Ah, ok. Thanks for that clarification.
I'll therefore wait for Blonk's explanation.
I’m happy of course to give reasons for the petition. I have already given some answers up the thread but am happy now, in response to a number of requests, to give more detailed reasons for doubting whether Operation Grange is a genuine search for the truth. And hence why the petition was launched in October.
It is by the way similar to one promoted by Helen Williamson in 2013 which I also briefly promoted on the UK Justice Forum in late 2013.
Before giving my explanation re Operation Grange, let me make a plain statement that I am Tony Bennett. The only reason I’ve not such made a plain statement before is that it was surely plain as a pikestaff from the way I’ve answered questions on the thread so far - to nearly all on this thread anyway - that I was.
I’ve noted that the forum-owner is very strong on the general issue of ‘outing’ members here and I’m sorry if I’ve made his or any Moderator’s job more difficult in this respect.
In dealing with Operation Grange, I’ll divide my reasons between those reasons that were apparent at or near the outset, and those that have arisen since this near five-year-long investigation began.
ORIGINAL REASONS FOR DOUBTING THAT OPETATION GRANGE WAS A GENUINE SERARCH FOR THE TRUTH 1.
The strictly limited remit, i.e. only to investigate an abduction. This was pretty clear from Day One, but was later clarified by the Met. In answer to those on the thread who suggest that asking Freedom of Information Act questions on the case is a waste of money, may I pointed out that the precise remit was only dragged out of the Met after three FoI Act questions, one by myself.
2.
The clearly political nature of the decision to set up Operation Grange. I know of no other case where a Prime Minister has had to personally order an investigation, whether on our soil or foreign soil. Sometimes a British police force will, with the active co-operation of a foreign government, allow British officers to conduct enquiries in their country. But in this case, the Home Secretary had already and over a substantial period of time (a year) refused the McCanns’ request for a ‘review’. It was clear that David Cameron had to force Theresa May’s hand.
3. The fact that the decision to order a review was effected by a private citizen who lived near to the Prime Minister who was the CEO to (arguably) the world’s most influential media magnate. It is on record, not least during the proceedings of the Leveson enquiry, that it was Rebekah Brooks, one of whose newspapers was very profitably serialising Kate McCann’s book at the time, who twisted David Cameron’s arm into setting up the review. There were credible, sourced reports at the time that Brooks had threatened ‘a week of bad headlines about the Home Secretary’ to get her way. At Leveson she admitted only to ‘persuading’ Cameron. Rebekah and Charlie Brooks live barely 3.5 miles away from David and Samantha Cameron and attend each other’s parties and those of others in the ‘Chipping Norton’ set. Or as it is generally known in that neck of the woods: ‘The Chipping Snorton Set’. Moreover Brooks and Cameron used to go horse riding together
4. The unprecedented nature of a native police force and its government allowing a foreign police to conduct an investigation of its own purported inadequacy.
5. The extreme unlikelihood that this foreign investigation by Grange could yield results any different from those achieved by the combined forces of the Portuguese and Leicestershire Police forces.
6.
The appointment of Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell as the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO) in the case. The SIO sets the goals and parameters of an investigation. Det Chief Insp Redwood was merely the Investigating Officer (IO!) SIO & IO are technical terms used in all British police investigations. Redwood’s role was simply to carry out Campbell’s instructions. Campbell was a major contributor to the bungled investigation into the murder of Jill Dando, by arresting the wrong man: Barry Bulsara/George. He was the architect of sending an innocent man to jail for several years. As soon as I head that Campbell was the SIO, I asked myself for what possible honest reason he had been put in charge of Grange.
SUBSEQUENT REASONS FOR DOUBTING THAT OPETATION GRANGE WAS A GENUINE SERARCH FOR THE TRUTH 7. The effort and expense of producing an age-progressed picture of Madeleine ,aged 9 or 10. I did not see the investigative merit of that and it looked more like an effort in influencing public perception.
8.
The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special - 1 The purported reconstruction of the events of the holiday and of 3rd May were a one-sided, selective presentation of the available facts. Again the effort appeared to be directed towards influencing public perception and not for investigative purposes
9.
The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special - 2 I had great doubts as to whether any of the Smith family could realistically have drawn up, together with Henri Exton, the ex-Head of Covert Intelligence at MI5, any e-fits of a man they had (a) seen a whole year earlier (b) only for a few seconds at most (c) with his head down (d) and his face partially hidden by the child he was carrying (e) in the dark (f) with what they all admitted was ‘weak’ street lighting and (g) when on 26 May 2007 at Portimao Police station each of the three members of the family frankly stated that “we would not be able to recognise him if we saw him again”
10.
The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special – 3 Moreover, Grange issued two e-fits of two quite different-looking men, with differences such as the overall shape of the face, length of nose, length and style of hair, depth of chin etc. At best this seemed highly unudual.
11.
The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special – 4 I did not accept the likelihood that a man would take six years to come forward and say: “I am the man that Jane Tanner saw at 9.15pm on 3rd May and whom you have been looking for, for the past six years. The further claim that he was wearing almost identical clothes and his daughter almost identical pyjamas to those worn by the man and child seen by Jane Tanner seemed to add a further layer of improbability to this alleged account.
12.
The BBC Crimewatch McCann Special – 5 All in all, I did not consider this programme to have been a genuine investigative exercise. Once again, it seemed much more to do with influencing public perception.
13.
Constant leaks and unlikely stories I lost count of the procession of unlikely leads, suspects and stories, placed or leaked by Scotland Yard, which again was totally unlike any police investigation I have ever seen. Just from memory during 2012, 2013 and the early part of 2014 I can recall: (a) the dead, black tractor-driver from the Caper Verde Islands (b)M tales of burglars (c) six British men in a white van (d) an Ocean Club worker who might have had a second set of keys (e) a smelly bin man who had been approaching children in the early hours of the morning (f) more burglars (g) paedophiles who might have been in Praia da Luz I n2007, and so on. Once again, this appeared to me to be much more to do with influencing public perception and not with advancing a genuine investigation
14.
Playing to the gallery A constant procession of photo opportunities – especially around the activities of Operation Grange officers. Always, it seemed, the press and photographers had been briefed in advance as to where and when they could capture photographs that would look good in the British press; the police marching to meetings in Faro, for example, the one of boxes being collected from the offices of Metodo 3
How did a photographer happen to be there to capture that photo? [I was going to post it but can't fathom how to do it on here]
Finally, to those who think I am breaking a Court injunction or order by posting details of my petition about Operation Grange and answering questions about it, could you please give chapter and verse on any one of them you think I might be in beach of?
NUMBER OF PETITION SGNERS: >>> 1,552 https://petition.parliament.uk/petitions/108562
