Game over?

j.rob wrote:

canada12 wrote:I'll be careful how I say this...

I still believe (and have believed for a very long time) that the "cover up" goes no further than the activities the Gaspars described in their statements regarding David Payne.

Mr. Amaral has again discussed this same activity very recently in his latest tv interview regarding the case, and I strongly suspect that if anything that has been alleged were able to be proved, you'd have the reason why it was imperative that Madeleine's body not be found and you'd have the motivation behind the good doctors not wishing to be found out.

Everything else is pure spin and diversion.

It's certainly starting to look that way to me, although I do think there are probably also other reasons for the high level of protection the McCanns received. The Gasper statements were pretty damning. They must have thought long and hard before going to the police with that kind of information. 

Dr Katherine Gasper about David Payne:

“I remember thinking whether he would look at my daughter and other little girls in a different way than I or others do. I imagined that he had perhaps visited internet sites related to little children. In a word, I thought that he could be interested in child pornography on the web. During our holiday in Majorca, each parent would bath the children in turn. I was keen to stay near the bathroom if Dave was bathing the children. I remember I said to Savio to be careful and to be close by if Dave was helping to bathe the children and my daughter in particular. I did this [stay hear the bathroom if Dave was bathing the children] quite obviously because hearing what he said had troubled me and I didn’t trust him bathing ‘A’ [our first child].

The Slave wrote:The news about the recent case of Ian whatisname from Lost Prophets should tell you that YES there are parents as darkly evil as to give their kids up for abuse by strangers. For money, for lots of dark psychological reasons. Some stupid women will do anything to please the men in their lives, sadly.

j.rob wrote:The statements made by the Gaspers to the police are in the PJ files and I am sure have been covered on here at length. 

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Gaspar.htm

canada12 wrote:

canada12 wrote:I'll be careful how I say this...

I still believe (and have believed for a very long time) that the "cover up" has to do with the activities the Gaspars described in their statements regarding David Payne.

Mr. Amaral has again discussed this same activity very recently in his latest tv interview regarding the case, and I strongly suspect that if anything that has been alleged were able to be proved, you'd have the reason why it was imperative that Madeleine's body not be found and you'd have the motivation behind the good doctors not wishing to be found out.

Everything else is pure spin and diversion.

ETA: It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that there are people in high places who may have a connection to the above, hence the level of protection afforded the group.

I'll say this again because I think we're getting fairly close to the truth, judging by the attempts to derail this thread.
Please see above.

kevmack wrote:

mouse wrote:

Wow! - I wouldn't want you on a jury if I or a member of my family were up on a charge. Claiming someone is seriously deranged not a term I would use about somebody I have never met. Though I don't know much about the Hollie case, I wouldn't make a statement like that.
about somebody.

You also say the MCs are nobodies - hardly! Nobodies don't get flown around in a private jet, don't get to meet the pope, don't become ambassadors for charities, don't have friends like Esther McVeigh, don't get private calls for PMs.....unless they have a connection of course - I could go on. Ben Needhams mother didn't get this attention did she? I'm with Aquila on that one. Its probably more who they know, or rather someone in their group knows/or knows something about another powerful person or group.

And you don't have to be Royal to be protected. I believe Jimmy Saville was protected until he died....He wasn't Royal, but I bet he had damn good connections. We know he knew royalty, don't we.

Wow!  How rude you are!  Do you know anything about Anne Greig?  I do!  And yes she is deranged and has ruined the lives of many, many people, so please don't make assumptions about something you clearly know nothing about!

As for the McCanns being nobodies, yes, they are, they got a lot of public sympathy at the beginning, but that soon wore off, there's no private jets and audiences with the pope now, Esther Mcvey deserted them a long time ago and they got one phonecall from Gordon Brown, who then distanced himself and never met with them again.  they are just name droppers who had a few contacts but they have used and abused any goodwill that they had and all support is now gone.

I never said you had to be Royal to get protection, and as for Savile, people just mainly turned a blind eye because of his "charity" work, as soon as he stopped bringing in the money i.e. when he died, it was open season and it opened the floodgates against many a celeb and high profile person, the court cases and investigations are all ongoing, so no high level intervention anymore, so I just don't believe in cover ups and protections, especially as there is no one worth while of protection

Watching wrote:

The Slave wrote:The news about the recent case of Ian whatisname from Lost Prophets should tell you that YES there are parents as darkly evil as to give their kids up for abuse by strangers. For money, for lots of dark psychological reasons. Some stupid women will do anything to please the men in their lives, sadly.

Quite!  Often we hear of mothers who have 'turned a blind eye.'  And lest we forget there are female paedophiles.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

canada12 wrote:

canada12 wrote:I'll be careful how I say this...

I still believe (and have believed for a very long time) that the "cover up" has to do with the activities the Gaspars described in their statements regarding David Payne.

Mr. Amaral has again discussed this same activity very recently in his latest tv interview regarding the case, and I strongly suspect that if anything that has been alleged were able to be proved, you'd have the reason why it was imperative that Madeleine's body not be found and you'd have the motivation behind the good doctors not wishing to be found out.

Everything else is pure spin and diversion.

ETA: It wouldn't surprise me in the least to discover that there are people in high places who may have a connection to the above, hence the level of protection afforded the group.

I'll say this again because I think we're getting fairly close to the truth, judging by the attempts to derail this thread.
Please see above.

Do you not think Payne is a bit small fry to receive such protection though? I can't see the problem with fitting him up for the crime - he's now, thanks to the internet, probably one of the top ten alleged yet not convicted paedos in the World. If he is the subject of the protection then it can only be because of who or what else he knows - surely?

I wonder what the Snow White video would reveal if it were complete with its soundtrack?

mouse wrote:

kevmack wrote:

mouse wrote:

Wow! - I wouldn't want you on a jury if I or a member of my family were up on a charge. Claiming someone is seriously deranged not a term I would use about somebody I have never met. Though I don't know much about the Hollie case, I wouldn't make a statement like that.
about somebody.

I wasn't being rude - I try not to use personal comments about people, even if I don't agree with their views. I also don't use the word nutter as you did in a past post about people who believe in certain conspiracies. Jim Gambol labeled people on the internet who don't support the mccans that, not very nice.

That aside - how do you know that Esther McVey has deserted them? Publically she might have, now that she has her political career to concentrate on. But I have seen nothing in print to say that she does not support the Mccann's any more. As for GB - he too is only out of the picture because his political career has changed (shall we say), nothing has been stated in public that he does not still support them. They also have friends like Richard Branson, J K Rowling, Many old ex-coppers like Edger etc who supposedly worked for them for some time. I could go on, I'm sure there is a list somewhere....Ben Needham's family got diddly squat support, until of late.
 

I didn't only mean Royal connections, I meant probably a network or group - who must hold some power (only in my opinion of course). Saville wasn't just turned a blind eye to. People reported him, the police called him in, and so far it appears that Saville was not charged. He even laughed at the police in interview. Now somebody who felt that confidant that he would not be charged had to have some pretty powerful chums. It has been reported that he used to drink/have dinners with his pals the police. And we all now know about that disgusting group PIE now, don't we. Harriet Harman is still sitting there in the front row of the labour party, when she, and her old hubby knew all about this group. A group that contained many high up legal bods, judges still in power - who wanted to reduce the age of consent to 14 I believe, but some wanted as low as 4!!!

Saville wasn't just turned a blind eye to - he was protected. Too many incidents where he nearly got caught/was reported but nothing done - doesn't add up. Look at the state the Beeb have got themselves into over one, not very talented, DJ/TV Presenter.

Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse.  The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place.  I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.

aquila wrote:
I think you'll find the only person who's alleged and denied that in one single post is Clay.

The Gaspar statement (I wish people would bother to spell the name correctly) is just a part of this case.

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

aquila wrote:
I think you'll find the only person who's alleged and denied that in one single post is Clay.

The Gaspar statement (I wish people would bother to spell the name correctly) is just a part of this case.

I was trying to hedge my legal bets.

Pershing36 wrote:I Feel a bit uneasy with the allegations of accusing people of child sex abuse.  The Gasper statements are indeed disturbing but don't prove child abuse was taking place.  I can't see any reason why the government or police would want to cover this up.

Cristobell wrote:

Mirage wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

aquila wrote:Former head of MMU for Labour government, paid spokesperson for the McCanns becomes parliamentary candidate for Tory Party.

Former member of the board of Madeleine Fund becomes Tory cabinet minister.

UK Prime Minister champions the McCanns in House of Commons. Royal Charter to gag press introduced.

Being a parliamentary candidate offers no job security whatsoever Aquila.  And Brighton is unwinnable for the tories.  It is probably the most enlightened region of the country.  As a parliamentary candidate, CM is far, far away from the 'thick of it'.  His talents, as we know, lie in spin, yet he has not been placed in Tory Central Office where his skills could be best utilised, particularly with an election coming up.  And indeed such a job would come with a regular pay cheque.  

Esther McVie distanced herself from the McCann case a long time ago Aquila, and any involvement she had would have been fully cleared before being offered a Cabinet position.  She is an attractive tory politician, prepared to swipe her grandmother's wheelchair from under her, she was bound to go far.  

As for David Cameron, the McCanns were popular (another McMyth) - ergo, supporting them would be a popular move.  As for the Royal Charter, he is opposed to it!  I would even go so far as to say, he authorised DCI Redwood's little snippet about death in the apartment, to oppose the Hacked Off petition.  If it can be shown that one of Hacked Off's leading players has been trying to manipulate the Law for criminal purposes, the Royal Charter is dead in the water.

But Cristobell, Esther McVey is not just a cabinet minister is she? She's a member of the Privy Council that advises the Queen. A meteoric rise by anyone's standards.

She is hugely ambitious Mirage, and the truth is, those who are hugely ambitious achieve their goals, one way or another.  She is a photogenic tory, one the public will like because she is pretty and the public think she is just like them because she is not an Eton toff.  In addition, if the cuts she announces came from a Dracula lookalike or an uglymug, we would be throwing blunt sticks.

aquila wrote:Mark Williams-Thomas has had a small mention in the Daily Mail today re the Savile case. He's described as an 'expert'.

I've been watching MWT's tweets for the last week or so. He's had a lot to say about the vanished aeroplane but nothing much to say about the Madeleine McCann case.

A couple of months or so ago MWT had a documentary broadcast on UK television where he went to Portugal to capture a UK paedophile who had an International Arrest Warrant. It took him and his team 4 months to do this. He demonstrated in the broadcast that the Portuguese police were disinterested and hostile.

I await the regeneration of MWT's bottom/career profile on a daytime telly sofa soon to give his 'expert' opinion.

ETA: I don't do twitter but I found out that if you google twitter and a name you can look at what they say.

mouse wrote:I agree that in the past there was a different attitude to paedophillia, that has all changed now and these types of attitudes are no longer acceptable.  Yes, Esther Mcvey has deserted the McCanns publicly and as such her private opinion means not a jot, but I doubt that the high flying Ms McVey will have any time at all for her old chum Kate.  As for Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman etc that is also moot, he has been out of power for over 3 years and neither he, nor his party are likely to see power again for quite some time, so yet again their opinions, beliefs etc are invalid 

As for  J K Rowling, she initially gave a small bit of vocal support, but very quickly distanced herself completely, so I don't even know why you are mentioning her name.  The McCanns got a lot of sympathy in the early days, but that all evaporated and none of these high flyers have had anything to do with the McCanns since 2007, so I really don't know why people continue to bang on about them

---------------------------------------------


KevMac - but in the past paedophillia was just as illegal - I don't buy all those arguments about 'back in the day, people thought differently" If it was so different why did a group like PIE have to form to try to lower the legal age of consent. It was wrong then as it is now - some just wish it wasn't. and sadly I believe they are quite a strong force to be reckoned with. And still are...


And just because these famous VIPs don't publically support anymore - do we now have to just forget they ever did? I certainly won't forget those who rallied round the MC's, putting others down for daring to ask the questions we all wanted an answer to - Why did they leave their kids on their own? I do however believe some like David Beckham, the England Ruby Manager (Forgive me I don't remember his name) who were there purely in those first days/weeks to get the message out that a little girl was missing..genuinely got sucked in. The others.....And didn't JK offer a reward? A little more than Verbal I'd say.

ultimaThule wrote:MWT's 'bottom profile'???     Did he sit on the photocopier, Newintown?  

kevmack wrote:

mouse wrote:I agree that in the past there was a different attitude to paedophillia, that has all changed now and these types of attitudes are no longer acceptable.  Yes, Esther Mcvey has deserted the McCanns publicly and as such her private opinion means not a jot, but I doubt that the high flying Ms McVey will have any time at all for her old chum Kate.  As for Gordon Brown, Harriet Harman etc that is also moot, he has been out of power for over 3 years and neither he, nor his party are likely to see power again for quite some time, so yet again their opinions, beliefs etc are invalid 

As for  J K Rowling, she initially gave a small bit of vocal support, but very quickly distanced herself completely, so I don't even know why you are mentioning her name.  The McCanns got a lot of sympathy in the early days, but that all evaporated and none of these high flyers have had anything to do with the McCanns since 2007, so I really don't know why people continue to bang on about them

---------------------------------------------


KevMac - but in the past paedophillia was just as illegal - I don't buy all those arguments about 'back in the day, people thought differently" If it was so different why did a group like PIE have to form to try to lower the legal age of consent. It was wrong then as it is now - some just wish it wasn't. and sadly I believe they are quite a strong force to be reckoned with. And still are...


And just because these famous VIPs don't publically support anymore - do we now have to just forget they ever did? I certainly won't forget those who rallied round the MC's, putting others down for daring to ask the questions we all wanted an answer to - Why did they leave their kids on their own? I do however believe some like David Beckham, the England Ruby Manager (Forgive me I don't remember his name) who were there purely in those first days/weeks to get the message out that a little girl was missing..genuinely got sucked in. The others.....And didn't JK offer a reward? A little more than Verbal I'd say.

Homosexuality used to be illegal, but attitudes changed on that and now it is not! So you are really just creating a straw man argument, what certain people did or supported 30 odd years ago has absolutely no relevance today.

As for forgetting how the celebs gave support, you're clearly not a very forgiving person are you?  All of these people gave an instant knee jerk reaction to what they believed was an abduction of a young child, they soon realised they were wrong and said nothing more on the matter.  Do you think they should be hounded and harried for one misjudgment for ever more?  Dragged into a sordid case because they made appeals and supported the parents in the first few weeks of what has turned out to be a 7 years (and counting) saga.  Lots of people pledged support towards a reward in the event the kidnapper(s) were apprehended and Madeleine returned safely, but that didn't happen, so it can be assumed their money is still safely in their pockets, but you seem to want to have them held to account for adding their voice, albeit we believe in a misguided way, to support the search for a missing child in the first few weeks of her disappearance...come to think of it, I wouldn't want you on a jury either, if, god forbid those accused had made an error of judgment in their past, you'd have them sentenced to life!