Sunday, 27 February 2011

A Question of Myths

(Feb 27th, 2011)

A reader has posted the following comment on the post "A Tad Too Posh?":

“Tex, I often think people 'look' but they do not 'see' what I see is a group of very relaxed people enjoying themselves.  

Absent from this group is Kate and Gerry, why are they absent, it is the end of the holiday when will they have the opportunity to meet these 'friends' again. And thats it....they are NOT bothered they are NOT friends they are just a bunch of people on holiday, the Mccanns are not part of this group and never were, that is why we have the 'pact of silence' and the returning of the mega money from the Express Newspaper to Kate and Gerry from Tapas..none of them are involved with Mccanns, and they do not want to be involved

These people, the Tapas crew have been caught up in something not of their making. We need to go back to the start, go over it and then it will be clearer.  

Whatever happened, it was before 3rd that is why Mccanns are absent from Paradiso.”


Thank you for your comment.

Although we do both see a “very relaxed people enjoying themselves”, I must disagree with you, in what you deduce from what you see.

I see just relaxation and you seem to see relaxed perversity beyond words.

To me, they’re just having a cup of tea (or whatever), watching the sea freshly caressing the white beach sand with each wave… whilst to you, they’re just having a cup of tea (or whatever), watching the sea freshly caressing the white beach sand with each wave, but doing all that knowing that some of their friends, or even just acquaintances, have their own kid dead in their arms, at that moment, and less than half a mile away

I may not be friends with you, but, the fact that I’d be in the knowledge that your had your dead daughter with you, would stop me from any joyous behavior.

If I were to be made up criminal scum, and wanting to cover-up, for whatever sick reason, for a “friend” that was “in trouble” and that that “trouble” was his/hers dead daughter, I may would have engaged in acting out some sort of a “relaxed” scene.

They are either a group of “very relaxed people enjoying themselves” (pardon the repetitive quote), which means that there was absolutely nothing wrong with the life of these people at the time these pictures were taken, or they are group pretending to be very relaxed and enjoying themselves.

You, like me, seem to see the first. But unlike me, go and make deductions based on the latter.

That would basically answer your comment, but you do bring up an interesting subject, which as almost recurrent as the "McCann Negligence Myth", which is the "McCann Outcast Myth".

It seems to be consensual that the McCanns were set apart from the group, yet, there’s absolutely no proof of that.

Another forum/blog myth?

We know for a fact that the McCanns were not in the Paraiso with the remainder of the group at the time of these pictures. However we could let our imagination run wild, and even question THAT fact. Were the McCanns REALLY NOT in Paraíso? The only proof is that they don’t appear in the pictures, but could be around the corner, careful not to be caught up in the CCTV pictures.

Am I being ridiculous? No, according to those that say that these pictures are “play-acting”, then one must assume that ALL actors involved knew “the stage” well, and some may have opted to stay in the “backstage”.

Maybe you didn't consider that. Back to reality.

For me, it’s a FACT that the McCanns were NOT with the group on the late afternoon of May 3rd. Those stills portray genuine relaxation, and the McCanns are not in them.

But that is a single instance, and a single instance doesn’t make a rule.

For me, the fact that Kate would be jogging, as she says she was, and for Gerry to be playing tennis, as he says he was, or playing golf, as he doesn’t say he was, are perfect natural activities and don’t provide any clue that they were outcast from the group,

You do have a lot of other clues that show that this group was far from being a group. Or a cohesive one. Or one that behaved as one would expect such a group to behave if they were “together”.

I’m not saying or implying that they didn’t get along with each other, because, as you know, I think they did, and did REALLY get along VERY WELL with each other…

A group on holiday usually comes together, especially if they’re flying in, this one doesn’t.

On Monday I do believe that Jane and Russ say they did watersports alone, on another occasion that Kate and Gerry say they play tennis without the others of the group, where they were somewhere else, I haven’t checked this totally, but Kate and Gerry also say they went to Sagres, etc…

With the exception of the "Tapas dinners" (which we know didn't exist), show me one activity they all did together.

I know one: the two hour initial tennis lecture followed up by torturous long walk all the way to the Millenium.

So much so, that I would like to start, right here and now, my own "blog myth": that walk was so hard and difficult, that to this day those streets have become haunted, and to this day, there are some locals who swear on their souls that when the moon is full, the “Tapas moans & groans” can be heard in the night's silence…

Back to reality again, any other events where the T9 participated in TOGETHER as a GROUP?

Ah, say you, that PROVES that the McCanns were NOT part of the group.

Then, do tell me what other activities, or activity, besides the Paraíso's May 3rd afternoon, did the remainder T7 participate in, TOGETHER as a GROUP.  

None? That’s about right.

Add that to some unexpected, or even odd behavior from a group who are supposedly connected to each other on a holiday, like each couple being responsible to pick up their own kids.

One would expect, from such friendly relationships, that one adult would suffice to pick up all the “group’s kids”. We’re not pinpointing the McCanns on this one. They acted like all others during the week (or so they all say).

And we won’t get into the check-ONLY-the-McCanns-kids-system at dinner, because we know these checks didn’t exist.

But we do know about some “lonesome” activities from some of these people/couples. Or that they say they did (most of which we don't believe happened, and some we've already proved they didn't).  

Kate’s alleged jogging.  

Fiona’s alleged jogging.  

David going into Kate’s apartment.

According to Carol Tranmer-Fenn's statement, the likelihood of Russell leaving Oldfield’s apartment. Gerry alleged playing tennis.

Russ and Matt's inexistent watersports, allegedly leaving David to do his all alone…

People seem to forget that the McCanns were the “focused on” couple, so you know much more about them then you know about all the others.

 The others basically either confirm the other couple’s activity or justify what they were doing on the afternoon of May 3rd.

We don’t know of any activity these people did together, do we? Even the arrival at the pretence Tapas dinners, is all uncoordinated, and the faked children checking system, after five nights, still requires a lot of oiling up to do, as we still have plates requiring to be reheated…

If you look at the Paraíso CCTV picture, you can see a relaxed group of people, but you can also see that the group comes in “bunches” and not as a whole, as, once again, we would expect from a group enjoying a beach holiday TOGETHER.

They leave also separately as if each one had his/her own agenda, and the common denominator between them was not the group, the beach or the sun.

You may use “united” as adjective to qualify this group AFTER Maddie disappears, but there’s no perception of unity before that. The McCanns were as much part of this group, as all the other T7, as we have NO PROOF otherwise.

To say that the McCanns are total strangers to this group makes inexplicable the solidarity shown in the following hours, days, and months, by those other seven people, an attitude that your comment implies never happened.

If that was the case, why did Fiona Payne rush to Lisbon during the trial, when things went all wrong for the McCanns?

I can’t also see ANY reason for David Payne, using him as example, to take the responsibility for having been the one to organize the holiday if he didn’t know the McCanns from the Smiths.

Nor, for the remainder of the group pictured at Paraiso to say that they had dinner with the McCanns at Tapas.

Yes, their relationship has eroded and they’ve practically broken up, but that is AFTER the events. Do not mix things up.

You might be implying that the people were caught up in something AFTER these pictureswere taken , and that that something happened on the day BEFORE.

What, one has to ask? Were they blackmailed after these pictures?

 But, from the pictures, there’s absolutely no difference between Maddie dying on May 2nd, and these people being blackmailed late evening May 3rd, and Maddie dying on May 3rd, and these people being blackmailed that same late evening, May 3rd.

These pictures, unlike you say, DO NOT prove any timeline, besides the fact that the watersports storyline is false, but that's something you're not questioning.

And if they were being blackmailed, (which would mean that there was a relationship between these people and the McCanns) what did they have to fear?  

Being part of an secret medical experimentation so horrific that would jeopardize national security?

That brings us to another “forum/blog myth” that REALLY needs to be debunked: “The PdL Medical Convention Myth”.

Many have assumed, because the T9 is made up 6 doctors, that there was some sort medical secret meeting taking place during that week.

Or that, being more benign, that the holiday was paid by some medical company and that the whole cover-up would have been to protect this company’s name.

Or maybe a mixture of both of the scenarios.

But the majority of people on the holiday were NOT doctors, certainly not the major players.

We can see only 2 other docs, Julian Totman and Louise Hume,

There may be more, but Carpenter. Edmonds, the Weinbergers, Balu, Berry, Jensens were not.

That makes up a group of 8 doctors.

Less than the tennis group that ALLEGEDLY reserved dinner for Friday, I think.

Maybe it's better just to keep things simple.


  1. Tex,
    I wrote that comment and I would just like to say how proud I felt when I read it as one of your main headings, thank you and I truly hope that one day we will find justice for Madeleine.
    Keep up the good work Tex.

  2. You have misinterpreted my comment, Tex.

    From that photograph I see the group having fun and relaxing because they are on holiday. I do not consider this to be fake and posed covering up for the McCanns, I believe they had little knowledge of what was going on at that point.

    You have twisted everything I have said and as this is a forum for people to share their opinions, I think it is wrong for you to make such assumptions as to what people mean and embed your own interpretations in these.

  3. I feel the anon comment from 2011 11:21:00 AM very warm . I liked it.


  4. I believe you are just taking the lead name and are assuming they are not Doctors. Many of the bookings are in the name of the non medical partner but then I believe you already know that.

    If you cross reference the flight list, the GMC register and the UK electoral roll you will find 30 plus Doctors and their partners in Praia da Luiz that week not necessarily in the OC.

    It was not and nobody has ever said, to my knowledge it was a medical conference but a relationship building week for the medical profession and their families.

  5. Anon
    Feb 27, 2011 8:37:00 PM

    We here assume nothing. We've asked, more than once, for when readers make statements, they back it up with from where the information was obtained/deduced from.

    You seem to have cross referenced the flight list, the GMC register and the UK electoral roll, so if you could provide the end result, those 30 plus doctors names, it would save us an enormous amount of work, which we would be very grateful for.

    But before that, do you have any idea why the MAJORITY (according to you) of the doctors present, would have their reservations done by their partners, while the T9 were stupid enough to make them in their own names? Were they left out of the loop of something? If so, what and why?

    Do clarify please, because we DO NOT want to start ANY blog myth (just that one about the nightly moans and groans all the way to the Millenium)

  6. I still believing that what connected most of those people, was the swing. Did not depends on previous knowledge of your partners and was not linked with any profession. Just depends on you and your husband/wife. If both of you agree and were an open mind, any other couple having the same life philosophy will be accepted and welcome. Some people even see that activity as a way to make new friends. The all story seems to fit well the swing scenario.
    The swing scenario was also the first discussed in some portuguese Tvs by Inspectors who claimed to be aware about some evidences coming directly from the investigation.
    I know that some people who commented that at the beginning, later tried to wash it out ( Barra da Costa) but always without dismissing it. When this happened, the big machine of Mccann's lawyers and spin man was already in the place and very healthy with millions of Euros( Money enough to scare people and manipulate).
    Who bring Barra da Costa to RTP1, to the master portuguese news, the Telejornal, was J. R. santos, a journalist that covers wars scenarios and is a great writer. Contrary to the British journalists who, regarding Madeleine, show no any homework before placing their articles on the media, I believe JR Santos and his team have done some accurate investigation before bringing a so hot issue to the top news.
    The story fade, over the time without the Mccann's or Mitchell ever touching the issue or suing anybody. Was this not strange for a couple who tend to adjective everything with 'ludricous', 'absolutely no evidences' or whatever other words? Why they lost that bullet and the story in a limbo?

  7. CONT:
    For me, and this is my own theory, the swing did not explain what happened to Madeleine( a domestic issue, more criminal then accidental because accidents happen every second even with careful parents who face the situation with anguish, pain and panic but don't runaway or let the crime scene to be contaminated) but the swing can explain the cover up, the behavior of many second characters, the untouchable born/run of the Fund and the power the Mccann's seems to achieve after May 3.
    I read many articles in different papers, some portuguese some not, regarding the swing, since Madeleine disappeared. All journalists agree that was a behavior performed by high instructed people, middle age and middle classes. Was not related with any friendship or any type of profession. Normally, it is the place where this activity is allowed, what connect the couples. To be done, both couples should agree and normally people tend to dress up attractively in Discos, Hotels, etc to attract the other couple. They pay a lot of attention to their physical image. The Tapas 8 ( I leave Dianne W. out) fits this type of persons ( even with all diversity and subjectivity we can add to the taste Kate used to dress. Dianne was brought to enjoy the algarve and babysit her ground Childs and she don't need to know exactly what her daughter was doing when she is out). CONT

  8. CONT:
    Since the swing is transversal to the professions of high instructed people, political, business people and showbusinness people... all those will be at high risk of being caught and exposed in any journalistic investigation done on the Mccann's. They become protected by everybody who fall on the same bag and need to protect is own private life. See what happened to the French Foreign Affairs Minister now, just because she joint a boat trip with Tunisian ex-President? She was forced to quit her job. See how long some singers and actors, twist the journalists trying to keep out of the big public their gay tendencies? Imagine the politics who depend of elections and public opinion? They know, the swing if exposed, will be a huge scandal. The big majority of the population see it as a recriminating behavior and who have a more open mind, some times went in a behavior full of hypocrisy just because that suits his political agenda.
    I could be wrong, but I had that feeling since the beginning, that the power of the Mccann's was born in PDL due the swing activities they share with powerful people in UK and not because of previous connections with people with power. They don't need to be physical involved with that people or knowing them. The issue made the power.

  9. CONT:

    Just think: how many of us know political, personally, who belong to the party that is in the government? Some are our mayors, deputies and at same time, our neighbors, people who share with us the cafe, the school, the supermarket, the hairdresser, the street, etc. This gave us any power, especially if a crime could be in the middle and involving the investigation of a lot of foreigner polices ( Interpol, Europol, etc)? NOT! Political jump out of that wagon quickly. But if an investigation on the private life of those people had a chance, even a remote chance of bringing you or your Party in the same activities, leading the public to confuse everything, YOU WILL MOVE THE WORLD TO AVOID THE INVESTIGATION TO PROGRIDE. ANY LIMBO WILL BE BETTER THEN THE TRUTH.
    The Karma for the Mccann's is the ephemeral condition of the politic. Who is in power today, could be in disgrace tomorrow and the time for any crime as a different dimension. Look what happened to Rui Pedro, in Portugal? 13 years after, the first and only suspect who was made arguido at beginning, become charged with murder without new evidences. Some can say' too late'. I agree. Justice could not be served in full when comes many years after, but now a judge has more power to 'force' the suspect to talk and tell what happened to that boy. In Court any lie, will work against the suspect increasing the charges. At least now, Rui Pedro parents will feel some justice.

  10. CONT:
    It was really great to see yesterday almost all the portuguese media opening the News with Rui Pedro case, without highlighting Madeleine case. Not a single word about the most mediatic disappearance in Portugal. Madeleine, in RTP, was not even part of the collection the TV selected about childs who still missing. Journalists know, Madeleine falls in another type of crime, not an abduction, not a voluntary run away. The case is not solved just because did not come yet his time. Without new evidences will be reopened one day to charge the suspects. And the suspects are well identified in the investigation. Was great to see RTP asking the opinion of G. Amaral and Moita Flores in Rui Pedro case. A proof that the opinion of those top investigators is important and valuable for journalists and the public.

    PS- Sorry Textusa, if my comments were posted more then one time. The blog seems to be under sabotage with many virus interference on the comment window.
    For all the constructive posters, have a good day. We should not be scared of who wants to pervert the Truth.

  11. Following my previous posts, just a biscuit that matches some behavior performed by swingers before entering the swinger activities. It comes from the book ' A culpa dos Mccann' wrote by Manuel Catarino. It refers the statements gave by workers from the OC (Tapas and others), regarding Kate. Sorry, it is in portuguese and I will not translate to avoid being lost in translation:

    "As atencoes dos empregados fixavam-se em Kate Mccann. Alta, olhos verdes, cabelo loiro apanhado atras na maior parte das vezes, era a mulher mais sensual do grupo". ( This description appears to come from the Tapas workers. Why they need to describe Kate like if they are discribing Angelina Jolie on one of her movies? We know, the dinner did not happened. Who pass the message to the workes to describe Kate in a very sweet and soft way to journalists? We know, the lies were made to the police and repeated to journalists with even more unconsistencies).
    And the book continues:

    " Quando chegava a piscina, a tarde, enquanto o marido suava no tenis, Kate arrastava olhares lubricos. Os filhos-.......- ficavam habitualmente a esta hora na creche...: so as vezes a maeos levava. Os empregados do OC nunca a viram nadar na piscina. Kate estendia-se languidamente ao sol e bebia cerveja. A sua personalidade, dizem, tinha uma pitada de misterio. Tanto exibia um ar de sedutora como uma expressao gelida e distante, ora os seus labios se abriam num doce sorriso como se fechavam tensos numa imensa tristeza."

    Then, Kate alone in the pool, exposing herself. Must be her behavior what lead the workers to discribe her like that to the journalists. And the exibition coul not be for her husband or the workers. Should be another target. Then, more pool and less jogging. Pool most of the time without 3 babies disturbing her moments.
    I cannot imagine me in a week holiday, around the pool, without my children. But we belong to different worlds and a child has a different mean for us.

  12. From: the same place as before

    So who would remove, from her holiday apartment, a young child who was 'physically unlikely' to get up, walk a distance of 20' or so and push open an unlocked, unlatched sliding door - someone who did not care about her, or someone who did? It's the sort of thing a paramedic might be called upon to do for instance and, to quote Rachael Oldfield, 'there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child.'

  13. Tex,

    At the MMF they're saying:

    "TextUSA makes a lot of assumptions that I would not care to make. Just one - if this group was together one person would suffice to pick up the groups' kids.

    Madeleine (3) Sian and Amelie (2) Oldfield's baby (10 months?) OBrien's two - (3 and 2?) and Payne's (3 and 1). I find it highly difficult to suppose one person could pick all of them up - three 3 year olds, 3 two year olds and a pair of toddlers? or even that the creche would allow people who were not parents of a child to pick that child up. I would never volunteer to corral a group of that size at an age under 7 or 8 years old, nor find it safe or advisable to do so, too many lone rangers could head off into the sunset. It wouldn't happen even supposing Mark Warner resort would allow it.

    This bit stood out for me as being a stupid thing to say. Nobody could possibly look after that many young children and deliver them from the various creches to their apartments. Even two people would find it impossible."

    What have you to say about this? For me it seems they have a point.

  14. Anon @ 9.14

    Maybe those people at MMF should check out how many children attended each creche sessions and how many did not.

    It's not difficult to collect 3 children who can walk. The creche can be notified about who is going to collect them, it is not unusual that parents do a school run on a rota. I have done that myself and the nursery is aware of the arrangement.

    Something and nothing would be my response.

  15. 9:14,

    I think the story about who or how many carried the children, is pointless.
    If I found difficult for an adult to carry all those childs, even if most are walking, I find almost unbelieverable for a group of friends who went to a foreign country for a short holiday with so young childs, to spread them and keep going and coming back from the creche carrying only their childs.
    The big question is, why the Mccann's desperatly need to put Madeleine under the surveillance of a different Nanny and out of the twins group? There is no difference, in terms of age group, between a 2 and a 3 years old. Even in a school they fall all in the Infant group. Then, why trying to foolish the public with Madeleine not sharing the same place as her brother and sister?
    From my own experience, when I went on holidays with my children and some friends, we all try to keep togheter most of the childs, on the beneffite of the childs because they feel less stressed and more confident, when they share a strange place with friends/ relatives. And even in 5 stars hotels, you don't have children clubs separeted like the Mccann's want us to believe. Normally they are 0 to 4, 5 to 8,9. 9 to 12 and then teenagers.
    With a creche working like the Mccann's discribed, imagine how many nannies they need and how many rooms?... Or they want us to believe that the service was exclusive for them and there was no other children older then them, requesting the same facilities?
    They really have a target with that issue since the beginning and the target was not the truth. Only who never went on holidays with children can buy another Mccann fairy tale. The creche is part of the packet of the Tapas dinner- Full of lies.
    Sorry but this bouquet of liars, started the story with a big lie- the abduction- and to bake it were forced to bring more lies. Avalanche effect.

  16. Anon 9:14

    As I understand, the OC has 2 creche services; one for older children and one for toddlers.
    In the first would be, IF all attending that session, 3 children (McCanns O'Briens Paynes).
    Therefore a manageable task for one person. In the second, would be 5 (Mcs Oldfields O'Briens Paynes), some of whom may need transporting in buggies, therefore not a manageable task for one person. However, Textusa's point seems to be that it would be usual for a group of people doing activities together to go to the creche together, in pairs or as a group, to collect the children and it would also be possible to tell the creche if someone else would be collecting your child/children. O'Brien offer to check on someone else's children therefore seems out of keeping with their normal pattern of only taking care of their own.
    What seems even stranger to me is that one nanny would take a group of children out to sea on what was said to be a windy day, with only one helper, who seems to be an unqualified child carer from watersports. How did she manage to put them into lifejackets and keep an eye on them all on the water. Having accompanied school trips to the beach, its normal to have a much higher ratio of adults to children, even when they're on dry land. If anyone had taken my child out in these circumstances, I wold have been horrified.

  17. Anon @ 450

    "There is no difference, in terms of age group, between a 2 and a 3 years old. Even in a school they fall all in the Infant group. Then, why trying to foolish the public with Madeleine not sharing the same place as her brother and sister?!

    What stands out in your comment is the twins would know Maddie but not Madeleine if she was substituted.

  18. The Creche is another "bad story telling" from the Mccann's. There was no other children extra the Tapas group, using the facilities?
    Where are the statements of those independent parents? Inside the secret files, I believe. Why the nannies where moved in a rush, out of Portugal and kept under Mccann's surveillance? Is because there is no lies on their statements and the way the Tapas used the creche services was very clear, yeah?!

  19. Anon @ 8.36

    "What seems even stranger to me is that one nanny would take a group of children out to sea on what was said to be a windy day, with only one helper, who seems to be an unqualified child carer from watersports."

    The nanny who took these children out to sea says she has Maddie sitting on her lap because she was scared. How was she expected to ensure a the rest of the toddler group didn't fall overboard? I know she was supposed to have a helper but this would still put the rest of the group in even more danger. Why no parent volunteer helpers?

    Did this boat trip really happen, I don't think so. Imagine trying to get the group of toddlers into life-jackets for a start?

    I think Textusa has highlighted another piece of fiction.

  20. A 'mini sail' turns into an epic expedition? Toddlers taken out on rough seas? No statements from the people who ran the water sports?
    One nanny and a helper?

    Matthew Oldfield makes such an issue of falling overboard and having to be rescued by Russell O'Brien or having to swim a mile back to shore and yet toddlers are supposed to have gone out on a boat.

    The story doesn't make any sense so why did it get included? There is always a motive when this group publicise an event, so what is the motive behind this story?

    I doubt the motive was to pretend the men were dumping a body at sea before anyone suggests a 'theory' about that so it doesn't become a forum myth.

  21. For the above comments, maybe it's worth reading this:

    Bridget O'Donnel's article

    "My months with Madeleine", 14 December 2007
    "My months with Madeleine", The Guardian

    "Our children made friends in the kiddie club and at the drop-off, we would joke about the fact that there were 10 blonde three-year-old girls in the group. They were bound to boss around the two boys."

    "It was Thursday, May 3.

    Earlier that day there had been tennis lessons for the children, with some of the parents watching proudly as their girls ran across the court chasing tennis balls. They took photos. Madeleine must have been there, but I couldn't distinguish her from the others. They all looked the same - all blonde, all pink and pretty."

    She does not mention any boat trip for the kids, her own daughter is the same age as Madeleine (3), and should be in the same group at the creche. She mentions the proud parents watching their children tennis achievements...well, I suppose that an adventurous and potentially hazardous sea activity would stick out on her memory much more that tennis, yet, no mention at all! The parents took photos (this is to explain the "tennis ball picture", maybe...?), but there are NO photos of the children on the boat, not that I'm aware of. Wouldn't that outing be a magnet for the "proud parents"? Strange, isn't it?
    Also, from her words, there was a considerable number of very similar little girls, both in looks and age, difficult to tell apart, easy to mistake one for the other..."Madeleine must have been there, but I couldn't distinguish her from the others."

    Would the nannies notice if Madleine wasn't there...?

  22. There is no pictures of Madeleine on any event at May 3. If so, Gerry had no need to go back to UK and deliver to the police/Media the "last picture", after May 20.
    Any picture of Madeleine at that day, if available, will be immediately dragged by the mccann's into the media to show her alive and reinforce the abduction idea.
    The police and themselves, early in the investigation start asking pictures from other holidaymakers. Amaral on his book said that there is no pictures of Madeleine on the yellow Katamaran.
    Mrs. O'Donnel explanation for the childs in the tennis is ridiculous. How many childs were there? No way for not recognising them. Imagine 2 teams of childs playing football ( More kids and a lot of movemment) and we recognise them. On top of that, pictures can be "zoomed" until a close look.
    That lady is another one who appears, for more then one time, to have a Mccann's agenda.

  23. Textusa,

    Looking at your feedjit I'm seeing that you're getting an unusual amount of hits on this blog's "Gaspar Statements".

    What am I missing? Why is this happening? Can you explain?

  24. Anon
    Mar 3, 2011 3:23:00 PM

    For us it’s really puzzling the sudden interest in our post about the Gaspars. (

    We don’t know what has originated it, but it is bringing in readers, and for that, we’re obviously grateful.

    Now the “Gaspar Myth” is a sensitive subject. It’s a piece of clutter that although easily debunked, one has to be very careful how one goes about doing it.

    The statement of these people are terribly compromising for David Payne, who, as you know, this blog believes to have been the person who killed, probably accidentally as we have no proof otherwise, Maddie.

    To question a piece of “information” that reinforces the possible guilt of our main “suspect”, seems to be contradictory, or, in the very least, to be the letting go of a golden opportunity.

    But we’re not here in a “beauty contest”, whereby “our” theory competes with others. We follow our path; we analyze the facts and draw conclusions. What we think is, is because we think it is, and noy because it fancies us to be.

    If, sometime ago we were to say that McStroller was just a “marketing ploy” by G McCann that went wrong; that Mrs Fenn is far from the lovely old lady that is the pillar of the whole negligence nonsense; that the T7 did has much watersports in PdL as you and I or that the Tapas dinners are as fictional and logic as the Mad Hatter’s tea party in Alice in Wonderland, people would have called us crazy.

    Today, most are assumed as fact, and only details are still questioned. So, we ask you to please give us time to handle this issue.

    We’ll tackle it, when we think it opportune.

    Thank you

  25. People are starting to realize that "common" people are also involved in the cover-up of the lot. Not just the cinema characters like secret services or embassies or CEOP. People like Fenn, like the waiters, and probably now the Gaspars.
    Please don't take too long to give us your opinion on these people.

  26. I always had the feeling that the Gaspar's statements were made to protect Kate and Gerry with who they are more close. Payne was not a close friend of them and maybe they know already some suspected behaviour of Payne regarding children and they want to frame him and put him under pressure for whatever happened to Maddie. Don't forget that whatever happened, if has his nails, has the nails of Kate as well. Were her fingerprints that were found on the window and PJ for some reason connected her with dead of Madeleine. Probably Kate lost her mind and David tried to help reviving the child wihtout success. A circumstancial issue let him to become involved and the Gaspar's knowing it made the statement to remember him that he become involved as much as Kate, then the only way for him and his family is cooperating with cover-up and whatever was need for Kate o avoid any trial. Why Fiona stayed with Kate in Portugal? Why they handed the money recieved from newspapers to Madeleine Fund? Why they never appear, after May 3, as active supporters of the Mccann's search of alive Madeleine? They spent 4 years jumping out of the case in a very smooth way.
    Rachel talking about doctors reviving a child if the situation needs them and samples of blood been recovered from under tiles, are evidences that need a close look and a very incisive analise. The blood matches Maddie ADN in 15 out of 17 alleles(too much to be ignored) and the fla was impecable cleanned and tide when the police arrived ( according to Amaral book) and the cleaner of the OC did not clean the flat on thursday( according to her inerview to RTP). somebody cleanned the flat leaving it so clean that was almost incredible that inside it there was a couple with 3 babies. Amaral even said there is no signs of milk or food gave to the childs in the Kitchen and not a single sample of any medication inside the flat. Strange how a couple travel with small kids without taking syropes or sup. to control fever or pain, something that all parents carry in a holiday base. The Gaspars seems to be part of the cover-up. hey fall on the same bag as Anty phill.

  27. An 9:47

    I agree with you. Something bad has happened. Doctors were called later and all have decided to cover up for they're own safety. They all have small children, a life and responsibilities. A police investigation and a public scandal do not bring Madeleine from death and all the circumstances were very difficult to explain.

    And the media around looking for blood to print their news!

    Someone lost his(her)temper or the little girl was sedated and that was the cause of a huge fall. She broke her neck and died, or someone has shaken her so badly that broke her neck and died. Or she just has a bad fall. Or someone bump her in the head or she has collide with something or someone and had a brain damage? Blood could be a result of trying to revive her or may be a consequence of a huge bleeding condition. Whatever has happened was serious.

    The group has decided to cover up the story and concealed the body. An abduction was a natural scenario, now they know has more wholes than a Swiss chess.

    That's why no one will return for a reconstitution - that's a remarkable sign of guilty and fear of a new accusation; special now that the first crime is growing due others crimes (i.e. obstruction to justice, murder, concealing a body, a fraud Fund - it's bad enough to stay way isn't it? wouldn't you?);

    Other huge sign of guilty is the lack of will McCanns have been showing in reopening the investigation.

    They rather want to create petitions online to burn time. Time to spoil evidences, time to dismiss witnesses, time to grieve...trying to keep it together...)

    Reopening the police investigation is simple, new leads are not asked, just need good WILL: just need to order it officially, no money requested and you get professional police again on the field. Both polices: English, Portuguese, other (you name it...) all connected with good means and resources to investigate new leads about her missing daughter. Who does not want that? Who rather wants amateur or retired police looking after her when you can have better and qualified officers?

    Well, the answer seems to be simply: McCanns do!

    Well this is precisely what they want to avoid. No investigation ongoing no evidences to be found. God Knows what police may found now that they know what really has happened on May 3rd and do know where to look to.

    Don't even mention that!

  28. they don't want the case to be reopenned. They don't want real and serious police to investigate for free.
    Any official police will look at the evidences found early by the investigators, will question their Fund and the need of espensive lawyers, will call them for a reconstruction and more then that WILL SEARCH THEIR PROPERTIES, THEIR BANK ACCOUNTS AND ALL THEIR STEPS AFTER MAY 3, SPECIAL IN UK.

    What happened to Madeleine was bad enough to keep all the group running away from a properly investigation and from justice because they don't want Madeleine to be fund. Until now, the money from the Fund was just spent in lawyers and spin. Not a single coin went to any physical search of the girl. If so, just look... Many people claimed to be disturbed by their detectives who hunted witnesses(special some workers of the OC) to see what they know. Nobody claimed to be disturbed because the detectives went to the place to physical search Madeleine.
    What happened to the girl cannot be an accident or at least cannot be explained as the result of an accident.
    I don't believe on Madeleine sedated. They are doctors and they are not stupid, they know the risks of a sedation and the side effects. The most common side effect is a deep sleeping, then Madeleine will sleep the all night without disturbing and without waking up to let herself to fall. Falling due to sedation, in a child, has little possibilities because a child will sleep easily without having space for any accident. I believe the twins were sedated on May 3, after Madeleine issue, but not Madeleine.
    If the twins were tested and sedatives were found on their bodies, the Mccann's will have a lot to explain. Actifed and Zyrtec are very commonly used in childs to treat allergies or blocked nose and they have deep sleep side effects. Using those products in one child could be normal but in both twins or in all Tapas children for the same night, will raise big, BIG ??????? That's why they refused to gave permission for the childs to be checked in an hospital and that's why Kate cut the twins hair after becoming arguido, to avoid any sample to be recovered from the twins hair. Drugs could be recovered from the hair many time after.

  29. 8:47

    I agree with with whatever has happened to Madeleine was a serious injury done or not accidentally. I assume had not the purpose to kill but, in fact, did.

    I would take the risk and say that she bumped with her head or someone bumped on her head. She had some serious neck injuries and the next 24 hours were not monitored as it should: accident was to bad and she died instantaneously; or was too late to save her due severe bran damages. One way or another we should always put this question if the girl was not sedated and accident do happen what would be the reason to concealed the body? What would be found if autopsy was done properly?

    This story is so malign that ocean pals never show up themselves again to support these two lost souls. Would we? You don't even heard from family. I think being a relative is already an handicap.

    I wonder what these two think about the situation when they are all alone with their memories of that terrific and late May afternoon!

    How could a person live at an abject level with all this toxic secrets on the baggage...?


Comments are moderated.

Comments are welcomed, but its reserved the right to delete comments deemed as spam, transparent attempts to get traffic without providing any useful commentary, and any contributions which are offensive or inappropriate for civilized discourse.