Dr David Payne, Woodland Hospital, Kettering, didn't want to tell the Police what he knew about Madeleine McCann's death and still hasn't to this day

David Payne wrote:
“This is our matter only. We have a pact of silence. All comments must go through Gerry McCann”.

Jill Havern wrote:

by jeanmonroe
Interviewing UK Police Officer DC 1485 IVOR MESSIAH questioning Gerry McCann's 'best buddy' Dr David Payne. (Friday the eleventh of April two thousand and eight)

DC 1485: "Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth?'' (about a three year old child's 'disappearance')

D Payne 'reply': "Err the, there are a few things but I don't think this is the right forum for bringing those up.'

What are the 'few things' that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth, (about a child's 'disappearance') you want to keep 'SECRET' and not tell DC Messiah, Dave?

------------------
by Mirage

Can you imagine telling a police officer investigating a child's disappearance that you know a few relevant and pertinent things that you don't want to talk about now?

Can you imagine a police officer accepting that as an answer and letting you walk out of the station?

Can you imagine a police inquiry into a child's disappearance allowing witnesses to refresh their memories by reading their original statements or that of a spouse?

Can you imagine police officers, given a set of rogatory questions by the lead investigators in Portugal, allowing witnesses to be asked a question posed by two people who are suspects in the Portuguese investigation?

Can you imagine that almost nine years after making that statement, there is no evidence to suggest Dr Payne ever did enter a forum (of his choosing, or anyone else's) to divulge those pertinent and relevant details, not even after DCI Redwood revealed that the child may not have left the apartment alive?

Can anyone explain why that same witness, present in the vital hours and minutes before that child went missing, should have been, along with his wife, removed from a Crimewatch reconstruction that appealed to millions here and in certain other countries - but not Portugal, where the crime took place?


CMOMM: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t13732-madeleine-mccann-cops-hunt-worker-at-resort-as-they-fear-he-kept-secrets-from-local-police

 Dr David Payne, at work, suspected of paedophilia by Dr Katarina Gaspar http://thegaspersstatement.blogspot.co.uk/

With journalist Sonia Poulton

Related links:
http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/is-dr-david-payne-formerly-of-leicester.html

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t11737p10-have-i-just-met-david-payne

PeterMac wrote:And it is not just Dr Payne.

Let us refresh our memories


4078    “You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
Dianne Webster:    “That’s right, yes.”
 
4078    “And you’d been very restrained in what you said.”
Dianne Webster:    “Yeah, yeah.”


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm

But the whole thing gets even more Kafkaesque . . .
We come across a very strange, bizarre, if not to say amusing, conundrum.

Let us assume that the aforementioned “Super (inaudible)” is in fact a super-injunction.
The Super-injunction is a relatively recent invention in English law, and was in fact given this name by a journalist. 
Definition:  In English tort law, a super-injunction is a type of injunction that prevents publication of information that is in issue and also prevents the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all.

So we have no way of knowing if there is such an order, but nor is anyone allowed to tell us.

And since we cannot know, and are prevented by law from knowing, we are surely at liberty to blunder on and discuss it, secure in the belief that we are not allowed to know and that no one is allowed to tell us . . .   [ I am not sure if that makes sense, but it seems to be the Law, and as often is the case, this particular aspect of libel law was 'developed' = invented, by Peter Carter-Ruck and His Honour Mr Justice Eady ]   
Any person who tells us would by definition be committing a very serious and punishable Tort by breaching the order, but – “. . . there’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza . . .”

Is there then a Super-injunction ?
Given that we cannot know, and are not allowed to know, what are the facts ?

1 Mrs Webster appears to confirm a proposition put to her by a detective.
The context seem to indicate that she feels ‘restrained’ by whatever it might be.

2 In the decade since the Rogatory interviews, and indeed for many months before, not a single one of the Tapas 7 has spoken in public about the events of late April and early May 2007.
Nor have any of the family members.   Even the egregious stentorian Philomena was eventually silenced.
And yet all have stories which would be worth money to the Tabloid press.

3 The Tabloid press have apparently not sent reporters to all their home addresses and places of work, rooting out the details, or simply making things up when they find nothing.
Even on significant anniversaries they have remained silent, allowing only the McCanns and Mitchell to repeat the official line.  The names of the journalists “permitted’ to handle the material are by now well known, even infamous.

4 On the other hand the Tabloid Press, in the form of Sky News and in the person of the egregious Martin Brunt, described as their Crime Correspondent, harassed and badgered, and then exposed a totally innocent woman to national vilification and abuse, by a clear attempt to stir up public hatred against her for an an entire day, until she was pushed into taking her own life.

But they did not speak to the person who had prepared the Dossier of Death - even we, with reasonable certainty, know who it was.

Why not?
Were they too - restrained ?

I don't know.  And speculation is pointless, since we are not allowed to know . . .

Sleep well.

PeterMac wrote:

But the whole thing gets even more Kafkaesque . . .
We come across a very strange, bizarre, if not to say amusing, conundrum.

Let us assume that the aforementioned “Super (inaudible)” is in fact a super-injunction.
The Super-injunction is a relatively recent invention in English law, and was in fact given this name by a journalist. 
Definition:  In English tort law, a super-injunction is a type of injunction that prevents publication of information that is in issue and also prevents the reporting of the fact that the injunction exists at all.

So we have no way of knowing if there is such an order, but nor is anyone allowed to tell us.

And since we cannot know, and are prevented by law from knowing, we are surely at liberty to blunder on and discuss it, secure in the belief that we are not allowed to know and that no one is allowed to tell us . . .   [ I am not sure if that makes sense, but it seems to be the Law, and as often is the case, this particular aspect of libel law was 'developed' = invented, by Peter Carter-Ruck and His Honour Mr Justice Eady ]   
Any person who tells us would by definition be committing a very serious and punishable Tort by breaching the order, but – “. . . there’s a hole in my bucket, dear Liza, dear Liza . . .”

Is there then a Super-injunction ?
Given that we cannot know, and are not allowed to know, what are the facts ?

1 Mrs Webster appears to confirm a proposition put to her by a detective.
The context seem to indicate that she feels ‘restrained’ by whatever it might be.

2 In the decade since the Rogatory interviews, and indeed for many months before, not a single one of the Tapas 7 has spoken in public about the events of late April and early May 2007.
Nor have any of the family members.   Even the egregious stentorian Philomena was eventually silenced.
And yet all have stories which would be worth money to the Tabloid press.

3 The Tabloid press have apparently not sent reporters to all their home addresses and places of work, rooting out the details, or simply making things up when they find nothing.
Even on significant anniversaries they have remained silent, allowing only the McCanns and Mitchell to repeat the official line.  The names of the journalists “permitted’ to handle the material are by now well known, even infamous.

4 On the other hand the Tabloid Press, in the form of Sky News and in the person of the egregious Martin Brunt, described as their Crime Correspondent, harassed and badgered, and then exposed a totally innocent woman to national vilification and abuse, by a clear attempt to stir up public hatred against her for an an entire day, until she was pushed into taking her own life.

But they did not speak to the person who had prepared the Dossier of Death - even we, with reasonable certainty, know who it was.

Why not?
Were they too - restrained ?

I don't know.  And speculation is pointless, since we are not allowed to know . . .

Sleep well.

PeterMac wrote:The Tapas 7 may have their own reasons for not telling everything they know, though it is surely odd that they would then tell the Police that they were not going to tell them . . .

PeterMac wrote:We have no way of knowing, and can only guess. And we can never know whether our guess is right, or wrong.

The Tapas 7 may have their own reasons for not telling everything they know, though it is surely odd that they would then tell the Police that they were not going to tell them . . .
But this case is extremely strange on many levels, so we should not be surprised.
 
I suspect that we have all missed that the jub-jub bird was involved, and that a frumious bandersnatch had gyred and gimbled through the open wabe and used the vorpal sword to whoosh the brillig shutters before leaving through the mimsy borogoves, leaving the slithy toves to clean up after the mome raths had outgrabe.

(Actually, that seems to make slightly more sense than the official story.) 


Happy Christmas

PeterMac wrote:And is the Mortgage paid in full ?
And will the Tweedledums desist ?

Oh frabjous day, Caloo, Calay
He chortled in his joy