A TENSE SITUATION/Dr Roberts

(l.) Photograph of 'Shearwater' boat given to D.C. Markley by Kate McCann and (r.) photograph of the same boat taken by the PJ on 18 May 2007
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
20 January 2012

A TENSE SITUATION

Time is of the essence. It is so important to each of us in our daily lives that, in the course of mankind's cultural history, every effort has been made to quantify it - pictorially, mechanically, electronically; even relatively.

What did the McCanns do with their precious time in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance, first announced on Thursday night, 3 May 2007? Kate McCann has told us (parentheses mine).

Friday 4: Virtually the entire day was spent at PJ headquarters in Portimao. They travelled there with police at 10.00 a.m. (p.88) returning to Praia da Luz 'some time after 8.30 p.m.' (p.92).

Saturday 5: 'Alan Pike (trauma psychologist)... was at the door of our apartment by 6.00 a.m... we talked... for several hours... it turned out to be a bewilderingly busy day for Gerry and me...' (p.99-101). 'Three family liaison officers (FLOs) from Leicestershire force... came to introduce themselves.' (p.102). 'We had so many meetings that day...' (p.103). 'Neither Gerry nor I was functioning remotely properly... At lunchtime, over by the Tapas area, Gerry saw a crowd of departing guests... With a new batch of incoming holidaymakers, more of our relatives appeared.' (p.104) 'I remember slumping on one of the dining chairs in the apartment (4G)... I also felt a compulsion to run up to the top of the Rocha Negra... the sun set on another day and there was still no news.' (p.105).

Sunday 6: '...despite my fragility I was determined to go to Mass... We all, family and friends, went to mass at the local church.' (p.106). That first Sunday saw two further arrivals in Luz: my childhood friends Michelle and Nicky. Both wanted to be with me... Alan (Pike) planted in our minds the idea of reducing the size of our support group... Listening to Alan it all seemed so obvious... after giving the matter some thought' (p.109)... 'we ended up getting down to the nitty-gritty... that Sunday evening.' (p.110).

Monday 7: British expatriates living permanently in Praia da Luz organized a search of the area. The volunteers were joined by most of our family and friends... while Gerry and I were tied up with Andy Bowes and Alex Woolfall... When lunchtime came, Gerry and I were in the middle of another meeting... we had to go to the Toddler Club ourselves... Once we were left with our leaner support group, we allocated general roles... It had been suggested that I should record a televised appeal aimed at Madeleine's abductor, and this is what we had been discussing that morning with Andy and Alex... (p.111) Andy Bowes had proposed delivering part of my appeal in Portuguese, which I did. Gerry sat beside me...' (p.112). 'I was hugely relieved when it was over... Around teatime, Father Ze turned up...' (p.113). 'We were seeing the Leicestershire FLOs every day. That Monday evening... we lost it with the liaison officers.' (p.113-4).

Tuesday 8: '...we said an emotional goodbye to the family and friends who were leaving us... Later I went down to sit on the beach for a while with Fiona... We talked and cried and held on to each other... As we were walking up from the beach at about 5pm, I had a call from Cherie Blair...'

Well that about takes care of the McCann itinerary during the first five days immediately following Madeleine's reported disappearance.

I should apologize at this point for what next may seem to some like an overly complex version of an old trick, where, after being invited to count the passengers boarding and leaving a bus en route, the unsuspecting listener is suddenly invited to answer the question: 'How many bus-stops were there?' Because now I should like to ask when, in the course of all the activity Kate McCann has dutifully outlined for us, did she personally find the time for sight-seeing; in particular her visit to Lagos Marina, which she has previously described to D.C. 975 Markley of Leicestershire Constabulary? It was he who wrote, on a spare sheet of LC paper headed 'LEICESTERSHIRE CONSTABULARY Continuation WITNESS STATEMENT,' the following:

INFORMATION FROM THE FAMILY

I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07. She told me that a friend of her Aunt & Uncle from Leicester had a friend that had a strong vision that Madeleine was on a boat with a man in the Marina in Lagos.

This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina and identified the boat as "SHEARWATER". They saw a man on the boat but this was not the same man that she had in her vision.

This is very important to Kate. I spoke to Glen Pounder if he could make some enqs with regards to the boat.

He has done this and the boat is registered to a Canadian National called Bruce Cook. Glen has told me that George Reyes at the police stn is now dealing with the matter with regards to doing PNC checks etc.

I spoke with Kate today and she has given me photographs of the boat. She has also given me a photograph of a man who had been on the boat. This is not the man that the woman had in her vision.

This matter is very important to her and she is very pleased that we are making enqs into the matter.

Once the enqs have been completed can we please let her know the result.

Thanks

This correspondence, concerning information provided by Kate McCann don't forget, has to be read very carefully. Although the page is undated, 'I spoke to Kate McCann on Tuesday 8th of May 07' is clearly a reference to a past action. Furthermore, the conversation to which it refers describes past activity itself, placing the vision, certainly, at a time prior to Tuesday 8 May (some time between May 4th and May 8th, no doubt). But what about that person's arrival in Portugal and their visit to the Marina?

DC Markley, writing whenever, does not say 'This person has since arrived in Portugal and spoken to Kate,' i.e. placing these actions at a time after his and Kate's 8 May conversation, although they may be misconstrued as having occurred later. Rather, these activities are referred to much as might be the subject matter in continuation of that very first conversation. DC Markley goes on to explain that he has 'spoke with Kate today' (i.e. the day of the memo) and that his colleague, Glen Pounder, had by that time already completed certain enquiries regarding a particular yacht. Completion (not commencement) at the time of writing necessarily implies that these enquiries must have been stimulated by an earlier Markley/McCann conversation.

Hence, by Tuesday 8 May, Kate McCann is in a position to inform DC Markley of a specific vessel moored at Lagos Marina. The visit which identified it must already have taken place, as DC Markley makes no reference whatsoever to any exchange of information in the interim, i.e. in-between the 'conversation' that occurred on Tuesday 8 May and the tete-a-tete meeting on the day he wrote his memo, when Kate 'gave him photographs of the boat.'

Ah yes, but it was Kate's anonymous informant who visited the Marina alone, took the photographs and passed them onto Kate ('This person arrived in Portugal and has spoke to Kate. They have visited the Marina'), 'They' in this instance being an impersonal reference to the individual in question.

Oh no it is not.

The subsequent sentence reads: 'They saw a man on the boat but this was not the same man that she had in her vision.'

The change of pronoun clearly distinguishes between the visionary (she) and her companion(s), 'They' being the third person plural.

Thus Kate McCann took advantage of a gap in her busy schedule to visit Lagos Marina, some time between 4 and 8 May; an event directly associated with a matter of considerable importance to her (DC Markley points this out twice); so important in fact that she fails to describe it in her book at all, whilst what she does mention specifically precludes its having happened, in that period of time at any rate. The nearest she comes to the subject is this: "There were a couple of 'visionary' experiences in particular I took very seriously. One of them had come through prayer which, at the time, gave it even greater credibility in my eyes. I begged the police to look into these." She does not elaborate further.

Kate McCann of course knows 'what happened.' She was there. Her book, 'Madeleine' is an account of the truth. How ironic then that the Leveson enquiry should vilify representatives of the UK press for implicitly trusting the presumed source of much of their information, in the form of the Portuguese police, when a serving UK Detective Constable has apparently made the very same mistake in trusting information provided to him by the missing child's own parent. If what Kate tells us in her book is true, then what she told DC Markley on 8 May, 2007, whether by telephone, e-mail or carrier pigeon, cannot be.

But we're not done yet.

On an indeterminate date, Kate McCann personally handed DC Markley a set of photographs taken during a visit to Lagos Marina; a visit that took place before 8 May. Kate's 'friend' may have had the vision, but did she take the photographs? In light of Kate McCann's self-confessed photophobia, she could well have done.

During an interview published on 27 May, 2007, Kate told Olga Craig (Sunday Telegraph): "I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her." ('her' being Madeleine). James Murray (Sunday Express, 9.8.09) interprets the situation a little differently however: "Kate went to Lagos Marina, a few miles along the coast from Praia da Luz where her daughter vanished on May 3, 2007, and photographed the boat and the man on board."

It's anybody's guess perhaps, but if Kate McCann is herself a reliable source of information, then identification of this photographer, an anonymous friend of an anonymous friend, is long overdue. Someone who has a 'vision' over the weekend (she couldn't have had a premonition before Madeleine was taken, surely?) flies out to Portugal immediately, then makes straight for Lagos Marina to photograph the vessels moored there, must have had an extraordinarily strong sense of purpose. Otherwise we are left with evidentially valid (if not exactly solid) statements by Kate McCann, which appear to suggest that this maritime photography was accomplished during her own free time, before 4 May even. Make no mistake, when it comes to anticipation Kate McCann has already demonstrated some 'previous form' in that regard:

"From the moment Madeleine had gone, I'd turned instinctively to God and to Mary, feeling a deep need to pray, and to get as many other people as possible to pray, too. I believed it would make a difference. Although in the early days I struggled to comprehend what had happened to Madeleine, and to us, I've never believed it was God's fault, or that He 'allowed' it to happen. I was just confused that He had apparently not heeded the prayer I'd offered every night for my family: 'Thank you God for bringing Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie into my life. Please keep them all safe, healthy and happy. Amen.' Please keep them all safe. It must be said that when I'd prayed for their safety I'd been thinking: please don't let them fall off something and bang their heads, or please don't let them be involved in a car accident. I'd never considered anything as horrific as my child being stolen. But I had kind of assumed my prayer would cover every eventuality." (p.106).

As an adjunct to the present discussion, it is interesting, albeit for unwelcome reasons, that Kate McCann should consider a child's being involved in a car accident and suffering trauma at least, serious, possibly fatal injury at worst, nothing like as horrific as she herself suffering the consequences of theft.

But back to the matter in hand - Kate's sense of timing.

The entire ritual quoted above is prefaced by the phrase, 'From the moment Madeleine had gone,' giving the impression that the tendency to enhanced spirituality, and the prayers that went with it, was consequent upon the events of 3 May, i.e. the 'abduction.' But Kate had clearly been genuflecting nightly long before. As she says, 'I was just confused that He had apparently not heeded the prayer I'd offered every night for my family.' (God had not been listening even before 3 May, never mind afterwards). Included in Kate's prayer was the exhortation to 'keep them all safe' which, as Kate goes on to explain, embraced various categories of danger, as she'd actually been thinking: 'please don't let them fall off something and bang their heads, or please don't let them be involved in a car accident,' although she'd never considered anything as horrific as her child being stolen.

God stands exonerated therefore. Since 'abduction' per se was not itemised among the supplications, He cannot be blamed for overlooking it. The omission was Kate's entirely. So if God did not heed her prayer it must have been another detail of Kate's appeal he ignored. And these were? Well nothing like as generally relevant to well protected pre-school infants as 'keep them from head-lice, chicken-pox, cuts, bruises, respiratory problems etc.' or, with their developing independence, the myriad other misfortunes that might attend them. No, none of that. Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie were religiously insured against car accidents and falling off things. Madeleine was not driving when she was taken. So what risk, exactly, did God's agency not cover?

More excellant writting from Dr Roberts, he is one very very clever guy.

More excellant writting from Dr Roberts, he is one very very clever guy.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

More excellant writting from Dr Roberts, he is one very very clever guy.

You can say that again!

I'd be interested in getting the dogs onto that boat. There appears to be lots of evidence that points to Kate trying to get the body of her daughter found....

... "we had to go to the Toddler Club ourselves." Poor Kate, because most of her Friends and Family were advised to leave, she had to take the twins
herself!!!! White Woman speak with forked tongue and everyone else , except us, admire the Emperors new clothes.

Another excellent Article by Dr. Roberts , I"d love to know who he is.

I'm curious about Dr.Roberts but if he's anonymous it's for a damn good reason.
The guy's a genius.

the slave wrote:I'm curious about Dr.Roberts but if he's anonymous it's for a damn good reason.
The guy's a genius.

Hi the slave, he certainly has more than a passing interest in this case and as I understand only posts on MCF Forum , he might be a criminal profiler or
a serving Police Officer.

Panda wrote:... "we had to go to the Toddler Club ourselves." Poor Kate, because most of her Friends and Family were advised to leave, she had to take the twins
herself!!!! White Woman speak with forked tongue and everyone else , except us, admire the Emperors new clothes.

Another excellent Article by Dr. Roberts , I"d love to know who he is.

Panda yes I would also like to know who he is, his articles are so perfectly written, he imo is in the loop and knows alot more then he lets on, I often wonder if he is high up in the police or forensics or involved with the case first hand hense been able to give us "humble nutters" the heads up from time to time, wotever he has got the measure of the McCanns thats for sure

Panda wrote:... "we had to go to the Toddler Club ourselves." Poor Kate, because most of her Friends and Family were advised to leave, she had to take the twins
herself!!!! White Woman speak with forked tongue and everyone else , except us, admire the Emperors new clothes.

Another excellent Article by Dr. Roberts , I"d love to know who he is.

Yes! That came out in NEON letters for me too. Poor things, having to go an collect your remaining children all by yourselves. I've never seen her hold a child affectionately in any photograph, never a cuddle, never a really close body contact, on the hip, leaning out, plenty of those.

im not entirely sure that Drt Roberts is a he, Dr Roberts could be female. regardless, the insight and clarity of view on several issues concerning the McCs is one i seek. I would really like to meet this person, at some time, i like the thinking and expression of same. jimo

tigger wrote:

Panda wrote:... "we had to go to the Toddler Club ourselves." Poor Kate, because most of her Friends and Family were advised to leave, she had to take the twins
herself!!!! White Woman speak with forked tongue and everyone else , except us, admire the Emperors new clothes.

Another excellent Article by Dr. Roberts , I"d love to know who he is.

Yes! That came out in NEON letters for me too. Poor things, having to go an collect your remaining children all by yourselves. I've never seen her hold a child affectionately in any photograph, never a cuddle, never a really close body contact, on the hip, leaning out, plenty of those.

Hi tigger,

The only Family photo of the McCanns happy with their children was in the Punch and Judy box.

tanszi wrote:im not entirely sure that Drt Roberts is a he, Dr Roberts could be female. regardless, the insight and clarity of view on several issues concerning the McCs is one i seek. I would really like to meet this person, at some time, i like the thinking and expression of same. jimo

Yes tanzi , Dr Roberts has a fine grasp of the case , someone said he is a friend of the MCF owner., Nigel something?

Panda wrote:

tanszi wrote:im not entirely sure that Drt Roberts is a he, Dr Roberts could be female. regardless, the insight and clarity of view on several issues concerning the McCs is one i seek. I would really like to meet this person, at some time, i like the thinking and expression of same. jimo

Yes tanzi , Dr Roberts has a fine grasp of the case , someone said he is a friend of the MCF owner., Nigel something?

Panda, I think Nigel is owner of 'The McCann Files.'

Dr Roberts is such an incisive analyst. The liar has to be constantly aware not just of the words they use, but of the context, chronology, verb tenses and sentence construction in everything they say. Dr Roberts is an expert at spotting and analysing the semantic slip-ups.

"God stands exonerated therefore. Since 'abduction' per se was not itemised among the supplications, He cannot be blamed for overlooking it. The omission was Kate's entirely. So if God did not heed her prayer it must have been another detail of Kate's appeal he ignored. And these were? Well nothing like as generally relevant to well protected pre-school infants as 'keep them from head-lice, chicken-pox, cuts, bruises, respiratory problems etc.' or, with their developing independence, the myriad other misfortunes that might attend them. No, none of that. Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie were religiously insured against car accidents and falling off things. Madeleine was not driving when she was taken. So what risk, exactly, did God's agency not cover?."

I love the sarcasm of this part. In the same time, it's very logical.
Culprits are often betrayed by the same invented details that were used to put them in a good light.

It's called ' Linguistic Forensics'. ( My daughter in law studied criminal pschology. It's one of those 'new tools' that come in very handy handy sometimes.)
It's marvellous how much science has advanced in the last few years.

the slave wrote:It's called ' Linguistic Forensics'. ( My daughter in law studied criminal pschology. It's one of those 'new tools' that come in very handy handy sometimes.)
It's marvellous how much science has advanced in the last few years.

Thanks, the slave.

Ok, I'm being really thick here, so could someone please explain this latest piece to me?

As far as I can understand it, some crank had a vision at some point after Madeleine disappeared, involving a bloke and a boat. This person came to see Kate sometime after May 3rd and photos were taken of the boat, Kate seems to have been involved in this exercise and the photos were taken with Kate's camera (?). Kate told the PJ about this vision and gave the cops the photographs. The police have a record of Kate's concerns about the vision, boat and bloke along with the photos. She also mentions in her book that she had info of a 'visionary' nature, which she told the PJ about. She doesn't detail in her book when she visited the marina, took the photos or talked to the police about it all, plus if she took the photos, she seems to have used the very camera she claims she couldn't bear to use after the last photo she took of Madeleine, but apart from that... what's the issue? Is it that she didn't talk about visiting the marina and taking the photos in her book? Surely her excuse would be that she didn't want to jeapordise Madeleine's safety by going into these kinds of 'investigative' details or somesuch?

I'm also not sure about the point made regarding her nightly prayers to keep her family safe. Isn't she saying that she had always prayed every night something along the lines of 'keep my husband and children safe'? and in doing so, she was thinking, 'from hurting themselves (the kids) or crashing the car (husband)' as opposed to 'from being abducted'? and that she can't understand why, given she's asked for her children to be kept safe, God hasn't protected one of her children from being 'taken'?

I don't doubt that Dr Roberts is making several very important points in his piece, but having read it numerous times, I just don't follow what they are. This, I'm sure, is my failing entirely and I'd appreciate someone explaining it to me in very simple terms, please?

I suppose Dr. Roberts could be a woman, but the name used I think is Dr. Martin Roberts.

I think Dr. Roberts last sentence sums things up nicely "So what risk, exactly, did God's agency not cover?" is implying that God's agency did not cover them (ie Madeleine) "falling off something and banging their (her) heads." I think he is questioning where this line of thought came from. Car accident, understandable as this is one of the top causes of fatality, but falling off something and banging your head is too specific, one has to wonder if this idea came from an actual event that occurred.

Panda wrote:

tigger wrote:

Panda wrote:... "we had to go to the Toddler Club ourselves." Poor Kate, because most of her Friends and Family were advised to leave, she had to take the twins
herself!!!! White Woman speak with forked tongue and everyone else , except us, admire the Emperors new clothes.

Another excellent Article by Dr. Roberts , I"d love to know who he is.

Yes! That came out in NEON letters for me too. Poor things, having to go an collect your remaining children all by yourselves. I've never seen her hold a child affectionately in any photograph, never a cuddle, never a really close body contact, on the hip, leaning out, plenty of those.

Hi tigger,

The only Family photo of the McCanns happy with their children was in the Punch and Judy box.

Actually, it may be Amelie in that photo, but the boy is their nephew, the little red haired son of John. So - still no happy family photo. Damn!

Wintabells wrote:Ok, I'm being really thick here, so could someone please explain this latest piece to me?

As far as I can understand it, some crank had a vision at some point after Madeleine disappeared, involving a bloke and a boat. This person came to see Kate sometime after May 3rd and photos were taken of the boat, Kate seems to have been involved in this exercise and the photos were taken with Kate's camera (?). Kate told the PJ about this vision and gave the cops the photographs. The police have a record of Kate's concerns about the vision, boat and bloke along with the photos. She also mentions in her book that she had info of a 'visionary' nature, which she told the PJ about. She doesn't detail in her book when she visited the marina, took the photos or talked to the police about it all, plus if she took the photos, she seems to have used the very camera she claims she couldn't bear to use after the last photo she took of Madeleine, but apart from that... what's the issue? Is it that she didn't talk about visiting the marina and taking the photos in her book? Surely her excuse would be that she didn't want to jeapordise Madeleine's safety by going into these kinds of 'investigative' details or somesuch?

I'm also not sure about the point made regarding her nightly prayers to keep her family safe. Isn't she saying that she had always prayed every night something along the lines of 'keep my husband and children safe'? and in doing so, she was thinking, 'from hurting themselves (the kids) or crashing the car (husband)' as opposed to 'from being abducted'? and that she can't understand why, given she's asked for her children to be kept safe, God hasn't protected one of her children from being 'taken'?

I don't doubt that Dr Roberts is making several very important points in his piece, but having read it numerous times, I just don't follow what they are. This, I'm sure, is my failing entirely and I'd appreciate someone explaining it to me in very simple terms, please?

I think:
a) the crank from the UK may well be ms. Lazarus, who coincidentally had set up a business called 'Amber something or other'. She herself said she had a child taken away from her, also called Maddie.
see: https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t7722-amanda-jayne-hart-diane-lazarus

Does anyone know if it was the same blond woman who wandered around PdL in a film called something ..Madeleine, saying things like
'He was here, he stood here for a long time watching her...' The film was on YouTube.
Because we also have the so called wrong call from Swansea on the 2nd/3rd and apparently later calls to PdL from the same number.

Dr. Roberts does go deeply into the semantics, but what he meant I think - is that Kate wants to let us know:
a) how very religious she has always been (I don't believe it because I can use a spoon)
b) that never in her wildest dreams she could have imagined this would happen, because in her prayers she had covered all the possibilities.
In fact her wording implies that e.g. falling off a sofa and hitting your head on the tiles was also covered. She is thereby excluding this, it cannot have happened because that was covered in my prayers - God insurance.
c) abduction was the only possibility she had not covered, so, jolly nice, she's not blaming God directly.
Mind like a corkscrew that woman.

And of course, people love these stories, having a tame psychic would be useful for the tabloids to assure us that Maddie is still alive and sending messages.

[/quote]

Hi tigger,

The only Family photo of the McCanns happy with their children was in the Punch and Judy box.[/quote]

Actually, it may be Amelie in that photo, but the boy is their nephew, the little red haired son of John. So - still no happy family photo. Damn![/quote]

Tigger: it may be too early in the morning for me but are we talking about this photo - sorry I can't post it directly.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/5sep7/MAIL-13-09-07-MCCANNS.jpg

The boy can't possibly be Gregor McCann as he was about seven in 2007. Mind you, the face of the boy in the photo looks very different to the one in the infamous Donegal photos of April 2007 but that is a common problem with most of Madeleine's photos too!

Not Born Yesterday wrote:

Hi tigger,

The only Family photo of the McCanns happy with their children was in the Punch and Judy box.[/quote]

Actually, it may be Amelie in that photo, but the boy is their nephew, the little red haired son of John. So - still no happy family photo. Damn![/quote]

Tigger: it may be too early in the morning for me but are we talking about this photo - sorry I can't post it directly.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/5sep7/MAIL-13-09-07-MCCANNS.jpg

The boy can't possibly be Gregor McCann as he was about seven in 2007. Mind you, the face of the boy in the photo looks very different to the one in the infamous Donegal photos of April 2007 but that is a common problem with most of Madeleine's photos too!
[/quote]

The jpg is dated october 07. The girl doesn't even look like Amelie and I'm 100% sure that the boy is too old to be Sean. It could be a much older photo of course, when both their niece and nephew were say five or six years younger.
Amelie in 2007 certainly, was very small and compact, Sean had blond longer hair as did Amelie. Sean is also much sturdier in build, don't' know about now of course.
Imo that boy could be about 5 and the girl about 4. Might just be children of friends. Published in 2007, no way Sean and Amelie.
They do despise us, the McCanns, don't they? The tricks they've pulled wouldn't fool anyone with an IQ higher than room temperature.

Here's a picture of the twins in May 2011. Their faces are obscured Tigger but it will give you an idea of their general build.

http://aeiou.caras.pt/famosos/2011/05/20/quatro-anos-apos-o-desaparecimento-de-maddie-kate-mccann-revela-novos-factos