View previous topic View next topic Go down


Post  Guest on Tue 5 Jul - 11:47


By Dr Martin Roberts
05 July 2011


On 9 September, 2007 Gerry McCann was described by the Sunday Times thus:

'Beneath his unflinching exterior, Gerry was in a state of turmoil and fury. "We are being absolutely stitched up by the Portuguese police," he had told a friend after his wife Kate had earlier been named a suspect after hours of interrogation. "We are completely f*****, we should have seen this coming weeks ago and gone back to Britain."'

Gerry McCann's confidence in his own predictive powers ("F*** off. I'm not here to enjoy myself!") clearly took a knock on this occasion. The sympathetic, or perhaps even inquisitive listener might wonder quite why Gerry should have 'seen this coming' at all, given that the disappearance of Madeleine McCann was ostensibly attributable to one or more lurking paedophiles. What connection could the innocent parents possibly have had with such deviants?

But let's not question this observation too closely. The McCanns are clearly no less adept at 'picking up' on things than others might have been. (Family friend Jon Corner is reported to have said in relation to Madeleine, "So - God forgive me - maybe that's part of the problem. That special quality. Some ******* picked up on that." (Vanity Fair, 10.1.2008)).

Intuition comes to us all from time to time, but the McCanns seemingly enjoyed more frequent visits than most.

It can only have been foresight, in the form of a shared vision perhaps, that prompted Kate and Gerry McCann selectively to erase data from each of their mobile phones prior to summoning police assistance in searching for their missing daughter. They must have thought that by doing so they were in some way lessening the investigators' burden. The same sort of considerate attitude prevailed when they were subsequently resident in a nearby villa and the police 'phoned to advise that they would be arriving later to carry out some forensic work. Kate no doubt thought to herself, 'I'll just pop these few items of clothing in the wash so they'll be nice and clean for the inspectors.' Rather like straightening out the furniture in 5A, so that their many visitors on the night of the 3rd May, 2007 could have easy access to the children's bedroom, and not have to walk behind the sofa in order to avoid the crush.

The McCanns were adept at foresight without a doubt.

Olga Craig, writing for the Sunday Telegraph of 27 May, 2007, reported an early interview with Kate McCann:

"She looked lovely," said Mrs McCann, recalling the moment Madeleine was pictured with her father beside a swimming pool.

"She was wearing a new outfit, a pink smock. That picture sums up her week. Every minute of every day she was enjoying herself. She went to bed exhausted. I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her."

That 'last photograph', so we are given to understand, was taken during the early afternoon of 3 May, 2007, after which time Kate was 'unable to use the camera.' (at least until the date of her interview with Olga Craig).

One might legitimately ask therefore how she was able to take photographs of a Shearwater yacht at anchor in Lagos Marina a week or so after Madeleine's disappearance?

As James Murray of the Sunday Express (8.8.2009) reported: "Kate went to Lagos marina, a few miles along the coast from Praia da Luz where her daughter vanished on May 3, 2007, and photographed the boat and the man on board."

It would appear that Kate's actions on this occasion negated her own claim to photographic incapacity. That in itself is potentially significant, but the implication of her statement to Ms Craig is of singular importance; so much so that we ought to view it in isolation:

"I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her" (i.e., Madeleine).

Leaving aside the fact that this observation of Kate's is apparently untrue, what does she say exactly? Specifically, that her inability to use/unease with/loathing of the camera stems from the time she took the so-called 'last photograph.' What she categorically does not say is that she has not found herself able to take photographs since Madeleine disappeared, but 'since she took the last photograph of her.' This means that photophobia kicked in, not on May 4, 2007, but at precisely 14.29 (or perhaps even 13.29) on the afternoon of the 3rd.

So, under no circumstances would Kate be taking any snaps in the afternoon, at tea-time, bed-time, or even at the dinner table with her friends (her camera was equipped with a flash). From the moment Kate pictured Madeleine at the poolside with Gerry and her little brother, no further photography would be entertained.

Why? What is it about this jolly family album snap that made it so repulsive to the photographer as to dissuade her from capturing any future moment during their holiday, which had two days to run? What did Kate foresee on this occasion?

Various analyses of this particular image have been conducted since, invoking the wonders of Photoshop, the almanac and whatever else, but whether, or indeed to what degree, one considers the photograph to be a composition on the part of others besides the photographer, the fact remains that there is nothing visibly sinister about it at all. The only thing that Kate could have been upset by was the timing, as she herself implies.

The really important question therefore concerns, yet again, the McCanns' clairvoyance.

Why should Kate have been too upset to take any photographs after mid-afternoon on May 3rd, (at which time, according to the photograph, her daughter looked perfectly hale and hearty) when Madeleine would not be 'taken' for a further six hours or more? What did Kate intuit about that evening's events, well before 'what happened', happened?


Back to top Go down


Post  Marian on Tue 5 Jul - 14:38

Good article from Dr Roberts though he describes the other child in the infamous poolside photo as being Madeleine's brother! Does anyone know if he is a doctor of medicine? If so, I'm glad that he doesn't automatically believe everything that some of his fellow professionals say.


Posts : 1147
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

Back to top Go down


Post  Tigers Eye on Tue 5 Jul - 14:41

May I ask...who is Dr. Martin Roberts? What is his background and does anyone know in what area is expertise is? Of what is he a Doctor, if you know what I mean?

We see quite a few of his articles without knowing anything about him, at far as I'm concerned.

Apologies if I'm being a bit dense.


Tigers Eye

Posts : 22
Join date : 2011-01-19

Back to top Go down


Post  aiyoyo on Thu 7 Jul - 11:51

@Tigers Eye wrote:May I ask...who is Dr. Martin Roberts? What is his background and does anyone know in what area is expertise is? Of what is he a Doctor, if you know what I mean?

We see quite a few of his articles without knowing anything about him, at far as I'm concerned.

Apologies if I'm being a bit dense.

Sorry cant help there.
Not a clue whether the Dr. is a self appellation or an academic one rather than a medical one.
In fact no one (I'm presuming) knows who Dr Martin Roberts is, but have to say he is very astute in his observations.

I like his spot on analysis so far, which brings it back to the question whether the photo was indeed last photo or photoshopped. If latter, then theorists hypothesis of earlier than may3rd death may hold true imho.


Posts : 9611
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down


Post  Angelique on Fri 8 Jul - 2:11

I also enjoy reading these articles from Dr. Roberts - he always seem to pick up on the phrases that we miss. I did at one point think he may be a psychiatrist his probing being so 'in depth' it sometimes made me shiver.

He has become more prolific since the publication of Kate's Book which is good in my book! big grin

Things aren't always what they seem


Posts : 1394
Join date : 2010-10-19

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum