Dr Martin Roberts 27 January 2013

By Dr Martin Roberts
27 January 2013

FORWARD THINKING

'Ice-berg dead ahead!' Too late.

Of course, knowing there are ice-bergs in the area one might, as an act of prudence, advance more cautiously than at record-breaking speed. That's what hindsight would tell us. But in the on-going saga of Kate and Gerry McCann (as in the all-encompassing book, Madeleine is written out of the story early on) anticipation was always very much the name of the game; like making sure you get the clothes washed before the forensic team arrives, or getting your information into the investigation at the appropriate time. It's what you do. So, years later, and the leopard being as spotty as heretofore, one might wonder exactly why Dr Gerry McCann should have publicly urged prime minister David Cameron to 'do the right thing' in the face of the Leveson report on press conduct, and enact the recommendations therein.

First off, where is the evidence from either of the McCanns' own track records that their evaluation of the 'right thing' should be respected? 'Clamming up' before an investigation into the whereabouts of a missing daughter can hardly be seen as doing the right thing, by the child at any rate. And as for frittering away other peoples' money on a world-wide 'search' conducted by one man and his dog, with only the dog on station...

But let's not be unduly harsh. The McCanns seem to have a certain moral compass, even though it might appear to open with some difficulty.

In the summer of 2011 the pair were interviewed for Australian TV programme Seven on Sunday, during which interview Gerry McCann stated, with reference to Madeleine: "And if she died, while we were in the apartment, or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"

It is a moot point whether, in the above construct, Madeleine's 'falling injured' is to be considered alongside the parents' presence in the apartment or not. Be that as it may, there is one thing for sure that we are allowed to conclude from this statement: Madeleine did not sustain an accidental injury. Had she done so the McCanns, according to husband Gerry, would have done the right thing and reported it. They didn't. So she didn't (have an accident). Of course one could introduce the caveat that Gerry McCann is referring expressly and solely to such an eventuality occurring while the parents were present, which does not preclude its happening during their absence, foreseen or otherwise. But then there's Kate's much earlier contribution to consider. In an Interview for Flash! Magazine she is reported as saying, "What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Whatever it was, therefore, happened when the children were not left asleep. Yet no accident was reported. So no accident occurred.

'It was an abduction wot happened!' they cry.

Not in the hour between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. that Thursday it didn't (see Crystal Clear/Another Story – McCannfiles 19/25.3.2012).

But to return to the Leveson moment, why should Dr Gerry McCann have come out in public support of press controls supported by legislation?

According to record, the McCanns, having been abused by the press in the past, have been richly reimbursed for their suffering. The press, for their part, having experienced the nature of the McCann Rottweiler, are unlikely to repeat their error. Once bitten, twice shy. The newspapers have ever since been noticeably coy in their coverage of the pair and events surrounding them.

So why should the McCanns themselves be overly concerned about press behaviour in the wake of the Leveson inquiry; an investigation to which they contributed as witnesses to what they claim was an historical abuse of privilege? Altruism is not in their game plan.

Such concern is revealing. It reveals Dr Gerry McCann up in the crow's nest, keen to pre-empt another press onslaught in the future. Why? The risk of a future media attack can only exist if the potential is there.

Journalists are free to publish information emerging from court proceedings and, as we know, a rather significant court case was on the horizon. Whether enacted in London or Lisbon, a libel trial would inevitably bring information freely onto breakfast tables that the McCanns had already spent large sums trying to suppress. In addition, a fully reported libel trial, of Dr Amaral in this instance, would represent an advertisement for his book; the very book the McCanns would rather the UK public at large knew nothing about.

And who is to say what information may or may not emerge in the course of such proceedings. Remember the filibustering on the steps of the Lisbon courthouse following the revelation of Kate McCann's dream, when cardiologist (not neuro-surgeon) Dr Gerry McCann placed himself in the absurd position of denying his wife's mental activity? Dr Amaral's 'purported' thesis being multi-faceted, about the only way the McCanns might discredit it in its entirety would be if they were to turn up at court with Madeleine in tow.

There is currently some indication that the McCanns are seeking 'vindication' from Dr. Amaral. Whether that might take the form of a million or so euros is unclear, but should the McCanns vs. Amaral proceed to trial, and the McCanns lose, then it will be the author who is vindicated. And what a can of worms that would open up! It would not take a 'first' in classics to unite a validated proposition of no abduction with the McCanns own denial of any accident.

The media have made considerable capital of late from Lance Armstrong, who abused his own body in order to enrich himself at the expense of other cyclists, none of whom were physically injured as a consequence. What lies in wait for the McCanns I wonder?

Nicely put.

i agree.

KM - "What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Well, that discounts `being abducted` then doesn`t it?

Oldartform wrote:KM - "What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Well, that discounts `being abducted` then doesn`t it?

Trying hard to distance herself from sedatives?

Oldartform wrote:KM - "What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Well, that discounts `being abducted` then doesn`t it?

Couldn't that mean that "what happened"= for Kate McCann an abduction, has happened to other people, in other circumstances anywhere, anytime and Madeleine could have been "abducted " anyway elsewhere?
And she says "I know it happened" because children, in the past were abducted in different circumstances, it's a fact.

Sorry, difficult to express in English.

matthew wrote:

Gerry McCann stated, with reference to Madeleine: "And if she died, while we were in the apartment, or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?".... Be that as it may, there is one thing for sure that we are allowed to conclude from this statement: Madeleine did not sustain an accidental injury. Had she done so the McCanns, according to husband Gerry, would have done the right thing and reported it. They didn't. So she didn't (have an accident).

...... Dr Gerry McCann up in the crow's nest, keen to pre-empt another press onslaught in the future. Why? The risk of a future media attack can only exist if the potential is there.

Even after all this time people can say things which make you sit up and think WOW.

Oldartform wrote:KM - "What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Well, that discounts `being abducted` then doesn`t it?

Well then Kate, you have to ask yourself, "Were the other circumstances irresponsible enough to warrant you making up fairy tales"?

Pre empting eh...just after Gerry urged DC to do the right thing i think it was a friend of the family who hoped DC would not hold Gerry's comment against him with regards to the review funds...cant find the quote though
The non deal the pj offered Kate that she would do two years if she admitted it was an accident,i would believe them telling Kate that she would do two years if it was an accident...obviously that would depend on forensics & did Kate then realise they had nothing at that point in time...then her mantra kicked in...fucking tosser,f.... she has got quite a temper

Hmmm... as they say Mathew you can take the girl out of the gutter, but you can't take the gutter out of the girl.

Found the quote

Gerry McCann hit out after David Cameron rejected Lord Leveson’s call for a new press law. He said that while he respected the PM he disagreed with his viewpoint.

Kate simply urged Mr Cameron to “embrace the report and act swiftly”. A source close to the McCanns said yesterday: “Kate and Gerry are relying on the Prime Minister to keep the Scotland Yard review, which he ordered, ongoing.

“The last thing Kate wants is to annoy or upset the PM and does not want there to be any backlash.” Kate now wants reassurance from the Government that the 18-month case review will continue.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/361929/Has-Gerry-McCann-%27harmed%27-search-for-Madeleine/

Their arrogance is astonishing...a picture that mirrors their cheek

frencheuropean wrote:

Oldartform wrote:KM - "What happened is not due to our leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Well, that discounts `being abducted` then doesn`t it?

Couldn't that mean that "what happened"= for Kate McCann an abduction, has happened to other people, in other circumstances anywhere, anytime and Madeleine could have been "abducted " anyway elsewhere?
And she says "I know it happened" because children, in the past were abducted in different circumstances, it's a fact.

Sorry, difficult to express in English.

I think I understand what you mean FE, but I take it to mean `whatever it was that happened to Maddie was not because we left them asleep` But an abduction could only have happened if they`d left them asleep. An abduction couldn`t have happened if they were there.

Really enjoy the work by Dr Martin Roberts.
If he see's this thank you.


the mccanns 'getting information out before the investigation' is
I think what led me to suspect them. 'Tea stain' 'sea bass' and other such nonsense!

matthew wrote:Found the quote

Gerry McCann hit out after David Cameron rejected Lord Leveson’s call for a new press law. He said that while he respected the PM he disagreed with his viewpoint.

Kate simply urged Mr Cameron to “embrace the report and act swiftly”. A source close to the McCanns said yesterday: “Kate and Gerry are relying on the Prime Minister to keep the Scotland Yard review, which he ordered, ongoing.

“The last thing Kate wants is to annoy or upset the PM and does not want there to be any backlash.” Kate now wants reassurance from the Government that the 18-month case review will continue.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/361929/Has-Gerry-McCann-%27harmed%27-search-for-Madeleine/

Their arrogance is astonishing...a picture that mirrors their cheek

Is this your work marxman........brilliant,

Can anyone check out the link Dr. Roberts gave,

It was an abduction wot happened!' they cry.

Not in the hour between 9.00 and 10.00 p.m. that Thursday it didn't (see Crystal Clear/Another Story – McCannfiles 19/25.3.2012).




Ta x