Re: The controversial Gaspar Statement

by Dr What 07.02.13 22:28

As it is a criminal investigation, it includes just about anyone who was involved......until formally eliminated from the enquiries.

by Inspectorfrost 07.02.13 22:35

Dr What wrote:As it is a criminal investigation, it includes just about anyone who was involved......until formally eliminated from the enquiries.

No argument there

by Dr What 07.02.13 22:50

And the problem I have with all this, is the fact that nobody has been formally eliminated from the investigation.Even after 6 years, nobody has been formally eliminated.If I was caught up in this and I was innocent of anything, I would WANT to be formally eliminated.

Wouldn't you?

by **Hobs** 07.02.13 23:07

Regarding the Dr Gasper statement where the implication is that gerry and david are paedophiles is disquieting in that we have heard no mention of this or a denial from either gerry or david.

Being called a paedophile is one of the worst names you can call someone particularly males.

Being called it in private is bad enough, being called it by implication in public is far worse, the revulsion caused by paedophilia is enough to cause mobs to descend even to physical violence even death.

It is not something to be ignored if not true.

Being doctors and thus having exposure to children means being called a paedophile could have major ramifications even to losing their licences to practice.

As we saw with Lord McAlpine as soon as his name was mentioned in connection to paedophilia he came out with all guns firing and sued those responsible, the normal response to such an implication and accusation.

What we have seen and which is not expected is deafening silence from gerry and david.

One would expect strong first person singular, event specific past tense denials. I am not a paedophile, I did not sexually abuse any child and so on. I would expect them to sue those who made such an accusation even to Mrs Amaral who wrote an open letter to kate telling her she (Mrs Amaral) did not have paedophile friends.

I would expect strong denials particularly since Madeleine went missing and it is well known that in missing children cases where it is a stranger abduction the child is often sexually abused before being murdered, the longer a child victim of stranger abduction is missing the more likely they are dead.

Approximately 80% of acquaintance and stranger kidnappings are sexually motivated.

Acting quickly is critical. Seventy-four percent of abducted children who are ultimately murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction.

This contradicts statements from the mccanns in that the longer she is missing the more chance she is alive and that there is no evidence she has come to serious harm (this initself contradicts the forensic evidence of blood and body fluids in the apartment and car. Normal insticnct of innocent parents would be to demand if their child has been hurt by the 'abductor' and to demand faster action if dogs indicate as well as what does it mean, what are the implications, not, as we saw, claiming the dogs were junk science and thus realaxing rather than show concern)

The fact we have heard nothing from either gerry or david in denial is telling.

Are they saying nothing in the hope it will die down?

Are they saying nothing because there is some basis for the allegation and by responding would result in the allegations being made more public and perhaps questionss and answers about the CATS file coming out?

Are they saying nothing because they have been advised not to by their lawyers due to consequences?

Sarah's Law, enables parents, guardians and third parties to enquire whether a person who has access to a child is a registered sex offender, or poses a risk to that child

How the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme works

Any member of the public can approach Humberside Police to apply under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, for information regarding a specific person who has contact with a child (ren). The police will process the application, but disclosure is not guaranteed. Even if there are no firm grounds for suspicion, the applicant can trigger an investigation to find out if the subject (the person they are asking about) has a known history that means they might be of risk to children.

Third parties with concerns (e.g. grandparents or neighbours) about an individual who has contact with children are also invited to use the scheme. However, where appropriate, disclosure will only be given to parents and guardians or those best placed to protect a child.

It may be that enquiries have been made by members of the public in regard to gerry and david, they cannot however broadcasts that information ( human rights act and all that crap)

Saying nothing is unexpected and should therefore be red flagged.

One red flag or two does not mean the subject is being deceptive about the event concerned, it could be sensitive due to something else ( an affair, financial worries, checks weren't done as claimed) however multiple red flags indicate deception and then we need to probe further on why they are being deceptive, guilty knowledge or fear of consequences.

Listen not only for what is being said and how, also listen for what is not being said and when.

The subject will tell us the truth even if they are trying hard not to. Look and listen to only the words spoken, do not interpret them, do not excuse what is being said to that's not what they meant. If you interpret what you think they meant, you end up analyzing yourself.

by Dr What 07.02.13 23:30

Hobs
That is exactly what I am alluding to.
An allegation that someone within the group of friends who possibly has a sexual interest in children.....and yet no demand that this is highlighted, no demand that this is investigated.Instead there is a demand that the investigation chase shadows.
Nothing happens by accident.So why this lack of interest? No-one has explained this.

by roy rovers 07.02.13 23:54

What we learned from the Jimmy Savile saga is that he was first and foremost a paedophile. The fact that he was a DJ and national celebrity was secondary though that was not the public perception when he was alive. So you can't say 'I don't believe it' based on anybody's public persona.

by Ribisl 08.02.13 0:46

If, and this is a big IF of course, GM was a paedophile with a CATS register, then that could also explain why he might have wanted to 'lose' his credit cards so to hide any record of child porn downloads.

by Inspectorfrost 08.02.13 0:54

Ribisl wrote:If, and this is a big IF of course, GM was a paedophile with a CATS register, then that could also explain why he might have wanted to 'lose' his credit cards so to hide any record of child porn downloads.

Are you referring to his wallet being stolen? If so I have read this this before on forums. if that is true it could only account for activities from the time it was stolen to the time it was reported which was immediate, if not, my apologies
@ Hobs

Why would either DP or GM issue a statement in public about something in the police files which is not public and only known to madeleine forum members

Wouldnt they be attracting attention to said files? perhaps that is why

by **tigger** 08.02.13 8:27

Inspectorfrost wrote:@ Candyfloss
Yes I know. Very odd. Which should make her sure of what was being said. Perhaps she was having a conversation with someone elae at the time as well. I find this issue very odd on many levels. And the fact that the PJ requested this statement from the LP months later, so theymust have originally had it and lost it or someone tipped them off a statement hadnt been sent?? I have no idea.

KG said she was sitting between them at the time. She did not say that she was having a conversation with anyone else at the time. She goes into some detail as to the circumstances. She particularly mentions the awkward silence. Perhaps you should read the full statement?
The PJ was sent the statement - they did not lose it or mislay it or use the back of it to write a shopping list, they never knew about it until the McCanns were safely back in the UK when the LP sent them the statement.

Added to my list earlier, is also Jean's ' loving and pleasing her' remark.
As far as DP is concerned, there is Yvonne Martin who reported having seen DP in the course of her work in social services.
It's here on the site if you care to do your own research.
There's more than one pointer to paedophilia in this case but if you cry 'wolf' no-one is going to suspect you of being one, are they?

by roy rovers 08.02.13 9:34

Does anyone know why the McCs had their kids using IVF?

by Guest 08.02.13 9:58

roy rovers wrote:Does anyone know why the McCs had their kids using IVF?

For what it's worth, KM sheds some light on it in her book.

After years of trying to conceive naturally -illustrated in some unpleasant detail you probably wouldn't want your children to read about- she was discovered to have a medical condition, endometriosis, preventing her from natural conception.

Then the IVF for Maddie.

Not a single picture of KM ever being pregnant in the public domain.
The birth is described in a singular way.

The the picture of KM raising a glass with a baby on her arm.

Then the couple moved to Amsterdam where, finding out IVF treatment in the Netherlands is free, they immediately had a second go, resulting in a twin birth.

Now, the strange thing about this is, that usually in the Netherlands, once you had a first IVF conception, a second one is not on the cards, and particularly not at such short notice as in this case. Besides: why would you want another baby, let alone another set of babies so soon, when your eldest child isn't out of her nappies yet? Why burden yourself so, voluntarily, taking all your vailable time and attention away from your firstborn?

This immediate second IVF project always had me puzzled. Why do that, so quickly? Why not just enjoy some precious time with Maddie, get to know her, shelter and assist her, watch her first steps; hold her and make her feel unique?

Why displace her immediately, with twins too? You have a choice there.

by Mirage 08.02.13 13:55

Jean wrote:I don't think I was aware of that, Candyfloss, I assumed she was opposite. It's hard to believe that anyone could have made such a remark in these circumstances but maybe there was New Zealand wine being imbibed!

Tigger, I'd add the "loving and pleasing her" comment to the equation, too.

Jean, I would add "I was following her with my eyes, admiring her." - page 65 of the bewk. It jarred with me.

by Guest 08.02.13 13:59

I was about to add that myself. Wasn't there also a bit about thinking in hindsight that the "abductor" might have been doing the same thing - i.e. admiring her.

It possibly is harmless but it's unusual terminology for a mother to use about a child.

by jd 08.02.13 14:06

I would add on page 119 of Kate McCanns book " "Haltingly, I told him about the awful pictures that scrolled through my head of her body, her perfect little genitals torn apart".

by Mirage 08.02.13 14:16

Jean wrote:I was about to add that myself. Wasn't there also a bit about thinking in hindsight that the "abductor" might have been doing the same thing - i.e. admiring her.

It possibly is harmless but it's unusual terminology for a mother to use about a child.

Yes, I tried to "move on" as KM might say, thinking I might be being hypercritical. But I have two daughters and it felt intrinsically wrong language. Especially, as you rightly point out, that she qualifies it in the next sentence with the following:

"I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

Actually, it was really that bit that made the nausea rise in MY throat!

As a footnote, the language here feels contrived to me. You can sense the "writer" at work trying, very awkwardly IMO, to cobble together some "connections" for the reader. It stopped me in my tracks and I remember re-reading it because I was struck by an unnatural juxtoposition of ideas. By that I mean, KM seamlessly transfers her eyes into the eyes of the suggested stalker viz: "doing the same". She implies a sexual connation on the part of the stalker, of course. But there is no qualifier from herself, along the lines of: "Naturally, I was gazing at her with motherly pride: now I dare not think what may have been in the mind of a stranger watching her with malintent.

by Guest 08.02.13 15:37

Mirage wrote:
Jean wrote:I was about to add that myself. Wasn't there also a bit about thinking in hindsight that the "abductor" might have been doing the same thing - i.e. admiring her.

It possibly is harmless but it's unusual terminology for a mother to use about a child.

Yes, I tried to "move on" as KM might say, thinking I might be being hypercritical. But I have two daughters and it felt intrinsically wrong language. Especially, as you rightly point out, that she qualifies it in the next sentence with the following:

"I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

Actually, it was really that bit that made the nausea rise in MY throat!

As a footnote, the language here feels contrived to me. You can sense the "writer" at work trying, very awkwardly IMO, to cobble together some "connections" for the reader. It stopped me in my tracks and I remember re-reading it because I was struck by an unnatural juxtoposition of ideas. By that I mean, KM seamlessly transfers her eyes into the eyes of the suggested stalker viz: "doing the same". She implies a sexual connation on the part of the stalker, of course. But there is no qualifier from herself, along the lines of: "Naturally, I was gazing at her with motherly pride: now I dare not think what may have been in the mind of a stranger watching her with malintent.

Frankly, I've never read a book like that.

Many others, like me, have expressed their wonder and disgust at the images KM evokes so pointlessly. Who cares about her and GM having sex every hour on the hour in order to conceive? Who cares about someone elses genitals, even if they are your toddlers? Why splurge them across the whole nation? Who cares about these things? KM clearly lives under the mistaken idea that in order to sell a book about ones daughter, one must necessarily pimp it with 'daring' or 'piquant' tidbits about the child and its parents.

Poor children, to have such a mother.

Who said: "Discretion is the better part of value"? There you have it!

by Inspectorfrost 08.02.13 17:40

tigger wrote:

KG said she was sitting between them at the time. She did not say that she was having a conversation with anyone else at the time. She goes into some detail as to the circumstances. She particularly mentions the awkward silence. Perhaps you should read the full statement?
The PJ was sent the statement - they did not lose it or mislay it or use the back of it to write a shopping list, they never knew about it until the McCanns were safely back in the UK when the LP sent them the statement?

My query was about why when the LP sent the Gaspar statements in October to the PJ did they say in their covering memo that these were the statements that you requested. If the PJ had no idea about them, how could they request them? But I suppose without seeing the request from the PJ we dont know what exactly was requested? ie a general request? Then again if the LP had these statements from May they should have been sent to Portugal PDQ. This is one issue which does my head in. Could British police withhold evidence/statements? it wouldnt be the first time I guess. I like to give benefit of the doubt as far as possible, thats all.

ETA
To all the posters saying the writings inthe book are contrived, of course they are, there are so many lies libel and discrepancies with the facts it couldnt be anything other than contrived...why? because....everyone knows but cant prove it... Deception and fantacism at its best

by Mirage 08.02.13 18:12

Inspectorfrost wrote:
tigger wrote:

KG said she was sitting between them at the time. She did not say that she was having a conversation with anyone else at the time. She goes into some detail as to the circumstances. She particularly mentions the awkward silence. Perhaps you should read the full statement?
The PJ was sent the statement - they did not lose it or mislay it or use the back of it to write a shopping list, they never knew about it until the McCanns were safely back in the UK when the LP sent them the statement?

My query was about why when the LP sent the Gaspar statements in October to the PJ did they say in their covering memo that these were the statements that you requested. If the PJ had no idea about them, how could they request them? But I suppose without seeing the request from the PJ we dont know what exactly was requested? ie a general request? Then again if the LP had these statements from May they should have been sent to Portugal PDQ. This is one issue which does my head in. Could British police withhold evidence/statements? it wouldnt be the first time I guess. I like to give benefit of the doubt as far as possible, thats all.

ETA
To all the posters saying the writings inthe book are contrived, of course they are, there are so many lies libel and discrepancies with the facts it couldnt be anything other than contrived...why? because....everyone knows but cant prove it... Deception and fantacism at its best

If you are referring to me, do just say so. Not sure what point you are making either with all the mysterious dots. But I am new on here and don't like the idea of someone talking over my head as if I'm unwelcome. Many interesting posters on here so not a problem to go back to lurker status.

by Inspectorfrost 08.02.13 18:21

Mirage, I wasnt getting at you or anyone else with my post, I was agreeing that writings in KMs book seem contrived, ie false

There is libel and lies abundant in it. I have no idea why you took my post that way.

by Guest 08.02.13 18:35

Mirage wrote:
Jean wrote:I was about to add that myself. Wasn't there also a bit about thinking in hindsight that the "abductor" might have been doing the same thing - i.e. admiring her.

It possibly is harmless but it's unusual terminology for a mother to use about a child.

Yes, I tried to "move on" as KM might say, thinking I might be being hypercritical. But I have two daughters and it felt intrinsically wrong language. Especially, as you rightly point out, that she qualifies it in the next sentence with the following:

"I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

Actually, it was really that bit that made the nausea rise in MY throat!

As a footnote, the language here feels contrived to me. You can sense the "writer" at work trying, very awkwardly IMO, to cobble together some "connections" for the reader. It stopped me in my tracks and I remember re-reading it because I was struck by an unnatural juxtoposition of ideas. By that I mean, KM seamlessly transfers her eyes into the eyes of the suggested stalker viz: "doing the same". She implies a sexual connation on the part of the stalker, of course. But there is no qualifier from herself, along the lines of: "Naturally, I was gazing at her with motherly pride: now I dare not think what may have been in the mind of a stranger watching her with malintent.

Well spottend Mirage. If a stranger was looking at Madeleine with the same supposed emotions as Kate (e.g. motherly love) than that would have been maybe strange, but not dangerous. Her whole reasoning is wrong.

by Mirage 08.02.13 18:38

Juulcy wrote:
Mirage wrote:
Jean wrote:I was about to add that myself. Wasn't there also a bit about thinking in hindsight that the "abductor" might have been doing the same thing - i.e. admiring her.

It possibly is harmless but it's unusual terminology for a mother to use about a child.

Yes, I tried to "move on" as KM might say, thinking I might be being hypercritical. But I have two daughters and it felt intrinsically wrong language. Especially, as you rightly point out, that she qualifies it in the next sentence with the following:

"I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same."

Actually, it was really that bit that made the nausea rise in MY throat!

As a footnote, the language here feels contrived to me. You can sense the "writer" at work trying, very awkwardly IMO, to cobble together some "connections" for the reader. It stopped me in my tracks and I remember re-reading it because I was struck by an unnatural juxtoposition of ideas. By that I mean, KM seamlessly transfers her eyes into the eyes of the suggested stalker viz: "doing the same". She implies a sexual connation on the part of the stalker, of course. But there is no qualifier from herself, along the lines of: "Naturally, I was gazing at her with motherly pride: now I dare not think what may have been in the mind of a stranger watching her with malintent.

Well spottend Mirage. If a stranger was looking at Madeleine with the same supposed emotions as Kate (e.g. motherly love) than that would have been maybe strange, but not dangerous. Her whole reasoning is wrong.

Thanks Juuicy. Much appreciated.

by Inspectorfrost 08.02.13 19:14

So Mirage, you answered juicy who posted after me, so no reply
never mind

by Dr What 08.02.13 19:51

I keep thinking about the spring cleaning that went on in 5a.
Am I right in thinking that there was very little, or indeed no, DNA evidence of Maddie ever being there?Now, why would that be? I have read 2 possible explanations;
To conceal some possible parentage issue:
To totally clean a blood soaked crime scene:
Leaving the parentage issue to one side, if one had to clean a crime scene, the possible "crime" would not have covered the whole flat.It might involve one specific area, but not the whole lot.It is illogical to sweep clean the whole flat, particularly when one would expect some evidence of Maddie having been there whether an abduction had occurred or not.Perhaps the spring cleaners were being too clever.
Perhaps the cleaning was required to remove any evidence of someone else being in the flat.Someone whose DNA should not have been there.The whole cleaning exercise was a determined effort to remove all evidence of someone else, not Maddie.But in doing so, they were far too thorough and left no evidence of someone who should have been there, namely Maddie.

by Mirage 08.02.13 20:08

Inspectorfrost wrote:So Mirage, you answered juicy who posted after me, so no reply
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thank you for your response, Inspector Frost.

The reason for my annoyance was that I had made a specific point about the "contrived language" and voilà, your ETA made a condescending point about the contrived language a couple of posts later tacked on the end of some communications with other posters in and and around me. The "Of course it is" comment didn't sound overly welcoming or tolerant of a newcomer either. As if I were thick or something.

It's a small matter of empathy, courtesy and tolerance, even if you are bored by what you consider something self-evident. We all come from different disciplines. I, myself, am a retired professional and can draw on a wealth of experience of human nature - I hope.

I pride myself on being polite and circumspect, knowing that I am trying to interact with long-established and very knowledgeable people.

I thank you for filling in the missing words of the dots. Unfortunately, your efforts only added to the sense of mystery. I'm sorry but I still find it an inexplicable non-sequitur. Perhaps I AM being thick. Anyway, I didn't want to reply straightaway while I gave it some thought.

Your emoticon sign "Never mind" came as both a reassurance and a surprise. It told me that you can emote. It also told me that, like myself, you didn't like being leap-frogged and ignored. If only you'd been as quick to hold up this one when I first appeared [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now that's an end of it because I came on here for a much bigger reason than this nonsense.

by Liz Eagles 08.02.13 20:13

Mirage wrote:
Inspectorfrost wrote:So Mirage, you answered juicy who posted after me, so no reply
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Thank you for your response, Inspector Frost.

The reason for my annoyance was that I had made a specific point about the "contrived language" and voilà, your ETA made a condescending point about the contrived language a couple of posts later tacked on the end of some communications with other posters in and and around me. The "Of course it is" comment didn't sound overly welcoming or tolerant of a newcomer either. As if I were thick or something.

It's a small matter of empathy, courtesy and tolerance, even if you are bored by what you consider something self-evident. We all come from different disciplines. I, myself, am a retired professional and can draw on a wealth of experience of human nature - I hope.

I pride myself on being polite and circumspect, knowing that I am trying to interact with long-established and very knowledgeable people.

I thank you for filling in the missing words of the dots. Unfortunately, your efforts only added to the sense of mystery. I'm sorry but I still find it an inexplicable non-sequitur. Perhaps I AM being thick. Anyway, I didn't want to reply straightaway while I gave it some thought.

Your emoticon sign "Never mind" came as both a reassurance and a surprise. It told me that you can emote. It also told me that, like myself, you didn't like being leap-frogged and ignored. If only you'd been as quick to hold up this one when I first appeared [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Now that's an end of it because I came on here for a much bigger reason than this nonsense.

Keep posting Mirage. Ignore the nonsense that's happening on the forum at the moment. It's not the first time and won't be the last. Just keep going. Your posts are valuable.

Log in for more topics