THE EXCEPTION TESTS THE RULE-By Dr Martin Roberts

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
09 December 2011


THE EXCEPTION TESTS THE RULE


If one should hold to the belief that swans are only ever white, the surest way to confirm the notion would not be to record every encounter with a white swan, but to investigate the possibility of there being a black one somewhere. The original hypothesis holds good all the while there are no known exceptions. It's how science proceeds; by investigating those exceptions which put conventional wisdom to the test.

The McCanns are considered conventional parents by many, even during their Spring 2007 visit to the Portuguese Algarve, when their daughter Madeleine suddenly disappeared. Ordinary people placed in extraordinary circumstances. Experiments in Social Science are typically conducted upon samples of some population or another, where the laws of statistics can be meaningfully employed in analysing the results. Generalisations from individual outcomes are uninformative in that sense, but if the focus of one's attention is the individual then different considerations apply. Hence there are questions pertaining to the McCanns exclusively, arising from their behaviour at the time of their daughter's alleged abduction and since, which it is both legitimate and desirable to ask.

Whether one considers it 'playing devil's advocate' to view the McCanns as innocent in all respects is probably a matter of opinion. Be that as it may, for purposes of comparison, innocence is a 'benchmark' of sorts. One might argue, for instance, that whatever inconsistencies arose during the earliest of their personal accounts of events, they are explicable simply in terms of a fear occasioned by the anxiety of innocence, their being caught up in something so serious that even the most blameless of people might well succumb to a mild paranoia in the face of interrogation and get things 'mixed up' as a result.

That was then - four years ago. In the interim we have heard it re-iterated, time and again by the McCanns themselves, that 'there is no evidence that they were involved in their daughter's disappearance.' Carter-Ruck Solicitors, representing the McCanns, have made similar declarations on their behalf; declarations which, in the absence of any hard and fast data to the contrary, could be construed as consolidating their innocence. Observers of the case will no doubt recall Gerry McCann's struggle to contain himself outside the Lisbon courthouse while making it absolutely clear to assembled representatives of the media that this was indeed 'the conclusion of the process.'

We know of course that this was not the conclusion but, given that Gerry (and Kate, presumably) believes this to have been the case, it predicts something of their behaviour subsequently, i.e., that with confirmation of their innocence should come a release from anxiety, and their deeds, verbal or otherwise, should be free of contradiction. Their every personal interaction should therefore be an 'act of innocence,' e.g., searching for their missing daughter, defending themselves against unwarranted verbal abuse by the media and others, pressing for a review of their case, etc. But these are all 'white swans.' So too is telling the truth. Unless they should do otherwise.

Fast forward now to 2011 and the publication of Kate McCann's book, 'Madeleine,' predicted by one of her vociferous in-laws to be 'truthful and scathing.' Well it is scathing alright, and much else besides. It also contains at least one statement which cannot possibly be true.

Bearing in mind that 'Madeleine' was a self-imposed obligation, not something conceived under duress, the 'anxiety of innocence' factor cannot be invoked to explain why Kate McCann should determinedly describe an impossibility four years after the event in question, and in light of all the evidence gathered during the police investigation; evidence she herself had devoted hours to studying with the utmost care (or so we have been given to understand) (See article, 'Bunkered' - McCannfiles, 4 Aug.).

More recently we have had the McCanns appearing as 'core participants' in a Judicial Inquiry; not into the circumstances surrounding the disappearance of their eldest daughter, as an eavesdropper might have supposed from much of their testimony, but indiscretions on the part of the UK press. This appearance, like the book, was a self-inflicted wound. The McCanns were not 'summoned to appear,' but put themselves forward, as innocent victims of press harassment. And it was during counsel's examination of their testimony that something quite extraordinary occurred. Kate McCann committed perjury. What is even more astonishing is that the false statement she made while under oath is so easily revealed for what it is. (See article, 'You Can Bet on the Law' - McCannfiles, 6 Dec.).

In telling Lord Justice Leveson et al that 'there were no body fluids' discovered in the wheel well of their hire car subsequent to Madeleine's disappearance, Kate McCann was not calling into question the attribution of any DNA sample derived from scrutiny of the vehicle in question, but whether such a sample had existed at all. Now, the likelihood of a senior man at the FSS describing in some detail to Leicestershire Police the results of an analysis conducted on a non-existent sample is remote in the extreme. And since a copy of that correspondence is present in the same files Kate McCann had earlier claimed to have studied in some depth, it makes her dogmatic declaration all the more bizarre.

So, four years after an extremely fraught and stressful period, time enough for initial personal anxieties to have abated (and by that I do not mean anxieties in respect of their missing child but over their perceived role(s) in her disappearance), Kate McCann, her innocence previously affirmed, or so it would seem, exhibits a behaviour which contradicts that very conclusion, not once but twice, and in the full glare of the public spotlight. Innocence is not associated with either lying or perjury.

Swans mate for life, I believe. A black pair have just flown overhead.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Thanks candyfloss another excellent article by Dr Martin Roberts

It is just sad that the mainstream media won't pick up on the discrepancies as he has found in Kate's testimony.

Have these last two articles by Dr Martin Roberts "disappeared" from the McCann Files?

Still there..

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Swans mate for life, I believe. A black pair have just flown overhead.

But black swans are found in Australia and New Zealand !

I am no expert but would like to read an expert evaluation of the pair's body language at the Leveson event.
It was noticable at times that Kate McCann could not raise her eyes from the table in front of her, let alone look at the lawyer asking questions of her husband. She almost appeared to be hanging her head in shame, particularly when she listened to Gerry talking about how they had tried to obtain photos of Madeleine from the May 2007 holiday for the press to use to publicise her disappearance.
There were times when she did look up, I would like to look closely at the videos again and see what words from Gerry prompted her to turn her head and look at him, similarly in the past I have looked at Gerry's reactions to words from his wife. And were these looks denoting support, empathy, contempt? There seems to be little love between them, note the way he stood up and left at the end.
I wonder more and more about Kate McCann, who appears significantly diminished both physically and psychologically in contrast to her husband. She seems a shadow of herself, thin and insecure.
I wonder at times if Kate McCann herself has been a victim of deception, is there any way that she had been duped into believing her daughter had been abducted, was the child in fact gone from where she expected to find her when she went to check on her? Has she for some reason felt obliged to go along with what she soon realised was a lie? Has she been dominated to that extent, for dominated I am sure she was ans still is. She might well have been advised by her lawyer not to answer those 40+ poilce questions, but I am confident that she was told by someone else not to do so.
And then I see the videos of the reconstruction and her description of closing a door she should have been opening, the nonsense about the shutters, and I wonder why, if she is going along with a lie, are her maternal instincts and her desire for the truth she stresses so often, not obliterating any obligation she feels to participate in a charade? Has she submitted so much that her moal courage has disappeared along with her daughter?
I only began to think this way because she always, even when she is articulate and composed, seems medicated, understandable in the circumstances. And she comes across as a woman who is having her strings pulled, who is being controlled.
There might come a time when she will break, there is a story to tell and a big secret to share.
The nature of that secret, though?
Her book speaks volumes and the answer to what happened to her daughter is in there, I feel sure there are clues.
I always got angry reading her description of herself as a lioness in that book, considering her protective instincts seemed far from lioness-like.
What of the head of the pride though? The lion? I used to believe he was protecting her, now I am more inclined that she is protecting him. Why God alone knows.

russiandoll wrote:I am no expert but would like to read an expert evaluation of the pair's body language at the Leveson event.
It was noticable at times that Kate McCann could not raise her eyes from the table in front of her, let alone look at the lawyer asking questions of her husband. She almost appeared to be hanging her head in shame, particularly when she listened to Gerry talking about how they had tried to obtain photos of Madeleine from the May 2007 holiday for the press to use to publicise her disappearance.
There were times when she did look up, I would like to look closely at the videos again and see what words from Gerry prompted her to turn her head and look at him, similarly in the past I have looked at Gerry's reactions to words from his wife. And were these looks denoting support, empathy, contempt? There seems to be little love between them, note the way he stood up and left at the end.
I wonder more and more about Kate McCann, who appears significantly diminished both physically and psychologically in contrast to her husband. She seems a shadow of herself, thin and insecure.
I wonder at times if Kate McCann herself has been a victim of deception, is there any way that she had been duped into believing her daughter had been abducted, was the child in fact gone from where she expected to find her when she went to check on her? Has she for some reason felt obliged to go along with what she soon realised was a lie? Has she been dominated to that extent, for dominated I am sure she was ans still is. She might well have been advised by her lawyer not to answer those 40+ poilce questions, but I am confident that she was told by someone else not to do so.
And then I see the videos of the reconstruction and her description of closing a door she should have been opening, the nonsense about the shutters, and I wonder why, if she is going along with a lie, are her maternal instincts and her desire for the truth she stresses so often, not obliterating any obligation she feels to participate in a charade? Has she submitted so much that her moal courage has disappeared along with her daughter?
I only began to think this way because she always, even when she is articulate and composed, seems medicated, understandable in the circumstances. And she comes across as a woman who is having her strings pulled, who is being controlled.
There might come a time when she will break, there is a story to tell and a big secret to share.
The nature of that secret, though?
Her book speaks volumes and the answer to what happened to her daughter is in there, I feel sure there are clues.
I always got angry reading her description of herself as a lioness in that book, considering her protective instincts seemed far from lioness-like.
What of the head of the pride though? The lion? I used to believe he was protecting her, now I am more inclined that she is protecting him. Why God alone knows.

I have to agree, Russiandoll, the body language was very interesting. I thought Gerry was very fidgety but he seemed to be trying to take up all of her space, almost blocking her out of the equation. But what if they had already agreed that Gerry would do the talking? Kate does seem pretty much at home during a regular interview where questions have been pre-arranged. Maybe this court type setting was just different for her. And if you add that to the continual hand holding in regular interviews and her need to have Gerry with her in the first police interview it tells a story of a person who is very unsure of herself. After all, this interview would be the beginning of the search for Madeleine, why would you feel such nervousness going into a police interview? She is a doctor who would be well used to meeting with all sorts of officials and professionals.

I found it hard to buy the lioness personality in her book. I felt that it was all about her issues and that those issues were so large they overshadowed the calamity of her missing child. There are a lot of references to her need for sympathy, empathy and sorrow for her. ".. he .. recognised our sorrow. It was a brief but intense encounter", "warm sympathy", "Kate McCann believes if she weighed 'another two stone, had a bigger bosom and looked more maternal' people would be more sympathetic". So my question is what has happened in her life that in such a crisis she can't get past this need for sympathy?

Sorry, can't post photos (that is - I haven't learnt how to yet)

But I saw a photograph of the two walking to the inquiry. Kate was just in Gerry's wake, very much like the time he refused to answer a question on whether he knew Murat. That time he took the trouble to drag her off by grabbing her hand.
Kate has been in many ways the stronger of the two in the early days. But imo neither of them could have imagined in their wildest dreams that they would still be living in Rothley, still at least nominally be doctors and not have a fraction of the money they expected.
Gerry just looks more furious than ever, his hair colour no longer matches his face (he must have been dyeing it since his teens, since he is a natural redhead) and makes him look older. Kate looks as if whatever she's on is no longer working. I expect they must have a full time nanny for the twins, I'd be surprised it either of them could cope otherwise. Imo there's very little love lost between them. They might be blaming each other and presenting this united front must be wearing them out.
We're sliding into a big recession, the money's running out and the Fund will dry up. People will have other things to worry about than (as Himself said) two chav doctors.
But Russian doll is right, Kate looks on the verge of collapse, but I don't think for a minute that she was cajoled into it, I think it was a joint effort.
If you check on her interviews about the book, the one in Amsterdam, she is lively, Gerry is almost comatose. Kate gives the impression that she is relishing the limelight. Has something happened between last June and now? Because she seems to have aged about ten years in that time.
One of the things that's happened of course is the SY review, then the case in Portugal coming up and since the abortive attempt to place a sighting in India, no more sightings. I really do think things are unravelling, albeit slowly.

russiandoll

I am sure that the fact that this was an Inquiry a the Royal Courts of Justice and on oath may have had something to do with Kate and Gerry's demeanour. Also there were quite a lot of people watching their every move and what they said. Plus they knew it would be on video and available for a wide audience.

tigger

But I also think that they were purposefully looking like aggrieved parents for effect. Though I agree that Kate is really suffering - it's written all over face as you say. But what is it she is suffering - withholding the truth for 4 plus years or knowing that with every step the madness gets worse - the more steps they take the deeper it becomes.

Ps. There may be help on the tech. thread re photos if not I could pm you and try and help.

Angelique wrote:russiandoll

I am sure that the fact that this was an Inquiry a the Royal Courts of Justice and on oath may have had something to do with Kate and Gerry's demeanour. Also there were quite a lot of people watching their every move and what they said. Plus they knew it would be on video and available for a wide audience.

tigger

But I also think that they were purposefully looking like aggrieved parents for effect. Though I agree that Kate is really suffering - it's written all over face as you say. But what is it she is suffering - withholding the truth for 4 plus years or knowing that with every step the madness gets worse - the more steps they take the deeper it becomes.
Ps. There may be help on the tech. thread re photos if not I could pm you and try and help.

Thanks, I will do that. I agree with all you said, they are putting on a performance. Besides, all their pity is reserved for themselves, that's what's written on their faces. It's all gone wrong, whatever money they have can't be used for a better lifestyle. They're not in the celebrity A ,B or even C list and live in constant fear of 'bad' publicity. They can't be looking forward to Lisbon, just look at the clip of them there the last time.
The very large amount listed in the 2008 accounts for media observation, the intensive way in which this forum and others are still pursued by CR - all this must be taking a toll.
As Nick Clegg said when he lost the election when it looked so good for him: 'it wasn't supposed to be like this'.

Angelique wrote:russiandoll

I am sure that the fact that this was an Inquiry a the Royal Courts of Justice and on oath may have had something to do with Kate and Gerry's demeanour. Also there were quite a lot of people watching their every move and what they said. Plus they knew it would be on video and available for a wide audience.

Is this the first time they have had to give evidence under oath in the UK? The puzzling thing is why they shoehorned themselves into the enquiry in the first place - their phones weren't hacked.

Miraflores wrote:

Angelique wrote:russiandoll

I am sure that the fact that this was an Inquiry a the Royal Courts of Justice and on oath may have had something to do with Kate and Gerry's demeanour. Also there were quite a lot of people watching their every move and what they said. Plus they knew it would be on video and available for a wide audience.

Is this the first time they have had to give evidence under oath in the UK? The puzzling thing is why they shoehorned themselves into the enquiry in the first place - their phones weren't hacked.

Hi Miraflores,

Yes, this puzzled me at first, and not only with the Levenson enquiry, but with other acts that have seemingly served to put them in the public spotlight when it didn't appear warranted or absolutely required in any way.

I think the answer is that they're realising just how much jeopardy they're in, and what the consequences will be if they're ever exposed and the version of events they've put forward is revealed for what it really is.

If their story goes under they'll be looking at some serious criminal charges, not just the covering up of the death of their daughter, but some major fraud and financial offences too. And all this is before you factor in what would also be their total financial ruin and the break-up of their nuclear family. When you look at it that way, a half days work at the Royal Courts' of Justice is good business on their part, if it keeps the wolf of truth at bay for a little while longer.....

?? tigger?

Clearly tigger's post was jemmied and abducted.

happychick wrote:Clearly tigger's post was jemmied and abducted.

Sorry! I'm alive and well, but made a mess of a pasting job!

happychick wrote:Clearly tigger's post was jemmied and abducted.

Miraflores wrote:Is this the first time they have had to give evidence under oath in the UK? The puzzling thing is why they shoehorned themselves into the enquiry in the first place - their phones weren't hacked.

I think they almost certainly were phone-hacked. To any slightly observant person there was quite a lot about their story that didn't add up right from the start, and I cannot imagine that the journos hacked other people but not them. It was the story at the time, after all, and they would have been top of the list. They were at the Leveson inquiry in an attempt to find out what there was on them, I am sure, as well as portraying themselves as victims yet again. They just can't resist it, and they can't bear not knowing what the papers and the police know. Sadly for them they always fail to realise that any normal parent would be thinking only of their child, not their own reputation, so they will never convince any right thinking person that their story is true. However, lying under oath would be quite a serious matter if anyone had done such a thing.

The police were listening into the McCanns phone conversations but was inadmissable as evidence as far as I can recall