Petition re Madeleine McCann on Prime Minister's website

[G-Unit]

What G-unit posted was a download of this:


Metropolitan Police Service

SCD1
Homicide Command


Disappearance of Madeleine McCann.
 3rd May 2007


For the information of all UK law enforcement agencies.

The Metropolitan Police Service is conducting an Investigative Review into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann aged 3yrs on the 3rd May 2007 in Praia da Luz Portugal.

At 12.00hrs on Tuesday 14th June 2011 UK primacy for this matter formally passed from Leicestershire Constabulary to the Metropolitan Police Service under Operation GRANGE.

All future communication should be sent to the incident room at:- 

(snip of contact details)

That does not state that the Met was confined to only the possibility of an abduction, unless it is written in invisible ink.

I think you missed this bit;

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.

[G-Unit]

Thanks. So Op Grange was the term used prior to the launching of the investigation.

I also found this:

http://www.bbc.com/news/uk-22918857

There had been a lengthy review prior to launching the investigation.

That review presumably involved clearing the ground under their feet as far as possible (including the forensic timeline) in the event that any of the T9 had been involved.

PT had also launched a review, then relaunched its own investigation.

To date, there have been various leads to follow (whether old ones that hadn't been thoroughly considered, or new ones). None appear to involve the T9.

The review was launched in 2011. The remit was produced at the same time. The article you are quoting refers to when the review became an investigation two years later. If the remit was to investigate 'the abduction' then the parents and their friends would not be looked at, would they?

[Carana]

I think you missed this bit;

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.

That wasn't in your download - that's in a different document, which Alice posted further up.

In what way does the phrase does "to investigate the abduction as if it had happened in the UK" mean that there was a strict remit to only consider that?

[Carana]

The review was launched in 2011. The remit was produced at the same time. The article you are quoting refers to when the review became an investigation two years later. If the remit was to investigate 'the abduction' then the parents and their friends would not be looked at, would they?

A scoping exercise preceded the review.

[misty]

Not quite sure why the link has been removed, but then I don't post here much so I am not aware of the forum rule that required my link to be deleted.

But - so far as the appointment of Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell to lead Operation Grange is concerned - most of what I wrote about him (as I acknowledged in my article) was derived from the mammoth work by crime journalists and police corruption investigators Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn: "THE UNTOUCHABLES: Dirty cops, bent justice and racism in Scotland Yard", which I have on my shelves (Bloomsbury Reader, 2012, 784pp). There is much detail in the book about the controversial wrongful conviction of Barry George/Bulsara and Campbell's part in obtaining that result - he was the Investigating Officer. It was no surprise to me when in May 2011 Campbell was appointed to head up the strange Grange review/investigation.

Carana asked up the thread: "Did I miss where Blonk posted his evidence that Op Grange could only investigate an abduction?"

ANSWER: Yes, you did. Both myself and others on this thread have established beyond peradventure that the remit (decided on by Hamish Campbell by the way) was to "investigate the abduction as if it had happened in the UK". The remit was decided on in the first few weeks of Grange (June/July 2011) and disclosed publicly some months later, after I asked a Freedom of Information Act asking what the remit was. There has been no announcement - and there is no evidence - that the remit has changed since then.

They are still looking for "THE ABDUCTOR". Another recent Freedom of Act question I asked resulted in Grange announcing they've not found Smithman yet. And after the BBC and the Met spent millions on beaming the Crimewatch Special to 7 million viewers...

PETITION SIGNERS NOW:  1,522 >>> https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562             

Wasn't there a disclaimer at the bottom of that email response?
 You actually think SY would disclose whether or not they have identified Smithman?

[G-Unit]

A scoping exercise preceded the review.

Ah yes, Mr Gamble's report;

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

[blonk]

Wasn't there a disclaimer at the bottom of that email response?

REPLY: No. See full reply below.

You actually think SY would disclose whether or not they have identified Smithman?

REPLY: It seems that they are willing to disclose that they have not yet identified him. So presumably they still want the public to find him. In the very unlikely event that he comes forward, or someone lets the police know who he is, the police would clearly want to establish if the child he was carrying was Madeleine or not. If yes, the first we would usually hear of this is that he had been charged. If no, I suspect that an announcement would be made that he had been eliminated.  

FoI Act response from the Met in full:


Metropolitan Police Service (MPS)

18 December 2015
   
Dear Mr ........

Freedom of Information Request Reference No:  2015110001462

I respond in connection with your request for information which was received by the Metropolitan Police Service (MPS) on 30/11/2015.  I note you seek access to the following information:

Please provide the following information about Operation Grange:
       
1. On 14 October 2013 on BBC Crimewatch, DCI Andy Redwood presented two e-fit images of a man he said was 'the centre of our focus'. He asked people to say who he might be. He announced days later that hundreds had called in with a possible identification. Are we, the public, still supposed to be looking for him? Or has been traced, identified and eliminated?       
 
2. On the McCanns' 'Find Madeleine' website, there is an image of a faceless man - whom the McCann investigation team still say is a suspect - wearing a dark jacket and beige trousers, which was drawn up by Melissa Little, paid for by the head of the McCanns' private investigation team, Brian Kennedy, based on the recollections of Jane Tanner, and released to the public in late October 2007, nearly six months after the reported disappearance of Madeleine     McCann. Is Operation Grange still asking (as they were previously) for the public's help in tracing this man, as well as the man in the two
 e-fits? Or not?     
   
3. Who will make the final decision as to whether or not to close or 'shelve' the active investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann...   
(a) The current DCI, Nicola Wall, or any successor of hers?
(b) The current S.I.O. or her/his successor?   
(c) A more senior Met Police Officer?   
(d) Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe, or any successor of his? 
(e) The Home Secretary?   
(f) The Prime Minister? - or   
(g) Someone else?       

4. If and when Operation Grange is closed, or the investigation is 'shelved', is it the Met Police's intention to provide a report to either
(a) the public
(b) the Mayor of London's Police Committee   
(c) the Home Secretary or
(d) the Prime Minister
on its work and achievements?   

EXTENT OF SEARCHES TO LOCATE INFORMATION

To locate the information relevant to your request searches were conducted within the MPS.

DECISION

I have today decided to disclose the located information to you in full:

The MPS response to Q1 and Q2 is:

These images remain unidentified. Any information that the public may have that may assist in this investigation will always be appreciated.

The MPS response to Q3 is:

As in all major enquiries any decision to close the active phase of an investigation is taken by a senior officer in consultation with the relevant partners and stakeholders. It is then kept under review for new opportunities. 

The MPS response to Q4 is:

When an operation or investigation is closed part of the process would be a full report - with whom it is shared is a decision for the future.

For your information you have not made a request for recorded information which may be held by the MPS but questions around a topic.

Due to the way you have phrased your questions we have answered your questions outside of the Freedom of Information Act 2000 (the Act).

Disclosure will be made under the term Business As Usual (BAU).

If you are unhappy with the way I have dealt with this request or should you have any further enquiries concerning this matter, please email me, quoting the reference number above.

Yours sincerely

Paul O'Shea
Information Manager


 

[Mr Gray]

Some more information for you

The McCanns are not suspects
All the evidence used to make them arguidos has proved to be innocuous

[blonk]

Ah yes, Mr Gamble's report;

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

Theresa May also held out against setting up this review, leading to Drs Kate and Gerry McCann sniping at her in our mainstream press for months. Which is precisely why, in the second week of May 2011, as the Sun was serialising Dr Kate McCann's book, 'madeleine', Rebekah Brooks, then CEO of the Murdoch media empire - which included the Sun - had to (metaphorically speaking) bash Cameron over the head to force him to concede the review.

The press circulated credible reports that Rebekah Brooks had been heard shouting at Cameron and threatened him 'with a week of bad headlines about your Home Secretary'. At Leveson, Brooks sweetly denied having threatened Cameron and coyly said it was merely 'persuasion'.

Rarely was the power of Murdoch better illustrated. His CEO forced the Prime Minister of the United Kingdom to go weak at the knees and give the McCanns exactly what they wanted. Meanwhile, the Sun had another 'Exclusive'! Ker-ching!         

[blonk]

Some more information for you...The McCanns are not suspects...All the evidence used to make them arguidos has proved to be innocuous

I know.

I've known that since September 2007.

That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.

Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid

 &%+((£

[ Edited ]

[Admin]

Not quite sure why the link has been removed, but then I don't post here much so I am not aware of the forum rule that required my link to be deleted.       

This is a tricky area so I will attempt to explain.

We have a long standing rule on the forum that comments made on other forums should not be posted here as original comment, consequently, the links to such sites are usually deleted.  However, if the content you wish to link to is your own or you wish to refer to the content merely in order to explain something then there is no problem.  Mods please note!

[Mr Gray]

I know.

I've known that since September 2007.

That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.

Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid

 &%+((£

I would say that abduction is by far the most likely reason for Maddie's disappearance
Anyone who still thinks Maddie died in an accident in the apartment between 8.30 and 10 looks very stupid for reasons I have posted

[mercury]

I know.

I've known that since September 2007.

That was when Clarence Mitchell told the world's media there was a wholly innocent explanation for any material the police may or may not have found.

Once this had been said, anyone from then on who doubted the abduction claim would obviously look very stupid

 &%+((£

I beg to differ.....that comment made one person look utterly stupid and utterly ridiculous...Clarence Mitchell...then again what does he care .....he is paid to spin, look and be a total fool,  etc,  that's his excuse anyway....eta on the other hand he is not as stupid as not to know it was a most ridiculous statement thereby feeding the substance of the opposite of the statement...if you see what I mean...not  the a devils advocate kind of thing, more like a three headed Cerberus monstrosity...

[Mr Gray]

I beg to differ.....that comment made one person look utterly stupid and utterly ridiculous...Clarence Mitchell...then again what does he care .....he is paid to lie and spin, look and be a total fool,  etc,  that's his excuse anyway....eta on the other hand he is not as stupid as not to know it was a most ridiculous statement thereby feeding the substance of the opposite of the statement...if you see what I mean...not  the a devils advocate kind of thing, more like a three headed Cerberus monstrosity...

The comment in context made no one look stupid... Just your biased opinion again

He was absolutely right
There was a simple explanation
The police were lying

[pathfinder73]

Their job is to solve the case and when bringing everything back to zero means everyone is a suspect.

Crimewatch Time 19:16 - DCI  Redwood states: everything back to zero, take everything back to the beginning, reanalyze and reassess everything, excepting nothing.