Investigator ensures that Maddie's body in the backyard of Murat

tcat wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
Hi Tcat, I would be interested to see his investigations leading up to this point. I don't know for one moment, whether this a real or not, but as we all know, there are people out there who will go to all sorts of lengths to be the one to 'crack it'.

As for the Horrocks' article, I was tempted not to read any further when he discarded the evidence of the dogs as irrelevant. For the rest of it, I had to check the author wasn't Hans Christian Andersen. Good heavens, if the intention of an abductor had been adoption, he/she would have taken a baby, there were two going spare in the same room. I am no expert on the criminal mind, but I would imagine, even the dumbest of the lot, would not walk away from a crime scene carrying his booty outstretched in front of him as if he would holding a tray.particularly as that particularly booty was a live child, who could at any second start kicking, screaming and trying to get away. Even Jane Tanner has said, 'it seems ridiculous now' - but I would interpret that as a story being hastily made up on the spot. Ill thought out. If we were asked to picture a child abductor, most of us would pull out from our memory banks, the iconic Frankenstein image of a monster carrying away a beautiful little girl as if she were an object, not a human being.

The article is obviously not very well researched in my opinion, but it gives enough information to those who only pay cursory attention to the Madeleine story, to be satisfied that their money is being well spent. Most people have now moved on, and with old news stories their expectations are very little. Unfortunately, or fortunately for the mccanns, this is a story that won't go away. The spin doctors at the helm of this particular ship, assume in the first instance, that the majority of the public are gullible and naive enough not to peek beneath the first level. This case also has the 'cute' factor in the angelic face of the missing child, to ask questions would be like kicking puppies, its what makes this case so vexing.

I agree most people have moved on, Cristobell, and apathetic about the whole thing now but I think the report Horrocks produced is very clear in showing there isn't a scrap of evidence to support the abduction theory, apart from Tanner. I don't think it's a bad thing his conclusions were given exposure because it shows I think that many in the media are perfectly aware that after even all the money the fund has spent on detectives there is still no evidence that supports an abduction. I think Horrocks has researched well and he can't come up with a single piece of evidence but Tanner, and it's important that is shown by the media I think. I always felt sympathy for Jane Tanner being stuck in the middle of this case.

tcat wrote:

Pershing36 wrote:I think they need to do something quick or a certain pro's server will overload. They must be in panic they have no less than 5 threads concentrated on this.

They're determined to accuse absolutely everybody they can think of as having been in cahoots with Birch aren't they.

All six (or so) of them on that forum

Murat’s lawyer, Francisco Pagarete, told the Algarve Resident: “We are unsure as to the veracity of those photographs.”

When asked if his client would be suing Stephen Birch for unlawful entry to his mother’s property or for his claims, the lawyer said: “We are currently analysing the news report.”

russiandoll wrote: to add....I am sure I read the report Joana refers to yesterday. I really don't see how Birch can be simply dismissed and his claim ignored when it is the case of a girl missing for 5 years,even if it is possible he is an obsessive nutcase. He has actually presented the authorities in 2 countries with his findings.

Cristobell wrote:I was curious as to your sympathy for Jane Tanner, Tcat, and had a re-read of her statement. Getting past the sheer astonishment that she and her partner could possibly risk leaving a small, sick child alone, for the pleasure of their friends company, is a difficult one. I have tried to understand their perspective, and admit there have been times, as a single mother, I have sat indoors and wept because my mates were out partying and I couldn't join them, so I understand that desperate need. However, our basic instincts are, or should be, to protect our young. Our very young, especially. I didn't like the blase which she said it is 'normal' for British families to leave their children on their own. I haven't checked, but I wonder if the other statements put forward that idea too? If they do, it suggests collaboration. Its been interesting to learn how many people admit to this leaving children along thing, as being a normal practice, other than a few barmy presenters. Even the most fervent pro's, usually add, 'I wouldn't do it myself'.

I am not sure if I can feel sympathy for Jane. She put herself forward voluntarily for an active role in whatever was going on. Perhaps she drew the short straw who knows. It would be interesting to discover her status within the group. She wasn't a qualified doctor, she wasn't married to her partner. Her statement is integral to the whole mccann case.

I am not being hostile btw, just interested to hear your perspective as to why you find JT sympathetic, you are probably seeing something that I am not.

ShuBob wrote:The PJ didn't search the Arade dam when that lawyer claimed to have received information from the underworld that Maddie's body lay there. Why should they now search Murat's garden AGAIN just to put certain people's minds at rest?

russiandoll wrote: taking Maddie out of the picture for a moment....there are other missing children in Portugal are there not?
A person has claimed he is almost certain that there are human remains in a specific location.
It has to be checked out, verified or not, surely. How can a police force not conduct a search? How can they be so certain that there are no human remains [ possibly not Maddie's] on this property? If the man is a scam artist, let him be charged with whatever offence he has committed. His claims have to be checked out now imo there could be the human remains of any missing person there. I feel very sorry for the Murats, but now this is with the police I fail to see how dismissing it can be justified.

Woofer wrote:

ShuBob wrote:The PJ didn't search the Arade dam when that lawyer claimed to have received information from the underworld that Maddie's body lay there. Why should they now search Murat's garden AGAIN just to put certain people's minds at rest?

Because it could have been put there after the police search. Anyway ShuBob, wouldn`t you dig that area up if it was in your garden?

ShuBob wrote:

Woofer wrote:

ShuBob wrote:The PJ didn't search the Arade dam when that lawyer claimed to have received information from the underworld that Maddie's body lay there. Why should they now search Murat's garden AGAIN just to put certain people's minds at rest?

Because it could have been put there after the police search. Anyway ShuBob, wouldn`t you dig that area up if it was in your garden?

But that's not what Birch is claiming. He says his investigation puts the burial date as the night of Maddie's disappearance- 3rd May 2007. Based on such information, no, I wouldn't dig my garden!

ShuBob wrote:But that's not what Birch is claiming. He says his investigation puts the burial date as the night of Maddie's disappearance- 3rd May 2007. Based on such information, no, I wouldn't dig my garden!

tcat wrote:

ShuBob wrote:But that's not what Birch is claiming. He says his investigation puts the burial date as the night of Maddie's disappearance- 3rd May 2007. Based on such information, no, I wouldn't dig my garden!

Yep Birch needs to publish the evidence he says he has indicating the 2007 searches weren't done properly. Who's going to take his allegation seriously if he doesn't, or he actually has no evidence?

candyfloss wrote:

tcat wrote:

ShuBob wrote:But that's not what Birch is claiming. He says his investigation puts the burial date as the night of Maddie's disappearance- 3rd May 2007. Based on such information, no, I wouldn't dig my garden!

Yep Birch needs to publish the evidence he says he has indicating the 2007 searches weren't done properly. Who's going to take his allegation seriously if he doesn't, or he actually has no evidence?

I don't personally think he needs to publish anything. He should give all his evidence to the police and let them deal with it. They have asked him to supply further information which he says he is doing. Since when do people who have evidence in a case publish it? He really should not have gone to the media in the first place imo. That's why I think there is something not right about all this.

Woofer wrote:I still tend to think its linked with the email Sharoni received 15 months ago, which is when Birch says he became interested.

ShuBob wrote:

Woofer wrote:I still tend to think its linked with the email Sharoni received 15 months ago, which is when Birch says he became interested.

I have very little doubt it's linked and believe the PJ, the McCanns, the press and possibly the Murats were aware of the claims either before or around the same time as SharonI.

candyfloss wrote:

tcat wrote:

ShuBob wrote:But that's not what Birch is claiming. He says his investigation puts the burial date as the night of Maddie's disappearance- 3rd May 2007. Based on such information, no, I wouldn't dig my garden!

Yep Birch needs to publish the evidence he says he has indicating the 2007 searches weren't done properly. Who's going to take his allegation seriously if he doesn't, or he actually has no evidence?

I don't personally think he needs to publish anything. He should give all his evidence to the police and let them deal with it. They have asked him to supply further information which he says he is doing. Since when do people who have evidence in a case publish it? He really should not have gone to the media in the first place imo. That's why I think there is something not right about all this.

candyfloss wrote:I don't personally think he needs to publish anything. He should give all his evidence to the police and let them deal with it. They have asked him to supply further information which he says he is doing. Since when do people who have evidence in a case publish it? He really should not have gone to the media in the first place imo. That's why I think there is something not right about all this.