Re: Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

by Daisy 28.01.14 18:39

aiyoyo wrote:
Daisy wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:I'm desperately looking for the 12:00 am May 4, 2007, press release that the Home Office has reported a British girl has been abducted in Portugal ....
I thought it had been worked out the 12:am time was an error and the time was 12:pm?

!2:00am (May 4th) is vastly different from 12:00pm hence the 24-hour clock usage for clarity in Police Reports.

12:00am(May 4th) would be 24:00hrs on May 3rd.

Yes that's my point.

Woofer (Ta) just provided this link to the report I believe Châtelaine's looking for. The time says 12:01am 4th May, but if you read it, it can't be . It must 12:01pm 4th May

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

by **Hobs** 28.01.14 23:21

12 am midnight would be 00:00 so half past midnight would be 00:30. I use the 24 hr clock all the time due to work

by aiyoyo 28.01.14 23:51

Hobs wrote:12 am midnight would be 00:00 so half past midnight would be 00:30. I use the 24 hr clock all the time due to work

You are right.

by Okeydokey 28.01.14 23:59

aiyoyo wrote:
Hobs wrote:12 am midnight would be 00:00 so half past midnight would be 00:30. I use the 24 hr clock all the time due to work

You are right.

There has been a lot of confusion about this. I recall a long discussion before now.

What happened I think is that the Telegraph grouped old news stories by day with the minute after midnight time stamp. Others here have been confused by archived Daily Mail stories which have today's date!

The time stamp is a big red herring.

by **PeterMac** 02.03.14 15:08

I am aware that there is a strong and sincere school of thought that Operation Grange is designed to Whitewash or to cover up whatever happened,
and that good and valid reasons for that view have been advanced.

BUT

Consider this
You are a DCI with a good career behind you, given the job of finding nothing.
You have all the PJ stuff including a sighting of a man carrying a child within a vague timeframe, which fits with some of the available statements.
The man is unidentified, and given the vacuity of the description is likely to remain unidentifiable.
The person giving the description is vague to the point of being entirely useless should anyone ever be tentatively identified, and has in fact already firmly identified another man and then gone back on her identification.
She can therefore for the purposes of a trial be safely ignored. She could never be used by the Prosecution.

But for the purposes of a whitewash / coverup she is therefore perfect.
Scatty, stupid, but idiot enough to stick to her story, with all the embellishments of "swearing by all things that are holy" and "I am telling the truth, you know", breaking down in tears at opportune moments.

You are given the brief so long after the event that no forensic evidence can be obtained, and there are no serious further enquiries which could possibly assist.
Your job is to find nothing, and eventually to "archive" it as undetected, and undetectable.
What do you do ?
Surely spend that amount of time and money allocated to you translating documents, putting it all into HOLMES and ANACAPA in case the Home Secretary brings reporters with her when she visits
(and success is measured by activity, not by results as Sir Humphrey famously said.)
Visit Portugal to speak to 'foreigners', assurances of assistance, local difficulties, meetings with biscuits, lunches with sardines, all the normal parapheralia of what
people would expect to see. A couple of Cartes Rogatoires add a certain spice to the mix.

And then gradually you slow it down and regretfully report that you have been unable to trace and identify the man seen carrying the child, and conclude, sadly, that he is the most likely suspect, but that at this length of time it is no longer possible to continue . . .

Perfect surely.

But DCI Redwood has not done that. He specifically rules out Tannerman - whether he existed or not is beside the point here.
He has now moved the focus to Smithman, who again may or may not exist.
Smithman is actually a slightly better prospect in one way. More than one witness, correct and more likely direction of travel and so on.
But in another way is much worse.
The witnesses might just stick to their story, and identify someone you did not wish to be identified. Dare you now raise the stakes with an i.d. parade ?
Very doubtful
Smithman also messes up the carefully calculated timeline available, and so another one has to be thought up.

In either case the final 'archiving' or "Undetected crime report" must set out a likely scenario.
Leaving a serious crime 'undetected' is a positive step, not a default option, and has to be passed by a senior officer, or it gets chucked back.

And here Grange have a significant problem.
Starting with the lack of evidence of point of entry, point of exit, MO, the impossibility of the Tannerman 1 minute and 20 second time frame, or the Smithman 3 minute slot
serious concerns about sedation, evidence of human cadaverine and blood, and all the rest that we have discussed for years.
In addition Grange also have evidence of blatant lying.
They know, because they have been told, that the Last Photo is nothing of the sort.
They know, because they have been told, how it was done and they may suspect who did it.
They know, because they have been told, of the exact timings and the route that photo took before it reached the press agency
They know, because they have read for themselves, the gibbering inconsequentiality of the Rogatory interviews, and have drawn their own conclusions as 37 hardened and cynical detectives.
and so on and on, as recorded here and elsewhere for a long time, and archived on the net for all time.

There is no possible scenario which Grange can put forward which will stand up to the final Crimewatch programme, to interviews, and increasingly to FOI requests and letters to the Home Secretary.

So how is Grange going to finalise this ?
Who can write the first paragraph of the Archiving whitewash ?

by Woofer 02.03.14 15:27

Great to hear the perspective of an ex-policeman PM - and heartening. What gave me more optimism is the fact that their conclusions have to stand up to FOI requests. roses

by Penfold 02.03.14 15:57

It seems rather patronising to write goodpost

to PeterMac, [ because they always are] but it was. A very goodpost

indeed !

by **PeterMac** 02.03.14 16:03

Now write the opening paragraph !

by Cristobell 02.03.14 16:14

PeterMac wrote:I am aware that there is a strong and sincere school of thought that Operation Grange is designed to Whitewash or to cover up whatever happened,
and that good and valid reasons for that view have been advanced.

BUT

Consider this
You are a DCI with a good career behind you, given the job of finding nothing.
You have all the PJ stuff including a sighting of a man carrying a child within a vague timeframe, which fits with some of the available statements.
The man is unidentified, and given the vacuity of the description is likely to remain unidentifiable.
The person giving the description is vague to the point of being entirely useless should anyone ever be tentatively identified, and has in fact already firmly identified another man and then gone back on her identification.
She can therefore for the purposes of a trial be safely ignored. She could never be used by the Prosecution.

But for the purposes of a whitewash / coverup she is therefore perfect.
Scatty, stupid, but idiot enough to stick to her story, with all the embellishments of "swearing by all things that are holy" and "I am telling the truth, you know", breaking down in tears at opportune moments.

You are given the brief so long after the event that no forensic evidence can be obtained, and there are no serious further enquiries which could possibly assist.
Your job is to find nothing, and eventually to "archive" it as undetected, and undetectable.
What do you do ?
Surely spend that amount of time and money allocated to you translating documents, putting it all into HOLMES and ANACAPA in case the Home Secretary brings reporters with her when she visits
(and success is measured by activity, not by results as Sir Humphrey famously said.)
Visit Portugal to speak to 'foreigners', assurances of assistance, local difficulties, meetings with biscuits, lunches with sardines, all the normal parapheralia of what
people would expect to see. A couple of Cartes Rogatoires add a certain spice to the mix.

And then gradually you slow it down and regretfully report that you have been unable to trace and identify the man seen carrying the child, and conclude, sadly, that he is the most likely suspect, but that at this length of time it is no longer possible to continue . . .

Perfect surely.

But DCI Redwood has not done that. He specifically rules out Tannerman - whether he existed or not is beside the point here.
He has now moved the focus to Smithman, who again may or may not exist.
Smithman is actually a slightly better prospect in one way. More than one witness, correct and more likely direction of travel and so on.
But in another way is much worse.
The witnesses might just stick to their story, and identify someone you did not wish to be identified. Dare you now raise the stakes with an i.d. parade ?
Very doubtful
Smithman also messes up the carefully calculated timeline available, and so another one has to be thought up.

In either case the final 'archiving' or "Undetected crime report" must set out a likely scenario.
Leaving a serious crime 'undetected' is a positive step, not a default option, and has to be passed by a senior officer, or it gets chucked back.

And here Grange have a significant problem.
Starting with the lack of evidence of point of entry, point of exit, MO, the impossibility of the Tannerman 1 minute and 20 second time frame, or the Smithman 3 minute slot
serious concerns about sedation, evidence of human cadaverine and blood, and all the rest that we have discussed for years.
In addition Grange also have evidence of blatant lying.
They know, because they have been told, that the Last Photo is nothing of the sort.
They know, because they have been told, how it was done and they may suspect who did it.
They know, because they have been told, of the exact timings and the route that photo took before it reached the press agency
They know, because they have read for themselves, the gibbering inconsequentiality of the Rogatory interviews, and have drawn their own conclusions as 37 hardened and cynical detectives.
and so on and on, as recorded here and elsewhere for a long time, and archived on the net for all time.

There is no possible scenario which Grange can put forward which will stand up to the final Crimewatch programme, to interviews, and increasingly to FOI requests and letters to the Home Secretary.

So how is Grange going to finalise this ?
Who can write the first paragraph of the Archiving whitewash ?

Brilliant analysis Petermac, well worth a read and a re-read.

by marconi 02.03.14 16:37

Thank you, Peter Mac. I always suspected the last photo( a too young Madeleine) and now I understand that it is known that it is fake.

by worriedmum 02.03.14 16:48

Great post PeterMac,

and I would like to add that any opportunity for whitewash, fizzling out or whatever, disappeared the moment the British trained, British commissioned dogs with 100% success rate arrived in Apartment 5a...

by sami 02.03.14 17:20

Great to read such a well reasoned, positive post thumbsup

by diatribe 02.03.14 17:30

worriedmum wrote:Great post PeterMac,

and I would like to add that any opportunity for whitewash, fizzling out or whatever, disappeared the moment the British trained, British commissioned dogs with 100% success rate arrived in Apartment 5a...

I agree, a good analysis from Peter, but the 'fizzling out or whatever' aspect of the dog's findings appears to have been adequately dealt with by simply consigning them to the 'anals' of history and ignoring them. During the course of the last 2. whatever yrs. since the inception of Operation Grange, can anyone recollect the dogs getting a mention from any Met. Police representative involved in the aforementioned investigation.

Have any attempts been made to reinterview the McCanns, their friends or Catriona Baker, all central to a genuine enquiry. Although I stringently disagree, some on this forum are of the opinion that the Met. Police have the legal right to do so, despite the Portugese police being unable to do so without giving them arguido status, which according to Casey, is the equivalent of the right to silence under the 5th amendment of the US constitution. If they are correct and I am wrong, then surely the aforementioned would be the first port of call, particularly in the vein that Inspector(I'll refrain from referring to him as Deadwood) Redwood has put stringent emphasis on the fact that he is going back to basics and treating this matter as if it were a crime committed within the jurisdiction of the UK.

I think that Peter appears to be stating in his synopsis(no doubt he'll correct me if I'm wrong) is that no matter how sincere Inspector Redwood's intentions may be, he has been placed in an impossible situation where there is very little he can do bar go through the motions on the basis that a kidnapping occurred with the final scenario not yet having been written. It may be that many people involved in this matter from the inception are simply hoping that everything will be alright on the night and that it will resolve itself without leaving too much egg on their faces. In the immortal words of Kelvin MacKenzie, the former editor of the Sun, ''our readers have the brains of ants and memory retentions of 10 secs.''

by worriedmum 02.03.14 17:44

Diatribe,
forget the ants. It's the non-ants who are vocal.

Ps, while 'anals' may be apt, isn't the spelling 'annals'? big grin

by diatribe 02.03.14 17:48

worriedmum wrote:

Ps, while 'anals' may be apt, isn't the spelling 'annals'?

It is indeed, Worriedmum, but I decided to opt for the apt spelling. big grin

by sami 02.03.14 18:03

I don't understand exactly how the dogs findings are expected to be portrayed by SY at this point in time.

Other than us knowing for certain they have not spoken publically about them, we cannot be certain they have been ignored.

For Redwood to simply mention them makes a very big implication, in the direction of the parents. He has never, to my knowledge, publically declared that the statements do not match or make sense to any rational person, or made any public declaration about any of the other evidence - the shutters lie etc.

So I don't agree that not talking about the dogs is an automatic sign of the team disagreeing or ignoring them.

The dogs evidence is what it is and cannot be disputed until such time as Madeleine turns up alive and well. Otherwise their evidence will be taken along with all of the other evidence SY see fit to include in their case at the appropriate time.

It is clear to me Redwood is not looking for an alive child, I'm sure the dogs evidence will have gone at least some way in coaxing him in that direction.

by marconi 02.03.14 18:28

The laywer from Lisbon still didn't reply me.
I was hoping he was protestant or muslim but I fear he is Catholic and he could be enjoying carnival right now.
we have to wait.

by diatribe 02.03.14 18:36

sami wrote:

For Redwood to simply mention them makes a very big implication, in the direction of the parents. He has never, to my knowledge, publically declared that the statements do not match or make sense to any rational person, or made any public declaration about any of the other evidence - the shutters lie etc.

If he only mentioned the aforementioned, Sami, it certainly would indicate that his investigation was firmly focused on the parents. But we have to consider that he has stated that he is reviewing every piece of evidence, something along the lines of believing nothing until checked.

It may well be that he is factoring the unlikelihood of a forced entry, the dogs findings, the inconsistencies of witness statements etc. into the equation. If this is in fact the case, then we would have to assume that the 2013 edition of Crimewatch, which was diametrically opposed to this hypothesis, was merely a circa £700,000 exercise in lulling the McCanns into a false sense of security at a time of austerity and cutbacks in police resources.

by diatribe 02.03.14 18:45

marconi wrote:The laywer from Lisbon still didn't reply me.
I was hoping he was protestant or muslim but I fear he is Catholic and he could be enjoying carnival right now.
we have to wait.

Maybe he's jewish and doesn't work on the Sabbath.

by Doug D 02.03.14 18:52

Hard hat time I believe.

I can’t really come to terms with any logical reason for Grange being implemented (even at RB’s apparent insistence) with the sole objective of ‘no conclusion’ or a ‘whitewash’ at the end.

If that had been the intended result, it was best just left alone to expire in it’s own time, instructions given to the Mc’s & CM to shut up, get out of the limelight, (no ambassadorial roles or photo-shoots) and just hope that us nutters would eventually go away or die off.

There must therefore have been, what was considered to be, a compelling reason to open the review/investigation process.

Possibilities that I can think of:

1/. RB insistence. This just doesn’t wash as a reason. It could however be used as a convenient excuse for a reason, if it was felt that there was no option other than to open a review.

2/. Pressure from social media sites. Again doesn’t wash.

3/. Government perception that to not to be seen to be doing something in the light of future revelations would prove embarrassing. This I feel must have been the reason, but why? An easier (and less costly) answer must have been to do nothing in the hope that ‘it’ doesn’t materialize. If it does, it wasn’t down to you anyway, it was thoroughly investigated under the Blair/Brown regime and if new information was now being revealed, a review could have been commenced at that stage.

Possible scenarios under (3) could be:

PJ’s ongoing (unofficial at that time) investigation behind the scenes. Were awkward questions already being asked that were seen as likely to result in embarrassment at the end of the day? Now it is official this is likely to be the case.

Libel trial. A report to DC even at that early stage that it was unlikely to be successful with the result that the PJ’s original investigation & conclusions were likely to become common knowledge, raising the inevitable questions as to why we had knowingly hindered the PJ investigation, withheld and obstructed the obtaining of potentially case-breaking information and sheltered and protected suspects, way beyond ‘normal’ consular assistance and protection levels.

I am not completely convinced, but feel that this last argument probably has most merit. There is no way that anyone could have foreseen the trial dragging on this long, but having started the review, with AR instructed to keep it going until after the verdict, you have both eventualities covered.
Amaral (& therefore PJ) vindicated – ‘Well we knew something was amiss that’s why we started the review process’
Mc’s win. ‘We weren’t happy with what had gone before & felt a review was appropriate, but PJ are stupid and our whitewash scenario now fits the bill’.

In the likelihood that Amaral wins, possibly resulting in the Mc’s bankruptcy, the review could then fall into line with the PJ who could be properly assisted in running the case to it’s logical conclusion. The trouble with this though is that it doesn’t allow for the original reason (whatever that may be) for the protection given, unless a level of plea bargaining can be introduced whereby a token sentence for a token charge can be negotiated if everybody keeps stum. With no money left in the pot, going after the fund would be pointless. I don’t know how the PJ would feel about this either, unless at this stage they would just be happy to get it wrapped up.
Could the Government could get away with this? Probably not. A lot of the papers and others would be looking for their ‘pound of flesh’, even if not available in financial terms and I think would have a field day at this type of solution.

Sorry PeterMac, I tried but think I’ve failed!

by j.rob 02.03.14 19:00

Surely if the last photo can be confirmed as being a fake (and it is so obviously photo-shopped - part of Amelie's arm is missing) that in itself is incredibly damning? The whole photo situation is just weird. The McCanns used a photo of Madeleine in the initial poster campaign that was not up-to-date. That is peculiar. Surely at least one person on that holiday would in the normal course of events have taken a photo of Madeleine? An up-to-date photo would, you would think, help in a search to find her. Any of the family members could have sent over an up-to-date photo from home if necessary by email or mobile.

Which begs the question that they specifically chose a photo that was neither up to date or accurate (she either has a colomba or she doesn't. If she doesn't have a colomba, then the photo seriously misrepresents her). Therefore, the poster campaign was based on misleading information.

They chose to emphasize her eye defect, initially, despite police warnings that this could well spell her death sentence at the hands of an abductor. This eye defect was then played down by the McCanns to the extent that it appears she may not have had one at all, or at least not the type initially flagged up. Just these factors alone are highly suspicious. (And I know there have been some theories about what might be indicated by flecks or dark patches in her iris.) It now appears that what at one stage was being called a colomba

Even if you only focus on these inconsistencies and peculiarities, you are forced to reach a certain conclusion - and it does not look good for the credibility or indeed honesty of the McCanns.

by j.rob 02.03.14 19:02

It now appears that what at one stage was being called a coloboma (incorrect spelling above) was, in actual fact, dark specs on the iris.

by Cristobell 02.03.14 19:25

j.rob wrote: It now appears that what at one stage was being called a coloboma (incorrect spelling above) was, in actual fact, dark specs on the iris.

A coloboma carries all sorts of health implications, and few years ago, Goncalo Amaral pointed these out, and wondered why the McCanns were not making any pleas for the return of their daughter on health grounds. It was shortly after that, that Kate told Piers Morgan they didn't make a big deal of Maddie's eye defect!

Two doctors should have known if Maddie's eye defect was a coloboma or not. The blurring of the issue was deliberate of course, but the coloboma is worrying, it meant Madeleine was not perfect.

by Guest 02.03.14 19:29

In general: surely police wouldn't give "useful" information to the public aka their actual suspects. *) They have to say something from time to time and it's wrapped in cottonwool. E.g. "the parents and their friends are no persons of interest" could be a white lie, meaning: they're not interesting, as we know or strongly suspect what they've been doing. Equally "they are not suspects", meaning: not officially, as they haven't been questioned under caution or charged yet ... Same goes for the consequent use of the word "abduction". Removal of a corpse would fall into that category. It's all semantics IMO

I'm in agreement with those, who think that
- a whitewash would not have taken this much time and money. A review of 6 months or so, could have been closed with we all tried, but "no solution";
- neither NSY nor PJ would have been allowed to move their REVIEWS into full-blown INVESTIGATIONS, if there wasn't any indication, that there might be enough [indication of] evidence to charge and prosecute [CPS wouldn't have been involved either, if there wasn't something "solid" IMO]
- a seasoned team of detectives of this size, even if it WOULD be a whitewash, could NOT be silenced collectively.

*) there's a horrible crime in the Netherlands, where a couple of weeks ago an 80-year-old [intelligent, socially engaged, competent and absolutely lovely!] Minister of State was beaten to death in her garage. The police have been giving many statements, but none that would really reveal what they found and think ...

by Liz Eagles 02.03.14 19:34

I wonder if BHH regrets his balloon launch

snipped from BBC News

The four-year-old was snatched from her bed while on holiday in Portugal's Praia da Luz resort on 3 May.

The local community want to show support for the appeal.

Failed search

The balloons will cost a pound to sponsor and all money will go to the Madeleine appeal fund.

The Chief Constable of Merseyside Police - Bernard Hogan Howe will lead the release of balloons on the highest point of Liverpool inner city on Mossley Hill Field at 1400 BST.

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

Not bad when a very senior police officer can head up your Fund appeal a little over 5 weeks after your daughter's disappearance whilst the PJ are investigating.

by Guest 02.03.14 19:39

Oh jeez, Aquila. This has been discussed to death and put to bed sad

There is NO indication, that he was there. Au contraire.

by Tangled Web 02.03.14 19:39

Châtelaine wrote:In general: surely police wouldn't give "useful" information to the public aka their actual suspects. *) They have to say something from time to time and it's wrapped in cottonwool. E.g. "the parents and their friends are no persons of interest" could be a white lie, meaning: they're not interesting, as we know or strongly suspect what they've been doing. Equally "they are not suspects", meaning: not officially, as they haven't been questioned under caution or charged yet ... Same goes for the consequent use of the word "abduction". Removal of a corpse would fall into that category. It's all semantics IMO

I'm in agreement with those, who think that
- a whitewash would not have taken this much time and money. A review of 6 months or so, could have been closed with we all tried, but "no solution";
- neither NSY nor PJ would have been allowed to move their REVIEWS into full-blown INVESTIGATIONS, if there wasn't any indication, that there might be enough [indication of] evidence to charge and prosecute [CPS wouldn't have been involved either, if there wasn't something "solid" IMO]
- a seasoned team of detectives of this size, even if it WOULD be a whitewash, could NOT be silenced collectively.

*) there's a horrible crime in the Netherlands, where a couple of weeks ago an 80-year-old [intelligent, socially engaged, competent and absolutely lovely!] Minister of State was beaten to death in her garage. The police have been giving many statements, but none that would really reveal what they found and think ...

I agree. During police investigations, the public are not usually privy to forensic information. We are given details to 'outline' what has occurred for the purpose of potential witnesses coming forward but we aren't aware of what is going on 'behind the scenes' so I don't see evidence being ignored here, it's just not something that will be talked about publicly by the police and rightly so.

by Guest 02.03.14 19:41

The most convenient scenario i could think of is this:

Let some poor chaps of lower rang, from the met have a booze night in a pub, while the table is wired by some tabloid media supporter, a nice anonymous phone call on a non traceable mobile will do as a tip and let them take a good laugh about the portugese police and spill some beans about the portugese leads of investigation.

Then the portugese could make a complaint to the eu court for interfering in a portugese investigation and yes, as you know, the eu is easily blamed in political uk, so they could bravely close their part of the investigation on court order.

So everyone could score his points. The anti-eu-lobby, could smear some at how they dare to interfere. Cameron could say, sorry we are still bound to the eu court decisions and close operation grange. The portugese could still investigate as they like and as the long they like or not.

To bring the lines op diplomacy between the uk and portugal in order, the uk send some nice rare zoo-animal as a gift and name it maddie. Plus the portugese leader may sit once next to the queen on the first possible banket, charles can visit portugal to hold a eco friendly talktalk in the portugese language. And all is forgotten and all will live for ever hapily after, except a little blond girl....

Worked pretty well in the old days, so why teach old dogs new tricks?

by Liz Eagles 02.03.14 19:52

Châtelaine wrote:Oh jeez, Aquila. This has been discussed to death and put to bed There is NO indication, that he was there. Au contraire.

I'm getting the feeling I've irritated you Châtelaine. I understand it to be true and that's why I've quoted the BBC article. I wasn't aware that it had been discussed to death and put to bed as you say.

Can someone point me in the right direction of a link on here? I've done a search but nothing much is coming up.

by Guest 02.03.14 19:56

I'm preparing dinner and have no time to search, Aquila, but I know by heart that there were at the time articles to announce the release of thousands of balloons, lead by BHH. And that there were 3 follow-up articles, that I know of. Two mentioning the presence of Kate's parents for the release of hundreds and one mentioning the presence of "someone" at Mersey police, but NOT BHH ...