Time And Tide, by Dr. Martin Roberts

See mccannfiles.com for article by Dr. Martin Roberts dated 25 February 2013.

Thanks interested.

TIME AND TIDE

Gerry McCann announced before the recent Leveson enquiry, "I strongly believe in Freedom of Speech...I don't have a problem with somebody purporting a theory..."

Perhaps then it is time, at last, to do a little, perfectly admissible 'purporting.'

Time, the 'grim reaper,' takes its inevitable toll in many ways, not the least of which being of one's memory. And, in that particular context, it does not take weeks, months, or years over doing so.

The McCanns have, not infrequently, been cavalier with time itself, their various accounts of seemingly unimportant incidents during their week in Praia da Luz dragging events, in a largely forward direction, away from their actual point of occurrence. To give but one example, Kate McCann, in her only book to date, makes wholly unequivocal reference to her own photography of daughter Madeleine during a mini-tennis session on the Tuesday morning, when it is perfectly clear from the Ocean Club's printed schedule that said mini-tennis took place on the Monday morning. Were it an isolated case one might be prepared to accept this as a one-off error in recall. Unfortunately it is neither.

KM (Statement to police, 6.9.07):

'When asked about the fact her daughter had been crying on Tuesday night for one hour and 15 minutes, between 10:30 and 11:45 p.m., she says that is not true. She says that on that night, after midnight, Madeleine went to their room and said that her sister Amelie was crying, so she stayed to sleep with her and Gerry in their bedroom. She says that before Madeleine appeared in her bedroom, she had already heard Amelie crying, however she did not go to the room, as Madeleine came into the room almost at the same time she heard the crying. She does not remember if afterwards she, or Gerry, went to the children's room, however she asserts that Amelie cried for a short time.'

KM (in 'Madeleine,' p.59):

"...some time in the early hours Madeleine came through to our bedroom, complaining that Amelie was crying and had woken her up. Gerry checked on Amelie, who settled quickly, and we let Madeleine jump into bed with us."

After four months Kate McCann was unable to recall whether either of the parents (both present) looked in on their younger daughter. After four years, she writes, without hesitation, that Gerry did so. That in itself is an impossible cognitive development. But then one has to take husband Gerry's account of the incident into consideration, an account which he gave to police on 10 May, i.e. no more than a week after the pair announced their daughter was missing. From Gerry's re-telling one gets the impression he was not even there:

"He cannot say exactly, but he thinks that on Monday or Tuesday MADELEINE had slept for some time in his bedroom, with KATE, as she had told him that one or both twins were crying, making much noise."

Kate McCann's experience of her husband's presence and behaviour that Tuesday night appears to have been illusory. But it would seem that the McCanns were not alone in not knowing whether they were coming or going.

Anomalies in the creche records, extending back in time from May 3, 2007, have previously been examined (see: Seventeen Come Sunday/It Never Rains, McCannFiles October 2012). They include one R. O'Brien being somewhat uncertain of their apartment's location. From May 2nd he/they would appear to have made up their mind(s), but, judging from their earlier indications, the decision cannot have been an easy one to make.

On the Sunday afternoon Ella O'Brien was staying in apartment G5D. The very next morning (30th April) she was staying in 5B, while, in the afternoon, none other than R. O'Brien himself attended the creche, though normally resident in 5D. The following morning (Tuesday 1 May) Emma (afterwards amended to Ella) O'Brien was back in 5B. She must really have liked it there, because it was her given address that afternoon also. And it would have been again on the Wednesday morning (2 May) had someone not altered it to read G5D where she remains for the afternoon and throughout Thursday.

How very odd.

Equally strange, and with particular reference to timing, is a pair of entries made in the creche register for May 2.

Judging from the various scripts used to write down the children's names, this aspect (the role, if you will) was not pre-recorded by the nanny or nannies on duty that day. Rather the complete entry, i.e. name, room number, parent's location, time and signature would have been the responsibility of the parent/guardian in question. Like completing a visitor's book really. Adopting just that analogy, if we think of entry number five being made on a given date, and at a given time, then entry number six, which follows it, cannot usually be made any earlier. Uness we are considering attendance at the Ocean Club creche where, on the morning of Tuesday May 2, the registration of Jessica Berry and Ella O'Brien at 9.30 a.m. is followed by that of Elizabeth Naylor and Madeleine McCann – ten minutes earlier, at 9.20. (All other arrivals recorded that week are perfectly sequential).

And so to theorizing.

Pursuant upon earlier discussion (2012), one might reasonably conclude that Madeleine may not in fact have attended the 'Lobsters' creche between Tuesday 1 and Thursday 3 May at all, despite written entries in the register to the contrary, apparently. Such a line of reasoning must however provoke the question of why anyone should elect to falsify such a record, if not to conceal the fact. Well (and here's where a little 'left field' purporting comes in), the answer might well reside in why that same register was possibly in error even on the afternoon of Monday 30th.

Despite the McCanns accent on routine, at the time and since, they seem no sooner to have established one on the Sunday than they deviated from it the very next day. Whereas all of the children were re-submitted to their specific clubs after lunch on the Sunday, Madeleine rejoining the Lobsters at 2.45 p.m. (accompanied by Gerry, whilst Kate delivered the twins elsewhere ten minutes earlier), on the Monday afternoon Madeleine arrived fully half-an-hour later at the Lobsters, in the company of her mother, who, after proceeding to drop off the twins once more, returned to extract Madeleine again barely fifteen minutes after her arrival (in at 3.15 p.m. out at 3.30 p.m.). That's what the register tells us.

There can be only two perspectives on the movement of children into and out of a playgroup, that of the parents on the one hand and the facility on the other. If Madeleine were required for some significant purpose shortly after 3.30 p.m. that Monday, then why deposit her at the creche at all? For the sake of fifteen minutes she could more easily have remained with one or other parent or temporary minder, as the kids' club was not exactly en route to the younger group's location. If however staff at the kids' club thought it expedient to request Madeleine's urgent removal for whatever reason, then this eventuality would later have been reflected, surely, in one or other statement given by those staff concerned. It is not.

The only two sensible explanations for Madeleine McCann's extraordinarily brief sojourn at the Mark Warner kids' club that Monday afternoon can therefore be discounted.

Which means that the true explanation is an unusual one.

Did not Kate McCann once intone, "I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."?

Meaning, indubitably, that something happened at a time when the children were not asleep, i.e. in the daytime (and they didn't do afternoon naps but played instead).

So what might have happened that Monday lunchtime to make Madeleine and her twin siblings unexpectedly late for their afternoon playgroup sessions, when Gerry was clearly unable to share in their delivery (it fell to Kate to go in both directions)? And did Madeleine really make the journey? Or was her name simply entered, first for appearances sake, and then, very shortly afterwards, to avoid a noticeable absence?

As Gerry McCann told the Irish Independent on 10 June, 2007, "Early on I had said to Kate I wonder how long it will be before someone says 'I wonder if he had anything to do with this?' The circumstances are such that physically it is impossible that I was involved."

Well he doesn't appear to have helped out with the children that Monday afternoon, that's for sure.


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id232.html

Omg they're DOCTORS and they can't even get the difference between a B and a D ???? How does that work out then when it comes to writing out prescriptions?

AnnaEsse wrote:
As Gerry McCann told the Irish Independent on 10 June, 2007, "Early on I had said to Kate I wonder how long it will be before someone says 'I wonder if he had anything to do with this?' The circumstances are such that physically it is impossible that I was involved."

There's ALWAYS time and potential for someone to be involved, but here they are again back at the very beginning trying to deflect the attention they knew would always fall on them.

Very telling Dr.Gerry!

Interesting too that the Naylor child is mentioned, kikoratton on twitter's always said their child was a Maddie substitute in the creche, the reason photos of a younger Maddie came out and she was smaller remember everyone going on about how tiny Maddie was for her age?

Dr Roberts does not subscribe to an accident May 3rd neither does he subscribe to Kate not being there when something happened,Kate's memory has improved though
Kikoraton believes naylor had a friend called Madelene?..spelt without an i ? or similar

margaret wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:
As Gerry McCann told the Irish Independent on 10 June, 2007, "Early on I had said to Kate I wonder how long it will be before someone says 'I wonder if he had anything to do with this?' The circumstances are such that physically it is impossible that I was involved."

There's ALWAYS time and potential for someone to be involved, but here they are again back at the very beginning trying to deflect the attention they knew would always fall on them.

Very telling Dr.Gerry!

Interesting too that the Naylor child is mentioned, kikoratton on twitter's always said their child was a Maddie substitute in the creche, the reason photos of a younger Maddie came out and she was smaller remember everyone going on about how tiny Maddie was for her age?

And maybe it was the Naylor child who insisted on being called Madeleine.

As Gerry McCann told the Irish Independent on 10 June, 2007, "Early on I had said to Kate I wonder how long it will be before someone says 'I wonder if he had anything to do with this?' The circumstances are such that physically it is impossible that I was involved."

"The circumstances are such that physically it is impossible that I was involved."

Oh fer chrissakes! Did you ever see such an ugly, convoluted mangling of the English language!
Never uses one word where ten will do - as if more words will somehow absolve him!

matthew wrote:Dr Roberts does not subscribe to an accident May 3rd neither does he subscribe to Kate not being there when something happened,Kate's memory has improved though
Kikoraton believes naylor had a friend called Madelene?..spelt without an i ? or similar

Yes, IIRC Kikoratton's theory is Naylor child + friend Madalene both signed in by GM from first day.

it is impossible that I was involved. why not we?

tanszi wrote:it is impossible that I was involved. why not we?

Yes indeed!
Keen to absolve himself - but not her!

almostgothic wrote:

tanszi wrote:it is impossible that I was involved. why not we?

Yes indeed!
Keen to absolve himself - but not her!

I think that if push came to shove he'd throw her under the bus, just like he threw Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her.

agree only i think there is something preventing him ........

AnnaEsse wrote:

almostgothic wrote:

tanszi wrote:it is impossible that I was involved. why not we?

Yes indeed!
Keen to absolve himself - but not her!

I think that if push came to shove he'd throw her under the bus, just like he threw Jane Tanner by saying he didn't see her.

PRECISELY in all respect.

(Thanks to AnnaEsse for posting the article.)

I was sitting here cringing at the thought that Madeleine may have "disappeared," earlier than May 3rd when I had a thought that just wriggled its way into my consciousness. It's fairly certain that the McCanns have developed the habit of answering questions before they're asked. My thought was about Kate McCann wondering if the 'abductor,' had done a practice run on the evening of May 2nd. Let's suppose Madeleine did 'disappear' earlier in the week and the McCanns were the ones to do a practice run on May 2nd. Just in case someone witnessed comings and goings, well maybe the abductor did a 'dry run.'

tanszi wrote:agree only i think there is something preventing him ........

I suppose it depends on how desperate he gets.

He has dirt on her.
She has dirt on him.
Who would blink first?

AnnaEsse wrote:I was sitting here cringing at the thought that Madeleine may have "disappeared," earlier than May 3rd when I had a thought that just wriggled its way into my consciousness. It's fairly certain that the McCanns have developed the habit of answering questions before they're asked. My thought was about Kate McCann wondering if the 'abductor,' had done a practice run on the evening of May 2nd. Let's suppose Madeleine did 'disappear' earlier in the week and the McCanns were the ones to do a practice run on May 2nd. Just in case someone witnessed comings and goings, well maybe the abductor did a 'dry run.'

And everything was done in full view off everyone...KNOWBODY would think anything off a person carrying a blue tennis bag around , would they.


Everyone was too busy concentrating on 3rd may when actually EVERYTHING happened before that.


Mrs Fenn also said something....she said, normally , she would hear doors slamming and movement, on Thursday 3rd may, she didn't hear ANY noise from 5a...all day.

tanszi wrote:it is impossible that I was involved. why not we?

Wasn't it KM who said, I think after the first interview; 'It's me they're after, not you' to Gerry. What a puzzle.

AnnaEsse wrote:I was sitting here cringing at the thought that Madeleine may have "disappeared," earlier than May 3rd when I had a thought that just wriggled its way into my consciousness. It's fairly certain that the McCanns have developed the habit of answering questions before they're asked. My thought was about Kate McCann wondering if the 'abductor,' had done a practice run on the evening of May 2nd. Let's suppose Madeleine did 'disappear' earlier in the week and the McCanns were the ones to do a practice run on May 2nd. Just in case someone witnessed comings and goings, well maybe the abductor did a 'dry run.'

And gerry mccann wrote his own name and Robert Naylors too. Hand writing is exactly the same. Why would he do that? If not... as you say.

Iris wrote:

margaret wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:
As Gerry McCann told the Irish Independent on 10 June, 2007, "Early on I had said to Kate I wonder how long it will be before someone says 'I wonder if he had anything to do with this?' The circumstances are such that physically it is impossible that I was involved."

There's ALWAYS time and potential for someone to be involved, but here they are again back at the very beginning trying to deflect the attention they knew would always fall on them.

Very telling Dr.Gerry!

Interesting too that the Naylor child is mentioned, kikoratton on twitter's always said their child was a Maddie substitute in the creche, the reason photos of a younger Maddie came out and she was smaller remember everyone going on about how tiny Maddie was for her age?

And maybe it was the Naylor child who insisted on being called Madeleine.

There was no cadaver odour detected on any of Gerry's clothing. Even though I am convinced that the beige trousers, hastily thrown on the bed and to be seen in the first photographs (not the later ones) were that Gerry wore when he took his decoy walk down PdL with a borrowed child.
The timeline of that evening was deliberately constructed to make it impossible to have hidden a body in the time available. Something Gerry trots out rather proudly in interviews (see also Australian interview).
The 30th gets almost no mention in the book.

Imo Maddie wasn't even at tennis that morning. I'm sure the photograph is photoshopped, weirdly with her body but her head from another photograph.
The head's far too far forward on the neck.
supporting arguments:
Someone has determined that this particular surface isn't present on the tenniscourts at OC.
She is wearing a large pink hat, which is the very hat worn by Amelie in the pool photo. Children are possessive - v. unlikely that Maddie would give her hat to Amelie and be fobbed off with the small white one.
Imo the pool photo without Amelie was taken late summer 2006. Which also explains the absence of that O so important dress as evidence, for DNA for showing to the press. Amelie was added with very clear evidence of having been pasted in some time in May 07 and likely this was achieved in the UK as this photo was only produced after Gerry had been to the UK. By pasting Amelie in at the right age for 5/07 the pool photo is magically part of the holiday.
(Amelie is missing most of her right arm and the creases in Gerry's shorts can be seen under the transparent part of the arm.)

That pink hat really bugs me, because Amelie must have been given it soon after or even before - 3/5. Waste not, want not?

i think the creshe was very lax -- ive said it before put a little girl in a pink had shades and shorts and from a distance they all look the same -- in the summer if you look at school children playing outside you cannot tell whos who -- i tried this years ago spotting a friends child -- i think all the passing of the t shirts sandles and other items of madeleines was to mix stuff up dna included -- they were very forensic aware -- also the baby pic was pushed out -- why not the one of madeleine riding her bike -- or the one in the everton top --there has been far more pics released that make madeleine look at least 12 months older

morning cass x

im at a loss here on how to make my post make sense...there is so much i want to mention..that has all fell on blind eyes and deaf ears........everything that has gone on/what the mccs have done etc etc ....starting with the bucket for donations in the foyer...none of it has ever been about finding maddie and obviously if you have enough money..you are the law...every one has to jump to your tune [they knew this]....that is why the foundations were laid in the very beginning...

so so many mistakes have been made over the years that was obvious from the word go .....but they just go on and on and on...now it seems to me every thing hinges on G A

its like hundreds of green bottles hanging on a wall...............Goncalo is our only one left...if he fails ...imo.they are going to be untouchable...its going to be impossible to get the other side of this into the public domain ...unless your willing to be destroyed by the mccs ...they didnt care for maddie...and god help anyone one that does....

Well put, xtina: But surely there must be a proper Investigative Journalist with immense cojones prepared for a "do or die" Media blitz?

I am, however, very confident that the continuing efforts of SY in conjunction with our Portuguese friends is going to produce worthwhile results.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Well put, cass: But surely there must be a proper Investigative Journalist with immense cojones prepared for a "do or die" Media blitz?

I am, however, very confident that the continuing efforts of SY in conjunction with our Portuguese friends is going to produce worthwhile results.

really hope you are right tein..............

i should have said [in my post] with all my heart i hope there will some how be justice for maddie...somewhere within this terrible injustice...maddie has so far had ..............also those who have suffered for trying....

@xtina: My apologies, I was replying to your Post, in fact, and wrote cass' name in error ('cos she always talks sense!)

Now corrected in my earlier Post.

Unfortunately, UK journalists have had their gonads surgically removed by Gerry McCann (and we thought he was just a cardiologist).
Way way back in the beginnings of this story I could see the way the wind was blowing on account of all the press treading the same sycophantic path. And I suggested that, if they wanted to stop looking impotent and regain some credibility, all the editors should set aside their rivalry, meet up and vow to tell that story like it really was and not how the McCanns demanded they should tell it.
But of course the imperative of 'the bottom line' was never going to allow that.

Some (perhaps anticipating charges being brought after arguido status was announced) did put their toes in the water but got their fingers burned. Mixed metaphor, but you get the drift. And as they were not willing to repeat the experience it was back to the default position.
I still think that blanket investigative coverage is the way to go.There must be some journalists out there who are sick to death of being copy-and-paste eunuchs.
But until our evil libel laws are blasted into oblivion, along with the parasitic lawyers who feed off them, eunuchs they will be.