A LINE IN THE SAND Dr Martin Roberts 19/3/12

By Dr Martin Roberts
19 March 2012


A LINE IN THE SAND


When, according to legend, Colonel William B. Travis invited comrades to step across a line he had just scored in the San Antonio dirt, he was offering them a stark choice: Exit the Alamo ahead of the impending battle, or stay and face certain death - an unenviable decision for anyone to have to make. The sad and inexplicable disappearance of Madeleine McCann is not something to be either trivialised or dramatised, but the story, as we understand it, incorporates an equally decisive moment - the moment when, it is said, she was 'taken.'

The McCanns' declared belief that their daughter Madeleine was alive until 'that minute,' after which time they 'obviously didn't know what happened to her,' places Madeleine's fate squarely in the hands of whomever is deemed to have taken her - at that minute. But, as previously discussed (see articles: 'There’s nothing to say she's not out there alive,' 2009; Consequences, 2011 ), the McCanns have a great deal riding on the wager that Madeleine was abducted. For wherever there is an effort at expansion, be it of a physical body or conceptual position, the repercussions following a collapse are just as extensive. An empire, a galactic star or Enron - it makes no difference. The same principle applies and it is one from which the McCanns are not exempt.

All the while the roulette wheel is spinning and the ball in play, 'abduction' is a candidate explanation for Madeleine's disappearance. But should someone grab the spokes and the ball settle in 'zero' then matters would take a very different turn. If Madeleine McCann was not abducted, then she is unquestionably dead. People do not just disappear off the face of the earth. And if Madeleine met her death inside apartment 5A, then her parents must know that is what happened. How could they not? But the question is not quite the straightforward one of 'alive or dead,' depending on which side of the window one places a potentially fatal event. It is altogether deeper than that. If Madeleine McCann was not abducted then the repercussions would be grave indeed.

Like Hercules keeping the world aloft on behalf of Atlas, an entire apparatus of socio-legal machinery has, for five years, propped up the abduction hypothesis; a hypothesis for which there is not 'a grain of proper evidence' (to quote Messrs. Carter-Ruck), making it 'meaningless' in the McCanns' very own terms. A child's bare feet being carried in one direction, followed, three quarters of an hour later, by a little girl, wearing the wrong pyjamas, being carried in the opposite direction, are altogether insufficient as indices of a single child abduction. The 'thesis' has nothing else to commend it.

The situation appears disconcertingly unresolved; dangerously so for the McCanns all the while the possibility exists that, somewhere in the case files, there might be evidence which links them directly to their daughter's disappearance. Of course they and their lawyers would contend otherwise, but the issue, as we know, remains open.

The hypothesis that Madeleine was abducted is no more valid than the hypothesis that she was not. And that, hypothetically speaking, does more than open a window. It opens a whole can of worms. Madeleine McCann's 'non-abduction' would invalidate completely the statements of the McCanns and their holiday associates, since, as Gerry McCann has previously explained, all of their depositions, without exception, are bound by an 'abduction' context:

"Clearly at the time we felt what we were doing was quite responsible. If we were going to be down and further away or round the corner we would never have left the kids, and with hindsight... everything with hindsight is all taken in the context of your child being abducted." (BBC Panorama - The Mystery of Madeleine McCann, 19.11.07).

Hence a 'non-abduction' hypothesis would require us to dispense entirely with seemingly evidential statements, and go where the impartial evidence alone leads. No more stories of dining out; no more checking on the children; no more milk and biscuits at tea-time, and neither tears nor stains washed away in the morning. When viewed in this light, the Portuguese authorities' insistence that a reconstruction alone would offer the McCanns the opportunity of exoneration they claim is theirs by right, is much easier to understand. The McCanns, however, have dug themselves an even deeper pit in the interim, since some things, even in hindsight, cannot be 'taken in the context of your child being abducted,' Kate McCann's extraordinary statement as to 'circumstances,' for one:

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances." (Daily Mail, 17.9.07).

This tells us quite clearly that something happened at a time when the children were awake and/or one parent at least was present. Kate does not mention Madeleine's being 'taken.' Indeed, the concept of a nocturnal abduction in the parents' absence is totally inconsistent with this more 'knowledgeable' observation.

For his part, Gerry McCann has contributed the following:

"So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?" (Interviewed for Seven on Sunday (Australia), 2011).

Compounding the two perspectives one might justifiably re-iterate Gerry's very own question: If either parent was present in the apartment when 'it happened,' why should they cover it up? But we are entertaining the hypothesis of non-abduction, don't forget. If there was no abduction, then the parents, knowing what happened, have failed to reveal what they know. Instead, therefore, of subscribing to an interpretation along the lines of, 'We did not cover up an accident. Why should we?' if faced with the actuality of a cover up, one would inevitably have to explore the question of 'why?'

We have already moved, hypothetically it must be said, backwards in time from a nocturnal abduction to a diurnal event of some kind; an accident earlier that Thursday, perhaps? Yet Kate McCann, writing in her book, 'Madeleine,' with even greater clarity of exposition than when discussing the 'circumstances,' takes us back further still:

"Wednesday, 2 May 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five."

The abduction hypothesis sees Madeleine removed from apartment 5A on Thursday night, in which case that very day, May 3, would have been the McCanns' 'last, to date, as a family of five.' Even accepting that Kate seems to have had a problem with dates elsewhere in the book, there can be no doubting her accuracy in this instance. 'Wednesday, 2 May 2007' she says, clearly and completely, Thursday 3 May no doubt etched indelibly in her memory. If the McCanns were no longer a family of five on the Thursday, then something pretty serious must have happened beforehand. Tellingly, she had earlier stated (to Oprah):

"You know I look back and think oh why can't we just rewind the clock and it takes you back to really happy memories you know, things that you really enjoyed and it's just a reminder really of what isn't here anymore."

Perhaps 'what isn't here anymore' went missing between Wednesday 2 and Thursday 3 May, 2007? That would account for the sudden reduction in family size alright.

All of this of course hinges on a hypothesis of non-abduction; a hypothesis which cannot be confirmed simply on the basis that abduction remains unproven. In that sense Gerry McCann's repeated reference to the impotence of a negative outcome is correct, and the McCanns appear to be on eternally solid ground. Unless or until the abduction hypothesis is disproved. The very possibility of that happening would give anyone in the McCanns' position cause for concern, since a logical proof of the kind envisaged need only be accomplished once to be conclusive. Small wonder then that attendance at a reconstruction, which might determine once and for all whether an abduction was even feasible, has never been high on the McCann agenda.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"Wednesday, 2 May 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five."

I see! Just like me, Dr martin also believes in 2/5 as possible demise date.

Now, he raised a valid point.
If the mccanns were having breakfast with Maddie on 3/5 morning where Maddie asked them (allegedly) why didnt they come when the twins cried....then logically speaking that should have been their last day as family of five.

aiyoyo wrote:

"Wednesday, 2 May 2007. Our last completely happy day. Our last, to date, as a family of five."

I see! Just like me, Dr martin also believes in 2/5 as possible demise date.

Now, he raised a valid point.
If the mccanns were having breakfast with Maddie on 3/5 morning where Maddie asked them (allegedly) why didnt they come when the twins cried....then logically speaking that should have been their last day as family of five.

Good point aiyoyo.

And, coincidentally, that (Wed 2nd) was the one and only night that O'Donnell & Wilkins decided to use the evening kiddie club facility and, according to O'Donnell in her Guardian article, Jes ended up carrying their 3 yr old blonde, sleeping daughter back to their apartment wrapped in a blanket. A 10 minute walk, she stated.
Did anyone happen to witness him walking the streets, carrying a sleeping child, wrapped in a bundle that night? A child the same age as Madeleine? Was she wearing pyjamas?
Are some dates getting mixed up, I wonder? (Intentionally or otherwise.)

Lance De Boils wrote:And, coincidentally, that (Wed 2nd) was the one and only night that O'Donnell & Wilkins decided to use the evening kiddie club facility and, according to O'Donnell in her Guardian article, Jes ended up carrying their 3 yr old blonde, sleeping daughter back to their apartment wrapped in a blanket. A 10 minute walk, she stated.
Did anyone happen to witness him walking the streets, carrying a sleeping child, wrapped in a bundle that night? A child the same age as Madeleine? Was she wearing pyjamas?
Are some dates getting mixed up, I wonder? (Intentionally or otherwise.)

Very good point Lance De Boils. I had forgotton about that. Here is the snip from the article.................

After taking our children to dinner a couple of times, we decided on the Wednesday night to try the service at the club.

Six days earlier we had landed at Faro airport. The coach was full of people like us, parents lugging multiple toddler/baby combinations. All of us had risen at dawn, rushed along motorways and hurtled across the sky in search of the modern solution to our exhaustion - the Mark Warner kiddie club. I travelled with my partner Jes, our three-year-old daughter, and our nine-month-old baby son

We had booked a table for two at Tapas and were placed next to the Doctors' regular table. One by one, they started to arrive. The men came first. Gerry McCann started chatting across to Jes about tennis. Gerry was outgoing, a wisecracker, but considerate and kind, and he invited us to join them. We discussed the children. He told us they were leaving theirs sleeping in the apartments. While they chatted on, I ruminated on the pros and cons of this. I admired them, in a way, for not being paranoid parents, but I decided that our apartment was too far off even to contemplate it. Our baby was too young and I would worry about them waking up.

My phone rang as our food arrived; our baby had woken up. I walked the round trip to collect him from the kiddie club, then back to the restaurant. He kept crying and eventually we left our meal unfinished and walked back again to the club to fetch our sleeping daughter. Jes carried her home in a blanket. The next night we stayed in. It was Thursday, May 3.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]