Re: Game over?

by Guest 28.03.14 21:50

Thank you Candyfloss - there seems to have been a belated attack of Mad March Hareism on the forum this evening!

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 21:50

petunia wrote:Aiyoyo i have read your threads over the years with interest and have never seen you so argumentative as you are today..Hope all is well with you.

TY, all is well.
Yes, hands up, I concede I'm a tad annoying today.
I am sick to back teeth with filling-time-posts that have no substance whatsoever; and the last straw is when people inflate their ego unnecessary claiming it's all for benefit of MBM.

I shall heed your advice, and leave those who like to listen very much to their own voice alone.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.14 21:52

nglfi wrote:
In all honesty, since absolutely anyone on this forum could be lying about anything, and I don't know anyone on this forum personally, for me it's pointless to try and work out who is and who isn't. I actually wanted to post something yesterday about Andy Redwood, some very positive news which I have had from my partner who is a policeman, but I decided not to because (A) I am new on this forum and (B) I didn't think people would believe me. Indeed, I didn't expect them to. I am a faceless entity here so I could lie about anything. I'm just here to discuss interesting theories and try to get the old brain cells working with regard to all the information I've read on the McCannfiles website!

nglfi, you are a bit of a 'tease', aren't you?

Not long ago, you said in a previous post: "I completely agree with all of the above. Also I do have a specific name in mind for the person you describe but I won't risk deletion!"

Tantalising. Today you have some 'positive news about Andy Redwood'. A few weeks back you had a mystery 'specific name in mind'.

As the thread is about 'game over', I am sure that any theories or information you may have about the case would be most welcome, unless they are libellous.

I am a bit puzzled because not long ago, you said: "Does anyone know anything about the history/affiliations of Andy Redwood? Aside from that he was involved in the wrongful charging of Barry George?...what are AR's connections? Does he have any links with the Labour party? I think this might seriously impact on the case potentially".

Yet now we find out you are a policeman's partner and (almost) able to pass on some 'positive news' about Redoood from your partner. Forgive me for raising this, but it does seem more than a tad curious that a few weeks ago you wanted to know things about Redwood's history yet, via your partner, are now able (or nearly able) to tell us something very positive about him.

I think you are very undecided about the whole case at the moment.

A while back, you wrote: "I'm not saying I'm sure what's going on behind the scenes. I still can't decide whether or not they are on the right lines of enquiry, I have my positive and negative days".

Maybe your partner has told you something that takes us nearer to knowing whether this 3-year-long £8 million SY investigation is a serious and determined attempt to arrest and convict those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance - or not?

I do not think being 'new on this forum' should deter anyone from sharing what they think is good quality information or an informed opinion.

As for 'I didn't think people would believe me', well, please tell us what you know - and your basis for saying it. We can all then use our judgment as to how much weight to put on any revelations or knowledge you have.

Thanks!

by nglfi 28.03.14 22:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
nglfi wrote:
In all honesty, since absolutely anyone on this forum could be lying about anything, and I don't know anyone on this forum personally, for me it's pointless to try and work out who is and who isn't. I actually wanted to post something yesterday about Andy Redwood, some very positive news which I have had from my partner who is a policeman, but I decided not to because (A) I am new on this forum and (B) I didn't think people would believe me. Indeed, I didn't expect them to. I am a faceless entity here so I could lie about anything. I'm just here to discuss interesting theories and try to get the old brain cells working with regard to all the information I've read on the McCannfiles website!
nglfi, you are a bit of a 'tease', aren't you?

Not long ago, you said in a previous post: "I completely agree with all of the above. Also I do have a specific name in mind for the person you describe but I won't risk deletion!"

Tantalising. Today you have some 'positive news about Andy Redwood'. A few weeks back you had a mystery 'specific name in mind'.

As the thread is about 'game over', I am sure that any theories or information you may have about the case would be most welcome, unless they are libellous.

I am a bit puzzled because not long ago, you said: "Does anyone know anything about the history/affiliations of Andy Redwood? Aside from that he was involved in the wrongful charging of Barry George?...what are AR's connections? Does he have any links with the Labour party? I think this might seriously impact on the case potentially".

Yet now we find out you are a policeman's partner and (almost) able to pass on some 'positive news' about Redoood from your partner. Forgive me for raising this, but it does seem more than a tad curious that a few weeks ago you wanted to know things about Redwood's history yet, via your partner, are now able (or nearly able) to tell us something very positive about him.

I think you are very undecided about the whole case at the moment.

A while back, you wrote: "I'm not saying I'm sure what's going on behind the scenes. I still can't decide whether or not they are on the right lines of enquiry, I have my positive and negative days".

Maybe your partner has told you something that takes us nearer to knowing whether this 3-year-long £8 million SY investigation is a serious and determined attempt to arrest and convict those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance - or not?

I do not think being 'new on this forum' should deter anyone from sharing what they think is good quality information or an informed opinion.

As for 'I didn't think people would believe me', well, please tell us what you know - and your basis for saying it. We can all then use our judgment as to how much weight to put on any revelations or knowledge you have.

Thanks!

Hi Tony.
I have posted above what I know, and I'll address the other points you've raised. Right back from the start of this case, I have been undecided, for various reasons, not least the sheer wealth of information and misinformation, which it is difficult sometimes to sift through.
To address your first point, I said a few days ago that I had a name in mind. This is based on nothing more than my own theory and not on anything my partner has told me. It involves a member of the T9, and since I have had posts about him deleted before I decided not to mention him by name.
To answer your second point, this is not the first time I have mentioned my partner is a policeman. You seem to be able to bring up my past posts very easily so I'm sure that one is also available.
Thirdly, until my partner told me this piece of news I'll admit I didn't have any time for Andy Redwood. I went back and forth and sat on the fence a number of times about a whitewash, more often than not leaning towards whitewash.
Finally, re the information I've relayed today, I'd like to stress my partner is just a very hard working pc who I am not trying to claim is high up or privy to any special information. He just got talking to an old friend/colleague who happens to know someone working on Operation Grange. All the information I've told you is all the information I have, and for me personally it has (almost) completely changed my perspective on the case. I always retain a healthy degree of scepticism about anything, and either the friend may be lying or his friend. Take from what I've posted what you will smilie

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 22:07

nglfi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
nglfi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
nglfi wrote:It really doesn't matter whether someone has been campaigning or just posting, aren't we all here for the truth?

It does matter if someone is lying surely ?

Posting is NOT "campaigning" !

Saying you are here for the truth is different altogether.

Don't confuse "campaigning" with "here for the truth" !
In all honesty, since absolutely anyone on this forum could be lying about anything, and I don't know anyone on this forum personally, for me it's pointless to try and work out who is and who isn't. I actually wanted to post something yesterday about Andy Redwood, some very positive news which I have had from my partner who is a policeman, but I decided not to because I am new on this forum and I didn't think people would believe me. Indeed, I didn't expect them to. I am a faceless entity here so I could lie about anything. I'm just here to discuss interesting theories and try to get the old brain cells working with regard to all the information I've read on the McCannfiles website!

nglfi,
Now that's called trying to personalise before posting when it should not be the basis for posting here.
Don't underestimate people here. Credit people here with their due intelligent that they're capable of discerning what is believable from what is not.
Every post is taken for its own merits.
Whether one is old member or new member won't make a difference, it is the merits of the post that counts, not age of the membership.
I know there are some very intelligent people on this forum who are capable of discerning plausibility, I just meant I'm not very confident posting. My partner has a friend/colleague who knows someone working on Operation Grange, (this is why I was a little unconfident posting, as I'm starting off with 'a friend of a friend of a friend.....') and this person told him that AR should not be underestimated in any way. Everything that comes out of his mouth is scripted and designed with a specific purpose in mind. There is also not quite the massive rift between SY and the PJ that the media would have us believe. I was greatly buoyed by this (LOL) because I had been leaning more and more towards the whitewash side, and that actually AR was a bit of a dope. The friend didn't explicitly say but this leads me to believe that SY are focusing on the McCanns. However it's just the difficulty with finding enough evidence to charge.

ETA when I say scripted, I mean with a view to getting certain parties to slip up and reveal information. About a week ago was certainly not the first time that AR had given credence to the idea that Maddie had died in the apartment. It was just the right time to make that particular statement.

Well, I understand where you're coming from when you hesitate given that stance you described.
I believe Op Grange team is bound by confidentiality code and cannot discuss case detail, but I don't see why they can't give a general impression of the direction of the case without compromising confidentiality. So yes, between fellow police that's allowable I'd imagine. I never for one moment believe SY went in to whitewash.
Going by the non appeal to Madeleine's captor to return her, they must know she is dead.
Just like her parents knew she's dead - they too don't seem to be in any hurry to retrieve her, which they would if they truly believe there's chance she is still alive and living under torturous conditions.

by nglfi 28.03.14 22:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
nglfi wrote:
In all honesty, since absolutely anyone on this forum could be lying about anything, and I don't know anyone on this forum personally, for me it's pointless to try and work out who is and who isn't. I actually wanted to post something yesterday about Andy Redwood, some very positive news which I have had from my partner who is a policeman, but I decided not to because (A) I am new on this forum and (B) I didn't think people would believe me. Indeed, I didn't expect them to. I am a faceless entity here so I could lie about anything. I'm just here to discuss interesting theories and try to get the old brain cells working with regard to all the information I've read on the McCannfiles website!
nglfi, you are a bit of a 'tease', aren't you?

Not long ago, you said in a previous post: "I completely agree with all of the above. Also I do have a specific name in mind for the person you describe but I won't risk deletion!"

Tantalising. Today you have some 'positive news about Andy Redwood'. A few weeks back you had a mystery 'specific name in mind'.

As the thread is about 'game over', I am sure that any theories or information you may have about the case would be most welcome, unless they are libellous.

I am a bit puzzled because not long ago, you said: "Does anyone know anything about the history/affiliations of Andy Redwood? Aside from that he was involved in the wrongful charging of Barry George?...what are AR's connections? Does he have any links with the Labour party? I think this might seriously impact on the case potentially".

Yet now we find out you are a policeman's partner and (almost) able to pass on some 'positive news' about Redoood from your partner. Forgive me for raising this, but it does seem more than a tad curious that a few weeks ago you wanted to know things about Redwood's history yet, via your partner, are now able (or nearly able) to tell us something very positive about him.

I think you are very undecided about the whole case at the moment.

A while back, you wrote: "I'm not saying I'm sure what's going on behind the scenes. I still can't decide whether or not they are on the right lines of enquiry, I have my positive and negative days".

Maybe your partner has told you something that takes us nearer to knowing whether this 3-year-long £8 million SY investigation is a serious and determined attempt to arrest and convict those responsible for Madeleine's disappearance - or not?

I do not think being 'new on this forum' should deter anyone from sharing what they think is good quality information or an informed opinion.

As for 'I didn't think people would believe me', well, please tell us what you know - and your basis for saying it. We can all then use our judgment as to how much weight to put on any revelations or knowledge you have.

Thanks!

Hi Tony.
I have posted above what I know, and I'll address the other points you've raised. Right back from the start of this case, I have been undecided, for various reasons, not least the sheer wealth of information and misinformation, which it is difficult sometimes to sift through.
To address your first point, I said a few days ago that I had a name in mind. This is based on nothing more than my own theory and not on anything my partner has told me. It involves a member of the T9, and since I have had posts about him deleted before I decided not to mention him by name.
To answer your second point, this is not the first time I have mentioned my partner is a policeman. You seem to be able to bring up my past posts very easily so I'm sure that one is also available.
Thirdly, until my partner told me this piece of news I'll admit I didn't have any time for Andy Redwood. I went back and forth and sat on the fence a number of times about a whitewash, more often than not leaning towards whitewash.
Finally, re the information I've relayed today, I'd like to stress my partner is just a very hard working pc who I am not trying to claim is high up or privy to any special information. He just got talking to an old friend/colleague who happens to know someone working on Operation Grange. All the information I've told you is all the information I have, and for me personally it has (almost) completely changed my perspective on the case. I always retain a healthy degree of scepticism about anything, and either the friend may be lying or his friend. Take from what I've posted what you will smilie

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.14 22:15

nglfi wrote:
My partner has a friend/colleague who knows someone working on Operation Grange, (this is why I was a little unconfident posting, as I'm starting off with 'a friend of a friend of a friend...') and this person told him that AR (1) should not be underestimated in any way. Everything that comes out of his mouth is (2) scripted and designed with a specific purpose in mind. There is also (3) not quite the massive rift between SY and the PJ that the media would have us believe. I was greatly buoyed by this (LOL) because I had been leaning more and more towards the whitewash side, and that actually AR was a bit of a dope. The friend didn't explicitly say but this leads me to believe that SY are focusing on the McCanns. However it's just the difficulty with finding enough evidence to charge.

ETA when I say scripted, I mean with a view to getting certain parties to slip up and reveal information. About a week ago was certainly not the first time that AR had given credence to the idea that Maddie had died in the apartment. It was just the right time to make that particular statement.

Pardon my scepticism, but again please excuse me if I take this vague information with a huge dose of salt.

Everything Redwood says is 'scripted'?

Including: "we're drawn everything back to zero' and 'does not follow with our thinking'?

In 2012, we had the age-progressed artist's sketch of Madeleine, hugely promoted, with the stated aim of asking (once again) the British public to look for a smiling Madeleine. Was that 'to get certain parties to slip up and reveal information?' I think not.

Now to CrimeWatch, 14 October 2013, two-and-a-half years into the investigation.

The two e-fits, with confusion if they were the men/man seen by the Smiths. Was that 'to get certain parties to slip up and reveal information?'

The four e-fits of mysterious blond men. Was that merely 'to get certain parties to slip up and reveal information?'

The 10-minute, very selective, 'reconstruction'. Was that merely 'to get certain parties to slip up and reveal information'.

News of burglars, a man with a Tractor, smelly men with bins, soothing couples, six men in a white can, 30,000 mobile 'phones to search, 60 paedophiles to check out, thousands of actions remaining...is any of that going to 'get certain parties to slip up and reveal information'?

Redwood's 'revelation moment' about crecheman, whom he was unable to produce. At a stroke, he rescued the unbelievable ramblings of Jane Tanner about the man with child she said she'd seen. Was that going to 'get certain parties to slip up and reveal information?'

Thank you for posting what you say is the truth from someone on Operation Grange via your partner.

All due respect, but I am not inclined to believe it.

If someone is arrested and charged, or otherwise we get to know who really is responsible for Madeleine's mysterious disappearance, then I will believe.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.14 22:20

nglfi wrote:
All the information I've told you is all the information I have, and for me personally it has (almost) completely changed my perspective on the case.

From your doubt about Grange and Redwood...to your new (near) certainty that Grange is a bona fide search for the truth and nothing but the truth?

by TheTruthWillOut 28.03.14 22:23

I can't argue with your logic Tony, but boy is it depressing.

by nglfi 28.03.14 22:27

Tony Bennett wrote:
nglfi wrote:
My partner has a friend/colleague who knows someone working on Operation Grange, (this is why I was a little unconfident posting, as I'm starting off with 'a friend of a friend of a friend...') and this person told him that AR (1) should not be underestimated in any way. Everything that comes out of his mouth is (2) scripted and designed with a specific purpose in mind. There is also (3) not quite the massive rift between SY and the PJ that the media would have us believe. I was greatly buoyed by this (LOL) because I had been leaning more and more towards the whitewash side, and that actually AR was a bit of a dope. The friend didn't explicitly say but this leads me to believe that SY are focusing on the McCanns. However it's just the difficulty with finding enough evidence to charge.

ETA when I say scripted, I mean with a view to getting certain parties to slip up and reveal information. About a week ago was certainly not the first time that AR had given credence to the idea that Maddie had died in the apartment. It was just the right time to make that particular statement.
Pardon my scepticism, but again please excuse me if I take this vague information with a huge dose of salt.

Everything Redwood says is 'scripted'?

Including: "we're drawn everything back to zero' and 'does not follow with our thinking'?

In 2012, we had the age-progressed artist's sketch of Madeleine, hugely promoted, with the stated aim of asking (once again) the British public to look for a smiling Madeleine. Was that 'to get certain parties to slip up and reveal information?' I think not.

Now to CrimeWatch, 14 October 2013, two-and-a-half years into the investigation.

The two e-fits, with confusion if they were the men/man seen by the Smiths. Was that 'to get certain parties to slip up and reveal information?'

The four e-fits of mysterious blond men. Was that merely 'to get certain parties to slip up and reveal information?'

The 10-minute, very selective, 'reconstruction'. Was that merely 'to get certain parties to slip up and reveal information'.

News of burglars, a man with a Tractor, smelly men with bins, soothing couples, six men in a white can, 30,000 mobile 'phones to search, 60 paedophiles to check out, thousands of actions remaining...is any of that going to 'get certain parties to slip up and reveal information'?

Redwood's 'revelation moment' about crecheman, whom he was unable to produce. At a stroke, he rescued the unbelievable ramblings of Jane Tanner about the man with child she said she'd seen. Was that going to 'get certain parties to slip up and reveal information?'

Thank you for posting what you say is the truth from someone on Operation Grange via your partner.

All due respect, but I am not inclined to believe it.

If someone is arrested and charged, or otherwise we get to know who really is responsible for Madeleine's mysterious disappearance, then I will believe.

In a word, yes. The more misinformation is spread around, the more relaxed the McCanns will be. The second they believe the focus is on them, they will withdraw completely. They are not obliged to comment on anything and we have already seen how tight lipped 'hot lips' can be under interrogation. The more the McCanns get involved with bogus sightings and promote the fund in this way, the deeper and deeper a hole they are digging for themselves. Of course this isn't the ideal way to go about a criminal investigation, but this is no ordinary investigation. The McCanns have muddied the waters with their own investigations and efits, and so I assume for whatever reason SY feel the need to address these.
I don't see why the statements 'We've drawn everything back to zero' and 'may not follow with all our thinking' should be negative. The only way to get the truth out of this case to remove all the crap that has been put out there since and go back to pure forensics and cadaver odour.
I appreciate the information is vague and indeed it would be surprising if I came on here and claimed to give out detailed information about the inner workings of the case. If I was the sort of person that was privy to it I wouldn't be sharing it out on a forum and getting myself in trouble.
Of course you're entitled not to believe it and I am not offended by you not doing so.

by nglfi 28.03.14 22:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
nglfi wrote:
All the information I've told you is all the information I have, and for me personally it has (almost) completely changed my perspective on the case.
From your doubt about Grange and Redwood...to your new (near) certainty that Grange is a bona fide search for the truth and nothing but the truth?

You missed off the second part of my post, where I said I will always retain a healthy degree of scepticism and either the friend or his friend may be lying.

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 22:32

Is it a coincidence the pseudo sightings stop when SY embark on the review ? I don't think so.

It's rather telling that when Mccanns pte investigators were on their case sightings were aplenty, and now suddenly there is not even half a sighting when SY is on their case. Strange right ?

by nglfi 28.03.14 22:39

aiyoyo wrote:Is it a coincidence the pseudo sightings stop when SY embark on the review ? I don't think so.

It's rather telling that when Mccanns pte investigators were on their case sightings were aplenty, and now suddenly there is not even half a sighting when SY is on their case. Strange right ?

True. None of the information that has come out recently is actually new. David Reid is old news, as is Euclides Monteiro, although I'm not sure about the Arsenal/Target T shirt. This can probably be found somewhere on the McCannfiles website though.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.14 22:42

nglfi wrote:
The more misinformation is spread around, the more relaxed the McCanns will be.

REPLY: So what has changed since: "And in fact, one of the slight positives in all of this is that there is so much rumour about what did and didn't happen, it's actually very difficult, if you're reading the newspapers, watching the TV, to know what is true and what's not" - Gerry McCann, 24 August 2007?

The more the McCanns get involved with bogus sightings...

REPLY: Isn't it Scotland Yard, directly - or indirectly via approved leaks - who are now coming up with all these 'sightings', theories and suspects wholly lacking in credibility?

I don't see why the statements 'We've drawn everything back to zero' and 'may not follow with all our thinking' should be negative.

REPLY: I didn't say they were, nglfi. I was responding to your specific claim that everything Redwood said was 'scripted'. Sometimes it seems more like jargon-infested, meaningless verbal diarrhoea.

The only way to get the truth out of this case to remove all the crap that has been put out there since [? zero? - TB] and go back to pure forensics and cadaver odour.

REPLY: Have you forgotten about circumstantial evidence?

I appreciate the information is vague...Of course you're entitled not to believe it and I am not offended by you not doing so.

REPLY: Sleep well

by **Tony Bennett** 28.03.14 22:48

nglfi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Is it a coincidence the pseudo sightings stop when SY embark on the review ? I don't think so.

It's rather telling that when McCanns pte investigators were on their case sightings were aplenty, and now suddenly there is not even half a sighting when SY is on their case. Strange right ?
True. None of the information that has come out recently is actually new. David Reid is old news, as is Euclides Monteiro, although I'm not sure about the Arsenal/Target T shirt. This can probably be found somewhere on the McCannfiles website though.

McCann/Kennedy private investiagtions: >>> Parades of lots of sightings and lots of suspects.

SY - Grange: >>> Parades of lots of efits and lots of suspects. Masses of meaningless, endless statistics about numnbers of lines of enquiry, actions, ILORs, mobile 'phone records, lists of paedophiles to check, visits to Praia da Luz, meetings with opposite numbers...

Plus ca change

by aiyoyo 28.03.14 22:53

Tony Bennett wrote:
nglfi wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:Is it a coincidence the pseudo sightings stop when SY embark on the review ? I don't think so.

It's rather telling that when McCanns pte investigators were on their case sightings were aplenty, and now suddenly there is not even half a sighting when SY is on their case. Strange right ?
True. None of the information that has come out recently is actually new. David Reid is old news, as is Euclides Monteiro, although I'm not sure about the Arsenal/Target T shirt. This can probably be found somewhere on the McCannfiles website though.
McCann/Kennedy private investiagtions: >>> Parades of lots of sightings and lots of suspects.

SY - Grange: >>> Parades of lots of efits and lots of suspects. Masses of meaningless, endless statistics about numnbers of lines of enquiry, actions, ILORs, mobile 'phone records, lists of paedophiles to check, visits to Praia da Luz, meetings with opposite numbers...

Plus ca change

Chalk and cheese comparison.

The point remains team mccann has not promote any sighting since SY......?

by magrat70 28.03.14 22:54

This might sound depressing but I have wondered if we maybe have to wait until a member of the tapas 7 feel they have nothing to lose. I.e their children have got to an age that they wouldn't get taken into care, they spend more time on the golf course than on their careers and they get offered some type of immunity from SY that they roll on the rest. I must admit I thought that some type of deal had been done with Tanner when Tannerman was got rid of. Don't know why I have always felt that Tanner or Oldfield would be the ones to break away, her obvious distaste of Mr is palpable (and who could blame her for that) . I hope I am wrong and the poor kid gets justice sooner.

by coati mundi 29.03.14 0:37

I agree with TB. Plus ca change plus s'est la meme chose - the more it changes , the more it is the same thing.

From the British side, the investigation seems to be focused on a passing parade of weirdos who all seem to have converged on PDL over the days that the Mcanns and their friends were there. The enormous amount of public money (at a time when at least half a million of our citizens are having to be fed from food banks) has been wasted by looking in the wrong direction.

From the begininng I thought that the abduction story did not fit. I am more than ever convinced it is not the true version of what happened. But don't hold your breath if you think that SY are pointing towards the truth. I believe they will come up with a mystery that somehow exonerates the McCs and blames the Portugues (bumbling foreigners) for looking in the wrong direction in the first place. A dead patsy would do for that.

by **sharonl** 29.03.14 6:12

We should consider the reason that this review was set up in the first place. Remember that Theresa May was against the idea to start with and only agreed to it under pressure from David Cameron who was told by Rebekah Brooks that he would be exposed in the headlines every day if he didn't comply with her request.

Before the review was set, we had the McCann private detectives Metedo 3, Oakley International and Alphaig supplying the press with the latest nonsense on the case. We had sightings galore, witnesses galore and many other spoof articles about what the PI's were up to. Since the arrest or imprisonment of most of these clowns these stories seem to have dried up and we have had to make do with mystery men, un-named witnesses, sources and dead paedophiles..

So what has this review achieved?

1. It has kept David Cameron out of the headlines with whatever it is that Rebekah threatened to expose
2. It has provided the Rebekah and the press with numerous stories on the McCann case

Nothing else has been achieved, and if it had what could the Met police do about it? They have no jurisdiction in Portugal, they may not even be recognised as police officers in Portugal. To make an arrest they would need the assistance of the Portuguese Police, otherwise they may be seen as running a case alongside the official one or interfering, they may even get arrested themselves.

The British police have even stated that this is a case for the Portuguese Police, we are just assisting them.

Notice how there have been fewer sightings since the review started, the press now focus on what they say that the Met are doing. Notice how the press stories have changed from weekly sightings to weekly suspects.

For me, this review is nothing more than a PR exercise, set up to keep Rebekah Brooks happy and to protect Cameron from adverse publicity in the headlines.

Imagine if there was no review, the press would have no story to sell.

by **tigger** 29.03.14 7:14

110% with you there Sharonl! thumbsup

Moongoddess said some time ago that it's looking like a big social experiment.

I don't want it to be but the wall-to-wall nonsense in the press certainly gives that impression.

My faith in the SY review, never strong in the first place, hit a new low in April 2012 when the Panorama documentary and the appearance of Redwood on breakfast TV turned the whole thing into a 'live' soap opera.

We are the Resistance - just as in France in WWII - the majority of the population is of the same opinion as we are, but they do nothing as long as it doesn't affect them.
But keeping this forum up and running is at the very least a great inconvenience to the shady bunch who have perverted the cause of justice.

by **Tony Bennett** 29.03.14 8:32

@ aiyoyo

Good morning.

Your basic observation that there has been a major drop-off in the number of 'sightings' since Operation Grange began its work on May 2011 is correct - though there have been some even in the past three years.

But just suppose, for the sake of argument, that you were the parents of a missing child, and - for whatever reason - you wanted the world to believe that s/he had been abducted.

Then suppose that after four years, having set up a large fund to 'look for' your missing child, the money is running out. You have spent a small fortune organising a campaign, and hiring a series of dodgy detective agencies that, so far, have produced nothing except that they have succeeded in parading before the public 20 or more suspects or 'persons of interest' and had helped to promote hundreds of 'sightings' of your child in dozens of countries.

How would you feel if, after those four years, you were offered the following:

* A review personally ordered by the Prime Minister of your country

* The Prime Minister's spokesman explicitly states on the record that the purpose of the review is to help you and your family

* The review then pays for an age-progressed artist's sketch of your child and promotes this across all the TV and print media, urging the nation, once again, to look for her

* The head of the review team says repeatedly that neither you nor your friends are suspects

* The review team becomes an investigation team that produces a succession of e-fits and suspects, either dead or alive, and after nearly three years says: 'we've eliminated 22, but there are still 38 to go'

* The head of the operation says that his team have carried out 'actions' measured in the thousands - and have thousands more to do

* The head of the operation says he may need another 2 or 3 years to examine mobile 'phone records measured in tens of thousands in 30 countries

* The head of the operation says he is checking on the whereabouts in 2007 of over 500 registerd sex offenders.

How would you feel?

by russiandoll 29.03.14 8:43

quote Tony Bennett : The head of the review team says repeatedly that neither you nor your friends are suspects

I read this claim from you a few days ago and asked would you kindly provide quotes, because afaik Andy Redwood has made this statement once.
Would you kindly tell me where you have read or heard him say this repeatedly?

Thank you.

by SixMillionQuid 29.03.14 9:45

russiandoll wrote:quote Tony Bennett : The head of the review team says repeatedly that neither you nor your friends are suspects

I read this claim from you a few days ago and asked would you kindly provide quotes, because afaik Andy Redwood has made this statement once.
Would you kindly tell me where you have read or heard him say this repeatedly?

Thank you.

Once, twice, three times doesn't matter. Its clear where Operation Grange attention is focused and its not the McCanns or their friends. The questions is how long are you prepared to wait for Andy Redwood to eliminate the burglars or dead peados from their enquiries? We know that's never going to happen.

As Sharonl has posted this review only came about because the McCanns have been requesting it since 2009 - they wanted to know what's been hidden and they only way they could do that is by getting like minded UK official to stick their nose in and feed them back with info that can be 'spun' in UK. But they're p***ed because they and Operation Grange can't work exactly what's going on in Portugal.

by Bishop Brennan 29.03.14 9:58

SixMillionQuid wrote:
Once, twice, three times doesn't matter. Its clear where Operation Grange attention is focused and its not the McCanns or their friends. The questions is how long are you prepared to wait for Andy Redwood to eliminate the burglars or dead peados from their enquiries? We know that's never going to happen.

As Sharonl has posted this review only came about because the McCanns have been requesting it since 2009 - they wanted to know what's been hidden and they only way they could do that is by getting like minded UK official to stick their nose in and feed them back with info that can be 'spun' in UK. But they're p***ed because they and Operation Grange can't work exactly what's going on in Portugal.

Indeed it is clear and it hasn't changed since day 1. And I agree also that with some 500+ sex offenders still to be checked out along with the 30+ ILRs, Andy was basically telling the world that this case will never be solved. There are far more "possible leads" in the world than there is money to pay for their investigation.

As for Tony's question about how would the parents feel? Delighted and honoured that their case was being taken so seriously. They would be fulsome in praise of DC and enthusiastic to the max. Not really what we are seeing.... And I think SMQ has pinpointed why. They wanted to lift the covers of the evidence but may instead have stirred up the hornets nest back at the PJ...

As many here believe it's now down to the PJ. SY can assist them if they wish (getting rid of tannerman and admitting she may be dead in the apartment is a help), so there may be some in the team who are not fully following the script laid down by DC.

by Angelique 29.03.14 10:06

Sharonl

Yes I too think this too.

I would go so far as to say that the Review and Investigation is nothing more than a show. It keeps the troops occupied (SY) and their Pensions topped up. SY were facing job cuts at the time. It does wonders for their public persona. It gave/gives kudos to Cameron for being caring and compassionate towards families in difficulties (the letter was already typed). Rebekah was/is his friend/part of the set. It is used as a "mirage" to forums and the like to try and convince us all that justice still continues to be done in UK when we have no jurisdiction anyway.

The bigger picture that I see from all this is "it doesn't really matter anymore". The only point to all this for them is making money. The taxpayer is funding this (it is out of our pockets/earned income) and the spin off from it is part income and part propaganda.