Re: Former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar says the motive for taking Madeleine was sexual and insists her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance

by Guest 28.03.17 15:11

suzyjohnson wrote:
Verdi, that's not Brightonboy's theory, he's just wondering what kind of explanation might mean that a priest would sympathise with the McCanns.

Same meat different gravy.

by Guest 28.03.17 15:15

3- Processo Vol XIII 3924 to 3926

13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3924

Former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar says the motive for taking Madeleine was sexual and insists her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance - Page 4 13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3924_small

13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3925

13_VOLUME_XIIIa_Page_3926

Translation of Father Pachecos Statement to the PJ 30th October 2007

Jose Manuel Conceicao Pacheco

The first time he had contact with the McCann's was on 5th May at about 19.00. This was a personal contact with them in the Ocean Club at their apartment, but not the apartment Madeleine disappeared from. They were accompanied by members of the holiday group.

This was an important meeting for the McCann's and which had not been possible to the fact that they were busy. He knows that on the fateful night the McCann's requested the presence of a priest, but he was only informed the following morning.

On the 5th, the theme they talked about was the disappearance and he gave all possible spiritual comfort and they prayed together. They also agreed that the couple would go to the church the following day to attend a mass.

He also prayed with the McCann's on the 6th and 8th May in their apartment.

He gave them the key to the church on the 7th or 8th May upon the suggestion of John Geraghty, a resident of the parish, so that they could calmly go to the church without any media pressure. Someone from the church gave the key to John Geraghty, who then passed it on to the McCann's, with Father Pacheco's permission.

He does not remember the date upon which the key was returned.

Other contact with the McCann's took place at the end of mass when he would comfort them.

He would also meet with the McCann's after they returned from their trips and remembered they were animated when they returned from Morocco as they thought they would Madeleine there. He also comforted Kate when the news of a child buried in Arau broke, as she revealed great nervousness and anxiety, thinking that the child had died.

When questioned, he said he never heard their confessions, perhaps because they only spoke English.

He never talked to them alone.

He states that they showed great suffering to the loss of their daughter.

He adds that a parish bulletin was published giving spiritual, moral and human support to the couple and to other missing children.

by MTSTAR 28.03.17 15:21

Carrry On Doctor wrote:@MTSTAR, I think the priest you have in mind is Father Jose Pacheco. He is said to be a 'shell' of the man he once was.

Really? Makes you wonder what he knows. Is he not allowed to unburden himself?

by Guest 28.03.17 15:36

Carrry On Doctor wrote:@MTSTAR, I think the priest you have in mind is Father Jose Pacheco. He is said to be a 'shell' of the man he once was.

Following the McCanns arguido interviews in September 2007, after they fled Portugal, there was a blitz of reportage in the UK press (around the 17/19th September) - this included claims about Father Jose Pacheco, all emanating from 'a source' close to His Reverence.

If the UK press reports concerning Dr Goncalo Amaral are anything to go by, I think anything connected to the Madeleine McCann case reported in the UK, should be viewed with considerable scepticism. Remember the more recent reports about Dr Amaral featured in the press a short while ago? I haven't got a link to hand but it was clear to me at the time, that UK tabloids were snooping around looking for something juicy to report back to Blighty.

The UK press are ruthless - they've got no scruples. They care not who they ruin for the sake of a story.

by Cmaryholmes 28.03.17 15:40

MTSTAR wrote:
Carrry On Doctor wrote:@MTSTAR, I think the priest you have in mind is Father Jose Pacheco. He is said to be a 'shell' of the man he once was.

Really? Makes you wonder what he knows. Is he not allowed to unburden himself?

If he is 'a shell of the man he once was' , why doesn't he grow a backbone and just tell the truth ?

by Liz Eagles 28.03.17 15:42

Verdi wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Verdi, that's not Brightonboy's theory, he's just wondering what kind of explanation might mean that a priest would sympathise with the McCanns.
Same meat different gravy.

Gravy? Gravy? Dahling it's called jus nowadays, that watered down stuff concentrated into bottles squirted 'artistically' onto your plate in a dribble that's flourished with the back of a spoon to make you gasp in awe at the presentation of a chef that's given you a plate of meat or fish and it that makes you wonder why you went to a Michelin starred restaraunt to be served something really awful and pay your bill with joy!

by Guest 28.03.17 15:54

aquila wrote:
Verdi wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Verdi, that's not Brightonboy's theory, he's just wondering what kind of explanation might mean that a priest would sympathise with the McCanns.
Same meat different gravy.
Gravy? Gravy? Dahling it's called jus nowadays, that watered down stuff that makes you wonder why you went to a Michelin starred restaraunt to be served something really awful and pay your bill with joy!

And how that does annoy me! The word 'jus' is pinched from French and it means juice - not gravy nor even sauce, as I repeatedly shout at the television, "IT'S NOT JUS IT'S BLEEEEPING GRAVY"!.

I once saw one of those celebrity chefs being interviewed, he revealed some of the tricks of the trade which equated a Michelin star serving to that of the local greasy spoon - only considerably more expensive to the 'client'.

All to give food the status of 'sexy' - what a con!

by Liz Eagles 28.03.17 16:06

Verdi wrote:
aquila wrote:
Verdi wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Verdi, that's not Brightonboy's theory, he's just wondering what kind of explanation might mean that a priest would sympathise with the McCanns.
Same meat different gravy.
Gravy? Gravy? Dahling it's called jus nowadays, that watered down stuff that makes you wonder why you went to a Michelin starred restaraunt to be served something really awful and pay your bill with joy!
And how that does annoy me! The word 'jus' is pinched from French and it means juice - not gravy nor even sauce, as I repeatedly shout at the television, "IT'S NOT JUS IT'S BLEEEEPING GRAVY"!.

I once saw one of those celebrity chefs being interviewed, he revealed some of the tricks of the trade which equated a Michelin star serving to that of the local greasy spoon - only considerably more expensive to the 'client'.

All to give food the status of 'sexy' - what a con!

I think we're off topic here.

I agree with everything you think and feel about food. Let's take it to the members' lounge because I'd like to discuss the travesty of food.

by suzyjohnson 28.03.17 20:46

Verdi wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Verdi, that's not Brightonboy's theory, he's just wondering what kind of explanation might mean that a priest would sympathise with the McCanns.
Same meat different gravy.

No, completely different Verdi.

He isn't telling us his theory.

He is asking whether the McCanns could have said something to the priest to gain his sympathy.

No theory of what happened involved, (excepting the theory that the priest may know more than he has said)

by suzyjohnson 28.03.17 20:50

' ....... When questioned, he said he never heard their confessions, perhaps because they only spoke English ........'

So, in other words Fr Pachecos had no idea what they were actually talking about? He didn't even speak the same language?

by Liz Eagles 28.03.17 21:02

suzyjohnson wrote:
Verdi wrote:
suzyjohnson wrote:
Verdi, that's not Brightonboy's theory, he's just wondering what kind of explanation might mean that a priest would sympathise with the McCanns.
Same meat different gravy.

No, completely different Verdi.

He isn't telling us his theory.

He is asking whether the McCanns could have said something to the priest to gain his sympathy.

No theory of what happened involved, (excepting the theory that the priest may know more than he has said)

Do you seriously think the McCanns would admit anything to anyone?

by Guest 28.03.17 21:05

suzyjohnson wrote:' ....... When questioned, he said he never heard their confessions, perhaps because they only spoke English ........'

So, in other words Fr Pachecos had no idea what they were actually talking about? He didn't even speak the same language?

Just another victim left to rot in the wake of the McCann defence strategy - and it all started with little innocent Madeleine, a lost life forgotten in the annals of time.

I trust the man lives in peace and is not haunted by the name McCann, fortunately for him, it's unlikely he'll be aware of the trash published about him in the UK press. He was caught-up in the whirlwind of McCann PR machine - he should be left alone to live his life. I don't believe for a moment that he's the shadow of a man or totally destroyed by doing his job, so to speak - it's all UK media hype to satiate the lust for scandal and cast doubt over the integrity of the Portuguese.

Despicable conduct from beginning to end!

by Guest 28.03.17 21:12

aquila wrote:I think we're off topic here.

I agree with everything you think and feel about food. Let's take it to the members' lounge because I'd like to discuss the travesty of food.

Jus a minor distraction. Please do start a thread in the members lounge - I'm sure it will attract some interesting comments.

by Liz Eagles 28.03.17 21:17

we're off topic here.

Verdi wrote:
aquila wrote:
I agree with everything you think and feel about food. Let's take it to the members' lounge because I'd like to discuss the travesty of food.
Jus a minor distraction. Please do start a thread in the members lounge - I'm sure it will attract some interesting comments.

Please open up a new thread for me. I'm quite busy at the moment grappling with my new juice gadgets that will keep me alive forever whilst reading the Daily Mail that tells me whatever I eat is toxic.

by Captain_Pugwash 28.03.17 21:34

Love to dig out an article that was posted in the County Down newspaper last year referring to this by the same East Belfast detective but I cannot see the site allowing its publication. It is a wee bit close to the truth. This is the same newspaper that dared suggest in the books review column that Kate McCanns Madeleine was a tissue of lies not even well put together.

by Guest 28.03.17 23:59

Captain_Pugwash wrote:Love to dig out an article that was posted in the County Down newspaper last year referring to this by the same East Belfast detective but I cannot see the site allowing its publication. It is a wee bit close to the truth. This is the same newspaper that dared suggest in the books review column that Kate McCanns Madeleine was a tissue of lies not even well put together.

@Captain_Pugwash

What are you talking about?

by Guest 29.03.17 0:04

aquila wrote:we're off topic here.
Verdi wrote:
aquila wrote:
I agree with everything you think and feel about food. Let's take it to the members' lounge because I'd like to discuss the travesty of food.
Jus a minor distraction. Please do start a thread in the members lounge - I'm sure it will attract some interesting comments.
Please open up a new thread for me. I'm quite busy at the moment grappling with my new juice gadgets that will keep me alive forever whilst reading the Daily Mail that tells me whatever I eat is toxic.

No can do!

I'm busy quaffing a full glass (in certain circumstances the glass half empty philosophy deserts me) of red wine.

Cheers! In vino veritas !!!

by JRP 29.03.17 0:28

Does that make Clarence a "Jus" rather than a sauce?

dance

g'night

by Guest 29.03.17 0:43

JRP wrote:Does that make Clarence a "Jus" rather than a sauce?

g'night

Nope! A juicy sauce everytime!

Or sometimes on a very 'elfy kick - even a veggie burker..

Former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar says the motive for taking Madeleine was sexual and insists her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance - Page 4 11082464_10153151254671285_966233270393345352_n

.... and it's goodnight from me.

by Captain_Pugwash 29.03.17 3:09

Verdi wrote:
Captain_Pugwash wrote:Love to dig out an article that was posted in the County Down newspaper last year referring to this by the same East Belfast detective but I cannot see the site allowing its publication. It is a wee bit close to the truth. This is the same newspaper that dared suggest in the books review column that Kate McCanns Madeleine was a tissue of lies not even well put together.
@Captain_Pugwash

What are you talking about?

I am talking about an article V/ letter but a certain publication in an Irish newspaper that explains the process of international paedophilia and child rape. I do not for 1 second believe that this is the lot of Madeleine McCann but it might be an insight into consiracy theories.

by Guest 29.03.17 12:57

Captain_Pugwash wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Captain_Pugwash wrote:Love to dig out an article that was posted in the County Down newspaper last year referring to this by the same East Belfast detective but I cannot see the site allowing its publication. It is a wee bit close to the truth. This is the same newspaper that dared suggest in the books review column that Kate McCanns Madeleine was a tissue of lies not even well put together.
@Captain_Pugwash

What are you talking about?
I am talking about an article V/ letter but a certain publication in an Irish newspaper that explains the process of international paedophilia and child rape. I do not for 1 second believe that this is the lot of Madeleine McCann but it might be an insight into consiracy theories.

I'm none the wiser - I can't even understand your wording, it makes no sense. Also struggling to comprehend how such a serious subject could possibly be an insight into conspiracy theories but if you're not able to elaborate, for whatever reason, I guess I'll never know.

Before drawing a line through this non-starter, would you just clarify for me, "the same East Belfast detective" you referred to - are you saying it was David Edgar?

by nomendelta 29.03.17 13:25

The simplest thing against the whole concept of abduction is why an abducsctor would make it so difficult for themselves? I lived in rural Spain not a stones throw away from the Portuguese border and that area has town after town full of kids who roam the street playing about. If someone was working on an international paedo ring or even if someone was just a common or garden abductor they could cover in one afternoon at least half a dozen towns picking up kids from each one and it'd be hours before anyone would notice. Couple that with more densely populated areas with beaches, shopping malls, leisure parks...we've seen with Jamie Bulger how quickly a kid can disappear in a busy environment...

So the whole concept of waiting until night for this one specific child to catch a ten minute window of opportunity...it doesn't make sense on any level and never has done.

by Guest 29.03.17 15:34

nomendelta wrote:The simplest thing against the whole concept of abduction is why an abducsctor would make it so difficult for themselves? I lived in rural Spain not a stones throw away from the Portuguese border and that area has town after town full of kids who roam the street playing about. If someone was working on an international paedo ring or even if someone was just a common or garden abductor they could cover in one afternoon at least half a dozen towns picking up kids from each one and it'd be hours before anyone would notice. Couple that with more densely populated areas with beaches, shopping malls, leisure parks...we've seen with Jamie Bulger how quickly a kid can disappear in a busy environment...

So the whole concept of waiting until night for this one specific child to catch a ten minute window of opportunity...it doesn't make sense on any level and never has done.

Exactly - that's what I've been thinking since square one. Madeleine McCann wasn't an exceptional child, no different than any other little girl of that age, why would she be so desirable to a potential abductor for the need to plan such an elaborate risky operation with no definite window of opportunity. Edgar, according to his documentary, identified witnesses who claim to have seen a man lurking around and watching apartment 5a prior to the 'abduction' - I ask you, so conspicuous in broad daylight? I doubt it very much.

Still, one can always fall back on friend Jon Corner's description of Madeleine, I quote ..

So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that.

Can't see it myself but .... ?

by nomendelta 29.03.17 16:47

Verdi, let's imagine for the sake of argument that Madeleine was indeed deeply charismatic, she'd shine from a crowd...to the extent that an abductor would want her...well it surely follows said abductor would have to have had close range contact with her to decide this? From photos and videos she's just an ordinary 3 year old child...so to spot her remarkable quality you'd have to spend some close-quarter time with her...but then, even the staff in the daytime creche didn't seem to spot anything special about Maddie. From memory some can't even agree whether she was quiet or outgoing...

So...an abductor would HAVE to have singled her out because of some remarkable quality she had and obviously would have had to have spent time with her to discover this quality otherwise such a risky abduction with so many other kids roaming around ready to be plucked makes no sense whatsoever...but then nothing about Maddie seemed to stand out to the creche workers so that doesn't make sense either.

Whole abduction theory just falls apart with the slightest amount of thinking it through.

by Guest 29.03.17 17:30

So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd. So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that.

Just my opinion, but that sounds creepy.

I can't imagine myself as a male saying that about someone else's little girl, even a friends.

Maybe it's within today's normal bounds and I am outdated.

by Phoebe 29.03.17 17:55

Seeing as Madeleine allegedly spent all day in creche, a tiny amount of time at the tapas for tea and in the the play area (apart from beach trips which she probably never took) I'd be astonished if a passing paedophile abductor got the chance to see her. Good grief, there's hardly a credible soul in the Ocean Club itself who can claim he/she saw her!

by Captain_Pugwash 29.03.17 18:41

Verdi wrote:
Captain_Pugwash wrote:
Verdi wrote:
Captain_Pugwash wrote:Love to dig out an article that was posted in the County Down newspaper last year referring to this by the same East Belfast detective but I cannot see the site allowing its publication. It is a wee bit close to the truth. This is the same newspaper that dared suggest in the books review column that Kate McCanns Madeleine was a tissue of lies not even well put together.
@Captain_Pugwash

What are you talking about?
I am talking about an article V/ letter but a certain publication in an Irish newspaper that explains the process of international paedophilia and child rape. I do not for 1 second believe that this is the lot of Madeleine McCann but it might be an insight into consiracy theories.
I'm none the wiser - I can't even understand your wording, it makes no sense. Also struggling to comprehend how such a serious subject could possibly be an insight into conspiracy theories but if you're not able to elaborate, for whatever reason, I guess I'll never know.

Before drawing a line through this non-starter, would you just clarify for me, "the same East Belfast detective" you referred to - are you saying it was David Edgar?

Don't know verdi, I will have to trace the article. It was written by a private investigator from east Belfast former RUC. He referred to working on high level cases such as the McCanns. Given that the RUC disbanded in 1999 it would put him in the right age group. I wasn't interested in this case last year but I have a big interest in conspiracies. John Stalker's book which I bought in Washingto DC in the late 80s is a very good reference point. http://jospdf.info/file/the-stalker-affair.pdf .

by worriedmum 29.03.17 19:28

Phoebe wrote:Seeing as Madeleine allegedly spent all day in creche, a tiny amount of time at the tapas for tea and in the the play area (apart from beach trips which she probably never took) I'd be astonished if a passing paedophile abductor got the chance to see her. Good grief, there's hardly a credible soul in the Ocean Club itself who can claim he/she saw her!

Quite.The percentage of time the McCann children spent actually in the company of their parents must have been quite small. Ergo, you believe some-one has 'picked up on that', that some-one was 'watching her swinging her arms' in her holiday clothes and thinking thoughts that make you nauseous(!), that you wish you had 'looked around to see who was watching' and not been so 'into each other'----all statements which infer the 'abductor' has been in close proximity--AND YOU PUT YOUR TODDLERS WHOM ALLEGEDLY CAN'T COMMUNICATE IN MORE THAN PHRASES IN TO THE CRECHE the days after the alleged abduction.

As Wendy Murphy might say 'I'm not buying it!'

by **sandancer** 29.03.17 21:26

worriedmum wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Seeing as Madeleine allegedly spent all day in creche, a tiny amount of time at the tapas for tea and in the the play area (apart from beach trips which she probably never took) I'd be astonished if a passing paedophile abductor got the chance to see her. Good grief, there's hardly a credible soul in the Ocean Club itself who can claim he/she saw her!
Quite.The percentage of time the McCann children spent actually in the company of their parents must have been quite small. Ergo, you believe some-one has 'picked up on that', that some-one was 'watching her swinging her arms' in her holiday clothes and thinking thoughts that make you nauseous(!), that you wish you had 'looked around to see who was watching' and not been so 'into each other'----all statements which infer the 'abductor' has been in close proximity--AND YOU PUT YOUR TODDLERS WHOM ALLEGEDLY CAN'T COMMUNICATE IN MORE THAN PHRASES IN TO THE CRECHE the day after the alleged abduction.

As Wendy Murphy might say 'I'm not buying it!'

This elusive " watcher in the shadows " must surely have spent time watching All the children at first to be able to select the " stand out in a crowd " child .

No one noticed this lurker only allegedly the ones hanging round in the street , but they were " watching " the apartment not the children waiting for that " small window of opportunity "

Was he/ she hanging round the crèche , play area , Tapas bar , tennis courts , pool beach ? Taking photos like Nuno L claimed , asking questions about the children after all it would be important to know which apartment this child was in ?

And no one noticed anything ?
But then most of them can't remember where they were , when and doing what .
Lots of blonde little girls , quiet , talkative , etc etc WHICH ONE WAS MADELEINE , did any of them really Know ?

by Captain_Pugwash 30.03.17 0:28

worriedmum wrote:
Phoebe wrote:Seeing as Madeleine allegedly spent all day in creche, a tiny amount of time at the tapas for tea and in the the play area (apart from beach trips which she probably never took) I'd be astonished if a passing paedophile abductor got the chance to see her. Good grief, there's hardly a credible soul in the Ocean Club itself who can claim he/she saw her!
Quite.The percentage of time the McCann children spent actually in the company of their parents must have been quite small. Ergo, you believe some-one has 'picked up on that', that some-one was 'watching her swinging her arms' in her holiday clothes and thinking thoughts that make you nauseous(!), that you wish you had 'looked around to see who was watching' and not been so 'into each other'----all statements which infer the 'abductor' has been in close proximity--AND YOU PUT YOUR TODDLERS WHOM ALLEGEDLY CAN'T COMMUNICATE IN MORE THAN PHRASES IN TO THE CRECHE the day after the alleged abduction.

As Wendy Murphy might say 'I'm not buying it!'

Sorry worriedmum but what is the source of this? ?? NO parent would ever do that.

Former Detective Inspector Dave Edgar says the motive for taking Madeleine was sexual and insists her parents had nothing to do with her disappearance