' By Dr Martin Roberts
08 July 2013
NO WAY OUT
With Scotland Yard in hot pursuit of thirty-eight 'persons of interest', all of whom were in Portugal on the night of May 3, 2007, apparently, one must assume that there is some plausible connection between one or more of these individuals and the sequestration of a minor from her bed in Praia da Luz that night. In point of fact there were rather more than thirty-eight people in Portugal at the time, any one of whom might have some, as yet unrecognised connection to, or knowledge of, dark deeds in the Algarve.
But all of this rather pre-supposes that a crime of abduction was committed in the first instance. Whilst there are 'experts' walking among us, who are only too happy to write books, give media interviews etc., covering subjects for which the supposedly known photographic evidence is demonstrably fake, i.e. a hoax (e.g., the nephilim giants), it cannot be difficult to appreciate that the interrogation of thirty-eight (give or take as many as you like) over the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, can only serve a true purpose if the child was actually abducted in the first place.
Unless money is no object, the most cost-effective way for Metropolitan Police to narrow the scope of their review-turned-investigation into Madeleine's disappearance must be to consolidate their position as to the nature of any crime committed against her. That was the approach taken by the Portuguese (surprise, surprise) in their original investigation, encouraged not just by the indications of trained sniffer dogs, but by the earlier input of UK based expertise, in the form of the NPIA's National Search Adviser, Mark Harrison MBE. Surely his voice must count for something, even in the face of absolute refusal to entertain interpretation of the dogs' behaviour subsequently.
"There is no evidence Madeleine is dead".
But that, as both the McCanns and DCI Redwood should know, does not constitute evidence she is alive. Equally, there is no evidence that she was abducted, which, likewise, is insufficient to prove she was not. But what, therefore, should one make of evidence that abduction, under the circumstances understood and at the very specific time alluded to by the only possible witnesses in the vicinity, could not have occurred? Such evidence clearly does not exist in the PJ files under the discrete heading 'evidence against', but it can be adduced. What is more, an evidence based argument, however persuasive, carries only the weight of probability. A logical proof, on the other hand, confers absolute certainty.
Earlier essays (Crystal Clear, Another Story) examined the circumstances in question, arriving at the conclusion that the putative abductor's biggest challenge was not getting into apartment 5A, but getting out again. And if they failed to do so by the time they were 'spotted' in the street by Jane Tanner then that incident itself could not have occurred. Crucial to any such conclusion is not the status of the patio door to the apartment but that of the front door, which various statements (e.g., those of Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and, importantly, Gerry McCann) inform us was locked, in which case a key would have been required in order to enter or exit the apartment that way.
Ah, but Gerry changed his mind. From: 'The deponent entered the club, using his key, the door being locked', to: 'Concerning the front door, although he is certain that it was closed, it is unlikely that it was locked, because they left through the back door'. Not exactly a categorical volte face you will notice. Nor is there a genuine causal relationship between synchronously unlocked doors.
'But this is all uncertainty, not evidence! Whe... Whe... Where is the evidence'?
It exists in the form of a book, and a statement therein which confirms that the front door to apartment 5A was locked on the night of May 3, 2007. That being the case, our hypothetical abductor of Madeleine McCann could not have exited the apartment without being seen by the two gentlemen conversing at the foot of the back stairs or, for that matter, in order to be seen by Jane Tanner. Basically he could not get out. And if he did not get out, then he did not get in either.
The book in question is 'Madeleine' by Kate McCann and the crucial statement is as follows:
"For a long while we would assume that the abductor had entered and exited through the window of the children's bedroom, but it is equally possible that he used the patio doors or even had a key to the front door."
The equation of possibilities here is perfectly clear. Any of three access points may have been utilised, including the front door, provided the intruder had a key. But why should he have needed a key to enter through an unlocked door? The implication is unmistakable. The front door was locked. But that would not have deterred anyone in possession of a key. Unfortunately for the McCanns' belief in abduction, it is not equally possible that he had a key to the front door.
As David Payne explains in his rogatory interview:
"...essentially you needed the key you know, to use, if I remember to gain access into the, err into the apartment, and you know generally it was difficult because there was, you know we'd ask about more than one key, there was the only one key to the apartment."
There was only one key to the apartment and the abductor did not have it.
He could not, therefore did not, exit the apartment with a child in his arms in the two or three minutes between Gerry McCann's last 'check' on the children and Jane Tanner's 'sighting'. Nor did he leave the apartment afterwards, carrying Madeleine past the Smiths. The child they witnessed was wearing the wrong pyjamas. And since the intending abductor was not discovered inside the apartment subsequently then he was not there at all.
Without an abductor there can have been no abduction, but thirty-eight people, at least, were in Portugal that night.'
