What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[Benice]

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.

Cite please for ''Amaral observed the McCanns being interviewed''.   

[Alfie]

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.....!

Let's hear Petermac's theory - please send a link.  Colin Sutton doesn't seem to have any strong views on any particular theory, or at least they seem to change with the wind whoever is asking.

[Robittybob1]

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.

If this thread is about what Ian Horrocks has to say are we then allowed to agree or disagree, show similarities and disagreements with his views? 

When I went to the OP to see what the discussion was to be about Alfie doesn't define a point of topic but rather just invites us to read the article.

[Benice]

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.

It wasn't a blanket IMO.   JT only saw the child's legs and so could not describe any other part of the body to the artist.        However to have left an empty space in that part of the sketch would have made it look very odd.  Therefore the artist filled that gap with an indiscriminate pink blob to give anatomical realism to the sketch.

AIMHO

[Benice]

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.

You are using the times as if they are precise and accurate.  They are not - they are best estimates based on what they remembered at that time.       JT could not recall the exact time she left the table - except to say it was 5 or 10 mins after Gerry left.

[Robittybob1]

It wasn't a blanket IMO.   JT only saw the child's legs and so could not describe any other part of the body to the artist.        However to have left an empty space in that part of the sketch would have made it look very odd.  Therefore the artist filled that gap with an indiscriminate pink blob to give anatomical realism to the sketch.

AIMHO

That is my point.  If it was a father carrying his child back from the creche the long way round, he would have covered her legs with a blanket.  The person claiming to be crecheman admits to having a blanket so I'm sure he would have used it, therefore Jane would have been unable to see the legs and the pyjamas. 
Therefore I contend that Tanner person and crecheman are two separate people, and would require 2 different sightings.

What does Horrocks say about Crecheman"
"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." 

From that he sounds sceptical that Tanner person and crecheman are the same person.

[Eleanor]

No way does anyone, even a man, manage to carry a child in that fashion for that distance.  His arms would have been in agony.

[Robittybob1]

Ian Horrocks states:
"However, Madeleine, if alive, is now a teenager. She may become curious as to her background. No one knows where this could lead." 

I think this idea needs to be actively pursued with setting up a website that would be of interest to "Madeleine McCann" whoever she is today as a different identity.  I don't say I have the expertise here but I am trying to get a team around me that might achieve this.  If there is anyone with ideas that could help please let me know PM or post, but PM is preferred as I'm less likely to miss it.

[pathfinder73]

You are using the times as if they are precise and accurate.  They are not - they are best estimates based on what they remembered at that time.       JT could not recall the exact time she left the table - except to say it was 5 or 10 mins after Gerry left.

Gerry could recall an exact time of 9:04 many months later so don't worry yourself that it's 9:15 on that timeline.

[Robittybob1]

Ian Horrocks:
"The reality is that as in any such investigation and review what is needed is going back to the basics. To start at the beginning and work forward and not the other way round. There are three main avenues to solving any crime; forensics, witnesses and interviews. In this case, there are no reliable forensics other than telephone data, there would seem to be no apparent credible suspects, and therefore what is left are the witnesses. This is where the focus should continue to be."

That idea seems difficult to me for the witnesses could lie.  Do they then confirm each line of the statement?   What was I doing on May the 3rd 2007, I wouldn't have a clue now.  Others would have forgotten by now.

[pathfinder73]

Anyone observing their routine would have known that they had at least 20 minutes between each check. Horrocks

Matt leaves just before 9
When he returns Gerry leaves to check
Jane leaves at 9:10
Matt/Russ leave at 9:25
Jane leaves at 9:38
Russ returns at 9:45

Where is this 20 minute opportunity between each check according to Horrocks with all the comings and goings?

[Brietta]

It wasn't a blanket IMO.   JT only saw the child's legs and so could not describe any other part of the body to the artist.        However to have left an empty space in that part of the sketch would have made it look very odd.  Therefore the artist filled that gap with an indiscriminate pink blob to give anatomical realism to the sketch.

AIMHO

Which is precisely what the artist did with the man's face.  Jane had only seen him from the side and was therefore unable to describe his features.

[Benice]

Gerry could recall an exact time of 9:04 many months later so don't worry yourself that it's 9:15 on that timeline.

Apart from Gerry none of the others -including Jez could say with any accuracy what time they did different things or how long it took them to do it.    All times given are approximate.    Claiming to know the exact times of 9 other people's movements -  on the strength of 1 time remembered by 1 person is completely unrealistic IMO.

[pathfinder73]

Apart from Gerry none of the others -including Jez could say with any accuracy what time they did different things or how long it took them to do it.    All times given are approximate.    Claiming to know the exact times of 9 other people's movements -  on the strength of 1 time remembered by 1 person is completely unrealistic IMO.

Matt said Gerry left straight away when he returned so no way can it be 15 minutes after as on that timeline!

4078 'Okay. So take me through from there then, what happened after that''

Reply 'So, erm, back to the table, erm, we have, oh, back to the table, Gerry got up to go and, to go and check on his kids, I mean, and I'd come back and said, you know, I didn't hear any noise when I listened outside your room, so I thought it was a little bit odd that, you know, not kind of a wounded pride that he sort of didn't trust me.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MATTHEW-OLDFIELD-ROGATORY.htm

Don't worry this has been passed on.

[Brietta]

If this thread is about what Ian Horrocks has to say are we then allowed to agree or disagree, show similarities and disagreements with his views? 

When I went to the OP to see what the discussion was to be about Alfie doesn't define a point of topic but rather just invites us to read the article.

That is the essence of debate and Ian Horrocks does not say his conclusions are writ on tablets of stone. 

Alfie has given us the thread title and the opening post.
He isn't acting as the thought police by telling us what to think; he has treated us like adults and left the discussion to us and imo there is plenty of material in Horrocks' article for discussion.

I think you just want me to repeat the fact that all discussion on the forum is welcome as long as it sticks within the bounds of the topic under discussion, decency, forum protocols and does not libel or defame.

This is probably the only internet forum where both sides of the argument can be presented in a civilised manner and all members should treasure that.