The End-Game by Dr. Martin Roberts

Just days away from closing arguments in McCann vs Amaral, Dr. Martin Roberts' "The End-Game" is available at www.mccannfiles.com (scroll down under "latest news").

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
30 December 2013


THE END-GAME

Just days away from closing arguments in McCann vs Amaral, when the former Portuguese Police co-ordinator might, with reasonable justification, expect to point out that the McCanns themselves 'harmed the search for Madeleine' by withholding information, and their PR machine coerces something of a retraction from the Thunderer on Sunday. One can almost imagine Kate McCann repeating her performance of the night of May 3, 2007. 'Do something!' So the men in black, quite unable to subscribe to the IPA code of practice (Legal, decent, honest and truthful) much less the courtroom oath (The truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth), brandishing their solicitor's letter (ready typed and no doubt requiring just a signature or two), exhort the authors to qualify their earlier comments.

Oh boy! Pity the poor parents now the journal accepts that 'the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities.'

If only the McCann Fund source who allowed him or herself to be quoted at the time of the original article had been more explicit. Having explained that all the information contained within the contentious report had been passed on to the McCanns' new team of private investigators, why could he/she not simply have added that it had long been in the hands of Portuguese and Leicester police also? It would not have cost significantly more breath to have done that. Instead they went to considerable lengths to explain why the evidence under consideration, in particular a set of e-fits, was not publicised at all by the McCanns' own media machine, via the press or the Fund's own web-site; a significant oversight when taken in the context of all those earlier platitudes preaching the need for widespread 'public awareness'.

It seems the McCanns' were long on delegation and short on personal involvement. They must have pinned their hopes on the investigating authorities announcing the importance of this 'evidence', publication of which they themselves considered counter-productive. Wouldn't that have been inviting the public bodies in question to promote a hindrance? Not really. You see 'the Fund' has already issued a statement to the effect that "all information privately gathered during the search for Madeleine has been fully acted upon where necessary" and had been passed to Scotland Yard.

Fully acted upon 'where necessary' means fully acted upon 'selectively'. This could be taken to imply that the information had indeed been passed on, but minus the e-fits, or that the e-fits themselves, although in the possession of certain investigative 'professionals', were not then acted upon subsequently. Hardly surprising when one considers that these morsels were, as we now know, 'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009'; on September 30th perhaps. Still, only fifteen months after the Portuguese had already archived the case.

Shame on the Portuguese then for not recognising the significance of this new 'evidence' and re-opening the case forthwith. Really? Let's look at that statement again:

'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009'

The material was not provided to 'both the Portuguese and Leicestershire police', nor are the Portuguese and Leicester police a homogeneous organisation. So are we to imagine that the McCanns' 'admin' team in Cheshire, or the visiting Rothley book-keeper, sent the sensitive e-fits by special delivery to Portimão, whilst one or other of the parents drove down the road for a quiet chat with 'Stu' before handing him separate copies?

Well let's just ask ourselves how the McCanns were accustomed to 'getting information into the investigation' in the past. Via Leicestershire police family liaison is how. So, 'provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police' could quite easily be a rather liberal interpretation of 'handed to Leicester for 'selective action' and onward transmission 'where necessary'. Entrusting such liaison to the same organisation that had deliberately withheld the Gaspar statements would have been akin to tossing a coin into the fountain at St Peter's and considering it a donation to the church.

A constituent part of all the information however, the e-fits were in the hands of Scotland Yard. Well of course they were – handed over by the authors on request; a request accompanied by a letter of absolution from the same fund that had previously restricted these very authors by means of a legal straight-jacket of confidentiality. Scotland Yard had essentially to seek the Fund's permission to secure the information in question. It wasn't proffered up-front and therefore would not have been otherwise.

Still, full marks to the Sunday Times for clarifying any misunderstanding. The McCanns, it must be accepted (at least by the publication), placed their evidence in the hands of the authorities, somewhere, once the Portuguese had lost interest. But that is hardly the point. Even at a parochial level, if one's purpose is to instigate a neighbourhood search then that involves rather more than simply asking the couple next door to look out of their window.

The contentious e-fits, first brought to the attention of the general public by Scotland Yard, fully five years after their production, yet never, and quite deliberately, by the fund which sponsored them, finally made a reluctant appearance on the world stage, only to be overshadowed, rather prematurely, by a snow-capped Christmas tree! Oh, and a message from St Katherine, which singularly neglects to say, 'Merry Christmas Madeleine, wherever you may be'.

Christmas is clearly colder in Rothley than elsewhere.

Mucho Gracias jinvta


I find this Article by Dr Roberts hard to understand. The Control Risk input could have been given to the McCanns who sent it to Metodo 3 , the only Detectives at that time. Metodo might have filed it away after briefly reading it. SY picked up on it when they took all the boxes away from Metodos'
offices and SY decided to use it to boost their progress on Crimewatch , but it backfired when Murdoch published the fact that this "suspect" had been reported years before.

The article in question ( Merci to Interest and Margareth for the link):

p://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund

The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013

In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

frencheuropean wrote:The article in question ( Merci to Interest and Margareth for the link):

p://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

Kate and Gerry McCann and Madeleine's Fund

The Sunday Times Published: 28 December 2013

In articles dated October 23 ("Madeleine clues hidden for 5 years" and "Investigators had E-Fits five years ago", News) we referred to efits which were included in a report prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008. We accept that the articles may have been understood to suggest that the McCanns had withheld information from the authorities. This was not the case. We now understand and accept that the efits had been provided to the Portuguese and Leicestershire police by October 2009. We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review. We apologise for the distress caused."

Thanks frencheuropean, I can't understand why Leicester Police would have received a copy , I'm sure it is in mccannfiles the original Times report in 2008 or 9 , maybe some kind Soul will look for it ,  

ST: "We also understand that a copy of the final report including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in August 2011, shortly after it commenced its review."
______________________________________________________________

Which begs the inevitable questions.

WHY DIDN'T THE 37 STRONG, SOLELY DEDICATED, ELITE TEAM AT THE MET RELEASE THE E-FITS TO THE PUBLIC IN AUGUST 2011 BUT WAITED, FULLY, ANOTHER TWO YEARS TO RELEASE THEM IN OCTOBER 2013?

WHO KNOWS WHAT DASTARDLY 'CRIMES' THIS MAN MAY HAVE COMMITTED IN THOSE TWO YEARS, THAT THE MET AND DCI ANDY REDWOOD, WHO KNEW OF THIS E-FIT, WHILST OPERATION GRANGE WERE WITHOLDING THIS E-FIT FROM THE PUBLIC?

Saying that Kate and Gerry WITHHELD this is different to saying that they left it well out of their bewk and all their sightings were geared to having people look for some variation of a swarthy greasy Tannerman because exposing the efit of Gerry to the public would be "counter productive".

Control Risk had nothing to do with this as far as we know, Henri Exton said HIS TEAM produced this, hired by Halligen, in 2008. Metodo was fired before that time - when they stupidly said they knew where Madeleine was (a little mistake, according to Kate, a little too much optimism on their part) and would have her home at Cmas 2007.

SY could not have access to the files until G&K aka The Fund gave permission - to whom? Who'd they send the letter to?

Had the information been included in the investigation done by LP and the PJ it'd have been handed over to SY, wouldn't it?  Clearly it was kept out, then. SY does not need a letter of permission from The Fund (ie the arguidos)  to review the files of the PJ. One from them would be clearly over reaching and would rightly be ignored. And I wouldn't think LP would need the mighty couple's permission to work together with SY either.

In the paper, post CrimeWatch,  the interview with Exton he stated that he was threatened by The FUND lawyers not to release any of this - obviously, he'd have kept a copy of the report he produced, and possibly, since he hadn't been paid by Halligen despite The Fund giving them £300,000, they were concerned what he might do with the information.

Fair enough - it's their private investigation and they don't want him selling it to the highest bidder, which would have been NOTW or some such and it'd have been millions because the stories that could be gleaned from every page of that would be numerous and juicy. So he was cautioned not to reveal it - maybe he even threatened to reveal it if he wasn't paid.

It seemed to me that K&G did NOT hand this over to their investigation - unless maybe to Dave Edgar? Who got the letter of permission from K&G?

And yes - merry Christmas Madeleine we hope you are well and happy - we are still looking for you... not.

"Madeleine McCann: Police wasted six years hunting wrong suspect" Article dated December 30, 2013 appears on line at www.parentdish.co.uk

I would really like to hear from this "unnamed innocent dad" since he came forward soon after Madeleine's "disappearance".

The article states that a "source" told the newspaper, "The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn't look good."

Now that has to be the understatement of all time.

interested wrote:"Madeleine McCann:  Police wasted six years hunting wrong suspect"  Article dated December 30, 2013 appears on line at www.parentdish.co.uk

I would really like to hear from this "unnamed innocent dad" since he came forward soon after Madeleine's "disappearance".

The article states that a "source" told the newspaper, "The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn't look good."

Now that has to be the understatement of all time.

You'd think if Gerry wasn't that person Smith saw, they'd be very interested in that sighting, since that person was seen with Madeleine AFTER the one who took her (well, the one they thought took her) so that would be the latest sighting and it wasn't heading to Murat's area but to the beach - ie, boats.

I guess they couldn't focus their investigation on this person though because they were busy using the money to hire defense attorneys.

they sure were wanting to look for someone swarthy, rather than someone who looked enough like Gerry to be his brother.

so this innocent father csme forward two weeks after she went missing, who did he come forward to because it wasnt the PJ.

kitti wrote:so this innocent father csme forward two weeks after she went missing, who did he come forward to because it wasnt the PJ.

Gave a statement in to Leicestershire police wasn't it ? Whom you would think to inform pj.

Lioned wrote:

kitti wrote:so this innocent father csme forward two weeks after she went missing, who did he come forward to because it wasnt the PJ.

Gave a statement in to Leicestershire police wasn't it ? Whom you would think to inform pj.

My my, that is interesting.

LP had the efit and didn't share - as with the Gaspar statement? So SY didn't exactly UNCOVER this innocent tourist and that would explain why he didn't come forward all this time - he DID. He went to the cops. How he must have wondered himself why Gerry and Kate continued to harp on about the abduction they saw occur. No guys, that was ME. I wonder if he contacted them via Clarrie or their website to say that was me - and still they flogged his efit out there.

Whose dogs were Keela and Eddie? What PD were they working for, was is Leicestershire?

Bundleman/Tannerman/Crecheman/Innocent father was not the person whom the e-fit was made. The e-fit was of Smithman/Gerryman.
 
"The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
 
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
 
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
 
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
 
This man was never, ever a suspect. Surely LP and the PJ would have ruled him out immediately. Just because you resemble an e-fit made by a fantasist and liar, does not make you a suspect. If he had in fact been a suspect for all those years, surely he would have been interrogated further. I am still not convinced that this man is the man that Tanner saw, as he would have been walking in the wrong direction.

Night Creche Records......where are they?


This 'man' MUST off been interviewed IF he was in the Night Creche.

kitti wrote:Night Creche Records......where are they?


This 'man' MUST off been interviewed IF he was in the Night Creche.

By whom?
He may have left Portugal before such investigations were instituted. He appears to have contacted the Leicester police at a later date, but that doesn't mean that they would have interviewed him. either.

jinvta wrote:Bundleman/Tannerman/Crecheman/Innocent father was not the person whom the e-fit was made. The e-fit was of Smithman/Gerryman.
 
"The unnamed dad – spotted in the Praia da Luz resort by McCann family friend Jane Tanner at 9.15pm – was among a number of British witnesses who completed questionnaires for Leicestershire police six years ago.
 
He is understood to have provided a detailed description of his movements on the night, including the fact he had picked up his own two-year-old daughter from a crèche close to where Madeleine vanished.
 
But his ‘alibi’ was only looked at this year.
 
A source said: “He had been clear then that he had picked her up at around the time of the sighting but for whatever reason he was not eliminated as a suspect. The fact the details of the prime suspect have been known all along doesn’t look good.”
 
This man was never, ever a suspect. Surely LP and the PJ would have ruled him out immediately. Just because you resemble an e-fit made by a fantasist and liar, does not make you a suspect. If he had in fact been a suspect for all those years, surely he would have been interrogated further. I am still not convinced that this man is the man that Tanner saw, as he would have been walking in the wrong direction.

Wait - are you saying the efit that looks like Gerry is actually of the tourist who had picked his kid up at the crèche, whom Jane saw at 915 (or whenever) walking the wrong back back from the crèche?

There are two efits at least - Smithman who looks like Gerry, and the Tanner bundleman whose efit ( or at elast police sketch) - the photo of the innocent tourist taking his child back from the crèche  at 915 - matches exactly that sketch produced after Jane's description and displayed in Kate's book. They held the two up and superimposed one on the other, during crime watch.

Bundleman efit is just a long dark haired guy in a maroon jacket and tan pants; the Smith efit is two faces full on with receding hairline and short light hair.

The PJ never chased Bundleman as a suspect and why should they, if he was eliminated as a suspect?

They may have allowed McCanns to continue to do so - waste their time and money and look like fools chasing a person who provided Gerry and alibi, and maybe that was purposeful on their part and maybe they had better things to do than engage with the parents on every "sighting" they were paying Clarence or their team to come up with.

PJ was trying to do something, a serious investigation and the parents doing their own pr and campaign and sightings etc only cost them money and interfered with that, as did their refusal to cooperate with the cops who were wasting time according to kate suspecting THEM and not on chasing down tannerman.

If this person came forth and said that is me, taking my kid at 915 ish, then that was not the Smith sighting person. Otherwise SY would not say this smithman is now the new suspect because tannerman's ruled out. if he were the same guy then they both would be ruled out, and Redwood said the tanner guy was ruled OUT and smith guy ruled in.

No, the efits that we have been talking about have been Smithman/Gerryman, not bundleman/eggman/Tannerman/innocent dad.

Personally, I think that the efit of bundleman/eggman/Tannerman/innocent dad was ridiculous and evolved over time. Perhaps Tanner did see someone at 8:30 pm when she was seen outside of the apartments by Jez, but it is highly unlikely that she saw anyone at 9:15 pm, as it appears that she never left the table. If it was indeed Russell (not Matt) who left to check on his daughters at 9 pm, as claimed by Kate in her first statement, then there would be no need for Jane to check at all. Many, including Amaral put Russell's absence from the table at 40 - 45 minutes. Much of their timeline blunders could be to explain away this extended absence.

jinvta wrote:No, the efits that we have been talking about have been Smithman/Gerryman, not bundleman/eggman/Tannerman/innocent dad.

Personally, I think that the efit of bundleman/eggman/Tannerman/innocent dad was ridiculous and evolved over time. Perhaps Tanner did see someone at 8:30 pm when she was seen outside of the apartments by Jez, but it is highly unlikely that she saw anyone at 9:15 pm, as it appears that she never left the table. If it was indeed Russell (not Matt) who left to check on his daughters at 9 pm, as claimed by Kate in her first statement, then there would be no need for Jane to check at all. Many, including Amaral put Russell's absence from the table at 40 - 45 minutes. Much of their timeline blunders could be to explain away this extended absence.

I think Tanner had to have seen SOMEONE at SOME time. otherwise SY would be very silly and ill advised, if they are working to an agenda that includes making the Pj investigation look badly done - even if they are allowing her sighting to have been at 830.

The PJ can look at those crèche records as well; see who was there to check their child in and out at 830 and 915 and discover that this is all a lie.

I wondered at the concept that Jane left the table and then raced back to tell RUSSELL that he needed to go help Evie. I mean, please. You find your child so sick she's covered herself in vomit and is crying and your response is to leave to get your husband? I hardly think so.

I don't know what Russell's specialty is but few women would go back to eat dinner having found - and left! - their 3 year old in that situation, in order to go tell their other half he is wanted in the apt. unless she has some disorder that requires a doctor to be present, and if that is the case and you have a child monitor there why not shout into it for him to come up. Supposedly they had one and leaving the wee girl to herself so jane could go back is just ridiculous.

Isn"t a child monitor supposed to transmit the sounds of a vomiting child?

Christine wrote:Isn"t a child monitor supposed to transmit the sounds of a vomiting child?

One that works would do that. Supposedly OBrien's didn't work that well, it wasn't high quality like Payne's.

But yes. it's of little use if it doesn't transmit noises from the child's room to the Tapas. Might as well bring one with no batteries, wave it around the bar so everyone knows you've left your kid/s - more harm than good because you think you have some margin of safety when of course you do not.

They could have returned to find the child aspirated her own vomit and choked to death.

That last sentence is the precise reason why you should NEVER leave children alone as they did, with or without a 'baby monitor'. You need to be very close by indeed to sort out a child beginning to aspirate on its own vomit, and even if you are, you could still be unlucky... The whole situation of leaving the children at all is appalling.

comperedna wrote:That last sentence is the precise reason why you should NEVER leave children alone as they did, with or without a 'baby monitor'. You need to be very close by indeed to sort out a child beginning to aspirate on its own vomit, and even if you are, you could still be unlucky... The whole situation of leaving the children at all is appalling.

I feel like someone should send that missing kids group that kate is associated with the screen shot of the Official facebook page with the callous comment about - we don't care what you think about leaving kids alone, it's been 6 years - get over it.

I cannot imagine that they could not find a better person to highlight their cause than this callous, self interested, neglectful person.

Slightly OT but if Tannerman came forward and filled in questionnaires for LP, and was discounted as far back as 2009, why has he been silent ever since? Why did he put up with his picture being touted about and on websites etc for a further four years? Why didn't he complain to the police?

That's why I am inclined to believe he doesn't exist at all. But what will Jane be thinking if that's the case? She must know that Redwood's made him up to flush out the Tapas 9.

Iris wrote:Slightly OT but if Tannerman came forward and filled in questionnaires for LP, and was discounted as far back as 2009, why has he been silent ever since?  Why did he put up with his picture being touted about and on websites etc for a further four years?  Why didn't he complain to the police?

That's why I am inclined to believe he doesn't exist at all.  But what will Jane be thinking if that's the case?  She must know that Redwood's made him up to flush out the Tapas 9.

You'd think that if the police and the McCanns had appeared to be still looking for him, he's have gone to one of the newspapers and told his story. He'd probably have got enough to buy himself a whole wardrobe full of new trousers!

AnnaEsse wrote:

Iris wrote:Slightly OT but if Tannerman came forward and filled in questionnaires for LP, and was discounted as far back as 2009, why has he been silent ever since?  Why did he put up with his picture being touted about and on websites etc for a further four years?  Why didn't he complain to the police?

That's why I am inclined to believe he doesn't exist at all.  But what will Jane be thinking if that's the case?  She must know that Redwood's made him up to flush out the Tapas 9.

You'd think that if the police and the McCanns had appeared to be still looking for him, he's have gone to one of the newspapers and told his story. He'd probably have got enough to buy himself a whole wardrobe full of new trousers!

Maybe he alone in this shower of involved people has the class to prefer his own privacy to the ability to make money off the disappearance of a 3 year old - he told the cops what he had to say and got on with his life, ignoring McCanns' media circus? He's not obliged to go tell them or their investigation what the police have asked him - perhaps like many others he thought the cops were investigating them for a good reason and didn't want to stir that pot by giving them information.

More likely he wasn't going as Jane claims, at the time - 915. So he assumed it wasn't reasonable to even think he could be the infamous bundleman.