Oh no, not HIM!

We would like to inform our readers that this post has, fortunately, surpassed 200 comments. To read the newer ones,please click on the “Load more” link at the end of the comments that appear.

Please continue commenting in our post “New post”.

Thank you.

1. Introduction

Immediate heads-up – the title of this post has a twist, it’s not exactly what readers will probably think it is about, in fact it may be far from it.

This has been an extremely positive first three months of the year, with the other side suffering 3 major blows: the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court writing that the McCanns had never been cleared, the government saying they have a key-witness – worth a further £85,000 for Operation Grange and so binning the vague European Human trafficking gang and the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court deciding in a record time to reject the complaint from the McCanns.

And now, this week we had a gem from the other side, one reeking with despair, so much so that if sweat were carats, this diamond would be put the Koh-I-Noor to shame.

That gem being, of course, Dave Edgar, the “detective” who recently “broke his silence for the first time to open his files”. The first time since last time. The many last times.


2. Stunned

We warn readers that we will be quoting ourselves frequently in this week’s post, and the reason being that we have every reason to believe that our reading of this game has been correct.

Not only in these last months but for years.

We will start to quote ourselves from last week’s post – “The 3rd BIG surprise” – and its opening paragraph: “The other side was again stunned.”

Note that we got to know that the Supreme Justice Court had rejected the McCann complaint on Tuesday March 21 2017.

The first reaction was the pathetic story of someone claiming the honour of almost being the mother of the next Maddie.

The incident is supposed to have happened on Feb 28 in Cyprus but certainly by sheer coincidence, only saw the light of day on the night (21:45) of the day we got to know the McCann complaint had been rejected.

Playing a sympathy card for the McCanns without mentioning their names.

No other media echoed this. We called it a wet firecracker on our last post.

The reaction of the media to the rejection came the next day March 22, the Daily Star on March 23 was a bit late.

The articles related to the rejection could be characterised by their shortness. Or, was we said in our “The 3rd BIG surprise” post “the reporting of the rejection when compared with the one done when announcing it [the complaint] it’s as if the British press took this as an own defeat.”

The silence from the British media on the issue was so awkward that Portugal Resident had to point it out on March 24 with the article “Silence settles over McCann’s “costly” court defeat” by Natasha Donn.

Then, only on Sunday, March 26, to take attention away from the awkwardness the rejection had caused the new Lazzeri, Tracey Kandohla stepped in and presented us with the article in the Sun “'IT'S A CONSTANT REMINDER', Kate McCann endures tenth Mother’s Day without Madeleine”. published 16:41 and updated 16:52.

Note the subtitle “Kate is believed to have attended a special church service with husband Gerry and their 12-year-old twins today”

Is believed? Wouldn’t Kandohla’s privileged contact with the family have been able to confirm that by 16:52? After all the article was updated, or was it?

In the article we had the quite strange “Former GP Kate, 49, in a previous TV interview to mark Mother’s Day, vows to “get through it like any other day.” She said: “I am still Madeleine’s mum and always will be. I just want to bring her back into the warmth and love of our family.””

Why a previous TV interview? This article says “The brave mum said the occasion would be painful for her and “a constant reminder that one of my babies isn’t with me”” so why go fetch past quotes and not only just ask her then what she had to say presently?

The way the article is written one may even be led to think Kate McCann said nothing and words to comment on a ceremony that Kandohla believes she attended were put in her mouth that she didn’t say.

No other media echoed this.

This was a distracting thing and cannot be considered as a reaction to the rejection.

It was something like what the Portuguese describe as “punching the card” (picar o ponto), meaning someone just doing what they are expected to do when it is expected for them to do it.

It was Mother’s Day and Kandohla had to pull a sympathy card, however lame, in such critical times.

Using another Portuguese expression it was just “keeping up with schedule” (cumprir calendário).

Totally meaningless.

The other side was stunned by the fact that the Supreme Justice Court had decided so quickly and so foiled their plans to prolong things, they hoped, to the second semester of the 2017/2018 fiscal year.


3. The reaction

The reaction from the other side came on March 26.

It took 5 days for the other side to react. Again time to quote ourselves, and again from last week:

“The problem with firing successive volleys of artillery fire, which we have watched in the past 2 months – Gerry the NHS saviour, Gerry the lifesaver, Kate the Marathon sponsor, Piers Morgan as… Piers Morgan and the League of Minor celebrities – is that there’s only so much ammunition until it runs out.

The Sun’s Cyprus episode was just a wet firecracker. Signs the arsenal has emptied out?”

Guess who the other side came up with when their nails were scraping the bottom of the barrel? None other than the lead actor of the 2009 Mockumentary, Dave Edgar.

He appeared in the Mirror article “'Someone is protecting Madeleine McCann's kidnapper' claims cop who spent years hunting her” by Paul Byrne and Martin Fricker, published Mar 26 2017 22:11, updated 22:21.

This article was echoed in the following media:

#1 - The Liverpool Echo: “Detective who spent years hunting Madeleine McCann claims 'someone is protecting kidnapper'” also by Paul Byrne and Martin Fricker, published Mar 26 22:46, updated 22:57.

#2 - The Daily Mail:  “Who is protecting Maddie's kidnapper? Detective who spent three years probing the disappearance claims her abductor has confessed to a friend and McCann may still be ALIVE” by Fionn Hargreaves, published March 26 2017 23:34, updated the next day March 27 at 01:45.

#3 - The Sun: “'SOMEONE KNOWS WHAT HAPPENED', Madeleine McCann investigator claims her kidnappers are being ‘protected’ as he speaks for first time” by Jon Lockett, published Mar 26, 23:55, updated TWO days afterwards, Mar 28, 12:04.

#4 - The Metro: “Madeleine McCann ‘could still be alive – and her kidnapper has probably confessed’” by Rob Waugh, published Mar 27 2017 07:33.

#5 - The Express: “Someone is protecting Maddie McCann's kidnapper, detective sensationally claims” by Joey Millar, published Mar 27 2017 09:29, updated 11:17 that day.

#6 - UK Yahoo: “Someone is 'protecting' Madeleine McCann’s kidnapper, top detective claims” by Anthony Pearce, published Mar 27 2017 at approximately 10:00.

Clearly, the British media gave much more importance to what Edgar had to say than to the decision from the Portuguese Supreme Justice Court to rejecting the McCann complaint.

One cannot help but notice the number of so-called journos who continue to willingly participate actively in publishing what is evidently fake news.

The British media has no self-respect and it seems populated by many who being unable to afford a backbone, sell themselves.

We would like readers to note that of the 7 articles mentioned, only 1, the UK Yahoo one did not require an update. It seems that the art of copying and pasting is becoming more complex with time.

And do note that the Sun’s article was updated 2 days later after, allegedly, being first published.

One may even think that someone, somewhere realised on the 28th that this particular rag was not yet part of the platoon and came up with a way to pretend that it was there from the start, on the 26th.

Unfortunately for the Sun, we were paying attention on the 26th and saw no such article.

Lastly, as we noted in the comments to our last week’s post, it was interesting to see that the UK Yahoo article ended with a video of the Ben Needham searches in Kos with the following title: “Forensic experts from McCann case help in the hunt for clues”.

This video was later removed.

Funny to know that the only article that was supposedly NOT updated was the one we know was!


4. ‘2017’ Edgar v ‘2009’ Edgar

When we read what Edgar had to say, it became evident that the man must suffer from double personality.

To make our point we shall call one personality ‘2017’ Edgar and the other ‘2009’ Edgar.

This is what ‘2017’ Edgar had to say to the Mirror on March 26 2017:

“One of the top experts on the case, he also believes:

(…)

- It was a well planned abduction.

- The motive for taking three-year-old Madeleine was sexual.”

And this is what ‘2009’ Edgar said to the same paper, the Mirror, on May 18 2009 in the article by Rod Chaytor “Maddy is alive, believes ex-cop hunting missing Madeleine McCann”:

“Madeleine McCann is still alive and was snatched by someone who wanted a child to love, claims the ex-policeman hunting her.

David Edgar today reveals why he is convinced the youngster is not dead – while dismissing all other theories so far put forward about her disappearance.

The 52-year-old dad-of-two believes Madeleine was simply “in the wrong place at the wrong time” when she was kidnapped from her holiday flat at Praia da Luz on May 2007, aged three.

(…)

He said: “Everybody hopes she has been taken by someone who wanted a child to take care of. That’s also my theory because it is supported by obvious facts.”

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 quickly and 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.”

- Wandered off and fell down a hole:“The Portuguese searched the drainage tunnels. Again, no body.”

- Stumbled into the clutches of a paedophile: “A three-year-old is out in the street and comes across an abductor who happens to be walking by? It doesn’t happen. Most people seeing a child out in nightclothes take them to look for the parents.”

(…)

Mr Edgar added: “There are good grounds for believing Madeleine is alive. I can justify it by the evidence.””

‘2017’ Edgar says “it was a well planned abduction” while ‘2009’ Edgar says “Madeleine was simply “in the wrong place at the wrong time” when she was kidnapped”

‘2017’ Edgar says “the motive for taking three-year-old Madeleine was sexual” while ‘2009’ not only states that Maddie “was snatched by someone who wanted a child to love” thus discarding any sexual nature to what may have happened to her as he also debunks being either planned by a paedophile or her possibly having “stumbled into the clutches of a paedophile”

Note that while doing it he also debunks the Danny Collins/Mark Williams-Thomas theory of Maddie wandering about.

And also, oh dear, debunks the European Human Trafficking gang.

And ‘2009’ Edgar must be furious with ‘2017’ Edgar when he, Edgar, explicitly contradicts Edgar:

“He has heard dozens of theories about Madeleine – that she had wandered off, and been run over, become the victim of a random burglar or taken by someone wanting to raise a child for themselves.

He believes it was a planned operation by a lone kidnapper or a gang.”

At least now, we hope, ‘2017’ Edgar knows where the “someone wanting to raise a child for themselves” absurd theory originated from: it was ‘2009’ Edgar.

There are 2 things that both ‘2017’ and ‘2009’ Edgars agree on: that Maddie is alive – however neither present any evidence as to why they think it is so – and that the McCanns are completely innocent.


5. Edgar, the representative

Now, we would like to ask the reader if any very significant ‘something’ of their lives were at stake and suddenly realised that Dave Edgar had been nominated to be the one representing the reader in that, what would be the chances the reader would feel the defense of the reader’s interest would be safeguarded? We would say minimal to none.

To see Dave Edgar fight in our corner is a synonym of throwing in the towel before the fight has even begun.

For him to be used by the other side at this critical time shows either despair or no choice, probably both.

We won’t go into detail about his previous offerings such as the Beckham look-alike with Australian links or the lair within a 10 mile radius of Luz.

It’s all too ridiculous to be bothered and it’s out there if people just google his name with McCann.

We won’t detail the many movie clichés he uses in the article nor will ask him for what possible reason would a cruel and ruthless nepiophile who kidnapped a 4 yr old to satisfy his unqualified sexual appetite for raping infants, would keep the victim alive until she was 14 as she would have largely outgrown the age of his interest.

And when after being stated that “during his probe, paid for by the Find Madeleine Fund” he has the audacity to say “if I found any evidence against Kate and Gerry I would have given it to the police immediately. Kate and Gerry would expect no less” we will refrain from asking, for God’s sake Edgar, can’t you at least make the effort of hearing the words you utter?

We can only say that if Edgar was given the task of convincing the world’s children there was a Santa Claus, Christmas would be part of history so obviously and stupidly unconvincing he would be.

The consensus of opinion on blogs and twitter so far is that the man is a buffoon, who made a complete fool of himself.

Like when giving evidence supporting the McCanns in their court case against Goncalo Amaral:

“GP – Did you have access to the criminal process?

DE answers that he read parts of the files in the translation that the McCanns asked to be done.

GP – How did you manage to conduct an investigation without analysing all the process? Whom did you contact in Portugal?

DE says he contacted an informant who passed information to both the UK and Portuguese authorities. He doesn't want to say to whom he spoke, but says he spoke to someone from the PJ.

GP – Do you know that the McCanns initiated a private investigation?

DE knows.

GP – Was there private investigators before you?

DE says yes but adds he was the first professional one.”

For a man to recognise under oath in 2013 that he only “read parts of the files” to say adamantly in 2017 that the files don’t refer to Euclides Monteiro as a suspect is nothing short of amazing.

It’s true that they don’t, as far as we have been able to see, but if Edgar had any integrity he could never say anything similar to what he did.

And as we have said, if files were archived under the premise as they were that they could be reopened upon the arrival of new evidence, seeing that they were indeed reopened, then logic dictates it would have been because of NEW evidence and so not possible for Edgar, or anyone else, to have read in the files that are publicly available what has to be NEW evidence.

Edgar was part of a 2-man “company” linked to Brian Kennedy, which has long since been dissolved and he ceased to be employed by them in 2012.

As we said, he was also involved in the making of the documentary “Madeleine Was Here” better known as the 2009 Mockumentary, by Emma Loach, another witness for the McCanns during the Lisbon trial, which had the actor re-enacting the part of the man seen by the Smith family carrying a child in the same strange position – across the arms – as the man allegedly seen by Jane Tanner.

Completely at odds with the description of the man seen by the Smiths, carrying a child with her head resting against his shoulder.

So, given his antecedents, his absolute lack of credibility, the very negative perception people have of him and the scope it gives for ridicule and disbelief, why has he been wheeled (or pushed) out to propose yet another theory?


6. The Edgar ‘suspects’

To understand what really happened and its importance one has to understand how Edgar makes the effort of equating at the same level and importance the two people he names as suspects: Raymond Hewlett and Euclides Monteiro.

Note that we by calling them the “Edgar ‘suspects’” we are helping him to do exactly that. But we are doing it to prove a point, he’s doing it for a totally different reason.

Raymond Hewlett is an absurd suspect. Absolutely ridiculous.

If in a fictional novel, please note the fictional as we’re not implicating anyone with where we’re going with this but just delineating a storyline, the fatally ill murderer riddled with guilt signed a confession to the crime pivotal to the plot and on his death bed he passed it to his son who for whatever reason decides to destroy it but then boasts publicly of having destroyed it, would that be minimally realistic or would the writer be invited immediately to choose another career because of the incomprehensible ridiculousness?

Reading the above one could be tempted to say that no one in their right mind would write such nonsense.

It’s true that no one, in the fictional world has done it. But they did do it in the real world, more specifically in the Maddie case as that is what Hewlett’s son allegedly has done. So said the papers that he said he did it.

Laughable is all that can be said about that and it’s important that the reader retain the word laughable about Hewlett being a suspect.

Now let’s see what Edgar has to say about each one of his ‘suspects’, Hewlett and Monteiro:

“During his probe, paid for by the Find Madeleine Fund, Mr Edgar’s small team of investigators examined a number of potential suspects, including two of the most high profile names on the list, Raymond Hewlett and Euclides Monteiro.

Convicted UK paedophile Hewlett was living near the resort in 2007. He died, aged 64, of cancer in Germany in 2010.

Mr Edgar, 60, said: “He was high on the person of interest list as far as the press were concerned but he was someone who we just wanted to speak to and look at. In terms of fitting the profile, Hewlett would probably come as close as you would get to a main suspect.

But he added: “There was no hard and fast evidence because, if there had been, he would have been arrested.”

Monteiro, 40, a drug addict and ex Ocean Club worker, who died in a tractor accident in 2009, was also ruled out.

“Yes, he was a suspect but on the files that I saw there was no evidence that he was involved to the level that the Portuguese police thought” said Mr Edgar.

“My understanding is that they were convinced he had done it. They decided it was him. On what basis?”

Can the reader see the pattern? According to Edgar Hewlett and Monteiro were suspects and, again according to him, neither had reason to have been.

If Hewlett is a laughable suspect then by association Monteiro also is, implies Edgar.

Please note, if Hewlett fits the profile and the reason he wasn’t a suspect was because there was no hard evidence, with Monteiro, Edgar goes to the point of raising questions about whatever basis would he be considered a suspect.

Or, in other words, if Hewlett is laughable, then Monteiro as a suspect is even much more so. Or so Edgar seems to say.

Edgar is spot on about Hewlett as we know him to be a laughable suspect. So why also try to make Monteiro equally one?


7. Euclides Monteiro

We wrote about him in our post “Person of Interest” on May 2014.

A post that we decided then to let stay an extra week and justified that by saying “the reason is we want to be inconvenient. Very inconvenient. We think it is inconvenient because we think it [the post about Euclides Monteiro] is an important piece of the puzzle.”

To clarify then readers, we also said as a BLUF (Bottom-line up front) that the objective of that was that because of “the fact that PJ considers Euclides Monteiro a person of interest to the Maddie case means PJ is looking into Ocean Club, or some of its personnel, as active participants.”

Evidently, we recommend readers read that post because it is very opportune.

In that post we noted that there was a significant effort by the British to downplay the possible role of Euclides Monteiro.

We even compared him to Hewlett. This is what we wrote then:

“So, we like you, racked our brains to understand why on earth Euclides’ name had popped up by the hand of the Portuguese press.

Unlike the British press, namely the tabloids, the Portuguese press is not prone to throwing names about. The Portuguese by nature are very respectful of the individual's privacy.

So there had to be a reason for the Portuguese press to report Euclides as linked to the case and that reason could only be one: the PJ had indeed found Euclides to be a person of interest to the case.

But why? Why did a nobody become a person of interest in the most globalised crime ever?

With time one thing struck us as odd: Monteiro’s name just wouldn’t go away. And that happened with a twist. On close analysis, the British press, after the initial news surge about him, have never linked Tractorman to any subsequent story put out by SY. In reality or allegedly.

In fact, they have been careful to say that Euclides is a suspect only to the PJ, not SY.

When SY presented Binman to the world, and his exclusive Super-Bock shirt which we all mistook for an Arsenal FC jersey, it ran a parallel campaign “dropping” Monteiro as a suspect and saying that he was only a person of interest to PJ.

All the linking made between Euclides and Binman or with the updated version, SuperBockman, has been done on the internet or only by the Portuguese MSM.

Didn't the Brit press report that SY was suspicious about an evil gang of 28? Why not include Euclides in this list? Why shy away from him?

SY was trying to get rid of all suspicions surrounding Monteiro but the Portuguese MSM didn't let him go.

Sandra Felgueiras' RTP's Sexta às 9 of 02May14, even went to the point of saying “PJ já tinha interrogado Euclides por abuso sexual de menores em 2008” which translates into “PJ had already questioned Euclides for sexual abuse of minors in 2008”.

Although in the entire report this suspicion is only mentioned in this caption, it is right up the alley of the latest sex-assault craze launched by SY.

But did the British press pick this up? No.

Why didn't it fill its headlines with “Maddie's Tractorman Suspect of Sex-Assaults on Minors”?

On the contrary, they went out to show how innocent Euclides is.

On 03May14, Mail online says: “Madeleine McCann suspect Euclides Monteiro was quizzed about a string of sex assaults linked to her disappearance before he died, his widow revealed last night.
Luisa Rodrigues said Portuguese police investigating Madeleine’s abduction questioned the convicted burglar about a spate of sex attacks at Algarve holiday villas in 2008, the year after the three-year-old vanished.
She claimed DNA tests had put the recovering heroin addict, a former worker at the Ocean Club holiday complex in Praia da Luz that Madeleine vanished from seven years ago yesterday, in the clear.”

On 09May14, 7 days after Sandra Felgueira's program aired and only after the massive public humiliating blunder that was the “let’s-dig-up-PdL-up-from-the-sky-with-a-helicopter”, Euclides was mentioned by the British press, in the Mirror.

A single paragraph clarifying how innocent Euclides is.

In an article about how the the Met is looking into a British Paedo ring, in which the names of Britons Raymond Hewlett and Roderick Robinson were brought up in the middle of SY wanting to interview “eight people of varying nationality, including an intruder linked to a spate of sex attacks there” (meaning they know who the intruder is), the Mirror had this to say about Euclides: “Porto-based detectives who led a cold case review into the seven year old mystery which led them to dead former Ocean Club worker Euclides Monteiro, are said to have concluded there is no evidence the Algarve sex attacker snatched Maddie.”

British sex-attackers become immediate suspects in the Maddie case simply because they have a criminal record and its deemed perfectly reasonable to expose them publicly and link them to the case just because they happened to have been within a 100 mile radius of PdL. It's completely irrelevant to the British media that PJ has not considered either as being of interest to the case.

And then there's the eight yet unnamed other people who may be linked to a paedo ring in the Algarve and who SY wants to talk to. Again, irrelevant if PJ has not considered any of them to be of interest to the case.

For the British media, PJ's opinion matters only when it comes to Euclides. Euclides is to be left alone because PJ has concluded there is no evidence that links him to Maddie.

But who says PJ has found no evidence linking Euclides to Maddie?

And why leave Euclides alone but continue to persecute Hewlett? Has far as we know, PJ also found no evidence linking him to Maddie.

But the day after Mirror published that article, the Portuguese press responded in kind. On 10May07, Correio da Manhã subtly but effectively keeps Euclides in the public's eye by reminding all that it was because of him that the process was reopened in Portugal: “after the process of the disappearance of the child was reopened based on the similarity with five cases of children allegedly victim of abuse – and in which Euclides Monteiro, meanwhile deceased, appeared as main suspect – the authorities now believe that Maddie’s disappearance was a single case.”

The British press doing it's best to minimise Euclides’ relevance in the case and the Portuguese press insisting in highlighting it.

The McCanns, if you remember, dismissed from the start the story as speculation and didn't want to comment. 

It became very evident that it is not in the interest of UK to speak about Euclides the Tractorman.

That told us that Euclides must really be an IMPORTANT piece of the puzzle. There had to be a reason for the British not wanting to divert any attention his way. Could it be just a racial issue? Having, like we said, a black patsy would be going a little too far in terms of the politically correct?

The tolerant Portuguese MSM didn’t seem to give much importance to that. His name just kept appearing.”

8. Edgar and his “Mission Monteiro”

As we saw, in 2014 the UK did all it could to take away any suspicion that could involve Euclides Monteiro. In our opinion they had reason to do that as we explained then.

In 2017 we have Dave Edgar making an unsolicited attempt to discredit Monteiro as a possible person of interest to the case.

So now, we hope, the reader can understand the true intention of having Edgar appear recently in the press: to discredit Euclides Monteiro as a person of interest to the case.

It’s just Edgar saying “Oh no, not HIM!” – the reason for the title of this post.

‘HIM’ being Monteiro and not Edgar.

Having Euclides Monteiro as a suspect is very inconvenient to the other side, so they sent Dave Edgar to do his best to debunk the suspicions about the man.

Did it work? We think the reader is the best to judge that.

We can only say that as already shown in his brilliant (NOT) participation in the 2009 Mockumentary, Edgar’s capability is to make his best to be a huge trump against whoever on the other side is paying him. And on the entire other side as well.

In this case, he helped show how the other side is significantly worried about Euclides Monteiro being a person of interest.

And one only worries if one has reasons to. And if one needs to come out publicly to fight against that same worry, as the other side has just done, then it means they REALLY think that Euclides Monteiro being a person of interest is really a threat to them.

And if they really think that and they are really worried about it, maybe they know that Euclides Monteiro may indeed be a person of interest to both Operation Grange and the PJ.

Do they know something we don’t? Are they feeling the first winds of the upcoming storm and are desperately trying to steer the ship away from it?

Our speculation about who the key witness is in the post “Extreme Backfiring” has yet to be confirmed.

If we are correct, it shouldn’t be too difficult for Operation Grange to find him.

In 2013, he was happy to provide his CV on social media, working in the hospitality sector in the UK.

As it no longer seems to be available, we won’t share publicly what we noted in any further detail at the time.

We will simply quote ourselves from the post “Extreme Backfiring”:

“The importance of the key witness is immense for the truth and wraps up all very nicely.

That staff member can very easily join up all the dots and even the one represented by Euclides Monteiro, who we spoke of in our post “Person of interest”.

If that is done, then Operation Grange joins up with the PJ investigation and all is well when it ends well and it has all the conditions to end well.”

Need we say more? We think all is quite clear.


9. The role of Euclides Monteiro

So readers are clear about what we think was the role Euclides Monteiro played in the events let us repeat here what we wrote in our post “Cadaverine”:

“We believe that Maddie died between 18:30 and 19:00 in the evening of Thursday May 3 in apartment 5A.

We also believe that she was taken around 21:15/21:30 by Gerry McCann from apartment 5A.

Here we have a dogmatic question. Many people do not believe in the existence of Tannerman, the man carrying a child that Jane Tanner alleges she saw crossing the street in front of her that evening.

We happen to believe that Tannerman is very real. That what Jane Tanner describes is indeed what she saw. Where she lies is from where she says she saw both Gerry and Jez talking and later Tannerman.

As we have explained in 2 posts “Tanner's abductor, a tale told by a special friend” and “The way I see what Tanner saw”, we think that the Tannerman episode is what Jane Tanner really saw that night from inside apartment 5A, where she is with her sedated daughter waiting for Gerry to take the body to a safe house and for him to come back, pick her daughter up and begin what would be known as the Smith Sighting.

She describes what she has really seen, which explains the very unusual, to say the least, the way in which the child was being carried (please revisit our post “A human being is always human”) but fails to realise that for her to say she saw what she did indeed see she would also have to have been seen by Gerry and Jez.

She did, in our opinion, see Gerry talking to Jez and then saw Gerry carrying Maddie and disappear in Rua Agostinho da Silva, heading East towards Murat's property.

In our opinion, the body was taken by Gerry McCann, on foot, to Murat’s property where it was kept up until around 04:00, when body was moved by car from there to the next location.

We believe that this location was the water treatment station located on the EN537 road that heads East to Lagos from Luz.

We believe this for 2 reasons.

The first it's because for us it's the only logical explanation for Euclides Monteiro to be considered a person of interest. As we explained in our “Person of Interest” post Euclides could only have become a person of interest to the case because of a phone call he must have received from someone from the Ocean Club where he had worked.

The second, as we explained in our post “Class Acts” the only logical reason for us for SY to have moved from the show it was putting on in the West of Praia da Luz in June 2014 to a single day search on the other side of town was to show to PJ that the water treatment station was a place of interest.

In our opinion, Euclides Monteiro received a call from the Ocean Club that night to allow the use of the building that night, most probably not knowing what would be stored there.

In our opinion the body was moved from Murat's property to the water treatment station at around 04:00:

This means that the body remained in apartment 5A for about 3 hours (18:30 - 21:30) after death and that when body taken from Murat's property 9.5 hours (18:30 - 04:00) had passed since time of death.”


10. The petitions

Edgar was an evident and embarrassing blunder. Just like in 2009, he repeated his performance of hindering the other side significantly.

Albeit due to the effort of the media, no one took notice about Monteiro.

Edgar spewing out clichés and pathetic appeals hallucinating he’s a detective in some second rated sordid police-movie, together with all his evident contradictions against himself lacked the credibility needed to pass that message.

The spectacle was just too cringe making to watch.

At least someone should have told him to put emphasis on the plural, as in kidnappers, instead of using the singular kidnapper. Vagueness is what is intended, Mr Edgar, do at least make an effort, will you?

It could be said that Edgar was an unfortunate choice but one must ask, who else have they got they can use?

The other side has used all these years lame soulless sold out ducks, so now they are only reaping what they have sowed. Invest in dung, expect crap in return.

So, to distract away from this Edgar blunder, attention was turned to the petitions.

The first to have the McCanns charged with negligence – again, need we say more? – and the second to have them have a lie-detector test.

Why? Lie detector tests are fallible.

And if whoever is named to do this lie-detector test on the McCanns is as reliable as the FSS, then fallible is the certainty.

Besides they have already been subject to 2 infallible lie-detector tests and have failed grandly on both of them: test #1 – Eddie and test #2 – Keela.

We urge people to stop signing these ridiculous petitions and if possible seize the opportunity to educate those who are signing it in the best of good-faiths as they have been misled by Katie Hopkins and the Minor Celebrity League.

Negligence is their alibi. They are now fighting desperately to make sure it’s ingrained in stone.

Probably the reason why it’s now ‘respectable parenting’ instead of ‘responsible parenting’. Respectable is just so much more negligence than responsible, isn’t it?

However, what pertains to this post is that attention has been driven away from Edgar but we are here to inform that it didn’t go unnoticed as it was quite pleasurable to see it.


11. Australia

This was spawned by a friend of ours who asked offline:

Friend: “Hi there you, hope all is fine. A quick question if I may? Australia being the one credible feeder of information as opposed to the UK Msm bull... why Australia?”

Caught by surprise and not having thought about it the reply was:

Me: “Don't know, courageous reporter, and the tentacles of the octopus not there?”

But after a minute of thought, continued with this:

Me:“You have given me food for thought. Maddie has always been taboo, no doubt about that. Wouldn't be surprised if Australia is using Maddie against the UK, as leverage for future negotiations, showing clearly that not on same hymn sheet.”

As we have said before many times and we think this to be completely consensual, the Maddie case is political.

We have no doubt that no editor in the entire world, and we mean that literally, will publish anything about Maddie without thinking twice.

They fully understand the political ramifications of what they are doing and strategic implications it might cause between their country and the UK.

Since late Sept 2007, no media in the world has published anything TRUTHFUL against the McCanns, or to be precise linking the McCanns to Maddie’s death, until now, in Australia.

With Brexit, we have understood that the UK seeks to strike deals with 3 main partners: the US, Australia and Turkey.

Please note this is a personal perception and we may be totally wrong and are certainly aware that there are more than these, but we feel these to be the 3 priorities.

The point we are trying to make is that because of this TRUTHFUL reporting about Maddie in Australia, UK’s position is much, much weaker.

The Australian public is looking at the UK as a nation that protects a ridiculous farce. A sickening one as it involves the death of a 4 yr old.

The Australian media has voiced it, it has made clear that it thinks the Maddie is a farce and other countries may not voice it but are certainly thinking it.

Maddie is political, so has political implications. To be very clear, we think the Maddie farce is very prejudicial to UK’s political interests. The more it persists the more prejudicial it is.


12. Conclusion

The other side is extremely worried about Euclides Monteiro being a person of interest. We think they have every reason to be.

We in no way think he’s being thought of as a possible abductor. He only fits into the story in its truthful version, that’s why the other side is so scared of him being of interest.

We seem, week after week, to be contradicting ourselves. We say we are on birdwatch watch and keep coming back week after week.

Let it be clear that we are on birdwatch watch.

We have, for one reason or another, been ‘forced’ to get off the perch (or porch) and come back. This week was Dave Edgar, last week it was the quick decision on the McCann complaint.

We are now waiting patiently for any developments in April and to see what further information Goncalo Amaral’s next book will provide.

The book about which Kandohla spoke of yesterday in the Sun in the following terms:

“A source said the McCanns are defiant over the book, insisting no British publisher "would dare to touch it"

(...)

But Kate and Gerry McCann said retired detective Goncalo Amaral’s “poisonous lies” will never be published in the UK because “no publisher will dare to touch it”.

(...)

A family source told The Sun Online: “Madeleine’s parents know that no publisher will dare to touch it in this country under our defamation laws or they would face legal action. Publishers have legal responsibilities.

(...)

“If he repeats any allegations that he has made before Kate and Gerry’s lawyers will be looking at it.
“They have said before that their lawyers are watching.

“If Mr Amaral’s attempts to get his current book or his new one about Madeleine is published in the UK lawyers will take immediate action.””

So much fear is so palpable that one could just grab it and spread it on toast.

Unless there are further developments, we will just wait and watch.