Re: Why are the Paynes/Webster airbrushed out?

by HelenMeg 26.06.14 10:46

Justformaddie wrote:Yes', that visit is important, but with them being airbrushed out of crimewatch, could that be because they had a monitor and so they didn't need to leave the table at all, hence them not included in it? Clutching at straws, but maybe dp witnessed something during that visit and come clean? Just guessing.

I think you may be right that the reason why they weren't included was due to their monitor. They had no reason to move and check.

It was a charade, as we know, the checking business and leaving kids alone so that an abduction could be 'staged'. Interesting that DP was able to get out of it due to his monitor. There was a group of 9 people setting up stage for an 'abduction'. The people getting the short straws had to engage in this ridiculous checking routine but DP was able to say' Ive got a monitor so I'm keeping out of that..'

Why were MO / JT so willing to take part in the charade. I've got this nagging feeling that they were conned.

by HelenMeg 26.06.14 10:52

I'm becoming more and more convinced that GM was duping this gang into protecting him and wife from being charged.

Yes the TAPAS 7 probably had to lie and change their stories, particularly for the Thursday, but was it to protect themselves or their mate and fellow doctor Gm?

I dont believe that every member of the TAPAS 9 knows the full story of the disappearance of M. Only 1 or 2 of them.

by sami 26.06.14 10:54

HelenMeg wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Yes', that visit is important, but with them being airbrushed out of crimewatch, could that be because they had a monitor and so they didn't need to leave the table at all, hence them not included in it? Clutching at straws, but maybe dp witnessed something during that visit and come clean? Just guessing.

I think you may be right that the reason why they weren't included was due to their monitor. They had no reason to move and check.

It was a charade, as we know, the checking business and leaving kids alone so that an abduction could be 'staged'. Interesting that DP was able to get out of it due to his monitor. There was a group of 9 people setting up stage for an 'abduction'. The people getting the short straws had to engage in this ridiculous checking routine but DP was able to say' Ive got a monitor so I'm keeping out of that..'

Why were MO / JT so willing to take part in the charade. I've got this nagging feeling that they were conned.

It is no reason to have excluded them by name though. Each party was introduced by name as they arrived at the table during the CW reconstruction. Paynes were referred to as "other friends" or some such thing. That's still odd IMO.

by HelenMeg 26.06.14 10:57

sami wrote:
HelenMeg wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:Yes', that visit is important, but with them being airbrushed out of crimewatch, could that be because they had a monitor and so they didn't need to leave the table at all, hence them not included in it? Clutching at straws, but maybe dp witnessed something during that visit and come clean? Just guessing.

I think you may be right that the reason why they weren't included was due to their monitor. They had no reason to move and check.

It was a charade, as we know, the checking business and leaving kids alone so that an abduction could be 'staged'. Interesting that DP was able to get out of it due to his monitor. There was a group of 9 people setting up stage for an 'abduction'. The people getting the short straws had to engage in this ridiculous checking routine but DP was able to say' Ive got a monitor so I'm keeping out of that..'

Why were MO / JT so willing to take part in the charade. I've got this nagging feeling that they were conned.

It is no reason to have excluded them by name though. Each party was introduced by name as they arrived at the table during the CW reconstruction. Paynes were referred to as "other friends" or some such thing. That's still odd IMO.

Yes, I hadn't realised that. It is odd.

by Justformaddie 26.06.14 10:58

Very odd, still hoping he's talked, could there be another reason for not mentioning their names?

by Guest 26.06.14 11:00

Or maybe it's the deal for his continuing silence?

by Justformaddie 26.06.14 11:04

But would that not be the deal for all of them, the no crimewatch would've been needed in the 1st place, if they were trying to silence them all IMO

by HelenMeg 27.06.14 12:22

Crimewatch is one of the methods of communication that SY have for talking to us, the UK people, and telling us what is going on with their investigation.

So for some reason SY wished to tell us that the Paynes were not involved. Why? Are they playing games?
It is very odd.

by Newintown 27.06.14 12:47

HelenMeg wrote:Crimewatch is one of the methods of communication that SY have for talking to us, the UK people, and telling us what is going on with their investigation.

So for some reason SY wished to tell us that the Paynes were not involved. Why? Are they playing games?
It is very odd.

We cannot forget the fact that this is a criminal investigation into the disappearance of a 3 year old girl who vanished into thin air.

Someone or some persons are responsible for her "disappearance", SY must have had their reasons for leaving the Paynes out of the Crimewatch programme. I doubt SY are playing games when it comes to finding the perpetrators of a crime on a 3 year old child.

As I read some time ago on the forum SY said that this was a "complicated investigation", I can't remember the exact words, but obviously there are many people who could be involved from the McCanns up to and including their dodgy PIs, PR persons, backers etc etc who have to be investigated who may have twisted and obfuscated the truth about what happened to Madeleine. The SY net must be reaching far and wide and may take many more months before they can haul the perpetrators in.

by Justformaddie 27.06.14 13:00

The Paynes deffo should have been included in the important crimewatch screening, but they're not mentioned even by name and I'm wondering why that is? IMO I can't think why unless they're helping with enquiries pray

by canada12 27.06.14 14:55

Justformaddie wrote:The Paynes deffo should have been included in the important crimewatch screening, but they're not mentioned even by name and I'm wondering why that is? IMO I can't think why unless they're helping with enquiries

This is my take on it. However SY may not be able to use his information without concrete evidence to support what he's saying. If the case went to court his testimony might be demolished by the McCann defence counsel because of the alleged pedophile connection which has been highlighted by the Gaspar statement.

So IMO SY and PJ are acting on DP's information, and they're searching for hard evidence. The deliberate omission of DP and FP from the Crimewatch program was IMO a message to Gerry and Kate.

by Justformaddie 27.06.14 15:22

canada12 wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:The Paynes deffo should have been included in the important crimewatch screening, but they're not mentioned even by name and I'm wondering why that is? IMO I can't think why unless they're helping with enquiries

This is my take on it. However SY may not be able to use his information without concrete evidence to support what he's saying. If the case went to court his testimony might be demolished by the McCann defence counsel because of the alleged pedophile connection which has been highlighted by the Gaspar statement.

So IMO SY and PJ are acting on DP's information, and they're searching for hard evidence. The deliberate omission of DP and FP from the Crimewatch program was IMO a message to Gerry and Kate.

I sooo want this to be true, only time will tell, it could take a lot more weeks, months , even years but hopefully soon. I'm staying on this forum to see justice sooner rather than later! IMO this site is amazing all for a little girl whom we've never met but deserves justice all IMO pray2

by G-Unit 06.01.15 16:50

Gerry McCann was determined to involve David Payne in things even though he had a baby monitor and so was excused checking on the kids;

Immediately after describing the Madeleine 'crying incident' he goes on to say;

On Wednesday night, 2 May 2007, as well as he and his wife, he thinks that DP also went to his apartment to confirm that his children were well, not having reported to him any abnormal situation with the children.

and regarding the 3rd;

During the afternoon of that day the rest of the group members, including the children, were at the beach, [they] having returned at 18H30, the time at which he saw DP next to the tennis court. DAVID went to visit KATE and the children and returned close to 19H00, trying to convince the deponent to continue to play tennis, to which [entreaty] he did not accede as he had already been plying for about an hour and had to go back to to his wife. Nevertheless, RUSSELL, DAVID and MATHEW stayed to play.

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

by G-Unit 07.01.15 13:07

I have been looking at hierarchies in the NHS, but it is hard to decipher. Can anyone tell me which of the doctors present would have been senior in 2007?

by missbeetle 10.01.15 8:58

G-Unit wrote:I have been looking at hierarchies in the NHS, but it is hard to decipher. Can anyone tell me which of the doctors present would have been senior in 2007?

Hi G-Unit - I'm going to have a crack at answering this for you.

Matt, Gerry and Russell were all NHS hospital Consultant Physicians in May 2007 (Senior, senior).

Kate was a part-time GP without specialist qualifications, so I would class her as junior senior.

Same for Fiona Payne, a Registrar in Anaesthetics - a junior senior.

David Payne's a funny old one, though.

In May 2007 he was working as a Senior Research fellow in cardiovascular sciences -

- which as far as I can make out is at about Registrar level -

and perhaps paid at an academic's rate (less than that of a hospital doctor).

Not sure if he had held a Consultant's post before - he is a few years older than the rest of the crew.

By the time his rogatory interview rolled around, he was working as a Registrar in Urology -

- the speciality in which I believe he is now a hospital Consultant Surgeon.

This is all just off the top of my head, and could well be wrong -

- just my opinions on the set-up.

by G-Unit 10.01.15 16:53

missbeetle wrote:
G-Unit wrote:I have been looking at hierarchies in the NHS, but it is hard to decipher. Can anyone tell me which of the doctors present would have been senior in 2007?

Hi G-Unit - I'm going to have a crack at answering this for you.

Matt, Gerry and Russell were all NHS hospital Consultant Physicians in May 2007 (Senior, senior).

Kate was a part-time GP without specialist qualifications, so I would class her as junior senior.

Same for Fiona Payne, a Registrar in Anaesthetics - a junior senior.

David Payne's a funny old one, though.

In May 2007 he was working as a Senior Research fellow in cardiovascular sciences -

- which as far as I can make out is at about Registrar level -

and perhaps paid at an academic's rate (less than that of a hospital doctor).

Not sure if he had held a Consultant's post before - he is a few years older than the rest of the crew.

By the time his rogatory interview rolled around, he was working as a Registrar in Urology -

- the speciality in which I believe he is now a hospital Consultant Surgeon.

This is all just off the top of my head, and could well be wrong -

- just my opinions on the set-up.

Thanks for that Missbeetle. It's not easy to work out, is it? I was simply wondering, given how important this is to those in the medical world. My husband was in the Army, but I think he would be more likely to disobey or defy an off duty senior officer than a junior doctor or nurse would be to do so to a consultant.

by missbeetle 12.01.15 4:47

A couple of minor items related to Mr Payne's current career :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(snipped from google search)

and this one :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
(snipped from ramsayhealth.co.uk)

I can sort of understand the bookings clerk at the local borough council spelling 'prostate' wrong...

...but on the website for his private practice? Really...?

by G-Unit 12.01.15 9:22

Spelling is not a strong point these days. I notice lots of mistakes, even from that so-called bastion of the english language the BBC. Just another sign of lowering standards it seems.

Lucy Kellaway, author and Financial Times columnist (and terrible speller) had this to say;

Given my poor record, I was cheered to read an [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] saying we make typos not because we are dim, but because we are clever.
Writing is a sophisticated job and our brains focus on the structure, the sentences and the phrases, leaving the close-up work to be done on autopilot.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Rogue-a-Tory 12.01.15 14:34

For quite some time now I've thought it interesting how Fiona Payne has tried to change her image in the 4/5 years post-May 2007. In the immediate post-disappearance pictures of her she looked quite young & fresh looking almost (dare I say without incurring to much wrath) girly. Compare that to now, the Mary Peters/Hopkins look, certainly wouldn't get a second glance in the street. Clearly an attempt to become unnoticed and disassociated with MBM.

Furthermore, Google any of the T7 & other than MBM related websites very little info comes forward. More than a wiff of the the Google right to be forgot IMO. I don't think any of them wish to be in anyway linked with this saga any longer - but especially the ~~Pains~~ Paynes.

by G-Unit 12.01.15 15:06

Maybe, as Kate said once,

errm... and then she moved on… you know, she moved on.

by sallypelt 12.01.15 15:31

David and Fiona Payne set up their own limited company, back in November 2013. At that time, their address was a Leicester address. However, a month ago, or there about they "moved" to
The Willows 10a Vicarage Road, Oakham, Rutland, LE15 6EG

I've posted the link to the Payne's business, so you can view for yourselves, but as you can see, there's very little information, and there are only two people involved in DP UROLOGY SERVICES LIMITED, that being David and Fiona Payne

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

by cbeagle 01.03.15 22:03

MaybeMaybenot wrote:Could Payne actually be an undercover agent of some kind...infiltrating something in pdl

1485 ”Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth?”
Reply ”Err the, there are a few things but I don’t think this is the right forum for bringing those up.”

What was the right forum, why did DC 1485 MESSIAH not react in anyway to Dr Payne's reply?

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

by jeanmonroe 02.03.15 13:39

cbeagle wrote:
MaybeMaybenot wrote:Could Payne actually be an undercover agent of some kind...infiltrating something in pdl

1485 ”Is there anything that you consider pertinent or relevant to establish the material truth?”
Reply ”Err the, there are a few things but I don’t think this is the right forum for bringing those up.”

What was the right forum, why did DC 1485 MESSIAH not react in anyway to Dr Payne's reply?

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

Ah, one of my favourite 'quotes'!

If Payne had 'said that' (in the good ol' days) he wouldn't have left the 'station'!

As for DP being 'under cover', this is a bloke who 'couldn't remember' KM 'wrapped' on in a towel!

So 0 out of 10, for 'observation'!

Find 'out' where ONLY GM/DP 'went' at 4am, 4th May, 2007, and the whole house of cards, will come tumbling 'down', imo.

Alongside the GM/JT/JW 'triangle' at 9:15pm, 3rd May 2007.

We are 'asking'

OG are NOT!

by HelenMeg 02.03.15 21:38

Find 'out' where ONLY GM/DP 'went' at 4am, 4th May, 2007, and the whole house of cards, will come tumbling 'down', imo.

by Liz Eagles 02.03.15 21:45

HelenMeg wrote:Find 'out' where ONLY GM/DP 'went' at 4am, 4th May, 2007, and the whole house of cards, will come tumbling 'down', imo.

Is there a link to a police file that says GM and DP went out at 4am on the 4th May?

I've read a lot on this case and according to Kate, Gerry had a bit of a sleep, she and Dianne Webster sat up and then Kate and her husband Gerry went out at first light.