Why Operation Grange can only be a whitewash

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

ETA - as JeanM has posted many times. 

If there really is antagonism between Op Grange and the PJ regarding the joint investigation, perhaps it's because Op Grange want information from the PJ but have no intention of returning the favour. If they're not going to release details of their investigation to the UK public, then they're not going to give anything to Portugal that could be included in the PJ files when they're made public (Portugal seems to have a more open system than we do). What a shame we won't be able to read Henri Exton's report.

I had a letter from the government stating I would need an FOI for the result & we ALL know how much use they are. It is on here somewhere.

tasprin wrote:

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

ETA - as JeanM has posted many times. 

If there really is antagonism between Op Grange and the PJ regarding the joint investigation, perhaps it's because Op Grange want information from the PJ but have no intention of returning the favour. If they're not going to release details of their investigation to the UK public, then they're not going to give anything to Portugal that could be  included in the PJ files when they're made public (Portugal seems to have a more open system than we do). What a shame we won't be able to read Henri Exton's report.

Yep you could be right tasprin, but having just re-read the article CF posted the comments were made at the review stage, before the new investigation was announced.    Is it possible for the result of a criminal investigation to be withheld from the public?

I have found the link to my initial letter

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3885-home-office-response-to-my-concerns-about-sy-review

BTW I got no response the second time & then was too busy to chase it up.

You could be right as the letter was written regarding the review, however I can't see any reason for them to share information now with us unless SOMEONE is tried in court & I doubt very much that will happen sadly.

Thanks for the link GillyS.    I hadn't seen the correspondence before and I take my hat off to you.

Agree your point about FOI requests.  

With all the publicity surrounding the dig, helicopters circling, etc. etc. I am hoping that the MP who raised questions about the cost of the review when it was announced (can't remember his name) might step in if the conclusions of the investigation are not made public.

tasprin wrote:

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

ETA - as JeanM has posted many times. 

If there really is antagonism between Op Grange and the PJ regarding the joint investigation, perhaps it's because Op Grange want information from the PJ but have no intention of returning the favour. If they're not going to release details of their investigation to the UK public, then they're not going to give anything to Portugal that could be  included in the PJ files when they're made public (Portugal seems to have a more open system than we do). What a shame we won't be able to read Henri Exton's report.

Hi tasprin

In my humble opinion co-operation means exchanges of information and ideas on how to further progress towards a possible conclusion- what happened to Madeleine? - where is she? - how did she get where she is and who took her there? These goals apply equally to an abduction or a possible death.

The problem is that the PJ appear to be saying - or at least inferring - that a lone tourist ( possibly British?) who has visted PdL in the past
and has never been back may be responsible for Madeleine's demise. Add to this the near open contempt for the dig ( unofficially of course)
from the PJ and you have a recipe for a complete fail. The position seems to be, that whomever this tourist is removed Madeleine by vehicle and may have escaped over the border to Spain or beyond. That's the way I read the present PJ stance.

Meanwhile the joint investigators SY who's remit is officially to have an ' open mind ' suspect various people who may or may  have been near 5a that night at around 8.30pm to 10pm and a bit beyond as being the main persons of interest forgetting that the main persons WERE in and around 5a
like Moths round a light according to their own testimony. By excluding the main people and trying to include various " possible persons of interest " they are limiting the ' open mind ' part of the investigation.

I note that blacksmith has defended the Smith family ( and with good reason to ) but his/their beef should not necessarily be aimed at members of any forum because all forums will speculate anyway about XY and Z it is the nature of things for good or bad. Instead he/they
should reserve their scorn for the SY and DI Redwood  themselves because it appears that it is SY who are ignoring the testimony of the Smiths and no-one else. The proposed dig on behalf SY suggests to me that the Smith family sighting may have been dismissed as the easy
dismissal of JT's original now known bundleman was . If not how explain that a man with a child in his arms seen by nine people ( not recognised - just seen as a man and child ) at around 10pm managed to be a possible abductor who ran away with a child and he pops back towards the Ocean Club ( or around the Ocean Club vicinity) to throw a way or bury  possibly incriminating items? The Smith man was heading to the beach allegedly (or to Spain in a car - PJ ) So for what earthly reason would the remover have for nipping back (  who  whilst he nipped back  passed the child ) dead or alive  to another person or left her in a place to sleep ( live child theory) until he had placed suggested incriminating items around the environs of the Ocean Club? OK a gang might be capable of that but it wasn't a gang that the Smith family saw was it? All this burying/hiding near the  incriminating evidence right near the Tapas Bar right under the noses ofthe T9 were busy raising the alarm and when allegedly everyone was running round like headless chickens.

After all this though I think I agree with the PJ's theory that the person or people who removed Madeleine did so by car not on foot. There are various theories about who the Smith family saw and nine people is a big number of witnesses to ignore. My opinion is that it is SY who are ignoring the Smiths  otherwise they would not be conducting what may turn out to be a futile dig for evidence when the vast majority of evidence
is well known on forums and from the Portuguese files but appears to be unknown by the professionals.  Build on the known evidence by all means but not at the expense of the initial evidence of Mr Amaral and his team. That fresh evidence was taken in real time - the latest evidence is viewed in hindsight and as we all know with the benfit of hindsight we are all great detectives. You can only have hindsight in conclusion if you come to a conclusion. This sadly appears a remote possibility at the moment unless new credible evidence is unearthed.
What is being severely tested here is the credibilty of the police in interpreting and gathering evidence not any new evidence ( there isn't any - not yet anyway) The whole current investigation reminds me of trying to blow up a balloon by sucking.

I am not holding my breath metaphorically or otherwise.

Just an opinion though.

sharonl 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?

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?

I know you weren`t doubting me Sharon, but I did begin to doubt myself !  But I suppose we only have the Mirror piece to go by which quoted Sir Paul Stephenson.  I just hope they got it wrong.

In any case, if they didn`t report their findings to the public, I think there would be an outcry worldwide.  We`d all be requesting FOI requests by the thousands.

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?

I remember the same woofer.

But, if I am not mistaken, he also said something like he would not give running commentary. Well, we have seen what that means: he loves the limelight as much as the McCanns and could not keep his mouth shut if his life depended on it.

Narcissists, the whole bunch.

What of the newly re-opened Portuguese investigation ?  Will those files be published if the case is closed and un-solved by them ?  If so, that might be awkward for the Met.

It's odd.  SY operate on the basis of briefing the press during the investigation.  The PJ operate under judicial secrecy laws during the investigation.  Then SY say they may never tell us their findings, yet the PJ published much of the shelved original case.

Personally I find one Country's approach much more favourable.

sami wrote:What of the newly re-opened Portuguese investigation ?  Will those files be published if the case is closed and un-solved by them ?  If so, that might be awkward for the Met.

It's odd.  SY operate on the basis of briefing the press during the investigation.  The PJ operate under judicial secrecy laws during the investigation.  Then SY say they may never tell us their findings, yet the PJ published much of the shelved original case.

Personally I find one Country's approach much more favourable.

Operation Grange will end
We are told nothing
Maddie is not found
There is no abductor
There are no arrests
There are no further Operation Grange stories for the press

Goncalo Amaral continues to sell his book & give interviews
The campaign for truth goes on
More & More people learn the truth
More questions are asked
The PJ solve the case and release their files
The attempted cover up would be un-successful

I don't see how the Met are going to get away with a whitewash in the long term

QUOTE  I don't see how the Met are going to get away with a whitewash in the long term


The elite running this country for hundreds of years have got away and will continue to get away with anything and everything .Cant see this going anywhere but we can always live in hope.

sharonl wrote:
I don't see how the Met are going to get away with a whitewash in the long term

Yes, totally agree.  I have no idea whether the SY investigation is a whitewash or not, but even if it is that won't be the end of the matter.  First problem - the PJ.  The original PJ investigation was very effectively closed down by (insert_name_here), but in my opinion all the signs show that they are looking for justice now.  Second problem - we are living in a new age of information sharing.  It was easy to whitewash investigations in the past, because the investigators owned all the information regarding the case and could restrict access to it.  I doubt that SY will be releasing any of their files, but the original PJ files have been available for anyone to see for several years.  And no doubt SY will be very wary of the files of the re-opened investigation being made public.

Way too many stumbling blocks for a whitewash to succeed.

I feel they may be constantly ‘testing the water’ via the MSM to see what they decide they can get away with, which fortunately seems to be getting less and less by the day, presumably not what they were hoping for!
 
I think it is apparent that the PJ do not trust them (FSS amended reports, political pressure etc etc) and they (PJ) are not just going to roll over this time and ‘share’ everything with them, as if they did so, SY could then build their solution around full information.
 
SY must be scared stiff that if they come out with their closing gambit, based on some sort of whitewash, the PJ could then just opt out again and reveal their latest files to the world. Even if they did not want to go for a disc distribution this time, they are going to be so widely requested and looked at when they are released, they will probably have little option than to do so again.
 
Depending on what they actually release, they could probably make the Met (and the UK) the laughing stock of the world, based on what appears to have been a ludicrously protracted and nonsensical investigation so far, leading to the opening of an even wider political can of worms.
 
The government can pressurize the MSM here to not reveal whatever the underlying ‘problem’ is that they feel needs covering up, but we cannot be talking of a fiasco the size of the Iraq case, so it’s surely going to come out sooner or later.
 
The Iraq report looks as if it’s going to be stalled just long enough for Blair to get his come-uppence in time for the next elections (how convenient!), but if DC’s not very careful, he may end up tarred with buckets of ‘pinkwash’ at a similar time, in view of the Tory ties and high level support for a certain prospective parliamentary candidate for a South Coast resort town, seemingly the leading orchestrator in this case, resulting in similar political repercussions.
 
If I was in DC’s shoes, I would want to get the Euro’s (which are likely to be fairly disastrous anyway) out of the way and then get the McCann case quickly wrapped up. He may have to take a bit of fallout on the chin, but needs to avoid any further ridicule and accusations of Met. Police corruption, which he can only do if he allows the investigation to produce a completely ‘open and honest’ report.
 
Now that would be a first!

This is my take on what is currently going on, all purely my opinion of course.

Public opinion changes slowly.  It drifts upwards and downwards but at a very gradual pace, and you only have to take a look at a graph of historical political polls to see evidence of this.  People's minds are very hard to change.  Approval ratings go up and down, but they do so slowly, and linearly.

That is, until a massive event such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 occurs.  Then all bets are off, and the people's minds are like putty in the media's and government's hands.

We have European Elections coming up this month in the UK, and a general election within a year.  What motivates the Conservative party (or any party for that matter)?  The prime motivation for any political party's actions in a democratic country is to shift public opinion enough to grant them a majority in government.  The Conservatives care less about the economy, or Europe, or immigrants, or tax avoidance schemes, than they care about winning the next election - or at least, obtaining enough seats to enter into another (more confused) coalition.

Their great fear at the moment will not be the European Elections, but the days and weeks after the elections.  My prediction is that UKIP are going to do extraordinarily well at the Euro Elections (but let's keep my opinion of UKIP a separate issue).  Nothing can stop that.  The great fear that the Tories have (and Labour, but they are not currently in control) is that popularity for the UKIP 'movement' will accelerate massively after the Euro results come in, to the point where it becomes unstoppable.  UKIP won't be 'outsiders' any more.  Farage will be shouting to the rooftops that his party doesn't just want to get a few seats, they will actually want to be in government after the next election.  The media will go with this because it's a big story.

This is the time that Cameron is afraid of, the days immediately following the Euro Elections.  Have no doubt whatsoever that very highly paid consultants will have been telling him this for the past year, maybe even two.

What you need in a situation like this is a precision targeted tactical nuclear warhead, aimed directly to blow up at that exact time.

Enter the McCanns.  Not of the same magnitude as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 of course, but it does the job.

Make no mistake - Cameron and May have influence over the investigation.  Bernard Hogan-Howe was politically appointed.  That gives the people tasked with doing the appointing a lot of leverage.

How do you ensure that the atomic bomb you want to set off has the maximum impact on explosion?  Drip-feeding stories to the media that the McCanns might be guilty is not the way to go.  That's like pouring water on your fuse until it might not go off at all, or might go off prematurely.  What you need to do is encourage the media to carry on as they have since 2007, make people believe that the McCanns are innocent.  You want the Clarence Mitchells of the world to keep on doing their job, perhaps even help them out a little.  Then when you drop the bomb - BOOM!  But you also need to give yourself some back-doors, so that you can point back at interviews and say 'see, we said we thought Maddy might have been dead', and 'we told you about Smithman on Crimewatch!'.

People are distracted very easily, by shiny things and loud noises;  but most of all, by very large explosions.

Do you think Clarence (fight them on the beaches in his tweet) Mitchell will win a seat?

aquila wrote:Do you think Clarence (fight them on the beaches in his tweet) Mitchell will win a seat?

God I hope not.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

aquila wrote:Do you think Clarence (fight them on the beaches in his tweet) Mitchell will win a seat?

God I hope not.

That's your acid test.

What on earth gives Clarence Mitchell (paid spokesperson for the Labour Party and then paid spokesperson for the McCanns) any credence to become an MP?

ETA: and a Tory MP at that!

Sounds like Mitchell floats like a high fibre turd :-)...( please excuse my description its the best I can do for him ) .

Rasputin wrote:Sounds like Mitchell floats like a high fibre turd :-)...( please excuse my description its the best I can do for him ) .

I quite like the toilet humour. It's the best of British. We've developed an entire culture on it.

I love the high fibre reference. It's wholesome. After all, you are what you eat. 

aquila wrote:

Rasputin wrote:Sounds like Mitchell floats like a high fibre turd :-)...( please excuse my description its the best I can do for him ) .

I quite like the toilet humour. It's the best of British. We've developed an entire culture on it.

I love the high fibre reference. It's wholesome. After all, you are what you eat. 

Well, your 'turds' are at least ...   

bobbin wrote:

aquila wrote:

Rasputin wrote:Sounds like Mitchell floats like a high fibre turd :-)...( please excuse my description its the best I can do for him ) .

I quite like the toilet humour. It's the best of British. We've developed an entire culture on it.

I love the high fibre reference. It's wholesome. After all, you are what you eat. 

Well, your 'turds' are at least ...   

Clarence referencing 'fight them on the beaches' certainly gave my bowel a little stir.

I live in Brighton and everyone I know thinks he is a joke. I long for teh day when he knocks on my door as he does canvas on Sundays

Loads of re-tweets from Clarence in the last few days - nothing of course about Madeleine.

Nice to see Clarence has his priorities right and is tackling parking problems, stray dogs, the evil UKIP and generally sucking up to all things Tory now he's a bona fide Tory PPS.

Clarence hasn't mentioned if he's still on the McCann payroll or he's doing it 'quietly, behind the scenes for no financial reward'.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:This is my take on what is currently going on, all purely my opinion of course.

Public opinion changes slowly.  It drifts upwards and downwards but at a very gradual pace, and you only have to take a look at a graph of historical political polls to see evidence of this.  People's minds are very hard to change.  Approval ratings go up and down, but they do so slowly, and linearly.

That is, until a massive event such as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 occurs.  Then all bets are off, and the people's minds are like putty in the media's and government's hands.

We have European Elections coming up this month in the UK, and a general election within a year.  What motivates the Conservative party (or any party for that matter)?  The prime motivation for any political party's actions in a democratic country is to shift public opinion enough to grant them a majority in government.  The Conservatives care less about the economy, or Europe, or immigrants, or tax avoidance schemes, than they care about winning the next election - or at least, obtaining enough seats to enter into another (more confused) coalition.

Their great fear at the moment will not be the European Elections, but the days and weeks after the elections.  My prediction is that UKIP are going to do extraordinarily well at the Euro Elections (but let's keep my opinion of UKIP a separate issue).  Nothing can stop that.  The great fear that the Tories have (and Labour, but they are not currently in control) is that popularity for the UKIP 'movement' will accelerate massively after the Euro results come in, to the point where it becomes unstoppable.  UKIP won't be 'outsiders' any more.  Farage will be shouting to the rooftops that his party doesn't just want to get a few seats, they will actually want to be in government after the next election.  The media will go with this because it's a big story.

This is the time that Cameron is afraid of, the days immediately following the Euro Elections.  Have no doubt whatsoever that very highly paid consultants will have been telling him this for the past year, maybe even two.

What you need in a situation like this is a precision targeted tactical nuclear warhead, aimed directly to blow up at that exact time.

Enter the McCanns.  Not of the same magnitude as Pearl Harbor or 9/11 of course, but it does the job.

Make no mistake - Cameron and May have influence over the investigation.  Bernard Hogan-Howe was politically appointed.  That gives the people tasked with doing the appointing a lot of leverage.

How do you ensure that the atomic bomb you want to set off has the maximum impact on explosion?  Drip-feeding stories to the media that the McCanns might be guilty is not the way to go.  That's like pouring water on your fuse until it might not go off at all, or might go off prematurely.  What you need to do is encourage the media to carry on as they have since 2007, make people believe that the McCanns are innocent.  You want the Clarence Mitchells of the world to keep on doing their job, perhaps even help them out a little.  Then when you drop the bomb - BOOM!  But you also need to give yourself some back-doors, so that you can point back at interviews and say 'see, we said we thought Maddy might have been dead', and 'we told you about Smithman on Crimewatch!'

People are distracted very easily, by shiny things and loud noises;  but most of all, by very large explosions.

I have left your post up in its entirety.

I found it...shall we say...intriguing.

So your 'take' is that Cameron will 'arrange' for the McCanns to be arrested (by whom, Scotland Yard, or the Portuguese Police?), shortly before the General Election and claim massive electoral credit for it - gaining millions of votes and sweeping to power?

Saying: "Look, the £15 million investigation I set up, all those helicopters flying over Praia da Luz, all those mobile 'phone searches by Redwood and his team, have all paid off!"

Er, I think the electorate might then start to ponder why Clarence Mitchell, who has promoted the abduction for 7 years, was slotted in to Cameron's high-powered Communications Department in 2010, as assistant to Murdoch man Andy Coulson, and why Cameron and his party installed Mitchell as the Conservative Party candidate for Brighton Pavilion.

Dontcha think?

By the way, I note how religiously you insist that the Smiths really did see someone, and why you go still further and suggest that Smithman saw Gerry McCann. Let me suggest that the reason you promote the 'Smithman' sighting so often and so vigorously is because you, more than most people, know that there never was a 'Smithman'

Tony Bennett wrote:
By the way, I note how religiously you insist that the Smiths really did see someone, and why you go still further and suggest that Smithman saw Gerry McCann. Let me suggest that the reason you promote the 'Smithman' sighting so often and so vigorously is because you, more than most people, know that there never was a 'Smithman'

One for the mods I suppose.  Isn't this against forum rules?

It's not even correct, I don't believe that Smithman saw Gerry McCann, so I'm certainly not going to suggest it.