ABOVE THE LAW - by Dr Martin Roberts -mccannfiles

by Guest 27.02.12 10:25

ABOVE THE LAW

26th February 2012

by Dr Martin Roberts

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

------
Related reading: The cancelled reconstruction - Shocking emails between the Tapas 9 and Stu 'hope you are well' Prior

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2228-the-cancelled-reconstruction

by russiandoll 27.02.12 13:00

wonderful stuff as always. Is this man being sued??!!

the following beggars belief:

"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."

I could be really generous and say give her the benefit of the doubt, Kate muddled her words when under stress..and meant that with 100% certainty Maddie was alive....but that is stating the obvious, she is clearly 100% uncertain of her daughter's fate if she has been abducted.
But no matter how I try and how often I re-read this sentence, I can't logically infer that meaning.
And in bold.. she and her husband would be telling porkies if they were to state that Madeleine was alive. She can only be totally alive or totally dead.
It would not be a lie to say she might be alive, if she were truly abducted.
I can only infer from this that they would be truthful if they were to state that Maddie was 100% not alive.
please move to forensic linguistics !!!

by T4two 27.02.12 13:28

russiandoll wrote:
wonderful stuff as always. Is this man being sued??!!

the following beggars belief:

"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."

I could be really generous and say give her the benefit of the doubt, Kate muddled her words when under stress..and meant that with 100% certainty Maddie was alive....but that is stating the obvious, she is clearly 100% uncertain of her daughter's fate if she has been abducted.
But no matter how I try and how often I re-read this sentence, I can't logically infer that meaning.
And in bold.. she and her husband would be telling porkies if they were to state that Madeleine was alive. She can only be totally alive or totally dead.
It would not be a lie to say she might be alive, if she were truly abducted.
I can only infer from this that they would be truthful if they were to state that Maddie was 100% not alive.
please move to forensic linguistics !!!

Good question. If not - why not? Is it because his analyses only reach a comparatively few people on the Internet whereas Tony Bennett is an activist whose actions are more widely reported and Sr. Amaral is dangerous because he is not only an activist but the real detective who headed the initial part of the investigation and dared to publish his views? Or perhaps because they are simply afraid to have all Dr. Robert's analyses aired and discussed by a wider public as they most certainly would be if they as much as even attempted to shut him up? IMO it's the latter. I wonder who Dr. Roberts is - I bet the parents and their legal team know.

by **tigger** 27.02.12 13:58

T4two wrote:
russiandoll wrote:
wonderful stuff as always. Is this man being sued??!!

the following beggars belief:

"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive."

I could be really generous and say give her the benefit of the doubt, Kate muddled her words when under stress..and meant that with 100% certainty Maddie was alive....but that is stating the obvious, she is clearly 100% uncertain of her daughter's fate if she has been abducted.
But no matter how I try and how often I re-read this sentence, I can't logically infer that meaning.
And in bold.. she and her husband would be telling porkies if they were to state that Madeleine was alive. She can only be totally alive or totally dead.
It would not be a lie to say she might be alive, if she were truly abducted.
I can only infer from this that they would be truthful if they were to state that Maddie was 100% not alive.
please move to forensic linguistics !!!

Good question. If not - why not? Is it because his analyses only reach a comparatively few people on the Internet whereas Tony Bennett is an activist whose actions are more widely reported and Sr. Amaral is dangerous because he is not only an activist but the real detective who headed the initial part of the investigation and dared to publish his views? Or perhaps because they are simply afraid to have all Dr. Robert's analyses aired and discussed by a wider public as they most certainly would be if they as much as even attempted to shut him up? IMO it's the latter. I wonder who Dr. Roberts is - I bet the parents and their legal team know.

Very good points, it's very hard to stop your brain interfering when you're lying.
I agree that they probably know who Dr. Roberts is and no, way too dangerous to take him to court, besides he can argue it's only a logical interpretation of their own words.
"We're not going to sit here and lie and be totally naïve and say she's one hundred per cent alive." Means to me she isn't at best - 100% alive. We would be telling a lie if we said so. So the conclusion is that Maddie is NOT 100% alive. There is the possibility of a coma or vegetative state - but how could they know that? If they knew that, they would know where she is. No, they are trying NOT to tell us that she is 100% dead.