Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Madeleine McCann

1…9899101103104…169

Comments

  • #3002
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    happyoutscan wrote: »
    Any chance the Met decided not to investigate the McCanns as they realised it would be a ridiculously stupid waste of time?

    No idea, but an experienced senior detective refused to lead the investigation as he stated he would have one hand tied behind his back.
    I'll go with DCI Sutton's claim instead of your guess.


  • #3003
    buttercups88
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 764 ✭✭✭buttercups88


    Could the MET have only been allowed to investigate alternative theories because the Portuguese were confident with their theory that the mccanns were responsible and wanted to focus on that scenario themselves


  • #3004
    dark crystal
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    happyoutscan wrote: »
    Any chance the Met decided not to investigate the McCanns as they realised it would be a ridiculously stupid waste of time?

    It was also probably the first time in history the guilty parties campaigned for the Met to re-open a case that could finger them for the crime they got away with! :pac:


  • #3005
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    buttercups88 wrote: »
    Could the MET have only been allowed to investigate alternative theories because the Portuguese were confident with their theory that the mccanns were responsible and wanted to focus on that scenario themselves

    Genuine question did you read the link I provided to DCI Sutton's refusal to lead the investigation?


  • #3006
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Get the doubt in though. No idea why you feel it's necessary to suggest he is lying. As I said dismiss anyone who goes against the narrative.
    Bye.

    It’s necessary to suggest we don’t take it as fact that the Met decided the McCanns were innocent and were telling detectives not to investigate them, as you posted here numerous times.

    The Met have never said any lines of enquiry are closed so why would anyone believe this guy over what the official line is?

    Again the point is none of us know if the Met have closed off the line of enquiry into the parents so no need to keep posting that they have. Thanks.


  • Advertisement
  • #3007
    MonkieSocks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,393 ✭✭✭MonkieSocks


    Rock77 wrote: »
    It’s necessary to suggest we don’t take it as fact that the Met decided the McCanns were innocent and were telling detectives not to investigate them, as you posted here numerous times.

    The Met have never said any lines of enquiry are closed so why would anyone believe this guy over what the official line is?

    Again the point is none of know if the Met have closed off the line of enquiry into the parents so no need to keep posting that they have. Thanks.


    Miss Vivien@vivienmiss@colinsutton
    Is it true that you was asked to lead the #McCann investigation before you retired? Thanks.
    7:01 PM • May 2, 2017•Twitter Web Client


    Colin Sutton@colinsutton
    •
    May 2, 2017
    Replying to @vivienmiss

    Not exactly. A newspaper ran a story that I was to be asked but I never was - I had retired by the time Op Grange was started.

    =(:-) Me? I know who I am. I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude (-:)=



  • #3008
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Rock77 wrote: »
    It’s necessary to suggest we don’t take it as fact that the Met decided the McCanns were innocent and were telling detectives not to investigate them, as you posted here numerous times.

    The Met have never said any lines of enquiry are closed so why would anyone believe this guy over what the official line is?

    Again the point is none of us know if the Met have closed off the line of enquiry into the parents so no need to keep posting that they have. Thanks.
    I'll take the word of a respected investigator over what was not said by the Met. Anyway thought you weren't engaging , did you forget?


  • #3009
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    MonkieSocks wrote: »
    Miss Vivien@vivienmiss@colinsutton
    Is it true that you was asked to lead the #McCann investigation before you retired? Thanks.
    7:01 PM • May 2, 2017•Twitter Web Client


    Colin Sutton@colinsutton
    •
    May 2, 2017
    Replying to @vivienmiss

    Not exactly. A newspaper ran a story that I was to be asked but I never was - I had retired by the time Op Grange was started.

    Really?

    https://youtu.be/RF7fR0J5HOw


  • #3010
    MonkieSocks
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 8,393 ✭✭✭MonkieSocks


    The only official inquiry by the Met is by Operation Grange.

    Sutton was never asked to take part in the investigation.

    He was retired by the time Operation Grange started
    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 News of the World 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 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.

    =(:-) Me? I know who I am. I'm a dude playing a dude disguised as another dude (-:)=



  • #3011
    MonsterCookie
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 959 ✭✭✭MonsterCookie


    i listened to the true crime obsessed podcast tonight where the talked about the dogs.

    is it true that one dog alerted to there being blood, and that that sample was sent away for analysis and was found to be almost certainly Madeleine's?

    i thought the result of the DNA analysis was inconclusive but i remember there being some debate about the results - like they weren't reliable or they were disputed and changed.

    on a separate note:
    I've yet to see a credible timeline proposed supporting the theory that the parents are somehow involved. however, supposing some of the tapas crew colluded (probably not all as it's unlikely they would all stay silent all this time). but what if David Payne was involved and the three of them colluded. that opens up all sorts of possibilities. especially if the body was hidden somewhere.


  • Advertisement
  • #3012
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    MonkieSocks wrote: »
    The only official inquiry by the Met is by Operation Grange.

    Sutton was never asked to take part in the investigation.

    He was retired by the time Operation Grange started

    You watch his interview with Martin Brunt of Sky News?


  • #3013
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    MonsterCookie wrote: »
    i listened to the true crime obsessed podcast tonight where the talked about the dogs.

    is it true that one dog alerted to there being blood, and that that sample was sent away for analysis and was found to be almost certainly Madeleine's?

    i thought the result of the DNA analysis was inconclusive but i remember there being some debate about the results - like they weren't reliable or they were disputed and changed.

    on a separate note:
    I've yet to see a credible timeline proposed supporting the theory that the parents are somehow involved. however, supposing some of the tapas crew colluded (probably not all as it's likely they would all stay silent all this time). but what if David Payne was involved and the three of them colluded. that opens up all sorts of possibilities. especially if the body was hidden somewhere.

    Not sure about the dna...

    I’ve asks numerous times for someone to come up with a timeline theory of the parents being involved. Nobody ever has.


  • #3014
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,130 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Give it another six months or years and the thread will re energise if there is another report.

    As it stands now there is nothing more to comment on.

    So the obsessives can go back in their boxes and the rest of us will stay cynical. An open mind is a good thing!


  • #3015
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Give it another six months or years and the thread will re energise if there is another report.

    As it stands now there is nothing more to comment on.

    So the obsessives can go back in their boxes and the rest of us will stay cynical. An open mind is a good thing!

    Seems you have company.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8526773/Kate-Gerry-McCann-wont-surprised-Germans-drop-Maddie-case.html


  • #3016
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Really?

    https://youtu.be/RF7fR0J5HOw

    I would of loved Colin Sutton to head an investigation , he said it the right way, to start from scratch and make sure all the testimony stacks up, nothing sinister in that, it’s called an investigator being unbiased and looking at the case with the sum of all its parts.


  • #3017
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,130 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Seems you have company.


    https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8526773/Kate-Gerry-McCann-wont-surprised-Germans-drop-Maddie-case.html

    Have a blessed Ad Blocker, so can't read it, but nothing came up on the phone either. Anyway all hogwash AFAIS.


  • #3018
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I'll take the word of a respected investigator over what was not said by the Met. Anyway thought you weren't engaging , did you forget?

    You can take the word of whoever you like but when you repeatedly present it as fact when it is not then you can expect me to be right there to call you out. Your welcome.

    And again you read my post and decided I was saying something I wasn’t... I said there was no point engaging with you, I never said I wasn’t going to. Cheers


  • #3019
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,130 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Banana Republic. wrote: »
    I would of loved Colin Sutton to head an investigation , he said it the right way, to start from scratch and make sure all the testimony stacks up, nothing sinister in that, it’s called an investigator being unbiased and looking at the case with the sum of all its parts.

    I think he was banned from investigating certain aspects though. Uh Oh. Wonder why.


  • #3020
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Rock77 wrote: »
    You can take the word of whoever you like but when you repeatedly present it as fact when it is not then you can expect me to be right there to call you out. Your welcome.

    And again you read my post and decided I was saying something I wasn’t... I said there was no point engaging with you, I never said I wasn’t going to. Cheers

    Call me out , lol I posted a link to an interview carried out by Martin Brunt with Colin Sutton.
    Not point engaging with you....but I reserve the right too, you're strange.


  • #3021
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    MonkieSocks wrote: »
    Miss Vivien@vivienmiss@colinsutton
    Is it true that you was asked to lead the #McCann investigation before you retired? Thanks.
    7:01 PM • May 2, 2017•Twitter Web Client


    Colin Sutton@colinsutton
    •
    May 2, 2017
    Replying to @vivienmiss

    Not exactly. A newspaper ran a story that I was to be asked but I never was - I had retired by the time Op Grange was started.

    To be fair I seen an interview with Colin Sutton where he said he got a call from a friend in the Met telling him if he took the case he would not be allowed investigate the parents.

    So there’s no question of him saying it.


  • Advertisement
  • #3022
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    Rock77 wrote: »
    Not sure about the dna...

    I’ve asks numerous times for someone to come up with a timeline theory of the parents being involved. Nobody ever has.

    That would be an interesting read, I might take you up on that but it would be purely speculation.


  • #3023
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Have a blessed Ad Blocker, so can't read it, but nothing came up on the phone either. Anyway all hogwash AFAIS.

    The McCanns also believe the case against CB will be dropped. Short version.


  • #3024
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    I think he was banned from investigating certain aspects though. Uh Oh. Wonder why.

    Which is ridiculous because he could of seen files and a fresh pair of eyes and ears, he could of listened to reports or alibis from them or activity they had seen over the few days and his expertise may have found something new. He got the tip off from a fairly high source in the MET. It’s worth questioning why he couldn’t start from scratch when nothing had really progressed.


  • #3025
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    Call me out , lol I posted a link to an interview carried out by Martin Brunt with Colin Sutton.
    Not point engaging with you....but I reserve the right too, you're strange.

    I have seen that interview before and again you are missing the point entirely. You posted here many times that the Met decided not to investigate the McCanns. You do not know this to be true, somebody said somebody else told them this would be the case if he took the job. The Met have never said this was the case.

    Again I’m not saying it’s true or not..

    And no need to call me names is there?

    Just relax and have the debate.


  • #3026
    Spanish Eyes
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 16,130 ✭✭✭✭Spanish Eyes


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    The McCanns also believe the case against CB will be dropped. Short version.

    Every fekkin year or so there is this kind of shyte. Sorry for the swearing but honestly.

    It's like as if some need to engineer a way to keep the case relevant.

    I doubt the German is a saint, but unless there is evidence against him it's all over. They just seem to have wanted a tough sentence for the crimes he DID commit, but that is an issue for their own judiciary.

    Still no evidence re the little girl.


  • #3027
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Rock77 wrote: »
    I have seen that interview before and again you are missing the point entirely. You posted here many times that the Met decided not to investigate the McCanns. You do not know this to be true, somebody said somebody else told them this would be the case if he took the job. The Met have never said this was the case.

    Again I’m not saying it’s true or not..

    And no need to call me names is there?

    Just relax and have the debate.

    I called you strange as in your behaviour, you don't tell someone there is no point engaging with them and then proceed to do the opposite to what you say. Sorry but I'm exercising my right to ignore you from here on .


  • #3028
    Banana Republic.
    Registered Users, Registered Users 2 Posts: 1,587 ✭✭✭Banana Republic.


    Rock77 wrote: »
    I have seen that interview before and again you are missing the point entirely. You posted here many times that the Met decided not to investigate the McCanns. You do not know this to be true, somebody said somebody else told them this would be the case if he took the job. The Met have never said this was the case.

    Again I’m not saying it’s true or not..

    And no need to call me names is there?

    Just relax and have the debate.

    Sure the link is on the last page, he’s a Senior detective he’s not saying it for the craic like. You can’t question that, otherwise he would of taken the job as he was in line for it.


  • #3029
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    Banana Republic. wrote: »
    That would be an interesting read, I might take you up on that but it would be purely speculation.

    I would be quite interested in reading it and I’d probably have some good questions for you about it.

    The last time I asked people for a theory I did state that it doesn’t have to be what you think happened, it just has to be a possibility...


  • #3030
    Rock77
    Closed Accounts Posts: 1,123 ✭✭✭Rock77


    Plumbthedepths wrote: »
    I called you strange as in your behaviour, you don't tell someone there is no point engaging with them and then proceed to do the opposite to what you say. Sorry but I'm exercising my right to ignore you from here on .

    Ah not again Hal.... sure what’s the point in ignoring everyone that has a different opinion to you?


  • Advertisement
  • #3031
    Plumbthedepths
    Closed Accounts Posts: 12,653 ✭✭✭✭Plumbthedepths


    Spanish Eyes wrote: »
    Every fekkin year or so there is this kind of shyte. Sorry for the swearing but honestly.

    It's like as if some need to engineer a way to keep the case relevant.

    I doubt the German is a saint, but unless there is evidence against him it's all over. They just seem to have wanted a tough sentence for the crimes he DID commit, but that is an issue for their own judiciary.

    Still no evidence re the little girl.

    CB is filth and deserves whatever happens to him but only if he were responsible. No matter how vile a person he is he shouldn't be fitted up.
    As regards Maddie unless those responsible grow a conscience nope, no evidence.


Advertisement