Operation Grange

AndyB wrote:
Possibly, but I think the quote that, whatever happened to her, she was definitely abducted is pretty damning

It's definitely always been the party line down there.

AndyB wrote:

Andrew wrote:I wouldn't agree with that, Andy.

I'd be amazed if you did :-)

All I would say is that you only abduct living people, you don't abduct corpses

What word would you use broadly to describe... Say a father removing his deceased daughter out of the apartment...... For an example?

Ben Needham ending????....

The assistant commissioner pledged that the investigation team will do all they can to provide an answer for Madeleine’s parents.

He said: “I so wish I could say we will definitely solve it but a small number of cases sadly don’t get solved.

Andrew wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Andrew wrote:I wouldn't agree with that, Andy.

I'd be amazed if you did :-)

All I would say is that you only abduct living people, you don't abduct corpses

What word would you use broadly to describe... Say a father removing his deceased daughter out of the apartment...... For an example?

"Moved" or "removed". Abducted refers to being taken against one's will. A dead person has no opinion. If you try to use "abducted" as anything other than a living person being taken against their will it sounds absurd:
'My friend needed some shopping so I abducted her to the shops'
'The funeral directors abducted the man's body from his house'
'The thief abducted her tv as well as her jewelry'

To me, the significant bit is that they are pursuing a line of enquiry with the Portuguese police.

If it is true.


There is certainly something going on, the mention of the police in the latest McCann statement tells us that there is change happening.

AndyB wrote:A dead person has no opinion.'

We had a poltergeist that used to turn Eastenders off.

So they've eliminated the suspects from 2013 but not said a dicky bird about the original arguidos being eliminated.

With all the speculation in the media at the moment and the recent judgement from the Portuguese Supreme Court, if OG was a whitewash, I'd have expected the police to have emphasised that Kate & Gerry are not in any way suspected of anything.

That they didn't speaks volumes.

IMO and all that.

unreorganised wrote:

AndyB wrote:A dead person has no opinion.'

We had a poltergeist that used to turn Eastenders off.

Is that a true story?

Andrew wrote:

unreorganised wrote:

AndyB wrote:A dead person has no opinion.'

We had a poltergeist that used to turn Eastenders off.

Is that a true story?

Nah, we don't watch Eastenders.

I was going to say that the poltergeist had your best interests at heart.

As you know I do not believe OG to be genuine, however I am actually encouraged by that interview.

"We’ve achieved a complete understanding of it all. We’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, many of the people of interest and where we are today is with a much smaller team focused on a small number of remaining critical lines of inquiry that we think are significant.”

It's interesting that as soon as there's a mention of an OG statement coming out, then K and G quickly pen up their 10th anniversary spiel.

A week before they probably would have done.

Something they've been informed of may have rattled them. They are always pro-active when it comes to getting their words in first. And like always, there'll be a reason behind it as well.

Bampots wrote:Ben Needham ending????....

The assistant commissioner pledged that the investigation team will do all they can to provide an answer for Madeleine’s parents.

He said: “I so wish I could say we will definitely solve it but a small number of cases sadly don’t get solved.

I posted same question to textusa and this is her reply.....




It's is neither here nor there.

It first shows that BHH is a liar as he said very clearly that there was only one final line of enquiry, and now they're saying there are still many, including the bungled burglary.

Out the window (for now, because in this case what is said today may not be what will be said tomorrow even by official sources) the Danny Collins and Mark Williams-Thomas theories of Maddie wandering off - bad news for Collins as he either has come up with a total different theory or he has only a few days to change the plot.

No mention of the key-suspect nor of the important evidence which convinced Whitehall and Home Office to cough up £185,000.

They only exempt of interest the 4 July arguidos and no mention of those that were heard in December.

Of the 4 July arguidos only Malinka would be of interest and he could be involved in the case just because of the phone call Robert Murat made to him.

Displeased us the fact the McCanns are still being treated as cleared. The sentence "The assistant commissioner pledged that the investigation team will do all they can to provide an answer for Madeleine’s parents." does not state they are cleared but it certainly implies it.

In that case, we would be witnessing an UK entity, the Met, ignoring completely what was clearly stated, twice, by the entity of another country Portugal, their Supreme Justice Court.

On the upside there's this:

Asked if police were any closer to solving the case than they were six years ago when the UK investigation was launched, Mr Rowley said: “I know we have a significant line of inquiry which is worth pursuing, and because it’s worth pursuing it could provide an answer, but until we’ve gone through it I won’t know whether we are going to get there or not.

“Ourselves and the Portuguese are doing a critical piece of work and we don’t want to spoil it by putting titbits of information out publicly.”

Are they going to try a Ben Needham?

They can, but hopefully the reaction to the Oz TV Shambles has given them a taste of what to expect if they do.

Dee Coy wrote:As you know I do not believe OG to be genuine, however I am actually encouraged by that interview.

"We’ve achieved a complete understanding of it all. We’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, many of the people of interest and where we are today is with a much smaller team focused on a small number of remaining critical lines of inquiry that we think are significant.”

Obviously no urgency though, otherwise they would use a bigger team to get to the end result faster.

Bampots wrote:

They only exempt of interest the 4 July arguidos and no mention of those that were heard in December.

My mistake then - Rodrigues etc. are still "in"?

unreorganised wrote:

Bampots wrote:

They only exempt of interest the 4 July arguidos and no mention of those that were heard in December.

My mistake then - Rodrigues etc. are still "in"?

Looks like it .....although i was convinced of Malinkas position in all of this???

The burglary suspects have been ruled out, he speaks of the sex offenders line of inquiry dismissively and in the past tense.

He speaks of "A significant line of enquiry" and that they and the Portuguese are working on "A critical piece of work". Sounds like they are down to the last single line of rationale.

Coupled with the hint that they are in fact using information that has been sent to them which 'has thrown extra light on the material that came from the time'. Hmm.

And then we have the absolutely manic behaviour of the media recently along with the subdued 10 year statement from the McCanns. And Goncalo has shifted the official doctrine by winning his court case - has this given the signal to proceed?

Has the political will changed?

I still can't bring myself to trust that the UK powers will let this be wholly solved, but I could believe that if it was to the benefit of the higher echelons the McCanns could be sacrificed.

In December did they question Murat,Walczuck,Antonio? and Malinka?

Dee Coy wrote:

I still can't bring myself to trust that the UK powers will let this be wholly solved, but I could believe that if it was to the benefit of the higher echelons the McCanns could be sacrificed.

I believe that supping with the devil was only ever advised if one had a long spoon.

Maybe the McCanns will find their spoon was not as long as they thought?


The problem with making alliances with people who have no morals, who are only out for their own interests, is that they are only out for their own interest and have no morals.

If, therefore, they find if expedient to throw you to the wolves they will do that.

The question is merely whether it could be to anyone's advantage to stop this whole circus. Would Portugal be willing to help our EU negotiations in return for their metaphorical heads on a silver platter, for instance?

Agree, Mum. If there is a political motive strong enough I think the establishment could welch on the McCanns.

The Portuguese SC has given the judicial go-ahead. Theresa May, whose gave birth to OG, is struggling with Brexit and appears to have no deal in place at all. She's just launched a GE campaign, how wonderful for her to expose the foibles of the previous Labour administration...

Perhaps, just maybe, we are seeing the formation of a perfect storm?

Bampots wrote:In December did they question Murat,Walczuck,Antonio? and Malinka?

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/madeleine-mccann-police-question-british-4799740

Definitely Murat and Walczuck, Malinka and also a 'a schizophrenic heroin addict'

Dee Coy wrote:As you know I do not believe OG to be genuine, however I am actually encouraged by that interview.

"We’ve achieved a complete understanding of it all. We’ve sifted out many of the potential suspects, many of the people of interest and where we are today is with a much smaller team focused on a small number of remaining critical lines of inquiry that we think are significant.”

Dee Coy
Yes if you take out that section - it does look more encouraging. Thanks - as I have been feeling rather discouraged.

Probably not relevant, but it has struck me that OG has proved that Jane Tanner was not a liar.

Something, I would have thought, that she was extremely keen to prove after being made out to be a liar by Gerry.

I wonder whether she gave any information in return?

mumof6 wrote:Probably not relevant, but it has struck me that OG has proved that Jane Tanner was not a liar.

Sorry but I don't understand. In what way have they proved that Jane Tanner wasn't lying as opposed to going along with the lie for their own purposes? If, for example, Grange are trying to pin an abduction on some patsy, Jane Tanner "seeing" an abductor carrying Madeleine is helpful to them surely?

This from K & G statement

Thankfully, there is an active police investigation to try and find Madeleine and bring her abductor to justice. There are no new appeals that the police wish to make at this moment in time and so we are keeping any media involvement marking this unwanted milestone to a minimum.

So the MSM etc aren't still lining up, as Clarence declared in January.