Leveson again/Blacksmith

Annabel

Many thanks for this link to Blacksmith at his best!

Don't give up at the first part of his foray into the Leveson thing yet again - read on - it's very enlightening.

One thing I will say is his "reading" of Yates is odd. For me Yates is one very clever chap! It's what he doesn't show you/tell you thats important.

I am "bumping this up" with the relevant bit about the McCanns:

And them

Now, turning to our limited-view perspective and looking at these matters from the Madeleine McCann angle, did we learn anything?

Yes, a little. An apparently rather esoteric debate in Leveson as to the role of evidence led to some interesting insights into police operations that came as a surprise not only to the audience but to all the lawyers at the inquiry, from Leveson down. It has particular relevance to those followers of the case who have expressed repeated mystification at the police willingness to accept the innocence of the McCanns despite suggestive circumstantial evidence regarding their veracity. To Clarke, Hayman and Yates, reflecting orthodox police operational doctrine, “evidence”, when evaluating a possible criminal investigation, means evidence that will “stand up in court” and excludes circumstantial or inferential evidence. And unless such evidence is available or likely before a formal investigation begins the police are likely to be uninterested in proceeding.

The inquiry found this difficult to accept because, apart from anything else, it raises the question of how the hell any inquiry ever gets started. The police witnesses however were clear: first of all it was a resource question – we need “evidence” in advance to justify committing limited resources. Secondly the police want bags of the stuff before they will consider interviewing suspects. Clarke said, “we don’t like to question people unless we hold the cards”, that is a mass of solid evidence already in reserve to ensure that in interrogations the police will always hold the initiative.

So any question of hauling people in for questioning as an exploratory move is out: the police don’t work that way. Implicit in this “holding all the cards” view is that potential suspects should have no warning of any kind that they are to be questioned until the last possible moment. Readers will note that this doctrine, which seems to apply to CID investigations across all UK forces, differs from that of the Portuguese criminal police.

So there we are, one possible reason why UK police have never questioned the Nine as part of their inquiries. How it pans out in the context of the Yard inquiry – which has no resource constraints – remains to be seen.

This operational information also throws a little light on the rogatory interviews, which fall into a rather special category. They were being undertaken at the request of the Portuguese authorities and not because the UK police had enough evidence to interrogate them from a position of strength. The transcripts of the interviews, however, reek of knowledge that the police do have – the details of the surveillance van operation, for example, or a certain interest in tennis bags – but this knowledge is deliberately kept under wraps and manifestly not used to trip them up or catch them out.

The Bureau has always believed that this was because of limitations laid down when the interviews were authorised and this probably remains a factor. From the operational insights we have gathered this week, however, it seems clear we have an answer to the baffled “why didn’t they explore this bit further”, “why did they go so easy on them” questions heard so frequently on the internet: Leicester police were clearly determined not to let any of the Tapas group know just what information they do have. Not at that stage. That would imply that they saw at least some of them as potential suspects, not, as they told the group time after time, as mere “significant witnesses”.

Confronting Jane Tanner with certain statements of officer Bob Small, for example, about the surveillance van episode would have let her –and two friends of hers – know exactly how extensive their knowledge was and, obviously assist them in their defence. Instead they let Tanner fumble around trying to gear her answers to what she thought they might know, saying a great deal about herself in the process while discovering almost nothing about what her questioners knew.

Such nice, helpful policemen!  It fits in exactly with what the Yard officers have been letting slip this week about their modus operandi. And the latter makes complete sense of the persistent Leicester police refusal to let the McCanns anywhere near their case files. Forget the “Dear Stu” and “Dear Jane” charade and watch what they do not what they say.  If ever we’re ready you won’t have to come looking for us...

All in all a good and encouraging week.

Matt Baggott is up first thing tomorrow.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2010/01/mccann-they-will-never-give-up.html

http://www.thisisleicestershire.co.uk/Police-chief-leaving-heavy-heart/story-12033097-detail/story.html

I always felt the rogatory interviews were very guarded, allowing the interviewee all the time in the world to attempt to explain away the finest details, which of course they did, or thought they had done, but definetely it is what the police have not asked that they must now be wary of and I have no doubt the explanations already offered up by the friends will have been scrutinized in readiness for future questioning.

The call me Stu thing is quite normal I feel. A good copper will always want to appear to put you at ease, will always want to appear to be on your side really and the more you are at ease with someone the more you may open up to them. The Portuguese tried it and the McCanns even went to dine with their Liason Support Officer. Just look at how the McCanns view this Officer now, just read the vehmonous words that Kate wrote about him in her book. Had Kate found herself opening up to him? Yes, I think she almost did until Gerry had to rudely remind her to be careful what she says. She had been telling this Officer of her dream and I believe Gerry was most upset at Kate's ramblings.

I certainly believe that Leicestershire cops knew what they were doing and it is certainly right that the cops never drag people in for questioning unless they feel they are holding all the cards.

Unfortunately the PJ were far to soft in their initial questioning of the McCanns and the Tapas 7 and Leicestershire Police were very unprofessional (IMO) and didn't ask all the questions requested by the PJ.

Angelique wrote:I am "bumping this up" with the relevant bit about the McCanns:

And them

Now, turning to our limited-view perspective and looking at these matters from the Madeleine McCann angle, did we learn anything?

Yes, a little. An apparently rather esoteric debate in Leveson as to the role of evidence led to some interesting insights into police operations that came as a surprise not only to the audience but to all the lawyers at the inquiry, from Leveson down. It has particular relevance to those followers of the case who have expressed repeated mystification at the police willingness to accept the innocence of the McCanns despite suggestive circumstantial evidence regarding their veracity. To Clarke, Hayman and Yates, reflecting orthodox police operational doctrine, “evidence”, when evaluating a possible criminal investigation, means evidence that will “stand up in court” and excludes circumstantial or inferential evidence. And unless such evidence is available or likely before a formal investigation begins the police are likely to be uninterested in proceeding.

The inquiry found this difficult to accept because, apart from anything else, it raises the question of how the hell any inquiry ever gets started. The police witnesses however were clear: first of all it was a resource question – we need “evidence” in advance to justify committing limited resources. Secondly the police want bags of the stuff before they will consider interviewing suspects. Clarke said, “we don’t like to question people unless we hold the cards”, that is a mass of solid evidence already in reserve to ensure that in interrogations the police will always hold the initiative.

So any question of hauling people in for questioning as an exploratory move is out: the police don’t work that way. Implicit in this “holding all the cards” view is that potential suspects should have no warning of any kind that they are to be questioned until the last possible moment. Readers will note that this doctrine, which seems to apply to CID investigations across all UK forces, differs from that of the Portuguese criminal police.

So there we are, one possible reason why UK police have never questioned the Nine as part of their inquiries. How it pans out in the context of the Yard inquiry – which has no resource constraints – remains to be seen.

This operational information also throws a little light on the rogatory interviews, which fall into a rather special category. They were being undertaken at the request of the Portuguese authorities and not because the UK police had enough evidence to interrogate them from a position of strength. The transcripts of the interviews, however, reek of knowledge that the police do have – the details of the surveillance van operation, for example, or a certain interest in tennis bags – but this knowledge is deliberately kept under wraps and manifestly not used to trip them up or catch them out.

The Bureau has always believed that this was because of limitations laid down when the interviews were authorised and this probably remains a factor. From the operational insights we have gathered this week, however, it seems clear we have an answer to the baffled “why didn’t they explore this bit further”, “why did they go so easy on them” questions heard so frequently on the internet: Leicester police were clearly determined not to let any of the Tapas group know just what information they do have. Not at that stage. That would imply that they saw at least some of them as potential suspects, not, as they told the group time after time, as mere “significant witnesses”.

Confronting Jane Tanner with certain statements of officer Bob Small, for example, about the surveillance van episode would have let her –and two friends of hers – know exactly how extensive their knowledge was and, obviously assist them in their defence. Instead they let Tanner fumble around trying to gear her answers to what she thought they might know, saying a great deal about herself in the process while discovering almost nothing about what her questioners knew.

Such nice, helpful policemen!  It fits in exactly with what the Yard officers have been letting slip this week about their modus operandi. And the latter makes complete sense of the persistent Leicester police refusal to let the McCanns anywhere near their case files. Forget the “Dear Stu” and “Dear Jane” charade and watch what they do not what they say.  If ever we’re ready you won’t have to come looking for us...

All in all a good and encouraging week.

Agreed!
I don't think all is lost, far from it. I think a snowball has been set rolling down a very long hill - it'll hit the bottom much larger - the point is, when?
Remember Amaral's wise words - "Justice works in silence" - I totally agree.

Team McCann's (non)-reaction is very telling too imo. Where is the fanfare? Where is the public letter via The Sun to 'call me Dave' thanking him for this 'great step forward'?
I wonder if K+G jump every time there is a knock at the door now (and do they need a change of undergarments each time too)?

Maybe they are well supplied with Bicycle Clips?