat. It doesn't matter whether anyone really does call in with such a person; Scotland Yard can just say they have received information clearing Gerry just as they did with this supposed Tannerman bloke, the guy carrying his child in the wrong direction (toward rather than away from the creche).

All I see happening with these Scotland Yard shenanigans is an attempt to clear the McCanns bit by bit and, in the process, completely discredit the PJ by constantly pointing out that they did not conduct a thorough investigation, which is why Scotland Yard's investigators have to go back over ever bit of information and every lead (with the exception of the actual evidence); the PJ did NOT find Tannerman, they did not find the Gerry look-alike, they did NOT investigate Tractorman, Binman, the British pedophile, or those charity men.....the PJ simply failed to clear the McCanns properly and they failed to follow-up on the abduction theory with due diligence.

THIS is the reality of what is being played out. It is clear as a bell to me yet I feel a need to ring that bell one more time so folks can see that Santa Claus does not exist and neither does an honest Scotland Yard review. Our only hope lies in the PJ, that they decide to truly conduct their own investigation following the evidence and not the directives of politicians, that they decide truth and justice should prevail and not a myriad of agendas that have nothing to do with what really happened to Madeleine McCann i Praia da Luz on May 3, 2007.

Criminal Profiler Pat Brown

March 31, 2014

by j.rob 02.04.14 15:31

Oh dear. So we have a white-wash to look forward to? How very depressing.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 16:11

Let's put it this way Pat Brown is not optimistic about the case, and she's a Profiler so maybe she is right, who knows.

Even though I am not negative, my cup is half empty.

If this Review is not over when this year is out, then we might as well pack and go home.
Surely the longevity of this review can't last beyond this year or it will be bloody ludicrous that money is thrown at a case going nowhere.

by HelenMeg 02.04.14 17:17

aiyoyo wrote:Let's put it this way Pat Brown is not optimistic about the case, and she's a Profiler so maybe she is right, who knows.

Even though I am not negative, my cup is half empty.

If this Review is not over when this year is out, then we might as well pack and go home.
Surely the longevity of this review can't last beyond this year or it will be bloody ludicrous that money is thrown at a case going nowhere.

I dont think the world will let them get away with a whitewash, even if they wanted to. The PJ files are out in the open. I'm sure that the government realise a whitewash is no longer an option. Whether we will get the whole truth is a different matter