Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

**Panda** Fri 23 Nov - 7:56

Would You Trust A Diagnosis By This Man?

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
15 January 2010

WOULD YOU TRUST A DIAGNOSIS BY THIS MAN?

Not without questioning his motives for offering it, I wouldn't.

A man whose ego is betrayed by his mouth - who sues for libel, then proceeds to accuse a police officer of perjury, impugning the reputation of an entire national police force in the process. Surely he can't have all his dogs barking (although he's experienced notable success with someone else's).

As reported by the Daily Telegraph on 12.1.10:

'Police Inspector Ricardo Paiva, who acted as a liason between the McCanns and Portuguese police in the days following their daughter's disappearance told the court he had received the phone call in late July 2007.

'"Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying," he said. "She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.

'"She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us."'

As reported direct from Lisbon the following day (5.04 p.m.):

'He (GM) also rejected the testimony yesterday that Kate had a dream about Madeleine lying buried somewhere, saying "that never happened..."

Now he would know of course, having not been present when the all-important 'phone call was made.

Subsequent press reports express it thus: "I'd like to make it absolutely clear that Kate has never had a dream that Maddie has been buried somewhere, and I don't know if something's been lost in interpretation, but that didn't happen – not with those words, that's for sure."

So it did happen, except that burial was not mentioned. Indeed not. Inspector Paiva's evidence referred to a description of Madeleine lying on a hill not in one. The latter scenario is a figment of Gerry's own imagination therefore. Now I wonder where he might have got the idea from?

Back to the evidence.

"A thesis without evidence is meaningless." Says Gerry. Really? Ever heard of Fermat's Last Theorem? Three hundred and fifty eight years before a proof was elaborated, yet the stimulus for many a mathematical development in the meantime. And what exactly is the 'evidence' for abduction in this instance - An empty bed? An open window? If these are sufficient criteria for a conclusion to be reached, then we must accept that countless persons are abducted by their employers every day of the year, any time between, say, 6.00 and 8.00 a.m.

"I think it's particularly disappointing that the police officers who considered us responsible for Madeleine's disappearance are the same officers we are depending on to carry on the search for Madeleine," he said.

"The question, of course, is: 'who is looking for Madeleine and who has been looking for Madeleine over the last two years' and that is us and our investigation team."

When was this case re-opened then? Do remind us Gerry, otherwise we're all liable to overlook your dependence upon the Portuguese police as part of your 'investigation team.' Simplistic though it may be, it rather looks as though the Portuguese came to an informed conclusion quite a while ago, and there has been nothing to sway them from it since.

"...there is absolutely no evidence that Madeleine is dead and there is absolutely no evidence that we were involved in her disappearance. That is the conclusion.....of the process and that's what we are here debating; the conclusions of the process versus the conclusions of the book."

Err, Earth calling. There's been a court hearing in which a DVD, containing the relevant process files, has been admitted into evidence, including all documentation and official conclusions. Do you not think, Gerry, that the reporters you are attempting to brainwash are smart enough to read these for themselves in due course, if indeed they have not already done so? The conclusions you are so concerned with have been widely broadcast on the Internet for months, you know.

One principal signatory, among others, Tavares de Almeida has already stated in evidence that "The conclusion that was arrived at was that Madeleine McCann died at the apartment and the McCann couple simulated the abduction to hide the fact that they had not taken care of their children.

"There was a tragic accident in the apartment that night and they neglected the care of their children. It was the conclusion of both Portuguese and British police."

An echo of the document he himself signed off, and no mention of the 'absolutely no evidence' stance. Surely not a another instance of Portuguese perjury!

Tavares de Almeida went on to claim that the McCanns concealed the body of their missing daughter Madeleine. Courtrooms and legalities aside, it is a legitimate statement of fact, under any circumstances, that a temporary resident of apartment 5A concealed evidence of a death; evidence lodged within the apartment itself.

Traces of human blood and cadaver odour were signalled by two different sniffer dogs at a point (the same point) on the living room floor that could not be accessed, even by the dogs, until handler Martin Grime pulled the sofa away from the window, to a position nearer that in which it must have stood for the deposits to have accrued in the first place. With the sofa relocated since, the contaminated zone was thereby concealed.

If the occupant concerned had a good reason for moving the sofa from beneath the window initially, they must have had an even better one for moving it back again. And that could not possibly have been to confound the investigation of a historical event, of which neither they nor any intrusive 'abductors' could have had any knowledge. (There is no record of any such incident).

A further veritable gem of McCann self-contradiction opens with a claim made to the impromptu press gathering on the steps outside the Lisbon courthouse:

"The search for Madeleine is ongoing. We don't have any leads and we need to keep searching."

This is followed by a report for The Sun (whose Antonella Lazzeri, in an act of rash impetuosity, would proceed to lay the newspaper open to a future charge of defamation by scurrilously mis-interpreting a gentlemanly comment in Portuguese as an abusive remark in Anglo Saxon. It's Gerry who swears in front of women and children when on camera Antonella - do your research dear):

"Gerry claimed the Portuguese cops' blinkered view that Maddie was dead - for which there was NO evidence, making it "meaningless" - was damaging the search for her.

"And he said they were STILL ignoring leads passed on to them by the family's private investigators."

So what leads might these be Gerry - the ones you don't have? Why does Portuguese disinterest seem suddenly unsurprising? NO leads, NO confirmed sightings, NO evidence. That's meaningless in my book.

"This is a legal process that we're going through to protect our daughter and our family."

Which begs the real $64,000 question. What meagre process exactly did you go through to protect your daughter on May 3rd 2007, from abduction or anything else? None. On your own admission you, the parents, abandoned her on consecutive evenings for an hour at least, in an apartment youadmit was not secure against intruders. 'No evidence that you were involved in Madeleine's disappearance'? Well it is certainly true that you're not responsible for her now. You passed that particular buck to the High Court in double quick time. But you were her parents when she was 'taken'. Of course you were 'involved'. How could you not have been 'involved'? Or maybe parental involvement was, as you saw it, merely a diurnal contract, terminated once you had closed the bedroom door and left for your night out.

Your collective attitude toward your own daughter is adequately summed up by a contemporary comment of Kate's:

"It's still been difficult, it's been emotive, because I know what's in the case files, I know what the conclusions are. So it's difficult to hear something that's incorrect and inaccurate. At the bottom of all this is a little girl, and I think it's important that we don't forget that."

Madeleine has been at the bottom of your thought pile from the very beginning.

And if I were your lawyer (which most thankfully I am not), I think I'd be minded to look over my own shoulder every now and then.

It cannot have gone unnoticed (and it did not) that Ms. Duarte misled the court on two separate occasions; behaviour of rather more relevance to the 'search for Maddie' I would contend than whether Goncalo Amaral infringed a publication dateline.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id301.html

Guest Fri 23 Nov - 9:28

If he told me the time and the date, I'd need to get a second opinion!

Guest Fri 23 Nov - 10:32

What's that saying?

"You can tell he's lying, because his lips move"

**wjk** Fri 23 Nov - 10:35

This reply to KM's quote is spot on by Dr Roberts!

"It's still been difficult, it's been emotive, because I know what's in the case files, I know what the conclusions are. So it's difficult to hear something that's incorrect and inaccurate. At the bottom of all this is a little girl, and I think it's important that we don't forget that."

Madeleine has been at the bottom of your thought pile from the very beginning.

**Panda** Fri 23 Nov - 16:55

'Police Inspector Ricardo Paiva, who acted as a liason between the McCanns and Portuguese police in the days following their daughter's disappearance told the court he had received the phone call in late July 2007.

'"Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying," he said. "She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.

'"She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us."'

As reported direct from Lisbon the following day (5.04 p.m.):

'He (GM) also rejected the testimony yesterday that Kate had a dream about Madeleine lying buried somewhere, saying "that never happened..."

Now he would know of course, having not been present when the all-important 'phone call was made."

"White Man speak with Forked Tongue." Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man 294124

Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man 294124

almostgothic Fri 23 Nov - 18:24

It would take a very clever doctor indeed to know for sure what his wife had been dreaming about.

What the hell did he do - perform keyhole surgery and implant a bug in her wittle head? Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man 847843

Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man 847843

**AnnaEsse** Fri 23 Nov - 18:35

almostgothic wrote:It would take a very clever doctor indeed to know for sure what his wife had been dreaming about.

What the hell did he do - perform keyhole surgery and implant a bug in her wittle head?

Just what I have wondered about. Gerry tells her she didn't have a dream and therefore she didn't. What a pr*t!! He either knows exactly what goes on in that wittle head of hers, even when she's sleeping, or he knew nothing about the phone call until hearing about it in court and Kate denied having made it. If Gerry loses it like that in public, what must he be like in private? Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man 463762

Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man 463762

Bobsy Fri 23 Nov - 18:37

almostgothic wrote:It would take a very clever doctor indeed to know for sure what his wife had been dreaming about.

What the hell did he do - perform keyhole surgery and implant a bug in her wittle head?

She maybe had to dream about what she was told to dream about, and think about, and speak about.

**Panda** Fri 23 Nov - 18:56

Ir's very noticeable that Kate does the talking in interviews these days, now she is an Authoress it has given her confidence. However, she will keep repeating the Curtain Blowing/ Window open mantra!!!. They have been quiet of late, maybe they know now that SY have found nothing new which would tempt the PJ to re=open the case.

**HiDeHo** Fri 23 Nov - 23:02

MCMINUTE: Did Gerry know about Kate's DREAM that made the McCanns SUSPECTS?

**Panda** Fri 23 Nov - 23:17

Nice one HiDiHo, did you make this just now or was it one you made earlier. Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man 25346

It's no wonder the McCanns don't want ta attend the Trial after the reception they got last time.

**HiDeHo** Fri 23 Nov - 23:19

No...I'm not that clever! It takes a little while longer than a few minutes.

I have over 150 videos on nearly every topic so as soon as I see one that 'fits' I add it

**Panda** Fri 23 Nov - 23:28

HiDeHo wrote: No...I'm not that clever! It takes a little while longer than a few minutes.

I have over 150 videos on nearly every topic so as soon as I see one that 'fits' I add it

It does fit well with the Doctors insightful report, well done.. Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man Icon_flower

Sponsored content

Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man

Re: Would You Trust a diagnosis by this Man