Re: YES or NO? Did Dr David Payne visit Dr Kate McCann on the evening Madeleine was reported missing? - 20 CONTRADICTIONS which suggest that this visit never took place

by lj 10.06.15 15:41

Tony Bennett wrote:CONTRADICTION 1: When Dr Payne first mentioned this visit, he said it took place at 5.00pm. Later he changed this to 6.30pm.

CONTRADICTION 2: Dr Payne first of all said that both Gerry and Kate McCann were there when he visited the apartment. Later he changed this to saying it was just Kate.
CONTRADICTION 3: Dr Payne said that his wife was not with him when he went to see Kate McCann. His wife, Fiona Payne, however, said she did go, got there first, and then her husband joined the two of them at 7.10pm.
CONTRADICTIONS 4 to 9: Why did this alleged visit take place? On various occasions, at least six different reasons have been given:
(1) just ‘for a visit’
(2) to help take Kate and the children down to the recreation area
(3) to ‘check on Kate’ (see if she was all right)
(4) because Kate ‘might need help in looking after all three children’
(5) 'To see if it was OK for Gerry to carry on playing tennis, and
(6) simply because Dr Payne ‘offered to go and see Kate’.
CONTRADICTION 10: Dr Payne says he walked in through the patio door without knocking. Kate McCann said she was in the shower and heard knocking.
CONTRADICTION 11: Dr Payne says Kate McCann was fully dressed. Kate McCann says she hurriedly put a towel around her and went to the door.
CONTRADICTION 12: Dr Payne says he walked in though the patio door. Kate McCann said he never entered, saying: 'he remained at the balcony door’.
CONTRADICTION 13: Dr Payne says we was in the apartment for at least ‘3 to 5 minutes'. Kate McCann says he remained on the balcony and she sent him away after no more than '30 seconds'.
CONTRADICTION 14: Dr Payne says he saw all three children. Kate doesn’t mention this.
CONTRADICTION 15: A newspaper story based on information supplied by ‘a source close to the McCanns’ claimed that Dr Payne ‘saw Kate putting the children to bed’. Neither Dr Payne nor Kate McCann mention this.
CONTRADICTION 16: In early statements, the McCanns said they took their children up to their apartment at 5.40pm, staying there until leaving for dinner at 8.30pm. But Dr Payne and Kate McCann say that Gerry McCann was not there at 6.30pm.
CONTRADICTION 17: Later, Gerry McCann changed his statement to say he was at the tennis courts at 6.30pm.
CONTRADICTION 18: The McCanns initially said that they had decided, as they went up to their apartment, that the children were too tired to stay and watch the tennis, so they would put them to bed, as they had had an exhausting day. Later the story was changed to say that they had decided no such thing and that Dr Payne had gone up to see if Kate McCann was going to bring the children down to watch the tennis match.
CONTRADICTION 19: Gerry McCann initially said that Dr Payne went up to see Kate McCann at about 6.30pm, and that he came back half-an-hour later at 7.00pm. Dr Payne said he only returned to the tennis court once, but Gerry McCann later changed his statement to say that Dr Payne had returned twice, once after seeing Kate, and then again after (allegedly) changing for tennis.
CONTRADICTION 20: In a report by David James Smith in The Times on 16 December 2007, said to be the ‘fullest account yet’ of what happened on the day Madeleine disappeared, Smith said that Gerry McCann at 4.30pm was ‘too injured with an Achilles tendon injury at 4.30pm to carry on playing tennis’. Yet later he claimed he was playing tennis again in a‘social tennis’ competition from 6.00pm to 7.00pm.

Good to see it all lined up again.

by lj 10.06.15 15:42

Hobs wrote:Kate tells us she was in a towel when payne visited after just having had a shower. later we are told she has a bath when gerry returns.

Why would she feel the need to have a shower and a bath?

Why would she need a bath after being visited by a man other than her husband??

Would this explain the discrepancy between her 30 secs and his 30 mins?

A minute or two discrepancy could be expected in a chat for several minutes.

Such a discrepancy is not remotely feasible in a chat that lasted either 30 seconds or 30 minutes.

I've always wondered about that too.

by Yorkshirgel 05.06.17 8:00

IMO when people lie it is to cover up the truth. So, if all of them were telling lies to the police they should ALL be arrested and charged with Perverting the Course of Justice. That should shake the apples out of the trees and then we might just get the real truth of what happened.

Perverting the course of justice is an offence committed when a person prevents justice from being served on him/herself or on another party. In England and Wales it is a common law offence, carrying a maximum sentence of life imprisonment.

by **Jill Havern** 05.06.17 8:08

Maybe we should make a list of all those who won't be spending a maximum sentence of life in prison, if Theresa May and Cressida Dick have anything to do with it - girl power!

'Not awight - getting away with Perverting the Course of Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann, aged three'.

Here's one I started earlier:
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14235-list-of-people-standing-in-the-way-of-justice-for-madeleine-beth-mccann-aged-3

by Yorkshirgel 05.06.17 8:30

The list gets longer and longer. However if you charge them with Trying to Pervert the Course of Justice they cannot sweep that under the carpet. They have shown the world how 'confusion is good' sending the police in every direction but the right one. TPCJ can be proven, M's disappearance, so called 'abduction' it seems cannot.

There have been a lot of stones turned over and I for one do not like what is beneath them.

by Yorkshirgel 05.06.17 8:39

I have recently been reading a book which is very revealing about the behind the scenes working of the 'Establishment'. It is currently available at Waterstones/Amazon or any good book shop. Opened my eyes on how things can be bent or re-shaped to tell a different story. I would not say it is a classic, written in simple language for example, but it is a True Story worth reading I would say.

Dead Man Running: A True Story of a Secret Agent's Escape from the IRA and MI5 Kindle Edition
by

Martin McGartland (Author)
› Visit Amazon's Martin McGartland Page

search results for this author

Or you can get it at Waterstones

I have mentioned it here because of the involvement of the Government in the Madeleine McCann case. Do not ever take stories in the press or in the media as the given truth. Understand that you cannot believe everything you are told.

by **Jill Havern** 05.06.17 9:08

Yorkshirgel wrote:The list gets longer and longer. However if you charge them with Trying to Pervert the Course of Justice they cannot sweep that under the carpet. They have shown the world how 'confusion is good' sending the police in every direction but the right one. TPCJ can be proven, M's disappearance, so called 'abduction' it seems cannot.

There have been a lot of stones turned over and I for one do not like what is beneath them.

I don't know how, or even if, it would be possible.

Maybe Tony could answer you?

by **Tony Bennett** 05.06.17 10:22

Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Yorkshirgel wrote:The list gets longer and longer. However if you charge them with Trying to Pervert the Course of Justice they cannot sweep that under the carpet. They have shown the world how 'confusion is good' sending the police in every direction but the right one. TPCJ can be proven, M's disappearance, so called 'abduction' it seems cannot.

There have been a lot of stones turned over and I for one do not like what is beneath them.
I don't know how, or even if, it would be possible.

Maybe Tony could answer you?

V. good posts @ Yorkshiregel

The Met Police and those running Operation Grange have always been at pains to point out that they are 'only assisting the Portuguese Police with their enquiry'. And it's true that IF the McCanns were guilty e.g. of 'Hiding a Cadaver', then it would be the Portuguese Police who would have to prosecute them.

AFAIK the jurisdiction of British courts over criminal offences committed abroad i.e. in another sovereign territory extends only to murder/homicide and rape/sexual assault on children. There may be a few other offences, but NOT I think 'Perverting the Course of Justice'.

Madeleine was a British subject/citizen. If there were enough evidence to charge someone with murdering or sexually assaulting Madeleine, then the British Crown Prosecution Service would have the right to bring the alleged perpetrator to justice.

BUT

The Tapas 7 (not the McCanns) have given evidence to a British police force - Leicestershire Police ('The Rogatory Interviews').

The McCanns and the Tapas 7 may also have given statements to Operation Grange.

I think it may well be possible therefore that IF it could be shown that any of them had lied to a British police force, they could indeed by prosecuted in a British court for the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice.

by worriedmum 05.06.17 10:33

Tony Bennett wrote:
Get'emGonçalo wrote:
Yorkshirgel wrote:The list gets longer and longer. However if you charge them with Trying to Pervert the Course of Justice they cannot sweep that under the carpet. They have shown the world how 'confusion is good' sending the police in every direction but the right one. TPCJ can be proven, M's disappearance, so called 'abduction' it seems cannot.

There have been a lot of stones turned over and I for one do not like what is beneath them.
I don't know how, or even if, it would be possible.

Maybe Tony could answer you?
V. good posts @ Yorkshiregel

The Met Police and those running Operation Grange have always been at pains to point out that they are 'only assisting the Portuguese Police with their enquiry'. And it's true that IF the McCanns were guilty e.g. of 'Hiding a Cadaver', then it would be the Portuguese Police who would have to prosecute them.

AFAIK the jurisdiction of British courts over criminal offences committed abroad i.e. in another sovereign territory extends only to murder/homicide and rape/sexual assault on children. There may be a few other offences, but NOT I think 'Perverting the Course of Justice'.

Madeleine was a British subject/citizen. If there were enough evidence to charge someone with murdering or sexually assaulting Madeleine, then the British Crown Prosecution Service would have the right to bring the alleged perpetrator to justice.

BUT

The Tapas 7 (not the McCanns) have given evidence to a British police force - Leicestershire Police ('The Rogatory Interviews').

The McCanns and the Tapas 7 may also have given statements to Operation Grange.

I think it may well be possible therefore that IF it could be shown that any of them had lied to a British police force, they could indeed by prosecuted in a British court for the offence of Perverting the Course of Justice.

Thank you for the clarification on jursidiction. So does it boil down to lack of political will or is some-one hanging on for the bigger deal?

by Yorkshirgel 05.06.17 10:40

They were interviewed at home I believe in Leicestershire. The nanny has also been to visit them in their mansion. Why? It sickens me to see this woman being introduced to people in high places as though she is someone important. She is NOT. Her only claim to fame is that her daughter went missing whilst she was on holiday. Where that picture was taken I am not sure but you can clearly see who the people on it are. Some may not realise that she has now given work up for good. She is walking around looking like some fashion model in expensive designer clothes. Not supporting the statement from both of them that they are doing their upmost to find their daughter. No, they are not. They never did. They are living a life they are quickly getting accustomed to and meeting people who would not have given them the time of day before they started to move in higher circles because of their daughter's disappearance. They have both given contradicting statements to our police, they have both lied, therefore if they cannot be arrested for anything to do with their daughters disappearance they can be arrested on other charges. Why aren't they? Why did they get support from our Government sending out an Ambassador to see them within days. Why have several of our PMs supported them and why have others wined and dined them? It cannot just be because they are British. Why has the British Government spent neigh on £15 million of tax payers money on this 'missing child' case? Why have they allowed this couple to tell the people of Britain what they may or may not read? Why are big companies such as Amazon bowing to their demands to ban Mr Amaral's book? There is something we are not being told here.

by Yorkshirgel 05.06.17 10:43

Another BIG WHY. Why was the team of policemen sent to Portugal told to ONLY investigate an ABDUCTION and NOTHING ELSE?

by Yorkshirgel 05.06.17 10:47

Wasn't there a well known pop star arrested as soon as he landed on British soil for abusing children in another country? I believe he went to prison.

Kate McCann has stated publically that she 'often goes to Portugal' to wander around thinking about her daughter. Well I don't believe that she would have been arrested surely?

What if the British police went to their mansion and interviewed them? They could ask all the questions that people want answers to and if they got contradicting statements one of them must be lying. To interview them together, as she says happened in Portugal when G 'squeezed her shoulder for giving a good answer' was unbelievable. Should never have happened if in fact it even did.

by Yorkshirgel 05.06.17 11:00

by inspirespirit 05.06.17 11:06

She stated on TV recently that she was back working in Medicine. She didn't state what position she was holding, just that she was working in Medicine.

by Cmaryholmes 05.06.17 12:10

Re David Payne's visit to Kate on 3rd May, my opinion is NO, it didn't take place. Just a fable to create a happy , perfect family image, and to enforce the idea that Madeleine was still alive at that point. Looking like an angel.

by Yorkshirgel 05.06.17 14:25

Still trying to be normal! The smiles that say it all.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3446973/madeleine-mccann-decade-disappearance-kate-mccann-guilt-over-cost-of-hunt/

by Yorkshirgel 06.06.17 9:48

Can someone tell us why it would be necessary 'to check on Kate to see if she was alright'? Was she ill? I know there are photos of her with bruises on the internet. We are told she was kicking furniture and beating the walls, did she make them herself or if not who gave her bruises and why? Was all this to do with Gerry flirting with one of the resort employees? We are told Kate stomped off because Gerry was paying too much attention to some woman at the table. She said she slept in a separate room that night but went to great lengths to explain that it was because of Gerry's snoring. Didn't he snore every night then?

Whether true or not, Kate over-embelishes every explanation for things that appear in the police files, new evidence in particular. Both try and debunk evidence such as the finding of the dogs. Why things that should be there (ie the pink blanket, the tennis bag), went missing. Whether the night was cold or too hot. Whether Madeleine was on top of the bedding (it did not look slept in) or that Kate read her a story as she was snuggled in her bed because it was cold. They contradict each other all the time. Well it stands to reason that only one of them is right doesn't it. Kate says as soon as she saw cuddle cat on the shelf she knew Madeleine had been 'taken'. How does she explain the FACT that there is no shelf? How does she explain that the pink blanket can clearly be seen in the police photo laying at the top of the bed? How does she explain that in the police photo the curtains are jammed between the bed and the wall, she says they whooshed up but they could not have because that was impossible, yet in another photo taken at a later date the left hand curtain is draped across the same bed? There are lots of examples these are just a few, that make people think something is not right here. If in doubt please refer to the official police files.

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.17 13:04

Personally I don't doubt the possibility that he visited but it was nothing to do with any of the reasons in the statements.

Thursday evening was the culmination of the preparation for the 'abduction'.

The T7 had just returned from the Paraiso, Gerry was playing tennis (according to the tennis coach as I recall) and David Payne likely went to the apartment to help with preparations.

What we hear in the statements is a scenario created to redirect from what really WAS happening...

They all had their activities/alibis for that night planned, but unfortunately, Fiona Payne didnt have hers quite right and the police picked up on it, by having her admit she really didn't know what David Payne was doing during that time...

The contradictions tell us they were trying to hide the truth...

The reality was likely that the abduction plan as being put into place...

YES or NO? Did Dr David Payne visit Dr Kate McCann on the evening Madeleine was reported missing? - 20 CONTRADICTIONS which suggest that this visit never took place - Page 2 Fiona_10

The enormity of the list (great list Tony) shows how difficult it is to have every detail in place when there is more than one person involved.

Contradictions/discrepancies like this started happening on Tuesday morning. Tells me there was something they were trying to hide as early in the week as that...

We know from the police files that she died, so WHY were they trying to hide the truth so early in the week?

by Yorkshirgel 06.06.17 13:20

I don't get that either. If she had died because she had an accident why not just call emergency services?

by Verdi 06.06.17 13:39

HiDeHo wrote:Personally I don't doubt the possibility that he visited but it was nothing to do with any of the reasons in the statements.

Thursday evening was the culmination of the preparation for the 'abduction'.

Why the need to mention David Payne's visit at all, if this was preparation for the 'abduction'? Surely the least said about who was where when and why on Thursday the 3rd May would be more advantageous to their scheme, than creating insurmountable obstacles by placing group members and expecting them to get the timing right.

I maintain the view that the David Payne visit to apartment 5a was a fabrication to confirm a healthy living Madeleine just hours before the 'abduction' alarm was raised. That to me is the only logical explanation.

by **HiDeHo** 06.06.17 13:44

Verdi wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Personally I don't doubt the possibility that he visited but it was nothing to do with any of the reasons in the statements.

Thursday evening was the culmination of the preparation for the 'abduction'.
Why the need to mention David Payne's visit at all, if this was preparation for the 'abduction'? Surely the least said about who was where when and why on Thursday the 3rd May would be more advantageous to their scheme, than creating insurmountable obstacles by placing group members and expecting them to get the timing right.

I maintain the view that the David Payne visit to apartment 5a was a fabrication to confirm a healthy living Madeleine just hours before the 'abduction' alarm was raised. That to me is the only logical explanation.

There is a claim (not directly from Goncalo Amaral) on two of the videos that Mrs Fenn saw David Payne on their balcony at 7pm. If that is correct then it would be a reason for them to preempt the reason for the visit.

by Verdi 06.06.17 13:49

HiDeHo wrote:There is a claim (not directly from Goncalo Amaral) on two of the videos that Mrs Fenn saw David Payne on their balcony at 7pm. If that is correct then it would be a reason for them to preempt the visit.

As I don't believe for a second that Pamela Fenn saw David Payne on the McCann balcony, I'll gracefully retire from the subject:)

by Yorkshirgel 06.06.17 13:54

It seems to me you cannot cherry pick the evidence to suit your own view. As I have said before K and M always come up with some over exaggerated explanation for lots of things that people point out to them. When evidence is found ..... up pops an explanation.

by polyenne 06.06.17 14:12

Yorkshirgel wrote:I don't get that either. If she had died because she had an accident why not just call emergency services?

Because she didn't have "an accident" that is why they couldn't "just call".

Someone caused her death and, IMO, her body not only was evidence of how she died, it was also evidence of other misdemeanours.

I truly believe their arrogance is testament to the fact that they know she will never be found.

by Yorkshirgel 06.06.17 14:24

Well it is one view, and I am not denying it could be true. I also believe they know what happened and that she will never be found, and that is why they smirk when people report they have seen Madeleine and why they play the innocents. How else would you be so confident? However, if they admit they know she is dead then they will immediately be charged with Fraud for taking money under false pretences. That is why all these years later imo there is still no result and no arrests.

YES or NO? Did Dr David Payne visit Dr Kate McCann on the evening Madeleine was reported missing? - 20 CONTRADICTIONS which suggest that this visit never took place