Top cop Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe says names of Maddie kidnappers are known

Panda wrote:What surprises me is that no Politician has publicly queried the expense of the SY investigation , especially with all the money needed for the Flood repairs, aid to Foreign Countries, improving the Health Service etc.

Lord Toby Harris is a Labour peer and thus qualifies as a politician. He frequently refers critically to the Met operation. For more info and interesting read such as below - simply Google Lord Toby Harris McCann.


http://www.lordtobyharris.org.uk/the-prime-ministers-instruction-to-the-metropolitan-police-to-review-madeleine-mccanns-death-is-in-breach-of-the-draft-protocol-that-is-supposed-to-protect-the-operational-independence-of-the-poli/

Thanks T4two......very interesting, who is going to be brave enough to challenge Cameron in the House of Commons though. No comment on the recent expense of FOUR SY Officers going to Portugal to deliver a letter.

The latest Poll shows Labour over 60 seats ahead, Cameron is a dead duck, will there be a Maggie Thatcher style removal of him before the Election? This is one of the comments, all in the same vein:-


'Geoff Stephenson

May 13th, 2011 at 18:49

The Metropolitan Police is for Londoners. It is not a personal police force for the Prime Minister to get headlines. It is not a police force for people from Leicester to challenge the efficiency of the Portuguese police.

Why should the taxpayers of Britain, or the council taxpayers of London, pay to investigate a crime committed in Portugal four years ago?

Geoff Stephenson

Chris wrote:So according to the Star the "suspects" dunnit.

Perhaps Hogan Howe should explain why the different lines of enquiry are hampering the investigation. From the reports to date the Portugese have two teams operating, one the SY liaison team and one the Porto investigators with the remit of the Portugal authorities following the reopening. How does what one team is pursuing hamper the other?

Radio Five host Nicky Campbell, 52, asked: “And you have lines of inquiry, you have suspects, you have names?’’

Sir Bernard, 56, replied: “That’s right.’’ Asked if detectives had “spoken to those people” the Met chief said: “I’m not going to go any further.’’

But he said the investigation was being hampered because Portuguese police were pursuing a different line of inquiry.

He repeated his call for both forces to unite for the sake of Madeleine’s parents Kate and Gerry, both 45.

The police chief said: “In the middle of all this quite often their torment gets lost.

“Have they lost a child by being murdered, sadly, or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them? Either way they have got that terrible uncertainty.”

====

He doesn't say they have names of suspects nor does the question call out what KIND of names they have just "You have names?"

We all have names and I'm sure Sy has names of one sort or another.

The other thing he says that is odd as I read it is: have they lost a child by being murdered or have they lost a child to SOMEONE ELSE stealing them?

So he is saying that it wasn't SOMEONE ELSE who did murder the child - who then is the someone, who is not someone ELSE who might have kidnapped her - who murdered her?

How did finding a child dead and hiding the body (Amaral's thesis) turn into murder? Is he saying someone came in and murdered her and then someone else stole her? Clearly if she was dead and her body removed, those two things would be connected ?

has the parents possible involvement in this turned to suspicion of murder? PJ weren't investigating a murder as far as I know - more negligence?

The way he states it, it is murder or kidnapping - not finding of death in a neglectful circumstance with body removal which is not good but a far cry from murder -

It is obvious he's calling out that the one line of inquiry is they themselves being responsible for the death - or at least that the someone responsible for the murder is not the same person responsible for the kidnapping or stealing.

The two investigations are not as described - or are they?

So - PJ are looking at a murder still, that is not of the same folks SY was allowed to look at (persons unknown, still, after 3 years) for kidnapping.

PJ looking at the parents or Others should not prevent Sy from looking at Someone Else stealing her.

The fact that the parents are supposedly tormented by not knowing if it's murder or kidnap seems to put them in the clear however it also leaves it open for the dogs to be right - death in 5A

so then whoever killed her, someone ELSE kidnapped her or removed her body, and not the parents.

Surely parents who found a murdered child would call the police - surely someone who found a dead body in the apt would get the hell out if they were there to burglarize the flat, and not remove the body.

This is the first time I have seen murder as an option.

I don't think it was murder, accidental death and a cover-up seems the likeliest. Had Madeleine died in 5a and the McCanns phoned for an Ambulance, when it was established that the Mccanns had left 3 children alone for hours every night their reputations would have been shattered and Gerry was being groomed for becoming an MP by the Labour Party.

widowan wrote:  The fact that the parents are supposedly tormented by not knowing if it's murder or kidnap seems to put them in the clear however it also leaves it open for the dogs to be right - death in 5A

so then whoever killed her, someone ELSE kidnapped her or removed her body, and not the parents.

Surely parents who found a murdered child would call the police - surely someone who found a dead body in the apt would get the hell out if they were there to burglarize the flat, and not remove the body.

This is the first time I have seen murder as an option.

Is it a fact, or merely Hogans-Howe's opinion?

I don't normally parse statements the way that some forensic folks do, because people do just shoot from the hip - or used to.

however Sir Bernard is surely having his statements vetted, due to the careful scrutiny under which the media, McCanns own media "monitor" and Carter Ruck put every statement so I doubt he would just say something that hadn't been vetted by one and all, to avoid just such entanglement.

There are two crimes, either or, clearly stated here and the implication is that PJ believe in the one - murder - and Sy in the other - or at least were put onto the case to investigate the other - ie kidnapping.

First off, I've never seen PJ say a thing about murder. So if he's trying to imply that that is their notion, he is either attempting to mislead the public OR he has some idea that the PJ actually DO believe this is a murder. Maybe they do, and Amaral was just hedging his bets so as not to be libelous.

I myself never rule anything out especially with the lying and misleading that has gone on in this case where you would hope parents would be nothing but helpful even if that meant putting themselves in harm's way for reputation damage, neglect etc.

If you know your child is out there alive and findable - or you HOPE so because the last time you saw her, only 90 minutes before disappearance - she was alive - you would not lie to police (and family = window smashed,shutters jimmied, checks made that SY has shown were not made, abductor seen that SY has shown was not an abductor) or try to mislead them nor force the police to go through hoops to question you and your pals, and have you reconstruct.

It's a possibility that the writer put this "ELSE" in the statement - or that Howe misspoke, simply bumbling a Freudian slip. But several papers have quoted him just the same way.

So Sy think it's either or. Or they want us to think it's either or. Since McCanns have never been accused of murder, you can apparently rule out the murder. Leaving the someone Else to have kidnapped her, which is the tact Sy is taking but PJ refuses to cooperate in. ?

Iirc the first person to mention murder was Kate McCann.
"The Portuguese don't want a murder on their hands so they're blaming us".
As early as 2007 too.

Murder was mentioned by Martin Brunt in a tweet a little while ago, then rapidly changed. Hogan Howe uses the word in this "interview". The Crimewatch reconstruction did not show an age progressed image of Madeleine. Nobody, parents or Redwood, spoke to the "burglarnapper" with an appeal to get in touch.

SY are not and have not been looking for a live child.

Madeleine's likely death cannot be described as death by burglary, or accidental. The accidental excuse left the building the minute they hid her body. Most burglars could not live with the death of a child on their hands, let alone be so forensically aware that they have evaded suspicion for 7 years. So it can be dressed up whatever way the pink team want to spin it, but if Madeleine is dead, she was indeed murdered, IMO.

I don't understand this Hogan Howe interview at all and find the whole thing very odd. Starting with the fact that he willingly appeared on radio, happy to discuss whatever might have been thrown at him by random callers.

Regarding Kate, it was she and Gerry who insisted on the South African with his machine going to PDL. His machine supposedly finds bodies, it does not find live people. That was July 2007. If she believed Madeleine was live at that point, why drag a man and his machine halfway across the world.

mossman wrote:Murder was mentioned by Martin Brunt in a tweet a little while ago, then rapidly changed.  Hogan Howe uses the word in this "interview".  The Crimewatch reconstruction did not show an age progressed image of Madeleine.  Nobody, parents or Redwood, spoke to the "burglarnapper" with an appeal to get in touch.

SY are not and have not been looking for a live child.  

Madeleine's likely death cannot be described as death by burglary, or accidental.  The accidental excuse left the building the minute they hid her body.  Most burglars could not live with the death of a child on their hands, let alone be so forensically aware that they have evaded suspicion for 7 years. So it can be dressed up whatever way the pink team want to spin it, but if Madeleine is dead, she was indeed murdered, IMO.

I don't understand this Hogan Howe interview at all and find the whole thing very odd.  Starting with the fact that he willingly appeared on radio, happy to discuss whatever might have been thrown at him by random callers.

Regarding Kate, it was she and Gerry who insisted on the South African with his machine going to PDL.  His machine supposedly finds bodies, it does not find live people.  That was July 2007.  If she believed Madeleine was live at that point, why drag a man and his machine halfway across the world.

I suspect that anything said by the British police will appear odd whereas statements by the Portuguese (when made) seem completely normal simply because the Portuguese police are behaving normally i.e. how the average person would expect an investigating police force to conduct an investigation whereas the British are not. There is something distinctly odd about Scotland Yard's persistent disregard of the facts and indicative evidence from the Portuguese investigation and their persuit of the fantom abductor created by the parents with the support of their friends, PR machine and the UK media.

I think the bringing in off the dead body finder was to play out to the world that Madeleine is alive.



They know full well this man can't find bodies with his so called machine and the not finding a body was to prove one thing......she's alive .



I mean, obviously if HE didn't find a body then she must be alive, must she.

[quote="T4two"
I suspect that anything said by the British police will appear odd whereas statements by the Portuguese (when made) seem completely normal simply because the Portuguese police are behaving normally i.e. how the average person would expect an investigating police force to conduct an investigation whereas the British are not. There is something distinctly odd about Scotland Yard's persistent disregard of the facts and indicative evidence from the Portuguese investigation and their persuit of the fantom abductor created by the parents with the support of their friends, PR machine and the UK media.[/quote]


Would I be considered insane to suggest they are doing this to avoid a media frenzy and shouts of unfair trial when they make arrests ?

And then in middle off July he goes to pdl.



In august the cadaver dogs arrive BUT it was mentioned I think end off may BRITISH police wanted them sent in early May.



 
Hobbies rock climbing, mountainbiking and mountaineering
 
Portuguese police turned down offer of dog help, 23 May 2007
 

Maddie hunt: Send in dogs The Sun
 
By Ian Hepburn and John Askill
Published: 23 May 2007
 
Stubborn Portuguese police chiefs are refusing to let the world's best sniffer dogs join the hunt for Madeleine McCann.
 
Senior British cops last night urged officers leading the inquiry to accept help from UK dog teams before it is too late.
 
Two dogs attached to Britain's National Policing Improvement Agency have developed such powerful tracking skills they can follow a scent for miles, even one up to 28 days old.
 
By sniffing an item of Maddie's clothing, they could trace a trail that might finally unlock the mystery of the four-year-old's disappearance.
 
Police in the Algarve appear no nearer to finding Maddie 20 days after she was snatched from her bed in the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz. But the sniffer dogs are still being snubbed.
 
A senior UK police source said: "It is an absolute scandal, time is fast running out for this little girl.
 
"These dogs have immense capability. Their tracking skills are among the finest in the world.
 
"The dogs were put on standby to go to the Algarve within days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
 
"You would expect the Portuguese to make use of the best resources available to them, but they repeatedly ignore the offers of assistance."
 
The dogs include a SPANIEL whose sense of smell is so keen she can sniff traces of BLOOD on a weapon even after it has been SCRUBBED CLEAN.
 
But the source warned: "They work most effectively within a 28-day time frame. After that the scent becomes much weaker."
 
Other British dog-handling teams did join the initial search for Maddie, and local cops later reported that dogs found a scent, but the trail was lost after 250 yards.

mossman wrote:[quote="T4two"
I suspect that anything said by the British police will appear odd whereas statements by the Portuguese (when made) seem completely normal simply because the Portuguese police are behaving normally i.e. how the average person would expect an investigating police force to conduct an investigation whereas the British are not. There is something distinctly odd about Scotland Yard's persistent disregard of the facts and indicative evidence from the Portuguese investigation and their persuit of the fantom abductor created by the parents with the support of their friends, PR machine and the UK media.

Would I be considered insane to suggest they are doing this to avoid a media frenzy and shouts of unfair trial when they make arrests ?[/quote]


Not insane - guilty of wishful thinking perhaps... IMO it's all too complicated. SY could have said nothing and just got on with the job - why make it all so complicated? To avoid a media frenzy and shouts of unfair trial? The instruments are already in place for the police, CPS or even Attorney General to rein in the media as they see fit. They don't need intricate charades.

I would just like to know on what grounds the Review turned into an Investigation. What evidence was used to persuade Cameron that Madeleine could be alive ? How strong was the feeling that the 38 'persons of interest' were worth investigating? If you were head of SY or PM , wouldn't you want to know what new evidence had been found to warrant a lengthy investigation?

It's like everyone is sleepwalking through this investigation .

When one considers whether or not to choose the PR/media route, it's important to remember that it's a runaway train and it'll be well nigh impossible to jump off again. All one can hope for is survival when it finally hits the buffers at speed.
Put yourself out in the MSM world as the Met have done, and you suddenly find that there are so many things you can't say. so what you end up saying are bunch of meaningless platitudes which lead those who want justice to wonder just where your head is.

Don't mention the war, the lies, the dogs, the murder. I mentioned it once, but I think I got away with it.

I'm one of those who thought that a brief, clinical update every few months on the Met press page would suffice.
Give out any more than that to a headline-hungry media, and not only are you informing the public but you're also informing Team McCann too. Too much information.
Enter Clarence Mitchell to seize upon every 'perhaps and maybe, dead or alive' you've uttered, embroidering it all with his extensive set of florid and gaudy sewing silks.
And then half the world thinks you're chasing (and forewarning) pervy Eastern European gypsy burglars.
That's one hell of a Faustian bargain you made, PR-wise.

He's a one way rider
On the shriek express
And his new best friend is at the throttle more or less
Steely Dan - Jack Of Speed

The article is now in the Belgian press too.

Is SY really made up of keystone cops? Britains' finest have become the laughing stock of the World. My American friend has taken a keen interest in this case because she saw the McCanns on the Oprah Winfrey Show, didn't beleive they are innocent and suggests Oprah was restrained in the questions she could ask but was not taken in by them.

There have been Police Forces around the World checking out these "sightings" on behalf of the British Police , they must wonder why one case has received so much attention.

I didn't realize this guy was babbling away on a radio show? This is very silly, how is SY allowing themselves to be pulled into the media frenzy rather than giving proper statements? Is that because as Cameron says this is a "special circumstance" them being involved at all, especially to this extent (years, £££)

That explains how he could say "murder" and also "somebody else" because he's just spit balling out there, trying to throw PJ under the bus for not working together - if In fact both sides have determined that McCanns are innocent of anything but the neglect, and the PJ is not actually (even secretly) pursuing any line to do with the parents then it makes more sense for them to work together even if these are two separate lines of investigation - into a death, call it what you will, in the flat via burglars or an abduction - both are looking for some outside agent and could be sharing information like those phone records.

I wonder how much SY is cooperating with PJ? That sword cuts on both sides, as far as who is not cooperating with whom =- all these little statements about how PJ isn't doing this or that is not what I'd be looking for in a partner.

Possibly a subtle note, but if Sir Bernard is talking about murder, then perhaps the fantasy that MM is off with the gypsies is being considered.

They can still have their Fund as so many wish to help "the family" regardless of MM's state or whereabouts but the word murder being tossed out does at least put what is the 95% likely possibility out there, that this child is no longer alive and findable - perhaps, after 3 years, setting some expectations.

PJ is looking at the evidence all of which points at the parents and nowhere else. SY is looking for evidence that points elsewhere but cannot find any. By making it up as they go along and spreading rumours through the media SY has placed itself firmly in the Dave Edgar league. Perhaps they have the same remit?

Blacksmiths latest is very interesting.

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.ie/

yes Mossman, I agree, very interesting. Bet SY know gives info to who to give to the press now, knowing but having it confirmed is another thing.

Monday, 24 February 2014




Some light, more shade




All right, a fraction more on the ups and downs between the two forces.

The "clear the air" meeting went ahead, without any airport photo shoots. The Yard did not confront the PJ accusing them of leaking a specific piece of information but were rather more genial: "are you sure that security [regarding the specific issue] is tight?" There was less tension between the two parties than we'd understood to be the case.

Mitchell did not invent the "three burglars" at the heart of all these shenanigans but repeated what he understood to be solid intelligence deriving from the Yard. It does come from the Yard and it is untrue. The fact that the McCanns clearly made no attempt to stop their bagman digging himself deeper with this fiction –whether it's a "play", rather than a cover story, is another matter – means, obviously, that they didn't know that it was a deliberate leak either, which tells us more or less all we need to know about how "in the loop" they are.

The rogatory letter requests do not involve burglars and there are more than three names on the list, none of them Portuguese. And two of them are women.

Make of that, if you think it's reliable, what you will. Two women rather suggest to us that it might be witnesses being named rather than suspects, but who knows?

When Mitchell reads the Bureau again and finally gets up to speed perhaps he'll start leaking that "it is understood" that one of them is the well-known sexy (right, Gerry), superyacht-owning (right, Gerry), baby-buyer from disturbed imagination land Barcelona.

I would say they are not in the loop - look at the McCann website shooting down SY's ID of Tannerman as an innocent tourist, look at the leaks - what's coming from TM or Clarence or what gets in the papers - however it gets there - is not helpful to the relationship between PJ and SY which ought to be paramount.

The notion of "murder" as one of the key lines of investigation is setting expectations that are realistic at least in terms of the likely situation of a live and findable child - whether because SY wants to excuse themselves from finding this live child or to cast aspersions on PJ who knows.

Waiting for the McCann website to rubbish this notion as "no one knows what happened" except Kate who does know that it happened under other circumstances, or whatever.