Operation Grange

Great post, Esp.

Agree with a lot of that and would like to add a bit more if I may....

Be tomorrow though to be fair.

espeland wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:What now for OG,its been affirmed by a court in Portugal where Madeleine disappeared that the McCanns were not cleared of any involvement in the archiving of the original investigation,whilst this in no way implicates them it leaves OG in a rather awkward position imo.

Why is it awkward? OG should only investigate the McCanns' involvement if a prosecution in the UK is envisioned - and I've seen no suggestion of that yet. OG are supporting the PJ and it is in Portugal (except for details of telephone records, bank accounts etc: we've had no indication from either side that such details have been passed to Portugal) that evidence is likely to be found. As I've posted  elsewhere,  OG CAN help the PJ by discounting all the abduction tales, as their remit stated.

I agree its difficut to see how there could be a prosecution in the UK, which is one of the many reasons why I find it difficult to accept that Grange is genuine. If OG were only supporting the PJ, why did they make a very public show of going to Portugal and getting permission to dig? And why issue rogatory letters to get random people questioned? If they were just supporting the PJ investigation, wouldn't the PJ would've done the digging and questioning?

Give it a few weeks so as to show its not shadowing events in the Portuguese courts to closely but well with in a time frame which will allow the McCanns to go to the ECHR,OG will declare in their professional opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a person or persons unknown.Opinion based of course.

Heisenburg wrote:Give it a few weeks so as to show its not shadowing events in the Portuguese courts to closely but well with in a time frame which will allow the McCanns to go to the ECHR,OG will declare in their professional opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a person or persons unknown.Opinion based of course.

And if that happens the question will then be; why is it so important to the government that the public believe Madeleine was abducted when she wasn't?

AndyB wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:Give it a few weeks so as to show its not shadowing events in the Portuguese courts to closely but well with in a time frame which will allow the McCanns to go to the ECHR,OG will declare in their professional opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a person or persons unknown.Opinion based of course.

And if that happens the question will then be; why is it so important to the government that the public believe Madeleine was abducted when she wasn't?

That is of course is the $64,000 question, answer that and it'll be known why its taken so long to get where its at and that is where? one final, one final last throw of the dice?

AndyB wrote:

espeland wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:What now for OG,its been affirmed by a court in Portugal where Madeleine disappeared that the McCanns were not cleared of any involvement in the archiving of the original investigation,whilst this in no way implicates them it leaves OG in a rather awkward position imo.

Why is it awkward? OG should only investigate the McCanns' involvement if a prosecution in the UK is envisioned - and I've seen no suggestion of that yet. OG are supporting the PJ and it is in Portugal (except for details of telephone records, bank accounts etc: we've had no indication from either side that such details have been passed to Portugal) that evidence is likely to be found. As I've posted  elsewhere,  OG CAN help the PJ by discounting all the abduction tales, as their remit stated.

I agree its difficut to see how there could be a prosecution in the UK, which is one of the many reasons why I find it difficult to accept that Grange is genuine. If OG were only supporting the PJ, why did they make a very public show of going to Portugal and getting permission to dig? And why issue rogatory letters to get random people questioned? If they were just supporting the PJ investigation, wouldn't the PJ would've done the digging and questioning?

I think you're seeing 'support' in the wrong way. A laboratory technician can provide support by producing an analysis of some liquid which a prosecuter can use in a court case; an army can provide support by attacking in a new theatre: these are tactical and strategic supports. If OG was to provide tactical support, then yes the PJ would have done the digging. What I think happened in this case is that it was agreed that the PJ would be responsible for building and presenting the case against the McCanns (with OG possibly giving tactical support by providing documents such as banking details) and OG were responsible for discounting the other tales. If OG needed to discount certain specific tales by digging or interviewing people, then they could certainly use the PJ in a tactical sense, or they could do the work themselves. It was unfortunate for OG that the Portuguese public and UK MSM didn't appreciate that their involvement wasn't to directly implicate the McCanns.

Heisenburg wrote:Give it a few weeks so as to show its not shadowing events in the Portuguese courts to closely but well with in a time frame which will allow the McCanns to go to the ECHR,OG will declare in their professional opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a person or persons unknown.Opinion based of course.

No chance now.

I agree with AndyB and Heisenburg, OG is a tactical move by the British establishment in the ongoing protection of the McCanns, in my opinion.

From what I understand, there are two teams set up in Portugal, one based in Faro which exists to 'support' OG. This small team handles the Rog requests and meets with OG representatives when they visit Portugal. This is the team the Portuguese confirm is working well with the British investigation.

The other team is the Portuguese PJ operation, the investigation which was re-opened over there. I believe this is independent of OG and, in fact, is why OG continues to exist with its inevitable 'last minute' injections of cash to persue yet another 'final line of enquiry'. As the UK doesn't know what the PJ investigation has, OG must persist, I believe, in an attempt to discover the lines of enquiry and what evidence the PJ have. We saw this when the British tried to secure the DNA evidence the Portuguese were re-examining a year or so ago. While the PJ investigation continues, OG must also continue.

Why this whole charade? The answer is in the question AndyB raised: 'Why is it so important to the government that the people believe she was abducted when she wasn't?'.

Answer this and the whole mystery will be solved, including what happened to that poor child 10 years ago.

All my own belief and opinion, of course. But I firmly believe any solution will come from the Portuguese, if the political obstacles allow.

Dee Coy wrote: We saw this when the British tried to secure the DNA evidence the Portuguese were re-examining a year or so ago

If true this would be very damming, but where did the information come from?

espeland wrote:

Dee Coy wrote: We saw this when the British tried to secure the DNA evidence the Portuguese were re-examining a year or so ago

If true this would be very damming, but where did the information come from?

The Sun... Or was it the Mirror. Nope it was probably CMoMM.

All full of sh!t with their own agendas.

Why this whole charade? The answer is in the question AndyB raised: 'Why is it so important to the government that the people believe she was abducted when she wasn't?'.


It is not important to the entire British government (and I assume that also means previous Labour government in power in 2007) ... how could it be? It is ridiculous to even think that it may be
so important to the various governments... isn't it? However, it is obviously very important to some within these governments... that the truth of the Madeleine case does not emerge into the public
domain. But that is the nature of politics - you support me and i'll support you.. If you do this, then I'll withdraw this.. etc etc . So all of this implies that someone or more than one person, extremely well connected
and with clout for pulling favours - was involved in the case to some degree. Someone, who didn't want his whereabouts known or to be connected in anyway...
I mean you only have to remember the Philip Whatshisname who was there that week - to know that there were some very well connected people 'holidaying' there that week....

Helenmeg wrote:Why this whole charade? The answer is in the question AndyB raised: 'Why is it so important to the government that the people believe she was abducted when she wasn't?'.


It is not important to the entire British government (and I assume that also means previous Labour government in power in 2007) ... how could it be? It is ridiculous to even think that it may be
so important to the various governments... isn't it? However, it is obviously very important to some within these governments... that the truth of the Madeleine case does not emerge into the public
domain. But that is the nature of politics - you support me and i'll support you..  If you do this, then I'll withdraw this.. etc etc .  So all of this implies that someone or more than one person, extremely well connected
and with clout for pulling favours - was involved in the case to some degree. Someone, who didn't want his whereabouts known or to be connected in anyway...  
I mean you only have to remember the Philip Whatshisname who was there that week - to know that there were some very well connected people 'holidaying' there that week....

GA, I understand, is going to publish details in his second book. That will be interesting!

But, if someone was being protected (and I posted over the way years ago that an un-named Royal could be involved) then the McCanns needn't have been worried at all. But they were - why else take or threaten so much legal action using funds that would have supported them for their lifetimes? If the story is true the best thing they could have done would have been to remain quiet and leave it to TPTB to sort out - but that may have included one or both suffering fatal accidents.

It's been said before, if OG wanted to find an abductor they could easily have found one by now - for example, they've considered more  than one deceased person.

There has been so much talk of all PMs being involved, but is it justified? Sure Blair and Brown certainly were, but maybe they were simply reacting to the pressure put on them by the McCanns' families. I don't see anything to suggest to me that DC was actively involved apart from setting up OG, and I don't see Theresa May acting suspiciously - didn't she refuse to let them see a particular document when they visited her? (and no, I don't vote Conservative!).

Helenmeg wrote:Why this whole charade? The answer is in the question AndyB raised: 'Why is it so important to the government that the people believe she was abducted when she wasn't?'.


It is not important to the entire British government (and I assume that also means previous Labour government in power in 2007) ... how could it be? It is ridiculous to even think that it may be so important to the various governments... isn't it?

By "government" I mean the state or the powers that be not the collective members of the cabinet and no, it isn't ridiculous at all. What is ridiculous is believing that the death of a child has been covered up by all tapas 9 (as well as all the MW staff in PdL at the time) to prevent a little embarrassment over swinging.

As far as Grange is concerned there are only 3 options;
1) Its a genuine investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann despite the fact the the Met have no jurisdiction
2) Its a charade intended to convince the public that Madeleine was abducted (and by extension or design that the McCanns are innocent)
3) Its to ensure that something else that is only tangential to Madeleine's disappearance doesn't come out, such as the illicit paedophile placement program suggested by Adiren NM on twitter

espeland wrote:

Helenmeg wrote:Why this whole charade? The answer is in the question AndyB raised: 'Why is it so important to the government that the people believe she was abducted when she wasn't?'.


It is not important to the entire British government (and I assume that also means previous Labour government in power in 2007) ... how could it be? It is ridiculous to even think that it may be
so important to the various governments... isn't it? However, it is obviously very important to some within these governments... that the truth of the Madeleine case does not emerge into the public
domain. But that is the nature of politics - you support me and i'll support you..  If you do this, then I'll withdraw this.. etc etc .  So all of this implies that someone or more than one person, extremely well connected
and with clout for pulling favours - was involved in the case to some degree. Someone, who didn't want his whereabouts known or to be connected in anyway...  
I mean you only have to remember the Philip Whatshisname who was there that week - to know that there were some very well connected people 'holidaying' there that week....

GA, I understand, is going to publish details in his second book. That will be interesting!

But, if someone was being protected (and I posted over the way years ago that an un-named Royal could be involved) then the McCanns needn't have been worried at all. But they were - why else take or threaten so much legal action using funds that would have supported them for their lifetimes? If the story is true the best thing they could have done would have been to remain quiet and leave it to TPTB to sort out - but that may have included one or both suffering fatal accidents.

It's been said before, if OG wanted to find an abductor they could easily have found one by now - for example, they've considered more  than one deceased person.

There has been so much talk of all PMs being involved, but is it justified? Sure Blair and Brown certainly were, but maybe they were simply reacting to the pressure put on them by the McCanns' families. I don't see anything to suggest to me that DC was  actively involved apart from setting up OG, and I don't see Theresa May acting suspiciously - didn't she refuse to let them see a particular document when they visited her? (and no, I don't vote Conservative!).

Didn't she also refuse to release certain files to the Portuguese, our oldest ally, on the grounds of national security?

Surely if it was someone else that was being protected, then the Mccanns DO have something to be afraid of: A means could be found to distance the other person from everything while still leaving the McCanns holding the can for madeleine's disappearance.

As far as the royal family are concerned you may be interested in the link below.
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/uk/royal-family-member-was-investigated-as-part-of-paedophile-ring-before-coverup-excop-says-31088592.html

AndyB wrote:

Helenmeg wrote:Why this whole charade? The answer is in the question AndyB raised: 'Why is it so important to the government that the people believe she was abducted when she wasn't?'.


It is not important to the entire British government (and I assume that also means previous Labour government in power in 2007) ... how could it be? It is ridiculous to even think that it may be so important to the various governments... isn't it?

By "government" I mean the state or the powers that be not the collective members of the cabinet and no, it isn't ridiculous at all. What is ridiculous is believing that the death of a child has been covered up by all tapas 9 (as well as all the MW staff in PdL at the time) to prevent a little embarrassment over swinging.

As far as Grange is concerned there are only 3 options;
1) Its a genuine investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann despite the fact the the Met have no jurisdiction
2) Its a charade intended to convince the public that Madeleine was abducted (and by extension or design that the McCanns are innocent)
3) Its to ensure that something else that is only tangential to Madeleine's disappearance doesn't come out, such as the illicit paedophile placement program suggested by Adiren NM on twitter

That really intrigued me at the time when I mentioned it (still does) but hardly anybody responded about it (on whatever thread it was on).

It is also AdirenNM who claims there are the 2 teams in Portugal, the Faro-based small unit which assists OG, and the real PJ Investigation. AdirenNM has a legal background in Portugal, I believe, and is very close to the case, being an eyewitness and searcher on the night.

I've read elsewhere too about the 2 teams, could have been Joana Morais(?), but sadly she does not have much faith in the will of the Portuguese authorities to conclude this case.

Dee Coy wrote:It is also AdirenNM who claims there are the 2 teams in Portugal, the Faro-based small unit which assists OG, and the real PJ Investigation. AdirenNM has a legal background in Portugal, I believe, and is very close to the case, being an eyewitness and searcher on the night.

I've read elsewhere too about the 2 teams, could have been Joana Morais(?), but sadly she does not have much faith in the will of the Portuguese authorities to conclude this case.

Joana also said she expected Amaral would lose.

She needs to get some better teabags.

Interesting link @AndyB. The shutting down of the investigation into the paedophile ring was necessary because it was not in the public interest as it could destabilise 'national security'. Fancy that, sounds familiar?

Also interesting that Theresa May as Home Secretary said that child sexual abuse ran through British society like a stick of Blackpool rock. Yet even she seems either powerless or unwilling to do anything about it.

purple ronnie wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:It is also AdirenNM who claims there are the 2 teams in Portugal, the Faro-based small unit which assists OG, and the real PJ Investigation. AdirenNM has a legal background in Portugal, I believe, and is very close to the case, being an eyewitness and searcher on the night.

I've read elsewhere too about the 2 teams, could have been Joana Morais(?), but sadly she does not have much faith in the will of the Portuguese authorities to conclude this case.

Joana also said she expected Amaral would lose.

She needs to get some better teabags.

That's encouraging, then!

Dee Coy wrote:It is also AdirenNM who claims there are the 2 teams in Portugal, the Faro-based small unit which assists OG, and the real PJ Investigation. AdirenNM has a legal background in Portugal, I believe, and is very close to the case, being an eyewitness and searcher on the night.

I've read elsewhere too about the 2 teams, could have been Joana Morais(?), but sadly she does not have much faith in the will of the Portuguese authorities to conclude this case.

If AdirenNM has a legal background in Portugal, as you suggest, why is he Tweeting in English such trivial things? I'm afraid I give him no more credence than that which is published in the UK MSM.

Andrew wrote:

Heisenburg wrote:Give it a few weeks so as to show its not shadowing events in the Portuguese courts to closely but well with in a time frame which will allow the McCanns to go to the ECHR,OG will declare in their professional opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a person or persons unknown.Opinion based of course.

No chance now.

Possibly easier now,whilst a result like that could have been seen to try and influence the courts the way is now clear all the SC have said is that the archiving did not clear the McCanns nothing more nothing less and they rightly point out no inference can be drawn from that, there might be a conflict of interest with the Portuguese but 6 yrs and millions spent along with a need to follow up 8,000 plus possible sightings around the world (Phileas Fogg got around in 80 days)that in itself means the dogs and any forensics that at the time could not lead any where are the last thing on their mind.

It has been asked here "Why is it so important to the government that the abduction theory retains prominence" or words to that effect.

But is it ?  Where is the evidence for that ? Are we sure the government is on their side ?

Surely it is just the press and the McCanns that are dragging this out.

Right - supposedly, according to the McCanns, they spoke to Tony and Cherie Blair on the phone - perhaps they did but we don`t know what was said.

They supposedly talked to Gordon Brown and there were insinuations, by the press or by the McCanns, that GB was rooting for them, as with Tony and Cherie.  They had a meeting with Alan Johnson who was then Home Secretary under the Labour Government and he was supposedly going to order a scoping exercise to see if an Inquiry or Investigation would be plausible - but then the Tory government took over.

Theresa May became home secretary and they pestered her and she supposedly wafted them away (KM was angry at May`s `fluffy words`.

David Cameron only ordered an investigation after Rebeka Brooks had threatened him.

To my mind, it is everyone except the government that have been rooting for the McCanns.  I often think the McCanns are at loggerheads with the government.  At one time it crossed my mind that the only reason the McCanns whipped up a press whirlwind was so that they couldn`t be touched.  Had GM made threats to Tony and Gordon early on I wonder. The Mcs would have `disappeared` long ago if they hadn`t been so visible. And was Clarence Mitchell sent to monitor them, to watch them under the guise of being their spokesperson?

Mimi wrote:It has been asked here "Why is it so important to the government that the abduction theory retains prominence" or words to that effect.

But is it ?  Where is the evidence for that ? Are we sure the government is on their side ?

Surely it is just the press and the McCanns that are dragging this out.

Right - supposedly, according to the McCanns, they spoke to Tony and Cherie Blair on the phone - perhaps they did but we don`t know what was said.

They supposedly talked to Gordon Brown and there were insinuations, by the press or by the McCanns, that GB was rooting for them, as with Tony and Cherie.  They had a meeting with Alan Johnson who was then Home Secretary under the Labour Government and he was supposedly going to order a scoping exercise to see if an Inquiry or Investigation would be plausible - but then the Tory government took over.

Theresa May became home secretary and they pestered her and she supposedly wafted them away (KM was angry at May`s `fluffy words`.

David Cameron only ordered an investigation after Rebeka Brooks had threatened him.

To my mind, it is everyone except the government that have been rooting for the McCanns.  I often think the McCanns are at loggerheads with the government.  At one time it crossed my mind that the only reason the McCanns whipped up a press whirlwind was so that they couldn`t be touched.  Had GM made threats to Tony and Gordon early on I wonder. The Mcs would have `disappeared` long ago if they hadn`t been so visible.  And was Clarence Mitchell sent to monitor them, to watch them under the guise of being their spokesperson?

 

I think you have sussed that one out Mimi. There is talk on FB Abduction or Scam by someone claiming that Clarrie is there to oversee  proceedings and keep the Macs in check. Will see if I can bring it over.

ETA Can't find it now but I read it last night. Bit late for me tonight. Will look tomorrow.

Mimi wrote:It has been asked here "Why is it so important to the government that the abduction theory retains prominence" or words to that effect.

But is it ?  Where is the evidence for that ? Are we sure the government is on their side ?

Surely it is just the press and the McCanns that are dragging this out.

Right - supposedly, according to the McCanns, they spoke to Tony and Cherie Blair on the phone - perhaps they did but we don`t know what was said.

They supposedly talked to Gordon Brown and there were insinuations, by the press or by the McCanns, that GB was rooting for them, as with Tony and Cherie.  They had a meeting with Alan Johnson who was then Home Secretary under the Labour Government and he was supposedly going to order a scoping exercise to see if an Inquiry or Investigation would be plausible - but then the Tory government took over.

Theresa May became home secretary and they pestered her and she supposedly wafted them away (KM was angry at May`s `fluffy words`.

David Cameron only ordered an investigation after Rebeka Brooks had threatened him.

To my mind, it is everyone except the government that have been rooting for the McCanns.  I often think the McCanns are at loggerheads with the government.  At one time it crossed my mind that the only reason the McCanns whipped up a press whirlwind was so that they couldn`t be touched.  Had GM made threats to Tony and Gordon early on I wonder. The Mcs would have `disappeared` long ago if they hadn`t been so visible.  And was Clarence Mitchell sent to monitor them, to watch them under the guise of being their spokesperson?

Something I think is important Mimi is that Gordon Brown came to power so soon after Madeleine's disappearance and I think he was keen to make his mark. I believe he thought he could be seen to be a man of the people and I don't think he would need any ulterior motive ( though it's possible) to make a wrong call. I think the Portuguese Ambassador did warn the powers that be and I wondered if this was why he resigned? As for Blair, I think Kate being Liverpudlian and Catholic would be enough to gain his sympathy as he's not exactly renowned for his good judgement. I don't have firm views on this subject but I think plain stupidity is as good a reason to  offer unquestioning support as any, IMO. If there is any other motive I think it's because GM had connections because his role connected to nuclear energy.

It would be good to reflect on what government people, diplomats etc. have actually said (not what the McCanns said they said). I will look at this when I`m more awake.

We know MI5 have intervened at some points, GA reckons this. But MI5 are not the government, though I would bet they control the government to some extent.

Remember GCHQ has info on all of us.