Re: Yvonne Martin

**malena stool** Sun 16 Oct - 19:11

HiDeHo wrote:
malena stool wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:We know that there are statements taken and referred to but do not appear in the files (eg Carolyn Carpenter)

Goncalo Amaral refers to comments from the cleaner about the shutters being cleaned on Wednesday, so I see no reason why there are not several other statements that have not been disclosed (Irwins?)

What has been released is not enough to convict the McCanns but what they 'hold', including text messages etc and further comments from Yvonne Martin, may be the details the McCanns want their hands on

Thanks Anna Esse. You may recall me asking someone (you) once before. I feel that is an important and logical reason for that comment and will keep it in my belief bucket.
I've always believed that it is the statements and who made them and not released that the McCanns are frightened of and why they have plagued and pestered Cameron, May and Lord knows who else to have the files turned over for them to scrutinise and concoct a defence for their actions.
I read somewhere (can't find the quote) that Amaral himself stated there are facts of Madeleine's disappearance which have not yet been released.

Goncalo discusses about the contents of the text messages in one of his interviews as well as this....

Thanks for this HiDeHo, I can't remember seeing this particular interview before, small wonder they are challenging everything Amaral does or says.... and demanding access to all files... They truly are experiencing the legend of the Sword of Damocles with the hair beginning to get a little frayed.....
Yvonne Martin - Page 3 302722

platinum Sun 16 Oct - 19:32

[quote="malena stool"]

HiDeHo wrote:
malena stool wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:We know that there are statements taken and referred to but do not appear in the files (eg Carolyn Carpenter)

Goncalo Amaral refers to comments from the cleaner about the shutters being cleaned on Wednesday, so I see no reason why there are not several other statements that have not been disclosed (Irwins?)

What has been released is not enough to convict the McCanns but what they 'hold', including text messages etc and further comments from Yvonne Martin, may be the details the McCanns want their hands on

Thanks Anna Esse. You may recall me asking someone (you) once before. I feel that is an important and logical reason for that comment and will keep it in my belief bucket.
I've always believed that it is the statements and who made them and not released that the McCanns are frightened of and why they have plagued and pestered Cameron, May and Lord knows who else to have the files turned over for them to scrutinise and concoct a defence for their actions.
I read somewhere (can't find the quote) that Amaral himself stated there are facts of Madeleine's disappearance which have not yet been released.

Goncalo discusses about the contents of the text messages in one of his interviews as well as this....

Thanks for this HiDeHo, I can't remember seeing this particular interview before, small wonder they are challenging everything Amaral does or says.... and demanding access to all files... They truly are experiencing the legend of the Sword of Damocles with the hair beginning to get a little frayed.....

I wonder if it was the NOTW who might have been hacking his phone and computer? If so will Goncalo be called as a witness to the inquiry. That would be interesting.

**LJC** Tue 18 Oct - 15:13

I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a couple whose daughter has disappeared. On the one hand I would welcome help from well-meaning people, experienced or otherwise; on the other hand I would not welcome help from someone asking questions which should only be asked by a police officer. YM had no right to ask questions, only to offer help. There is a big difference. She may havbe compromised the whole of the police enquiry.

I have worked for a good many organisations and recognise, as I am sure many others have, that there are certain people within the organisation who feel important. This is not to say that YM did not do an important and responsible job. However, her job was to investigate referrals. Social workers have their cases specifically referred to them by another authority. Social workers do not carry out their own checks on people, as it does need prior authority to investigate anyone. YM may have thought she recognised DP, and as we all know she has relayed these suspicions to the relevant investigative team, which is fine if that is what she thinks, but she should not have asked questions without prior authority. I doubt I would appreciate an off duty copper asking me probing questions for example, or an off duty dentist telling me my teeth were bad and I think I would turn round and tell them to mind their own business. On the other hand if someone like this kindly offered me help and advise and this was taken as an invitation, then I may take them up on that, but I would not appreciate them coming along and sticking their ore in to such an extent that it appeared to be probing and invasive. I am not defending the McCanns here, just saying how I would feel in their shoes. However, it must be borne in mind that YM is saying one thing from her own angle and Kate is saying another and so unless any of us were actually present it is impossible to know if YM is a busy-body or whether Kate is trying to discredit her. Help can be offered, of course it can, but probing questions should never be asked of anyone and its okay to have suspicions but they must be relayed to the appropriate authorities. YM has done the latter and she has mentioned her suspicions and really that was all that she needed to do.

Loveday Tue 18 Oct - 20:14

LJC wrote:I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a couple whose daughter has disappeared. On the one hand I would welcome help from well-meaning people, experienced or otherwise; on the other hand I would not welcome help from someone asking questions which should only be asked by a police officer. YM had no right to ask questions, only to offer help. There is a big difference. She may havbe compromised the whole of the police enquiry.

I have worked for a good many organisations and recognise, as I am sure many others have, that there are certain people within the organisation who feel important. This is not to say that YM did not do an important and responsible job. However, her job was to investigate referrals. Social workers have their cases specifically referred to them by another authority. Social workers do not carry out their own checks on people, as it does need prior authority to investigate anyone. YM may have thought she recognised DP, and as we all know she has relayed these suspicions to the relevant investigative team, which is fine if that is what she thinks, but she should not have asked questions without prior authority. I doubt I would appreciate an off duty copper asking me probing questions for example, or an off duty dentist telling me my teeth were bad and I think I would turn round and tell them to mind their own business. On the other hand if someone like this kindly offered me help and advise and this was taken as an invitation, then I may take them up on that, but I would not appreciate them coming along and sticking their ore in to such an extent that it appeared to be probing and invasive. I am not defending the McCanns here, just saying how I would feel in their shoes. However, it must be borne in mind that YM is saying one thing from her own angle and Kate is saying another and so unless any of us were actually present it is impossible to know if YM is a busy-body or whether Kate is trying to discredit her. Help can be offered, of course it can, but probing questions should never be asked of anyone and its okay to have suspicions but they must be relayed to the appropriate authorities. YM has done the latter and she has mentioned her suspicions and really that was all that she needed to do.

I completely agree with this. If my child really had gone missing I can imagine that it might be the last thing I'd want - an off duty social worker assuming an authority to start snooping and asking questions. Or at least I can see that it might have looked this way. And any mother could be forgiven for not thinking straight. There are at least two or three different ways of looking at it.

But considering how many thousands of pounds of the public's money Kate has spent on translating the files and how we all know who YM is and why she was there it is quite blatantly a lie for Kate to state that she has no idea. So it seems perfectly reasonable to ask why Kate is lying or at the very least feigning ignorance. YM may be a gossipy busybody, but why doesn't Kate just right come out and say so? If I had nothing to hide, I would.

And if I were David Payne I would too.

**HiDeHo** Tue 18 Oct - 20:45

I would agree that there are two sides to every story, ut I suspect the problem was not about her 'interfering' so much as recognising DP and their need to get rid of her.

I wonder whether the search through the database came up with anything?

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

Autumn Tue 18 Oct - 21:08

HiDeHo wrote:I would agree that there are two sides to every story, ut I suspect the problem was not about her 'interfering' so much as recognising DP and their need to get rid of her.

I wonder whether the search through the database came up with anything?

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

So concerned was she that she sent an anonymous letter to the police

She first found them aggressive and their reaction after she showed Madeleine's parents her credentials, also seemed strange to her. Afterwards she was informed that there were no signs of a break-in in the apartment. Knowing that they are doctors she found it absolutely abnormal that they left their children alone at home. Associating all of this with her professional experience, which tells her that in 99.99 % of missing children cases, the parents or other family members are involved, she felt it was her duty to inform the police of this.

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.

**HiDeHo** Tue 18 Oct - 21:12

thanks for this thread Autumn.

I have so many videos 'on the go' but this one which includes the 'Gaspars' is long overdue imo

I may finish it tonight as I am now 'up to date' on corrie (we are 9 months behind in canada)...Kept me out of trouble catching up more than one hundred episodes...

https://www.youtube.com/user/NewCorrieeps#g/u

Back to the videos!

ELI Tue 18 Oct - 22:39

Loveday wrote:
LJC wrote:I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a couple whose daughter has disappeared. On the one hand I would welcome help from well-meaning people, experienced or otherwise; on the other hand I would not welcome help from someone asking questions which should only be asked by a police officer. YM had no right to ask questions, only to offer help. There is a big difference. She may havbe compromised the whole of the police enquiry.

I have worked for a good many organisations and recognise, as I am sure many others have, that there are certain people within the organisation who feel important. This is not to say that YM did not do an important and responsible job. However, her job was to investigate referrals. Social workers have their cases specifically referred to them by another authority. Social workers do not carry out their own checks on people, as it does need prior authority to investigate anyone. YM may have thought she recognised DP, and as we all know she has relayed these suspicions to the relevant investigative team, which is fine if that is what she thinks, but she should not have asked questions without prior authority. I doubt I would appreciate an off duty copper asking me probing questions for example, or an off duty dentist telling me my teeth were bad and I think I would turn round and tell them to mind their own business. On the other hand if someone like this kindly offered me help and advise and this was taken as an invitation, then I may take them up on that, but I would not appreciate them coming along and sticking their ore in to such an extent that it appeared to be probing and invasive. I am not defending the McCanns here, just saying how I would feel in their shoes. However, it must be borne in mind that YM is saying one thing from her own angle and Kate is saying another and so unless any of us were actually present it is impossible to know if YM is a busy-body or whether Kate is trying to discredit her. Help can be offered, of course it can, but probing questions should never be asked of anyone and its okay to have suspicions but they must be relayed to the appropriate authorities. YM has done the latter and she has mentioned her suspicions and really that was all that she needed to do.

I completely agree with this. If my child really had gone missing I can imagine that it might be the last thing I'd want - an off duty social worker assuming an authority to start snooping and asking questions. Or at least I can see that it might have looked this way. And any mother could be forgiven for not thinking straight. There are at least two or three different ways of looking at it.

But considering how many thousands of pounds of the public's money Kate has spent on translating the files and how we all know who YM is and why she was there it is quite blatantly a lie for Kate to state that she has no idea. So it seems perfectly reasonable to ask why Kate is lying or at the very least feigning ignorance. YM may be a gossipy busybody, but why doesn't Kate just right come out and say so? If I had nothing to hide, I would.

And if I were David Payne I would too.

There is always two sides to a story as you point out, by this I mean that both YM and KM as professionals will have dealt with similar incidents involving people in traumatic situations , not only that they probably have both worked with professionals from both fields in the past , ie social workers working with doctors - GPs & school professionals etc. and many others. We only have KM's version of this story, that being that she felt YM was being too intrusive, or thats how she felt. There should have been an element of professional confidence and trust which for some reason is something that clearly wasn't there.

flower Tue 18 Oct - 23:08

ELI wrote:
Loveday wrote:
LJC wrote:I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a couple whose daughter has disappeared. On the one hand I would welcome help from well-meaning people, experienced or otherwise; on the other hand I would not welcome help from someone asking questions which should only be asked by a police officer. YM had no right to ask questions, only to offer help. There is a big difference. She may havbe compromised the whole of the police enquiry.

I have worked for a good many organisations and recognise, as I am sure many others have, that there are certain people within the organisation who feel important. This is not to say that YM did not do an important and responsible job. However, her job was to investigate referrals. Social workers have their cases specifically referred to them by another authority. Social workers do not carry out their own checks on people, as it does need prior authority to investigate anyone. YM may have thought she recognised DP, and as we all know she has relayed these suspicions to the relevant investigative team, which is fine if that is what she thinks, but she should not have asked questions without prior authority. I doubt I would appreciate an off duty copper asking me probing questions for example, or an off duty dentist telling me my teeth were bad and I think I would turn round and tell them to mind their own business. On the other hand if someone like this kindly offered me help and advise and this was taken as an invitation, then I may take them up on that, but I would not appreciate them coming along and sticking their ore in to such an extent that it appeared to be probing and invasive. I am not defending the McCanns here, just saying how I would feel in their shoes. However, it must be borne in mind that YM is saying one thing from her own angle and Kate is saying another and so unless any of us were actually present it is impossible to know if YM is a busy-body or whether Kate is trying to discredit her. Help can be offered, of course it can, but probing questions should never be asked of anyone and its okay to have suspicions but they must be relayed to the appropriate authorities. YM has done the latter and she has mentioned her suspicions and really that was all that she needed to do.

I completely agree with this. If my child really had gone missing I can imagine that it might be the last thing I'd want - an off duty social worker assuming an authority to start snooping and asking questions. Or at least I can see that it might have looked this way. And any mother could be forgiven for not thinking straight. There are at least two or three different ways of looking at it.

But considering how many thousands of pounds of the public's money Kate has spent on translating the files and how we all know who YM is and why she was there it is quite blatantly a lie for Kate to state that she has no idea. So it seems perfectly reasonable to ask why Kate is lying or at the very least feigning ignorance. YM may be a gossipy busybody, but why doesn't Kate just right come out and say so? If I had nothing to hide, I would.

And if I were David Payne I would too.

There is always two sides to a story as you point out, by this I mean that both YM and KM as professionals will have dealt with similar incidents involving people in traumatic situations , not only that they probably have both worked with professionals from both fields in the past , ie social workers working with doctors - GPs & school professionals etc. and many others. We only have KM's version of this story, that being that she felt YM was being too intrusive, or thats how she felt. There should have been an element of professional confidence and trust which for some reason is something that clearly wasn't there.

And why not??............. I truly believe that all these professionals 'stick' together - so why dismiss a fellow professional if you had nothing to hide?....

platinum Tue 18 Oct - 23:14

LJC wrote:I am trying to put myself in the shoes of a couple whose daughter has disappeared. On the one hand I would welcome help from well-meaning people, experienced or otherwise; on the other hand I would not welcome help from someone asking questions which should only be asked by a police officer. YM had no right to ask questions, only to offer help. There is a big difference. She may havbe compromised the whole of the police enquiry.

I have worked for a good many organisations and recognise, as I am sure many others have, that there are certain people within the organisation who feel important. This is not to say that YM did not do an important and responsible job. However, her job was to investigate referrals. Social workers have their cases specifically referred to them by another authority. Social workers do not carry out their own checks on people, as it does need prior authority to investigate anyone. YM may have thought she recognised DP, and as we all know she has relayed these suspicions to the relevant investigative team, which is fine if that is what she thinks, but she should not have asked questions without prior authority. I doubt I would appreciate an off duty copper asking me probing questions for example, or an off duty dentist telling me my teeth were bad and I think I would turn round and tell them to mind their own business. On the other hand if someone like this kindly offered me help and advise and this was taken as an invitation, then I may take them up on that, but I would not appreciate them coming along and sticking their ore in to such an extent that it appeared to be probing and invasive. I am not defending the McCanns here, just saying how I would feel in their shoes. However, it must be borne in mind that YM is saying one thing from her own angle and Kate is saying another and so unless any of us were actually present it is impossible to know if YM is a busy-body or whether Kate is trying to discredit her. Help can be offered, of course it can, but probing questions should never be asked of anyone and its okay to have suspicions but they must be relayed to the appropriate authorities. YM has done the latter and she has mentioned her suspicions and really that was all that she needed to do.

A really good summary of the situation and said in a way I wish I could express. I don't write that well to explain things.

I think its important to say as well that Yvonne Martin says she didn't know if Payne was a witness or a suspect in any case and she might have even worked with him. Its obvious she really doesn't know who he was and I think she was very peeved that he helped give her the brush off.

**Angelique** Tue 18 Oct - 23:15

ELI

I agree with you there are always two sides to every story.

But we have to remember that this comment was Kate's version and she is hardly going to say she sent YM off with out some reason.

So in her version of Truth she makes use of YM by saying she was asking questions, which I would have thought that YM would have had enough experience to know it would be inappropriate. Kate should, as you say, know that Doctors would be involved in child neglect and liase with SS in cases. So what does she do, she does the only thing she can and that is belittle YM in the Book so her readers think she is interfering and being a busy body - which would come across as favourable to Kate and add just a little bit more sympathy which is what Kate needs to sell her Truth. She is hardly going to give any kudos to YM for trying to help in a crisis. Which is probably all she was offering anyway. Kate is not backwards coming forwards - they are in it for the long haul are they not?

platinum Tue 18 Oct - 23:16

HiDeHo wrote:I would agree that there are two sides to every story, ut I suspect the problem was not about her 'interfering' so much as recognising DP and their need to get rid of her.

I wonder whether the search through the database came up with anything?

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

But did she really recognise him? Her memory is very muddled. He could have been a witness or a client or even someone she worked with. A bit vague don't you think?

platinum Tue 18 Oct - 23:18

Angelique wrote:ELI

I agree with you there are always two sides to every story.

But we have to remember that this comment was Kate's version and she is hardly going to say she sent YM off with out some reason.

So in her version of Truth she makes use of YM by saying she was asking questions, which I would have thought that YM would have had enough experience to know it would be inappropriate. Kate should, as you say, know that Doctors would be involved in child neglect and liase with SS in cases. So what does she do, she does the only thing she can and that is belittle YM in the Book so her readers think she is interfering and being a busy body - which would come across as favourable to Kate and add just a little bit more sympathy which is what Kate needs to sell her Truth. She is hardly going to give any kudos to YM for trying to help in a crisis. Which is probably all she was offering anyway. Kate is not backwards coming forwards - they are in it for the long haul are they not?

So if as you say you think YM knows asking questions would be innapropriate why did she ask them and expect Kate to answer them?

Bebootje Wed 19 Oct - 0:48

platinum wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:I would agree that there are two sides to every story, ut I suspect the problem was not about her 'interfering' so much as recognising DP and their need to get rid of her.

I wonder whether the search through the database came up with anything?

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

But did she really recognise him? Her memory is very muddled. He could have been a witness or a client or even someone she worked with. A bit vague don't you think?

No, I think that she thought about him as a suspect in a former case, but you can't immediately accuse someone can you. Nevertheless, she did point the police towards her suspicions and asked them to take a look to the registered paedofiles

Autumn Wed 19 Oct - 1:02

Angelique wrote:ELI

I agree with you there are always two sides to every story.

But we have to remember that this comment was Kate's version and she is hardly going to say she sent YM off with out some reason.

So in her version of Truth she makes use of YM by saying she was asking questions, which I would have thought that YM would have had enough experience to know it would be inappropriate. Kate should, as you say, know that Doctors would be involved in child neglect and liase with SS in cases. So what does she do, she does the only thing she can and that is belittle YM in the Book so her readers think she is interfering and being a busy body - which would come across as favourable to Kate and add just a little bit more sympathy which is what Kate needs to sell her Truth. She is hardly going to give any kudos to YM for trying to help in a crisis. Which is probably all she was offering anyway. Kate is not backwards coming forwards - they are in it for the long haul are they not?

I agree Angelique, Kate's version is a blatant attempt to justify her hostility towards Yvonne Martin. As a doctor Kate would be well aware that social services would be involved in the early stages procedure and, as Ms Martin had 25 years experience working in this field, chances are she would have handled the situation with sensitivity and tact. Just as she did with Mrs Fenn, Kate has portrayed Yvonne Martin also as another interfering busy body. Trouble is most who have read her book are gullible and wouldn't think to question what she has written.

platinum Wed 19 Oct - 1:10

Bebootje wrote:
platinum wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:I would agree that there are two sides to every story, ut I suspect the problem was not about her 'interfering' so much as recognising DP and their need to get rid of her.

I wonder whether the search through the database came up with anything?

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

But did she really recognise him? Her memory is very muddled. He could have been a witness or a client or even someone she worked with. A bit vague don't you think?
No, I think that she thought about him as a suspect in a former case, but you can't immediately accuse someone can you. Nevertheless, she did point the police towards her suspicions and asked them to take a look to the registered paedofiles

You might think that but from her statements I think she didn't say he was a suspect. She says he might be a colleague, a suspect or a witness. She didn't know which.

Autumn Wed 19 Oct - 1:32

platinum wrote:
Bebootje wrote:
platinum wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:I would agree that there are two sides to every story, ut I suspect the problem was not about her 'interfering' so much as recognising DP and their need to get rid of her.

I wonder whether the search through the database came up with anything?

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

But did she really recognise him? Her memory is very muddled. He could have been a witness or a client or even someone she worked with. A bit vague don't you think?
No, I think that she thought about him as a suspect in a former case, but you can't immediately accuse someone can you. Nevertheless, she did point the police towards her suspicions and asked them to take a look to the registered paedofiles

You might think that but from her statements I think she didn't say he was a suspect. She says he might be a colleague, a suspect or a witness. She didn't know which.

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.

**dazedandconfused** Wed 19 Oct - 10:14

platinum wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:I would agree that there are two sides to every story, ut I suspect the problem was not about her 'interfering' so much as recognising DP and their need to get rid of her.

I wonder whether the search through the database came up with anything?

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

But did she really recognise him? Her memory is very muddled. He could have been a witness or a client or even someone she worked with. A bit vague don't you think?

How do we know her memory is/was muddled. Obviously something rang alarm bells if she felt the need to write the letter she did.

**margaret** Wed 19 Oct - 10:25

Autumn wrote:
platinum wrote:

You might think that but from her statements I think she didn't say he was a suspect. She says he might be a colleague, a suspect or a witness. She didn't know which.

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.

I wonder whether he was on any lists too. I mean, what are the chances of her picking the actual man that caused Yvonne Gaspar such concern in her statement?

The chances must be miniscule.

Guest Wed 19 Oct - 10:58

platinum wrote:
Bebootje wrote:
platinum wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:I would agree that there are two sides to every story, ut I suspect the problem was not about her 'interfering' so much as recognising DP and their need to get rid of her.

I wonder whether the search through the database came up with anything?

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

But did she really recognise him? Her memory is very muddled. He could have been a witness or a client or even someone she worked with. A bit vague don't you think?
No, I think that she thought about him as a suspect in a former case, but you can't immediately accuse someone can you. Nevertheless, she did point the police towards her suspicions and asked them to take a look to the registered paedofiles

You might think that but from her statements I think she didn't say he was a suspect. She says he might be a colleague, a suspect or a witness. She didn't know which.

So if he was a colleague, why didn't HE say, oh look, here's Yvonne, I know her, she'll help us. Why did HE want rid of her so quickly.

**margaret** Wed 19 Oct - 11:10

Iris wrote:

So if he was a colleague, why didn't HE say, oh look, here's Yvonne, I know her, she'll help us. Why did HE want rid of her so quickly.

Good point!

**HiDeHo** Wed 19 Oct - 13:21

Kate was answering some of her questions before he stepped in.

The issue that I have is that if he was 'suspected' by her then he wouldn't have placed himself in close proximity to her...unless he recognised her documents as being familiar to a department he wanted to avoid and had no idea that in her travels that she had recognised him.

Once she had contacted the police and they accessed the database to compare the pictures/name, then I would have expected the files to record the 'mistaken identity' if it was not a positive result.

VERY important to put an end to speculation.

However, the files do not appear to have any further correspondence regarding this subject....and the original files of the Gaspars held in Britain until January 2008.

Surely if there was no face recognition in the database they would confirm that to avoid an innocent 'suspect' being the subject of scrutiny.

When the files were released they were aware of how the case was being scrutinised and the necessity to avoid controversial issues against David Payne.

**Angelina** Wed 19 Oct - 14:07

HiDeHo wrote:Kate was answering some of her questions before he stepped in.

The issue that I have is that if he was 'suspected' by her then he wouldn't have placed himself in close proximity to her...unless he recognised her documents as being familiar to a department he wanted to avoid and had no idea that in her travels that she had recognised him.

Once she had contacted the police and they accessed the database to compare the pictures/name, then I would have expected the files to record the 'mistaken identity' if it was not a positive result.

VERY important to put an end to speculation.

However, the files do not appear to have any further correspondence regarding this subject....and the original files of the Gaspars held in Britain until January 2008.

Surely if there was no face recognition in the database they would confirm that to avoid an innocent 'suspect' being the subject of scrutiny.

When the files were released they were aware of how the case was being scrutinised and the necessity to avoid controversial issues against David Payne.

Has it been confirmed anywhere that YM's letter was acted upon? Were the files checked in the UK?

Would the police need to publicly confirm or deny anything in an ongoing investigation?

**HiDeHo** Wed 19 Oct - 14:50

Angelina wrote:
HiDeHo wrote:Kate was answering some of her questions before he stepped in.

The issue that I have is that if he was 'suspected' by her then he wouldn't have placed himself in close proximity to her...unless he recognised her documents as being familiar to a department he wanted to avoid and had no idea that in her travels that she had recognised him.

Once she had contacted the police and they accessed the database to compare the pictures/name, then I would have expected the files to record the 'mistaken identity' if it was not a positive result.

VERY important to put an end to speculation.

However, the files do not appear to have any further correspondence regarding this subject....and the original files of the Gaspars held in Britain until January 2008.

Surely if there was no face recognition in the database they would confirm that to avoid an innocent 'suspect' being the subject of scrutiny.

When the files were released they were aware of how the case was being scrutinised and the necessity to avoid controversial issues against David Payne.

Has it been confirmed anywhere that YM's letter was acted upon? Were the files checked in the UK?

Would the police need to publicly confirm or deny anything in an ongoing investigation?

The correspondence in the first OP was sent to Goncalo Amaral and is in the files...the result is not in the files from what I can see (which one would expect it to be). Confirmation that it was acted on is not available but the comment by Sofia Leal is enough to suggest to me that there is more than just speculation...

“My husband and I have never abandoned our daughters, or allowed paedophiles in our circle of friends. I am shocked that a couple who affirm to be religious is seeking out to destroy our family”, said Sofia Leal.

Processos Volume X111 Pages 3422 - 3424

SERVICE INFORMATION

Date: 2007 – 06 - 12

To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation, Dr. Gonçalo Amaral

From: José Monteiro, Inspector

Re: Collection of Information

(...)

- She clarifies that she is capable of making a photographic identification of the individual, and emphasises that with the identified photo it is possible to access the database ofthe British Police and ascertain whether the individual is related to any crimes involving children

Bringing this to your attention,

Signed

José Monteiro

Loveday Wed 19 Oct - 16:20

So essentially what you have are three things with a David Payne connection. The Gaspar statements, Yvonne Martin's statement and the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

Make of that what you will.

Sponsored content