Re: The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner

by Guest 25.03.10 13:27

aiyoyo wrote:
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?

I did ask that question of Jacqui Smith when this story first came out, when she was Home Secretary, she replied that she had passed my letter on to Tony McNulty, who replied with you should not beleive everything you read in the papers. He also couldn't spell Madeleines name correctly.

I will have to type it out as I don't know how to copy it!! I have left the name "Madeline" as it was in original.

Dated 8 Sep 2008

Thank you for your recent letter on behalf of Ms xxxx xxxx about the Madeline McCann case.

Ms xxx states that she was disappointed to read that Leicestershire Police has withheld evidence regarding the case of Madeline McCann. It is worth remembering that not everything you read or hear in the press should be taken as fact. This is especially true in this case, where speculation and rumour have been rife throughout. We are confident that in the Forensic Science Service(FSS) rigorous quality procedures and a meticulous attention to detail mean work is checked repeatedly as a matter of routine. I am sure you will have seen media coverage following the publication of the case files, quoting email traffic from the FSS, in which it is apparent that they were clear and consistent throughout in detailing their findings.

Any concerns Ms xxxx has about Leicestershire Police Force should be addressed to the Chief Officer and not the Home Office. If Ms xxxx is dissatisfied with the explanation received from the Force, she may wish to raise these issues with the local Police Authority at the following address:

Chief Executive
Leicestershire Police Authority
St John's
Enderby
Leiscestershire
LE19 2BX

Tel (0116)229 8950
E-mail: police.authority@leicestershire.pnn.police.uk

Tony McNulty

by justagrannynow 1 25.03.10 14:00

What has the FSS got to do with the investigation of the Gaspar allegations ?

by Guest 25.03.10 14:23

justagrannynow 1 wrote:What has the FSS got to do with the investigation of the Gaspar allegations ?

Sorry JAGN, I asked a couple of other questions about DNA found etc.

ETA Haven't got my original letter, it was saved on my old computer, but I have since got a new one, and didn't kn ow how to transfer the stuff from one to another!!

by justagrannynow 1 25.03.10 14:27

candyfloss wrote:
justagrannynow 1 wrote:What has the FSS got to do with the investigation of the Gaspar allegations ?

Sorry JAGN, I asked a couple of other questions about DNA found etc.

ETA Haven't got my original letter, it was saved on my old computer, but I have since got a new one, and didn't kn ow how to transfer the stuff from one to another!!

Thank goodness for that. I thought I was losing the plot !!! laugh

by aiyoyo 25.03.10 15:14

Thanks candyfloss.

As usual they skirted around the question instead of answering to the point - v. typical!

by justagrannynow 1 25.03.10 17:41

vaguely1 wrote: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.

Either way vaguely, these concerns which people have reported to the police, whether they are figments of their imagination or not, should have been investigated and the outcome of such investigations should have been in the files, even in the file marked " Not relevant".

As for Arul Gaspar not hearing or seeing as much as his wife, I don't find that so unusual. My husband is impervious to tensions, atmospheres and such. 80% of social chat goes way above his head, and I have heard the same from many women. Whatever the reason was for his missing the things his wife says she saw and heard, he does appear to have agreed with Katerina not to allow David Payne near their bathroom when their daughter was in there. To me, that suggests that he believes his wife did indeed hear and see what she describes in her statement.

by Kololi 25.03.10 18:58

Hi
This issue and the issue of were the children neglected by their parents has me stood with one leg on either side of the "fence".

I passionately believe that the children were neglected by their parents when they were left alone during those evenings either with the door open to save themselves in the event of fire or with the door locked so that they burnt should the apartment have gone up in flames - sheeesh how excuses can be offered up for that is beyond me.

Equally, with a passion I cannot believe that a couple who pay for IVF and who are finally blessed with what must have been a most wanted child would allow their mates down the road to sexually abuse her because she "could throw a tantrum" or because the novelty of having her wore off once the twins arrived.

I would hope that once the Social Worker and Mrs Gaspar raised their concerns it would have alerted the authorities to check all the children. Now this may have been done and no evidence of abuse was found or it was not done - I have no clue about that same as anybody here I suppose as we will not be privvy to such information particularly about the other little children who were on the holiday.

Take care

by kathyBelle 25.03.10 19:31

Hi Kololi, do you ever wonder why the McCanns who 'paid' for IVF and were blessed with 3 children, were not only were responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, but never looked for her when she disappeared.

Kate McCann was asked by Jane Hill, in a BBC television interview, if she had ever wanted to join the locals, who gave up work for a week, to search for Madeleine. She admitted there and then that she and her husband had never physically looked for Madeleine.

I don't know if David Payne sexually abused Madeleine or not, but I do know that the McCanns and the Paynes remained silent over Katherine Gaspar's serious allegation. I have said in a previous thread, the McCanns are not known for remaining silent, when 'things' are said or written about them, that they don't approve of.

We do know that a social worker, along with a police officer, visited the McCanns, the day after they arrived home from PDL, after being made arguidos. No one knows what was said in the McCanns home and if the twins were put on the at risk register, but shortly after the social worker and police officer left, an announcement was made that Kate McCann, would not be returning to work as a doctor.

When Gerry McCann returned to work, a hospital spokesperson, said he would not have patient contact, but would be working in the research department.

I wonder why these two announcements were made to the media regarding Kate and Gerry McCanns work as medics. I also wonder why the McCanns weren't prosecuted in Portugal, for their disgraceful behaviour, that caused Madeleine to disappear.

Maybe Gordon Brown can give us the answer.

by Kololi 25.03.10 20:18

Hi Kathybelle
I had read about the Social Worker and Police Officer visiting them upon their return home. Hopefully they asked the questions that needed to be asked but as you say, we would not be privvy to any outcome.

I simply assumed that them not returning to work or returning to limited work would be about being in a state of shock, depressed or some emotional state which I think any of us would be in under the circumstances. If Madeleine was genuinely abducted or whether they had done something awful to her it would be a great weight and would affect most folks emotionally.

I would have needed to physically join in the search I believe if I had been in their shoes unless ordered not to by the Police. They appear to do odd things though don't they so it actually didn't surprise me when Mrs McCann gave her answer in that interview I am guessing that you mean. I thought she appeared almost embarrased to have to admit that she didn't physically search and then she offers up the working hard at other things instead as her reason for not searching - it was quite weird.

I agree totally with your final point - why weren't they prosecuted in Portugal for neglect at the very least? I am not sure Gordey knows the answer to that but with the information that has been made available publicly they do appear to have got off very lightly indeed.

The abduction theory is the theory that I least believe btw but the child abuse part simply doesn't sit right with me. I could easily type what I think will make me accepted here but I won't do that as I would not be true to myself. I am not deliberately being contrary - get me started on the neglect issues and I will fall off my fence right into the middle of the "anti" group of people but the abuse part is a bridge too far without absoloute concrete proof. :flower:

Take care

by **Tony Bennett** 25.03.10 20:25

vaguely1 wrote:Or she didn't phone the police beforehand because she made a retrospective fit. Her husband's statement differs from hers. I wonder which one is the most realistic, and why his statement doesn't get bandied about so often.

Well, here is the relevant extract from Dr Arul Gaspar's statement:

“During the period we stayed at the villa I remember a gesture made by David Payne. I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple, using circular movements, whilst he put his right index finger into his mouth, touching his tongue. This happened during a meal, at the end of the day, in the villa. I do not remember the time or the date, but we would usually dine between 7.30pm and 9.00pm every day. I think this happened in the middle of the holiday.

“I remember that when I saw this gesture, I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having. We were sitting around a white plastic table in the villa. I don’t know if anyone else saw the gesture, apart from my wife Katherine. After this gesture, we did not notice any others and as far as I know, the gesture was not repeated. We never commented on this gesture during the rest of the holiday and I thought no more about it".

by ufercoffy 25.03.10 20:40

Kololi wrote:The abduction theory is the theory that I least believe btw but the child abuse part simply doesn't sit right with me. I could easily type what I think will make me accepted here but I won't do that as I would not be true to myself. I am not deliberately being contrary - get me started on the neglect issues and I will fall off my fence right into the middle of the "anti" group of people but the abuse part is a bridge too far without absoloute concrete proof. :flower:

Take care

I think it's people like you who add value to any debate. A forum would be completely boring and have no real direction if everyone agreed with each other. It's people like you who make those set in their ways think about what they feel and explore other possibilities, even if they come to the same conclusion as they did before. It doesn't hurt to think outside the box and see things from others' perspective.

The sexual innuendos of Jane Tanner - Page 2 Icon_flower

by kathyBelle 25.03.10 21:37

Hi Kololi, thank you for your reply you have made some very valid points. You say the police may have ordered the McCanns not to search for Madeleine, but surely the time for at least one of the McCanns to search for Madeleine, was before the police were called.

I firmly believe that the reason the McCanns did not search for Madeleine, is because they knew where she was and if she was alive or dead. So many other things lead me to believe the McCanns are more involved with Madeleine's disappearance, than neglect.

They lied about the shutter, the children's sleeping habits, the checks, the view from the Tapas Bar to the apartment. The lies may seem petty to some people, but Madeleine was missing, because of the behaviour of the McCanns and they should have told the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth. Saving their own skins, was more important to them, than Madeleine's whereabouts.

Then there were the 48 questions Kate McCann refused to answer. Even after she was told that by not answering the questions, she could be jeopardising the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance.

The McCanns behaviour has not been that of parents who have had a child missing. When they have been interviewed, they have given flippant remarks, Gerry McCann has been arrogant in his answers, thats when he wasn't losing his temper.

Like many people I have followed this case from day one, I have never read what's in the newspapers. One reason is I don't buy newspapers and another reason is, the only thing I believe what is written in a newspaper, is the date.

I have listened to the McCanns speak and watched footage of them as they pursued their leisure activities in Praia da Luz, while locals and holidaymakers joined the police in the search for Madeleine.

That is why I believe the McCanns are more involved with Madeleine's disappearance than neglect. However, I do accept others, see the McCanns in a completely different light, I wish I could, but I can't.

by vaguely1 25.03.10 22:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:Or she didn't phone the police beforehand because she made a retrospective fit. Her husband's statement differs from hers. I wonder which one is the most realistic, and why his statement doesn't get bandied about so often.
Well, here is the relevant extract from Dr Arul Gaspar's statement:

“During the period we stayed at the villa I remember a gesture made by David Payne. I do not remember the context of the conversation between David and Gerry, but I do remember seeing David use his left index finger to rub his nipple, using circular movements, whilst he put his right index finger into his mouth, touching his tongue. This happened during a meal, at the end of the day, in the villa. I do not remember the time or the date, but we would usually dine between 7.30pm and 9.00pm every day. I think this happened in the middle of the holiday.

“I remember that when I saw this gesture, I immediately thought it to be in very bad taste, independently of the context of the conversation they were having. We were sitting around a white plastic table in the villa. I don’t know if anyone else saw the gesture, apart from my wife Katherine. After this gesture, we did not notice any others and as far as I know, the gesture was not repeated. We never commented on this gesture during the rest of the holiday and I thought no more about it".

I think the parts where he comments on the allegations of paedophilia are also relevant no?

by vaguely1 25.03.10 22:15

justagrannynow 1 wrote:
vaguely1 wrote: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.

Either way vaguely, these concerns which people have reported to the police, whether they are figments of their imagination or not, should have been investigated and the outcome of such investigations should have been in the files, even in the file marked " Not relevant".

As for Arul Gaspar not hearing or seeing as much as his wife, I don't find that so unusual. My husband is impervious to tensions, atmospheres and such. 80% of social chat goes way above his head, and I have heard the same from many women. Whatever the reason was for his missing the things his wife says she saw and heard, he does appear to have agreed with Katerina not to allow David Payne near their bathroom when their daughter was in there. To me, that suggests that he believes his wife did indeed hear and see what she describes in her statement.

They should of course have been investigated. It has been an age since the reports appeared in the Pt newspapers.

Are you thinking they still haven't been investigated?

by justagrannynow 1 26.03.10 6:31

Yes vaguely, I am. That is why I keep banging on about it. If anybody can find anything tucked away anywhere that shows any official did anything with the statements other than send them to Portugal after the McCanns and the Paynes had left, I would appreciate it.

Personally, I tend to believe that Madeleine died due to an accident in the apartment and have never gone along with the swingers/sexual abuse stuff, but that is only my opinion, which is coloured by the fact that I do not wish to go down that road. However, these allegations, much as they are distasteful to me, have been made and should be just as relevant to the official investigation as all the other allegations.

If we have to suffer Jane Tanners pinky aspect pyjamas, Matthew Oldfield, who cannot decide if he listened outside the apartment or went inside reading the book titles on a non existent shelf, and all the other stuff, why cannot the allegations of the Gaspars and Yvonne Warren be aired likewise? Perhaps there has been an official investigation, I do not know, but I find it astounding what the parents and their private detectives believe to be credible and what is not. They never comment on the Smith sighting either, which, in my honest opinion, is more believable that some of the others which they have deemed to be interesting and important.

by vaguely1 26.03.10 8:22

I agree, the statements warrant interest, but that's statements plural, both of them. Not just the the one that makes a claim that a man is a paedophile, but also the often forgotten one taken from the other witness to the incident who disputes that claim.

Rather than bandy half the story around the internet, or selling it in books - phone social services and pass on your concerns. Gossiping about it in booklets and on the internet seems utterly wrong to me.

Labelling a man as a paedophile, as has been done time and time and time again on the Madeleine forums repulses me. Firstly because it's so casually done, on the basis of a disputed statement, and secondly because when does it happen our husbands, our sons, our fathers?

You know what vigilantes do to people suspected of paedophilia over here don't you?

I'm glad to live in a country where confidential police statements aren't released to the public. The public seem to have no idea of how to deal with the information, or any ability to assess it without making an utter mess of thing.

Again, her words are being reproduced without permission in a way that was never intended. Or maybe she was contacted and asked for permission - I'd like to think she might have been. Using the work of the translators without permission is one thing, but reproducing a police statement which I don't suppose she ever thought would be seen be anyone other than police is just wrong.

If you want to check on the level of investigation given to it then contact the police and tell them your concerns.

by kathyBelle 26.03.10 8:51

Good Morning Vaguely, I have personally contacted the Portuguese and the UK police, Social Services, CEOP and other agencies that are supposed to protect children, about this case and I know of many other people who have done the same. Apart from a standard reply from CEOP, to say my email was received, I have heard nothing and neither have the others who contacted these people.

I have signed petitions that have been sent to Portugal, the British Government and Social Services. These petitions have had thousands of signatures on them, by people who are concerned by what has happened to Madeleine and the way she was cruelly neglected by her parents. Especially on the night she disappeared, because, if the McCanns were speaking the truth, she had told them she had cried the previous evening and they ignored what she told them and left her alone once again.

We are aware that the McCanns and their team read these message boards, but they aren't the only ones who read these boards. There will be police officers and others who use message boards as well as Face Book and Twitter. Mark William-Thomas, the Criminologist and Child Protection officer, uses Twitter and he will be well aware of everything that has and is being said about David Payne and his sexual inuendos, as well as other aspects of this case.

These people do not have to read or post on message boards, Twitter or Face Book, the information has already been out in the media for almost 3yrs. During the recent Amaral v McCann case, it was stated in court that the PJ wanted to prosecute the McCanns.

Information, about the McCanns behaviour, and other aspects of this case, was divulged in court, that proved that the McCanns should have been prosecuted. I would like to know why they weren't prosecuted, its one of the questions I and I know many many other people have asked the PJ.

Finally, maybe I am reading your post wrong, but why do you presume that those who want justice for Madeleine are vigilantes? The McCanns committed a crime in Portugal, a crime that others have been successfully prosecuted for.

by vaguely1 26.03.10 9:00

kathyBelle wrote:Good Morning Vaguely, I have personally contacted the Portuguese and the UK police, Social Services, CEOP and other agencies that are supposed to protect children, about this case and I know of many other people who have done the same. Apart from a standard reply from CEOP, to say my email was received, I have heard nothing and neither have the others who contacted these people.

This is as it should be. You wouldn't hear about an investigation of this kind. You are neither a witness of a victim.

I have signed petitions that have been sent to Portugal, the British Government and Social Services. These petitions have had thousands of signatures on them, by people who are concerned by what has happened to Madeleine and the way she was cruelly neglected by her parents. Especially on the night she disappeared, because, if the McCanns were speaking the truth, she had told them she had cried the previous evening and they ignored what she told them and left her alone once again.

We are aware that the McCanns and their team read these message boards, but they aren't the only ones who read these boards. There will be police officers and others who use message boards as well as Face Book and Twitter. Mark William-Thomas, the Criminologist and Child Protection officer, uses Twitter and he will be well aware of everything that has and is being said about David Payne and his sexual inuendos, as well as other aspects of this case.

These people do not have to read or post on message boards, Twitter or Face Book, the information has already been out in the media for almost 3yrs. During the recent Amaral v McCann case, it was stated in court that the PJ wanted to prosecute the McCanns.

Information, about the McCanns behaviour, and other aspects of this case, was divulged in court, that proved that the McCanns should have been prosecuted. I would like to know why they weren't prosecuted, its one of the questions I and I know many many other people have asked the PJ.

Finally, maybe I am reading your post wrong, but why do you presume that those who want justice for Madeleine are vigilantes? The McCanns committed a crime in Portugal, a crime that others have been successfully prosecuted for.

You haven't read my post wrongly, so much as read something in to it that wasn't there. We all want justice for Madeleine. I presume that you're not a vigilante.....but you must also know that they're out there?

by kathyBelle 26.03.10 9:18

Hello again Vaguely, when I said I had contacted the police and other agencies, regarding David Payne and Gerry McCann and the McCanns behaviour regarding Madeleine, I was merely answering your question.

I was once a police officer's wife and I know that information would never be passed on to someone who wasn't a witness, or a victim. I do know from other times I have contacted the police, regarding other issues, I have received a reply that shows that what I have been written has been duly noted and is not some computer generated reply that says my email has been received and the person who deals with it, is out of the office, but will deal with it on their return and contact me. Which is what the email from the CEOP told me.

I am aware that vigilantes are out there, but to my knowledge, David Payne or Gerry McCann have never been harmed. The world and his wife knows that the McCanns live in Rothley and it wouldn't be to hard for vigilantes to find their home, if they wanted to.

I have never heard anything about David Payne's movements, but I have seen the McCanns many times on television walking about. I have never seen anyone throw missiles at them, or make derogatory remarks to them.

I also know that there are McCann supporters, who try to shut anyone up, who criticises the McCanns. Those of us who want justice for Madeleine, are her voice, we are doing what she would want to be done, if she could speak and had the wisdom to know she was treated badly.

by ufercoffy 26.03.10 9:28

vaguely1 wrote:Labelling a man as a paedophile, as has been done time and time and time again on the Madeleine forums repulses me.

Goncalo Amaral has also stated that there is evidence of a child molester in that group of friends and is curious about David Payne's activities regarding bathing the McCann children. Can a child molester be assumed to be a paedophile? If so, does Amaral's statement repulse you?

by justagrannynow 1 26.03.10 9:38

vaguely I admire your concern about the misuse of information, and the risk of vigilantes, ( I mean that, not being sarcastic) but a child is missing and every scrap of information should be thoroughly investigated. The parents have asked on many occasions for the assistance of the public, so maybe that is why we feel we have a right to have some input into this investigation, and why people like myself are left bewildered by their inconsistent/picky attitude towards the information provided.
Also, and I don't like bringing this up, but the McCanns showed no concern for the family of Raymond Hewlett. Yes, he is a despicable paedophile, but did his wife and children deserve to be plastered all over the media? When it suits them, Kate and Gerry McCann can appeal for the concerns of others to be put aside in their search for Madeleine. They feel sorry for the people of PDL who have lost their jobs because of this, but those people should accept that these things cannot be helped etc etc. Well, in my book, allegations, made to the police about their behaviour and that of David Payne come into the same category.

by vaguely1 26.03.10 9:41

ufercoffy wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:Labelling a man as a paedophile, as has been done time and time and time again on the Madeleine forums repulses me.

Goncalo Amaral has also stated that there is evidence of a child molester in that group of friends and is curious about David Payne's activities regarding bathing the McCann children. Can a child molester be assumed to be a paedophile? If so, does Amaral's statement repulse you?

He bases his statement on the Gaspar statement does he not? Or does he have evidence in the true sense?

by vaguely1 26.03.10 9:45

justagrannynow 1 wrote:vaguely I admire your concern about the misuse of information, and the risk of vigilantes, ( I mean that, not being sarcastic) but a child is missing and every scrap of information should be thoroughly investigated. The parents have asked on many occasions for the assistance of the public, so maybe that is why we feel we have a right to have some input into this investigation, and why people like myself are left bewildered by their inconsistent/picky attitude towards the information provided.
Also, and I don't like bringing this up, but the McCanns showed no concern for the family of Raymond Hewlett. Yes, he is a despicable paedophile, but did his wife and children deserve to be plastered all over the media? When it suits them, Kate and Gerry McCann can appeal for the concerns of others to be put aside in their search for Madeleine. They feel sorry for the people of PDL who have lost their jobs because of this, but those people should accept that these things cannot be helped etc etc. Well, in my book, allegations, made to the police about their behaviour and that of David Payne come into the same category.

I indeed have concern for Hewletts children, in more ways than one.

It isn't an either or. I don't support any of it Gran. But in the case of an unfounded allegation versus previous convictions I can see there's a difference.

The whole thing is ugly.

by kathyBelle 26.03.10 9:50

Well said justagrannynow1, the McCanns have never shown any concern, until recently, or any of the children who have had their faces plastered across newspapers, when they were supposed to be Madeleine look a likes. The media have even found out where these children live and have identified them.

The media have put so much effort into delving into the lives of these innocent children, on the McCanns behalf. I wonder why they didn't put the same effort into going to the area where Dave Edgar and the McCanns, believe Madeleine is now living, which is in a poor community around 10 miles away from Praia da Luz. I'm sure if they had waved a cheque book, in front of these poor people, someone would have spoken out.

I have to say, I wonder why Dave Edgar and the McCanns haven't visited this community. They should have gone to the community, before they announced to the media where they believed Madeleine was now living.

Unless they were hoping the media would do their job for them, that way, they wouldn't have had to use any money from their tacky fund.

by ufercoffy 26.03.10 9:54

vaguely1 wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:Labelling a man as a paedophile, as has been done time and time and time again on the Madeleine forums repulses me.

Goncalo Amaral has also stated that there is evidence of a child molester in that group of friends and is curious about David Payne's activities regarding bathing the McCann children. Can a child molester be assumed to be a paedophile? If so, does Amaral's statement repulse you?

He bases his statement on the Gaspar statement does he not? Or does he have evidence in the true sense?

So, if someone witnessed a friend making suggestions about your small daughter and then went on to bathe her you wouldn't think of that friend as a child molester or a paedophile and you wouldn't feel repulsed? You would question the police officer?

by vaguely1 26.03.10 9:58

ufercoffy wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:Labelling a man as a paedophile, as has been done time and time and time again on the Madeleine forums repulses me.

Goncalo Amaral has also stated that there is evidence of a child molester in that group of friends and is curious about David Payne's activities regarding bathing the McCann children. Can a child molester be assumed to be a paedophile? If so, does Amaral's statement repulse you?

He bases his statement on the Gaspar statement does he not? Or does he have evidence in the true sense?

So, if someone witnessed a friend making suggestions about your small daughter and then went on to bathe her you wouldn't think of that friend as a child molester or a paedophile and you wouldn't feel repulsed? You would question the police officer?

No, I was asking you whether his statement of having evidence of a child molester was based on the Gaspar statement, or whether he had evidence of there being a child molester in the group.

by ufercoffy 26.03.10 10:06

vaguely1 wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:
ufercoffy wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:Labelling a man as a paedophile, as has been done time and time and time again on the Madeleine forums repulses me.

Goncalo Amaral has also stated that there is evidence of a child molester in that group of friends and is curious about David Payne's activities regarding bathing the McCann children. Can a child molester be assumed to be a paedophile? If so, does Amaral's statement repulse you?

He bases his statement on the Gaspar statement does he not? Or does he have evidence in the true sense?

So, if someone witnessed a friend making suggestions about your small daughter and then went on to bathe her you wouldn't think of that friend as a child molester or a paedophile and you wouldn't feel repulsed? You would question the police officer?

No, I was asking you whether his statement of having evidence of a child molester was based on the Gaspar statement, or whether he had evidence of there being a child molester in the group.

He said there is evidence of a child molester. What more do you need? Why on earth would you question that? Why on earth would anyone allow the case into their own missing child be shelved under those circumstances and not demand that this was thoroughly checked out?

Only the McCanns know why they let that happen.

And why you try to argue the Gaspar statements is beyond me, unless your Fiona Payne.

by vaguely1 26.03.10 10:08

by kathyBelle 26.03.10 10:09

Obviously Mr Amaral would have to base his evidence on what Katherine Gaspar told the police, because Mr Amaral, was not there when David Payne had supposedly made his paedophilia gestures about Madeleine, to Gerry McCann.

Mr Amaral will no doubt wonder, why the McCanns not only stayed silent, over this serious allegation, but let David Payne bathe their children.

I don't understand, why David Payne would bathe the McCanns children, it isn't as though the McCanns weren't able to bathe their children themselves.

More to the point, I don't understand why David Payne would even want to bathe the McCanns children. Just as I don't understand why Gerry McCann, sent David Payne to their apartment, to check on his wife and children, instead of going himself.

David Payne and Kate McCann, both gave conflicting statements, about how long David Payne was in their apartment.

So many lies have been told in this sad case and all to save the McCanns own skins.

by sue xx 26.03.10 10:49

kathyBelle wrote:Obviously Mr Amaral would have to base his evidence on what Katherine Gaspar told the police, because Mr Amaral, was not there when David Payne had supposedly made his paedophilia gestures about Madeleine, to Gerry McCann.

Mr Amaral will no doubt wonder, why the McCanns not only stayed silent, over this serious allegation, but let David Payne bathe their children.

I don't understand, why David Payne would bathe the McCanns children, it isn't as though the McCanns weren't able to bathe their children themselves.

More to the point, I don't understand why David Payne would even want to bathe the McCanns children. Just as I don't understand why Gerry McCann, sent David Payne to their apartment, to check on his wife and children, instead of going himself.

David Payne and Kate McCann, both gave conflicting statements, about how long David Payne was in their apartment.

So many lies have been told in this sad case and all to save the McCanns own skins.

Morning kath and well said . I to have wonderd why gerry sent payne to check on his wife ,strange one that .also why was he bathing the McCanns kiddies . You dont let men bath your kids unless it`s their father ,,Yuk That is perverted in my book ...

I wonder how many woman would let their next door neighbour come in and bath their kids Mmmmm.
.