Dr Martin Roberts - NO WAY OUT

ON TOP: Why ask "Have you seen this man?", when it's an actor [!], playing out two sightings, with the second one [the Smiths] COMPLETELY different from real eye-witnesses' statements...

Châtelaine wrote:ON TOP: Why ask "Have you seen this man?", when it's an actor [!], playing out two sightings, with the second one [the Smiths] COMPLETELY different from real eye-witnesses' statements...

 

They are obviously desperate..!!!

   

Popcorn wrote:
 AndyB, let's assume that your hypothesis is correct - and the police are deliberately ignoring viable leads that take them in the direction of wrong-doing by McCanns. Surely any subsequent prosecution would also need a very willing patsy, as any innocent person 'fingered' for this crime will have several barn-door sized targets to aim at to discredit the police's abduction hypothesis at a trial. The witness testimony of Portuguese and British police officers, Martin Grime, and the Smith family (just for starters) might put a spanner in the works of a less-than-watertight abduction case. So I'd have thought that the police DO need to dispel the doubts raised by these and other witnesses if they want an abduction charge to stick.

My hypothesis is that the the Met are not tasked with establishing the truth of what happened but are instead only interested in an abduction. Jeanmonroe claimed that the stated objective of Grange was to find out what happened to Madeleine when clearly that isn't the stated aim at all and the post of mine that you quoted was the back end of that discussion. Unfortunately, she seems unwilling to engage on the issue at hand and I'm afraid I got drawn in a bit and allowed my frustration to get the better of me.

Of course it wouldn't be as straight forward as I suggest above but let me ask you a couple of rhertorical questions:
Do you find it strange that the McCann supporters are adamant in their belief that Madeleine was abducted despite there being no evidence to support that hypothesis and plenty to suggest that, in fact, it isn't the case?

Same question again but substitute "some people on this website" for "the McCann supporters" and "the police will establish the truth of what happened to Madeleine" for "Madeleine was abducted".  

While I'm emotionally closer to the second group I cannot understand, and get frustrated with, the intellectual dishonesty of people in both groups having such blind faith in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

I have not had/seen evidence yet that leads me to believe that SY/PJ are not seeking the truth of what happened to Madeleine. I will reserve judgement of course as I am too questioning and too long in the tooth to have blind faith in anything.

Harriet

There's these off the top of my head:
The Grange remit which appears to limit the review to abduction theories only
Repeated statements in the past where the Met said "abduction" (although admittedly not in the recent announcement)
The latest from Grange itself where they said quite categorically that the Tapas 9 are not even persons of interest when quite clearly they are at least that
Goncalo Amaral complaining that the British were only interested in an abduction
The Portuguese describing the latest from the Met (which they have seen and we haven't) as "meaningless"
The Portuguese being less than enthusiastic about cooperating with the British (presumably because the British don't support the Portuguese conclusions)

AndyB wrote:Harriet

There's these off the top of my head:
The Grange remit which appears to limit the review to abduction theories only
[...]

***
DCI Redwood clearly said on more than one occasion that they "want to found out what HAPPENED to Madeleine". Totally dedicated to that in effect. Carefully wrapped-up in cottonwool language it is, though, IMO exactly what they're after.

I have to agree with Andyb

Another case came to mind when the Police made up their minds who did it and how, Rachel Nikell.  They tried to frame Colin Stagg but it thankfully fell through at trial.

When you add in Dr Kelly, Barry George and the whitewash of the Barrymore case it is very difficult to have 100% faith in the investigations.

Popcorn wrote:
 AndyB, let's assume that your hypothesis is correct - and the police are deliberately ignoring viable leads that take them in the direction of wrong-doing by McCanns. Surely any subsequent prosecution would also need a very willing patsy, as any innocent person 'fingered' for this crime will have several barn-door sized targets to aim at to discredit the police's abduction hypothesis at a trial. The witness testimony of Portuguese and British police officers, Martin Grime, and the Smith family (just for starters) might put a spanner in the works of a less-than-watertight abduction case. So I'd have thought that the police DO need to dispel the doubts raised by these and other witnesses if they want an abduction charge to stick.

Yes, I would think it would be near impossible to convict the wrong person in this case. Not only would the accused have to have been in PdL, he would have to resemble the man seen by JT (and then the Smith family would probably say they've never seen him before), Then he would have to be able to get in or out of windows, or at least open them without leaving a trace, in record time. There is no evidence to suggest what happened to either him or MM after the JT sighting (unless he wandered round PdL for half an hour carrying MM before being seen by the Smiths)

In my opinion we cannot based our conclusions on the remit. It was a reported abduction (the crime reported to the police was an abduction) so at that point SY had no choice but to start with the remit "as if an abduction.."
 
But now it's an investigation. CPS were in Portugal. We have seen many scandals around the Team during the last years..
 
Things have changed, don't you feel it?
 
I understand all the suspicions around that investigation as I share all of them. However I am not ready to throw in the towel.
 
:fingerscrossed

AndyB wrote:

Popcorn wrote:
 AndyB, let's assume that your hypothesis is correct - and the police are deliberately ignoring viable leads that take them in the direction of wrong-doing by McCanns. Surely any subsequent prosecution would also need a very willing patsy, as any innocent person 'fingered' for this crime will have several barn-door sized targets to aim at to discredit the police's abduction hypothesis at a trial. The witness testimony of Portuguese and British police officers, Martin Grime, and the Smith family (just for starters) might put a spanner in the works of a less-than-watertight abduction case. So I'd have thought that the police DO need to dispel the doubts raised by these and other witnesses if they want an abduction charge to stick.

My hypothesis is that the the Met are not tasked with establishing the truth of what happened but are instead only interested in an abduction. Jeanmonroe claimed that the stated objective of Grange was to find out what happened to Madeleine when clearly that isn't the stated aim at all and the post of mine that you quoted was the back end of that discussion. Unfortunately, she seems unwilling to engage on the issue at hand and I'm afraid I got drawn in a bit and allowed my frustration to get the better of me.

Of course it wouldn't be as straight forward as I suggest above but let me ask you a couple of rhertorical questions:
Do you find it strange that the McCann supporters are adamant in their belief that Madeleine was abducted despite there being no evidence to support that hypothesis and plenty to suggest that, in fact, it isn't the case?

Same question again but substitute "some people on this website" for "the McCann supporters" and "the police will establish the truth of what happened to Madeleine" for "Madeleine was abducted".  

While I'm emotionally closer to the second group I cannot understand, and get frustrated with, the intellectual dishonesty of people in both groups having such blind faith in the face of so much evidence to the contrary.

 I agree that this case has been going on for so long that the positions of most of those still commenting about it online (as opposed to idly remarking on a newspaper article or TV news story) have become pretty entrenched. I also agree with you that the signs regarding Scotland Yard having an open-minded approach to the case – that includes investigating the actions of the parents – is not promising, but as others have observed, the police rarely tell people they are being investigated until they have to, so I suppose it may still come about. 

What bothers me most from a balance point of view is the fact that SY's involvement came about - as I recall - as a result of David Cameron's old buddy Rebekah Brooks putting pressure on him to get the Yard to review the case after an 'open letter' from Kate McCann appeared in the Sun. So if the starting point of this is a 'favour' to Kate McCann, that doesn't necessarily augur well for those who want answers to why those dogs alerted inside the McCanns' flat. Six years after the event it's clear that, in order to stop people on fora such as these from airing their suspicions about the McCanns, there needs to be an 'official' version of the case that overrides the uncertain way the case was left in Portugal and clearly indicates that a third party is responsible for Madeleine's disappearance.

So your suggestion that the Yard is tasked ONLY with finding an abductor, rather than the truth (whatever that turns out to be) may be correct. However, while the Yard may choose not to look closely at the McCanns, and while they may also possibly be able to round up some dubious people operating in the Algarve, UNLESS the suspects they find do indeed have Madeleine, the police are still left with the same mass of unanswered questions and inconsistencies surrounding the parents. Moreover, as I said in my previous post, I think the defence team of any accused 'abductor' would focus on these McCann-related questions at any future trial. Just because the Yard may choose to ignore questions surrounding the McCanns, doesn't mean that the defence will. SY will look foolish if they are not prepared for this, and are able to explain away the strong circumstantial evidence of dogs that have resulted in other kidnappers being locked up - even without a body. 

A hypothetical "abductor" defendant doesn't have to prove the McCanns 'dunnit' in court - just cast sufficient doubt in that direction to get off themselves. If they were successful in this way, the McCanns would be no better off, the aura of suspicion would still surround them and Cameron would have blown millions of taxpayer pounds on a completely pointless exercise. For this reason I believe ANY case Scotland Yard brings must be watertight and must 'explain' the many anomalies surrounding the case. A full confession would be their ideal result, I imagine.

suzyjohnson wrote:

Popcorn wrote:
 AndyB, let's assume that your hypothesis is correct - and the police are deliberately ignoring viable leads that take them in the direction of wrong-doing by McCanns. Surely any subsequent prosecution would also need a very willing patsy, as any innocent person 'fingered' for this crime will have several barn-door sized targets to aim at to discredit the police's abduction hypothesis at a trial. The witness testimony of Portuguese and British police officers, Martin Grime, and the Smith family (just for starters) might put a spanner in the works of a less-than-watertight abduction case. So I'd have thought that the police DO need to dispel the doubts raised by these and other witnesses if they want an abduction charge to stick.

Yes, I would think it would be near impossible to convict the wrong person in this case. Not only would the accused have to have been in PdL, he would have to resemble the man seen by JT (and then the Smith family would probably say they've never seen him before), Then he would have to be able to get in or out of windows, or at least open them without leaving a trace, in record time. There is no evidence to suggest what happened to either him or MM after the JT sighting (unless he wandered round PdL for half an hour carrying MM before being seen by the Smiths)

And he has to be Flat. He has to be able to hide behind a door that opens right back onto the wall.
And if we go with the most recent revelations from Ireland there have to be at least two of them. Two flat people.
Years ago the NOTW said the intruder had four places to hide, behind the door - in the cupboard - in the bathroom - in the parent's bedroom.
Behind the door - has to be Flatman
In the bathroom - has to be totally invisible to a man standing urinating for a long time, as Gerry said he did.
In the cupboard - only likely if he knows there are no shelves, and he had to be able to pull the door shut behind him / them
In the parents' bedroom - theoretically possible, though extremely dangerous, and if he / they had carried out dummy runs on the previous several evenings . . .

PeterMac, what about behind the sofa?

wasent the sofa pushed to wall? if not eazy to hide behind imo

It is for Flatman!

AndyB.
"Jeanmonroe claimed that the stated objective of Grange was to find out what happened to Madeleine when clearly that isn't the stated aim at all and the post of mine that you quoted was the back end of that discussion. Unfortunately, she seems unwilling to engage on the issue at hand and I'm afraid I got drawn in a bit and allowed my frustration to get the better of me."

I may be a few nuggets short of a happy meal but the cheese hasn't slid off my cracker just yet.

You say that just reacting to my posts that you got drawn in and allowed your frustation to get the better of you.

And there's the nub of this case.

If i can do that to you, how do you think a patsys QC will play it against any SY detective in a witness box in a court room?
eg
" so DCI ***** you say you have proof that my client 'abducted' Madeleine McCann in PDL"
"yes"
Who told you that an abduction in fact took place?"
"the parents of the missing child did"
"did they actually see the abduction taking place?"
"er, no, not to my knowledge"
"so how do you know for certain that Madeleine was abducted at all?"
"because their friend told me"
" in your experience as a police officer has any person you have interviewed in relation to a crime investigation ever lied to you?"
"yes"
"is it possible that the parents of the missing child and their friend lied to you about an abduction of the child to cover up a fatal  accident that could have happened to the child and they had in fact concealed that from you?"
"it's possible"
"did they lie to you?"
"no"
"but it is possible they did"
"yes"
"no further questions at this time m'lud"

ETC, etc.

sheila.edwards wrote:wasent the sofa pushed to wall? if not eazy to hide behind imo

And crowded too!
As the McCanns came out with a ridiculous story to explain how blood spots were found behind the sofa.
If i remember it right it was because a previous occupant had been shaving himself behind the sofa (bathroom too big!) and had cut himself shaving!
Hence the explanation from the McCanns as to why there might be blood stains there!
Not Madeleines blood, you understand, but the incompetent shavey mans!

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm

sheila.edwards wrote:wasent the sofa pushed to wall? if not eazy to hide behind imo

Yes because the kids were throwing playing cards........

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN ' STATEMENT AS AN ARGUIDO...September 7/2007

Regarding this sofa, he remembers it was next to the window. He is not sure, but thinks that this sofa was probably a bit closer as his children threw objects behind it, mainly playing cards. When asked, he does not know if any of the children was behind the sofa or passed behind this sofa.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

Maddie (even though a mere 3 years old) was learning to play cards....

Patricia Cameron (15th April 2008)

Madeleine began to play tennis, she had lessons in Syston. loved to read books, who loved participating in activities with the family and who was learning to play cards.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm

I bet she was learning Blackjack  

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAUL_GORDON.htm

We stayed in the same apartment that the McCann family would come to share, 5A of the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz.

We felt safe in the apartment and at no time was anything stolen or missing from the apartment.

The doors, windows and shutters were in perfect working order.
There was no sign of the doors, windows and blinds ever having been broken into, but also there was no need to examine [them]. The front door had a double lock that was difficult to lock, but we managed to do it. The patio door did not lock from the outside, only from the inside of the apartment and for that reason when the family left [went out] together we always used the front door.

We used to open the blinds during the day, returning to close them at night. When the blinds were [being] closed they would make much noise.
____________________________________________________________

THE BLINDS WOULD MAKE MUCH NOISE!

Yet Gerry and Jez standing just feet away from the blinds on a very quiet night heard NOTHING!

sally66 wrote:

aquila wrote:Snipped from findmadeleine.com updates section Jan 2010 update

"The proposed reconstruction: The suggestion of a reconstruction of our movements and other key witnesses at the crime scene and/or surrounding area in the early days following Madeleine's abduction was declined by the PJ as 'not usual' for Portugal. When the PJ finally requested a reconstruction to take place in 2008, Gerry and I were still arguidos and as such would have attended for a reconstruction. Some key witnesses (including some of our friends)declined to attend the planned reconstruction as they were not convinced of the aims and usefulness of it. In particular, as the reconstruction was not to be shown to the media (and hence the general public), they did not feel it would help to find Madeleine. Had the intention been to show it to the general public, it may have 'jogged' memories and encouraged people to come forward with information. It should be added that other key witnesses were not invited to attend."

ETA. Who were the other key witnesses who weren't invited to attend?

That sounds like a veiled threat to me

A few things they have said along the way I have tooked at that way

I do think other people were there who wish to remain anonymous and although probably nothing to do with what happened to M the bad publicity and the fact that they have covered up their presence for 6 years is the reason this is dragging on, SY IMO have been told to find a solution.    I.e. keep certain people out of it but stop the McCanns, mainly KM as she will not shut up.

I was reading some of the Rogatory interviews earlier and DW said they had 2 mini buses from Leicester to the airport and FP said 1 which makes me think more people went from Leicester.

Spot on! The amazing amount of political, legal and law 'assistance' is not about the McCanns and never has been.

jd wrote:

sheila.edwards wrote:wasent the sofa pushed to wall? if not eazy to hide behind imo

Yes because the kids were throwing playing cards........

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN ' STATEMENT AS AN ARGUIDO...September 7/2007

Regarding this sofa, he remembers it was next to the window. He is not sure, but thinks that this sofa was probably a bit closer as his children threw objects behind it, mainly playing cards. When asked, he does not know if any of the children was behind the sofa or passed behind this sofa.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm

Maddie (even though a mere 3 years old) was learning to play cards....

Patricia Cameron (15th April 2008)

Madeleine began to play tennis, she had lessons in Syston. loved to read books, who loved participating in activities with the family and who was learning to play cards.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PATRICIA_CAMERON.htm

I bet she was learning Blackjack  

Yeah, they wlll have us believed she was an amazing clever child who read Harry Porter, watched Dr Who, played poker, gave anyone the comeuppance, could scream good and proper demanding attention, yet couldn't tell anyone she was abused as in left alone every night in the dark, and maybe worst.
Nor did she communicate the "stranger" in her room that well to her mum that her mum left her alone again while she went out for adult time.

She was wise beyond her years according to her family; yet in the end she was just a vulnerable and defenceless child befitting her age, just like any child her age.

We have had rude man, creepy man, bundleman, photo man, another whose title I can't recall and now flatman.

  How about this guy?                 

The Invisible Man is a science fiction novella by H. G. Wells published in 1897. Originally serialised in Pearson's Weekly in 1897, it was published as a novel the same year. The Invisible Man of the title is Griffin, a scientist who has devoted himself to research into optics and invents a way to change a body's refractive index to that of air so that it absorbs and reflects no light and thus becomes invisible. He successfully carries out this procedure on himself, but fails in his attempt to reverse the procedure.

  

I usually regard humour in a case like this as in bad taste and inappropriate, so apologies if it offends. This is a jibe at the nonsense which some in the media expect us to swallow.

russiandoll wrote:We have had rude man, creepy man, bundleman, photo man, another whose title I can't recall and now flatman.

  How about this guy?                 

The Invisible Man is a science fiction novella by H. G. Wells published in 1897. Originally serialised in Pearson's Weekly in 1897, it was published as a novel the same year. The Invisible Man of the title is Griffin, a scientist who has devoted himself to research into optics and invents a way to change a body's refractive index to that of air so that it absorbs and reflects no light and thus becomes invisible. He successfully carries out this procedure on himself, but fails in his attempt to reverse the procedure.

  

I usually regard humour in a case like this as in bad taste and inappropriate, so apologies if it offends. This is a jibe at the nonsense which some in the media expect us to swallow.

Is there something wrong with my comp, or the picture, because I can't SEE his face?!

Nothing OFFENDS me more than the treatment that has been metered out to a vulnerable and defenceless 3 year old child.
Left alone every night, ignored and diliberately, consciously, left exposed to all sorts of possible dangers, and thats just by her feckless parents.

Jean....he is faceless because he is invisible. I thought his face was a bit like Eggman's!

    my sarky point...no abductor could be seen [although he was there]. because he was invisible. I posted a little from wiki, maybe not enough !  Just added another to the list which was given by the Star newspaper recently. Oh of course........and Flatman. Should not smile, but when you read the tripe I can't help it.

 There may well be stuff in the files of which we are unaware and will prove that no lies were told and everything happened as claimed.
 In that case I will offer sincere apologies for doubting the tale that has been told. Until then, I exercise my right not to believe much if any of it.

russiandoll wrote:Jean....he is faceless because he is invisible. I thought his face was a bit like Eggman's!

    my sarky point...no abductor could be seen [although he was there]. because he was invisible. I posted a little from wiki, maybe not enough !  Just added another to the list which was given by the Star newspaper recently. Oh of course........and Flatman. Should not smile, but when you read the tripe I can't help it.

 There may well be stuff in the files of which we are unaware and will prove that no lies were told and everything happened as claimed.
 In that case I will offer sincere apologies for doubting the tale that has been told. Until then, I exercise my right not to believe much if any of it.

Add to the invisible man a time machine and a teleporter. That will cover a decent abduction.

I understand what you mean, russiandoll. On the other side nothing is more in bad taste than the actions and words of these pathetic parents.

There are very good new articles on McCannfiles, one written by Nige himself.
you should read them.