The Untold Story of Madeleine McCann

No, but there are plenty of circumstantial pointers towards official interference.

jassi wrote:No, but there are plenty of circumstantial pointers towards official interference.

the floor is yours.

I will reserve my judgement,despite my chronic pessimism,until i hear Mrs DCI Walls first public appraisal of the case !

Marky wrote:

jassi wrote:No, but there are plenty of circumstantial pointers towards official interference.

the floor is yours.

anything?

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/mccanns-links-to-government-as-origin.html

Marky I suggest you also watch Richard D Hall videos

cherry1 wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2013/10/mccanns-links-to-government-as-origin.html

Marky I suggest you also watch Richard D Hall videos

yes i know all that and the suggestion at the time that little old gerry mccann had something on the government did make me smile, still does. it's was just clever media manipulation and over enthusiastic polititions with one eye on their approval ratings, quite possibly unprecedented at the time but then that was new labour all over. backed off in august. now why did they do that?

Perhaps you could ask them, and while you're at it ask them about D notice on Op Ore, and while you are asking questions ask CEOP why the photographs they asked people to send to them never got to the Portuguese Police according to what Amaral said.

cherry1 wrote:http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2009/04/british-government-interference-in.html

http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9951-evidence-of-the-direct-involvement-of-mi5-mi6-and-other-branches-of-government-security-services-in-the-madeleine-mccann-case

ah, the marvels of a fertile imagination. if this is a cover up it got off to a bad start. it went public. if someone was being protected that wouldn't have happened. if anything and i do mean if, the only thing being protected here was the reputations of those polititions if it all went bad. what would say about their judgement?

cherry1 wrote:Perhaps you could ask them, and while you're at it ask them about D notice on Op Ore, and while you are asking questions ask CEOP why the photographs they asked people to send to them never got to the Portuguese Police according to what Amaral said.  

no, it's reasonable for me to consider that they backed off when it became evident that the investigation was headed back toward the mccanns. run to the hills, as they say.

You need to ask yourself Marky for what reason do the secret services come out of the woodwork, they were involved from the beginning in this case. Then ask yourself about the Gaspar statements and Yvonne Martin statement and Amaral's comments relating to Payne.

The answers are all there.

There was also the involvement of Special Branch who acted as chauffeurs to the McCanns when they made their final return to UK.
What conversation were they perhaps having in the privacy of a car?

cherry1 wrote:You need to ask yourself Marky for what reason do the secret services come out of the woodwork, they were involved from the beginning in this case. Then ask yourself about the Gaspar statements and Yvonne Martin statement and Amaral's comments relating to Payne.  

The answers are all there.

tony bennett has sure made a big impression on you cherry. i didn't realise how much.

The Knife Wielder is extremely good at his job - the perfect WUM - disguised as The Voice Of Reason.  I don't visit that often but am always irritated by TKW when I do.

winjoy wrote:The Knife Wielder is extremely good at his job - the perfect WUM - disguised as The Voice Of Reason.  I don't visit that often but am always irritated by TKW when I do.

don't flatter yourself. you wind yourselves up.

Im not sure where Tony comes into it Marky, I have read the information from the files and listened to the interviews with Goncalo Amaral as well as what he has said in his book, I have read the Police Statements of the Gaspars and Yvonne Martin - all the information is there for all to see but for some reason you seem to be having a bit of difficulty. All that has been pointed out is not a conspiracy or speculation it is all Factual information.

cherry1 wrote:Im not sure where Tony comes into it Marky, I have read the information from the files and listened to the interviews with Goncalo Amaral as well as what he has said in his book, I have read the Police Statements of the Gaspars and Yvonne Martin - all the information is there for all to see but for some reason you seem to be having a bit of difficulty. All that has been pointed out is not a conspiracy or speculation it is all Factual information.

i'm not having any difficulty at all. i don't believe it's a cover up and have yet to see anything that will change my mind. what you seem to see is a case which is yet to be and may remain unresolved and for those reasons you see the hand of mischief. as for the statements, one gaspar statement appears to refute the other and the martin statement is vague at best. all best intentions i'm sure but ultimately probably not much use in building a criminal case.

In what way do the statements contradict each other?

cherry1 wrote:In what way do the statements contradict each other?

i'm sure you've read them not once but loads of times but ma gaspar claims she saw and heard something she thought odd while pa gaspar neither saw or heard anything at all. hardly a ringing endorsement is it? so what to do? ignore the statement that's inconvenient or disregard them both? bit of a no brainer really.

Mr. Gaspar said this:

At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.

It is my wish that the police are aware of my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne.


so it seems although at the time he did not feel it was referring to Madeleine (although he did feel it was in bad taste) - since Madeleine's disappearance he obviously had thought about it some more as he wanted the Police to be aware of -  my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne.



It is therefore not correct to say he saw or heard nothing at all. And no reason to discard the statements at all. The statements are very important - hence that could account for the delay in sending them to the Portuguese Police.

cherry1 wrote:Mr. Gaspar said this:

At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.

It is my wish that the police are aware of my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne.


so it seems although at the time he did not feel it was referring to Madeleine (although he did feel it was in bad taste) - since Madeleine's disappearance he obviously had thought about it some more as he wanted the Police to be aware of -  my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne.



It is therefore not correct to say he saw or heard nothing at all. And no reason to discard the statements at all. The statements are very important - hence that could account for the delay in sending them to the Portuguese Police.

cherry, we been over this before. the statements were originally in english, translated into portuguese and then back again for public release. the line you highlight has in the past been interpreted as some kind of written nod nod wink wink when it's more logical to consider it just a bad translation. if memory serves it's the only part of his statement statement that was seized upon. one statement does not support the other although both were at the same table. he did not see or hear what she heard or saw or if you prefer, he did not interpret it the same way. either way it's all the same. and that's enough to disregard them.

We will have to agree to disagree Marky, he may have dismissed it at the time but had a rethink and anxious that the Police knew of that concern, I certainly wouldn't dismiss it at all.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Mr. Gaspar said this:

At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.

It is my wish that the police are aware of my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne.


so it seems although at the time he did not feel it was referring to Madeleine (although he did feel it was in bad taste) - since Madeleine's disappearance he obviously had thought about it some more as he wanted the Police to be aware of -  my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne.



It is therefore not correct to say he saw or heard nothing at all. And no reason to discard the statements at all. The statements are very important - hence that could account for the delay in sending them to the Portuguese Police.

cherry, we been over this before. the statements were originally in english, translated into portuguese and then back again for public release. the line you highlight has in the past been interpreted as some kind of written nod nod wink wink when it's more logical to consider it just a bad translation. if memory serves it's the only part of his statement statement that was seized upon. one statement does not support the other although both were at the same table. he did not see or hear what she heard or saw or if you prefer, he did not interpret it the same way. either way it's all the same. and that's enough to disregard them.

Marky, it would appear that he did see the gesture, but interpreted it differently. Even if he had not seen the gesture, it is worth bearing in mind that whatever David Payne did may not have been noticed by everyone sitting at the table. He did say that he had seen it though. Enough now. It is not up to any of us to decided what statements should be disregarded. Gonçalo Amaral felt that the statement by Katarina Gasper was significant and that's good enough for me.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:Mr. Gaspar said this:

At the time I did not feel the gesture was referring to Madeleine.

It is my wish that the police are aware of my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne.


so it seems although at the time he did not feel it was referring to Madeleine (although he did feel it was in bad taste) - since Madeleine's disappearance he obviously had thought about it some more as he wanted the Police to be aware of -  my preoccupation with the gesture made by David Payne.



It is therefore not correct to say he saw or heard nothing at all. And no reason to discard the statements at all. The statements are very important - hence that could account for the delay in sending them to the Portuguese Police.

cherry, we been over this before. the statements were originally in english, translated into portuguese and then back again for public release. the line you highlight has in the past been interpreted as some kind of written nod nod wink wink when it's more logical to consider it just a bad translation. if memory serves it's the only part of his statement statement that was seized upon. one statement does not support the other although both were at the same table. he did not see or hear what she heard or saw or if you prefer, he did not interpret it the same way. either way it's all the same. and that's enough to disregard them.

Marky, it would appear that he did see the gesture, but interpreted it differently. Even if he had not seen the gesture, it is worth bearing in mind that whatever David Payne did may not have been noticed by everyone sitting at the table. He did say that he had seen it though. Enough now. It is not up to any of us to decided what statements should be disregarded. Gonçalo Amaral felt that the statement by Katarina Gasper was significant and that's good enough for me.

hi anna. it's me who is disregarding them. if amaral felt it significant then fine but as they stand and we have not seen the originals, my view, however unpopular, is that once investigated they'd be filed away. anyways long time no post. been busy?