What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[pathfinder73]

All irrelevant anyway as OG are not interested in this man or child.

Exactly but the McCanns still have crecheman being unidentified on their official website so their fans follow.

[pathfinder73]

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.

The blanket wasn't completely covering the child. Dangling legs were seen by Tanner uncovered.

[Robittybob1]

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.
Therefore IMO they are separate sighting of different people.

[jassi]

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.

Why should we be told that?

[stephen25000]

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.

What on earth are you on about ?

[Brietta]

As noted in the opening post ... Ian Horrocks doesn't really rate the man seen by the Smiths as Madeleine's abductor.

Quote
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.

This timing also does not fit in with the sighting by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm. However, we are told that the person who Jane Tanner saw has come forward and been eliminated. I do not know how the police can be sure after so many years, that the person they spoke to is one and the same who was seen by Jane Tanner. Did she meet him, were the clothes identical to those she described? I obviously do not know, but regardless I still think that this is still the most likely route taken by the kidnapper.
End quote

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.

[Robittybob1]

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.

[jassi]

It is what a responsible parent would do.  You don't need to be told that, you should know it already.

You were asking about the person's name.  Your post 328

[The Singularity]

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

[Mr Gray]

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

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

[The Singularity]

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.

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

[faithlilly]

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

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.

[stephen25000]

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.

[Mr Gray]

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