I thought we were comparing the two;
Sutton's investigation was successful. Operation Grange's investigation is unsuccessful so far.
Sutton had a free hand, Operation Grange was limited by it's remit.
There was a stage in Sutton's investigation where exactly the same accusation of lack of success could be levelled.
Sutton's investigation did not allow him a free hand insofar that he was bound by restrictions of having to look for and follow whatever evidence might have been available to him.
His remit was to do that within the confines of the law and by following procedure to be able to present a case against a suspect to allow for arrest and subsequent trial.
It is utterly risible to imagine that the remit of the investigation into Madeleine's case limits police procedure to allow exactly the same freedom to follow the evidence as enjoyed by Sutton.
That is what the police do ... and it is what Helen Monteiro's team did both at review stage and into the reopening of Madeleine's case.
I doubt very much that Sutton embarked on his successful investigation without casting an eye over all the evidence already gathered and deciding what to keep to work on and what to set aside. I think it is ludicrous to imagine that wasn't done in Madeleine's case and there seemed to be plenty of leads which just had not been followed through for them to be going on with.
So what evidence is it you think the PJ investigation of the parents and Robert Murat missed and what is it that that you think Monteiro's review team missed that directed them open a case which enabled them to investigate a stranger abduction?