The timeline revisited

[Mr Gray]

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.

I know precisely what Sutton said and he never said the McCann's had not been interviewed.

He never said the person who he says warned him off mentioned the McCanns

He said without looking at the parents first then Grange was destibed to fail... Which contradicts his previous statement.

Petermac is also a retired senior policeman who believes in the alerts and is convinced Maddie died Three days before..
So it's clear just because someone is a retired policeman their conclusions should be valued.
Pretty well everything you believe is based on fallacies..as has been pointed out to you..

[Mr Gray]

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.

Neither you nor gunit have been able to quote an official source for the deleted calls.. It seems there isn't one. Amaral is not a reliable source..his book is full of things that can be proved to be wrong.

My mind is totally open to evidence...there hadn't been any real evidence produced to implicate the parents. ...That's why imo SY have ruled them out. The evidence you think rules them in does not stand up..

[Mr Gray]

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.

Perhaps you can explain by ruling out the parents then Grange was destined to fail.  Sutton wouldn't be able to.. I would tie him in knots... It's an illogical statement unless you know the patents are guilty... And he's admitted he doesn't know that.  He's made a fool of himself imo

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

I’ve given you a perfectly logicsl answer to a question that you claimed had ver been answered before though obviously it has many, many times.  I’ve yet to read a more logical one so perhaps you can assist? 

[Vertigo Swirl]

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.

Does PR have access to information the rest of us do not?  If not then you should be able to supply a link to the raw data he puts his spin on and indicate specifically which phone calls were deleted, what days they were made and at what times.

[Brietta]

If Operation Grange has been such a "wash out" as alleged by sceptics why are we where we are today regarding the investigation of Madeleine's case with police breathing down the neck of a prime suspect?

[Vertigo Swirl]

If Operation Grange has been such a "wash out" as alleged by sceptics why are we where we are today regarding the investigation of Madeleine's case with police breathing down the neck of a prime suspect?

cos he’s a patsy innit.  The British government paid the German government to frame Brückner to protect the McCanns, it’s so obvious. Or maybe Boris has something on Merkel and it’s blackmail?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I know precisely what Sutton said and he never said the McCann's had not been interviewed.

He never said the person who he says warned him off mentioned the McCanns

He said without looking at the parents first then Grange was destibed to fail... Which contradicts his previous statement.

Petermac is also a retired senior policeman who believes in the alerts and is convinced Maddie died Three days before..
So it's clear just because someone is a retired policeman their conclusions should be valued.
Pretty well everything you believe is based on fallacies..as has been pointed out to you..

You are incredible. When you write "I know exactly what Colin Sutton said"... his own words are there in blue above your post!!! We are not talking about whether or not they were interviewed. That's chaff and deflection. We are looking at Sutton's remarks which comment on the flaws in OG's initial remit.

It must be interesting to guests browsing this forum that they see some cling desperately to their stoic belief they have to accuse a UK Police dog handler with 35 years experience of gross professional misconduct, they dismiss the views of one of the UK's leading homicide detectives and they refuse to accept that the McCann's deleted texts (even though, as far as I'm aware the McCann's themselves don't even deny it!!!)

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

I’ve given you a perfectly logicsl answer to a question that you claimed had ver been answered before though obviously it has many, many times.  I’ve yet to read a more logical one so perhaps you can assist?

Logical it may be, but IMO it is purely speculative.... IMO it doesn't prove anything....

Fair play and credit to you though for not just dismissing the alleged deleted texts out of hand.

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

Neither you nor gunit have been able to quote an official source for the deleted calls.. It seems there isn't one. Amaral is not a reliable source..his book is full of things that can be proved to be wrong.

My mind is totally open to evidence...there hadn't been any real evidence produced to implicate the parents. ...That's why imo SY have ruled them out. The evidence you think rules them in does not stand up..

What is "real evidence", Dave? And why is your bar so low for evidence you'll accept to implicate the latest paedophile patsy (imo) yet so high when it comes to parental involvement? Like OG your approach to this is flawed imo. I love it that you believe you can run rings around Colin Sutton when it comes to investigative methodology. Am I correct to assume that you weren't actually a leading detective? Your self assuredness and total lack of humility put a smile on my face. I'm not goading you Dave. There's no ill feeling towards you. I just think you have tunnel vision when it comes to this case.

[Brietta]

The rules of this forum are very straightforward.  Please treat all members with respect, avoid speculation and ensure that any material posted is accompanied by the relevant links.

[Mr Gray]

What is "real evidence", Dave? And why is your bar so low for evidence you'll accept to implicate the latest paedophile patsy (imo) yet so high when it comes to parental involvement? Like OG your approach to this is flawed imo. I love it that you believe you can run rings around Colin Sutton when it comes to investigative methodology. Am I correct to assume that you weren't actually a leading detective? Your self assuredness and total lack of humility put a smile on my face. I'm not goading you Dave. There's no ill feeling towards you. I just think you have tunnel vision when it comes to this case.

If you read my posts properly I'm waiting to hear what Wolters evidence is before I make my mind up on CB.  The problem is unfortunately you haven't read my posts... And perhaps other things.. properly.

You claimed the source for the deleted texts was the PJ... Then realised when I pointed true facts out that it wasn't.  You seem to find Amaral a reliable source of information even though he has got so much wrong... Anyone who supports him... Such as PR is also clearly a fool imo.
I pointed out that Sutton has made a fool of himself and said  Grange was destined to fail if they did not further investigate the parents.  That clearly cannot be true unless the parents are guilty... And he's admitted he doesn't know if that's true. If he was confronted with those facts he would look a fool imo.  He made another ridiculous remark in the MS podcast Re dna transfer.

You think I've got tunnel vision because I think it's highly.. Highly unlikely the parents are involved.. As close to 100% as you can get.

So Sutton has all this experience.. So has Amaral and Petermac... A couple of fools imo

You think. I have tunnel vision.. I think I just understand the evidence better than some.. Certainly better than peter mac and amaral.. Both experienced police officers..

I would think Sutton would agree with my views now.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Logical it may be, but IMO it is purely speculative.... IMO it doesn't prove anything....

Fair play and credit to you though for not just dismissing the alleged deleted texts out of hand.

You never asked for proof, you asked for answers, but in any case it appears you have proven me right by dismissing the answer as it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.  The problem is coming up with another answer for the deleted texts that does fit your narrative of accidental death and cover up and I’m afraid the timings just don’t fit very well do they?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Does PR have access to information the rest of us do not?  If not then you should be able to supply a link to the raw data he puts his spin on and indicate specifically which phone calls were deleted, what days they were made and at what times.

Billy Whizz, can you answer this question or not?

[Billy Whizz Fan Club]

You never asked for proof, you asked for answers, but in any case it appears you have proven me right by dismissing the answer as it doesn’t fit with your beliefs.  The problem is coming up with another answer for the deleted texts that does fit your narrative of accidental death and cover up and I’m afraid the timings just don’t fit very well do they?

I didn't dismiss your answer. I said it was valid and logical.... but purely speculative. In other words it may be right but it may not be.