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

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 9:45

Atomic Peanut wrote:
AndyB wrote:There were also several individuals within the police that were not directly involved at Hillsborough but who also took part in the cover up.

They were protecting their colleagues - how does the same thing apply in the case of MM?

Do you not think that its at least possible that the Met are involved in a cover-up of something to do with Madeleine's disappearance, perhaps not the disappearance itself, not because they were directly involved in it but because that is what they are under orders to do?

There has been no indication that this is the case, just unproven theories. Btw NSY isn't under the thumb of the government, eg Plebgate.

Incidentally you are quite wrong to say that no-one on here has satisfactorily explained what the involvement is.

It's all theories, no evidence, no proof, nothing.
(my replies in blue)

And yes I agree with TB that Savile would be a closer analogy, but there is nothing to link the British police with the disappearance of MM or any of the circumstances that may be connected with it.

It might be helpful if we look at the involvement of the British police, and then the British government, the British Foreign Office and the British security services in the round - after all, there is a huge amount of overlap and interconnectedness between them all.

All the following must be put into the mix, from which you will see that the British police and various arms of the British government have been very heavily involved in this case from the outset:

On the one hand:

* LeicsPolice - 3 officers - called in straightaway - immediate 'help' or interference (take your pick) in the Portuguese investigation
* MI5 involved - in Amaral's book, and conceded elsewhere
* Control Risks Group - strongly connected to government - brought in right away
* British Ambassador and consular staff on the spot straightaway, pleading with Port. police to allow McCanns to wash clothes etc.
* Appointment of government's controller of the media - Clarence Mitchell
* Gordon Brown calls to and from Gerry McCann - tells Portuguese police to release details of Tannerman
* Gordon Brown visits LeicsPolice HQ September 2007
* Gordon Brown visits FSS Birmingham
* DetChiefSup Bob Small & Control Risks Group speak to Jane Tanner pm on Sun 13 May, an hour later, she says Tannerman is Robert Murat - Murat made suspect
* Control Risks and other MI5 or British security personnel tell Portuguese Police that Murat fits the profile of the abductor 90% - Murat made suspect
* LeicsPolice promote Madeleine's Fund on their website and direct public to McCanns' 'Investigation Hotline'
* LeicsPolice invite McCanns to their incident room
* Brit Police invite Gerry McCann to police bravery awards - he gets a round of applause
* Portuguese police notify Gordon Brown they are going to remove Amaral from the investigation
* DetSup Stuart Prior on first name terms with McCanns and Tapas 7: 'Hi Stu' etc.
* Home Secretary Jacqui Smith (claimed porn videos on her MPs expense account) holds up rogatories for months
* Home Secretary denies permission to inspect family financial accounts and Madeleine's medical records
* Operation Grange set up by Rupert Murdoch's CEO Rebekah Brooks
* Government say Grange's purpose is 'to help the family'

...and I'm sure I've missed out a lot.

On the other hand:

* The Portuguese police liaised with Mark Harrison
* Who told them about Lee Rainbow
* Who told them about Martin Grime
* Who told them about Eddie & Keela and their 100% record in detecting blood and human corpse scent

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 9:47

canada12 wrote:And always bearing in mind that there has to be a reasonable expectation of having enough proof to bring the case to court. If there isn't enough evidence to result in a reasonable expectation of a conviction, then there isn't likely to be a court case. This is what the digging is about, and the investigating. It's about finding evidence that will stand up in court.

But which could only ever be a Portuguese court

by HelenMeg 23.05.14 9:54

http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/uk/crime/article4097592.ece

Reporting in The Times today

The £6 million police investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann might “draw a blank”, a senior Scotland Yard officer said yesterday.
British and Portuguese police officers are set to begin search operations in the next few weeks in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz from where Madeleine went missing in May 2007, days before her fourth birthday.
Search operations are expected to begin with the use of ground penetrating radar before excavations in three locations in the resort. Police are also expected to try to interview a number of potential suspects and witnesses.
The Metropolitan Police said there would be a “substantial phase of activity” that would see British police in the resort led by Portuguese officers.
Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley of the Met said that the highly visible activity would not represent a breakthrough but was “normal police activity you would expect in any such major investigation”.
He added: “Serious-crime investigations work through all credible possibilities and therefore it should not be assumed that this substantial upcoming phase of work will immediately lead us to the answers that will explain what has happened.”
In Madeleine’s case, many of the basic tasks of the investigation are being carried out years after the crime. Mr Rowley said: “We may go through every line of inquiry and all of them draw a blank.” The officer said that he expected there would be more work to be carried out once this phase of activity was completed.
He added: “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 say we’ve turned over every stone and we can’t get to an answer sometimes.”
Madeleine was on holiday with her parents, Kate and Gerry McCann, in the Ocean Club complex when she disappeared from the bedroom where she was sleeping with her twin siblings. Her parents were eating with friends at a nearby tapas restaurant when she went missing from the apartment.
In the renewed investigation, the Met has requested help from the Portuguese authorities to carry out specific tasks. However, relationships between the British and Portuguese authorities are tense, leading to delays.
Mr Rowley renewed his appeal for the media to exercise caution in reporting police activity in Praia da Luz. He said the Portuguese police might cease co-operation if there was intrusive media activity.
A key line of inquiry for Scotland Yard is tracing a lone male who staged a series of sex attacks on young British girls in the Algarve. Detectives believe that nine sexual assaults and three “near misses” on British girls aged six to 12 between 2004 and 2006 are linked.

by russiandoll 23.05.14 10:11

Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:And always bearing in mind that there has to be a reasonable expectation of having enough proof to bring the case to court. If there isn't enough evidence to result in a reasonable expectation of a conviction, then there isn't likely to be a court case. This is what the digging is about, and the investigating. It's about finding evidence that will stand up in court.
But which could only ever be a Portuguese court

It might be worth remembering this from recent reporting :
Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity - Page 10 BoTuiCLIQAA5BdI

Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity - Page 10 BoTuiCLIQAA5BdI

by Guest 23.05.14 10:19

Taken from Andrew77R's post on page 3:

Rowley's request that journalists should not publish information ahead of Operation Grange actions was described as a “big ask” by The Guardian’s crime editor, Sandra Laville.
Talking about the McCann case she told Rowley: “Looking atwhat was said in Leveson and what Leicestershire Police didn’t guide on re[garding] whether the family were suspects, a bit of guidance there would have saved the family an awful lot of stress actually.
“And I think if we get information ahead of something, I would come to you and seek guidance.
“And I would have thought in a grown-up relationship that would still be possible, shouldn’t it? Because otherwise you lose complete control of it. And you get rumours flying from Portugal and from the British media.”
Rowley told Laville that he was not against giving guidance, but said he would be concerned about journalists coming for guidance based on “vague tips”.

I have the impression from this that certain journalists are also not going to accept a whitewash.

by saltnpepper 23.05.14 10:36

russiandoll wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:And always bearing in mind that there has to be a reasonable expectation of having enough proof to bring the case to court. If there isn't enough evidence to result in a reasonable expectation of a conviction, then there isn't likely to be a court case. This is what the digging is about, and the investigating. It's about finding evidence that will stand up in court.
But which could only ever be a Portuguese court
It might be worth remembering this from recent reporting :

Good point, also worth noting that from the substantial phase of operational activity this appears to be what is happening, all work carried out by the PJ for SY is assisting SY find evidence to use against the British suspects (which appears to have been arranged months ago) as advised by the UK CPS, all being paid for by the UK, which will result in the non-swarthy abductor & little helpers tried at the Old Bailey?

by AndyB 23.05.14 10:58

russiandoll wrote:
It might be worth remembering this from recent reporting :

They can investigate but they can't prosecute if, as we're lead to believe, they are investigating an abduction

ETA That might have been the point you were making; that, in fact, SY are not investigating an abduction. They are investigating something else that they can prosecute

by **PeterMac** 23.05.14 11:00

Assume for a moment that there are going to be some "digs".
Assume that those digs are going to be anywhere within the precincts of PdL.
This must provide the clearest indication so far that Grange do NOT accept that Madeleine could possibly have been abducted between 9pm and 10pm 3/5/7
It provides the clearest indication to TM (and the T7 and C-R ) that they do not accept a word of what they said.
And that they believe that whoever was responsible for the disposal had ample opportunity and time to do so.

(and to spell it out for the pro-child-neglecters who stalk the site - THERE WAS NO TIME TO DIG A GRAVE in the McCanns' time line. You cannot move half a tonne of soil, let alone bedrock, between the time of Gerry's last sighting and the balloon going up. Quite apart from waiting for the Cadaverine to develop to the point where it can be detected )

Now assume that the "digs" are going to take place some little way outside PdL.
The same argument surely applies.
By the following morning there was at least one helicopter fluttering around, the hills were alive with the sound of PJ, we even have film of them patrolling the immediately surrounding hills on horses.

by jeanmonroe 23.05.14 11:05

Police investigating Madeleine McCann's disappearance say "a substantial phase of operational activity" will begin within WEEKS

."We are putting the finishing touches to the plans to the Portuguese in the coming WEEKS"
----------------------------------------------------

So, NO 'frantic and desperate' action to find the 'unharmed and alive' Madeleine by the Met then?

G&K must be 'furious and fuming' musn't they?

THEY could, of course, RETURN to Portugal themselves to possibly help the police, couldn't they as the PJ investigation, is, once again, 'live'

They could also 'voluntarily' agree to themselves being made 'arguido/arguida', in Portugal, couldn't they?

Let's face it, they are totally innocent and have NOTHING to 'hide' have they?

by russiandoll 23.05.14 11:06

Quote from the Times piece : Talking about the McCann case she told Rowley: “Looking at what was said in Leveson and what Leicestershire Police didn’t guide on re[garding] whether the family were suspects, a bit of guidance there would have saved the family an awful lot of stress actually.

Many things to choose from re media treatment of the story, but the journalist chose to give this as an example of press behaviour.

Interesting also that Rowley did not choose to use this opportunity to repeat Redwood's statement. months ago now, that they were not of interest and that statement from AR was the kind of guidance the police were now giving.

by **PeterMac** 23.05.14 11:08

jeanmonroe wrote:
So, NO 'frantic and desperate' action to find the 'unharmed and alive' Madeleine by the Met then?
G&K must be 'furious and fuming' musn't they?

Not really. It was reported that they asked for the "search" to be put on hold until after the birthday party.
They have clearly got their priorities back in line with those of 2007, obviously.

Food and drink first, children third.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 11:13

PeterMac wrote:Assume for a moment that there are going to be some "digs".
Assume that those digs are going to be anywhere within the precincts of PdL.
This must provide the clearest indication so far that Grange do NOT accept that Madeleine could possibly have been abducted between 9pm and 10pm 3/5/7
It provides the clearest indication to TM (and the T7 and C-R ) that they do not accept a word of what they said.
And that they believe that whoever was responsible for the disposal had ample opportunity and time to do so.

(and to spell it out for the pro-child-neglecters who stalk the site - THERE WAS NO TIME TO DIG A GRAVE in the McCanns' time line. You cannot move half a tonne of soil, let alone bedrock, between the time of Gerry's last sighting and the balloon going up. Quite apart from waiting for the Cadaverine to develop to the point where it can be detected )

Now assume that the "digs" are going to take place some little way outside PdL.
The same argument surely applies.
By the following morning there was at least one helicopter fluttering around, the hills were alive with the sound of PJ, we even have film of them patrolling the immediately surrounding hills on horses.

But there is, surely, a wholly alternative scenario opened up by Grange as a result of CrimeWatch last October:

1. Madeleine was abducted between 9.15pm and 10.00pm ('the window of opportunity is wider than before')

2. Abductor seen by Smith family around 10pm

3. Abductor has killed Madeleine and has stored her body safely somewhere

4. Maybe re-buried it somewhere later.

@ PeterMac

In theoretcial support of your scenario, there is Redwood's statement that 'Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment' (or words to that effect).

However, does not this leave Redwood with my scenario above, PLUS

5. Abductor killed Madeleine in the apartment and THEN carried her body across PdL, where he was seen by the Smiths?

This scenario can then conveniently account for body fluids and cadaver scent in G5A.

by Bishop Brennan 23.05.14 11:16

PeterMac wrote:Assume for a moment that there are going to be some "digs".
Assume that those digs are going to be anywhere within the precincts of PdL.
This must provide the clearest indication so far that Grange do NOT accept that Madeleine could possibly have been abducted between 9pm and 10pm 3/5/7
It provides the clearest indication to TM (and the T7 and C-R ) that they do not accept a word of what they said.
And that they believe that whoever was responsible for the disposal had ample opportunity and time to do so.

(and to spell it out for the pro-child-neglecters who stalk the site - THERE WAS NO TIME TO DIG A GRAVE in the McCanns' time line. You cannot move half a tonne of soil, let alone bedrock, between the time of Gerry's last sighting and the balloon going up. Quite apart from waiting for the Cadaverine to develop to the point where it can be detected )

Now assume that the "digs" are going to take place some little way outside PdL.
The same argument surely applies.
By the following morning there was at least one helicopter fluttering around, the hills were alive with the sound of PJ, we even have film of them patrolling the immediately surrounding hills on horses.

The logic is impeccable. The alternative? The sex-offender kidnaps Maddie - keeps for a day or two - THEN sneaks out at night to bury her - right in the heart of PDL to minimise the risk of being spotted! thumbup

So what then is SY working hypothesis for the dig? "She might be dead, so we thought we'd dig up a few holes to check". Never mind who killed her. When was she killed?

Could it just be that SY haven't the faintest idea where to dig, and so they have just selected the most high-profile area of PDL in order to maximise the photo-ops and press coverage? Perhaps throwing in one site in the hills to cover the idea that she was squirrelled away some days later at night.

by canada12 23.05.14 11:16

Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

by jeanmonroe 23.05.14 11:18

Talking about the McCann case she told Rowley: “Looking at what was said in Leveson..........
------------------------------------------------------------------

I can tell you what the McCanns, on oath, did NOT say at Leveson.

They did NOT SAY that their daughter, Madeleine, 'was abducted' or was, indeed, the victim of 'an abduction'.

by russiandoll 23.05.14 11:22

Of crucial importance imo, the official wording on the Met site

Update on Madeleine McCann disappearance

22 May 2014

and the words were used in the update " the investigation into the disappearance of a young girl."

by stillsloppingout 23.05.14 11:23

Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:Assume for a moment that there are going to be some "digs".
Assume that those digs are going to be anywhere within the precincts of PdL.
This must provide the clearest indication so far that Grange do NOT accept that Madeleine could possibly have been abducted between 9pm and 10pm 3/5/7
It provides the clearest indication to TM (and the T7 and C-R ) that they do not accept a word of what they said.
And that they believe that whoever was responsible for the disposal had ample opportunity and time to do so.

(and to spell it out for the pro-child-neglecters who stalk the site - THERE WAS NO TIME TO DIG A GRAVE in the McCanns' time line. You cannot move half a tonne of soil, let alone bedrock, between the time of Gerry's last sighting and the balloon going up. Quite apart from waiting for the Cadaverine to develop to the point where it can be detected )

Now assume that the "digs" are going to take place some little way outside PdL.
The same argument surely applies.
By the following morning there was at least one helicopter fluttering around, the hills were alive with the sound of PJ, we even have film of them patrolling the immediately surrounding hills on horses.
But there is, surely, a wholly alternative scenario opened up by Grange as a result of CrimeWatch last October:

1. Madeleine was abducted between 9.15pm and 10.00pm ('the window of opportunity is wider than before')

2. Abductor seen by Smith family around 10pm

3. Abductor has killed Madeleine and has stored her body safely somewhere

4. Maybe re-buried it somewhere later.

@ PeterMac

In theoretcial support of your scenario, there is Redwood's statement that 'Madeleine may not have been alive when she was taken from the apartment' (or words to that effect).

However, does not this leave Redwood with my scenario above, PLUS

5. Abductor killed Madeleine in the apartment and THEN carried her body across PdL, where he was seen by the Smiths?

This scenario can then conveniently account for body fluids and cadaver scent in G5A.

But it Cannot account for the body fluids etc in the hire car .

by russiandoll 23.05.14 11:26

re Tony's point 5 : The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

by Bishop Brennan 23.05.14 11:34

russiandoll wrote:re Tony's point 5 : The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

That seems to be generally accepted. Also it ignores the traces in the Scenic as mentioned above. HOWEVER - the great British public remembers little if anything about Eddie and Keela. The dogs have been airbrushed entirely out of the new SY narrative. They played no part in the Crimewatch recreation; they have not been mentioned even once in any press article or TV report. It is as though they never existed. For Whitewash fans, this is actually very typical of a whitewash technique: don't every try to discredit unhelpful elements, simply ignore them entirely and pretend they were never there.

As such, the "exit plan" from SY does NOT require to take into account anything found by Eddie or Keela. They don't exist. They never existed. As such, Tony is correct - the SY story (sex offender kills her in 5A and then buries her) is entirely credible and fits all the evidence.

(What is less credible is PM's point about WHEN the burial took place - if it was in or near PDL - but that is a detail that few red-top readers will even understand.

by stillsloppingout 23.05.14 11:38

russiandoll wrote:re Tony's point 5 : The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

It is about 45 mins if im correct , but Tony's point is valid ;they just have to find a way of dealing with the hire car.... the jeans.... the Key fob now..... .

Pity im doing the festivals in a couple of weeks , would have been fun to follow Redwood with his pick axe . it would be like snow white and the seven dwarf's. No doubt who would be dopy !!!.

by ultimaThule 23.05.14 11:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:And always bearing in mind that there has to be a reasonable expectation of having enough proof to bring the case to court. If there isn't enough evidence to result in a reasonable expectation of a conviction, then there isn't likely to be a court case. This is what the digging is about, and the investigating. It's about finding evidence that will stand up in court.
But which could only ever be a Portuguese court

As you have previously posted on the subject, you are aware that the UK can exercise jurisdiction with regard to a number of serious crimes committed abroad by its citizens, TB.

Should any British nationals be brought to account for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they may find themselves being tried in the UK courts..

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 11:52

russiandoll wrote:re Tony's point 5 : The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

Bishop Brennan has dealt with this point admirably, in his 'don't mention the dogs' point.

Suppose, however, that Grange is forced to give some kind of 'final' report to the public - probably a few months ahead of the General Election next May.

Bishop Brennan is right, no-one mentions or thinks of the dogs these days - but maybe, nevertheless, covering as many bases as possible, Redwood might be able to say something like: 'We can't rely on the dogs, it's not evidence, only an indication, but IF they DID sniff something, it's because the abductor killed her there and then'. The '45 minutes' or '90 minutes' time, or whatever, for human cadaverine scent to appear could easily be brushed aside.

As for the Scenic, surely that's very easy.

Redwood: "The McCanns didn't hire it until 25 May. Therefore Eddie and Keela, if they really DID alert to cadaverine and body fluids, then that must have occurred when someone else drove this car BEFORE 25 May'.

by **Tony Bennett** 23.05.14 11:55

ultimaThule wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
canada12 wrote:And always bearing in mind that there has to be a reasonable expectation of having enough proof to bring the case to court. If there isn't enough evidence to result in a reasonable expectation of a conviction, then there isn't likely to be a court case. This is what the digging is about, and the investigating. It's about finding evidence that will stand up in court.
But which could only ever be a Portuguese court

As you have previously posted on the subject, you are aware that the UK can exercise jurisdiction with regard to a number of serious crimes committed abroad by its citizens, TB. Should any British nationals be brought to account for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, they may find themselves being tried in the UK courts..

True, but a very limited number of offences, and only those triable in this country before 3 May 2007

by notlongnow 23.05.14 11:56

Bishop Brennan wrote:
russiandoll wrote:re Tony's point 5 : The timeline of checks does not allow for the development of cadaverine if I understand the process correctly. 45 minutes max taking the checks into account ?

That seems to be generally accepted. Also it ignores the traces in the Scenic as mentioned above. HOWEVER - the great British public remembers little if anything about Eddie and Keela. The dogs have been airbrushed entirely out of the new SY narrative. They played no part in the Crimewatch recreation; they have not been mentioned even once in any press article or TV report. It is as though they never existed. For Whitewash fans, this is actually very typical of a whitewash technique: don't every try to discredit unhelpful elements, simply ignore them entirely and pretend they were never there.

As such, the "exit plan" from SY does NOT require to take into account anything found by Eddie or Keela. They don't exist. They never existed. As such, Tony is correct - the SY story (sex offender kills her in 5A and then buries her) is entirely credible and fits all the evidence.

(What is less credible is PM's point about WHEN the burial took place - if it was in or near PDL - but that is a detail that few red-top readers will even understand.

Surely anyone in the uk who has been convicted with the help of sniffer dogs may have a good case to claim wrongful conviction if the dogs are ignored?

And in future cases,any decent barrister need only to cite to this case for there unreliability

by ChippyM 23.05.14 11:58

canada12 wrote:Doesn't the fact that the McCanns asked for the search to be put on hold until after the birthday party indicate two things?
One, they anticipated something bad to be discovered and
Two, they were in no hurry to find out what that bad thing might be?

No I don't think it indicates anything like that, the papers ran a story that they asked SY, doesn't mean they actually did. That story was to control people's perceptions IMO. It was to send out a message that a) the McCann's are still tortured and upset by everything (lets feel sorry for them) and b) that they are in a position (as the victims of this terrible ordeal) to ask SY to delay operations. I don't think they are at all.

When Gerry said 'find the body and prove we killed her', I'm convinced he said that because he was sure the body would not easily be found. I think they are nervous because something may be revealed through these operations but probably not a body itself.