Dr Martin Roberts. Knowing
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Dr Martin Roberts - mccannfiles
Page 1 of 1 • Share
Dr Martin Roberts. Knowing
by justagrannynow 1 14.05.10 10:53
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
[size=9]Several decades ago I was introduced to a
fascinating research paper entitled 'Knowing
About Things We Do Not
Know We Know About.' That I can recall it to mind after all these years
says something about the
impression it made upon
me. Lately, papers of an altogether different kind have been making an
impression of their own; and
not only papers either.
The
following (incomplete) text is of a threatening letter recently
despatched by McCann
lawyers Carter-Ruck to
those responsible for a certain Internet web-site. (Phrases of
particular interest are italicised):
typographical error attributing Madeleine to but one parent, though
curious in
itself, is not quite so
fascinating as the collection of references to the McCanns' personal
responsibility in the matter
of their missing
daughter. 'Denying' (rather than refuting) a suggestion is likely also
to be an example of Carter
Ruck's questionable use
of English. The 'no evidence whatsoever' line is, as we know, a
strategic exaggeration.
Being unprepared to
proceed against the McCanns on the basis of the evidence recorded at
that time is by no means tantamount
to declaring the
complete absence of evidence.
Drawing the remaining key phrases
together however illustrates the
care taken by the
letter's author to emphasise that the McCanns were not personally involved
in Madeleine's
disappearance. At the
same time there is an apparent concern to iterate, if not re-iterate,
that there is no evidence attesting
to their implication
in said disappearance.
What we should be clear about here is the
distinction between
'involvement' and
'implication', a distinction made within the letter itself and not an
artificial by-product
of any overly fastidious
analysis on my part. In the face of 'untrue' allegations, the
declaration of 'no involvement
whatsoever' is absolute.
It should be sufficient in and of itself. Yet we are treated to a
caveat concerning evidence
in relation to
'implication.' It's as though the Carter-Ruck legalese here is drawing a
wafer-thin distinction
similar to that
understood by Bill Clinton in his notorious dissociation of sexual
'acts' from sexual 'relations'.
And what is one to make
of the reference to 'proper' evidence? Are we to suppose that any
evidence implicating the
McCanns is 'improper'?
The
proposed absence of proper evidence notwithstanding, if one accepts,
willingly
or otherwise, that the
McCanns had no involvement whatsoever in the disappearance of
their daughter, the door to
considering their implication
remains ajar, casting its own angular light on various McCann
statements dotted about
the publicity map;
statements such as that made by Kate McCann on 10 February this year,
the final day of the court hearing
in respect of the
injunction against Goncalo Amaral.
Reporter:
"What evidence do you have
that there was an
abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't
have..."
Kate
McCann:
"Because I know. I was there, I found my daughter gone. I know more than
you do. I know what I saw."
This suite of observations
alone is worthy of examination.
Evidence of abduction exists in
the form
of Kate herself, who
'knows,' because Kate was there.
Yet she was quoted in
Sunday Mirror of 5
August, 2007 as saying:
"I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren't there."
So
neither
parent was there. Had
they been present at the moment of Madeleine's disappearance of course
they might have become involved.
As it is, Kate reported
to Oprah Winfrey: "I mean, errm... as you say, I know I can persecute
myself everyday about that
and I feel awful that we
weren't thereat that minute." For the McCanns, then, it
remains a case of implication
at worst.
'In
knowledge there is light' and Kate McCann continues to illuminate our
understanding of things,
telling a news reporter
outside the same Lisbon court house, in no uncertain terms, 'I know more
than you do.' To
be sure, a former G.P.
and erstwhile anaesthetist is quite likely to know more than a humble
hack about, say, the sedative
effects of
over-the-counter medication, just as a staff 'newshound' will probably
recognise the makings of a good
story before Kate
McCann. However, if we level the playing field to accommodate plain
old-fashioned common sense, we quickly
discover that Kate
McCann's style of knowing is somewhat deficient.
During the
McCanns' recent interviews
for Spanish T.V.
(Mananas de Cuatro) Kate offers up an unbelievably naïve justification
for the consensus refusal to
assist with the P.J.'s
proposed reconstruction of events on the night of 3 May, 2007:
Kate
McCann:
"We also asked about the
possibility of actors being used, which is obviously what we do in our
reconstructions. I mean,
certainly in the UK we
have a programme called Crimewatch, which uses actors and I think
[unclear]. Errm... it's probably
detrimental to ask
people who have been through something traumatic to live it again."
Either
it hasn't
dawned on Kate McCann
that televised reconstructions by actors are for the purpose of jogging
the public memory, whereas those
required by police
investigators serve an entirely different purpose altogether, or she
imagines that this glaringly obvious
distinction is
completely lost on the rest of us. Whichever is the case it doesn't
exactly commend Kate McCann's knowledge
as a primary resource.
There is, however, a much earlier appeal to wisdom on Kate's part, that
reflects an act of prescience
almost. I refer to her
unwavering certainty at around 10.00 p.m. on that fateful Thursday
night:
"I knew immediately
she'd been taken."
Leaving
the patio unlocked in case of fire would have been rather pointless if
one,
at least, of those
trapped inside were incapable of making their way to the door and
opening it. So, faced with an empty but
otherwise undisturbed
bed, how did Kate 'know' her daughter had been taken? Madeleine McCann
was not inanimate after
all, at least not at the
commencement of the holiday.
Does this point perhaps to
'improper' evidence of
implication? It would
require no more than immobility on Madeleine's part, plus a modest
degree of expectation on Kate's,
to convert the child's
status from 'absent' to 'abducted' and confer certain knowledge into the
bargain.
Kate McCann, from the
very first, did not fear Madeleine might have been abducted.
Remarkably, even with no sign
of unauthorised
intrusion (Gerry McCann and Matthew Oldfield both claim to have entered
the apartment before her), she knew.
For someone who purports to
know so much, it is noteworthy that Kate McCann shares little of her
wisdom, even though
she has long since been
freed from the constraint of 'judicial secrecy.' Never mind. One or two
of us at least know
about things that others
don't know we know about.
[/size]
[size=9]Several decades ago I was introduced to a
fascinating research paper entitled 'Knowing
About Things We Do Not
Know We Know About.' That I can recall it to mind after all these years
says something about the
impression it made upon
me. Lately, papers of an altogether different kind have been making an
impression of their own; and
not only papers either.
The
following (incomplete) text is of a threatening letter recently
despatched by McCann
lawyers Carter-Ruck to
those responsible for a certain Internet web-site. (Phrases of
particular interest are italicised):
Dear SirThe possible
Gerry
and Kate McCann
As you will no doubt be aware, the
disappearance
of our client's
daughter Madeleine from a holiday resort in Portugal in 2007 has
been the subject of considerable
media attention,
including a number of false allegations that Mr and Mrs McCann were themselves
responsible for Madeleine's
disappearance or death.
Our clients have from the outset vigorously denied any such
suggestion.
You may
also be aware that a
number of newspapers have since apologised publicly to our clients for
making these false allegations,
and that in 2008 the
Portuguese authorities confirmed that there was no evidence
whatsoever to implicate our clients
in their daughter's
disappearance.
Defamatory, threatening and harassing content
Suffice
it to say that the page
repeatedly alleges that our clients caused the death of their daughter
and have subsequently engaged
in a criminal conspiracy
to cover up her death.
As well as being highly defamatory of our
clients, these allegations
are completely and
utterly untrue. Our clients had no involvement whatsoever in
the disappearance of their
daughter, and there is not
one grain of proper evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's
disappearance.
Yours Faithfully
typographical error attributing Madeleine to but one parent, though
curious in
itself, is not quite so
fascinating as the collection of references to the McCanns' personal
responsibility in the matter
of their missing
daughter. 'Denying' (rather than refuting) a suggestion is likely also
to be an example of Carter
Ruck's questionable use
of English. The 'no evidence whatsoever' line is, as we know, a
strategic exaggeration.
Being unprepared to
proceed against the McCanns on the basis of the evidence recorded at
that time is by no means tantamount
to declaring the
complete absence of evidence.
Drawing the remaining key phrases
together however illustrates the
care taken by the
letter's author to emphasise that the McCanns were not personally involved
in Madeleine's
disappearance. At the
same time there is an apparent concern to iterate, if not re-iterate,
that there is no evidence attesting
to their implication
in said disappearance.
What we should be clear about here is the
distinction between
'involvement' and
'implication', a distinction made within the letter itself and not an
artificial by-product
of any overly fastidious
analysis on my part. In the face of 'untrue' allegations, the
declaration of 'no involvement
whatsoever' is absolute.
It should be sufficient in and of itself. Yet we are treated to a
caveat concerning evidence
in relation to
'implication.' It's as though the Carter-Ruck legalese here is drawing a
wafer-thin distinction
similar to that
understood by Bill Clinton in his notorious dissociation of sexual
'acts' from sexual 'relations'.
And what is one to make
of the reference to 'proper' evidence? Are we to suppose that any
evidence implicating the
McCanns is 'improper'?
The
proposed absence of proper evidence notwithstanding, if one accepts,
willingly
or otherwise, that the
McCanns had no involvement whatsoever in the disappearance of
their daughter, the door to
considering their implication
remains ajar, casting its own angular light on various McCann
statements dotted about
the publicity map;
statements such as that made by Kate McCann on 10 February this year,
the final day of the court hearing
in respect of the
injunction against Goncalo Amaral.
Reporter:
"What evidence do you have
that there was an
abduction? Can I ask this question because you say that Amaral doesn't
have..."
Kate
McCann:
"Because I know. I was there, I found my daughter gone. I know more than
you do. I know what I saw."
This suite of observations
alone is worthy of examination.
Evidence of abduction exists in
the form
of Kate herself, who
'knows,' because Kate was there.
Yet she was quoted in
Sunday Mirror of 5
August, 2007 as saying:
"I feel desperately sorry to her that we weren't there."
So
neither
parent was there. Had
they been present at the moment of Madeleine's disappearance of course
they might have become involved.
As it is, Kate reported
to Oprah Winfrey: "I mean, errm... as you say, I know I can persecute
myself everyday about that
and I feel awful that we
weren't thereat that minute." For the McCanns, then, it
remains a case of implication
at worst.
'In
knowledge there is light' and Kate McCann continues to illuminate our
understanding of things,
telling a news reporter
outside the same Lisbon court house, in no uncertain terms, 'I know more
than you do.' To
be sure, a former G.P.
and erstwhile anaesthetist is quite likely to know more than a humble
hack about, say, the sedative
effects of
over-the-counter medication, just as a staff 'newshound' will probably
recognise the makings of a good
story before Kate
McCann. However, if we level the playing field to accommodate plain
old-fashioned common sense, we quickly
discover that Kate
McCann's style of knowing is somewhat deficient.
During the
McCanns' recent interviews
for Spanish T.V.
(Mananas de Cuatro) Kate offers up an unbelievably naïve justification
for the consensus refusal to
assist with the P.J.'s
proposed reconstruction of events on the night of 3 May, 2007:
Kate
McCann:
"We also asked about the
possibility of actors being used, which is obviously what we do in our
reconstructions. I mean,
certainly in the UK we
have a programme called Crimewatch, which uses actors and I think
[unclear]. Errm... it's probably
detrimental to ask
people who have been through something traumatic to live it again."
Either
it hasn't
dawned on Kate McCann
that televised reconstructions by actors are for the purpose of jogging
the public memory, whereas those
required by police
investigators serve an entirely different purpose altogether, or she
imagines that this glaringly obvious
distinction is
completely lost on the rest of us. Whichever is the case it doesn't
exactly commend Kate McCann's knowledge
as a primary resource.
There is, however, a much earlier appeal to wisdom on Kate's part, that
reflects an act of prescience
almost. I refer to her
unwavering certainty at around 10.00 p.m. on that fateful Thursday
night:
"I knew immediately
she'd been taken."
Leaving
the patio unlocked in case of fire would have been rather pointless if
one,
at least, of those
trapped inside were incapable of making their way to the door and
opening it. So, faced with an empty but
otherwise undisturbed
bed, how did Kate 'know' her daughter had been taken? Madeleine McCann
was not inanimate after
all, at least not at the
commencement of the holiday.
Does this point perhaps to
'improper' evidence of
implication? It would
require no more than immobility on Madeleine's part, plus a modest
degree of expectation on Kate's,
to convert the child's
status from 'absent' to 'abducted' and confer certain knowledge into the
bargain.
Kate McCann, from the
very first, did not fear Madeleine might have been abducted.
Remarkably, even with no sign
of unauthorised
intrusion (Gerry McCann and Matthew Oldfield both claim to have entered
the apartment before her), she knew.
For someone who purports to
know so much, it is noteworthy that Kate McCann shares little of her
wisdom, even though
she has long since been
freed from the constraint of 'judicial secrecy.' Never mind. One or two
of us at least know
about things that others
don't know we know about.
[/size]
justagrannynow 1- Posts : 966
Activity : 1110
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France
Similar topics» On Top: Dr Martin Roberts
» "Just like that" by Dr Martin Roberts
» DIGGING BENEATH THE SURFACE By Dr Martin Roberts
» You can bet on the law - Dr Martin Roberts
» Dr Martin Roberts - NO WAY OUT
» "Just like that" by Dr Martin Roberts
» DIGGING BENEATH THE SURFACE By Dr Martin Roberts
» You can bet on the law - Dr Martin Roberts
» Dr Martin Roberts - NO WAY OUT
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Dr Martin Roberts - mccannfiles
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
