Re: **NEW** Daily Mirrors, 18, 21 & 22 Apr - EX-DETECTIVE COLIN SUTTON IS ACTIVELY CONTRIBUTING TO THIS THREAD (was: Daily Mirror, 18 Apr 2017 "What REALLY happened the night Madeleine disappeared")

[Lord Sleuth]

Just a thought, have any of the broadsheets commented on this article? I'm not going to say what I think of those who believe the Sun/Mirror/Star as it might hurt someone's feelings but does anybody on here have the inclination that the Telegraph and the Times are holding back waiting for the landslide to crash so that they can scoop up and expose the establishment for the rotten deceitful body that it is.

No.

Is this a no to the fact that any of the broadsheets have commented on this article?

No to the last bit.

[Verdi]

I wonder why he was here though, if the book was already finished?

Maybe he's still in the process of writing it? 

Maybe he doesn't know how to end it !

[JRP]

Just a thought, have any of the broadsheets commented on this article? I'm not going to say what I think of those who believe the Sun/Mirror/Star as it might hurt someone's feelings but does anybody on here have the inclination that the Telegraph and the Times are holding back waiting for the landslide to crash so that they can scoop up and expose the establishment for the rotten deceitful body that it is.

He who owns the Sun also owns the Times and Sunday Times, as in News Corp. The Star and the Express have the same owner,Northern and Shell, The Telegraph is tomorrows chip paper owned by Conrad Black. 
So my guess is no, they aren't going to expose the establishment any time soon.

[Verdi]

oh, and he has a new book on the horizon.


Here's an old one from Lazzeri that gives Colin a mention:
http://l-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com/Madeleine_-_6_Years_Gone.html

Sure it's not on the amazon?

Makes me wonder why this otherwise unknown ex-police officer has been selected to comment on the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  PeterMac is an ex-senior police officer with extensive knowledge of the case - why not he?  Because he's not for sale maybe?

I detect a very strong whiff of a Clarence Mitchell wafting across the air waves. 

Reported by Tracey 'the font of all things McCann knowledge' Kandohla in August 2016 for the intelligent tabloid #madeuthink Daily Mirror..

Madeleine McCann's parents dump a key member of their team in a bid to slash spiralling costs

Kate and Gerry axed PR expert Clarence Mitchell after nine years as they face uncertainty over the future of the £12million investigation

He mightn't be on the payroll but he's certainly still very active - working behind the scenes pro-boneo perhaps?

[sallypelt]

Just a thought, have any of the broadsheets commented on this article? I'm not going to say what I think of those who believe the Sun/Mirror/Star as it might hurt someone's feelings but does anybody on here have the inclination that the Telegraph and the Times are holding back waiting for the landslide to crash so that they can scoop up and expose the establishment for the rotten deceitful body that it is.

He who owns the Sun also owns the Times and Sunday Times, as in News Corp. The Star and the Express have the same owner,Northern and Shell, The Telegraph is tomorrows chip paper owned by Conrad Black. 
So my guess is no, they aren't going to expose the establishment any time soon.

"So my guess is no, they aren't going to expose the establishment any time soon".



The cover-up is always worse than the crime.

 
It’s not the original scandal that gets people into hot water. It’s the attempt to cover it up

[Irene 2]

@Oatlandish

I hope that, if tomorrow's Sunday Mirror's MORE SHOCKING REVELATIONS is based on your 2 days in PDL with Martin Fricker, you will return here before the SKY documentary airs.

You are clearly the 'go-to' ex-detective for the 10th Anniversary PR articles - whether you knew you were being used for a PR exercise in favour of the McCann's or not. 

I don't know how anyone can be expected to do in-depth interviews about the McCann case without studying it for many months/years (including reading every page of the PJ files).  If any newspaper had wanted to publish a more accurate piece of investigative journalism from PDL, they only had to jump over the border to Spain and meet up with PeterMac who is also an ex-police Superintendant.

 
I agree. Are there any prizes for guessing why it seems that everyone involved in team McCann controlled media reports have insufficient or zero real knowledge of this case? When will anyone dare to discuss the cadaver odour alerted 10 times and only on all things McCann? When will any of them including the McCanns offer a feasible explanation instead of dismissive garbage?

[Captain_Pugwash]

@Oatlandish

I hope that, if tomorrow's Sunday Mirror's MORE SHOCKING REVELATIONS is based on your 2 days in PDL with Martin Fricker, you will return here before the SKY documentary airs.

You are clearly the 'go-to' ex-detective for the 10th Anniversary PR articles - whether you knew you were being used for a PR exercise in favour of the McCann's or not. 

I don't know how anyone can be expected to do in-depth interviews about the McCann case without studying it for many months/years (including reading every page of the PJ files).  If any newspaper had wanted to publish a more accurate piece of investigative journalism from PDL, they only had to jump over the border to Spain and meet up with PeterMac who is also an ex-police Superintendant.

 
I agree. Are there any prizes for guessing why it seems that everyone involved in team McCann controlled media reports have insufficient or zero real knowledge of this case? When will anyone dare to discuss the cadaver odour alerted 10 times and only on all things McCann? When will any of them including the McCanns offer a feasible explanation instead of dismissive garbage?

Doubtful. Next you will be asking about jemmied shutters. Heaven forbid that you dare mention that the parents left the children unattended whilst they went out on the pssi.

[Irene 2]

@Oatlandish

I hope that, if tomorrow's Sunday Mirror's MORE SHOCKING REVELATIONS is based on your 2 days in PDL with Martin Fricker, you will return here before the SKY documentary airs.

You are clearly the 'go-to' ex-detective for the 10th Anniversary PR articles - whether you knew you were being used for a PR exercise in favour of the McCann's or not. 

I don't know how anyone can be expected to do in-depth interviews about the McCann case without studying it for many months/years (including reading every page of the PJ files).  If any newspaper had wanted to publish a more accurate piece of investigative journalism from PDL, they only had to jump over the border to Spain and meet up with PeterMac who is also an ex-police Superintendant.

 
I agree. Are there any prizes for guessing why it seems that everyone involved in team McCann controlled media reports have insufficient or zero real knowledge of this case? When will anyone dare to discuss the cadaver odour alerted 10 times and only on all things McCann? When will any of them including the McCanns offer a feasible explanation instead of dismissive garbage?

[Jill Havern]

This is a precis for a new chapter of PeterMac's FREE e-book, currently being written:


Recent hysterical Press reports are still concentrating on who could have done it, and are refusing to concentrate on whether it was done at all.

I could believe in an Abduction if I was presented with evidence of the MO - The Modus Operandi  - the evidential signs which detectives look for when investigating a report of crime, and which when placed in sequence can tell the story of what happened.

Many criminals stick to a particular MO which can be revealing for future detection

The list of points is long, but includes

Point of entry - window, door, front, back, side, locked or unlocked


Method of entry -  was it forced, using instrument or bodily pressure,  duplicate key, by fraud, by intimidation, silent,  . . .

Tools used - blunt instrument, sharp instrument, brick, concrete, wood, ladder, climbing . . .

Times between - 

Day of week -

Point of exit - as entry, or using door, climbing on furniture

Method of exit

Search - was this orderly professional, or amateur, 

Items taken - money, antiques, etc

Marks and items left at scene - fingerprints, foot prints, DNA, hair, clothing fibres, bodily fluids and solids, cigarette ends, artefacts from elsewhere

Victim - age, gender, characteristics

Trademark - eating food from fridge, drinking from bottles or glasses, using facilities, wanton damage to specific items, use of fire to hide evidence, cleaning, attempt removal of forensics

Witnesses

And so on.

Here we have - NOTHING.

No point of entry, 

No method of entry, (even Mitchell conceded both these)

No time window

No search

No items taken

No marks of any sort, inside or outside

No trademark

No witnesses

What then do we have ?

We have two people insisting that “For us, there is only the abduction theory possible", without providing or being able to point to a single piece of evidence.

And we have the top police and detectives of two Countries after a 10 year investigation unable to find a single piece of credible evidence

And by that we do not mean unable to find 'sufficient evidence to prosecute' - but unable to find a single piece of evidence.

Until we have that, there is no point in speculating about who might have done 'it'.

[pennylane]

This is a precis for a new chapter of PeterMac's FREE e-book, currently being written:


Recent hysterical Press reports are still concentrating on who could have done it, and are refusing to concentrate on whether it was done at all.

I could believe in an Abduction if I was presented with evidence of the MO - The Modus Operandi  - the evidential signs which detectives look for when investigating a report of crime, and which when placed in sequence can tell the story of what happened.

Many criminals stick to a particular MO which can be revealing for future detection

The list of points is long, but includes

Point of entry - window, door, front, back, side, locked or unlocked


Method of entry -  was it forced, using instrument or bodily pressure,  duplicate key, by fraud, by intimidation, silent,  . . .

Tools used - blunt instrument, sharp instrument, brick, concrete, wood, ladder, climbing . . .

Times between - 

Day of week -

Point of exit - as entry, or using door, climbing on furniture

Method of exit

Search - was this orderly professional, or amateur, 

Items taken - money, antiques, etc

Marks and items left at scene - fingerprints, foot prints, DNA, hair, clothing fibres, bodily fluids and solids, cigarette ends, artefacts from elsewhere

Victim - age, gender, characteristics

Trademark - eating food from fridge, drinking from bottles or glasses, using facilities, wanton damage to specific items, use of fire to hide evidence, cleaning, attempt removal of forensics

Witnesses

And so on.

Here we have - NOTHING.

No point of entry, 

No method of entry, (even Mitchell conceded both these)

No time window

No search

No items taken

No marks of any sort, inside or outside

No trademark

No witnesses

What then do we have ?

We have two people insisting that “For us, there is only the abduction theory possible", without providing or being able to point to a single piece of evidence.

And we have the top police and detectives of two Countries after a 10 year investigation unable to find a single piece of credible evidence

And by that we do not mean unable to find 'sufficient evidence to prosecute' - but unable to find a single piece of evidence.

Until we have that, there is no point in speculating about who might have done 'it'.

 


     There are obviously vast efforts afoot to avoid investigating the McCanns. I don't think Operation Grange dare review this case from the beginning, because they know their 'Abduction Remit' would dissipate immediately, due to the enormous holes and red flags in the McCanns and friends' statements. OG would then have to give the blood and cadaver dog alerts (to all things McCann) their full attention! They cannot go there at all, and it's blindingly obvious why not (imo).  

Well said PeterMac, you have really put things in perspective!

[Jill Havern]

I wonder why Colin/oatlandish can't come up with something like that for his theory, after all his years in the MET murder squad?

Or maybe it has something to do with him being the current Consultant Investigation lead for Murdoch's BSkyB? 

http://www.colinsutton.com/cv.pdf

[Phoebe]

IMO one of the weirdest aspects of Op. Grange has been its failure to actually investigate so that parental involvement can be ruled out. It's not enough to state that Grange is investigating an abduction by person/s unknown without explaining on what basis the parents have been discounted as suspects. "Because they said they didn't do it" is just ridiculous. If claiming innocence were enough to result in no further investigation, gaols would be empty. There is universal acceptance that the majority of child abduction cases involve someone known to the child, and that it is good policing to investigate such a possibility. The fact that Grange has never sought to categorically rule out the parents as suspects can only mean it considers such a task impossible.

[Irene 2]

This is a precis for a new chapter of PeterMac's FREE e-book, currently being written:


Recent hysterical Press reports are still concentrating on who could have done it, and are refusing to concentrate on whether it was done at all.

I could believe in an Abduction if I was presented with evidence of the MO - The Modus Operandi  - the evidential signs which detectives look for when investigating a report of crime, and which when placed in sequence can tell the story of what happened.

Many criminals stick to a particular MO which can be revealing for future detection

The list of points is long, but includes

Point of entry - window, door, front, back, side, locked or unlocked


Method of entry -  was it forced, using instrument or bodily pressure,  duplicate key, by fraud, by intimidation, silent,  . . .

Tools used - blunt instrument, sharp instrument, brick, concrete, wood, ladder, climbing . . .

Times between - 

Day of week -

Point of exit - as entry, or using door, climbing on furniture

Method of exit

Search - was this orderly professional, or amateur, 

Items taken - money, antiques, etc

Marks and items left at scene - fingerprints, foot prints, DNA, hair, clothing fibres, bodily fluids and solids, cigarette ends, artefacts from elsewhere

Victim - age, gender, characteristics

Trademark - eating food from fridge, drinking from bottles or glasses, using facilities, wanton damage to specific items, use of fire to hide evidence, cleaning, attempt removal of forensics

Witnesses

And so on.

Here we have - NOTHING.

No point of entry, 

No method of entry, (even Mitchell conceded both these)

No time window

No search

No items taken

No marks of any sort, inside or outside

No trademark

No witnesses

What then do we have ?

We have two people insisting that “For us, there is only the abduction theory possible", without providing or being able to point to a single piece of evidence.

And we have the top police and detectives of two Countries after a 10 year investigation unable to find a single piece of credible evidence

And by that we do not mean unable to find 'sufficient evidence to prosecute' - but unable to find a single piece of evidence.

Until we have that, there is no point in speculating about who might have done 'it'.

More excellent work from Peter Mac!

[MTSTAR]

IMO one of the weirdest aspects of Op. Grange has been its failure to actually investigate so that parental involvement can be ruled out. It's not enough to state that Grange is investigating an abduction by person/s unknown without explaining on what basis the parents have been discounted as suspects. "Because they said they didn't do it" is just ridiculous. If claiming innocence were enough to result in no further investigation, gaols would be empty. There is universal acceptance that the majority of child abduction cases involve someone known to the child, and that it is good policing to investigate such a possibility. The fact that Grange has never sought to categorically rule out the parents as suspects can only mean it considers such a task impossible.

I agree 100% with everything you've said.  The first port of call HAS to be the parents.  Why, in this instance, they haven't been investigated is beyond me. 

[Verdi]

IMO one of the weirdest aspects of Op. Grange has been its failure to actually investigate so that parental involvement can be ruled out. It's not enough to state that Grange is investigating an abduction by person/s unknown without explaining on what basis the parents have been discounted as suspects. "Because they said they didn't do it" is just ridiculous. If claiming innocence were enough to result in no further investigation, gaols would be empty. There is universal acceptance that the majority of child abduction cases involve someone known to the child, and that it is good policing to investigate such a possibility. The fact that Grange has never sought to categorically rule out the parents as suspects can only mean it considers such a task impossible.

I agree 100% with everything you've said.  The first port of call HAS to be the parents.  Why, in this instance, they haven't been investigated is beyond me. 

If you carefully examine Operation Grange from commencement, all becomes clear.

In May (that month again) 2011, they were originally assigned to undertake a review of the case - to coordinate all documentation thus far accrued appertaining to the case from whatever source, including the private detectives (snort!) hired by the McCanns, with the objective of finding that missing link that the bungling Portuguese detectives so carelessly  overlooked.  The 'review' took a couple of years to complete despite a 30+ strong dedicated unit working relentlessly (another snort!).

I don't believe it's ever been made clear but it would appear Operation Grange uncovered sufficient information considered important enough to upgrade the original 'review' remit to a full blown re-investigation.  This investigation kicked-off in May (that month again) 2013, ostensibly following a theory of abduction as it would be investigated in the UK !?!  The rest as they say is history - four years later and Operation Grange haven't moved one single step forward despite a notional 12+ million quid wasted in the process.

Ex-DCI Andy Redwood announced to the world his team would take the case back to zero, consider every possibility without prejudice or influence - he was dishonest.  What they (Operation Grange) did do was to proceed with a review and later re-investigation, following the McCanns guidance, commencing with a cry of 'abducted'!!!  In short the primary suspects leading the UK review/investigation.  Policing wise, there was never a call for a review or re-investigation by the UK - the PJ failed simply because they were prevented from following their line of inquiry;  Goncalo Amaral was removed from the investigation, not because be blabbed to the press but because he was becoming a nuisance by getting too close to the truth.  From then on the PJ lost it's impetus and their investigation was encouraged to dissipate and eventually archived.

Thoroughly disgraceful sequence of events.

Operation Grange was established by the establishment - appropriately!  It was is and will always be nothing but a cosmetic exercise.  That is why the McCanns were never under the radar!

[Keitei]

I wonder of OG know what this reported  "stand alone" piece of evidence is?

[hermes333]

Scotland Yard were only supposed to 'Review' the case from the perspective of an 'Abduction' - and that is precisely what they've done. I recall watching, (then), UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, answering a question about the 'Review', in Parliament. He made it clear that SY were going to investigate the 'Abduction'. It was obvious then - as it is now - that no other theories, (about Madeleine's 'disappearance'), were even going to be considered by SY. The UK Government only wanted the 'Abduction' theory to be investigated. So that meant that only Gerry & Kate's claims were to be taken, seriously. (Which has been the case with much of the UK Media too, of course).

[Verdi]

I recall watching, (then), UK Prime Minister, David Cameron, answering a question about the 'Review', in Parliament. He made it clear that SY were going to investigate the 'Abduction'.

Can you provide some authorative confirmation of this recollection?  I don't recall David Cameron answering a question in the house about Operation Grange.

Thanks!

[hermes333]

Verdi - I'm afraid that I can't 'Link' you to David Cameron speaking about Operation Grange, (& its 'Abduction' remit). All I can recall, is that he was answering someone in Parliament & he said that Scotland Yard were going to look at the 'Abduction'. I 
was very angry, at the time, as I realised that Operation Grange was a farce & neither SY or the UK Government had any
intentions of looking at Gerry & Kate, (& their friends), to see if they had any involvement.

Not long afterwards SY announced that their remit was to re-examine the 'Abduction'. So, the entire 'Review' was not really serious at all. It was all for show. A PR exercise, by very dishonest & manipulative people. Sadly, an awful lot of people have 
been fooled by it all. Thankfully, a lot of people have not been deceived at all.

[polyenne]

If it was mentioned in Parliament, it will have been recorded in Hansard

[polyenne]

I've searched and there's no mention of Operation Grange

[Carrry On Doctor]

In light of the responses to date from Colin (all gratefully received - please keep them coming) the howls of disapproval are understandable.

Looking at it the other way though, could Colin really come on this forum and say that he and OG thought the parents were involved ? I don't think so.

Just saying.

[polyenne]

Has Colin played an operational role in the UK investigation ? If not, he's no better placed than any of us to draw a conclusion.
He just might just have a keener "copper's nose" but that'll be all. His bank balance should be better than most him now being the go-to expert.
Not quite sure what the fuss is about.
Move along now, nothing to see here.......

[Captain_Pugwash]

Verdi - I'm afraid that I can't 'Link' you to David Cameron speaking about Operation Grange, (& its 'Abduction' remit). All I can recall, is that he was answering someone in Parliament & he said that Scotland Yard were going to look at the 'Abduction'. I 
was very angry, at the time, as I realised that Operation Grange was a farce & neither SY or the UK Government had any
intentions of looking at Gerry & Kate, (& their friends), to see if they had any involvement.

Not long afterwards SY announced that their remit was to re-examine the 'Abduction'. So, the entire 'Review' was not really serious at all. It was all for show. A PR exercise, by very dishonest & manipulative people. Sadly, an awful lot of people have 
been fooled by it all. Thankfully, a lot of people have not been deceived at all.

Is there any independent journalist that could do some decent research into all the facts that point to the truth. In the last week or so I have heard that the latest theory is that Madeleine woke up , walked out of the apartment to look for her parents and was snatched by a marauding gang on the road or worse still hit by a drunk driver who then bundled her in to his car and disposed of the body. People, who is likely to believe this tosh? Is there simply a single publisher likely to tell the truth based upon the balance of probabilities?

[Phoebe]

Would Colin agree that all 3 scenarios put forward to explain Madeleine's disappearance can only hold water if the McCann's and their friends have deliberately lied? Scenario 1. Woke and wandered. This is only remotely possible if the apartment was not as Kate claims she found it - no open window or raised shutters, patio doors/patio curtains and safety gates not closed. 2. Abduction, only remotely possible if there had been no checking of the children at the times claimed. 3. Simulated abduction scene, which means the parents have lied and removed the child themselves.