Colin Sutton: Met only interested in proving McCann parents innocent

init wrote:.......snipped........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?)

There's no need to state in MSM that OG was a shambles when the remit was there for all to read from the start.   It's more a a sad (or deliberate) case of the media never reporting on it. The entire British public have been free to read that remit and contemplate for years.  I just don't understand a whistleblower who chooses to toot weakly on his whistle when he could have a had a really massive blow ( sorry, weird imagery ) 

  It seems like someone who wants to be seen to be speaking out but for whatever reason,  hedging their bets so that they can continue 'commentating' without hindrance.

ChippyM wrote:

init wrote:.......snipped........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?)

There's no need to state in MSM that OG was a shambles when the remit was there for all to read from the start.   It's more a a sad (or deliberate) case of the media never reporting on it. The entire British public have been free to read that remit and contemplate for years.  I just don't understand a whistleblower who chooses to toot weakly on his whistle when he could have a had a really massive blow ( sorry, weird imagery ) 

  It seems like someone who wants to be seen to be speaking out but for whatever reason,  hedging their bets so that they can continue 'commentating' without hindrance.

Thats like saying theres no longer any need to have a forum because all the evidence is in the PJ Files for all to see... By having Colin Sutton on their show they "reported it" so I don't quite follow your comment.

What else do you expect / want from Colin?

Stop me if i'm wrong but he never said "I have loads of secrets about the case and the cover up".. He said something along the lines of.. "I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but if it was me running the investigation I would have started with the parents to eliminate / target (sorry cant think of the right word) them in their enquries".

Unless Colin uncovers a fact that everyone else has missed whilst searching through the case files, or he is informed by a OG worker that trust him (i.e OG worker is the whistleblower) then he will not solve this case. 

However what he can do is, as a seemingly respected detective if he publicly states that OG has operated outside of standard procedure, then he will a) cause people to question OG and b) give others confidence to speak out about it too.

Imagine if because of CS another 3 senior detectives spoke out and belittled OG. 

As others have said, its a tiny thing in terms of solving the case, but one thing about this case is PR has always been at the center of it, and alway on TM side. But this is changing everyday.

ChippyM wrote:

init wrote:.......snipped........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?)

There's no need to state in MSM that OG was a shambles when the remit was there for all to read from the start.   It's more a a sad (or deliberate) case of the media never reporting on it. The entire British public have been free to read that remit and contemplate for years.  I just don't understand a whistleblower who chooses to toot weakly on his whistle when he could have a had a really massive blow ( sorry, weird imagery ) 

  It seems like someone who wants to be seen to be speaking out but for whatever reason,  hedging their bets so that they can continue 'commentating' without hindrance.

You've hit the nail on the head there.

init wrote:

ChippyM wrote:

init wrote:.......snipped........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?)

There's no need to state in MSM that OG was a shambles when the remit was there for all to read from the start.   It's more a a sad (or deliberate) case of the media never reporting on it. The entire British public have been free to read that remit and contemplate for years.  I just don't understand a whistleblower who chooses to toot weakly on his whistle when he could have a had a really massive blow ( sorry, weird imagery ) 

  It seems like someone who wants to be seen to be speaking out but for whatever reason,  hedging their bets so that they can continue 'commentating' without hindrance.

Thats like saying theres no longer any need to have a forum because all the evidence is in the PJ Files for all to see... By having Colin Sutton on their show they "reported it" so I don't quite follow your comment.

What else do you expect / want from Colin?

Stop me if i'm wrong but he never said "I have loads of secrets about the case and the cover up".. He said something along the lines of.. "I don't know what happened to Madeleine, but if it was me running the investigation I would have started with the parents to eliminate / target (sorry cant think of the right word) them in their enquries".

Unless Colin uncovers a fact that everyone else has missed whilst searching through the case files, or he is informed by a OG worker that trust him (i.e OG worker is the whistleblower) then he will not solve this case. 

However what he can do is, as a seemingly respected detective if he publicly states that OG has operated outside of standard procedure, then he will a) cause people to question OG and b) give others confidence to speak out about it too.

Imagine if because of CS another 3 senior detectives spoke out and belittled OG. 

As others have said, its a tiny thing in terms of solving the case, but one thing about this case is PR has always been at the center of it, and alway on TM side. But this is changing everyday.

Well said init!

I've been on this forum for a long time. I've seen people grasping tightly to the words of Cristobell, Sonia Poulton, Stephen Birch and numerous others.

Now, forum members are grasping onto the ambiguous words of Colin Sutton because he's made a comment that suits but hasn't substantiated it . It wasn't so long back that Katie Hopkins was the best thing since sliced bread.

I am tired of the fluff.

aquila wrote:I've been on this forum for a long time. I've seen people grasping tightly to the words of Cristobell, Sonia Poulton, Stephen Birch and numerous others.

Now, forum member are grasping onto the ambiguous words of Colin Sutton because he's made a comment that suits but hasn't substantiated it .

I am tired of the fluff.

I

Which comment?

His main comments were:
 "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."

Which he substantiated by stating the remit.

He made a comment about being told not to touch the case, which as we all agree is hear'say and not important.

I don't understand how you are not getting this...

Colin Sutton knows nothing more about this case than you or I! Fact! He has never claimed otherwise. (That i'm aware of)

What Colin has done is publicly stated that Operation Grange is flawed and should have been conducted differently. If a few other people took their MSM opportunities to say the same thing (which is one of very few facts about this case) then the government would have a lot to answer for.

Colin has done his bit for the case, he can now disappear if he likes, who cares! The important thing is that he has set a precedent, lets hope this is followed!

@ Mod

"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."

As does Martin Crunt, OG, and 'many, many' others, including McCann 'media monitors' and 'Pinky'

"IF WE TYPE IT..........THEY WILL COME!"

jeanmonroe wrote:@ Mod

"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."

As does Martin Crunt, OG, and 'many, many' others, including McCann 'media monitors' and 'Pinky'

"IF WE TYPE IT..........THEY WILL COME!"

Don't forget Carter-Ruck.

I don't think Colin has been gagged yet as he's still tweeting.

dartinghero wrote: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

 
Agreed!  Colin Sutton's MSM exposé has come at the worst time for Op Grange, as they are in the eleventh hour of their phony remit, and desperate to dismiss the original PJ conclusions re the parents' culpability, and push forward some phantom abductor. The beleaguered Op Grange also have the latest Supreme Court ruling to downplay, which states clearly the McCanns are not cleared.  They are on the defensive and looking increasingly sleazy by the day, and their endless protestations as to the McCanns innocence appear decidedly hollow and corrupt.

Mr Sutton on the Sky documentary also poured scorn on Redwood's crimewatch and his daddy/crecheman by showing an overhead map of the immediate area, clearly indicating the nonsensical complex route he would have to have taken to be seen by Tanner, when there was a fast and direct route available.  So yet another Op Grange 'revelation' exposed as utter nonsense for all to see on MSM. In addition Sutton made it abundantly clear this investigation had achieved nothing, and was doomed to failure because the McCanns and friends were not investigated, and he did not mince his words.  I think he did an excellent job in pointing out this travesty, and I hope he will delve further into this case in the future.

pennylane wrote:

dartinghero wrote: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

 
Agreed!  Colin Sutton's MSM exposé has come at the worst time for Op Grange, as they are in the eleventh hour of their phony remit, and desperate to dismiss the original PJ conclusions re the parents' culpability, and push forward some phantom abductor. The beleaguered Op Grange also have the latest Supreme Court ruling to downplay, which states clearly the McCanns are not cleared.  They are on the defensive and looking increasingly sleazy by the day, and their endless protestations as to the McCanns innocence appear decidedly hollow and corrupt.

Mr Sutton on the Sky documentary also poured scorn on Redwood's crimewatch and his daddy/crecheman by showing an overhead map of the immediate area, clearly indicating the nonsensical complex route he would have to have taken to be seen by Tanner, when there was a fast and direct route available.  So yet another Op Grange 'revelation' exposed as utter nonsense for all to see on MSM. In addition Sutton made it abundantly clear this investigation had achieved nothing, and was doomed to failure because the McCanns and friends were not investigated, and he did not mince his words.  I think he did an excellent job in pointing out this travesty, and I hope he will delve further into this case in the future.

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

Mirage wrote:

pennylane wrote:

dartinghero wrote: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

 
Agreed!  Colin Sutton's MSM exposé has come at the worst time for Op Grange, as they are in the eleventh hour of their phony remit, and desperate to dismiss the original PJ conclusions re the parents' culpability, and push forward some phantom abductor. The beleaguered Op Grange also have the latest Supreme Court ruling to downplay, which states clearly the McCanns are not cleared.  They are on the defensive and looking increasingly sleazy by the day, and their endless protestations as to the McCanns innocence appear decidedly hollow and corrupt.

Mr Sutton on the Sky documentary also poured scorn on Redwood's crimewatch and his daddy/crecheman by showing an overhead map of the immediate area, clearly indicating the nonsensical complex route he would have to have taken to be seen by Tanner, when there was a fast and direct route available.  So yet another Op Grange 'revelation' exposed as utter nonsense for all to see on MSM. In addition Sutton made it abundantly clear this investigation had achieved nothing, and was doomed to failure because the McCanns and friends were not investigated, and he did not mince his words.  I think he did an excellent job in pointing out this travesty, and I hope he will delve further into this case in the future.

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

Thank you Mirage, glad you agree x

Not strictly related to this thread, but on the subject of people speaking out about operation grange, has anybody targeted politics yet?

Of course with the elections coming up, it would be the perfect time for say, UKIP to establish themselves as "anti-establishment" and discuss / debate OG in high profile events. Think Question Time for example, live show perfect time for someone like Paul Nuttall to declare OG a phoney investigation that cost taxpayers yardy yar, something about the NHS, something about immigration...

init wrote:Not strictly related to this thread, but on the subject of people speaking out about operation grange, has anybody targeted politics yet?

Of course with the elections coming up, it would be the perfect time for say, UKIP to establish themselves as "anti-establishment" and discuss / debate OG in high profile events. Think Question Time for example, live show perfect time for someone like Paul Nuttall to declare OG a phoney investigation that cost taxpayers yardy yar, something about the NHS, something about immigration...

I like the sound of that, init!

Here's the rub..

Colin Sutton arrived on this forum from out of the blue prior to the tenth anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  He arrived with a fanfare of promises for the future which he has failed to uphold - via his blogspot he now declares he doesn't intend to engage in debate on any forum (did he register with any other than CMoMM?) because, despite being no snowflake, he's not prepared to be abused, plus he will block any dissenter on his social media pages.  That to me is cowardice not courage.  

I can't speak for social media or any other forum but I'm not aware of any abuse towards the man on CMoMM, still he doesn't appear willing to return here to continue debate or defend his position - that to me speaks volumes!

Reverting to the limited scope of Operation Grange.  If Jo X registered here and claimed to have received a call from an unnamed contact, say for example a priest wanted to reveal his tormented soul about a confessional that should never be revealed, I would expect some verification before believing - even if not from the words of the priest.  In short, I cannot or will not accept words at face value, without at least some authoritative corroboration.  In this instance, Colin Sutton claims to have received a call from an unidentified source that cannot be revealed - nor can he back his claim by all appearances, without which his claim is worthless.

How many times over the past ten years has 'a source' been ridiculed without some form of verification to substantiate the source?  This is no different - there is nothing to be gained by juggling values only to fit what you want to hear.  An unverified claim is an unverified claim no matter who what or where the source.

When first registering on CMoMM, Colin Sutton amongst other things, said he would return to the forum after the Sky documentary, to answer questions and engage in debate.  Clearly he now has no intention of fulfilling his own obligation so, again I say, his temporary sojourn is worthless.

Move on to pastures new..

The green one and the eagle have spoken end of debate end of thread hasta la vista

Sceptic wrote:The green one and the eagle have spoken end of debate end of thread hasta la vista

Oh stop it, for goodness sake.

It's hardly the end of the debate.

I, for one, am very interested to see where Colin goes with this.

I'm waiting for him to say he's made an official 'Misconduct in Public Office' complaint, because that should be the next step...and he started the ball rolling.

A retired murder DCI, of his calibre, surely wouldn't want to be known as a toothless dog?

The buck stops here?
 
Sir Paul Stephenson was Met Police Commissioner at the time of the Operation Grange remit in 2011, resigning shortly afterwards.
 
No doubt David Cameron & Theresa May have enough ‘built in deniability’ to stop it going even higher.
 
"Op Grange Remit 

The support and expertise proffered by the Commissioner will be provided by the Homicide & Serious Crime Command - SCD1.  

The activity, in the first instance, will be that of an ‘investigative review’.  This will entail a review of the whole of the investigation(s) which have been conducted in to the circumstances of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance.

The focus of the review will be of the material held by three main stakeholders (and in the following order of primacy); 

The Portuguese Law Enforcement agencies.
UK Law Enforcement agencies,
Other private investigative agencies/staff and organisations.

The investigative review is intended to collate, record and analyse what has gone before.  

It is to examine the case and seek to determine, (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter. Whilst ordinarily a review has no investigative remit whatsoever- the scale and extent of this enquiry cannot permit for such an approach. It will take too long to progress to any “action stage” if activity is given wholly and solely to a review process. 

The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness.

The work will be overseen through the Gold Group management structure, which will also manage the central relationships with other key stakeholders and provide continuing oversight and direction to the investigative remit.

End "
 
There was enough in it (or not in it) for many people on here to question at the time whether it was in fact an honest remit, or just an instruction to look only at an abduction scenario, but wooly enough to not provide a definitive answer to this question.
 
Any Officer accepting this poisoned chalice simply had to have received additional  confirmations (if it had been me, I would have wanted it in writing in order to cover my own back) as to what the remit actually entailed and Redwood was clearly fully briefed in this respect and played along accordingly, until his retirement.
 
   
Sutton, in the Mirror on 22^nd April, and then Rowley, with his ridiculous video’d admission a few days later, have given us actual confirmation that the remit was indeed flawed and that OG is therefore dishonest and whatever peoples qualms about Sutton, he should be thanked for actually bringing that to the fore.

The Synnott "researchers" dismissed all those posting on internet fora as "incurable trolls". They have defended this finding when challenged. This, like it or not, has a negative effect on credibility among the wider public. If Colin Sutton never engages again he still has helped. He cannot be dismissed as an "internet troll", but is a respected, senior ex-policeman who has publicly stated that Op. Grange is not investigating properly and had never intended to do so. I would not look this gift horse in the mouth.

I'm re-posting this letter by JC to the IPCC posted on facebook with my highlighting about Brenda Leyland:

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

Good afternoon,
Can you explain to me how on earth Operation Grange , the so called search for Madeleine Mccann can possibly ever hope to gain a conviction given the recent allegations made by a former Met DCI on national television? Unless i am mistaken he was distinctly saying the investigation point blank refused to consider the parents as suspects, in further communications he has also stated this certainly was a viable line of enquiry.
Given the small mountain of all be it circumstantial evidence implicating the parents, hardly a surprise to the hundreds or thousands of us who have communicated the very same thoughts to Grange over the years (not that any one of them has ever so much as received a reply to my knowledge)
To hear it come out of the mouth of one of the Mets most senior detectives something of a jaw dropper to say the least.
to name a couple of somewhat alarming points the Met refused to consider.
1/ concerns by friends of the Mccanns Dr David Payne may have been a paedophile fixated on MM.
2/The assertion by key witness Martin Smith it may well have been Gerry Mccann he saw carrying a child in pink pyjamas that night.
3/This very evidence the Mccanns hid from view for fully 5 years before the Crime Watch showing.
I'm not saying this is what the detective thinks , I merely speak for myself however he , and the documentary concerned made it abundantly clear Grange was totally prejudiced by the assumption of the Mccanns innocence.
Given the facts and absence of evidence that clears the Mccanns , supported by the recent supreme court judgement in Portugal , this assumption is clearly utterly ridiculous.
The implications are extremely clear
Grange was the result of political pressure applied to then PM David Cameron by Rebekah Brooks.
Grange is Home Office funded.
This is the same organisation that frustrated the original Portuguese investigation by denying medical records (another obvious line of enquiry that could have uncovered physical or sexual abuse)
The Home office dictated to grange the Mccanns were totally off the table.
A couple of other points I would like to make, if the police had grounds to investigate they could have done so at the very beginning, they had an offence in the UK , a potential 4.5 million pound fraud.
given other leaked documents on the case stating it was the UK police who developed the evidence against the parents at what point did they change their minds? - and why was this never conveyed to the Portuguese?
Furthermore if the police had investigated , which the detective seems to be suggesting would have been entirely appropriate, this whole climate of "trolling" may well never have come about. This resulted in a woman committing suicide after being doorstepped by Martin Brunt , ironically the very same reporter the detective divulged this information to.
If the woman had the very same suspicions as our own police, she is no troll, Brunt isn't on her doorstep and she may well be still alive.
In any event , back to my original point. If there is a grain of truth in this the investigation is clearly compromised to the point it could never hope to gain a conviction.
Furthermore it potentially severely undermines both past and future Metropolitan Police investigations, the credibility of the force as a whole , that of the Crown Prosecution Service and the entire UK justice system.
I would simply like to know if you intend doing anything about it.
Regards, JC

Mark Rowley - " We've got no definitive evidence as to whether Madeleine is alive or dead and that is why we call it a missing persons enquiry."

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe on the other hand let slip the word " murder" here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I suppose the homicide half of the homicide and serious crime command haven't had to bother themselves too much about a cadaver dog alert then.

Sceptic wrote:The green one and the eagle have spoken end of debate end of thread hasta la vista

That's the sort of inane comment I would expect to read elsewhere - there is no place on CMoMM for ad hominem attacks.

If I remember rightly, your only contribution to this subject so far was an abject comment in favour of Mr Sutton.  I would be very interested to learn how you see his limited input so far, can or will benefit the quest for truth about Madeleine McCann's disappearance.  At present, all I can see is yet another worthless distraction.  I note the views of others, that his statement about the Operation Grange remit has more clout in the public arena than the likes of CMoMM but that is not the be all and end all - is it?  Just think of all the letters and petitions that have been initiated by interested parties on the subject of Operation Grange, yet still it continues year in year out.

Where do you see Colin Sutton's timely appearance leading?

I'm waiting for him to say he's made an official 'Misconduct in Public Office' complaint, because that should be the next step...and he started the ball rolling.

Amen to that! 

I'll be the first to applaud his tenacity if he takes this further through official channels .

I would applaud Colin Sutton also if he took further steps to publicly highlight the fiasco surrounding the Met investigation which can only look at the "abduction" theory.

However, I don't believe he will, and I say that based on this observation. 
He hasn't answered any questions put to him on this forum.

Nobody has asked him anything other than asking for opinions regarding this case. But his difficulty in answering those questions are clear; he doesn't want to be seen to have backed the theories put forward on this forum, because we "trolls" believe Madeleine died.
Once you believe that, and say it publicly, your career as a talking head ex DCI on Sky/Murdoch news is over, and you become a beer swilling monster slug ex cop, just adding more misery to the agony of the parents.

So, if you're waiting for him to do this outing stuff, the misconduct in public office thing, I'll make a flask and some sandwiches, 'cause it's gonna be a long long wait for that to happen.

oh (edited to say that's just my opinion)

JRP wrote:I would applaud Colin Sutton also if he took further steps to publicly highlight the fiasco surrounding the Met investigation which can only look at the "abduction" theory.

However, I don't believe he will, and I say that based on this observation. 
He hasn't answered any questions put to him on this forum.

Nobody has asked him anything other than asking for opinions regarding this case. But his difficulty in answering those questions are clear; he doesn't want to be seen to have backed the theories put forward on this forum, because we "trolls" believe Madeleine died.
Once you believe that, and say it publicly, your career as a talking head ex DCI on Sky/Murdoch news is over, and you become a beer swilling monster slug ex cop, just adding more misery to the agony of the parents.

So, if you're waiting for him to do this outing stuff, the misconduct in public office thing, I'll make a flask and some sandwiches, 'cause it's gonna be a long long wait for that to happen.

oh (edited to say that's just my opinion)

I share your opinion JRP. I'll be at the front of the queue with support for Colin Sutton if he actually does strike forth a formal complaint with what is at face value a very serious allegation.

For now I'm going to pull up a garden chair beside you (uninvited gatecrashing) with a nice packed lunch, watch the grass grow and hum the theme tune from the Vision On Gallery.

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

There are a lot of ordinary people now being invited to leave comments in media articles which are slanted towards the waste of public money, no other missing child receives the level of support, shut down Operation Grange. All perfectly reasonable responses and all of them the perfect cop out to shut down Operation Grange - financial pressure, public interest blah blah.

I don't want to see Operation Grange closed. I want to see Operation Grange explain itself.

I want to see Operation Grange have a NEW remit to investigate the case properly.

And the McCanns have got at least £500,000 tucked away somewhere which could be used in the real search for their daughter, so why shouldn't they donate that money?

Surely they would be only happy to do that, wouldn't they?

Left Bank Two by the Noveltones, what an amazing find, I had no idea that's what the Vision On Gallery theme tune was called. It reminds me of getting home from school  

So, back to the Mc's.
Operation Grange doesn't give updates on what it is doing too often, odd things just turn up on Tracey's page from time to time about who the latest suspect is.
I can understand why they don't update, because, well, it must be difficult to make stuff up just to satisfy us mere mortals, and it's sunny outside, and it's just too 'ot!. 

If the oiks back 'ome want to know what's goin' on Trace, tell 'em it's wasn't a man, it was a woman, dressed in purple. All purply she was, hanging about lookin' all suss, in purple. Not a bit like a tourist.
10 years on, and are we to hope that this woman is still wearing purple? and no doubt, Madeleine is still in her jammies! A bit like the The Incredible Hulk, he gets bigger and bigger, but thankfully, his pants still fit him.
Let's hope this woman doesn't own a pink outfit, or we'll never find her!

Would it matter if Operation Grange folded, like a stripy old purply deckchair?

As Aquila said, the comments allowed in certain places these days mostly relate to the amount of money spent on Operation Grange, and, how it's a waste of money, and questions like, why is Madeleine different from any other missing person?
It fits with Colin Sutton's view that Operation Grange was destined to fail from the start, due to it's limited remit.
In other words, it needs shutting down.

If Operation Grange did shut down, would we get a new Operation Grange, an Operation Grange Two?
What has changed in all these years which would allow an investigation to look into ALL aspects of the case. a remit which would simply state, find out what happened to Madeleine, with no boundaries.
Nothing has changed, so if there is a Operation Grange Two, it's going to follow the same path.

A Garden Path.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I want to see Operation Grange have a NEW remit to investigate the case properly.

And the McCanns have got at least £500,000 tucked away somewhere which could be used in the real search for their daughter, so why shouldn't they donate that money?

Surely they would be only happy to do that, wouldn't they?

Well they could always send a cheque to the PJ along with a letter asking for it to be put toward a new search for Maddie.

plebgate wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:I want to see Operation Grange have a NEW remit to investigate the case properly.

And the McCanns have got at least £500,000 tucked away somewhere which could be used in the real search for their daughter, so why shouldn't they donate that money?

Surely they would be only happy to do that, wouldn't they?

Well they could always send a cheque to the PJ along with a letter asking for it to be put toward a new search for Maddie.

Send a cheque !

They couldn't be bothered to send a letter to reopen the investigation !

Part with money , when they still have the court costs to pay .

Imo that money is well and truly squirreled away and will never see light of day

I would also like formal scrutiny of the Missing People charity.