Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Options
18586889091135

Comments

  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    Kess73 wrote: »

    Next possible scenario is that an abductor came in through the unlocked door, grabbed the child, and left through the unlocked door. Now that sounds plausible enough to me, but the McCanns have strongly opposed this suggestion.

    the reason that the McCanns dismiss the theory that abductor left via the front door is because of the Tanner 'sighting' upon which their whole theory hangs.

    If the McCanns are to believed then the abduction occured during Gerry's roadside chat with Jeremy Wilkins, so if the abductor had left via the front door not only would they would have seen him, but Jane Tanner would not have seen him because if he was where she claims then he must have left via the window.

    The only thing that in any way backs-up the abduction scenario is Tanner's sighting. Without it there is, literally, nothing.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Who would be less likely to leave evidence behind them.....a scheming, predatory child kidnapper who may have done it before or parents and a group of their friends (with no criminal record or no history of child neglect) who suddenly found themselves with a dead child on their hands?

    the only conclusive evidence is that they were irresponsible. Which isn't a hanging offence yet or the gallowsmen/women would be very busy.

    so you accept there is no evidence of an abduction? Well, that' a start...

    Just to remind you, this is the current McCann version of events...

    1) 2030ish Kate and Gerry leave 5A and go to the Tapas bar

    2) At some time between 2030 and 2105 abductor using the patio door enters 5A and sedates all three children (or possibly, somehow sedated them earlier in the day - or perhaps even the night before). He does this in the dark.

    3) 2105 Gerry checks on children - abductor hides within the apartment and Gerry does not see him.

    4) 2115ish Gerry leaves 5A using the patio door - meets Jeremy Wilkins near the bottom of the stairs that lead down from the patio - chats with JW for a few minutes.

    5) Abductor leaves 5A with Maddie using window and without leaving a trace of DNA anywhere in the apartment or even a footprint on the bed that he would have to had climbed over to get out of the window. (and without disturbing the lichen on the window sill, obviously)

    6) 2120 Jane Tanner walks up the street - sees GM and JW chatting (they don't see her) - carries on up the street and sees man carrying child in a direction away from the apartment building which she later believes to be Maddie.

    7) 2130 Matthew Oldfield does his check but fails to check the McCann children properly and does not see that Maddie has gone.

    8) 2200 Kate goes to 5A to check - enters through unlocked patio door - find Maddie gone with bedroom window open and shutters up.

    (Leaving aside the first statement from Gerry where the apartment was locked and the tale told to the family that the shutters were "jemmied")

    and btw - unless I've missed reports of others toddlers being stolen from inside a building in Portugal I'm pretty sure there is no record of this highly skilled ninja-abductor striking before or since


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    so you accept there is no evidence of an abduction? Well, that' a start...

    I accept that EVERYBODY is speculating.
    The potential is there for the McCann's to be wrong as well, that does not mean they are guilty.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Silver Moon it is mentioned that there have been several reports of peadophiles entering British tourists' flats at night, and abusing their children in their beds without the parents knowing. Because these happened in holiday resorts and the culprit had been and gone, they were not made public, and Kate McCann who quotes the letter from one of these children's Mum, explains that they will not and cannot talk about these cases because of course the children are alive and already have to deal with their experience. One of the culprits was caught and went to trial, only to be released some time later (meaning this man was free, in Portugal).


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    so unlike in the McCann case he
    a) didn't abduct them and
    b) left some kind of evidence

    so, not the same then.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Well the evidence I take it was the testimony of the children, and more than likely evidence on their body.

    My point was that breaking into a flat at night (when the parents were asleep next door !) has occured before in the area, and at least one of the perpetrators is free (more than likely more than one around).
    It is possible that one such event turned into an abduction, premeditated or not.

    What has been done or said by the McCanns is very well documented, as well as a selection of adequate (albeit often very much delayed) measures undertaken by the Portugese police force.

    Kate McC on the other hand points at how inadequate the investigation into peadophiles in the area was, and far from enough considering the above events.


  • Registered Users Posts: 5,673 ✭✭✭AudreyHepburn


    Kess73 wrote: »
    Hotel records say nobody was ever found dead in that apartment from when the hotel first opened.

    Hospital records had nothing to suggest anyone ever came to a hospital dead or injured/ill from that apartment.

    Police records showed no death, accidental or otherwise, had ever been recorded for that apartment or the rooms nearby.


    So it would require all three sources to be wrong/lying for the McCann's suggestion of there having been a death there before they got there on the holiday.


    Now that still does not mean the McCanns did something, but it does strongly suggest that there was never a dead body in that room at any time in the past.

    Plus the cadaver dog was used on the apartments nearby and none of those apartments triggered a response.

    Fair enough. But I ask again was the DNA/blood proven to be Madeleine's?

    Also would a dead body leave a detectable scent if the person had only just died? I thought it would take some time for the body to begin to give off an odour.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 1,800 ✭✭✭Aishae


    Fair enough. But I ask again was the DNA/blood proven to be Madeleine's?

    Also would a dead body leave a detectable scent if the person had only just died? I thought it would take some time for the body to begin to give off an odour.

    15 allelles or however that is spelt (of the DNA) match madeleines which is a strong indication for forensic purposes that the dna was madeleines. not conclusive. but just another fact that doesnt seem to give any concrete answers.

    as for the scent. an hour and a half after death.
    which is not impossible if for example the children were not being checked on between the time they left to join the others and the time the alarm was raised. perhaps as has been speculated, madeleine fell off the back of the sofa - trying to see out the window to see where her parents went - and hit her head and died instantly. the scent would be there by the time the alarm is raised. the timing fits.

    however - its just more speculation


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    so you accept there is no evidence of an abduction? Well, that' a start...

    Just to remind you, this is the current McCann version of events...

    1) 2030ish Kate and Gerry leave 5A and go to the Tapas bar

    2) At some time between 2030 and 2105 abductor using the patio door enters 5A and sedates all three children (or possibly, somehow sedated them earlier in the day - or perhaps even the night before). He does this in the dark.

    3) 2105 Gerry checks on children - abductor hides within the apartment and Gerry does not see him.

    4) 2115ish Gerry leaves 5A using the patio door - meets Jeremy Wilkins near the bottom of the stairs that lead down from the patio - chats with JW for a few minutes.

    5) Abductor leaves 5A with Maddie using window and without leaving a trace of DNA anywhere in the apartment or even a footprint on the bed that he would have to had climbed over to get out of the window. (and without disturbing the lichen on the window sill, obviously)

    6) 2120 Jane Tanner walks up the street - sees GM and JW chatting (they don't see her) - carries on up the street and sees man carrying child in a direction away from the apartment building which she later believes to be Maddie.

    7) 2130 Matthew Oldfield does his check but fails to check the McCann children properly and does not see that Maddie has gone.

    8) 2200 Kate goes to 5A to check - enters through unlocked patio door - find Maddie gone with bedroom window open and shutters up.

    (Leaving aside the first statement from Gerry where the apartment was locked and the tale told to the family that the shutters were "jemmied")

    and btw - unless I've missed reports of others toddlers being stolen from inside a building in Portugal I'm pretty sure there is no record of this highly skilled ninja-abductor striking before or since

    The above would make an Excellent Sketch for something like Little Britain:eek: It's just so very Sad that a Child is caught up in all of this.

    I'm sure that everyone on this Thread is interested in what Happened to this Child! It doesn't matter who is better with Word's or whom Believes The abduction Theory or Doesn't....The Fact is a Child is still Missing & We can Lay Blame anywhere we think it deserves to go...It doesn't however alter anything but that this Child is still missing!

    As for the Remarks regarding Armchair Detectives...Doesn't that fall at all our feet?. Please correct me if i'm wrong we are all Discussing the samething are we not?!

    Going back to this Fridge I can't believe if True how the MCS we're ever allowed to Leave Portugal. I just can't imagine SY doing the samething! Did the PJ know about this Fridge? I can't see that they did & you can't just dump a Fridge anywhere without it being Seen by someone & especially in a Holiday Resort! It's hardly something you can Put up your T shirt & not be seen!
    Also wasn't there mention that Maddie fell Climbing the Stair's onto the Flight to Portugal? Could this have been what the Dog's picked up in Blood?!


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    Aishae wrote: »
    15 allelles or however that is spelt (of the DNA) match madeleines which is a strong indication for forensic purposes that the dna was madeleines. not conclusive. but just another fact that doesnt seem to give any concrete answers.

    as for the scent. an hour and a half after death.
    which is not impossible if for example the children were not being checked on between the time they left to join the others and the time the alarm was raised. perhaps as has been speculated, madeleine fell off the back of the sofa - trying to see out the window to see where her parents went - and hit her head and died instantly. the scent would be there by the time the alarm is raised. the timing fits.

    however - its just more speculation

    The Allelles? Sorry i'm clueless, How many does it have to be before it becomes a Match for DNA?!


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Wouldn't it be quite possible that a member or several members of the forensic teams and their equipment would have enough of a cadaver smell...it's just too tenuous to hang a case on when the dogs where picking up a general scent. A defence barrister would rubbish it in seconds.


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    Something else bothering me , Don't we all leave DNA behind wherever we go? Like in Dead Skin Cell's etc?
    If we do then why wasn't there any Conclusive DNA found of Maddie ever being in that Apartment? Surely it would be full of DNA from all Family & Friends. Or am I wrong?.!


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Something else bothering me , Don't we all leave DNA behind wherever we go? Like in Dead Skin Cell's etc?
    If we do then why wasn't there any Conclusive DNA found of Maddie ever being in that Apartment? Surely it would be full of DNA from all Family & Friends. Or am I wrong?.!



    There was never any question of Madeline not being in the apartment during the holiday, and I am pretty sure there was never a problem regarding DNA in the apartment.

    The DNA found was in the car, and although it was a very close match to that of Madeline, it was not a fresh sample and had deteriorated a bit by the time it was found.

    The police think it belonged to Madeline but the evidence found is nowhere near enough to be conclusive on that, and as such there has to be an element of doubt involved as to whether it is her blood.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    If I remember right the book says there were 30 something DNA "markers" identified. These are inherited from both parents. These can be common to other people too (like, I suppose, the blond hair gene, the size gene, ...). So out of these 30 + markers, yes, Madeleine's markers were present (I think 19 markers was the number given in book).

    But because she inherited her DNA from father mother, just like the twins, the 30 something markers found could have been anyone's in her family, and some of the markers were also markers that the scientists analysing the samples might have (not that they'd have contaminated the samples, just to say, they could have had same).

    That's why the DNA evidence is inconclusive. There is nothing to say that the DNA found is not just Kate's and Gerry's. Or the twins. Or Madeleine's.

    As regards the dogs, I think part of the reason why dog's reactions are not systematically accepted, is also that it has been shown that handlers' expectations affected their results. Again that's mentioned somewhere in the book.

    I apologize about my Armchair Detectives remark, I do get sucked in myself, but I have to say, I try to fight it. :)

    Because the bottom line is that we just don't know anything really, nothing that we are told is reliable, not even the files published online, which can have easily been edited, which also have been translated from Portugese to English, or in some cases (British statements) from English to Portugese, then back to English.

    Also since I have no trust in the Portugese police force being honest and playing by the rule, it doesn't seem too far fetched for me that cadaver scent may have been planted (from unknown cadaver), for example.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    Happyman42 wrote: »
    Wouldn't it be quite possible that a member or several members of the forensic teams and their equipment would have enough of a cadaver smell...it's just too tenuous to hang a case on when the dogs where picking up a general scent. A defence barrister would rubbish it in seconds.


    That theory only holds water if the spots that the dog responded to where only spots where the forensic team went.

    Plus the dog only reacted to very specific spots in the apartment, one spot outside the apartment, and of course to under the mat in the car boot.

    All the dog can respond to is the scent left where a corpse was. Plus the dog has no axe to grind or ulterior motives.

    What the dog cannot do however is indicate who that scent came from, so all it is indicating is that there was someone dead in those specific spots and that the scent was of a level to be detected, meaning it could only be from a set timeframe.


    It also pours water on the claim that someone else may have died in that apartment (despite the hotel records, hospital records and police records saying nobody ever did) as it would mean that somebody not linked to the McCanns in any way would have to have died in the past in the apartment they stayed in, on the steps by their patio door, by the church they used, and also in the rental car they got.

    So maybe they were very unlucky in that they were in four spots, the only four spots, that the dog found the scent of death, and those four spots just happened to be where four different people died.

    The dog is no proof of them doing anything, but if the slight variance in the deteriorated blood sample casts some doubt on whose blood was actually in the car and offers the chance the McCanns had nothing to do with that, then the dog finding traces of cadaver scent in four spots where the McCanns were casts some doubt back onto the McCanns.


  • Registered Users Posts: 25,560 ✭✭✭✭Kess73


    the reason that the McCanns dismiss the theory that abductor left via the front door is because of the Tanner 'sighting' upon which their whole theory hangs.

    If the McCanns are to believed then the abduction occured during Gerry's roadside chat with Jeremy Wilkins, so if the abductor had left via the front door not only would they would have seen him, but Jane Tanner would not have seen him because if he was where she claims then he must have left via the window.

    The only thing that in any way backs-up the abduction scenario is Tanner's sighting. Without it there is, literally, nothing.


    And yet Tanner's statement or rather statements are the hardest ones to believe to be true given how often she changed what she saw.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 18,066 ✭✭✭✭Happyman42


    Kess73 wrote: »
    That theory only holds water if the spots that the dog responded to where only spots where the forensic team went.

    Plus the dog only reacted to very specific spots in the apartment, one spot outside the apartment, and of course to under the mat in the car boot.

    All the dog can respond to is the scent left where a corpse was. Plus the dog has no axe to grind or ulterior motives.

    What the dog cannot do however is indicate who that scent came from, so all it is indicating is that there was someone dead in those specific spots and that the scent was of a level to be detected, meaning it could only be from a set timeframe.


    It also pours water on the claim that someone else may have died in that apartment (despite the hotel records, hospital records and police records saying nobody ever did) as it would mean that somebody not linked to the McCanns in any way would have to have died in the past in the apartment they stayed in, on the steps by their patio door, by the church they used, and also in the rental car they got.

    So maybe they were very unlucky in that they were in four spots, the only four spots, that the dog found the scent of death, and those four spots just happened to be where four different people died.

    The dog is no proof of them doing anything, but if the slight variance in the deteriorated blood sample casts some doubt on whose blood was actually in the car and offers the chance the McCanns had nothing to do with that, then the dog finding traces of cadaver scent in four spots where the McCanns were casts some doubt back onto the McCanns.

    Like I say...too tenuous. The implication of that only appeals to those who assume their guilt. Useless in a court of law.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    Also since I have no trust in the Portugese police force being honest and playing by the rule, it doesn't seem too far fetched for me that cadaver scent may have been planted (from unknown cadaver), for example.

    I'm not sure that even the police have a ready supply of cadaver laying about the place. And if they planted it, how did they manage to get it in so many unusual places?

    Don't forget

    The day after Madeleine was reporting missing, a British social worker, Yvonne Martin, approached the PJ unprompted and many a very unflattering statement about the McCanns - and their friend David Payne.

    A forthnight or so after Madeleine was reported missing a British doctor, Katherina Gaspar, went to her local police station unprompted and gave a VERY unflattering statement about the McCanns - and their friend David Payne.

    A British national, Pamela Fenn who lived in the apartments above 5a gave a very unflattering statement about the behaviour of the McCanns.

    Mark Harrison, the British, National Search Adviser to the British National Policing Improvement Agency suggested to the PJ that they ought to focus their investigation on the parents. (This is a man who was rewarded with an MBE for his services to 'searching for persons that are missing, abduded or murdered' - so he's not just some armchair detective!)

    The dogs, Eddie and Keela, deployed by the PJ are British. The dog handler, Martin Grimes, is British. The results of the forensics were exmained by a British laboratory, the FSS.

    There was plenty of British involvement in this case - and if the PJ had wanted to fit anyone up then I"m sure the easier and safer target would have been Robert Murat.


  • Registered Users Posts: 6,700 ✭✭✭Mountainsandh


    Yvonne Martin is mentioned in the book. She lived nearby, and just decided to up and go quiz the McCanns. She turned up in the thick of it, that is, at a time when they were obviously distraught and not ready to talk. She asked all sorts of personal questions, and had no credentials to justify who she was and why she was there. So I too, in their position, would have told her where to go, which they probably did, explaining her later comments.

    Unflattering testimonies after the events ... well, yes, you're gonna get them.

    The British expert suggesting to the PJ that they should investigate the family was probably only pointing out the obvious, that in a lot of cases, some family member is involved. Which possibly suggests he too, thought the PJ were not doing their job properly.

    The dogs and handler being British have no bearing on how reliable dogs are, they might just as well have been American dogs with an American handler.

    As for the police procuring a sample from a cadaver, well they have to sign death certificates, so ... it's not that unusual that the police force would be in close proximity to cadavers, be it in a morgue, or in their home. It would also be an easy thing to drop or rub a drop of bodily fluid where needed, especially when the crime scene is yours to supervise.

    The parents were already being blamed in the media, murder scenarios were ripe, so why bother with Robert Murat rather than them ?


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    Yvonne Martin - statement....


    In the sequence of information transmitted to this Police force, on this date we went to the residence of Yvonne Warren Martin. The team was composed of the undersigned and his colleague Carlos Antunes, in conversation with Yvonne the following was established:

    - On May 04, 2007, at around 07H00 she heard about the disappearance of an English girl from Praia da Luz, Lagos, from Sky News or BBC.

    - Having worked for 25 years in the area of child protection, she felt obliged to offer help to her compatriots and went to Praia da Luz.

    – At around 09H00, she met the McCann couple next to the apartment from where the child had disappeared, accompanied by a third person, a male, who seemed quite familiar to her.

    - This third person of the group appeared to be an intimate (friend) of the family as he was the one who, when the media arrived, began to explain what was happening and answering questions, thereby saving the couple from this upset. Afterwards, she further confirmed his closeness to the family when she saw him taking care of the couple’s twins, also small children.

    - She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.

    - During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

    - However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her. This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

    - Meanwhile, she heard comments next to the complex reception that the British Consul was coming to the site and she decided to wait for this person in order to offer her help.

    - During this time, she saw the third individual two more times. Firstly, when he was accompanying an older woman and the McCann twins, demonstrating in this way, the trust that the couple had in him by letting him take care of their two children. On the second occasion, he accompanied what appeared to her to be plain clothed police officers.

    --YVONNE describes the third individual as follows:
    Aged about 35 years
    Of about 1,80 metres in height
    Of normal physical appearance
    Having short, dark hair
    Using graduated glasses of small dimensions with rectangular lenses
    Having a round face
    Presenting a scar above his eyebrow and on his left cheek
    - Speaking with a Southern English accent
    Wearing light trousers, cream or beige coloured, and a dark polo shirt.

    – When she was back home, following the case on English television, she saw the same individual and this time, her initial doubt faded and she concluded that she had seen the face in the course of her professional activity in child protection, not being able to discern if he was a suspect/arguido or witness

    - She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    Dr Katherina Gaspar - statement...

    I give this declaration in relation to the McCANN family who are currently in Portugal. The McCANN family is composed of Gerry McCANN, his wife, Kate McCANN and their three children, Madeleine, age 4, and Sean and Amelie, who are twins and 3 years of age.

    As is abundantly clear, Madeleine is not with her family presently, and has been missing for the last two weeks.

    I will begin by explaining that I am married to Savio Gaspar and that we have two daughters. Ellen is almost 3 and Isabella is now one year old. I have been married to Savior for 11 years. I am a general practitioner as is my husband. I met my husband when we were (page 1) working together in Exeter, around 14 years ago.

    In order to explain how we know the McCANN family, I would like to state that my husband knows Kate as both attended Dundee University between 1987 and 1992. At that time, she was Kate HEALY. I met Kate and Gerry at their wedding, in 1998, in Liverpool. Both Savio and I went to the wedding. As Savio was Kate’s friend, we were invited to the event.

    From what I know, Savio did not know Gerry before the wedding. After this time, we became friends and about three times we spent weekend vacations together. I would say that we are intimate friends of Gerry and Kate.

    I remember that in 2002 or 2003, Savio and I spent the weekend with Gerry and Kate in Devon. We maintained contact with one another via telephone.

    In 2002/2003 Savio and I lived Birmingham and the McCANNS in Leciester.

    In September of 2005, Savio, myself and Ellena, who at the time was 1 and a half years old, spent our holidays abroad, in Mallorca. We went (page 2) on holidays with Kate, Gerry, and Madeleine, who should have been around 21/2 years old, and the twins, who were only months old. I remember that I was pregnancy with Isabella.

    On those holidays we also met Gerry and Kate’s friends.

    There was a couple, whose names were Dave and Fiona, and whose family name was PAYNE, I think. I believe that they were married and had one daughter, 1 year old, called Lilly. I remember that on these holidays, Fiona was pregnant.

    There was another couple, whose names were Tara and Stuart, and whose family name I cannot remember who were also on holiday with us. They had two boys, 1 and 3 years old, whose names I do not remember. I did not know these two families until the holidays together. As I recall, I think that David organised the holidays and we all stayed together in a big house in Mallorca.

    We spend a week on holidays, however, the McCANN family, and the PAYNE family stayed for two weeks. I think that Tara and Stuart, and their two children, also stayed for only one week.

    Two or three days passed in Mallorca where we relaxed (Page 3) with our children. Possibly around the fourth or fifth day abroad, I remember an incident that stayed with me. I tell this in this way, and afterwards I have thought many times about the incident that I am about to describe.

    One night, on holidays, the adults—the couple aforementioned—were on a patio on the side of the house were we lodged. We had been eating and drinking.

    I was seated between David and Gerry who were both speaking about Madeleine. I don’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but id did appear they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember David telling Gerry something like “she” (referring to Madeleine) “would she do this”.

    Upon mentioning “this”, David was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, and with the other hand encircled his breast in a gyrating fashion over his shirt. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was doing.

    I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to gauge their reactions. I looked around (page 4) as is saying “did someone else hear that, or was it just me”. Silence registered in all the conversations and after, we all began conversing again.

    I never spoke to anyone about this, but always felt that it was very strange and not something that should be discussed or said.

    Besides this, I remember that David once again did the same thing. When I refer to this, I want to clarify that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary situation. I do not know of what. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, Lily, although I cannot be certain. He put one of his fingers in his mouth and slide it in and out, and with the other hand, drew a circle around his breast in a sexually provocative way. I believe that he was referring to what Lily would do.

    I believe that he did this later, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The last time, besides this, when I was with David and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I were at a restaurant with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona.

    I am certain that he said or that he repeated the same gestures aforementioned, but it could have occurred in a restaurant in Leicester, however (page five) I believe that it was later in Mallorca. When I heard Dave asking is “she did this” a second time, I took it more seriously.

    I remember questioning whether looked at my children or the others in a different way. I imagined that he maybe visited Internet sites related to small children. I thought that he may be interested in child pornography on the Internet.

    During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying this.
    During our vacation in Mallorca, it was the fathers who bathed the children. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if David was bathing his children. I remember telling Savio to be careful when he was there, in case Dave was helping bathe the children and, in particular, my daughter Ellena. I was very clear about this, as having heard him disturbed me, and did not trust him bathing Ellena alone.

    When I heard Dave say that a second time, this reinforced what I already though in relation to his thoughts about little girls. During our stay in Mallorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by this daughter Lilly, took Madeleine (page 6) with them to sped the day together, and to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest with the twins. At stating this, it is not that I was reoccupied with Madeleine’s safety, as she was also with Fiona and Lilly, along with Dave.

    As already referred to, I was only with Dave and Fiona on one occasion, after Mallorca. And I have not spoken to them since this time. In these last years, we have seen eachother, along with the McCANNS, on occasion. These occasions coincide with the children’s birthdays—a time when we get together.

    The first time I hear the terrible news regarding the disappearance of Madeleine from the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the McCANNs in Portugal but he did not know.

    I watched TV to catch the overage of the notices and found that Dave was there. I saw him on television in the first days after the disappearance. At that, I believed that he was on holidays with the McCANNs in Portugal. Today, Thursday, the 16th of May, 2007, at 15H40, I gave DC Brewer a page containing 2 photographic images. I am going to reference these images as (ref KZG/1) (probably element) that may (page seven) be presented with my approval, if necessary. These photographs were taken during out holidays in Mallorca. In the photographs, Dave is wearing a white t-shirt and the woman in the photograph is his wife Fiona. The man that is holding the cup of wine in the photograph is Stuart. These photographs were taken whilst we were in Mallorca.


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    Pamela Fenn - statement...

    Being of British nationality and in spite of living in Portugal, does not have knowledge of the Portuguese language in its oral and written form, therefore a police interpreter is present, UEVE VAN LOOCK. Thus, according to the facts noted in the files, she says that she has lived in the apartment since 2003, which is located on the upper floor, immediately above the room from which the child disappeared.

    She also refers to the day of the 1st May 2007, when she was at home alone, at approximately 22.30 she heard a child cry, and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?, the witness had no doubt that the noise came from the floor below. At about 23.45, an hour and fifteen minutes after the crying began, she heard the parents arrive, she did not see them, but she heard the patio doors open, she was quite worried as the crying had gone on for more than an hour and had gradually got worse.

    When questioned, she said that she did not know the cause of the crying, perhaps a nightmare or another destabilising factor.

    As soon as the parents entered the child stopped crying.
    That night she contacted a friend called EDNA GLYN, who also lives in Praia da Luz, after 23.00, telling her about the situation, who was not surprised at the childs crying.

    She did not have anything to report for the 2nd May, because she was only home at night.
    On the 3rd May she received a visit from her niece Carole during the morning, who said that when she was on her terrace she saw a male individual looking into the McCanns apartment, situation which has been told to the police, her family member even made a photo fit"

    During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out ?we have let her down? which she repeated several times, quite upset. Mrs Fenn then saw that it was the mother of little Madeleine who was shouting furiously. Upon leaning over the terrace, after having seen the mother, Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted. When asked, she replied that she did not leave her apartment, just spoke to Gerry from her balcony, which had a view over the terrace of the floor below. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios. At that moment she offered Gerry help, saying that he could use her phone to contact the authorities, to which he replied that this had already been done. It was just after 22.30.

    She said that after the mothers shouts, she had seen many people in the streets looking for the girl. She also refers to an episode when Gerry was speaking to a policeman and he refused to recognised the police force, saying that more agents of authority were needed to carry out the search.

    When asked, she replied that on 3rd May she did not hear any noise from the McCann apartment, not even the opening of doors. She also said that before hearing the shouts she was watching television, as she often stays up late.

    When questioned, she said that she never heard any arguments between the couple or with their children. She said that the family would spend much time outside of the apartment and therefore she did not notice their presence.

    She said that until that night she had never spoken to the McCann's, because up until the 3rd May, she only sometimes saw them walking in the street. She never saw them with any vehicle.
    She also said that she never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on 1st May because she thought it would just increase their suffering.

    When questioned she said that she never saw any strange person or action before or after the event. She claims however, that a week previously she was the victim of an attempted robbery, which was not successful and neither was anything taken, thinking that the crying of the child could be linked to another attempted robbery in the residence.

    Having read and approved the statement, she signs, together with the interpreter.


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    Kess73 wrote: »
    There was never any question of Madeline not being in the apartment during the holiday, and I am pretty sure there was never a problem regarding DNA in the apartment.

    The DNA found was in the car, and although it was a very close match to that of Madeline, it was not a fresh sample and had deteriorated a bit by the time it was found.

    The police think it belonged to Madeline but the evidence found is nowhere near enough to be conclusive on that, and as such there has to be an element of doubt involved as to whether it is her blood.
    I know Maddie was in the Apartment, Sorry i'm not making myself clear enough...As I said don't we all have DNA that we drop like Skin cells bits of hair etc etc? If we do then wouldn't it be that Maddie's DNA wouldn't be a Problem being found in the Apratment? Wouldn't the Forensic's have been able to Gather Gerry's kATES & THE TWIN'S dna, Rather than some that wasn't Conclusive!If your follow me:o


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    Yvonne Martin - statement....


    In the sequence of information transmitted to this Police force, on this date we went to the residence of Yvonne Warren Martin. The team was composed of the undersigned and his colleague Carlos Antunes, in conversation with Yvonne the following was established:

    - On May 04, 2007, at around 07H00 she heard about the disappearance of an English girl from Praia da Luz, Lagos, from Sky News or BBC.

    - Having worked for 25 years in the area of child protection, she felt obliged to offer help to her compatriots and went to Praia da Luz.

    – At around 09H00, she met the McCann couple next to the apartment from where the child had disappeared, accompanied by a third person, a male, who seemed quite familiar to her.

    - This third person of the group appeared to be an intimate (friend) of the family as he was the one who, when the media arrived, began to explain what was happening and answering questions, thereby saving the couple from this upset. Afterwards, she further confirmed his closeness to the family when she saw him taking care of the couple’s twins, also small children.

    - She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.

    - During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

    - However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her. This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help—an action that appeared quite strange to her.

    - Meanwhile, she heard comments next to the complex reception that the British Consul was coming to the site and she decided to wait for this person in order to offer her help.

    - During this time, she saw the third individual two more times. Firstly, when he was accompanying an older woman and the McCann twins, demonstrating in this way, the trust that the couple had in him by letting him take care of their two children. On the second occasion, he accompanied what appeared to her to be plain clothed police officers.

    --YVONNE describes the third individual as follows:
    Aged about 35 years
    Of about 1,80 metres in height
    Of normal physical appearance
    Having short, dark hair
    Using graduated glasses of small dimensions with rectangular lenses
    Having a round face
    Presenting a scar above his eyebrow and on his left cheek
    - Speaking with a Southern English accent
    Wearing light trousers, cream or beige coloured, and a dark polo shirt.

    – When she was back home, following the case on English television, she saw the same individual and this time, her initial doubt faded and she concluded that she had seen the face in the course of her professional activity in child protection, not being able to discern if he was a suspect/arguido or witness

    - She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

    Am I reading this right? That this Witness thought the Man she is discussing might have a Dodgy Past? Or am I right off the Mark? I really don't mind being shouted at if i've read this wrong!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    that is exactly what she thought


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    Dr Katherina Gaspar - statement...

    I give this declaration in relation to the McCANN family who are currently in Portugal. The McCANN family is composed of Gerry McCANN, his wife, Kate McCANN and their three children, Madeleine, age 4, and Sean and Amelie, who are twins and 3 years of age.

    As is abundantly clear, Madeleine is not with her family presently, and has been missing for the last two weeks.

    I will begin by explaining that I am married to Savio Gaspar and that we have two daughters. Ellen is almost 3 and Isabella is now one year old. I have been married to Savior for 11 years. I am a general practitioner as is my husband. I met my husband when we were (page 1) working together in Exeter, around 14 years ago.

    In order to explain how we know the McCANN family, I would like to state that my husband knows Kate as both attended Dundee University between 1987 and 1992. At that time, she was Kate HEALY. I met Kate and Gerry at their wedding, in 1998, in Liverpool. Both Savio and I went to the wedding. As Savio was Kate’s friend, we were invited to the event.

    From what I know, Savio did not know Gerry before the wedding. After this time, we became friends and about three times we spent weekend vacations together. I would say that we are intimate friends of Gerry and Kate.

    I remember that in 2002 or 2003, Savio and I spent the weekend with Gerry and Kate in Devon. We maintained contact with one another via telephone.

    In 2002/2003 Savio and I lived Birmingham and the McCANNS in Leciester.

    In September of 2005, Savio, myself and Ellena, who at the time was 1 and a half years old, spent our holidays abroad, in Mallorca. We went (page 2) on holidays with Kate, Gerry, and Madeleine, who should have been around 21/2 years old, and the twins, who were only months old. I remember that I was pregnancy with Isabella.

    On those holidays we also met Gerry and Kate’s friends.

    There was a couple, whose names were Dave and Fiona, and whose family name was PAYNE, I think. I believe that they were married and had one daughter, 1 year old, called Lilly. I remember that on these holidays, Fiona was pregnant.

    There was another couple, whose names were Tara and Stuart, and whose family name I cannot remember who were also on holiday with us. They had two boys, 1 and 3 years old, whose names I do not remember. I did not know these two families until the holidays together. As I recall, I think that David organised the holidays and we all stayed together in a big house in Mallorca.

    We spend a week on holidays, however, the McCANN family, and the PAYNE family stayed for two weeks. I think that Tara and Stuart, and their two children, also stayed for only one week.

    Two or three days passed in Mallorca where we relaxed (Page 3) with our children. Possibly around the fourth or fifth day abroad, I remember an incident that stayed with me. I tell this in this way, and afterwards I have thought many times about the incident that I am about to describe.

    One night, on holidays, the adults—the couple aforementioned—were on a patio on the side of the house were we lodged. We had been eating and drinking.

    I was seated between David and Gerry who were both speaking about Madeleine. I don’t remember the conversation in its entirety, but id did appear they were discussing a possible scenario. I remember David telling Gerry something like “she” (referring to Madeleine) “would she do this”.

    Upon mentioning “this”, David was sucking on one of his fingers, pushing it inside and outside his mouth, and with the other hand encircled his breast in a gyrating fashion over his shirt. This was done in a provocative manner and carried an explicit insinuation in relation to what he was doing.

    I remember that I was shocked at this, and looked at Gerry, and also at Dave, to gauge their reactions. I looked around (page 4) as is saying “did someone else hear that, or was it just me”. Silence registered in all the conversations and after, we all began conversing again.

    I never spoke to anyone about this, but always felt that it was very strange and not something that should be discussed or said.

    Besides this, I remember that David once again did the same thing. When I refer to this, I want to clarify that it was during a conversation in which he was talking about an imaginary situation. I do not know of what. I believe that he was talking about his own daughter, Lily, although I cannot be certain. He put one of his fingers in his mouth and slide it in and out, and with the other hand, drew a circle around his breast in a sexually provocative way. I believe that he was referring to what Lily would do.

    I believe that he did this later, during the holidays, but I cannot be sure. The last time, besides this, when I was with David and Fiona was several weeks after the holidays, when Savio and I were at a restaurant with Gerry, Kate, Dave and Fiona.

    I am certain that he said or that he repeated the same gestures aforementioned, but it could have occurred in a restaurant in Leicester, however (page five) I believe that it was later in Mallorca. When I heard Dave asking is “she did this” a second time, I took it more seriously.

    I remember questioning whether looked at my children or the others in a different way. I imagined that he maybe visited Internet sites related to small children. I thought that he may be interested in child pornography on the Internet.

    During our holidays I was more attentive at bath time after hearing Dave saying this.
    During our vacation in Mallorca, it was the fathers who bathed the children. I had the tendency to walk close to the bathroom, if David was bathing his children. I remember telling Savio to be careful when he was there, in case Dave was helping bathe the children and, in particular, my daughter Ellena. I was very clear about this, as having heard him disturbed me, and did not trust him bathing Ellena alone.

    When I heard Dave say that a second time, this reinforced what I already though in relation to his thoughts about little girls. During our stay in Mallorca, Dave and his wife, Fiona, accompanied by this daughter Lilly, took Madeleine (page 6) with them to sped the day together, and to give Kate and Gerry a bit of rest with the twins. At stating this, it is not that I was reoccupied with Madeleine’s safety, as she was also with Fiona and Lilly, along with Dave.

    As already referred to, I was only with Dave and Fiona on one occasion, after Mallorca. And I have not spoken to them since this time. In these last years, we have seen eachother, along with the McCANNS, on occasion. These occasions coincide with the children’s birthdays—a time when we get together.

    The first time I hear the terrible news regarding the disappearance of Madeleine from the radio, my thoughts went immediately to Dave. I asked Savio if Dave was also on holidays with the McCANNs in Portugal but he did not know.

    I watched TV to catch the overage of the notices and found that Dave was there. I saw him on television in the first days after the disappearance. At that, I believed that he was on holidays with the McCANNs in Portugal. Today, Thursday, the 16th of May, 2007, at 15H40, I gave DC Brewer a page containing 2 photographic images. I am going to reference these images as (ref KZG/1) (probably element) that may (page seven) be presented with my approval, if necessary. These photographs were taken during out holidays in Mallorca. In the photographs, Dave is wearing a white t-shirt and the woman in the photograph is his wife Fiona. The man that is holding the cup of wine in the photograph is Stuart. These photographs were taken whilst we were in Mallorca.

    :eek::eek::eek::eek: Shocking Statement i'm Stunned, Why would anyone make this up?:confused: Is this again refering to the same person?!:eek:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    yep - and neither of the people who made those statments know each other

    coincidence? maybe, maybe not. I guess we'll never know. As far as I am aware the McCanns have never publicly mentioned their previous holiday with the Paynes.


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    yep - and neither of the people who made those statments know each other

    coincidence? maybe, maybe not. I guess we'll never know. As far as I am aware the McCanns have never publicly mentioned their previous holiday with the Paynes.
    I really am Stunned by these Statement's! I've not heard of these Statement's before, "Shocking"!
    Scotland Yard will have access to any information there is out there I'm sure!
    This isn't the same Guy who has the Pact of Silence too isit?!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 73 ✭✭Silver Moon


    as far as I am aware - and I have followed this case quite closely - the Gaspar statement has only ever been mentioned once in the mainstream media (a very passing reference in an article in the Times some while back).

    maybe it's something, maybe it's nothing - but quite clearly the McCanns and the Paynes DO NOT want people to know these statements exist.


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 107 ✭✭Chicke


    I think the inaccuracies of their statements could be dow to the fact they were lying about their checks and to protect themselves against neglect charges.just a possibility
    Also,their bizare behaviour on the night due to getting their story straight and also maybe the fact that they did drug their little ones,something they wanted to conceal
    Liars they are no doub
    If Kate opened the window herself that is a problem for me.if the only way tanner could has seen their abductor is if he had gone through the window as opposed to the unlocked patioo door and Kate herself knew that ,then she knew that the person Tanner saw wasn't the real abductor as she herself had opened the window and NOT the abductor.


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement