Operation Grange

dogs don't lie wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:For dogs cadaver doesn't take 90 minutes. They smell it within minutes and sometimes even shortly before death.
The problem is, that there are very few published tests - one reason being that it takes time to allow a corpse - a recently died person - to be released for such tests.

Oh thanks Chatelaine, does that mean a body could have been removed within mins and still be detected by Eddie?

***
IMO yes, also. And same for Keela smelling blood. Something happened in 5A and someone lay dead, bleeding.
I have a lot of experience with dogs, be they untrained for forensics. And it's absolutely amazing what they can do and especially smell.

I couldn't resist bringing this over as it is a fantastic post which cuts to the heart imo. I think it's worth having a read of.....
This is in reply to Aquila, from RogerRabbit below is link

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11130p110-faith-in-op-grange


I've seen no evidence that the world, or it's figures of influence, operate on 'simpler terms.'

Operation Grange was formed by people unknown, for reasons unknown, due to political pressure from sources unknown at the request of unknown.

That's the objective truth.

The rest is a story.

One thing I know for sure… if this were a whitewash, and it was a significant enough issue that a Prime Minister would spend ten million and stake the reputation of himself, the most prestigious police force in the UK, and the intelligence services on their collective ability to cover something up and leave no trace which could be later uncovered and used to embarrass them, there isn't a journalist, newspaper editor or media mogul on earth who would be safe as the agent of force or blackmail, friend or not, if the demand to do such a deed was accompanied with a threat of some form of exposure. People have been killed for less. If you think that someone as utterly dispensable as Rebekah Brooks was single-handedly and for reasons of commercial interest to Rupert Murdoch able to force Cameron into this shambles, then I think you've underestimated the nature of politics. The ability of the Cameron government to preside over giving Brooks and co, and indeed the Murdochs a black eye and a permanently tarnished reputation is proof that this is not the result of Newscorp pressure. Newscorp plays catch-up very quickly, and places bets in order to try to be the first, but they do NOT write the news before it happens.

Until you can rule out that the whole 'Brooks/Cameron' narrative is not simply hogwash designed to amuse the public, you've simply no idea what kind of animal Grange really is.

Operation Grange's 'remit' is known only to the insiders who instigated Grange and those at the top level of running the operation. It is not known whether Grange is an isolated and complete operation, or whether it is merely a compartment, a stage, a component within something larger. The evidence, including the very intricate levels of cooperation with other government departments, possibly intelligence services, prosecutors and numerous departments of the Portuguese authorities, not to mention the massive expenditure, indicate the latter. If it were the former, and the dead end that the operation appears to be reaching were indeed the end goal, then the end goal could have been achieved far sooner, far more cheaply, and without any of the elaborate play-acting. It is not safe to believe that Grange is anything short of a convenient front, and thus it cannot be presumed that any 'remit' has been honestly stated, and that the ends might justify the means in respect of deception.

Operation Grange's supposedly stated remit has been questioned by all kinds of media and all kinds of members of the general public. That these lines of enquiry go unreported, or left as enigmas, is not unusual and most certainly would not be unusual if Grange were, in fact, merely one thread in a multi-threaded pursuit of an end game which needed to be obscured from public scrutiny until a final reveal.

The remit began with nothing less than whatever beginning place the ruse called for, assuming I'm right. It served it's purpose. The theorists and speculators have been hung up on that 'opening statement' ever since, blissfully unaware that it is quite probably the first most successful distraction of the operation, an effective misdirection. Then you have another irrelevant misdirection… that 'the parents' asked for it. Connecting the dots between the parents asking for it and Grange being instituted is erroneous. As erroneous as the idea that Newscorp asking for it would get a ten million pound police operation which would be counter productive and fall foul of the public and MP's alike. Where is the evidence that grieving parents ever get elaborate two year, ten million pound investigations having seized control of the investigation themselves, been caught out in underhand behaviour, failed to cooperate with police investigations and failed to provide a scrap of credible evidence TO investigate? Newspapers that chase pet issues ALWAYS bill themselves as the ones who demanded investigation and then claim credit when the authorities proceed. And as for the McCann's, they couldn't afford NOT to be seen begging for investigations. The scrutiny they're under? They were probably stunned when someone said 'actually, yes, we're going to investigate' and all evidence is that they then proceeded to re-engage the publicity machine in order to try to steer the direction by having the police chase the media, or have the police chased by the media. The whole thing is a PR game, and for my eye, little more.

One other thing is certain. The media does not 'back' anyone. The media curries favour, it attempts to influence, it associates itself wherever it sees the opportunity to sell. And it turns just as quickly. It rarely says 'they fooled us', because it doesn't care about being fooled or not. But it will be the first to change sides at just the right time. Keep your friends close, and your enemies closer. That's how you stay on top of the news. It's how you get exclusives. The McCann's are valuable for exclusives… If you can't publish something damning about them, then play nice and make sure you get the kind of scoops that only friends would get. For all the support the McCann's had from the Murdoch media, according to you, it didn't stop them biting the hand that fed them with Hacked Off and Leveson.

As for OG photoshoots, police investigators don't do photoshoots. Illusionists do photoshoots. They make you look at what they want you to see. To plant a thought. To send a message. To manipulate a scene. To create a diversion. To simply waste time. To play politics. Helicopters. GPR. Dogs. Personnel. If they did it, it had a purpose. One thing they were not was clueless and inept. If they'd have made a judgement, and attempted a conviction, and HADN'T been seen doing ALL those things, the defence would tear the case apart. Someone will pay for this with their job and their future career if this expenditure is NOT deemed to be serving the public interest.


"It's my opinion that it will be very easy to close OG, stick it on the back burner and blame it on the need for greater resources within the Metropolitan area. "


Ridiculous. They could have killed OG off after six months by stating there was no evidence. The grumbling about Grange isn't coming from the people running Grange, it's coming from the people impatient for results, or anxious to avoid being implicated. It is a provocation, not an epitaph for the Op.


If the purpose was to make Grange go away without any embarrassment or questions, then it has failed big time, and is eighteen months too late. Grange is beyond a point of no return. It is only a matter of time until the reveal.

Yep, saw that. Whilst some or all of it may be plausible, any poster that comes across so cock sure of himself as if he is an authority on the government, the press and the police, causes me to distrust them.

But I do agree that if Grange is a whitewash, it would have been wound up long ago.

Yes if Grange was it would be a non starter. 

It's not.

They are closing in.

Arrests soon.

Mimi wrote:Yep, saw that.  Whilst some or all of it may be plausible, any poster that comes across so cock sure of himself as if he is an authority on the government, the press and the police, causes me to distrust them.

But I do agree that if Grange is a whitewash, it would have been wound up long ago.

No more "cock sure" than Aquila (and others) stating OG is a whitewash though!

Believe it not I'm a massive cynic when it comes to the media and government, but when either want something buried or whitewashed, it is usually done swiftly and has quietly as possible.

Maybe it will turn out to be a new kind of 'wash', but not a 'white' one, IMO.

Still on the fence but leaning on a wash side,the MET have history of fitting a person to a crime,Stagg,George to name but two,the young Schizo in Portugal would fit nicely,trouble is they can't get direct access can they.All opinion.
A Brazilian electrician fitted a profile also.
lets also not forget there are at least 20 referrals that the IPCC are looking into regards SY,the apple doesn't fall far from the tree.Still opinion though.

Anyone think that Roger the Rabbit is the poster 'cynicalAl' who used to frequent here....

Does anyone not think its impossible to whitewash this case?
There's too much info on the net to stitch anyone and too much cadaver to ignore?
IMO

dogs don't lie wrote:Does anyone not think its impossible to whitewash this case?
There's too much info on the net to stitch anyone and too much cadaver to ignore?
IMO

Its not about stitching anyone up,its about limiting themselves,the remit is to treat it as "if the abduction happened in the uk",now either the MET are totally incompetent in not updating their website if the remit has widened or the remit remains the same today.
One thing with SY/OG,they do not have the jurisdiction to arrest and question a foreign national in a foreign country.
The three or four arguido's could well be in for a bit of compo if they are under the cloud of suspicion on the say so of SY I would have thought.
All opinion.

Totally agree caricature.

caricature wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Does anyone not think its impossible to whitewash this case?
There's too much info on the net to stitch anyone and too much cadaver to ignore?
IMO

Its not about stitching anyone up,its about limiting themselves,the remit is to treat it as "if the abduction happened in the uk",now either the MET are totally incompetent in not updating their website if the remit has widened or the remit remains the same today.
One thing with SY/OG,they do not have the jurisdiction to arrest and question a foreign national in a foreign country.
The three or four arguido's could well be in for a bit of compo if they are under the cloud of suspicion on the say so of SY I would have thought.
All opinion.

Just a q, if this remit was for abduction, then they discover something which turns it into a murder inquiry, do the police need to change the remit to go further? I've no idea about this stuff

I don't think so DDL.

The remit is taken too literally. All it states to me is that OG would investigate the claim of abduction like they would if it happened here in the UK. I think many take offense to the use of the word abduction in the remit. There are obvious reasons (if you believe it is a legit investigation) why they would word the remit as they did.

And no, I wouldn't expect them to update the remit if they found evidence of something else. That would be silly and "giving a running commentary"

dogs don't lie wrote:

caricature wrote:

dogs don't lie wrote:Does anyone not think its impossible to whitewash this case?
There's too much info on the net to stitch anyone and too much cadaver to ignore?
IMO

Its not about stitching anyone up,its about limiting themselves,the remit is to treat it as "if the abduction happened in the uk",now either the MET are totally incompetent in not updating their website if the remit has widened or the remit remains the same today.
One thing with SY/OG,they do not have the jurisdiction to arrest and question a foreign national in a foreign country.
The three or four arguido's could well be in for a bit of compo if they are under the cloud of suspicion on the say so of SY I would have thought.
All opinion.

Just a q, if this remit was for abduction, then they discover something which turns it into a murder inquiry, do the police need to change the remit to go further? I've no idea about this stuff

Good question,but why leave an official website with out an update or even shut it down.
One thing I will add,is when was the last time that SY/Og actually said anything official in respect of the investigation.

Outside of the breakfast news interviews right at the beginning and the Crimewatch appeals the only thing I remember is what was essentially a warning to the media before the Luz searches last summer?

Probably wrong about that though.

We've been here before, but I come back to it again. The use of the word "abduction" by SY [and in-line with the McCanns claim]  is very clever. It's semantics. Abduction nowadays is used mostly in the sense of "kidnap", whereas the original meaning [from Latin] is "taking away". Now, if Madeleine indeed died in apartment G5A and was "removed" from there, it is in fact an "abduction" in the true sense of the word.

ETA it is unusual if not "not-done" for police to give a running commentary on active INVESTIGATION. Why on earth would one expect them to do that in a case like Madeleine's ...?

Gonçalo Amaral: Justice is done in silence.

Châtelaine wrote:We've been here before, but I come back to it again. The use of the word "abduction" by SY [and in-line with the McCanns claim]  is very clever. It's semantics. Abduction nowadays is used mostly in the sense of "kidnap", whereas the original meaning [from Latin] is "taking away". Now, if Madeleine indeed died in apartment G5A and was "removed" from there, it is in fact an "abduction" in the true sense of the word.

ETA it is unusual if not "not-done" for police to give a running commentary on active INVESTIGATION. Why on earth would one expect them to do that in a case like Madeleine's ...?

Gonçalo Amaral: Justice is done in silence.

So true chatelaine.
With OG saying Madeleine may have not left the apartment alive, to me, means the cadaver evidence is being looked at and considered.
IMO

The fact that not one "sighting" of Madeleine has come to light since SY came on board with PJ says a lot to me.

The people who have being playing "silly beggers" for the past 7 years and who have conjuctured up fictious "sightings" of Madeleine from all around the world have now realised that this is a serious criminal/murder investigation and playing silly beggers to get the McCanns off the hook won't wash any more and they may find themselves in serious trouble. Strange how they've all gone quiet, have they foresaken the McCanns as a lost cause perhaps and they now think they're not worth a prison sentence for perverting the cause of justice.

RogerRabbit bin caught in headlights!!!

Looks like they have whooshed or moved thread to coffee lounge.....someone too close to an independent opinion,could maybe do with some 'peristroika' me thinks with a dose of everyone deserves a platform to speak!!

Yes, it's members only now.

See the topic here "Former CMoMM members...."

I am just starting to have a little bit of faith in operation Grange now that things are quiet and 'leaking' has stopped..

The word abduction doesn't phase me either, the police will go in whatever direction the evidence points to.
Another little thing is OG told S&S to read the PJ files for their book!

I'm a fence sitter and have said so,one thing I've wondered about,is the fund,just suppose that OG uncover something that would lead to the fund being fraudulent but by revealing it,it could jeopardise the Madeleine search.
There as been no mention of investigating the said fund,but BHH said its a murder enquiry,Redwood also said its possible that Madeleine never left 5a alive so therefore is the fund  fraudulent? why no fraud squad?

OG/SY have themselves in a right pickle to my mind.All opinion.

Read this tweet yesterday caricature?

Dasteelman Apr 4.
There will be a separate trial for all those involved in the multi-million fund #mccann.

It's interesting to note how many people (with connections to the McCanns) have started up "businesses" since the disappearance of Madeleine.  I wonder if that would have happened if she hadn't "disappeared".

DFM: I have tried to correct the problem with quotes.

Sorry for not posting or contributing anything useful for a long while - I *have* been reading the posts though!

On the whole OG “whitewash” subject - I’ll say that from the outset I’m basically optimistic.

I think there are two basic ways that you could describe a whitewash, and I can’t really see either of them genuinely working. This is partly because of of the possible OG outcomes themselves and also partly because of something else that needs factoring in, which is the Portuguese investigation.

The two outcomes - and this is admittedly a fairly simplistic overview I’m giving - are:
1 - Frame somebody, or
2 - Say you tried, can’t solve it, and let things fizzle out.
And I can’t really see either of these working…

I really cannot imagine how it is possible to actually frame somebody in a way that fits with all the evidence. You can say that OG might try and invent new evidence (I think it has been suggested that Redwood’s new timeline was to help try and help in such a way - whereas in fact it does nothing to let Gerry or anyone else off the hook, based on the evidence already existing, statements etc). It is simply not possible to get rid of existing evidence. Only to try and cram new events, people, into the existing framework. And don’t forget that framework includes cadaverine in Apt 5a, on the McCanns, and their hire car.

The fizzling out option is a hard one to carry off too - £10 million demands a proper explanation at the end, and any outcry over spending or lack of results is likely to have the side effect of more people taking notice of the case so far and finding out what’s online already in the shape of the PJ Files - which then only leads to more uncomfortable questions.

I think neither Framing, nor Fizzling Out offers any opportunity to let the McCanns off the hook. And as many on here rightly point out, more and more people continue to find out about the PJ Files, McCann Files website etc - and start asking questions. There is too much in the public domain that casts huge doubt over the whole business, that it is simply impossible to put the affair to bed. Those doubts will remain, more people will continue to discover this material, and more voices will be added.

As I said, as well as the intrinsic problem that neither whitewash ‘solution’ would actually shut the matter down - the other thing to take into account is the Portuguese investigation.
And that can have a couple of options too…
1 - The Portuguese are not cooperating with the Brits and will either reach a successful conclusion or be closed down, or
2 - The Portuguese and the Brits are in close and genuine cooperation (which I think by definition would mean no whitewash attempt).

Even if, for example, the Portuguese investigation is closed down - this surely results in a whole load more files then being put in the public domain. And who can say what they might tell… They could potentially be a whole load more pieces of the puzzle, which whilst not being sufficient to ensure a conviction, might simply add another ton of doubt and suspicion on the leading players.

I got very frustrated and bored on the other forum with a pretty overwhelming “whitewash” brigade - not that I couldn’t stand to disagree, but that for all the volume and bluster (and belittling those who disagreed, suggesting they were somehow naive), it continually missed the key point - and that is that if someone wants to try and whitewash the case, then they can go ahead and try - but this would NEVER allow the case to be put to bed. It would NEVER let the McCanns off the hook. And pretty much any outcome will either be ridiculed, contested or result in more attention to the case in ways that are surely damaging to the McCanns, T7 and other central characters.
Any whitewash scenario actually just draws more attention to the case and its glaring problems. And as far as I'm concerned that's a pretty rubbish whitewash.

All my opinion only, of course - but I hope it makes sense, and I hope it’s a helpful note in the whitewash debate.