Sky News Website

This topic was covered previously:

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t19966-inside-the-twisted-minds-of-the-madeleine-mccann-child-snatchers

Certainly funny enough for a rerun.

almostgothic wrote: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!

Yes, I can still hear my tutors - acknowledge your sources and back up everything you say with evidence. Horrocks has failed!

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.

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.

So it's okay for the McCanns and their paid poison dwarves to whine about GA's suspended sentence. But not a squeak when it's "one of their own". Feckin' hypocrites, the lot of them.

There certainly seems to be new consorted effort from the mccanns & cronies over the past few days. Sundays article in the Express from pro mccann James Murray, the awakening of trolls onto forums like this one disrupting and dispelling, steel magnolia stating we are all wasting our time, now this rubbish from Horricks in the Sun...what will be next?....can hardly wait

Even though I was labelled a 'conspiracy theorist' (despite not giving a theory) at least my posts came from 100% facts...and not from lies like this latest comic book story in the Sun

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

Yes, and she's going to school and no one has asked the family where she came from and she hasn't told anyone her real name. Or else, she's being kept hidden, without any real life at all. Is that the way someone who wanted a child as part of their family would want to live? They never have visitors to their home? They don't have any extended family who ask questions? Maybe they live on an island where there are no visitors and Madeleine is living an isolated but idyllic life with them. And maybe I'm the Queen of Sheba!

Sky News, The Sun = Murdoch, Rebekah Brooks et al - and I think the whole world now knows the depths this organisation will sink to. Wouldn`t anyone in their right mind immediately questions the morals of any employee or payee linked thereto.

Hopefully this link works. And yes it it yet another non story.

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

This is covered in the topic "Sky News Website".

P.S. This was originally on a separate topic, I haven't completely lost my marbles yet!

"There is not one shred of credible evidence, either direct or otherwise, to indicate that this is even a remote possibility."

Could be quoting from Clarence Mitchell's very tired brainwashing script. Now if the guy had said something like, "In spite of serious indications to the contrary, we can eliminate the parents' involvement because of this that and the other etc. etc." and actually come up with something credible that nobody else had thought of and which actually did eliminate the parents, that would be extremely interesting. But of course he cannot - not even the Portuguese police, Leicestershre Constabulary or Scotland Yard have managed to do that; not to mention Clarence Mitchell of course, or even the parents themselves. I'm beginning to wonder about these ex coppers; are the British police really that thick?

I assume this is the same Ian Horrocks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/nov/24/mainsection.correctionsandclarifications

The Guardian newspaper apologised in 2005 for claiming he had a "propensity for trips abroad at the expense of others". Maybe the apology was unnecessary after all.

Has anyone else noticed today is the day of Lianne Smith's sentencing? Coincidence, surely?

Not Born Yesterday wrote:This is covered in the topic "Sky News Website".

I wonder why it is not on the "Life of Crime Blog'.

Can much credence be given to what Ian Horricks says if he was one of the detectives
who accused Barry George of killing Jill Dando and Barry George found not guilty and later released, which means whoever did kill her is still walking around free!


interesting article here about another case where Horrocks is singing the praises of News of
the World.
http://www.scotsman.com/news/uk/beckham-kidnap-case-thrown-out-amid-claims-newspaper-bribed-key-witness-1-650547

curious george wrote:I assume this is the same Ian Horrocks

http://www.guardian.co.uk/news/2005/nov/24/mainsection.correctionsandclarifications

The Guardian newspaper apologised in 2005 for claiming he had a "propensity for trips abroad at the expense of others". Maybe the apology was unnecessary after all.

Has anyone else noticed today is the day of Lianne Smith's sentencing? Coincidence, surely?

and this is the same Ian Harrocks from NSY.....

Mike Hardy Quote

Amazing that the press are placing so much significance on this 'non' story, yet omitting to point out that HORROCKS presided over the Barry George 'stitch-up' fiasco in the Jill Dando case. I'm sure the McCanns will derive great comfort from the insight of such an esteemed, former detective...

Yes very strange that the press seem to be giving this attention to Horrocks as if what
he says has such great importance, but forget to say he was involved in what many seem as the stitch up of Barry George and certainly the Appeal Judge seems to think so cos he released him. So from that we can see clearly there has to be some doubt cast on Ian Horrocks abilities, along with his colleagues who were involved in the Dando case. Horrocks went on record I beleive as saying he agreed with the opinion of the first trial so in effect still condemning George after his release.

I've seen a load of rubbish written about this case, but this is up there with the worst. For a start:

"He explains why his belief that murder or kidnap by a paedophile ring or individual are less likely and totally rules out Madeleine's parents' involvement or an accident.

Mr Horrocks said: "The thought that Kate and Gerry McCann had anything to do with the death of their daughter, whether being directly responsible or covering it up, is frankly preposterous.

"There is not one shred of credible evidence, either direct or otherwise, to indicate that this is even a remote possibility."

But, in this article, he doesn't go on to give one single piece of evidence as to why he believes this.

"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 irrelevant points just fuel this uninformed and I must say often offensive conjecture."

There was only one cadaver dog - the other British dog was there to find blood traces. He talks about 'uninformed' and 'offensive' conjecture - biased, subjective opinion - without backing it up with facts.

As for this idiot's argument that the so-called evidence suggests that Madeleine was taken to be a part of someone else's family; although this may be the case, there has never been any proof that this has happened. Why on earth would criminals looking to take a child to sell to a family, who wanted them to provide a blonde girl, focus on a British family on holiday with friends for a week in an intimate complex?

I imagine the majority of police officers out there will be thinking what a total
idiot Horrocks has made of himself!

Dismissing the dogs when they are held in such high regard throughout the world
is a grave error on his part!

Dismissing the Mccanns as being involved in any way is another very grave error and also
shows he knows little about the statistics involved when a child goes missing or is harmed/killed
that in a large proportion of cases one or other of the parents are involved (speaking in general terms here and not about this specific case).

I think he may regret speaking out in this way - the question any investigative reporter will be asking is why has he done so!

cherry1 wrote:Yes very strange that the press seem to be giving this attention to Horrocks as if what
he says has such great importance, but forget to say he was involved in what many seem as the stitch up of Barry George and certainly the Appeal Judge seems to think so cos he released him. So from that we can see clearly there has to be some doubt cast on Ian Horrocks abilities, along with his colleagues who were involved in the Dando case. Horrocks went on record I beleive as saying he agreed with the opinion of the first trial so in effect still condemning George after his release.

Look, I think we have to be careful here in casting aspersions on the character of a former detective. Okay, yes I agree his words regarding Madeleine seem to just fall from his mouth without any reasoning as to why he thinks this. However, in the case of Barry George, it does not necessarily cast doubt on his abilities or that of his colleages. There are a good many cases which are thrown out of court on legal technicalities and guilt or innocence do not seem to come into it. It is the lawyers being clever. It does not necessarily mean the police stitched anyone up. For what its worth I personally I would not like to meet Barry George in the street on a dark night.

Here is an interesting article from 2008: -

By Gordon Rayner, Chief Reporter

2:24PM BST 01 Aug 2008
The single most important piece of evidence presented at his original trial - a speck of gunpowder found in his coat pocket - was ruled inadmissable after the Forensic Science Service performed an about-turn and decided it was worthless in evidential terms.

The particle, invisible to the naked eye, was the only thing which had appeared to physically link Mr George to the crime scene. Its pivotal role in securing his original conviction at the Old Bailey in 2001 was proved when the foreman of that jury told the BBC’s Panorama that without it, Mr George would unquestionably have been cleared.

The unnamed foreman said “there’s no point in having (another) trial because there isn’t enough evidence to prosecute”.

It came as no surprise, therefore, when the jury at his retrial acquitted him.

Mr George’s supporters, including his sister Michelle Diskin, who has campaigned tirelessly for his release, repeated their claims that the man who was described by his own defence barrister as “the local nutter” should never have been charged in the first place.

Mr George, 48, had first come to the attention of police just days after the murder, when a witness rang the incident room to say they had seen him near Miss Dando’s house in Fulham on the morning in question.

He was immediately ruled out as a suspect, because police were certain the killer was a professional hitman hired by a jealous former boyfriend or gangster with a grudge against Crimewatch.

Miss Dando, 37, had been grabbed by the arm and quickly forced to the ground, where a pistol was pressed so tightly against her head that it muffled the sound of the fatal shot.

The murder took less than 20 seconds before the killer walked calmly away in broad daylight, leaving no clues at the scene except the bullet itself, which had been crimped into its cartridge by hand, indicating the murderer was an expert in guns.

The idea that a shambling oddball with a habit of drawing attention to himself could have executed such a clinical crime was, not surprisingly, dismissed out of hand.

Barry George’s family believe the police’s interest in him should have ended there. Mr George, who had suffered from emotional and behavioural difficulties since childhood, had an IQ of just 75, putting him in the bottom five per cent of the population, and the jury at his retrial was told that his ability to organise and perform tasks was in the bottom one per cent of the populace.

Whilst the killer appeared to have a specialist knowledge of guns, possibly converting a starter pistol to fire live ammunition and then adapting the bullet by hand, Mr George was so hopeless with gadgets that he once had to ask a local shopkeeper to load film into his camera for him.

But a year after the murder, after drawing a blank in the investigation despite interviewing more than 5,000 people and taking more than 2,400 statements, detectives reviewed all of their initial leads and came upon Barry George’s name once more.

As inquiries were made into Mr George’s background, it emerged that he had an unhealthy obsession with guns and celebrities and on the day after the murder he had gone to the offices of a local charity to try to establish an alibi.

Det Chief Supt Hamish Campbell, the man leading the investigation, ordered Mr George’s arrest, and became increasingly convinced that he could be the killer when he lied repeatedly in interviews, claiming he did not know who Jill Dando was and denying any interest in guns.

When a picture of George wearing a gas mask and clutching a pistol was found at his home, Mr Campbell became certain he had his man.

He told his officers to “prove Barry George did not kill Jill Dando,” and when they said they could not, Mr Campbell presented a file to the Crown Prosecution Service, who charged Mr George with murder.

But even before the case got to court there were concerns that the police, under immense pressure to catch Miss Dando’s killer, had been so desperate to secure a conviction that they had fallen into the trap of making the facts fit into their hypothesis, rather than forming a hypothesis based on the facts.

Mr George, who lived just a few minutes walk from Miss Dando, was obsessed with celebrities, often changing his name to that of his heroes and claiming, for instance, that he was related to Freddie Mercury.

Yet Mr George, who would bore locals rigid with his wild claims, had shown no interest whatsoever in Jill Dando, despite living so close to her.

The police also discovered that he had a conviction for attempted rape dating back to February 1983, when he was jailed for two-and-a-half years after following a young woman and attempting to assault her.

His jail term included a suspended sentence from a year earlier when he grabbed a woman’s breasts and was found guilty of indecent assault.

This, too, appeared to strengthen the case against Mr George, yet there were numerous other convicted sex offenders living in the area and Mr George had not been convicted of any sex offence for 16 years.

Crucially, however, it meant he routinely became a suspect in unsolved sex attacks, and he was questioned over the murder of Rachel Nickell on Wimbledon Common in 1992 before being ruled out. He even confessed to a series of sex attacks in Notting Hill before police proved he could not have been responsible.

Was it so surprising, then, that when the country’s most high-profile murder happened around the corner he became anxious to make sure he had an alibi in case the police knocked on his door again?

Mr George’s supporters have always maintained that this explains why Mr George, who had visited the offices of Hammersmith and Fulham Action for Disability on the day of the murder, returned the next day asking staff if they remembered what time he had been there. Yet to the police, it was a clear indication of guilt.

Further disturbing evidence came to light when police developed countless rolls of film found in George’s squalid, rubbish-strewn flat and found more than 2,000 photographs of women, most of whom had been unaware they were being photographed.

A total of 14 women came forward to say they had been stalked by Mr George over a 15-year period, sometimes following them home and suddenly appearing in front of them. Again, the evidence - which was ruled out by the judge at his first trial but presented to the jury at his retrial - was circumstantial, at best, as it merely proved that Mr George was creepy and sinister, not a killer.

An eyewitness called Susan Mayes said she had seen Mr George pretending to clean a car windscreen as he stared at Miss Dando’s home hours before the murder.

She picked out Mr George in a video parade 18 months later but was the only witness to positively identify him at the scene. Other witnesses gave conflicting descriptions of the man they had seen, and could not positively identify Mr George from line-ups.

When Orlando Pownall QC opened the case for the prosecution at Mr George’s original trial, he admitted that the evidence was “circumstantial”, but said that, taken together, it amounted to a “compelling case”.

And nothing was more compelling than the speck of gunpowder found in the pocket of Mr George’s Cecil Gee overcoat. It contained quantities of barium, aluminium and lead which matched gunpowder recovered from Miss Dando’s hair.

The chances of it getting into Mr George’s pocket by any means other than directly from the murder weapon were “negligible,” the jury was told.

A single polyester fibre found on Miss Dando’s raincoat was also a match for a pair of trousers owned by Mr George.

Six years later, following a lengthy investigation by the Criminal Cases Review Commission, expert opinion on the gunpowder particle and the fibre evidence had changed completely.

The gunpowder could just as easily have been transferred into Mr George’s pocket when he sat on a bus or the London Underground, and the fibre could have come from tens of thousands of similar garments, the experts said.

The forensic evidence, once so crucial to the case, was now meaningless and prosecutors were left with nothing more to present to the jury than examples of the weird behaviour so familiar to anyone who knew Barry George.

There is no denying that George was a character who many would not want to know
for the way he had behaved but while nobody can say for certain George didnt do it, equally
nobody can say for certain he didnt but the opinion of the Appeal was that he didnt and equally
there are cases where the police do stitch up what they see as what has been described as
'the local nutter', we have seen this happen before in other cases.

Whether that in itself casts doubts on his competence is a matter of opinion but for him to have made
some of the other comments he has I would say most certainly does imo bring his competence into question. We have seen in the Levenson enquiry some concern regarding the behaviour of Police
Officers, the reason why Horrocks said what he did I would hope may be looked into by some investigative
journalist, if any out there! The fact that nobody can argue with the fact they have lied I really dont see how he could make the comments he has done! People lie for a reason. In addition to that as far as we know SY are still sifting through information so again imo for him to speak out at this stage raises more questions about why he is doing so.

To sell a lie you need good confident articulate
and credible people, do you not?
So. who do they trail out? this man Horricks!
The public are not daft, they will see thru this
as a load of horricks!