Re: What do YOU think happened to Madeleine?

by Guest 26.10.17 16:54

Willowthewisp - My friends and I took our kids on holiday, I trust my friends
with my life, but, with bathing children I have always done mine myself when
young and if they were at a sisters or grandparent's, that's different, but the
Gasper's hardly knew the Payne's, I found that very odd (If it happened) to
allow someone you don't hardly know to bathe your children.
But then I ask, what did the Gasper's have to gain by lying about their statements?
I don't even know what to make of the so called Payne visit, after all, again, Kate says one thing, David says another - This is why things are taken out of context, because nothing adds up.
Madeleine and Sean, then just Sean or Madeleine, I can't remember which tbh, door locked, door unlocked, 15 min, half an hour.....
Seemingly innocent or not? It does have to be taken into account to rule it in or out and you do have to look at everything logically, does it make sense? No. Then why not? That's the question!!

by Guest 26.10.17 17:09

silverdoe wrote:
[size=1][size=15]The, I mean, the other, there was a, the other person who contacted
[size=15]me which I didn‟t mention while I was at the Police Station was one
of the Portuguese err newspapers and err you know asking, you
know for comments and err [/size][/size][/size][size=1][size=15]so that could have been what the, you
know, the number. I spoke, I did speak to the other, the friends of
Simon ALDRIDGE‟S who you know who kindly bought the phones
and they actually bought the phones to the Portimão Police Station
and I went downstairs and got the phones and then err brought them
back upstairs.

--------

00:22:29 Reply
"Err I don‟t remember having any text conversation with any err
Portuguese newspapers so I presume that Portuguese number, they,
sorry yeah the other, the, the other Portuguese person I spoke with
was err there was err a Solicitor in err Lisbon who err the
conversation it may well have been with Lisa LACARNIE because
that was a friend of their family who they, they‟ve got[size=13] a business in
the UK but they deal with Portugal and Lisa said if you need any err
Portuguese advice then there‟s err Paolo, and again I‟ve got his
number in my other phone which might clarify that bit.”
[/size][/size][/size]

Just to add some info to these, as you quoted them.

The 'paper' referenced is a short call (78 secs) at 18:41 between David and TSF, who are affiliated with Jornal de Noticias and Diario de Noticias. No stories, so far as I have been able to find, were written by any of the aforementioned until May 12th.

Lisa Lakhani (spelt wrong in document) is a friend of theirs in Leicester. Night of the 4th there's a call at 20:56 between David and the company number for MPMG (M. Paulo Maia Goncalves Agentes e Representante) (see Anexo 53). Later in the night are texts with Paulo Goncalves, so it follows it's the same Paulo that he references (credit goes to Kiko for finding this). If, as David says, he got the phones while at the station, then it doesn't make sense to assume Paulo was the source of the phones, since David was talking for 383 seconds with the MPMG landline, which is in Abrantes (near Fatima) around the time he says they were delivered - a 3 h 23 min car journey according to Google.

by willowthewisp 26.10.17 17:10

silverdoe wrote:Willowthewisp - My friends and I took our kids on holiday, I trust my friends
with my life, but, with bathing children I have always done mine myself when
young and if they were at a sisters or grandparent's, that's different, but the
Gasper's hardly knew the Payne's, I found that very odd (If it happened) to
allow someone you don't hardly know to bathe your children.
But then I ask, what did the Gasper's have to gain by lying about their statements?
I don't even know what to make of the so called Payne visit, after all, again, Kate says one thing, David says another - This is why things are taken out of context, because nothing adds up.
Madeleine and Sean, then just Sean or Madeleine, I can't remember which tbh, door locked, door unlocked, 15 min, half an hour.....
Seemingly innocent or not? It does have to be taken into account to rule it in or out and you do have to look at everything logically, does it make sense? No. Then why not? That's the question!!

Hi silverdoe,if normal every day people can see"gaps in statements" yet fully qualified Police personnel,at interviews cannot pick up on,or choose not to be relevant,as part of the investigation,then its the proverbial slippery slope to oblivion,which is where we are at today's point?
The only doubts everyone in the UK must have at the present moment after funding of over £12 Million pounds is the"Transparency Test"of what has or has Not been disclosed?
As here in the UK,the Police never"Reveal,what they have or Not found",I understand that you never reveal all of your evidence until in Open Court,but when the Police release virtually nothing after Six Years and any questions directed of their accountability is then"Hidden By disclosure of Evidence"clauses,they need to be held accountable for their actions or inactions?

by Guest 26.10.17 17:16

Willowthewisp - This is what's confusing, what we have or haven't been told?
What are lies, twists, half truths or the truth?
The 12 mil is an issue understandably with many. But also we can read the statements and see the discrepancies in the statements, and whilst in normal cases it can happen, in this case the amount of discrepancies there do see again,
to many, like lies.
Even experts with years of experience, body language experts, ex police or investigators etc have stated nothing about the tapas groups statement's adds up - So why haven't O.G interviewed them again?
I'm not an official with the case so I wouldn't know why they were held back, all I know is, look at the page numbering's. A lot are missing

by willowthewisp 26.10.17 17:25

silverdoe wrote:Willowthewisp - This is what's confusing, what we have or haven't been told?
What are lies, twists, half truths or the truth?
The 12 mil is an issue understandably with many. But also we can read the statements and see the discrepancies in the statements, and whilst in normal cases it can happen, in this case the amount of discrepancies there do see again,
to many, like lies.
Even experts with years of experience, body language experts, ex police or investigators etc have stated nothing about the tapas groups statement's adds up - So why haven't O.G interviewed them again?
I'm not an official with the case so I wouldn't know why they were held back, all I know is, look at the page numbering's. A lot are missing

Remember"Hillsborough",then there is Orgrveve,unsolved murder of Daniel Morgan,30 years of deception,over nearly Six full terms of Office of various Governments,deliberate systematic abuse processes,Over 800 Million pounds in collapsed Trails,wake up people it is your money that has been wasted,with Political affiliations very close to a Media mogul?

by Guest 26.10.17 17:28

Corruption is rife Willowthewisp, in every country, but some crimes, the police
do hold back information if one day they wish to prosecute - They always hold back a trump card....You never know

by willowthewisp 26.10.17 17:35

silverdoe wrote:Corruption is rife Willowthewisp, in every country, but some crimes, the police
do hold back information if one day they wish to prosecute - They always hold back a trump card....You never know

That's what the Poker player risks,the Police are the dealers,holding the Ace they refuse to play,"The Deadman's Hand again"Motorhead", Overkill,RIP Lemmy,Phil.
Or in the classic Film,"He Beat erm,with a Handful of nothing" Some times it takes a real Cool hand! (Mr Goncalo Amaral)?Cool hand Luke,RIP Paul Newman and company?

by Liz Eagles 26.10.17 17:48

Dear God where is this gossip column thread heading?

and I don't like the beat up Verdi stuff either.

by willowthewisp 26.10.17 17:53

aquila wrote:Dear God where is this gossip column thread heading?

and I don't like the beat up Verdi stuff either.

Hi aquila,there is always Facebook or Donald's favourite Twitter,he's doing enough to terrorise the world isn't he.perhaps he may have Michael fallon join him to kill more Yemen People with Arms sales to Saudi Arabia,is that better for you?

by Liz Eagles 26.10.17 18:23

willowthewisp wrote:
aquila wrote:Dear God where is this gossip column thread heading?

and I don't like the beat up Verdi stuff either.
Hi aquila,there is always Facebook or Donald's favourite Twitter,he's doing enough to terrorise the world isn't he.perhaps he may have Michael fallon join him to kill more Yemen People with Arms sales to Saudi Arabia,is that better for you?

I'm bowing out but not before saying willowthewisp you are out of order and you know it, you have already posted in some sort of lackadaisical way pretending you didn't know better on one of my comments today and tagged words onto a sentence that I wrote to make it look I wrote that stuff. All this from a person who knows well how to use a forum and how to post.

I very much dislike your drifting in between being half coherently able to write in English and then being perfectly capable whilst dwelling in some sort of muddy water to post political nonsense without actually giving an opinion on anything.

As for Verdi, I like Verdi because he/she has a grasp on the facts of the case and can produce them in an instance, works hard to harbour those facts and has a personality and an opinion. I often tap Verdi on the nose.

I dislike the Mark Willis chap who disrupts the forum with meaningless mangle and Verdi entertains and responds.

Give Verdi a chance to be honest and true to the demise of a three year old little girl.

by willowthewisp 26.10.17 18:51

aquila wrote:
willowthewisp wrote:
aquila wrote:Dear God where is this gossip column thread heading?

and I don't like the beat up Verdi stuff either.
Hi aquila,there is always Facebook or Donald's favourite Twitter,he's doing enough to terrorise the world isn't he.perhaps he may have Michael fallon join him to kill more Yemen People with Arms sales to Saudi Arabia,is that better for you?
I'm bowing out but not before saying willowthewisp you are out of order and you know it, you have already posted in some sort of lackadaisical way pretending you didn't know better on one of my comments today and tagged words onto a sentence that I wrote to make it look I wrote that stuff. All this from a person who knows well how to use a forum and how to post.

I very much dislike your drifting in between being half coherently able to write in English and then being perfectly capable whilst dwelling in some sort of muddy water to post political nonsense without actually giving an opinion on anything.

As for Verdi, I like Verdi because he/she has a grasp on the facts of the case and can produce them in an instance, works hard to harbour those facts and has a personality and an opinion. I often tap Verdi on the nose.

I dislike the Mark Willis chap who disrupts the forum with meaningless mangle and Verdi entertains and responds.

Give Verdi a chance to be honest and true to the demise of a three year old little girl.

hi aquila, answer,Yes, I tried to "Add"what i had put in writing onto one of your posts,but on a New tread or additional post,which most times the original post has the addition added to it?

I am Not responsible for embroidering written words to your post as you have insinuated,that I had done, for some reason,ask the mods,it is their site?
The Two lines what had been added to your post,you are correct they are not yours,they are my words,i do not retract from them,as they are not offensive in anyway.
By all means the Mods can remove my words from your post,but I state once again,I have never added words to any person's post,so as to think that person has written those words.
On this point you are wrong to say I have made or added words to your post it is not True,it is a false accusation
.
This is a"Discussion forum"it doesn't state that a person cannot make reference to Politics or Political content,to you it maybe nonsense,that is your choice or opinion?
If it offends you or it is nonsense,do not respond to it,that is your choice,it is a"Free forum"isn't it?
Or are you going to make people wear a "Uniform or badge of honour" of what can be wrote about?

by Liz Eagles 26.10.17 19:01

I don't think I'm wrong.

by Guest 26.10.17 19:07

But you see, that's the thing. It should be a free speaking choice for every one,
we are all allowed a voice, and surely we all want to be a voice for Madeleine?
Whatever has happened to her, let's not deny, Kate and Gerry are the ones responsible for it, and the tapas group made the polices job harder than necessary and still they done the best they good.
Mistakes were made, but has operation grange, 13 million later done any better? NO. They done far worse, and worse still have not even interviewed the parents or the group which they should do and I am always willing to be proven wrong with facts through discussion, but I won't be silenced by anyone for having an opinion different from there's, no one should be, or belittled for it as I said before. I didn't get upset for being corrected, it's discussing, that's all.
The fault lies solely at the party or parties who or if has harmed Madeleine in any way, what's followed has been a farce by all involved - Sorry, that's the truth. Neglect to say the very least Willowthewisp you keep pressing the police, I'm not being rude, just saying, the police didn't harm Madeleine?
This topic has been titled, what do YOU think happened to Madeleine, and not Are the police corrupt? Or maybe I'm wrong? Anyhow, if I am, feel free to correct :)

by willowthewisp 26.10.17 20:50

silverdoe wrote:But you see, that's the thing. It should be a free speaking choice for every one,
we are all allowed a voice, and surely we all want to be a voice for Madeleine?
Whatever has happened to her, let's not deny, Kate and Gerry are the ones responsible for it, and the tapas group made the polices job harder than necessary and still they done the best they good.
Mistakes were made, but has operation grange, 13 million later done any better? NO. They done far worse, and worse still have not even interviewed the parents or the group which they should do and I am always willing to be proven wrong with facts through discussion, but I won't be silenced by anyone for having an opinion different from there's, no one should be, or belittled for it as I said before. I didn't get upset for being corrected, it's discussing, that's all.
The fault lies solely at the party or parties who or if has harmed Madeleine in any way, what's followed has been a farce by all involved - Sorry, that's the truth. Neglect to say the very least Willowthewisp you keep pressing the police, I'm not being rude, just saying, the police didn't harm Madeleine?
This topic has been titled, what do YOU think happened to Madeleine, and not Are the police corrupt? Or maybe I'm wrong? Anyhow, if I am, feel free to correct :)

You are in a way having the answer supplied back,but what is being mixed up is that,The Portugal PJ have been lambasted for the past ten years of"Incompetence",they therefore damaged the case?
The Tapas7/9 and the Parents,Clarence Mitchell and all the named associates,named on this site,as you have stated knowingly failed Madeleine McCann in the actions they took after the 3 May 2007.
I have never stated the Portugal PJ,GNR have harmed Madeleine McCann,the people who have done that are the MSM,who were manipulated by clever cunning persons,you know who I mean?
If you have read some of the files of which I have no doubt you have,that when you piece together,the amount of assistance that has been"gladly accepted" by these parties,then add in the"Political interference"over the past Ten years,by these people and the extreme closeness to UK Police Officers,ask yourselves one question.
Do you believe the 5 closing lines from Portugal PJ or Not?
The parents sought Civil redress against Mr Goncalo Amaral and the video Production company for over One million pounds,currently awaiting ECHR decision,after the Supreme Court of Portugal ruled in their favour 2017.
The"Truth of the Lie"is based on the Police work from the Portugal PJ,Portugal Authorities will determine on any persons to be prosecuted,which they re-opened,they have final say?
What has Evidence from Metodo 3 and the"Privately Gleaned Information"from privately hired persons got do with the Portugal PJ decisions?
So fraudsters who knowingly accepted donations from around the world"Abused the Trust"of the Trustees who were in charge of the "Find Madeleine fund"?
The Named Trustees have Never sought any "Civil/Police" redress to recover the funds from the "fraudsters" for their actions from the"find Madeleine Fund millions of Pounds?
Why have the UK Police force chosen to accept this Information as Factual?
They studied their paper work for six long years and still no determination,along with what they have gleaned from information they all ready possessed,Leicestershire Police Force,Operation Grange,Bob Small,call me Stu Prior,Meredydd Hughes,but what about Martin Grime and his Police dogs,Eddie,Keela?

by polyenne 26.10.17 20:53

You are not wrong Silverdoe. This is a discussion forum and people should not be disuaded from posting their own opinions and thoughts. This can often lead to healthy exchanges, sometimes taking parallel paths but so be it......who knows where they lead.

What I object to is the rare occasion when someone is seemingly chastised/castigated/belittled for a comment or opinion. This is often done by one who is clearly better read on the available information - we can’t all be “experts” or have the time to review many years (and sites) of research. In some cases, we’ve sailed very close to bigotry and that isn’t right.

And for Aquila’s benefit, I’m not referring to anyone specific but if the hat fits..........

by Verdi 26.10.17 20:55

silverdoe wrote:Oh and Verdi, I will also say, it doesn't matter if he made the phone call, I said,
why lie about making it?

Yes I know what you said and my reply was, I repeat...

"Nor does it indicate anywhere that he lied about making the telephone call. I can't remember is not the same as I didn't make the call."

by Guest 26.10.17 20:57

Verdi I respect you're opinion but I will disagree with you on this one if you don't mind? :-)

by willowthewisp 26.10.17 21:08

Verdi wrote:
silverdoe wrote:Oh and Verdi, I will also say, it doesn't matter if he made the phone call, I said,
why lie about making it?
Yes I know what you said and my reply was, I repeat...

"Nor does it indicate anywhere that he lied about making the telephone call. I can't remember is not the same as I didn't make the call."

Hi Verdi,Selective memory syndrome could be over ruled in a Court of Law,couldn't it,disregard the persons last comments,now can we have the jury back in please?

by Verdi 26.10.17 21:10

willowthewisp wrote:
silverdoe wrote:

Oh and Verdi, I will also say, it doesn't matter if he made the phone call, I said,
why lie about making it?
hi silverdoe,it sort of slipped David's mind,that phone call,but what is more interesting is that DCI 1485,knew of this phone call,but when asking David at his interview in April 2008,"that this information,(phone call)wasn't relevant or Pertinent to missing,Madeleine,within that forum,similar to the Gasper and other statements, at DCI 1485 disposal,that shone no light into what had happened in Portugal,of who was in the apartment,"When the Husband returned,but whose Husband"?

Am I reading you rightly - are you referring to this? If so, where do you get the idea that it related to a phone call?

David Payne's rogatory interview - April 2008

1485 "Did you see them in a car at all whilst you were in Portugal, prior to Madeleine disappearing''
Reply "Err we all arrived you know at Praia Da Luz initially in the taxi err apart from that I can't really recall.'

1485 "That's it.'
Reply "I can't recall err seeing you know err going anywhere in a car.'

1485 "Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth''
Reply "Err the, there are a few things but I don't think this is the right forum for bringing those up.'

1485 "Okay.

by Verdi 27.10.17 23:58

silverdoe wrote:Verdi I respect you're opinion but I will disagree with you on this one if you don't mind? :-)

It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact as I have evidenced.

You can't disagree with a statement of fact - or can you?

by Julie 28.10.17 14:42

Verdi wrote:
silverdoe wrote:Verdi I respect you're opinion but I will disagree with you on this one if you don't mind? :-)
It's not an opinion, it's a statement of fact as I have evidenced.

You can't disagree with a statement of fact - or can you?

Of course you can disagree with a statement of fact. History students (for example) are trained to do exactly so. You must decide whether the source of that 'fact' is trustworthy. In this case the source of that specific fact was Gerald McCan. I rest my case!

by Julie 28.10.17 14:47

Oops, just realised you're on about David Payne. Potato/potato..

by Verdi 28.10.17 15:30

Julie wrote:Of course you can disagree with a statement of fact. History students (for example) are trained to do exactly so. You must decide whether the source of that 'fact' is trustworthy. In this case the source of that specific fact was Gerald McCan. I rest my case!

Then it's not a fact in the true sense of the word is it.

FACT [noun]

A thing that is known or proved to be true.

synonyms:    reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude; More
truth, naked truth, verity, gospel

antonyms:    lie, fiction

Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

synonyms:    detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet

In this instance it is a fact that particular words were used in the recording of David Payne's rogatory statement.

The member made a claim that David Payne said something entirely different - which he didn't

Used to refer to a particular situation under discussion.
-----------------

In this instance it is a fact that particular words were used in the recording of David Payne's rogatory statement.

The member made a claim that David Payne said something entirely different - which he didn't. The rogatory interview transcript bears testimony to that simple fact.

I rest my case!

by Julie 28.10.17 15:53

Verdi wrote:
Julie wrote:Of course you can disagree with a statement of fact. History students (for example) are trained to do exactly so. You must decide whether the source of that 'fact' is trustworthy. In this case the source of that specific fact was Gerald McCan. I rest my case!
Then it's not a fact in the true sense of the word is it.

FACT [noun]

A thing that is known or proved to be true.

synonyms:    reality, actuality, certainty, factuality, certitude; More
truth, naked truth, verity, gospel

antonyms:    lie, fiction

Information used as evidence or as part of a report or news article.

synonyms:    detail, piece of information, particular, item, specific, element, point, factor, feature, characteristic, respect, ingredient, attribute, circumstance, consideration, aspect, facet

In this instance it is a fact that particular words were used in the recording of David Payne's rogatory statement.

The member made a claim that David Payne said something entirely different - which he didn't

Used to refer to a particular situation under discussion.
-----------------

In this instance it is a fact that particular words were used in the recording of David Payne's rogatory statement.

The member made a claim that David Payne said something entirely different - which he didn't. The rogatory interview transcript bears testimony to that simple fact.

I rest my case!

Ahh so you're just saying that it is a fact that that statement was recorded? Well you can't disagree with that, it is a fact. However, it doesn't mean that it's true! :)

by Milo 29.11.17 8:15

Can somebody please point me to something I read but can longer find: it was a detailed hypothesis (even thesis) about how Madeleine might have died in the apartment had she been over-sedated with barbiturates. It was consistent with the location of blood spatter and other evidence. It described how one would deal with a child going with respiratory depression or pulmonary edema.