Yvonne Martin

Loveday wrote: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.

Yes and he has also put himself down as the last independant person to see Maddie when he called at 5a that evening.

margaret wrote:

Loveday wrote: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.

Yes and he has also put himself down as the last independant person to see Maddie when he called at 5a that evening.

And neither his nor Kate's statements about that visit correspond.

Loveday wrote:

margaret wrote:

Loveday wrote: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.

Yes and he has also put himself down as the last independant person to see Maddie when he called at 5a that evening.

And neither his nor Kate's statements about that visit correspond.

True! But l do love Kates Mills and Boon version.

I do wonder how much further Yvonne Martin has taken this though. I mean wherever she has seen him it wouldn't be too hard for her to find a photo of him in the media later on and show it to colleagues. If she recognised him then someone else might be able to. Or she could have described him. She can't have just recognised him as someone she's known in isolation. Other people must have too, whether as a colleague, witness, suspect, whatever. If something niggled me that much then I'd get on to people I work with or had worked with and ask them. I wonder if she's done this?

Yeah, Kate's statement re; that last fateful evening and Payne's are LUDICROUSLY different. I mean, during the roggies he didn't remember what Kate was wearing!!! A bath towel. Now if that didn't ring a few alarm bells at the Leicester nick then those coppers were useless.
I mean..really ?

Well Fiona said that she went to the apartment with Kate at 7.00approx..which, considering this would have been from social tennis which Kate didn't attend, makes it odd.

Apparently a 'husband' arrived just after but noone knows who's husband

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post77061.html#p77061

I examined once again the declarations of Fiona Payne. In her statements, she states that she went to the McCann apartment, around 19H00, on the 3rd of May, together with Kate. She states afterwards that, 10 minutes later, the husband arrived; it is not clear which husband she refers to.

Her responses to the questions are vague. She continued to respond to questions with "they conform with my earlier statement" or some similar statement.

In other words the afternoon 'timeline' was still in the process of being set up and Fiona hadn't been present to be given her 'lines'.

FP Rogatory
I don’t know who was playing who, but there was certainly Gerry, Matt, erm, you know, Russ and Dave, erm, and typically being men, it was all quite competitive and, erm, and far different to the women’s tennis. Erm,

Kate and the kids, I think, as I said earlier, weren’t there and, you know, they, as Gerry said, were just absolutely knackered and Kate was getting them bathed and ready for bed.

it wasn’t a surprise that they weren’t there. Erm, and I know Dave had said to me later, because he, erm, after tennis he’d said he’d checked on Kate and the kids before going to tennis”.
“How did that come into your conversation?”
Reply
“Because he was saying how angelic they all looked and he said to Kate when we all sat down at the Tapas table as well and he was sort of joking how they looked like perfect children, because they were all sat there, all clean in their pyjamas, having a story”.
1485
“Yeah. But when did he, specifically, when did he tell you?”

Reply
“I think it was when we were getting the kids ready for bed and we were back in our apartment”.

Fiona Payne early statement
They arrived there (beach) at around 3.45pm and came back around 6.15pm to go to the tennis courts where they stayed until 7pm.

.Then the interviewee went to her apartment with her children and her mother. In the apartment, her mother, helped by her husband, gave the children a bath while the interviewee went jogging on the beach until 8pm.

Then she returned to the apartment and did a few household chores and went out at around 8.45pm, accompanied by her mother and her husband to go to the "Tapas," restaurant to join the rest of the group. TheMcCann couple were amongst the members of the group at dinner.

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.

Good post.

This story comes across differently both from Kate's angle and YM's angle, but personally I have a dislike of people who, when off duty, show off their credentials and start telling how many years experience they have in this and that. Their help, when they are off duty, should be by a more gentle approach firstly and if/when invited to, then they can gradually seek information in a sensitive way but not in a way that interferes with the police operation and endanger it by way of compromising it. Of course an approach can be made, but nothing more. YM could, for example, have simply gone up to the family and said, without flashing her credentials, that she was in a position to help perhaps, that she works responsibly with children and families, without saying much more, and saying if you need any help at all I am here and please do not be afraid to ask me for help. It would still have given her a chance to survey the scene and the family/friends, but she should certainly not have started asking questions and showing off her credentials, as that comes across as supefluous somehow and can be intimidating under such delicate circumstances.

LJC wrote: but personally I have a dislike of people who, when off duty, show off their credentials. Their help, when they are off duty, should be by a more gentle approach

I take it then, you oppose off duty police officers making citizens arrests

duncanmac wrote:

LJC wrote: but personally I have a dislike of people who, when off duty, show off their credentials. Their help, when they are off duty, should be by a more gentle approach

I take it then, you oppose off duty police officers making citizens arrests

An off duty police officer is expected to make an arrest if they see someone breaking the law. It's part of the job. An off duty social worker would probably be expected to offer help if they think they could be of use to someone, but in their line of work they need to be careful not to be seen as intrusive. I'm sure Yvonne Martin really wanted to help Kate, but since the Kate we've been shown in her own book comes across as excessively touchy ('short and to the point' with Mrs Fenn, and a whole host of other examples) it really doesn't surprise me that she took YM's good intentions as interfering. I'm certainly not defending Kate when I say this, as I think most people would have been more than glad of YM's help, but the McCanns and their friends don't seem to be quite the same as most people, do they?

The McCanns asked the world for help, when they had some professional help right there on their doorstep they turned it away. No doubt in my mind what the reasons were for this.
If my daughter had gone missing, Yvonne Martin, with her level of experience could interfere as much as she liked as far as I am concerned.
Wasn`t the British ambassador who arrived from Portimao also interfering ?
Why was he not given short shrift ?
You cannot ask strangers for help, then discard them because they do not fit in with your agenda.

Well said duncanmac!

Wallflower wrote:Well said duncanmac!

SECONDED. The mccanns accepted when it suited then discarded when it suited

fred wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Well said duncanmac!

SECONDED. The mccanns accepted when it suited then discarded when it suited

They sent two very experienced police Family Liaison Officers packing.

AnnaEsse wrote:

fred wrote:

Wallflower wrote:Well said duncanmac!

SECONDED. The mccanns accepted when it suited then discarded when it suited

They sent two very experienced police Family Liaison Officers packing.

Yes Anna, Blair and/or Brown realised the Liaison Officers would probably conform to the law and gather evidence.... whereas Mitchell would simply push the needs of propaganda.

duncanmac wrote:

LJC wrote: but personally I have a dislike of people who, when off duty, show off their credentials. Their help, when they are off duty, should be by a more gentle approach

I take it then, you oppose off duty police officers making citizens arrests

No, I do not oppose someone being arrested whilst in the act of committing a crime. Neither would I oppose an off duty social worker intervening if he/she witnesses child abuse. In fact I myself would try to intervene if I witnessed a criminal act being committed. But all of that is different to an off duty social worker or off duty anyone else for that matter acting in an official manner and investigating, or trying to investigate, a scenario. The police officers and social workers that I know leave their warrant/ID cards at home when they go on holiday.

I was just thinking about Yvonne Martin again today. I've met good social workers and bad social workers.

The Good Social Workers will turn up to each and every care meeting and they would have read all the reports which have been sent in advance and they know what questions to ask with regard to what may be going on. People working alongside them can often feel under a lot of pressure because they know their duty of care, the law and act thoroughly in what the perceive to be the best interests (whether the best interests are agreed with is irrelevant) you can recognise these social workers as they are on top of their game. You may contact them by telephone or email and they will be in touch straight away and will have whatever paperwork you may require and will dispatch it in a prompt manner. For them their work is evidently a vocation.

The bad social workers just can not be bothered. They won't turn up to routine meetings and they will take ages to get back to anyone about anything. If they turn up to a meeting they are obviously dis-interested or don't know the person they are meant to be representing very well. You sometimes wonder why they bother to make the trip. Even if there is a crisis they will not respond in a prompt manner and will take ages to do anything. It is a job for them and it is about the 9-5 and minimsing any problems to get through the week in the easiest possible manner.

Thinking about Yvonne Martin I would suggest that she might fall into the category of a good social worker as one of the rubbish ones would certainly not interrupt their holiday! One of the rubbish ones certainly wouldn't. It is because of this and that she was a general busy-body (Even by Kate's opinion) that I believe that she would know her stuff, she will be privy to lots of information in the files which has to be kept confidential because most of the things written are often not proven in a court of law. However, they are all part of the evidence gathering process and are important to be kept for safeguarding. From reading files it is evident that the sex offenders which get charged in this country are distinctly in the minority however there is only so much that people in that area can reasonably do but it all adds to the picture.

Yvonne Martin broke confidentiality twice.
The initial time anonymously: I'm sure that she certainly knew where she knew David Payne from as she is quite evidently one of the 'good' social workers, who knows their job. However the police evidently did a search and it must have turned up no previous convictions or no previous entry's.
However this does not stop details about him potentially being logged elsewhere, in the social services files - and the social services if anything are good information gatherers!! She probably realised this and thought that by breaking confidentiality again and going public with who she was and where she potentially got this information from herself would be taken more seriously.

I'm therefore sure she did know where she knew him, (I'm sure DP realised how he knew her also!) the police now know where she knew him however this information is in a highly confidential file and the conversations are held off the record.
This is why I think they were attempting to discredit the 'good Samaritan' !

Did Yvonne Martin actually "go public" or just report her concerns to the police in the same way as Katherina Gaspar did?

gillyspot wrote:Did Yvonne Martin actually "go public" or just report her concerns to the police in the same way as Katherina Gaspar did?

I used the wrong language. I meant initial report anonymously, second contact she put her name to it and reported it to the police in the correct manner.

I would like to think that if a social worker had concerns about a friend of mine (or even me) that they would go forward to the police to get it cleared up as Yvonne Martin did. Kate McCann abuses her as she does mrs Fenn because she doesn't like what they have to say.

Which does make you wonder what the friendship is like between the McCanns and the Gaspars these days (noticing that Katey didn't mention Arul or Katherina in her bewk at all).