Tuesday, 28 March 2017

Yes dear



Even in the gallery of grotesques surrounding the McCann Affair, Detective Dave Edgar stands out – and by no means reassuringly. Can you imagine the sound of your front door splintering in the middle of the night and then seeing those giant stranglers’ hands thrusting through to  tear the panels out?
As you back away, incapable of speech or rational thought, the leprous  hands wrench out the  top panels and the weird melting-waxwork, cauliflower-eared visage of Edgar appears. “Chroist,” he says, “this isn’t number fifty fucking two, is it? There's been a mistake.”
But then Edgar has a long  history of not being able to get through the right door.
____________________________________________

Maddie Cop on Trail of ‘Mr Spotty'

Whoops!
____________________________________________

Maddie Detective Flies to Germany

Will Question Paedophile about Missing Tot 

Whoops!
____________________________________________

Get's Turned Away! Flies Back Again!

____________________________________________________________________________________

And all the rest.

Edgar gave his definitive conclusions years ago.  “Obvious facts”, he told the media when he was still working on the case in 2009, demonstrated that the child had been taken by a solitary abductor who “wanted a child to take care of”.
Along with this conclusion to his research he rubbished all other claims. A group of traffickers? A gang of paedophiles? No, no, definitely not, said Dave. “There has been a huge reward offered. One of the gang would have broken ranks by now and come forward for the money.” So no gangs.
And there was no planning, meticulous or otherwise – Madeleine McCann was, he concluded, “simply in the wrong place at the wrong time”.  
 
So how does Brains justify last week's  360 degree turn and  absolute rejection of  all his own contentions? New evidence? Nope. So how can theories that he said “just didn’t stand up”, like the abduction gang theory, suddenly start walking?
You have to remember Edgar is part of McCann land, that territory in which the truth as such never exists, only the latest bullshit. He never mentioned the existence of his earlier contemptuous public dismissal of gangs and  he fibbed that this was "the first time" that he was "speaking out".  He doesn’t give any evidence or any reasoning at all, let alone comment on the undeniable fact that if "one of the gang...would have come forward by now" in 2009, then how come it doesn't mean anything eight years of increasing likelihood later?   And, naturally, he doesn’t even have the nous to see that not doing so only adds to the firm public image of a relatively decent but chronically thick and pliable buffoon.

Embarrassment in Court

If you want to know how reliable an investigator Edgar is you need to read the  transcript of his exceptionally brief, embarrassing and unsatisfactory evidence at the Lisbon libel trial.
It was a lamentable, stumbling performance. At one point proceedings came to a halt as Edgar, muttering about "that officer er...er..." couldn't even remember Paolo Rebelo's name until he was told.  He was strong on assertions, including the assertion that he had “facts” but when pressed on these facts, particularly about the McCanns unfounded claim that the book had “damaged the search” by making all the Portuguese give up on looking for her because she was dead, the sound of rowing back splashed around the courtroom. “Each case is different,” Edgar mumbled...“it’s very difficult to  say"…"again it’s difficult to say…” He blamed the masses of files left by the previous private investigators for not making more progress since he had to "review it all first".
The Guerra and Paz lawyer seemed to think that Edgar’s “investigation” was a joke in poor taste. 
Lawyer: Did you have access to the investigation files?
Sherlock Holmes: Yes, I had access to the files via Madeleine McCann’s parents.
Lawyer: All of the material?
Dave McMaigret: They passed on to me what was considered relevant...[mumbles] I don’t know if it was all.
[After five years he still didn't know. Now why would that be?]  
Lawyer: Then how did you manage to conduct an investigation without analysing the evidence? Who did you contact in Portugal?
J. Edgar  McHoover: [avoids answering first question] I contacted an informant
That’s it. That’s Edgar’s investigation and place in history. Still, he ended on a characteristic note:
Lawyer: Were there other private  investigators  before you?
Phullip Marlow: Yes, but I was the first professional.
Of course you were, dear.