Re: The controversial Gaspar Statement

by worriedmum 17.03.12 14:32

If you use a phrase like'perfect', doesn't it imply a comparison? You know that they are'perfect' because????? I have four children, and as others have posted, I never 'looked' at them-just cleaned etc as any parent would. I have always found this disturbing on two levels-the first being the scenario , which to me is unimaginable-and secondly the level of attention to them . It feels very uncomfortable to me.

by AskTheDogsSandra 17.03.12 14:57

worriedmum wrote:If you use a phrase like'perfect', doesn't it imply a comparison? You know that they are'perfect' because????? I have four children, and as others have posted, I never 'looked' at them-just cleaned etc as any parent would. I have always found this disturbing on two levels-the first being the scenario , which to me is unimaginable-and secondly the level of attention to them . It feels very uncomfortable to me.

I would have thought that all mums check their kids bits to make sure everything is present and correct.
5 fingers, 5 toes, perfect genitals etc....

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 17:03

AskTheDogsSandra wrote:
worriedmum wrote:If you use a phrase like'perfect', doesn't it imply a comparison? You know that they are'perfect' because????? I have four children, and as others have posted, I never 'looked' at them-just cleaned etc as any parent would. I have always found this disturbing on two levels-the first being the scenario , which to me is unimaginable-and secondly the level of attention to them . It feels very uncomfortable to me.

I would have thought that all mums check their kids bits to make sure everything is present and correct.
5 fingers, 5 toes, perfect genitals etc....

Really??? I don't think so - surely genitals (and other body parts) are seen as being 'present and correct' which is completely different from 'perfect'. What ARE 'perfect genitals'? I wouldve thought the answer to that is subjective, and therefore irrelevant and an unnecessary addition?
BTW - you obviously have a different idea of 'present and CORRECT' - both my boys had TEN fingers and TEN toes if I'm not very much mistaken Wink

by Guest 17.03.12 17:51

I hope that they weren't all on the same hand or foot, Rainbow-Fairy!

I suppose that, being a doctor, Kate would be less inhibited than others might be in discussing children's anatomy. For that reason, I can slightly understand the page 129 comment but not other things which have been mentioned before, particularly the "loving and pleasing her" remark.

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 18:01

I have been reading an older thread on the Gaspar statements. I've brought over part of a post, so confused I was by it. I haven't used the poster's name, as I'm pretty certain they aren't with us anymore. But, I was very confused by this assertion:

[mention][/mention] wrote: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?

Nobody replied or picked up on it in that thread, and I've been racking my brains as to HOW the Gaspar's statement could've been made to PROTECT GMcC/DP?
Any and all ideas appreciated!

by Guest 17.03.12 18:26

rainbow-fairy wrote:I have been reading an older thread on the Gaspar statements. I've brought over part of a post, so confused I was by it. I haven't used the poster's name, as I'm pretty certain they aren't with us anymore. But, I was very confused by this assertion:
[mention][/mention] wrote: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?

Nobody replied or picked up on it in that thread, and I've been racking my brains as to HOW the Gaspar's statement could've been made to PROTECT GMcC/DP?
Any and all ideas appreciated!

I think it could have been seen as fishing for information or another libel payout. What better way to invite negative media attention than have a friend make a negative comment and then retract it but only after receiving substantial financial and moral gain. But nobody ever took the bait? The positive is then that they know they have nothing to fear from that angle but the negative is no payout for that particular item.

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 18:35

Jean wrote:I hope that they weren't all on the same hand or foot, Rainbow-Fairy!

I suppose that, being a doctor, Kate would be less inhibited than others might be in discussing children's anatomy. For that reason, I can slightly understand the page 129 comment but not other things which have been mentioned before, particularly the "loving and pleasing her" remark.

LOL! No, strictly the totals of both hands OR both feet (they were webbed though! Wink

)*
Yes, I can see your point that being a GP Kate may be less inhibited talking about them, but I don't think I'll budge on this one! To me, 'perfect' just jars somehow. I can't equate the word 'genitals' with 'perfect' (well, certainly not when talking about your child anyway).
I'm completely with you on the 'loving her pleasing her, enjoying her delight' - sounds like a hard rock song lyric.
And, as you know, I can't bear the 'exploring' comment about the new outfit either...

*that WAS a joke!!!

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 19:08

Molly wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:I have been reading an older thread on the Gaspar statements. I've brought over part of a post, so confused I was by it. I haven't used the poster's name, as I'm pretty certain they aren't with us anymore. But, I was very confused by this assertion:
[mention][/mention] wrote: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?

Nobody replied or picked up on it in that thread, and I've been racking my brains as to HOW the Gaspar's statement could've been made to PROTECT GMcC/DP?
Any and all ideas appreciated!

I think it could have been seen as fishing for information or another libel payout. What better way to invite negative media attention than have a friend make a negative comment and then retract it but only after receiving substantial financial and moral gain. But nobody ever took the bait? The positive is then that they know they have nothing to fear from that angle but the negative is no payout for that particular item.

Hmmm, not sure Molly...It wasn't a comment, nor was it retracted?
Its a police statement, and lying to the police (effectively perverting the course of justice) seems a very high-risk strategy to me...
If it was the reason, surely the McCanns wouldve made absolutely sure it received controlled media attention (easily done through Clarrie). Then maybe they could refute it.
But as it stands, its floating about in cyberspace unrefuted.
What would the Gaspar's have to gain from doing this? The T9 I can get as they were all there, but not Gaspar's.
I have to say I think their statements have a ring of truth to them. Not over baked, not overdone, and typical husband who notices not a lot... I wouldve thought if this was a 'generated' statement Katerina wouldve been far more 'definite' about things? Obviously, I could be totally off the mark!

by Spaniel 17.03.12 19:09

I'd still like evidence that circling a nipple and sucking a finger is a sign of paedophelia. I've seached and can't find it.

Arul and KM knew one another at Uni. How well we don't know, but maybe better than he told his wife, originally.

I question why any woman especially a mother, after witnessing such behaviour, would go a second time and witness it again?

Maybe this is why LP didn't pass on the statement?

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 20:03

Spaniel wrote:I'd still like evidence that circling a nipple and sucking a finger is a sign of paedophelia. I've seached and can't find it.

Arul and KM knew one another at Uni. How well we don't know, but maybe better than he told his wife, originally.

I question why any woman especially a mother, after witnessing such behaviour, would go a second time and witness it again?

Maybe this is why LP didn't pass on the statement?

No, I don't think so Spaniel. LP, whatever their 'view' on the validity or otherwise of a statement, should not have withheld ANYTHING. Who is not to say the case may have been solved had it been passed over immediately? Why were the PJ denied phone records, medical records, bank statements???

Paedophiles are very clever, and very subtle. How else do you think they worm their ways into positions of trust?
I'm just wondering what, for you personally, would be a 'sign' of paedophilia? Are you a parent? If you are, and one of your 'circle of friends' asked you "Spaniel, would xxx do this?" whilst performing said gestures I'm hoping your response would be "What the HELL are you on about?"
Not everybody is particularly assertive, especially in a group situation and we already know GmcC and DP are 'big personalities'. Perhaps KG was nervous she'd took things the wrong way, and also if her husband didn't really pick up on it (I find women are intuitively better at sussing these things, in general) she'dve been less likely than ever to speak up.
Could be their marriage is very much 'what he says goes' but after the second occasion, and on reflection, KG was concerned enough about DP's behaviour to make a formal statement (as I said earlier, perverting the course of justice if proven lying).
I myself have been in situations where I have felt very, very uncomfortable and unsure and ticked myself off afterwards for not speaking up. Thankfully, none of mine have possibly had a connection to a vanished child.
I'm not saying these are 100% real, but on balance I feel they are genuine concerns. She had a lot to lose by lying - friends, and possibly even her liberty.

by crispyroll 17.03.12 23:40

Why did they publish the picture of Madeleine with the make-up at all? There was no reason for it. At first Kate said that Madeleine herself had made it . Later - probably after she had read in various fora - that this is unlikely - she said, a beautician did it. In her famous diary she wrote that she could tear her skin off at the thought of pedophiles, and in her book she wrote about her terrible thoughts about the perfect genitals of her daughter. Why did she give special thanks to the Paynes in her book? Why did Fiona Payne come along with Kate to the trial in Portugal?
In my opinion, both the photo and the descriptions in her diary and book among other things, have to do with the testimony of the Gaspars , that is, to show everyone that everything is completely innocent. If Amaral's book and the significance of the Gaspars eventually will be published in the UK, then the McCanns could always claim that this statement is utter nonsense. They would argue:
that everyone can see the fact that they had published an innocent image of their daughter ,
that Kate had even written in her diary that she could tear the skin off at the thought of pedophiles.
In addition, they are still close friends with the Paynes. That would not be the case if there would be some truth in the testimony of the Gaspars.

Maybe all was done because there is some truth in the testimony?
The Police should ask for the name of the person who did Madeleines make-up and ask her.

by pauline 18.03.12 0:06

crispyroll wrote:Why did they publish the picture of Madeleine with the make-up at all? ...
Maybe all was done because there is some truth in the testimony?
The Police should ask for the name of the person who did Madeleines make-up and ask her.

Exactly. Get the name of the beautician, take a formal statement, get the price she charged for doing the make up and cross check with her tax returns. That will sort the matter once and for all.

by Juliette 18.03.12 2:18

Just came across this thread and my response is to Rainbow Fairie's assumption that the group were all friends. The Gaspars did not know two of the couples, only the McCanns.

I did not know these two families until we went on holidays together

So this makes clear that the Gaspars did not know the couples David & Fiona or Stuart and Tara before the holiday.

Katherina said in her statement
During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying that.

During our vacation in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children's baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to be careful and to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, to my daughter E*****. I was very clear about this, as having heard him saying that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E***** alone.

_________________________________

I hadn't realized that the Gaspars didn't know the Payne's at all until the Majorca holiday. So to me the fact that David Payne, a total stranger to the Gaspar family, was discussing bathing the children is very unsettling to say the least. Why did DP feel the need to say the fathers took care of bathing the children. And bathing children that were total strangers to him is very odd behaviour by anyone's standards.

by rainbow-fairy 18.03.12 8:18

pauline wrote:
crispyroll wrote:Why did they publish the picture of Madeleine with the make-up at all? ...
Maybe all was done because there is some truth in the testimony?
The Police should ask for the name of the person who did Madeleines make-up and ask her.

Exactly. Get the name of the beautician, take a formal statement, get the price she charged for doing the make up and cross check with her tax returns. That will sort the matter once and for all.

Gosh! The rumours the McCanns were near broke in 2007 isn't surprising if they'd been paying a professional beautician to tart up their three year old...
Btw, if I was them, I think I'd be asking for my money back, hardly looks a pro-job to me...
Incidentally, I don't believe either explanation for the picture. 'Maddie did it' changed to 'a visiting beautician did it' - well if so, why not say that in the first place??? If that's what happened and it was all innocent, why the hell lie about it???

by Guest 18.03.12 9:59

Where is the information about a beautician doing the make-up? I can't remember ever reading that. Is it in the book? Can someone provide a link for it please.

by Genbug 18.03.12 10:19

Spaniel wrote:I'd still like evidence that circling a nipple and sucking a finger is a sign of paedophelia. I've seached and can't find it.

Not in itself it wouldn't be, just very bad taste. However, when coupled with the remark "would she (she being a small child) do this?" it becomes a lot more than simply bad taste. In my opinion.

by rainbow-fairy 18.03.12 10:46

candyfloss wrote:Where is the information about a beautician doing the make-up? I can't remember ever reading that. Is it in the book? Can someone provide a link for it please.

Hi Candyfloss. I'm 99.9% certain that neither the photo or the 'explanations' are in the bewk. Not even alluded to.
I'm not very clever at finding links, but I'm pretty sure the 'beautician explanation' aired in a magazine interview? Vanity Fair rings bells but that could be for something else.
I'm certain it was in a thread here somewhere but can't find it right now. Maybe another poster knows? I've done an advanced search but it didn't help much! Wink

by Guest 18.03.12 12:19

It has been stated definitely by PeterMac that the remark does not appear in the book and I have a feeling this might be a forum myth. However I will rummage around and see if I can find a quote anywhere.

by Guest 18.03.12 12:24

I have a feeling too Jean. In a thread somewhere on the forum which I looked at earlier on, a poster here stated it was in the book and PeterMac searched the book and it wasn't. I have a feeling this is where it has come from.

by Guest 18.03.12 13:03

I think we can eliminate Vanity Fair Rainbow-Fairy as the source of the story. It appears that the only interview with that magazine was published in January 2008, long before the horrible photo emerged from under a stone.

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

by Guest 18.03.12 13:25

I think that RF is right, if the statement was designed to make money it would have been leaked. For me that neither the statement or the photos were tarted up or down (forgive the pun) speaks volumes. None of Kate's usual stuff like upselling or justification. Were they forced into publishing those pictures or are they just sticking their fingers up at the world? Or are they just complacent that they have full control over the media and the authorities?

by HotlipsHealy 18.03.12 13:34

Jean wrote:It has been stated definitely by PeterMac that the remark does not appear in the book and I have a feeling this might be a forum myth. However I will rummage around and see if I can find a quote anywhere.

According to muratfan's blog it was tigger who mentioned about the professional beautician so maybe tigger can tell us where the information came from?

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

by **tigger** 18.03.12 14:41

HotlipsHealy wrote:
Jean wrote:It has been stated definitely by PeterMac that the remark does not appear in the book and I have a feeling this might be a forum myth. However I will rummage around and see if I can find a quote anywhere.

According to muratfan's blog it was tigger who mentioned about the professional beautician so maybe tigger can tell us where the information came from?

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

Last thing I want to do is to post wrong info. We've been over this once before, I mistakenly said it was in the book, someone put me right - months ago, but I'm sure I read it around that time and the only other place I can have seen it is in the DM extracts from the book and other articles. It's nearly a year ago, so bear with me. Because the remark and the photograph were associated with articles or extracts from the book, I made the initial mistake.

Here is at lead one other person who remembers it:

Re: 60 Reasons why the McCanns should never have published THAT photo
Shibboleth on Mon Oct 10, 2011 11:37 am

PeterMac wrote:
Sorry to be a wet blanket, but I do not believe that piece about professional make artist appears in the Book.
"make-up" appears only twice.
'professional" only 11 times

Please don't let this become a forum myth. Katey may well have said it sometime, somewhere, but not in the book.

I have the Kindle edition and I cannot find it anywhere. I believe it was a magazine article. It was "a friend who is a beautician" as I remember it.

unquote.

by russiandoll 18.03.12 16:50

While I accept that KGs concerns and beliefs were genuine, they could be ripped apart in a court by a good barrister imo. Rainbow Fairy, I take your point about non-assertiveness and not wanting to rock the boat [ and she was unsure the ref was about Maddie....another thing a barrister would ask.what made her think it was about Maddie, any child...she never said in her statement]...

why would any mother need to mention that incident or any concerns if she wanted to stop a stranger bathing her child? She could quite diplomatically have taken over bathtime by just saying she wanted some of the home routine to be part of the holiday....was she scared Payne would object? Then there would have been evidence of something dodgy had he done so. Sorry, it is not reasonalbe to put your child's welfare as second priority to not wanting to offend a stranger.....not by just saying you wanted to bathe your own child.no reason need be given...that is YOUR child. A barrister would have a field day with her
statement.
I honestly think as a stand- alone pointer towards the p word it is weak .
I don't know how she could give a reasonable answer for why she continued to allow DP to bathe her child.

by rainbow-fairy 18.03.12 18:35

russiandoll wrote: While I accept that KGs concerns and beliefs were genuine, they could be ripped apart in a court by a good barrister imo. Rainbow Fairy, I take your point about non-assertiveness and not wanting to rock the boat [ and she was unsure the ref was about Maddie....another thing a barrister would ask.what made her think it was about Maddie, any child...she never said in her statement]...

why would any mother need to mention that incident or any concerns if she wanted to stop a stranger bathing her child? She could quite diplomatically have taken over bathtime by just saying she wanted some of the home routine to be part of the holiday....was she scared Payne would object? Then there would have been evidence of something dodgy had he done so. Sorry, it is not reasonalbe to put your child's welfare as second priority to not wanting to offend a stranger.....not by just saying you wanted to bathe your own child.no reason need be given...that is YOUR child. A barrister would have a field day with her
statement.
I honestly think as a stand- alone pointer towards the p word it is weak .
I don't know how she could give a reasonable answer for why she continued to allow DP to bathe her child.

I do agree, russiandoll, but sadly there are some women who put their men before their children. I had a friend who lost her two children to Social Services after she met a new man. She had a visit from SS officers to tell her that her new live-in boyfriend was a grade one sex-offender and if she didn't ask him to leave, her two boys would be put in care - well, long story short, she not only kept the boyfriend (and her sons were put in foster care) she had ANOTHER child with the pervert! By the time I met her she'd dumped him, got her other two boys back and yet another new partner. She just refused to be alone. I stopped seeing her in the end as I couldn't bear how she allowed the boyfriend to treat her boys. They were dumped in their bedrooms mostly, if they were downstairs and made a noise (disturbing his X-box sessions) he'd grab them by the arms, throw them on the sofa, yell in their faces. It was truly vile.

I personally do not understand how ANYONE could put another person above their kids. I never would.

Perhaps Katerina and Arul have the sort of marriage where she does as she is told, children be-damned. It does happen, unfortunately. Personally, I think women like that deserve[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Sorry, of course I meant they need tea and sympathy, not! If you have kids you put them first - WHATEVER.