Licence To Troll - Blacksmith Bureau

Do you think that any of the points that I made are relevant, Marky?

Maybe I am a paranoid old bat (not so much of the old, thank you) and I'll be happy to discount them as being suspicious if other people attach no importance to them.

Screaming from the rooftops that a paedophile had taken your daughter - when in all likelihood she had simply wandered off - also raises the alarm with me.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Do you think that any of the points that I made are relevant, Marky?

Maybe I am a paranoid old bat (not so much of the old, thank you) and I'll be happy to discount them as being suspicious if other people attach no importance to them.

Screaming from the rooftops that a paedophile had taken your daughter - when in all likelihood she had simply wandered off - also raises the alarm with me.  

Now there I do agree with you. The possibility of paedophile rings was raised far too early given the circumstances.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Do you think that any of the points that I made are relevant, Marky?

Maybe I am a paranoid old bat (not so much of the old, thank you) and I'll be happy to discount them as being suspicious if other people attach no importance to them.

Screaming from the rooftops that a paedophile had taken your daughter - when in all likelihood she had simply wandered off - also raises the alarm with me.  

Well mrs bat, can't remember which comment you refer to but on the subject of the photographs, you'll probably find that's not unusual these days, after all, how many stores have had to remove certain clothing deemed inappropriate for young children but some will have bought them. as for the word tuppence, while she might be aware of its alternative meaning, i don't really think you can read anything into it. the last line of your post above is certainly an eyebrow raiser. it begs the question "now why would they say that?" it might be worth considering that given that peadophilie is a very emotive word, guaranteed to make headlines, it was a good choice when trying to get people to look the other way.

Marky wrote:

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Do you think that any of the points that I made are relevant, Marky?

Maybe I am a paranoid old bat (not so much of the old, thank you) and I'll be happy to discount them as being suspicious if other people attach no importance to them.

Screaming from the rooftops that a paedophile had taken your daughter - when in all likelihood she had simply wandered off - also raises the alarm with me.  

Well mrs bat, can't remember which comment you refer to but on the subject of the photographs, you'll probably find that's not unusual these days, after all, how many stores have had to remove certain clothing deemed inappropriate for young children but some will have bought them. as for the word tuppence, while she might be aware of its alternative meaning, i don't really think you can read anything into it. the last line of your post above is certainly an eyebrow raiser. it begs the question "now why would they say that?"  it might be worth considering that given that peadophilie is a very emotive word, guaranteed to make headlines, it was a good choice when trying to get people to look the other way.

Yes, very much so.

It's not so much the clothing in some photos that I think is inappropriate but the make-up and poses. The worst ones are on the weird 2010 anniversary video from approx 1.00 to 1.25 with the camera panning over them as if they were glamour model shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdtWmTWZEU

I still think the McCanns are playing sick jokes on us.

The McCanns have been trying to "get people to look the other way" since day one, any other way except where the focus should be..on them.
Trying that is, but you can't fool all the people all of the time or even some of the time.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:It's not so much the clothing in some photos that I think is inappropriate but the make-up and poses. The worst ones are on the weird 2010 anniversary video from approx 1.00 to 1.25 with the camera panning over them as if they were glamour model shots.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=epdtWmTWZEU

I still think the McCanns are playing sick jokes on us.

true about the clothing but some parents have strange ideas on what is appropriate these days. fair to say that some of us are not comfortable with these ideas.

http://twitter.com/mwilliamsthomas



By Mark Williams-Thomas
2nd May 2010 (posted between 09:00 - 10:00 AM)

* On the eve of Madeleine's disappearance I agree with the release of a new photo but question the appropriateness of the photo chosen

* Have not yet seen the new Madeleine video but the photograph is so inappropriate & damaging on so many levels-ill advised again

* Am trying to find out now who gave advise to use the make up photo- so damaging- as I know what it will become

* Re Madeleine image i have had no response so will be speaking to someone else this afternoon- will update as soon as i know

* However the new make up image of Madeleine which is highly inappropriate would not have been published without Gerry & Kate agreeing to it

* Cannot see any reason how the 2 new images of Madeleine can be justified-given the scale of sexual exploitation of children & child erotica

Not Born Yesterday wrote:My thoughts on the Gaspar statements for what they're worth.

If there were no other oddities about this case, I wouldn't give them much value. Speaking generally, would two people with a shared interest in something unspeakable really discuss it in front of someone who was not of a similar persuasion.

They would need to be quite sure that any listeners were like-minded.

indeed but if there is any value in mrs gaspar's statement then why did she wait the better part of two years to say anything about it? wasn't she concerned about the welfare of all the children concerned?

apparently not.

Don't faint, Marky, but that is actually something that I find curious too.

However, even if the statement was dismissed as completely unreliable, there would still be all the other problems and discrepancies surrounding the case to find, as Clarence would say, an innocent explanation for.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Don't faint, Marky, but that is actually something that I find curious too.

However, even if the statement was dismissed as completely unreliable, there would still be all the other problems and discrepancies surrounding the case to find, as Clarence would say, an innocent explanation for.

another thing to be considered is that the police may well have followed this up with the two concerned and satisfied with the explanation given, considered there was no further action necessary. that there appears to be nothing to support this, doesn't follow that there isn't.

now, before any conspiracy cover up specialists start getting excited answer me this. if there is a conspiracy cover up and in some way the gaspar statements are significant, why were they forwarded to the portuguese police or more importantly...

...why were they not destroyed.

Marky..what are you taking/drinking...you are actually talking some sense

Angelina wrote:Marky..what are you taking/drinking...you are actually talking some sense

well, it's 5 o'clock somewhere.

My views on Gaspars in relation to would people talk this way in front of others, I would say yes, testing the waters. speaking in general terms which may or may not be applicable in this particular case, how do people recruit others into a ring for example, they test the waters. If someone is not of the same persuasion they rely on those people being shocked thinking to themselves, did I really just hear that, they look around and see nobody else in the group saying anything or reacting in horror, which if the others in the group are of the same persuasion they wouldn't react in horror.  Therefore they start to doubt what they actually heard and saw, and that is most probably why nothing was said by them. However once the news of Madeleine missing becomes known their minds are taken back to that incident, and Mrs. Gaspar must then have thought well yes maybe she was right in what she heard therefore has the confidence to come forward.

As regards why were the statements sent at a later date to the Portuguese Police, it is because it looks like some copper decided to make sure the Portuguese got them, he must have realised that orders may have been given to keep the statements quiet - probably played on his conscience and decided it wasn't right and didn't agree with a potential cover up and the statements being withheld so he slipped them between some papers I believe over to the Portuguese.

A very good post cherry1, spot on.

Thank you Fuzeta x

cherry1 wrote:My views on Gaspars in relation to would people talk this way in front of others, I would say yes, testing the waters. speaking in general terms which may or may not be applicable in this particular case, how do people recruit others into a ring for example, they test the waters. If someone is not of the same persuasion they rely on those people being shocked thinking to themselves, did I really just hear that, they look around and see nobody else in the group saying anything or reacting in horror, which if the others in the group are of the same persuasion they wouldn't react in horror.  Therefore they start to doubt what they actually heard and saw, and that is most probably why nothing was said by them. However once the news of Madeleine missing becomes known their minds are taken back to that incident, and Mrs. Gaspar must then have thought well yes maybe she was right in what she heard therefore has the confidence to come forward.

As regards why were the statements sent at a later date to the Portuguese Police, it is because it looks like some copper decided to make sure the Portuguese got them, he must have realised that orders may have been given to keep the statements quiet - probably played on his conscience and decided it wasn't right and didn't agree with a potential cover up and the statements being withheld so he slipped them between some papers I believe over to the Portuguese.

I have to wonder whether they would actually test the waters in front of a mother of a young child...maybe, maybe not. Possibly more likely they would search out one of the nasty websites that exist for just that purpose.

As to the statement, maybe it was just a case of our Police thoroughly checking out the allegations fully before handing the papers over or, then again, maybe you are correct in your suspicions.

We don't know and probably never will.

Hopefully all will become clear at some time in the future

cherry1 wrote:Hopefully all will become clear at some time in the future

I'd like to think so but probably best not to hold our breath!

cherry1 wrote:My views on Gaspars in relation to would people talk this way in front of others, I would say yes, testing the waters. speaking in general terms which may or may not be applicable in this particular case, how do people recruit others into a ring for example, they test the waters. If someone is not of the same persuasion they rely on those people being shocked thinking to themselves, did I really just hear that, they look around and see nobody else in the group saying anything or reacting in horror, which if the others in the group are of the same persuasion they wouldn't react in horror.  Therefore they start to doubt what they actually heard and saw, and that is most probably why nothing was said by them. However once the news of Madeleine missing becomes known their minds are taken back to that incident, and Mrs. Gaspar must then have thought well yes maybe she was right in what she heard therefore has the confidence to come forward.

As regards why were the statements sent at a later date to the Portuguese Police, it is because it looks like some copper decided to make sure the Portuguese got them, he must have realised that orders may have been given to keep the statements quiet - probably played on his conscience and decided it wasn't right and didn't agree with a potential cover up and the statements being withheld so he slipped them between some papers I believe over to the Portuguese.

sorry cherry, that's just way too convenient.

or to put it another way way, if this was a cover up the copper with the conscience wouldn't have been anywhere in the building, let alone anywhere near the file. can't have it both ways.

Well the Gasper woman knows what she heard and would certainly be considered a credible witness in normal circumstances.
As for the timing i cant remember exactly but there was definitely a defining moment in this case when word was put around that there was no desire to see the mccanns prosecuted,for whatever reason.

From what I can remember the PJ knew about the Gasper statements and had been requesting them for a long time.
Eventually Leicester police had no option but to send them. My memory may be wrong but I do have a good one usually.

Lioned wrote:Well the Gasper woman knows what she heard and would certainly be considered a credible witness in normal circumstances.

disagree. did doodley squit for two years and then was not definitive. credible? nah.

fuzeta wrote:From what I can remember the PJ knew about the Gasper statements and had been requesting them for a long time.
Eventually Leicester police had no option but to send them.  My memory may be wrong but I do have a good one usually.

I have always thought it very brave of Dr Katherine Gaspar... to make that very serious statement. Also, thought it very strange that none of the party involved have ever spoken about it.

I can tell you, if there was ever a whiff of anyone suggesting such a thing about my family or good friend I would not let it rest. I don't think most people would.