The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by vaguely1 on 26.03.10 13:26

@kangdang wrote:
@vaguely1 wrote:
@sue xx wrote:
@kathyBelle wrote:Obviously Mr Amaral would have to base his evidence on what Katherine Gaspar told the police, because Mr Amaral, was not there when David Payne had supposedly made his paedophilia gestures about Madeleine, to Gerry McCann.

Mr Amaral will no doubt wonder, why the McCanns not only stayed silent, over this serious allegation, but let David Payne bathe their children.

I don't understand, why David Payne would bathe the McCanns children, it isn't as though the McCanns weren't able to bathe their children themselves.

More to the point, I don't understand why David Payne would even want to bathe the McCanns children. Just as I don't understand why Gerry McCann, sent David Payne to their apartment, to check on his wife and children, instead of going himself.

David Payne and Kate McCann, both gave conflicting statements, about how long David Payne was in their apartment.

So many lies have been told in this sad case and all to save the McCanns own skins.





Morning kath and well said . I to have wonderd why gerry sent payne to check on his wife ,strange one that .also why was he bathing the McCanns kiddies . You dont let men bath your kids unless it`s their father ,,Yuk That is perverted in my book ...

I wonder how many woman would let their next door neighbour come in and bath their kids Mmmmm.
.


He was a family friend, not a neighbour. I don't imagine many people would let their neighbours bathe their children, but I'm guessing that people have bathed other people's children in that sort of situation.

Who knows, maybe it makes a difference. Sounds like all the kids were bundled in together - rather than DP specifically being tasked with bathing only Madeleine...which would of course be odd.

Maybe it's because i'm old fashioned, still stuck in the traditional gender discourse, but i find it unusual for any man (other than the childs father) to be tasked with bathing children - be that Singularly or grouped.

Not old fashioned. I wouldn't want other people bathing my children. Not because I believe any of my friend to have paedophile tendencies, but just because I wouldn't want them seeing the state or my bathroom Wink

On the other hand, a male friend of ours has taken my son swimming on a number of occasions with his own son (my son's best friend) and at an age where he would need help changing.

____________________
Does my IP look big in this?

vaguely1

Posts : 1992
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2010-01-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by sue xx on 26.03.10 21:15

Why would payne want to be botherd bathing someone elses kiddies ? when he could have been spending time with his wife confused I still want to know why he has never sued the papers for running this pedo story even his wife must feel angry every one reading her hubby is a pedo ,But still they haven`t sued anyone whistling

sue xx

Posts : 43
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-03-17
Location : Scotland

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by kathyBelle on 26.03.10 21:21

Hi Sue, well said. I'm sure the rest of David Payne's family are none too pleased with this story and they too must wonder why he and his wife have remained silent.

kathyBelle

Posts : 560
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-03-16
Location : None

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by littlepixie on 26.03.10 23:14

Was it ever in the papers? In the UK?

littlepixie

Posts : 1340
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-29

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by Ruby on 26.03.10 23:27

No, only the Euro News.

Ruby

Posts : 688
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2009-11-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by kathyBelle on 27.03.10 7:06

The Euro News which is only sold abroad, is not only available in 9 languages, including English, but is also available on the internet, which is where many people read the article and brought it to the forums.

One would have thought that with the McCanns media contacts, Jon Corner and Richard Branson, being just two of their contacts, steps would have been put in place to sue the newspaper group that owns the Euro News, if the allegations about David Payne were not true.

Maybe if the Leicestershire Constabulary, had done their job properly and released Katherine Gaspar's statement to the PJ immediately, instead of waiting until Goncalo Amaral, was removed from the case, Katherine Gaspar, would not have gone to the media. If she went to the media, if she didn't who did?

The Leicestershire Constabulary, did the McCanns no favours, when they sat on this statement. They must have known that if they did nothing, it wouldn't be too long before the statement was out in the media.

kathyBelle

Posts : 560
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-03-16
Location : None

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 27.03.10 7:30

Good morning Kathybelle.

I think the Euro News picked this up at the Lisbon court hearing. I could be wrong but I think the Gaspar statements were mentioned by one of the witnesses for Gonçalo Amaral as he has included them in his book. This led to a flurry of European media speculation, though not the UK media of course.

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by ufercoffy on 27.03.10 16:30

Here's a few comments about the Gaspars posted on Textusa's blog:

IRONSIDE said :Mar 26, 2010 7:44:00 PM
We have always remarked on the Gaspar statement and what it could mean. The paper that went along with these two statements from a Police Uffice from Leicester Police is just as puzzling...His suspicions to PJ Ricardo...abotu David Payne...

Processos Volume XIII, Pages 3909-3915 3909-3915
To: Ricard Paiva
From: DC 1756 Mike MARSHALL
Ref: David Payne
Date: October 24, 2007

Leicester Police Constabulary

Ricardo,

As requested, appended are the statements of Arul and Katherina Gaspar.

I read with curiosity the written statements given by David Payne but was not able to extricate any other information besides what is already known. He declares that he saw Madeleine, for the last time, at 17H00 on 3/5/07 in the McCann apartment. Also present there were Kate and Gerry. He did not indicate the motive for being there or what he was doing. He also cannot indicate how long he stayed.

When asked with whom he was on the afternoon of May 3rd, he declares that this information was already offered to the police and cannot remember if anyone else was there.

He does not remember what he was wearing that afternoon.

He took part in the searches, having carried out most of them alone. He was at times accompanied by Matthew Oldfield.

He did not partake in the searches carried out on the 4th of May, because, on this day, he spent to majority of time in the police headquarters.

For many questions, he does not give a complete response, affirming simply that he has already given this information to the Portuguese police in his declarations.

I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her statements, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.

Her responses to the questions are vague. She continued to respond to questions with "they conform with my earlier statement" or some similar statement. IRONSIDE said :Mar 26, 2010 8:20:00 PM
Part of the Gaspar statement that took EIGHT months for PJ to receive.

Dr.K.Gaspar

I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine. I don’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like “she”, referring to Madeleine, “would do this”.

When he mentioned “this”, Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, whilst with the other hand he circled his nipple, with a circulating movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner there being an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) to see “did anyone else hear this, or was it just me”. There was a nervous silence noted in the conversations of all the others and immediately afterwards everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was something very strange and that it wasn’t something that should be done or said.

Apart from this, I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to mention again that it was during a conversation, in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say precisely what it was about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, L., though I’m not certain. He slid one of his fingers in and out of his mouth, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that L., would behave or would do it.

IRONSIDE said :Mar 26, 2010 8:23:00 PM

More concerns from Dr.K Gaspar about bath time...

During our holidays, I was more attentive at the bath times after hearing Dave saying that.

During our holidays in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to took care to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, my daughter E. I was very clear about this, as having heard him say that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E. alone.

When I heard Dave say that a second time, it reinforced what I already thought in relation to his thoughts about girls. During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by their daughter L., took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine’s safety, since she was also with Fiona and L., and also with Dave, as far as I know.

Anonymous said :Mar 26, 2010 8:24:00 PM
Well,

"His suspicions to PJ Ricardo...about David Payne..."

I can think that they are only to

" english to see",

"Para Inglês ver" ou para enganar o Português!Ainda por cima, o tempo todo!

Maria IRONSIDE said :Mar 26, 2010 8:27:00 PM
I am puzzled by Dr.K Gaspars remark...I can understand Dave bathing his own children but why woukld Dave be bathing Dr.Gaspars children?...Once again were the children all left together in Paynes apartment? Worth thinking about.

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/03/early-evening-may-3rd-2007-somewhere-in.html

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by aiyoyo on 28.03.10 6:50

@vaguely1 wrote:I indeed have concern for Hewletts children, in more ways than one.

It isn't an either or. I don't support any of it Gran. But in the case of an unfounded allegation versus previous convictions I can see there's a difference.

The whole thing is ugly.

That was an unfair comparison.

What is known for sure is that there was an allegation against DP. Whether the verdict was unfounded or not, no one knows, including you Vaguely1.

Hewitt, having previous conviction is no crime against the mccanns. He and family should have equal rights to privacy and should not dragged by malicious mccanns into the mud publicly just to suit their purpose.

It's amazing none of the family mccanns maliciously used even thought of suing them, yet the mccanns thought nothing about suing all and sundry whenever things are not going their way.
It just goes to show people with nothing to defend or hide dont have to do anything, as the untrue cannot hurt. Its just the mccanns beating the drums about their muddy name.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by justagrannynow 1 on 28.03.10 7:07

I agree aiyoyo.

If Hewlett had been in the PDL area around the time Madeleine disappeared, as some friends of his are supposed to have told the McCann private detectives, then of course he should have been investigated, but his wife and children should not have been hounded and photographed in the manner they were. The private detectives made no attempt to protect these children from the media.

justagrannynow 1

Posts : 966
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2009-11-26
Location : France

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by kathyBelle on 28.03.10 9:15

Good morning justagrannynow1, I read on the internet that the McCanns private detectives, wanted to interview Raymond Hewlett, on his sick bed, they were refused.

I also read that the Portuguese police checked out Raymond Hewlett and found him not to have been in the area, when Madeleine disappeared.

This is only my opinion, but I believe the McCanns private detectives, knowing he was on the verge of dying, wanted to extract a confession out of him, in exchange for money for his dependants. If they could have extracted a confession out of him, their clients, would have been home and dry.

I always wondered why the P.J. were so thorough in their investigation of Robert Murat, once suspicion was aroused about him, but not the McCanns. The police suspected the McCanns were more involved with Madeleine's disappearance, right from the start. Then I found out the McCanns 'friends in high places' set wheels in motion, to protect them.

I heard Kate McCann's uncle Brian Kennedy say that if his niece and her husband were charged with any offence, they would call in favours from people in high places that they had contact with. He said they had access to people, who ordinary members of the public didn't have access to.

I also heard Richard Branson say, that if the McCanns were to be prosecuted, he would pay for the best lawyers in the land to help them. He gave them £100000 towards these lawers, which know wouldn't go very far, if they were prosecuted, but they haven't been prosecuted and I presume the money is sitting in a separate account, gathering interest.

kathyBelle

Posts : 560
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-03-16
Location : None

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by aiyoyo on 28.03.10 9:53

[quote="kathyBelle"]Good morning justagrannynow1, I read on the internet that the McCanns private detectives, wanted to interview Raymond Hewlett, on his sick bed, they were refused.

I also read that the Portuguese police checked out Raymond Hewlett and found him not to have been in the area, when Madeleine disappeared.

This is only my opinion, but I believe the McCanns private detectives, knowing he was on the verge of dying, wanted to extract a confession out of him, in exchange for money for his dependants. If they could have extracted a confession out of him, their clients, would have been home and dry.


Using a dying man is disgusting and despicable anyway. His past record is besides the point. If he was checked by PJ and eliminated, mccanns PIs have no right to interfere. The mccanns are evil in the way they made use of people. Christ, even the Pope was used by them.

Those people who promised to use influence or power or money to help or save mccanns from prosecution obviously then must have thought that they had committed a prosecuable criminal offence, else there was no need for all that. Innocent is innocent, there is no twisting it. On the other hand, guilt twisted any which way they want would still be 'guilt' in the public eyes.
No power or money can absolve the guilty. They can ran but can't hide that from the thinking and discernable public. Not been charged does not mean exoneration. It just mean they've escaped the laws. Think OJ Simpson....he didnt end well despite all that.

aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Post by kathyBelle on 28.03.10 10:42

I have asked these questions, in emails to the P.J and Leicestershire Constabulary as well as the British Government and they are:

Why were the McCanns able to committ a crime against Madeleine (neglecting children is a crime in Portugal) and walk away from their crime?

Why are the McCanns allowed to ride roughshod, over anyone they please, without any comeback?

Why are the McCanns so important that they have had Government protection, from day one?

I have never had any acknowledgements to my emails, let alone any answers.

kathyBelle

Posts : 560
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2010-03-16
Location : None

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum