Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ :: Research and Analysis :: Dr Martin Roberts - mccannfiles
Page 1 of 1 • Share
Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by cockerspaniel 22.08.14 17:32
[size=13]I have posted this as I have not come across it on the site yet, admin please delete if there is already a thread ongoing.[/size]
[size=13]This is the first I have read re the patio shutters being down, has anyone else heard about this??
[/size]
[size=13]SHUTTER ISLAND[/size]
Madeleine McCann was reported missing by her parents on the evening of 3 May 2007. She had been left inside apartment 5A, the external configuration of which was still fresh in the memory of the McCanns' holiday-making associate Rachael Oldfield (nee Mampilly) just a fortnight later when, on 15 May, she told police:
'The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.'
There are no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' here. The McCanns' patio door, whether locked, unlocked, open or closed at night lay behind a metal shutter, unambiguously in the 'down' position. The witness does not specify whether the McCanns' necessary raising of the patio shutter was accomplished from inside or outside the apartment. In all their accounts of how they, and presumably their daughter's abductor, came and went that evening, 3 May, the McCanns have not once referred to the status of this shutter, only the door.
If we append to Rachel Oldfield's observation those which Kate McCann makes in her book when failing to explain quite why the window to their children's bedroom should have been opened (p.130-1), it becomes clear that, by all accounts, Madeleine McCann was inside a sealed unit. The front door was locked, all the windows were closed and, as both of the holiday party's written timelines confirm, in upper case for emphasis, all the shutters were down, including, clearly, those shielding the patio door.
Whether attached to the front, back or side of apartment 5A, the shutters, all of them, worked in exactly the same way, properly operated from inside via a winding mechanism. A filmed illustration of what happens when such shutters are raised from outside, 'against the grain' so to speak, demonstrates that they can only be elevated to about 75% of their full extent before becoming stuck. Significantly, since this physical intrusion is made without the collaboration of the interior aspect of the apparatus, in order for the shutter to remain open it has to be held aloft by whoever manhandles it into that position. Without such extraneous physical support it just comes crashing down again.
The shutters obscuring the McCann's patio door (there were in fact two of them, side by side) were more than twice the size of those protecting the windows, and therefore more than twice as heavy. Artificially raising either one three quarters of the way off the floor, and keeping it there, would require an adult’s strength. Matthew Oldfield, for instance, could have managed it, and, if the door beyond were indeed open already, he would not have had to prop the shutter up with one hand like Atlas while sliding the door back with the other. But neither his arms, nor those of any intending abductor, are infinitely long.
In order to progress from patio to bedroom, the visitor, having coerced the shutter upwards, now has to release it again, either with a loud bang as it simply plummets to the floor, or by gingerly lowering it behind him somehow, only to raise it again, mechanically this time, once inside the apartment.
Nowhere has Matthew Oldfield described negotiating such an obstacle, whether on his way into or out of the McCann's apartment on the one occasion he offered to check on their children. Rather more significantly, had a child abductor preceded or followed him through that same patio door they too would have had to deal with the shutter, unless either Gerry McCann or Oldfield, in sequence, deliberately left it in the raised position when previously exiting the apartment. In which case, bearing in mind there is a child-in-arms at this point, the shutter would have remained open thereafter, unexpectedly so perhaps. Yet no mention has ever been made of any such startling discovery, suggesting that completely unimpeded access to the rear of apartment 5A came as no surprise to the returning adults.
Gerry McCann has offered police two quite different accounts of how he entered and left 5A around 9.00 p.m. that night. Version one has him going in through the locked front door then simply out again (the patio does not explicitly enter the equation and Matthew Oldfield may therefore have had to address the obstacle of the shutter subsequently). Version two on the other hand sees Gerry going in and out via the patio which, for reasons just discussed, would mean either that he must have first raised the shutter from outside, which he has never described doing, or the McCanns had left the patio shutter in the raised position in the first place, contrary to what Rachael Oldfield has said in evidence. If they left their apartment via the rear initially, as they claim, then they must have left the patio door unlocked and the shutter up, since they cannot have locked the door nor closed the shutter behind them.
Thursday appears to have been exceptional in any event, as Kate McCann had at last decided upon an extraordinary course of action; one that offered her daughter a means of escape in the event of an emergency, as she mentioned to her friends at dinner that night, not at the commencement of their holiday you notice, but very shortly before it was due to end.
Unless he already knew what would afterwards take place (in terms of visitors, checks, or abductions even) there should have been no reason at all for Gerry McCann to have left the apartment completely unsecured in exiting though the rear. Nor should Matthew Oldfield have done so on the McCanns' behalf, unless of course he merely left the situation as he had previously found it. On 10 May Gerry McCann told police that although he was certain the front door was closed it was unlikely to have been locked, because they left through the back door. On this evidence apartment 5A was literally open to all comers, something it never was on any other occasion during the holiday, as the McCanns would customarily lock the patio door from inside before leaving via the front door which they, or the last person to leave at least (usually Gerry) locked behind them.
For anyone entering the McCann's apartment from the rear, a lowered patio shutter would have posed unavoidable logistical problems. These would, in turn, have led inevitably to hand and finger prints around the shutter base and on the glass sliding door which, although unlocked, would still have to be slid back to allow entry (as David Payne discovered, or so we are told).
Returning then to the unequivocal evidence offered by Rachael Oldfield on 15 May, and confirmed (twice) by the entire Tapas group's written timelines, either they were all lying in saying that ALL the shutters were down, or any investigation intent on identifying who it was took Madeleine McCann from apartment 5A (Operation Grange, for example) should begin (and quite possibly end), with the keyholders.
[size=13]This is the first I have read re the patio shutters being down, has anyone else heard about this??
[/size]
[size=13]SHUTTER ISLAND[/size]
Madeleine McCann was reported missing by her parents on the evening of 3 May 2007. She had been left inside apartment 5A, the external configuration of which was still fresh in the memory of the McCanns' holiday-making associate Rachael Oldfield (nee Mampilly) just a fortnight later when, on 15 May, she told police:
'The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment also had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter.'
There are no 'ifs', 'ands' or 'buts' here. The McCanns' patio door, whether locked, unlocked, open or closed at night lay behind a metal shutter, unambiguously in the 'down' position. The witness does not specify whether the McCanns' necessary raising of the patio shutter was accomplished from inside or outside the apartment. In all their accounts of how they, and presumably their daughter's abductor, came and went that evening, 3 May, the McCanns have not once referred to the status of this shutter, only the door.
If we append to Rachel Oldfield's observation those which Kate McCann makes in her book when failing to explain quite why the window to their children's bedroom should have been opened (p.130-1), it becomes clear that, by all accounts, Madeleine McCann was inside a sealed unit. The front door was locked, all the windows were closed and, as both of the holiday party's written timelines confirm, in upper case for emphasis, all the shutters were down, including, clearly, those shielding the patio door.
Whether attached to the front, back or side of apartment 5A, the shutters, all of them, worked in exactly the same way, properly operated from inside via a winding mechanism. A filmed illustration of what happens when such shutters are raised from outside, 'against the grain' so to speak, demonstrates that they can only be elevated to about 75% of their full extent before becoming stuck. Significantly, since this physical intrusion is made without the collaboration of the interior aspect of the apparatus, in order for the shutter to remain open it has to be held aloft by whoever manhandles it into that position. Without such extraneous physical support it just comes crashing down again.
The shutters obscuring the McCann's patio door (there were in fact two of them, side by side) were more than twice the size of those protecting the windows, and therefore more than twice as heavy. Artificially raising either one three quarters of the way off the floor, and keeping it there, would require an adult’s strength. Matthew Oldfield, for instance, could have managed it, and, if the door beyond were indeed open already, he would not have had to prop the shutter up with one hand like Atlas while sliding the door back with the other. But neither his arms, nor those of any intending abductor, are infinitely long.
In order to progress from patio to bedroom, the visitor, having coerced the shutter upwards, now has to release it again, either with a loud bang as it simply plummets to the floor, or by gingerly lowering it behind him somehow, only to raise it again, mechanically this time, once inside the apartment.
Nowhere has Matthew Oldfield described negotiating such an obstacle, whether on his way into or out of the McCann's apartment on the one occasion he offered to check on their children. Rather more significantly, had a child abductor preceded or followed him through that same patio door they too would have had to deal with the shutter, unless either Gerry McCann or Oldfield, in sequence, deliberately left it in the raised position when previously exiting the apartment. In which case, bearing in mind there is a child-in-arms at this point, the shutter would have remained open thereafter, unexpectedly so perhaps. Yet no mention has ever been made of any such startling discovery, suggesting that completely unimpeded access to the rear of apartment 5A came as no surprise to the returning adults.
Gerry McCann has offered police two quite different accounts of how he entered and left 5A around 9.00 p.m. that night. Version one has him going in through the locked front door then simply out again (the patio does not explicitly enter the equation and Matthew Oldfield may therefore have had to address the obstacle of the shutter subsequently). Version two on the other hand sees Gerry going in and out via the patio which, for reasons just discussed, would mean either that he must have first raised the shutter from outside, which he has never described doing, or the McCanns had left the patio shutter in the raised position in the first place, contrary to what Rachael Oldfield has said in evidence. If they left their apartment via the rear initially, as they claim, then they must have left the patio door unlocked and the shutter up, since they cannot have locked the door nor closed the shutter behind them.
Thursday appears to have been exceptional in any event, as Kate McCann had at last decided upon an extraordinary course of action; one that offered her daughter a means of escape in the event of an emergency, as she mentioned to her friends at dinner that night, not at the commencement of their holiday you notice, but very shortly before it was due to end.
Unless he already knew what would afterwards take place (in terms of visitors, checks, or abductions even) there should have been no reason at all for Gerry McCann to have left the apartment completely unsecured in exiting though the rear. Nor should Matthew Oldfield have done so on the McCanns' behalf, unless of course he merely left the situation as he had previously found it. On 10 May Gerry McCann told police that although he was certain the front door was closed it was unlikely to have been locked, because they left through the back door. On this evidence apartment 5A was literally open to all comers, something it never was on any other occasion during the holiday, as the McCanns would customarily lock the patio door from inside before leaving via the front door which they, or the last person to leave at least (usually Gerry) locked behind them.
For anyone entering the McCann's apartment from the rear, a lowered patio shutter would have posed unavoidable logistical problems. These would, in turn, have led inevitably to hand and finger prints around the shutter base and on the glass sliding door which, although unlocked, would still have to be slid back to allow entry (as David Payne discovered, or so we are told).
Returning then to the unequivocal evidence offered by Rachael Oldfield on 15 May, and confirmed (twice) by the entire Tapas group's written timelines, either they were all lying in saying that ALL the shutters were down, or any investigation intent on identifying who it was took Madeleine McCann from apartment 5A (Operation Grange, for example) should begin (and quite possibly end), with the keyholders.
____________________
Heracltus say You could not step twice into the same river.
cockerspaniel- Posts : 176
Activity : 227
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2013-06-08
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by palm tree 22.08.14 22:17
I read this several days ago and have never read this before, first time the patio shutters are mentioned by anyone (I think) even worse she says ALL shutters were down, window shutters AND patio shutters!
IMO
IMO
palm tree- Posts : 365
Activity : 368
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2014-08-21
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by whatsupdoc 22.08.14 22:45
I also read this a short time ago and it's the first time that I and prob many other people realised about the door shutters and the big implications this implies.
The PJ must have seen the door shutters as well as check the window shutters. No testimonies , as far as I know, have mentioned door shutters.I don't recall seeing any pix of the doors/shutters.
The size of the opening of the sliding window seems pretty small to me but the PJ will have measured that. If only half slides back, then there wouldn't have been much of a gap for anyone to climb through although Kate said there was, in her bewk, I believe...easily proved one way or the other.
Also, if I could just mention the curtains, which were trapped by the bed on one side and a chair on the other, there doesn't appear any chance that they could have been blown around.
The difficult part of this case is trying to find anything which could be true in the testimonies.
The PJ must have seen the door shutters as well as check the window shutters. No testimonies , as far as I know, have mentioned door shutters.I don't recall seeing any pix of the doors/shutters.
The size of the opening of the sliding window seems pretty small to me but the PJ will have measured that. If only half slides back, then there wouldn't have been much of a gap for anyone to climb through although Kate said there was, in her bewk, I believe...easily proved one way or the other.
Also, if I could just mention the curtains, which were trapped by the bed on one side and a chair on the other, there doesn't appear any chance that they could have been blown around.
The difficult part of this case is trying to find anything which could be true in the testimonies.
whatsupdoc- Posts : 601
Activity : 953
Likes received : 320
Join date : 2011-08-04
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Nina 23.08.14 10:52
palm tree wrote:I read this several days ago and have never read this before, first time the patio shutters are mentioned by anyone (I think) even worse she says ALL shutters were down, window shutters AND patio shutters!
IMO
The patio shutters to the parent's bedroom were damaged, by a heavy handed Gerry, according to Kate. They were repaired I think on the Monday. So there has been mention of patio shutters before.
____________________
Not one more cent from me.
Nina- Posts : 2862
Activity : 3218
Likes received : 344
Join date : 2011-06-16
Age : 81
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by palm tree 23.08.14 14:12
Hmm, RO also claims the mcs didn't arrive at the tapas until 8:58, k&g say 8:30?
ROB tells pj that at 9:25 MO & himself both go to check, whilst JT says it was 9:45 when they both left the table?
Don't know what to believe, but as gm says, confusion is good!
IMO
ROB tells pj that at 9:25 MO & himself both go to check, whilst JT says it was 9:45 when they both left the table?
Don't know what to believe, but as gm says, confusion is good!
IMO
palm tree- Posts : 365
Activity : 368
Likes received : 3
Join date : 2014-08-21
The Corpse Ride - 13th Feb
by Guest 13.02.15 19:52
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
The Corpse Ride
McCanns' Renault Scenic with open boot
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
13 February 2015
THE CORPSE RIDE
The magnificent seven
In the early summer of 2007, a Renault Scenic (registration number 59-DA-27) was used to transport some decaying matter (garden waste) somewhere in the Portuguese Algarve. Ironically, it afterwards smelt of human death and decay. One of its several registered drivers thought the pungent, unfamiliar, odour was the consequence of leaking shopping bags, full of red meat and fish, but the behaviour of a specialised dog with a keener sense of smell later suggested otherwise. Of course the dog was not to know that another of the vehicle's registered drivers (a Leicester-based GP), was wearing the same clothes on holiday that she had previously worn while sitting with deceased former patients at home in the UK, and holding a child's toy for comfort.
One of the dead fish carried back from the market in July 2007 must have been called Wanda, so nearly incredible is it that this vehicle, hired by the McCann family on 27 May (to facilitate their move to alternative accommodation, some 1.5 km distant from the holiday apartment they had previously rented), should itself become a suspect in the disappearance of the family's three-year old daughter Madeleine.
Investigation into the circumstances of the child Madeleine's disappearance led to the unsavoury conclusion that she had been transported in this voiture sometime after her absence was first noted (a suspicious possibility indeed); furthermore, that she might not have been entirely healthy at the time. Given this train of thought on the part of investigators, it is not at all difficult to appreciate how the sniffer dog's reaction might have come to be interpreted as having something to do with the child's fate. But as we know, or have at least been told, this coalescence of events was nothing more than a remarkable coincidence, leading to a complete misunderstanding.
Madeleine's perplexed parents have asked, rhetorically for the most part, exactly when this extraordinary act of transportation could possibly have occurred, in a car they hired 'weeks later'. A good question, to which there may yet be an answer.
Delivered and signed for on 27 May, the 'his and hearse' MPV was used to transport the goods and chattels of the McCanns to a villa on the outskirts of Praia da Luz on 2 July ("We completed our move to the new accommodation today" – Gerry McCann). The 'fresh food' shopping (and subsequent cleaning), by odour-sensitive, driver for all seasons, Sandy Cameron, must have taken place before he and his wife departed Portugal for the UK, on the 29th. In the meantime they too resided at the McCanns' new, albeit temporary, villa home.
Sandy Cameron was not merely a named driver in this instance. According to a much later interview with UK Police (15.4.08) he was the 'habitual driver' and used the car daily, acting largely as chauffeur to the McCanns' two younger children. No one, not even Sandy Cameron, makes any mention of nasal discomfort during trips made in the car early that month (July). In fact, when describing the perceived need for a 'valet', he explains that it arose later on ("After this shopping trip and still in the month of July 2007, I began to notice a strange odour in the car."), indicating that some time had elapsed between his conveyance of fresh fish (and/or garden waste) and his noticing the noxious smell, 'still in the month of July', and obviously before he left for the UK.
'A stitch in time saves nine', so they say. Preventive measures are therefore the order of the day. It would have been a bit too late to start worrying about the removal of garden waste etc., once Sandy C. had gone and the police sniffer dogs had arrived, which they did on 30 July. Thankfully, the McCanns were being kept abreast of developments ("We were well aware that these developments were going to happen. We were informed in advance" – Gerry McCann). Although they had a 'routine meeting' with Police in Portugal on the very same day the dogs turned up, that could scarcely be interpreted as making them 'well aware', since it would have left them no time in which to attend to all that garbage. However, a longer than expected meeting with Police had already taken place, on Wednesday the 18th.
Kate McCann has more recently returned to her own rhetorical question as regards misadventure involving the hire car, which, like their daughter, was scarcely left unattended, offering little if any scope for abuse. It came during an exchange with a judge in Lisbon:
Judge – "Do you recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã?"
Kate Healy – "He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later."
This is indeed an interesting observation. Whatever support the Portuguese police may have believed they had for their theory that Madeleine's frozen body was eventually relocated, there is nothing to suggest they were ever in a position to specify exactly when such a deed might have been accomplished, i.e., 'seven weeks later', some unspecified time after May 3, when Madeleine is said to have disappeared, and whilst the McCanns were still resident within the Ocean Club complex. Perhaps Kate McCann was talking about the car having been rented 'seven weeks later'. But that doesn't work either, as the car was delivered to them on 27 May – barely three weeks later. What on earth is she talking about here? Well, what happens if we consider seven weeks post-delivery of the car?
Take five
Seven weeks on from 27 May takes us into July, by a fortnight at least, Monday 16th marking commencement of the seventh week. On the 18th the McCanns had their unusually lengthy meeting with police, and on Saturday 21st, the last working day of their seventh week of car usage, they did what?
"Spent the day with the kids and visited the Algarve Zoo Marine" is what, Gerry McCann clearly tiring of writing 'Kate & I' all the while, as he had done in his blog on so many previous occasions, even as recently as the day before.
So there they all were, presumably, Kate, Gerry, and the twins, not forgetting of course their chauffeur, Sandy Cameron, who "drove the children to the zoo and the beaches in the area" - an entirely reasonable assumption, although those with a professional interest in statement analysis would recognise the potential significance attaching to the complete absence of any subject pronoun from Gerry McCann's statement. 'Spent the day with the kids', etc., does not tell us who did so exactly.
Presumably they all ambled around the zoo within conversing distance of each other - hailing distance at worst. Except that being separated, even by the sort of space that exists between a ground-floor apartment and a Tapas restaurant, does nothing to explain why Kate and Gerry McCann should have felt the need to speak to each other by 'phone!
Gerry McCann was demonstrably in the vicinity of Guia Zoomarine when he telephoned Kate shortly after 1.00 p.m., but where was she when twice returning his calls forty-five minutes later? They must still have been some distance apart when Gerry called back again just after 4.30.
Kate's handset activated the Luz antenna, not the same one as intercepted Gerry's calls at all, and each of these radio masts has an operational radius of several kilometres at least. Whilst Kate McCann may not have been 'phoning her husband from the infamous 'triangle' therefore, it is by no means the case that she was necessarily standing in the middle of the town square either. Intriguingly Kate's diary entry for 21 July, unlike Gerry's blog, makes no reference whatsoever to visiting the zoo, despite her daily record being otherwise littered with such trivia.
Only 24 hours earlier, Kate McCann had taken the afternoon off (to deal with a backlog of e-mails apparently), while Gerry accompanied 'the kids' to the beach. She would not have needed to skip off home from the zoo for that same purpose therefore. Gerry McCann made his personal contribution to communications management six days later, on 27 July, spending most of that day "dealing with e-mails and making calls planning future events", until 5.00 p.m., when he left Praia da Luz and, shortly after 6.45 p.m., checked his voicemail messages whilst in the vicinity of Sagres, no doubt grateful to Sandy Cameron for having cleaned the car in the meantime.
What further stimulates interest in Kate McCann's whereabouts that Saturday afternoon (21 July) are the entries in her own diary for the 18th and 23rd, dates on either side:
"WEDNESDAY, JULY 18: It was suggested that Madeleine is dead and buried in an area close to the beach, behind the cliff."
"MONDAY 23 JULY: I got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs (more or less 12) – it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here."
Reference here is to 'dead and buried' on the 18th, 'buried' on the 23rd. Chronologically, she did not put the cart before the horse at least. In-between there was the 21 July trip to the zoo, concluding that seventh week (from May 27).
In her diary, covering the period 4 May until 31 July, Kate McCann mentions 'death' on only three occasions. The first is on 4 May, when she asks, rhetorically, "Is she dead?" The other two references are as just described.
However, the week commencing Monday 16 July was also that when South African Danie Krugel, and his 'invention' (a missing people locator), joined the search for Madeleine. Since his field-work in this case was monitored by the police, one has to consider the possibility that it is this exercise which spawned Kate's observation of the 18th, as above. Her diary entry for that date continues:
"What can I say? I feel my body's on the verge of collapse. How much pain and emotion can one body take? I had a bad afternoon. I was very worried, desperate, extremely on edge. I don't think I can take any more of this, I really can't. How much longer will this suffering go on? I need Madeleine ALIVE."
Dead reckoning
One could be forgiven for supposing Kate McCann was 'on edge' for reasons other than anxiety over the welfare of her missing daughter. Nevertheless, Krugel's work extended over four days, sixteen hours a day, according to his own account (later offered to both the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mail of 7 October). Additionally, he was at the same time quoted by the News of The World as saying, "I spent four nights in July carrying out my searches."
How then was Kate McCann seemingly able to recount a suggestion of death and burial on Danie Krugel's part after only 24 hours, before Krugel's work was even finished, never mind documented? NPIA man Mark Harrison, who did not arrive in PdL until his services were formally requested by the PJ on 20 July, wrote his report and conclusions concerning Krugel's investigative methods on the 23rd.
This question is further aggravated by Kate McCann's subsequent book ('madeleine'), in which she describes how their meeting with the PJ on 18 July "ended with a final body blow. Danie Krugel...had produced a report for the PJ based on his findings." (p. 199)
'Had produced'? Prior to this meeting even? Krugel had only just arrived in Praia da Luz, from Portimao (on the afternoon of 16 July, at the earliest, according to Goncalo Amaral, the 17th according to those duplicate accounts in the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mail, of 7 October). He would of course proceed to invest four days (and nights?) in his personal search.
How can he possibly have prepared a set of conclusions for the PJ before their meeting with the McCanns on the 18th therefore? Once again, 'it was suggested' offers no clue as to who in fact made the suggestion, or when. Nor does Kate's diary entry attribute the suggestion to anyone in particular. It is in her book that she renders it just possible, describing the couple's return to Portugal from the UK as being synchronous with Krugel's arrival in Praia da Luz ("We flew back to Portugal early on the morning of Sunday 15 July – the day Danie Krugel, his team and his 'matter orientation system' arrived in Praia da Luz." p. 197-8).
Unfortunately she then proceeds to compromise her own story.
"In spite of the cynical tone of my diary entry, we were actually both quite excited about the prospect of Danie's work, though I think this was probably due more to the fact that something was happening which might take the investigation forward than to absolute faith in his methods. It might come to nothing, we knew that, but anything was better than the sense of stagnation we felt was beginning to seep in." (p. 198)
What diary entry? Kate made none for the period 13 -16 July, nor did she make any mention of a meeting with Danie Krugel on the 17th. The book reference is clearly to a conversation prior to, and in anticipation of, Krugel's 'search'. Even the opening remarks of Kate's 18 July entry can scarcely be described as 'cynical'.
If a meeting between Krugel and the McCanns took place between 15 and 17 July, as Kate implies, then why did she make no reference to it whatsoever in her 'diary'? Krugel himself alluded to it that autumn at least, which appears to confirm that it happened. Crucially however, he did not reveal where or when. As far as Gerry McCann's blogs for the relevant period are concerned, Danie Krugel is conspicuous only by his absence, as is any mention of an alarming report emanating from his 'search'; a report that Gerry would surely have found no less troubling than did his wife. Clearly the incident was of less significance for Kate McCann than the twins' riding in 'Noddy's car' and 'Popeye's boat' (7 July).
Kate's diary would go on to underpin her later book. On her own admission therein, she did not commence making diary entries as such until 23 May:
"Setting aside some blank pages in the notebook I'd been given for the days that had already passed, I wrote a few paragraphs on a couple of occasions the following week, though I didn't begin in earnest until 23 May, twenty days after Madeleine was taken. From then on, I kept my journal consistently, and when I had a spare moment I went back and filled in the blank pages with notes of our activities and my recollections of every day since 3 May 2007." ('madeleine' p. 126-7 )
It is apparent from this, Kate McCann's personal account, that her daily commentary for the period 18 – 23 July should have been contemporaneous, i.e., not overly retrospective and concomitantly subject to errors of recall. That in itself is sufficient to cast serious doubt upon the veracity of her entries concerning this potentially crucial weekend, although Kate's memory for activities on any given day may well have been suspect (e.g., "SATURDAY, JUNE 2: I can't remember today.").
On the face of it the McCanns cannot have learned of Danie Krugel's reported conclusions at the close of their meeting with the PJ on 18 July, as, with a four-day search in prospect, he would not yet have arrived at them. In which case, any reference by Kate McCann to death and/or burial around this time is just as likely to have originated with Kate herself, not with a third-party who, coincidentally, would go on to confirm her suspicions.
Kate McCann has apparently attempted, in her book, to shift Krugel's activities back in time, just as she has eased others forwards. If so, she is at least a day late, and a dollar short. Even if he got started on 16 July, by his own reckoning Danie Krugel will have just finished his 'work' on the 19th – a day after the McCanns meeting with the PJ.
It is always possible however that Krugel exaggerated, or was misquoted in the press that autumn. As far as he was concerned his four working days may have included the Sunday of his arrival, if Sunday was indeed when he landed, after which any one 24-hour period might have involved sixteen hours of toil, though not all four days necessarily.
As to his meeting with the McCanns, perhaps that was not so much a meeting with them exclusively as one at which they happened also to be present. And yet the 18th would have been too late to announce his intentions, which were by then already accomplished. For his and Kate McCanns' recollections to coincide, they would have to have met beforehand. (The McCanns seem to have had rather more meetings with the PJ than those they have deliberately brought to the attention of their readers in any event).
Kate McCann's 'account of the truth' though is open to question. So too is the diary. Her entry for 17 July opens with: "Finding it very difficult to talk to people from home, unless they are directly involved. It is difficult to show an interest in other people's lives and children at the moment." The pair had just returned from a christening, in Yorkshire, of the Wrights' two children!
Gerry, at least, visited the zoo on July 21st. On the 22nd, the eighth week after the car was delivered to them, he left for America. In his wake, on the 23rd, Kate exclaimed, "Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here". It seems, on this one occasion at least, as if God may have been listening.
Back to the future
Credibility in this instance appears to hinge upon exactly when Danie Krugel touched down in Portugal from South Africa, as that would determine the time of his eventual arrival in Praia da Luz to begin his 'search' ( i.e., 16 or 17 July). He did not appear in PdL that very Sunday, as Kate McCann would have us believe. That said, Krugel's follow-up report to the police was so trivial, by all accounts, he probably could have handed it in after a day or so. Surprisingly perhaps (because it again receives no mention whatsoever in 'the diary') the Krugel expedition had in fact got under way several weeks earlier:
"So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine's. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa. They didn't question what we were doing: they, too, were just desperate for Madeleine to be home.
"A week or so afterwards, Danie informed us that he had obtained 'signals' relating to Praia da Luz, but that he would need to come over in July and operate the machine in the Algarve to produce more accurate results and pinpoint Madeleine's location." ('madeleine', p. 187)
If the McCanns' activity in late July appears suspicious, the same could be said of their previous movements that month.
Let's just recap that Lisbon courtroom interaction:
Judge – "Do you recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã?"
Kate Healy – "He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later."
The PJ may well have been lacking the specifics, but if there is one thing about which we can be absolutely certain it is Kate McCann's adroit use of syntax.
Throughout her book there are instances of her misleading the reader via their own spontaneous, yet false, interpretations. Take the above for instance, where the phrase 'seven weeks later' is positioned so as to qualify the preceding 'car we had rented'. If, as we have already seen, one applies this concatenation to events as they occurred, it makes no sense at all; unless, that is, one treats reference to car rental as commencing with its delivery.
There is another possibility however - that with or without the PJ holding evidence at the time, the word order of Kate's courtroom response ought to have been:
"Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken, seven weeks later, inside the boot of the car we had rented."
Seven weeks beyond 3 May takes us to the week 21 – 28 June. Although Kate describes in her diary matters of domestic importance arising on Sunday 24th and Tuesday 26th, Monday 25th apparently failed to materialise. It didn't happen. Nor did the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday (for Kate at any rate), or indeed the entire first week in July! We have to resort to page 186 of the book for any mention of the McCanns' suggesting to the PJ, on 28 June, that Danie Krugel be invited to officiate in Praia da Luz. Although the phrase 'dead and buried' is not used explicitly, Krugel's area of expertise, so called, makes the inference perfectly obvious.
Kate picks up the story again on 7 July, which Gerry describes in his blog as a 'quiet family day', saying nothing further. The more fulsome Kate however concludes with: "(I can hardly wait to say "See you tomorrow.")" Mmm.
Faites vos jeux
There appear therefore to be two candidate periods in relation to Goncalo Amaral's seemingly 'ludicrous' suggestion. Unfortunately, Sandy Cameron's cover story, as told in his Rogatory interview of 15.4.2008, does not allow us to choose between them:
"On one occasion, I believe it was in July of 2007, I took Patricia to the supermarket. We carried bags in the boot (trunk) of the Renault Scenic; bought various items including fresh fish, shrimp and beef. When we unloaded the shopping bags, we noticed that blood has run out of the bottom of the plastic bag. After this shopping trip and still in the month of July 2007, I began to notice a strange odour in the car."
Perhaps the casting vote should go to the concerned resident of Praia da Luz who, had she bothered to approach the vehicle, might also have noticed a strange odour, but who at least noticed the car boot open, day or night, from the time it arrived with the McCanns at their new villa address. Translated, her statement toward the end of the documentary, The Truth of the Lie is given as:
"I drive down this street every day to turn my car around at that end, and every time that I passed the house I looked at the car, and the car always had an open boot door, day or night."
The McCanns completed their move to this accommodation, we are told, on 2 July. It wouldn't be very long before Sandy set off to fetch the shrimp.
The Corpse Ride
McCanns' Renault Scenic with open boot
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
13 February 2015
THE CORPSE RIDE
The magnificent seven
In the early summer of 2007, a Renault Scenic (registration number 59-DA-27) was used to transport some decaying matter (garden waste) somewhere in the Portuguese Algarve. Ironically, it afterwards smelt of human death and decay. One of its several registered drivers thought the pungent, unfamiliar, odour was the consequence of leaking shopping bags, full of red meat and fish, but the behaviour of a specialised dog with a keener sense of smell later suggested otherwise. Of course the dog was not to know that another of the vehicle's registered drivers (a Leicester-based GP), was wearing the same clothes on holiday that she had previously worn while sitting with deceased former patients at home in the UK, and holding a child's toy for comfort.
One of the dead fish carried back from the market in July 2007 must have been called Wanda, so nearly incredible is it that this vehicle, hired by the McCann family on 27 May (to facilitate their move to alternative accommodation, some 1.5 km distant from the holiday apartment they had previously rented), should itself become a suspect in the disappearance of the family's three-year old daughter Madeleine.
Investigation into the circumstances of the child Madeleine's disappearance led to the unsavoury conclusion that she had been transported in this voiture sometime after her absence was first noted (a suspicious possibility indeed); furthermore, that she might not have been entirely healthy at the time. Given this train of thought on the part of investigators, it is not at all difficult to appreciate how the sniffer dog's reaction might have come to be interpreted as having something to do with the child's fate. But as we know, or have at least been told, this coalescence of events was nothing more than a remarkable coincidence, leading to a complete misunderstanding.
Madeleine's perplexed parents have asked, rhetorically for the most part, exactly when this extraordinary act of transportation could possibly have occurred, in a car they hired 'weeks later'. A good question, to which there may yet be an answer.
Delivered and signed for on 27 May, the 'his and hearse' MPV was used to transport the goods and chattels of the McCanns to a villa on the outskirts of Praia da Luz on 2 July ("We completed our move to the new accommodation today" – Gerry McCann). The 'fresh food' shopping (and subsequent cleaning), by odour-sensitive, driver for all seasons, Sandy Cameron, must have taken place before he and his wife departed Portugal for the UK, on the 29th. In the meantime they too resided at the McCanns' new, albeit temporary, villa home.
Sandy Cameron was not merely a named driver in this instance. According to a much later interview with UK Police (15.4.08) he was the 'habitual driver' and used the car daily, acting largely as chauffeur to the McCanns' two younger children. No one, not even Sandy Cameron, makes any mention of nasal discomfort during trips made in the car early that month (July). In fact, when describing the perceived need for a 'valet', he explains that it arose later on ("After this shopping trip and still in the month of July 2007, I began to notice a strange odour in the car."), indicating that some time had elapsed between his conveyance of fresh fish (and/or garden waste) and his noticing the noxious smell, 'still in the month of July', and obviously before he left for the UK.
'A stitch in time saves nine', so they say. Preventive measures are therefore the order of the day. It would have been a bit too late to start worrying about the removal of garden waste etc., once Sandy C. had gone and the police sniffer dogs had arrived, which they did on 30 July. Thankfully, the McCanns were being kept abreast of developments ("We were well aware that these developments were going to happen. We were informed in advance" – Gerry McCann). Although they had a 'routine meeting' with Police in Portugal on the very same day the dogs turned up, that could scarcely be interpreted as making them 'well aware', since it would have left them no time in which to attend to all that garbage. However, a longer than expected meeting with Police had already taken place, on Wednesday the 18th.
Kate McCann has more recently returned to her own rhetorical question as regards misadventure involving the hire car, which, like their daughter, was scarcely left unattended, offering little if any scope for abuse. It came during an exchange with a judge in Lisbon:
Judge – "Do you recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã?"
Kate Healy – "He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later."
This is indeed an interesting observation. Whatever support the Portuguese police may have believed they had for their theory that Madeleine's frozen body was eventually relocated, there is nothing to suggest they were ever in a position to specify exactly when such a deed might have been accomplished, i.e., 'seven weeks later', some unspecified time after May 3, when Madeleine is said to have disappeared, and whilst the McCanns were still resident within the Ocean Club complex. Perhaps Kate McCann was talking about the car having been rented 'seven weeks later'. But that doesn't work either, as the car was delivered to them on 27 May – barely three weeks later. What on earth is she talking about here? Well, what happens if we consider seven weeks post-delivery of the car?
Take five
Seven weeks on from 27 May takes us into July, by a fortnight at least, Monday 16th marking commencement of the seventh week. On the 18th the McCanns had their unusually lengthy meeting with police, and on Saturday 21st, the last working day of their seventh week of car usage, they did what?
"Spent the day with the kids and visited the Algarve Zoo Marine" is what, Gerry McCann clearly tiring of writing 'Kate & I' all the while, as he had done in his blog on so many previous occasions, even as recently as the day before.
So there they all were, presumably, Kate, Gerry, and the twins, not forgetting of course their chauffeur, Sandy Cameron, who "drove the children to the zoo and the beaches in the area" - an entirely reasonable assumption, although those with a professional interest in statement analysis would recognise the potential significance attaching to the complete absence of any subject pronoun from Gerry McCann's statement. 'Spent the day with the kids', etc., does not tell us who did so exactly.
Presumably they all ambled around the zoo within conversing distance of each other - hailing distance at worst. Except that being separated, even by the sort of space that exists between a ground-floor apartment and a Tapas restaurant, does nothing to explain why Kate and Gerry McCann should have felt the need to speak to each other by 'phone!
Gerry McCann was demonstrably in the vicinity of Guia Zoomarine when he telephoned Kate shortly after 1.00 p.m., but where was she when twice returning his calls forty-five minutes later? They must still have been some distance apart when Gerry called back again just after 4.30.
Kate's handset activated the Luz antenna, not the same one as intercepted Gerry's calls at all, and each of these radio masts has an operational radius of several kilometres at least. Whilst Kate McCann may not have been 'phoning her husband from the infamous 'triangle' therefore, it is by no means the case that she was necessarily standing in the middle of the town square either. Intriguingly Kate's diary entry for 21 July, unlike Gerry's blog, makes no reference whatsoever to visiting the zoo, despite her daily record being otherwise littered with such trivia.
Only 24 hours earlier, Kate McCann had taken the afternoon off (to deal with a backlog of e-mails apparently), while Gerry accompanied 'the kids' to the beach. She would not have needed to skip off home from the zoo for that same purpose therefore. Gerry McCann made his personal contribution to communications management six days later, on 27 July, spending most of that day "dealing with e-mails and making calls planning future events", until 5.00 p.m., when he left Praia da Luz and, shortly after 6.45 p.m., checked his voicemail messages whilst in the vicinity of Sagres, no doubt grateful to Sandy Cameron for having cleaned the car in the meantime.
What further stimulates interest in Kate McCann's whereabouts that Saturday afternoon (21 July) are the entries in her own diary for the 18th and 23rd, dates on either side:
"WEDNESDAY, JULY 18: It was suggested that Madeleine is dead and buried in an area close to the beach, behind the cliff."
"MONDAY 23 JULY: I got up at 7.00 and went running. I was surrounded by a pack of dogs (more or less 12) – it really wasn't a nice experience. I went to the flat, high part of the cliff as I felt really alone and a little frightened. Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here."
Reference here is to 'dead and buried' on the 18th, 'buried' on the 23rd. Chronologically, she did not put the cart before the horse at least. In-between there was the 21 July trip to the zoo, concluding that seventh week (from May 27).
In her diary, covering the period 4 May until 31 July, Kate McCann mentions 'death' on only three occasions. The first is on 4 May, when she asks, rhetorically, "Is she dead?" The other two references are as just described.
However, the week commencing Monday 16 July was also that when South African Danie Krugel, and his 'invention' (a missing people locator), joined the search for Madeleine. Since his field-work in this case was monitored by the police, one has to consider the possibility that it is this exercise which spawned Kate's observation of the 18th, as above. Her diary entry for that date continues:
"What can I say? I feel my body's on the verge of collapse. How much pain and emotion can one body take? I had a bad afternoon. I was very worried, desperate, extremely on edge. I don't think I can take any more of this, I really can't. How much longer will this suffering go on? I need Madeleine ALIVE."
Dead reckoning
One could be forgiven for supposing Kate McCann was 'on edge' for reasons other than anxiety over the welfare of her missing daughter. Nevertheless, Krugel's work extended over four days, sixteen hours a day, according to his own account (later offered to both the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mail of 7 October). Additionally, he was at the same time quoted by the News of The World as saying, "I spent four nights in July carrying out my searches."
How then was Kate McCann seemingly able to recount a suggestion of death and burial on Danie Krugel's part after only 24 hours, before Krugel's work was even finished, never mind documented? NPIA man Mark Harrison, who did not arrive in PdL until his services were formally requested by the PJ on 20 July, wrote his report and conclusions concerning Krugel's investigative methods on the 23rd.
This question is further aggravated by Kate McCann's subsequent book ('madeleine'), in which she describes how their meeting with the PJ on 18 July "ended with a final body blow. Danie Krugel...had produced a report for the PJ based on his findings." (p. 199)
'Had produced'? Prior to this meeting even? Krugel had only just arrived in Praia da Luz, from Portimao (on the afternoon of 16 July, at the earliest, according to Goncalo Amaral, the 17th according to those duplicate accounts in the Sunday Mirror and the Daily Mail, of 7 October). He would of course proceed to invest four days (and nights?) in his personal search.
How can he possibly have prepared a set of conclusions for the PJ before their meeting with the McCanns on the 18th therefore? Once again, 'it was suggested' offers no clue as to who in fact made the suggestion, or when. Nor does Kate's diary entry attribute the suggestion to anyone in particular. It is in her book that she renders it just possible, describing the couple's return to Portugal from the UK as being synchronous with Krugel's arrival in Praia da Luz ("We flew back to Portugal early on the morning of Sunday 15 July – the day Danie Krugel, his team and his 'matter orientation system' arrived in Praia da Luz." p. 197-8).
Unfortunately she then proceeds to compromise her own story.
"In spite of the cynical tone of my diary entry, we were actually both quite excited about the prospect of Danie's work, though I think this was probably due more to the fact that something was happening which might take the investigation forward than to absolute faith in his methods. It might come to nothing, we knew that, but anything was better than the sense of stagnation we felt was beginning to seep in." (p. 198)
What diary entry? Kate made none for the period 13 -16 July, nor did she make any mention of a meeting with Danie Krugel on the 17th. The book reference is clearly to a conversation prior to, and in anticipation of, Krugel's 'search'. Even the opening remarks of Kate's 18 July entry can scarcely be described as 'cynical'.
If a meeting between Krugel and the McCanns took place between 15 and 17 July, as Kate implies, then why did she make no reference to it whatsoever in her 'diary'? Krugel himself alluded to it that autumn at least, which appears to confirm that it happened. Crucially however, he did not reveal where or when. As far as Gerry McCann's blogs for the relevant period are concerned, Danie Krugel is conspicuous only by his absence, as is any mention of an alarming report emanating from his 'search'; a report that Gerry would surely have found no less troubling than did his wife. Clearly the incident was of less significance for Kate McCann than the twins' riding in 'Noddy's car' and 'Popeye's boat' (7 July).
Kate's diary would go on to underpin her later book. On her own admission therein, she did not commence making diary entries as such until 23 May:
"Setting aside some blank pages in the notebook I'd been given for the days that had already passed, I wrote a few paragraphs on a couple of occasions the following week, though I didn't begin in earnest until 23 May, twenty days after Madeleine was taken. From then on, I kept my journal consistently, and when I had a spare moment I went back and filled in the blank pages with notes of our activities and my recollections of every day since 3 May 2007." ('madeleine' p. 126-7 )
It is apparent from this, Kate McCann's personal account, that her daily commentary for the period 18 – 23 July should have been contemporaneous, i.e., not overly retrospective and concomitantly subject to errors of recall. That in itself is sufficient to cast serious doubt upon the veracity of her entries concerning this potentially crucial weekend, although Kate's memory for activities on any given day may well have been suspect (e.g., "SATURDAY, JUNE 2: I can't remember today.").
On the face of it the McCanns cannot have learned of Danie Krugel's reported conclusions at the close of their meeting with the PJ on 18 July, as, with a four-day search in prospect, he would not yet have arrived at them. In which case, any reference by Kate McCann to death and/or burial around this time is just as likely to have originated with Kate herself, not with a third-party who, coincidentally, would go on to confirm her suspicions.
Kate McCann has apparently attempted, in her book, to shift Krugel's activities back in time, just as she has eased others forwards. If so, she is at least a day late, and a dollar short. Even if he got started on 16 July, by his own reckoning Danie Krugel will have just finished his 'work' on the 19th – a day after the McCanns meeting with the PJ.
It is always possible however that Krugel exaggerated, or was misquoted in the press that autumn. As far as he was concerned his four working days may have included the Sunday of his arrival, if Sunday was indeed when he landed, after which any one 24-hour period might have involved sixteen hours of toil, though not all four days necessarily.
As to his meeting with the McCanns, perhaps that was not so much a meeting with them exclusively as one at which they happened also to be present. And yet the 18th would have been too late to announce his intentions, which were by then already accomplished. For his and Kate McCanns' recollections to coincide, they would have to have met beforehand. (The McCanns seem to have had rather more meetings with the PJ than those they have deliberately brought to the attention of their readers in any event).
Kate McCann's 'account of the truth' though is open to question. So too is the diary. Her entry for 17 July opens with: "Finding it very difficult to talk to people from home, unless they are directly involved. It is difficult to show an interest in other people's lives and children at the moment." The pair had just returned from a christening, in Yorkshire, of the Wrights' two children!
Gerry, at least, visited the zoo on July 21st. On the 22nd, the eighth week after the car was delivered to them, he left for America. In his wake, on the 23rd, Kate exclaimed, "Please God, don't let Madeleine be buried here". It seems, on this one occasion at least, as if God may have been listening.
Back to the future
Credibility in this instance appears to hinge upon exactly when Danie Krugel touched down in Portugal from South Africa, as that would determine the time of his eventual arrival in Praia da Luz to begin his 'search' ( i.e., 16 or 17 July). He did not appear in PdL that very Sunday, as Kate McCann would have us believe. That said, Krugel's follow-up report to the police was so trivial, by all accounts, he probably could have handed it in after a day or so. Surprisingly perhaps (because it again receives no mention whatsoever in 'the diary') the Krugel expedition had in fact got under way several weeks earlier:
"So, in the second week of June, we had confided in Auntie Janet and our friend Amanda back in Leicestershire and got them to go round to our house looking for hairs that could only be Madeleine's. They came up with five head hairs from the inside of a coat hood and a couple of eyelashes from her pillow and couriered the lot off to Danie in South Africa. They didn't question what we were doing: they, too, were just desperate for Madeleine to be home.
"A week or so afterwards, Danie informed us that he had obtained 'signals' relating to Praia da Luz, but that he would need to come over in July and operate the machine in the Algarve to produce more accurate results and pinpoint Madeleine's location." ('madeleine', p. 187)
If the McCanns' activity in late July appears suspicious, the same could be said of their previous movements that month.
Let's just recap that Lisbon courtroom interaction:
Judge – "Do you recall an interview that Mr. Amaral gave to Correio da Manhã?"
Kate Healy – "He gave several interviews but I do recall one in particular which was exaggerated. Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken inside the boot of the car we had rented seven weeks later."
The PJ may well have been lacking the specifics, but if there is one thing about which we can be absolutely certain it is Kate McCann's adroit use of syntax.
Throughout her book there are instances of her misleading the reader via their own spontaneous, yet false, interpretations. Take the above for instance, where the phrase 'seven weeks later' is positioned so as to qualify the preceding 'car we had rented'. If, as we have already seen, one applies this concatenation to events as they occurred, it makes no sense at all; unless, that is, one treats reference to car rental as commencing with its delivery.
There is another possibility however - that with or without the PJ holding evidence at the time, the word order of Kate's courtroom response ought to have been:
"Where he said that Madeleine's body had been kept frozen and then taken, seven weeks later, inside the boot of the car we had rented."
Seven weeks beyond 3 May takes us to the week 21 – 28 June. Although Kate describes in her diary matters of domestic importance arising on Sunday 24th and Tuesday 26th, Monday 25th apparently failed to materialise. It didn't happen. Nor did the Wednesday, Thursday or Friday (for Kate at any rate), or indeed the entire first week in July! We have to resort to page 186 of the book for any mention of the McCanns' suggesting to the PJ, on 28 June, that Danie Krugel be invited to officiate in Praia da Luz. Although the phrase 'dead and buried' is not used explicitly, Krugel's area of expertise, so called, makes the inference perfectly obvious.
Kate picks up the story again on 7 July, which Gerry describes in his blog as a 'quiet family day', saying nothing further. The more fulsome Kate however concludes with: "(I can hardly wait to say "See you tomorrow.")" Mmm.
Faites vos jeux
There appear therefore to be two candidate periods in relation to Goncalo Amaral's seemingly 'ludicrous' suggestion. Unfortunately, Sandy Cameron's cover story, as told in his Rogatory interview of 15.4.2008, does not allow us to choose between them:
"On one occasion, I believe it was in July of 2007, I took Patricia to the supermarket. We carried bags in the boot (trunk) of the Renault Scenic; bought various items including fresh fish, shrimp and beef. When we unloaded the shopping bags, we noticed that blood has run out of the bottom of the plastic bag. After this shopping trip and still in the month of July 2007, I began to notice a strange odour in the car."
Perhaps the casting vote should go to the concerned resident of Praia da Luz who, had she bothered to approach the vehicle, might also have noticed a strange odour, but who at least noticed the car boot open, day or night, from the time it arrived with the McCanns at their new villa address. Translated, her statement toward the end of the documentary, The Truth of the Lie is given as:
"I drive down this street every day to turn my car around at that end, and every time that I passed the house I looked at the car, and the car always had an open boot door, day or night."
The McCanns completed their move to this accommodation, we are told, on 2 July. It wouldn't be very long before Sandy set off to fetch the shrimp.
Guest- Guest
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
by Guest 23.02.15 19:38
Paint Your Bandwagon
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
23 February 2015
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
23 February 2015
[size=13]PAINT YOUR BANDWAGON[/size]
I confess. I have in the past appealed to the saga of Richard III's 'rediscovery' as a metaphor. In so doing I made no attempt whatsoever to inject myself into a process I consider exemplary. A truly wonderful instance of truth being stranger than fiction, the location/examination of the last Plantagenet's remains made heroes and heroines of the otherwise anonymous professionals who undertook the task, and contributed their respective expertise to a team performance of which the British Lions would have been proud. It virtually launched the career of one young lady in particular (osteologist, Dr Jo Appleby). Nevertheless, applause was, and is, due to all in equal measure.
So why now discuss these events once more?
After a court battle to secure the right to re-inter the much abused monarch, the City of Leicester is shortly to witness a ceremony accomplishing exactly that, after a procession no less; a procession which will pass the nearby Bosworth Academy, where pupils have for some time been busy constructing a substantial piece of artwork by all accounts, describing, in plastic, over 5000 white roses. (No, they have not been goaded into provoking the residents of that other northerly county).
As a charming, articulate young member of the school has explained on TV, the 'roses' represent those who go missing in the county of Leicestershire. The innocent young thing generously explained that people have been looking for King Richard for over 500 years without giving up, so that looking for the missing currently may just as likely yield a result or two.
How very thoughtful. And exactly whose idea was that? It will come as no surprise, perhaps, that the charity MISSING PEOPLE is supporting the project. Indeed a page of the Academy's website is given over to promoting the object symbiosis between the search for the deceased regent’s remains and more contemporary acts of compassion.
Well call me a cynic, but...
Of course I would not criticize the young girl for repeating information given her by adults. Nevertheless, 'out of the mouths of babes' etc.
King Richard III was never missing, either in life or death. Those who killed him knew exactly where he was buried, as did those who came afterwards. The location of his last resting place only became 'lost' on account of an impatient historian of yore, who, having identified the wrong priory, subsequently gave up looking for it, leaving a muddled legacy for later generations.
And?
Well, as instructive as were the (very) distant relatives and other interest groups that all of a sudden came out of the woodwork laying claim to the relics others had laboured for years to rediscover, we now have the charity MISSING PEOPLE piggy-backing their propaganda on the back of an international success story that has nothing whatsoever to do with missing people.
A question to those, such as the Diocese of York, who all shouted 'mine' once the 'donkey work' had been done: Who paid for the excavations leading to discovery of the king's remains?
Leicester City Council may have sacrificed one of their car parks, whilst the University allocated its analytic resources, in the form of staff and technical facilities, but the lion's share of the funding effort required to get the project off the ground in the first place fell to the Richard III Society, who, extraordinarily, raised the tens of thousands of pounds necessary to make it all happen. It is to this dogged, if esoteric, group that we should all say 'thank you'. They paid, to find their talisman.
So what exactly are MISSING PEOPLE doing lining the route to the cemetery (the Cathedral as it happens)?
By analogy, if there is any justification at all for this organisation's pouncing on another's project, one that does not even entail a missing person, then their ambassador elsewhere should put her hand into her own pocket and underwrite the search for her own missing daughter, not sit back and watch as the UK government invests £10m plus in doing so. (£400k transferred to her limited company does not qualify. We're talking looking for people here, not looking for a tax break).
I have absolutely no argument with the Bosworth pupil's contention that locating missing people is a matter of some importance. Of course it is. But then so are a great many other concerns. £10m distributed across all of them would still represent a useful sum of money, but this (and more), is what the UK government is prepared to spend looking for a solitary missing person. Supporting the charity in these terms for any length of time would bankrupt the nation. Should the object of the McCanns' desires in this instance likewise remain 'missing' for 500 or so years, what then?
The core of the Missing People appeal via the Bosworth Academy, for that is in essence what it is, reads as follows:
"...each rose representing one of the 5929 instances of a citizens (sic) of Leicestershire who go missing every year, the vast majority are young people. Each instance of a missing person is caused by a failure to protect often the most vulnerable in our society. As with the passion to seek, find and make safe King Richard, we pledge to seek, find and make safe those young people who for whatever reason go missing each year in Leicestershire.
"To seek, to find, to make safe
"Our aim is to raise awareness of this silent tragedy affecting our community, and for the efforts of the search for Richard III to bear additional fruits in helping our community seek, find and make safe those missing today. Leicestershire had 5929 reported incidents regarding missing people, with by far the largest group being those aged 12-18.*"
* Home Office Statistic 2012/2013
Readers are later invited to donate to the charity and told where to send their cheque(s). As to 'make safe King Richard'... You must be joking. To do that you'd have needed a quiet word in the ear of Henry Tudor, and he's been dead for almost as long!
Rather than become enmeshed in discussion as to what, exactly, constitutes a 'missing person incident' (of which there were, nationwide apparently, 273,319 recorded for the year 2012-13, as surveyed – fewer than 4.8 per thousand of the total population), a more pertinent question might be the following:
Since Leicestershire Police claim to have spent £13m two years ago looking for missing people (according to The Leicester Mercury, 4 January 2015), how much might the charity Missing People have contributed to their noble effort?
My guess would be, 'nada, nothing, zero, zip, zilch', the reasons for their collaborative abstemiousness being two-fold:
First, "many of the cases did not require police involvement" and "roughly one third of (those) cases – approximately 1,800 alerts – were generated by 73 teenagers, most of them living in city or county council children's homes. Mental health units also generated an average of 15 cases a month." (Source: Leicester Mercury) Second, according to their resume (to be found at the foot of their 'advertorial', as hosted by Bosworth Academy):
"Missing People is a UK charity that provides a lifeline when someone disappears. We offer dedicated support to missing people and their families through our 24/7 helpline. We listen in confidence, support people who are missing and their families and, where possible, we help families and their missing loved ones to reconnect. We provide our services through working in partnership with the police, social services, other charities and professionals. We work with many media outlets to create publicity for cases upon request of families. We also undertake research and policy work to understand the experiences of missing people and families. We couldn’t achieve this without the great support of fundraisers and communities."
Essentially, they claim to duplicate the work of the police, and perhaps publicise individual cases – but only if the family in question remembers to ask them. Otherwise they work 'to understand others experiences'.
And if the circumstances confronted by Leicestershire Police are anything to go by, then the 4.8 per thousand figure mentioned earlier would, in reality, be considerably smaller still, suggesting that police forces nationwide should be far better able to cope, provided other responsible institutions have a greater regard for their own residents' security, and without assistance from charity-led answerphone services.
The person Richard III has not been 'found'. He was never reported missing. It is his last resting place that was finally located and his bones that will henceforth be safeguarded.
At least his grave was identifiable as such.
I confess. I have in the past appealed to the saga of Richard III's 'rediscovery' as a metaphor. In so doing I made no attempt whatsoever to inject myself into a process I consider exemplary. A truly wonderful instance of truth being stranger than fiction, the location/examination of the last Plantagenet's remains made heroes and heroines of the otherwise anonymous professionals who undertook the task, and contributed their respective expertise to a team performance of which the British Lions would have been proud. It virtually launched the career of one young lady in particular (osteologist, Dr Jo Appleby). Nevertheless, applause was, and is, due to all in equal measure.
So why now discuss these events once more?
After a court battle to secure the right to re-inter the much abused monarch, the City of Leicester is shortly to witness a ceremony accomplishing exactly that, after a procession no less; a procession which will pass the nearby Bosworth Academy, where pupils have for some time been busy constructing a substantial piece of artwork by all accounts, describing, in plastic, over 5000 white roses. (No, they have not been goaded into provoking the residents of that other northerly county).
As a charming, articulate young member of the school has explained on TV, the 'roses' represent those who go missing in the county of Leicestershire. The innocent young thing generously explained that people have been looking for King Richard for over 500 years without giving up, so that looking for the missing currently may just as likely yield a result or two.
How very thoughtful. And exactly whose idea was that? It will come as no surprise, perhaps, that the charity MISSING PEOPLE is supporting the project. Indeed a page of the Academy's website is given over to promoting the object symbiosis between the search for the deceased regent’s remains and more contemporary acts of compassion.
Well call me a cynic, but...
Of course I would not criticize the young girl for repeating information given her by adults. Nevertheless, 'out of the mouths of babes' etc.
King Richard III was never missing, either in life or death. Those who killed him knew exactly where he was buried, as did those who came afterwards. The location of his last resting place only became 'lost' on account of an impatient historian of yore, who, having identified the wrong priory, subsequently gave up looking for it, leaving a muddled legacy for later generations.
And?
Well, as instructive as were the (very) distant relatives and other interest groups that all of a sudden came out of the woodwork laying claim to the relics others had laboured for years to rediscover, we now have the charity MISSING PEOPLE piggy-backing their propaganda on the back of an international success story that has nothing whatsoever to do with missing people.
A question to those, such as the Diocese of York, who all shouted 'mine' once the 'donkey work' had been done: Who paid for the excavations leading to discovery of the king's remains?
Leicester City Council may have sacrificed one of their car parks, whilst the University allocated its analytic resources, in the form of staff and technical facilities, but the lion's share of the funding effort required to get the project off the ground in the first place fell to the Richard III Society, who, extraordinarily, raised the tens of thousands of pounds necessary to make it all happen. It is to this dogged, if esoteric, group that we should all say 'thank you'. They paid, to find their talisman.
So what exactly are MISSING PEOPLE doing lining the route to the cemetery (the Cathedral as it happens)?
By analogy, if there is any justification at all for this organisation's pouncing on another's project, one that does not even entail a missing person, then their ambassador elsewhere should put her hand into her own pocket and underwrite the search for her own missing daughter, not sit back and watch as the UK government invests £10m plus in doing so. (£400k transferred to her limited company does not qualify. We're talking looking for people here, not looking for a tax break).
I have absolutely no argument with the Bosworth pupil's contention that locating missing people is a matter of some importance. Of course it is. But then so are a great many other concerns. £10m distributed across all of them would still represent a useful sum of money, but this (and more), is what the UK government is prepared to spend looking for a solitary missing person. Supporting the charity in these terms for any length of time would bankrupt the nation. Should the object of the McCanns' desires in this instance likewise remain 'missing' for 500 or so years, what then?
The core of the Missing People appeal via the Bosworth Academy, for that is in essence what it is, reads as follows:
"...each rose representing one of the 5929 instances of a citizens (sic) of Leicestershire who go missing every year, the vast majority are young people. Each instance of a missing person is caused by a failure to protect often the most vulnerable in our society. As with the passion to seek, find and make safe King Richard, we pledge to seek, find and make safe those young people who for whatever reason go missing each year in Leicestershire.
"To seek, to find, to make safe
"Our aim is to raise awareness of this silent tragedy affecting our community, and for the efforts of the search for Richard III to bear additional fruits in helping our community seek, find and make safe those missing today. Leicestershire had 5929 reported incidents regarding missing people, with by far the largest group being those aged 12-18.*"
* Home Office Statistic 2012/2013
Readers are later invited to donate to the charity and told where to send their cheque(s). As to 'make safe King Richard'... You must be joking. To do that you'd have needed a quiet word in the ear of Henry Tudor, and he's been dead for almost as long!
Rather than become enmeshed in discussion as to what, exactly, constitutes a 'missing person incident' (of which there were, nationwide apparently, 273,319 recorded for the year 2012-13, as surveyed – fewer than 4.8 per thousand of the total population), a more pertinent question might be the following:
Since Leicestershire Police claim to have spent £13m two years ago looking for missing people (according to The Leicester Mercury, 4 January 2015), how much might the charity Missing People have contributed to their noble effort?
My guess would be, 'nada, nothing, zero, zip, zilch', the reasons for their collaborative abstemiousness being two-fold:
First, "many of the cases did not require police involvement" and "roughly one third of (those) cases – approximately 1,800 alerts – were generated by 73 teenagers, most of them living in city or county council children's homes. Mental health units also generated an average of 15 cases a month." (Source: Leicester Mercury) Second, according to their resume (to be found at the foot of their 'advertorial', as hosted by Bosworth Academy):
"Missing People is a UK charity that provides a lifeline when someone disappears. We offer dedicated support to missing people and their families through our 24/7 helpline. We listen in confidence, support people who are missing and their families and, where possible, we help families and their missing loved ones to reconnect. We provide our services through working in partnership with the police, social services, other charities and professionals. We work with many media outlets to create publicity for cases upon request of families. We also undertake research and policy work to understand the experiences of missing people and families. We couldn’t achieve this without the great support of fundraisers and communities."
Essentially, they claim to duplicate the work of the police, and perhaps publicise individual cases – but only if the family in question remembers to ask them. Otherwise they work 'to understand others experiences'.
And if the circumstances confronted by Leicestershire Police are anything to go by, then the 4.8 per thousand figure mentioned earlier would, in reality, be considerably smaller still, suggesting that police forces nationwide should be far better able to cope, provided other responsible institutions have a greater regard for their own residents' security, and without assistance from charity-led answerphone services.
The person Richard III has not been 'found'. He was never reported missing. It is his last resting place that was finally located and his bones that will henceforth be safeguarded.
At least his grave was identifiable as such.
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Guest 23.02.15 20:33
Lets call it for what it is: Gravytrainism
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by lj 24.02.15 3:31
Maybe in this case gravetrainism
____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?" Gerry
http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0
http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/
lj- Posts : 3329
Activity : 3590
Likes received : 208
Join date : 2009-12-01
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Guest 24.02.15 9:45
http://www.bosworthacademy.org.uk/to-seek-to-find-to-make-safe/
http://www.bosworthacademy.org.uk/richard3/
http://www.bosworthacademy.org.uk/richard3/
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Guest 24.02.15 10:15
Maybe the Missing People lot finally could do something useful and retrieve those two little princes in the Tower?
Now THAT would be a feat, wouldn't it?
Now THAT would be a feat, wouldn't it?
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Guest 24.02.15 10:31
A special, historical occasion to be gratecrashed by Missing People.
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Doug D 22.03.15 10:02
Latest missive from Dr Roberts seems to have been lost amongst the myriad of press reports over the last day or so:
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
19 March 2015
First Quatrain:
Awake! For morning in the bowl of night
Has flung the stone that puts The Stars to flight
And lo! The hunter of the East has caught
The Sultan's turret in a noose of light.
(Translation: A well-known 'Red Top' has just increased its circulation by running a certain story. On behalf of its proprietor, it has drawn attention to the chief of police, illuminating his squad's activities on behalf of Dr and Mrs McCann).
Ah, the power of the metaphor! But is this one not just a little too grandiose? Perhaps. Nevertheless, a similar view was once taken of Mendeleev's Table of the Elements – until further discoveries filled in the gaps, exactly as he had predicted.
The Daily Star article, which questions the wisdom of continuing with Operation Grange, is of interest for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that the present misgivings with regard to expenditure, on this project exclusively, have not been widely echoed across the mainstream media as one might have expected.
The story has been picked up by at least one other UK publication though – the Daily Express. And who owns both titles? Richard Desmond. The same Richard Desmond who, several years ago, found himself finessed out of half-a-million by the very beneficiaries of this additional government largesse, and whose demeanour before the Leveson inquiry suggested he had not forgotten.
Anyone inclined to suppose that this man would be content to 'grin and bear it' should note that, in 1987, The Daily Star was obliged to pay exactly this sum of money to Jeffrey Archer, by way of libel damages. In 2002 the publication, now under Express Group ownership, recouped around £1.8 million (the original sum plus interest!) when Archer was found to have earlier lied in court.
But why?
Why should RD's publications appear to support such criticism of Operation Grange, so obviously stirred up by McCann spin doctors? Well really. Is it that obvious?
Regardless of the authoring journalist's credentials, the foundation for the story in question rests with the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, John Tully, whose several quoted opinions reflect those of fellow members at various levels of seniority. It is unlikely that they would be influenced in their thinking by a prospective Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavilion, or a former colleague who now finds himself very much on the outside looking in. No, this vaguely belligerent attitude owes its origins to authority, although whose authority exactly is another question altogether.
Those with blind faith would suppose the McCanns fear that 'knock on the door' resulting from Operation Grange and its due diligence - hence their desire to rein back what they themselves moved heaven and earth (Brooks & Cameron at least) to unleash. The wind has changed and the gas is now blowing in their direction sort of thing. Meanwhile, back in Bayswater...
One should not overlook the fact that the McCanns are not the only agency with a vested interest in the functionality of Operation Grange, an undertaking which has so far served one of two purposes: Either it is a genuine effort after the truth, the cost of which is a reflection of its complexity, or it is a protracted attempt to obfuscate the original conclusions of the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. What it cannot be is a good cause gone bad, or the changeling progeny of a Commissioner playing the role of poacher-turned-gamekeeper.
As if we haven't been given a sufficient inkling as to its purpose these last four years, recent indicators are clear enough. Having followed his remit to the letter, DCI Redwood resigned in December from his 'privileged' position as officer-in-charge (and after all that hard work as well). It seemed as unthinkable as Ronnnie O'Sullivan conceding a frame from a winning position. Unless of course he was already a 'ton' behind with no reds left on the table (for 'reds' here read 'suspects' and/or 'investigative opportunities'). As he once said himself, DCI Redwood's 'mission impossible' was not to solve the case.
Ah, but that recent 'summit meeting' featuring Redwood's replacement, DCI Wall...
Also featuring, we are given to understand, a representative of the Diplomatic Corps, with no more claim to a seat at the table than the usher; unless representing British interests abroad that is. Not quite the contextual ambience appropriate to pursuance of central European homicidal burglars through the Portuguese courts, as would needs be the case.
Exactly. That's what the McCanns are afraid of alright – a prosecution of British suspects, in Britain.
Really? After 4 Years and £10+ million? So why did DCI Redwood choose not to see it through?
If the Portuguese had insufficient evidence to bring charges in 2007, what makes anyone believe Operation Grange has 'upped the ante'? "They've got nothing", as Dr G. McCann once infamously announced. Had there been any kind of seismic shift in the Yard's investigation, the Metropolitan Police Federation would not now be criticizing its own members' endeavours. Nor would James Murray (Associate Editor of the Sunday Express), participate in a 'phone-in to discuss the matter in terms of the entire operation's being a damp squib.
If anyone had a keen interest in Grange coming to a just conclusion it would be Murray's boss, who, as like as not, would be equally keen to see this same smokescreen blown away. He would also derive some satisfaction, no doubt, from drawing his own cloak away from any puddle the present government may be about to step in, having not long ago donated £300k to UKIP (How's that for press control, Dave?).
It seems Home Secretary Theresa May is also concerned with the dispersal of camouflage, as reported by the Daily Mirror (17 March):
'The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee: "There needs to be no suggestion of any further cover-up in the work of an investigation of what seems to have been a cover-up."'
Quite.
With the troops at Scotland Yard themselves becoming restive, it seems pretty clear that what is gradually being recognized officially is that which has long been recognized elsewhere: Operation Grange is not kosher.
Even the guilt-riven of Rothley, instead of breathing a sigh of relief at the suggestion the Grange dogs be called off (no doubt for being unreliable) have since dispatched 'a friend' to convey the message, again via the Daily Star (for balance?), that they'd quite like to see the investigation continue, as it's not up to the Metropolitan Police Federation to decide these things, only the Prime Minister, the Home Office, and, of course the Metropolitan Police.
Err...?
If we cancel the Met. from the equation therefore, what does that leave us? A police investigation initiated, sustained (and eventually to be terminated) by government is what.
The sequence of hall-marks here reads as follows: Establishment faith in their own protégées, followed by a populist commitment to placing blame for a tragedy of nationally adopted proportions somewhere other than with UK culprits – a job for the Met.'s finest. And if Portugal can be persuaded to join in the chorus then everyone can go home happy.
But the Portuguese can hold their ale and won't start singing just like that. It’s also their bar, so they get to call 'time', not the lager louts who come in after the football's finished. Best call in a diplomat to arbitrate, especially now the Home Secretary has since had time to catch up on her reading and realizes the extent to which everyone's been had!
The Attorney General's representative, if they were indeed there, will have returned empty handed, just as the CPS delegate before them. The Portuguese investigation, having been re-opened as a pre-emptive measure, will have adjusted its focus to that of a murder inquiry, a move offered some support (but no evidential corroboration) by the last known 'feelings' of Operation Grange. A hunch is not enough however, so nothing can happen there. Nor will anything happen here, especially once the Grange shop is shut on account of a cash-flow failure.
And the McCanns?
Despite not securing their official certificate of exoneration after all, they'll probably still send Sir Bernard a regular Christmas card – from Canada.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
19 March 2015
THE RUBY HAT OF OLD MA MCCANN
First Quatrain:
Awake! For morning in the bowl of night
Has flung the stone that puts The Stars to flight
And lo! The hunter of the East has caught
The Sultan's turret in a noose of light.
(Translation: A well-known 'Red Top' has just increased its circulation by running a certain story. On behalf of its proprietor, it has drawn attention to the chief of police, illuminating his squad's activities on behalf of Dr and Mrs McCann).
Ah, the power of the metaphor! But is this one not just a little too grandiose? Perhaps. Nevertheless, a similar view was once taken of Mendeleev's Table of the Elements – until further discoveries filled in the gaps, exactly as he had predicted.
The Daily Star article, which questions the wisdom of continuing with Operation Grange, is of interest for a variety of reasons, not the least of which being that the present misgivings with regard to expenditure, on this project exclusively, have not been widely echoed across the mainstream media as one might have expected.
The story has been picked up by at least one other UK publication though – the Daily Express. And who owns both titles? Richard Desmond. The same Richard Desmond who, several years ago, found himself finessed out of half-a-million by the very beneficiaries of this additional government largesse, and whose demeanour before the Leveson inquiry suggested he had not forgotten.
Anyone inclined to suppose that this man would be content to 'grin and bear it' should note that, in 1987, The Daily Star was obliged to pay exactly this sum of money to Jeffrey Archer, by way of libel damages. In 2002 the publication, now under Express Group ownership, recouped around £1.8 million (the original sum plus interest!) when Archer was found to have earlier lied in court.
But why?
Why should RD's publications appear to support such criticism of Operation Grange, so obviously stirred up by McCann spin doctors? Well really. Is it that obvious?
Regardless of the authoring journalist's credentials, the foundation for the story in question rests with the chairman of the Metropolitan Police Federation, John Tully, whose several quoted opinions reflect those of fellow members at various levels of seniority. It is unlikely that they would be influenced in their thinking by a prospective Conservative candidate for Brighton Pavilion, or a former colleague who now finds himself very much on the outside looking in. No, this vaguely belligerent attitude owes its origins to authority, although whose authority exactly is another question altogether.
Those with blind faith would suppose the McCanns fear that 'knock on the door' resulting from Operation Grange and its due diligence - hence their desire to rein back what they themselves moved heaven and earth (Brooks & Cameron at least) to unleash. The wind has changed and the gas is now blowing in their direction sort of thing. Meanwhile, back in Bayswater...
One should not overlook the fact that the McCanns are not the only agency with a vested interest in the functionality of Operation Grange, an undertaking which has so far served one of two purposes: Either it is a genuine effort after the truth, the cost of which is a reflection of its complexity, or it is a protracted attempt to obfuscate the original conclusions of the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. What it cannot be is a good cause gone bad, or the changeling progeny of a Commissioner playing the role of poacher-turned-gamekeeper.
As if we haven't been given a sufficient inkling as to its purpose these last four years, recent indicators are clear enough. Having followed his remit to the letter, DCI Redwood resigned in December from his 'privileged' position as officer-in-charge (and after all that hard work as well). It seemed as unthinkable as Ronnnie O'Sullivan conceding a frame from a winning position. Unless of course he was already a 'ton' behind with no reds left on the table (for 'reds' here read 'suspects' and/or 'investigative opportunities'). As he once said himself, DCI Redwood's 'mission impossible' was not to solve the case.
Ah, but that recent 'summit meeting' featuring Redwood's replacement, DCI Wall...
Also featuring, we are given to understand, a representative of the Diplomatic Corps, with no more claim to a seat at the table than the usher; unless representing British interests abroad that is. Not quite the contextual ambience appropriate to pursuance of central European homicidal burglars through the Portuguese courts, as would needs be the case.
Exactly. That's what the McCanns are afraid of alright – a prosecution of British suspects, in Britain.
Really? After 4 Years and £10+ million? So why did DCI Redwood choose not to see it through?
If the Portuguese had insufficient evidence to bring charges in 2007, what makes anyone believe Operation Grange has 'upped the ante'? "They've got nothing", as Dr G. McCann once infamously announced. Had there been any kind of seismic shift in the Yard's investigation, the Metropolitan Police Federation would not now be criticizing its own members' endeavours. Nor would James Murray (Associate Editor of the Sunday Express), participate in a 'phone-in to discuss the matter in terms of the entire operation's being a damp squib.
If anyone had a keen interest in Grange coming to a just conclusion it would be Murray's boss, who, as like as not, would be equally keen to see this same smokescreen blown away. He would also derive some satisfaction, no doubt, from drawing his own cloak away from any puddle the present government may be about to step in, having not long ago donated £300k to UKIP (How's that for press control, Dave?).
It seems Home Secretary Theresa May is also concerned with the dispersal of camouflage, as reported by the Daily Mirror (17 March):
'The Home Secretary told the Home Affairs Committee: "There needs to be no suggestion of any further cover-up in the work of an investigation of what seems to have been a cover-up."'
Quite.
With the troops at Scotland Yard themselves becoming restive, it seems pretty clear that what is gradually being recognized officially is that which has long been recognized elsewhere: Operation Grange is not kosher.
Even the guilt-riven of Rothley, instead of breathing a sigh of relief at the suggestion the Grange dogs be called off (no doubt for being unreliable) have since dispatched 'a friend' to convey the message, again via the Daily Star (for balance?), that they'd quite like to see the investigation continue, as it's not up to the Metropolitan Police Federation to decide these things, only the Prime Minister, the Home Office, and, of course the Metropolitan Police.
Err...?
If we cancel the Met. from the equation therefore, what does that leave us? A police investigation initiated, sustained (and eventually to be terminated) by government is what.
The sequence of hall-marks here reads as follows: Establishment faith in their own protégées, followed by a populist commitment to placing blame for a tragedy of nationally adopted proportions somewhere other than with UK culprits – a job for the Met.'s finest. And if Portugal can be persuaded to join in the chorus then everyone can go home happy.
But the Portuguese can hold their ale and won't start singing just like that. It’s also their bar, so they get to call 'time', not the lager louts who come in after the football's finished. Best call in a diplomat to arbitrate, especially now the Home Secretary has since had time to catch up on her reading and realizes the extent to which everyone's been had!
The Attorney General's representative, if they were indeed there, will have returned empty handed, just as the CPS delegate before them. The Portuguese investigation, having been re-opened as a pre-emptive measure, will have adjusted its focus to that of a murder inquiry, a move offered some support (but no evidential corroboration) by the last known 'feelings' of Operation Grange. A hunch is not enough however, so nothing can happen there. Nor will anything happen here, especially once the Grange shop is shut on account of a cash-flow failure.
And the McCanns?
Despite not securing their official certificate of exoneration after all, they'll probably still send Sir Bernard a regular Christmas card – from Canada.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
Doug D- Posts : 3717
Activity : 5284
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Doug D 26.03.15 14:42
Dr Roberts again on McCannfiles:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
Keeping Up with the Jones’s
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
Keeping Up with the Jones’s
Doug D- Posts : 3717
Activity : 5284
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03
Something for the Weekend
by Guest 24.04.15 19:27
Something for the Weekend
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
24 April 2015
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
24 April 2015
[size=13]SOMETHING FOR THE WEEKEND[/size]
For a close shave, Occam's Razor is to be recommended. Sweeney Todd too probably had something of a reputation for barberous efficiency. Until, that is, he was discovered to have contributed one too many fingers to Mrs Lovett's pies. (Other people's fingers, that is). Back in May 2007, someone cooked up a proposal and sold it to Dr Gerry McCann, who was busy not enjoying himself on holiday. His response too was, 'Love it!' And so the story of Madeleine McCann's abduction was born.
People seldom do things without a reason, however fanciful. If Madeleine McCann was to be reported missing it was because she was, indeed, 'missing', in a generalised sense at least, prior to the announcement of her absence. Our good friend Occam has recently been recruited to support the idea that these eventualities were closely concatenated in time, the one following the other in an inevitable 'stimulus - response' fashion. It is not at all an unreasonable supposition, for even if we stub a toe we don't usually wait thirty seconds before saying, 'Ouch!'
Not all actions provoke an immediate consequence however. Even in the realm of animal learning, subjects (rats) have been deliberately rendered ill as an experimental outcome, inflicted as a direct result of some prior behaviour. Clearly there was an interval of time in-between.
However good or impoverished a theory might appear at first blush, its ultimate power is governed by the extent to which it accommodates all of the known data, not merely the greater part. If there is some observation or other for which one's theory offers no satisfactory explanation, then that theory must be open to question, unless or until the awkward observation(s) should be proven false.
In the case of Madeleine McCann and her disappearance from Praia da Luz, it is the McCanns who first tempted us with an appeal to Occam: Madeleine was missing. She was there a moment ago. Now she's gone. She must therefore have been abducted. As Gerry McCann huffed and puffed in front of the Lisbon court house fully five years ago now, 'Where...where...where is the child? What other explanation can explain how she's not here?'
Many of us I'm sure could offer just such an explanation, which means that abduction per se, although a claim of the McCanns, is by no means 'cut and dried' as the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance. Similarly, opinions as to the 'spur of the moment' nature, or not, of Madeleine's removal from apartment 5A, must deal adequately with all those contextual features of the incident which are known to have arisen. The attribution of mere coincidence is insufficient when there are so many such 'coincidences' to be taken into account.
The question has been asked here before (The X Factor, 28.2.2013): Which of two opposing views (Madeleine's abduction/removal on the Thursday night vs. an earlier departure) better accommodates the strange goings on that week? Another discussion (the Cerberus Problem, 13.8.11) examined the possibility that Thursday 3 May was, in very many respects, an addition to the narrative of the holiday, and logically quite unconnected to prior events.
To give but one example, previously mentioned (although not discussed) in the article 'Schadenfraud' (30.4.2014), Gerry McCann's receipt of regular text messages, and his predictable recourse to voicemail thereafter was a daily routine associated with the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance. It was also a behaviour he first exhibited on May 2nd – over twenty four hours before Madeleine was found to be missing.
It would be facile to dismiss these mysterious communications as having no relevance whatsoever to each other since, on closer examination, the schedule of those messages, which Gerry received on May 2, strongly suggests a connection both within and between the different groups of messages (see also 'Chapter and Verse', 14.10.2009). And this quite apart from McCann's perceived need to delete them in the first instance, followed by his embarrassed public denial of their very existence.
Ah yes, but how is that related to events afterwards? Gerry's feverish texting is only to be expected in the light of events.
That's as may be. What is not to be expected however is the daily regularity of incoming text messages in discrete groups, followed almost immediately each time by Gerry McCann's 'cross checking' of his own voice mail. If this standardized behaviour is a reflection of Madeleine McCann's abduction, then she must have been 'abducted' (I use the word loosely) over 24 hours earlier than announced, as that is when this style of interchange first arose.
If the McCann telecommunications from May 4 onward were a reaction to abduction then, similarly, those of May 2 would have been a reaction to something occurring previously. Ipso facto the 'discovery' of the night of May 3 becomes a planned event.
As Clarence Mitchell made clear (for the benefit of Peter Levy's listeners):
"That is the working hypothesis on which the private investigation is also based. That there is somebody, perhaps one, or just two or three people out there who know what happened and that there was an element of pre-meditation, pre-planning went into it."
You bet!
For a close shave, Occam's Razor is to be recommended. Sweeney Todd too probably had something of a reputation for barberous efficiency. Until, that is, he was discovered to have contributed one too many fingers to Mrs Lovett's pies. (Other people's fingers, that is). Back in May 2007, someone cooked up a proposal and sold it to Dr Gerry McCann, who was busy not enjoying himself on holiday. His response too was, 'Love it!' And so the story of Madeleine McCann's abduction was born.
People seldom do things without a reason, however fanciful. If Madeleine McCann was to be reported missing it was because she was, indeed, 'missing', in a generalised sense at least, prior to the announcement of her absence. Our good friend Occam has recently been recruited to support the idea that these eventualities were closely concatenated in time, the one following the other in an inevitable 'stimulus - response' fashion. It is not at all an unreasonable supposition, for even if we stub a toe we don't usually wait thirty seconds before saying, 'Ouch!'
Not all actions provoke an immediate consequence however. Even in the realm of animal learning, subjects (rats) have been deliberately rendered ill as an experimental outcome, inflicted as a direct result of some prior behaviour. Clearly there was an interval of time in-between.
However good or impoverished a theory might appear at first blush, its ultimate power is governed by the extent to which it accommodates all of the known data, not merely the greater part. If there is some observation or other for which one's theory offers no satisfactory explanation, then that theory must be open to question, unless or until the awkward observation(s) should be proven false.
In the case of Madeleine McCann and her disappearance from Praia da Luz, it is the McCanns who first tempted us with an appeal to Occam: Madeleine was missing. She was there a moment ago. Now she's gone. She must therefore have been abducted. As Gerry McCann huffed and puffed in front of the Lisbon court house fully five years ago now, 'Where...where...where is the child? What other explanation can explain how she's not here?'
Many of us I'm sure could offer just such an explanation, which means that abduction per se, although a claim of the McCanns, is by no means 'cut and dried' as the root cause of Madeleine's disappearance. Similarly, opinions as to the 'spur of the moment' nature, or not, of Madeleine's removal from apartment 5A, must deal adequately with all those contextual features of the incident which are known to have arisen. The attribution of mere coincidence is insufficient when there are so many such 'coincidences' to be taken into account.
The question has been asked here before (The X Factor, 28.2.2013): Which of two opposing views (Madeleine's abduction/removal on the Thursday night vs. an earlier departure) better accommodates the strange goings on that week? Another discussion (the Cerberus Problem, 13.8.11) examined the possibility that Thursday 3 May was, in very many respects, an addition to the narrative of the holiday, and logically quite unconnected to prior events.
To give but one example, previously mentioned (although not discussed) in the article 'Schadenfraud' (30.4.2014), Gerry McCann's receipt of regular text messages, and his predictable recourse to voicemail thereafter was a daily routine associated with the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance. It was also a behaviour he first exhibited on May 2nd – over twenty four hours before Madeleine was found to be missing.
It would be facile to dismiss these mysterious communications as having no relevance whatsoever to each other since, on closer examination, the schedule of those messages, which Gerry received on May 2, strongly suggests a connection both within and between the different groups of messages (see also 'Chapter and Verse', 14.10.2009). And this quite apart from McCann's perceived need to delete them in the first instance, followed by his embarrassed public denial of their very existence.
Ah yes, but how is that related to events afterwards? Gerry's feverish texting is only to be expected in the light of events.
That's as may be. What is not to be expected however is the daily regularity of incoming text messages in discrete groups, followed almost immediately each time by Gerry McCann's 'cross checking' of his own voice mail. If this standardized behaviour is a reflection of Madeleine McCann's abduction, then she must have been 'abducted' (I use the word loosely) over 24 hours earlier than announced, as that is when this style of interchange first arose.
If the McCann telecommunications from May 4 onward were a reaction to abduction then, similarly, those of May 2 would have been a reaction to something occurring previously. Ipso facto the 'discovery' of the night of May 3 becomes a planned event.
As Clarence Mitchell made clear (for the benefit of Peter Levy's listeners):
"That is the working hypothesis on which the private investigation is also based. That there is somebody, perhaps one, or just two or three people out there who know what happened and that there was an element of pre-meditation, pre-planning went into it."
You bet!
Guest- Guest
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Angelique 03.05.15 23:23
Not sure if this has been posted already?
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/
A Word In Your Ear
Dr Martin Roberts analyses the recent Portuguese court ruling.
By Dr Martin Roberts
01 May 2015
WATCH THAT SPACE
By now, thanks to the hurried efforts of Dona Isabel Duarte, the entire Western world has been given the news of the McCanns' successful litigation against Dr. Goncalo Amaral. What will not have been fully explained to the media of course is that the judge in this instance had virtually to invent a reason for awarding them anything at all, much less the astronomical sum announced.
£375,000 may represent the extent of the McCanns' demands with respect to themselves, but it far and away exceeds any comparable award so far by a Portuguese court to a Portuguese. In addition, the arguments advanced as a justification are not merely weak, they are in error. It's as though, if the good lady judge were a mathematician she would be in the habit of reading graphs upside down!
The decision to award the sum demanded was based, not on the evidence heard, but an essay in Jurisprudence, researched by the arbitrator herself, in which Goncalo Amaral is portrayed as a public servant subject to restriction, as though he had signed the Portuguese equivalent of the Official Secrets Act. For balance, courts too are obliged to observe the presumption of innocence in any statement they might make concerning suspects under investigation, so as not to prejudice or jeopardize any prosecution.
In the event that a public official is not sworn to secrecy, exactly how long must they be 'out of office' before they are allowed to comment upon anything contentious? The final decision of this court was supposed to have been given in private, so no blame could be attached to any official statement emanating from it. But what about evidence given at previous hearings? Might not the (publicly reported) statements of such as PJ Inspector Ricardo Paiva be viewed as 'prejudicial to the presumption of innocence'? No castigation offered in that direction though, eh?
In sum, and based upon legal precedent, apparently, we have the duty of a public servant (and others) toward a suspect under investigation, levied against a man no longer in public office, and on behalf of two people who are not suspects, not being investigated, and in no imminent danger of standing trial for anything at all. Does that make any sense?
There are two very clear (and opposing) schools of thought concerning the relationship or otherwise between Operation Grange and the McCann/Amaral stand-off being progressed through the civil courts. This latest decision, evaluated in complete isolation, is nigh-on inexplicable – except when viewed in a context of suitability.
Monetarily, the McCanns benefit, and beyond what should have been their wildest expectations in the wake of the evidence previously heard by this court. But it was never about the money, so they say. There is also the glaring anomaly of the judge, hearing a case for damages, suddenly and inexplicably making a pronouncement concerning Goncalo Amaral's book, quite beyond her judicial remit, taking it upon herself to reverse the earlier decision of a higher court and citing her own research as justification!
Again the McCanns benefit, but they are not alone.
Imagine the difficulty facing the decision makers behind Operation Grange, should the damages awarded the McCanns have genuinely reflected the evidence heard and assessed in Lisbon. How does one justify closing down a review/investigation that has just eaten up four years and £10 million, having identified neither abductor nor evidence of abduction, if the bottom line, as last defined in Portugal, was that the McCanns' claims were worth 'tuppence' and The Truth of the Lie is not only legitimate, but accurate!
As far as the case is concerned, the McCanns did not win the argument. The result however is very much 'against the run of play'. It not only supports, albeit tenuously, their claims of victory, but extends to promote the conclusion that Goncalo Amaral's published remarks, and by implication the concomitant (and troublesome) observations made by the original (Portuguese) process, are in error.
Suddenly, and with fiscal testimony to the illegitimacy of Amaral's reasoning (and by implication the PJ's original position) the counterweight to the McCanns' claims of abduction has been lifted once more. Hence Scotland Yard can relax in the understanding that their investigating a case of abduction was appropriate all along.
Whether Goncalo Amaral appeals the decision at this stage is secondary and largely irrelevant, given the time delay involved. The fact remains that the Grange curtain can be brought down now, courtesy of a judge who has seen fit to portray the McCanns as injured parties, not on account of the evidence, but in spite of it.
DCI Redwood has retired, just as he was on the verge of cracking the biggest abduction case since the Lindbergh baby, DCI Nicola Wall has been brought in to answer the 'phone, and the McCanns, with their eyes focussed on another big pay day, propose to continue where Operation Grange is shortly to leave off (according to Clarence Mitchell at least, and he should know).
If a UK diplomat can influence the direction of a police investigation conducted on foreign soil, there is no reason whatever to believe that 'sweet nothings' cannot be whispered into the ear of a foreign judge, even after a case hearing is concluded, allowing the McCanns to continue searching for their daughter in the same fashion as Hercules, who stubbornly insisted on looking for his dead chum Hylas, whose body lay buried beneath the shattered bronze remains of a Titan (according to Ray Harryhausen at least). We don't yet know what Madeleine is buried under.
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on gmail More Sharing Services
43
Posted by Himself at 02:10 9 comments
Boop Button Injustice, Martin Roberts, McCanns
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/
A Word In Your Ear
Dr Martin Roberts analyses the recent Portuguese court ruling.
By Dr Martin Roberts
01 May 2015
WATCH THAT SPACE
By now, thanks to the hurried efforts of Dona Isabel Duarte, the entire Western world has been given the news of the McCanns' successful litigation against Dr. Goncalo Amaral. What will not have been fully explained to the media of course is that the judge in this instance had virtually to invent a reason for awarding them anything at all, much less the astronomical sum announced.
£375,000 may represent the extent of the McCanns' demands with respect to themselves, but it far and away exceeds any comparable award so far by a Portuguese court to a Portuguese. In addition, the arguments advanced as a justification are not merely weak, they are in error. It's as though, if the good lady judge were a mathematician she would be in the habit of reading graphs upside down!
The decision to award the sum demanded was based, not on the evidence heard, but an essay in Jurisprudence, researched by the arbitrator herself, in which Goncalo Amaral is portrayed as a public servant subject to restriction, as though he had signed the Portuguese equivalent of the Official Secrets Act. For balance, courts too are obliged to observe the presumption of innocence in any statement they might make concerning suspects under investigation, so as not to prejudice or jeopardize any prosecution.
In the event that a public official is not sworn to secrecy, exactly how long must they be 'out of office' before they are allowed to comment upon anything contentious? The final decision of this court was supposed to have been given in private, so no blame could be attached to any official statement emanating from it. But what about evidence given at previous hearings? Might not the (publicly reported) statements of such as PJ Inspector Ricardo Paiva be viewed as 'prejudicial to the presumption of innocence'? No castigation offered in that direction though, eh?
In sum, and based upon legal precedent, apparently, we have the duty of a public servant (and others) toward a suspect under investigation, levied against a man no longer in public office, and on behalf of two people who are not suspects, not being investigated, and in no imminent danger of standing trial for anything at all. Does that make any sense?
There are two very clear (and opposing) schools of thought concerning the relationship or otherwise between Operation Grange and the McCann/Amaral stand-off being progressed through the civil courts. This latest decision, evaluated in complete isolation, is nigh-on inexplicable – except when viewed in a context of suitability.
Monetarily, the McCanns benefit, and beyond what should have been their wildest expectations in the wake of the evidence previously heard by this court. But it was never about the money, so they say. There is also the glaring anomaly of the judge, hearing a case for damages, suddenly and inexplicably making a pronouncement concerning Goncalo Amaral's book, quite beyond her judicial remit, taking it upon herself to reverse the earlier decision of a higher court and citing her own research as justification!
Again the McCanns benefit, but they are not alone.
Imagine the difficulty facing the decision makers behind Operation Grange, should the damages awarded the McCanns have genuinely reflected the evidence heard and assessed in Lisbon. How does one justify closing down a review/investigation that has just eaten up four years and £10 million, having identified neither abductor nor evidence of abduction, if the bottom line, as last defined in Portugal, was that the McCanns' claims were worth 'tuppence' and The Truth of the Lie is not only legitimate, but accurate!
As far as the case is concerned, the McCanns did not win the argument. The result however is very much 'against the run of play'. It not only supports, albeit tenuously, their claims of victory, but extends to promote the conclusion that Goncalo Amaral's published remarks, and by implication the concomitant (and troublesome) observations made by the original (Portuguese) process, are in error.
Suddenly, and with fiscal testimony to the illegitimacy of Amaral's reasoning (and by implication the PJ's original position) the counterweight to the McCanns' claims of abduction has been lifted once more. Hence Scotland Yard can relax in the understanding that their investigating a case of abduction was appropriate all along.
Whether Goncalo Amaral appeals the decision at this stage is secondary and largely irrelevant, given the time delay involved. The fact remains that the Grange curtain can be brought down now, courtesy of a judge who has seen fit to portray the McCanns as injured parties, not on account of the evidence, but in spite of it.
DCI Redwood has retired, just as he was on the verge of cracking the biggest abduction case since the Lindbergh baby, DCI Nicola Wall has been brought in to answer the 'phone, and the McCanns, with their eyes focussed on another big pay day, propose to continue where Operation Grange is shortly to leave off (according to Clarence Mitchell at least, and he should know).
If a UK diplomat can influence the direction of a police investigation conducted on foreign soil, there is no reason whatever to believe that 'sweet nothings' cannot be whispered into the ear of a foreign judge, even after a case hearing is concluded, allowing the McCanns to continue searching for their daughter in the same fashion as Hercules, who stubbornly insisted on looking for his dead chum Hylas, whose body lay buried beneath the shattered bronze remains of a Titan (according to Ray Harryhausen at least). We don't yet know what Madeleine is buried under.
Share on facebook Share on twitter Share on email Share on gmail More Sharing Services
43
Posted by Himself at 02:10 9 comments
Boop Button Injustice, Martin Roberts, McCanns
____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
Angelique- Posts : 1396
Activity : 1460
Likes received : 42
Join date : 2010-10-19
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Bishop Brennan 04.05.15 5:41
Angelique wrote:
http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/
A Word In Your Ear
Dr Martin Roberts analyses the recent Portuguese court ruling.
By Dr Martin Roberts
01 May 2015
...
Imagine the difficulty facing the decision makers behind Operation Grange, should the damages awarded the McCanns have genuinely reflected the evidence heard and assessed in Lisbon. How does one justify closing down a review/investigation that has just eaten up four years and £10 million, having identified neither abductor nor evidence of abduction, if the bottom line, as last defined in Portugal, was that the McCanns' claims were worth 'tuppence' and The Truth of the Lie is not only legitimate, but accurate!
As far as the case is concerned, the McCanns did not win the argument. The result however is very much 'against the run of play'. It not only supports, albeit tenuously, their claims of victory, but extends to promote the conclusion that Goncalo Amaral's published remarks, and by implication the concomitant (and troublesome) observations made by the original (Portuguese) process, are in error.
Suddenly, and with fiscal testimony to the illegitimacy of Amaral's reasoning (and by implication the PJ's original position) the counterweight to the McCanns' claims of abduction has been lifted once more. Hence Scotland Yard can relax in the understanding that their investigating a case of abduction was appropriate all along.
Whether Goncalo Amaral appeals the decision at this stage is secondary and largely irrelevant, given the time delay involved. The fact remains that the Grange curtain can be brought down now, courtesy of a judge who has seen fit to portray the McCanns as injured parties, not on account of the evidence, but in spite of it.
This is a well-written article and I'd go along with all of it. Dr Roberts is a good analyst and I suspect he is correct once again. I'd highlight in particular the passage above, snipped from his recent blog entry.
Bishop Brennan- Posts : 695
Activity : 920
Likes received : 217
Join date : 2013-10-27
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Doug D 14.05.15 15:34
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com
By Dr Martin Roberts
13 May 2015
DUPLICITY
It is in the diplomatic nature of things, that when the truth looks like being unpalatable, perfectly ordinary men and women will tell a 'white lie' in order to defer discussion of what could become an unwelcome or provocative topic. Politicians, as we know, adopt the tactic of avoidance, answering 'the question before last' instead of taking the bait just handed them. The McCanns have, over time, practised both techniques (lying and avoidance), presumably to safeguard against having to discuss something they would rather not in relation to the disappearance of their daughter. It seems reasonable to infer therefore that they have a motive for doing so, being principals to the saga, as it were.
The story of Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' is littered with contradictions from the outset. Gerry McCann could not faithfully recall the door he used to enter the family's apartment that night. He and his wife could not agree on the door she used to enter the family's apartment that night. Gerry McCann could not agree with Jane Tanner as to which side of the road McCann was standing when Tanner passed him on the street, or even whether they were in the street together at the same time. And very soon after Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' was announced, we heard friends and relatives chorusing 'jemmied shutters'. That too was a lie, although not knowingly theirs. It was what they had been told, separately, by the doctors McCann.
Altogether more intriguing than the questionable utterances by the MCann parents, however, is the readiness with which others of their acquaintance have also been prepared to lie, as if they too were expressing a subconscious desire to 'make the subject go away'. Aspects of Jane Tanner's rogatory statement recorded by Leicestershire police convey the distinct impression that she was working to a script. (How else is one to explain the verbatim repetition of answers? See: Author Unknown, McCannfiles, 7.2.2010). She also contributes to the remarkable tale of the tennis court, where two different photographers are put forward by three different people as responsible for capturing the iconic picture of Madeleine McCann and her tennis balls, and on any one of three separate days (See: Anyone for Tennis, 13.10.2013). Or maybe Kate McCann simply usurped the image for copyright reasons.
Among the strangest contradictions in the entire saga are the claims made, again by others, for Gerry McCann's various 'phone calls late on the night of 3 May. Subsequent to an article first appearing in Correio da Manha, it has been generally understood that: "The first call Gerry made on the night of the crime was to Alistair Clark, a good friend from University days and a diplomat close to Gordon Brown."
In reality, the first call Gerry made on the night of the crime was to his wife, as was the second. Alistair Clark, whoever he may have been, was not even on the register of diplomats that year. He most certainly did not receive a call from Gerry McCann approaching midnight, or at any time soon thereafter. Someone deliberately fed CdM a pup (practising for a time when they might be in a position to offer them Brighton Pavilion perhaps).
Stranger still are the conflicting claims of McCann family members:
1. John McCann (speaking on DATELINE – NBC):
"I got a 'phone call from Gerry at twenty to twelve. I was on a training course down, er, near my head office in Luton, and I had a big day on the Friday, so I'd gone to bed early. I got woken at twenty to twelve with Gerry in a complete panic, completely distraught about what had happened and it was a really horrible moment".
2. Gerry's sister Trisha Cameron (Statement to police, 15.4.2008):
'I remember hearing about Madeleine's disappearance by 'phone on the night of 3rd May 2007. I usually go to bed late but I was particularly tired that night and went to bed early. I was woken by the phone ringing at about 23.30. It was Gerry telling me that Madeleine had been taken'.
3. Susan Healy (to BBC Panorama, 19 November, 2007):
"I think it would be about half eleven - and I'm guessing now, I might be wrong - there was a 'phone call and it was Gerry on the 'phone, and he said it's a disaster. It's a disaster. And he was quite hysterical".
Here are Gerry McCann's first 'phone calls out of Praia da Luz following Kate's announcement of their daughter's disappearance:
23.14 Kate McCann
23.17 Kate McCann
23.40 Trish Cameron
23.52 Kate's Uncle Brian
Where is the call to Alistair Clark? Why did John McCann insist he was called at 11.40, when he most certainly was not, and Susan Healy suppose she was called at 11.30, when Kate states in her book she asked Gerry to 'phone her parents shortly after midnight, which he appears, from the records, not to have done?
If Gerry and Kate McCann have lied, it is because it was in their interest to do so. If Clarence Mitchell lied on their behalf, it was because he was paid to do so. And the rest? Members of the Tapas 7, the McCanns' extended family and others have been, to put no too fine a point on it, economical with the truth. Why?
Loyalty to Gerry and Kate McCann is quite possibly the one thing they share in common, which begs the question as to whether their motive for hiding the chalk might not be the same as that of Madeleine's parents.
……………………………………………………………
Not sure about his conclusions about the phone calls, as from the information we have available from the PJ files, I don’t think we can see the complete picture. If there was some ‘phone swappage’ going on (possibly even outside of the T9), available land-lines and also some PAYG phones about that then ‘went missing’, some, or all of these calls could have been made, although the times, other than those in the PJ files, have always been a bit muddy.
Surely one thing the PJ would have definitely done once they started to have suspicions, would have been to check the call records of Alistair Clark, John McCann, Susan Healy and others, to see when and if they received the supposed calls, or was this some of the information requested from and not supplied by the Leics Police?
Personally, I have always doubted the excuses given for the ‘Daily Telegraph 12.01 am’ first report on 4th May, as I never been convinced that the time was wrong, as, just as on this forum, we don’t input a time of posting and 12.01 is the standard time that goes against a pre-posted article for the next days news. The lack of detail in the original story also ties in with the element of ‘breaking news’, which was added to as more information came in.
With a routine story posting, which this was at that time, it is highly unlikely that ‘the computer’ made a mistake and although TB received a response to a FoI request regarding the diplomatic ‘who received what and informed who and when’ which seemed to support a timing error by the paper and was accepted at the time, with everything that has gone on subsequently, it certainly must raise doubts.
Assuming the Alistair Clark/Gordon Brown connection is genuine and there is no reason to think it is not, a Gordon Brown/Press Office connection would certainly have been in existence, which could easily have bi-passed the formal diplomatic calls reported under the FoI response.
Telegraph: ‘A Foreign Office spokesman said……… adding that consular assistance was being offered.’
One of the F&CO’s remits is ‘to offer consular assistance to British nationals in distress overseas’, so it is pretty natural to put that in as a filler to what was a brief and thin story at that time.
The FoI response in itself was vague and did not confirm that the story had come from them:
‘If this timing is correct, then it is impossible that a Foreign Office spokesman could have spoken to the paper. The timing may be an error. In this case, the duty officer would have spoken to the ‘Daily Telegraph’; however we cannot give any further information due to the uncertainty over the timing.’
So as wooly as can be, seeming to imply that the story had come via them (in which case the 12.01 time could not be correct), but not actually saying so.
I’m sorry, but I do not believe that they cannot categorically state that the Telegraph was contacted at such and such a time, if indeed that was the case, as I am sure that any report of this nature must have a documented procedure to follow and a corresponding audit trail of actions taken.
Similarly, I cannot believe that any documented procedure would be to contact The Telegraph and not put it out through an agency or as a round-robin to all the papers.
Sorry, gone off on a bit of a tangent.
Usually I find Dr Roberts pretty much on the button, but this time:
‘Alistair Clark, whoever he may have been (we know who he is), was not even on the register of diplomats that year . (So? Why would he have been?) He most certainly did not receive a call from Gerry McCann approaching midnight, or at any time soon thereafter.’
I don’t see how he can be so categoric.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
By Dr Martin Roberts
13 May 2015
DUPLICITY
It is in the diplomatic nature of things, that when the truth looks like being unpalatable, perfectly ordinary men and women will tell a 'white lie' in order to defer discussion of what could become an unwelcome or provocative topic. Politicians, as we know, adopt the tactic of avoidance, answering 'the question before last' instead of taking the bait just handed them. The McCanns have, over time, practised both techniques (lying and avoidance), presumably to safeguard against having to discuss something they would rather not in relation to the disappearance of their daughter. It seems reasonable to infer therefore that they have a motive for doing so, being principals to the saga, as it were.
The story of Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' is littered with contradictions from the outset. Gerry McCann could not faithfully recall the door he used to enter the family's apartment that night. He and his wife could not agree on the door she used to enter the family's apartment that night. Gerry McCann could not agree with Jane Tanner as to which side of the road McCann was standing when Tanner passed him on the street, or even whether they were in the street together at the same time. And very soon after Madeleine McCann's 'abduction' was announced, we heard friends and relatives chorusing 'jemmied shutters'. That too was a lie, although not knowingly theirs. It was what they had been told, separately, by the doctors McCann.
Altogether more intriguing than the questionable utterances by the MCann parents, however, is the readiness with which others of their acquaintance have also been prepared to lie, as if they too were expressing a subconscious desire to 'make the subject go away'. Aspects of Jane Tanner's rogatory statement recorded by Leicestershire police convey the distinct impression that she was working to a script. (How else is one to explain the verbatim repetition of answers? See: Author Unknown, McCannfiles, 7.2.2010). She also contributes to the remarkable tale of the tennis court, where two different photographers are put forward by three different people as responsible for capturing the iconic picture of Madeleine McCann and her tennis balls, and on any one of three separate days (See: Anyone for Tennis, 13.10.2013). Or maybe Kate McCann simply usurped the image for copyright reasons.
Among the strangest contradictions in the entire saga are the claims made, again by others, for Gerry McCann's various 'phone calls late on the night of 3 May. Subsequent to an article first appearing in Correio da Manha, it has been generally understood that: "The first call Gerry made on the night of the crime was to Alistair Clark, a good friend from University days and a diplomat close to Gordon Brown."
In reality, the first call Gerry made on the night of the crime was to his wife, as was the second. Alistair Clark, whoever he may have been, was not even on the register of diplomats that year. He most certainly did not receive a call from Gerry McCann approaching midnight, or at any time soon thereafter. Someone deliberately fed CdM a pup (practising for a time when they might be in a position to offer them Brighton Pavilion perhaps).
Stranger still are the conflicting claims of McCann family members:
1. John McCann (speaking on DATELINE – NBC):
"I got a 'phone call from Gerry at twenty to twelve. I was on a training course down, er, near my head office in Luton, and I had a big day on the Friday, so I'd gone to bed early. I got woken at twenty to twelve with Gerry in a complete panic, completely distraught about what had happened and it was a really horrible moment".
2. Gerry's sister Trisha Cameron (Statement to police, 15.4.2008):
'I remember hearing about Madeleine's disappearance by 'phone on the night of 3rd May 2007. I usually go to bed late but I was particularly tired that night and went to bed early. I was woken by the phone ringing at about 23.30. It was Gerry telling me that Madeleine had been taken'.
3. Susan Healy (to BBC Panorama, 19 November, 2007):
"I think it would be about half eleven - and I'm guessing now, I might be wrong - there was a 'phone call and it was Gerry on the 'phone, and he said it's a disaster. It's a disaster. And he was quite hysterical".
Here are Gerry McCann's first 'phone calls out of Praia da Luz following Kate's announcement of their daughter's disappearance:
23.14 Kate McCann
23.17 Kate McCann
23.40 Trish Cameron
23.52 Kate's Uncle Brian
Where is the call to Alistair Clark? Why did John McCann insist he was called at 11.40, when he most certainly was not, and Susan Healy suppose she was called at 11.30, when Kate states in her book she asked Gerry to 'phone her parents shortly after midnight, which he appears, from the records, not to have done?
If Gerry and Kate McCann have lied, it is because it was in their interest to do so. If Clarence Mitchell lied on their behalf, it was because he was paid to do so. And the rest? Members of the Tapas 7, the McCanns' extended family and others have been, to put no too fine a point on it, economical with the truth. Why?
Loyalty to Gerry and Kate McCann is quite possibly the one thing they share in common, which begs the question as to whether their motive for hiding the chalk might not be the same as that of Madeleine's parents.
……………………………………………………………
Not sure about his conclusions about the phone calls, as from the information we have available from the PJ files, I don’t think we can see the complete picture. If there was some ‘phone swappage’ going on (possibly even outside of the T9), available land-lines and also some PAYG phones about that then ‘went missing’, some, or all of these calls could have been made, although the times, other than those in the PJ files, have always been a bit muddy.
Surely one thing the PJ would have definitely done once they started to have suspicions, would have been to check the call records of Alistair Clark, John McCann, Susan Healy and others, to see when and if they received the supposed calls, or was this some of the information requested from and not supplied by the Leics Police?
Personally, I have always doubted the excuses given for the ‘Daily Telegraph 12.01 am’ first report on 4th May, as I never been convinced that the time was wrong, as, just as on this forum, we don’t input a time of posting and 12.01 is the standard time that goes against a pre-posted article for the next days news. The lack of detail in the original story also ties in with the element of ‘breaking news’, which was added to as more information came in.
With a routine story posting, which this was at that time, it is highly unlikely that ‘the computer’ made a mistake and although TB received a response to a FoI request regarding the diplomatic ‘who received what and informed who and when’ which seemed to support a timing error by the paper and was accepted at the time, with everything that has gone on subsequently, it certainly must raise doubts.
Assuming the Alistair Clark/Gordon Brown connection is genuine and there is no reason to think it is not, a Gordon Brown/Press Office connection would certainly have been in existence, which could easily have bi-passed the formal diplomatic calls reported under the FoI response.
Telegraph: ‘A Foreign Office spokesman said……… adding that consular assistance was being offered.’
One of the F&CO’s remits is ‘to offer consular assistance to British nationals in distress overseas’, so it is pretty natural to put that in as a filler to what was a brief and thin story at that time.
The FoI response in itself was vague and did not confirm that the story had come from them:
‘If this timing is correct, then it is impossible that a Foreign Office spokesman could have spoken to the paper. The timing may be an error. In this case, the duty officer would have spoken to the ‘Daily Telegraph’; however we cannot give any further information due to the uncertainty over the timing.’
So as wooly as can be, seeming to imply that the story had come via them (in which case the 12.01 time could not be correct), but not actually saying so.
I’m sorry, but I do not believe that they cannot categorically state that the Telegraph was contacted at such and such a time, if indeed that was the case, as I am sure that any report of this nature must have a documented procedure to follow and a corresponding audit trail of actions taken.
Similarly, I cannot believe that any documented procedure would be to contact The Telegraph and not put it out through an agency or as a round-robin to all the papers.
Sorry, gone off on a bit of a tangent.
Usually I find Dr Roberts pretty much on the button, but this time:
‘Alistair Clark, whoever he may have been (we know who he is), was not even on the register of diplomats that year . (So? Why would he have been?) He most certainly did not receive a call from Gerry McCann approaching midnight, or at any time soon thereafter.’
I don’t see how he can be so categoric.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html
Doug D- Posts : 3717
Activity : 5284
Likes received : 1299
Join date : 2013-12-03
Re: Dr Martin Roberts latest from mccannfiles
by Hobs 14.05.15 20:15
"Spent the day with the kids and visited the Algarve Zoo Marine"
If this is an exact quote then i have a problem.
The problem is the missing pronoun.
He doesn't say we went to the zoo or i and the kids went to the zoo or kate and th kids or any other combination.
He doesn't say I spent the day with the kids or specify who spend the day with the kids.
He doesn't even say whose kids.
He doesn't take ownership of the statement so i can't do it for him.
We don't know who if anyone spent the day with the kids, which kids they were and who visited the Algarve Zoo Marine.
Oh dear oh dear gerry
If this is an exact quote then i have a problem.
The problem is the missing pronoun.
He doesn't say we went to the zoo or i and the kids went to the zoo or kate and th kids or any other combination.
He doesn't say I spent the day with the kids or specify who spend the day with the kids.
He doesn't even say whose kids.
He doesn't take ownership of the statement so i can't do it for him.
We don't know who if anyone spent the day with the kids, which kids they were and who visited the Algarve Zoo Marine.
Oh dear oh dear gerry
____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.
Hobs- Researcher/Analyst
- Posts : 1084
Activity : 1825
Likes received : 713
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 60
Location : uk -
Similar topics» ABOVE THE LAW - by Dr Martin Roberts -mccannfiles
» On Top: Dr Martin Roberts
» THE LONELINESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUNNER by Dr Martin Roberts - mccannfiles
» DR MARTIN ROBERTS BLOG ON MCCANNFILES DATED 16TH JULY, 2012.
» You can bet on the law - Dr Martin Roberts
» On Top: Dr Martin Roberts
» THE LONELINESS OF THE LONG DISTANCE RUNNER by Dr Martin Roberts - mccannfiles
» DR MARTIN ROBERTS BLOG ON MCCANNFILES DATED 16TH JULY, 2012.
» You can bet on the law - Dr Martin Roberts
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
