Wednesday, 1 June 2011

The PAYNE theories

This is only the start of a longer post. It will get edited after some searching and writing time.

There must be quite a few "Payne theories", one I can recall is not for the faint-hearted. The name David Payne (Dr) in the case is always associated in internet discussions with Dr Gaspars' statement, which implies paedophily talks and gestures having been expressed, according to the statement, by Dr Payne.[click] -More links and info on their way soon.

Howevever for now here is how I could put one "Payne theory" ;) as pre-written by myself as comment to our Friend Sasha's great blogpost Kate McCann book: David Payne pops up again, linked above, at the Little Morsals:

The thing is, even if it was Payne, say he was well placed cause he knew the MCS and Maddy well, and knew at any time where the MCs were, with the kids alone, and he was dressed like the abductor (as the social worker Yvonne Martin noticed on the 4th May morning) ...then Jane TANNER wouldn't have recognised him? Even "from the back", you KNOW when it's a friend you see.
 Winking smile
So bingo, LOL, Tanner's in it, for some reason Payne has killed Maddy, in silence ;), transported her (Tanner handling her to him over the window sill), virtually under the nose of Gerald who was distracted by
Wilkins: another suspect, new!! NewsFlash! ;) - what for, who knows? Body parts selling? mmmh...

Fiona stayed with Kate, who never budged, no she didn't search like mad like she pretends in her book [TRUTH] , by the way, while, erm, Fiona's husband pretending he's searching makes sure the 'deal' or 'burrying' or whatever is done... Gerry still not smelling a rat...
Meanwhile Gerry and Kate phone their family, having both given enough extra-time to the culprits by
waiting a long time (relatively, but every second counts as Kate says!) before the police is called, LOL!

They BOTH lie to their family that there was a forced entry [TRUTH] - once again satisfying the culprits, their mates, heee heeee, eeee...
They CARRY ON LYING saying Gerry even tried the effing shutter FROM THE OUTSIDE, yes, COULD push it right up easily, heeeee heeeee heeeee.... [I'm laughing for real as it's another TRUE FACT] and so on, and so forth.

What a funny little story! I've had a good laugh making it up. I hope you Readers too! Red rose


<><> <><> <><> <><> <><>
Volume I, pages 66 - 68

David Payne

"That the interviewee made this statement voluntarily. That he has been on holiday in Portugal since April 28th 2007, staying at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz. That he plans to return to England on May 5th 2007 (Saturday). That he has known Madeleine's parents for around 5 years. That he was on holiday with Madeleine and her parents. That he came with a group. That the group is composed of nine adults and eight children. The adults are: Diane, the interviewee and his wife (children: ***** and ***), Russell and Jane (children: **** and ****), Matthew and Rachael (child: ******), Gerry and Kate (children: Amelie, Sean and Madeleine).
That they decided to come to Portugal on a suggestion from the tour operator. That it was the interviewee who booked the trip.

Concerning the days spent in Portugal, the interviewee describes them as being all very much the same. He states that his family, composed of his mother-in-law Diane, his wife Fiona and their two children, spent their days more independently than other members of the group. They were most often with the couple Russell and Jane.

Concerning the remaining members of the group, normally they met them in the morning and went for breakfast together at the "Millennium" restaurant, after which they left their children at the Kids Club and the adults went to do sports inside the tourist complex or they went to the beach. The couple Gerry and Kate usually had breakfast in the apartment.

It was also usual to have dinner together every night.

With the exception of Saturday, when they all dined at the "Millennium" restaurant, every evening the group met at the "Tapas" restaurant at around 8.45 for dinner.

While the adults were dining, the children were sleeping in their respective apartments.

In answer to our question, the interviewee states that during all the meals, he never went to his apartment or to any of the group's apartments, because he has an "intercom" and the signal carries from the apartment to the restaurant. The other members of the group went, randomly, every 20 minutes, to their apartments to make sure their respective children were asleep.

Concerning yesterday evening, he states that he, his wife and his mother-in-law arrived at the restaurant at around 8.55pm. According to what he remembers, when they arrived, all the members of the group were present, apart from the children, who were in bed in their respective rooms.

During the evening, Gerry, Jane and Matthew went, alternately, to their children's bedrooms to check if they were sleeping. He thinks they physically went into the apartments. He no longer remembers in what order they went see their children.

Towards 10pm, Kate went to her apartment, and less than 5 minutes later, she came back to the restaurant, breaking down, reporting that Madeleine was not in the bedroom.

Then everybody went to the apartment occupied by Madeleine's family. He remembers comments concerning the fact that the window and the shutters to Madeleine's bedroom were open, while they had remained closed throughout the week.

That the apartment occupied by Madeleine's family comprises two bedrooms, a small kitchen, a lounge and a bathroom. That the lounge has a door which gives outside access in the direction of the restaurant. He does not recall any more details of the apartment but he remembers that the bedroom occupied by the children has a window that looks onto the car park that accesses the main road. That he never went into the said bedroom but he could see that there were two beds and two cots. The cots were placed in the middle of the bedroom. One of the beds was placed against the window and the other, the one occupied by Madeleine, was against the wall facing the one which has a window.

In answer to our question, the interviewee doesn't know how many times Madeleine left the tourist complex, but he knows she went, at least once, to the beach.

That during the holiday, he saw nothing abnormal concerning the couple Gerry and Kate, neither with their children nor, notably, with Madeleine.

In the context of the group, nothing out of the ordinary happened, either.

That during the whole holiday, and particularly during the day and the night yesterday, nothing unusual happened in the tourist complex, which attracted his attention, or which could be correlated with Madeleine's disappearance.

He describes Madeleine as being a communicative girl, happy, obedient and very well behaved.

Madeleine's parents are very sociable people, known by lots of people, kind and affectionate.

Madeleine is the daughter of both elements of the couple.

She was very wanted and is the result of "In Vitro" fertilisation. There was no difference in treatment between Madeleine and the twins.

He doesn't know if Madeleine suffers from any illness, nor if she is on medication. He has nothing more to say that could help the progress of the investigation."

A possibility I've been thinking of :
-PAYNE STATEMENT PJ 4th May: he claims he NEVER went to HIS flat due to the Baby Monitoring device...

- he claims he was ALWAYS therefore at that Tapas' bar.

-apparently he claims he never went even to the 5a "for a slash" ;) - yet Gerry not Kate claims he was the one visiting Maddy on the Wednesday night... which is contradictory as only Gerry says this adding "I think"...

...why didn't he mention this if was true... or did Gerry want to give some false impression, like Kate does all along her book?

NOW: Since Payne had the Baby Monitor , and they all "SAW" that it was SO easy for him and Fi, don't you think they would have arranged for all the kids to stay at the PAYNES'  flat, perhaps making turns to sleep there as couples, to allow the others a good night out?

(NOTE: if the case, none of them said it... so why hide it... to facilitate an abduction story easily from the very open and reachable 5a flat?)

It would explain other things:

-USING THE 5A as a toilet-station (as Kate mentions in her book)

-the DIFFICULTY -even impossibility- to provide anything with Maddy's DNA (were the kids given clothes and shoes, towels, toothbrushes and all regardless of appartenance?) - only a towel was provided to PJ... why not sweaty sandals etc...?

All the kids would be at the Paynes'. The NOTE to the receptionist would be just an excuse to be at the Tapas everynight instead of elewhere, using the late creche.

The CHAPLINS.... Kate and G would be there when it's not their turn to be at the Paynes' with all the kids.

All would pretend that the McCanns' children were at the 5a, precisely also to hide them better, knowing that the 5a is to exposed. And that's why they never bothered locking the door.

Now all the tapas lied with them because, simple, they were already in the lie. Maddy died at 5a because it was BEFORE her sleeping time. As said for the twins, who were getting to bed later and later each day during the following summer (book) Maddy's sleeping time must have been more between 8:30 - as usual for kids that age- and 9 pm...

She died at that time, 8:30 to 9 pm, that's why no forensics results were found in Payne's flat.

"the night we found her." (see You Tube, Gerry's slip-up, Antenna3 tv)

if Gerry said this on purpose it's to hint at an accident. Both to me they don't sound like killers, liars, bad actors yeah, greedy and fashionable, snobs yes, but somehow not killers... I can be wrong, perhaps it WAS pre-planned, orchestrated, then .... etc etc, was the dna planted? quite risky... was the kid hidden for a future sequence of the plan? Maddy found... £££££

-this can include the "other embryo"... 2 stones unturned at once!

if they found her dead, say on the floor, where were they returning from , say at 8:30, 9 pm?

Imo, they didn't. They were THERE. They were IN when she died! Therefore the accident theory is NUL! cause then, why lie? They only had to call an ambulance! they could be just next room and kid falling from top of settee, what's then the need to lie? by the way what were the chances? nothing was unsafe in the flat, while the kids were supervised...

Note: I get the 9 pm bit from

now I must look for the BLACK BAG WITNESS (click)

Please feel free to post your own theories or/and any other comment or link in the provided space below. Red roseRed roseRed rose

No comments:

Post a Comment

Thanks for leaving a comment: