What Scotland Yard REALLY said to Bennett

Much high-fiving going on in certain quarters, as the story is being spun that New Scotland Yard is taking his nonsense seriously.
Best people look at what was actually said:



lf the Madeleine Foundation holds 'evidence'

The word 'evidence' is in quotes because they know perfectly well all Bennett has is rubbish from the 'researchers' and 'profilers'.

It is polite for, Please, send it in, we like a good laugh in the police canteen.

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/

Rarely have I seen such naked sarcasm so elegantly phrased. Brilliant.

Gosh. I missed the quote marks. That is really funny in an understated fashion.

I feel much better now that I have seen that. Not that I was feeling bad to begin with.
I am just a bit fed up with this whinging moron and his endless drivel.

Actually, I hope he has been with holding evidence, well, sort of hope, if you know what I mean. They will throw the book at him if he has.

sans_souci wrote:Rarely have I seen such naked sarcasm so elegantly phrased. Brilliant.

Tis a pity they couldn't put it into words of one syllable.

http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=bd7d5ff2f7285e1a

NSY not very happy about their mail being all over the internet, Tony?

bb1 wrote:http://thehoundingofthemccans.blogspot.com/?zx=bd7d5ff2f7285e1a

NSY not very happy about their mail being all over the internet, Tony?

That Would Be A Very Firm No, Bonny.

Ah well, they will know better than to trust Bennett, won't they?

Perhaps now NSY could sue TB for reveal the content in the internet.

In my opinion, TB revealed the content of NSY letter to him, with the sick purpose we all know.

The fact of TB revealed the letter, is another proof of TB´s insanity.

It has proven to Scotland Yard that he simply is not to be trusted, Pedro.

bb1 wrote:It has proven to Scotland Yard that he simply is not to be trusted, Pedro.

Comes to something when a member of your UK Parliament downloads the letter from my blog. Wouldn't Scotland Yard send them a copy?

Probably, if they were asked, Tony - but I doubt if Scotland Yard expected their normal confidentiality to be breached so spectacularly by Bennett. Thankfully, by posting it, Bennett has wrecked the little chance he had of gaining any input at all; he has demonstrated to Scotland Yard that he simply cannot be trusted.

You have to laugh, don't you. Bennett really is his own worst enemy. This is all about attention seeking. "Look at me. Aren't I clever. I know how to deal with common policemen."
Of course they won't trust him. They know that everything they put in writing, or any conversation they have with him will be plastered all over The Internet.

Someone will have to do something about him one day. Let it be sooooon.

bb1 wrote:Probably, if they were asked, Tony - but I doubt if Scotland Yard expected their normal confidentiality to be breached so spectacularly by Bennett. Thankfully, by posting it, Bennett has wrecked the little chance he had of gaining any input at all; he has demonstrated to Scotland Yard that he simply cannot be trusted.

True, I hadn't looked at it that way, Bonny.

How can they have anything to do with him after that, Tony? It is absolutely taboo in the UK for non-police officers to publicise any info about an ongoing investigation.
The police do make statements themselves, obviously, but for anyone else - totally taboo to reveal information given in confidence.
I would think that from now on, the 'researchers' will get the sex and travel option. Politely, of course.

bb1 wrote:Much high-fiving going on in certain quarters, as the story is being spun that New Scotland Yard is taking his nonsense seriously.
Best people look at what was actually said:



lf the Madeleine Foundation holds 'evidence'

The word 'evidence' is in quotes because they know perfectly well all Bennett has is rubbish from the 'researchers' and 'profilers'.

It is polite for, Please, send it in, we like a good laugh in the police canteen.

http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/

Bennetts email he sent out yresterday with his selective quotes rather differs from what Andy Redwood actually said, don't you think?

Kiss this Bennett you lying wimp!

----Original Message----

From: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Date: 25/07/2011 20:25

To: <ajsbennett@btinternet.com>

Subj: News from The Madeleine Foundation: SCOTLAND YARD REVIEW

Dear all

re MADELEINE MCCANN


We have today had a formal reply from the Madeleine McCann Scotland Yard Review Team to our letter asking for clarification of their terms of reference - and asking specifically if they are prepared to look at evidence which does NOT support the abduction claim of the McCanns.

And it's good news.

You can read our letter to Scotland Yard dated 11 July 2011 here:

http://bit.ly/nAJYow

and Scotland Yard's reply from Detective Chief Inspector Redwood here:

http://tinyurl.com/3f7pbj9

The crucial bits of the letter are the statements that, and I quote:

"The investigative review will encompass ALL INVESTIGATIONS THAT HAVE BEEN CONDUCTED..."
and "Please BY ALL MEANS forward 'evidence' which you believe will assist this process..."

and"Any material submitted will be subject to assessment and review".

In the light of those comments I would suggest that ANYONE who considers they have evidence of any kind, even circumstantial evidence, that Madeleine McCann was NOT abducted, then they should write to DCI Andy Redwood at:

SCD1

Homicide and Serious Crime Command

Room 3.30

1st Floor

Belgravia Police Station

202-206 Buckingham Palace Road

LONDON

SW1W 9SX

Please be specific about what your evidence is, give sources if you can, suggest possible new lines of enquiry if possible, and always make any lettters polite, courteous and to the point.

From The Madeleine Foundation Committee

Monday 25 July 2011 9pm

More delusions from Comb of the Yard:

When the SY Review might become an SY investigation
Tony Bennett Today at 8:07 am

Zelina wrote:
I'm very confused about this whole process. I don't even understand the scope of this and the possible consequences. Say for instance that they question the parents and Tapas friends regarding the timeline inconsistencies and one of them cracks and reveals they have previously told lies. What can happen after that? Can anyone be charged with anything? Is there a crime like obstruction of justice in Portugal? Would they have to re-open the Portuguese enquiry for any action to follow?

Good questions.

First of all, this is a REVIEW, similar to what is called a 'cold case review'. Essentially this means a group of officers trawling through thousands of documents and looking for possible new leads and lines of enquiry.

If there is evidence of a crime having been committed by one or more individuals, then the status of the review would change from REVIEW to INVESTIGATION - and, yes, that could lead to ARRESTS.

It is my understanding that as Madeleine McCann is British and all the Tapas group are British and as some of the alleged offences occurred in Britain that IF they have collectively covered up the death of Madeleine in Praia da Luz they could be charged under British law with a whole raft of offences:

* causing or allowing the death of a child (McCanns)

* hiding a body and preventing an inquest (McCanns)

* interfering with or prverting the course of justice - or conspiracy to interfere with or pervert the course of justice (McCanns, Tapas friends, and anyone else involved in the cover-up)

* conspiracy to obtain a pecuniary advantage by deception (all those involved in setting up and running the Fund)

* interference with witnesses (Brian Kennedy).

I think Cameron, Sir Paul Stephenson, and the McCann Team hoped that the Review would merely be an excuse to lambast the Portuguese Police once again for their incompetence, and announce that the Portuguese Police had lamentably failed to follow up potential 'sightings' of Madeleine, therefore giving the McCanns' narrative the official backing of Scotland Yard.
Those of us who believe the evidence strongly suggests that Madeleine McCann died in Apartment G5A have, I believe, a solem duty to explain this to DCI Andy Redwood and his colleagues.


Yeah, just you nutjobs do that thing....keeps you out of harm's way.

Meanwhile, in the real world....NSA are using PROPER translations of the police files, not the dodgy translations with important sections missing, not the deliberate mistranslations of key words ...

A perfect example being 'parents' deliberately changed to 'fathers' by pitchforker translators.

Another perfect example being 'finger' changed to 'hand' by pitchforker translators in the Portuguese forensic reports.

They will will also be reading the review of Gonc's mess by senior members of the PJ - you know, the one the pitchforkers like to pretend doesn't exist.

The one which contains these remarks about the Wonderdogs, from senior members of the PJ:

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'


Funny how the pitchforkers never mention that senior members of the PJ weren't happy with the Wonderdogs, what with there not being any evidence to justify their antics?

That's the sort of thing NSY will be looking at, not a load of trash from conspiraloon haters.

Have a nice day.

They ALWAYS ignore this, Jayelles:

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic1170.html


ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE FIRST 11 VOLUMES OF THE INQUIRY (pages 1-3004) Central Department of Criminal Investigation, February, 5th, 2008


by senior PJ officers.

They have minor niggles, which is understandable, BUT - they found no smoking gun, no 'secret' evidence, no Aces up Sleeves.

They had no illusions about the Wonderdogs:

This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'

These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.

And as we know, they found - nothing.

Inconsistencies?

From the analysis no noticeable discrepancies can be found from the depositions made by the intervenients, and also between those statements and other elements to which they were compared, namely, the registries of the crèches entrances and exits of the children, registries of the tennis classes and phone calls.

Which why all that guff from Santakiki and the rest of the pretendy 'researchers' goes straight into police rubbish bins.

There surely has to come a point when the pitchforkers face the fact that Madeleine McCann was abducted? It is actually irrelevant what they - or anyone - think of her parents; it is Madeleine McCann who counts. If they care as much about Madeleine as they pretend to, they will cease trying to meddle in efforts to find her.