What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[pathfinder73]

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.

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.

[pathfinder73]

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.

“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)

[Robittybob1]

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.

“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)

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.

[Brietta]

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, voices 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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Brietta]

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.

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[faithlilly]

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 ?

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Montclair]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

[Brietta]

And how credible would that 'evidence' appear to the jury when SY had all but ruled the sighting out ?

Have they really?

[Mr Gray]

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

[Robittybob1]

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

No.

[slartibartfast]

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

It seems to be a question of which policeman with a lot of experience you want to believe?