The timeline revisited

[Vertigo Swirl]

The very detailed answer raises just one question in my mind. I don't recall needing to delete received calls on a mobile phone. Messages, yes, but calls no. As I recall it a new call just replaced the oldest one in the list.

Please can you supply a link to these deleted phone calls thanks.

[Mr Gray]

I don't have to prove if they deleted text messages to free up space on their phones. It's a  valid speculative explanation but I don't have to prove it.

Your post included the claim that the McCanns had not been interviwedby SY.. That's speculation

[Vertigo Swirl]

The PJ

So you're not going to respond to the fact that I provided you with an answer to one of your burning questions?  That's a bit rude IMO.

[Mr Gray]

If an interview was mentioned in my post it was from a quote.... not my words. My point is that like Sutton I believe OG was flawed from the start as it begun from a point which ruled out parental involvement on the basis of the PJ investigation.

Sutton never claimed the McCann's had not been iterviewed

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

So you're not going to respond to the fact that I provided you with an answer to one of your burning questions?  That's a bit rude IMO.

To the deleted texts and call logs? I did respond. I said it was a reasonable theory (depending on their phones) but totally speculative.

[Vertigo Swirl]

To the deleted texts and call logs? I did respond. I said it was a reasonable theory (depending on their phones) but totally speculative.

I've reviewed your recent posts and can find none which matches this description - kindly provide the post number thanks.  Furthermore, when you say that you ask questions that have never been answered to your satisfaction can you please explain how anyone here can ever give you an answer that is anything BUT speculative?

"I think the fact is that you consistently fail to address the valid questions raised and this is why they continue to be asked." - Billy Whizz Kid. 

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Your post included the claim that the McCanns had not been interviwedby SY.. That's speculation

What isn't speculation is that Colin Sutton believed OG was flawed from the start because it refused to consider parental involvement.

Here's some reading on the deleted texts and calls:  http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm

[Mr Gray]

What isn't speculation is that Colin Sutton believed OG was flawed from the start because it refused to consider parental involvement.

Here's some reading on the deleted texts and calls:  http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm

The deleted calls link..

WITH THANKS TO PAULO REIS: LINK:  FOR THE DETAILED ANALYSIS REPORT, IT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT PART OF THE OFFICIAL RELEASED PJ FILES.

So no reliable source for the deleted calls...just paulo reiss who is a member of what I regard as the crackpot site.

So all you have in reality is Sutton.......who does not know what Grange did...hes just speculating

[Vertigo Swirl]

What isn't speculation is that Colin Sutton believed OG was flawed from the start because it refused to consider parental involvement.

Here's some reading on the deleted texts and calls:  http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm

Could you provide the raw data showing the deleted phone calls - what time and date were these calls and to what numbers?
A reply to my previous post would be nice too.

[Brietta]

The deleted calls link..

WITH THANKS TO PAULO REIS: LINK:  FOR THE DETAILED ANALYSIS REPORT, IT IS FOR INFORMATION ONLY AND IS NOT PART OF THE OFFICIAL RELEASED PJ FILES.

So no reliable source for the deleted calls...just paulo reiss who is a member of what I regard as the crackpot site.

So all you have in reality is Sutton.......who does not know what Grange did...hes just speculating

I can see exactly why people fall so easily into the trap of sceptic deception when the heading to the lie states quite clearly ~

OFFICIAL INQUIRY FILES and DOCUMENTS
MCCANNS DELETED MOBILE CALLS

This information belongs to the Ministério Público in Portimão, Portugal.
It was released to the public on 4 August 2008 in accordance with Portuguese Law

[Lace]

What isn't speculation is that Colin Sutton believed OG was flawed from the start because it refused to consider parental involvement.

Here's some reading on the deleted texts and calls:  http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm

That doesn't mean that Colin Sutton believed the McCann's to be guilty of a cover up,   indeed, his thoughts on the matter was that Madeleine was taken by a child trafficking gang.

[Mr Gray]

That doesn't mean that Colin Sutton believed the McCann's to be guilty of a cover up,   indeed, his thoughts on the matter was that Madeleine was taken by a child trafficking gang.

I take issue with some things sutton has said...such as..


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.

That is a totally illogical statement and it seems he hasnt thought through what he is saying. The only way it would be destined to fail is if the McCanns were guilty...otherwise the remit would not affect the investigation...have another think colin

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Sutton never claimed the McCann's had not been iterviewed

That's more chaff mate. You know as well as I do what Sutton said about OG.

Here's a reminder for you.... (written in  2017)

http://colinsutton.blogspot.com/2017/05/madeleine-mccann-and-operation-grange_9.html

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.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I've reviewed your recent posts and can find none which matches this description - kindly provide the post number thanks.  Furthermore, when you say that you ask questions that have never been answered to your satisfaction can you please explain how anyone here can ever give you an answer that is anything BUT speculative?

"I think the fact is that you consistently fail to address the valid questions raised and this is why they continue to be asked." - Billy Whizz Kid.

I haven't got time to do that sorry.... Maybe it was deleted by an admin if you can't find it..... Found it looking at something else Reply #1997

I agree that all our opinion is speculative! That's why it is not logical to rule out other scenarios to the ones you b elieve are likely.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I take issue with some things sutton has said...such as..


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.

That is a totally illogical statement and it seems he hasnt thought through what he is saying. The only way it would be destined to fail is if the McCanns were guilty...otherwise the remit would not affect the investigation...have another think colin

Dear me…. Colin Sutton is an experienced homicide detective. He knows how to conduct an investigation!! Just face reality Dave OG was flawed from the start because certain scenarios were ruled out. That is not the way to investigate a missing person. It really is that simple.

Just for the record are you disputing that the McCann’s deleted texts because PR reports on it? Amaral also mentions it in his book and numerous interviews. It would be easy for Kate and Gerry to show they didn’t delete texts and call logs but  I don’t recall them ever doing that. Also it’s interesting that you reject Pauli’s Reiss out of hand because it doesn’t suit your narrative yet you’re happy to cite newspaper articles as evidence if you feel they point the finger of blame at CB. Open your eyes Dave…. You have a logical mind - I know you do!! Just be open to consider all possibilities.