Boll*cks from Horrocks?

http://www.bgpglobalservices.com/happened-madeleine-mccann-2/

Ian’s review of the Madeleine McCann case can be found here.

What happened to Madeleine McCann?

Some time ago, I travelled to Portugal to look at the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and the circumstances surrounding it. My analysis, reasoning and conclusions are shown here. I am one of very few who continue to believe that Madeleine may still be alive. This document has been updated to reflect what has been going on more recently.

Madeleine Beth McCann would now be approaching 14 years old. She went missing ten years ago, on the 3rd May, 2007. So, what happened to her? I obviously do not know; the following may be speculation, but contains inferences developed from the known facts, information made available, and from over 30 years’ experience as a police officer. The harsh reality is that only one, or possibly two people know what happened on that night.

I am sure many will not agree; the following is simply my view and should be read as such.

Having visited the scene, it is easy to see how Madeleine could have been snatched and her abductor made good his escape in less than two minutes. By turning right from the apartment, he could have been totally out of sight within 30 seconds.

Firstly, what are the options? The way I see it there are still principally four, and these remain unchanged, albeit there are possibly variations to each: –
•that Madeleine either died accidentally, or was killed by her parents.
•that she wandered out of the apartment and was taken by someone in the street.
•she was abducted by one or two predatory paedophiles, assaulted and either died, or was killed, and finally.
•that she was taken by someone with the intention of keeping her, and raising her.

The talk of Madeleine being kidnapped by a paedophile ring, or people traffickers, for a client in some distant place, or some of the even more far-fetched theories may be worth discussion, but are not in my opinion credible. Likewise, the idea that a random burglar suddenly deciding to take a child instead of valuables is also unlikely. (ME: "Er, that's what GA 'said'!) In saying that, there were a number of instances of burglary throughout that part of the Algarve that were not investigated adequately. Some of these involved sex attacks against young children. This is clearly an avenue that should have been fully investigated. Other theories have included her being accidentally knocked down and her body being disposed of by the driver. Although, as with many of the theories, nothing can be totally discounted, I do not think this is realistic.

The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible, or covering up an accident, is as far as I am concerned frankly preposterous. Although many believe this, as far as I am aware, there is not one shred of credible evidence, either direct or otherwise to indicate that this is even a remote possibility.

There are many reasons for saying this. Firstly, and importantly, there is no family history that would point in any way to this. I also do not believe that anyone with any sense believes that they killed Madeleine deliberately, so this leaves a tragic accident. Even if such an accident had happened, is it feasible that they would not immediately seek assistance and call for an ambulance?

ME: "Er, YES"

Are we saying that they coldly decided that Madeleine was dead and then put together an elaborate plan to dispose of her body? Did Gerry McCann simply walk down the road with his daughter’s body and dispose of it, and then calmly go out for dinner. This is ridiculous in the extreme. Also, have they then maintained this pretence for so long, the simple answer is no. And as for it being a conspiracy between themselves and any or all of their group of friends, this stretches credibility beyond belief.

The farcical conspiracy theory that the last photo of Madeleine was photo shopped, the spurious and often inaccurately reported forensic findings, the irrelevant behaviour of the cadaver dogs, Mr and Mrs McCann’s perceived demeanour, as well as many other totally immaterial points, just fuel this uninformed and often offensive conjecture. The simple answer is, there is no information, let alone evidence to indicate their involvement in any way. Should they have supervised their children more closely that night; that is not for me to say, but regardless of the answer, it does not assist the investigation in any way.

Although the second option mentioned is unlikely, it needs to be covered. If Madeleine had left the apartment, she would in all likelihood have gone out of the patio doors and walked towards where her parents were. It is also likely that she would have been seen by someone who would have reunited her with her family. She would not have wandered far, and the chance that at this very moment a predator being there who is attracted to victim of this age is so unlikely that it goes beyond reasonable consideration. This option therefore can also be discounted. Additionally, the most telling point that dismisses this theory is the open window and shutter.

Now to the third and fourth options. These I believe are very similar in how they were carried out, but with clearly different endings. I will describe how I believe she was in my opinion taken and then explain why I believe that the final option that Madeleine may still be alive is realistic.

It remains my belief that Madeleine was targeted, and her parents observed following their arrival at The Ocean Club. The McCann family arrived on Saturday 28th April 2007, and except for that evening, dined every night in the complex. This pattern could have been observed by anyone, so by Thursday they could have been watched for up to four nights during which time their routine was established. Whoever abducted Madeleine was then able to put their plan together. The routine of Mr and Mrs McCann and their friends, along with the regular checking of the children could have been easily observed, as well as the fact that access via the patio door was simple.

On the night itself, Gerry McCann checked the children at about 9.05pm and then rejoined the group. Mathew Oldfield checked at about 9.30pm, although he only listened at the door and did not actually see Madeleine. It was only when Kate McCann checked at about 10pm that it was discovered that Madeline was missing.

These actions could be seen from within the Ocean Club area, (ME: "ER, NO they COULDN'T!") as well as from the alleyway that runs between this and the apartment. Due to the height of the wall and foliage on top of it, as well as the area inside being well lit, in contrast to the darkness elsewhere, those dining would have been easily observed (?) (ME: "Er, so how come NOBODY 'dining' SAW 'ANYTHING'?) whilst anyone in the alleyway could remain unseen. Sunset on the 3rd May 2007 was at 8.25pm, so it would have been getting quite dark by 9pm.

Anyone observing their routine would have known that they had at least 20 minutes between each check. They would have observed the group for a few minutes and then gone to the apartment. At the end of the alleyway they could see that the road was clear, it is then only literally a second for someone to go through the gate and into the garden area, where they would be virtually out of sight. It is then simple to enter the apartment through the patio doors, which although closed, had been left unlocked.

I believe the abductor then went into the bedroom where the twins and Madeleine were sleeping. He has no interest in the twins, he is looking for Madeleine. The window and blind were very likely opened to facilitate exit. If two people were involved, Madeleine could have been handed out of the window to the second person. If one, he could possibly have climbed out the window with her, but I believe it to be more likely that they left via the door leading to the car park. Although entry was gained via the patio doors, I do not believe this was the exit route as it is not only unnecessary and illogical, it would also substantially increase the chances of being seen.

I think the plan and escape route were planned. It was clearly well executed. This was not an impulsive act. It took patience as well as planning, and would have involved observing the McCann’s for some time.

ME: "So, er, WHY didn't the 'burglator' TAKE Madeleine 'away' the night before, when 'in the room'......'DOING A DRY RUN'!

Although floodlit, the window of the apartment and exit to the car park are not easily observed. Once out of the apartment car park there is a simple choice, turn left or right. By turning right, the abductor must pass Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins, the road leading down to the entrance to the Ocean Club. However, within less than 30 seconds, he could be totally out of sight in an alleyway with high walls that leads directly from Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva to Rua Do Ramalhetete, the main road out of the village. Turning left means he would have to walk a greater distance, initially uphill, and with a greater chance of being seen.

It has been suggested that a child of Madeleine’s description was seen by Martin Smith and his wife, being carried over 400 yards away in Rua da Escola Primaria, shortly before 10pm. This sighting was dismissed by the Portuguese Police, but appears to have been given substantial credibility by Operation Grange, the Metropolitan Police inquiry, who featured this on Crimewatch. I do however remain extremely sceptical about this . (ME: "Bet you wouldn't SAY that to ex DCI Redwood's FACE, Mr Horrocks!") As far as I am concerned not only is this too late, but it is also too far away. If someone had abducted a child, they would not have carried them this far. If the plan was to take the child to a car, this would have been parked far closer. If the objective was to dispose of a body, then this person has walked past a lot of waste ground.

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.

Was it one person, was it two, were they locals, were they there on holiday or simply visiting, was she taken by a paedophile or by someone who wanted to raise her and look after her. All I can do is to provide a few thoughts and theories.

Now to one of the most difficult points, was it a paedophile or someone who wanted to keep Madeleine, whether for a caring, or more nefarious reason. Again, I do not know, but what can be done is to look at it logically, and see what is the most likely. A girl of Madeleine’s age is not the usual target age for a paedophile; she is substantially younger than most victims of these offences. This however cannot totally be discounted. Although it cannot be under estimated the amount of planning that a paedophile without a conscience is prepared to go, I believe in this case that the choice of Madeleine and her place of abduction underlines THE FACT that THIS WAS NOT A PLANNED or even random paedophile attack.

ME: "Oh dear, ex DCI Redwood, of OG, said 'this HAS all the hallmarks of A PRE-PLANNED 'abduction'!"

I still believe on balance that when all the available information is examined logically and objectively, that Madeleine was not taken by a paedophile. Once they have made the decision to carry out the abduction, whoever was responsible would be prepared to take more risks than perhaps others would. These risks however are mitigated by the level of planning and control in the abduction process.

If this theory is correct, certain inferences can be made. The people responsible will not have a close extended family. If a family, I do not think that they have any children of their own. I am also of the view that whoever took Madeleine will speak English, albeit not essentially fluently, and not necessarily as a first language.

Now to one of the most significant questions. Were those responsible local to the area, or visitors, whether from elsewhere in Portugal or further afield. Again, no one other than the perpetrator knows. The reality is that they could be either. Whether they were local to the area or a visitor, I am of the view that Madeleine was seen early in the week, and from then the plan was developed to abduct her. If local, they could have initially stayed in the area, and if from further afield, would have left on Thursday, and possibly even vacated their accommodation before this. Talk of her being taken away on a boat from the beach, a local marina or on a ferry to Africa is not only unrealistic, it is also unhelpful.

I will only comment briefly on the investigation conducted by the Portuguese police. It is evident that more could, and should have been done in the immediate aftermath of her disappearance. Additionally, much of the focus of the investigation fell on Mr and Mrs McCann, when resources should have been directed elsewhere. Although it would be irresponsible not to look at the parents, in the absence of any credible evidence, this should have been dealt with, and the investigation moved on. However, the firm and in my opinion unrealistic assessment by Goncal Amaral, the original investigator, prompted it must be said by the unhelpful views of a UK based psychologist, muddied the whole investigation, and in effect set the whole tone for the inquiry.

I am also still at a loss as to why a Joint Investigation Team was not set up in the early stages of the enquiry. As far as I am aware, there was no valid reason for this.

It remains clear that the UK police review and investigation was the correct course of action, and still is, despite what some people may think. How many other British children have gone missing abroad with no clue whatsoever as to the identity of those responsible. As far as I am aware, other than Madeleine, the only other would be Ben Needham, who disappeared on the island of Kos in 1991.

Now to the main question. Where is Madeleine now, and why has she not been discovered. Many have said that with all the publicity, she would have been seen. This is not necessarily correct; there are many instances where this has not happened. Also, don’t forget that whoever took Madeleine knows that she could be recognised at any time and therefore they will go to any means necessary to ensure this does not happen. Could her hair be dyed a different colour, has she got a tan, is she now speaking a different language. These are just a few of the many possible ways in which she could be being disguised to prevent identification.

Albeit rare, there are several well publicised cases where children have been reunited with their families many years after they were abducted. Jaycee Dugard, Shawn Hornbeck, Steven Stayner, Carlina White, Natascha Kampusch, and Fusako Sano are just some of those who have been taken by strangers, and found many years later.

A child will often accept what they are told, particularly if said in a caring way, and will therefore act accordingly. Memories cannot be totally erased but behaviour can be controlled, influenced and to a degree changed. I also believe that there is a good chance that whoever took Madeleine may in all likelihood have subsequently moved, and therefore have new friends and neighbours who accept them for what they are, and not necessarily be suspicious. People generally accept what they are told by others, and are not naturally disbelieving.

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

I do not believe she is local to Praia de Luz, or even the Algarve, but if taken by someone who is Portuguese, she could still be in the country. It cannot be under estimated the lengths that people would go to preserve their new ‘family member’. The reality is, she could be anywhere. I appreciate this is not helpful, it is simply the truth. This could particularly be the case if the person who abducted her was a visitor in the complex, or staying nearby. There is also a good chance that whoever abducted Madeleine had most likely driven there.

What can now be done? It is evident that the UK Police have put substantial resources into the investigation. It is now six years since the Metropolitan Police started reviewing this case. How much of their investigation is speculative, and how much based on credible information and evidence, I clearly do not know.

I hesitate to criticise those making the decisions, but I do believe that resources could perhaps be used more appropriately. I understand that many documents have been translated from Portuguese; this is clearly necessary, (ME: "clearly NOT NECESSARY" as KM had 'charged' the Findmadeleine Fund, £100,000, to have had the 'files/documents' TRANSLATED, into English, so she 'says', hadn't she?)  but only where there is an investigative reason. The problem with such investigations is that often too many resources are expended dotting the t’s and crossing the i’s, when limited budgets can be better allocated. Also, in my view, the substantial cost of digging up a large section of the wasteland was unnecessary, and an example of resources being misused. (ME: "Oh ANDY, what did you do!) Does anybody really think that a kidnapper came prepared with a shovel and had the time to dig a hole capable of hiding a body. This is no simple task, the ground in May would be extremely hard, and in my view did not happen. However, this comment is made with the caveat that I do not know if there was any evidential basis for this.

However, this investigation should be allowed to continue, until they either achieve a result, whatever that may be, or totally exhaust every avenue of investigation. It doesn’t have to be a standalone operation. Many other inquiries continue whilst officers are employed on other investigations.

I would by now have hoped that everyone who was in the Ocean Club and nearby at the time have been identified and interviewed, whether they were there as guests, residents or even staff. However, it is my belief that this may still not be the case.

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.

ME: Surely Mr Horrocks is NOT 'suggesting' that the T9 (witnesses? the LAST ones, 'standing') be 're-interviewed'?      

The police have recently said that they are following up what they describe as ‘critical leads’. We obviously do not know what these are, but hopefully they are based on evidence, as opposed to speculation and guesswork.

Other avenues need to be both realistic, and achievable. Facial recognition, and social media searching, as has been mentioned recently in the media may be another way forward, if only to cover some of the basics.

As mentioned many times before, people both in the UK and throughout Europe should still be asking themselves, what was their son, brother or friend doing when they were in the Algarve that week ten years ago. It is never too late. Is there anyone who was there at the time who hasn’t been interviewed. These people need to come forward.

Many theories have been suggested, and in reality, very few can be discounted. However, some of these, particularly recently, are so farcical that they deserve to be treated with contempt. The latest suggestion that MI5 colluded with the McCann’s to cover up Madeleine’s death is one such example. Next will be that she was abducted by aliens. This shows the levels that some people, Goncal Amaral, included, will go to for publicity.

I also personally think that nothing can be gained by the McCann’s expending their time and limited resources on pursuing court cases against such people as Amaral. This only gives his deluded theories more publicity than they deserve. However, this is clearly a matter for them, and may in some small way, assist in their grief.

In conclusion, I still obviously cannot dismiss the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile for a sinister purpose, and that she is now dead. However, I remain of the opinion that this is not the case, and have shown my reasons why. Also, as an investigator, I think it is important to believe that the person you are searching for is alive, however unrealistic some people may think this is. Until such time as a body is found, or there is irrefutable evidence that she is dead, there must always be hope. Hopefully those continuing the investigation continue to share this belief.

I’m sure many will disagree with my views; that is their prerogative. Many people have their own entrenched views on what happened, and everyone is entitled to their opinion. Is believing that Madeleine is alive being overly and unrealistically optimistic. I do not think so, and until there is categoric evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe this.

Ian Horrocks

May 2017

'Bio'
Ian Horrocks

Ian, in common with the others at BGP had a successful 30 year career within London’s Metropolitan Police, prior to moving to the private sector in 2007.

He is an accredited senior investigating officer for homicide, as well as having experience in high value and multinational fraud and other major crime. For the last five years of his service he led one of Scotland Yard’s Kidnap and Specialist Investigations teams.

He is a qualified and accomplished crime scene examiner and is able to utilise this experience in the assessment of major crime scenes.

Following his retirement from the MPS he was the European Director for a renowned business security and risk consultancy based in Hong Kong. He has since been involved in the provision of security advice and guidance to international corporations and individuals as well as advising on crisis management and business continuity.

Email: ian@bgpglobalservices.com

I wonder if he is hoping to have his name added to a possible list of "crack" detectives to act as PI when SY investigation is wound down?

*sigh*
Where to start?

"the irrelevant behaviour of the cadaver dogs"

" Additionally, the most telling point that dismisses this theory is the open window and shutter."

There is so much to wade through here....

Jeanmonroe you may have a future in advertising with a thread title like that

OMG, that is all!

Seriously, if this is what former Chief Inspectors are like in the outside world, what the hell were they like when they were on the inside?

Only one former Police Officer in my book who is worthy of listening to and that's PeterMac. He never fails Madeleine.

"I obviously do not know"

"I do not know"

"I obviously do not know"

"Again, I do not know"

"I do not think"

"I clearly do not know."

"I do not know"

"obviously do not know"
---------------------------------------

Mr Horrocks 'DOES NOT KNOW' much, does he?

IH: "Next will be that she was abducted by aliens"

That's WHAT I 'said'.............YEARS AGO!

"Copycat, copycat, I had already said THAT!"

1. Interesting that he can be much more certain of the regularity and nature of the 'checks' than the tapas 9 are themselves. (Just reading over the interviews again recently and the recollections of all of them are muddled and contradictory, as to who was checking what and when).

2. Putting myself in the position of an abductor, and imagining that I'm watching the parents, I still couldn't be 100 or even 50% sure that just because they ate at the tapas 3 nights in a row, they would without doubt do so again the next night.

3. Why did Madeleine not wake up when she was being lifted up by this kindly abductor?

4. No explanation given as to why the abductor 'would not be interested in the twins

5. Sorry but I do not believe the argument that Madeleine is the wrong age to be taken by a paedophile. Slightly irrelevant anyway as this isn't what happened, but I have read many accounts of children of a variety of ages up to and including age 12 say.

Finally had the kindly abductor never heard of am adoption agency? All legal and above board?

 the irrelevant behaviour of the cadaver dogs, 

This man is either a complete and utter moron or he's being paid to cover-up.

jeanmonroe wrote:"I obviously do not know"

"I do not know"

"I obviously do not know"

"Again, I do not know"

"I do not think"

"I clearly do not know."

"I do not know"

"obviously do not know"
---------------------------------------

Mr Horrocks 'DOES NOT KNOW' much, does he?

IH: "Next will be that she was abducted by aliens"

That's WHAT I 'said'.............YEARS AGO!

"Copycat, copycat, I had already said THAT!"

" I do not know " 

The ONLY correct statement he makes l.

BlueBag wrote:

 the irrelevant behaviour of the cadaver dogs, 

This man is either a complete and utter moron or he's being paid to cover-up.

Personally I'd go for the first choice .

I'd love to hear his explanation of  their " irrelevant behaviour " 

BlueBag wrote:

 the irrelevant behaviour of the cadaver dogs, 

This man is either a complete and utter moron or he's being paid to cover-up.

I would hazard a guess at the former.

"The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible, or covering up an accident, is as far as I am concerned frankly preposterous."
-----------
Really!

An alarming journey into the mind of a detective  whose critical thinking comprises a Heath Robinson thought-o-meter that measures preposterous-ness. When it hits max, out pops the laughing policeman splitting his sides.

Next....

Mirage wrote:"The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible, or covering up an accident, is as far as I am concerned frankly preposterous."
-----------
Really!

An alarming journey into the mind of a detective  whose critical thinking comprises a Heath Robinson thought-o-meter that measures preposterous-ness. When it hits max, out pops the laughing policeman splitting his sides.

Next....

I was going to 'highlight' that!

".....that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do WITH THE DEATH of their daughter..."

How very 'unhelpful and hurtful' of you Mr Horrocks, compounding their 'grief' by saying that!

memo to Horrox.............................THEY HAVE SUED PEOPLE FOR SAYING 'THAT'

Because it 'hinders/harms/hampers' the 'search' for a 'live' Madeleine, and people won't donate to their erm 'special/secret' search fund, if ex policemen, like you, keep saying the word 'death' when talking about a, then, 'missing' three years old child.

Still, as you say, Horrox, in some small way, suing people (like YOU!) may 'assist' them in their 'grief'!

How many ex Police have now come out in support of the McCann's crimes to sabotage this investigation into Maddie's death?

Dave Edgar, Arthur Cowley, Mark Williams-Thomas, Andy Redwood, Jim Gamble, Ian Horrocks...not to mention all the crooked private investigators the McCanns hired that need investigating themselves !

Horrocks is even discrediting fellow Police officer, Gonçalo Amaral, aswell as British sniffer dogs.

It's sickening. What the hell did little three-year-old Maddie ever do to deserve this?

Come on Colin, please don't be another one of them. Quit with tweeting about online name-calling and do what's right for Maddie and help solve this Crime of the Century. Surely she is more important?

Join forces with Gonçalo Amaral, and really make a name for yourself.

"It remains my belief that Madeleine was targeted, and her parents observed following their arrival at The Ocean Club. The McCann family arrived on Saturday 28th April 2007, and except for that evening, dined every night in the complex. This pattern could have been observed by anyone, so by Thursday they could have been watched for up to four nights during which time their routine was established. Whoever abducted Madeleine was then able to put their plan together."

How did an "observer"  know that someone was not baby-sitting? Surely the observer noticed that one of the group was absent every night, including the night of the 3rd. Why would this phantom observer not suspect that the missing adult was on duty to watch the children? The night of Madeleine's "disappearance" was the night with the most to ing and fro ing around 5A, but they decided to abduct despite this?  Mr Horrocks bases his opinion on the belief that Madeleine disappeared after 9.05pm on May 3rd. Who says this is so? The only "proof" of that is her parents claim and they have shown themselves to be liars in their own statements. Horrocks is desperate to stick the Smith sighting in now that Tannerman's gone belly up. Ignore Smith and what else  indicates that Madeleine was removed on the night of May 3rd - nothing but Kate and Gerry's claim.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Only one former Police Officer in my book who is worthy of listening to and that's PeterMac. He never fails Madeleine.

You only need look to those who are not trying to make money or further their career on the back of Madeleine McCann.

In those we trust!

All these " ex cops " spouting their " opinions " " theories " " agenda " 

Lawless hills 

Hellish lair 

Woke and wandered 

Targeted .

All on the back of a missing little girl , all disagree with each other is it any wonder we have so many unsolved cases in this country .

Shame on ALL of you .

The only ones who care about Madeleine are the ex cop constantly refered to as " disgraced " and worse Goncalo Amaral , and Peter Mac , now labelled as " deluded " and a " troll " 

I know who I trust , 

Poor Madeleine , her name used and abused by those only out to line their own pockets .

Disgraceful .

SilverLining‏ @Ev3ryCloud 5h5 hours ago
@colinsutton Seems former Chief Insp. of Met Ian Horrocks has this take on Madeleine #McCann ...Any thoughts?
---------------------------------------

Colin Sutton‏
@colinsutton
Replying to @Ev3ryCloud

"We've spoken, we disagree on a number of things but he is a good man and I respect his right to have and voice his opinion, of course."
-----------------------------------------

I 'wonder' IF Colin S has also 'spoken to' ex DCI Redwood about HIS erm, 'actions', whilst in charge, as acting IO @OG for 3 1/2 YEARS?

And 'told' him, he 'disagrees, with a number of things' he 'did'.

It 'seems' to me, ironically, that BOTH Sutton AND Horror are publicly 'questioning' OG's 'actions and investigation' since 2011.

jta: DAY 14.

FOURTEEN DAYS ( 336 hours) AFTER CS 'REVELATIONS' AND STILL NOT A 'PEEP/SQUEAK' OUT OF OG THAT THEIR 'INVESTIGATION', INTO A 'MISSING' 3 YEARS OLD CHILD'S 'DISAPPEARANCE', IS 'TOTALLY IMPARTIAL' AND THAT THEY ARE 'INVESTIGATING' ALL 'POSSIBLE' HYPOTHESES, INCLUDING POSSIBLE 'PARENTAL, OR PEOPLE THEY KNOW, INVOLVEMENT'

'finally'

I 'wonder' why the McCan'ts did NOT erm, 'employ/engage' the 'brilliant, recently retired, ex head of SY's 'kidnap' unit' (2007), Mr Horror, as a PI, in their 'search' for Madeleine, instead of 'employing' a 'con man fraudster' (KH) and a 'bunch' of fraudsters (Metoado3) all 'paid' with money from, publicly donated to, Madeleine's Fund?

We know a song about that opinion...

Interesting adjustments. How can he say he has balanced the evidence logically, when he crosses the parents off the list of possibilities right from the outset?

  He also uses 'no family history' as evidence they wouldn't harm her and 'no reason to cover up an accident' in his reasoning.  These are fallacies, there isn't always known evidence of abuse in abusive families, sometimes it doesn't surface for years or at all.  

  and surely the logical thing is to look at the evidence and lack of evidence and see what picture it paints, you can't just say 'this suspect would have no reason to do it' because you are making a presumption on what 'it' is before you've looked at the evidence!  

His other fallacy is stating lack of evidence against the parents means they could never have done it but a lack of evidence of abductor means it was probably an abductor?!

A reminder of what DCI Redwood said back in 2011
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t3142-scotland-yard-will-examine-parents-possible-guilt-re-madeleine-official

It someone can question him then ask him.

1) Why is evidence of a human cadaver dog and a human blood dog indicating in/on 17 locations/items connected to the McCann's to the exclusion of everything else "irrelevant"?

2) Did he refuse to use dogs in his investigations?

What he said is so absurd that it makes you think he has only one objective.

Here's his email address from his blog
info@bgpglobalservices.com

Just to add I emailed him yesterday with a link to Peter's ebook, so I don't want him to think I'm harassing him or anything.

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Just to add I emailed him yesterday with a link to Peter's ebook, so I don't want him to think I'm harassing him or anything.

Harassing him !  Jill that would be " preposterous " 

It does make a change from " ludicrous " though doesn't it      

sandancer wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Just to add I emailed him yesterday with a link to Peter's ebook, so I don't want him to think I'm harassing him or anything.

Harassing him !  Jill that would be " preposterous " 

It does make a change from " ludicrous " though doesn't it      

I know! That's why I ain't sending another

It's bad enough with all these ex coppers complaining about 'trolls' and online abuse without me adding to it!

Heck, it was bad enough when I sent Jim Gamble a very polite tweet asking him if he wanted this pic for his avatar - he was proper rude to me and blocked me! I thought coppers were supposed to have a sense of humour!

This is cobblers of a very high order. I think you really have to try (or to have a PHD in cobblers) to be able cram so much cobblers into one article.

Does he not understand how stupid he sounds? 

Has he no shame? (I think that might be rhetorical). 

Strewth!

Get'emGonçalo wrote:

sandancer wrote:

Get'emGonçalo wrote:Just to add I emailed him yesterday with a link to Peter's ebook, so I don't want him to think I'm harassing him or anything.

Harassing him !  Jill that would be " preposterous " 

It does make a change from " ludicrous " though doesn't it      

I know! That's why I ain't sending another

It's bad enough with all these ex coppers complaining about 'trolls' and online abuse without me adding to it!

Heck, it was bad enough when I sent Jim Gamble a very polite tweet asking him if he wanted this pic for his avatar - he was proper rude to me and blocked me! I thought coppers were supposed to have a sense of humour!

But who is Operating Big Jim,Brunty,"That's the Way to Do It"?