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

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 16:44

Daoud wrote:
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.

It is possible

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.

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 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.

@ Daoud

One cannot express enough shock and horror that you would dare take both Tony Bennett and oneself to task in the same post!

However, it is Christmas big grin

So stop splitting hairs.

If you would like clarification on any points one may have missed out, one would ask that you repeat your question.

They were sent to ascertain some quite subtle points, and the McCanns helping to prepare them was very interesting indeed.

The above is not a conclusion one has drawn, it is merely an observation.

One has not disputed that we could compare A Gaspar's statement with K Gaspar's statement.

One's own instinct, honed from many years spent at the Old Bailey, says that the Gaspars statements are indeed true statements, and made in all good faith.

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.

The rambling incoherence has great bearing on the veracity of the Gaspars' statements. Note that the Gaspars' are able to string more than four words together in a structured sentence. This is not because of the translator having super powers of perception of what they thought the Gaspars may have meant.

It's not about comparison but method.

It is about comparison, albeit one deigns that the results and conclusion were not necessarily derived by using strict ethical method. But hey! This is not a court of law here, Daoud. We need not necessarily follow systems and procedures here. Let us call it the Elizabeth I method for argument's sake. big grin

Regarding ''Quien sabe?''. one would have to say that two people have already stated that they know more than we do. Perhaps you would be better off asking them. They certainly seem to know a great deal more than we do. One would take their word for this. Only on this occasion of course.

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 17:00

Daoud wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:@ Daoud

We are most liberal here, however one thing one really does not like to see our posters say, is that a member should read the files or newspaper articles etc. The very fact of the matter is, there will be very few lines written on this case that Tony Bennett has not read and dissected. He would more than likely be able to give you a word count on any file or article without having to check.

One very much enjoys your advocacy and ability to ensure that we are not running away with ourselves at times, but it is very rude to tell any member to read something. If it is apparent that a poster is not up to speed, you can offer links and explain where they may find information they are looking to discuss, or even guide them if it is beneficial, but you must not tell them to do so. One is rather a fuddy duddy concerning manners, but there will be times when you see where one becomes quite irritated with posters oneself, and possibly become quite or even very rude. However, this is one of the perks of being a Moderator

The other perk, is to be able to ban people with the press of a button. Not that one would wish to remove you at all, for any length of time. So let us sit back and take deep breaths, and know that events are unfolding behind the scenes at a more rapid rate than we could possibly guess at. It's Christmas and a brand new year is about to dawn.

Guilty as charged, M'Lud, though I do plead extenuating circumstances - I thought I had made a suggestion, rather than issued an order.

Is it also very rude to insinuate that a poster is in some way flying a false flag? Following a hidden agenda?

The forbidding nature of your avatar had previously discouraged me from close examination of your details, so it is only know that I realise your exalted position on these boards - congrats Judge!

One has not done too badly, for a boy who once swabbed the decks with a bristleless brush. big grin

The staff here persuaded one to come out of retirement with the promise of a brand new gavel. Always used a splintered Victorian gavel, and was very cautious as to how hard one could bang it. This new one has a deep vibrant thud, like a hard-hitting golf club.

lol!

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 17:46

theolivebranch wrote:
Judge Mental wrote:@ Daoud

We are most liberal here, however one thing one really does not like to see our posters say, is that a member should read the files or newspaper articles etc. The very fact of the matter is, there will be very few lines written on this case that Tony Bennett has not read and dissected. He would more than likely be able to give you a word count on any file or article without having to check.

One very much enjoys your advocacy and ability to ensure that we are not running away with ourselves at times, but it is very rude to tell any member to read something. If it is apparent that a poster is not up to speed, you can offer links and explain where they may find information they are looking to discuss, or even guide them if it is beneficial, but you must not tell them to do so. One is rather a fuddy duddy concerning manners, but there will be times when you see where one becomes quite irritated with posters oneself, and possibly become quite or even very rude. However, this is one of the perks of being a Moderator

The other perk, is to be able to ban people with the press of a button. Not that one would wish to remove you at all, for any length of time. So let us sit back and take deep breaths, and know that events are unfolding behind the scenes at a more rapid rate than we could possibly guess at. It's Christmas and a brand new year is about to dawn.

Thank you for what you have said here Judge Mental. I am a member of another forum, an excellent one may I say, but one where I feel like a loose end, not one of the clever group, the multi posts group, and have started writing posts, then thinking "nah, not very good" a bit like a competion and not feeling able to enter.
So again many thanks, as you say folk like me much prefer a gentle guide to links rather than being advised to read the files, yes, where??

You are more than welcome theolivebranch. Many is the time and oft where one writes a post and has to stop oneself from posting lest it offend and be a nuisance, or cause an outbreak of hysteria not seen since the McCarthy Trials big grin

Always remember whilst you are here, that any and every contribution is a valid one. No matter how short or long or how well written. If it makes sense to you, and you feel you have made your point, what else matters? Unless of course, it could be misconstrued as supporting some outlandish abduction theory of course big grin

Believe it or not, there have been some very rare occasions when a poster may have alluded to some such theory on here, because all theories are allowed, but one cannot tell you how hard one grips onto this gavel whenever it happens! It is most unfair of posters to do this, because it is always Mitchell who cops for it. One can quite see how he has lost his boyish looks big grin

by aiyoyo 21.12.10 18:05

Daoud wrote:
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.

]Well well well Daoud such obnoxiousness! Why? Rattled? Mask down?

Well, you argument falls flat on its face. You said “you think it’s a myth (think? You not sure then?) ; because it IS a myth (how can you proclaimed that when you are not sure in the first place?). Well is it or it is not? You can’t even make up your mind eh? Well, you're not only contradicting yourself; it appears you are talking and answering yourself.

In your earlier post, you rightly cited that it was SOL which first published to the world ‘pact of silence’, so let’s get the fact right – the media did report it then, not a myth as you put it! It’s a myth only according to you alone because you said you believed it was down to bad google translation, well that is your prerogative, we all don’t have to believe as you do if your ARROGANT self permit me to say so. Unless you were present during DP and Journalist conversation, you are no wiser than us, you conceded that much, so your 'belief' if I may say is false, and most certainly doesn’t make it fact.

At most the supposition of his used of the word ‘pact’ or not is subjective and not a myth (as you alone posited it). Since the phrase originated from SOL surely quoting it is people’s prerogative. So your accusation that TB plucked it out of thin air so to speak is baseless. Are you confusing yourself (as usual) or trying to mislead people? Nothing is wrong with quoting from that article surely! AFAIK, pact of silence has been quoted by countless other posters as a phrase synonymous to DP. (BTW, does anyone know whether other papers have quoted it?)

How was the Portuguese journalist (or people for that matter) supposed to construe DP’s obnoxious utterance that it was their business, and no one else’s? He, who was supposed to be a witness, could at least be helpful and answered questions as best he could. Failing which, at worst he could always have said ‘no comments’ and that would suffice. No need to be rude. Whether he actually uttered (in your own opinion ‘old fashion word’) of ‘pact’ or not is not the point because his answer does not distract from his larger meaning. In fact he couldn’t have made it any more explicit than that ie they were not prepared to talk about it because it’s no body else’s business, meaning they were going to keep it among them.

Pact of Silence? If there wasn’t already an formally pre-agreed one, then DP’s answer demonstrated there was a mutually verbally agreed one. Yes, most certainly the holiday group is looking after one another. None of them has broken rank so far - Jesus H Christ, if that is not pact of silence, what the hell is?

Well, it is Christmas after all, wonder whether the Pact will gather together for their yuletide to commiserate Maddie or celebrate their freedom.

by Clarence Darling x 21.12.10 18:18

|Has David Payne asked any of the media to retract, or refrain from further publishing a 'possible myth' that there existed pact of silence. It certainly would not help his reputation for that kind of myth to gain further disclosure. An possible honest mistake by a journalist could be cleared up years ago.

If it was myself i would do all i could to distance myself from the journalists claim and speak openly to all the media about this 'pact', and the Gaspars statement as i would have nothing to lose from further questions and could thus get the search for Madeleine back on track without further distraction. Then i could nip off for a drinky with my chums,

by aiyoyo 21.12.10 18:23

Clarence Darling x wrote:|Has David Payne asked any of the media to retract, or refrain from further publishing a 'possible myth' that there existed pact of silence. It certainly would not help his reputation for that kind of myth to gain further disclosure. An possible honest mistake by a journalist could be cleared up years ago.

If it was myself i would do all i could to distance myself from the journalists claim and speak openly to all the media about this 'pact', and the Gaspars statement as i would have nothing to lose from further questions and could thus get the search for Madeleine back on track without further distraction. Then i could nip off for a drinky with my chums,

Excellent valid point!

by Daoud 21.12.10 19:11

Aiyoyo,
Ay ay ay is an expression I use when I'm rueful or mildly exasperated - I thought it both relevant here and mildly amusing to use it in conjunction with your name, a play on words. I'm dismayed to hear that you take it as an insult, for none was intended, I was mildly exasperated by your post - I hope you don't take that as an insult or expression of arrogance.

We are going around in circles here, so I'm sure you'll be glad that this will be my last post on this subject. The verb 'to think' has rather more than one meaning in English, and can be used to paraphrase something like in my considered opinion, given the facts as I know and understand them, I hold x to be true, as an example I think the world is a globe; but if you were to deprive me of satellite images of the world I'd have a hard time proving it to myself or anyone else.

I didn't say that the Pact of Silence was not reported, I said it was a media myth, especially in the sense that Tony was using it. And I still think so - for the reasons I gave earlier. Of course anyone has the right to quote whatever they like, I've never said anything different - but if you go back to what I said in the post you refer to, it was Tony's misuse/misunderstanding of the context in which the phrase was supposedly uttered that was my main point.

At the risk of further incurring your wrath, I don't think it is particularly 'obnoxious' to tell a journalist to get lost when he or she is making unsolicited phone calls to you; maybe where you live journalists are different, but over here in the UK they have little to recommend them - as I'm sure you're aware from the almost uniformly awful coverage given to Goncalo Amaral in the UK media. His duty was to talk to the PJ and any other law enforcement officers, not the press.

I hope you have a very Merry Christmas, and a Happy New Year.

All the best,
Daoud

by Daoud 21.12.10 19:15

Judge Mental,
You were lucky - when I was lad my bristleless brush didn't have a handle, and it weren't the deck we had to scrub but the keel.
Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year

by Judge Mental 21.12.10 20:36

Daoud wrote:Judge Mental,
You were lucky - when I was lad my bristleless brush didn't have a handle, and it weren't the deck we had to scrub but the keel.
Merry Xmas and a Happy New Year

There were weeks when we did not even have a deck to swab.
But we had a lovely polished keel, once the younger ones had bitten the barnacles off.

A very merry Christmas and a Happy New Year, Daoud. And watch out for minesweepers.

by Daoud 21.12.10 23:24

Barnacles!! ?? You were lucky!! We dreamed of barnacles .... Kate must have read the Gaspar statements... - Page 4 110921

by Shibboleth 22.12.10 7:26

@ Daoud.

You honestly think that the translator made a mistake when he/she translated pacto as pact?

I think you are clutching at straws here. That is think, as in believe.

Log in for more topics