It has been suggested that a child of Madeleine’s description was seen by Martin Smith and his wife, being carried over 400 yards away in Rua da Escola Primaria, shortly before 10pm. This sighting was dismissed by the Portuguese Police, but appears to have been given substantial credibility by Operation Grange, the Metropolitan Police inquiry, who featured this on Crimewatch. I do however remain extremely sceptical about this. As far as I am concerned not only is this too late, but it is also too far away. If someone had abducted a child, they would not have carried them this far. If the plan was to take the child to a car, this would have been parked far closer. If the objective was to dispose of a body, then this person has walked past a lot of waste ground.If that was the case why did he walk through town to be seen by many people?
The objective was for Madeleine not to be found (well hidden not dumped in nearby wasteland and quickly found). The last line of inquiry IMO.
I remember his previous 'views'.
He was employed by the Sun to 'look' at this case.
Then of course , there was his involvement in the Barry George case...
I remember a photo of him and above it a rather unpleasant headline in regard to the McCann case.
I will post that tomorrow, when I am on a laptop.
Inside the twisted minds of the Madeleine McCann child snatchers
(http://2.bp.blogspot.com/-Oc_qhhWeyj8/U164ixMf75I/AAAAAAAAAFI/6J2FLrMvZ-I/s1600/Ian+Horrocks.jpg)
From ANTONELLA LAZZERI in Praia da Luz, Portugal
28th April 2012, 11:00 pm Updated: 5th April 2016, 7:14 pm
...updated. Mmmm.
THEN
MADELEINE McCann was targeted from the moment she arrived at the resort where
she was snatched — but her abductor was NOT a paedophile, a former top
British cop believes.
She was almost certainly taken by a childless couple, respected kidnap
investigator Ian Horrocks decided after reviewing the case.
The Sun took Ian to the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz, Portugal, to walk in the
footsteps of whoever was responsible for three-year-old Madeleine’s
disappearance on a family holiday five years ago.
Here he presents his shocking conclusions on the case that baffled Portuguese
police have closed. Ian says:
– MADELEINE and her family were watched for days before she was taken
from their apartment.
NOW.
It remains my belief that Madeleine was targeted, and her parents observed following their arrival at The Ocean Club. The McCann family arrived on Saturday 28th April 2007, and except for that evening, dined every night in the complex. This pattern could have been observed by anyone, so by Thursday they could have been watched for up to four nights during which time their routine was established. Whoever abducted Madeleine was then able to put their plan together. The routine of Mr and Mrs McCann and their friends, along with the regular checking of the children could have been easily observed, as well as the fact that access via the patio door was simple....
Tell me Alfie, why should we accept the opinion of a man like Horrocks, who was paid by the Sun, and who effectively is trumping in the wind?
Having had a successful 30-year career in London’s Metropolitan Police, where he was a senior investigating officer for homicide. Which in combination with being the lead in one of Scotland Yard’s Kidnap and Specialist Investigations teams gives him a very impressive CV which must be second to none.
That would certainly give me every confidence in his abilities to make an informed judgement in Madeleine's case.
You would say no different.
So what went wrong in the Jill Dando case and Barry George ?
Having had a successful 30-year career in London’s Metropolitan Police, where he was a senior investigating officer for homicide. Which in combination with being the lead in one of Scotland Yard’s Kidnap and Specialist Investigations teams gives him a very impressive CV which must be second to none.
That would certainly give me every confidence in his abilities to make an informed judgement in Madeleine's case.
This thread concerns the kidnap of a little girl ... not the assassination of a much loved personality. You have made your opinion of Ian Horrocks perfectly clear ... maybe now it is time to set aside personal prejudices on another matter and address some of the points raised in the OP regarding Madeleine's case.
Yet the mighty MET under the stewardship of Redwood and Wall overseen by Rowley can't just can't square a circle to bring an abduction to bear,usual crap from the Mail this morning with another know nort getting his 15 minutes of fame
.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-4480984/Tycoon-flew-private-jet-Africa-Madeleine-McCann.html
Horrocks explains how and why Madeleine could have been taken. It seems eminently plausible to me. Which bits seem completely implausible to sceptics and why?
What would be extremely interesting to read would be something as clearly written, objective and well reasoned as Horrocks' theory is (IMO) putting forward a detailed theory of parental involvement. In ten years I have never read a remotely plausible account of this, and I say this not to goad or inflame but simply to state my opinion. In all honesty, has anyone else? Because if you have I'd genuinely appreciate a link to it.
Where did this come from? It's pretty much what he said in 2012/2013. Perhaps the idea is to counter Sutton? Not a trump card though, similar backgrounds but Horrocks has Barry George in his.
Where is his evidence Alfie for his BELIEFS ?If you read his article he tells you why he believes what he believes. Let's be grown ups and recognise that whatever your beliefs there is precious little evidence to support it. That being the case we are left really only with theories that we can hang on the facts that we do know. Horrocks theory hangs well on those facts, better than most others IMO. If you disagree say why rather than simply slagging him off for Barry George or writing for the Sun. Many people write for the Sun, does that mean they are ALL incapable of making thoughtful, objective observations?
Let's also remember he was employed by the Sun, who bias in this story is virtually unparalleled.
1) Horrocks has a view on what may have happened to her. He has built a plausible and logical theory. It may be completely wrong (I think he acknowledges this in the article). Nevertheless his theory hangs together very well, very much better than any theory of parental involvement or woke and wandered that I have heard before. Despite that I don't actually share his optimism that Madeleine was taken to be kept alive for years and years. I accept it is a possibility though.
2). His theory rests on his belief that Madeleine specifically was targeted days before the abduction, not one of the twins, which explains why she and not they were taken. Who knows why the (theoretical) abductor prefered her, that question can only be answered by the (theoretical) person who took her.
3) the fact that no forensic evidence was found in the apartment doesn't actually mean none was left. Many criminal cases occur with no forensic trace being left or found, this wouldn't be the first time. There is no forensic evidence that Madeleine died at the foot of the stairs or was knocked down by a car either, so citing the lack of forensic evidence does not necessarily put the kybosh on a theory does it?
What would be extremely interesting to read would be something as clearly written, objective and well reasoned as Horrocks' theory is (IMO) putting forward a detailed theory of parental involvement. In ten years I have never read a remotely plausible account of this, and I say this not to goad or inflame but simply to state my opinion. In all honesty, has anyone else? Because if you have I'd genuinely appreciate a link to it.
Horrocks says;
The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible, or covering up an accident, is as far as I am concerned frankly preposterous. Although many believe this, as far as I am aware, there is not one shred of credible evidence, either direct or otherwise to indicate that this is even a remote possibility.
There may be no evidence but there was opportunity and they were the last people to see her.
There are many reasons for saying this. Firstly, and importantly, there is no family history that would point in any way to this. I also do not believe that anyone with any sense believes that they killed Madeleine deliberately, so this leaves a tragic accident. Even if such an accident had happened, is it feasible that they would not immediately seek assistance and call for an ambulance?
Is there family history in all such cases? If not, that's irrelevant. There could be reasons why calling for assistance wasn't an option.
Are we saying that they coldly decided that Madeleine was dead and then put together an elaborate plan to dispose of her body? Did Gerry McCann simply walk down the road with his daughter’s body and dispose of it, and then calmly go out for dinner. This is ridiculous in the extreme. Also, have they then maintained this pretence for so long, the simple answer is no. And as for it being a conspiracy between themselves and any or all of their group of friends, this stretches credibility beyond belief.
Why would the decision have to be made coldly? Can people put on an act? It depends on the person. Can they keep up the act for years? It would depend on the stakes.
The farcical conspiracy theory that the last photo of Madeleine was photo shopped, the spurious and often inaccurately reported forensic findings, the irrelevant behaviour of the cadaver dogs, Mr and Mrs McCann’s perceived demeanour, as well as many other totally immaterial points, just fuel this uninformed and often offensive conjecture. The simple answer is, there is no information, let alone evidence to indicate their involvement in any way. Should they have supervised their children more closely that night; that is not for me to say, but regardless of the answer, it does not assist the investigation in any way.
Why does he dismiss all the above points? Suspicions are formed from lots of indications sometimes and the behaviour and attitudes of people should be noted, not ignored.
This person is determined to discredit the idea that the McCanns were involved. He has no evidence which excludes them, just his belief that they wouldn't do that. Hence his use of unnecessary words such as 'preposterous' 'coldly' and 'ridiculous', which are clearly used to persuade. Using emotive language means his case is weak imo.
The article by Ian Horrocks.
I agree with his comment that it is unlikely a random burglar decided to abduct a child instead of valuables but I disagree very strongly with him and this claim that it is unrealistic that Madeleine was knocked down and taken by a vehicle driver. In making the second claim it is clear that he has inexplicably totally ignored one piece of valuable evidence and that is that provided by the Portuguese GNR scent dogs. These two dogs were deployed just hours after the child disappeared and so cannot be discarded easily. The reason why the results obtained from these dogs is so interesting is that they followed the child's scent to a point immediately across the public road from mini reception where the scent mysteriously stopped. Any good cop worth his salt knows that this would be totally consistent with a child being hit with a car and thereafter lifted and removed from the scene.
Just as a matter of interest why do you value the findings of those dogs, and do you give equal value to the findings of Grime's dogs? The problem with the sniffer dogs is whose scent they were tracking.
For several reasons. The GNR were right there hours after Madeleine disappeared with dogs which were trained to follow a specific scent. They were totally impartial and were working blind with no external distractions. We know the police were given items belonging to Madeleine so it is to be expected that it was her fresh scent trail which they followed.
The cadaver and CSI dogs on the other hand came to the crimescene very late on after numerous other people had rented both the apartment and the hire car. We know the conditions under which the inspections were carried out were attroicious in forensic terms and we know that the McCanns hire car was a target from the off.
Yet the indications remain.There is only one solution in my opinion - Tracker dogs suggest she wandered
How many other crime scenes have been contaminated, yet forensic dogs have been deployed and indicated correctly ?
Eddie also came late into the Harron and Prout cases. The dogs are usually sent in later when there are no signs of the missing person. SY/PJ still have to explain the dog alerts.
"Attracta Harron's body was found on 5 April 2004, four months after she was last seen alive, hidden in a river bank less than 50 yards from Hamilton's home."
For several reasons. The GNR were right there hours after Madeleine disappeared with dogs which were trained to follow a specific scent. They were totally impartial and were working blind with no external distractions. We know the police were given items belonging to Madeleine so it is to be expected that it was her fresh scent trail which they followed.
The cadaver and CSI dogs on the other hand came to the crimescene very late on after numerous other people had rented both the apartment and the hire car. We know the conditions under which the inspections were carried out were attroicious in forensic terms and we know that the McCanns hire car was a target from the off.
The first set of dogs at 2.30 am on 4th were given her pink blanket, which should have had her scent on it, but they were patrol dogs. The actual search and rescue dogs which came at 11.30 pm on 4th were given a bath towel allegedly used by Madeleine. I would say it can't be said beyond doubt that they followed Madeleine's scent.
Certainly, in the Madeleine investigation, why did they bother?
One might have thought that the pink ensemble she was wearing during the last photo would have been the most suitable thing to let the dogs sniff.
If you read his article he tells you why he believes what he believes. Let's be grown ups and recognise that whatever your beliefs there is precious little evidence to support it. That being the case we are left really only with theories that we can hang on the facts that we do know. Horrocks theory hangs well on those facts, better than most others IMO. If you disagree say why rather than simply slagging him off for Barry George or writing for the Sun. Many people write for the Sun, does that mean they are ALL incapable of making thoughtful, objective observations?
Horrocks says;The reason his theory is so strong is that noone who believes the McCanns a) had the opportunity and b) the motive and c) the brazen chutzpah and acting skills to maintain a lie for 10years has been able to put forward a rational and plausible theory of parental involvement, and that is a fact. If I am wrong kindly point me in the right direction.
The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible, or covering up an accident, is as far as I am concerned frankly preposterous. Although many believe this, as far as I am aware, there is not one shred of credible evidence, either direct or otherwise to indicate that this is even a remote possibility.
There may be no evidence but there was opportunity and they were the last people to see her.
There are many reasons for saying this. Firstly, and importantly, there is no family history that would point in any way to this. I also do not believe that anyone with any sense believes that they killed Madeleine deliberately, so this leaves a tragic accident. Even if such an accident had happened, is it feasible that they would not immediately seek assistance and call for an ambulance?
Is there family history in all such cases? If not, that's irrelevant. There could be reasons why calling for assistance wasn't an option.
Are we saying that they coldly decided that Madeleine was dead and then put together an elaborate plan to dispose of her body? Did Gerry McCann simply walk down the road with his daughter’s body and dispose of it, and then calmly go out for dinner. This is ridiculous in the extreme. Also, have they then maintained this pretence for so long, the simple answer is no. And as for it being a conspiracy between themselves and any or all of their group of friends, this stretches credibility beyond belief.
Why would the decision have to be made coldly? Can people put on an act? It depends on the person. Can they keep up the act for years? It would depend on the stakes.
The farcical conspiracy theory that the last photo of Madeleine was photo shopped, the spurious and often inaccurately reported forensic findings, the irrelevant behaviour of the cadaver dogs, Mr and Mrs McCann’s perceived demeanour, as well as many other totally immaterial points, just fuel this uninformed and often offensive conjecture. The simple answer is, there is no information, let alone evidence to indicate their involvement in any way. Should they have supervised their children more closely that night; that is not for me to say, but regardless of the answer, it does not assist the investigation in any way.
Why does he dismiss all the above points? Suspicions are formed from lots of indications sometimes and the behaviour and attitudes of people should be noted, not ignored.
This person is determined to discredit the idea that the McCanns were involved. He has no evidence which excludes them, just his belief that they wouldn't do that. Hence his use of unnecessary words such as 'preposterous' 'coldly' and 'ridiculous', which are clearly used to persuade. Using emotive language means his case is weak imo.
The reason his theory is so strong is that noone who believes the McCanns a) had the opportunity and b) the motive and c) the brazen chutzpah and acting skills to maintain a lie for 10years has been able to put forward a rational and plausible theory of parental involvement, and that is a fact. If I am wrong kindly point me in the right direction.
You won't find one because whereas it is perfectly legal to publicly postulate abduction theories involving person or persons unknown, it is not legal to publicly postulate theories involving the McCanns.@)(++(* Not on this site granted but there are dozens if not hundreds of blogs by armchair defectives on the case full of the most salacious and libellous allegations in this case, there must be one surely that has described in logical and plausible terms how the McCanns committed the cover up of the century?
@)(++(* Not on this site granted but there are dozens if not hundreds of blogs by armchair defectives on the case full of the most salacious and libellous allegations in this case, there must be one surely that has described in logical and plausible terms how the McCanns committed the cover up of the century?
The reason his theory is so strong is that noone who believes the McCanns a) had the opportunity and b) the motive and c) the brazen chutzpah and acting skills to maintain a lie for 10years has been able to put forward a rational and plausible theory of parental involvement, and that is a fact. If I am wrong kindly point me in the right direction.
There is only one solution in my opinion - Tracker dogs suggest she wandered
Cadaver dog suggest a dead body was in the apartment.
Solution the dead body was not Madeleine. Madeleine was abducted from the road.
Probably.I very much doubt it but would be happy to be proven wrong. I have followed this case for 10 years and have yet to read one, how about you?
Eddie did his stuff in the Harron case (contributed to putting a vicious murderer behind bars) but contributed nothing to the Prout case, where the dog seems to have been involved from the start.
However, it was not publicised that Eddie had been involved in the Prout case until after Prout's trial because uncorroborated cadaver dog alerts are inadmissible as evidence in court cases.
I very much doubt it but would be happy to be proven wrong. I have followed this case for 10 years and have yet to read one, how about you?
Seriously, all you sceptics, in your quiet and reflective moments, when you are not sat here trying to score points, when you are deep in thought and trying to make sense of this case, have you been able to piece together in your minds a coherent theory of parental involvement that makes total and convincing sense to you?
Yet the indications remain.If you have a look at Eddie' s CV you will find it is very very limited
How many other crime scenes have been contaminated, yet forensic dogs have been deployed and indicated correctly ?
Seriously, all you sceptics, in your quiet and reflective moments, when you are not sat here trying to score points, when you are deep in thought and trying to make sense of this case, have you been able to piece together in your minds a coherent theory of parental involvement that makes total and convincing sense to you?Myself and Scotland Yard don't have a clue to what happened if that makes me a sceptic fair enough, doesn't mean to say I have to have a theory into what happened either.The more SY rule out the harder the narrative of an abduction is to follow.
No, I mean one that made me slap my forehead and go "of course! That makes perfect sense, that's how they could have done it!"
Wouldn't it be more accurate to say, one you agreed with, and that won't be happening, will it.
There is a major difference between involvement and potential cover-up.I don't understand your question sorry, please re-phrase.
Like I said Alfie, without an abduction, where does that leave the McCann's, and they have claimed abduction from virtually the start.
I will await your answer.
For several reasons. The GNR were right there hours after Madeleine disappeared with dogs which were trained to follow a specific scent. They were totally impartial and were working blind with no external distractions. We know the police were given items belonging to Madeleine so it is to be expected that it was her fresh scent trail which they followed.
The cadaver and CSI dogs on the other hand came to the crimescene very late on after numerous other people had rented both the apartment and the hire car. We know the conditions under which the inspections were carried out were attroicious in forensic terms and we know that the McCanns hire car was a target from the off.
Myself and Scotland Yard don't have a clue to what happened if that makes me a sceptic fair enough, doesn't mean to say I have to have a theory into what happened either.The more SY rule out the harder the narrative of an abduction is to follow.SY have a theory, of course they do. They may evn have more than one but you can sure they make some sort of plausible and coherent narrative. My problem with many of those who doubt the parents is that they are happy just to doubt without making any attempt whatsoever to give serious thought as to how all their doubts cohere into a plausible theory.
I don't understand your question sorry, please re-phrase.
Where Horrocks says "I also found that by turning right from the apartment he could have been totally out of sight within 30 seconds of leaving the apartment." do you think that is from the front or back door pathway?You can do it from both, but he was talking about the front door.
If I were sceptical to that extent I would find it extremely coincidental that Gerry just happened to be in the apartment moments before a guy was seen carrying off a young girl a few yards up the street. Had Gerry not stopped Jez Wilkins he would have walked right into that mystery man. Was that a coincidence too??
Did Jane Tanner ruin it??
Very easy really.Still without Madeleine, still utterly bereft, still haunted with guilt for leaving her alone I expect. But I'm still not entirely sure what you're driving at. Do you think they'd go to prison if it was established that she woke up and fell down a hole?
If there was no abduction, where does it leave the McCann's ?
No more than they do already, unless you mean that they deliberately hid her body after an accident. If they sincerely believed Madeleine was abducted (impossible to prove they don't and their view has been shared by numerous professionals including it seems both current police forces investigating the disappearance)then there is no issue with the Fund, just as there is no issue with the Fund set up to find Ben Needham, despite the fact that the police believe he wandered off.
As I have said before Alfie, bar a confession, assuming a crime was committed, we will probably never know the truth.I wouldn't disagree with you there.
There is only one solution in my opinion - Tracker dogs suggest she wandered
Cadaver dog suggest a dead body was in the apartment.
Solution the dead body was not Madeleine. Madeleine was abducted from the road.
Cadaver dog alerted in the apartment unknown as to how the scent got there.
Or what the scent may have been to cause the dog's reaction.
If the GNR dogs were indeed following Madeleine's scent I think the fact that both followed it to the car park opposite the reception area may indicate that she was taken to a vehicle which was parked there to wait for her.
I don't think there was any RTA.
The route followed by the GNR dogs was a secluded, dark and sheltered one with boundary walls from start to finish until the end of the lane behind apartment 5a.
Perhaps the nature of the route helped to preserve the scent because I don't think they checked it out immediately ... but only when all else had failed.
I agree the Portuguese dogs and handlers did an excellent job.
Depends how many myths you want or roll out.
I have considered that Brie but the big difference is that if she was abducted from the apartment she was carried. In those circumstances scent is not transferred directly to the ground which would be the case with a barefooted child. A child walking will lay a trail which can be easily followed. The scent from a carried child will tend to dissipate and especially so if it is windy.tracker dogs aren't limited to only being able to follow the trail of barefooted pedestrians as far as I'm aware.
We can't rule out a RTA, it is still a very valid possibility.
It is a myth that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour.
Quite simply, it is unknown what Eddie did alert to.
All the dialogue on it won't change the fact that the dog's visit achieved nothing but confusion and nothing of use to producing any indication of what might have happened to Madeleine McCann.
To all intents and purposes the dogs were an irrelevance ... apart from the utter confusion and harm police misunderstanding of them led to.
It is not a myth, it is a possibility.
Likewise, if the dogs are so irrelevant, why are some Mccann supporters obsessed with them ? 8**8:/:
Police follow their clues regardless. They know any body in a missing person case is probably moved 3 months later. That's why police use them or why bother?Where did this come from?
It is a myth that Eddie alerted to cadaver odour.
Quite simply, it is unknown what Eddie did alert to.
All the dialogue on it won't change the fact that the dog's visit achieved nothing but confusion and nothing of use to producing any indication of what might have happened to Madeleine McCann.
To all intents and purposes the dogs were an irrelevance ... apart from the utter confusion and harm police misunderstanding of them led to.
Bang-on right.
Apart from that I would add to the part emboldened, misunderstanding AND LIES!
There are many reasons and substances to which a cadaver dog can alert but with a properly trained scent dog you usually get what you asked for.Well I'll upgrade my analysis then "There is only one solution in my opinion - Tracker dogs suggest she wandered
There is a major difference between involvement and potential cover-up.The only logical theory is an abduction after MM woke and wandered.
Like I said Alfie, without an abduction, where does that leave the McCann's, and they have claimed abduction from virtually the start.
I will await your answer.
The only logical theory is an abduction after MM woke and wandered.
Very easy really.Is that a hypothetical question?
If there was no abduction, where does it leave the McCann's ?
You can do it from both, but he was talking about the front door.So the front door could be opened from the inside could it? Or was it deadlocked and the key removed?
As I have said before Alfie, bar a confession, assuming a crime was committed, we will probably never know the truth.No - we are going to work it out.
Cadaver dog alerted in the apartment unknown as to how the scent got there.That's fair enough.
So the front door could be opened from the inside could it? Or was it deadlocked and the key removed?May I ask if this has anything to do with the price of chips?
I have considered that Brie but the big difference is that if she was abducted from the apartment she was carried. In those circumstances scent is not transferred directly to the ground which would be the case with a barefooted child. A child walking will lay a trail which can be easily followed. The scent from a carried child will tend to dissipate and especially so if it is windy.What was RTA standing for please?
We can't rule out a RTA, it is still a very valid possibility.
What was RTA standing for please?road traffic accident
Try explaining your rationale.It is the only logical theory I have heard so far. Alfie has been asking for other logical theories and there have been none so far.
It is the only logical theory I have heard so far. Alfie has been asking for other logical theories and there have been none so far.
May I ask if this has anything to do with the price of chips?You told me he was talking about the front door. Well when you said either door. But I am questioning if it was possible to exit by the front door without knowing where the key was.
He was talking about the front door.
Ask Mr Horrocks whether he thought the front door was deadlocked. I neither know nor care about Mr Horrocks opinion on this point.
That is a matter of opinion.All others fail on a logical analysis.
You seem to have forgotten the absence of evidence in this case, which can point to one scenario above another.
I don't think there was any chance of Gerry and the man seen carrying the child encountering each other. They were heading away from each other. Gerry downhill and back to the tapas the carrier behind him heading to where is anyone's guess.
More likely the carrier waited for Gerry to leave the apartment to make his move in the full expectation hat Gerry would be back in the tapas.
Jez was the one change from other nights that an observer would not expect.
Where did this come from?
Eddie checked all the apartments of the group. The only one he alerted to was the missing child one and Keela alerted to blood. I don't believe in all these coincidences and Kate is a hypocrite. There were many dog alerts.Maybe it was an error but you said "they know any body in a missing person case is probably moved 3 months later" That was what I wanted to know about thanks.
“As a lawyer once said to me, apropos another matter, ‘One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they’re still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.” (Madeleine)
He was crossing the same road they all walked up to check. That wasn't Pre-planned and that man wasn't involved. You would go away from danger not towards it.
How long did it take him to cross?
According to Horrocks thirty seconds.
Despite having been seen no alarm was raised because it would be appx. forty five minutes before anyone knew a child was missing ... so from his point of view ... RESULT! particularly since the only witness could only describe his clothing but not his features.
When a detective with the amount of experience of this type of crime under his belt that Horrocks has, oices an opinion, I am inclined to accept his opinion.
That is that Jane Tanner saw Madeleine's abduction in progress; Madeleine was carried to a vehicle parked in the near vicinity; she was then driven out of Luz on the nearby exit route and has not been seen from that day to this as far as we know.
She was well on her way before being missed and before the police were called ... all according to plan.
Yet not a shred of evidence to support it.
All Horrocks opinion.
Remember, abduction is not a fact, no matter the hyperbole surrounding those that support it.
He was crossing the same road they all walked up to check. That wasn't Pre-planned and that man wasn't involved. You would go away from danger not towards it.I would say if he/she was involved it wasn't with criminal intent. I still believe Tanner person was part of the plot though.
Eyewitness testimony is accepted in a court of law as "evidence" of what the eye witness saw ... therefore it is entirely wrong to say there is no evidence supporting Madeleine's abduction. Jane Tanner saw it and what she saw would have been evidence in a trial.
And how credible would that 'evidence' appear to the jury when SY had all but ruled the sighting out ?I'd love it to come to trial for SY would have to produce their witness and we'd see proof of the route he took back from the night creche, his name and the child's name, where he was staying, and the direction he was walking.
These articles by rent-a-cops are irrelevant. These retired cops are paid by the editors of the newspapers to write what they are told, just like the journalists do nowadays. No matter what the opinion of the person they will never be allowed to write something which shows the McCanns in a bad light or even in the slightest suggest that they could be responsible for the disappearance of their daughter.That must be bordering on being libellous IMO. Have you got evidence of the claims you make?
And how credible would that 'evidence' appear to the jury when SY had all but ruled the sighting out ?
What Horrocks says makes perfect sense and with his background should be taken seriously. There seems to be no one with any credibility suggesting the parents are involved so it's about time sceptics woke upNo.
Horrocks describes the alerts as irrelevant and he is a policeman with a lot of experience
Once the parents are ruled out with woke and wandered so unlikely abduction does start to become a fact and explains the remit
What Horrocks says makes perfect sense and with his background should be taken seriously. There seems to be no one with any credibility suggesting the parents are involved so it's about time sceptics woke up
Horrocks describes the alerts as irrelevant and he is a policeman with a lot of experience
Once the parents are ruled out with woke and wandered so unlikely abduction does start to become a fact and explains the remit
Eyewitness testimony is accepted in a court of law as "evidence" of what the eye witness saw ... therefore it is entirely wrong to say there is no evidence supporting Madeleine's abduction. Jane Tanner saw it and what she saw would have been evidence in a trial.Whether such evidence stands up under cross examination by either the defence or prosecution in a court of law in another point entirely.
Eyewitness testimony is accepted in a court of law as "evidence" of what the eye witness saw ... therefore it is entirely wrong to say there is no evidence supporting Madeleine's abduction. Jane Tanner saw it and what she saw would have been evidence in a trial.
It seems to be a question of which policeman with a lot of experience you want to believe?
I'd love it to come to trial for SY would have to produce their witness and we'd see proof of the route he took back from the night creche, his name and the child's name, where he was staying, and the direction he was walking.Strange isn't it Brunt door steps some one not connected,the beeb reporter sticks his mike under the nose of a couple of Portuguese not connected,SY are supposedly hot on the heels of purple haze yet this fella who could hold important info is barely mentioned,hmmm.
It seems to be a question of which policeman with a lot of experience you want to believe?The ones with the plausible, logical theories get my vote.
The ones with the plausible, logical theories get my vote.
Well, that's abduction out of the window. 8(0(*OK then let's hear a plausible and logical theory by a cop that isn't abduction.
OK then let's hear a plausible and logical theory by a cop that isn't abduction.
The fact that they haven't found Madeleine's body is a good sign.
tracker dogs aren't limited to only being able to follow the trail of barefooted pedestrians as far as I'm aware.
That has been done already.The situation led her to believe Madeleine had been abducted. Kate could read the signs present.
...and of course, you wouldn't want me to 'libel' anyone, would you.
As I said yesterday, and several times before, there is no evidence to put one scenario above another.
..and if you really believe in abduction, let's see evidence to support it.
Not when the sea is so close it isn't.
The situation led her to believe Madeleine had been abducted. Kate could read the signs present.
1. Cuddle Cat was there,
2. Madeleine's shoes were still in the apartment,
3. the two gates and sliding door were all shut when she arrived,
4. the window was open and the exterior shutters were up.
That was enough clues for Kate to consider abduction was the reason Madeleine was missing. Taken together with the reaction of the parent is evidence of abduction.
I would go further and say it is most likely. It is what the dog was trained to alert to.
You miss the point. Someone who is barefooted will leave a solid scent trail, someone wearing shoes will still leave a trail but a much weaker one and someone being carried at a height of four feet will leave very little of a trail. I believe Madeleine was barefooted when she disappeared.The dogs weren't able to tell us how strong the scent was - strong, medium or light so we are unable to tell from their actions whether or not she was wearing shoes at the time.
Normally I would tend to agree but there was so much cross contamination with items to be tested in this case that I feel the results were greatly compromised. If Eddie did detect cadaver scent there are innocent reasons already discussed why it could have been in apartment 5a.
That has been done already.Of course not, we were talking about various cops' theories - I said I preferred those from cops that were logical and plausible. The only cop I know of who has ventured a "parents dunnit" theory is Amaral and his theory is neither logical nor plausible in my (and Horrocks) opinion. What do you think of it?
...and of course, you wouldn't want me to 'libel' anyone, would you.
As I said yesterday, and several times before, there is no evidence to put one scenario above another.
..and if you really believe in abduction, let's see evidence to support it.
So the front door could be opened from the inside could it? Or was it deadlocked and the key removed?
It seems to be a question of which policeman with a lot of experience you want to believe?
Short of going some distance out to sea in a boat, for which there is no sighting or evidence whatsoever, any body would have been shortly washed back up.
I'm afraid Rob, there is no verification of 3 or 4.
1 and 2 can be explained by other means.
Can you remember what she said outside the Portuguese Court when she and her husband were questioned by a local reporter , as to what evidence there was of abduction ?
She replied, ''I know, I was there''.
Followed by ''I know more than you do''.
7 minutes in.
She wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared, was she Rob. 8)-)))
How could she know more ?
Indeed Slarti.
SY weren't on the scene when Madeleine disappeared.
The local police were. They witnessed the behaviour and reactions of the Mccanns.
Can you provide some cite for that?
Let's see what you are saying "I'm afraid Rob, there is no verification of 3 or 4." In other words because it was her experience you can't disprove that.
"1 and 2 can be explained by other means." Do it then.
"She replied, ''I know, I was there. I know more than you do''. I think you would have to agree that Kate experiencing the moment that she finds Madeleine missing is an experience no one else can ever experience, so she will know more than anyone about that experience.
Can you provide some cite for that?
i have read where bodies have been weighed down in the ocean or water by rocks or bricks hence where bodies are never found because the body cant float sorry to be graphic
Can you provide some cite for that?Eleanor - words to this effect are in Mark Harrison the English search adviser's report.
Eleanor - words to this effect are in Mark Harrison the English search adviser's report.
What Horrocks says makes perfect sense and with his background should be taken seriously. There seems to be no one with any credibility suggesting the parents are involved so it's about time sceptics woke up
Horrocks describes the alerts as irrelevant and he is a policeman with a lot of experience
Once the parents are ruled out with woke and wandered so unlikely abduction does start to become a fact and explains the remit
The dogs weren't able to tell us how strong the scent was - strong, medium or light so we are unable to tell from their actions whether or not she was wearing shoes at the time.Amy Tierney asked Kate if Madeleine's shoes were still there and she records in her statement that they were present.
No verification Rob, means precisely that.Second, she wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared, was she. so she didn't do it then - thanks for confirming your belief of that.
Second, she wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared, was she.
1 and 2, by the other scenarios.
Oh, by the way, what photos are there of Madeleine holding this cuddlecat ?
The dogs weren't able to tell us how strong the scent was - strong, medium or light so we are unable to tell from their actions whether or not she was wearing shoes at the time.
i have read where bodies have been weighed down in the ocean or water by rocks or bricks hence where bodies are never found because the body cant float sorry to be graphic
Second, she wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared, was she. so she didn't do it then - thanks for confirming your belief of that.
Well, that's abduction out of the window. 8(0(*Abduction wasn't and isn't out of the window
And it is recorded that there were boats out that night.Were the skippers questioned?
And it is recorded that there were boats out that night.
These articles by rent-a-cops are irrelevant. These retired cops are paid by the editors of the newspapers to write what they are told, just like the journalists do nowadays. No matter what the opinion of the person they will never be allowed to write something which shows the McCanns in a bad light or even in the slightest suggest that they could be responsible for the disappearance of their daughter.
Second, she wasn't there when Madeleine disappeared, was she. so she didn't do it then - thanks for confirming your belief of that.
Very true, she was sat at the tapas restaurant all night.
Only from the time she arrived there.
Hardly all night.
Barely a hour and a half in fact.
Were the skippers questioned?
Only from the time she arrived there.
Hardly all night.
Barely a hour and a half in fact.
So would you care to explain your theory then instead of just rubbishing mine.
The truth is, none of us know what actually happened.
There is absolutely no verification of Kate Mccann's accounts of events.
Her comments outside the court, don't make sense.
We have our beliefs, or if you prefer theories.
So would you care to explain your theory then instead of just rubbishing mine.
You say "there is absolutely no verification of Kate Mccann's accounts of events" yet I repeatedly tell you that Gerry and Amy Tierney do confirm Kate's account.
Her comment do make sense to me.
Put up your theory for scrutiny please?
It would have been easier if the Tapas had a'child checkig' schedule they stuck to.... alas this wasn't a consideration for their 'listening' checks. How remis. I wonder why they bothered with that system as they knew their children were prone to wake up, and the mobile ones could wonder and get themselves into difficulties of sorts. Hence why Kate left a door unlocked. Hence why a woke and wondered scenario is so hated and denied because it would apportion blame to the mother.It gets tricky but I tend to agree with what you are saying here. But she can only be blamed for leaving the door unlocked, hardly a major crime. She can't be blamed for abducting the child from a woke and wandered situation.
It gets tricky but I tend to agree with what you are saying here. But she can only be blamed for leaving the door unlocked, hardly a major crime. She can't be blamed for abducting the child from a woke and wandered situation.
I am not saying I agree or disagree with the woke and wandered theory. However I disagree with your analysis that based on leaving a child alone in an apartment who is free to wander outside to be abducted is a major crime in which The mother should shoulder some responsibility. They walked away from that- smiling, free to enjoy new lives. And became the biggest victims of police brutality, Portuges justice ( according to them and thier fan club) since Pontius Pilot.How could anyone think that the McCanns have had a wonderful time over the last 10 years?
I am not saying I agree or disagree with the woke and wandered theory. However I disagree with your analysis that based on leaving a child alone in an apartment who is free to wander outside to be abducted is a major crime in which The mother should shoulder some responsibility. They walked away from that- smiling, free to enjoy new lives. And became the biggest victims of police brutality, Portuges justice ( according to them and thier fan club) since Pontius Pilot.
If you really believe that the parents of a missing child ... any missing child ... or even any missing person ... emerge from that unscathed and "enjoying new lives" ... I believe you are sadly deluded.
My comments do not say they live happily ever after , They reflect that they are responsible for their daughters fate, and instead of being charged and jailed( an may have been the case) they walked free to get new lives. They walked away free, smiling and they did and do enjoy berating anyone who dares to challege them and their theories.
How could anyone think that the McCanns have had a wonderful time over the last 10 years?
Their problems are self inflicted Rob.
Did you see the images/photos from the BBC interview.
Here's one of them.
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article10326282.ece/ALTERNATES/s615b/Kate-And-Gerry-McCann-Give-An-Interview-To-The-BBC-To-Mark-10-Year-Anniversary-of-Disappearance-Of-T.jpg)
oh come on supporters were devastated when amaral won even though they deny it @)(++(*
Wrong. I thought it was a huge opportunity to have a laugh at The Portuguese Justice System.
Ian Horrocks is an experienced detective
He has said the dog alerts are irrelevant
I am not saying I agree or disagree with the woke and wandered theory. However I disagree with your analysis that based on leaving a child alone in an apartment who is free to wander outside to be abducted is a major crime in which The mother should shoulder some responsibility. They walked away from that- smiling, free to enjoy new lives. And became the biggest victims of police brutality, Portuges justice ( according to them and thier fan club) since Pontius Pilot.
I have leaned towards the theory that the intruder had a key to the wooden door and made entry from there
However Horrocks' notion of how entry was made is worth looking at and it is something which the forum has previously discussed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6209.msg232924#msg232924
Horrocks says "These actions could be seen from within the Ocean Club area, as well as from the alleyway that runs between this and the apartment. Due to the height of the wall and foliage on top of it, as well as the area inside being well lit, in contrast to the darkness elsewhere, those dining would have been easily observed whilst anyone in the alleyway could remain unseen. Sunset on the 3rd May 2007 was at 8.25pm, so it would have been getting quite dark by 9pm.
Anyone observing their routine would have known that they had at least 20 minutes between each check. They would have observed the group for a few minutes and then gone to the apartment. At the end of the alleyway they could see that the road was clear, it is then only literally a second for someone to go through the gate and into the garden area, where they would be virtually out of sight. It is then simple to enter the apartment through the patio doors, which although closed, had been left unlocked." End Quote
I don't think it would have been necessary for an intruder to be exposed using the road to the gate ... it would have been easy enough to get across the wall and gain entry from the garden.
Margaret Hall who had been baby sitting in apartment 5a the year prior to Madeleine's disappearance recounted witnessing a man lurking in the shadows ... we had some discussion whether that was at the front of the building or poolside.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6209.msg232924#msg232924
In my opinion her encounter was poolside.
Which certainly ties in with what Horrocks has said about the ease of access from that area.
I have leaned towards the theory that the intruder had a key to the wooden door and made entry from there
However Horrocks' notion of how entry was made is worth looking at and it is something which the forum has previously discussed.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6209.msg232924#msg232924
Horrocks says "These actions could be seen from within the Ocean Club area, as well as from the alleyway that runs between this and the apartment. Due to the height of the wall and foliage on top of it, as well as the area inside being well lit, in contrast to the darkness elsewhere, those dining would have been easily observed whilst anyone in the alleyway could remain unseen. Sunset on the 3rd May 2007 was at 8.25pm, so it would have been getting quite dark by 9pm.
Anyone observing their routine would have known that they had at least 20 minutes between each check. They would have observed the group for a few minutes and then gone to the apartment. At the end of the alleyway they could see that the road was clear, it is then only literally a second for someone to go through the gate and into the garden area, where they would be virtually out of sight. It is then simple to enter the apartment through the patio doors, which although closed, had been left unlocked." End Quote
I don't think it would have been necessary for an intruder to be exposed using the road to the gate ... it would have been easy enough to get across the wall and gain entry from the garden.
Margaret Hall who had been baby sitting in apartment 5a the year prior to Madeleine's disappearance recounted witnessing a man lurking in the shadows ... we had some discussion whether that was at the front of the building or poolside.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=6209.msg232924#msg232924
In my opinion her encounter was poolside.
Which certainly ties in with what Horrocks has said about the ease of access from that area.
So the thousands of parents who have done exactly the same on holiday and also regularly left their children alone whilst they went to dinner - are all criminals IYO? So why are some of them still doing the same - and why have none of them been arrested?
I've never seen any evidence of the 'happy new life' which you infer the McCann family went home to enjoy. AFAIAC if they were guilty - then a life which consists of living a lie every day and having to watch every word they ever said for the rest of their lives - is not a life worth living. The stress of having to do that - especially in public - would be intolerable. Why would anyone choose such a vile life for themselves given the choice?
The McCanns did have a choice - they could have returned home - requested privacy - and just kept their heads down until it all disappeared from the public's mind.
However, It is glaringly obvious that the fact they chose to do the opposite and kept asking for the case to be re-investigated are not the actions of guilty people - by any stretch of the imagination.
The idea that they returned home to enjoy a new life could not be further from the truth imo.
AIMHO
So the thousands of parents who have done exactly the same on holiday and also regularly left their children alone whilst they went to dinner - are all criminals IYO? So why are some of them still doing the same - and why have none of them been arrested?
I've never seen any evidence of the 'happy new life' which you infer the McCann family went home to enjoy. AFAIAC if they were guilty - then a life which consists of living a lie every day and having to watch every word they ever said for the rest of their lives - is not a life worth living. The stress of having to do that - especially in public - would be intolerable. Why would anyone choose such a vile life for themselves given the choice?
The McCanns did have a choice - they could have returned home - requested privacy - and just kept their heads down until it all disappeared from the public's mind.
However, It is glaringly obvious that the fact they chose to do the opposite and kept asking for the case to be re-investigated are not the actions of guilty people - by any stretch of the imagination.
The idea that they returned home to enjoy a new life could not be further from the truth imo.
AIMHO
This happens in hotels where the facilities are all under one roof and where there are listening services. Leaving small children all alone in an unsecured apartment immediately adjacent to a public road while the parents went off dining and socialising was irresponsible. It matters little whether it was 50 metres away or 5 miles, events can occur where youngsters are concerned.
What is all the more galling about this case is the fact that facilities were available but the McCanns thought they knew better and didn't bother. They took a chance and it backfired on them.
This happens in hotels where the facilities are all under one roof and where there are listening services. Leaving small children all alone in an unsecured apartment immediately adjacent to a public road while the parents went off dining and socialising was irresponsible. It matters little whether it was 50 metres away or 5 miles, events can occur where youngsters are concerned.It is irresponsible in your opinion
What is all the more galling about this case is the fact that facilities were available but the McCanns thought they knew better and didn't bother. They took a chance and it backfired on them.
1. A total retreat from theMcCannsdunsomethingdreadfultoMadeleineandcovereditup
2. A regular checking-system (narrowly) failed to thwart an abduction.
We do know why you have to type abduction.
Without it, the McCann's are up the creek.
You know that, the McCann's know that, and so does anyone with an independent mind.
This happens in hotels where the facilities are all under one roof and where there are listening services. Leaving small children all alone in an unsecured apartment immediately adjacent to a public road while the parents went off dining and socialising was irresponsible. It matters little whether it was 50 metres away or 5 miles, events can occur where youngsters are concerned.
What is all the more galling about this case is the fact that facilities were available but the McCanns thought they knew better and didn't bother. They took a chance and it backfired on them.
As you well know Alfie, an alternative theory would be regarded as libel.It's so fortunate for you "sceptics" that this site doesn't allow you to share your views on what happened, that way you never get properly challenged - and let's face it any theory you did put down (libel aside) would has as much evidence as Horrocks' theory ie: not alot.
The irony is, that the abduction scenario is typed, without a shred of real evidence to support it.
I can't cut and paste at the moment so let's start with his reference to family history
That's evidence but you probably don't realise it
It's so fortunate for you "sceptics" that this site doesn't allow you to share your views on what happened, that way you never get properly challenged - and let's face it any theory you did put down (libel aside) would has as much evidence as Horrocks' theory ie: not alot.
If you had bothered to pay attention, I have been saying that for some considerable time, i.e. there is b....r all evidence to support any scenario.Why? Properly challenge away. As long as you're not abusive or goading I don't see why you would get points
As to properly challenged, I would like the opportunity to really challenge supporters view of the case, but I know if I or others do that, the posts will be removed, and/or we get points. 8**8:/:
The fact that a family appears OK doesn't mean it is OK. I would expect a policeman to know that you can't judge by appearances, but he seems to be doing just that.
Sometimes, families who seem to have it all from the outside are hiding a different story behind closed doors.
https://www.helpguide.org/articles/abuse/child-abuse-and-neglect.htm
The family history is just one piece in the jigsaw
One piece of evidence
A lack of known problems doesn't mean there were none. So what else did he have?Read his article
Why? Properly challenge away. As long as you're not abusive or goading I don't see why you would get points
From reading what Mr Horrocks has said, plus doing some research into his professional background his theory, whether you think its accurate or not, he is qualified to make an opinion on Madeleine's case. The original post is thought provoking and well laid out and his points as to why Madeleine's parents should be dismissed as suspects are also balanced and an astute conclusion based on what little evidence there is.
Read his article
It's everything I have thought for the past ten years
Good to see someone so informed having the same thoughts
His comment that the canine alerts are irrelevant is spot on and from a very experienced policeman
I've read it and it's just an opinion piece bringing nothing new or enlightening to the case.
Exactly.
An opinion. He nailed his colours to the mast when he worked for the Sun on the case, and we know all too well that paper's slant on this case. 100% backing of the McCann's.
The irony is that the McCann supporters think Horrock's opinion counts because of his background and experience. Yet the opinion of another ex policeman who has as much experience and who worked on the case doesn't count.Because it's patently absurd as I'm sure even you would agree.
I've read it and it's just an opinion piece bringing nothing new or enlightening to the case.But it is plausible and logically thought through is it not? The fact of the matter is whatever happened to Madeleine will already have been described as a theory by now, so nothing is new, one of them is bound to be close to the truth, some are alot closer to the truth than others.
It is fascinating to observe those who support Horrocks, knowing full well his incompetency in the Jill Dando case, as regards Barry George.Yes, he's provided his view to which he is entitled - do you think he's been paid to have this view and isn't sincere or something? Attack the substance of what he says, not the man himself if you can. What in his theory is implausible or illogical?
Also, he nailed his colours to the McCann supporting Sun, which tells us everything we need to know about Horrocks.
He has merely provided his jaundiced view of the case, even though he doesn't know what crime occurred.
Enough said.
Yes, he's provided his view to which he is entitled - do you think he's been paid to have this view and isn't sincere or something? Attack the substance of what he says, not the man himself if you can. What in his theory is implausible or illogical?
Yes, he's provided his view to which he is entitled - do you think he's been paid to have this view and isn't sincere or something? Attack the substance of what he says, not the man himself if you can. What in his theory is implausible or illogical?
Horrocks was paid for his opinion, agreed? In this country Horrocks would not have been able to postulate a theory in the media with the McCanns as perpetrators, agreed? QED if he wanted paid this theory, or similar, was his only choice.
It really isn't rocket science.
Horrocks was paid for his opinion, agreed? In this country Horrocks would not have been able to postulate a theory in the media with the McCanns as perpetrators, agreed? QED if he wanted paid this theory, or similar, was his only choice.Even if he was paid a million pounds for it it's a pretty decent theory that is plausible and logical and hangs well on the known facts of the case, unlike theory of parental involvement that I have read in ten years (including yours).
It really isn't rocket science.
Even if he was paid a million pounds for it it's a pretty decent theory that is plausible and logical and hangs well on the known facts of the case, unlike theory of parental involvement that I have read in ten years (including yours).
Even if he was paid a million pounds for it it's a pretty decent theory that is plausible and logical and hangs well on the known facts of the case, unlike theory of parental involvement that I have read in ten years (including yours).
Here's an easy and open question for all McCann's supporters to answer.You tell us where you think it leaves them
If there was no 'abduction', where does it leave the McCann's ?
Here's an easy and open question for all McCann's supporters to answer.They would still have their nuclear family of 5 instead of 4.
If there was no 'abduction', where does it leave the McCann's ?
They would still have their nuclear family of 5 instead of 4.
P.S. I'm just watching some sniffer dogs being deployed, and would you believe it, they play as they search.
It does seem quite remarkable how some people haven't taken time to watch forensic/police dogs being deployed, either on camera, or in real life.
IT WOULD HELP.
It would help, if some people stopped typing cliches.
It is well known the alerts weren't corroborated, and neither were they dismissed either.
The possibility remains, the dogs alerted to a body, and that really galls both the McCann's and some of their supporters.
Since no matter how long they type on the subject, the alerts remain.
sniffer dogs are trained for years stephen they live with their trainers and havea bond police understand more about their alerts and movements then supporters who are too emotionally atttached to think outside the box imo
Let's try again Rob.They would still have their nuclear family of 5 instead of 4 because without an abduction she would have been found in the area.
Madeleine disappeared, FACT.
Where does it leave the McCann's if she wasn't abducted when she disappeared?
I await cogent replies.
They would still have their nuclear family of 5 instead of 4 because without an abduction she would have been found in the area.
They would still have their nuclear family of 5 instead of 4 because without an abduction she would have been found in the area.
A very good answer.
They would still have their nuclear family of 5 instead of 4 because without an abduction she would have been found in the area.
Disappeared and then found.
I have, I suggest it is just that you don't like my answer.
Keep trying Rob, and try answering the question properly.
It would help.
Yet she wasn't, and there is no evidence to show abduction, over any other possibility.Yes of course as far as you and the very intelligent sceptics are concerned the evidence points to Maddie dying in the apartment
Your post is absolute rubbish
It isn't emotional attachment it's an understanding of what the alerts signify
You don't understand
None of the sceptics understand yet it's quite simple if you listen to the experts
@colinsutton During your time as police what was your experience of specialist police dogs - percentage wise how reliable were cadaver dogs?
"Used them twice, they were correct twice."
Let's try again Rob.Scenarios involving vats of acid come to mind. She could have fallen into a manhole or earthworks? What about if she climbed into large skip bin and fell asleep? It would leave the McCanns wondering what the heck ever happened to their daughter.
Madeleine disappeared, FACT.
Where does it leave the McCann's if she wasn't abducted when she disappeared?
I await cogent replies.
@colinsutton During your time as police what was your experience of specialist police dogs - percentage wise how reliable were cadaver dogs?
"Used them twice, they were correct twice."
No.
It is simply that you won't answer the question directly.
Since you know damn well that without 'abduction' the Mccanns are up the proverbial creek.
since abduction is unlikley the mccans are responisble for maddies fate if she wandered and fell in a hole or a unused mine etc they are responsible or whatever did happen that night you know why?? maddie was 3 years old thats whyAbduction isn't unlikely
since abduction is unlikley the mccans are responisble for maddies fate if she wandered and fell in a hole or a unused mine etc they are responsible or whatever did happen that night you know why?? maddie was 3 years old thats whyIf a burglar attempting to enter her bedroom woke her up are they still responsible?
Could you give a cite to his full statement where this quote comes from
Nope, it's a view you like, because it doesn't involve the McCann's.
He has b....r all facts, let alone evidence to deal with.
He hasn't interviewed the McCann's, or watch them under interview as regards being questioned about the events.
I trust the police on the ground in 2007, who saw what the McCann's did at the time, and the way they responded and behaved.
To top that, no evidence to support abduction was found.
P.S. What trail has been uncovered as regards kidnappers, burglars or paedophiles ?
This happens in hotels where the facilities are all under one roof and where there are listening services. Leaving small children all alone in an unsecured apartment immediately adjacent to a public road while the parents went off dining and socialising was irresponsible. It matters little whether it was 50 metres away or 5 miles, events can occur where youngsters are concerned.
What is all the more galling about this case is the fact that facilities were available but the McCanns thought they knew better and didn't bother. They took a chance and it backfired on them.
You are entirely wrong that no evidence of abduction was found ... Jane Tanner was an eyewitness to the barefoot child in pyjamas being carried in the street immediately outside the apartment and away from the direction of the apartment.
P.S. I'm just watching some sniffer dogs being deployed, and would you believe it, they play as they search.
Yet she wasn't, and there is no evidence to show abduction, over any other possibility.
And apparently OG are looking for her being the woman in purple. They are either being clever or the biggest chumps of all time! The window was closed when he was seen and he's found - carrying a smaller 2 year old not Madeleine.
Q. Relative to whether I know Jane Tanner;
Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JEREMY-WILKINS-ROGATORY.htm
It is very clear Matt said were no draughts or sounds, moving curtains etc. like Kate saw when he did his check after that sighting. Checks passing through the car park after the sighting noticed nothing wrong. Matt's window is next to Madeleine's. No evidence exists of that window being open at the time of the Tanner sighting.
You are entirely wrong that no evidence of abduction was found ... Jane Tanner was an eyewitness to the barefoot child in pyjamas being carried in the street immediately outside the apartment and away from the direction of the apartment.
A man taking a child home.
Mr. Horrocks has no evidence.
He has his opinions, and the bias he has already shown in this case.
Any ex-police officer worth his NaCl, would know you can't eliminate possible suspects, when any crime has yet to be determined.
A man taking a child home.
It is fascinating to observe those who support Horrocks
Also, he nailed his colours to the McCann supporting Sun, which tells us everything we need to know about Horrocks.
He has merely provided his jaundiced view of the case, even though he doesn't know what crime occurred.
Enough said.
What you are disagreeing with is his opinion, however logically he is considered an authority on police work based on experience regardless of the mount of evidence?
What evidence are you referring to ?
No evidence exists and Tannerman is found and ruled out. Gerry said slats were open which explains the light getting through.
A man taking a child home.
A British tourist who was taking a decidedly odd route with his child from the creche to his accommodation has almost certainly been traced.
The question is ... was that the man seen by Jane Tanner outside Block A? Until there is a definitive answer to that one Jane Tanner's sighting is evidence now as it was when she reported it on the night of the little girl's disappearance ten years ago.
The lighting in the room would not have been described by the witness in the manner it was unless the shutter had been raised.
What evidence are you referring to ?
Or a man kidnapping a child.
He was seen yards from an apartment from where it would be discovered soon after that a child had gone missing.
If Kate McCann returned home to discover the television was missing and Jane Tanner had seen a man carrying a television outside ... what could reasonably be deduced from that?
The amount of evidence he will have bagged and tagged, and then used his skills to detect the perpetrator of a crime. Someone serving in the police force for that length of time and in the areas highlighted in his career, would you think it was far to say he has knowledge of evidence and used it to mount a case against a suspect?
Thgere is no evidence worth a grain of salt to shopw abduction, compared to any other possibility.
No forensic evidence.
No sign whatsoever of anyone else in the apartment.
No trail in the paedophile network.
10 years of worldwide publicity and absolutely NOTHING.
Eye witness testimony is evidence based on what the witness saw and is used as such by the courts.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eyewitness_testimony
Therefore you are wrong about there being no evidence. I believe you are wrong about forensics also ... as there are samples yet to be identified taken from the apartment shortly after Madeleine disappeared.
Showing that there had been an unaccountable presence in the apartment.
Or a man kidnapping a child.And then, when police are satisfied that the man was carrying his own television, what does the witness say? "Oh I must be mistaken, I just jumped to conclusions"
He was seen yards from an apartment from where it would be discovered soon after that a child had gone missing.
If Kate McCann returned home to discover the television was missing and Jane Tanner had seen a man carrying a television outside ... what could reasonably be deduced from that?
And then, when police are satisfied that the man was carrying his own television, what does the witness say? "Oh I must be mistaken, I just jumped to conclusions"
Have you been in the room and studied the lighting ?
How could Jane Tanner see clearly in what at best was twilight, and the only illumination, street lights ?
I have read the description given by the witness.
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child whether she saw him in the twilight and under street lighting she saw what she saw and made sworn statements about her sighting with as much detail as she could remember.
Her sighting is evidence.
I have read the description given by the witness.
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child whether she saw him in the twilight and under street lighting she saw what she saw and made sworn statements about her sighting with as much detail as she could remember.
Her sighting is evidence.
Believe what you wish.
It won't help.
As to the other traces, not one iota of proof they were made on the 3 rd May 2007.
I'm quoting your recent newspaper article wher you are quoted that it your opinion Maddie was abducted
Unidentified forensic traces taken from the scene of a crime are evidence.
I'm quoting your recent newspaper article wher you are quoted that it your opinion Maddie was abductedYou twisted what I said about Smithman and threw in a cheap gibe.
Yes, evidence of a man taking his child home.
How many times have we been told by Mccann supporters on here, you sometimes see what you wish to see ?
Was that rather like his work in the Jill Dando case then ?
Can you remind me as to Horrocks experiences in missing children cases ?
It doesn't mean they were made on that day.
8**8:/:
A child was missing.
A man was seen carrying a child coming from the direction of her apartment.
Surely the police were remiss in not being able to trace that person for elimination purposes. They were informed timeously enough.
You twisted what I said about Smithman and threw in a cheap gibe.Rather than childish insults explain exactly what is wrong with my post
A child was missing.
A man was seen carrying a child coming from the direction of her apartment.
Surely the police were remiss in not being able to trace that person for elimination purposes. They were informed timeously enough.
Rather than childish insults explain exactly what is wrong with my postWhy do you keep bringing Smithman to the Horrocks thread when there is a perfectly good, active Smithman thread?
Smithman had no desire to avoid anyone
His mo was to act like a tourist
That rather blows your theory out of the water
Sorry if the truth hurts
A British tourist who was taking a decidedly odd route with his child from the creche to his accommodation has almost certainly been traced.
The question is ... was that the man seen by Jane Tanner outside Block A? Until there is a definitive answer to that one Jane Tanner's sighting is evidence now as it was when she reported it on the night of the little girl's disappearance ten years ago.
The lighting in the room would not have been described by the witness in the manner it was unless the shutter had been raised.
I have read the description given by the witness.But it can't be linked to the McCann's apartment. Jane Tanner only saw the person crossing the top of the road.
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child whether she saw him in the twilight and under street lighting she saw what she saw and made sworn statements about her sighting with as much detail as she could remember.
Her sighting is evidence.
Yes, evidence of a man taking his child home.What Jane saw was a person (either a man or a woman) carrying a child from the left to the right across the top of the road. Nothing about on his way home.
How many times have we been told by Mccann supporters on here, you sometimes see what you wish to see ?
What Jane was a person (either a man or a woman) carrying a child from the left to the right across the top of the road. Nothing about on his way home.
Of a man carrying a small child - nothing more.Well a bit more than that a limp child, in pyjamas with no shoes on. No blanket.
What Jane was a person (either a man or a woman) carrying a child from the left to the right across the top of the road. Nothing about on his way home.
Well a bit more than that a limp child, in pyjamas with no shoes on. No blanket.
There was a blanket covering the child. Pink in Tanner's drawing.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7629.0;attach=7333;image)
Were you there Rob ?Yes I carried a "dead" child too. You can't carry a limp child as you can a sleeping child. Jane could not tell from what she saw what the person had intentions of doing.
How do you they weren't on the way home.
Have you never seen a parent carrying a tired child ?
Remember Gerry McCann coming off a plane ?
There was a blanket covering the child. Pink in Tanner's drawing.I would not call that covered by a blanket in Tanner's sketch.
(http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=7629.0;attach=7333;image)
She thought it was a top from her sketch but it was that pink blanket covering the child.The sketch shows something pink plonked on top of the child. I would only use the word covering the child if the feet and legs were being covered.
All irrelevant anyway as OG are not interested in this man or child.
The sketch shows something pink plonked on top of the child. I would only use the word covering the child if the feet and legs were being covered.
Exactly but the McCanns still have crecheman being unidentified on their official website so their fans follow.What is Crecheman's name then?
The blanket wasn't completely covering the child. Dangling legs were seen by Tanner uncovered.So I would expect the person carrying the child home from creche to cover the child i.e. to use the blanket to the fullest extent.
What is Crecheman's name then?
So I would expect the person carrying the child home from creche to cover the child i.e. to use the blanket to the fullest extent.
Therefore IMO they are separate sighting of different people.
Yes I carried a "dead" child too. You can't carry a limp child as you can a sleeping child. Jane could not tell from what she saw what the person had intentions of doing.
It is what a responsible parent would do. You don't need to be told that, you should know it already.
Why should we be told that?
It is what a responsible parent would do. You don't need to be told that, you should know it already.
People do seem to like to get embroiled in semantics, if wrestling with the minutiae for example blankets and clothing is the way to go with this case, then I am afraid that I am not seeing the relevance.
There seems to be a great reluctance to view Mr Horrock's theory as sensible or one that is based on his vast experience in the police force. And unfortunately the main thrusts of this discrediting are not really to do with what he has said, but about the man himself. If you are having to attack the person and not the opinion then there is seriously something wrong with the counter debate to the points he makes.
So far Stephen has put forward his opinion that Mr Horrock can be essentially dismissed on his opinion because; he has written for the Sun newspaper and also his involvement with the Jill Dando case. From my perspective this is going after the man and not his opinion, to question his motives merely because he has written for and been paid subsequently by a tabloid newspaper does not in anyway diminish his prior respectable policing career nor his valid observation on Madeleine's case.
When I read his lengthy review I did find it well thought out, balanced and without having to jump to any conclusions, or at least not without having an explanation in doing so. He has looked over most of the current theories for Madeleine's disappearance including that her parents were involved in some way and has explained why this to him, drawing on his policing career is nonsensical.
I have somewhat confounded as to why members have an increasing hostility towards this gentleman and his educated opinion
One option is for a quick getaway using a vehicle ... why risk parking a vehicle so far from the MCann apartment and being unnecessarily exposed on foot with a stolen child?
I'm with him in thinking the man seen by Jane Tanner was heading for a car and the quick getaway that would have given him.
I don't think he wandered around to be seen by all and sundry in an area which even off season SIL has told us he would be likely to encounter passersby or be seen from a bar or restaurant.
If you read into Mr Horrock's research and background, you would be aware that a missing person or child for whatever reason, normally has the same reasons for going missing. Bring to bear his extensive knowledge of deconstructing crimes scenes with support of forensics and then using it to present a file to the CPS does tend to suggest to me, that his overall knowledge of crime detecting and prosecuting can be taken into consideration. And not to be looked at such a granular level that it can be, in your case instantly dismissed.
The assassination of Jill Dando was a case that put the entire constabulary and MET police under intense pressure and scrutiny. Critical thinking and mistakes were made and this was perfectly highlighted when Barry George successfully appealed the case. Mistakes were made as with any criminal investigation but what was dire that the forensics were cross contaminated.
I assume you bring this case up because of Mr Horrock's view of this given the experience, they were all misled by inaccurate forensics. This happens, not just in the UK but other countries as well.
Again though, given all this, bringing up his lack of direct handling of missing children cases, or his view on the flawed investigation into Jill Dando is still not an argument
I have to agree with this, it makes the most sense. It's not convoluted nor does it draw on any conspiratorial elements. The suspect would certainly want to exit the area of the crime quickly with least resistance so the parking of a vehicle somewhere close and partly secluded makes perfect sense.
As Mr Horrocks says, by the time the alarm was raised Madeleine could have been miles away from the apartment with no real chance of catching the abductor
Or to use a well known expression, he is f##rting in the wind, and hasn't got a clue.You prefer to support a detective who does not understand the dog alerts or the forensic evidence
Horrocks cracked cases because he had access to all relevant evidence. As far as we are aware, in this case, he has no more information than that which is already in the public domain i.e. no more than us and therefore is at the same disadvantage as us when formulating a theory.
Granted, no one has anything proving or making a theory stronger than any other theory currently considered. What makes Mr Horrocks different is that he can call upon his vast experience of solving crimes, this is something that we as commentators do not have. I cannot equate lack of evidence in a case to diminish the theory put forward by a highly seasoned and experienced police officer
Granted, no one has anything proving or making a theory stronger than any other theory currently considered. What makes Mr Horrocks different is that he can call upon his vast experience of solving crimes, this is something that we as commentators do not have. I cannot equate lack of evidence in a case to diminish the theory put forward by a highly seasoned and experienced police officer
I think there is plenty of evidence to rule out that the McCanns (or any of their friends) had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
Or to use a well known expression, he is f##rting in the wind, and hasn't got a clue.
This is attacking Mr Horrocks and not what he is saying which isn't an argument. Any professional officer, including Operation Grange detectives have always said that needed to investigate right from the start due to the lack of anything close to evidence and build the inquiry lines from there. As it stands, unless Operation Grange do have solid leads, anyone in their professional capacity then and now can only comment or put forward a theory on the data that is already in the public domain. That also includes Snr Amaral.
However I wouldn't ever say that Snr Amaral hasn't known what he has been saying during the investigation because he was a professional detective assigned a highly pressured case. The door swings both ways here Stephen and attacking that person instead of their theory usually suggests that their theory cannot be reasonably countered
Firstly no I don't think it's necessary for a policeman to have direct contact with an individual to assess their character. Whether that assessment would be accurate is doubtful.Er...no, the 'character flaw' is in chucking your child's body in a bin and then pretending she'd been abducted. Jesus, did I really need to point that out?!
As to character flaws, is wanting to protect one's family from criminal charges potentially leading to financial ruin and the splitting up of that family really a character flaw?
It's speculative at best, as is mine.Both theories are speculative, one is plausible and logical (Horrocks) the other isn't (yours).
Here's an easy and open question for all McCann's supporters to answer.You already asked that question and I answered it yesterday I believe.
If there was no 'abduction', where does it leave the McCann's ?
We have repeatedly seen on here, McCann supporters attack Amaral, often mercilessly, especially when they thought the McCann's would win their legal action. Yet these same supporters expect Horrocks theories to be accepted without question.
So perhaps you can tell me why I or anyone else should accept his theory, when he hasn't done the ground work by interviewing the McCann's or their associates. ?
Remembering that Colin Sutton stated that any investigation should have started with them, which of course OG didn't do either.
Stephen, I'n not asking you or anyone else to accept his theory, because it is only a theory. If anything I am asking that his theory not be dismissed out right especially because of his experience in the field of police work.
Horrocks cracked cases because he had access to all relevant evidence. As far as we are aware, in this case, he has no more information than that which is already in the public domain i.e. no more than us and therefore is at the same disadvantage as us when formulating a theory.The advantage with his theory is that it hangs together well on the known facts, it is plausible and logical. Now, instead of telling us all about Horrocks shortcomings, why don't you tell us why his theory is not worth the paper it's written on?
We have repeatedly seen on here, McCann supporters attack Amaral, often mercilessly, especially when they thought the McCann's would win their legal action. Yet these same supporters expect Horrocks theories to be accepted without question.Noone is asking you or expecting you to accept his theory, merely to discuss it, and say why it's not plausible or logical in your view.
So perhaps you can tell me why I or anyone else should accept his theory, when he hasn't done the ground work by interviewing the McCann's or their associates. ?
Remembering that Colin Sutton stated that any investigation should have started with them, which of course OG didn't do either.
The advantage with his theory is that it hangs together well on the known facts, it is plausible and logical. Now, instead of telling us all about Horrocks shortcomings, why don't you tell us why his theory is not worth the paper it's written on?
What known facts Alfie ?Don't be silly Stephen. Are you trying to claim there are no known facts in this case?
Cite please.
Don't be silly Stephen. Are you trying to claim there are no known facts in this case?
So, that same logic should be applied to Amaral.
Which I do. I never rule out listening to or reading about contrary opinions and theories regarding anything, and for this particular case it is not constructive to dismiss Snr Amaral out of hand. He was the initial investigating officer and led the subsequent inquiry until he was removed. He was the first investigator to have what little evidence there was collated for presentation. His opinion still counts in my opinion however much I tend to disagree with it or the theory he lays out in the Truth of the Lie.
The same goes for Mr Horrocks and any other interested party for example, Mr Hall who choose to speculate on the case. It is only by listening to them fully and understanding what is laid out that I think you can only then make an informed choice regarding their work and not person themselves.
I have to agree with this, it makes the most sense. It's not convoluted nor does it draw on any conspiratorial elements. The suspect would certainly want to exit the area of the crime quickly with least resistance so the parking of a vehicle somewhere close and partly secluded makes perfect sense.
As Mr Horrocks says, by the time the alarm was raised Madeleine could have been miles away from the apartment with no real chance of catching the abductor
I note you have not referred to Horrocks work in the Jill Dando case.
Why is it relevant to this thread and his commentating on this particular case? Again I suspect you are using his comments about Barry George being convicted to dismiss his comments on Madeleine because he was essentially proved wrong by an appeal court? This does not discredit him or indeed render his professional career obsolete that he cannot make comment on another case. Wouldn't you agree?
Of course a getaway vehicle close by makes sense to any Tom, Dick & Harry but there is no evidence of one. Moyes were up on their balcony at 9:15 but they missed the action by then and therefore witnessed nothing unusual below. Fenn above heard nowt until 10:30. Gotta think outside the box.
I have read the background to that case, and essentially George was an easy target, and to use an old fashioned term, fitted up.
Also, REPEATEDLY, on this forum, Amaral has been attacked for his involvement in the Cipriano case.
So, I find your approach somewhat one-sided.
Wouldn't you agree ?
I think you have just covered this off in your post. What would be unusual as you say of a car leaving or pulling in. An occupant heard getting out or returning? For something to be unusual and make some become suspicious it needs to be out of the ordinary.One of the July 2014 arguidos liked 'fast' cars but I don't think his car can be described as 'hyper'.
As you say they witnessed nothing unusual below. I would suggest to you that a car parking or leaving is not an unusual event. Or at least not unusual enough for the people you have named to consider it anything but normal.
Perhaps if some hyper car came screaming in, firing a V8 engine and making a bit of a fuss, that would be unusual. I'm assuming this, I don't know whether hyper cars are a common thing in this particular area.
The known facts Stephen, her age, her appearance, her family, their background, their friends, their holiday, their accomodation, their movements on holiday, the resort, previous break-ins at the resort, the OC staff, witness statements, etc etc etc etc etc - the known facts. That is what I am referring to. Horrocks builds a plausible and logical theory on the known facts.
I'm not being 'silly'.
Madeleine disappeared.
Now perhaps you can add to that, in terms of what we actually know in regard to facts as to her disappearance, other than she disappeared without trace ?
The known facts Stephen, her age, her appearance, her family, their background, their friends, their holiday, their accomodation, their movements on holiday, the resort, previous break-ins at the resort, the OC staff, witness statements, etc etc etc etc etc - the known facts. That is what I am referring to. Horrocks builds a plausible and logical theory on the known facts.
Have you ever read a plausible and logical theory of parental involvement Stephen? One that you read and thought - yup, that sounds very likely indeed?
People do seem to like to get embroiled in semantics, if wrestling with the minutiae for example blankets and clothing is the way to go with this case, then I am afraid that I am not seeing the relevance.There is a load of difference in throwing a blanket on top of a dead child compared to wrapping a sleeping child up in a blanket to keep it asleep. It is not semantics but extracting the most out of the clues we have been given.
.... snippy snip snip.
Of course a getaway vehicle close by makes sense to any Tom, Dick & Harry but there is no evidence of one. Moyes were up on their balcony at 9:15 but they missed the action by then and therefore witnessed nothing unusual below. Fenn above heard nowt until 10:30. Gotta think outside the box.Both at the wrong time to see the action.
Nothing on your first paragraph explains her disappearance.Neither I nor Horrocks have claimed that the known facts explain her disappearance, merely that the theory Horrocks has come up with fits with these facts pretty well. I haven't got any parameters for parental involvement - it could be anything you like, as long as it's plausible and logical, so have you come across any theory of parental involvement that struck you as either of these things?
The break-ins of course have not shown to be linked to this case. That is supposition.
Witness statements as to Madeleine's disappearance. Where are those exactly ?
Horrocks has his theory, Amaral had his. Neither has been proved or disproved.
Can you define your parameters for parental involvement Alfie ?
The car leaving block 6 has featured many times on this forum at 21.58. Nothing unusual was noticed by anyone after 21.15 because Maddy wasn't in the apartment. Matt was right to be shocked by her disappearance after his check. Nothing strange inside.Can you direct me to more information about this car leaving. (PM me please if you like).
Can you direct me to more information about this car leaving. (PM me please if you like).Maria Manuela Martins da Silva.
Maria Manuela Martins da Silva.Thanks but that is too late to be involved
Thanks but that is too late to be involvedWho said she was involved?
Yes it's strange they attack Horrocks who presents a reasoned argument but support amaral who clearly did not understand the dog alerts or the DNA evidence
This seasoned officer got it totally wrong in the Dando case.
Who said she was involved?I wanted to read that statement again and consider if it could have been that car that knocked Madeleine over.
You asked about the car that moved at 9.58pm.
You got the car that moved at 9.58pm.
If you think 9.58pm is too late, why ask about the car that moved at 9.58pm?
Granted, no one has anything proving or making a theory stronger than any other theory currently considered. What makes Mr Horrocks different is that he can call upon his vast experience of solving crimes, this is something that we as commentators do not have. I cannot equate lack of evidence in a case to diminish the theory put forward by a highly seasoned and experienced police officer
Colin Sutton and petermac ( not sure of his real name) are also highly seasoned and experienced police officers yet none of the two are convinced by the abduction theory. I suppose you pays your money.....!
Colin Sutton has his very own thread on this forum http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8124.0 this thread is for discussion of the theory propounded by Ian Horrocks.
It would be exceedingly helpful for members to make the attempt to stay on topic, saves a lot of deletion at a later date.
I was on topic and I was not discussing Colin Sutton's theory merely replying to another member's claim that Horrock's experience gives his theory more purchase than the average individual. I was merely pointing out that although a season professional like Horrocks Sutton is not convinced the parents have been investigated sufficiently.
?{)(** I'm glad you have managed to insert Sutton's opinion into the Horrocks thread on two occasions without a passing nod to what Horrocks has said to substantiate his theory. Which is actually a very strong one.
This thread is about what Ian Horrocks has to say ... a quick glance back at the OP will indicate exactly the line that should follow.
Agree or disagree ... everyone is allowed the opportunity to express their point of view on this forum. Argument and deflection is exceedingly unhelpful. Which is why when given such a narrow easily kept to remit as on this thread it is unfair to take it off topic.
Was there any criminality involving "the seasoned officer" in this case? Try changing the record and debate what is said in the OP and see how you get on with that. It is after all the subject of the thread.
I wanted to read that statement again and consider if it could have been that car that knocked Madeleine over.
As a reminder, as it seems it is needed.
We are asked to accept the opinion of an ex-copper who wasn't on the scene and was paid by the Sun newspaper, with their obvious bias on the case, to give a pro-McCann version of events.
He hasn't interviewed the McCann's, and has nothing but speculation to back up the story.
He has no evidence to show an abduction occurred.
Amaral observed the McCann's being interviewed and no doubt read the transcripts as well.
Amaral and his team were on site.
They could not find evidence of abduction, but did get inconsistent accounts of events from the McCann's and their associates.
Madeleine was searched for extensively by many people, but nothing was found.
She disappeared without trace, and that remains the situation.
Colin Sutton and petermac ( not sure of his real name) are also highly seasoned and experienced police officers yet none of the two are convinced by the abduction theory. I suppose you pays your money.....!Let's hear Petermac's theory - please send a link. Colin Sutton doesn't seem to have any strong views on any particular theory, or at least they seem to change with the wind whoever is asking.
?{)(** I'm glad you have managed to insert Sutton's opinion into the Horrocks thread on two occasions without a passing nod to what Horrocks has said to substantiate his theory. Which is actually a very strong one.If this thread is about what Ian Horrocks has to say are we then allowed to agree or disagree, show similarities and disagreements with his views?
This thread is about what Ian Horrocks has to say ... a quick glance back at the OP will indicate exactly the line that should follow.
Agree or disagree ... everyone is allowed the opportunity to express their point of view on this forum. Argument and deflection is exceedingly unhelpful. Which is why when given such a narrow easily kept to remit as on this thread it is unfair to take it off topic.
What is Crecheman's name then?
So I would expect the person carrying the child home from creche to cover the child i.e. to use the blanket to the fullest extent.
Therefore IMO they are separate sighting of different people.
That car was just after the alarm so too late. Their first timeline had Russell returning to the table at 9:55 when it was infact 9:45. The timeline is key in this case.
(http://i191.photobucket.com/albums/z10/rangeeni/timelineX2578b.jpg)
9:15 Bedroom door open
9:20 Jane sees man carrying child
Case solved ? Not so fast @)(++(*
Jane left to check at 9:10
10 minute discrepancy.
It wasn't a blanket IMO. JT only saw the child's legs and so could not describe any other part of the body to the artist. However to have left an empty space in that part of the sketch would have made it look very odd. Therefore the artist filled that gap with an indiscriminate pink blob to give anatomical realism to the sketch.That is my point. If it was a father carrying his child back from the creche the long way round, he would have covered her legs with a blanket. The person claiming to be crecheman admits to having a blanket so I'm sure he would have used it, therefore Jane would have been unable to see the legs and the pyjamas.
AIMHO
You are using the times as if they are precise and accurate. They are not - they are best estimates based on what they remembered at that time. JT could not recall the exact time she left the table - except to say it was 5 or 10 mins after Gerry left.
It wasn't a blanket IMO. JT only saw the child's legs and so could not describe any other part of the body to the artist. However to have left an empty space in that part of the sketch would have made it look very odd. Therefore the artist filled that gap with an indiscriminate pink blob to give anatomical realism to the sketch.
AIMHO
Gerry could recall an exact time of 9:04 many months later so don't worry yourself that it's 9:15 on that timeline.
Apart from Gerry none of the others -including Jez could say with any accuracy what time they did different things or how long it took them to do it. All times given are approximate. Claiming to know the exact times of 9 other people's movements - on the strength of 1 time remembered by 1 person is completely unrealistic IMO.
If this thread is about what Ian Horrocks has to say are we then allowed to agree or disagree, show similarities and disagreements with his views?
When I went to the OP to see what the discussion was to be about Alfie doesn't define a point of topic but rather just invites us to read the article.
Well it appears Barry George was 'fitted up'.
The police ignored vital evidence by other witnesses.
This has been dealt with before.
I suggest you read up on the case.
You are happy to criticise Amaral, so you know the old expression, what's sauce for the goose...
In other words the answer to my question is that there was no criminality involving "the seasoned officer" in this case.
Please desist from posting as if there was and concentrate instead on the OP and Ian Horrocks' informed opinion on Madeleine McCann's case which is after all the subject under discussion on this thread.
Horrocks is the subject matter.
As to an 'informed opinion', that is a matter of opinion.
Can you tell me what evidence he had at his disposal in writing his views on the case ?
With the litigious behaviour of the McCanns and payment for his article involved I find it ridiculous that anyone would believe that any article Horrocks published could be other than supportive of the parents.
With the litigious behaviour of the McCanns and payment for his article involved I find it ridiculous that anyone would believe that any article Horrocks published could be other than supportive of the parents.
Anyone observing their routine would have known that they had at least 20 minutes between each check. HorrocksI think he was talking about any particular apartment, but i do see your point and it is valid if you think of the group doing combined checks.
Matt leaves just before 9
When he returns Gerry leaves to check
Jane leaves at 9:10
Matt/Russ leave at 9:25
Jane leaves at 9:38
Russ returns at 9:45
Where is this 20 minute opportunity between each check according to Horrocks with all the comings and goings?
I think he was talking about any particular apartment, but i do see your point and it is valid if you think of the group doing combined checks.
With the litigious behaviour of the McCanns and payment for his article involved I find it ridiculous that anyone would believe that any article Horrocks published could be other than supportive of the parents.What nonsense. Horrocks theory supports abduction, not the parents. Now tell us why his theory is illogical and implausible, and why don't you point us in the direction of a better one? I've looked up Peter Mac btw and he seems to believe Madeleine died on the 29th April - do you think that's more plausible then? While you're at it perhaps you can explain why Peter Mac hasn't been sued by the McCanns...?
Well it appears Barry George was 'fitted up'.
The police ignored vital evidence by other witnesses.
This has been dealt with before.
I suggest you read up on the case.
You are happy to criticise Amaral, so you know the old expression, what's sauce for the goose...
Anyone watching would be crazy to attempt it with all the comings and goings that night. 20 minute opportunity between checks is clearly not true. Jez was walking around that area aswell."Anyone observing their routine would have known that they had at least 20 minutes between each check. They would have observed the group for a few minutes and then gone to the apartment. At the end of the alleyway they could see that the road was clear, it is then only literally a second for someone to go through the gate and into the garden area, where they would be virtually out of sight. It is then simple to enter the apartment through the patio doors, which although closed, had been left unlocked".
Colin Sutton and petermac ( not sure of his real name) are also highly seasoned and experienced police officers yet none of the two are convinced by the abduction theory. I suppose you pays your money.....!
"Anyone observing their routine would have known that they had at least 20 minutes between each check. They would have observed the group for a few minutes and then gone to the apartment. At the end of the alleyway they could see that the road was clear, it is then only literally a second for someone to go through the gate and into the garden area, where they would be virtually out of sight. It is then simple to enter the apartment through the patio doors, which although closed, had been left unlocked".
You don't need twenty minutes. You don't even need 10 minutes.
Horrocks is the subject matter.Horrocks is NOT the subject matter. The OP would be just as interesting and valid if it had been written By A Nonymouse. Let's discuss it.
As to an 'informed opinion', that is a matter of opinion.
Can you tell me what evidence he had at his disposal in writing his views on the case ?
You would be crazy to try it. Maybe he did it when Gerry and Jez were at the gate talking Hey? They didn't see Jane so maybe they missed the abductor too 8(0(*You' be crazy to steal a child from her bed, abuse and murder her but people do. Sick depraved people who take insane risks.
You would be crazy to try it. Maybe he did it when Gerry and Jez were at the gate talking Hey? They didn't see Jane so maybe they missed the abductor too 8(0(*Pathfinder thinks that a child sex abuser would be "crazy" to take the risk of entering an apartment and removing a child when he knew that people were coming and going by the apartment. However, interestingly Pathfinder doesn't seem to think it's crazy that the child's father would walk for several hundred metres with the dead weight corpse of his dead child, uncovered and himself undisguised through the streets of a holiday resort.
Pathfinder thinks that a child sex abuser would be "crazy" to take the risk of entering an apartment and removing a child when he knew that people were coming and going by the apartment. However, interestingly Pathfinder doesn't seem to think it's crazy that the child's father would would for several hundred metres with the dead weight corpse of his dead child, uncovered and himself undisguised through the streets of a holiday resort.
Let's reflect on this odd disconnect shall we? &%+((£
P.S. I'm just watching some sniffer dogs being deployed, and would you believe it, they play as they search.
You are entirely wrong that no evidence of abduction was found ... Jane Tanner was an eyewitness to the barefoot child in pyjamas being carried in the street immediately outside the apartment and away from the direction of the apartment.
That's because it is play to a dog otherwise they would get bored easily and get distracted.
Horrocks is NOT the subject matter. The OP would be just as interesting and valid if it had been written By A Nonymouse. Let's discuss it.
That's because it is play to a dog otherwise they would get bored easily and get distracted.
Distractions such as enticing toys they play with (especially in the midst of a deadly-serious criminal investigation) is surely awry or amiss somewhere, isn't it?
Interesting to you, because he supports your view.If his theory made perfect sense, was both logical and plausible then of course I would.
Now , you would not give him the time of day if he didn't support abduction.
8(0(*
No. Dogs are often trained using their favourite toy which is given to them when they obey commands.
But a deadly serious criminal investigation is not a training exercise.
Pathfinder thinks that a child sex abuser would be "crazy" to take the risk of entering an apartment and removing a child when he knew that people were coming and going by the apartment. However, interestingly Pathfinder doesn't seem to think it's crazy that the child's father would walk for several hundred metres with the dead weight corpse of his dead child, uncovered and himself undisguised through the streets of a holiday resort.
Let's reflect on this odd disconnect shall we? &%+((£
But a deadly serious criminal investigation is not a training exercise.
But Redwood claimed he was an innocent tourist and Redwood was the operational detective in charge whereas Horrocks had no such access. Redwood did admit he was totally sure however but the chances of two men carrying a child away from the direction of block 5 between 9.15pm and 10.00pm must be slim.
As far as a dog is concerned, there is no difference.
That is not my theory i.e. carrying her all that way in one go from 5A to the Smith sighting. There was a smarter way if you examine the timeline.Oh that's alright then! You think the father carried the dead body of his child through the streets of a holiday resort to its resting place in two trips instead of one! Well obviously that's not crazy at all is it? @)(++(*
Was he part of a paedo gang talk McKenzie witnessed?
5 letter answer to that question beginning with A and somebody not remembering a towel tops it 8(>((The idea that the father of a missing child (who would subsequently go on to be on the world's TV screens by the next night) would march down the streets of a holiday resort carrying the corpse of said missing child AFTER HIS WIFE RAISED THE ALARM and making no attempt to disguise himself or the child in the process is one five letter word beginning with C and rhyming with daisy. There's no other word to describe it. Sozaloz @)(++(*
Thanks for your words of wisdom about a person committing a crime isn't acting crazy. Madeleine was in a disguise if it was her in long sleeves. Remember the Smith sighting can't be our Maddy - she was in short sleeves and the mother was worried about how COLD she was.
Anyone watching would be crazy to attempt it with all the comings and goings that night. 20 minute opportunity between checks is clearly not true. Jez was walking around that area aswell.Have you ever considered that Jez is part of the problem rather than the solution?
But Redwood claimed he was an innocent tourist and Redwood was the operational detective in charge whereas Horrocks had no such access. Redwood did admit he was totally sure however but the chances of two men carrying a child away from the direction of block 5 between 9.15pm and 10.00pm must be slim.Would the odds change if one was a woman and one a man? We have the admission of crecheman, so if he admits to going past that intersection that part becomes 100% certain, therefore we are only looking at the odds of the Tanner sighting really.
Thanks for your words of wisdom about a person committing a crime isn't acting crazy. Madeleine was in a disguise if it was her in long sleeves. Remember the Smith sighting can't be our Maddy - she was in short sleeves and the mother was worried about how COLD she was.So, now you're suggesting Gerry was crazy and decided to take the short sleeved top off the corpse and replace it with a long sleeved top as a cunning disguise are you? &%+((£
Knowing that Mrs McCann has already raised the alarm and the small resort was about to be descended on, don't you think if Mr McCann had to carry the lifeless body of his first born through the streets he would have at least attempted to stay in the shadows, out of sight and do something however small to conceal his identity?
If he didn't and he was seen then as soon as the story broke, people who saw him would have told the police that they had seen him carrying a child, and this is the father of a child that has just been reported missing and their other two children are safely asleep in their cots.
The theory just doesn't add up. It's why the concealment of her body by one of the parents just has no grounding because it involves too many conspiratorial elements.
Do you know how many were outside in the tapas area when Kate raised the alarm? The rest didn't know about it until a mother went to the night creche and informed them of hearing men shouting and searching for a girl called Maddy. It wasn't descended upon, quite the opposite.It was descended upon within hours of Madeleine going missing. The father of a missing girl would suddenly become very high profile, just what you wouldn't want to happen if you knew you'd been parading a corpse around town the previous evening!
Matt didn't even go to call the police until after searches around the apartments, pool, tennis courts and then down to Baptista supermarket. They were nowhere near the Smith sighting.
Do you know how many were outside in the tapas area when Kate raised the alarm? The rest didn't know about it until a mother went to the night creche and informed them of hearing men shouting and searching for a girl called Maddy. It wasn't descended upon, quite the opposite.
Matt didn't even go to call the police until after searches around the apartments, pool, tennis courts and then down to Baptista supermarket. They were nowhere near the Smith sighting.
If you take away Tannerman very little is left by way of evidence. Just because a parent claims a shutter and a window were open doesn't mean it was. Nothing was taken or even disturbed in the McCann's apartment, there was no evidence of a breakin or disturbance of any sort.Is that fair then to take away evidence? What case would stand that sort of treatment?
Do you know how many were outside in the tapas area when Kate raised the alarm? The rest didn't know about it until a mother went to the night creche and informed them of hearing men shouting and searching for a girl called Maddy. It wasn't descended upon, quite the opposite.
Matt didn't even go to call the police until after searches around the apartments, pool, tennis courts and then down to Baptista supermarket. They were nowhere near the Smith sighting.
Do you know how many were outside in the tapas area when Kate raised the alarm? The rest didn't know about it until a mother went to the night creche and informed them of hearing men shouting and searching for a girl called Maddy. It wasn't descended upon, quite the opposite.it has different relevance to different investigators depending on their over all theory. I appreciate that you have provided us with you theory.
Matt didn't even go to call the police until after searches around the apartments, pool, tennis courts and then down to Baptista supermarket. They were nowhere near the Smith sighting.
Your missing my point. Mr McCann walking through the resort with a child in his arms. He is seen by multiple people. They have no reason to think it's suspicious because they have no reason to.
However, once the story breaks which is did very fast, then the people who saw him would immediately think, hang on that's the gentleman we saw last night carrying the child, and wait..what..one of his children is missing?
With the details fresh in their mind, had it been Mr McCann and he didn't even bother to conceal his identity? He's a cooked goose.
It was descended upon within hours of Madeleine going missing. The father of a missing girl would suddenly become very high profile, just what you wouldn't want to happen if you knew you'd been parading a corpse around town the previous evening!
So seen down a dark backstreet is parading her around town? Where are all the other witnesses if he was parading her around town?At 10:00 maybe any small town thew streets would be deserted. I wonder how Gerry knew where to go if it was him? He could have got hopelessly lost once you go into the quieter side streets, which makes me think it wasn't Gerry but someone else with a greater amount of local knowledge, but not a resident.
At 10:00 maybe any small town thew streets would be deserted. I wonder how Gerry knew where to go if it was him? He could have got hopelessly lost once you go into the quieter side streets, which makes me think it wasn't Gerry but someone else with a greater amount of local knowledge, but not a resident.
350 metres away from the apartment is not miles so you would hardly be lost. The beach was not much further. Do you know all their movements that week?Lost? You can drown in 2 inches of water so I've been told. If the streets became a maze of blind alleys you could get lost in 350 metres. Besides if you are carrying a body you wouldn't want to backtrack to the Ocean Club to get your bearings again.
Lost? You can drown in 2 inches of water so I've been told. If the streets became a maze of blind alleys you could get lost in 350 metres. Besides if you are carrying a body you wouldn't want to backtrack to the Ocean Club to get you bearings again.
Tennis courts are on the road he was seen next to the wasteland. My theory is he headed to the church direction behind vehicles parked on right hand side not down very narrow well lit steps/lanes.We know they didn't have a key to the church then, so what is the point of going to the church? Who is this "he" you are talking about "Tennis courts are on the road he was seen next to the wasteland"
We know they didn't have a key to the church then, so what is the point of going to the church? Who is this "he" you are talking about "Tennis courts are on the road he was seen next to the wasteland"
So seen down a dark backstreet is parading her around town? Where are all the other witnesses if he was parading her around town?There were 9(?) witnesses that we know of, that's a bloody lot! He walked down a street during opening hours that holidaymakers and locals habitually walk up and down, not a remote back alley. I would say that was pretty bloody brazen, carrying an uncovered body through town before the restaurants and pubs had even shut.
Tennis courts are on that road next to the wasteland before the missed cctv camera on the corner and after it (opposite the wasteland entrance). Go past the church to get to the rocks and a building site was behind the church - you go over a little wall at the back to access it. Now who played tennis that week &%+((£Tennis is a two or four person game. There were many playing tennis that week.
There were 9(?) witnesses that we know of, that's a bloody lot! He walked down a street during opening hours that holidaymakers and locals habitually walk up and down, not a remote back alley. I would say that was pretty bloody brazen, carrying an uncovered body through town before the restaurants and pubs had even shut.
What pubs and restaurants are on that wasteland/tennis courts road? He crossed one large group heading back to their apartments not to pubs/restaurants. The evidence shows that Thursday 3 May 2007 was very quiet in that area at around 10pm. One group doesn't mean it was busy. Look at Kelly's takings that night.Did Gerry have prior knowledge that Kelly's takings were going to be low that evening?
(http://i3.mirror.co.uk/incoming/article3643235.ece/alternates/s615/maddie-search-Main.jpg)
Did Gerry have prior knowledge that Kelly's takings were going to be low that evening?
LOL but he said it was incredibly quiet at nights where he was.The street by the side of the apartment.
GERRY McCANN
I bumped into one guy I played tennis with in the street when I'd gone in to check, and that was the first time I think of any of the nights that I'd been going up and down that I saw anyone else really - five, six nights, and it was incredibly quiet.
The street by the side of the apartment.
Yes and why do you think the lovely wasteland area was busier? Are they playing tennis in the dark?What on earth are you on about? Please don't be facetious. We are talking about your belief that Gerry McCann was seeing carrying a corpse not on any wasteland, not on a dark tennis court but bold as brass on a street in the centre of a holiday resort before closing time, by nine eye witnesses.
What on earth are you on about? Please don't be facetious. We are talking about your belief that Gerry McCann was seeing carrying a corpse not on any wasteland, not on a dark tennis court but bold as brass on a street in the centre of a holiday resort before closing time, by nine eye witnesses.
The unidentified man went past the wasteland/tennis courts to that sighting. It's hardly rocket science - 5A leads there and explains why he wasn't seen until he met the Smiths. That cctv camera could have captured him.There is no CCTV that would have captured an image of Smithman.
There is no CCTV that would have captured an image of Smithman.
The Estrela da Luz CCTV all points inwards, as required by Portuguese law.
It would have captured the Smith family returning, though, as Brietta pointed out many moons ago. It would have verified the time of their return.Indeed.
Indeed.
But 23 days after Madeleine disappeared, the chance to verify the time of the Smith sighting was a bit passé.
We have to work with poorer fodder.
What nonsense. Horrocks theory supports abduction, not the parents. Now tell us why his theory is illogical and implausible, and why don't you point us in the direction of a better one? I've looked up Peter Mac btw and he seems to believe Madeleine died on the 29th April - do you think that's more plausible then? While you're at it perhaps you can explain why Peter Mac hasn't been sued by the McCanns...?
SY should have the right time by now. One out of nine probably knows the actual time if they were leaving earlier that night. Surely one would have checked the time. Aoife said she knew the time in her statement for that very reason and she said it was 10pm when they left Kelly's bar.
Regarding the 3rd of May, 2007, she went, with all her family, to eat at the Dolphin restaurant, which is close to Kelly's Bar. When they left the restaurant, around 21H30, they headed toward Kelly's Bar. They stayed there for about 30 minutes.
— Around 22H00, they left Kelly's Bar. The group headed, on foot, for their apartment.
— Questioned, she responds that she knows the time that they left because her father and her brother decided to leave early that night. There were two reasons for this: one was the fact that her sister-in-law was not feeling very well and the other was because her brother, sister-in-law, nephew and son of her sister-in-law finished their holiday the next day and had to catch the morning flight returning to Ireland. (Aoife Smith)
— They came on holiday for about 10 days, having returned to Ireland on 9 May 2007. (She is not absolutely certain of the day). (Aoife Smith)
Don't you think you place an awful lot of confidence in the recollection of a child who could not remember what day it was she travelled home after her holiday?
— They came on holiday for about 10 days, having returned to Ireland on 9 May 2007. (She is not absolutely certain of the day). (Aoife Smith)
Don't you think you place an awful lot of confidence in the recollection of a child who could not remember what day it was she travelled home after her holiday?
— They came on holiday for about 10 days, having returned to Ireland on 9 May 2007. (She is not absolutely certain of the day). (Aoife Smith)Check the time on the Dolphin receipt. She absolutely nailed it.
Don't you think you place an awful lot of confidence in the recollection of a child who could not remember what day it was she travelled home after her holiday?
Check the time on the Dolphin receipt. She absolutely nailed it.
Check what she saw - she absolutely nailed it. Check what she said about what she cannot remember and what she cannot be certain of. She absolutely nailed it.
Please don't diss Aoife. I have finger-tipped her statement and it all stands up to scrutiny. It is, IMO, the best of all the statements in the PJ Files.
I like it an awful lot. But then I may be biased. When I was trying how to find out the f**k to spell and pronounce Aoife, I chanced upon a tiny factoid.
Aoife can mean Shining. I like it a lot. 8((()*/
Aoife spent 5 more days in Luz, after the disappearance, while the place was crawling with people looking for Madeleine. Was she suffering from Brain Fog which prevented her recalling the encounter during that period and the days after returning home?It seems a rather dictatorial setup in that family, so I suggest that even if she wanted to make an earlier statement she had to get her father's permission first.
Aoife spent 5 more days in Luz, after the disappearance, while the place was crawling with people looking for Madeleine. Was she suffering from Brain Fog which prevented her recalling the encounter during that period and the days after returning home?Why should Aoife be "suffering from Brain Fog (sic)"?
Why should Aoife be "suffering from Brain Fog (sic)"?
Were Madeleine posters not put up around the resort? Were her parents not being extra-vigilant over the remaining children in the group? Seriously - why did she not remember the strange sight late into the evening of a barefoot child, carried by a man, until she was prompted many days later? Why did none of the group remember a thing until after the man who "definitely wasn't Murat" was suspected to be the same man seen walking in the direction of Murat house?Fine, let's start at the start.
Fine, let's start at the start.
What was strange about the Smithman sighting? 3 Smiths gave statements. There is no mention in those statements of abnormal or unusual behaviour.
Why should they remember anything about the encounter?
Horrock's theory is as logical and plausible as most other theories I have heard but is, like those, merely speculative and therefore should be given the same weight. As to pM not being sued by the McCanns, if he had presented his theory in a national tabloid I'm sure he and it would have been.So on the internet you are quite at liberty to write up any old theory and present it for us to read without threat of libel action. So let's see a theory of parental involvement which is equally plausible and logical as Horrocks'. I know you won't because you can't, and that's a plain and irrefutable fact.
So on the internet you are quite at liberty to write up any old theory and present it for us to read without threat of libel action. So let's see a theory of parental involvement which is equally plausible and logical as Horrocks'. I know you won't because you can't, and that's a plain and irrefutable fact.
Horrocks theory is valueless.If he had interviewed the main parties he would not be at liberty to propose a theory. A theory is a theory. But as I keep reading some have no theory at all.
He never interviewed the main parties in this case, and correct me if I'm wrong, has not had access to all the files.
........and of course, he was paid by the Sun, with his original theory.
Horrocks theory is valueless.
He never interviewed the main parties in this case, and correct me if I'm wrong, has not had access to all the files.
........and of course, he was paid by the Sun, with his original theory.
It is hardly remarkable that Mccann supporters support a man who is merely expressing his rather blatant biased opinion.Criticise the post not the posters. The sentence in your post: "that Mccann supporters support a man who is merely expressing his rather blatant biased opinion" is a criticism of a group of posters.
It is hardly remarkable that Mccann supporters support a man who is merely expressing his rather blatant biased opinion.
So on the internet you are quite at liberty to write up any old theory and present it for us to read without threat of libel action. So let's see a theory of parental involvement which is equally plausible and logical as Horrocks'. I know you won't because you can't, and that's a plain and irrefutable fact.
As his theory does not rely on things that are plain wrong
Like amaral
Then his theory has more value than amarals
Although he is correct about the frequency of the McCann's checks he ignores the fact that they weren't the only ones checking. According to Gerry Dave checked the McCann children on Wednesday evening. Any watchers would have seen this and realised that they couldn't just assume that there would be 20 minutes available to them.Not if they hadn't done surveillance on the apartment on previous days.
He also wants us to believe that the abductors, having theoretically identified a 20 minute 'window of opportunity' went in after that opportunity had passed. Why bother finding a gap and then ignore it?
Horrock's theory includes surveillance;Unless they thought that Matt's listening check was the check for that half hour.
It remains my belief that Madeleine was targeted, and her parents observed following their arrival at The Ocean Club.......so by Thursday they could have been watched for up to four nights during which time their routine was established.....This was not an impulsive act. It took patience as well as planning, and would have involved observing the McCann’s for some time.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8185.0
As he favours Tannerman as the abductor, why did he do all that planning and then ignore it? Where was he when Gerry left the Tapas, as expected, at 9.05 pm? In the alleyway, the garden, the apartment or somewhere else? If he was in the alleyway or somewhere else he couldn't enter via the patio doors after Gerry went in.
Although he is correct about the frequency of the McCann's checks he ignores the fact that they weren't the only ones checking. According to Gerry Dave checked the McCann children on Wednesday evening. Any watchers would have seen this and realised that they couldn't just assume that there would be 20 minutes available to them.His overall theory is sound, even though he appears to have got it wrong with Tannerman.
He also wants us to believe that the abductors, having theoretically identified a 20 minute 'window of opportunity' went in after that opportunity had passed. Why bother finding a gap and then ignore it?
His overall theory is sound, even though he appears to have got it wrong with Tannerman.
The 20min gap existed and it was entirely predictable. It was called 'main course'.
I don't know how Mr Horrock arrived at his vantage point, but he is correct about it.
I believe access to a front door key may have been involved. It seems that BBC Panorama picked up on this.
Criticise the post not the posters. The sentence in your post: "that Mccann supporters support a man who is merely expressing his rather blatant biased opinion" is a criticism of a group of posters.
His overall theory is sound, even though he appears to have got it wrong with Tannerman.
The 20min gap existed and it was entirely predictable. It was called 'main course'.
I don't know how Mr Horrock arrived at his vantage point, but he is correct about it.
I believe access to a front door key may have been involved. It seems that BBC Panorama picked up on this.
So he's right about a twenty minute gap and the vantage point, but wrong about when the crime occurred, wrong about the entry point and wrong about Tannerman? That makes his overall theory unsound, doesn't it?
Check the time on the Dolphin receipt. She absolutely nailed it.
Check what she saw - she absolutely nailed it. Check what she said about what she cannot remember and what she cannot be certain of. She absolutely nailed it.
Please don't diss Aoife. I have finger-tipped her statement and it all stands up to scrutiny. It is, IMO, the best of all the statements in the PJ Files.
I like it an awful lot. But then I may be biased. When I was trying how to find out the f**k to spell and pronounce Aoife, I chanced upon a tiny factoid.
Aoife can mean Shining. I like it a lot. 8((()*/
Nope it makes his overall theory sound
I think it falls at the first hurdle ... there is nothing on that receipt to indicate whose receipt it was. Therefore no definitive time.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P12/12_VOLUME_XIIa_Page_3258.jpg
Does anyone notice something peculiar about this EPS slip?
The name is McDonnell ???
That is the maiden name of Peter's wife, so that is OK.
Look at the alignment of the name & the space between the MC & DON.
When a card is swiped for electronic payments the cardholder's name is not registered on the receipt & AFAIK it is also not produced on the till roll.
That is the maiden name of Peter's wife, so that is OK.
Look at the alignment of the name & the space between the MC & DON.
When a card is swiped for electronic payments the cardholder's name is not registered on the receipt & AFAIK it is also not produced on the till roll.
Of course! I think that could be considered a security breach.
So he's right about a twenty minute gap and the vantage point, but wrong about when the crime occurred, wrong about the entry point and wrong about Tannerman? That makes his overall theory unsound, doesn't it?From memory, I would summarise his theory as having a core consisting of the following.
From memory, I would summarise his theory as having a core consisting of the following.What sil is saying is that ther is a clear window of opportunity for an abduction to take place if someone had been watching the family
That there is a vantage point to the south of block 4, from which one could monitor the Tapas group, whilst being both unseen and in 100% safety. That from that point, it would be possible to carry out an abduction, with very low risk, for the simple reason that one can monitor the Tapas group nearly 100% of the time.
It doesn't matter whether an alleged abductor used the front door with a key, or the rear through unlocked patio doors.
There is such a vantage point and it is a regular on my tours. From that start point it was possible for a lone person to carry out an abduction, with a high degree of safety and a high chance of success.
I happen to think that key control at the OC was weak, for several reasons. Mr Horrocks appears not to know this.
Mr Horrocks appears not to have scrutinised the time line in sufficient detail, nor has he analysed the pattern of activity of the T9 that week. I have. Accordingly, I am confident there was a predictable window of opportunity when starters began being served. There was a longer window of opportunity which began when the main courses were served.
Of course! I think that could be considered a security breach.
From memory, I would summarise his theory as having a core consisting of the following.
That there is a vantage point to the south of block 4, from which one could monitor the Tapas group, whilst being both unseen and in 100% safety. That from that point, it would be possible to carry out an abduction, with very low risk, for the simple reason that one can monitor the Tapas group nearly 100% of the time.
It doesn't matter whether an alleged abductor used the front door with a key, or the rear through unlocked patio doors.
There is such a vantage point and it is a regular on my tours. From that start point it was possible for a lone person to carry out an abduction, with a high degree of safety and a high chance of success.
I happen to think that key control at the OC was weak, for several reasons. Mr Horrocks appears not to know this.
Mr Horrocks appears not to have scrutinised the time line in sufficient detail, nor has he analysed the pattern of activity of the T9 that week. I have. Accordingly, I am confident there was a predictable window of opportunity when starters began being served. There was a longer window of opportunity which began when the main courses were served.
Reds under the bed !
Reds under the bed !
A reason to sack the chief investigator, no less.
The font face is the same.
What is the law in Portugal regarding information required on electronic print outs of till receipts?
Have you checked all the reference code numbers to ensure they either tally or are hooky ?
Did the SIO?
Do you have a control print out that indicates that there is or isn't a problem with print alignment?
So without analysing the timeline or the group's activity he just took a punt at it anyway. The more I learn about the Met the less they impress.I may be mixing Mr Horrocks up with guy allegedly told to steer clear of OG. So I may be doing him a disservice.
I have no idea, Alice. It was merely an observation of something which doesn't look quite right but I doubt the SIO checked anything out as the receipt is not at odds with the Smith booking, other than an Irishman allowing a woman to settle a large bill.And if the two Irishmen were already in Kelly's, is there any reason a woman was incapable of settling the bill?
And if the two Irishmen were already in Kelly's, is there any reason a woman was incapable of settling the bill?
A woman is perfectly capable of settling a bill. It's just that men of a certain generation don't tend (in my experience) to let women be seen paying for anything- especially an ill, pregnant woman.Is it unusual, in your experience, for men to nip to the local to watch football on TV, leaving the women to look after the children as the kids tucked into desserts? Hence a woman would pay the bill.
Is it unusual, in your experience, for men to nip to the local to watch football on TV, leaving the women to look after the children as the kids tucked into desserts? Hence a woman would pay the bill.
The McCanns can't sue everyone who presents a theory which opposes their own and what's the use of suing a man of straw ? The Mccanns have almost exclusively gone after organisations who would yield a decent payback.There was one case recently highlighted on this forum in the US (or was it Australia) when the abductor was seen in CCTV hanging around the victim's house on previous evening(s) to the abduction. Targeted. That's just from memory.
As to theories I have presented you with a plausible one ( logic is very much more a subjective thing) many times. The fact that you dismiss it does not lessen it's plausibility.
Here's a question for you Alfie. Give me one example, just one will do, of a child who has been targeted in the way ( not for ransom) that Horrocks suggests ? Horrocks doesn't give one and I'm sure if he had one he would have included it. Therefore his 'experience' is a somewhat moot point if that 'experience' has not included his suggested scenario.
Not unusual, no, but rather rude given it was the last night for one couple & the lady wasn't well.I know exactly when the games finished. It's public record.
Only 2 UEFA Cup matches that night + some Finnish League fixtures. Sevilla v Osasuna kicked off at 7.45pm your time so would have been finished by 9.30pm - hardly worth bothering about.
Is it unusual, in your experience, for men to nip to the local to watch football on TV, leaving the women to look after the children as the kids tucked into desserts? Hence a woman would pay the bill.
I know exactly when the games finished. It's public record.
If you wish to pooh-pooh my explanation, what's yours?
Simple question. With an early flight the next morning, a pregnant unwell lady, a bill signed by neither 'gentleman', WTF do you think they headed to Kelly's for?
Any 2 + 2 = 4 will do it for me. 8((()*/
FAO: Faithlilly:
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/1988653/chilling-footage-of-serial-child-abductor-who-entered-victims-homes-in-early-hours-as-parents-slept/
Targeted abduction.
Irrespective of who lifted the tab for the meal ... there is no indication of who paid for the drinks in Kelly's.From memory, the most likely bill was around €13.75.
I know exactly when the games finished. It's public record.
If you wish to pooh-pooh my explanation, what's yours?
Simple question. With an early flight the next morning, a pregnant unwell lady, a bill signed by neither 'gentleman', WTF do you think they headed to Kelly's for?
Any 2 + 2 = 4 will do it for me. 8((()*/
Kelly's sells cigarettes ... did the restaurant?
I'd like an explanation as to why none of the Smith group reported in their statements that the group split up temporarily before everyone reconvened in Kelly's. Otherwise, I lean towards the group being together for the duration, in accordance with the statement you value so highly for accuracy.Kindly give me a pointer for anyone saying the group travelled from the Dolphin to Kelly's as a 9-some?
His overall theory is sound, even though he appears to have got it wrong with Tannerman.
The 20min gap existed and it was entirely predictable. It was called 'main course'.
I don't know how Mr Horrock arrived at his vantage point, but he is correct about it.
I believe access to a front door key may have been involved. It seems that BBC Panorama picked up on this.
Kindly give me a pointer for anyone saying the group travelled from the Dolphin to Kelly's as a 9-some?
My memory is not improving with age, so perhaps I have missed it.
Muito obrigad (many thanks). 8((()*/
I wonder who went to the trouble of digging out Mrs Smith's maiden name?
There was one case recently highlighted on this forum in the US (or was it Australia) when the abductor was seen in CCTV hanging around the victim's house on previous evening(s) to the abduction. Targeted. That's just from memory.
As for your theory being plausible - no. Just no. Would you genuinely feel proud to present your theory to Horrocks or Sutton or anyone at the Met? Do you think they'd reply "yes Faithlilly that really is very plausible"? Because if you do I would say you are deluding yourself rather seriously.
An Australian or US case has not added to Horrocks's experience though has it? Now a similar case that Horrocks has actually worked on? Oh and a cite for the case you mention?Oh FFS!! Laughable goalpost shifting. You asked for a case of a child being targeted in the way Horrocks suggests and now it has to be a case Horrocks actually worked on?! To coin a favourite phrase of yours: "behave"!
Oh FFS!! Laughable goalpost shifting. You asked for a case of a child being targeted in the way Horrocks suggests and now it has to be a case Horrocks actually worked on?! To coin a favourite phrase of yours: "behave"!
So no case that has added to this 'experience' we have been told about and, as expected, no cite for the Aus/US case ?I posted the cite already on a post which starts FAO Faithlilly. You asked for an example, I gave you an example. Now you are demanding another example because you've shifted the goalposts. Please stop playing games. I have no idea what cases Horrocks has worked on during his many years with the Met, nor do I see what point you are trying to make. Have children been specifically targeted in abduction cases? Yes. Is Horrocks theory plausible and logical? Yes.
I posted the cite already on a post which starts FAO Faithlilly. You asked for an example, I gave you an example. Now you are demanding another example because you've shifted the goalposts. Please stop playing games. I have no idea what cases Horrocks has worked on during his many years with the Met, nor do I see what point you are trying to make. Have children been specifically targeted in abduction cases? Yes. Is Horrocks theory plausible and logical? Yes.
Yet, it is totally hypothetical and has no evidence to support it.How many times do I have to say that I accept this is the case?
How many times do I have to say that I accept this is the case?
I posted the cite already on a post which starts FAO Faithlilly. You asked for an example, I gave you an example. Now you are demanding another example because you've shifted the goalposts. Please stop playing games. I have no idea what cases Horrocks has worked on during his many years with the Met, nor do I see what point you are trying to make. Have children been specifically targeted in abduction cases? Yes. Is Horrocks theory plausible and logical? Yes.
We are told that Horrocks's theory carries more weight because he is an experienced professional yet neither he nor you can provide an example of a similar case he has worked on. That is the bottom line.I haven't claimed it. If you check back you will see that I have said that his theory could have been written by A. Nonymouse and it would still be completely plausible and logical. And THAT is the bottom line.
How many times do you need to type your support for Horrocks ?Dear oh dear. I couldn't give a tuppeny toss about Horrocks, I'm certainly not interested in supporting him, whatever that means. It's his theory which interests me and which is I posted his blog post, why is that so difficult to grasp?
I think we know that already.
Dear oh dear. I couldn't give a tuppeny toss about Horrocks, I'm certainly not interested in supporting him, whatever that means. It's his theory which interests me and which is I posted his blog post, why is that so difficult to grasp?
Dear oh dear. I couldn't give a tuppeny toss about Horrocks, I'm certainly not interested in supporting him, whatever that means. It's his theory which interests me and which is I posted his blog post, why is that so difficult to grasp?
Unfortunately his theory has been unable to withstand scrutiny as there are assumptions, mistakes and unanswered questions imo.In your opinion. In my opinion it makes perfect plausible and logical sense. If you've read a better one feel free to PM me a link. You won't because you can't.
In your opinion. In my opinion it makes perfect plausible and logical sense. If you've read a better one feel free to PM me a link. You won't because you can't.CC me too please.
In your opinion. In my opinion it makes perfect plausible and logical sense.
Well, we are quite different. I examine the facts, and if people make inaccurate claims that puts me off. His 20 minute window of opportunity just isn't there, for example. Journalists make such careless mistakes, policemen shouldn't.How many minutes between Gerry's check at 9ish and the next check?
How many minutes between Gerry's check at 9ish and the next check?It would depend if you include the time he talked to Jez as part of that check.
It would depend if you include the time he talked to Jez as part of that check.No I don't include that time. If an abductor removed Madeleine shortly after Gerry had left the apartment he wouldn't have known that Gerry was still in the vicinity and would have assumed he'd gone straight back to the table.
Mo I don't include that time. If an abductor removed Madeleine shortly after Gerry had left the apartment he wouldn't have known that Gerry was still in the vicinity and would have assumed he'd gone straight back to the table.So in your theory you don't have abductor team lookouts. If they are operating just via the kids bedroom window they would be oblivious of what Gerry was doing. I think Gerry should have come away from the apartment on edge, he should have been wondering how did that kid's bedroom door move. He should have backtracked and popped back in unannounced.
Mo I don't include that time. If an abductor removed Madeleine shortly after Gerry had left the apartment he wouldn't have known that Gerry was still in the vicinity and would have assumed he'd gone straight back to the table.
We are told Gerry has rather a loud Glaswegian voice. I such a quiet street the alleged abductor couldn't have helped but hear Gerry talking in the street.Was there a baby asleep in a pushchair? Maybe he was whispering... 8(0(*
Was there a baby asleep in a pushchair? Maybe he was whispering... 8(0(*
No I don't include that time. If an abductor removed Madeleine shortly after Gerry had left the apartment he wouldn't have known that Gerry was still in the vicinity and would have assumed he'd gone straight back to the table.
But Horrocks says they are well organised. They wouldn't just count the McCann's checks and ignore the rest of the group trotting up and down. That would be stupid. So would assuming that Gerry had gone back to the table.
But Horrocks says they are well organised. They wouldn't just count the McCann's checks and ignore the rest of the group trotting up and down. That would be stupid. So would assuming that Gerry had gone back to the table.Trotting by being the operative observation, not entering the apartment. Why would it be stupid to assume Gerry had left the apartment to go back to the table? Did stopping and chatting with passers-by next to the apartment figure in his regular routine each evening?
Neither he nor Jez mentioned whispering so I very much doubt it.Jane Tanner mentions not being able to hear what either man was saying as she passed by them so....
Horrocks has some credibility and has been to Luz
He says an abduction is possible and fairly easy
That seems a reasonable conclusion
I don't see how going to Luz helps, to be honest. He would have been better advised to read the files and familiarise himself with the known facts. The timeline according to the T9 is a fact (three times they wrote it down). Reading that destroys his twenty minute window of opportunity.But did they need 20 minutes?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TIME_LINE_3_MAY_07.htm
Trotting by being the operative observation, not entering the apartment. Why would it be stupid to assume Gerry had left the apartment to go back to the table? Did stopping and chatting with passers-by next to the apartment figure in his regular routine each evening?
But did they need 20 minutes?
But did they need 20 minutes?
The point is the credibility of an ex copper who clearly hasn't done his research before spouting off, not how long was needed.Are we even sure which 20 minute period he is talking of?
No - they could have been in and out - and a fair way off in 4/5 mins, Especially if it was pre-planned and they had a car waiting nearby.That could be right and even if it wasn't that well planned it wouldn't take much longer.
IMO
Trotting by being the operative observation, not entering the apartment. Why would it be stupid to assume Gerry had left the apartment to go back to the table? Did stopping and chatting with passers-by next to the apartment figure in his regular routine each evening?
But did they need 20 minutes?
Much has been made of the lack of evidence supporting a burglary ... "nothing was taken".
Madeleine was taken though ... which suggests she was the target.
If entry was made from the pool side ... it would have taken seconds to establish she was not in the first bedroom if they didn't already know exactly where to find her.
If entry was made from the car park side ... it would have taken seconds to find her.
The whole episode could have been concluded in the space of appx two minutes given some preparation.
Ian Horrocks has spent a lifetime dealing with serious crime. It is risible to dismiss his informed opinion on this scenario out of hand because it does not fit the narrative propounded on various internet fora.
You said he/they would have made that assumption. Where were they when they made the assumption then?Where was the abductor when he hade the assumption that Gerry had returned to the table? After checking via the window that there was no one about, picking up Madeleine and at the front door of the apartment ready to leave - possibly.
We don't know she was taken.Not often we agree on anything. But if she walked out of the apartment which door did she exit?
Quite possible she walked out of the apartment.
We don't know she was taken.
Quite possible she walked out of the apartment.
Horrock's has considered the 'woke and wandered' theory along with everything else and has not entirely ruled it out; but his opinion is that the open window and raised shutter legislates against it.
The trouble is, no one else saw the raised shutter or open window before Kate Mccann.
..and we know whose fingerprints were identified.
But we don't know whose weren't.
Jane Tanner mentions not being able to hear what either man was saying as she passed by them so....
As I have said before Eleanor, it doesn't mean they were made that night.Of course it will be up to the detectives to link their alibis with the evidence found at the apartment.
The trouble is, no one else saw the raised shutter or open window before Kate Mccann.
..and we know whose fingerprints were identified.
The trouble is, no one else saw the raised shutter or open window before Kate Mccann.
..and we know whose fingerprints were identified.
As I have said before Eleanor, it doesn't mean they were made that night.
And it doesn't mean that Kate's were either.
Didn't she admit to checking the window ?
From the beginning it was viewed as "staged".
The investigators failed to take a step back ... put aside prejudice ... and think ... why would it be?
... and in my opinion you are becoming slightly absurd with constant reference to Kate McCann's fingerprints on the inside glass of the window ... one could be led to believe you have read nothing regarding this subject on the forum.
Benice and Carana have explained it well and Pegasus made definitive posts on the subject.
From the beginning it was viewed as "staged".
The investigators failed to take a step back ... put aside prejudice ... and think ... why would it be?
... and in my opinion you are becoming slightly absurd with constant reference to Kate McCann's fingerprints on the inside glass of the window ... one could be led to believe you have read nothing regarding this subject on the forum.
Benice and Carana have explained it well and Pegasus made definitive posts on the subject.
No she said she didn't remember. A completely different thing.Completely different? How so? Did she remember hearing Gerry's booming voice? No. You are speculating that Gerry was chatting loudly because it suits you to but there is no evidence that he was, and in the circumstances, with a sleeping baby in close proximity that had just been lulled to sleep and being a parent himself we could instead speculate that Gerry was not booming but being considerate and speaking softly, so softly in fact that the passerby could not recall hearing one word of what he was talking about.
Unfortunately, I am well experienced with that kind of window, and how it may be opened. 8((()*/
I have read the other posts, some time ago.
I also engaged with discussion with Pegasus on that issue.
However, the fact remains, Kate McCann's prints were identified.
Why wouldn't they be? She had been living in the appartment for five days.
No-one saw Madeleine leave the apartment by herself - so why don't you rule that possibility out on the same grounds?
So what if Kates' fingerprints were on the window. If she put her hand on the open window pane while she leaned out to look outside - then they would be there. IMO
Why do you think they were there Stephen? You never do explain - you just hint that it's some kind of proof of Kate's guilt. So what exactly is your theory for why Kate's fingerprints were there?
During which time the window, curtains and shutters were not touched;Allegedly - we have no proof that Kate McCann is telling the truth or remembering correctly.
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
During which time the window, curtains and shutters were not touched;
The window in Madeleine's room remained closed, but she doesn't know if it was locked, blinds and curtains drawn. The window remained like this since the first day, night and day. She never opened it. If somebody saw the window blinds in Madeleine's room open, it was not Kate who opened them, she never saw them open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
From Kate's book:-
On our arrival we had lowered the blind-style shutters on the outside of the windows, which were controlled from the inside, and closed the curtains. We left them that way all week.
End quote
It is possible that Kate had briefly touched a window at that time. It's also very possible that she wouldn't remember doing something so trivial.
AIMHO
It is also evidently possible , she did it on the night Madeleine disappeared, which would explain a lot.
AIMHO.
as i understnd there is evdidence of other prints on the window...not just kates
as i understnd there is evdidence of other prints on the window...not just katesI took it like that too, the only mention is to Kate's finger print was that they take her claim of not touching the window all week very literally. All the others hence were eliminated. Someone closed the window so how did they do that without leaving prints?
Cite?
I took it like that too, the only mention is to Kate's finger print was that they take her claim of not touching the window all week very literally. All the others hence were eliminated. Someone closed the window so how did they do that without leaving prints?
were there not some partial unidentified prints
Where did she claim that, Robbity?Doesn't that post explain it? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8185.msg405212#msg405212
Doesn't that post explain it? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8185.msg405212#msg405212Thank you
It is also evidently possible , she did it on the night Madeleine disappeared, which would explain a lot.
AIMHO.
were there not some partial unidentified prints
Yes there were. Allegedly.
It would be astounding if there weren't.The cleaners obviously didn't do a very thorough job of cleaning the windows on Wednesday.
This was a holiday apartment.
The cleaners obviously didn't do a very thorough job of cleaning the windows on Wednesday.
The cleaners obviously didn't do a very thorough job of cleaning the windows on Wednesday.
Would they clean the windows on every visit as part of their routine? I would have thought window cleaning only happened when they were getting the apartment ready for new guests, after the old guests had left.I gather it was a scheduled routine.
IMO
The cleaners obviously didn't do a very thorough job of cleaning the windows on Wednesday.
Any idea what mid-week cleaning duties would entail?
I'm surprised there was a cleaner in at all mid-week. Never been to anywhere like OC, but any self catering accommodation I've ever used was cleaned before and after occupancy, not during.
They do it everyday at Val do Lobo.
Have to admit that I'd never heard of the place, but looking at pictures of the place, it looks far superior to OC