Re: Kate must have read the Gaspar statements...

by Judge Mental 20.12.10 20:43

One simply cannot imagine that the doctors Gaspar would wish to destroy the reputations of the doctors McCann and Payne through any such sinful thoughts as jealousy. There has to be a lot more to this than we are yet properly party to.

It is all looking terribly grim this year, in comparison to their first year and second year. Time is a great healer for some and a great revealer for others.

by Daoud 20.12.10 20:54

The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.12.10 21:23

Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.

Beg to disagree, and disagree strongly:

1. The Gaspars were not in Praia da Luz that week.

2. The Gaspars made straightforward factual statements. Compare that with the evasions, fabrciations, half-truths, omissions and changes of story of the Tapas 9.

3. The Gaspars were not bound by the infamous David Payne's oath: 'This is our matter only. We have a pact of silence. Don't ask me one single more question about what might have happened to Madeleine'.

4. The Gaspars were willing to put aside their 'friendship' with the McCanns and the Paynes to tell Leicestershire Police some important information.

Sorry, Daoud, your sentence is a complete non-sequitur.

by Clarence Darling x 20.12.10 21:30

Indeed your honour. Without saying too much i know of the boyfriend of an MP who had extremely vicious false allegations made against him. These involved getting a young child to say they had been abused and subjected to a serious sexual assault in a video statement. The allegations were taken very seriously and fully investigated. The subject of them was devastated and the Police convinced by a serial liar.

Weeks of hideous torment, until the child protection unit in one county was put in contact with a Policeman in another county. There unfolded a string of such allegations in the past, against various magistrates and Police, solicitors....people who had asked for their money back etc. A line of cons and frauds with vicious allegations to cover his path.

It was here i discovered the notion of the BIG LIE which i shall come back to later...The subject of the allegations was cleared, and the next county got the full picture on what this guy was capable of, indeed how he used his own children for his own ends and how his wife believed everything he said and was totally dominated by him. Curiously enough his wife was previously a Doctor, and the man making the allegations claimed to be a Doctor, whether or not he ever was really a doctor abroad i am none to sure.

The claims were so vicious and convincing they had to be true, a huge child abuse network involving all the magistrates and Police the guy had ever come into contact with, anyone who had stood up to him. This made it a house of cards, where was the evidence for any of it? The guy making the allegations could be traced to every single person he had made the allegations against, and thus exactly the context in which he came into contact! There was none, not a shred of evidence.

Now this above may seem off the thread but i feel it should be said that for anyone to make such an allegation, and take it through to a sworn statement to the Police, it must be an enormous deal and not to be taken lightly if the concerns are genuine.

To do so out of malice and vindictive revenge is a whole other game. The mind set would have surely (if not that of someone insane), to be someone who had suffered a very real or imagined slight, something which would really set them on course for bitterness and revenge regardless of the damage caused to other family or friends in the vicinity.

Gaspar then must be very very very bitter and twisted about something quite specific at such a time and place, something that could surely be identified rapidly by the SUBJECT of the allegation, surely not a third party victim of the allegation? But the allegation is without the 'spice' of a more serious charge, it is what it is, when there is room for so much embellishment.

Jealous? Someone had better come up with a good specific reason for such jealousy and evil spite. They may have to give those reasons under oath without a support group in the dock alongside them.

by Daoud 20.12.10 22:58

Tony Bennett wrote:
Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.
Beg to disagree, and disagree strongly:

1. The Gaspars were not in Praia da Luz that week.

2. The Gaspars made straightforward factual statements. Compare that with the evasions, fabrciations, half-truths, omissions and changes of story of the Tapas 9.

3. The Gaspars were not bound by the infamous David Payne's oath: 'This is our matter only. We have a pact of silence. Don't ask me one single more question about what might have happened to Madeleine'.

4. The Gaspars were willing to put aside their 'friendship' with the McCanns and the Paynes to tell Leicestershire Police some important information.

Sorry, Daoud, your sentence is a complete non-sequitur.

Hi Tony,
1. Of course they weren't, so what - but they had been on a DP and McC holiday previously
2. Not sure what you're trying to say here
3. This is a media myth - there was no 'pact of silence' - do some research
4. As you see it.

Non sequitur - ? From what ?

by **Tony Bennett** 20.12.10 23:21

Clarence Darling x wrote:The allegations were taken very seriously and fully investigated. The subject of them was devastated and the Police convinced by a serial liar. Weeks of hideous torment, until the child protection unit in one county was put in contact with a policeman in another county...A line of cons and frauds with vicious allegations to cover his path. It was here I discovered the notion of the BIG LIE which I shall come back to later...The subject of the allegations was clearedNow this above may seem off the thread but i feel it should be said that for anyone to make such an allegation, and take it through to a sworn statement to the Police, it must be an enormous deal and not to be taken lightly if the concerns are genuine.

REPLY, 'Clarence Darling x', I have not yet responded to any of your posts as to be perfectly honest I find them a trifle hard to follow, a bit obtuse in fact if you don't mind me saying so, almost at times as though you are speaking in riddles. I don't mean to be rude, just speaking plainly. However, your account of a man who told a 'BIG LIE' rang big bells for me and strangely enough only this morning I was reminded of a man and his daughter I tried to help a few years ago who were also the victim of a 'BIG LIE'. I give details below and hope I haven't confused anyone with my use of all those initials (I have to anonymise the case for obviosu reasons). The teacher bit, the Wood Green Court bit and all the other details are true, however. I would like to say a lot more about the case because the way the police and the Social Services crusaded against this innocent man on the basis of such flimsy, indeed wholly false, allegations was totally disgraceful.

For anyone to make such an allegation, and take it through to a sworn statement to the police, it must be an enormous deal and not to be taken lightly if the concerns are genuine. To do so out of malice and vindictive revenge is a whole other game. The mind set would have surely (if not that of someone insane), to be someone who had suffered a very real or imagined slight, something which would really set them on course for bitterness and revenge regardless of the damage caused to other family or friends in the vicinity.

REPLY: Tell me about it!

THE CONTINUING TALE OF A, B, C, D, E, F, G and H:

When I was a Child Protection Social Worker in 2005, I was allocated the case of a man, let’s call him A, and his 15-year-old daughter, B.

I’m going to keep this very brief, though the full details are fascinating and quite horrifying. More might well be written about this case soon, as a court case in London is coming up.

The case papers I read told me that A had been sexually abusing B.

I learnt that the information that A had been abusing B had come from A’s former wife, C, and her new partner, D. D was a teacher at a London school.

However, and crucially, these allegations were made by the eldest daughter of A and C, let’s call her E. E was living with C and D, while B preferred to live with her Dad, A.

E had gone to the police with highly credible and detailed allegations against A.

The key police officer who first interviewed E was a senior in the Borough Child Protection Team, let’s call her F. She fervently believed E. But, as we shall see in a moment, E had told a ‘BIG LIE’.

She called a meeting with the Social Services, as is required under Child Protection procedures. There was no hesitation, B was to be removed from A’s care as she was considered to be at serious risk. After all, if A had abused E, he could also abuse B.

F interviewed A in a very hostile, aggressive manner. He was later charged with sexual assault on a minor.

At this time, A had a new female friend, let’s call her G. And G had a daughter, H.

Now B and H were very good friends.

A and B and G and H joined forces to persuade the Police and Social Services that rather than B go to a foster home or children’s home, could B live at G and H’s house for the foreseeable future.

After a considerable amount of time and much anguish all round, Social Services conceded through gritted teeth. In doing so, they banned A from visiting his girlfriend F except under supervision, and banned B from visiting her father, A, except under supervision. All this took a great toll on the father’s well-being and on B’s school work in her GCSE year.

By the time I was appointed to be the family’s social worker, this strict supervision regime was still in place, and a Guardian-ad-Litem had also been appointed to prepare a report for the court which was considering making a Care Order.

To cut a long story short, after a few visits to the parties concerned, I learnt that C was quite disturbed and had been in and out of psychiatric hospital. I formed the view that she, D and E were fabricating their story.

I tried with some limited success to relax the strict supervision regime, and filed reports suggesting that it was possible that the allegations against him had been fabricated.

The police though pursued A relentlessly. By the time the case came to court, I was in another job with another authority.

A invited me to attend the case, heard at Wood Green Crown Court. A was in the dock. The witnesses, C, D and E were in a huddle, and C gave her evidence first.

Then something most unusual happened. Ten minutes into C’s evidence, one of the jury handed up a note to the judge via the jury foreman. After some considerable hesitation, the judge said: ‘Well, I am obliged by the rules of the court to read out question posed by the juror. He has asked: “Are we seriously expected to believe this evidence?”

It hardly got the prosecution off to a good start!

Not surprisingly, after hearing all the evidence, the jury took less than 15 minutes to acquit A unanimously.

I kept in touch with A. A few months later, Social Services decided they didn’t need their Care Order, and that B could return home to live with her father. The father kindly invited me to a celebration one Saturday afternoon for all his family and friends.

I kept in occasional touch with them all. Last year my wife and I were invited to the wedding of A and F. It was a happy occasion, with all the hurt and anguish of previous years behind them, if not quite forgotten. B had done well at school and was now pursuing her chosen career.

Only this morning I had occasion to ring A and F. And this is the astounding story they told me:

D is to face numerous charges of USI and sexual assault in the New Year, strangely enough in the very same court, Wood Green, where he, C and E made their baseless accusations against A
Female witnesses at D’s former school are to give evidence against him, and - the most amazing of all
E is now a serving Police Officer and is to give evidence against D. It seems that D coerced her into making false allegations against A and moreover committed sexual offences against E. At this stage I don’t know how bad these offences were.

That’s all I want to say now, I may be able to say more after the trial of D.

by aiyoyo 20.12.10 23:42

Jealous! I seriously doubt it.

Unless a person has lost her marbles, otherwise who would be jealous of a skinny bimbo who cant string a sentence without err....uhn....you know.....and who recks of cadaverine all over?

Besides the Gaspars are doctors too, and proven themselves to be worthy by their genuine concerns for children. They must have been genuinely revolted with DP and GM's behavior to have taken the risk.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.12.10 23:56

Daoud wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.
Beg to disagree, and disagree strongly:

1. The Gaspars were not in Praia da Luz that week.

2. The Gaspars made straightforward factual statements. Compare that with the evasions, fabrciations, half-truths, omissions and changes of story of the Tapas 9.

3. The Gaspars were not bound by the infamous David Payne's oath: 'This is our matter only. We have a pact of silence. Don't ask me one single more question about what might have happened to Madeleine'.

4. The Gaspars were willing to put aside their 'friendship' with the McCanns and the Paynes to tell Leicestershire Police some important information.

Sorry, Daoud, your sentence is a complete non-sequitur.

Hi Tony,
1. Of course they weren't, so what - but they had been on a DP and McC holiday previously

REPLY: You said that the statements of any friend of the McCanns should be treated with caution & scepticism. That ignores the differences there may be between one friend and another. Some friends are close, others less so. In this case, the McCanns clearly went on holiday with very close friends, so close, according to Dr Kate McCann, that they were 'so into each other'. It is also clear from the Gaspars' statements themselves that they were not close friends of the McCanns - and indeed seem to have drifted apart after Dr David Payne made those suggestive gestures with his left hand and his right finger (or was it the other way round, I'm not wholly sure?). Having gone on a previous DP-organised holiday doesn't make them 'close friends', but you were lumping all 'friends' together, no matter how close they are, or were.

2. Not sure what you're trying to say here

REPLY: I'll spell it out in a little more detail. What you get from the Gaspars is two straightforward accounts, without all the evasions, fabrciations, half-truths, omissions and changes of story of the Tapas 9. (You do agree with that, don't you?).
(a) Think of Jane Tanner's changes of story.
(b) Think of the McCanns' change of story about the shutters.
(c) Think of Dr Matthew Oldfield being unable to recall how many times he checked that night and whether he entered the bedroom or not.
(d) Think of Dr Payne saying he strolled into the McCanns' apartment at 6.30pm on 3rd May, through the open patio door, sat down, chatted away to Dr Kate McCann, saw all the children ready for bed already in their white pyjamas.
(e) Then think of Dr Kate McCann, who maintains that Dr Payne knocked on the veranda door, not the patio door, while she was dressed only in a towel, and she sent him away without letting him in after just 30 seconds.
(f) Think of Dr Gerald McCann saying he and his wife were the first at the table that night and Rachael Oldfield/Mampilly saying that they were the last.
(g) Think of Dr McCann saying he put the children in their beds and then later changing that to 'cots'.
(h) Think of there being three different versions of who read the children their bedtimne stories that night. There's a much longer list of such contradictionsnand changes of story, but hopefully I have made my point?

3. This is a media myth - there was no 'pact of silence' - do some research.

REPLY: It is no 'media myth'. I agree that Dr David Payne probably did not use the actual words 'a pact of silence'. But for sure, he said 'I'm not going to say anything, go to Dr McCann and his spokesman' - or words to that effect. And isn't that what happened? The McCanns and their legal advisers and their public relations people did all the talking. What was there to stop the rest of the 'Tapas 9' talking freely about a missing girl they all desperately wanted found? Why didn't they? Anyone might reasonable infer that they were trying to hide something.

4. As you see it.

REPLY: I said: "The Gaspars were willing to put aside their 'friendship' with the McCanns and the Paynes to tell Leicestershire Police some important information". The Gaspars are both GPs. Doctors do not usually tell on each other. They had been on friendly terms with the McCanns, which was an additional reason why they might have been unwilling to talk to Leicestershire Police. On top of that, if you've read their statements, you'll see that they only developed real concern when they saw Dr David Payne's mug-shot on TV. These actions tend to back up what you say is my view. Do you have any real basis for challenging that view?

Non sequitur - ? From what ?

REPLY: See my first answer above. Your logic is: 'Anyone who is a friend of the McCanns should be treated with the same suspicion as the Tapas 9'. I have given you, here, quite a few reasons as to why there are cogent reasons for treating the Gaspars' account with little or no suspicion - as against the stumbling, changing, hesitating statements of the Tapas 9 which we have very good reason to treat with enormous suspicion.

by aiyoyo 21.12.10 0:14

Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.

No, not true at all.

You are not comparing apple for apple, so no basis for comparison.

T7 was group on same holiday and on crime scene, complicited and likely in the cover up collectively.

Gaspars not implicated nor accessories in the crime.
Their statements were based on scene of another holiday.
They must be revolted by DP and GM behavior and their genuine concerns children has won over their decision when they approached the police. That kind of decision involves ponderous consideration and not taken lightly as there's risk of losing friends.

Nobody knows the result of that investigation but there musnt be anything in it or we would have heard something by now.

The Gaspars were courageous to have done that for the sake of children. Kudos to them.

At least we can take it paedophile among T9 were investigated and ruled out presumably.

by Clarence Darling x 21.12.10 0:51

Apologies for the obtuse i try to be careful in what i say although i feel i should try to avoid the sarcasm!

What these tales tell us is that sadly false and malicious allegations are made. Frequently lets hope not but for saftey sake assume the worst?

I know that the Police can calmy dissmiss some but are duty bound to investigate all, how far that investigation goes is another matter.

I know of a Met officer several years ago who had gent come into his station and hand over a long handwritten confession to being Jack The Ripper. Written at the time of his crimes in the form of a journal. Before getting rid of Jack by pointing out that ball point pens had not been invented when he was writing up his journal, and although obviously the gent was several decades too young to be Jack, the 'confession', had to be read for what ever else may have been going on within the gents head.

Many of the false allegations will come from the bitter ex partner, perhaps directed at the new man in a relationship. Or perhaps a jilted business partner, maybe someone with much to hide or protect. If you want a BIG LIE you must have a BIG reason.

This is what is missing in the Gaspar statement, the reason for making it, if one makes the assumption it is false. Look for why the Gaspar statement is false and malicious and it can be shot full of holes in an instant. Quite easy.

However if one cannot find the obvious reason and one has need to shoot it down one can simply ignore it or silence it. One can simply ignore it by not answering it, or by pre screening any questions one may recieve to make sure no questions are actually asked about it. But if one is the subject of the allegation and other people are hearing it how does one ensure it does not recieve A. Credence B. More exposure.

If the statement is in the public domain there is a problem when the direct transcript can be read. A bit of obscurification about translations may muddy the waters for the casual observer, but how then to reduce the risk of A and B? Perhaps gentle dismissal such as 'Don't believe anything X says you know they are mad etc', or 'X was jealous'. Again fine for the casual observer or for those not inclined to root around further.

Perhaps a more constructed dismissal is called for, perhaps not a non-sequiter more of a double bluff?

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 1:58

Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.

Were it only possible to do so, Daoud. sad

We have seven witnesses and two arguidos/ex-arguidos who made their witness statements in Portugal, shortly after Madeleine's alleged abduction, and the two doctors Gaspar statements which were made England. The former nine statements were taken from the people who were close to the scene of the alleged crime. These statements have already proven to be unreliable in many parts. Simply because few statements corroborate or situate people where they allege they were; at the times they were supposed to be where they stated.

The latter two statements of the Gaspars are somewhat of an unknown quantity for the purposes of evaluation, due to us not having been able to cross reference their statements with those of any of others. We have not seen McCann or Payne's statements with regard to this matter. Indeed we do not know for certain if they exist. Although it has to be assumed that given the gravity of the accusations, they must have been seriously investigated. Which are the stronger statements? Those statements which we have already had a great many doubts over for various reasons, including their lack of consistency with some or all of the other statements? Or the latter two Gaspar statements, which currently stand alone and apart from all of the other statements?

Nine people have a lot to lose, and their statements were certainly not taken through choice, whereas the doctors Gaspar made statements with nothing at all to gain. The Gaspars made their statements, rightly or wrongly, and entirely of their own volition, upon seeing that Payne was holidaying where Madeleine is alleged to have disappeared from. No legal reason drove the Gaspars to make their complaints, whereas the Tapas 9 did not have a choice.

Which statements would be the most plausible and reasonable, given what we already know, and have tested with the help of so many dedicated posters who have such a wealth of brilliant and dedicated minds amongst them? Is it those which we have already dismissed in whole or in part, or those which need not have been made in the first instance? We have to give consideration to those statements which have the most convincing detail, without being backed up by multiple sources. In this case we have found that this has already opened more cans of worms than we can discuss on open fora. The Tapas 9 statements are found to be lacking in specificity and sufficient detail. Upon testing their veracity in order to atttribute weight, we find that the basis of some of the evidence provided tends to rely on other unreliable people to verify it.

However, the Gaspars have first-hand observations; both seeing the same thing and hearing the same thing at the same time, on more than one occasion. It has become apparent that the Tapas 9 were not always where they said they were, or doing what they have stated they were doing. All the individuals were wholly reliant on back up from other individuals or other multiple sources for detail. Some people may find it difficult to decide where the most compelling evidence may lie. One would suggest that there is no easy answer. However, we cannot compare two types of apple, to loosely quote aiyoyo.

Therefore as Tony Bennett has painstakingly pointed out, some witnesses already hold more value than others, simply because we have found too many discrepancies in the Tapas 9 statements. The rogatory letters were not sent to provide more paperwork for the lawyers, nor were they designed to annoy people. They were sent to ascertain some quite subtle points, and the McCanns helping to prepare them was very interesting indeed.

Therfore, we need not treat the Gaspars statements with the same degree of caution or scepticism.as we treat others.

BTW Excellent post aiyoyo.

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 2:17

Clarence Darling x wrote .......... ''Apologies for the obtuse i try to be careful in what i say although i feel i should try to avoid the sarcasm!''

big grin

One has the same problems. It has always been very difficult for oneself to discuss areas of this case without being obtuse and sarcastic. Nostradamus found himself writing in an equally obscure way whilst feeling under threat. Mitchell and the libel lawyers must understand that it is only our reaction to bizarre media exercises and the gagging orders which have been churned out at the drop of a hat.

by Shibboleth 21.12.10 4:53

What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

Nice behaviour from someone who's supposed friend has just had a child go missing.

by aiyoyo 21.12.10 7:35

Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

Nice behaviour from someone who's supposed friend has just had a child go missing.

So, not a forum myth then as Daoud claimed!

Now, why would he think it is a myth? Are we wrong or him wrong?

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?

by Shibboleth 21.12.10 7:49

According to this link, it was an interview with Sol newspaper.

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

by Daoud 21.12.10 7:58

Tony Bennett wrote:
Daoud wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.
Beg to disagree, and disagree strongly:

1. The Gaspars were not in Praia da Luz that week.

2. The Gaspars made straightforward factual statements. Compare that with the evasions, fabrciations, half-truths, omissions and changes of story of the Tapas 9.

3. The Gaspars were not bound by the infamous David Payne's oath: 'This is our matter only. We have a pact of silence. Don't ask me one single more question about what might have happened to Madeleine'.

4. The Gaspars were willing to put aside their 'friendship' with the McCanns and the Paynes to tell Leicestershire Police some important information.

Sorry, Daoud, your sentence is a complete non-sequitur.

Hi Tony,
1. Of course they weren't, so what - but they had been on a DP and McC holiday previously

REPLY: You said that the statements of any friend of the McCanns should be treated with caution & scepticism. That ignores the differences there may be between one friend and another. Some friends are close, others less so. In this case, the McCanns clearly went on holiday with very close friends, so close, according to Dr Kate McCann, that they were 'so into each other'. It is also clear from the Gaspars' statements themselves that they were not close friends of the McCanns - and indeed seem to have drifted apart after Dr David Payne made those suggestive gestures with his left hand and his right finger (or was it the other way round, I'm not wholly sure?). Having gone on a previous DP-organised holiday doesn't make them 'close friends', but you were lumping all 'friends' together, no matter how close they are, or were.

Apologies, I should have been more precise - all statements (regardless of their provenance) should be treated with the same caution/scepticism until verified, whether they support or undermine the McCanns' version of events. This is both elementary and obvious, and moreover fair. As to how close the Gs were to the McCanns I don't know - and I suspect that neither do you, but Arul G had been at university with KMcC so he knew her for longer than any of the T7 did. I agree with you that having been on a previous holiday with the McCs doesn't necessarily make them close friends - but the opposite is also true; so we just don't know how close they were/are. As for your last statement, as I say in my first sentence - all evidence should be examined equally critically if the truth is to be discovered. To be less critical of evidence which favours our theories/preconceptions/prejudices is self-deluding and helpful to no-one. Finally it seems that when convenient the McCs are considered close to the rest of the T9 ('so into each other') and at other times not close at all - if you read the threads on the MCF for example, where their distance from the T7 is emphasised by the amount of time they spent away from them....

2. Not sure what you're trying to say here

REPLY: I'll spell it out in a little more detail. What you get from the Gaspars is two straightforward accounts, without all the evasions, fabrciations, half-truths, omissions and changes of story of the Tapas 9. (You do agree with that, don't you?).
(a) Think of Jane Tanner's changes of story.
(b) Think of the McCanns' change of story about the shutters.
(c) Think of Dr Matthew Oldfield being unable to recall how many times he checked that night and whether he entered the bedroom or not.
(d) Think of Dr Payne saying he strolled into the McCanns' apartment at 6.30pm on 3rd May, through the open patio door, sat down, chatted away to Dr Kate McCann, saw all the children ready for bed already in their white pyjamas.
(e) Then think of Dr Kate McCann, who maintains that Dr Payne knocked on the veranda door, not the patio door, while she was dressed only in a towel, and she sent him away without letting him in after just 30 seconds.
(f) Think of Dr Gerald McCann saying he and his wife were the first at the table that night and Rachael Oldfield/Mampilly saying that they were the last.
(g) Think of Dr McCann saying he put the children in their beds and then later changing that to 'cots'.
(h) Think of there being three different versions of who read the children their bedtimne stories that night. There's a much longer list of such contradictionsnand changes of story, but hopefully I have made my point?

Have you read the Gaspars' statements with a critical eye? From your comments it would seem not - elsewhere on this forum I copied something I'd posted elsewhere stating my reservations about the Gs' statements, especially KG's, and showing how the two statements give conflicting opinions about DP. Despite the fact that I was not accusing the Gs of anything or even claiming that they were lying, just showing that the statements needed further verification/clarification before being accepted as Gospel truth, my original post was not well received - precisely because of the double standards alluded to in my first comment above. All your numbered
(lettered) points are entirely irrelevant to this discussion so there's no point my commenting on them.

3. This is a media myth - there was no 'pact of silence' - do some research.

REPLY: It is no 'media myth'. I agree that Dr David Payne probably did not use the actual words 'a pact of silence'. But for sure, he said 'I'm not going to say anything, go to Dr McCann and his spokesman' - or words to that effect. And isn't that what happened? The McCanns and their legal advisers and their public relations people did all the talking. What was there to stop the rest of the 'Tapas 9' talking freely about a missing girl they all desperately wanted found? Why didn't they? Anyone might reasonable infer that they were trying to hide something.

There is a huge difference between a Pact of Silence (with all that it implies) and a simple refusal to talk to the press, especially when it is used as a means of projecting guilt. That you admit DP 'probably did not use the actual words 'a pact of silence' but still see fit to use the term yourself and also mischaracterise it as 'the infamous DP's oath' is disturbing. Additionally I think it's almost certain (rather than probable) that DP never used the term.

4. As you see it.

REPLY: I said: "The Gaspars were willing to put aside their 'friendship' with the McCanns and the Paynes to tell Leicestershire Police some important information".
I have no idea - and I supect that neither have you - if the Gs "put
aside their 'friendship' with the McCanns and the Paynes to tell the LP
some important information". And why the quote marks around friendship?
The Gaspars are both GPs. Doctors do not usually tell on each other. They had been on friendly terms with the McCanns, which was an additional reason why they might have been unwilling to talk to Leicestershire Police. On top of that, if you've read their statements, you'll see that they only developed real concern when they saw Dr David Payne's mug-shot on TV.
Yes I have read their statements, rather more carefully and
critically than you have done, it would seem. 'They' didn't develop
'real concern' - KG did. And she didn't develop it only when she saw DP
on TV - I suggest you reread her statement.
These actions tend to back up what you say is my view. Do you have any real basis for challenging that view?
Has it occurred to you that the Gs statement might have been made to protect the McCs and DP from possible allegations of child abuse? And if that were true, that you might have to reconsider how close the Gs and McCs are? I only mention this because you appear to be considering their statements as either true or false, and their motives as either honest or dishonest - in the world of spin, misinformation and disinformation things are not always so clear cut. The McCs have elicited help and support from people who would have been beyond the reach of most of us (and most GPs), so why is it so shocking to consider that they may also have sought and received help from their friends?

Non sequitur - ? From what ?

REPLY: See my first answer above. Your logic is: 'Anyone who is a friend of the McCanns should be treated with the same suspicion as the Tapas 9'. I have given you, here, quite a few reasons as to why there are cogent reasons for treating the Gaspars' account with little or no suspicion - as against the stumbling, changing, hesitating statements of the Tapas 9 which we have very good reason to treat with enormous suspicion.

Not with 'suspicion' but 'caution and scepticism' - hardly the same thing. And as I stated in my first point, I should have made myself clearer, so apologies for not having done so. You haven't given any reasons, cogent or otherwise, for treating the Gs' account with little or no suspicion - not a single one! You have mentioned the T9's statements, but they have no bearing on the matter in hand - and thrown in a few assumptions. And you haven't quoted a word that either of the Gaspars wrote...

by Shibboleth 21.12.10 8:02

I have seen no reason for KG to make the statement up, why would she? It is a big thing to do, hardly likely to be motivated by jealousy of another woman. She seems to have no record of making up such spurious claims. So where is her motive? Why did the social worker Yvonne (Martin?) think she recognised DP? Why did Gerry McCann ask for the four family liason officers to be taken away?

by Daoud 21.12.10 8:03

aiyoyo wrote:
Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.

No, not true at all.

You are not comparing apple for apple, so no basis for comparison.

T7 was group on same holiday and on crime scene, complicited and likely in the cover up collectively.

Gaspars not implicated nor accessories in the crime.
Their statements were based on scene of another holiday.
They must be revolted by DP and GM behavior and their genuine concerns children has won over their decision when they approached the police. That kind of decision involves ponderous consideration and not taken lightly as there's risk of losing friends.

Nobody knows the result of that investigation but there musnt be anything in it or we would have heard something by now.

The Gaspars were courageous to have done that for the sake of children. Kudos to them.

At least we can take it paedophile among T9 were investigated and ruled out presumably.

Hi Aiyoyo,
As I said in my reply to Tony, I should have clearly stated that all the evidence should be treated equally critically.

by aiyoyo 21.12.10 8:30

Well, for a start people cant be expected to treat Gaspars statement with the same caution or skepticism as those of Tapas 7 just because they were all friends of mccanns. We are talking chalk and cheese for comparison so how to treat it in the same sense whatever same be.

First and foremost the T7 statements were all crime scene related, pertaining to circumstances culminating in the crime. Their statements have direct implication impact for the investigation and for the solving or non-solving (as the case proved) of the crime.

Whereas the Gaspars statements are standalone, independent of circumstances of crime scene in PDL. They were given as precautionary measure, an extra evaluation if you like, to be investigated to rule out or in whether paedophile angle plays a part in the crime.

Most importantly we know none of the T7 (friends of mccanns) ever made such a statement pertaining to paedophile in the group, that would have been preposterous!

If Daoud meant the Gaspars statements should in his opinion be regarded with caution or skepticism then that is fair enough- his perogative to think so, even conceding the Gaspars could have read the signals wrongly. However, saying it should be treated in the same manner as the T7 statements merely because they are all friends of mccanns bears a different meaning altogether.

I am sure Daoud meant to say the former but how does the friends bit tie in is perplexing. Seeing the gaspars were friends of mccanns and payne, more so they would have been in a very difficult dilemma, and their decision requires weighting pros and cons in favour of Maddie before approaching police. It's not easy going to police even if you suspect friends, it requires courage.

To the contrary the giving of statements by T7 has zilch to do with courage. It was an absolutely necessity - they were obligated to do so.

by Clarence Darling x 21.12.10 8:43

The trouble with attempting to exposing some myths for the hollow bubble that they be, is that they can turn out to be very real. We see yet again more publicity for the Gaspar statement, and now we see a source for the rather peculiar statement from DP.

Best indeed to keep quiet, say nothing and hope the whole sorry business will go away. Unless of course one has nothing to hide, in which case the awkward squad will not keep asking questions. But if they keep asking questions do all one can, to shut them up before too many people hear what they are ask!

But if too many people hear what the awkward squad is saying, rather than what one wants the people to hear then perhaps it is time to give up on trying to shut them up. Maybe it is time to try and disrupt the flow of very good information, hence outwardly reasonable miss-information such as bad translations, and the notion that all statements are un reliable and discredited, because others from the same group of associates quite plainly are! Outwardly reasonable initally, but again when the miss-information is subject to scrutiny it can be quietly and reasonably retracted in the hope the miss-information has at least gained some credence in the meantime.

Perhaps it is time for another 'version of the truth', say nothing again and point all questions in the direction of a 'version of the truth'....but that again is going to be subject to scrutiny...never ending..

If it was me i would give up and come out of the bunker. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Daoud 21.12.10 8:43

Judge Mental wrote:
Daoud wrote:The Drs Gaspar, like the Drs Payne and Dr Oldfield and Dr O'Brien were friends of the Drs McCann - therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7.

Were it only possible to do so, Daoud. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

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

We have seven witnesses and two arguidos/ex-arguidos who made their witness statements in Portugal, shortly after Madeleine's alleged abduction, and the two doctors Gaspar statements which were made England. The former nine statements were taken from the people who were close to the scene of the alleged crime. These statements have already proven to be unreliable in many parts. Simply because few statements corroborate or situate people where they allege they were; at the times they were supposed to be where they stated.

No disagreement here.

The latter two statements of the Gaspars are somewhat of an unknown quantity for the purposes of evaluation, due to us not having been able to cross reference their statements with those of any of others.
Actually we can compare what AG said with what KG said - and vice versa. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

We have not seen McCann or Payne's statements with regard to this matter. Indeed we do not know for certain if they exist. Although it has to be assumed that given the gravity of the accusations, they must have been seriously investigated.

Agreed.

Which are the stronger statements? Those statements which we have already had a great many doubts over for various reasons, including their lack of consistency with some or all of the other statements? Or the latter two Gaspar statements, which currently stand alone and apart from all of the other statements?

Quien sabe?

Nine people have a lot to lose, and their statements were certainly not taken through choice, whereas the doctors Gaspar made statements with nothing at all to gain. The Gaspars made their statements, rightly or wrongly, and entirely of their own volition, upon seeing that Payne was holidaying where Madeleine is alleged to have disappeared from. No legal reason drove the Gaspars to make their complaints, whereas the Tapas 9 did not have a choice.

So the Gs say - we don't actually know if the statements in green above are true or not.

Which statements would be the most plausible and reasonable, given what we already know, and have tested with the help of so many dedicated posters who have such a wealth of brilliant and dedicated minds amongst them? Is it those which we have already dismissed in whole or in part, or those which need not have been made in the first instance? We have to give consideration to those statements which have the most convincing detail, without being backed up by multiple sources. In this case we have found that this has already opened more cans of worms than we can discuss on open fora. The Tapas 9 statements are found to be lacking in specificity and sufficient detail. Upon testing their veracity in order to atttribute weight, we find that the basis of some of the evidence provided tends to rely on other unreliable people to verify it.

I think it was Aiyoyo who referred to apples in an earlier post - and you're making the same mistake here. Comparisons between the two sets of statements (Gs' and T7's) may be interesting and useful for a variety of reasons, but the rambling incoherence of the T7 has no bearing on the veracity of the Gs.

However, the Gaspars have first-hand observations; both seeing the same thing and hearing the same thing at the same time, on more than one occasion. It has become apparent that the Tapas 9 were not always where they said they were, or doing what they have stated they were doing. All the individuals were wholly reliant on back up from other individuals or other multiple sources for detail. Some people may find it difficult to decide where the most compelling evidence may lie. One would suggest that there is no easy answer. However, we cannot compare two types of apple, to loosely quote aiyoyo.

Here I'm afraid you're wrong - they both did not see and hear the same thing on more than one occasion, only KG claimed that the incident was repeated. I see you have reintroduced fresh fruit into the argument - I'm not especially fond of apples in their natural environment, even less so here [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] and I have no idea what they're doing in your post - I am not the one comparing the two sets of statements. The comment which provoked the injection of Golden Delicious vs Granny Smith into the discussion was this: 'therefore their statements should be treated with the same caution/scepticism as the statements of the T7'. I have already conceded to both Tony and Aiyoyo that I should have added the words 'and anyone else' to the end of the sentence. It's not about comparison but method.

Therefore as Tony Bennett has painstakingly pointed out, some witnesses already hold more value than others, simply because we have found too many discrepancies in the Tapas 9 statements. The rogatory letters were not sent to provide more paperwork for the lawyers, nor were they designed to annoy people. They were sent to ascertain some quite subtle points, and the McCanns helping to prepare them was very interesting indeed.

I don't disagree with the above, but I do with your conclusion:

Therfore, we need not treat the Gaspars statements with the same degree of caution or scepticism.as we treat others.

To repeat myself - ALL witness statements should be treated with caution and scepticism until they have been verified. In this case and in all other cases. What Tony didn't mention is we don't know what the Gs actually said - we have an English transation of the Portuguese translation of the original; if the rogatory interviews had been through the same process would the version presented to us have all the ums and errs? What else might have been lost in the double translation? Finally neither Tony nor yourself seems to realise that there are contradictions between the two statements made by the two Gaspars, and also KG's statement contains things which need, at the very least, clarification.

BTW Excellent post aiyoyo.

by Daoud 21.12.10 8:45

Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

Nice behaviour from someone who's supposed friend has just had a child go missing.

Do you have a source for that? I believe he was talking on the phone to a Portuguese journalist who'd rung him up out of the blue, but am not certain.

Sorry, have just seen the earlier reply to your post giving a source - with what seems to be a Google translation. It sounds to me as if a fed up DP is responding to an unsolicited call from a journalist by telling him to eff off and mind his own business - a pretty flimsy foundation for a sinister Pact of Silence or Tony's 'infamous DP oath'; though I'm unsure whether Tony is qualifying DP or the oath (or both?) with infamous. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by Daoud 21.12.10 8:57

aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

Nice behaviour from someone who's supposed friend has just had a child go missing.

So, not a forum myth then as Daoud claimed!

Now, why would he think it is a myth? Are we wrong or him wrong?

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?

Ay ay ay Aiyoyo!

I didn't claim it was a forum myth but a media myth - but no matter. I think it's a myth because it IS a myth. David Payne NEVER mentioned a Pact of Silence. See my previous post. And if you want to know why I think something, the quickest way to find out might be to ask me rather than a whole lot of people who I don't know and who don't know me. [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by aiyoyo 21.12.10 8:59

Shibboleth wrote:I have seen no reason for KG to make the statement up, why would she? It is a big thing to do, hardly likely to be motivated by jealousy of another woman. She seems to have no record of making up such spurious claims. So where is her motive? Why did the social worker Yvonne (Martin?) think she recognised DP? Why did Gerry McCann ask for the four family liason officers to be taken away?

I dont think there was any motive. If there was it would be for the protection of children and in particular to help Maddie.

It's probably not wrong to deduce it as: it's a case of she was revolted by their actions and concerned at that time. Dr Gaspar probably thought it was crude bordering on paedophile nature but dismissed it as 1) these were friends she was witnessing and she refused to believe the thoughts that crossed her mind and 2) no crime had happened in relation to those friends; hence best not to mull over too much, thus no action taken.

When Maddie's incident come up involving the v. peeple she'd witnessed and had a vague concern over at that point in time, the Gaspars probably felt it was better to err on the safe side - to mention it to police and have it look into just to rule it out.

My common sense tells me they wanted it 'ruled out' rather than 'ruled in'. I dont believe they were convinced of what they thought it was or they would have reported it much earlier. I believe they did it this time round since it directly involved one of those friend's children and they did it for what people could term as 'for their peace of mind' more than anything else. Not alledging anything but merely expressing a concern (just in case) to be looked into is probably a more appropriate way to put it.

by Daoud 21.12.10 9:02

Shibboleth wrote:I have seen no reason for KG to make the statement up, why would she? It is a big thing to do, hardly likely to be motivated by jealousy of another woman. She seems to have no record of making up such spurious claims. So where is her motive? Why did the social worker Yvonne (Martin?) think she recognised DP? Why did Gerry McCann ask for the four family liason officers to be taken away?

As I said in my reply to Tony, maybe to protect the Paynes/McCanns from possible charges of paedophilia. I'm not saying this is the case, just a possible motive.

by Daoud 21.12.10 9:07

aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:I have seen no reason for KG to make the statement up, why would she? It is a big thing to do, hardly likely to be motivated by jealousy of another woman. She seems to have no record of making up such spurious claims. So where is her motive? Why did the social worker Yvonne (Martin?) think she recognised DP? Why did Gerry McCann ask for the four family liason officers to be taken away?

I dont think there was any motive. If there was it would be for the protection of children and in particular to help Maddie.

It's probably not wrong to deduce it as: it's a case of she was revolted by their actions and concerned at that time. Dr Gaspar probably thought it was crude bordering on paedophile nature but dismissed it as 1) these were friends she was witnessing and she refused to believe the thoughts that crossed her mind and 2) no crime had happened in relation to those friends; hence best not to mull over too much, thus no action taken.

When Maddie's incident come up involving the v. peeple she'd witnessed and had a vague concern over at that point in time, the Gaspars probably felt it was better to err on the safe side - to mention it to police and have it look into just to rule it out.

My common sense tells me they wanted it 'ruled out' rather than 'ruled in'. I dont believe they were convinced of what they thought it was or they would have reported it much earlier. I believe they did it this time round since it directly involved one of those friend's children and they did it for what people could term as 'for their peace of mind' more than anything else. Not alledging anything but merely expressing a concern (just in case) to be looked into is probably a more appropriate way to put it.

But she didn't dismiss it at the time Aiyoyo - she told her husband to make sure he was always present if DP was bathing their child, and she imagined at the time that he was the sort of person who used the internet to watch child pornography.

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.10 9:41

Daoud wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?
I think it's a myth because it IS a myth. David Payne NEVER mentioned a Pact of Silence.

Hair-splitting.

Does it really matter, Daoud, if Dr David Payne said 'We have a pact of silence' - or he said: 'We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours'?

Either way, he gave out the message: 'It's no-one else's business', rather reminding one of this great Eric Clapton performance of: 'It's nobody's business if I do':

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

And does it really matter if he was 'fed up' when the Portuguese journalist 'phoned him? Fed up?*!?*! When a journalist was helping him and the Tapas 9 to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing? I would have jumped at the chance to talk, if a journalist rang me up and said: 'I'm putting together an article on your friend's missing child - can you help me please?'

Face it, the Gaspars rang Leicestershire Police not because Madeleine was missing but because they saw Dr David Payne on TV next to the McCanns. They recalled their previous concerns about him. They believed that his tendencies might be relevant to Madeleine's disappearance. They were prepared to commit their opinions to signed witness statements which the police could use in their investigation.

Your attempts to ascribe to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives, your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance...I find, well..., er, very interesting...

by Cheshire Cat 21.12.10 10:24

From Daves Rog interview, responding to a question about Yvonne Martin:

1485 "Did you advise the MCCANN’S to turn to her?”
Reply "Not at all, no.”
1485 "Not at all?”
Reply "Not at all. She was someone I’d certainly say to, to keep clear of you know and I, and I think pretty much I was saying look you know, appreciate your concern at this stage but you know it’s not the right time to be talking to her, if you want to leave a card then you know perhaps there might be a time in the future but you know can you just leave us please, and that was you know the basics of the conversation that I had with her. Err you know her timing was just completely off, err you know there was, I say there was someone else who visited on the night that she was abducted, I think she was from the upstairs and she was again you know trying to say there, there Kate, you’re alright, and again it was just completely inappropriate timing.”

I'm glad Dave went on to explain why Martin was "someone to keep clear of", otherwise we might suspect he had encountered her before... Wink

by **Tony Bennett** 21.12.10 10:34

Cheshire Cat wrote:From Daves Rog interview, responding to a question about Yvonne Martin:

1485 "Did you advise the MCCANN’S to turn to her?”
Reply "Not at all, no.”
1485 "Not at all?”
Reply "Not at all. She was someone I’d certainly say to, to keep clear of you know I'm glad Dave went on to explain why Martin was "someone to keep clear of", otherwise we might suspect he had encountered her before...

Great observation as usual, Cheshire Cat, and a very Happy Christmas to you and yours

by Daoud 21.12.10 10:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
Daoud wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:
Shibboleth wrote:What DP really said was,

We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours.

I am pretty sure everyone knows that infamous statement was attributed to DP because it was widely reported. Are the papers making it up?
I think it's a myth because it IS a myth. David Payne NEVER mentioned a Pact of Silence.
Hair-splitting.

Does it really matter, Daoud, if Dr David Payne said 'We have a pact of silence' - or he said: 'We have a pact. It is nobody's business but ours'?

Either way, he gave out the message: 'It's no-one else's business', rather reminding one of this great Eric Clapton performance of: 'It's nobody's business if I do':

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

And does it really matter if he was 'fed up' when the Portuguese journalist 'phoned him? Fed up?*!?*! When a journalist was helping him and the Tapas 9 to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing? I would have jumped at the chance to talk, if a journalist rang me up and said: 'I'm putting together an article on your friend's missing child - can you help me please?'

Face it, the Gaspars rang Leicestershire Police not because Madeleine was missing but because they saw Dr David Payne on TV next to the McCanns. They recalled their previous concerns about him. They believed that his tendencies might be relevant to Madeleine's disappearance. They were prepared to commit their opinions to signed witness statements which the police could use in their investigation.

Your attempts to ascribe to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives, your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance...I find, well..., er, very interesting...

Tony,
As I suggested in my earlier reply to you - do some research. The article which first brought the Pact of Silence to the attention of the world was published in Sol on the 30th June 2007. DP was not responding to a helpful journalist eager 'to publicise information about why Madeleine went missing' as you would know if you'd bothered to read the article in question - he was being asked specifically about why, contrary to what the GNR and others had said, some members of the T9 had placed Robert Murat at the scene on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Rather different from your entirely fictitious assumption, no?

This is what the relevant part of the article says (in translation, of course):

The Murat contradiction

Contrarily to the GNR elements and the Ocean Club's staff, who participated in the searches on the night before and assure they did not see Murat around, Gerry and some of his friends guarantee that he was there. And thus he becomes an arguido.

Gerry and Kate's friends, who are interrogated tightly by the PJ over almost a month, refuse to clarify this contradiction, when asked by Sol. "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business", says David Payne, another element with the group. Minutes after we tried to contact Kate, Gerry, in a fury, calls the Sol journalist: "What do you think you are doing? Do you think you're better than the Portuguese police? I'm going to forward your contact to PJ and you will have to explain yourselves".

You can read the whole article here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

So to answer the question you posed at the beginning of your post: Yes it does matter, for the simple reason that inaccuracies and misrepresentations soon spin out of control, as you have so ably and amply demonstrated in your utterly incorrect reading of what the journalist was asking about and DP responding to.

But despite getting so much so wrong, you know why the Gaspars contacted the police; you accuse me of attempting to ascribe 'to the Gaspars base and ulterior motives' when I did no such thing; your repeated and gross confusion over the facts when you state:
"your emphasis on Dr Payne not actually uttering the words 'pact of
silence' when it's clear he was referring the journalist to Dr Gerald
McCann and wouldn't say a word about Madeleine's disappearance"; all this allows you to finish on a rather snide accusatory note.

I find it far more 'interesting' that someone who has adopted your position can get such elementary things so wrong, and more disturbingly, go on to build flights of fancy on such precarious foundations.

ETA ps Those split hairs are all yours, not mine - I don't think DP ever used the word pact when talking to the journalist.