Sadly or, Sadly by Dr. Martin Roberts - www.mccannfiles.com

Dr. Martin Roberts' article re Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe's interview "for the benefit of a bewildered public" is available at www.mccannfiles.com (scroll down under 'latest news')

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com


By Dr Martin Roberts

20 February 2014


SADLY OR, SADLY

Metropolitan Police Commissioner Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe has spoken, for the benefit of a bewildered public attempting to make sense of the status quo regarding the parallel Portuguese and UK investigations into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann:

"Obviously the Portuguese police have got a line of inquiry which is different to the Metropolitan Police's but we're working together to try and resolve that."

Obviously, Sir Bernard.

In the sense that the Portuguese 'prime suspect' (deceased) is a world away from being any kind of a match to DCI Redwood's favoured e-fits, then Portugal and 'The Yard' do indeed appear to be pursuing different lines of inquiry. There is, however, a disturbing ring of inevitability to the phrase 'obviously', almost as though it would apply regardless. Surely not. Is it even remotely possible that two investigative agencies with a shared purpose would differ quite so markedly in their approaches to the common problem? They are, after all, equipped with an identical context in which to set their endeavours.

We know of course that the approach taken by the Metropolitan Police has been to regress to 'point zero', DCI Redwood having said as much. And that in itself could provoke, shall we say, a difference of opinion – obviously.

But do go on Sir Bernard.

"We're trying our best to keep the family informed and I think in the middle of all this, quite often their torment gets lost. Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

May we please clarify this observation just a little? (There are one or two redundant 'ors')

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

An interesting question that. Juxtaposed as they are, the child thief and the murderer are clearly not viewed as one and the same. And with only one 'sadly' to go around, kidnap comes across as the more regrettable outcome. If, sadly, Madeleine has been murdered, might not the murderer have been a thief also? A hapless petty criminal, who lashed out simply to silence the shrill alarm of a startled child (always supposing that their intention was to steal something other than an infant)? If such were the case, the fugitive would no doubt have left the body behind, having set off with neither kidnap nor body snatching in mind. Like Jon Benet Ramsay's supposed assailant, he would most likely have bolted empty handed (save for the valuables he came for of course, yet such was his haste he forgot those also).

If Madeleine was murdered by a panicking thief, what happened to her body after he fled the scene? Or if, on the spur of the moment, he decided to remove his victim, perhaps with a view to 'bluffing out' a blackmail attempt (although nothing of the kind has ever been hinted), then it cannot have been Madeleine's frail remains that left their mark for Martin Grime's EVR dog to zero in on. They would not have been there long enough to have done so.

It looks as if the options here are murderer or thief, not thief and murderer. So who besides a thief might have murdered poor Madeleine McCann, Sir Bernard?

"We've generally got to work together. We can't police Portugal, they can't do everything over here; we must work together. So, we're insist... you know, we really can work in genuine partnership on this."

O.k. Sir Bernard. We get it. You wish to insist that the Portuguese follow the Met's lead. That's it isn't it? Could it be, perchance, that the difference between the two investigations resides in the fact that the Portuguese are pursuing a murder inquiry, whereas the Met. have adopted the 'stolen' approach? A discrepancy of that order might also explain perhaps, for the benefit of those who notice such things, why the Portuguese would see themselves as having to 'do everything over here', whilst the Met., as we know from the recent spate of letter writing, cannot police Portugal.

If the Policia Judiciaria were genuinely keen to 'collar' a trio of burglars for having 'stolen' Madeleine McCann (be they Portuguese, Romany, Cap Verde, German, Scandinavian, Moroccan – the list of candidate nationalities is a lengthy one), then it's difficult to see why they should want to do anything 'over here' at all. Unless of course the perpetrators were already numbered among the UK immigrant statistics for the past seven years.

"Obviously the Portuguese police have got a line of inquiry which is different to the Metropolitan Police's but we're working together to try and resolve that."

"There is, however, a disturbing ring of inevitability to the phrase 'obviously', almost as though it would apply regardless."

Yep. Disturbing indeed.

It read that the pj and SY are trying to come to a conclusion that will satisfy everyone .



Perhaps abducted and dead....how they are going to get round the dogs I done know perhaps saying the burglars accidentally killed her in a panic....so dead and abducted ?



But WHO would abduct a dead child?

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

Isn't that "else" a bit redundant, what's that about?

@ weissnicht

Yes, the way he puts it, you would think that the Portuguese would automatically follow a different path out of sheer contrariness!

One thing I have noticed though, after a long lifetime of observing the way people talk, is that the word 'obviously' is often used inappropriately and superfluously, perhaps as a sentence 'filler' and maybe even to buy a few extra milliseconds of thinking time.

Back in the day, before I got really bored with football and the hype and nonsense surrounding it, I would listen to some of those (often tortuous) post-match interviews.

"So what about that tackle just before half-time?"
"Well, obviously Brian ...... err"

Good job BHH didn't add 'to be fair, at the end of the day ..."
Then he really would have sounded like he was struggling!

almostgothic wrote:@ weissnicht

Yes, the way he puts it, you would think that the Portuguese would automatically follow a different path out of sheer contrariness!

One thing I have noticed though, after a long lifetime of observing the way people talk, is that the word 'obviously' is often used inappropriately and superfluously, perhaps as a sentence 'filler' and maybe even to buy a few extra milliseconds of thinking time.

Back in the day, before I got really bored with football and the hype and nonsense surrounding it, I would listen to some of those (often tortuous) post-match interviews.

"So what about that tackle just before half-time?"
"Well, obviously Brian ...... err"

Good job BHH didn't add 'to be fair, at the end of the day ..."
Then he really would have sounded like he was struggling!

When I'm listening to Radio 4 and i hear someone say, "At the end of the day..." I always comment, "Not the beginning of the day then?"

Iris wrote:

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

Isn't that "else" a bit redundant, what's that about?

I think it's a bit of leakage of  the BHH subconscious - it's a statement of two halves and it's significant that he doesn't pin the act of murder on 'someone else' (ie someone other than 'they').

Iris wrote:

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

Isn't that "else" a bit redundant, what's that about?

Yes it is redundant, and I think he was being careful to keep the finger of suspicion off the McCanns, and over egged the pudding!

I really don't know why Sir Bernard has come down from his Ivory Tower to comment on the Investigation. SY are miffed because Oporto will not share information, why should they after the Centre Stage Redwood has taken and openly keeping the Press updated on their progress.

I just wish that the Portugese would wrap up their investigation and file a Report, that would end all this nonsense.

Panda wrote:I really don't know why Sir Bernard has come down from his Ivory Tower to comment on the Investigation. SY are miffed because Oporto will not share information, why should they after the Centre Stage Redwood has taken and openly keeping the Press updated on their progress.

I just wish that the Portugese would wrap up their investigation and file a Report, that would end all this nonsense.

I just wish that the Portugese would wrap up their investigation and file a Report, that would end all this nonsense.

And that is just exactly what SY/Met are cacking their pants about!

Imagine the PJ 'publishing' files that say how maybe the 'elites' for the Great, brilliant, UK, experienced detectives, 'bullied, dismissed ANY PJ 'suggestions' as totally ludicrous and there WILL only be one 'outcome'

The McCanns "never did 'it'" End of!

"Get that in your thicko heads"

jeanmonroe wrote:

Panda wrote:I really don't know why Sir Bernard has come down from his Ivory Tower to comment on the Investigation. SY are miffed because Oporto will not share information, why should they after the Centre Stage Redwood has taken and openly keeping the Press updated on their progress.

I just wish that the Portugese would wrap up their investigation and file a Report, that would end all this nonsense.

I just wish that the Portugese would wrap up their investigation and file a Report, that would end all this nonsense.

And that is just exactly what SY/Met are cacking their pants about!

Imagine the PJ 'publishing' files that say how maybe the 'elites' for the Great, brilliant, UK, experienced detectives, 'bullied, dismissed ANY PJ 'suggestions' as totally ludicrous and there WILL only be one 'outcome'

The McCanns "never did 'it'"  End of!

"Get that in your thicko heads"

Obviously....   

From the Five Live interview.

Sir Bernard Hogan-Howe: Errr... yes, we've said very clearly that, you know, we've got lines of inquiry that, errm... are different to the Portuguese police and we're working with them to try and resolve that and I'm only going to... you know, that comment you made at the beginning, about, you know, what they did or didn't do. We've got to work together on this and I don't mean that as a naïve thing; I just think, generally. We've generally got to work together. We can't police Portugal, they can't do everything over here; we must work together. So, we're insist... you know, we really can work in genuine partnership on this. We're making some progress, errm... let's see how it comes over the next few months.

Insisting on what, Sir Bernard? That the sardine munchers must follow your "line of enquiry"? The one that points anywhere but at the parents?

Iris wrote:

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

Isn't that "else" a bit redundant, what's that about?

My thoughts exactly.  I read 'else' as 'other than them'.

A long time ago when this case was quite new I was at a Wedding Reception, talking to Friends whose Son was with them , who happened to work in London for SY. Naturally, I asked what he thought of the McCann Case, he told me a friend of his in the Force had been seconded to Leicester Police Station and believed the McCanns guilty. Sadly, he wouldn't say any more.

almostgothic wrote:

Iris wrote:

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

Isn't that "else" a bit redundant, what's that about?

I think it's a bit of leakage of  the BHH subconscious - it's a statement of two halves and it's significant that he doesn't pin the act of murder on 'someone else' (ie someone other than 'they').

I also think that this is a Freudian slip. The only people to have possibly murdered Madeleine are her parents, likewise, the only people to have possibly stolen her would be "someone else" other than the parents. Nobody is going to murder a child and then steal that child, but murder and then cover up the murder, that remains a possibility (much to the McCann's dismay). I think that he let slip more than he intended to. Oops.

jinvta wrote:

almostgothic wrote:

Iris wrote:

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

Isn't that "else" a bit redundant, what's that about?

I think it's a bit of leakage of  the BHH subconscious - it's a statement of two halves and it's significant that he doesn't pin the act of murder on 'someone else' (ie someone other than 'they').

I also think that this is a Freudian slip. The only people to have possibly murdered Madeleine are her parents, likewise, the only people to have possibly stolen her would be "someone else" other than the parents. Nobody is going to murder a child and then steal that child, but murder and then cover up the murder, that remains a possibility (much to the McCann's dismay). I think that he let slip more than he intended to. Oops.

"We're trying our best to keep the family informed and I think in the middle of all this, quite often their torment gets lost. Have they lost a child or, errr... by being murdered or... sadly... or have they lost a child by someone else stealing them."

May we please clarify this observation just a little? (There are one or two redundant 'ors')

"Have they lost a child by being murdered or... sadly... have they lost a child by someone else stealing them?"

An interesting question that. Juxtaposed as they are, the child thief and the murderer are clearly not viewed as one and the same. And with only one 'sadly' to go around, kidnap comes across as the more regrettable outcome. If, sadly, Madeleine has been murdered, might not the murderer have been a thief also? A hapless petty criminal, who lashed out simply to silence the shrill alarm of a startled child (always supposing that their intention was to steal something other than an infant)? If such were the case, the fugitive would no doubt have left the body behind, having set off with neither kidnap nor body snatching in mind. Like Jon Benet Ramsay's supposed assailant, he would most likely have bolted empty handed (save for the valuables he came for of course, yet such was his haste he forgot those also).

If Madeleine was murdered by a panicking thief, what happened to her body after he fled the scene? Or if, on the spur of the moment, he decided to remove his victim, perhaps with a view to 'bluffing out' a blackmail attempt (although nothing of the kind has ever been hinted), then it cannot have been Madeleine's frail remains that left their mark for Martin Grime's EVR dog to zero in on. They would not have been there long enough to have done so.

It looks as if the options here are murderer or thief, not thief and murderer. So who besides a thief might have murdered poor Madeleine McCann, Sir Bernard?

===============

Exactly.

Whoever it is, this will be sorted when PJ agree to work "together" with Sy who have been told to pursue only one line?