Monday, 21 November 2016


In response to John from previous blog:

Apologies John, I meant to add with regard to Yvonne Martin and the Gaspers. Whilst it is always possible there is a paedophile element to this case, I think it very unlikely.  There is no way these families living under police  scrutiny have kept that kind of secret for almost 10 years.  As discussed in the comments in the previous blog, these people will always live under a huge cloud of suspicion, not only from the general public, but even from their own friends and family. Whatever monstrous behaviour those focussing on the paedophile aspects suspect, simply isn't viable. Not when you apply reason and logic, which seems to be the part they haven't got to in their 'research'.  

As a survivor of a Catholic institution where abuse of every variety was available on tap, I feel pretty darned qualified to recognise abuse and to understand it. I have spent a lifetime trying to make sense of the evil that sets off abuse against the vulnerable.  How do you define abuse? Sexual always takes top spot, because it grabs headlines and provokes the most outrage.  However, those battered on a daily basis, degraded, humiliated and forced to submit to the will of authoritarians might beg to differ. Especially those toddlers who end up in the morgue and those teenagers who snap. 
Paedophiles do exist, but not in the way we are led to believe.  Sex parties in the suburbs involving parents passing their kids around are unheard of.  And the dangerous predators are not those socially inept hermits that hide away in bedsits, they are the ones who seek out opportunities where they have access to children. It is not the introverted misfits who pose the most danger, it is the sneaky, manipulative predators who worm their way into the mother's affections. Instead of worrying about Muslim jihadists talking dirty from an internet café in Bagdad, young mums should worry about the fella they picked up in the nightclub who still hasn't gone home.  

Upwardly mobile professionals like the Tapas, want the best for their children, as we all do, and they know better than most how not to raise their kids to be homicidal psychopaths.  Abused children do not thrive.  In fact, most do the opposite.  They become introverted, sullen and anti social.  They don't get shown off to friends and family.  Not only is the idea that these people were abusing their own kids abhorrent, it doesn't make any sense.  Even narcissists and megalomaniacs instinctively protect their own.  The tapas group may not be likeable, but they are parents like any other. Arguably, everything they have done has been to protect their children.    

To be fair the McCanns brought the 'P' word up first - as an explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, but there is a large group among the anti's who have latched onto the statements of Yvonne Martin and the Gaspers in order to spice the story up.  It can't just be an accident, it has to be something more, and they've had 10 years to think about it.  They have made so much of so little, they have even dragged in Cliff Richard and Clement Freud. When applying 2degrees of separation logic to their research, owning property in the Algarve implicates you, as does being Irish. 

Some have spent hours poring over the McCanns holiday snaps, seeking out little signs and secret paedo messages, every Madeleine micro expression scrutinized for evidence to back up their fantastical made up stories.  They are selling the 'P' element just as much as those trying to convince us our kids are in constant danger.  They see sexual innuendo everywhere, from a little girl dressing up to men bathing small children. Hands on childcare is what 'new' men do, they give their partners a break, get over it. 

 It seems as though those who suspect there was some of paedophile convention going on in PDL in May 2007, have made a proverbial mountain out of an unconvincing molehill.  In 10 years there has been absolutely nothing to support the Yvonne Martin and Gasper statements.  The painstaking analysis and conclusions of deranged online 'researchers' with magnifying glasses, vivid imaginations and way too much time, counts for zilch, and is actually quite funny, and also a bit creepy.

I find it incredible that anyone would think a group of attractive, very sociable, middle class professionals would have any interest whatsoever in having sex with children. Why on earth would they?  They are all confident, assertive adults vying for the alpha roles among a group of equals.  Their days were filled with running and competitive sports, and their evenings were dedicated to adult time.  Given Gerry's addiction to the tennis courts (that continued after Madeleine disappeared), its quite clear where his interests on that holiday lay, and it wasn't with the kids.  Kate drew the short straw on the 'new' man front. 

It is ridiculous to suggest that doctors spent their nights abusing toddlers then put those same toddlers into the care of professional nannies (who are presumably trained to look out for that sort of thing) the next morning.  Especially a little chatterbox like Madeleine.  Hot blooded adults are interested in other hot blooded adults, ones who will watch and applaud as they 'peacock'. As Kate said 'they were so into each other'.  And no, not in a swinging sense, like any parents of small children they were desperate for the buzz of adult company. 

The idea that our suburbs are filled with gangs of paedophiles who rape and abuse kids is nonsense.  I have led an up and down life and moved a lot, yet I have never encountered, in any environment, a single person who was that way inclined, let alone a group - has anyone?  It brings to mind the hysteria in the 1980's when the creepy, now deceased, Ray Wyre convinced the establishment that the UK was overrun with groups of Satan worshipping parents sexually abusing their kids. 
The 'Tapas' were a group of snobby professionals out to impress each other. They were also offloading their kids at every opportunity.  And I'm not even condemning them for that.  I remember as a single mum in my thirties, sitting indoors crying because I didn't have a babysitter and I couldn't go partying with my mates from work.  Being desperate for adult company is not a crime. 

The idea that PDL is some kind of haven for child predators is a myth created by a couple in a very awkward situation and by those who saw an opportunity to boost the missing child industry.  For those politicians eager to introduce ID cards, DNA databanks and stricter surveillance of the internet, the danger to children 'everywhere' was a godsend.  Even cherubic middle class toddlers could be stolen from their safe and secure bed and the public were demanding new laws and greater protection.  Sweet. The headlines might just as well have said 'Bogeyman DOES exist, read all about it'.

Those making the most lurid accusations against the McCanns and the Tapas group are not thinking about the well being of all the children involved.  The abduction story, the suspicion, the Court cases etc, etc, make it impossible for those kids to avoid the vast amount of information available on the web.  But detailed discussion of the sordid fantasies of deranged conspiraloons is unnecessarily cruel and deeply disturbing.  All those claiming to be thinking of Madeleine should stop and consider how their words affect her brother and sister. 

As to those who think believe PDL holds some sort of annual convention for those with a penchant for devious sex, I suggest they put the glass down and walk away slowly. 


  1. Rosalinda,

    “I find it incredible that anyone would think a group of attractive, very sociable, middle class professionals would have any interest whatsoever in having sex with children.”

    Apart from 'attractive' (lol) I agree with you.

    But where do rumours come from?

    “I looked to see who I now know to be Gerry McCann stood above me on the balcony/patio about 3 metres away speaking on a mobile phone. I cannot recall his exact words but I got the impression that he was speaking to perhaps a family member or someone he was very close to due to the nature of his conversation.

    He said something along the lines of there being Paedophile gangs in Portugal and that they had abducted Madeleine. I was so shocked by this, having originally thought that she had just wandered off.”

    From Gerry McCann himself.


    1. I agree NL, it was indeed the McCanns who raised the 'P' question themselves - had anyone else suggested it, they would have been demonised for being so cruel to the parents.

      Apologies for being late responding to you, but I have since commented that the McCanns were scratching to find a motive for stranger abduction, why an abductor would have taken an older child rather than a baby.

      There was also never any suggestion of kidnapping for money, especially in the hours immediately after she had disappeared. It does appear to have been mentioned by anyone, which is curious.

      Digressing slightly, I don't know if anyone has ever seen the Jeremy Bamber documentary. He gave the police the complete story when they arrived to find all the rest of the family had been wiped out. Bamber blamed his sister and told the detectives how and why she had done it, before turning the gun on herself. Case closed.

      It was the same with Madeleine, the abduction story had been established before the police arrived. Kate did not have the hope that any mother would have had, that her child had wandered. They had already decided it was a stranger abduction and were probably miles away. The parents and tapas group were worried about closing borders and distributing Madeleine's picture globally. They didn't bother searching the immediate vicinity, they were looking outwards from the off. If they wanted, they could have appealed for volunteers to trek through the area surrounding PDL, thousands would have turned up. Instead, they went on a bizarre European tour, advertising their missing children in Rome, Germany, Amsterdam, Morocco and Washington. Embassies readied themselves for the McCanns' arrival. One wonders if their child had gone missing in Blackpool would they have launched a global appeal from, say, Paris? As time goes by, even the memory of the whole debacle becomes more and more ridiculous and with some of the more outrageous stunts, positively cringeworthy, especially for those experts and professionals who were so completely hoodwinked.

    2. Thank you for your reply Rosalinda.

      “Kate did not have the hope that any mother would have had, that her child had wandered.”

      But then why did Kate ask Fiona what her thoughts were regarding locking?

      “...she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit..."

      As for their European tour, as you say bizarre. I remember one of the comments on the footage of the McCanns in Amsterdam, June 7th, 2007:

      “So they went to Amsterdam showing her pyjamas, because they think she was probably there in the Netherlands walking around in her pyjamas



    3. It is of course possible that an almost 4 year old could have got out of bed and wandered out the unlocked patio doors NL. Perhaps even inevitable if she had woken up frightened and was looking for her parents.

      However, that open window negates the wandering argument. A small child could not have opened that window. Kate gave a very animated and indeed belligerent explanation of why Madeleine didn't just wander off in one of the Irish interviews. She explained in detail how Madeleine would have had to open the patio doors, close them after her, and then open the gates at the top and bottom of the concrete steps and again, close them after her. She seems oblivious to the fact that an abductor would have had to do exactly the same whilst fleeing with a child in his arms.

      The open window was 'evidence' of a stranger abduction. Except of course it wasn't, because experts quickly proved there was no break in and entry/exit from that window without leaving a trace was impossible. After one Court hearing, Kate backtracked and suggested the open window was a red herring.

      One of the more bizarre aspects of this missing child case was the fact that the parents and their family and friends made the search global rather than focussed on the area where she went missing. That was quite a feat and not something I recall ever seeing in a missing child case before.

  2. On the other hand, lawyers and politicians...

    "Floystad told reporters Sunday that many of the suspects are highly educated, and include lawyers and politicians. He said he could not reveal more details pending the conclusion of the investigation, known as "Dark Room," which began in 2015."

    1. Thank you 08:38, I've just taken a look at the story. As yet there are not enough details to form an opinion, but from the scant information available it appears it all began with individual weirdos hooking up on the internet.

      To be honest I cannot understand the mentality of those paedophile hunters, both professional and amateur, who target paedophiles on the net. The reality is, their children are in far more danger from the people who know them and every time they step out of the front door.

      Stamping out paedophilia by targeting the 'users' of child porn on the net does not protect children. It would be like going after a drug gang by taking out the addicts. What I would like to see are headlines that state how many children were rescued.

  3. I agree - the group of people staying in PdL that week were not using or allowing their children to be used for sexual purposes. At most, the adults there were enjoying their own time together (yes, swinging a possibility) and ensuring the children were taken care of by the paid nannies / child-minders. An accident occurred...

  4. There is a big difference though between fathers bathing their own children and allowing other males - whom you may not even know very well - to bathe your little ones.

    I would never have permitted it and would have regarded anyone who offered to do so with great suspicion.

    1. @Annie at 11:58

      Normally, yes, but perhaps Kate needed help. To quote Rosalinda (which I agree with):

      "Given Gerry's addiction to the tennis courts (that continued after Madeleine disappeared), it's quite clear where his interests on that holiday lay, and it wasn't with the kids."

  5. I agree with what you`ve written Cristobel but there is still this picture in the back of my mind of DP circling his nipple whilst sliding his finger in and out of his mouth. I`m sure KG did not make such a thing up.

  6. I think there are multiple red flags with regards to GM and DP - possibly even some of the other tapas males.

    GM says something odd in that weird reconstruction of the last checks that GM and Matt allegedly did. He says that the 9pm Thursday check was the only time he actually went into the children's bedroom. At around this point Matt looks at him with quite a distinct expression - possibly even disgust? Certainly exasperation.

    But why would GM say this? Surely if he wanted to promote the idea of the caring, responsible father he would not have needed to include that.

    Why say it?

    I suspect because going into the children's bedroom is a sensitive subject - which could indicate that some kind of abuse took place there that week. Not necessarily sexual of course, it could also have been physical abuse. But then again, it could be both.

    1. Perhaps GM wants us to believe that M was alive (his “proud father moment") and at the same time he is trying to make MO feel guilty for not taking “those extra couple of steps in”.

      “It was just dead quiet”, said Matthew OLdfield.

    2. I think you are reading stuff that isn't there 17:22. The whole phoney so called reconstruction was sensitive because they were trying to recreate their lies with the cameras running.

      The most significant aspect of this memorable holiday, was the fact that the adults wanted to spend as little time as possible with their children. That is they were behaving the opposite way to paedophiles, who actively seek out alone time with kids. None of them wanted to miss out on the adult evening meal, that is they preferred to be at the Tapas table with their friends, not alone in the apartments with their own or anybody else's kids.

      These were a highly sociable group. They weren't hiding the children away in their apartments, they were booking them in for kids club activities. Up until 3rd May, they were a carefree group without any secrets.

  7. I agree with you Ros that whatever the big secret was that it wasn't paedophilia This was started by McCann himself and was encouraged by the gaspers and Yvonne Martin none of their statements convinced me that what they said had any credibility. Gasoers statement sounds more like she had been left out of the in crowd and her exclusion had made her a bit miffed and twisted even her husband didn't support her version of events. Martin couldn't remember whether she knew Payne in a professional sense or as an abuser and she just happened to turn up at a crime scene with her credentials in hand as if. It is difficult in this Strange strange case to understand why people made statement and said what they did but I view both these peoples statements the way I view most of the statements of the McCanns and the tapas crew I.e. givien 5 minutes with a fairly average detective they would torn asunder. I'm with John Starker and the big secret and it must be big enough for McCann and Payne and their families to except the peado label without any attempt to defend themselves in order to distract from whatever it is.

    1. I think Yvonne Martin probably did turn up early morning with credentials in hand. It would have been the compassionate thing to do, she had the professional credentials and the English family clearly needed help. I'm not sure miffed is the right word, but she certainly would have been very confused at the behaviour of the parents and their friends. Had the abduction been real, they would have welcomed her with open arms - their biggest complaint was that 'no-one was helping them'. She was there on the spot and any doubt they may have had could easily have cleared been cleared up with a couple of phone calls. I expect she went away with all sorts of alarm bells ringing. Kate's attitude towards her in her book Madeleine is belligerent and rude as no doubt was her behaviour and that of David Payne when she approached them. As you say these people had a big secret.

      As for the Gaspers, I agree they probably were 'outsiders' of the group, didn't quite fit in etc. But to be fair, they were quite exclusive, snobby even, and I doubt many make it through to the inner circle. Not because of anything particularly sinister, but because that is how a PLU (People Like Us)social circles operate. They are usually shallow and not very likeable. Groups of any kind give me the creeps tbh, because they are all about exclusion rather than inclusion. Who can we keep out, who can we ban etc.

      I lean towards the 'big secret', being the possible sedation of the kids. A lot of doctors have the God Complex, ordinary mortals automatically assume they know best. Doctors are put on a pedestal,not only by society, but by their families and friends, as Gerry's mum said, how could anyone do this to a Doctor!

      We all know darn well that leaving toddlers alone in a strange, dark environment full of obstacles and furniture to climb, would be madness. However, if they knew the children would stay in their beds, the risks become minimal.

  8. Ros after I posted my last comment on the credibility of the gasoer and Martin statements I saw your response to another poster on your last blog and that sums it up better " had the PJ been able to to lean on them as in any other missing child case....." Their statements would have fallen to pieces

    1. I think it is sickening that the British MSM blame Goncalo Amaral and the PJ for Madeleine not being found. That was of course the McCanns intention, feeding negative propaganda about the police began the night Madeleine disappeared. No-one's helping us, wailed Gerry and Kate.

      But in defence of Goncalo Amaral, they were having to investigate this case in the most difficult circumstances imaginable. The massive publicity campaign launched by the McCann family led them to being inundated with sightings and false leads that quite literally hindered the investigation. Then of course when the lead detective was closing in, he was removed from case supposedly on the insistence of the British authorities. Whoever gave that command has much to answer for.

  9. Ros - I hear what you are saying but just because you have never encountered anyone who had an unhealthy sexual interest in children it doesn't mean it doesn't happen.
    I have male relatives who went to British boarding schools and there would be one or two teachers who everyone dreaded being asked into their studies. The pretty choir boys were particularly popular - not just with some of the teachers but also some of the older pupils. It was rife in that environment.

    Unfortunately, the parents themselves failed to protect either Madeleine or her siblings. Madeleine disappeared in the most suspicious circumstances imaginable - stolen by paedophiles apparently according to the parents - and the McCanns exposed the twins to the full glare of the media. I'm astonished that social services and other agencies did not step in and insist on anonymity for the twins who did not chose to be put in the spot-light by their selfish and narcissistic parents. I see no evidence that GM, in particular, wanted the best for his children - particularly Madeleine. I think he is a psychopath.

    1. Apologies 21:19, your post and several others seemed to have gone straight to spam. My fault, I should check more often!

      I actually have encountered people with an unhealthy interest in children, during my years in the convent especially. Unfortunately it attracted psychopaths of every variety, especially those drawn by the power they would have over vulnerable kids. It was believed at that time that children in care (the undeserving poor)could be rehabilitated into model citizens through discipline and religious fervour. Behavioural modification and indoctrination in the Gulag style.

      You have raised some interesting questions, this has turned into a blog!

  10. Martin was nothing more than a distraction. If supposed child abuse experts can't remember an abuser from a protector then we are in more trouble than I thought

  11. Off topic.

    Regarding the latest McCann nonsense:

  12. Björn Sundberg/Sweden23 November 2016 at 08:47

    The McCanns have invented so many stories about possible paedophilia in the context of Madeleine’s mysterious disappearance. They have published sensual photos of Madeleine, just in order to make it seem possible, that she may have attracted some sexual abuser’s attention. Moreover, Kate describes Madeleine’s perfect body in her book and talks about how gorgeous she looked in her new dress, and for the very same reason of course.

    The McCanns knew, that without paedophilia, there could not be any other reason for Madeleine being taken, so therefore they had to promote everything that had with paedophilia to do. In doing so, they completely forgot, that they themselves could be the victims of their own fabrications, in that rumours, about their own preferences in such matters began to circulate, which were based on nothing but their own lies about others, that is, their talk about PDL being a place crowded by paedophiles.

    1. I agree Bjorn, it was indeed the McCanns who raised and indeed, promoted, the paedophile aspects of this case.

      The whole idea of Madeleine being stolen to order for a childless couple was completely negated by the fact that almost 4 year old Maddie was sharing a bedroom with two babies, boy or girl. The 'P' word was the only option for a motive.

      However, anyone who knows anything about paedophilia, will know that stealing a random child in the night is not the way the majority of paedophiles work.

      It did however fit in with the government's agenda to create fear of the internet and the danger it poses to children. Bugger all to do with 4 year old Maddie's disappearance, but her cherubic image was enough to get the public onboard.

      The McCanns campaign not only raised millions for their own Fund, but it boosted Missing child charities worldwide. There can be no doubt that all those rushing out to assist Gerry and Kate were thinking first and foremost, what's in it for them.

    2. @ Björn Sundberg/Sweden23 November 2016 at 08:47

      The Mccanns have not published ANY sensual photos of Madeleine. I suggest you look at yourself rather than the Mccanns and join the cesspit so can partake in the 9 years of comments on photos of Madeleine.

    3. To Anonymous 24 November 2016 at 16.43

      On this blog (May 28) Rosalinda ironically talks about “Those Dodgy Pictures” of Madeleine, and she shows one of them, which has been criticised by Jim Gamble and others, who see them as pornography, which, to be honest, I find preposterous. Instead, I would like to use the word sensuality in an innocent posture, and I’ve no problem with them at all and they are quite nice actually.

      However, there must be a reason as to why team McCann chose this one and two of a similar kind, when they could have chosen other pictures, which better would have shown how Madeleine then may have looked under normal circumstances, helping people to recognize her, in case they would see her. So the McCanns’ reason was, as I’ve said, to make people believe, that Madeleine must have become the victim of a paedophile. I can see no other reason!

    4. I was going to point out to the previous correspondent that English is not your first language Bjorn. I am so pleased I didn't, because you have answered the point so much more concisely and eloquently than I could have!

      When those pictures were released I found it strange that McCann ally Mark Williams Thomas made a statement that they were inappropriate and could be construed as sexual.

      The truth is very, very, few people would see anything sexual or perverted in a little girl dressing up and putting on make up. I mean seriously, if you ran a survey among an average group of parents, or indeed any adults, what percentage would find those pictures a turn on?

      The assumption that a child in make up is sexual is a myth based on the disturbing and very specific tastes of probably less than 1%. The idea that Madeleine may have been with paedophiles fed the McCann narrative. It made their victim status more tragic, it gave them a 'cause' and it made their appeal for funds more urgent.

      For the authorities, convincing the public we are infested with gangs of paedophiles hopping over borders and trafficking children, has propped up police agencies, missing children charities and those who want a clampdown on the internet for almost a decade.

    5. One would almost they weren't looking for Madeleine but for paedophile gangs.

      In terms of marketing, it was a good ploy, according to the father of an abducted dead child.

    6. Correction: One would almost think...

    7. A child in makeup is no big deal.

      But in the photo of Madeleine after she had allegedly raided her mother's make up box she looks very sad...not like a child who is having fun playing with makeup.

      I personally don't think that that many children of that age are interested in playing with make-up. I say this with quite a bit of experience of children of my own plus other children as I have worked with children a lot.

      Older girls - yes, definitely.

      But four year olds....not saying it is necessarily sinister per se but just that they are more into different types of play

      Face-painting is very popular with this age-group but that is an entirely different thing - creating a character on the child's face.

      Sorry but I think just as with the Ramsays the McCanns objectified their daughter,,

      The photos of Madeleine lying on the floor near the skirting board are weird because it is a very unnatural pose....

    8. I remember getting my mitts on my mum's makeup at 4, 19:54 and the starched white nurses caps she kept in her bottom drawer. She was not best pleased!

      Small children are very difficult to photograph because it is impossible to get them to keep still! It is quite common practice to grab a picture of them when they are being thoughtful or contemplative for a moment, unaware the camera is there. I don't see them as sad.

      As for the skirting board picture being weird, unnatural pose etc, seriously? I think any pose by a hyperactive 4 year old would appear unnatural, they just don't want to keep still.

      I'm sure Madeleine was into all types of play, she was clearly a bright, outgoing little girl, and by the sounds of it, a bit of a chatterbox. The kind of child who would spill the beans in a nanosecond. 3/4 is the age when the little darlings say things that make you want to fall through the floor. One friend (bit of a tart) had us in stiches when she told us her 4 year old when asked for a sentence using the word 'really', announced, quite proudly, my mum really likes men!

      Even with the very little we know about Madeleine, it was clear she was an outgoing, talkative, and on occasion, quite demanding child. That she was demanding tells me she was not abused. Abused kids are never demanding, because they know they will suffer for it. They are the opposite to Madeleine, they have little speech, because no-one takes the time to talk to them, they fear everything and they are visibly withdrawn. They are also not allowed to mix with others.

      Every day, the McCanns put Maddie into daycare without any qualms whatsoever about what she might say. Those abusing their kids keep them AWAY from strangers, they don't go to creches and kids clubs and they rarely go to school.

      I don't really know what you mean by objectified. I think they objectified Madeleine after she disappeared, but I can't see any signs of it before.

      Quite often, upwardly mobile, middle class professionals, have very little time for their kids. Many see hands on childcare as a chore, their time is too valuable. As cute and adorable as tiny tots are, they cannot compete with the buzzy of climbing that corporate ladder. In the McCann marriage, who's career and free time was more important? The wife desperate for a break from the kids, or the macho man displaying his peacock feather in front of an audience of peers? The competition in that house must have been ferocious. Kate married a dinosaur.

  13. Hi Rosalinda, thank you for replying ref the Martin & Gasperr statements, whilst I don't think that all of the group are practising paedophiles, I believe maybe one or two are and are in powerful positions to manipulate any possible investigations. Remember this happened post Jimmy Saville, Cyril Smith & Rolf Harris. In the case of JS & CS there was certainly an establishment cover-up hence why they were allowed to carry on without fear of exposure. As I said in my last post if the McCanns aren't important the who within that group is. That's why I wouldn't write off the Martin & Gaspers statements. Incedently I recommend if not already seen the film Spotlight.

  14. The McCanns must be so proud of their “good marketing ploy”.

    “She’s really scared and don’t like people”,

    but Embla is alive.