Petition re Madeleine McCann on Prime Minister's website

[stephen25000]

Some people need reminding that the cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown, regardless of the 'abduction bluster'.

[blonk]

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?

I can answer exactly how that works in practice from my personal experience of representing Les Balkwell, father of Lee Balkwell, over the past 9 years. Lee was killed on 18 July 2002 and Essex Police immediately declared that this was no more than 'tragic accident'. Les has been challenging that assessment for over 13 years.

The day after Les first set up his website - 6 July 2006 - in which he made 22 specific allegations of misconduct against several senior police officers, the then Head of Professional Standards told him that he was going to get a new, independent Senior Investigating Officer, brought in specially from the Met, to undertake a 'compete investigative review of everything on the case'. Something like 'drawing everything back to zero'.

Only years later was he informed that the SIO - DCS Keith Garnish - had been specifically instructed by his superiors only to investigate the 22 allegations made by Les, and nothing more.

Then again, in 2010, as a result of the Independent Police Complaints Commission agreeing with Les that the original investigation was 'seriously flawed', Les was offered a 'full re-investigation' by Kent Police. However, only in late 2013 did Les discover that Essex Police had limited the remit in a number of ways - including 'not to investigate any issue that arose after the time of death on 18 July 2002'. This had the effect of ruling out all manner of lines of enquiry, such as a credible allegation that two police officers had tampered with the lorry after the date of death, to support the accident scenario.

Senior Investigating Officers and all their staff MUST obey their remit, which can however be altered from above. Moreover, it is potentially a serious disciplinary offence for any officer to step outside his/her remit.

We have no evidence whatsoever that the remit of Operation Grange was altered after they eventually announced on 4 January 2012 what it was.                   

   

[Mr Gray]

I can answer exactly how that works in practice from my personal experience of representing Les Balkwell, father of Lee Balkwell, over the past 9 years. Lee was killed on 18 July 2002 and Essex Police immediately declared that this was no more than 'tragic accident'. Les has been challenging that assessment for over 13 years.

The day after Les first set up his website - 6 July 2006 - in which he made 22 specific allegations of misconduct against several senior police officers, the then Head of Professional Standards told him that he was going to get a new, independent Senior Investigating Officer, brought in specially from the Met, to undertake a 'compete investigative review of everything on the case'. Something like 'drawing everything back to zero'.

Only years later was he informed that the SIO - DCS Keith Garnish - had been specifically instructed by his superiors only to investigate the 22 allegations made by Les, and nothing more.

Then again, in 2010, as a result of the Independent Police Complaints Commission agreeing with Les that the original investigation was 'seriously flawed', Les was offered a 'full re-investigation' by Kent Police. However, only in late 2013 did Les discover that Essex Police had limited the remit in a number of ways - including 'not to investigate any issue that arose after the time of death on 18 July 2002'. This had the effect of ruling out all manner of lines of enquiry, such as a credible allegation that two police officers had tampered with the lorry after the date of death, to support the accident scenario.

Senior Investigating Officers and all their staff MUST obey their remit, which can however be altered from above. Moreover, it is potentially a serious disciplinary offence for any officer to step outside his/her remit.

We have no evidence whatsoever that the remit of Operation Grange was altered after they eventually announced on 4 January 2012 what it was.                   

   

I am sure you would agree that a remit would and could not be drawn up without looking at the evidence of case. You cannot simply quote one case wher ethe police got it wrong and then assume others are wrong...you need more than that

[Eleanor]

Stick to The Topic, please.  We are not here to discuss Lee Balkwell.

[Mr Gray]

Some people need reminding that the cause of Madeleine's disappearance remains unknown, regardless of the 'abduction bluster'.

it seems you need reminding I have answered that many times

[Mr Gray]

I can answer exactly how that works in practice from my personal experience of representing Les Balkwell, father of Lee Balkwell, over the past 9 years. Lee was killed on 18 July 2002 and Essex Police immediately declared that this was no more than 'tragic accident'. Les has been challenging that assessment for over 13 years.

The day after Les first set up his website - 6 July 2006 - in which he made 22 specific allegations of misconduct against several senior police officers, the then Head of Professional Standards told him that he was going to get a new, independent Senior Investigating Officer, brought in specially from the Met, to undertake a 'compete investigative review of everything on the case'. Something like 'drawing everything back to zero'.

Only years later was he informed that the SIO - DCS Keith Garnish - had been specifically instructed by his superiors only to investigate the 22 allegations made by Les, and nothing more.

Then again, in 2010, as a result of the Independent Police Complaints Commission agreeing with Les that the original investigation was 'seriously flawed', Les was offered a 'full re-investigation' by Kent Police. However, only in late 2013 did Les discover that Essex Police had limited the remit in a number of ways - including 'not to investigate any issue that arose after the time of death on 18 July 2002'. This had the effect of ruling out all manner of lines of enquiry, such as a credible allegation that two police officers had tampered with the lorry after the date of death, to support the accident scenario.

Senior Investigating Officers and all their staff MUST obey their remit, which can however be altered from above. Moreover, it is potentially a serious disciplinary offence for any officer to step outside his/her remit.

We have no evidence whatsoever that the remit of Operation Grange was altered after they eventually announced on 4 January 2012 what it was.                   

   

investigating an abduction and finding that an abduction is not possible and that something else happened is not stepping outside of a remit

[blonk]

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

This recent article (and the detailed Home Office report on which it is based)  - about the existence of 2,000-plus corrupt police officers and a web of state agency corruption - is a good starting point:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798182/at-2-000-corrupt-police-officers-suspected-tipping-criminals-stealing-fabricating-evidence-using-power-money-sex-says-home-office-report.html

[Mr Gray]

This recent article (and the detailed Home Office report on which it is based)  - about the existence of 2,000-plus corrupt police officers and a web of state agency corruption - is a good starting point:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798182/at-2-000-corrupt-police-officers-suspected-tipping-criminals-stealing-fabricating-evidence-using-power-money-sex-says-home-office-report.html

no it isn't a good starting point.......in order to assess SY as  police force you would need to compare them to other police forces in other countries...we know the PJ were regularly featured on Amnesty Int website relating to torture..SY were not...

Evewryday patients die within the NHS ...sometimes due to doctor error...that does not amke the whole NHS substandard

[Mr Gray]

This recent article (and the detailed Home Office report on which it is based)  - about the existence of 2,000-plus corrupt police officers and a web of state agency corruption - is a good starting point:

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2798182/at-2-000-corrupt-police-officers-suspected-tipping-criminals-stealing-fabricating-evidence-using-power-money-sex-says-home-office-report.html

the article you quoted claims that up to 1% of officers are corrupt,,,that means 99% are not...do you see the false picture you are trying to create

[stephen25000]

... and there is no evidence to support whether she was or was not abducted.


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/07/madeleine-mccann-is-missing-person.html

[G-Unit]

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.

I would imagine a police team works much like an accounts team. In a large company the accounts team input information into an accounting system; reciepts, payments, bank balances, assets. None of them can see the big picture. None of them can calculate the net worth of the company from the information they can access. None of them can decide which direction the company needs to take in the future.

Now imagine a team of policemen inputting into HOLMES. They are in the same position as an accounts assistant. They don't have the overall picture.

In both cases a very small amount of people can see the whole picture and decide which direction they wish to move in next, or how to interpret the information they have.

We have been told that the team was investigating an abduction, so that would be the direction they were taking.
To 'forensically examine' the timeline they had to take the group's statements at face value because there were no independent witnesses. They appear to have done that.

No-one has ever declared that they had 'ruled out' anyone. They declared certain people were not suspects or persons of interest, that's all. They didn't say why, but they could have done.

[G-Unit]

no it isn't a good starting point.......in order to assess SY as  police force you would need to compare them to other police forces in other countries...we know the PJ were regularly featured on Amnesty Int website relating to torture..SY were not...

Evewryday patients die within the NHS ...sometimes due to doctor error...that does not amke the whole NHS substandard

Apparently more patients die from human error than any other cause.

[Carana]

... and there is no evidence to support whether she was or was not abducted.


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/07/madeleine-mccann-is-missing-person.html

That is dated 14 Dec 2009. The scoping exercise wasn't concluded until sometime in March 2010.

[Angelo222]

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

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

I think you'll find that Kerry Needham answered all the police questions but Kate McCann didn't whilst not realising that her every response or lack of it would later be reported for all the world to see.

[stephen25000]

That is dated 14 Dec 2009. The scoping exercise wasn't concluded until sometime in March 2010.

The basic facts remains.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3k5Q7QZNfFA

and the mccanns, unable to answer the question, 'what evidence do you have there was an abduction  ? '