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

by Philip Anders 03.05.17 13:48

polyenne wrote:I believe Colin meant that he would have loved to have been involved from the start. It was a poisoned chalice coming in at such a late stage with a clear direction being dictated.

It was with trepidation that I watched the documentary last night fearing the usual heavily pro-McCann mood but I have to admit to being pleasantly surprised at how comparatively balanced it was, helped by Colin's statements.

Is the worm turning ?

I've worked in the public sector & have seen numerous instances where facts are changed or ignored in order to get the 'establishment's' desired results.

What happens is that the 'establishment' will stick with their version of events while ever it suits whatever their purpose is at the time but when it starts to generate more problems than it's preventing then the 'establishment' will change tack in an instant.

In this case the 'establishment' will monitor the posts from Joe Public & eventually they may realise that there are far too many tricky questions being asked that aren't going away & at some point the high-ups will sit round a conference table, having realised that they're looking complete tossers, & decide how best to mitigate it.

by UnwillilinglyCynical 03.05.17 14:09

If his comments are genuine, I am not in the least surprised that such constraints are seemingly being placed upon him. In an ideal world, any legitimate investigation would focus on available documented evidence initially - of which there is a significant amount - and go from there. Unfortunately, there are so many secretive bodies and `interests' that appear to be focussed entirely on preventing people from `joining the dots', that I think it will be a good while yet before any real progress is made. As such, I believe that we must continue to focus on what was documented by the PJ BEFORE UK authorities intervened.

The sheer number of political and intelligence entities involved in the case is a clear indicator that something about the whole PDL scenario goes all the way to the top.

At the risk of hijacking someone else's mantra.........never give up.

by willowthewisp 03.05.17 14:32

Hi Philip Anders,thanks for your post and I add to.
The need to have so many documentaries and Panorama programmes on the missing child Madeleine McCann,reported as Abducted by her parents 3 May 2007,Confusion is Good?
Retired Policemen and Woman are still subject to the"Official Secrets Act"on disclosure material,like their fellow MP's?
The"Public" have been informed, told by world Leaders,Establishment figures some massive"Porkies"and this is why they had to subvert D notices in order to suppress the Truth from the public's gaze?
A certain Cigar smoking individual?
Mysterious untimely Deaths,Lady Diana Spencer,Dr David Kelly,Robin Cook,Jill Dando?
Then we have the"Sophistries" to events in the disappearance/Murders involving Children from Institutions,Schools within the United Kingdom.
Dunblane?
Rotherham.
Rochdale.
Boroughs of London,Islington,Richmond.
Haute De La Guranne.
Jersey.
So do you then ask questions of the Officials of the"Establishment"to Operate an Investigation into these allegations,IICSA report due in Five Ten years time on these institutions?
Bryn Alyn,Estyn Care Homes,Kincora boys Home in Northern Ireland, former RUC Officers?
Do you really think they would dare to"Lift the Lid from the Sceptic Tank"to expose what they had previously disposed of into the Pit,Nah,we be best served to institute another set of d+D Notices,now don't forget the special Red type Wax?

by polyenne 03.05.17 14:35

Without a body, the hard evidence is just not there. I have maintained for some time that it was the intention that Madeleine's body was NEVER to be found and the cremation theory would support that.

There are so many facets to this case that make it so interesting:

1.   was she "meant" to die that holiday?
2.   was her death accidental and that is why they needed days to formulate a cover story hence the Sunday/Monday last photo ?
3.   how did she die ? Were 1 or more people present when she died ?
4.   how was she disposed of ? And by whom ?
5.   why must her body NEVER be found (or her medical records released) ? What "secret" does her body expose ?

All IMO of course

by **Jill Havern** 03.05.17 15:14

Colin Sutton is directly accusing Grange, Redwood, and Wall and the 34 detectives of Misconduct in Public Office.

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Misconduct in Public Office. Principle. Scope of the offence; Policy; Definition of the offence. A public officer; Acting as such; Wilful neglect or misconduct

Definition of the offence

The elements of the offence are summarised in [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] The offence is committed when:

a public officer acting as such
wilfully neglects to perform his duty and/or wilfully misconducts himself
to such a degree as to amount to an abuse of the public's trust in the office holder
without reasonable excuse or justification

AND
accusing Hogan-Howe of lying, and possibly of Conspiracy to commit the misconduct, or at least of counselling and procuring it.

by Guest 03.05.17 15:46

RosieandSam wrote:The Sky1 documentary with Brunt and Colin Sutton certainly drew attention to the limited remit of Operation Grange, that is, it was only to focus on 'an abduction as if it had happened in the UK'. Clearly, that will be 'news' to some people who don't follow the case as closely as we do.

There has never been any doubt about the remit of Operation Grange - I can't understand why Colin Sutton is being hailed as the second coming just by confirming something already widely known..

Operation Grange Remit

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.

I'm not aware of any subsequent up-date from the Metropolitan Police to count the original remit, not even when the 'review'' was upgraded to 'investigation'.

by Guest 03.05.17 15:51

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

	Original Source: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
	By Lucy Panton, Crime Editor, 09/05/2010

Top cop spearheads new probe into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

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

PROBE: Det Chief Insp Colin Sutton

BRITAIN'S top murder cop has been lined up to spearhead a new probe into the disappearance of
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], we can reveal.

Det Chief Insp [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.], 49, who has been involved in some of the UK's biggest inquiries - including the murder of
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and the terror reign of the Nightstalker sex beast - is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review.

Senior child protection officer [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] has asked Scotland Yard to take a fresh look at the three-year investigation.

He blasted [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] for their handling of the hunt for Maddie - who vanished aged three from her family's Algarve [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] in 2007. Now the Met Police are set to review all leads in the case, using technology and standards expected in a UK homicide or kidnap.

It will delight Maddie's parents, [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]. A senior police source said: "They deserve reassurance that everything that can be done has been done."

[Acknowledgement - pamalam]

by dartinghero 03.05.17 16:00

Verdi wrote:
RosieandSam wrote:The Sky1 documentary with Brunt and Colin Sutton certainly drew attention to the limited remit of Operation Grange, that is, it was only to focus on 'an abduction as if it had happened in the UK'. Clearly, that will be 'news' to some people who don't follow the case as closely as we do.

There has never been any doubt about the remit of Operation Grange - I can't understand why Colin Sutton is being hailed as the second coming just by confirming something already widely known..

*SNIP*

You say the remit of Op Grange is widely known Verdi, but you spend a lot of time here on cmomm. Many, many people just read the old twaddle reported in the papers and don't give it much thought. I don't think CS is the second coming but I agree with rosieandsam and was pleasantly surprised at how much he said on MSM - which is what so many people rely on. It just means some key ideas are reaching more people and might make them look further - and maybe end up here!

by Irene 2 03.05.17 16:06

The Daily Mail comments trend is uplifting.

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

by Sceptic 03.05.17 16:09

MRNOODLES wrote:I just don't know what to make of it TBH. (I did watch it)

SKY let an ex-copper appear on TV and allow him to say. OG's remit was bogus AND cast doubt over OG's claim about crech-man.

Plus take into account how did Brunty get hold of that report?

*Head scratcher*

Jim gamble gAve him it?

by PEANUT66 03.05.17 16:40

I dont post a lot because I feel I can not always add to what people have already said but I do have a valued opinion of the sky news documentary. I thought it was a very balanced programme and in the past this stuff would have never been in the MSM. I thought Martin Brunt and Colin Sutton were on the side of Madeleine McCann...lets hope we the British public who care very much about Madeleine get her the justice she so deserve.

by jeanmonroe 03.05.17 16:52

SURELY, 'somebody' from the MET/SY HAS to 'refute' ANY 'suggestion/hint' that OG is 'bent' and not 'totally impartial' with their 'investigation' into a 'missing' child..............IMMEDIATELY! (TODAY 03/05/2017)

If there's even a 'whiff/sniff/whisper' that OG is 'bent' and has been since 2011.............there lies 'carnage' ahead!

And 'unelected' PM, May and HS Amber Fudd.....will know that!

The sh*t hits the McFan fan

Imo, the LONGER 'they' stay 'silent', about these erm, 'accusations' and don't publicly 'refute' them, they will lose 'trust' by the 'bucketful' and the 'story' will just 'gain' credence, by the minute.

'SY/MET police ONLY interested in protecting rich parents from prosecution' is NOT, I suggest, a 'headline' they would like to see.

(Although some would say, 'that already happens, what's new'?)

But that's 'where' this one is 'heading', imo.

Who 'controls' the police?

Politicians.

Politicians T May and Amber Fudd (and 'cover up queen' 'I know nothing' MPC, CD) WILL, very soon, be drawn into 'this', now.

BOTH have, unequivocally, used UK taxpayer money, to 'fund' OG.

If, IF, OG 'is bent' May and Fudd will have 'been in it' up to their necks.

Camerun will 'say'......"nothing to do with me gov, I 'delegated' it out, to Theresa when she was the Home Office Secretary for six years"

All, imo, obviously.

by Guest 03.05.17 21:03

dartinghero wrote:
Verdi wrote:
RosieandSam wrote:The Sky1 documentary with Brunt and Colin Sutton certainly drew attention to the limited remit of Operation Grange, that is, it was only to focus on 'an abduction as if it had happened in the UK'. Clearly, that will be 'news' to some people who don't follow the case as closely as we do.

There has never been any doubt about the remit of Operation Grange - I can't understand why Colin Sutton is being hailed as the second coming just by confirming something already widely known..

*SNIP*
You say the remit of Op Grange is widely known Verdi, but you spend a lot of time here on cmomm. Many, many people just read the old twaddle reported in the papers and don't give it much thought. I don't think CS is the second coming but I agree with rosieandsam and was pleasantly surprised at how much he said on MSM - which is what so many people rely on. It just means some key ideas are reaching more people and might make them look further - and maybe end up here!

Granted but the people ain't going to learn much from this 10th anniversary hysteria are they? It's a game plan - beware here there be dragons!

Already it's evident that people will only read and believe want they want to see and hear. I will sit back and wait until the dust settles and reveals what this anniversary circus is really about!

Hopefully it won't last very long because it's a nauseating distraction.

ETA: Whether or not the general populace were/are aware of the Operation Grange remit has no bearing on the position of Colin Sutton. All I ask is for you to read between the lines - why is Sutton declaring the remit before the world and more important still - why now!?!

by pennylane 03.05.17 22:01

jeanmonroe wrote:SURELY, 'somebody' from the MET/SY HAS to 'refute' ANY 'suggestion/hint' that OG is 'bent' and not 'totally impartial' with their 'investigation' into a 'missing' child.

If there's even a 'whiff/sniff/whisper' that OG is 'bent' and has been since 2011.............there lies 'carnage' ahead!

And 'unelected' PM, May and HS Amber Fudd.....will know that!

The sh*t hits the McFan

Imo, the LONGER 'they' stay 'silent', about these erm, 'accusations' and don't publicly 'refute' them, they will lose 'trust' by the 'bucketful' and the 'story' will just 'gain' credence, by the minute.

'SY/MET police ONLY interested in protecting rich parents from prosecution' is NOT, I suggest, a 'headline' they would like to see.

(Although some would say, 'that already happens, what's new'?)

But that's 'where' this one is 'heading', imo.

Who 'controls' the police?

Politicians.

Politicians T May and Amber Fudd (and 'cover up queen' 'I know nothing' MPC, CD) WILL, very soon, be drawn into 'this', now.

BOTH have, unequivocally, used UK taxpayer money, to 'fund' OG.

If, IF, OG 'is bent' May and Fudd will have 'been in it' up to their necks.

Camerun will 'say'......"nothing to do with me gov, I 'delegated' it out, to Theresa when she was the Home Office Secretary for six years"

All, imo, obviously.

Totally agree Jean! goodpost

Time to lift all restrictions off that unethical Remit now before its too late!

by Liz Eagles 03.05.17 23:17

Colin Sutton would need to do far more than make a few comments in pre-recorded documentaries to make me feel he is not part of the establishment.

by plebgate 04.05.17 12:26

Well Colin is well placed to know that any police force investigating an abduction as if it happened in UK would start with the MAIN witnesses first and even if he is part of the establishment I still think it's to his credit that he spoken out.

by jeanmonroe 04.05.17 14:14

Almost 24 HOURS 'later' and still not a 'squeak/peep' out of SY/MET stating, publicly, that OG is 'totally impartial and kosher' and that ALL, (including 'possible parental involvement in a child's disappearance'), OTHER 'explanations' ( as 'asked for', publicly, by Madeleine's father ) and hypotheses are being rigorously scrutinized, in their erm, y'know 'investigation' into 'how Madeleine is not here, today'.

thinking

WHY would that be?

'Ask Colin S, Jean'

by dartinghero 04.05.17 14:59

Verdi wrote:
dartinghero wrote:
Verdi wrote:
RosieandSam wrote:The Sky1 documentary with Brunt and Colin Sutton certainly drew attention to the limited remit of Operation Grange, that is, it was only to focus on 'an abduction as if it had happened in the UK'. Clearly, that will be 'news' to some people who don't follow the case as closely as we do.

There has never been any doubt about the remit of Operation Grange - I can't understand why Colin Sutton is being hailed as the second coming just by confirming something already widely known..

*SNIP*
You say the remit of Op Grange is widely known Verdi, but you spend a lot of time here on cmomm. Many, many people just read the old twaddle reported in the papers and don't give it much thought. I don't think CS is the second coming but I agree with rosieandsam and was pleasantly surprised at how much he said on MSM - which is what so many people rely on. It just means some key ideas are reaching more people and might make them look further - and maybe end up here!
Granted but the people ain't going to learn much from this 10th anniversary hysteria are they? It's a game plan - beware here there be dragons!

Already it's evident that people will only read and believe want they want to see and hear. I will sit back and wait until the dust settles and reveals what this anniversary circus is really about!

Hopefully it won't last very long because it's a nauseating distraction.

ETA: Whether or not the general populace were/are aware of the Operation Grange remit has no bearing on the position of Colin Sutton. All I ask is for you to read between the lines - why is Sutton declaring the remit before the world and more important still - why now!?!

Perhaps - and I'm just chucking this into the ring - he is supposed to be the vehicle that drags some of the less pro-TM stuff into mainstream discussion. I believe it was philipanders (sorry, if I've got this wrong) who mentioned on another thread that there is a point where interested parties provide support until they realise they are being made to look like tossers...and then things change. Is this too optimistic? Maybe. I think 10 years along was always going to be a dog and pony show, full of noise and distraction. Verdi, you have a TON more knowledge and experience with all the evidence on here than most, what are you leaning towards with this? Any one else?

by willowthewisp 04.05.17 15:08

jeanmonroe wrote:Almost 24 HOURS 'later' and still not a 'squeak/peep' out of SY/MET stating, publicly, that OG is 'totally impartial and kosher' and that ALL, (including 'possible parental involvement in a child's disappearance'), OTHER 'explanations' and hypotheses are being rigorously scrutinized, in their investigation into 'how Madeleine is not here, today'.

WHY would that be?

'Ask Colin S, Jean'

Credit must be given to Mr Colin Sutton,Former Police Detective,for at least putting comments of "If" he had been in charge of Operation Grange,that senior Ranking officers would not allow the Investigation to have an"Open and Transparent Investigation?
Scotland Yard had proceeded with an Open and Transparent investigation into Operation Grange,or so the general public were notified of the Operation Remit,As If the Abduction had occurred in the UK?
The Public did not realise that when Assistant Commissioner,Mark Rowley gave his statement,that as DCS Andy Redwood had told the UK Public,the Tapas7/9 and the Parents of Madeleine McCann were not suspects pertaining to Operation Grange,even when it went from a Review to an Investigation?
Mr Rowley Confirmed that the Parents of Madeleine McCann have not been interviewed under caution,but they were the last Two known people to have seen Madeleine Alive and Well in apartment 5a Ocean Club 3 May 2007?

by jeanmonroe 04.05.17 15:33

Given CS 'claims' about OG, does Ex DCI Redwood still 'think' that "leading Operation Grange, for the past three and a half years has been an extraordinary privilege"?

Mr and Mrs McCann paid tribute to Mr Redwood's work on the investigation into their daughter's disappearance.
In a statement, they said: "We would really like to thank Andy Redwood for his commitment to the search for Madeleine. We appreciate everything he has done and the great progress that has been made under his leadership"
"We are sure the investigation will continue in the same positive way under his successor DCI Wall."
"We don't think Andy could have done more for our family, especially for Madeleine."

What 'great progress', under Andy's 'leadership' was actually 'achieved'?

Well, the McS aren't 'in nick', so it would 'appear', and what we supposedly now 'know' about OG, that Andy couldn't have done 'more' for them, could he?

I 'wonder' if DCI Wall 'thinks' that "leading Operation Grange, for the past two years six months", to date, has ALSO been 'an extraordinary privilege'?

by Dr What 04.05.17 16:43

Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.
Not only are the MET made to look foolish, but it appears that they have been ordered to look foolish.What trust now in the Police?

by init 04.05.17 22:39

Colin is seemingly busy with the channel 5 programme "Soham Revisited: 15 years on"

by Phoebe 05.05.17 0:06

It's hard to know whether the Met have ended up in this embarrassing position by accident or design. Whichever, the outcome is the same - they look like a gov. lapdog sent off to chase its own tail. The ridiculous, repeated claims of new leads and last throws of dice may see the case shelved to gather dust but the Met's reputation has been damaged. They seem to have lost all control of this investigation. Years spent chasing Tannerman only to discover a dead end. Years telling us of child trafficking and paedophiles only to fall back on the ludicrous suggestion of burglars who decided to take a kid instead, as you do, just for the hell of it. Despite their criticism of the P.J. handling of the case the Met have ended up not only down a cul de sac but shown up as tame nincompoops who were ordered down a dead end and hadn't the guts to demur. Throw into that the waste of £12 million of taxpayers money and its hard to see how anyone could view Op.Grange as anything other than a farce carried out by willing stooges. A bad few years at the office.

by **Jill Havern** 05.05.17 9:39

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

by **Nina** 05.05.17 11:29

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

The words professional opinion would have been good.

by Guest 05.05.17 11:51

Phoebe wrote: ....but the Met's reputation has been damaged

I don't think they will suffer any lasting damage through this monumental farce - they've got away with far worse crimes in the past. There will always be corruption in public office, the higher the rank the more corrupt - you only need look to this case to see how they are all covering each other.

A decent retired cop is of course another matter - a force to be reckoned with smilie

!

Tomorrow this will be yesterday's news - come to think it already is, far outweighed by Kardashian's bum, the Duke of Edinburgh's retirement and of course the local elections leading up to a general election next month.

Madeleine who?

by Guest 05.05.17 12:07

Get'emGonçalo wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ALL possibilities were looked at and swiftly eliminated by the PJ because there was no evidence - as Gerry McCann so frequently likes to point out.

It was only when the PJ investigation started to focus on the McCanns and their group of friends that Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case. Everything was going according to plan up until then, the UK establishment and the McCann team were in control of the investigation - and then along came Eddie and Keela..

fan

If Colin Sutton has been following the case as he claims, he would be aware of this. Why is he then indirectly reinforcing the Metropolitan Police agenda i.e. totally ignoring the diligent work of the PJ, other than to criticise their every move?

by Guest 05.05.17 12:19

Dr What wrote:Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.

Operation Grange Remit [circa. 2010/11]

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.

Nothing 'suspected' about it - always been there in black and white, indelibly preserved for posterity. It's also been reiterated across the web more times than a McCann can (sounds like a dance) shout no evidence !!!

by pennylane 05.05.17 13:27

Verdi wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.
Operation Grange Remit [circa. 2010/11]

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.

Nothing 'suspected' about it - always been there in black and white, indelibly preserved for posterity. It's also been reiterated across the web more times than a McCann can (sounds like a dance) shout no evidence !!!

Not everyone reads McCann related stuff on the internet, and many wouldn't even know about the wording of the Remit.

For years some have argued the word 'Abduction' in the Remit was a loosely descriptive word that people were reading too much into, and that it didn't in any way mean Operation Grange would not go back to square one. Well Sutton has now categorically confirmed he was given a foreboding warning from high up the chain that the McCanns were 'strictly off limits.' And Rowley has been forced to publicly admit Op Grange haven't investigated the McCanns at all!

This is the most damning confirmation of facts to hit MSM re this case for a very long time (imo). Furthermore, even if you believe Maddie was abducted by a stranger, you will have trouble understanding that if the PJ's initial investigation was so 'botched,' why Op Grange wouldn't go right back to square one in painstaking detail.

by dartinghero 05.05.17 14:44

pennylane wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Dr What wrote:Assuming Colin Sutton is being truthful, his statements are important.Up until this point in time, we could only say that we suspected that OG was set up to avoid putting the McCs under any scrutiny.This could always be dismissed as speculation by those who want this case buried.Now we have clear statements about the NEED to clear the McCs.
Operation Grange Remit [circa. 2010/11]

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.

Nothing 'suspected' about it - always been there in black and white, indelibly preserved for posterity. It's also been reiterated across the web more times than a McCann can (sounds like a dance) shout no evidence !!!

Not everyone reads McCann related stuff on the internet, and many wouldn't even know about the wording of the Remit.

For years some have argued the word 'Abduction' in the Remit was a loosely descriptive word that people were reading too much into, and that it didn't in any way mean Operation Grange would not go back to square one. Well Sutton has now categorically confirmed he was given a foreboding warning from high up the chain that the McCanns were 'strictly off limits.' And Rowley has been forced to publicly admit Op Grange haven't investigated the McCanns at all!

This is the most damning confirmation of facts to hit MSM re this case for a very long time (imo). Furthermore, even if you believe Maddie was abducted by a stranger, you will have trouble understanding that if the PJ's initial investigation was so 'botched,' why Op Grange wouldn't go right back to square one in painstaking detail.

I agree, pennylane. I think most people who rely on MSM for their news hears that Op Grange are reinvestigating the "disappearance of MM" and doesn't think any more about it and it would be very unusual if they went looking online for the wording of the remit. It may have been written about on the web a lot in certain quarters but there is an absolute sh*t -ton of stuff written on the web about MM - for someone edging towards the "unbelievers" (for want of a better term) I think it can be quite overwhelming and difficult to know where to start; there must be quite a lot of trees that get lost in the woods! This is why I recommend Peter Mac's book and Richard D Hall's excellent films to people who are interested - there is an awful lot of information in them, well presented and in one place, and when either or both of these are under their belt they can look in more depth at the greater detail. We have to remember for some, their only MM info is MSM or people gobbing off on facebewk. At some point, something will jar so much that maybe they look further?
Maybe even something as flimsy as the bloke from TOWIE expressing his opinion....