Kate McCann releasing a book...

[annawrigley]

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

Yes thats what I meant, I couldn't remember her name From her statement she didnt know Dave Paynes before the holiday either? Or was he the one that she knew beforehand? And she wrote about how uncomfortable she felt by that gesture yet she let him bath her children just because it was 'his turn'! If i thought he was a potential paedophile (and she seemed to have serious concern) no way in hell would he be bathing my child, whether I was "keeping an eye on him" or not!!

 

[LoraLoo]

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

Yes thats what I meant, I couldn't remember her name From her statement she didnt know Dave Paynes before the holiday either? Or was he the one that she knew beforehand? And she wrote about how uncomfortable she felt by that gesture yet she let him bath her children just because it was 'his turn'! If i thought he was a potential paedophile (and she seemed to have serious concern) no way in hell would he be bathing my child, whether I was "keeping an eye on him" or not!!

Same

 

[indy and lara]

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

 

[Blah11]

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

I find it a little odd too. Not exactly something you go announcing at dinner parties I'd imagine However, why would the Gaspars lie/exagerate over something so important?

 

[LoraLoo]

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

But still, she thought it was inappropriate and still let him bath her child. Senseless to me. Where were they bathing these kids anyway, i presume whoevers 'turn' it was, in their apartment? I just cant imagine letting my child go with a near enough stranger to be bathed, especially if i had concerns about him.

 

[annawrigley]

Fellow members who have always smelt a rat with this case may be interested in the following;

https://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-hum.../07/100-reasons-why-madeleine-mccann-was.html

X

P.s Please note the photo of the McCanns by point 62. Nothing else really needs to be said.

97. Gerry's missing hold-all / tennis / kit bag which he was seen with the day Madeleine disappeared cannot be located by detectives

 

[indy and lara]

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

I find it a little odd too. Not exactly something you go announcing at dinner parties I'd imagine However, why would the Gaspars lie/exagerate over something so important?

I think that often statements etc are made a while after the event and you do look back and add significance to things that are perhaps not as significant as they were. Not so much exaggerating as just getting it a bit wrong down the line. Once they knew Madeleine had gone, it would have been easy to look back and try to put 2 and 2 together, much as people have done with the story from the beginning.

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

But still, she thought it was inappropriate and still let him bath her child. Senseless to me. Where were they bathing these kids anyway, i presume whoevers 'turn' it was, in their apartment? I just cant imagine letting my child go with a near enough stranger to be bathed, especially if i had concerns about him.

I am not sure Kate McCann did think it was inappropriate. I was not aware that she had raised concerns about this guy at all. I think it was the woman in the Gasper statement who had concerns. Has Kate McCann said this in the new book?

 

[Blah11]

I think we're talking about the gaspars child, not maddy?

 

[Xanthe]

If your child went missing, you would move heaven and earth to assist the police would you not? Read on................



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...uestions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html


I cannot for the life of me understand why people are sticking up for this woman.

 

[LoraLoo]

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

I find it a little odd too. Not exactly something you go announcing at dinner parties I'd imagine However, why would the Gaspars lie/exagerate over something so important?

I think that often statements etc are made a while after the event and you do look back and add significance to things that are perhaps not as significant as they were. Not so much exaggerating as just getting it a bit wrong down the line. Once they knew Madeleine had gone, it would have been easy to look back and try to put 2 and 2 together, much as people have done with the story from the beginning.

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

But still, she thought it was inappropriate and still let him bath her child. Senseless to me. Where were they bathing these kids anyway, i presume whoevers 'turn' it was, in their apartment? I just cant imagine letting my child go with a near enough stranger to be bathed, especially if i had concerns about him.

I am not sure Kate McCann did think it was inappropriate. I was not aware that she had raised concerns about this guy at all. I think it was the woman in the Gasper statement who had concerns. Has Kate McCann said this in the new book?

Think we are on a different page here, lol i was refering to Dr Gasper

 

[Blah11]

in her defense, it must be hideous being treated like a murderer when its your child who has gone missing (if innocent). I think id sit there in shock too.

 

[LoraLoo]

If your child went missing, you would move heaven and earth to assist the police would you not? Read on................



https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/ar...uestions-Kate-McCann-wouldnt-answer--did.html


I cannot for the life of me understand why people are sticking up for this woman.

I thought they were guilty to start, thrn when everything quietened down i thought they couldnt possibly have done it, then reading this thread and all the facts again, Im back to my origional opinion. Too much stacked against them

 

[LoraLoo]

in her defense, it must be hideous being treated like a murderer when its your child who has gone missing (if innocent). I think id sit there in shock too.

Very true

 

[LoraLoo]

I will be buying the book, to see if it clears up any of the issues raised on here x

 

[haze]

Fellow members who have always smelt a rat with this case may be interested in the following;

https://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-hum.../07/100-reasons-why-madeleine-mccann-was.html

X

P.s Please note the photo of the McCanns by point 62. Nothing else really needs to be said.

97. Gerry's missing hold-all / tennis / kit bag which he was seen with the day Madeleine disappeared cannot be located by detectives

I saw that bit too How has all of this been ignored?

 

[indy and lara]

I don't know that people do stick up for the McCanns tbh. I think they are widely critcised for what they did. For me it is not a question of sticking up for them but questioning the 'evidence' that seems to be doing the rounds. She doesn't seem to have answered all the questions but 'How many hours do you work' doesn't seem to me to be too relevant. Perhaps that is what he lawyer thought too?

Innocent until proven guilty is my motto. There are lots of suspicious things and questionable things which happened there but that alone is not enough to convince me of their guilt. There was a time that the Portuguese police really seemed to be gunning for them and I think they would have charged them had there been enough evidence.

 

[// arcadia]

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t5505p270-case-files-discussions

Third post down, the stuff in red. Unless im mistaken it pretty much seems the Portuguese police are admitting they think the Mccanns killed Madeline. I don't really understand why they are still walking around free, and why this never went to trial, all the evidence is quite clearly there.

 

[indy and lara]

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

I find it a little odd too. Not exactly something you go announcing at dinner parties I'd imagine However, why would the Gaspars lie/exagerate over something so important?

I think that often statements etc are made a while after the event and you do look back and add significance to things that are perhaps not as significant as they were. Not so much exaggerating as just getting it a bit wrong down the line. Once they knew Madeleine had gone, it would have been easy to look back and try to put 2 and 2 together, much as people have done with the story from the beginning.

I think wires are getting crossed.

I think the 'him' and 'her' that are being referred to by anna is the Gasper lady, not kate mccann and the him is Dave Paynes?

That is what I thought which is why I asked. I think the woman in the Gasper thing did not know him very well but the McCanns did. They seemed to have been on holiday/ socialised together often and he was a friend of the family.

Paedophiles tend to be very cunning. I find it hard to believe that someone would talk openly about abusing/ abuse of a child in mixed company when they would know that it could be overheard. We have all been in situations where we hear something and then make our own assumptions about what the whole conversation was. I do think this may be the situation here.

But still, she thought it was inappropriate and still let him bath her child. Senseless to me. Where were they bathing these kids anyway, i presume whoevers 'turn' it was, in their apartment? I just cant imagine letting my child go with a near enough stranger to be bathed, especially if i had concerns about him.

I am not sure Kate McCann did think it was inappropriate. I was not aware that she had raised concerns about this guy at all. I think it was the woman in the Gasper statement who had concerns. Has Kate McCann said this in the new book?

Think we are on a different page here, lol i was refering to Dr Gasper

My head is like mince today so I got confused!!!

If Dr Gasper had concerns I have no idea why she would let him or anyone else for that matter bathe her child, or spend time with them. As I said earlier, have no issue with others bathing Emma as I trust the people who spend time with her and us. If I didn't then they would not be in our lives, far less have unsupervised time with her.

 

[Blah11]

No idea why they were let free. Maybe the evidence was too circumstancial and too much guess work?

 

[LoraLoo]

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t5505p270-case-files-discussions

Third post down, the stuff in red. Unless im mistaken it pretty much seems the Portuguese police are admitting they think the Mccanns killed Madeline. I don't really understand why they are still walking around free, and why this never went to trial, all the evidence is quite clearly there.

can u copy and paste it i cant seem to see it? xx