Re: Substitute child?

by **tigger** 15.03.12 15:51

I appreciate all that, but have a pessimistic outlook on the workings of social services.
Photographs, very dodgy imo b....y criminal abuse of a child, Yvonne Martin, the Gaspars. I'm sure that Yvonne Martin has remembered by now where she knows Payne from, but we hear nothing. The CAT file, long topic on that which seems to say it's just a formality (which I do not believe) . Teflon Tony isn't in it, how all this has just trickled off into nothing.
The fact that most of them are doctors seems to have given them immunity for absolute facts which would land other people in jail.
They made much of the fact they are doctors - but I always remember Dr. Shipman, the greatest mass murderer in the British Isles. Doctors don't even need to be masons, they're masonic in nature by virtue of their profession.
By the way, didn't Gerry testify in favour of either ROB or MO on professional misconduct?

by Guest 15.03.12 16:04

From another Yvonne Martin Statement, link the same as above.

“She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list”.

No more was said. Reads, ratifies, signs.

by rainbow-fairy 15.03.12 16:55

russiandoll wrote:To play devil's advocate for a moment:

Apart from the Gaspar statement, what other evidence is there of a paedo aspect to the disappearance [ apart from the abduction by a paedo aspect ] ?

And if the Gaspar statement is the only evidence, is it strong enough? How do we know that the ref about a crude gesture was def alluding to a child and that there was not just a very off-colour converstion about sexual habits of the partner /s taking place?

How reliable is the Gaspar statement, how long was it made after the disappearance? Could it be the case that without any other evidence, Gaspar's could be written off as spiteful misrepresentation from a woman with a grudge, an axe to grind? What if there had been some kind of ill-feeling from her towards some members of the group for whatever reason?

Not my views, just stating how it could be construed under the circumstances.

Why would it be that Katerina Gaspar has 'an axe to grind'?
Tbh, this case may not have one overwhelming pointer of paedophilia, but the Gaspar statement (and more pertinently the six month delay in releasing it) is a pretty big red light!
Add to that Kate's book. The way she talks about Maddie is NOT normal (and here might be a good time to remember not all paedophiles are men).
Then you have the date of the holiday, the mass get-togethers around that time. The photo's that show a sad scared little girl imo. The 'butterfly' (paedophile symbol) said to have landed on Kate... For reference, see my 'Alice Day' topic (warning - its not nice reading).

One point to ponder: WHY have the litigious McCanns never sued the Gaspars? Hmmm... Could it be they would not win and they know it? Just a thought...

by Guest 15.03.12 17:06

You've beaten me to it Rainbow-Fairy. If Kate thinks that the comments she made in her book are normal for a parent, I dread to think what she would class as abnormal. I'm not only thinking of page 129 but also the "not being able to love and please her and enjoy her delight" remark and when she wondered whether, when she was admiring Madeleine in her lovely outfit, someone else ("the abductor") was doing the same.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **tigger** 15.03.12 18:18

Jean wrote:You've beaten me to it Rainbow-Fairy. If Kate thinks that the comments she made in her book are normal for a parent, I dread to think what she would class as abnormal. I'm not only thinking of page 129 but also the "not being able to love and please her and enjoy her delight" remark and when she wondered whether, when she was admiring Madeleine in her lovely outfit, someone else ("the abductor") was doing the same.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And the many photographs with far more subtle make up - eyeliner, lippy. The kitchen/birthday photographs, where the dress imo is way too big on Maddie and tasteless. I wouldn't like that type of dress on a toddler - easy to trip over and too grown up altogether.

by juliet 15.03.12 21:05

The way David Payne is grabbing at the child in the greyscale photo is very unpleasant. He looks like one of those men we all dreaded as children - the "uncle" who groped and pawed whenever he had the chance. The poor child (the Tanner daughter? Who?) looks very unhappy and is trying to push his hand away.

by rainbow-fairy 15.03.12 22:06

Juliet, I totally 100% agree. Payne looks as happy as a pig in s**t, the girl the total opposite. Which begs the question, Why did someone not 'rescue' her? Maybe the whole lot of them just see behaviour like that as 'normal'?

by Nina 15.03.12 22:20

My tenpenceworth as a 69 year old mum and grandma and with a 79 year old husband so possibly very old fashioned.

It is now the norm for husbands to be present at the birth of their children, to assist with childcare in everything but breast feeding. Very close and personal involvement in all cares.

My husband helped but didn't substitute for my care of our children and he never changed a nappy nor bathed them alone. We did it together.

Inclination and opportunity. If these are present then todays view of childcare is all a child molester could dream of imo.

The pictures I have seen of this clutching and tickling I find very disturbing. Pictures of scantily clothed children sitting on the laps of scantily clothes adults makes me most uncomfortable.

Now I suppose you will tell me that yes I am old fashioned and that you and your partners have fully shared all aspects of childcare and that I am a neurotic old woman. Well then, so be it, but neither of our children or granchildren have looked like that little girl in that photograph.

by rainbow-fairy 15.03.12 22:37

Nina wrote:My tenpenceworth as a 69 year old mum and grandma and with a 79 year old husband so possibly very old fashioned.

It is now the norm for husbands to be present at the birth of their children, to assist with childcare in everything but breast feeding. Very close and personal involvement in all cares.

My husband helped but didn't substitute for my care of our children and he never changed a nappy nor bathed them alone. We did it together.

Inclination and opportunity. If these are present then todays view of childcare is all a child molester could dream of imo.

The pictures I have seen of this clutching and tickling I find very disturbing. Pictures of scantily clothed children sitting on the laps of scantily clothes adults makes me most uncomfortable.

Now I suppose you will tell me that yes I am old fashioned and that you and your partners have fully shared all aspects of childcare and that I am a neurotic old woman. Well then, so be it, but neither of our children or granchildren have looked like that little girl in that photograph.

No Nina, absolutely no way are you a 'neurotic old woman'. As you can see I'm 37 and I find it all really disturbing. IMO, it is NOT normal for the dads to do 'exclusive' bathing, that sounds like a convenient excuse to me. So much abuse happens in bathrooms. I geta really horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach looking at these pictures. And don't even mention the 'blue eyeshadow/lifeless dead eyes' photo...

by Nina 15.03.12 22:44

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Nina wrote:My tenpenceworth as a 69 year old mum and grandma and with a 79 year old husband so possibly very old fashioned.

It is now the norm for husbands to be present at the birth of their children, to assist with childcare in everything but breast feeding. Very close and personal involvement in all cares.

My husband helped but didn't substitute for my care of our children and he never changed a nappy nor bathed them alone. We did it together.

Inclination and opportunity. If these are present then todays view of childcare is all a child molester could dream of imo.

The pictures I have seen of this clutching and tickling I find very disturbing. Pictures of scantily clothed children sitting on the laps of scantily clothes adults makes me most uncomfortable.

Now I suppose you will tell me that yes I am old fashioned and that you and your partners have fully shared all aspects of childcare and that I am a neurotic old woman. Well then, so be it, but neither of our children or granchildren have looked like that little girl in that photograph.
No Nina, absolutely no way are you a 'neurotic old woman'. As you can see I'm 37 and I find it all really disturbing. IMO, it is NOT normal for the dads to do 'exclusive' bathing, that sounds like a convenient excuse to me. So much abuse happens in bathrooms. I geta really horrible feeling in the pit of my stomach looking at these pictures. And don't even mention the 'blue eyeshadow/lifeless dead eyes' photo...

Thankyou Rainbow-Fairy for your response. I sometimes feel that I am maybe too nervous with my views on modern day childcare. As I have said, I just feel it opens up so much opportunity for those with the inclination to intefere with the innocence of childhood.

I agree the bathroom is a very dangerous room for some poor children. And not through risk of drowning.

by Kololi 15.03.12 22:44

Nina wrote:My tenpenceworth as a 69 year old mum and grandma and with a 79 year old husband so possibly very old fashioned.

It is now the norm for husbands to be present at the birth of their children, to assist with childcare in everything but breast feeding. Very close and personal involvement in all cares.

My husband helped but didn't substitute for my care of our children and he never changed a nappy nor bathed them alone. We did it together.

Inclination and opportunity. If these are present then todays view of childcare is all a child molester could dream of imo.

The pictures I have seen of this clutching and tickling I find very disturbing. Pictures of scantily clothed children sitting on the laps of scantily clothes adults makes me most uncomfortable.

Now I suppose you will tell me that yes I am old fashioned and that you and your partners have fully shared all aspects of childcare and that I am a neurotic old woman. Well then, so be it, but neither of our children or granchildren have looked like that little girl in that photograph.

Nina if you are happy with the way that you and your hubby shared the care of your children and are satisfied that it was right for them and for you, then who has a right to call you old fashioned or neurotic? :flower:

Times change and we now have many more working mums and dad's who get paternity leave - who would have thought it. Each generation seems to bring up children if a slightly different way than the generation before.

There might be more opportunity perhaps now for such wrong doings and communication methods have improved greatly so that we are aware of it more perhaps but I am guessing we had our share of dirty old men years ago and perhaps it just wasn't possible to publicise it to such a wide spreading audience. I think generally the public are more prepared to be open about it too nowadays which is great as long as we don't become desensitised as I think we have become to some things.

by russiandoll 15.03.12 22:46

I can't get the text size to change when pasting part of the Gaspar statement.
What bothers me is the uncertainty of the context of the off-colour remarks and gestures, the contradictions between husband and wife, the former clearly stating it was not mentioned in conversation between him and his wife whereas she states explicitly and repeats that she told him he was to be present at bath times in case Payne was doing the bathing. He makes no reference to such a conversation. He does not state that he ensured he was present at bath times after this worrying gesture.
There was no rule saying fathers must bathe anyone other than their own children. She and/ or her husband could have just bathed their child as they did at home after the incident that shocked KG.
I find it not credible that after the shocking incident, this woman would allow her naked child anywhere near David Payne, husband supervising or not.
And I find it bizarre to say the least , that a few weeks later she would not make her excuses to back out of a meal where Gerry McCann and David Payne were going to be present.

by Kololi 15.03.12 22:53

russiandoll wrote: I can't get the text size to change when pasting part of the Gaspar statement.
What bothers me is the uncertainty of the context of the off-colour remarks and gestures, the contradictions between husband and wife, the former clearly stating it was not mentioned in conversation between him and his wife whereas she states explicitly and repeats that she told him he was to be present at bath times in case Payne was doing the bathing. He makes no reference to such a conversation. He does not state that he ensured he was present at bath times after this worrying gesture.
There was no rule saying fathers must bathe anyone other than their own children. She and/ or her husband could have just bathed their child as they did at home after the incident that shocked KG.
I find it not credible that after the shocking incident, this woman would allow her naked child anywhere near David Payne, husband supervising or not.
And I find it bizarre to say the least , that a few weeks later she would not make her excuses to back out of a meal where Gerry McCann and David Payne were going to be present.

I personally find it odd that a man would bath his friends children full stop but have always given it an each to their own tag.

I did wonder ages ago when this forum first opened and it was discussed if Mr Payne and Mr McCann were even just having a stupid coversation moment. Perhaps he was doing something like the pat your head at the same time as rubbing your tummy thing. Would you not challenge something so revolting there and then if it was as she describes?

by bobbin 15.03.12 23:02

Nina, although I feel the terrible discomfort for the little girl, I
would say, that a pervert, of whatever sort, will abuse or even skillfully create the potential for an abusive situation.

On the other hand, someone with a good and honest outlook, will not
even be able to understand the concept of abusing and would never seek
to create a situation.

What I am trying to say is that the good honest person, male, female, relative, friend, could romp with
a child, enjoying the innocent simple childish joy of tickling, etc. and it be
an affirming experience for a growing child.

On the other hand, a pervert, will always mar and make sickening, some
otherwise innocent situation, making it a sordid and damaging experience.

The saddest thing is that the 'innocence' of so much 'clean, honest, fun seeking, playful behaviour' is almost forced into suppression because of
the fear of being seen to be corrupt.

The disgusting creeps are therefore able to destroy good innocent fun for everyone.

Until society makes a point of openly distinguishing between the abuser
and the innocent, by exposing the abusers as enemies in our midst, the
good experiences are forgone.

In the void of healthy, normal, interaction, the only acts that become
acknowledged are the bad and sickening ones and this slews life experiences.

It is for society to be more vociferous, and to demand the exposure and appropriate management of abusers.

I have just seen the news where Canon Gordon Rideout, in Eastbourne, has just been named for sexual abuse.
TV News, BBC South East 15th March 2012.

The more that such people are exposed, the sooner we may be able to identify that there are the good and clean in society, and there are also the perverted and abusive.

Children SHOULD be free to enjoy the innocence of childish romps and tickling, but all the time that society, government, the judiciary etc. cover up abuse, and conceal it from open condemnation, children will not be free.

Society can and must become more pro-active.

by Nina 15.03.12 23:17

bobbin wrote:Nina, although I feel the terrible discomfort for the little girl, I
would say, that a pervert, of whatever sort, will abuse or even skillfully create the potential for an abusive situation.

On the other hand, someone with a good and honest outlook, will not
even be able to understand the concept of abusing and would never seek
to create a situation.

What I am trying to say is that the good honest person, male, female, relative, friend, could romp with
a child, enjoying the innocent simple childish joy of tickling, etc. and it be
an affirming experience for a growing child.

On the other hand, a pervert, will always mar and make sickening, some
otherwise innocent situation, making it a sordid and damaging experience.

The saddest thing is that the 'innocence' of so much 'clean, honest, fun seeking, playful behaviour' is almost forced into suppression because of
the fear of being seen to be corrupt.

The disgusting creeps are therefore able to destroy good innocent fun for everyone.

Until society makes a point of openly distinguishing between the abuser
and the innocent, by exposing the abusers as enemies in our midst, the
good experiences are forgone.

In the void of healthy, normal, interaction, the only acts that become
acknowledged are the bad and sickening ones and this slews life experiences.

It is for society to be more vociferous, and to demand the exposure and appropriate management of abusers.

I have just seen the news where Canon Gordon Rideout, in Eastbourne, has just been named for sexual abuse.
TV News, BBC South East 15th March 2012.

The more that such people are exposed, the sooner we may be able to identify that there are the good and clean in society, and there are also the perverted and abusive.

Children SHOULD be free to enjoy the innocence of childish romps and tickling, but all the time that society, government, the judiciary etc. cover up abuse, and conceal it from open condemnation, children will not be free.

Society can and must become more pro-active.

Bobbin, all very true. Children are just that children and they should ba able to play to giggle to chortle with joy at their interaction with an adult. Sadly as we know there are adults who cannot do this just for the sheer joy, they use the opportunity to get some sexual satisfaction.

The blue eyeshadow picture imo does not show a little girl full of joy. It doesn't even show a little girl looking a bit "oh hec I have been caught, sorry" Again in my view it shows a cut off expression, and it never ceases to disturb me.

by bobbin 15.03.12 23:36

Nina, I just so agree.

That blue eye make-up picture sends chills up my body every time I see it, in a way that no other picture does.
Those eyes, to me, are telling a bad story that I do not want to admit to. I see no life in them, just loss and emptiness.

Whatever the treatment or management of abusers would be, society must have them exposed so that at least they can be avoided.

The damage that is done to victims of abuse is that society tacitly accepts the concealment of abuse.

It has not put enough force on the law enforcers to come open and expose the abusers. It ought to be a matter of course that they be known and exposed, in the same way that someone who has been found guilty of rape, theft, violence is exposed.

I was lucky to have a happy family childhood. My father tickled us as kids, and then his grandchildren (my children) and it was nothing but the best fun. I have such happy memories, and am yes, probably still an innocent child at heart and believe that good still abounds in society.

There are good people, there is fun to be had, and it should not be stopped because of the evil ones. It is still up to society to put pressure on to have abusers exposed.

by russiandoll 16.03.12 10:12

I notice we are way off the topic, so my last post re Gaspars.
Want to be very clear I have serious doubts about DP, my cold look at the Gaspar statements was to see how credible a police force would regard it, and it would not surprise me to read that due to the inconsistencies of the 2 statements, the strange behaviour of Mrs G after the shocking incident, that unless there was additional info then they would not carry much weight as evidence.
Re my remark that Mrs G might have had an axe to grind, I do not see any evidence for that, but it could be put forward as a reason for that statement by anyone wishing to downplay any weight it might have.

by Spaniel 16.03.12 11:14

May I just ask something OT? In the video of Madeleine wearing the snow white costume, why is it in slow motion? To me, she looks fearful of someone standing over her. Someone other than the camera user.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Ribisl 16.03.12 11:58

by juliet 16.03.12 20:23

The video is indeed very strange. Who would record a child just standing there, looking nervous and self-conscious? Normal parents film a child talking or playing or jumping about, not standing alone looking troubled. Did the McCanns release this film? Or someone else?

by worriedmum 16.03.12 22:07

I think Madeleine looks troubled in the slow-motion video. Is that Kate in the background at the sink?

Funny how the two pictures where Madeleine(IMO)looks unhappiest, are where she is dressed up.

by Guest 16.03.12 23:24

Juliet: this video was shown on the BBC news on 4th May 2007 - the first time I heard or saw anything about Madeleine. Presumably the McCanns or a relative in this country made it available.

Worried mum: there's been a lot of debate about this video, particularly wondering if there should be any sound with it. If there was, why has it been removed? That is believed to be Kate in the background.

by Lioned 16.03.12 23:56

Ribisl wrote:Was going to try to post somethIng more meaningful but here I am rather worse for wear and tap tapping on my iphone.
I just don't get this fixation you seem to have about how Madeleine looks different in some photos and what that's got to do with the need for a sub. I can't follow the logic, sorry [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Got to say i dont get it either.The constant dissection of Madeleine's appearance i find a little unsavoury and quite unnecessary actually.
I find it quite difficult to get my head around the 'concealment and disposal' without trying to deal with the mccanns taking their child to Portugal to murder Her and going through with some convoluted plan involving other children just to achieve their dastardly dead.I dont think so really.
Make no mistake,i have no doubts at all that the mccanns are quite evil people and totally useless parents but i dont think they are that clever.

by Estelle 17.03.12 6:19

Lioned wrote:
Ribisl wrote:Was going to try to post somethIng more meaningful but here I am rather worse for wear and tap tapping on my iphone.
I just don't get this fixation you seem to have about how Madeleine looks different in some photos and what that's got to do with the need for a sub. I can't follow the logic, sorry [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Got to say i dont get it either.The constant dissection of Madeleine's appearance i find a little unsavoury and quite unnecessary actually.
I find it quite difficult to get my head around the 'concealment and disposal' without trying to deal with the mccanns taking their child to Portugal to murder Her and going through with some convoluted plan involving other children just to achieve their dastardly dead.I dont think so really.
Make no mistake,i have no doubts at all that the mccanns are quite evil people and totally useless parents but i dont think they are that clever.

Lioned, I think they have been very clever in a cunning sort of way. Otherwise, they would have been put in gaol by now.

by **tigger** 17.03.12 6:56

Lioned wrote:
Ribisl wrote:Was going to try to post somethIng more meaningful but here I am rather worse for wear and tap tapping on my iphone.
I just don't get this fixation you seem to have about how Madeleine looks different in some photos and what that's got to do with the need for a sub. I can't follow the logic, sorry [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Got to say i dont get it either.The constant dissection of Madeleine's appearance i find a little unsavoury and quite unnecessary actually.
I find it quite difficult to get my head around the 'concealment and disposal' without trying to deal with the mccanns taking their child to Portugal to murder Her and going through with some convoluted plan involving other children just to achieve their dastardly dead.I dont think so really.
Make no mistake,i have no doubts at all that the mccanns are quite evil people and totally useless parents but i dont think they are that clever.

I think Maddie is central to this whole affair - if Maddie had actually looked like her poster, behaved as her parents said she did, was the intelligent, lively toddler we've been told about, why change so many photographs? Why add a coloboma which they've now admitted she didn't have?
Why do completely opposite reports on Maddie leak through all the same? Difficult, a screamer, very difficult Maddie - hard to cope with.

There's a great difference losing a difficult, hard to control child with ongoing health problems to losing their 'sunshine child' a perfect child.
For all this to succeed, they needed a 'perfect' child and there's plenty of photographic and collateral evidence that Maddie didn't fit the bill.
There are many indications that this 'abduction' wasn't an accident - imo there is plenty of evidence that it was planned.
They would never have gotten away with it in the UK. The foreign angle was helpful to the case and used from day one by the McCanns.

Just see how many points in common there are with the JonBenet Ramsey case. There's a topic on it.
Because original thinkers - the McCanns - they ain't.