Former McCann PI "Who is protecting Maddie's kidnapper?"

[Alfie]

What has he said, that he hasn't already said before.

He had his chance , a few years ago, with Cowley and achieved nothing.

The fiasco with the Beckham lookalike amply demonstrated the caliber of the man.

The 'lawless village 10 miles from PDL'.


He hasn't a clue what happened to Madeleine.

Well does anyone?  why is his view more ridiculous, shameful or undermining than, say, Amaral's?   

[Eleanor]

Well does anyone?  why is his view more ridiculous, shameful or undermining than, say, Amaral's?   

Actually, Edgar's opinions are a lot more logical than Amaral's.

[faithlilly]

What's your opinion of Sonia Poulton, Pat Brown, Pathfinder and all the other online 'warriors of justice' who think they have solved this case with access only to the files?  Presumably you have little respect for them either and believe them to be dense too!

Were SP, PB and Pathfinder leading an investigation to find Madeleine ?

What a ridiculous question.

[faithlilly]

SNIP

I don't think Edgar has said anything remotely stupid, contentious, undignified or undermining in his recent interview, despite all your hot air and faux indignation on the matter. SNIP

Then we will have to agree to disagree.

[faithlilly]

Well does anyone?  why is his view more ridiculous, shameful or undermining than, say, Amaral's?   

1) He held a worldwide press conference looking for an individual who he hadn't made any effort to find himself.
2) When cornered at that conference he claimed the person carrying a child ( that person later being found but not by him) could have been a woman.
3) He stated in a newspaper article that the LCN DNA technique, if used on evidence from the apartment, could solve the case. He didn't seem to be aware that the technique had already been used.
4) He has only read parts of the files.

Shall I go on?

[Eleanor]

1) He held a worldwide press conference looking for an individual who he hadn't made any effort to find himself.
2) When cornered at that conference he claimed the person carrying a child ( that person later being found but not by him) could have been a woman.
3) He stated in a newspaper article that the LCN DNA technique, if used on evidence from the apartment, could solve the case. He didn't seem to be aware that the technique had already been used.
4) He has only read parts of the files.

Shall I go on?

Why would we want to spoil your enjoyment.  Unless it's Libellous, of course.

[Robittybob1]

1) He held a worldwide press conference looking for an individual who he hadn't made any effort to find himself.
2) When cornered at that conference he claimed the person carrying a child ( that person later being found but not by him) could have been a woman.
3) He stated in a newspaper article that the LCN DNA technique, if used on evidence from the apartment, could solve the case. He didn't seem to be aware that the technique had already been used.
4) He has only read parts of the files.

Shall I go on?

He must have meant it could be possible to get more samples from the apartment.

[faithlilly]

Why would we want to spoil your enjoyment.  Unless it's Libellous, of course.

So do you think Madeleine didn't deserve better?

[Robittybob1]

So do you think Madeleine didn't deserve better?

Are you protecting Madeleine's kidnapper?

[Alfie]

1) He held a worldwide press conference looking for an individual who he hadn't made any effort to find himself.
2) When cornered at that conference he claimed the person carrying a child ( that person later being found but not by him) could have been a woman.
3) He stated in a newspaper article that the LCN DNA technique, if used on evidence from the apartment, could solve the case. He didn't seem to be aware that the technique had already been used.
4) He has only read parts of the files.

Shall I go on?

Sure, fill your boots - none of the above seems as bad as some of the glaring failings and errors of the man who led the investigation in the first place, a man who is "off limits" as far as your scathing and faux indignant attacks are concerned.

[Eleanor]

So do you think Madeleine didn't deserve better?

Please try not to be too ridiculous.

[faithlilly]

Sure, fill your boots - none of the above seems as bad as some of the glaring failings and errors of the man who led the investigation in the first place, a man who is "off limits" as far as your scathing and faux indignant attacks are concerned.

Is he 'off limits' ? I don't think I've ever claimed that. I think Amaral made some terrible mistakes but we're not talking about Amaral, we're talking about Edgar. Why the need to deflect?

You post that Edgar's opinion should be given due solemnity yet when faced with the fact that he didn't follow up leads properly, had only read some of the files and wasn't even aware that LCN DNA had already been used in the case you deflect. Why is that ? Apart from the fact that he appears to believe the McCanns are not implicated in their daughter's disappearance why do you give this man's opinion the time of day?

[Robittybob1]

Is he 'off limits' ? I don't think I've ever claimed that. I think Amaral made some terrible mistakes but we're not talking about Amaral, we're talking about Edgar. Why the need to deflect?

You post that Edgar's opinion should be given due solemnity yet when faced with the fact that he didn't follow up leads properly, had only read some of the files and wasn't even aware that LCN DNA had already been used in the case you deflect. Why is that ? Apart from the fact that he appears to believe the McCanns are not implicated in their daughter's disappearance why do you give this man's opinion the time of day?

Did he get the required amount of support to investigate?

[jassi]

Did he get the required amount of support to investigate?

Support from whom?  He was a private investigator, not a serving officer in any force.

[Alfie]

Is he 'off limits' ? I don't think I've ever claimed that. I think Amaral made some terrible mistakes but we're not talking about Amaral, we're talking about Edgar. Why the need to deflect?

You post that Edgar's opinion should be given due solemnity yet when faced with the fact that he didn't follow up leads properly, had only read some of the files and wasn't even aware that LCN DNA had already been used in the case you deflect. Why is that ? Apart from the fact that he appears to believe the McCanns are not implicated in their daughter's disappearance why do you give this man's opinion the time of day?

Cite.