The 'Gasper' statement.................

Doctor Katherina Gasper made this statement to Leicester Police Constabulary on 24th October 2007 regarding a conversation she had overheard between Dr.David Payne and Dr Gerald Mccann.

The suggestion is they were discussing the child in a sexual way.

Here is part of what she said....

"I was sitting between Dave and Gerry whom I believe were both talking 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 in and out of his mouth, whilst with the other hand he circled his nipple, with a circulating movement over his clothes. This was done in a provocative manner there being 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 to see ?did anyone else hear this, or was it just me?. There was a nervous silence noted in the conversations of all the others and immediately afterwards everyone began talking again."

Here is the link to the complete statement for those who wish to read it...

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

I have been coming to this forum for quite some time, along with a couple of other MM forums.
I sometimes wonder how much real estate the pages of these forums would cover if any new subject/thread was mentioned just the once and not rehashed .
When I read the above piece my first thought was oh! not again, like this has never been mentioned? So please why have you brought this up?
What's the purpose of it?

What's even worse than these statements are the ones of Yvonne Martin who was suspicious of David Payne also and works in child protection!

If it's a whitewash, there's your answer.

BelEddie wrote:I have been coming to this forum for quite some time, along with a couple of other MM forums.
I sometimes wonder how much real estate the pages of these forums would cover if any new subject/thread was mentioned just the once and not rehashed .
When I read the above piece my first thought was oh! not again, like this has never been mentioned? So please why have you brought this up?

What's the purpose of it?

Probably to reinforce the fact that this statement is being gravely overlooked and to bring it back to the fore, so we are aware that it was said. Sometimes we need a reminder about certain things and if it appears on every thread I wouldn't be upset. It's not something to be brushed under the carpet.

margaret wrote:What's even worse than these statements are the ones of Yvonne Martin who was suspicious of David Payne also and works in child protection!

If it's a whitewash, there's your answer.

I agree with you Margaret about the answer to the whitewash. always thought it.

We have repeated ourselves many times in the last six years and will continue to do so until this case is solved one way or another.

Now does anyone want to talk about the dogs ?

Shutters anyone ?

How about gerrys stolen credit cards ?

I think it's worth remembering that, especially in interesting times such as this, there will be people coming here to read who are not forum members. If they read something they never read before, it may arouse their interest enough to do further research.
They certainly will not be saying: 'Oh! Not again.'

What are the "four leads" that the Portuguese are pursuing? That are different from the SY leads? Perhaps they have something to do with the Gaspar statements, which the PJ didn't have at the time.

Lioned wrote:We have repeated ourselves many times in the last six years and will continue to do so until this case is solved one way or another.

Now does anyone want to talk about the dogs ?

Shutters anyone ?

How about gerrys stolen credit cards ?

That's right Lioned ...it needs to be repeated over and over till there is a satisfactory answer...not brushed under the carpet. 

There are still people on Facebook that didn't know about the dogs, they thought it was about the sniffer dogs.


The answer to this case lies in the beginning ...

kitti wrote:There are still people on Facebook that didn't know about the dogs, they thought it was about the sniffer dogs.


The answer to this case lies in the beginning ...

Gerry was very clever when it came to the subject of the dogs. There are "the dogs" and there are "THE dogs".

I watched him in interview being asked about the dogs and he clearly said it was he who asked for them. Yes, the sniffer dogs early on, never the EVRD's but he forgets to make that distinction and the usual muppet of an interviewer either did not do his homework or was sticking to script.

It may seem repetitive to continue to discuss the same topics and it is. It is of the utmost importance to continue every day though. If each topic was discussed once back in 2007, discussions would be long since finished.

If nothing else when this is concluded, no matter which conclusion is reached, hindsight will tell us that there was a very strong realisation by the UK authorities that this case was not going to go away, unless they took action. They have been pushed into action thanks in no small part to what some might call Internet nutters bleating on about the dogs and Gaspers and scenic cars.

So keep going  

I also think its the internet forums which have kept the McCs in the news because very often details which have been discussed here have been responded to in the press, by a source or by their spokesman. as you all say there are people who are just coming to learn more details and are asking questions because they didn't know whats in the files, or because they've picked upon on something in a programme, so lets keep replying and lets keep asking.

I would not have known of the existence of the translated police files if I hadn't been on the internet.

I agree the Gaspars statements should be kept in the foreground. Even friends and relatives who have been following this case since the beginning have known nothing about these until I've told them. They are an important part of the whole picture.

I know exactly why Lioned has raised this topic again, and he is absolutely right  

                  

Iris wrote:I know exactly why Lioned has raised this topic again, and he is absolutely right  

                  

Yep! I'm with you there!

   

'I always thought someone took poor maddie from their parents until last week,i read an article on the case last week about the two different dogs they brought in to find specefic smells.dogs cant lie.i have no doubt they loved their kids.people do odd things when they panic.but poor little maddie.the game is nearly up'


Posted 24/10/13

I agree with it being raised again because it is so important to the reasons this has all been covered up from the start.  I would like to know what iris means though. I think I know but not quite sure

Here is the statement of Yvonne Warren Martin.She is a professional lady who works in Social Services and Child protection.
She was in pdl at the time Maddie went missing and went to offer her help to kate and gerry.She met them the day after Maddie disappeared and at that time David Payne was also present.Yvonne Martin seemed quite sure she had seen David Payne before though couldn't quite place where and in what context.
It was clearly a very nervous encounter for the mccanns once they had determined this lady's credentials.
Interestingly she says that kate claimed 'a couple' had taken Maddie !

"Because she found it strange that Kate told her that her daughter had been taken by a couple, she tried to separate her from the other two individuals so that she could speak to her with more privacy, suggesting to Kate that they (Y and K) should enter the apartment, Kate aggressively rejected this idea and told her that they could speak on the street. "

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

"The first time I heard 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."


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm

David Payne was wearing very similar clothes to that of 'tannerman' and 'smiithman'.

Which,off course,could be a complete coincidence.

When Madeleine disappeared we were living in the R.O. Ireland and I read in the Daily Mail that police 'were looking into the backgrounds of the McCs' friends' to ascertain if any of them were on an 'offenders' list. I was so surprised I read the article out to my OH. This was quite early on in the case around 20th May, from memory. I wish I'd kept it, it was never referred to again. The Mail was by then printed in Dublin and often had different articles to the U.k. edition. Note the date of Mrs Gaspar's statement.

Yes ann-chovey it is funny how everything became as if it never was. Including the first findings from the forensics. Everything went the way of Gerry's blue tennis bag. What bag????

fuzeta wrote:Yes ann-chovey it is funny how everything became as if it never was. Including the first findings from the forensics. Everything went the way of Gerry's blue tennis bag. What bag????

The one that was big enough to HIDE a tennis racquet in.

What I would like to know is if SY have interviewed the Gaspers or more to the point did they interview DP?? Or have they ignored it and it has now become as 'never was' ?

The Gaspers statement may be nothing, but surely SJ would have explored it thoroughly?