Petition re Madeleine McCann on Prime Minister's website

[blonk]

You assert that:

- you have evidence that it's a sham;

- that it was "only allowed to investigate 'the abduction'."

What are you basing those assertions on?

G-Unit has already given you an answer on the remit. It is confined only to investigating 'the abduction'. That disqualifies it from Day One from being an honest and full reinvestigation. It can hardly be said to be 'drawing everything back to zero', or whatever pretentious gobbledegook Redwood has spouted about his team's work. He is stuck with his remit whether he likes it or not.

I am not going to give you an extended essay on all the manifold reasons why I suggest that Operation Grange is a scam, but a starting point would be for you to read this link:

(Link removed)

Within that article, right at the top, is a link to another relevant article of mine on the same site: 'The Biography of Hamish Campbell'.   

Campbell was appointed to head up Operation Grange. His previous greatest claim to fame notoriety was to utterly botch the investigation into the still-unsolved murder of Jill Dando by taking part in fitting up the wrong man - amid accusations that he could have planted the speck of firearms residue that led to the wrongful conviction of Barry George/Bulsara.

To put such a man in charge of the Madeleine McCann investigation is just one of many reasons why I regard Grange as a scam and a charade.

And to get back to the petition - which is what we're supposed to be discussing -it's perfectly obvious to me that most people are signing it because their perception (right or wrong) is that the whole 5-year-long Operation Grange has never looked to them like a genuine, honest enquiry.     

[blonk]

I think the logical conclusion is that the groundwork had been completed to ensure there was no complicity of either her parents or their friends in Madeleine's disappearance.

Don't tell me that Theresa May ... who possibly sees herself as future prime ministerial material ... was going to lend her name to any such endeavour without it having been thoroughly checked and without making certain sure that all the boxes had been ticked.

The strictly limited remit given to Operation Grange: "Only investigate the abduction, nothing else!", was set in the early weeks of the review, in the spring of 2011, long before the investigation started   

[Carana]

G-Unit has already given you an answer on the remit. It is confined only to investigating 'the abduction'. That disqualifies it from Day One from being an honest and full reinvestigation. It can hardly be said to be 'drawing everything back to zero', or whatever pretentious gobbledegook Redwood has spouted about his team's work. He is stuck with his remit whether he likes it or not.

I am not going to give you an extended essay on all the manifold reasons why I suggest that Operation Grange is a scam, but a starting point would be for you to read this link:

(link removed)

Within that article, right at the top, is a link to another relevant article of mine on the same site: 'The Biography of Hamish Campbell'.   

Campbell was appointed to head up Operation Grange. His previous greatest claim to fame notoriety was to utterly botch the investigation into the still-unsolved murder of Jill Dando by taking part in fitting up the wrong man - amid accusations that he could have planted the speck of firearms residue that led to the wrongful conviction of Barry George/Bulsara.

To put such a man in charge of the Madeleine McCann investigation is just one of many reasons why I regard Grange as a scam and a charade.

And to get back to the petition - which is what we're supposed to be discussing -it's perfectly obvious to me that most people are signing it because their perception (right or wrong) is that the whole 5-year-long Operation Grange has never looked to them like a genuine, honest enquiry.     

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.

[Carana]

The strictly limited remit given to Operation Grange: "Only investigate the abduction, nothing else!", was set in the early weeks of the review, in the spring of 2011, long before the investigation started

Where?

[Carana]

The strictly limited remit given to Operation Grange: "Only investigate the abduction, nothing else!", was set in the early weeks of the review, in the spring of 2011, long before the investigation started

Where has Op Grange stated that it was limited to only investigating an abduction scenario?

[Alice Purjorick]

Where has Op Grange stated that it was limited to only investigating an abduction scenario?

This is bleedin' hilarious.
It says in the remit but the remit is unclear as it says two things and the opposing sides have both been playing ducks and drakes, for quite a while, with what the remit really said according to the yarn they wanted to peddle at the time.


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

[Carana]

This is bleedin' hilarious.
It says in the remit but the remit is unclear as it says two things and the opposing sides have both been playing ducks and drakes, for quite a while, with what the remit really said according to the yarn they wanted to peddle at the time.


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

Blonk's whole point appears to be that Op Grange had been limited to only investigating an abduction.

Prior to the launching of that investigation, there had been a two-year review of available evidence to date.

So... I'm still confused as to what Blonk is talking about.

[ferryman]

I don't think there can be too much doubt Carana has won the semantic argument hook, line and sinker.

I confess, my regret is the remit isn't limited to abduction.

There's literally nothing else to consider ....

[Carana]

I don't think there can be too much doubt Carana has won the semantic argument hook, line and sinker.

I confess, my regret is the remit isn't limited to abduction.

There's literally nothing else to consider ....

I'm not really into semantics unless necessary.

My question is really bog-basic: where is it stated that Op Grange was only allowed to investigate an abduction?

[Carana]

G-Unit has already given you an answer on the remit. It is confined only to investigating 'the abduction'. That disqualifies it from Day One from being an honest and full reinvestigation. It can hardly be said to be 'drawing everything back to zero', or whatever pretentious gobbledegook Redwood has spouted about his team's work. He is stuck with his remit whether he likes it or not.

I am not going to give you an extended essay on all the manifold reasons why I suggest that Operation Grange is a scam, but a starting point would be for you to read this link:

(Link removed)

Within that article, right at the top, is a link to another relevant article of mine on the same site: 'The Biography of Hamish Campbell'.   

Campbell was appointed to head up Operation Grange. His previous greatest claim to fame notoriety was to utterly botch the investigation into the still-unsolved murder of Jill Dando by taking part in fitting up the wrong man - amid accusations that he could have planted the speck of firearms residue that led to the wrongful conviction of Barry George/Bulsara.

To put such a man in charge of the Madeleine McCann investigation is just one of many reasons why I regard Grange as a scam and a charade.

And to get back to the petition - which is what we're supposed to be discussing -it's perfectly obvious to me that most people are signing it because their perception (right or wrong) is that the whole 5-year-long Operation Grange has never looked to them like a genuine, honest enquiry.     

I haven't yet read your article / post at that link that has now been removed from here, but I will do at some point.

[ferryman]

I'm not really into semantics unless necessary.

My question is really bog-basic: where is it stated that Op Grange was only allowed to investigate an abduction?

I would quibble on that point, semantically, of course ....

[Alice Purjorick]

Blonk's whole point appears to be that Op Grange had been limited to only investigating an abduction.

Prior to the launching of that investigation, there had been a two-year review of available evidence to date.

So... I'm still confused as to what Blonk is talking about.

That is covered by the remit quoted; look under the downloads available under "Related Publications" on rhs of link.
The time period is mid 2011.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
I presume blonk is referring to the remit linked.

[Carana]

That is covered by the remit quoted; look under the downloads available under "Related Publications" on rhs of link.
The time period is mid 2011.
http://content.met.police.uk/Article/Operation-Grange/1400005508791/35434
I presume blonk is referring to the remit linked.

Thanks, Alice, I have read both before.

However, I am still waiting for Blonk's evidence that Op Grange could only examine abduction.

[Alice Purjorick]

I think the logical conclusion is that the groundwork had been completed to ensure there was no complicity of either her parents or their friends in Madeleine's disappearance.

Don't tell me that Theresa May ... who possibly sees herself as future prime ministerial material ... was going to lend her name to any such endeavour without it having been thoroughly checked and without making certain sure that all the boxes had been ticked.

If you recall Theresa May and the head of The MPS were not keen on the idea hence the open letter in The Sun to David Cameron and David Cameron then ordering The Home Sec. and the head of the MPS to just do it and he would arrange funding. Much of the background to this is recorded in the Leveson Inquiry.

[Brietta]

The strictly limited remit given to Operation Grange: "Only investigate the abduction, nothing else!", was set in the early weeks of the review, in the spring of 2011, long before the investigation started

If you are of the opinion that there was no scoping exercise and multi agency involvement prior to the Spring of 2011 I think you are sadly mistaken.

Similarly if you are of the opinion that the Policia Judiciaria are bound by the Operation Grange remit I think you might find that not only are you completely wrong the PJ would be deeply insulted by the inference.

The PJ carried out their own independent review which led them to the conclusion that they were looking at stranger abduction and have conducted their independent parallel investigation into that abduction.

I have no idea what is intended by introducing a petition into the equation at this stage in the game ... but in my opinion it serves to illustrate there are those who are none too happy that
(a) Madeleine McCann's case was ever reopened and
(b) that it has continued because there are still lines of inquiry being actively pursued.

Anyone with an interest in justice for Madeleine McCann would be standing well back and willing Operation Grange success with every fibre of their being.