Yvonne Martin

duncanmac wrote:Wasnt it Yvonne Martin who asked
' What have you done with your daughter, Mrs McCann ? "

duncanmac wrote:Wasnt it Yvonne Martin who asked
' What have you done with your daughter, Mrs McCann ? "

Badboy wrote:

gillyspot wrote:fred I agree with you there.

I find it interesting that Kate says this

"David was standing nearby. Concerned he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credential 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."

David Payne (he of the Gaspar Statement) makes a point of telling Kate that she doesn't need to speak to Yvonne Martin. I wonder why.

SURELY SHE HAS READ THE PJ FILES,SO WOULD KNOW WHO SHE IS,ALTERNATIVELY ITS ONLY AN INTERNET SEARCH AWAY.

Badboy wrote:

duncanmac wrote:Wasnt it Yvonne Martin who asked
' What have you done with your daughter, Mrs McCann ? "

WASN'T THAT THE FAMILY LIASION OFFICER THAT SAID THAT?

Bobsy wrote:Good evening folks. YM was a long service social worker and would be very well used to reactions from parents but I get the feeling she was worried about DP and his connection with the parents of a missing child.
In all honesty had I been in the same situation of thinking my child had been abducted I would have welcomed the help of a person of such experience and not been swayed by my ear being bent to turn said person away.

HiDeHo wrote:I have always believed that the 'discovery' was preplanned and that Kate was acting out her scene.

Given that scenario, that Kate went to the apartment knowing that she was to claim an abductors had taken Madeleine, she returned with the comments accordingly 'They have taken her'....forgetting that not everyone was in on the plan and would not know who she meant by 'they' and 'her'.

She was overly familiar with the plan and should have said 'Someone's taken Madeleine'

This is explained better by a 3A member that first came up with this, but I can't remember who.

It may have been at that point, when asked by the police that night, who 'they' were, that she decided to claim it was a couple to cover her mistake....rather than the 'abductor', that was the planned 'they'.

gillyspot wrote:Still gets me cross that "Madeleine" by Kate McCann is in the NON FICTION section in bookshops. Why she called it Madeleine is another mystery - it is all about Queen Kate and her rantings.

HiDeHo wrote:I have always believed that the 'discovery' was preplanned and that Kate was acting out her scene.

Given that scenario, that Kate went to the apartment knowing that she was to claim an abductors had taken Madeleine, she returned with the comments accordingly 'They have taken her'....forgetting that not everyone was in on the plan and would not know who she meant by 'they' and 'her'.

She was overly familiar with the plan and should have said 'Someone's taken Madeleine'

This is explained better by a 3A member that first came up with this, but I can't remember who.

It may have been at that point, when asked by the police that night, who 'they' were, that she decided to claim it was a couple to cover her mistake....rather than the 'abductor', that was the planned 'they'.

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.

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.

AnnaEsse wrote:

chrissie wrote:I agree Anna and Yvonne also had proof of her position. I would have thought they would have welcomed some help from an English speaking professional (I am in no way suggesting that PT residents cannot speak English btw )

Especially someone who made an effort to show that she was qualified in Child Protection and showed her CRB document, which I would have thought might have engendered confidence and a guarantee of confidentiality.

gillyspot wrote:Yvonne Martin as she appears in Kate McCann's book

""A middle-aged British woman lady suddenly materialized beside me and introduced herself. She announced that she was, or had been, a social worker or child protection officer and insisted on showing me her professional papers, including, I think, her Criminal Records Bureau certificate. 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.

David was standing nearby. Concerned he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credential 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."

Bebootje wrote:Otherwise, when I had a child lost in a foreign country I would be happy with any official/certified help I could get certainly from a fellow Brit.
But I can imagine that they wanted help from a social worker. Cause they were indeed negligent.

Autumn wrote:

Exactly AnnaEsse, a reason for Kate's book was to discredit key figures such as Mrs Fenn and Yvonne Martin. I haven't read it but wonder if there is anyone else in it that she has attempted to discredit and put in a bad light.

NoStone wrote:The statement that Kate made to Yvonne - that a couple had abducted Madeleine has made me think. It would of course fit with Kate's prounouncement 'THEY have taken her'

I wonder if the original abduction scenario the McC's had come up with was that Madeleine had been abducted by a childless couple in which case things would not be so bad as the girl would be well looked after in these circumstances you would think.

The trouble the McC's have with this scenario of course is that someone would have to witness a couple taking Madeleine. They could not witness that themselves as they would have gone running after the 'abductors'. The hope would be that other witnesses would come forward seeing a couple with a child (which happened did'nt it with the couple at the garage - amazingly). With JT's 'evidence' of a sole male 'abductor' the McC's were not able to promote the 'couple' idea any further and had to drop it.


So do these referefnce indicate a change from the original story they tried to weave????

A - In the inquiry there are passages that contain information that can contend with the right to private life of people, not only British citizens, for whom there was found not the faintest hint of implication in this case, namely:

Volume I, fls. 211/212: reference to an individual with a past linked to crimes of a sexual nature with children.

Volume II
- Fls. 293/297: is a list of individuals connected with the practice of sex crimes with minors and adolescents.
- Fls. 298/300: reference to an individual linked with the practice of acts of pedophilia and exhibitionism;
- Fls. 473/474: reference to an individual linked with the practice of acts of exhibitionism.

Volume III, fls. 754/757: information and bibliographic record of a citizen in connection with acts of paedophilia.
taken from: http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm

gillyspot wrote:Yvonne Martin as she appears in Kate McCann's book

""A middle-aged British woman lady suddenly materialized beside me and introduced herself. She announced that she was, or had been, a social worker or child protection officer and insisted on showing me her professional papers, including, I think, her Criminal Records Bureau certificate. 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.

David was standing nearby. Concerned he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credential 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."

Bobsy wrote:Good evening folks. YM was a long service social worker and would be very well used to reactions from parents but I get the feeling she was worried about DP and his connection with the parents of a missing child.
In all honesty had I been in the same situation of thinking my child had been abducted I would have welcomed the help of a person of such experience and not been swayed by my ear being bent to turn said person away.