What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[Alfie]

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 ?

Neither I nor Horrocks have claimed that the known facts explain her disappearance, merely that the theory Horrocks has come up with fits with these facts pretty well.  I haven't got any parameters for parental involvement - it could be anything you like, as long as it's plausible and logical, so have you come across any theory of parental involvement that struck you as either of these things?

[Robittybob1]

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.

Can you direct me to more information about this car leaving. (PM me please if you like).

[ShiningInLuz]

Can you direct me to more information about this car leaving. (PM me please if you like).

Maria Manuela Martins da Silva.

[Robittybob1]

Maria Manuela Martins da Silva.

Thanks but that is too late to be involved

[ShiningInLuz]

Thanks but that is too late to be involved

Who said she was involved?

You asked about the car that moved at 9.58pm.

You got the car that moved at 9.58pm.

If you think 9.58pm is too late,  why ask about the car that moved at 9.58pm?

[slartibartfast]

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

If you could explain how a misunderstanding of the dog alerts or DNA evidence cleared the McCanns, I would be very happy to hear it.

[Brietta]

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

Was there any criminality involving "the seasoned officer" in this case?  Try changing the record and debate what is said in the OP and see how you get on with that. It is after all the subject of the thread.

[Robittybob1]

Who said she was involved?

You asked about the car that moved at 9.58pm.

You got the car that moved at 9.58pm.

If you think 9.58pm is too late,  why ask about the car that moved at 9.58pm?

I wanted to read that statement again and consider if it could have been that car that knocked Madeleine over.

[faithlilly]

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

Colin Sutton and petermac ( not sure of his real name) are also highly seasoned and experienced police officers yet none of the two are convinced by the abduction theory. I suppose you pays your money.....!

[Brietta]

Colin Sutton and petermac ( not sure of his real name) are also highly seasoned and experienced police officers yet none of the two are convinced by the abduction theory. I suppose you pays your money.....!

Colin Sutton has his very own thread on this forum http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8124.0 this thread is for discussion of the theory propounded by Ian Horrocks.
It would be exceedingly helpful for members to make the attempt to stay on topic, saves a lot of deletion at a later date.

[faithlilly]

Colin Sutton has his very own thread on this forum http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8124.0 this thread is for discussion of the theory propounded by Ian Horrocks.
It would be exceedingly helpful for members to make the attempt to stay on topic, saves a lot of deletion at a later date.

I was on topic and I was not discussing Colin Sutton's theory merely replying to another member's claim that Horrock's experience gives his theory more purchase than the average individual. I was merely pointing out that although a season professional like Horrocks Sutton is not convinced the parents have been investigated sufficiently.

[Brietta]

I was on topic and I was not discussing Colin Sutton's theory merely replying to another member's claim that Horrock's experience gives his theory more purchase than the average individual. I was merely pointing out that although a season professional like Horrocks Sutton is not convinced the parents have been investigated sufficiently.

  I'm glad you have managed to insert Sutton's opinion into the Horrocks thread on two occasions without a passing nod to what Horrocks has said to substantiate his theory. Which is actually a very strong one.

This thread is about what Ian Horrocks has to say ... a quick glance back at the OP will indicate exactly the line that should follow.

Agree or disagree ... everyone is allowed the opportunity to express their point of view on this forum.  Argument and deflection is exceedingly unhelpful.  Which is why when given such a narrow easily kept to remit as on this thread it is unfair to take it off topic.

[stephen25000]

I'm glad you have managed to insert Sutton's opinion into the Horrocks thread on two occasions without a passing nod to what Horrocks has said to substantiate his theory. Which is actually a very strong one.

This thread is about what Ian Horrocks has to say ... a quick glance back at the OP will indicate exactly the line that should follow.

Agree or disagree ... everyone is allowed the opportunity to express their point of view on this forum.  Argument and deflection is exceedingly unhelpful.  Which is why when given such a narrow easily kept to remit as on this thread it is unfair to take it off topic.

Strong theory.

It's his opinion, devoid of facts, and that minor thing called evidence   

[stephen25000]

Was there any criminality involving "the seasoned officer" in this case?  Try changing the record and debate what is said in the OP and see how you get on with that. It is after all the subject of the thread.

Well it appears Barry George was 'fitted up'.

The police ignored vital  evidence by other witnesses.

This has been dealt with before.

I suggest you read up on the case.

You are happy to criticise Amaral, so you know the old expression, what's sauce for the goose...

[pathfinder73]

I wanted to read that statement again and consider if it could have been that car that knocked Madeleine over.

That car was just after the alarm so too late. Their first timeline had Russell returning to the table at 9:55 when it was infact 9:45. The timeline is key in this case.



9:15 Bedroom door open
9:20 Jane sees man carrying child

Case solved ? Not so fast 

Jane left to check at 9:10

10 minute discrepancy.