The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Mm11

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Regist10
The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Mm11

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Regist10

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Empty Re: Key Witness Statements - For Information Only

Post by Verdi 01.10.21 12:59

05-Cartas Rogatorias Vol V Pages 9 - 10
Statement by: Stephen Markley

Occupation: Police Officer

This statement (composed of 2 pages and signed by me) is true and in accordance with my understanding.

Date: 25th April 2008

I am police officer Markley of the Leicestershire Police currently working in the criminal unit.

In 2007 and in relation to the Portuguese investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, I was detached to Portugal in the role of family communication officer.

According to the Portuguese PJ Letter of Request, I was asked to respond to the following question:

Was there anything done or said by Kate or Gerry McCann in your presence or during your various meetings that could raise any suspicion that they had any knowledge about what could have happened to Madeleine, beyond the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators?

My reply to the question was: No.

However, in relation to the above, I would like to add the following: At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.

One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.

They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction.

This statement was made by me and is truthful in accordance with my understanding.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Forum Manager
Forum Manager

Posts : 31476
Activity : 38672
Likes received : 5918
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Empty Re: Key Witness Statements - For Information Only

Post by Verdi 21.02.22 15:37

Processo, Volume VIII, pages 1959-1964


Date: 2007/07/11; Time: 10:00; Location: DIC Portimão
Officer: Paulo F., Inspector.

Defence attorney: Dr. Francisco Pagarete
Credentials no.: 498F
Office: Rua Conselheiro Joaquim Machado

The constitution of defendant status and the formalities provided for in Articles 58 and 196 of the CPP have been met in this case.
He was warned that the lack of response or falsehood about his identity and criminal background does incur criminal liability.


Asked if he wanted to respond on the facts that are imputed against him, he responded:

---- Yes, he intends to continue to answer the questions that will be put to him.

---- Relating to the listing of phone numbers obtained from the agenda of his mobile, that was present yesterday with him, he remembers now that the numbers for Roger 447... and 447... are mobile phone numbers of two partners who buy and sell land with whom he is related professionally.

---- Asked he says that before the events under investigation in this inquiry he was in England for about a month, carrying out the reconstruction of the house that was previously his grandmothers and is now his mothers. He made this trip at the request of his mother, given that they had agreed that he would carry out the repair in exchange for his mother investing in Romigen.

---- The trip, as well as all the money used in reconstruction, were the costs of his mother.

---- While in England he basically associated with his relatives who reside near there, the sister, the brother-in-law, the nephews, as well as with his friend of long-standing M.R.C. (Checo) who also resides in the area (Exeter).

---- There the defendant lived in the house of his mother. During his stay in that place he continued to make contacts, via the Internet, with the future partners Jorge Sxxxx and Jason, as well as with Michaela.

---- Questioned he affirms that he does not remember for certain if he contacted in that way, or any other, Sergey Malinca, he being sure that that, in doing so, such messages or contacts with Sergey are kept on his computer given that he does not remember having deleted anything off the computer. The computer that he used in England is one of those that were subsequently seized during the search carried out at his home.

---- During the contacts that he made with the future partners it happened that the negotiations stalled. Therefore he decided to travel to Portugal to try to progress that matter because he believed that that could only be done personally.

---- He made the travel reservation to Portugal for 01 May. This reservation was made through the Internet, having used the site

---- Questioned he answered that the reservation was made exactly for 01 May, being sure that he did not anticipate/advance nor anticipate/advance such a reservation.

---- The night before the trip he slept in his brother-in-law Steve's home, where his sister and nephews also were.

---- He recalls that the flight that brought him from Exeter to Faro airport was in the morning, and it was his sister Samantha who drove him to the airport.

---- Questioned he affirms that during his stay in England he did not contact with any of the people who he later came to find here in Portugal, namely those who were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. He is not aware that any of his family has made any contacts or know any of those people, namely anyone close to the McCann couple.

---- Having been asked for the record if on the night that Madeleine disappeared he was in the Ocean Club helping in the searches and in contact with several people, about 23h30 to 24h00, the defendant replied categorically that he was not. He affirms that he was not on that night helping in searches given that, as he had stated he did not leave the house from 19h30 on 03 May until the morning of 04 May.

---- For the record, at 12:00 noon, this interrogation was interrupted in order to proceed with an interview of confrontation between the defendant and witnesses RACHEL MARIAMMA JEAN MAMPILLY, RUSSEL JAMES O'BRIEN, and FIONA ELAINE PAYNE, the competent document having been drawn up.

---- After that diligence and for the record, 12:40, this interrogation is interrupted to continue opportunely.

---- At 14:30 the present interview was restarted.

---- Questioned the defendant reaffirms that in truth on the afternoon of 03 May he arrived at Casa Liliana around 19:00/19:30 having left the VW stopped in front of the house, that is outside the property, immediately entering into the property. Questioned he does not remember the clothes he was wearing at the time. Nor does he remember if his mother was at home or not. Nor does he recall in detail what he did. He remembers that at one time he spoke with his mother, however he cannot recall whether she arrived meanwhile or she was already there. He remembers that they were sitting in the kitchen and the defendant remembering that he ate, how long with his mother he does not remember. Confronted with the testimony of his mother who told that she arrived at the house around 20.30 and that Robert had also arrived at that moment, he says that he cannot account for having arrived at the same time as his mother.

---- Questioned he says that when he heard the sound of a siren he was with his mother in the kitchen, still talking, it would be about 22:00/22:30, the time he estimates taking into account that they had the television on. Questioned he said not to recall if the sound was continuous or discontinuous. He remembers only that at that time there was the sound of voices from both their talk and the sound of television, not recalling other sounds in the background. He remembers well having heard that sound given that after it he commented to his mother that it seemed that he was in her house in England given that there he assiduously heard the sound of sirens. He was not aware of other noises namely raised voices or the dogs barking outside the property.

---- Questioned about if he considers it normal or abnormal the fact of not having made nor received calls on his mobile phone between 15:00 on 02 May until the night of 03 May he said that that fact seems normal to him since in that period of time he had been accompanied by Michaela she being the person with whom he usually speaks to on the phone. However, he states that he had assumed no purposeful position [given no thought to] that that fact had happened.

---- Questioned he states that he rented a grey Hyundai car on Saturday, 12 May, from the Auto Rent firm in Praia da Luz. He thinks that he picked up the car in the afternoon of that day. This car was returned by his mother on Tuesday 15th of that month. Basically he used the car in the area of Lagos and Portimão. He did not leave the Algarve with it. He does not remember how many kilometres he drove with the car, however he estimates about 100 to 200 at most. He informs having rented it because his mother was using the VW in the information table [she had set up] and the Skoda was in the workshop and he had no other means of transport. Confronted with the fact that there is information that that car had done 700 km during the rental period, he says this is not true. He denies having gone so many kilometres in that car, adding that to have more mileage than what he indicated that this will be an error of whoever read the mileage [odometer], the defendant was the only person to use the car.

---- Questioned he says that never in his life has he entered the apartment where Madeleine was when she disappeared, neither before nor after the events under investigation.

---- Questioned if he knows anyone who is the owner of a boat he said that his uncle has a boat stored in the back of his property but that is on land. Last year, when he worked in Remax, he sold an apartment to an English man that he knows is the owner of a boat, but does not know however where this boat would be, nor had he ever seen it. His relationship with this person was strictly professional. There is also a friend of Luis, the husband of Michaela, whom he thinks is called Steve and that he said that he has a boat. The defendant has never seen that boat nor does he even know if that is true or not. He has no contact with this person. Nelson Pxxxxxx, who is in his mobile phone address book, is the son of a man called Carlos Pxxxxxx who is the owner of a vessel that the defendant however never saw nor knows where it is.

---- Asked if on the day of the disappearance of Madeleine or in subsequent days he was in any marina or in any port, he said no, that he was not in any of those places on those days.
---- For the record, the defendant having been shown a photograph in which one can observe the defendant speaking with an individual on '25 de Abril' road, in Praia da Luz, he said that such person is one known to him, a resident of Praia da Luz, who knows Robert, and that he knows him to be of Romanian nationality. He met this individual on an occasion in which he, the Romanian, did some gardening work at Casa Liliana, which he thinks was contracted by his mother. The contact that happened when they were photographed was based on a request that the defendant [should be: the Romanian] made to Robert in the sense of him [RM] making a translation of an appeal in the Romanian language regarding the disappearance of Madeleine.
---- Asked about if at any time he had used used computers in the cyber café either in Praia da Luz or in other places he responded negatively, that is, he had never used computers in those locations. He affirms further that [n]either Michaela [n]or Sergey also [n]ever did so in the presence of the defendant.

---- For the record the defendant was asked if he has had conversations with any person, besides his lawyer, about the way he could prove his innocence, be it personally, be it by telephone, be it in café, or in any other place, conversations that could conflict with police techniques to prove the guilt or innocence of a person.

---- For the record the defence attorney requested some time to explain the question to the defendant and he was permitted a short break in order for them to converse.

---- Resuming the interrogation the defendant said yes he had spoken about this subject but he did so primarily with the family and with intimate friends. In particular he states that he remembers having spoken with Inspectors of the PJ on an occasion at his home when he asked them if they could, through the antennas of mobile phones, prove that he was at home at a given moment, to which they replied that it would be possible but that he should not be concerned about it because that matter was going to be handled. Questioned he responded that he thinks he had not asked anyone else.

---- For the record it being asked of him if he knows a British police officer by the name of Phill, he answered yes. It also being asked of him if he had not asked this British police officer about the method that British police had to locate a person in a particular place and at a particular time, he said yes. Asked if that conversation was had on a personal level [in person] or by phone he responded that it was personal [in person]. For the record the transcript of of the telephone intercept recorded on pages 1681 to 1690 being shown to him, he states for the record that effectively he continues to not recall having telephoned Phil nor having spoken with him on the phone, although he does recall a conversation that he had with this individual at the home of his aunt, perhaps in the bar, repeating it in the following manner: He had asked Phil if the Police could locate him in the house through the mobile phone to thus prove his innocence. Phill had replied that such would depend on the distance from the antennas [masts], namely their active radius. It being asked of the defendant if he had or had not asked [Phil] if he, the defendant, could be located to within a distance of one meter of the place where he was, he responded yes. It being looked for from him the reason for such a question when his home, without the adjacent land, is about 300 square meters not justifying, perhaps, that he had asked the question about the location of the defendant within a meter, unless the defendant had been elsewhere, he did not respond. It being asked of him for what reason he resorted to a British official given that he had already said previously he had good relations with the PJ and GNR, he said that when he asked officers of the PJ it was done to know if that technology was already in the possession of the Portuguese police.

---- He states not remembering if after that contact he had had any further [contact] on this matter with whomever that was.

Asked what he did after suspecting he was being followed by the police, he answered that he eventually wrote down the license plate number of a car and that PJ inspector Reis Santos told him that the PJ had no such vehicle. Asked, he said that he did talk about this situation with Michaela and other people, either in person or by telephone. After reading his testimony, the defendant wanted to clarify that he did not answer the question in lines 128 and 129 because his attorney advised him not to. The day after talking with Phill the defendant met him again at his aunt’s house and Phill told him that he could no longer speak to the defendant about this case for his superiors had told him not to.

Read and found it in agreement, ratifies and will sign.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Forum Manager
Forum Manager

Posts : 31476
Activity : 38672
Likes received : 5918
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Empty Re: Key Witness Statements - For Information Only

Post by Verdi 22.02.22 15:10

05-Processo, Volume V, pages 1298 -1304 (7 pages)

Witness Statement

Date 2007/05/15 Time: 17H50m Place: Praia da Luz
Officer: Santos Martins, Inspector.


She confirms being the mother of arguido Robert Murat, and is willing to make this statement.

--- She comes to the case as a witness.

--- The deponent is the mother of the arguido ROBERT MURAT and therefore was advised of the conditions of Art 134 and following of the CPP, she wished to make a statement to better clarify the facts and thus contribute to the discovery of the truth.

--- The deponent is English, having settled in Portugal for 40 years and therefore understands, reads and speaks Portuguese without difficulty.

--- Concerning the events, the deponent has to clarify that she knew [found out] about the disappearance of the English child called Madeleine on 4 May, Friday, that is the day following it happened.

--- She says further that it was her daughter, Samantha, residing in England in the city of Exeter, who telephoned her to give her the news because by the morning our news was already running in the press of that country.

--- She states that her daughter's phone number is 00441932****38 and her mobile is 0044781*****42.

--- Relative to her life in Portugal, she states that she came to live in this country in 1968/69.

--- She had contact with the Algarve in 1959/60 by virtue of her late husband having bought a small house in Burgau.

--- It was only later they decided to settle in Portugal the husband, John Murat, having started a property business.

--- Thus they maintained themselves during the time until 25 April 1974 which began a big crisis in the property business obliging her to start work in the Lagos Hospital, as a nurse (her original profession).

--- She is mother to three children, Richard (28), Samantha (36) and Robert born on 20 November 1973.

--- Robert, the same as the other children, was born in England, in London.

--- About one month old he came to Portugal to live with the family in Atalaia in Lagos.

--- The son Robert started his schooling in the Barlavento School (English school) where he did his primary education. Later he was enrolled in the International School where he continued to study for a further two years. Later on he enrolled in a public school in Lagos where he studied until he was 16 years old at which time he travelled to England to be with his maternal grandmother.

--- There he started to work in a firm that sold double-glazing. He worked also as a car salesman for 'Nissan'.

--- He was in England for more than 10 years, always in Norfolk. Furthermore it was in that city that he met the woman whom he later married.

--- In those 10 years he was in England, Robert came to Portugal several times, perhaps three time a year, roughly.

--- Asked, she says the is not certain on which date Robert was married but she knows that his wife in English and 10/12 years older than him and she knows only that her name is Dawn.

--- From this marriage came a daughter, Sophie or Sofia (she is not certain), who was currently four years old and who was born in October 2002, living with her mother in Norfolk [full address given].

--- Robert's wife already had a son, David, from a first marriage who was over 20 years old and who also went by the name Murat while his mother and Robert were married.

--- The marriage ended in 2003 though the deponent does not know if the divorce was ever finalised. She knows, moreover, that her son Robert maintains a good relationship with his ex-wife, with his daughter and with David.

--- [When] Robert travels to England he always stays in a house inherited by the deponent, which is being 'renovated' and which is in Sidmouth, Devon. Robert is dealing with that situation and she knows that when he is there his daughter will be found with him.

--- It is a semi-detached house, vacant since 2003 ((the date of death of the maternal grandmother), and is situated exactly at [address given], Sidmouth, Devon

--- Returning to the family history in Portugal, more or less in 1981, the witness and rest of the family, including the three children, left Atalaia and went to Almadena, more specifically to a property called Eiras Velhas. It was a property of just over two hectares, which included several houses in ruins. These were rebuilt and the property served as the family address until 2002, when it was sold.

--- During the almost 20 years that the witness lived in that property in Almadena, they used the house for rural tourism which consisted of renting rooms to tourists. She notes that that business was always legal, having a license for it.

--- Robert lived with the family for several years in that house and later, after opting to go to England, he was always accommodated in the family home when when he returned to Portugal.

--- In 2001, the witness sold the property in Almadena and bought the house where she lives now. It is 'Casa Liliana'.

--- Initially she came to live in "Casa Liliana" accompanied by a friend (they had a companion relationship after being widowed), who currently resides in France. Later came the mother of the witness who lived there until her death in 2003 at the age of 93 years.

--- The companion of the witness, currently in France, never had a close relationship with Robert nor with the witness'™ other children.

--- Still in 2003, Robert came to Portugal with his wife DAWN and daughter, who was a baby, and stayed for about two months. At that time they had the idea to settle here. However, his wife did not adapt because of the language and the fact of being away from family and friends. So, she finally left Robert and returned to England with her daughter.

--- Robert began to work in the business of real estate having been initially with "Remax" then with "Portuguese Homes," having returned later to "Remax". The failure of the employers to pay, or the difficulty in receiving his rightful commissions, led Robert to start a project, a property business through the Internet, teaming up with a friend called M1CHAELA.

--- The witness knows Michaela, knows she has a daughter who she knows only as "Titinha", who is about 8 or 9 years old, is a Portuguese national, and lives in Lagos. She knows that Michaela is still married to an individual named Louis and she is a Jehovah's Witness.

--- Asked, the deponent refers that she does not know if her son Robert maintains a relationship with Michaela it being certain that she never slept in her house.

--- Asked, she clarifies that she never knew of any loving relationship of her son beyond that with his wife Dawn. She asked her son never to bring anyone hone to 'sleep'. That is not to say that her son had had no relationships.

--- About the son Robert, she knows only of a health problem that resulted in the blindness in the right eye.

--- Maybe when he was about 9 years old, the witness noticed that he had a small disorder in his vision having taken him to several specialists. He was diagnosed with dislocation of a retina, of traumatic origin, that was not corrected after being operated on. It left the right eye unusable.

--- She also knows that he has an hereditary thyroid problem.

--- She does not know of any other physical, psychiatric or dysfunction problem.

--- Asked, the deponent says that she has the idea that her son had been hospitalised only once, specifically for the problem with his sight.

--- That said, when he was about ten years old, Robert had a small injury to his knee, of unknown origin, having led to surgery in the United Kingdom.

--- She does not know if that physical problem led to Robert being admitted.

--- The question asked, she says that to her knowledge, Robert takes only one medication on a regular (daily) basis, a drug called 'Letter" or "Levothyroxine", specifically for the thyroid problem which, as already said, is hereditary.

--- Relative to the facts concerning the disappearance of the English child, the deponent states that because she has been in Portugal for a long time and knows many people, she decided to mount a "post" to collect information in order to be able to determine things about the subject and thus could channel them to the competent authorities. For three days (Friday 11/05, Saturday 12/05 and Sunday 13/05) she was at the "post" mounted near to the cinema having obtained some information that she gave to Robert who, in turn, gave it to the Police.

--- Her idea was to try to sensitise people not to feel intimidated by the presence of police and lead them to give all the information that they knew.

--- Still relating to the facts which occurred on the evening of 03 May 2007, the deponent states that on that night she was at home with her son Robert. They followed their normal routine: About 19h50 she went to the "Batista" supermarket to buy bread. Then she went back to the house where she arrived more or less at the same time as Robert. Later they sat in the kitchen where they were talking for some time, having also eaten. She recalls that they were talking until close to midnight about Robert'™s project, related to the property and called 'Romigen.Com". Finally they went to their bedrooms to pass the night.

--- Asked, she explains that while they were talking in the kitchen, she is not able to say when, she recalls having heard a siren ringing at least once. Although not usual, she also did not "connect" because it could possibly have been an ambulance. (She recalls that sometimes, when the wind blows in a certain direction, it is possible to hear in the house sirens of police cars or ambulances that pass on the EN125).

--- Questioned, she says that during that night she also heard no noise or strange movements of people and also no one knocked on the door to ask or to request help to find the missing girl.

---Asked, she assures that her son Robert did not leave the house that night. Furthermore, she says that he usually gets up first. On that day she does not remember if that was what happened.

--- Asked, she explains that Robert travelled to England on March 20 and returned on May 01, 2007, at 09h40, she herself having gone to the airport in Faro to collect him.

- End -

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Forum Manager
Forum Manager

Posts : 31476
Activity : 38672
Likes received : 5918
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Empty Re: Key Witness Statements - For Information Only

Post by Verdi 07.03.22 15:57

Patricia Cameron Statement 15 April 2008
Leicestershire Police Force
Witness Statement

Statement from Patricia Cameron
Occupation : Nurse

Date 15th April 2008

I am Gerry McCanns oldest sister, he is the youngest of five children. I'm married to Sandy Cameron and we have an adult son.

Gerry is married to Kate Healy and they became a couple after a trip to New Zealand in 1997 and married in 1998. They have three children, Madeleine, to whom Sandy and I are godparents, and the twins Sean and Amelie. Kate was an obstetrician first before becoming an anaesthetist, Gerry accompanied Kate to New Zealand and they began their relationship there.

Initially Kate and Gerry lived in Glasgow, before Gerry was transferred to Leicester. We used to see each other regularly when they lived close here in Glasgow and I can confirm that we continued to see them more or less every two months after they moved. We are a very united family and where are always there for each other when necessary. Kate and Gerry went to live in Amsterdam with Madeleine before the birth of the twins. Madeleine adapted well, she went to a creche once a week as well as to swimming lessons. Kate was quite unwell during her pregnancy with the twins and many members of her family would take turns to go and help Kate and Madeleine.

I would often visit them with my mother, after my father died, and we would normally stay for a week, coinciding with visits to my son at university, Madeleine liked to come with us.

I remember hearing about Madeleines disappearance by phone on the night of 3rd May 2007. I usually go to bed late but I was particularly tired that night and went to bed early. I was woken by the phone ringing at about 23.30. It was Gerry telling me that Madeleine had been taken. He was very upset on the phone, it was the worst phone call I have had in my life. remember asking him for contacts of people in Portugal so that we could call them. Gerry was in no state to say much. I tried to remain calm for him, I suggested that he contact the British Embassy and I remember him telling me that he had spoken to the local police but they were not taking the situation seriously. I remember Gerry saying that they did not treat the matter with urgency and only stated that Madeleine must have left on her own and that she would be back later. It was so frustrating, Madeleine did not do things like that, she was not that kind of girl.

Gerry is normally very calm and serene, he has a logical perception of things, but he was hysterical ? he was shouting. He mentioned the possibility that that she could have been taken by a paedophile, I tried to calm him but there was nothing I could say to help him. I had never seen him so out of control. The pain and the anguish ? it was the worst scenario imaginable, the waiting was unbearable.

In total frustration, I contacted our local police to ask for help and advice but unfortunately they were not able to help us.
Sandy began to search for phone contacts on the computer and there were phone calls back and forth to Portugal and to the Embassy in Lisbon. I think Kate had called her aunt and uncle. I was left with the task of informing our family here. As my mother is quite vulnerable and fragile I decided to give her the news personally. That was one of the worst things I have ever had to do. We sat in her apartment feeling incredulous, wondering what to do next. I feel the necessity of contacting the media and called the BBC, gave an interview to a reporter and afterwards there were more reporters and more interviews. Sandy stayed at home to coordinate things. We tried desperately to get plane tickets. It was not possible to get a flight from Glasgow, the only solution was to fly from Manchester.

We went to Manchester and stayed at a friends house before catching the first flight of the morning, on Saturday 5th May 2007.

We arrived in Portugal on Saturday morning, where a friend lent us a car to use and we went to Praia da Luz. My first impression was that everything was busy, but there was also a surreal sensation of passivity. Kates mother and father were already there.
We stayed for 3 months, initially returning home for a few days in the middle of June in order to deal with financial affairs and work related subjects. We were there to offer our help and support, Sandy and I stayed in an apartment that also served as an office. Sandy dealt with the correspondence and I helped in the kitchen and with cleaning. In the afternoons we would go out with the children, I didnt think it was a good idea for them to be in the creche for the whole day, we tried to maintain a routine in order to give them a sense of normality.

Every day was the same as the previous one ? the same questions about whether there was any news, what developments had there been in the case, but we were there to provide support when necessary.
I remember that they had weekly meetings with a series of persons, the Portuguese treated Kate and Gerry cruelly. One minute they would help them and the next moment they turned on them, making them arguidos.

When we left in the middle of June we felt dreadful because we did not want to leave them, both Gerry and Sandy cried at the airport and I tried very hard to remain strong. Our only comfort was knowing that there were others travelling out to take our place and support Gerry and Kate. When we went back for the second time at the end of June to attend our sons graduation, it was even more difficult. I wanted them to come back so that they could get away from all the negativity and so that they could achieve some degree of normality and could feel the love and support of their family and friends, but they refused, wanting to stay where Madeleine had been seen for the last time in order to feel her closeness, it was heartbreaking.

Sandy found them a house outside of the Ocean Club to try to give them the stability that they needed.

Madeleine was a normal girl, she loved being Sean and Amelies older sister. Being the first daughter and due to the difficulties in conceiving her, she was very pampered by her parents. Madeleine is happy, very sure of herself, friendly, open and serene. Madeleine is much loved and desired by the whole family.

Madeleine began to play tennis, she had lessons in Syston. She was also learning to swim ? in fact she is a very good swimmer. Before she disappeared she was keen to start school. She a very intelligent little girl who loved to read books, who loved participating in activities with the family and who was learning to play cards.

Madeleine would never have gone off with anyone, she was not the kind of girl to disappear.

Madeleine generally slept well at night, although before the birth of the twins she used to get up and go to Kate and Gerrys bed. This situation led to a bonus point system being established if she stayed in her bed all night, although sometimes the twins would go to their parents? bedroom. The children would generally go to their parents bed because they were thirsty or wanted one of the parents, normally Kate. The children have a good routine, to which they have been accustomed since birth. The twins go to the creche two mornings per week and Madeleine would go to reading lessons as preparation for school.

This whole situation has been like living a nightmare, a horror film, it is difficult to live in this situation. It is difficult for me to believe it, one does not expect that our children would be taken or that someone robs a child from us.

The nightmare continues because Madeleine is still Messing and because of the fact that the arguidos status has not been lifted yet. The interest by the media is a difficult factor to bear, Kate and Gerry continue their campaign in the UK for the introduction of an alert system. They recently went to the States which meant that I came to stay with the twins. Normal life does not continue for them nor for any of us. I find it appalling that I was not heard nine months ago. None of us remember having been asked questions at that time. I know with all my heart that Kate and Gerry are completely innocent. For the, all of this situation is a torture. We request that their arguido status be removed so that the authorities can concentrate on their responsibilities in the disappearance of Madeleine.

The following statement was elaborated as a response to questions raised by me on behalf of Kate and Gerry.

As Gerrys oldest sister, I have spent much time with them and their children, and as I said earlier in this statement, the children have a good routine and there was no change in routine with respect to their bed time. The children go to bed at about 19.00 after dinner, playing, bathing, washing their faces and brushing their teeth.

Normally they listen to two or three stories before going to sleep.

The children are very active during the day, they get up very early at around six/seven in the morning and generally go to Kate and Gerry?s bed. Even at the weekend the children do not stay in bed for longer and do not sleep during the day. Madeleine, in particular, totally rejected the idea of sleeping during the day.

As far as I know the children did not wake up frequently at night, there could have been occasions when they went to see Kate and Gerry. It depends upon the time the children were with them or were sent back to their rooms.

With regard to medication, I only remember them being given 'Carpol' (sic) (paracetamol) to lower their temperature and certainly never to make them sleep ? never.

With regard to punishment, Kate and Gerry used the ?naughty corner? which gives the child the opportunity to think about his/her actions before saying sorry. I never saw any form of physical punishment by Kate or Gerry.

Kate always managed well with the 3 children, it is an exhausting work to have children, but Kate always kept them occupied with activities or invited other children to come and play.

Madeleine has never told me that she was unhappy. She was alert, happy, a normal child and much loved by many.

Gerry is a competitive man, when he was young he had to chose between athletics and football. He was organised, motivated and this has continued throughout his medical career. Gerry is ambitious but with his feet set on the ground, he will never forget his roots or where he came from.

Kate is stronger than Gerry in certain situations. Kate and Gerry have an equal for equal relationship and she does not hesitate to say what she is thinking. I suppose that Kate and Gerry form a very solid couple.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Forum Manager
Forum Manager

Posts : 31476
Activity : 38672
Likes received : 5918
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Empty Re: Key Witness Statements - For Information Only

Post by Verdi 08.03.22 16:03

DVD Rogatory Letters 3rd volume

Martin Grime

Dated May 14 2008

I am a retired police offer, previously at the service of the South Yorkshire police. Between August 1-8, 2007, and while working for the South Yorkshire police, I collaborated with the Judicial Police, Portugal, as regards their Operations Task Force.
On the 17th of August 2007, I completed a report for the Head of Investigations of the Judicial Police, which was submitted by the Leicestershire Police. This report is exhibited as MG/1 and identified by the label bearing my signature. The Judicial Police is in possession of the originals of the search reports and the videos showing all searches performed and the reaction of the dogs. In addition to the report, Sam Harkeness of the Progresso National Police Agency sent me by email several written questions sent by the Judicial Police together with a request for a written deposition. This deposition was submitted without me having seen or having knowledge of the final report from the forensic agency responsible for analyzing the evidence submitted in this case.

Questions and Answers:

'Could you explain the methodology regarding the performance of the dogs bearing in mind the searches that were performed''
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).

'Could you provide a detailed summary of the orientation capacity of the dogs, as well as an interpretation of the indications provided by them in the specific cases''
Please refer to my original report included in the summary (MG/1).
The interpretation of any alert is given when the dogs recognize a specific odour as a result of a response to the behaviour for which they were trained. This response must then be submitted to a forensic examination in order to draw conclusions.

'In order to establish the accuracy of the dogs' performance with respect to the alerts given when recognizing blood and a body, to what extent are these indications viable in this particular case''
The dogs' alerts are to be considered as an area of interest or possible testing. When specific and reliable this can only be measured for confirmation. In this case in particular, where the dogs alerted there was confirmation by positive results from the forensic examinations. It is the investigators' responsibility to apply the results of the forensic analysis to the suspects, witnesses and crime scenes.

'Based upon the dogs' behaviour, is it possible to distinguish between a strong signal and a weak signal'.
The dogs' passive CSI alert provides an indication as per their training and does not vary. They only give an alert when they are 'positive' that the target of the odour is present and immediately accessible. If they had any doubts they would not give an alert. EVRD gives an alert by means of a vocal bark. The variations in the vocal alert can be explained by many reasons such as 'thirst' or 'lack of air due to effort'. Every alert can be subject to interpretation, it has to be confirmed. The signals of an alert are only just that. Once the alert has been given by the dog, it is up to the investigator/forensic scientist to locate, identify and scientifically provide the evidence of DNA, etc.

'Can you confirm if the signal given regarding the stuffed toy corresponds to a concrete alert of detection of a cadaver, or a mere trick played by the dog''
The dogs were not taught any 'tricks'. EVRD 'signalled' the toy, which at my request was retained by the Judicial Police for future forensic analysis. I have no knowledge of the results of any forensic analysis on the toy.

'With respect to the cadaver odour on Kate's clothes, could it be undoubtedly affirmed that those clothes had been in contact with a cadaver'
Could the alert have been given because the clothes had been in contact with other items of clothing, surfaces or objects that could previously have touched a cadaver, thereby allowing the odour to be transferred''
There is always a possibility of contamination of odours by transferral. EVRD does not make a distinction; he responds with a certain behaviour for which he was trained when he recognizes an odour. He does not identify the reasons for the presence of the odour nor does he identify suspects. Forensic confirmation and specialized investigation methods will determine the reasons and the suspicions. In order to undoubtedly affirm there must be a confirmation of the alert signals made by the dog.

'The dog EVRD also alerts to blood from a live human being or only from a cadaver'
The dog EVRD is trained using whole and disintegrated material, blood, bone tissue, teeth, etc. and decomposed cross-contaminants. The dog will recognize all or parts of a human cadaver. He is not trained for 'live' human odours; no trained dog will recognize the smell of 'fresh blood'. They find, however, and give the alert for dried blood from a live human being.

'Taking into account the signals of CSI, could the dog alert to other biological fluids''
The dog that alerts to human blood is trained exclusively for this purpose, and includes its components, plasma, red cells, white cells and platelets. Given the nature of the training, the dog will not alert to urine, saliva, semen sweat, nasal secretion, vaginal secretion or human skin unless these are mixed with blood. The components of blood are approximately:
Red cells 40-50%
Plasma 55% (of which 95% is water)
White cells
DNA can only be removed from white cells.
This would suggest that, of the samples signalled by the dog looking for human blood, approximately 5% are available for DNA tests.

'Is there any chance, however remote, of any confusion'
The dogs do not get confused. They transmit a behavioural response inspired by the recognition of the odour for which they were trained.

'How long does a cadaver have to be in contact with a surface or an object for the odour to be detected''
Cross-contamination is immediate.

'How long can a trace of blood remain at a scene and be detected by the CSI dog''
During both training and operations, the CSI dog correctly located and signalled the presence of blood from 1960. This is not at all surprising. If enough blood is present so that the dog can recognize its odour, he will locate it and alert to its presence. There is no time restriction as regards the recognition of the odour by the dog. Blood, however, is subject to deterioration such as time and other natural processes such as dilution due to rain and other reactive chemical agents.

'Can the dog mix up traces of human odours with others that are non-human''
I cannot comment on what the dogs think. However, from a forensic point of view and from confirmations of scientific testimonies, the dogs appear to be extremely exact. But, forensic confirmation is required in all cases so as to be included as proof. The CSI dog is trained using only human blood. And using a wide spectrum of donors to ensure that the dog does not individualize them.
EVRD used to be trained using swine (pigs) as their odour is the closest to that of humans. But most of the time, however, the dog was trained using the odour of a human cadaver. Operationally, the dog has ignored large amounts of animal remains/bones when locating human decomposition.

'Based upon your experience with the dogs, can you specify whether the positive signals given by them have always matched the scientific results''
I cannot. In this case, for example, not all the alert signals have been investigated by the appropriate agencies in order to provide forensic comparations, in spite of indications to the contrary. It also should be taken into account that the procedures for forensic testing are still less discriminating than the system of dogs' smell.
During training, the dogs are barely rewarded for positive alert signals regarding targets of known substances.

'At any time, did Gerald McCann address, either in Portugal or the United Kingdom, the performance of the dogs in this case''
I never met nor spoken to Gerald McCann. However I do know that he addressed my head supervisor at the time, the South Yorkshire Head of Police, or Mr. Meredith Hughes.

This deposition was made by me and is true according to my understanding.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Forum Manager
Forum Manager

Posts : 31476
Activity : 38672
Likes received : 5918
Join date : 2015-02-02

ShiningInLuz likes this post

Back to top Go down

Key Witness Statements - For Information Only - Page 4 Empty Re: Key Witness Statements - For Information Only

Post by Verdi 13.06.22 13:13

04-Processo 4 Pages 949 to 955


Diane Webster 11 May 2007

That she came on holiday to Portugal with the group which included MADELEINE, this group composed of nine adults and eight children. As to the purpose of the individuals in the above mentioned group, she explains that they are united [together] in four couples (among them was her daughter FIONA and son-in-law DAVID), and their children.
- Concerning her relationship with the members of that group, adds that she would have no direct relationship with them as they are individuals close to the PAYNE couple.
- She thought the PAYNE couple started a relationship of friendship, insofar as her son-in-law, David, had attended the university together with RUSSELL, which will have been extended to two other couples (McCANN and O'BRIEN), because the members of those couples, except for RACHEL and JANE, were [also] practicing doctors.
- Asked, she states that it is the first time that she has been on holiday with that group, knowing, however, that some of those couples have already spent holidays together on other occasions.
- With regard to this trip she explains that she thought all details of the trip to Portugal were handled by her daughter, Fiona; together with her husband David, and aided by the tour operator "MARC WARNER, via Internet.
- She states that she came on holiday at the invitation of her daughter FIONA and son-in-law DAVID - Adding that she does not know the reasons why Portugal was chosen, nor why Praia da Luz and the "Ocean Garden Club" in particular.
- She states that she made her own reservation, only with regard to the plane, via Intemet, unlike the other members of the group, whose reservations had been made through the PAYNE couple. Asked, she explains that never before had she been in Portugal, being sure that the first time that she was here was this present holiday. That the whole group arrived in Portugal on April 28 and they have also been housed in the tourist resort buildings identified above, as initially planned. Because she was asked, she clarified that she had stayed in apartment 5H, together with the PAYNE family and their daughters (Lilly, two years, and Scarlett, one year).
- Prompted about the routine during the holiday period, she clarifies that she usually took breakfast in their apartment, since the Restaurant "MILLENNIUM" was quite removed from the building in which she was staying.
- Still, she explains, on May 2, the eve of disappearance of MADELEINE she had taken her breakfast in the restaurant "MILLENNIUM", since it was raining that day and she did not have an opportunity to partake of the morning sports.
She added that in the days preceding the disappearance of Madeleine, after breakfast she would play sport (especially tennis), after which she would go to the supermarket BATISTA to make the purchases for lunch. In return, she points out that several families who made up the group met in the PAYNE's apartment to have lunch together, explaining that this was due to the fact that it is the larger apartment.
- After lunch the children took a nap, usually staying in her care, since they [the adults] went with the PAYNEs to continue with, together, the leisure activities to which the holidays were dedicated. The purpose of those activities, it is clear, that it was usual to go to the beach, pool and practice several sports monitored by the resort. Also she went to the beach at times with the Paynes and the children when they were not at the Kids Club.
- In the late afternoon, from 16.45 to 17.30, the children had dinner at Restaurant "TAPAS", after which they were taken to the apartment to prepare for sleep, which usually occurred at 19:00. That said, the family PAYNE, the deponent included, prepared for the dinner that usually occurred around 20.45 in the restaurant "TAPAS." The question asked, she added that the restaurant always reserved the same table for the group at the only table that was capable of seating a group composed of nine people. Asked, she states that, although it is positioned in front of the balconies at the rear of the residential block, the angle of vision can not permit full control over possible access by people to the interior of ground-floor apartment patios that are there - especially since the restaurant is covered by a transparent oilcloth which hampers vision. Asked who has done the booking of the restaurant, says that it has been done by RACHEL, explaining that although the dinner is scheduled for 20:30, the group never gathered before 2OH45/21HOO due to successive delays of several couples.
- The question asked, regarding the fact that, possibly, on the first day it was RUSSELL who had made the reservation at the restaurant, she admits that as possible, although she cannot be sure which of the two (RACHEL or RUSSELL) would have done it. Prompted, she says that, from memory, the dinners usually ended around 23:00 the time at which they returned to their apartments where they slept. Concerning May 3, the date of the occurrence of the facts now under investigation, she states that she did the things she has generally described above being unaware of anything, nor having seen anything, that might relate to the disappearance of Madeleine.
- Prompted to report the events that had unfolded in period between 19H00 and 22H40 of that day, the deponent states that around 19:00 she had gone together with the Payne couple and their children to the apartment in order to prepare them for bed. Then, as usual, the adults prepared themselves for dinner. In this matter, she recalled that they had been late with these preparations because they only managed to get to Restaurant around 21.00.
- Asked, she adds that she went to the restaurant in the company of her daughter and son-in-law.
- Asked directly if someone had gone to her apartment to call them (herself and the PAYNE couple) for dinner the witness said no.
- Asked if there was the possibility of having crossed paths with someone during the journey between her apartment and restaurant, the witness said no.
- That night she judges to have arrived at the restaurant close to 21:00, in the company of the PAYNE couple.
- That, at that time, the whole group were at the restaurant. The witness did not recall, but thinks that perhaps Gerald and MATT had not been in the restaurant along with the other members of the group.
- In this regard, asked specifically whether, on the journey to the restaurant, if they had passed either of the two individuals described in the preceding paragraph, she answered categorically not.
- Questioned about the members who, during the dinner, had absented themselves from the restaurant, the witness says that, as she recalls, there were some people who left, failing to identify which, except for RUSSELL who had left the restaurant and taken a little more time than usual due to, from what she knows, his daughter had been sick.
- Asked, she states that it would be normal for one member of each of the couples to get up regularly in order to check in their apartments if the children were well. She clarifies that the practice was for each couple to check their own children, it not being usual for anyone to check the children of other couples.

- The question asked, she thinks that up to the date of the disappearance it had never happened that anyone had entered the apartment of another couple in order to check their offspring. Nevertheless, it seems that the couple PAYNE and the witness, did not make any trips to apartments, because they had an intercom called the "baby monitor", through which sounds or noises of the children could be heard.

- Prompted to state for the record the movements that occurred that night, during the above dinner, the witness reiterated that she could not say specifically who had left nor when they had done so.

- Therefore, she can only say with precision that, at 22.00 Kate McCann returned to the restaurant, seemingly in panic, communicating to others the fact that of Madeleine's disappearance. Asked about the reaction of other members of the group when they heard the above from KATE, the witness says that everyone, except the witness, left the restaurant and went to the apartment of the couple McCANN in order to find out what was going on.
In turn, as relates to her, the witness says she stayed at the restaurant for about five minutes, then, noting that the remaining members of the group had not returned, she followed in the direction of the apartment McCANN.

- In that apartment she found that KATE was completely in panic, in "state of shock ".
- Because she was asked, she states that she entered the apartment by the sliding glass door of the patio at the back, which gives access to the lounge. Then she went to the children's bedroom, noting that there she found KATE and the twin siblings of MADELEINE

- She added that she did not remember too much detail about the scenario that she found in that bedroom, other that what she said above. However, she states that KATE had repeatedly commented that, on arriving at the bedroom, she had found the
window of the room, with its shutter, both open. Yet, she [DW] did not notice, while at the entrance to the room, if the window was or was not open.
- However, she wants to stress that immediately afterwards, she went outside the apartment in order to ascertain whether she would be able to raise the shutters by hand from the outside, and found it was impossible for her. Consequently she infers that at the time of her arrival at the apartment the window would have been closed.

- Because she was asked, she says she does not know if the window, and the shutter, of the couple's bedroom were open or not, in that she did not enter that room.
- Prompted about the conditions of light inside the apartment at the time, the witness believes that they were good, judging that the lights were lit and she recalls no darkness. Regarding the bedroom previously occupied by Madeleine, she does not remember if the lights were lit, but knows that when she entered the twins were still sleeping in their beds, which makes her think that maybe those lights were switched off. She added that, for her to see the twins and their cradles, and the bed of MADELEINE, the darkness would not be complete, but that the room had some coming from the light of the lounge.

- She adds that that night, and after the occurrence of the facts under investigation, have been in the the apartment on two separate occasions. At the time described above she remained about 10 minutes in the apartment. After this time she returned to the restaurant to get her handbag as well as the camera of the couple McCANN and "baby monitor" of her daughter, and was soon back again in the apartment.

- The question being asked about the people that were inside the apartment of McCANN at that time, the witness said that the McCANN couple were present (although on the first occasion she had no recollection of having seen GERRY), and FIONA, not remembering any other people that were there. However, she admits the possibility of their being [others] inside the apartment, including David, in that, as mentioned above, all of them had gone to the apartment following the news that KATE had given.

- The question asked, she states to know that male members of the group undertook a search around [outside] the apartment to try to locate Madeleine, which was absolutely fruitless. The deponent states that FIONA had asked her to move to their daughters to make sure that everything would be well with them, hence the deponent will have returned to her apartment from which she did not leave.

- Asked, she states to be unaware of any type of problems affecting the family, professional, loving, etc., for any of the group members, either in our country or anywhere else in the world.

- She does not know if any of the group members knows anyone residing in Portugal, particularly in the Algarve, or anyone who has been here on holiday in the same period.

- Prompted she says that during these holidays all group members made their movements on foot, denying that any of them had rented cars or that they could possibly have driven cars of others, [nor that] they were occasionally available.

- She adds that none of the group members left the village of Praia da Luz.
- During that period, as far as she is aware, none of the group had formed any kind of acquaintance or relationship with other persons.

- Prompted, she explains that in all the dinners during the holidays only members of the group had participated, never having any strangers with them at the table that they usually occupied.

- Asked, she says that in the days leading up to the disappearance of MADELEINE, or at any other time, she neither saw nor found any abnormal situation that could by itself be interpreted as having any correlation with the facts of the investigation.

The secret of life is honesty and fair dealing. If you can fake that, you've got it made" - Groucho Marx
Forum Manager
Forum Manager

Posts : 31476
Activity : 38672
Likes received : 5918
Join date : 2015-02-02

Back to top Go down

Page 4 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

- Similar topics

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum