Re: Kate must have read the Gaspar statements...

by Daoud 21.12.10 8:43

Judge Mental wrote:
Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.

Were it only possible to do so, Daoud.

It is possible

We have seven witnesses and two arguidos/ex-arguidos who made their witness statements in Portugal, shortly after Madeleine's alleged abduction, and the two doctors Gaspar statements which were made England. The former nine statements were taken from the people who were close to the scene of the alleged crime. These statements have already proven to be unreliable in many parts. Simply because few statements corroborate or situate people where they allege they were; at the times they were supposed to be where they stated.

No disagreement here.

The latter two statements of the Gaspars are somewhat of an unknown quantity for the purposes of evaluation, due to us not having been able to cross reference their statements with those of any of others.
Actually we can compare what AG said with what KG said - and vice versa.

We have not seen McCann or Payne's statements with regard to this matter. Indeed we do not know for certain if they exist. Although it has to be assumed that given the gravity of the accusations, they must have been seriously investigated.

Agreed.

Which are the stronger statements? Those statements which we have already had a great many doubts over for various reasons, including their lack of consistency with some or all of the other statements? Or the latter two Gaspar statements, which currently stand alone and apart from all of the other statements?

Quien sabe?

Nine people have a lot to lose, and their statements were certainly not taken through choice, whereas the doctors Gaspar made statements with nothing at all to gain. The Gaspars made their statements, rightly or wrongly, and entirely of their own volition, upon seeing that Payne was holidaying where Madeleine is alleged to have disappeared from. No legal reason drove the Gaspars to make their complaints, whereas the Tapas 9 did not have a choice.

So the Gs say - we don't actually know if the statements in green above are true or not.

Which statements would be the most plausible and reasonable, given what we already know, and have tested with the help of so many dedicated posters who have such a wealth of brilliant and dedicated minds amongst them? Is it those which we have already dismissed in whole or in part, or those which need not have been made in the first instance? We have to give consideration to those statements which have the most convincing detail, without being backed up by multiple sources. In this case we have found that this has already opened more cans of worms than we can discuss on open fora. The Tapas 9 statements are found to be lacking in specificity and sufficient detail. Upon testing their veracity in order to atttribute weight, we find that the basis of some of the evidence provided tends to rely on other unreliable people to verify it.

I think it was Aiyoyo who referred to apples in an earlier post - and you're making the same mistake here. Comparisons between the two sets of statements (Gs' and T7's) may be interesting and useful for a variety of reasons, but the rambling incoherence of the T7 has no bearing on the veracity of the Gs.

However, the Gaspars have first-hand observations; both seeing the same thing and hearing the same thing at the same time, on more than one occasion. It has become apparent that the Tapas 9 were not always where they said they were, or doing what they have stated they were doing. All the individuals were wholly reliant on back up from other individuals or other multiple sources for detail. Some people may find it difficult to decide where the most compelling evidence may lie. One would suggest that there is no easy answer. However, we cannot compare two types of apple, to loosely quote aiyoyo.

Here I'm afraid you're wrong - they both did not see and hear the same thing on more than one occasion, only KG claimed that the incident was repeated. I see you have reintroduced fresh fruit into the argument - I'm not especially fond of apples in their natural environment, even less so here and I have no idea what they're doing in your post - I am not the one comparing the two sets of statements. The comment which provoked the injection of Golden Delicious vs Granny Smith into the discussion was this: 'therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7'. I have already conceded to both Tony and Aiyoyo that I should have added the words 'and anyone else' to the end of the sentence. It's not about comparison but method.

Therefore as Tony Bennett has painstakingly pointed out, some witnesses already hold more value than others, simply because we have found too many discrepancies in the Tapas 9 statements. The rogatory letters were not sent to provide more paperwork for the lawyers, nor were they designed to annoy people. They were sent to ascertain some quite subtle points, and the McCanns helping to prepare them was very interesting indeed.

I don't disagree with the above, but I do with your conclusion:

Therfore, we need not treat the Gaspars statements with the same degree of caution or scepticism.as we treat others.

To repeat myself - ALL witness statements should be treated with caution and scepticism until they have been verified. In this case and in all other cases. What Tony didn't mention is we don't know what the Gs actually said - we have an English transation of the Portuguese translation of the original; if the rogatory interviews had been through the same process would the version presented to us have all the ums and errs? What else might have been lost in the double translation? Finally neither Tony nor yourself seems to realise that there are contradictions between the two statements made by the two Gaspars, and also KG's statement contains things which need, at the very least, clarification.

BTW Excellent post aiyoyo.

by Daoud 21.12.10 8:45

Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

Nice behaviour from someone who's supposed friend has just had a child go missing.

Do you have a source for that? I believe he was talking on the phone to a Portuguese journalist who'd rung him up out of the blue, but am not certain.

Sorry, have just seen the earlier reply to your post giving a source - with what seems to be a Google translation. It sounds to me as if a fed up DP is responding to an unsolicited call from a journalist by telling him to eff off and mind his own business - a pretty flimsy foundation for a sinister Pact of Silence or Tony's 'infamous DP oath'; though I'm unsure whether Tony is qualifying DP or the oath (or both?) with infamous. Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 3 110921

Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 3 110921

by Daoud 21.12.10 8:57

aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

Nice behaviour from someone who's supposed friend has just had a child go missing.

So, not a forum myth then as Daoud claimed!

Now, why would he think it is a myth? Are we wrong or him wrong?

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?

Ay ay ay Aiyoyo!

I didn't claim it was a forum myth but a media myth - but no matter. I think it's a myth because it IS a myth. David Payne NEVER mentioned a Pact of Silence. See my previous post. And if you want to know why I think something, the quickest way to find out might be to ask me rather than a whole lot of people who I don't know and who don't know me. Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 3 110921

by aiyoyo 21.12.10 8:59

Shibboleth wrote:I have seen no reason for KG to make the statement up, why would she? It is a big thing to do, hardly likely to be motivated by jealousy of another woman. She seems to have no record of making up such spurious claims. So where is her motive? Why did the social worker Yvonne (Martin?) think she recognised DP? Why did Gerry McCann ask for the four family liason officers to be taken away?

I dont think there was any motive. If there was it would be for the protection of children and in particular to help Maddie.

It's probably not wrong to deduce it as: it's a case of she was revolted by their actions and concerned at that time. Dr Gaspar probably thought it was crude bordering on paedophile nature but dismissed it as 1) these were friends she was witnessing and she refused to believe the thoughts that crossed her mind and 2) no crime had happened in relation to those friends; hence best not to mull over too much, thus no action taken.

When Maddie's incident come up involving the v. peeple she'd witnessed and had a vague concern over at that point in time, the Gaspars probably felt it was better to err on the safe side - to mention it to police and have it look into just to rule it out.

My common sense tells me they wanted it 'ruled out' rather than 'ruled in'. I dont believe they were convinced of what they thought it was or they would have reported it much earlier. I believe they did it this time round since it directly involved one of those friend's children and they did it for what people could term as 'for their peace of mind' more than anything else. Not alledging anything but merely expressing a concern (just in case) to be looked into is probably a more appropriate way to put it.

by Daoud 21.12.10 9:02

Shibboleth wrote:I have seen no reason for KG to make the statement up, why would she? It is a big thing to do, hardly likely to be motivated by jealousy of another woman. She seems to have no record of making up such spurious claims. So where is her motive? Why did the social worker Yvonne (Martin?) think she recognised DP? Why did Gerry McCann ask for the four family liason officers to be taken away?

As I said in my reply to Tony, maybe to protect the Paynes/McCanns from possible charges of paedophilia. I'm not saying this is the case, just a possible motive.

by Daoud 21.12.10 9:07

aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:I have seen no reason for KG to make the statement up, why would she? It is a big thing to do, hardly likely to be motivated by jealousy of another woman. She seems to have no record of making up such spurious claims. So where is her motive? Why did the social worker Yvonne (Martin?) think she recognised DP? Why did Gerry McCann ask for the four family liason officers to be taken away?

I dont think there was any motive. If there was it would be for the protection of children and in particular to help Maddie.

It's probably not wrong to deduce it as: it's a case of she was revolted by their actions and concerned at that time. Dr Gaspar probably thought it was crude bordering on paedophile nature but dismissed it as 1) these were friends she was witnessing and she refused to believe the thoughts that crossed her mind and 2) no crime had happened in relation to those friends; hence best not to mull over too much, thus no action taken.

When Maddie's incident come up involving the v. peeple she'd witnessed and had a vague concern over at that point in time, the Gaspars probably felt it was better to err on the safe side - to mention it to police and have it look into just to rule it out.

My common sense tells me they wanted it 'ruled out' rather than 'ruled in'. I dont believe they were convinced of what they thought it was or they would have reported it much earlier. I believe they did it this time round since it directly involved one of those friend's children and they did it for what people could term as 'for their peace of mind' more than anything else. Not alledging anything but merely expressing a concern (just in case) to be looked into is probably a more appropriate way to put it.

But she didn't dismiss it at the time Aiyoyo - she told her husband to make sure he was always present if DP was bathing their child, and she imagined at the time that he was the sort of person who used the internet to watch child pornography.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.10 9:41

Daoud wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?
I think it's a myth because it IS a myth. David Payne NEVER mentioned a Pact of Silence.

Hair-splitting.

Does it really matter, Daoud, if Dr David Payne said 'We have a pact of silence' - or he said: 'We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours'?

Either way, he gave out the message: 'It's no-one else's business', rather reminding one of this great Eric Clapton performance of: 'It's nobody's business if I do':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVsptT3gZ8&feature=related

And does it really matter if he was 'fed up' when the Portuguese journalist 'phoned him? Fed up?*!?*! When a journalist was helping him and the Tapas 9 to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing? I would have jumped at the chance to talk, if a journalist rang me up and said: 'I'm putting together an article on your friend's missing child - can you help me please?'

Face it, the Gaspars rang Leicestershire Police not because Madeleine was missing but because they saw Dr David Payne on TV next to the McCanns. They recalled their previous concerns about him. They believed that his tendencies might be relevant to Madeleine's disappearance. They were prepared to commit their opinions to signed witness statements which the police could use in their investigation.

Your attempts to ascribe to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives, your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance...I find, well..., er, very interesting...

by Cheshire Cat 21.12.10 10:24

From Daves Rog interview, responding to a question about Yvonne Martin:

1485 "Did you advise the MCCANN’S to turn to her?”
Reply "Not at all, no.”
1485 "Not at all?”
Reply "Not at all. She was someone I’d certainly say to, to keep clear of you know and I, and I think pretty much I was saying look you know, appreciate your concern at this stage but you know it’s not the right time to be talking to her, if you want to leave a card then you know perhaps there might be a time in the future but you know can you just leave us please, and that was you know the basics of the conversation that I had with her. Err you know her timing was just completely off, err you know there was, I say there was someone else who visited on the night that she was abducted, I think she was from the upstairs and she was again you know trying to say there, there Kate, you’re alright, and again it was just completely inappropriate timing.”

I'm glad Dave went on to explain why Martin was "someone to keep clear of", otherwise we might suspect he had encountered her before... Wink

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.10 10:34

Cheshire Cat wrote:From Daves Rog interview, responding to a question about Yvonne Martin:

1485 "Did you advise the MCCANN’S to turn to her?”
Reply "Not at all, no.”
1485 "Not at all?”
Reply "Not at all. She was someone I’d certainly say to, to keep clear of you know I'm glad Dave went on to explain why Martin was "someone to keep clear of", otherwise we might suspect he had encountered her before...

Great observation as usual, Cheshire Cat, and a very Happy Christmas to you and yours

by Daoud 21.12.10 10:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
Daoud wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?
I think it's a myth because it IS a myth. David Payne NEVER mentioned a Pact of Silence.
Hair-splitting.

Does it really matter, Daoud, if Dr David Payne said 'We have a pact of silence' - or he said: 'We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours'?

Either way, he gave out the message: 'It's no-one else's business', rather reminding one of this great Eric Clapton performance of: 'It's nobody's business if I do':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVsptT3gZ8&feature=related

And does it really matter if he was 'fed up' when the Portuguese journalist 'phoned him? Fed up?*!?*! When a journalist was helping him and the Tapas 9 to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing? I would have jumped at the chance to talk, if a journalist rang me up and said: 'I'm putting together an article on your friend's missing child - can you help me please?'

Face it, the Gaspars rang Leicestershire Police not because Madeleine was missing but because they saw Dr David Payne on TV next to the McCanns. They recalled their previous concerns about him. They believed that his tendencies might be relevant to Madeleine's disappearance. They were prepared to commit their opinions to signed witness statements which the police could use in their investigation.

Your attempts to ascribe to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives, your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance...I find, well..., er, very interesting...

Tony,
As I suggested in my earlier reply to you - do some research. The article which first brought the Pact of Silence to the attention of the world was published in Sol on the 30th June 2007. DP was not responding to a helpful journalist eager 'to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing' as you would know if you'd bothered to read the article in question - he was being asked specifically about why, contrary to what the GNR and others had said, some members of the T9 had placed Robert Murat at the scene on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Rather different from your entirely fictitious assumption, no?

This is what the relevant part of the article says (in translation, of course):

The Murat contradiction

Contrarily to the GNR elements and the Ocean Club's staff, who participated in the searches on the night before and assure they did not see Murat around, Gerry and some of his friends guarantee that he was there. And thus he becomes an arguido.

Gerry and Kate's friends, who are interrogated tightly by the PJ over almost a month, refuse to clarify this contradiction, when asked by Sol. "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business", says David Payne, another element with the group. Minutes after we tried to contact Kate, Gerry, in a fury, calls the Sol journalist: "What do you think you are doing? Do you think you're better than the Portuguese police? I'm going to forward your contact to PJ and you will have to explain yourselves".

You can read the whole article here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html

So to answer the question you posed at the beginning of your post: Yes it does matter, for the simple reason that inaccuracies and misrepresentations soon spin out of control, as you have so ably and amply demonstrated in your utterly incorrect reading of what the journalist was asking about and DP responding to.

But despite getting so much so wrong, you know why the Gaspars contacted the police; you accuse me of attempting to ascribe 'to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives' when I did no such thing; your repeated and gross confusion over the facts when you state:
"your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of
silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald
McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance"; all this allows you to finish on a rather snide accusatory note.

I find it far more 'interesting' that someone who has adopted your position can get such elementary things so wrong, and more disturbingly, go on to build flights of fancy on such precarious foundations.

ETA ps Those split hairs are all yours, not mine - I don't think DP ever used the word pact when talking to the journalist.

by Angelique 21.12.10 10:50

Cheshire Cat wrote:From Daves Rog interview, responding to a question about Yvonne Martin:

1485 "Did you advise the MCCANN’S to turn to her?”
Reply "Not at all, no.”
1485 "Not at all?”
Reply "Not at all. She was someone I’d certainly say to, to keep clear of you know and I, and I think pretty much I was saying look you know, appreciate your concern at this stage but you know it’s not the right time to be talking to her, if you want to leave a card then you know perhaps there might be a time in the future but you know can you just leave us please, and that was you know the basics of the conversation that I had with her. Err you know her timing was just completely off, err you know there was, I say there was someone else who visited on the night that she was abducted, I think she was from the upstairs and she was again you know trying to say there, there Kate, you’re alright, and again it was just completely inappropriate timing.”

I'm glad Dave went on to explain why Martin was "someone to keep clear of", otherwise we might suspect he had encountered her before...

Cheshire Cat

Yes - these are my thoughts exactly. It is a most strange thing to say - from an educated Doctor - because in his professional capacity he should have used a professional judgement not a "friend judgement" He would know exactly what this sort of attention could mean. So he played it the other way - that they could be trouble for K & G - so he wanted this attention removed - why - if there was nothing to hide ? As far as I am aware CEOP were brought in for this very reason - paedophilia. IMO Martin is the "fail safe" and I think DP knew it.

I would not doubt the Gasper statements at all - by making these statements they have effectively risked their own careers/veracity - it is the correct response from a Doctor.

Angelique

I

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 10:53

"Not at all. She was someone I’d certainly say to, to keep clear of you know. ......... Err you know her timing was just completely off, err you know there was, I say there was someone else who ........''

big grin

If Payne thought Yvonne Martin's appearance was most inappropriate, when she had arrived at absolutely the right time, it rather sounds as if we ought to be very grateful the police were ever called at all. Lest those officers attending the scene were to have found themselves to have been getting in the way too.

He genuinely seems most certain that he did not want Yvonne Martin to be in the vicinity. Although it is most apparent that he was not alone in this, because Kate McCann most definitely did not appreciate Yvonne Martin's direct and pesky questioning either.

How anybody cannot feel terribly suspicious about Madeleine's disappearance is really rather beyond one's own reasoning.

by Shibboleth 21.12.10 11:55

Daoud wrote:ETA ps Those split hairs are all yours, not mine - I don't think DP ever used the word pact when talking to the journalist.

So you think, you don't actually know, that it might be a myth.

by Daoud 21.12.10 12:07

Shibboleth wrote:
Daoud wrote:ETA ps Those split hairs are all yours, not mine - I don't think DP ever used the word pact when talking to the journalist.

So you think, you don't actually know, that it might be a myth.

Hi Shibboleth,
I think that DP didn't use the word pact, and I put this down to translation from Portuguese to English. Pact is a pretty formal word in English, when was the last time you used it? But of course, without recourse to the tape/transcription of the conversation - if such exists - I cannot know that he didn't.

But the forum/media myth of the Pact of Silence as propounded by Tony is undoubtedly a myth - as I've already explained in my last reply to Tony. If there's anything in that post (or anything else) that you'd like to query, fine - ask away and I'll do my best to answer.

by Shibboleth 21.12.10 12:09

The words pact (En) and pacto (Pt) are almost identical......

by Daoud 21.12.10 12:12

Shibboleth wrote:The words pact (En) and pacto (Pt) are almost identical......

As are the words constipation (En) and constipação (Pt), though they have rather different meanings (literally they have the same meaning: blocked).
So what?
I don't understand the point you're making - sorry. Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 3 173510

Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 3 173510

by tosca 21.12.10 13:34

Daoud wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Daoud wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?
I think it's a myth because it IS a myth. David Payne NEVER mentioned a Pact of Silence.
Hair-splitting.

Does it really matter, Daoud, if Dr David Payne said 'We have a pact of silence' - or he said: 'We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours'?

Either way, he gave out the message: 'It's no-one else's business', rather reminding one of this great Eric Clapton performance of: 'It's nobody's business if I do':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVsptT3gZ8&feature=related

And does it really matter if he was 'fed up' when the Portuguese journalist 'phoned him? Fed up?*!?*! When a journalist was helping him and the Tapas 9 to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing? I would have jumped at the chance to talk, if a journalist rang me up and said: 'I'm putting together an article on your friend's missing child - can you help me please?'

Face it, the Gaspars rang Leicestershire Police not because Madeleine was missing but because they saw Dr David Payne on TV next to the McCanns. They recalled their previous concerns about him. They believed that his tendencies might be relevant to Madeleine's disappearance. They were prepared to commit their opinions to signed witness statements which the police could use in their investigation.

Your attempts to ascribe to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives, your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance...I find, well..., er, very interesting...

Tony,
As I suggested in my earlier reply to you - do some research. The article which first brought the Pact of Silence to the attention of the world was published in Sol on the 30th June 2007. DP was not responding to a helpful journalist eager 'to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing' as you would know if you'd bothered to read the article in question - he was being asked specifically about why, contrary to what the GNR and others had said, some members of the T9 had placed Robert Murat at the scene on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Rather different from your entirely fictitious assumption, no?

This is what the relevant part of the article says (in translation, of course):

The Murat contradiction

Contrarily to the GNR elements and the Ocean Club's staff, who participated in the searches on the night before and assure they did not see Murat around, Gerry and some of his friends guarantee that he was there. And thus he becomes an arguido.

Gerry and Kate's friends, who are interrogated tightly by the PJ over almost a month, refuse to clarify this contradiction, when asked by Sol. "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business", says David Payne, another element with the group. Minutes after we tried to contact Kate, Gerry, in a fury, calls the Sol journalist: "What do you think you are doing? Do you think you're better than the Portuguese police? I'm going to forward your contact to PJ and you will have to explain yourselves".

You can read the whole article here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html

So to answer the question you posed at the beginning of your post: Yes it does matter, for the simple reason that inaccuracies and misrepresentations soon spin out of control, as you have so ably and amply demonstrated in your utterly incorrect reading of what the journalist was asking about and DP responding to.

But despite getting so much so wrong, you know why the Gaspars contacted the police; you accuse me of attempting to ascribe 'to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives' when I did no such thing; your repeated and gross confusion over the facts when you state:
"your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of
silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald
McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance"; all this allows you to finish on a rather snide accusatory note.

I find it far more 'interesting' that someone who has adopted your position can get such elementary things so wrong, and more disturbingly, go on to build flights of fancy on such precarious foundations.

ETA ps Those split hairs are all yours, not mine - I don't think DP ever used the word pact when talking to the journalist.

Daoud may I say you are like a dog with a bone, and quite an aggressive dog at that.

by Daoud 21.12.10 14:07

tosca wrote:
Daoud wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Daoud wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?
I think it's a myth because it IS a myth. David Payne NEVER mentioned a Pact of Silence.
Hair-splitting.

Does it really matter, Daoud, if Dr David Payne said 'We have a pact of silence' - or he said: 'We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours'?

Either way, he gave out the message: 'It's no-one else's business', rather reminding one of this great Eric Clapton performance of: 'It's nobody's business if I do':

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=tWVsptT3gZ8&feature=related

And does it really matter if he was 'fed up' when the Portuguese journalist 'phoned him? Fed up?*!?*! When a journalist was helping him and the Tapas 9 to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing? I would have jumped at the chance to talk, if a journalist rang me up and said: 'I'm putting together an article on your friend's missing child - can you help me please?'

Face it, the Gaspars rang Leicestershire Police not because Madeleine was missing but because they saw Dr David Payne on TV next to the McCanns. They recalled their previous concerns about him. They believed that his tendencies might be relevant to Madeleine's disappearance. They were prepared to commit their opinions to signed witness statements which the police could use in their investigation.

Your attempts to ascribe to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives, your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance...I find, well..., er, very interesting...

Tony,
As I suggested in my earlier reply to you - do some research. The article which first brought the Pact of Silence to the attention of the world was published in Sol on the 30th June 2007. DP was not responding to a helpful journalist eager 'to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing' as you would know if you'd bothered to read the article in question - he was being asked specifically about why, contrary to what the GNR and others had said, some members of the T9 had placed Robert Murat at the scene on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Rather different from your entirely fictitious assumption, no?

This is what the relevant part of the article says (in translation, of course):

The Murat contradiction

Contrarily to the GNR elements and the Ocean Club's staff, who participated in the searches on the night before and assure they did not see Murat around, Gerry and some of his friends guarantee that he was there. And thus he becomes an arguido.

Gerry and Kate's friends, who are interrogated tightly by the PJ over almost a month, refuse to clarify this contradiction, when asked by Sol. "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business", says David Payne, another element with the group. Minutes after we tried to contact Kate, Gerry, in a fury, calls the Sol journalist: "What do you think you are doing? Do you think you're better than the Portuguese police? I'm going to forward your contact to PJ and you will have to explain yourselves".

You can read the whole article here: http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html

So to answer the question you posed at the beginning of your post: Yes it does matter, for the simple reason that inaccuracies and misrepresentations soon spin out of control, as you have so ably and amply demonstrated in your utterly incorrect reading of what the journalist was asking about and DP responding to.

But despite getting so much so wrong, you know why the Gaspars contacted the police; you accuse me of attempting to ascribe 'to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives' when I did no such thing; your repeated and gross confusion over the facts when you state:
"your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of
silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald
McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance"; all this allows you to finish on a rather snide accusatory note.

I find it far more 'interesting' that someone who has adopted your position can get such elementary things so wrong, and more disturbingly, go on to build flights of fancy on such precarious foundations.

ETA ps Those split hairs are all yours, not mine - I don't think DP ever used the word pact when talking to the journalist.

Daoud may I say you are like a dog with a bone, and quite an aggressive dog at that.

Of course you may Tosca! Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 3 742129

It's what you don't say that concerns me more - despite quoting quite a lengthy series of posts and replies, you chose not to address the subject being discussed. You seem happy for those who wish to do so to make claims that are clearly and demonstrably false, and take exception to those who try to correct them.
Your sole contribution to the discussion so far is call me an 'aggressive dog' Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 3 110921

- fair enough, you are entitled to your opinion, but it might be more edifying for the rest of us (and me in particular) if you supported your opinions with a bit of evidence, reason etc; and if you also made a contribution that was a level up from name calling.

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 14:13

The McCanns have been the only individuals to make a lot of noise in the media, with the exception of Tanner's performance on the BBC Panorama programme, and her role in the Channel 4 farcical exercise which seemed to centre around who should have been standing where, at the point when Jeremy Wilkins caught McCann on the road. It is almost too obvious that the Tapas 9 had an agreement not to speak with the media.

Having read all the available statements of the Tapas gang, and heard much fuddled waffling from both McCanns, surely we can see why it is absolutely necessary for the Tapas 9 to run a tight ship and batten down all the hatches. We know Gerald McCann has said that confusion is a good thing, but to have had nine people readily churning out all sorts of buttery material for the media, would have quite frankly driven most of us insane. It is quite for the best that we did not have any more than we have been given by the McCanns.

Therefore, there must be a pact of silence. Whether it be formal and there is a gagging order on them, or whether it was an agreement made over tapas and drinks; whilst tearing up the sticker-book; or something which was discussed shortly after Madeleine was allegedly stolen from her undisturbed bed. The fact is, that none of them have appeared in the media to tell us how heart-broken this incident has left them, or how shattered their lives have been by the incident. We could assume that their lives have been devastated by this debacle, but we may be completely wrong, and they could be carrying on as if this was just one of those things that happened, and that they have put this behind them, and have not a care in the world about it all. However, having watched Tanner on Panorama, one would suspect that this is something that has very much devastated each and every one of their lives.

Millions of war veterans from time immemorial, weep in silence and never speak of their traumas, This is their prerogative and may God bless them for their service to others. However, the reason some of us may find it odd that the Tapas 7 are so silent, is because of the constant barrage of media coverage of the parents, when we know there were many others on holiday with them at the time. This is not to say they should necessarily be under the same constant scrutiny, but they were there at the time of the incident. This was a gang of people on holiday with all their children. The McCanns were not a separate unit living at home when the incident occurred.

The priorities of our own police service here in the UK are precisely those of the PJ in Portugal. They accept that a person or persons known to the child is usually involved somehow. Portuguese law states that all witnesses must not discuss the case due to their secrecy laws. Hence, there is a pact of silence. This law was flouted on many occasions. However, Payne is alleged to have told a reporter that they had a pact of silence. Maybe the reporter misheard or misconstrued what he heard. Payne was simply saying that he could not speak. He obviously did not say that this was because of judicial secrecy, or the reporter did not report this. It has turned out to have been a very fortunate law. Not just for the Tapas 9, but for anybody trying to keep up with the case. Confusion is not good at all.

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 14:34

@ Daoud

We are most liberal here, however one thing one really does not like to see our posters say, is that a member should read the files or newspaper articles etc. The very fact of the matter is, there will be very few lines written on this case that Tony Bennett has not read and dissected. He would more than likely be able to give you a word count on any file or article without having to check.

One very much enjoys your advocacy and ability to ensure that we are not running away with ourselves at times, but it is very rude to tell any member to read something. If it is apparent that a poster is not up to speed, you can offer links and explain where they may find information they are looking to discuss, or even guide them if it is beneficial, but you must not tell them to do so. One is rather a fuddy duddy concerning manners, but there will be times when you see where one becomes quite irritated with posters oneself, and possibly become quite or even very rude. However, this is one of the perks of being a Moderator

The other perk, is to be able to ban people with the press of a button. Not that one would wish to remove you at all, for any length of time. So let us sit back and take deep breaths, and know that events are unfolding behind the scenes at a more rapid rate than we could possibly guess at. It's Christmas and a brand new year is about to dawn.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.10 14:36

Daoud wrote:Tony, As I suggested in my earlier reply to you - do some research. The article which first brought the Pact of Silence to the attention of the world was published in Sol on the 30th June 2007. DP was not responding to a helpful journalist eager 'to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing' as you would know if you'd bothered to read the article in question - he was being asked specifically about why, contrary to what the GNR and others had said, some members of the T9 had placed Robert Murat at the scene on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Rather different from your entirely fictitious assumption, no?

You have, if I may say so, completely and utterly missed the point.

I did not assume in any way the intention of the journalist, which was no doubt to gather some facts and ask some questions, as is the way of most journalists.

Let us look at this way.

You are all distraught about a missing child and want to do all you can to publicise her disappearance and clear up any questions.

What do you do if a journalist then asks you some questions?

Answer them honestly, of course.

Alternatively, suppose you know the awful truth about why Madeleine is missing and you want to maintain a tight cover-up on what really happened?

What do you do?

You react in the way Dr David Payne did (whatever his exact words were).

++++++++++++

By the way, the repeated references to 'do some research' is unnecessary in its tone, besides which I have read the article you mention and read round it many times and have spent hundreds of hours researching this case, as you might glean from looking at some of my long (some would say ling-winded) articles on The Madeleine Foundation website.

I now find your robust defence of Dr David Payne's right to silence (not forgetting Dr Kate McCann's right to silence) and your attempts to explain away the plain factual Gaspat statements more than 'interesting'.

It is beginning to look as though your mask might be slipping a bit.

Finally, you wrote: "DP was not responding to a helpful journalist eager 'to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing'...he was being asked specifically about why, contrary to what the GNR and others had said, some members of the T9 had placed Robert Murat at the scene on the night of Madeleine's disappearance".

Damned right, too! Though the journalist had no idea at that stage that on 13 May, 10 days after Madeleine's reported disappearance, Jane Tanner had 'adamantly' identified Robert Murat as the abductor she'd seen [see Amaral's book], this journalist was rightly curious as to why Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien, within 48 hours of Tanner's 'adamant' identification, had suddenly told the PJ that they were now sure they'd seen him hanging around the Ocean Club the night Madeleine disappeared. They even repeated that in a police 'confrontation' with Robert Murat on 11 July - an event which suggested to the police team that the 'Tapas 3' on that occasion were lying.

One might reasonably think that the four of them (I include Tanner) were carrying out a pre-ordained plan to frame Robert Murat.

If that was the case, no wonder Payne kept stumm.

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 14:48

Daoud wrote ......... '' Your sole contribution to the discussion so far is call me an 'aggressive dog' ''

@ Daoud

Speaking as an old sea-dog, one would take that as a rather super compliment. One often used to see oneself as an Elizabethan pirate looking for adventure.

by Daoud 21.12.10 15:24

Tony,
In your latest post you wrote:

"I did not assume in any way the intention of the journalist, which was no doubt to gather some facts and ask some questions, as is the way of most journalists."

However, in one of your earlier replies to me you said:

"And does it really matter if he was 'fed up' when the Portuguese journalist 'phoned him? Fed up?*!?*! When a journalist was helping him and the Tapas 9 to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing? I would have jumped at the chance to talk, if a journalist rang me up and said: 'I'm putting together an article on your friend's missing child - can you help me please?' "

And returning to your latest post, you quoted me and then gave your reply:

"Finally, you (Daoud) wrote: "DP was not responding to a helpful journalist eager 'to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing'...he was being asked specifically about why, contrary to what the GNR and others had said, some members of the T9 had placed Robert Murat at the scene on the night of Madeleine's disappearance".

Damned right, too! (...) this journalist was rightly curious as to why Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien, within 48 hours of Tanner's 'adamant' identification, had suddenly told the PJ that they were now sure they'd seen him hanging around the Ocean Club the night Madeleine disappeared. "

Well which is it - you appear to be claiming that it's both? And if the journalist was so damned curious about FP, RO, and RO'B why not phone them rather than DP?

Once again I offer my apologies, this time for suggesting that you do some research - but I think it is plainly evident from your replies that you misconstrued the Pact of Silence and its context, and that you continue to do so.

The whole thrust of my argument so far has simply been that all evidence/statements etc should be scrutinized equally and impartially - until they have been verified to be reliable. It just happens that this discussion was kicked off by the Gaspars' statements and then the Pact of Silence myth, but it could have focussed on any other piece of evidence related to the case.

Because you have ignored the forest for the trees you feel free to make comments like this one:
It is beginning to look as though your mask might be slipping a bit.

When the ad hominems start being thrown around one knows, as the Good Judge might say, that the quality of the debate is almost irretrievably lowered - as the legal saying goes If you're wrong on the law, argue the facts; if you're wrong on the facts, argue the law - and if you're wrong on both, start throwing mud.

by Daoud 21.12.10 15:35

Judge Mental wrote:@ Daoud

We are most liberal here, however one thing one really does not like to see our posters say, is that a member should read the files or newspaper articles etc. The very fact of the matter is, there will be very few lines written on this case that Tony Bennett has not read and dissected. He would more than likely be able to give you a word count on any file or article without having to check.

One very much enjoys your advocacy and ability to ensure that we are not running away with ourselves at times, but it is very rude to tell any member to read something. If it is apparent that a poster is not up to speed, you can offer links and explain where they may find information they are looking to discuss, or even guide them if it is beneficial, but you must not tell them to do so. One is rather a fuddy duddy concerning manners, but there will be times when you see where one becomes quite irritated with posters oneself, and possibly become quite or even very rude. However, this is one of the perks of being a Moderator

The other perk, is to be able to ban people with the press of a button. Not that one would wish to remove you at all, for any length of time. So let us sit back and take deep breaths, and know that events are unfolding behind the scenes at a more rapid rate than we could possibly guess at. It's Christmas and a brand new year is about to dawn.

Guilty as charged, M'Lud, though I do plead extenuating circumstances - I thought I had made a suggestion, rather than issued an order.

Is it also very rude to insinuate that a poster is in some way flying a false flag? Following a hidden agenda?

The forbidding nature of your avatar had previously discouraged me from close examination of your details, so it is only now that I realise your exalted position on these boards - congrats Judge! Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 3 110921

by theolivebranch 21.12.10 16:12

Judge Mental wrote:@ Daoud

We are most liberal here, however one thing one really does not like to see our posters say, is that a member should read the files or newspaper articles etc. The very fact of the matter is, there will be very few lines written on this case that Tony Bennett has not read and dissected. He would more than likely be able to give you a word count on any file or article without having to check.

One very much enjoys your advocacy and ability to ensure that we are not running away with ourselves at times, but it is very rude to tell any member to read something. If it is apparent that a poster is not up to speed, you can offer links and explain where they may find information they are looking to discuss, or even guide them if it is beneficial, but you must not tell them to do so. One is rather a fuddy duddy concerning manners, but there will be times when you see where one becomes quite irritated with posters oneself, and possibly become quite or even very rude. However, this is one of the perks of being a Moderator

The other perk, is to be able to ban people with the press of a button. Not that one would wish to remove you at all, for any length of time. So let us sit back and take deep breaths, and know that events are unfolding behind the scenes at a more rapid rate than we could possibly guess at. It's Christmas and a brand new year is about to dawn.

Thankyou for what you have said here Judge Mental. I am a member of another forum, an excellent one may I say, but one where I feel like a loose end, not one of the clever group, the multi posts group, and have started writing posts, then thinking"nah, not very good" a bit like a competion and not feeling able to enter.
So again many thanks, as you say folk like me much prefer a gentle guide to links rather than being advised to read the files, yes, where??