Re: Gaspar Statement: why no media coverage?

by Searcher 18.10.13 7:49

ultimaThule - most interested in your previous post and what you write about the case. Could I just say in response that I agree - with one exception; there surely has been some massive interference in this case, right from the start. I have read for example that Gordon Brown insisted, allegedly, on the removal of GA and intervened personally. Only one example but enough in itself to suggest high level interference. Or worse.

Jimmy Savile got away with it for years; it seems that some people can pull strings and are allowed to do so for whatever range of reasons we can imagine. It is also out there on the net that GM had leverage and used it. shark

by Smokeandmirrors 18.10.13 8:14

Searcher wrote:ultimaThule - most interested in your previous post and what you write about the case. Could I just say in response that I agree - with one exception; there surely has been some massive interference in this case, right from the start. I have read for example that Gordon Brown insisted, allegedly, on the removal of GA and intervened personally. Only one example but enough in itself to suggest high level interference. Or worse.

Jimmy Savile got away with it for years; it seems that some people can pull strings and are allowed to do so for whatever range of reasons we can imagine. It is also out there on the net that GM had leverage and used it.

Jimmy Savile seems to have controlled the police and his bosses and everyone he came into contact with, by threats.
Control is a theme that repeatedly crops up in this case.
Control is a funny thing. One could argue that the politicians, celebs, other high achievers, who are often drawn in to seedy underworlds, have already exceeded the normal amount of control a person can exert in the normal run of daily life, whether over their environment or fellow man. It seems like an "addiction", one where the protagonists of control need to keep pushing the boundaries further and further, and I see it so much in this case.

The McCanns spokesperson boasted that he controls what comes out in the media, Gerry has sought to control the course of the investigation and also sought to control those who have their own thoughts on the matter. They also sought to control the very moment their children woke and slept, regardless of it being a holiday, Payne sought to control Kate's interaction with Yvonne Martin, Gerry has sought to control the press and the Government, Philomena at the beginning tried to control the information about the case, and it goes on.

It is also interesting that the McCanns would only answer pre-agreed questions on TV, and Gerry's body language shows his discomfort in interviews if it is not he who leads the discussion. The Tapas tried to control all of the conditions for a reconstruction, and refused to co-operate when it was clear they wouldd not be allowed to be in control of the circumstances.

Even on Crimewatch, the following day's programme on Sky was much more level and useful, there was an element of the McCanns pulling the strings.

It's all about control - who is in charge, make sure everyone does as they are told, it's like an almighty battle of wills.

The outcome of this case IMO, will lie in who has the strongest resolve.

by ultimaThule 18.10.13 8:18

Searcher wrote:So right, ultimaThule, so right. How odd is it then, that those of us who see that and feel it with all our hearts have been judged by some of the media as misgiuded, cruel extremists, even viscious trolls. Couldn't make it up!!!!!

It's scary to think how close the McCanns could have come to getting away with it forever.

All it would have taken was for them to have broken down in tears on their first tv appearance/appeal saying words to the effect of 'please please don't do what we did - please don't ever leave your children unattended and out of sight and out of earshot' and then, after a decent interval of media silence during which time they were seen to have co-operated fully with the Portuguese police, announce that all money sent to them was to be donated to the NSPCC to fund a campaign to warn parents of the dangers of leaving young children.

As for those who claim 'we all do it', the only answer is to firmly retort 'o no we don't, and those that do should be up in court on charges of abuse and neglect' and repeat as often as necessary until the message gets through.

Btw, I suspect there is some very unsavoury business lurking below the suface of this child's disappearance but it remains to be seen whether it has been discovered by the police and/or will be revealed in any court proceedings.

by Searcher 18.10.13 8:44

Two fascinating posts, Smokeandmirrors, ultimaThule. Control is a defence, employed because it is needed to keep something out. It can also be closely linked to another defence, omnipotence! (Sound familiar at all?)

I so agree on what could have happened, ultimaThule; have not thought about it in that way but you are so right; I'm not sure about tears, but they certainly could have begged people NOT to leave their own children alone in any circumstances, and donated the money. Interestingly the fund is a company, which means that the directors can be paid and money spent as they choose. If it were a charity there would be restrictions, checks and balances, especially in regard to payment of trustees which can be allowed, but only in certain circumstances. Investigation of the fund (which isn't actually a fund) should be called for as an issue in itself. hello

by russiandoll 18.10.13 9:14

ultimaThule wrote:After those who are responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have been brought to justice, I fully expect to see an Inquiry of the type which has followed other child murder cases from which it will emerge that differing interpretations by various regional police authorities in respect of confidientiality policy relating to information in their possession led to important documentation not being shared in a timely manner and mistakes being made from which 'lessons will be learned'... but, of course, they won't as they never are.

other child murder cases? Might I ask on what you have based your conclusion that Madeleine was murdered? I have not read anything to support that theory in the police files.

by ultimaThule 18.10.13 9:28

russiandoll wrote:
ultimaThule wrote:After those who are responsible for the disappearance of Madeleine McCann have been brought to justice, I fully expect to see an Inquiry of the type which has followed other child murder cases from which it will emerge that differing interpretations by various regional police authorities in respect of confidientiality policy relating to information in their possession led to important documentation not being shared in a timely manner and mistakes being made from which 'lessons will be learned'... but, of course, they won't as they never are.
other child murder cases? Might I ask on what you have based your conclusion that Madeleine was murdered? I have not read anything to support that theory in the police files.

Apologies for sloppy writing on my part - unfortunately it's too late for me to edit my earlier response otherwise I would delete the word 'other'.

by tiny 18.10.13 9:34

The day the Gaspars statement gets in the newspapers is the day the mccanns and tapas lot know they are f*****

by ultimaThule 18.10.13 10:09

tiny wrote:The day the Gaspars statement gets in the newspapers is the day the mccanns and tapas lot know they are f*****

It is highly unlikely the Gaspars' statements will appear in any British newspapers unless and until they are reported in a court of law.

FWIW, It cannot have escaped the attention of the McCanns or their friends that, due to the revised timeline, they are up a certain creek without the proverbial paddles although I have no doubt they are endeavouring to carve new ones from jetsam.

by Who?What?Where? 19.10.13 0:58

ultimaThule wrote:
Who?What?Where? wrote:"I also suspect NSY have been working with their Portuguese counterparts in a spirit of close co-operation,"

That may or may not, be true. How would I know if that was true or not?

To me, that sounds, (scarily), close, to the constantly promoted, EU level of thinking and self agrandisement..

It is possible, just possible, that the constant promotion of this case, is nothing more than a part of that, long term, EU agenda.

Seriously, would you really want gerry mccann as your doctor or as your MP? Would you really want tony blair as president of the eu?

That might explain the unbelievable level of support, that the tapas9 have had?

How self serving do these people's action's have to be , before people start to see through them?
You have taken one sentence out of some 300+ posts I've made and I'm wondering why you have chosen to use it to disseminate against me Who?What?Where?

FWIW, I've made it clear on this forum that from the time I first heard about disappearance of a 3 year old British girl from her shuttered bedroom in the holiday resort of Praia de Luz I on the morning of May 4th 2007, I was disbelieving that such an event could have happened and my disbelief was compounded when I first had sight of the McCanns at the time of their televised appeal for information that same evening.

I have never given any credence to the McCanns' version of events as it does not stand up to scrutiny nor, for that matter, do I believe that there has been some vast conspiracy occuring at a high government or other level to cover up the truth of what happened to Madeleine McCann.

IMO, and with no disrespect whatsoever to the PJ who knew within weeks if not days who was culpable, had this crime occured in the UK the McCanns and others would have been arrested and tried no later than early 2008 (allowing for the length of time it can take for the cases of those accused who plead not guilty to criminal charges to come to Court).

Again IMO, the McCanns and their friends got lucky, in part due to the difficulties caused to the PJ by the lack of a common language together with the lack of a body and in part due to their, and their relatives/associates, manipulation and explotation of the media which in turn led to them being allowed to leave Portugal after being made arguidos.

I confess to having entertained some doubt which I have expressed on these pages about the efficacy of Andy Redwood's investigation but, after seeing the Crimewatch programme on Monday, I fully expect to hear news of arrests of the perpetrators of this crime being made in the very near future and while I am willing to apologise to Mr Redwood and his team for my fleeting misgivings about their abilities and intentions, I remain of the view that some of the shots of Andy in those godawful trailers preceding the broadcast show him as only needing a cape to become a one-eared Dracula on Halloween

If what I believe will come to pass does not come to pass, I will be first out with a placard and I will never stop campaigning until justice is done in this case.

My post was not a criticism of your thought's. It was just an alternative opinion.

I do not have any problem in someone having an alternative opinion to mine. No problem at all. I do not claim to know everything, although , some people in this system, quite clearly, do.

It is just an alternative opinion, untested in a Court Of Law. I do not feel the need to sue anyone because they have an alternative opinion to mine. No need at all, for that.

I do not understand why the mccanns are so keen to do that.

I do not have any problem with someone having an alternative opinion to myself

by Praiaaa 19.10.13 15:59

nobodythereeither wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And here's Madeleine with no parent's arms around her.

Poor little girl.

Indeed, this is what has always struck me about this picture. I think it is highly significant - not saying the mcCs were even aware of it, but it speak volumes for the family dynamic.

by Praiaaa 19.10.13 16:03

Regarding the Gaspars statements, imo the Paynes did crack ad co-operate with the police, hence anonymity in CW, because they would have been only too aware that if the police had wanted to 'pin' it on someone they could have used this. imo, JT, RO and the Paynes are sorted, and maybe the CW emphasis on MO check is to put pressure on him to come clean to avoid being the patsy.

by russiandoll 19.10.13 16:18

Praiaaa wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And here's Madeleine with no parent's arms around her.

Poor little girl.
Indeed, this is what has always struck me about this picture. I think it is highly significant - not saying the mcCs were even aware of it, but it speak volumes for the family dynamic.

to be fair...the twins can't sit without support at this age, not for long enough for a photo to be taken. There are plenty of photos where Maddie is being held or cuddled by her parents.

by secrets and lies 19.10.13 16:19

Another new poster here-been reading the forum for a year or so and very impressed with everyone's contributions.

Just to say the "family portrait" is very disturbing to me too. Amazed the photographer didn't instruct one of the McCanns to make physical contact with Maddie. Looks awkward. Also Gerry's "let's pretend I have a big hollywood movie star smile" is nothing short of a leer and makes me queasy.

Following all the threads with great interest and hope to be able to contribute a more meaningful post than this going forward.

By the way, I am not familiar with Yvonne's statement. Is there a link perhaps?

Thanks

by sallypelt 19.10.13 16:22

russiandoll wrote:
Praiaaa wrote:
nobodythereeither wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

And here's Madeleine with no parent's arms around her.

Poor little girl.
Indeed, this is what has always struck me about this picture. I think it is highly significant - not saying the mcCs were even aware of it, but it speak volumes for the family dynamic.
to be fair...the twins can't sit without support at this age, not for long enough for a photo to be taken. There are plenty of photos where Maddie is being held or cuddled by her parents.

I have to agree with you, russiandoll. I have no doubt that the McCann's loved Madeleine dearly, but something tragic happened, and they tried to cover it up. There are many photographs of Kate with Madeleine where they appear to be so happy. The one where Madeleine is on a pony, for example.

by Guest 19.10.13 18:09

secrets and lies wrote:Another new poster here-been reading the forum for a year or so and very impressed with everyone's contributions.

Just to say the "family portrait" is very disturbing to me too. Amazed the photographer didn't instruct one of the McCanns to make physical contact with Maddie. Looks awkward. Also Gerry's "let's pretend I have a big hollywood movie star smile" is nothing short of a leer and makes me queasy.

Following all the threads with great interest and hope to be able to contribute a more meaningful post than this going forward.

By the way, I am not familiar with Yvonne's statement. Is there a link perhaps?

Thanks

Welcome secrets and lies, here is the link....

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

by ultimaThule 19.10.13 18:15

secrets and lies wrote:Another new poster here-been reading the forum for a year or so and very impressed with everyone's contributions.

Just to say the "family portrait" is very disturbing to me too. Amazed the photographer didn't instruct one of the McCanns to make physical contact with Maddie. Looks awkward. Also Gerry's "let's pretend I have a big hollywood movie star smile" is nothing short of a leer and makes me queasy.

Following all the threads with great interest and hope to be able to contribute a more meaningful post than this going forward.

By the way, I am not familiar with Yvonne's statement. Is there a link perhaps?

Thanks

secrets and lies - a lot of those are uncovered on the pages of this forum Wink

You can read Yvonne Martin's statements here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What I see in that photo is GM with his mini-me, KM with her dear mama's look-alike (no doubt Ma Healy is continually delighted to see herself in her 2nd granddaughter), and a sidelined Madeleine.

I have no doubt Madeleine became, effectively, 'not wanted on voyage' after the birth of her twin siblings and, not least, because 'almost perfect' is insufficient to satisfy her father's notion of perfection which can only be fully realised when he is looking in a mirror.

As the old adage has it the proof of the pudding is in the eating and, to prove the point, despite knowing such hasty action could risk their firstborn's right eye at best, or her life at worst, her parents wasted no time in drawing the world's attention to her only visible imperfection.

After Madeleine's disappearance, her parents appeared to rapidly adjust to life without her. In fact, so rapid was the adjustment that, on discovering she was missing from her bed, they did not bestir themselves to search for their 3 year old daughter in the immediate environs electing instead to consult lawyers, set up a 'fighting fund', and jet off around the world while leaving their 2 year old twins in the care of others.

These are not the actions of loving and caring parents and nothing will convince me otherwise.

by Truthandjustice 19.10.13 18:28

Welcome secrets and lies, here is the link.... wrote:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Well, well, well. That is very interesting, particularly the anonymous letter and what it suggested the police check.

by margaret 19.10.13 18:41

nobodythereeither wrote:[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I find this a really really disturbing picture, and even more so that the McCanns released it into the public domain after Madeleine "disappeared". Why??

Who took it, and when? Who else was there? Why has she got eye shadow on, and why is it taken from that angle?

That photo itself doesn't bother me (though it was an odd choice to publicise) what annoyed me was Kate saying the make-up was 'professionally applied'.

Kate is above herself that she wanted the public to think she loved Madeleine so much that merely playing with make-up was beneath her so she paid for it to be done. No professional make-up artist would make up a child that young anyway, l think it was just done by Kate or another family member

by jay2001 19.10.13 19:16

Definitely think it was a strange photo to publish and why were 2 stories put out - I read somewhere that Kate had said Madeleine had been messing about with her make up and in her book I think it says that a professional beautician or friend did it. Not read the book so perhaps someone can confirm.

As for Gaspars' statements the strange thing is the length of time taken to send to PJ and probably after Dr Amaral was taken off the case. Don't think this is a conspiracy because doubt we' d ever have heard of McCs and their mates, but they've had an inordinate amount of help from the last and current government. Plus calling in favours according to one of their family members. (Who can forget Phil's tv appearances - wish she'd attend the libel trial!)

by secrets and lies 19.10.13 22:04

Thank you guys for the links to Yvonne Fielding's statements.

How very revealing her words seem. The closeness of Mr. Payne to the McCanns in the immediate aftermath of the "disappearance" again gives me the shivers. I have no idea why..

For a women working is child protection services to make a statement like this is well..hugely telling.

And the whole issue about a "couple" taking Maddie. Perhaps, at the time, this seemed more fitting than a solo abductor scenario. Perhaps it may have played into the psychopathology of G+K themselves. The feelings they were feeling before they managed to have a child. Or before the child they eventually had became a living, breathing burden.

With criminal minds like these almost anything is possible and absolutely nothing can be taken as read.

by Olympicana_Reloaded 19.10.13 22:49

secrets and lies wrote:Thank you guys for the links to Yvonne Fielding's statements.

How very revealing her words seem. The closeness of Mr. Payne to the McCanns in the immediate aftermath of the "disappearance" again gives me the shivers. I have no idea why..

For a women working is child protection services to make a statement like this is well..hugely telling.

And the whole issue about a "couple" taking Maddie. Perhaps, at the time, this seemed more fitting than a solo abductor scenario. Perhaps it may have played into the psychopathology of G+K themselves. The feelings they were feeling before they managed to have a child. Or before the child they eventually had became a living, breathing burden.

With criminal minds like these almost anything is possible and absolutely nothing can be taken as read.

Call for action over 'intra-familial' child sex abuse

A number of children's charities have written to the government calling for an action plan to tackle the problem of sexual abuse within the family.

Charity ChildLine said its figures, based on calls about sexual abuse, showed that 59% of perpetrators were family members.

Children's Minister Tim Loughton MP said work was being done "to improve responses to all forms of child abuse".

The charities have requested a meeting with Mr Loughton to discuss the issue.

NAPAC, NSPCC, Action for Children and the Lucy Faithfull Foundation have written jointly to Mr Loughton saying they specifically want the issue of intra-familial child sexual abuse properly addressed.

They wrote: "All types of sexual abuse and exploitation are difficult for those who experience it to talk about, and preventative work is hampered because people do not want to think about it.

'Unhelpful distraction'

"Our experience of raising awareness and engaging people in talking about this subject is especially difficult if there is a risk that the perpetrator may be a close and trusted relative.

"Our charities welcome the government's much needed action plan, however we believe that in raising the profile of the types of abuse defined in the action plan there should be more specific reference to abuse which occurs within families.

According to the NSPCC, between 1 April 2010 and 31 March 2011, there were 16,222 counselling interactions where sexual abuse was the primary concern.

Where the perpetrator was disclosed, about a third said the person responsible was their father, while 4% said that the person responsible was a stranger.

Peter Saunders, chief executive of the National Association for People Abused in Childhood (NAPAC), said: "In the 10 years that NAPAC has been running a national support line for people abused in childhood we have spoken to many thousands of survivors and the overwhelming majority (close to 100%) suffered abuse at the hands of a family member or someone trusted and known by the victim.

"Whilst the abuse of children and young people by gangs and traffickers is a serious problem that needs tackling, it is a very unhelpful distraction from the far greater problem of child abuse that occurs within families."

Mr Loughton added: "When abuse occurs within the family it is even more important that children have somewhere to turn.

"That is why the government has invested in the NSPCC helplines, so that even when children are betrayed by those closest to them there is always someone to listen and help."

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

by nobodythereeither 19.10.13 23:27

ultimaThule wrote:
secrets and lies wrote:Another new poster here-been reading the forum for a year or so and very impressed with everyone's contributions.

Just to say the "family portrait" is very disturbing to me too. Amazed the photographer didn't instruct one of the McCanns to make physical contact with Maddie. Looks awkward. Also Gerry's "let's pretend I have a big hollywood movie star smile" is nothing short of a leer and makes me queasy.

Following all the threads with great interest and hope to be able to contribute a more meaningful post than this going forward.

By the way, I am not familiar with Yvonne's statement. Is there a link perhaps?

Thanks
secrets and lies - a lot of those are uncovered on the pages of this forum You can read Yvonne Martin's statements here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

What I see in that photo is GM with his mini-me, KM with her dear mama's look-alike (no doubt Ma Healy is continually delighted to see herself in her 2nd granddaughter), and a sidelined Madeleine.

I have no doubt Madeleine became, effectively, 'not wanted on voyage' after the birth of her twin siblings and, not least, because 'almost perfect' is insufficient to satisfy her father's notion of perfection which can only be fully realised when he is looking in a mirror.

As the old adage has it the proof of the pudding is in the eating and, to prove the point, despite knowing such hasty action could risk their firstborn's right eye at best, or her life at worst, her parents wasted no time in drawing the world's attention to her only visible imperfection.

After Madeleine's disappearance, her parents appeared to rapidly adjust to life without her. In fact, so rapid was the adjustment that, on discovering she was missing from her bed, they did not bestir themselves to search for their 3 year old daughter in the immediate environs electing instead to consult lawyers, set up a 'fighting fund', and jet off around the world while leaving their 2 year old twins in the care of others.

These are not the actions of loving and caring parents and nothing will convince me otherwise.

Agree.

by ChippyM 21.10.13 9:29

This story in the mirror about 'vile internet trolls' nameing Gerry McCann as the crimewatch E-fit, had an interesting comment. i thought the very same thing, if the comments by the vile trolls are so disgusting, why is the Mirror repeating them in it's article?

"My apologies Mirror, the comments are still here! :-) I can only conclude that you do actually agree with the comments (which incidentally are not libelous) and are using this as a means of getting the truth out there indirectly.

Check out all the latest News, Sport & Celeb gossip at Mirror.co.uk http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/vile-trolls-target-madeleine-mccann-2472668#ixzz2iLFWH1T8

Follow us: @DailyMirror on Twitter | DailyMirror on Facebook"

There are many comments repeating facts about Martin Smiths and the Gaspar statement.

Could this be the Mirrors way of getting the ball rolling in order to print these bits of the statements? They don't want to stick their necks out until it has been repeated often enough by the trolls and conspiracy nutters.

by StraightThinking 21.10.13 10:26

Somebody did something but I can't prove it = libel

Someone else says somebody did something but they can't prove it and neither can I = libel

Some complete idiot who is a disgrace to mankind and who should be ignored at all costs says somebody did something = technically libel but unlikely to go any further

by Hongkong Phooey 21.10.13 22:24

Deleted, to be on the safe side

Log in for more topics