Lying in the Sun

Dodgy Detectives

Dodgy Detectives


Martin Brunt, crime correspondent:

“A former top Scotland Yard detective has written a detailed analysis of the Madeleine McCann mystery and explains, why he believes there is a good chance she is alive.

Ian Horrocks visited the holiday resort where the toddler vanished and examined the police files and media reports.”

July 2012

---------

 

Ian Horrocks - Former Metropolitan Police Officer:

“In February this year on behalf of The Sun newspaper I travelled to Portugal to review the investigation into the abduction of Madeleine McCann and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

 

-------------- 


In the Madeleine McCann case, a female friend of the McCanns, Jane Tanner, said she witnessed, on the night the child vanished, a man carrying a young child.  He carried the child on his outstretched arms like an offering.

The angle and position on the street from where the witness saw the man allowed only a ‘side-on’ view therefore she could not identify whether this child was male or female.  She could see only the child’s tiny feet, which were bare, and the legs from the knee down.

It was dark, the man was walking hurriedly.  She saw him fleetingly from a distance of some yards away.

When the alarm was raised that Madeleine was missing, she did not immediately tell the McCanns or the police what she had witnessed.  Instead she stated that she informed two other female members of the party.  They in turn did not make this information known, one of them telling police when interviewed very much later, that she failed to act immediately as she did not feel it was for her to upset the McCanns further that night, by divulging this information. 

None of these three professional females, friends, or at least acquaintances of the McCann couple, considered it urgent to alert the police, nor did they think to point those members of the public searching for the missing child, in the direction the man was seen heading.   Utterly astounding!

Would Madeleine, if, this was in fact her being abducted, have stood a better chance of being recovered if her parent’s friends had acted with urgency?  Most probably!

The witness, not initially, but eventually stated that the child was wearing pinkish coloured patterned pyjama bottoms with a frill at the ankles - bear in mind she could only see the child’s body from the knee down, on a dark night and from a reasonable distance she stated, the man was walking hurriedly.

The man was not walking towards her but horizontally across her path, from left to right, away from her.  As he did so her view of the man, the child’s tiny feet/legs to be more precise would be ever changing like in a film frame, it would not be static.  With every hurried step this man took, the view, she had, would become more obscure, more distant. Less and less of the child’s legs/feet she would see.  Unless her gaze followed this man’s every step until he was out of sight, I think we can safely say therefore that her actual view of these tiny feet and pyjamas, lasted but a second or two. 

It was for this reason also - only having a ‘side-on view’ - of the man, walking hurriedly away from where she was walking in the street, that she was unable to give any facial description of the man.  The further he walked away into the distance the less she would have seen of the side of his head/face, with the back of his head then coming into view.  The view she had of the man's side profile, no longer would exist.  

As 
she continued on her way towards the top of the street, for her to see anything more she would have to turn her head to the right, even if only slightly, glance in his direction so as to continue, to “follow” this fellow.  She would then be viewing him NOT from the same position when she originally noticed him, an ever changing picture, now she would have a view of his back!

They, the man and Jane Tanner were moving in different directions away from each other, not towards each other.

Generally when one carries a child who is wearing pyjamas the bottoms ride up.  This lady could only see the legs of a small child from the knee down, so very little of the material of the pyjama bottoms would have been seen if at all.   We all know that ‘colour’ is extremely difficult to establish in the dark.  Could the street lighting have been sufficiently bright, of a quality where the colour/tiny pattern/and little frill of the lower part of the pyjama bottom was able to be distinguished, and within a second or two? 

It was the colour of the little part of the pyjama bottoms she claimed to have seen in the split second when she had sight of this man, which led her she said to believe the child may have been a female. Realistically, as she herself stated, having seen only a child’s bare feet it was not possible for her to confirm whether, either a male or female child.

The statement by this lady was considered by the police not to be credible.

On the same night, a little later on, an Irish family by the name of Smith, who have a holiday home in the area and know it well, on returning from an evening out, passed a man in the street at close proximity. The man was carrying a child.

Unlike in the first sighting by Jane Tanner:

The man was walking towards the family not away from them, allowing them a clear uninterrupted view, and with every step towards the family the man took, his facial features, his clothing, the child he carried, became clearer, up until the point where he then passed them at close range.    

They
acknowledged him verbally as they passed face to face.  The man did not respond.

They could see also the man’s face, they had a frontal view.  Jane Tanner did not!  

     They could see positively, absolutely that he carried a blonde female child of around 3 years of age. 

The child was being carried in a different fashion as that of the man seen by Jane Tanner.  He carried the child not horizontally as in the sighting by Tanner, but vertically, in a more natural way, with the child’s head resting on the man’s shoulder.

The family as it happens were scheduled to return home to Ireland next day.  They did so unaware that a child was reported as missing from the Ocean Club holiday complex in Praia da Luz. 

Once back home in Ireland they heard on a news report about a little girl who had gone missing from the Ocean Club.  Their thoughts turned to the man they had seen carrying the young female child.  A man they had verbally acknowledged when passing him that night, though the man did not respond. 

They later returned to Portugal to make a statement to police.

The man seen by the Smith family was later to be described by some members as looking like Gerry McCann.   Doesn’t mean it was Gerry McCann but it means that someone with similar physical features, height, build, stature was seen by these four adults carrying a female child fitting Madeleine’s description.

 

To summarise:

The McCanns friend Jane Tanner saw no more than a child’s bare feet:

(Panorama Documentary)

BILTON: Describe exactly what he's carrying, what you can see?

JANE Tanner: Well I could see.. I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet and... feet and the bottom of the pyjamas,     


BILTON: And could you tell if it was a boy or a girl? 
  

JANE Tanner: Only because the pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them so you presume a girl. 


JANE TANNER


She claims to have seen 'her man' at a time when Gerry McCann was standing in the street speaking with an acquaintance.


The man was walking horizontally across her path from left to right, away from her, walking hurriedly.


She had only a side-on view for a split second. 
It was dark.


She viewed him from a reasonable distance away she stated. 

Neither Gerry McCann, nor the acquaintance saw the man who was seen by Tanner.    Nor did they see Jane Tanner.  


The acquaintance stating to police that it would have been
impossible for her (Tanner) to have passed him unseen at the location, as the road was narrow, the street quiet.


The Smith Family

     The Irish family, the Smiths, 4 adult members and one of the older children gave statements. 


They saw a blonde female child of around 3 years of age, wearing pyjamas, who fitted Madeleine’s description. 


She was being carried by a man fitting Gerry McCann’s description. 


They had a clear unobstructed view as the man was walking directly towards them.

The Smith family is highly respected, respectable, and considered very credible witnesses, with no agenda.
 

Now to the conclusion Horrocks’ reached in this regard.  

Horrocks’s thoughts on the sighting by the female friend of the McCanns: 

“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. 

When taking everything together, this was CLEARLY Madeleine, which therefore 100% rules out Mr. and Mrs McCann as being involved in any way."
 

Horrocks’ thoughts on the sighting by the 4 adult members of the Irish family:


“I believe the later sighting by the Irish family to be IRRELEVANT and NOT Madeleine.” 

-----

This sighting, by the female friend of the McCanns (Jane Tanner) at approximately 9:15 p.m. – 

She gave no description other than having seen the bare feet of a child, a child she could not identify as being either male or female.

      At no time and by no stretch of the imagination, did this female friend state she, had seen, Madeleine, nor did she say she saw a female child being carried off by this man.

Why would Horrocks’ have blatantly lied in his report/misled the uninformed reader in this regard?

Horrocks a retired police officer, having served 30 years on the force and he behaves in a less than honest or proper manner?

But why would he, Horrocks’ dismiss the most crucial sighting of all, that of the Smith family, 4 adults not connected in any way to the McCann family, with no agenda other than to assist a police investigation into the disappearance of a little girl? A family who travelled back to Portugal from their home in Ireland to do just that!

     Was it because the description the Smith’s gave of the man they saw resembled Gerry McCann? 

Is this reason for Horrocks to ‘spin?’    Could be!


No one saw her on the street that night, 
not Gerry McCann, not his acquaintance, Jez Wilkins.  Yet she claims to have passed them on the narrow pavement where they stood chatting.

It has been well documented that a huge question mark hangs over the credibility of her statement.

If Tanner has told the truth re this sighting, did Horrocks give any consideration that the man seen by both parties could be one and the same, as how many children dressed in pyjamas would be getting carried around by a man in the dead of night through this sleepy town? This was a cold night in April, not a balmy summer evening! 

Does he think there were two children being carried around Praia Da Luz that night, both barefooted dressed only in pyjamas?

or

Is he saying that the Smith family have lied and did not see a man fitting Gerry McCanns description, carrying a child of Madeleine's description?

And not to put too fine a point on it – it IS the second sighting, that of the Smith family which matches Madeleine’s description… And her dad’s…?

On further reading Horrocks “review” it soon became clear that his report was riddled with the same similar type misinformation, and that his outright dismissal of the Smith sighting AND falsely and deliberately stating that the description given by the female witness (Jane Tanner) fitted that of Madeleine, was but the tip of the iceberg in his deceit.

Martin Brunt:

"Ian Horrocks visited the holiday resort where the toddler vanished and examined the police files and media reports.” 

Not the same files and media reports as everyone else by the looks of things...

There are two things we must remember:- 

1. Horrocks was 
not "investigating" in any official capacity.

2. He had no access to police files, no more than any other member of the public.  If he did have, he should not have had!
And he would not have had I imagine access to the apartment w
here the McCann family holidayed in Portugal.

Horrocks in his report states that some might not agree with it. 

It is not a question of agreeing or not  with his opinions, we are each allowed our opinion on the McCann case and all else, it is a question of him reporting 
with honesty and integrity, based on facts, when his report is to be submitted for public consumption.  Clearly he did not!  Horrocks and the Sun chose sensationalism over honesty and journalism.

As for Horrocks "clearing" the McCanns?
 

I smiled from ear to ear when reading not only this,  but Martin Brunt’s comment or should that be “review” of the Horrocks “review”   Brunt may have one hand tied behind his back when reporting on this case but he always finds a way to get his point across.

Brunt:

“Mr Horrocks' conclusion is FIRMER than his ex-colleagues' theory.”

Indeed Martin!   A palm crossed with silver?

Horrocks, was but a "tourist" in Praia Da Luz, being paid by 
The SUN perhaps this accounts for him being less than truthful, making ridiculously outrageous statements which I'll wager left his ex colleagues agape!




Lying in the Sun
L-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun.com



Website Builder