UK detective refused to head up Madeleine McCann probe
 

UK detective refused to head up Madeleine McCann probe because 'Scotland Yard would order him to prove Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignore other leads'

Colin Sutton said he was warned by senior friend in the Met about case in 2010
Friend said he would be told 'who to talk to and what to investigate', he claimed
'Narrow focus' would be to prove Kate, Gerry and Tapas Nine innocent, he said
Spoke on Sky Documentary based on leaked Home Office report that revealed 'turbulent relationship' between McCanns and police in London and Portugal


A detective tipped to head up the Madeleine McCann probe was warned he would be ordered to prove she was abducted and ignore other leads.
Colin Sutton said a high-ranking friend in the Met called him and warned him not to lead the case when Scotland Yard announced it would get involved in 2010.
The source warned that he would be tasked with proving her parents Kate and Gerry were innocent and ignoring any alternatives to the abduction theory, he claims.

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2017/...3765457087.jpg

Speaking to Martin Brunt on Sky News, he said: 'I did receive a call from a very senior met police officer who knew me and said it wouldn’t be a good idea for me to head investigation on the basis that I wouldn’t be happy conducting an investigation being told where I could go and where I couldn’t go, the things I could investigate and the things I couldn’t.
Asked to clarify what he meant, he added: 'The Scotland Yard investigation was going to be very narrowly focused and that focus would be away from any suspicion of wrongdoing on the part of the McCanns or the tapas friends.'
The Tapas Nine refers to the McCann parents and the seven friends they were out to dinner with when Madeleine disappeared in 2007.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...-innocent.html

They were interviewed by Portuguese Police, who have always worked on the basis that Madeleine was abducted from her room, but Mr Sutton said other possibilities should be entertained.
Speaking on Searching for Maddie, which looks at the case ten years on from her disappearance, he criticises the narrow focus of both Portuguese and British police.
He added: 'If you are conducting a re-investigation you start at the very beginning. Look at all the accounts all the evidence all the initial statements and go through them and make sure they stack up and they compare.'


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/arti...#ixzz4g0M0KDHy
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook


*The article is wrong though when it says the Portugese have always worked on the basis that Maddie was abducted considering the last theory they had before the case was shelved was that Kate and Gerry were suspects in concealing her death

Omg it's been ten years. Poor little girl. :(

I do think all avenues should be investigated, how can a thorough investigation be carried out otherwise. Maybe they didn't want him to focus too much on theories that the parents were involved as seems to have been the case more recently, perhaps clouding peoples' judgements and not getting to the truth.

This case becomes more of a mystery every day and I become more confused about what to think. Despite that though I still struggle to believe the parents were involved - it makes no sense to me. Maybe I am believing what I want to believe in this case but I am going to stick with that. Otherwise I think I will be tempted to give up on humanity entirely.

On the one hand I hope they weren't involved, on the other I think that if it was an accident they covered up at least she didn't suffer. We all need to know though, especially the parents if innocent of any wrongdoing.

That seems like an odd stance though because there was literally no evidence of an abduction, no sign of a break in, the sighting of a man holding a child has been thrown aside and we're told that they found this alleged man and it was a father carrying his own child where as the only psychical evidence points to Maddie having died in the apartment which the parents have tried to rubbish from the minute those dogs indicated to this and you have to ask yourself why would they do that if they were innocent? Why be so adamant that someone had come and taken her away from her bed if the reality is you don't know what happened? If they truly were innocent of knowing what happened to her wouldn't they want this investigated more thoroughly to find the truth?

And also, SY were coming in and starting from scratch, as far I'm aware in cases like this involving a child, the parents or people who knew the child are almost always responsible, it's very rare for it to be a stranger so logically speaking shouldn't the parents be exactly where they start the investigation?

I don't think any leading detective should have their hands tied like that. It's outrageous really that any investigation of the case is being steered in a certain direction without being probed properly and thoroughly.

I know most of what you say is correct I just struggle wlth the ifs and whys!

Well, there could be any number of reasons they chose to cover it up, it could have been an accident but the parents feared that an autopsy might show signs of abuse or that she'd been sedated, one of the parents could have actually killed her in a moment of rage if any of those possibilities happened they would probably end up prosecuted, lose their good careers and possibly lose their other 2 children, spend time in prison etc

Yes but, there are 9 other people there. Why would they go along with it? If a friend of mine hurt a child I wouldn't cover it up for them.

7 other people, the 9 includes the two McCanns

Again there's lots of possible reasons, they may not actually know anything and think that them two are innocent, maybe only a couple of them know something, maybe they all sedated their kids (all were Doctors(bar 2 of the wives) and feared getting in trouble themselves, maybe there was sexual abuse going on amongst the group (*see the gasper statement below) so again feared getting in trouble themselves


http://thegaspersstatement.blogspot.ie/

.......in my opinion recent BBC articles have been completely one sided...

......pushing a narrative ignoring glaring errors in reasoning

Mark L

Absolutely.

I can understand that but then take a look at the number of cases over the years where we know that parents have been involved in harming their children... deliberately. Even in my area (which is very quiet), a couple of years ago there was a mother who murdered her young son and mutilated his body afterwards. It is hard to comprehend, but it happens. And then when you consider that most likely, they DIDN'T actually deliberately harm her, they just ****ed up and then panicked... that does seem believable to me. Very human indeed, tragically. And if anything, far less scary than the idea that some random "monster" managed to snatch her silently in the night and disappear without any trace.

I don't think we'll ever know for certain, too much time has passed and the investigation was handled terribly on all sides. I don't buy the abduction story but unless more damning evidence is found (which I doubt it will be if any hasn't surfaced by now) then any accusations are kinda pointless to make.

One big cover up.

"Prove them innocent, even if they're not".

Kids get abducted, sold, sexually abused killed or are found years later
Parents kill their kids by accident or on purpose and cover up or try to cover it.

Both of the above statements are true in the sense both happen.

There is no definite proof of either, all you have is hearsays'.

The only actual pysical evidence points to the McCanns though

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

I watched the whole of the Sky doc earlier and while they were obviously very critical of the actions of both police forces it was also dismissive of any suggestion that the McCanns were involved

The British press have always been, thats nothing new

Sent from my SM-G920F using Tapatalk

typical expensive establishment/freemason cover up. so predictable so very British

I wouldn't ever say it was the McCann's until it was proven that they were involved, as unlikable as they are (imo). Imagine the horror of your little child going missing, the terror and nightmarish scenarios of not knowing what was happening to that child day by day and then being accused of killing that child if you were innocent. It's unimaginable. They deserve the benefit of the doubt purely on the grounds of compassion/not knowing for sure... Whatever happened to innocent until proven guilty?

I don't know if this will be of interest to anyone , but I found out a few things I didn't know'
http://laidbareblog.blogspot.co.uk/2...arance-of.html

I agree entirely with this. Unless sure it is unbelievably cruel. How will people feel if it is proven they had nothing to do with it?

This really, I see no reason for them to continually keep pushing for a resolution and keeping the disappearance so high profile if they were involved, I think their guilt at leaving her unattended pushes them not their guilt at any involvement in her disappearance

It would be a different case if it was parents working a normally 9-5 minimum wage job they would be told to make sure they are guilty