Thursday, February 25, 2016

The Drs Gaspar statements

Regarding the Drs Gaspar statement, where the implication is that gerry and david are paedophiles.
It is disquieting in that we have heard no mention of this or a denial from either gerry or david.

Being called a paedophile is one of the worst names you can call someone particularly males.

Being called it in private is bad enough, being called it by implication in public is far worse, the revulsion caused by paedophilia is enough to cause mobs to descend even to physical violence and even death.

It is not something to be ignored if not true.

Being doctors and thus having exposure to children means being called a paedophile could have major ramifications, even to losing their licenses to practice.

As we saw with Lord McAlpine as soon as his name was mentioned in connection to paedophilia he came out with all guns firing and sued those responsible, the normal response to such a dreadful implication and accusation.

What we have seen, and which is not expected, is deafening silence from both gerry and david.

One would expect strong first person singular, event specific past tense denials.
I am not a paedophile.
I did not sexually abuse any child.
I am not sexually attracted to children and so on.

I would expect them to sue those who made such an accusation even to Mrs Amaral who wrote an open letter to kate telling her, she (Mrs Amaral) did not have paedophile friends.
It was loud and clear as to who Mrs Amaral was referring to in her letter.

What was also loud and clear was the deafening silence coming from both the mccanns and members of the tapas 7 refuting said allegation.

I would expect strong denials, particularly since Madeleine went missing, and it is well known that in missing children cases where it is a stranger abduction, the child is often sexually abused before being murdered, the longer a child victim of stranger abduction is missing the more likely they are dead.

Approximately 80% of acquaintance and stranger kidnappings are sexually motivated.

Acting quickly is critical.

Seventy-four percent of abducted children who are ultimately murdered are dead within three hours of the abduction.

This contradicts statements from the mccanns, in that the longer she is missing the more chance she is alive, and that there is no evidence she has come to serious harm (this in itself contradicts the forensic evidence of blood and body fluids in the apartment and car.

Normal instinct of innocent parents would be to demand to know if their child has been hurt by the 'abductor' and to demand faster action if dogs indicate, as well as asking what does it mean when a dog does this ot that?
What are the implications?
The parents being innocent, would be in paroxysms of agony ,afraid to know what may have happened to their missing child and, at the same time, afraid not to know.
The fear and pain of wondering if their child was hurt, if they are in pain, if they are suffering and not being able to comfort their child, to reassure them.
The fear and pain of wondering if their child is now dead, no longer suffering or being afraid and them not being able to bring their child home to give them a dignified burial.

They want to know and yet at the same time they don't.
Whilst they don't know there is always that flicker of hope, no matter how faint.
When they do know their child is dead, it is the end of their world, there is no longer any hope.
The worst has happened, their only consolation is that their child is now at peace, no longer terrified or in pain.

This is the expected.
What we saw and heard kate say was the unexpected.

We saw kate, claiming the dogs were junk science and thus relaxing rather than show concern

The fact we have heard nothing from either gerry or david in denial is telling.

Are they saying nothing in the hope it will die down?

Are they saying nothing because there is some basis for the allegation, and by responding would result in the allegations being made more public and perhaps questions and answers about the CATS file coming out?

Are they saying nothing because they have been advised not to by their lawyers due to consequences?

Sarah's Law, enables parents, guardians and third parties to enquire whether a person who has access to a child is a registered sex offender, or poses a risk to that child

How the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme works

Any member of the public can approach their local police force to apply under the Child Sex Offender Disclosure Scheme, for information regarding a specific person who has contact with a child(ren).
The police will process the application, but disclosure is not guaranteed.
Even if there are no firm grounds for suspicion, the applicant can trigger an investigation to find out if the subject (the person they are asking about) has a known history that means they might be of risk to children.

Third parties with concerns (e.g. grandparents or neighbors) about an individual who has contact with children are also invited to use the scheme.
However, where appropriate, disclosure will only be given to parents and guardians or those best placed to protect a child.

It may be that inquiries have been made by members of the public in regard to gerry and david, they cannot however broadcasts that information (human rights act and all that crap)

Saying nothing is unexpected and should therefore be red flagged.

One red flag or two does not mean the subject is being deceptive about the event concerned, it could be sensitive due to something else, an affair, financial worries,  alcohol or substance abuse, even that checks weren't done as claimed.
However, multiple red flags indicate deception and then we need to probe further on why they are being deceptive, guilty knowledge or fear of consequences?

Listen not only for what is being said and how, also listen for what is not being said and when.

The subject will tell us the truth even if they are trying hard not to.
Look and listen to only the words spoken.
Do not interpret them.
Do not excuse what is being said to that's not what they meant.
If you interpret what you think they meant, you end up analyzing yourself.

1 comment:

  1. "Do not excuse what is being said to that's not what they meant."

    Indeed, Tania. Believe what they tell you in this context.

    As you are aware. We use the example, when someone says "It's not about the money" You can be dam sure, it's exactly what it's about. :)


Post a comment