BLUF: If Maddie's death had anything to do with paedophilia then Maddie would have to have been a victim of a nepiophile. In turn, nepiophilia is absolutely incompatible with any sort of cover-up.
In our post “Speed”, we received the following comment:
“Anonymous 15 Apr 2014 19:42:00
I don’t subscribe your swinging theory. It makes sense, it’s possible and I agree it would warrant a cover-up. I happen to think there’s something greater to cover-up than swinging: paedophilia.
You have called it a Stink Bomb and I’m curious about your explanations why you think that.
I don’t think it’s a Stink Bomb at all and think it’s the big secret behind the cover-up.
You point the finger at Payne in having to do with Maddie’s death (I recall you being the first to do that in Joana’s) but have minimised all possibility of all this being the lid being kept on a a paedo crime committed by Payne.
He was identified by Yvonne Martin as paedo, or involved in paedo processes in UK. He was very rude to her.
The Gaspars identify clearly paedo behaviours in his conversation with Gerry when talking about Maddie.
Gerry has an empty CATS files.
He bathed other people’s little children during the holiday where the Gaspars were present. He bathed Gaspars’ daughter, for example.
He was the last person to see Maddie alive and describes the situation in very strange terms of white angels and all so peaceful.
There are also other things that make me thing that this is all about paedophilia:
He is the one that suggests and organises the holiday and he is the one that says who stays in what apartment
He is the one that doesn’t need to check his children because he has a baby monitor that works great distances and because of this is the only male of the group who doesn’t leave the dinner table.
He is the one who filmed that moment with Gerry swearing in front of all including children on an airport bus and I think he was the one who uploaded the video on YouTube.
He was the one that was heard in the rogatory statements after the Portuguese cops had left the UK. All others were heard when they were there. Also I think he says that the right forum is not to be there answering the rogatory questions.
I think all this points much more to paedophilia than to swinging. So why call it a Stink Bomb like you have?”
Thank you for your comment. Paedophilia is a very sensitive issue to talk about.
Not only due to the sick characteristics of this horrific pathology in terms of human behaviour but also to explain how very effective it is unfortunately a way to distract, as we will try to show.
We think we both share the certainty that there’s a Very High-Level Cover-Up (VHLCU) concerning the circumstances surrounding Maddie’s death.
Where we think we differ is in what we perceive to be the “big secret” that justifies this VHLCU.
You seem think that all this is due to Maddie may having been the victim of a paedophile who you suspect was David Payne.
From your words, you also seem to suspect the direct or indirect consent on the part of the victim’s father, Gerry McCann, in the physical contact that would have happened between Payne and Maddie which resulted in her death.
Just writing these words sends chills down one’s spine but one mustn’t avoid any hypothesis, however gruesome it may be, in the quest for the truth.
Reason must guide all of us and not personal moral standards or sensitivity of stomach.
We, on the other hand believe that the VHCLU was (and is) all about hiding the swinging activities and the participants present in PdL at the time Maddie died in the result of an unfortunate, although violent, accident.
That accident happened in the sequence of David Payne and Kate McCann being engaged, or in attempted engagement, in some sort of ADULT sexual intimacy.
This accident could have been the snowballing of a reaction of having been unexpectedly interrupted by Maddie because of only having closed the bedroom door without locking it or simply because of Kate's possible resistance to Payne's inopportune advances having developed into a heated discussion between them and in which Maddie unfortunately got involved.
In either scenario the context is sexual. A man being, or wanting to be, intimate with another man's wife with his knowledge and consent. A context of swinging.
In our opinion, no plausible explanation could be given to the lesions that Maddie’s body certainly presented as a domestic accident. An aggression, even if not intended to be fatal is an aggression and leaves its marks.
No plausible explanation, as was proved, could be given to explain David’s presence in the apartment at that time with Gerry absent.
As David and Kate had indeed, in our opinion, been engaged in some sort of sexual activity, consumated or not, with each other there was the immediate perception that this consensual behaviour could present a risk for rest of the “swinging community” present in PdL in being outed and have their lewd behaviour exposed with the serious repercussions to their reputations, careers and personal lives that would mean.
The sexual nature of Payne’s presence in the McCann’s apartment had to be hidden to hide the swinging, and to hide the reason of Payne’s presence there, Maddie’s death had to be hidden.
You believe in paedophilia as the reason for Maddie’s death and for the cover-up, we believe in an unfortunate accident as the cause of her death and in swinging as the cause of the cover-up.
But we have reasons to believe that paedophilia had nothing to do with what happened in the night of May 3 2007 in PdL.
We would sum up our reasons into 3: nepiophilia, cover-up and implantation.
Before we say why we did call paedophilia a STINK BOMB let us first try to explain why we think it has absolutely nothing to do with Maddie’s case.
In fact we want to make it very clear that we think that no child present that week in PdL suffered any harm, much less sexual molestation.
Paedophilia cannot be disregarded light-heartedly. Much less be discarded.
We would like to believe that our readers trust that we have thought about it profoundly before coming to the conclusions to which we arrived.
Wikipedia has the following definition for paedophilia: “is used for individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in prepubescent children aged 13 or younger. Nepiophilia (Infantophilia) is pedophilia, but is used to refer to a sexual preference for infants and toddlers (ages 0–3 or those under age 5). Hebephilia is defined as individuals with a primary or exclusive sexual interest in 11-14 year old pubescents.”
Although nepiophilia is paedophilia, we would divide this disgusting pathology into 3 categories:
Nepiophilia – ages 0–5;
Paedophilia – ages 6 –10;
Hebephilia – ages 11 –14.
The younger the victim the more horrendous the crime is. If for a hebephile the words “sick pervert” come to mind, for a paedophile, in this scale, the words “sadistic” and “cruel” must be added.
Please speculate what words are applicable to a nepiophile because we can’t. Or won’t for the sake of own sanity.
For Maddie to have died in a paedophile context it would mean that David Payne was a nepiophile and that Gerry and Kate McCann were accomplices to the heinous ordeal and horrific fate of their daughter.
It would also mean that the McCann family closed its ranks to protect a murderous nepiophile who isn’t even part of family.
Nepiophiles, or infant-rapists do not get sympathy from anyone.
Not even from their own families, who unable to avoid the highest shame that is possible to bear, will do the best they can to separate themselves from that disgusting creature and are usually on the forefront in condemning him publicly.
If infant-rapists understandably do not get any sympathy from their own families much less will they get any from the victim’s family.
It would be completely incomprehensible to expect a murderous infant-rapist to draw sympathy from acquaintances or total strangers to him.
Apparently, according to those who believe that paedophilia is the reason for Maddie’s death and for the cover-up that is exactly what is happening: they believe that David Payne, to them a murderous infant-rapist, enjoys the sympathy from his family, from the whole family of the victim, Maddie, and from all those involved in the cover-up.
The fact there’s a cover-up is for us the biggest indicator that paedophilia had nothing to do with Maddie’s death.
It’s a known FACT that paedophiles have been protected in VHLCU by the Establishment. The most recent being Jimmy Savile.
Cyril Smith, MP, also a prolific sexual abuser of young boys, knew Savile. Smith was protected by the Establishment, in spite of Private Eye magazine reporting his behaviour in 1979, when he was still alive.
Wasn’t it in the ancient Greek society that such phenomenon was not only accepted but public and encouraged? In modern days this is taken by the powerful as their peers little peccadilloes and so a bizarre, if not even “quaint”, behaviour known by all.
John Hemming, MP, suspects that the Establishment is still inclined to protect people in high placed, even in this kind of case.
No wonder many bloggers believe something similar has taken place in the McCann case. However, all known paedo-VHLCU, are about hebephiles, preying on victims ages 11 – 14.
Jimmy Saville was a hebephile (victims ages 11 – 14) and not a paedophile (victim ages 6 – 10). Much like Max Clifford, subject of our “Oh, Max!” post (06Dec2012) who was sentenced to eight years for his crimes. Hebephiles NOT paedophiles.
The covering-up for paedophiles (victims ages 6 –10) is much rarer. It is circumscribed to a very restricted circle of trust.
In this case, the protectors are fully aware that it is a heinous crime but prefer to look the other way, for fear, favour and/or a very close friendship.
The paedophile’s activities are frowned upon, “internally” within the restricted circle of trust, but his inability to control his sick urges is accepted as inevitable.
The biggest example of such a cover-up is the Catholic Church and is paying a heavy price for having covered-up this behaviour in the past.
To be part of a hebephile cover-up (victims ages 11 –14) is “acceptable” if the paedo is of “correct” social status but one has to have very strong reasons to allow oneself to be involved in a paedophile cover-up (victims ages 6 –10) regardless of the social status of the criminal.
Any kind of paedophilia is not tolerated by society and generates harsh social stigmatisation but the younger the victim the harsher that stigma is.
A good example of this is the Casa Pia case.
Carlos Cruz had an assitant called Carlos Mota. When Cruz was arrested in 2001, Mota became famous for saying “Se o Carlos Cruz é pedófilo, eu também sou” (translated, “If Carlos Cruz is a paedo, so am I”).
It turned out that Mota was indeed a paedophile accused of raping 2 girls, one 7 yrs old and the other of 8.
While Carlos Cruz was a hebephile (a crime for which he was sentenced), Mota was a paedophile, accused of a crime so serious (meanwhile prescribed) that he felt he had no other choice but to flee the country.
Carlos Cruz faced, for more than 10 years, the courts for his crimes. In that time it was witnessed many coming forward to support him. Much of the Portuguese Mainstream media made a significant effort to descredit the witnesses and evidence against Cruz.
Not one finger was lifted to help Mota. And Mota was a paedophile, not a nepiophile.
We know not of a single nepiophile cover-up (victims ages 0 – 5). Not a single one.
That would be covering up for an infant-rapist. A hebephile finds a peadophile absolutely disgusting. A nepiophile's acts are beyond known words to qualify its degree of repulsion.
As Maddie would have been a victim of a nepiophile, then every single person involved in the cover-up would be participating in cover-up of a murdering nepiophile, or to put it bluntly, a murdering infant-rapist.
The question is not whether a murdering infant-rapist would seek help to try cover up for his ignominious and repulsive crime (he might be stupid enough to try) but about who would be willing to take part in covering-up such hideous and dreadful crime.
Answer is no-one.
Not even close family.
A nepiophile’s acts are too horrific and repugnant.
No one would ever accept, for whatever reason, risk being in any way associated with such abhorrent and detestable acts.
So what possible secret could a murderous infant-rapist hold that would be so powerful and have enough strength to force the British and Portuguese governments on their knees?
What secret that could hold information so sensitive that would drive 2 governments to hide the murder of a little girl at the hands of a nepiophile?
What sort of favours could even begin to compensate a dead raped toddler?
Cannot see any.
Not even when mustering all powers of imagination.
And we’re talking about just a urologist, David Payne.
Levels of Cover-up
But the strongest indicator is not the fact that there’s a VHLCU but that there are other levels of covering up in this case.
We assumed, at the beginning of the post, that we both agree that there’s a VHLCU.
Let’s first define what we perceive to be the different levels a cover-up may have:
1. Very High-Level Cover-Up (VHLCU): involving the full commitment of state infrastructures such as governments and judicial systems as well as the full commitment of Mainstream Media (MSM).
2. High-Level Cover-Up (HLCU): involving the full commitment of tabloid media and the sympathy of state infrastructures such as governments and judicial systems as well as the sympathy of MSM. Involvement of significant commercial corporations such as multinationals.
3. Medium-Level Cover-Up (HLCU): no involvement of state infrastructures, involvement of local press and sympathy from other media and the involvement of local structures, which in Maddie’s case, the Ocean Club would be an example.
4. Low-Level Cover-Up (LLCU): involvement of locals apparently independent from events, which in Maddie’s case, the ex-Pats would be example.
5. Very Low-Level Cover-Up (LLCU): involvement of participants, families of participants and those vulnerable to direct pressure, which in Maddie’s case, the Ocean Club workers would be an example.
We think it’s safe to say that you and we both agree that in Maddie’s case we are in the presence of both a VHLCU and a HLCU.
Where our blog differs from all others, and maybe from you and all those genuine White Hats (WH) who seek the truth as to what happened with Maddie but happen to disagree with us, is that we state clearly that in our opinion there are also MLCU, LLCU and VLLCU present.
In other words we say that the Ocean Club, ex-Pats and Ocean Club workers are also involved in the cover-up.
The guests, who we also say are involved, fall under the categories of VHLCU and HLCU.
We don’t say this from the top of our heads.
We have demonstrated why we believe that the Ocean Club is involved by the inconsistencies about the dinners that it has confirmed it reserved for the T9 at the Tapas Bar for 5 nights in a row.
A meal that was supposed to have taken place at a table that all documentaries and news reports have been unable to replicate.
A table, the BRT, We have demonstrated why we believe beyond doubt that it didn’t exist:
We have demonstrated why we believe that the Ocean Club is involved by it having handed over to the PJ a series of papers, under the designation of “Tapas Reservation Sheets” which are absolutely meaningless besides being a frustrated attempt to prove that the Tapas dinners took place.
The fact that those “Tapas Reservation Sheets” are phoney makes all guests whose names are on them to be involved in the cover-up.
The fact that the there was no BRT and so no T9 Tapas dinners, proves that those who state seeing the group sitting around a big round table are lying, namely the Quiz Mistress and Jez Wilkins.
The Quiz Mistress who hosts, twice a week, a very popular British contest that only she remembers.
We have shown how Mrs Fenn’s “Maddie’s crying episode” is more than questionable.
We have demonstrated why we believe that the invention of Pimpleman, a pivotal character in 2009 whose use has been outlasted by the Black Hats (BH) themselves. He was materialised by Derek Flack, TS (a minor who is NOT responsible for the lies she was told to tell) and JW in stories which we showed had more holes in them than a Swiss cheese.
We have shown how the Tapas staff were conveniently singing from the same hymn sheet less than 24 hours after Madeleine disappeared.
It’s this melting pot that crosses all statuses and professions involving guests, Ocean Club management, Ocean Club workers and ex-Pats that rules out, in our opinion, paedophilia, or to be more precise, nepiophilia, in Maddie's case.
Whatever could possibly motivate these people in covering-up for a murderous infant-rapist?
The fact that there a not only VHLCU and HLCU but also MLCU, LLCU and VLLCU, indicate, to us, that nepiophilia is in no way related with Maddie’s death.
No way would so many people let themselves be involved in protecting a murderous-infant rapist.
There’s no secret big enough or powerful enough to enable that.
Note that up to now we have not said if we think David Payne was a paedo or not.
We have only analysed things in the hypothesis that Maddie died in his hands, him being a paedophile. Only in that hypothesis would that make him a murdering nepiophile or murdering infant-rapist.
The hypothesis of David Payne just being a paedo and that having nothing to do with Maddie’s death makes cover-up absolutely unnecessary for reasons of paedophilia as nothing would reveal his sick pathology. There wouldn’t be a need to hide it as Maddie’s death wouldn’t reveal it.
Again, not saying he is or he isn’t. The truth is we don’t know. Unfortunately paedos don’t look any different from other human beings so Payne, like anyone else, could be a paedo.
Statistics dictate that there may have been some paedos at the time in PdL.
However, swinging is a factor against those statistics as swingers abhor violence and enjoy adult pleasure while paedos enjoy inflicting suffering and are sexually stimulated by minors.
It could be said that statistically it would be less likely to find paedos in a swinger group than in any other.
But what we’re certain of is that independent of Payne being a paedo or not, Maddie’s demise had absolutely nothing to do with any sort of paedophile molestation.
However, it’s a reality that a peado shadow does loom over David Payne. That is unquestionable.
This is due, in our opinion, because of:
1. The statements from Yvonne Martin, a social worker;
2. The statements from Katherine and Arul Gaspar, a couple of doctors who went on holiday in Majorca with the Paynes and the McCanns;
3. The fact that Gerry McCann has a mysteriously empty CATS file. This becomes relevant taking into account that Gerry McCann is the person Payne has the disturbing conversation in a possible paedophile context.
4. The fact that David Payne uses the expression of “little angels dressed in white” to describe the McCann children during his visit to the apartment 5A on May3, early evening.
These are the 4 things we say have been used to implant in the general public's mind the idea that David Payne is a paedo. And if he killed Maddie, a nepiophile, a murderous infant-rapist.
Those who believe neglect and/or paedophilia have to realise they have been led there by skilled BHs.
Many believers are genuine WHs. People who genuinely seek the truth. People who genuinely want to know exactly what happened with no other agenda but that.
We repeatedly denounce those who have planted STINK BOMBS. These are planted by some and picked up as genuine by others.
We criticise fiercely those who plant them but have never criticised those we see genuinely believing in them.
We have always tried to tread a careful path in order not to alienate the genuine. To believe is not to be stupid but only to be victims of expert manipulators who know very well the tools of their trade.
We will address Yvonne Martin’s (#1) and the Gaspar’s (#2) statements in separate posts.
If we isolate #4, the “angels” moment, it can be taken as moment romanticised by Payne in the exact same exaggerated terms as Gerry’s “proud dad” moment that would allegedly happen a few hours later.
So let’s address, for now, only #3, Gerry’s CATS file. CATS stands for Case Administration and Tracking System.
The only fact we know about it is that it’s empty. Anything else about it is pure speculation.
If we say that it was always empty and it only exists because it was an immediate reaction to the events in PdL to anticipate a probable inquiry with the father of the missing child that would (should?) happen but never did, it’s pure and simple speculation.
If we say that it was filled with damning paedo information concerning Gerry McCann, it’s also pure and simple speculation.
We simply don’t know why it exists or what it contained if it ever contained anything. Anything said about this specific CATS file is, we repeat, pure and simple speculation.
But would Gerry McCann, or David Payne, be allowed to practise in a general hospitals, without restrictions if they had a history of paedophilia known to the relevant authorities?
In next posts we will speak of Yvonne Martin, Katherine and Arul Gaspar and why we think paedophilia in Maddie's case is a STINK BOMB.
What we think about SY and its digging activities due to start at the beginning of next week in PdL are expressed in our “PdL - The Game Board” post (09May2014) and nothing that has come up since presents any reason for us to change our opinion.
In fact, we think time elapsed (almost a month after authorisation given, certainly spent with "backstage negotiatons") confirms all we have said.
We are indeed curious as to what SY may do that hasn't already been done by Mark Harrison in 2007.