What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[ferryman]

Pathfinder thinks that a child sex abuser would be "crazy" to take the risk of entering an apartment and removing a child when he knew that people were coming and going by the apartment.  However, interestingly Pathfinder doesn't seem to think it's crazy that the child's father would would for several hundred metres with the dead weight corpse of his dead child, uncovered and himself undisguised through the streets of a holiday resort.

Let's reflect on this odd disconnect shall we?  &%+((£

Again, sharp!

[John]

P.S. I'm just watching some sniffer dogs being deployed, and would you believe it, they play as they search.

That's because it is play to a dog otherwise they would get bored easily and get distracted.

[John]

You are entirely wrong that no evidence of abduction was found ... Jane Tanner was an eyewitness to the barefoot child in pyjamas being carried in the street immediately outside the apartment and away from the direction of the apartment.

But Redwood claimed he was an innocent tourist and Redwood was the operational detective in charge whereas Horrocks had no such access.  Redwood did admit he was totally sure however but the chances of two men carrying a child away from the direction of block 5 between 9.15pm and 10.00pm must be slim.

[ferryman]

That's because it is play to a dog otherwise they would get bored easily and get distracted.

Distractions such as enticing toys they play with (especially in the midst of a deadly-serious criminal investigation) is surely awry or amiss somewhere, isn't it?

[stephen25000]

Horrocks is NOT the subject matter.  The OP would be just as interesting and valid if it had been written By A Nonymouse.  Let's discuss it.

Interesting to you, because he supports your view.

Now , you would not give him the time of day if he didn't support abduction.

 

[stephen25000]

That's because it is play to a dog otherwise they would get bored easily and get distracted.

I am well aware of that.

[John]

Distractions such as enticing toys they play with (especially in the midst of a deadly-serious criminal investigation) is surely awry or amiss somewhere, isn't it?

No.  Dogs are often trained using their favourite toy which is given to them when they obey commands.

[Alfie]

Interesting to you, because he supports your view.

Now , you would not give him the time of day if he didn't support abduction.

 

If his theory made perfect sense, was both logical and plausible then of course I would.

[John]

Members are reminded that abusive personal comments aimed at other members are prohibited on this forum.  Attack the comments by all means but not the poster.

[ferryman]

No.  Dogs are often trained using their favourite toy which is given to them when they obey commands.

But a deadly serious criminal investigation is not a training exercise.

[jassi]

But a deadly serious criminal investigation is not a training exercise.

As far as a dog is concerned, there is no difference.

[pathfinder73]

Pathfinder thinks that a child sex abuser would be "crazy" to take the risk of entering an apartment and removing a child when he knew that people were coming and going by the apartment.  However, interestingly Pathfinder doesn't seem to think it's crazy that the child's father would walk for several hundred metres with the dead weight corpse of his dead child, uncovered and himself undisguised through the streets of a holiday resort.

Let's reflect on this odd disconnect shall we?  &%+((£

That is not my theory i.e. carrying her all that way in one go from 5A to the Smith sighting. There was a smarter way if you examine the timeline.

Was he part of a paedo gang talk McKenzie witnessed?

[John]

But a deadly serious criminal investigation is not a training exercise.

Trainers often keep the dogs toy to hand to act as stimulation and/or a treat just as you would give a sugar lump or a sweet to a horse who performs well.

A dog doesn't know the difference between a training exercise and a proper investigative search, its all a game to them.

[Angelo222]

But Redwood claimed he was an innocent tourist and Redwood was the operational detective in charge whereas Horrocks had no such access.  Redwood did admit he was totally sure however but the chances of two men carrying a child away from the direction of block 5 between 9.15pm and 10.00pm must be slim.

If you take away Tannerman very little is left by way of evidence. Just because a parent claims a shutter and a window were open doesn't mean it was. Nothing was taken or even disturbed in the McCann's apartment, there was no evidence of a breakin or disturbance of any sort. 

[ferryman]

As far as a dog is concerned, there is no difference.

The emphasis is on the training of the dog, rather than the dog himself