What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[stephen25000]

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.

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.

[Alfie]

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.

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.

Why?  Properly challenge away.  As long as you're not abusive or goading I don't see why you would get points

[The Singularity]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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

[G-Unit]

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?

[Mr Gray]

A lack of known problems doesn't mean there were none. So what else did he have?

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

[stephen25000]

Why?  Properly challenge away.  As long as you're not abusive or goading I don't see why you would get points

I am happy to debate the points you make where I and others can expect a reasonable opportunity to do so. Other than that, you already know where I post elsewhere and you are welcome to discuss the issues there.

[stephen25000]

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.

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Alfie]

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.

[Alfie]

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[stephen25000]

As we know, Horrocks was employed by the Sun.

The Sun had a book deal with the mccann's.

The Sun, let's not forget Ms. Brooks, has been 100% behind the McCann's.

Besides Horrocks wasn't there in 2007.

Did Horrocks interview the McCann's ?