Operation Grange methodology.

[John]

first he didnt decline...he was never offered the job ....secondly I believe the instruction was rather  vague...second hand and cannot be verified.... On what basis was this claim made ...solid facts or just a rumour...we dont know. It seems that when it comes to criticising the mccanns any piece of second hand claim will do...in their defense...basically nothing is accepted

He certainly made it very clear that governmental interference in the case continues.

[Mr Gray]

He certainly made it very clear that governmental interference in the case continues.

I don't see that he did....can you back up that statement with any evidence...he didn't mention govt interference

[Alice Purjorick]

He certainly made it very clear that governmental interference in the case continues.

He who pays the piper...............

[Alice Purjorick]

The McCann's were arguidos at the time

So?

[Benice]

There is evidence that OG went into this case with the intention of investigating an abduction. I don't understand why it's unrealistic to accept that The Met may have got it wrong. There's no evidence that they're infallible.

There's no need for conspiracies and cover-ups either. I've seen lots of people saying it's ludicrous to suggest that the parents could be involved. I've never seen one person give a coherent reason why they hold that view. It seems to rest purely on opinion.

Those opinions, however, have dominated how the parents have been perceived and have been repeated so often they're seen as accepted facts, just as the parents having been cleared became an accepted fact.

It seems perfectly possible to me that those making the decisions about Operation Grange truly believed that the parents weren't involved. Whether they were right or not remains to be seen; or not, as the case may be.

I was really surprised to read that's what you think G.          AFAIAC there is no singular reason why folk believe the McCanns were not involved - and the multitude of reasons why they don't believe they were involved have been an integral part of the discussions on here from day one imo.

It is the sum total of all those reasons which led me to believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A by a stranger.

As far as SY is concerned, it seems to me that they have been subjected to the same treatment by some sceptics that everyone else who publicly supports abduction is automatically subjected to.   i.e.  They have to be denigrated, criticised, belittled, mocked, insulted (take your pick) at all costs.

I agree that SY are not infallible.    However the idea that highly professional detectives dedicated to bringing criminals to justice are so stupid, gullible and incompetent that they would remove the McCanns and their friends from their enquiries -if they had the slightest suspicion that any of them were involved -  is as ludicrous as it gets IMO.

   
AIMHO

 
 

[Angelo222]

Would you like to tell us exactly what the SC said......I dont remember them using the word convinced. As I understand they said the McCanns had not proved their innocence...well...they dont have to and its just about impossible to do so, something the ECHR may look at. Despite what you say ...the portuguese investigation dont seem to share the view of the SC.

Your claim that SY have been prevented from investigating the mccanns is opinion not fact and imo ...risible

The SC had no choice but to clarify the position over innocence given the comments emanating from team McCann.  This all goes back to the initial investigation of course and the earlier comments by the Prosecutor to the Attorney General in which it was pointed out that the parents had failed to avail of the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. It is their conduct which is risible imo.

As for SY being prevented from undertaking a full and transparent investigation I suggest you take that up with Rowley.  There are several issues which stink to high heaven and those must be fully investigated.

[slartibartfast]

I was really surprised to read that's what you think G.          AFAIAC there is no singular reason why folk believe the McCanns were not involved - and the multitude of reasons why they don't believe they were involved have been an integral part of the discussions on here from day one imo.

It is the sum total of all those reasons which led me to believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A by a stranger.

As far as SY is concerned, it seems to me that they have been subjected to the same treatment by some sceptics that everyone else who publicly supports abduction is automatically subjected to.   i.e.  They have to be denigrated, criticised, belittled, mocked, insulted (take your pick) at all costs.

I agree that SY are not infallible.    However the idea that highly professional detectives dedicated to bringing criminals to justice are so stupid, gullible and incompetent that they would remove the McCanns and their friends from their enquiries -if they had the slightest suspicion that any of them were involved -  is as ludicrous as it gets IMO.

   
AIMHO

IMO theories of abduction depend on a belief in the evidence of the parents. IMO people who question that evidence based on the discrepancies it contain are more likely to think something else happened other than the accepted narrative.

[Benice]

The SC had no choice but to clarify the position over innocence given the comments emanating from team McCann.  This all goes back to the initial investigation of course and the earlier comments by the Prosecutor to the Attorney General in which it was pointed out that the parents had failed to avail of the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence. It is their conduct which is risible imo.

As for SY being prevented from undertaking a full and transparent investigation I suggest you take that up with Rowley.  There are several issues which stink to high heaven and those must be fully investigated.

As I have asked many times before - but to no avail:-

Can you explain how a recon would have demonstrated the McCanns innocence.  Their 'innocence' of what exactly?

[Benice]

IMO theories of abduction depend on a belief in the evidence of the parents. IMO people who question that evidence based on the discrepancies it contain are more likely to think something else happened other than the accepted narrative.

Anyone who thinks any UK police officer simply asked the McCanns if they had dunnit and when they said 'No we didn't' - they said ''OK we believe you'' you is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.

There are many discrepancies which experienced policemen would consider to be perfectly normal when asking many people to recall the same events. 

It is only armchair detective with no experience of how fallible witnesses memories are who think that discrepancies automatically mean someone must be lying IMO.

It is also a fact IMO that any potential suspicious discrepancies  - especially those which appear in summarised statements, could easily be cleared up by talking directly to the witnesses involved.  Unlike our police officers - we can't do that.

AIMHO

[slartibartfast]

Anyone who thinks any UK police officer simply asked the McCanns if they had dunnit and when they said 'No we didn't' - they said ''OK we believe you'' you is living in cloud cuckoo land IMO.

There are many discrepancies which experienced policemen would consider to be perfectly normal when asking many people to recall the same events. 

It is only armchair detective with no experience of how fallible witnesses memories are who think that discrepancies automatically mean someone must be lying IMO.

It is also a fact IMO that any potential suspicious discrepancies  - especially those which appear in summarised statements, could easily be cleared up by talking directly to the witnesses involved.  Unlike our police officers - we can't do that.

AIMHO

Who mentioned the police?

[Angelo222]

As I have asked many times before - but to no avail:-

Can you explain how a recon would have demonstrated the McCanns innocence.  Their 'innocence' of what exactly?

It would have revealed who lied.

[Benice]

Who mentioned the police?

I did in the post you were replying to.

I therefore assumed the Police were included in your following response.

''IMO theories of abduction depend on a belief in the evidence of the parents.'' 

If your reply did not include the police in that belief - then fair enough - my mistake.

[Benice]

It would have revealed who lied.

In what way?  Please elaborate.

Absolutely nothing of any value could have been revealed from a recon unless it could be guaranteed that a virtually 100% exact replication by 10 people of all their movements over several hours during a day 12 months prior was achievable.       As no-one could remember enough about the times they did things to achieve the accuracy vitally required to prove anything  - then it would be doomed from the start.

IMO it would be tantamount to expect every member of a football team to be able to return to the field and exactly replicate from memory every move they made during a match they played yonks ago.

Pure nonsense.

AIMHO

[faithlilly]

In what way?  Please elaborate.

Absolutely nothing of any value could have been revealed from a recon unless it could be guaranteed that a virtually 100% exact replication by 10 people of all their movements over several hours during a day 12 months prior was achievable.       As no-one could remember enough about the times they did things to achieve the accuracy vitally required to prove anything  - then it would be doomed from the start.

IMO it would be tantamount to expect every member of a football team to be able to return to the field and exactly replicate from memory every move they made during a match they played yonks ago.

Pure nonsense.

AIMHO

The 'passing Jez and Gerry' scenario wouldn't be hard to replicate.

[G-Unit]

I was really surprised to read that's what you think G.          AFAIAC there is no singular reason why folk believe the McCanns were not involved - and the multitude of reasons why they don't believe they were involved have been an integral part of the discussions on here from day one imo.

It is the sum total of all those reasons which led me to believe that Madeleine was removed from 5A by a stranger.

As far as SY is concerned, it seems to me that they have been subjected to the same treatment by some sceptics that everyone else who publicly supports abduction is automatically subjected to.   i.e.  They have to be denigrated, criticised, belittled, mocked, insulted (take your pick) at all costs.

I agree that SY are not infallible.    However the idea that highly professional detectives dedicated to bringing criminals to justice are so stupid, gullible and incompetent that they would remove the McCanns and their friends from their enquiries -if they had the slightest suspicion that any of them were involved -  is as ludicrous as it gets IMO.

   
AIMHO

I wasn't actually referring to anonymous posters on here, but to those in the public eye.

Some people seem to have been convinced of the parent's innocence merely by meeting them;

Sir Paul Stephenson
Jim Gamble
Brian Kennedy

Others were convinced by seeing their reactions;

The T7
Alex Woolfall
Alan Pike

Ian Horrocks made a better attempt (but not much)

 there is no family history that would point in any way to this.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8185.0