Role Reversal
Actually Rubbish
Buried Treasure
Just Desserts
The Little Shop of Horrors
Shutter Island
Killing Time – 13.06.2014
FROM SKY News correspondent Tom Parmenter, with a ringside seat at the oracle, Praia da Luz, we first heard that Scotland Yard had 'refused to reveal what intelligence led them to the search areas or to give any updates on their progress.'
The progressive geophysical distribution of the different dig sites itself indicated that 'intelligence' was not the trigger for the excavations' taking place at all.
We have since been told that:
'This is the police moving through their investigation, almost perhaps going through a list, ticking them off as they go through. What that list is based on...the intelligence that they have gathered over the course of the past year, or so, looking again into this disappearance of Madeleine McCann'.
What that list is based on...God only knows.
However, now that said activity has been officially wound up, for the time being at least, we have an official explanation for it at least:
"The decision to search the 'horse shoe' shaped piece of waste ground to the west of Praia da Luz and other sites was as a specific result of the UK’s investigation work to date".
So not based upon 'intelligence' per se, as an anonymous local resident clearly guessed and wryly observed (in red paint).
We have also been treated to another deluge of numbers, no doubt for the joint purposes of reassurance and statistical comparison (see: All The Premier's Men – McCannfiles, 29.4.2014). Most significantly however we are told in conclusion that:
"There is still a substantial amount of work yet to be completed in the coming weeks and months, which again should be viewed as no more than normal operational activity in a case of this size and complexity. This recent work is part of ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner and covers just the one hypothesis that she was killed and buried locally".
Jolly good. Operational standards were apparently observed in carrying out the tasks in question, so everyone could go home happy, and those with unwavering faith in the system could be satisfied that 'part one' was accomplished satisfactorily and in complete accordance with expectations (as if the crime were committed in the UK).
Unfortunately the 'Met' have just dropped a stitch, and now there is every chance that, three years and a few million drinking vouchers later, Operation Grange will soon assume the same status as Operation Market Garden – a heroic failure (something the British are lamentably better at than football).
'How is it possible to be so pessimistic?' you ask.
Well let's examine the announcement that all this digging, the exact purpose of which was kept a closely guarded secret at the outset, covered 'just the one hypothesis', that Madeleine McCann 'was killed and buried locally'.
With no specific purpose, only optimistic expectation, the gamble was clearly that Madeleine's remains, or something of significant relevance to her disappearance, would be discovered, either of which outcomes could be used in support of the 'one hypothesis' in question. Otherwise what, exactly, does Scotland Yard base its hypothesis on? The McCanns have been quick to publish (via their spokesperson, which makes it all the more solid) a 'sigh of relief' statement on learning that the BEF is returning home:
"We are very pleased that significant activity has taken place in Praia da Luz over the last 10 days with police officers and support teams from the UK working closely with the Policia Judiciaria and the Guarda Nacional Republicana.
"We are further encouraged that despite the intensive searches, no trace of Madeleine has been found and this reinforces our belief that she could still be alive".
We are further encouraged that despite the intensive searches, no trace of Madeleine has been found.
You bet!
What parent in the world could possibly be 'encouraged' to learn that no trace of their missing child had been found? (Oh, hang on. There is one couple...).
(Does anyone remember reading a similarly gushing 'official statement' along the lines of, "We are very pleased that significant activity is to take place in Praia da Luz over the coming days with police officers and support teams from the UK working closely with the Policia Judiciaria and the Guarda Nacional Republicana"? I think I missed it.)
And that, dear reader, is where the absurdity of Operation Grange 'doing exactly what it says on the remit tin' is revealed, the McCann reaction to the expedition's failure being the 'shadow' that, although shy in terms of dimensionality, reflects the reality of the situation nevertheless.
With the revelatory discovery of 'Tannerman', Jane Tanner was exonerated and abduction became feasible at least. It took the McCanns a little while to figure out that Rip Van Tannerman's coming forward after six years was about as likely as Madeleine herself doing so but, following a modest hiatus, they soon reverted to plan A, confident that there would be no repercussions from 'The Yard'. Their insecurity over the more recent evidential escapade will have stemmed not from their knowing the intentions of the investigators, but from their not knowing what might have been deposited in or around Praia da Luz by others on their behalf, whether explicitly sanctioned or otherwise (it only takes one loose canon). But now they have been given the 'all clear' from 'the Yard' once more and it's 'business as usual' thank you very much.
That is not the crux of the matter however.
Despite DCI Redwood's apparent enthusiasm, the McCanns, and, it must be said, a great many others, couldn't quite bring themselves to accept 'Tannerman' into evidence, so to speak. All the while he might prove somewhat reluctant, shall we say, to answer a court subpoena, one could reasonably proceed on the basis of less than absolute confidence in this 'evidence' that Jane Tanner was genuinely mistaken. Now too, and no doubt to the Yard's chagrin, there is (you've guessed it) 'no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm'.
This is not to say that DCI Redwood and co. are deliberately setting out to do the McCanns a favour, but the inevitable result of their misguided approach to the whole puzzle is exactly that.
With no evidence to speak of in support of this one hypothesis (that Madeleine was killed and buried locally) Operation Grange have now saddled themselves with some unwanted luggage, in that they have now to continue 'ensuring that all lines of enquiry are progressed in a systematic manner' and in relation to other hypotheses, however implausible.
All lines of enquiry. Which must surely include the possibility that Madeleine was killed locally but buried at a more distant location, or removed (kicking and screaming?) some distance, then killed and buried. How are they going to test that one – excavate the whole of Portugal? (there is a veritable raft of complications attaching to any idea that Madeleine was extracted from apartment 5A then buried near or far – enough to warrant a separate discussion). Perhaps she was not killed at all, but sold to some passing Sheikh to feature in a video production (like the one entertained by Leicester Police, even though it existed before Madeleine's supposed abduction). There is no evidence that Madeleine has come to harm remember.
In adopting the strategy they have, the Metropolitan Police have opened up two very serious areas of concern. First, with their hopes dashed and nothing now to evidence the fact that Madeleine McCann is dead, on what did they base their supposition of her death in the first place? Second 'all lines of enquiry' being opened up once more, exactly how many of them can Operation Grange exhaust before DCI Redwood, and no doubt various of his more experienced 'Maddie' team members, retires?
As to the first of these questions, there is of course one very obvious answer, but this being 'multiple-choice' it is extremely unlikely that the Grange strategists would want to go there, any more than did Jim Gamble during his recent interview (The JVS Show phone-in on BBC Three Counties Radio, 15 May). Ironically, yet predictably, their failure to uncover confirmatory evidence for their own act of faith has dropped them straight into the bucket they were instructed to avoid at the outset. The bottom line is that Operation Grange, having ploughed the soil, is now between a rock and a hard place, irrespective of whatever activity they might have planned for the future.
At this stage it looks very much as if the operation is destined to conclude, before the year is out and Redwood retired, that Madeleine McCann is simply 'missing, whereabouts unknown' (and don't you dare accuse us of a 'whitewash', because all of the investigative procedures were followed to the letter and 'best practice' observed in accordance with standards as laid down – we have the statistics to prove it).
The Art of the Possible – 25.06.2014
From the report of Mark Harrison, NPIA (submitted 23.7.2007, restricted 21.8.2007)
Processo Vol IX Pages 2224 to 2234
McCann's Apartment
"The apartment in which the McCann's had stayed may present further opportunities to search. The use of a specialist EVRD (Enhanced Victim Recovery Dog) and CSI dog (Human blood detecting dog) could potentially indicate on whether Madeline's (sic) blood is in the property or the scent of a dead body is present. In relation to the dead body scent if such a scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed. This search process could be repeated in all the apartments that were occupied by the friends holidaying with the McCann's".
From the witness testimony of Mark Harrison
LEICESTERSHIRE POLICE SQUAD
Occupation: Police Agent
(Cartas Rogarorias 3, pages 19-20)
"This statement, consisting of two pages, each signed by me, is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and I make it knowing that, if it is tendered in evidence, I shall be liable to prosecution if I have wilfully stated in it anything I know to be false or do not believe to be true".
Date: 2 May 2008
4. In this particular case, based on the information and on your experience, what is the possibility that a cadaver was concealed?
"To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment".
In late July 2007 therefore, and on the basis of his personal knowledge and experience, Mark Harrison advises the PJ to deploy an EVRD as "If (such a) scent is indicated by the EVRD and no body is located it may suggest that a body has been in the property but removed".
The removal of a body from the apartment therefore becomes a possibility.
Dog handler Martin Grime's searches were conducted and concluded that first week in August, 2007. Subsequently Mark Harrison personally attended a meeting at which the filmed outcomes were reviewed by investigators, as he stated in his evidence given in answer to question 3 of the same Rogatory request:
"After the conclusion of the searches, a meeting in the Portimao offices of the PJ took place in the office of Goncalo AMARAL and those present included Guilermino ENCARNACO, an official representative from the Leicestershire police, Martin GRIME and myself. During the meeting were exhibited videos with the details of search activities including the sniffer dogs led by Martin GRIME. GRIME commented on the actions of the dogs and added that no confirmed evidence or information could be taken from the alerts by the dogs but needed to be confirmed with physical evidence".
All parties in attendance at that meeting, including Mark Harrison, were afterwards in possession of unconfirmed information. They were not entirely bereft of information however.
And yet, within a matter of months, Mark Harrison feels he has to answer question 4 with: 'To this question I am not in possession of any information or sufficient knowledge to comment'.
I beg to differ. The question did not call for a definitive conclusion but an opinion as regards a 'possibility', the same possibility in fact that encouraged Mark Harrison to propose the deployment of an EVRD in the first instance. Furthermore the possibility arises as a direct consequence of the behaviour of the EVRD. 'Confirmation', resulting from the subsequent activities of the CSI dog, merely raises the status of likelihood, from possible to probable/certain depending upon the outcome of forensic examination of any residues retrieved from the scene.
Why did Mark Harrison become evasive in the interim? Did the removal of a corpse from apartment 5A cease to be a possibility for some reason?
The initial report by the FSS (6 September 2007) concerning samples submitted for analysis following the CSI dog's indication toward the tiled floor area of apartment 5A were largely inconclusive:
"An attempt to obtain an LCN DNA result from any cellular material on the swabs from the tiles 286/2007 CR/L 5 stains 1, 2 & 3 were unsuccessful in that no DNA profile was obtained.
"An LCN DNA result which contained too little information for meaningful interpretation was obtained from cellular material on the swab from the tile (286/2007 CR/L 9).
"Low level LCN DNA results were obtained from cellular material on the swabs from the tiles (286/2007 CR/L 4 & 12). In my opinion there is no evidence to support the view that anyone in the McCann Family contributed DNA to these results.
"An attempt to obtain a DNA profile from any cellular material recovered from a further area on tile 2 and two areas on tile 3 (286/2007-CRL(3) were unsuccessful in that no profiles were obtained".
Taken as a whole these outcomes do not, in themselves, discount the possibility that a body was removed from apartment 5A (i.e., concealed elsewhere). Hence Mark Harrison's 'information', albeit unconfirmed, continued to suggest the possibility that a body had at some time been present in the apartment.
The second report to come from the FSS (18.6.2008) was, if anything, even more equivocal. As author John Robert Lowe concluded:
"In my opinion, the laboratory results that were attained did not help to clarify whether or not the DNA results obtained within the scope of this case were from Madeleine McCann".
The original possibility, although unsubstantiated, remained unresolved therefore. It was never dismissed, either by dint of the FSS results or by Harrison himself, although he later elected to avoid it for some reason.
The Gatekeeper – 26.06.2014
Perhaps it owes something to the fascination of novelty, but there is a distinct tendency for us to view the most recent solution to a problem, be it ours or someone else’s, as correct, or at least more likely to be so than its predecessors, an experience reflected to some degree in product evolution. The McCann case is a repository of so many unsolved problems as to keep criminologists engaged for a very long time to come, but one which, after seven years, has continued to vex a good many, is quite how a couple of hitherto obscure middle-class professionals have been able to count on the unwavering support of three prime ministers to date, despite the Foreign Office being cautioned very early on as to the inexactitudes of early accounts of the drama unfolding in Portugal.
The situation has seemed almost unfathomable, and many a discussion has turned on the nature of who besides the McCanns might be the beneficiary of government protection in this particular context, or what manner of leverage they themselves might have over Downing Street, what they might know, and about whom, that is, in effect, immunising them against further investigation. (We've all been there). Suddenly, with announcement of the verdicts from the 'phone hacking trial', yet another explanation suggests itself. Novel to a degree, although not necessarily correct, it involves a pawn that made it all the way across to the other side, became a queen and changed the game.
In corporate life there is an entity as powerful almost as the CEO. They do not sit on the board, but usually in a separate office just outside the one with the big desk. Nowadays they are called PAs (they used to be called secretaries). I have known one or two in my time that were models of efficiency – conscientious, discrete and charming. I have also attempted (and failed) on occasion to 'get past' the other kind; the type that see their role more as a filtration unit than a conduit, and who accrue unto themselves an overly significant decision making function. (They can also be seen to pursue a course of horizontal promotion and sometimes even succeed in marrying the object of their admiration).
These personnel, usually but not invariably women, are the latter-day equivalent of a gate-keeper. If they are not prepared to lower the drawbridge, you do not get to speak to the king. (An example of this type can be seen in a classic episode from the Redford/Hoffman film All the President’s Men).
But this is about the McCanns and a queen is it not? Indeed so. Not the one married to the king who sat at the big desk, but the proxy queen who sat in the office just outside; the one who became so adept at making corporate decisions she was eventually allowed to sit at the big desk when the king was away, to the extent that the king could choose to be away almost as often as he liked.
The post medical careers of the McCanns have been ones of relentless self-aggrandisement, such that we have all been seduced into believing they had, and continue to have, the ear, not just of senior government officials but the prime minister of the day, whoever that might be. Reality is depicted elsewhere however. The true constant in the equation of Downing Street with a pair of hapless Rothley residents is the recently exculpated Rebekah Brooks.
In the immediate aftermath of her recently concluded trial, where Ms Brooks shared centre stage with her former lover and editorial colleague Andy Coulson, those of us largely unfamiliar with the inner workings of Fleet Street (or Thomas More Square in her case) have learned just how remorselessly unfeeling were the workings of the human press apparatus under their stewardship. Not that they weren't beforehand, but these two clearly took the art of cynicism to dizzying new heights.
So what?
Well we're not there just yet but, joining a few dots, we have the News of the World and the Sun, both News International titles, on the (McCann) case from the off, and with Rebekah Brooks, formerly of the first club, now managing the latter. It was she who was 'pally' with prime minister Tony Blair, not Gerry McCann, and although she did not care for him quite as much, she was happy to do business with his successor Gordon Brown also, at a time when the Sun was still shining both in and on the Labour hemisphere (they were in government after all).
Rebekah Brooks gives the impression of being an 'ask no questions' individual when it comes to sources of compromising knowledge, of the sort that came her way during her time at the News of the World and after. She was once, for instance, happy to approve a disbursement of £40k in cash without even bothering to inquire as to who, exactly, were to be the beneficiaries. Hence, and quite independent of any complicity in illegal practices of which she has only very recently been found not guilty, she would unquestionably have garnered some very spicy news over time concerning those senior politicians whom she once faced across the dinner table at No. 10.
It has been said of Jack Straw (Home Secretary, then Foreign Secretary in the Blair administration and Lord Chancellor under Gordon Brown) that 'he knew where all the bodies were buried'. Gerry McCann possibly knows the whereabouts of one. Rebekah Brooks on the other hand...
One need only consider her behaviour toward her 'friend and neighbour' David Cameron, to appreciate that Brooks, a hypocrite of the first water, is without moral principle and totally unscrupulous. Being found 'not guilty' at the Old Bailey recently does not define her as the epitome of innocence. Or do we imagine that the Prime Minister's immediate intercession with Scotland Yard in answer to the McCanns' very public request (via the Sun) for an independent review of their case was the direct result of a sudden urge of latent sympathy? That development was not achieved because of something Gerry McCann knew, but because of something Rebekah Brooks threatened to do.
What this episode illustrates perfectly clearly is that, from the perspective of an incumbent Prime Minister, there is indeed something more significant than the McCanns of Rothley: self-preservation.
The 'review' gambit was a win-win for the McCanns and for News International. A UK based undertaking driven by the same 'evidence' that caused the Portuguese to archive the original inquiry, would most probably arrive at the same place, with the Sun first in the queue to make the eventual (and loud) proclamation on the family's behalf that there was 'no evidence that Madeleine is dead and no evidence to implicate them in her d...d...disappearance'. In the meantime of course the story of 'the search', much as the couple's fund, would run continuously, with Madeleine remaining, in effect, the cash cow in both cases.
Perhaps, therefore, the fact that the McCanns dodged a bullet in the first instance had rather less to do with their own low-level scheming and more with the fact that, in their apparent victimhood, there existed a saga that could be written about for days/weeks/months/years to come. And if Rebekah Brooks was capable of waving the red flag of self-preservation in front of David Cameron, what might she have been capable of as regards Gordon Brown, someone of whom she was altogether less fond?
This is all speculation of course, but another clue as to the Brooks web of intrigue exists in the fly that got away.
Nick Davies' very thorough review of the now concluded Brooks/Coulson case for the Guardian includes the following observation:
"The judge agreed to delay the trial for seven weeks while she instructed Laidlaw – and that meant Coulson lost his barrister, Clare Montgomery QC, because the new timing overlapped with a case she had to conduct in Hong Kong".
Clare Montgomery QC. Now there's a name to conjour with. Clare Montgomery, of Matrix Chambers? The firm co-founded by Cherie Booth QC (aka Cherie Blair)? And with handy specialisms in criminal, regulatory and fraud law? Andy Coulson probably didn't get to go riding with Rebekah's Chipping Norton set (they would only have played away fixtures) so who, one wonders, might have put Ms Montgomery forward as his prospective counsel, and might we perhaps be reading her name in the papers again before too long?
The Little Shop of Horrors – 04.07.2014
I wonder if the account handlers at Operation Grange (the ones who had their wanted posters designed and printed by the SUN) invited the Plain English Campaign to set out their 250 item questionnaire intended for suspects in the new Madeleine McCann investigation? Did the headings make it any easier to complete? (Personal Data/Criminal Record – 'DO NOT include driving offences, but DO include any murders within the last ten years').
We have long known that the DCI Redwood's crusade is unique in drawing together information from diverse sources, including that of private investigators Metodo 3 (a Scotland Yard 'snatch squad' was pictured wheeling several boxes of files across a Barcelona street as I recall). According to some it was information contained in one of these very boxes which lay at the heart of recent requests to the Portuguese authorities for analytical assistance in connection with hairs/DNA recovered from someone's sofa. Fair enough. Lateral thinking is no bad thing and 'relevance' must surely be determined by the purpose of the investigation, not the origin of data necessarily. Except that 'Lucky Dip' selections from the box marked PJ seem consistently to be of the sherbet lemon variety, i.e., things 'not done at the time', in the opinion of insider (now outsider) Jim Gamble.
That the investigation code-named Operation Grange appears to be "back where it was seven years ago" renders a recent release of information doubly puzzling. We are told, reliably or otherwise, of an intended visit to retail premises of some kind, to be made 'by hook or by crook' and with a sniffer dog or two. The venue is described as somewhere a suspect was seen in the company of a young girl shortly after Madeleine McCann's supposed abduction. If the earlier excavations of Praia da Luz by Grange team members were based on 'intelligence' then this proposed sweep must be the result of a 'tea leaf' reading (well they are on the trail of burglars after all).
Going back seven years, as a Portuguese commentator and others have intimated we might, British search expert Mark Harrison (formerly of NPIA, now a police Commander in Australia) was directly involved in the investigation at that time. This is a man whose knowledge and experience allowed him to 'cut to the chase', literally as well as figuratively, and his report made very clear recommendations as to where searches might most profitably be directed. He proposed separate itineraries to be pursued under each of two scenarios, one of these being if Madeleine should have been killed and buried locally – the very same hypothesis that has been seen to drive the diggings and doings of Operation Grange in Praia da Luz of late.
Given that the analysts of Operation Grange have such information at their very finger-tips, how many of Mark Harrison’s recommended search sites have the more recent endeavours of Scotland Yard addressed?
None! Nor is the petrol station/all night 'deli'/beach stall, or whatever, among them.
So why is Scotland Yard intent on taking the dogs for a walk there? Puzzle number one. Puzzle number two is the reported justification that an anonymous suspect was seen there with a little girl. Presumably whoever 'shopped' him told police they had seen him with a child, not carrying a corpse.
Well, maybe Madeleine, if it were she, went in alive and emerged dead some time afterwards. The dogs will tell us in any case, and I'm sure police canines from Wales are as trustworthy, credible and reliable as any others. But wait a minute! Even if Madeleine died, or was killed on the premises, and an enthusiastic cadaver dog behaves like it’s auditioning for Simon Cowell as a result, if she walked into the shop, then she was alive at the time and could not have been fatally 'larruped' by a burglar inside 5A earlier on. (Good dog, Rover! You're a chip off the old 'Eddie' block).
Are DCI Redwood and colleagues hedging their bets here, as in 'Madeleine McCann may or may not be alive', 'may or may not have been abducted', 'may or may not have died in 5A'? Because the moment they put their faith in Turner and Hooch, or whoever's dog gets to give the signal in Portugal now, is the moment they have to confront the earlier alerts of Martin Grime's cadaver dog, Eddie.
No one is known to have died inside apartment 5A prior to the McCanns' occupancy. However, in the event of a non-fatal burglary/abduction, obstinate refusal to accept any implied association between a suggestion of death on the one hand and the actuality of a sole missing person on the other, results in there being only one, altogether bizarre possibility remaining: that someone introduced a corpse into the McCanns' apartment. On their way back from the shop perhaps.
Shutter Island – 08.08.2014
Madeleine McCann was reported missing by her parents on the evening of 3 May 2007. She had been left inside apartment 5A, the external configuration of which was still fresh in the memory of the McCanns' holiday-making associate Rachael Oldfield (nee Mampilly) just a fortnight later when, on 15 May, she told police:
'The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.'
There are no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' here. The McCanns' patio door, whether locked, unlocked, open or closed at night lay behind a metal shutter, unambiguously in the 'down' position. The witness does not specify whether the McCanns' necessary raising of the patio shutter was accomplished from inside or outside the apartment. In all their accounts of how they, and presumably their daughter's abductor, came and went that evening, 3 May, the McCanns have not once referred to the status of this shutter, only the door.
If we append to Rachel Oldfield's observation those which Kate McCann makes in her book when failing to explain quite why the window to their children's bedroom should have been opened (p.130-1), it becomes clear that, by all accounts, Madeleine McCann was inside a sealed unit. The front door was locked, all the windows were closed and, as both of the holiday party's written timelines confirm, in upper case for emphasis, all the shutters were down, including, clearly, those shielding the patio door.
Whether attached to the front, back or side of apartment 5A, the shutters, all of them, worked in exactly the same way, properly operated from inside via a winding mechanism. A filmed illustration of what happens when such shutters are raised from outside, 'against the grain' so to speak, demonstrates that they can only be elevated to about 75% of their full extent before becoming stuck. Significantly, since this physical intrusion is made without the collaboration of the interior aspect of the apparatus, in order for the shutter to remain open it has to be held aloft by whoever manhandles it into that position. Without such extraneous physical support it just comes crashing down again.
The shutters obscuring the McCann's patio door (there were in fact two of them, side by side) were more than twice the size of those protecting the windows, and therefore more than twice as heavy. Artificially raising either one three quarters of the way off the floor, and keeping it there, would require an adult’s strength. Matthew Oldfield, for instance, could have managed it, and, if the door beyond were indeed open already, he would not have had to prop the shutter up with one hand like Atlas while sliding the door back with the other. But neither his arms, nor those of any intending abductor, are infinitely long.
In order to progress from patio to bedroom, the visitor, having coerced the shutter upwards, now has to release it again, either with a loud bang as it simply plummets to the floor, or by gingerly lowering it behind him somehow, only to raise it again, mechanically this time, once inside the apartment.
Nowhere has Matthew Oldfield described negotiating such an obstacle, whether on his way into or out of the McCann's apartment on the one occasion he offered to check on their children. Rather more significantly, had a child abductor preceded or followed him through that same patio door they too would have had to deal with the shutter, unless either Gerry McCann or Oldfield, in sequence, deliberately left it in the raised position when previously exiting the apartment. In which case, bearing in mind there is a child-in-arms at this point, the shutter would have remained open thereafter, unexpectedly so perhaps. Yet no mention has ever been made of any such startling discovery, suggesting that completely unimpeded access to the rear of apartment 5A came as no surprise to the returning adults.
Gerry McCann has offered police two quite different accounts of how he entered and left 5A around 9.00 p.m. that night. Version one has him going in through the locked front door then simply out again (the patio does not explicitly enter the equation and Matthew Oldfield may therefore have had to address the obstacle of the shutter subsequently). Version two on the other hand sees Gerry going in and out via the patio which, for reasons just discussed, would mean either that he must have first raised the shutter from outside, which he has never described doing, or the McCanns had left the patio shutter in the raised position in the first place, contrary to what Rachael Oldfield has said in evidence. If they left their apartment via the rear initially, as they claim, then they must have left the patio door unlocked and the shutter up, since they cannot have locked the door nor closed the shutter behind them.
Thursday appears to have been exceptional in any event, as Kate McCann had at last decided upon an extraordinary course of action; one that offered her daughter a means of escape in the event of an emergency, as she mentioned to her friends at dinner that night, not at the commencement of their holiday you notice, but very shortly before it was due to end.
Unless he already knew what would afterwards take place (in terms of visitors, checks, or abductions even) there should have been no reason at all for Gerry McCann to have left the apartment completely unsecured in exiting though the rear. Nor should Matthew Oldfield have done so on the McCanns' behalf, unless of course he merely left the situation as he had previously found it. On 10 May Gerry McCann told police that although he was certain the front door was closed it was unlikely to have been locked, because they left through the back door. On this evidence apartment 5A was literally open to all comers, something it never was on any other occasion during the holiday, as the McCanns would customarily lock the patio door from inside before leaving via the front door which they, or the last person to leave at least (usually Gerry) locked behind them.
For anyone entering the McCann's apartment from the rear, a lowered patio shutter would have posed unavoidable logistical problems. These would, in turn, have led inevitably to hand and finger prints around the shutter base and on the glass sliding door which, although unlocked, would still have to be slid back to allow entry (as David Payne discovered, or so we are told).
Returning then to the unequivocal evidence offered by Rachael Oldfield on 15 May, and confirmed (twice) by the entire Tapas group's written timelines, either they were all lying in saying that ALL the shutters were down, or any investigation intent on identifying who it was took Madeleine McCann from apartment 5A (Operation Grange, for example) should begin (and quite possibly end), with the keyholders.
In the annals of spectacularly successful reviews, there are to be numbered, the Great Durbar of 1911, the Grand Fleet at Spithead 1914 and….Operation Grange (ongoing).Operation Grange, spectacular? (£8 million buys a lot of fireworks) Successful? Well that does rather depend upon one’s vantage point.
Once upon a time the McCanns, who showed little or no genuine interest in reviving the Portuguese police investigation into their daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, were simultaneously hinting, via the media and in the direction of the UK authorities, that what was needed was an ‘independent review’. Having passed up the opportunity to demonstrate their innocence while in Portugal, they obviously realised that to re-awaken the stalled investigation would simply move the train on to the original terminus, when they desperately needed a change of destination in order finally to exonerate themselves before the great British public. A mechanism was required to ‘demonstrate their innocence’, and said mechanism was most unlikely to be of Portuguese origin.
Enter Rebekah Brooks, former editor of The Sun, former editor of the News of the World, then CEO of News International, Rapunzel of Thomas More Square and visiting member of the Chipping Norton set, who shouted on the McCanns’ behalf, loudly and publicly into the ear of Prime Minister David Cameron, that a review of their case was overdue. No sooner the word than the deed. In May 2011 Scotland Yard, having been approached by the Home Secretary (and given a promise of immediate public funding), very quickly determined its feasibility and just as quickly announced their readiness to undertake the review as suggested.
So much for background. But what was this review intended to accomplish exactly?
In academia a literature review is usually undertaken within the context and constraints of a specific topic area and often conducted so as to marshal the evidence for or against some hypothesis or other. Whilst evaluating the arguments in favour of either (a) or (b), the ‘dark horse’ potential of (c), and its need to be accounted for, can sometimes emerge. Further research work should then clarify the situation, and allow another PhD to join the ranks.
And so to Operation Grange, the equivalent Metropolitan Police study of an air crash in Praia da Luz, Portugal. DCI Redwood, in charge of day to day proceedings, enthusiastically announced at the outset how his team was in the unique position of being able to draw together evidence from a variety of sources. Hence we witnessed them going about their duty with a very public display of confiscation, as the Barcelona arm wheeled boxes across the street and away from the offices of Metodo 3. Other sources will have included the Policia Judiciaria, responsible for the first official investigation on Portuguese soil, and, of course, Leicestershire Police, who had been invited to participate in that instance. Everyone, whatever their persuasion, had high hopes, not least the McCanns, who no doubt reasoned that without further (and dramatic) material evidence beyond what was already enshrined in the available data, the likelihood that a review of procedure would expose a glaringly unexplored avenue of inquiry would be remote in the extreme.
And there, at the very beginning, we see signs of irregularity in the process.
I don’t know if a case review conducted by any police force requires a proscriptive remit beyond the self-explanatory. Nevertheless, Operation Grange was given one, and by a committee whose membership has never properly been determined by those inquisitive enough to ask. It was 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’.
So the nature of the beast had been decided before DCI Redwood had even loaded his DVD copy of the Portuguese files and, in consequence of what was to be an ‘investigative review’, the Portuguese were to be offered a little something new in exchange for Aladdin’s lamp. The altered designation of the activity ought not to have worried the McCanns either. Like the last song aboard Titanic, although the melody might differ here and there the chorus would remain the same.
Perhaps that’s reading too much into the situation. No reading was required however when the very Commissioner of the Metropolitan Police stated publicly, in relation to Operation Grange: "There will be a point at which we and the Government will want to make a decision about what the likely outcome is".
The ‘separation of powers’ is as fundamental to the British Constitution as the Fifth Amendment is to the Americans. Except in this case.
No police force should be expected to divulge their methods or detail the progress of an investigation to the general public. On those occasions when senior members have seen fit to ‘go public’, either during or after an inquiry, they are typically circumspect, confining themselves to statements almost inert in their significance. It would have been well for representatives of Operation Grange to have done likewise. Better yet, to have said nothing at all.
One might counter that a couple of years and a few million pounds later, DCI Redwood and his colleagues felt under some obligation to present a justification or two. That would be understandable. However, Grange was a very public show from the off. Hence we have all come to learn of the parade of suspects, the visits to Portugal, the excavations, etc. Lately the flow of information has been sparse and attributable largely to vain attempts on the part of the media to construct a story or two in the absence of one. Nevertheless there is a veritable raft of ‘back issues’ unquestionably owing to Scotland Yard, and these give rise to some rather serious questions.
Once the police have opted for public pronouncement, however guarded, then said public has every right to expect that they be accurately informed. The function of the police is not to mislead in the course of their duties (except perhaps in ‘selling a dummy’ or two to their prime suspect). Yet DCI Redwood, on behalf of Operation Grange, seems to have been of an altogether different persuasion.
The glaring discrepancy between one-time suspect Euclides Monteiro and the British team’s favoured e-fits is one quizzical instance of dubious information, the re-appearance of an anonymous holiday-maker from 2007, together with a seven-year-old pair of his child’s pyjamas another (small wonder that, after a pause for thought, the McCanns chose to ignore it). And that’s not all.
DCI Redwood (4.7.2013): “Well, as we have worked carefully over the last sort of two years, through that review process, we have now processed some 30,000 documents”.
DCI Redwood (three months later, 4.10.2103): “The total number of documents we have to go through is 39,148, of which we have processed 21,614 so far”.
In other words, the review was proceeding backwards!
Ten days later we had the Crimewatch ‘special’, a collaboration between Scotland Yard and the BBC which featured DCI Redwood in person. His ‘revelatory moment’ (in the shape of ‘Tannerman’, as he has come to be known), has already been Identified as dubious. However, one or two other observations (or lack thereof) within this very programme deserve the same epithet, specifically scenes of Madeleine McCann (it is supposed) being carried back-to-front, and in the wrong direction (according to the previous statements of witness Jane Tanner and the newly recognised, though never to be identified, child-carrying holiday-maker). There is also the conspicuous absence from the filmed reconstruction of any character representative of Dr David Payne (the ‘extra’ initially booked for that role must have been well pleased). Accuracy, it seems, was unimportant here.
That was barely a year ago; a year during which we have witnessed visits by Operation Grange personnel to Portugal strangely coincident with developments in the damages trial involving the McCanns and former PJ co-ordinator Goncalo Amaral. So co-incident, in fact, that despite there being no apparent legal connection between them, progress in the civil affair has become almost as accurate a predictor of Operation Grange activity overseas as the Antikythera mechanism.
Among this activity of course has been the spectacle of an airborne survey of the local terrain (DCI Redwood ‘eyeballing’ PdL from inside a helicopter) and concomitant excavations afterwards conducted in the glare of publicity. The precise objectives of this work went unstated, hence the media and others were left to speculate as to its true purpose. One thing was abundantly clear however, even to the lay observer. If the Grange team were looking for a body, they were clearly looking in areas where someone abducting a child from apartment 5A of the Ocean Club would not have deposited one. On the other hand, the innocent victim of an unplanned homicide (killed by a panicking burglar, for instance) would simply have been left behind at the scene of the crime.
What were they up to?
A reasonable assumption is that the zones earmarked for excavation had some possible relevance to one or other individual already suspected of having ‘abducted’ Madeleine. But that is really not the nub of the issue.
As we know from its published remit, the Operation Grange review was to embrace every aspect of the original inquiry; an inquiry that involved British as well as Portuguese law enforcement agencies. Among the expertise we British exported to the scene was that of Mark Harrison, a highly regarded search specialist with notable experience of missing persons cases. After studying the situation in detail, Harrison produced a report recommending appropriate investigative actions to be undertaken by forces on the ground. This included searching specific areas determined by different crime scenarios. The recommendations were made with an eye to cost-efficiency, awareness of which was written into the very remit under which DCI Redwood and co. are supposedly operating:
“Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process”.
So, armed with Harrison’s report (among the 30,000 or so documents they will by then have read), how many of the Operation Grange excavations took place within terrain identified by the said specialist? (Think of a whole number between 0 and 1, not including the first positive integer).
What really makes the undertaking questionable though is that aspect of its remit just observed:
“Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever….”
Clearly this was never going to be an ‘ordinary’ review. But why the urgency to proceed to ‘investigation’ of a case over which no British police authority had any jurisdiction? The disclaimer that the Portuguese were, and would remain, the lead agency, as if Grange were to provide some kind of battery charge to the case overseas, was quickly exposed by the Portuguese themselves, when they re-opened their own investigation, introducing Euclides Monteiro to the world with a two-fingered gesture that Scotland Yard mistakenly took to be Churchillian.
It really doesn’t take much imagination to appreciate the perceived difference between, ‘We have reviewed the process and found it to be thorough/lackadaisical (delete as appropriate) and ‘We have investigated the abduction and found no evidence that the McCanns were involved’. There is every indication that the purpose of Operation Grange was never to endorse or further the original investigation, but to supplant it.
It’s all very well DCI Redwood announcing that neither the McCanns nor any of their friends were to be considered ‘persons of interest’, as if cueing up the operation’s primary purpose (to investigate abduction) but that investigation itself was to be pursuant upon a review of an extant, even if dormant, case, and investigators involved in that case had already arrived at certain mutually agreed conclusions. Had the honest intention of Operation Grange been to assist the Portuguese in getting to the bottom of things, they would have picked up where the first investigation left off. That they have not done so speaks for itself.
There are those who hold to the view that Scotland Yard are playing the ‘long game’ and that they must eventually examine the behaviour of the McCanns and their friends that Thursday night, May 3, 2007. Even after three years it is difficult to be certain, but if a criminal investigation is genuine in its purpose, there can be no reason why its leadership should not play with a straight bat toward a public encouraged to assist them.
With the impending retirement of DCI Redwood, the optimists among us will no doubt view his passing the baton onto an accomplished homicide detective as a positive sign, Redwood having literally done the spade work. His is not an ignominious withdrawal but a smart move. He has not ‘failed’ to solve the case. He never expected to do so in the first place. The intention was merely to find an acceptable ‘resolution’ if at all possible. Should that accomplishment fall to his successor, Redwood will be seen to have been thwarted by time alone. On the other hand, should the long-term outcome of Operation Grange remain indeterminate, DCI Redwood will have been long out of the cross-hairs.
Even if DCI Wall should surprise everyone on both sides of the McCann fence, with a valid conclusion, built towards via the seemingly unending dismissal of ‘likely ones’, the question will remain as to why, given the Yard’s emphasis on expediency, the truth was not arrived at until several years had elapsed and more millions been spent.
In any event the Metropolitan Police will be happy to pursue their inquiry all the while the special grants keep rolling in. In reality, cessation is no more than the closure of a cheque book away. It would only take one swingeing budget cut on behalf of this or the next government to see to that.
Policing professionals would no doubt best understand their own situation when instructed to conduct a case review, but I should imagine their task to have more in common with an air crash investigation, insofar as they are required to formulate a coherent picture of events from widely dispersed evidence. Simplistically, air crashes also boil down to a choice, usually, between two conflicting hypotheses: mechanical failure vs. pilot error, the latter being a disturbingly common cause. Notably, however, the cause is not (nor can it be) considered until all the evidence is in. Unlike the ivory tower experience, where evidence is often gathered in connection with a theory postulated in advance, air crash investigators must keep an open mind.
