The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

Here's a comment worth considering IMO from an early reader of 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1'.

We included in the book lengthy extracts from Jane Tanner's rogatory interview by Sophie Ferguson of Leicestershire Police. Here are the comments, from a teacher:

QUOTE

"I just make one observation about the final 'JT' interview (I hope to be able to explain what I mean but it is difficult but I hope you get the gist)....The interview is just littered with sexual innuendo and I find the term 'vivacious' and the context it is used slightly disturbing. It is hard to describe, but I feel as though she has no social awareness that to repeatedly infer/repeat sexual innuendo in such an interview may not look good for her! It's almost as though its 'normal' for her to talk and behave like that whatever the situation! Which in itself is possibly cause for concern..."

UNQUOTE

Talking about sexual inuendos this is a post I put on my blog ages ago which looks like it wasn't just Jane Tanner who could make them (if you're referring to Maddie in your post, which I guess you are):




DC 1485 Messiah: "Okay. I’d like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.”

Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride and joy. They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.”

DC 1485 Messiah: "Mm.”

Source: Maddie: The police DVD Files
Katherina and Arul


“So beautiful, astonishingly bright, and I’d have to say very charismatic. She would shine out of a crowd,” family friend Jon Corner says of the child. “So—God forgive me—maybe that’s part of the problem. That special quality. Some bastard picked up on that.”

Source: Vanity Fair

jkh wrote:Talking about sexual inuendos this is a post I put on my blog ages ago which looks like it wasn't just Jane Tanner who could make them (if you're referring to Maddie in your post, which I guess you are)

No, actually Jill, the references by Jane Tanner were not to Madeleine.

To give you one example that I recall when typing out the book, Jane Tanner spoke of how one of the 'Tapas 9' (I think her partner Russell O'Brien) was to 'relieve' one of the others on child care/child watch duty. In her interview with P/W Sophie Ferguson, she said how much the 'Tapas' all giggled at Russell getting 'relief'. Tbh, it came over a bit like an early adolescent speaking rather than a full grown, mature woman.

I think that's the sort of thing our teacher reader was referring to

Very, very odd statement from Payne. He talks about Madeleine in the past tense repeatedly,. I counted 10 "she was" not is. Only in the last sentence does he realise what he's said and corrects it to "is" Hmmmmmmmmmm

Tony Bennett wrote:

jkh wrote:Talking about sexual inuendos this is a post I put on my blog ages ago which looks like it wasn't just Jane Tanner who could make them (if you're referring to Maddie in your post, which I guess you are)

No, actually Jill, the references by Jane Tanner were not to Madeleine.

To give you one example that I recall when typing out the book, Jane Tanner spoke of how one of the 'Tapas 9' (I think her partner Russell O'Brien) was to 'relieve' one of the others on child care/child watch duty. In her interview with P/W Sophie Ferguson, she said how much the 'Tapas' all giggled at Russell getting 'relief'. Tbh, it came over a bit like an early adolescent speaking rather than a full grown, mature woman.

I think that's the sort of thing our teacher reader was referring to

Oh. Who was she referring to then when she said 'vivacious'?

Tony Bennett wrote:Here's a comment worth considering IMO from an early reader of 'The Madeleine McCann Case Files: Volume 1'.

We included in the book lengthy extracts from Jane Tanner's rogatory interview by Sophie Ferguson of Leicestershire Police. Here are the comments, from a teacher:

QUOTE

"I just make one observation about the final 'JT' interview (I hope to be able to explain what I mean but it is difficult but I hope you get the gist)....The interview is just littered with sexual innuendo and I find the term 'vivacious' and the context it is used slightly disturbing. It is hard to describe, but I feel as though she has no social awareness that to repeatedly infer/repeat sexual innuendo in such an interview may not look good for her! It's almost as though its 'normal' for her to talk and behave like that whatever the situation! Which in itself is possibly cause for concern..."

UNQUOTE

So basically the reader has read sexual innuendo in to the comments in the interview....vivacious just means full of high spirits, full of life.


as the opposite to vivacious: boring, dispirited, dull, unattractive, unhappy ......would it be better to have described a child that way?

Apparently Jane Tanner wasn't describing a child. Not sure who she was describing.

Maybe Tony could clarify then......It's difficult to see why describing anyone as vivacious, let alone another adult, would be classed as sexual innuendo.

Reply “Very, she was very lively, a very lively, happy, a happy little girl really. Because, probably a bit of, we were almost a bit worried how Ella and Madeleine would get on, because Ella’s quite shy and sensitive and Madeleine’s very, erm, I don’t know whether you can call a child vivacious, but, you know, sort of very, erm, outgoing and. But, I mean, they did, they got on and they had a whale of a time. But, yeah, very, very lively, chatty, a chatty little girl. I mean, to be honest, I know Madeleine probably less well than I know Kate and Gerry, because often, with Kate and Gerry, we saw them, it was like at fortieth birthday parties and that sort of thing. So, Madeleine herself, I wouldn’t say as, I didn’t know her as a little girl, whereas, you know, the other children, Millie and the other ones, you know, I saw very regularly”.


(taken from tanner interview)

I dont see any sexual innuendo?

Hi
As odd as some of the stuff surrounding Madeleine's disappearance and her parents' behaviour afterwards might be, I truly find it very hard to believe or even imagine that her mum or dad would have allowed sexual things to be said about or done to her by their friends.

Why do people keep trying to bring up suspicion of evil nonsense being allowed to happen to the little girl by the other adults in the party?

Take care

Hi Kololi, one has to ask themselves, why the McCanns and the Paynes didn't sue Mrs Gaspar, who went to the police to report David Payne making sexual inuendos about Madeleine, to Gerry McCann.

If we are aware of Mrs Gaspar's statement, then so must the McCanns and the Paynes.

If the McCanns and the Paynes didn't want to sue Mrs Gaspar, they could have demanded a public apology from her. They haven't so we must summise that what Mrs Gaspar said about David Payne and Gerry McCann, must have been true.

Mrs Gaspar's statement is also in the case files.

I'm not a violent person, but if anyone said anything remotely sexual about my children to me, they would have a bloody nose.

[quote="jkh"]
DC 1485 Messiah: "Okay. I’d like you to describe Madeleine to me. What sort of a child she is and you know how you see her.”

Dr David Payne reply: "Mm, err Madeleine’s err a very striking err beautiful child, I’d almost if I want a better phrase call her doll-like, you know she was very, you know I think, you know very unique looking child err, she’d got very pretty, you know blonde hair err in a bob, she was quite a petite err child and you know she was very bubbly, very err you know she was a very good child to, to interact with. She was very bright, you could have a lot of fun with Madeleine err and you know she, she was, you know Kate and Gerry’s, you know pride and joy. They’d had a lot of trouble conceiving, you know with IVF and everything and you know Madeleine was their miracle. She was obviously very unique with the fact that she’d got the, you know the iris defect err but you know she was certainly a happy go lucky child you know she was, she would interact with the other children very well, as I said on the other, earlier recording, you know she played very happily with Lily and you know indeed the other children. She was, you know, very, she is a very beautiful child and good fun.”


Normal general description of a child is ' lovely, beautiful, bubbly, good as gold, talkative' or such like. DP's description of Maddie was ors de norm in that unusual adjectives were used, like 'doll-like' 'unique looking', and too much details eg. describing her hair, 'good to interact with', 'you could have a lot of fun with her' and what not. Possibly nothing in it, but it was nonetheless an above normal description, to me anyway. For example, I would never consider a 3-year old 'good to interact' - I would have said 'able to express herself' maybe. Good to interact is something I may use for a adult.

Details (of a child) coming especially from a guy, hairdo observation and all seem unusual; from a lady maybe. Before anyone jumps on me, I am debating this from personal experience viewpoint, because I know my OH will never be able to describe a child in that manner, since he's not a person to notice such details. All he will ever say, if asked, is that a child is lovely or whether the child seems active or passive.

Just my observation from that interviews - not reading more into it.

Kololi wrote:Hi = As odd as some of the stuff surrounding Madeleine's disappearance and her parents' behaviour afterwards might be, I truly find it very hard to believe or even imagine that her Mum or Dad would have allowed sexual things to be said about or done to her by their friends. Why do people keep trying to bring up suspicion of evil nonsense being allowed to happen to the little girl by the other adults in the party? Take care

In Jane Tanner's case, it is comments like this to which the teacher reader of our book was referring:

SF: So you rushed your meal?

JT: Yeah.

SF: So you could then relieve Russell?

JT: Yeah, relieve Russell, yeah, sorry. I can see the headline there.

and this:

SF: And can you remember what was being spoken about at that stage?

JT: Erm, no, I can’t, I mean, there was, we had a joke the night, earlier, a bit rude this bit, but we had a joke earlier in the week that, erm, when Russell had been, stayed back in the room, I was going to go back and relieve him, so I think we were joking about that: ‘Oh, Jane’s off to relieve Russ again’, so that was, I mean, that was the only thing I can think, that was just a, you know.

SF: So it was all good spirits?

JT: Yeah, it was good spirits, it was like that joke again: ‘Oh Jane’s got to go and relieve’, erm, so, yeah, there was nothing, you know, there was nothing odd or anything about it, it was just, just joking.

SF: And because it will affect your recollection of what happened and things, how much had you drank that night?

JT: The thing is, that night I probably drunk less than a lot of the others...

To be fair to Jane Tanner, she does say in her statement that she doubts if it is appropriate to describe a child as vivacious, so I am inclined to think that in this case it was one of those situations where she couldn't find the the word she was trying to think of and used another. That aside, I do find the way several of the adults speak about Madeleine disturbing. The Gaspar statements have been mentioned, but there was also the statement of Yvonne Martin, the social worker. Now all these references to sexual activity are easy to shrug aside when taken on their own. It is the fact that there are allegations given in official police statements, combined with, IMO, inappropriate descriptions of Madeleine which have been used by those who knew her, and the whole package should at least be worthy of concern to those who claim to be desperate to know what has happened to her.

The parents feel that any number of rather ridiculous sightings and bogey men should have been investigated in order to eliminate them from the enquiries, so why not these ?

justagrannynow 1 wrote:I do find the way several of the adults speak about Madeleine disturbing. The Gaspar statements have been mentioned, but there was also the statement of Yvonne Martin, the social worker. Now all these references to sexual activity are easy to shrug aside when taken on their own. It is the fact that there are allegations given in official police statements, combined with, IMO, inappropriate descriptions of Madeleine which have been used by those who knew her, and the whole package should at least be worthy of concern to those who claim to be desperate to know what has happened to her.

Not to mention some of the reported activities of Robert Murat, some too graphic to report on here, plus of course all the encrytpted material on his computer, and his admitted regular viewing of the RedClouds porno site.

Plus concerns about what Sergei Malinka held on his computer.

Then there was the claim by the lawyer who has been hounding Goncalo Amaral - Marcos Alexandre Aragao Correia - that Madeleine had been abducted by a gang of paedophiles, raped, kille dand throwm into the Arade Dam, which he first of al lclaimed he'd been told by 'underworld sources' and then later claimed he'd been told about in a 'vision'.

Strange people, strange interests.

candyfloss wrote:Very, very odd statement from Payne. He talks about Madeleine in the past tense repeatedly,. I counted 10 "she was" not is. Only in the last sentence does he realise what he's said and corrects it to "is" Hmmmmmmmmmm

And, he isnt the only one to speak about her in the past tense. Even her parents did that.............hmmmmmm indeed!

Hi
I have said the same as Kathybelle says in a much earlier post that I wrote in a different thread - about the so called gesture supposedly witnessed by Mrs Gaspar being likely to get Mr Payne a bloodied nose if it was indeed a sexual gesture. He didn't get a bloodied nose, nor as far as anybody is aware, even a strong "pack it in" comment from Madeleine's parents. Mrs Gaspar's husband was not 100% sure that Mrs Gaspar's interpretation was 100% correct. I am therefore, inclined to wonder if she did make a mistake in her interpretation.

Given the number of people in this party, some of whom didn't know each other too well and that one had her mother with her, I simply think it would be one major coincidence that they all happened to be "swingers" or "sexual deviants" who were prepared to let other members interfere with their children whislt doing nothing to stop it.

The social worker lady susected that Mr Payne may have been known to her because, at home in England he had been brought to her attention because of sexual wrong doings towards children. Mr Payne looks a little like Mr Murat and possibly several other dark haired bespectacled men of similar age and build. She may have mistaken him for somebody else who looked similar that she had dealt with through the course of her work.

I do believe that when applying for posts with vulnerable people, such as patients in a hospital, one has to have a CRB check. Surely the hospital employing Mr Payne would have done this and his sexual tendancies would have been duly noted. What hospital in their right mind is going to employ a paedophile in a position of trust that allows access to vulnerable patients?

I too am only basing my argument on my gut feelings and personal experience. I have mistaken people for other people because they look similar. I have on occasions been mistaken for others. When interviewing for posts available within a sector of care for vulnerable people I have always obtained a CRB check because it is expected that we do that. I know that if I was advised from that check that one applicant was on a sex offenders list or had been involved even slightly in sexual naughtiness I would not employ them to work alongside vulnerable folk even if they had appeared to be the golden balls of care in their interview and references. I may have to eat humble pie on this one but, until it is proven otherwise, I would believe that our Health Services follow a proper procedure for recruitment that offers protection for those to whom they have a responsibility.

As for the Jane Tanner comments - look at some of the things written by us in the "Fencers Retreat". They had had a joke the night before about a word, "relieving", that had two meanings in the circumstances. I would have laughed at that if I had been a member of that party and no teacher analysing my words for her own means would convince me that I had a problem for doing so.

She remembers the joke in her statement and, in my humble opinion, actually sounds a little embarrassed to have to recall and tell somebody else a silly "rudey" joke that they had all taken part in. Hardly damning evidence enough to send her back to school to re-learn English and how to use it in a grown up manner is it?

We have done the same in the Fencers Retreat guys. Heck I wanted one man for each day of the week in one thread in there - I do hope you understood that was a joke and haven't got me labelled now as a raving, female sexual predator after every man that posts here.




Take care

candyfloss wrote:Very, very odd statement from Payne. He talks about Madeleine in the past tense repeatedly,. I counted 10 "she was" not is. Only in the last sentence does he realise what he's said and corrects it to "is" Hmmmmmmmmmm

Perhaps, like yourself, he believes she is dead.

Hi Vaguely
That is a crucial observation that you have just made.

I believed the likelihood of Madeleine being alive was low to non-existant the minute that we were hearing the words paedophile involvement.

What's to say that Mr Payne is another doubting Thomas who genuinely believed that she had been abducted by paedophiles and rated, like me, her chances of surviving that as nil, zero, zilch.

Of course he is going to need to offer support to her parents and is likely to keep his real thoughts to himself because they do not want to even contemplate her being anything other than alive several years later, but in a private police interview he may well have talked about her as dead simply for the reason that he actually believes the likelihood of that.

Take care

Kololi wrote:Hi
I have said the same as Kathybelle says in a much earlier post that I wrote in a different thread - about the so called gesture supposedly witnessed by Mrs Gaspar being likely to get Mr Payne a bloodied nose if it was indeed a sexual gesture. He didn't get a bloodied nose, nor as far as anybody is aware, even a strong "pack it in" comment from Madeleine's parents. Mrs Gaspar's husband was not 100% sure that Mrs Gaspar's interpretation was 100% correct. I am therefore, inclined to wonder if she did make a mistake in her interpretation.



Given the number of people in this party, some of whom didn't know each other too well and that one had her mother with her, I simply think it would be one major coincidence that they all happened to be "swingers" or "sexual deviants" who were prepared to let other members interfere with their children whislt doing nothing to stop it.

The social worker lady susected that Mr Payne may have been known to her because, at home in England he had been brought to her attention because of sexual wrong doings towards children. Mr Payne looks a little like Mr Murat and possibly several other dark haired bespectacled men of similar age and build. She may have mistaken him for somebody else who looked similar that she had dealt with through the course of her work.

I do believe that when applying for posts with vulnerable people, such as patients in a hospital, one has to have a CRB check. Surely the hospital employing Mr Payne would have done this and his sexual tendancies would have been duly noted. What hospital in their right mind is going to employ a paedophile in a position of trust that allows access to vulnerable patients?

I too am only basing my argument on my gut feelings and personal experience. I have mistaken people for other people because they look similar. I have on occasions been mistaken for others. When interviewing for posts available within a sector of care for vulnerable people I have always obtained a CRB check because it is expected that we do that. I know that if I was advised from that check that one applicant was on a sex offenders list or had been involved even slightly in sexual naughtiness I would not employ them to work alongside vulnerable folk even if they had appeared to be the golden balls of care in their interview and references. I may have to eat humble pie on this one but, until it is proven otherwise, I would believe that our Health Services follow a proper procedure for recruitment that offers protection for those to whom they have a responsibility.

As for the Jane Tanner comments - look at some of the things written by us in the "Fencers Retreat". They had had a joke the night before about a word, "relieving", that had two meanings in the circumstances. I would have laughed at that if I had been a member of that party and no teacher analysing my words for her own means would convince me that I had a problem for doing so.

She remembers the joke in her statement and, in my humble opinion, actually sounds a little embarrassed to have to recall and tell somebody else a silly "rudey" joke that they had all taken part in. Hardly damning evidence enough to send her back to school to re-learn English and how to use it in a grown up manner is it?

We have done the same in the Fencers Retreat guys. Heck I wanted one man for each day of the week in one thread in there - I do hope you understood that was a joke and haven't got me labelled now as a raving, female sexual predator after every man that posts here.




Take care

Hi Kololi,

Regarding GM not reacting violently to DP's gestures and words, Katarina Gaspar said that the room fell silent; everyone stopped talking.
Yes you would hope any father would react in angry disbelief; it sounds like an extremely awkward atmosphere.
Who knows? Could have been a stupid embarrassing joke or could have been testing the water...
CRB checks only work if someone has been caught offending previously of course. In many cases it has proved useless fr this reason.
Agree about the silly rude joke not amounting to anything but of course every little detail suddenly became questionable.
The reason this has taken on a life of its own is that LP hid those statements in the first place.
Someone anonymously slipped them in amongst other paperwork so they must have felt uncomfortable about it too.

Ruby wrote:Regarding GM not reacting violently to DP's gestures and words, Katarina Gaspar said that the room fell silent; everyone stopped talking. Yes you would hope any father would react in angry disbelief; it sounds like an extremely awkward atmosphere.
Who knows? Could have been a stupid embarrassing joke or could have been testing the water...

From Dr Katarina Gaspar's statement:

EXTRACT from Statement of Dr Katherine Zacharias Gaspar made to Leicestershire Police on 16 May 2007:

“It was fun during the first two or three days. Probably around the fourth or fifth day there was an incident that stuck in my mind. I say this because I have thought about the particular incident I am about to describe many times since then.

“One night, when all the adults, that is, from those couples I have mentioned above, were all sitting around on a patio outside the house where we were all staying. We had been eating and drinking ‘Berbers’. I was sitting between Gerry and Dave and I think both were talking about Madeleine. I can't remember the conversation in its entirety, but they seemed to be discussing a particular scenario. I remember Dave saying to Gerry something about ‘she’, meaning Madeleine, ‘would do this’.

“While he mentioned the word ‘this’, Dave was doing the action of sucking one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, while with his other hand he was doing a circle around his nipple, with a circular movement around his clothes. This was done in a provocative way. There seemed to be an explicit insinuation about what he was saying and doing. I remember being shocked by that. I always felt it was something very weird and that it was not something anyone should say or do. I looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to gauge their reactions.

“I looked around as if saying: “Did someone else hear that, or was it just me?”. The conversations stopped for a moment, then we all began conversing again. Moreover, I remember Dave doing the same thing on another occasion. In saying this, I want to mention once again that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary scenario, although I’m not sure".

END QUOTE - REST SNIPPPED

P.S. I don't know what 'Berbers' are. How strong a drink is that?

ETA (answering my own question) - I see that it's a sort of gin-and-tonic-plus:

Berber Recipe

This drink is a variation of
Gin and Tonic Drink Recipe

Ingredients
My Bar
8 oz Gin
cubes (Fill With) Ice
splash Lime Juice
2 wedges Lime
splash Tonic Water
Best served in a Highball Glass.

Directions

Fill glass with ice, fill almost to top with gin (tanq ten, of course). Add a splash of tonic water and a splash of rose's lime juice. Two wedges of lime on the edge and a stirrer. Some make these gin and tonics on steroids in quart sized mugs.

Berber Recipe Ingredients

Gin
Ice
Lime Juice
Lime
Tonic Water

Hi Ruby, one has to wonder why the Paynes and the McCanns didn't sue Mrs Gaspar and the media, if what was said wasn't true.

They have stayed silent and the McCanns are not known for staying silent, if they believe untrue statements, have been made about them, whether it is by an individual or the media.

The McCanns are suing Goncalo Amaral, for writing in his book, what is already available to the public, in the case files and have been very vocal to the media.

For David Payne, to be accused of making paedophile gestures about Madeleine, to her father, is a very serious allegation and Mrs Gaspar must have been sure of her facts, before she went to the police.

Does anyone know who went to the media with this story and why the media printed this story? After all a newspaper group had already been sued by the McCanns for telling lies amongst the truth of Madeleine's disappearance.

After the references by Payne about Maddie isn't it strange that the McCanns allowed him to bathe their children?


Gonçalo Amaral


"there were gestures and words indicating the existence of a child molester within that group of people"



The McCanns televised reconstruction for profit



"It would be interesting to know the reason why Mr David Payne is not taking part in the reconstitution. He might explain for how long he bathed the children and at what time."


Linda McQueen with Gerry McCann


"The family had a great routine - their mealtimes, bedtimes and bathtimes in particular were great fun."


Dr David Payne, Leicester Royal Infirmary


"We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business"


Index of Official Files & Statements


Yvonne Warren Martin further states that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers to see if David Payne is on that list.

Kololi wrote:Hi
I have said the same as Kathybelle says in a much earlier post that I wrote in a different thread - about the so called gesture supposedly witnessed by Mrs Gaspar being likely to get Mr Payne a bloodied nose if it was indeed a sexual gesture. He didn't get a bloodied nose, nor as far as anybody is aware, even a strong "pack it in" comment from Madeleine's parents. Mrs Gaspar's husband was not 100% sure that Mrs Gaspar's interpretation was 100% correct. I am therefore, inclined to wonder if she did make a mistake in her interpretation.

Given the number of people in this party, some of whom didn't know each other too well and that one had her mother with her, I simply think it would be one major coincidence that they all happened to be "swingers" or "sexual deviants" who were prepared to let other members interfere with their children whislt doing nothing to stop it.

The social worker lady susected that Mr Payne may have been known to her because, at home in England he had been brought to her attention because of sexual wrong doings towards children. Mr Payne looks a little like Mr Murat and possibly several other dark haired bespectacled men of similar age and build. She may have mistaken him for somebody else who looked similar that she had dealt with through the course of her work.

I do believe that when applying for posts with vulnerable people, such as patients in a hospital, one has to have a CRB check. Surely the hospital employing Mr Payne would have done this and his sexual tendancies would have been duly noted. What hospital in their right mind is going to employ a paedophile in a position of trust that allows access to vulnerable patients?

I too am only basing my argument on my gut feelings and personal experience. I have mistaken people for other people because they look similar. I have on occasions been mistaken for others. When interviewing for posts available within a sector of care for vulnerable people I have always obtained a CRB check because it is expected that we do that. I know that if I was advised from that check that one applicant was on a sex offenders list or had been involved even slightly in sexual naughtiness I would not employ them to work alongside vulnerable folk even if they had appeared to be the golden balls of care in their interview and references. I may have to eat humble pie on this one but, until it is proven otherwise, I would believe that our Health Services follow a proper procedure for recruitment that offers protection for those to whom they have a responsibility.

As for the Jane Tanner comments - look at some of the things written by us in the "Fencers Retreat". They had had a joke the night before about a word, "relieving", that had two meanings in the circumstances. I would have laughed at that if I had been a member of that party and no teacher analysing my words for her own means would convince me that I had a problem for doing so.

She remembers the joke in her statement and, in my humble opinion, actually sounds a little embarrassed to have to recall and tell somebody else a silly "rudey" joke that they had all taken part in. Hardly damning evidence enough to send her back to school to re-learn English and how to use it in a grown up manner is it?

We have done the same in the Fencers Retreat guys. Heck I wanted one man for each day of the week in one thread in there - I do hope you understood that was a joke and haven't got me labelled now as a raving, female sexual predator after every man that posts here.




Take care

I accept everything you say Kololi, but find it inconceivable that these bizarre gestures/ suggestive comments etc, plus the Gaspar and Yvonne Martin statements have not been taken more seriously. We cannot assume that Yvonne Martin was mistaken because David Payne looks like Robert Murat, neither can we assume that these allegations have been investigated by some unknown official and discarded.

If my child had been abducted, as the Mccanns insist, I would want every scrap of evidence investigated, not just sightings of half naked gun toting men, or Victoria Beckham lookalikes wandering around Barcelona. There is just no comparison.

Hi
I agree totally that the McCanns appear to be willing to sue all and sundry and that their reluctance to sue Mrs Gaspar or the social workery lady raises the question why aren't they suing now for the remarks made by the two people.

Surely, likewise, why would Mrs Gaspar have not gone to the police a lot sooner if she had truly believed that Madeleine was a child at risk of abuse?

Even with differences of opinions on some things I do not believe for one moment that any poster here, for instance, having witnessed what she thinks she witnessed and it causing them the concerns that she says it caused her, would keep quiet knowing that a child could be being sexually abused as a result of it. I think everyone of us, no matter what our belief is that happened to Madeleine, would have put a child's welfare first if we had been in those circumstances. Well I hope we would, after all, the Australian lady sighting guy who kept quiet for so long to save his sorry ass didn't receive much love from us for not going to the police right away.

The momentary silence caused when Mr Payne made his stupid gesture can be more likened, in my opinion, to a silence when somebody says something embarrasing or tells a bad joke. Heck we know from Jane Tanner's repeating of their "relieving" joke that they bantered and sexual innuendo made them giggle like silly school children. This could have simply been another such bantering session that went a little too far but that doesn't make Mr Payne a paedophile no more than me asking for a man a day makes me a raving nimphomaniac.

I agree in total with you Gran. Everything should be investigated including Mrs Gaspar's concerns. I do think it a shame that a child went missing before she felt urged enough to raise her concerns more formally. We are doing our own form of investigation here on the boards aren't we. We take the information and discuss it and we draw our conclusions. After doing it here, I honestly see nothing that suggests anything more than Mrs Gaspar was maybe mistaken and as bad as the Australian lady guy and Mr Payne was a pratt who told a stupid joke in the company of strangers who didn't appreciate his crass humour.

Take care

Kololi wrote:Surely, likewise, why would Mrs Gaspar have not gone to the police a lot sooner if she had truly believed that Madeleine was a child at risk of abuse?

The same might be said e.g. about Mrs Fenn - why did she not tell someone when she heard a child sobbing 'Daddy' for 75 minutes?

The fact is we often don't report things we are suspicious about e.g for fear of repercussions or because we think the police will ignore us or even make fun of us.

She acted swiftly after hearing reports of Madeleine McCann going missing and then seeing pictures of Dr David Payne or hearing his name mentioned. She contacted Leiecestershire Police immediately and by 16 September - just 13 days after Madeleine had been reported missing - had made her formal statement to Leicestershire Police.

What was the identity of the senior investigating officer for Leicestershire Police who ordered that statement to be withheld?

There's something the Home Office ought to be interested in.

Tony Bennett wrote:What was the identity of the senior investigating officer for Leicestershire Police who ordered that statement to be withheld?

There's something the Home Office ought to be interested in.

Can that be a FOIA question for the Home Office?

Or she didn't phone the police beforehand because she made a retrospective fit.

Her husbands statement differs from hers.

I wonder which one is the most realistic, and why his statement doesn't get bandied about so often.