Petition re Madeleine McCann on Prime Minister's website

[Mr Gray]

SY have found enough to declare that the mccanns are not suspects...whatever happens Maddie deserves a proper investigation and that's what SY have given her

[G-Unit]

If we don't know when the remit was drawn up then we don't know if the had already examined evidence....looked at the parents and then decided abduction. As I have already said if the parents are ruled out then abduction is odds on.
We have had criticism of the cost of grange from within the police...but not one word saying the parents had not been investigated... I think there would have been a leak if this was the case...

So it is all assumption...we do know Redwood ruled out the parents...you want to believe he did this without looking at them....the fact he ruled them out tells me they had looked at the evidence and spoken to them

It depends what you mean by ruled out. He said they were not suspects or persons of interest. He could happily say that if they never were suspects or persons of interest. He never said he'd ruled them out, did he? Those are your words. To rule someone out they first have to be ruled in.

[Mr Gray]

It depends what you mean by ruled out. He said they were not suspects or persons of interest. He could happily say that if they never were suspects or persons of interest. He never said he'd ruled them out, did he? Those are your words. To rule someone out they first have to be ruled in.

I think you are splitting hairs this time.....parents are automatically suspects in these cases. I don't think SY would spend 12 million on an investigation without ruling the parents out...that would be a disgrace....we don't seem to know when the remit was drawn up ...that might help

[ferryman]

It depends what you mean by ruled out. He said they were not suspects or persons of interest. He could happily say that if they never were suspects or persons of interest. He never said he'd ruled them out, did he? Those are your words. To rule someone out they first have to be ruled in.

The shelved enquiry ruled them in (made them arguidos), then ruled them out (the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch).

[stephen25000]

The shelved enquiry ruled them in (made them arguidos), then ruled them out (the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch).

That status can be re-initiated up to 20 from the inset time of being made arguida.

[G-Unit]

I think you are splitting hairs this time.....parents are automatically suspects in these cases. I don't think SY would spend 12 million on an investigation without ruling the parents out...that would be a disgrace....we don't seem to know when the remit was drawn up ...that might help

It certainly would. I do hope your faith in the Metropolitan Police isn't misplaced. Given their track record I'm afraid I don't share it. They may have done everything you think they have, they may not.

[Angelo222]

The shelved enquiry ruled them in (made them arguidos), then ruled them out (the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch).

Intersecting terns you use ferryman but inappropriate.  The investigation determined that they and Murat were suspects designating them arguidos.  Due to a lack of evidence the arguido status was lifted on archiving the enquiry.  Nobody has been ruled out as you put it.

[Benice]

If you look at it as a process it's clearer. Cameron was 'persuaded' by the parents and Brooks. He persuaded May. May persuaded the Met. The Met decided to take it on but the remit was to investigate the 'abduction'.

Why did they restrict it? Perhaps that's what they were asked to do, no more, no less. Perhaps the high ups in the Met decided to restrict it After all, neither Cameron, Brooks or May would have been pleased if SY had headed straight for the parents and their friends, would they? That would have been carrying on where the PJ left off and no-one thought that would go down well.

I expect the Met thought they could find evidence of an abduction where the PJ had failed. They used the press to show how busy they were and what they were achieving. Slowly but surely the their leads led nowhere. Now we have silence.

I'm curious to know how you can 'restrict' an investigation of this nature.  Regardless of whether the remit was to investigate the 'abduction' or the 'disappearance' of Madeleine -   the fact is that all the available evidence, witness statements, witnesses themselves and all the other information which was going to be examined by SY remain exactly the same for BOTH remits.    So how does this 'restriction' actually work in practice?

The only way I can see to achieve that -  is if DCI Redman/DCI Wall and the scores of police officers working on this case were instructed beforehand to IGNORE any evidence which may emerge during their scrutiny of the available evidence -  which pointed away from an abduction - and in the direction of the parents - no matter how clear that evidence was.         

The idea that SY officers would even be asked to do - what IMO is tantamount to a conspiracy to pervert the course of  justice -  in the first place is preposterous - and the idea that scores of police officers would agree to be part of that illegal act is even more preposterous.

The fact is that as a result of examining the evidence and witnesses - SY were able to rule the McCanns and their friends out of the investigation.   

[Lace]

I'm curious to know how you can 'restrict' an investigation of this nature.  Regardless of whether the remit was to investigate the 'abduction' or the 'disappearance' of Madeleine -   the fact is that all the available evidence, witness statements, witnesses themselves and all the other information which was going to be examined by SY remain exactly the same for BOTH remits.    So how does this 'restriction' actually work in practice?

The only way I can see to achieve that -  is if DCI Redman/DCI Wall and the scores of police officers working on this case were instructed beforehand to IGNORE any evidence which may emerge during their scrutiny of the available evidence -  which pointed away from an abduction - and in the direction of the parents - no matter how clear that evidence was.         

The idea that SY officers would even be asked to do - what IMO is tantamount to a conspiracy to pervert the course of  justice -  in the first place is preposterous - and the idea that scores of police officers would agree to be part of that illegal act is even more preposterous.

The fact is that as a result of examining the evidence and witnesses - SY were able to rule the McCanns and their friends out of the investigation.

          Well said Benice

Blonk just loves a conspiracy     

[blonk]

If we don't know when the remit was drawn up then we don't know if the[y] had already examined evidence...looked at the parents and then decided abduction...

I asked about Operation Grange's remit (together with several other questions about Grange) on 12 August 2011, by way of a Freedom of Information Act request. The Metropolitan Police refused the request on various grounds. My application and their response can be seen here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id391.html

It was on 4 January 2012 that they first published details of their remit, and all of that is detailed on pamalam's site, here:
 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/57jan12/Metropolitan_04_01_2012.htm

That tells us that the remit was decided before 4 January 2012, but not exactly when. I do recall another Yard statement saying that the remit had been decided 'soon after Operation Grange was set up' and there was a reference elsewhere to a meeting of all the Yard's top officers to discuss this and other matters regarding Grange on a date in June 2011. I can't lay my hands on those references at the minute.

I hope that helps.

ETA - P.S.   With reference to my earlier comments that Operation Grange is essentially a political, not a police, operation, I would argue that the Prime Minister of the U.K. had already told Sir Paul Stephenson, the then Head of the Met Police, exactly what the remit of Operation Grange was to be. His spokesman was directly quoted on 12 May 2011 as saying that the purpose of establishing this review was to:

"HELP THE FAMILY" 

It follows from that that all the Senior Investigation Officer - DCS Hamish Campbell, the bungler of the Jill Dando murder investigation - had to do was to sit down and write out the Prime Minister's order into a form of words.

Which he did     

[ferryman]

Intersecting terns you use ferryman but inappropriate.  The investigation determined that they and Murat were suspects designating them arguidos.  Due to a lack of evidence the arguido status was lifted on archiving the enquiry.  Nobody has been ruled out as you put it.

Once accused, always accused until someone else is convicted isn't how due process works.

Otherwise, Kerry Needham would still be accused (for example).

[stephen25000]

Once accused, always accused until someone else is convicted isn't how due process works.

Otherwise, Kerry Needham would still be accused (for example).

We are talking about the arguida system in Portugal.

Not applicable to Kerry Needham.

Wasn't she at work when Ben disappeared ?

So why would she be a suspect at all ???

[Mr Gray]

I asked about Operation Grange's remit (together with several other questions about Grange) on 12 August 2011, by way of a Freedom of Information Act request. The Metropolitan Police refused the request on various grounds. My application and their response can be seen here:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id391.html

It was on 4 January 2012 that they first published details of their remit, and all of that is detailed on pamalam's site, here:
 
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/57jan12/Metropolitan_04_01_2012.htm

That tells us that the remit was decided before 4 January 2012, but not exactly when. I do recall another Yard statement saying that the remit had been decided 'soon after Operation Grange was set up' and there was a reference elsewhere to a meeting of all the Yard's top officers to discuss this and other matters regarding Grange on a date in June 2011. I can't lay my hands on those references at the minute.

I hope that helps.

ETA - P.S.   With reference to my earlier comments that Operation Grange is essentially a political, not a police, operation, I would argue that the Prime Minister of the U.K. had already told Sir Paul Stephenson, the then Head of the Met Police, exactly what the remit of Operation Grange was to be. His spokesman was directly quoted on 12 May 2011 as saying that the purpose of establishing this review was to:

"HELP THE FAMILY" 

It follows from that that all the Senior Investigation Officer - DCS Hamish Campbell, the bungler of the Jill Dando murder investigation - had to do was to sit down and write out the Prime Minister's order into a form of words.

Which he did   

so you do not know when the remit was drawn up...you are assuming that it was drawn up before grange had looked at any evidence...your views are based on an assumption...it is more reasonable to think that the remit was drawn up having looked at the evidence...ruled out the parents which makes abduction an odds on expalnation...

large fonts are frowned upon here....so please desist

[Mr Gray]

It certainly would. I do hope your faith in the Metropolitan Police isn't misplaced. Given their track record I'm afraid I don't share it. They may have done everything you think they have, they may not.

could you provide a cite on why you question the track record of SY....quoting individual cases is not enough...you would need to compare their record to other similar police forces

[Mr Gray]

Intersecting terns you use ferryman but inappropriate.  The investigation determined that they and Murat were suspects designating them arguidos.  Due to a lack of evidence the arguido status was lifted on archiving the enquiry.  Nobody has been ruled out as you put it.

Redwood has said the parents are not suspects...in plain english that means they are ruled out