Hello, and welcome to the forum,
johanvz.
The article you linked to seems to me only slightly more level-headed than several others I’ve read, but that may be more because Afrikaans is not my first language.
Maar tot dusver is geen poging klaarblyklik nog aangewend om in die gebied wat Krugel aangedui het na haar te soek nie.
[But, so far, apparently no attempts have yet been made to search for her in the area indicated by Krugel.]
Now why would that be? If Krugel was in Portugal for four days in mid-July, and it is now almost mid-October (i.e. almost three
months later), then there has been plenty of time for searching. And to keep a search of some seven to ten hectares (see below) a secret, especially in the high profile case of Madeleine McCann and the particular locality, is, I suspect, nigh impossible. So it seems that the investigators have some other reason for seemingly ignoring Krugel’s info.
Hy het met ’n haarmonster van Maddie ’n hooflyn van 700 m geïdentifiseer met 'n gebied van 50 tot 70 m aan weerskante van die lyn waar hy glo Maddie haar bevind.
[With a sample of Maddie’s hair, he identified a main line of 700 m with an area of 50 to 70 m on either side of the line where he believes Maddie is.]
That is, an area of between 700×(2×50) m
2 = 70,000 m
2 and 700×(2×70) m
2 = 98,000 m
2, or roughly seven to ten hectares. Hmm, in other of Krugel’s “successes” he allegedly was able to achieve much better accuracy than that, say a house of perhaps 300 m
2. Whence comes the areal discrepancy of some two to three orders of magnitude? Scope creep, maybe.
Maddie se ma het glo in trane uitgebars toe sy Krugel se verslag onder oë kry.
[Maddie’s mother allegedly burst into tears when she saw Krugel’s report.]
And they ask, “What harm can it do?” Wasting time and resources that would be better utilised doing real investigation, for one. Emotional distress for another.
Towards the end, the
Rapport article then asserts, “Maar hy het ook onbetwiste sukses behaal” [But he has also achieved uncontested successes], and lists the cases of the 15 year old Chadinha girl’s disappearance in November 2004, the housekeeper Nancy Moeti in July 2005 and the body of five year old Naledi Ntebele. The implication is that these apparent successes are due to Krugel’s magnificent hair locating technology, rather than, say, actual detective work. Moreover, the article neglects to mention Krugel’s manifest failures, which should not be ignored if for no other reason than the interests of “balanced reporting.”
'Luthon64
