Dr Martin Roberts : POSSIBLE CERTAINTY -23/01/2014 mccannfiles

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

By Dr Martin Roberts
23 January 2014


POSSIBLE CERTAINTY

Some things are certainly possible, others possibly certain, but let the McCanns loose on a QWERTY keyboard and semantics are certain to be twisted into all manner of extraordinary forms.

"Based on more recent information, the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment...it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person".

Admittedly this qualification of Scotland Yard's position does not entail illogical extension of an absolute, as in 'certainer' (cf. 'stupider') – just illogical extension.

The Metropolitan police do not now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment. They know he does. He came forward to identify himself as such, did he not?

Next, Mills & Boon style authorship is eschewed in favour of something more appropriate to Science Citation Abstracts. 'We cannot be certain' would be clearly personal and rather provocative. 'One cannot be certain' still a tad too familiar perhaps. Best make it completely impersonal, eh Gerry? Hence:

'It is not possible to be certain that...'

Give me a break!

Since it seems a case is to be made here on the strength of uncertainty after all (despite Gerry McCann's repeated insistence hitherto that one 'cannot prove a negative' – another mixed metaphor as it happens), let's evaluate a few more aspects attaching to Madeleine McCann's disappearance, about which it is 'not possible to be certain'.

Adopting the 'guest at the Ocean Club carrying his daughter back home' as our point of departure, who is it he might not have been after all, according to the McCanns? Jane Tanner's sighting of course. And what was Jane certain of having seen, according to her own statements? Answer: A child's legs clad in white pyjama trousers with pinkish spots and a ruched hem. Clearly visible. Clearly certain. What did she definitely not see (or she would surely have said so)? Answer: A large coloured roundel on the right leg identifying the pyjamas as being of the Marks & Spencer 'Eeyore' variety. Jane Tanner did not report seeing it, suggesting she did not see it, despite its being larger and clearer than all of the spots she claimed she did see. It was not there. They were not Eeyore pyjamas. It is therefore 'not possible to be certain that' the child was Madeleine McCann.

Moving on.

Madeleine's abductor (The Find Madeleine website refers to 'abductors', but how do they know?) having entered the apartment via the patio at the rear, must have absconded via the front door in order to traverse Jane Tanner's path (I think we can treat the 'got out of the window fairly easily' line of argument with the contempt it deserves). That's feasible if we suppose that the McCanns left both front and back doors unlocked, which in turn makes one wonder why the Ocean Club even bothered to have keys made. But they did. And they supplied one to temporary occupants. Not a copy of one, nor one per person, but one per apartment; one which Gerry McCann left behind on the kitchen counter when he and Kate exited via the patio door for 'drinkies' on the night of Thursday May 3, 2007. That's what he told Control Risks.

Why should Gerry have considered it important to bring that little detail to anyone's attention? If the front door were unlocked it wouldn't have mattered if a crow bar had been left behind. It wouldn't have been used anyway. Clearly that one simple act of forgetfulness was to furnish the abductor, hypothetically, with a means of exit via the locked front door. (Did the McCanns know he/she/they were coming? Surely not?). But when the McCanns both returned to their apartment, searched and double-searched for their missing daughter, did either of them notice the key in the lock, 'other than where they'd left it'? No. it must still have been on the kitchen counter (or in Kate's pocket, as we'll see in a moment). It had not been used to unlock the front door therefore. The abductor could not have gone out through the locked front door without using a key. If he didn't use the key, then he didn't open that door, and he didn't cross Jane Tanner's path.

Clearly 'it is not possible to be certain that' Madeleine McCann was abducted shortly after 9.00 p.m. Equally 'it is not possible to be certain that' the burglar either waited three-quarters of an hour to leave with his captive, or gained admission to the premises later, and without being seen by any other of the OC guests passing to and from the Tapas bar.

But back to the key.

According to his earliest police statement, Gerry (and Kate) entered their apartment that night through the front door, using the key (it must have been locked therefore). How did they manage to do that with the key left behind on the kitchen counter? Ah yes. Gerry first used it then left it behind just before returning to the Tapas table after 9.00 p.m. And Kate? Well she came in through the patio really (as she stated to police), picked up the key, then went out again and around to the front, where she used said key to enter a second time. Sorted!

To judge from their own depositions, 'it is not possible to be certain that' the McCanns entered their apartment between 8.30 and 10.10 p.m. that night, whether looking for Madeleine or for any other reason.

And so to mid-week (parentheses mine).

"During Gerry's tennis lesson, Madeleine and Ella came to the adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session... Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions, she (Madeleine) looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls".

Thus Kate McCann tells us in her book (madeleine), clearly and unambiguously, exactly where her daughter Madeleine was that Tuesday morning, May 1st. She arrived at the tennis courts, together with Ella O'Brien, during Gerry's tennis lesson, which had started at 10.15. She was not therefore where she should have been at that time – with her kid's club playmates, at the pool.

On Thursday afternoon at about 2.40 p.m. Kate McCann captured the iconic 'last photo' of her daughter dressed in "an outfit I'd bought especially for her holiday: a peach-coloured smock top from Gap and some white broderie-anglaise shorts from Monsoon".

Madeleine was wearing nothing else but a sun hat. She was signed into the crèche by Kate that same afternoon at 2.50 p.m., no doubt following a hurried exodus from the pool area, but unfortunately twenty minutes late for the 'chalk space pictures' activity, which began at 2.30 p.m. Between them the McCanns arranged for Gerry to collect the children later while Kate went off for a run. That is what Kate McCann says in her book. There is no mention whatsoever of any additional visit to the children's playgroups in the meantime.

Since Kate has told us exactly what Madeleine was wearing at 2.40 p.m. we also know what she was not wearing – her swimming costume. So what did she do come 'dive and find' time at the pool from 3.30 to 4.30 p.m., stand and watch?

'It is not possible to be certain that' Madeleine McCann attended at the Ocean Club playgroup during the times referred to above and, by extrapolation, on any other occasion that week.

oh the mind on this person, I love it.

It is interesting to see how the McCanns statements change over time to explain away any discrepancies and holes in their story. For instance, in Gerry's 2nd statement of 10 May, he states the following:

He is certain that, before leaving home, the children's bedroom was totally dark, with the window closed, but he does not know it was locked, the shutters closed but with some slats open, and the curtains also drawn closed. Asked, he mentions that during the night the artificial light coming in from the outside is very weak, therefore, without a light being lit in the living room or in the kitchen, the visibility inside the bedroom is much reduced. Despite what he said in his previous statements, he states now and with certainty, that he left with KATE through the back door which he consequently closed but did not lock, given that that is only possible from the inside. 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.

So now suddenly the front door is unlocked as well! First both locked, then patio unlocked so "abductor" could gain access as there was no evidence of break in, then finally we have front door unlocked as there was no evidence that anybody exited the window. Their evolving statements are really a dead giveaway. It is really impossible to believe that they would have left that front door unlocked with 3 children in the apartment and no visual whatsoever to the main door.

They don't know if MM was asleep when they left - or how the front door was left.

I guess they just - regardless of their great concern, since MM had mentioned her crying the night before and they consequently were going to check more carefully - wandered out not locking the front door, or noticing if it was locked - or whether their eldest child, who had woken at least TWO nights prior to cry without help - was actually settled for the night.

Then on to the bar, to make the child care arrangements a big topic between Kate and Fiona - was it right and safe to leave her, so she would be able to get out, or was it not? etc.

Kate has no conception of truth as we have discussed before, why does she get away with it??? Why wasn't she hauled in by the Police to explain all her discrepancies, she was not writing fiction , the book was meant to be for the children to read when they were older, of course she wasn't looking for payment,  

Panda wrote:
Kate has no conception of truth as we have discussed before, why does she get away with it??? Why wasn't she hauled in by the Police to explain all her discrepancies, she was not writing fiction , the book was meant to be for the children to read when they were older, of course she wasn't looking for payment,  

She couldn't even tell the truth about that. In another interview she says she wrote the book specifically to make money to fund the "search".

Iris wrote:

Panda wrote:
Kate has no conception of truth as we have discussed before, why does she get away with it??? Why wasn't she hauled in by the Police to explain all her discrepancies, she was not writing fiction , the book was meant to be for the children to read when they were older, of course she wasn't looking for payment,  

She couldn't even tell the truth about that.  In another interview she says she wrote the book specifically to make money to fund the "search".  

Iris, when I read all this sh** now I get really mad that the Police were not stricter with the Tapas 9 and demanded a reconstruction. Madeleine is not Portugese, her Parents were guilty of neglect, they dominated the case by giving daily briefings etc yet the Portugese did nothing to stop it.