Believe It Or Not by Dr. Martin Roberts

See mccannfiles.com for latest article by Dr. Martin Roberts.

By Dr Martin Roberts
13 March 2013

BELIEVE IT OR NOT

Ripley's collection of facts from around the world has for decades been presented together with the invitation extended by the title – a cornucopia of extraordinary things that have happened/existed, whether the reader is prepared to 'believe it or not.' One is of course at liberty to not believe, but such disbelief, as others would be quick to acknowledge, is wholly independent of the actualities Ripley's publication describes. It's rather hard to argue with photographs of Flo Jo's fingernails, eye witness accounts of 'out of the blue' events, and museums containing bizarre relics of all sorts. So belief and truth may happily exist as one, or co-exist as quite different from each other. We either believe in the truth, or in the face of the truth, as it were.

When actuality and belief coincide, the one encapsulates the other in our understanding. To give a very simple example, if we happen to be caught out in an unexpected shower in the morning we would feel perfectly comfortable telling a friend later that afternoon, 'it rained this morning,' whereas the friend (who had remained dry, having been elsewhere all day) might ask, 'I believe it rained this morning?' One knows, the other believes. And since knowledge is paramount we are not usually so guarded about it as to articulate only the belief, unless of course we are trying to be extremely diplomatic for some reason.

The mildly inquisitive are constantly reminded by those busily searching for Madeleine McCann that 'there is nothing to suggest that Madeleine has been seriously harmed,' and while they might just as easily subscribe to a pragmatic view, there can be no doubting the official line's promotion of the more optimistic outcome, given the apparent absence of evidence to the contrary. Belief in Madeleine McCann's survival of her own ordeal is therefore perfectly admissible. Her parents no doubt share that very belief, just as they shared the (very strong) belief that Madeleine was alive when she was taken. Belief 1 is nearly as good as belief 2 therefore, even if perhaps not quite so strongly held. And yet, as an equation, the two are peculiarly imbalanced.

There is no 'evidence' that, subsequent to having been taken, Madeleine McCann has come to serious harm. Equally there is no 'evidence' of her enjoying perfect health. So belief in option 1 has to be seen as independent of the facts, which, at the present time, remain unknown. In the case of option 2 however...

Madeleine McCann's abduction is assumed by some, her father included, to have occurred shortly after he visited the family's holiday apartment – within fifteen minutes if other 'witness' statements are taken into account. For the duration of his stay inside, all three children were said to have been asleep (as well as being recognisably beautiful). This is not something the proud father supposed, but something he claimed to have witnessed. An incontrovertible fact therefore. And yet we have ever since been treated to the 'strong belief' that Madeleine was alive prior to being taken. Whereas such belief may have become weakened with Madeleine's removal from the apartment, it is no less a belief for that. And whilst belief in the child's later situation is understandable, the other, rather more significant act of faith, is less so.

Why should the McCanns hold to a belief, not in the truth but in the face of truth? It's akin to being a member of the flat earth society. Nor can it be argued that this particular belief of theirs is justified on the grounds that Madeleine might have been killed just prior to being removed. The days of the 'resurrectionists' being long gone, there is currently no international traffic in infant corpses as far I'm aware.

The McCanns' strongly held 'belief' that Madeleine was alive before being taken from the apartment is not therefore a reflection of the facts, but wholly independent of them. Furthermore, coming as it does from the lips of the father, it calls into question the very circumstance he himself had earlier defined as fact by virtue of his own description of it. Madeleine was asleep. Therefore she was alive. If Gerry McCann only believed her to have been alive at that time, then he clearly harboured some sort of doubt and, as a trained doctor, might have been expected to do something to allay his own doubt, fear or suspicion, as Kate herself did with her laying on of hands (or was it fingers beneath nostrils? The story differs with the teller). But he did no such thing. Instead, and confident that Madeleine was asleep (therefore alive), he left the apartment without further ado. And yet he could afterwards only muster the belief that Madeleine McCann was alive all the while.

Once again, instead of telling it like it was, Gerry McCann has told it like it wasn't. Whilst a lie is, as we know, a flagrant contradiction, alternative interpretations of the truth must at least be consistent in one or other crucial respect or mutual understanding would be seriously jeopardised. If we genuinely believe in something, then we typically articulate the fact itself, which subsumes our belief in it. Stating one's belief on the other hand is an expression of doubt; one of self-doubt In Gerry McCann's case. And if he cannot trust what he says to be true then why on earth should anyone else?

And whilst on the subject of trusting in the statements of others, there are, as we know, two slightly divergent attempts at a 'timeline' in existence; a moment-by-moment account of the actions and whereabouts of the McCanns and their friends on the night of Thursday May 3, 2007. How very helpful. It's the sort of thing that Miss Marple or Poirot would be interested in reading were they to be pondering the apparent suicide of a corpse with a knife in its back. But Madeleine McCann had been abducted, had she not? And criminal abduction, as commonly understood, implies that something or someone is taken away. Yet the McCanns and their friends were still there. Self-evidently they can have had nothing to do with the urgent and distant relocation of a child when they were all still eating less than an hour later. So why were they so concerned to collaborate in providing themselves with alibis for fractions of the intervening period, when they would have been much better served searching for the missing child?

Gerry has that poignant moment minutes before the alleged abduction..."The belief that maddie was alive...when abducted" & no evidence of harm!?...no,no evidence at all when you clean the apartment so good that not one single hair from your missing daughter is found but a cadaver dog alerted behind the sofa & in the wardrobe...

Unfortunately for David Gilroy who today lost his chance of appeal for the conviction of Suzanne Pilley,cadaver scent cannot be washed or cleaned away

This case is a case of trust...

Good boy!

Chesterton wrote a lovely poem about a dog:

... they haven't got no noses, the fallen sons of Eve
even the smell of roses
is not what they supposes
and less than it should be.

The dogs haven't failed once.

Marc Klaas:
"I never considered not cooperating
and i never considered hiring a lawyer"
"We bring these children into this world
and its our duty then
to do whatever we can to protect them
and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement
right down the line"
"its only when you hire a lawyer
that it becomes apparent, if not obvious
that you are hiding something"

kitti wrote:Marc Klaas:
"I never considered not cooperating
and i never considered hiring a lawyer"
"We bring these children into this world
and its our duty then
to do whatever we can to protect them
and that includes totally cooperating with law enforcement
right down the line"
"its only when you hire a lawyer
that it becomes apparent, if not obvious
that you are hiding something"

Morning kitti, I remember reading the quote , but not who Marc Klaasis is, do tell.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Klaas

Panda, I posted a clip of Polly's father's comment on the topic about Kate running the London Marathon.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Klaas

Panda, I posted a clip of Polly's father's comment on the topic about Kate running the London Marathon.

I was just about to post same link, Panda.

An absolutely horrific crime.

At age of 12, Polly Klaas was kidnapped from a slumber party at her dad's house, and murdered. Her father Marc Klaas, who was originally a suspect, cooperated 100% with police and was cleared. He believes that anyone who does not cooperate with the police under such circumstances, must have something to hide. They caught Polly's killer.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Polly_Klaas

Panda, I posted a clip of Polly's father's comment on the topic about Kate running the London Marathon.

Thanks NBY, I can't believe none of those girls didn't scream!!!! Back on topic, matthew post,
"Gerry has that poignant moment minutes before the alleged abduction..."The belief that maddie was alive...when abducted" & no evidence of harm!?...no,no evidence at all when you clean the apartment so good that not one single hair from your missing daughter is found but a cadaver dog alerted behind the sofa & in the wardrobe..."
How can he say he believed Madeleine was alive when abducted???? Who on earth would abduct a dead child??

Panda wrote:Who on earth would abduct a dead child??

Someone not wanting the body to be found for some reason? Just a suggestion, of course.

C.Edwards wrote:

Panda wrote:Who on earth would abduct a dead child??

Someone not wanting the body to be found for some reason? Just a suggestion, of course.

Yes ...of course, good thinking Batman.
That's the sticking point with me, how did the McCanns dispose of the body if they are guilty . Did Gerry hide it in the Tennis bag in the Garden and take it away before all the commotion was going on in 5a with the PJ , Silvia Batista and some of the Tapas group . it would have meant Gerry doubling back before 10pm when Kate went to check on the children .

C.Edwards wrote:

Panda wrote:Who on earth would abduct a dead child??

Someone not wanting the body to be found for some reason? Just a suggestion, of course.

Certainly a credible suggestion.

If one gives the respect and credibility due - to the amazing CSI blood and cadaver dogs, then a major red flag that a dead body was inside the McCanns Mark Warner holiday apartment is raised, and a stranger abduction becomes unlikely (I would say impossible), due to the length of time required for the dogs to pick up a scent. Though not enough to bring about a conviction, it is most definitely enough to hang a very ugly question mark over the McCanns and their ever changing version of events. And thus it shall remain, until such time as someone speaks out.
imo

Morning Pennylane, didn't the PJ say they found bloodstains on a shelf in the Wardrobe or Cupboard? It would have been quite feasible to hide a small body in a big Tennis bag and take it away while the search was going on. I think Kate was with the Paynes , Oldfield and Payne were searching together , but don't remember what Gerry was doing.

Panda wrote:Morning Pennylane, didn't the PJ say they found bloodstains on a shelf in the Wardrobe or Cupboard? It would have been quite feasible to hide a small body in a big Tennis bag and take it away while the search was going on. I think Kate was with the Paynes , Oldfield and Payne were searching together , but don't remember what Gerry was doing.

Morning Panda

Yes the dogs alerted in the wardrobe, and in the parents bedroom too.... not to mention the McCanns keyfob.... all very damning indeed. No wonder they are so desperate to create a massive glut of PR news stories, to bury those old, deeply incriminating ones.

Although we differ in our opinions re the Smith sighting, I agree the sports bag was probably used to hide the body in at some point.... and I also agree there was time for Gerry to implement such a plan.

They had time to bleach the apt...mr amaral has said that the DNA was degraded due to cleaning....


The child didnt sleep in the bed that night, wasn't put to bed that night.


It was a problem fnding DNA off Madeleine in that apt...ok, the twins DNA could off been mistaken for madeleines BUT surely they could off got a DNA profile from her clothes....where were the clothes she supposedly wore in the 'last pic'?


Where were madeleines clothes, any clothes, even washing them would off left some DNA from her or are the Mccanns saying that the girls shared clothing so couldn't get a full DNA sample... We know they shared shoes Kate McCann has said so but surely not clothes in pdl or did the pj want a full DNA sample and that could only be found in the UK....but how can they be sure it was madeleines and not amalies....

matthew wrote:

I thought that might be Eddie or Keela but the tag says Morse. But what a wonderful picture and headline!

kitti wrote:They had time to bleach the apt...mr amaral has said that the DNA was degraded due to cleaning....


The child didnt sleep in the bed that night, wasn't put to bed that night.


It was a problem fnding DNA off Madeleine in that apt...ok, the twins DNA could off been mistaken for madeleines BUT surely they could off got a DNA profile from her clothes....where were the clothes she supposedly wore in the 'last pic'?


Where were madeleines clothes, any clothes, even washing them would off left some DNA from her or are the Mccanns saying that the girls shared clothing so couldn't get a full DNA sample... We know they shared shoes Kate McCann has said so but surely not clothes in pdl or did the pj want a full DNA sample and that could only be found in the UK....but how can they be sure it was madeleines and not amalies....

It appears that from the outset the strategy was to cause as much confusion as possible regarding identification of the missing child including making it as difficult as possible to obtain a 100% certain DNA profile. The statements of the McCanns, family and friends to create the storyline that the Portuguese police were a bunch of bumbling incompetents continues to be peddled in KM's book with for example the apparent lie that the Portuguese police accepted the comfort blanket and refused clothes from the child in the initial days of the search. In fact the opposite is true. Sending GM home to obtain a DNA sample tells us that even in those early days the PJ were far from satisfied with the cooperation or rather, lack of cooperation they were getting from the parents. I believe that the sample obtained was analysed and found to be that of a maternal child of KM and GM and not from one of the other two children. I believe that this reference sample is accepted as being from Madeleine and that it is being used by the review team to check and eliminate all sightings.

We know Kate washed all Madeleine's clothes in the Laundry room a couple of days after her disappearance and they were given to Jon Corner to take back to the U.K..

Gerry is a Cardiologist so would have known all about DNA so why choose a pillowslip only, why not some of Madeleine's cuddly toys or books? Any Father would take a few items to be sure of getting a good sample When it was announced by the FSS that it was hard to distinguish Madeleine's DNA from the twins in the Car, why didn't Gerry go back to get more samples, Madeleine's room had not been touched for months.

Why on earth would you wash a missing child's clothes and why on earth would you have them sent back within a few days off her going missing.


If that is true then it was obvious that the McCanns knew she wasn't coming back otherwise they would keep her clothes in pdl ready for her to come back and wear fgs....

kitti you have a good point there i didnt know that madeleines clothes were sent back to the uk -- all this dna --or lack of it -- also were there some traces of dna they wanted removing other than madeleines ?

They weren't sent to the U.K. with John Corner until he had finished his video in PDL. I think about August , were they washed and kept for Amelie to wear as she got older? I really think the Portugese Police slipped up by not asking for more samples of DNA to be sent to a more experienced outfit than FSS.

panda in the early days -- think it was on 3as someone posted that there more samples -- think they had been sent to spain -- could have been rumour ? but they were very small and of low copy dna -- if this is true -- who knows what the future might hold

At that time there wasn't a more experienced outfit than the FSS. Describing the Portuguese as having slipped up by submitting the forensic samples to what was purporting itself to be the world's leading forensics organization and which was ostensibly backed by the British government is worthy of Clarence Mitchell.

I think the U.S.A. Has excellent forensic facilities, in fact FSS were so incompetent that several U.K. Police Stations had their own forensics Dept and FSS has now been sold to an American Company. Whoever arranged to have the samples sent to FSS knew what they were doing.

kitti wrote:They had time to bleach the apt...mr amaral has said that the DNA was degraded due to cleaning....


The child didnt sleep in the bed that night, wasn't put to bed that night.


It was a problem fnding DNA off Madeleine in that apt...ok, the twins DNA could off been mistaken for madeleines BUT surely they could off got a DNA profile from her clothes....where were the clothes she supposedly wore in the 'last pic'?


Where were madeleines clothes, any clothes, even washing them would off left some DNA from her or are the Mccanns saying that the girls shared clothing so couldn't get a full DNA sample... We know they shared shoes Kate McCann has said so but surely not clothes in pdl or did the pj want a full DNA sample and that could only be found in the UK....but how can they be sure it was madeleines and not amalies....

Oh yes, the cleanup; I imagine a toothbrush (or two) would come in handy for messy stains. Remember the three children of these Doctors shared only one toothbrush.