The controversial Gaspar Statement

by Guest 16.03.12 14:03

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

I apologise in advance if such a thread already exists, but I looked over many pages in the debate section and could not find one.

It's something that russiandoll said recently about Katarina Gaspar's statement, over on the susbstitute child thread, that made me think.

"it would not surprise me to read that due to the inconsistencies of the 2 statements, the strange behaviour of Mrs G after the shocking incident, that unless there was additional info then they would not carry much weight as evidence".

I believe women have a tendency to see things from a different perspective to men and this could account for the said discrepancies that she refers to.

I also believe that when sitting around a table or seating area, just because two people are sitting side by side, it does not guarantee that both of them will see the same things at the same time. Or for the same length of time.

We simply cannot ignore the seriousness of Katarina Gaspar's Statement, just because her husbands does not match hers.

She is a GP, someone tasked with spotting the warning signs of child abuse. You have to remember that.

Let me share a recent experience concerning my husband. Neither of us had read the book Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. We had not seen the original film either and only knew it was a spy film, where someone was a traitor.

We put the DVD on and about 20-30 minutes into the film, I was desperate for the toilet. So he stops the film and off I go. On the way back he says to me, the films quite boring so far and I said, yes, it's quite dated. I then went on to say to him, I know who the traitor is already. He said, "how could you know that, it has only just started". I told him that something happened earlier and where most people would look at the one main thing, I looked at something different. So he said to me, "you always see things differently, so I'm not surprised". Anyway, I thought he was going to say, "don't tell me and spoil it", but he said he wanted to know, so I told him. Film ends, I was right and now he is bugging me to tell him what I saw.

So you see, we have two people who are married, both supposedly looking at the same thing and one person spots something, the other misses it. This is what I think happened where the Gaspar Statements are concerned and I certainly do not think that Katarina's Statement will be ignored by the authorities, just because Arul didn't see the same thing as her.

by Guest 16.03.12 14:08

TRANSLATIONS BY INES

13 Processos Vol XIII Pages 3911 to 3915

Final revised translation.

Judiciary Police
National Directorate

TRANSLATION

Surname: GASPAR
First Names: KATHERINA ZACHARIAS
Profession: GP
Date of Statement: 16/05/2007
Number of Pages: 8

I make this statement in relation to the MCCANN family who are currently in Portugal. The MCCANN family is composed of Gerry MCCANN, his wife, Kate MCCANN and their three children, Madeleine, 4 years old, and Sean and Amelie, who are twins, aged two.

As has been widely covered by the news, Madeleine is not with her family presently, and has been missing for the last two weeks.

I will begin by explaining that I am married to Savio Gaspar and that we have two daughters, E., who is almost 3 and I. who is now one year old. I have been married to Savio for 11 years. I am a General Practitioner like my husband. I met my husband when we were (page 1) working together in Exeter, about 14 years ago.

To explain the way in which we met the MCCANN family, I would like to state that my husband knows Kate, as they both attended Dundee University between 1987 and 1992. At that time, Kate’s name was Kate HEALY. I met Kate and Gerry on the occasion of their wedding, around 1998, in Liverpool. Both Savio and I went to the wedding because as Savio was an old friend of Kate’s, we were both invited to the event.

As far as I know, Savio did not know Gerry before the abovementioned wedding. From that time onwards, we met as friends about three times a year and we would spend weekends away together. I would say that we became intimate friends of Gerry and Kate.

I remember that in 2002 or 2003, Savio and I spent a weekend with Gerry and Kate in Devon. We would stay in contact with each other by telephone.

In 2002/2003 Savio and I were living in Birmingham and the MCCANNS in Leicester.

In September of 2005, Savio, I and E., who at the time was about 1 and a half years old, went to spend our holidays abroad, in Majorca. We went (page 2) on holiday with Kate, Gerry, and Madeleine, who would have been around 2 and a half years old and with the twins, Sean and Amelie, who were just months old. I remember that I was pregnant with I.

During those holidays there were also friends of Gerry and Kate with us.

There was a couple, whose names were Dave and Fiona, and whose surname was PAYNE, I believe. I think that they were married and had one daughter aged about 1, named L. I remember that during those holidays that Fiona was pregnant.

There was another couple, whose names were Tara and Stuart, but whose surname I cannot remember who were also on holiday with us. They had two boys, aged 1 and 3, whose names I do not remember. I did not know these two families before we went on holidays together. From memory, I think that it was Dave who organised these holidays and we all stayed together in a big house when we were in Majorca.

We spend a week on holidays, however, the MCCANN family and the PAYNE family stayed for two weeks. I think that Tara and Stuart, and their two children, also stayed for just one week.

Two or three days had gone by, we were all staying in Majorca where, in general terms, we had fun (Page 3) with our children. Possibly, around the fourth or perhaps the fifth day abroad, I remember an incident that stayed recorded in my head. I say this in this way, because I have thought numerous times about the incident that I am about to describe since that date.

One night, when we were on holiday, the adults, in other words, the couples that I mentioned were on a patio outside the house where we were staying. We had been eating and drinking.

I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking about Madeleine. I don’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like....she, referring to Madeleine, would do this?

When he mentioned this, Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it in and out of his mouth, whilst with the other hand he circled his nipple, with a circulating movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner there being an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) to see did anyone else hear this, or was it just me. There was a nervous silence noted in the conversations of all the others and immediately afterwards everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was something very strange and that it wasn’t something that should be done or said.

Apart from this, I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to mention again that it was during a conversation, in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say precisely what it was about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter Lilly, though I’m not certain. He slid one of his fingers in and out of his mouth, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that Lilly would behave or would do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.

I am absolutely certain that he said what he said and that he made the gestures I referred to, but that could have occurred in the restaurant in Leicester, even though (page five) I believe that it was later on, in Majorca. When I heard Dave saying and doing this a second time, I took it more seriously.

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different way from me or from the others. I imagined that maybe he had visited Internet sites related to small children. In short, I thought that he might be interested in child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays, I was more attentive at the bath times after hearing Dave saying that.

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

When I heard Dave say that a second time, it reinforced what I already thought in relation to his thoughts about girls. During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by their daughter L., took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine’s safety, since she was also with Fiona and L., and also with Dave, as far as I know.

As I have already mentioned, I was only with Dave and Fiona on one occasion, after Majorca, and I have not spoken to them since then. In the last two years, we have met, as a family, with the MCCANN, every now and then. This mainly happens on the children’s birthdays, a time when we meet up.

The first time I heard of the terrible news about Madeleine’s disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched the TV thoroughly, and seeing the news coverage, I noticed that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after Madeleine’s disappearance. Based upon that, I believed that he was on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal.

Today, Wednesday, 16th of May of 2007, at 17:40, I gave DC Brewer an A4 page containing 2 photographic images. I am going to refer to these images as (Ref KZG/1) (element of proof) that may (page seven) be presented as means of proof, if necessary. These photographs were taken during the holidays in Majorca. In the photographs, Dave is wearing a white T-shirt and the woman in the photograph corresponds to his wife Fiona. The man who is holding the glass of wine in the photograph is Stuart. These photographs were taken while we were in Majorca.

Signed:

Translation [PJ] done by C.R.F.E.

Note: Retroversion from the Portuguese translation

by Guest 16.03.12 14:15

Stella found these on the forum re Gaspar statements.....................

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

by Guest 16.03.12 14:21

Yes, I found those ones thanks Candyfloss, but none of them were in the debate section, as I mentioned.

by nomendelta 16.03.12 17:19

I don't think too much can be read into differences between the husband and wife statements - it's a well-established fact that witnesses will have quite varying testimonies. Of course that could be used to explain the inconsistencies in the various McCann/Tapas group statements but there's do take the biscuit!

Anyway two things stand out. Firstly the woman herself was worried but not worried enough to take it further UNTIL she heard about Maddie going missing. I don't think this is an act of someone malicious with a bone to pick with Payne - I think it's genuine and she must have thought long and hard before approaching the police. Secondly of course was the notion of the police holding back the statements from the PJ.

I am not beyond believing that some people, out of malice or out of revenge or some kind of jealousy, can make up the most horrible stuff about others. Sadly some even seem capable of doing so just for attention. In this case, it seems sincere.

Oh, and of course the incredibly litigious group have not sued the Gaspars or indeed anyone for repeating those specific statements which surely amounts for something?

by Smokeandmirrors 16.03.12 17:46

nomendelta wrote:I don't think too much can be read into differences between the husband and wife statements - it's a well-established fact that witnesses will have quite varying testimonies. Of course that could be used to explain the inconsistencies in the various McCann/Tapas group statements but there's do take the biscuit!

Anyway two things stand out. Firstly the woman herself was worried but not worried enough to take it further UNTIL she heard about Maddie going missing. I don't think this is an act of someone malicious with a bone to pick with Payne - I think it's genuine and she must have thought long and hard before approaching the police. Secondly of course was the notion of the police holding back the statements from the PJ.

I am not beyond believing that some people, out of malice or out of revenge or some kind of jealousy, can make up the most horrible stuff about others. Sadly some even seem capable of doing so just for attention. In this case, it seems sincere.

Oh, and of course the incredibly litigious group have not sued the Gaspars or indeed anyone for repeating those specific statements which surely amounts for something?

I agree entirely with your post. I think under the circumstances, and with the likelihood of falling out with more than the McCanns over this, KG would have indeed thought long and hard about coming forward with her suspicions. And as you say, there has been no defamation suit to follow what is quite frankly a shocking allegation, about the worst there can be, if untrue.

Take this along with what one supposes is an allegation against Gerry too, as he was part of the conversation and no mention of him seeing it as inappropriate, and indeed maintaining a tight friendship with Payne, and we are venturing into potential dynamite.

Yvonne Martin believed she recognised Payne and Martin Smith was 60-80% sure it was Gerry he saw carrying a child, and again, I am sure he would have thought long and hard before venturing that opinion, and indeed returning to PDL for the investigation.

So there you have 3 separate sets of people, voicing their position concerning what appear to be the two most prominent men in the group in relation to a missing child. Both men have failed to refute what these three people have come forward with.

If the police have failed to at the very least examine this as thoroughly as is humanly possible, if nothing else but to eliminate the possibility of involvement, then they have been grossly remiss. I hope to goodness that this aspect is being treated properly by SY and the PJ in the review phase.

And this is one Exeter connection too many quite honestly!! SY should be sending a couple of men down to Devon to sort it out.

by russiandoll 16.03.12 17:54

I did say as an intro to my post that I was playing devil's advocate, remember !!

a devil's advocate is someone who, given a certain argument, takes a position he or she does not necessarily agree with, for the sake of argument. In taking such position, the individual taking on the devil's advocate role seeks to engage others in an argumentative discussion process. The purpose of such process is typically to test the quality of the original argument and identify weaknesses in its
structure, and to use such information to either improve or abandon the original, opposing position.

It is my intention to really test an area where there is real controversy [ the paedo link] as apart from these statments there is nothing I have read about DP and worrying behaviour re children.There is nothing to suggest that malice was involved on the part of KG, but then again there is nothing to say she was not being malicious. I quite agree that based on her position at the table she saw something and/or interpreted it differently to her husband. Someone interviewing her could well ask her how she knew he was not licking food from his finger and at the same time scratching himself [yes I think it is outrageous based on what she described but it could be asked]. And I will never understand given the strength of her reaction, how she allowed DP to bathe her child..that alone might make the authorities think that with hindsight she was outraged.........less so at the time, so maybe what happened was not quite as she told it.
I too doubt this would be ignored by the authorities, what weight it would be given by them is the issue.

by rainbow-fairy 16.03.12 19:14

Well, you beat me to it Stella!
I've been prepping my own topic on this today, and was about to post when I felt compelled to look at 'Today's Active Topics'. My title wouldve been 'Why Were the Gaspar's not Sued?'

So, in that vein I'm agreeing here with Smokeandmirrors and nomendelta.
Bearing in mind the McCanns have gone after Amaral, Paulo Sargento, Tony Bennett and Pat Brown it beggars belief that they haven't attempted to sue Katerina and Arul.
Can anyone think of a legitimate reason? I can only assume its because there is something in Gerry/Kate/Payne's history, provable, that could be unearthed. I for one DO NO BELIEVE that the CATS files were created on the off-chance they may be needed. Why create a file reference for 'no data'. It makes absolutely no sense. There was some suggestion that GMcC had a conviction, which had been suppressed. I'm sure I read it here but can no longer locate it.
Again, maybe the most damaging statement, with unthinkable allegations if you're innocent of them and you DO NOTHING? Doesn't wash with me. I absolutely do not agree with suing anyone for anything, but if somebody accused me of THAT even I may be tempted!

Can I also give an alternative explanation of why KG 'allowed' DP to bathe the children, albeit with Arul present.
Imagine it. This is a group of what, four couples with children. KG sees something, hears something that her gut tells her is not quite right. These are friends, remember. I'm sure (and this is backed up by her statement) that she was asking herself, over and over, 'Did I get that right, or was it all in my head?' She was obviously concerned enough to make sure Arul kept a close eye on things BUT in a group dynamic, there will always be those less assertive. Can you imagine the fallout if she spoke up and had got it wrong? Your FRIEND accuses you of paedophilia, and you're innocent? Would go down like a lead balloon. Seems like she was vigilant afterwards, NOT vigilante, which is the best way!
She obviously thought about it a lot, and agonised over going to the police (least she didn't wait two years like the 'Angola Bouncer' Wink

)
A lot was at stake if she was mistaken - friendship, possibility of being sued (as she'd know her name would become public)
T

The 'axe to grind' from a vindictive woman doesn't ring true to me. If this is what she was (and I know from bitter experience - a neighbour/friend who turned 'crack head' and made my life hell) has better ways of hurting someone - anonymously at that! Three phone calls, three agencies. All anonymous calls, but innocence aside they HAVE to investigate). RSPCA - apparently I'd thrown my kitten out of the window. Officer came out, thriving kitten. Next - DSS - allegedly, anonymous tip they said, I had a boyfriend living with me, wrongly. I didn't even have a partner. Lastly, and most hurtful - Social Services. The allegation this time was both my boys were strapped to high chairs all day, and there was wee and poop all over the floor! I let the workers in, shocked to the bone as my boys were and are my world. They looked around, and the consensus was 'This is obviously a malicious call out. We get a lot, unfortunately. We're used as weapons anonymously by people'. How sick is that! Now, I was completely innocent of all three things, but I tell you, three visits in one week nearly broke me ( and I STILL don't know why the neighbour turned. She gloatingly admitted it was her when my family confronted her). Despite people knowing you are not capable of any of that stuff, there is always that little sense of 'no smoke without fire) and it is remembered that you got three official visits in seven days.
So, what I'm saying in a long-winded way is there are plenty of easier anonymous ways to get at somebody. Also, if borne of a grudge, why would she seize her opportunity on the back of tragedy?
I firmly believe that KG was worried enough, and certain enough after years thinking it over, to contact police. The scandal is it was withheld for so long!
The lack of litigation from Team McCann is a big red flag too, IMO

by Spaniel 16.03.12 19:18

I think a man in company would rather not rock the boat than spoil the ambience, preferring to moan about it when they got home. Goes for some woman too, but we tend to be more verbal. I wonder if that's because men know that verbalising an objection can quickly result in something physical, whereas for us women, the tongue is mightier than the sword.

A strange point in the statement is that the very same gesture was made on a second occasion. Don't they have any variety? Careless too, especially as the table fell silent when it was demonstrated the first time.

Way back, I googled what KG had described, expecting either an urban description of speech, porn site whatever, but nothing!

One thing though, had I suspected that I was in the company of P's, whether with my children or not, I'd have been out of there, Husband agreeing or not!

Something or nothing Stella. There was a McCann boy educated at Ampleforth whose parents had a home in Majorca. I don't think it's where the group stayed, far too palatial.

The home was host to the kids from Ampleforth for some reason, an awards ceremony or similar.

There was an article in Ampleforth mag showing the home, pictured from the swimming pool to the house, as in Taj Mahal. The owner standing behind the pool, and in front of the house. It was entitled something like, the xx McCann open up their beautiful home.

by **tigger** 16.03.12 19:26

I think the reason they didn't sue the Gaspars is because of the p-word.
None of the others you named have even suggested this. Suing somebody because of the 'slur' would be too risky imo. If anything at all came out in the press it would be the 'no smoke without fire' reaction from the public and then some more creatures might be coming out of the woodwork or from under stones as the case may be.
Besides, the PJ were ignorant of this statement for about 6 months - by that time they were safely back in the UK. At that time the publicity was not exactly favourable for the McCanns - far too dangerous to add to it by suing the Gaspars.

Curiously, Yvonne Martin worked in Plymouth for a time as did the Gaspars. Don't know if it was at the same time. DP is connected to Plymouth I believe.

by Guest 16.03.12 19:28

This is just an assumption, but the reason why they have not been sued is because the statement was given to the police, and they obviously had no idea it was going to be released by the PJ for all to see. I would imagine giving statements to the police does not come under the category of suing. They have not said it publicly, told the media, or written about it. That is what I would think anyway.

by rainbow-fairy 16.03.12 20:36

That could actually be a factor Candyfloss. Certainly not something I'd thought of before (hence why these threads are so useful!

Just have to mention this;

tigger wrote:I think the reason they didn't sue the Gaspars is because of the p-word.
None of the others you named have even suggested this.

Maybe Pat didn't, and I'm not sure about Sargento, but Amaral certainly mentioned it. He mentioned it in 'Truth of the Lie'. Sofia also said 'neither I or my husband would allow paedophiles in our circle of friends' (paraphrased)

by Badboys 16.03.12 20:59

tigger wrote:I think the reason they didn't sue the Gaspars is because of the p-word.
None of the others you named have even suggested this. Suing somebody because of the 'slur' would be too risky imo. If anything at all came out in the press it would be the 'no smoke without fire' reaction from the public and then some more creatures might be coming out of the woodwork or from under stones as the case may be.
Besides, the PJ were ignorant of this statement for about 6 months - by that time they were safely back in the UK. At that time the publicity was not exactly favourable for the McCanns - far too dangerous to add to it by suing the Gaspars.

Curiously, Yvonne Martin worked in Plymouth for a time as did the Gaspars. Don't know if it was at the same time. DP is connected to Plymouth I believe.

IT is russell o'brien who lives in exeter.

don't think dp has connections to plymouth.

by Kololi 16.03.12 23:17

I have only read to Rainbow-fairy's first post so apologies if this has been mentioned later in the thread.

Rainbow-fairy said,

"Bearing in mind the McCanns have gone after Amaral, Paulo Sargento, Tony Bennett and Pat Brown it beggars belief that they haven't attempted to sue Katerina and Arul.
Can anyone think of a legitimate reason? I can only assume its because there is something in Gerry/Kate/Payne's history, provable, that could be unearthed. I for one DO NO BELIEVE that the CATS files were created on the off-chance they may be needed. Why create a file reference for 'no data'. It makes absolutely no sense."

This is just a thought but could it be that they haven't attempted to sue Mrs Gaspar because it is a witness statement? None of what the others said was as part of a given statement in an investigation.

Think about it, who would give a statement to the Police if they could be sued for doing so.

Aha Candyfloss beat me to it - apologies.

by Liz Eagles 17.03.12 4:05

candyfloss wrote:This is just an assumption, but the reason why they have not been sued is because the statement was given to the police, and they obviously had no idea it was going to be released by the PJ for all to see. I would imagine giving statements to the police does not come under the category of suing. They have not said it publicly, told the media, or written about it. That is what I would think anyway.

I think you've got it right there candyfloss. It's a sworn statement given to the police. It wasn't a comment made to the media and wasn't done for gain/gossip/notoriety imo. I try to imagine the horror the Gaspar's have that their private statements are now in the public domain (after being witheld from the PJ by LP so it appears). I wonder how that has affected the Gaspar's personal and professional lives. I imagine it doesn't go down well in medical circles to speak badly of a colleague just as it is not the done thing for one lawyer to go after another. It's a shame imo that anyone who comes forth with 'evidence' in this case can have their lives open to scrutiny by the media and yes, that includes we folk on this forum. I wonder how many other people would come forward and give that 'missing key' at the risk of losing their privacy and joining the McTravesty.

The find madeleine website asks for people to come forward and offers a telephone number and an email address to contact them. Who would give them information in view of the fact that your life will be interrupted/possibly discredited/manipulated for their own use by TM and the PR machine? Who would feel comfortable giving info to the police when it can be published later on down the line when no use to date has been made of it anyway!

It's a fantastic strategy isn't it! It should come with a health warning imo.

It doesn't do much for Madeleine.

by Guest 17.03.12 8:03

If Katarina Gaspar knew in advance that when a case is shelved in Portugal, investigation material is released to the public, there is no way on this earth, would she have gone to the Police. Maybe she thought that by giving it to a British Police Station, it would fall under our remit of keeping all information strictly confidential. I have never heard of anyone giving a statement to the Police, then being sued for it. I also cannot see how discussing something written in an official Police statement, that is currently in the public domain, could ever lead to a prosecution.

I have to say, I am still quite shocked that these statements appeared in the released section in the first place. It is great that we came to know about it, but I do think they should have been witheld.

by Smokeandmirrors 17.03.12 9:17

Stella, I agree, such statements should not have been released. If there was no foundation then it opens Pandoras box to potential speculation. But it makes sense that they were, I'll explain why I think they needed to be released.

We all feel that there was some sort of high level cover up/interference, as stated by Amaral. We all realise things should have been done by the PJ in the very early stages that clearly were not, for whatever reason. Then as time went by it becomes harder to do things retrospectively, especially when Team McCann had played up to the media against police advice, set up the fund and basically got everyone "hooked" on the story of a little girl who'd gone AWOL in the night.

There was total media saturation within hours, it went totally viral which in my view prohibited a normal investigation. People flying in and out of PDL, news vans all over, a holidaying population in and out of that place within days, what a nightmare.

So with the McCanns going "viral" with varying statements and Aunty Phil et al bleating rubbish all over the news, how the hell could the PJ do a job on this?

They had to IMO let things out that normally would be secret in order to equally go viral, so that if there hands were tied from conducting a "clean" investigation, at least there would be stuff "out there" that would eventually lead to the situation we have now, thousands upon thousands of people reading and commenting on the internet and refusing to let it go away.

Back to the original point, after a waffly diversion (sorry!) by releasing the Gaspar statements, already having a taster of the Mc's litigious proclivities, they were hoping for some sort of legal action possibly. And with that I am guessing the police would have better grounds for delving into areas of suspicion, maybe able to demand information that previously eluded them. I think that by releasing these statements, they rather hoped they would be latched onto much more by the media, indeed, Mrs Amarals statement that she would not allow pedophiles into her circle ruffled not a feather, so I think it seems as though they let of a damp squib. A rather suspect it was hoped that this disclosure would lead to a mighty roar by the media, one which would enable the Police to go where they were prevented from going before. The Police certainly thought the risk to Mrs Gaspars reputation worth taking.

This is just my view, feel free to shred it!

by T4two 17.03.12 9:43

But the fact that releasing the Gaspar statements did not elicit a reaction from the McCanns tells us something about their (the statements) significance too - like ignoring the Smith statement until it was no longer possible to do so.

by Guest 17.03.12 11:10

Good post Smokeandmirrors and I fully agree with you. The PJ were never allowed to conduct a normal investigation and goal posts had to be moved. There may have even been a little bit of a payback thing going on in the end, where if you didn't think they were important enough to pass on immediately, why should we treat them as important to withold. I totally get all that. But what I do not get and this is probably down to not understanding the Portuguese legal process very well, is why when Amaral was removed and Rebelo was brought in to put out the flame in an instant, why didn't Rebelo ask for those statements to be witheld? Why didn't the Portuguese Attorney General, or the Portuguese Prosecutors insist they were removed before everything was released?

T4two, your right, but I don't think they had a choice but to do nothing and keep quiet. If they took someone to court over this, such is happening right now with the Tony Bennett trial, the flame that the Portuguese were forced to put out, will ignite once again and they cannot control what would come out in court. Hornets nests are best left alone.

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 11:10

T4two wrote:But the fact that releasing the Gaspar statements did not elicit a reaction from the McCanns tells us something about their (the statements) significance too - like ignoring the Smith statement until it was no longer possible to do so.

T4two, I totally agree. It isn't plausible to me that they've failed to mention them because its somehow 'beneath them'. I think they are terrified of making them any more well known than they already are.
I'd be interested to see what happens if 'Truth of the Lie' is ever translated and sold here, which I hope it is.

ETA; just a thought - if you can't sue over a statement to the police, HOW are the McCanns able to sue Amaral for libel and defamation etc? It is clear his book is quoting from the police process. The case has NOT been solved in their favour, so how can they prove what he has written IS libellous?
I've got a feeling they are going to fall flat on their faces very soon.

by Guest 17.03.12 11:17

rainbow-fairy wrote:
T4two wrote:But the fact that releasing the Gaspar statements did not elicit a reaction from the McCanns tells us something about their (the statements) significance too - like ignoring the Smith statement until it was no longer possible to do so.
T4two, I totally agree. It isn't plausible to me that they've failed to mention them because its somehow 'beneath them'. I think they are terrified of making them any more well known than they already are.
I'd be interested to see what happens if 'Truth of the Lie' is ever translated and sold here, which I hope it is.

ETA; just a thought - if you can't sue over a statement to the police, HOW are the McCanns able to sue Amaral for libel and defamation etc? It is clear his book is quoting from the police process. The case has NOT been solved in their favour, so how can they prove what he has written IS libellous?
I've got a feeling they are going to fall flat on their faces very soon.

It's the difference between discussing what is written and stating something as fact.

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 11:36

Stella wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
T4two wrote:But the fact that releasing the Gaspar statements did not elicit a reaction from the McCanns tells us something about their (the statements) significance too - like ignoring the Smith statement until it was no longer possible to do so.
T4two, I totally agree. It isn't plausible to me that they've failed to mention them because its somehow 'beneath them'. I think they are terrified of making them any more well known than they already are.
I'd be interested to see what happens if 'Truth of the Lie' is ever translated and sold here, which I hope it is.

ETA; just a thought - if you can't sue over a statement to the police, HOW are the McCanns able to sue Amaral for libel and defamation etc? It is clear his book is quoting from the police process. The case has NOT been solved in their favour, so how can they prove what he has written IS libellous?
I've got a feeling they are going to fall flat on their faces very soon.

It's the difference between discussing what is written and stating something as fact.

Surely the police files are 'fact'. Had he made something up and stated it to be fact that'd be different? Surely the police process itself is, by definition, 'fact'? Wasn't that how Amaral got the book ban overturned, in that he used a 'fact' (the police process) and was able to draw an interpretation of that?
See, I don't get how Tony Bennett repeating 48 questions freely available to the public can possibly be libellous? Libel does not become more so the more it is repeated (what is the landmark ruling that comes from?) So I wouldve thought the BBC should also be sued in that case?

Sorry Stella, I have a feeling I'm missing something here, I'm certainly not being intentionally awkward. Have a case of cotton-wool brain today I think Wink

by Guest 17.03.12 11:49

What I am trying to say is Katerina did not call David Payne a paedophile. She only said that she "thought he might be interested in child pornography". The operative word is "thought", i.e., with no proof and from her professional opinion as a Doctor. Discussing her statement in that context is not the same as coming straight out and calling someone a paedophile as the Amaral's did.

by Kololi 17.03.12 11:55

rainbow-fairy wrote:
T4two wrote:But the fact that releasing the Gaspar statements did not elicit a reaction from the McCanns tells us something about their (the statements) significance too - like ignoring the Smith statement until it was no longer possible to do so.
T4two, I totally agree. It isn't plausible to me that they've failed to mention them because its somehow 'beneath them'. I think they are terrified of making them any more well known than they already are.
I'd be interested to see what happens if 'Truth of the Lie' is ever translated and sold here, which I hope it is.

ETA; just a thought - if you can't sue over a statement to the police, HOW are the McCanns able to sue Amaral for libel and defamation etc? It is clear his book is quoting from the police process. The case has NOT been solved in their favour, so how can they prove what he has written IS libellous?
I've got a feeling they are going to fall flat on their faces very soon.

Again just a guess, he has written it as a private citizen hasn't he? It wasn't a statement made of something he witnessed that was given to the Police but more his thoughts of what had happened.

by rainbow-fairy 17.03.12 13:29

Hope its okay to bring this post over here (it was posted by Estelle in 'Substitute Child?', just before Candyfloss rightly told us we were veering off-topic!

Estelle wrote:All excellent posts said with passion!

I have not read the book myself but feel as if I have. What about the part where Kate remarked that Maddie had "perfect little genitals"! Was that part of the book removed later? A mother remarking on her three year old daughter's genitals being perfect???? I wonder what drew her attention to them in the first place? A narcissistic mother who has to have a daughter with "perfect genitals"? I wonder what for? Maybe they weren't so perfect in the end (see Gaspar statement)!!!! Hence her need to comment on them because it is a very strange remark.

Yes Estelle it IS a very odd thing to remark on.
The context of the comment is thus;
It appears on page 129 of '~~Kate~~Madeleine' and it refers to the images that 'no sane person would want in their head, but they were in mine' (from the horses mouth - Kate IS officially insane). Now, I don't know about anyone else but if your daughter HAD been abducted, you'd be terrified, and imagining all sorts, but would you really worry about your daughters 'perfect genitals' being 'ripped apart'? Why the superfluous word 'Perfect'? Why did Kate refer to her daughters bits as 'Perfect'?
Yes I can imagine that you would have horrible thought BUT maybe along the lines of 'I was getting pictures of their battered body laying dumped in a ditch' not 'laying blue and mottled on a cold stone slab' 'her perfect genitals ripped apart' - that is so specific. I get the feeling it is something she actually WITNESSED, not imagined...
It wasn't taken out of the bewk. Indeed, it will be interesting to see if, after the negative reaction, it remains in the paperback edition soon to come. In fact, it will be interesting to see what, if any, changes there are Wink

As we know, Truth stands alone and unchanged - 'Versions of the Truth' somewhat different...
As a single mum of two boys, I can say with absolute honesty that I have NEVER, whilst nappy-changing, bathing etc, EVER looked at their 'boy bits' in the way of being perfect or otherwise? They are just something that had to be cleaned, and now they are a bit older they are things that seem to regularly wet the toilet seat and the floor! 'Perfection' doesn't come in to it and I do find it terribly odd. I think, as all parents do I say, that my boys are the most handsome little chaps going. But NOTHING about them is 'perfect' - they both have pretty eyes but 'perfect' - such an odd, odd word, IMO
In fact, the way she describes all three children in terms of physical attractiveness makes my stomach churn.
Ask yourselves this: if you were asked, 'What are your children like' - I'm sure words like 'cheeky' 'cute' 'clever' 'enjoys xyz' would be the main. Surely not 'physically extremely attractive'? In fact, I'd go as far as to say most people wouldn't describe their children physically unless it was in answer to 'What does your child look like?'
It is hard to put a word to it. But how she talks about the children is just 'off' somehow...