Wandering Off Topic

[G-Unit]

So what do you call it when police deliberately ignore evidence that points towards one set of suspects?

Firstly I have no evidence telling me that anyone involved in Operation Grange had such evidence and ignored it. Secondly, I can imagine a scenario where officers believe that certain people have been eliminated from an investigation. According to A C Rowley he believed that was true;

"firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese"
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf

[Vertigo Swirl]

Firstly I have no evidence telling me that anyone involved in Operation Grange had such evidence and ignored it. Secondly, I can imagine a scenario where officers believe that certain people have been eliminated from an investigation. According to A C Rowley he believed that was true;

"firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese"
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf

You have claimed that Operation Grange would only investigate Madeleine's disappearance an an abduction.  This means that as far as you're concerned they have ignored all the evidence you think exists against the McCanns and would continue to ignore any new evidence against them should it surface because of the "remit".  Do you think the police investigators are brain dead automatons only carrying out orders from above who would simply turn a blind eye to new information pointing to McCann involvement?
 And these ones giving the orders - what possible reason could they have for (as far as you seem concerned) insisting that the remit only look at abduction to the exclusion of all other possibilities?  Surely you can see that what you seem to believe is Operation Grange is protecting the McCanns and is wilfully intent on ignoring anything that points to other scenarios than abduction.  What would we call this sort of police behaviour?

[Mr Gray]

Firstly I have no evidence telling me that anyone involved in Operation Grange had such evidence and ignored it. Secondly, I can imagine a scenario where officers believe that certain people have been eliminated from an investigation. According to A C Rowley he believed that was true;

"firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese"
http://findmadeleine.com/pdf/ac-rowley-transcript.pdf

You show your bias by not posting the full quote where he, says, we have had, a, look at all that and are happy... Etc.. Which suggests they've looked at, all the evidence and decided the mccanns are not involved

[Icanhandlethetruth]

You show your bias by not posting the full quote where he, says, we have had, a, look at all that and are happy... Etc.. Which suggests they've looked at, all the evidence and decided the mccanns are not involved

Which does suggest that the only investigation of parental involvement by Operation Grange was to look over the evidence provided in the PJ files and decide to not open that avenue of enquiry. Which is strange of itself as the PJ files seem to suggest some suspicion of the parents but no concrete evidence to further the Portuguese investigation.

[Vertigo Swirl]

You show your bias by not posting the full quote where he, says, we have had, a, look at all that and are happy... Etc.. Which suggests they've looked at, all the evidence and decided the mccanns are not involved

The relevant bits of Rowley's interview missed out by G-Unit

"We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was
all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of
investigation. The McCanns are parents of a missing girl, we are trying to get to the bottom of. In
terms of Andy using the word abduction, she was not old enough to set off and start her own life.
However she left that apartment, she has been abducted. It is not a 20-year-old who has gone
missing and who has made a decision to start a new life, this is a young girl who is missing and at the
heart of this has been an abduction"

"So when we started, we started five or so years into this and there is already a lot of ground
been covered, we don’t cover the same ground, what we do is pull all the material we had at the start,
all the Portuguese material, private detective material, with all the work that had been done, what that
evidence supports, what rules these lines of enquiry out, what keeps them open and you progress
forward. It would be no different if there were a cold case in London, a missing person from 1990, we
would go back to square one look at all the material and if the material was convincing it ruled out that
line of enquiry we would look somewhere else. So you reflect on the original material, you challenge
it, don’t take it at face value. You don’t restart an investigation pretending it doesn’t exist and do all
the same enquiries again that is not constructive"

"It’s a brand new investigation, you are going in with an open mind. You are not ignoring the
evidence in front of you. That would be a bizarre conclusion. You would look at that material, what
does it prove, what it doesn’t. What hypothesis does it open what does it close down and you work
your way through the case"

[Mr Gray]

Which does suggest that the only investigation of parental involvement by Operation Grange was to look over the evidence provided in the PJ files and decide to not open that avenue of enquiry. Which is strange of itself as the PJ files seem to suggest some suspicion of the parents but no concrete evidence to further the Portuguese investigation.

Not at all....Almeida who wrote the interim report said the main evidence against the McCanns was the alerts.
The mccanns also gave new ststements due to what they felt were mistakes in the initial ones .

So no real reason for suspicion just the pj didn't understand  the evidence

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Not at all....Almeida who wrote the interim report said the main evidence against the McCanns was the alerts.
The mccanns also gave new ststements due to what they felt were mistakes in the initial ones .

So no real reason for suspicion just the pj didn't understand  the evidence

If the impression you get from reading all the PJ files is that the conclusion is there is no room for suspicion on parental involvement in those files then at least one of us has a serious comprehension problem. Whether they understood the evidence( I believe they may have a better understanding than you think) or not, the gist of the PJ files is that some suspicion is placed on parental involvement, that can’t be denied. Or can it?

Almeida reportedly said that over 2 years later in the libel case to emphasise that the PJ investigators had suspicions that parental involvement was likely. So it kind of proves my point really.

[Vertigo Swirl]

So we have another taker for idea of Operation Grange deliberately turning a blind eye to "all" the evidence against the McCanns.  Can anyone posit a reason for this deliberate decision to protect the McCanns from further investigation?

[Mr Gray]

If the impression you get from reading all the PJ files is that the conclusion is there is no room for suspicion on parental involvement in those files then at least one of us has a serious comprehension problem. Whether they understood the evidence( I believe they may have a better understanding than you think) or not, the gist of the PJ files is that some suspicion is placed on parental involvement, that can’t be denied. Or can it?

Almeida reportedly said that over 2 years later in the libel case to emphasise that the PJ investigators had suspicions that parental involvement was likely. So it kind of proves my point really.

It proves my point too. The PJ we're relying on the alerts ss evidence... When they had been told they had no evidentisl value or reliability.. They thought 17 markerd was strong evidence of a match it wasn't.. They thought the inconsistencies in the statements were significant.. The way they took the statements invited mistakes.

Parents would always be suspects... But the evidence the PJ thought proved something  didn't.  You only have to read the proven facts in the libel trial to see they didn't understand... I think I have a far better understaing thst Amaral and his crew

[Icanhandlethetruth]

So we have another taker for idea of Operation Grange deliberately turning a blind eye to "all" the evidence against the McCanns.  Can anyone posit a reason for this deliberate decision to protect the McCanns from further investigation?

Who? name names.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

It proves my point too. The PJ we're relying on the alerts ss evidence... When they had been told they had no evidentisl value or reliability.. They thought 17 markerd was strong evidence of a match it wasn't.. They thought the inconsistencies in the statements were significant.. The way they took the statements invited mistakes.

Parents would always be suspects... But the evidence the PJ thought proved something  didn't.  You only have to read the proven facts in the libel trial to see they didn't understand... I think I have a far better understaing thst Amaral and his crew

The PJ didn't think the evidence proved anything. That's why they shelved the case, But what you seem to be denying is that the PJ concluded there was suspicion regarding the parents. I don't want to start again with dog alerts being evidence, you already agreed that they were on the other thread.

[Mr Gray]

The PJ didn't think the evidence proved anything. That's why they shelved the case, But what you seem to be denying is that the PJ concluded there was suspicion regarding the parents. I don't want to start again with dog alerts being evidence, you already agreed that they were on the other thread.

Amsral is on record as saying it did.. When the case was shelved the McCanns were no longer suspect's.
The alerts are not evidence... P d Carmo said the Mcs we're not suspects and there's no evidence against them
Imo.. SY simply had more sense and understanding and have the dame view as myself

[G-Unit]

You show your bias by not posting the full quote where he, says, we have had, a, look at all that and are happy... Etc.. Which suggests they've looked at, all the evidence and decided the mccanns are not involved

According to Commander Simon Foy, the first person to take charge of Operation Grange;

Foy: " it was perfectly clear to us, that the McCanns themselves had nothing, at all, to do with the actual disappearance of the child"
Interviewer: "why?"
Foy: Because, it was, it was just obvious, from, you know; that everything stacked up that they were, they were where they were when the child went missing"
Panorama 3rd May 2017 36:26 / 58:52
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6lrye9

What Foy didn't say was that the time when the child went missing wasn't definitely identified, it was assumed. He also didn't say that the only evidence of her parent's whereabouts was the evidence provided by themselves and their friends.

[Icanhandlethetruth]

Amsral is on record as saying it did.. When the case was shelved the McCanns were no longer suspect's.
The alerts are not evidence... P d Carmo said the Mcs we're not suspects and there's no evidence against them
Imo.. SY simply had more sense and understanding and have the dame view as myself

Amaral is not the PJ files.
Maybe so, not but that's not my point.
Alerts can be evidence, we both know that.
PD Carmo is not the PJ files.
Maybe they do, maybe Scotland Yard are the best of the best but they don’t seem to have got very far and I will be looking forward to reading the files when they are released. Do you think they will be as transparent as the PJ when they shelve the case.

My point is, from the interview with Mark Rowley, and I cut and paste here

MR: “Two points to that, firstly the involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese. We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation.”

That suggests that all that SY did was look at the PJ files and decide not to start or reopen the investigation into parental involvement. Is that enough?

[Vertigo Swirl]

According to Commander Simon Foy, the first person to take charge of Operation Grange;

Foy: " it was perfectly clear to us, that the McCanns themselves had nothing, at all, to do with the actual disappearance of the child"
Interviewer: "why?"
Foy: Because, it was, it was just obvious, from, you know; that everything stacked up that they were, they were where they were when the child went missing"
Panorama 3rd May 2017 36:26 / 58:52
https://www.dailymotion.com/video/x6lrye9

What Foy didn't say was that the time when the child went missing wasn't definitely identified, it was assumed. He also didn't say that the only evidence of her parent's whereabouts was the evidence provided by themselves and their friends.

Why isn’t the evidence of their friends good enough?  What about the Tapas staff too?