What Happened To Madeleine McCann? - by Ian Horrocks.

[misty]

Fine, let's start at the start.

What was strange about the Smithman sighting?  3 Smiths gave statements. There is no mention in those statements of abnormal or unusual behaviour.

Why should they remember anything about the encounter?

They shouldn't have -that's the whole point. It was a non-event which registered zero on their radar for many days & then vividly recalled with such detail after a prompt from one person. Had they known that Amaral was not really interested in properly following up the abduction line of enquiry then maybe they wouldn't have bothered to come forward at all.

[Alfie]

Horrock's theory is as logical and plausible as most other theories I have heard but is, like those, merely speculative and therefore should be given the same weight. As to pM not being sued by the McCanns, if he had presented his theory in a national tabloid I'm sure he and it would have been.

So on the internet you are quite at liberty to write up any old theory and present it for us to read without threat of libel action.  So let's see a theory of parental involvement which is equally plausible and logical as Horrocks'.  I know you won't because you can't, and that's a plain and irrefutable fact.

[Mr Gray]

So on the internet you are quite at liberty to write up any old theory and present it for us to read without threat of libel action.  So let's see a theory of parental involvement which is equally plausible and logical as Horrocks'.  I know you won't because you can't, and that's a plain and irrefutable fact.

That's right Alf
The internet gives anyone the chance to anonymously present any theory
As yet no sceptic has been able to do so
Furthermore none of those SY members who have "contributed" to amarals fund has gone on the net and anonymously blew the whistle on the corrupt SY investigation which would suggest there is no whistle to blow

[stephen25000]

Horrocks theory is valueless.

He never interviewed the main parties in this case, and correct me if I'm wrong, has not had access to all the files.

........and of course, he was paid by the Sun, with his original theory.

[Robittybob1]

Horrocks theory is valueless.

He never interviewed the main parties in this case, and correct me if I'm wrong, has not had access to all the files.

........and of course, he was paid by the Sun, with his original theory.

If he had interviewed the main parties he would not be at liberty to propose a theory.  A theory is a theory.  But as I keep reading some have no theory at all.

[Mr Gray]

Horrocks theory is valueless.

He never interviewed the main parties in this case, and correct me if I'm wrong, has not had access to all the files.

........and of course, he was paid by the Sun, with his original theory.

As his theory does not rely on things that are plain wrong
Like amaral
Then his theory has more value than amarals

[stephen25000]

It is hardly remarkable that Mccann supporters support a man who is merely expressing his rather blatant biased opinion.

Yet they attack Amaral, who was on the scene at the time and knows damn more than Horrocks ever will about the case.

 Horrocks of course, who was brought in by the bastion of journalistic pap, otherwise known as the Sun.

Also, of course, would Horrocks dare imply the McCann's involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

Of course he wouldn't, Carter-Ruck would be on the scene.

Mind you, C.R. weren't much help in Portugal.

That was a true shame.

[Robittybob1]

It is hardly remarkable that Mccann supporters support a man who is merely expressing his rather blatant biased opinion.

Criticise the post not the posters.  The sentence in your post: "that Mccann supporters support a man who is merely expressing his rather blatant biased opinion" is a criticism of a group of posters.

[Mr Gray]

It is hardly remarkable that Mccann supporters support a man who is merely expressing his rather blatant biased opinion.

Attacking posters not the post
But it's ok to support amaral whose ridiculous opinions are based on fallacies

[faithlilly]

So on the internet you are quite at liberty to write up any old theory and present it for us to read without threat of libel action.  So let's see a theory of parental involvement which is equally plausible and logical as Horrocks'.  I know you won't because you can't, and that's a plain and irrefutable fact.

The McCanns can't sue everyone who presents a theory which opposes their own and what's the use of suing a man of straw ? The Mccanns have almost exclusively gone after organisations who would yield a decent payback.

As to theories I have presented you with a plausible one ( logic is very much more a subjective thing) many times. The fact that you dismiss it does not lessen it's plausibility.

Here's a question for you Alfie. Give me one example, just one will do, of a child who has been targeted in the way ( not for ransom) that Horrocks suggests ? Horrocks doesn't give one and I'm sure if he had one he would have included it. Therefore his 'experience' is a somewhat moot point if that 'experience' has not included his suggested scenario.

[G-Unit]

As his theory does not rely on things that are plain wrong
Like amaral
Then his theory has more value than amarals

Although he is correct about the frequency of the McCann's checks he ignores the fact that they weren't the only ones checking. According to Gerry Dave checked the McCann children on Wednesday evening. Any watchers would have seen this and realised that they couldn't just assume that there would be 20 minutes available to them.

He also wants us to believe that the abductors, having theoretically identified a 20 minute 'window of opportunity' went in after that opportunity had passed. Why bother finding a gap and then ignore it?

[Robittybob1]

Although he is correct about the frequency of the McCann's checks he ignores the fact that they weren't the only ones checking. According to Gerry Dave checked the McCann children on Wednesday evening. Any watchers would have seen this and realised that they couldn't just assume that there would be 20 minutes available to them.

He also wants us to believe that the abductors, having theoretically identified a 20 minute 'window of opportunity' went in after that opportunity had passed. Why bother finding a gap and then ignore it?

Not if they hadn't done surveillance on the apartment on previous days.

[G-Unit]

Horrock's theory includes surveillance;

It remains my belief that Madeleine was targeted, and her parents observed following their arrival at The Ocean Club.......so by Thursday they could have been watched for up to four nights during which time their routine was established.....This was not an impulsive act. It took patience as well as planning, and would have involved observing the McCann’s for some time.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8185.0

As he favours Tannerman as the abductor, why did he do all that planning and then ignore it? Where was he when Gerry left the Tapas, as expected, at 9.05 pm? In the alleyway, the garden, the apartment or somewhere else? If he was in the alleyway or somewhere else he couldn't enter via the patio doors after Gerry went in.

[Robittybob1]

Horrock's theory includes surveillance;

It remains my belief that Madeleine was targeted, and her parents observed following their arrival at The Ocean Club.......so by Thursday they could have been watched for up to four nights during which time their routine was established.....This was not an impulsive act. It took patience as well as planning, and would have involved observing the McCann’s for some time.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=8185.0

As he favours Tannerman as the abductor, why did he do all that planning and then ignore it? Where was he when Gerry left the Tapas, as expected, at 9.05 pm? In the alleyway, the garden, the apartment or somewhere else? If he was in the alleyway or somewhere else he couldn't enter via the patio doors after Gerry went in.

Unless they thought that Matt's listening check was the check for that half hour.

[ShiningInLuz]

Although he is correct about the frequency of the McCann's checks he ignores the fact that they weren't the only ones checking. According to Gerry Dave checked the McCann children on Wednesday evening. Any watchers would have seen this and realised that they couldn't just assume that there would be 20 minutes available to them.

He also wants us to believe that the abductors, having theoretically identified a 20 minute 'window of opportunity' went in after that opportunity had passed. Why bother finding a gap and then ignore it?

His overall theory is sound, even though he appears to have got it wrong with Tannerman.

The 20min gap existed and it was entirely predictable.  It was called 'main course'.

I don't know how Mr Horrock arrived at his vantage point, but he is correct about it.

I believe access to a front door key may have been involved.  It seems that BBC Panorama picked up on this.