Colin Sutton: Met only interested in proving McCann parents innocent

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

Nor do I.

Unfortunately he got off to a bad start here - mainly because of our sceptism of other former Police officers in the media, e.g. Mark Williams-Thomas and Jim Gamble (who congratulated Martin Brunt for a job well done for doorstepping Brenda Leyland).

None of us can forgive or forget what happened to Brenda just as we can't forgive and forget what happened to Maddie.

As Jon Coxon, another ex-Met Police officer, pointed out it was Martin Brunt who was interviewing Colin.

Surely Colin can understand where we're coming from?

I speak for myself but what Maddie needs is for someone with balls - especially a former MET police officer - to DO SOMETHING for this three year old child! It infuriates me no end that people would rather make a name for themselves, like MW-T and JG, because of Maddie.

So, Colin, I ask you again to DO SOMETHING positive to out the people who are covering up her death. You have opened a can of worms which we, here on CMOMM, fully intend to take advantage of with our next letter to the PM/Grange/CD/AR within the next few days.

You have kids yourself so you are only too aware of how precious they are and I'm sure you would fight to the death to protect them too.

We didn't even know Maddie, yet we've spent ten years of our lives campaigning and fighting for her as though we did.

I have emailed you and messaged you to no avail.

Sorry, but you either need to be a real HERO for Maddie or stop tweeting about her.

She is NOT the means to an end to sell a book.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

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

Nor do I.

Unfortunately he got off to a bad start here - mainly because of our sceptism of other former Police officers in the media, e.g. Mark Williams-Thomas and Jim Gamble (who congratulated Martin Brunt for a job well done for doorstepping Brenda Leyland).

None of us can forgive or forget what happened to Brenda just as we can't forgive and forget what happened to Maddie.

As Jon Coxon, another ex-Met Police officer, pointed out it was Martin Brunt who was interviewing Colin.

Surely Colin can understand where we're coming from?

I speak for myself but what Maddie needs is for someone with balls - especially a former MET police officer - to DO SOMETHING for this three year old child! It infuriates me no end that people would rather make a name for themselves, like MW-T and JG, because of Maddie.

So, Colin, I ask you again to DO SOMETHING positive to out the people who are covering up her death. You have opened a can of worms which we, here on CMOMM, fully intend to take advantage of with our next letter to the PM/Grange/CD/AR within the next few days.

You have kids yourself so you are only too aware of how precious they are and I'm sure you would fight to the death to protect them too.

We didn't even know Maddie, yet we've spent ten years of our lives campaigning and fighting for her as though we did.

I have emailed you and messaged you to no avail.

Sorry, but you either need to be a real HERO for Maddie or stop tweeting about her.

She is NOT the means to an end to sell a book.

Well said! 

I should imagine that, on the basis of the high level of "interest" in this case by HMG and allegedly MI5, anyone who might feasibly be in the know and who pops their head above the parapet will find themselves in the crosshairs, probably covertly

polyenne wrote:I should imagine that, on the basis of the high level of "interest" in this case by HMG and allegedly MI5, anyone who might feasibly be in the know and who pops their head above the parapet will find themselves in the crosshairs, probably covertly

Well, I'm not in HMG or MI5, so I'll do it....but at least Colin has started the ball rolling.

And if I go missing then please check the woods.

I'll be checking the Blue Bag first........

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

polyenne wrote:I should imagine that, on the basis of the high level of "interest" in this case by HMG and allegedly MI5, anyone who might feasibly be in the know and who pops their head above the parapet will find themselves in the crosshairs, probably covertly

Well, I'm not in HMG or MI5, so I'll do it....but at least Colin has started the ball rolling.

And if I go missing then please check the woods.

If we have to check the woods , can we call in the dogs ? 

Mr Sutton , Colin , you have opened that " can of worms " it ain't going to go away !

So you came in for a bit of flak when you came here , surely you are a big enough man and have had much worse in your career to let that stop you coming back and carrying on ?

So much b/s has been written/said recently and over the past 10 years about what did/didn't happen in Portugal , at the top of the list should be a little girl who needs Truth and Justice .

Sadly it's become about those who want their five minutes of fame and a boost to their bank balance .

Come on Colin , step forward for one reason only Madeleine .

The establishment does not take kindly to whistle blowers, and I imagine Colin Sutton is being watched closely. I think he should tread carefully before making any next moves.

I really hope he has colleagues that are willing to help him expose this corrupt farce further. It's a huge accomplishment to get a factual MSM exposé of the corruptness that surrounds Operation Grange.  There's no getting away from the damage Mr Sutton has inflicted not only on the Home Office and Op Grange, but also on Team McCann and Theresa May collectively as she was Home Secretary at the time Op Grange was set up with its phony remit.  Let's hope this straw truly breaks the camels back.
Brave move indeed. Jolly well done Mr Sutton! 

Well said Pennylane

Posted by Colin Sutton on his blog:-


Tuesday, 9 May 2017

Madeleine McCann and Operation Grange

At the outset I should say that I don't know what happened to Madeleine McCann.  All the evidence available to me – and there is more and deeper information available to the public on this than any case I have looked at – does not convince me of any theory or scenario being proved.  Soon, in the coming months when my other projects are less busy, I hope to take a proper analytical look at it all and come up with some conclusions.  But as things stand my position is that I don't know.

Having said all that, there are aspects of the case which trouble me already and the main one is what the Metropolitan Police set out to do in Operation Grange.  My brush with that investigation – and I call it that because I was never actually involved with it – has been the subject of a fair bit of comment, embellishment and misunderstanding.  So it is right I think that I set out clearly what happened and what did not.

On Sunday 9th May 2010 the News of the World published a story which suggested that the Met was going to reinvestigate Madeleine’s disappearance and that I would be asked to lead it.  This was news to me on both counts. Nobody from the Met had, or indeed ever did, make such a request of me.

The only official news I heard about the reinvestigation was a week or two later when I heard that the idea of such a reinvestigation had been shelved for the time being in the wake of the change of Government. You will recall the note by former Chief Secretary to the Treasury Liam Byrne, apologising to his successor that there was no money left. The rumour in the Met was that, unless and until the Government were prepared to fund it, we would not undertake such an expensive operation which, as desirable as it might have been, was not really something on which Londoners should see their Council Tax spent.

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 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 retired after 30 years service in early 2011.  At the time I retired there had been no decision made to mount the Met operation.  As I embarked upon a new career writing and commenting I looked at the case a little, sufficiently enough to provide sensible assistance to the media when they asked me.  This was, though, always around police procedures and techniques.  Nobody ever asked me what I thought might have happened, only what the police were doing, why and what they might do next.

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.  In support of this I presented the original Grange terms of reference and told them of the advice I had received in the phone call.

To their credit (and, actually, to my surprise) they accepted that this was a valid point of view to hold and one which should be presented in their film.  Within the limitations and constraints of legal matters, the editing process and the need to present a rounded story, I think the Sky film was pretty good.  It is certainly the most balanced mainstream report I have seen and one with which I am entirely happy to be associated.  I also think it represented my views well.

I am neither an anti nor a pro – of the McCanns or the media or the police.  I felt, feel indeed, that the limitations which seem to have been imposed on Operation Grange were worthy of being publicised and would inform the debate.  I am not necessarily advocating that it be started afresh, just that it is understood what it was and what it tried to do.

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.

I want to continue to raise and discuss issues around Madeleine’s disappearance when it is appropriate to do so.  I am mindful that, to maintain credibility and access to meaningful platforms that I will need to do so in a considered, reasoned and evidenced way. If I don't offer support to theories and assumptions it doesn't mean I don't understand or believe them, just that I don't think it is appropriate to adopt them or comment upon them at the moment.

Finally a paragraph on me. I am nowhere near naïve enough to have thought that I could become involved in this debate without suffering some abuse and denigration. While it is water from a duck’s back I won't expose myself to it unnecessarily.  Hence I won't take part in discussions on the various forums and I am likely to block those on Twitter who can’t be reasonable and polite.  Like us all I am far from perfect but I did give many years of service to the community – as do thousands of others – and during that time I was lucky enough to achieve some results of which I will always be proud. My expertise and reputation is well-regarded by the media and I have no need to raise my profile; I turn away as much media work as I accept.  I am not writing a book on Madeleine McCann and I have no motivation other than that which has been with me for many, many years – to get to the truth.  So I will continue to tweet about the case ( @colinsutton ) and when people raise good questions I will try to respond quickly.

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

Posted by Colin Sutton at 12:01

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

I am not surprised by any of Colin's comments, hey sets out his stall very well.
Truth be known, I'm actually heartened by his words, he appears to take a considered view and, taking him at his word, no doubt he is/has been viewing this, and other forums, to seek alternative facts and views to enable him to gain perhaps a deeper insight.

That can only be a good thing and he is decent enough to suggest that he will respond speedily to sensible questions.

I look forward to his input as I do with many other posters on this forum

Thank you Colin

Thank you Colin Sutton, for explaining yourself so eloquently!

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

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

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

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

Cheshire Cat wrote:

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

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

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

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

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

Please enlighten me as to why.

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Yes, thanks

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

Titbits.

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

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

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

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

I am happy to add my thanks to Colin.

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

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

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

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

I am happy to add my thanks to Colin.

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

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

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


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

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

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

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] Aquila, whilst I can fully understand your cynicism, it is clear, having read Colin's blog, that he was approached by Sky last year about the documentary. I don't construe that to be jumping on the 10-year band wagon.

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

Long may it continue.

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

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

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


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

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

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

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

aquila wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

dartinghero wrote:

aquila wrote:

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


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

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

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

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

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

Colin Sutton wasn't offered the job.