Sky News Website

I feel sure that any Madeleine supporter who reads this article on the Sky News website, will be as disgusted as I am.

http://news.sky.com/story/955182/former-top-detective-madeleine-is-alive

I know one person who will be rejoicing at this news, but her rejoicing will be short lived in my opinion, because if Madeleine is alive and I hope she is, it won't mean that the McCanns are off the hook, whether Madeleine was abducted or not. The McCanns committed a crime, each time they left their children unsupervised in their unlocked, unlit apartment. If Madeleine was abducted, then the McCanns would surely face a jail sentence, because Madeleine was left in the way she had been left the previous evenings.

If Madeleine wasn't abducted, then the McCanns should face justice, because they have behaved in the same way as Karen Matthews. Karen Matthews was jailed not just for faking Shannon's abduction, she was jailed for trying to extort money. If Madeleine wasn't abucted, the McCanns have not only faked Madeleine's disappearance, they've extorted at least £1m, from the wealthy, the working class, children and senior citizens.

"Ian is the senior consultant at BGP Global Services. Along with others at BGP, he is experienced in the assessment of major crimes scenes. Such assessments are conducted not only for media groups, but also for law firms, law enforcement bodies and other organisations."

Good use of Carter Ruck funds paying for someone to write this drivel. He seems to think that because there were two minutes that Madeleine could have been taken by an abductor then she must have been. None of the article makes any sense at all. His conclustion is that she was most likely taken to be a member of someone else's family, however, that theory has the huge major hole that surely one of the twins would have been taken instead.

This man is putting his reputation on the line. Who in their right mind would hire this guy or this firm after reading this ridiculous piece? He seriously believes that the "abductor" would have chosen to walk directly in the line of sight of the three people including Madeleine's father just so he wouldn't have to go up hill? Give me a break.

The one thing I do agree with is that the re-investigation needs to start with extensive interviews of the McCanns, along with Tanner (and Oldfield). I aLso feel that they should all submit to lie detector tests, just to prove good faith.

jinvta wrote:"Ian is the senior consultant at BGP Global Services. Along with others at BGP, he is experienced in the assessment of major crimes scenes. Such assessments are conducted not only for media groups, but also for law firms, law enforcement bodies and other organisations."

Good use of Carter Ruck funds paying for someone to write this drivel. He seems to think that because there were two minutes that Madeleine could have been taken by an abductor then she must have been. None of the article makes any sense at all. His conclustion is that she was most likely taken to be a member of someone else's family, however, that theory has the huge major hole that surely one of the twins would have been taken instead.

This man is putting his reputation on the line. Who in their right mind would hire this guy or this firm after reading this ridiculous piece? He seriously believes that the "abductor" would have chosen to walk directly in the line of sight of the three people including Madeleine's father just so he wouldn't have to go up hill? Give me a break.

The one thing I do agree with is that the re-investigation needs to start with extensive interviews of the McCanns, along with Tanner (and Oldfield). I aLso feel that they should all submit to lie detector tests, just to prove good faith.

Hi Jinvta

If I were the PJ, I would bring the review to a swift end and demand that the case was reopened. I feel embarrassed that we have former and present senior police officers speaking drivel. First of all we have D.C.I. Andy Redwood saying Madeleine either alive or dead, if he had put his brain in gear, he would have realised that his stupid statement, related to every human being on the planet. Andy Redwood is getting paid thousands of pounds a year, for stating the obvious.

Now we have Ian Horrocks, saying he believes Madeleine is alive, but her parents are not involved with her disappearance. If he had put his brain in gear, before he spouted his drivel, he would be able to see that the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's disappearance whether she was abducted or not. I shudder to think what kind of a police officer he was, especially when he was in charge of a serious crime such as murder.

Agreed kathybelle. He was obviously very handsomely paid by the fund indirectly through Carter-Ruck to make this completely incoherent statement which lacks any sound reasoning whatsoever. The following statement alone negates his entire theory:

"The talk of Madeleine being kidnapped by a paedophile ring, for a client in some distant place, or some of the even more farfetched theories are not worth discussion and equally are not credible. Should this have been the reason, sadly there are many places throughout Europe and indeed the world where this is a far simpler task than in a busy holiday resort in Portugal."

One could just as likely say "The talk of Madeleine being kidnapped by a paedophile ring, for a client in some distant place taken by some childless couple to be a member of their family, or some of the even more farfetched theories are not worth discussion and equally are not credible. Should this have been the reason, sadly there are many places throughout Europe and indeed the world where this is a far simpler task than in a busy holiday resort in Portugal."

Does he not see his gross error? We all do, there it is in black and white. Stealing a child is stealing a child for whatever purpose. He is even more guilty of trying to make the evidence match his conclusion (paid for by the fund) than the PJ whom he claims to have tried to make the evidence match their conclusion.

If we are to believe Ian Bollocks, then far-fetched theories involving stealing a child should not even be entertained in a holiday resort in Portugal, unless of course those far-fetched theories involve stealing the eldest of three children, leaving behind two babies, and walking in the direct line of sight of three people in association with the McCanns including Madeleine's father. Sadly inspector, it really doesn't get any more far-fetched than that.

Further, there is this statement dismissing the accident theory: "Even if such an accident had happened, is it feasible that they would not immediately seek assistance and call for an ambulance?" Well, not if they were not there when the accident happened and Madeleine was already dead by the time they returned. They themselves admit to not seeing the children for at least 45 minutes at a time (9:15 pm to 10 pm), certainly enough time for a child to have an accident and die. Why can't you see this Inspector?

Then there is this absurd statement: "Finally, and in my opinion, the most salient fact is that a male was seen at 9.15pm carrying a child who clearly fits Madeleine’s description." It is not a fact that a male was seen carrying a child fitting Madeleine's description. It was only alleged by an extremely unreliable witness, who was invisible to all others, that she had seen a man carrying a chld with bare feet. She did not see the hair nor the face of the chld, so clearly the child could have been anyone, but to this inspector, these legs were clearly Madeleines.

Lastly, the timing does not fit. Any abductor who had been watching the group all week would have known not to strike until all elements had arrived at the tapas bar. Before the Paynes arrived, Matthew had already gotten up to hurry up the Paynes and conduct a listening check. The abductor(s) would not have struck whilst Matthew was still checking, as they would know very well that he would be returning the the bar. Surely, the watchful abductor(s) would have seen Matthew return to the bar and Gerry getting up at the same time. Can't strike yet, Gerry on the way. So when exactly did the adbuctor enter the apartment? I don't see how the timing fits at all as alleged by this bungling inspector. This is the reason the McCanns and their friends refuse to do a reconstruction, there was no window of opportunity for a watchful abductor between 9 and 9:15 pm.

Horrocks hasn't said anything new here. This drivel has been spouted by a good number of people in the past. Does he consider that someone who took Madeleine to be part of their family would then openly have suddenly acquired a nearly four year old? In his imagination does that family send the world's best known missing child to school or have her lead a normal life, having friends to play? I wonder how he imagines all that?

AnnaEsse wrote:Horrocks hasn't said anything new here. This drivel has been spouted by a good number of people in the past. Does he consider that someone who took Madeleine to be part of their family would then openly have suddenly acquired a nearly four year old? In his imagination does that family send the world's best known missing child to school or have her lead a normal life, having friends to play? I wonder how he imagines all that?

if someone wanted a new childa 2 year old ie the twin/or one of the twins would have been the perfect child to take to a new family 2 year olds dont remember anything but 4 year olds do i can remember things from aged 4 barley but i can

Justiceforallkids wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Horrocks hasn't said anything new here. This drivel has been spouted by a good number of people in the past. Does he consider that someone who took Madeleine to be part of their family would then openly have suddenly acquired a nearly four year old? In his imagination does that family send the world's best known missing child to school or have her lead a normal life, having friends to play? I wonder how he imagines all that?

if someone wanted a new childa 2 year old ie the twin/or one of the twins would have been the perfect child to take to a new family 2 year olds dont remember anything but 4 year olds do i can remember things from aged 4 barley but i can

Also, while there are much easier ways and places for paedos to abduct children, the same goes for someone wanting a child to be part of their family. If they wanted a fair haired child, there are plenty in Morocco and more children disappear from Morocco every year than are taken there to be hidden. If someone could afford to pay an abductor to steal a child, they could also afford to simply buy one from any one of the orphanages in Eastern Europe where such practices still carry on. Much less trouble and no need to hide the child.

As a reminder... here's his article for The Sun dated 29th April 2012

http://news.sky.com/story/955182/former-top-detective-madeleine-may-be-alive

AnnaEsse wrote:

Justiceforallkids wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Horrocks hasn't said anything new here. This drivel has been spouted by a good number of people in the past. Does he consider that someone who took Madeleine to be part of their family would then openly have suddenly acquired a nearly four year old? In his imagination does that family send the world's best known missing child to school or have her lead a normal life, having friends to play? I wonder how he imagines all that?

if someone wanted a new childa 2 year old ie the twin/or one of the twins would have been the perfect child to take to a new family 2 year olds dont remember anything but 4 year olds do i can remember things from aged 4 barley but i can

Also, while there are much easier ways and places for paedos to abduct children, the same goes for someone wanting a child to be part of their family. If they wanted a fair haired child, there are plenty in Morocco and more children disappear from Morocco every year than are taken there to be hidden. If someone could afford to pay an abductor to steal a child, they could also afford to simply buy one from any one of the orphanages in Eastern Europe where such practices still carry on. Much less trouble and no need to hide the child.

yes i know fora fact that in some places in the ukraine and kiev etc there are plenty of babies/children in orphanges with blonde hair that need homes

Justiceforallkids wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Justiceforallkids wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Horrocks hasn't said anything new here. This drivel has been spouted by a good number of people in the past. Does he consider that someone who took Madeleine to be part of their family would then openly have suddenly acquired a nearly four year old? In his imagination does that family send the world's best known missing child to school or have her lead a normal life, having friends to play? I wonder how he imagines all that?

if someone wanted a new childa 2 year old ie the twin/or one of the twins would have been the perfect child to take to a new family 2 year olds dont remember anything but 4 year olds do i can remember things from aged 4 barley but i can

Also, while there are much easier ways and places for paedos to abduct children, the same goes for someone wanting a child to be part of their family. If they wanted a fair haired child, there are plenty in Morocco and more children disappear from Morocco every year than are taken there to be hidden. If someone could afford to pay an abductor to steal a child, they could also afford to simply buy one from any one of the orphanages in Eastern Europe where such practices still carry on. Much less trouble and no need to hide the child.

yes i know fora fact that in some places in the ukraine and kiev etc there are plenty of babies/children in orphanges with blonde hair that need homes

Yes, there are. And adopting a baby from one of those places makes a lot more sense than paying someone to hang about round a holiday resort and try to take a 4 year old in a 2/3 minute window of opportunity. Why do all that and then risk the child talking to someone about their past when they could simply adopt a baby and be open about it?

AnnaEsse wrote:

Justiceforallkids wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

Justiceforallkids wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:Horrocks hasn't said anything new here. This drivel has been spouted by a good number of people in the past. Does he consider that someone who took Madeleine to be part of their family would then openly have suddenly acquired a nearly four year old? In his imagination does that family send the world's best known missing child to school or have her lead a normal life, having friends to play? I wonder how he imagines all that?

if someone wanted a new childa 2 year old ie the twin/or one of the twins would have been the perfect child to take to a new family 2 year olds dont remember anything but 4 year olds do i can remember things from aged 4 barley but i can

Also, while there are much easier ways and places for paedos to abduct children, the same goes for someone wanting a child to be part of their family. If they wanted a fair haired child, there are plenty in Morocco and more children disappear from Morocco every year than are taken there to be hidden. If someone could afford to pay an abductor to steal a child, they could also afford to simply buy one from any one of the orphanages in Eastern Europe where such practices still carry on. Much less trouble and no need to hide the child.

yes i know fora fact that in some places in the ukraine and kiev etc there are plenty of babies/children in orphanges with blonde hair that need homes

Yes, there are. And adopting a baby from one of those places makes a lot more sense than paying someone to hang about round a holiday resort and try to take a 4 year old in a 2/3 minute window of opportunity. Why do all that and then risk the child talking to someone about their past when they could simply adopt a baby and be open about it?

It would be interetsing to know the statistics for known abductions "to join a family". I am guessing it is relatively uncommon. Why risk a lengthy jail sentence when as you say there are straightforward routes which carry no risk at all.

could this be tounge in cheek IE the ex cop cant really say what he really thinks but he has sort of done it i na reverse way if that makes sense know that sounds garbled but in this case who knows lol

Christ knows whats on the horizon, to wheel this garbage out.

Bet the fund is well and truly dried up now, having to pay for this kind of drivel, must have taken alot of it....I bet there wouldn't be many SY Coppers that would risk their reputations for just a few quid imo.

I'm sure that most people who read it, will probably say, hmm another "5 years to late" story.....But WHY NOW wheel this story out?????

Good morning everyone

Horrocks, also dissed his former police officer colleague, Martin Grime, the handler of Eddie and Keela, when he made his crass comments. Without saying anything, he is agreeing with the McCanns that these two smart dogs, were wrong when they discovered evidence that lead Goncalo Amaral and D.C.I Almeida, to reach the conclusion they did.

He has already proved he is a bent copper, when he was part of the team who framed Barry George for Jill Dando's murder.

If Horrocks genuinely believes Madeleine is alive, he should be speaking to his former homicide detectives, who are assisting the PJ with the review, not the media. He shouldn't have spoke to the media in April and he shouldn't be speaking to them now.

For what it's worth, D.C.I. Andy Redwood should not have spoke to the media, about any aspect of this review and he should not have been allowed to take part in a Panorama programme. In my opinion that programme was made for two reasons, one to make out that the PJ were useless and another to make out that the McCanns are the innocent party in all this.

kathybelle wrote:Good morning everyone

Horrocks, also dissed his former police officer colleague, Martin Grime, the handler of Eddie and Keela, when he made his crass comments. Without saying anything, he is agreeing with the McCanns that these two smart dogs, were wrong when they discovered evidence that lead Goncalo Amaral and D.C.I Almeida, to reach the conclusion they did.

He has already proved he is a bent copper, when he was part of the team who framed Barry George for Jill Dando's murder.

If Horrocks genuinely believes Madeleine is alive, he should be speaking to his former homicide detectives, who are assisting the PJ with the review, not the media. He shouldn't have spoke to the media in April and he shouldn't be speaking to them now.

the blue hormonal forum are all excited over this kathy they think it means maddie is alive and well and living with another family sick idiots the lot of them

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

money money money could be funny in a rich mans world........ that song always reminds me of the mcanns
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad

And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That's too bad

In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd fool around and have a ball...

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

Justiceforallkids wrote:

kathybelle wrote:Good morning everyone

Horrocks, also dissed his former police officer colleague, Martin Grime, the handler of Eddie and Keela, when he made his crass comments. Without saying anything, he is agreeing with the McCanns that these two smart dogs, were wrong when they discovered evidence that lead Goncalo Amaral and D.C.I Almeida, to reach the conclusion they did.

He has already proved he is a bent copper, when he was part of the team who framed Barry George for Jill Dando's murder.

If Horrocks genuinely believes Madeleine is alive, he should be speaking to his former homicide detectives, who are assisting the PJ with the review, not the media. He shouldn't have spoke to the media in April and he shouldn't be speaking to them now.

the blue hormonal forum are all excited over this kathy they think it means maddie is alive and well and living with another family sick idiots the lot of them

I know, JFAK and it won't be long before "Elsie and Doris Waters" (I know I'm showing my age) will be back on here, spouting more drivel and trying to wind us up.

By the way, I've added a bit more to my previous post.

As Mumbles correctly states, this story first came up in the spring (and it was not half as welcome or appealing as the burgeoning daffodils). It has now been dug up again in the summer.
But why?
Are we to suffer yet another flurry of tired, predictable and frankly ludicrous articles?

And are we to believe that this dim lightbulb and Murdoch minion is typical of the kind of coppering prevalent in our lifetime?

Suffice it to say that if I, in my time as an undergraduate, had handed in a so-called 'report' similar to this load of old Scum-sponsored Horrocks Bollox, then in terms of style/content/objectivity/intellectual rigour, I would have been given a massive FAIL (and possibly ejected from the building with a cattle prod and ordered never to darken the Faculty door again).

NEXT!

Justiceforallkids wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

money money money could be funny in a rich mans world........ that song always reminds me of the mcanns
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad

And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That's too bad

In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd fool around and have a ball...

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

I have always loved ABBA music and Money Money Money, is one of my favourite songs.

There is a slight difference between the first line of the song and the McCanns. The McCanns haven't had to lift a finger, to obtain the money that they've gained since Madeleine disappeared, they let someone else do all of the hard work. Or in the case of the children their pocket money and in the case of the Senior Citizens, money from their pensions.

kathybelle wrote:

Justiceforallkids wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

money money money could be funny in a rich mans world........ that song always reminds me of the mcanns
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad

And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That's too bad

In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd fool around and have a ball...

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

you see why that song is just like the mcanns!!!!!!!

Justiceforallkids wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

Justiceforallkids wrote:

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

money money money could be funny in a rich mans world........ that song always reminds me of the mcanns
I work all night, I work all day, to pay the bills I have to pay
Ain't it sad

And still there never seems to be a single penny left for me
That's too bad

In my dreams I have a plan
If I got me a wealthy man
I wouldn't have to work at all, I'd fool around and have a ball...

Money, money, money
Must be funny
In the rich man's world
Money, money, money
Always sunny
In the rich man's world
Aha-ahaaa
All the things I could do
If I had a little money
It's a rich man's world

you see why that song is just like the mcanns!!!!!!!

As you can see, I pressed the send button, before I made my comment.

Ex-Detective's Report On Madeleine

Updated: 4:20pm UK, Monday 02 July 2012

Former Metropolitan Police detective Ian Horrock's report into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Additionally, people who commit these offences generally do not just commit one. They often start slowly and develop more confidence with time. If a paedophile had been responsible for the abduction of Madeleine, then it is likely that he would not only have had a history of similar offences, but would have certainly committed some since

I agree with the bit in bold so where are the abductions after May 2007?

I absolutely do not subscribe to that 'white, blond hair, blue eyed, middle class child' stuff (someone can correct me on the correct termination), young children DO NOT get abducted without alot of publicity so where are the others?

margaret wrote:Ex-Detective's Report On Madeleine

Updated: 4:20pm UK, Monday 02 July 2012

Former Metropolitan Police detective Ian Horrock's report into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Additionally, people who commit these offences generally do not just commit one. They often start slowly and develop more confidence with time. If a paedophile had been responsible for the abduction of Madeleine, then it is likely that he would not only have had a history of similar offences, but would have certainly committed some since

I agree with the bit in bold so where are the abductions after May 2007?

I absolutely do not subscribe to that 'white, blond hair, blue eyed, middle class child' stuff (someone can correct me on the correct termination), young children DO NOT get abducted without alot of publicity so where are the others?

there isnt any!!!

Justiceforallkids wrote:
there isnt any!!!

Well there must be! Ian Horrocks clearly says this is a serial abductor taking children before Maddie and after.

AND, l would like to know who exactly commissioned this report, the McCanns or The Sun without any consultation with the McCanns beforehand?