Operation Grange

I think the fact it is referred to as an investigative review, rather than just a review, is significant IMO and gives cause for optimism. 

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/remit-of-operation-grange.html

What's_up_doc? wrote:I think the fact it is referred to as an investigative review, rather than just a review, is significant IMO and gives cause for optimism. 

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/remit-of-operation-grange.html

Thanks for that, however, that was superseded later and the review became a full blown investigation reopened by PJ and included the Met.

The only thing that OG or if you like a british police force can investigate in all reality is this in the offences against the persons act,other than that its a complete waste of time which £12+ miilion and all but six years show.


Section 9.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/9

Murder or manslaughter abroad.

Where any murder or manslaughter shall be committed on land out of the United Kingdom, whether within the Queen’s dominions or without, and whether the person killed were a subject of Her Majesty or not, every offence committed by any subject of Her Majesty in respect of any such case, whether the same shall amount to the offence of murder or of manslaughter, . . . F1, may be dealt with, inquired of, tried, determined, and punished . . . F1 in England or Ireland . . . F1: Provided, that nothing herein contained shall prevent any person from being tried in any place out of England or Ireland for any murder or manslaughter committed out of England or Ireland, in the same manner as such person might have been tried before the passing of this Act.

There is nothing absolutely nothing to show that OG are investigating a Britisher in regards of the above so what are they doing?

Here is the information...


It was initially set up as a review before being upgraded to a full-scale probe two years later.

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3219114/Bill-Scotland-Yard-investigation-Madeleine-McCann-disappearance-hits-11MILLION-no-arrests-former-police-chief-calls-end.html

candyfloss wrote:

What's_up_doc? wrote:I think the fact it is referred to as an investigative review, rather than just a review, is significant IMO and gives cause for optimism. 

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/remit-of-operation-grange.html

Thanks for that, however, that was superseded later and the review became a full blown investigation reopened by PJ and included the Met.

Did the met get involved first or after the PJ reopened?

candyfloss wrote:
As for a crime being investigated, then we know something happened to Madeleine, all the people in PDL needed speaking to, many were British.  The Met would have no  doubt re interviewed them all, including the Tapas 7 and the McCanns.  We also know that during the original investigation a lot of information was sought by the PJ but only had a foolscap sheet of paper back with very few details.  This has now probably been looked into much further too.  There must be hundreds of leads they have looked into and chased up, each one has to be elimated.

I think you're missing the point. In order for the Met to be legitimately involved they must be investigating a crime committed under their jurisdiction. Portugal is not their jurisdiction

candyfloss wrote:The Met just cannot win can they, when they go over to work with the PJ they are called all manner of things and going on holiday, if they don't then there is no co operation..  People say they haven't interviewed the Tapas 7 or McCanns, how on earth do they know that?  Do they expect announcements made, if they did it would cause media mayhem.

You're quoting me out of context. I raised the Met's trip to portugal (along with the other things) as evidence of a lack of genuine co-operation. If they were, effectively, one operation with a UK and PT arm, as you seem to believe, then there would be no need for an expensive trip by the Met to the Algarve. Any work necessary there could be done by the PJ. I see no evidence of cooperation to that extent and you haven't offered anything except blind faith. That's fine, you can believe whatever you want to believe but until I see something persuasive you're not going to change my mind.

I didn't mention anything about interviews with anyone but seeing as you've brought announcements and media mayhem up - what about the Met's trip to PdL? If that wasn't media mayhem I don't know what is. If they were so bothered about media mayhem they would've done that trip in secret

candyfloss wrote:My hope for Madeleine is that the PJ and Met are working closely and due to the length of this investigation, in my mind there can only be one answer, and that is they are hoping to bring it to a conclusion, a whitewash, cover up, call it what you like could have been done and dusted very quickly, and the Portuguese would have had no need to reopen their end.

I share your hope but not your expectation. You appear to think the the cover-up that I and others claim is related to the McCanns involvement in Madeleine's disappearance but I don't believe that it is, or at least is only tangential to it. The cover-up is working just fine as none of us has a clue why Madeleine's disappearance has attracted and continues to attract the attentions of the state and such a disproportionate sum of money. (Disproportionate when compared with other disappeared children and the governments own valuation of a human life http://indianexpress.com/article/business/business-others/uk-government-values-price-of-life-at-1-8-mn-pounds/)

I would have thought that the reopening would be because the investigative review threw up knew evidence or lines of enquiry which PJ thought they could develop.

Heisenburg wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

What's_up_doc? wrote:I think the fact it is referred to as an investigative review, rather than just a review, is significant IMO and gives cause for optimism. 

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.co.uk/2012/01/remit-of-operation-grange.html

Thanks for that, however, that was superseded later and the review became a full blown investigation reopened by PJ and included the Met.

Did the met get involved first or after the PJ reopened?

Met became involved in 2011, and the PJ a little later I believe. However, the PJ had people working on it a small team before the met. Also, people are forgetting that Alan Johnson the then Home Sec. arranged a scoping exercise, (which the McCanns asked to see but were not allowed) which imo led to the Met being involved and nothing to do with the Rebekah Brooks scenario, that was just sensationalism on the newspapers part. If you read Leveson she admits no such thing and she was a friend of Cameron anyway.

candyfloss wrote:Also, people are forgetting that Alan Johnson the then Home Sec. arranged a scoping exercise

I hadn't forgotten that - I never knew it in the first place. Its very interesting. Could it have been contemparaneous with the establishment of small PJ team? If so, that might suggest that the PJ investigation and Grange are indeed related and cooperating fully. A timeline would be useful

What's_up_doc? wrote:I would have thought that the reopening would be because the investigative review threw up knew evidence or lines of enquiry which PJ thought they could develop.

Even if true, that would cause the PJ end of things to be upgraded to an investigation, not Grange. But ignoring that, the question still remains; exactly what crime are the Met investigating

Here's another blog by Pottingshedder which I thought was interesting:

http://thepottingshedder.blogspot.co.uk/2013/06/madeleine-mccann-new-investigation.html

Interesting tweet pertaining to DCI Wall.

@McCannCaseTweet

Nicola Wall head of #McCann Murder Investigaton Team has visited at least 8 times since taking over

Busy lady "working in silence"

There is also an expenses sheet on the tweet but can't see where 8 times is shown.

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:Also, people are forgetting that Alan Johnson the then Home Sec. arranged a scoping exercise

I hadn't forgotten that - I never knew it in the first place. Its very interesting. Could it have been contemparaneous with the establishment of small PJ team? If so, that might suggest that the PJ investigation and Grange are indeed related and cooperating fully. A timeline would be useful

Here you go, there is an earlier article which gave the information but here is a later one when the review was ordered after the scoping exercise.


Former Home Secretary Alan Johnson commissioned a scoping exercise by the Child Exploitation and Online Protection (Ceop) centre to look at the feasibility of carrying out a review of the case.

This was completed in March 2010, but Mr McCann said current Home Secretary Theresa May refused to let him and his wife see it because it was "sensitive".

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-13378289

Here is another, 2010.

Home Office launches secret review into Madeleine McCann's disappearance

The Home Office has secretly begun a review that could lead to a fresh police inquiry into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7384911/Home-Office-launches-secret-review-into-Madeleine-McCanns-disappearance.html

AndyB wrote:

What's_up_doc? wrote:I would have thought that the reopening would be because the investigative review threw up knew evidence or lines of enquiry which PJ thought they could develop.

Even if true, that would cause the PJ end of things to be upgraded to an investigation, not Grange. But ignoring that, the question still remains; exactly what crime are the Met investigating

Well to me it suggests perhaps that the prime suspects are British and it suggests cooperation is needed. In terms of crimes to be investigated there is potentially a plethora, from bent cops and fraudulent private investigators (allegedly) to perverting the course of justice...it's a can of worms. I am an optimist though so whilst I accept somethings can be swept under 'the carpet, I don't think this one can, it would be a diplomatic disaster IMO and I can't see a straight laced vicar's daughter doing that!

Thanks Candyfloss. What prompted them to do the initial scoping exercise I wonder

Timeline of events as far as I can piece them together:

Alan Johnson orders scoping exercise via CEOP concluding March 2010.

Portuguese open their own internal review March 2011.

OG is launched for UK review in May 2011.

OG is upgraded to full investigation in July 2013.

Portuguese review upgraded to full investigation in October 2013.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2474749/Madeleine-McCann-Fresh-hope-Kate-Gerry-Portuguese-police-prepare-start-search-again.html

So OG was formed after the PJ review was announced. I don't believe this is a joint investigation. I've always maintained OG exists as a reaction to the Portuguese investigation and continues because the Portuguese investigation continues. I believe the UK are terrified of what the PJ have and have made continuous attempts to infiltrate. I understand from AdirenM that a small administrative team exists in Faro to assist with OG's investigation, deal with the rogatory requests etc. (This is the team that are often spoken of as working closely with and cooperate fully with the UK team and it is these that are referred to in the Express article from Heisenburg upthread.) This administrative team is quite separate from the actual PJ investigation. Just my own impressions from what I've read.

As Alan Johnson's scoping exercise was done by Gamble as head of CEOP does it have much credence?

Why did the McCanns want a review? You can bet your boots they didn`t want an investigative review. But why just a review? Is it, as I have pondered, that they were/are in conflict with the government or MI5/6 ? That the government wants to keep something else covered up that GM has threatened them with - `do as I want or I will talk`.

There would be much that OG could investigate in the UK that the PJ could not. Not just the fund but their health records, their banking records, their credit card records, their phone records, in fact every record there is on them. Also they could interview every person associated with them, including Brian Kennedy, Dave Edgar, John Lowe, Jim Gamble, Clarence Mitchell, the money laundering fellow who has written a book saying the McCanns partook in Charlie, the T7, Sheree Dodd and why she left, the directors of the Fund, the nursery staff at Madeleine`s play school, Cat the nanny, Martin Grimes (in the USA), Martin Grimes`s boss who was phoned by GM. Remember the interviews given by the T7 were never expected to be published so they may be entirely different after all this time; also all the people in the UK associated with Robert Murat. I`m sure there are many more.

Dee Coy wrote:As Alan Johnson's scoping exercise was done by Gamble as head of CEOP does it have much credence?

Perhaps.

If CEOP had a role in ensuring that high profile paedophiles aren't brought to the attention of anyone who might do something about them (as Childline has been accused) then the scoping exercise could have concluded "We better get involved in this to ensure it doesn't come out about Clement Freud(1)". Grange might then have been ordered to make sure that Freud's name doesn't get embroiled in Madeleine's disappearance, whether or not he had anything to do with it.

All speculation on my part.

1. Freud is named as an example only, simply because he lived locally and is dead and therefore can't be libeled.

Mimi wrote:Why did the McCanns want a review? You can bet your boots they didn`t want an investigative review.  But why just a review? Is it, as I have pondered, that they were/are in conflict with the government or MI5/6 ?  That the government wants to keep something else covered up that GM has threatened them with - `do as I want or I will talk`.

There would be much that OG could investigate in the UK that the PJ could not.  Not just the fund but their health records, their banking records, their credit card records, their phone records, in fact every record there is on them. Also they could interview every person associated with them, including Brian Kennedy, Dave Edgar, John Lowe, Jim Gamble, Clarence Mitchell, the money laundering fellow who has written a book saying the McCanns partook in Charlie, the T7, Sheree Dodd and why she left, the directors of the Fund, the nursery staff at Madeleine`s play school, Cat the nanny, Martin Grimes (in the USA), Martin Grimes`s boss who was phoned by GM.  Remember the interviews given by the T7 were never expected to be published so they may be entirely different after all this time; also all the people in the UK associated with Robert Murat. I`m sure there are many more.

Yes, OG could do all of that but could only do so legitimately if they were investigating a crime committed within their jurisdiction. Madeleine's disappearance happened in Portugal. Portugal is not in the Met's jurisdiction. Therefore Grange is not a legitimate investigation. Is there a fault in my logic?

Dee Coy wrote:Timeline of events as far as I can piece them together:

Alan Johnson orders scoping exercise via CEOP concluding March 2010.

Portuguese open their own internal review March 2011.

OG is launched for UK review in May 2011.

OG is upgraded to full investigation in July 2013.

Portuguese review upgraded to full investigation in October 2013.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2474749/Madeleine-McCann-Fresh-hope-Kate-Gerry-Portuguese-police-prepare-start-search-again.html

So OG was formed after the PJ review was announced. I don't believe this is a joint investigation. I've always maintained OG exists as a reaction to the Portuguese investigation and continues because the Portuguese investigation continues. I believe the UK are terrified of what the PJ have and have made continuous attempts to infiltrate. I understand from AdirenM that a small administrative team exists in Faro to assist with OG's investigation, deal with the rogatory requests etc. (This is the team that are often spoken of as working closely with and cooperate fully with the UK team and it is these that are referred to in the Express article from Heisenburg upthread.) This administrative team is quite separate from the actual PJ investigation. Just my own impressions from what I've read.

Interesting summary dee coy,so the McCanns got wind of something in Portugal and pressed the government on what was happening it was their only way of finding out?

AndyB wrote:

Mimi wrote:Why did the McCanns want a review? You can bet your boots they didn`t want an investigative review.  But why just a review? Is it, as I have pondered, that they were/are in conflict with the government or MI5/6 ?  That the government wants to keep something else covered up that GM has threatened them with - `do as I want or I will talk`.

There would be much that OG could investigate in the UK that the PJ could not.  Not just the fund but their health records, their banking records, their credit card records, their phone records, in fact every record there is on them. Also they could interview every person associated with them, including Brian Kennedy, Dave Edgar, John Lowe, Jim Gamble, Clarence Mitchell, the money laundering fellow who has written a book saying the McCanns partook in Charlie, the T7, Sheree Dodd and why she left, the directors of the Fund, the nursery staff at Madeleine`s play school, Cat the nanny, Martin Grimes (in the USA), Martin Grimes`s boss who was phoned by GM.  Remember the interviews given by the T7 were never expected to be published so they may be entirely different after all this time; also all the people in the UK associated with Robert Murat. I`m sure there are many more.

Yes, OG could do all of that but could only do so legitimately if they were investigating a crime committed within their jurisdiction. Madeleine's disappearance happened in Portugal. Portugal is not in the Met's jurisdiction. Therefore Grange is not a legitimate investigation. Is there a fault in my logic?

None what so ever,which is why I posted about section 9 of the offences against the person act,that is the only legit reason they can investigate a crime in a foreign country imo.

Heisenburg:
Interesting summary dee coy,so the McCanns got wind of something in Portugal and pressed the government on what was happening it was their only way of finding out?




Or the government did for their own reasons.

AndyB's take on why CEOP were commissioned for the scoping exercise is food for thought.

In April 2011 there was a meeting between the UK and Portugese before UK investigation announced:

So London's top prosecutor and her deputy visited Portugal mid April to consult with Portuguese officials about Madeleine's disappearance.  And subsequently, Theresa May has announced that Scotland Yard will be opening their own investigation.