By Dr Martin Roberts 11 February 2014 SWIMMING AGAINST THE TIDE It is said that the Anglo-Saxon king, Cnut the Great (otherwise known as Canute), revealed the omnipotence of a higher authority when he had his throne set down on a beach and unsuccessfully commanded the waves not to encroach upon his feet. Whatever his motives, the ancient kings demonstration of the oceans stubbornness is both classical and convincing. However much his followers might have believed in his personal magisterial powers, there could be no denying the weight of evidence. The abduction of Madeleine McCann, fixed in time to the night of 3 May, 2007, is an assumption which has no evidence to support it; only further assumptions. The one certainty is that the child has been missing for seven years since. Despite presenting to the Police (and the world) an account of how her daughter Madeleine was last seen asleep in her own bed, Kate McCann has also said, quite incongruously, You dont expect someone to come into your apartment and take your child out (of) your bed. The question this raises is quite why anyone recounting such an event might wish to re-position the locus of a genuine crime. What is there to be gained from going against the grain? In isolation the remark is puzzling. A slip of the tongue perhaps, made while the tide is still off-shore. But time passes, and the waves become more numerous as they surge in the same inward direction. The contradiction inherent in Kate McCanns extraordinary bed reference finds company in the false statements made, not only by the McCanns but by various members of their holiday entourage, in relation to the four days immediately preceding Madeleines disappearance (see: Mondays Child – McCannfiles). What possible reason could there have been for misrepresenting events prior to the commission of the crime as understood, or should one say assumed? In tandem with this questionable behaviour, it is clear from the records of Madeleines attendance at the holiday crèche that these same four days are not unequivocally accounted for in that context either. What was it Kate McCann said in her book once upon a time? One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe theyre still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence. A weeks worth of lies (coincidence number one). A weeks worth of dubious crèche records (coincidence number two). Shall we go for the hat-trick? The young Mark Warner nanny, Catriona Baker was questioned by Portuguese police at the beginning of their investigation. Months later she was outed by the Daily Mail (14.10.2007), her situation at that time represented thus: The McCanns believe Ms Baker is a key witness in the defence that they are assembling with the aid of a team of lawyers and investigators. Bearing in mind the timing of events as fixed by the McCanns own accounts, this statement is, on the face of it, rather perplexing. How, exactly, can someone coming into innocuous contact with Madeleine before her abduction become a key witness in the McCanns defence afterwards? And what manner of charge were they planning to defend themselves against? Not the abduction of their own daughter, surely? Nocturnal neglect, perhaps? The worst case scenario, as generally understood, might have been something in connection with a fatal accident occurring on the Thursday night; again, after Catriona Bakers duties as nanny had been discharged. Could Catriona have been considered a character witness therefore? No. She hardly knew the McCanns. A witness to their movements then? No. She was elsewhere for most of the day - everyday. A witness to Madeleines abduction? No. It happened at night. She would have been out enjoying herself, as she put it, when not resting at home. Was she someone who witnessed a stalker, or stalkers, immediately before or after the abduction? No. She said not in her first statement to the police. What could possibly have been her role within the McCann defence strategy therefore? Common sense dictates that Catriona Bakers value as a key witness could only pertain to the period of time she spent in her capacity as nanny, something the McCanns have acknowledged and the Daily Mail have explained: She was witness to the McCanns movements during the week they were on holiday in Portugal and fed Madeleine less than three hours before she disappeared. Except that, but for fleeting glances in the morning and at mid-day, she very obviously was not a witness to the McCanns movements that week they were in Portugal; a week which embraced exactly the same four days less than adequately accounted for by others, including the McCanns themselves. And that makes her recruitment as a potential witness for the defence anything but coincidental. Comparison of Catrionas own evidence, as given to the PJ, with the Daily Mails clarification of her later value to the McCanns, reveals how, like Michael Wright latterly in Lisbon, she was to be briefed. CB (6.5.2007): It was always Madeleines parents that would bring her to and fetch her from the Minis. Compare this with Gerry McCanns own statement four days later: The deponent and KATE returned to the OCEAN CLUB. They stayed there, talking, until 16H45, at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the nannies and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE dined, having finished at 17H30. On the subject of episodes untoward she is quite voluble: She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning. She replies that within the exercise of her functions, both inside the building and outdoors (above specified activities), she never noticed anyone suspiciously observing the children under her care. She didnt notice anyone taking pictures of the children, namely of Madeleine. She refers that her colleagues never mentioned anything concerning their children, either. The deponent mentions that following Madeleines disappearance, she didnt see or hear anything, no plausible reason that could explain what caused said disappearance. And yet, five months later, the Daily Mail was able to offer its readers: On the morning after Madeleines disappearance it is believed she even told Portuguese police of a man she had seen acting suspiciously around the apartments. And Intriguingly, Ms Baker revealed to one friend - spoken to by this newspaper - that she told Portuguese police of a man she saw acting strangely near the apartments in the days leading up to Madeleines disappearance on May 3. Intriguing indeed. What may well have been believed by a McCann spokesperson clearly did not represent what Catriona Baker herself had previously said. In November 2007 Catriona Baker paid the McCanns a personal visit at their home in Rothley. The following April she was interviewed again by police. On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming. This is of course that strangest of days, when Madeleine went swimming in her gap top and broderie Anglaise shorts, having earlier been for a boat trip at the beach where no-one else saw her, apart from Cat Baker that is. The nannys most significant evidential contribution here however is this one: I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with Ella, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back. Admittedly she had said something vaguely similar to Portuguese police originally, but she had also proceeded to observe: Since the beginning, when she received the little girl, it appeared to her that her parents were affable and showed their interest in her well being, as they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the childs outdoors activities. So name one. And if that doesnt sound like the McCanns, then maybe were not talking about Madeleine either. The fact that the McCanns were clearly planning to field (concoct?) answers to such questions as Where was Madeleine on...? further validates those very questions.
Posted on: Tue, 18 Feb 2014 21:03:07 +0000
Trending Topics
Recently Viewed Topics
© 2015