|
|||
THE CERBERUS PROBLEM
| |||
|
Which head did the mythical dog use to lick itself, and did the others
take offence at the time?
Of course if the dog had only one head there wouldn't be a problem. It's
the duplication which introduces it.
The same thing can happen with a story. If one should seek to impose a
conclusion upon events that already have one, difficulties ensue - but only
if the extra ending is an 'add on,' not an 'add in.'
Think of a simple computer program designed to execute a series of functions
before reaching the command 'stop.' If another 'stop' is inserted earlier in
the flow of instructions the program should still run and dutifully end at
the new stop point. Whatever else might otherwise have happened afterwards
can be ignored, because it will not now have the opportunity to play out.
If, on the other hand, the intention were to expand the program, so as to
run beyond the original stopping point, then this moment must somehow be
by-passed and, to make any sense of the duplicate 'stop' instruction,
additional events written in.
So if you're telling a story and throw in an early closure (who hasn't?
"And they lived happily ever after. Night night." Lights out.),
there is no problem. Irrespective of what might have come next, it simply
doesn't. The story's over and nothing more needs to be accounted for. But if
you want to take the listener beyond chopping down the giant beanstalk, say,
then you have to account for the aftermath, and that means filling time with
additional events.
The McCanns and their entourage have clearly filled in a number of events
to occupy the time before Madeleine's reported disappearance, with duplicated
photography of Madeleine at duplicated Mini-tennis, duplicated late-night
crying and a duplicate trip to the beach, to say nothing of duplicate
sightings of her at different locations. All of which can mean only one thing
- that the conclusion to this story is an 'add on' and that the genuine
ending is somewhere to the left of centre.
|
|||
THE HAIR OF
THE DOG
|
The Cerberus Problem can arise in connection with absolutely any sequence of inter-related events, be they associated with a computer program, a bed-time story or a football match. It is logically independent. It is also logically sound. There is one circumstance alone which requires the introduction of additional events to fill the extra time, and that occurs when the overall period is extended to meet an additional conclusion.
As an explanatory tool the 'problem' can be applied just as effectively to the events of a holiday, and that includes the May 2007 holiday in Portugal experienced by the McCanns and their friends.
Kate McCann's book 'Madeleine,' her 'account of the truth,' entails the displacement of documented activities (documented in the police files) by 24 hrs. (Tuesday to Wednesday, Monday to Tuesday). That is beyond dispute. She also flatly contradicts previous evidence given by her friends Rachael Oldfield and Jane Tanner, as well as documentary evidence of her own in respect of events during this period. The inconsistencies are such that 'invention' on somebody's part becomes the only rational explanation.
With events progressing toward an unexpected conclusion, there should be no need whatsoever to fabricate activities beforehand. Things simply take their course. The fact that they have been so fabricated points to the conclusion of the Madeleine McCann story, as understood, to be an 'additive.' And since it is this afterthought alone which encapsulates Madeleine's 'abduction' (there is absolutely nothing in the preceding story which even hints at it, except in the vivid imagination of the author) we may conclude that Madeleine McCann was not abducted. The abduction conclusion is added don't forget, and Madeleine's disappearance was not announced previously.
There will undoubtedly be those who will wish to argue that the story of Madeleine McCann's abduction is somehow immune to the demands of logic. Those same people would no doubt advocate the dismissal of Pythagoras' theorem and drawing a line under civilisation as we know it. Though Madeleine McCann may have disappeared from the face of the earth, her parents are still very much with us, their behaviour subject to exactly the same constraints of physics, and logic, as the rest of us.
By Dr Martin Roberts
18 February 2010
WAKE UP AND SMELL THE COFFEE!
What does any business, any family even, do in the face of an economic recession and dwindling income? They cut their costs.
Madeleine's Fund: Leaving No Stone Unturned Ltd. is a registered company; a business suffering a dramatic fall in income year-on-year. Its schedule of expenditure is so limited however, even a novice accountant would have no difficulty in identifying target areas for cut-backs: Directors' honoraria ? (Please, no!). Legal fees? (Not open to negotiation, I'm afraid). Costs associated with 'the search'? (Now you're talking!).
Recent events have provided further insight into the litigants' scheming, wrapped up, as always, in clouds of specious nonsense. Blow away the smoke however, and the long-term cunning becomes suddenly clearer.
First, some of the not-so-nonsensical nonsense.
Coming hot-on-the-heels of Carter Ruck's suggestion that Madeleine could have been abducted, Gerry McCann is quoted by the Daily Express (11.2.10) thus:
'In a thinly veiled criticism of the Portuguese police investigation, Mr McCann added:
"All possibilities have to be considered but one theory was pursued much more aggressively than any other possibility."' (possibility = theory).
Mrs McCann added: "I think this will truly help the search for Madeleine and that is why we have gone through with it. It hasn't been easy but if it helps we will go through anything." (Anything except a reconstruction requested by the investigating authority. Fire and brimstone, maybe. Certainly the discomfort of a few 'home truths' being made public on account of the injunction hearing).
So, Gerry gently steers into the wind together with Carter Ruck, and Kate explains how any indignity is a price worth paying if it helps 'the search.'
Cue Clarence Mitchell.
Their spokesman said they were "determined to stop Amaral repeating his rubbish." (Daily Star 11.2.10).
Speaking on air to Jon Gaunt (9.1.2008) the Grand Panjandrum said this:
"Even if you send a cheque or anything in an envelope to 'Kate and Gerry in Rothley it'll get there. People from around the world are doing that and we're very, very grateful for every penny and we will maintain the use of that money, fully, for the finding of Madeleine, to bring her back home where she belongs."
How's that for rubbish? Matched, if not surpassed, by his remarks quoted in the Daily Mail (12.2.10):
'The tragedy of this case, which once again has been highlighted by this, is what little was done to find Madeleine.
'Kate and Gerry will have to do it themselves as they have been doing. They are the only ones looking for her.'
Instinctively one is tempted to rail against these remarks. Anyone who walks upright and eats with a knife and fork will have realised by now that the only persons the McCanns are looking out for are themselves (Kate McCann, for example, speaks of 'a missing child' not 'her missing daughter'). But take a step back from the broth, and include among the ingredients the considerations of the McCanns' Portuguese Lawyer, Isabel Duarte who, according to Vanessa Allen of the Daily Mail, said that they (the PJ) had not investigated any tip-offs since the case was officially shelved, in July 2008, when the McCanns were cleared as official suspects in the investigation (12.2.10).
Well, the McCanns, as we know, were not 'cleared', and if a case is rendered dormant by a judicial authority, then it can only be re-awakened by that same authority. It's not for the Police in Portugal, now otherwise engaged, suddenly to take it upon themselves to embark on 'awaydays' all over Europe in relation to a 'pending' issue. Ms Duarte's indignation, it should be noted, stems from a period in time commencing one year and more after Madeleine's disappearance. This issue itself has the capacity to divert us, as do so many that crop up, but rather than dwell on it just yet, we might do to better link it together with the seemingly unexpected concession on the part of Gerry McCann that the case could be re-opened.
Reactions to this posture have bordered on astonishment. Hardly surprising, given the interval of time during which the McCanns themselves could have re-invigorated the process but were singularly disinclined so to do, preferring instead to fund a stream of 'con artists' and incompetents. So why now, all of a sudden, might they countenance the very idea, not only mooted publicly by Goncalo Amaral, but by their very own lawyer during the closing stages of the recent appeal court hearing? No, it wasn't the McCanns bowing to the inevitable, or trying not to appear out of phase with their legal representation. Look again at Ms. Duarte's position, as cited by the Algarve Resident (11.2.10):
Isabel Duarte, representing the McCanns, who were in Lisbon at the hearing, said that there was "evidence that could compromise the Polícia Judiciária investigation" in Portimão and pave the way for "the reopening of the Madeleine Case".
What evidence is that exactly? We know, because we have been told: The PJ had not investigated any tip-offs since the case was officially shelved, in July 2008.
So, should the case be re-opened, Inspector Ricardo Paiva's portfolio of unexplored leads can come off the back burner immediately. And when does this backlog of 'leads' date from again? July 2008. After the original investigation had been shelved and the McCanns' arguido status lifted. What every right-thinking individual would welcome is the re-opening of the investigation into Madeleine McCann's disappearance. What the McCanns are angling for is the opening of an investigation into her whereabouts. All we have to do now is join the dots.
Remember Gerry's statement: "All possibilities have to be considered but one theory was pursued much more aggressively than any other possibility."
The implication here is that, one theory having been pursued unsuccessfully (so far), this theory should be put aside to allow pursuance of one or more alternatives.
And the comment of Clarence (for whom a vat of Malmsey could be supplied tomorrow):
'Kate and Gerry will have to do it themselves as they have been doing. They are the only ones looking for her.'
What could be more perfect for the 'cleared' McCanns than to retire from the public arena, continue to accrue 'information', as well as cash (passing just the first of these to the Portuguese as and when, if at all) while the Portuguese, for their part, spend the rest of their days (and their money), 'searching for Madeleine.' It's as good as operating a bank. Keep all of the profit - bear none of the loss. And for an indefinite period into the bargain.
Not for nothing are Brits abroad captivated by the aromatic novelty of a 'continental breakfast.' Being better accustomed to real coffee in the mornings, the PJ and their erstwhile colleague will, I trust, have smelt this chicory (or should that be chicanery?) coming.
And now that the result of the injunction hearing is known, one feels obliged to question, once again, whether the presiding Judge was actually listening to the evidence; whether, in fact, she had bothered to read the book at the centre of this legal jousting, or took any time to review the DVD that was admitted into evidence early in the proceedings. As Anna Andress makes absolutely clear, the putative libel is right there, in the police files, verbatim. If Goncalo Amaral has trespassed against the McCanns, he can only have done so by repeating the libellous summary of the joint Portuguese-British investigation. So what's next? Carter Ruck to sue the PJ and Leicestershire Police on behalf of the McCanns?
In absolute terms the McCanns themselves were not on trial in Lisbon; only a book which cast 'serious doubt on the suggestion that Madeleine McCann could have been abducted' (with thanks to Carter Ruck for the correct choice of words here), and defamed her parents by referring, as the original Police report had previously done, to Madeleine's death. Well the ambitious avian can lay claim to being a swan as much as it likes. If it waddles like a duck, quacks like a duck and defecates like a duck then a swan it ain't. So, although the process of law is prepared to navigate around the obvious, the obvious is, to most of us at any rate, inescapable.
The National Police Improvement Agency, through their expert associate, criminal profiler Lee Rainbow, gave it as their view that, "The family is a lead that should be followed. The contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might lead us to suspect a homicide."
Coarsely graded, the sequence which then unfolds is:
The PJ are put on notice that they should be prepared to encounter a body. On the advice of their able British colleague Mark Harrison they introduce specialist dogs into the investigation. Lo and behold, the dogs indicate: First, the transient presence of a corpse. Second, the historical presence of a corpse in transit. Well, well.
So much of what the McCanns and their spokespersons present to the media is deliberately and scandalously misleading. However, in the light of recent reports concerning the efficacy of the Cadaver dog briefly seconded to the McCann investigation, they will all have a very difficult time indeed in convincing anyone that an animal with a 100% success record, before and since, could have been wrong on several occasions while in Portugal.
The appearance of a sudden 'notch' in the behavioural graph draws attention immediately to its being due to something other than performance factors; experimenter error maybe, or mistaken interpretation. Well, the dog was tasked with screening several vehicles and several apartments. For each and every experimenter error to bias the outcome in a single direction would be remarkable indeed (only McCann related items were 'marked'). Hence the performance 'downturn' must rather be due to mistaken interpretation. And by whom? By the personage with a penchant for opinion on matters he is least qualified to address. Perhaps, with the case re-opened (not 'reviewed', since our Donal's already done that), we might yet learn something more of matters in Portugal on 3 May, 2007, with respect to which our protagonist is only too qualified to speak.
Same Beans, Different Grounds"''"
By Dr Martin Roberts
27 April 2012
SAME BEANS, DIFFERENT GROUNDS
A little over two years ago a deep and disturbing strategy was detected as underpinning the McCanns' half-hearted inclinations toward a Portuguese re-opening of the archived investigation into their daughter's disappearance (Wake Up and Smell the Coffee - McCannFiles, 18.2.2010).
Central to the plan was a collection of new 'leads,' which the McCanns' Portuguese advocate, Isabel Duarte, crowed about in Lisbon, before, during, and after the court hearing at which the McCanns sought the imposition of an injunction upon Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie. This was a civil case don't forget, the litigation involving no agencies other than those representing either the McCanns or Goncalo Amaral. Hence it is entirely reasonable to conclude that the stratagem concerned was, by whatever measure, a McCann initiative.
That strategem was to induce the Portuguese to re-open the Maddie case on the strength of these new 'leads;' leads that had already been dismissed as being without merit and which had accrued after the primary investigation had been set aside. Had it succeeded, the Portuguese police would have been saddled, indefinitely, with the obligation and interminable expense of an open-ended inquiry. The former arguidos, on the other hand, could bask in the knowledge that they were comfortably outside the new frame of reference, while continuing to seek sponsorship of their 'search.' The ruse was subtle and turned essentially upon the substitution of 'recommencement,' for 're-opening,' the new starting point being post-archival.
All the while the original investigation sits on the shelf, with the McCanns resident inside the box marked 'not exonerated,' it festers as a wound, against which all the PR in the world is ultimately no more effective than band-aid. Unless they are able to demonstrate their innocence to general effect through legal channels, other than initiating actions for defamation of course, then the only way forward for the couple is to amputate the offending limb. That was, and remains, the objective.
After one or two false starts, the current 'review' sprang from the traps like a desperate greyhound, following a very public appeal to Prime Minister David Cameron by The Sun newspaper. Now if there is one thing to be learned from the evolution of the McCann case, it is that it could be a mistake to take things at face value - whatever their point of origin. Despite, therefore, others' very reasonable belief in the impartiality of the on-going Met. Police review, the air of deja-vu, like the odour of decomposition, is more than faintly detectable. Even those whose ears are closest to the ground may have been fooled, by the more obvious tremors, into overlooking the deeper, long-wave seismic activity.
Much as expected, DCI Andy Redwood personally, and one suspects deliberately, delivered an empty envelope during the recent BBC 'Panorama' broadcast (Madeleine: The Last Hope?) But to whose advantage? Why mount the soap-box if you've nothing to say? Madeleine might be alive. There again she might be dead. Oh, and we believe she was taken from the apartment illegally. Splendid. Now please refund the Police allocation from my Council Tax bill! If that's what £2m. buys I'd as soon shop elsewhere.
But this is no laughing matter. Besides assiduously (or so we are led to believe) addressing themselves to 40,000 pieces of information gathered by the PJ and other agencies, the Met. have apparently identified 195 avenues ripe for further exploration, on which basis Redwood and colleagues are hopeful that the Portuguese might, at some future date, re-open the Maddie case. And that's with three-quarters of the work remaining, as far as the review is concerned. On a conservative estimate therefore, the Met. could find themselves nursing some five hundred pointers for the PJ to go on and explore. That's rather more than the number of 'leads' which Isabel Duarte considered, and considers still, to be pivotal to her own argument, which she personally re-presented for the benefit of 'Panorama' viewers.
There is an anecdote concerning the CEO of Coca-Cola who, when requiring a new initiative from the incumbent ad agency, was told: 'We'll put ten writers on it immediately.' To which he laconically replied: 'Why not one good one?' Goncalo Amaral has voiced the same pragmatism very recently with regard to the '195' suggestions for further investigation. Five should be enough. If they're genuinely worth pursuing, that is.
The right thinking view that the Met. must stand aloof in all this is sadly compromised by their acknowledgement of collaboration with the McCanns, in producing yet another instrument in support, not of their own official review duties but the parents' 'appeal' activities. Pleas for information, accompanied by photographs varying in their currency, have been heard loud and long for the past five years. It does not now require another evolved image to be purchased at the taxpayer's expense. As cynical a question as it may appear, how important is Madeleine McCann anyway? For £2m. (or more), the BBC could recruit an established personality to present a weekly five-minute appeal on behalf of all the UK's missing children - perhaps Kate McCann even. That would give her something to do and spare her the agony of running round the equivalent of Hyde Park every so often.
I digress. We should, I believe, be concerned that the Met. have been in liaison with McCanns at all. Although the Portuguese have seen fit to rescind the status of 'Arguido,' Leicestershire Police, when it counted, were absolutely clear that there were no demonstrable grounds for ruling them out of the inquiry as it stood, even after it had been 'archived' abroad. What consultation, beyond 'What do you think of this one?' might we not have been appraised of by DCI Redwood?
This point of view will no doubt be considered melodramatic by many, but 'a source close to the McCanns' has already provided a useful hint as to its accuracy. According to The Mirror online (April 27th, 2012):
'Last night a source close to the McCanns said: "Kate and Gerry agree with what Scotland Yard said on Wednesday. They will speak publicly next week."'
And in The Sun:
'Kate and Gerry McCann had been given fresh hope by a Met review of the investigation.
'Yesterday a source close to them said: "They were hoping the Portuguese would see sense and agree. But it seems not.
'"There is a little girl missing — that is all that should matter. They feel the best hope of finding Madeleine lies in the case being reopened."'
Which, in a nutshell, tells us that Scotland Yard and the McCanns are 'singing from the same hymn sheet,' their common purpose being to convince the Portuguese to re-open the investigation - on their terms. But now, instead of the eight/eighty/eighty-eight leads tendered by Isabel Duarte two years ago, we have one hundred and ninety-five (and counting) clues, coming from no less an authority than Scotland Yard. And why should the McCanns, after years of 're-opening' avoidance, be particularly disappointed at the immediate and negative reaction from Portugal? Because the Portuguese are simply not prepared to buy what the they and the Met. are proposing to sell them! And why should they.
The peoples of the Iberian peninsular are generally cheerful and abundantly open-hearted; characteristics which, unfortunately, tend to invite deception. They are not, however, anyone's fools. Like the last number played aboard the sinking Titanic, the melody in this instance may differ according to which side of the Pond you're from, but the lyrics remain the same regardless. Under the terms of reference proposed originally by Isabel Duarte and latterly by the Metropolitan Police, the McCann case would become the police equivalent of a Mandelbrot set. The investigating authority (i.e. the Portuguese) could amuse themselves indefinitely exploring the same function in ever decreasing degrees of magnitude (or clairvoyant sightings of infinitely varying clarity if you'd rather), whilst the McCanns alone would have the luxury of admiring the full picture.
The current situation is either the result of an unholy alliance, or else the consequence of 'political correctness' deriving from what might be termed the 'balloon effect;' something the McCanns recognised and exploited very early on. The more a balloon is inflated, the louder the 'bang' should it burst. Hence fewer people are inclined to rupture it. The McCanns, through their new mouthpiece the Met., are trying to blow yet more air into the Maddie balloon, but the Portuguese, having already thrown a net over it, see no reason for it to expand further. And who would blame them? For all the mutual stroking going on in the UK, Portugal has no vested interest in anything other than rigorous police work in this instance. Their politicians have to be mindful of their voters after all. Alan Johnson’s talk of a 'charm offensive' is a day late and a dollar short. Five years has passed and too many people now know too much for any more wool to be pulled over their eyes.
So we arrive at a peculiar stalemate, with no-one in authority on either side of the water prepared to cut the Gordian knot. It simply is not in their interest to do so. Anyone in the UK who occupies any kind of public or 'visible' corporate office (in the media, say), were they to denounce the McCanns, would become, overnight, as popular as the Plague (Isabel Duarte would vouch for that). From the Portuguese standpoint, simply re-opening the case would plunge them straight back into the quicksand from which they have only recently emerged, since the investigation has but one direction it can take.
The breakthrough, if there is to be one, is more likely to arise out of left-field, instigated by someone with nothing to lose. It is not beyond the realms of feasibility. But, as Robert Redford discovered toward the close of the film Three Days of the Condor, damning revelations can only be effective if others are allowed to read them. The victim of this crime herself having set an unwarranted precedent, it is therefore entirely possible that Madeleine McCann will not be unique in having disappeared without trace. 'Evidence' can do that also.
(NOTE: at the time Carter Ruck were the top level libel lawyers employed by the McCanns. Ed.)
By Dr Martin Roberts
15 October 2013
READ IT AND WEEP
The Book of Revelations (by Kate and Gerry McCann - author unknown).
Jane Tanner, friend and confidante of the McCanns, gave birth to a revelation in Praia da Luz, soon after being 'cognitively induced'. Gerry McCann had another when he 'saw the light'. Now, six years on, but adhering to the rule of three, we are invited to believe that DCI Redwood of the Metropolitan Police has experienced one also, his 'revelation moment' being the realization that Tanner's was in fact coincidental, and about as reliable as a Ouija board.
The BBC's very recent 'Crimewatch' appeal in respect of Madeleine McCann has, almost inevitably (it could have been avoided) provoked a gossip-fest of opinion and counter-opinion as to the motives behind the various inclusions, exclusions, conclusions and delusions expressed during the broadcast. The internet, having given voice to all those of us who choose to exploit it, is suddenly now teeming with Madeleine-related communications, whilst 'phone lines are buzzing with callers eager to shed light on the identities of persons unknown. The media have their hands firmly on the whisk, as Maddie fever is stirred up once more. But we older dogs in the kennel are less excitable. We've seen prospective rescue come and go on many previous occasions, only to note a by now predictable reticence to adopt that which is unattractive.
As far as the Madeleine McCann saga is concerned, prime candidates for extermination since 2009/2010 are Goncalo Amaral's book, The Truth of the Lie, and the prior findings of the Portuguese investigation upon which it is based. The McCanns' own libel action against the author was thought to take care of the first, Scotland Yard's 'Investigative Review' the second. And, like a slow acting weed-killer, the process was working. Until a court injunction on the sale and distribution of the Amaral book was overturned, an appeal decision that definitely rained on the parade, and another heavy downpour in Portugal earlier this year, when Dr Amaral's representatives told the McCann contingent to 'go forth and multiply'. O.k., so you might not be able to 'up the dose' immediately beneath the trees, but what about the rest of the lawn? The territories of the Iberian peninsula might be lost, but there's a heck of a lot of sympathy still to be mined in northern Europe and beyond, provided those earliest conclusions can be either cast into doubt or dismissed as irrelevant.
Is this straying too far from Crimewatch? I don't think so. Syphilitic blindness is not caused by a poke in the eye any more than DCI Redwood's flagrant oversights during his BBC show were a consequence of editing to time. In the very same programme which went on to request information from the public concerning the identities of individuals whose faces could not be seen, but whose clothing was visible, DCI Redwood stressed the importance of identifying a face (or two), but made no mention whatsoever of the clothing which one person in particular is known to have worn.
Too clever by half
It is a fair supposition that the McCanns, having been party to 'the biggest f*ck up on the planet' (Robert Murat's take on something or other, presumably the investigation but one cannot be absolutely sure) could not themselves have dreamt up what happened in that TV studio. They would have done so well before now otherwise. And, since Gerry cannot contain himself, we would have known all about it long since. I refer, of course, to Redwood's revelation.
Scotland Yard and the BBC between them having already poured petrol on the barbecue, the salivating press were quick to publicise an alteration to the abduction timeline in advance of the programme's airing, both here in the UK and abroad. 'WHAT YOU KNOW IS NOT THE TRUTH', proclaimed The Star (13 October). There are solid epistemic grounds for correcting this headline so as to read 'WHAT YOU HAVE BEEN TOLD IS NOT THE TRUTH', since one cannot genuinely 'know' something that was not true to begin with. Hence people instinctively took the view that the McCanns et al had lied and we would all be shown why by the good men from the Yard.
Not so. The timeline - that confection first fed to the PJ by the McCanns on the cover of a sticker book - remained completely unaltered, but for the most modest of corrections to a single entry therein.
Jane Tanner lied? She didn't see an abductor after all? Goodness me that leaves the McCanns without...too much to worry about as it happens.
The Tanner sighting has been a double-edged sword from the very beginning (see: A Tanner in the Works, McCannfiles, 19.1.2010). Having been obliged to admit it into evidence, so to speak, the McCanns were thereafter reluctant to weave the Smith sighting into the story as well, since it contradicted Tanner's tale at every turn (1-1=0). What Scotland Yard have pulled off therefore is a stroke of insightful genius. Far from discrediting Jane Tanner's 'evidence' they have simultaneously extricated Tanner, exonerated Oldfield, and rendered 'abduction' feasible at last.
Contrary to popular belief in certain quarters, Jane Tanner is by no means a discredited witness, merely a mistaken one. Matthew Oldfield can sleep more easily at night knowing that Madeleine McCann was still in apartment 5A when he thought to intuit her presence from outside her bedroom, and the abductor has enough time to carry out his mission before Kate McCann’s auspicious return at 10.00 p.m. So now the Met can pursue their remit of investigation 'as if the abduction happened in the UK'. After all, it would be pretty difficult to justify the expense of the enterprise if it could too easily be shown that 'abduction' could not have happened under any circumstances.
Jane Tanner's sighting was simply getting in the way, but with only two options open (removal or replacement) the 'pros and cons' will have needed careful consideration, as there is still no physical evidence of abduction (there never was). Hence a sighting of sorts was always good grist to the mill, but the alternative might come at a price. The decision, as we now know, was taken in favour of replacement, but not by the McCanns. And if the purpose had been to discredit Tanner, just so as to bring the Smith sighting centre stage by way of accusation, that could have been accomplished easily enough without resorting to the latent recollections of yet another holiday making parent, a 'Brit' I might add, who must have been living in exile somewhere for the past six years.
Get the message?
With the exception of Portugal (given up as a lost cause) the remainder of the Western World is being advised that Madeleine McCann was most definitely abducted. Even if Goncalo Amaral should be vindicated come November, there will already be enough steam in the sauna to cloud that decision, as well as the earlier investigative conclusions of the Portuguese that accompany it. After several years now of (re) investigation by the Met's finest, we know (because we have been told) that neither of the parents, nor any of their erstwhile holiday making friends, are suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. And there is a message for the McCanns also.
If the Met Police can produce a rabbit from the hat once, giving human form to human fiction, they can do so twice. Virtually any (blonde haired?) adult male on planet earth, who does not have an alibi for the night of Thursday May 3, 2007, is a candidate for identification as the nocturnal beach-comber of Praia da Luz. And the CPS will be after you (see: Those Who Can, McCannfiles, 12.9.2013). The chances of anyone coming into the frame are, however, enhanced if they speak German.
One among several curiosities to arise from media interpretation of the Yard's handouts, the known details of the Smith sighting (known to those of us who have read them that is, including Met Police detectives obviously) include an observation that the adult male seen carrying a female child at night walked past the carousing family in silence. He did not answer when one of them asked, 'Is she asleep?' Paradoxically therefore, the UK investigators are giving the impression that silence is a sign of nationality. Or perhaps they are keen to associate this individual with someone seen leaving their towel on an Ocean Club sun-lounger before breakfast. Something from nothing then, to accompany the photo e-fits of the man's face(s), as opposed to their making absolutely nothing of the something he was seen wearing at the time.
And you think Redwood of The Yard not capable of discovering someone 'uncannily' like the faceless wonder of Praia da Luz?
Sad to say there is also a conclusive message in these very shenanigans for all those who have taken a vocal interest in the McCann case from the beginning.
The internet can be overly democratizing, in as much as while sharing in debate is all well and good, the forum is not off limits to the uninvited. Anyone can walk in. And they have done - repeatedly. One need look no further than 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann for confirmation of a concern to address (and attempt to dismiss) all those troublesome questions which the public at large (or for that matter a court of inquiry) had yet to ask. So how did those questions arise in the authors mind? The answer is simple. They did not. They arose in the minds of others, but were 'harvested' for consideration. As McCann-in-law Michael Wright explained in Lisbon not long ago:
ID - What does "negative e-mail" mean?
MW - says it refers to all sorts of conspiracy theories that appeared on various forums.
ID - asks if the witness can name some of these forums.
MW - The 3 Arguidos and Madeleine Foundation. He says Tony Bennett invited Gonçalo Amaral to do conferences in the UK. These forums were full of speculation focused on GA's conclusions. People said those conclusions must be true because GA had been in charge of the initial investigation.
ID - When?
MW - Activity was increased and heavy in March/April 2009.
ID - Did the McCanns learn about these forums? How?
MW - They learned through me, the family members who monitored the activity and their support group. I wondered whether it was worse to let them know or not to. I didn't want to add up to their pain, but a significant change happened. There were several instances of threats to kidnap the twins on the 3 Arguidos site. Then I couldn't but speak. There was a chat where a poster suggested someone should kidnap a twin to get to the truth.
ID - Is this dialogue on the forum? Can you get a copy?
MW - says he has a copy and can deliver it.
And if the McCann 'support group' should now extend to Metropolitan Police 'family liaison'? Or are we to suppose that a fully-fledged police operation would not include the monitoring of internet activities?
Redwood's team may have another 10,000 pages to turn, but if they know about the Smith sighting at least, and clearly they do, then they know all about it, not just the fact of its occurrence. Professional stand-offishness is all very well, but it in no way compensates for errors of fact, omission and commission during a formal broadcast in which the Metropolitan Police have collaborated fully and completely.
Meanwhile members of the public are urged to come forward with any information they might have concerning Madeleine McCann's disappearance. There is even talk of a £20,000 reward 'for information leading to the identification, arrest and prosecution of the person(s) responsible for the abduction of Madeleine McCann from Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007.' A safe bet if ever there were. Failing a wad of cash you might just be offered a blunt pen-knife, a bottle of tranquilisers and an escorted walk through a forest glade somewhere.
In view of the upcoming Australian revelation this post gives some background - thanks to McCannfiles and Pamalam (see further reading topic for links) this interview may be of interest. Interview link: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C4kPoQkM2mE
By Dr Martin Roberts
28 July 2011
SO NOW WE KNOW
They haven't got a clue down under - literally. The reporter fronting the recent Seven on Sunday programme announces an exclusive interview with Kate and Gerry McCann thus:
"Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never-ending ordeal and they still don't know when, or if, it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four-year-old daughter, simply vanished. She hasn't been seen since. Tonight the mystery deepens. You are about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind."
Unfortunately for the expectant viewers, they never get to learn what that vital clue is. [...] There are however other clues which, thankfully, did not drift onto the cutting room floor.
(Voice over): "On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time."
KM: "My memory of that evening is really vivid. I mean she was really tired, but she was just cuddled up on my knee. We read a story, mmm...had some treats, some milk and biscuits, errm... and then after they'd done the usual 'toilet-teeth', errm... we went through to the bedroom and read another story 'If You're Happy And You Know It', errm... (long pause)...yep..." (silence).
And there it ends. No description whatsoever of actually putting the children to bed, despite Kate's 'vivid recall' of that evening. The account simply stops dead without a conclusion. This is a classic example of an unbalanced story, and one that's easily viewed with suspicion. Put very simply, if a story does not have a conclusion then there isn't one.
Kate next tells us that when the curtains blew up, they revealed that the shutter was 'all the way up' and the window had been 'pushed right across.' One of several highlights from the Channel 4 documentary (Madeleine Was Here) to be spliced into the proceedings, viewers are treated anew to the episode of the door being 'open much further than we'd left it.' Strange how Matthew Oldfield didn't notice the cold air inside apartment 5A, the various doors and windows having been open for twenty minutes by the time he is said to have peered into the children's bedroom from the lounge. Even stranger that Kate didn't notice the drop in temperature a further half-hour after that. (It was cold enough for Jane Tanner to have borrowed a fleece before setting off up the magic path of invisibility).
But the best is yet to come.
"Did you kill your daughter?" asks the lady journalist. Gerry answers:
"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"
KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous."
Let's take this a step at a time.
"Did you kill your daughter?"
"No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"
This is Gerry speaking don't forget. For any other innocent mortal 'Absolutely not' would have been a sufficient response. Not for Gerry though. Despite his subsequent claim, he gives a decidedly unemphatic answer - 'No.' What follows is meta-language, where he is describing his earlier articulation of a word and does not address the underlying semantics in any way. Incoherent and unnecessary expansion then takes us away from the original question, referencing what has been 'purported' in Portugal, namely that 'Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.'
Next comes a cunning locking of the incident to a specific time frame, with the suggestion that Madeleine could only have had an accident when unattended. But Gerry slips up in questioning how it would have been possible for them to have disposed of Madeleine's body. In immediately substituting the phrase hidden her body he has already told us what in fact happened. Excitedly he goes on to ask why the parents should have covered up an accident. Why indeed.
It hardly comes as a surprise that Kate leaps in at this point, before Gerry's mouth can write any more bad cheques. She loses no time in elaborating upon the 'hide-and-seek' scenario played out that Thursday night, and the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards. But the damage has already been done.
The script, charitably outlined by Goncalo Amaral and fleshed out here by the McCanns, so as to exonerate themselves, depends entirely for its effect upon the premise that little Madeleine disappeared inexplicably that Thursday night; a premise that becomes less clear the closer it is examined. And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident.
They haven't got a clue down under - literally. The reporter fronting the recent Seven on Sunday programme announces an exclusive interview with Kate and Gerry McCann thus:
"Kate and Gerry McCann have lived a never-ending ordeal and they still don't know when, or if, it will ever end. It began on a family holiday in Portugal when Madeleine, their four-year-old daughter, simply vanished. She hasn't been seen since. Tonight the mystery deepens. You are about to see home video never shown before and learn the vital clue Madeleine left behind."
Unfortunately for the expectant viewers, they never get to learn what that vital clue is. [...] There are however other clues which, thankfully, did not drift onto the cutting room floor.
(Voice over): "On Thursday night, Kate put her daughter to bed for the last time."
KM: "My memory of that evening is really vivid. I mean she was really tired, but she was just cuddled up on my knee. We read a story, mmm...had some treats, some milk and biscuits, errm... and then after they'd done the usual 'toilet-teeth', errm... we went through to the bedroom and read another story 'If You're Happy And You Know It', errm... (long pause)...yep..." (silence).
And there it ends. No description whatsoever of actually putting the children to bed, despite Kate's 'vivid recall' of that evening. The account simply stops dead without a conclusion. This is a classic example of an unbalanced story, and one that's easily viewed with suspicion. Put very simply, if a story does not have a conclusion then there isn't one.
Kate next tells us that when the curtains blew up, they revealed that the shutter was 'all the way up' and the window had been 'pushed right across.' One of several highlights from the Channel 4 documentary (Madeleine Was Here) to be spliced into the proceedings, viewers are treated anew to the episode of the door being 'open much further than we'd left it.' Strange how Matthew Oldfield didn't notice the cold air inside apartment 5A, the various doors and windows having been open for twenty minutes by the time he is said to have peered into the children's bedroom from the lounge. Even stranger that Kate didn't notice the drop in temperature a further half-hour after that. (It was cold enough for Jane Tanner to have borrowed a fleece before setting off up the magic path of invisibility).
But the best is yet to come.
"Did you kill your daughter?" asks the lady journalist. Gerry answers:
"No. That's an emphatic 'no.' I mean the ludicrous thing is. Errm... what... I suppose... what's been purported from Portugal is that Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body. Well, when did she have the accident and died? Cos... the only time she was left unattended was when we were at dinner, so if she died then, how could we have disposed of... hidden her body when there was an immediate search. It's just nonsense. So. An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"
KM (interjecting): "And it gets even more ludicrous, that we've obviously hidden her so incredibly well, where nobody's found her and we hid her (interviewer: 'incredibly well') so well that we then decided that we'd move her in the car which we hired weeks later and you know it's just ridiculous."
Let's take this a step at a time.
"Did you kill your daughter?"
"No. That's an emphatic 'no.'"
This is Gerry speaking don't forget. For any other innocent mortal 'Absolutely not' would have been a sufficient response. Not for Gerry though. Despite his subsequent claim, he gives a decidedly unemphatic answer - 'No.' What follows is meta-language, where he is describing his earlier articulation of a word and does not address the underlying semantics in any way. Incoherent and unnecessary expansion then takes us away from the original question, referencing what has been 'purported' in Portugal, namely that 'Madeleine died in the apartment by an accident and we hid her body.'
Next comes a cunning locking of the incident to a specific time frame, with the suggestion that Madeleine could only have had an accident when unattended. But Gerry slips up in questioning how it would have been possible for them to have disposed of Madeleine's body. In immediately substituting the phrase hidden her body he has already told us what in fact happened. Excitedly he goes on to ask why the parents should have covered up an accident. Why indeed.
It hardly comes as a surprise that Kate leaps in at this point, before Gerry's mouth can write any more bad cheques. She loses no time in elaborating upon the 'hide-and-seek' scenario played out that Thursday night, and the 'ludicrous' idea of their hire car being involved afterwards. But the damage has already been done.
The script, charitably outlined by Goncalo Amaral and fleshed out here by the McCanns, so as to exonerate themselves, depends entirely for its effect upon the premise that little Madeleine disappeared inexplicably that Thursday night; a premise that becomes less clear the closer it is examined. And Gerry is right. It wouldn't make sense to conceal an accident.
Consequences
By Dr Martin Roberts
01 August 2011
CONSEQUENCES
It is by no means surprising that Criminal Profiler Pat Brown should view the McCanns' latest act of suppression as a professional affront. The following paragraph is Ms Brown's own synopsis of the current situation and contains, inter alia, a pivotal observation:
"If the McCanns are innocent of covering up a crime (following an accidental death), they should view my theory as a reasonable opinion as to what could have happened, but, simply know that, regardless of the strange happenings that would have led to such a hypothesis, this is simply not what occurred. The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place. But, because there is no proof of an abduction, the McCanns should well understand why they might be considered persons-of-interest in the disappearance of the daughter, Madeleine. They should also recognize that their commission of child neglect also might make them persons-of-interest. In other words, rather than sue and threaten everyone with a theory that they, the McCanns, might be involved in the disappearance of their child, a more normal response would be to simply understand why someone might think that way and deal with it.
"Even better, the McCanns could return to Portugal and clear up the matter. (...)"
And the focal point is?
"The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place."
Now, what do a 'pull-through' and an ice-berg have in common? (A: There's more to it than meets the eye). Implicit and inseparable, there is a significant entailment which cannot be dissociated, logically or actually, from the immediately observable. And whether the McCanns like it or not, the same truth applies to their missing daughter.
If Madeleine was abducted, in the commonly understood sense of the term, then she was alive at the time.
Whilst this may appear at first blush to be repetition of the obvious, it is as well to ensure that the obvious is not mistakenly excluded from one's deliberations. Simply balancing this particular consideration alongside the first part of Pat Brown's key observation alerts us to that which we ought not to overlook:
If Madeleine was abducted around 9.00 p.m. on the night of Thursday 3 May, 2007, then she was alive until that time. What does Pat Brown tell us again? "There is no proof of abduction - and this is a fact." And what that means, inevitably, is that there is no proof that Madeleine was alive then either.
Of course we have the Tanner and Smiths' 'sightings,' each one imprecise and contradictory of the other, as well as the McCanns own claims that the 'scene' left them in no doubt Madeleine had been 'taken.' As we all know, it took rather more than this to convince professional investigators that the assumptions of a cardiologist and a locum G.P. were adequately founded in this respect.
In sum, as Pat Brown has stated, there is no proof of abduction. There never was. But that leaves an equally significant aspect of the Madeleine McCann case to be resolved. Because if the child was not abducted, then there is no proof either that she was alive.
Part two of Pat Brown's statement is an open-minded acceptance that the absence of proof in this instance "does not mean an abduction could not have taken place." But that only buys a short-term reprieve as, on the positive side of the ledger, it means only that Madeleine 'could have been alive at the time.'
It should by now be perfectly clear as to why the McCanns have been keen to establish the abduction hypothesis from the outset, and equally clear that, in the face of postulate resistant to proof, they should have sought to address the conjecture from a different perspective.
The McCanns have been careful to orchestrate favourable interpretation of those circumstances and events that might be viewed as weak points in the dyke, as far as the abduction narrative is concerned (see article 'Reinforcements' for discussion). With this in mind, it becomes pertinent to ask why several of their holiday-making friends should have found it necessary, and almost entirely in retrospect, to join in the 'I-spy' chorus (something beginning with 'M').
Working backwards from the very last sighting (by Gerry McCann, not Jane Tanner), we have David Payne, who, like Gerry after him, claims to have seen all three children in apartment 5A, for the last time, shortly after 6.40 p.m. But David Payne cannot be trusted, since he also claimed (according to D.C. Marshall at least) to have seen Madeleine McCann for the last time at about 5.00 p.m., in the company of her parents no less.
Earlier that afternoon, Madeleine McCann was seen at the poolside by Jane Tanner whilst she was playing tennis with Rachael Oldfield, who did not notice Madeleine (maybe they didn't change ends). Earlier, in the morning, Jane Tanner took that photograph of Madeleine during the child's own 'mini-tennis' session. Rachael has told us so. But Madeleine was not at mini-tennis that morning. Russell O'Brien has told us so. And anyway Kate took that photo herself - on Tuesday. She has told us so. The creche records appear to tell of Madeleine's coming and going but even they are questionable.
Which brings us to breakfast, and Madeleine's interrogation of Kate. Or was it Gerry? Or Kate and Gerry? (it does rather depend whose statement one reads), and the noticeable 'tea stain' in the absence of tea drinking 'that day;' a day which, at breakfast time, had only just begun.
The insistence with which the McCanns each repeated their independent versions of Madeleine's casual 'Mummy/Daddy why didn't you come when I was (we/they were) crying?' question (the one she 'just dropped' before 'moving on'), is consistent with their reinforcement tactic. So what could they have been desirous of reinforcing? Well, why not the same interpretation as that supported by the claims of David Payne, Jane Tanner and Rachael Oldfield. Oh, and let's not forget nanny Catriona Baker, who held Madeleine on her lap whilst out on a boat, apparently, although others didn't even see her at the beach. Remarkably Madeleine was away sailing with the nanny, supposedly, at the very same time Rachael Oldfield suggests she was posing for Jane Tanner on the tennis court (10.30 - 11.00 a.m that Thursday morning)!
Gerry McCann's last sighting of his missing daughter should have been quite enough to establish that she had successfully negotiated the day. If she was put to bed that night then she must have got up that morning. But Gerry's 'check' is clearly not enough. Other elements are required to construct the whole story; contributions from allies prepared to support a distributed confirmation of Madeleine's presence, the implication being that Madeleine was perfectly healthy from dawn to dusk.
Thus the whole day is covered. But the effort to consolidate the desired position leads us as easily to a negative conclusion as a positive one.
Returning to Pat Brown's key statement ("The fact that there is no proof of an abduction - and this is a fact - does not mean an abduction could not have taken place."), taunts of the 'find the body and prove we killed her' variety, whether attributable to the McCanns or not, are either misleading or mistaken. In the first instance, it is not necessary for Madeleine's body to be found in order to ascertain whether she be dead or alive. That could be established just as conclusively by proving she was not abducted.
Then we have Gerry's recent outing to the hemisphere where water is supposed to drain clockwise, and the verbal deluge that resulted in: "An' if she died when we were in the apartment or fell injured, why would we... why would we cover that up?"
Listening to the broadcast it seems as if Gerry has a tough time moving the letter 'd' aside to make room for 'j' (in 'injured.' - he appears to say 'inded'). One might speculate that he had the phrase 'fell and died' in his mind. However, giving him the benefit of the doubt, as regards coherence at least, 'fell injured' is about the best one can do with the utterance in question. Unfortunately for Gerry the phrase substituted is more incriminating even than the one possibly intended. 'Fell and died' would have been bad enough. 'Fell injured' carries an altogether more serious connotation.
If Madeleine fell and died, then she passed away in consequence of the injuries sustained in the fall. If she fell injured however, she fell in consequence of an injury sustained immediately beforehand, and from which she possibly died. 'Why would (they) cover that up?' Well, if Madeleine 'fell injured'...
Entailments, remember? The ice-berg, the 'pull through' or, uglier yet, the emergent head of an unsuspected tape-worm. The greater, and possibly more damaging component is the portion you don't see. Proof that Madeleine McCann was not abducted would have far reaching consequences indeed.
The X Factor
"''"
By Dr Martin Roberts
28 February 2013
THE X FACTOR
The concern here is not with that talent contest, nor the instantly forgettable 'celebrities' it spawns. The X in question is that enshrined by one of the most iconic images in all science: The X-ray photograph of the DNA molecule taken by Rosalind Franklin, that confirmed the suspicions of those locked in the race to formulate the structure of the 'life' molecule and led directly to the announcement by Crick and Watson (for the second time), that they had figured it out. And this time they had. Some eight years later both they and Maurice Wilkins, a co-worker of Franklins and himself an expert in X-ray crystallography, were awarded the Nobel Prize. Tragically, Rosalind Franklin was not nominated. The prize is never given posthumously.
Crick and Watson were unabashed opportunists, who profited mightily from the investigative work of others, that of Wilkins and Franklin especially, provoking resentment of their 'discovery' in scientific circles, amid the feeling that the Cambridge duo had simply rounded off the spade work done elsewhere. But since the study of DNA dated back almost a century before the pace quickened post-war, it would have been all the more remarkable had Crick and Watson not exploited others' work; the less than contemporary endeavours at least. No doubt they did. But they also succeeded in 'ripping the rushes off the press,' so to speak, before relevant current news was broadcast to a wider audience.
And yet the Nobel Prize laureates genuinely brought something of their own to the table; an ingredient no less essential to the process of discovery than the dogged pursuit of observational data - constructive imagination. You see, it does not matter how much data you gather, if you cannot interpret it successfully it remains simply that, and the old cliché about letting the data speak for itself becomes something of a futile exhortation if, in the event, no-one is listening. One need be in no doubt however that Crick and Watson were listening; to everyone else as it turned out.
But this is not an essay on the conduct of science. It has really to do with the explanatory power of hypotheses. Crick and Watsons' postulate, in particular, was revealed in all its three-dimensional glory via a model, the full implications of which were obscured to those who had confined themselves to pencil and paper analyses. The beauty of the thing can be appreciated by a child. Not so its formulaic counterparts. Significantly, Crick and Watson proposed a unique molecular structure; one which took account of a number of pertinent coincidences, i.e. that the four chemical bases comprised two of one type plus two of another, that the quantities of these substances within the molecule were consistently balanced across species, suggesting these DNA components might be paired together somehow, and that the crucial Franklin X-ray photograph, the clearest achieved at the time, was suggestive of a helix. Their three-dimensional representation was unquestionably the right one and has proven itself to be the mainspring of genetic research ever since.
But what on earth does all this have to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann?
Simply this: That whatever the explanation for her apparently unexpected departure from the holiday complex where she was lodged in May 2007, it must, if correct, be able to account for each and every 'pertinent coincidence' one might identify. Despite protestations of the 'I know because' variety, until more definitive evidence becomes public, no-one is in a position to be categorical. Whether inclining toward 'abduction' or something else, one's theory (and that includes the McCanns' own), can be no more than hypothetical. Which gives us a level playing field and the opportunity to ask the following question: Which of two opposing views better accommodates a number of identifiable coincidences pertaining to events in Praia da Luz during the period 1-3 May 2007?
On the one hand we have the postulate of abduction on the night of Thursday May 3. On the other, the possibility that something rather serious happened to Madeleine as early as Monday.
And the coincidences in question are?
In a nutshell, a variety of odd occurrences in the period before Madeleine McCann's alleged abduction.
A previous discussion (the Cerberus Problem, McCannFiles, 13.8.11) examined the possibility that Thursday 3 May was, in very many respects, an addition to the narrative of the holiday, and logically unconnected to prior events. One might straightforwardly question therefore whether an altogether unexpected abduction that Thursday night can provide any sensible explanation whatsoever for earlier, otherwise coincidental, eventualities; eventualities such as Kate McCann's sudden retirement from photography that very afternoon, the seemingly bizarre anomalies contained within the Ocean Club crèche registers, and the synchronised deletion of call records from the mobile phones of two individuals, to mention but three. There are others.
If we address these facets one at a time, it quickly becomes apparent that Madeleine's 'abduction' on the Thursday night is in no way contingent upon any of them and, across the board, has no explanatory power in that regard whatsoever. But what if we now test these coincidental events against the alternative hypothesis, that of a much earlier drama of some kind? Are they any better explained?
Taking them in the order as above, Kate McCann's 'I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph (of her)' would, given the alternative view of events, necessarily apply to a photograph taken much earlier than the Thursday afternoon. (If for some reason Madeleine were indisposed on the Monday, she would not have emerged brimming with smiles on the Thursday, simply in order to have her photograph taken). The observation makes rather more sense in the context of the aftermath of a contemporaneous traumatic event, one that Kate McCann would rather not refer to specifically, than it does in the wake of a subsequent, sudden abduction. Unless Kate McCann's actions represent anticipatory behaviour, one might expect her to have said: 'I haven't been able to use the camera since Madeleine's abduction,' there being no 'taboo' attaching to mention of the principal event. Fixing the onset of 'down-time' with the photography itself however, suggests that something else (occluded) detracted from its pursuance in the meantime.
Turning to those apparently coincidental anomalies within the crèche registers, their pertinence in the context of an 'early exit' hypothesis is clear. 'Keeping up appearances' would have been an essential part of any alternative explanation to be advanced in the immediate future. Again, such activity ahead of an altogether unexpected abduction would be quite inexplicable.
Similar considerations apply to the selective deletion of recent communications histories. Unless they were the victims of some internecine power struggle, what possible bearing could the recent prior contacts of parents have on the unanticipated abduction of their child? None at all. So they should be concerned to erase them? However, whilst conversations concerning 'what we did back then' may not be of relevance, those of a 'what on earth do we do now' nature most certainly would be. And these would of course follow a significant occurrence of some kind, not precede one.
Three at least, then, of the peculiar coincidences surrounding the supposed abduction of Madeleine McCann would be better explained in the context of a prior event than in the singular context of a later abduction, which offers no explanation for them at all. We may continue in this fashion with a fourth item on the agenda: The sudden return to Portugal of Robert Murat.
Murat's arrival in Praia da Luz on May 1st was prompted, so we are told, by his need to attend to business at short notice. But who made the 'phone call to England, and what exactly was the nature of the business? (Property. O.k. Whose property?) Well Murat's arrival on the scene had nothing whatever to do with Madeleine's abduction on May 3rd. His intervention as translator was clearly after the event and Gerry McCann almost hadn't heard of him before then. So the two events remain unconnected and the one cannot even begin to explain the other. But in the case of an 'incident' on Monday 30th there will have been 24 hours at least in which someone could have invited Robert Murat to lend assistance. That is not to say they did so, but merely to point up the greater feasibility of his coincidental return's being associated, in some way, with an unforeseen eventuality on the Monday than the Thursday.
At the risk of seeming over-confident, one could go on in this fashion, evaluating the coincidences against each hypothesis and invariably finding a better fit with the time flag shifted left rather than right. In fact I would go so far as to suggest that Bet 365.com would happily lay it off. But no doubt those of a different persuasion would throw a flare or two onto the pitch in an attempt to obscure the game. And the smoke screen would probably look like this:
What about all those coincidences Kate and Gerry mention? And Jane Tanner? And...?
The blanket dismissal, put in its simplest form, is that we are here concerned with coincidental fact, not fiction. Without exception, the contingent observations of the McCanns, and others associated with them, are entirely speculative. They are all of the 'what if' or 'may be' varieties, lacking in evidential confirmation entirely. The abductor 'casing the joint' beforehand, reading the staff notebook, climbing in or out of the bedroom window, carrying a little girl dressed in pink pyjamas, etc., are all suppositions, nothing more. As such they are worthless. The 'coincidences' we are concerned with however are entirely factual. Kate McCann herself admitted to the sudden onset of photophobia. The crèche records contain glaring anomalies (confirmed, again by Kate McCann, in her book Madeleine). The McCanns' mobile 'phone memories were 'adjusted' prior to their examination by police in Portugal and Robert Murat undoubtedly returned to Portugal prior to May 3, 2007. The $64,000 dollar question in each case has to be 'Why?'
Although this discussion is not in itself an attempt to put forward an answer, it remains the case that these rather strange goings on in the days immediately preceding the announcement of Madeleine McCann's disappearance are a better fit with her absence, for want of a better word, on the Monday than the Thursday. It is this hypothesis which reveals itself therefore as potentially able to accommodate all of these known data; something the claim of abduction on the Thursday night simply cannot do at all.
Schadenfraud
By Dr Martin Roberts
30 April 2014
SCHADENFRAUD
According to Tracey Kandohla (Daily Mirror, 25 April), former GP Kate has said: "There is nothing to suggest Madeleine is not alive."
She has also said: "Madeleine is still alive until someone proves otherwise."
As has been pointed out on several previous occasions, it is not actually necessary to prove Madeleine is dead (or 'not still alive') by revealing her corpse. It can be done indirectly by proving that she was not abducted (see: 'There's nothing to say she's not out there alive' – McCannfiles, 27.6.09). Given that condition, there can be only one answer to Gerry McCann's outburst, "Where is the child?" Telekinesis is not, I'm afraid, an option in this case.
Prior to the first of DCI Andy Redwood's 'revelation moments' it could be (and indeed was) established that no abductor could possibly have exited the McCanns' apartment at a time coincident with Jane Tanner's so-called sighting (see: 'No Way Out' and 'No Way Out At All' – McCannfiles, 8.7.13 and 13.7.13). Despite (or perhaps because of) the obviously contrived emergence of an innocent parent portering their own daughter around the streets of Praia da Luz at the time, the McCanns remain of the view that this is not whom Jane Tanner saw on the night of May 3rd, raising the possibility of there having been no end of transient child bearers in the vicinity that night, like a Pierce Brosnan scene from the re-make of The Thomas Crown Affair.
Recent personal experience has confirmed two things in particular: that the introduction of an unverifiable third-party into the account of a crime is a gambit as old as Methuselah and, despite jurors being cautioned against speculation, phrases such as 'could have', 'might have' etc. are as irresistible as bananas are to monkeys. (Their use in deliberation - the phrases not the bananas - should be banned). Nevertheless, in the context of the McCanns' account of Madeleine's 'abduction' they are rife, which would leave any prosecuting counsel the task of discounting limitless flights of imagination before they could address the most probable cause or sequence of events.
So now how do we prove Madeleine was not abducted? Perhaps by focussing on what a child abduction is, or isn't.
Both parents, Kate McCann especially, have expressed remorse at not having been present 'at that minute', when 'it' happened. Needless to say, had they been in attendance at the time then 'it' should not have happened at all. Taking things at face value, it is perfectly obvious that the McCanns would not have stood back while their daughter was abducted by a stranger. No parent would do so (unless faced with Sophie's Choice perhaps). Hence, if the McCanns were seen to have been tacit accomplices to the act of Madeleine's removal from apartment 5A the Ocean Club, they will not have been complicit in abduction, but something else entirely. Either way they would have harboured some fore-knowledge of the event.
And that's the rub. They did exhibit foreknowledge, which means (a) the event in question was not abduction as commonly understood and (b) they knew what it was, just as well as they knew what it wasn't. In the words of an anonymous lawyer, repeated for emphasis by Kate McCann in her book 'madeleine', "One coincidence, two coincidences - maybe they're still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence."
Coincidentally Kate McCann experienced a sudden aversion to own her camera, following her last photograph of daughter Madeleine, eight hours before she was found to be missing. Coincidentally, Gerry McCann's receipt of regular text messages, and his predictable recourse to voicemail thereafter (a daily routine associated with the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance), was a behaviour he exhibited on May 2nd – over twenty four hours before Madeleine was found to be missing. Coincidentally, a McCann family member photographed a subject of unique relevance to the search for their missing daughter before she was discovered missing. That's three coincidences where, according to no less an authority than Kate McCann herself, the occurrence of more than two means none of them can be considered chance events (as there's no means of identifying the one that might be).
If Madeleine McCann was not abducted then she is dead. She was not abducted. She is therefore dead, and has been for seven years, since before the establishment of 'Madeleine's Fund' by her parents, who did not ask for money at first but very quickly set up a way of dealing with it that traded on the false premise of the child's unexplained disappearance, and continues to do so.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
A Nightwear Job by Dr Martin Roberts
From: http://onlyinamericablogging.blogspot.com/. ( I have my own twopenn'orth added at the bottom of the page. Ed. )
A Nightwear Job
By Dr Martin Roberts
March 9, 2016
Author unknown
In the very nearly nine years since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and the eight since the parents had their arguido status formally withdrawn, one simple question has passed publicly unanswered, probably because the answer appears obvious and the question therefore not worth the asking. I shall ask it nevertheless:
Who took the McCanns' 'official photograph' of Madeleine's pyjamas?
The image in question was 'released' to the world's media in the late afternoon of 10 May, 2007, following a press conference that day. It was no doubt assumed by many that, since the PJ released the photographs (there is more than one), the PJ themselves must have taken them. Yet a film distributor who arranges the release of a 'blockbuster' is hardly likely to have spent the previous months/years actually doing the filming.
With this seed of doubt in mind, one might consider what the PJ did with their photograph(s), adhering all the while to the worldwide practice, among law enforcement agencies, of 'continuity', whereby the progress of evidence through the system, in whichever direction, is recorded at each step along the way. Whereabouts, then, did they file this particular 'diligence' of theirs?
Within the relevant Forensic report (23 November 2007) are references to the following images, together with cognate views of a pair of pyjama trousers:
A far cry from earlier publicised representations you will admit.
Why on earth should the PJ have seemingly undertaken the same photographic work twice, involving two quite different sets of pyjamas?
The forensic record (of garments correctly pictured alongside a scaling reference, i.e. a ruler) is that of a pair of pyjamas supplied on request by M&S (UK), afterwards forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon by Goncalo Amaral, together with a covering letter dated 7 June. It has nothing whatever to do with the official photograph released in early May. In fact the clothing pictured has more in common with that featured in the retailer's own contemporary stock photograph, a copy of which was sent to the Algarve Resident, again on request, and which the 'Resident' published on 8 May - two days before the official release.
During a press call at the Amsterdam Hilton, on 7 June, Kate McCann took pains to explain that the pyjamas being exhibited at that time were in fact Amelie's, and that Madeleine's were not only bigger but did not feature a button-fastening t-shirt. Only a couple of days earlier the same pyjamas, again described as 'Amelies' and 'a little bit smaller', were presented on 'Crimewatch', but without reference to the button discrepancy.
It stands to reason of course, that, Madeleine McCann's pyjamas having been abducted, a surrogate pair would have been required for photographic purposes, in the event of there being no extant photographic record of the clothing in question. But appropriate photographs were to hand. They already existed. One version, as we have seen, was published by the Algarve Resident, another by the BBC. The McCanns' 'official' version was consistent with neither of these. With the PJ yet to physically access a representative set of pyjamas, why should they have been called upon to photograph anything else for immediate release?
There is no record of their having done so. Ergo they did not. So who did? And where did the pyjamas come from that enabled them to do it?
Addressing the second of these questions first, the garments featured in the PJ release cannot have come from M&S locally, since all their Portuguese branches had been closed years before. Had they come from M&S in the UK they would obviously have resembled the pair sent to (and genuinely photographed by) the PJ. A pointer to their origin is, however, to be found within the case files.
Alongside a suite of photographs taken at Lagos Marina by Kate McCann is an introductory memo, written by DC Markley of Leicester Police on or about the 8 May and headed up, 'Information from the Family'. Here also one finds the only copy (in black and white) of the McCanns' official photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas (Outros Apensos Vol. II - Apenso VIII, p.342). Rather than its being a PJ production, afterwards passed to the McCanns, it seems the photograph was actually a McCann production fed to the PJ, an observation wholly concordant with the fact that it was actually the McCanns who first revealed this photograph to the press, on Monday 7 May, three days before the PJ released it (as reported by Ian Herbert, the Independent, 11.5.07).
Any illusion that the image in question was the result of a McCann representative's commissioning their own studio photograph of 'off-the-shelf' UK merchandise may soon be dispelled. It is an amateur snapshot. Taken in ambient (day) light, against a coloured (as opposed to neutral) background, it is slightly out of focus and displays detectable signs of parallax. It is not something even a journeyman professional would admit to.
And yet, bold as brass, it represents 'information from the family'.
Perhaps it was produced by a member of the McCann entourage that descended on Praia da Luz over the long weekend 4-6 May? Then again, perhaps not. As Kate McCann explains in her book, 'madeleine' (p.109):
On Kate McCann's own admission, to a House of Commons committee no less, neither she nor husband Gerry were any more capable of keeping cool under fire during this time. Having earlier (August 2007) told her Pal, Jon Corner, "the first few days.…you have total physical shutdown", she went on to advise the House that, despite being medically trained, she and her husband "couldn't function" (John Bingham, the Telegraph, 13.6.2011).
Well someone on the McCann side of the fence managed to function in time for the parents to appear before the media on 7 May with a photograph that, so far, no-one seems to have taken, and of clothing which, other things being equal, ought not even to have existed anywhere inside Portugal, except, perhaps, in the clutches of a fugitive abductor. But, of course, other things are anything but equal.
Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis
A month after the world's media were first shown a picture of something resembling Madeleine McCann's 'Eeyore pyjamas', a real set was being touted around Europe. Described by Kate McCann as 'Amelie's' and being 'a little bit smaller', they were held aloft for the assembled press brigade, without any one of them questioning the pyjamas' origins either. Being 'Amelie's' was quite enough, apparently, to justify their also being in the McCanns' possession at the time. Since when though? Gerry McCann did not return home to Leicester from Praia da Luz until 21 May, time enough for him to have raided his daughter's wardrobe for something he might need on his European travels, but way too late to have met any 7/10 May deadlines.
It seems, then, as if the two ingredients required to achieve an earlier photograph of 'Madeleine's' pyjamas (the photographer and the subject) were both missing. So how was it done?
What at first appears to be a riddle is soon solved when one realises that the pair of pyjamas which accompanied the McCanns around Europe was the very same pair that starred in their 'official photograph' taken earlier. Kate McCann took public ownership of them before the television cameras the moment she referred to them as 'Amelie's'. On close inspection these pyjamas (Amelie's) are revealed as identical to the pair previously pictured in both the Daily Mail (10.5.07) and the Telegraph (see top of page here), down to the stray threads dangling from both upper and lower garments. This means that 'Amelie's pyjamas', for want of a better description, were also present with the McCanns since the start of their Algarve holiday.
Suddenly the question ceases to be 'Who photographed a representative pair of Eeyore pyjamas?' and becomes, instead, 'Who photographed Amelie's pyjamas?' Furthermore, if everyone was feeling so shell-shocked as to render them incapable from the Friday, when did they have the presence of mind to take the requisite pictures?
We begin to edge toward a sinister conclusion once we take particular account of the literal background against which these particular pyjamas were photographed.
A coarse woven tale
Unlike the various studio renditions of Eeyore pyjamas to which we have been introduced, the McCann's official photograph(s), versions of which were published by both the PJ and the UK media, present the subject laid out against a blue textile, rather than the more customary piece of artist's board. This blue upholstery, for that is unquestionably what it is, helps define who, among the Tapas 9, might have been the photographer.
The Paynes, the Oldfields and the O'Briens can be ruled out. Only the Payne's apartment incorporated any soft furnishings in blue, but of a different quality to the plain open-weave material on display here. During the early morning of Friday 4 May, 2007, the McCanns were re-located to alternative accommodation in apartment 4G - another in which blue soft furnishings were conspicuous by their absence (it was appointed in beige throughout).* Added to which the concern, lest we forget, is with photography involving a pair of pyjamas known to have been in the McCanns' possession from the outset.
In his statement to Police of 10 May, Gerry McCann as good as exonerated himself of all blame concerning picture taking:
‘Asked, he clarifies that:
He adds that it is:
Notwithstanding accounts of how, from the Friday onwards, the McCanns, their nearest and dearest, all fell mentally and physically incapable (of anything save visiting the pool, the beach bar, and the church on Sunday morning), Kate McCann early on made a very telling remark, concerning photography, to journalist Olga Craig:
That statement alone carries with it a very serious connotation. However, we still have a distance to travel.
The more contrastive of the two images reproduced here displays what appear to be areas of shadow, when in fact there are no local perturbations at the surface of the fabric to cause them. Similarly, the dark bands traversing the t-shirt appear more representative of what is actually beneath it. These visible oddities suggest the material is in fact damp and 'clinging' to the underlying upholstery.
There is, as we know, an anecdote of Kate McCann's, which sees her washing Madeleine's pyjama top on the Thursday morning. As re-told in her book, she does so while alone in the family's apartment:
Size matters
As previously stated, Kate McCann was careful to bring the attention of her Amsterdam Hilton audience, to Madeleine's pyjama top being both larger and simpler than the version she was holding in her hands at the time. She was inviting them instinctively to associate garment size with complexity - the larger the simpler in this instance. It would mean of course that Madeleine's 'Eeyore' pyjamas, purchased in 2006, would not have been absolutely identical with those of her sister Amelie, purchased whenever (but obviously before the family's 2007 holiday on the Portuguese Algarve).
On 7 May, the Sun reported that:
Since these items could only have been supplied to the PJ in mid-07, they must have represented that year's style, as it were, for 2-3 year olds. Madeleine would have been four years old by this time. However, Kate McCann would have people believe that 'Amelie's' pyjamas, sporting a button, were designed to fit an even younger child. Had Kate purchased the appropriate pyjamas for Amelie in 2007 of course, they would not have had a button at all.
They must therefore have been purchased in the same epoch as Madeleine’s own, i.e. during 2006, when Amelie would have been a year younger and somewhat smaller even than when the family eventually travelled to Portugal the following year.
The significance of all this becomes apparent once we consider those photographs which show how the pyjamas held aloft by the McCanns at their various European venues encompassed half Gerry McCann's body length at least. Photographs of the McCanns out walking with their twins in Praia da Luz, on the other hand, illustrate, just as clearly, that Amelie McCann did not stand that tall from head to toe. Even In 2007 she would have been swamped by her own pyjamas, never mind the year before when they were purchased.
In conclusion, the McCanns' 'official photograph', first exhibited on 7 May, appears to be that of a damp pair of pyjamas, too big to have been sensibly purchased for Madeleine's younger sister that Spring, and most certainly not the year before. The subject is set against dark blue upholstery of a type not present in any of the apartments occupied by the McCanns or their Tapas associates immediately after 3 May. Kate McCann has explained, over time, how she was alone in apartment 5A that morning, in the company of a damp pyjama top (having just washed it) and how, from that afternoon by all accounts, she 'couldn't bear to use the camera', an automatic device (Canon PowerShot A620) belonging to a product lineage with an unfortunate reputation for random focussing errors.
Madeleine was not reported missing until close to 10.00 p.m. that night. If Madeleine McCann's pyjamas were not in fact abducted, then nor was Madeleine McCann.
Martin Roberts
Grateful thanks are due to Nigel Moore for collating a number of highly relevant photographs and media reports in connection with this topic.
Not definite, but . . .
H/T Grande Finale
If a fellow thought that the Metropolitan Police Service was a functioning entity, he might call for the arrest of the McCanns based on what is written and depicted here. Ed.
Further articles on the pyjama problem can be found on the excellent Pamalam site:
A Nightwear Job
By Dr Martin Roberts
March 9, 2016
As published in the Telegraph
Author unknown
In the very nearly nine years since the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, and the eight since the parents had their arguido status formally withdrawn, one simple question has passed publicly unanswered, probably because the answer appears obvious and the question therefore not worth the asking. I shall ask it nevertheless:
Who took the McCanns' 'official photograph' of Madeleine's pyjamas?
The image in question was 'released' to the world's media in the late afternoon of 10 May, 2007, following a press conference that day. It was no doubt assumed by many that, since the PJ released the photographs (there is more than one), the PJ themselves must have taken them. Yet a film distributor who arranges the release of a 'blockbuster' is hardly likely to have spent the previous months/years actually doing the filming.
With this seed of doubt in mind, one might consider what the PJ did with their photograph(s), adhering all the while to the worldwide practice, among law enforcement agencies, of 'continuity', whereby the progress of evidence through the system, in whichever direction, is recorded at each step along the way. Whereabouts, then, did they file this particular 'diligence' of theirs?
Within the relevant Forensic report (23 November 2007) are references to the following images, together with cognate views of a pair of pyjama trousers:
A far cry from earlier publicised representations you will admit.
Why on earth should the PJ have seemingly undertaken the same photographic work twice, involving two quite different sets of pyjamas?
The forensic record (of garments correctly pictured alongside a scaling reference, i.e. a ruler) is that of a pair of pyjamas supplied on request by M&S (UK), afterwards forwarded to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon by Goncalo Amaral, together with a covering letter dated 7 June. It has nothing whatever to do with the official photograph released in early May. In fact the clothing pictured has more in common with that featured in the retailer's own contemporary stock photograph, a copy of which was sent to the Algarve Resident, again on request, and which the 'Resident' published on 8 May - two days before the official release.
As published by the Algarve Resident
During a press call at the Amsterdam Hilton, on 7 June, Kate McCann took pains to explain that the pyjamas being exhibited at that time were in fact Amelie's, and that Madeleine's were not only bigger but did not feature a button-fastening t-shirt. Only a couple of days earlier the same pyjamas, again described as 'Amelies' and 'a little bit smaller', were presented on 'Crimewatch', but without reference to the button discrepancy.
It stands to reason of course, that, Madeleine McCann's pyjamas having been abducted, a surrogate pair would have been required for photographic purposes, in the event of there being no extant photographic record of the clothing in question. But appropriate photographs were to hand. They already existed. One version, as we have seen, was published by the Algarve Resident, another by the BBC. The McCanns' 'official' version was consistent with neither of these. With the PJ yet to physically access a representative set of pyjamas, why should they have been called upon to photograph anything else for immediate release?
There is no record of their having done so. Ergo they did not. So who did? And where did the pyjamas come from that enabled them to do it?
Addressing the second of these questions first, the garments featured in the PJ release cannot have come from M&S locally, since all their Portuguese branches had been closed years before. Had they come from M&S in the UK they would obviously have resembled the pair sent to (and genuinely photographed by) the PJ. A pointer to their origin is, however, to be found within the case files.
Alongside a suite of photographs taken at Lagos Marina by Kate McCann is an introductory memo, written by DC Markley of Leicester Police on or about the 8 May and headed up, 'Information from the Family'. Here also one finds the only copy (in black and white) of the McCanns' official photograph of Madeleine's pyjamas (Outros Apensos Vol. II - Apenso VIII, p.342). Rather than its being a PJ production, afterwards passed to the McCanns, it seems the photograph was actually a McCann production fed to the PJ, an observation wholly concordant with the fact that it was actually the McCanns who first revealed this photograph to the press, on Monday 7 May, three days before the PJ released it (as reported by Ian Herbert, the Independent, 11.5.07).
Any illusion that the image in question was the result of a McCann representative's commissioning their own studio photograph of 'off-the-shelf' UK merchandise may soon be dispelled. It is an amateur snapshot. Taken in ambient (day) light, against a coloured (as opposed to neutral) background, it is slightly out of focus and displays detectable signs of parallax. It is not something even a journeyman professional would admit to.
And yet, bold as brass, it represents 'information from the family'.
Perhaps it was produced by a member of the McCann entourage that descended on Praia da Luz over the long weekend 4-6 May? Then again, perhaps not. As Kate McCann explains in her book, 'madeleine' (p.109):
“Everyone had felt helpless at home and had rushed out to Portugal to take care of us and to do what they could to find Madeleine. When they arrived, to their dismay they felt just as helpless – perhaps more so, having made the trip in the hope of achieving something only to discover it was not within their power in Luz any more than it had been in the UK.”
On Kate McCann's own admission, to a House of Commons committee no less, neither she nor husband Gerry were any more capable of keeping cool under fire during this time. Having earlier (August 2007) told her Pal, Jon Corner, "the first few days.…you have total physical shutdown", she went on to advise the House that, despite being medically trained, she and her husband "couldn't function" (John Bingham, the Telegraph, 13.6.2011).
Well someone on the McCann side of the fence managed to function in time for the parents to appear before the media on 7 May with a photograph that, so far, no-one seems to have taken, and of clothing which, other things being equal, ought not even to have existed anywhere inside Portugal, except, perhaps, in the clutches of a fugitive abductor. But, of course, other things are anything but equal.
Non mihi, non tibi, sed nobis
A month after the world's media were first shown a picture of something resembling Madeleine McCann's 'Eeyore pyjamas', a real set was being touted around Europe. Described by Kate McCann as 'Amelie's' and being 'a little bit smaller', they were held aloft for the assembled press brigade, without any one of them questioning the pyjamas' origins either. Being 'Amelie's' was quite enough, apparently, to justify their also being in the McCanns' possession at the time. Since when though? Gerry McCann did not return home to Leicester from Praia da Luz until 21 May, time enough for him to have raided his daughter's wardrobe for something he might need on his European travels, but way too late to have met any 7/10 May deadlines.
It seems, then, as if the two ingredients required to achieve an earlier photograph of 'Madeleine's' pyjamas (the photographer and the subject) were both missing. So how was it done?
What at first appears to be a riddle is soon solved when one realises that the pair of pyjamas which accompanied the McCanns around Europe was the very same pair that starred in their 'official photograph' taken earlier. Kate McCann took public ownership of them before the television cameras the moment she referred to them as 'Amelie's'. On close inspection these pyjamas (Amelie's) are revealed as identical to the pair previously pictured in both the Daily Mail (10.5.07) and the Telegraph (see top of page here), down to the stray threads dangling from both upper and lower garments. This means that 'Amelie's pyjamas', for want of a better description, were also present with the McCanns since the start of their Algarve holiday.
As published by the Daily Mail
Suddenly the question ceases to be 'Who photographed a representative pair of Eeyore pyjamas?' and becomes, instead, 'Who photographed Amelie's pyjamas?' Furthermore, if everyone was feeling so shell-shocked as to render them incapable from the Friday, when did they have the presence of mind to take the requisite pictures?
We begin to edge toward a sinister conclusion once we take particular account of the literal background against which these particular pyjamas were photographed.
A coarse woven tale
Unlike the various studio renditions of Eeyore pyjamas to which we have been introduced, the McCann's official photograph(s), versions of which were published by both the PJ and the UK media, present the subject laid out against a blue textile, rather than the more customary piece of artist's board. This blue upholstery, for that is unquestionably what it is, helps define who, among the Tapas 9, might have been the photographer.
The Paynes, the Oldfields and the O'Briens can be ruled out. Only the Payne's apartment incorporated any soft furnishings in blue, but of a different quality to the plain open-weave material on display here. During the early morning of Friday 4 May, 2007, the McCanns were re-located to alternative accommodation in apartment 4G - another in which blue soft furnishings were conspicuous by their absence (it was appointed in beige throughout).* Added to which the concern, lest we forget, is with photography involving a pair of pyjamas known to have been in the McCanns' possession from the outset.
In his statement to Police of 10 May, Gerry McCann as good as exonerated himself of all blame concerning picture taking:
‘Asked, he clarifies that:
apart from the personal photos already delivered by him to the police authorities after the disappearance of his daughter MADELEINE, he has no others in his possession.
He adds that it is:
his wife KATE who usually takes pictures, he does not recall taking any pictures during this holiday, at night.’
Notwithstanding accounts of how, from the Friday onwards, the McCanns, their nearest and dearest, all fell mentally and physically incapable (of anything save visiting the pool, the beach bar, and the church on Sunday morning), Kate McCann early on made a very telling remark, concerning photography, to journalist Olga Craig:
"I haven't been able to use the camera since I took that last photograph of her" (The Telegraph, May 27, 2007).
That statement alone carries with it a very serious connotation. However, we still have a distance to travel.
The more contrastive of the two images reproduced here displays what appear to be areas of shadow, when in fact there are no local perturbations at the surface of the fabric to cause them. Similarly, the dark bands traversing the t-shirt appear more representative of what is actually beneath it. These visible oddities suggest the material is in fact damp and 'clinging' to the underlying upholstery.
There is, as we know, an anecdote of Kate McCann's, which sees her washing Madeleine's pyjama top on the Thursday morning. As re-told in her book, she does so while alone in the family's apartment:
"I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda."
Size matters
As previously stated, Kate McCann was careful to bring the attention of her Amsterdam Hilton audience, to Madeleine's pyjama top being both larger and simpler than the version she was holding in her hands at the time. She was inviting them instinctively to associate garment size with complexity - the larger the simpler in this instance. It would mean of course that Madeleine's 'Eeyore' pyjamas, purchased in 2006, would not have been absolutely identical with those of her sister Amelie, purchased whenever (but obviously before the family's 2007 holiday on the Portuguese Algarve).
On 7 May, the Sun reported that:
"The McCann family also disclosed that on the night of her disappearance Madeleine was wearing white pyjama bottoms with a small floral design and a short-sleeved pink top with a picture of Eeyore with the word Eeyore written in capital letters.In his 7 June covering letter to the Forensic Laboratory in Lisbon, Goncalo Amaral conveys the following specification in relation to the pyjamas he was intent on sending for examination:
"The clothes were bought at Marks and Spencer last year."
"The Pyjamas are from Marks and Spencers, size 2 to 3 years -97 cm.
"The pyjamas are composed of two pieces: camisole type without buttons"
Since these items could only have been supplied to the PJ in mid-07, they must have represented that year's style, as it were, for 2-3 year olds. Madeleine would have been four years old by this time. However, Kate McCann would have people believe that 'Amelie's' pyjamas, sporting a button, were designed to fit an even younger child. Had Kate purchased the appropriate pyjamas for Amelie in 2007 of course, they would not have had a button at all.
They must therefore have been purchased in the same epoch as Madeleine’s own, i.e. during 2006, when Amelie would have been a year younger and somewhat smaller even than when the family eventually travelled to Portugal the following year.
The significance of all this becomes apparent once we consider those photographs which show how the pyjamas held aloft by the McCanns at their various European venues encompassed half Gerry McCann's body length at least. Photographs of the McCanns out walking with their twins in Praia da Luz, on the other hand, illustrate, just as clearly, that Amelie McCann did not stand that tall from head to toe. Even In 2007 she would have been swamped by her own pyjamas, never mind the year before when they were purchased.
In conclusion, the McCanns' 'official photograph', first exhibited on 7 May, appears to be that of a damp pair of pyjamas, too big to have been sensibly purchased for Madeleine's younger sister that Spring, and most certainly not the year before. The subject is set against dark blue upholstery of a type not present in any of the apartments occupied by the McCanns or their Tapas associates immediately after 3 May. Kate McCann has explained, over time, how she was alone in apartment 5A that morning, in the company of a damp pyjama top (having just washed it) and how, from that afternoon by all accounts, she 'couldn't bear to use the camera', an automatic device (Canon PowerShot A620) belonging to a product lineage with an unfortunate reputation for random focussing errors.
Madeleine was not reported missing until close to 10.00 p.m. that night. If Madeleine McCann's pyjamas were not in fact abducted, then nor was Madeleine McCann.
Martin Roberts
Grateful thanks are due to Nigel Moore for collating a number of highly relevant photographs and media reports in connection with this topic.
1) Forensic photograph of couch in apartment 5A
2)Pyjamas belonging to the McCanns
Not definite, but . . .
H/T Grande Finale
If a fellow thought that the Metropolitan Police Service was a functioning entity, he might call for the arrest of the McCanns based on what is written and depicted here. Ed.
The nightwear continues..
More questions concerning Madeleine McCann's pyjamas by Dr. Roberts
A feast of reasoned arguments:
It is fully three years since readers’ attention was brought to the possibility of the McCanns’ having prepared for the disappearance of their daughter in advance of the putative event. The article in question (A Nightwear Job) provoked outright hostility on the part of some, and continues to do so. It centres on two photographs of exactly the same subject taken or reproduced with different lighting conditions, the more contrastive of which affords a clue to the blue background against which the subject (a pair of pyjamas) was in fact pictured. Bearing in mind that the upper garment was pink, and appears so in both images, you may find it hard to believe, as I do, that there exists, even today, more than one individual prepared to suggest the background colour is anything but blue in each of them.
Another, altogether spiteful lady (?) has previously, and vociferously, attempted to convince people that the police in Portugal would routinely invite members of the Paparazzi to record evidence for them, submitting out-of-focus, false-perspective prints in the process. A close ally of hers has persisted in reminding his readers that one Luis Forra is credited by his agency (EPA) with the pictures under discussion. Tellingly, Forra is also credited with other daylight photographs (supposedly taken at 11:00 p.m.), one of Madeleine McCann (at age 2), and images from an event that did not take place until several days after his pictures were submitted. Clever man.
“Then prove he didn’t take them!” They chorus. Well, except to the unremittingly dense, the photographs speak for themselves. Had any professional photographer laid claim to them first hand their agency work would have dried up overnight. To quote one of my detractors: “They are simply not terribly good photos.” Needless to say Luis Forra has failed to reply to asinine e-mail entreaties from this deluded duo.
A third man (not Harry Lime) has asked for ‘evidence’ that the Police did not take the photographs in question, despite its having been clearly pointed out that they were devoid of ‘flat lighting’, a neutral background and, most significantly, a scaling reference – a protocol to which police forensic photographers are obliged to adhere. Furthermore, a copy of the image was specifically filed by police as ‘information from the family’, not as a ‘diligence’ of their own. (It is elsewhere claimed by one of the Luis Forra advocates that this is the only image, so archived, to bear the Portuguese ministry’s copyright mark. That claim is demonstrably false. At least three of the marina photographs carry the same mark, partly visible between the areas of dense black).
Intellectual rigor is seemingly lacking among these Wizards of Oz.
This follow-up piece though is about more than the questionable motives of others. To come straight to the point, should the pyjamas in those photographs have belonged to Madeleine McCann, then the story of her abduction can have no foundation whatsoever, since she is supposed to have been wearing them at the time, and stolen clothes do not mysteriously reappear for photo-shoots.
In support of the conjecture that they were indeed Madeleine’s pyjamas, we have visible evidence of their size, of their having been washed (and therefore previously soiled - which chimes with Kate McCann’s tale of tea drinking) and Kate McCann publicly saying so herself (“So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine’s doesn’t have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken”).
O.K., so Kate endeavoured to distinguish between the pyjamas she and husband Gerry were holding up for the cameras and those actually worn by Madeleine. But the distinction is more apparent than real. What do we genuinely know of the size (they seem plenty big enough to me)? Nothing, other than what Kate chose to mention, which was… nothing of substance. The same goes for the button aspect, which came to light once the PJ had requested a contemporary pair from M&S in the UK and received trousers accompanied by a simple T-shirt in response. Otherwise, instead of a pair of pyjamas ‘very much like’ those worn by Madeleine, we have her mother re-iterating that they were actually hers.
During other appearances before the European media, Kate reinforced the dissociation between Madeleine’s pyjamas and the touring pair, claiming the latter were in fact Amelie’s and ‘a little bit smaller’. That of course makes the ‘not Madeleine’s’ stance noticeably firmer. Nonetheless, the principal question posed at the very beginning of my previous article on the subject was not that of whose pyjamas featured in the photographs, but who took them (the photographs, not the pyjamas) and, no less significantly, when?
Needless to say, the loud-mouthed and foul-mouthed alike volubly contradicted my point of view. ‘They could have been taken by anyone, anywhere’ is about as solid an argument as the denial that Madeleine could ever have lain dead inside apartment 5A of the Ocean Club when viable candidates for the role of corpse number precisely one. The impetus to demand ‘proof ‘of a negative statement (i.e., that the photos in this instance were not taken by a third-party) is clearly irresistible to those for whom circumstantial evidence implicating the McCanns in their own daughter’s disappearance is anathema for whatever reason.
Ever since Gerry McCann’s “She’s out there until proven otherwise” invitation to prove Madeleine was not abducted, there has been no shortage of cocksure commentators adopting the same strategy. It is not quite as fail-safe as they may imagine however. As touched upon earlier, should it be accepted that Madeleine’s pyjamas toured Europe after her reported abduction, then the idea that she and her clothing were stolen together would clearly be untenable. But even if those pyjamas were really Amelie’s from the outset, and not merely foisted upon the infant simply in order to bolster that claim, questions pertaining to the photographer’s identity and chronology remain.
So what if those Eeyore pyjamas were genuinely purchased for the younger girl?
Overlooking the purchaser’s lamentable sense of sizing, let’s proceed immediately to the extraordinary perspective that would see not just identical pairs of pyjamas bought for two different children but ‘breakfast mishaps’ occurring to both of them, leaving two soiled pyjama tops. Why two? Well, Kate McCann has already described washing one. The other (pictured) was apparently not it, yet also shows clear evidence of a liquid mark, wet or dry, at the neck. If that mark is dry then it is a stain, if wet it is either a fresh stain or a result of washing, the latter being the more likely. Hence the compound coincidence of identical pyjamas undergoing similar treatment, for similar reasons, and to no real purpose into the bargain.
If washing one set of clothes two days before their planned departure was so significant an action as to merit discussion in the context of her daughter’s apparent abduction, then why did Kate McCann describe only the one act of laundry, not both? Why in fact did she bother to describe it at all? Who cares whether the pyjamas the child was wearing were clean?
As Kate wrote in her book:
“The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine’s pink Eeyore pyjama top. I couldn’t recall seeing it the night before and I had no idea how it might have got there. It looked like a tea stain. Gerry and I do drink quite a bit of tea, and Madeleine, too, would have the odd small cup.”
And later…
“I returned to our apartment before Gerry had finished his tennis lesson and washed and hung out Madeleine’s pyjama top on the veranda.”
Unsurprisingly, Amelie, not yet three years of age at the time, is not identified as a tea drinker.
The washing of Amelie’s pyjamas, whether it occurred or not, was clearly of lesser importance, to the extent that there is no record of its ever happening. In point of fact Kate makes no mention whatsoever, in either her police statements or her book, of ‘Amelie’s pyjamas’.
The tale of the tea-stain has the stamp of a retro-fit explanation for something or other. What that something might be is of course a matter of conjecture, but the story did not make its appearance until Kate McCann’s 6 September statement as Arguida, by which time she would already have escorted those Eeyore pyjamas around Europe and been more than familiar with the published images of them, which clearly show a liquid mark of some kind at the neck. The problem with explaining this mark away as the infamous tea-stain, however, is that she has also described washing the pyjama top on the very morning she claims first to have noticed the stain, Thursday May 3. Hence, any photography of Madeleine’s stained pyjamas can only have been undertaken before then, i.e., hours before Madeleine was reported missing. Perhaps that is why those same pyjamas had to become Amelie’s without delay.
The specificity of pyjama ownership is one question, the photographer’s identity quite another. Ironically, as much as the original background within the disputed photographs points toward a certain party, or parties, as having been responsible, it also points directly away from the dismissive ‘anyone could have done it’ point of view.
If, while visiting a holiday resort in sunny Portugal, or even working in one, you were asked to take a photograph or two of a young child’s pyjamas, wouldn’t you think to lay them on the floor (a table-top being obviously problematic), stand directly above and have the entire image clearly in your viewfinder? You might even decide to deal with the upper and lower garments separately, as did the PJ, so as to guarantee capturing both aspects fully ‘in frame’. That is unless the intention were to make the photographs seem ‘official’; something the appearance in the picture(s) of ceramic floor tiles would not lend itself to. So instead you opt for an item of soft furniture as your background - a bed perhaps - in any event, an item coincidentally upholstered in material identical to that found in apartment 5A, and the same colour to boot. And would you not be all the more surprised if asked to wash the pyjamas beforehand, especially if they had already been washed very recently?
Ironically, this very same viewpoint is expressed by the self-assured ‘Luis Forra’ spokesperson, who published the following on 29 July last year (2018):
“It seems totally ludicrous that Kate or Gerry would go to the effort of flipping a sofa, or removing cushions, in order to take a photo. Why not use a bed, the coffee table, or the dining table? It's inconceivable that the sofa would have been flipped, or cushions removed, with so many other, easier options available. Besides which, in the original photograph the background wasn't blue!”
You will notice that this critic too struggles with the concepts of ‘contrast’ and ‘brightness’ in the handling of digital photographs. It’s as if he’d never even bothered to look at a colour palette. Trust me. If the same subject in each of two photographic reproductions is pink then the background, in this case, is fundamentally blue, be it sky blue, air force blue or any other shade of blue. In any case, why should the Press Association or the Telegraph have seen fit to turn ‘not blue’ into ‘cobalt blue’ before publishing their picture?
What this closing discussion brings to the fore is the idea that the photographer’s choice of background was not haphazard, but deliberate to a degree no casual ‘assistant’ would spontaneously have considered. It was a deliberate effort to disguise the pictures’ origin and make them appear as ‘official’ as the early media headlines subsequently labelled them. It succeeded for years, inasmuch as no-one questioned that textile background, the origin of the garments, the absence in the pictures of a police imprimatur, the shadows that aren’t, the imprecise focussing, or the parallax (converging parallels) more obvious to the professional than the untrained eye.
Such are the questionable details encompassed by this instance of ‘information from the family’ they render the objections cited above about as robust as straw men standing beside a bonfire.
'The pyjamas are identical to those Madeleine was wearing and belong to her two-year-old sister Amelie.' (This ‘quote’ is in fact reported speech, the statement appearing three paragraphs beneath the sub-heading ‘Fantastic support’.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YQ3ForLXJT0
1:35 Kate McCann:
"So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
1:35 Kate McCann:
"So these are actually, apart from the size and the button on the back which Madeleine's doesn't have, these are actually the pyjamas that Madeleine was wearing when she was taken."
Further articles on the pyjama problem can be found on the excellent Pamalam site:
In particular: 10-09-2013 'Not a leg to stand on'22/11/2013 'A Bedtime Story' and
18-01-2014 ' Laid to rest'
To find these on Pamalam's site, scroll down to bottom of list and select 'Nigel's McCannfiles'.
A numbered and alphabetical list will appear and for Dr. Roberts and the list numbers 87 to 92 refer to the years 2009 to 2014 .
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDelete