Colin Sutton: Met only interested in proving McCann parents innocent

dartinghero wrote:
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?

dartinghero wrote:

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....

Verdi wrote:

dartinghero wrote:
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?

Not only do I believe the notion to be too optimistic, I frankly think it highly unlikely that a) Colin Sutton is a vehicle to drag less pro-McCann stuff into mainstream discussion and b) that past McCann supporters would change direction because they're being made to look like tossers.

Take the Operation Grange team for an example, the very forefront of the UK review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  A team of police officers and ancilliary staff, with knowledge and experience of a criminal investigation, with direct access to all the investigative documentation - do you truly believe they would collectively go along with the abudction remit for six years before concluding they were being made to look like tossers?  They would know from the start that the Operation Grange remit was contrary to standard policing, I might even say borderlilne illegal!

Reverting to Colin Sutton, he was allegedly approached one year before the establishment of Operation Grange to head the unit, which he now says he declined because a very senior (not named) police officer warned him about the proposed remit.  Again I say, he would have been aware, then and there, that the Operation Grange remit was somewhat unusual - no one has made him look like a tosser.  He knew at the time, he knows now - nothing has changed his position except the fact that he waits six years before presenting the information in the public domain.

As for general public awareness of the Operation Grange remit, if people haven't taken an interest in this case before, enough to generate questions or suspicion, I doubt if they even watched the Sky report or the BBC Panaorama documentary let alone listened to the words of Colin Sutton - or worse still Clarence Mitchell.  Even if they had watched and listened, I doubt it would have had any impact.  You can't force people to take an interest nor to absorb what's seen and read - you need to have a particular interest in any subject, otherwise it's all water off a ducks back.

My initial question remains - 'why did Coliln Sutton wait until now'!  Hopefully he will return to the forum to participate in discussion as he said he would do following the Sky News exposé.  Sky News and Martin Brunt who have so far provided a fantastic display of support for the McCanns !!!  I wonder if he feels he's been made to look a tosser !?!

Nina wrote:

Verdi wrote:

dartinghero wrote:
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?

Not only do I believe the notion to be too optimistic, I frankly think it highly unlikely that a) Colin Sutton is a vehicle to drag less pro-McCann stuff into mainstream discussion and b) that past McCann supporters would change direction because they're being made to look like tossers.

Take the Operation Grange team for an example, the very forefront of the UK review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  A team of police officers and ancilliary staff, with knowledge and experience of a criminal investigation, with direct access to all the investigative documentation - do you truly believe they would collectively go along with the abudction remit for six years before concluding they were being made to look like tossers?  They would know from the start that the Operation Grange remit was contrary to standard policing, I might even say borderlilne illegal!

Reverting to Colin Sutton, he was allegedly approached one year before the establishment of Operation Grange to head the unit, which he now says he declined because a very senior (not named) police officer warned him about the proposed remit.  Again I say, he would have been aware, then and there, that the Operation Grange remit was somewhat unusual - no one has made him look like a tosser.  He knew at the time, he knows now - nothing has changed his position except the fact that he waits six years before presenting the information in the public domain.

As for general public awareness of the Operation Grange remit, if people haven't taken an interest in this case before, enough to generate questions or suspicion, I doubt if they even watched the Sky report or the BBC Panaorama documentary let alone listened to the words of Colin Sutton - or worse still Clarence Mitchell.  Even if they had watched and listened, I doubt it would have had any impact.  You can't force people to take an interest nor to absorb what's seen and read - you need to have a particular interest in any subject, otherwise it's all water off a ducks back.

My initial question remains - 'why did Coliln Sutton wait until now'!  Hopefully he will return to the forum to participate in discussion as he said he would do following the Sky News exposé.  Sky News and Martin Brunt who have so far provided a fantastic display of support for the McCanns !!!  I wonder if he feels he's been made to look a tosser !?!

Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.

jeanmonroe wrote:Are the McCan'ts going to 'employ' their own 'security' staff (DE/JG/AC) at UK airports and seaports, to 'stop tourists', and 'confiscate' their GA book/s, printed in English, in Portugal, from 'getting in to' the UK?

Are the McCan'ts going to 'order' T May/A Fudd to 'deploy' troops to the airports/seaports or 'their faces will be plastered all over the Scum,' until they do?

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

jeanmonroe wrote:Are the McCan'ts going to 'employ' their own 'security' staff (DE/JG/AC) at UK airports and seaports, to 'stop tourists', and 'confiscate' their GA book/s, printed in English, in Portugal, from 'getting in to' the UK?

Are the McCan'ts going to 'order' T May/A Fudd to 'deploy' troops to the airports/seaports or 'their faces will be plastered all over the Scum,' until they do?

  Stop it will you?!

Hey! They could even train their own book sniffing dogs!

Nina wrote:
Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.

Verdi wrote:

Nina wrote:
Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.

Nina, Colin Sutton retired from the Metropolitan Police in January 2011 - that's over six years ago!

Verdi wrote:

dartinghero wrote:
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?

Not only do I believe the notion to be too optimistic, I frankly think it highly unlikely that a) Colin Sutton is a vehicle to drag less pro-McCann stuff into mainstream discussion and b) that past McCann supporters would change direction because they're being made to look like tossers.

Take the Operation Grange team for an example, the very forefront of the UK review/investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.  A team of police officers and ancilliary staff, with knowledge and experience of a criminal investigation, with direct access to all the investigative documentation - do you truly believe they would collectively go along with the abudction remit for six years before concluding they were being made to look like tossers?  They would know from the start that the Operation Grange remit was contrary to standard policing, I might even say borderlilne illegal!

Reverting to Colin Sutton, he was allegedly approached one year before the establishment of Operation Grange to head the unit, which he now says he declined because a very senior (not named) police officer warned him about the proposed remit.  Again I say, he would have been aware, then and there, that the Operation Grange remit was somewhat unusual - no one has made him look like a tosser.  He knew at the time, he knows now - nothing has changed his position except the fact that he waits six years before presenting the information in the public domain.

As for general public awareness of the Operation Grange remit, if people haven't taken an interest in this case before, enough to generate questions or suspicion, I doubt if they even watched the Sky report or the BBC Panaorama documentary let alone listened to the words of Colin Sutton - or worse still Clarence Mitchell.  Even if they had watched and listened, I doubt it would have had any impact.  You can't force people to take an interest nor to absorb what's seen and read - you need to have a particular interest in any subject, otherwise it's all water off a ducks back.

My initial question remains - 'why did Coliln Sutton wait until now'!  Hopefully he will return to the forum to participate in discussion as he said he would do following the Sky News exposé.  Sky News and Martin Brunt who have so far provided a fantastic display of support for the McCanns !!!  I wonder if he feels he's been made to look a tosser !?!

Nina wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Nina wrote:
Maybe he waited until he had actually retired and his pension was being paid into his bank account every month without hitch? Could be something as simple as that.

Nina, Colin Sutton retired from the Metropolitan Police in January 2011 - that's over six years ago!

Sorry Verdi, I wasn't aware of when he retired so my offer is not applicable.

dartinghero wrote:I'm not being a Pollyanna but I think anything that drags ideas that are not the party line into the MSM must be a good thing.

Verdi wrote:

dartinghero wrote:I'm not being a Pollyanna but I think anything that drags ideas that are not the party line into the MSM must be a good thing.

I too am talking of the higher echalons, it is they who are responsible for the conspiracy - not the proletariat.

As regards the establishment changing direction if the need be, I think that rather depends on the nature of required cover-up.  Some situations are insurmountable and must be smothered at all cost - this concept I believe applies in the case of Madeleine McCann.

In conclusion, I'm all for destroying the abysmal image of the UK media and their atrocious standard of reportage but there's nothing to be gained if the contrary argument presented has no foundation - that can only have a negative effect by equaling the source you are fighting.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Message posted by JC on facebook to Mets Professional Standard:

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

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

pennylane wrote:It's becoming increasingly obvious this corrupt farce is unsustainable,
and the lid's going to blow one way or the other! 

BlueBag wrote:Great post by JC.

Are there any decent people in the Met willing to do something about this farce?

Doug D wrote:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]  [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
More
Just looked at Panorama again. Did Op Grange pre-eliminate McCanns simply because they weren't in 5A when the disappearance was reported?

Great post by JC.

Verdi wrote:

Great post by JC.

Careful with the JC - readers might get the wrong idea .

polyenne wrote:And he can choose to disappear. Do you want that ? I don't