CONSEQUENCES by Dr Martin Roberts

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
01 August 2011


CONSEQUENCES

It is by no means surprising that Criminal Profiler Pat Brown should view the McCanns' latest act of suppression as a professional affront. The following paragraph is Ms Brown's own synopsis of the current situation and contains, inter alia, a pivotal observation:

"If the McCanns are innocent of covering up a crime (following an accidental death), they should view my theory as a reasonable opinion as to what could have happened, but, simply know that, regardless of the strange happenings that would have led to such a hypothesis, this is simply not what occurred. The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place. But, because there is no proof of an abduction, the McCanns should well understand why they might be considered persons-of-interest in the disappearance of the daughter, Madeleine. They should also recognize that their commission of child neglect also might make them persons-of-interest. In other words, rather than sue and threaten everyone with a theory that they, the McCanns, might be involved in the disappearance of their child, a more normal response would be to simply understand why someone might think that way and deal with it.

"Even better, the McCanns could return to Portugal and clear up the matter. (...)"

And the focal point is?

"The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place."

Now, what do a 'pull-through' and an ice-berg have in common? (A: There's more to it than meets the eye). Implicit and inseparable, there is a significant entailment which cannot be dissociated, logically or actually, from the immediately observable. And whether the McCanns like it or not, the same truth applies to their missing daughter.

If Madeleine was abducted, in the commonly understood sense of the term, then she was alive at the time.

Whilst this may appear at first blush to be repetition of the obvious, it is as well to ensure that the obvious is not mistakenly excluded from one's deliberations. Simply balancing this particular consideration alongside the first part of Pat Brown's key observation alerts us to that which we ought not to overlook:

If Madeleine was abducted around 9.00 p.m. on the night of Thursday 3 May, 2007, then she was alive until that time. What does Pat Brown tell us again? "There is no proof of abduction - and this is a fact." And what that means, inevitably, is that there is no proof that Madeleine was alive then either.

Of course we have the Tanner and Smiths' 'sightings,' each one imprecise and contradictory of the other, as well as the McCanns own claims that the 'scene' left them in no doubt Madeleine had been 'taken.' As we all know, it took rather more than this to convince professional investigators that the assumptions of a cardiologist and a locum G.P. were adequately founded in this respect.

In sum, as Pat Brown has stated, there is no proof of abduction. There never was. But that leaves an equally significant aspect of the Madeleine McCann case to be resolved. Because if the child was not abducted, then there is no proof either that she was alive.

Part two of Pat Brown's statement is an open-minded acceptance that the absence of proof in this instance "does not mean an abduction could not have taken place." But that only buys a short-term reprieve as, on the positive side of the ledger, it means only that Madeleine 'could have been alive at the time.'

It should by now be perfectly clear as to why the McCanns have been keen to establish the abduction hypothesis from the outset, and equally clear that, in the face of postulate resistant to proof, they should have sought to address the conjecture from a different perspective.

The McCanns have been careful to orchestrate favourable interpretation of those circumstances and events that might be viewed as weak points in the dyke, as far as the abduction narrative is concerned (see article 'Reinforcements' for discussion). With this in mind, it becomes pertinent to ask why several of their holiday-making friends should have found it necessary, and almost entirely in retrospect, to join in the 'I-spy' chorus (something beginning with 'M').

Working backwards from the very last sighting (by Gerry McCann, not Jane Tanner), we have David Payne, who, like Gerry after him, claims to have seen all three children in apartment 5A, for the last time, shortly after 6.40 p.m. But David Payne cannot be trusted, since he also claimed (according to D.C. Marshall at least) to have seen Madeleine McCann for the last time at about 5.00 p.m., in the company of her parents no less.

Earlier that afternoon, Madeleine McCann was seen at the poolside by Jane Tanner whilst she was playing tennis with Rachael Oldfield, who did not notice Madeleine (maybe they didn't change ends). Earlier, in the morning, Jane Tanner took that photograph of Madeleine during the child's own 'mini-tennis' session. Rachael has told us so. But Madeleine was not at mini-tennis that morning. Russell O'Brien has told us so. And anyway Kate took that photo herself - on Tuesday. She has told us so. The creche records appear to tell of Madeleine's coming and going but even they are questionable.

Which brings us to breakfast, and Madeleine's interrogation of Kate. Or was it Gerry? Or Kate and Gerry? (it does rather depend whose statement one reads), and the noticeable 'tea stain' in the absence of tea drinking 'that day;' a day which, at breakfast time, had only just begun.

The insistence with which the McCanns each repeated their independent versions of Madeleine's casual 'Mummy/Daddy why didn't you come when I was (we/they were) crying?' question (the one she 'just dropped' before 'moving on'), is consistent with their reinforcement tactic. So what could they have been desirous of reinforcing? Well, why not the same interpretation as that supported by the claims of David Payne, Jane Tanner and Rachael Oldfield. Oh, and let's not forget nanny Catriona Baker, who held Madeleine on her lap whilst out on a boat, apparently, although others didn't even see her at the beach. Remarkably Madeleine was away sailing with the nanny, supposedly, at the very same time Rachael Oldfield suggests she was posing for Jane Tanner on the tennis court (10.30 - 11.00 a.m that Thursday morning)!

Gerry McCann's last sighting of his missing daughter should have been quite enough to establish that she had successfully negotiated the day. If she was put to bed that night then she must have got up that morning. But Gerry's 'check' is clearly not enough. Other elements are required to construct the whole story; contributions from allies prepared to support a distributed confirmation of Madeleine's presence, the implication being that Madeleine was perfectly healthy from dawn to dusk.

Thus the whole day is covered. But the effort to consolidate the desired position leads us as easily to a negative conclusion as a positive one.

Returning to Pat Brown's key statement ("The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place."), taunts of the 'find the body and prove we killed her' variety, whether attributable to the McCanns or not, are either misleading or mistaken. In the first instance, it is not necessary for Madeleine's body to be found in order to ascertain whether she be dead or alive. That could be established just as conclusively by proving she was not abducted.

Then we have Gerry's recent outing to the hemisphere where water is supposed to drain clockwise, and the verbal deluge that resulted in: "An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

Listening to the broadcast it seems as if Gerry has a tough time moving the letter 'd' aside to make room for 'j' (in 'injured.' - he appears to say 'inded'). One might speculate that he had the phrase 'fell and died' in his mind. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, as regards coherence at least, 'fell injured' is about the best one can do with the utterance in question. Unfortunately for Gerry the phrase substituted is more incriminating even than the one possibly intended. 'Fell and died' would have been bad enough. 'Fell injured' carries an altogether more serious connotation.

If Madeleine fell and died, then she passed away in consequence of the injuries sustained in the fall. If she fell injured however, she fell in consequence of an injury sustained immediately beforehand, and from which she possibly died. 'Why would (they) cover that up?' Well, if Madeleine 'fell injured'...

Entailments, remember? The ice-berg, the 'pull through' or, uglier yet, the emergent head of an unsuspected tape-worm. The greater, and possibly more damaging component is the portion you don't see. Proof that Madeleine McCann was not abducted would have far reaching consequences indeed.

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

Excuse my ignorance but who is Doctor Roberts?

Big Vern wrote:Excuse my ignorance but who is Doctor Roberts?

I don't think anyone knows the answer to that one Big Vern.

I'm hoping that one day he will join this forum and then we will find out more about him. His postings are great.

Yes, his postings are excellent.

candyfloss

Thank you for posting Dr. Roberts article.

I too am a fan - he always seems to be able to expose the errors in the McCanns statements/actions.

I too would be pleased if he would join this Forum and we could benefit from his wisdom.