Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

Ladyinred wrote:candyfloss - is that message for me?

No, not for you LiR

candyfloss wrote:It is understandable I think to most here why Tony would have another name, and we cannot surely blame him.  Now he has admitted it, and there is no point in discussing this any further......can we please return to topic.  

Another name is understandable but it was the way it was used to create support for posts in his real name.That was devious and shames the Forum.I for one never knew it was the same poster.
What other "understandable" deceptions have been posted here?

I have to say that I'd never even noticed Tony's other account until now and I assume that's the same for a lot of others too.

There are a lot worse things going on; let's move on please.

Gillyspot wrote:Not sure I believe in "Smithman" but I can't see an entire family (including youngsters) lying about it. Also IMO the McCanns' have done their best to confuse "Smithman" with "Tannerman" in the general publics eye (how child was carried, clothing etc) - Only THEY can answer WHY they have done this & I can't see this happening anytime soon.

I can't see an entire family lying either. Why would the McCanns ignore Smithman and then suddenly, after two years, make him pivotal to the inquiry by morphing him into Tannerman - even going so far as to change details of the sworn statements of those who had witnessed the sighting (surely that's perverting justice)? In my opinion IF the McCanns genuinely believed that Smithman was a stranger carrying a child that looked like Maddie, they would have publicised it in 2007. And they would definitely not have changed his description in order to match Tannerman - there can be no reasonable explanation for doing that other than Smithman wasn't a stranger. The Smiths seem to me to be an ordinary family who reported what they saw. That's all. The fact that some months later Mr Smith reported the man as looking like Gerry McCann because of the way he walked/carried the child, is not at all strange. Sometimes it's the physical mannerisms of people that stick in our mind - impressionists make a career out of them. People have different opinions on this, but I really can't see Mr Smith deliberately involving his family in this horrible circus; having strangers like Brian Kennedy knocking on his door and being followed around by the press etc.

jhansigirl wrote:Is it possible that the true purpose of OG was to obtain the information that was witheld by the PJ in order to make certain that there is nothing there that could/would 
incriminate / uncover the real protected non-McCann person or persons? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? 

Apologies if this ? has been asked b4?

ETA or even all the evidence files?

I am convinced that was one of the reasons. It is also (in my opinion) one of the reasons why they are so negative about the PJ: they still don't have what they want.

I still have not had a reply to why Tony feels the need for an alias, which it is, not a pseudonym.


I agree with the member who posted a couple of evenings ago about her discomfort with the vilification of the Smith family and Murat, [ for me, especially the former ].

 I don't think that it is acceptable for someone who has engaged in deceit, which Tony has done by pretending to be a different forum member, to call a family liars. Using an alias to pretend that another member of this forum is promoting his theory re the Smiths is out of order imo.

 Whatever name Tony posts under, it is still Tony who is accountable for his posts.

 How many other names has he used on the forum is now what I am wondering, and how many other members are allowed multiple accounts?

 Sorry, I am not prepared to move on from this issue. I think the integrity of the forum is being called into question.

 ETA : to those arguing in Tony's defence that he needs to be careful... he has called the Smiths liars using his real name, so I do not see how an alias protects him.

Getting back on topic and to the idea of a whitewash, which may well have been the initial intention of Operation Grange, and no surprise to any of us here, I fail to see how such an outcome could possibly go unchallenged.  I don't think that Cameron or anyone else behind this charade bargained for the widespread disbelief of the abduction theory and the huge campaign for truth.

So lets just imagine for a moment that this ends in a whitewash. 

1. Madeleine will still not have been found
2. An abductor would have to have been found
3. An arrest would need to be made (unless the abductor is dead)

What possible story could they come up with that would go unchallenged?

The best that I can think of would be something along these lines:

An English man living outside of Europe who was suspected of the attempted abduction of children in an holiday resort was in Praia Da Luz on the night that Madeleine vanished.

He was known to his friends and neighbours as Joe Bloggs but investigations prove that this was not his real name. It is thought that he had as many as four different identities. His true identity is yet to be established.   Police were granted a warrant to search his home in 2007 after he was suspected of attempted kidnap,  but unfortunately he died in a fire that had broken out there and everything in the house was destroyed, including his computer, mobile phone etc.

Police did however, uncover pictures and newspaper clippings of Madeleine McCann and two other cases that he was suspected to have been involved in, from his car.

The children in question cannot be named for legal reasons. 

The abductor was watching the McCanns  for days and knew their movements.

He was watching the apartment every night when the McCanns were out.  Madeleine would often get up from bed and he was watching her through the patio windows, maybe even waving to make friends.

On May 3rd, he dressed in similar clothing to Gerry to reduce the risk of anyone wondering who he was.

After Gerry's last check, Madeleine awoke and got up from bed to look for Gerry.

The abductor calls her to the window and tells the very sleepy Madeleine that he will take her to where her mum is.

He picks her up, and off he goes without entering the apartment.



Sounds absolutely ridiculous doesn't it?  But what could the met possibly say that would hold any more credibility and convince us that they were correct?

Can anyone here come up with a suitable scenario that would go unchallenged?  I don't think so, and I don't think that the Met will be able to do this either.  If they do, they will be facing years of questioning from the public, not to mention that fact that they will look incredibly foolish, especially if Portugal has got anything credible to report.

lj wrote:

jhansigirl wrote:Is it possible that the true purpose of OG was to obtain the information that was witheld by the PJ in order to make certain that there is nothing there that could/would 
incriminate / uncover the real protected non-McCann person or persons? Or am I barking up the wrong tree? 

Apologies if this ? has been asked b4?

ETA or even all the evidence files?

I am convinced that was one of the reasons. It is also (in my opinion) one of the reasons why they are so negative about the PJ: they still don't have what they want.

I think it started as a fishing expedition and Operation Grange wanted everything the PJ had. But a joint investigation - which is what Grange say they want - is a two-way thing, so have they handed everything they 've got to the PJ? Imo, No way! I bet Grange are withholding plenty of info from the PJ even though it's a Portuguese investigation. For instance, have they given the PJ Henri Exton's report? Not a chance.

mariola wrote:Fleffer ,the problem is that when people use aliases it tends to discredit them when they are found out.It also devalues the Forum.Well spotted WBTS and shame on those who were prepared to deny.Have we not had enough denial in this case?

So mariola is not an alias? And WBTS is just her name?

Who would have guessed.

Back to the topic now please - we have had enough disruption on this thread. 

candyfloss wrote:It is understandable I think to most here why Tony would have another name, and we cannot surely blame him.  Now he has admitted it, and there is no point in discussing this any further......can we please return to topic.  

Yeah!!!

lj wrote:

candyfloss wrote:It is understandable I think to most here why Tony would have another name, and we cannot surely blame him.  Now he has admitted it, and there is no point in discussing this any further......can we please return to topic.  

Yeah!!!

But not before I`ve said .... for those people who are indignant about it, just remember TBs every word is monitored by CR and many others - I`m sure I have suggested he use another name as I`m sure others must have - its the obvious thing to do - and its no big deal peeps.  Not many are as honest and hard working as he is - sometimes too honest IMO.

sharonl wrote:Getting back on topic and to the idea of a whitewash, which may well have been the initial intention of Operation Grange, and no surprise to any of us here, I fail to see how such an outcome could possibly go unchallenged.  I don't think that Cameron or anyone else behind this charade bargained for the widespread disbelief of the abduction theory and the huge campaign for truth.

So lets just imagine for a moment that this ends in a whitewash. 

1. Madeleine will still not have been found
2. An abductor would have to have been found
3. An arrest would need to be made (unless the abductor is dead)

What possible story could they come up with that would go unchallenged?

The best that I can think of would be something along these lines:

An English man living outside of Europe who was suspected of the attempted abduction of children in an holiday resort was in Praia Da Luz on the night that Madeleine vanished.

He was known to his friends and neighbours as Joe Bloggs but investigations prove that this was not his real name. It is thought that he had as many as four different identities. His true identity is yet to be established.   Police were granted a warrant to search his home in 2007 after he was suspected of attempted kidnap,  but unfortunately he died in a fire that had broken out there and everything in the house was destroyed, including his computer, mobile phone etc.

Police did however, uncover pictures and newspaper clippings of Madeleine McCann and two other cases that he was suspected to have been involved in, from his car.

The children in question cannot be named for legal reasons. 

The abductor was watching the McCanns  for days and knew their movements.

He was watching the apartment every night when the McCanns were out.  Madeleine would often get up from bed and he was watching her through the patio windows, maybe even waving to make friends.

On May 3rd, he dressed in similar clothing to Gerry to reduce the risk of anyone wondering who he was.

After Gerry's last check, Madeleine awoke and got up from bed to look for Gerry.

The abductor calls her to the window and tells the very sleepy Madeleine that he will take her to where her mum is.

He picks her up, and off he goes without entering the apartment.



Sounds absolutely ridiculous doesn't it?  But what could the met possibly say that would hold any more credibility and convince us that they were correct?

Can anyone here come up with a suitable scenario that would go unchallenged?  I don't think so, and I don't think that the Met will be able to do this either.  If they do, they will be facing years of questioning from the public, not to mention that fact that they will look incredibly foolish, especially if Portugal has got anything credible to report.

 
As someone else has said, he will surely have to explain why the parents were discounted.
But I remember back at the beginning of the investigation SY said they would not be making the results public, and I wondered if that is allowed.

SY will have to come up with something because BH-H himself said they had the names of the suspects - that will have to be explained.

I'm sorry CF but as someone who reads (and has for years) but rarely posts, I feel strongly enough about this subject to add my own comments, fwiw.

Who else here posts under their own name?
Who else here has had the courage of Tony?
Who else here has the legal restrictions that Tony has?
Who else here has suffered financially for their belief on this that Tony has?
Who else here has had the conviction and courage that Tony has?
I may not always agree with his views, but isn't that the whole point of a forum?
It is usually an anonymous place where posters can put opinions, queries and facts to be considered and answered.

Some posters need to be more realistic and get things into perspective.

All in my own opinion of course.
Please let this be an end to this subject. Thank you.

mariola wrote:

candyfloss wrote:It is understandable I think to most here why Tony would have another name, and we cannot surely blame him.  Now he has admitted it, and there is no point in discussing this any further......can we please return to topic.  

Another name is understandable but it was the way it was used to create support for posts in his real name.That was devious and shames the Forum.I for one never knew it was the same poster.
What other "understandable" deceptions have been posted here?

To be fair Mariola, if he'd posted conflicting opinions in different usernames I'd be more worried! Obviously opinions and writing style will be the same but posting under another name gives him more freedom to say what he actually thinks without being carter rucked.

If only we were all as willing to speak out and stand up to the McCann's to get justice for a little girl under our real names eh? Maybe they wouldn't be getting away with this.

Right thank you, enough now, any further posts off topic will be deleted.  I think both sides views have been aired, so let that now be and end.  Posts will be deleted

daffodil wrote:I'm sorry CF but as someone who reads (and has for years) but rarely posts, I feel strongly enough about this subject to add my own comments, fwiw.

Who else here posts under their own name?  
Who else here has had the courage of Tony?  
Who else here has the legal restrictions that Tony has?  
Who else here has suffered financially for their belief on this that Tony has?
Who else here has had the conviction and courage that Tony has?
I may not always agree with his views, but isn't that the whole point of a forum?
It is usually an anonymous place where posters can put opinions, queries and facts to be considered and answered.

Some posters need to be more realistic and get things into perspective.

All in my own opinion of course.
Please let this be an end to this subject.   Thank you

Thank you Daffodil

Tony has put so much into helping us to find truth for Madeleine, more than a lot of people appreciate, but like the rest of us he is human and he may have made a few mistakes along the way but he really doesn't deserve this.  Thank you for your support, your comments and your understanding, I am sure that is really appreciated

Now as you rightfully say, back on topic and to the reason that we are all here, to seek justice for Madeleine, something that we will never achieve by bashing one of the two men who put everything into doing just that.

Woofer wrote:

sharonl wrote:Getting back on topic and to the idea of a whitewash, which may well have been the initial intention of Operation Grange, and no surprise to any of us here, I fail to see how such an outcome could possibly go unchallenged.  I don't think that Cameron or anyone else behind this charade bargained for the widespread disbelief of the abduction theory and the huge campaign for truth.

So lets just imagine for a moment that this ends in a whitewash. 

1. Madeleine will still not have been found
2. An abductor would have to have been found
3. An arrest would need to be made (unless the abductor is dead)

What possible story could they come up with that would go unchallenged?

The best that I can think of would be something along these lines:

An English man living outside of Europe who was suspected of the attempted abduction of children in an holiday resort was in Praia Da Luz on the night that Madeleine vanished.

He was known to his friends and neighbours as Joe Bloggs but investigations prove that this was not his real name. It is thought that he had as many as four different identities. His true identity is yet to be established.   Police were granted a warrant to search his home in 2007 after he was suspected of attempted kidnap,  but unfortunately he died in a fire that had broken out there and everything in the house was destroyed, including his computer, mobile phone etc.

Police did however, uncover pictures and newspaper clippings of Madeleine McCann and two other cases that he was suspected to have been involved in, from his car.

The children in question cannot be named for legal reasons. 

The abductor was watching the McCanns  for days and knew their movements.

He was watching the apartment every night when the McCanns were out.  Madeleine would often get up from bed and he was watching her through the patio windows, maybe even waving to make friends.

On May 3rd, he dressed in similar clothing to Gerry to reduce the risk of anyone wondering who he was.

After Gerry's last check, Madeleine awoke and got up from bed to look for Gerry.

The abductor calls her to the window and tells the very sleepy Madeleine that he will take her to where her mum is.

He picks her up, and off he goes without entering the apartment.



Sounds absolutely ridiculous doesn't it?  But what could the met possibly say that would hold any more credibility and convince us that they were correct?

Can anyone here come up with a suitable scenario that would go unchallenged?  I don't think so, and I don't think that the Met will be able to do this either.  If they do, they will be facing years of questioning from the public, not to mention that fact that they will look incredibly foolish, especially if Portugal has got anything credible to report.

 
As someone else has said, he will surely have to explain why the parents were discounted.
But I remember back at the beginning of the investigation SY said they would not be making the results public, and I wondered if that is allowed.

SY will have to come up with something because BH-H himself said they had the names of the suspects - that will have to be explained.

LOL That's very rich

We have had media reports galore alleging what NSY are up to. Suspects galore, dead or alive, have been named. We have been told of the Mets every move, from looking at phone records to digging up parts of the Algarve. How on earth can they say that the end result will not be made public?

@sharonl - "How on earth can they say that the end result will not be made public?"

I`m sure I didn`t dream it sharon - I think it was at the beginning of the review in 2011.  Does anyone else remember this?

Woofer wrote:@sharonl - "How on earth can they say that the end result will not be made public?"

I`m sure I didn`t dream it sharon - I think it was at the beginning of the review in 2011.  Does anyone else remember this?

Yes, I remember it Woofer.

candyfloss wrote:

Woofer wrote:@sharonl - "How on earth can they say that the end result will not be made public?"

I`m sure I didn`t dream it sharon - I think it was at the beginning of the review in 2011.  Does anyone else remember this?

Yes, I remember it Woofer.

Here is one of the articles, but there were more and it was specific that results would not be published............


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



Madeleine McCann: : 'No limits' to probeMadeleine McCann (Pic:PA)

Scotland Yard is putting no limits on its review of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance, Britain's top policeman has said.
Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson said his force's re-examination of the case would be a "significant piece of work" that could produce recommendations about new lines of inquiry.
Critics claim the decision to bring in Met detectives to review the evidence about what happened to the little girl has undermined the force's independence and diverted resources from other crime victims
"But Sir Paul said it was "the right thing to do" and pledged that Scotland Yard would carry out a thorough appraisal of the original investigation into Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal more than four years ago
We are are not putting any limits on it at this moment in time," he said.
"We have no timescales yet because we haven't produced the scoping. It will be a significant piece of work."
No Metropolitan Police officers have travelled to Portugal so far but they are in talks with the Portuguese authorities.
Sir Paul said Scotland Yard's international reputation and expertise made it easier for his officers to "open doors" than other organisations.
"Sometimes we need to remind ourselves this is about a vulnerable missing child," he said.
"I am a professional police officer, and when you get a request to do something about a vulnerable missing child, you should take that request very seriously.
"And then you get into negotiations about, is it right that we do it? Can we bring added value to it? And if we can bring added value to it, what is the right circumstance to allow us to do it to make sure that we are making the best use of the operation resources here and giving a fair return to Londoners?"
Madeleine was nearly four when she went missing from her family's holiday flat in Praia da Luz in the Algarve on May 3, 2007 as her parents Kate and Gerry dined with friends nearby.
Portuguese detectives, helped by officers from Leicestershire Police, carried out a massive investigation into her disappearance.
But the official inquiry was formally shelved in July 2008 and since then no police force has been actively looking for the missing child.
Scotland Yard's review of the case, which will be funded by the Home Office, was launched earlier this month after a request from Home Secretary Theresa May supported by Prime Minister David Cameron.
It is being led by Detective Chief Inspector Andy Redwood of the Met's Homicide and Serious Crime Command.
Sir Paul said the final report would not be published.


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

Why did the McCanns push for this review?

The Pt. police final findings will be published on line though.

ETA - as JeanM has posted many times. 

plebgate wrote:The Pt. police final findings will be published on line though.

ETA - as JeanM has posted many times. 

And whitewash or no, it is only the PJ that really matters in the end. Fingers crossed!

Thank you Candyfloss.  I`ve just been looking and couldn`t find it - you`re a super sleuth  

jhansigirl wrote:Why did the McCanns push for this review?

Most probably so they could get their hands on all the PJs files.

So, although the remit states the investigative review will be conducted openly and transparently  ..... we are never going to know their conclusions if Sir Paul Stephenson really did say the conclusions would not be made public.

To think it is being funded by the public taxes and we will never know the outcome is outrageous - but of course the McCanns will be informed I suppose - sorry to be cynical. 

Woofer wrote:So, although the remit states the investigative review will be conducted openly and transparently  ..... we are never going to know their conclusions if Sir Paul Stephenson really did say the conclusions would not be made public.

To think it is being funded by the public taxes and we will never know the outcome is outrageous - but of course the McCanns will be informed I suppose - sorry to be cynical. 

If this turns out to be the case, MPs acting on behalf of the public should demand to know why.

Woofer wrote:@sharonl - "How on earth can they say that the end result will not be made public?"

I`m sure I didn`t dream it sharon - I think it was at the beginning of the review in 2011.  Does anyone else remember this?

Woofer

I wasn't doubting you at all, I just find it amazing how they can get away with putting all this nonsense in the media but refuse to let us know the final result. It's a bit like buying a very rare and expensive book and finding the last page missing.

Have they given a reason for not sharing the result?