DR MARTIN ROBERTS BLOG ON MCCANNFILES DATED 16TH JULY, 2012.

I have just re read the above post by Dr. Roberts. I am an admirer of his posts. 

Do members think that what is contained in this blog is a theory of his?.

Gosh, not explaining myself very well, I turn to jelly when I post, bear with me.

What I mean is, I respect this gentlemans knowledge and his numerous posts are informative and he always hits the nail on the head.

Just reading the post though, makes me feel like there  is not a hope in hell that we will see Justice for this child.

Dr Roberts seems to think it is a government cover up for our own good, as it would be a disaster if it was known throughout the world that two British Doctors could in any way be involved in their own child's demise, also, maybe with knowledge of other health professionals on that holiday. 

Please read if you can.

j.rob wrote:Dr Roberts seems to think it is a government cover up for our own good, as it would be a disaster if it was known throughout the world that two British Doctors could in any way be involved in their own child's demise, also, maybe with knowledge of other health professionals on that holiday. 


Yes. I would say that is a major issue in this case. There are probably many others but this is a big one. It speaks volumes about the level of cover-up and other things that are going on in the National Health Service.


The tip of a rather large iceberg. 


Dr Roberts also extensively covered the Dr Wakefield trial, I do believe. Wakefield was struck off the UK medical profession after a small pilot study he was involved in raised the possibility of a safety issue around the MMR vaccine. It was a more than draconian reaction to a small study that brought to mind the phrase: 'protest too much'.


Brian Deer, writing for the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times, carried out what can probably only be described as a sustained campaign against Dr Wakefield. Brian Deer has no medical or scientific credentials, by his own admission. 

That's interesting, the MMR vaccine was touted by New Labour but Blair wouldn't say if the Blair Baby had been given the cocktail.
So Dr. Wakefield would not have been popular.

'The Blair Baby'... that takes me back!  The very same baby who was conceived because devout Catholic and more than front than Selfridges Cherie Booth/Blair was too embarrassed to take her contraceptives to Balmoral     Sometimes I can almost bring myself to feel sorry for Her Maj   

What it is is with these narcs?  Always far too much information than we need to know - except, of course, we never did get to find out if the infant Leo was injected with the cocktail that Tone and his cronies were heavily vested in promoting for the offspring of ordinary mortals.
  j.rob - your first post has taken me down memory lane and I look forward to more such trips with you leading the way. 

tigger wrote:

j.rob wrote:Dr Roberts seems to think it is a government cover up for our own good, as it would be a disaster if it was known throughout the world that two British Doctors could in any way be involved in their own child's demise, also, maybe with knowledge of other health professionals on that holiday. 


Yes. I would say that is a major issue in this case. There are probably many others but this is a big one. It speaks volumes about the level of cover-up and other things that are going on in the National Health Service.


The tip of a rather large iceberg. 


Dr Roberts also extensively covered the Dr Wakefield trial, I do believe. Wakefield was struck off the UK medical profession after a small pilot study he was involved in raised the possibility of a safety issue around the MMR vaccine. It was a more than draconian reaction to a small study that brought to mind the phrase: 'protest too much'.


Brian Deer, writing for the Murdoch-owned Sunday Times, carried out what can probably only be described as a sustained campaign against Dr Wakefield. Brian Deer has no medical or scientific credentials, by his own admission. 

That's interesting, the MMR vaccine was touted by New Labour but Blair wouldn't say if the Blair Baby  had been given the cocktail.  
So Dr. Wakefield would not have been popular.

Well, he wouldn't would he?! Why would they want to take the risk of injecting something into their baby that might not be safe? It's okay for the proles - plus a nice lucrative little number for all sorts of vested interests, but why would the PM and his Missus want their child to be a guinea pig?

ultimaThule wrote:'The Blair Baby'... that takes me back!  The very same baby who was conceived because devout Catholic and more than front than Selfridges Cherie Booth/Blair was too embarrassed to take her contraceptives to Balmoral     Sometimes I can almost bring myself to feel sorry for Her Maj   

What it is is with these narcs?  Always far too much information than we need to know - except, of course, we never did get to find out if the infant Leo was injected with the cocktail that Tone and his cronies were heavily vested in promoting for the offspring of ordinary mortals.
  j.rob - your first post has taken me down memory lane and I look forward to more such trips with you leading the way. 

Well thank you! Always nice to be welcomed! (Even if all the memories not that great.....!)  I think that where you have a few cults operating, there will always be quite a high level of distortion. So - mix in religion (Catholicism) medicine (esp to do with drug industry)  plus I suppose cults/ideals revolving around parenting, (heck we even have a Royal cult!) then there are going to be some very rigid views, some very sacred cows.....it's not comforting for people to have to challenge those sacred cows.....

Dr Shipman - he looked like a nice GP with a beard...his patients really liked him....but he was one of the biggest mass murderers. No-one wanted to believe what was going on.

I agree in terms of the Blair/politician/medical narcissistic stuff.....(probably also entwined with the Catholicism cult)....I am sure they had one rule for those not in their (rather pathetic) little elite....and another rule for everyone else.

Just copying with thanks to McCannfiles.com the essential part of Dr.Roberts' article of the 16th July 2012:

Followers of the case will not need to be reminded of the frequency with which the spectre of paedophilia has been introduced into the media commentary. As threats go this one is by no means new (this particular deviance is chronicled as accompanying imperial decadence in ancient Rome), but the threat has grown in perceived importance down the years. In the more recent past, cases of fatal child abuse, such as those involving Myra Hindley and the Wests, have occasionally erupted into the public spotlight. But the eruptions have since become more frequent, including false-positives to help sustain levels of public attention.

Film makers profit from being alive to 'topicality.' Note therefore a remake of the film 'The Wicker Man' after a thirty-three year interval (the original was released in 1973). In-between we had the infamous 1991 Orkney child abuse scandal, characterized by its actually being a case of widespread non-abuse, i.e. normality (the scandalous element was the behaviour of the so-called welfare authorities). Needless to say, mere suspicion of the demon provoked a witch-hunt, just as it did in the case of Operation Ore, a turn-of-the-millennium persecution of suspected child pornographers, modelled on an American precedent (Operation Avalanche), and being both principal product and funding sponge of CEOP (you know, the Jim Gamble vehicle that justified his appearance in Praia da Luz alongside genuine investigators).

Yes, folks. In the absence of an imminent national catastrophe occasioned by a nuclear strike (the 2003 invasion of Iraq took care of that), or a widespread disease epidemic, child abuse is a serious threat to society; a threat which the British government not only acknowledged but demonstrated a willingness to deal with decades ago. Such moral guardianship is 'politically correct' in a big way; especially if you are New Labour, the resurgent broom promising to sweep society clean by being 'tough,' not just on crime but 'on the causes of crime.'

Fast-forward now to Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3, 2007. A little girl is reported missing from her holiday apartment. Within hours the report is an international one of a little British girl abducted from an apartment in Portugal. In a demonstration of due diligence, ambassadorial staff are dispatched to the scene of the incident, in order to offer support to our distressed citizens overseas. UK police also arrive to assist. A good thing. Within just a few days however, reports come back of doubts attending the veracity of the parents' story. A bad thing. And suddenly there is a serious and altogether unexpected problem.
Unquote

I've felt for quite some time that the whole paedophilia link to the case (although very likely with some truth in it and the Gaspar statement imo is genuine) was used right from the start as:

It would be a big carrot for the press ( printing porn for the masses)
It would bring tremendous public sympathy
It was the ultimate sympathy card

MBM was not abducted by paedos but once the myth was launched it could not be changed.

The 'shape' of the case is fairly clear, just the details are missing. Imo.

tigger wrote:Just copying with thanks to McCannfiles.com the essential part of  Dr.Roberts' article of the 16th July 2012:

Followers of the case will not need to be reminded of the frequency with which the spectre of paedophilia has been introduced into the media commentary. As threats go this one is by no means new (this particular deviance is chronicled as accompanying imperial decadence in ancient Rome), but the threat has grown in perceived importance down the years. In the more recent past, cases of fatal child abuse, such as those involving Myra Hindley and the Wests, have occasionally erupted into the public spotlight. But the eruptions have since become more frequent, including false-positives to help sustain levels of public attention.

Film makers profit from being alive to 'topicality.' Note therefore a remake of the film 'The Wicker Man' after a thirty-three year interval (the original was released in 1973). In-between we had the infamous 1991 Orkney child abuse scandal, characterized by its actually being a case of widespread non-abuse, i.e. normality (the scandalous element was the behaviour of the so-called welfare authorities). Needless to say, mere suspicion of the demon provoked a witch-hunt, just as it did in the case of Operation Ore, a turn-of-the-millennium persecution of suspected child pornographers, modelled on an American precedent (Operation Avalanche), and being both principal product and funding sponge of CEOP (you know, the Jim Gamble vehicle that justified his appearance in Praia da Luz alongside genuine investigators).

Yes, folks. In the absence of an imminent national catastrophe occasioned by a nuclear strike (the 2003 invasion of Iraq took care of that), or a widespread disease epidemic, child abuse is a serious threat to society; a threat which the British government not only acknowledged but demonstrated a willingness to deal with decades ago. Such moral guardianship is 'politically correct' in a big way; especially if you are New Labour, the resurgent broom promising to sweep society clean by being 'tough,' not just on crime but 'on the causes of crime.'

Fast-forward now to Praia da Luz, Portugal on May 3, 2007. A little girl is reported missing from her holiday apartment. Within hours the report is an international one of a little British girl abducted from an apartment in Portugal. In a demonstration of due diligence, ambassadorial staff are dispatched to the scene of the incident, in order to offer support to our distressed citizens overseas. UK police also arrive to assist. A good thing. Within just a few days however, reports come back of doubts attending the veracity of the parents' story. A bad thing. And suddenly there is a serious and altogether unexpected problem.
Unquote

I've felt for quite some time that the whole paedophilia link to the case (although very likely with some truth in it and the Gaspar statement imo is genuine)  was used right from the start as:

It would be a big carrot for the press ( printing porn for the masses)
It would bring tremendous public sympathy
It was the ultimate sympathy card

MBM was not abducted by paedos but once the myth was launched it could not be changed.

The 'shape' of the case is fairly clear, just the details are missing. Imo.

If I recall correctly, the claim of abduction by paedophiles was introduced by GM at the very start when the news broke. We then had the involvement of the CEOP within hours which culminated in GM's appearance at a CEOP seminar a few months later speaking as an 'expert' on the subject. This was all before the Gaspar statements were finally released by Leicestershire Constabulary after having been held back for whatever reason for some 6 months. As far as I can see, the abduction part of GM's original claim is the only part which has absolutely no evidence to support it.

I think it helps, whenever thinking about 3/5/2007, to really go back and put yourself in that time, and remember just how plain weird life was under Labour. Remember the terrorist threat? The tanks into Heathrow? I don't know exactly what the nature of that supposed threat was supposed to be - tanks are for fighting tanks with, and as far as I know Rommel never aligned himself with Al-Qaeda. But it sure looked good on the news.



I can't help feeling they missed out "Food! Terrorists need food. Do you anybody who eats food? If so then...." etc. etc.

It was an entire decade of trying to engender fear, distrust and division among the population, and I'm sure the McCann case was seen as yet another opportunity to ratchet up the tension.

@T4two

Totally agree, there too the preparation seems to have been well in hand.

The Gaspar statement was an unforeseen complication.. It is said that GM  went to LP police station to have a look at it.
21st May I think. When he also met Clarrie, allegedly..

@ Clay


Yes! And Labour had been sliding in the polls for some time, Northern Rock had already happened?
Something to keep the plebs busy - love that poster!  So retro  

Be afraid, be very afraid..... All the time.

Eta:Food - be alert at Tesco.. Probably Waitrose is all right

As Harold Shipman was mentioned above, there is an example of where the case involved a doctor and there was no cover up (that I know of). Hopefully the McCann case will be no different.  Or perhaps it is specifically the paedophile element that is too dangerous?

Wikipedia : Current Events May 4th 2007

The Labour Party performs poorly in local and regional elections in the UK, with the Scottish National Party winning the most seats in the Scottish Parliament and the Conservatives performing well in English local government elections.

nglfi wrote:As Harold Shipman was mentioned above, there is an example of where the case involved a doctor and there was no cover up (that I know of). Hopefully the McCann case will be no different.  Or perhaps it is specifically the paedophile element that is too dangerous?

The only paedophile I ever personally knew was a GP.

Sex case GP's jail term increased

I'm sorry to hear you ever knew one. I don't understand the mentality behind a covee up. Firstly, from what I've seem they rarely work. Secondly,  wouldn't it be far better to say 'yes, we had these criminal elements in our profession, but we've taken steps to remove them. We've taken action.' A cover up, unless it is 100% successful,  will always be more damaging. Perhaps that was part of the reason for the PJ releasing the files. They are out there. We would never know most of the case facts from the British media!

nglfi wrote:As Harold Shipman was mentioned above, there is an example of where the case involved a doctor and there was no cover up (that I know of). Hopefully the McCann case will be no different.  Or perhaps it is specifically the paedophile element that is too dangerous?

There may not have been a cover up, exactly, but there was a lot of complacency and people turning a blind eye. Wasn't there even a wry joke at the local undertakers - as in 'another Shipman patient'. I think if you look more closely at the Shipman case you will see that there were red flags billowing in the breeze. I do believe one of his earlier attempts was a younger patient who survived despite being heavily sedated. Perhaps that was a wake-up call that he had better stick to oldies in future.....hmmm...

Interestingly, if was not the medical professional body that noticed any wrong-doing but the relative of one of his patients who spotted that he had falsified the will.

The fact that the McCann parents brought up this possibility of paedophilia as a motive for abduction at such an early stage is more than strange, in my opinion. In her book Madeleine, Kate also records a bizarre conversation with another holiday-maker on the day of Madeleine's alleged abduction. 

Kate had had a tennis lesson and afterwards: 'I hung around on the grassy play are, watching Gerry on the court and chatting to Russell, who I'd found there. Another guest appeared with a video camera to record his three-year-old daughter playing tennis. He looked a little embarrassed and laughingly remarked to us that filming in this way made him feel like a dirty old man.'

I'm sorry but, IF true (and if it is I presume the man was questioned as a possible suspect) that is a very odd thing to say.

But that's not all: 'It led to a conversation between the three of us about paedophiles.'

Like so much in Kate's book, once you start to dissect what she has chosen to put in, you start to wonder WHY she has included it and then the wider ramifications. 

Firstly, why on earth would you think that recording a mini-tennis session that your three year old daughter was taking part in would make you feel like a dirty old man? It is an inappropriate reaction to what one hopes would be an entirely innocent activity. But Kate and Russell apparently find nothing odd in that comment. On the contrary, it lead to a conversation on the subject of paedophiles. 

 While I could sort of understand the dirty old man comment if it was used in the context of a middle-aged father recording his teenage daughter and her buxom friends (in other words in a Benny Hill type of way). The sub-text being: 'Goodness - whatever happened to that shy little girl and her gangly friends or something.' You could begin to wrap your head around that kind of comment in a different context. 

But in the context of a THREE year old? Totally weird. 

I also think it is weird that these parents, hanging around on the grassy play area, watching a three year old playing tennis, then started talking about paedophiles. I spent a fair amount of time supervising or watching my children at playgrounds or taking part in other activities and not once, ever, did I get into a conversation about paedophiles. 

How inappropriate. 

So - having introduced the topic of paedophilia, on page 64, where does this conversation go?

Kate writes:  'I remember Russell talking about how everything had got a bit out of hand, that these days people were so untrusting you hardly dared speak to children you didn't know. What he was effectively saying was that the world had become paranoid......we agreed that it was a shame things had come to this, especially for the children. It would be some days before Russell and I were able to acknowledge to each other the horrible irony of this conversation.'

This short passage is quite illuminating. Kate introduces the subject of paedophila by writing about a remark made, apparently, by another holiday maker in relation to his three year old daughter. This is the entree for her friend Russell to talk about 'how everything had got a bit out of hand.' The consensus being that the world had become paranoid and 'it was a shame things had come to this, especially for the children.'

I must admit my brain is somersaulting over this short passage, as indeed it does over a great many other things that Kate has written, done or said (not to mention Gerry). The only logical conclusion for this passage appearing in the book must be that Kate wanted to introduce the subject of paedophilia. Why? Well, despite it 'being a shame' that the world was paranoid, it must be that she wanted to introduce the idea of abduction at the hands of a paedophile. This is where my brain is doing somersaults. On the one hand, the McCanns believe 'we were in an apparently safe, child-friendly holiday complex full of families just like ours'.  A place that was so safe that 'I can say, hand on heart, that it never once crossed my mind that this might not be a safe option.'

Only some days later, Kate writes, is she able to acknowledge the 'horrible irony' of the paedophile conversation. On the following page she records how 'some images are etched for all time on my brain.' She goes on to record how she was watching Madeleine at lunchtime on the day of her abduction in her new outfit: 'I was following her with my eyes., admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same.'

So - on the one hand we have the McCanns believing they are in this wonderful paradise full of happy families 'just like ours'. A place so cozy and safe that it is fine to leave your children alone sleeping in the apartment and checking on them every now and then.

Okay, fair enough. Even if a social worker might not agree.

But how on earth does this reconcile with: 'I started screaming. Madeleine's gone! Someone has taken her!'........By now I was hysterical. She's gone!' (page 72).  This reaction from Kate was within minutes of finding that Madeleine was not in the apartment.

How can your brain switch from the belief that you are in a happy, smiley, wonderful safe place to the belief that a stranger has entered your apartment and stolen your child. That's bad enough. But not just any old stranger - a paedophile, no less. At an early stage, the parents introduced the idea that the abduction might be into a paedophile ring. 

'I asked Gerry apprehensively if he'd had any really horrible thoughts or visions of Madeleine. He nodded. Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her body, her perfect little genitals torn apart.' (Page 129)

It is such a dramatic shift to go from tucking up your children in bed, believing they would be safe and sound and all the paranoia about paedophile abductions is over the top to - discovering your child is not in the apartment and immediately becoming hysterical because you are convinced that she has been abducted by a paedophile.

The poor Portugese police. No wonder they were so unimpressed with the McCanns and the ensuing McCircus. The whole thing has been a complete farce. And, unfortunately, there is little Madeleine 'at the bottom of it all'. So many people have lined their pockets off the fate of this innocent child it really is an outrage.

And unfortunately, there does appear to be more than a whiff of paedophilia attached to this case. But the question is, where is the smell coming from? When you throw into the pot the Gaspar statements, Ray Wyre who was obsessed with Satanic Ritual Abuse (heavily involved in the Nottingham and Wales SRA fiascos) and declared: 'the McCanns are totally innocent', Jim Gamble of CEOP, (Robert Murat perhaps). Have I missed anyone out?

To save copying the whole post above:      

Excellent post, j.rob. I can't bring myself to open Kate's book, I always appreciate when people post quotes from it. She really doesn't seem to realise how much she exposes herself through her behaviour and comments. Why on earth would anyone feel like a dirty old man for filming their own daughter taking part in a fun and innocent activity?? 
The Shipman case I suppose does highlight the general privilege afforded to doctors, and the assumption that they are above suspicion. I'm always hesitant to buy into freemasonry and such, but I do wonder sometimes if there is an element of that in this case

I concur - a wonderful post.

What's SO strange about this is that parents tend to go through a denial when a child goes missing - the possibility of being snatched, let alone being snatched by a paedophile, is something it takes a long time to come to terms with. Yet the McCanns screamed "abduction" from the rooftop from the offset.

nomendelta wrote:I concur - a wonderful post.

What's SO strange about this is that parents tend to go through a denial when a child goes missing - the possibility of being snatched, let alone being snatched by a paedophile, is something it takes a long time to come to terms with. Yet the McCanns screamed "abduction" from the rooftop from the offset.

--  and 'paedophile  gang'  around 11.00 pm (McKenzie's statement) Overheard Gerry on the phone.

One hour after she'd been discovered missing.

j.rob wrote:

But in the context of a THREE year old? Totally weird. 

I also think it is weird that these parents, hanging around on the grassy play area, watching a three year old playing tennis, then started talking about paedophiles. I spent a fair amount of time supervising or watching my children at playgrounds or taking part in other activities and not once, ever, did I get into a conversation about paedophiles. 

How inappropriate. 

Yes, as already said, good post. The weird thing is, this paranoia, this seeing a pervert behind every bush, is how I thought parents felt about this kind of thing before I had children of my own. Now that I have a child, experience tells me that this isn't the case at all, and that the impression I held was gained purely from media scare stories and Daily Mail style hyperbole. It's refreshing and liberating to discover how wrong I was.

Sometimes when I read things that Kate and Gerry say or have said I get the impression that they have no concept of parenthood at all; that all their thoughts, feelings and emotions are somehow gained second-hand.

I also think it's telling that it was Russell who was privy to this little tête-à-tête.

Great post j.rob   

nomendelta wrote:I concur - a wonderful post.

What's SO strange about this is that parents tend to go through a denial when a child goes missing - the possibility of being snatched, let alone being snatched by a paedophile, is something it takes a long time to come to terms with. Yet the McCanns screamed "abduction" from the rooftop from the offset.

Well thank you! I do agree, whenever I have been in a very stressful situation, particularly where my children were concerned, the initial reaction is often a kind of dissociation. You cannot quite process what is happening. You do not want your mind to focus on the possible consequences. There is an intense clarity in terms of what needs to be done to try to avoid the worse possible outcome (doctors know about this). It takes time to process information - which makes me believe that the McCanns apparently early reactions to their daughter's supposedly mystery disappearance were not genuine. 

The Portugese police obviously spotted this from a mile off.

nglfi wrote:I'm sorry to hear you ever knew one. I don't understand the mentality behind a covee up. Firstly, from what I've seem they rarely work. Secondly,  wouldn't it be far better to say 'yes, we had these criminal elements in our profession, but we've taken steps to remove them. We've taken action.' A cover up, unless it is 100% successful,  will always be more damaging. Perhaps that was part of the reason for the PJ releasing the files. They are out there. We would never know most of the case facts from the British media!

Indeed. But some people like playing with the system. They want to see how far they can go. Narcissism? Personality disorder? Some people can never admit that they made a mistake.

Along this vein the following

When some years ago my 8 year old son went missing on our first visit to at Disneyworld I spent the whole day searching for him -on my own. It didn't occur to me to warn anyone or ask for anyones help, knowing it would be impossible to anyone but myself to recognize him and find him.

I never understood what made me act like that. I didn't panic, I felt as if in a parallel universe, a place where I had a very clear picture of what had to be done: to go and find him myself, as soon as possibly could be done.

I did not find him

Late in the evening he came ambling in. A Dutch girl in one of the attractions had recognized him as Dutch and had kept him with her, letting him enjoy the attraction the whole day long. Doing so, he had seen me pass him by a couple of times and had thought nothing of it, not wanting to let go of his new freedom and fun

What was written about dissociation above put my own lack of understanding about my then reactions in a new perspective. Before, I thought I'd handled his disappearance as well as could be done. Now I see I should have alerted tot Parks security immediately.