Dr. Martin Roberts

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

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
30 July 2013


YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

(Twice)

I can't see it, Angelique?

Thanks to Angelique.

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
30 July 2013


YOU HAVE BEEN WARNED

(Twice)

On two previous occasions (McCannfiles, 18.2.2010, 27.4.2012) the McCanns' 'get out of jail free' card has been identified as a stratagem aimed at super-imposing a new 'inquiry' over the original, and suspended, investigation. It is both simple and effective: Launch an altogether new investigation predicated upon new evidence, 'lines of inquiry' if you will, that can be shown to have arisen since the Portuguese saw fit to archive their process and which, ipso facto, cannot implicate the McCanns, not even in retrospect.

Having first attempted, unsuccessfully, to foist this turkey upon the Portuguese, the Metropolitan Police appear to have embarked on Plan B - the DIY approach. As ridiculous as it may seem to some, the hints are dropping thick and fast that Scotland Yard, with the not so tacet support of the UK government, intend to plant their own tree on the grave of Portuguese sovereignty. If you were in any doubt about that, just read the Evening Standard report of 30 July. It's explicit enough:

"Home Secretary Theresa May has sent an official request to Lisbon for permission for Scotland Yard to begin a new investigation in Portugal into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."

A new investigation. 38 potential suspects.

"Last month the Met said that the review, which cost £5 million, had identified 38 'persons of interest' from four European countries, including Portugal. They will be the subject of the new probe. Twelve are Britons who were in Portugal at the time.

"Scotland Yard has said neither the McCann family nor the friends who were staying with them were among those they have identified for further inquiries."

And why should that be? Because:

"If Portuguese approval is given, the Met is expected to seek new forensic evidence in the country, and pursue hundreds of possible leads the review is understood to have uncovered."

New forensic evidence (discounting entirely the 'old' forensic evidence). Hundreds of possible leads already uncovered. But (there's always a 'but' isn't there?):

"sources caution that there remains no prime suspect and the Met's inquiries are still at an early stage."

In other words the new investigation is potentially open-ended. It rather depends on the openness of the Government's cheque book (our money, don't forget). And to camouflage this cynical reality we are offered the following weasel:

"The new Yard inquiry began partly because Portuguese authorities are unable, under their law, to reopen their probe unless compelling new evidence emerges. Met detectives will hope to uncover this, and believe it could eventually lead to the case being solved."

Oh no they don't. Hasn't DCI Redwood already informed us that 'solving' the case is a different matter altogether? It follows that Met detectives are not therefore expecting, or even hoping to uncover the class of compelling evidence that will both convince the Portuguese to re-open their investigation (it's too late for that now) and lead to the case being solved. Solution is no longer viewed as within the Met's current remit, if indeed it ever was.

"The Home Office ... confirmed that Mrs May remained determined to offer every assistance to Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry as they seek to find their daughter.

"The Home Office remains committed to supporting the search for Madeleine McCann, and we have always said we would provide the Metropolitan police with the resources they need to investigate her disappearance."

So there. The Home Office is disposed to assisting the McCanns in the search for Madeleine, i.e., their search. They may no longer have their hands on the tiller, but they remain as figureheads at the bow. And yet, despite the best efforts of the political classes, there remains the possibility that theirs is an unenviable impression of Leonardo di Caprio and Kate Winslet spearheading the Titanic disaster.

How so?

As much as either the Met or the McCanns might attempt to close the lid on the preceding Portuguese diligencies, the escape of toxic fumes through the gap is unavoidable. The files are a repository, as much of facts as 'evidence.' Since admissibility before a court of law is not a question of immediate relevance, it is both unnecessary and misleading to speak of certain information as 'evidence', when it more properly represents those indices that drive an investigation – any investigation. As far as the search for Madeleine McCann is concerned, either one identifies the individual who died in the McCanns' apartment before they used it, or one is obliged to suppose the worst. Such a consideration should colour the nature of any inquiry, as indeed it did at the time. This is not evidence that can reasonably be consigned to the irrelevance basket simply on account of its residing among the determinations of the earlier inquiry. However, even if such factors are so consigned, unreasonably or not, the ship is still destined to sink.

In the world of Mathematics there exists a very significant theorem (no, not Einstein's). Kurt Gödel's incompleteness theorem was directly responsible for scuppering a decade or more of prior endeavour on the part of Bertrand Russell. Grossly simplified, Gödel's was a logical proof that no formal system of Mathematics could ever be 'complete' in terms of its ability to describe/explain any and every postulate or contingency. There will always be some aspect or circumstance beyond the explanatory scope of any system considered complete as such. It's analogous to the limitless nature of infinity. Just when you think you've reached it – add 1.

And the Met's new investigation?

Let's say the new investigation proceeds on the basis of 'new evidence' exclusively, bagging up the 'old' evidence (all of it) and tossing it over the cliff. No doubt those inspectors believing in abduction will adopt the optimistic view, that somewhere in the great beyond there lurks Mr. Big the abductor, who was all the while in cahoots with one or other of those persons of interest listed in the current catalogue. It's only a matter of time (and money) before he, she or they are discovered (the closed system viewpoint). Then, like Gödel, it only remains for others to remove the horse's blinkers. Whilst the Met may consider they have new evidence, new leads, etc., etc., steering them away from the McCanns, they must also deal with any new evidence steering them straight back again! Evidence, for example, in the form of statements by Kate McCann, published well after the archiving, and which are demonstrably blatant lies.

A dog has no motive for deliberately misleading anybody. They are never that desperate for a ball or a biscuit. Likewise a person of no interest to a police investigation, unless they have a perverse interest in drawing attention to themselves, has no motive for lying. Or do they?

The McCanns, the Met, the Government even, can indulge themselves in the fantasy of a search for Madeleine as much as they like. Sooner or later someone is going to toss them a curved ball. Bails off. Innings over. So, before the government, as represented by Theresa May, commits irrevocably to the voyage, she/they would be well advised to count the lifeboats.
_______________________________________________________________

"Sooner or later someone is going to toss them a curved ball. Bails off. Innings over."

A Whistle blower from the T9 or even from inside the" McCann COPS" team itself?

Thanks Angelique and jean.
A brilliant post again, by Dr Roberts!

bring in the New Tricks Team. Sandra will show them. Sandra Pullman that is.  

Out of 38 cops on the case, you can't tell me that there is not one of them who wont whistleblow if need be.

We are told that these cops are near retirement. Once they have retired with their pension in place, who knows what might come out if there is a perceived "white wash".

Curved balls at the ready.

plebgate wrote:bring in the New Tricks Team.  Sandra will show them.  Sandra Pullman that is.  

Out of 38 cops on the case, you can't tell me that there is not one of them who wont whistleblow if need be.

We are told that these cops are near retirement.    Once they have retired with their pension in place, who knows what might come out if there is a perceived  "white wash".

Curved balls at the ready.  

 ....unless of course there's some sort of gagging order....noooooo....our fine police service wouldn't impose a gagging order.....

Yes that is possisble, but the gagging order in the NHS have been exposed and will be if they are put in place in this situation. Of that I have no doubt.

At some stage all the money being spent will have to be accounted for, can't just spend zillions and not expect, at the end of the case, to be able to show where and how every penny was spent.

There will be many FOI requests if this does not happen I believe, especially from the press.

Snipped from OP.

""Home Secretary Theresa May has sent an official request to Lisbon for permission for Scotland Yard to begin a new investigation in Portugal into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann."


Where will this leave the libel hearing if permission is granted?

Let's not forget the picture Dr Roberts placed above this piece:

aquila wrote:

plebgate wrote:bring in the New Tricks Team.  Sandra will show them.  Sandra Pullman that is.  

Out of 38 cops on the case, you can't tell me that there is not one of them who wont whistleblow if need be.

We are told that these cops are near retirement.    Once they have retired with their pension in place, who knows what might come out if there is a perceived  "white wash".

Curved balls at the ready.  

 ....unless of course there's some sort of gagging order....noooooo....our fine police service wouldn't impose a gagging order.....

 But weren't there 38 persons of interest as well? Meaning a ratio of one plod per perfidious person?

At least all this explains the publicity storm in April and May - the public were being prepared with titbits like soothing couples and creepy men.

aquila wrote: ....unless of course there's some sort of gagging order....noooooo....our fine police service wouldn't impose a gagging order.....

They would not even bother trying.   In the police there is the expression "It is Top Secret - tell no more than twelve ! !"
Police know that there is no point in trying to keep secrets.   They are involved in winkling 'secrets' out of people. That is their job, whether at the level of the local 'snout', the paid informant, or the informant who the officer has almost enough to prosecute for a crime -   all of them tell 'secrets'.  
The chances of 38 good men and true (and WOMEN, if there are any at than length of service) keeping a secret of this magnitude -  is almost unthinkable.

Thank you for a very thoughtful article.  I too want to raise the question - Who died in apt. 5A?  This is just one part of the material which seems not to form a part of Operation Grange, including the statement from Dr. Gaspar, the 75 minutes of Mrs. Fenn's witness statement; the Smith report, and of course Eddie and Keela whose findings have been recently dismissed as 'flimsy' (no ref. to give) in spite of being correct in 200+ cases.

What has happened to this material as part of the 'new' investigation? 

I also recall the number of miles on the clock of the hired car, explained as 'airport trips'.  I think it was in the region of 500 miles although that may be inaccurate.  Was it ever followed up?