Whingeing Through Their Briefs - Is It Only To Suppress The Nipple-Twiddling Episode?

The media are under orders to ignore Eddie and Keela's findings as if they are of no consequence whatsoever in this case. Few members of the public would dare discount the findings of CSI dogs these days, yet the media are fearful of endorsing a programme on Eddie and Keela's findings in Praia da Luz.

One has noted there was only one mention of the Gaspars statements in an ex-pat newspaper some time ago, and that after threats from lawyers the online version was promptly removed.

The CSI dogs and the Gaspars statements are by no means the only sticking points in this case, however they do seem to be two major sticking points, that will not go away just because the Tapas 9 would like them to.

Therefore, would it be fair to conclude that the nipple-twiddling episode is the sole reason for not only the suppression of Amaral's book, but the hounding of any party who wishes to see Madeleine's case thoroughly investigated?

Other books have been written on Madeleine's case, yet lawyers have not brought libel actions against the authors or publishers.

Would this be because the authors made no mention of the nipple-twiddling episode?.

Do you mean this article Judge

[img][/img]

Grateful thanks to kangdang.

The lawyers had absolutely no right to threaten this newspaper's online edition, just as nobody had the right to ask Ben Affleck to postpone the release of his film in 2007. The fear was obviously that parallels would be drawn.

How must Team McCann feel regarding the nipple-twiddling episode since the injunction on Amaral's book was lifted?

And then we had Amaral's wife saying she would not have paedophiles in her social group.



Fury must be at a premium in the McCann household.

The same thought had occurred to me, judge. Desperate to suppress the Gaspar statement. And Yvonne Martin - whatever happened to her? Did they try to reverse the lifting of the ban? What happened?

kikoraton wrote:The same thought had occurred to me, judge. Desperate to suppress the Gaspar statement. And Yvonne Martin - whatever happened to her? Did they try to reverse the lifting of the ban? What happened?

I find it rather strange that Gerry McCann and David Payne, didn't kick up a fuss about Katherine Gaspar's statement, which in my opinion, implied that both of them could endulge in paedophilia activities. I also find it rather strange that Gerry McCann didn't give David Payne and blooded nose after he made that remark about Madeleine.

The McCanns took action against the newspaper groups, when they printed what they were deemed as untruths about them. Yet they have remained silent, when Katherine Gaspar, went to the media, after the police took no action when she made her statement to them. I can only presume that Katherine Gaspar was speaking the truth about Gerry McCann and David Payne.

I wonder why the Gaspars continued their holiday with the McCanns and the Paynes, after Katherine Gaspar, witnessed that disgusing gesture.

Katherine Gaspar said it was the fathers who bathed the children on that holiday, that's ok if each father was bathing their own children. Katherine Gaspar then said that after the incident, she asked her husband not to leave David Payne alone with her children when he was bathing them.

Why were the Gaspars allowing David Payne or any other male to bathe their children and why did they continue to allow David Payne to bathe their children after the incident?

Morning kathy,

[quote - snipped]

when Katherine Gaspar, went to the media, after the police took no action when she made her statement to them. I can only presume that Katherine Gaspar was speaking the truth about Gerry McCann and David Payne.

I don't recall this being in the media kathy only in that one euro paper (which I can't remember the name), and I think they must have got that from the files, I don't think she went to the media. Do you have a link to say she actually went to the media. Not many members of the public would have seen that, only people who visit the forums. As far as I am aware it has not been in any of the UK papers.

Interesting blog by Textusa about the Gaspars statements

Strange things happen when this ALLEGED witness statement appears. Here in Spain, a newspaper for ex-pats was Carter Rucked because it dared to print information from the released PJ files. A simple phone call and I was told it was out of their hands they had been gagged and had to remove the offending article.

The article in question was part of the ALLEGED events that were witnessed by Dr.Katherine Gaspar. This is a little like closing the barn door when the horse has bolted. The newspapers had already been delivered and the information was out there, nevertheless it was removed from online.

A petition also having reached 5,000 signatures, was quickly closed when someone gave their reason for the case being re-opened, they mentioned the Gaspar statement.

Several books have now been written about the McCann affair and there is suggestion of the parents involvement in many, if not all, from the authors. The one subject the books do not touch on however, is the Gaspar statement, only Dr.Amaral mentions it in his book as part of the investigation. This witness statement has been kept back at all costs from the British public by the McCanns, through their lawyers.

The cadaver dogs and their findings do not seem to phase the Mccanns , they are unreliable says Gerry AND even though the dogs only picked up on ALL things McCann, no one dare question Gerry on this observation, in fact there does not seem to be one British reporter observant enough to even notice .

Dr.Amaral told his side of the story in his book ‘The Truth of The Lie’ an excellent title, as the whole affair is based on a lie.

Dr.Amaral and HIS observations from years of experience led him to suspect the McCanns, BUT not just him , his TEAM... the Mccanns have singled him out as their target but it was an INVESTIGATION that brought them to this conclusion.

The McCanns have NOT been cleared as they like to tell us, their arguido status has been lifted, something quite different.

The McCanns have also made it clear, they are NOT to be questioned. There is ONLY one version of events and that is theirs.

So, to the public, ALL information is out there and the McCanns are innocent of any involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. Everything is known? Well, not quite , the statement from Dr.Katherine Gaspar has been kept from the British public.

The allegation Katherine makes, is a serious one and I wonder why Gerry and David Payne have not taken action against her if untrue.. This information is being kept hidden away, like a dirty secret and it does, when reading ,appear perverse and very,very sordid.

If British reporters had done, what they are paid to do,’ expose the truth,’ this statement would and should have been in the press.

I think damage control would have been impossible, even for Clarence Mitchell...it would have been a ticking time bomb, what would the public reaction have been or would be even today on reading this? shock and horror and yes thoughts of the possibility Madeleine may have been an abused child , or worse.

Leicestershire Constabulary held this information back from the Portuguese Investigation for SIX months. WHY? Reasons known only unto themselves.

Utterly remarkable that two NHS Doctors have managed to make an entire Police force look either very stupid, or very corrupt.

As for the Gaspar statement, time has gone by and the longer time passes the more important this statement appears OR does it? it may of course mean nothing at all, a scorned woman, jealous because the McCanns found the Paynes more fun.

Even if this should be the case, it was not for Leicester Police to decide on what information should be forwarded and what should be held back.

.

It was for PJ to decide and investigate, the colonial days are over but someone forgot to tell the McCanns.

Katherines husband did not seem concerned, nor does he mention his wife asking him to watch the children at bath time if David Payne was bathing them.

Although Katherines husband does agree, the suggestions made by David Payne , were in poor taste.

If Katherine was so concerned, why did she not leave with her children?, ,instead she continued to allow David to bathe them even with these thoughts running through her head, thoughts of paedophilia.

This whole affair is very strange and there is something not quite right with the Gaspar statement.


AND yet it must be important because the Mccanns make sure their lawyers sue anyone who dares mention it.

I cannot help but wonder if Dr.Amaral had not placed this statement in his book, would the McCanns be so intent on destroying him?

http://textusa.blogspot.com/2010/08/witholding-evidence.html

candyfloss wrote:Morning kathy,

[quote - snipped]

when Katherine Gaspar, went to the media, after the police took no action when she made her statement to them. I can only presume that Katherine Gaspar was speaking the truth about Gerry McCann and David Payne.

I don't recall this being in the media kathy only in that one euro paper (which I can't remember the name), and I think they must have got that from the files, I don't think she went to the media. Do you have a link to say she actually went to the media. Not many members of the public would have seen that, only people who visit the forums. As far as I am aware it has not been in any of the UK papers.

Hi Candy, you're right it was and the Euro paper which is called "The Euro Weekly News" which the McCanns will have seen and would have been able to sue the Euro paper, if the statement was untrue. "The Euro Weekly News" has franchises in the UK and Ireland. I read an article on the net where Katherine Gaspar said she went to the media, when she discoverd that the police did not pass on the information she gave to them, immediately to the PJ.

Whether she did or didn't go to the media, the information was out in the public domain and even if people in the UK didn't read the newspaper, expats abroad will have read it and no doubt passed the information, to their friends and families in the UK.

This is from Geraald McCann's own blog, presumably in his own words, unless he has been told what to write:

Is McCann making a reference to Payne on this blog of the 110th day, without acknowledging that he knows precisely whom the ''English suspect'' is? No wonder McCann wants to negate his early blogs.

''Day 110 .......... The news that points to the existence of an English suspect, close to the couple,
connected to the disappearance of Madeleine on the 3rd May in the Algarve, “does not come” from the PJ and has no “logic whatsoever”, according to what the inspector Olegário Sousa told Lusa.''


This is the whole blog of the day: ''We did manage our early morning run today although not quite to the top of the hill due to time limitation. After dropping the twins off at the kids club we did interviews for the 3 biggest selling Spanish newspapers. The message was that we still believe there is a reasonable chance Madeleine is still alive and we are still looking for her.

We were also asked about what is being written about the investigation and pointed out how much of this is pure speculation. We directed them to the official Portuguese police statements that are very sober in comparison. A statement was released this evening through the Portuguese news agency LUSA. This is the translation of what was reported on Portuguese TV station SIC:

The news that points to the existence of an English suspect, close to the couple,
connected to the disappearance of Madeleine on the 3rd May in the Algarve, “does not come” from the PJ and has no “logic whatsoever”, according to what the inspector Olegário Sousa told Lusa.''

I would love a reporter in a live interview to have the bottle to ask about the Gaspar statements even if it means he or she gets the sack! Just for seeing the shock on their faces and what garbage they come out with to discount them.

Wonder if they will mention that little episode in their book of truths?

I doubt it as their truths seem to be untruths imo

It beats me how anyone could believe their version of events, I can not imagine two more cheerful parents of a missing child in the early days of this fiasco. its almost as if God forbid they were glad.

the trouble is we have the opportunity to hear the real facts, to know about the Gaspar statements, to see the video of the dogs, to hear from the portuguese posters what is really going on, many people only believe what they read and see in the UK press and on tv so they do get taken in by it all unfortunately - hence a reason why the fund gets money. That is why they have to control the press and stop the Amaral book at all cost.

Even my 85 yr old mother says they are and always were too cheerful and wonders how they could be so upbeat, especially if they thought for one minute she was with paedophiles, in that circumstance forgive me for saying so but you would actually prefer she was dead than to be suffering god knows what, kept away form other children and real life to be abused over a long period of time. I just don't see how regardless of the self gagging of the media that others do not wonder about those facts. Everyone will have seen them posing and laughing back in the day

I think we have to ask ourselves what kind of people can be cheerful at the thought of their daughter being with paedophiles and also making the comment about her not coming to any harm. Perhaps without meaning to they have actually told us what this whole coverup is about imo.

Cherry wrote:I think we have to ask ourselves what kind of people can be cheerful at the thought of their daughter being with paedophiles and also making the comment about her not coming to any harm. Perhaps without meaning to they have actually told us what this whole coverup is about imo.

That statement about there being no evidence she has come to any harm actually makes me evil no one in their right minds would say such a thing in their supposed circumstance. I think your right, on one hand they want us to think stranger abduction but on the same hand they try and make out she is safe to lessen the fact they want us to believe she was taken when left alone. If my child was taken with all the precautions I take with my kids I would still feel guilty, guilty cos my child was taken and I couldn't help them as I ought. I felt guilty when my then 7 yr old broke her elbow whilst being babysat by my husbands 18 yr old niece for leaving her.

Cherry wrote:I think we have to ask ourselves what kind of people can be cheerful at the thought of their daughter being with paedophiles and also making the comment about her not coming to any harm. Perhaps without meaning to they have actually told us what this whole coverup is about imo.

It seems to have been their own home-grown idea from the outset. Whereas one would have pushed this furthest from one's mind, and been quite happy to spend the night taking covers off swimming pools and going through the bins, they were informing all and sundry that it had to have been a paedophile.

By the time Ms Martin appeared the next morning, the paedophile had become a couple. It is not unheard of for women to be paedophiles, so whomever Kate McCann was referring to, whether two men, two women, or a man and woman, it makes no difference, because the fact is, that she certainly seems to know more than we do. Whereas the police should know whatever it is she knows. In order to find out what really happened to their daughter. Whose name they had to get used to spelling shortly after she disappeared.

[quote="Judge Mental"]This is from Geraald McCann's own blog, presumably in his own words, unless he has been told what to write:

Is McCann making a reference to Payne on this blog of the 110th day, without acknowledging that he knows precisely whom the ''English suspect'' is? No wonder McCann wants to negate his early blogs.

''Day 110 .......... The news that points to the existence of an English suspect, close to the couple,
connected to the disappearance of Madeleine on the 3rd May in the Algarve, “does not come” from the PJ and has no “logic whatsoever”, according to what the inspector Olegário Sousa told Lusa.''


Another example of Gerry leaking information about the investigation on his blog .... or should I say disinformation

[quote="YNG"]

Judge Mental wrote:This is from Geraald McCann's own blog, presumably in his own words, unless he has been told what to write:

Is McCann making a reference to Payne on this blog of the 110th day, without acknowledging that he knows precisely whom the ''English suspect'' is? No wonder McCann wants to negate his early blogs.

''Day 110 .......... The news that points to the existence of an English suspect, close to the couple,
connected to the disappearance of Madeleine on the 3rd May in the Algarve, “does not come” from the PJ and has no “logic whatsoever”, according to what the inspector Olegário Sousa told Lusa.''


Another example of Gerry leaking information about the investigation on his blog .... or should I say disinformation

Strange that he would put this on his blog. Unless it was to blatantly point out that he was very well aware of it, and that it was of absolutely no consequence to him or his friends, and therefore unworthy of discussion.

[quote="Judge Mental"]

YNG wrote:

Judge Mental wrote:This is from Geraald McCann's own blog, presumably in his own words, unless he has been told what to write:

Is McCann making a reference to Payne on this blog of the 110th day, without acknowledging that he knows precisely whom the ''English suspect'' is? No wonder McCann wants to negate his early blogs.

''Day 110 .......... The news that points to the existence of an English suspect, close to the couple,
connected to the disappearance of Madeleine on the 3rd May in the Algarve, “does not come” from the PJ and has no “logic whatsoever”, according to what the inspector Olegário Sousa told Lusa.''


Another example of Gerry leaking information about the investigation on his blog .... or should I say disinformation

Strange that he would put this on his blog. Unless it was to blatantly point out that he was very well aware of it, and that it was of absolutely no consequence to him or his friends, and therefore unworthy of discussion.

Criminal law is a vehicle that sanctions behaviours that are considered morally reprehensible in society.

Crimes however require definition for the sake of certainty and so techniques that we can only imagine can in their very description escape sanction ....

One is quite happy to take your word for this, YNG

Judge Mental wrote:One is quite happy to take your word for this, YNG

hahahahah ...... thin ice comes to mind here ......

Amaral appears gagless in here today, and makes mention of information being withheld from the investigation.

http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/exclusivo-cm/ingleses-podem-ter-outras-provas--033340443

One would assume there will be more of the Rothley wrath and fury this morning. There is no peace for the wicked, so instead of sitting around chewing one's fingernails whilst waiting to see whether we have a truly independent judiciary, devoid of Government interference in the Assange case, one is now off out to buy the wife's Christmas present. One hopes she will show more appreciation for a new dishwasher, than she did for the lawnmower one bought for her birthday