Re: Madeleine is Alive

by Guest 03.07.12 11:17

ShuBob wrote:IMO it is pointless dissecting that Horrocks piece of drivel. NO trained policeman- retired or otherwise- would dismiss police dogs out of hand let alone dogs with PROVEN track record.

Exactly. Jason Farrell of Sky doesn't think so though......

Jason Farrell‏@JasonFarrellSky

Top Cop Ian Horrocks on the Madeleine #McCann case http://news.sky.com/story/955182/former-top-detective-madeleine-may-be-aliveThe best police analysis I've seen in 5 years of reporting on it.

Madeleine is Alive - Page 2 742129

by **PeterMac** 03.07.12 11:50

jd wrote:Sounds identical to Pat Browns visit to PDL in February this year. Did Pat meet with Horricks seeing as they were there at the exact same time doing the exact same thing!

No.

by tiny 03.07.12 12:00

jason farrell,the only thing to say to your thoughts on this case is GET YOUR HEAD OUT OF THE MCCANNS AR*** AND GO READ THE FILES.

by jd 03.07.12 12:07

PeterMac wrote:
jd wrote:Sounds identical to Pat Browns visit to PDL in February this year. Did Pat meet with Horricks seeing as they were there at the exact same time doing the exact same thing!
No.

Thats my point!

by Guest 03.07.12 12:11

Ian Horrocks works for BGP Global Services, his page is here and his email address.......

http://www.bgpglobalservices.com/Ian-Horrocks.html

Walter Scott · by david_uk 03.07.12 12:13

Was he purposely sent to PDL at the same time as Pats visit?. We all know how they like to counteract

by jd 03.07.12 12:20

david_uk wrote:Was he purposely sent to PDL at the same time as Pats visit?. We all know how they like to counteract

Pat was there at the same time. Only she can confirm one way or another

by Guest 03.07.12 12:23

david_uk wrote:Was he purposely sent to PDL at the same time as Pats visit?. We all know how they like to counteract

Pat was originally going to PDL in February to support Goncalo Amaral in his libel trial, and when it was postponed she decided not to change her arrangements and went to do her own investigation. Ian Horrocks went in February as well for the Sun newspaper at the same time as the trial was due, so yet another strange coincidence.

by Liz Eagles 03.07.12 12:31

candyfloss wrote:
david_uk wrote:Was he purposely sent to PDL at the same time as Pats visit?. We all know how they like to counteract

Pat was originally going to PDL in February to support Goncalo Amaral in his libel trial, and when it was postponed she decided not to change her arrangements and went to do her own investigation. Ian Horrocks went in February as well for the Sun newspaper at the same time as the trial was due, so yet another strange coincidence.

...and an entirely different breed of retired police officer assisted Pat in her efforts and didn't get paid or write contradictory nonsense for a newspaper funded assignment.

by ShuBob 03.07.12 13:35

The Sun are taking comments and so far, none are supportive of Horrocks and his paymasters.

by Guest 03.07.12 14:10

ShuBob wrote:The Sun are taking comments and so far, none are supportive of Horrocks and his paymasters.

Yes not very favourable, a slightly rewritten piece from the original of 29th April 2012 but with same photo. It says published today at 11.55.... no journalist credited with the article. How can they publish this stuff as new when it is old re-cycled news, something is happening elsewhere no doubt.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/4408124/Detective-Maddie-McCann-may-be-alive.html

by Guest 03.07.12 18:07

Hola everybody howdy

Very silly stuff from Mr Horrocks isn't it. But he got this bit right anyway: "Jane Tanner should have been interviewed more thoroughly"

She's still the only 'fact' to support the abduction theory after 5 years and all the detectives involved. Doesn't that tell him something?

Horrocks writes:

"... as has been seen all too often before, both in the UK and elsewhere, the investigator often, albeit subconsciously will try to make the evidence fit his theory. This can be extremely dangerous. Although theories are of course a significant part of detective work, they should be based on evidence and not simply that you think you know what happened. The vital point is to keep an open mind and to go where the evidence leads, not where you think you want it to go."

then he decides on a theory there's not a scrap of evidence for (apart from Tanner) daft

He's also ignoring the eye defect, with all the implications the publicity that received would have had for Madeleine if she had been abducted.

Strange that Horrocks, as a former top cop, doesn't include in his options kidnap for ransom. He's very careful - as are all the journalists - to keep using the word abducted.

If K&G really were the completely uninvolved parents Horrocks thinks they are speculative articles like this giving them misplaced hope would be cruel, when there's absolutely nothing for him to base his theory on but the word of one person. Very, very cruel I think.

"I believe the later sighting by the Irish family to be irrelevant and not Madeleine." That's top police work there, Mr Horrocks lol4

by russiandoll 03.07.12 22:22

I believe the Smith sighting is relevant, but the child carried was not Madeleine. That or a red herring, but imo not Gerry carrying his daughter.

by **sharonl** 03.07.12 22:29

Why would Brian Kennedy meet with Martin Smith? What possible reason could there have been for that meeting?

by Guest 03.07.12 22:31

sharonl wrote:Why would Brian Kennedy meet with Martin Smith? What possible reason could there have been for that meeting?

Good point sharonl.

by Guest 03.07.12 23:33

Excellent again from Blacksmith re the latest Ian Horrocks report....

Tuesday, 3 July 2012

Euro championships special

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.co.uk/

by BSAgirl 04.07.12 0:14

Excellent post by Blacksmith as always....'Fibbers 'r' Us' - brilliant! Madeleine is Alive - Page 2 82678

by ShuBob 04.07.12 2:10

I think an otherwise good article was spoilt by Blacksmith's reference to "Special Needs classes" amongst other derogatory terms. Totally unnecessary in my opinion!

by Gillyspot 04.07.12 6:34

Gillyspot wrote:
It is my belief that Madeleine was targeted and her parents observed from shortly after they arrived at The Ocean Club. The McCann family arrived on Saturday 28th April 2007, and with the exception of Saturday evening, they dined every night in the Ocean Club on the complex. This pattern could have been observed by anyone, so by Thursday they could have been observed for up to four nights during which time their routine was firmly established. Whoever abducted Madeleine was then able to put their plan together." snip

"Now to the main question. Where is she 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 now got a tan, is she speaking a different language, has her hair been cut short and perhaps being dressed as a boy. These are just a few of the many ways in which she could be being disguised to prevent identification."
[/i]"

So a childless couple targeted from the start the only child in PDL with a (now) highly publicised (according to images released by her parents) very visible eye defect (whether it be a colombola or not) and according to Horrocks she could be easily disguised - but what about her EYES Ian!

by Gillyspot 04.07.12 7:12

Just been reading the comments in the Sun article & here is my favourite from Chooperh

"WOW, he has no credible evidence for or against any possible senario, however he has decided who may or may not be involved. Great bit of detective work."

Says it all. I hope EX DI Horrocks got a big fat paycheck for his "work".

by **tigger** 04.07.12 7:28

[quote="Gillyspot"]

Gillyspot wrote:

So a childless couple targeted from the start the only child in PDL with a (now) highly publicised (according to images released by her parents) very visible eye defect (whether it be a colombola or not) and according to Horrocks she could be easily disguised - but what about her EYES Ian!

Blacksmith: '.....a begging scouse whine' - at last I realise why Kate's voice annoys me so much!

Horrocks, once again, completely skates over the fact that his theory would fit the abduction of Amelie very well, but Madeleine not at all.
Amelie was comatose that night in any case, plenty of reliable proof of that fact.

by **PeterMac** 04.07.12 8:00

As I said earlier there is little to bother with in this article, except that I agree totally with him when he says
"“There needs to be full cognitive interviews carried out not only with Mr and Mrs McCann, but also with Jane Tanner and the others in their extended group. Also of any other significant witnesses that were identified… it is not too late…Many of those present will still play the events of that week over and over in their minds. It may be that they felt uneasy about someone and haven’t even realised the significance of it. What is needed is to record this and then compare with others. It is not a short or simple process, but it is a necessary one.”
But not for the reasons he implies !
Proper interviews, alone, on tape and video, in English, under caution. and crucially done by someone who knows the facts and is good at interviewing. And no conferring with the others either before or after.
From my point of view the real tragedy is that this never happened.

by Liz Eagles 04.07.12 9:08

ShuBob wrote:I think an otherwise good article was spoilt by Blacksmith's reference to "Special Needs classes" amongst other derogatory terms. Totally unnecessary in my opinion!

I totally agree with you ShuBob. Too many derogatory references for me I'm afraid.

by Ollie 04.07.12 11:51

Horrocks wrote "On the night itself Gerry McCann would have been seen to check the children at 9.05pm and then rejoin the group". I assume that Horrocks means that GM would have been seen by the abductor, so why then did the abductor walk across the road allegedly with Madeleine in view of GM and JW thus risking being seen - especially after he seems to have been so careful all week watching the family, noting the checking etc - before GM had rejoined the group. This article IMO is more McCann spin.

by pingunootnoot 05.07.12 13:54

I always thought Police Officers were supposed to objective and not subjective to any inquiry. A 'top' Police officer like Horrocks should be well aware that not every parent is the loving kind and vile things have been done to children by the hands of their parents. So why openly clear TM when they have not been cleared by the PJ.

Also, I am really struggling to comprehend why he has dismissed the Smiths as it is the only independent witness that possibly could have been Madeleine. Why only Focus on Jane Tanners sighting? Is it because the Smiths were quite positive the man they saw GM. It just does not make sense.

by **PeterMac** 05.07.12 14:04

pingunootnoot wrote:[...]It just does not make sense.

Unless you are a Sun reader, possibly.

by **tigger** 05.07.12 15:33

PeterMac wrote:
pingunootnoot wrote:[...]It just does not make sense.
Unless you are a Sun reader, possibly.

If the McCanns are ever found out and shown to be culpable of the death of their child they have nothing to fear from the likes of us but the Sun readers and their ilk - the great believers in the TM gospel - will be a great danger to them. Their most fervent fans now will become their most dangerous enemies.

by uppatoffee 05.07.12 16:52

Judging by the comments on the horrocks article there appears to be little support left.

by Mariita 05.07.12 20:00

McCanns do have a few fanclubs in the www, I noticed. One of them was very proud to present this former cop´s version of events, FINALLY someone with a theory based upon logic and common sense! Why even bother to investigate, so much easier to ask the persons who were there. Naturally they must know everything, and as there is an eyewitness who actually SAW the abductor walk away with Maddie in his arms...could it be any better? This man Horrock simply expresses what the supporters always knew.

"Should they have supervised their children more closely that night? That is not for me to say..."

Really, that is not for him to say?? He praises the abductionthesis, so the logical thing to conclude would be that IF they had supervised the children more closely, the thesis falls apart and...no child would be missing...or? So the central thing is the abduction as there are no other possibilities, yet more supervision(= no abduction) is not for him to say. This man must be the dreamperson for the McCanns to lead the investigation, he should have been the one from start; would have saved them a lot of trouble, right?

by ProfessorPPlum 16.07.12 23:21

Oh bollocks.

I'd managed not to read this priceless piece of crap until tonight. What an utterly depressing load of toss. How can there be such stupidity and mediocrity at the heart of issues that are as important as this? I keep hoping a grown-up will come along and pull these brainless duffers (Andy Redwood, Clarence Mitchell and the rest) off by the ear lobes and we'll all be returned to some kind of sanity.

But then it just doesn't happen and I realise that these people are here to stay - and that they run just about everything. What the hell are the rest of us doing?? nails

Latest topics