Dr Martin Roberts - NO WAY OUT - with thanks to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
08 July 2013




NO WAY OUT


With Scotland Yard in hot pursuit of thirty-eight 'persons of interest', all of whom were in Portugal on the night of May 3, 2007, apparently, one must assume that there is some plausible connection between one or more of these individuals and the sequestration of a minor from her bed in Praia da Luz that night. In point of fact there were rather more than thirty-eight people in Portugal at the time, any one of whom might have some, as yet unrecognised connection to, or knowledge of, dark deeds in the Algarve.

But all of this rather pre-supposes that a crime of abduction was committed in the first instance. Whilst there are 'experts' walking among us, who are only too happy to write books, give media interviews etc., covering subjects for which the supposedly known photographic evidence is demonstrably fake, i.e. a hoax (e.g., the nephilim giants), it cannot be difficult to appreciate that the interrogation of thirty-eight (give or take as many as you like) over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, can only serve a true purpose if the child was actually abducted in the first place.

Unless money is no object, the most cost-effective way for Metropolitan Police to narrow the scope of their review-turned-investigation into Madeleine's disappearance must be to consolidate their position as to the nature of any crime committed against her. That was the approach taken by the Portuguese (surprise, surprise) in their original investigation, encouraged not just by the indications of trained sniffer dogs, but by the earlier input of UK based expertise, in the form of the NPIA's National Search Adviser, Mark Harrison MBE. Surely his voice must count for something, even in the face of absolute refusal to entertain interpretation of the dogs' behaviour subsequently.

"There is no evidence Madeleine is dead".

But that, as both the McCanns and DCI Redwood should know, does not constitute evidence she is alive. Equally, there is no evidence that she was abducted, which, likewise, is insufficient to prove she was not. But what, therefore, should one make of evidence that abduction, under the circumstances understood and at the very specific time alluded to by the only possible witnesses in the vicinity, could not have occurred? Such evidence clearly does not exist in the PJ files under the discrete heading 'evidence against', but it can be adduced. What is more, an evidence based argument, however persuasive, carries only the weight of probability. A logical proof, on the other hand, confers absolute certainty.

Earlier essays (Crystal Clear, Another Story) examined the circumstances in question, arriving at the conclusion that the putative abductor's biggest challenge was not getting into apartment 5A, but getting out again. And if they failed to do so by the time they were 'spotted' in the street by Jane Tanner then that incident itself could not have occurred. Crucial to any such conclusion is not the status of the patio door to the apartment but that of the front door, which various statements (e.g., those of Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and, importantly, Gerry McCann) inform us was locked, in which case a key would have been required in order to enter or exit the apartment that way.

Ah, but Gerry changed his mind. From: 'The deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked', to: 'Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door'. Not exactly a categorical volte face you will notice. Nor is there a genuine causal relationship between synchronously unlocked doors.

'But this is all uncertainty, not evidence! Whe... Whe... Where is the evidence'?

It exists in the form of a book, and a statement therein which confirms that the front door to apartment 5A was locked on the night of May 3, 2007. That being the case, our hypothetical abductor of Madeleine McCann could not have exited the apartment without being seen by the two gentlemen conversing at the foot of the back stairs or, for that matter, in order to be seen by Jane Tanner. Basically he could not get out. And if he did not get out, then he did not get in either.

The book in question is 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann and the crucial statement is as follows:

"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door."

The equation of possibilities here is perfectly clear. Any of three access points may have been utilised, including the front door, provided the intruder had a key. But why should he have needed a key to enter through an unlocked door? The implication is unmistakable. The front door was locked. But that would not have deterred anyone in possession of a key. Unfortunately for the McCanns' belief in abduction, it is not equally possible that he had a key to the front door.

As David Payne explains in his rogatory interview:

"...essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment."

There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it.

He could not, therefore did not, exit the apartment with a child in his arms in the two or three minutes between Gerry McCann's last 'check' on the children and Jane Tanner's 'sighting'. Nor did he leave the apartment afterwards, carrying Madeleine past the Smiths. The child they witnessed was wearing the wrong pyjamas. And since the intending abductor was not discovered inside the apartment subsequently then he was not there at all.

Without an abductor there can have been no abduction, but thirty-eight people, at least, were in Portugal that night.

A very interesting, thought-provoking and logical piece, as always.

Good point - if there was no way out, then no-one was 'in', so, where's Madeleine?

As Gerry McCann once said - the search was for a 'missing body'.

from 1.46 onwards - Here GMcC explains that the PJ's thesis was that Madeleine was dead, hence they were searching for a 'missing body'. I've always wondered why he doesn't simply say 'a body', after all, when we refer to 'a body' we mean a corpse, as opposed to a live person. So what is a 'missing' corpse? and if it's missing, where should it be?

"There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it"

Not strictly true. This was a rental apartment. All rental apartments have more than one key: the owner, the management company, the cleaners for instance, usually all have a key.

so despite the fact that the McCs only had one key, and they had obviously asked for another and told there was only one key, according to what David Payne understood there was no other key at the Ocean CLub complex which could unlock 5A, have you confirmed with the managements company, the owners and the cleaners that they each have a key Palneras.

Palmeras16 wrote:"There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it"

Not strictly true. This was a rental apartment. All rental apartments have more than one key: the owner, the management company, the cleaners for instance, usually all have a key.

There could in theory be dozens of keys.Whats to stop a previous 'tenant' getting spares cut.Even the cleaners and maintenance people going back years could get a crafty spare cut for future use.It would be almost impossible to keep track of who might have keys.
Thats why if you rent out your property its always best to change the locks if you move back.

The case against the 'abduction' is actually much simpler than that if you think about it
All this keys,doors,locked,unlocked business is a bit of a red herring and quite irrelevant.

Lioned wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:"There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it"

Not strictly true. This was a rental apartment. All rental apartments have more than one key: the owner, the management company, the cleaners for instance, usually all have a key.

There could in theory be dozens of keys.Whats to stop a previous 'tenant' getting spares cut.Even the cleaners and maintenance people going back years could get a crafty spare cut for future use.It would be almost impossible to keep track of who might have keys.
Thats why if you rent out your property its always best to change the locks if you move back.

The case against the 'abduction' is actually much simpler than that if you think about it
All this keys,doors,locked,unlocked business is a bit of a red herring and quite irrelevant.

Indeed it is, but in the scheme of things it is an aspect which must be thoroughly explored because it is surely one which would be brought as part of any defence. In fact, if one looks at all the stories arguments, excuses and red herrings put out by McTeam, one can see very clearly many of the possible lines of defence in the event of an attempted prosecution. Investigating and debunking each one is expensive and time consuming, but if done correctly one eventually ends up with only one possibility.

Lioned wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:"There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it"

Not strictly true. This was a rental apartment. All rental apartments have more than one key: the owner, the management company, the cleaners for instance, usually all have a key.

There could in theory be dozens of keys.Whats to stop a previous 'tenant' getting spares cut.Even the cleaners and maintenance people going back years could get a crafty spare cut for future use.It would be almost impossible to keep track of who might have keys.
Thats why if you rent out your property its always best to change the locks if you move back.

The case against the 'abduction' is actually much simpler than that if you think about it
All this keys,doors,locked,unlocked business is a bit of a red herring and quite irrelevant.

I have a rental apartment in a similar situation, I sometimes visit, I give it or rent it to friends, family and friends of friends. The management company hold a key and I give a set f keys to those using the apartment. It s worth noting that a copy of the front door key cannot be obtained without my signature, it is a particular security key and locksmiths will not copy it without specific documentation. The management comany have a key in the event of visitors loosing theirs or locking it inside the apartment.

So in my experience because of the volume of different people with access to the apartment, it is purposefully not easy to copy the key. Of course it is possible, but not an easy task, in our development at any rate.

Yes you can go through a process of elimination if you like and that may be the correct way to investigate a crime,perhaps the only way in the absence of something compelling.

The trouble here is there are very few verifiable facts.Which makes it pretty much impossible to reliably eliminate anything.

In terms of the 'timeline' can we reliably place the abductor in the apartment at the time gerry and wilkins are talking outside ? And so eliminate any possible exit route.Can we trust Tanners account ? Can we actually trust Wilkins account ? It could take less than a minute for an abductor to access through the open patio doors grab the child and leave the same way.So you would have to get that timeline spot on in my opinion.

One would assume that a well managed holiday complex would keep a record of the distribution of the keys and that such an audit would produce a list of those who have held keys since the property was constructed.I would expect that to be an extensive list if it exists,and far too many variables.

The only real evidence that gets even halfway towards being reliable is that of the dogs.So unless there were body snatchers at work in Pdl that night then Maddie never left the apartment,at least not in the manner described.
Everything else is just chasing ghosts.
That said there is plenty of circumstantial evidence against the mccanns which would at the very least make them very twitchy under critical examination in a Court room.Infact i think there is probably enough of that to turn kate mccann into a quivering wreck if she were ever to be put in the dock.

Lioned wrote:Yes you can go through a process of elimination if you like and that may be the correct way to investigate a crime,perhaps the only way in the absence of something compelling.

The trouble here is there are very few verifiable facts.Which makes it pretty much impossible to reliably eliminate anything.

In terms of the 'timeline' can we reliably place the abductor in the apartment at the time gerry and wilkins are talking outside ?  And so eliminate any possible exit route.Can we trust Tanners account ? Can we actually trust Wilkins account ? It could take less than a minute for an abductor to access through the open patio doors grab the child and leave the same way.So you would have to get that timeline spot on in my opinion.

One would assume that a well managed holiday complex would keep a record of the distribution of the keys and that such an audit would produce a list of those who have held keys since the property was constructed.I would expect that to be an extensive list if it exists,and far too many variables.

The only real evidence that gets even halfway towards being reliable is that of the dogs.So unless there were body snatchers at work in Pdl that night then Maddie never left the apartment,at least not  in the manner described.
Everything else is just chasing ghosts.
That said there is plenty of circumstantial evidence against the mccanns which would at the very least make them very twitchy under critical examination in a Court room.Infact i think there is probably enough of that to turn kate mccann into a quivering wreck if she were ever to be put in the dock.

Perhaps the yard are verifying or at least seeking to verify facts. This seems to be a basic difference in approach - one can say that it is not worth reopening the investigation because there is no new evidence, or one can say that unless the investigation is reopened no new evidence will ever be found. The second option by definition requires everything, no matter how far-fetched, to be checked out followed up and eventually eliminated with the possibility that something may be found whereas the first option accepts the status quo and offers nothing towards solving the crime. I understand the reasons for those who support the first option but unless the second is taken, then there is no chance whatsoever that it will ever be solved.

That's rather a thoughtful posting T4two. I will ponder on that.

From Wintabells (on video)

"Here GMcC explains that the PJ's thesis was that Madeleine was dead, hence they were searching for a 'missing body'. I've always wondered why he doesn't simply say 'a body', after all, when we refer to 'a body' we mean a corpse, as opposed to a live person. So what is a 'missing' corpse? and if it's missing, where should it be?"

Hmmmmm... indeed...

Didn't Gerry say he felt as if there was someone in the Room? Let.s discount Tanner's testimony, if she saw someone carrying a child it is probable Gerry or whatsis name would have seen the abductor as well. Assume Gerry returned to the Restaurant about 9.10pm, Oldfield says he checked at 9.30pm but only listened at the Window. If there was an abduction it would have been easy for the perpertrator/s to enter via the Patio Doors and leave by the Front Door between 9.10pm and 9.30pm

Concerning the checks on the apartment by the parents, I found, on another forum, Rachel Mamphilly's statement from 15 May 2007, which I had never read before:

"The window shutters of the McCann's apartment were closed. The patio door that they used to enter the apartment had its shutter closed. In order to enter they had to raise the shutter."

How in the hell did this statement not raise alarm bells from the beginning? How could the McCanns enter and leave their apartment through the patio sliding windows, if they had to raise the shutters to go in each time and then close them again when they left? These shutters can only be opened and closed by pulling on the strap located inside the apartment. This is a confirmation that the Tapas group have been lying from the beginning.

I hadn't realised the importance of this statement. are these the kind of shutters which cannot be raised from the outside, the same as the window, anyone know

tanszi wrote:I hadn't realised the importance of this statement.  are these the kind of shutters which cannot be raised from the outside, the same as the window, anyone know

Yes, they are the same type, roll shutters, as in the other windows. So, this statement by Rachel Mamphilly destroys Gerry's later statement that he entered by the patio doors. And also makes it impossible for any "abductor" to enter through those doors.

When the Tapas Group made Statements again at Leicester Police Station , why didn't the Police have copies of their original Statements taken in Portugal????? The questions LP asked were so inane, "where did you fly from"? .....as if that had anything to do with anything!!!

Personally, I cannot think that Redwood is serious about these 38 persons of interest....what exactly were the 37 Detectives and 5 Clerical Staff doing for 2 years.??????? We witnessed the stage managed exit of Police leaving the Metodo 3 Office with boxes , what information was in those boxes which would help SY? Metodo 3 found nothing after supposedly searching for 6 months and boasting they would find the Abductor. With all the contacts the McCanns had and almost £2 million in the Bank by December 07 , why did they not employ a Firm with experience in finding missing people. ?