Breaking News on Sky News - SY back in PDL suspects to be interviewed

candyfloss wrote: I really don't know how this thread has gone so way off topic, but someone has bumped/commented on the Gaspar thread in debate section recently

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9884-gaspar-statements-different-perspective

Perhaps post your thoughts there and get this thread back on topic.

sally66 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

sally66 wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Dr Amaral consistently brings up the 'likes to bathe other people's children' issue, I'm sure he has a pretty good idea of where the investigation should be going.

I completely agree with you on this point. Amaral, having been the victim of the McCanns vexatious litigation for many years, would be unlikely to raise this in a televised interview, at the risk of this jeopardising a 1.2 million lawsuit unless he was confident that he could defend the point to the satisfaction of a judge. Payne's lack of response is deafening.

I also think that various other "investigations" going on into elite pedophile rings, the jailing of Couslon and the clearing of Rebekkah Brooks at the same time as the coalition have pledged to finance Grange to the tune of stupid amounts of money, really really stupidly obscene amounts of money, are not unrelated matters.

Whether a whitewash or a genuine investigation, it is my view that the supposed search for Madeleine is becoming something of a sub-plot to a bigger more important story.

My thoughts are that the sub plot is covering those in 'high places' who are involved in a 'ring'. The subliminal messages and some of the published photographs of M suggest there is something in this. When all is said and done money, sex or drugs are usually behind the major crimes, could very well be all three in this case. All imo.

I have always thought swinging, recreational drugs and a connected guest however the above sadly would not surprise me.

IMO GA is holding a lot back

IMO the Gaspers and the Smiths are genuine

The bit I've highlighted in red could be involved, but deep down I believe this involves much worse than that because when all is said and done the McCanns and their Tapas friends are a bunch of nobodies. They act as if they are of some consequence in the world which, of course, they are not. So logically, the only reason ANYONE in the media, SY or the Government will have given them more than 5 minutes of attention is that it is KNOWN that there is some link to something which IS of consequence. It is also possible that the time, money and obfuscation thrown at the case of one solitary missing child, to keep the case rumbling on long after it has expired it's sell by date, is to make this case so ingrained the general populous' psyche that when the lid gets blown of the TRUE, bigger and more devastating story that there will not even one shred of a hope that it can be covered up and whitewashed. IMO.

It wouldn't surprise me at all, I think I just hope it's not that although I accept it is a strong possibility

The media attention IMO NI have been instrumental in as it gives them power over whomever may be involved in a cover up and if the truth ever comes out they'll sell loads of papers so a win win for them

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

sally66 wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

sally66 wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Hongkong Phooey wrote:Dr Amaral consistently brings up the 'likes to bathe other people's children' issue, I'm sure he has a pretty good idea of where the investigation should be going.

I completely agree with you on this point. Amaral, having been the victim of the McCanns vexatious litigation for many years, would be unlikely to raise this in a televised interview, at the risk of this jeopardising a 1.2 million lawsuit unless he was confident that he could defend the point to the satisfaction of a judge. Payne's lack of response is deafening.

I also think that various other "investigations" going on into elite pedophile rings, the jailing of Couslon and the clearing of Rebekkah Brooks at the same time as the coalition have pledged to finance Grange to the tune of stupid amounts of money, really really stupidly obscene amounts of money, are not unrelated matters.

Whether a whitewash or a genuine investigation, it is my view that the supposed search for Madeleine is becoming something of a sub-plot to a bigger more important story.

My thoughts are that the sub plot is covering those in 'high places' who are involved in a 'ring'. The subliminal messages and some of the published photographs of M suggest there is something in this. When all is said and done money, sex or drugs are usually behind the major crimes, could very well be all three in this case. All imo.

I have always thought swinging, recreational drugs and a connected guest however the above sadly would not surprise me.

IMO GA is holding a lot back

IMO the Gaspers and the Smiths are genuine

The bit I've highlighted in red could be involved, but deep down I believe this involves much worse than that because when all is said and done the McCanns and their Tapas friends are a bunch of nobodies. They act as if they are of some consequence in the world which, of course, they are not. So logically, the only reason ANYONE in the media, SY or the Government will have given them more than 5 minutes of attention is that it is KNOWN that there is some link to something which IS of consequence. It is also possible that the time, money and obfuscation thrown at the case of one solitary missing child, to keep the case rumbling on long after it has expired it's sell by date, is to make this case so ingrained the general populous' psyche that when the lid gets blown of the TRUE, bigger and more devastating story that there will not even one shred of a hope that it can be covered up and whitewashed. IMO.

It wouldn't surprise me at all, I think I just hope it's not that although I accept it is a strong possibility

The media attention IMO NI have been instrumental in as it gives them power over whomever may be involved in a cover up and if the truth ever comes out they'll sell loads of papers so a win win for them

Agree, although I think this is about even more than sales for NI. When the lid gets blown off the sheer scale of this elite paedo-ring scandal, and if it eventually reveals the names of ALL the major political players who are involved, PRESENTLY and not just HISTORICALLY, then whatever government which is in power at the time of the big reveal will completely lose control of the country. Whoever is instrumental in the big reveal, be it NI or some other party, will IMO be the person/persons who is able to take control from the collapsed Government and call all the shots both in the UK itself and on behalf of the UK on the bigger global stage.

Let's face it, the Government have no interest at all in the safety and wellbeing of our children or in any attempt to curtail the spread of child abuse because if they did they would have dealt with it by now - child abusers would be given life sentences and child abuse pornography would be eradicated from the internet, the power to do both exists and there is no reason or excuse for not doing either, if the intention to protect children is genuine.

This is ALL about a battle for power and control IMO - paedophilia IMO, is just the battle weapon of choice in this fight.

BlackCatBoogie - I think it is worth giving some consideration to Tony Blair's campaign to be a huge player in the EU and the Middle East, Murdochs desire to be the controller of information output/global media/puppetmaster and their well documented hatred of each other. Just something to ponder upon. Historical MP's and current MP's are pretty small fry I think in the bigger picture, but if someone wanted to "take control" on a grand scale, they would do worse than pick off opponents one by one and create a climate of fear. All IMO.

sally66 wrote:I'm pondering

I do think the alleged elitists control this Country for their own ends only and we are of no consequence whatsoever apart from to keep the Country running, paying taxes and filling their coffers

It seems to be a power play between the top players however I do think the Internet has spoiled their game and people are waking up and speaking up about the corruption

I just hope the McCanns will be collateral damage in the current state of play

pennylane wrote:

sally66 wrote:I'm pondering

I do think the alleged elitists control this Country for their own ends only and we are of no consequence whatsoever apart from to keep the Country running, paying taxes and filling their coffers

It seems to be a power play between the top players however I do think the Internet has spoiled their game and people are waking up and speaking up about the corruption

I just hope the McCanns will be collateral damage in the current state of play

Couldn't agree more with your views, and yes it would be great if the McCanns became 'collateral damage in the current state of play.'  Depending on who or what lies behind their protection, therein lies a smidgeon of hope perhaps.  You have a great way with words, sally! 

sally66 wrote:I'm pondering

I do think the alleged elitists control this Country for their own ends only and we are of no consequence whatsoever apart from to keep the Country running, paying taxes and filling their coffers

It seems to be a power play between the top players however I do think the Internet has spoiled their game and people are waking up and speaking up about the corruption

I just hope the McCanns will be collateral damage in the current state of play

jeanmonroe wrote:margaret wrote:

The Internet is one part of their downfall. There's no going back now, too many people don't like or trust them and that can never be changed IMO.
------------------------------------------------------------------

Well, i'd like 'our' Kate if she had much bigger 't*ts' and put on a couple or three ''stones" in weight.

She'd look and be so much more, erm, er..................'Mumsy"

Just like her Mum said!.

Mwahhhh!  

  

Themis wrote:Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell added: "Kate and Gerry are planning to attend court on Tuesday as required by the judge."


Have I missed something or did the McCann's lawyer appeal to overturn the Court's decision that they could not make statement? That seems a little different to attending court 'as required by the judge"


The first part of the comment 'Kate and Gerry McCann are fearful about going to Lisbon for a libel trial because of more bizarre behaviour from Goncalo Amaral.' might be true!

Snifferdog wrote:

Themis wrote:Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell added: "Kate and Gerry are planning to attend court on Tuesday as required by the judge."


Have I missed something or did the McCann's lawyer appeal to overturn the Court's decision that they could not make statement? That seems a little different to attending court 'as required by the judge"


The first part of the comment 'Kate and Gerry McCann are fearful about going to Lisbon for a libel trial because of more bizarre behaviour from Goncalo Amaral.' might be true!

Perhaps because they asked for special permissions to speak at the trial, and it was granted by the judge, they are now obliged to attend and take the stand.

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:

Themis wrote:Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell added: "Kate and Gerry are planning to attend court on Tuesday as required by the judge."


Have I missed something or did the McCann's lawyer appeal to overturn the Court's decision that they could not make statement? That seems a little different to attending court 'as required by the judge"


The first part of the comment 'Kate and Gerry McCann are fearful about going to Lisbon for a libel trial because of more bizarre behaviour from Goncalo Amaral.' might be true!

Perhaps because they asked for special permissions to speak at the trial, and it was granted by the judge, they are now obliged to attend and take the stand.

A bad case of careful what you wish for! 

daffodil wrote:

TheTruthWillOut wrote:

Snifferdog wrote:

Themis wrote:Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell added: "Kate and Gerry are planning to attend court on Tuesday as required by the judge."


Have I missed something or did the McCann's lawyer appeal to overturn the Court's decision that they could not make statement? That seems a little different to attending court 'as required by the judge"


The first part of the comment 'Kate and Gerry McCann are fearful about going to Lisbon for a libel trial because of more bizarre behaviour from Goncalo Amaral.' might be true!

Perhaps because they asked for special permissions to speak at the trial, and it was granted by the judge, they are now obliged to attend and take the stand.

A bad case of careful what you wish for! 

If I have understood it correctly they are now obliged to make statements in their defence (as they asked).  These statements must be "from the heart" ie 'from the heart, impulsive'.    
Not from pre-written speeches, pondered over, reworded for the best effect, and referred to in the process.    Nor just submitting pre-written statements.
The pile of papers in GM's hand at the last (postponed) hearing make me wonder if they understand what will be required.
I have trust in the judge.
GO, GO, GA.

Varriott wrote:I just wonder.  If Amaral doesn't actually have a lawyer, does that mean he can represent himself and personally cross-examine Kate and Gerry, should they take the stand?  I'd buy a ticket for that show.

HelenMeg wrote:

AndyB wrote:

Popcorn wrote:How odd. The Gaspars are apparently "weird" because they allowed other parents – who they believed to be friends – to bathe their kids. Just like Martin Grime's methods are questionable, and Goncalo Amaral's. Funny how everybody whose evidence in some way conflicts with that of the parents (one of whom wouldn't even answer police questions) is painted as dubious by someone or other.

I'm neither casting aspersions as to the reliability of their statements nor trying to paint them as dubious in some way and for the record I think that the Gasper statements may well run to the heart of what was going on in PdL. They are IMO very important and their importance is highlighted by the UK's failure to pass them onto the PJ for (I think) six months. None of that though prevents me from voicing the opinion that I find it weird that they - or any other parent for that matter - would let people that they don't know that well bathe their children. However, as I'm not a parent, I have to accept that my thinking maybe different to those that have children

Well it is completely unnatural and against any instinct to trust an intimate duty such as bathing your small child to anyone other than you, your partner or your mother.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

AndyB wrote:
I'm neither casting aspersions as to the reliability of their statements nor trying to paint them as dubious in some way and for the record I think that the Gasper statements may well run to the heart of what was going on in PdL. They are IMO very important and their importance is highlighted by the UK's failure to pass them onto the PJ for (I think) six months. None of that though prevents me from voicing the opinion that I find it weird that they - or any other parent for that matter - would let people that they don't know that well bathe their children. However, as I'm not a parent, I have to accept that my thinking maybe different to those that have children

It isn't.

Being bluntly honest, I don't even bathe my own daughter - I leave that to the ball and chain.

However, people are strange (Jim Morrison said that fifty years ago, and it's still true) and it's possible that the communal bathing is an extension of the shared holiday, halls of residence bed-hopping style existence that these manchild middle class types never quite seem to be able to grow out of.