Yvonne Martin - how much information did she really uncover?

[jassi]

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 

[Carana]

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 

Did any of the Tapas staff mention a man with glasses leaving the table? Or perhaps they're all "innit" as well.

[Brietta]

...you missed the evidence discounted.

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'.

[G-Unit]

Did any of the Tapas staff mention a man with glasses leaving the table? Or perhaps they're all "innit" as well.

None of the Tapas staff saw all the movements reported by the group, let alone identifying individuals;

Jeronimo; saw nothing.
svetlana; saw one man then one woman then all the group leave.
Joaquim; saw two men leave.
Ricardo; saw one man leave.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAPAS-EMPLOYEES.htm

[slartibartfast]

Jeez, talk about taking thinks out of context.

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

Considering the PP decides whether or not to bring charges it is everything to do with the PP.

[sadie]

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'.

Ricardo Paiva;  The man who scrawled across every piece of information in the dossier of potential new leads that it was NOT RELEVANT TO NEW LEADS

"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.

[Carana]

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

Yes, there's a pic of him (at least I think it's him) listening to John Buck with a camera strap around his neck and a phone or mini recorder to presumably record what he said.

[Robittybob1]

No reply from Yvonne as yet. 

[Mr Gray]

No reply from Yvonne as yet.

Do you really expect one

[Robittybob1]

Do you really expect one

Yes I do.

[Brietta]

Yes I do.

I daresay stranger things have happened but in my opinion I would imagine that Ms Martin would much prefer that information she never imagined would end up in the public domain in the way it did would be consigned to the dustbin of history.
Which in my opinion is precisely where it belongs.

[Robittybob1]

Please get back to the OP topic please.

[G-Unit]

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.

[Mr Gray]

Yes I do.

there is an ongoing police investigation...do you really think that this witness would discuss her evidence with you...