Friday, 30 September 2016

The Brit Snitch

(image from here)

1. Introduction

One of the biggest, if not the biggest, mysteries of the Maddie case is related to something we in the blog don’t subscribe to at all: that Maddie’s death was related to paedophilia.

One of the reasons we don’t subscribe to that theory is exactly because of this mystery, as we hope to explain today.

The fact that we don’t subscribe to the paedophilia thesis doesn’t mean we haven’t paid it attention, because we have and a whole lot of it.

We only wish others would give as much attention to swinging as we have done with paedophilia but then when one is only looking for validation one will always find it impossible to see reason.

We have analysed carefully all information that is available to support the paedo theory and we have come to the conclusion – which we respect that others won’t agree with – that it is planted one.

A jigsaw is made up only by the pieces that come in the box. Not a single piece less, not a single piece more. To solve it one has to use ALL the pieces in the box and cannot set some aside.

And one doesn’t solve anything if one uses pieces that did not come in the box but were cut and shaped so they could fit.

We realise and acknowledge the paedo pieces of the puzzle do exist, so we must and do use them. We do that by understanding why they are there for all to see.

As far as we can see, there are 3 paedo pieces in the Maddie case puzzle:

- Yvonne Martin statements;

- Gaspar statements;

- CATS file;

The big mystery we will be talking about today has to do with the Gaspar statements, as we hope we will be able to show.

Unlike we usually do, in this post we will pose the mystery question right up front: when exactly did paedophilia become a lead of interest to the PJ investigation?



2. The chronological order of numbers

If the reader responds that paedophilia became a lead when Yvonne Martin alleges to have written an anonymous letter to the British police (which we have never seen or has ever been acknowledged by anyone), the answer is incorrect.

If the answer was on June 12, 2007 when Yvonne Martin speaks to the PJ at her home after having convened them there that is also incorrect.

It wasn’t Yvonne Martin who first attracted the PJ’s attention onto the paedophile lead but she does help us find out who it was.

She does that through her statements. Not about their content – we will speak about that later – but because of the pages of paper they were printed on.

As we have explained in our “Debunking urban myths: the unpublished PJ files”, the process has handwritten numbering at the top right corner of each page.

As we said then, this provides a chronological order in which the various documents are appended to a process.

This handwritten numbering – which no OCR (Optical Character Recognition) software can replicate – ensures to anyone reading the process that no page has been inserted afterwards in the middle of it over time. And also that none have been taken out of it.

For example, and already getting to the crux of this post, the Gaspar statements are given on May 16, 2007 but are only appended to the process in October.

Same happens with Yvonne Martin. She speaks on June 12 and 13 but her statements are only appended to the process in November.

This hiatus of time is easily explained and that’s what we’re hoping we are going to do in this post.

It’s the fact that the Martin statements are appended after the Gaspar ones that tells us that it wasn’t because of Yvonne that the PJ became interested in paedophilia as a lead.

Both, the Martin and the Gaspar set of statements can be found in Volume XIII of the PJ Files.

It just happens that in that Volume XIII there is a numbering problem, and coincidence would have it that it happened after the Gaspar statements and before the Martin ones were appended.

What happened was that instead of 4000 following 3999, whoever was numbering followed it with 3400.

This mistake was only detected 428 pages later, when in Volume XIV page 3827 (which should have been page 4427 if there had been no error) this is acknowledged: “after page 3999 in volume XIII page numbers continued at number 3400 in error, instead of number 4000”

Instead of crossing out the erroneous numbers and putting in new ones, it was decided to continue the sequencing as it was, maintaining intact the integrity of the chronological order of the documents.

With the explanation, anyone reading Volume XII, knows that at 3999, the numbering was reset to 3400 and continued from there. The numerical sequence never stopped being respected.

All documents related to Yvonne Martins are in Volume XIII, pages 3421 to 3433:

3421 - Service information re: Yvonne Warren Martin

3422 to 3424 - Collection of information re: Yvonne Warren Martin

3425 to 3428 - Witness statement of Yvonne Warren Martin 2007.06.13

3429 - Photographic Recognition by Y.W.Martin re: David Payne

3430 - List of place where Yvonne W. Martin has worked

3431 to 3433 - Witness statement of Yvonne Warren Martin 2007.11.14

Immediately preceding these documents, it was appended to the files the statement by Susan Hubbard on Nov 13 (pgs 3418 to 3420).

This means that the Martin documents, including her statements of June 12 (3422 to 3424) and June 13 (3425 to 3428) were only appended to files on or after Nov 14, 2007 (3431 to 3433), the date of her final statement.

Please note both statements from Hubbard and from Martin are over 3400, so under the “new” numbering.

If there had been no numbering glitch they would have been 4018 to 4020 for Hubbard and 4031 to 4033 for Martin.

Why this is important?

Because the Gaspar statements, pages 3909 to 3920 (please remember these numbers are below 3999, when the numbering error began, so precede the 3422 to 3424 of Hubbard’s statements) were appended before the Martin ones.

And before the Gaspar documents there is no suggestion whatsoever in the files about paedophilia, directly or indirectly. The Gaspar documents are the first statements referring it in any way, shape or form that are appended to the process. 



3. Martin and the Unpublished PJ Files

Yvonne Martin is a great help for us the truth-seekers for 2 reasons.

First, when she helps explain how paedophilia is just a contemptible hoax, when part of it, overeggs her role as social worker and concerned citizen but fails in her mission by never really pointing the paedo finger in Payne’s direction, as we will see.

And the other reason she’s a help is because, and that is what matters today, she helps to clarify and debunk that urban myth of the infamous unpublished PJ Files.

In the post “The Saint of Salem I” we said that Yvonne Martin interacted with the authorities 9 times:

#1 – When she arrived in Luz and says she approaches a GNR officer to ask directions and is escorted by that GNR officer to near apartment 5A (her initiative approaching officer);

#2 – When two weeks later she writes an anonymous letter to the British police, finger-pointing Payne (her initiative);

#3 – When she calls the PJ saying that she wants to speak to them (her initiative);

#4 – When she speaks to PJ at her residence – 1st statement (her initiative);

#5 – When she speaks to PJ at PJ – 2nd statement;

#6 – When PJ “archives” both of her statements (she's unaware of this);

#7 – When PJ “unarchives” her statements (she's unaware of this);

#8 – When she’s notified to come to PJ to give a statement;

#9 – When she’s heard for the 3rd statement.

In that same post we said we were skipping over ‘#1 – In Luz with a GNR on May 4’, leaving it for last and addressed ‘#2 – Anonymous letter to the British police 3 weeks later (she says 2)’.

On the following post “The Saint of Salem II” we covered interactions ‘#3 – Calls PJ, date uncertain but educated guess would say on June 12 or the day before’ and ‘#4 – Speaks to PJ at her residence, June 12’.

Today we will skip ‘#5 – Speaks PJ at PJ, June 13’. It’s meaty, it has to be dealt with on its own. We will leave that for a later date.

Today we will be dealing deal with the following interactions: #6 – PJ “archiving” both her statements and #7 – PJ “unarchiving” them.

After these are explained we can also tick off the list interaction #8 – PJ notifying her come to PJ to give a statement, as it has no relevance in the discovery of the truth because it simply refers to having her go and give her 3rd statement.

As we said then, interactions #6 and #7 are done without her knowledge or awareness, or even her presence but, as we will see, are very important to understand this entire sick game.

Statements are not left around.

So it seems to be an easy fact to understand that between June 13 and Nov 14 the 2 Martin statements were stored somewhere but NOT in any of the binders of the process that we now call the PJ Files, otherwise we would find them together with the other documentation appended in June.

Between June and November they had to be archived somewhere else. Where and why?

It’s easy to understand when one isolates in time these 2 statements, as one should, and then one can see that what she said about Payne was really of no interest to the investigation at that point.

On June 12: “Already home following the case, through the English TV, she saw the same individual and, this time, the doubt she initially had disappeared, coming to the conclusion that that face had already passed by her during her professional activity of protecting minors, failing to discern if as a suspect/arguido or witness;

She clarified that she is able of doing a photographic recognition of the individual, having highlighted that with that identified photograph it is possible to access the English police’s database and clarify there if the same [individual]  has been related with crimes involving minors.”

On June 13: “As she highlighted previously, this third element of the group is familiar to her, she thinks he has passed by her, during the performance of her duties as an arguido/suspect or as a witness.”

That’s it.

The P-word is never mentioned and all is just a load of beating about the bush, pointing a very undefined, hazy and doubtful finger at Payne.

In fact, all she does is to suggest to the PJ that they go and search the English police database of crimes against minors to see if a man she can’t be minimally precise about, is in it.

She tries accusing Payne in a way the Portuguese would call “discreetly, as if not wanting the thing” but ended up being far too discreet, so much so that no one gets to notice the accusation she tried to make.

However, this suggestion could have triggered the Portuguese police to go and request information on Payne if he didn’t happen to be, well, Payne.

David Payne is the only man of the group to have an iron-clad solid alibi during the time Maddie is said to have been abducted.

PJ has been told the last time Payne saw Maddie was on 18:30 of May 3 and this has been confirmed by the girl’s mother.

The only possibility for him to have been involved in Maddie’s disappearance, would be in that short period of time when the McCanns and others members of the group waited at Tapas for the Payne group to arrive for dinner.

But after that, Gerry McCann says he saw Maddie in her bed. No way could Payne be involved in Maddie’s disappearance between 21:15 and 22:00.

Together with Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster, David Payne is someone who allegedly never leaves the table before Kate’s alarm is given. So confirmed their friends.

For the PJ, what Yvonne Martin is doing is pointing her doubt-filled to the brim finger at the last person they have reason to suspect as all his movements that night, and those of his family, are totally accounted for.

The only interest paedophilia had at that time to the investigation was in terms of a possible abduction within a child trafficking crime.

Not for a minute was it ever considered, then, that Maddie could have been a victim of such a crime in situ.

But even if she were, it certainly couldn’t have been in the hands of a man who had been seen sitting at a table during the time the crime would have taken place.

What Martin has said in both her statements about Payne is naturally considered of no interest to the investigation.

A legal process in Portugal includes only relevant documents.

Not all collated documents or diligences made are appended to the process. This is for the simple reason that only relevant information collated by the investigation is presented to the public prosecutor for decision.

No unnecessary clutter to waste the decider’s time. Each page that constitutes the process has to have been considered of interest, even if minimal, to the conclusions to which the investigation came.

It’s easy to determine what is relevant and to be included, the McCann statements being an obvious example.

The difficulty arises in differentiating what is minimally relevant and included from what is useless and not.

To be safe, it’s usual to use the Portuguese rule of “for the yes, for the no, the best is” to include, when deciding that.

Martin’s statements were considered so useless they didn’t even get past that. PJ had so many other avenues to work on other than one about a man with a solid alibi.

They considered Yvonne Martin at that point in time either an overzealous citizen at best or just another crackpot at worst, so neither statement was considered to have minimal relevance to the case.

But what is useless today may be of interest tomorrow, so evidently is not thrown away. It’s archived.

Where? In what some call the Unpublished PJ Files and we call it the Maddie – Useless Stuff Files.

On June 13, or shortly thereafter, both of Martin’s statements were considered not having any kind of importance and were archived in the Maddie – Useless Stuff Files.

We are certain there is a load of unpublished documents pertaining to the Maddie case. But unlike some may think, is not filled with top-secret and explosive stuff but just with what PJ considered without any importance whatsoever after it came to its conclusions and presented the process to the public ministry for decision.

The proof such a file exists is that Martin statements are unearthed exactly 5 months after they were archived.



4. Gaspars enter the process

The Gaspar statements help shed a light about the initial question we have put in this post: when exactly did PJ become interested in the paedo lead?

They help shed light about it but don’t answer it. They are the reason the question is asked but they are not the answer.

Chronologically they precede the Yvonne Martin’s ones in terms of inclusion in the process.

This is very important to determine what or who initiated the interest the PJ in the paedo lead.

The 2 Yvonne Martin statements on their own, as we have shown meant nothing to the PJ. But when looked at together with the Gaspar statements they gain a whole new meaning, especially the “crime against minors” bit.

Only after the Gaspar statements having arrived could that analysis happen.

That’s the reason why the Martin ones are appended after the Gaspar ones. Someone remembered a social worker who had said something about Payne and went to the Maddie – Useless Stuff file and retrieved it. With the Gaspar statements, the Martin statements certainly become of interest to the investigation, without them they do not.

So, it’s easy to understand that the interest the investigation has in the paedophile lead comes with the Gaspars and not from Yvonne Martin. The order in the appending of the respective statements tell us that quite clearly.

But the question that is now unanswered is when did PJ take notice of the Gaspars and their statement?

The answer to this question would answer the question of when did PJ become interested in the paedo lead which continues to be answered.

Mr Amaral speaks twice about how the Gaspars enter the process.

First it’s in the Chapter 9 – Majorca, September 2005, pgs 120,121.

With all due respect to the effort made to the translation we have found on the internet, we found that some important details were missing from it. This is our translation:

“What above is written was relayed on May 16, 2007, only thirteen days after Madeleine’s disappearance to the English police, by the S.G. and K.G. couple. It was important and pertinent information for the investigation. However nothing was transmitted to the Portuguese police. In the middle of July, rumours began to circle, among the team of investigators, which something similar would have happened, not being known, at the time, details and identity of the participants. These rumours pointed to an eventual identical situation that would have taken place in Greece, during a holiday trip. However, we had no knowledge of any testimonial proof in that sense. Clarifications to the English police were asked, but nothing was confirmed at the time. I think that only after my departure from the investigation, perhaps at the end of October 2007, it is when the statement from K.G. would have been sent to the Portuguese police. With legitimacy one asks: what is the reason for the English police would have, as all indicates, hidden that statement for six months? When they knew that David Payne organiser of the trip to Majorca, and of whom were signalled abnormal behaviours in the relationship with children, was the same who organised the trip to Portugal, in which the holiday group of village of Luz was part and in which Madeleine was included, who was the first family friend to be seen by Kate McCann’s side after the child’s disappearance (as later will be seen) and on the date of the statement was still in Portugal, could be confronted with these statements? There can be no doubt that the Portuguese investigators could have moved forward with the investigation, in a quicker way, having knowledge of the eventual facts of Majorca, if they had knowledge of them in useful time. These statements with reference to the Majorca trip, seem to indicate a bizarre behaviour worthy of a profound investigation. Are we before a pertinent profile? Could this profile be related to what happened on the night of May 3? The credibility of the S.G. and K.G. statements cannot be easily put in question, as both are doctors and of the same circle of acquaintances – as the members of the Vila da Luz group, who are English doctors and know each other well.”

From this we get to know that it is GA who first hears “rumours” about the Gaspar statement in the middle of July.

This initial information lacks the particulars (the holidays with the Gaspars is even supposed to have taken place in Greece instead of Majorca) and he asks UK for information/clarification and gets none.

Unfortunately, there is nothing of this in the PJ Files, so trusting his words, which we do, this documentation is now archived in the Maddie – Useless Stuff Files.

This shows that then the PJ pursued this lead, once it had knowledge of it, with little or no conviction otherwise we would now be able to see this paperwork in the files and we don’t.

Before anyone thinks we’re criticising the Portuguese investigation let us say very clearly that we not only understand it but would do the exact same thing if in the same position. This lead pointed to a man with a solid alibi and all the sordid details referred to in the Katherine Gaspar’s statement were not known.

Please note that GA interlinks the Yvonne Martin statements with the Gaspar ones – the bit in parenthesis – in the exact same way we do: it’s Martin who complements the Gaspars and not the other way around.

The second time GA speaks about this is during the Porto Canal TV show, which we transcribed in our post “Political Courage”:

Luís Filipe Meneses: Is it true ... is it true that one of the elements of the group two years before had been denounced by another companion?

Gonçalo Amaral: Exactly!

LFM: Of having behaviours near those that could indicate...

GA: ... that is important ....

LFM: .... some extravagant behaviour from the point of view of his tendency to be a paedophile?

GA: It's true ... there is a mystery figure who may even have to do so with the departure of Clarence Mitchell from the British Government to go support the couple. It can be said it is a conspiracy theory but it is not.

There is also a British couple, also doctors, who two years earlier went holidaying with the McCann couple and their children, with Madeleine and with other medical couples, being among them a man who is David Payne.

This David Payne is the last witness, is the witness that on May 3 says he went there to the apartment and that he saw those little children and that they looked heavenly angels, were all very nicely washed, very white, something out of Heaven and is the person who bathed in the holidays, in these holidays he organized, that bathed the girls of 2, 3 years, not only his daughters, his children, but the children of the others.

And it is these circumstances of bathing the children of the others and in comments he makes in a vacation period in which he speaks of, and according to the statements of Dr Katherine Gaspar, who is the name of the person who denounces, statements that are in process that say…

LFM: …denounces extravagant behaviour of the gentleman.

GA: Yes, and this is something that, if we have time, we'll try to explain. She says ... what she says is that he made a gesture and asked questions to Gerald McCann about Madeleine McCann in front of Madeleine McCann herself, who at the time was 2 years old...

LFM: In the investigation, it was never explored the possibility of this man being a paedophile?

GA: Exactly! The question is this: it’s that these statements came to Portugal after I left the investigation, on the 2... I left on 2 October and they arrived months later.

They are the statements of Dr Katherine Gaspar and of her husband to the British Police on May 16, 2007, 15 days after the disappearance, statements that the Portuguese police were not informed of and arrive in Portugal via... by mail, no, by fax, under other papers, and these statements came apart [Portuguese: e que vêm soltas essas declarações] and what someone from the British Police does is, here are these statements and now you investigate, [you, PJ] question.

And no one from the Portuguese Police, who replaced me, who came next, has yet questioned, nor SY.

No one questions, no one investigates what is going on there. Dr Katherine Gaspar, who denounced David Payne to the British police, was never heard in the Portuguese process and was never included in the rogatory letter which was issued by the Portuguese authorities. This is the truth, and we’re going on with debates, with burglaries...

Júlio Magalhães: …Goncalo Amaral ...

GA: ...and things that are in the process are not investigated.

JM: All this makes one think, and just to finish, that it will never be solved... it will never be... it’s a case that will stay in history without being solved?

GA: I think it will be solved, it will be solved ... and there we come back to politics, when there will political will on both sides.”

In the book we get an idea as to when the PJ got first hears rumours about Majorca and in this interview we get to know how it the Gaspar statement arrives and is appended to the process:

“in Portugal via .... by mail, no, by fax, under other papers, and these statements came apart [e que vêm soltas essas declarações] and what someone from the British Police does is, here are these statements and now you investigate, [you, PJ] question.”

According to GA, the Gaspar statements arrive by fax, under some random papers.

The way he describes how these statements arrive, it’s hard to understand whether he thinks the statements were sent by accident – because they came underneath other papers – or that he finds the English police were somewhat arrogant and nonchalant about the statements – here they are, now you work on them.

It has to be one or the other and we’re inclined to think that he thinks the latter. The former, however – that the Gaspar statements arrived by accident, sent by mistake by the UK to Portugal, is what many – we would say everyone except us – believes happened.


Mr Amaral is incorrect on one thing and that is the Gaspar statements arrived “under some other papers”. They didn’t. They arrived with the papers they were supposed to have arrived with and in the order they were expected to arrive.

What tells us that? The PJ Files.

These are the documents related to the Gaspar statements as they were appended in the files:

3909 to 3910 - Portuguese translation of cover letter from Leicestershire re: Gaspar statements

3911 to 3915 - Witness statement of Katherina Zacharias Gaspar 2007.05.16

3916 to 3920 - Witness statement of Arul Savio Gaspar 2007.05.16

What happens is that the first 2 pages (pgs 3909 and 3910) have been wrongly named.

It’s not a cover-letter but just a letter:


It’s a letter in which the UK responds to various requests made by the PJ: questions for David and Fiona Payne to answer and the Gaspar statements. It’s a letter with 2 annexes, a 2 page main body and annexed the statement of Arul and the statement of Katherina Gaspar.

To call it a cover-letter re: Gaspar statements would be to imply that the sole purpose of the document would be for that reason and that is incorrect.

Only 1 phrase, the opening one, is dedicated to the Gaspars, all the rest has to do with the Paynes.

But it is that opening line that tells us a lot. We would say it contains 2 very important words the most important ones of the process outside the conclusions of the interim report and John Lowe’s admittance that stain 3A was from Maddie.


This is what it says: “Annexed, follow the statements by Arul and Katherina Gaspar, as requested”.

We will even put this phrase in its original Portuguese so that nothing gets lost in translation: “Em anexo, seguem os depoimentos da Arul e Katherina Gaspar, conforme solicitado”.

The 2 very important words: “as requested”.

“As requested” immediately rule out an accidental sending of the statements. The Gaspar statements were specifically requested and in response were specifically sent.

“As requested” also means that on the UK side of things, quite a few people were involved. The request was received, the request was analysed and the sending of the statements approved, the statements were retrieved from where they were, supposedly, since May 16 and lastly each page was fed into a fax machine and no one introduces by accident 10 pages into a fax machine.

This also tells us the statements did not arrive “under other papers”. They arrived after the document to which they were annexed. Nothing accidental, all intentional and most importantly, nothing strange about it as would be strange if it wasn’t so.

The “as requested” put together with the questionnaire that was sent for David and Fiona to respond to, shows us clearly there was a significant increase in what the PJ knew about the Majorca holiday.

In July they only knew of rumours which they, according to GA, tried to clarify without success. Then they didn’t know the identity of participants nor any detail. Between then and October, they know the specifics about who gave the statements and that Payne was at the centre of them. Why else are the Paynes brought back into the spotlight out of nowhere, if not because of that?

The “as requested” shows that PJ has the knowledge that both Katherina had Arul Gaspar have given statements. It is not a quest wondering in what way they could help the investigation. It is adamant: SY send us the statements from the 2 Gaspars, please, the ones we know you have, thanks.

The reason why there was this sudden increase in knowledge about these statements and when it happened would answer our initial question: when did paedophilia become a lead of interest to the PJ?

Not in June because the Yvonne Martin statements were set aside, not in July because then there were only vague rumours and it wasn’t being pursued with conviction and nowhere is it reflected in the process any sort of frustration about the lack of responses to the questions about it.

An example of such frustration is shown in the undated document (pgs 3578 to 3583) signed by Mr Rebelo but appended to the process in November (we have estimated this by taking into account that a preceding appended document referring to the delivery of pyjamas to FSS Birmingham (pg 3490) is dated 29 November 2007).

It’s evident that all forensic samples were sent to the UK during the month of August (allowing for the September report to be written) but Mr Rebelo, who took over the process after October 2, to write up this document listing the samples that were sent and writing up queries he would like to see some answers to. Basically a document saying hey UK, we sent you this a long time ago, where are the answers?

He would only get the reply to some, and in the way we all know, in the FSS final report, a shameful thing.

And as we have talked about the pyjamas, on Nov 28, FSS was asked by the PJ for a comparison between the fibres of the pyjamas and those collected from the Renault Scenic. As far as we know, this never received a response.

Mr Rebelo was clearly really frustrated about the absence of answers on forensics from the UK. No such similar frustration is shown about an eventual absence of answers concerning the Majorca holiday.

Very clearly, the “as requested” shows that between mid-July and Oct 24, someone, somewhere updated the PJ all about the Gaspars, now certainly with identities and most probably with details.

To the question when did paedophilia become a lead of interest to the PJ investigation the answer is whenever the PJ was updated on the Majorca holiday by whoever did it between mid-July 2007 and Oct 24 that same year.

The moment someone convinced the PJ to ask the UK for the Gaspar statements specifically.



5. Good cops, bad cops and cops who aren’t stupid

From this point on in this post, we ask readers to forget temporarily all about swinging and to make the effort to assume that the big secret that is being hidden is indeed that Maddie died at the hands of a paedo, presumably David Payne.

To fully comprehend all we have said above, we must continue under that and only that scenario: paedophilia is at the heart of the Maddie case.

The first reaction one would say the reason why the PJ got to know first as rumours and then with the specifics about the Gaspars and their statements would be for the source to have been a Brit cop with a conscience who snitched

The fact that GA never mentions who snitched could be because he’s protecting the source.

But the same source who whispered the rumours into GA’s ears cannot not be the same as the one who really enlightens the PJ about the Gaspars.

Why? Because of the McCann hasty departure (with a quick pit-stop at friend Freud’s place for a nightcap) from Portugal once they were made arguidos.

We have said that this enlightenment happened between mid-July and Oct 24, but we’re certain it happened nearer to the latter than to the former. We are certain the PJ didn’t hold on to this information once it had knowledge of it.

It’s a known fact that once the McCanns flew out of Portugal, Britain fascinatingly lost interest in the investigation in Portugal and all their cops flew home with them or soon after.

It was as if it was the McCann presence in Portugal that determined their presence in that country. Yes, we all know it was.

But what matters is that the eventual good cop who snitched in mid-July couldn’t be the same cop who would snitch in October. Or if he was, in July he was in Portugal and in October was in England, so communicated by easily surveyed means: phone or mail.

It’s irrelevant whether it was one or two good cops with a conscience. What matters is that on either occasion someone with knowledge of the Gaspars contacted the PJ to enlighten them about it. We shall call this source the Brit Snitch.

From Mr Amaral we get to know that the Brit Snitch first rats about the Gaspars in mid-July.

We think that Mr Amaral was, and maybe still is, under a wrong assumption that there were good Brit cops willing to help their fellow Portuguese colleagues.

An absolutely wrong assumption because when it comes to the Maddie case, there were and there are no good Brit cops. Not a single one.

Because the all the good ones, and we are certain there were (and are) many, many good cops in Britain, were and are not stupid.

Two good cops come to mind, Mark Harrison and Martin Grime. Indeed, we have nothing to point against them and they did their job very well and truth owes a LOT to both. But one mustn’t forget that they worked under favourable conditions, in July and August when the McCanns were free game.

Once the game hunting season was closed in September, silence reigned in every trench of the police front.

When it came to the Maddie case, the good cops either saw themselves forced to turn “bad” (as in compliant and in obeying orders) or just became silent doing their best to not get involved.

We repeat that we are speaking exclusively about the Maddie case.

This, we picked up recently from Twitter helps us understand the pressure and risk anyone who thought of stepping over the line was under.

We believe this was reported early on by a paper. It was about one of the T9 wanting to break rank and speak out. We are not certain this ever happened and we’re not saying it did (nor saying it didn’t). What we’re saying is that what is said was absolutely true about the consequences of not toeing the line:


“It’s not that he is scared of the McCanns but the economic and political lobby surrounding the couple is truly frightening to anybody. What my client wants is to reveal the whole truth but he does not mean to accuse or blame anyone, as that is the job of the police. The only thing he wants is to help the police discover the truth about what happened before, during and after that dinner on May 3”

This may not relate to a real event, we don’t know but what we know is that its content is not only faultless because it lacks the reference to the legal lobby who contributed significantly to the terror campaign that infected the country in 2007.

Yes, in 2007 it was truly, truly frightening. Not worth the hassle to make a good cop be good.

Plus, with the entire establishment involved, Prime-Minister Gordon Brown included, anything related to Maddie was tremendously sensitive.

Wikipedia says Top secret is the highest level of classified information. NATO has come up with a really scary title for its highest level: Cosmic Top Secret.

Neither pay real justice to the classification that anything related to Maddie really had in the UK in 2007 (and still has). If we had to name it would be something like Plague Top Secret: if you see it, you are immediately infected and if you’re infected you must be quarantined, and so closely observed and monitored so the infection would be effectively contained and controlled.

And within the Plague Top Secret and the secret for the national cover-up being paedophilia (we are under this scenario, remember?), anything, but really ANYTHING, directly or indirectly, having to do with it would have even tighter control than referred to above.

This to say that if the Gaspars statements were genuine – to say their credibility can’t be questioned because they’re doctors, then one cannot question whatever a certain 6 others doctors have said and we all know to be baloney – and IF paedo is the secret, anyone leaking that information to the PJ would be very quickly and easily spotted and made to face a very grim future.

There were no good cops working in the Maddie case, not because Brits cops are bad but because we most certainly do not take them to be stupid.

How many Brit cops in Portugal would know about the Gaspars and the content of their statements if paedo was the big secret that had to be hidden at all costs?

If genuine and taking into account that paedo was the humongous secret to be protected, the moment they left the room after they spoke in England on May 16, alarm bells would have blared all the way to Downing Street and everyone would be ordered to freeze until told they could move again. The statements would be sealed in vacuum in double strengthened plastic bags, put in lead containers and sealed in a vault with a triple key opening in a dungeon somewhere. And all those few who were unfortunate to have been exposed to them would be put in a room and only allowed to leave it when completely indoctrinated.

Yet, it seems, the Brit Snitch in Portugal knew about them in mid-July enough to start the rumours.

And one can only imagine the desk banging, lamp throwing, collar pulling fury that certainly invaded every office again, all the way to Downing Street, when the first query from PJ about the Gaspars, however vague, arrived in the UK.

A “fire brigade” would have been sent immediately to the Algarve, to quickly and swiftly find out who the Brit Snitch was, fly him or her back home under some personal problem excuse, flog on the deck that person mercilessly, have salt rubbed in the wounds and tie him or her to a mast under a scorching sun to set a ruthless example for all. The Brit Snitch and all his or her accomplices in this treacherous acts.

Each poor soul in the Brit Snitch’s line of command would have to kneel in front of a parade and show their repentance by begging tearfully before all for a second opportunity to prove their loyalty.

Treason must be dealt with the greatest of severities.

After that, all measures would be taken to make sure no second query would come from Portugal on THAT subject and to quickly convince the PJ that the Majorca incident never existed.

As we saw, in mid-July the rumours started by the Brit Snitch said that the Gaspar-Payne-McCann holiday had been in Greece and not in Majorca, so all was needed to tell the PJ was that those rumours about Greece were false. That would be true and the story would die there and then.

And without Brit Snitch anywhere near the Portuguese, it would never revive. Besides, while being tortured he could inform everyone that he knew that what Yvonne Martin had to say to the PJ held no water and was completely disregarded. No Gaspar statements, no paedophilia in the Maddie case. The big, no, the enormous and national secret would be safe and sound.

Nothing of the sort happened. The Brit Snitch apparently continued to feed the rumours to the point in October the statements were being requested specifically and when that happened there were no apoplectic attacks and chest clutching in Leicestershire Constabulary, in CEOP, in Scotland Yard, in the Home Office, in Whitehall or in Downing Street as would be expected because it would be an embarrassment to all by making it evident how they were unable to control their people and their sensitive information in the crisis.

In fact, what happened was just a here you are, which GA even took as an arrogantly displeased please investigate as we have better things to do.

Very strange if paedophilia was the big secret and it is under that specific scenario that we are speaking.



6. Why?

The question that follows is… why?

Why on earth did – and not could – the UK send this highly sensitive information to Portugal?

Or to be precise, why did the UK send to Portugal this highly sensitive information after months of hiding it?

Without it, no one but no one would ever link Maddie and paedophilia as Martin’s statements would be still stored in the middle of the other useless stuff to this day. And even if unearthed and included in the file, what she has said in those 2 statements is anything but damning.

Without the Gaspar statements the paedophilia lead would never have grown legs to walk, and if all revolves around paedophilia and Payne the paedo wouldn’t THOSE 2 statements be exactly THE information NOT to send to Portugal EVER?

Politeness maybe, because Portugal asked?

To understand the politeness, sense of shame or worry from the UK about insulting the Portuguese let us just quote the following passage from GA’s book (pgs 185-186):

“As to the samples from the vehicle’s boot, it was now concluded, that the 15 components of Madeleine’s DNA profile had disappeared. That is, were no longer mentioned, it was if they hadn’t existed. Suddenly it dawns: either the LCN technique wasn’t credible or then it would be easier to explain Madeleine’s DNA inside the apartment than in the inside the boot of a vehicle hired 24 days after her disappearance. Because of our insistence, Stuart contacted the FSS and asked them if they thought the Portuguese were idiots. At a certain point in time we heard him say to those present: «with a lot less I’ve arrested people in England»”

John Lowe, from the FSS, brazenly backpedalling about Maddie’s DNA in September showed very clearly that the UK was PROACTIVELY and shamelessly covering up for paedophilia (remember that we are under that scenario, please) but then the same UK feeds, in October, Portugal with damning paedophile evidence just because it asked for it. Why?

And talking about the FSS, let us quote another passage from GA’s book (pg 187):

“Stuart, once again, consulted the English lab. The hairs had not been yet analysed. We didn’t just want to determine if the hairs were Madeleine’s. We mainly wanted to know if it was from a dead or live person. The FSS wasn’t able to answer the last requirement, only the first. English colleagues present in the meeting raise the hypothesis of those hairs be sent to European labs with the capability to answer that question: hairs from a living or dead person. But the FSS seems not to open hand of such hairs.”

UK doesn’t overtly release crucial evidence Portugal knows is in their hands but then releases the Gaspar statements because Portugal got somehow to know they had them. Why?

And what about the credit card information? Again let’s quote GA from his book (pg 192):

“This was relative to the socio-economic situation and in it, strangely, the English police stated that of the McCann couple no credit or debit cards were known.

- It’s not possible.

- They don’t have credit cards? But there are 2 that are identified: the one used to pay for the air trips and the one that rented the Renaut Scenic.”

The credit and debit card information is shamelessly withheld but a statement incriminating 2 of the Tapas 9 (yes, lest we forget, Katherina Gaspar also puts Gerry in the paedo hot seat) in paedophilia is sent by fax upon request. Why?

According to the believers that paedophilia is the big secret, the UK had no qualms slapping everyone in the face in emptying out Gerry’s CATS file – we think it’s empty simply because nothing was ever put in it – but released the Gaspar statements because they would have a problem of being seen as rude if they withheld them, plus by releasing them when they did, it exposed how UK had been hiding them for months. Why?

With the record it had when it came to the Maddie case we cannot see any reason for the UK to have answered Portugal’s request on the Gaspars. Yet it did.

UK by sending those statements to Portugal took enormous risks on having, needlessly, the whole paedo can of worms popping open. Yet, it did just that.

Even if it was decided for an answer to be given, The UK had other options

It could have done like it did with Carole Tranmer-Fenn, who they called back to “listen” to her again. Like they did with Carole, they could steer the questions in a way the Gaspars would only answer with what was the most convenient and send that.

We remind readers that with Carole Tranmer-Fenn they tried really hard to have her change the e-fit she had done in her first statement. Because she didn’t the original e-fit was never sent and neither was her first statement. If these were never sent, why would the Gaspar statements be?

Also the request could have received an evasive answer, like was done with the response given to the questionnaire requiring an answer, in the letter in which the statements were annexed. Note that Payne doesn’t say anything but is said to have said. The same could have been done with the Gaspars: respond with a document saying the Gaspars said this and that, and close the issue once and for all.

The statements could have been tampered with and all the sensitive stuff withdrawn or smoothed out. It wasn’t expected for the files to be published, so no one would know better.

But even if they got to be published who would know about this tampering? Outside those who tampered, only the Gaspars evidently.

That wouldn’t be any problem as we know of a whole bunch of people who have certainly seen their names being tampered with in the booking sheets and no one has lifted a finger about it, so why would the Gaspars? They would just be another 2 in silence.

We are certain there would be many other ways to elude the Portuguese about the Gaspars if their statements were really that sensitive, and in a paedophile scenario they certainly would be.

Instead, they send it to the Portuguese. They get to know the Portuguese know about it and don’t act upon it. Then they let the Portuguese request it and do nothing. They only do something when they receive the request: they go look for the statements and send them with a dry here they are, go on, we dare you to investigate them.



7. Conclusion

Aren’t the Gaspar statements like a bowling ball thrown in a packed crystal shop shattering all in its path but everyone seems only to be worried about catching it so they can hold it up as prize to be put over a mantelpiece and no one stops for a moment to ask how in heavens was it rolling in that shop in the first place?

When the hand-out is too much even the poor is suspicious, so say the Portuguese.

And if one desires to start a wildfire, nothing best to light up a paedophile match. Its flames spread very, very fast.

A bowling ball in a crystal shop causes havoc and havoc is one spectacular, attention grabbing distraction.

30 comments:

  1. All well and good. But what about Sophia Leal's remark that she would not let a paedophile into her circle of friends? This tells me Amaral has told her something we are possibly not privy to.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Marty, Could you link where she has made this comment please. Thank you.

      Delete
    2. Marty,

      “Me and and my husband never abandoned our daughters, or allowed paedophiles in our circle. It shocks me that a couple saying they’re religious wants to destroy our family”, says Sofia Leal.
      Article from CdM of Sept 8, 2010
      http://www.cmjornal.pt/portugal/detalhe/mccann-querem-casa-de-amaral

      This was in 2010, Mr Amaral’s wife wasn't privy to a secret once PJ files were public

      Mr Amaral does seem to believe that David Payne was a possible paedo. In his book writes about strangeness of bathing children.

      One thing we agree fully with Mr Amaral: paedophilia in the Maddie case should be investigated fully. If real, be obviously punished. If red herring as we say it is, be punished as well.

      Delete
  2. Totally agree - all designed to catch everyone's attention and send everyone off in the wrong direction. You're thorough explanation in revealing that this was planted is excellent.

    ReplyDelete
  3. I think this might interest you sisters:
    https://mobile.twitter.com/K9Truth/status/781812759730282496

    LoveTextusaBlog ‏@LoveTextusa
    TEXTUSA The Brit Snitch Total Pageviews 2,049,011 #mccann http://textusa.blogspot.co.uk/2016/09/the-brit-snitch.html …

    Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth
    @LoveTextusa The girls have fundamentally misunderstood the rumors of similar events in Greece. This was written retrospectively >>> #McCann

    Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth
    @LoveTextusa >>> so at the time the PJ knew nothing about the Gaspar Statements. The separate Greek incident was only similar >>> #McCann

    Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth
    @LoveTextusa >>> in retrospect. The Greek holiday was also referred to by other members of the Tapas 7. K&G weren't on that holiday. #McCann

    Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth
    @LoveTextusa Other signs of paedophilia omitted by TU include Payne's bathing of T9 kids (even after Greece!) + the "Lolita" pic. #McCann

    Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth
    @LoveTextusa Not forgetting the tags on RM's site "sexo, sex, adulto, adult, equestrian, riding, love, romance, lonely, girls, boys" #McCann

    Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth
    @LoveTextusa This is the site that contained those keywords: http://web.archive.org/web/20051229122332/http://www.jacinto-murat.pt/ … Unusual marketing technique, to say the least! #McCann

    LoveTextusaBlog ‏@LoveTextusa
    @K9Truth Thanks, I will alert the sisters to your Tweets, they don't do twitter. #mccann

    Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth
    @LoveTextusa Thanks, but they appear to be well aware of what is written on Twitter ;) #McCann

    LoveTextusaBlog ‏@LoveTextusa
    @K9Truth You could ask via their blog if you wish, just a thought. #mccann

    Canine Truth – ‏@K9Truth
    @LoveTextusa Like the sisters, I prefer to stick to only one platform. It's an interesting article, but IMO not convincing. #McCann
    04:07 - 30 de set de 2016

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 30 Sep 2016, 12:21:00

      Thank you for the heads up. Let’s break this into various subjects:

      1. The site to which K9 refers to is a business, Jacinto&Murat, established in 1972, by João Jacinto and John Murat, Robert’s father. John Murat stopped being a partner of it in 1977, 39 years ago.
      http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_JACINTO.htm

      We think this business we think still exists:
      http://www.directorio.iol.pt/jacinto-murat-lda--206765.htm

      It has nothing to do with Robert Murat, so we don’t know why it is even being brought up and suggesting a link between it and paedophilia is not exactly doing it a favour.

      But we will go one up on K9 and say that paedo keywords were indeed searched by the PJ, in the computers seized from Murat and Malinka, before the Gaspar statements were appended to the files.

      We spoke of this in our post of April 4, 2014 “Why Swing”:
      http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2014/04/why-swing.html

      “On reading them [keywords searched], one immediately understands why all of them are keywords related to the case. All with the exception of 2: “Sophie” and “swing”.
      In fact we can separate the keywords into 3 major groups:
      To do with Maddie: “eiddam”, “Mad”, “Madd”, “Maddie”, “Maddy”, “Madel(ale)ine”, “Madelaine”, and “Madeleine”.
      To do with Murat: “Malinka”, “Murat”, “Robert”, “Robert Murat”, “Serg(ily)”, “Sergei” and “Sergey”.
      To do with paedophilia: “encomenda”, “kid”, “lolita”, “pack”, “package”, “pacote” and “pedo”.
      About paedophilia we also noted that all computers were checked for “sexual abuse on minors” having been cleared of that.
      Two computers returned the word “lolita”: computer “705” related to computer software and computer “987” related to porn sites with “lolita” in their names having been visited.”

      We have not forgotten about this in our post. We have mentioned it when we said:

      “The only interest paedophilia had at that time to the investigation was in terms of a possible abduction within a child trafficking crime.
      Not for a minute was it ever considered, then, that Maddie could have been a victim of such a crime in situ.”

      The hypothesis of Maddie having been abducted by a paedo ring was public and obvious. If the PJ had then reason to make Robert Murat an arguido, in an investigation about this kind of crime, it is expected for those paedo related keywords to have been searched in the seized computers.

      All computers seized were cleared. That is said very clearly.

      The paedophilia this post speaks about is not about an eventual paedo ring but of a paedophile crime that warranted a national cover-up. About that, nothing is mentioned in files, directly or indirectly, before the Gaspar statements were appended.

      Cont.

      Delete
    2. Cont.

      2. There is nothing to say that the Greek holiday is mentioned retrospectively. It is mentioned very clearly within the context of the Majorca holiday. Chapter 9, from where we quoted him, is called exactly that: Majorca September 2005. There can be no doubt Mr Amaral is speaking about this holiday.

      What we think happened is that when these rumours began, the only holiday that was known (because the T9 mention it in their statements) was the one in Greece. So, then, in mid-July, a ref to something happening in a previous holiday that the group went together, it would be natural to think it was the Greek one, the only one known.

      3. About the picture known as the make-up picture we don’t wish to speak much about it for reasons we prefer not to reveal. Readers will just have to trust us ion this one when we say it has nothing to do with paedophilia.

      If it did, we ask the same question we have asked about the Gaspars statements: if paedophilia is the national secret to be protected at all costs, then why would it ever be released?

      The way we see it, whoever dared to do it (we are talking about a NATIONAL secret) would be very quickly identified and face the same fate of the Brit Snitch, one REALLY very, very unpleasant near, mid and long future.



      Besides, it seems Twitter K9Truth agrees fully with us:

      LoveTextusaBlog ‏@LoveTextusa
      @K9Truth Comments made here are now posted to their blog. I am sure you will receive a reply asap. #mccann

      Canine Truth ‏@K9Truth
      @LoveTextusa I see. They are correct to Q the circumstances behind how + why the Gaspar Statements were eventually sent to the PJ. #McCann

      Delete
    3. It was been noted to us that we have not mentioned the baby bathing issue.

      That is within the contents of the Gaspar statements, which we didn't analyse in post and will do so on a later date.

      Delete
    4. https://mobile.twitter.com/K9Truth/status/781894135175405569?p=v

      Canine Truth – ‏@K9Truth
      A big shout-out to the girls at TextUsa for their detailed + thorough replies to my earlier tweets.
      http://textusa.blogspot.ie/2016/09/the-brit-snitch.html?m=1 …
      #McCann
      09:31 - 30 Sept 2016


      Thank you!

      Delete
  4. Anyone in their right mind [when it comes to this complex case] would indeed keep a very open mind. Nothing has been proved, nothing has been set in stone. As it stands, the paedophilia is an option, make of it what you will but it has been thrown into the mix, just like the 'neglect' theory.Without qualified proof of all occuring [or not], there's no reason to debunk it. Picking up on Goncalo Amaral saying the Gaspar statements arrived 'underneath' other papers is perhaps a trifle trivial. The last thing on his mind would be page order, he was incensed on why it took so long for the statements to reach the Portuguese police, I don't believe that would have been his first thought of importance given the circumstances.That said, you do some neat investigative work, but when it comes to trying to debunk some relevant points we think it should be best left to the experts.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous30 Sep 2016, 19:08:00

      "The last thing on his mind would be page order"

      No it wouldn't be the last thing, agree. It would be a permanent thing on his mind. And that of his subordinates.

      It's a question of working methodology. Like punching the holes on the left side of the page. After a while it becomes a second nature. Otherwise it's a chaos of papers. The investigation moves forward as the documents are appropriately archived, or get appended to the binders.

      It's naturally chronological. It's not the objective of being chronological. The objective is to keep things organised and easily found when needed.

      Only you know what the definition of expert is to you.

      The rest, is your opinion which we must respect even if we don't agree.

      Opinion is subjective, very hard to debate. Unlike fact, that is quite objective.

      Delete
    2. @19.08
      'we think it should be best left to the experts'
      Who is WE? Is your comment from a team of people or the royal we, as used by the Queen?

      Delete
    3. Hi Textusa,congratulations on another excellent post,in regard to doctor David Payne and the Madeleine McCann disappearance,Mr Payne was at odds in his "Mind"about how he had phoned a specific Telephone Number to the UK for reassurance on what was worrying for him at that present moment in time?
      Was it Dr Payne,who wished to speak"Openly" in 2007? Yet in 2008 when giving a Police statement to DCI 1485 Mesina April 2008,"something that was relevant and Pertinent to the Investigation"but the Police station in the UK wasn't the right time,DCI 1485 Mesina reply,Ok end of Interview?

      Delete
    4. It has been noted to us, that our reply to Anonymous 30 Sep 2016, 19:08:00 may seem as attack against Mr Amaral.

      Nowhere in the post have we criticised Mr Amaral. Nor in the comment.

      We have said he was the person responsible for the numbering. Of course he was. As the team head, the numbering was but one of his many responsibilities.

      We are not saying that those numberings are of his handwriting. We’re certain he had clerks to do that for him but the responsibility was his.

      That means that on Oct 2, he passed that same responsibility to Mr Rebelo, the new team head.

      Mr Rebelo responsible for all the volumes after that date and so responsible for Volume XIII in which are the Gaspar and Martin related documents.

      But there’s nothing wrong about the numbering. There was an error, which was detected and appropriately corrected. The integrity of the sequencing did not suffer anything from it.

      Hope this clarifies things.

      Delete
    5. Anonymous 1 Oct 2016, 16:20:00,

      About that phone call, we refer you back to the crux of the post which was why on earth were the Gaspar statements sent to Portugal, if that call was really damning (and under the paedophilia scenario) would the information about it ever have left the UK?

      What we say is that it wouldn't. Ever.

      Delete
  5. McCanns really scraping the barrel in Daily Mail this time:
    http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3817801/Sick-tour-based-Madeleine-McCann-s-disappearance-takes-customers-apartment-seen-tapas-bar-parents-ate-tragic-night.html Anonymous ex-pat? I think the locals might recognise him and name him!

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 2 Oct 2016, 14:29:00

      Very interesting article, isn't it?

      Well, it seems that according to the Mail we only have until Wednesday before we know Grange is closing :)

      Delete
  6. Please let me ask a truly appalling question: do you think that if Madeleine McCann died following paedophile acts rather than accidentally, the whole cover up would not have taken place?

    I am not saying that paedophilia happened (hopefully not!), but I fail to see why it is incompatible with the swinging theory.

    Also, if paedophilia was used as a red herring, why was Payne targeted? Why point so close to the truth?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Anonymous 3 Oct 2016, 00:20:00,

      For us, it’s profoundly wrong to put paedophilia and swinging in the same category (we have, unfortunately seen this equivalence being made elsewhere as we pointed out in a previous post.

      In fact we think one rules the other out.

      The comparison between both would be the same as comparing baby seal killing with Mount Everest climbing. Both are outdoor activities and similarities end there. The gratifications drawn from either have nothing to do with each other.

      Could a mountain climber be a baby seal killer? There’s nothing to rule that out, but one thing is certain, if one person happened to be both, when s/he was killing baby seals, s/he wouldn’t be climbing a mountain and vice-versa.
      Paedophilia is all about dominance and sadism. The victim’s suffering is essential to be present for the perpetrator. And please remember that we would be talking about an infant rapist, a nepiophile.

      Swinging is all about consent. To understand how important that it is, when one shows interest in another, the reciprocity must exist, explicitly. To put it in simple terms, one shows interest, other welcomes it and reciprocates and both proceed or in case one shows interest and there’s no reciprocation, one just moves along. To insist in any way is very much frowned upon and can even mean being invited to leave.

      Another significant difference is gender. “Collective” paedophilia, the one which the sadist(s) enjoys to exhibit the victim’s suffering before others, is perpetrated and watched mainly, almost exclusively, by the male gender.

      In Swinging, there’s a balance between the numbers of participants from both genders, which seems to be the case in Luz at the time.

      Also the victims of “collective” paedophilia are not related in any way with the perpetrators. They are usually poor children, whose absence won’t be noted and cannot be traced back to the criminals.

      The paedophile victims of family members suffer their terrible fate in a private manner. These criminals never publicise their actions.

      For the secret of Luz to be paedophilia, we would be talking of “collective” paedophilia against their own children. Note the plural, as we cannot see any reason, within that scenario, for Maddie to have been singled out, to have been the only victim.

      Lastly, and most important is the legal aspect.

      Swinging is subject of social shaming but there are no legal implications.

      Paedophilia brings also social shaming but it’s a crime. If not the most heinous one committed by a human being.

      Swinging is a peccadillo, paedophilia a horrible crime.

      Answering your question very directly, yes, we think that if the crime had been paedophilic there would not be any cover-up. Because there wouldn’t be the amount of people we see have witnessed being involved.

      One thing is to protect a “white lie” to cover-up a peccadillo, the swinging, which can be understood if one thinks the loss of life in question was accidental and the child’s parents were fine with lying as well, another, completely different, is to lie to cover-up for a 3 yr old having been raped and murdered even if her parents were alright with that lying.

      Delete
    2. Anonymous 3 Oct 2016, 00:20:00,

      "Also, if paedophilia was used as a red herring, why was Payne targeted? Why point so close to the truth?"

      If paedophilia red herring, then targeting Payne wouldn't be anywhere close to the truth.

      The T9 are not liked by anyone.

      Not by us because we want the truth out and we know they're lying. Not by their "friends" because it was because of them, T9, that everyone is in the pickle they are. The accidental death happened, in our opinion, within the T9.

      If we don't like them, the other side even likes them less.

      It's not everyone doing the T9 favours but the T9 being forced to do the favour of playing the main acting of the absurdity which is the abduction scam.

      Pointing to Payne, punishes him, sets an example to others and provides a very addictive distraction.

      Delete
    3. Anon 3 Oct 2016, 00:20:00 has placed the response to our comment as a reply to another comment. We have taken the liberty to copy and paste his/her comment and placing it here where it belongs:

      "Anonymous3 Oct 2016, 17:28:00

      Thank you for your answers.

      Please note that I am not, in any way, putting swinging and paedophilia in the same category, just considering the possibility that someone in that group could have engaged in both activities. Arthur Rimbaud was both a great poet and a weapons dealer, two qualities that obviously do not fall in the same category.

      One strong argument against paedophilia in the Maddie case is that it suggests a murder (involving premeditation), which we certainly agree is implausible. However, I am wondering about the reasons we have to rule out paedophilia without the intention to kill.

      Regarding "the amount of people we see have witnessed being involved", how many of them knew the exact circumstances in which Madeleine McCann died? Many probably understood that it was a violent death: that did not prevent them from taking part in the cover-up. By doing so, they not only covered up a peccadillo, they also protected manslaughter against a child and obstructed justice at different degrees.

      That said, I am fully convinced by the main message of your post: that paedophilia was not the big secret to protect. And, frankly, I lean towards your interpretation that the Gaspard statement was a red herring. But I can imagine that the fear of being associated with paedophilia, be it real or not, was among the initial motivations for the cover-up."

      Delete
  7. I may be wrong Textusa (apologies if so) but it seems to me that some of those who do not agree with your theory have not understood that a feature of your theory s that the 'other side' wish the finger to be pointed at the T9 and that the T9 are the focus of all attention. That is what they want.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.

      Delete
    2. The content of Anonymous3 Oct 2016, 17:28:00 comment was moved above as readers can see.

      Delete
  8. Last night CMTV in Portugal aired a short piece on the Maddie “Ghoul Tours”. To show the blog in question, CMTV showed an image of one of its posts about the subject.

    In the image, it can be seen the word “Textusa” isolated above the text of the post and that it is one of the posts from that blog that are tagged “Textusa”.

    We are in no way related to that blog, we would like to make that clear. We have no control or opinion about where and how our name is used to tag posts.

    However, the blog is getting free publicity and a good one as it seems that these tours were a reaction from said blogger in response to our post “Praia da Luz”:
    http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/10/praia-da-luz.html

    Apparently, so we have been told, he has only written 9 posts on the subject.
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2015/12/09/madeleine-foot-luz-1/
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/01/04/madeleine-essence-of-luz/
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/01/08/shininginluz-coming-attractions/
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/01/19/madeleine-the-mccanns-did-it-luz-tour-2/
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/03/06/madeleine-og-tour-march-2016/
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/03/09/madeleine-luz-tour-1-part-1/
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/03/11/madeleine-luz-tour-1-part-2/
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/07/01/madeleine-luz-tour-3/
    https://shininginluz.wordpress.com/2016/08/12/madeleine-luz-tour-4/

    ReplyDelete
  9. http://joana-morais.blogspot.pt/2008/06/pj-brought-back-to-portugal-3-of.html


    3 June 2008
    PJ Brought Back to Portugal 3 of the McCanns Friends in Secrecy


    WITNESSES CAME TO THE ALGARVE TO REINFORCE TESTIMONY THAT CONTRADICTS THE MCCANNS

    Friends are the PJ trumps

    In a secret visit to Portugal, three persons who had dinner at the Tapas Bar shattered the McCanns and Jane Tanner versions

    Fiona Payne, her mother Dianne Webster, and the husband David Payne. Are the main trumps of the Public Ministry that will lead the parents of Madeleine McCann, the missing girl, on the 3rd of May of 2007, from an apartment in Praia da Luz, Algarve, to be accused of the crimes of exposition and abandonment since they left the girl alone in that critical night. It is a crime that is punishable up to ten years of prison and allows the respective preventive arrests, like 24horas announced last week.

    These three witnesses returned to Portugal, on the 11th of July of 2007, in a travel paid by the Portuguese State, and where accommodated in a hotel unity of Portimão. They were still questioned by Gonçalo Amaral’s team, the superior coordinator who was removed from the case, and they contradicted the McCann’s version regarding to what went on in the night of the disappearance.

    Remember that Kate, Gerry and the other two couples with whom they had dinner, assured that they were taking turns in the vigilance to the children. A fact that was contradicted to the authorities in the above-mentioned secret travel by Fiona Payne and that had already been put in question in two previous statements, given on the days that followed to Maddie's disappearance, by her mother and her husband.

    Jane Tanner Contradicted

    “ Fiona Payne gave three statements to the authorities, as well as Matthew Oldfield and his companion, Rachel. Dianne Webster statement [Fiona's mother] was very solid and there was not need of questioning her again”, revealed to 24horas a judicial person in charge connected with the process. In accordance to the same source, “other persons who had dinner with the McCanns - Jane Tanner, her companion, Russell O'Brien, Matthew Oldfield and his wife, Rachel – gave contradictory statements”. And the judicial person in charge exemplifies: "”Jane Tanner always said that she went out from the restaurant to see her oldest daughter. Fiona, David and Dianne guaranteed to the PJ that she never left the restaurant before the alarm was given by Kate. This information was corroborated by several workers of the Tapas Bar restaurant”. These witnesses also stated that Gerry McCann did not even go to check on the children, when he went away of the restaurant, and that he only stayed at the apartment of Praia da Luz entrance.

    The only person who stayed in Tapas Bar

    Dianne Webster, of 63 years old, mother of Fiona Payne (36 years), was one of three persons who were available to return to Portugal and to help the authorities in the reconstitution of the facts taken place to the 3rd of May of 2007.
    She was the only one that was quiet and calm when Kate McCann entered in the Tapas Bar shouting “they’ve taken her!”. The authorities were suspicious of her attitude and she told them that she did not believe in the version of the McCanns. She also pointed out to the PJ that each couple was responsible for their own children and that no one entered in the apartment of the friends[in each other’s apartments].

    Facts
    SECRET. The McCann organized a "secret" dinner with all the friends with whom they had dinner with at the Tapas, in the Praia da Luz, Algarve, before the rogatory letters sent for England were carried out.

    ACCUSATION. The accusation to the McCanns is almost concluded and it should be known before of the 14 of July, the end date for the extended term to incriminate or not the British couple. The judicial authorities are still considering if they will not constitute more arguidos, since the McCann were not the only ones leaving their children alone.


    Source: 24Horas

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. T3 who returned on July 11 came for the confrontation meeting with Murat.
      There is nothing in PJ files about formally asking to change their statements(although analysis of statements made originally and later reveal contradictions and changes).

      According to K's book, Silvia Batista was also due to attend, but did not do so.

      Delete
    2. We would like to make it clear that we have never said that the T9 “change-the-mind” meeting ever took place. The point we were making by using its example was to exemplify the very palpable terror campaign against truth about Maddie launched by the entire UK (as in its government, its media, its authorities and legal system).

      Indeed the PJ Files do not reflect such a meeting ever taking place or even being arranged but that doesn’t mean that there was such an intention about which the participants could have been “convinced” to change their minds about changing their minds and did not even establish any sort of contact with the PJ.

      This, obviously, is speculation. What is not speculation is the terror set around anything related to Maddie at the time and following years.

      Delete
    3. http://www.mccannfiles.com/id18.html
      Scroll down for article which refers to a man from T7 under pressure.
      Lawyer London based.
      Matt Oldfield lived in London at the time.
      I think this article at the very end shows pressure being applied to T7.

      Delete
  10. The Gaspar statements were for meany reasons sensitive matter. Why then weren't they suppressed along with all sensitive documents (as the TP7 rogs) ?
    "As requested" supposes, yes, that Ricardo Paiva had heard of them before, but the request itself isn't in the files. As well the David and Fiona Payne's written answers to LC or PJ questions, though they so strangely differ from their unique 4th of May statements (btw why only one statement ?), didn't motive a request of clarification by RP. Funny.

    ReplyDelete

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.

Textusa