UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: ShiningInLuz on April 22, 2017, 08:31:13 PM
-
Colin Sutton is an ex-SIO with the Met, and is to appear in at least 3 forthcoming specials around Madeleine's 10 anniversary, and he has popped up in Mail Online today.
This article explains his experience and capability.
http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/shows/evil-up-close/articles/interview-with-colin-sutton
Ex-Senior Investigating Officer for the Met Police Murder Squad who led the investigations to convict Levi Bellfield and Delroy Grant.
Colin Sutton spent the last nine years of his police career as Senior Investigating Officer for the Met Police’s Murder Squad. Among the dozens of investigations he led, the most notable was perhaps the operation which convicted the serial killer Levi Bellfield. He then took over and reinvigorated the ‘Night Stalker’ investigation in 2009, which quickly led to the arrest and conviction of Delroy Grant for a long series of rapes on the elderly. He was also responsible for the re-investigation of the Deepcut Barracks deaths.
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.
The Delroy Grant case was a long standing case – what methods did you use to solve this case in such a relatively short amount of time and what was the most significant breakthrough?
The focus was switched from trying to identify the offender by DNA – mass-swabbing of a huge number of potential suspects – to a proactive operation, using 75 officers and technical surveillance in an area identified by analysis of his ‘favourite’ target area. He then, after 17 days, committed a burglary in the area, was observed and arrested.
Levi Bellfield remains one of the UK’s most infamous serial killers – what clues ultimately led to his conviction?
Ultimately it was thorough and painstaking analysis of CCTV images and then mobile phone records. But even though that was what made us suspect Bellfield, the complete lack of scientific evidence meant that there followed more than 3 years of patient case-building, old-fashioned detective work unearthing small pieces of circumstantial evidence which, when added together, formed the compelling case which convicted him.
When you approach a case like Bellfield or Grant as an Investigating Officer what do you look for first?
Most cases of murder and serious crime are spontaneous, so that a quick and large-scale response will often bring quick results. But men like Bellfield and Grant are more cunning, they plan their crimes and try their best to avoid leaving forensic evidence. These are the hardest cases to solve. Ultimately both were caught because they continued to offend and gave me renewed opportunities to identify them. In such cases the SIO has to be patient, not to jump to conclusions or swift action but to consider all the possibilities. The more planning the criminal employs the more we must use against them.
How have advancements in forensics and psychology changed police investigations?
There is no doubt that DNA, and the ever-increasing sensitivity of tests for it, have made most serious crimes easier to solve. In many cases it will give irrefutable proof of presence, and therefore of guilt. But it has made some detectives over-reliant upon it, and this was very evident in Delroy Grant’s case. Psychology has helped interviewing officers, and an understanding of the criminal to a degree. However offender profiling is very rarely as successful or impactful in reality as it is portrayed in fiction.
Why do you think it is important for the public to understand what happens in these horrific crimes?
First it is necessary to enlist the public as our eyes and ears. The worse the crime the more likely the public are to come forward with information. Secondly it is necessary to reinforce the message for the public to take care, to try to minimise the risk to them of becoming victims. Thirdly, it is part of the entire criminal justice process – the public must know why society is incarcerating these criminals for so long, and also be reassured that the police and the system actually does work for them in making the community safer.
What makes killers like Grant and Bellfield get so much press attention compared to others?
Thankfully, it is because they are so rare, and therefore unusual. Their crimes are just so far beyond the comprehension of normal people that they are truly shocking, and as such there will always be a demand for their stories to be told. It is, I suppose, the same reason that they are given so much police attention too.
Are there any unsolved cases across the world that you would be interested in tackling?
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.
Which case from history would you like to work on?
I think some of the great mysteries – Jack the Ripper, Lord Lucan, that sort of case – might be quite easily solved in the modern era, but at the time the detectives never had the scientific help we enjoy these days. What I really would have liked was to have been in charge of the Delroy Grant case much earlier – I think I might have saved a lot of elderly people a lot of pain.
END OF ARTICLE
On CMoMM, Mr Sutton has made it clear that he is not in-depth expert on the Madeleine McCann case. However, that is not where his expertise is being deployed.
Here is today's interview in the Mail Online. My thanks to John for bringing this to our attention.
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.
By Katie French
PUBLISHED: 22 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?'
While cops initially believed Maddie could have wandered off and been killed, Sutton believes the tot would surely have taken her beloved toy 'Cuddle Cat' if she had walked out of the apartment.
He said: 'Incidents of children wandering off are much more common than a targeted or non-targeted abduction.
'However Cuddle Cat is a compelling fly in the ointment with this theory.'
He said it was highly unlikely that an opportunist had snatched her, saying that most predatory paedophiles are 'not interested in pre-school age children'.
He said: 'The chances of a predatory paedophile just happening across Madeleine and being able to abduct her without being detected are just so remote.
'I don't know of any other opportunistic abduction of a girl so young.'
And he also believes it is extremely unlikely that she was killed as part of a burglary gone wrong, as most burglars are drug addicts looking for something small they can easily sell.
He said: 'Junkies don't take three-year-old girls.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4435038/Did-Madeleine-McCann-wander-accident.html#ixzz4ezFjPZug
54
-
he has said that if the parents are ruled out then abduction is the most likely scenario...something I have been saying for years
-
Hooray, finally you've found someone to agree with you 8@??)(
-
He is also having a dig at OG who at one time were supposed to have been pursuing a burglary gone wrong.
-
he has said that if the parents are ruled out then abduction is the most likely scenario...something I have been saying for years
Did he mention Eddie and Keela by some chance ?
-
This is the most likely scenario once those closely linked to Madeleine have been ruled out."
That is an important part of the quoted piece to keep in mind.
My view, as I gave to The Mirror, is that they have not been ruled out, either by the PJ or Op. Grange. However the editorial slant given to what I said to the reporter has pushed this to the very back of the piece.
I have taken part in three pieces for the 10-year anniversary - the Mirror, the Australian TV film and the Sky TV film.
The Australians never told me they had 'new evidence', I don't know what this is but I was asked about police procedures in these cases and not asked to give an opinion as to what actually happened.
The Sky film will be, I hope, a much more balanced piece than anything else in the mainstream media. I am sure you will have a view once you see it -as will I, as once again it has to go through an editing process, but in what I have recorded I have tried to deal with some of the inconsistencies, to point out that the Portuguese investigation was nowhere near as bad as it is painted, that the McCanns have never been eliminated and that Grange was too restricted either to do this or to have a meaningful impact on the case.
I am sceptical about abduction being the only valid scenario and will continue to be so. In taking that view in the mainstream media, one is subject to legal and editorial restrictions which of course do not exist on a forum. My choice therefore is either to give up and not take part or to do so and try to push the boundaries each time so that the concept of alternative theories can gradually be published more widely. I chose the latter.
I am cross that The Mirror piece has been adjusted so much that it gives precedence to a hypothesis which I don't feel is the most likely. It is the first time I have done this sort of work for that paper and this is an outcome which has not happened when working for others. No newspaper or TV company has ever told me what conclusion I should come to and if they did I would run a mile. Once I have told them what i think, though, I am at their mercy as to what they use and do not use.
I will remain interested in this case, remain a member of this forum and will be happy, after the Sky film airs, to take part in discussions with members about the film and the case.
However - and I am no snowflake, believe me - I will not do so if people think it is acceptable to direct abuse towards me for what I believe or what I do. I promise I will be polite and reasoned and I expect that in return. That is reasonable is it not?
Colin.
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13934p150-new-daily-mirrors-18-21-22-apr-ex-detective-colin-sutton-is-actively-contributing-to-this-thread-was-daily-mirror-18-apr-2017-what-really-happened-the-night-madeleine-disappeared
-
Colin Sutton is an ex-SIO with the Met, and is to appear in at least 3 forthcoming specials around Madeleine's 10 anniversary, and he has popped up in Mail Online today.
This article explains his experience and capability.
http://www.crimeandinvestigation.co.uk/shows/evil-up-close/articles/interview-with-colin-sutton
Ex-Senior Investigating Officer for the Met Police Murder Squad who led the investigations to convict Levi Bellfield and Delroy Grant.
Colin Sutton spent the last nine years of his police career as Senior Investigating Officer for the Met Police’s Murder Squad. Among the dozens of investigations he led, the most notable was perhaps the operation which convicted the serial killer Levi Bellfield. He then took over and reinvigorated the ‘Night Stalker’ investigation in 2009, which quickly led to the arrest and conviction of Delroy Grant for a long series of rapes on the elderly. He was also responsible for the re-investigation of the Deepcut Barracks deaths.
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.
The Delroy Grant case was a long standing case – what methods did you use to solve this case in such a relatively short amount of time and what was the most significant breakthrough?
The focus was switched from trying to identify the offender by DNA – mass-swabbing of a huge number of potential suspects – to a proactive operation, using 75 officers and technical surveillance in an area identified by analysis of his ‘favourite’ target area. He then, after 17 days, committed a burglary in the area, was observed and arrested.
Levi Bellfield remains one of the UK’s most infamous serial killers – what clues ultimately led to his conviction?
Ultimately it was thorough and painstaking analysis of CCTV images and then mobile phone records. But even though that was what made us suspect Bellfield, the complete lack of scientific evidence meant that there followed more than 3 years of patient case-building, old-fashioned detective work unearthing small pieces of circumstantial evidence which, when added together, formed the compelling case which convicted him.
When you approach a case like Bellfield or Grant as an Investigating Officer what do you look for first?
Most cases of murder and serious crime are spontaneous, so that a quick and large-scale response will often bring quick results. But men like Bellfield and Grant are more cunning, they plan their crimes and try their best to avoid leaving forensic evidence. These are the hardest cases to solve. Ultimately both were caught because they continued to offend and gave me renewed opportunities to identify them. In such cases the SIO has to be patient, not to jump to conclusions or swift action but to consider all the possibilities. The more planning the criminal employs the more we must use against them.
How have advancements in forensics and psychology changed police investigations?
There is no doubt that DNA, and the ever-increasing sensitivity of tests for it, have made most serious crimes easier to solve. In many cases it will give irrefutable proof of presence, and therefore of guilt. But it has made some detectives over-reliant upon it, and this was very evident in Delroy Grant’s case. Psychology has helped interviewing officers, and an understanding of the criminal to a degree. However offender profiling is very rarely as successful or impactful in reality as it is portrayed in fiction.
Why do you think it is important for the public to understand what happens in these horrific crimes?
First it is necessary to enlist the public as our eyes and ears. The worse the crime the more likely the public are to come forward with information. Secondly it is necessary to reinforce the message for the public to take care, to try to minimise the risk to them of becoming victims. Thirdly, it is part of the entire criminal justice process – the public must know why society is incarcerating these criminals for so long, and also be reassured that the police and the system actually does work for them in making the community safer.
What makes killers like Grant and Bellfield get so much press attention compared to others?
Thankfully, it is because they are so rare, and therefore unusual. Their crimes are just so far beyond the comprehension of normal people that they are truly shocking, and as such there will always be a demand for their stories to be told. It is, I suppose, the same reason that they are given so much police attention too.
Are there any unsolved cases across the world that you would be interested in tackling?
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.
Which case from history would you like to work on?
I think some of the great mysteries – Jack the Ripper, Lord Lucan, that sort of case – might be quite easily solved in the modern era, but at the time the detectives never had the scientific help we enjoy these days. What I really would have liked was to have been in charge of the Delroy Grant case much earlier – I think I might have saved a lot of elderly people a lot of pain.
END OF ARTICLE
On CMoMM, Mr Sutton has made it clear that he is not in-depth expert on the Madeleine McCann case. However, that is not where his expertise is being deployed.
Here is today's interview in the Mail Online. My thanks to John for bringing this to our attention.
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.
By Katie French
PUBLISHED: 22 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?'
While cops initially believed Maddie could have wandered off and been killed, Sutton believes the tot would surely have taken her beloved toy 'Cuddle Cat' if she had walked out of the apartment.
He said: 'Incidents of children wandering off are much more common than a targeted or non-targeted abduction.
'However Cuddle Cat is a compelling fly in the ointment with this theory.'
He said it was highly unlikely that an opportunist had snatched her, saying that most predatory paedophiles are 'not interested in pre-school age children'.
He said: 'The chances of a predatory paedophile just happening across Madeleine and being able to abduct her without being detected are just so remote.
'I don't know of any other opportunistic abduction of a girl so young.'
And he also believes it is extremely unlikely that she was killed as part of a burglary gone wrong, as most burglars are drug addicts looking for something small they can easily sell.
He said: 'Junkies don't take three-year-old girls.'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4435038/Did-Madeleine-McCann-wander-accident.html#ixzz4ezFjPZug
Writing a book?
As the 10th anniversary of Maddie's disappearance approaches next month, the investigator has analysed multiple theories for a new book.
-
Did he mention Eddie and Keela by some chance ?
yes he did...no evidential value if I recall properly
-
yes he did...no evidential value if I recall properly
Cite.
Meanwhile, no forensic results to show anyone in the apartment that night.
-
Thanks for the background SIL.
-
Cite.
Meanwhile, no forensic results to show anyone in the apartment that night.
im not sure whether he said something about the poor forensic examination of the aprtment too
-
im not sure whether he said something about the poor forensic examination of the aprtment too
How about the Mccann's and Co., contaminating the crime scene before the police got there ?
-
How about the Mccann's and Co., contaminating the crime scene before the police got there ?
i think he said that is always the case with a crime scene
-
i think he said that is always the case with a crime scene
Well these were people who were claiming abduction , yet searching in the apartment, and just outside it .
-
Well these were people who were claiming abduction , yet searching in the apartment, and just outside it .
Kate thought it was an abduction but no one else agreed with her to start with.
-
Kate thought it was an abduction but no one else agreed with her to start with.
Pray tell, how do you know what she thought ?
-
This is the most likely scenario once those closely linked to Madeleine have been ruled out."
That is an important part of the quoted piece to keep in mind.
My view, as I gave to The Mirror, is that they have not been ruled out, either by the PJ or Op. Grange. However the editorial slant given to what I said to the reporter has pushed this to the very back of the piece.
I have taken part in three pieces for the 10-year anniversary - the Mirror, the Australian TV film and the Sky TV film.
The Australians never told me they had 'new evidence', I don't know what this is but I was asked about police procedures in these cases and not asked to give an opinion as to what actually happened.
The Sky film will be, I hope, a much more balanced piece than anything else in the mainstream media. I am sure you will have a view once you see it -as will I, as once again it has to go through an editing process, but in what I have recorded I have tried to deal with some of the inconsistencies, to point out that the Portuguese investigation was nowhere near as bad as it is painted, that the McCanns have never been eliminated and that Grange was too restricted either to do this or to have a meaningful impact on the case.
I am sceptical about abduction being the only valid scenario and will continue to be so. In taking that view in the mainstream media, one is subject to legal and editorial restrictions which of course do not exist on a forum. My choice therefore is either to give up and not take part or to do so and try to push the boundaries each time so that the concept of alternative theories can gradually be published more widely. I chose the latter.
I am cross that The Mirror piece has been adjusted so much that it gives precedence to a hypothesis which I don't feel is the most likely. It is the first time I have done this sort of work for that paper and this is an outcome which has not happened when working for others. No newspaper or TV company has ever told me what conclusion I should come to and if they did I would run a mile. Once I have told them what i think, though, I am at their mercy as to what they use and do not use.
I will remain interested in this case, remain a member of this forum and will be happy, after the Sky film airs, to take part in discussions with members about the film and the case.
However - and I am no snowflake, believe me - I will not do so if people think it is acceptable to direct abuse towards me for what I believe or what I do. I promise I will be polite and reasoned and I expect that in return. That is reasonable is it not?
Colin.
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13934p150-new-daily-mirrors-18-21-22-apr-ex-detective-colin-sutton-is-actively-contributing-to-this-thread-was-daily-mirror-18-apr-2017-what-really-happened-the-night-madeleine-disappeared
So he doesn't believe the parents have been ruled out and the Mirror twisted what he said.
-
Has anyone got an email address for Colin? I might invite him to join this Forum. It's the only balanced Forum left, in this case, despite our occasional difficulties, or perhaps because of them.
-
Has anyone got an email address for Colin? I might invite him to join this Forum. It's the only balanced Forum left, in this case, despite our occasional difficulties, or perhaps because of them.
I will have a look I thought exactly the same. He may only have joined haverns to get some material for his book....he has plenty now at just how barmy the sceptic blogs are. He sas the dogs alerts are not evidential so the problem is he might get some abuse here from those who have claimed they are
-
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.
http://colinsutton.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
-
He's not convinced by any theory - but we know one of them must be right, so his lack of conviction tells us not a lot.
-
Members are reminded that abusive personal comments aimed at other members are prohibited on this forum. Attack the comments by all means but not the poster.
-
He's not convinced by any theory - but we know one of them must be right, so his lack of conviction tells us not a lot.
Not really.
He is simply aware there is insufficient evidence to show one theory any more valid than another.
Likewise, he is aware of the fatal flaw in the OG investigation.
Namely the parents and their companions weren't questioned.
-
Not really.
He is simply aware there is insufficient evidence to show one theory any more valid than another.
Likewise, he is aware of the fatal flaw in the OG investigation.
Namely the parents and their companions weren't questioned.
Well when he's found the time to put his thinking cap on I look forward to reading his take on what happened.
-
Well when he's found the time to put his thinking cap on I look forward to reading his take on what happened.
You can't find evidence which doesn't exist.
What comes from Horrocks is unquestioning support of the McCann's, and nothing else.
-
What Sutton did was confirm what many had long suspected; that Operation Grange was not set up to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, it was set up to investigate her abduction.
Unlike some other 'experts' he admits he doesn't know what happened, which is refreshingly honest, I think. The truth is that no-one knows what happened except the person(s) involved.
-
What Sutton did was confirm what many had long suspected; that Operation Grange was not set up to investigate the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, it was set up to investigate her abduction.
Unlike some other 'experts' he admits he doesn't know what happened, which is refreshingly honest, I think. The truth is that no-one knows what happened except the person(s) involved.
No one knows what happened, but some can put forward plausible and logical theories to explain the disappearance, not those who think the parents hid Madeleine's body however - they are completely unable to so - and that is a fact.
-
Not really.
He is simply aware there is insufficient evidence to show one theory any more valid than another.
Likewise, he is aware of the fatal flaw in the OG investigation.
Namely the parents and their companions weren't questioned.
He hasn't said the parents were not questioned
-
Mr Sutton has a very impressive career. Catching Levi Bellfield and successfully prosecuting him was a very hard task. I remember the case and have watched many documentaries regarding the case. For this prosecution alone I would thank him personally.
Again we have someone drawing on their vast experience of police work making comment about Madeleine's disappearance. It's a very interesting summary and he makes some very relevant points.
-
Colin Sutton: particularly after stating that he would not be discussing matters on internet message boards, why does he wash up at somewhere as vehemently anti-McCann as the Haverns message board?
-
Colin Sutton: particularly after stating that he would not be discussing matters on internet message boards, why does he wash up at somewhere as vehemently anti-McCann as the Haverns message board?
good point.
-
Tuesday, 9 May 2017
Madeleine McCann and Operation Grange
Snip
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.
snipped
http://colinsutton.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
IMO as he didn't press for more info - there's a chance that comment referred to the effect that the involvement of the PJ and the PT authorities would have on the speed of any review or ensuing investigation. Isn't it a fact that it's the Portuguese who have the last say on what can and cannot be done?
The red tape and bureaucracy alone would be frustrating to any police officer who was used to 'getting on' with the job.
IMO
-
IMO as he didn't press for more info - there's a chance that comment referred to the effect that the involvement of the PJ and the PT authorities would have on the speed of any review or ensuing investigation. Isn't it a fact that it's the Portuguese who have the last say on what can and cannot be done?
The red tape and bureaucracy alone would be frustrating to any police officer who was used to 'getting on' with the job.
IMO
When the Portuguese investigation was archived there were unanswered questions around the timeline. I can think of no reason why the Portuguese wouldn't co-operate if OG wanted to find the answers to those questions. They would be more likely to welcome it and co-operate fully. They would be highly unlikely to hinder them.
That leaves senior people in the UK who were likely to tell the DCI running the show "what he could look at and what he could not". They made it quite clear in the remit.
-
When the Portuguese investigation was archived there were unanswered questions around the timeline. I can think of no reason why the Portuguese wouldn't co-operate if OG wanted to find the answers to those questions. They would be more likely to welcome it and co-operate fully. They would be highly unlikely to hinder them.
That leaves senior people in the UK who were likely to tell the DCI running the show "what he could look at and what he could not". They made it quite clear in the remit.
I think it would be certain that SY have spoken to the McCanns
You are assuming they havent
-
When the Portuguese investigation was archived there were unanswered questions around the timeline. I can think of no reason why the Portuguese wouldn't co-operate if OG wanted to find the answers to those questions. They would be more likely to welcome it and co-operate fully. They would be highly unlikely to hinder them.
That leaves senior people in the UK who were likely to tell the DCI running the show "what he could look at and what he could not". They made it quite clear in the remit.
You have made an assumption that SY have not interviewed the McCanns
I would assume they have
-
I think it would be certain that SY have spoken to the McCanns
You are assuming they havent
I expect they've had lots of little chats with those whose involvement, as Rowley said, had been "dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese."
-
When the Portuguese investigation was archived there were unanswered questions around the timeline. I can think of no reason why the Portuguese wouldn't co-operate if OG wanted to find the answers to those questions. They would be more likely to welcome it and co-operate fully. They would be highly unlikely to hinder them.
That leaves senior people in the UK who were likely to tell the DCI running the show "what he could look at and what he could not". They made it quite clear in the remit.
From memory - so could be wrong but wasn't it a potential REVIEW that was in the offing when Colin Sutton had his convo with another officer- and it would only be after that had been concluded that it would be decided whether to reinvestigate the case or not.
So surely no remit existed at that point.
I'm not suggesting at all that the Portuguese authorities would not co-operate. However the bureaucracy legally required to be followed by the PT in that co-operation - would inevitably slow everything down. If the other officer knew Colin Sutton's methods of policework well - then it could be he simply thought this case would not be his cup of tea.
AIMHO
-
From memory - so could be wrong but wasn't it a potential REVIEW that was in the offing when Colin Sutton had his convo with another officer- and it would only be after that had been concluded that it would be decided whether to reinvestigate the case or not.
So surely no remit existed at that point.
I'm not suggesting at all that the Portuguese authorities would not co-operate. However the bureaucracy legally required to be followed by the PT in that co-operation - would inevitably slow everything down. If the other officer knew Colin Sutton's methods of policework well - then it could be he simply thought this case would not be his cup of tea.
AIMHO
Being told what you can or cannot investigate shouldn't be any detective's cup of tea.
-
Being told what you can or cannot investigate shouldn't be any detective's cup of tea.
He works for an organisation that is bigger than him. It is a fact civil servants have to get used to.
-
Being told what you can or cannot investigate shouldn't be any detective's cup of tea.
Obviously not. But just as obviously some officers would be more suitable for some tasks than others.
IMO
-
He works for an organisation that is bigger than him. It is a fact civil servants have to get used to.
A point I have frequently made to those who think detectives make their own decisions. Those decisions are always controlled by those higher up. In an ideal world a detective does what's right. In the real world he does what he's told.
-
Obviously not. But just as obviously some officers would be more suitable for some tasks than others.
IMO
Quite. Obviously Sutton wasn't a detective who would accept being told what he could and could not investigate.
-
Quite. Obviously Sutton wasn't a detective who would accept being told what he could and could not investigate.
Well it saved him having a difficult job interview.
-
This might explain a lot.
Seems Colin Sutton (these days) is a private investigator.
http://www.colinsutton.com/csi/home.htm
Publicity never goes amiss when you are in the private sector.
Allied to (perhaps) a slight feeling of being miffed at being passed over for the job of coordinating the Madeleine investigation.
It would seem certain he has never read the Madeleine files.
-
This might explain a lot.
Seems Colin Sutton (these days) is a private investigator.
http://www.colinsutton.com/csi/home.htm
Publicity never goes amiss when you are in the private sector.
Allied to (perhaps) a slight feeling of being miffed at being passed over for the job of coordinating the Madeleine investigation.
It would seem certain he has never read the Madeleine files.
Horrocks is in the private sector too.
So your point is ???
-
Horrocks is in the private sector too.
So your point is ???
Has Horrocks dissed the Madeleine investigation?
-
Has Horrocks dissed the Madeleine investigation?
Colin Sutton gave the facts.
He would have done a thorough investigation, starting with the mccanns, but he knew he wouldn't be allowed to do that.
Redwood promised to do a thorough investigation, which of course he didn't, and disappeared into retirement.
Horrocks merely towed the McCann line, and given his previous history on the case, and that included working for the Sun, didn't actually do anything of any note whatsoever.
IMTHO, of course.
-
Horrocks is in the private sector too.
So your point is ???
According to AC Rowley there were six to eight sets of PI's perambulating around this case.
-
According to AC Rowley there were six to eight sets of PI's perambulating around this case.
....and we know what they have achieved. ?{)(**
-
....and we know what they have achieved. ?{)(**
Actually ... we do not.
-
Actually ... we do not.
Has how Madeleine disappeared from the apartment been determined ?
NO
Has she been found and/or her fate determined ??
NO
Is there a lot of conjecture ?
YEP.
-
More from Sutton.
'UK police guilty of flawed tunnel vision in hunt for Maddie McCann answers' former top cop says
Read more at http://www.9news.com.au/world/2017/05/15/12/03/uk-police-guilty-of-flawed-tunnel-vision-in-hunt-for-maddie-mccann-answers#i4XJd5aQuD[Name removed]qA4c.99
Scotland Yard's six-year investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance was a poisoned chalice laced with critical errors because of a high level agenda to not interrogate the child's parents, according to a former UK detective.
The explosive revelations were made by retired Metropolitan Police homicide cop Colin Sutton, who at one time was touted as a possible candidate to lead Operation Grange and the search for Maddie, now missing for 10 years.
Operation Grange's narrow remit to focus only on the theory that the four-year-old was abducted from the family's holiday apartment in Portugal was unusual and a "missed opportunity", Sutton told nine.com.au.
In 2010, with planning underway to launch Operation Grange, Sutton received a phone tip off from "a very senior Metropolitan police officer", warning him about the looming investigation and how it would be handled.
The insider told Sutton, who served 30 years with London's Met before retiring in 2011, that the dozens of murder detectives assigned to Operation Grange would be instructed where they could and couldn't look.
"I immediately assumed that what was meant was that the [McCann] family and Tapas 7 [the group of seven friends on holiday with the McCanns] were a no-go area," Sutton said.
Ex-detective warned of flaws in $19m Maddie McCann review
Gerry and Kate McCann aboard Sir Philip Green's private jet at Faro airport in Portugal, as they leave for Rome to prepare a meeting with the Pope Benedict XVI on 30 May, 2017. Source: AFP
Gerry and Kate McCann aboard Sir Philip Green's private jet at Faro airport in Portugal, as they leave for Rome to prepare a meeting with the Pope Benedict XVI on 30 May, 2017. Source: AFP
In May 2011, when Operation Grange was launched, the detective's instincts were proven correct.
The "crucial phrase", as Sutton calls it, in the Operation Grange remit was a line stating the review would be carried out "as if the abduction occurred in the UK".
That meant Kate and Gerry McCann, despite several concerning inconsistencies in their witness statements, were not to be looked at, Sutton said.
"It was almost this unspoken elephant in the room," he told nine.com.au.
"The rest of [the remit] is really of little consequence after that because that's sort of saying … we are only treating this as an abduction and we are not looking at any other scenario."
Sutton also hit out at Scotland Yard claims that the McCanns, who have always denied any involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine, had been cleared by Portugal's police force, the Policia Judiciaria (PJ).
Portuguese authorities shelved the investigation in 2008, 14 months after Madeleine vanished on May 3, 2007, and in doing so lifted arguidos (formal suspect) status from the McCanns.
"The PJ have never cleared anyone," Sutton said.
Ceasing the investigation "just meant they couldn't find enough evidence to proceed against them. Their view is that the parents are certainly not eliminated".
Madeleine Beth McCann: missing since May 3, 2007. Source: Getty.
Madeleine Beth McCann: missing since May 3, 2007. Source: Getty.
Sutton, who led more than 30 successful murder investigations, said it was well-rehearsed, best police practice in cases such as Madeleine McCann to eliminate those closest to the child first.
"Also any kind of investigation of murder or akin to murder the other place you need to eliminate early on is those that last saw the victim alive.
"In this case you've got essentially the same group of people who are both close to the victim and the last to see her alive. I'd always want to start with that.
"I don't understand why that hasn't been done [by Operation Grange], because it would appear to be in everyone's interest."
Earlier this month, Assistant Commissioner of London's Metropolitan Police Mark Rowley denied Scotland Yard had a closed mind to the possibility of Kate and Gerry McCann’s involvement.
"The involvement of the parents, that was dealt with at the time by the original investigation by the Portuguese," Asst Com Rowley said during a media briefing.
"We had a look at all the material and we are happy that was all dealt with and there is no reason whatsoever to reopen that or start rumours that was a line of investigation."
When asked if Kate and Gerry McCann had ever been questioned as potential suspects by Scotland Yard detectives, Asst Com Rowley replied: "No."
Colin Sutton: The Operation Grange remit showed that they were only looking at an abduction as the only possible scenario.
Colin Sutton: The Operation Grange remit showed that they were only looking at an abduction as the only possible scenario. Source: Sky News
Sutton said he disagreed with Asst Com Rowley's assessment. He said inconsistencies in some of Kate and Gerry's statements, Kate's 2011 book madeleine and also some of the witness accounts of the Tapas 7 disturbed him.
The Portugal detective who oversaw the original investigation, Goncalo Amaral, wrote a book theorising Maddie had died in apartment 5A, that Kate and Gerry had disposed of the body and the parents had faked their daughter's abduction.
After police found no forensic evidence in the apartment to back up claims of a break in, Gerry's statements to police detailing what doors he and Kate had used while checking on their three sleeping children changed.
Portugal's police also had some doubts over the accuracy of timelines provided by Kate and Gerry, and the Tapas 7, in the critical hours either side of Maddie being reported missing at 10pm.
Specialist cadaver and blood dogs were brought to Praia da Luz from the UK, and signalled hits inside apartment 5A and a hire car rented by the McCanns 25 days after Madeleine disappeared. DNA swabs were taken but ruled inconclusive.
"There was a part of me that always had this hope in the back of my mind that actually there was lots of busy and important covert work going on in the background of Operation Grange, that there was going to be some kind of bombshell announcement.
"I fear that is not going to be the case now. I fear it will just peter out and probably this thing will never get resolved."
It was "entirely possible" that some of Operation Grange's remit was forced upon Scotland Yard by government officials who rubber stamped the multi-million-dollar funding of the investigation, Sutton said.
In March Operation Grange was injected with an additional $150,000 to cover the investigation through to September, 2017.
-
From Colin Sutton's blog.
http://colinsutton.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
Modify message
-
From Colin Sutton's blog.
http://colinsutton.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html
Modify message
Thanks Stephen. It was good to see Anne G commenting.
-
Thanks Stephen. It was good to see Anne G commenting.
Indeed it is.
In my opinion Mr. Sutton has given an honest account of events and the current situation.