The "get out" clause-Dr Martin Roberts 4/12/2013 the mccannfiles

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

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


By Dr Martin Roberts
04 December 2013


THE 'GET OUT' CLAUSE

Excerpt from Fiona Payne's Rogatory Interview (10.4.08)

1485 - "What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that?"
Reply - "She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought.  So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh".
1485 - "So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?"
Reply - "Yeah".
1485 - "Did she say whether she had locked or?"
Reply - "No, that was the point, I think they said they'd left it, well she'd said she'd left it unlocked".

The key question paraphrased

What was better for Madeleine if she woke up: That she could get out or, finding the door locked, she could not?

The decision

They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked. (KM witness statement 6.9.2007)

'...a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked'. (GM witness statement 4.5.2007)

The resultant status

Balcony door left unlocked, therefore Madeleine could get out if she woke up.

Question 1.

If the sliding glass door was 'always unlocked', then why should the question as to what was best for Madeleine have arisen that Thursday evening? Supposing 'always' to have applied from the outset of the holiday, the decision had long since been made. Wasn't day six leaving it rather late to openly ponder the option of locking the patio door?

Question 2.

Given the resultant status of the apartment (unlocked patio door so that Madeleine could get out if she wanted), why have you since insisted that there was 'no way' Madeleine could get out of the apartment unaided?

Question 3.

Exactly why could Madeleine McCann not have walked from her bed to the patio door, left unlocked for her benefit?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[See: Just Listen (5.2.11) and Still Listening? (7.2.11) for suggestions.]

frencheuropean wrote:EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

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


By Dr Martin Roberts
04 December 2013


THE 'GET OUT' CLAUSE

Excerpt from Fiona Payne's Rogatory Interview (10.4.08)

1485 - "What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that?"
Reply - "She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought.  So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh".
1485 - "So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?"
Reply - "Yeah".
1485 - "Did she say whether she had locked or?"
Reply - "No, that was the point, I think they said they'd left it, well she'd said she'd left it unlocked".

The key question paraphrased

What was better for Madeleine if she woke up: That she could get out or, finding the door locked, she could not?

The decision

They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked. (KM witness statement 6.9.2007)

'...a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked'. (GM witness statement 4.5.2007)

The resultant status

Balcony door left unlocked, therefore Madeleine could get out if she woke up.

Question 1.

If the sliding glass door was 'always unlocked', then why should the question as to what was best for Madeleine have arisen that Thursday evening? Supposing 'always' to have applied from the outset of the holiday, the decision had long since been made. Wasn't day six leaving it rather late to openly ponder the option of locking the patio door?

Question 2.

Given the resultant status of the apartment (unlocked patio door so that Madeleine could get out if she wanted), why have you since insisted that there was 'no way' Madeleine could get out of the apartment unaided?

Question 3.

Exactly why could Madeleine McCann not have walked from her bed to the patio door, left unlocked for her benefit?


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[See: Just Listen (5.2.11) and Still Listening? (7.2.11) for suggestions.]

1. The reason that the discussion arose about whether it was good or not good to leave the door open for Madeleine (to play devil's advocate) was because Kate and Gerry had heard from her that she had cried and they did not come, only that morning.

Whatever they said to PJ to justify this, it occurred - we know it occurred - it may have occurred both May 1 when Mrs Fenn heard it and May 2 the night before she mentioned it. However by the morning of May 3 they had heard an dknew it happened, should have been ashamed, knew that Madeleine was waking and crying and at THAT point - the evening of May 3rd - would have wondered aloud to friends whether the door open was safe in case she woke and wadered or looked for them. Why would they have the conversation earlier than that, if they believed the kids were staying put, nicely asleep in their beds, until Maddie mentioned that wasn't the case?

The question here is, if you KNEW Madeleine woke, on any prior night, why on earth would you leave, with the door locked - or unlocked-  in case she awoke again? They had by then several tips to the fact that she was a poor sleeper, wasn't well that afternoon after tea, had woken and cried and wondered where they were, and should have STOOD AT HOME not been out mewling about whether she could find her way in the cold dark, barefoot, to "find them" in the bar.

2, Good question. They "knew" she didn't wake and wandered and "knew" it "happened under other circumstances. My presumption is that they knew this because they had either locked the doors and she could not have gotten out or because they had administered enough sedative to keep her down for the count or both. Not because, as they would probably argue, they returned to find the window open and shutters jimmied and the bad guy having gone right past Sean and Amelie to take madeleine.

3. See 2 - drugs.

There was also a mention of Madeleine being able to get out in case of a fire, I think this may have been in one of Gerry's statements. How ridiculous is that? A three year old is going to herd two two-year-olds out of their cots and to safety in case of a fire!

Agree about the drugs. I am almost positive that the children were drugged. Too much of the circumstantial evidence points to this for it not to be true.

The horrible thing is....if they had NOT drugged Madeleine and she had got up and onto the sofa and fell and banged her head...she would probably still be alive today.

When the McCanns knew that Madeleine had cried that night they should have decided there and then NOT to go out that night. !!! Apart from the disapproval of the Population initially they have been able to present themselves as caring Parents and received millions of £'s to help in the search for Madeleine.

We probably will never know what happened to Madeleine but I hope the McCanns close the Fund, sack Clarence , and concentrate on the twins .

Question: Would a "Little " girl have the strength to open the sliding door? For those of you who have little experience of these "sliding doors " they are quite heavy. This heaviness isn't obvious providing the sliding action is working 100%. Over a period of time with use this deteriorates. Sand and dirt wear away the plastic runners which then become uneven and hard to move. To an adult this might not present too much of a problem, but to a small child reaching up for the handle would be presented with quite a challenge. She would have little or no leverage where as an adult would be pushing from a greater position.

Mrs Fenn and the crying. Nobody can say whether it was MM that was crying. It has been argued/talked to death on this forum as how a child that was crying for over an hour could instantly stop as soon as a door was heard being opened. ( nobody mentioned the door being closed ).

BelEddie wrote:Question: Would a "Little " girl have the strength to open the sliding door? For those of you who have little experience of these "sliding doors " they are quite heavy. This heaviness isn't obvious providing the sliding action is working 100%. Over a period of time with use this deteriorates. Sand and dirt wear away the plastic runners which then become uneven and hard to move. To an adult this might not present too much of a problem, but to a small child reaching up for the handle would be presented with quite a challenge. She would have little or no leverage where as an adult would be pushing from a greater position.

Mrs Fenn and the crying. Nobody can say whether it was MM that was crying. It has been argued/talked to death on this forum as how a child that was crying for over an hour could instantly stop as soon as a door was heard being opened. ( nobody mentioned the door being closed ).  

Hi BelEddie, those sliding doors are very heavy , no way would a 3 yr old manage to open them. Also, the children's Bedroom was in darkness so hardly likely Madeleine ever moved from her bed. Madeleine was known to wake up and creep into her Parents bed so I think it was her crying. It is likely Madeleine heard the sliding doors being opened and stopped crying because she knew it would be her parents.

Panda wrote:

BelEddie wrote:Question: Would a "Little " girl have the strength to open the sliding door? For those of you who have little experience of these "sliding doors " they are quite heavy. This heaviness isn't obvious providing the sliding action is working 100%. Over a period of time with use this deteriorates. Sand and dirt wear away the plastic runners which then become uneven and hard to move. To an adult this might not present too much of a problem, but to a small child reaching up for the handle would be presented with quite a challenge. She would have little or no leverage where as an adult would be pushing from a greater position.

Mrs Fenn and the crying. Nobody can say whether it was MM that was crying. It has been argued/talked to death on this forum as how a child that was crying for over an hour could instantly stop as soon as a door was heard being opened. ( nobody mentioned the door being closed ).  

Hi BelEddie, those sliding doors are very heavy , no way would a 3 yr old manage to open them. Also, the children's Bedroom was in darkness so hardly likely Madeleine ever moved from her bed. Madeleine was known to wake up and creep into her Parents bed so I think it was her crying. It is likely Madeleine heard the sliding doors being opened and stopped crying because she knew it would be her parents.

Beg to differ. If the door was merely closed to and not properly snecked then she could have been able to open it. I have a cat who, when he was only a kitten of 3/4 months old could open the sliding patio doors if we hadn't "snecked" them properly.

I think she could open them herself, I think this conversation with Fiona hearkens back to some disagreement between the mcCanns themselves on how Madeleine should be left and the state of the doors etc. I think Kate was the nervous Nelly and Gerry bullied her into thinking (or she wants us to think this) it'd be okay to leave the kids. She says they ALL thought it'd be okay but only McCanns left the doors unlocked routinely. Although I don't think Kate "we were so into each other" McCann bothered to look in on the kids before they left and did not know whether they were actually asleep or not before they left the apt that night.

This is why I think they feel so guilty, it's really the fact that they left her in no fit shape to look out for herself never mind get out "in case of fire" - WTF? What were the twins going to do in that situation? Besides kids tend to hide if there's a fire and they die of smoke inhalation, they don't put on their super man cape and run for help at age 2 and 3. I think if MM was abducted, the kids all being given a sleep aid assisted that process and if she didn't get kidnapped and died in 5A I think it is very likely the medication would have had something to do with it - hence "we let her down" -

they knew their kid was a problem sleeper, knew it before they left the apt that night - hell they knew it before they left Rothley. It was never a good idea to leave those kids alone and particularly not Madeleine whatever little Superior Parenting listening checks and bedtime charts and whatever else they had implemented to manage that situation, there is no "fix" for toddlers that can allow you, from a great doctorly height, to put it in place so you can go out and get pissed every night and not have to worry about them. They always know best but I think Gerry was the one pushing that agenda and wasn't even going to discuss it with her further, hence she turned to Fiona.

That bus video and other things make me feel all was not right between them and the kids and their "training" were a point of conflict as was me time, Gerry's laddish behavior, etc and those things came to a head.

I think Maddie could have been in the lounge looking out for them when she stopped crying - she was crying because she was afraid, not injured, the night Mrs Fenn heard her. So when she heard them staggering in, she stopped.  And if listening checks are all that wonderful then if she could hear them slide the door open they could hear her bawling. They would have wanted to put a stop to that because it would inconvenience them and "people would say" they weren't good parents. Hence the Calpol. Or whatever.

I don't think for one minute the twins were left alone , just poor Madeleine.


One reason I think this, could you really trust any 3 year old to be left alone with two 2 year olds ....in the dark....I wouldn't.



Madeleine was alone when she was crying when mrs fenn heard her, she would off woke the twins up for certain .


Madeleine was probably terrified when she was crying as it would off been very dark and frightening for her.



The thought off her crying ...alone makes me feel very sad and angry because the mccanns knew she had been crying and what did they do, feel guilty, oh no, ignore it and go out the next night.


They should be ashamed off themselves.

"I don't think for one minute the twins were left alone , just poor Madeleine."

5 night is a row? What would be the point of that? Who did in your opinion take care of the twins? Why do you think Maddie was left alone, for 5 nights, and why?

My opinion....Madeleine wouldn't off gone to sleep straight away, they don't and certainly not all three off them, together, in one room.


I slept in one room with my two brothers from an early age I can still remember we all kept each other awake until we finally all fell asleep.....and it wasn't 8pm either.


Was it a myth that madeleines bedroom was downstairs in rothely?


If true, why?


Where were the twins?


In whichever apt the other tapas lot were staying IN that night.



Didn't one off the mccanns say that they were going to 'stay in' one night?


I bet the twins DNA was in each apt if they had looked.


Were the twins drugged.....that question I ask myself because I don't believe the twins were left in apt 5a with Madeleine so they didn't have to be drugged, did they BUT ....they WERE drugged that night for a reason.

Poor Madeleine, not her own fault, was supposedly a difficult child, she was prob jealous off the twins, kids are like that, bad sleeper...her crying was heard NOT by the mccanns, surely if they had been in the tapas they would off heard her screaming after all, it was very quite and noises would off echoed down to the tapas...Madeleine wasn't treated very well by her parents, they disregarded her feelings and carried on doing what they wanted to do, regardless.



They obviously thought more off the twins than they did off her otherwise they wouldnt off done what they did.

Question 1.

If the sliding glass door was 'always unlocked', then why should the question as to what was best for Madeleine have arisen that Thursday evening? Supposing 'always' to have applied from the outset of the holiday, the decision had long since been made. Wasn't day six leaving it rather late to openly ponder the option of locking the patio door?

Question 2.

Given the resultant status of the apartment (unlocked patio door so that Madeleine could get out if she wanted), why have you since insisted that there was 'no way' Madeleine could get out of the apartment unaided?

Question 3.

Exactly why could Madeleine McCann not have walked from her bed to the patio door, left unlocked for her benefit?


Good questions.

It seems to me the patio door was left unlocked because it made life easier for the parents, but they weren't at all comfortable about broadcasting this information once they'd disappeared their child
their child had disappeared.

It's a shame Dr Roberts is not heading the investigation since if he were IMO it would have been all over a long time ago. Hope Redwood of the Yard takes time to read McCannfiles and in particular Dr Roberts' many contributions, but somehow I don't think he's interested.

T4two wrote:It's a shame Dr Roberts is not heading the investigation since if he were IMO it would have been all over a long time ago. Hope Redwood of the Yard takes time to read McCannfiles and in particular Dr Roberts' many contributions, but somehow I don't think he's interested.

For me it's impossible that SY is not aware of all the contradictions in the McCann's and friend's testimonies. So why this apparent lack of interest?
Either SY considers that these contradictions are not important, may be because SY thinks that the contradictions are caused by a bad memory or are minor lies to protect themseves for having neglected their children,no more.
Or SY considers that these contradictions are important but are ordered not to take them in consideration.Political pressure.
Or SY pretends not to consider that these contradictions are important, in order to give the McCanns a faulse feeling of security, hoping in the meantime to found proofs of their culpability.

Considering that a real reconstruction would be the best way to solve the case, I think that , in the 3 cases, SY has a very irresponsible attitude.

frencheuropean wrote:

T4two wrote:It's a shame Dr Roberts is not heading the investigation since if he were IMO it would have been all over a long time ago. Hope Redwood of the Yard takes time to read McCannfiles and in particular Dr Roberts' many contributions, but somehow I don't think he's interested.

For me it's impossible that SY is not aware of all the contradictions in the McCann's and friend's testimonies. So why this apparent lack of interest?
Either SY considers that these contradictions are not important, may be because SY thinks that the contradictions are caused by a bad memory or are minor lies to protect themseves for having neglected their children,no more.
Or SY considers that these contradictions are important but are ordered not to take them in consideration.Political pressure.
Or SY pretends not to consider that these contradictions are important, in order to give the McCanns a faulse feeling of security, hoping in the meantime to found proofs of their culpability.

Considering that a real reconstruction would be the best way to solve the case, I think that , in the 3 cases, SY has a very  irresponsible attitude.

I think those are the two options - Amaral himself believed that McCanns were lying however IIRC from his book, he initially thought that was because they were trying to present themselves as responsible, not that they were staging the abduction - he found that ironic in that it's difficult to make such a case credibly when your child disappeared when you were not in or near enough to the apt to prevent it; they clearly WERE negligent so why lie to disprove THAT idea?

He only later changed to thinking they were involved. I think it's possible both that Sy believed they were lying to protect themselves from "what people would say" primarily people being, their parents, their employers, the cops, and everyone else - and that they are allowing them their little mis-statements in order to keep them talking, and because initially it IS believable that people afraid of being put into jail ina  foreign country might lie about whether they left the kids with door unlocked, unsafely, or locked (also unsafe, who is to say someone wouldn't rattle the knob and Maddie get up to open the door? or fall off the balconey or fall off the couch or swallow drugs etc) just thinking in a panic, it's better for US, if we say the door was locked. We didn't kill her or take her away so someone else MUST HAVE and surely finding that person, and her, is the key here, not getting ourselves sent to jail where we can't help her - etc. That sounds like their way of thinking.

if SY came out of the gate saying, look here, all these changed statements are damned suspicious - why would you interfere with an investigation to find your kidnapped child, just to cover your own arses about neglect, it's obvious you weren't there "at the minute" it happened and therefore all these wafflings and dodgy checking stories do not resonate as reasonable - what was really going on? Then McCanns would be calling in the lawyers and keeping mum about it or calling the papers and screaming about it.

It's possible SY were told from on High that McCanns were to be viewed as innocent otherwise Rebecca and her pals at NOTW would be highlighting Cameron's idiocy and unsympathetic nature of himself and the Home office to all the readers, but the case leads where it leads. There are something like 30 detectives on this, the powers that be surely can't believe that all of the police would simply focus on "sightings" or "leads" ie dodgy people in and around PDL, and no one focus on the facts of the case about how this person got in or out and what time it was - that all goes to the method and their access (were they possibly Ocean Club insiders who had a master key, were there two of them, one to hand her out the window or keep watch out the window, etc).

If one or two find something out - it will come out. As with the hiding of the efit of Smith sighting, and along with it, all the bad report that accompanied that. They ARE looking at the T9 stories and exploding them.

Put another way to have David Cameron look unsympathetic is one thing, to have him and Sy look like they collaborated to hide evidence in a missing child case, possibly a parental homicide, either neglect or other, would be far more damaging to him and to SY.

I think they are giving McCanns the benefit of the doubt or as much rope as they need to implicate themselves.

Remember if they say "well we did get confused about the doors and window -- and the checks- our child had just been kidnapped and our statements were misunderstood or not taken down correctly die to language problems and incompetence" - then that is now information that goes into whoever's mind is thinking about the case.

They may pretend to think that is understandable, but behavioral forensics would indicate that lying about the scene of the crime is not something innocent parents would stick to, once SY has said "it's okay if you mis remembered, or mis spoke to PJ, we believe Maddie was abducted" - they have to stick to their story - one of their versions of the truth - and explain that in some way.

Innocent people don't continue to lie about things if given a way out and they don't refuse LDTs, they don't stage scenes and they don't generally refuse to cooperate and they don't suppress evidence...


At some point not the lies but the maintaining of the lies becomes very suspicious indeed because if they have been told they are not suspects and Sy believes MM was abducted then it becomes critical that they know exactly how the apt was left and the parents have to come clean.

kitti wrote:Poor Madeleine, not her own fault, was supposedly a difficult child, she was prob jealous off the twins, kids are like that, bad sleeper...her crying was heard NOT by the mccanns, surely if they had been in the tapas they would off heard her screaming after all, it was very quite and noises would off echoed down to the tapas...Madeleine wasn't treated very well by her parents, they disregarded her feelings and carried on doing what they wanted to do, regardless.



They obviously thought more off the twins than they did off her otherwise they wouldnt off done what they did.

I believe what we call the accident happened much earlier that week. Certainly the crying episode on the first was followed on the 2nd by those voicemails Gerry said he did not get. Fourteen in all. He did not reply.

They were very keen for the police to know about it (see Dr. Roberts 'A crying shame') but notthe public.

Chronologically the crying was:
The twins
Sean and Maddie
Maddie alone - this version only appears around Sept. in April 08 the performance (Kate making those shaking movements 'What do you mean you woke up!) is aired in two interviews on TV.