Citation

"Grâce à la liberté dans les communications, des groupes d’hommes de même nature pourront se réunir et fonder des communautés. Les nations seront dépassées" - Friedrich Nietzsche (Fragments posthumes XIII-883)

11/12 - Les méandres de l'affaire OG

Opération Grange et son cahier des charges
Les MC entrèrent en contact avec la ministre de l'Intérieur qui promit d'étudier la question d'une enquête sur l'enquête portugaise. Comme rien ne se passait, à l'occasion de la sortie en feuilleton des bonnes feuilles de son livre, KMC envoya une lettre ouverte à David Cameron, que le Sun publia en première page. Rebekah Brookes fit un petit chantage et Cameron appela le Met. 
Que voulaient les MC ? Pas que l'enquête soit réouverte, mais que l'on examine le contenu de l'enquête de la PJ.
Quand, sous la pression de Rebekah Brooks, le PM demanda au Yard d'examiner le dossier MC, en mai 2011, le savoir sur cette affaire n'était guère différent de celui de septembre 2007, lorsque les MC, devenus témoins assistés, s'en étaient retournés en GB. Les incongruités des témoignages du groupe, l'implausibilité physique de certaines récits, le refus de la mère de Madeleine de répondre, comme témoin assisté, aux questions de la PJ, le refus de participer à la reconstitution judiciaire requise par les parquet, etc. avaient considérablement entravé l'enquête. Ils ne pouvaient, du seul fait du passage du temps, devenir obsolètes puisque rien de nouveau n'avait surgi. Qu'y avait-il à découvrir, si l'impasse sur la reconstitution judiciare (cause du classement de l'affaire) n'était même pas prise en considération par les Britanniques, hormis des chimères ?
Le Yard en effet ne semble pas avoir songé, ou songea si bien qu'il s'abstint, à reprendre l'enquête là où les Portugais l'avait laissée en juillet 2008. En réalité le PM avait demandé une relecture du dossier en vue de retrouver une Madeleine enlevée et vivante, toute autre hypothèse étant exclue. Ce qu'un observateur était en droit de supputer est le temps que prendrait le Yard pour se voir contraint de revenir à la case départ, à PDL. Il lui fallu un peu plus de 3 ans, soit le double du temps qu'avait duré l'enquête portugaise. En juillet ?? 2013 le Yard annonça que, bien que le dossier n'ait pas encore été revu dans son entier, il allait entrer dans une phase d'enquête et essayer d'éliminer 38 "persons of interest", suspects potentiels. Un an plus tard, en mars 2014, d'autres potentiels suspects ayant été entretemps déterminés, il en restait encore 38.

Il eût vraiment été plus facile de participer à la reconstitution demandée par le MP. Eussent-ils accepté, l'enquête se serait poursuivie. SY aurait pu reprendre là où l'enquête portugaise s'était arrêtée et recueillir de nouveaux éléments en procédant à une reconstitution.

Il est important que les MC n'ont jamais demandé la reprise de l'enquête, ils voulaient un examen officiel du dossier, ils n'en ont jamais sollicité un à leurs enquêteurs privés. Exton a-t-il produit le sien de sa propre autorité, toujours est-il que son rapport n'a pas été jugé "utile". Les MC ont toujours laissé entendre et déplorer que les Portugais étaient responsables de l'ordonnance de classement, comme si ceux-ci s'étaient lassés, aient jeté l'éponge. KMC, dans "Madeleine" dit que "cela peut paraître étrange, mais d'une certaine façon nous étions contents que l'enquête soit classée".
Les MC, qui ne se sont pas opposés au classement de l'enquête portugaise et d'une certaine façon en ont été contents ("Madeleine"), ont curieusement déclaré espérer que SY convaincrait les Portugais de rouvrir l'affaire, comme s'il s'était agi d'un mouvement d'humeur de la part du parquet. On peut bien sûr argumenter que cela prouve qu'ils veulent qu'on cherche leur fille, mais on peut tout aussi bien argumenter qu'ils ont poussé à l'examen afin d'obtenir l'"exonération" que l'enquête inachevée de la PJ et le rapport du PGR ne leur ont pas accordée, seul moyen d'écarter à jamais la noire auréole du doute.

L'enquête de SY
L'enquête se limite essentiellement à demander à quelqu'un s'il a vu quelqu'un, s'il veut bien faire un dessin et demander à d'autres s'ils ont vu quelqu'un qui ressemble à une ou deux vagues images qui pourraient ressembler à la moitié des hommes du monde occidental.
Le stupéfiant, l'incompréhensible, c'est qu'ils n'aient pas entendu les témoins principaux, pas cherché à savoir pourquoi les MC, moins d'une heure après la disparition de leur fille, dans l'angoisse terrible que tout le monde peut sinon sentir, du moins imaginer, avait éprouvé le besoin d'effacer les appels et messages de son téléphone cellulaire.

Les Britanniques ont préféré chercher un méchant. Avaient-ils le choix ? Le PM leur avait après tout demandé une enquête spécifique et limitée.  SY n'enquête pas parce qu'ils se sont dit qu'il fallait le faire, SY est aux ordres. À la question de savoir si les MC et leurs compagnons de voyage étaient sur la liste des personnes d'intérêt qu'aurait pu répondre DCI AR ? No comment était impossible, les médias en auraient fait leurs choux gras. Il n'avait d'autre choix que de répondre "non".



13 May 2011- Channel 4
Cameron intervention in McCann case ‘is a PR exercise’

Lord Bradshaw, Lib Dem peer and Vice-Chairman of Thames Valley Police tells Channel 4 News’ Cathy Newman that David Cameron’s intervention into the Madeleine McCann case is a “PR exercise”
The Prime Minister has defended his decision to ask Scotland yard to review the disappearance of Madeleine McCann after an impassioned plea by Katy and Gerry McCann. A Downing Street spokesman said that Mr Cameron and Theresa May had asked the Met to review the evidence in response to a request by the McCann family because of the “exceptional” nature of the case. But some MPs said it could take years and cost millions of pounds to complete, although the money will be taken from the Home Office budget and not Scotland yard’s.

Lord Bradshaw told Channel 4 News: “I am mightily worried about the politicisation of the police force. What appears on the face of it to be fairly innocuous orders, it’s a fairly short step from there to telling the police they have got to investigate this rather than that.” He added: “This did take place in Portugal where the Met’s writ doesn’t run. I doubt if they have got many Portuguese speaking officers. I don’t believe that our police can investigate the Portuguese police force.” As a result, he said: “It becomes a PR exercise.” He said Chief Constables were “desperately worried that their operational independence will be compromised.” The controversy comes just days after Lib Dem peers, including Lord Bradshaw, helped inflict a Lords defeat on the government’s plans for directly elected police commissioners.

Lord Bradshaw’s concerns were echoed by the Labour peer Lord Harris of Haringey, who is a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority. He said he had worries about the way Cameron and the Home Office had behaved. “It raises very big questions about political direction of the police,” said Harris. “Of course it goes without saying that this is a very heart-breaking case, but what we are looking at is a case where the Met has no direct responsibility. “There is clearly an issue about the resources being used and are they in effect saying that the Met is the default investigator for every case in the world involving a British citizen? “It’s not just a question of direct costs, it’s a question of opportunity costs too. Our detective capacity is limited as it is.”

Downing Street and Scotland Yard have both denied the government had ordered the force to investigate. Scotland Yard said Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson had “received a request, which he considered, and took the decision that on balance it was the right thing to do”. Qui a envoyé la requête? The McCanns said in a statement: “The expertise of the Metropolitan Police is renowned and we are reassured by our government’s commitment to the search for Madeleine.” Their spokesman Clarence Mitchell added: “This is exactly what Kate and Gerry have been asking for. They wanted an independent force to examine everything, basically.” En quoi SY est indépendant reste à déterminer !
The official Portuguese inquiry into Madeleine’s disappearance ended in July 2008 although private detectives hired by the McCanns have continued the search

 

13 May 2011- The Guardian
Madeleine McCann case: PM criticised for calling in Metropolitan police
Peers describe David Cameron's intervention in case – after Kate McCann's open letter to Sun – as PR exercise
Two peers who are members of police watchdogs warned that the independence of the Metropolitan police was under threat after the prime minister brought in Scotland Yard to review the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Insiders at the Yard played down any suggestions that their role could quickly lead to any breakthrough in the case, saying that the review, which will cost millions of pounds, could take months or even years.

Labour's Lord Harris, a member of the Metropolitan Police Authority, accused David Cameron of bowing to Rupert Murdoch's empire, referring to Cameron's decision to call in Scotland Yard after Kate McCann wrote an open letter in the Sun asking for his help.
Lord Bradshaw, the Liberal Democrat peer and vice-chairman of Thames Valley Police Authority, added his voice to the criticism, describing the prime minister's intervention as a PR exercise. "I am mightily worried about the politicisation of the police force. What appears on the face of it to be fairly innocuous orders – it's a fairly short step from there to telling the police they have got to investigate this rather than that," Bradshaw said.

Harris said: "This ... is entirely predictable in terms of the 'pulling power' of News International on Government policy ... However, his [Cameron's] intervention drives a coach and horses through the draft protocol issued by the Home Office designed to preserve the operational independence of the police." Writing on his blog, the peer added: "I can imagine that the senior leadership of the Metropolitan police are not exactly happy about this. It again embroils their officers in a high-profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters."

In a statement Scotland Yard denied it had been ordered to review the abduction. It said that the commissioner, Sir Paul Stephenson, received a request which he considered and decided on balance that it was the best course to take. Toujours pas mentionné l'auteur de la requête.. Kerry Needham, the mother of Ben Needham, the British toddler who was abducted on Crete 20 years ago, said: "I am pleased for the McCann family and look forward to the government offering the same support to all the families with children missing abroad."

If the Yard is given access to all the Portuguese documentation the first task will be to have it translated. As part of the review the Met's team – likely to be led by a detective chief inspector within the homicide command – will also examine files held by Leicestershire police, the McCanns' home force, who gave some help to the Portuguese officers. There is also documentation from a number of private investigators hired by the McCanns over the last four years. Although there was irritation among senior figures at Scotland Yard at being bounced into an inquiry, one source predicted that it would be quickly overtaken by a desire to do the best job possible. "It was political. But at the end of the day a child is missing."

The Met has a copy of a review into Madeleine's disappearance completed by Jim Gamble, when he was head of Ceop, the child exploitation and online protection centre. It is understood to recommend that Scotland Yard be brought in to work with the Portuguese police on a review, but his report has been sitting on the home secretary's desk for more than a year until this week with no action taken. Scotland Yard released the letter to Sir Paul from Theresa May on Thursday. In it the home secretary says diplomatic contact has been made with the Portuguese police, who have indicated they would co-operate with Scotland Yard. But she made clear it would be down to the Yard to negotiate the details.
Donc la requête vient de Theresa May, bien qu'elle le nie.
The McCanns repeated their thanks to Cameron, saying the Met's involvement was a positive step.

Lord Tobby Harris' Blog  qui semble ne plus exister (le blog)
Le communiqué suivant a disparu du blog
13 may 2011 - The Prime Minister's instruction to the Metropolitan Police to review the Madeleine McCann case is in breach of the draft protocol that is supposed to protect the operational independence of the police
David Cameron has instructed the Metropolitan Police to review the case of Madeleine McCann. This is in response to an open letter in The Sun and is entirely predictable in terms of the 'pulling power' of News International on Government policy. However, his intervention drives a coach and horses through the draft protocol issued by the Home Office designed to preserve the operational independence of the Police which says: 'The operational independence of the police service, and the decisions made by its operational leadership remain reserved to the Office of Chief Constable and that Office alone.' Whilst no-one doubts the desirability of doing what can sensibly be done to find out what has happened to Madeleine McCann, I can imagine that the senior leadership of the Metropolitan Police are not exactly happy about this. It again embroils their officers in a high profile investigation, where the chances of success are unclear, and which will divert limited investigative resources away from other matters.
En revanche celui-ci existe toujours 
May 25,2011 - The Metropolitan Police Authority meets tomorrow at City Hall for the first time since the Prime Minister instructed/encouraged/invited/asked the Commissioner to consider a review of the Madeleine McCann case. And outside there will be a vigil to remember all missing children attended by relatives and campaigners. I am sure that those campaigners and relatives will be asking whether the cases in which they are concerned can be reviewed by the Metropolitan Police in the same way that the Madeleine McCann case is to be. And this is hardly surprising. The Commissioner will no doubt tonight be polishing up his answers as to why he made the operational decision (without being pressurised by a politician, of course) that the McCann case should be reviewed and whether the same factors will apply to the other cases.

He will also no doubt remind the Authority that the Home Office has offered to pay for the costs of the investigation. This is, I am sure, a welcome contribution to the Met’s budget, but will this cover only the additional costs of the investigation or will it cover the costs of the salaries of the detectives engaged in the review and, if so, where will the replacement detectives be found to cover the work that those detectives would otherwise have done?
And was this offer of financial assistance a factor in the operational decision that the Commissioner made to have this review? And, if it was a factor, does the offer to pay guarantee anyone else a Metropolitan Police case review? Might be a nice little earner.
I am sure the Commissioner has also given thought to what will happen after the review has been concluded. Will the review be shared with the McCann’s? And, if not, what is the purpose of the review? I am confident that all will be made clear tomorrow.
By David Hencke, Frederika Whitehead and Hui Shan Khoo - Exaro News
London’s first chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority said that the decision to review Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in Portugal was an example of political interference.
Lord Harris told Exaro: “It was not immediately apparent that this was a case where there was any remit for the Metropolitan Police. Whatever happened did not happen in London. “There was no particular connection. The McCanns do not live in London. It was simply a decision by the prime minister to ask the Metropolitan Police to review this case.” Cameron is accused of bowing to pressure from executives at News International (NI) (voir article plus bas) in May 2011 to order the Metropolitan Police Service to review Madeleine’s case. Harris said: “That was at a time when the government was pushing through its legislation on ‘police and crime commissioners’, and was making big points that chief constables had to be operationally independent.”

However, the McCann case “appeared very much to be a case where the government was saying we want you to carry out this investigation.” “I have total sympathy for Madeleine McCann and her family. I would like to see this matter sorted out.” “But this was, prima facie, direct political interference in an operational policing decision where there would not have been obviously a policing remit for the Metropolitan Police.” “When I chaired the Metropolitan Police Authority, I was always very clear that, while it was my job in providing political oversight, to ask questions about the resource decisions being taken, it was ultimately their [police officers’] decision to make. I had the right to challenge, but not necessarily to intervene.” Len Duvall, another former chairman of the authority who succeeded Harris in the role, said: “I would support an extension of the investigation provided that the Met police have new leads to follow up. If they do not, it would be a waste of money at this particular time of constraint in public spending.” “If the government asks the [Met] commissioner to investigate matters and provides the money, that would be fine, although there is a danger that sometimes police commissioners can be too accommodating to government demands.”
 
NI negotiated to serialise a book about Madeleine’s disappearance, authored by her mother, Kate. The serialisation would appear in two of the newspaper group’s titles, The Sun and The Sunday Times. Madeleine’s parents had long campaigned publicly for a review of the case, but they did not participate in NI’s behind-the-scenes lobbying of David Cameron, prime minister, to force him into ordering the review. A spokesman for the parents said that the review had “allowed the police to investigate thoroughly – and follow up – new leads.” Madeleine’s father, Gerry, said in testimony to Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into newspaper practices, that they agreed to a deal with NI over the book after meetings with its then chief executive, Rebekah Brooks, and her deputy, Will Lewis. Gerry told Leveson: “We had a couple of meetings with the general manager and – Will Lewis and Rebekah Brooks and others – and what swung the decision to serialise was News International committed to backing the campaign and the search for Madeleine.Quid des milliers de livres payés ? He and Kate had been trying to persuade “successive home secretaries” to order a review. “We felt that having News International helping in that,” he continued, “is what tipped the balance.”

Paul McKeever, chairman of the Police Federation, which represents police constables, sergeants and inspectors, said: “It is very much for the investigating officers in the case to decide when, and if, the investigation should continue now in its present form, or whether it should be scaled back or continued.”They are the ones who are fully aware of all the facts, and operational decision should not be impinged upon by others who perhaps are unaware of the subtle dynamics in which they are working.Mais c'est quand même Mark Rowley, qui connaît mal le dossier, qui s'exprime !

John O’Connor, former commander of the Met’s Flying Squad, said: “It is worth renewing if they have viable lines of enquiry still open.” “It would be criminal to stop the investigation if they still have not sorted out all the lines of inquiry.”


27 November 2012
Comment les cadres de Rupert Murdoch ont fait pression sur le PM à propos de l'affaire MC
By David Hencke, Frederika Whitehead and Hui Shan Khoo - Exaro News
Prime minister David Cameron is accused of bowing to pressure from News International executives to order British police to investigate Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in Portugal. Madeleine was three when she went missing in 2007.
A former chairman of the Metropolitan Police Authority (MPA), Lord Harris, condemned what he believes was “direct political interference” in the case. Harris told Exaro that Cameron was wrong to intervene in an “operational policing decision” by asking the Metropolitan Police Service to review the case. British police had no jurisdiction in Portugal, he said. The issue is set to return to haunt Cameron with the publication on Thursday of Lord Justice Leveson’s report on his inquiry into newspaper practices. It is one of many issues explored by the inquiry. Harris said that Cameron requested the Met review following pressure from the newspaper group’s top-selling tabloid, The Sun, “and goodness knows what else.” (Voir article ci-dessus)

Police sources question why Cameron was willing to set aside £2.5 million for the review from the Home Office’s contingency fund and to see the Met tie up many specialist officers on the case. The £2.5 million will be spent by next month, say Whitehall sources, but the government is prepared to commit more money to the review – ‘Operation Grange’. Harris said: “It is not just a matter of compensating for officer time. There is only a limited number of senior detectives, experienced detectives. Obviously, someone investigating this cannot be investigating something else.”

A Labour peer, Harris was the MPA’s first chairman, from 2000 until 2004. Exaro has established that Leveson’s inquiry team shares concerns about the lobbying behind the scenes by News International (NI) over the review – pressure that went beyond The Sun’s public campaign. Rupert Murdoch, who controls NI’s parent company, News Corporation, told Leveson during his testimony: “I have never asked a prime minister for anything.” However, in the McCann case, Murdoch’s executives did ask Cameron for something. Exaro has learnt that Leveson’s team was given a confidential briefing about the episode by a source familiar with NI’s private lobbying for the review. The briefing led to some telling questions by Robert Jay, counsel to the inquiry, during the hearings. However, the exchanges were overlooked in coverage of the inquiry amid many other disclosures.
Jay suggested to Rebekah Brooks, former NI chief executive, that it was “a case study… in the exercise of power”.
12h53 - Les questions portent maintenant sur la sérialisation des mémoires des McCann dans le Sunday Times. Brooks dit qu'elle s'entend très bien avec eux. Elle se souvient que Gerry McCann avait demandé unr révision de l'affaire par la police britannique. Bien sûr, il y en a eu une. Jay tente de déterminer l'impact de Brooks sur cette question. Elle dit qu'elle n'en a pas parlé, mais que Tom Newton-Dunn - l'éditeur politique du Sun - ou Dominic Mohan - son éditeur - en aurait parlé au No 10 ou au Home Office. "Le Sun voulait un résultat immédiat", poursuit Jay. En un mot il y eut un ultimatum - une lettre à la une du journal demandant une révision. La Home Office Secretary a été informée que, si elle était d'accord avec la révision, la lettre ne paraîtrait pas à la une, dit Jay. Brooks ne s'en souvient pas - ah oui, la défense classique de l'enquête Leveson. "Je suis très certaine qu'il n'y aura pas eu de menace", poursuit-elle. Mais il a été laissé aux deux éditeurs le soin de "exécuter la campagne". Elle nie toute affirmation selon laquelle elle est intervenue directement auprès du Premier ministre. "Je n'ai pas dit au Premier ministre que je mettrais Theresa May à la une du Sun chaque jour à moins que vous ... je n'ai pas dit cela", dit-elle. Brooks semble maintenant en avoir marre.

12:57 - Leveson intervient, il pose une question beaucoup plus générale. "Je faisais certainement partie d'une stratégie plus vaste", déclare Brooks, heureuse de se vautrer dans l'herbe longue de la nature générale de la question. Elle remplace "menace" par "persuasion" après avoir été invitée à le faire par Leveson. "Per-sua-sion," dit Léveson solennellement et pensivement, roulant le mot dans sa bouche comme du bon vin. Jay espérait évidemment qu'il s'agissait d'une étude de cas sur "l'exercice du pouvoir". Brooks dit que ce n'était pas une longue campagne et que ce n'était pas un gros problème. "Cela n'a pas pris longtemps, car le gouvernement a cédé à votre pression", dit Jay, ne semblant absolument pas convaincu par ses arguments. Il se retire, essayant d'amener Brooks à admettre que ce genre de chose n'est "jamais sans équivoque". Elle ne l'admettra même pas. Jay l'invite donc à dire que ce sont les lecteurs, encore une fois, qui étaient derrière tout ça. Oh oui, dit Brooks, maintenant très contente d'elle-même. Absolument.
Speaking to Exaro, the source who briefed the Leveson team said: “Downing Street was told that The Sun was going to demand a review, and that the prime minister should agree to the request because The Sun had supported Cameron in the election. “A message was relayed via News International to Number 10 that unless the prime minister ordered the review by the Metropolitan Police, The Sun would put the home secretary, Theresa May, on the front page every day until The Sun’s demands were met.”

A source close to the McCann family confirmed that two senior NI executives met two of Cameron’s closest aides in May 2011 to make the demands. NI had negotiated to serialise a book about Madeleine’s disappearance, authored by her mother, Kate. Madeleine’s parents had long campaigned publicly for a review (Voir article ci-dessus). They could not be reached directly for comment, but a spokesman for them said that they were “very grateful” for the continued funding of the review. The NI executives told Cameron’s aides that the prime minister must order a review, the second source confirmed. Otherwise, said the executives, The Sun would publish an open letter from Madeleine’s parents on the front page pleading for one. They also threatened that The Sun would put May on the front page every day until the demand was met.
Cameron told Leveson: “I do not remember any sort of specific pressure being put on me.” Voir ci-après
Kate McCann wrote in her book, ‘Madeleine’, that May did not initially take up her request for a review. The Home secretary told Leveson that pressure from NI did not lead her to back a review (Voir plus bas). A spokesman for Downing Street would not address questions about whether Cameron was strong-armed into ordering a review. Daisy Dunlop, NI spokeswoman, said that the company would make no comment about the case.



27 novembre 2012
Le PM nie avoir cédé à la pression de R. Brooks quant à la révision de l'affaire MC par le Met
Par Hui Shan Khoo  - Exaro News
Le Premier ministre britannique David Cameron a nié avoir plié sous la pression de la directrice de News International, Rebekah Brooks, pour faire réviser l'affaire de la disparition de Madeleine McCann au Portugal. Cameron a déclaré à l’enquête de Lord Justice Leveson sur les pratiques de la presse: «Je ne me souviens pas d’une quelconque pression spécifique exercée sur moi». L’équipe d’enquête de Leveson a reçu un briefing confidentiel sur le lobbying privé de Cameron par les NI en vue de la révision. La source a indiqué à Exaro que le lobbying n’était pas exercé par Brooks, alors directrice général de NI, mais par d’autres dirigeants du groupe de presse. Une deuxième source proche de la famille McCann l'a confirmé. Néanmoins, Brooks a été au centre des questions sur l'épisode dans l'enquête Leveson. Dans son témoignage à Leveson en juin, Cameron avait déclaré que RB était une amie et que leur relation s'était renforcée après son mariage avec Charlie Brooks, un vieil ami d'Eaton. Cameron a nié que sa relation avec NI ait été «transactionnelle», ou qu'il y ait eu des «offres publiques» ou un «accord secret».

Les parents de Madeleine, Kate et Gerry, ont longtemps fait publiquement campagne pour un réexamen de l’affaire car ils étaient mécontents de l’enquête menée par la police portugaise. Robert Jay, l'avocat de l'enquête Leveson, a demandé à Cameron si Brooks lui avait demandé de "soutenir" la révision par le Met - ou de "faire en sorte" - qu'elle ait lieu. Cameron a répondu: «Je ne me souviens pas de la provenance exacte de toute cette affaire. Ce dont je me souviens, c’est que j’ai rencontré Kate et Gerry McCann, en tant que chef de l’opposition. » "J'ai suivi cette affaire en tant que Premier ministre, mais je ne sais plus exactement qui a appelé qui et quand". "La police a clairement joué un rôle dans la poursuite de l'enquête et le gouvernement l'a aidée dans cette tâche". Jay a ramené Cameron à la question d'une «interaction» entre lui - ou deux de ses conseillers spéciaux - et Brooks à ce sujet. Cameron a déclaré: "Je ne me souviens pas des conversations exactes." "Je vois ce qui pourrait se cacher derrière la question, qui est :" Traitez-vous les différentes enquêtes et campagnes de manière équitable? " "Et je me souviens en fait, en tant que Premier ministre, d'avoir consulté le secrétaire permanent au numéro 10 au sujet de l'initiative que la police s'apprêtait à prendre, soutenue par le gouvernement,  d'obtenir un financement supplémentaire pour l'enquête." «On a porté à mon attention l'existence d'une procédure d'aide spéciale du Home Office pour mener des enquêtes particulièrement complexes et coûteuses, procédure qui a été utilisée dans différentes affaires et qui allait l'être dans cette affaire.» «Il était convaincu que… cela avait été traité correctement et efficacement. Donc, c’est un exemple, si vous voulez, de l’importance de s’assurer que ces choses sont faites correctement, et je crois que c’était le cas.
Jay: «Mais si je peux mettre le point de cette façon. Étiez-vous au courant des pressions exercées directement ou indirectement sur vous par l'intermédiaire de Mme Brooks pour que cette révision ait lieu?

Cameron: «Une pression? Non, je n'étais au courant d'aucune pression. "
Jay: "Eh bien, si ce n'était pas de la pression, était-ce une influence, alors, on a essayé de l'imposer?"
Cameron: «Eh bien, je veux dire clairement que c'était un cas très médiatisé, et qu'un certain nombre de journaux ont voulu se faire les champions parce que leurs lecteurs voulaient les défendre. Et, évidemment, en tant que gouvernement, vous devez penser: aidons-nous à cela parce qu'il y a une pression des médias ou s'agit-il d'une véritable pression publique? Y a-t-il un cas réel? Traitons-nous cela équitablement? «Et j'ai posé ces questions au secrétaire permanent au numéro 10, et je pense donc que nous avons donné une réponse appropriée. Mais je ne me souviens d'aucune pression spécifique exercée sur moi.

Kate McCann a écrit dans son livre «Madeleine» que Theresa May, la secrétaire d'Etat à l'Intérieur, n'avait pas initialement accepté sa demande de révision. May a changé d’avis après la publication en série du livre dans deux journaux de NI, The Sun et The Sunday Times. Mais May a dit à Leveson qu'elle n'était pas d'accord avec la révision en raison des pressions exercées par NI.  

Elle s'est écrasée quand même !

27 November 2012 
Theresa May nie avoir appuyé la révision suite au lobbying de News International
By David Hencke and Hui Shan Khoo  - Exaro News
Home secretary Theresa May changed her mind on whether there should be a review in the UK of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance in Portugal. But, she told Lord Justice Leveson’s inquiry into newspaper practices, her decision was not because of pressure from News International (NI). Robert Jay, counsel to the inquiry, asked her about telephone calls on May 11, 2011 with Rebekah Brooks, then NI chief executive, and Dominic Mohan, The Sun’s editor. That day, NI’s red-top tabloid, The Sun, was preparing its edition carrying an open letter on the front page from Madeleine’s parents requesting a review of the case. Two NI executives had warned aides to David Cameron, prime minister, that the government must order a review, otherwise The Sun would publish the open letter. Cameron is accused of, ultimately, bowing to pressure from NI executives to order British police to review Madeleine’s case (Voir article plus  haut).

Jay asked the home secretary last May whether she recalled the telephone calls with Brooks and Mohan on that day. May said: “I do. Would you like me to tell you?”
Jay: “Yes, please.”
May: “This was in relation to the question about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann and the action that the government was taking, and that the Metropolitan Police was taking, to work with the Portuguese authorities to look further into the matters relating to that disappearance, to see whether there were any other avenues of inquiry that should be pursued.”
Jay: “Because a review was ordered by the Home Office – in other words, by you – at quite short notice…”
May: “No, a review was not ordered, was not requested or required at short notice. The Home Office… first started discussing with ACPO [Association of Chief Police Officers] the possibility of a police review, or further police work, on this. They first started discussing that with ACPO under the previous government. “So, the discussion had been taking place for some time – it took place with ACPO initially – for ACPO to identify which police force would be appropriate to undertake this work, if it were to be undertaken.” “At the same time, there were discussions taking place with the Portuguese authorities, because, of course, no UK police force can go into another country and start investigating. They can only do so with the agreement, approval and assistance of the resident authorities in that country.”
Jay: “Did you have discussions with the prime minister about this specific issue on or about May 11?”
May: “I do not recall having a specific discussion myself with the prime minister. I know that the prime minister was interested in this specific issue, but I do not recall whether I had a specific conversation with him.”
Jay: “Did Mrs Brooks say… that unless you ordered the review, you would be on the front page of The Sun until that happened?”
May denied this. Comment peut-elle réfuter une menace, une "persuasion" selon Brooks à qui Leveson a soufflé le mot, qui a été faite par le Sun ? “The nature of the telephone conversation was to alert them to the fact that the government was taking some action, that there was going to be this further work by the police here in the UK.”
She added: “I think that it was a call at my instigation.”
Jay asked whether “pressure” was applied “behind the scenes”.
May replied: “I felt that the work that we were doing to look at this review had been going on for some time, it was coming to fruition around this time anyway, and, obviously, the issue was a matter of public concern.”
Kate McCann recalled it differently. In her book, ‘Madeleine’, she described how Alan Johnson, May’s predecessor as home secretary under the previous Labour government, had commissioned a “scoping” exercise to see whether a review would be worthwhile.
The report, completed in March 2010, was “widely described as highlighting some deficiencies” in the Portuguese investigation, she wrote.
“We met the current home secretary, Theresa May, and wrote to her several times. Still no further forward, and in the dark as to whether the British government had even broached the matter with the Portuguese authorities, in November 2010 we started a petition to lobby the two governments to conduct an independent review.”
“We were at a loss to comprehend why,” she added, “our request had gone unanswered.”
Il est remarquable de voir la propension qu'ont ces gens à qui sont confiées des responsabilités aussi importantes de ne souvenir de rien, ou presque, et de botter en touche quand on les interroge sur des points embarassants.