Operation Grange

chirpyinsect wrote:I appreciate that this is only hearsay and nobody needs to take my word for this, but I heard this week from a reliable ( to me) source that even the officers of OG know they are in a cleft stick situation. They know they are not investigating the real scenario but they are forced to follow the remit, which is not to implicate the parents.
My contact has a friend in the Met and has been told the officers are certain it wasn't abduction.
Now I don't believe in OG but have always believed it is not the officers themselves who are corrupt so my question to my contact was, " Why would not a single one of those coppers speak out?" The answer was that they were protecting their jobs and pensions.
The same source also told me that the parents had met some of the nannies before in Greece on a holiday prior to the birth of the twins. Kate had sent emails to the hotel about her "nightmare daughter." The source's contact worked in the hotel and had said that  M was a perfectly normally behaved child.
Make of this what you will folks. I am merely relaying what I have been told, not confirming any of it, but it is interesting anyway.

Interesting from you source there, Chirps.

I think anyone who has had a passing interest in this case knows full well it was not an 'abduction'. Not just the officers of the Met.

And I can certainly imagine KM referring to Madeleine as a 'nightmare daughter'.

Is there a dwindling faith of OG on this thread now then... ?

Andrew wrote:Is there a dwindling faith of OG on this thread now then... ?

To do what? if there just isn't the evidence then what can they do.

All one can hope for is that they are honest and open about their conclusions and that if they have found no evidence of abduction, or indeed any other scenario, then they clearly state so.

froggy wrote:All one can hope for is that they are honest and open about their conclusions and that if they have found no evidence of abduction, or indeed any other scenario,  then they clearly state so.

Not sure on that,they could say they have found evidence but not enough to progress with out revealing anything lest more evidence comes to light at a later date,such as supposedly in the Needham case.

chirpyinsect wrote:I appreciate that this is only hearsay and nobody needs to take my word for this, but I heard this week from a reliable ( to me) source that even the officers of OG know they are in a cleft stick situation. They know they are not investigating the real scenario but they are forced to follow the remit, which is not to implicate the parents.
My contact has a friend in the Met and has been told the officers are certain it wasn't abduction.
Now I don't believe in OG but have always believed it is not the officers themselves who are corrupt so my question to my contact was, " Why would not a single one of those coppers speak out?" The answer was that they were protecting their jobs and pensions.
The same source also told me that the parents had met some of the nannies before in Greece on a holiday prior to the birth of the twins. Kate had sent emails to the hotel about her "nightmare daughter." The source's contact worked in the hotel and had said that  M was a perfectly normally behaved child.
Make of this what you will folks. I am merely relaying what I have been told, not confirming any of it, but it is interesting anyway.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting it. If accurate (and I suspect that it might be) we're back to the big questions: What is the real purpose of Grange if it isn't allowed to investigate what really happened to Madeleine? Who has restricted it to anything that doesn't involve the parents and why? What's so special about the McCann's that they deserve to be protected from the legal consequences of their actions by the full might of the state?

Edited to ad: Surely refusing to investigate honestly because you want to protect your jobs and pensions is a form of corruption? And if not, at what point does it become corruption? When you become aware of a senior officer abusing children but turn a blind eye? When you know that a colleague was involved in gangland murder but do nothing?

AndyB wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:I appreciate that this is only hearsay and nobody needs to take my word for this, but I heard this week from a reliable ( to me) source that even the officers of OG know they are in a cleft stick situation. They know they are not investigating the real scenario but they are forced to follow the remit, which is not to implicate the parents.
My contact has a friend in the Met and has been told the officers are certain it wasn't abduction.
Now I don't believe in OG but have always believed it is not the officers themselves who are corrupt so my question to my contact was, " Why would not a single one of those coppers speak out?" The answer was that they were protecting their jobs and pensions.
The same source also told me that the parents had met some of the nannies before in Greece on a holiday prior to the birth of the twins. Kate had sent emails to the hotel about her "nightmare daughter." The source's contact worked in the hotel and had said that  M was a perfectly normally behaved child.
Make of this what you will folks. I am merely relaying what I have been told, not confirming any of it, but it is interesting anyway.

Very interesting. Thanks for posting it. If accurate (and I suspect that it might be) we're back to the big questions: What is the real purpose of Grange if it isn't allowed to investigate what really happened to Madeleine? Who has restricted it to anything that doesn't involve the parents and why? What's so special about the McCann's that they deserve to be protected from the legal consequences of their actions by the full might of the state?

Edited to ad: Surely refusing to investigate honestly because you want to protect your jobs and pensions is a form of corruption? And if not, at what point does it become corruption? When you become aware of a senior officer abusing children but turn a blind eye? When you know that a colleague was involved in gangland murder but do nothing?

Well as you all know I totally believe Op Grange are doing their utmost to find out what happened to Madeleine.  No way do I think people would want to protect their pension and not speak out.  It they blew the case wide apart they would be the most famous person on the planet, their income would be massive, and pension would be small fry.... not that money would probably play a part, it would be doing right by a little girl who has no voice. 

I cannot believe chirpy that your friend says 'the officers are certain it wasn't abduction' yet carry on and no one knows - they must tell family, friends etc., what is going on, so in that case yet more people 'in on it'   It must involve hundreds by now..... As someone once said 'I'm not buying it'

No disrespect to you at all chirpy, I know you are relaying what you were told.

AndyB

Couldn't agree more. Surely saying nothing is a form of agreeing to whatever is being covered up. I believe there were 34 officers involved at the start so what happened to collective conscience? If they joined forces and spoke out, I'm sure it would be impossible to continue with the charade.
Did not one of those officers think of the consequences to the twins when the parents were being protected? And whosoever ordered the cover up should have done so expeditely, ( if it had to be done at all) telling the parents to fade into the background, thereby protecting the remaining children.

..... On the other hand, the Met have been instructed not to say a single thing until a conclusion has been reached.

And we haven't reached a conclusion yet therefore not one of them can speak out.

Well as you all know I totally believe Op Grange are doing their utmost to find out what happened to Madeleine. No way do I think people would want to protect their pension and not speak out. It they blew the case wide apart they would be the most famous person on the planet, their income would be massive, and pension would be small fry.... not that money would probably play a part, it would be doing right by a little girl who has no voice.

I cannot believe chirpy that your friend says 'the officers are certain it wasn't abduction' yet carry on and no one knows - they must tell family, friends etc., what is going on, so in that case yet more people 'in on it' It must involve hundreds by now..... As someone once said 'I'm not buying it'

No disrespect to you at all chirpy, I know you are relaying what you were told.

_________________


No offence taken CF. I respect your right to trust the very people who are meant to protect and serve us. I wish I was less sceptical, I really do.
You make a very good point that anyone who blew the lid off the situation could, potentially, make a mint but perhaps it's not just pensions and jobs being protected.
In my previous post above I was trying to say that if there had to be a cover up in the eyes of tptb, then surely it could have happened quickly, with no need for the parents to become famous. A patsy could have been found. A body could have even been discovered ( I'm sure these things do happen) job done.
Why has it taken so long? I hope you are right Candy and I am open to persuasion.

Andrew wrote:..... On the other hand, the Met have been instructed not to say a single thing until a conclusion has been reached.

And we haven't reached a conclusion yet therefore not one of them can speak out.

No they can't speak out in the normal way of an investigation and nobody expects them to, but IF there is a cover up and over 30 serving officers know there is, then their conscience should over ride their fear of losing their jobs.
I only know the person who told me this through FB but they are very involved in the case but not officially. I believe them to be sincere and no hysterical conspiracy theorist so I trust what they say.
I am more interested in the part about Kand G knowing some nannies from a previous holiday. I am currently trying to explore that angle.

Unfortunately it happens all around the world where complex cases can take an age to solve and to come up with the necessary evidence to result in a successful conviction.

It could be that simple.

It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy that involves every member of the echelons and their dog.

Andrew wrote:Unfortunately it happens all around the world where complex cases can take an age to solve and to come up with the necessary evidence to result in a successful conviction.

It could be that simple.

It doesn't have to be a big conspiracy that involves every member of the echelons and their dog.

Whats complex about it,a child was reported missing,it was investigated,the lead investigator got taken off the case,the case was archived through lack of evidence,the lack of evidence still remains after all this time.Eta,the evidence might well have been destroyed at the very out set,OG can dig and dig til infinity and beyond if its not there it will never be there.

candyfloss wrote:
Well as you all know I totally believe Op Grange are doing their utmost to find out what happened to Madeleine.  No way do I think people would want to protect their pension and not speak out.  It they blew the case wide apart they would be the most famous person on the planet, their income would be massive, and pension would be small fry.... not that money would probably play a part, it would be doing right by a little girl who has no voice.

Sorry candyfloss but I think you're wrong. Anyone speaking out would be sacked (thus losing all their pension entitlement) and quite possibly prosecuted under the official secrets act. Remember Clive Ponting?

Other examples of what happens when you whistleblow state corruption
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2685323/Treasury-adviser-fired-whistleblowing-Civil-servant-claims-bosses-removed-post-revealed-killed-flagship-proposal-Osborne.html
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/how-police-whistleblowers-who-gave-evidence-sunday-times-gangster-libel-trial-were-themselves/

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:
Well as you all know I totally believe Op Grange are doing their utmost to find out what happened to Madeleine.  No way do I think people would want to protect their pension and not speak out.  It they blew the case wide apart they would be the most famous person on the planet, their income would be massive, and pension would be small fry.... not that money would probably play a part, it would be doing right by a little girl who has no voice.

Sorry candyfloss but I think you're wrong. Anyone speaking out would be sacked (thus losing all their pension entitlement) and quite possibly prosecuted under the official secrets act. Remember Clive Ponting?

Other examples of what happens when you whistleblow state corruption
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2685323/Treasury-adviser-fired-whistleblowing-Civil-servant-claims-bosses-removed-post-revealed-killed-flagship-proposal-Osborne.html
http://www.pressgazette.co.uk/how-police-whistleblowers-who-gave-evidence-sunday-times-gangster-libel-trial-were-themselves/

Each to their own opinion AndyB but that would make matters a whole lot worse if they sacked someone, that is even more media fodder to publicise the cover up.  I think you are wrong, so we will have to disagree on that.  Apart from that, it would be something you would discuss, I don't care how secret it is, someone always tells someone, it is human nature, all those coppers, with all those wives, friends and families.  The lid would be blown off and the plot exposed - it is what always happens.... especially in this day and age, nothing is secret.

Going back to the alleged cover up, if it was why on earth would they keep prolonging it and getting people more agitated about the money spent, surely it would have been in everyone's interest to shut this down as quickly as possible. 

Nope, there are some crooked people out there, in all walks of life, but I believe the vast majority of cops, are good and honest and want to do their best, especially when it involves a small child.

[quote="candyfloss"][quote="AndyB"]

candyfloss wrote:


Nope, there are some crooked people out there, in all walks of life, but I believe the vast majority of cops, are good and honest and want to do their best, especially when it involves a small child.

But what if its not a cover up(I don't beleive it is),but OG have been limited to investigate the instructions of their remit and only that.

I may be repeating myself,  but ... the abduction remit was for the REVIEW. Afterwards they went into a full-blown INVESTIGATION. Has anyone seen the remit of that?

Apart from that [repeating myself again] "abduction" derives from Latin and means taking or leading away ... It's not necessarily "knidnap", a word which BTW nobody, not even the McCs themselves, have used [wisely IMO]. It's semantics, I know ...

ETA that all involved, McCs and OG alike have academic education

Châtelaine wrote:I may be repeating myself,  but ... the abduction remit was for the REVIEW. Afterwards they went into a full-blown INVESTIGATION. Has anyone seen the remit of that?

Apart from that [repeating myself again] "abduction" derives from Latin and means taking or leading away ... It's not necessarily "knidnap", a word which BTW nobody, not even the McCs themselves, have used [wisely IMO]. It's semantics, I know ...

ETA that all involved, McCs and OG alike have academic education

Highlighted in red,covered under the one banner,imo.

Op 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, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Gold%E2%80%93silver%E2%80%93bronze_command_structure

(if anyone's interested)

Heisenburg wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:


Nope, there are some crooked people out there, in all walks of life, but I believe the vast majority of cops, are good and honest and want to do their best, especially when it involves a small child.

But what if its not a cover up(I don't beleive it is),but OG have been limited to investigate the instructions of their remit and only that.

Surely limiting an investigation to a particular remit and not allowing it to be organic, is of itself, a form of coverup.
Imagine for a second that an investigation into a murder was limited to only look at one prime suspect. What if it then turns out that suspect had a cast iron alibi? Would the investigation have to be halted because its narrow confines meant no other scenario could be considered? I doubt many cases would ever get solved.

Heisenburg wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:


Nope, there are some crooked people out there, in all walks of life, but I believe the vast majority of cops, are good and honest and want to do their best, especially when it involves a small child.

But what if its not a cover up(I don't beleive it is),but OG have been limited to investigate the instructions of their remit and only that.

Then the question becomes "why?": Why were they given such a restrictive remit and, given that they're only allowed to investigate abduction, why was it set up in the first place?

AndyB wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:

candyfloss wrote:

AndyB wrote:

candyfloss wrote:


Nope, there are some crooked people out there, in all walks of life, but I believe the vast majority of cops, are good and honest and want to do their best, especially when it involves a small child.

But what if its not a cover up(I don't beleive it is),but OG have been limited to investigate the instructions of their remit and only that.

Then the question becomes "why?": Why were they given such a restrictive remit and, given that they're only allowed to investigate abduction, why was it set up in the first place?

I have always thought the remit and the word abduction have been made to be far more important than they actually are.  At the end of the day that is what it was,  as Chatelaine has been saying, Madeleine was not in the apartment as she was supposed to be therefore, she must have been taken away or abducted.  They should have of course used the word 'crime' which would have stopped all speculation.  Let's face it how many times has the word murdered been used in the past year or two, by media, reporters, newspapers, TV reports and even Hogan-Howe?

I post this not as a Textusa supporter(some days iam ....some days im not!) but just because it sums up my feelings on OG more eloquently than i ever could myself.......


Textusa15 Oct 2016, 11:58:00
Anonymous 15 Oct 2016, 07:11:00,

To answer your question in a very straightforward manner: we subscribe 100% Mr Amaral’s words that all is depending on political courage to do that.

Do we believe May will have that political courage? Some days we think she will, other days we don’t.

All we have done is show how things are set up in a way that IF there’s that political courage then the McCanns and the other T7 will be charged with obstructing justice and, possibly, if there’s a confession, one of them will also be charged with simple homicide without intent.

Or in Portuguese, homicídio simples sem dolo.

Lest people forget, and many seem to have done that, the crimes happened in Portugal and ONLY Portugal can prosecute. Agree that Portugal will only do it with UK’s green light.

But, as said, things are only set up. The final move has to be made. Only Theresa May can answer if she will.

But, have not the McCanns been already prosecuted? In our opinion they are now going in their ninth year in prison of their life sentence in a prison without wall.

A heavy conscience builds walls no one is able to escape. There may be a great deal of self-convincing but nothing is able to overcome being looked upon as guilty knowing the guilt is indeed there.

Even if UK archives and Portugal follows suit, the McCanns will never be able to proclaim innocence.

Bampots wrote:I post this not as a Textusa supporter(some days iam ....some days im not!) but just because it sums up my feelings on OG more eloquently than i ever could myself.......


Textusa15 Oct 2016, 11:58:00
Anonymous 15 Oct 2016, 07:11:00,

To answer your question in a very straightforward manner: we subscribe 100% Mr Amaral’s words that all is depending on political courage to do that.

Do we believe May will have that political courage? Some days we think she will, other days we don’t.

All we have done is show how things are set up in a way that IF there’s that political courage then the McCanns and the other T7 will be charged with obstructing justice and, possibly, if there’s a confession, one of them will also be charged with simple homicide without intent.

Or in Portuguese, homicídio simples sem dolo.

Lest people forget, and many seem to have done that, the crimes happened in Portugal and ONLY Portugal can prosecute. Agree that Portugal will only do it with UK’s green light.

But, as said, things are only set up. The final move has to be made. Only Theresa May can answer if she will.

But, have not the McCanns been already prosecuted? In our opinion they are now going in their ninth year in prison of their life sentence in a prison without wall.

A heavy conscience builds walls no one is able to escape. There may be a great deal of self-convincing but nothing is able to overcome being looked upon as guilty knowing the guilt is indeed there.

Even if UK archives and Portugal follows suit, the McCanns will never be able to proclaim innocence.

Textusa's opinion Bampots that is all, just a blogger after all. My opinions are different.

As the McCann's have proclaimed their innocence for 9 years it is extremely unlikely - imo - that they will ever, ever
stop proclaiming their innocence.

A "conscience" ?? really, the McCann's ?? I don't think they know the meaning of the word.

They seemed to have moved on with their life. I expect they dream of SY completing their remit ( ) and closing the investigation for good.

My faith lies with GA and Portugal. Even if it is only through his publications that the truth becomes known.

As i said it was Textusa ,and i thought she hit the nail on the head,who wrote the words and i happen to agree with them. They were presented as words i agree with and not gospel , as you rightly point out "just a blogger".
However you do appear to bemoan Textusa on one hand and then come to the same conclusion re Senor Amaral ,saying your faith lies with him and Portugal which is similar to subscribing 100% to Mr Amarals words and the political(Portugals and UK)courage to do that.

As for Gerry and Kate..... i think they must surely pay a price for what they have gone through...if not riddled with guilt then most certainly frustrated with being unable to protest in their innocence as John Blacksmith rightly pointed out they could be!