Dave Edgar returns

Madeleine McCann investigator claims she could still be alive and 'hidden in a dungeon' as he likens disappearance to kidnapped sex slave Jaycee Dugard who 'came back from the dead'

• Ex police detective David Edgar has claimed Maddie could resurface 'at any time'
  
• The private investigator had worked on behalf of Maddie's family for three years
  
• Home Office last week announced it would grant £150,000 to keep search going
  
• Mr Edgar said officers could be looking at theory Maddie was taken by a sex ring
  
  

Doug D wrote:What is it with these bylines?
 
The ‘original’ TK article (marked exclusive) in yesterdays Sun at 8.54pm, although dragging out all this old David Edgar drivel, was just down as Tracey, yet today the same drivel gets rehashed in the Mail, without the usual ‘according to the Sun’ cut and paste thing, yet she has to share it, with nothing added, with Alexander Robertson, so presumably has to split whatever fee she gets for this nonsense.
 
Does anyone know how these things actually work and do the papers actually pay anything worthwhile for these fillers?
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Mirror cut and paste is down to Bradley Jolly, with an attribution to The Sun:
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
Same with Daily Star, (David Rivers):
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
and Metro (Jimmy Nsubuga):
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
 
so six people have apparently been paid (TK counts as two) for this one old rehashed article and it’s not even the first time it’s been rehashed either.
 
Surely on whatever basis it works, the fees for these can only be minimal?

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:"parents Kate and Gerry were said to be 'greatly encouraged' that Scotland Yard could finally be closing in on Maddie's kidnapper after eleven-and-a-half years"

Yeah, greatly encouraged after over 7 years and over £12million to come up with absolutely nothing. The square root of sweet FA to be perfectly blunt. 

Whereas most ordinary people would be livid that such 'efforts' couldn't yield a scintilla of a lead.

Doug D wrote:Just for reference as I had to look it up:

Bewk P60.

On Thursday 3 May I awoke in the children’s bedroom. I can’t remember who was up first but I know we had all surfaced by about 7.30am. I’m not even sure whether Gerry had actually noticed I’d slept in the other room and I chose not to mention it. At breakfast time, Madeleine had a question for us. ‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’
We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they’d gone to bed? Children often get a bit fractious around bedtime, though I had no recollection of any tears from either Madeleine or Sean before they settled the previous evening. And it certainly hadn’t been in the early hours, because I’d been in the room with them, even closer than usual.


KM statement 4^th May 2007:


She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In her September statement she says:

‘When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. She says that before Madeleine appeared in their room, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine went to the room almost at the same time she head the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she or Gerry went to the childrens' room, however she states that Amelie cried for a short time.’
 
and

‘Regarding this night she says that none of the children cried, she would have noticed as she was in the room. Regarding the fact that Madeleine on the next morning, Thursday, during breakfast said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room, she presumes that this crying must have been before she and Gerry returned to the apartment.’
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Taking the first statement as the most reliable, even if MM was no longer around to ask the alleged question, it was the twins that were crying.

Personally I have never believed that a three year old would call her siblings ‘the twins’ and much more likely to have referred to them generally as ‘Sean & Me’ (Amelie). (Single syllables)

Certainly a three year old, however educationally advanced, would never say ‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’

And converting MM into one of the cryers was a convenient alteration to the story.

Tony Bennett wrote:Extract from Hobs' post:

QUOTE:  "Maddie died before that Thursday and I am leaning towards Sunday/Monday, as that's when we have fudging over who was doing what, where and when".

Hobs' assertion, or should we say hypothesis, is exactly in line with the conclusions of the Admin of CMOMM, the conclusions of, e.g. PeterMac, Lizzy HideHo, sharonl, the forum-owner, Richard D Hall, and many other serious researchers here on CMOMM.

PeterMac cites the powerful evidence of the 'Last Photo' being taken on Sunday lunchtime, with there being no other photo that week that we can positively assert was taken after then. Lizzy HideHo comes at it from a different perspective, namely that she cannot find any one piece of credible evidence, independent of the McCanns and their friends, of Madeleine being alive after Sunday. Richard D Hall focuses on things like the sudden dash of Robert Murat to Praia da Luz on Monday 30 April and the brazen lies he then told the Portuguese Police about what he was really doing on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday of that week. 

There are two very specific pieces of evidence in this case which contradict that view, shared by PeterMac, Lizzy HideHo, sharonl, the forum-owner, Richard D Hall, and now, Hobs, namely...

1.  Martin Smith's claim that he saw Gerry McCann carrying Madeleine, presumably dead, through the streets of Praia da Luz at about 10pm on Thursday 3 May, and

2.  Mrs Pamela Fenn's evidence that she heard Madeleine (strictly, 'a child of more than two years old') crying between 10.30pm and 11.45pm on Tuesday 1 May.

If EITHER of those witness statements is true, the case for death (or something very serious) befalling Madeleine on Sunday, or possibly Monday, falls.   

The idea that Madeleine died on Sunday or Monday and that Gerry McCann then carried her body, 3-4 days old, through the streets of Praia da Luz around the very time that his wife and friends were raising the alarm, is utterly preposterous. The alternatives are (1) that Martin Smith fabricated his statements (along with his son & daughter) or (2) that the Smiths had the amazing coincidence of seeing someone virtually identical to the fake abductor devised by Jane Tanner.

If Mrs Fenn was right about Madeleine crying on the late evening of Tuesday 1 May, the 'death on Sunday/Monday' theory also falls.

So what are we to do?

We have a clear conflict of evidence.

My answer is that every serious Madeleine McCann researcher or anyone who has an interest in the truth of what really happened to Madeleine McCann must carefully weigh up the relevant evidence.

It is clear, is it not, that some evidence in this case is reliable and some of it is unreliable? Some of it true; some of it false.

Every member or guest here should carefully weigh up what is clearly contradictory evidence...and then decide which evidence is to be preferred. Some of the evidence is clearly wrong.

But which?  

One final point. Let us remember the 50 or so top officials, government security agents like MI5 & Special Branch, public relations officers, ambassadors & consular staff, lawyers & police officers etc. who dashed to Praia da Luz in those first few days.

Does that not prove to us that this is NOT an Occam's Razor case? 

---

ETA:       

Hobs also wrote:  "The McCanns even told us the children were being babysat in one of the other apartments when, according to their story of the alleged crying incident, they wondered if the crying was 'when they were being bathed or put to bed?' If this was true, then if they had been bathing and putting their children to bed, the question would not have arisen".

TONY
Forensically a great postpost, which is why we need to be open minded and still leave room for other possibilities than our own preferred, well thought through, opinion.
You've nailed it on points 1 and 2. They COULD be genuine, and have more plausibility than T9 statements, for example. RDH has me easily convinced that Maddie died Sunday night. But I also don't discount the flurry of phone calls, the fall out the McCanns had, the busty aerobics instructor, the separate rooms, the wrist bruises, the screaming child, meaning another night was possible for her death other than Sunday or Thursday. I also believe the alarm was raised earlier than is being made out. 
None of us should fall out over the primacy of one theory or the other. Where does that get anybody towards a proper judicial process?



.

Marco wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
This to me is an establishment hack trying to rubbish smithman. The bloke on the ground is not buying into the team McCann planted lies about crap police and rampant burglaries. Smith might be very, very, right. Gerry had been "gone ages probably watching the football" according to his wife. I'm not saying this is it, but it's dangerous to rule out anything prematurely

Hobs wrote:They are recycling old news as new news to try and continue the charade.
Many of the public will be reasonably new to the case having grown up over the last 11 plus years and whereas previously Maddie was a just a name, the recycled news is new to them and perhaps the fragrant duo are hoping to entice new donations  from those thinking this is new information, perhaps that the public have short memories and don't remember this coming out before and perhaps an attempt to keep Op. grange circling the drain.

They haven't factored in those who have followed this case from the start, who have researched and posted and commented in media and on blogs and forums and who, i many cases have had interesting talks with nice PC's and WPC's providing lots of relevant information.

The mccann's are desperately trying to delay the inevitable.
In the beginning when Maddie first died and the group went into panic mode, they had contacts in high places, politicians, media agencies and a chit load of money, more than they ever dreamed of.
The future looked bright, they looked like they would get away with it.

Over the years their political friends have become toxic has beens, the blair's and brown, the money has been eaten up spent on  pointless detectives and investigators to give the impression they were concerned parents desperate to find their missing daughter.
Money spent on suing Dr. Amaral and the various media as well as the high life, money squirreled away for a rainy day.
Well it wasn't a rainy day it was a storm, money  flowing out the fund as they fought to stay free.
Any semblance of searching was gone within a day by the mccanns and their chums and later their families.
Money was salted away in a restricted account, some £500,000.
The problem is said money can only be spent on tools and equipment for a business or property.
Since we know they are not running a business requiring tools and equipment, said money can only be spent on property.

So, has it gone on paying off most of their mortgage, a few pounds left in  to show the property as still mortgaged otherwise big questions then on how they paid off the mortgage or, have they bought a property elsewhere perhaps as a buy to let to generate so much needed income and, if push comes to shove, they can sell rothley towers and move into their other property.
If they bought to let they could do it via a 3rd party letting agency so the tenants would not know who owned the house and the agents would not say.

The mccanns are painted into a corner, painted by their own hands.
We have the statements taken by the PJ and can be admitted into court, they couldn't do anything about that as initial witness statements, had they refused at that point then they would have been made arguidos and pointed the finger of suspicion right at themselves and then no fund.
Then we have kate's book which will be entered into court as evidence.
I wonder if her lawyers told her not to be so stupid since she refused to answer the over 48 questions (multiple compound questions) only to answer them in her book, as well as the mccanns mockumentary which would also be admitted into evidence since it is them speaking freely using the process of free editing.
Even though the PJ could not get them all to do a reconstruction, although the mccann's were obliged to, they got round it by having their chums set all sorts of requirements  and excuses knowing full well that if their chums didn't take part, it was pointless the mccanns doing one since none of the actors playing the roles of tapas 7 chums would know exactly who was where, when, what they were doing and so on.
It was the only way the mccann's could get out of doing the reconstruction and, should the PJ have  made everyone arguidos, they had hired an expensive extradition lawyer to make sure they couldn't be forced to return or at least delay it for a real long time until money ran out or the PJ gave up for the moment.
This is why as soon as they were made arguidos they bolted to the UK and stayed there until they could be pretty sure they would not be arrested.
Even when they did return for the various court cases, i will bet they had lawyers on speed dial and a speedy escape plan if it looked like they were going to be arrested.

The fund is almost gone, she is almost employable and working in medicine means what?
She is not employed by the NHS, word would have leaked out by now if she was dealing with the public and staff would have spoken about her presence.
Is she a secretary perhaps for gerry?
He is at Leicester uni and from what i can tell, as a professor he is still on probation.
They may keep him on, they may get rid of him depending on  how he does both in research and with students and, the students loathe him.
He was in a dead end job at Glenfield, stuck in a back room reading scans with no contact with patients.
He was never going to be promoted, he was never going to see patients he was going nowhere, i wonder if he jumped before he was pushed?
He was made to feel unwanted and unwelcome by everyone and who would want to stay in such a toxic environment?
They may not have been able to fire him and he would take them to court if they tried with eyes on the money and him claiming  he had done nothing wrong and they wanted rid of him because of Maddie, even though he was 'innocent'. Everyone is innocent until found guilty in a court of law.
I doubt they are still close friends with their tapas chums, maybe a Christmas card, definitely no more holidays although i wonder if any of the tapas 7 go on vacation together?
I wonder if the mccann's had to buy the silence of their chums?
What hold did they have over the chums, what threat did the mccanns hold over their head to make them stick to the story?

Matt was the last non mccann to allegedly see the children in 5a and even then he admits to only seeing the twins.
He would be the obvious one to have killed or taken Maddie from the apartment that Thursday night as Kate's check followed his, assuming of course that we buy the story that all the children were left home alone that night and regular checks.
The children were not left home alone any night due to being babysat by the missing adult from the table in whichever apartment.
Given the almost forensic cleanup of 5a, that would have taken hours and then the setting of the scene.
Maddie died before that Thursday and i am leaning towards Sunday/Monday as that's when we have fudging over who was doing what, where and when.
The mccann's even told us the children were being babysat in one of the other apartments when, according to their story of the alleged crying incident, they wondered if the crying was when they were being bathed or put to bed?
If this was true then if they had been bathing and putting their children to bed, the question would not have arisen.

The public have had 11 years of mccann nonsense and outright bull, those who were children then or teens have grown up and whereas previously may not have shown any interest, now they are older, perhaps with children of their own, they may be rethinking the case and how, as parents they would have done or reacted if it was their own child allegedly abducted.
These so called new stories smack of desperation, someone at some point will crack and start talking.
Maybe they though they would get away with it and, should Maddie's remains be found, her death blamed on the alleged abductor.
However, if Maddie's remains be found there will be forensic evidence.
Bugs and insects that  died in her remains, fibers, , leaves and grasses and plant seeds as well as left over plants.
With modern forensics, her remains would reveal much either as a skeleton or if there is remaining tissues.
The mccanns could not allow an autopsy because of what would be found, her remains could reveal a lot more than they think especially if somewhere that doesn't get wet, perhaps mummified to a degree.
The mccanns would have to worry what they left behind on her body and in the surrounding areas.
What if she was found in her own clothing?
Expected would be evidence from the alleged abductor, fibers, hairs, left behind through contact, evidence she was abducted by a stranger.
If they find only evidence that links to the mccanns and chums then they have a big problem.
Not only was there not one iota of evidence in the apartment of an abduction in apartment 5a, there was none on the body which is unexpected.
New people are hearing the story of Maddie all the time, thinking perhaps these are new stories, new leads and will donate to the fund or support the mccanns.
We who have followed this case from the get go as have many members of the public will see these stories for what they are, delaying tactics and distraction tactics.

Mccann supporters will be vocal in their support and often speaking the words that the mccanns as parents should be speaking and aren't.
Their supporters will troll news sites, blogs and forums with name calling and propagating the abduction story, sightings or how they have been working with the police on the case or using cards/crystals/stuff and being believed by said police and how they are certain Maddie is alive etc.
 (coooeeee fans)

We need to be the voice of reason, using the facts, correcting errors and mistruths and also showing the current infestation of old news to be what it is, old news, investigated and discounted in the past and posing the question:

Why is this rash of old news being put out as new news?

Why is our attention being directed at these stories which are years old rather than where the investigation is today especially given how Op. Grange is still getting more money despite having gotten nothing to show for it.

Why so many millions looking for a child who was allegedly abducted (read dead) in another European country and are the primary investigators?
Are the PJ talking to UK police?
Are the UK police talking to the PJ?
What if the UK police finally decide that there was no abduction in Portugal as zero evidence has been found to indicate said abduction?
What if the UK police decide that Maddie is dead as revealed by the forensic evidence and also decide that the mccanns are the ones responsible for 
What, if coming to said conclusion, they decide to then investigate the fund, something that can investigate and prosecute?
Maddie is dead and the parents were involved/knew this thus making the fund fraudulent, obtaining money and services by deception, wire fraud and anything else they can think of.
This means they would also be investigating the tapas 7 and also clarrie who will probably regret telling the world to address it to kate and gerry and it will get there.

The PJ will not say where they are in the investigation, what evidence they have found, any witness they have talked to and perhaps will not even tell the UK police since the UK police will talk letting the mccanns and chums know what is happening where, what and how.
Personally, i would leak tiny little nuggets of information that are old news or not relevant to the case but gives the impression they are important and incriminating and see what the mccanns and chums say and do.
If they react then we hit a sensitive spot and we should do some digging.

I would also want to know why, even though the remit is to treat the case as is Maddie was abducted in the UK, the mccanns and chums have not been questioned under oath?
Given they have self claimed neglect they should have been questioned immediately given neglect resulting in harm- Maddie being abducted by an alleged paedophile.

When the PJ finally charge the mccanns with the homicide, concealment of a corpse and filing a false police report and whatever charges for their chums, once released will the UK police then charge them in relation to the fund?
Would the mccanns serve time in Portugal or would they try and be transferred to a UK prison to serve their sentence?
If so would they serve their time as per Portuguese law full time or time off for good behavior or as per UK law?

In the mean time, we need to keep pointing out that this is old news and what forensic evidence has been found indicating their involvement and their own words that reveal their guilt.
Be that annoying thorn in their side and when fake news or old news is posted as it has been and will be, show it to be what it is.
Be nice, be patient, show them where they can find the facts, answer their questions, ignore the trolls and note also that the trolls kick off when something sensitive is found and published/posted.

It is amazing what they leak when trying to defend the indefensible. 

Doug D wrote:Just for reference as I had to look it up:

Bewk P60.

On Thursday 3 May I awoke in the children’s bedroom. I can’t remember who was up first but I know we had all surfaced by about 7.30am. I’m not even sure whether Gerry had actually noticed I’d slept in the other room and I chose not to mention it. At breakfast time, Madeleine had a question for us. ‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’
We were puzzled. Did she mean when they were having their bath? we asked her. Or just after they’d gone to bed? Children often get a bit fractious around bedtime, though I had no recollection of any tears from either Madeleine or Sean before they settled the previous evening. And it certainly hadn’t been in the early hours, because I’d been in the room with them, even closer than usual.


KM statement 4^th May 2007:


She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday May 3rd, Madeleine asked the interviewee why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The interviewee states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom.
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In her September statement she says:

‘When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on the night of the Tuesday for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45, she says it is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, and sleep with her and Gerry in their room. She says that before Madeleine appeared in their room, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine went to the room almost at the same time she head the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she or Gerry went to the childrens' room, however she states that Amelie cried for a short time.’
 
and

‘Regarding this night she says that none of the children cried, she would have noticed as she was in the room. Regarding the fact that Madeleine on the next morning, Thursday, during breakfast said to both of them that she had been crying and that nobody had come to her room, she presumes that this crying must have been before she and Gerry returned to the apartment.’
 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Taking the first statement as the most reliable, even if MM was no longer around to ask the alleged question, it was the twins that were crying.

Personally I have never believed that a three year old would call her siblings ‘the twins’ and much more likely to have referred to them generally as ‘Sean & Me’ (Amelie). (Single syllables)

Certainly a three year old, however educationally advanced, would never say ‘Why didn’t you come when Sean and I cried last night?’

And converting MM into one of the cryers was a convenient alteration to the story.