Opening Gambit/Dr Roberts

Opening Gambit, 08 February 2013


Opening Gambit

Alice in Wonderland chess game
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
08 February 2013

OPENING GAMBIT

Chess is an intriguing game. Like the stylised warfare it is often said to represent, a player's success rather depends upon his or her ability to play two roles concurrently, their own and the opponent's, the tactics of both becoming increasingly complex as the game progresses. Broadly speaking, victory is gained when one party overlooks or misreads the other's intentions.

If there is one anomaly which stands out above all others in the McCann case, it is the matter of the bedroom window. For never mind its being an 'open or shut' case, once the pros and cons of that more obvious aspect are addressed, it becomes something of a puzzle as to why it should ever have been introduced into the story in the first instance.

A naïve, dismissive answer might be that the aperture was brought into play by an intruder into the McCanns' apartment. But we do not know that. Kate McCann may lay claim to knowing that, on the basis of having been there, but however proximal she was, in time or space, to events on the evening of May 3, 2007, such an explanation can be based on nothing more than surmise, there being no residual evidence to confirm it one way or another.

Perhaps the most important thing about the window in question is not whether it was open or closed, its shutters raised or lowered, or its curtains drawn, but where it was exactly, i.e. on the elevation furthest from the Tapas Bar dining area and out of sight of patrons; the same elevation as the front door in fact.

Anyone who enjoyed the recent Channel 4 documentary, The King in the Car Park, would have understood the closing analogy regarding alternative interpretations of history, and the significance of evidence which disambiguates a given situation. If a topic should sit squarely between diametrically opposed positions, then clearly both views cannot be correct. Like it or not, one of them must be wrong. Who can forget the look of disbelief on the face of ricardian Philippa Langley, when her lady colleague in the trench pointed to skeletal remains that displayed visible signs of spinal curvature, a supposedly mythological characteristic of Richard III and one which many a ricardian would previously have dismissed as merely Tudor propaganda?

I digress. But only in order to set up the contrast between an abductor's view of the circumstances surrounding the McCanns' dormant children and the McCanns' (particularly Kate's) understanding of the same, both perspectives governed by the same set of constraints; Kate playing white, the abductor black, as it were.

In her book, Madeleine, Kate confesses not to know, exactly, why the supposed abductor should have opened the bedroom window to apartment 5A. Whether to gain access to her children, export one of them, or simply to confuse the issue, she offers no definitive answer. She also entertains several other speculative possibilities concerning the behaviour of Madeleine's aggressor: that he/she had previously stalked the family for several days, that they gleaned information from a cursory glance at a staff note book kept at the Tapas Bar, and that they may well have paid a reconnaissance visit to the McCanns' apartment prior to the night of May 3, causing the children to wake prematurely.

Let's suppose he/she did all of those things, made all of those moves if you will.

Familiarity with the McCanns' pattern of behaviour in the evenings, especially if gleaned from an overlooking balcony by a 'spotter' smoking themselves to death, would have confirmed which door the parents typically used at night, as well as the schedule of their return visits from the nearby Tapas bar (i.e., every 10, 20, 30, 60 minutes). Since no visible signs of intrusion were reported by the family on either the Wednesday night or Thursday morning, any preparatory exploration of the 5A interior by an intending abductor must have been carried out without breaking and entering, using either the patio door or, given Gerry's assertion to police that it was 'unlikely' the parents had locked it, the front door even. Hence the window would not afterwards have entered into consideration, at least by the intruder. And while lounging in cognito at the Tapas Bar, casually flicking over the pages of the revealing staff note book, this Portuguese speaker would most certainly have taken note of the fact that the rear entrance to apartment 5A was not visible through the restaurant's Perspex screen (and distant shrubbery), despite any and all subsequent protestations to the contrary.

It is this last point which is perhaps of most significance when it comes to deciding upon the origins of the window's contribution to events, for whatever the chosen means of entrance into, or exit from the McCanns' apartment, being witnessed in the act by the carousing family was arguably the least of any criminal's concerns. Front door or patio door, the window will have had no part whatsoever to play in proceedings.

Black's strategy is as good as sorted then. And it's black's move. But what does white have in mind?

Contrary to expectation, and despite having their backs to it while at the restaurant, the McCanns could 'see the apartment from where they were sitting.' And since no self-respecting intruder is deliberately going to place himself in jeopardy, he would most likely opt for being out of sight when making his entrance. So he'd prefer to go in through the front somehow.

Of course the McCann position is that an abductor's access to daughter Madeleine was via the rear patio doors. But that position was adopted only after it was firmly established that neither the bedroom window nor the shutters had been tampered with; from outside at any rate.

The abductor had therefore to force open the bedroom window (because the front door must have been locked). Otherwise he would simply have walked straight in; something he appeared at first not to have done.

So, armed with sufficient information about white's disposition to allow 'mate in three,' is that not what black would do? Are we to expect that he would instead delay the agony unnecessarily, making a pawn sacrifice to no purpose whatsoever (the 'red herring' proposal)? Clearly that is white's interpretation of black's strategy. But that is what white imagines, and not what black actually does.

Annabel wrote:Opening Gambit, 08 February 2013


Opening Gambit

Alice in Wonderland chess game
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
08 February 2013

OPENING GAMBIT

Chess is an intriguing game. Like the stylised warfare it is often said to represent, a player's success rather depends upon his or her ability to play two roles concurrently, their own and the opponent's, the tactics of both becoming increasingly complex as the game progresses. Broadly speaking, victory is gained when one party overlooks or misreads the other's intentions.

If there is one anomaly which stands out above all others in the McCann case, it is the matter of the bedroom window. For never mind its being an 'open or shut' case, once the pros and cons of that more obvious aspect are addressed, it becomes something of a puzzle as to why it should ever have been introduced into the story in the first instance.

A naïve, dismissive answer might be that the aperture was brought into play by an intruder into the McCanns' apartment. But we do not know that. Kate McCann may lay claim to knowing that, on the basis of having been there, but however proximal she was, in time or space, to events on the evening of May 3, 2007, such an explanation can be based on nothing more than surmise, there being no residual evidence to confirm it one way or another.

Perhaps the most important thing about the window in question is not whether it was open or closed, its shutters raised or lowered, or its curtains drawn, but where it was exactly, i.e. on the elevation furthest from the Tapas Bar dining area and out of sight of patrons; the same elevation as the front door in fact.

Anyone who enjoyed the recent Channel 4 documentary, The King in the Car Park, would have understood the closing analogy regarding alternative interpretations of history, and the significance of evidence which disambiguates a given situation. If a topic should sit squarely between diametrically opposed positions, then clearly both views cannot be correct. Like it or not, one of them must be wrong. Who can forget the look of disbelief on the face of ricardian Philippa Langley, when her lady colleague in the trench pointed to skeletal remains that displayed visible signs of spinal curvature, a supposedly mythological characteristic of Richard III and one which many a ricardian would previously have dismissed as merely Tudor propaganda?

I digress. But only in order to set up the contrast between an abductor's view of the circumstances surrounding the McCanns' dormant children and the McCanns' (particularly Kate's) understanding of the same, both perspectives governed by the same set of constraints; Kate playing white, the abductor black, as it were.

In her book, Madeleine, Kate confesses not to know, exactly, why the supposed abductor should have opened the bedroom window to apartment 5A. Whether to gain access to her children, export one of them, or simply to confuse the issue, she offers no definitive answer. She also entertains several other speculative possibilities concerning the behaviour of Madeleine's aggressor: that he/she had previously stalked the family for several days, that they gleaned information from a cursory glance at a staff note book kept at the Tapas Bar, and that they may well have paid a reconnaissance visit to the McCanns' apartment prior to the night of May 3, causing the children to wake prematurely.

Let's suppose he/she did all of those things, made all of those moves if you will.

Familiarity with the McCanns' pattern of behaviour in the evenings, especially if gleaned from an overlooking balcony by a 'spotter' smoking themselves to death, would have confirmed which door the parents typically used at night, as well as the schedule of their return visits from the nearby Tapas bar (i.e., every 10, 20, 30, 60 minutes). Since no visible signs of intrusion were reported by the family on either the Wednesday night or Thursday morning, any preparatory exploration of the 5A interior by an intending abductor must have been carried out without breaking and entering, using either the patio door or, given Gerry's assertion to police that it was 'unlikely' the parents had locked it, the front door even. Hence the window would not afterwards have entered into consideration, at least by the intruder. And while lounging in cognito at the Tapas Bar, casually flicking over the pages of the revealing staff note book, this Portuguese speaker would most certainly have taken note of the fact that the rear entrance to apartment 5A was not visible through the restaurant's Perspex screen (and distant shrubbery), despite any and all subsequent protestations to the contrary.

It is this last point which is perhaps of most significance when it comes to deciding upon the origins of the window's contribution to events, for whatever the chosen means of entrance into, or exit from the McCanns' apartment, being witnessed in the act by the carousing family was arguably the least of any criminal's concerns. Front door or patio door, the window will have had no part whatsoever to play in proceedings.

Black's strategy is as good as sorted then. And it's black's move. But what does white have in mind?

Contrary to expectation, and despite having their backs to it while at the restaurant, the McCanns could 'see the apartment from where they were sitting.' And since no self-respecting intruder is deliberately going to place himself in jeopardy, he would most likely opt for being out of sight when making his entrance. So he'd prefer to go in through the front somehow.

Of course the McCann position is that an abductor's access to daughter Madeleine was via the rear patio doors. But that position was adopted only after it was firmly established that neither the bedroom window nor the shutters had been tampered with; from outside at any rate.

The abductor had therefore to force open the bedroom window (because the front door must have been locked). Otherwise he would simply have walked straight in; something he appeared at first not to have done.

So, armed with sufficient information about white's disposition to allow 'mate in three,' is that not what black would do? Are we to expect that he would instead delay the agony unnecessarily, making a pawn sacrifice to no purpose whatsoever (the 'red herring' proposal)? Clearly that is white's interpretation of black's strategy. But that is what white imagines, and not what black actually does.

Is it just me or is Dr Roberts posts getting more complicated the longer this case goes on?.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:

Annabel wrote:Opening Gambit, 08 February 2013


Opening Gambit

Alice in Wonderland chess game
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
08 February 2013

OPENING GAMBIT

Chess is an intriguing game. Like the stylised warfare it is often said to represent, a player's success rather depends upon his or her ability to play two roles concurrently, their own and the opponent's, the tactics of both becoming increasingly complex as the game progresses. Broadly speaking, victory is gained when one party overlooks or misreads the other's intentions.

If there is one anomaly which stands out above all others in the McCann case, it is the matter of the bedroom window. For never mind its being an 'open or shut' case, once the pros and cons of that more obvious aspect are addressed, it becomes something of a puzzle as to why it should ever have been introduced into the story in the first instance.

A naïve, dismissive answer might be that the aperture was brought into play by an intruder into the McCanns' apartment. But we do not know that. Kate McCann may lay claim to knowing that, on the basis of having been there, but however proximal she was, in time or space, to events on the evening of May 3, 2007, such an explanation can be based on nothing more than surmise, there being no residual evidence to confirm it one way or another.

Perhaps the most important thing about the window in question is not whether it was open or closed, its shutters raised or lowered, or its curtains drawn, but where it was exactly, i.e. on the elevation furthest from the Tapas Bar dining area and out of sight of patrons; the same elevation as the front door in fact.

Anyone who enjoyed the recent Channel 4 documentary, The King in the Car Park, would have understood the closing analogy regarding alternative interpretations of history, and the significance of evidence which disambiguates a given situation. If a topic should sit squarely between diametrically opposed positions, then clearly both views cannot be correct. Like it or not, one of them must be wrong. Who can forget the look of disbelief on the face of ricardian Philippa Langley, when her lady colleague in the trench pointed to skeletal remains that displayed visible signs of spinal curvature, a supposedly mythological characteristic of Richard III and one which many a ricardian would previously have dismissed as merely Tudor propaganda?

I digress. But only in order to set up the contrast between an abductor's view of the circumstances surrounding the McCanns' dormant children and the McCanns' (particularly Kate's) understanding of the same, both perspectives governed by the same set of constraints; Kate playing white, the abductor black, as it were.

In her book, Madeleine, Kate confesses not to know, exactly, why the supposed abductor should have opened the bedroom window to apartment 5A. Whether to gain access to her children, export one of them, or simply to confuse the issue, she offers no definitive answer. She also entertains several other speculative possibilities concerning the behaviour of Madeleine's aggressor: that he/she had previously stalked the family for several days, that they gleaned information from a cursory glance at a staff note book kept at the Tapas Bar, and that they may well have paid a reconnaissance visit to the McCanns' apartment prior to the night of May 3, causing the children to wake prematurely.

Let's suppose he/she did all of those things, made all of those moves if you will.

Familiarity with the McCanns' pattern of behaviour in the evenings, especially if gleaned from an overlooking balcony by a 'spotter' smoking themselves to death, would have confirmed which door the parents typically used at night, as well as the schedule of their return visits from the nearby Tapas bar (i.e., every 10, 20, 30, 60 minutes). Since no visible signs of intrusion were reported by the family on either the Wednesday night or Thursday morning, any preparatory exploration of the 5A interior by an intending abductor must have been carried out without breaking and entering, using either the patio door or, given Gerry's assertion to police that it was 'unlikely' the parents had locked it, the front door even. Hence the window would not afterwards have entered into consideration, at least by the intruder. And while lounging in cognito at the Tapas Bar, casually flicking over the pages of the revealing staff note book, this Portuguese speaker would most certainly have taken note of the fact that the rear entrance to apartment 5A was not visible through the restaurant's Perspex screen (and distant shrubbery), despite any and all subsequent protestations to the contrary.

It is this last point which is perhaps of most significance when it comes to deciding upon the origins of the window's contribution to events, for whatever the chosen means of entrance into, or exit from the McCanns' apartment, being witnessed in the act by the carousing family was arguably the least of any criminal's concerns. Front door or patio door, the window will have had no part whatsoever to play in proceedings.

Black's strategy is as good as sorted then. And it's black's move. But what does white have in mind?

Contrary to expectation, and despite having their backs to it while at the restaurant, the McCanns could 'see the apartment from where they were sitting.' And since no self-respecting intruder is deliberately going to place himself in jeopardy, he would most likely opt for being out of sight when making his entrance. So he'd prefer to go in through the front somehow.

Of course the McCann position is that an abductor's access to daughter Madeleine was via the rear patio doors. But that position was adopted only after it was firmly established that neither the bedroom window nor the shutters had been tampered with; from outside at any rate.

The abductor had therefore to force open the bedroom window (because the front door must have been locked). Otherwise he would simply have walked straight in; something he appeared at first not to have done.

So, armed with sufficient information about white's disposition to allow 'mate in three,' is that not what black would do? Are we to expect that he would instead delay the agony unnecessarily, making a pawn sacrifice to no purpose whatsoever (the 'red herring' proposal)? Clearly that is white's interpretation of black's strategy. But that is what white imagines, and not what black actually does.

Is it just me or is Dr Roberts posts getting more complicated the longer this case goes on?.

I usually think Dr Roberts is spot on, clear and concise, but this one has left me rather mystified.

I think you have to read as if you were a chess player . Complicated but clever. I'll try to understand tomorrow. Too late, too tired.

Might have been on the p*ss with Blacksmith?

At first sight, I would say that the Mccann are playing with the white pawns and pretend there is an abductor playing with the black pawns. The Mccann play both parts and pretend the black abductor, the other chess player did that , that and that on the board ( around the flat in PDL). But D.Martins says that it's impossible that the game happened like that because a clever opponent ( an abductor who had prepared his game) wouldn't have played like that.

Or, I am totaly wrong! Good night!

I too think for the first time Dr Roberts has complicated the issue. From what I remember , the view from the Restaurant to 5a was already hampered by the plastic curtain . Without the Curtain , only half the Patio door was visible and could easily have been used by an abductor. Kate made the Window of the apartment the route of the Abductor because she did not want it known that the Parents had left the Patio doors unlocked........simple!!

Why can he just not say 'why fiddle with the window when the mccanns have been in the habit of leaving the doors open'

I think thats about it !

Seems to be a common theme developing with these 'authors'.

Lioned wrote:Why can he just not say 'why fiddle with the window when the mccanns have been in the habit of leaving the doors open'

I think thats about it !

Seems to be a common theme developing with these 'authors'.

It's the first time Dr Roberts has complicated matters, maybe Blacksmith has rubbed off on him,

I think he's asking 'why have the McC's introduced the notion that the abductor used the window to either enter or exit when they were perfectly happy to publicly speculate that the same abductor entered 5a on a previous occasion on some kind of dummy run without needing to enter/exit through the window?'

The window must therefore have been introduced to explain how it is they didn't see the abduction, given they were being responsible and keeping an eye on the back of the apartment at all times and checking etc. and the front door was locked.

Or something like that......

maybe.....

lounging in cognito at the Tapas Bar, casually flicking over the pages of the revealing staff note book

lol

dr roberts love him/her.

Wintabells wrote:I think he's asking 'why have the McC's introduced the notion that the abductor used the window to either enter or exit when they were perfectly happy to publicly speculate that the same abductor entered 5a on a previous occasion on some kind of dummy run without needing to enter/exit through the window?'

The window must therefore have been introduced to explain how it is they didn't see the abduction, given they were being responsible and keeping an eye on the back of the apartment at all times and checking etc. and the front door was locked.

Or something like that......

maybe.....

"Hello Sis it's me"
"I know it's you - wtf are you doing calling me in the middle of the night - I thought yous was on holiday in Portugal ?"
"Something terrible's happened Sis - Madeleine's been abducted."
"Wtf - abducted?"
"Yep. We were eating out at the restaurant and when Kate checked to see that everything was OK - she'd gone."
"Gone? Wtf d'yer mean gone? When did this happen?"
"Just over an hour ago Sis."
"Aw - she probably just woke up and wandered off - have yous looked for her outside …?"
"No she didn't just wander off Sis - the shutters had been jemmied and the window was open - they obviously came in through the window and took her from her bed."
"Jesus Christ!"
"You've got to believe it was an abduction Sis - we need your help - and quickly."
"Right - What d'yous want me to do?"

Ok, I'm going to have another go at understanding this.

'Black' (the abductor) has been accused by 'White' (team McC) of

1) possibly noticing on the restaurant bookings record that the children were home alone in 5a
2) possibly doing a dummy run on an earlier occasion
3) possibly watching the group from afar and noting their habits and movements.

If this were the case, then 'White' would know that 'Black' was aware that the front door of 5a was out of sight and so, too, was the patio door, so why would 'White' insist that 'Black' broke in or out of 5a through the window when he could achieve 'Mate in three' ie. in through the patio/front door grab child and out again?

One explanation is (it seems from Dr R's post) that their original claim that the front door was unlikely to have been locked needed to change to a claim that it was locked (so now 'Black' couldn't have got in that way) and then when the window showed no sign of being forced open, the story needed to change to one in which 'Black' went in through the patio door and out through the window, or he/she opened the window to confuse matters... In other words, the window was always part of White's game plan, not Black's.

Hmmmm....good point.

I think using the front door is a no'no, they are usually yale locks so can only be opened with a key, black could get out via the door, but not in , so the patio doors are the only alternative.
I was talking to my Son about this case a while ago and he cannot understand my obsession about this family . He did offer a theory by suggesting it could have been a Staff Member who had access to the key and an associate to help who would be waiting with a car. The idea was they would ask for a ransom from the family but when they saw that the Press from around the World were in PDL they abandoned the ransom plan and had to dispose of Madeleine.

I think Dr R is saying that Gerry originally said it was unlikely the front door was locked. This claim was subsequently changed.

Wintabells wrote:I think Dr R is saying that Gerry originally said it was unlikely the front door was locked. This claim was subsequently changed.

Yes, it had to be Wintabells, most Resorts are yale locks .......uum, I still think Dr. R for the first time has introduced a very complicated theory.

Yale lock - ah. Take your point completely. How can you close one of those without locking it - you can't.

Wintabells wrote:Yale lock - ah. Take your point completely. How can you close one of those without locking it - you can't.

It's elementary my dear Watson,

Wintabells wrote:Yale lock - ah. Take your point completely. How can you close one of those without locking it - you can't.

Many Yale fitments have a latch disengagement device - I've just checked ours as I wasn't totally sure.

If that is operated, then the door can simply be opened and closed in the same way as an internal door ie by handle (If there is one ....) without need for a key.

So it rather depends upon the precise style of Yale device fitted to the Apartment door.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Wintabells wrote:Yale lock - ah. Take your point completely. How can you close one of those without locking it - you can't.

Many Yale fitments have a latch disengagement device - I've just checked ours as I wasn't totally sure.

If that is operated, then the door can simply be opened and closed in the same way as an internal door ie by handle (If there is one ....) without need for a key.

So it rather depends upon the precise style of Yale device fitted to the Apartment door.

That's true TEIN my front door has a steel attachment that you turn to lock. but European plugs etc are different to ours, however, I would imagine Hotels and accommodation at holiday Apartments would have locks. Since the McCanns were not worried about their children's safety , they did not check as regularly as they should have so would have thought nothing about leaving the Patio Door unlocked if it saved them time .

From Matt Oldfield rogatory interview: 4078 "So at night times you'd always have that door locked when you'd exit?" Reply "The patio door would be locked and you'd go out through the..." 4078 "Gone through the other..." Reply "Main door and lock that one." 4078 "Which then you locked behind you." Reply "Yeah." 4078 "After you went." Reply "You had to lock it because it would open on the, it wouldn't shut through like a Yale lock it would close just on a, on a handle that opened it."

Russell O'Brien: "On Sunday I recall I checked Kate and Gerry's apartment as well as Rachael and Matt's. I had taken Matt's keys and I believe that their (Rachael and Matt's) door was deadlocked the same as ours and that I would have needed to turn the key two times. "I needed Matt's key to check on their room and I had it, but I didn't need Kate and Gerry's key because they went through the patio door', erm, we went through the patio door to cross in and look into the children's bedroom. So, at the time, I have to say, I didn't really think that, you know, about the differences in how, in how we were, the security in the, in the rooms was, but, erm, I definitely did not go in through Gerry's and Kate's main, you know, double locked door or anything, I'm sure I went through the patio." And now the focal point:

"We were conscious that, that, erm, if you, you only do one lock on the main door then it can be opened from the inside but if you double lock it then, then, then you need the key to get in or out.”

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccannnot-abducted-would-mean-madeleine.html

sorry - the post above is a snippet taken from 'Another story' by Dr Martin Roberts on the whole key thing which can be found at http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccannnot-abducted-would-mean-madeleine.html

Wintabells wrote:sorry - the post above is a snippet taken from 'Another story' by Dr Martin Roberts on the whole key thing which can be found at [url=http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccannnot-abducted-would-mean-madeleine.html

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.co.uk/2012/03/mccannnot-abducted-would-mean-madeleine.html[/quote[/url]]
Right Wintabells, sorted.!!! The McCanns could not be bothered themselves but were quite happy to let everyone else check , doesn't it make you mad that the PJ waited so long to ask for a recon?

Russell O'Brien: "On Sunday I recall I checked Kate and Gerry's apartment as well as Rachael and Matt's. I had taken Matt's keys and I believe that their (Rachael and Matt's) door was deadlocked the same as ours and that I would have needed to turn the key two times.

Has a tapas member stated that the checking of others children did not happen untill abduction night after the revalation of the crying incident also noted Russel checking Rachel & Matt's daughter,have seen reference to Matt Oldfield being unwell(sick diarrhea) on the sunday,can't find the statement to confirm that he went to Tapas or not? it is possible he had the illness earlier but felt well enough for tapas later...