What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[The Singularity]

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.

Granted, no one has anything proving or making a theory stronger than any other theory currently considered. What makes Mr Horrocks different is that he can call upon his vast experience of solving crimes, this is something that we as commentators do not have. I cannot equate lack of evidence in a case to diminish the theory put forward by a highly seasoned and experienced police officer

[stephen25000]

As a reminder, as it seems it is needed.

We are asked to accept the opinion of an ex-copper who wasn't on the scene and was paid by the Sun newspaper, with their obvious bias on the case, to give a pro-McCann version of events.

He hasn't interviewed the McCann's, and has nothing but speculation to back up the story.

He has no evidence to show an abduction occurred.

Amaral observed the McCann's being interviewed and no doubt read the transcripts as well.

Amaral and his team were on site.

They could not find evidence of abduction, but did get inconsistent accounts of events from the McCann's and their associates.

Madeleine was searched for extensively by many people, but  nothing was found.

She disappeared without trace, and that remains the situation.

[ferryman]

Granted, no one has anything proving or making a theory stronger than any other theory currently considered. What makes Mr Horrocks different is that he can call upon his vast experience of solving crimes, this is something that we as commentators do not have. I cannot equate lack of evidence in a case to diminish the theory put forward by a highly seasoned and experienced police officer

I think there is plenty of evidence to rule out that the McCanns (or any of their friends) had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

[stephen25000]

Granted, no one has anything proving or making a theory stronger than any other theory currently considered. What makes Mr Horrocks different is that he can call upon his vast experience of solving crimes, this is something that we as commentators do not have. I cannot equate lack of evidence in a case to diminish the theory put forward by a highly seasoned and experienced police officer

This seasoned officer got it totally wrong in the Dando case.

[stephen25000]

I think there is plenty of evidence to rule out that the McCanns (or any of their friends) had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

Such as what ?

[The Singularity]

Or to use a well known expression, he is f##rting in the wind, and  hasn't got a clue.

This is attacking Mr Horrocks and not what he is saying which isn't an argument. Any professional officer, including Operation Grange detectives have always said that needed to investigate right from the start due to the lack of anything close to evidence and build the inquiry lines from there. As it stands, unless Operation Grange do have solid leads, anyone in their professional capacity then and now can only comment or put forward a theory on the data that is already in the public domain. That also includes Snr Amaral.

However I wouldn't ever say that Snr Amaral hasn't known what he has been saying during the investigation because he was a professional detective assigned a highly pressured case. The door swings both ways here Stephen and attacking that person instead of their theory usually suggests that their theory cannot be reasonably countered

[stephen25000]

This is attacking Mr Horrocks and not what he is saying which isn't an argument. Any professional officer, including Operation Grange detectives have always said that needed to investigate right from the start due to the lack of anything close to evidence and build the inquiry lines from there. As it stands, unless Operation Grange do have solid leads, anyone in their professional capacity then and now can only comment or put forward a theory on the data that is already in the public domain. That also includes Snr Amaral.

However I wouldn't ever say that Snr Amaral hasn't known what he has been saying during the investigation because he was a professional detective assigned a highly pressured case. The door swings both ways here Stephen and attacking that person instead of their theory usually suggests that their theory cannot be reasonably countered

We have repeatedly seen on here, McCann supporters attack Amaral, often mercilessly, especially when they thought the McCann's would win their legal action. Yet these same supporters expect Horrocks theories to be accepted without question.

So perhaps you can tell me why I or anyone else should accept his theory, when he hasn't done the ground work by interviewing the McCann's or their associates. ?

Remembering that Colin Sutton stated that any investigation should have started with them, which of course OG didn't do either.

[Alfie]

Firstly no I don't think it's necessary for a policeman to have direct contact with an individual to assess their character. Whether that assessment would be accurate is doubtful.

As to character flaws, is wanting to protect one's family from criminal charges potentially leading to financial ruin and the splitting up of that family really a character flaw?

Er...no, the 'character flaw' is in chucking your child's body in a bin and then pretending she'd been abducted.  Jesus, did I really need to point that out?!

[Alfie]

It's speculative at best, as is mine.

Both theories are speculative, one is plausible and logical (Horrocks) the other isn't (yours).

[Alfie]

Here's an easy and open question for all McCann's supporters to answer.

If there was no 'abduction', where does it leave the McCann's ?

You already asked that question and I answered it yesterday I believe.

[The Singularity]

We have repeatedly seen on here, McCann supporters attack Amaral, often mercilessly, especially when they thought the McCann's would win their legal action. Yet these same supporters expect Horrocks theories to be accepted without question.

So perhaps you can tell me why I or anyone else should accept his theory, when he hasn't done the ground work by interviewing the McCann's or their associates. ?

Remembering that Colin Sutton stated that any investigation should have started with them, which of course OG didn't do either.

Stephen, I'n not asking you or anyone else to accept his theory, because it is only a theory. If anything I am asking that his theory not be dismissed out right especially because of his experience in the field of police work.

[stephen25000]

Stephen, I'n not asking you or anyone else to accept his theory, because it is only a theory. If anything I am asking that his theory not be dismissed out right especially because of his experience in the field of police work.

So, that same logic should be applied to Amaral.

[Alfie]

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.

The advantage with his theory is that it hangs together well on the known facts, it is plausible and logical.  Now, instead of telling us all about Horrocks shortcomings, why don't you tell us why his theory is not worth the paper it's written on?

[Alfie]

We have repeatedly seen on here, McCann supporters attack Amaral, often mercilessly, especially when they thought the McCann's would win their legal action. Yet these same supporters expect Horrocks theories to be accepted without question.

So perhaps you can tell me why I or anyone else should accept his theory, when he hasn't done the ground work by interviewing the McCann's or their associates. ?

Remembering that Colin Sutton stated that any investigation should have started with them, which of course OG didn't do either.

Noone is asking you or expecting you to accept his theory, merely to discuss it, and say why it's not plausible or logical in your view.

[stephen25000]

The advantage with his theory is that it hangs together well on the known facts, it is plausible and logical.  Now, instead of telling us all about Horrocks shortcomings, why don't you tell us why his theory is not worth the paper it's written on?

What known facts Alfie ?

Cite please.