Re: Libel Trial Postponement: The Truth about the McCanns' Lie - by Nigel Moore.

by **tigger** 22.06.14 7:08

According such great importance to whatever needed covering might be a mistake.
I believe it was something that grew out of all proportion to its importance until we've ended up with a situation which is rather worse than would have been the case if the whole thing had come into the open in May 2007.

It wasn't supposed to be like this as Nick Clegg said memorably.

Imo we've ended up with a situation where any cover up is a far greater crime than the one originally committed.

But imo it's abundantly clear that the McCanns lost their chance to shine on the world stage within months of the launch of brand McCann.
Since then it's been damage limitation.

As for their promotors, helpers and protectors - tainted by association and some of those weren't too clean to start off with.

by Guest 22.06.14 10:55

Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
j.rob wrote:They threw away the 'get out of jail' card when the case was shelved by the Portuguese. Could have put heads down.

That has always intrigued me.
They could have presented themselves as permanent victims for all time, and have had everyone fawning on them.
In analysing this puzzle, I suggest we must start with asking ourselves why it was so necessary for the government to send out, full-time, the Director of its Media Monitoring Unit, Clarence Mitchell.

We must then take into account the incredible degree of control he has exerted over the media since then, albeit that the blood, body fluids, cadaver odour and their being made suspects temporariiy dented his control - until (a) getting Amaral out of the way and (b) the McCanns obtaining their libel settlement against Express Newspapers and other media. Since then, Mitchell has reigned supreme.

Then we must examine the extent of Mitchell's contacts with the Murdoch empire.

Fourth, we must question why the Prime Minister of the U.K. buckled to the jumped-up redhead Rebekah Brooks and agreed to an open-ended and very costly review and investigation which, on so many levels, has not made sense. Even those members here who think that 'this is Scotland Yard, it must be a genuine investigation' are struggling to make sense of it, saying 'we don't really know what is going on'.

I suggest that all these things point to a bigger picture.

A much bigger picture.

As j.rob and PeterMac both concede, there was no need to carry on with the private investigations; these have achieved nothing except perhaps a series of newspaper headlines.

Cameron could simply have said 'No' to Brooks. He could have said: 'The investigation belongs to Portugal, if anyone has any evidence, they should go to them'.

I don't for one moment think that all these things are driven by the McCanns.

I am sure there are other individuals, maybe people who know too much, who are keeping this going - and want to maintain the narrative:

McCanns innocent;

Portuguese police useless;

we have done everything we can to help the McCanns/to solve this appalling abduction.

@ Tony

Do you mean that certain people who know the full facts of the 'situation' that existed in 2007 are still working behind the scenes to maintain that 'situation'? And don't want the MccCanns to disrupt it?

Are the people maintaining this narrative the UK press/media or those running the 'situation' as it occurred in 2007?

If the above is accurate then why did the McCanns continue to appear in the media to insist that MBM had been abducted and was still alive, despite all the evidence? Do you think the McCanns were forced to do this (by who?) or they did it of their own accord? If of their own accord was this just for the £ money? Was it to warn those maintaining the narrative (along with the odd photos) that they could speak out about the 'situtation' if they chose to do so?

Just some thoughts, I am aware of your restrictions so please ignore me if you think best - my intentions are honorable I assure you!

by Cristobell 22.06.14 11:26

Okeydokey wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
j.rob wrote:They threw away the 'get out of jail' card when the case was shelved by the Portuguese. Could have put heads down.

That has always intrigued me.
They could have presented themselves as permanent victims for all time, and have had everyone fawning on them.
In analysing this puzzle, I suggest we must start with asking ourselves why it was so necessary for the government to send out, full-time, the Director of its Media Monitoring Unit, Clarence Mitchell.

We must then take into account the incredible degree of control he has exerted over the media since then, albeit that the blood, body fluids, cadaver odour and their being made suspects temporariiy dented his control - until (a) getting Amaral out of the way and (b) the McCanns obtaining their libel settlement against Express Newspapers and other media. Since then, Mitchell has reigned supreme.

Then we must examine the extent of Mitchell's contacts with the Murdoch empire.

Fourth, we must question why the Prime Minister of the U.K. buckled to the jumped-up redhead Rebekah Brooks and agreed to an open-ended and very costly review and investigation which, on so many levels, has not made sense. Even those members here who think that 'this is Scotland Yard, it must be a genuine investigation' are struggling to make sense of it, saying 'we don't really know what is going on'.

I suggest that all these things point to a bigger picture.

A much bigger picture.

As j.rob and PeterMac both concede, there was no need to carry on with the private investigations; these have achieved nothing except perhaps a series of newspaper headlines.

Cameron could simply have said 'No' to Brooks. He could have said: 'The investigation belongs to Portugal, if anyone has any evidence, they should go to them'.

I don't for one moment think that all these things are driven by the McCanns.

I am sure there are other individuals, maybe people who know too much, who are keeping this going - and want to maintain the narrative:

McCanns innocent;

Portuguese police useless;

we have done everything we can to help the McCanns/to solve this appalling abduction.

Interesting.

The way I see it you, like many others, underestimate the natural genius of Gerry McCann for media and people manipulation.

As for sending out MI5 and all the rest, you have to think back to 2007 and recall this was (and remains) the BIGGEST EVER crime story in our news media. It far exceeds in column inches and any other measure, any other crime reported in our media over the last 200 years. No government could ignore it and it follows that any UK government was going to devote huge state resources to it.

Then take into account Portugal is our oldest ally and enjoys great strategic assets in its Atlantic seaboard, and Atlantic islands (e.g. the Azores). For me the UK government saw within a few days the need to attempt to control the media narrative AND the investigation, to ensure vital interests were not threatened and also to ensure government competence was not called into question. I suspect - but have no proof - that there was a central government committee probably comprising Home Office, Police and Foreign Office officials who were reviewing all aspects of the case including the outflow of evidence from the UK (hence the otherwise unaccountable delay of months in forwarding the Gaspar letter).

Clarence's later involvement I think was more to do with personal advancement, though no doubt his appointment had government blessing. However I think he went completely "native" once he was out of government service. How else to account for his absurd statement that none of the Tapas 9 had watches or mobile phones with them on the evening of the alleged abduction?

I think the Murdoch connection is via Freud (Clement Freud to Matthew Freud and then Elizabeth Murdoch (MF's wife). I have no doubt that GMcC will have ruthlessly exploited such connections once they fortuitously come his way.

But Murdoch is just one of Gerry's incredible coups. What about the way Justice Hogg seemed to be almost swooning in court in admiration of the McCanns? - before they had even been released from Arguido status. What about getting the Vatican signed up? What about the way he has working class Irish Nationalistic sentiment, so getting people like Kevin McGuire of the Mirror seem to suspend all judgement when it comes to the McCanns? What about the Freemasonry connection?

Why exactly Team McCann have continued to maintain their narrative despite all the many serious inconsistencies and evidential black holes, remains a mystery. However there was clearly something big enough in terms of motivation for the Tapas 9 to argue all sorts of crazy, inconsistent and contradictory stuff - varying over time, of course. I could list at least 20 major inconsistencies but let's just remind ourselves of one: the claim that Madeleine could not have wandered because she wasn't that sort of child...when we know from the home star chart that Madeleine had a tendency to wake at night and go looking for her parents. Why would any parent or friend of a parent want to deny that possibility and cling limpet-like to the notion of a predator from the first to the last?

Good morning Okey Dokey, I think the answer to your last line, lies in the bedroom window. Kate charged into the apartment, following Plan A presumably, and opened the window to set up the abduction story. However, Gerry waylaid by Jez, hadn't done his bit and the shutters remained untouched and undamaged.

Absolutely no-one believed that a man could carry a child through the window without leaving any trace, so the McCanns backtracked (again) and said the window may have been opened as a 'red herring'. The window, which could not be opened by a 3 year old child, was proof positive that a 'stranger' was involved in Maddie's disappearance.

by kevmack 22.06.14 12:00

I still cannot believe in any massive cover up, protection or anything like that, if there was, we just wouldn't have heard of the McCanns. And if the "abduction" was meant to set in motion groundswell support for microchipping etc, well it failed, as nothing of that sort has even been suggested, let alone implemented.

I think the McCanns did effectively manipulate the media in the early days, and as a result got a lot of initial support, though that support dwindled very quickly, okay yes, we have the daft bints sitting on their daytime tv sofas, fawning over the Mcs and people like Tony Parsons, who is just a waste of space, who really cares what he thinks, he has the ability to get up more people's noses and doesn't exactly have any clout or influence.

As far as the Portuguese investigation stalling, yes, I do believe there was an element of not making our then Prime Minister look stupid, but I think it was more to do with "have you got the evidence to convict?...if not, drop it" because lets face it, there certainly wasn't any political interference when the McCanns were made arguidos, surely if there had been protection that just would not have happened. But it did, sadly though, then as now, it's solid, hard evidence that is needed. Evidence that will stand up in court and SY are facing exactly the same problems that the PJ were back in 07/08, they need to find evidence.

So no, I believe it was a combination of luck, media manipulation and ultimately a lack of evidence that has thus far enabled the McCanns to escape justice, but oil always comes to the surface, as my late granny used to say, and I am still remaining hopeful that this case will be solved one day.

by Justformaddie 22.06.14 12:09

kevmack wrote:I still cannot believe in any massive cover up, protection or anything like that, if there was, we just wouldn't have heard of the McCanns. And if the "abduction" was meant to set in motion groundswell support for microchipping etc, well it failed, as nothing of that sort has even been suggested, let alone implemented.

I think the McCanns did effectively manipulate the media in the early days, and as a result got a lot of initial support, though that support dwindled very quickly, okay yes, we have the daft bints sitting on their daytime tv sofas, fawning over the Mcs and people like Tony Parsons, who is just a waste of space, who really cares what he thinks, he has the ability to get up more people's noses and doesn't exactly have any clout or influence.

As far as the Portuguese investigation stalling, yes, I do believe there was an element of not making our then Prime Minister look stupid, but I think it was more to do with "have you got the evidence to convict?...if not, drop it" because lets face it, there certainly wasn't any political interference when the McCanns were made arguidos, surely if there had been protection that just would not have happened. But it did, sadly though, then as now, it's solid, hard evidence that is needed. Evidence that will stand up in court and SY are facing exactly the same problems that the PJ were back in 07/08, they need to find evidence.

So no, I believe it was a combination of luck, media manipulation and ultimately a lack of evidence that has thus far enabled the McCanns to escape justice, but oil always comes to the surface, as my late granny used to say, and I am still remaining hopeful that this case will be solved one day.

by Monty Heck 22.06.14 12:13

sami wrote:
joel27 wrote:I have to admit Kevmack is not the only one to find Dr Amaral actions bizarre I have already expressed a view that I worry that he is being played,by some. The strength of his case was always that all the information contained in the book was in the police files.Over recent times this strength has been weakened with the comments on the missing witness and the coffin story, now he may well have information that backs this up I hope so. However it must be water tight and without question. When I say played I can see a case where he is being fed dud information the pressure on him to prove without doubt in the court case is strong and he must remain sound in his use of any new information.

Surely the Judge will base her decision on the information before her in the current case - did the book harm the search and cause pain and suffering to the McCann family. No it did not, IMO, the book is nothing more than an idiots guide to the PJ files.

I don't believe the Judge can make a decision, or take account of, comments made by or attributed to Amaral last week or last month.

This and the fact that the book made money appears to be the nub of the McC complaint - it is making the content of the PJ files accessible to the public but more importantly that cash was generated that they seem to be excercised about. Relatively few would take the trouble to wade through the files whereas Snr Amaral's book does all the hard work for the reader, and furthermore is written by an eminently credible author who happens to be an authority on the case.

The files themselves say what Snr Amaral has written but the McCs are powerless to sue the Portuguese state for publishing the case information. Even if they could there would be no point as no profit was made from their publication. By comparison Snr Amaral and co-defendents are soft targets and, crucially, they have made money which the McCs seem intent on relieving them of.

A libel case should be about reputation but this seems to come a poor second next to reparation, as evidenced by the fact that, once aware of the book's publication, they sat back and waited for the profits to roll in before making a move. Ditto the number of articles the McCs allowed the media to rack up before taking action, the result being a large cash windfall rather than the apologies which would have had to suffice had they taken action immediately. There is a saying in this part of the world that you can't get knickers off a bare ...., and it seems that objections with regard to reputation damage in both instances were cynically deferred until that part of the anatomy was handomely clothed before striking.

by SchrodingersBody 22.06.14 12:30

kevmack wrote:I still cannot believe in any massive cover up, protection or anything like that, if there was, we just wouldn't have heard of the McCanns. And if the "abduction" was meant to set in motion groundswell support for microchipping etc, well it failed, as nothing of that sort has even been suggested, let alone implemented.

I think the McCanns did effectively manipulate the media in the early days, and as a result got a lot of initial support, though that support dwindled very quickly, okay yes, we have the daft bints sitting on their daytime tv sofas, fawning over the Mcs and people like Tony Parsons, who is just a waste of space, who really cares what he thinks, he has the ability to get up more people's noses and doesn't exactly have any clout or influence.

As far as the Portuguese investigation stalling, yes, I do believe there was an element of not making our then Prime Minister look stupid, but I think it was more to do with "have you got the evidence to convict?...if not, drop it" because lets face it, there certainly wasn't any political interference when the McCanns were made arguidos, surely if there had been protection that just would not have happened. But it did, sadly though, then as now, it's solid, hard evidence that is needed. Evidence that will stand up in court and SY are facing exactly the same problems that the PJ were back in 07/08, they need to find evidence.

So no, I believe it was a combination of luck, media manipulation and ultimately a lack of evidence that has thus far enabled the McCanns to escape justice, but oil always comes to the surface, as my late granny used to say, and I am still remaining hopeful that this case will be solved one day.

Just about spot on, they got a big bandwagon rolling right at the start, and while people took them at face value and jumped on it, they cleaned up in more ways than one.

by kevmack 22.06.14 12:32

Monty Heck wrote:
sami wrote:
joel27 wrote:I have to admit Kevmack is not the only one to find Dr Amaral actions bizarre I have already expressed a view that I worry that he is being played,by some. The strength of his case was always that all the information contained in the book was in the police files.Over recent times this strength has been weakened with the comments on the missing witness and the coffin story, now he may well have information that backs this up I hope so. However it must be water tight and without question. When I say played I can see a case where he is being fed dud information the pressure on him to prove without doubt in the court case is strong and he must remain sound in his use of any new information.

Surely the Judge will base her decision on the information before her in the current case - did the book harm the search and cause pain and suffering to the McCann family. No it did not, IMO, the book is nothing more than an idiots guide to the PJ files.

I don't believe the Judge can make a decision, or take account of, comments made by or attributed to Amaral last week or last month.
This and the fact that the book made money appears to be the nub of the McC complaint - it is making the content of the PJ files accessible to the public but more importantly that cash was generated that they seem to be excercised about. Relatively few would take the trouble to wade through the files whereas Snr Amaral's book does all the hard work for the reader, and furthermore is written by an eminently credible author who happens to be an authority on the case.

The files themselves say what Snr Amaral has written but the McCs are powerless to sue the Portuguese state for publishing the case information. Even if they could there would be no point as no profit was made from their publication. By comparison Snr Amaral and co-defendents are soft targets and, crucially, they have made money which the McCs seem intent on relieving them of.

A libel case should be about reputation but this seems to come a poor second next to reparation, as evidenced by the fact that, once aware of the book's publication, they sat back and waited for the profits to roll in before making a move. Ditto the number of articles the McCs allowed the media to rack up before taking action, the result being a large cash windfall rather than the apologies which would have had to suffice had they taken action immediately. There is a saying in this part of the world that you can't get knickers off a bare ...., and it seems that objections with regard to reputation damage in both instances were cynically deferred until that part of the anatomy has been handomely clothed before striking.

Agree Monty, but can I also point out in the first quote here, where joel27 has said that kevmac is not the only one to find Amaral's action bizarre, for the record, I have never said any such thing, I think someone has got confused in the quotes and has mistakenly used my name, I fully stand by any decision that Snr Amaral makes and I am sure that he knows exactly what he is doing.

by Guest 22.06.14 12:53

kevmack wrote:I still cannot believe in any massive cover up, protection or anything like that, if there was, we just wouldn't have heard of the McCanns. And if the "abduction" was meant to set in motion groundswell support for microchipping etc, well it failed, as nothing of that sort has even been suggested, let alone implemented.

I think the McCanns did effectively manipulate the media in the early days, and as a result got a lot of initial support, though that support dwindled very quickly, okay yes, we have the daft bints sitting on their daytime tv sofas, fawning over the Mcs and people like Tony Parsons, who is just a waste of space, who really cares what he thinks, he has the ability to get up more people's noses and doesn't exactly have any clout or influence.

As far as the Portuguese investigation stalling, yes, I do believe there was an element of not making our then Prime Minister look stupid, but I think it was more to do with "have you got the evidence to convict?...if not, drop it" because lets face it, there certainly wasn't any political interference when the McCanns were made arguidos, surely if there had been protection that just would not have happened. But it did, sadly though, then as now, it's solid, hard evidence that is needed. Evidence that will stand up in court and SY are facing exactly the same problems that the PJ were back in 07/08, they need to find evidence.

So no, I believe it was a combination of luck, media manipulation and ultimately a lack of evidence that has thus far enabled the McCanns to escape justice, but oil always comes to the surface, as my late granny used to say, and I am still remaining hopeful that this case will be solved one day.

Are you saying that it was a accident then kevmack - and not a preplanned abduction?

And what would you say about all the odd photographs and the Gaspar statements i.e. clear undertones of paedophilia - would you say that this was just a means to an end - to divert attention away from themselves. I would say this is credible but why would David Payne really be prepared to be used in this manner?

I can still find puzzles in your theory - in fact in every theory I can think of Shocked

by kevmack 22.06.14 13:21

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
kevmack wrote:I still cannot believe in any massive cover up, protection or anything like that, if there was, we just wouldn't have heard of the McCanns. And if the "abduction" was meant to set in motion groundswell support for microchipping etc, well it failed, as nothing of that sort has even been suggested, let alone implemented.

I think the McCanns did effectively manipulate the media in the early days, and as a result got a lot of initial support, though that support dwindled very quickly, okay yes, we have the daft bints sitting on their daytime tv sofas, fawning over the Mcs and people like Tony Parsons, who is just a waste of space, who really cares what he thinks, he has the ability to get up more people's noses and doesn't exactly have any clout or influence.

As far as the Portuguese investigation stalling, yes, I do believe there was an element of not making our then Prime Minister look stupid, but I think it was more to do with "have you got the evidence to convict?...if not, drop it" because lets face it, there certainly wasn't any political interference when the McCanns were made arguidos, surely if there had been protection that just would not have happened. But it did, sadly though, then as now, it's solid, hard evidence that is needed. Evidence that will stand up in court and SY are facing exactly the same problems that the PJ were back in 07/08, they need to find evidence.

So no, I believe it was a combination of luck, media manipulation and ultimately a lack of evidence that has thus far enabled the McCanns to escape justice, but oil always comes to the surface, as my late granny used to say, and I am still remaining hopeful that this case will be solved one day.

Are you saying that it was a accident then kevmack - and not a preplanned abduction?

And what would you say about all the odd photographs and the Gaspar statements i.e. clear undertones of paedophilia - would you say that this was just a means to an end - to divert attention away from themselves. I would say this is credible but why would David Payne really be prepared to be used in this manner?

I can still find puzzles in your theory - in fact in every theory I can think of

No, I totally do not think for one second it was a pre-planned abduction, inasmuch the McCanns went to Portugal to have Madeleine "abducted" sorry but I think that is an absurd idea. Yes, in my opinion, some degree of planning (very little) went into the simulated abduction of Madeleine, post mortem, from the apartment but that was in terms of timelines, raising the alarm, getting rid of evidence etc

As for the Gaspar statements, to be absolutely honest, I don't really put that much value in them, Arul Gaspar was not of the same opinion as his wife as to the intention of the conversation between David Payne and Gerry McCann, yes, it's a bit odd with all of the bathing of children and there is no way I would let any unrelated male friend bathe my young daughter, but other than that, there really isn't any evidence of anything untoward. And I think the only thing that David Payne set himself up for was saying he visited the apartment on the 3rd of May and saw all of the children, when he probably didn't and the very fact that he was airbrushed out of the crimewatch reconstruction, tells me that perhaps he found the "different forum" he mentioned in his rogatory interview to adjust that statement imo

As for the odd photographs, yes, they are a bit weird, but yet again, the McCanns have gone to such great lengths to talk about paedophilia, that I am sure the opposite applies. The McCanns have told so many lies, that I have got to the point that whatever they say in a deliberate way, is the opposite of what is true (though they are famous for dropping clangers in unguarded moments and that I tend to believe have more truth in them than what they were trying to say)

Of course there are still puzzles, if there were none, then the McCanns would be facing the full force of justice and we wouldn't be sitting on this forum discussing theories, but I still veer towards the more simplistic view, rather than the cast of thousands covering up..well whatever, no one seems to have an answer for what is purportedly being covered up and just saying, "oh it must be very big" What? What could be that big? We have seen recently that no one is above the law, look at all of the current court cases ongoing, people that we thought would never see the inside of a court room, but there they all are, no high up protection for them, whoever they are.

by **PeterMac** 22.06.14 13:22

Hear, hear !

by kevmack 22.06.14 13:32

And yes, I do think it was an accident, whether, as Amaral thinks, that Madeleine fell from the sofa and hit her head, or whether Kate may have lost her temper with her hyperactive child, whilst she was in a foul mood with Gerry, who was treating the holiday as an excuse to play tennis and flirt with attractive women in the tapas bar, which led to her lashing out at Madeleine, leading to a fatal injury, but I most certainly do not think that Madeleine's demise was planned in any way whatsoever, quite the opposite, for all of the anger I have towards the McCanns for everything they've done, I do believe that they loved all of their children, albeit expressed in a different way to the way that most of us here would express our love for our children, but I do believe they were devastated and it was that devastation, coupled with the realisation that they would most certainly lose their other children as well as their careers, home and everything else, that prompted them to take the action they did that night, and that was to fake an abduction and become victims of a crime, rather than the perpetrators and that is why they continue to this day, they have already lost Madeleine and they stand to lose everything else if caught imo

by Monty Heck 22.06.14 13:46

I too believe that Snr Amaral knows what he is doing and that his request for postponement was expedient, rather than any cynical attempt to inconvenience his opponents. In their ill advised press briefing last week the McC couple resorted to making claims that were untrue while lashing out childishly against this latest delay. In taking a civil action such as this within a foreign jurisdiction they should have been aware that delays can occur and that, naturally these inconveniences would be magnified due to their living elsewhere as such is the nature of that particular beast.

Bringing this action was the second most ill advised thing they have ever done and anyone who considers the time, trouble, stress, inconvenience to themselves and their own friends and families, the huge cost and bad publicity which have resulted worth the 1.2M E they may gain (which was always a very long shot indeed) is so bloody minded as to border on madness. Even in the event that they win (which seems highly unlikely given the evidence they have led), any damages won will be swallowed up by legal and travel costs. What they think they may gain in respect of restored reputation has already been lost by the way they have conducted this case and themselves, for example sacrificing their children on the altar of publicity when their opponents had the decency to request the case be heard in camera, which they refused.

Whether innocent or otherwise of any involvement in their child's disappearance, why they would willingly get themselves into the unholy mess which now lies in their wake is difficult to guess. The situation they found themselves in was infinitely bad enough and they seem to have done nothing but weave for themselves untold amounts of additional and wholly unnecessary misery.

by Monty Heck 22.06.14 14:03

kevmack wrote:And yes, I do think it was an accident, whether, as Amaral thinks, that Madeleine fell from the sofa and hit her head, or whether Kate may have lost her temper with her hyperactive child, whilst she was in a foul mood with Gerry, who was treating the holiday as an excuse to play tennis and flirt with attractive women in the tapas bar, which led to her lashing out at Madeleine, leading to a fatal injury, but I most certainly do not think that Madeleine's demise was planned in any way whatsoever, quite the opposite, for all of the anger I have towards the McCanns for everything they've done, I do believe that they loved all of their children, albeit expressed in a different way to the way that most of us here would express our love for our children, but I do believe they were devastated and it was that devastation, coupled with the realisation that they would most certainly lose their other children as well as their careers, home and everything else, that prompted them to take the action they did that night, and that was to fake an abduction and become victims of a crime, rather than the perpetrators and that is why they continue to this day, they have already lost Madeleine and they stand to lose everything else if caught imo

I agree with most of what you say here kevmack, but find it hard to accept that M's demise was a result of KMcC lashing out in the way you describe. She does appear to have rather a short fuse and there may be little indeed to admire about the woman but the PJ themselves stopped short of accusing her of the actions above, although they did seem to think that whatever happened, happened while she was alone with the children. And why would GMcC assist in covering up for a spouse who had committed such a dreadful act, even if in the heat of the moment and under stress caused by himself? I see very litlte incentive for him to have gone through the past 7 years at her side when he could have walked away from all of this relatively unscathed, able to continue his career, able to keep his remaining children and, if able to forgive K, eventually his wife had he wanted to. However, you may well be right and I wrong in our conjecture.

by Justformaddie 22.06.14 14:14

I think dp has something about this case, how could any doctor stand by and let someone report a statement regarding the p word and not be repulsed with the lies about him? Then not to jump in and clear himself of these disgusting remarks. The Gaspers where friends, apparently, and I honestly don't think they could state that if there was no truth in it at all. All IMO

by kevmack 22.06.14 14:26

Justformaddie wrote:I think dp has something about this case, how could any doctor stand by and let someone report a statement regarding the p word and not be repulsed with the lies about him? Then not to jump in and clear himself of these disgusting remarks. The Gaspers where friends, apparently, and I honestly don't think they could state that if there was no truth in it at all. All IMO

Don't forget it was only Katherina Gaspar, not her husband who believed there was something amiss, people often say the Gaspars, plural, where in fact it was only one and these allegations were not exactly made public, so why go and create a public fuss, which would only serve to make more people aware of the allegations, also there was never any question of David Payne being investigated, so he possibly thought, well why make something out of nothing and decided to leave it at that.

I think though he developed a conscience over his statement about seeing all of the children in their pyjamas on the evening of 3rd of May, because that particular element seems to have been whooshclunked from the narrative of events that evening.

by Justformaddie 22.06.14 14:55

kevmack wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:I think dp has something about this case, how could any doctor stand by and let someone report a statement regarding the p word and not be repulsed with the lies about him? Then not to jump in and clear himself of these disgusting remarks. The Gaspers where friends, apparently, and I honestly don't think they could state that if there was no truth in it at all. All IMO
Don't forget it was only Katherina Gaspar, not her husband who believed there was something amiss, people often say the Gaspars, plural, where in fact it was only one and these allegations were not exactly made public, so why go and create a public fuss, which would only serve to make more people aware of the allegations, also there was never any question of David Payne being investigated, so he possibly thought, well why make something out of nothing and decided to leave it at that.

I think though he developed a conscience over his statement about seeing all of the children in their pyjamas on the evening of 3rd of May, because that particular element seems to have been whooshclunked from the narrative of events that evening.

True, but I couldn't sit back and let kg make that statement if it weren't true, if it was, I'd be inclined to let it fade away. Although, the statement is in the pj files for everyone to see, internet is great for that now. IMO

by kevmack 22.06.14 15:17

Justformaddie wrote:

True, but I couldn't sit back and let kg make that statement if it weren't true, if it was, I'd be inclined to let it fade away. Although, the statement is in the pj files for everyone to see, internet is great for that now. IMO

I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, if there is no basis whatsoever, then why make a song and dance about it, and who knows, maybe he has spoken to her privately and who knows what her opinion is now, all we know is the one statement she made back in 2007, her views could have changed by now as well, and if there was no chance of her ever repeating her allegations, why drag it all up.

by **PeterMac** 22.06.14 15:30

Justformaddie wrote:. . .how could any doctor stand by and let someone report a statement regarding the p word and not be repulsed with the lies about him? Then not to jump in and clear himself of these disgusting remarks.

There is however a place for quiet dignity in the face of ludicrous allegations.
If Police officers jumped in to defend themselves every time they were accused of anything the place would grind to a halt.
And of course trying to prove a negative, - that you are NOT what is alleged - is notoriously difficult.

by Justformaddie 22.06.14 15:41

kevmack wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:

True, but I couldn't sit back and let kg make that statement if it weren't true, if it was, I'd be inclined to let it fade away. Although, the statement is in the pj files for everyone to see, internet is great for that now. IMO
I see where you're coming from, but at the same time, if there is no basis whatsoever, then why make a song and dance about it, and who knows, maybe he has spoken to her privately and who knows what her opinion is now, all we know is the one statement she made back in 2007, her views could have changed by now as well, and if there was no chance of her ever repeating her allegations, why drag it all up.

Maybe your right, I suppose that's why there's not been any other reports about this aswell. Have you any ideas why dp phoned cps on the 3rd? And the cps worker (can't remember her name) but she also thought he looked familiar, then he didn't like km talking to her

by Guest 22.06.14 15:44

Of course the actions of the child care worker Martin had fed speculated suspicion on Payne as well. Though her memories were vague, she did not know what she knew who from. Still, after been told off, which was in any case understandable I think seeing the circumstances, she mailed the police with her vague feelings of suspicion.

by kevmack 22.06.14 15:52

PeterMac wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:. . .how could any doctor stand by and let someone report a statement regarding the p word and not be repulsed with the lies about him? Then not to jump in and clear himself of these disgusting remarks.

There is however a place for quiet dignity in the face of ludicrous allegations.
If Police officers jumped in to defend themselves every time they were accused of anything the place would grind to a halt.
And of course trying to prove a negative, - that you are NOT what is alleged - is notoriously difficult.

Totally agree Petermac, sometimes the best option is to do nothing, and the whole thing blows over, no harm, no foul, end of story

by Justformaddie 22.06.14 15:55

kevmack wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Justformaddie wrote:. . .how could any doctor stand by and let someone report a statement regarding the p word and not be repulsed with the lies about him? Then not to jump in and clear himself of these disgusting remarks.

There is however a place for quiet dignity in the face of ludicrous allegations.
If Police officers jumped in to defend themselves every time they were accused of anything the place would grind to a halt.
And of course trying to prove a negative, - that you are NOT what is alleged - is notoriously difficult.
Totally agree Petermac, sometimes the best option is to do nothing, and the whole thing blows over, no harm, no foul, end of story

Only if the allegations were true IMO

by kevmack 22.06.14 15:57

Justformaddie wrote:

Maybe your right, I suppose that's why there's not been any other reports about this aswell. Have you any ideas why dp phoned cps on the 3rd? And the cps worker (can't remember her name) but she also thought he looked familiar, then he didn't like km talking to her

I think Payne was trying to protect the McCanns at that point, and the last thing they needed was being quizzed by a UK social worker, who would have sussed them all out immediately and it would have been game over. Of course they had to talk to the police but due to the language barrier, many things, were of course, lost in translation, so to speak. Having a one on one with Yvonne Martin could have had a totally different outcome though, so it's hardly surprising Kate didn't want to speak to her and Payne leapt in to prevent that imo

by j.rob 22.06.14 15:57

No, I totally do not think for one second it was a pre-planned abduction, inasmuch the McCanns went to Portugal to have Madeleine "abducted" sorry but I think that is an absurd idea. Yes, in my opinion, some degree of planning (very little) went into the simulated abduction of Madeleine, post mortem, from the apartment but that was in terms of timelines, raising the alarm, getting rid of evidence etc

-----------

There are many pointers that there was pre-planning. The rapidity with which the fund was set up; the relatives immediately claiming 'jemmied shutters' when they hadn't been. Why would they say that?

There must have been a plan to jemmy the shutters, but something went wrong and the shutters weren't jemmied. But no-one told the family at in England so they came out with the wrong version of events. I can't see a reason for that unless it was that there was a pre-arranged plan which the relatives already knew about. But the plan changed at the last minute.

The speed with which the media were alerted. The role of Jeremy Wilkins is intriguing. Why did he completely change his witness statements? That can only be highly suspicious.

Jeremy Wilkins witness statement is completely inconsistent with what he would have said and done if he was a completely independent unbiased bystander. It is impossible that him and his wife would have 'gone back to sleep' after being told about Madeleine's 'abduction'. This is simply not credible with two journalists who make a living out of sensationalist drama/documentaries/films.

Police wanted him to come back with the McCanns and Tapas to do a re-enactment. So they too think he is very important.

The enthusiasm with which the McCanns embraced their 'celebrity' lifestyle. Their roles as ambassadors for missing children. And so on.

The Murdoch support has been massive. Everyone knew that it was a news-story that was massive.

Amaral, who must know more about this case than most - has always been astonished by the Establishment support they have enjoyed.

You say it is absurd to consider it was a pre-planned 'abduction' but take a look at the Elizabeth Smart case in the States. She was supposedly 'abducted' and chained up in a hellish lair. Days after her 'rescue' she is seen with her parents beaming at the White House with President Bush. Despite having been, allegedly, chained up and raped she looks remarkably unscathed, as though she has just returned from a spa holiday.

The 'abduction' story

Shortly after that 'Amber Alert' launched to great fan fare. And the McCanns were lobbying hard to get a similar alert system in the UK and Europe.

Kate writes about all this in her book.

Log in for more topics