Re: Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

by Newintown 22.05.14 22:08

Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Newintown wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
lj wrote:
Yep and that's a whitewash.
And how precisely did Det Redwood communicate to the members of his team that they were going to spend 3 years conducting a whitewash and persuade them all to go along with it?

Email? - certainly not (easily forwarded to the world)
Text? - ditto
Letter? - no, there would be written evidence
Phone call? - no, could have been recorded
Spoken instructions to all the investigating team in a meeting room? - no, this sort of thing would have to be done on a one-to-one basis
Secret meeting with each individual officer in a locked room? - no guarantee that his colleague would agree to it

How was it done then?

There would have been a lot of prospective officers lined up to be interviewed for the job.
The ones that got through to the final selected team would be the ones with the 'right' profile.

In other words you mean they would be asked to lie through their teeth and cover up the death/accidental death/disappearance of Madeleine McCann and find the parents as being not involved despite their and their Tapas friends giving contradictory statements and Eddie and Keela were very much mistaken. Yeah, right and pigs may fly.
Redwood was specifically instructed by those much higher to look at every scenario apart from the parents or their friends being involved. So he basically can come up with any solution apart from the one with the most circumstantial evidence.

Are you a politician by any chance? You haven't actually answered my post.

by SixMillionQuid 22.05.14 22:17

Newintown wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Newintown wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
lj wrote:
Yep and that's a whitewash.
And how precisely did Det Redwood communicate to the members of his team that they were going to spend 3 years conducting a whitewash and persuade them all to go along with it?

Email? - certainly not (easily forwarded to the world)
Text? - ditto
Letter? - no, there would be written evidence
Phone call? - no, could have been recorded
Spoken instructions to all the investigating team in a meeting room? - no, this sort of thing would have to be done on a one-to-one basis
Secret meeting with each individual officer in a locked room? - no guarantee that his colleague would agree to it

How was it done then?

There would have been a lot of prospective officers lined up to be interviewed for the job.
The ones that got through to the final selected team would be the ones with the 'right' profile.

In other words you mean they would be asked to lie through their teeth and cover up the death/accidental death/disappearance of Madeleine McCann and find the parents as being not involved despite their and their Tapas friends giving contradictory statements and Eddie and Keela were very much mistaken. Yeah, right and pigs may fly.
Redwood was specifically instructed by those much higher to look at every scenario apart from the parents or their friends being involved. So he basically can come up with any solution apart from the one with the most circumstantial evidence.

Are you a politician by any chance? You haven't actually answered my post.

When Mr Redwood said to the public the T9 are of no interest do you believe he was telling the truth? If you believe he was telling a lie then he's openly lied to the public.

by russiandoll 22.05.14 22:23

HongKong Phooey " Redwood was specifically instructed by those much higher to look at every scenario apart from the parents or their friends being involved. So he basically can come up with any solution apart from the one with the most circumstantial evidence. "

Why state your opinion as if it were a fact?

And to Six Million Quid.... Redwood said that months ago and as a response to a question. He has not repeated that since, nor has there been any word from Grange that internet speculation might as well cease because the parents and/or friends are not in the frame. He might well have been telling the truth as it stood months ago, the investigation has moved on, maybe they are in the frame now.
Do you think that Redwood could have answered yes to that question, without the balloon going up? Kate's book of truth and the amount given in donations... the McCanns would have been in danger of being harmed...and there were and are their twins to consider.

by Hongkong Phooey 22.05.14 22:24

Newintown wrote:
Hongkong Phooey wrote:
Newintown wrote:
bobbin wrote:
Atomic Peanut wrote:
lj wrote:
Yep and that's a whitewash.
And how precisely did Det Redwood communicate to the members of his team that they were going to spend 3 years conducting a whitewash and persuade them all to go along with it?

Email? - certainly not (easily forwarded to the world)
Text? - ditto
Letter? - no, there would be written evidence
Phone call? - no, could have been recorded
Spoken instructions to all the investigating team in a meeting room? - no, this sort of thing would have to be done on a one-to-one basis
Secret meeting with each individual officer in a locked room? - no guarantee that his colleague would agree to it

How was it done then?

There would have been a lot of prospective officers lined up to be interviewed for the job.
The ones that got through to the final selected team would be the ones with the 'right' profile.

In other words you mean they would be asked to lie through their teeth and cover up the death/accidental death/disappearance of Madeleine McCann and find the parents as being not involved despite their and their Tapas friends giving contradictory statements and Eddie and Keela were very much mistaken. Yeah, right and pigs may fly.
Redwood was specifically instructed by those much higher to look at every scenario apart from the parents or their friends being involved. So he basically can come up with any solution apart from the one with the most circumstantial evidence.

Are you a politician by any chance? You haven't actually answered my post.

Moi? And yes you are correct I'm a polish tishin from the monster raving lunatic party, or at least this case (which I've followed through several forums over the seven years) drives you to lunacy. The OG personnel have been given a remit, you don't go against your superiors and start your own investigation on something you were told to stay away from.

by russiandoll 22.05.14 22:29

HKP , why are you stating as a fact that Grange were told to look at everyone except the Mcs and their holiday companions ? It is just your opinion.

by Hongkong Phooey 22.05.14 22:30

russiandoll wrote:HongKong Phooey " Redwood was specifically instructed by those much higher to look at every scenario apart from the parents or their friends being involved. So he basically can come up with any solution apart from the one with the most circumstantial evidence. "

Why state your opinion as if it were a fact?

And to Six Million Quid.... Redwood said that months ago and as a response to a question. He has not repeated that since, nor has there been any word from Grange that internet speculation might as well cease because the parents and/or friends are not in the frame. He might well have been telling the truth as it stood months ago, the investigation has moved on, maybe they are in the frame now.
Do you think that Redwood could have answered yes to that question, without the balloon going up? Kate's book of truth and the amount given in donations... the McCanns would have been in danger of being harmed...and there were and are their twins to consider.

You are correct I should have added IMO, however are you denying that Redwood has stated that the remit of OG is to look at all possible areas that don't involve the parents? (maybe not in those exact words)

by Hongkong Phooey 22.05.14 22:34

russiandoll wrote:HKP , why are you stating as a fact that Grange were told to look at everyone except the Mcs and their holiday companions ? It is just your opinion.

He stated on Crimewatch that the investigation was being conducted by taking everything back to zero however they would not be looking towards the parents or any involvement of their friends (again not exact words).

by noddy100 22.05.14 22:37

Maybe the whole investigation has been set up to investigate the 'abduction' only
No other to be investigated and perhaps the officers have been told that they are not involved
And they are not going down that road

by russiandoll 22.05.14 22:37

HKP I heard taking it back to zero, but iirc there was no mention of the parents on CW, to the best of my knowledge Redwood made this statement only once when he was put on the spot by a journalist and said that none of the tapas crew were suspects or persons or interest.
Of course I stand to be corrected.

by phil_burton 22.05.14 22:39

If you doubt the ability or volition of the esteemed British Police to pervert the course of justice, just take a look at the Hillsborough case.

They managed to completely bury (no pun intended) any possibility of police wrong doing for nigh on 15 years. And that was with hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of testimonies, involving dozens of police officers, from multiple forces.

Protecting 2 doctors from Rothley would be a doddle. The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed, and the Met know they can make the British media dance to their tune - all we're hearing is what they want you to hear.

The only thing that will change the course of this whitewash is new, credible, irrefutable evidence that will, through public pressure, force the PJ and the Met to work together.

What we're seeing right now, and for the past 3 years is a FARCE.

by Guest 22.05.14 22:44

phil_burton wrote:If you doubt the ability or volition of the esteemed British Police to pervert the course of justice, just take a look at the Hillsborough case.

They managed to completely bury (no pun intended) any possibility of police wrong doing for nigh on 15 years. And that was with hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of testimonies, involving dozens of police officers, from multiple forces.

Protecting 2 doctors from Rothley would be a doddle. The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed, and the Met know they can make the British media dance to their tune - all we're hearing is what they want you to hear.

The only thing that will change the course of this whitewash is new, credible, irrefutable evidence that will, through public pressure, force the PJ and the Met to work together.

What we're seeing right now, and for the past 3 years is a FARCE.

***
My "pink" above in your comment.
What makes you think the case is closed ... ????

by phil_burton 22.05.14 22:47

Châtelaine wrote:
phil_burton wrote:If you doubt the ability or volition of the esteemed British Police to pervert the course of justice, just take a look at the Hillsborough case.

They managed to completely bury (no pun intended) any possibility of police wrong doing for nigh on 15 years. And that was with hundreds of witnesses, hundreds of testimonies, involving dozens of police officers, from multiple forces.

Protecting 2 doctors from Rothley would be a doddle. The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed, and the Met know they can make the British media dance to their tune - all we're hearing is what they want you to hear.

The only thing that will change the course of this whitewash is new, credible, irrefutable evidence that will, through public pressure, force the PJ and the Met to work together.

What we're seeing right now, and for the past 3 years is a FARCE.
***
My "pink" above in your comment.
What makes you think the case is closed ... ????

Let me turn that question round on you big grin

What makes you think it's open?

by russiandoll 22.05.14 22:48

Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

by Guest 22.05.14 22:48

I have no time for funny questions.
It is above question that the PJ have reopened the investigation.
Good night.

by phil_burton 22.05.14 22:51

russiandoll wrote:Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

If it's open with the PJ, why aren't the PJ demanding that K+G and the T7 are flown back for further questioning/reconstructions?

Apologies - I'm not trying to stir things up, and I'm not as au fait with this case as you guys, but I dont see any reason to believe the case is actually open and the answers to what happened to MM are being sought.

I see lots of media fluff (which I see a lot of working in marketing!), but nothing real, nothing tangible.

by 1soapy 22.05.14 22:51

And as so many on here offer so many inferences and interpretations of what, e.g. the police, have said, then why does 6mq argue that such an ambiguous statement has only one interpretation and is therefore a lie and therefore he is a known public liar and should be hung? (May not be quoting EXACTLY there!!!) You may be right, but ARE could mean,exactly that. Not at this time (but it is on the agenda later, or not). Of no interest could also mean that they, as in their statements, are all we need. They tell us what we need. We think they clearly tell us x or y and so we have nothing to ask them now, but we will be arresting them in due course/letting them go because they are innocent, interviewing them at stage 34 when we are now at stage 23. Or being nice or lying (under certain circumstances) or sending a certain message out could be the reason. Aren't there precedents for any/all of these?

I do find the MET remit (abduction) and, 'as if it happened on British soil) and for the parents very odd. Is there any other examples of such odd remits on anything that one would expect a much more Occamized version. If anything, I understand cases have been lost on the basis of a too complicated charge or a date was wrong.

by Hongkong Phooey 22.05.14 22:54

russiandoll wrote:HKP I heard taking it back to zero, but iirc there was no mention of the parents on CW, to the best of my knowledge Redwood made this statement only once when he was put on the spot by a journalist and said that none of the tapas crew were suspects or persons or interest.
Of course I stand to be corrected.

You may be right and I would have to sit through the torture of watching that tosh again to find out the correct information and that ain't gonna happen in a hurry!

by Guest 22.05.14 23:01

phil_burton wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

If it's open with the PJ, why aren't the PJ demanding that K+G and the T7 are flown back for further questioning/reconstructions?

Apologies - I'm not trying to stir things up, and I'm not as au fait with this case as you guys, but I dont see any reason to believe the case is actually open and the answers to what happened to MM are being sought.

I see lots of media fluff (which I see a lot of working in marketing!), but nothing real, nothing tangible.

The case was never closed, it was shelved, pending any new evidence coming to light. It has now been un-shelved so to speak and a team are investigating.

by phil_burton 22.05.14 23:12

candyfloss wrote:
phil_burton wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

If it's open with the PJ, why aren't the PJ demanding that K+G and the T7 are flown back for further questioning/reconstructions?

Apologies - I'm not trying to stir things up, and I'm not as au fait with this case as you guys, but I dont see any reason to believe the case is actually open and the answers to what happened to MM are being sought.

I see lots of media fluff (which I see a lot of working in marketing!), but nothing real, nothing tangible.

The case was never closed, it was shelved, pending any new evidence coming to light. It has now been un-shelved so to speak and a team are investigating.

Ahhh, "shelved".

A fluffy term for "closed" which makes it seem like it isn't really closed.

So, would you agree it's not technicall OPEN, but in a state of inactivity. A bit like a dormant volcano?

by Guest 22.05.14 23:17

phil_burton wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
phil_burton wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

If it's open with the PJ, why aren't the PJ demanding that K+G and the T7 are flown back for further questioning/reconstructions?

Apologies - I'm not trying to stir things up, and I'm not as au fait with this case as you guys, but I dont see any reason to believe the case is actually open and the answers to what happened to MM are being sought.

I see lots of media fluff (which I see a lot of working in marketing!), but nothing real, nothing tangible.

The case was never closed, it was shelved, pending any new evidence coming to light. It has now been un-shelved so to speak and a team are investigating.

Ahhh, "shelved".

A fluffy term for "closed" which makes it seem like it isn't really closed.

So, would you agree it's not technicall OPEN, but in a state of inactivity. A bit like a dormant volcano?

***
Cannot you READ?
It was SHELVED and some time ago it was REOPENED, and I guess for good reasons.
Good night again.

by Guest 22.05.14 23:24

Châtelaine wrote:
phil_burton wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
phil_burton wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

If it's open with the PJ, why aren't the PJ demanding that K+G and the T7 are flown back for further questioning/reconstructions?

Apologies - I'm not trying to stir things up, and I'm not as au fait with this case as you guys, but I dont see any reason to believe the case is actually open and the answers to what happened to MM are being sought.

I see lots of media fluff (which I see a lot of working in marketing!), but nothing real, nothing tangible.

The case was never closed, it was shelved, pending any new evidence coming to light. It has now been un-shelved so to speak and a team are investigating.

Ahhh, "shelved".

A fluffy term for "closed" which makes it seem like it isn't really closed.

So, would you agree it's not technicall OPEN, but in a state of inactivity. A bit like a dormant volcano?
***
Cannot you READ?
It was SHELVED and some time ago it was REOPENED, and I guess for good reasons.
Good night again.

For the record if a case is CLOSED then it usually means they have a culprit or whoever committed the crime Also for your information phil_Burton the case was re-opened a couple of months ago due to new evidence, and the PJ had actually been working on it some time before Scotland Yard started Operation Grange.

by rainbow-fairy 22.05.14 23:37

phil_burton wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
phil_burton wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Phil B " The PJ can't do a thing now that the case is closed,"

When did it close? Last I heard it was open in 2 countries.

If it's open with the PJ, why aren't the PJ demanding that K+G and the T7 are flown back for further questioning/reconstructions?

Apologies - I'm not trying to stir things up, and I'm not as au fait with this case as you guys, but I dont see any reason to believe the case is actually open and the answers to what happened to MM are being sought.

I see lots of media fluff (which I see a lot of working in marketing!), but nothing real, nothing tangible.

The case was never closed, it was shelved, pending any new evidence coming to light. It has now been un-shelved so to speak and a team are investigating.

Ahhh, "shelved".

A fluffy term for "closed" which makes it seem like it isn't really closed.

So, would you agree it's not technicall OPEN, but in a state of inactivity. A bit like a dormant volcano?

At one point, namely through lack of cooperation meaning no further progress could be made, yes it was 'dormant' in a sense.

It is now open again and therefore being investigated by the PJ.

What would be the reason for saying it was if it wasn't???

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.05.14 0:03

SixMillionQuid wrote:
When Mr Redwood said to the public the T9 are of no interest do you believe he was telling the truth? If you believe he was telling a lie then he's openly lied to the public.

You mean like the way the PJ did in late August 2007?

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

Earlier, Chief Inspector Olegario Sousa publicly declared that Kate and Gerry McCann, and their friends who were on holiday with them, were not suspects.

He told the BBC the parents were "victims" who had lost their child and also witnesses in the case.

So, PJ declaring the whole Tapas 9 not suspects.

Also calling the McCanns victims in much the same way as Scotland Yard have.

At this time the cadaver dog searches had already detected cadaverine in 5A, in the hire car, and on Kate McCanns trousers.

Does this it make to clear to you - and everyone else who uses this line - that police forces don't declare their suspects up front?

The above is indisputable fact and on the record.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 0:24

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

Is it clear to you yet - and everyone else who uses this line - that police forces don't declare their suspects up front?

I wonder just how clear it is to you, though, WLBTS?

Look at the record of the McCann Team's habit of publicly naming or otherwise identifying suspects, 'persons of interest' and 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries'...

Tannerman
Monsterman/George Harrison man
Endless people claimed to have been seen on street corners hanging around Praia da Luz
Taxi-driver who had Madeleine in the back
Man seen in car in Bosnia
Moroccan peasant woman carrying fair-haired child
Raymond Hewlett
Victoria Beckham-lookalike
Portuguese gypsy gang leader
German paedophile
...and many others

And then consider how many suspects Grange has publicly identifed:

Smithman
4 blond blokes claimed to have been seen on street corners hanging around Praia da Luz
6 men in a white van
3 burglars
man from the Ocean Club who had keys
Smelly bin-man
...and many others.

I will agree with you on this, though, that under normal circumstances, a police force saying that the parents are not under suspicion is by no means proof that they aren't under suspicion.

But this case is wholly different in several important respects, notably:

1. The Prime Minister of the UNited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has declared them innocent

AND

2. The official remit refers to the offence being 'abduction'.

Oh, and...

3. Hamish Campbell of Barry Bulsara/George notoriety was appointed the original investigation co-ordinator for Grange

by Mirage 23.05.14 0:35

Sky News website has a piece on the case.

Two things of note - they are allowing comments for the first time in yonks, including those of sceptics. The other surprise is a box to the right of the page containing a detailed timeline of the case, warts an' all. TB gets a mention! (Not that you're a wart, TB, I hasten to add). smilie

by Guest 23.05.14 2:08

Mirage I cannot believe what I've just read !

I am not changing my mind again,the truth will be revealed imo and justice for Madeleine will soon be served.

by lj 23.05.14 3:10

stillsloppingout wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Mr Rowley echoed Kate McCann's calls for restraint in media coverage of the case, and said: "I want to be able to go back to Kate and Gerry at some stage in the future and tell them we've got to the bottom of this, or second best is to go back to them and say we've turned over every stone and we can't get to an answer sometimes."
IMO the words in red tell us precisely where the Met are heading with this series of very public performances.

There will be lots more pictures and photo opportunities.

But nothing at the end of it
More prof if needed that SY are NOT treating the McCann's [ sorry it's Gerry and Kate now ] as suspects.

Exactly

by lj 23.05.14 3:18

angusallan wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:I've just seen the BBC's news report on Mark Rowley's press conference and statement.

They are putting 'Smithman' at the very heart of their news story, thus:

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
Thursday 3 May 2007: Timeline
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

20:30 Kate and Gerry McCann leave their apartment to have dinner at a Tapas bar
21:05 Gerry McCann checks on Madeleine and her siblings
22:00 A man is seen carrying a child wearing pyjamas heading towards the ocean
22:00 Kate McCann raises the alarm that Madeleine has gone missing

Yet, never mind all the many other doubts about the validity of the Smiths' claimed sighting, DCI Redwood on CrimeWatch on 14 October 2013 very deliberately led the viewing public to believe that members of this 'Irish family' were capable of producing two e-fits (both of different men, so it seems), despite the fact that all the three Smiths who gave statements to the PJ said they didn't see his face properly because it was dark, his face was hidden, we only saw him for a second or two, etc. etc.

How is it that some, even on this forum, can swallow such balderdash - hook, line and sinker?
Fleffer what,s your wider agenda here?

Oh shut up, that chapter was closed and personal attacks are not permitted.

by whatliesbehindthesofa 23.05.14 3:28

Tony Bennett wrote:
Look at the record of the McCann Team's habit of publicly naming or otherwise identifying suspects, 'persons of interest' and 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiries'...

Tannerman
Monsterman/George Harrison man
Endless people claimed to have been seen on street corners hanging around Praia da Luz
Taxi-driver who had Madeleine in the back
Man seen in car in Bosnia
Moroccan peasant woman carrying fair-haired child
Raymond Hewlett
Victoria Beckham-lookalike
Portuguese gypsy gang leader
German paedophile
...and many others

Did you add the above to beef up your list? As you rightly point out, these come from Team McCann, not Scotland Yard.

Scotland Yard have even eliminated one of the above, Team McCann's main suspect.

Tony Bennett wrote:
And then consider how many suspects Grange has publicly identifed:

Smithman
4 blond blokes claimed to have been seen on street corners hanging around Praia da Luz
6 men in a white van
3 burglars
man from the Ocean Club who had keys
Smelly bin-man
...and many others.

I'm sure if there were 'many others' you would have listed them,

Tony Bennett wrote:
I will agree with you on this, though, that under normal circumstances, a police force saying that the parents are not under suspicion is by no means proof that they aren't under suspicion.

But this case is wholly different in several important respects, notably:

1. The Prime Minister of the UNited Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland has declared them innocent

AND

2. The official remit refers to the offence being 'abduction'.

The official remit of the review, and it is now an investigation.

by nglfi 23.05.14 8:00

Interestingly, the entry on the find madeleine page about Scotland Yard looking into the 'football stadium' sighting has now been whooshed! All that remains is a thank you but it's not madeleine. Interesting! Perhaps thry realised how stupid it sounded. Or perhaps they realised they shouldn't actually lie and say SY are investigating something they aren't.