End Game - Dr Roberts - with acknowledgments

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
30 December 2013

THE END-GAME

Just days away from closing arguments in McCann vs Amaral, when the former Portuguese Police co-ordinator might, with reasonable justification, expect to point out that the McCanns themselves 'harmed the search for Madeleine' by withholding information, and their PR machine coerces something of a retraction from the Thunderer on Sunday. One can almost imagine Kate McCann repeating her performance of the night of May 3, 2007. 'Do something!' So the men in black, quite unable to subscribe to the IPA code of practice (Legal, decent, honest and truthful) much less the courtroom oath (The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth), brandishing their solicitor's letter (ready typed and no doubt requiring just a signature or two), exhort the authors to qualify their earlier comments.

Oh boy! Pity the poor parents now the journal accepts that 'the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities.'

If only the McCann Fund source who allowed him or herself to be quoted at the time of the original article had been more explicit. Having explained that all the information contained within the contentious report had been passed on to the McCanns' new team of private investigators, why could he/she not simply have added that it had long been in the hands of Portuguese and Leicester police also? It would not have cost significantly more breath to have done that. Instead they went to considerable lengths to explain why the evidence under consideration, in particular a set of e-fits, was not publicised at all by the McCanns' own media machine, via the press or the Fund's own web-site; a significant oversight when taken in the context of all those earlier platitudes preaching the need for widespread 'public awareness'.

It seems the McCanns' were long on delegation and short on personal involvement. They must have pinned their hopes on the investigating authorities announcing the importance of this 'evidence', publication of which they themselves considered counter-productive. Wouldn't that have been inviting the public bodies in question to promote a hindrance? Not really. You see 'the Fund' has already issued a statement to the effect that "all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary" and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

Fully acted upon 'where necessary' means fully acted upon 'selectively'. This could be taken to imply that the information had indeed been passed on, but minus the e-fits, or that the e-fits themselves, although in the possession of certain investigative 'professionals', were not then acted upon subsequently. Hardly surprising when one considers that these morsels were, as we now know, 'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009'; on September 30th perhaps. Still, only fifteen months after the Portuguese had already archived the case.

Shame on the Portuguese then for not recognising the significance of this new 'evidence' and re-opening the case forthwith. Really? Let's look at that statement again:

'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009'

The material was not provided to 'both the Portuguese and Leicestershire police', nor are the Portuguese and Leicester police a homogeneous organisation. So are we to imagine that the McCanns' 'admin' team in Cheshire, or the visiting Rothley book-keeper, sent the sensitive e-fits by special delivery to Portimão, whilst one or other of the parents drove down the road for a quiet chat with 'Stu' before handing him separate copies?

Well let's just ask ourselves how the McCanns were accustomed to 'getting information into the investigation' in the past. Via Leicestershire police family liaison is how. So, 'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police' could quite easily be a rather liberal interpretation of 'handed to Leicester for 'selective action' and onward transmission 'where necessary'. Entrusting such liaison to the same organisation that had deliberately withheld the Gaspar statements would have been akin to tossing a coin into the fountain at St Peter's and considering it a donation to the church.

A constituent part of all the information however, the e-fits were in the hands of Scotland Yard. Well of course they were – handed over by the authors on request; a request accompanied by a letter of absolution from the same fund that had previously restricted these very authors by means of a legal straight-jacket of confidentiality. Scotland Yard had essentially to seek the Fund's permission to secure the information in question. It wasn't proffered up-front and therefore would not have been otherwise.

Still, full marks to the Sunday Times for clarifying any misunderstanding. The McCanns, it must be accepted (at least by the publication), placed their evidence in the hands of the authorities, somewhere, once the Portuguese had lost interest. But that is hardly the point. Even at a parochial level, if one's purpose is to instigate a neighbourhood search then that involves rather more than simply asking the couple next door to look out of their window.

The contentious e-fits, first brought to the attention of the general public by Scotland Yard, fully five years after their production, yet never, and quite deliberately, by the fund which sponsored them, finally made a reluctant appearance on the world stage, only to be overshadowed, rather prematurely, by a snow-capped Christmas tree! Oh, and a message from St Katherine, which singularly neglects to say, 'Merry Christmas Madeleine, wherever you may be'.

Christmas is clearly colder in Rothley than elsewhere.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:Who is Dr. Roberts? Everybody and his dog seem to know the shape this case is taking except, it seems, Scotland Yard and the main protagonists.

tigger wrote:

Clay Regazzoni wrote:Who is Dr. Roberts? Everybody and his dog seem to know the shape this case is taking except, it seems, Scotland Yard and the main protagonists.

I believe he is a real psychiatrist!  Without an agenda as far as I can see.   
His work on this case should be collected and published - I'd buy it for sure.

plebgate wrote:One of our posters NikE I think made the same observation a couple of weeks back SixMillion.   

"Oh, and a message from St Katherine, which singularly neglects to say, 'Merry Christmas Madeleine, wherever you may be'.

Snifferdog wrote: Good post Tigger.
It is truly fascinating.............How the Mccanns, declared Persons of Interest, managed to install themselves as go betweens - deciding what the Portugese police get to use in their investigations - with compliments from the Leicestershire police.
I suppose it would be asking too much for Redwood and team to investigate those responsible for this very unusual/suspect behaviour by the L.P?

Ladyinred wrote:uT, who decides when the Wardship is discharged?  I presume the judge, but can the parents request a discharge, or can the judge direct it for any reason (such as child missing for seven years).

Ladyinred wrote:

Ladyinred wrote:uT, who decides when the Wardship is discharged?  I presume the judge, but can the parents request a discharge, or can the judge direct it for any reason (such as child missing for seven years).

Found info: MBM remains a WOC until she is eighteen or the court discharges the wardship.