Met given 6 months and £2 million more to find Maddie. Is this the end?

[Brietta]

WHere  is the evidence that SY and PJ have discarded any theory? Or is that wishful thnking? That is the crux.
The fact that a stranger abduction has been investigated is no testament to your assertion lol..sorry for late reply, I didn't read back far enough in the thread to spot it

I am afraid that I do not understand why you think that two law enforcement agencies pursuing a line of inquiry which is entirely opposed to the views of a few internet theorists is wishful thinking.
Particularly when one bears in mind that neither Madeleine McCann's parents or their friends are persons of interest.

However the important thing at the moment is confirmation of another year's funding.  Now if only we could make a dent in the amounts spent cleaning chewing gum off our streets the costs of looking for one of our children might achieve less comment.

[stephen25000]

Were they suspects or witnesses? Or did it depend which newspaper you read?

Indeed.

Then I can recall the press conference with Edgar and Mitchell as regards the Victoria Beckham lookalike.

Which if i recall correctly, after all the bull###te, they never investigated.

[Brietta]

Re the continuation of SY's investigation.
The places where SY have used EVRDS which we do know about are all large publically visible places which would have been difficult to deploy search teams on without being observed by the public and the press.
But is it possible that SY may also already have deployed EVRDs on smaller less public locations which are unknown to press and us?

If you refer to Apartment 5A and Casa Liliana ... these would have been subject to ILORs at a time before the leak had been plugged ... therefore we would have known all about it.

[Alice Purjorick]

I am afraid that I do not understand why you think that two law enforcement agencies pursuing a line of inquiry which is entirely opposed to the views of a few internet theorists is wishful thinking.
Particularly when one bears in mind that neither Madeleine McCann's parents or their friends are persons of interest.

However the important thing at the moment is confirmation of another year's funding.  Now if only we could make a dent in the amounts spent cleaning chewing gum off our streets the costs of looking for one of our children might achieve less comment.

One presumes over a period of time they have pursued more than one line of inquiry. Do you have confirmation they are pursuing only those you find acceptable? I haven't a clue what they are doing nor has anyone on here in reality but some are all to keen to tell others which line of inquiry is being pursued. That is wishful thinking.

[Alfred R Jones]

One presumes over a period of time they have pursued more than one line of inquiry. Do you have confirmation they are pursuing only those you find acceptable? I haven't a clue what they are doing nor has anyone on here in reality but some are all to keen to tell others which line of inquiry is being pursued. That is wishful thinking.

The OP Grange remit only mentions "abduction", nothing else.

[Brietta]

One presumes over a period of time they have pursued more than one line of inquiry. Do you have confirmation they are pursuing only those you find acceptable? I haven't a clue what they are doing nor has anyone on here in reality but some are all to keen to tell others which line of inquiry is being pursued. That is wishful thinking.

Whether I find a line of inquiry acceptable or not is I am sure not a priority concern for either the PJ or SY ... good of you to think I carry the weight of such importance that should be a consideration for them. 

The important thing is that we do know for certain that both continue following evidence which will hopefully lead to finding out what happened to Madeleine McCann and lead to her safe return. If that is "wishful thinking" ... guilty as charged!

Scotland Yard are definitely on track to be capable of meriting another year of funding ... it pleases me that somewhere in the world a culprit or culprits must be feeling very uncomfortable about that.

[Alfred R Jones]

I never 'dismissed it as utterly meaningless'. You do love to put words in my mouth Alfred. I'm sure it had meaning for DCI Redwood, but he's long gone and his opinions with him. No statements have been made by his replacement at all, so we don't know what her thoughts are. She may agree with Redwood or she may not.

So, does Redwood's statement mean anything now (in YOUR opinion, not Andy Redwood's) or not?  Make up your mind!

[Alice Purjorick]

The OP Grange remit only mentions "abduction", nothing else.

It refers to disappearance once and abduction once, other relevant MPS documents refer only to disappearance.
All in here:
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434.

[Alfred R Jones]

It refers to disappearance once and abduction once, other relevant MPS documents refer only to disappearance.
All in here:
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434.

I'm sure that's a great comfort to you.  However on the basis that the word "abduction" is clearly used in the official OP Grange remit, and all subsequent activity that we know the Met have taken is fully in keeping with this being an investigation into a 3rd party abduction, I think you're clutching at very tenuous straws.

[Alice Purjorick]

I'm sure that's a great comfort to you.  However on the basis that the word "abduction" is clearly used in the official OP Grange remit, and all subsequent activity that we know the Met have taken is fully in keeping with this being an investigation into a 3rd party abduction, I think you're clutching at very tenuous straws.

I don't need to clutch at straws. I have no more idea of what OG is doing than you have.
I am merely pointing out that you choose a particular interpretation of the OG Remit to suit your predetermined stance, based on "abduction" being mentioned once in the remit.
My understanding of the term "whole of the investigations" is just that, whole,  rather than the narrow less than whole one you choose. Yes I know further down it refers to abduction in parentheses so don't bother to highlight it.
In your considered opinion is the remit to review the "whole of the investigations" as the MPS remit says or just the possibility of an abduction as you say?

Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1. 

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’.  This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

•   The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
•   UK Law Enforcement agencies,
•   Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. 

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. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End

[Alfred R Jones]

I don't need to clutch at straws. I have no more idea of what OG is doing than you have.
I am merely pointing out that you choose a particular interpretation of the OG Remit to suit your predetermined stance, based on "abduction" being mentioned once in the remit.
My understanding of the term "whole of the investigations" is just that, whole,  rather than the narrow less than whole one you choose. Yes I know further down it refers to abduction in parentheses so don't bother to highlight it.
In your considered opinion is the remit to review the "whole of the investigations" as the MPS remit says or just the possibility of an abduction as you say?

Op Grange Remit

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1. 

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’.  This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy);

•   The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
•   UK Law Enforcement agencies,
•   Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before. 

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. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process.

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End

Of course it reviewed the work of the earlier investigation(s) but clearly the Met were coming to the case as an abduction from the off, otherwise why even mention the term in the remit?  And nothing that they have done since is out of kilter with the remit re: treating the case as one of stranger abduction. 

[John]

This is not impossible, but personally I would be astounded to find it had happened.

The media seems to have reported each ILOR, and SY would not be searching anything in Portugal without it going in an ILOR.  The leaks on ILOR content so far have been fairly accurate.
All visits to Portugal by SY are news, and widely reported, so the idea they sneaked a team in under the radar sounds improbable.
The search warrant would need to be served on someone, (or alternatively permission granted by someone in a manner that satisfied Portuguese law), so that someone would need to be keeping it quiet from everyone.
The neighbours would need to be keeping the search activity totally quiet.

The level of news reporting on this is driven by the fundamental principle that a Maddie story sells copy.  A scoop like "OG conducts secret search of ..." has to be worth more than "rain-sodden note found outside 5A on 1st anniversary".

So for this to have happened, it had to clear several hurdles.

I totally concur ShiningInLuz, nothing goes on in Portugal involving the police without it being relayed to the local Press. 

Ergo, no news means just that...No News!

[Alice Purjorick]

Of course it reviewed the work of the earlier investigation(s) but clearly the Met were coming to the case as an abduction from the off, otherwise why even mention the term in the remit?  And nothing that they have done since is out of kilter with the remit re: treating the case as one of stranger abduction.

Your first sentence defeats itself.
The bit in bold: You know this to be true how?
Are you privy to all that the MPS do?

[pegasus]

If you refer to Apartment 5A and Casa Liliana ... these would have been subject to ILORs at a time before the leak had been plugged ... therefore we would have known all about it.

It is certain that at some time or other the child disappeared from 5A therefore SY during their investigation must have visited 5A. For example SY must have examined the window and shutter mechanism of that bedroom. To spend tens of millions of pounds without even visiting the residence where the crime happened would be madness. The fact that we never read a report of it in the press is neither here nor there. Is anyone on this forum seriously suggesting OG have never visited the apartment?

[Alfred R Jones]

Your first sentence defeats itself.
The bit in bold: You know this to be true how?
Are you privy to all that the MPS do?

OK, perhaps you can explain why the word abduction appears in the remit if the Met were coming to. the investigation without any pre-knowledge or opinions of the case? 
As for your second question I was referring to all the actions taken by the Met that we know about of course.