The Truth of the Lie - The Gaspar Statements

chrissie wrote:It also interesting to note that 3 days after the Gaspar statement was made, gerry mccann makes a dash back to Leicester and goes to Leicestershire Police station as this is where he first meets clarence mitchell...

I never knew that this is where Gerry first met Clarrie

Yes clarence mitchell says this in his RI

"I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter's disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station."....however I do not believe it was circumstantial meeting!!! Gordy or bliar had sent him up there

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

jd16 wrote:

chrissie wrote:It also interesting to note that 3 days after the Gaspar statement was made, gerry mccann makes a dash back to Leicester and goes to Leicestershire Police station as this is where he first meets clarence mitchell...

I never knew that this is where Gerry first met Clarrie

Yes clarence mitchell says this in his RI

"I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter's disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station."....however I do not believe it was circumstantial meeting!!! Gordy or bliar had sent him up there

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

Thank you jd16, very interesting. Certainly sounds like a 'set up'.

Last week (or the week before - time flies) during the media blitz Central News showed some old film of the early days. I think it was the first trip to Rothley where gez looked at the floral tributes by the memorial in the village. At the back stood clarry, he then moved out of shot, but I ran it back to check it was him. So he was on the scene quite early. Why did they need a media manipulator, spin doctor with connections to govt so early on?

chrissie wrote:

Chris wrote:

chrissie wrote:Could the allegations about the holiday in Greece have been an anonymous tip off or telephone call? Hence they couldn't get a statement. Just a thought.

Or possibly an observation from a MW staff member who had something relayed to him/her by someone they knew from MW Greece

Good point, another possibility.

The tennis coach, Dan whatever his name is, was at the Greek resort before PDL. Had he met the group then ?

Okay...

Lets follow this route. IF: This pedo route of evidence is concrete
(nb: I believe something dodgy about Payne due to Yvonne Martin as evidence also)

What is the hypothesis on how this may have impacted further on the holiday...
We know that David Payne popped in to see Kate now and again on his own and bathed the girls didn't he?
Is it being suggested that the cover up was due to him going too far?

Loopdaloop wrote:Okay...

Lets follow this route. IF: This pedo route of evidence is concrete
(nb: I believe something dodgy about Payne due to Yvonne Martin as evidence also)

What is the hypothesis on how this may have impacted further on the holiday...
We know that David Payne popped in to see Kate now and again on his own and bathed the girls didn't he?
Is it being suggested that the cover up was due to him going too far?

Whilst I won't put up a name this is my post in an earlier thread.



  Angelique on Wed 16 May - 0:04

I find it very difficult to pin down what I reallly think.

I agree with matthew - IMO there was just one adult 'with' Madeleine. But not sure that initially there were other adults and then subsequently only children in another room.

The neglect was the "cover" - the best "worst case scenario" if it came to Court. They made sure it was so convoluted with all T7 being involved at some point with checking, listening etc or just walking by or not - that if it did come to trial they could get "not proven". Which is what the people handling them needed to extricate them from this 'situation'.

So they promote the guilt they feel whilst not admitting neglect but repeating "responsible parenting" at every given opportunity.

Loopdaloop wrote:Okay...

Lets follow this route. IF: This pedo route of evidence is concrete
(nb: I believe something dodgy about Payne due to Yvonne Martin as evidence also)

What is the hypothesis on how this may have impacted further on the holiday...
We know that David Payne popped in to see Kate now and again on his own and bathed the girls didn't he?
Is it being suggested that the cover up was due to him going too far?

This is what I don't understand either. If there was some sort of abusing activity going on within the group, and this is what led to M's disappearance, what is it that is being suggested here? that M was abused and killed, then removed and the whole group, including her parents were willing to stage an abduction to protect the abuser? I just can't think what motive anyone would have for protecting the killer of your own child, especially if it was just some pal or other.

P.S. I don't think DP bathed M did he? I've never read any statements to this effect, but perhaps I've missed something.

chrissie wrote:

jd16 wrote:

chrissie wrote:It also interesting to note that 3 days after the Gaspar statement was made, gerry mccann makes a dash back to Leicester and goes to Leicestershire Police station as this is where he first meets clarence mitchell...

I never knew that this is where Gerry first met Clarrie

Yes clarence mitchell says this in his RI

"I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter's disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station."....however I do not believe it was circumstantial meeting!!! Gordy or bliar had sent him up there

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

Thank you jd16, very interesting. Certainly sounds like a 'set up'.

Theres a bit more...."But according to Mr. Jim Murphy, Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office on 7 May, 2008, Clarence Mitchell was seconded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, from the Central Office of Information (COI), for a period of 25 days in May 2007 to provide assistance with the media to the family of Madeleine McCann. Mr. Jim Murphy revealed those details when questioned by Elliot Morley, Labour MP for Scunthorpe, on 7 May, 2008, as it is referred on the “Daily Hansard - Written Answers” at the House of Commons."....this would make it 6th May 2007

http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/clarence-mitchell-how-i-met-gerry-and.html

Wintabells wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:Okay...

Lets follow this route. IF: This pedo route of evidence is concrete
(nb: I believe something dodgy about Payne due to Yvonne Martin as evidence also)

What is the hypothesis on how this may have impacted further on the holiday...
We know that David Payne popped in to see Kate now and again on his own and bathed the girls didn't he?
Is it being suggested that the cover up was due to him going too far?

This is what I don't understand either. If there was some sort of abusing activity going on within the group, and this is what led to M's disappearance, what is it that is being suggested here? that M was abused and killed, then removed and the whole group, including her parents were willing to stage an abduction to protect the abuser? I just can't think what motive anyone would have for protecting the killer of your own child, especially if it was just some pal or other.

P.S. I don't think DP bathed M did he? I've never read any statements to this effect, but perhaps I've missed something.

No, I've never come across this either. As I recall Rachel Oldfield I think said their child was once bathed with the Tanner O'Briens.....maybe when R. was sick? Can't remember where I saw it, sorry.

There is reference to David Payne bathing all the children on a previous holiday - see the topic The Majorca Holiday 2005 - but whether this also applied in 2007 I don't know.

ann_chovey wrote:

Wintabells wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:Okay...

Lets follow this route. IF: This pedo route of evidence is concrete
(nb: I believe something dodgy about Payne due to Yvonne Martin as evidence also)

What is the hypothesis on how this may have impacted further on the holiday...
We know that David Payne popped in to see Kate now and again on his own and bathed the girls didn't he?
Is it being suggested that the cover up was due to him going too far?

This is what I don't understand either. If there was some sort of abusing activity going on within the group, and this is what led to M's disappearance, what is it that is being suggested here? that M was abused and killed, then removed and the whole group, including her parents were willing to stage an abduction to protect the abuser? I just can't think what motive anyone would have for protecting the killer of your own child, especially if it was just some pal or other.

P.S. I don't think DP bathed M did he? I've never read any statements to this effect, but perhaps I've missed something.

No, I've never come across this either. As I recall Rachel Oldfield I think said their child was once bathed with the Tanner O'Briens.....maybe when R. was sick? Can't remember where I saw it, sorry.

I do not recall group bathing for the children either. In fact, Kate seemed to be quite explicit in saying their own nightly routine was a bath before bedtime, and has always given the impression of it being back at their own apartment, family time.

Taking a step back from this terrible side of things though and looking at it, it is quite worrying. Most people have skeletons in their closet and if their lives were to come under scrutinity even the most boring of people might start to look interesting. This topic is just one step too far though, it is not somethng people happen across by accident or unwittingly become involved in or are involved with in a very general way. It is just too terrible.

With this group though there are quite a few suggestions about this topic, which really starts me thinking of the phrase no smoke without fire.

Going back to Amarals book, he is quite clear in saying the Gaspers and McCanns were very good friends, indeed seeing each other regularly and keeping in consistant contact with each other. After that holiday everything changed, according to Amaral, Mrs Gasper says the contact they had from then on was purely for occasions such as birthday parties. He gives the distinct impression of a big cooling off in the friendship and remember this was in relation to the McCann friendship not the Payne one. There was not, as far as I know, a Payne / Gasper friendship to begin with.

Then we have this mention of Greece, and I agree it is unsubstantiated, but somebody somewhere mentioned it to the PJ, who at the time knew nothing about the Gaspers, so it cannot be said it was somebody making a mountain out of a mole hill on the back of hearing about the Gaspers.

We have Yvonne Martin the social worker, who would appear again to be a credible person and would also seem to have been quite bothered about Payne in particular, and of course Kate McCanns behaviour. It is one thing to comment and suggest your concern about something but she went further and wrote to the police.

We have this CATS file with Gerry McCanns name. I would like to find out more about this. Is it possible for a normal everyday person to have such a file, albeit empty, with their name on it ? Does this happen in the course of medical work, for example ?

We have the refusal to release Madeleine's medical files to the PJ. Why ?

Was there some investigation going on back in the UK that McCann did not want to return and face ? I have read the theories over the years about this being pre-planned, Madeleine being ill, etc. I have neither agreed nor disagreed with them, because anything could be possible, but have often remained a fan of the accident, cover up in panic theory, just because it is simple and I like the simple explanations. I am now starting to wonder though, was there a reason why McCann did not want to return to the UK and if this was some big money making cover up, to firstly get rid of the "evidence" and then stay in Portugal long term to avoid returning to the UK ? Who else was involved at high level worried enough to start some sort of a cover up, empyting of CATS file etc. People involved in this awful side of child abuse are not your average down and outs, they are not the "dodgy" looking characters hanging around street corners.

I've said it before and I will say it again, Payne on that holiday was made to look squeaky clean. He cannot be said to have moved from his seat from the table. He is of no significance in the story of the night, not mentioned at all. He had his monitor. I don't like that.

Most likely another totally off the wall theory to add to the long list that exists but in general people will forgive most crimes and time moves on people forget. This is one crime that is just not acceptable to society and one that is never forgotten. I keep asking myself what was so big, so terrible that needed this huge cover up that still goes on to this day and there is not much that jumps back at me, except this.

I can't see how staying in Portugal would have helped shield anyone from "something nasty in the woodshed" back in the UK ............... European Arrest Warrants could be sought. If someone really wanted to avoid detection/investigation/whatever, surely they'd be better advised to hole-up outside the EU?

I must admit that my thoughts usually end up along those lines, Mossman. However, what then throws a spoke in the wheel as far as I'm concerned, is that IF something befell Madeleine as a result of let's say illegal activity, the McCanns with their influential friends would have been able to pass it off as an accident. They would have returned home and the only money raised would have been from neighbours for flowers for the funeral.

The fact that they have shouted their case from the rooftops ever since and set up a business enterprise in near record time with long-term plans to raise funds sends me off on an equally unpleasant tangent - in other words, that this was a pre-planned hoax.

NBY and TEIN, of course you are both correct and there are many more reasons to discount what I said than there are to support it.

It is just something that will not go away from this story, it is there in the background all of the time. Whilst I very much doubt it in itself played a part during that holiday, I think it could be of some significance in relation to the need for a cover up. I hope I am totally wrong.

Admin please remove if a step too far.
I have a friend who is, through their profession, very aware of aspects of child abuse and exploitation. This friend has commented on the many photographs of Madeleine in dressing up outfits. Not lets raid the bag at the bottom of the wardrobe ready for throwing out, but the bought outfits. This apparently is a mo of some paedophile groups, the lets play a game and you are a little princess or a fairy.
Has anyone on this forum ever seen a photograph of either Sean or Amelie in bought dressing up outfits?
There will be posters who will say that they have bought an outfit for their child, I once did, a batman cape for my eldest grandson.

jd16 wrote:

chrissie wrote:

jd16 wrote:

chrissie wrote:It also interesting to note that 3 days after the Gaspar statement was made, gerry mccann makes a dash back to Leicester and goes to Leicestershire Police station as this is where he first meets clarence mitchell...

I never knew that this is where Gerry first met Clarrie

Yes clarence mitchell says this in his RI

"I met Gerry at the end of May 2007 when he returned to the UK after his daughter's disappearance. It was a circumstantial meeting at Leicestershire Police station."....however I do not believe it was circumstantial meeting!!! Gordy or bliar had sent him up there

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

Thank you jd16, very interesting. Certainly sounds like a 'set up'.

Theres a bit more...."But according to Mr. Jim Murphy, Minister of State, Foreign & Commonwealth Office on 7 May, 2008, Clarence Mitchell was seconded to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, from the Central Office of Information (COI), for a period of 25 days in May 2007 to provide assistance with the media to the family of Madeleine McCann. Mr. Jim Murphy revealed those details when questioned by Elliot Morley, Labour MP for Scunthorpe, on 7 May, 2008, as it is referred on the “Daily Hansard - Written Answers” at the House of Commons."....this would make it 6th May 2007

http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/clarence-mitchell-how-i-met-gerry-and.html

I think that could also be read that sometime in May 2007 he assignied CM for a period of 25 days not that the 25 days all fell in May.

Bobsy: there is footage of Sean and Amelie in fancy dress from about 5.00 on this extract from the "Madeleine was here" programme.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpaiVpHOFKg

I don't think there's anything strange about those type of outfits but what strikes me here is how false Gerry sounds, as if he's putting on an act for the camera. Kate is no better in an earlier part (possibly the first one) in which she and the twins are in the kitchen.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Bobsy: there is footage of Sean and Amelie in fancy dress from about 5.00 on this extract from the "Madeleine was here" programme.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpaiVpHOFKg

I don't think there's anything strange about those type of outfits but what strikes me here is how false Gerry sounds, as if he's putting on an act for the camera. Kate is no better in an earlier part (possibly the first one) in which she and the twins are in the kitchen.

Thank you Not Born Yesterday, I had never seen them in fancy dress but have seen Madeleine in many outfits. It was just in relation to what my friend had said with fancy dress games being part of paedophilia grooming, so seeing any child in fancy dress now makes me feel quite concerned.

jay2001 wrote:Last week (or the week before - time flies) during the media blitz Central News showed some old film of the early days. I think it was the first trip to Rothley where gez looked at the floral tributes by the memorial in the village. At the back stood clarry, he then moved out of shot, but I ran it back to check it was him. So he was on the scene quite early. Why did they need a media manipulator, spin doctor with connections to govt so early on?

We need to find that video so e can view it.

ann_chovey wrote:

Wintabells wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:Okay...

Lets follow this route. IF: This pedo route of evidence is concrete
(nb: I believe something dodgy about Payne due to Yvonne Martin as evidence also)

What is the hypothesis on how this may have impacted further on the holiday...
We know that David Payne popped in to see Kate now and again on his own and bathed the girls didn't he?
Is it being suggested that the cover up was due to him going too far?

This is what I don't understand either. If there was some sort of abusing activity going on within the group, and this is what led to M's disappearance, what is it that is being suggested here? that M was abused and killed, then removed and the whole group, including her parents were willing to stage an abduction to protect the abuser? I just can't think what motive anyone would have for protecting the killer of your own child, especially if it was just some pal or other

P.S. I don't think DP bathed M did he? I've never read any statements to this effect, but perhaps I've missed something.

No, I've never come across this either. As I recall Rachel Oldfield I think said their child was once bathed with the Tanner O'Briens.....maybe when R. was sick? Can't remember where I saw it, sorry.

It was on may 3rd I think that one off tanners, don't know if it was the youngest or oldest off the two, stayed with rachel and her and tanner child bathed together and she read a story to them....we'll the interviewee tried to get out off her whether she read a story to BOTH off them.

I think the business of dressing up in grandma's old nightie or mum's high heels has to a great extent been overridden by the presence of the dreaded Disney Store. My daughter and I were introduced to this place when she was about 6 and from that point on, I realised that it was regarded as normal for a child to be bought a 'Snow White' or 'Cinderella' type outfit once or twice a YEAR.

As for dressing up using stuff from home, I have photographs of my daughter at around 4, which she insisted we took, dressed up 'like a ladeeeeeey' (red lipstick, heels, skirt, handbag, beeeeeeeeeeeds, the lot) so I don't find the pics of M. at all worrying or unusual. What I do find distasteful is that they've reached the public domain. These photographs serve no purpose in terms of helping the public to recognise the child when they're out and about, so I don't see the reason for sharing them. Surely these are personal family mementos which they'd want to keep to themselves.

Wintabells wrote:I think the business of dressing up in grandma's old nightie or mum's high heels has to a great extent been overridden by the presence of the dreaded Disney Store. My daughter and I were introduced to this place when she was about 6 and from that point on, I realised that it was regarded as normal for a child to be bought a 'Snow White' or 'Cinderella' type outfit once or twice a YEAR.

As for dressing up using stuff from home, I have photographs of my daughter at around 4, which she insisted we took, dressed up 'like a ladeeeeeey' (red lipstick, heels, skirt, handbag, beeeeeeeeeeeds, the lot) so I don't find the pics of M. at all worrying or unusual. What I do find distasteful is that they've reached the public domain. These photographs serve no purpose in terms of helping the public to recognise the child when they're out and about, so I don't see the reason for sharing them. Surely these are personal family mementos which they'd want to keep to themselves.

Yes, all kids like to dress up and try out Mum's shoes and makeup. But usually they look as though they are enjoying it. In the Maybelline Maddie photo, she looks anything but. In fact she looks as though she's been crying, there's a huge smear of eyeshadow down her left cheek. I can't for the life of me see any good reason to publish that photo.

Wintabells wrote:I think the business of dressing up in grandma's old nightie or mum's high heels has to a great extent been overridden by the presence of the dreaded Disney Store. My daughter and I were introduced to this place when she was about 6 and from that point on, I realised that it was regarded as normal for a child to be bought a 'Snow White' or 'Cinderella' type outfit once or twice a YEAR.

As for dressing up using stuff from home, I have photographs of my daughter at around 4, which she insisted we took, dressed up 'like a ladeeeeeey' (red lipstick, heels, skirt, handbag, beeeeeeeeeeeds, the lot) so I don't find the pics of M. at all worrying or unusual. What I do find distasteful is that they've reached the public domain. These photographs serve no purpose in terms of helping the public to recognise the child when they're out and about, so I don't see the reason for sharing them. Surely these are personal family mementos which they'd want to keep to themselves.

My son and daughter had a "dressing-up box," that was full of old clothes, table cloths, sheets and all sorts of hats, belts, shoes and jewelry. They would make up a play and rehearse before performing for an audience, mostly of one; me. How far can the imagination go when the narrative is already fixed with characters like Snow White?

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Bobsy: there is footage of Sean and Amelie in fancy dress from about 5.00 on this extract from the "Madeleine was here" programme.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpaiVpHOFKg

I don't think there's anything strange about those type of outfits but what strikes me here is how false Gerry sounds, as if he's putting on an act for the camera. Kate is no better in an earlier part (possibly the first one) in which she and the twins are in the kitchen.

Yes, he has form for that. In one video he asks her a question, and she repies "uh-huh". Gerry quickly admonishes her with "don't say uh-huh. Say 'yes, Daddy'".

Then in a TV interview, she starts off with "we're here the day" and quickly corrects himself to "we're here today".

Iris wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Bobsy: there is footage of Sean and Amelie in fancy dress from about 5.00 on this extract from the "Madeleine was here" programme.

http//www.youtube.com/watch?v=EpaiVpHOFKg

I don't think there's anything strange about those type of outfits but what strikes me here is how false Gerry sounds, as if he's putting on an act for the camera. Kate is no better in an earlier part (possibly the first one) in which she and the twins are in the kitchen.

Yes, he has form for that. In one video he asks her a question, and she repies "uh-huh". Gerry quickly admonishes her with "don't say uh-huh. Say 'yes, Daddy'".

Then in a TV interview, she starts off with "we're here the day" and quickly corrects himself to "we're here today".

Now where might Madeleine have got "uh-huh," from? Seems like a Scottish expression to me. Having been brought up in that fine land and visiting quite regularly, I do hear "uh-huh," as a common response to questions.