Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

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!

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.

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?

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.

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.

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.

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 ...?

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 ...?

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

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.

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 ?

 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

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.