Re: Colin Sutton: Met only interested in proving McCann parents innocent

by dartinghero 10.05.17 12:01

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.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 12:05

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.

by polyenne 10.05.17 12:17

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

by jeanmonroe 10.05.17 12:22

'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'

by Guest 10.05.17 12:30

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 whacky

!

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 12:35

Verdi wrote: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 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 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 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 because, he 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 stand their ground and defend their position - in short .. run away.. run away! The easy option is of course to write a blog where you can't be directly challenged and 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, 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 !

Well said there thumbup

by polyenne 10.05.17 12:53

OK, so we have Aquila in the totally cynical corner whose pint pot is half empty, and Verdi in the other whose method seems to be entice CS to react (by suggesting that it's all a load of self-serving waffle).

In cricket, it's called sledging. In other spheres it's good old goading. Whatever it is, it's a great way of putting someone off who just might be an important key.

I hope I'm wrong but well done you two........................

by joyce1938 10.05.17 12:59

sometimes seems too good to be true that Colin would reveal such as this .I guess time will tell . I hope I have got rid of cookies now and thanks for the right advice . I am not most technical person .joyce1938

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 14:00

polyenne wrote:OK, so we have Aquila in the totally cynical corner whose pint pot is half empty, and Verdi in the other whose method seems to be entice CS to react (by suggesting that it's all a load of self-serving waffle).

In cricket, it's called sledging. In other spheres it's good old goading. Whatever it is, it's a great way of putting someone off who just might be an important key.

I hope I'm wrong but well done you two........................

Please continue with your analysis of Verdi and myself. Once you are done with that please explain why you think Colin Sutton (and the need for his continued presence on this forum) just might be an important key...a key to what would be a great place to start.

by polyenne 10.05.17 14:11

Aquila, I'll make this my last post on this matter. Just as you suggested I hadn't read CS blog post, perhaps you haven't read my posts in this string. I have set out, in a number of posts, quite succinctly why I think CS may play an important role in getting those "within the system" to start accepting, or at best recognizing, that there might be an alternative to the abduction theory. If you don't feel that may be a key moment, then we'll agree to disagree and move on.

Tuttah

by dartinghero 10.05.17 14:23

aquila wrote:
polyenne wrote:OK, so we have Aquila in the totally cynical corner whose pint pot is half empty, and Verdi in the other whose method seems to be entice CS to react (by suggesting that it's all a load of self-serving waffle).

In cricket, it's called sledging. In other spheres it's good old goading. Whatever it is, it's a great way of putting someone off who just might be an important key.

I hope I'm wrong but well done you two........................
Please continue with your analysis of Verdi and myself. Once you are done with that please explain why you think Colin Sutton (and the need for his continued presence on this forum) just might be an important key...a key to what would be a great place to start.

CS has a reputation and can't be written off as a conspiracy nut. He has a platform on MSM, not tucked away on the internet. He seems happy to state certain facts that he is sure of on MSM. Given time for more research, perhaps he will feel sure of more facts and drag them on to MSM.
These are all good things.
I am going to break the habit of a lifetime and try and be patient smilie

by Phoebe 10.05.17 14:33

Perhaps the fact that Colin Sutton's comments have not suffered from the same scornful backlash in the MSM as those of Jodie Marsh, Karen Danczuk, Marco Pierre White and (I forget at the moment the name of the most recent male "celebrity" who tweeted that the McCanns were guilty last week) is an indication of the importance of his comments. I have not yet seen the McCanns, their spokesman or the Red Tops attempt to dismiss him as an attention-seeker for whom any notoriety boosts visibility and career. His public imput is important, whatever his reasons.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 14:42

polyenne wrote:Aquila, I'll make this my last post on this matter. Just as you suggested I hadn't read CS blog post, perhaps you haven't read my posts in this string. I have set out, in a number of posts, quite succinctly why I think CS may play an important role in getting those "within the system" to start accepting, or at best recognizing, that there might be an alternative to the abduction theory. If you don't feel that may be a key moment, then we'll agree to disagree and move on.

Tuttah

I sincerely hope that you don't make it your last post. I was hoping for much more from you. I'm obviously disappointed that you chose to confront posters with whom you disagree with something equating to playground behaviour. Don't worry, you are forgiven, this case can make a saint swear.

Now, please tell the forum why you think Colin Sutton's media input is of key importance.

by Guest 10.05.17 15:51

Unfortunately some can't see the wood for the canker.

I can of course understand the insatiable desire for some nugget that might see an end to this interminable case of deceit but clutching at straws offered up by someone who is not able, for whatever reason, to substantiate claims made in the public arena, is not the way forward. The proverbial needle in a haystack springs to mind.

The trend to believe every new or re-hashed innovation has been apparent over the past ten years, I guess it's not going to stop here. I only ask that people don't expect everyone else to follow the popular trend just because it might cast a shadow over the McCanns and/or their vast, frequently heavily disguised, support network. People are at liberty to believe what they want to believe, they shouldn't however presume to second guess the rationale of fellow forum members just because opinions differ.

I prefer to evaluate everything by critical thinking rather than blind acceptance. If Colin Sutton is reluctant to return to the forum, as he said he would following the Sky documentary, that's his perogative but don't epect me to make excuses for his reluctance nor to communicate by proxy!

As an aside, Colin Sutton claims in his blog, I quote.. "Last year Sky asked me to a meeting to discuss what a ten-year anniversary film might achieve." I wonder if they gave ex-DCI Andy Redwood first refusal?

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 15:56

Aww Bless Colin Sutton, at least he gave a message of hope.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 16:04

People on the forum don't understand that we are not here for personal popularity or that dreadful 'like' button. We are here to find justice for a little three year old girl who has been surrounded by lies.

The likes of Colin Sutton cuts no mustard.

Blow a bloody whistle sir!

by ChippyM 10.05.17 16:40

polyenne wrote: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.

Maybe what I'm getting at is that we don't know the circumstances around this mysterious phonecall. We are relying on Colin's word that it happened, generally people here don't take things for granted as being 100% true just because that's what they are told. If he has scratched a raw nerve with powerful people, why not go the whole hog and say who is complicit? It isn't a matter of nosiness, but questioning things people have said are 'fact' without any other evidence.

by Mirage 10.05.17 16:42

I wasn't aware of CS' presence on the forum so I cannot make a judgement on his contrbutions here.

However, let's hypothesise for one moment that he has zoomed in from left field with either:

a) Some diversionary tactic to let the establishment off the hook.
OR
b) To cash in on the ten year anniversary as another ex-cop/self-styled commentator to raise his profile for some future book release or the in-house go-to expert on Sky.

Where is the scope for him to progress any of this when he is effectively accusing the Met of misconduct in public office?

I should have thought he has painted a target on his back far more than the majority here who are not in the public eye. And we all know what has happened to the DK's of this world who stray far from the establishment narrative. Where would be the sense in that scenario unless he was acting in good faith?

I am an arch-cynic myself after all that's gone on, believe you me. But it makes no sense for CS to expose these things and heap further public opprobrium on the establishment.

In fact - unless I am missing the bleedin' obvious and there are hallmarks of some sophisticated double-bluff whereby he succeeds in culling the last die-hard critics of the case on the internet and gets ennobled for his efforts - I cannot see why he should be put through the wringer.

I remind people of honourable detectives like Clive Driscoll who drilled down into the corruption around the Stephen Lawrence case (among much else) and secured two convictions from the omnishambles.

But the Met are recidivist. That is why I said recently they should be disbanded. Here is Baroness Lawrence's view of them following the damning report of their corrupt behaviour in the investigation of her son's murder:
---------
"Baroness Lawrence called for criminal action to be taken against Met officers, describing the report as the “final nail in the coffin” and calling on those involved to resign for their “disgraceful” actions.

“You can’t trust them,” she said. “Still to this day. Trust and confidence in the Met is going to go right down.

“People look at the Met Police as a good example of what everyone else should be doing across the world. Once this goes out now... they can’t be trusted."
------
How apt. And they even went on to perform an encore on foreign soil, such is their arrogance.

by willowthewisp 10.05.17 17:07

Hi Mirage,If my memory is right,Two under cover Officers spotted a Police Officer accepting a Brown bundle from a Under World Criminal,wherebye Two of the Suspects involved in the Murder of Stephen Lawrence,were acquitted at the Original Trail.
The same Under World Criminal had to serve a "Prison Sentence for Road rage"where one of the Witnesses met with an untimely Death?
He Also killed an Under cover Police Office,but got away with the Murder Charge,as the Police Officer failed to Identify himself,whilst caught by the Accused in his premises?
Some How the Metropolitan Police service,lost surveillance of his Roll Royce they were following,with a Huge smeliting Pot firmly fixed in the Boot of the Rollar,the Smelting Pot wasn't damaged and was put to test with the £26 Million pound Gold Heist from a London Airport?
Care to comment on the unsolved Ian Morgan Murder whilst you have contact with Rupert Murdoch Sky Corporation bid for the whole Franchise,as being of"Fitness" to run the Sky Corporation,Sex charges Bill O'Reilly?

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 17:24

When my ex husband joined the police he was placed on a special obs operation to expose importuning in the woods around our area. This involved police officers walking in the woods in appropriate come hither dress. The laughter in the ranks was the line from a Clint Eastwood movie 'I'm Alice and I'll do anything for a dare'

However, my husband came home and told me that a Rolls Royce had turned up and a bloke had been caught importuning. The police station had been advised as to this person's identity and no further action was needed from operational officers.

It was squashed.

I remember my husband saying his first reaction was to say 'don't tell my wife' and then my husband told me that was a recurrent theme.

by JRP 10.05.17 17:25

Here's a whole page of questions which members here took the time and trouble to ask Colin Sutton, who was also a member here at the time and possibly still is.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They've been there awaiting his perusal since 24th April, and it's now 10th May, and as yet not one answer to any question.

I read in his blog, posted here by Get'em, that he wouldn't be taking part in forums any more, so I guess we can say goodbye to any hope of any answers to any of the questions.
Strange really, as non of them are nasty, or insulting, they're just questions about the case.

But then of course, Colin wasn't on the case and doesn't know what happened to Madeleine. So what's the point.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 17:32

JRP wrote:Here's a whole page of questions which members here took the time and trouble to ask Colin Sutton, who was also a member here at the time and possibly still is.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

They've been there awaiting his perusal since 24th April, and it's now 10th May, and as yet not one answer to any question.

I read in his blog, posted here by Get'em, that he wouldn't be taking part in forums any more, so I guess we can say goodbye to any hope of any answers to any of the questions.
Strange really, as non of them are nasty, or insulting, they're just questions about the case.

But then of course, Colin wasn't on the case and doesn't know what happened to Madeleine. So what's the point.

Oh yet another who understands the language of Bullshit.

by skyrocket 10.05.17 18:04

Colin Sutton has clearly stated that he doesn't know what happened to Madeleine. IMO, all the disparagers on here are missing the significance of what he has officially confirmed i.e. that Operation Grange has never been a normal investigation. At the behest of someone high up in the Met (and beyond) the lead detectives on Op Grange were/are never going to be permitted to investigate the disappearance fully. Shouldn't that be the focus?

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 18:14

skyrocket wrote:Colin Sutton has clearly stated that he doesn't know what happened to Madeleine. IMO, all the disparagers on here are missing the significance of what he has officially confirmed i.e. that Operation Grange has never been a normal investigation. At the behest of someone high up in the Met (and beyond) the lead detectives on Op Grange were/are never going to be permitted to investigate the disappearance fully. Shouldn't that be the focus?

The focus? the focus on what? The focus on Colin Sutton's revelation which has resulted in absolutely nothing and isn't likely to amount to anything.

The focus is Madeleine McCann and her demise. That's the focus.

Colin Sutton needs to blow a whistle if his revelation has any substance.

Forgive me but I'm fresh out of adulation for media pundits who rush off and do their own thing on blogs after adding themselves to this forum and doing a hissy fit about not wishing to enter the forum world.

by skyrocket 10.05.17 18:22

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - if you don't get what i'm saying, that's really not a problem. There are others out there who will.

by ShuBob 10.05.17 18:28

It's posters like Aquila who put others off posting on these forums. Why can't you just accept others have a different view to you? I've been appalled by the way Colin Sutton has been treated by a handful of posters. This reminds me of how Tony Bennett is ridiculed by some so-called truthseekers. They forget the very important contribution he's added to this debate- by making a lawyer for the couple confess in open court that there was no evidence for abduction other than the parents say so. At least give these people a chance.

PS: I've said what I have to say. I don't intend to get into any to-ing and fro-ing.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 18:34

Now just imagine a time when a media pundit writes an article about online abuse in the McCann forum world. Imagine this article is supported by Jim Gamble.

Imagine that professors in Huddersfield revise and support their findings.

Imagine how much bullshit surrounds the lack of justice for a little three year old.

Shame on the lot of them.

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 18:38

ShuBob wrote:It's posters like Aquila who put others off posting on these forums. Why can't you just accept others have a different view to you? I've been appalled by the way Colin Sutton has been treated by a handful of posters. This reminds me of how Tony Bennett is ridiculed by some so-called truthseekers. They forget the very important contribution he's added to this debate- by making a lawyer for the couple confess in open court that there was no evidence for abduction other than the parents say so. At least give these people a chance.

PS: I've said what I have to say. I don't intend to get into any to-ing and fro-ing.

Please feel free to put up a referendum on the forum as to whether I should stay or go.

by init 10.05.17 18:40

I think that everyone is arguing about 2 seperate issues, and treating them as though they are the same.

Issue 1. Why is it important for Colin Sutton to be involved?
As Verdi and aquila are aguing there is no significance of CS hanging around the forums giving his balanced opinions based on facts only.. because as we all know there are simply not enough facts to detail a version of events.. the only way to do this is to 'guess' certain elements of the story. (Which CS can't do, probably for fear of being sued)

Issue 2. Has Colin contributed anything to the case?
As everybody else seems to agree, CS has contributed to the case, by simply stating on MSM that OG is a farce. Thats it... thats all he has done, but he did it well. Imagine if Colin Sutton came on here before the Sky interview and asked us all, if we could get him to say 1 FACT about the case on MSM what would it be? I bet a lot of people would have gone for OG is a shambles. (Others maybe the dogs?)

by Liz Eagles 10.05.17 19:08

ShuBob wrote:It's posters like Aquila who put others off posting on these forums. Why can't you just accept others have a different view to you? I've been appalled by the way Colin Sutton has been treated by a handful of posters. This reminds me of how Tony Bennett is ridiculed by some so-called truthseekers. They forget the very important contribution he's added to this debate- by making a lawyer for the couple confess in open court that there was no evidence for abduction other than the parents say so. At least give these people a chance.

PS: I've said what I have to say. I don't intend to get into any to-ing and fro-ing.

I attended the court to support Tony Bennett did you?

Added by a Mod: Robust views are being exchanged on whether Colin Sutton has added anything to our understanding of the case. Robust arguments for or against this proposition are welcome, but NOT if we personalise this and start to abuse each other. Arguably this forum has played a key role in forcing out into the open from Colin Sutton that which he has now disclosed. Also let it be noted that he came to THIS forum, not to others. Whether it was to spy, or to find out things, or to engage in genuine discussion is a matter for debate. But he came HERE.

Any personal, ad hominem comments should not be made please - and any that are will be liable to deletion.

Thanks all! - Mod