Licence To Troll - Blacksmith Bureau

Just trying to go from a different angle here.

If you went on holiday with a group of people and while there lost your child. Through no fault of theirs one of your friends is accused of something untoward. Something really not very nice appertaining to the lost child and yourself.

Surely under the circumstances if you knew they were completely innocent ... and you had the ear of any newspaper, would you not feel inclined to speak out. Or would that not be possible. jmo.

Marky Leicester Police could not have destroyed the statements because how would that look if Gaspars started talking about the statements and no statements were found at all - that would drop Leicester Police right in it.

cherry1 wrote:Marky Leicester Police could not have destroyed the statements because how would that look if Gaspars started talking about the statements and no statements were found at all - that would drop Leicester Police right in it.

why would they start talking about them? could be that they're horrified they've become public. after all, one doesn't make a statement to the police only to find it all over the internet.

anyways, why do you think the statements were 'held back'?

Krisy22 wrote:Just trying to go from a different angle here.

If you went on holiday with a group of people and while there lost your child.   Through no fault of theirs one of your friends is accused of something untoward. Something really not very nice appertaining to the lost child and yourself.

Surely under the circumstances if you knew they were completely innocent ... and  you had the ear of any newspaper, would you not feel inclined to speak out.  Or would that not be possible. jmo.

well, no one has been accused of anything. the gaspar statement doesn't do that but merely opines that the gesture could be indicative of child abuse but yes, could be that may have already happened. could be there's a lot gone and going on in the background that for all the right reasons in not being reported. the media may well have followed this through because after all, that's what they do, and found nothing. had there been anything to find you can be sure it would've made the headlines. 'mccanns holiday pal in child porn ring.'

Mention was made earlier of how people test the water to see if others are like-minded.

http://ukpaedos-exposed.com/safety-tips-for-parents-children/international-boylove-day-ibld-22nd-june-21-december/paedophile-abbreviations/

I would think that nowadays most of these people seek out others online.

http://gasparstatements.blogspot.pt/2010/11/smoke-and-mirrors-or-smoke-and-fire.html

I mentioned previously that I was suspicious of the fact that the Gasper statements were not sent to the PJ until after Mr Amaral was taken off the case. Seems I am not on my own with these thoughts.

Thank you Fuzeta I have not seen that before. x

fuzeta wrote:http://gasparstatements.blogspot.pt/2010/11/smoke-and-mirrors-or-smoke-and-fire.html

I mentioned previously that I was suspicious of the fact that the Gasper statements were not sent to the PJ until after Mr Amaral was taken off the case.   Seems I am not on my own with these thoughts.

be a helluva surprise if you were but no one has ever given a satisfactory reason or theory as to why this is significant in any way or that they were even 'held back' at all.

Lioned wrote:Just a little reminder re cover ups !

Blackmail.....

kitti wrote:

Lioned wrote:Just a little reminder re cover ups !

Blackmail.....

no doubt this does happen.

When Scotland Yard started the review for all we know Gaspars could have contacted SY about the statements they made so if LP had destroyed the statements and pretended they didn't exist they would then be in trouble if Gaspars went to SY about their statements.

imo it is clear the statements were held back as part of the very obvious coverup.

cherry1 wrote:When Scotland Yard started the review for all we know Gaspars could have contacted SY about the statements they made so if LP had destroyed the statements and pretended they didn't exist they would then be in trouble if Gaspars went to SY about their statements.

imo it is clear the statements were held back as part of the very obvious coverup.

a 'very obvious coverup'.

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:When the mind is shocked at what it has heard, the mind doubts what it has heard and so questions if they really heard it, that is no doubt why she didn't report it at the time but the Gaspar statements do not stand alone, there is a lot of other information along these lines also. The important fact is when Madeleine went missing she reported it and it seems it was held back by Leicester Police.

and your point is? what lot of other lot of other information along those lines are you talking about?

Yvonne Martin statement, D.Payne penchant for bathing other peoples children (Amaral has said a number of comments in relation to this), Mccanns immediately going on about paedophile could have taken Madeleine, (when she could have wandered off), there was a reason why they had to mention paedophile) Kate's disturbed comments on page 129, one of the lawyers they used I believe was the same Company who acted for the BBC guy, cant remember his name, who was charged with viewing child abuse images, Ray Wyre coming forward declaring they were 100% innocent (how would he know that) Wyre connected to Elm Guest House where children were abused, Missing People links - Branson's name has been reported as being in Epstein (paedophile) contact book, Branson also supported them openly when Madeleine went missing (just to make clear not stating Branson is one but just stating his contact details were in a paedophile's book), Prince Andrew speaking out - Andrew best mates with Epstein paedophile, I don't remember Andrew speaking out when other children go missing, also Charles speaking out, again don't remember him speaking out when other children go missing, Charles connected to Jimmy Savile, Cowell one of their big backers and does a lot of work for MP (again not stating he is one) just stating he is connected to Max Clifford and paid bail money for paedophile Jonathan King, allegation has been made against him by child abuse survivor and campaigner Bill Maloney. Cliff Richard connected to MP (again not stating he is one) just that he is apparently connected to Elm Guest House where children were abused and has other allegation against him. If you research some of the other prominent people involved with MP you will find very interesting information. Similarly if you research some of their other backers - again very interesting information. The pictures which have been released of Madeleine, one of which even Mark Williams Thomas questioned the appropriateness of releasing it, I believe some of the others in the case like Murat and Malinka also had allegations against them in relation to their computers, Gamble involvement supporting them, Gamble - Op Ore, Blair and Brown involvement - Op Ore - D notice put on Op Ore to protect certain people, Gamble using Madeleine disappearance to highlight danger of paedophiles, trying to set up a patsy paedophile Raymond Hewlett, that is the factual stuff, and as we know there are other rumours. the involvement of the security services from early on, security services nine times out of ten get involved when they are covering up paedophilia of prominent people, VIPs, etc. Remember there was someone else out there which the Mccanns know about - remember also the nephew of Margaret Hodge who was out there. Again there is another connection due to Hodge involvement in coverup of abuse in Islington, also connected to Blair. Brown doesn't get involved in other cases of missing children, it doesn't take rocket science to see this is a case where someone or some people need to be protected at all costs - hence we have seen some of those involved will stop at nothing, the harassment, threats, intimidation of those who doubt the story and obviously the death of Brenda Leyland R.I.P.

cherry1 wrote:

Marky wrote:

cherry1 wrote:When the mind is shocked at what it has heard, the mind doubts what it has heard and so questions if they really heard it, that is no doubt why she didn't report it at the time but the Gaspar statements do not stand alone, there is a lot of other information along these lines also. The important fact is when Madeleine went missing she reported it and it seems it was held back by Leicester Police.

and your point is? what lot of other lot of other information along those lines are you talking about?

Yvonne Martin statement, D.Payne penchant for bathing other peoples children (Amaral has said a number of comments in relation to this), Mccanns immediately going on about paedophile could have taken Madeleine, (when she could have wandered off), there was a reason why they had to mention paedophile) Kate's disturbed comments on page 129, one of the lawyers they used I believe was the same Company who acted for the BBC guy, cant remember his name, who was charged with viewing child abuse images,  Ray Wyre coming forward declaring they were 100% innocent (how would he know that) Wyre connected to Elm Guest House where children were abused, Missing People links - Branson's name has been reported as being in Epstein (paedophile) contact book, Branson also supported them openly when Madeleine went missing (just to make clear not stating Branson is one but just stating his contact details were in a paedophile's book), Prince Andrew speaking out - Andrew best mates with Epstein paedophile, I don't remember Andrew speaking out when other children go missing, also Charles speaking out, again don't remember him speaking out when other children go missing, Charles connected to Jimmy Savile, Cowell one of their big backers and does a lot of work for MP (again not stating he is one) just stating he is connected to Max Clifford and paid bail money for paedophile Jonathan King, allegation has been made against him by child abuse survivor and campaigner Bill Maloney. Cliff Richard connected to MP (again not stating he is one) just that he is apparently connected to Elm Guest House where children were abused and has other allegation against him. If you research some of the other prominent people involved with MP you will find very interesting information. Similarly if you research some of their other backers - again very interesting information. The pictures which have been released of Madeleine, one of which even Mark Williams Thomas questioned the appropriateness of releasing it, I believe some of the others in the case like Murat and Malinka also had allegations against them in relation to their computers, Gamble involvement supporting them, Gamble - Op Ore, Blair and Brown involvement - Op Ore - D notice put on Op Ore to protect certain people, Gamble using Madeleine disappearance to highlight danger of paedophiles, trying to set up a patsy paedophile Raymond Hewlett, that is the factual stuff, and as we know there are other rumours. the involvement of the security services from early on, security services nine times out of ten get involved when they are covering up paedophilia of prominent people, VIPs, etc. Remember there was someone else out there which the Mccanns know about - remember also the nephew of Margaret Hodge who was out there. Again there is another connection due to Hodge involvement in coverup of abuse in Islington, also connected to Blair.  Brown doesn't get involved in other cases of missing children, it doesn't take rocket science to see this is a case where someone or some people need to be protected at all costs - hence we have seen some of those involved will stop at nothing, the harassment, threats, intimidation of those who doubt the story and obviously the death of Brenda Leyland R.I.P.

yvonne martin's contribution was investigated and dismissed by the portuguese, so you're not really off to a good start, are you? as for the rest...

Perhaps it was dismissed as being irrelevant to the investigation, rather than dismissed as having no substance.

jassi wrote:Perhaps it was dismissed as being irrelevant to the investigation, rather than dismissed as having no substance.

Subject: The evidence of Yvonne Warren Martin – 14 November 2007

To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, Paolo Rebelo
From: Paolo Ferreira, Inspector

In the annex, prepared by Inspector José Monteira on 12 June 2007, there are details of two interviews with Yvonne Warren Martin. They relate in detail her intervention with the McCann couple, after having heard about Madeleine’s disappearance.

She adds that, on one occasion, because it had occurred to her that the parents and the friends could turn out to be involved in Madeleine’s disappearance, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police.

The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could justify further enquiries being made.

With nothing further to add.
Signed: Inspector Ferreira

kinda reads like 'no substance' to my eyes.

Marky wrote:

jassi wrote:Perhaps it was dismissed as being irrelevant to the investigation, rather than dismissed as having no substance.

Subject: The evidence of Yvonne Warren Martin – 14 November 2007

To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, Paolo Rebelo
From: Paolo Ferreira, Inspector

In the annex, prepared by Inspector José Monteira on 12 June 2007, there are details of two interviews with Yvonne Warren Martin. They relate in detail her intervention with the McCann couple, after having heard about Madeleine’s disappearance.

She adds that, on one occasion, because it had occurred to her that the parents and the friends could turn out to be involved in Madeleine’s disappearance, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police.

The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could justify further enquiries being made.

With nothing further to add.
Signed: Inspector Ferreira

kinda reads like 'no substance' to my eyes.

Sorry, I was referring to the Gaspar statement, not Martin's

jassi wrote:

Marky wrote:

jassi wrote:Perhaps it was dismissed as being irrelevant to the investigation, rather than dismissed as having no substance.

Subject: The evidence of Yvonne Warren Martin – 14 November 2007

To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, Paolo Rebelo
From: Paolo Ferreira, Inspector

In the annex, prepared by Inspector José Monteira on 12 June 2007, there are details of two interviews with Yvonne Warren Martin. They relate in detail her intervention with the McCann couple, after having heard about Madeleine’s disappearance.

She adds that, on one occasion, because it had occurred to her that the parents and the friends could turn out to be involved in Madeleine’s disappearance, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police.

The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could justify further enquiries being made.

With nothing further to add.
Signed: Inspector Ferreira

kinda reads like 'no substance' to my eyes.

Sorry, I was referring to the Gaspar statement, not Martin's

in which case it's quite possible both no substance therefore irrelevant apply.

To your eyes, maybe. Not to mine. It says nothing of the sort. This is when Rebelo was brought in to 'tidy up' the files and ultimately, as our hope dissipated, to shelve the case.

The note says her 'concrete reasons' didn't point to a concrete element leading to further investigation. If this case is ever investigated properly without outside interventions (or other Police organisations slowly holding things up/not finding information in computer searches (eg bank info) etc) then Yvonne Martin's suspicions may again become relevant. The Gaspar statements suddenly 'appeared' from a pile of paperwork eventually sent by Leicester Police to Portugal, months after they were taken. And well after Dr Amaral left the case. Forgotten, in a pile... Yeah, right.

Of course, I'm sure files have been 'cleaned' and stuff removed. Who would believe, back then, this would still be going on in 2015?? The Tories look like they are leaving it now for Labour to deal with - after all, it's 'their' baby...

PS I'm glad I've realised that 'block element' works on running dogs. It's made the posts readable again.

Christina, I don't know what you have to do to "block element".

Please tell me how to get rid of that pesky running dog!

Any sort of rapidly moving image is a nightmare for me.

Hi there NBY

I downloaded AdBlock Plus (for Chrome, in my case) a while ago, and it does a good job. For things like the running dog, I right-clicked on it and 'block element' was a choice. And lo and behold, it worked! Comes up as a broken link icon. Fab!

They were multiplying when posts were quoted, so it was too much distraction for my slow brain. In fact, it was raising my blood pressure..

Would it stop the adverts at the top of the portal and home pages here though? They can be quite funny. Appropriately now I have one for "Try two weeks of pet food free" with a picture of a spaniel!

Perhaps I'll just ignore the pesky dog.

Haha! You can allow or disable it for any page/site you want - it looks like a red US stop sign with ABP in it next to the address bar.

So you could disable it for the site but do the right-click to block the dog, if you get me! It's an easy download and quite a simple programme.

Anyway, at least I can read again so it's made me happy!