Dr. Roberts revisited

I think this - part of the first article by Dr. R from mccannfiles.com is full of relevant information.
What comes across for me - here and in many other instances, even in the book - is that thry cannot remember Maddie.
Either the questions aren't answered ora photograph is remembered, not the child but a picture of the child which is described in detail.
In other words, the photographs only serve to recall  one - imo fictional - event, where normally on seeing a snap one remembers a host of other things related to the occasion.



By Dr Martin Roberts
30 May 2009

ANALYSIS OF McCANN MEDIA INTERVIEWS

Preface

The purpose of this exercise is twofold: to evaluate answers to specific questions, and thereby identify any statements which may be of relevance to issues beyond the immediate interrogative context.

When we answer a question, a great many thoughts pass through our minds of which we are unaware, as evidenced by 'freudian slips'. The more complex the context, the more 'considered' will be the utterance, deliberately or otherwise. Pauses, and the insertion of unnecessary elements (uhms, ahs, etc.) are instances of the brain's 'playing for time'. It follows that, in circumstances such as that under consideration here, things will inevitably be said which reference topics outside the realm of immediate relevance.

The situation may be likened to a Venn diagram, where a given intersection is defined by two or more overlapping sectors. At these points of semantic overlap, we catch a glimpse of the alternative entailment(s). It is not a question of hidden meanings, coded responses or the like. The emphasis is on semantic clarity and logical consistency, not subjective interpretation.

Due account must be taken also of things which remain unsaid, as in aborted phrases and sudden departures from the anticipated syntax. When we say anything at all, we plan each phrase beforehand. This is evidenced by spoonerisms, where transpositions can occur across as many as seven syllables. An aborted phrase should therefore be viewed as 'not completed' in the active sense, rather than incomplete, the voicing of the terminal aspect being prevented by the speaker, and not simply 'missing'. Though unspoken, it will have been there, as will the thought behind it.

Above all, statements should be taken at face value. People will strive to tell their truth, however idiosyncratic, at interview. Put simply, they will avoid lying and the stress it causes them. Importantly, even if what they say fails to answer the immediate question, it may provide an answer to another question altogether.

All but one of the transcripts examined here are of interviews given to the broadcast media. They provide direct and verifiable evidence of statements by the principals, with no appeal whatsoever to reported speech.

The presentation that follows is topic-centred. Quoted sources are therefore partial and cross-referenced on occasion.

1. Time of Departure

There is a wealth of witness testimony regarding events at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz on 3rd May, 2007, in the light of which it is strange that neither Kate nor Gerry McCann appears able to discuss their last recollection of daughter Madeleine, on that fateful day specifically.

Q (For Spanish broadcaster, Antena 3): "Allow me to take you both back to the 3rd May. What's the last thing you remember about Madeleine?"

KM: "Just a happy little girl. A beautiful, happy little girl"

Not: 'She was sleeping beautifully' or 'was sound asleep'.

GM: "Just think of all the times... the nice times that we've had with her in our house, and in her playing, in the playroom with her... with her... the twins."

Note that the question sought to elicit the last thing remembered, not a lasting remembrance. GM could not even place Madeleine in Portugal. He describes happy times at home in Leicester. The interviewer tries again later.

Q: "...Some questions concerning that night, the 3rd May. What's the last thing you remember of Madeleine that day?"

KM: "It's a little bit like as I mentioned before, she was very happy, errm... and very loving and, you know, I know Madeleine was very happy with her life. She's special."

Still no specific recollection regarding May 3rd however.

Q: "Kate, you were the last to see her weren't you, because Gerry was playing tennis I believe, isn't that right?"

KM: (Struggles to answer. Fails to answer).

GM: "I saw her. I saw her and, errm... I thought how beautiful she was and how lucky I was to be the father of three children."

Note that this was in answer to the immediately preceding question of who was the last to see Madeleine, the date reference having now been dropped.

To accompany this non-specificity of date, there is elsewhere an adjustment of time. KM is understood to have raised the alarm, upon discovering Madeleine's absence, around 10.00 p.m. GM et al are reported to have been at the Tapas restaurant at that time.

The BBC's Jane Hill asks: "And then on the Thursday night, Kate, when you realised that she wasn't in her bed where you'd left her, did you think, even momentarily perhaps that she'd just woken up, wandered off of her own accord perhaps?"

KM: "Not at all, no." (long pause)

GM: "No, I mean, that, I think, was absolutely certain but, you know, before you raised the alarm, we double and treble checked, but we certainly had no doubt in our mind that she'd been taken."

So, GM appears to have been aware of Madeleine's absence earlier than 10.00 p.m. on May 3rd. (This circumstance is further alluded to under a subsequent topic heading – 'point of departure').

Unquote

And for further consideration:
From the same article quoted above. Courtesy of mccannfiles.com:

As we know, it costs a lot to search for Madeleine (13% of the gross at least). Or does it? GM is fond of telling anyone who will listen that "all it takes is that one 'phone call'", in which case the true cost of finding Madeleine is a few euros. But the diary entry raises further suspicions. The objective, as stated, does not conform to any of the principles supposedly governing recourse to the fund. I refer specifically to the aim of 'trying to enhance the chances' (of finding Madeleine).

In the world of advertising this phrase would be recognised for what it is; a collection of 'weasels'. The clearest illustration that comes to mind is that of treasure hunting on a farmer's field. One person with a metal detector stands a chance of finding it. Two people working together stand a better chance – but only if the treasure was buried there in the first place. The McCanns might hire Interpol if they could afford to, but to what purpose exactly?

GM graciously expands on the purpose of the fund for Jane Hill (BBC).

GM: "Well, you know, the fund, errm... was really... really evolved to provide an outlet for people who wanted to contribute financially, and their offers, errr... will help us and are helping us and that has helped us to bring in quite a comprehensive legal team and independent sector, errr... consultants as to what we could and should be doing."

First: The money is to help the parents.
Second: The money has paid for a legal team and consultants (recruited within days of the child's disappearance).
Third: There is absolutely no mention of funding search activities per se.

Conclusion

Abduction is most unlikely. Madeleine appears to have been sedated and to have died prior to May 3rd, 2007, in which case her parents discovered her in the lounge of the apartment and put her in their bedroom, whence she was later removed by, or with assistance from, an as yet unidentified third party, then taken to a safe house. The parents feel guilty for not being present when Madeleine was taken from them. By 25th May, 'everyone is acting.' There are clear indications that Madeleine was not directly related to both parents and that she was the least favourite child, hence a lack of genuine concern or regret over her disappearance. The fund is principally for the parents' benefit.

This synopsis, virtually identical to that of Gonçalo Amaral, is derived from the McCanns' own statements entirely.

Martin Roberts
30.5.2009



*

Update comment:

Martin Roberts
04 June 2009

It has been suggested that GM's comment about the 'key to unlock where Madeleine is being kept' is no more than a confused metaphor. Well it's all of that, and more besides.

GM is, we are supposed to believe, an articulate professional. So why does he stumble over something as straightforward as, 'to unlock the mystery of where Madeleine is being kept?' I would contend that the phrase 'the mystery of' was suppressed because GM knew the answer. For him there was no mystery, and by not alluding to it he avoided lying.

Philomena McCann's interview with the BBC on 04 May 2007, offers up another gem:

"Gerry and Kate knew instantly - which is why Kate responded by being hysterical - that someone had snatched her daughter."

So they both realized simultaneously (Gerry did not have to be told) that her daughter was gone.

That's quite shocking - to read that transcript - the interviewer must have thought it very strange too.

I remember another occaision (different interview) when Kate simply fails to answer a question because she cant. Anyone out there who still believes in the possibility of abduction - I'm sure would change their mind on reading this. I can understand why Martin believes it may indicate an earlier death. I am not convinced of that. I just think that when Kate recalls her last memory of Madeleine she know it is does not correspond with M in her bed prior to an abduction and therefore she is stuck for an answer. Thanks for posting this because it is very telling..

Good yo look back at this thanks tigger.

I never realised gerry himself stated the fund was for a legal team. I often see the quote from brian kennedy so its surprising to know he admitted this also.

They really try their hardest to be careful not to answer date related questions,has anyone ever asked them in interview about Madeleine going missing on a previous date?

Another reason for Kate and Gerry's vagueness about their last memories of Madeleine might be because of their true last memories of Madeleine. It may be that the last thing they remember about Madeleine is an accident, or her unconscious as the result of something happening, or, indeed, their last memories of her may be of Madeleine deceased.

In order to substitute a new and "innocent" specific memory of Madeleine, they would first have to deal with the actual specific memory they held in their minds. Easier, when put on the spot like that, to be vague, and substitute a general recollection of a time unrelated to the actual specific details of what they really were remembering.

Bumping this up.

So very few anecdotes, so many strange descriptions.

'She's got bags of personality'. Is a favourite of Gerry.
Male friends describing a toddler with whom they would barely be acquainted in terms one would use of adults.

Examples being Corner's and Payne's description.

Yet no anecdotes from the parents. Unlikely facts such as Maddie being her best friend from Kate.

In the last CW they apparently had to search for an example of how much she was missed and finally coming up with parties and family occasions.