Colin Sutton: Met only interested in proving McCann parents innocent

Thank you Colin

Thank you Colin Sutton, for explaining yourself so eloquently!

I do hope Mr Sutton can find time in the near future to delve much deeper into this case, and I take it on board that he needs to adhere to evidence and steer clear of speculation if he is to be successful in accessing meaningful platforms.  I am very much looking forward to his input and expertise.

pennylane wrote:Thank you Colin Sutton, for explaining yourself so eloquently!

I do hope Mr Sutton can find time in the near future to delve much deeper into this case, and I take it on board that he needs to adhere to evidence and steer clear of speculation if he is to be successful in accessing meaningful platforms.  I am very much looking forward to his input and expertise.

Yes, I agree with you Pennylane. An officer and a gentleman. Thank you Colin.

Cheshire Cat wrote:

pennylane wrote:Thank you Colin Sutton, for explaining yourself so eloquently!

I do hope Mr Sutton can find time in the near future to delve much deeper into this case, and I take it on board that he needs to adhere to evidence and steer clear of speculation if he is to be successful in accessing meaningful platforms.  I am very much looking forward to his input and expertise.

Yes, I agree with you Pennylane. An officer and a gentleman. Thank you Colin.

Amen!  Mr Sutton has truth and justice firmly in his DNA, just as Goncalo Amaral has.

Have  I got this right? Colin Sutton is now being lauded as a hero?

Please enlighten me as to why.

I must admit, over the last few weeks my faith in OG has been left hanging by a thread, but Hideho's video (up thread) offers an interesting angle.

Since the crime was committed in Portugal, investigating the parents MUST be solely for the PJ, both for practical but more importantly legal reasons. In this context the remarks made to Colin Sutton make sense - Kate, Gerry, and the T9 have deliberately been removed from the OG remit.

Investigating the 'abduction as if it happened in the UK' would always lead to blanks, so what have nearly 40 strong staff been doing for so long when the whitewash/charade could have been achieved with only a few ?

By concluding that an abduction didn't take place is still an abduction investigation but in reverse. Ruling everything else out so to speak. Remember, its abduction or nothing. The McCanns have no plan B.

Whatever is really going on the background, recent interviews seem to be hugely significant. Colins remarks have piled huge pressure on SY and the Government, and so I continue to be optimistic that the perpetrators will be exposed.

P.S. Thank you sincerely Colin, your input is greatly appreciated on this forum.

Aquila, Colin Sutton is hardly being "lauded as a hero"...........a bit over-dramatic IMO.

Rather, it is clear he has a very important role (and perhaps more influence than most members here) which, he appears to indicate, he intends to fulfil but only in a measured way having enlightened himself further, perhaps via this forum.

I think a measured approach, looking at ALL the information, is exactly what's needed. There are so many wild theories, the wheat and the chaff need sorting.

polyenne wrote:Aquila, Colin Sutton is hardly being "lauded as a hero"...........a bit over-dramatic IMO.

Rather, it is clear he has a very important role (and perhaps more influence than most members here) which, he appears to indicate, he intends to fulfil but only in a measured way having enlightened himself further, perhaps via this forum.

I think a measured approach, looking at ALL the information, is exactly what's needed. There are so many wild theories, the wheat and the chaff need sorting.

Have you actually read/digested Colin Sutton's blog entry?

Yes, thanks

I'll get my coat then. I don't believe Colin Sutton to be anything other than a self-promoted media pundit who joined this forum (why?) shortly before his two appearances in tenth anniversary documentaries (three if you count the Aussie doco) with nothing other than a hearsay conversation that not only can't be proven but will never be challenged in any inquiry into Operation Grange.

Titbits.

Bread and butter today and making jam for tomorrow springs to mind.

I think some paranoia is understandable in terms of the establishment where this case is concerned but, when someone who has  credibility through years of experience as a senior Met officer comes forward and sticks their neck out to say what Colin has, whatever their motivation, they have to be thanked. There must be many other retired senior officers with access to exactly the same information that Colin has (and we have), who are sticking their heads in the ground. Apart from @Petermac, of course.

Colin has backed up exactly what CMOMM has being saying for a long time - that Operation Grange is abnormal in terms of British policing in that the remit never allowed for a full investigation; never allowed for any other scenario than abduction; never allowed for questioning of those closest to the child. I'd go beyond abnormal and say probably unique - in its complete lack of compliance with police operational guidelines.

The confirmation of this is coming out of the mouth of a man who is fully qualified to comment, and that will register with joe public.

I am happy to add my thanks to Colin.

Crikey, that old chestnut 'paranoia' is now introduced.

skyrocket wrote:I think some paranoia is understandable in terms of the establishment where this case is concerned but, when someone who has  credibility through years of experience as a senior Met officer comes forward and sticks their neck out to say what Colin has, whatever their motivation, they have to be thanked. There must be many other retired senior officers with access to exactly the same information that Colin has (and we have), who are sticking their heads in the ground. Apart from @Petermac, of course.

Colin has backed up exactly what CMOMM has being saying for a long time - that Operation Grange is abnormal in terms of British policing in that the remit never allowed for a full investigation; never allowed for any other scenario than abduction; never allowed for questioning of those closest to the child. I'd go beyond abnormal and say probably unique - in its complete lack of compliance with police operational guidelines.

The confirmation of this is coming out of the mouth of a man who is fully qualified to comment, and that will register with joe public.

I am happy to add my thanks to Colin.

I agree, anyone with his experience and level headedness is more than welcomed by me. I don't see what the problem is to be honest.

Although Colin Sutton's comments on Op. Grange have come very late in the game they can still have some positive effect. In some ways the delay may turn out to have been a good thing. Grange has, by now, irritated even those not particularly interested in following the Madeleine case, since it has managed to cost tax-payers so much and produce so little after all these years. This fact lends weight to C. S's claims. Had he made them earlier in the investigation I suspect he could have been discredited by claims that he was miffed at not being selected to head it. Now however, the fact that Grange has promoted "leads" for several years only to discard them and end up empty-handed lends credence to his claim that it was never a full and frank investigation. His statement will also put pressure on Grange's final report when it winds down. Having an ex-senior policeman publicly state that Grange was never going to investigate the Tapas 9 is more damning in the eyes of the public than all "the trolls" criticism of it. He is harder to discredit and that can only be a positive development.

"However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well.  This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".


That is the totality of the advice I received. It was made clear that this was an ‘unofficial’ call and that it was made in my interest – so that I might not end up taking on a task which would ultimately frustrate me.  As such I never pressed the caller for more information, nor will I ever be in a position to disclose who the officer was."

I wonder why this person Colin Sutton refers to can't be identified?  If this person retired couldn't it be revealed?

Is it personal loyalty because he knew him well? Are personal loyalties more important than the truth about what seems like a huge cover-up surrounding the death of a child ordered by our government at the tax payers expense?   I don't intend to be judgmental, I would genuinely like to know the reasons that this has to stay secret.

 Aquila, whilst I can fully understand your cynicism, it is clear, having read Colin's blog, that he was approached by Sky last year about the documentary. I don't construe that to be jumping on the 10-year band wagon.

It may well be that he had harboured suspicions for some time (certainly since he was warned off from heading up OG) and all he needed was a genuine platform (and widely-viewed) in which to voice his opinions. As he has said, the fact that Sky were open to those opinions and also included them fully in their documentary (something against the pro-McCann narrative that has been rare if not non-existent) has to be applauded.

Long may it continue.

Chippy M, as I wrote yesterday, the high echelons to which this case reaches, means that anyone in an authoritative position (or ex-position) who dares to speak out may well find that they have scratched a raw nerve (read into that what you will).

Colin has done that, and his loyalty to others in not exposing them (it isn't really necessary anyway, is it ? Apart from simple nosiness) is to be applauded.

ChippyM wrote:"However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well.  This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".


That is the totality of the advice I received. It was made clear that this was an ‘unofficial’ call and that it was made in my interest – so that I might not end up taking on a task which would ultimately frustrate me.  As such I never pressed the caller for more information, nor will I ever be in a position to disclose who the officer was."

I wonder why this person Colin Sutton refers to can't be identified?  If this person retired couldn't it be revealed?

Is it personal loyalty because he knew him well? Are personal loyalties more important than the truth about what seems like a huge cover-up surrounding the death of a child ordered by our government at the tax payers expense?   I don't intend to be judgmental, I would genuinely like to know the reasons that this has to stay secret.

Yikes, do the Met advise each other in shrouded terms? A call comes in from a person you know on the strength of a NoTW article and you don't question but merely accept a gypsy's warning. This is something out of a B list spy movie.

aquila wrote:

ChippyM wrote:"However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well.  This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".


That is the totality of the advice I received. It was made clear that this was an ‘unofficial’ call and that it was made in my interest – so that I might not end up taking on a task which would ultimately frustrate me.  As such I never pressed the caller for more information, nor will I ever be in a position to disclose who the officer was."

I wonder why this person Colin Sutton refers to can't be identified?  If this person retired couldn't it be revealed?

Is it personal loyalty because he knew him well? Are personal loyalties more important than the truth about what seems like a huge cover-up surrounding the death of a child ordered by our government at the tax payers expense?   I don't intend to be judgmental, I would genuinely like to know the reasons that this has to stay secret.

Yikes, do the Met advise each other in shrouded terms? A call comes in from a person you know on the strength of a NoTW article and you don't question but merely accept a gypsy's warning. This is something out of a B list spy movie.

I really don't see it as shrouded terms at all. I don't believe that the call was "on the strength" of the NoTW article but that it leaking to the papers perhaps meant that they were close to appointing someone or making their intentions public? If someone I knew who was senior to me (so had more information then me) and that I liked and/or respected advised me that a project I was being lined up for was essentially a poisoned chalice, I think I would keep away from it too. The senior officer (who may still be serving) was apparently going against the party line to mention this to CS and therefore do him a favour. In these circumstances, I would be discreet - why would you choose to dump on someone who helped you?

dartinghero wrote:

aquila wrote:

ChippyM wrote:"However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well.  This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".


That is the totality of the advice I received. It was made clear that this was an ‘unofficial’ call and that it was made in my interest – so that I might not end up taking on a task which would ultimately frustrate me.  As such I never pressed the caller for more information, nor will I ever be in a position to disclose who the officer was."

I wonder why this person Colin Sutton refers to can't be identified?  If this person retired couldn't it be revealed?

Is it personal loyalty because he knew him well? Are personal loyalties more important than the truth about what seems like a huge cover-up surrounding the death of a child ordered by our government at the tax payers expense?   I don't intend to be judgmental, I would genuinely like to know the reasons that this has to stay secret.

Yikes, do the Met advise each other in shrouded terms? A call comes in from a person you know on the strength of a NoTW article and you don't question but merely accept a gypsy's warning. This is something out of a B list spy movie.

I really don't see it as shrouded terms at all. I don't believe that the call was "on the strength" of the NoTW article but that it leaking to the papers perhaps meant that they were close to appointing someone or making their intentions public? If someone I knew who was senior to me (so had more information then me) and that I liked and/or respected advised me that a project I was being lined up for was essentially a poisoned chalice, I think I would keep away from it too. The senior officer (who may still be serving) was apparently going against the party line to mention this to CS and therefore do him a favour. In these circumstances, I would be discreet - why would you choose to dump on someone who helped you?

Colin Sutton wasn't offered the job.

aquila wrote:

dartinghero wrote:

aquila wrote:

ChippyM wrote:"However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well.  This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".


That is the totality of the advice I received. It was made clear that this was an ‘unofficial’ call and that it was made in my interest – so that I might not end up taking on a task which would ultimately frustrate me.  As such I never pressed the caller for more information, nor will I ever be in a position to disclose who the officer was."

I wonder why this person Colin Sutton refers to can't be identified?  If this person retired couldn't it be revealed?

Is it personal loyalty because he knew him well? Are personal loyalties more important than the truth about what seems like a huge cover-up surrounding the death of a child ordered by our government at the tax payers expense?   I don't intend to be judgmental, I would genuinely like to know the reasons that this has to stay secret.

Yikes, do the Met advise each other in shrouded terms? A call comes in from a person you know on the strength of a NoTW article and you don't question but merely accept a gypsy's warning. This is something out of a B list spy movie.

I really don't see it as shrouded terms at all. I don't believe that the call was "on the strength" of the NoTW article but that it leaking to the papers perhaps meant that they were close to appointing someone or making their intentions public? If someone I knew who was senior to me (so had more information then me) and that I liked and/or respected advised me that a project I was being lined up for was essentially a poisoned chalice, I think I would keep away from it too. The senior officer (who may still be serving) was apparently going against the party line to mention this to CS and therefore do him a favour. In these circumstances, I would be discreet - why would you choose to dump on someone who helped you?

Colin Sutton wasn't offered the job.

But it is entirely conceivable that his name was amongst a mix being discussed at a higher level. I can also see good reasons that he wouldn't be offered it - the "warning" senior officer could have suggested he wasn't suitable, CS may have let it be known he wasn't interested, whatever CS was working on at the time may have been more useful - albeit, lower profile.

dartinghero wrote:

aquila wrote:

dartinghero wrote:

aquila wrote:

ChippyM wrote:"However, before this, just a few days after the NotW story I did receive a call from a senior officer in the Met whom I knew quite well.  This officer told me I would do better to avoid the McCann investigation if it did happen, because "You wouldn't be happy leading an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not".


That is the totality of the advice I received. It was made clear that this was an ‘unofficial’ call and that it was made in my interest – so that I might not end up taking on a task which would ultimately frustrate me.  As such I never pressed the caller for more information, nor will I ever be in a position to disclose who the officer was."

I wonder why this person Colin Sutton refers to can't be identified?  If this person retired couldn't it be revealed?

Is it personal loyalty because he knew him well? Are personal loyalties more important than the truth about what seems like a huge cover-up surrounding the death of a child ordered by our government at the tax payers expense?   I don't intend to be judgmental, I would genuinely like to know the reasons that this has to stay secret.

Yikes, do the Met advise each other in shrouded terms? A call comes in from a person you know on the strength of a NoTW article and you don't question but merely accept a gypsy's warning. This is something out of a B list spy movie.

I really don't see it as shrouded terms at all. I don't believe that the call was "on the strength" of the NoTW article but that it leaking to the papers perhaps meant that they were close to appointing someone or making their intentions public? If someone I knew who was senior to me (so had more information then me) and that I liked and/or respected advised me that a project I was being lined up for was essentially a poisoned chalice, I think I would keep away from it too. The senior officer (who may still be serving) was apparently going against the party line to mention this to CS and therefore do him a favour. In these circumstances, I would be discreet - why would you choose to dump on someone who helped you?

Colin Sutton wasn't offered the job.

But it is entirely conceivable that his name was amongst a mix being discussed at a higher level. I can also see good reasons that he wouldn't be offered it - the "warning" senior officer could have suggested he wasn't suitable, CS may have let it be known he wasn't interested, whatever CS was working on at the time may have been more useful - albeit, lower profile.

Things are now evolving into speculation - speculation to support Colin Sutton's 'revelation'.

Only Colin Sutton can clarify such speculation. If you look at his words carefully he offers little clarity on the matter.

Oh boy, for the sake of sanity, let's agree to let Aquila have the last word....................

'snipped'

"I was familiar enough with the reporting of the McCann case in the media to understand that there was a widespread reluctance to talk of any scenario which did not involve an abduction and in which no blame or complicity was to be attributed to the parents and their friends. This struck me as odd but, in those days, quite frankly I was busy enough with he investigations I was involved in without undertaking any 'off the books' look at what had gone on in Praia de Luz. I had assumed that there was good reason for this; that those who had been involved had satisfied themselves that was the case."

"I do though think that a point worthy of reinforcing is that a proper, conclusive and reasoned elimination or implication of Kate and Gerry McCann would have been in everyone's interest, most of all theirs. That would have been my first objective had I been leading Operation Grange and so that is the biggest issue I have with how that investigation proceeded. To eliminate or implicate those closest to the child in this type of case is not only the documented best investigative practice but is common sense. Had Grange done this then everything would be a lot clearer. I have no idea why this was not done but I am satisfied on what has been said by the Met and what is available that it was not."

"Last year Sky asked me to a meeting to discuss what a ten-year anniversary film might achieve. I explained that I would be willing to take part but that my position was one where I was as sceptical of the accepted (abduction) theory as I was of any other. I said I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail."

"I said I would also like to make the point that Operation Grange was so restricted from the start as to be destined to fail."

Couldn't be much 'plainer' about the 'whitewash' at OG, could he?

What IS DCI WALL 'DOING'.......TODAY??

'Carrying ON, PRETENDING to 'search' for a 'LAYDEE' 'burglator', and keeping SCHTUM"?

jta: SEVEN DAYS (168 hours) AFTER CS 'REVELATIONS' AND STILL NOT A 'PEEP/SQUEAK' OUT OF OG THAT THEIR 'INVESTIGATION', INTO A 'MISSING' 3 YEARS OLD CHILD'S 'DISAPPEARANCE', IS 'TOTALLY IMPARTIAL' AND THAT THEY ARE 'INVESTIGATING' ALL 'POSSIBLE' HYPOTHESES, INCLUDING POSSIBLE 'PARENTAL, OR PEOPLE THEY KNOW, INVOLVEMENT'

Let's cut to the chase, what exactly has this enigma Colin Sutton got to offer in the grand scheme of things?

Having apparently dipped in and out of the McCann pond over the past ten years suddenly, out of the blue on the eve of the tenth anniversary of missing Madeleine, he registers as a member of CMoMM with tales of a forthcoming Sky documentary;  an appearance on some half-baked Australian extravaganza and interview for the 'intelligent' tabloid where he claims to have been edited/misquoted.  When understandably bombarded with questions from CMoMM members, he shuffles off into the wings promising greater things post Sky documentary so - where is Colin Sutton now when most needed?

What's the score so far?
 
a) Colin Sutton, an ex Metropolitan Police Officer with an exemplary reputation (apparently) who has followed the Madeleine McCann case through the years, has presumably thus read the PJ files and other important documentation relevant to the case but he hasn't a clue what happened to Madeleine McCann yet still feels qualified to add to debate?  Head in sand Mr Sutton?

b) The political maneuvering detailed by Colin Sutton around the time of the alleged telephone call has no bearing on his position, therefore irrelevant.

c) Mr Sutton claims he was not approached by anyone to lead Operation Grange when the News of the World (Murdoch empire) said he had been asked - soon after he received the call from a senior Met Police officer warning him against accepting any proposition to lead the task force.  Do Met Police senior officers use the gutter press as their primary source of information?  Perhaps the answer to that question is yes, if we're talking dial M for Murdoch.

d) This all transpired around the May (that month again) 2010 anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, which leads me to ask - why would the Metropolitan Police be considering the name of Colin Sutton (with justification to warrant a senior police officer warning) to lead a review of the case when he was due to retire early the following year?

Have I missed anything important?

He has the opportunity to challenge the sceptics and/or wallow in glory on CMoMM but says he will not hang-out anywhere where he thinks he's being abused.  Since when I ask you, has been challenged or questioned or criticised (albeit robustly and with cynicism) equated to abuse?  The word has become another cyber buzz word to allow the less courageous to hide behind rather than stand their ground and defend their position - in short .. run away.. run away!  The easy option is of course to take the Sutton route i.e. write a blog where you can't be directly challenged or required to answer awkward questions.

Colin Sutton claims to have received a clandestine call from an unknown source (sound familiar?) warning him against leading the Operation Grange task force because of a limited  investigative remit.  This claim has never been confirmed by the informer and looks now as though it never will be - that rather leaves the revelation in limbo wouldn't you say?  How now can Colin Sutton's 'would be if I could be' explosive story line proceed into positive territory?

Colin Sutton has not added anything to debate by this revelation, as he claims was his intention, it has been a bone of contention since May (that month again) 2011, when Operation Grange was launched.  The revelation has taken the justice crusade no further forward.  OK, so it comes from a former London cop but that amounts to nothing without verification.  The bulk of the blog is just self promotional material to sell his wares, so to speak.

Without audience participation this is all yet another lengthy distraction which will fade into oblivion as fast as it appeared, leaving only the claimed words of the anonymous informer - never to be proven!  Where is your integrity sir?

Bang goes another flash in the pan !