The Remit of SY

[barrier]

Tell me Barrier ~ do you applaud the joint police work (inclusive of Operation Grange's) which might result in Diana M's brutal rapist being kept off our streets for a further stint should any of the five sex offences he is charged with be proven.  Or do you think they shouldn't have bothered and leave him to resume roaming free when his time served for Diana's rape is up?

If due process of law is followed and he's found guilty then he should serve time .

[G-Unit]

My opinion is that the sceptic angst against Operation Grange which they have lumped into "the remit" in the tone used by presenters Tess and Claudia when they say "the Judges" in the 'strictly come dancing' tv programme, tells us all we need to know about them.  And it is a less than salutary spectacle.

ALL the factors which Grange initially uncovered had always been there.  Just nobody had looked for them or had the experience to know what they were if they had.

• Dr Totman wasn't found at the time proving the criticism that material witnesses had been overlooked
• Assaults perpetrated on children by an invader to their holiday homes were ignored
• CCTV which might have been relevant was not checked out until after the tapes for the relevant time had been erased
• The real significance of the phone dump was not apparent until Operation Grange checked it
• Christian Brueckner was on police radar but was not followed through

Operation Grange has carried out exemplary work which has been justified by the fact that there is possibly little left for them to do all these years later.
I think their "remit" has been carried out with confidence in what they were doing and at some time in the future when looked back upon, I think it will be viewed as a shining example of British policing at its best.

Are you denigrating the judges on a popular TV programme now? You do know that presenter's opinions of those judges has no bearing on anyone's opinion of OG's remit surely? The remit actually exists, it's a fact, and there's no need of opinions; it says what it says. That is that OG's remit was to investigate an abduction. Not a disappearance, not a missing person, AN ABDUCTION.

It certainly is a shining example of British policing to name the crime before examining all the evidence, but it remains to be seen if it's British policing at it's best imo.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Are you denigrating the judges on a popular TV programme now? You do know that presenter's opinions of those judges has no bearing on anyone's opinion of OG's remit surely? The remit actually exists, it's a fact, and there's no need of opinions; it says what it says. That is that OG's remit was to investigate an abduction. Not a disappearance, not a missing person, AN ABDUCTION.

It certainly is a shining example of British policing to name the crime before examining all the evidence, but it remains to be seen if it's British policing at it's best imo.

I seem to recall in the case of the little girl who was abducted from a tent in the Australian outback that the police decided it was an abduction they were investigating very early on.   How do you account for this?  Can police not use logic to deduce what is the most likely crime committed and base their investigations on that?  And if evidence is revealed later which points to a different crime having been committed, then alter the focus of their investigation, or is that not something the police are allowed to do in this country?

[Eleanor]

Are you denigrating the judges on a popular TV programme now? You do know that presenter's opinions of those judges has no bearing on anyone's opinion of OG's remit surely? The remit actually exists, it's a fact, and there's no need of opinions; it says what it says. That is that OG's remit was to investigate an abduction. Not a disappearance, not a missing person, AN ABDUCTION.

It certainly is a shining example of British policing to name the crime before examining all the evidence, but it remains to be seen if it's British policing at it's best imo.

Where does it state that Operation Grange were forbidden from looking at anything else.

[Brietta]

Do you bother reading links not from the beloved brit rags.They cannot place him in Luz, Wolters told MWT back in May , still the same today , they don't even know the time of the crime only a presumption. They also assume some one else knows, makes an ass out of u and me.

As part of the clarification of the circumstances of the crime, it is particularly important to determine the actual whereabouts of the accused at the presumed time of the crime, which is between 9:10 p.m. and 10:00 p.m. on the day of the crime.

Furthermore, there is reason to assume that, in addition to the perpetrator himself, there are other people who have specific knowledge of the possible course of events and, if applicable, where the corpse was deposited. We expressly ask these people to get in touch and share their knowledge.

What a strange post.

I am British.

Therefore I tend to use British sources, to which you refer as "beloved brit rags" for information.  Might I alert you to the fact that using such terminology tends to slot you into a particular categorical box about which the less said is good.

[Brietta]

Are you denigrating the judges on a popular TV programme now? You do know that presenter's opinions of those judges has no bearing on anyone's opinion of OG's remit surely? The remit actually exists, it's a fact, and there's no need of opinions; it says what it says. That is that OG's remit was to investigate an abduction. Not a disappearance, not a missing person, AN ABDUCTION.

It certainly is a shining example of British policing to name the crime before examining all the evidence, but it remains to be seen if it's British policing at it's best imo.

A senior British police officer observed that "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted."

He defined ABDUCTION as follows: 'She wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life.'

At the same time he laid down the remit to which Operation Grange continued to operate when he responded to a query regarding the theory that a sex predator was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance as follows:
'That's been one key line of inquiry.
The reality is in the modern world in any urban area... you will find sex offenders who live nearby.
And those coincidences need to be sifted out,
what's a coincidence
and what may be linked to the investigation that you are currently doing.

'Offences which may be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out.'
Mr Rowley said there was still a 'lot unknown' in the case, adding: 'All the different hypotheses have to remain open.'

Sceptics prove an inability to move forward in conjunction with events even particularly those which disagree with their own 'remit'.  Whereas Operation Grange's 'remit' covering all hypotheses is explained in simple terms which even sceptics should be capable of following, as explained by Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley in 2017 in reference to British detectives having a 'significant' line of inquiry in the Madeleine McCann case, ten years after she went missing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444528/Significant-line-inquiry-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

[G-Unit]

What a strange post.

I am British.

Therefore I tend to use British sources, to which you refer as "beloved brit rags" for information.  Might I alert you to the fact that using such terminology tends to slot you into a particular categorical box about which the less said is good.

I think looking at what the Germans are actually saying can be enlightening.

[G-Unit]

A senior British police officer observed that "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted."

He defined ABDUCTION as follows: 'She wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life.'

At the same time he laid down the remit to which Operation Grange continued to operate when he responded to a query regarding the theory that a sex predator was responsible for Madeleine's disappearance as follows:
'That's been one key line of inquiry.
The reality is in the modern world in any urban area... you will find sex offenders who live nearby.
And those coincidences need to be sifted out,
what's a coincidence
and what may be linked to the investigation that you are currently doing.

'Offences which may be linked have to be looked at and either ruled in or ruled out.'
Mr Rowley said there was still a 'lot unknown' in the case, adding: 'All the different hypotheses have to remain open.'

Sceptics prove an inability to move forward in conjunction with events even particularly those which disagree with their own 'remit'.  Whereas Operation Grange's 'remit' covering all hypotheses is explained in simple terms which even sceptics should be capable of following, as explained by Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley in 2017 in reference to British detectives having a 'significant' line of inquiry in the Madeleine McCann case, ten years after she went missing.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444528/Significant-line-inquiry-Madeleine-McCann-case.html

A senior British police officer observed that "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted."

He defined ABDUCTION as follows: 'She wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life.'

I don't think he was defining abduction, he was telling us how the Met's senior police officers justify searching for an abductor. By their thinking any child who disappears who is 'too young to start their own life' must have been abducted. I find that hard to believe, so I assume he is referring to just one child; Madeleine McCann.

[Brietta]

I think looking at what the Germans are actually saying can be enlightening.

I find it rewarding to source what anyone is actually saying ~ which is why I am classing your rather bizarre post as coming from the same stable as the one I thought rather strange posted by Barrier.

Exactly what information hot from the German press do you think has contributed to you being more enlightened than anyone else.

Do share 👀

[faithlilly]

It may have been nice to solve the case but they were under no obligation or expectation to do so.  You dont think hundreds and thousands  of lowlifes have made false claims about this and other high profile unsolved crimes to police forces all around the world over the years?  You claimed they wanted to solve this particular crime by any means possible, including by deception (to the public)  and bribery (to the criminal), it makes no sense at all and it’s you who should stop being so silly.  Also, I was not referring to the PJ but to the Met.  Why haven’t they seemingly fully embraced CB as the patsy you believe him to be?

I’m sure many, many lowlifes have made false claims, I gave you a couple of examples above, and I’m sure that many desperate policemen have accepted the information without question. Your point?

Why haven’t the Met embraced Brueckner as the perpetrator, possibly because they haven’t seen any evidence that convinced them that he was.

[faithlilly]

Wait, so you think maybe the police identify the hair as belonging to CB and then go looking for one of his known associates and bribe him to make up a story about a rape video?   

It’s simple.  Busching tells the police he sees a guy in a video he can name committing a rape in the Algarve which resembles a known unsolved rape in the same locale and when the DNA evidence from the crime is compared to that of the guy Busching says was committing the rape on video, it matches.  Got it now?

Then why destroy the only evidence he has to prove his claim? If his conscience led him to informing the police of the rapes why not preserve the evidence?

[faithlilly]

Incidentally how could the Portuguese KNOW CB didn’t commit the crime?  That suggests they have exculpatory evidence that clears him, do you believe this to be the case?  If so, why haven’t they shared this with the Germans?  Come on now, please accept that what you have written is nonsensical.

Haven’t the PJ already said that the BKA revealed no evidence to them that suggested that Brueckner was Madeleine’s abductor? Ah yes….

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8929765/Portuguese-Madeleine-McCann-cops-claim-German-police-NO-evidence.html

[Brietta]

A senior British police officer observed that "however Madeleine left the apartment, she was abducted."

He defined ABDUCTION as follows: 'She wasn't old enough to make a decision to set off and start her own life.'

I don't think he was defining abduction, he was telling us how the Met's senior police officers justify searching for an abductor. By their thinking any child who disappears who is 'too young to start their own life' must have been abducted. I find that hard to believe, so I assume he is referring to just one child; Madeleine McCann.

Ten years after Madeleine was abducted Operation Grange was still following active leads on Madeleine's case. https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4444528/Significant-line-inquiry-Madeleine-McCann-case.html and of course Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley was referring to Madeleine McCann.

But you already know that.

Rather disingenuous of you to imply otherwise.  Which in my opinion makes the points you raise in your posts untrustworthy.

Added to that - is your disability of properly interpreting the English language even when it is written in the simplest of terms.

Scotland Yard Assistant Commissioner Mark Rowley made it plain in his interview, that throughout the years of Operation Grange no investigative avenue was overlooked.  Which runs contrary to the sceptic mantra you promote but cannot defend without obfuscation and denial.
I think at the time of interview, the botched burglary theory was still a contender but it is apparent the hopeful new evidence the police were pursuing had just become apparent (it being 2017 and all that) and change to the remit was about to arrive in leaps and bounds.

That is where we are currently at just now where just one remaining hypothesis remains open.  And that is the point at which the investigation continues into 2023 and perhaps beyond.

[Vertigo Swirl]

I’m sure many, many lowlifes have made false claims, I gave you a couple of examples above, and I’m sure that many desperate policemen have accepted the information without question. Your point?

Why haven’t the Met embraced Brueckner as the perpetrator, possibly because they haven’t seen any evidence that convinced them that he was.

Point One: of all the dozens of lowlifes making claims about what they know about this case why pick Busching’s evidence re: CB as the one to hang a multi million euro investigation on?  What sets him apart from all the others?
Point Two:(which clearly went right over your head) if every police force in the world is so desperate to solve this case a la the Greeks and the Germans as you have claimed, then how much more desperate would the Met be to have this all put to bed, and embrace the convenient patsy, having spent years an millions on this investigation and thus confirming they were right re: stranger abduction all along!   Point is, your logic is faulty re your claim of desperation on the part of the Greeks and the Germans.  In any case, if the Germans were so utterly desperate to nail CB for the crime that they would engage in duplicity and bribery to achieve their aims then what’s stopping them going the whole hog and getting CB into court on bogus evidence?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Then why destroy the only evidence he has to prove his claim? If his conscience led him to informing the police of the rapes why not preserve the evidence?

I have no idea, but do you now understand why his evidence in the rape case was considered credible?  If no, I can draw pictures (to use one of your own favourite put downs).