From her statement: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
"- She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.
- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter."
Well let's see "she was visibly upset with the situation". Pretty well expected that Kate was upset. Nothing new there.
Next bit: "the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter".
So had someone told Kate that a couple had abducted her daughter? How would Kate even begin to suspect that a couple had abducted her daughter?
Was this from the potential sighting at 6:00 AM near the Lagos Marina by George Burke Brooks?
It only makes sense to me that somehow the information of this sighting had been passed onto Kate either directly or via the PJ IMO.
Can anyone think of another reason Kate would wonder why a couple abducted her child?
I'm not sure Kate even mentioned a "couple", we only have Ms. Martins word for that.And I'd think she would have no reason to tell a lie.
If Kate had been shouting "they've taken her" again, YW might have assumed that she was referring to a couple.I don't follow your reasoning there sorry.
And I'd think she would have no reason to tell a lie.
And I'd think she would have no reason to tell a lie.
I don't follow your reasoning there sorry.
If Kate had said "they", most people would assume that it meant more than one person, hence the possibility of a misunderstanding in referring to a couple - if ever YM actually said the word and in which sense: a couple as in two people in a relationship; a couple as in more than one person...
I wasn't familiar with the expression, but I've been told - true or not - that in some parts of the UK, "they" is sometimes used to signify an unknown party, even when there's no indication of more than one person.
Attention seeking. She'd been blown out by David Payne, who she later suggested could be a paedophile, so probably sour grapes as well.
It's not clear why he seemed familiar to her. His face or his name? She didn't seem to remember the context, either.
She'd worked in Plymouth at some point, and there WAS a David Payne who was a child rapist (not the T9 one), released from prison in 2008. It's not clear where these offences occurred, but it may well have been in the south of England as it was a scandal when people discovered that he was living in Weymouth after his release.
She noticed that he had a southern accent, and together with the name plus her perception that her presence wasn't overly appreciated at the time, it may have rung a vague bell, if his conviction had been in the news, or if she'd had some form of contact with the social services involved in that case.
https://theukdatabase.com/2012/03/12/david-payne-weymouthchippenhamchippenham/
Whether that was the trigger or not, I find it to be a plausible potential explanation.
It was the Anonymous Letter that threw me. Hardly the act of a Professional. More like a Poisoned Pen.
I'm interested by this need to attack her. Is she currently taking poll position as public enemy No.1 ?
It's not clear why he seemed familiar to her. His face or his name? She didn't seem to remember the context, either.YM didn't know the name but recognised the face. Odd thing about it was the supposed scar running down his face which isn't visible in anything I've seen. Was she mistaken on this aspect of identity?
She'd worked in Plymouth at some point, and there WAS a David Payne who was a child rapist (not the T9 one), released from prison in 2008. It's not clear where these offences occurred, but it may well have been in the south of England as it was a scandal when people discovered that he was living in Weymouth after his release.
She noticed that he had a southern accent, and together with the name plus her perception that her presence wasn't overly appreciated at the time, it may have rung a vague bell, if his conviction had been in the news, or if she'd had some form of contact with the social services involved in that case.
https://theukdatabase.com/2012/03/12/david-payne-weymouthchippenhamchippenham/
Whether that was the trigger or not, I find it to be a plausible potential explanation.
She did a fair bit of attacking herself, don't you think. Or was that okay?
She did a fair bit of attacking herself, don't you think. Or was that okay?"She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list."
"She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list."
She is not saying he is on the list. Just for the police to check the list. Did they check the list? Was he there?.
THat was a decade ago. She's not still at it - unlike you two mods.
In my opinion Ms Martin is an archetypal disaster tourist anxious to get as close to the action as possible.The interview did not go on very long by the sounds of it. YWM might not have been aware there were other kids involved, but from memory she did see contact with other kids. So she was concerned but didn't see anything that concerned her IMO.
If she was involved in child protection why did she show absolutely no concern for Madeleine's siblings or the other children in the party?
In my opinion she had absolutely no locus in interfering with a distraught mother by trying to usher her away from her support group as she waited for information about her missing daughter.
Concern for the children as per her alleged training, yes ... but she didn't actually show any, did she?
Disgrace doesn't end with the passing of time. She is still a professional disgrace.Well I don't agree, she had the credentials and the experience and the concern to go and help.
In My Opinion, to which I am entitled, just like you.
The interview did not go on very long by the sounds of it. YWM might not have been aware there were other kids involved, but from memory she did see contact with other kids. So she was concerned but didn't see anything that concerned her IMO.
Having no opportunity to talk to Kate alone may have been a sign she was trained to look out for. We don't know.
IMO we missed out on a great chance to get some other insight from this case, when she was asked to leave so soon.
Well I don't agree, she had the credentials and the experience and the concern to go and help.
The interview did not go on very long by the sounds of it. YWM might not have been aware there were other kids involved, but from memory she did see contact with other kids. So she was concerned but didn't see anything that concerned her IMO.
Having no opportunity to talk to Kate alone may have been a sign she was trained to look out for. We don't know.
IMO we missed out on a great chance to get some other insight from this case, when she was asked to leave so soon.
Well I don't agree, she had the credentials and the experience and the concern to go and help.
I'm interested by this need to attack her. Is she currently taking poll position as public enemy No.1 ?
YM didn't know the name but recognised the face. Odd thing about it was the supposed scar running down his face which isn't visible in anything I've seen. Was she mistaken on this aspect of identity?
"Aged about 35 years
Of about 1,80 metres in height
Of normal physical appearance
Having short, dark hair
Using graduated glasses of small dimensions with rectangular lenses
Having a round face
Presenting a scar above his eyebrow and on his left cheek"
She appears to have identified DP from a photograph.
Not surprisingly they haven't said.In the lead-up to this thread there were indications there was a DP on the list but with a different middle name Not David Anthony Payne but another name.
Processos Vol XIII Page 3421YM had a very brief meeting with the McCanns - nothing that was said assisted the investigation as per that note from Insp. Ferreira.
Date : 2007-11-14
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Paolo Rebelo
From: Paolo Ferreira, Inspector
Service Information
Subject: Expedient related to Yvonne Warren Martin
In the sequence of the contents of the service information in annex, which was prepared by Inspector José Monteira on 12-06-2007, the questioning of Yvonne Warren Martin was twice begun, according to the files that are also joined to this.
The statement relates in detail her intervention with the McCann couple after having heard about Madeleine's disappearance.
She adds that on one occasion, because it had occurred to her that the parents and the friends could eventually be involved in the child's disappearance, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police.
The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
With nothing further to add.
Signed
Inspector Ferreira
In the lead-up to this thread there were indications there was a DP on the list but with a different middle name Not David Anthony Payne but another name.
In what way could she help the mccanns...She might have cleared them. I don't know for it never happened.
So she sent an anonymous letter when she wasn't allowed to question a distraught woman.I think she felt she was being prevented from a chance to talk to Kate alone.
I've often wondered if she got mixed up with Murat (who does seem to have a scar on the left side of his face).Does David Payne speak with a Southern English accent? He is on the video where he says "cheer up Gerry you are on holiday".
Speaking with a Southern English accent
Wearing light trousers, cream or beige coloured, and a dark polo shirt.
And, unless DP changed clothes between when she met him and when he was photographed by the media, DP was wearing a striped t-shirt, and RM was wearing a dark blue polo.
She might have cleared them. I don't know for it never happened.
How could she have "cleared" them? Who's "them" and of what?
For some, she was an interfering busybody; for others she may have been trying to help figure out where the child could be in the context of the general chaos and limited news of that morning, despite what may be perceived as a heavy-handed approach.
How could she have "cleared" them? Who's "them" and of what?
For some, she was an interfering busybody; for others she may have been trying to help figure out where the child could be in the context of the general chaos and limited news of that morning, despite what may be perceived as a heavy-handed approach.
As her field did not include, locating lost children she was, an interfering busybody... Imo
Bit of both, I think. Should have known better than offer help or advice to a bunch of doctors, but there you go.
Processos Vol XIII Page 3421
Date : 2007-11-14
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Paolo Rebelo
From: Paolo Ferreira, Inspector
Service Information
Subject: Expedient related to Yvonne Warren Martin
In the sequence of the contents of the service information in annex, which was prepared by Inspector José Monteira on 12-06-2007, the questioning of Yvonne Warren Martin was twice begun, according to the files that are also joined to this.
The statement relates in detail her intervention with the McCann couple after having heard about Madeleine's disappearance.
She adds that on one occasion, because it had occurred to her that the parents and the friends could eventually be involved in the child's disappearance, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police.
The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
With nothing further to add.
Signed
Inspector Ferreira
You beat me to it there. I was going to post that ?{)(**
Mind you I had a caveat [wouldn't you just know it]
There is a section of the community that has made a career, for ten years, out of telling us what a load of merchant bankers the Portuguese Judiciary is so is Paolo Ferreira just another merchant banker who has it all wrong or a shining nugget in a mine of what is otherwise pyrites ?
Visions of people being elevated on their own farts comes to mind. Or if you want it posh I am sure some one will come along later and tell us what the accepted normal expression is 8(>((
I'm interested by this need to attack her. Is she currently taking poll position as public enemy No.1 ?
You beat me to it there. I was going to post that ?{)(**
Mind you I had a caveat [wouldn't you just know it]
There is a section of the community that has made a career, for ten years, out of telling us what a load of merchant bankers the Portuguese Judiciary is so is Paolo Ferreira just another merchant banker who has it all wrong or a shining nugget in a mine of what is otherwise pyrites ?
Visions of people being elevated on their own farts comes to mind. Or if you want it posh I am sure some one will come along later and tell us what the accepted normal expression is 8(>((
My caveat is that it would be well worth taking note of the date on the correspondence and the name of the co-ordinator to whom it is addressed.
Then rethink shining nuggets and pyrites ... I'm sure something will spring to mind.
I think she felt she was being prevented from a chance to talk to Kate alone.
Except that if she'd been able to establish that Gerry was actually a stepdad, then perhaps the biological father could have taken her, for example.
Ah Rebelo who requested both the reconstitution and that the Tapas friends be requestioned. He never did strike me as being particularly sure of the group's innocence.
But Gerry wasn't a Step Dad. And it wasn't her place to establish this.. If it had been true then it would have come out later.
So she was jumping to conclusions, and distressing an already distress woman. I was appalled by her assumptions.
But Gerry wasn't a Step Dad. And it wasn't her place to establish this.. If it had been true then it would have come out later.
So she was jumping to conclusions, and distressing an already distress woman. I was appalled by her assumptions.
As she works directly with situations of children at risk, and as she was very close to Praia da Luz, she went there with the intention of offering her help and support to the couple, she arrived there at about 09H30."She was doing what she was trained to do, but without any of the authority normally invested in a social worker.
What do you expect when children are left alone, they are at risk, and look what happened because of there actions.
She was only doing her job,pity the mccanns wasn't
imo
It sounds as if you still are.
Not to worry, she was just another of the bit players with only a few lines.
I think we should have a 'rogue gallery on a round about for the McCann supporters to throw muck and rocks at... it does nothing for the parents ever depleting reputation or finding out what really happened to a 3 year old innocent child. But it helps with self appointed judges... who are just people on a forum and nothing at all special in the big scheme of things.
OK Who is next... there was a suspicious looking cat on one of the verandas... couple of dodgy looking birds on the outside trees...
It sounds as if you still are.
Not to worry, she was just another of the bit players with only a few lines.
As she works directly with situations of children at risk, and as she was very close to Praia da Luz, she went there with the intention of offering her help and support to the couple, she arrived there at about 09H30."
What do you expect when children are left alone, they are at risk, and look what happened because of there actions.
She was only doing her job,pity the mccanns wasn't
imo
I think we should have a 'rogue gallery on a round about for the McCann supporters to throw muck and rocks at... it does nothing for the parents ever depleting reputation or finding out what really happened to a 3 year old innocent child. But it helps with self appointed judges... who are just people on a forum and nothing at all special in the big scheme of things.
OK Who is next... there was a suspicious looking cat on one of the verandas... couple of dodgy looking birds on the outside trees...
It wasn't her job. She had No Juristiction in Portugal and was on holiday at the time.
Could you possibly try to say something sensible?
I presume even doctors can run around like headless chickens in the midst of a personal tragedy, particularly after very little, if any, sleep.Who made them public? Had there been any publicity around her visit in the press?
I don't have a problem that she asked (anonymously) for DPs name to be checked if it rang a vague bell with her.
What I do have a problem with is that her (apparently ill-founded) suspicions were made public.
AFAIK, confidential statements are supposed to remain... confidential, unless, of course, they are raised in a court case.
My caveat is that it would be well worth taking note of the date on the correspondence and the name of the co-ordinator to whom it is addressed.Heaven forbid!
Then rethink shining nuggets and pyrites ... I'm sure something will spring to mind.
Why should she have felt that she had the right? She tried to isolate Kate so she could question her. Why?I'd think that would be normal practice back in England for someone in the "Profession: Social Services and Child Protection" to talk to each of the parents alone.
Who made them public? Had there been any publicity around her visit in the press?
But Gerry wasn't a Step Dad. And it wasn't her place to establish this.. If it had been true then it would have come out later.She didn't make any assumptions. She established the facts as quickly as possible. - Ask the mum if there was another man who might have come to take his biological child away. (A fact like that could in many cases be a secret even the "father" might not know.)
So she was jumping to conclusions, and distressing an already distress woman. I was appalled by her assumptions.
It wasn't her job. She had No Juristiction in Portugal and was on holiday at the time.She had her credentials with her on holiday. You never know if her authority extended to British citizens abroad.
I just read this in Yvonne Martin's statement -What made you come to the conclusion: "It seems as though the journalist was the person who suggested the McCann's didn't speak to Yvonne Martin, it appears Kate was very upset at the time too and I wouldn't think it was an appropriate time to go questioning her."
Meanwhile a fourth individual came towards the group and identified himself as a journalist. The witness alerted the couple to the type of statements they should give and that it would be better for them to keep silent.
It seems as though the journalist was the person who suggested the McCann's didn't speak to Yvonne Martin, it appears Kate was very upset at the time too and I wouldn't think it was an appropriate time to go questioning her.
As she works directly with situations of children at risk, and as she was very close to Praia da Luz, she went there with the intention of offering her help and support to the couple, she arrived there at about 09H30."
What do you expect when children are left alone, they are at risk, and look what happened because of there actions.
She was only doing her job,pity the mccanns wasn't
imo
She was doing what she was trained to do, but without any of the authority normally invested in a social worker.
Was she though? On whose authority was she acting? Had she contacted her own bosses? Had she contacted the British authorities for clearance? Had she contacted the Portuguese authorities.the PJ allowed her to contact the McCanns. Had they wanted to they could have failed to give her the directions to the apartment.
What you are advocating is anarchy with any Tom, Dick or Harry free to take it upon themselves to pass beyond police lines and interfere with witnesses in a police investigation.
The woman had no business to be there particularly as she added to the distress of an already traumatised woman.
It probably ranks as one of the most unprofessional episodes I have ever heard of.
I think we should have a 'rogue gallery on a round about for the McCann supporters to throw muck and rocks at... it does nothing for the parents ever depleting reputation or finding out what really happened to a 3 year old innocent child. But it helps with self appointed judges... who are just people on a forum and nothing at all special in the big scheme of things.
OK Who is next... there was a suspicious looking cat on one of the verandas... couple of dodgy looking birds on the outside trees...
She didn't make any assumptions. She established the facts as quickly as possible. - Ask the mum if there was another man who might have come to take his biological child away. (A fact like that could in many cases be a secret even the "father" might not know.)
I'd think that would be normal practice back in England for someone in the "Profession: Social Services and Child Protection" to talk to each of the parents alone.
It seems to be the same policy as the SY are doing they would treat the case the same as if it occurred on UK territory if it involved UK citizens.
If DP had not had previous dealings with YWM what then was his concern? Was it that all 4 families might be charged under some law involving the Laws around the Social Services and Child Protection legislation?
She had her credentials with her on holiday. You never know if her authority extended to British citizens abroad.
Think about it very carefully ... in a similar scenario anywhere in Great Britain ... would that woman have been allowed under the incident tape? Would she even have followed a police vehicle through and chanced her arm with a go at the witnesses?
I rather think not.
the PJ allowed her to contact the McCanns. Had they wanted to they could have failed to give her the directions to the apartment.
We do not know how she managed to get through police lines or what tale she spun to do so.She obviously had her credentials with her. She admits to not knowing where to go and being shown to the apartment.
Was she though? On whose authority was she acting? Had she contacted her own bosses? Had she contacted the British authorities for clearance? Had she contacted the Portuguese authorities.
What you are advocating is anarchy with any Tom, Dick or Harry free to take it upon themselves to pass beyond police lines and interfere with witnesses in a police investigation.
The woman had no business to be there particularly as she added to the distress of an already traumatised woman.
It probably ranks as one of the most unprofessional episodes I have ever heard of.
Cite please.
IMO
Probably she was more concerned to the distress, traumatise that maddie would have gone through
As for the authority, would you expect a doctor/medic on holiday to attend a dying person, thinking i cant do anything im on holiday - i have no authority here
Didn't kennedy do the same to the smiths, interfered
Yes I agree. The questions may have been to establish a reason for the 'abduction'. It is almost the first question asked of a parent who's child is missing. Time is of the essence as we are constantly reminded, questions no matter how difficult and upsetting they seem need to be asked and answered.
IMO
Probably she was more concerned to the distress, traumatise that maddie would have gone through
As for the authority, would you expect a doctor/medic on holiday to attend a dying person, thinking i cant do anything im on holiday - i have no authority here
Didn't kennedy do the same to the smiths, interfered
In the circumstances outlined ... I can assure you Yvonne Martin had no locus interfering with a police investigation or police witnesses.She left when she was asked to. What I see was a voluntary situation. She approached the McCanns they agreed to talk to her, they accepted her credentials, but after a discussion with DP (I think that is agreed) DP informed her they didn't want to talk to her any more and she left.
In my opinion she treated everyone from first to last with high handed contempt.
You are absolutely right Brietta..
she wouldn't have been allowed under any tape had this happened in the UK...
she would be in a case meeting with police discussing the other children safety maybe attempting to get a court order for the other children from ALL tapas be removed- and the parents arrested for child abandonment.
But well, it was only Maddie who paid the price of that decision of chosen childcare arrangements.
Everyone else went back to work and school...
What made you come to the conclusion: "It seems as though the journalist was the person who suggested the McCann's didn't speak to Yvonne Martin, it appears Kate was very upset at the time too and I wouldn't think it was an appropriate time to go questioning her."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
Yvonne Martin should not have been asking any questions. The police hadn't even had a chance to interview any one ... why on earth do you and this woman think she had any right to contaminate the witnesses and be asking questions like that?At that stage the PJ were still thinking in terms of wandering off. Why would you think the witnesses were being contaminated?
Her behaviour is not only unprofessional it is bizarre.
You make terrific assumptions about this woman and exactly what cases her bosses might allow her to handle.
What exactly do you know about her?
Think about it very carefully ... in a similar scenario anywhere in Great Britain ... would that woman have been allowed under the incident tape? Would she even have followed a police vehicle through and chanced her arm with a go at the witnesses?My understanding was they spoke to YM outside. Probably beyond any PJ taped off areas. The McCanns still had another apartment for privacy.
I rather think not.
Thank you. I can't see the bit where it says that the forth person played any part in separating her (Yvonne) from the McCanns.
She left when she was asked to. What I see was a voluntary situation. She approached the McCanns they agreed to talk to her, they accepted her credentials, but after a discussion with DP (I think that is agreed) DP informed her they didn't want to talk to her any more and she left.
OK she didn't like it and got DP checked out, but his record was OK AFAIK.
She didn't leave immediately though if I remember correctly ... apparently she had other fish to fry and it had nothing at all to do with looking out for the best interests of the McCann children or the others in their party.
About her? oh nothing at all. Just if she was in child protection, and they were in the UK then the McCanns and Tapas story would have been very, very different indeed. If she wasn't assigned to the case she would have certainly been involved in an initial report. and just so you all know those children would have been removed and questioned. VERY intensly over a period of time. That is NOT an assumption That is a fact.
Thank you. I can't see the bit where it says that the forth person played any part in separating her (Yvonne) from the McCanns.That depends on who is doing the counting. "Meanwhile a fourth individual came towards the group and identified himself as a journalist. The witness alerted the couple to the type of statements they should give and that it would be better for them to keep silent.
Went on to write an anonymous letter saying she thought the McCann's had had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance!! Amazing!!
You know nothing? Yet you pontificate on this woman's expertise?YM had decades of experience.
My understanding was they spoke to YM outside. Probably beyond any PJ taped off areas. The McCanns still had another apartment for privacy.
YM had decades of experience.
That depends on who is doing the counting. "Meanwhile a fourth individual came towards the group and identified himself as a journalist. The witness alerted the couple to the type of statements they should give and that it would be better for them to keep silent.
At this moment, the third person, who was always near to the couple and the witness, moved the couple away from her and the three of them talked in whispers for some time.
After this, and leaving the couple behind him, he approached the witness and told her that the couple did not want to speak any more with her, nor with anyone else.
The witness replied to him that if the McCann couple felt the need to talk to her later, she would be at their total disposal."
That is counting from YM POV where she is not counting herself.
Went on to write an anonymous letter saying she thought the McCann's had had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance!! Amazing!!Do we see what was in the anonymous letter? I don't think we do. I think you are wrong to say YM "went on to write an anonymous letter saying she thought the McCann's had had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance".
IMO
Not really, recon the police have had thousands of letters like that , and the mccanns
It is there towards the bottom.
I said 'amazing' because she spent a short time questioning the McCann's, then came to the conclusion they might have had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance.Cite please.
Do we see what was in the anonymous letter? I don't think we do. I think you are wrong to say YM "went on to write an anonymous letter saying she thought the McCann's had had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance".
The third person is David Payne, the fourth person is the journalist.What I was meaning from an outsiders point of view the numbers are plus 1.
Cite please.
What I was meaning from an outsiders point of view the numbers are plus 1.
Kate 1 , Gerry 2, David 3 and Yvonne 4, when the journalist turns up that is 5 people there.
snipped from Yvonne Martins statement -OK "that they could be in some way" I was thinking she was referring to the extended group, but I'll have another look. I don't see the reason other than the statistics (99.9%) that would support this view.
She says that about two weeks after Madeleine's disappearance, when the police made an appeal for information about a man, carrying a child, who had been seen in the Luz zone, and whose clothing was described, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police, telling them the following: : regarding the various details she observed during her contact with the McCanns it is her opinion that they could be in some way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.
Read Yvonne Martins statement, I've already given the link.I'd prefer a copy and paste of a portion at supported your view.
I said 'amazing' because she spent a short time questioning the McCann's, then came to the conclusion they might have had something to do with Madeleine's disappearance.
The word I used was expertise.They often go hand in hand.
This is the only bit that I can see -That is it. IMO YM would read that as suspicious behaviour.
"Meanwhile a fourth individual came towards the group and identified himself as a journalist. The witness alerted the couple to the type of statements they should give and that it would be better for them to keep silent.
At this moment, the third person, who was always near to the couple and the witness, moved the couple away from her and the three of them talked in whispers for some time.
After this, and leaving the couple behind him, he approached the witness and told her that the couple did not want to speak any more with her, nor with anyone else."
That is it. YM would read that as suspicious behaviour.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
snipped
"She did this anonymously because she did not want to be bothered by the media. But she also states that according to what she remembers, when she met with Madeleine's parents, David Payne, who was with them, was wearing a dark polo shirt, blue or black coloured, cream coloured long trousers, of linen or cotton, and dark shoes (sandal/slipper type without a back buckle/catch). In her opinion, this clothing matches perfectly with the clothing the Police described the man (carrying the child) to be wearing at the time. All these coincidences made the witness think that the parents and their friends could possibly be involved in the disappearance of the child.
She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list."
=============================================================
That is what I find the most incredible thought - could David Payne ever have been Tannerman? Smithman hadn't been mentioned by that stage had he?
That is what I find the most incredible thought - could David Payne ever have been Tannerman? Smithman hadn't been mentioned by that stage had he?
The hair, Rob - or rather the lack of it - tends to suggest he wasn't, unless certain beliefs that he was easily mistaken for RM in the dark are realistic.I would have thought Jane would recognise DP too.
My caveat is that it would be well worth taking note of the date on the correspondence and the name of the co-ordinator to whom it is addressed.
Then rethink shining nuggets and pyrites ... I'm sure something will spring to mind.
Only if the rest of the group have been telling lots and lots of porkiesEither that or very badly mistaken.
Either that or very badly mistaken.
They often go hand in hand.
Indeed but not all the time ... in my opinion Yvonne Martin's interference in this case is an example of when they did not.I have no way of ever finding out whether she was reprimanded by her employers for interfering, can you?
I have no way of ever finding out whether she was reprimanded by her employers for interfering, can you?
The incident certainly never affected her career.So if by following the correct procedures she failed in the circumstances why? I can see it happening because the interview of Kate was on a voluntary basis. As soon as she was told that Kate didn't want to proceed it stopped, even when it wasn't Kate herself that gave the verbal instruction it was over.
https://www.naccc.org.uk/downloads/NACCC_presentation_29-11-11.pdf
From her statement: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htmPersonally, I think it likely that in an effort to placate the distraught Kate, her friends kept reassuring her by telling her that with Madeleine being such a lovely little girl, a childless couple had decided to make her their daughter. So Madeleine was safe and cared for.
"- She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.
- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter."
Well let's see "she was visibly upset with the situation". Pretty well expected that Kate was upset. Nothing new there.
Next bit: "the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter".
So had someone told Kate that a couple had abducted her daughter? How would Kate even begin to suspect that a couple had abducted her daughter?
Was this from the potential sighting at 6:00 AM near the Lagos Marina by George Burke Brooks?
It only makes sense to me that somehow the information of this sighting had been passed onto Kate either directly or via the PJ IMO.
Can anyone think of another reason Kate would wonder why a couple abducted her child?
Personally, I think it likely that in an effort to placate the distraught Kate, her friends kept reassuring her by telling her that with Madeleine being such a lovely little girl, a childless couple had decided to make her their daughter. So Madeleine was safe and cared for.
Much better than thinking that she had been taken by a nasty group of men to (?)sold on
OMO
Ah so that would have made it ok then, not only they were the mccanns responsible parents.
Maddie was with a loving couple, and going to live happily ever after [what a story].
IMO, i think this always seeing the good, in mccanns and friends.
Has made those who believe maddie was abducted,is limited in there ability to see the wood for the trees.
So if by following the correct procedures she failed in the circumstances why? I can see it happening because the interview of Kate was on a voluntary basis. As soon as she was told that Kate didn't want to proceed it stopped, even when it wasn't Kate herself that gave the verbal instruction it was over.
In my opinion she did not follow procedures or any statutory instrument that I am familiar with, she was making it up as she went along.
She arrived on the scene uninvited and without authorisation.
She forced herself onto people without authorisation.
She asked inappropriate questions and made no inquiry into the welfare of the children involved, not even making a single enquiry about any of them.
In my opinion she overstepped the bounds of good practice and acted well outwith her pay grade.
In my opinion she had no business asking Kate McCann anything at all that was not connected to the welfare of the twins and even that is questionable.
The clincher as far as I am concerned was the poison pen anonymous letter she chose to write.
As was said earlier if it had been an injured person and a doctor on holiday no one would have batted an eyelid.
As was said earlier if it had been an injured person and a doctor on holiday no one would have batted an eyelid.
A doctor would be carrying out the job he is trained to do every day... What involvement does Martin have with children suspected if being abducted...she was an interfering busybody imoShe implies she has experience with cases like this, considering at that stage 13 hours after the last sighting of Madeleine no one really knows what happened.
An injured person could expect to be given assistance by any passer by not only a medically trained one if there was no other support available.I still disagree.
This incredibly arrogant busy body gained access to a distraught woman with her husband and friends by her side, proceeded to question her intimately causing her further trauma as she struggled to get away from her.
Kate McCann was an injured person ... this person exacerbated that injury for her own purposes ... I hardly think your comparison makes any sense at all looking at the circumstances of her unwarranted interventions.
An injured person could expect to be given assistance by any passer by not only a medically trained one if there was no other support available.
This incredibly arrogant busy body gained access to a distraught woman with her husband and friends by her side, proceeded to question her intimately causing her further trauma as she struggled to get away from her.
Kate McCann was an injured person ... this person exacerbated that injury for her own purposes ... I hardly think your comparison makes any sense at all looking at the circumstances of her unwarranted interventions.
A doctor would be carrying out the job he is trained to do every day... What involvement does Martin have with children suspected if being abducted...she was an interfering busybody imo
Is that how you think of people in the child protection services, interfering busybodies, oh my days.
(snip)
The clincher as far as I am concerned was the poison pen anonymous letter she chose to write.
Brietta, the "anonymous letter" may have been nothing more than a statement made via Crimestoppers.It can't have been that anonymous as it was able to be traced back to her, or did she just own up to it.
In the context of the immediate breaking news, however heavy-handed her approach may seem (to me as well), she may well have thought that she was doing the right thing to help locate the missing child as fast as possible.
Explain what her role, was when she wen to speak to Kate... And tried to seoerate Kate from the, rest of the group..
Interference in a criminal investigation is a phrase that is, used a lot on here
In my opinion she did not follow procedures or any statutory instrument that I am familiar with, she was making it up as she went along.
She arrived on the scene uninvited and without authorisation.
She forced herself onto people without authorisation.
She asked inappropriate questions and made no inquiry into the welfare of the children involved, not even making a single enquiry about any of them.
In my opinion she overstepped the bounds of good practice and acted well outwith her pay grade.
In my opinion she had no business asking Kate McCann anything at all that was not connected to the welfare of the twins and even that is questionable.
The clincher as far as I am concerned was the poison pen anonymous letter she chose to write.
It can't have been that anonymous as it was able to be traced back to her, or did she just own up to it.
She made statements to the PJ and therefore those appear in the files, including a reference to an "anonymous letter".She may have been asked "Did you write this anonymous letter? And then answered yes.
I Don't have to explain her role, she worked in child protection, why should that distress kmccann so much if she had nothing to fear.
IMO your stance would be totally different, if she had stated the mccanns totally innocent.
Her opinion, at first hand was that they were involved.
Same as others, who after being involved with mccanns first hand - thought, who are experienced at doing that.
All your going by is a statement, you don't like, that doesnt fit in with your agenda. imo
Unless this anonymous letter has been seen, it would be very wrong to pretend to know what it contained.
She may have been asked "Did you write this anonymous letter? And then answered yes.
Brietta, the "anonymous letter" may have been nothing more than a statement made via Crimestoppers.
In the context of the immediate breaking news, however heavy-handed her approach may seem (to me as well), she may well have thought that she was doing the right thing to help locate the missing child as fast as possible.
You always see the best in people, Carana.
She claims to have written anonymously to the police with the intention of having David Payne's status checked.
Snip
She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
In my opinion this would have had the result of police enquiries having to be made with the resultant record of it leaving a paper trail.
It's normal practice for doctors to attend injured people.. Is it
Normal practice for social workers, to turn up uninvited, at crime scenes, and, start asking questions.
This incredibly arrogant busy body gained access to a distraught woman with her husband and friends by her side, proceeded to question her intimately causing her further trauma as she struggled to get away from her.
This incredibly arrogant busy body was employed in child protection, showed her credentionals, something you don't have.
It is only your opinion, she met them first hand, and thought them involved,
IMO is it that you are so outraged about, and not the person
It's normal practice for doctors to attend injured people.. Is it
Normal practice for social workers, to turn up uninvited, at crime scenes, and, start asking questions... Interfering busybody
Maybe that hits the nail on the head ?
Who allocated a casework file to Ms Martin ... bearing in mind there wasn't one.
Who authorised her intervention at any level? Who authorised her staff interrogation regarding the crime scene?
In my opinion the woman overstepped the bounds of decency and what is expected in the way of professional behaviour.
For example, had there been an off duty British detective on holiday who had behaved as she did, what do you think the reaction would have been?
Intruding to interrogate witnesses ... primarily the missing child's mother?
Interrogating witnesses as to the state of the crime scene?
Would waving a warrant card have cut the mustard with the Portuguese. According to your argument ... as a professional that would have been fine. Aye right!!
IMO you wouldnt give a fig, if she had declared the mccanns as being innocent.
What did the mccanns expect, they left babies on there own, and one goes missing, and expect no interference from some who was obviously concerned at what they had done.
They thought it fit to do, so there for should not be worried on any interference.
If they thought what they had done was right.
its biggest wonder they didnt sue her.
You always see the best in people, Carana.
She claims to have written anonymously to the police with the intention of having David Payne's status checked.
Snip
She declares that one of her main aims when she wrote the anonymous letter was for the British police to check the paedophile or child abusers registers and whether David Payne was on that list.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
In my opinion this would have had the result of police enquiries having to be made with the resultant record of it leaving a paper trail.
Peut-être.
So perhaps you will be kind enough to inform the forum of what I may have missed.
IMO you wouldnt give a fig, if she had declared the mccanns as being innocent.
What did the mccanns expect, they left babies on there own, and one goes missing, and expect no interference from some who was obviously concerned at what they had done.
They thought it fit to do, so there for should not be worried on any interference.
If they thought what they had done was right.
its biggest wonder they didnt sue her.
They can't sue her as they know full well it is a child protection officers job to protect a child and report if they suspect anything. Another one who is concerned is writtenoff by McCann supporters. quite a list they have there hmmm.
It is also a NHS policy to report anything any member of suspect regarding child welfare this isn't just about sexual abuse it is about emotional, physical, and starvation on the increase is child slavery open to ALL sorts of abuse.
All the tapas being doctors would know this they get training of look out for signs!
They can't sue her as they know full well it is a child protection officers job to protect a child and report if they suspect anything. Another one who is concerned is writtenoff by McCann supporters. quite a list they have there hmmm.
It is also a NHS policy to report anything any member of suspect regarding child welfare this isn't just about sexual abuse it is about emotional, physical, and starvation on the increase is child slavery open to ALL sorts of abuse.
All the tapas being doctors would know this they get training of look out for signs!
There are over 700 statutory instruments.
Your post suggests you are familiar with all of them.
I find that not only improbable but unnecessarily boashut upl.
I'll leave the forum to decide what is probable and what is isn't.
This lady was was not on NHS work duty at the time - she was apparently on holiday in a foreign country.
There is nothing official about her intervention, unless you've found something to that effect.
I must admit I am quite perplexed as to why she should be singled out as a busybody? I mean anyone who asks questions of the McCanns are seen as trolls, busybodies,nasty people. When the police were asking questions they were Fking w.......s... tweedle dee and tweedle dumb etc, Amaral was singled out as well because he didn't believe their 'time line' and 'story about shutters', police and EVERYONE,also accused of not searching for their daughter [great fake news story] And yet uncomfortable as those questions may be at a time of stress, I can see no reason for them not to answer them I mean they have NOTHING to hide right? Well apart from the fact they left their children alone every night and one seems to have disappeared in mysterious circumstances.
She felt she had cause to write that letter thinking only about the missing child because that is why they are called CHILD protection- not families reputation damage limitation protection officers.
It would appear DP was a name familiar to her at some point in her career- no harm in checking if it was the SAME DP. Poor Maddie her parents feelings took precedence over hers/shocking beyond belief.
This lady was was not on NHS work duty at the time - she was apparently on holiday in a foreign country.
There is nothing official about her intervention, unless you've found something to that effect.
Just as there would be no expectation of unwarranted interference from an off duty British police officer ... there would be no expectation of unwarranted interference from any other professional whatever their discipline.
Worth bearing in mind that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
She was acting as a concerned individual - rather in the same way that many holidaymakers went out searching because of concern.
Yeah and had she joined in with such a search party all would have been well. What made her more important than any other holidaymaker to assume locus in the investigation?
Just as there would be no expectation of unwarranted interference from an off duty British police officer ... there would be no expectation of unwarranted interference from any other professional whatever their discipline.
Worth bearing in mind that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
If there was an off duty police officer in the area with a knowledge of Portugal and Portuguese, I would hope they would offer assistance.Indeed.
If there was an off duty police officer in the area with a knowledge of Portugal and Portuguese, I would hope they would offer assistance.
Indeed.
Mayhap Mr Murat, with his knowledge of England, English, Portugal and Portuguese should have butted out.
Perhaps the locals who searched should have left it to the police.
Mayhap the lady who offered her phone to call the police at 10.30 pm should have kept her gob shut.
Her training in Child protection.
For the life of me I cannot see the point of your continued angst over this.
Do you take it as a personal affront that she dared to speak out about her feelings?
Broadly speaking, she didn't get a chance. Would have been better leaving well alone.
Doesn't explain your general animosity towards her though.
To some extent, I find myself in a half-way house over this.
My conclusion is that it's a non-issue.
Broadly speaking, she didn't get a chance. Would have been better leaving well alone.
Doesn't explain your general animosity towards her though.
You can't just have every Tom dick and Harry interfering... As you found out when you offered your, assistance to SY and the McCannsTotal and utter tosh.
Yes, very strange indeed. like taking it personally. Especially as Ms Martin was only trying to offer help...
I sometimes get the feeling on this forum that some have an unhealthy obsession with the family... just an observation, there is no real balance in their thinking. Strange indeed. IMVHO
Yes, very strange indeed. like taking it personally. Especially as Ms Martin was only trying to offer help...
I sometimes get the feeling on this forum that some have an unhealthy obsession with the family... just an observation, there is no real balance in their thinking. Strange indeed. IMVHO
Rob, check out the correspondence between lawyers acting on behalf of the UK police forces and the PJ authorities. The UK side went ballistic at news that PT tabloids were about to publish further confidential information. In the light of that, then re-read the strategy analysis report.Have you got a URL or a name to start it off.please?
Just as there would be no expectation of unwarranted interference from an off duty British police officer ... there would be no expectation of unwarranted interference from any other professional whatever their discipline.
Worth bearing in mind that "fools rush in where angels fear to tread."
In my opinion, broadly speaking she made plenty of time to hang around and interrogate the resort manager???
Did she use her professional skills to ascertain the condition of the children and how she could be of assistance to them?
In the absence of evidence that she did ...what exactly do you suppose was her motivation ... given her children and families background?
Snip
She adds that, after having spoken to the McCann couple, she spoke to the resort manager, and after identifying herself, asked him whether there had been a break-in in the apartment where the child was, to which he replied no but that the door was open as were the window blinds, which, according to Kate, should have been closed but were found open.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
To some extent, I find myself in a half-way house over this.No I disagree, even in the little bit of contact she had Yvonne got Kate's concern about "why a couple would take her daughter".
My conclusion is that it's a non-issue.
It isn't the family... It's a healthy interest in justice..you are, quite mistaken... Mistaken
No, I don't think it is an interest in justice.
To be interested in justice in this case you should be independent in all analysis and free in your thinking. a closed mind learns nothing. So what can a closed mind contribute? to find this justice you so crave?
Justice for Madeleine Beth McCann is what this should be about. Not protecting parents reputation and slagging everyone who tried to help-as it is now.
No one knows what happened- her parents may or may not be involved. Not knowing should be a clue here about closed minds.
Have you got a URL or a name to start it off.please?
To some extent, I find myself in a half-way house over this.
My conclusion is that it's a non-issue.
As is much of the content of so many threads.
On the other hand, lots of people have offered their "assistance".
And that has included people colluding to spam police appeal lines and spontaneous derogatory comments on certain books...
That's not fair, either, IMO.
And, no, don't even bother asking me to provide proof.
Do you have proof of that?
The unforgivable one, in my opinion, is the colluding to spam police appeal lines.
Utterly shocking!
I think we need to analyse that and get the true meaning from it.
Agreed.
But there are procedures to be followed and part of that would be an approach to those in charge of the investigation to check if informal assistance would be required and welcomed. For example in organising a search team? But the decision on deployment would have been for the Portuguese to take.
In my opinion the Portuguese would rightly have taken a very dim view of a holidaying police officer turning up unsolicited on site and launching an independent interrogation of the main witness without as much as a by your leave..
Protocol might even have dictated such an offer of assistance would have to be formalised through official channels at both ends.
You can't just have every Tom dick and Harry interfering... As you found out when you offered your, assistance to SY and the McCanns
I don't have a closed mind... That's your first incorrect assumption.... I'm open to any real evidence that points to the criminal involvement of the parents... There isn't any..
Justice requires evidence... That's where you and the dogs don't lie brigade need to start
What isn't clear, Robitty?Do you agree that her interview was cut short by the actions of someone else? Having been cut short there was little to report and to followup on.
She claims to have spoken with the resort manager and questioned him about whether there had been a break-in to the McCann apartment
The true meaning of it is summed up succinctly in the PJ analysis ...
Snip
The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable. Paolo Ferreira, Inspector
Analyse that if you like ... because in my opinion it sums up the value of the whole Yvonne Martin episode.
Acting without seeking the approval of the Portuguese police seems to have been a recurring feature of this case.I think she had some approval of the PJ for they showed her where to find the McCanns.
Do you agree that her interview was cut short by the actions of someone else? Having been cut short there was little to report and to followup on.
I have just explained what a closed mind is... In my opinion It is not about accusing the Parents or saying they are innocent because there is no evidence to charge them with something.
It is about what happened to MBM. The investigation,staring at the beginning. going over what could have happened not what someone claims did happen without evidence. The abduction theory is just a theory like many more, however, it has been looked into with a fine tooth comb, by experts, and deemed to have been unlikely a predator/s used that window as a way in and out to steal a child.
an open mind is free to think about all theories and analyse them independently.
I do not belong to: the dogs don't lie brigade -
could you provide a cite for wxperts who have deemed abduction unlikely...that simply is not true......as Redwood said...based on the evidence....they believe Maddie was abducted...and they are the expertsWhat totally surprised me were the words in the file http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm which states that the PJ at the time supported the abduction theory.
What totally surprised me were the words in the file http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm which states that the PJ at the time supported the abduction theory.
Quote:
"3 Development of the Investigation
(Not leaving out of the assessment two possibilities, however remote: - one, Madeleine walking out by herself, to have lost herself [to have got lost], and to be in an unknown place - the other, an attempted robbery (the individual, being interrupted by Gerald's entrance, and allowing that Madeleine had seen him, or something had gone wrong, having resolved [decided] to take her with him.)
Now, according to all the work performed and all the clues collected, everything points to Madeleine having been abducted.
There having been no ransom demand, we believe the following motivations remain:
- of a sexual nature - 'predator' and/or a paedophile network;
- human trafficking;
- childless person/couple or substitution for a missing child;
- revenge against Madeleine's parents, for professional or impassioned reasons, etc."
What also surprises me was that report appears to have been written in September 2007!
What totally surprised me were the words in the file http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRIGADE-OF-INFORMATION.htm which states that the PJ at the time supported the abduction theory.
Quote:
"3 Development of the Investigation
(Not leaving out of the assessment two possibilities, however remote: - one, Madeleine walking out by herself, to have lost herself [to have got lost], and to be in an unknown place - the other, an attempted robbery (the individual, being interrupted by Gerald's entrance, and allowing that Madeleine had seen him, or something had gone wrong, having resolved [decided] to take her with him.)
Now, according to all the work performed and all the clues collected, everything points to Madeleine having been abducted.
There having been no ransom demand, we believe the following motivations remain:
- of a sexual nature - 'predator' and/or a paedophile network;
- human trafficking;
- childless person/couple or substitution for a missing child;
- revenge against Madeleine's parents, for professional or impassioned reasons, etc."
What also surprises me was that report appears to have been written in September 2007!
Where would I be without you Misty! Thanks "01-08 pages 01 to 08 Title Page Report Analysis
That last part of the report was written 28/5/07, Rob.
Where would I be without you Misty! Thanks "01-08 pages 01 to 08 Title Page Report Analysis
02-8 Outros Apensos II May 2007 (File 08) Pages 01 to 08"
So is that two files or just the one?
That last part of the report was written 28/5/07, Rob.
so what caused them to take a radically diferrent directionDo you really want to bring the dogs up again?
Acting without seeking the approval of the Portuguese police seems to have been a recurring feature of this case.
so what caused them to take a radically diferrent direction
Do you really want to bring the dogs up again?so the pj changed direction because they misunderstood the alerts...thats about it
so the pj changed direction because they misunderstood the alerts...thats about it
so the pj changed direction because they misunderstood the alerts...thats about itI still think there needs to be an explanation, but unfortunately there was no forensic evidence to show what the alerts meant.
and you know this because?
Was it a coincidence that the first report was written 2 days after Martin Smith "cleared" Murat in his testimony of 26/5/07?It could be connected but they didn't so and drop his arguido status for the same reason.
it really is quite simple...the mccanns were not suspects but then made arguidos on the basis of the dogs...forensics etc....then the case is shelved because NONE of the evidence used to make teh mccanns arguidos..was consolidated..its all in the files ...read it
Well at least the McCanns can look forward to the ECHR ruling sometime in the future.
Yes but it isn't really that simple is it. I mean for all we know some PJ could have had suspicions about the McCanns and Tapas crew but had not enough evidence to charge them. oh yes and then there was that SC ruling thingy... that stood by the PJ report. which actually does state there was not enough evidence... funny that intit.
Well at least the McCanns can look forward to the ECHR ruling sometime in the future.
I think counting chickens before they're hatched can lead to disappointment; even to egg on the face lol.You can still look forward to counting your chickens. It can be surprising a hen here was sitting on 18 eggs and she raised 17 chickens, but there are others not so lucky.
You can still look forward to counting your chickens. It can be surprising a hen here was sitting on 18 eggs and she raised 17 chickens, but there are others not so lucky.
A pity cases aren't eggs and judges aren't hens, isn't it?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
"She adds that, after having spoken to the McCann couple, she spoke to the resort manager, and after identifying herself, asked him whether there had been a break-in in the apartment where the child was, to which he replied no but that the door was open as were the window blinds, which, according to Kate, should have been closed but were found open."
I think in the context that this was John Hill giving Yvonne this information the door referred to was most likely the kids bedroom door, and the window blinds were the ones in the kids bedroom as well.
So the door does not refer to the front door or the patio door. IMO.
Well at least the McCanns can look forward to the ECHR ruling sometime in the future.
I imagine she was trying to get some background information, having been denied direct access to the family.
I assume she thought she could help.
Well at least the McCanns can look forward to the ECHR ruling sometime in the future.
Is that what a Social Worker is meant to do? Can someone enlighten me as to the duties of a Social Worker please. I don't understand why she would be asking questions like that.
Yvonne Martin had no right of access to the family. Nor any right to background information.
all towns have a free phone ...why not try asking them. or look at a university who offer courses. in case you can't be bothered let me remind you She was on holiday,not at work, and she is a qualified child protection officer.
ALL the Tapas have had this mandatory training:
https://www.england.nhs.uk/ourwork/safeguarding/our-work/cp-is/
http://www.nes.scot.nhs.uk/education-and-training/by-theme-initiative/child-health/child-protection.aspx
There are many more mandatory courses ALL nhs staff must adhere to even porters or cleaners.
Enjoy
So nothing on 'detective duties' then? In my opinion she was just curious about what had happened and put out that they didn't want to talk to her, thus resulting in her writing a letter saying in her opinion the McCann's may have had something to do with the disappearance of their child. Which has nothing to do with safe guarding a child and all to do with spite.
It was close to a record, but now we have another 10 or so roosters to worry about.
Or in other peoples opinion she wasn't playing at being a detective at all. you obviously didn't read any of the policies- which form part of a work contract I may add. ALL NHS staff have a duty to collaborate with police and child protection teams in times of suspected child abuse.
Now I don't know about you, but being 'abducted' is pretty much in that category. A child is removed involuntarily from her bed is a form of abuse. Or do the supporters have another nicer way of saying that. The family have insisted she came to no harm...well it is interesting to see the evidence of that. but then again there isn't any evidence she came to no harm is there!
why not read about baby P and Poppi and thousands of other cases which do not reach the newspapers.
The questions she was asking in my opinion was more to do with being inquisitive about what had happened, she didn't know for instance if Madeleine had wandered out of the apartment. If you call what she did as being helpful to the McCann's then I disagree. The McCann's have said there is no evidence Madeleine is dead, which there isn't.
Why are you bringing up baby P and Poppi they are entirely different cases to the McCann's.
1. your opinion means nothing and adds nothing to the debate in question YOU DO NOT KNOW why she was there you said so yourself, so why form an uneducated opinion?
2. I explained he job title and what that entails: CHILD PROTECTION. A British child was 'missing assumed abducted'- she wanted to help if this was possible.
3. if the McCanns can provide evidence of their daughter Madeline's mortal state, then they should inform the police- They claim to be the last people to see her alive before her disappearance- oh and David Payne was also a witness to the 3 alive 'angels well brought up and all that jazz'
[Are they speaking with knowledge or just guessing as there is no evidence of Abduction or being alive?]
4. The baby P and Poppi are cases which have been used for training regarding child protection and the staff's duties and responsibilities to report- using guidelines. ALL the TAPAS have this mandatory training. Some fail to report a child who has cigarette burns on thighs etc.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
"She adds that, after having spoken to the McCann couple, she spoke to the resort manager, and after identifying herself, asked him whether there had been a break-in in the apartment where the child was, to which he replied no but that the door was open as were the window blinds, which, according to Kate, should have been closed but were found open."
I think in the context that this was John Hill giving Yvonne this information the door referred to was most likely the kids bedroom door, and the window blinds were the ones in the kids bedroom as well.
So the door does not refer to the front door or the patio door. IMO.
KM 4 May 2007 statement
At around 10pm, the interviewee went to check on the children. She went into the apartment by the side door, which was closed but not locked, as she said before. She noticed that the door to her children's bedroom was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open, while she was certain of having closed them all as she always did. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm
I don't think that has been translated properly, The McCann's said they kept the shutters and the curtains shut as it was only used for the children's bedtime.
Is that what a Social Worker is meant to do? Can someone enlighten me as to the duties of a Social Worker please. I don't understand why she would be asking questions like that.She had just been informed that there was a possibility a couple had abducted Kate's daughter. I think it is reasonably to wonder if the apartment was broken into.
Yvonne Martin had no right of access to the family. Nor any right to background information.Can you stop her asking questions?
She had just been informed that there was a possibility a couple had abducted Kate's daughter. I think it is reasonably to wonder if the apartment was broken into.
Can you stop her asking questions?
And ?
Robbity, it was not her business to wonder anything at all. She had absolutely no locus in the case. She neither enquired about or showed any concern for the children involved; which in my opinion shows where her priorities lay.That is not how I read her statement. She had concern for the other kids.
I don't think that has been translated properly, The McCann's said they kept the shutters and the curtains shut as it was only used for the children's bedtime.Even if they had not opened them they can still check that the window and shutters were closed everyday.
We're not really talking about rights, more discussing her actions.She might even have a duty to step in.
So nothing on 'detective duties' then? In my opinion she was just curious about what had happened and put out that they didn't want to talk to her, thus resulting in her writing a letter saying in her opinion the McCann's may have had something to do with the disappearance of their child. Which has nothing to do with safe guarding a child and all to do with spite.In your opinion only or else that could be considered libellous.
She might even have a duty to step in.
She might even have a duty to step in.
The questions she was asking in my opinion was more to do with being inquisitive about what had happened, she didn't know for instance if Madeleine had wandered out of the apartment. If you call what she did as being helpful to the McCann's then I disagree. The McCann's have said there is no evidence Madeleine is dead, which there isn't.What you are saying could be all true but it doesn't affect or lessen the duty of the Yvonne in her role as a Child Protection Officer.
Why are you bringing up baby P and Poppi they are entirely different cases to the McCann's.
She had no jurisdiction outside England, Rob. At the time she set out on the drive to Luz, I'm not sure she even knew Madeleine is English. Early Sky news only reported a British girl was missing.
What difference should that make?
Different rules apply to each Union country & an English Social worker would not be able to get involved with e.g. a family who lived in Scotland without registration.
But we have agreed that she was not working in an official capacity, so not relevant.
Have we? She flashed her credentials at the McCanns.Yes, but that surely was to show she was a social worker, not that she had any authority
Different rules apply to each Union country & an English Social worker would not be able to get involved with e.g. a family who lived in Scotland without registration.Well she might have made sure Madeleine was English before she went there, or as soon as she arrived. Madeleine was English so that is the important thing covered if that is the case. There is always the discovery process. You can't have a situation where someone is too scared to ask in case she is from the wrong part of the Union. If it became apparent Yvonne had the wrong authorities she would have backed off and got someone else involved IMO.
Yes, but that surely was to show she was a social worker, not that she had any authority
That is not how I read her statement. She had concern for the other kids.
"- During this time, she saw the third individual two more times. Firstly, when he was accompanying an older woman and the McCann twins, demonstrating in this way, the trust that the couple had in him by letting him take care of their two children. On the second occasion, he accompanied what appeared to her to be plain clothed police officers. " http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
No, not a duty, but possibly felt a moral obligation to try and help.
I can't see why people should be so antagonistic towards her.
Then why didn't she take it upon herself to check on the children?
What you are saying could be all true but it doesn't affect or lessen the duty of the Yvonne in her role as a Child Protection Officer.
Well she might have made sure Madeleine was English before she went there, or as soon as she arrived. Madeleine was English so that is the important thing covered if that is the case. There is always the discovery process. You can't have a situation where someone is too scared to ask in case she is from the wrong part of the Union. If it became apparent Yvonne had the wrong authorities she would have backed off and got someone else involved IMO.
As Misty says "she flashed her credentials", obviously because she felt she had a right to do this. Whilst it is voluntary and the parents agree to talk, she didn't insist on staying once she was asked to leave.
I could imagine back on UK soil it wouldn't be so easy to get rid of a child protection officer.
In my opinion that wasn't concern for the children ... that was part of her insidious case building exercise to implicate innocent people and malign them.She suggested Kate and her go inside the apartment and talk privately. No doubt that could have given Yvonne the opportunity to see if the twins had woken up by that stage. Was she even aware there were other kids
She came in like a tornado, asked inappropriate questions, added more stress to an already overburdened mother, played amateur detective.
But at no time did she enquire about or offer practical help as far as any of the children were concerned.
In Portugal her role was not as a child protection officer ... she was a civilian. Just a member of the public but one most certainly without any more right than any other to approach Kate and Gerry in the way she did.Unless we know this for certain that he role stops at the border. Her role might extend to English children anywhere in the world all we know.
There are procedures to observe ... in my opinion her behaviour was extraordinary.
It is my opinion that on UK soil she would not have been allowed within 100 yards of parents in a like situation unless officially authorised to do so.Who gives her that authority? It is always going to be another person.
They were probably in the creche by that time and so not available.
In my opinion that wasn't concern for the children ... that was part of her insidious case building exercise to implicate innocent people and malign them.I have written to Yvonne Martin and asked her to read this thread. I am now concerned she might find that post libellous. The expression "that was part of her insidious case building exercise to implicate innocent people and malign them" is the most damning accusation I've seen made on this forum in all the last two years of being here.
She came in like a tornado, asked inappropriate questions, added more stress to an already overburdened mother, played amateur detective.
But at no time did she enquire about or offer practical help as far as any of the children were concerned.
I have written to Yvonne Martin and asked her to read this thread. I am now concerned she might find that post libellous. The expression "that was part of her insidious case building exercise to implicate innocent people and malign them" is the most damning accusation I've seen made on this forum in all the last two years of being here.
In my opinion if she had been at all interested in the safeguarding of the children, there would have been some mention of the procedures she engaged in to ensure that. Not a word though.
How do you know that?
Have you never heard of "file notes", "record of conversation", "record of 'phone call" ?.
That would cover it and you would have no right of access to it. In other words it may well exist, you dont know but it serves your purpose to pretend no record exists.
Well she might have made sure Madeleine was English before she went there, or as soon as she arrived. Madeleine was English so that is the important thing covered if that is the case. There is always the discovery process. You can't have a situation where someone is too scared to ask in case she is from the wrong part of the Union. If it became apparent Yvonne had the wrong authorities she would have backed off and got someone else involved IMO.
As Misty says "she flashed her credentials", obviously because she felt she had a right to do this. Whilst it is voluntary and the parents agree to talk, she didn't insist on staying once she was asked to leave.
I could imagine back on UK soil it wouldn't be so easy to get rid of a child protection officer.
How do you know that?
Have you never heard of "file notes", "record of conversation", "record of 'phone call" ?.
That would cover it and you would have no right of access to it. In other words it may well exist, you dont know but it serves your purpose to pretend no record exists.
Good indication of the poster's mindset, though. IMOI have been totally surprised by it.
I have written to Yvonne Martin and asked her to read this thread. I am now concerned she might find that post libellous. The expression "that was part of her insidious case building exercise to implicate innocent people and malign them" is the most damning accusation I've seen made on this forum in all the last two years of being here.
If she had any "official" records, surely she would have shared them with the PJ?
If she had any "official" records, surely she would have shared them with the PJ?
I have written to Yvonne Martin and asked her to read this thread. I am now concerned she might find that post libellous. The expression "that was part of her insidious case building exercise to implicate innocent people and malign them" is the most damning accusation I've seen made on this forum in all the last two years of being here.
Why not contact her and ask her...demand she tell you everything as she owes it to dearest Kate.
Why?
I don't interfere with witnesses. Whatever she knows, its her duty to tell the police, not me.
I don't interfere with witnesses. Whatever she knows, its her duty to tell the police, not me.
why not contact her and tell her what her duty is if you are so sure she didn't contact them, or that they are unaware of her concerns. any concerned citizen like you should feel it your duty to ensure Kate get the justice she deserves.
She spoke to the PJ on more than one occasion. If she had recorded any concerns in her capacity as a childcare officer, she should have voiced them to the investigating force at the time, not now, nearly 11 years later.From what I read she told them all she knew, but it wasn't enough to take action on.
She spoke to the PJ on more than one occasion. If she had recorded any concerns in her capacity as a childcare officer, she should have voiced them to the investigating force at the time, not now, nearly 11 years later.
Why not?
Well, I am sure if she takes up Robbitys kind offer she may feel the need to answer your questions on this very thread, but then again she may not, thinking you have no claim to her private conversations... And she would be right, who do you people think you are exactly?Who do we think we are? I know who I am. I know what I have set out to do. But I don't always know how to do it.
We could arrange for her to be taken to the Tower to be beheaded for such a crime... 8**8:/:
Were I she I would have phoned my line manager to tell him what happened made file notes to the effect that I offered help which was refused including any other points I considered salient, then do what he boss said.
Unfortunately in this context I would have been the boss so I would not have bothered to phone myself, just done the file note bit so there was a record of my actions, then carried on with my holiday.
If you think carefully and logically you will be able to work out the answer to your next "why" or "why not" so don't ask I am not playing friggin' "supporters ping pong" that gradually leads the topic off topic.
Who do we think we are? I know who I am. I know what I have set out to do. But I don't always know how to do it.
I have written to Yvonne Martin and asked her to read this thread. I am now concerned she might find that post libellous. The expression "that was part of her insidious case building exercise to implicate innocent people and malign them" is the most damning accusation I've seen made on this forum in all the last two years of being here.
Were I she I would have phoned my line manager to tell him what happened made file notes to the effect that I offered help which was refused including any other points I considered salient, then do what he boss said.
Unfortunately in this context I would have been the boss so I would not have bothered to phone myself, just done the file note bit so there was a record of my actions, then carried on with my holiday.
If you think carefully and logically you will be able to work out the answer to your next "why" or "why not" so don't ask I am not playing friggin' "supporters ping pong" that gradually leads the topic off topic.
Would you have reported yourself for writing an anonymous letter?
Would you have reported yourself for writing an anonymous letter?
Yes, why not. We are offered to give information anonymously- even on Crime-stoppers we are encouraged to be anonymous. The reasons being it can cause personal injury or death to some people who report these types of crimes.
At the risk of being called a racist some communities hide information about some families sending their daughters being taken abroad and murdered by family for not 'marrying' a chosen husband- some of these are children under 10 years of age.
It is just the one law covering all possible angles. Anonymity is the preferred choice of many in these cases.
**********************************************************************************
"That isn't insidious?
It isn't making unfounded allegations about someone who happened to thwart her? "
No and No is the answer to those questions. who said she was 'thwarted" and this was a reason to secretly build a case against someone?
You said that no one else... libel. ^*&&
Exactly what jurisdiction did her line manager have in Portugal?
Probably none but that isn't exactly the point is it ?
There are two distinct issues to be considered one of which is the business of the line manager, his authority outside that of line manager being irrelevant, the other isn't.
It depends whether or not Ms Martin presented herself as acting in a friendly unofficial capacity to give limited assistance, or presented herself as acting in an official capacity on behalf of some organisation or other.
Were I her line manager I would want to know all about the latter, up front, because of the potential liability it could attach to the organisation.
Would you have reported yourself for writing an anonymous letter?The fact that she owned up to writing an anonymous letter and explained the reason she wrote it shows rather an honest disposition IMO.
Probably none but that isn't exactly the point is it ?
There are two distinct issues to be considered one of which is the business of the line manager, his authority outside that of line manager being irrelevant, the other isn't.
It depends whether or not Ms Martin presented herself as acting in a friendly unofficial capacity to give limited assistance, or presented herself as acting in an official capacity on behalf of some organisation or other.
Were I her line manager I would want to know all about the latter, up front, because of the potential liability it could attach to the organisation.
The fact that she owned up to writing an anonymous letter and explained the reason she wrote it shows rather an honest disposition IMO.
The fact that she chose to write an anonymous letter in the first instance is in my opinion reprehensible and unprofessional.I have yet to see a high resolution photo of David Payne to know if that was consistent with him or not.
Who was she describing, anyway? Who had a scar above and below his left eye?
The fact that she owned up to writing an anonymous letter and explained the reason she wrote it shows rather an honest disposition IMO.Honourable people do not write anonymous letters. They do not hide under anonimity, especially on such a sensitive, possibly incriminating, matter as that.
Honourable people do not write anonymous letters. They do not hide under anonimity, especially on such a sensitive, possibly incriminating, matter as that.OK so we differ in opinion over that issue. I have no way of proving it one way or the other.
AIMHO
It's not clear why he seemed familiar to her. His face or his name? She didn't seem to remember the context, either.It was only later that she was told it was David Payne so she recognised him for some other reason other than his name.
She'd worked in Plymouth at some point, and there WAS a David Payne who was a child rapist (not the T9 one), released from prison in 2008. It's not clear where these offences occurred, but it may well have been in the south of England as it was a scandal when people discovered that he was living in Weymouth after his release.
She noticed that he had a southern accent, and together with the name plus her perception that her presence wasn't overly appreciated at the time, it may have rung a vague bell, if his conviction had been in the news, or if she'd had some form of contact with the social services involved in that case.
https://theukdatabase.com/2012/03/12/david-payne-weymouthchippenhamchippenham/
Whether that was the trigger or not, I find it to be a plausible potential explanation.
In my opinion Ms Martin is an archetypal disaster tourist anxious to get as close to the action as possible.She had only heard about the McCann's plight that morning. Did Sky News detail that there was 4 families with 8 kids in the group in that first news bulletin? You seem to be expecting Yvonne to know far more than was divulged IMO.
If she was involved in child protection why did she show absolutely no concern for Madeleine's siblings or the other children in the party?
In my opinion she had absolutely no locus in interfering with a distraught mother by trying to usher her away from her support group as she waited for information about her missing daughter.
Concern for the children as per her alleged training, yes ... but she didn't actually show any, did she?
The "anonymous letter" could simply have been an online statement via Crimestoppers.The "anonymous letter" could simply have been LIKE an online statement via Crimestoppers.
She did a fair bit of attacking herself, don't you think. Or was that okay?It was the McCanns and David Payne's reaction to her presence that brought out her suspicions IMO after understanding her statement.
I've often wondered if she got mixed up with Murat (who does seem to have a scar on the left side of his face).Would you say Murat has a round face?
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_02/PayneMuratL_468x304.jpg)
Speaking with a Southern English accent
Wearing light trousers, cream or beige coloured, and a dark polo shirt.
And, unless DP changed clothes between when she met him and when he was photographed by the media, DP was wearing a striped t-shirt, and RM was wearing a dark blue polo.
https://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lagos-portugal-a-recent-picture-of-british-national-robert-murat-in-picture-id74154589
It was the McCanns and David Payne's reaction to her presence that brought out her suspicions IMO after understanding her statement.
How could she have "cleared" them? Who's "them" and of what?In her experience missing kids were 99.9% due to the actions of the parents, and friends of the family. Knowing that (or at least motivated by that) she might appear to be heavy handed but she was looking for signs of a parental/friends involvement.
For some, she was an interfering busybody; for others she may have been trying to help figure out where the child could be in the context of the general chaos and limited news of that morning, despite what may be perceived as a heavy-handed approach.
As her field did not include, locating lost children she was, an interfering busybody... ImoDo you know her fields of expertise?
I presume even doctors can run around like headless chickens in the midst of a personal tragedy, particularly after very little, if any, sleep.Was it only made public with the release of the file when the case was archived? Or was there indications it had been released earlier?
I don't have a problem that she asked (anonymously) for DPs name to be checked if it rang a vague bell with her.
What I do have a problem with is that her (apparently ill-founded) suspicions were made public.
AFAIK, confidential statements are supposed to remain... confidential, unless, of course, they are raised in a court case.
Was it only made public with the release of the file when the case was archived? Or was there indications it had been released earlier?
Why should she have felt that she had the right? She tried to isolate Kate so she could question her. Why?No doubt she was thinking about who made and how Madeleine disappeared.
But Gerry wasn't a Step Dad. And it wasn't her place to establish this.. If it had been true then it would have come out later.She didn't make any assumptions, other than accepting Kate was telling her the truth. She only asked the question to eliminate a jealous biological father abducting his biological daughter. Who else would have considered that?
So she was jumping to conclusions, and distressing an already distress woman. I was appalled by her assumptions.
I just read this in Yvonne Martin's statement -Has anyone got an idea as to who this could have been. I think it must have been a local reporter,
Meanwhile a fourth individual came towards the group and identified himself as a journalist. The witness alerted the couple to the type of statements they should give and that it would be better for them to keep silent.
It seems as though the journalist was the person who suggested the McCann's didn't speak to Yvonne Martin, it appears Kate was very upset at the time too and I wouldn't think it was an appropriate time to go questioning her.
She didn't make any assumptions, other than accepting Kate was telling her the truth. She only asked the question to eliminate a jealous biological father abducting his biological daughter. Who else would have considered that?
Has anyone got an idea as to who this could have been. I think it must have been a local reporter,
IMO she thought she recognised DP in a professional capacity and did the right thing in reporting that to the police.
She had only heard about the McCann's plight that morning. Did Sky News detail that there was 4 families with 8 kids in the group in that first news bulletin? You seem to be expecting Yvonne to know far more than was divulged IMO.
Was it only made public with the release of the file when the case was archived? Or was there indications it had been released earlier?
When did the first stories appear in the press suggesting that Gerry was not Madeleine's father?It could have come from anywhere, but I personally doubt whether Yvonne would have anything to do with it.(https://secure.i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00647/news-graphics-2007-_647700a.jpg)https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1565936/McCanns-deny-reports-that-Gerry-is-not-Madeleines-father.html
Now I wonder where that idea came from ...
Did she ask pertinent questions which would have given her the answers as to how many and which children might have been associated with Kate and Gerry ... not to mention the twins?You might have seen the phone calls that they had to handle just prior to Yvonne turning up. How do you know that it wasn't the phone calls that had upset her.
She appears not to have sought elementary background information while asking questions way beyond her pay grade and in what I consider to be an offensive and unprofessional manner.
There is no doubt Kate was acutely distressed by her.
Did she ask pertinent questions which would have given her the answers as to how many and which children might have been associated with Kate and Gerry ... not to mention the twins?
She appears not to have sought elementary background information while asking questions way beyond her pay grade and in what I consider to be an offensive and unprofessional manner.
There is no doubt Kate was acutely distressed by her.
Well according to Yvonne it was much earlier than what Jon admits.
As the case of missing Madeleine McCann reaches its tenth anniversary, Olive Press editor JON CLARKE – the first journalist on the scene – analyses why her parents were not involved… and recalls the shocking way he ended up accused of being involved.
Snip
I was completely shocked by the laid back manner the local authorities were dealing with the case that Friday morning.
When I arrived at about 11.45am I was firstly able to walk into the apartment, where I introduced myself to the McCanns and told them I would do everything I could to help.
The only reporter on the scene till late that evening – apart from Sky News reporter Kay Burley, who happened to be on holiday there – I spent time grilling neighbours, before noticing that a road crew was still digging up the street to lay sewage pipes literally right outside the apartment. The trench was nearly two metres deep and three men continued to shuffle around inside it.
Nobody had stopped them.
Incredibly, we had to wait till late afternoon before a couple of sniffer dogs had arrived, which was amateur to say the least, given that Maddie had been reported missing a full 18 hours earlier.
http://www.theolivepress.es/spain-news/2017/05/11/madeleine-mccann-olive-press-editor-talks-first-journalist-scene-10th-anniversary-disappearance/
Well according to Yvonne it was much earlier than what Jon admits.
Was that at a multi disciplinary meeting in his professional capacity? ... as someone involved in a custody dispute? ... or was she even clear that she had met him at all?
I think Len Port was first on the scene. By the time Jon Clarke arrived the McCanns were in Portimao with the police.@algarvnewswatch Hi Len were you the first journalist to turn up in PdL after Madeleine McCann went missing?
The purpose of the picture is?I seem to recall seeing his face in the very early news reports that day. They called him a local didn't they?
I seem to recall seeing his face in the very early news reports that day. They called him a local didn't they?
I seem to recall seeing his face in the very early news reports that day. They called him a local didn't they?
I was wrong it was Mark McCarrick. https://youtu.be/RazOGuQ_r8E?t=219
"I saw two women standing there and one of them looked distressed. I could see that one was particularly distressed and I guessed this must be the mother of the missing child."" The other lady could well have been Yvonne Martin.
That would tie in with your post No2 on this thread.And that it was early still deserted.
And that it was early still deserted.
That's because people were kept awake by all the hooha the night before and were trying to get some rest
It could have come from anywhere, but I personally doubt whether Yvonne would have anything to do with it.
I think Len Port was first on the scene. By the time Jon Clarke arrived the McCanns were in Portimao with the police.Has anyone nailed a time as to when the video of them getting into the police car to go to Portimão was taken?
Has anyone nailed a time as to when the video of them getting into the police car to go to Portimão was taken?
Mr Clarke's piece seems very short on accuracy and high on emotion.
I think the whole scenario is totally surreal from start to finish.
I rather think she presented herself in an official capacity ... I base that on the fact she was showing her accreditation at every stage of her involvement and acting accordingly.
Once committed to the most miniscule coin of the realm one is ipso fatso committed to its largest so here goes:
The whole episode it would seem was a something and nothing. It is difficult to work out the true motivation of Ms Martin's actions, one could speculate I suppose as is being done. Nothing came of it that has been published officially so why the fuss?
What is even more difficult to work out is 24 pages of people barreling in pouring scorn and vitriol on a woman they don't know from Eve with Mods pretty well encouraging other posters to be libelous then trying to pass off opinion of something they cannot possibly have knowledge of as fact.
Now that, my friend, truly is surreal and bizarre.
Would you say Murat has a round face?
Once committed to the most miniscule coin of the realm one is ipso fatso committed to its largest so here goes:
The whole episode it would seem was a something and nothing. It is difficult to work out the true motivation of Ms Martin's actions, one could speculate I suppose as is being done. Nothing came of it that has been published officially so why the fuss?
What is even more difficult to work out is 24 pages of people barreling in pouring scorn and vitriol on a woman they don't know from Eve with Mods pretty well encouraging other posters to be libelous then trying to pass off opinion of something they cannot possibly have knowledge of as fact.
Now that, my friend, truly is surreal and bizarre.
Looks as though it's Robert Murat who has the scar not David Payne.
How on earth could Yvonne Martin think that David Payne could be the person carrying a child, he has receding hair and glasses!!
Simply replace the word woman... With several others....including Kate and Gerry... And it describes the whole forum
You must admit, though, that its kept the forum going for another week.Yeah; be thankful for the random thread generator.
Where would we be without Rob's topic of the day ?
I am rather baffled by the trite supporter argument that their appallingly abusive behaviour is justified by the appalling behaviour of a third party.
That is hardly the action of the super intelligentsia supporters purport to be now is it?
Yeah; be thankful for the random thread generator.
I am currently studying for an ology in what sort of flip flops Jane was wearing.
I have seen no appalling or abusive behaviour by Supporters. Nor do I think that the behaviour of Yvonne Martin was appalling. Subsequently not very nice, in my opinion, but hardly appalling. So let's cut the histrionics.
This is a Discussion Forum. But only for some, it seems.
Witnesses are disparaged, evidence is discounted because it isn’t proof, hyperbole abounds, nothing new really.
Where did she say anything about a man carrying a child?
Looks as though it's Robert Murat who has the scar not David Payne.
How on earth could Yvonne Martin think that David Payne could be the person carrying a child, he has receding hair and glasses!!
You must admit, though, that its kept the forum going for another week.Even for myself it has been getting harder to see what we should discuss next.
Where would we be without Rob's topic of the day ?
Even for myself it has been getting harder to see what we should discuss next.
I shall not repeat my son's reply to this comment.
I think you should....... @)(++(*
Looks as though it's Robert Murat who has the scar not David Payne.But we covered this once before, these assessments of similarity aren't fact they are opinion. David Payne and Tannerman both male - that could have been enough.
How on earth could Yvonne Martin think that David Payne could be the person carrying a child, he has receding hair and glasses!!
I didn't say Yvonne Martin's behaviour was appalling.And Eleanor didn't say you said "Yvonne Martin's behaviour was appalling". At least we have cleared that up.
IMO YM saw both Murat & Payne that morning at different times & got confused when recalling her first meeting with Kate.So at 9:30 RM was checking out his own section not down at apartment 5A.
In "madeleine" Kate described her meeting with YM & DP was certainly the person who ushered her away. Kate also wrote "This woman would pop up several times in the days & months to come & I still don't really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve".
In the very next paragraph, Kate referred to Stephen Carpenter returning with Murat, who had offered to translate, which fits the timing of both YM & RM.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
snipped
On Friday, 04/05, woke around 09:00, took a bath, went to the kitchen to his mother, the latter told him that something terrible had happened, because a child had disappeared in Praia da Luz, according to 'Sky News' that she had been watching. At once the respondent and his Mother went to look in the garden, walled with a fence of 1m in height, checking if the child had managed to enter, which in a way was almost impossible without aid. In one corner of the garden is a greenhouse, which was searched, and then they saw an English passer-by on the outside, he does not know the identity. When asked about this, he was told that the child had disappeared. Accompanied by that person, he went to the place of the disappearance, and was introduced to the parents of the child, as he spoke the two languages, Portuguese and English.
"If this is the case then you are all f*cked."That is so true, if I can't think of another topic this case is f*cked.
Would you say Murat has a round face?
That is so true, if I can't think of another topic this case is f*cked.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_02/PayneMuratL_468x304.jpg)
Murat has a long slim face
Given his hair back, Payne has a roundish face
FACT
That is so true, if I can't think of another topic this case is f*cked.
He meant The Forum, Darling. But he has great faith in you. So onwards and upwards.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_02/PayneMuratL_468x304.jpg)She is amazing really "She describes him as tall man, height about 1,80 m, about 35 years old, of normal physical complexion, with short, dark hair, with a round face and with a scar on the left side of his face running from the eyebrow to the check. He uses graduated glasses of small dimension with rectangular lenses. He spoke with a southern English accent and was wearing cream coloured trousers and a dark polo shirt" Leaves the Smiths for dead!
Murat has a long slim face
Given his hair back, Payne has a roundish face
FACT
I am rather baffled by the trite supporter argument that their appallingly abusive behaviour is justified by the appalling behaviour of a third party.
That is hardly the action of the super intelligentsia supporters purport to be now is it?
If I'm wanting to solve the case, if I run out of topics the forum will go quiet and the case will grind to a halt too. That's how I feel and it concerns me. I'd hate to add up all the threads I've started over the last year and a half. And all those that were deleted entirely.
Case or forum?
If I'm wanting to solve the case, if I run out of topics the forum will go quiet and the case will grind to a halt too. That's how I feel and it concerns me. I'd hate to add up all the threads I've started over the last year and a half. And all those that were deleted entirely.
I shouldn't worry too much, Rob. Something always kicks things off again.This George Burke sighting, Yvonne Martin interview, David Payne, Smithman e-fit combination of topics has got me curious ATM. Why did the PJ downplay them all?
This George Burke sighting, Yvonne Martin interview, David Payne, Smithman e-fit combination of topics has got me curious ATM. Why did the PJ downplay them all?
The obvious answer is that the PJ/Investigating Magistrate thought they were not of interest to the investigation.That would be incorrect IMO because there is no mention of an Investigating Magistrate in those files.
That would be incorrect.
That would be incorrect IMO because there is no mention of an Investigating Magistrate in those files.
The obvious answer is that the PJ/Investigating Magistrate thought they were not of interest to the investigation.I would question on what basis he made that decision if that was the case.
Hold the front page! ... I think you may very well have hit the nail on the head with the very essence of what has epitomised Madeline's case since the first headline "A Badly Told Story" with witnesses traduced and hyperbole rampant.
She is amazing really "She describes him as tall man, height about 1,80 m, about 35 years old, of normal physical complexion, with short, dark hair, with a round face and with a scar on the left side of his face running from the eyebrow to the check. He uses graduated glasses of small dimension with rectangular lenses. He spoke with a southern English accent and was wearing cream coloured trousers and a dark polo shirt" Leaves the Smiths for dead!Yet she doesn't mention his defining feature for a youngish man.
Yet she doesn't mention his defining feature for a youngish man.Maybe she was relatively short herself and didn't get to see the top of his head.
... his very much balding head with a small area of growth nearer the hairline !
I think that she must have Robert and David mixed up in her mind.
Or else it was some other man.
...you missed the evidence discounted.
Maybe she was relatively short herself and didn't get to see the top of his head.Aw, come on Rob 8(>((
-snip-
Aw, come on Rob 8(>((What does a 5 foot 2 see on top of a man's head? I'll ask Carol she's even shorter.
If you are referring to this statement: "The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
With nothing further to add. Signed
Inspector Ferreira",
I wouldn't call that discounted but insufficient to take any further. Just from the suspicions they couldn't take those suspicions any further.
So they did not consider looking into DP's history, or whether he could have been Tannerman?
Knowing the whole story it would seem that it is really hard to imagine how DP could be Tannerman, but Yvonne was working from a position of incomplete information at the time.
If you are referring to this statement: "The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
With nothing further to add. Signed
Inspector Ferreira",
I wouldn't call that discounted but insufficient to take any further. Just from the suspicions they couldn't take those suspicions any further.
So they did not consider looking into DP's history, or whether he could have been Tannerman?
Knowing the whole story it would seem that it is really hard to imagine how DP could be Tannerman, but Yvonne was working from a position of incomplete information at the time.
Why should they? He had a better alibi than Gerry, as according to his friends, he never left the table at all that night'
If you are going to query his alibi, then you must query everything that the Tapas group claimed that night.
I'm sure you don't want to go there ?{)(**
...you missed the evidence discounted.
Did any of the Tapas staff mention a man with glasses leaving the table? Or perhaps they're all "innit" as well.
I would question on what basis he made that decision if that was the case.
The way I understand it is the PJ do the investigation and they present their evidence to the PP who then decides whether to lay charges.
But if the PJ gets a report of an incident and the PJ just say it isn't relevant to the case that decision is a PJ one and nothing to do with the PP.
No ... you did.
It appears that even before he became the main man, Ricardo Paiva was reporting back to Rebelo that evidence be discounted as not of interest to the investigation.
Snip
Regarding the facts in question, he states that he had already contacted the OH in May of 2007 and at this time relayed to the police that at around 06H00 in the morning on the 4th May, 2007, he saw a couple passing the Marina de Lagos. The man was carrying the child. It was ascertained at that time that the aforementioned situation would not be of interest to the investigation.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GEORGE_BURKE_BROOKS.htm
A practice which he continued until it was brought to light in 2010.
Snip
The McCanns’ legal team became aware of the file during court proceedings as part of a libel trial brought by the couple against the former detective, Goncalo Amaral, who led the initial investigation.
The McCanns’ Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte, accused current Algarve police chief Ricardo Paiva of deliberately ignoring the leads because they did not fit in with the theory that Madeleine’s parents were involved in her disappearance.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"Every piece of information (in the dossier of potential new leads) was treated the same way - Ricardo Paiva writes on it 'this is not relevant to the investigation',” Mrs Duarte said from her office in the Portuguese capital on Thursday.
“He believed and to this day still believes that Madeleine is dead. I asked him: ‘How can you find a person when you are not looking for them?’”.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/7215353/Portuguese-police-ignored-Madeleine-McCann-leads.html
It now appears that Ricardo was not discounting evidence from the archiving of the case ... the files show him doing so prior to that while Madeleine's case was still under investigation.
It seems you didn't take that into consideration when you posted "discounting evidence" particularly when it seems Ricardo Paiva was doing it on an industrial scale: mind you, he was the guy who brought the 'evidence' of Kate's dream to the Amaral investigation ... which apparently he believed 'relevant to the investigation'.
"Every piece of information (in the dossier of potential new leads) was treated the same way - Ricardo Paiva writes on it 'this is not relevant to the investigation',” Mrs Duarte said from her office in the Portuguese capital on Thursday.
I seem to recall seeing his face in the very early news reports that day. They called him a local didn't they?
I was wrong it was Mark McCarrick. https://youtu.be/RazOGuQ_r8E?t=219
No reply from Yvonne as yet.
Do you really expect oneYes I do.
Yes I do.
Yes I do.
Yvonne Martin formed the impression that the McCanns and their friends could have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance. That seems preposterous on the basis of a few minutes observation and conversation. This is the opinion of someone who has 25 years experience in dealing with child protection issues though. It was her job to make decisions about people and something about these people made her uneasy.
As Inspector Ferreira says;
The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
In other words, impressions and opinions aren't evidence.
Yvonne Martin wasn't the only one to feel uneasy about these people. Members of the public watched and listened to them on TV and felt the same. The very experienced John Stalker noticed something. The more the PJ interacted with them the more they felt that something wasn't quite right. In my opinion a couple of the FLO's weren't quite sure about them.
what really does that prove...nothing.....what evidence against the mccanns did teh investigation uncover
there is an ongoing police investigation...do you really think that this witness would discuss her evidence with you...I am thinking will she or won't she? It hasn't happened yet but if she does we will gauge her reaction from there.
It's not meant to 'prove' anything. Some people were immediately convinced that the McCanns and their friends were totally and utterly innocent. Others weren't. In my opinion no-one knows which group got it right, despite claims to the contrary.
It's not meant to 'prove' anything. Some people were immediately convinced that the McCanns and their friends were totally and utterly innocent. Others weren't. In my opinion no-one knows which group got it right, despite claims to the contrary.
It's not meant to 'prove' anything. Some people were immediately convinced that the McCanns and their friends were totally and utterly innocent. Others weren't. In my opinion no-one knows which group got it right, despite claims to the contrary.
Fortunately the current investigations seem convinced that the McCanns and their friends are " totally and utterly innocent" and until there is any indication that their opinions have changed, then the opinions of either groups are of no real importance.
Fortunately the current investigations seem convinced that the McCanns and their friends are " totally and utterly innocent" and until there is any indication that their opinions have changed, then the opinions of either groups are of no real importance.
Yvonne Martin formed the impression that the McCanns and their friends could have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance. That seems preposterous on the basis of a few minutes observation and conversation. This is the opinion of someone who has 25 years experience in dealing with child protection issues though. It was her job to make decisions about people and something about these people made her uneasy.
As Inspector Ferreira says;
The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
In other words, impressions and opinions aren't evidence.
Yvonne Martin wasn't the only one to feel uneasy about these people. Members of the public watched and listened to them on TV and felt the same. The very experienced John Stalker noticed something. The more the PJ interacted with them the more they felt that something wasn't quite right. In my opinion a couple of the FLO's weren't quite sure about them.
With the passage of time information becomes corrupted or lost and sometimes the wrong information becomes embedded as a factoid and a half truth.John Stalker and Yvonne are very observant. He gave a list of things as to why he thought the Tapas 9 had a big secret.
That is what you have done when you class Yvonne Martin's fleeting observation with John Stalker's years of experience and expertise.
The expert senior police officer John Stalker believed Madeleine McCann had been abducted by a stranger and he believed that there was no parental involvement in that abduction.
That is at total variance with your post and Yvonne Martin's assessment ... which in my opinion was ill advised and ill considered.
John Stalker did indeed think the silence of the McCann's and their friends strange ... and there is quite a bit of information here about that ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5008.msg178223#msg178223 New documentary:"BURIED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA -The True Story of Madeleine McCann.
There is also information about why he thought the McCanns innocent and that Madeleine had been abducted ...
MCCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET'
Sunday October 28 2007
By John Stalker
I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag on for six months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead.
The likeliest scenario is that her abductor panicked when he realised the attention the case was creating and killed her days after snatching her.
My fear now is that unless we find her body or her killer strikes again we will never know what really happened to that tiny child.
My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance.
On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could.
I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing.
The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham.
There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture.
In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were.
All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns' hire car and on her mother's clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator.
If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, there is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine's or the twins' DNA on to his clothing.
I don't believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.
All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.
Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/EXPRESS-28-10-07.htm
In my opinion your assessment of John Stalker is entirely wrong just as Yvonne Martin's assessment of the McCanns is at variance with his opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and neither her parents or their friends are involved.
Reflecting later professional assessments by officers from Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria several years further down the line.
You are also entirely wrong in what you have to say about the family liaison officers for which you interestingly have failed to provide a cite.
Your opinion doesn't cut the mustard when you are making allegations impugning reputations ... so I would suggest a cite or a withdrawal.
John Stalker and Yvonne are very observant. He gave a list of things as to why he thought the Tapas 9 had a big secret.
Such as?They are covered in the article Brietta quoted from.
John Stalker and Yvonne are very observant. He gave a list of things as to why he thought the Tapas 9 had a big secret.
They are covered in the article Brietta quoted from.
"I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag on for six months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead."
They were truncated and replaced by a row of hyphens in her quotation from the article.
Robitty there are actually very few places left on the internet where John Stalker's opinion that Madeleine was abducted and her parents are innocent can be found and http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/EXPRESS-28-10-07.htm is one of them.I thought it backed it up. OK people read things differently. What I found strange was the headline MCCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET' but in the quote there was nothing about secrets.
The post was truncated, not through subterfuge, but to concentrate on the very valid points I was making regarding John Stalker's professional opinion which is at variance with what Yvonne Martin had to say.
More Cherry Picking. Sceptics are very good at this.
Supporters appear to be past masters.
Yvonne Martin formed the impression that the McCanns and their friends could have been involved in Madeleine's disappearance. That seems preposterous on the basis of a few minutes observation and conversation. This is the opinion of someone who has 25 years experience in dealing with child protection issues though. It was her job to make decisions about people and something about these people made her uneasy.
As Inspector Ferreira says;
The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
In other words, impressions and opinions aren't evidence.
Yvonne Martin wasn't the only one to feel uneasy about these people. Members of the public watched and listened to them on TV and felt the same. The very experienced John Stalker noticed something. The more the PJ interacted with them the more they felt that something wasn't quite right. In my opinion a couple of the FLO's weren't quite sure about them.
Yvonne Martin was extremely well qualified and indeed well placed to offer an opinion in respect of such matters. She found Madeleine's parents aggressive and non cooperative when she attempted to seek out the most basic facts pertaining to the missing child. That response would certainly have alerted her to the possibility of parental or family involvement and set alarm bells ringing in her head. Yet again, this was not the normal reaction one would expect from the parents of an abducted child.The McCann's would have realised that as a social worker martins role may well be to recommend removal of the twins... She had no place in the investigation of the abduction the McCann's believed had taken place.. She had no right to be there, asking questions and no doubt the McCann's knew that
The McCann's would have realised that as a social worker martins role may well be to recommend removal of the twins... She had no place in the investigation of the abduction the McCann's believed had taken place.. She had no right to be there, asking questions and no doubt the McCann's knew that
The McCann's would have realised that as a social worker martins role may well be to recommend removal of the twins... She had no place in the investigation of the abduction the McCann's believed had taken place.. She had no right to be there, asking questions and no doubt the McCann's knew that
With the passage of time information becomes corrupted or lost and sometimes the wrong information becomes embedded as a factoid and a half truth.
That is what you have done when you class Yvonne Martin's fleeting observation with John Stalker's years of experience and expertise.
The expert senior police officer John Stalker believed Madeleine McCann had been abducted by a stranger and he believed that there was no parental involvement in that abduction.
That is at total variance with your post and Yvonne Martin's assessment ... which in my opinion was ill advised and ill considered.
John Stalker did indeed think the silence of the McCann's and their friends strange ... and there is quite a bit of information here about that ... http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5008.msg178223#msg178223 New documentary:"BURIED BY MAINSTREAM MEDIA -The True Story of Madeleine McCann.
There is also information about why he thought the McCanns innocent and that Madeleine had been abducted ...
MCCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET'
Sunday October 28 2007
By John Stalker
I have watched the investigation into the Madeleine McCann case drag on for six months.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
The sad fact is that we still have a missing girl and I believe the investigation will be focusing on the theory that she is dead.
The likeliest scenario is that her abductor panicked when he realised the attention the case was creating and killed her days after snatching her.
My fear now is that unless we find her body or her killer strikes again we will never know what really happened to that tiny child.
My instinct, based on years of policing similar cases, is that we are looking at an abduction where the child was targeted in the days before her disappearance.
On the night she vanished it is likely that her abductor simply spotted his opportunity and struck while he could.
I have been horrified by the abject failure of the Portuguese detectives to adhere to basic principles of policing.
The investigation does not seem to have taken a step forward from where it was in the first week after she went missing. I cannot believe that the Portuguese only sent selected DNA samples to the forensic science lab in Birmingham.
There is absolutely no sense in that whatsoever. To fully evaluate poor-quality DNA traces, as we believe these were, forensic experts need to see the whole picture.
In the past, when I have dealt with traces of bodily fluids, it is very difficult to establish how they got to be where they were.
All DNA is highly transferable and that is the most likely explanation for the alleged traces found in the McCanns' hire car and on her mother's clothing. Robert Murat, the other suspect, was seen close to the apartment the day after Madeleine disappeared and freely admits having helped police as a translator.
If he was in that apartment, or anywhere near it, there is no doubt he would have transferred some of Madeleine's or the twins' DNA on to his clothing.
I don't believe for one minute that Kate and Gerry McCann or their friends are capable or guilty of having murdered the four-year-old.
All the criticism of Kate and Gerry and their friends has been completely out of order. They are extremely intelligent and articulate people and, just because they have never visibly cracked in public to the extent that they are beaten, does not mean that they are guilty of anything sinister.
Yes, they have had more doors opened for them than other people would have in similar circumstances, but their main aim is to discover what happened to Madeleine. That should be the aim of all concerned.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/6oct7/EXPRESS-28-10-07.htm
In my opinion your assessment of John Stalker is entirely wrong just as Yvonne Martin's assessment of the McCanns is at variance with his opinion that Madeleine was abducted by a stranger and neither her parents or their friends are involved.
Reflecting later professional assessments by officers from Scotland Yard and the Policia Judiciaria several years further down the line.
You are also entirely wrong in what you have to say about the family liaison officers for which you interestingly have failed to provide a cite.
Your opinion doesn't cut the mustard when you are making allegations impugning reputations ... so I would suggest a cite or a withdrawal.
I disagree, she had the credentials and was escorted to the scene by the GNR. I understand perfectly what was going through her mind. As a professional she felt an overwhelming need to intercede and to help find the missing child and if that required hard questions to be asked, so be it. She was rebuffed though and that was not normal.
The error she made was in backing off though, she should have made her presence known to the police coordinator and let him decide if her experience in such matters could be suitably employed.
The McCann's would have realised that as a social worker martins role may well be to recommend removal of the twins... She had no place in the investigation of the abduction the McCann's believed had taken place.. She had no right to be there, asking questions and no doubt the McCann's knew that
I thought it backed it up. OK people read things differently. What I found strange was the headline MCCANNS 'ARE HIDING A BIG SECRET' but in the quote there was nothing about secrets.
If Stalker believes they are hiding a secret so did Yvonne have the same suspicion about the 3 people she met.
I disagree, she had the credentials and was escorted to the scene by the GNR. I understand perfectly what was going through her mind. As a professional she felt an overwhelming need to intercede and to help find the missing child and if that required hard questions to be asked, so be it. She was rebuffed though and that was not normal.It's odd... You criticise the presence of SY but support the presence if a social worker who had no authority and no place in any investigation... She was given her marching orders, and quite right too
The error she made was in backing off though, she should have made her presence known to the police coordinator and let him decide if her experience in such matters could be suitably employed.
Yvonne Martin was extremely well qualified and indeed well placed to offer an opinion in respect of such matters. She found Madeleine's parents aggressive and non cooperative when she attempted to seek out the most basic facts pertaining to the missing child. That response would certainly have alerted her to the possibility of parental or family involvement and set alarm bells ringing in her head. Yet again, this was not the normal reaction one would expect from the parents of an abducted child.
Inspector Ferreira of the Policia Judiciaria was unimpressed by Yvonne Martin's intervention and in my opinion dismissed it out of hand.
Snip
The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
With nothing further to add.
Signed
Inspector Ferreira
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
It's odd... You criticise the presence of SY but support the presence if a social worker who had no authority and no place in any investigation... She was given her marching orders, and quite right too
The PJ were not impressed by Yvonne Martin. End of story.She didn't have enough to work with. They were impressed with her. absolutely IMO. They didn't go and lose her file.
I can't imagine why you think they might be worried about having the twins taken away. According to Kate they hadn't been worrying about anything like that;I don't remember that quote, bit is important to note whether that was a Portuguese barrister or an English one.
the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’. This had hardly been our biggest concern, but it was reassuring to hear, all the same. [madeleine]
Nope it most certainly does not back it up: John stalker was at a loss to understand why the McCanns and their friends maintained their silence in the face of the press onslaught directed at them.Which is super helpful if you were hiding a big secret.
The simple reason was that they would have been breaking the Portuguese law of Judicial secrecy ... had they spoken out they had been warned they would face prosecution.
SY have brought nothing to the inquiry which sort of says it all.Had she been allowed a couple of hours I reckon the outcome could have been different.
Had she been allowed a couple of hours I reckon the outcome could have been different.
SY have brought nothing to the inquiry which sort of says it all.
Outcome for whom?For Madeleine of course, as long as the PJ didn't just ignore that extra information.
For Madeleine of course, as long as the PJ didn't just ignore that extra information.
In what way differentYou should be able to think of it too. Prevention and early intervention rather than ignoring the situation - what difference does it make?
You should be able to think of it too. Prevention and early intervention rather than ignoring the situation - what difference does it make?
For Madeleine of course, as long as the PJ didn't just ignore that extra information.I don't think so. She was far beyond any help by the time Yvonne turned up. IMO
I don't think so. She was far beyond any help by the time Yvonne turned up. IMO
Nope it most certainly does not back it up: John stalker was at a loss to understand why the McCanns and their friends maintained their silence in the face of the press onslaught directed at them.
The simple reason was that they would have been breaking the Portuguese law of Judicial secrecy ... had they spoken out they had been warned they would face prosecution.
Judicial Secrecy has been frequently mentioned, hasn't it? I for one just wish that the person interviewing Dianne Webster had finished their sentence;
4078 “You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
Reply “That’s right, yes.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
What is a Super (inaudible)? It seems to have banned them all from doing something.
Judicial Secrecy has been frequently mentioned, hasn't it? I for one just wish that the person interviewing Dianne Webster had finished their sentence;
4078 “You also, when we spoke earlier, expressed a sense of frustration about the fact that you’d all been banned by the Super (inaudible).”
Reply “That’s right, yes.”
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DIANE-WEBSTER-2.htm
What is a Super (inaudible)? It seems to have banned them all from doing something.
Well I can't so you need to explain... What good would a social worker asking more questions have done... Al I can see is, an absolutely ridiculous suggestionIt was brought home to us last night in the review of the death of Coral Burrows in NZ.
It was brought home to us last night in the review of the death of Coral Burrows in NZ.
Watch it while it is available, https://youtu.be/SJyv1Aj4X4Y See what the Youth and Families officers (whatever they are called) say.
https://youtu.be/SJyv1Aj4X4Y?t=940 to go straight to the welfare officer part.
Killed by her mothers boyfriend... What has this got to do with the McCann caseI was emphasising the preventative role being played by the child welfare officers being played now. Yvonne being experienced may have picked up the cause of the McCann case. who knows. She had already asked if there were two men in Madeleine's life i.e. the question about the biological dad so there is a hint of similarity.
I was emphasising the preventative role being played by the child welfare officers being played now. Yvonne being experienced may have picked up the cause of the McCann case. who knows. She had already asked if there were two men in Madeleine's life i.e. the question about the biological dad so there is a hint of similarity.
It's a very obvious question if you look at the, statisticsSo someone had to ask it? The GNR or the PJ hadn't asked that question even though they had been with the McCanns overnight. When was the PJ going to ask that question?
Nope it most certainly does not back it up: John stalker was at a loss to understand why the McCanns and their friends maintained their silence in the face of the press onslaught directed at them.
The simple reason was that they would have been breaking the Portuguese law of Judicial secrecy ... had they spoken out they had been warned they would face prosecution.
It's a very obvious question if you look at the, statistics
So someone had to ask it? The GNR or the PJ hadn't asked that question even though they had been with the McCanns overnight. When was the PJ going to ask that question?
It is one which would have been asked during any competently conducted official police interview conducted in privacy.
It is certainly not one which should have been directed to a distraught mother in a public arena by a total stranger who had taken it upon herself to do so.
In my opinion bad practice at any level.
We are doing well here.
In 31 pages Ms Martin seems to have gone from P.E. #1 to "a bit gauche".
*%87
"Well when you get to my age son it helps to pass the time"
I can not see any reason the McCanns thought a couple had abducted their daughter, other than that they had been told it was possible a couple had abducted their child. They would not know if it was a he or she or they. But once someone had seen a possible sighting it then becomes an issue in the McCann's minds as to why a couple would abduct their daughter.
She did not say a couple had abducted her daughter, but during the conversation Kate said "that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter".
That is like say ""that she did not understand why a couple would abduct her daughter". That is not saying that happened but if it did why would it be a couple?
https://youtu.be/ypNbehi9FQA "Madeleine McCann columbo he she a couple the many faces of the abductors"
Colombo sometimes makes a good point.
IMO I had covered this earlier, it was due to the phone calls prior to the meeting with Yvonne.
Paul Moyes, May 2017, telling what Kate McCann was saying on 3rd May;But what Moyes' saw was on a different night wasn't it?
"She was screaming 'the f....ing b......s have taken her'.
https://closeronline.co.uk/real-life/news/witnesses-kate-gerry-mccann-madeleine-holiday-paul-susan-moyes-jenny-murat/ &%%6
Not specifically a couple, but more than one person is being implied.
According to Paul Moyes OG made enquiries about a couple too;
"The second visit was about three months later and lasted more than an hour and that was to pursue a lead and to make sure we were convinced on our timeline.
"The lead was that a couple had climbed over the fence and the back garden wall and they asked if that was us. It wasn't."
The couple said they had no idea who the mystery couple were but the information was "a few times removed" and had been spoken about in restaurants in the area.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3429641/mystery-couple-seen-clambering-over-wall-and-fence-directly-behind-apartment-where-madeleine-mccann-was-sleeping-on-night-she-vanished/
In my opinion Ms Martin is an archetypal disaster tourist anxious to get as close to the action as possible.
If she was involved in child protection why did she show absolutely no concern for Madeleine's siblings or the other children in the party?
It's not clear why he seemed familiar to her. His face or his name? She didn't seem to remember the context, either.
That depends on who is doing the counting. "Meanwhile a fourth individual came towards the group and identified himself as a journalist. The witness alerted the couple to the type of statements they should give and that it would be better for them to keep silent.
At this moment, the third person, who was always near to the couple and the witness, moved the couple away from her and the three of them talked in whispers for some time.
After this, and leaving the couple behind him, he approached the witness and told her that the couple did not want to speak any more with her, nor with anyone else.
The witness replied to him that if the McCann couple felt the need to talk to her later, she would be at their total disposal."
That is counting from YM POV where she is not counting herself.
Paul Moyes, May 2017, telling what Kate McCann was saying on 3rd May;
"She was screaming 'the f....ing b......s have taken her'.
https://closeronline.co.uk/real-life/news/witnesses-kate-gerry-mccann-madeleine-holiday-paul-susan-moyes-jenny-murat/ &%%6
Not specifically a couple, but more than one person is being implied.
According to Paul Moyes OG made enquiries about a couple too;
"The second visit was about three months later and lasted more than an hour and that was to pursue a lead and to make sure we were convinced on our timeline.
"The lead was that a couple had climbed over the fence and the back garden wall and they asked if that was us. It wasn't."
The couple said they had no idea who the mystery couple were but the information was "a few times removed" and had been spoken about in restaurants in the area.
https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/3429641/mystery-couple-seen-clambering-over-wall-and-fence-directly-behind-apartment-where-madeleine-mccann-was-sleeping-on-night-she-vanished/
From her statement: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
"- She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.
- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter."
Well let's see "she was visibly upset with the situation". Pretty well expected that Kate was upset. Nothing new there.
Next bit: "the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter".
So had someone told Kate that a couple had abducted her daughter? How would Kate even begin to suspect that a couple had abducted her daughter?
Was this from the potential sighting at 6:00 AM near the Lagos Marina by George Burke Brooks?
It only makes sense to me that somehow the information of this sighting had been passed onto Kate either directly or via the PJ IMO.
Can anyone think of another reason Kate would wonder why a couple abducted her child?
They... Can be singular......or 'she's gone'.
It could be simply a misunderstanding of the expression: "They've taken her", which Kate apparently said at some point. I'm told that it's quite common in some parts of the UK, and equates to "She's been taken", irrespective of how many people (one or more) were involved.
Agreed.
What is harder to explain is the mention of a couple.
But did Kate actually say that, or is that what Yvonne assumed if ever Kate had said "they"?
A couple in what sense?
Agreed.
What is harder to explain is the mention of a couple.
They... Can be singular..
It's funny how people are accused of mishearing or misunderstanding when they say something people don't want to hear, or can't explain.
In my opinion Yvonne Martin was a disaster tourist with neither rhyme nor reason for pushing her way in. She contributed nothing except to Amaral's ridiculous notion that Gerry was not Madeleine's father which made headline 'news'.
Whatever your opinion of Yvonne Martin she made statements which count as evidence just as other statements do.
Yvonne Martin was a nosy busybody who drove several miles in the early morning of May the 4th 2007 and tried to shoehorn her way into a tragedy. When she failed she then cast aspersions at David Payne, none of which were ever proven.
I can only wonder if she got the sack.
I think you're expressing your personal opinions there, rather than anything factual.
But did Kate actually say that, or is that what Yvonne assumed if ever Kate had said "they"?
A couple in what sense?
This is what YM said in her statement.
‘ • During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter. ’
‘They’ could suggest multiple people so why a couple ? YM is quite precise in her language and wouldn't paraphrase what Madeleine’s mother had said.
Hearsay, of course.
Hearsay, of course.
Whatever your opinion of Yvonne Martin she made statements which count as evidence just as other statements do.
One witness statement was communicated in an anonymous letter of the green ink variety. Not once did this "Child Protection" individual concern herself with the children accompanying the persons she insidiously suggested might be capable of the most heinous crimes imaginable.
Without benefit of referral or inter-agency cooperation this loose cannon forced herself into a situation about which she knew nothing and no-one had the slightest idea of who she was.
Would she have dared to invade a police investigation in any country other than Portugal by latching herself behind an official vehicle and entering an area which should have been behind a police cordon if it wasn't already.
Martin did exactly what a competent professional is trained not to do resulting in freaking out an already distraught woman who nonetheless recognised and was alarmed by the inappropriate and voyeuristic approach of her self appointed interrogator.
Indeed I would go so far as to say her conduct is probably unprecedented by anyone who do not suffer from mental health problems.
She should never have been allowed near Kate McCann.
Her so called 'witness' statements to a situation she engendered without any proper background knowledge or investigation would be treated with the contempt deserved in any competent professional environment.
You have every right to give your opinion, but others have the right to disagree; especially as you have no evidence to support your conclusions. The fact remains that two people have testified that Kate McCann seemed to be referring to more than one person being involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
You have every right to give your opinion, but others have the right to disagree; especially as you have no evidence to support your conclusions. The fact remains that two people have testified that Kate McCann seemed to be referring to more than one person being involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
I find it hard to believe you people are STILL going out about these irrelevant trivialities after all these years. It’s really quite depressing.
How do you know what is trivial? Attention to small detail can help build an understanding of a bigger picture.... but granted it can also cause an investigation to head down a blind alley. I certainly don't think she was a "busy body". I believe she went to help. She's judged very harshly by a certain section here, imo.What purpose does endlessly going over her statement serve? The juice (such as it is) has well and truly been sucked out of it by now, or do you think there is more yet to be extracted?
You have every right to give your opinion, but others have the right to disagree; especially as you have no evidence to support your conclusions. The fact remains that two people have testified that Kate McCann seemed to be referring to more than one person being involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
I find it hard to believe you people are STILL going out about these irrelevant trivialities after all these years. It’s really quite depressing.Quite
How do you know what is trivial? Attention to small detail can help build an understanding of a bigger picture.... but granted it can also cause an investigation to head down a blind alley. I certainly don't think she was a "busy body". I believe she went to help. She's judged very harshly by a certain section here, imo.
How can you determined what motivated Martin. You know nothing about her. To your knowledge has she ever uttered another word in public about her behaviour in Luz.
Correct to offer help from her statement.
Having worked for 25 years in the area of child protection, she felt obliged to offer help to her compatriots and went to Praia da Luz.
However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help - an action that appeared quite strange to her.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
David Payne told her the McCanns didn't want her help!
Correct to offer help from her statement.
Having worked for 25 years in the area of child protection, she felt obliged to offer help to her compatriots and went to Praia da Luz.
However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.
This same individual came shortly afterwards to tell her that the couple did not want to talk to her any further and did not require her help - an action that appeared quite strange to her.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm
David Payne told her the McCanns didn't want her help!
No sane person would have wanted 'help' from such a person in such circumstances. She should never have been there in the first instance.
Do you think police allow access to any Tom, Dick or Harry who wanders in off the street to stick an oar into a crime scene and to harass the victims. Only in Portugal it seems.
She asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me and told me she wanted me to go through everything that had happened the previous night.
She was quite pushy and her manner, her very presence, were making me feel uncomfortable and adding to my distress.
___________________________________________________
Whoever she was, and whatever her credentials were, it was an inappropriate intrusion.
And something about it, something about her, just didn’t feel right. I was glad I extricated myself.
This woman would pop up several times in the days and months to come and I still don’t really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve.
madeleine Kate McCann
No sane person would have wanted 'help' from such a person in such circumstances. She should never have been there in the first instance.
Do you think police allow access to any Tom, Dick or Harry who wanders in off the street to stick an oar into a crime scene and to harass the victims. Only in Portugal it seems.
I don't suppose a group of people who had left their children home alone for the previous five nights would be overjoyed to be confronted by someone who worked in child protection. Someone who knew very well that leaving children home alone was not normal practice for English tourists.
t is normal (culturally, traditionally, education/examples seen) [for] English tourists to leave, for some time, their small children alone in the bedroom/apartment to sleep while the parents are absent
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
I don't suppose a group of people who had left their children home alone for the previous five nights would be overjoyed to be confronted by someone who worked in child protection. Someone who knew very well that leaving children home alone was not normal practice for English tourists.
t is normal (culturally, traditionally, education/examples seen) [for] English tourists to leave, for some time, their small children alone in the bedroom/apartment to sleep while the parents are absent
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE-TANNER-10MAY.htm
i think that is probably exactly why martin got the cold shoulder and there were no other sinister motives from the group. Would she also be guilty of interfering in a police investigation
I've never made my mind up about her.
I tend to try to imagine likely context, as I find that key.
She may have simply wanted to jump in as she happened to be nearby. She may well have had to deal with cases of physical / sexual abuse, parental abductions and acted by reflex, albeit with perhaps a brusque, no-nonsense approach which was felt as inappropriate in the situation, and thus made others feel suspicious (she could have been from the tabloid media with a fake card... trying to get a scoop, for example).
DP's name may have rung a bell as there was, indeed, a known paedophile of the same name, who'd preyed on kids (Plymouth, Portsmouth?), but definitely not one of the T7. The predator one worked as a kids' entertainer at birthday parties and bore no resemblance.
I'd also found 2-3 others, but none who could have corresponded.
Since learning about her I have found her behaviour irrational and unprofessional and veering towards the disturbed.
The fact alone that she saw fit to write an anonymous letter of the type she did puts her in a box for me.
If she had been any type of professional she could have allayed her fears if she had any, by going through recognised work channels or directly into the hands of the police.
I tend to agree, but in an emergency situation, bearing in mind it was relatively early in the day to contact anyone in the UK, she may have simply thought she could help.
No idea, she's peripheral, but ended up indirectly causing a lot of grief due to leaks / dossier publication.
Absolutely peripheral and in context very much a non event. She knew nothing ... she contributed nothing but upset.
Yet here we are discussing her today in what I think is an illustration of just how devoid of substance the suspicions against the McCanns et al actually are if she is used as an example of them.
Her evidence is just as enlightening as anyone else's in my opinion. The only person she seems to have upset is Kate McCann. Mrs McCann has never denied the content of her conversation with Ms Martin, however.
Her evidence is just as enlightening as anyone else's in my opinion. The only person she seems to have upset is Kate McCann. Mrs McCann has never denied the content of her conversation with Ms Martin, however.
By the nature of the questions she asked I think she most definitely was guilty of interfering in a police investigation.
I agree what she has to say for herself is certainly enlightening and succinctly so to the Judicial Police who summed up it's value as follows ...
To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Paolo Rebelo
From: Paolo Ferreira, Inspector
Service Information
Subject: Expedient related to Yvonne Warren Martin
In the sequence of the contents of the service information in annex, which was prepared by Inspector José Monteira on 12-06-2007, the questioning of Yvonne Warren Martin was twice begun, according to the files that are also joined to this.
The statement relates in detail her intervention with the McCann couple after having heard about Madeleine's disappearance.
She adds that on one occasion, because it had occurred to her that the parents and the friends could eventually be involved in the child's disappearance, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police.
The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.
With nothing further to add.
Signed
Inspector Ferreira
Gosh, I had forgotten about that one. So much to forget.
Yvonne Martin went there that early because she knew it's nearly always the parents wot dun it and wanted to claim the fame and glory for catching them out.
Hard to tell. However, her testimony could have gone uncontested in a PT trial just as it did in the Cipriano case under the rule of common knowledge (which was only ever meant to avoid unnecessary paperwork in that you didn't need to submit proof that night follows day).
The notion that it's often the "parents-what-dunnit" idea doesn't seem that different to me to children normally get back home safely, and therefore Joana did as well.
... and having worked once, why wouldn't it again?
What a surprise. Yvonne Martin upset Kate McCann by trying to separate her from her friends and by asking Kate impertinent questions. Now why would Kate be upset by that? Answers on a postage stamp.You're totally not getting the reason she tried to speak to Kate alone and turning it into something with a dark motive when it wasn't.
You're totally not getting the reason she tried to speak to Kate alone and turning it into something with a dark motive when it wasn't.
Exactly. The burning question is why did this totally innocent loving mother resent the presence of an expert in child protection offering help?
Anonymous Letter. Very Expert and Professional.
Sent, apparently, to avoid being hassled by the press. I wonder why she thought press harrassment might follow contact with the British police? She didn't hesitate to contact the PJ.
You're totally not getting the reason she tried to speak to Kate alone and turning it into something with a dark motive when it wasn't.
Only after she got found out. Nasty people send anonymous letters and are not to be trusted.
What do you mean, found out?
Exactly. The burning question is why did this totally innocent loving mother resent the presence of an expert in child protection offering help?
Exactly. The burning question is why did this totally innocent loving mother resent the presence of an expert in child protection offering help?What actual practical help was she volunteering out of interest? Which children was she offering to protect?
if you send an anonymous letter you aim o hide your identity...she got found out
Did she? I thought she owned up.
Did she...bit pointless sending it anonymous...any citeShe admits the letter was from herself IIRC.
She admits the letter was from herself IIRC.
Not sure about that. I think she saw herself as some kind of "first-responder", even though I haven't found anything to suggest that she was entitled to be one in PT. She also submitted her account (albeit initially anonymously, IIIRC) to the police.
Whatever her initial intentions, she eventually backtracked anyway.
was that because she was found out...admits implies she was asked the questionI think so.
In my experience: being held up by five males with balaclavas, and with two very small children at the time and my elderly Mother, I was in no state to deal with the counseling person who arrived shortly after the police. She insisted that we sit down and have a conversation about the events. I just could not. Fortunately she understood.
Geez that must have been terrifying!
Yvonne wasn't a counsellor, AFAIK, but a social care worker. She wanted to know if the biological father was someone other than Gerry (presumably in the event of a parental abduction). I suppose that could explain trying to get Kate on her own in case it was a "delicate" issue. Kate appears to have still been in a bad state and couldn't cope with this unknown person. IMO, DP tried to shoo her away... which she probably didn't appreciate, and then his name rang a (false) bell.
She has no right and no business to interfere. The PJ didnt and still dont seem to want the help of the UK police...but a social workers ok
I think we've established that some:
- Don't like Yvonne Martin
- Think she's was a rubbish whatever it is she was.
- Insist she had no business doing whatever it is she was doing.
Roger all of that.
Only one on a long list of people to rubbish - on a rotational basis ?{)(**Danie Krugel (whack job with a time machine) gets more favourable treatment than Yvonne Martin (eager social worker).
She was inept.
Had her intentions been bona fide her concerns would have been for all the children directly concerned. According to her own account she did not ask a single question regarding the children's welfare.
She didn't have to 'home in' to an obviously distraught couple to do that and she would have been useless in liaising between English speakers and Portuguese for the simple reason that although apparently being domicile for a large part of the year in Portugal, in seven years she had never bothered to learn the language.
She was a part time worker who contacted no-one who might have sanctioned her presence there: not domiciliary support services; not English support services; police HQ; consular services etc;
She had plenty of time to do so - by her own admission she had not set off immediately to Luz as she had "some thing to do at home" first.
Incredibly she questioned the resort manager about a 'break-in' who told her about the the unlocked door and the open window.
She hung about like a voyeur waiting for the British Consul to arrive to 'offer help'. Unknown to anybody and an encounter on the street!
Words fail me about the actions of this woman who never mentions having a single thought regarding the welfare of the children or even asking anything about Madeleine. Which is actually fine because it was none of her business anyway.
The PJ weren't frightfully impressed by her statements.So the PJ's judgement is sound now?
So the PJ's judgement is sound now?
Afaiaa... Among doctors... Some social workers... Even social workers in general... Are not highly thought of
Especially those doctors who think leaving small children home alone is acceptable, I would imagine.Oooohh, that one's gonna sting!
Goodness me. You don't think The PJ got it wrong, do you. Oh Dear, not again.Bearing in mind it was your assertion, not mine, you appear to be stating that the PJ were right to be sceptical about Yvonne Martin, but were incompetent when coming to the same conclusion about the Kate and Gerry. That would be quite a contradiction.
I think we've established that some:
- Don't like Yvonne Martin
- Think she's was a rubbish whatever it is she was.
- Insist she had no business doing whatever it is she was doing.
Roger all of that.
Especially those doctors who think leaving small children home alone is acceptable, I would imagine.
Bearing in mind it was your assertion, not mine, you appear to be stating that the PJ were right to be sceptical about Yvonne Martin, but were incompetent when coming to the same conclusion about the Kate and Gerry. That would be quite a contradiction.
Have you seen the statement from The PJ? I don't appear to be anything. That is your opinion.You interpreted the statement as not being 'frightfully impressed'. So you're trusting that judgement as sound - and indeed you concur.
You interpreted the statement as not being 'frightfully impressed'. So you're trusting that judgement as sound - and indeed you concur.
Well, they weren't. Or did you read something different? Whether or not I concur is irrelevant.It is relevant, because you've been particularly scathing about their perceived shortcomings from the get go. Now their analysis / opinion of Yvonne Martin is sound. So let's extend that hypothesis to Kate and Gerry's statements for example; was the PJ's opinion of those statements sound?
It is relevant, because you've been particularly scathing about their perceived shortcomings from the get go. Now their analysis / opinion of Yvonne Martin is sound. So let's extend that hypothesis to Kate and Gerry's statements for example; was the PJ's opinion of those statements sound?
Let's give some rational thought to the situation into which Martin invaded: it is my opinion that if anyone insulted Portugal by inference as a third world country ... she most definitely did.Let's give some rational thought to the situation into which Martin invaded (emotive rhetoric, your honour): it is my opinion that if anyone insulted Portugal by inference as a third world country (in economic terms, she was right: GDP growth in 2006, at 1.3%, was the lowest not just in the European Union but in all of Europe. In the 2000s, the Czech Republic, Malta and Slovenia overtook Portugal in terms of GDP per capita. From 2010 until 2012, GDP per capita (PPP) in Portugal fell below those of Slovakia (in Europe) and Seychelles (outside Europe). In 2013 it was estimated that the Portuguese GDP per capita will be similar (within minus or plus US$1,000 per capita) of those of Greece, Estonia and Lithuania. The GDP per capita fell from just over 80% of the EU 25 average in 1999 to just over 70% in 2007. This poor performance of the Portuguese economy was explored in April 2007 by The Economist which described Portugal as "a new sick man of Europe".) ... she most definitely did.
Obviously she was of the opinion they weren't up to the job and she was needed to do their job for them ... or why do what she did?
There have been child abduction cases in Britain. When did we ever see the parents or witnesses hanging around in the street waiting to be taken to a police station to make their statements?
When did we ever see the parents being accosted by a total stranger who insisted on taking one aside to ask personal information?
When did we ever see parents abandoned to make a lone public appeal on the street without police support?
Does anyone think Yvonne Martin would have behaved as she did in a missing child situation in England?
Does anyone think the English police would have tolerated it?
It is relevant, because you've been particularly scathing about their perceived shortcomings from the get go. Now their analysis / opinion of Yvonne Martin is sound. So let's extend that hypothesis to Kate and Gerry's statements for example; was the PJ's opinion of those statements sound?
It's like the curate's egg....nothing unusual about itIt's like the laughing policeman at Blackpool Pleasure Beach; it is unusual. On the surface it's seemingly humorous, but consider the plight of the clown, incarcerated in a glass box, laughing maniacally, inexorably ad infinitum and not dissimilar to Plato's Cave in that sense. Plato has Socrates describe a group of people who have lived chained to the wall of a cave all of their lives, facing a blank wall. The people watch shadows projected on the wall from objects passing in front of a fire behind them, and give names to these shadows. The shadows are the prisoners' reality.
Let's give some rational thought to the situation into which Martin invaded: it is my opinion that if anyone insulted Portugal by inference as a third world country ... she most definitely did.
Obviously she was of the opinion they weren't up to the job and she was needed to do their job for them ... or why do what she did?
There have been child abduction cases in Britain. When did we ever see the parents or witnesses hanging around in the street waiting to be taken to a police station to make their statements?
When did we ever see the parents being accosted by a total stranger who insisted on taking one aside to ask personal information?
When did we ever see parents abandoned to make a lone public appeal on the street without police support?
Does anyone think Yvonne Martin would have behaved as she did in a missing child situation in England?
Does anyone think the English police would have tolerated it?
When did we ever see parents making sure an unproven "abduction theory" was all over Sky News less than 12 hours after a disappearance??!!!! &%%6
Let's give some rational thought to the situation into which Martin invaded (emotive rhetoric, your honour): it is my opinion that if anyone insulted Portugal by inference as a third world country (in economic terms, she was right: GDP growth in 2006, at 1.3%, was the lowest not just in the European Union but in all of Europe. In the 2000s, the Czech Republic, Malta and Slovenia overtook Portugal in terms of GDP per capita. From 2010 until 2012, GDP per capita (PPP) in Portugal fell below those of Slovakia (in Europe) and Seychelles (outside Europe). In 2013 it was estimated that the Portuguese GDP per capita will be similar (within minus or plus US$1,000 per capita) of those of Greece, Estonia and Lithuania. The GDP per capita fell from just over 80% of the EU 25 average in 1999 to just over 70% in 2007. This poor performance of the Portuguese economy was explored in April 2007 by The Economist which described Portugal as "a new sick man of Europe".) ... she most definitely did.
Obviously she was of the opinion they weren't up to the job and she was needed to do their job for them (an accusation routinely levelled at the PJ by McCann supporters, so why not YM?) ... or why do what she did?
There have been child abduction cases in Britain. When did we ever see the parents or witnesses hanging around in the street waiting to be taken to a police station to make their statements? (This was Portugal - and when were they 'hanging around in the street'?)
When did we ever see the parents being accosted by a total stranger who insisted on taking one aside to ask personal information? (All the time. There are manifold support services eager to offer support - when my house burnt down a kind man from St. John's Ambulance helped us - last time I nearly cried openly - nearly, not because of the house, but because such people exist)
When did we ever see parents abandoned to make a lone public appeal on the street without police support?
(They were on holiday, not leafy Leicestershire).
Does anyone think Yvonne Martin would have behaved as she did in a missing child situation in England? (Yes, that's her job - social worker).
Does anyone think the English police would have tolerated it? (Yes, they would have encouraged support services to assist in their specialism)
When was the last time a child was abducted from her holiday apartmentDesperate times need desperate measures - Yvonne Martin saw that and thought she could bring her expertise to bear on such a rare event.
In other words ... appropriate protocols would have been observed in England and someone who could have been an unhinged lunatic for all anyone knew, would not have been given the opportunity to get close to bereaved parents.Could be. But unhinged lunatics are not confined to Portugal. Every major crime in Britain attracts all manner of whack jobs.
In other words ... appropriate protocols would have been observed in England and someone who could have been an unhinged lunatic for all anyone knew, would not have been given the opportunity to get close to bereaved parents.
Could be. But unhinged lunatics are not confined to Portugal. Every major crime in Britain attracts all manner of whack jobs.
*thanks for fixing my previous post, by the way.
Desperate times need desperate measures - Yvonne Martin saw that and thought she could bring her expertise to bear on such a rare event.Perhaps, but the McCann’s were probably in no mental/emotional state to deal with an outsider at that point.
That is the point I was making: rarely, if ever are they allowed to come into close personal contact with anyone who is central to the police investigation. Certainly not to interrogate them before the police have had the opportunity to do so.
When in Rome....things will not be the same as when you are in Britain. An obvious truth that the British seem unable to grasp.Most people are aware of European protocols and are probably astounded that they do not seem to apply in Portugal.
Most people are aware of European protocols and are probably astounded that they do not seem to apply in Portugal.Have you ever been to Lithuania or Bosnia? Portugal is a veritable judicial utopia in comparison.
No-one checked Martin's alleged credentials prior to allowing access to vulnerable people. If you think that is OK in Portugal that's fine by me.
But don't the Portuguese have this thing about 'interfering in a police inquiry' ... by the questions she asked the victims of the crime and her subsequent questioning of others ... I think she was sailing pretty close to the wind on that one.
Do you think people are guarded or isolated in some way?
Have you ever been to Lithuania or Bosnia? Portugal is a veritable judicial utopia in comparison.
It's all relative.
Have you ever heard of bereaved parents being accosted by unknown strangers outside their homes while waiting for transportation to take them to make a police statement?
Madeleine disappeared in Portugal. Her parents were accosted by an unknown Englishwoman in Portugal. So probably worthwhile sticking to that for the time being for the purposes of this thread.You referred to 'European Protocols'. Not all 'protocols' are equal.
Most people are aware of European protocols and are probably astounded that they do not seem to apply in Portugal.
No-one checked Martin's alleged credentials prior to allowing access to vulnerable people. If you think that is OK in Portugal that's fine by me.
But don't the Portuguese have this thing about 'interfering in a police inquiry' ... by the questions she asked the victims of the crime and her subsequent questioning of others ... I think she was sailing pretty close to the wind on that one.
Have you ever heard of bereaved parents being accosted by unknown strangers outside their homes while waiting for transportation to take them to make a police statement?
I think it was absolutely wrong of her to start questioning Kate outside and when Kate was in a traumatised condition. Not even suggesting they went inside but questioning her where anyone could have been eavesdropping.
Didn't she say in her statement that she didn't think Madeleine could have been abducted? I'll have to read her statement again. How would she know that she was a Social Worker not a Detective. Then sending an anonymous letter to the Police, no doubt because she was angry they sent her away.
She wanted to talk to Kate on her own where no-one could be eavesdropping.
From memory she based her belief that a stranger abduction was unlikely based on 25 years experience of child social work, including missing children scenarios. Apologies if I've remembered that wrong.
It was none of her business.
Come on!!! You can't go off the scale with a publicity drive which ensures this is reported as a possible break in and abduction at 7am the next morning on Sky News - and then say it's no-one else's business when someone answers a call for any possible help.
I don't think they were asking people to come and question Kate McCann, were they?
That's not the point. They went off the scale public!! And they must have been a bit naive since any missing child inquiry starts with the parents and close family. Stranger abduction is incredibly rare. Anyone with training in paediatric social work will want to talk to a parent.
Really? So early in the proceedings ?
REALLY?? We have been here so often it is tiresome.
Bereaved derives from ...
Old English berēafian (see be-, reave). The original sense was ‘deprive of’ in general.
It retains that connotation depending on context in which it is used ... for example ... deprive~rob~divest~grieving~sorrowful~lamenting~deprived.
Maybe in Humpty Dumpty land, but -- https://www.collinsdictionary.com/dictionary/english/bereavedFreudian slip, I'm afraid.
A bereaved person is one who has a relative or close friend who has recently died.
Anyone in paediatric social work doesn't have the right.
What protocols are they exactly? Do you think they include "The police forces of all European countries should guard those waiting to be interviewed by the police in case anyone tries to speak to them."
A few people spoke to the McCanns that morning; Steve Carpenter, the lady from block 6 and Robert Murat, for example. Should they all have been shooed away?
Anyone has the right to offer assistance in a personal capacity. Equally the parents have a right to decline such an offer.
Anyone has the right to offer assistance in a personal capacity. Equally the parents have a right to decline such an offer.
Anyone has the right to offer assistance in a personal capacity. Equally the parents have a right to decline such an offer.
Then why all the fuss about her being told to clear offIt's hard to say she made a fuss. She just said the actions of the third man (presumably David Payne) "seemed strange".
Sorty but didn’t YM imply that DP was a paedophile that she had encountered before?
Sorty but didn’t YM imply that DP was a paedophile that she had encountered before?Yes. Quite independently from Katherina Gaspar.
Yes. Quite independently from Katherina Gaspar.
This is not The Gaspar Thread so we won't be going there. Thank You.It's very pertinent. The point being two professional women who crossed paths with David Payne thought he was 'strange' (their words in official statements, not mine). Both of whom were moved to inform the authorities and subsequently give statements.
Interesting that they both say, or imply, similar things, don't you think ?Well according to Davel, 2 constitutes a pattern.
It's very pertinent. The point being two professional women who crossed paths with David Payne thought he was 'strange' (their words in official statements, not mine). Both of whom were moved to inform the authorities and subsequently give statements.
Never to be heard of again.How were each supposed to manifest themselves again?
Yes. Quite independently from Katherina Gaspar.So is it true then? Because if it is, it would seem strange that he is still allowed to practice medicine and to live with his wife and kids.
So is it true then? Because if it is, it would seem strange that he is still allowed to practice medicine and to live with his wife and kids.Who said it was true?
Never to be heard of again.
Not everyone lives in the past going over old grievances.. People move on.
Really. You could have fooled me.
Who said it was true?you implied that because two independent witnesses had suggested it, that this was in of itself significant. Is it?
you implied that because two independent witnesses had suggested it, that this was in of itself significant. Is it?Is what true?
Is what true?I’m not playing your stupid games anymore, ta-ta.
So is it true then? Because if it is, it would seem strange that he is still allowed to practice medicine and to live with his wife and kids.
Not really, some get off!
https://metro.co.uk/2019/09/14/gp-cant-see-women-without-chaperone-after-sex-assault-allegation-10743981/
But for those who insist Doctors are all wonderful human beings...
https://www.bmj.com/content/360/bmj.k913
https://www.breitbart.com/europe/2017/08/03/london-doctor-charged-118-sex-offences/
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-8037953/Married-NHS-doctor-struck-smacking-bottoms-two-female-medical-students.html
https://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-207467/Child-porn-doc-struck-off.html