Colin Sutton Revisited

I'm becoming more and more intrigued to know just how Colin Sutton fits in with the ongoing saga of Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

He retired from police service in 2011, not sure of the exact date at the moment but I recall commenting in the past that it was only months after the news hit the headlines about the private unsourced telephone conversation he had with a senior Met Police officer - the one that warned him against heading a proposed new unit to probe the case.  Strange in itself!

Following his retirement, Crime and Investigation co.uk wrote this rather glowing résumé of Sutton's long career..

Colin retired with 30 years service in the police and he now advises and provides commentary and insight around crime and criminal justice issues for both the written and broadcast media. In addition to his investigative work Colin has significant experience of managing volume crime, covert law enforcement techniques, informant handling and technical surveillance. Colin has a degree in law and studied Criminal Justice post-graduation. He maintains a great interest in, and has forthright opinions on the criminal justice system and policing, from the commission of offences right through to the sentencing of offenders and the prison system.

Later, in the same article, he had this to say when interviewed..

Q:  Are there any unsolved cases across the world that you would be interested in tackling?

A:  Not now, I am too happy being retired! But had the Madeline McCann review come my way before retirement I would have stayed to complete that; it is the greatest mystery of our generation, and despite its obvious difficulty I would have been unable to resist the opportunity to try to help solve it.

According to news reports Colin .... 'Mr Sutton, 58, now a national media consultant'

Whatever, his retirement is proving to be quite a lucrative venture one way and another but that is not my concern.  I'm more interested in his ever present persona whenever and wherever the name Madeleine McCann is raised.

He was interviewed during the Sky documentary presented by Martin Brunt, where he spoke of the mass invasion by UK authorities following the breaking news about Madeleine McCann's disappearance - using almost the same wording as used by Jim Gamble, on the same subject.

Even Gemma O'Doherty, in her Village Mag article, gave the name Colin Sutton a good plug, I quote..

Former Scotland Yard murder detective Colin Sutton is one of a number of experienced officers who believe the Smith sighting is one of the most important pieces of evidence available to the investigation.

According to media reports, Sutton had been tipped to head up the new probe by British police in 2010. He claims he received a call shortly after these reports from a high-ranking friend in the Met who warned him not to take on the job as he would not be happy being told what he could and could not look at.

Several aspects of the new investigation perplex him including the apparent decision by Operation Grange not to question Gerry and Kate McCann or their friends again.

“Looking at the background to the whole case again, inconvenient suggestions like the Smith sightings, have been dismissed on a number of occasions”, he says:

“When someone comes forward like that, it must be taken very seriously. It wasn’t just a throwaway phone call. It was something quite specific. The fact that Mr Smith’s memory was triggered by seeing Gerry Mc Cann carrying the child down the steps of the plane is quite relevant because I think that is how the mind works. It is a trigger I would take quite seriously.”

“I can see no reason why Martin Smith would make up these claims. He has nothing to gain from doing so”.



That's but the tip of the iceberg but life is calling me..

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

So what exactly is Colin Sutton's role in this saga, why does he or his name crop-up everytime there is a McCann story in circulation - it's not as though he has ever been officially assigned too the case in any way shape or form.  At least not to my knowledge.

Colin Sutton features in Mark Saunokonoko's podcasting;  he featured in the Australian televised documentary in January 2017;  he has been named or quoted in numerous press reports;  he has been interviewed about the case on numerous occassions.  Why?  He is very active on social media, where he mingles with a particular circle of McCann commentators - and attracts considerable mutual admiration.

Colin Sutton is a member of CMOMM but was only active for a short period of time.  Unfortunately he was very reluctant to answer reasonable questions posed by forum members, in short - did a runner.

Maybe he is popular only because he's always available for comment - willing for a shilling so to speak, rather like Mark Williams-Thomas. In my view it's appears strange that he is consulted by all and sundry to opine on the case of Madeleine McCann when clearly he knows very little about it - his vacillating commentary bears testimony to that.

It's probably not important in the grand scheme of things but I'm naturally inquisitive. On the other hand, it might be of considerable importance!

Did Madeleine McCann wander off and have an accident? Was she stolen to order? Or was it a burglary gone wrong? Detective lays out theories about her disappearance

Madeleine McCann went missing from Praia da Luz resort, Portugal in May 2007
Leading detective has revealed five fresh theories to explain child's appearance
Colin Sutton said 'most likely' scenario was she was taken by human traffickers

By Katie French For Mailonline

Published: 12:14 BST, 22 April 2017 | Updated: 01:12 BST, 23 April 2017

A former Scotland Yard detective believes he has come up with the five most plausible theories to explain the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Murder detective Colin Sutton said a trafficking gang could have snatched her to replace a dead child or she could have been snatched by a paedophile.

But he theorised the 'most likely and credible scenario' for Maddie's disappearance was a targeted kidnap.

Speaking to The Mirror, he questioned why traffickers didn't take one of Maddie's twin baby siblings instead – who would have no memory of their previous life and less physical identity.

As the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance approaches next month, the investigator has analysed multiple theories for a new book.

Madeleine was just three went missing from Praia da Luz in Portugal in May 2007, almost a decade ago.

He said those closest to Maddie, including her parents, would have been the first line of inquiry for police.

But he added he believed Portuguese police appeared make this their only line of investigation early on in the probe.

He said: 'By concentrating just on that scenario they may have missed tips or other lines that meant going down a completely different investigation route.'

He said: 'A trafficking ring is more likely than a lone paedophile or paedophile ring.'But unless the order was specifically for a young blonde girl, why her and not one of the twins?

'Has a young blonde girl died and their parents want to replace her? Or is there another reason for stealing to order?'

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

So the intrigue continues to intrigue.  

What is this extraordinary relationship between Colin Sutton and the enigmatic Armchair Detective, Alan Vinnicombe?

What is this conjoint nationwide roadshow on how to be an armchair detective, in addition to all things McCann?

Colin Sutton's knowledge of the case of missing Madeleine McCann is seriously limited - that is made apparent by his roving commentary.  

So again I ask .... why is he always called on to comment on the case?  Could it be a result of that vague unsubstantiated comment he made in the public arena about the phone call he claims to have received, from a senior police official, who warned him against leading the proposed Met Police unit to review the case of Madeleine McCann?  Only a few months before he was due to retire?

As previously said, Colin Sutton registered with CMOMM some while ago.  When posed with perfectly reasonable polite questions, he swiftly skulked off into the ether - does that not tell you something?

They come and they go, some stay around for the ride with bare faced audacity - there ain't much you can do about that.  What you can do is be very wary of who you put your faith in.

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

It should be said, he is claimed to have solved many a high profile cold case during his illustrious career. Can I just say, this is team work - he cannot or should not pretend to be the lone crusader.

Some call him the Armchair Defective, think Colin Sutton has defected from these "live" evenings with him.  AD really doesn't have a great reputation, especially on YouTube.  It would appear that he's not adverse to using his FB admin to harass others.

I think he calls himself the armchair detective . He certainly ain't got a good reputation in my eyes.

Colin Sutton may well have taken a step back but he likewise took a step forward when embarking on the joint roadshow.

More like a comedic double act than a serious 'how to be a private dick' tutorial. Oh .... I don't know though.

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

Original Source: Colin Sutton Tuesday 09 May 2017

Posted by Colin Sutton at 12:01

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.

[Acknowledgement pamalam of gerrymccannsblogs]

Colin Sutton wrote: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.

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".

At the risk of repeating myself, why would the Metropolitan Police consider appointing DCI Colin Sutton to head Operation Grange at the beginning of May (that month again) 2010, when DCI Colin was due to retire from the force in January 2011, eight months later?

This is snipped from an interview with Colin Sutton in February 2019..

Rebecca Bradley:  'How long have you been retired from the job and do you miss it.'

Colin Sutton:  'I retired in January 2011 so around eight years ago.  I very occasionally miss the job; more often I miss certain individuals I worked with. But my life has gone in incredible and unexpected directions since then and I am very grateful for that.'

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

Did he get a another offer he couldn't refuse?

Verdi,

I can't see anything sinister about Colin Sutton.


Colin is a media pundit and will do anything to promote that status.

I don't particularly like the fact he used the Madeleine case to say something which amounts to nothing but titillation and speculation.

I don't particularly like the fact he tweets slushy poems from the wives of police officers.

However, I do believe he is a retired police officer earning a good living from his career and is using any means to further his new self-styled role.

There is one thing a pundit can guarantee will gain immediate
attention from the media and that is to say something slightly at odds with the official line but with little substance offered.

Just my opinion.

Colin Sutton registered with CMOMM as a member.  He had every opportunity to stand for himself and answer reasonable questions posed by other members.

He didn't, instead he ran away like a frightened rabbit.

Colin Sutton's joint venture with Alan 'The Armchair Detective' Vinnicombe did him no favours.  The Armchair Detective talks as his belly guides him.

Colin Sutton is inconsistent, he sails with the wind and swims with the tide.

This thread has been dormant for many months, you could say it's run it's course - what more can you add about a former senior police officer who has never been directly involved in the Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann.  This has always been the danger in my opinion, well respected people who should be heard publicly, speaking on a subject they know little or nothing about - it sends out the wrong signals.

My memory was jogged last night by the appearance of Colin Sutton on Nigel Farage's GB News show 'Talking Pints'.  Bit of a daft title I might say seeing as the host nor the guest ever get down to drinking the pints, or water, placed before them in a fake bar setting but that's beside the point.

The investigator who caught Levi Bellfield, Colin Sutton, joins Nigel for Talking Pints!

Apr 4, 2022



Colin Sutton is hard to fathom.  His first public outing about the case of Madeleine McCann was filled with eastern promise, it truly sounded as though he had something positive to contribute through the eyes of a police chief and, who knows, a touch of inside information.

Alas, that's not how matters progressed.  Mr Sutton lost the plot after the initial attraction, he vacillated without good reason;  he hitched-up with the extraordinary YouTuber that went by the pseudonym 'The Armchair Detective' - one Alan Viddicombe I believe to be;  he registered here on CMOMM but didn't hang around very long.  A few members started asking questions he didn't seem to like, so he quickly skedaddled - never to return.

Perhaps he should have stayed in gainful employ, rather than starting a new career in sofa sitting and general misleading commentary.  The police service seem to like their senior officers to retire when still comparatively young - with good reason I'm sure but with one such as Sutton perhaps they should reconsider their policy.  Keep him off street corners so to say.

Characters like Colin Sutton and Mark Williams-Thomas, to name but two, are a bit of a nuisance when trying to unearth an unsolved crime.  It seems they want to be seen as the one who found that missing piece of the jigsaw, to solve the unsolved - somethings gone very wrong with the route they adopt.

I would presume Sutton's volte-face was from being given a 'gypsy's warning' by the Freds at MI5; To back off and follow the official abduction line or expect the consequences, as this affects national security. 
This would escalate from a troublesome tax investigation by HM Revenue or even incriminating evidence on his PC of disgusting searches and downloaded photos, neatly planted for the plods to find. 
Yes, it's is brutal and there is no 2nd warning. Be kind and forgiving. Why do you think the tapas 7 will NEVER speak out either?
One should remember the coincidences of 'suicided' persons, who left without suicide notes but had convenient recent internet searches found on their devices, all taken at face value by a friendly coroner. 
*Poor Brenda Leyland, found asphyxiated via a helium filled bag whilst staying in a hotel with her ipad open. 
*Dr David Kelly, UN weapons inspector found with an incised wrist, via a blunt fruit knife

Well be that as it might but I have reservations.

If Colin Sutton was warned off to my way of thinking it would have been wiser to take a back seat, refrain from commentating on the case, shut up - but he didn't do that did he.

Instead he put himself up front in opposition to the evidence, the evidence contained in the Portuguese police files.

That is not a balanced reasoned route to take, it's dangerous territory so easily countered by documented evidence.