Missing Madeleine
Come join us...there's more inside you cannot see as a guest!

Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

Post  Annabel on Mon 21 Nov - 14:27

Psychosis! What Psychosis?

Kate McCann
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
16 November 2011

PSYCHOSIS! WHAT PSYCHOSIS?

Some of what Kate McCann has to say about herself and her daughter in the book, 'Madeleine:'

"She was striding ahead of Fiona and me, swinging her bare arms to and fro...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." (p.65)

(Is this a mother talking? Any adult who finds themselves observing a child in the same terms as a hypothetical paedophile should either 'snap out of it' immediately or else seek counselling).

"I felt like a caged demented animal." (96)

(What does a 'caged demented animal' feel like exactly? Which of these two aspects is most note worthy, since the one does not necessarily pre-dispose the other?).

"Somehow inflicting physical pain on myself seemed to be the only possible way of escaping my internal pain." (105)

(Emergent masochism?)

"I felt as if I'd embarked on a slow, painful death....The pictures I saw of our Madeleine no sane human being would want in her head, but they were in mine. I simply couldn't rid myself of these evil scenes in the early days and weeks." (130)

(Excuse me? 'Pictures no sane human would want' were in your head? Since what we imagine is what we choose to imagine, and if sane people would 'opt out' in this instance, what does that make the custodian of these mental pictures?)

"My child had suffered and therefore so must I." (132)

(A non-sequitur as irrational as it is masochistic)

"Although I'd been for a run two days before, to me, as I've said, this seemed a necessity rather than a pleasure, and there's no doubt there was an element of self-punishment in it." (139)

(Self-confessed masochism once more).

"I felt Madeleine's terror." (81)

"Quite upset on the way home. Can't stop thinking about Madeleine again - her fear and her pain." (168)

"The thought of Madeleine's fear and pain tears me apart." (169)

(Re Murat): "Since they (the PJ) had insinuated throughout that he might be the person responsible for the unimaginable fear and pain suffered by our little girl..." (199)

(KM's had no difficulty with her imaginings thus far. But with 'no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm,' what justification is there for dwelling on her 'terror, fear and pain?').

"I struggled constantly to think nice thoughts and drift off to sleep but the demons had me in their grip and would torture me mercilessly with images too frightening and painful to share." (275)

(Not like she shared p.129).

"I long for the day when I'll have my beautiful Madeleine back in my arms." (181)

And, from a year-old video recently exhumed on a couple of 'blog' sites:

"Sean and Amelie are great, just doing really well, erm, they seem to have taken everything on board and coped incredibly well really. Maybe that's one of the attractions of youth really."

(Even now the twins are not youths. They are children. And an ability to cope is scarcely what one would consider an 'attraction,' unless they were a company director on the lookout for middle-management talent. One wonders what, in Kate's view, might be numbered among the other attractions of youth, given her 'admiration' of a three year old?).


MISSING, PRESUMED...

The text below is taken from a letter sent last year (dated 6 May) by McCann lawyers Carter-Ruck, to those responsible for a certain Internet web-site. After a pre-amble containing the now infamously misleading 'no evidence whatsoever' claim, the recipient was treated to the following (phrases of particular interest are italicised):

Defamatory, threatening and harassing content

Suffice it to say that the page repeatedly alleges that our clients caused the death of their daughter and have subsequently engaged in a criminal conspiracy to cover up her death.

As well as being highly defamatory of our clients, these allegations are completely and utterly untrue. Our clients had no involvement whatsoever in the disappearance of their daughter, and there is not one grain of proper evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance.

Yours Faithfully

I'm biased of course, but there appears to be something just a little odd about the author's reference to 'these allegations,' i.e. that their clients 'caused the death of their daughter and have subsequently engaged in a criminal conspiracy to cover up her death,' and the subsequent rebuttal.

'These allegations are completely and utterly untrue.'

Because?

'Our clients had no involvement whatsoever in the disappearance of their daughter, and there is not one grain of proper evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance.'

Ever since they got to grips with the script, the McCanns have lost no opportunity to place before the public a clear distinction between Madeleine's disappearance and possible injury. You know the line: 'There's no evidence that Madeleine has come to any harm,' despite the child having been 'taken,' or disappeared. It follows straightforwardly therefore, that the above statement, made on their behalf by Carter-Ruck, about the parents' lack of involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, cannot be taken to subsume a denial of involvement in her possible death, the two events having been previously and continuously regarded as separate by the parents themselves.

Logically, rebuttal of the putative allegations (of death and a cover-up) are not accomplished by the claims made concerning Madeleine's 'disappearance.' In other words, the charge is not answered.

As to there being 'not one grain of proper evidence to implicate them (the parents) in Madeleine's disappearance,' that rather depends on which disappearance one has in mind. You see, Madeleine disappeared before Thursday 3 May, 2007, and we have two grains of proper evidence at least that together indicate its happening, in the shape of sworn statements to police and Kate McCann's very own 'account of the truth' published earlier this year.

By comparing data gathered during the course of the original police investigation alongside relevant information given by the author of 'Madeleine,' we can establish that Madeleine was 'missing,' in the sense that her whereabouts have not properly been accounted for, for the entire Tuesday afternoon of the week in question. She disappeared therefore.

Impossible! She was at the beach with her parents! She was...

She was none of these things.

The registers for Madeleine's and the twins' separate kids' clubs were signed individually by Gerry and Kate McCann respectively, at 2.30 p.m. on the Tuesday afternoon, apparently, implying that all three children were left in the care of Mark Warner staff until their collection later (at 5.20 p.m. in the case of the twins. Madeleine was not signed out at all); a touch short of three hours. Four years later and Kate McCann tells her readers how she and Gerry decided to take Madeleine and the twins to the beach that very afternoon 'for a change,' setting off after lunch and returning the children to their appropriate crèches, at Madeleine's request, 'for the last hour and a half,' which would have been around 3.45 p.m. therefore.

Supposing the creche registers to be a true reflection of events, there should be no requirement whatsoever for the McCanns subsequently to fabricate a contradictory story so as to account for Madeleine's activities that afternoon. But that is precisely what Kate McCann has done. This in itself indicates that Madeleine was not at the creche from 2.30 p.m. How could she have been if she wasn't returned there until 3.45? But then her repatriation is not true either.

Mark Warner nanny Cat Baker gave a statement to police explaining how her toddler group made a number of scheduled visits to the beach, one of which was that very Tuesday afternoon, departing at 3.30. Hence the creche would have been devoid of personnel at the very time Madeleine supposedly returned 'for the last hour and a half.'

So Madeleine was not at the creche from 2.30, could not have been left alone there from 3.45 and, given the complete absence of any confirmatory signature, was seemingly not collected again later.

That's because she must have been at the beach!

Well, had she joined in the afternoon's supervised activities from the outset that's exactly where she would have been. But she obviously did not do that. Kate has told us so, despite the unmistakable presence of husband Gerry's signature on the register for 14.30.

So, in light of the evidence, Kate's story, of a family trip to the beach that included Madeleine and lasted until 'the last hour and a half', is a work of fiction. Madeleine spent the afternoon (from 2.30 p.m.) at the creche. But an apparent need to contradict this evidence suggests that the evidence itself is unreliable. Hence we can neither properly, nor definitively, account for Madeleine's whereabouts on that Tuesday afternoon. This conclusion appears inescapable, given Kate McCann's various claims of verisimilitude since ("I know the truth, Sandra." 5.11.09. "I know the truth and God knows the truth and nothing else matters." 7.5.11). If the truth were as evidenced then why seek to contradict it? And yet the truth cannot be as recounted since the re-telling itself describes an impossibility.

Unaccounted for in any genuinely credible way therefore, Madeleine was, to all intents and purposes, missing for at least an hour and a half that Tuesday afternoon. And since she was in her parents' custody from lunch-time they have to be implicated in said disappearance.

(Note: the 'beach trip' is mentioned in the statement made to police by Gerry McCann on 10.5.07. Described as commencing about 1.30 p.m., the children are 'dropped off' on the way back; a schedule which could, conceivably, have been accomplished within the hour. In her own statement to police (4.5.07) Kate McCann describes the children typically being placed in the club for the afternoons until around 5/5.30 p.m. The sole family outing to the beach reported later in this same statement as having happened 'between 1.30 and 3.00 p.m., when they returned to the club.' It is Kate's later statement however (Madeleine, p.59) that 'we dropped the kids off at their clubs for the last hour and a half, meeting up with them as usual for tea,' taken together with her own signature timed at 5.20 p.m., which compromises the various accounts of Madeleine's whereabouts on the Tuesday afternoon).



Annabel
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 3528
Location : Europe
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-25

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

Post  Badboy on Mon 21 Nov - 16:30

SO WHERE WAS MADELEINE MCCANN ON TUESDAY AFTERNOON?
I AM CONFUSED.

Badboy
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Male
Number of posts : 7728
Age : 50
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-08-31

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

Post  kitti on Mon 21 Nov - 18:07

That was the ice-cream day.....where KM says she was worried About leaving the kids sitting on a bench whilst she helped GM go get three Icecreams.....they got to the creche at 3.30....but the creche records state that Madeleine McCann was signed in at 2.30.....



So, she couldn't be in two places at the same time and if she was taken to the creche AFTER the beach visit which was 3.30 then know one was their, Madeleine was in the creche on her OWN as kat baker had taken the other children to the beach at 3.25-3.30.

kitti
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 13376
Age : 106
Location : London
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

Post  Wintabells on Mon 21 Nov - 18:51

"I struggled constantly to think nice thoughts and drift off to sleep..."

This sentence confuses me more than any of the others. What parent, 'knowing' their child has been 'taken' has the capacity to even consider thinking 'nice thoughts'? And what would those thoughts be? Imagining their child skipping through the meadows with their kind abductor? or snuggled up in bed in their new home, pleased to have a whole new life and family? Or does she mean 'hopeful thoughts'? Could she have meant she tried to think positively and trust that Madeleine would be found and they'd wake up in the morning to good news?

I don't find the rest of her spiel especially odd. As a mum, I myself sometimes find it difficult not to think anxious thoughts when my teenage daughter is out really late in this capital city... although she's very good about replying to my fusspot texts, occasionally she doesn't manage to (no signal/didn't hear the phone/battery ran out/dropped the phone out of the hole in her coat pocket and lost it...) And in this sense, she's 'missing'. I have to stop myself from imagining that she's in danger - maybe she decided to return home without her friend and now she's been forced into the back of a van at knifepoint etc. There's no way I can 'drift off' to sleep in these circumstances, try as I might, because until I know she's safe, my mind can't relax.

But the other stuff...the material about pain and suffering, suggests to me self-harming. Only by hurting herself can she restore any kind of mental balance... perhaps.

Not that I believe a word of it.

Wintabells
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1328
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

Post  kitti on Mon 21 Nov - 22:38

I only got to look at Yerimi Vargos mums face and know she goes through hell every day not knowing where her little boy is 4 years down the line...


Yet Kate McCann can sleep on the third night!!!!

kitti
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 13376
Age : 106
Location : London
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

Post  kitti on Mon 21 Nov - 22:44

Believe me, when my son went to secondary school, for the first couple off weeks, I used to follow him, hiding and ducking into doorways or alleys so he wouldn't see me, and he wasnt missing!!!


We talked about that recently and he said that he KNEW i was doing it and thought i was being a pratt.


Well I never, that's the thanks i get for caring lol...

kitti
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Female
Number of posts : 13376
Age : 106
Location : London
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2009-06-21

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

Post  Wintabells on Tue 22 Nov - 0:45

kitti wrote:Believe me, when my son went to secondary school, for the first couple off weeks, I used to follow him, hiding and ducking into doorways or alleys so he wouldn't see me, and he wasnt missing!!!


We talked about that recently and he said that he KNEW i was doing it and thought i was being a pratt.


Well I never, that's the thanks i get for caring lol...

lol Kitti. I can completely identify with you.

Kate's words about wanting to think nice thoughts and drift off to sleep are just as unnatural as her ability to enjoy herself in the Tapas restaurant knowing her children were out of her sight and out of her earshot.

Wintabells
Platinum Poster
Platinum Poster

Number of posts : 1328
Warning :
0 / 1000 / 100

Registration date : 2011-02-28

Back to top Go down

Re: Psychosis! What Psychosis?/Dr Roberts

Post  Sponsored content Today at 1:51


Sponsored content


Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum