Innocent Until Proven Guilty

platinum wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

platinum wrote:

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

I do find this a weird turn of phrase which is the sort of dictum coming from the mouth of a priest or someone who feels her/himself superior. You may feel it is incumbent on yourself but I`m sure most people with their own minds do not believe it is incumbent on us to respect something or someone we have absolutely no belief in whether the law says so or not. If we did, we would be no more than robots and what sort of world would that be.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

platinum wrote:

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

I do find this a weird turn of phrase which is the sort of dictum coming from the mouth of a priest or someone who feels her/himself superior. You may feel it is incumbent on yourself but I`m sure most people with their own minds do not believe it is incumbent on us to respect something or someone we have absolutely no belief in whether the law says so or not. If we did, we would be no more than robots and what sort of world would that be.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law.

So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?

MaryB wrote:If I remember correctly Fred West was never convicted in a court of law of those crimes he was accused of. The concept of innocent until proven guilty can be quite a hard one to accept in certain circumstances.

platinum wrote:
Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".

When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) as if saying "did anyone else hear this, or was it just me". There was a nervous silence registered in all the conversations and afterwards, everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was very strange and it wasn’t something that someone should do or say.

Besides this [incident], I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to clarify that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say exactly what about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, Lily, though I'm not certain. He put one of his fingers in his mouth and slide it in and out, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that Lily, would behave or do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.

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

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a manner different 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 was interested child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying that.

During our vacation in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children's baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to be careful and to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, to my daughter E*****. I was very clear about this, as having heard him saying that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E***** alone.

When I heard Dave say that a second time, it reinforced what I already thought in relation to his thoughts about girls. During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by this daughter Lily, took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine's safety, since she was also with Fiona and Lily, and also with Dave, as far as I know.

As I already mentioned, I was only with Dave and Fiona on one occasion, after Majorca, and I have not spoken to them since that time. In the last two years, we have met, as a family, with the MCCANN, once in a while. That happens mainly at the children's birthdays, a time when we get together.

The first time I had knowledge of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched TV meticulously, and watching the coverage of the news, I understood that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after the Madeleine's disappearance.

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

platinum wrote:

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

I do find this a weird turn of phrase which is the sort of dictum coming from the mouth of a priest or someone who feels her/himself superior. You may feel it is incumbent on yourself but I`m sure most people with their own minds do not believe it is incumbent on us to respect something or someone we have absolutely no belief in whether the law says so or not. If we did, we would be no more than robots and what sort of world would that be.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law.

So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?

Personally I prefer to be law-abiding. I didn't have a great problem with the poll tax as it was called. If the poice believe the parents may be privy to the child's crime or involved in it then of course I don't think there is a problem with that law if it permits them to investigate it better. Children develop at different ages and I don't think a law can be all-specific about such matters as minimum age. And as for the welshman its comments like that when you know as well as I do that laws of that nature are not prosecuted that spoils your otherwise reasonable case.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

I do find this a weird turn of phrase which is the sort of dictum coming from the mouth of a priest or someone who feels her/himself superior. You may feel it is incumbent on yourself but I`m sure most people with their own minds do not believe it is incumbent on us to respect something or someone we have absolutely no belief in whether the law says so or not. If we did, we would be no more than robots and what sort of world would that be.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law.

So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?

Personally I prefer to be law-abiding. I didn't have a great problem with the poll tax as it was called. If the poice believe the parents may be privy to the child's crime or involved in it then of course I don't think there is a problem with that law if it permits them to investigate it better. Children develop at different ages and I don't think a law can be all-specific about such matters as minimum age. And as for the welshman its comments like that when you know as well as I do that laws of that nature are not prosecuted that spoils your otherwise reasonable case.

Wow! So, if your 10 year-old didn't return from school, and you phoned the police,who said they knew nothing, but would note the report, that would be OK? The child can be held for 24 hours without informing parents. So, the next day, no one knows where your child is and you are understandably distraught, that's OK?

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

I do find this a weird turn of phrase which is the sort of dictum coming from the mouth of a priest or someone who feels her/himself superior. You may feel it is incumbent on yourself but I`m sure most people with their own minds do not believe it is incumbent on us to respect something or someone we have absolutely no belief in whether the law says so or not. If we did, we would be no more than robots and what sort of world would that be.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law.

So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?

Personally I prefer to be law-abiding. I didn't have a great problem with the poll tax as it was called. If the poice believe the parents may be privy to the child's crime or involved in it then of course I don't think there is a problem with that law if it permits them to investigate it better. Children develop at different ages and I don't think a law can be all-specific about such matters as minimum age. And as for the welshman its comments like that when you know as well as I do that laws of that nature are not prosecuted that spoils your otherwise reasonable case.

Wow! So, if your 10 year-old didn't return from school, and you phoned the police,who said they knew nothing, but would note the report, that would be OK? The child can be held for 24 hours without informing parents. So, the next day, no one knows where your child is and you are understandably distraught, that's OK?

Claudia79 wrote:

Well, if the person in question shares the McCann parenting style, they wouldn't probably notice the child was absent. Or notice it and be relieved. They could stay at the Tapas a bit longer.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483392/Kate-McCann-renowned-alcoholic-binges-university.html
Kate McCann was nicknamed 'Hot Lips Healy' during her carefree student days at Dundee University.

Kate Healy, as she was then, was 'renowned for alcoholic binges and dance till you drop nocturnal activities', according to her year book of 1992.
However friends say Kate, was one of the most popular students in the medical department and have spoke of their shock at the allegations made by the Portuguese police.
One former classmate, now a doctor, said: "Kate was great fun, always up for a laugh and a party. She was certainly more interested in going to the pub than she was in her studies. Although she seemed to pass her exams with ease."

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law.

So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?

Personally I prefer to be law-abiding. I didn't have a great problem with the poll tax as it was called. If the poice believe the parents may be privy to the child's crime or involved in it then of course I don't think there is a problem with that law if it permits them to investigate it better. Children develop at different ages and I don't think a law can be all-specific about such matters as minimum age. And as for the welshman its comments like that when you know as well as I do that laws of that nature are not prosecuted that spoils your otherwise reasonable case.

Wow! So, if your 10 year-old didn't return from school, and you phoned the police,who said they knew nothing, but would note the report, that would be OK? The child can be held for 24 hours without informing parents. So, the next day, no one knows where your child is and you are understandably distraught, that's OK?

No that would not be OK. But that is an extreme possibility. Can you cite examples of actual cases? Or is this just theory? Why would the Police deny knowledge to the parent if that parent was not potentially criminally involved in the case?

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:
Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

What are your thoughts on the statements by Dr KATHERINA Gaspar with regard to the strange gesture that David Payne made about a little child that she interpreted to be pedophilia and which kept her awake worrying?

I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".

When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) as if saying "did anyone else hear this, or was it just me". There was a nervous silence registered in all the conversations and afterwards, everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was very strange and it wasn’t something that someone should do or say.

Besides this [incident], I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to clarify that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say exactly what about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, Lily, though I'm not certain. He put one of his fingers in his mouth and slide it in and out, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that Lily, would behave or do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.

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

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a manner different 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 was interested child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying that.

During our vacation in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children's baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to be careful and to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, to my daughter E*****. I was very clear about this, as having heard him saying that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E***** alone.

When I heard Dave say that a second time, it reinforced what I already thought in relation to his thoughts about girls. During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by this daughter Lily, took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine's safety, since she was also with Fiona and Lily, and also with Dave, as far as I know.

As I already mentioned, I was only with Dave and Fiona on one occasion, after Majorca, and I have not spoken to them since that time. In the last two years, we have met, as a family, with the MCCANN, once in a while. That happens mainly at the children's birthdays, a time when we get together.

The first time I had knowledge of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched TV meticulously, and watching the coverage of the news, I understood that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after the Madeleine's disappearance.

Then this followed by Yvonne Martin recognising him from her line of work somewhere...
so much so that she repeatedly tried to bring it to the attention of police?

When pedophiles finally get caught there is so much written about them in their files with regard to concerns however they are very difficult to convict.
Whats your opinion of presumption of innocence with regard to this category of people or do you think that the the onus should perhaps change slightly?
The social services and care teams believe it should, they believe in patterns of behaviour and carry evidence about people netherless in the files for the purposes of safeguarding children as they know how difficult it is for people to get convictions. If you go into any SEN School now you will have various kids with suggestions of abuse in their files. Do you think that is liabel and should be removed? or do you think it is important to keep that information there and to be cautious just in case?

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:



So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?

Personally I prefer to be law-abiding. I didn't have a great problem with the poll tax as it was called. If the poice believe the parents may be privy to the child's crime or involved in it then of course I don't think there is a problem with that law if it permits them to investigate it better. Children develop at different ages and I don't think a law can be all-specific about such matters as minimum age. And as for the welshman its comments like that when you know as well as I do that laws of that nature are not prosecuted that spoils your otherwise reasonable case.

Wow! So, if your 10 year-old didn't return from school, and you phoned the police,who said they knew nothing, but would note the report, that would be OK? The child can be held for 24 hours without informing parents. So, the next day, no one knows where your child is and you are understandably distraught, that's OK?

No that would not be OK. But that is an extreme possibility. Can you cite examples of actual cases? Or is this just theory? Why would the Police deny knowledge to the parent if that parent was not potentially criminally involved in the case?

No, it's not theory, it's the law. I had PACE training when I worked in child protection. And no, I can't cite actual cases because information (names etc) about offences committed by minors is not open to the public.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law.

So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?

No that would not be OK. But that is an extreme possibility. Can you cite examples of actual cases? Or is this just theory? Why would the Police deny knowledge to the parent if that parent was not potentially criminally involved in the case?

Loopdaloop wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:

Well, if the person in question shares the McCann parenting style, they wouldn't probably notice the child was absent. Or notice it and be relieved. They could stay at the Tapas a bit longer.

Well Kate was 'renowned for her binge drinking' and staying out as long as she could!

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483392/Kate-McCann-renowned-alcoholic-binges-university.html
Kate McCann was nicknamed 'Hot Lips Healy' during her carefree student days at Dundee University.

Kate Healy, as she was then, was 'renowned for alcoholic binges and dance till you drop nocturnal activities', according to her year book of 1992.
However friends say Kate, was one of the most popular students in the medical department and have spoke of their shock at the allegations made by the Portuguese police.
One former classmate, now a doctor, said: "Kate was great fun, always up for a laugh and a party. She was certainly more interested in going to the pub than she was in her studies. Although she seemed to pass her exams with ease."

platinum wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:
Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

What are your thoughts on the statements by Dr KATHERINA Gaspar with regard to the strange gesture that David Payne made about a little child that she interpreted to be pedophilia and which kept her awake worrying?

I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".

When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) as if saying "did anyone else hear this, or was it just me". There was a nervous silence registered in all the conversations and afterwards, everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was very strange and it wasn’t something that someone should do or say.

Besides this [incident], I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to clarify that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say exactly what about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, Lily, though I'm not certain. He put one of his fingers in his mouth and slide it in and out, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that Lily, would behave or do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.

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

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a manner different 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 was interested child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying that.

During our vacation in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children's baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to be careful and to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, to my daughter E*****. I was very clear about this, as having heard him saying that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E***** alone.

When I heard Dave say that a second time, it reinforced what I already thought in relation to his thoughts about girls. During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by this daughter Lily, took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine's safety, since she was also with Fiona and Lily, and also with Dave, as far as I know.

As I already mentioned, I was only with Dave and Fiona on one occasion, after Majorca, and I have not spoken to them since that time. In the last two years, we have met, as a family, with the MCCANN, once in a while. That happens mainly at the children's birthdays, a time when we get together.

The first time I had knowledge of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched TV meticulously, and watching the coverage of the news, I understood that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after the Madeleine's disappearance.

Then this followed by Yvonne Martin recognising him from her line of work somewhere...
so much so that she repeatedly tried to bring it to the attention of police?

When pedophiles finally get caught there is so much written about them in their files with regard to concerns however they are very difficult to convict.
Whats your opinion of presumption of innocence with regard to this category of people or do you think that the the onus should perhaps change slightly?
The social services and care teams believe it should, they believe in patterns of behaviour and carry evidence about people netherless in the files for the purposes of safeguarding children as they know how difficult it is for people to get convictions. If you go into any SEN School now you will have various kids with suggestions of abuse in their files. Do you think that is liabel and should be removed? or do you think it is important to keep that information there and to be cautious just in case?

The Gaspar statements are interesting but in themselves prove absolutely nothing. They are also rather contradictory in that one claims the comments were about Madeleine while the other doesn't. They need to be examined but as I say actually on their own prove nothing.

I have a notion that Yvonne Martin was very unsure in what context she may have known Payne. I think she considered it my be as a colleague or a witness or suspect in a case. But again it is not proof of anything.

Both sets of statements are evidence which is suggestive in my view but need to be checked out by careful questioning and follow up work.

I don't believe statements on their own without further checks can ever prove innocence or guilt. Many statements are erroneous, something is seen which is not actually what happened, things can be misheard. They are just one factor in a much wider synthesis.

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:



So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?

No that would not be OK. But that is an extreme possibility. Can you cite examples of actual cases? Or is this just theory? Why would the Police deny knowledge to the parent if that parent was not potentially criminally involved in the case?

Could you cite actual cases of when a child was abducted from an apartment in Europe whilst the parents were out dining. Or is this just a theory.

MaryB wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

No that would not be OK. But that is an extreme possibility. Can you cite examples of actual cases? Or is this just theory? Why would the Police deny knowledge to the parent if that parent was not potentially criminally involved in the case?

Could you cite actual cases of when a child was abducted from an apartment in Europe whilst the parents were out dining. Or is this just a theory.

It would appear to be fact as the PJ could not find any indication that the parents committed any crime.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:
Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

What are your thoughts on the statements by Dr KATHERINA Gaspar with regard to the strange gesture that David Payne made about a little child that she interpreted to be pedophilia and which kept her awake worrying?

I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".

When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) as if saying "did anyone else hear this, or was it just me". There was a nervous silence registered in all the conversations and afterwards, everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was very strange and it wasn’t something that someone should do or say.

Besides this [incident], I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to clarify that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say exactly what about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, Lily, though I'm not certain. He put one of his fingers in his mouth and slide it in and out, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that Lily, would behave or do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.

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

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a manner different 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 was interested child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying that.

During our vacation in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children's baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to be careful and to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, to my daughter E*****. I was very clear about this, as having heard him saying that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E***** alone.

When I heard Dave say that a second time, it reinforced what I already thought in relation to his thoughts about girls. During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by this daughter Lily, took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine's safety, since she was also with Fiona and Lily, and also with Dave, as far as I know.

As I already mentioned, I was only with Dave and Fiona on one occasion, after Majorca, and I have not spoken to them since that time. In the last two years, we have met, as a family, with the MCCANN, once in a while. That happens mainly at the children's birthdays, a time when we get together.

The first time I had knowledge of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched TV meticulously, and watching the coverage of the news, I understood that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after the Madeleine's disappearance.

Then this followed by Yvonne Martin recognising him from her line of work somewhere...
so much so that she repeatedly tried to bring it to the attention of police?

When pedophiles finally get caught there is so much written about them in their files with regard to concerns however they are very difficult to convict.
Whats your opinion of presumption of innocence with regard to this category of people or do you think that the the onus should perhaps change slightly?
The social services and care teams believe it should, they believe in patterns of behaviour and carry evidence about people netherless in the files for the purposes of safeguarding children as they know how difficult it is for people to get convictions. If you go into any SEN School now you will have various kids with suggestions of abuse in their files. Do you think that is liabel and should be removed? or do you think it is important to keep that information there and to be cautious just in case?

The Gaspar statements are interesting but in themselves prove absolutely nothing. They are also rather contradictory in that one claims the comments were about Madeleine while the other doesn't. They need to be examined but as I say actually on their own prove nothing.

I have a notion that Yvonne Martin was very unsure in what context she may have known Payne. I think she considered it my be as a colleague or a witness or suspect in a case. But again it is not proof of anything.

Both sets of statements are evidence which is suggestive in my view but need to be checked out by careful questioning and follow up work.

I don't believe statements on their own without further checks can ever prove innocence or guilt. Many statements are erroneous, something is seen which is not actually what happened, things can be misheard. They are just one factor in a much wider synthesis.

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Things viewed from different perspectives, for instance. The Gaspers' statements are not necessarily contradictory, just two people describing what they observed.

And as for follow-up questioning? Well, is the Pope a Catholic?

platinum wrote:

MaryB wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

No that would not be OK. But that is an extreme possibility. Can you cite examples of actual cases? Or is this just theory? Why would the Police deny knowledge to the parent if that parent was not potentially criminally involved in the case?

Could you cite actual cases of when a child was abducted from an apartment in Europe whilst the parents were out dining. Or is this just a theory.

It would appear to be fact as the PJ could not find any indication that the parents committed any crime.

Nor could they find any indication that an abduction had taken place.

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

platinum wrote:
Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

What are your thoughts on the statements by Dr KATHERINA Gaspar with regard to the strange gesture that David Payne made about a little child that she interpreted to be pedophilia and which kept her awake worrying?

I was seated between Dave and Gerry who I believe were both speaking about Madeleine. I don't remember the conversation in its entirety, but it seemed they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember Dave telling Gerry something like "she", referring to Madeleine, "would do this".

When he mentioned "this", Dave was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, while with the other hand he made a circle around his nipple, in a circulatory movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was saying and doing.

I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to see their reactions. I looked around (page 4) as if saying "did anyone else hear this, or was it just me". There was a nervous silence registered in all the conversations and afterwards, everyone began talking again.

I never spoke to anyone about this, but I always felt that it was very strange and it wasn’t something that someone should do or say.

Besides this [incident], I remember that Dave did the same thing once again. When I refer to this, I want to clarify that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary situation, though I could not say exactly what about. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, Lily, though I'm not certain. He put one of his fingers in his mouth and slide it in and out, while the other hand drew a circle around his nipple in a provocative and sexual manner. I believe that he was referring to the way that Lily, would behave or do it.

I believe that he did this later on, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The only time, besides this one, that I was with Dave and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I met up with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona at a restaurant in Leicester.

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

I remember thinking whether he looked at the girls in a manner different 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 was interested child pornography on the internet.

During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying that.

During our vacation in Majorca, it was the fathers who took care of the children's baths. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if it was Dave bathing the children. I remember telling Savio to be careful and to be there, in case it was Dave helping to bathe the children and, in particular, to my daughter E*****. I was very clear about this, as having heard him saying that had disturbed me, and I did not trust him to give bath to E***** alone.

When I heard Dave say that a second time, it reinforced what I already thought in relation to his thoughts about girls. During our stay in Majorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by this daughter Lily, took Madeleine (page 6) with them to spend the day, in order to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest and time to be with the twins. When I say this, it is not that I was worried about Madeleine's safety, since she was also with Fiona and Lily, and also with Dave, as far as I know.

As I already mentioned, I was only with Dave and Fiona on one occasion, after Majorca, and I have not spoken to them since that time. In the last two years, we have met, as a family, with the MCCANN, once in a while. That happens mainly at the children's birthdays, a time when we get together.

The first time I had knowledge of the terrible news about Madeleine's disappearance through the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the MCCANN in Portugal but he did not know.

I watched TV meticulously, and watching the coverage of the news, I understood that Dave was there, because I saw him, in the background, on the television images during the first days after the Madeleine's disappearance.

Then this followed by Yvonne Martin recognising him from her line of work somewhere...
so much so that she repeatedly tried to bring it to the attention of police?

When pedophiles finally get caught there is so much written about them in their files with regard to concerns however they are very difficult to convict.
Whats your opinion of presumption of innocence with regard to this category of people or do you think that the the onus should perhaps change slightly?
The social services and care teams believe it should, they believe in patterns of behaviour and carry evidence about people netherless in the files for the purposes of safeguarding children as they know how difficult it is for people to get convictions. If you go into any SEN School now you will have various kids with suggestions of abuse in their files. Do you think that is liabel and should be removed? or do you think it is important to keep that information there and to be cautious just in case?

The Gaspar statements are interesting but in themselves prove absolutely nothing. They are also rather contradictory in that one claims the comments were about Madeleine while the other doesn't. They need to be examined but as I say actually on their own prove nothing.

I have a notion that Yvonne Martin was very unsure in what context she may have known Payne. I think she considered it my be as a colleague or a witness or suspect in a case. But again it is not proof of anything.

Both sets of statements are evidence which is suggestive in my view but need to be checked out by careful questioning and follow up work.

I don't believe statements on their own without further checks can ever prove innocence or guilt. Many statements are erroneous, something is seen which is not actually what happened, things can be misheard. They are just one factor in a much wider synthesis.

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Things viewed from different perspectives, for instance. The Gaspers' statements are not necessarily contradictory, just two people describing what they observed.

And as for follow-up questioning? Well, is the Pope a Catholic?

I don't know why you are asking that question but I believe he is. A German Catholic to be precise.

With regard to the situation with the ten year old child. The PACE details online do not seem to confirm your claims.



http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Research/Overnight_in_police_cells_final.pdf

Do you have a link to back up your claims by any chance?

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Loopdaloop wrote:

What are your thoughts on the statements by Dr KATHERINA Gaspar with regard to the strange gesture that David Payne made about a little child that she interpreted to be pedophilia and which kept her awake worrying?



Then this followed by Yvonne Martin recognising him from her line of work somewhere...
so much so that she repeatedly tried to bring it to the attention of police?

When pedophiles finally get caught there is so much written about them in their files with regard to concerns however they are very difficult to convict.
Whats your opinion of presumption of innocence with regard to this category of people or do you think that the the onus should perhaps change slightly?
The social services and care teams believe it should, they believe in patterns of behaviour and carry evidence about people netherless in the files for the purposes of safeguarding children as they know how difficult it is for people to get convictions. If you go into any SEN School now you will have various kids with suggestions of abuse in their files. Do you think that is liabel and should be removed? or do you think it is important to keep that information there and to be cautious just in case?

The Gaspar statements are interesting but in themselves prove absolutely nothing. They are also rather contradictory in that one claims the comments were about Madeleine while the other doesn't. They need to be examined but as I say actually on their own prove nothing.

I have a notion that Yvonne Martin was very unsure in what context she may have known Payne. I think she considered it my be as a colleague or a witness or suspect in a case. But again it is not proof of anything.

Both sets of statements are evidence which is suggestive in my view but need to be checked out by careful questioning and follow up work.

I don't believe statements on their own without further checks can ever prove innocence or guilt. Many statements are erroneous, something is seen which is not actually what happened, things can be misheard. They are just one factor in a much wider synthesis.

Eye witnesses are notoriously unreliable. Things viewed from different perspectives, for instance. The Gaspers' statements are not necessarily contradictory, just two people describing what they observed.

And as for follow-up questioning? Well, is the Pope a Catholic?

I don't know why you are asking that question but I believe he is. A German Catholic to be precise.

With regard to the situation with the ten year old child. The PACE details online do not seem to confirm your claims.



http://www.howardleague.org/fileadmin/howard_league/user/pdf/Research/Overnight_in_police_cells_final.pdf

Do you have a link to back up your claims by any chance?

No, only training by senior police officers.

platinum wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:
There is nothing funny at all in connection with this case and our discussion.

I beg to differ as is my right. I agree that there is nothing funny about the actual case but I do find your inability to process those facts rather funny.

AnnaEsse wrote:

platinum wrote:

Oldartform wrote:

platinum wrote:

I also believe it is incumbent on all of us to respect that presumption even if we do not believe it or might be working to overturn it.

I do find this a weird turn of phrase which is the sort of dictum coming from the mouth of a priest or someone who feels her/himself superior. You may feel it is incumbent on yourself but I`m sure most people with their own minds do not believe it is incumbent on us to respect something or someone we have absolutely no belief in whether the law says so or not. If we did, we would be no more than robots and what sort of world would that be.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law. If we don't anarchy will ensue. And it is the law that people are presumed innocent until proven guilty. If you don't believe so try standing at the gates of Chelsea shouting that their captain is guilty of the crime of which he has been accused. See what happens. I bet the police would step in very quickly and quite rightly.

Well again I beg to differ (as is my right) but I think we should all respect the law.

So, what do you think of the poll tax demonstrations that got the law changed? What about the Police and Criminal Evidence Act that states that if the police suspect that a child aged 10 has committed a crime, they don't have to inform parents that the child is at the police station if they think it will interfere with their investigation? Is that to be respected? What about the 1932 Children and Young Person's Act that does not lay down a minimum age at which children can be left alone? Is that to be respected?

Oh, and I am told that there is still a law on the statute books that if a Welshman is found within the walls of Chester after sunset, he can be shot. Shall we respect that and hunt out those Welshmen?