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

[stephen25000]

To be fair, we actually have no idea what Dave Edgar has or hasn't found.  He may have uncovered a piece of information which, on the face of it, seemed totally irrelevant, passed it on to Op Grange and it have been of value when placed on the table with all the other "jigsaw" pieces.  The only reason this man is being mercilessly slagged by sceptics is because he is firmly of the view that Madeleine's parents didn't have a hand in her disappearance, not because of his alleged incompetence, stupidity or lack of pride or morals (all accusations levelled at him on this thread).

Isn't that hypocritical, after all the allegations made against Amaral ?

[Robittybob1]

Indeed dave, the PJ found no evidence of abduction.

Other than:
1. the witnesses who said the window was open and the shutters up.
2. Madeleine missing and not found in the immediate location.
3. Hair and finger prints not identifiable to known occupants of apartment 5A. 

Found nothing, but crucially established that Kate and Gerry had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance, a fact that seems to have completely passed by the attention of the Supreme-Court judges.

Did they really say that? The PJ "established that Kate and Gerry had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance".

[ferryman]

Your words dave..............


'The pj found nothing' , that includes evidence of abduction.

Found nothing to identify Madeleine's abductors.

But established that Madeleine was abducted.

Unless you want to accuse the Portuguese prosecutors of lying.

[stephen25000]

Found nothing to identify Madeleine's abductors.

But established that Madeleine was abducted.

Unless you want to accuse the Portuguese prosecutors of lying.

They did not establish Madeleine was abducted.

You really are in dreamland.

Typing your beliefs, doesn't make them real.

[stephen25000]

Other than:
1. the witnesses who said the window was open and the shutters up.
2. Madeleine missing and not found in the immediate location.
3. Hair and finger prints not identifiable to known occupants of apartment 5A. 
Did they really say that? The PJ "established that Kate and Gerry had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance".

Madeleine missing, can be explained Rob, by the other scenarios.


As to the shutters and window, never independently verified before 10 pm.

[Alfie]

 

Isn't that hypocritical, after all the allegations made against Amaral ?

Why is it hypocritical?  It's a fact. 

[stephen25000]

%56&Why is it hypocritical?  It's a fact.

That is a matter of opinion.

So on your interpretation, views of Edgar are more than valid.

[G-Unit]

Found nothing to identify Madeleine's abductors.

But established that Madeleine was abducted.

Unless you want to accuse the Portuguese prosecutors of lying.

I think you are misunderstanding what they said;

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[faithlilly]

Perhaps you need to re-read your own links properly and quote the bit where he says Madeleine couldn't possibly have been abducted by a paedophile.

'He said other claims about what happened do not stand up.

- Taken by child traffickers: Former RUC and Cheshire officer Mr Edgar, who has more than 30 years’ experience investigating murders, kidnappings and sex crimes, said: “There has been a huge reward offered. One of the gang would have broken ranks by now and come forward for the money.”

- Abducted by paedophile: “Most child-abusers dump the body quicklyand near the scene with little or no attempt to hide it. It’s a statistical fact. No trace of Madeleine, or her clothing, was found in a search.”

[Alfie]

'He said other claims about what happened do not stand up.

- Taken by child traffickers: Former RUC and Cheshire officer Mr Edgar, who has more than 30 years’ experience investigating murders, kidnappings and sex crimes, said: “There has been a huge reward offered. One of the gang would have broken ranks by now and come forward for the money.”

- Abducted by paedophile: “Most child-abusers dump the body quicklyand near the scene with little or no attempt to hide it. It’s a statistical fact. No trace of Madeleine, or her clothing, was found in a search.”

I can read you know, but I can't see the bit where he said she couldn't possibly have been abducted by a paedophile,  one of those that likes to imprison and keep his victims alive.  They do exist sadly.  FWIW I think his reasoning on the sex gangs thing is faulty.  No one who is in a sex gang volunteers themselves up to the police no matter how much money's waiting for them, IMO. 

[ferryman]

I think you are misunderstanding what they said;

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

You are either unintentionally or intentionally guilty of selective quoting:

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they [Kate and Gerry] checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - ....

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

[carlymichelle]

i kinda  find their insistance  on abduction disturbing anything to let the mcanns off the hook??

[ferryman]

i kinda  find their insistance  on abduction disturbing anything to let the mcanns off the hook??

Only the Prosecutors' archiving dispatch.

Oh, and the PJ final report.

Oh, AND the remit of Operation Grange, that is treating Madeleine's abduction as if Madeleine's abduction had occurred in England.

Will that do?

[G-Unit]

You are either unintentionally or intentionally guilty of selective quoting:

They didn't know what crime was committed, no matter how you try to spin it.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[faithlilly]

I can read you know, but I can't see the bit where he said she couldn't possibly have been abducted by a paedophile,  one of those that likes to imprison and keep his victims alive.  They do exist sadly.  FWIW I think his reasoning on the sex gangs thing is faulty.  No one who is in a sex gang volunteers themselves up to the police no matter how much money's waiting for them, IMO.

Seems my answer to you was whooshed so I will ask again. With, according to you, all Edgar's experience why do you doubt his reasoning ? Further if his reasoning is doubtful on this theory why not the rest?