Colin Sutton

It was in May 2011 that it was announced the Andy Redwood would lead the review. I believe this was after a scoping exercise had been done by Jim Gamble who recommended a review. The McCanns weren`t allowed to read his report.

They approached Theresa May whom they got short shrift from so then they wrote to David Cameron asking for a thorough review of all the evidence collected so far.

It was 2 years later in June 2013 that it turned into an investigation and Andy Redwood continued to lead it.

So I can only think that Colin Sutton was asked to do the review in 2011, but turned it down, then Andy Redwood was chosen. I can`t see why he would lie.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Nigel/id372.htm

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/10122377/Home-Office-to-fund-Met-Police-investigation-into-Madeleine-McCann-disappearance.html

If we go back to basics , and there are many posts on this subject, do we" believe in Operation Grange" then the position of Colin Sutton is perhaps more sinister. If Grange is persuing the truth (as i believe some on here do!) then what motivates Sutton to insinuate it is a whitewash. He claims the remit is limited in scope and in where it would be able to look. Now why would he do that?? 
He also was invloved with the 2014 digs via the media....and a couple of interesting tweets on textusa sees him confirming this and adding he was only commenting on procedure(really!)...

“SilverLining @Ev3ryCloud
Replying to @Ev3ryCloud and @YouTube
@colinsutton How come you were in PDL 2014 for dig for Madeleine #McCann Thought you only involved past few months for interviews/skydocu?

 “Colin Sutton @colinsutton
Replying to @Ev3ryCloud and @YouTube
I was working with ITV news, on procedures and what was happening there and then, not discussing 2007.
11:00 PM · 18 May 2017”


And then there was the issue of the senior cop who warned him off?



[size=47]All of the above can be found on here......[/size]

[size=50]http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2017/05/new-knight-in-town.html?m=1#more[/size]

Don't see a link there Bampots, they speak of CS as the best man to lead the review.  They do not say Jim Gamble thinks he is the best man, there is no implication as far as I can ssee they just then go on to say that Gamble wants them to take a look, this of course was after the 'scoping' exercise.


Also note this once again..

is seen as the best man to handle the challenging review


Not an investigation which does involve interviewing people, suspects etc. but a review, which is totally different.  He was asked the question on TV if he could investigate or would investigate the parents, he said he could not and would not be allowed to.  He said he was phoned and advised the same thing.   Perfectly correct, I would think, a review does not allow that, or to investigate anyone for that matter.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4467832/Met-interested-proving-McCann-parents-innocent.html

Mail article from top of above post.

Any reason for the huge size Bampots, my eyes aren't that bad..... yet!

Your quote

He just said“an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not”.



There you have it, exactly my point, which I have made again and again. First it was not an investigation, secondly, it is correct also because a review does not allow you actually investigate and where to look, it is a review, it just cast a critical eye on what has happened and makes certain recommendations which may stem from it.

candyfloss wrote:Any reason for the huge size Bampots, my eyes aren't that bad..... yet!

Your quote

He just said“an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not”.



There you have it, exactly my point, which I have made again and again.  First it was not an investigation, secondly, it is correct also because a review does not allow you actually investigate and where to look, it is a review, it just cast a critical eye on what has happened and makes certain recommendations which may stem from it.

It was they way it came out!! Not intended to shout ...sorry

However the point is he changed tack CF.  Look you seem to be enthralled by CS  .....so my point was he initially spoke of the brief to be "clearing" Gez and Kate.....and only later did he change this to the "where you could and could not look" tosh. Either way it points a finger to an investigation/review that could not be trusted.

Hence my suspicions of him!!

.

Bampots take my word for it I am not enthralled by anyone at all, I simply would not do that. I just look at what I see, and I do not see anything amiss with what he says, it is correct.

Question, do you really think Sky would let him say those things and trash Op Grange?

Secondly the claim from the Daily Mail is from a 'source' there is no direct quote from CS. So we know what papers are like, and you suddenly believe them?

I was going to say the same thing, Candyfloss: since when do we believe quotes from a source in a newspaper?

deleted by me - double post.
having some problems to get through here ...

candyfloss wrote:Bampots take my word for it I am not enthralled by anyone at all, I simply would not do that.  I just look at what I see, and I do not see anything amiss with what he says, it is correct.  

Question, do you really think Sky would let him say those things and trash Op Grange?  

Secondly the claim from the Daily Mail is from a 'source' there is no direct quote from CS.  So we know what papers are like, and you suddenly believe them?

Ok let's forget the Mail,although if they misrepresented him he seems blissfully happy to let it remain online!


I think the Sky news which for twenty four hours harangued an innocent Brenda Leyland would be capable of anything. As I said if you believe Grange to be kosher,as I think both you and I do (after much confusion on my part!) then even with his more recent verbiage "can and cannot look " implies he is dissing Grange.....now who would possibly have an interest in dissing Grange???

candyfloss wrote:Any reason for the huge size Bampots, my eyes aren't that bad..... yet!

Your quote

He just said“an investigation where you were told what you could look at and what you could not”.



There you have it, exactly my point, which I have made again and again.  First it was not an investigation, secondly, it is correct also because a review does not allow you actually investigate and where to look, it is a review, it just cast a critical eye on what has happened and makes certain recommendations which may stem from it.

But how can one spend 11 million on a review?

And how can a mere review send out cadaver dogs?

Or am I, once again, totally confused?

The review morphed into a full-blown investigation,when it was concluded that there was much to investigate.
The fact that the investigation has uncovered little, if anything, suggests that the reviewers might have got their conclusions wrong.

Or none of us know whats really going on?

Bampots wrote:Or none of us know whats really going on?

That is certainly true in my case!

With thanks to Alan Vinnecombe on Facebook 'Abduction or Scam'.


Alan Vinnicombe
Moderator · 1 hr · Weston-super-Mare
Colin Sutton from the horse's mouth,
Message from ....
Colin Sutton former YT, DD, JL, NH, NI, 1HQ, JC, SCD1 at Met Police.
Colin was a Senior Investigating Officer in the Metropolitan Police from 2003 - 2011.
We here at Abscam were pleasantly surprised when retired Met detective Colin Sutton commented recently and gave his thoughts on my post about Operation Grange, to get information from the horse's mouth, not what he said to MSM. I spoke with him and can vouch for the following....
I pointed out it was wrong not to begin with interviewing the inner circle first (tapas9) choosing instead to run around chasing shadows, bit of a shock as he doesn't seem to write replies to the MM forums.
I thought like many he was maybe slightly pushed into disclosing that the remit was and still is not to interview the Tapas 9, here's his reply....
''Much of this post makes sense Alan.
A couple of things I would add to it, nobody told me to say or not say anything I promise, as always I say it how I see it''.
He went on to tell us he saw the secret report that Sky uncovered and interesting that the combined UK police view after only 4 days was already concluded .........
''And I saw the copy of the report. To me, a very interesting thing was when the Gold Group was formed on 8th May 2007 their terms of reference described the incident as an abduction. Which might have been careless use of language or might have shown a mindset at that early stage''.
Some will wonder about his motives, personally I believe the new revelations he has told me today. It's not in the Sun or on Sky, only you here on our group have this information direct from Colin himself.
I wrote...
"Hi Colin. Sorry to trouble you but a lot of the members are asking me why you waited for the 10-year Sky programme to tell us the Grange remit and not before?"
Colin Sutton...
''It wasn’t for lack of trying. I had mentioned it to journalists from many different outlets but nobody was prepared to use it''
So you see he had the same problem as us, no one would touch anything anti-McCann. Now a lot of you that have written letters and emails know that sentiment only too well.
I asked Colin how he manages to, at last, get it to the public attention after getting no joy for years?
C.S. "Until Sky asked me if I had an idea for a new angle to explore for the anniversary."
So there you are Sky were looking for something new to say and they got it thanks to CS!
Finally, Colin, you were not coerced in any way to release the remit?
C.S. "Nobody told me to say it!''
There you are, that's what he told me directly. I hope it's useful to you.
Interesting that CS can see the mindset is in place before proper police procedures have been implemented.
So you ask what is the Gold Group? that Colin mentions
The Madeleine McCann co-ordinating group set up after 8th May 2007 under the Chairmanship of Leicestershire Constabulary's Head, Mr Matt Baggott, former head of Leicestershire Police at the time Madeleine McCann was reported missing.
Mr Baggott reported to the Leverson inquiry ''On 8 May 2007 Leicestershire Constabulary was asked to co-ordinate the UK response to assist the Portuguese enquiry on behalf of the UK Government and Association of Chief Police Officers. The Gold Strategy set on this date established that it was a Portuguese-led enquiry and that all actions would comply with requirements of Portuguese law including their Judicial Secrecy Act.
Due to the unprecedented media interest in the UK, a co-ordination group was set up on behalf of law enforcement agencies and government departments to coordinate the media interaction and ensure that a consistent stance was taken. This co-orders group was chaired by the Head of Corporate Communications from Leicestershire Constabulary.
That group has continued to meet as required since 2007. Due to the thirst for information from the media, every individual working in Leicestershire supporting the police investigation signed a confidentiality agreement.
"Messages were also disseminated to all staff to make them aware that even private conversations with friends could be reported on in the media."
The confidentiality agreement was something that was put together by the Gold group who were running the enquiry as part of the U.K. effort.
The gold formed after just 4 days at enormous cost, for a child that could turn up at anytime, this was almost war footing and the main aim was it seems a blanket of silence, from a constable to dog handlers to chief constables and you wonder why there's no interviews in the MSM unless sanctioned as in favour of the McCanns?
***Disclaimer***
"I have Colin Sutton's permission to share this conversation/interview with the members of the AbScam Facebook group, even though it was conducted privately."

Thanks costello - interesting about the Gold Group - no wonder the press have to stay inbetween the tram lines. Matt Baggott too has always come across as a shady character in my opinion, much like Jim Gamble who, as it happens, went for the same job that MB got in Northern Ireland.

Makes me wonder if GM has some sort of dirt on the RUC for JG to immediately favour the prime suspect without any investigation of same.

Colin Sutton former YT, DD, JL, NH, NI, 1HQ, JC, SCD1 at Met Police.
I know a lot about policing and policing acronyms and they really don't mean anything to me 

A follow up from 'Abscam':

Alan VinnicombeGroup Moderator Colins view on Grange and all things McCann "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.

colin@cs-i.co.uk

I can`t believe CS doesn`t know something near the truth by now. He is bound to have made some discreet enquiries by now and probably been told to zip his mouth and keep his nose out. If he was prepared to blab to Sky and also to the Facebook Group, he is not going to be trusted with any more info. I`d be worried for anyone that got too close to the truth and was prepared to blab.

Mimi wrote:I can`t believe CS doesn`t know something near the truth by now.  He is bound to have made some discreet enquiries by now and probably been told to zip his mouth and keep his nose out.  If he was prepared to blab to Sky and also to the Facebook Group, he is not going to be trusted with any more info.  I`d be worried for anyone that got too close to the truth and was prepared to blab.

Absolutely agree Mimi,he knows a lot more in my opinion. It was Colin Sutton who contacted Alan Vinnecombe. Alan has, and is working tirelessly on this case and his recent posts (too many to copy over)are just mind blowing,he has so many contacts both here and in Portugal.Very close to the bone,in my opinion.

I must have a read of that Facebook site.

Mimi wrote:I must have a read of that Facebook site.

Not sure if this is the correct link Mimi.

https://www.facebook.com/groups/253706621672502/?fref=ts

Yes it is just checked.

Not Operation Grange but he is not happy with another case



Colin Sutton‏ @colinsutton · 2h  


 
I doubt anyone will lose sleep over this but I feel much better that I am not helping shows which cannot take an impartial line.

It's the programme he's not happy with.

I haven't heard of it. Has anyone any experience of the issues that he raises?