DAVID BRET, HIDEHO AND OTHERS .... THE WORST HATER TROLLS


    WHO LET HIM OUT OF THE ASYLUM?

    Share
    avatar
    Sykes

    Posts : 6831
    Join date : 2011-07-17

    WHO LET HIM OUT OF THE ASYLUM?

    Post  Sykes on Fri Mar 20, 2015 7:12 am

    Re: New DCI
    Post  Tony Bennett Today at 10:37 pm
    HelenMeg wrote:
    SOMEONE HAS TO STOP THIS FARCE.

    IT IS UNBELIEVABLE THAT IT HAS BEEN ALLOWED TO GO ON FOR 8 YEARS, LET ALONE COST IN EXCESS OF £10 MILLION. THERE IS NO WAY THE TRUTH WILL NOT 'COME OUT' AT SOME STAGE SO WHY PUSSY FOOT AROUND.

    DAVID CAMERON CAN PUT A STOP TO THIS ANY TIME HE CHOOSES.

    @ HelenMeg and @ All members of CMOMM

    Actually David Cameron can't stop this - he started it.

    I think the only people who can stop this farce, who can force an investigation into it - is, actually  US.

    By 'us', I mean me, you, other members of CMOMM, anyone else who knows, or thinks they know, enough about the case to be able to see that something is seriously, very seriously amiss with Operation Grange.

    Lots of posts here will do no good.

    But suppose every one of this forum's 4,000 members, tomorrow, e-mailed Dame Ann Owers, demanding action to investigate the conduct of Grange?

    The impact would be considerable.

    We can send letters to our MPs, the Home Office etc.

    All it takes is one short e-mail to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] demanding an investigation, and explaining precisely why, in your own words, an investigation is needed.

    Here's what 'Get 'em Goncalo' advised in a post only yesterday on the Opertation Grange thread:  

    QUOTE

    The e-mail address I gave -  enquiries@ipcc.gsi.gov.uk  - is the one to use for anyone who has a legitmate complaint about the actions of any police force or individual police officer. If you, for example, have good reasons for believing that any police officer involved in Operation Grange may have been guilty of misconduct, you can write at any time to that e-mail address, setting out the reasons for your concerns. It may be that your concerns about Grange differ from those expressed by the member of the public who contacted us. Don't let that stop you from sending an e-mail addressed to Dame Anne Owers explaining, in your own words, why you think there may have been misconduct in any aspect of Grange, either in the wording of the remit, or in their conduct over the past four years.

    UNQUOTE

    To succeed, you, me, us - we must take action
    Post Knitted Today at 2:57 am
    I agree... Since I am sick of the smell around this case the only way to possibly make any difference is to take responsibility and take action. Yes, if enough of us put fingers to keyboard who knows what the tipping point might be? Not wishing to sound too cheesy but "a single letter might just be a drop in the ocean... but what is an ocean but a multitude of drops?" Tonight I thought about how many keystrokes I had knowingly wasted by keep on badgering 'Universe' to answer my questions....and so the irony is that their 'shilling'(?) has inadvertently inspired me to draft the following:
    ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (via email to [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.])
    Dame Anne Owers
    Chairperson
    I.P.C.C.

    Complaint: Metropolitan Police Operation Grange

    Dear Dame Owers,

    I am taking the time to write to you to formally complain against, and raise my long held concerns relating to, the Metropolitan Police Service’s Operation Grange. As you will no doubt know this team is reviewing evidence into the disappearance of Madeleine Beth McCann whilst holidaying with her parents in Praia de Luz, Portugal, in 2007.

    My complaint relates to the fact that Operation Grange’s remit of

       “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.” [unquote], is a biased scope that excluded the consideration of alternative scenarios.

       Having read translations of the original Polícia Judiciária (Portuguese Judicial Police) case files that are now in the public domain it is my strongly held, and informed, belief that a meaningful review into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance has to consider other, non-abduction, scenarios. Since it does not, it appears that the remit of the review, for some unknown reason, runs counter to the spirit embodied in Part 2 [Criminal Investigations], Section 23 –(1), Paragraph (a) of the Criminal Procedure and Investigations Act 1996 (i.e. that in an investigation that “all reasonable lines of enquiry are pursued”).

       You may not be familiar with key details of the case. Therefore I shall present below a very small subset of facts that support my complaint that Operation Grange's remit of 'an abduction' is too narrow. These are:

       The claim of an abduction appears to have originated from Madeleine’s parents. However, no evidence was, or has subsequently been, found to support an abduction
       Details relating to events of that evening, given in the original police statements made by Madeleine’s parents and their party of holidaymakers were changed in later statements. The changes could be considered as having the appearance of ‘back-fitting’ to align earlier contradictions
       Two specialist, highly trained, scent dogs from South Yorkshire Police (whose services had been used internationally) were deployed; one was trained to find Human cadaver odour and the other for Human fluids/blood. Both had impeccable (international) track records and both ‘alerted’ to their respective scents in the McCann’s apartment and on certain other items owned or used by the parents. No evidence has been found of any prior fatality in the McCann apartment but strongly suggests that a dead corpse must have been in situ for a c.3hrs for cadaver odour to be emitted.
       UK Home Office data shows >60% of murdered Under 16s were killed by a parent [source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Furthermore, around 20% of children under 5 were found to have been murdered by male family acquaintances. Thus >80% of convictions relating to the murder of a child of Madeleine’s age were of either the child's parents or of a male acquaintance. Indeed murders by strangers are the exception, not the rule.
       A statement given to Leicestershire Police on the 16th May 2007 by Dr. Katherina Zacharius Gaspar alleges that she witnessed a conversation the previous year between Dr. Gerry McCann and Dr. David Payne, relating to Madeleine, that contained sexually suggestive gestures that she considered to be consistent with acts of paedophilia. Note: This statement was not passed to the Polícia Judiciária by Leicestershire Police until the 24th October 2007. No explanation for the 5 month delay in forwarding this statement has, to my knowledge, been forthcoming.

       The above points are but a small sample of the information that supports any complaint that the narrow ‘abduction’ remit for Operation Grange is prejudicial in that it denied a fair investigation of potential other scenarios and/or suspects involved in a child's disappearance. I am not, of course, suggesting any involvement by Madeleine’s parents, or her parents’ acquaintances. I am simply highlighting the complete inappropriateness of constraining Operation Grange’s scope to reviewing the case as if it was ‘..an abduction…’. I trust, given the above facts, that the IPCC would agree that it would be reasonable to have expected alternative scenarios to be not be excluded from Operation Grange's narrow remit. The fact only 'an abduction' appears to be in scope of the review should be a matter of concern.

       I did not wish to raise the complaint directly with the Metropolitan Police Service (as per the instructions on your website) as I note that my complaint would not then be logged with yourselves. I therefore am hoping that the IPCC will log this complaint themselves and be able to respond:

       (i) On whether the remit of Operation Grange was and/or remains, limited to solely looking at an abduction scenario?
       (ii) And if the answer to (i) is affirmative, then may I request that the IPCC investigate how this prejudicial remit was allowed to happen

       I look forward to receiving your response.

       Yours faithfully,

       *********
       ********

       ---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    (I'll be emailing it off tomorrow after I've zzZZZ'd and re-read it and made a few tweaks... I'll probably cc my MP in as well for good measure).
    Tony Bennett Today at 8:02 am

    BlueBag wrote:That, my dear Knitted, is a great letter.

    I shall be sending one.

    Campaigning point

    After all these letters have been sent, I will ask the IPCC via a Freedom of Information Act request how many letters she has had asking for the IPCC to investigate Operation Grange.

    She will have to answer.


    _________________
    Truth is the Daughter of Time

      Current date/time is Mon Oct 23, 2017 3:22 am