Social worker who attended the scene later told police she was suspicious.

[faithlilly]

I think it is possible this may be connected with a couple who (if a UK paper reported correctly) may have entered the apartment evening 2nd May in response to crying?

But how would Kate have known that so early on the morning of the 4th ?

[faithlilly]

"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."

WHAT ???  >@@(*&)

You really don't want to answer my question, do you Brietta ?

What are the chances of two witnesses who are unknown to each other, both giving statements which expressed concern over the same individual in a group of nine having inappropriate thoughts with regard to children ?

[Carana]

.

If as Carana claimed, Kate meant a couple of people rather than a couple, why would she not understand that ?

I haven't claimed anything.

Where is the verbatim record in English of this? If there isn't one, then there is no way of knowing whether what Kate actually said, what YM understood, what the interpreter understood and how any of that was actually recorded.

I find it quite feasible that Kate or whoever else may have spoken to YM to have said "they" at some point meaning unknown entities without any conscious reason as to why there may have been one person or more.

[DCI]

Seems this inspector didn't think much of her statements!

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

[Brietta]

You really don't want to answer my question, do you Brietta ?

What are the chances of two witnesses who are unknown to each other, both giving statements which expressed concern over the same individual in a group of nine having inappropriate thoughts with regard to children ?

If you wish to discuss Dr Gaspar's statement ... go ahead ... but this thread is 'dedicated' to the rather extraordinary ... originally anonymous ... statements made by Yvonne Warren Martin which consist of supposition and inuendo ... but absolutely no factual information.

So Dr Payne ruffled the feathers of a pompous ... imo ... individual who takes revenge by penning an anonymous letter designed to ruin his reputation. She did not intend her name to be appended to the letter she wrote but her intent was clear with regard to his.

 - SNIP -With regards to the individual who was close to Madeleine's parents when she met them, and who was later identified as David Payne, she reaffirms that the same individual seems familiar, possibly as this same individual intervened in a situation related to a professional activity of the witness. She clarifies that neither on that occasion, nor now that time has passed, can she remember concretely the place or the situation in which she may have come to know David Payne, but that she continues to think that the same individual is familiar to her but cannot state the particular situation.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

[sadie]

YM statement 12 Jun 2007
"the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter."

YM statement 13 Jun 2007
"she found it strange that Kate told her that her daughter had been taken by a couple"

YM statement 14 Nov 2007
"Kate told her that the child had been taken by a couple"

Unusually for you Pegasus, you are not thinking very deeply.

The Mccanns were terrified that a paedophile man had taken Madeleine.

Their friends would want to ease the pain.  My bet is that most of them would be saying to Kate and Gerry a tale something like this

" Some childless couple wanted a pretty little blonde girl and chose Madeleine.  They will cherish and look after her well until she is found and returned."


Kate would cling to that hope, despite niggling doubts.

[faithlilly]

I haven't claimed anything.

Where is the verbatim record in English of this? If there isn't one, then there is no way of knowing whether what Kate actually said, what YM understood, what the interpreter understood and how any of that was actually recorded.

I find it quite feasible that Kate or whoever else may have spoken to YM to have said "they" at some point meaning unknown entities without any conscious reason as to why there may have been one person or more.

So in two separate statements YM, at least three times, said Kate had said a couple took her daughter and you think it was a misunderstanding or a translation error ? Really ?

[faithlilly]

If you wish to discuss Dr Gaspar's statement ... go ahead ... but this thread is 'dedicated' to the rather extraordinary ... originally anonymous ... statements made by Yvonne Warren Martin which consist of supposition and inuendo ... but absolutely no factual information.

So Dr Payne ruffled the feathers of a pompous ... imo ... individual who takes revenge by penning an anonymous letter designed to ruin his reputation. She did not intend her name to be appended to the letter she wrote but her intent was clear with regard to his.

 - SNIP -With regards to the individual who was close to Madeleine's parents when she met them, and who was later identified as David Payne, she reaffirms that the same individual seems familiar, possibly as this same individual intervened in a situation related to a professional activity of the witness. She clarifies that neither on that occasion, nor now that time has passed, can she remember concretely the place or the situation in which she may have come to know David Payne, but that she continues to think that the same individual is familiar to her but cannot state the particular situation.http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

I don't want to discuss the Gaspar statement Brietta but I would be obliged if you would answer my question.

 Just a thought.

What are the chances of two witnesses who are unknown to each other, both giving statements which expressed concern over the same individual in a group of nine having inappropriate thoughts with regard to children ?

[Brietta]

I don't want to discuss the Gaspar statement Brietta but I would be obliged if you would answer my question.

 Just a thought.

What are the chances of two witnesses who are unknown to each other, both giving statements which expressed concern over the same individual in a group of nine having inappropriate thoughts with regard to children ?

You pretend to misunderstand what I am saying about Yvonne Martin's statement: let me put it this way I am as underwhelmed by what she had to say as was Inspector Ferreira.
If it amuses you to keep repeating yourself ... that's fine ... but it doesn't add to Martin's statement's 'viability' ... and it does nowt for your credibility.
You are not even attempting to defend the woman's suppositions which are the indefensible.
Repition seems to be your fall back position when you are incapable of debate; you never fail.



 

[faithlilly]

You pretend to misunderstand what I am saying about Yvonne Martin's statement: let me put it this way I am as underwhelmed by what she had to say as was Inspector Ferreira.
If it amuses you to keep repeating yourself ... that's fine ... but it doesn't add to Martin's statement's 'viability' ... and it does nowt for your credibility.
You are not even attempting to defend the woman's suppositions which are the indefensible.
Repition seems to be your fall back position when you are incapable of debate; you never fail.

And trying to steer the debate in a direction that makes you feel more comfortable seems to be yours.

Yvonne Martin is a Child Protection professional with twenty five years experience in her field and hard as you and your fellow supporters may try to undermine her evidence, as an individual with such longstanding experience her statement must be handled with the weight it deserves.

So two individuals , one a Child Protection  professional of 25 years standing and the other a medically trained doctor express doubts about one of the McCanns friend's behaviour towards children and you don't feel that is worthy of discussion or indeed a coincidence too far ?

[Brietta]

And trying to steer the debate in a direction that makes you feel more comfortable seems to be yours.

Yvonne Martin is a Child Protection professional with twenty five years experience in her field and hard as you and your fellow supporters may try to undermine her evidence, as an individual with such longstanding experience her statement must be handled with the weight it deserves.

So two individuals , one a Child Protection  professional of 25 years standing and the other a medically trained doctor express doubts about one of the McCanns friend's behaviour towards children and you don't feel that is worthy of discussion or indeed a coincidence too far ?

Yvonne Martin's statement appears to have been 'handled with the weight it deserves' in equal measure by Inspector Ferreira and the British cops to whom her unfounded anonymously imparted rumours were addressed.

No-one could make a better job of 'undermining' her 'evidence' than she has herself ... and that you rely on someone who writes anonymous letters making unfounded accusations to bolster your case, does not surprise me in the slightest.

A statement consisting of such certainties as, in her words ... coincidences; could possibly; thinks; may have;  seems familiar; can’t remember concretely; cannot be certain; potentially. 
Wow ... how definitive is that!! when making an accusation.
 
- CLIP - She adds that her hypothesis is that she may have come to know him professionally through work, potentially having been colleagues at work or have worked at the same place but she cannot be certain where she met him as she does not remember.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

[Admin]

Yvonne Martin got the cold shoulder treatment for sure even though her intentions were honourable.  It is this arrogant sanctimonious perception of the McCanns which has engendered so much loathing.

[sadie]

And trying to steer the debate in a direction that makes you feel more comfortable seems to be yours.

Yvonne Martin is a Child Protection professional with twenty five years experience in her field and hard as you and your fellow supporters may try to undermine her evidence, as an individual with such longstanding experience her statement must be handled with the weight it deserves.

So two individuals , one a Child Protection  professional of 25 years standing and the other a medically trained doctor express doubts about one of the McCanns friend's behaviour towards children and you don't feel that is worthy of discussion or indeed a coincidence too far ?

Where have you got that a Child Protection Officer expressed doubts about one of the Mccanns friends from?  Have you made it up ... or have you a cite ?

[Brietta]

Yvonne Martin got the cold shoulder treatment for sure even though her intentions were honourable.  It is this arrogant sanctimonious perception of the McCanns which has engendered so much loathing.

I think she was peeved at DP's dismissal of her and was hitting back at him.  The fact that she didn't actually make a firm accusation but used innuendo leads me to suspect that her intentions were less than honourable.
Whereas I am of the opinion that Dr Gasper's concerns were made with the best of intentions; my criticism of her would be that she was duty bound to voice any concerns to the GMC when she returned from holiday and let them sort it out.

I don't see how you can claim that at that point the Drs McCann could be perceived as arrogant and sanctimonious ... they were in bits and the last thing they needed was some self appointed busybody asking them intrusive questions which only the police should have been doing.

[colombosstogey]

And trying to steer the debate in a direction that makes you feel more comfortable seems to be yours.

Yvonne Martin is a Child Protection professional with twenty five years experience in her field and hard as you and your fellow supporters may try to undermine her evidence, as an individual with such longstanding experience her statement must be handled with the weight it deserves.

So two individuals , one a Child Protection  professional of 25 years standing and the other a medically trained doctor express doubts about one of the McCanns friend's behaviour towards children and you don't feel that is worthy of discussion or indeed a coincidence too far ?

I met someone recently on another forum, nothing to do with Maddy by the way chicken related.

We have been chatting and it turns out that she is retired Child protection agent for a county.

I asked her off forum about the McCann case and if she had been in PDL at the time and knew they were English etc would she have approached them.

She said yes she probably would have to help them, as they are trained to assist in these cases.

So its not really odd for this Yvonne to do that.

The thing that is odd to me is the way the McCanns REJECTED her help. I would have grabbed hold of her and begged her for help. PERSONALLY.