Madeleine McCann search to enter 'substantial phase' of activity

bobbin wrote:

Woofer wrote:@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.

I know it's been dealt with already, but if you and I and others are posting under 'guises' why is it considered 'horrific' if someone who has posted in his name, brought the whole Madeleine affair to the public notice more than any of us as individuals have, has suffered an injustice in law, is paying a price now, and as a result is forbidden from discussing this case whereas we, under 'guises' may.
A bit more tolerance perhaps and if we disagree with a posting, we can at least discuss and reply to that posting without adopting positions of who is allowed and who isn't.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio.   Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors.  It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.
 

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!

How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

Round and round in circles we go.

How can you say nothing when asked if the Tapas 9 are suspects?  Redwood could have said 'No comment', which would have been interpreted as 'yes'.  Or he could have just sat there staring into space waiting for the next question.  That also would have been interpreted as 'yes'.  Or he could have stated up front 'Don't ask me if the Tapas 9 are suspects'.  That would also have been interpreted as 'yes'.

ShuBob wrote:

Gollum wrote:

ShuBob wrote:Whatever game they were playing, a 24-hour turnaround is a bit of a result. I don't buy it!

Things have moved on since the building of Rome.  Desperate times call for desperate measures, if a senior politician was caught in the smoking room with his trousers round his ankles see how fast they can move!

Not that fast IMO.

I believe things were already in motion before the "threat" and the McCanns knew it.

SixMillionQuid wrote:
So what if the response could be interpreted as yes? Are you afraid of something?

SixMillionQuid wrote:

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio.   Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors.  It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.
 

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!

How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

Round and round in circles we go.

How can you say nothing when asked if the Tapas 9 are suspects?  Redwood could have said 'No comment', which would have been interpreted as 'yes'.  Or he could have just sat there staring into space waiting for the next question.  That also would have been interpreted as 'yes'.  Or he could have stated up front 'Don't ask me if the Tapas 9 are suspects'.  That would also have been interpreted as 'yes'.

So what if the response could be interpreted as yes? Are you afraid of something?

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:
So what if the response could be interpreted as yes? Are you afraid of something?

Me personally?  I've no idea what you mean.

There would be an explosion of activity in the press if it was revealed that the Tapas 9 were suspects.  Common sense tells me that SY don't want that to happen until they are ready to pounce, if that day ever comes.  What if they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute, but had already declared them suspects?  There would be hell to pay.

Woofer wrote:@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.

ShuBob wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio.   Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors.  It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.
 

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!

How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

So the same may happen in this case? Who knows? In any case, I think it's best to wait and see.

lj wrote:

ShuBob wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:

nobodythereeither wrote:

Bishop Brennan wrote: SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects; they have been updating them regularly; they have not reinterviewed any of the T9; senior SY officers have rubbished the idea on radio.   Right now, the McCann's are outside of the SY investigative remit based on ALL the information and evidence given by AR and all of his superiors.  It would require a major bit of evidence to be discovered (probably by PJ) to persuade them otherwise.
 

I am catching up, so apologies if these points have already been made.

1. "SY have said from day 1 that the parents / T7 are not suspects." The PJ also said the parents were not suspects - until they made them arguidos. What are SY supposed to say in public at this stage, that yes the parents are suspects? Hardly!

How about keeping quiet?

The person from the PJ who said they were not suspects resigned from post just after the parents were made arguido.

So the same may happen in this case? Who knows? In any case, I think it's best to wait and see.

I'll wait and see.

I just wonder for the non-whitewashers: what would be an acceptable outcome for you:

1) the McCanns are being arrested for whatever kind of charge.

2) a patsy suspect is being arrested for the abduction and murder of Madeleine

3) Nobody is being arrested, and the SY claims it's all PJ's fault because they don't want to play ball.

4) Nobody is being arrested and the SY says they have not found enough evidence to create an acceptable scenario.

5) else, please describe

nglfi wrote:

Scotland Yard can effectively do what they like, they have no official remit over this investigation.

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

SixMillionQuid wrote:
So what if the response could be interpreted as yes? Are you afraid of something?

Me personally?  I've no idea what you mean.

There would be an explosion of activity in the press if it was revealed that the Tapas 9 were suspects.  Common sense tells me that SY don't want that to happen until they are ready to pounce, if that day ever comes.  What if they didn't have enough evidence to prosecute, but had already declared them suspects?  There would be hell to pay.

worriedmum wrote:

I do not agree with everything Tony says but I respect his reasons for posting under different identities-AFAIK everyone else is doing the very same thing!

nobodythereeither wrote:

worriedmum wrote:

I do not agree with everything Tony says but I respect his reasons for posting under different identities-AFAIK everyone else is doing the very same thing!

OK I can now see why Tony may wish to use another name (though  I would have thought it would have been preferable not to bring it to attention on a public forum, whoever did ) but are you saying everybody else on here has more than one forum identity, worriedmum?

Or did you mean they were posting under a name which isn't their own? That's normal forum practice anywhere, isn't it?

Tony Bennett wrote:

nglfi wrote:

Scotland Yard can effectively do what they like, they have no official remit over this investigation.

REPLY: Every investigation has a stated remit.

In this case, under pressure from a Freedom of Inforation Act question, the remit of Operation Grange has been published by the Metropolitan Police.

It runs as follows:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++

OPERATION GRANGE REMIT

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’. This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.

UK Law Enforcement agencies,

Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter.

Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever - the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach.

It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure [headed by Det Supt Hamish Campbell - TB], which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit. 

End

nglfi wrote:
< snip >
Only that when the Portuguese police have enough evidence to arrest and charge the McCanns, they will. They are clearly working on it as we speak, whether or not they finally have enough evidence at the end is another question. They need the body to come to any definitive conclusions about who did what and how. Or a detailed confession from one or more of the T9.
Scotland Yard can effectively do what they like, they have no official remit over this investigation. If they want to help find evidence to help charge the culprits, then good. If they simply want to spend a load of public money to look busy, then it's a shame about the waste, but the PJ investigation continues unabated. For me the best scenario is that what SY are actually working on is the fraud aspect, where I believe they would have jurisdiction.

But I don't believe they are looking for a patsy, and I don't read anything into them saying the Macs are not suspects (well nothing whitewashy anyway!)

So I guess no 4 is sadly the most likely outcome - I'm not too positive of how much evidence can actually be found now, so if SY say this I don't think it will be for whitewash reasons, rather than that it is actually the case that there isn't enough evidence to prosecute.

ultimaThule wrote:

nglfi wrote:
< snip >

Without wishing to disillusion you, nglfi, neither SY nor the Metropolitan Police or any other police force in the UK has 'jurisdiction' to investigate serious fraud as such cases fall within the remit of the Serious Fraud Office which answers to the Attorney General.

nglfi wrote:Scotland Yard can effectively do what they like, they have no official remit over this investigation.

REPLY: That's what you wrote originally.

I never said SY do not have a stated remit. I said they do not have an official remit. Perhaps I should have used a better word, what I meant was they have no official power over the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

REPLY: Ah! Now that makes sense. I agree. Scotland Yard can only either (a) assist the Portuguese with their investigation or (b) consider whether a criminal offence may have been committed in this country, or (in the case of very serious offences) whether a British citizen or resident has committed a serious crime abroad.

That rather raises the question of what the current Director of Public Prosecutions and another senior CPS lawyer were doing over in Portugal over a year ago. That remains an unfathomable mystery, although some on here saw it as a sign that the CPS were preparing to charge someone. It hasn't happened.  
  
Something I've always wondered, for those firmly on the whitewash side, why do people think the Portuguese would willingly go along with this, what would be their motivation? After all, this is and will always be a Portuguese investigation. One of the things that helped me finally get off the fence was when I considered the case more from the Portuguese side, and I honestly couldn't think of any good reasons why they in particular would re-open the investigation to whitewash it.

REPLY: Here are a number of points to consider:

1. Why exactly, and on whose authority, was Dr Goncalo Amaral removed from the Portuguese investigation on 2 October 2007?

2. What was the British government's involvement in achieving this?

3. Was Dr Goncalo Amaral right or wrong to allege that there was systematic British government interference in his investigation?

4. Did the Portugese investigation take a totally different direction after 2 October 2007?

5. To what extent have the Portuguese police 're-opened' their investigation?

6. Is it a 're-investigation' in name only, i.e. someone technically heading it up and making the odd non-committal statement? Or is it a full-blown re-investigation, with a team of a dozen or more officers beavering away at getting more forensic evidence, taking statements, preparing the case ready for charging someone etc.? I am very much inclined to think it is the former.

7. Why is the Portuguese re-investigation apparently based in Porto in north Portugal, hundreds of miles from the scene of the crime? 

8. Is it possible that the Portuguese authorities have merely re-opened the investigation to appease the British authorities? - i.e. they just got fed up with bad publicity because they hadn't re-opened it, and one day said: 'OK, let's tell the Brits that we have re-opened it, that'll get them off our backs for a while'.

9. Why have there been so many acrimonious comments flying between the Portuguese police and Operation Grange? Is this because they are cunningly disgusing what they are really doing, or (more lilkely IMO) they really do not get on and are at loggerheads about many issues?

In summary, on the evidence we have available so far, it seems eminently possible that the Portuguese police are involved in NEITHER a cover-up or whitewash NOR a wholehearted and active search for the truth - but are simply 'going through the motions' for the sake of appearances.

Is there any real evidence to the contrary?
 

ShuBob wrote:A non-whitewash outcome for me will be for the McCanns along with their tapas friends and Clarence Mitchell made to answer for their many lies and inconsistencies. Nothing else will be acceptable.

bobbin wrote:

Woofer wrote:@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.

I know it's been dealt with already, but if you and I and others are posting under 'guises' why is it considered 'horrific' if someone who has posted in his name, brought the whole Madeleine affair to the public notice more than any of us as individuals have, has suffered an injustice in law, is paying a price now, and as a result is forbidden from discussing this case whereas we, under 'guises' may.
A bit more tolerance perhaps and if we disagree with a posting, we can at least discuss and reply to that posting without adopting positions of who is allowed and who isn't.

aiyoyo wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Woofer wrote:@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.

I know it's been dealt with already, but if you and I and others are posting under 'guises' why is it considered 'horrific' if someone who has posted in his name, brought the whole Madeleine affair to the public notice more than any of us as individuals have, has suffered an injustice in law, is paying a price now, and as a result is forbidden from discussing this case whereas we, under 'guises' may.
A bit more tolerance perhaps and if we disagree with a posting, we can at least discuss and reply to that posting without adopting positions of who is allowed and who isn't.

Exactly, I totally agree.  Sadly, some people here are just very petty minded.

If screen name is forbidden on this forum then shouldn't every member be obliged to post under their birth given name ? Otherwise why shouldn't TB be allowed equal right ?  There should be ONE rule for all.  Why discriminate him?

Why should he be singled out and persecuted for wanting to post under anonymity, after all he'd done a damn sight more than the total forum memberships here collectively and probably still continuing to do work  behind the scenes for justice for M. in the eventuality this should turn out to be a whitewash.

We are expected to put up with much worst - witch hunters and time wasters all under screen names, so why begrudge him his anonymity?  TB's style whether one approves of it or not is besides the point.  I just don't get it why shouldn't he enjoy equal right as every member here, when even his regular critics when attacking him do so on basis of their screen names.

I would be interested to know how the poster who snide on TB got hold of this info.  Surely this is privy only to back scene controllers.  

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:This has been brought to the attention of the person concerned, nobodythereeither, with reprimands posted on the public forum.

 

candyfloss wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:

bobbin wrote:

Woofer wrote:@nobodythereeither - "I am also horrified to learn that he is posting on here in more than one name, if that is true. Surely that shouldn't be allowed?"

If I were monitored daily by CR and was under threat of going to prison if I said certain things, I would certainly create another identity - its the logical thing to do surely when one needs to get the truth out.

I know it's been dealt with already, but if you and I and others are posting under 'guises' why is it considered 'horrific' if someone who has posted in his name, brought the whole Madeleine affair to the public notice more than any of us as individuals have, has suffered an injustice in law, is paying a price now, and as a result is forbidden from discussing this case whereas we, under 'guises' may.
A bit more tolerance perhaps and if we disagree with a posting, we can at least discuss and reply to that posting without adopting positions of who is allowed and who isn't.

Exactly, I totally agree.  Sadly, some people here are just very petty minded.

If screen name is forbidden on this forum then shouldn't every member be obliged to post under their birth given name ? Otherwise why shouldn't TB be allowed equal right ?  There should be ONE rule for all.  Why discriminate him?

Why should he be singled out and persecuted for wanting to post under anonymity, after all he'd done a damn sight more than the total forum memberships here collectively and probably still continuing to do work  behind the scenes for justice for M. in the eventuality this should turn out to be a whitewash.

We are expected to put up with much worst - witch hunters and time wasters all under screen names, so why begrudge him his anonymity?  TB's style whether one approves of it or not is besides the point.  I just don't get it why shouldn't he enjoy equal right as every member here, when even his regular critics when attacking him do so on basis of their screen names.

I would be interested to know how the poster who snide on TB got hold of this info.  Surely this is privy only to back scene controllers.  

  aiyoyo, I did ask a few posts ago to stay on topic, this has been discussed and is done now.  No one got hold of any info, they just guessed.

Now back to topic please, otherwise another thread will be disrupted.