Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Cristobell 02.04.14 18:29

I have great respect for Pat Brown, but I'm afraid I do not go along with her theories on this and she may be writing from the perspective of the USA, rather than the much smaller UK. The Madeleine case is quite unique here, and has national, rather than regional attention. We are living in a climate of 'outing' all the corruption that has gone before, and the cases of Stephen Lawrence, Daniel Morgan and Hillsborough are under the spotlight.

The McCann case is hugely controversial and the facts are freely available online to anyone who wants to take a look. What can Scotland Yard hope to achieve in whitewashing the McCanns? Again, if we compare an American case, would a verdict obtained by the CIA or the FBI clearing Amanda Knox in opposition to the verdict reached by the Italian Courts, be credible in the eyes of the world? Would everyone say, the Italians are load of pasta munchers whose judicial system is crap/flawed and their police corrupt? Would a high ranking US politician, or even the President himself authorise this and pay for it using public funds?

I agree it would appear SY are putting on charade that would equal the size and cost of producing a Hollywood blockbuster, but imo, that only reflects the size of the crime and the number of conspirators involved. Three years and 37 homicide officers suggests they are looking for rather more than a lone weirdo who climbed in a window one night.

From David Cameron's perspective, would he risk a diplomatic incident by insulting the Portuguese? He must choose between Portugal (and all future diplomatic relations with that country as a fellow member of the EU) or the not very likeable McCanns, that most people suspect anyway?
Whatever DC achieves or fails to achieve whilst PM will be documented and scrutinized for years to come, does he really want to be remembered as the PM who caused friction between the UK and Portugal if he accepts a whitewashing verdict from SY over the findings of the official Portuguese police.

by Guest 02.04.14 18:56

Small correction, Cristobel. A "blockbuster" production easily matches the 100-200 million, not 8-10 ...

by Doug D 02.04.14 19:07

If anyone is interested and not aware, the critical blog Pat Brown is responding to above is:

James Arbuthnot’s

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

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 19:08

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.]

When an empty box arrived out of the blue, that is red flag that calls for dogs to be used to sniff out the box for cadaverine. lol

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 19:12

HelenMeg wrote:
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

The PJ files may be out in the open, but not on MS domain, and not a lot of people are aware of it.

by j.rob 02.04.14 19:18

Doug D wrote:If anyone is interested and not aware, the critical blog Pat Brown is responding to above is:

James Arbuthnot’s

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

Interesting. Have not the time to go through it all now. But just thinking back to the last Crimewatch, and remembering the look on Redwood's face which was 'rabbit in the headlights' combined with (what looked to me like) acute embarrassment as in 'I can't believe what is going on here'.

Just wondering if the Crimewatch enactment, which appeared to have the McCanns 'on side' was more an exercise in gauging public response? In other words, a kind of 'feeler' exercise, as in 'how much sh** are the public going to put up with? How much support is there still out there? Or does anyone really care?

I would imagine that the only people who really care now are those who do not believe the McCanns, believe they have hoodwinked a gullible public, believe justice should be done for Madeleine and are mighty irritated that so much money has been spent on this absurd 'charade'.

Everyone else is probably just bored to death with the whole case. You can't blame them.

by lj 02.04.14 19:26

aiyoyo wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
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

The PJ files may be out in the open, but not on MS domain, and not a lot of people are aware of it.

Even if they are aware, how many did really read them? I have to confess I only read part: mostly the interviews.

The truth has been out there for almost seven years. It was ignored by most media workers and for sure all TM members. A new load of PJ files will be equally ignored and ridiculed, while Andy's wierdo gallery will be shown for many years to come.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 20:24

Cristobell wrote:I have great respect for Pat Brown, but I'm afraid I do not go along with her theories on this and she may be writing from the perspective of the USA, rather than the much smaller UK. The Madeleine case is quite unique here, and has national, rather than regional attention. We are living in a climate of 'outing' all the corruption that has gone before, and the cases of Stephen Lawrence, Daniel Morgan and Hillsborough are under the spotlight.

While I do not share PB's pessimism, it's unfair to assume you know what market she was writing for when in reality online materlals are not restricted to any particular market but rather free for global viewers.
Apart from that, only those interested in Pat Brown's work would follow her blog with most people following her being case specific rather than out of general interest.

The McCann case is hugely controversial and the facts are freely available online to anyone who wants to take a look. What can Scotland Yard hope to achieve in whitewashing the McCanns? Again, if we compare an American case, would a verdict obtained by the CIA or the FBI clearing Amanda Knox in opposition to the verdict reached by the Italian Courts, be credible in the eyes of the world? Would everyone say, the Italians are load of pasta munchers whose judicial system is crap/flawed and their police corrupt? Would a high ranking US politician, or even the President himself authorise this and pay for it using public funds?

I agree it would appear SY are putting on charade that would equal the size and cost of producing a Hollywood blockbuster, but imo, that only reflects the size of the crime and the number of conspirators involved. Three years and 37 homicide officers suggests they are looking for rather more than a lone weirdo who climbed in a window one night.

The nr. on Redwood team would suggest a serious review. As for size of the crime....err...what size ? S M or L or XL?
How big is the number of conspirators in your view ? And who might the conspirators be again in your view?

From David Cameron's perspective, would he risk a diplomatic incident by insulting the Portuguese? He must choose between Portugal (and all future diplomatic relations with that country as a fellow member of the EU) or the not very likeable McCanns, that most people suspect anyway?
Whatever DC achieves or fails to achieve whilst PM will be documented and scrutinized for years to come, does he really want to be remembered as the PM who caused friction between the UK and Portugal if he accepts a whitewashing verdict from SY over the findings of the official Portuguese police.

I'd hate to think SY did not go in with an open mind yet waste time chasing open-end leads just for a close-minded purpose, so common sense dictates it can't be that.
As to whether they can find the missing piece of evidence that will nail the case, that is another matter.
Judging by the lengthy time they spent still working the case, and so far no indication they're closing on any abductor, it can't be far wrong to deduce they are either clueless or being watertight - one or the other. Many cases are successfully prosecuted based only on strong circumstantial evidence without fool proof evidence so you have to wonder what is holding up Redwood team?

It's hard to buy into Cameron being too concerned one way or another where this Review will lead.
It is a case of Que Sera Sera.....whatever will be will be........
The Mccanns won't be the make or break of his political career, or in any way shape or form affects his historical records adversely.
He's probably more concerned whether there will be return on investment on the money spent.
Apart from that, I believe he would not care one way or another what will befall a pair of otherwise obscure doctors if not for their missing daughter.
He must know Madeleine is dead as must the whole nation if going by statistics parlance.

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 20:34

lj wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
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

The PJ files may be out in the open, but not on MS domain, and not a lot of people are aware of it.

Even if they are aware, how many did really read them? I have to confess I only read part: mostly the interviews.

The truth has been out there for almost seven years. It was ignored by most media workers and for sure all TM members. A new load of PJ files will be equally ignored and ridiculed, while Andy's wierdo gallery will be shown for many years to come.

Only a teeny weeny portion of people know about the released files; and a much lesser portion would have bothered to read if in its entirety even if they were aware of it. So the released files can't be used as a yardstick to measure whether SY will be white wash or not.

by Liz Eagles 02.04.14 20:45

aiyoyo wrote:
lj wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
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

The PJ files may be out in the open, but not on MS domain, and not a lot of people are aware of it.

Even if they are aware, how many did really read them? I have to confess I only read part: mostly the interviews.

The truth has been out there for almost seven years. It was ignored by most media workers and for sure all TM members. A new load of PJ files will be equally ignored and ridiculed, while Andy's wierdo gallery will be shown for many years to come.

Only a teeny weeny portion of people know about the released files; and a much lesser portion would have bothered to read if in its entirety even if they were aware of it. So the released files can't be used as a yardstick to measure whether SY will be white wash or not.

A few weeks ago I was speaking to my brother and he said 'oh gawd, you're not still interested in that case are you?'

I gave him a few snips of information and his jaw dropped. I mentioned COMARE and his ears pricked up.

It's about relevance to the individual. The only relevance to the individual spouted by the McCann Machine is the human interest 'how would you feel if it were your child'. After that it's easy. The PR and media can spout xenophobic trash, invent as many sensational headlines etc as long as it comes back to 'how would you feel if it were your child'.

No-one in the general public reads the files. The attention span of a headline is what matters and it has nothing to do with finding truth (I'll leave justice out of it because justice has little to do with truth in our society).

by aiyoyo 02.04.14 23:22

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

Seems no one believes Tanner, and no one believes Redwood either.

Tannerman and Crecheman is but imaginary figure conjured up by Tanner and Redwood, to each own purpose.

How bizzare is that ?

Tanner did it to help her friends, but how to explain why a top-cop did that ?

by jeanmonroe 03.04.14 0:19

GrumpyCockney ‏
[ltr]@GrumpyCockney[/ltr]
2h
Dear DCI Redwood,
As a retired Met police officer (uniform & CID) I find your pronouncements on the #McCann case a fucking embarrassment

by Bishop Brennan 03.04.14 5:35

Let's not forget the original SY remit: "as if the abduction occurred in the UK". Given that the crime had been pre-defined by the politicians (they were paying for it after all) is it any wonder that the first 3 years have been largely a waste of time and money? The result - ILR's to almost every country in Europe and AR's stated desire to investigate 500+ UK sex offenders (international offenders are not suspects it seems).

I do agree with Pat that there is no cunning plan by AR. He was told to find an abductor and that exactly what he is doing. Does that count as a whitewash? Not unless he deliberately invents one. Perhaps a more likely scenario is that he just keeps plodding along investigating his thousands of leads / actions / ILRs until the money runs out.

One small crumb of investigative comfort that we might snack upon is that having eliminated the most obvious abduction avenues, SY have finally conceded that she may have died before leaving the apartment. It is not a giant leap from this to accepting that maybe the dogs were right all along... and it remains to be seen how far down that path SY will be allowed to travel before being wound up for cost or 'Portuguese obstruction' reasons.

by **tigger** 03.04.14 6:56

jeanmonroe wrote:GrumpyCockney ‏
[ltr]@GrumpyCockney[/ltr]

2h
Dear DCI Redwood,
As a retired Met police officer (uniform & CID) I find your pronouncements on the #McCann case a fucking embarrassment

by **sharonl** 03.04.14 7:31

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

Seems no one believes Tanner, and no one believes Redwood either.

Tannerman and Crecheman is but imaginary figure conjured up by Tanner and Redwood, to each own purpose.

How bizzare is that ?

Tanner did it to help her friends, but how to explain why a top-cop did that ?

To help Mr Cameron's' little friend and keep his little secrets away from the headlines?

by plebgate 03.04.14 8:49

We have been told that PJ are/were working on a different line of enquiry to the SY.     We do not know how far PJ are along with their new investigation but it stands to reason (?) that if there are two separate lines of enquiry and we believe that SY will be a whitewash, then the PJ investigation must be a "proper" job?

Add to that Rocky A who will never keep quiet and I think eventually truth will out.    It is easy for us to keep remembering that Rocky is there in the background, watching and commenting but that is no life for him. Time for him to have some peace now and what gee'd (sp) me up was that he looked a lot happier and looked a lot better when last seen.

I am still cautiously optimistic.

Thanks Doug D for link.   Haven't time to look now but will do so later.

by HelenMeg 03.04.14 12:09

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

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....

by Guest 03.04.14 12:33

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

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....

I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"

by HelenMeg 03.04.14 12:41

Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"

Glad you called ! I dont see how it makes any difference if he is a father as to whether he believes the case wlil get solved. Regarding the dogs.... 'that's not strictly true' OK, then is it partially true? Or is it 'unstrictly' true?

by HelenMeg 03.04.14 12:45

HelenMeg wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"
Glad you called ! I dont see how it makes any difference if he is a father as to whether he believes the case wlil get solved. Regarding the dogs.... 'that's not strictly true' OK, then is it partially true? Or is it 'unstrictly' true?

Hopefully this policeman doesn't know anything - although if he is part of the team then you'd think he
would be fairly aware of progress. Doesn't sound promising (as usual).

by Guest 03.04.14 12:46

HelenMeg wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"
Glad you called ! I dont see how it makes any difference if he is a father as to whether he believes the case wlil get solved. Regarding the dogs.... 'that's not strictly true' OK, then is it partially true? Or is it 'unstrictly' true?

I got the sense that he wanted to dismiss the dogs findings but he didn't want to elaborate...

Also got the sense that he didn't give a monkeys to be honest.

by ultimaThule 03.04.14 12:56

I don't see that the police officer you spoke to 'wanted to dismiss the dogs findings', Andrew, and he was correct to say 'that's not strictly true' when you stated that 'the dogs indicated MBM died in the apartment' as, although one of the EVRD dogs indicated that a corpse had been present behind the sofa and by a bedroom wardrobe, 'the dogs' did not indicate who had died or where and when they met their end.

All in all, I see your conversation as 'indication' that the policeman/parent you spoke to is confident that justice will be done in this case.

by aiyoyo 03.04.14 14:05

Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"
Glad you called ! I dont see how it makes any difference if he is a father as to whether he believes the case wlil get solved. Regarding the dogs.... 'that's not strictly true' OK, then is it partially true? Or is it 'unstrictly' true?
I got the sense that he wanted to dismiss the dogs findings but he didn't want to elaborate...

Also got the sense that he didn't give a monkeys to be honest.

If he'd elaborated I would be shocked !
His comments seem to befit protocol not to breach confidentiality code as is obliged upon Police Officer.
In fact he said more than I expect when he could have said "no comment" to every question.
I am amazed he let on a bit about their investigation by his "that's not strictly true" in reply to your: "the dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment"
I interpret that reply as : neither acknowledging nor refuting the dogs, just that the 'died in the apt' isn't strictly true.
Could MBM have died elsewhere and brought back to the apt ?

His "not strictly true" remark is intriguing, as in there is some true in it perhaps?
So which bit is not strictly true ? The dogs or the death in the apt ?

by aiyoyo 03.04.14 14:11

ultimaThule wrote:I don't see that the police officer you spoke to 'wanted to dismiss the dogs findings', Andrew, and he was correct to say 'that's not strictly true' when you stated that 'the dogs indicated MBM died in the apartment' as, although one of the EVRD dogs indicated that a corpse had been present behind the sofa and by a bedroom wardrobe, 'the dogs' did not indicate who had died or where and when they met their end.

All in all, I see your conversation as 'indication' that the policeman/parent you spoke to is confident that justice will be done in this case.

Dog can't put a name to corpse smell but the Resort historical records show there had never been a death in that apt.
Therefore it you add 2 + 2 together plus all the other things specific to the Mccanns marked by the dogs then it's not difficult to derive at a conclusion.

eta : It's positive that he's confident the case will be solved.

by Mirage 03.04.14 14:20

Well done Andrew 77R.

Justice Tugendhat himself questioned the use of the "abduction" word in his courtroom. Yet SY are allowed to bandy it round. I expect the McCanns told top brass it was an abduction, so they immediately set about enshrining it in the MET's new mission statement, no doubt.

Still, that's the remit Cameron gave them. What can you expect?

by logical 03.04.14 14:29

"Not Strctly True" meens just that.

Because as we all know the dogs didnt indicate that Madeleine Died in the spots indicated only indicated that (more than likely) Madeleines Blood and Cadaver had been in contact with these indications.

The detective saying thats not strictly true is saying in other words that its partially connected to the truth in my opinion. thumbup

by HelenMeg 03.04.14 15:14

Actually, in all other references to Madeleine on the website, it does state 'disappearance'. So , hopefully they will change this reference to abduction in the near future as it is inconsistent.

by lj 03.04.14 15:18

Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"

I think I can safely start drinking that bottle of the finest tequila I put up.
I do need it, although no surprises here.

by lj 03.04.14 15:30

HelenMeg wrote:
Andrew77R wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

See the appeal info in Scotland Yard website. I find it really bad that they have written

' the abduction of a 3 year old ...'.

I have e-mailed them to request that they amend the wording to 'disappearance'. I just find it insulting to members of the public. Anyway....
I rang the number on that website and had a conversation with a policeman from Operation Grange.

Me - the e-fit picture is Gerry Mccann. "policeman - yes we are aware that a lot of people think that"

Me - have you read the original PJ files and why aren't the parents being investigated. "policeman - we cannot comment on any aspect of the investigation"

Me - The dogs indicated that MBM died in the apartment. Policeman "that's not strictly true, i'm not sure where you have got that from?" Me - It's in the original police files, have you actually read them? Policeman - "i'm sorry but i can't comment further"

Me - Do you think this case will ever get solved? Policeman - "as a policeman and a father myself then yes i believe it will"

Me - Can you arrest the Mccanns as they are as guilty as sin? Policeman - "i'm afraid i can't comment on that - goodbye"
Glad you called ! I dont see how it makes any difference if he is a father as to whether he believes the case wlil get solved. Regarding the dogs.... 'that's not strictly true' OK, then is it partially true? Or is it 'unstrictly' true?

It's like being just a bit pregnant, or not strictly dead. GMAB

by **PeterMac** 03.04.14 15:44

It does sound like Police-speak. Desperately NOT wanting to let anything quotable go out, whilst keeping options open.
His comment about the dogs is strictly correct, as has been pointed out. The dogs merely indicated that a body had been at those locations.
Not that it was Madeleine, and not that she died there. That is deductive reasoning, which needs a human mind.

Redwood's contorted use of language indicated to me someone who desperately wanted to say
"Of course everyone knows she is dead and the body has been concealed. That is obvious even to someone of the meanest intellect . . "
but he can't.
Not yet anyway.
And to me he fouled up his case by not having rehearsed what he was going to say when asked that particular set of questions, and ended up gibbering
in exactly the same way as the Tapasniks did during their rogatories when for the first time some very mild questions were asked of them.
Despite the meeting in Rothley and a general idea of the official story they were still unable to speak coherently,and began to babble and gibber.
And that has been preserved on tape for all time.