What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[John]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

How many other crime scenes have been contaminated, yet forensic dogs have been deployed and indicated correctly ?

[Robittybob1]

Yet the indications remain.

How many other crime scenes have been contaminated, yet forensic dogs have been deployed and indicated correctly ?

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.

[pathfinder73]

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."

[ferryman]

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."

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.

[pathfinder73]

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?

[G-Unit]

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.

[jassi]

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.

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.

[pathfinder73]

Certainly, in the Madeleine investigation, why did they bother?

They had no evidence of anything except inconsistencies and strange behaviour (2 child carrying sightings). No sign of the child or break-in, no stranger prints on window, no footprints on bed to get through it etc.

[G-Unit]

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.

One would indeed. Was the blanket Madeleine's? Was the cat Madeleine's? We have no proof that they were.

[Alice Purjorick]

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?

On 3rd May 2007 at a time between 17:30 & 22:00 a little girl vanished, it would seem, into thin air. That's about it.
What other facts are there that impact on her disappearance rather than "facts" which are mere;y interesting uncorroborated adjuncts ?

[Alfie]

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 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. 

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Alfie]

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?

[slartibartfast]

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?

Probably.