Questions thread for member ex Met Police, Colin Sutton (oatlandish)

#1 · by **Jill Havern** 24.04.17 0:00

Colin

I've started this thread so that members can ask you questions.

I ask that this thread is kept polite and unchallenging.

I will start by asking you this please:

What evidence do you adduce to support your theory that Madeleine was Abducted?

Not for silly stories about secret tunnels and gangs and groups and caves and hellish lairs and traffickers and luxury yachts and childless millionaires who want a child with genetic and behavioural defects . . .

but some scrap of 'evidence' to show if, and how an abduction could conceivably have taken place between GM's visit and JT's sighting on 3/5/7

1:20s is the Window of Opportunity.

#2 · by Phoebe 24.04.17 0:23

Given that Gerry saw Madeleine in her bed at around 9pm and was still at the rear entrance gate at 9.15pm; given that Jane Tanner walked past the front of 5A just after this and entered her flat next door where she then remained (an observer waiting for opportunity would have noted this); given that Russell then walked past the front of 5A and along by the side-gate few moments later; given that Jez was walking in the area with the pushchair; given that the tapas chef arrived in his car and parked alongside the Tapas reception at 9.10; given that the Carpenters were walking in the vicinity at 9.30ish, given that Mrs. Fenn was home upstairs; given that Matt walked to the apartment at 9.30pm, leaving say, at 9.35pm - do you really believe that a planned abduction would have gone ahead that night with such a high level of activity around the target flat and people upstairs and coming and going to next door?

#3 · by Silverspeed 24.04.17 1:20

I woud like to ask Colin this if i may please.

Why do you think the McCanns lied about the shutters being tampered with?
What reason could they have for doing this?
If you had been the lead detective in this case, and bearing in mind had no evidence of an abduction having taken place, would you have found this suspicous to say the least?
Thanks.

#4 · by Rothley1 24.04.17 6:12

One question .....how do you explain the fact that both of the dogs (Eddie and Keela) alerted in the apartment and the hire car at the same positions ?

#5 · by justagrannynow 24.04.17 7:18

Genuine question. Who decides which ex detectives get their theories published and which are gagged and sued ? Colin Sutton must know.

#6 · by Patience 24.04.17 8:34

Colin,

It's been suggested by the McCanns and widely reported in the media that Madeleine and the twins were all drugged by the 'abductor'.

The reasons for this being that Madeleine didn't shout or scream when she was removed from the apartment and the twins stayed comatose through all the noise and disruption that later followed. Kate McCann, in her book, tells how she had to check the twins to make sure they were still breathing.

As an ex detective, could you please explain how it would be possible for an 'abductor' to sedate 3 young children in such a short time without leaving any evidence behind and how do you think the 'abductor' achieved this?

#7 · by dazedandconfused 24.04.17 8:38

It's the dogs' finding not being acknowledged which puzzles me. Why is there never any mention by British Police of the fact that they alerted to blood and cadaver scent.

#8 · by ChippyM 24.04.17 8:58

Hi Colin, I want to ask;

- Earlier you said you believe Madeleine is dead, what evidence has led you to this conclusion?

- You also said police should keep looking for a live child. Is this really the proper procedure if the balance of evidence is that the child is dead?

- Have you read the forensic reports in the case files, if not, why not?

#9 · by skyrocket 24.04.17 9:07

Colin - Good Morning. I'm hoping that by getting in quickly before you become inundated with questions you might feel inclined to help me with a couple of queries.

1.My main question/s is/are quite simple and regards forms used by the Met during 2007:

- Was there a standardised format for Form MG11?

- Was Form MG11 supplied hard copy; digitally as a pdf doc (locked content); digitally as a Word or similar doc (content unlocked and available for alteration); or, did individual stations/officers draw up their own copies?

2.Secondly, and of less importance (to me) than the above but still entirely relevant, I would genuinely like to know if you have an opinion/or feel free to express your opinion on why the following UK Police Guidelines on investigating missing persons don't appear to have been followed/considered in the setting of Operation Grange's seemingly blinkered review remit:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Guidance on the Management, Recording and Investigation of Missing Persons 2010

Pages 70/71:

5.4 Links to Serious Offences

The majority of missing person enquiries are quickly resolved. In a few cases, however, the report of a missing person is the first step in a major crime case. Therefore, the initial stages of any missing person enquiry should commence on the basis that the case may escalate into a serious crime enquiry. It is always easier to rein back from the early stages of a major enquiry than it is to recover missed opportunities resulting from a miscalculation in the early stages.

It is now widely recognised that missing is a key indicator in identifying victims of various crime types.

5.4.1 Homicide
One of the fundamental facts to be determined in a missing person investigation is the reason why the subject has disappeared. In cases where the circumstances are suspicious or are unexplained, use the maxim:

IF IN DOUBT, THINK MURDER.

Failure to apply such thinking in past cases has led to the loss of valuable investigative opportunities. This can ultimately result in failure to trace the missing person or to establish sufficient evidence to convict a perpetrator.

The status of the relationship between the missing person and the person making the initial report can also be important. Investigators should not always assume that such relationships are stable. There have been numerous cases where the person reporting the crime and/or the missing persons has been found to be the perpetrator of the crime.

_____________________

Thanks in advance for your time.

#10 · by plebgate 24.04.17 13:39

IMO Colin will not be back to answer any questions but just in case - Colin what do you think of PeterM's latest?

Copied from a different thread on this site:

by [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] Today at 3:44 am
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'.

#11 · by **sharonl** 24.04.17 19:11

Hi Colin
I did ask this on another thread.
In Jan 2009, Andrew Dickman (associate of McCann benefactor Brian Kennedy) set up a domain name for a company called Alphaig Ltd. Later in the year, Clarence Mitchell told us that the McCanns had hired a team of crack detectives. These were very often referred to in the media and via Clarence as Alpha Group Investigations. It turns out that this company does not exist but it seems of though the name was taken from a well established "Alpha Investigations Group" which had nothing whatsoever to do with the McCanns or their detectives. In June 2009, McCann detective Arthur Cowley set up the company Alphaig Limited with assets of no more than £550 and a cash balance of £800. This company had no website, no contact details and definitely not the required resources to search for a missing child.
Please could you explain why this one man band was employed to search for Madeleine, why were the public led to believe that it was a team of crack detectives and why were they not sacked by the McCanns when they failed to follow up vital leads in Barcelona and when they were caught clowning around in Germany.

#12 · by Rogue-a-Tory 24.04.17 19:36

Dear Colin,

What do you make of the statistic that 24 out of 25 young children that go missing do so as consequence of someone known to them?

#13 · by JulieC 24.04.17 19:41

For me the No 1 question has always been:

Why the cadaver/blood dog and car DNA evidence wasn't followed up? If the dogs were good enough for the FBI, why not the PJ and SY?

#14 · by **sharonl** 24.04.17 20:05

One more question from me Colin
If you were involved in the investigation of a missing child and two well respected UK doctors made formal statements that suggested that there were paedophiles amongst her parents group of friends at the time that she went missing, would you dismiss the evidence, put it aside for 6 months or investigate those who were named?
If you did investigate and found those who were named to have strong alibi's in this particular case, would you then dismiss the evidence or open a separate case to investigate the alleged paedophilia?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

#15 · by Guest 24.04.17 20:09

Colin has done a runner.

He won't answer these questions because he has no good answers.

These are all fair-minded questions.

Come on Colin. Prove me wrong.

#16 · by sammyc 24.04.17 20:59

According to the her parents (and Dave Edgar recently again) Madeleine is still alive and out there somewhere so why is Mainstream Media publishing 'death' as a scenario but the McCanns and their cohorts are not taking libel action against said media?