Important Official Documentation

16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4245
16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4246

able of Contents : Pages 4245 to 4246?"Email from Rachel and Matthew Oldfield 2008.04.30"

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 30th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gon?lves Paiva
Subject : FW : Witnesses' Questions

Ricardo
This is the reply from Rachael and Matthew. It implies that after Legal Advice is sought then Rachel and Matthew may be prepared to take part but are unable to do the dates the 15th to the 17th May 2008.
Give me a call
Stu

---------------Original Message------------------
From : Rachael Oldfield
Sent : 30th April 2008 11.03 am
To : Prior Stuart
Cc : Matthew Oldfield
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for the e-mail and your voice message yesterday evening. The tone of the reply from Portugal has changed and Matthew and I feel we need to take Legal Advice before making a commitment to return to Portugal.

In any event, it will now be impossible for us to make the 15th to 17th May.
We would be grateful if you could get other dates from the Portuguese when the reconstruction could take place.

We will speak to our Lawyer and come back to you in due course.

Please give me a call if you wish to discuss.

Kind regards,

Yours Sincerely,

Rachael and Matthew Oldfield


----------- On Wed, 30th April 2008, Prior Stuart, wrote :

From Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions
To : Rachael Oldfield
Date : Wednesday, 30th April, 2008 4.07 am

Dear Rachael and Matthew,
This is the response that I have received from Paulo Rebelo, the Officer leading the Portuguese Investigation, following the issues that you and your friends raised in relation to the proposed re-enactment and his earlier replies.

I will call you shortly to discuss this further,

Thanks

Stu

Page 4246 (Page 2 of 2)

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

In Portugal, the Criminal Investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any Criminal Inquiry lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.

In fact, according to Portuguese Law (article 132, Section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a Witness Summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the Authorities so that any action mentioned in the Summons may take place.

Following the messages sent by the wittnesses', I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the Investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses' to have been properly answered.

Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses' inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.

Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation,
Best regards
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC
4248 to 4250 Email from Fiona and David Payne re reconstruction 2008.04.30
16-Processo Vol 16....Page 4248 to 4250
16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4248
16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4249
16_VOLUME_XVIa_Page_4250

Table of Contents : Pages 4248 to 4250?"Email from Fiona and David Payne re reconstruction 2008.04.30"

Processo Vol 16....Page 4248 (Page 1 of 3)

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 30th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gon?lves Paiva
Subject : FW : Witnesses' Questions

Ricardo
This is the reply from Fiona, David and Dianne.
It implies that after Legal Advice is sought then Fiona, David and Dianne may be prepared to take part.
They make it clear that they are not refusing to take part.

Give me a call

Stu

( Note : in the part of the e-mail which says "it implies that etc", the original text referred to Rachael and Matthew may be prepared to take part. I presume that this was an error on Mr Prior's part, and have entered the names of Fiona, David and Dianne instead )

From : Fiona Webster ( fionaelainewebster@xxxxx.com )
Sent : 30th April 2008, 10.37 am
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your e-mail. We did get your message on my phone also.

Having read the attached letter, there appears to be a shift in the nature and the tone of the request for the re-enactment from something informal and friendly to a formal summons. We do not understand the laws that are being quoted and thus feel it is essential to seek legal advice.

We want to make it absolutely clear that we are NOT refusing to take part in this re-enactment.

Kind regards

Fiona and David Payne


-------------------Original Message----------------

From Prior Stuart
To : fiona webster
Sent : Tuesday, 29th April, 2008 7.04 pm
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Fiona, David and Dianne,

This is the response that I have received from paulo Rebelo, the Officer leading the Portuguese Investigation, following the issues that you and your friends raised in relation to the proposed re-enactment and his earlier

Page 4249 (Page 2 of 3)

replies.

I will call you shortly to discuss this further,

Thanks

Stu

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

In Portugal, the Criminal Investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any Criminal Inquiry lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.

In fact, according to Portuguese Law (article 132, Section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a Witness Summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the Authorities so that any action mentioned in the Summons may take place.

Following the messages sent by the witnesses', I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the Investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses' to have been properly answered.

Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses' inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.

Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation,

Best regards

Paulo Rebelo

CSIC
Page 4250 (Page 3 of 3)

Thank you for your cooperation.

Leicestershire Constabulary.

Table of Contents : Pages 4252 to 4254?"Email from Jes Wilkins re reconstruction 2008.04.30"


Processo Vol 16....Page 4252 (Page 1 of 3)

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 30th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gon?lves Paiva
Subject : FW : Witnesses' Questions

Ricardo
This is the reply from Jes.
It implies that if each of the other witnesses' are going to take part then Jes will consider his position as to whether he will attend or not.

Give me a call

Stu


From : Jes Wilkins ( Jes@xxxxxx.uk.com )
Sent : 30th April 2008 12.09 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Thanks for this and for your message.
I'm not sure what they mean by witnesses' being compelled to attend as my understanding is that I am under no obligation ?
My position remains the same really. As you mentioned in your message last night if everyone else is on board and I am the only outstanding person saying no I would be more likely to reconsider.
Feel free to call me if you wish to discuss it further.
Best
Jes

--------------------Original Message--------------------

From : Prior Stuart
Sent : 29th April, 2008 19.10
To : Jes Wilkins
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Jes,

This is the response that I have received from Paulo Rebelo, the Officer leading the Portuguese Investigation, following the issues that you and your friends raised in relation to the proposed re-enactment and his earlier replies.

I will call you shortly to discuss this further,

Thanks

Stu



Page 4253 (Page 2 of 3)

From : Paulo Fernando Gaspar Rebelo
Date : 29th April 2008 12.39 pm
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Witnesses' Questions

Dear Stuart,

In Portugal, the Criminal Investigation is conducted by the Policia Judiciaria, under the supervision of the Public Prosecutor's Office.
The competence to evaluate the interest and need for the performance of any Criminal Inquiry lies with these two entities, not with the witnesses.

In fact, according to Portuguese Law (article 132, Section 1, subsection a) of the Code of Criminal Procedure), whenever a Witness Summons is served, the witness is compelled to attend the Authorities so that any action mentioned in the Summons may take place.

Following the messages sent by the wittnesses', I hereby inform you that both the PJ and the Public Prosecutor responsible for the Investigation consider all the questions and doubts previously raised by the witnesses' to have been properly answered.

Therefore, in this context and in a clear way, could the witnesses' inform you, by noon tomorrow, if they will attend (or not attend) the re-enactment.

Thanks once again for your valuable cooperation,

Best regards

Paulo Rebelo

CSICPage 4254 (Page 3 of 3)

Thank you for your cooperation.

Leicestershire Constabulary.

NUIPC - 201/07.0GALGS
4th Brigade
Inspector Joao Carlos



To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation

With regard to the express mention in the Letter of request sent to the UK authorities, which requests that various of the witnesses pronounce themselves as regards to their availability to travel to Portugal with the aim of participating in a reconstruction of the events, different positions about the subject from these witnesses were received by Leicester Police.

These positions, reached after various requests for clarification from the witnesses in question, are contained in the messages that precede this note.

I submit these for your consideration.

CONCLUSION

Portimao 30th April 2008

Signed

Inspector
Joao Carlos

From The Public Prosecutor's Office
Portimao Circuit


Conclusion on 2-5-2008

The reconstruction of the events is an act foreseen in Portuguese Law (article no. 150 of the Penal Process Code, the transcription follows this communication and forms an integral part of it) consisting of the reproduction, as faithful as possible, of the conditions under which the events or supposed events took place and of its repetition.

The re-enactment has a very particular nature in the present process files as it aims to reconstruct events that occurred almost a year ago, aiming to achieve an approximation of the conditions that occurred and, on the other hand, not under estimating the inconvenience represented by the travelling of a group of citizens to Portugal, in spite of this representing a mark of solidarity amongst friends as well as a particularly painful and difficult situation amongst friends.

Although this is considered to be a very important diligence for the investigation, it will only take place if the witnesses indicated below are present, taking into account that the arguidos have already manifested their availability to participate in the reconstruction.

The objective is that all the participants (the arguidos Gerald McCann and Kate Healy, the witnesses who on 3rd May 2007 were dining in the Tapas Restaurant and would leave to check whether their children were sleeping in their respective apartments, as well as another witness who spoke to the aguido Gerald) repeat what they did that day, as faithfully as their memory allows them to, in order to check what was said in the statements in the process files, enabling conclusions to be made about how things took place at the scene and thereby make adjustments to enable the investigation evaluate the need for any additional procedure.

The reconstruction in which the persons referred to previously would participate, as well as incidentally any other protagonist whose presence may be necessary in order to visualise the events, would take place between 17.30 and 23.00 on the 15th, being the day destined for formalising all diligences, this being the date previously combined and of which all participants were informed, which is not susceptible to change given the circumstances of time and place in which this would occur.
The reconstruction would take place in the space of the Tapas restaurant, the apartments blocks where the events occurred and surrounding areas, done by the PJ with recourse to filming and with the collaboration of all police entities that the PJ summons for collaboration.

The notification of the arguidos Gerald and Kate will be done through their legal representatives and that of the witnesses, David Anthony Payne, Fiona Payne, Dianne Webster, Russel O' Brien, Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield, Rachel Mampilly and Jeremy Wilkins will be done through collaboration with the UK police upon request from the PJ, copy of this communication should be delivered regarding the reconstruction to each of the participants.

Please prepare accordingly.


Annex: transcription of article 150 of the CPP:


Of the Reconstruction of Events

Article 150

Presumptions and Proceedings

1. When it is necessary to determine if an event could have happened in a certain manner, it is admissible to proceed to its reconstruction. This consists of a reproduction, as faithful as possible, of the conditions in which the event was reported or supposedly occurred and of the repetition of the way in which this occurred.

2. The office that orders the reconstruction of events should have a succinct indication of its objective, the day, time and place in which the diligences would take place and the form of their effectiveness, eventually with recourse to audio-visual means. The same office can be designated as the evaluator for the execution of determined operations.

3. Publicity of the diligence should, as far as possible, be avoided.



Remitted to the process files and to Mmo JIC: as a result of communication dated 14-1-2008 (page 3835) the period for the inquiry began with the entry into force of the reform to the CPP, in other words on 15-9-2007, therefore this period is of 8 months as foreseen in article 276 no. 1 of the CPP, meanwhile the investigation continues with various other diligences, now with the compliance of the Letter of Request sent to the UK authorities and with the reconstruction that will take place this month, which renders unviable the presentation of the final archiving or accusation despatch. Lastly, but not less importantly the progress of the investigation inquiries demands that access to the process files be postponed for a period of 3 months, to be determined in the terms laid down in article 89 no. of the CPP.

From: Portimao Public Ministry
To: Rogerio Alves


Process 201-07 GALGS

Date: 05-05-2008


Subject: Despatch


You are notified, in your capacity as legal representative of the arguida Kate Marie Healy, of the terms for the following effects:

Of all the contents of despatch in the process files mentioned above, a copy of which is attached.

Mara Lucia Nascimento Duarte

From: Portimao Public Ministry
To: Rogerio Alves


Process 201-07 GALGS

Date: 05-05-2008


Subject: Despatch


You are notified, in your capacity as legal representative of the arguido Gerald Patrick McCann, of the terms for the following effects:

Of all the contents of despatch in the process files mentioned above, a copy of which is attached.

Mara Lucia Nascimento Duarte

The Public Prosecutor
Portimao Circuit

Conclusion on 8-5-2008

It was noted that the circumstance of the date designated for the reconstruction is not compatible with the formalities required for the notification of witnesses.

Therefore the days now designated are the 29th and 30th May 2008:

A: Notify the arguidos Gerald McCann and Kate Healy of this despatch in person, by means of their legal representatives.
B: Notify by means of registered express mail, the terms laid down in article 5 no.1 of the CONVENTION RELATING TO MUTUAL LEGAL ASSISTANCE IN PENAL MATTERS BETWEEN THE MEMBER STATES OF THE EUROPEAN UNION, signed in Brussels on 29th May 2000, the witnesses indicate as follows:

1. David Payne (DOB 14-04-66)
Fiona Payne (DOB 29-08-72)

2. Matthew Oldfield (DOB 04-01-69)
Rachel Mampilly (DOB 11-11-70)

3. Dianne Webster

4. Russell O'Brien
Jane Tanner

5. Jeremy Wilkins

C Also notify the witnesses that they can obtain information from the Portuguese authorities about their rights and obligations relating to the reconstruction (no. 4 of article 5 of the Convention mentioned before).

D. Notify the witnesses that the Portuguese authorities guarantee the payment of travel and accommodation costs for the reconstruction.

E. Remit an English translation of the previous despatch from the process files about the reconstruction with the changes required for the newly designated days

Processes Section
Process no. 201/07.0 GALGS

Date: 12 May 2008 [date on stamp signed by Justice Officer no 841347(signature unintelligible)]

To:
Excellency Public Ministry Magistrate
Portimao Public Ministry Services

Gerald Patrick McCann, arguido identified in the above mentioned process acts, has been today notified that the days 29 and 30 May 2008 were designated for the reconstruction of facts [translator note: events],

He requires to your Excellency the postponement of the said step [diligence], given the impossibility of his mandatory [representative] to attend on the designated days, since on 29th May he will be at the audience of the judgement (of an arguido subject to the obligation of remaining at his residence [in PT: T.I.R. - Termo de Identidade e Residencia]) of the process number 9872/06.4 TDLSB, which is happening at the 2nd Criminal Court of Oeiras District and, on the 30th May will be in the last session of the audience of the judgement of the process no. 1774/02.0 TAALM, which will happen at the 3rd Court of Criminal Competence of Almada's district, where the final allegations will take place. Adding that the above mentioned diligence, set for the 30th, was inclusively, subject of a postponement since it coincided with the date initially set for the reconstruction.

Therefore, given the impossibility of postponing the abovementioned audiences [trials] and due to the essentiality of the presence of the undersigned in the reconstruction of which he was now notified for the reconstruction of the facts and on the two above mentioned diligences [the trials], it is requested to your Excellency to start proceedings to set a new date for the making of the reconstruction. Thus, manifesting here the complete availability in the agenda for the days 5 and 6 of June and 19 and 20 of the same month.

sent: legal duplicates

Signature and official lawyer's order stamp

Carlos Pinto de Abreu

Conclusion 12-05-2008

Request made by Gerald McCann presented at 22H26 on 9-5-2008 by fax:

The days 29 and 30 May 2008 designated for the reconstruction, already represent an alteration that it was necessary to make with regard to the dates originally foreseen because of taking into account the approximation to the conditions in which the events occurred.

The this is added the fact that the type of action necessary for the reconstruction involves complex logistics in order to find a balance between the various interests and factors in play, given that the site where the reconstruction would take place is a tourist resort with much presence, namely of foreigners on holiday, having all the inconvenience that this would bring.

It is therefore not viable to proceed to the new alteration, unfortunately because of the balance mentioned above not being able to count with the interests referred by your illustrious self on the arguido Gerry McCann, however, in the hope a solution is found.

The requested change of date is therefore refused.

Table of Contents : Vol 16..(PDF page 170 )..Page 4301?"Letter from Rebelo to Stuart Prior 06.05.2008 (English)"

Vol 16 Page 4301 (Page 1 of 1)

Portimao, 6th May 2008

Caro Stuart :

Here we send you the Prosecutor's decision regarding the re-enactment.
We kindly request you to notify the witnesses, officially, and we also request the confirmation of the receptions by the witnesses.

Thank you again for your cooperation.
Best regards
(signed)
Paulo Rebelo
CSIC

P.S. At this moment, we have our e-mail system unavailable. As soon as possible, we'll send the notifications in that way, in Portuguese and English.

Table of Contents : Vol 16..(PDF pages 172-174)....Pages 4303 to 4305?"Legal details re reconstruction and Portuguese law (English)"

Vol 16 Page 4303 (Page 1 of 3)

Completed on 2nd May 2008.

=CLS=

The re-enactment of the fact is a procedure set forth in the Portuguese Law (Section 150 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, which is below given as part of this order) and consists of re-enacting, as accurately as possible, the
situation where an event is said or is supposed to have occurred, and it also consists of repeating the way it has happened.

The re-enactment has, in this inquiry, a rather particular nature, taking into account that it aims at re-enacting facts occurred about a year ago, by means of a proximity to the situation in which they occurred, and also being aware of the
inconvenience that a trip to Portugal might represent to a group of British Citizens, although knowing that it represents a milestone of solidarity among friends and towards friends who find themselves in a particularly painful and difficult situation.

It shall also be noted that, although this procedure is considered to be very important to the investigation, it will only take place if all the below mentioned witnesses are present, considering that the arguidos (formal suspects) have already shown they are available to participate in the re-enactment.

The purpose is to gather all the participants - the arguidos Gerald McCann and Kate Healy, the witnesses who were having dinner at the Tapas Restaurant on 3rd May 2007, and who took turns to check on their children who were sleeping in the
respective apartments, as well as another witness who spoke with the arguido Gerald-, who will perform what they did on the abovementioned date, as accurately as they recall, so that what is in their written statements can be confirmed. This will allow conclusions to be drawn on how things happened on site, thus making adjustments that will allow the investigation to determine the need for any supplemental procedure.


Page 4304 (Page 2 of 3)

The re-enactment that shall have the participation of the abovementioned group of people, as well as of any character whose figurative presence might be necessary to the visualization of the events, shall take place on 15th May, between 5.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. On 16th May all the procedure shall be formalized, according to what had already been settled for this date and considering that all the participants meant to be present have already been informed accordingly. This cannot be subject to any change due to the time and place where the procedure shall take place.

The re-enactment will be performed at the space of the abovementioned Restaurant, Block of Apartments where the facts occurred on that date, and in the surrounding area, and it will be carried out by the Policia Judiciaria, with the respective video recording and with the cooperation of the Police Authorities required by the PJ.

The arguidos Gerald and Kate shall be notified through their Legal Representatives. The notification of the witnesses David Anthony Payne, Fiona Elaine Payne, Dianne Webster, Russell James O'Brien, Jane Michelle Tanner, Matthew David Oldfield, Rachael Mariamma Jean Manpilly and Jeremy Wilkins shall be made with the cooperation of the British Police, at Policia Judiciaria's request.

Each notified person shall receive a copy of this Order - concerning the re-enactment.
Proceed accordingly.

APPENDIX - Copy of Section 150 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure

Of the re-enactment of events

Section 150

Assumptions and Procedure

1- A re-enactment of events is admissible whenever deemed necessary to ascertain whether a fact could have occurred in a determined way. This consists of reproducing,



Page 4305 (Page 3 of 3)

as accurately as possible, the situation in which the fact is said to have occurred or is supposed to have occurred, as well as of repeating the way it has happened.

2- The Order requring the re-enactment of the fact shall bear a short indication as to it's object, date, time and place where the procedure shall take place as well as to the way it will be carried out, eventually using audiovisual means. The same Order shall appoint experts to carry out specific operations.

3- Publicity of the proceedings shall be avoided as much as possible.

Email from J. Tanner to Stuart Prior
Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf)
Vol XVI p. 4310
08 May 2008 10:05

(Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P179,180)

Dear Stuart,

Thanks for your call last night.

I spoke with Rachel last night who is chasing Brian Spiro for a response to our legal queries. We are hoping to have that today.
Until then we cannot give a definitive answer. However I believe Matt and Rachael cannot do that date, so it may be immaterial anyway!

I would just like like to reiterate what I said last night, in that it is so sad we have to consider so many peripheral issues rather than just doing everything we can do to help find Madeleine.
Thanks and regards.
Jane

Email from Rachael Oldfield to Stuart Prior

10 May 2008 10:14

(Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P181,182)
Vol XVI p. 4312

Dear Stuart,

Further to our recent emails, Matthew and I have made the decision not to return to Portugal for the proposed re-enactment on 15th/16th May 2008.

We will respond to the formal notification when we receive it as well.

If you need anything further from us, please do not hesitate to give me a call.
Kind regards.
Rachael Oldfield

Email from Russell O'Brien to Stuart Prior 10 May 2008 14:56

(Processo/16 - VOLUME XVIa.pdf P183,184,185)
Vol. XVI p. 4314

Dear Stuart.

Apologies for the late reply.

We gather now that at least Jez Wilkins, Matt and Rach and Dave/Fi are not going/able to make the re-enactment. Given the prosecutor's requirement for all to be in attendance or none at all, and the absolute nature of the planned date, the decision appears to be academic ...

I hope you are well.

Best wishes,

Russell & Jane

Email from Fiona Webster to Stuart Prior
12 May 2008 12:32
----------

Table of Contents : Processo Vol 16..(PDF page 186-187)...Pages 4317-4318..."4317-Further email from Fiona and David (English)"

Processo Vol 16 Page 4317 (Page 1 of 2)

Ricardo Manuel Goncalves Paiva

From : Prior Stuart
Date : 12th May 2008 12:58
To : Ricardo Manuel Goncalves Paiva
Cc : Graham Michael : Walters Jane
Subject : FW : Portugal Re-enactment

Ricardo
and another one
Stu

Stu Prior
Detective Superintendent
Leicestershire Constabulary

(The above is referring to the added e-mail from Fiona Webster which follows)

From : fiona webster ( fionaelaine webster@xxxxx.com)
Sent : 12th May 2008, 12.32
To : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re : Portugal Re-enactment.

Dear Stuart

We have now had time to consider the advice received from our legal team. Taking into account the advice given along with our many concerns previously mentioned to you; we feel we are unable to participate in the propoed (sic) re-enactment in Portugal.

Kind regards

Fiona and David Payne, and Diane Webster

From : Prior Stuart ( Stuart.Prior@Leicestershire.pnn.police.uk )
To : fiona webster ( fionaelainewebster@xxxxx.com
Sent : Wednesday, 7th May, 2008, 5.52 p.m.
Subject : Portugal Re-enactment

Dear Fiona, David and Dianne,



Processo Vol 16 Page 4318 (Page 2 of 2)

I have received the attached document from Portugal concerning the request for you to attend the proposed re-enactment on the 15th and the 16th May, 2008. I would like to confirm that this e-mail should not be considered the service of the formal notification, but due to the short time scales involved is a notification to enable you to consider it's contents. The document will be formally sent to you by the Portuguese.

The request outlines the reasons for the process and the Legal justification as is appropriate for persons residing in Portugal.

After you have considered this e-mail, they have requested that if possible you confirm via e-mail to myself, whether you will be attending or not to assist with their planning of the event. I guess this will be after you have consulted your Legal team. I have already relayed your previous responses to the Portuguese and explained that you would get back to me after taking Legal Advice.

They again confirm that if any of the witnesses do not wish to attend then the re-enactment will not go ahead, but I also appreciate that Rachael and Matthew have indicated a difficulty with the 15th and the 16th May, 2008.

Likewise I have been advised by the Portuguese that they have no Legal Powers to order you to attend and there will be no penalty if you do not do so.

Please do not hesitate to contact me if you wish to discuss this further.

Stu

Stu Prior
Detective Superintendent
Crime Support Department
Leicestershire Constabulary

From : Stuart Prior

Sent: Friday, 23rd May 2008

To: Ricardo Paiva

Subject: FW Re-enactment Dates


Ricardo,

This is the second reply I have received, just waiting for the final two.
Russell asks if the below e-mail is all that is required or do the O'Briens need to do anything further in response to the letter.
Will let you know when the Paynes respond.
Stu.


From: Russell O'Brien
Sent: 23rd May 2008
To: Prior Stuart
Subject: RE: Re-enactment Dates


Dear Stuart,


We gather that Rachel has already contacted you saying they won't be returning for any re-enactment. Once again, it seems an academic matter if there is not going to be 100% attendance.

Furthermore, we think it is hard to imagine a productive return to Portugal whilst Kate and Gerry remain arguidos. Secondly, the Prosecutor astonishingly referring to them as 'offenders' in their letter implies they are already considered to be guilty, and will be treated as such by the police and press. Furthermore the leaking of the date even before your email completely contradicts the letter's pretence to secrecy for the re-enactment.

It was not entirely clear from the letter who to reply to,. Judging from your email below, is this correspondence to you sufficient?

Best wishes

Russell and Jane

From: Prior Stuart
Sent 15th May 2008
To: Russell O'Brien

Subject: Re-enactment Dates


Dear Jane and Russell,

Just for your information I have been informed today that the prosecutor in Portugal has amended the dates for the proposed re-enactment to the 29th and 30th May 2008.

This new date will be within the written notification that has been sent to you from the Portuguese prosecutor's office.

When you have decided how you will respond to this further notification could I ask that you notify myself.

If you wish to discuss this matter further do not hesitate to contact me.

Regards,

Stu

Prosecutor of the Republic
Portimao Circuit
CONCLUSION on 26-5-2008

As referred to by the despatch that ordered the Reconstruction, in spite of this being considered a very important diligence for the investigation, it would only take place if the witnesses who were notified were present as well as the arguidos who had expressed their availability to participate. The witnesses Russell O'Brien, Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and Rachel Mampilly have informed the process that they will not attend, therefore the reconstruction has no sense.

The notification of the arguidos Gerald and Kate was done by means of their legal representatives and notification of the witnesses David Payne, Fiona Payne, Dianne Webster, Russell O'Brien, Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield, Rachel Mampilly and Jeremy Wilkins was done with the collaboration of the UK police upon the request of the PJ.

Taking into account that the PJ is available to begin to translate the Letter or request, but also having a large quantity of documents to translate, and as part of the Letter of Request has already been delivered for translation, the statements of Amanda Coxon, Michael Wright, Linda McQueen, Justine McGuinness, Peter Patterson, Michelle Thompson, Emma Knights, Kenneth Walden, Carole Tranmer and Nicky remain to be translated.

Paynes re: non-attendance at reconstruction"

Vol 17 Page 4419 (Page 1 of 1)

Fiona and David Payne
xx Knxxxxxx Chxxxx Roxx
Leicester
UK
LEx 3xx
Servicos do Ministerio Publico de Portimao
Av Miguel Bombarda
Palacio da Justica
2 Piso
8501-960 Portimao

22nd May 2008

Dear Maria Luisa,

We are in receipt of your letter dated 9th May 2008 Ref 3951281

Following great consideration, we regret to inform you that we do not wish to attend the proposed re-enactment in Portugal.

Kind Regards

Yours sincerely

Fiona and David Payne

Public Ministry of Portimao
Case Section
Case 201/07 GALGS


Dear Sir
Public prosecutor


Kate Marie Healy arguida in the case referred to above, having been notified (page 3947) expresses her availability to participate in the reconstruction of the events on the second of the dates suggested, in other words on the 15 and 16th of next May. Her husband, Gerry McCann has also already expressed his availability.

Rogerio Alves
Lawyer

Thanks for all that ^^^ Verdi.

All those lovely polite letters requesting K&G and the tapas lot attend a re-enactment.

Stuart Prior and Graham Michael politely asking them to attend, only for them to lay out conditions.

All came to nothing.

They must have been peeing themselves over these requests. What vile people they are. Proof of their 'pact'. for the world to see.

Kate and Gerry when taking Amaral to court over his book stated it was hindering the investigation into what happened to Madeleine . 


Yet their friends refusal to return for a reconstruction was accepted , so not a hindrance to the investigation ? 

Speaks volumes doesn't it ! 

Leave no stone unturned ? Poor Madeleine .

We know who the 'f...... t.....s' are.

Intercalary Report by Inspector Joao Carlos - 31st January 2008

Intercalary Information

With the aim of comprehending and linking the circumstantialities found in the process files in a better way, this intercalary report was elaborated.

The case refers to the disappearance of an English girl, Madeleine Beth McCann, the daughter of Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, who would have been 4 years old on 12th May 2007.

With regard to place and time, the events occurred on 3rd May 2007 during the time period, according to witnesses, between 21.05 and 22.00 at the Ocean Club resort, in Luz, Lagos, where the girl's family, together with seven other people, who were friends of theirs, were spending their holiday.

The group's arrival in Portugal, via Faro airport, took place on 28th April, arriving from the UK. They travelled in two different groups, given that they live in different areas of the country. The journey from the airport to the resort in Luz was made in a small vehicle provided by the Mark Warner company which was responsible for the management of the resort.

During check in they were allocated different apartments, all of them in block G5, close to each other and this had been an imposition or at least a suggestion made by the whole group.

The McCann family occupied apartment G5A, located at the left corner of the residential block, which can be said to be the most accessible apartment and with visibility from the outside.

This was a group that was in certain way homogenous, given that seven of the members were doctors, trained in various specialities, added to which they all had young children with them. The McCann family consisted of the parents as well as Madeleine and the twins, Sean and Amelie, aged two years old.

This holiday trip was organised by the Payne family, namely by David Payne who had previous experience of Mark Warner tourist resorts.

This group shared, concomitantly, a friendship that dated from before the holiday, based upon professional relations and other leisure trips.

With regard to the disappearance, the intervention of this police force occurred at about 00.10, by means of a communication received from the Lagos GNR, informing of the disappearance of a girl, which led to the immediate departure of the police to the scene (folios 2 and ss). Jointly with various diligences carried out to establish the facts, a photographic report was made of the scene (folios 12 to 23) as well as the diffusion of the disappearances, with photographs and a description of the girl, both to the authorities and to the press, after authorisation from the Public Ministry (folios 32 - 33B and 459).

During this night and the during the early morning intensive searches were carried out by this police force, GNR officers equipped with sniffer dogs and by local people organised in groups and employees of the resort. These searches were extended over the following days over a radius of 15 km2 by GNR officers and tracker dogs, locals, marines (folio 821 marine control Portimao), civil protection officers, the use of a helicopter as is documented in the report on folios ''' (sic) In spite of titanic efforts, time and methods used, the search for the girl was fruitless.

As the investigation was oriented in two initial objectives, the location of Madeleine and the discovery of the truth of the facts, we proceeded to the questioning of the parents and the whole group of friends (folio 34) as follows:

Gerald Patrick McCann - Apartment 5A
Kate Marie Healy - Apartment 5A
David Anthony Payne - Apartment 5H (1st floor)
Fiona Elaine Payne - Apartment 5H
Dianne Webster - Apartment 5H
Russell James O'Brien Apartment 5D
Jane Michelle Tanner - Apartment 5D
Matthew David Oldfield - Apartment 5B
Rachel Mariamma Jean Mampilly - Apartment 5B

In synopsis, from the witness accounts obtained, it is important to emphasise the statements of Gerald and Kate as well as those of Jane Tanner and Matthew Oldfield.

With regard to the former, their daily routine was marked by normality, nothing strange or of any relevance was detected during the days before the disappearance. After leaving the children at the cr'he, the twins near to the Tapas restaurant (inside the resort) and Madeleine at the main reception, they dedicated themselves to ludical and sporting activities.

With the exception of the first day, all day time meals were taken in the apartment.

At night the group would dine in the Tapas restaurant, leaving the children asleep in their respective bedrooms, without an effective control, although the Payne family had baby monitors.

The children's supper, described as high tea, took place as a group, regardless of age, at a recreation area next to the Tapas restaurant between 17.30 and 18.00. Once this meal was over, they were taken to the apartments, where they were bathed and prepared for bed, at about 19.30.

On 3rd May, the daily routine was followed as normal, the McCanns returned to the apartment at about 17.30/18.00 accompanied by their children. After this time and until 19.00, they bathed the children, fed them again, giving them light products, they played a bit and then went to bed, the parents stating that the three of them were asleep at 19.30. Gerald remained at the tennis courts until about 19.00.

The parents then consumed some drinks and got ready for dinner, leaving at about 20.30 in the direction of the Tapas restaurant (a journey on foot of a little more than one minute). Upon leaving, as usual, they left by the patio doors, which could not be locked from the outside and which was just pushed to, the reason being that it was the shortest route to go to the restaurant and for consequent return, whether to check on the children or for definite return. The checking of the children by that route was a daily practice and which seems to us to have been carried out daily, carried out at half hourly intervals, although as the case files show, in truth these were extended to periods that were superior to one hour.

The McCann couple was the first to arrive at the restaurant table and engaged in a casual conversation with a couple who were not part of the group, but who were also British, whose surname was Carpenter. As time passed, all of the other members of the group arrived.

At about 21.00 Matthew and Russell went to check on the children, having first listened outside the window of Madeleine's bedroom, located at the front of the residential block on the ground floor. Upon his return, Matthew did not report having noticed anything unusual. Russell stayed in the apartment as his daughter was ill.

At 21.05, given that Matthew's check did not involve him entering, Gerald went to the apartment. He left through the second reception area, headed up the road for twenty, thirty metre and entered through the metal gate, next to the bedroom, which leads to the garden/patio. He entered the apartment through the sliding patio door, which according to what was mentioned earlier, was not locked. He walked through the living room and headed for the children's bedroom, noticing that the bedroom door was wider open than normal, as it was normally left pushed to. He presumed that Madeleine had got up for some physiological need. He entered the bedroom and saw his three children sleeping calmly. He went to the WC and left by the same means. Upon coming out of the gate he met Jeremy Wilkins, known to him from tennis practice, also British, who was pushing his son in a push chair and who was also on holiday at the OC. He conversed with him for a few instants and returned to the Tapas restaurant at about 21.15.

At about 21.10 Jane Tanner, Russell's wife, given his absence went to check on the state of her daughter. She left by the reception and went up the road that runs along the entrance to the block. She was not seen either by Gerald or Jeremy although she did see them, she saw Gerald from the side, however Wilkins was facing the place that Tanner passed.

At the exact moment that she passed them, she perceived, at the top of the street, an individual on foot who was carrying a prostrate child, barefoot and in pyjamas, heading in the opposite direction to the entrance to the apartments. She thought it was a father carrying his child.

She only told of this situation sometime after the discovery of the disappearance and made the association, saying it was Madeleine, as the pyjamas were identical. A photo fit was made without facial features, the description and clothes of the individual were also spread by the media, to see if anyone could clarify what was happening there (folio 1592) ' no response was obtained.


Coming back to the narrative, at about 21.35, half an hour having passed, Kate decided to go and check on the children, but Matthew volunteered to this as he was also going to his own apartment to do the same. He took the normal route and entered by the patio door of the McCann's apartment which was open. When he was in the middle of the living room, which had a slight light, he saw the twins in their respective cots, given that the door was ajar, however he did not enter the bedroom and therefore could not confirm whether Madeleine was sleeping in her bed.

Upon his return he said that everything was fine. When he was questioned at police HQ he added that the children's bedroom had more light than would be probable if the windows were closed and the lights off. He cannot clarify the state of the window nor the existing luminosity.

Half an hour later (22.00) according to their reports, Kate went to the apartment to check on the children. She entered by the patio door which she closed upon entering and she saw that the door to the children's bedroom was open wider than the way she had left it when she went to dinner. Upon closing the bedroom door, she felt a current of air which led her to observe the bedroom with greater care and this is when she noticed that her daughter Madeleine was missing. The bedroom window was wide open as were the curtains. The bed was practically intact, her daughter's soft toy was at the head of the bed.

In a state of alert and with waves of panic, she searched the entire apartment, not managing to find the girl, which led her to go, in an upset state, to the Tapas restaurant, saying that her daughter had been taken. Clear allusion to an abduction, justified by the fact that the window was open, they said. During this time, the twins were in the bedroom, alone and sleeping. Furthermore, they never woke up during this night, in spite of all the commotion.

Informed about the disappearance, the whole group went to the McCann's apartment, accompanied by OC employees, who searched the apartment and the adjacent area several times, without results. The call to the GNR took place at 22.41, according to the list in folio 3051.

With the arrival of the GNR, the officers of that force again searched the whole apartment including the electro domestic appliances, no useful results were found inside or outside the apartment. On that night the commander of the Lagos GNR received, supposedly from Gerald, four photographs of the girl, folio 2294, poster type, 10 x 15, in two different poses, identical to folio 30, their printing/developing must have been done at a moment before the events.

Diligences were carried out to establish the origin of these images, folios 2295 and 2296.

After 00.00 a team from this police force arrived at the scene and immediately began diligencies, namely fingerprint inspection which only revealed the collection of prints from people who had legitimate access to the apartment. The bedroom was also examined by Scientific Police Laboratory, which collected numerous vestiges for continuous examinations, which up until now have not contributed to a full clarification of the facts.

During the course of the collection of elements, on the next day a mobile GNR post was placed in front of the residential block with the aim of receiving/treating and channelling information related to the disappearance, all investigated by this police force in a methodical and strict manner, some were added to the inquiry, others were placed in annexes so that it was possible to visualise what was done.

Apart from the information collected by the mobile post, hundreds of other pieces of information from civil society and from the authorities were received by email or telephone and were treated in the same manner.

None of this information to date had attained the required result of locating the girl and clarifying the facts under investigation.

The British media were alerted to the disappearance, on the night of 3rd May, Sky news opened its news report at 07.00 on 4th May with news about this case. A huge media presence without precedence was mobilised, accompanying all the police work, speculating and imagining scenarios, some of them possible, some of them fantasy.

Given this introspective picture, we can be sure that as well as the abduction situation, all other possibilities were open, as they are now.

This thesis - abduction - was exhaustively investigated, all information leading to this in every sense, was examined. No ransom was ever demanded.

We clarified two situations, with the valuable help of the Dutch and Spanish authorities which led to the detention of three persons who were trying to extort money from the family in exchange for false information about the girl and who were proven to be fraudulent. These facts can be found in two Apenso volumes annexed to the files.

We proceeded to question all the OC employees, folios 848 and 856 whose statements did not reveal anything of any relevance in spite of the parsimonious attention used.

We carried out diligencies in 443 rooms in P da L, folio 198, nothing useful was found.

For the rest, we heard witness accounts relating to incidents with children, which were not possible to link to Madeleine, in particular the case of a Polish couple who were on holiday in Portugal and who were seen taking photographs of a girl who looked like Madeleine. But once again nothing of relevance was found with relation to them as can be seen in folios 213 to 216.

Photo fits were elaborated based on the indications of witnesses who reported situations that they characterised as being 'strange', most concretely of individuals who were seen in the proximity of the apartment during the day, but again, nothing that could be related to Madeleine.

Particular attention was paid to individuals connected to the criminal underworld, those connected to crimes against children, diligences, which to date have not enabled the collection of any relevant data.

In order to perceive the Babel of information, we can say that some of the incidences about the disappearance, in particular with relation to sightings, placed the girl at the same time and date in different locations in our country (folios 524 and ss) as well as in places around the world separated by thousands of kilometres, from Japan to the States, passing through Indonesia, Singapore and the African continent. As regards the latter, a sighting was transmitted from Morocco, near to Marrakesh, at a petrol station, by a Norwegian woman. In spite of efforts the images were never obtained, therefore it was partially dismissed.

We has reports of sightings in public transport and on motorways all over Europe, in some of these cases it was possible to confirm that these were girls accompanied by their parents and in some cases, girls with physical similarities.

The images from petrol stations along the main roads of the Algarve were seen, the result was negative, Gerald and Kate were shown stills from these images, such as those in folios 129 ' 133, showing a similar looking girl but who did not correspond to the missing girl.

At a determined moment, and because as is known in these cases, it is necessary to have a perfect knowledge of the scene, in order to facilitate procedures and plan actions duly, suspicions fell on an individual who lived metres away from apartment 5 A, Robert Queriol Murat. The suspicions referred to are found in folios 308, 328, 442, 461, 957, 960, 961, and 968-1000.

During the initial phase, before the deepening of the investigation, this individual fulfilled the conditions to be made a suspect. The intrinsic elements of his condition as suspect can be analysed in the previously mentioned pages.

In order to confirm or discard the suspicions about Robert Murat, searches were carried out and telephone interceptions were made, folios 995-1013 of the suspect and of individuals who interacted directly or indirectly with him, namely those who had daily contact with him or with whom he maintained telephone contact. In spite of an exhaustive and methodological investigation of Murat and the persons close to him, no elements were collected that could connect him to the crime being investigated. Apart from the analyses of communications and forensic examinations of their computers which did not reveal anything useful, various searches of his home were made with the use of sniffer dogs, the subsoil was examined, physically and using detection methodologies, again with no useful results.

The cars of those connected to him were examined, no results were obtained.

The homes and vehicles were minutely inspected by the Police Scientific Laboratory, no relevant vestiges were found.

The analyses of the telephone and electronic communications (attached in annex) and the resulting correlation, gave no results.

At the police HQ the suspect denied any involvement in the events. The inquiries made in relation to the other individuals who had personal or professional relations with Murat did not bring up any data worthy of investigation.

In truth, during the searches various objects were taken for analysis without any incriminating result having been found yet.


As reported on folio 1606 and following pages, a new element appeared, brought by an Irish family, who told of a sighting on 3rd May 2007 at about 21.55 of a man carrying a child who was walking down a road that leads to a zone near to P da L. They did not manage to recognise the man, however Martin Smith, in subsequent information, folio 2871, said that judging by the bearing it could have been Gerald McCann, which upon initial analysis did not seem very viable to us given the time period indicated. However, new questioning of Martin Smith by the Irish authorities was requested in order to check the reliability of his information. A reply is awaited.

Concerning the theme of searches referring to the construction work underway in P da L, folio 1650 and ss we collected the statements of the workers, employees and the engineer in charge who did not detect anything unusual and who focussed on the impossibility of hiding a body, even a child's body.

**

Meanwhile, I come to the knowledge of this police force about the information relating to the use of the dogs, folio 1989 and following pages, specialised in the marking of human blood remains and human cadaver odour, from the UK.

This is an inspection technique commonly used in the UK, sometimes with positive results, consisting in the use of two specially trained dogs.

One of the dogs is trained to detect cadaver odour and the other to detect human blood traces.

Opting to use this resource, a large number of objects and places were examined, where, in some cases, the dogs were seen to show the behaviour of identification and signalling, as follows:

1. Apartment 5A, OC resort from which the girl disappeared

- Cadaver odour dog
* in the couple's bedroom on the floor next to the wardrobe.
* In the living room, behind the sofa, next to the lateral window of the apartment.

2. Patio area, in front of apartment 5 A

- Cadaver odour dog
* in one of the flower beds, the dog handler commented upon the weakness (lightness) of the odour detected.

3. Apartments where the rest of the group was staying

* Nothing was found by either dog.

4. Residence of the McCann couple at the time of the date of inspection

* Nothing was found by either dog in the villa.

5. In the locality of P da L

* Nothing was found by either dog.

6. The clothes and belongings of the McCann family

- Cadaver odour dog
* on two pieces of clothing belonging to Kate Healy.
* On a piece of clothing belonging to Madeleine.
* Possibly, on a soft toy belonging to Madeleine (cadaver odour was detected when the toy was still in the residence (on the date it was occupied by the family)).
* Signalling was confirmed in a scenario outside the villa.

7. In the vehicle used by the McCann family

- cadaver odour dog
* signalled the car key

- blood dog

* signalled the vehicle's key.
* signalled inside the vehicle's luggage boot.

8. In a vehicle used by a friend of the family who was staying at the same resort, coinciding for a few days.

* Nothing was found by either dog.

9. In all the cars used by Robert Murat and people close to him

* Nothing was found by either dog.

(Of a total of 10 vehicles the cadaver odour dog and the blood dog only signalled the vehicle hired by the McCann family on 27th May).


The places and objects signalled by the blood dog were tested forensically by the reputed British Laboratory (FSS) whose final results are not yet available. However, there are indications that would show that these will be inconclusive, in other words they do not corroborate the dogs signalling without leaving any doubt.

Based upon the action of the sniffer dog team which reveals the eventual existence of a cadaver in the apartment and in the car used by the McCann family and with the aim of enabling Gerald and Kate to safeguard their position in the process they were constituted arguidos, in the face of the mere possibility of their involvement with the eventual cadaver. During the course off their interrogation as arguidos they denied any responsibility in the disappearance of their daughter.

**

During the process phase we are in, according to the results of the information already in the case files, we proceeded to elaborate the thematic annexes (apensos) that contain all the information relating to sightings, suspects or suspicious situations, temporary analysis reports and reports on communications and examinations as well as information subject to international cooperation.

The investigation continues in the sense of checking all credible information received in the meantime on a daily basis, with particular relevance to information with regard to paedophiles and the authors of sexual crimes which has already exceeded 150 individuals.

Reports and diligences will always be carried out in a methodical manner, taking into account the investigation actions and conclusions already carried out in the irrenounceable and unforgettable hope of discovering the truth of the facts.

In the wake of what has been mentioned, a proposal was made for the elaboration of a Letter of Request to the British authorities, enunciating the diligences, which are pertinent in our opinion and which could be fruitful for the case.

For your consideration.

Portimao, 31st January 2008

Inspector Joao Carlos

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOAO_CARLOS.htm

Letter to the Attorney General regarding investigation details

17- Processo 17 Pages 4592 to 4649

I - Introduction

Before actually entering the appreciation of the present inquiry it is useful to take a summarised look at the enormous dimension of the inquiry which is constituted of 17 Volumes, with a global processing of approximately 4500 pages, 9 appendixes that are integrated by 55 Volumes, in which 12000 pages and other relevant pieces were gathered, analysed and treated; further 22 dossiers were constituted, with more than 5000 pages, concerning fanciful or senseless news, yet organised out of mere caution.

Therefore, this inquiry which demonstrates the pertinent commitment of the Polícia Judiciária (PJ) in the resolution of the disappearance of minor Madeleine McCann, demanded from it the performance or coordination of several diligences as described in the various files, namely: the preservation of the location of the fact (although it had already been rummaged by numerous people as we will discuss ahead); several collections and examinations on the existence of eventual traces; a circumstantiated photographic report; the installation, in the first 24 hours of an extensive operational scheme, including the participation of several police and civil protection forces, in a total of over 130 elements; the reinforcement, in the next 24 hours of said operational scheme, with the mobilisation of over 300 members of police forces and public entities; the installation of control posts on roads and on the Southern terrestrial border with Spain; the use of sniffer dog teams; the use of exceptional search and rescue teams (aerial, terrestrial and maritime), alerts and diffusion all over the country and abroad. As a mere example, during the following weeks and on a permanent basis, two helicopters, four vessels and several all-road vehicles, apart from private airplanes and boats, were employed; in the same manner, the investigation operations were coordinated with the specific search operations, with hundreds of diligences performed, like the identification and the formal and informal hearing of citizens, door-to-door searches, in the impressive number of 443, at the residences and tourist resorts of Vila da Luz and its surroundings, the identification and search of vehicles, and searches on the terrain, in an area that started out covering 15 Km2, and progressively grew to 30Km2 (where special attention was paid to locations like wells, passages, tunnels, reservoirs and lakes).

During the following days, more than 700 persons who might possess some relevant information about the disappearance were formally and informally questioned, with the PJ using more than 100 officers from several departments of Portimao, Faro and Lisbon, who worked on a consecutive base of 24 hours per day to accomplish the task.

All the locations where there could be images that might be related to the case (like, for example, restaurants and petrol stations) were equally consulted, and the telephone lines of the permanent services of the Portimao and Faro departments were made available. A mobile police post was installed in Vila da Luz to collect information.

Apart from the already mentioned identifications and door-to-door house searches, the listing, contact and interview with known local suspects with previous connections to sexual criminality against minors, was performed.

The PJ was especially careful to promote regular meetings with the missing child's parents and also designated a Liaison Officer for the family, for permanent support and relationship, with the active following and cooperation of the Royal British Consulate in Portimao.

Shortly after the beginning of the investigation continuous relationships with the Leicestershire Constabulary, which, for the effect, sent several of its officers to Portugal, with the PJ equally sending officers to the United Kingdom, were established, and intense cooperation and understanding was registered between these entities, which were united in the common purpose of searching for the missing child, and for the truth.

In the inquiry it is clear that the PJ never dismissed any information or credible elements that might lead to the revelation of facts, with over 2000 formal and informal diligences carried out over the months, and the PJ having explored, nationally and internationally, all of the information with a higher or lower degree of credibility, with special relevance for tens of supposed sightings or trackings of the child, most of which were widely reported by the press.

As an example, cases of international cooperation can be mentioned, namely with Spain, the Netherlands and the United Kingdom, which led to the detention or identification of persons that tried to introduce misleading information about the hypothetical destiny or tracking of the child.

In summary, it is notorious that the PJ spared no efforts in the sense of making exceptional technical, human and financial means available to find the child and to discover the truth of facts, having been completely accompanied in this effort by the Leicestershire Constabulary, the police force that is located in the city of Leicester, where most of the people in the holiday group come from.


II - About the Inquiry

A - General Analysis

In the present process, the disappearance of the child of British nationality, Madeleine Beth McCann, daughter of Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, aged three on the date (about to become four, as she was born on the 12th of May 2003), was investigated.

Concerning the time and the place, the facts have taken place on the 3rd of May of 2007, within the time span, according to testimonies, between 9.05 p.m. and 10 p.m., at the resort called "Ocean Club", located in Vila da Luz - Lagos, where the child's family, together with a group of seven persons, - with whom they kept a friendship that had started before this trip and which was based on professional relations and on other leisure trips -, were enjoying a holiday period, with the duration of one week, having arrived in Portugal on the 28th of April 2007, more precisely at the Airport of Faro, coming from the United Kingdom.

At check-in, they were placed in several apartments, all of them in block G5, next to each other, which was a demand, or, at least, a suggestion of the entire group, which was composed of the couple Gerald McCann, Kate Marie Healy and their children Sean, Amelie and Madeleine, (apartment 5A), David Anthony Payne, Fiona Elaine Payne, their children Lilly Payne and Scarlett Payne and mother-in-law Dianne Webster (apartment 5H - first floor), Russell James O'Brien, Jane Michelle Tanner and their children Ella O'Brien and Evie O'Brien (apartment 5D) and Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly and their daughter Grace Oldfield (apartment 5B), with the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family being the one that was most accessible and had the easiest visibility from the outside.

The behaviour of the group's members until the day of the event was shaped by the normality of a daily routine, which, as far as the McCann couple is concerned, consisted of getting up at around 7.30 a.m. and having breakfast in the apartment; at around 9/9.30 a.m. they left the apartment and left their children at the crêche where they remained until around 12.30 a.m. After lunch, at around 1.30 p.m., the children went to play by the pool and around 2.30 p.m. they left them at the crêche again, where they stayed until around 5 p.m., the time at which the children went for high tea at the bar, which was done in a group, independently of age, in a recreational area next to the "Tapas" restaurant; between 5 and 5.30 p.m., they returned to the apartment, where around 5.30 p.m. they bathed the children that went to bed at 7.30 p.m.

From the 2nd day of their stay onwards, the couple had dinner at the "Tapas" Restaurant, with the rest of the group, while all of the children stayed asleep alone in their apartments, with the surveillance initially being made by each couple, whose members took turns in checking the children, and as the days went by, each member who went to check his children would take the chance and check on the rest of the children, with the exception of the Payne couple, that possessed their own technological control system, through baby listening monitors, an issue that we will discuss in more detail further ahead.

All of the group's members including the McCann couple were questioned several times, at length and in detail, in order to collect the greatest possible number of relevant details that could assist the investigation in discovering the truth of the facts.

From the analysis of the total of depositions that were made, the existence of important details that were not fully understood and integrated became evident; details that would need to be tested and tried on location, in order to establish the apparent failures to meet and lacks of synchrony, even divergences, in a suitable diligence, which was not possible to perform despite the commitment that was displayed by the Public Ministry and by the PJ to fulfil that purpose, as we will see in closer detail, further ahead.

Considering the participated facts, conjugated with the information that was offered. namely by the witnesses, and with the information that was made available through the development of the inquiry, the investigation equated the verification of several hypotheses: abduction, for the purpose of sexual exploration or others (i.e. posterior adoption, child traffic, organ traffic), without homicide; abduction, followed by homicide with (or without) concealment of a cadaver, hypotheses that were considered under the double sides of the abduction (if it existed) having occurred due to feelings of vengeance of the abductor(s) towards the parents (directed abduction) or simply taking advantage of the circumstance that the child was in a situation of actual vulnerability (opportunity abduction), accidental death, with posterior concealment of the cadaver and, underlying all of these possibilities, abandonment, substantiated as a crime under article 138 of the Penal Code. The possibility of theft, whose author would have been disturbed by the child Madeleine and who, in order to prevent her from disturbing him, neutralised her in a violent manner, and, afterwards, took her with him, dead or alive, in order to leave no trace that could eventually lead to his identification.

The systematisation and order that were given to the Inquiry should further be stressed, as it facilitates an easy approach in its consultation, despite its volume and the complexity of some of the issues; with attention to the synthesis that was made and that is visible namely in the index and in the listing of the persons that intervened in the process.

Therefore, we will follow, despite some isolated diversions, the division that was observed in the Final Report that was made by the Polícia Judiciária:

1 - General diligences to locate the child, performed by the Polícia Judiciária, the Polícia Marítima [Maritime Police] and the G. N. R., and added to the inquiry's main body;

2 - The suspicions about Robert Murat and his arguido status;

3 - Sniffer dog searches and the consequent constitution as arguidos of the British child's parents, Gerald McCann and Kate Healy.

Concerning the appendixes and their contents, they will be analysed within the 3 main issues into which the investigation has been divided.

B - Detailed Analysis

[this section to be completed soon]

C - The suspicions about Robert Murat and his constitution as an arguido

Apart from the suspect being seen on the location of the occurrence and speaking about the event with the persons that were around there, namely journalists, his name was on the list of interpreters, and he made a commitment as such (Commitment Act on page 1577).

On the 6th of May 2007 the PJ received a fax from the Leicestershire Constabulary (page 307) in which this police transmits that a reporter from the Sunday Mirror, Lori Campbell, had communicated that certain behaviours of the suspect compromised him, namely by giving his name without any information about himself, by having conflicting relationships with several people and being worried when a photograph of him was taken for that newspaper, which led the English Police to request that he was relieved of interpreter duties.

The files further contain:

- On page 328 a report of an external diligence tells that, on the 4th of May 2007, the suspect offered his assistance to the GNR to help with anything that was needed, namely as an interpreter;

- That on the 6th of May 2007 the signatory of said report was approached by several journalists indicating the arguido with suspicious behaviours, in the sense of what was already explained concerning the fax;

- On page 461 an anonymous information, where a telephone call from a woman who tries to incriminate the suspect is reported, although no facts were presented;

- On page 957 there is a report about an external diligence that resulted from a trip to the location where, according to witness Jane Tanner, she saw, a short time before she knew that Madeleine had disappeared, a man carrying a child walking into the direction of the suspect's house, Casa Liliana;

- On page 960 the service information according to which the curiosity that the arguido showed in the investigation was found strange.

In order to be able to be heard about the suspicions that befell him, Robert Murat was made an arguido on the 14th of May 2007 [9], having declared that he has already served as an interpreter during process actions, that he has a daughter that was born in 2002 and lives in England where he visits her several times, having returned to Portugal on the 1st of May 2007 and that he rented a vehicle because his mother uses the VW at the stand that was put up in Luz to support Madeleine's family.

That on the 3rd of May 2007 he didn't leave home in the evening, having heard a siren at around 10.30 p.m. or shortly afterwards, a fact that he commented with his Mother, but didn't come outside to investigate.

On Friday the 4th of May 2007 he was alerted by his Mother to the disappearance of a child in Praia da Luz, according to news on "Sky News", having then walked to the location of the disappearance, where he was introduced to the child's parents, offering his assistance.

That afterwards, with a GNR officer and a member of the resort staff, they entered several apartments, with the purpose of locating the child. That before this occasion, he didn't know the inside of the "Ocean Club".

He further clarified, because he was asked, that he was the main suspect among the journalists, therefore from that moment onwards he refused speaking to them, including in that refusal the mention of his full name, or allowing to be photographed.

He further clarified that he has nothing to do with the child's disappearance, and knows nothing about this case, explaining that he asked an English policeman about the manner in which the British police was able to trace a person in a given location and at a given time and if the police could trace him at home through his mobile phone, but he did this to prove his innocence.

On the other hand, rather unpleasant references were made to his personality, as was the case of a witness that has known him for many years [10].

It should be further referred that witnesses Rachel Mampilly, Russell James O'Brien and Fiona Elaine Payne mentioned that they saw arguido Robert Murat at the "Ocean Club" resort on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

During the confrontation that took place on the 11th of July 2007 [11], these witnesses, just like the arguido, maintained their previous positions.

Nevertheless, the positions are different regarding the witnesses that were heard, because while Sílvia Baptista [12] admits it is very possible that a person with the arguido's characteristics was helping to search for Madeleine on the night of the disappearance, other witnesses, Paul Wright, June Wright, Barend Weijdon and GNR officer José Baptista Roque [13], among other officers, mentioned that they didn't see the arguido on location that night.

Facing the suspicions that befell the arguido, considering what he seemed to transmit and the type of occurrence that was under investigation, whose real scope was not, like now, delimitated, and in order to confirm them or to set them aside, taking into account that they were indispensable for the continuation of the investigation, searches were made at the arguido's house as well as at his mother's and telephone interceptions were carried out, both on the arguido and on those with whom he directly or indirectly interacted, namely with whom he met on an almost daily basis and with whom he kept telephone contact.

Searches were also performed at the location where he started to spend the night at, the Quinta Salsalito, which is a vast place of difficult control, therefore the search on this location might permit the collection of elements that are reputed to be of high interest for the investigation, but those searches had no effect whatsoever.

During the searches at Casa Liliana, two rain water cisterns near the pool were checked, the missing minor's trail was searched by the GNR's sniffer dog team, both inside and outside the residence, searches were equally performed inside three vehicles that were parked there, and the matching photographic report was carried out by members of the CSS (Crime Scene Sector), experts from the Criminal Police Lab, but nothing positive was attained.

From the forensics exams to Serghei Malinka's, Robert Murat's and Jenny Murat's computers [14], it could be concluded that the contents of the examined drives produced nothing that could compromise them as participants in any illicit activity, namely the one that was being investigated in the process.

From the interception of communications, the telephone contact record of arguido Robert Murat, his mother Jennifer Murat, witnesses Michaela Walazuch, Luís António and Sergey Malinka; records and maps of the telephone calls that were made from public telephone booths in Praia da Luz nothing flows that could have any indicative use.

From the analysis that was performed on every contact, from the 1st of November 2006 until the 19th of July 2007, by Robert, Michaela, Sergey, Jennifer and Luís António, results that Robert and Malinka, only contacted each other eight times [15], that there were no relations between Sergey and Luís António, nor between him and Robert, nor between either of them and the Murat residence, between the 30th of April and the 4th of May 2007 [16].

Searches were performed at the residence, and the subsoil was explored with a Geo-radar (GPR), - which consists of a radar antenna that transmits electromagnetic energy in the shape of an impulse within frequencies between 25 MHz and 1 GHz. Those impulses are partially reflected through sub-superficial geological structures, captured with a receiving antenna and marked as a time record of continuous bi-directional path which is presented as a pseudo-geological record section - e these technical searches neither found nor marked anything of interest to the files [17].

Searches were equally performed with the use of sniffer dog support, with the dog Eddie that detects cadaver odour, and it was verified that the dog signalled nothing [18]. The examination of the targets' vehicles (arguido and people who interacted with him), nothing was found.

Therefore, despite the suspicions that befell the arguido, - partly because they were induced, albeit involuntarily, by himself, namely the protagonism that he assumed both with the group of friends, which the McCann couple was part of, and with the journalists, showing his great curiosity in finding out what diligences had been performed and which were to be performed, and by objective elements and the fact that his residence is located in the direction which, according to Jane, was taken by the stranger who carried the child in his arms - and which therefore demanded his constitution as an arguido. It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.

[9] Notice on page 1169
[10] Questioning report on page 1288
[11] Confrontation report on pages 1957/1958
[12] Questioning report on page 1290
[13] Questioning report on pages 1338, 1328, 1330 and 1349
[14] Forensics - Appendix-1, Vol. IV, V and VI
[15] Analyses report, annex 87
[16] Analyses report, annexes 82 to 86
[17] Search and Apprehension report on page 2130-v
[18] Dog Inspection report, page 2131

D - Dog searches and Constitution of Gerald McCann and Kate Healy as arguidos

In an attempt to advance towards the discovery of Madeleine's whereabouts, a Report was written by Mark Harrison, National Counsellor for searches at the level of all police agencies in the United Kingdom, concerning Missing Persons, Abduction and Homicides, with his role comprising the counselling in relation to those people.

Thus a request for help in counselling at the level of searches was made, with part of that help being made through the action of dogs that are trained to detect mortal victims (VRD), and dogs with advanced training in tracing very small samples of human remains, bodily fluids and blood, in any environment or terrain (EVRD).

From the searches with the dogs [19], whose video recordings are appended to the files, the following resulted:

1 - The tracking dog named "Eddie" (dog that signals cadaver odour) "marked" (signalled) inside the couple's bedroom, in apartment 5A, in an area next to the wardrobe (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

2 - That same dog "marked", in the same apartment, an area near the living room window, which has direct access to the street, behind the sofa (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

3 - Still inside the apartment, the dog "marked" a garden area, in a square corner, vertically to the balcony (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

4 - In the "Vista do Mar" villa, the house that was rented by the McCanns after leaving the Ocean's Club, the dog "marked" the area of a wardrobe that contained inside the soft toy that belonged to Madeleine McCann (cf. page 2099 and/or annex 88);

5 - In the examination of the clothes, which was carried out in a pavilion in Lagos, this dog signalled/"marked" pieces of clothing that belong to Kate Healy (cf. page 2101 and/or annex 88);

6 - This dog signalled the lower outside area next to the driver's door of the Renault - 59-DA-27 - that was rented by the McCanns (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

7 - Finally it "marked" the key/card of that vehicle when it was hidden under a fire prevention sand box (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

8 - The tracking dog named "Keela" (dog that detects the presence of human blood), "marked" an area in the living room, in apartment 5A, which had already been "marked" by "Eddie" (cf. page 2054 and/or annex 88);

9 - After the tiles which this dog had signalled during a first inspection, and which are mentioned under the previous item, were removed, the dog signalled the same area again (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);

10 - It made another "marking" on the lower part of the left hand side curtain of the window that we have been referring to (cf. page 2190 and/or annex 88);

11 - It "marked" the right lower lateral part of the inside of the boot of vehicle 59-DA-27 (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

12 - Further concerning the vehicle, "Keela" "marked" the storage compartment, on the driver's door, which held the vehicle's key/card (cf. page 2187 and/or annex 88);

13 - This dog also marked the key/card when the same was hidden under the fire service sand box, inside the parking lot.

The viewing of these videos, whose contents is very impressive, becomes essential to understand the dogs' action and signalling, more than by any words.

These dogs, which had already been used on multiple occasions by the Scotland Yard and by the FBI with positive results, are evidence collection means and do not serve as evidence; any residue, even if invisible to the naked eye, which is collected using this type of dogs, has to be subject to forensics testing in a credentialed laboratory.

Martin Grime, the dogs' instructor himself [20], mentions in his report: "Whereas there may be no retrievable evidence for court purposes this may well assist intelligence gathering in Major Crime investigations"; or scientist Dr John Lowe [21] who refers that the FSS has no scientific support about the use of the dogs as a fundament for the collection of biological residues and that normally take the handler's word for certification, that asserts that the dogs are more sensitive than any chemical technique or other techniques that are normally used by crime scene sector experts.

In that sense, forensic examinations were performed in the areas and on the objects that were marked and signalled by the blood dog, especially in a credentialed British lab (Forensic Science Service - cf. Appendixes I and VII - FSS Final Report), and also, some of them, at the National Institute for Legal Medicine (cf. Appendix I), whose final results failed to corroborate the canine markings, that is to say that cellular material was collected, which was nevertheless not identified as belonging to a specific person, and it was not even possible to establish said material's quality (namely if it could be blood or another type of bodily fluid).

It should be stressed that the option towards that Laboratory was and remains obvious taking its prestige, its independence and its scientific reputation into account, although on an initial approach there seemed to be the possibility of compatibility between MADELEINE'S DNA profile and some of the collected residues (of which those that existed in the Renault Scenic vehicle that was rented by the McCann couple were in great quantity), taking the contents of the fax that is reproduced below exactly as it appears in the files, into account (pages 2620 and following)

* * *

From: "Prior Stuart"
To: "Task Portugal"
Sent: 04 September 2007 10:14
Subject: FW: Op Task - in Confidence
_________

From: Lowe, Mr J R
Sent: 03 September 2007 15:01
To: stuart prior
Subject: Op Task - in Confidence

Stuart,

Firstly, here are the last three results you are expecting

An incomplete DNA result was obtained from cellular material on the swab 3a. The swab contained very little information and showed low level indications of DNA from more than one person. However, all of the confirmed DNA components within this result match the corresponding components in the DNA profile of Madeline McCann. LCN DNA profiling is highly sensitive, it is not possible to attribute this DNA profile to a particular body fluid.

There is no evidence to support the view that Madeline McCann contributed DNA to the swab 3B

A complex LCN DNA result which appeared to have originated from at least three people was obtained from cellular material recovered from the luggage compartment section 286C 2007 CRL10 (2) area 2. Within the DNA profile of Madeline McCann there are 20 DNA components represented by 19 peaks on a chart. At one of the areas of DNA we routinely examine Madeline has inherited the same DNA component from both parents; this appears therefore as 1 peak rather than 2, hence 19 rather than 20. Of these 19 components 15 are present within the result from this item; there are 37 components in total. There are 37 components because there are at least 3 contributors; but there could be up to five contnbutors. In my opinion therefore this result is too complex for meaningful interpretation/conclusion.

Why?...

Well, lets look at the question that is being asked

"Is there DNA from Madeline on the swab?"

It would be very simple to say "yes" simply because of the number of components within the result that are also in her reference sample.

What we need to consider, as scientists, is whether the match is genuine and legitimate; because Madeline has deposited DNA as a result of being in the car or whether Madeline merely appears to match the result by chance. The individual components in Madeline's profile are not unique to her, it is the specific combination of 19 components that makes her profile unique above all others. Elements of Madeline's profile are also present within the the profiles of many of the scientists here in Birmingham, myself included. It's important to stress that 50% of Madeline's profile will be shared with each parent. It is not possible, in a mixture of more than two people, to determine or evaluate which specific DNA components pair with each other. Namely, we cannot separate the components out into 3 individual DNA profiles.

Therefore, we cannot answer the question: is the match genuine or is a chance match.

The same applies to any result that is quoted as being too complex for meaningful inclusion/interpretation

What questions will we never be able to answer with LCN DNA profiling?

When was the DNA deposited?
How was the DNA deposited?
What body fluid(s) does the DNA originate from?
Was a crime committed?

These, along with all other results, will be formalised in a final report

Please don't hesitate to contact me if you require any further assistance

kind regards
John


but whose compatibility, as can be concluded from the above mentioned final FSS report, was not confirmed after the performance of lengthy and complex tests.

Previously to these indications, is the circumstance that the Parents were the last known persons who had been with Madeleine, alive and traced, a circumstance that in itself made them subject to investigation.

On the other hand, there was information, which was not confirmed afterwards, that the McCanns, while focused on stating an abduction theory, had contacted the British media (Sky News), before calling the police authorities.

Confronted with these elements, namely the possibility of the existence of a cadaver in the apartment and in the vehicle that was used by the parents, founded suspicions of their involvement were raised.

As they were summoned to depose again, while there was no plausible explanation for those situations and as they were to be confronted with the dogs' findings and with the lab information, which were susceptible of rendering them responsible as authors of crimes (at least, of neglectful homicide and of concealment of a cadaver), they were, obligatorily and inexorably, made arguidos, in strict obedience to article 59 nr. 1 of the Penal Process Code; thus the disposition from nr. 4 of article 58 (presently 5) - its new redaction was not in force yet, taking into account that they were made arguidos on the 6th of September 2009 - and on the other hand they could benefit from arguido status, with all the rights and guarantees of defence that are inherent to it, despite the stigma that is associated with it, which is techno-juridically misadjusted. In effect, the constitution and questioning as arguidos, while used to confirm indications towards the committing of crimes, are also used, with equal strength and reason, to infirm indications and to eliminate suspects.

As judiciously stressed in the sentence dated 06.10.1990 by the then Judge of the Police Court of Lisbon. "The authority that directs the inquiry is not free to postpone the moment when a witness passes into arguido status (. . .) if diligences are being performed, which are destined to prove her imputation, that affect her personally (. . .)"
Colectânea de Jurisprudência, 1990, vol. IV. p.323 and following.

The constitution of Gerald and Kate McCann as arguidos at that moment is nothing more that the practical fulfilment of the right to defence of those arguidos, which is to say, to ensure their concrete rights to "co-determine or conform the process' final decision. Said rights assume consistency and effectiveness, according to the new Code, right after the moment of constitution as an arguido, and therefore, still during the inquiry and the instruction." - Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias, "Sobre os sujeitos processuais no novo Código de Processo Penal" Jornadas de Processo Penal, CEJ, Livraria Almedina, 1988, p 28.

Therefore, under the light of interpretation of the elements that constituted the process at that date, there is no doubt whatsoever concerning the legitimacy and legality of their constitution as arguidos, as it is also certain that any investigation has its own dynamics and the continuous flow of elements into the files may alter the situation, as it has, and no judgment or presumption of guilt can be extracted from such a process act.

[19] Cf. digital drives contained in Appendix III
[20] Page 2271
[21] Questioning file on page 3899

E - About the Interest of the Reconstitution

Taking into account that there were certain points in the arguidos' and witnesses' statements that revealed, apparently at least, contradiction or that lacked physical confirmation, it was decided to carry out the "reconstitution of the fact", a diligence that is consecrated in article 150 of the Penal Process Code in the sense of duly clarifying, on the very location of the facts , the following very important details, among others:

1 - The physical, real and effective proximity between Jane Tanner, Gerald McCann and Jeremy Wilkins, at the moment when the first person walked by them, and which coincided with the sighting of the supposed suspect, carrying a child. It results, in our perspective, strange that neither Gerald McCann nor Jeremy Wilkins saw her, or the alleged abductor, despite the exiguity of the space and the peacefulness of the area;

2 - The situation concerning the window to the bedroom where Madeleine slept, together with the twins, which was open, according to Kate. It seemed then necessary to clarify if there was a draught, since movement of the curtains and pressure under the bedroom door are mentioned, which, eventually, could be verified through the reconstitution;

3 - The establishment of a timeline and of a line of effective checking on the minors that were left alone in the apartments, given that, if it is believed that such checking was as tight as the witnesses and the arguidos describe it, it would be, at least, very difficult to reunite conditions for the introduction of an abductor in the residence and the posterior exit of said abductor, with the child, namely through a window with scarce space. It is added that the supposed abductor could only pass, through that window, holding the minor in a different position (vertical) from the one that witness JANE TANNER saw (horizontal);

4 - What happened during the time lapse between approximately 6.45/7 p.m. - the time at which MADELEINE was seen for the last time, in her apartment, by a different person (David Payne) from her parents or siblings - and the time at which the disappearance is reported by Kate Healy - at around 10 p.m.;

5 - The obvious and well-known advantages of immediate appreciation of evidence, or in other words, the fulfilment of the principle of contiguity of evidence in order to form a conviction, as firm as possible, about what was seen by Jane Tanner and the other interposers, and, eventually, to dismiss once and for all any doubts that may subsist concerning the innocence of the missing [child's] parents.

In this sense, the legal procedures were followed, according to the norms and conventions that are in force, and the appearance of the witnesses was requested, inviting them to be present inclusively appealing to solidarity with the McCann couple, as it is certain that since the beginning they adhered to that process diligence.

Nevertheless, despite national authorities assuming all measures to render their trip to Portugal viable, for unknown motives, after the many doubts that they raised about the necessity and opportunity of their trip were clarified several times, they chose not to attend, which rendered the diligence inviable.

We believe that the main damage was caused to the McCann arguidos, who lost the possibility to prove what they have protested since they were constituted arguidos: their innocence towards the fateful event; the investigation was also disturbed, because said facts remain unclarified.

F - Communications analysis

The process has been appended with the daily maps of the mobile phones' registry by registrar/owner, a map of the intervals without communications of the couple's equipment between the 4th and the 13th of May, and maps of the localities where the antennas were activated, as well as the report of the analysis of the communications that were registered by the antennas that serve Praia da Luz, of the 3 service providers, made by the 9 members if the McCann family's group, concerning the days between the 2nd and the 4th of May (calls that were operated exclusively by the fixed network are not contemplated, because as they do not use the GSM system of mobile communications, those do not activate the antennas ("B.T.S.").

During that period they maintained a communication traffic that can be accepted as normal for someone who is on holidays. Between the 4th and the 17th of May, the antennas with most traffic registered are the ones that serve the localities of Luz, Lagos, Portimao and others that are situated between Praia da Luz and Portimao; the daily activity of the mobile phones of each one of the 9 persons in the group was analysed, with every register since their arrival until their departure being treated, as well as about the time intervals when Madeleine's parents' mobile phones were without any contact between 00 hours of the 4th and 00 hours of the 14th of May.

It was important to determine if through the analysis of that data other investigation hypotheses appeared, leading to the discovery of what happened on the night of the 3rd of May, at apartment 5A, of the "Ocean's Club of Praia da Luz", but this also remained unsuccessful.

The fulfilling of the Rogatory Letters to the Justices of the United Kingdom failed to add anything relevant to what was already in the Process.

G - Appreciation and Juridical Frame

From the analysis of the elements that are part of the files, this first conclusion emerges immediately:

When the GNR officers arrived on location, several people had already touched the window and entered Madeleine's and her siblings' bedroom, and later on, when the PJ arrived at the apartment to collect traces, the space had already been rummaged through and contaminated due to the entrance of all of those people and to the fact that everything had been touched, thus rendering inviable, right away, the collection of important elements for the investigation.

In the drama of the moment, nobody - parents, friends of the parents, resort management and personnel - was cold and lucid enough to preserve the crime scene, preventing that rummaging and the consequent contamination of traces from happening, while it is common knowledge that it is any person's responsibility to preserve crime scenes - apart from a legal demand: article 171 number 2 of the Penal Process Code - thus avoiding that traces can be erased or altered, therefore the collectable evidence had already lost much of its indicative value. Hence the lack of evidential elements that were collected during that initial phase, so much so that the only latent fingerprints that were collected, with the number of elements that are necessary to perform a positive identification, were individualised as belonging to the missing child's mother and to a GNR officer (pages 885 and 1520), thus immediately rendering the collection of important data for the investigation inviable.

It was only when members of the Polícia Judiciária arrived, at around 0.10 a.m., following a request for their presence, that measures were taken to make the collection of residues and the preservation of the event's location possible.

It further results from the files that, despite the fact that the 'Ocean Club' resort's crêche offers a complimentary dining out service from 7.30 until 11.30 p.m., at an additional cost, apart from another babysitting service with no defined schedule [22], the members of this group of friends with children chose to do their own checking on the children during dinner. During a first phase, each couple took turns among them to check on their own children, and as the days went by, they started to ask one of the members that got up, to listen whether there was any noise in their apartment, as Jane Tanner mentioned during questioning on the 10th of May 2007 [23], with the exception of the David and Fiona Payne couple, who possessed an intercom system to watch over their children Lilly Payne and Scarlett Payne.

It is extracted from the files that the McCanns and their friends checked to verify if all was well with their children, as can be concluded from what the members of this group declared, and also derives from the testimony of Jerónimo Tomás Rodrigues Salceda, a waiter at the Tapas [24], who stated that he "noticed, because it was evident, that some of the group's members sometimes went outside of the restaurant to do something, which by and by he realised was to "check" on the children. Nevertheless, he was always convinced that those children were in a space that belonged to the Luz Ocean Club. . ."

Nevertheless, it can also be concluded from the files that this surveillance with the periodicity that was mentioned above was not the one that is alleged in the files, which leaves unexplained why, on that night, the procedures were altered in the sense of reducing the checking intervals.

In effect, this group of friends was enjoying a short holiday period, therefore perfectly relaxed and it would be normal that, having dinner, inclusively with an entertainment service available [25], they were not very concerned with anything that might happen to their children during that dinner period.

It is so much so that Kate herself mentions that on Thursday morning, the 3rd, Madeleine questioned her about the reason why they didn't come to her room, given the fact that the twins had cried [26], as was also mentioned by Gerald.

Pamela Fenn, who resides on the residential block's first floor, above the apartment that was occupied by the McCann family, clarified that on the 1st of May 2007, two days before her disappearance, at around 10.30 p.m., she heard a child crying, which from the sound would be MADELEINE and that she cried for an hour and fifteen minutes, until her parents arrived, at around 11.57 p.m.

This shows that the parents were not persistently worried about their children [and] that they didn't check on them like they afterwards declared they did, rather neglecting their duty to guard those same children, although not in a temerarious, or gross, manner.

If said guard duty had been observed, in the possibility of this being an abduction, as was insistently mentioned and continues to be mentioned and is admissible to have happened, its occurrence might eventually have been rendered inviable.

It is further added that Kate, after noticing that the bedroom's window and shutters were open and Madeleine was missing, headed for the Tapas Restaurant asking for help, suggesting that an abduction had taken place, it is incomprehensible, or only comprehensible in a state of panic, that she once again abandoned, this time only the twins, while the Tapas was close enough to shout for help, - although Matthew Oldfield refers [27] that from the restaurant table there was very tenuous visibility, taking into account the distance at which they were from the apartments, and vision being hampered by a transparent linoleum that covered the area where the tables were located.

Finally, the fact that, despite all that confusion and all that noise, the twins continued to sleep, as mentioned by GNR Officer José Maria Baptista Roque, a member of the patrol that was first to arrive at the apartment "the children never woke up, remaining in a ventral decubitus position, not moving during the search and afterwards" [28], remains unexplained. Nevertheless, a Team from the Criminal Police Lab, on the 4th of May 2007, eliminated the existence of any product that could have been ministered to the missing child, in order to maintain her in a state of unconsciousness, as well as the presence of blood traces.

On the other hand, it also results that none of the parents was inside the apartment when Madeleine disappeared and that their behaviour until the moment of the disappearance was perfectly normal, not manifesting any kind of preoccupation or any other similar feeling, contrary to what happened after that moment when the state of panic was notorious.

While it is an unavoidable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A of the 'Ocean Club', the manner and circumstances under which this happened are not - despite the numerous diligences made in that sense -, therefore the range of crimes that were indicated and referred to during the inquiry remains untouched.

It seems evident to us and because the files contain enough elements for such, that the crime of exposure or abandonment according to article 138 of the Penal Code can be eliminated from that range:

"1 - Whoever places another person's life in danger,
a) By exposing her in a location where she is subject to a situation from which she, on her own, cannot defend herself against; or
b) Abandoning her without defence, whenever the agent had the duty to guard her, to watch over her or to assist her;"

This legal type of crime is only fulfilled with intent, and this intent has to cover the creation of danger to the victim's life, as well as the absence of a capacity to defend herself, on the victim's behalf. In the case of the files and facing the elements that were collected it is evident that none of the arguidos Gerald or Kate acted with intent. The parents could not foresee that in the resort that they chose to spend a brief holiday, they could place the life of any of their children in danger, nor was that demanded from them: it was located in a peaceful area, where most of the residents are foreign citizens of the same nationality and without any known history of this type of criminality.

The parents didn't even represent the realisation of the fact, they trusted that everything would go well, as it had gone on the previous evenings, thus not equating, nor was it demanded from them, the possibility of the occurrence of an abduction of any of the children that were in their respective apartments.

Reinforcing what was said is also the fact that despite leaving their daughter alone with her siblings in the apartment during more or less dilated moments, it is certain that in any case they checked on them. Without any pretension or compensatory effect, we must also recognise that the parents already expiate a heavy penalty - the disappearance of Madeleine - due to their lack of caution in the surveillance and protection of their children.

Concerning the other indicated crimes, they are no more than that and despite our perception that, due to its high degree of probability, the occurrence of a homicide cannot be discarded, such cannot be more than a mere supposition, due to the lack of sustaining elements in the files.

The non involvement of the arguidos parents of Madeleine in any penally relevant action seems to result from the objective circumstances of them not being inside the apartment when she disappeared, from the normal behaviour that they adopted until said disappearance and afterwards, as can be amply concluded from the witness statements, from the telephone communications analysis and also from the forensics' conclusions, namely the Reports from the FSS and from the National Institute for Legal Medicine.

To this can be added that, in reality, none of the indications that led to their constitution as arguidos was later confirmed or consolidated. If not, let us see: the information concerning a previous alert of the media before the polices was not confirmed, the traces that were marked by the dogs were not ratified in laboratory, and the initial indications from the above transcribed email, better clarified at a later date, ended up being revealed as innocuous.

Even if, hypothetically, one could admit that Gerald and Kate McCann might be responsible over the child's death, it would still have to be explained how, where through, when, with what means, with the help of whom and where to they freed themselves of her body within the restricted time frame that would have been available to them to do so. Their daily routine, until the 3rd of May, had been circumscribed to the narrow borders of the 'Ocean Club' resort and to the beach that lies next to it, unknowing the surrounding terrain and, apart from the English friends that were with them on holiday there, they had no known friends or contacts in Portugal.

[22] Questioning File on pages 221 and 226
[23] Questioning File on pages 922 and 923
[24] Questioning File on page 236
[25] Witness NAJOUA CHEKAYA (page 798) mentioned that she was asked by the Ocean Club to perform a "quiz" at the Tapas restaurant twice a week (Tuesdays and Sundays)
[26] Questioning File on page 59
[27] Questioning File on page 914
[28] Questioning File on page 3883

In a final synthesis, based on facts, it seems to us that the following can be asserted:

- On the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., at the Ocean Club, in Praia da Luz, Kate Healy - like her, her husband Gerald and their friends, while dining at the Tapas, did with a periodicity that has not been rigorously established - headed for apartment G5A, in order to check on her three children, who had been left there, asleep;

- She'd barely entered the apartment when she noticed that her daughter Kate had disappeared, not being in her bed nor in any other location inside the residence and that the bedroom's window and shutters were open;

- Then, Kate Healy ran to the restaurant, immediately alerting Gerald McCann and the other friends;

- Following that alert, the entire apartment was searched and rummaged by an indeterminate number of people, thus resulting in the contamination of traces, with irreversible and undetermined damage in terms of the acquisition of evidence;

- Immediately, intense and extensive terrestrial, maritime and aerial searches were launched, which lasted for several days, involving hundreds of people and equipment and means, as sophisticated and advanced as presently available;

- Several hundred people were heard, formally and informally, whose hearing was anticipated as being of interest for the clarification of the matter, thousands of pieces of information and suggestions were analysed, and tens of sightings and locations that seemed plausible were checked. Telephone interceptions were performed and the traffic data from thousands of telephone conversations was analysed and crossed, and many thousands of diligences of the most diverse nature were developed;

- The obliging cooperation and commitment of Police forces from many Countries, with a very special mention for the British police entities, was counted upon;

- Tests and analyses were performed in two of the most prestigious and credentialed institutions for this effect - the National Institute for Legal Medicine and the British lab Forensic Science Service -, whose final results did not positively value the collected residues, or corroborated the canine markings;

- Despite all of this, it was not possible to obtain any piece of evidence that would allow for a medium man, under the light of the criteria of logics, of normality and of the general rules of experience, to formulate any lucid, sensate, serious and honest conclusion about the circumstances under which the child was removed from the apartment (whether dead or alive, whether killed in a neglectful homicide or an intended homicide, whether the victim of a targeted abduction or an opportunistic abduction), nor even to produce a consistent prognosis about her destiny and inclusively - the most dramatic - to establish whether she is still alive or if she is dead, as seems more likely.

But therefore we do not possess any minimally solid and rigorous foundation in order to be able to state, with the safety that is requested, which was or were the exact and precise crime(s) that was or were practised on the person of the minor Madeleine McCann - apart from the supposed but dismissed crime of exposure or abandonment - or to hold anyone responsible over its authorship.

Finally, it should be underlined that this case, unfortunately, is not a police novel, an appropriate scenario for a "crime" that is tailored for the success of the investigative work of a Sherlock Holmes or a Hercule Poirot, guided by the illusion that the forces of law and justice always manage to re-establish the altered order, returning to society the peace and the tranquillity that were only accidentally disturbed.

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann is rather an implacable and intricate case of real life, which lies closer to the lucid narrative by Friedrich Duerrenmatt, - "The Pledge. Requiem for the police novel" - because reality and everyday life owe little or no obedience, most of the times, to logic.

Life's events do not conform to stereotyped novel-like schemes, it is rather the case that its outcome is often the product of chance or conditioned by accidental and unpredictable factors, and therefore, hard to envision.

The investigators are well aware of the fact that their work is not exempt of imperfection; they have worked with an enormous error margin, and what they have achieved is very little in terms of conclusive results, especially concerning the fate of the unfortunate child. Nevertheless, they always knew that action was necessary and in reality they acted intensively and with commitment, even at the risk of erring.

Nevertheless, anyone who feels unsatisfied about the epilogue of the investigations, will have the possibility to react against it, having the possibility of eventually changing that epilogue, by prompting diligences based on new evidence, as long as that person has the legitimacy to request them and the requested diligences are serious, pertinent and consequent. They may do so in three ways: by requesting the reopening of the inquiry, under article 279, number 1 of the Penal Process Code; by appealing hierarchically against this dispatch under number 2 of article 278, or in another case, under number 2 of article 279 of the Penal Process Code, or by requesting the opening of the instruction under article 287, number 1, item b, of the Penal Process Code.

Finally, it should be noted that an archiving decision may be a fair decision, although of the possible justice, and, especially, to underline heavily that the archiving of the present files does not equal a definite and irreversible closing of the process. This process, as long as the prescription deadline for the possibly committed crimes does reach its term, and if new evidence that justifies it, appears, can always be reopened, officiously or through the request of an assistant, again ordinate to a final decision of accusation or non accusation.

Therefore, after all seen, analysed and duly pondered, with all that is left exposed, it is determined:

a) The archiving of the Process concerning arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code;

b) The archiving of the Process concerning Arguidos Gerald Patrick McCann and Kate Marie Healy, because there are no indications of the practise of any crime under the dispositions of article 277 number 1 of the Penal Process Code.

Article 277 number 3 of the Penal Process Code is to be fulfilled.

Under article 214 number 1 item a) of the Penal Process Code, the coercion measures that have been imposed on the arguidos are declared extinct.

Portimão, 21.07.08

The Republic's Prosecutor

(José de Magalhaes e Menezes)

The Joint General Prosecutor

(signature)

(Joao Melchior Gomes)

Continued..

B – Concrete Analysis

Returning to the facts, the process files originated in the report drawn up by the PJ on folio 2, telling of the disappearance of a three year old British girl. The event was communicated by the GNR to the PJ at 00.10 on the 4th May 2007.

According to the GNR, the disappearance would have occurred at about 22.40 (it was later checked that the detection and subsequent alarm effectively happened between 22.00 and 22.10) on 3rd May 2007, in one of the apartments of the Ocean Club resort, situated in Praia da Luz – Lagos, where the British family, composed of a couple and three young children were staying.

 The apartment is comprised of two bedrooms, a kitchen, living room and bathroom with easy access to public roads, whether from the front or the back, where there is a small balcony and sliding doors and, at the time of the disappearance, the children were alone in the apartment. However, during dinner, the couple went to the apartment twice, during one of these visits, the mother Kate, discovered that her oldest daughter was not there and alerted the other members of the group to this fact.

 Upon being contacted, the PJ’s intervention was immediate, they went to the scene (folios 02 onwards) where they undertook various inquiries aiming to establish the facts, a photographic report was made at the site (folios 12 – 23) as well releasing information about the disappearance, with the photograph and description of the girl, to the authorities as well as to the press, after obtaining authorisation from the Public Ministry (folios 32 – 33b and 459), a fingerprint inspection, which only enabled the collection of finger prints of those persons who had legitimate access to the apartment. The apartment was also examined by the Scientific Police Laboratory, which collected numerous traces and carried out continuous examinations, which did not lead to the full clarification of the events.

In order to gather information, the following day a mobile GNR post was placed in front of the apartment block, with the aim of receiving, dealing and channelling the collection of information related to the disappearance, all of them investigated by this police force in a methodical and detailed manner, some included in the inquiry and others organised in annexes in order to be able to visualise what had been done.

In addition to this information gathered at the mobile post, hundreds of other pieces of information from the public and the authorities were received via email or telephone and were dealt with in the same manner.

 During this night and the following dawn, intensive searches were made by PJ officers, GNR soldiers with sniffer dogs and by members of the public organised in groups, as well as by the parents, groups of friends and employees of the resort.

At 02.00 in the morning following the disappearance two sniffer dogs arrived in Praia da Luz and continued searching until the morning, covering the entire perimeter of the Ocean Club resort, urban area, waste ground and the closest homes, all the possible sites where the girl might be having been searched, the search later being extended to the beach area, the PJ duty officer also requested the GNR to issue an order for all officers who were on patrol to be alert and identify cars and persons that were circulating at that time.

 At 08.00 the GNR Search and Rescue sniffer dog team came into action, searches were begun from the resort in the direction of the beach, covering a 2 km area; in Praia da Luz 300m radius searches were made as well searches of abandoned houses, wells and waste land, the radius subsequently being expanded to 600m including the verges of the EN 125 motorway.

 Subsequently an attempt was made to reconstruct the route taken by Madeleine by giving the dogs a blanket/towel used by her, but the results were not significant, given that the dogs are more trained for use in rural areas rather than urban or populated areas, the existence of more odours in the air making it impossible for the tracker dog to identify/locate the “target smell”.

 Searches were also carried out in two camping parks in Espiche and in Praia da Luz to inspect the bungalows whose occupants had left on the day of the disappearance; the searches were extended to line searches with the help of Portimao GNR soldiers over a larger area, searches having been made of all the vehicles parked in the Praia da Luz car parks. Subsequently, the searches were extended to the villages of Barao de S. Joao, Burgau, Bensafrim and Salema.

 A few days later 6 members of the Algarve canine team also participated in the searches.

 On the following day, SNBPC helicopter searches were made, covering the entire area between the coast line and the EN 125, in sweeps, from N/S direction to try to find the girl, under the hypothetical possibility that she could have left the resort on foot, got lost and could be walking in the area.

 The searches continued during the following days, over a 15 km radius, from Praia da Luz, specifically between the 4th and 10th May 2007, being carried out, amongst others, by GNR searchers and dogs, local people, GNR officers as well as personnel from BT, the Municipal Civil Protection Services, PSP, Lagos voluntary firemen and the Portuguese Red Cross.

 
he Maritime Police also collaborated actively in the searches, on the 4th May covering the coastline between Burgau and Porto de Mos, on the 5th May the coastline between Meia Praia and Praia da Luz, on 6th May between the west quay of Praia do Alvor and Sagres, on 7th May between Lagos and Burgau, on 8th May between Meia Praia and Zavial and on 9th May again the west quay of Praia do Alvor and Sagres.

 On the 8th and 9th May 2007 the Maritime Police all the vessels moored in the Portimao marina with crews on board, this was a total of 31 vessels, also in the Rio Marina in Mexilhoeira da Carregacao and in the Albufeira Marina. Security camera images were also viewed from the Portimao Norte da Marina bay.

 As the Lagos Marina does not have a security camera system, information was requested about the state and movements of various vessels in the Marina (report on folios 3867/3885 Vol XV) and in order to find out if Madeleine had been seen, various Marina users were contacted (Joaquim Rio, from the Pescamar vessel, Bruce Cook from the Shearwater yacht and others), as well as fishermen, Marina employees and tourists who stated that they had not seen any indications that anyone had any information that could lead to the discovery of her whereabouts.

In spite of the dimension of the operations, the titanic efforts, time and means applied, including those of various security forces, the localisation of the child resulted to be fruitless.

 The British media was alerted to the disappearance, allegedly at about 02.00 on the morning of 4th May the BBC being informed, Sky news having opened its 07.00 news report on the 4th May with news of this case. Between 04.30 and 05.30 a phone call was made to the PJ by a British media channel requesting confirmation of the disappearance.

 As shown by the inquiries made to Rachel Mampilly by means of the Letter of Request, it was she who at 02.00 telephoned the wife of a friend who was a BBC correspondent to say that Madeleine had disappeared and asking if there was any way of this appearing in the news.

 The media was mobilised in an unprecedented way, accompanying all the police work step by step, conjecturing and elaborating scenarios, some true and others of a fantasising nature.

It should be mentioned in passing that this case illustrates in an exuberant and paradigmatic way, the long known risks and disadvantages that arise from “trial by newspapers”, which are not “fair trials”, the “verdicts” of which lead, at times, to distort directly or indirectly, the course of the investigation and have an effect of detracting attention and even assume, in certain sectors, aspects of a global media orgy and anticipated blame of the those involved in the case as arguidos, with disrespect for the persons’ dignity, including that of the missing girl herself.

 As Professor Jorge de Figueiredo Dias commented in “Penal Process Law!, Volume 1, Coimbra Editora, 1974 p.227 and following “This represents a violation of the most basic principles in our penal law, by substituting the legal trial by court, the due process of law, by an absolutely illegal and unconstitutional trial by newspaper. And it is a sociologically proven fact that the excess of publicity of the penal process can even contribute to the creation of an informal system of “penal justice without judgement” where it is clear, irreparable damage is done to the presumption of innocence of the arguido and their fundamental guarantees.”

 Within the factual context we could be facing an abduction situation, although all possibilities have always been open, as they continue to be.

 This abduction hypothesis was investigated exhaustively, all information leading to this and other possibilities having been examined fully. No ransom request was made, nor were there any sufficiently consistent indications to substantiate this supposed abduction.

Within the scope of the inquiries made along this line of investigation, two situations were clarified, with the collaboration of the Spanish and Dutch authorities, leading to the arrest of three individuals, whom had tried to extort money from the family, in exchange for false information about the girl, based on fraudulent artifice. This information, previously mentioned on folio 3 of this dispatch, can be found in the two Letters of Request joined to the files.

The PJ proceeded to interview 112 employees of the Ocean Club resort and Mark Warner company, specifically 15 Child care workers and 2 tennis instructors, as well as 28 informal interviews with employees from this company (fls 848 and 856) whose accounts did not report anything of relevance.

Inquiries were made in 443 homes in Praia da Luz, in those that were occupied their respective occupants were identified and questioned about any information they might have related to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or to any strange situation or attitude noticed during the days preceding the event, in the case of being affirmative, witness statements were taken, in order to be formally investigated (fls 198), although no useful result was obtained.

Witnesses were heard who told of incidents involving children, that could not be connected to Madeleine McCann, in particular a Polish couple, on holiday in Portugal, seen to be taking photos of a child with a clear resemblance to the British girl, but again nothing relevant was found in relation to these suspicions (fls 213 to 216).

Photo fit pictures were drawn up, according to the indications of witnesses, who reported situations they described as being strange, specifically of individuals were seen in the proximity of the apartment during the day, but no link to Madeleine could be established.

Images from service stations along the main Algarve roads were visualised, with a negative result. Photos from images recorded at the Lagos A22 service station were shown to the parents, Gerald and Kate, but were not found to be useful (fls 129/133).

Later that night, a request was made to Silvia Baptista, the Maintenance Director, to provide a list of the guests staying at the resort and those who left on 03-05-2007 as well as the identity of the employees of the crèches where the children played during the day.

 Fls 12 to 23 contain a photographic report of the site where the events took place, compiled on that night as well as a sketch of the apartment.

On the morning of the 4th, already amongst strong media coverage, the questioning of the whole group was begun (fls 34- 83), questionings that would be repeated later.

Fls 86 – 118 contain a report relating to the identity of the nannies (Catriona Baker and Stacey Portz) and the resort employees, as the two nannies were those responsible for the children of the McCann couple they were also questioned informally, nothing unusual was reported by them, however they questioned formally later on.

 During the following days, with the participation of more than 100 PJ investigators, the enormous amount of diverse news about the disappearance was explored, numerous inquiries being carried out.

With the multiplication of supposed sightings and locations, Apenso V was opened to systemise the reports indicating the alleged presence of the girl in various locations around the world as well as the hundreds of inquiries made to confirm them. This annex is composed of 14 volumes.

The disappearance of the British girl, under the circumstances mentioned previously, implied the involvement of the most diverse entities, especially the intervention of the PJ, which was joined by other police authorities. In parallel, this disappearance drew the unprecedented attention of the national and international media, with particular emphasis in the UK during the following days in their peak hour news bulletins, with live reporting from Praia da Luz, as well as programmes specially dedicated to the issue.

Meanwhile, the girl’s parents dedicated themselves to making the most diverse contacts and appeals, divulging images of Madeleine, whilst the British authorities opened a permanent and specialised contact line in order to gather information regarding the disappearance, in addition to information from Interpol and other police partners.

This activity (divulgation), as well as the informative aspects coming from the media, aimed to obtain, within the shortest possible period of time, information that would help the investigation in two ways: finding Madeleine alive and the compilation of material concerning the concrete circumstances of her disappearance.

The public’s desire to collaborate meant that by means of the most diverse sources and varying means, focussed mainly upon communications directly sent to the police, the PJ received the most varied information.

From 04-05-2007 onwards, initially with a disproportionate rhythm, the PJ was sent thousands of reports of sightings and locations covering the whole of Portugal and multiple locations abroad, from neighbouring Spain to faraway Indonesia and Singapore, the missing girl having been “recognised” in the most varied locations, in multiple situations and company, in such a way that one the same day she was supposedly sighted in locations at a distance of 4.000 km apart.

Some of the information was lacking in any credibility because of the circumstances involved, the remaining information requiring systematisation and due follow-up.

here is a remaining diffused “stain” of sightings and locations (some gaining media coverage, such as those in Belgium and Morocco) that contained scarce, vague, contradictory, incompatible or incongruent elements that merited a treatment whereby, in the future, linked to more solid elements, they could be touched on and resuscitated, and which are also contained in the files.

Those that due to their geography and spatial-time relevance, could be credible were duly explored and included in the main body of the files and respective annex.

These include the deployment on 04-05-2007 to the Lagos GALP service station on the A22, East – west direction for the collection of information. A photograph of the missing girl was shown to all employees present, however no recognition was made; images were made available from the security cameras installed at the site, those recorded between 21.00 on 3rd May and 12.00 on 4th May were analysed. From the images, it was possible to observe the entrance of a couple accompanied by a girl with similar appearance, these photos were collected and printed for analysis. In the West – East direction service station the girl’s photo was also shown, with negative results, the same occurring at the Loulé Galp service station.

Following a communication made to the Lagos PSP reporting that in Odiaxere at about 17.00 a woman was seen pushing a pram containing a girl who could apparently be Madeleine, a woman with a corresponding description was found, but when checked she was identified as Maria Isabel C., who was accompanying her niece.

Subsequently and taking into consideration that within the scope of the inquiry 93/05 – 4 JAPTM, an English individual had been investigated for child abuse, it was established that the individual in question no longer resides in Portugal.

Denise Beryl Ashton was interviewed, who on 3rd May reported that two men were collecting money for an orphanage, which did not seem to be true, giving the following description of them: slim complexion, about 180 cm in height, short brown straight hair. He did not have a beard, moustache, earrings or piercings, but was wearing large brown framed glasses. The second individual, who did not speak, was male, Caucasian, aged 40, a bit younger than the first, slim build, she cannot specify his height, short blond hair with dark streaks, straight and brushed forwards.

Meanwhile, the PJ received a communication that on 4th May a Renault vehicle with number plate AQ-23-81 entered the Repsol service station in Vale Paraiso – Albufeira, driven by a Caucasian individual, medium build, aged about 50/60. This individual was closely accompanied by a small girl, light complexion, blond, aged about 3 or 4 years, but after consulting various data bases it was established that there was nothing relevant to report.

Derek Flack appeared before the PJ, an English citizen on holiday in Praia da Luz, staying close to the resort, to report that on the 2nd or 3rd May he noticed an individual (abut 1.70 in height, aged 25/35, dark, appearing to be Portuguese, with stubble, dark short hair and wearing a yellow T-shirt) who was standing at the corner of the path looking towards the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared. He added that close to the place where the individual was standing, on the other side of the street, there was a white parked van in which was a person who was later identified as having arrived in Portugal almost five years ago and who lived near Praia da Luz. Since the beginning of April 2007 he had taken up residence within his van. When confronted with the fact that his presence had been noted frequently near to the Ocean Club resort, he admitted that since the disappearance of Madeleine he had gone there regularly to ask British journalists for news about the girl’s whereabouts. He added that the reason for his preoccupation stemmed from her being a British girl and being of a “very tender age”. Recent investigation of his lifestyle shows that he had nothing to do with the disappearance.

Nuno Manuel Lourenco de Jesus was questioned, he stated that at Praia da Mareta in Sagres, whilst his children played in the sand about 40/50 m away, he noticed the presence of a man equipped with a small camera, taking pictures of his children in a veiled and hidden manner. He saw that the man took more photos of two boys, the sons of a couple who were beside him. He describes the “photographer” as being male, Caucasian, with a Latin look, dark brown hair covering his neck and with a pony tail on top. Aged between 35/40, medium build, about 170 – 175 cm in height. As regards the woman, he can only say that she had short hair, the man was dressed in immaculate white, the woman was shorter than the man. It was not possible to visualise the photographs. It was established that the vehicle he drove was hired on 28-04-2007 in Faro, at the airport by a Polish citizen, who was identified. It was later established that this couple did not have anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine.

Lance Richard Purser was interviewed, he lives in the Praia da Luz area and recalls having seen, two weeks earlier, an individual aged about 35/40, slim, about 1.70, who would normally wear dark clothes, denim shirt and jeans, dark hair, straight and messy which reached his neck, however it was not long hair. He had a rustic appearance, dark skin, as if aged by the sun, and dark eyes. He says that he saw this individual more then once along the road leading to Praia da Luz, as well as close to a pharmacy in Rua Helena do Nascimento Baptista in Praia da Luz. Each time he saw him the man was alone, he did not notice any vehicles or companions. A photo fit was drawn up based upon this description.

Informal questioning was made of an individual suspected of child abuse and of a guest at the Marsol Hotel, nothing of interest was found.

Inquiries were made to locate and determine the current whereabouts and life style of individuals known to the PJ for the practice of sexual crimes, involving children or adolescents, no link to the disappearance was found.

A British man with strange behaviour and raised suspicions of possibly practising acts of paedophilia and exhibitionism aged between 40 and 50 was reported. This individual would walk around with a long lens camera and appeared to have a special fixation for children. Nothing of relevance was found during the inquiries made.

A bag containing a stone was collected from a cliff in Ponta da Piedade, which was probably left by a fisherman, but not of interest to the investigation.

It was known that on the night of the events being investigated, between 20.15 and 20.30, in the area of the Largo do Chafariz video club a white male, tall, with a beard, aged about 30, of stocky build, whom had never been seen in Praia da Luz previously, was spotted walking around. This was found to be a German citizen who said that at the time of the events he was at home alone, he works in civil construction and had nothing to do with the facts being investigated. When his house was visited, nothing was found of interest to the case.

Following an anonymous phone call stating that the girl was in the house of a Dutch couple in Monte Judeu, inquiries were made at the site, the house having been located and the couple approached, who voluntarily identified themselves. Informally, the couple said that on the night of the events they had been at home, in the company of their daughters aged 14 and 16, who go to local schools. They have lived in Portugal for several years and nothing was found during the visit to their home.

Fls 524 to 531 contain various information communicated to the PJ about sightings of Madeleine in different sites, which were revealed not to be true.

They also contain sightings in S. Pedro da Cova, Gondomar, Senhor da Pedra in Miramar, Vila Nova de Gaia on 07-05-2007, which were found not to be true.

Tasmin Milburn Silence was questioned, who began by saying that she lived in the apartment where the girl was staying when she disappeared, she said that on 30th April at about 08.00 when she was walking to the bus stop, a trip she makes on each school day, she noticed the presence of a male individual, behind Madeleine’s apartment, standing on a path leading to the apartments and apparently looking at the balcony. This happened when she was walking down the road, on the left, the man was standing in front of the balcony, the distance that separated them being the width of the road. At this moment she saw the individual more closely, as she crossed, losing sight of him afterwards. She saw him again on 2nd May. She began to walk up the road on the left hand side, seeing the individual at that moment, standing in front of the Ocean Club reception, this time looking more clearly at Madeleine’s apartment, she believes, at the two side windows of the house and part of the balcony. She directly observed the individual, from a distance corresponding to the width of the road. She describes him as: Caucasian, clear complexion, about 1.80 tall, slim build, aged 30/35, with short fair, shaven hair about 1 cm long. He had a big forehead. Nose of a normal size, sharp and pointed. Big hears but flat against his head. A moth with fine lips, a prominent chin in what she noted to be a sharp face.

She said that she would be able to recognise this individual in person and from photographs and make a photofit. When shown photographs of individuals with coinciding physical and criminological features to the details she had described, the result was negative.

Inquiries were made that led to the identification of an English individual, with a criminal background, namely in crimes of a sexual nature, and who was the target of various inquiries without incriminatory results. Inquiries of the same kind were made with regard to other individuals, without yielding any results of interest to the investigation, as can be found in Apenso VI.

A situation was investigated relating to two individuals, Neil B. and Rajinder B., especially as regards the former, whose information was crossed with Tasmin Silence’s witness account, the photofit showing that this was not the same individual. In spite of the inquiries made, including by means of the Letter of Request, nothing was found to link him to the disappearance of the British girl.

Martin Smith was questioned, who said that at the beginning of the Travessa da Escola Primária he saw an individual carrying a child, walking in the opposite direction, at a normal pace, when he passed this individual it must have been about 22.00, being totally unaware that a child had disappeared. Later he states that when he saw Gerald McCann on the news, leaving by plane, he appeared to him to be the individual whom he had seen on the night of 3rd May in Praia da Luz.

This witness was heard again by the Drogheda Irish police on 23-01-08, having been shown a video clip of Gerald McCann’s departure by plane carrying one of the twins. This witness maintains his belief that judging by the posture, there seemed to be a probability of 60-80% that the person seen by him at about 21.55 at the previously mentioned place, was Madeleine’s father. At this time, Gerald’s presence at the restaurant was confirmed by his friends and has not been denied by restaurant employees.

The sighting in Mem Martins on 11-06-2007 is also mentioned and was found not to be truthful.

Hoos Hendrik, owner of an animal crematorium, appeared before the PJ, to clarify that he had nothing to do with the disappearance, contrary to insinuations that had been made.

Fls 3447 contains information provided by the Spanish agency Método 3, that in Vale Barrigas, Sao Bartolomeu de Messines – IC – km 71 7.4 a witness saw a woman hand a blanket wrapped bundle to a man over a 160 cm high metal fence. The woman seen next to the car was similar to Michaela Walczuch: however, from an analysis of mobile phone activity and the activation of antennas, it can be seen that on 4th May 2007, between 15.00 and 17.00, Robert Murat, Michaela Walczuch, Sergey Malinka and Luis Antonio were in the zones of Lagos, Porto de Mós, Penha, Alvor and Praia da Luz, all of these sites being located at a distance of more than 65 km from the place the witness refers to.

Gerald McCann was seen on 07-05-2007 at 14.26 in the centre of Lagos speaking on his mobile phone, asking that no harm should come to Maddie, when it is certain that on the 7th he activated antennas in Praia da Luz and at 14.16 he activated antennas in the centre of Praia da Luz.

Based upon the report containing information, statements and photofits of a possible suspect who could be involved in the disappearance of the girl, which the British police delivered to the PJ on the basis of Gail Cooper’s description, the PJ contacted Joaquim José J. M. (Quim Zé) with the aim of locating his whereabouts, concluding that there were no physical similarities with his face nor hair.

Based upon the same report, the PJ was informed that an individual named Augusto looked similar to the photofit, which was dismissed by an acquaintance of his who saw the photofit.

A.K.B. who had been reported to the police, was located and it was found that, in spite of there being some similarities, he was not the same individual as the one referred to in the photofit, as well as taking into account that an analysis of his mobile revealed that he had not activated any antenna in Praia da Luz.

A search was made of the home of M.R.A., who was suspected of crimes of a sexual nature in an ongoing investigation, but nothing relating to the disappearance of Madeleine was found.

It was established that the disappearance of Madeleine was not connected in any way with the death of the small Spanish girl Mari Luz Cortés, the only common denominators being the relative geographical proximity and that they were female children of approximately the same age.

Based upon the statement made by the witness Michael Wright in the Letters of Request about the fact that “a George” had seen a couple carrying a child on 04-05-2007, it was established that the situation had already been clarified in May 2007.

Information was also clarified regarding an unknown individual with suspicious behaviour during the days preceding the disappearance, next to a phone booth close to the Golfinho restaurant, no relation being found between the numbers contained in the listings of calls made from that public phone and Madeleine’s disappearance.

Equally, it should be emphasised that the arrival of an enormous quantity of news of a fantasising nature and lacking any credibility which obliged the investigation to carry out constant and considerable efforts for their clarification, which assumed even more importance as it was known that time was pressing in the fundamental concern of finding the missing girl.

The result of these inquiries is contained in the files and annexes, thousands of man hours having been spent in drawing them up.

The PJ also proceeded to question the parents of the missing girl and the group of friends (fls 34 and following) already referred to on fls 5 of this dispatch:

Gerald Patrick McCann – apartment 5 A

Kate Marie Healy – apartment 5 A

David Anthony Payne – apartment 5 H

Fiona Elaine Payne – apartment 5 H

Dianne Webster – apartment 5 H

Russel James O’Brien – apartment 5 D

Jane Michelle Tanner – apartment 5 D

Matthew David Oldfield – apartment 5 B

Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly – apartment 5 B

In summary, of the witness accounts gathered, it is important to highlight the statements made by Gerald, Jane Tanner and David Oldfield.

On 3rd May, the daily routine went as usual, the McCanns having headed for the apartment at 17.30/18.00, accompanied by their children. After this period and until 19.00 they bathed the children, fed them again with light foods, played with them a bit and put them to bed, the parents stating that at about 19.30 the three children were asleep. Gerald remained at the tennis courts until 19.00.

Afterwards the parents had some drinks, got ready for dinner, leaving at about 20.30 in the direction of the Tapas restaurant (a walk of just over one minute). Upon leaving, as usual, they left by the balcony door, which, not locked from the outside, remained pushed to, as this was the shortest route to the restaurant and consequent return, whether to check on the children or whether for their final return.

The checking of the children by that route, was a daily practice, made, allegedly, in intervals of half an hour, which, as shown by the files and which will be taken up further on, was in truth extended to periods superior to one hour.

The McCann couple were the first to arrive at the restaurant, having entered into conversation with a couple who were not part of their group, but also British, their surname was Carpenter. As time passed, the others arrived.

At about 21.00 Matthew and Russel went to check on the children, having first listened at the window, from the outside, of Madeleine’s bedroom, located at the facade of the apartment block, on the ground floor.

Upon his return, Matthew did not report anything unusual. Russel stayed in his apartment as his daughter was ill.

At 21.05, given that Matthew had not entered to check on the children, Gerald McCann went to the apartment. He left through the secondary reception, walked up the road for about twenty to thirty metres and entered via the metal gate, next to the apartment, leading to the garden/patio. He entered the apartment via the sliding doors, which, as mentioned previously, were not locked. He crossed the living room and went to the children’s bedroom, noticing that the bedroom door was wider open than usual, as ha had left it more pushed to. He presumed that Madeleine had got up due to some physiological need. He entered the bedroom and checked that all three children were sleeping calmly. He went to the WC and left via the same route.

Upon coming out of the gate, he met Jeremy Wilkins, an acquaintance of his from tennis sessions, also British, who was taking his son for a walk in his push chair and who was also on holiday at the Ocean Club. He spoke to him for a few moments, before returning to the Tapas at about 21.15.

At 21.10, given her husband’s absence, Jane Tanner went to check on the state of her daughter. She left by the reception and walked up the road that passes the entrance to the apartment block. She was not seen by Gerald McCann, nor by Jeremy Wilkins, although she did see them. Gerald had his back to her, however Wilkins was facing the place where Tanner passed.

At the precise moment when she passed the two of them, she noticed, at the top of the road, an individual walking, with a prostrate child across his arms, the child was barefoot and wearing pyjamas, walking in the opposite sense to the entrance to the apartments. She thought it was a father with his child.

She only told of this situation after the disappearance had been discovered and she had associated the two, saying that it was Madeleine, as she was wearing identical pyjamas. A photofit was made, without including facial features, a description of the individual and his clothes was given to the media, in case anyone could clarify who the individual was (fls 1592) – no response was obtained.

At about 21.35, half an hour later, Kate wanted to go and check on the children, Matthew volunteered to undertake this act, as he was also going to his apartment, with the same purpose. He took the usual route and entered the McCann’s via the sliding doors, which were open/pushed to.

When he was in the middle of the living room, where there was some light, he saw the twins in their respective cots, as the door was open, however, he did not enter the children’s bedroom and therefore could not see if Madeleine was asleep in her bed.

Upon his return, he said that all was well. When questioned, he said that he thought that the children’s bedroom was lighter than could be expected if the windows were closed and lights turned off. He could not clarify the state of the window nor why there was light.

Half an hour later (22.00), according to their reports, Kate Healy went to the apartment to check on the children. She entered via the sliding doors, which she closed upon entering, and saw that the children’s bedroom door was slightly wider open than they had left it when they went to dinner. Upon closing the bedroom door, she felt a current of air, which led her to inspect the bedroom more carefully, and she noticed that her daughter Madeleine, had disappeared. The bedroom window was wide open, the shutters were raised and the curtains were drawn open. The bed was practically untouched, her daughter’s soft toy at the head.

In a state of alert and panic, she searched the whole apartment, not managing to find the girl, which led her to go, already quite upset, to the Tapas restaurant, saying that her daughter had been taken, a clear allusion to an abduction, justified by the fact that the window was open. During this interval, the twins remained alone in the bedroom, asleep. They did not wake during the night, in spite of the number of people present and inevitable associated noise.

The PJ specialist team, which went to the site to collect evidence, excluded the existence of any product that could have been administered to the missing girl in order to maintain her in a state of unconsciousness nor the presence of blood traces.

Having been informed of the disappearance, the whole of the group went to the McCann’s apartment, accompanied by Ocean Club employees, who once again searched the apartment and adjacent area, without any results.

https://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE FIRST 11 VOLUMES OF THE INQUIRY (pages 1-3004) Central Department of Criminal Investigation, February, 5th, 2008

INTRODUCTION

In the continuity of the work already developed in reference to the analysis of the communications (voice phone calls, SMS and MMS), we proceeded, by solicitation of the DIC of Portim', to the operational analysis of the Inquiry 201/07.0GALGS.

For that matter, we were delivered a copy, on digital format, of the 11 volumes (pages 1 to 3004), that constituted the process at that time; discs and maps with the registration of the phone contacts of the arguido Robert Murat, his mother Jennifer Murat, the witnesses Michaela Walazuch, Luis Antonio and Sergey Malinka; registrations and maps of the calls made from public booths in Praia da Luz; copies of the videos made during the cynotechnic searches.

With this amount of information (interviews, inquests, etc.), we pretended to clarify what had happened on the night of May the 3rd, 2007, in the apartment 5A, of the resort named Praia da Luz Ocean Club, and to find any element that could lead to the identification of the author of the facts.

To realize the requested analysis, it was used the informatics tools: Analyst Notebook V.6 and Excel, for the realization of the Graphs (charts) and tables, of which we annex those considered pertinent; and we used the database of this police ' SPO.

Throughout our work we were frequently contacted by colleagues that were on the field, in the attempt to verify if a certain mobile phone number had activated any antenna, of the 3 national operators, that serve Praia da Luz on any of the 3 days that we have registers for.

METHODOLOGY

In the first phase, we proceeded to a careful reading of the files taking notes of the elements that could contribute, in any way, to the composition of the chronograms of the facts. From that reading is clear that much of the proof is testimonial.

So, at this phase, we compared the declarations of the Ocean Club's employees with the phone registries of the 3 operators, to figure out if there is any incongruence between the depositions made and their presence at the place, when they claimed that they were absent from that locality.

Following this line of reasoning it was determined that two witnesses ' Bernardino (page. 372) and Ecaterina (pag 596) ' activated one of the antennas, beyond the time that they stated having left that area.
After this phase, Excel tables were created based on the depositions of the different intervenients, the maps with the registry of the entrance and exits of the creches, the R.D.E. and other information. From these maps charts were created (in annex).

On these charts we find:
- Timelines of entities

- Boxes of events

[Note: figures are not exhibited here for difficulties with edition]

As the Analyst Notebook executes automatically the correlations that it finds on the tables with the data, it's up to the analyst to read it, and according with the results, to enunciate one or more hypothesis.

So, apart from the traces recovered on that occasion and on others, both from the apartment 5A, as from the residence of Robert Murat, and from its analysis, this report is based on the statements of the several intervenients that are translated on the annexed charts.

These are separated by the following types: first declarations; second declarations; third declarations; R.D.E.; Registry pages from the creches; telephone contacts; and others.

This categorization was made in order to find any discrepancy on the depositions of the different witnesses and arguidos. That is, we aimed to check if there were significant changes in their statements.

The statements were then reproduced on a graphic form, being the personal or group routines represented on daily graphs. For instance, if a witness declared that on the 29th had lunch at home, and that was their routine until the 3rd, that event will appear on the graphs for those days. Those situations can be observed when on the 'event's boxes' the word ROUTINE appears.

This procedure was adopted for the graphs based on the first depositions and Rs.D.E. The graphs for the second and second statements this method was not used, because we chose to make graphs for the new elements supplied by the witnesses, avoiding, this way, to repeat everything that had been done for the first depositions.

DEVELOPMENT

From the declarations of the various intervenients, it was clear that when the GNR arrived at the place, several persons had already handled the window and entered the room of Madeleine and her siblings, which means that the space had been occupied by other individuals. It possibly explains the scarcity of probational elements recovered on the first phase. It's a fact that the only latent fingerprints recovered, with the necessary elements for a positive identification belonged to the mother of the missing child and to a member of the GNR (pag. 885 and 1520).

One of the fundamental principles of the investigation is connected with the data recovered on the crime scene since the first moment. If that place had already been visited by third parties, the elements that eventually could be recovered, may lead to the construction of scenarios quite different from what really happened. Most of the times that 'change' is such that it compromises, or at least, limits the recovery of eventual traces that might exist on the crime scene.

The lack of the preservation of the space, as the investigation principles demand, was such that on the several vestiges recovered, on the afternoon of the day after the disappearance of the child, by a SCI team of the Scientific Police Laboratory (page. 2307), after laboratory analysis for the identification of DNA, it was revealed the presence of non-human hair (pages. 2432, passim).

This team searched for any substance that could have been administered to the missing child in order to keep her under an unconscious state and/or the presence of blood traces.

According to the statements, the life of the group followed a daily routine. After having breakfast, at the apartment (in the case of the Mccann) or at the Millennium restaurant, they placed the children at their respective creches. Then the adults went for several sports' activities (tennis, sailing, etc).

Around lunch time, they went for the kids at the creche and had lunch with them at the apartments.
In the afternoon some of the children (McCann children and the eldest of O'Brien/Tanner) were placed at the creches, while the others were kept with the parents.

Some adults returned to their sports' activities while others went for other activities, normal for people on holidays.

After feeding the children, which happened close to the Tapas bar/restaurant, under the supervision of the nannies, they took them to put them to bed after making their hygiene.

Afterwards, with the children already asleep, the adults went to the restaurant for dinner (annexes 2 to 37, based on the statements; and annexes 57 to 67, based on the Rs.D.E. and crêche's registration).

Based on the several testimonies, it's demonstrated that we are in the presence of a group of people, in holidays, with children, with a certain routine that is completely changed after the disappearance of Madeleine.

The mobile phone contacts, made and received by the elements of the group, registered by the 3 national operators, only corroborate that deduction for the days 2 to 4. It's clear that the mobile phones did not have much use and when they use it it's to call UK (annexes 38, 39).

On the day of the disappearance, the group routine was slightly different, not for the McCann family, they had the same ritual of placing the children on the creche to dedicate to the tennis practice in the after lunch.

However, the remaining elements of the group, in the afternoon, went to the beach, where they had high tea at the bars in that area (annexes 15, 16, 17, 27, 38 and 35).

On this last day, the last time that Madeleine was seen by someone not belonging to the family group or the friends' group, was at 17:30h, when she was returned to the parents by one of the nannies (annex 66, pag 105).

According to the narrative made by Kate and Gerald, after putting the children in bed, they got out for dinner, with the children asleep.

According to an agreement, accepted tacitly by everyone, the supervision of the children was made in a way where they took turns on that task, so the children would not be unsupervised for periods longer than 15 to 30 minutes.

On that fateful night, the first one to go to the apartments was Mathew Oldfield, who made their check based on audition. He listened, and it was not possible to find out if at the windows or at the doors, if any noise was coming from the inside of the apartments.

He was followed by Gerald McCann. This one entered into his apartment, at about 21:05 h, and aw his children asleep, he got out and followed towards the Tapas. In the way he met the witness Jeremy Wilkins, with whom he maintained a small conversation.

Meanwhile, Jane Tanner, another element of the group, left the table and went to her apartment. On the way she saw Gerald talking to Jeremy ('Jezz') ' Amazingly, none of them saw her. On that occasion, at about 21:15h, Jane saw at the top of the street, a male individual crossing the road, holding a child.

Later, around 21:30h, Mathew went back to check the children, and on that occasion he entered through the window/door of the living room, in the apartment of the McCann. He saw the twins sleeping in their cots, but he didn't see Madeleine, due to the position of the bed where she was sleeping.

By 22:00h, it was Kate's turn to proceed to the verification of how her children were, and that's why it was her that noticed the absence of her daughter and gave the alert to the other members of the group.

There were several intervenients on the initial searches amongst the Ocean's employees, residents and guests.
To get the physical context f the place where the facts occurred, a visit was made. This way, it was evident that when sit at a table where the one that was used by the nine, at the Tapas restaurant, it was impossible to see the totality of the back of the apartment where the McCann stayed. It was even possible that a person entered the apartment without being seen from that position.

HYPOTHESES

From the analysis emerges one concrete FACT:
MADELEINE MCCANN DISAPPEARED FROM THE APARTMENT WHERE SHE WAS LODGED WITH HER FAMILY.
This fact raises 2 preferential hypotheses:

1- Kidnapping performed by unknown(s); and/or

2- Violent/accidental death occurring inside the apartment and posterior removal of the body to an unknown place.

1.1. The first hypothesis is based on the following data:

a) It was Kate Healy that found out that her daughter was missing (pag. 61). When Kate arrives at the apartment to check the children, she found out that Madeleine was absent and that her children's bedroom door was completely open, which was not usual, and that the window that gives access to the exterior was also opened, the shutters opened and the curtains opened to the sides.

b) Gerald McCann, the father, at around 21:05h, had seen her on the bed (pag 37, lines 73-76). After the alarm given by his wife, he realized that the window was opened to one of the sides, the shutters almost entirely raised up and the curtains opened to the sides. Madeleine's bed was empty, but the twins were still on their cots sleeping (page 901).

c) Mathew Oldfield, one of the friends that enters the apartment of the McCann before the mother gives the alarm, didn't check inside the room of the children, if Madeleine was there, only seeing the twins (page 54); after Kate gave the alarm he also saw the window of the children's room opened and it's shutter raised. As he referred there was no sign of a breakthrough in the apartment doors (pag 55).

d) Jane Tanner, a friend, that at the moment when Kate give the alarm was at home taking care of her daughter, but declares to have seen, at 21:15h, an individual crossing the street she was going up to, from the left to the right, holding a child (pag 46).

e) (It was possible to add the rest of the elements of the group, however in our understanding an analysis report is not a final report, so we are just going to mention the first witness outside the group that became aware of the despair of Kate, while she cried for her daughter and reprimanded herself for having left her alone)
Pamela Fenn, resident at the apartment just above the one were the incident occurred (p. 2413).

This witness also referred that on the night of day 1 (NOTE: by the way it is written it means May 1st) she heard a child and not a baby, crying for about 1:30 h, and that this sound came from the apartment below hers. This statement contradicts the version presented by the group that they were checking the children every 15 or 30 minutes.

There are no witnesses that have watched whatever happened. Also there are no traces that may lead to the author of the facts denounced by Gerald McCann.

Apart from the witness Jane Tanner, there other 3 witnesses, all of the same family ' Martin, Aiofe and Peter Smith, respectively father, daughter and son ' that around 22:00h, have seen an individual carrying a child, in a place opposed to the one where the other witness claims to have seen the other suspect, if we use as reference the McCann apartment.

Still on the kidnapping side, Robert Murat, at a certain time of the investigations, became a suspect of the crime.

Let's enumerate some facts that led to such a suspicion, and demonstrate some important aspects that must be taken into account by the investigation, that result from data within the files.

Reasons that led to the suspicion:

a) According to a British journalist, R. Murat started having suspicious attitudes close to those professionals of the British media. He didn't want to be photographed and didn't give any identification element apart from his nick name ' 'ROB' (pag. 308).

b) His residence was in the direction that, according to Jane, was taken by the unknown that was carrying a child (pag.46).

c) The attitudes taken by him and referred on page 329.

d) Anonymous denounce that suggests that he was an individual that frequently viewed sites of 'heavy sexual contents' (page 461).

e) His behaviour while acting as a translator, showing an unusual interest, that surpassed the functions for which he was nominated, he showed curiosity about the diligences that had been realised and the ones that were to be performed (pag 960, passim).

f) Having been present on the night of the facts, according to the declarations of Rachel Mampilly (pag 1296); Fiona Payne (1323) and Russell (page 1945).

From the analysis it results that Murat arrived in Portugal, coming from Britain on May the 1st, his mother went to get him from the airport (annex 68).

From the acts ('autos') it is deprehended that a very strong relationship exists between Robert and Michaela, and that they try to be together, whenever it's possible. On the same day of his arrival, immediately after passing by his home, he went to visit her in Lagos, where Michaela resides with her husband and daughter.

On the 2nd and 3rd, they declared to have been together. According to the antennas they activated, on those two days, they stayed within the Lagos area.

When they are not together they contact by mobile phone, which occurs at the end of the day, compare the annexes 68 and 75; and 70, 71 and 79.

On the 3rd, they were together all day, according to their statements that originated the annexes 70 to 72.

They met at 9:30h and were around the Lagos area in meetings and at Michaela's house. Around 19:30h, Murat left her place and returned to Praia da Luz. During the period they were together there are no phone contacts between the two.

They only establish that sort of contact at 23:20h, having Michaela called Murat after, according to the statements on pag 1184 and 1544, arriving home from the church meeting she frequents.

Only the witnesses Rachael Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien, without we understanding why, state that they saw him on the night of the facts, helping as a translator the members of the GNR. However they are the only ones to stand that. Several witnesses denied that fact. Some of those witnesses are residents at Praia da Luz and know Robert, from sight, for several years (annexes 72 and 73).

The mother refers that Murat stayed at home all the time, close to her, after having entered at 19:30h.
Nothing of interest resulted from the searches realised to his residence, that allowed to infer that he was involved, in any way, on the disappearance of Madeleine. That is, no traces of the presence of Madeleine were found on the places accessed by Robert.

The exams performed by the Medical Forensic Laboratory to the hair found at his residence and vehicles (pag 2426), the DNA recovered was of the haplotype of Robert Murat.

From the analysis realised to every communication, since November the 1st, 2006 until July 19th, 2007, of Robert, Michaela, Sergey, Jennifer and Luis Antonio, it's evident that Robert and Malinka only contacted each other 8 times, annex 87.

There is no relationship between Sergey and Luis Antonio, and between this last one and Robert, neither between those two and the residence of Robert Murat, between April 30th and May 4th (annexes 82 to 86).

2.1. The hypothesis of death is based on the following:

a) The witness Silvia Batista, page 1977, refers that at 3:00 h, May 4th, the couple asked for a priest, which she found strange since there was at that time any indication that the child was dead, and it is 'under those circumstances that usually the presence of a priest is demanded' (sic).

b) The search dog 'Eddie' (dog that signals the presence of cadaver odour) 'marked' (gave a signal) in the couples bedroom, at the apartment 5A, on an area close to the wardrobe (page 2054, and/or annex 88)

c) That same dog 'marked', in the same apartment, an area close to the window of the living room, which has a direct access to the street, behind the sofa (page. 2054 and/or annex 88)

d) Still in the apartment, the dog 'marked' an area in the garden, at the corner, down the vertical from the veranda (page 2054 and/or annex 88).

e) At the villa 'Vista do Mar', the house rented by the McCann after leaving the Ocean Club, the dog 'marked' the area of the closet that contained in its interior the soft toy belonging to Madeleine (cf. page. 2099 and/or annex 88)

f) From the exam to the clothing performed in a pavilion in Lagos, this same dog 'marked' some pieces of clothes that belonged to Kate Healy (page 2101 and /or annex 88)

g) This dog signalled the exterior and interior parts, of the driver's door, of the Renault 59-DA-27 ' rented by the McCann (page. 2187 and /or annex 88)

h) Finally he 'marked' the key/card of this vehicle when hidden in a sand box (page 2187 and/or annex 88)

i) The search dog, named 'Keela' (a she dog that detects the presence of human blood) 'marked' an area in the living room, in the apartment 5A, that had been 'marked' by the dog 'Eddy' (page. 2054 and/or annex 88)

j) After the mosaics that this dog signalled had been retired, on a first inspection, and mentioned previously, she marked that same area once more (page 2190 and/or annex 88)

k) She 'marked' also the inferior side of the left side curtains, of the window referred above (page 2190 and/or annex 88)

l) She 'marked' the inferior lateral right side, in the inside of the booth of the car 59-DA-27 (page 2187 and/or annex 88)

m) In what concerns the vehicle, 'Keela' 'marked' the little compartment of the driver's door, that contained the key/card of the vehicle (page 2187 and/or annex 88)

n) This dog also 'marked' the key/card when the same was hidden into a sand box.

It should be noted the report made by the trainer /owner of these dogs. On this report it's mentioned the methodology of training:

'Eddie, the dog with an advanced training to detect mortal victims (E.V.R.D.), searches and locates human remains and body fluids, including blood, in any environment or terrain. The initial training of the dog was done with human blood and decaying piglets that were born dead. The importance of this training is that the dog learnt to identify the odour of a decaying body that is not food. This guaranties that the dog ignores the 'bacon sandwich' and the 'kebab', etc. that are always present in the environment. Besides that the dog will not alert to a meal prepared at home or on any other place. For instance, the dog will be efficient on searching a cadaver in café where the clients can be seated eating a bacon sandwich. As a complement of this training, the dog receives an additional training in the USA, in association with the FBI, in which will be used exclusively human remains' (sic) (page 2493 and 2494).

This summarized description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be 'marking' not the odours emanated from a cadaver, directly or indirectly (by contagious), but from blood in putrefaction'

These dogs are means for obtaining proof but they cannot be used as proof. They must be taken as instruments. Any vestige, even invisible to the eye, recovered with the use of these dogs, has to be subjected to forensic exam on a credited laboratory.

It is the same Martin Grime that, at pages 2271, refers on his report: 'Although it cannot constitute proof admissible to court, it can help on the recovery of intelligence for the investigation of serious crimes'.

In this case the dogs signalled several places. The technicians of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered those vestiges ' vestiges that that on it's majority were not visible to the eye ' and sent them to the laboratories for the necessary forensic exams, in order to recover and identify the DNA profiles, that might be extracted from them.

From the screening of the videos, referred previously, done when the dogs were working, some doubts arise. We don't want and we can't take the place of the trainer, we only wish to alert, with this paragraph, to some facts, that according to us, need further clarification.

If the dog is trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in most of the cases, we see the dog passing more than once by that place in an uninterested way, until he finally signals the place where he had already passed several times'

On one of the films, it's possible to see that 'Eddie' sniffs Madeleine's cuddle cat, more than once, bites it, throws it into the air and only after the toy is hidden does he 'mark' it (page 2099). Whys didn't he signal it when he sniffs it on the first time'

Apart from all that was said about the dogs, we must also take into attention the results of the forensic analysis that was performed by the experts on the Scientific Police Laboratory on the day immediately after the facts, and already mentioned where no vestige of blood was found.

OTHER

Besides the analysis of the charts with reference to the group that travelled with Madeleine and the 'group' of Robert Murat, other charts were made.

On the annex 89 it's represented the renting of the vehicle 59-DA-27, where it's signalled that the same was rented for the first time by Gerald McCann on May 27th, 2007, and kept until September 23rd, 2007. Which means that the vehicle entered under his possession 24 days after the disappearance of his daughter.

On the annex 90, there is a detailed analysis developed based on the hypothesis that the author of the kidnapping acted with the help of another individual, and that both activated on the same minute, only on the 3rd, one of the antennas at Praia da Luz. This means, they both would activate cells in Praia da Luz simultaneously. It was taken as reference the statements of Jane Tanner and Gerald McCann and it was admitted that this contact, short, had occurred between 21:00 and 21:20h.

The result of this analysis was communicated, in due time, to the colleagues, inspectors Rodrigues and Santos.
It was also to those colleagues that was transmitted the results of the analysis made, based on the same hypothesis (annex 91), but within the period 21:45h and 22:15h. This period has to do with the statement of the Smith family, Martin, Aoife and Peter, that declare to have seen a male individual carrying a child at around 22:00h.

The data analysed to make those charts and the Excel table, were the 74 thousand registrations supplied by the 3 operators, with reference to the activation of the antennas that serve Praia da Luz between May 2nd and 4th.

Based on the some descriptions made by the witnesses, other charts are represented on the annex 92, but they they do not reveal anything useful for the investigation.

More attention was given to the descriptions of the members of the Smith's family and Jane's, since in both there was a common element, the suspect transported a child, and also due to their temporal proximity. The rest of them were scattered in time and the descriptions were based on the fact that the individuals at a certain time had a suspicious attitude or aspect.

An analysis was also made to the numbers called from the public phone booths, but no useful element o the investigation was found. This data serve only, just like the 74 thousand registries of the operators, to eliminate eventual suspects.

Finally, it may be referred that from the analysis to the communications, in general, nothing relevant could be found.

RECOMMENDATIONS

From the analysis no noticeable discrepancies can be found from the depositions made by the intervenients, and also between those statements and other elements to which they were compared, namely, the registries of the crêches entrances and exits of the children, registries of the tennis classes and phone calls.

However, as referred previously, there is a witness that declares to have heard, supposedly Madeleine McCann, crying for one and a half hours, without the parents getting into the apartment during that period.

This statement raises serious doubts about for how long the children were without supervision.

In the case of Murat, there are also no discrepancies on his statements.

From the mentioned above, we understand that the following recommendations must be made:

- On the hypothesis that there was death of the child, the results performed by the British Laboratory must be awaited, in order to assert what kind of vestiges were collected and if any of those can lead to the identification of Madeleine McCann's DNA profile.

- To obtain, from the trainers and supervisors of the dogs (ERVD and CSI), further enlightenings about the 'marking' and the friability of their work.

- Under the hypothesis of abduction, because there are no vestiges to lead to the author, we propose the waiting for a denounce or testimony that permits to obtain new elements of proof in order to achieve an identification.

https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ANALYSIS-11-VOLUMES.htm