What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[Alfie]

What known facts Alfie ?

Cite please.

Don't be silly Stephen.  Are you trying to claim there are no known facts in this case?

[stephen25000]

Don't be silly Stephen.  Are you trying to claim there are no known facts in this case?

I'm not being 'silly'.

Madeleine disappeared.

Now perhaps you can add to that, in terms of what we actually know in regard to facts as to her disappearance, other than she disappeared without trace ?

[The Singularity]

So, that same logic should be applied to Amaral.

Which I do. I never rule out listening to or reading about contrary opinions and theories regarding anything, and for this particular case it is not constructive to dismiss Snr Amaral out of hand. He was the initial investigating officer and led the subsequent inquiry until he was removed. He was the first investigator to have what little evidence there was collated for presentation. His opinion still counts in my opinion however much I tend to disagree with it or the theory he lays out in the Truth of the Lie.

The same goes for Mr Horrocks and any other interested party for example, Mr Hall who choose to speculate on the case. It is only by listening to them fully and understanding what is laid out that I think you can only then make an informed choice regarding their work and not person themselves.

[stephen25000]

Which I do. I never rule out listening to or reading about contrary opinions and theories regarding anything, and for this particular case it is not constructive to dismiss Snr Amaral out of hand. He was the initial investigating officer and led the subsequent inquiry until he was removed. He was the first investigator to have what little evidence there was collated for presentation. His opinion still counts in my opinion however much I tend to disagree with it or the theory he lays out in the Truth of the Lie.

The same goes for Mr Horrocks and any other interested party for example, Mr Hall who choose to speculate on the case. It is only by listening to them fully and understanding what is laid out that I think you can only then make an informed choice regarding their work and not person themselves.

I note you have not referred to Horrocks work in the Jill Dando case.

[pathfinder73]

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

Of course a getaway vehicle close by makes sense to any Tom, Dick & Harry but there is no evidence of one. Moyes were up on their balcony at 9:15 but they missed the action by then and therefore witnessed nothing unusual below. Fenn above heard nowt until 10:30. Gotta think outside the box.

[The Singularity]

I note you have not referred to Horrocks work in the Jill Dando case.

Why is it relevant to this thread and his commentating on this particular case? Again I suspect you are using his comments about Barry George being convicted to dismiss his comments on Madeleine because he was essentially proved wrong by an appeal court? This does not discredit him or indeed render his professional career obsolete that he cannot make comment on another case. Wouldn't you agree?

[stephen25000]

Why is it relevant to this thread and his commentating on this particular case? Again I suspect you are using his comments about Barry George being convicted to dismiss his comments on Madeleine because he was essentially proved wrong by an appeal court? This does not discredit him or indeed render his professional career obsolete that he cannot make comment on another case. Wouldn't you agree?

I have read the background to that case, and essentially George was an easy target, and to use an old fashioned term, fitted up.

Also, REPEATEDLY, on this forum, Amaral has been attacked for his involvement in the Cipriano case.

So, I find your approach somewhat one-sided.

Wouldn't you agree ?

[The Singularity]

Of course a getaway vehicle close by makes sense to any Tom, Dick & Harry but there is no evidence of one. Moyes were up on their balcony at 9:15 but they missed the action by then and therefore witnessed nothing unusual below. Fenn above heard nowt until 10:30. Gotta think outside the box.

I think you have just covered this off in your post. What would be unusual as you say of a car leaving or pulling in. An occupant heard getting out or returning? For something to be unusual and make some become suspicious it needs to be out of the ordinary.

As you say they witnessed nothing unusual below. I would suggest to you that a car parking or leaving is not an unusual event. Or at least not unusual enough for the people you have named to consider it anything but normal.

Perhaps if some hyper car came screaming in, firing a V8 engine and making a bit of a fuss, that would be unusual. I'm assuming this, I don't know whether hyper cars are a common thing in this particular area.

[The Singularity]

I have read the background to that case, and essentially George was an easy target, and to use an old fashioned term, fitted up.

Also, REPEATEDLY, on this forum, Amaral has been attacked for his involvement in the Cipriano case.

So, I find your approach somewhat one-sided.

Wouldn't you agree ?

Barry George was known to the area, he was known to walk Gowan Avenue. People knew of him. His background in finding things military certainly didn't help. Yes I agree he would be and was in my opinion considered an easy target for investigators under increasing media and public pressure and scrutiny. Barry George was convicted on questionable forensic evidence, which rightly so was thrown out on appeal.

With regards to Snr Amaral and his involvement in that case, can you indicate to any of my comments or posts that have outright attacked him? At all in fact? Whereas I disagree with Snr Amaral, I certainly do not question his ability to perform his job or to conduct an investigation. What I do is disagree with his conclusion and theory. I think it's convoluted and requires us to gravitate to conspiratorial elements that make no sense

And no I don't consider my perspective on this case to be anything but balanced and open minded, meaning that should evidence come to light that furthers the investigation I will be readily acceptable of it regardless of who it implicates.
 

[ShiningInLuz]

I think you have just covered this off in your post. What would be unusual as you say of a car leaving or pulling in. An occupant heard getting out or returning? For something to be unusual and make some become suspicious it needs to be out of the ordinary.

As you say they witnessed nothing unusual below. I would suggest to you that a car parking or leaving is not an unusual event. Or at least not unusual enough for the people you have named to consider it anything but normal.

Perhaps if some hyper car came screaming in, firing a V8 engine and making a bit of a fuss, that would be unusual. I'm assuming this, I don't know whether hyper cars are a common thing in this particular area.

One of the July 2014 arguidos liked 'fast' cars but I don't think his car can be described as 'hyper'.

There was a car that left block 6 just before 10pm on the 3rd May.  Nobody else mentioned it.

Witnesses were asked if they had seen anything abnormal.  They weren't asked what they saw that simply looked normal.

[Alfie]

I'm not being 'silly'.

Madeleine disappeared.

Now perhaps you can add to that, in terms of what we actually know in regard to facts as to her disappearance, other than she disappeared without trace ?

The known facts Stephen, her age, her appearance, her family, their background, their friends, their holiday, their accomodation, their movements on holiday, the resort, previous break-ins at the resort, the OC staff, witness statements, etc etc etc etc etc - the known facts.  That is what I am referring to.  Horrocks builds a plausible and logical theory on the known facts. 

Have you ever read a plausible and logical theory of parental involvement Stephen?  One that you read and thought - yup, that sounds very likely indeed?

[stephen25000]

The known facts Stephen, her age, her appearance, her family, their background, their friends, their holiday, their accomodation, their movements on holiday, the resort, previous break-ins at the resort, the OC staff, witness statements, etc etc etc etc etc - the known facts.  That is what I am referring to.  Horrocks builds a plausible and logical theory on the known facts. 

Have you ever read a plausible and logical theory of parental involvement Stephen?  One that you read and thought - yup, that sounds very likely indeed?

Nothing on your first paragraph explains her disappearance.

The break-ins of course have not shown to be linked to this case. That is supposition.

Witness statements as to Madeleine's disappearance. Where are those exactly ?

Horrocks has his theory, Amaral had his. Neither has been proved or disproved.

Can you define your parameters for parental involvement Alfie ?

[pathfinder73]

The car leaving block 6 has featured many times on this forum at 21.58. Nothing unusual was noticed by anyone after 21.15 because Maddy wasn't in the apartment. Matt was right to be shocked by her disappearance after his check. Nothing strange inside.

[Robittybob1]

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.

.... snippy snip snip.

There is a load of difference in throwing a blanket on top of a dead child compared to wrapping a sleeping child up in a blanket to keep it asleep.  It is not semantics but extracting the most out of the clues we have been given.

[Robittybob1]

Of course a getaway vehicle close by makes sense to any Tom, Dick & Harry but there is no evidence of one. Moyes were up on their balcony at 9:15 but they missed the action by then and therefore witnessed nothing unusual below. Fenn above heard nowt until 10:30. Gotta think outside the box.

Both at the wrong time to see the action.