Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

stillsloppingout wrote:

utahagen wrote:Stillsloppingout wrote: "...but when you have SY calling [the McCanns] by their Christian names today by there Christian names..."

Using their Christian names, as opposed to "Mr and Mrs McCann", either was just an example of decline in decorum in Europe and (even more so) in the USA, or it was a cheeky way of taunting the McCanns. I don't take referring to them as "Kate and Gerry" as an indicator that any fix is in.

Next it will be ..... " Hi  Five Gerry, Hows it goin Kate Love ".[ or " the stunning ,fragrant Kate ,with solid, dependable ,athletic ,toned,  Gerald"  ]    They should ALWAYS be referred to as Mr and Mrs McCann . 

The Police are it seems starstruck also. and more importantly it is done to show the public they are mates of the McCanns . Sadly IMO it is not for show, just the guard slipping, and the persons  [ police officer's ] real emotions showing .

I agree completely.

missmar1 wrote:How can a senior met officer announce they will be updating the Mccanns as they have done throughout the activity ?  Imo, this announcement alone implies to the public that SY have no qualms or suspicions about Madeleines parents involvement whatsoever.

Sorry to ask, but my understanding of english is not always that good: do you mean SY suspects Madeleine's parents, or suspect not?

If you read in that sentence that they suspect Madeleine's parents can you explain how you do think that way?

Really just a question, nothing meant to be harping or so.

Châtelaine wrote:I wonder: have none of the whitewash-believers ever played poker ... ?

Yes, strip poker that is. Enough to get 5 guys out of their clothes while I was still fairly decently dressed.

There will be no indictment of the McCanns, Châtelaine, none, on every charge you can think of. I'll get naked behind the computer if I'm wrong, and that's a threat!

della70 wrote:According to The Sun is days away .http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/5644494/Maddie-arrests-days-away-in-huge-cop-search-in-Portugal.html

I don´t think the arrest story is true, but IF it is,and IF it is Mr. Murat,the truth can come forward that way.
That's just my personal opinion.

lj wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:

utahagen wrote:Stillsloppingout wrote: "...but when you have SY calling [the McCanns] by their Christian names today by there Christian names..."

Using their Christian names, as opposed to "Mr and Mrs McCann", either was just an example of decline in decorum in Europe and (even more so) in the USA, or it was a cheeky way of taunting the McCanns. I don't take referring to them as "Kate and Gerry" as an indicator that any fix is in.

Next it will be ..... " Hi  Five Gerry, Hows it goin Kate Love ".[ or " the stunning ,fragrant Kate ,with solid, dependable ,athletic ,toned,  Gerald"  ]    They should ALWAYS be referred to as Mr and Mrs McCann . 

The Police are it seems starstruck also. and more importantly it is done to show the public they are mates of the McCanns . Sadly IMO it is not for show, just the guard slipping, and the persons  [ police officer's ] real emotions showing .

I agree completely.

They weren't referred to as "Kate and Gerry". Read the piece on the Met website. They were clearly called "Mr and Mrs McCann".

It was the press who reported them as having been called Kate and Gerry.

But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of your whitewashing theories  

nobodythereeither wrote:

lj wrote:

stillsloppingout wrote:

utahagen wrote:Stillsloppingout wrote: "...but when you have SY calling [the McCanns] by their Christian names today by their Christian names..."

Using their Christian names, as opposed to "Mr and Mrs McCann", either was just an example of decline in decorum in Europe and (even more so) in the USA, or it was a cheeky way of taunting the McCanns. I don't take referring to them as "Kate and Gerry" as an indicator that any fix is in.

Next it will be ..... " Hi  Five Gerry, Hows it goin Kate Love ".[ or " the stunning ,fragrant Kate ,with solid, dependable ,athletic ,toned,  Gerald"  ]    They should ALWAYS be referred to as Mr and Mrs McCann . 

The Police are it seems starstruck also. and more importantly it is done to show the public they are mates of the McCanns . Sadly IMO it is not for show, just the guard slipping, and the persons  [ police officer's ] real emotions showing .

I agree completely.

They weren't referred to as "Kate and Gerry". Read the piece on the Met website. They were clearly called "Mr and Mrs McCann". It was the press who reported them as having been called Kate and Gerry. But hey, don't let the facts stand in the way of your whitewashing theories  

YOU get YOUR facts right, 'nobodythereeither'. Det Supt Prior was on first name terms with them all back in 2007 & 2008, never mind this year.

And not only on this issue:

• Dr Gerald McCann described the session with Melissa Little as follows: “Tanner spent a full day with Melissa Little, a qualified Police Sketch Artist since 1986, to compile this likeness of the suspect. Melissa met Gail Cooper in a separate session. After spending hours with both witnesses, Melissa Little states: “There are many similarities between Miss Tanner’s man and Gail’s. Tanner believes that there is an 80% likelihood that this is the same man she saw carrying away the child, believed to be Madeleine”. Gail Cooper confirmed (see below) that Brian Kennedy had ‘sent Melissa Little down’ to her for the day and she also criticised a draft article in the News of the World for falsely embellishing her account of events (again, see below)
  
  
• On Sunday 13 January 2008, Brian Kennedy visited Albert Schuurmans of the Roscoe Foundation in Portugal in connection with the story that he and the McCann Team wished to promote
  
  
•  On Wednesday 16 January 2008, three days after Brian Kennedy’s interview with Albert Schuurmans of the Roscoe Foundation in Portugal, Dr Gerald McCann emailed Superintendent Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police with a PowerPoint presentation about ‘Monster man’ (the e-mail is Folio 3966 in the Portuguese Police files), with the briefest of covering notes saying: ‘As discussed’.
  
  
• Just one hour later Superintendent Prior forwarded the package to Ricardo Paiva of the Portuguese Police, asking for instructions and stating, among other things: “The PowerPoint attached (Folio 3968) was completed by the McCanns, but the statements were all taken by the U.K. police. Miss Tanner’s description was taken from the press and from the summary of her statement. There is some urgency around this as we need to decide prior to the Gail Cooper artist’s impression appearing in the U.K. press. How are you going to deal with the possible press issues? What are you planning around Mr Kennedy and the private investigation firm?…I will need to get back to the McCanns as he has asked to be updated. How would Paulo want this conducted and what information I am to provide to them? They are very excited about this potential lead”.
  
  
• The main burden of Dr Gerald McCann’s ‘Powerpoint’ slides was to try to highlight the alleged similarity between Jane Tanner’s ‘bundleman’ and the ‘Monster Man/George Harrison man’ of Gail Cooper.
  
  
• On 17 January 2008 (the very next day), Detective Constable 4168 of the Leicestershire Police interviewed Gail Cooper and e-mailed the Operational Task Force. He noted at the time that Mrs Cooper was trying to explain why the News of the World had added to and embellished her police statements, by saying: “It never crossed my mind” that they would do so”. The Officer also reported that she “mentioned a man called Brian Kennedy who was working for the McCanns and...had sent an artist down to do a sketch of the man she saw at the villa” [my italics] (Police files: Folio 4005).
  
  
• On 18 January 2008, Superintendent Stuart Prior of Leicestershire Police emailed Ricardo Paiva about the Gail Cooper statement, writing: “As discussed, I have given Gerry a brief update just saying that the other descriptions are different to the artist’s impressions completed by Gail and identified by Jane. That the witnesses appeared genuine which indicates a number of charity collectors in the area prior to Madeleine being taken. We have not spoken to Jane at all and will not share our files with anybody, except yourselves, unless you request this from us. It appears there were at least three charity collectors if not more in the area in the weeks before Madeleine being taken. I am told that the artist’s impression by Gail Cooper is likely to hit the press over the weekend and I will update you on the effects of this next week, although we are not involved in this in any way at all”.
  

The poster talked of their being called Kate and Gerry "today". This is what was said:

utahagen wrote:Stillsloppingout wrote: "...but when you have SY calling [the McCanns] by their Christian names today by there Christian names..."


My post was obviously in response to that, since I referred to the Met's website - which reports the most recent press briefing, or whatever it was.

I am not talking about - or interested in - what they may have been called in the past. I am interested in what they are being referred to at the moment by the police officers connected to the investigation now.

ETA: I posted the link to the Met piece elsewhere on this forum, when I made this point earlier, but I can't find it now.

ETA: I found it:

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

No mention of "Kate and Gerry" there. They are clearly and publicly referred to as "Mr and Mrs McCann".

Could the PJ be searching for a pink blanket? Finding the blanket would be the end of the McCanns IMO.

Ollie wrote:Could the PJ be searching for a pink blanket?  Finding the blanket would be the end of the McCanns IMO.

If they are, why do they need Redwood and a small army of suits from England to visit Praia da Luz for 36 hours, helicopter ride included? I can't see that all that will help to find where a pink blanket might be.

But suppose for the sake of argument he had obtained reliable information from a Portuguese source about where the pink blanket might be.

Surely he would 'phone his much-fabled 'opposite number' in Portugal and tell her where to find it?

The planned searches will be based on mobile phone data, intelligence and evidence from "witnesses"

They will take place NEAR THE BEACH and around the Ocean Club complex where Madeleine vanished aged three in May 2007.
----------------------------------------------------------------

DP ROG:

"Me and Gerry you know I'm not sure what time it was, it was you know between three and four o' clock when, again looking for her. We went down err through past the Ocean Club reception, WE WENT DOWN TO ERR, TO THE BEACH....."

"intelligence"-"witness"?

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?

Very simple: you select 37 people who want to help investigate the horrible misjustice done to Kate and Gerry.

You select those you never read anything else about it than MSM.

You carefully split the team up and make sure the total view is not available to all.

Would anyone get smart you give him/her his own room and let him go over the 30,000 mobile calls or 2000 phone messages to see if any one of those messages is related to a smelly stocky person in a red t shirt with a bulls eye.

The whole idea is to show the world, including your 30 + officers, that you have done everything, absolutely everything you could think off, and you could not catch the culprit because of those bloody Portuguese.

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.   

Exactly.

lj 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?

Very simple: you select 37 people who want to help investigate the horrible misjustice done to Kate and Gerry.

You select those you never read anything else about it than MSM.

You carefully split the team up and make sure the total view is not available to all.

Would anyone get smart you give him/her his own room and let him go over the 30,000 mobile calls or 2000 phone messages to see if any one of those messages is related to a smelly stocky person in a red t shirt with a bulls eye.

The whole idea is to show the world, including your 30 + officers, that you have done everything, absolutely everything you could think off, and you could not catch the culprit because of those bloody Portuguese.

Does it actually even need to be that complicated?

Surely the officers can only process the information they have been given access to or are allowed access too?

Throw in some wild theories from the early stages, dismiss others and don't allow them to look for anything else and bingo.

I feel it has come to a point were both forces want this wound up.  It has hurt the PJ reputation and is hurting SY, not to say what it has done to both countries politically.  

Now we are being drip fed that this may not come to a conclusion.  

What a big change from the imminent arrests boasted not that long ago.  The only people who will know the truth about this investigation will be our children/Grand children when the facts finally come to light.

Pershing36 wrote:Surely the officers can only process the information they have been given access to or are allowed access too?

Are you suggesting that individual officers aren't the given the authority to think for themselves - ie "outside the box"?

I don't know of any professional detective who wouldn't use the crime scene (presumably, though not necessarily, 5A) as the starting point rather than a catalogue of dodgy people who have potentially committed vaguely related offences. The rest comes later.

With 37 detectives on board, it would only take one to ask the question "why don't we start at 5A and piece the story together in the right direction rather than back-to-front?"

And I'm sure that's what all 37 of them have done, despite what we've read in the media.

Because that's what detectives do.

tiny wrote:

Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley said in Portugal yesterday: "We may go through every line of inquiry and all draw a blank."

And if that does happen, then the obvious question will be - "and which line of enquiry did you not include, and did not go through? ah yes... the one that the PJ concluded was the most likely - great job lads!"   

NSY can't justify looking for abductors without proof that there was an abduction.

The evidence of an abduction is the starting point.

So presumably they would be able to show that proof if they were to pull out of the case?

None of the detectives in the Barry Bulsara case (Jill Dando) blew any whistles in that massive miscarriage of justice. Or in many others where the main criteria seems to be "Bang someone up - anyone." I have always doubted the result in the Josie Russell case and the Billie Jenkins case too. I hope where Madeleine is concerned the army of doubters here and elsewhere make a cynically wrong conviction impossible.

juliet wrote:None of the detectives in the Barry Bulsara case (Jill Dando) blew any whistles in that massive miscarriage of justice. Or in many others where the main criteria seems to be "Bang someone up - anyone." I have always doubted the result in the Josie Russell case and the Billie Jenkins case too.  I hope where Madeleine is concerned the army of doubters here and elsewhere make a cynically wrong conviction impossible.

The "force" is a closed shop.  How FEW times do we hear of a policeman shopping his colleagues? Virtually NEVER. Just look @ Hillsborough case. It took 24 years to get justice in that case.

Apologies, as I'm sure you are all very sincere in your views, but some of the posts on here make this forum look a bit silly, in my opinion.

Do you really think that all this time and money would be spent on this case over so many years, with so many detectives involved - in at least two countries -  for some sort of cover-up and/or limited lines of enquiry?

And when there has been so much recent publicity given to things like police corruption? And when so many people have looked at the information  in the public domain and dissected/discussed it online in great detail?

I think it is possible that - at the end of the day - there won't be a prosecution, because clearly there has to be sufficient strong evidence (not just a raft of circumstantial/indicative evidence) to stand up in court. And surely that is what is being sought in Portugal at the moment.

We all want to see justice done in this case, presumably. But sometimes, it just isn't possible.

If a "patsy" is said to be responsible for whatever crime was committed, then a clear explanation will have to be given as to why. I can't see any way at all that that could happen - except, of course, that the police are obviously privy to a great deal of information which has not been made public. But then, they would have to make it public, wouldn't they.

They can't just state that they think the McCanns "did it" without very strong reasons, can they? Until they have proof, they of course have to play their cards close to the chest.

I think the fact they've now come out and said that at the end of the day there may not be a result is a very clear indication that this is not  going to be a whitewash.

And Tony, I think you owe me an apology for your shoot at me from the hip earlier when you hadn't actually properly read my post.

juliet wrote:None of the detectives in the Barry Bulsara case (Jill Dando) blew any whistles in that massive miscarriage of justice. Or in many others where the main criteria seems to be "Bang someone up - anyone." I have always doubted the result in the Josie Russell case and the Billie Jenkins case too.  I hope where Madeleine is concerned the army of doubters here and elsewhere make a cynically wrong conviction impossible.

The major problem is the assumption within a tight group of investigators that they have identified the right perpetrator. Unless there is some inbuilt devil's advocacy, miscarriages of justice will always occur when police chase after the evidence for a conclusion that they have reached before adequate evidence was available.

All three cases you cite had this in common, as did the Colin Stagg fiasco-

1/ People concerned were from an out-group- not the normal population
Barry George was a loner and low intelligence
Michael Stone was a drug user and mentally ill
Sion Jenkins was a male parent not related to the victim and was shown to have lied to get his job
Colin Stagg was an outsider with social problems
2/ The police were under pressure from the public and press to find a culprit
3/ There was sufficient evidence to cause suspicion but insufficient to truly convict (even IMHO in the Michael Stone case)
4/ The need to only convince 10 out of 12 jurors of guilt.

Same or similar applies to many others- Birmingham Six and other falsely accused IRA cases, Broadwater Farm and so on.

Atomic Peanut wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:Surely the officers can only process the information they have been given access to or are allowed access too?

Are you suggesting that individual officers aren't the given the authority to think for themselves - ie "outside the box"?

I don't know of any professional detective who wouldn't use the crime scene (presumably, though not necessarily, 5A) as the starting point rather than a catalogue of dodgy people who have potentially committed vaguely related offences. The rest comes later.

With 37 detectives on board, it would only take one to ask the question "why don't we start at 5A and piece the story together in the right direction rather than back-to-front?"

And I'm sure that's what all 37 of them have done, despite what we've read in the media.

Because that's what detectives do.

No I wasn't suggesting that.  The review was to examine documentation collected at the time on the case.  Much of it is available on the internet, some isn't.  I doubt very much they trawled sites like the mccannfiles for it.  We simply do not know which documents they were reviewing.

Is tractor man, soothing couple, smelly bin man and sex attacker man in the documents we have access too?  If so I must have missed them, but they must be in theirs for them to pull them as suspects/persons of interest.

These maybe the only documents that have been reviewed.  It is simply speculation either way to assume they have been allowed full access to everything.  

They do seem to however have ruled out parent/tapas 9 involvement before the review started, it was in the remit published.

Atomic Peanut wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:Surely the officers can only process the information they have been given access to or are allowed access too?

Are you suggesting that individual officers aren't the given the authority to think for themselves - ie "outside the box"?

I don't know of any professional detective who wouldn't use the crime scene (presumably, though not necessarily, 5A) as the starting point rather than a catalogue of dodgy people who have potentially committed vaguely related offences. The rest comes later.

With 37 detectives on board, it would only take one to ask the question "why don't we start at 5A and piece the story together in the right direction rather than back-to-front?"

And I'm sure that's what all 37 of them have done, despite what we've read in the media.

Because that's what detectives do.

@ Atomic Peanut

May I sugest you get fully educated about the extent of police corruption in the UK in recent decades before trying to repeatedly insist that all British detectives are honest.

Ahd here's six words to think about:

Hamish Campbell Barry Bulsara Operation Grange

For Tony

You`re probably aware I`m on the whitewash side of the fence but I do hesitate when thinking - `can all 37 be corrupt` and of course all the other staff who do the filing and admin work.

The thought also occurs that 37 officers probably have wives whom they talk to and those wives may have friends or siblings they pass on snippets to.  This balloons into maybe hundreds of people - many of whom do not agree with abduction and feel the McCanns are hiding something.  Although I agree that outwardly it looks like whitewash - how would hundreds of people keep such corruption a secret?

Plus, past police corruption is now extremely high profile.

For it to take place in this case now would be beyond stupidity.

Tony Bennett wrote:

Atomic Peanut wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:Surely the officers can only process the information they have been given access to or are allowed access too?

Are you suggesting that individual officers aren't the given the authority to think for themselves - ie "outside the box"?

I don't know of any professional detective who wouldn't use the crime scene (presumably, though not necessarily, 5A) as the starting point rather than a catalogue of dodgy people who have potentially committed vaguely related offences. The rest comes later.

With 37 detectives on board, it would only take one to ask the question "why don't we start at 5A and piece the story together in the right direction rather than back-to-front?"

And I'm sure that's what all 37 of them have done, despite what we've read in the media.

Because that's what detectives do.

@ Atomic Peanut

May I sugest you get fully educated about the extent of police corruption in the UK in recent decades before trying to repeatedly insist that all British detectives are honest.

Ahd here's six words to think about:

Hamish Campbell Barry Bulsara Operation Grange

The changing political landscape is the only hope for this country. You only have to dig the tiniest bit now to find this country is routinely fed lies with a smattering of truth to create a veneer of authenticity. The authenticity is the bait that lures you down false paths. It is no accident that  Google will eventually remove records of wrongdoing. Orwellian stuff with the little bit of authenticity (personal choice) to help the pill go down.

@ nobodythereeither

Admirable sentiments in tenor but hardly realistic.  You only need to look briefly at the massive paedophile scandal that's permeated the UK over decades, involving evil people within all the government establishments that are supposed to represent, support and protect the great British public, in particular children.

Have you ever thought there could be a connection here?

Take a hypothetical situation. Someone goes down the corruption route and gets embroiled in many lies for personal gain and/or advancement.

The situation gets out of control. Someone called A sees what started out as a fail-safe plan has escalated, affecting many people. A becomes frightened and confides to a loved one, B, who, horrified, tries to persuade A to come clean. But B soon sees that they, for it has now become "they", are in too deep.

A plan is hatched for minimal involvement and to distance A and B from the worst of the corruption. It is agreed between them that no advantages must be accepted as it could give them away. In time, it becomes clear that not to accept some form of reward will be seen as suspicious by others in on the corruption - the group. B eventually agrees that accepting the reward is A 's only choice. A hopes that this will be the end of the matter. As does B, for B is now heavily implicated and will be seen by a court to have perverted the course of justice and derived benefit.

But the group have met their own associated difficulties and the game plan shifts. Now, more draconian action is needed to cover tracks and the group come back to A with further instructions. A is frightened by what has been demanded. At a crossroads now, A considers pulling out. But B persuades A they are in too deep.

The group now ask A to proceed with some more activity to safeguard them all. Others in the group do likewise and in the attempt, go far beyond the original plan. A death has occurred. Now A returns to B frightened and wanting to pull out - take the rap for part of the plot and pay the penalty. But B refuses to countenance this.

A and B row. B refuses to take the rap for something he/she was unwittingly drawn into. A detects a distancing by B and fears losing everything. It is clear B has thought out excuses in advance and they sound plausible to A.

Not only is A under threat of being abandoned by B, but it is possible A will go down, maybe taking more of the rap than the group. A sees the only chance of salvation is to carry on. A will certainly face justice and go to prison by confessing. A may also suffer other forms of retribution meted out by the group.
---------------------------------

Not hypothetical actually. It is one of the plot lines in the current Happy Valley TV drama. The above is what is happening to Kevin and his wife. Toon in to see if truth will out.

NB: The above is to be seen as a general paradigm; an insight into human behaviour once operating outside the law and in fear of discovery.

AFAIK police have to agree & adhere to (if not physically sign) the Official Secrets Act. One of the outcomes of this is that individual officers will be afraid to speak out even AFTER leaving the force.

From Thames Valley Police Cadet Application Form

"
 
This document is important-Please read it carefully.
 
 

• You come into contact with information in a number of ways; you might see or overhear information or plans; you might read information displayed on a notice board or computer screen.
  

• You commit an offence under the Official Secrets Acts, if without lawful authority, you disclose any information or other article which:
  

• Results in the commission of an offence; or
  

• Facilitates an escape from legal custody or any other act prejudicial to the safe, safe keeping of persons in legal custody; or
  

• Impedes the prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders; or
  

• Would be likely to have any of these effects.
  

 


 

This document is important-Please read it carefully.

 


 

• You come into contact with information in a number of ways; you might see or overhear information or plans; you might read information displayed on a notice board or computer screen.
  
  

• You commit an offence under the Official Secrets Acts, if without lawful authority, you disclose any information or other article which:
  
  

• Results in the commission of an offence; or
  
  

• Facilitates an escape from legal custody or any other act prejudicial to the safe, safe keeping of persons in legal custody; or
  
  

• Impedes the prevention or detection of offences or the apprehension or prosecution of suspected offenders; or
  
  

• Would be likely to have any of these effects.
  
  

 






 

Personally I'm not on whitewash, if for no other reason to rationalising this belief than the reason that the thoroughness and time consuming pace the MET are working through this just seems too comprehensive for sake of turning out a whitewash result.

For the poster who said 37 police members cannot be coerced or bought into the whitewash, there is no need to involve them (the lower ranks) into the white wash.  Just allocate them tasks as appropriate and as normal and then when it comes to compiling a final report it is done by the Chief-Detective-in-charge, and he alone or his boss can come up with a summary of the findings that suits the agenda of the establishment if they were leaned on to yield up certain outcome.

This is an exceptional case, rendering the review exceptional too, since the 37 officers are not coming in, not seeing or working on a bloody crime scene of violent death where the evidence is obvious for all to see.  
They are doing papers review and then follow ups.  For every set of follow up there will be another set of follow up evidence to counter it,  so it wont be too difficult for person writing up final report to tailor report to requirements if whitewash is ordered.  
But, personally I don't believe that to be the case.  No sense throwing good money to beget a whitewash. Even at status quo prior to review apart from the Mccanns, no one else was at risk of being exposed.

I cant see how this can be whitewashed 1) its atotally different government to when maddie went missing

I have faith in redwoods statement las year

Mr Redwood said the 35-strong Yard team is concentrating on what exactly happened when Madeleine vanished from apartment 5a of the Ocean Club complex at Praia da Luz on the Algarve on May 3, 2007.
“The process is like peeling back layers of an onion,” he said.
“Every hour of our time is designed to get information on the core moment of what happened.”


The question how many over the outer layers have been discarded and how near are they to the core