Gerald McCann: CATS system - registration number 19309

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

russiandoll, I agree with all your conclusions, bar one. I have to say I unequivocally believe that in no shape or form did the McCanns request the Social Services visit. They just had to go along with what would be an automatic referral. I believe that 'we asked for a Social Services visit' is pure desperate spin, and in the same vein as Robert Murat+Arguido='Suspect', Kate/Gerry McCann+Arguido='Persons of Interest'.
No, I think Kate's alleged reaction to the Social Worker (was her name Yvonne somebody?) In PdL tells you all you need to know. She wasn't welcome and I'd bet my bottom dollar the ones who visited weren't, either. We are told, by Kate and Gerry (natch!) That the visiting social workers were 'obviously embarrassed to be having to scrutinising them' and that their conclusion was all was well (how could it be? One child missing allegedly as a result of neglect!?!) The thing is, family courts and social services are done so secretly we'd have no way of verifying this. Sean and Amelie could be on a child protection register for all we know. Also, who is to say that the 'Ward of Court' wasn't ordered by family court? Of course the version we are told is that WOC gives greater powers to aid a search etc, yet to my knowledge Ben Needham wasn't made a Ward?
TBH, I don't believe a word either of the McCanns say. If either of them said I was alive I'd feel my pulse to check...

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

russiandoll, I agree with all your conclusions, bar one. I have to say I unequivocally believe that in no shape or form did the McCanns request the Social Services visit. They just had to go along with what would be an automatic referral. I believe that 'we asked for a Social Services visit' is pure desperate spin, and in the same vein as Robert Murat+Arguido='Suspect', Kate/Gerry McCann+Arguido='Persons of Interest'.
No, I think Kate's alleged reaction to the Social Worker (was her name Yvonne somebody?) In PdL tells you all you need to know. She wasn't welcome and I'd bet my bottom dollar the ones who visited weren't, either. We are told, by Kate and Gerry (natch!) That the visiting social workers were 'obviously embarrassed to be having to scrutinising them' and that their conclusion was all was well (how could it be? One child missing allegedly as a result of neglect!?!) The thing is, family courts and social services are done so secretly we'd have no way of verifying this. Sean and Amelie could be on a child protection register for all we know. Also, who is to say that the 'Ward of Court' wasn't ordered by family court? Of course the version we are told is that WOC gives greater powers to aid a search etc, yet to my knowledge Ben Needham wasn't made a Ward?
TBH, I don't believe a word either of the McCanns say. If either of them said I was alive I'd feel my pulse to check...

Spot-on rainbow-fairy. More later on the 'stolen' wallet fairytale!!!

Advocatus wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

russiandoll, I agree with all your conclusions, bar one. I have to say I unequivocally believe that in no shape or form did the McCanns request the Social Services visit. They just had to go along with what would be an automatic referral. I believe that 'we asked for a Social Services visit' is pure desperate spin, and in the same vein as Robert Murat+Arguido='Suspect', Kate/Gerry McCann+Arguido='Persons of Interest'.
No, I think Kate's alleged reaction to the Social Worker (was her name Yvonne somebody?) In PdL tells you all you need to know. She wasn't welcome and I'd bet my bottom dollar the ones who visited weren't, either. We are told, by Kate and Gerry (natch!) That the visiting social workers were 'obviously embarrassed to be having to scrutinising them' and that their conclusion was all was well (how could it be? One child missing allegedly as a result of neglect!?!) The thing is, family courts and social services are done so secretly we'd have no way of verifying this. Sean and Amelie could be on a child protection register for all we know. Also, who is to say that the 'Ward of Court' wasn't ordered by family court? Of course the version we are told is that WOC gives greater powers to aid a search etc, yet to my knowledge Ben Needham wasn't made a Ward?
TBH, I don't believe a word either of the McCanns say. If either of them said I was alive I'd feel my pulse to check...

Spot-on rainbow-fairy. More later on the 'stolen' wallet fairytale!!!

Uh-huh. I think somebody googled the wrong keyword, pressed the wrong button and then accidentally-on-purpose put in their card details before realising it was the 'wrong' site - I don't think so! Methinks someone has been a very naughty boy. I wasn't born yesterday nor am I as dim as I sometimes sound

Rainbow Fairy I need to do some more research on this. [ I don't think you ever sound dim btw far from it!]

I have only read about this visit to Rothley from unreliable sources [the McCanns ] and as you say it will be near impossible to verify. What I did think might have happened was that they were desperate to get the people onside at a time when the tide was starting to turn [ press reporting the PJ suspicions and the like], having returned to the UK almost as soon as they had been made arguidos], so much beginning to look really negative...and to improve their image they wanted to be seen to be welcoming SS so as to convey the impression of they really had nothing to hide, why would we invite this ?

On reflection, it would under the circumstances have been inconceivable for them not to have had a visiter from SS as a matter of procedure, but part of me still wonders as much as they dreaded it,knowing it probably would be coming, they might have wished to pre-empt it to make a favourable impression. I found it hard to swallow that a barrister who went to PDL told them their parenting was within the bounds of responsibility and I am certain that Social Services did not take this stand.
What I strongly suspect and was my main point, whoever initiated that SS visit, the file created had nothing to do with it, it was already in existence. On balance you are probably correct, it is just that I am so very cynical about how the McCanns have behaved, I thought they might have asked for a visit simply image management reasons.
Its' a right old tangled web aint it

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Advocatus wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

russiandoll, I agree with all your conclusions, bar one. I have to say I unequivocally believe that in no shape or form did the McCanns request the Social Services visit. They just had to go along with what would be an automatic referral. I believe that 'we asked for a Social Services visit' is pure desperate spin, and in the same vein as Robert Murat+Arguido='Suspect', Kate/Gerry McCann+Arguido='Persons of Interest'.
No, I think Kate's alleged reaction to the Social Worker (was her name Yvonne somebody?) In PdL tells you all you need to know. She wasn't welcome and I'd bet my bottom dollar the ones who visited weren't, either. We are told, by Kate and Gerry (natch!) That the visiting social workers were 'obviously embarrassed to be having to scrutinising them' and that their conclusion was all was well (how could it be? One child missing allegedly as a result of neglect!?!) The thing is, family courts and social services are done so secretly we'd have no way of verifying this. Sean and Amelie could be on a child protection register for all we know. Also, who is to say that the 'Ward of Court' wasn't ordered by family court? Of course the version we are told is that WOC gives greater powers to aid a search etc, yet to my knowledge Ben Needham wasn't made a Ward?
TBH, I don't believe a word either of the McCanns say. If either of them said I was alive I'd feel my pulse to check...

Spot-on rainbow-fairy. More later on the 'stolen' wallet fairytale!!!

Uh-huh. I think somebody googled the wrong keyword, pressed the wrong button and then accidentally-on-purpose put in their card details before realising it was the 'wrong' site - I don't think so! Methinks someone has been a very naughty boy. I wasn't born yesterday nor am I as dim as I sometimes sound

I used to be a very senior credit card troubleshooter/systems analyst/fraud analyst and so on for one of top 3 players in the biz, Gerry's fairytale does not add up whatsoever. More when I get on a proper laptop. This credit card loss bullmerde is one of the biggest red flags I have ever seen.

But even preceded by THAT hokum, the Leicester Police refused to provide detailed credt/debit card transaction history, bank history et cetera.

That in itself is a scandal in a potential homicide inquiry.

russiandoll wrote:Rainbow Fairy I need to do some more research on this. [ I don't think you ever sound dim btw far from it!]

I have only read about this visit to Rothley from unreliable sources [the McCanns ] and as you say it will be near impossible to verify. What I did think might have happened was that they were desperate to get the people onside at a time when the tide was starting to turn [ press reporting the PJ suspicions and the like], having returned to the UK almost as soon as they had been made arguidos], so much beginning to look really negative...and to improve their image they wanted to be seen to be welcoming SS so as to convey the impression of they really had nothing to hide, why would we invite this ?

On reflection, it would under the circumstances have been inconceivable for them not to have had a visiter from SS as a matter of procedure, but part of me still wonders as much as they dreaded it,knowing it probably would be coming, they might have wished to pre-empt it to make a favourable impression. I found it hard to swallow that a barrister who went to PDL told them their parenting was within the bounds of responsibility and I am certain that Social Services did not take this stand.
What I strongly suspect and was my main point, whoever initiated that SS visit, the file created had nothing to do with it, it was already in existence. On balance you are probably correct, it is just that I am so very cynical about how the McCanns have behaved, I thought they might have asked for a visit simply image management reasons.
Its' a right old tangled web aint it

It certainly is! I think we are both right on this, indeed its a tad similar to earlier when someone misunderstood your post, was it tigger? Yes, I think its highly possible the McCanns 'asked' for the visit, knowing it was coming anyway. What is that if not 'spin' to say "We asked them round (what we're not telling you is they would've come anyway and there's not a thing we could do about it. This way makes us look much better - responsible, even!)" Re-reading my post, I hadn't made it very clear but I meant the same as you, their 'announcement' was plain PR, plain and simple.
I also agree the CATS file was not concerned with what happened in PdL that spring. I think it was long-standing and serious, and far from the 'empty file reference' we've been led to 'believe'

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:Rainbow Fairy I need to do some more research on this. [ I don't think you ever sound dim btw far from it!]

I have only read about this visit to Rothley from unreliable sources [the McCanns ] and as you say it will be near impossible to verify. What I did think might have happened was that they were desperate to get the people onside at a time when the tide was starting to turn [ press reporting the PJ suspicions and the like], having returned to the UK almost as soon as they had been made arguidos], so much beginning to look really negative...and to improve their image they wanted to be seen to be welcoming SS so as to convey the impression of they really had nothing to hide, why would we invite this ?

On reflection, it would under the circumstances have been inconceivable for them not to have had a visiter from SS as a matter of procedure, but part of me still wonders as much as they dreaded it,knowing it probably would be coming, they might have wished to pre-empt it to make a favourable impression. I found it hard to swallow that a barrister who went to PDL told them their parenting was within the bounds of responsibility and I am certain that Social Services did not take this stand.
What I strongly suspect and was my main point, whoever initiated that SS visit, the file created had nothing to do with it, it was already in existence. On balance you are probably correct, it is just that I am so very cynical about how the McCanns have behaved, I thought they might have asked for a visit simply image management reasons.
Its' a right old tangled web aint it

It certainly is! I think we are both right on this, indeed its a tad similar to earlier when someone misunderstood your post, was it tigger? Yes, I think its highly possible the McCanns 'asked' for the visit, knowing it was coming anyway. What is that if not 'spin' to say "We asked them round (what we're not telling you is they would've come anyway and there's not a thing we could do about it. This way makes us look much better - responsible, even!)" Re-reading my post, I hadn't made it very clear but I meant the same as you, their 'announcement' was plain PR, plain and simple.
I also agree the CATS file was not concerned with what happened in PdL that spring. I think it was long-standing and serious, and far from the 'empty file reference' we've been led to 'believe'

I've had a feeling for a long time that Madeleine did not actually live at home with K & G and the twins, hence the scarce (family) photos of her and those that did exist had her looking timid, or nervous, as if she didn't really know the people taking her photo (i.e. K & G if she didn't live with them full time). It would also answer why K & G didn't seem like loving, caring parents towards her, she was just an accessory to be brought out when relatives/friends visited on bank holidays etc.

If that is the case, would it answer why one of the questions thrown at KM by the PJ was "were you thinking of giving Madeleine to a relative", it would also answer why Madeleine was made a WOC (she would not automatically be handed over to her parents if she was found), it may also answer why K & G have a CATS file, if she was put with another family (say a foster family) if she was not being properly looked after at home.

I don't know if this has been mentioned before on this topic but on the morning of 4th May 2007, the mccanns were questioned by Yvonne Martin who had been working for 25 years as a child protector. The aggression towards her and in particular david payne watching & then butting in telling her where to go is very suspicious. I tend to think they were worried by who she was and what she would/could find out about them which is the only explanation for their behaviour towards her. david payne seemed to be the one who 'needed' to be in the control of the situation so maybe he too has a 'number' hidden away and info deleted off the files somewhere? This also suggests gerrys CATS number was pre May 2007

You can read all Yvone's statements here and they are interesting with what she says [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

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.

What is also interesting is that 'holiday' in Majorca in sept 2005 re Gaspar statement. Like the holiday in PDL, this Majorca holiday was also organised by david payne and most will be familiar with him and the men only bathing the kids and the remarks he made about Maddie. Why would any 'man' (let alone a woman) want to be bathing their friends kids!!!! A strong picture is forming here

On a separate note, would it be just 'coincidental' if these holidays both organised by david payne just happened to be at resorts where 2 directors of Madeleine Foundation alledgely happen to have property interests....Food for thought

jd wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before on this topic but on the morning of 4th May 2007, the mccanns were questioned by Yvonne Martin who had been working for 25 years as a child protector. The aggression towards her and in particular david payne watching & then butting in telling her where to go is very suspicious. I tend to think they were worried by who she was and what she would/could find out about them which is the only explanation for their behaviour towards her. david payne seemed to be the one who 'needed' to be in the control of the situation so maybe he too has a 'number' hidden away and info deleted off the files somewhere? This also suggests gerrys CATS number was pre May 2007

You can read all Yvone's statements here and they are interesting with what she says [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

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.

What is also interesting is that 'holiday' in Majorca in sept 2005 re Gaspar statement. Like the holiday in PDL, this Majorca holiday was also organised by david payne and most will be familiar with him and the men only bathing the kids and the remarks he made about Maddie. Why would any 'man' (let alone a woman) want to be bathing their friends kids!!!! A strong picture is forming here

On a separate note, would it be just 'coincidental' if these holidays both organised by david payne just happened to be at resorts where 2 directors of Madeleine Foundation alledgely happen to have property interests....Food for thought

I ask myself why would GM ask DP to go and check that Kate would be ok bathing the children whilst he was playing tennis. I ask myself why the holiday in Majorca was declared as the men bathing the kids. I ask myself why it's this 'all in together, holiday, happy friends together stuff'

I ask myself so many questions as to what is normal. I still come to the same conclusion even if it's not the one I'd hoped for.

jd wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before on this topic but on the morning of 4th May 2007, the mccanns were questioned by Yvonne Martin who had been working for 25 years as a child protector. The aggression towards her and in particular david payne watching & then butting in telling her where to go is very suspicious. I tend to think they were worried by who she was and what she would/could find out about them which is the only explanation for their behaviour towards her. david payne seemed to be the one who 'needed' to be in the control of the situation so maybe he too has a 'number' hidden away and info deleted off the files somewhere? This also suggests gerrys CATS number was pre May 2007

You can read all Yvone's statements here and they are interesting with what she says [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

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.

What is also interesting is that 'holiday' in Majorca in sept 2005 re Gaspar statement. Like the holiday in PDL, this Majorca holiday was also organised by david payne and most will be familiar with him and the men only bathing the kids and the remarks he made about Maddie. Why would any 'man' (let alone a woman) want to be bathing their friends kids!!!! A strong picture is forming here

On a separate note, would it be just 'coincidental' if these holidays both organised by david payne just happened to be at resorts where 2 directors of Madeleine Foundation alledgely happen to have property interests....Food for thought

jd, thank you! Yvonne Martin. Yes I mentioned her and their reactions to her back on p6 I think. Just I couldn't recall her surname - I'd got it in my head it was Woods, for some reason.
I don't know if I come from a family of Neanderthal males, but they would NEVER bath the kids, not in a million years, not even their own... I totally agree that a strong picture is emerging, one that begins with 'P' and ends with 'A'...
Not so long back I read one of those 'abuse survivor' books. It was truly heartbreaking. The girls step-father was the one, and she told very graphically what 'bath times' were like... I can't remember the title, as I have 1000+ books its hard to keep track Worth a read though, shows how low abusers will go, and how invariably they are usually seen as 'pillars of the community', locking the abused in a cycle of silence.
I hope there is an extra specially fiery place in hell for all those who abuse children in whatever form that takes, I really do...

Could this be the reason jane tanner & co all tried to frame Murat with their 'sightings' of him, to deflect away from david payne?

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

JD and Russian Doll

Just posted on the 'extra bed' topic and mentioned what JD did here, BK had property in Majorca. A villa?
The McCann didn't go on the Greek holiday which was also MW, so when no McCanns no BK? Who also has property in PdL? Is that right?

Re the 'being well within the bounds of responsible parenting' I think that was within days of 3/5 and it was some outfit like the Family Law Association, a fairly new invention I believe. Because they were 'lawyers' (my, my, doctors and lawyers, can it get more reputable?) this was supposed to be true. I'm pretty sure it has no legal validity.
We don't hear much more about this 'firm', should look at it because I recall it was very recently set up. Not long before 05/07 imo.
The visit from the social services was after they returned to the UK - by then their protection was so solid, if they'd been Shipman and Gengis Khan rolled into one, they'd have been let off.

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

this gives a list of the main players and how and where they met.

2002 - Gerry and MO worked together in Leicester?

jd wrote:Could this be the reason jane tanner & co all tried to frame Murat with their 'sightings' of him, to deflect away from david payne?

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

All I can say is I'll bet DP would kill to have as much hair as RM...

DP reminds me of one of those naughty Gremlins, who have an unusual fluffy bit on their heads, exactly where he does.

Tigger: this is the law firm you mean; it was also involved with the setting up of the fund. There is a brief topic here called "IFLG and PACT".

If G thought that his wife might need help bathing 3 v young children, why did he not go and check himself?
Re bath- times and the P word. I did jury service once and one of 3 cases I heard was that of a father abusing his 2 daughters when they were very young. He broke down under intense cross-examination and admitted to numerous occasions which took place mostly at bath-times.
It can all seem so innocent to bathe very young children, before they reach an age where they would wish for and get privacy due to modesty and in any case, could easily bath themselves. Also on these occasions it would be totally normal for the young girls to be naked and to be touched.....so a perfect opportunity to abuse in a scenario that seemed completely innocent.
I can't imagine anyone wanting, let alone being allowed, to bathe anyone else's children.

Jean wrote:Tigger: this is the law firm you mean; it was also involved with the setting up of the fund. There is a brief topic here called "IFLG and PACT".

Thanks, I'll have a look at that. I'd forgotten about them, thought it strange that in the first place the McCs knew about this outfit. Amazing, every time we turn over a stone, something slimy creeps out. Hmm. Well chosen motto in that case McCanns!

russiandoll wrote:If G thought that his wife might need help bathing 3 v young children, why did he not go and check himself?
Re bath- times and the P word. I did jury service once and one of 3 cases I heard was that of a father abusing his 2 daughters when they were very young. He broke down under intense cross-examination and admitted to numerous occasions which took place mostly at bath-times.
It can all seem so innocent to bathe very young children, before they reach an age where they would wish for and get privacy due to modesty and in any case, could easily bath themselves. Also on these occasions it would be totally normal for the young girls to be naked and to be touched.....so a perfect opportunity to abuse in a scenario that seemed completely innocent.
I can't imagine anyone wanting, let alone being allowed, to bathe anyone else's children.


_______________________________________________

Yes, russiandoll, that sounds very similar to the 'abuse survivor story' I mentioned a couple of pages back.
I just don't get the men bathing other people's children.
I had a little girl stay with me and my boys for a few days several years back. She got filthy and needed a bath, but I wouldn't have dreamt of doing it without her parents permission...
Its just plain odd. If the parents are not around, fine, but if they're not?
I don't buy the Tapas men were being helpful or chivalrous, either. It all screams 'sinister' to me.

rainbow-fairy wrote:

jd wrote:I don't know if this has been mentioned before on this topic but on the morning of 4th May 2007, the mccanns were questioned by Yvonne Martin who had been working for 25 years as a child protector. The aggression towards her and in particular david payne watching & then butting in telling her where to go is very suspicious. I tend to think they were worried by who she was and what she would/could find out about them which is the only explanation for their behaviour towards her. david payne seemed to be the one who 'needed' to be in the control of the situation so maybe he too has a 'number' hidden away and info deleted off the files somewhere? This also suggests gerrys CATS number was pre May 2007

You can read all Yvone's statements here and they are interesting with what she says [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine’s parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.

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.

What is also interesting is that 'holiday' in Majorca in sept 2005 re Gaspar statement. Like the holiday in PDL, this Majorca holiday was also organised by david payne and most will be familiar with him and the men only bathing the kids and the remarks he made about Maddie. Why would any 'man' (let alone a woman) want to be bathing their friends kids!!!! A strong picture is forming here

On a separate note, would it be just 'coincidental' if these holidays both organised by david payne just happened to be at resorts where 2 directors of Madeleine Foundation alledgely happen to have property interests....Food for thought

jd, thank you! Yvonne Martin. Yes I mentioned her and their reactions to her back on p6 I think. Just I couldn't recall her surname - I'd got it in my head it was Woods, for some reason.
I don't know if I come from a family of Neanderthal males, but they would NEVER bath the kids, not in a million years, not even their own... I totally agree that a strong picture is emerging, one that begins with 'P' and ends with 'A'...
Not so long back I read one of those 'abuse survivor' books. It was truly heartbreaking. The girls step-father was the one, and she told very graphically what 'bath times' were like... I can't remember the title, as I have 1000+ books its hard to keep track Worth a read though, shows how low abusers will go, and how invariably they are usually seen as 'pillars of the community', locking the abused in a cycle of silence.
I hope there is an extra specially fiery place in hell for all those who abuse children in whatever form that takes, I really do...

What triggered my radar when it all happened (and tbh I wasn't paying tooo much attention, too busy in the USA, but I just knew that quite obviously the Govt were in cover-up mode, and ehn I heard GB was involved, a kid missing, cover-up = paedophilia again) was how all these millionaires seemed to be coming out of the woodwordk IN PdL to help, Brian Kennedy, Clement Freud, And yet GM always said he had no friends in PdL. So in a very dodgy case, a 'new' friend Brian Kennedy puts his head on the media chopping block. Of course at the time, like most casual but intrested observers, I had no idea who he was.
If everyone is following the paedophile angle, that possible MBM was being 'pimped out', then a large resort like this with dozens of entrances and exits, in the low season, would be the perfect place for such a ring to arrange for victims to be supplied. 5A is coincidentally right on the edge, but also very very close to RM's mother's house. And as jd says it looks like there is a pattern of previous holidays and golf-breaks at places possible owned or timeshared by other big players in this case.
I think R Murat fits a certain kind of profile, as does Pat Brown, as did the LP wo said he was a 90 per center. We know GM as much as lied when asked if he knew RM (asked when RM presumably was made an arguido), GM dodges the question and says I'm not going to comment on that.
Thing is I posted yesterday the witness statement of the chap that (innocently) introduced RM to GM as an interpreter, this was very late on the 3rd, during all the commotion. The witness assumed GM and RM were meeting for the first time, my feeling is that they knew each other from way further back.
Reasons? Just a gut feeling, plus there is something big going on with RM, so that BK had to fly out and meet at RM's house, with Smethurst and RM's lawyer, to thrash something out. The meeting was allegedly arranged through a mutual friend, who appears to be Smethurst.
Sweet!!! If true, that means property dealer and used car salesman RM hung out with a masonic feemason top lawyer, dodgy dodgy dodgy. Next, I ask, is RM on the square? A mason? I would put money on it. I heard Smethurst/BK offered RM a job - this sounds like witness tampering/bribery to me.
Allegedly the 'job' bever materialised. Or did it? Is RM working on this 'job' now. A job of course can just mean a contract to do certain things. Like maybe keep quiet, shut up, divert etc etc etc.

Advocatus wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

Advocatus wrote:

rainbow-fairy wrote:

russiandoll wrote:I must have not communicated my thoughts very well as you and I are thinking along similar lines! I have read a few posts on other forums regarding this issue, from people thinking it is perfectly understandable that a file would be created for parents who admitted freely to leaving children unattended then one came to harm, [did not admit it, as that implies they were asked a question.... they actively brought "neglect" to everyone's attention].
I was saying here that there would be no reason to delete anything if this was standard social services procedure. I should have stated also that it is not a social services system but a police system for child protection [ isn't it? hope I am correct here]
I do not see how it could have been related to a social services visit that I believe was requested by the McCanns on their return to UK as has been suggested elsewhere.
Bottom line is, I never did believe this file was created for any reason to do with possible neglect in May 07. I too believe it was in existence before that date, maybe a long time before.
Wondering what you thought I was saying....but I was not disagreeing with people who find this file and deletion of contents suspicious....my post was titled DODGY after all !!

russiandoll, I agree with all your conclusions, bar one. I have to say I unequivocally believe that in no shape or form did the McCanns request the Social Services visit. They just had to go along with what would be an automatic referral. I believe that 'we asked for a Social Services visit' is pure desperate spin, and in the same vein as Robert Murat+Arguido='Suspect', Kate/Gerry McCann+Arguido='Persons of Interest'.
No, I think Kate's alleged reaction to the Social Worker (was her name Yvonne somebody?) In PdL tells you all you need to know. She wasn't welcome and I'd bet my bottom dollar the ones who visited weren't, either. We are told, by Kate and Gerry (natch!) That the visiting social workers were 'obviously embarrassed to be having to scrutinising them' and that their conclusion was all was well (how could it be? One child missing allegedly as a result of neglect!?!) The thing is, family courts and social services are done so secretly we'd have no way of verifying this. Sean and Amelie could be on a child protection register for all we know. Also, who is to say that the 'Ward of Court' wasn't ordered by family court? Of course the version we are told is that WOC gives greater powers to aid a search etc, yet to my knowledge Ben Needham wasn't made a Ward?
TBH, I don't believe a word either of the McCanns say. If either of them said I was alive I'd feel my pulse to check...

Spot-on rainbow-fairy. More later on the 'stolen' wallet fairytale!!!

Uh-huh. I think somebody googled the wrong keyword, pressed the wrong button and then accidentally-on-purpose put in their card details before realising it was the 'wrong' site - I don't think so! Methinks someone has been a very naughty boy. I wasn't born yesterday nor am I as dim as I sometimes sound

I used to be a very senior credit card troubleshooter/systems analyst/fraud analyst and so on for one of top 3 players in the biz, Gerry's fairytale does not add up whatsoever. More when I get on a proper laptop. This credit card loss bullmerde is one of the biggest red flags I have ever seen.

But even preceded by THAT hokum, the Leicester Police refused to provide detailed credt/debit card transaction history, bank history et cetera.

That in itself is a scandal in a potential homicide inquiry.

Yes, homicide, sorry.
OK was reading some stats yesterday where some major CC company, forget who, said 350,000 of their tranx were to paedophile sites. That number, to me, is astonishing, and shows that the particular crime is on the rise.
The first things an accused paedophile says when questioned by the police are, someone hacked my computer, someone stole my wallet/credit cards, and so on.
The PJ initially asked if GM and KM had any cards, and they were bizarrely told 'no'...
The chief constable of Leicester Police was clearly lying when he said the PJ were being given full help and cooperation, when the simplest of things could not be supplied. The PJ were refused access to medical records, financial records, credit/debit card records (which can obviously pin point what you are purchasing, but also when and where), in fact any request was met with either a refusal, or the very bare minimum.
When the chief constable made his statement he was aware of the Gaspar statement. It could have blown the case wide open, but the LP stalled on sending it to Goncalo, for obvious reasons. From memory they kept this info for five months.
G Brown gets a call from Portugal - "he's off the case..." - two hours later Goncalao is called to his suoperior's office and told the same thing. So we know who is pulling all the strings here, the Lisbon Treaty about to be signed, full glare on Portugal etc etc etc
Shortly, I think it was 5 days or so, the vital Gaspar statements make their way to the PJ, now rudderless...
One last thing before the wallet theft fairytale. The initial findings from the FSS lab in Birmingham were that the sample matched Maddie to a RCH under 100pc - Stuart Prior and GA were cock-ahoop, with 15 out of 19 alleles matching, enough to convict in the UK and most countries.
But not so quick - Gordon hears about this and gathers up his Nokias, next minute FSS are pressured into issuing backtracking statements, lead LP Detective Stuart Prior is 'furious' in PT - but the Gordon magick has worked again. As a bonus prize the FSS is shut down.
The wallet - best thing to do is read this brilliant article by Dr Robert Martins: Max Bygraves
16 March 2011

"I WANNA TELL YOU A STORY"
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I would be most interested to hear of the findings of the credit card fraud expert that posted here this week. I am new to this board and my brain is frazzled! GA, PB, NSY, Court cases, CATS its endless!

Just out of curiousity, did Gerry Mccann claim to have had his credit card stolen, and if so, was it ever returned?

justme3 wrote:Just out of curiousity, did Gerry Mccann claim to have had his credit card stolen, and if so, was it ever returned?

Hi justme3, yes he did and yes it was!
IIRC, he claimed his wallet was stolen whilst he was using a cashpoint near Downing Street. It was subsequently returned, missing only some photo's of Maddie, I believe?
Was this a cover story to divert from what the card may have been used for? If it was kiddie p***, that would tie in with the 'theft' of the photo's of a child. Just a thought?

My thoughts exactly! I've never contributed to the child abuse by the parents debate, but something stinks here. The CATS file obviously exists, and even though I am no expert on this issue, NO ONE has a CATS file without a reason. So, when Madeliene "went missing" and Gerry, at least, has a CATS file , it now makes sense why an "abduction" was their only way out.

And what another coincidence...............he lost his card near DOWNING STREET!

justme3 wrote:My thoughts exactly! I've never contributed to the child abuse by the parents debate, but something stinks here. The CATS file obviously exists, and even though I am no expert on this issue, NO ONE has a CATS file without a reason. So, when Madeliene "went missing" and Gerry, at least, has a CATS file , it now makes sense why an "abduction" was their only way out.

And what another coincidence...............he lost his card near DOWNING STREET!

Well, if you check Forensic Linguistics, Gerry tells the journalist as early as 7/7/07 'the kids don't go to school for three years'. Meaning the twins, excluding Maddie and in answer to a question of how long they were staying in Portugal.
I'm still firmly convinced they meant to have a new lifestyle, (also see topic on the Original Plan). I also had a feeling they were trying to get away from something....

When tragedy hits, the only place a person wants to be is with his/her family. Strange that they had no intention of coming home from Portugal until they were made arguidos, then they couldn't get out of there quick enough. And even then, they were treated like VIPs.



One may sometimes tell a lie, but the grimace that accompanies it tells the truth.
Friedrich Nietzsche

Here is an intriguing thought. No cashpoints near downing street. Google maps has nearest at charing cross one end. Of whitehall and the others at the other end of parliament street in. Victoria street near the WE conference centre . The length of both roads is virtually all government buildings and full of tourists and police where downing street is guarded and blocked off to us ordinary types. So, reporting a theft would be easy but finding a Cashpoint not so easy or quick. I will stand corrected if someone knows more or even if the location is revealed of course. The treasury is quite close!

Sorry... the QE conference centre. Neither could be described as near downing street. So imo that name drop was for effect.

Now WHERE have I heard the names Gordon Brown and George Robinson before

It's good to go over old ground. One never knows what one has missed!

Blair's Protection of Elite Paedophile Rings Spells the End For His Career - NATO boss and Blair government insider Lord Robertson has threatened to sue Scotland's leading independent newspaper over internet allegations that he not only used his influence as a Freemason to procure a gun licence for child killer Thomas Hamilton, but was also a member of a clandestine paedophile ring reportedly set up by Hamilton for the British elite