What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[barrier]

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

[stephen25000]

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

Indeed, the truth of the matter, is that the 'abduction' scenario has gone nowhere.

I wonder what would happen if, at some point , the same was said by those in OG.

[Alfie]

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?

[Alice Purjorick]

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?

It is just another theory with no evidence to back it up.

[Alfie]

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.

[stephen25000]

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 is his evidence Alfie for his BELIEFS ?

Let's also remember he was employed by the Sun, who bias in this story is virtually unparalleled.

[John]

What Ian Horrocks commented in 2013.

http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3247.msg92507#msg92507

[John]

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.

http://www.bgpglobalservices.com/happened-madeleine-mccann-2/

[Alfie]

Where is his evidence Alfie for his BELIEFS ?

Let's also remember he was employed by the Sun, who bias in this story is virtually unparalleled.

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?

[Robittybob1]

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?

[stephen25000]

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?

In your opinion, his theory hangs together.

Now, how about some real evidence to back it up.


'... so citing the lack of forensic evidence does not necessarily put the kybosh on a theory does it? '

Now how does that equate with accidental death or walking out of the apartment Alfie ?

[John]

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 ignored easily. The reason why the results obtained from these dogs is so interesting is that they followed the child's scent to a point directly 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.

He posed the question, "Should they have supervised their children more closely that night" but then states vit to be an irrelevance to the investigation. What he fails to point out is that if it is ever established that Madeleine got out and was run over on their (parent's) watch then the entire responsibility factor comes back into play.

[G-Unit]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

Excellent post G-Unit.

[G-Unit]

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.