A biography of Hamish Campbell, the man chosen to head Operation Grange

 

Introduction

This article is an examination of the man chosen as the Senior Investigating Officer for Operation Grange, the review of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. Its remit was eventually prised out of the Metropolitan Police by means of a Freedom of a Freedom of Information Act question. It was:

“To examine the [disappearance of Madeleine McCann] and seek to determine (as if the abduction occurred in the UK) what additional, new investigative approaches we would take and which can assist the Portuguese authorities in progressing the matter….The ‘investigative review’ will be conducted with transparency, openness and thoroughness”.

 

Madeleine McCann, born 12 May 2003, reported missing 3 May 2007

 

Although when the investigation had been archived in Portugal two main alternatives were suggested - either abduction, or the hiding of Madeleine’s body by her parents - those who set up Operation Grange were clear. From the Prime Minister to the Home Secretary to the then head of the Met, Sir Paul Stephenson, abduction was the only hypothesis to be investigated. The review, as the Prime Minister’s spokesman clarified, was ‘to help the family’  (the McCanns).

Every police investigation or review of a serious crime has an investigation co-ordinator, known as the Senior Investigating Officer (SIO), and a deputy, called the Investigating Officer (IO). The role of the SIO is to set an investigation strategy and to decide and obtain the resources he needs to do  the work required – in this case, a review. The job of the IO is basically to carry out the agreed strategy and to direct operations.

Sir Paul Stephenson decided to appoint one Hamish Campbell as the SIO, with an additional requirement for the SIO to present his report to one Simon Foy. Andy Redwood, a Detective Chief Inspector, was appointed as the IO. Before long, Campbell and Redwood determined that they would need a staff of around 35 to 40 to carry out the review.

The main purpose of this article is to look at the background history and connections of Hamish Campbell.  

The murder of Jill Dando

Seven years ago, on 28 April 2007, the McCanns set off from East Midlands Airport for their ill-fated holiday in the Portuguese Algarve resort of Praia da Luz.

It was also on 28 April, 15 years ago, in 1999, that TV Crimewatch presenter Jill Dando was shot dead at point-blank range in a killing that had all the hallmarks of a professional contract killing.

Two individuals connected with the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann were also connected with the investigation into the murder of Jill Dando.

They are:

Clarence Mitchell - who was at the time working for the BBC as their senior crime reporter. He was apparently the very first reporter at the scene of the crime, and covered the investigation into Jill Dando’s murder in the months following her death

Hamish Campbell - who was the investigation’s IO - placed in charge of the day-to-day investigation into Jill Dando’s murder in 1999. He was primarily responsible for the arrest and charging of Barry Bulsara, known also as ‘Barry George’, with the murder of Dando. Bulsara was sentenced to life imprisonment for murdering Jill Dando but subsequently acquitted, seven years later, on appeal.

 

 

 

Years later…

Clarence Mitchell, three days after Madeleine McCann was reported missing, was asked by then Prime Minister Tony Blair to cease his full-time job as Head of the Media Monitoring Unit and work full-time on public relations and reputation management for the McCanns

and

Hamish Campbell was appointed in May 2011 as the SIO for Operation Grange, the review - now re-investigation - into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann being conducted by Scotland Yard.

 

This article will also examine aspects of the background of Ian Horrocks, the ex-detective, hailed as one of Britain’s foremost investigators, who was sent out to the Algarve by Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper in February 2012 and delivered reports to the Sun and SKY NEWS backing the McCanns’ abduction claims and heavily criticising the Portuguese police.

The Jill Dando investigation was run out of Belgravia Police Station, London. So is Operation Grange.

Here are some basic facts about the ill-fated investigation into Jill Dando’s death, led by Hamish Campbell:

A.   It was carried out at the time the McPherson report on the murder of Stephen Lawrence had been published. The Metropolitan Police was disgraced by that report. Scotland Yard’s reputation was in tatters.

B.   Barry Bulsara was wrongly convicted by a jury and served several years  in jail for an offence he didn’t commit.

C.   The only forensic evidence against him was a speck of firearms residue said to have been ‘found’ in his coat pocket.

D.  Cliff Richard, a friend of Jill Dando, was interviewed ‘a number of times’ by the police investigating Dando’s killing.

E.   No-one apart from Barry Bulsara has ever been charged with killing Jill Dando. Her killer, and anybody who may have hired the killer, remain at large.

F.   The main theory, put forward repeatedly by the police themselves and regularly in the mainstream media, is that a Serbian hit-man carried out the attack in revenge for NATO bombing the TV station in Belgrade.

G.  A second theory, with some circumstantial evidence to back it up, is that Dando was murdered by a hit-man on the instructions of career criminal and drugs lord Kenneth Noye.

H.  A third theory, with – as far as I am aware – no evidence to back it up, is that Dando had become aware of a high-level paedophile ring, and was killed by a hit-man acting on behalf of one of the country’s security forces.  

The Dando investigation and the role of Hamish Campbell

In November 1999, a detective named Brian Moore was promoted from the rank of Detective Superintendent (DS) to Detective Chief Superintendent (DCS). At the same time, he left a top secret and very corrupt intelligence unit, CIB3, known as ‘The Untouchables’. The corrupt nature of ‘The Untouchables’ is dealt with at length in a book of the same name by Michael Gillard and Laurie Flynn, published in late 2004, nearly 10 years ago. Michael Gillard has recently been at the centre of exposes in the national print media about extensive corruption at the heart of the Metropolitan Police Force. He has researched links between very senior officers in the Met, and a number of leading drugs lords.

Brian Moore’s first job in his new role as DCS was to take over the faltering investigation, codenamed ‘Operation Oxborough’, into the murder of Jill Dando. He became the investigation co-ordinator, or ‘Senior Investigating Officer’ (SIO), on 6 December 1999. By this time, Dando had been dead for over 7 months. In this respect, his role matched that of Dr Goncalo Amaral, who headed up and co-ordinated the initial investigation into Madeleine McCann’s disappearance, before he was removed from the investigation less than four weeks after he had made the McCanns formal suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine.

Moore appointed Hamish Campbell as his day-to-day chief investigator, or ‘Investigating Officer’ (IO).

Prior to the appointment of Moore and Campbell to run the case, the investigation had found nothing of interest, despite over 7 months on the case. The Met had thousands of registered informants. Not one of them had come up with any information at all about who might have killed Jill Dando and why. A reward of £250,000 for information (about £½ million today)   had produced nothing. Operation Oxborough had interviewed in depth Dando’s family, friends, lovers (of whom there had been many) and colleagues. As Gillard and Flynn correctly observed in their book (p. 428), “The murder investigation was at an impasse”.

All that was to change once Moore and Campbell took over the investigation.

As an aside, there was a significant amount of at least low-level corruption at Belgravia Police Station at the time. Belgravia Police Station is close to Harrods, owned by Al-Fayed. Al-Fayed did favours for Begravia-based police officers. Police officers returned the favours. Indeed, there was already an anti-corruption investigation at that time into the so-called ‘Hamper Squad’, a group of Belgravia-based officers who would arrest and harass anyone, including his own employees, suspected of aiding and abetting his bitter business enemy, Lonrho tycoon ‘Tiny’ Rowland. The greedy officers had a continuous supply of free hampers and huge discounts on Harrods goods. Indeed, one honest officer, Bob Loftus, gave the anti-corruption unit the actual names of police officers who had accepted these bribes. No police officer, however, was ever prosecuted for these criminal offences.

At the time, Al-Fayed owned the now-defunct satirical magazine, Punch. Officers also leaked details of the Dando investigation to Punch, prompting a leak enquiry. 

By March 2000, the team of Moore-&-Campbell were homing in on Barry Bulsara, though quite why they did so is unclear. He was an obsessional and deluded loner, fascinated with himself, and lived in a pig-sty. There was no evidence that he was capable of carrying out a cold-blooded, professional killing, though he did have an interest in guns. Eleven days before the anniversary of Jill Dando’s death, Bulsara’s flat was searched, and a blue Cecil Gee overcoat was seized.

At the same time, mainstream media crime correspondents were briefed that the investigation had identified an obsessive loner as the profile most likely to have committed the crime. This seemed at odds with a killing at point-blank range, apparently with a sawn-off shotgun fitted with a silencer.  

DCI Hamish Campbell appeared on CrimeWatch to reinforce in the public’s mind that it was an obsessive loner they were looking for. He asked for the public’s help in identifying such a person.

It was a full 15 days after the Cecil Gee coat was seized that it was taken to a Mr Robin Keeley of the Forensic Science Service on 2 May 2000. That 15-day delay has never been explained. He then found a single speck of firearm residue inside the left pocket, and said that it was consistent with the type of firearm used to kill Dando. This was to form the crux of the case against Bulsara, even though no other firearm residue or tools for modifying guns were found in his flat. At his trial at the Old Bailey in May 2001, prosecution barrister Orlando Pownall claimed it was ‘compelling evidence of Bulsara’s guilt’.

During the trial, it emerged that during the forensic procedure, Bulsara’s coat was first of all taken to a police studio where it was photographed on a tailor’s dummy. Firearms had previously been photographed at the same studio, raising the possibility of accidental contamination. This extraordinary decision, according to Detective Sergeant Andy Rowell, was made by DCI Hamish Campbell. Campbell he later denied this, but since he was the IO, this convinced no-one.

As we now know, Bulsara was convicted. He appealed against conviction, but his first appeal was rejected in July 2002. He appealed again in 2008 - and this time his appeal succeeded.

In April 2010 it emerged that the Ministry of Justice had denied Barry’s claim of £1.4 million compensation. The decision was made by Jack Straw, Justice Secretary at the time. A High Court application for compensation was also refused, with judges rejecting his claim that the Justice Secretary had ‘unfairly and unlawfully decided he was not innocent enough’. A year later, a further claim was turned down when High Court judges ruled: “There was indeed a case upon which a reasonable jury, properly directed, could have convicted the claimant of murder.”

The question obviously arose as to whether the police might have fabricated the case against Bulsara by deliberately placing a speck of firearm residue in his coat pocket. This suggestion has been given added credibility by the involvement of DCS Brian Moore, the SIO in this case, in another case of a man being fitted up - Ira Thomas.

Given that senior Met officers chose Brian Moore to act as the SIO in the case of Jill Dando’s murder, it is instructive to look at his major role in another case where it was accepted that an innocent man had been ‘fitted up’.   

The fabrication of evidence against Ira Thomas

On 30 June 1988, one Freddy Brett was shot at close range in the thigh by a tall black man wearing, according to a witness, a light-coloured coat. It happened outside the Hope & Anchor pub on the River Lee Navigation in north London, an area covered by what later became the very notorious Stoke Newington Police Station.

Ira Thomas was also a tall black man. But he was not the person who shot and injured Brett.

Ira Thomas was convicted of the shooting a year later - but on 13 February 1992, after 2½ years in prison, the Appeal Court, most unusually, quashed the jury’s verdict. The Appeal judges’ verdict was withering: “The victim’s account of events was simply ludicrous”, but also, more relevantly to this article, “The so-called forensic evidence was unavailing”.

Brian Moore, who together with Hamish Campbell may have organised the placing of firearms residue in Barry Bulsara’s pocket, was, in 1988, a senior officer in the Crime Squad in the corruption-ridden Stoke Newington police station. An anti-corruption probe, Operation Jackpot, was set up later and resulted in the conviction of several officers for co-operating with drugs and crime lords in the area. Many corrupt officers, however, escaped conviction.

The original SIO in the Ira Thomas case was Detective Sergeant Gordon Livingstone. Shortly after the shooting of Freddy Brett, however, Livingstone was promoted to the Flying Squad at Rigg Approach, another group of senior officers also riddled with corruption.

On 25 April 1989, two officers, acting on an anonymous but false tip-off, arrested Ira Thomas for the attempted murder of Freddy Brett. One Terry McGuinness searched Thomas’s flat, finding nothing of interest. He did not believe there was any evidence against Thomas. Later that day, at 4.15pm, McGuinness released Thomas, stating on the custody record that the matter had been ‘dealt with’.     

Livingstone had meanwhile recently been replaced as the Head of the Stoke Newington Crime Squad by Brian Moore, now an acting Detective Inspector. At this point in the investigation into the shooting of Freddy Brett, he took over the reins of the investigation.  

At 7.25pm, Brian Moore amended the custody record in bold black ink, as follows:

“With reference to the entry [by McGuinness] timed at 4.15pm, I have now traced a number of statements, which were not available to DC McGuinness at the time he advised the custody officer that this matter had been dealt with. The grievous bodily harm and firearms offences have NOT been concluded and my enquiries are ongoing”.

For whatever reason, maybe to protect the real shooter of Brett, Moore was determined to charge Thomas with the shooting. He refused to release Thomas from custody.

He asked two other detectives, Peter McCullough and Dave Edwards, to search Thomas’s flat again for a ‘light-coloured coat’ which a witness claimed to have seen a black man wearing after the shooting incident with Brett. Two such coats were found and taken for forensic evidence – I will deal with that evidence in a moment.

There are then two wholly conflicting accounts of what happened next at Stoke Newington police cells.

Brian Moore said that Ira Thomas:

a)   refused to come out for an interview

b)   admitted to shooting Brett, but refused to sign the officer’s notes recording his confession and

c)   demanded to see a particular solicitor.

Moore said he called Solicitors Les Brown and Co. – later to be involved in corruption allegations. The custody record states that Les Brown called the police station at 10.48pm saying he would contact Moore in the morning. Moreover, it states that Thomas was ‘checked hourly’ and was ‘asleep until given breakfast at 8.45pm’.

Ira Thomas gave a wholly different account. Gillard and Flynn comment wryly that it remains “‘an abiding mystery how Thomas’s version of events was so radically different”.  

This was Thomas’s account of events, which in the light of subsequent events appears to be the truthful one. He says that what occurred that night was as follows:

a)   he made no admission of guilt

b)   Moore shouted at him

c)   Thomas asked to be represented by his solicitors Goodman Ray; Moore refused

d)   Instead, Moore arranged for solicitor Les Brown to attend. When he did so, Thomas asked him: ‘Do you work for Goodman Ray?’ When he said ‘No’, Thomas said ‘F___ off, then’.

e)    a white man claiming to be a fraudster was placed in his cell. Thomas said: ‘He kept asking me what I was in for and did I do it. I was suspicious he was undercover police…I demanded that he be removed’

f)    a black man allegedly arrested for theft was then placed in his cell. He had with him a quantity of cocaine which he offered Thomas. Once again Thomas was suspicious that he was a ‘plant’ of some kind and successfully asked for him to be removed from his cell.

That same night, police officers McCullough and Edwards searched Thomas’s flat again and, contrary to police procedures, did so without an independent person present. They removed two coats, a beige mac, and a camel-haired coat, shown to Thomas the following morning. Thomas and his flat-mate both insisted they belonged to his flat-mate.  

On 6 June, Moore ’phoned Thomas’s solicitor, Anne Chiarini, to say that no firearms residue had been found on either coat.

Yet less than two months later, on 2 August, Thomas was re-arrested and told that “a second forensic test had found firearms residue in both cuffs of the beige mac, because the scientist carrying out the first test hadn’t rolled down the cuffs properly the first time”.

Thomas was asked to comment on the new evidence against him. He replied: “Yes. You are trying to fit me up”.

Subsequently Stoke Newington Police blocked the release of the original April custody record, but were eventually forced to release it. This caused g Thomas to ‘go ballistic’, because it was evidently wholly false.

The prosecution of Thomas came to court on 19 March 1990 at the Old Bailey.

A sensational moment in the trial came when the forensic scientist, Robin Keeley from the Forensic Science Service (the same forensic scientist used in the Jill Dando case) said that he had found three specks of firearms residue, two on the outer surface of the mac and only one inside the cuff.

He solemnly told the court that any residue left on the outside of the mac ‘I would expect to have fallen away within 12 hours of a gun being fired’. Moreover, he said that the police had told him that the mac had been lying ‘undisturbed’ inside a wardrobe for a long time.

Thomas and his flatmate, by contrast, pointed out that they had no wardrobe, only a rail on which clothes were hung, and that the coat had been regularly worn and even machine-washed a few weeks before the officers seized it.

Later, Terry McGuinness, who originally searched the flat, told Gillard and Flynn: “The beige mac caused me concern because I hadn’t seen it or found it when I searched the flat”.

Judge Herrod QC gave a very fair summing-up of the evidence, calling the scientific evidence ‘insubstantial’, and pointing out numerous other flaws in the prosecution’s evidence. Despite this, the jury returned a majority guilty verdict. Most unusually, the judge in the case, who was bound of course to accept the jury’s verdict, wrote to the defence barrister and said: ‘You will obviously be appealing’.

The Appeal Court heard the appeal on 13 February 1992 and quashed the jury’s majority decision. Thomas was immediately released from prison.

After the trial, new evidence came to light. One Lee Pritchard approached Thomas’s solicitors and told them that officers from Stoke Newington Police Station had approached him and offered him sizeable quantities of heroin if he would make a false statement, saying that he had seen Ira Thomas on the same toad where Brett was shot, carrying a gun in his hand. The offer had been repeated many times, but Pritchard refused to help the police.    

Moore’s career then took a steep upward path, despite his actions in the Ira Thomas case. He was promoted to a top anti-corruption intelligence unit, CIB3, known as ‘The Untouchables’, and later left that elite but corrupt squad to become a DCS at Belgravia Police Station in the Met, soon afterwards becoming the SIO on the Dando case. One would have to raise a question about how a man who was deeply involved with what looked like a deliberate plot to frame an innocent man by planting firearms residue on a coat could ever have been chosen to lead such a high-profile investigation as the Jill Dando murder hunt.

Brian Moore and Roy Clark

A further question arises as to who placed Brian Moore as SIO and Hamish Campbell as IO in the Dando investigation, thus replacing the previous SIO and IO. It was one Roy Clark. I am going to take a few paragraphs to examine a few aspects of Clark’s career.

Moore’s career had become entwined with that of Roy Clark.

In 1998, Roy Clark put Moore in charge of investigating allegations of serious corruption at the Flying Squad, based at Rigg Approach. This was a highly questionable appointment because “Moore knew many of the detectives he was now investigating because they had previously worked together at Stoke Newington Police Station” (“The Untouchables, p. 427).  

Brian Moore, as we have seen, was central to the ‘fitting-up’ of Ira Thomas, and the SIO in charge of the deeply flawed arrest and charging of Brian Bulsara over the murder of Jill Dando.

What sort of man put Brian Moore in charge of investigating corruption of a group of officers (at Stoke Newington Police Station), amongst whom he had worked, and where he had been involved in the ‘fitting up’ of a man who wrongly served 2½ years in prison for an offence he did not commit?

Clark entered the police force in 1967. During the 1980s he worked his way up at the thoroughly corrupt Stoke Newington Police Station.

In 1993, he was made a leading member of the highly secretive intelligence unit, SO11, called the ‘Ghost Squad’, which was later, and with good reason, accused of corruption. The Ghost Squad was formed just after the appointment of Paul Condon as the new Met Police Commissioner. Senior officer John Grieve gathered together a group of officers of his choice and persuaded the new Met chief to set up this new anti-corruption unit. Grieve became its Commander; Roy Clark its Deputy Commander.

By 1996 Clark had been promoted to the dizzy rank of Deputy Assistant Commissioner, in which capacity he was later to appoint Brian Moore and Hamish Campbell to lead the Jill Dando enquiry.

In 1997, after the election of the new Labour government that year, the Ghost Squad was split up into two units: CIBIC, an intelligence unit, which reported to the core of the ‘Ghost Squad’, now called CIB3. Both units were also subsequently shown to have been corrupt in a number of respects.

In 2001, Roy Clark was shown to have been guilty of a series of bad decisions in the trial of corrupt police officer Geoffrey Brennan - and Clark was suspected of playing a part in the ‘fitting up’ of Gurpal Virdi, an Asian police officer wrongly accused of sending racist e-mails to fellow officers. He was clearly framed.

Despite his highly dubious record, in 2001 he finally left the police force after 34 years, and immediately became Director of the Crimestoppers Trust.

Wind the clock forward just another three years, and the government  decided to replace the ineffective Police Commission for Administration (IPCC), then the main police complaints body, with the Independent Police Complaints Commission, which began its work on 1 April 2004. Nicholas Hardwick was appointed its Director.

Who did he appoint to be its Director of Investigations?

Roy Clark.  

I will quote again from Gillard & Flynn: “The justification for Clark’s appointment [to the IPCC] is tied to the fiction that his stewardship of the Yard’s anti-corruption crusade was a success”(p. 501). Hardwick’s early appointment of Clark as his Director of investigations meant that Clark was appointed before any of the 15 independent IPCC Commissioners were appointed, and as a consequence was able to influence who was appointed to these key positions. In this role, Clark earned a handsome £65,000 a year (now equivalent to over £100,000 a year) on top of his fat police pension.

Clark’s possible role in the cover-up of the murder of Daniel Morgan in 1987 must also be mentioned. Morgan was killed with a single blow of an axe to his head whilst working aside Jonathan Rees as co-partner of soth London-based private detectives, Southern Investigations.

It is often been described as the biggest single case of police corruption in the U.K. - and has now lasted 27 years without his murderers brought to justice. The evidence is now quite clear; Daniel Morgan was about to expose police corruption in the Met and was almost certainly killed by a hit-man on the orders of senior corrupt police officers.

After five unsuccessful and corrupt reviews of the case by the Met, success in identifying those responsible for Morgan’s death only came about when the family succeeded in forcing the Met to ensure that no-one involved in the sixth review was or had been a Freemason. Every officer involved in the sixth review had to sign a certificate to that effect.

Roy Clark was a major figure in the third of these ineffective and corrupt reviews. In 1998, he authorised the bugging of those in charge of Southern Investigations. Gillard & Flynn queried why he had left this bugging until so late in the day, posing this question, p. 487: “Why had Clark waited all this time to bug Southern Investigations?”.

A later review, the fourth, by DCS Dave Cook, was to express ‘total disagreement’ with Clark’s actions in the case.    

Roy Clark served his five-year term as Director of Investigations for the IPCC.

His new job?

He is currently Director of Criminal Investigations at HM Revenue and Customs (see his Wikipedia entry).

Ian Horrocks

 

Ian Horrocks pontificated on the Madeleine McCann case in 2012. He was paid by Rupert Murdoch’s Sun to do so from very early on. He went over to Praia da Luz, paid for by Rupert Murdoch, in February 2012, to make an assessment of the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. On 3 July 2012, this is how the Murdoch-owned SKY NEWS’s Martin Brunt reported Ian Horrocks’ findings:

QUOTE:

“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 police files and media reports.

“Drawing on 30 years' experience investigating murder, kidnap and sex crimes, he considers all the possible explanations for her disappearance. 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’.

“Madeleine was nearly four when she disappeared without trace from the family's holiday apartment in Praia da Luz, Portugal, in May, 2007. The Portuguese authorities abandoned their investigation after 15 months, admitting they had no clues to what happened. Scotland Yard detectives, who are carrying out an investigative review of the case for the British Government, said recently they believed it was possible Madeleine was still alive, but they would not say why. Mr Horrocks’ conclusion is firmer than his ex-colleagues' theory. And he explains why in fascinating detail..”

UNQUOTE

The Sun’s report the same day added these details, under the heading: “Maddie ‘may be alive’”:

QUOTE:

“A FORMER top cop has claimed there is a good chance Madeleine McCann may be alive…

Mr Horrocks said: “I have tried to look at this with fresh eyes untainted by what has been written in the past, much of which has been totally uninformed and not based upon any evidence. I do not believe that Madeleine was abducted with the intention of some sort of long term grooming and abuse.

“A girl of Madeleine’s age is not the usual target age for a paedophile; she is substantially younger than most victims of these offences. I do believe that when all the available information is examined logically and objectively, that Madeleine was taken by someone who wanted her as part of his or their family. The people responsible will not have a close extended family as would it be feasible that no-one would make the connection to Madeleine."

“The ex-cop admits he cannot ‘dismiss the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile for a sinister purpose’. But he adds: ‘However I do not believe this to be the case. “Is believing that Madeleine is alive being overly and unrealistically optimistic? I do not think so, and until there is categoric evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe this. Hopefully those continuing the investigation have the same belief’.”

UNQUOTE

Can Horrocks be trusted as an honest witness of truth? One incident in his career might suggest not.

In June 2006, Trafalgar Square was thronging with people mourning the defeat of England by Germany when England footballer Gareth Southgate missed a penalty. John Wilson was there. As he was watching a group of people attacking a Ministry of Defence vehicle, he was dealt a severe blow with a baton on the back of his head. He instantly fell unconscious on to the pavement, his skull fractured in two places, and his nose broken. The stocky riot police officer who struck this blow could be seen on CCTV to stop and look agitatedly at the bleeding and apparently lifeless body beneath him, paused for a few seconds, and then ran off top join his colleagues.

Wilson survived, despite a female riot officer ignoring his friend’s pleas for help. A passing member of the public, happily a doctor, tended to him and forced the police to get him to hospital. But Wilson was left with permanent epilepsy, and unable to work.

John, with the help of his mother, made a civil claim against the Met Police which, as Gillard & Flynn explain in detail, the Met did everything possible to frustrate, piling in huge resources to do so.

Right at the centre of this exercise to deny justice and compensation to John Wilson was Ian Horrocks.

Horrocks, then a Detective Inspector, had been put in charge of finding out who the stocky riot officer was and which squad he belonged to. Armed with the CCTV footage, he compiled a list of all units of the Public Order Branch. He contacted the supervisors of each unit; some officers were shown the CCTV in an apparent attempt to jog their memories.

Horrocks’ boss in the investigation into the assault on John Wilson was none other than Detective Superintendent Hamish Campbell.  

Just days before a High Court hearing, Horrocks sent an e-mail to every Metropolitan Police Officer asking for help in identifying “the officer who had inadvertently knocked a youth to the ground who it appears was attacking police vehicles”. The email said that the officer was not at fault in any way and would not face any disciplinary action if he came forward. The judge hearing the case, Judge Morland, described the e-mail in court as ‘oddly-worded’. This last-ditch attempt to find the officer who used the baton failed.  

The Judge ruled in Wilson’s favour and made these observations on the so-called investigation of Hamish Campbell and Ian Horrocks (‘The Untouchables, p. 448):

“In my judgment the facts that the officer who collided with the claimant remains unidentified and that no police documents relating to the incident have emerged are consistent with the claimant’s case that he was the victim of a deliberate, unlawful assault…I have become more and more convinced [after repeatedly watching the video] that it was not an accidental collision and was a deliberate attack on the claimant who had innocently but unwisely sopped to watch the attack on the police car…Considering the video in the context of the evidence as a whole I am utterly convinced he was the victim of a deliberate, unlawful assault”.

He added that he would have expected a ‘serious and detailed’ investigation and search for documents. It was July 2001, five years after that assault on him, that Wilson was awarded compensation by Judge Morland. No-one has ever been convicted of the assault on John Wilson.

The Met then had the effrontery to appeal the ruling. But on 28 February 2002, the Appeal Court upheld the decision in favour of Wilson. Eventually Wilson and his mother agreed a payment of £500,000 damages from the Met.

During the Wilsons’ long campaign for justice, then Deputy Commissioner of the Met, now Lord Blair, arranged for Susan Wilson to meet the then Commander of the ‘Untouchables’ - CIB3 - Andy Hayman, the man once described by a member of the Select Committee as a ‘dodgy geezer’ and who, after he left the Met, joined Rupert Murdoch’s News International. Hayman was one of those officers involved in the Met’s decision not to investigate ’phone hacking allegations which are now at the centre of a major criminal trial at the Old Bailey. 

Let there be no doubt that the man put in overall charge of Operation Grange, Hamish Campbell, was at the very centre of the appalling treatment of John Wilson and here campaigning  mother, Susan. He was clearly aided and abetted in this misconduct by Ian Horrocks.

Two articles by Ian Horrocks, on 2 July 2012 and 14 October 2013

Ian Horrocks went to Praia da Luz in February 2012, paid for by Rupert Murdoch’s Sun newspaper. On 2 July 2012 he formally presented his written report to his paymasters at the Sun newspaper. The Sun newspaper and Rupert Murdoch’s SKY NEWS then heavily promoted his report on 3 July 2012, followed by other news media. These reports all hailed Ian Horrocks as ‘an experienced detective from the Met’, ‘involved in many top investigations’ etc. etc. No mention was made, of course, of his major role in obstructing John Wilson’s long search for justice and the combined failure of him and his boss Hamish Campbell to find the person who assaulted him violently, causing permanent brain damage, despite having CCTV footage of the assault.

I have included Horrocks’ two long reports in an Appendix to this article.

I hesitate to use the word, but it become plain on reading his first report that much if it is pure balderdash. I have highlighted, by bolding, parts of his report which may be of particular interest. But it has been wisely said: ‘He who pays the piper, calls the tune’. Horrocks was sent on a mission in February 2012 with the conclusions of his report already dictated to him. All he had to do was come up with some decent-sounding arguments and a lot of padding to make the predetermined conclusion sound plausible    

His second report, published on the same day as the BBC CrimeWatch ‘McCann Special’ was shown, 14 October 2014, was largely a re-hash of his earlier report, but contained two embarrassing amendments.

In his first report, Horrocks had virtually stated that it was an indisputable fact that Jane Tanner really really did see Madeleine being carried away from G5A at 9.15pm on 3 May 2007. He had stated:

“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”.

Unfortunately for Horrocks’ reputation, such as it was, DCI Redwood’s ‘revelation moment’ that he had found ‘the man from the creche’ taking his own daughter home in her pyjamas made Horrocks’ earlier report look ridiculous.

Second, in his CrimeWatch report, Redwood laid very heavy emphasis on the supposed ‘sightings’ by an Irish family (the Smiths) of a man seen near Kelly’s Bar, walking towards the beach, at around 10.00pm. Horrocks had to rapidly change his tune about that, as well, as in his earlier report, Horrocks had totally dismissed this claimed ‘sighting’. As it happens, I believe he was right to do so.

It’s interesting to note that Horrocks must clearly have been briefed in advance about the contents of what Redwood was going to say on CrimeWatch. Otherwise he would not have had time to craft the two major  changes to his first report. I would suggest that he must have been told at least several days before of what was going to be said, so that he could fine tune his report before parts of it re-appeared in the newspapers on 14 October. There was a high level of careful co-ordination between the Met Police, the BBC and the other media for the programme on 14 October to have maximum impact. 

Even so, his explanation about why he was wrong about ‘Tannerman’ inevitably seems highly contrived and convoluted.  

I have added a few comments to the text of Horrocks’ second report. 

Some have been very forthright about Horrocks. The blogger L-azzeri-lies-in-the-sun, for example, asked: “Why would Horrocks’ have blatantly lied in his report/misled the uninformed reader…Horrocks - a retired police officer - having served 30 years on the force, and he behaves in a less than honest or proper manner?...Horrocks was being paid by the Sun, perhaps this accounts for him being less than truthful and making ridiculously outrageous statements…”

Conclusions

This analysis has focused on the man put in charge of the review and current re-investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, namely Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell.

 

 

Over two years into the review, Campbell was still at the helm. He has since retired from the Metropolitan Police and more recently has been trying to sort out drug-related crime and murders in Jamaica. Here’s a recent picture of him in action – a nice one for a caption competition, I think.

 

As the Daily Mail reported on 18 May 2013:

‘There is a possibility she is still alive: Scotland Yard identify 20 new suspects in hunt for Madeleine McCann - but Portuguese will not re-open inquiry’.

It went on: “Met Police have named ‘a good number’ of potential suspects to speak to…DCS Hamish Campbell says his officers have done a 'fantastic' case review…”

Stephen Wright’s report added:

“Detectives working to find missing Madeleine McCann have given their counterparts in Portugal a new list of [more than 20] potential suspects and have urged them to investigate them…A Scotland Yard review of the bungled Portuguese inquiry into the three-year-old’s disappearance in 2007 has uncovered dozens of fresh leads, it emerged yesterday.

Yard chiefs - who want the Portuguese to agree to a joint investigation - say their new leads could, if properly explored, result in new evidence and possibly the Maddie mystery being solved…

“The senior detective who has overseen the Met’s two-year review of the case yesterday confirmed his officers had drawn up a list of people who they say are ‘of interest’. Detective Chief Superintendent Hamish Campbell, the Head of Scotland Yard’s Homicide and Serious Crime Command, said there were a ‘good number’ of individuals who should be questioned.

“Mr Campbell urged the Portuguese authorities to investigate the new leads. He said: ‘There are a lot of people of interest. There are people who could be properly explored further, if only to be eliminated’…The shambolic Portuguese inquiry was shelved in 2008 but Scotland Yard launched a Home Office-funded review of the case in 2011 following the intervention of David Cameron…

“Mr Campbell said it was ‘perfectly probable’ that information which could identify the suspect responsible for Madeleine’s disappearance was already in the Portuguese files. He reiterated a claim that Madeleine could still be alive. He said: ‘You only have to look at the case in Cleveland, Ohio, and the European cases. Of course there is a possibility she is alive. But the key is to investigate the case and, alive or dead. We should be able to try and discern what happened’.”

“DCS Campbell, who retired today as head of the Met's Homicide and Serious Crime Command, urged Portuguese police to act on the new list of potential suspects in the Madeleine McCann case”.

[ LINK: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2326108/Madeleine-McCann-Possibility-Maddie-alive-Scotland-Yard-identify-20-new-suspects.html#ixzz2zhW4M4tb ]

It is legitimate to examine the career background of Hamish Campbell to try and establish why he was the man chosen by the then Head of the Met Police, Sir Paul Stephenson, to act as the co-ordinator for the Madeleine McCann investigation.

He first comes to our notice as the man who bungled the investigation into the killing of Jill Dando, sending an innocent man to jail for 7 years.

But now, on further examination, we find that the co-ordinator of the Dando investigation, with whom Hamish Campbell obviously worked closely, was Brian Moore, who can be shown to have been a participant in the deliberate fitting up of another innocent man, Ira Thomas, in 1999 and 2000.

Moreover, we see that Moore, who was certainly responsible for the wrongful conviction of Ira Thomas, was rapidly fast-tracked in his career by Roy Clark. Clark may well have been the Director of Investigations for the IPCC from 2004 to 2009, and may well be Director of Criminal Investigations for HM Revenue and Customs at the moment. But just a brief examination of his career suggests that he, too, is at the very least a highly controversial character with a number of suspicions concerning him from his time in the Met’s Ghost Squad and in CIB3.

            

Finally, is it just coincidence that the man wheeled out by Rupert Murdoch’s newspaper, the Sun, to write substandard articles about the reported disappearance of Madeleine McCann in 2012 and 2013 (Ian Horrocks) worked directly in close association with Hamish Campbell during the long denial of justice to John Wilson, the man whose brains were permanently damaged by an unprovoked violent beating with a baton by a riot squad officer.

The public has been asked to trust these two men. One of them, Hamish Campbell, was for two years (May 2011 to May 2013) placed in charge of DCI Andy Redwood and around 40 other staff in Operation Grange.

We have examined some aspects of their record.

Can we trust them?

 

   

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Appendix 1: The original article by Ian Horrocks, published 2 July 2012: ‘Ex-Detective’s Report On Madeleine’

Ian Horrocks, Monday 2 July 2012

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

What happened to Madeleine McCann?

In February this year [2012 on behalf of the Sun newspaper [owned by Rupert Murdoch] I travelled to Portugal to review the investigation into the abduction of Madeleine McCann and the circumstances surrounding the offence. My analysis, reasoning and conclusions are shown here, and until the announcement by the Metropolitan Police Review Team in April, I was one of very few that believed that Madeleine may still be alive.

What happened to Madeleine McCann? I obviously do not know for certain; the following may be speculation but contains inferences developed from the known facts, information available to myself, and from over 30 years’ experience as a police officer. The harsh reality is that only one, or in my view possibly two people know what happened on that night.

I am sure many will not agree with me, the following is simply my view and should be read as such.

I will say from the start that after looking at the information available to me, I am of the view that there is a chance that Madeleine is still alive. I will explain how I have come to this conclusion.

Having tested the route myself, it is easy to see how Madeleine could have been snatched and the abductor made good his escape in less than two minutes. I also found that by turning right from the apartment he could have been totally out of sight within 30 seconds of leaving the apartment.

I have tried to look at this with fresh eyes untainted by what has been written in the past, much of which has been totally uninformed and not based upon any evidence, but on media reports, unreliable accounts, personal agendas, and sadly, often misguided vitriol. It is true to say that many of the police files have been released but these have not as yet led to any definitive conclusions.

In February 2012 I spent a lot of time looking at the scene and the locality.

Firstly, what are the options? The way I see it there are principally four.

1. That Madeleine either died accidentally, or was killed by her parents.

2. That Madeleine wandered out of the apartment and either became lost, or was taken by someone in the street.

3. That Madeleine was abducted by one or two predatory paedophiles, and she was assaulted and either died, or was killed.

4. That Madeleine was taken by a person or couple with the intention of keeping her, and raising her.

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.

Likewise the idea that a random burglar suddenly deciding to take a child instead of valuables is also ridiculous.

My belief is that it is either the third or fourth option, although I believe that from looking at all the information available to me that the fourth is the most likely.

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.

There are many reasons for saying this. Firstly and most importantly, it is statistically unlikely, the main reason being that there is no family history that would point in any way to this. I do not believe that anyone with any sense believes that they killed Madeleine deliberately, so this leaves a tragic accident. Even if such an accident had happened, is it feasible that they would not immediately seek assistance and call for an ambulance?

Are we saying that they coldly decided that Madeleine was dead and then put together an elaborate plan to dispose of her body? Did Gerry McCann simply walk down the road with a bag containing his daughter’s body and dispose of it, and then calmly go out for dinner? This is ridiculous in the extreme. Also, have they then maintained this pretence for so long? - the simple answer is no. And as for it being a conspiracy between themselves and any or all of their group of friends, this stretches credibility beyond belief.

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. The simple answer is, there is no information, let alone evidence to indicate their involvement in any way. Should they have supervised their children more closely that night? That is not for me to say, but regardless of the answer, it does not assist the investigation in any way. 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.

Although the second option is extremely unlikely it needs to be covered. If Madeleine had left the apartment, she would have gone out of the patio doors and walked towards where her parents were. It is also likely that she would have been seen by someone who would have reunited her with her family. She would not have wandered far, and the chances that at this very moment a predator being there who is attracted to this age of victim is so unlikely that it goes beyond reasonable consideration. This option therefore can also be discounted. Additionally, the most telling point that dismisses this theory is the open window and shutter. This also assumes that the sighting by Jane Tanner was not Madeleine and I do not believe this to be the case.

Now to the third and fourth options. These I believe are very similar in how they were carried out, but with clearly different endings. I will detail how I believe she was taken and then go on to explain why I believe that the final option that Madeleine is still alive is realistic, and arguably the most likely.

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.

Although it has been said by some that the apartment the family were in made it easier for the perpetrators to carry out this offence, this is in my opinion relatively academic. Unless the family were in a totally secure apartment, the abductor’s plan would simply be amended accordingly. The reality is that the only way to prevent such things happening is to keep our children within sight 24 hours a day. This is simply not a realistic option for anyone.

Others have said that the apartment is the last one that a perpetrator would choose. I disagree. I believe it provides possibly the simplest means of escape, as well as being relatively shielded from view. This on the other hand could not be predicted as many others provide the same accessibility. The reason this abduction has taken place is not about the location of the apartment, it is about where this specific child was when she was abducted.

The routine of Mr and Mrs McCann and their friends, along with the regular checking of the children would have been easily observed, as well as the fact that access via the patio door was simple.

I also believe that the choice of Thursday for the abduction was not mere chance. Whoever committed this offence could have known, but even if not, would have surmised that the family may be leaving on the Saturday. They would therefore not wish to leave it until the last night in case the McCanns changed their routine, perhaps going out for a final meal, thereby taking the children with them. By choosing Thursday, this also allowed the possibility of another day should they be unsuccessful at the first attempt.

On the night itself Gerry McCann would have been seen to check the children at 9.05pm and then rejoin the group. This could be seen either from within the Ocean Club area, or more likely from the alleyway that runs between this and the apartment. Due to the height of the wall and foliage on top of it, as well as the area inside being well lit in contrast to the darkness elsewhere, those dining would have been easily observed whilst anyone in the alleyway could remain unseen.

This is the ideal time. Sunset on the 3rd May 2007 was at 8.25pm, so it would have been quite dark by 9pm. Mr and Mrs McCann and the rest of their party would have been relaxed and having dinner. To leave it much later than this increases the chances of them coming back to the apartment earlier than had previously been the case. It is also likely that those responsible would have known that it was probable that Madeleine would be in a deep sleep by this time, and that her parents were in the middle of their evening.

After observing previous routines, they would have known that they had at least 20 to 30 minutes before the next check. They would observe the group for a few minutes and then go to the apartment. At the end of the alleyway they could see that the road was clear, it is then only literally a second for them to go through the gate and into the garden area where they would be virtually out of site. It is then simple to enter the apartment through the patio doors.

The abductor then went into the bedroom where the twins and Madeleine were sleeping. He has no interest in the twins, he is looking for Madeleine. The window and blind were very likely opened in order to facilitate exit. If two were involved, Madeleine would have been handed out of the window to the second person. If one, then he could have climbed out the window with her, but I believe it to be more likely that he realised that this was not a simple task when carrying a child and would then have left via the door leading to the car park. Although entry was gained via the patio doors, this was not the exit route as it is not only unnecessary and illogical, it would also substantially increase the chances of being seen and possibly caught.

It is clear in my mind that the plan and escape route were planned and probably rehearsed in advance. It was clearly well executed as it was successful. This was not an impulsive act; it was planned. This took patience as well as planning. It would have involved observing the McCanns for some time. This is reinforced by the six sightings of a suspicious male in the days prior to Madeleine’s abduction. The person responsible for this offence is both a controlled and controlling individual.

Although floodlit, the window of the apartment and exit to the car park are not easily observed. Once out of the apartment car park there is a simple choice, turn left or right. By turning right the abductor has to cross Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins, the road leading down to the entrance to the Ocean Club. However within less than 30 seconds he could be totally out of site in an alleyway with high walls that leads directly from Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva to Rua Do Ramalhetete, the main road that leads out of the village. Turning left means he would have to walk a greater distance, initially uphill and with a greater chance of being seen. Although there are many apartments overlooking the car park, how many people were actually sitting there and taking any notice. Also, the entrance is relatively secluded and once they are away from the apartment, provided they did nothing to draw attention to themselves there is no reason for anybody to notice them, and even if they did, to think twice about them.

If I am correct, a car would have been parked near to the end of this alleyway. If two people were as I believe, most likely involved, the second person would already have been in the car by this time. I believe the reason why a car was not parked any closer, such as in the actual car park of the apartment block, is that this would substantially increase the chances of being caught.

The whole abduction process from being in the alleyway by the Ocean Club to getting in a vehicle would have taken no more than two minutes.

This timing would also fit in with the sighting by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm. I am totally of the opinion that the person seen by Jane Tanner was involved in Madeleine’s abduction and that the child the person was carrying was her.

Why am I so convinced? The plain reality is that it all fits. I am not making everything fit, it simply does. The time fits, the description fits, even down to Jane Tanner identifying the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing that night. The route is the most likely to be the one taken, everything points to this being Madeleine and her abductor and nothing I have seen contradicts this.

Why else would the child be wearing pyjamas? If the person was taking a child back to their home or apartment, then she would not have been in pyjamas. Also the description of how the child was being held possibly indicates that the person carrying her may be unused to carrying a child of this age. I also think that if she was being carried by a paedophile or someone intent on doing her harm he would be carrying her differently with her face pointing inward with either a hand over her mouth or close to it, to prevent the possibility of her making any noise. Someone who believes they care for her would not do this.

I believe the later sighting by the Irish family to be irrelevant and not Madeleine.

Even if Matthew Oldfield had noticed Madeleine missing when he checked at 9.30pm, this would have made no difference as whoever took her would have been well away by then, and in any event were expecting the children to be checked about this time.

After looking at all the information available to me, this I believe provides the most plausible explanation as to how Madeleine was abducted.

Was it one person, was it two, were they locals, were they there on holiday or simply visiting, was she taken by a paedophile or by someone who wanted to raise her and look after her? I obviously do not know. All I can do is to provide a few thoughts and theories.

To answer the first question, was it one person or two? Although I do not know, I believe that from the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was carried out and from examination of the scene and area, this would point to it being more likely that there were two people as opposed to one. This can obviously not be said for certain, and as with all the other points mentioned is simply my opinion.

Now to one of the most difficult points, was it a paedophile or someone who wanted Madeleine as an extended member of their family? Again I do not know, but what can be done is to look at it logically, and see what is the most likely.

I do not believe that Madeleine was abducted with the intention of some sort of long term grooming and abuse similar to that experienced by Jaycee Dugard or Natascha Kampusch, and in any event both of these girls were substantially older when they were taken.

A girl of Madeleine’s age is not the usual target age for a paedophile; she is substantially younger than most victims of these offences. This however cannot totally exclude this possibility, as we have seen from the conviction of David Bryant in March 2012. In his case however he snatched the victims from the street and did not kill any of them.

Although it cannot be underestimated the amount of planning that a paedophile without a conscience is prepared to go, I believe in this case that the choice of Madeleine and her place of abduction underlines the fact that this was not a planned or even random paedophile attack.

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. Again, this is simply my opinion in this case and perhaps a generalisation. Clearly some paedophiles will only commit one offence of this nature, but this is usually not the case.

There are other reasons, the fact that whether one or two people were involved, that they have not shared this information with someone and who due to the very large reward on offer would be likely to report it. Also if two or more people, this is a good bargaining chip for any future arrest. This has not happened.

I do believe that when all the available information is examined logically and objectively, that Madeleine was taken by someone who wanted her as part of his or their family. Once they have made the decision to carry this out, whoever was responsible would be prepared to take more risks than perhaps others would. These risks however are mitigated by the level of planning and control in the abduction process.

If my theory is correct, certain inferences can be made. The people responsible will not have a close extended family as would it be feasible that no-one would make the connection to Madeleine. I do not think that they have any children of their own. I also believe that they could have rationalised it in their minds by thinking “they’ve got three, we haven’t got any”. In a perverse way they may see this as being all right as they have left the family with two children. There has also been talk of Madeleine at times being badly behaved in the days leading to the abduction. I do not know if this was true or not, but it is irrelevant. Even if it was, I’m sure that the accounts have been over-inflated and exaggerated. People may argue that if this was true, why would anyone take a poorly behaved child. This has no significance as once they have developed the idea, they would simply rationalise this by “they can’t control her, we can”. The things that have been latched on by many of the critics of Mr and Mrs McCann are of no relevance whatsoever. I am also of the view that whoever took Madeleine will speak English, albeit not essentially fluently, and not necessarily as a first language.

Now to one of the most significant questions. Were those responsible local to the area, or visitors, whether from elsewhere in Portugal or further afield? Again no one knows. The reality is that they could be either.

Whether they were local to the area or a visitor I am of the view that Madeleine was seen early in the week, and from then the plan was developed to abduct her. If local, they could have initially stayed in the area, and if from further afield, would have left on Thursday, and possibly even vacated their accommodation before this.

This analysis would be incomplete without some comment on the Portuguese Police investigation and whether it would have been conducted differently in the UK. I honestly cannot say for sure as different people do different things, some are more efficient and professional that others, whether down to experience or other factors. I will however highlight a few points.

The scene should have been sealed as soon as first officer arrived. This would have potentially preserved evidence that may have been left behind and enabled a more reliable forensic examination of the apartment. However, talk of road blocks and the border being closed is totally unrealistic. This would not have happened in the UK. Regardless as to whether this was done or not, there are many places to cross the border therefore this would be largely impractical and ineffective.

Talk of her being taken away on a boat from the beach, a local marina or on a ferry to Africa is not only unrealistic, it is also unhelpful.

One of the main problems as I see it was that quite early on in the investigation, as well as looking at the offence as possibly being committed by a paedophile; the police clearly suspected that Mr and Mrs McCann were in some way involved. This was obviously an initial valid and correct line of enquiry, however, even though there was absolutely no evidence to support this, it clearly became of significance and the focus of much of their time and resources.

This was undoubtedly reinforced by the comments made by a member of the British Police team, who regardless of the fact that there was absolutely nothing to point to either Mr or Mrs McCann being involved, still stated that their involvement ‘deserves as much attention as the criminal and sexual motivations that has been previously prioritised’. This in my view misguided analysis also disregards the sighting by Jane Tanner.

This may have supported and gave credence to the views of some in the Portuguese Police and diverted investigative resources away from more realistic and obvious lines of enquiry.

Such thinking would potentially have closed the minds of the police to other lines of investigation and avenues of enquiry, thereby missing many opportunities to gather evidence, interview witnesses and identify potential suspects. In such cases 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.

The reality is that in such cases it is fundamental that the investigators keep an open mind and work to the evidence not what they think may have happened. Also, their belief should be that they are looking for a live child and not confirmation of death. This mindset is fundamental to the way an investigation progresses and how the people working on it respond to information.

One of the first things that should have been done was to conduct extensive house to house enquiries. The purpose of this is to establish everyone who was in the resort, and the nearby properties, particularly those whose apartments overlooked the pool area. This should also have included employees, not only of the Ocean Club but also of nearby businesses and holiday complexes. I obviously do not wish to generalise but a distressing but realistic fact is that the hotel and holiday trade attracts many itinerant, deviant and paedophilic men. I am not saying that this was the case here, but this is obviously an avenue of enquiry that should have been fully examined, and as far as I am aware wasn’t.

Madeleine’s photograph should also have been released to the media immediately.

Jane Tanner should have been interviewed more thoroughly and far earlier and any description she gave of the man carrying the child should have been put out immediately.

There should also have been a more urgent and wider appeal for witnesses. Although there was significant publicity, this was piecemeal and in reality often generated more by the media than by the police. I am also aware that there are many people who were there at the time, whether residents, guests or staff, both at the Ocean Club and elsewhere, who even now more than five years later have still not been spoken to. It is imperative that everyone who was there needs to be identified and interviewed.

One of the problems in such investigations and after such a length of time is that people are often too embarrassed to come forward, or believe they have no useful information. They shouldn’t be, each and every snippet could potentially help. It is often said “it is probably nothing, but”. Let the police be the judge. They are the professionals.

It is also clear that the difference in culture and language did not help the investigation. Regardless of this, all statements should have been either recorded or at least written by an interpreter as opposed to the information being translated back and forth and recorded by the officer conducting the interview. This is a potential recipe for confusion, and again would seem to have caused problems here.

It is also I feel important to mention the many so called legal restrictions, whether real or perceived, that may or may not have hampered the investigation, particularly in the early stages. To be perfectly honest I am not really bothered that the Portuguese Police say that they could not do such and such a thing, whether this is because of their limitations, legal rules or simply established practice. If any of these restrictions hampered the investigation, then they are clearly wrong.

The investigators who have been working with Mr and Mrs McCann have clearly worked tirelessly with all the available information they have. There has also recently been talk of a review by the Portuguese Police. Additionally the UK police review is the correct course of action, regardless of what some people may think. This is being conducted by experienced investigators and hopefully any suggestions or guidance they make will be acted upon, and that where feasible they will be allowed to be more involved in the investigative process. This however is where there may be a breakdown. The Portuguese Police claim they need new evidence, and the UK Police‘s hands may be tied as they seem to only have a review function. There has obviously been significant co-operation between the UK and Portuguese Police but the reality is that there can never be enough, and unless and until full and unrestricted access to everything is allowed, and that investigators on both sides are permitted to go anywhere that the evidence leads them, this case will always be hampered.

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.

Another point is that a child will often accept what they are told, particularly if said in a caring way, and will therefore act accordingly. Memories cannot be totally erased but behaviour can be controlled, influenced and changed. I also believe that there is a good chance that whoever took Madeleine may in all likelihood have subsequently moved and therefore have new friends and neighbours who accept them for what they are, and not necessarily be suspicious. People generally accept what they are told by others, and are not naturally disbelieving.

I do not believe she is local to Praia de Luz, or even the Algarve, but if taken by someone who is Portuguese, she could still be in the country or now be elsewhere such as Madeira, even Brazil or somewhere else where Portuguese is either the main language or where there is a substantial Portuguese community. It cannot be underestimated the lengths these people would go to in order to preserve their ‘family’. How simple is it to get a passport or identity documents in Portugal, I do not know. I hope this has formed a part of the police investigation and that they have examined any such applications and records.

If she has not been taken by someone local, then the reality is she could be anywhere in Europe or even further afield. This would particularly be the case if the person who abducted her was staying in the complex or nearby. It is also likely that whoever abducted Madeleine had most likely driven there.

What can now be done by the police? I obviously do not know what the police either in Portugal or the UK have done, or intend to do, other than what has been reported. I will therefore limit myself to a few points, some of which may hopefully have been done already, but some that have clearly not.

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. Those responsible for the abduction of Madeleine will have been seen by someone, although they probably have not registered it. I do not know if this form of in-depth witness interview was conducted or even considered, but I do not believe so. Just because it is five years since this abduction, 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. Jane Tanner should also look at all the photographic material, particularly the videos. She may think that she couldn’t recognise the individual she saw, but she just may. Someone has seen who was responsible for this, nothing happens in a vacuum.

Have there been any occasions of burglaries in the region, most likely in the six months prior to the abduction, in houses with young children where nothing was taken?. There could possibly have been a previous attempt at a similar crime.

Also, the numerous instances where a male got into various properties and assaulted young children who were there on holiday. It would appear that many of these were not even investigated. This is another line of enquiry that should have been pursued more vigorously and even after the passing of time still can and should be.

There have also been reports of named suspects not even being interviewed, let alone eliminated, as well as information given to Crimestoppers not being taken by police. These are matters that need to be resolved, acted upon, and procedures put in place to ensure this does not happen in the future.

I would have hoped that everyone who was in the Ocean Club and nearby at the time have been identified and interviewed, whether they were there as guests, residents or even staff, but as mentioned previously this is not the case. There needs to be a systematic analysis conducted to identify every single person who was there and also precisely where they were at any relevant times. Many will have been eliminated, and others who clearly are not responsible can also be. Those that are left need to be traced, interviewed and eliminated from the enquiry. This should start with those who would have driven to the area, as well as checking car hire companies. I am not saying categorically that the offence was committed by someone who was actually on holiday; it could be someone who regularly visits. No person or group can be totally discounted until they have been identified and eliminated in some way.

The reality is that as in any investigation and review what is needed is going back to the basics. To start at the beginning and work forward and not the other way round. There are three main avenues to solving any crime; forensics, witnesses and interviews. In this case, there are no reliable forensics, there would seem to be no apparent suspects, and therefore what is left are the witnesses. This is where the focus should obviously be.

Also, people both in the UK and throughout Europe should also be asking themselves what was their son, brother or friend doing when they were in the Algarve that week five years ago.

Too many enquiries get bogged down in chasing farfetched and unrealistic avenues of enquiry. I know this from experience. It is natural to try and leave no stone unturned and in enquiries such as this which are conducted in the public eye and under the glare of publicity sometimes rational decisions are not made. Those tasked with this investigation need to concentrate on what they know, and what can be done.

The police have appealed to anyone who was in Praia de Luz, and particularly the Ocean Club between the Saturday, the 28th April and Friday, the 4th May 2007 and who still have not been interviewed to come forward. This appeal needs to be continually reinforced until every person has been spoken to. It should also include anyone who still has any video or photographs taken there who have not yet handed this over.

In conclusion, I obviously cannot dismiss the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile for a sinister purpose, and that she is now dead. This is one line of enquiry that the police must obviously continue to investigate vigorously.

However I do not believe this to be the case and have given my reasons why. I’m sure many people will disagree with this; that is their prerogative. I also do not wish to unrealistically raise hopes and expectations. Is believing that Madeleine is alive being overly and unrealistically optimistic. I do not think so, and until there is categoric evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe this. Hopefully those continuing the investigation have the same belief.

Ian Horrocks 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.

ENDS

Footnote: The above article is featured on a blog called: ‘Madeleine - The Truth’, run by Brenda Ryan, originally a McCann-sceptic, but now a confirmed and committed McCann-supporter. Replying to Ian Horrock’s article above, she made this ‘Personal Comment’:  

“WOW, that is all I can say… Someone finally doing their homework and explaining how Madeleine could have been abducted. Brilliant article… And as they say:

The plain reality is that it all fits. I am not making everything fit, it simply does. The time fits, the description fits, even down to Jane Tanner identifying the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing that night. The route is the most likely to be the one taken, everything points to this being Madeleine and her abductor and nothing I have seen contradicts this.

Spot on”.

Ms Ryan’s comment is laughable in the light of DCI Redwood’s dismissal of this sighting, one year later on BBC Crimewatch, as being that of Madeleine McCann. See also Appendix 2 below.

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Appendix 2: The original article by Ian Horrocks, 14 October 2013: ‘What happened to Madeleine McCann?’ – published to coincide with the BBC CrimeWatch ‘McCann Special’ the same day

 

In February last year [2012] on behalf of a UK newspaper [Rupert Murdoch’s the Sun], I travelled to Portugal to look at the investigation into the abduction of Madeleine McCann, and the circumstances surrounding the offence.

My analysis, reasoning and conclusions are shown here, and until the announcement by the Metropolitan Police Review Team the following April [2013], I was one of very few that believed that Madeleine may still be alive.

This has now been amended following new information just released by the Metropolitan Police. It therefore contains some minor, but fundamental changes in light of this potentially ‘new’ information.

[COMMENT: ‘Minor, but fundamental’? Does Ian Horrocks know the meaning of either word?]

What happened to Madeleine McCann? I obviously do not know; the following may be speculation, but contains inferences developed from the known facts, information available to myself, and from over 30 years’ experience as a police officer. The harsh reality is that only one, or in my view possibly two people know what happened on that night.

I am sure many will not agree, the following is simply my view and should be read as such.

I will say from the start that after looking at the information available, I am still of the view that there is a chance that Madeleine is still alive. I will explain how I have come to this conclusion.

Having looked at the scene myself, it is easy to see how Madeleine could have been snatched and the abductor made good his escape in less than two minutes. I found that by turning right from the apartment he could have been totally out of sight within 30 seconds of leaving the apartment.

However, information now released perhaps indicates that a different route was taken, although I must say I am not totally convinced of this.

[COMMENT: Earlier, Horrocks had been convinced that Jane Tanner had really seen the abductor carrying Madeleine. He built an elaborate scenario on that foundation. Now DCI Redwood has removed the whole basis for much of Horrocks’ argument by stating on the record, to a TV audience of 6.7 million people, that the girl was being taken home by a man whose child was attending a crèche. Moreover, in Horrocks’ original 2012 article, he had written these words: “Why else would the child be wearing pyjamas? If the person was taking a child back to their home or apartment, then she would not have been in pyjamas”. It might be said to be a fair point. But again, DCI Redwood’s CrimeWatch programme told Britain that indeed, according to Redwood, a man from the creche was doing just that, taking his daughter home from the creche at 9.15pm, barefoot, and dressed only in her pyjamas. An interesting point about this is: Did this ‘man from the creche’ take her there in his pyjamas? If he took her there in her clothes, then why was he not carrying her clothes back with him?]

I tried to look at this with fresh eyes untainted by what has been written in the past, much of which has been totally uninformed and not based upon any evidence, but on media reports, unreliable accounts, personal agendas, and sadly, often misguided vitriol. It is true to say that many of the police files have been released but these have not as yet led to any definitive conclusions.

Firstly, what are the options? The way I see it there are still principally four, and these remain unchanged.

1.That Madeleine either died accidentally, or was killed by her parents.

2.That Madeleine wandered out of the apartment and either became lost, or was taken by someone in the street.

3.That Madeleine was abducted by one or two predatory paedophiles, and she was assaulted and either died, or was killed.

4.That Madeleine was taken by a person or couple with the intention of keeping her, and raising her.

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.

Likewise the idea that a random burglar suddenly deciding to take a child instead of valuables is also I believe unlikely. There has recently been speculation that this is a possibility, although personally I do not believe this is what happened.

My belief is that it is either the third or fourth option, although I think that from looking at all the information available to me that the fourth is the most likely.

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.

There are many reasons for saying this. Firstly and most importantly, it is statistically unlikely, the main reason being that there is no family history that would point in any way to this. I do not believe that anyone with any sense believes that they killed Madeleine deliberately, so this leaves a tragic accident. Even if such an accident had happened, is it feasible that they would not immediately seek assistance and call for an ambulance?

Are we saying that they coldly decided that Madeleine was dead and then put together an elaborate plan to dispose of her body? Did Gerry McCann simply walk down the road with his daughter’s body and dispose of it, and then calmly go out for dinner. This is ridiculous in the extreme. Also, have they then maintained this pretence for so long, the simple answer is no. And as for it being a conspiracy between themselves and any or all of their group of friends, this stretches credibility beyond belief.

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 offensive conjecture.

The simple answer is, there is no information, let alone evidence to indicate their involvement in any way. Should they have supervised their children more closely that night? That is not for me to say, but regardless of the answer, it does not assist the investigation in any way.

Although the second option is extremely unlikely it needs to be covered. If Madeleine had left the apartment, she would have gone out of the patio doors and walked towards where her parents were. It is also likely that she would have been seen by someone who would have reunited her with her family. She would not have wandered far, and the chance that at this very moment a predator being there who is attracted to victim of this age is so unlikely that it goes beyond reasonable consideration. This option therefore can also be discounted. Additionally, the most telling point that dismisses this theory is the open window and shutter.

Now to the third and fourth options. These I believe are very similar in how they were carried out, but with clearly different endings. I will describe how I believe she was taken and then explain why I believe that the final option that Madeleine may still be alive is realistic.

It remains 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 complex. This pattern could have been observed by anyone, so by Thursday they could have been watched for up to four nights during which time their routine was established. Whoever abducted Madeleine was then able to put their plan together.

The routine of Mr and Mrs McCann and their friends, along with the regular checking of the children could have been easily observed, as well as the fact that access via the patio door was simple.

On the night itself, Gerry McCann checked the children at about 9.05pm and then rejoined the group. Mathew Oldfield checked at about 9.30pm, although he only listened at the door and did not actually see Madeleine.

These actions could be seen from within the Ocean Club area, as well as from the alleyway that runs between this and the apartment. Due to the height of the wall and foliage on top of it, as well as the area inside being well lit in contrast to the darkness elsewhere, those dining would have been easily observed whilst anyone in the alleyway could remain unseen. Sunset on the 3rd May 2007 was at 8.25pm, so it would have been quite dark by 9pm.

After observing previous routines, they would have known that they had at least 20 to 30 minutes between each check. They would have observed the group for a few minutes and then gone to the apartment. At the end of the alleyway they could see that the road was clear, it is then only literally a second for someone to go through the gate and into the garden area, where they would be virtually out of site. It is then simple to enter the apartment through the patio doors, which had been left unlocked.

The abductor then went into the bedroom where the twins and Madeleine were sleeping. He has no interest in the twins, he is looking for Madeleine. The window and blind were very likely opened in order to facilitate exit. If two were involved, Madeleine would have been handed out of the window to the second person. If one, then he could have climbed out the window with her, but I believe it to be more likely that he realised that this was not a simple task when carrying a child, and would then most likely have left via the door leading to the car park. Although entry was gained via the patio doors, I do not believe this was the exit route as it is not only unnecessary and illogical, it would also substantially increase the chances of being seen and possibly caught.

It is clear in my mind that the plan and escape route were planned and probably rehearsed in advance. It was clearly well executed as it was successful. This was not an impulsive act; it was planned. It took patience as well as planning, and would have involved observing the McCann’s for some time. This view is possibly reinforced by the many sightings of a number of potentially suspicious males in the days and hours prior to Madeleine’s abduction. The person responsible for this offence is I believe both a controlled and controlling individual.

Although floodlit, the window of the apartment and exit to the car park are not easily observed. Once out of the apartment car park there is a simple choice, turn left or right. By turning right the abductor has to cross Rua Dr Francisco Gentil Martins, the road leading down to the entrance to the Ocean Club. However within less than 30 seconds he could be totally out of site in an alleyway with high walls that leads directly from Rua Dr Agostinho da Silva to Rua Do Ramalhetete, the main road that leads out of the village.

Turning left means he would have to walk a greater distance, initially uphill, and with a greater chance of being seen. Although there are many apartments overlooking the car park, how many people were actually looking out and taking any notice. Also, the entrance is relatively secluded and once they are away from the apartment, there is no reason for anybody to notice them, and even if they did, to think twice about it.

However, recently released information possibly suggests that a child of Madeleine's description was seen being carried about 400 yards away in Rua da Escola Primaria, near the junction with Rua 25 de Abril, shortly before 10pm.

This timing does not fit in with the sighting by Jane Tanner at 9.15pm.

[COMMENT: He is right about that].

 

However, we are now told that the person who Jane Tanner saw has since come forward and been eliminated. I appreciate that I strongly believed that this was Madeleine, but I have to accept that if the police are 100% happy with this, then this person can be ruled out.

[COMMENT: How unfortunate for Horrocks! His cherished and certain view that the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner carrying a child was carrying Madeleine has now been thoroughly demolished by Redwood’s ‘man from the creche’].

I am however, still of the belief that there is a good chance that this may have been the route possibly taken by the abductor.

Although I initially dismissed the sighting by the Smith family, I do appreciate that in the absence of any other information that this could be a possibility. I do however remain sceptical about this. This sighting was about 400 yards away from the apartment, which is a lengthy distance to walk with a child if you have just abducted her. If the plan was to take the child to a car, this would have been parked far closer. If the objective was to dispose of a body, then this person has walked past a lot of waste ground.

Why increase the chances of being caught?

[COMMENT: On these particular points, I personally have to agree with Horrocks’ analysis. As stated elsewhere, I am not persuaded that the alleged Smith family sightings are genuine. Clearly Horrocks disagrees with Redwood on the Smith ‘sighting’].

If this was the person who abducted Madeleine, then there is a good chance that he was either going home or to accommodation very nearby, the route being chosen by him in an attempt to be observed by as few people as possible.

Was it one person, was it two, were they locals, were they there on holiday or simply visiting, was she taken by a paedophile or by someone who wanted to raise her and look after her. I obviously do not know. All I can do is to provide a few thoughts and theories.

To answer the first question, was it one person or two. Although I do not know, I still believe that from the nature of the crime, the manner in which it was carried out and from examination of the scene and area, this would point to it being more likely that there were two people as opposed to one. This can obviously not be said for certain, and as with all the other points mentioned is simply my opinion. If the sighting by the Smith family proves to be correct, then I accept that in all likelihood, the person who took Madeleine was alone.

[COMMENT: Indeed, all the elaborate theories by Horrocks in his earlier article about two men walking to a nearby getaway car are demolished if the ‘Smithman’ sighting is genuine and really was Madeleine McCann. Moreover, anyone committed to the belief that there really was a ‘Smithman’ and that, if so, he really was carrying Madeleine, would have to explain how he managed to walk the 700 or so yards from the McCanns’ apartment to the site of the alleged Smith ‘sighting’ without being seen].  

Now to one of the most difficult points, was it a paedophile, or someone who wanted Madeleine as an extended member of their family? Again I do not know, but what can be done is to look at it logically, and see what is the most likely.

I remain of the view that Madeleine was not abducted with the intention of some sort of long term grooming and abuse similar to that experienced by Jaycee Dugard or Natascha Kampusch. In any event, both of these girls were substantially older when they were taken.

A girl of Madeleine’s age is not the usual target age for a paedophile; she is substantially younger than most victims of these offences. This however cannot totally be discounted, as was seen from the conviction in the UK in March 2012 of David Bryant. In his case however, he snatched his victims from the street, and did not kill any of them.

Although it cannot be under estimated the amount of planning that a paedophile without a conscience is prepared to go, I believe in this case that the choice of Madeleine and her place of abduction underlines the fact that this was not a planned or even random paedophile attack.

I still believe on balance that when all the available information is examined logically and objectively, that Madeleine was most likely taken by someone who wanted her as part of his or their family. Once they have made the decision to carry this out, whoever was responsible would be prepared to take more risks than perhaps others would. These risks however are mitigated by the level of planning and control in the abduction process.

If this theory is correct, certain inferences can be made. The people responsible will not have a close extended family as would it be feasible that no one would make the connection to Madeleine. I do not think that they have any children of their own.

I also believe that they could have rationalised it in their minds by thinking “they’ve got three, we haven’t got any”. In a perverse way they may see this as being alright, as they have left the family with two children. I am also of the view that whoever took Madeleine will speak English, albeit not essentially fluently, and not necessarily as a first language.

Now to one of the most significant questions. Were those responsible local to the area, or visitors, whether from elsewhere in Portugal or further afield. Again no one knows. The reality is that they could be either.

Whether they were local to the area or a visitor, I am of the view that Madeleine was seen early in the week, and from then the plan was developed to abduct her. If local, they could have initially stayed in the area, and if from further afield, would have left on Thursday, and possibly even vacated their accommodation before this.

Talk of her being taken away on a boat from the beach, a local marina or on a ferry to Africa is not only unrealistic, it is also unhelpful. The sighting by the Smith family, if correct, may indicate that the person was heading towards the beach. Regardless, I still do not accept that she was taken away on a boat.

Some may say that the e-fit recently issued is similar to Gerry McCann. Regardless, it cannot be him, as at the time the Smith family saw the person carrying the child, Mr McCann was either at the restaurant, or the apartment having just discovered that Madeleine was missing. This is without dispute.

[COMMENT: I think that is correct. If there ever was a ‘Smithman’, it could not be Gerry McCann].

Regardless of whether the e-fit is of the suspect, it is clear that the UK police review is the correct course of action, in spite of what some people may think. This is being conducted by experienced investigators, and hopefully any suggestions or guidance they make will be acted upon, and that where feasible they will continue to be allowed to become more involved in the investigative process.

Now to the main question. Where is Madeleine 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 possible ways in which she could be being disguised to prevent identification.

A child will often accept what they are told, particularly if said in a caring way, and will therefore act accordingly. Memories cannot be totally erased but behaviour can be controlled, influenced and to a degree changed. I also believe that there is a good chance that whoever took Madeleine may in all likelihood have subsequently moved, and therefore have new friends and neighbours who accept them for what they are, and not necessarily be suspicious. People generally accept what they are told by others, and are not naturally disbelieving.

I do not believe she is local to Praia de Luz, or even the Algarve, but if taken by someone who is Portuguese, she could still be in the country. It cannot be under estimated the lengths that people would go to in order to preserve their ‘family’.

If she was not taken by someone local, then the reality is she could be anywhere. I appreciate this is not helpful, it is simply the reality. This could particularly be the case if the person who abducted her was a visitor in the complex, or staying nearby. There is also a good chance that whoever abducted Madeleine had most likely driven there.

What can now be done by the police? It is evident that the UK Police are putting substantial resources into the investigation. It is now two years since the Metropolitan Police started reviewing this case, and in this time, we are told, they have interviewed 442 people, and examined a substantial amount of telephone data from the days around the offence. They have also identified 41 people, who they claim to be of interest, of which 15 are UK nationals. 

[COMMENT: This level of enquiries and investigation could be due to either a genuine search for the truth, or a massive cover-up of the truth].

These clearly cannot all be suspects, but tracing them could significantly assist in the investigation. This is the correct course of action, and should be allowed to continue, until they either achieve a result, whatever that may be, or totally exhaust every avenue of investigation.

I would by now have hoped that everyone who was in the Ocean Club and nearby at the time have been identified and interviewed, whether they were there as guests, residents or even staff. However, it is my belief that this is still not the case.

The reality is that as in any investigation and review what is needed is going back to the basics. To start at the beginning and work forward and not the other way round. There are three main avenues to solving any crime; forensics, witnesses and interviews. In this case, there are no reliable forensics, there would seem to be no apparent suspects, and therefore what is left are the witnesses. This is where the focus should continue to be.

Also, people both in the UK and throughout Europe should still be asking themselves, what was their son, brother or friend doing when they were in the Algarve that week six and a half years ago.

In conclusion, I still obviously cannot dismiss the possibility that Madeleine was abducted by a paedophile for a sinister purpose, and that she is now dead. This is one line of enquiry that the police must obviously continue to investigate vigorously.

However I do not believe this to be the case, and have given my reasons why. I’m sure many will disagree with this; that is their prerogative. Is believing that Madeleine is alive being overly and unrealistically optimistic. I do not think so, and until there is categoric evidence to the contrary, I will continue to believe this. Hopefully those continuing the investigation share this same belief.

ENDS