It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.

 

Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.

 

Report: Parents of missing Madeleine McCann win libel payout

page: 2
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join
share:

posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 01:24 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Theres her blood splattered on the wall And under the floor tiles.

They can't answer how it got there..

No a smear, but splattered, in 5 points.points on the wall.

Why are their statements so full of inconsistencies from day one?

"someone jemmied the window", for example.

Their stories have been invented to coincide with evidence presented, and not very well.
The Portuguese police stopped looking for suspects from day 2.

Why, because they had them already, the parents.

Why refuse to answer 47 of 48 questions that could help find your daughter alive and well, that is of course because you already know she cant be found, alive anyway.

Why are there so many lies and inconsistencies?

Did they drug he?




posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:48 AM
link   

originally posted by: andy1972
a reply to: ipsedixit

Theres her blood splattered on the wall And under the floor tiles.

They can't answer how it got there..

No a smear, but splattered, in 5 points.points on the wall.



It's a legitimate question but not decisive in my mind. It is a circumstantial fact.



Why are their statements so full of inconsistencies from day one?

"someone jemmied the window", for example.


According to the police nobody "jemmied the window". Kate McCann believed that was what had happened. If the McCanns had been "staging" a crime scene, they would have roughed up the window to make it look "jemmied". They didn't.


Their stories have been invented to coincide with evidence presented, and not very well.


Did they "massage" their story. I think so, but I'm not really sure why. I think they were most fearful of looking negligent. They could lose their jobs and their children if serious negligence were proven. Job One for them was not looking negligent, if they could help it. Madeleine was gone.


The Portuguese police stopped looking for suspects from day 2.

Why, because they had them already, the parents.


The Portuguese police waited too long to seal the crime scene, did not test the other children for drugs, and committed other errors. They did not charge the parents of all the children with negligence.


Why refuse to answer 47 of 48 questions that could help find your daughter alive and well, that is of course because you already know she cant be found, alive anyway.


On legal advice. No lawyer would allow a client to answer questions from the police beyond the bare necessities. None of their questions would assist them to find Madeleine. That is a complete red herring. How could Kate McCann help them find Madeleine. She could tell them what tapas snacks they had that night, nothing else.


Why are there so many lies and inconsistencies?


I think the number of lies and inconsistencies is exaggerated. If they exist, they concern possible negligence as far as I know, and perhaps issues connected with the Madeleine fund.


Did they drug he?


They have denied it. It's a troubling area of concern that the Portuguese police did not follow by testing the younger children, when all indications, a fact admitted by Gerry McCann himself, seemed to suggest, at the time, that they had been drugged.

I am not saying that they were not responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, but there is nothing that definitely points to them as the culprits beyond circumstantial indications. Advertising the child's coloboma, for example, is difficult to reconcile with concern for the child's well being, assuming a kidnapping. They were advised by police not to do so, but ignored that advice.

To my knowledge no children with colobomas were ever sighted by people trying to help. Several little blondes. No colobomas.

I would feel better about the case if I knew exactly how it came about that the Foreign Office in the UK issued a notice about Madeleine to the press a scant two hours after she was announced as being missing.

It took me a week and a half to get through on the 1-800 line to get the Canadian government to send me my tax forms and I was calling during business hours. How does one get a Foreign Office press release issued after 10 PM in London, from Portugal!?!

This story, including the reference to the Foreign Office, appeared on the telegraph.co.uk website at one minute after midnight on the night Madeleine's disappearance was announced by Kate McCann. That's just two hours after Madeleine was announced, by Kate McCann, to be missing.

www.telegraph.co.uk...


Three year-old feared abducted in Portugal

By staff and agencies

12:01AM BST 04 May 2007

. . .

A three-year-old British girl has gone missing while on a family holiday in Portugal, the Foreign Office said today.

Portuguese police are investigating the disappearance from a holiday complex in Praya da Luz in the western Algarve.

A Foreign Office spokesman said that he understood the girl's parents had gone to have dinner once their children were asleep last night, but returned to check on them only to find the girl had gone missing.

"They reported it straight away," he said, adding that consular assistance was being offered.


It would settle some of my unease to know how that press release came into being. The time table is very tight for this, I should think. It seems wrong.

edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:25 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

I agree about the press and the Foreign Office help, it was absolutely unprecented.

However, their unwillingness to cooperate with the police, for me, shows a level of complicity with the crime.

The statement from Sylvia Gaspar should have been looked into further aswell.

I always ask why o why are these people so important that the British government spends millions on them delegating them a special home office liasons within hours.
edit on AM4Thu20151972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 08:45 AM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

When I watched the video of Kate explaining the door, how it apparently slammed because of a "gust of wind"...is she trying to convince us that she does not understand air pressure from a open window will cause the door to slam, even if there is no wind?

Geesh, I could take a video all day long of my door slamming shut because the window is open, and there doesn't even have to be wind.

So if the door slammed shut, it is because the window was open. Now where's the evidence the window was open? The open patio door would cause the same air pressure flow. She is describing the window being open....and yet the police photos do not show the window open.

1: First lie.

She did not testify that she went to close the window It was a cold night and she didn't check the window to close it. Most parents would close the window if it were cold.

2: Second lie.

She never questioned Gerry about leaving the window open. In fact, she assumes the door was ajar because Gerry might have left it a little more open.

3: Third lie.

Doors are often left at varying degrees of open or closed depending on the air pressure from the open window or patio door. It's like this lady doesn't understand general physics.

But she claimed the door slammed shut AS SHE WAS CLOSING IT. If the window were open and there were gusts of wind, she would have felt the change in temperature from room to room. But she didn't say there was a change in temperatures.

4: Omission of facts.

All of these might mean that she was really checking on her kids...but since she mentions nothing about the temperature change, the fact she didn't check the window when the door slammed and the fact she doesn't even say how the door was opened a little more...

That one short video clip shows me that either she was a moron who didn't know to shut the window or that she is really making a story up.




edit on 4/30/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)

edit on 4/30/2015 by WarminIndy because: where's that problem causing the line?



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:19 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

In my opinion, the story of the discovery that Madeleine was missing is to some extent a fiction. To that extent, I agree with what you are saying. I believe Kate has actually told two versions of this story, that are different, if memory serves me.

I think most of what has been said by the McCanns in connection with the discovery that Madeleine was missing is meant to demonstrate that the abductor entered from the side of the apartment not visible from the tapas bar. The effort to appear diligent, as opposed to negligent, in monitoring their sleeping children has led to some very questionable statements being made by the McCanns and to a heightened suspicion, among the public, that they had something to do with, not just negligence, but with the actual disappearance of Madeleine.

A lot of time is spent by "researchers" of this case comparing statements that Kate has made with ones that Gerry has made and that both have made, with what seem to be real facts of the case.

My own approach to this case gradually evolved beyond paying so much attention to what Kate and Gerry say, which I think is often unreliable for reasons stated above, but more toward the examination of what is known with certainty about the case. There is very little known with certainty about this case.

The most peculiar thing about it is the degree of government interference, on the UK side, in the case, including the unprecedented amounts of money spent on what, one would think, would have been consigned to the cold case file long ago, normally.

One must keep in mind that there are really two "cases" ongoing, the "unofficial" negligence case and the official disappearance case.

Most of what comes out of the mouths of the McCanns is a defense in the negligence case. For them, quite properly I think, that is the most important case. Madeleine is gone. Most abducted children of her age are murdered within two to four hours of abduction. Kate and Gerry know that. They probably knew it almost immediately. Madeleine is gone. What is left? Let's not lose our other children over what will probably be seen as negligence, even though it is an anomaly in our lives as parents.

The intermingling of the "two cases" has bedeviled everything from the start and led to a lot of confusion.
edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)

edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 02:41 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy1972
a reply to: ipsedixit

I agree about the press and the Foreign Office help, it was absolutely unprecented.


And it even occurred, according to a story in the Belgian press, over the voiced reservations of British diplomats on the scene in Portugal.


However, their unwillingness to cooperate with the police, for me, shows a level of complicity with the crime.


I disagree. The refusal to participate in a police fishing expedition is something that is their right and something that their lawyer would advise. There are YouTube videos, one by a law professor and one by a policeman, explaining to people why they should never talk to the police without a lawyer present.


The statement from Sylvia Gaspar should have been looked into further aswell.


It probably was. I don't think there is anything to her suspicions. I think Payne was probably miming a question about breast feeding in the incident cited by the Gaspars.


I always ask why o why are these people so important that the British government spends millions on them delegating them a special home office liasons within hours.


It's a good question. I suspect is has something to do with the Foreign Office press release I mentioned. Someone political is covering something, but I don't know what it is.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:02 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

The first minute they left their children alone constitutes negligence.

I cannot fathom any reasonable parent doing that.

I am bothered by the blood found.

This is another scenario that I think could be investigated...as David Payne claims that Gerry asked him to go see if Kate needs help with getting the children ready for bed (????????????), why would the husband ask his friend to do that?

Either David Payne is lying about Gerry asking...or they were swingers....David and Kate were involved with each other. It just smacks as incredibly suspicious that a husband would ask his friend to go see if his wife needed help with the children.

Then Payne says that Gerry wanted to get Kate's "permission" if he could play tennis later. Why wouldn't Gerry just ask Kate himself?

So Gerry gives Payne permission to be in his apartment and have access to the children, while Kate is there. That is really weird to me.

This case gets nuttier, but then why would Gerry and David Payne be so buddy-buddy, that Payne is given access to the children even at earlier times when they vacationed elsewhere, and gave the girls baths? What father in his right mind says to his friend "I'll wash your kid and you can wash mine"?????

Gerry, David Payne and Kate have some type of three way sexual relationship going on. I don't know if Fiona is involved, but certainly she would know if there was something going on.

As nutty as this case is...the next thing we will hear is that Prince Andrew is involved.....



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:09 PM
link   
a reply to: WarminIndy

Starred for Prince Andrew!

I don't know. I realize that in the UK concerns about paedophilia are very prominent. I don't think paedophilia is involved in this case, but that is based on my reading of who the McCanns are, as people. I think if anyone tried to molest Madeleine, Gerry would have them on the deck pretty quickly. I think Kate is a more fragile, or perhaps brittle would be a better way of putting it, personality. I just don't see these people in that bag.

It, paedophilia, is the kind of subject that is very flammable fuel for rumors.

edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:11 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit


It probably was. I don't think there is anything to her suspicions. I think Payne was probably miming a question about breast feeding in the incident cited by the Gaspars.


Sucking his finger in a provocative manner and running his finger in a circle over his nipple??

Do you have children ?


edit on PM4Thu20151972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:15 PM
link   

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ipsedixit


This is another scenario that I think could be investigated...as David Payne claims that Gerry asked him to go see if Kate needs help with getting the children ready for bed (????????????), why would the husband ask his friend to do that?


Because he needs someone else to see her "alive" at that time.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:18 PM
link   
a reply to: andy1972

I don't have children of my own, but I have seen them on TV. What is your point?

"A provocative manner," according to the Gaspars. Mrs (Dr.?) Gaspar was disturbed by it. I'm sure the police looked into this but nothing came of it. As I have already said, I don't think it was sinister. It was probably about breast feeding. Breast feeding is another topic that seems to get people going for some reason.
edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:27 PM
link   
a reply to: ipsedixit

Look, those of us that have children have a certain " radar" for the strange #ers that hang around our kids, and we notice whats normal and not normal.

As a mother, this GP's radar had her "mother radar" switched on and she was alerted by the actions of Payne and McCann, even doubting what she had heard, looking at everyone else in the group to see if anyone else had heard it.

This had nothing to do with breast feeding, it has to do with poeple who drug their kids and leave them to the mercy of paedophiles.
edit on PM4Thu20151972 by andy1972 because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:30 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy1972

Because he needs someone else to see her "alive" at that time.


Would the Paynes go along with Kate and Gerry in attempting to conceal the death of their daughter? I have a hard time believing they would.

They were friends, yes, but that would be asking the Paynes to risk a serious criminal charge in a situation where they had nothing to gain except the gratitude of Kate and Gerry, and everything to lose.

This kind of speculation is based on a hypothetical, unseen 9/10ths of an iceberg of unsavory activities for which there is no evidence whatsoever.
edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:32 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit

originally posted by: andy1972

Because he needs someone else to see her "alive" at that time.


Would the Paynes go along with Kate and Gerry in attempting to conceal the death of their daughter? I have a hard time believing they would..


Yes, the very fact that their statements don't coincide prove that.

And in any group of peadophiles or murders theres always a head that controls the body.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:34 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy1972

originally posted by: WarminIndy
a reply to: ipsedixit


This is another scenario that I think could be investigated...as David Payne claims that Gerry asked him to go see if Kate needs help with getting the children ready for bed (????????????), why would the husband ask his friend to do that?


Because he needs someone else to see her "alive" at that time.


As I said, just gets nuttier every time I read about it.

Think of the case of Caylee Anthony here in Florida. That case also had a lot of twists and turns that has some parallels with Madeleine McCann. Well, maybe one or two.

Perhaps the memory of Caylee and the trial is so close in our minds, because it wasn't long ago they had the trial that we are having difficulty seeing clearly about the facts in the case. But thinking of Madeleine and Caylee, they were relatively the same age and had negligent parents.

I think Madeleine is dead. I feel sorry that I think that, but it does not appear to me that she was stranger abducted, she was taken by someone close to the McCanns and David Payne seems to be their closest friend.

Unless one of them breaks down, the truth is going to remain hidden.

I'm currently looking up things about David Payne, I will let you know what I find interesting.

ETA: David Anthony Payne, GP, doctor of urology is a member of the Leicester Secular Society. He hosted a wine tasting there in 2007.

You want to follow the money? Start there...


edit on 4/30/2015 by WarminIndy because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:35 PM
link   

originally posted by: andy1972
a reply to: ipsedixit

Look, those of us that have children have a certain " radar" for the strange #ers that hang around our kids, and we notice whats normal and not normal.


Parents are protective and usually suspicious of strangers. I grant that gladly.


As a mother, this GP's radar had her "mother radar" switched on and she was alerted by the actions of Payne and McCann, even doubting what she had heard, looking at everyone else in the group to see if anyone else had heard it.


She was disturbed by it.


This had nothing to do with breast feeding, it has to do with poeple who drug their kids and leave them to the mercy of paedophiles.


. . . and betray their secret depravities in casual company by making clumsily "provocative" gestures to others in the group who are in the know.

I'm sorry. I just don't think so.

The "tapas 7", the friends of the McCanns stuck together, but I think that was related to the possibility that some kind of negligence charge could be brought against them. The Paynes actually had a remote radio baby monitor at their table in the tapas bar, so they would have had the least to fear on the negligence issue and would be the least likely to help the McCanns in a criminal conspiracy, in my opinion.
edit on 30-4-2015 by ipsedixit because: (no reason given)



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:50 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit


. . . and betray their secret depravities in casual company by making clumsily "provocative" gestures to others in the group who are in the know.

I'm sorry. I just don't think so.


Well, sorry, but I think yes. These poeple were, are, so blatantly obvious, so blatantly open about what they do that they think everyone else isn't looking. They think they live in a world of their own.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 04:59 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit

originally posted by: andy1972
a reply to: ipsedixit

Look, those of us that have children have a certain " radar" for the strange #ers that hang around our kids, and we notice whats normal and not normal.


Parents are protective and usually suspicious of strangers. I grant that gladly.


As a mother, this GP's radar had her "mother radar" switched on and she was alerted by the actions of Payne and McCann, even doubting what she had heard, looking at everyone else in the group to see if anyone else had heard it.


She was disturbed by it.


This had nothing to do with breast feeding, it has to do with poeple who drug their kids and leave them to the mercy of paedophiles.


. . . and betray their secret depravities in casual company by making clumsily "provocative" gestures to others in the group who are in the know.

I'm sorry. I just don't think so.

The "tapas 7", the friends of the McCanns stuck together, but I think that was related to the possibility that some kind of negligence charge could be brought against them. The Paynes actually had a remote radio baby monitor at their table in the tapas bar, so they would have had the least to fear on the negligence issue and would be the least likely to help the McCanns in a criminal conspiracy, in my opinion.


I think the poster didn't mean strangers. she meant strange ......#ers, the word that can't be used on ATS.

David Payne and Gerry are both strange....to me. And I don't even have kids. But yes, there didn't seem to be any boundaries when it came to these men.

And that's on my radar that picks up strangeness.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 05:01 PM
link   
a reply to: andy1972

I don't think so in this case, but I agree that some people are like that.

These people are ordinary doctors, who lead ordinary doctor lives. They are well educated and work hard. They are not fabulously wealthy oligarchs of the NWO type, who don't care who knows they are plotting an invasion.

David Payne is actually a research fellow at a teaching hospital, I believe. He is a very smart doctor. I don't think he is involved in paedophilia and I don't think he would be dumb enough to make needlessly provocative gestures.



posted on Apr, 30 2015 @ 05:03 PM
link   

originally posted by: ipsedixit
a reply to: andy1972

I don't think so in this case, but I agree that some people are like that.

These people are ordinary doctors, who lead ordinary doctor lives. They are well educated and work hard. They are not fabulously wealthy oligarchs of the NWO type, who don't care who knows they are plotting an invasion.

David Payne is actually a research fellow at a teaching hospital, I believe. He is a very smart doctor. I don't think he is involved in paedophilia and I don't think he would be dumb enough to make needlessly provocative gestures.


Yes, and Jimmy Savile was also a national hero....along with others such as Cyril Smith.




top topics



 
8
<< 1    3 >>

log in

join