Re: Dr Roberts still on the case

by NickE 11.02.14 11:27

jozi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:One of the unusual aspects of this holiday, for me, was the fact that all the children were dumped in the creche every day.
Because OC was a swinging palace
Kate:We were so into each other,you know".

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?

Because they had creche service,who knows,Iam not a swinger.

by NickE 11.02.14 11:37

Dr What:

Are we 100% sure that KM was in the apartment when DP was there at 6:30pm?

Gerry asked DP to go to 5a and help Kate with the kids?

Help,with what?

What time did they bath the kids?

by RIPM 11.02.14 11:40

PeterMac wrote:
nglfi wrote:The 'last photo' intrigues me, as I can't see any reason to lie about it.
It is there to "prove" that Madeleine was alive and well at lunchtime on Thursday 3rd. That is why there is so much fuss made about it, when there is no similar fuss made about any of the other photos.
Which in turn raises suspicion, causes people to analyse it, check with the weather charts and to conclude that it must have been taken on Sunday.
And then to realise that not one of the Tapas group admits to having seen Madeleine on Thursday . . and you have . . . a mystery

PM You are obviously looking to see who is paying attention Dr Roberts still on the case - Page 1 Icon_wink

David Payne
Fiona Payne
Jane Tanner
Rachel Oldfield

have all given statements they saw Madeleine on Thursday 3rd May.

by jozi 11.02.14 11:49

NickE wrote:
jozi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:One of the unusual aspects of this holiday, for me, was the fact that all the children were dumped in the creche every day.
Because OC was a swinging palace
Kate:We were so into each other,you know".

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?
Because they had creche service,who knows,Iam not a swinger.

Who said you were, it was you who said it was a swingers palace ?

by Dr What 11.02.14 12:08

NickE

I don't think DP went to the apartment at all.But when the actors in this farce devised their timelines in order to provide the story, I'm sure that DP felt reasonably 'safe' when he gave his account, because he knew that Oldfield had been 'allocated' a later slot.However,Oldfield was cute enough to state that, although he carried out his 'check' [which I don't believe either], he just happened to fail to see Maddie.

So, it's back to DP.Of course it's all bunkum, but no-one wants to be the 'last' person, other than the parents, to admit to seeing Maddie alive.

by Guest 11.02.14 12:17

jozi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:One of the unusual aspects of this holiday, for me, was the fact that all the children were dumped in the creche every day.
Because OC was a swinging palace
Kate:We were so into each other,you know".

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?

Would it be that easy for all of them to find family to look after the kids? And what reason would they give for not taking the children with them? IMO they would have wanted to portray a happy family holiday in the sun to their families back in the uk (and who knows maybe for other purposes like a planned abduction theory).

No, they best thing they could do is go somewhere like OC with on-site creches and babysitting so they could do what they wanted whilst still creating an illusion of a family holiday if scrutinised.

All in my opinion of course.

by Guest 11.02.14 12:42

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
jozi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:One of the unusual aspects of this holiday, for me, was the fact that all the children were dumped in the creche every day.
Because OC was a swinging palace
Kate:We were so into each other,you know".

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?
Would it be that easy for all of them to find family to look after the kids? And what reason would they give for not taking the children with them? IMO they would have wanted to portray a happy family holiday in the sun to their families back in the uk (and who knows maybe for other purposes like a planned abduction theory).

No, they best thing they could do is go somewhere like OC with on-site creches and babysitting so they could do what they wanted whilst still creating an illusion of a family holiday if scrutinised.

All in my opinion of course.

I doubt they'd have the energy after all that tennis. Of course if you replace "played tennis" with "had sex" throughout the story then you might be onto something.

One of those strange little "detailisms" about this story that has already bugged me is Balu and Berry drinking with Jensen and Wiltshire. THEY WERE THERE WITH THEIR WIVES! Imagine how that conversation went down in the Berry apartment.

"So what did you get up to today, dear?"
"Well, you know that guy Raj Balu, whose name is now so completely associated with mine that one day - and you'll laugh at this - an internet poster called Clay Regazzoni is going to wrongly assume that we're a couple of left footers?"
"A-ha."
"We sat in the bar and had drinks with some random women that we'd never met before."
"That's nice dear. I've been playing tennis with a bunch of blokes all day long."

Yeah, something like that, I reckon.

by Guest 11.02.14 12:48

Dr What wrote:DP has really painted himself into a corner over that 6.30 pm visit to the Mcs apartment.He probably did not realise it at the time when he made the statement that he would turn out to be the last non-Mc to admit to seeing Maddie.
At the time, he thought that Oldfield's bedroom 'check' statement would give him a get-out-of-jail card.However, Oldfield was canny enough to make it known that he didn't actually see Maddie. He only admits to seeing a breathing set of twins in the cot.
If and when all is revealed in this farce, DP can hardly say that he might not have seen a pyjama clad Maddie sitting with the twins on the sofa at 6.30 pm after all, or that he never visited the apartment at all at 6.30 pm.

DP is turning into a bigger patsy than Patsy Kensit, Patsy Palmer and Patsy Fagan put together. It's his name on the holiday, he's been landed with the last independent sighting, the details of which are as clear as mud, and I suspect he's already had a couple of shots across his bows as to what will happen if he fails to toe the party line.

by ChippyM 11.02.14 12:52

"So what did you get up to today, dear?"
"Well, you know that guy Raj Balu, whose name is now so completely associated with mine that one day - and you'll laugh at this - an internet poster called Clay Regazzoni is going to wrongly assume that we're a couple of left footers?"
"A-ha."
"We sat in the bar and had drinks with some random women that we'd never met before."
"That's nice dear. I've been playing tennis with a bunch of blokes all day long."

titter

That reads like an entry from Viz's 'Profanisaurus'. 'playing tennis'. sarcastic

Dr Roberts still on the case - Page 1 Empty

by Guest 11.02.14 12:57

ChippyM wrote:

That reads like an entry from Viz's 'Profanisaurus'. 'playing tennis'.

I should add that when used the expression "left footer", I meant that I imagine if they did play football they would kick the ball with their left foot. Just like the former Aston Villa and Germany defender Thomas Hitzlsperger, in fact.

by **PeterMac** 11.02.14 13:00

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
Dr What wrote:DP has really painted himself into a corner over that 6.30 pm visit to the Mcs apartment.He probably did not realise it at the time when he made the statement that he would turn out to be the last non-Mc to admit to seeing Maddie.
At the time, he thought that Oldfield's bedroom 'check' statement would give him a get-out-of-jail card.However, Oldfield was canny enough to make it known that he didn't actually see Maddie. He only admits to seeing a breathing set of twins in the cot.
If and when all is revealed in this farce, DP can hardly say that he might not have seen a pyjama clad Maddie sitting with the twins on the sofa at 6.30 pm after all, or that he never visited the apartment at all at 6.30 pm.

DP is turning into a bigger patsy than Patsy Kensit, Patsy Palmer and Patsy Fagan put together. It's his name on the holiday, he's been landed with the last independent sighting, the details of which are as clear as mud, and I suspect he's already had a couple of shots across his bows as to what will happen if he fails to toe the party line.

He has certainly been dropped in it, especially since Kate and he did not get their details correct.
But his description of the children all in WHITE, when the pyjama top in question is clearly PINK, leads one to believe that
a) he only saw the twins - who may or may not have been in white
b) he thought that adding extraneous detail would make his story more convincing, when in fact the opposite is the case
c) Madeleine was changed out of white pyjamas / nightdress into the pink top Eeyore ones later. (If that sounds stupid, try reading the book !)

by DurhamGuy1967 11.02.14 13:09

If she died earlier than the late afternoon or evening of the 3rd I just don't buy the faked creche visits and records. OK it gives false evidence to through people off the truth but it would be so easy to check on or disprove. And if it was disproved it would be so extremely damming.

If someone had taken a bribed to lie, then imagine how much money they could have made by coming clean with an exclusive to a paper.

In my opinion if you're willing to be involved with the cover up of an accidental death and illegal disposal of a child's body then you are an unbelievably close friend or you've been involved with an equally severe crime in the past or are already implicated in the accidental death.

by noddy100 11.02.14 13:11

Clay Regazzoni wrote:
ChippyM wrote:

That reads like an entry from Viz's 'Profanisaurus'. 'playing tennis'.

I should add that when used the expression "left footer", I meant that I imagine if they did play football they would kick the ball with their left foot. Just like the former Aston Villa and Germany defender Thomas Hitzlsperger, in fact.

Horrible thing to say

by jeanmonroe 11.02.14 13:15

PeterMac wrote:

c) Madeleine was changed out of white pyjamas / nightdress into the pink top Eeyore ones later. (If that sounds stupid, try reading the book !)
----------------------------------------------------

AND the pyjama 'top' very SHORT 'sleeves' on the Eyeore 'top' Kate put on Madeleine, and displayed at press conferences, that JT didn't know about, morphed into LONG sleeves by the time the Smiths saw them!

and (Met eliminated) crechemans girls 'top' was a very solid 'dark pinkish' colour!

With NO 'Eyeore's' in sight!

by NickE 11.02.14 13:48

jozi:Sorry I mean that I don't have any knowledge about swinging,it came from the police.

JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

I think there is a thread about this.

by stillsloppingout 11.02.14 14:32

NickE wrote:jozi:Sorry I mean that I don't have any knowledge about swinging,it came from the police.

JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

I think there is a thread about this.

One of the only things i have been told about this case , where the person who told me was unequivocal about it , was that the McCann's WERE swingers . [ a well known former paper among others ,knows full well. ] .

This info, was when i realised they were being protected . and there circle of "friends " probably includes somebody who can pull strings at the top . [ the footballer reference is interesting , as some swingers do swing 360 degrees !! ]

But the good news..... there lack of quality supporters in court in Portugal appears like they have been thrown to the wolves .

all imo

by tiny 11.02.14 14:44

stillsloppingout wrote:
NickE wrote:jozi:Sorry I mean that I don't have any knowledge about swinging,it came from the police.

JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

I think there is a thread about this.
One of the only things i have been told about this case , where the person who told me was unequivocal about it , was that the McCann's WERE swingers . [ a well known former paper among others ,knows full well. ] .

This info, was when i realised they were being protected . and there circle of "friends " probably includes somebody who can pull strings at the top . [ the footballer reference is interesting , as some swingers do swing 360 degrees !! ]

But the good news..... there lack of quality supporters in court in Portugal appears like they have been thrown to the wolves .

all imo

If true, I pity the poor sods who got stuck with kate or gerry :puke:

by HelenMeg 11.02.14 15:11

jozi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:One of the unusual aspects of this holiday, for me, was the fact that all the children were dumped in the creche every day.
Because OC was a swinging palace
Kate:We were so into each other,you know".

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?

The whole point about swinging holidays is that you do take the kids along - you just make sure there are plenty of supervised activities / nursery / creche available.
You dont leave the kids behind and say to Granny ' Oh do us a favour and mind the kids for a few days - we're going swinging'.
The fact that you're taking kids actually makes it a lot easier to hide the fact you will be swinging. All the resorts that cater for swinging make sure there is plenty of
supervision for kids so the adults get plenty of free time. Its part of the package. You dont swing all day - you just have plenty of opportunity to indulge as and when...

by tiny 11.02.14 15:22

Would swinging be a big deal in this day and age,it sure wouldn't worry me if people said they were swingers,each to their own.

by Guest 11.02.14 15:30

HelenMeg wrote:
jozi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:One of the unusual aspects of this holiday, for me, was the fact that all the children were dumped in the creche every day.
Because OC was a swinging palace
Kate:We were so into each other,you know".

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?
The whole point about swinging holidays is that you do take the kids along - you just make sure there are plenty of supervised activities / nursery / creche available.
You dont leave the kids behind and say to Granny ' Oh do us a favour and mind the kids for a few days - we're going swinging'.
The fact that you're taking kids actually makes it a lot easier to hide the fact you will be swinging. All the resorts that cater for swinging make sure there is plenty of
supervision for kids so the adults get plenty of free time. Its part of the package. You dont swing all day - you just have plenty of opportunity to indulge as and when...

Fair comment but my mind boggles as to why the Mom-in law went too!!

by Praia 11.02.14 15:36

The Panorama programme had lovely shots of pampas grass swaying in the ocean breeze, check out the music they chose to play on this BBC show about the "abduction", a non too subtle reference to drugs! Add in "Twin Peaks" and you have.........

by Guest 11.02.14 16:53

For those innocent souls who don't know the significance of pampas grass......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8923263/Mariella-Frostrup-accidentally-invites-swingers-with-pampas-grass.html

by russiandoll 11.02.14 17:11

latest

By Dr Martin Roberts
11 February 2014

SWIMMING AGAINST THE TIDE

It is said that the Anglo-Saxon king, Cnut the Great (otherwise known as Canute), revealed the omnipotence of a higher authority when he had his throne set down on a beach and unsuccessfully commanded the waves not to encroach upon his feet. Whatever his motives, the ancient king's demonstration of the ocean's stubbornness is both classical and convincing. However much his followers might have believed in his personal magisterial powers, there could be no denying the weight of evidence.

The abduction of Madeleine McCann, fixed in time to the night of 3 May, 2007, is an assumption which has no evidence to support it; only further assumptions. The one certainty is that the child has been missing for seven years since. Despite presenting to the Police (and the world) an account of how her daughter Madeleine was last seen asleep in her own bed, Kate McCann has also said, quite incongruously, 'You don't expect someone to come into your apartment and take your child out (of) your bed'. The question this raises is quite why anyone recounting such an event might wish to re-position the locus of a genuine crime. What is there to be gained from going against the grain?

In isolation the remark is puzzling. A slip of the tongue perhaps, made while the tide is still off-shore. But time passes, and the waves become more numerous as they surge in the same inward direction.

The contradiction inherent in Kate McCann's extraordinary 'bed' reference finds company in the false statements made, not only by the McCanns but by various members of their holiday entourage, in relation to the four days immediately preceding Madeleine's disappearance (see: Monday's Child – McCannfiles). What possible reason could there have been for misrepresenting events prior to the commission of the crime as understood, or should one say 'assumed'? In tandem with this questionable behaviour, it is clear from the records of Madeleine's attendance at the holiday crèche that these same four days are not unequivocally accounted for in that context either.

What was it Kate McCann said in her book once upon a time? 'One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they're still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.'

A week's worth of lies (coincidence number one). A week's worth of dubious crèche records (coincidence number two). Shall we go for the hat-trick?

The young Mark Warner nanny, Catriona Baker was questioned by Portuguese police at the beginning of their investigation. Months later she was 'outed' by the Daily Mail (14.10.2007), her situation at that time represented thus:

'The McCanns believe Ms Baker is a key witness in the defence that they are assembling with the aid of a team of lawyers and investigators.'

Bearing in mind the timing of events as fixed by the McCanns' own accounts, this statement is, on the face of it, rather perplexing. How, exactly, can someone coming into innocuous contact with Madeleine before her 'abduction' become a key witness in the McCanns' defence afterwards? And what manner of charge were they planning to defend themselves against? Not the abduction of their own daughter, surely? Nocturnal neglect, perhaps? The worst case scenario, as generally understood, might have been something in connection with a fatal accident occurring on the Thursday night; again, after Catriona Baker's duties as 'nanny' had been discharged.

Could Catriona have been considered a character witness therefore? No. She hardly knew the McCanns. A witness to their movements then? No. She was elsewhere for most of the day - everyday. A witness to Madeleine's abduction? No. It happened at night. She would have been out enjoying herself, as she put it, when not resting at home. Was she someone who witnessed a stalker, or stalkers, immediately before or after the abduction? No. She said not in her first statement to the police. What could possibly have been her role within the McCann defence strategy therefore?

Common sense dictates that Catriona Baker's value as a 'key witness' could only pertain to the period of time she spent in her capacity as 'nanny', something the McCanns have acknowledged and the Daily Mail have explained: "She was witness to the McCanns' movements during the week they were on holiday in Portugal and fed Madeleine less than three hours before she disappeared."

Except that, but for fleeting glances in the morning and at mid-day, she very obviously was not a witness to the McCanns' movements 'that week they were in Portugal'; a week which embraced exactly the same four days less than adequately accounted for by others, including the McCanns themselves. And that makes her recruitment as a potential witness for the defence anything but coincidental.

Comparison of Catriona's own 'evidence', as given to the PJ, with the Daily Mail's clarification of her later value to the McCanns, reveals how, like Michael Wright latterly in Lisbon, she was to be 'briefed'.

CB (6.5.2007): It was always Madeleine's parents that would bring her to and fetch her from the "Minis".

Compare this with Gerry McCann's own statement four days later:

'The deponent and KATE returned to the OCEAN CLUB. They stayed there, talking, until 16H45, at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the nannies and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE dined, having finished at 17H30.'

On the subject of episodes untoward she is quite voluble:

She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

She replies that within the exercise of her functions, both inside the building and outdoors (above specified activities), she never noticed anyone suspiciously observing the children under her care. She didn't notice anyone taking pictures of the children, namely of Madeleine.

She refers that her colleagues never mentioned anything concerning their children, either.

The deponent mentions that following Madeleine's disappearance, she didn't see or hear anything, no plausible reason that could explain what caused said disappearance.

And yet, five months later, the Daily Mail was able to offer its readers:

'On the morning after Madeleine's disappearance it is believed she even told Portuguese police of a man she had seen acting 'suspiciously' around the apartments.'

And

'Intriguingly, Ms Baker revealed to one friend - spoken to by this newspaper - that she told Portuguese police of a man she saw acting strangely near the apartments in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3.'

Intriguing indeed.

What may well have been 'believed' by a McCann spokesperson clearly did not represent what Catriona Baker herself had previously said.

In November 2007 Catriona Baker paid the McCanns a personal visit at their home in Rothley. The following April she was interviewed again by police.

"On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming."

This is of course that strangest of days, when Madeleine went swimming in her gap top and broderie Anglaise shorts, having earlier been for a boat trip at the beach where no-one else saw her, apart from Cat Baker that is. The nanny's most significant evidential contribution here however is this one:

"I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with Ella, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back."

Admittedly she had said something vaguely similar to Portuguese police originally, but she had also proceeded to observe:

"Since the beginning, when she received the little girl, it appeared to her that her parents were affable and showed their interest in her well being, as they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the child's outdoors activities."

So name one. And if that doesn't sound like the McCanns, then maybe we're not talking about Madeleine either. The fact that the McCanns were clearly planning to field (concoct?) answers to such questions as 'Where was Madeleine on...?' further validates those very questions

by bristow 11.02.14 17:55

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:For those innocent souls who don't know the significance of pampas grass......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8923263/Mariella-Frostrup-accidentally-invites-swingers-with-pampas-grass.html

Yes my friend and I were laughing as we remember her parents having a big pampas grass in their front garden! big grin

by Guest 11.02.14 18:52

tiny wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
NickE wrote:jozi:Sorry I mean that I don't have any knowledge about swinging,it came from the police.

JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

I think there is a thread about this.
One of the only things i have been told about this case , where the person who told me was unequivocal about it , was that the McCann's WERE swingers . [ a well known former paper among others ,knows full well. ] .

This info, was when i realised they were being protected . and there circle of "friends " probably includes somebody who can pull strings at the top . [ the footballer reference is interesting , as some swingers do swing 360 degrees !! ]

But the good news..... there lack of quality supporters in court in Portugal appears like they have been thrown to the wolves .

all imo

If true, I pity the poor sods who got stuck with kate or gerry :puke:

And, AFAIC, this includes Gerry & Kate

Log in for more topics