Katherine Gasper (David Payne)

kitti wrote:Wasnt payne supposedly off done this twice which made mrs gasper worried....

Once could be 'misheard' but twice......i dont think so....

You give people the benefit off the doubt but not the second time....

Yes I recall her saying that! I agree Kitti, this is why I'm convinced Dr Katerina Gaspar was correct in her assumption!

DP definitely creeped her out, but the Gaspar's went home the very next day, back to their busy lives, and that was that (imo).

marxman wrote:

Roasted Arizona wrote:I just find it staggering that no one has ever been sued over the various theories surrounding Payne ...this speaks volumes to me.

I would suspect that Payne has been heavily briefed by legal eagles,
not to open this can of worms, because if he was to pursue this in
court it would stick like mud whatever the outcome, and take down
some others, and introduce a powerful and dynamic lead in the
investigation. His silence I believe confirms this.

Exactly. And they're better legal eagles than the ones the McCanns are employing, because everything they say makes them look more and more guilty.

joyce1938 wrote:Hi there,  do you think its most likely ,if parents were present when   afriend talked about what they might like to do ,or even make any action that seemed a NO NO   to a great majority of parents . Would most just go quiet ,wouldn't at least one ,say  THAT IS VERY UNAPPROPIATE TALK GOING ON HERE ?  or ARE WE LOOKING AT SOME REGULAR  STUFF THAT HAD BEEN ACCEPTED ,BY SOME ? JUST CANT IMAGINE THINKING ,THAT IT DIDNT SEEM RIGHT AND YET NOT SPEAKING UP .. I DONT MEAM MRS GASPER BY THE WAY ,SHE WAS SHOCKED AND SCARED BY IT , I MEAN THE REST WHO WERE THERE. joyce1938

Hello Joyce I think we are looking at some regular stuff here. Maybe he thought the Gaspers were up to speed on the situation and they obviously were not!

I have never been able to understand how this serious situation has never come to the fore when its all over the internet. Yet anything less said about them is up for suing straight away. How can this be as it did include GM.

Hi fuzeta and anyone interested in this subject. Yes you could be right fuz,it did go through my mind too ,I just cant imagine one I have ever been envolved in such talk,so your possably correct in your reply.its worse than we care to think maybe joyce 1938

Krisy22 wrote:I have never been able to understand how this serious  situation has never come to the fore when its all over the internet. Yet anything less said about them is up for suing straight away. How can this be as it did include GM.

The fact that Dr G did not bring it up at the time leads me to believe it was something fairly innocent or explainable although what that might be exactly I don't know.

Whoops, misunderstood so deleted

That they were willing to talk about in front of complete strangers?

Molesting children is dark indeed. .. I wondered if instead they were talking about nursing or something,
, but Dr G clearly thought it was awkward.

She could be highly sensitive to anything inappropriate - or her radar could have been pinging like crazy and for good reason.

What creeps me out is that her first thought when hearing MM was missing was that she hoped DP was not on that trip with them. I take that kind of intuition fairly seriously.

widowan wrote:That they were willing to talk about in front of complete strangers?

Molesting children is dark indeed. .. I wondered if instead they were talking about nursing or something,
, but Dr G clearly thought it was awkward.

She could be highly sensitive to anything inappropriate - or her radar could have been pinging like crazy and for good reason.

What creeps me out is that her first thought when hearing MM was missing was that she hoped DP was not on that trip with them. I take that kind of intuition fairly seriously.

"Intuition" may be perceptive insight but, as I like to call it, gut instinct.

It is definately something you would not bring up lightly! She had serious concerns and the husband buried his head in the sand.

I think Katherine Gasper would be a good reliable witness.And the fact that she recalls a second time it happened seems to suggest he was comfortable in that company.

Yvonne Martin i think far less reliable but adds a little more fuel,if she could remember where she had seen him it could clinch the deal.

Lioned wrote:I think Katherine Gasper would be a good reliable witness.And the fact that she recalls a second time it happened seems to suggest he was comfortable in that company.

Yvonne Martin i think far less reliable but adds a little more fuel,if she could remember where she had seen him it could clinch the deal.

As a child services person I would expect her to have a radar in good working order as well.

widowan wrote:I think that part of the grooming process for pedophiles is that they not only groom the children but the parents. I could see making jokes to see what he could get away with.

I don't see how they failed to follow up on this if Payne actually was registered anywhere as an offender.

The questions LP asked the T9 were very sketchy and when answers were dodgy or incomplete they helped the interviewees by feeding them statements or allowing them to say things like Payne did, when asked if he had more info that could expose the material truth of this he said this was not the forum for it and the LP investigator simply said OK.

What other info did he have? That he himself was a suspect, the Gaspar statements but he didn't want to get into THAT because it wasn't the forum - to clear himself of that accusation?

Rogatory interviews aren't much use if you have to submit not only the questions but the questions that would follow on from the answers, in ahead of time. The PJ couldn't know where the questions would lead. Payne drops a bomb in the interview and LP just says OK and goes on with their day closing the interview -

I do not think if Payne was involved that McCanns would cover for him unless there was something much more sinister involving themselves as well. The whole issue of how long Payne was there and why is up in the air with several different versions of it from Kate, Payne and Fiona and that surely bears looking into.

I agree to some extent with this.  However, paedophiles I think would groom the parents alone, having taken a long time to get to know them.  Paedophiles work patiently, getting to know people gradually and slowly getting their trust and forming a solid friendship, so that they have general access to the parents' children with the full blessing of the parents who hold them in high esteem.

Would a paedophile, however, attempt to groom in front of others in a party of people who he did not know very well?  

Payne was describing what he thought he saw a child do, at leasts that's how I read it.  And children do do things to their own bodies out of innocence which adults, especially on holiday with each other and tipsy, would find funny perhaps.  Not me, but there you go, perhaps to their mind I would have no humour. And Doctor Gasper also did not see the funny side and according to her the momentary silence of the group indicated some or all of them too did not initially see it funny/understand the joke; but then, as friends do, polite laughter follows. Who would want to get into an argument on holiday, spoil a holiday because you alone (because the others did eventually laugh) did not find it funny.  It would have been a case of Doctor Gasper against the whole lot because they did laugh and although initially a silence fell, the fact the rest of them laughed would indicate they eventually found it funny.

What they would say behind his back is another matter perhaps?

Okay, he's lewd in his opinions and utters offensive remarks, but does that indicate he's a paedophile.  Maybe so, but he has no record known to the Police so I feel we must not describe him as such until he is proved as such, but that's just my humble opinion.

Agree, I don't describe him as such I just say if.

The papers could have made a field day out of the Gaspar statements - they ran with plenty less, and tried to big it all up, yet they never did.

And I know it's not because they are too honorable to besmirch someone who may be innocent. Please. That is their bread and butter.

It's in the files and on all forum info, but it seems to be untouchable by the press and if the police looked into it that is one "leak" Clarence will never tell the papers about.

People feel very strongly about what a horrible unspeakable crime it is - very rightly too.

Still it seems like if someone is accused or suspected of such a thing many other people will come forward - like if a priest rapes a child - and say, he did that to me too. No one's coming up saying I know what Yvonne Martin is speaking about, or, I felt he was inappropriate at my daughter's birthday party or a sleep over...

I also wonder about the kind of woman who would marry a man like that and let him have access to her daughters even if they are also his daughters, but women do this all the time. They claim not to know or the push the suspicion to the back of their mind because it's too awful to contemplate.

widowan wrote:Agree, I don't describe him as such I just say if.

Oh sorry Widowan, I'm not saying you are calling Payne a paedophile.  I was just making the point here generally because this word describing Payne has been used several times on this thread and on other threads and I just think we need to be careful in general.

I think it would be fair to assume that the Police, both SY and Portuguese, have checked him out.  I think this has been hushed up, big style.  I think it would be fair to assume by now that SY are content he is not a risk to children; after all he is still working as a doctor as far as we know.

As a doctor he has probably seen a lot, you know, to do with other people's bodies and bodily functions and so on and, as a doctor in his own private time with other doctors, I can imagine they talk about patients behind patients backs.

I do know that doctors generally keep a good sense of humour to help them get through their day.  Nothing particularly wrong with that I don't think. I have heard that they could not possibly do their job if they did not try to look at the funny side.  They see really upsetting things and would find it hard to get up each day and do their job if they did not turn it to humour.

However, some of them, perhaps Payne included, I feel sure cross a line and I can imagine some of us as patients would be horrified if we knew what they were saying amongst themselves. I think he is that type, the type who do cross the line, thinking because they are with other doctors its not breaking patient confidentiality and he's the type I can imagine who would think he could get away with 'his type of humour', cracking jokes at 'our' expense type of thing.

He sounds like he's a big shot idiot who likes the sound of his own voice, you know one of those irritating overpowering personalities who thinks they can say anything and its funny; the so called life and soul of the party type of person.  I think he is that type of person in fact. And maybe in a hospital, you know, what upsets a patient because its loss of dignity he may find funny?

I just think he's a bit of an 'arse'.

Re the conversation between DP and GM heard by Gaspars we also have comments made about DP bathing children and also the testimony of Yvonne Martin who recognised Payne. IF the group were part of a ring - rings recruit new members and 'test the waters' which could have been what DP and GM were doing. There are also plenty of doctors with criminal records who are allowed to continue to practise.



The General Medical Council (GMC) released the number of criminal records held by practising doctors in response to a Freedom of Information request. It showed 761 doctors were practising in October this year, despite accumulating 856 convictions between them.


They included one doctor who took indecent photographs of a child, two with convictions for possessing child pornography, two for trafficking drugs and three for grievous bodily harm. There were 31 offences of assault, three of possessing dangerous weapons, seven for soliciting prostitutes, a dozen for domestic violence, and two of child cruelty or neglect.


http://www.telegraph.co.uk/health/healthnews/10470951/Hundreds-of-convicted-doctors-still-practising.html

They were drinking, tongues were loose, voices were loud and as for saying why did mrs Gasper wait ...who is she to turn to to tell this sordid story, if madeleine hadnt off disappeard we may never off heard off payne or we may off, who knows.

If it were ME that had heard what he said i would off come to the same conclusion and the second time would off been the nail in the coffin for me.

Mrs gasper probably agonised off this for a few weeks and also probably hoped madeleine would off turned up after wondering off or something on the lines off this and opening a LARGE can off worms only for Madeleine to turn up unharmed ....so she waited and she did what she had to do.....it was her duty to report it.

I can understand wher she was coming from. On holday, with people she thought she knew. This happens. For a while she would have doubted herself. Played it over and over in her mind, trying to convince herself she was wrong. At the same time she obviously decided prevention is better than cure and held a close eye on her children.

For me, I think she was reasonably certain of the circumstances in which the conversation took place and Madeleine's disappearance fully endorsed her worries.

Verbally recalling an event or conversation is not always enough to explain a situation. Sometimes you just have to be there to fully understand something.

It is an extremely serious allegation to make against anybody and few people will make such an allegation, they will prefer to doubt themselves first.

I don't know if she is right or wrong of course. However I believe she made her statement with the best of intentions and will certainly have agonised before going ahead. It's likely there were other things, perhaps things that amounted to nothing more than a feeling about him, which means nothing of course, but it may well have been a collection of little things, coupled with the Majorca occurrence that clicked with her.

Female intuition should never be underestimated, particularly when it comes to their children. I am not insulting our male friends here, but women tend to sense when something is not quite right, quicker than men.

Her statement was not available when Yvonne Warren Martin arrived on the scene. She too appears to have wrestled with her conscience. It has never been stated, to my knowledge, how she knew him. This would surely have been investigated and had it transpired their paths had crossed in an innocent, professional manner, I bet my house it would have been well publicised as a damage limitation exercise. As it stands, the last we heard, she followed up her worries with a letter to police.

So two professional women, both uneasy about the same person and never a word spoken from the Tapas group to deny the story or discredit the story teller. The vague reference to Greece in Amaral's book still hangs there too.

This man could be entirely innocent so for that reason alone it should be cleared up, yet it is ignored completely. That in itself is odd.

kitti wrote:They were drinking, tongues were loose, voices were loud and as for saying why did mrs Gasper wait ...who is she to turn to to tell this sordid story, if madeleine hadnt off disappeard we may never off heard off payne or we may off, who knows.

If it were ME that had heard what he said i would off come to the same conclusion and the second time would off been the nail in the coffin for me.

Mrs gasper probably agonised off this for a few weeks and also probably hoped madeleine would off turned up after wondering off or something on the lines off this and opening a LARGE can off worms only for Madeleine to turn up unharmed ....so she waited and she did what she had to do.....it was her duty to report it.

IMO that sums up the scenario in a nutshell. I would add that it was GM who introduced the concepts of 'abduction' and 'paedophile involvement' and whilst nobody has been able to find any evidence pointing to the former having taken place, the fact that these statements were offered up to British police voluntarily and (as far as I can see) the Gaspars have no ulterior motive for doing so, does qualify them as indicative evidence of the latter. Certainly Dr Amaral and several serious opinion holders in Portugal share this view having made public comments on this subject in various TV discussions.

T4two wrote:

kitti wrote:They were drinking, tongues were loose, voices were loud and as for saying why did mrs Gasper wait ...who is she to turn to to tell this sordid story, if madeleine hadnt off disappeard we may never off heard off payne or we may off, who knows.

If it were ME that had heard what he said i would off come to the same conclusion and the second time would off been the nail in the coffin for me.

Mrs gasper probably agonised off this for a few weeks and also probably hoped madeleine would off turned up after wondering off or something on the lines off this and opening a LARGE can off worms only for Madeleine to turn up unharmed ....so she waited and she did what she had to do.....it was her duty to report it.

IMO that sums up the scenario in a nutshell. I would add that it was GM who introduced the concepts of 'abduction' and 'paedophile involvement' and whilst nobody has been able to find any evidence pointing to the former having taken place, the fact that these statements were offered up to British police voluntarily and (as far as I can see) the Gaspars have no ulterior motive for doing so, does qualify them as indicative evidence of the latter. Certainly Dr Amaral and several serious opinion holders in Portugal share this view having made public comments on this subject in various TV discussions.        

Totally agree with you both!  

Dr Payne's pictures, along with his lewd conversations and gestures are all over the internet now.  The silence from TM is deafening!

Kitti and mossman are spot on imo!

Don't forget THAT phone call made by Payne....

kitti wrote:Don't forget THAT phone call made by Payne....

Is that the one late at night he couldnt remember ?

I cant make any sense of that unless he was just 'checking in' ?

Lioned wrote:

kitti wrote:Don't forget THAT phone call made by Payne....

Is that the one late at night he couldnt remember ?

I cant make any sense of that unless he was just 'checking in' ?

Which phone call? Please remind me.

Think it was in his Rog statement when he phoned the Child abuse line late on the 4th May.