McCanns/Amaral

Marky wrote:

jimuck wrote:thats if David Payne is his real name.

care to expand on this?

Yvonne Warren Martin struggled with Paynes identity but she did recognised his face ,thats all, in the check of the child abuse register that she asked for, did David Paynes name appear or did it not.

Hmm how can a missing child who I believe is a ward of court in the UK be included in this claim. Did her guardian grant permission for her inclusion?

zodiac

I seem to recall reading somewhere that shortly after the injunction appeal hearings, Justice Hogg had made the McCanns withdraw Madeleine's name as a plaintiff in the case, because of course you are correct in your assumption that Justice Hogg is responsible for Madeleine and not the McCanns. I remember being surprised at the time that this very significant event had hardly been noticed or commented on by anyone. Significant because I thought it did show that whatever we may think of Justice Hogg, she must be following events and taking action where she deems apprpriate. Mind you, I may have dreamt it all - in which case I'll go onto smoking something a little milder in future

I read Gaspar's statement as I'm sure we all did and I found it very troubling, pretty direct and detailed and not necessarily hysterical. Mrs Amaral probably felt like some amount of vindictiveness on her part was called for since mcCanns were going out of their way to detroy her husband's reputation. Although I don't think repeating what the gaspar's had told LE is vindictive it just points out that these people and their reputations might bear looking into more

After three years of watching their behavior right from what we know of them April 29 2007 up to the present time I do think they had a campaign of smoke and mirrors aimed at white washing themselves for selfish irresponsible behavior and quite possibly worse.

Sofia knows her husband and the importance and professionalism he puts on his job and how that has affected her and their children over the years, I am sure he missed holidays and birthdays and family time too to be off on a wild goose chase with TM saying the PJ were incompetent and werent' doing anything.. While I know a defense lawyer when they have a guilty client has to offer some kind of excuse as to who could have done it if it wasn't his client, and they often point at an innocent person - like murat - and to discredit the police as sloppy etc that is not really the job of PR, up front. It seems unfair. I think we'll see more of it now though from those who can afford it. The best defense is to stay out of court. Lawyers and Clarrie just doing their jobs - Mrs Amaral doing hers, to defend her husband, and the Gaspars trying to do what was right and pass on important information that could be relevant.

T4two wrote:

Hmm how can a missing child who I believe is a ward of court in the UK be included in this claim. Did her guardian grant permission for her inclusion?

zodiac

I seem to recall reading somewhere that shortly after the injunction appeal hearings, Justice Hogg had made the McCanns withdraw Madeleine's name as a plaintiff in the case, because of course you are correct in your assumption that Justice Hogg is responsible for Madeleine and not the McCanns. I remember being surprised at the time that this very significant event had hardly been noticed or commented on by anyone. Significant because I thought it did show that whatever we may think of Justice Hogg, she must be following events and taking action where she deems apprpriate. Mind you, I may have dreamt it all - in which case I'll go onto smoking something a little milder in future

T4two,



Thank you very much for posting the above. I was not aware that MBM had been withdrawn as a plaintiff in the case and it was Justice Hogg who was responsible for the removal. I agree it is surprising that something so significant has gone unnoticed.

T4two wrote:

Hmm how can a missing child who I believe is a ward of court in the UK be included in this claim. Did her guardian grant permission for her inclusion?

zodiac

I seem to recall reading somewhere that shortly after the injunction appeal hearings, Justice Hogg had made the McCanns withdraw Madeleine's name as a plaintiff in the case, because of course you are correct in your assumption that Justice Hogg is responsible for Madeleine and not the McCanns. I remember being surprised at the time that this very significant event had hardly been noticed or commented on by anyone. Significant because I thought it did show that whatever we may think of Justice Hogg, she must be following events and taking action where she deems apprpriate. Mind you, I may have dreamt it all - in which case I'll go onto smoking something a little milder in future

I think you have been dreaming again.

DavidA wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Sans souci, do you think what Sofia said about the McCanns' peadophile friends is libellous?

As it stands, no. - ie on the basis of a report in a tabloid paper. If she repeated it in a more direct medium, then possibly.

It is merely a rather stupid and vindictive allegation to make on the basis of a vague and rather hysterical statement by Dr Gaspar, and not backed up by her husbands statement. Says more about Sophia Amaral, in my view.

You are over-playing your defense of the them here. There is no logical assumption nor reason that leads to the statement by Dr Gasper as being labeled 'vague' or 'hysterical'. Given the serious nature of the statement and the potential impact, I would say it was actually quite well explained. I would not want to have to make a statement like that.

Your final comment can equally apply to your post - that your rather vague and hysterical response to Sophia says more about you, ..... or your intentions more precisely.

A couple of examples from the statement:
_____________________

I am absolutely certain that he said what he said and that he made the gestures I referred to, but that could have occurred in the restaurant in Leicester, even though (page five) I believe that it was later on, in Majorca. When I heard Dave saying and doing this a second time, I took it more seriously.

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different way from me or from the others. I imagined that maybe he had visited Internet sites related to small children. In short, I thought that he might be interested in child pornography on the internet.
_____________________

Now come on - quite well explained? Really? Have you actually bothered to read her husbands statement?

And on the basis of this you think that allegations of paedophilia against an individual are justified?

Sofia did not say she was referring to the Paynes.

However for a mother (Gaspar)- who is not a bone head - or one would assume easily given to fantasy of this sort - to not want her own children to have anything to do with this man, (and I would find it irregular i n the extreme for any man not my husband to try and bathe my daughter or want to hang about when such was being done, or the kind of gestures she saw him make with regards to Madeleine) and in fact for her to end relations with both couples, and to bring this to the attention of the police would give you pause. What the heck was going on? Mother's intuition or paranoia? Mrs Gaspar did not wave it off, she must have been asking herself - how could Kate sit here and listen to this exchange between the two men, if it was what I think it was, and see ME listen to them - and do or say nothing?

Pedophilia is an ugly accusation. McCanns instantly declared this was an aspect of the case and poor Murat got the unearned brunt of that. Hysterical and vague accusations? Not so much vague. This is the man, he hung about that night, we all saw him, and Jane recognized his walk. Yet we have Payne doing things that made the mother of a small girl feel very uncomfortable - Payne and Gerry both mind you - she knew them and was with them on holiday and witnessed this exchange, she wasn't noticing a man whose walk was like Payne's did these things.

Sofia could have taken this statement and run with it, in her own mind, but she doesn't accuse either McCanns or Payne of actually being pedophiles.

I do find it odd that Payne was at that apt at the time the children were supposed to be getting baths, so he says - in his police statement he volunteers that if the children were asked they would say he had been there at that time - isn't that odd? So he was seen by the children and he wants that on the record -why? in case they had been asked and said Dr payne came in when we were having our bath? They had not been interviewed of course, I just found that statement interesting, that he has an explanation for being there at such a time in case the children had said he was there. He came there because Gerry asked him to 'help' Kate with the children.

He came around at bath time, this man who the next day chivvied off the social worker who had come to help, the one who found him familiar and not in a good way. Protecting Kate from her unhelpful presence or something.

I think Sofia thinks there is something there and if she does it's because Amaral thinks there is something there. I wonder what Amaral has discussed with his wife about this aspect of the case.

sans... Just in case you missed it.

Could you read my post and then answer my question re: 'hysterical'...

Ta...

sans_souci wrote:

It is merely a rather stupid and vindictive allegation to make on the basis of a vague and rather hysterical statement by Dr Gaspar, and not backed up by her husbands statement. Says more about Sophia Amaral, in my view.

Sans_Souci.

For Dr Gasper to come forward with information that she was concerned about Payne, could not have been easy for Dr Gasper some of the Tapas Group are her friend's, I would not call that hysterical, Dr Gasper was concerned from what she had seen in the past with Payne.

This is a Child that is missing gone, Dr Gasper was correct in reporting what she did, we are not talking about someone who has gone to the Police because they know someone pinched something, this is a little three Year old Girl a Human being, who was on Holiday with a Person that Dr Gasper had concerns about his inappropriate behaviour from the past meeting's with him.

The fact that this excessively litigous couple won't sue over allegations that they happilly include paedophiles in their family group - and around their children, says a lot about them.

The fact that David Payne's name has been mentioned with regard to this all over the net and he doesn't step forward and at least make a statement, says a lot about him.

I know that in the UK you as a parent can ask the cops to check the paedophile registry and tell you if a person ( partner/family member/neighbor) has regular access to your child is on said registry.
i wonder if payne has contact with children? if so then the parents of that child can make a request to see if his name is on that list.
Unfortunately the downside is that if he is that parent cannot make that info public ( it will infringe the paedos human rights) but i am pretty sure the info could be passed along somehow and i am sure that the pj would be very interested to know if they don't already as would Amaral.

I still wonder why payne has said nothing at all to refute the allegation even if it is false but has stayed tight lipped about the whole thing.

If there was no truth in the claim and someone made such a statement about me, I would be shouting my innocence from the rooftop and seeking legal action to prevent such allegations being repeated and to show they were fake.
His silence is not good , it leads to the belief that there is in fact some truth to it and rather than say something and be proven a liar, he would rather say nothing and hope that it will be forgotten.

It would also mean that the mccanns and pals would be questioned as to what they know of him and why they seemed to think it was ok for him as a non parent or family member to bathe their young children.
And that would then lead to questions about how much access he had to the children and how much of it was alone.
This would then lead to possible medical examinations of all the children and depending on the results a lot of questions being asked.

Isn't a bit ridicuous to claim that Madeleine has suffered harm deserving of monetary damages due to Amaral's book, yet according to Gerry she suffered absolutely no harm from being whooshed away and kept apart from her family for over 3 years?

If Gerry is so sure that the childless couple that chose Madeleine to be stolen by the gypsies are treating her like a princess and she has not come to any harm, then how could she be suffering due the the publishing of Amaral's book? I suppose the couple must be reading the book to Madeleine every night before bed to remind her how much better off she is to be with people who love her, enjoy spending time with her, and have no intentions of abandoning her.

If the McCann's are admitting that Madeleine has suffered harm, then any harm suffered is the direct result of abandonment by them. Admitting harm is opening themselves up to being prosecuted in Portugal for abandoment leading to harm, which is punishable with up to 8 years in prison.

jimuck wrote:

Marky wrote:

jimuck wrote:thats if David Payne is his real name.

care to expand on this?

Yvonne Warren Martin struggled with Paynes identity but she did recognised his face ,thats all, in the check of the child abuse register that she asked for, did David Paynes name appear or did it not.

is that a question or a statement?

I think that if payne was a paedophile i think the oldfields didnt know nor prob did fiona's mother.



What i would like to know is, why was o'brien NOT outside the high court gathering his loot with the other neglectors?

Wallflower wrote:The fact that this excessively litigous couple won't sue over allegations that they happilly include paedophiles in their family group - and around their children, says a lot about them.

The fact that David Payne's name has been mentioned with regard to this all over the net and he doesn't step forward and at least make a statement, says a lot about him.

Amen to that!

Paedos exist that is a fact, and it's you job as a parent to make sure they don't come into contact with your child.

I wouldn't let my children anywhere near DP.

kitti wrote:I think that if payne was a paedophile i think the oldfields didnt know nor prob did fiona's mother.



What i would like to know is, why was o'brien NOT outside the high court gathering his loot with the other neglectors?

never mind about the oldfields' and fifi's moma, if and it's a big if that he is a paedo, are you suggesting that fifi knows? as for o'brien, his absence was interesting.

hobnob wrote:I know that in the UK you as a parent can ask the cops to check the paedophile registry and tell you if a person ( partner/family member/neighbor) has regular access to your child is on said registry.
i wonder if payne has contact with children? if so then the parents of that child can make a request to see if his name is on that list.
Unfortunately the downside is that if he is that parent cannot make that info public ( it will infringe the paedos human rights) but i am pretty sure the info could be passed along somehow and i am sure that the pj would be very interested to know if they don't already as would Amaral.

I still wonder why payne has said nothing at all to refute the allegation even if it is false but has stayed tight lipped about the whole thing.

If there was no truth in the claim and someone made such a statement about me, I would be shouting my innocence from the rooftop and seeking legal action to prevent such allegations being repeated and to show they were fake.
His silence is not good , it leads to the belief that there is in fact some truth to it and rather than say something and be proven a liar, he would rather say nothing and hope that it will be forgotten.

It would also mean that the mccanns and pals would be questioned as to what they know of him and why they seemed to think it was ok for him as a non parent or family member to bathe their young children.
And that would then lead to questions about how much access he had to the children and how much of it was alone.
This would then lead to possible medical examinations of all the children and depending on the results a lot of questions being asked.

You're right Hobnob. It can't be to difficult for the Police to find out if Payne has a pedofile history. Therefore, I think they did. The words of Sophia show that they are aware of this. And the fact that there are no libel actions in that direction is IMO a confirmation. But although this fact is suspicious, the question is, is this the evidence that could reopen the case? Is it evidence that shows involvement of McCanns? Not directly, but IMO this raises serious doubts about the statement of Payne, the last person that saw Madeleine alive, and therefore reason enough to reopen the case.

hobnob wrote:I know that in the UK you as a parent can ask the cops to check the paedophile registry and tell you if a person ( partner/family member/neighbor) has regular access to your child is on said registry.
i wonder if payne has contact with children? if so then the parents of that child can make a request to see if his name is on that list.
Unfortunately the downside is that if he is that parent cannot make that info public ( it will infringe the paedos human rights) but i am pretty sure the info could be passed along somehow and i am sure that the pj would be very interested to know if they don't already as would Amaral.

I still wonder why payne has said nothing at all to refute the allegation even if it is false but has stayed tight lipped about the whole thing.

If there was no truth in the claim and someone made such a statement about me, I would be shouting my innocence from the rooftop and seeking legal action to prevent such allegations being repeated and to show they were fake.
His silence is not good , it leads to the belief that there is in fact some truth to it and rather than say something and be proven a liar, he would rather say nothing and hope that it will be forgotten.

It would also mean that the mccanns and pals would be questioned as to what they know of him and why they seemed to think it was ok for him as a non parent or family member to bathe their young children.
And that would then lead to questions about how much access he had to the children and how much of it was alone.
This would then lead to possible medical examinations of all the children and depending on the results a lot of questions being asked.

jinvta wrote:Isn't a bit ridicuous to claim that Madeleine has suffered harm deserving of monetary damages due to Amaral's book, yet according to Gerry she suffered absolutely no harm from being whooshed away and kept apart from her family for over 3 years?

If Gerry is so sure that the childless couple that chose Madeleine to be stolen by the gypsies are treating her like a princess and she has not come to any harm, then how could she be suffering due the the publishing of Amaral's book? I suppose the couple must be reading the book to Madeleine every night before bed to remind her how much better off she is to be with people who love her, enjoy spending time with her, and have no intentions of abandoning her.

If the McCann's are admitting that Madeleine has suffered harm, then any harm suffered is the direct result of abandonment by them. Admitting harm is opening themselves up to being prosecuted in Portugal for abandoment leading to harm, which is punishable with up to 8 years in prison.

Totally agree with both of you. Although looking on the sex offenders registry may not produce the goods. He would only be on there if he had been caught and convicted. There are hundreds of paedophiles around who have never been caught and therefore would not appear on the registry. I also agree that his silence is deafening. If there is no truth in the rumour why hasn't he come forward to set the record straight. It makes you think that there is no smoke without fire. An innocent person having that type of allegation levied at them ( and I think it is probably the worst allegation you can have made about you) would be screaming their innocence not remaining schtum about it.

I do not see how the book can have caused her harm but abduction caused no harm at all. If as the McCanns and Gerry in particular were so fond of spouting that she had been taken by paedophiles, then surely harm will have come to her. They don't take children, abuse them and then keep hold of them treating them like little princes and princesses. What sort of cloud cuckoo land do the McCanns inhabit? As I see it, Madeleine has suffered harm as a direct result of being left to fend for herself and babysit the twins night after night. She cried, why would they think that was?
She needed the comforting arms of a loving mother because she was frightened or fearful. But she didn't get it. Didn't Kate mention Maddy's fear of pain? They have abandoned her leading to harm being done to her. Time they faced the music and that time can't come fast enough.

Marky wrote:

kitti wrote:I think that if payne was a paedophile i think the oldfields didnt know nor prob did fiona's mother.



What i would like to know is, why was o'brien NOT outside the high court gathering his loot with the other neglectors?

never mind about the oldfields' and fifi's moma, if and it's a big if that he is a paedo, are you suggesting that fifi knows? as for o'brien, his absence was interesting.

Well fifi MUST know about the allegations, now if i was fifi i would make some sort off statement regarding this.


Dont forget....GERRY MCCANN was also implicated and with all his suing...WHY HASNT HE SUED THE PERSON THAT HAS ORIGINALLY SAID ALL THIS.

The answer being....he doesnt want to open up a can off worms..so best left alone to die a natural death though 3 years is a long time and we are all still talking about it so its a bit late to make any statement about it now..

You say IF...marky....


A womens intuition is better than a mans, I suggest Mr Gasper didnt want to see what his wife had a gut feeling about...denial.

And Yvonne Martin....i think she could spot a paedo in a room full off non-paedos like a paedo can spot a victim amongst non-victims.

kitti wrote:

Marky wrote:

kitti wrote:I think that if payne was a paedophile i think the oldfields didnt know nor prob did fiona's mother.



What i would like to know is, why was o'brien NOT outside the high court gathering his loot with the other neglectors?

never mind about the oldfields' and fifi's moma, if and it's a big if that he is a paedo, are you suggesting that fifi knows? as for o'brien, his absence was interesting.

Well fifi MUST know about the allegations, now if i was fifi i would make some sort off statement regarding this.


Dont forget....GERRY MCCANN was also implicated and with all his suing...WHY HASNT HE SUED THE PERSON THAT HAS ORIGINALLY SAID ALL THIS.

The answer being....he doesnt want to open up a can off worms..so best left alone to die a natural death though 3 years is a long time and we are all still talking about it so its a bit late to make any statement about it now..

ah, ok. your opening line "i think that if payne was a paedophile..." threw me. now if you had slotted the word 'alleged' into that line...

kitti wrote:You say IF...marky....


A womens intuition is better than a mans, I suggest Mr Gasper didnt want to see what his wife had a gut feeling about...denial.

And Yvonne Martin....i think she could spot a paedo in a room full off non-paedos like a paedo can spot a victim amongst non-victims.

yep, if. as for a woman's intuition, yep you could be right but as far as we know nothing has ever come of her statement. now that's not to say that payne was never interviewed as a result but if he was, nothing has come of it. that we know of. so, 'if' is the word.

If would be a IF if...it was seen my mrs gasper just the once and she thought she could be mistaken ...plus the fact she saw it twice and along with yvonne martin...the IF isnt a IF anymore lol


Payne also looks creepy to me but that doesnt make a person GUILTY but the pics off HIM with children on his lap and i havent seen any off the other men in the group with their arms all over other kids makes him look creepy....theirs something about him that i positively dont like....i feel a bit uneasy about him..

kitti wrote:If would be a IF if...it was seen my mrs gasper just the once and she thought she could be mistaken ...plus the fact she saw it twice and along with yvonne martin...the IF isnt a IF anymore lol


Payne also looks creepy to me but that doesnt make a person GUILTY but the pics off HIM with children on his lap and i havent seen any off the other men in the group with their arms all over other kids makes him look creepy....theirs something about him that i positively dont like....i feel a bit uneasy about him..

i can see what you mean. slight change but i did think it odd he chose to let fifi read the statement on the courthouse steps.

sans_souci wrote:

DavidA wrote:

sans_souci wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Sans souci, do you think what Sofia said about the McCanns' peadophile friends is libellous?

As it stands, no. - ie on the basis of a report in a tabloid paper. If she repeated it in a more direct medium, then possibly.

It is merely a rather stupid and vindictive allegation to make on the basis of a vague and rather hysterical statement by Dr Gaspar, and not backed up by her husbands statement. Says more about Sophia Amaral, in my view.

You are over-playing your defense of the them here. There is no logical assumption nor reason that leads to the statement by Dr Gasper as being labeled 'vague' or 'hysterical'. Given the serious nature of the statement and the potential impact, I would say it was actually quite well explained. I would not want to have to make a statement like that.

Your final comment can equally apply to your post - that your rather vague and hysterical response to Sophia says more about you, ..... or your intentions more precisely.

A couple of examples from the statement:
_____________________

I am absolutely certain that he said what he said and that he made the gestures I referred to, but that could have occurred in the restaurant in Leicester, even though (page five) I believe that it was later on, in Majorca. When I heard Dave saying and doing this a second time, I took it more seriously.

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a different way from me or from the others. I imagined that maybe he had visited Internet sites related to small children. In short, I thought that he might be interested in child pornography on the internet.
_____________________

Now come on - quite well explained? Really? Have you actually bothered to read her husbands statement?

And on the basis of this you think that allegations of paedophilia against an individual are justified?

I think I see what you are referring to, but I do not think that justifies the comments, especially 'hysterical'. This is the way the statements are. Remember this is a transcript of a spoken statement. Compared to the other statements made (especially from the Tapas group) in this whole affair, I would not call this vague at all. And most definitely not hysterical. This is a very difficult subject, and the impression I get from the statements are simply reports of only what was seen, not embellishing it, from people who want to be a fair as possible given the potential outcome of such a suggestion.

Regarding what Sophia said, if we put bias aside, she has a right to be extremely angry with G+K. Whatever is the truth, what Amaral said was already in the public domain, was suspected by many already, and was inferred in the PJ's actions and questioning later. He wrote a book that expressed a theory that, in all fairness, was fairly well substantiated given the vagueness of the whole case. G+K want to destroy them for it. Should they be looking for a little girl? Does it not make you suspicious how much they like to put all their attention on such things, when it should be directed towards the search for Madeleine? What good does this do for Madeleine, when the book has already been stopped, and what became Amaral's theory was being discussed long before his book anyway?

If I were Sophia, I would wonder why G+K were going after my house and therefore my family. I would probably put 2 and 2 together. I would probably assume they had something more serious to hide. That the action against my family was to take attention away from other issues. So from that point of view, I can understand why she may have come to those conclusions, therefore making the statement she did. I do not think this is only about Dr Gaspers statement.