Our own copy of the DVD

Processo, volume IIa, page 270 onwards.

This is not a translation just a transcription for those who do not have access to the files.

****************

I am the above named person and [illegible] at an address known by police. This statment describes my holiday [illegible] and conversation with Jerry, the father of Madeline on the evening of her disappearance.---------------------
On Saturday 28th April 2007 we arrived at the OCEAN CLUB RESORT, GARDEN APARTMENTS, PRAIA DA LUZ, ALGARVE. I was with my wife Bridget O’Donnell, my daughter [illegible] who is three (3) and ‘ARLO’ [?] my son who is eight (8) months. We were placed into the apartment within block G4, apartment letter O. There are about fifteen (15) apartments within each block. The McCann family were within the next block. On Monday 30th April 2007 I joined the tennis lessons provided by MARK WARNER the tour operator. There were five ([illegible]) [illegible] in the group. There were [illegible] (3) females and a male. I knew to be J[illegible] white of pale [?] complexion, about 5’10" to 6’00" with a soft GLASWEGAN [?] accent. He has dark brown hair which was short. He was of athletic build. As part of the lesson we were paired off together. We engaged in general conversation, mainly about tennis and football. I had the impression that he was good company, gregarious and chatty. The tennis lesson lasted about an hour. We were signed up for four (4) lessons in total. I can’t recall if I saw Jerry again that day.
On Tuesday 1st May 2007 again [?] had a tennis lesson together. After the lesson this time we had a game of doubles together with two (2) of his [illegible]. At this time I established that Jerry and his family had come away with a group of other families four (4) in total. The game [don’t understand] about an hour and a quarter. After the game we walked together with a third male called Russell or Matt to pick the children up from the ‘MINI CLUB’. This is a crèche provided by the holiday company. We would take them there at 9am everyday until 12.30pm. I realised Jerry had three (3) children. A girl called MADELINE and [illegible] (2) twins who were about two years of age. MADELINE was about three (3). This club would [illegible] three (3) to five (5) year olds. The club was split into two (2) groups. The ‘SHARKS’ and the ‘LOBSTERS’. My son was in the SHARK group [illegible] I believe MADELINE was in the LOBSTERS. So they didn’t interact as far as I know. I don’t believe I saw the family again that day..
On Wednesday 2nd May [illegible] I could see it was raining and the tennis lesson was postponed. It was rescheduled for 2.30pm. I found out at a later date and I missed the lesson. I arrived about five (5) minutes before the end and realised this [don’t understand]. I saw the usual people at the tennis lesson. I then went back to my apartment. That evening myself and my partner attended the ‘Tapas’ restaurant which is part of the hotel complex at the swimming pool. We sat down to eat at 7.30pm. After about forty five (45) minutes JERRY appeared as did one of his friends. I believe this was Russell. They sat at the next table. We naturally engaged in conversation about everyday things. We spoke about childcare. That night my family was using the crèche facility. We found out that the group of families were occuping ground floor flats near the swimming pool as they were leaving the children by themselves in order for them to go to the restaurant. They would then go regularly to check the children who would be asleep. I found out that Jerry was a cardiologist in a hospital. At this time his wife was putting the children to bed. We received a call from the crèche informing us that our son was awake. My partner left first and I followed shortly afterwards. The amount of time I spent with JERRY was about fifteen (15) to twenty (20) minutes. He remained [?] at the restaurant. By the time we left JERRY was with about seven (7) other people. I picked up my daughter from the crèche and then returned to the apartment.
On Thursday 3rd May 2007 at 10am I went to the tennis lesson as usual and Jerry was there and a female. The other two (2) females were not present. We again engaged in general conversationand played the lesson for an hour. I went to the pool where B[illegible] was. I think Jerry’s wife KATE was already by the pool and he joined her JERRY and KATE were speaking to the tennis coach. We weren’t really involved in the conversation [illegible] JERRY would say the odd [illegible] involved [illegible]. At 12.30pm we went to pick the [illegible] up from the crèche as usual. Everyone left the pool at about the same time, I didn’t see JERRY or KATE. We returned to our apartment. We decided to spend the evening- in watching television. Our son was awake and unable to sleep. I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8.15pm – 8.30pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn’t see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out of the top road. I met him near some stairs and a groundfloor flat. There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left off the apartment. We spoke for a [illegible] minutes. He said ‘You’r on walking duty’. I said I was staying in and the pros and cons and what to do with the children. He said that if he was [?] staying two (2) weeks he [illegible] stay in one night. I don’t remember anyone else walk past with a child. The conversation [don’t understand] for about three (3) to five (5) minutes. He was acting completely normal from what I knew [know?] of him so far. I then walked back to the apartment, had dinner, watched a DVD and went to bed at about 11pm.
The doorbell woke us up at about 1am. It was the resort manager who I knew to be John and one of Jerry’s friends. I think his name was Matt. He is white, slim, tall with greying hair. From previous conversations I [don’t understand] be a diabetis[?] specialist. We met him on the plane on the way to the destination. Matt said words [?] to the effect that Jerry’s daughter had been abducted, and that Jerry said he had seen me and wanted to know if I had seen anything. I said ‘You’r joking’. I offered help but they said there was nothing that could be done at that stage. We remained in the apartment but could see people around the pool and at the front with torches. I also saw the police arriving. We then went to bed. The following [illegible] day it was a somber atmosphere around the apartment complex. I last saw JERRY [illegible] KATE on Saturday 5th May 2007 at about 4pm – 5pm. We were sitting by the pool. I walked over to JERRY and [don’t understand] to let him know I was thinking about him. I shook his hand. He was quiet but wasn’t [don’t understand]. I thought it was brave of him and his wife to go to the pool. I said ‘Hello’ to KATE. I didn’t know what to say in that situation. She looked really upset. That was the last time I physically saw JERRY and KATE. Myself and my family left the complex at 7.30pm and flew back to GATWICK that evening arriving at 4am on Sunday. I have drawn a map of the complex and marked an ‘X’ where I saw JERRY on Thursday evening. I [illegible] this as JW/2. I have also produced a map from the holiday brochure also with an ‘X’ where I saw JERRY on Thursday. I exhibit this as JW/[illegible].

Well maria, you have done a good job there.

You have uniquivably proved that Gerry and Jez were talking on the same side of the road as the appartment. This is completely at odds with my reading of the case. I was wrong and I accept that my little watchers car park may no longer be relevant - unless Gerry came out and met Jez at virtually the same time that Jane Tanner left reception and and walked up the hill. Then, maybe, the get-away driver got in a fizz and backed back into his parking lot simultaneously with the abductor leaving the appartment. It would be a huge co-incidence if all these things happened simultaneously, but it is, I suppose, still a slight possibility. This would tie in with Gerry prabably being in the appartment at the same time as the abductor.

Well the facts are moving forward and the theories going backwards. Still facts are more important than theories at this stage. When we know more facts, maybe we can develop fresh and more accurate theories?

Maria, thank you so much, I will digest these in full tomorrow, but I wanted to acknowledge your efforts.

Tinkerbell43 wrote:Maria, thank you so much, I will digest these in full tomorrow, but I wanted to acknowledge your efforts.

Processo, volume VI page 227 (PJ page 1606)

**********************
Name – Martin Smith
Date – 2007/05/26
-- Comes to the depositions as a witness.
-- Being of Irish nationality, he does not understand the Portuguese Language in its oral and written form, being therefore accompnied by na interpreter, L***** N*********.
-- He owns an apartment in Vila da Luz, Lagos, namely at Urbanização Estrela da Luz, corresponding to A1C. This apartment is co-owned with a friend L*** O*****. He usually holidays in Portugal, allways at the apartment, three times a year.
-- With regards to this period, he relates that he arrived in Portugal on the 30th April 2007, having his return planned, which happened, for the 09 May of current year. The arrival was at Faro airport, having left from Dublin.
-- In which refers to the facts, on the 3rd May, he went with his family to Dolphin restaurant, at Praia da Luz, where [he, they] had dinner. Around 21:00 he left the restaurant and walked to the "Kelly’s bar", around 50 metres away from the restaurant, having the walk, short as it is, taken a couple of minutes. At Kelly’s they had few drinks, leaving around 21:55, as his son was travelling very early next day. This bar is situated at Rua da Calheta.
-- Having left the bar, he took the same route in the opposite direction up to some stairs that allow the access to the Rua 25 de Abril. On that road they took a secondary street which name he ignores paralel to rua 1º de Maio, heading to Estrela da Luz, situated just after the Travessa da Escola Primária. Just at the beginning of this road, he saw a male individual carrying a child, walking normally and who fitted well the place, as it is usual to see people carrying children, at least during the holiday season. He adds that the individual was walking downhill, opposite direction of the deponent [?, the person making a deposition] and his family. He doesn’t know the direction he took. as he only saw him when they passed by each other, he thought they would be father and daughter, therefore not raising any suspicions.
-- When asked he answered that we he passed by this individual at around 22:00, and therefore he knew absolutelly nothing about a child disappearance. He only knew about the child disappearance next morning through his daughter L*****, who was in Ireland, and sent a message or called telling him about what happened. Knowing about that situation, he inferred that the child being carried by that individual he had seen could be Madeleine.
-- In what concerns the description of the individual carrying the child he said: caucasian, about 175 to 180 cm height. Around 35/40 years of age. Normal complexion, but of slim type. Short hair, normal male cut, brown hair, but can’t say if dark or fairer tone. Didn’t wear glasses, neither beard nor moustache. Didn’t notice other relevant details, even because light was dim.
-- He wore cream/beige trousers, classic cut, [?, woolen type fabrics], didn’t see the shoes. He didn’t take a look at the upper part of the clothing, therefore he cannot describe it.
-- With relation to the child, was female, about four years of age, as she was similar to his grand daughter of that age. She was a child of normal complexion, with about a meter in height, although he can’t state this for sure as she was being carried. She had fair hair, medium [tonality?], as it was not very [?shiny]. Her skin was pale white, typical of british people. Didn’t see the eyes, as she was sleeping and they were closed.
She was wearing a light colour pyjama, although he can’t say exactly which colour. She wasn’t wrapped on any blanket or rug [as in ‘knee rug’...]. He can’t say if she was wearing any shoes, but among the group there is the idea that she wasn’t.
-- Asked, he said that the individual didn’t look like a tourist, although he doesn’t know why he has that impression, however he thinks it is because of the way he was dressed. Refers that he was carrying the child on his arms with her head leaning on his left shoulder, therefeore to the deponent’s right [sorry, don’t know how to better make this description]. Adds that he didn’t hold the child comfortably, denoting he wasn’t used to do it.
-- Having seen several pictures of Madeleine and tv images, refers that the child on that individual’s arms could be her. He doesn’t assert it as a fact however he is convinced it was Madeleine, opinion shared by his family.
-- Asked, he said that the individual didn’t say a word, nor did the child as she was sound assleep.
-- He refers he doesn't feel capable of recognising the individual in person or photograph.
-- He adds that during the year of 2006, May and August, he saw ROBERT MURAT at the bars in Praia da Luz, being that in one of those occasions, the first, he was drunk, talking to everybody. He wasn’t wearing glasses at the time. He refers then that the individual carrying the child wouldn’t be ROBERT, as he would have recognised him immediately.
-- When asked, he said that he was with his wife M*** SMITH, his son P**** SMITH, his daughter in law, S***, his two grand children of 13 and 6 years of age respectively (Peter’s sons), T**** and C***, his daughter A**** of 12 years, and two other grandchildren, A******* 10 years old and E***** 4, from her daughter B****** who was in Ireland.
-- He refers that when he passed by this individual he was walking through the middle of the street, on the road, as at that time the traffic is minimum or even non existant. The deponent also walked on the same way.
-- He adds that the group walked apart from each other for some metres, so they could have seen the individual in different views.
-- He makes a sketch of the place and the sighting.
-- He doesn’t have anything else to add.
And he said no more. Read the statement, he finds correct and is going to sign and so is the interpreter.

Processo, volume XI page 132 onwards.

Transcription of email sent to John Hughes at DIC Portimão, cc Stuart Prior

*********************************

From L**** L******
Sent 20 September 2007 11:37
To Hughes John (DC)
Subject re Smith Family

Rec by TPhone etc..........Page 1 of 3 .....
.......
Location: Portugal/OFA OUT OF FORCE AREA
Origin MR MARTIN SMITH, IRELAND TPY
Text REPORTED HE HAS PASSED A MAN CARRYING A CHILD IN PRAIA DE LUZ THE NIGHT MADDIE WENT MISSING. WENT AND MADE A STATEMENT TO PORTUGAL POLICE IN PORTAMAO ON 26TH MAY AND RETURNED TO UK. IS SAYING THAT AFTER SEEING THE MCCANNS ON THE NEWS ON 9TH SEPEMBER WHEN THEY RETURNED TO UK, HE HAS NOT SLEPT >>

Title INFO ON MADDIE

Inc Type ADMIN etc.........Page 2 of 3..........
........

1057 8286 incident confirmed
1057 8286 AND IS WORRIED SICK. HE STATES HE WAS WATCHING THE 10PM NEWS ON BBC AND SAW THE MCCANNS GETTING OFF THE PLANE AND COMING DOWN THE STEPS. HE STATES IT WAS LIKE WATCHING AN ACTION REPLAY OF THE NIGHT HE SAW THE MALE CARRYING THE CHILD BACK IN PORTUGAL. HE STATES THE WAY GERRY WAS CARRYING HIS TWIN TRIGGERED SOMETHING IN HIS HEAD - IT WAS EXACTLY THE SAME WAY AND LOOK OF THE MALE SEEN THE NIGHT MADDY WENT MISSING. HE ALSO WATCHED ITV NEWS AND SKY NEWS AND INFERRED HE LOOKED LIKE
1059 8286-BC19 THE SAME PERSON BOTH TIMES CARRYING THE CHILDREN.
1101 8286-BC19 IS ASKING A MEMBER OF OP TASK TO RING HIM BACK. HE WAS WITH A GROUP OF 9 FAMILY AND FRIENDS THE NIGHT HE SAW THE MALE IN PORTUGAL. HE SOUNDED QUITE SHAKEN AND WORRID WHILST SPEAKING TO ME.

Rec by TPHONE Serial number.........Page 3 of 3
1101 8286-BC19 Incident linked to 209 26/06/07
1101 8286-BC19 Incident result ODI: ADMIN DUPLICATE INCIDENT
QNR : QUALIFIER NOT REQUIRED
1101 8286-BC19 Incident closed

L***** L***
Holmes Indexer
Major Crime
Braunstone Police Station
Ext ****

Processo, volume XIII, page 91


*************************
In which concerns to the information contained in pages 293 to 300 of this process, it is my duty to inform that in spite of having been duly explored and thouroughly analised, nothing worth for this investigation was found. In spite of the mentioned individuals having a record of a criminal past of sexual nature, no relation with minor of british nationality Madeleine McCann was established.

**********************

Process pages 293 to 300 are missing from volume II.

Processo, volume XIII page 101

*****************************



We can infer, from the analisys of the information sticked [!!!???] in the process on pages 2871 and 2872, that witness MARTIN SMITH, duly identified and questioned on page 1606, reports new elements.

On that information, he alleges that, when he saw GERALD MCCANN on the television news, on his arrival on the UK, still at the airport, because of mannerism, he looked like the individual that he [Smith] saw on 03 of May of 2007 at Praia da Luz, Lagos, carrying a child.

Given this fact and considering that the witness leaves in Southern Ireland, we started a connection with the irish liaison officer for the Iberian Peninsula in Madrid, BERNARD GATTNEY, who immediatelly made himself available to initiate the diligences needed for a new MARTIN SMITH deposition.
So, it was sent to him via email a copy of the information containing the witness report, as well as a list of questions to be asked, duly translated to English.


**************************

Processo, volume XIII page 105 (transcription)


DE [From] J*** S**** P******
Enviado quinta-feira, 8 de Novembro 2007 9:33 [sent thursday 8th November 2007 9]
Para [ to] bernard*******@****
Assunto [Subject] MARTIN SMITH


Bernard

According to our phone contact, I hereby enclose the report on MARTIN SMITH, son of P****** Smith and C******** Smith, born in Ireland, on September 12th 1949, and an Irish citizen, passport no *******, home addres *********, reachable through the telephone number ********.

Following the enclosed report, you are kindly requested to ask him the following questions:

. Does he confirm the statement he made in Portugal on May 26th 2007?
. Can he describe in detail the individual he saw carrying a child on May 3rd 2007, notwithstanding the fact that he has already made this description in his previous statements? Was this individual alone?
. When and in what mass medium has he seen the news that GERALG MC CANN going down the plane stairs and carrying one of his children? (If possible, he should be shown the above mentioned pictures, as well as asked if either he confirms or disconfirms this man was the same individual he saw on May 3rd 2007).
. Was it really GERALD MC CANN? Is he sure of this fact?
. Does he recognise GERALD MC CANN from his facial features or from the way he was carrying his child?
. Are his family members, namely the ones who were with him on May 3rd 2007, able to recognise the individual? If yes, do they also identify the individual as being GERALD MC CANN? (If yes, such family members should also be interviewed with a view to equally answering the above questions).
. Any other possible significant question, whether arising from the answers of Martin Smith to the above questions or that is deemed as relevant, should be equally be asked.

Processo volume XVI page 5

(transcription)


*****************

Superintendent
Drogheda

I took an aditional statement from Mr. Martin Smith as requested. His wife Mary does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10pm on the night of 09th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr. Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation materialthat was printed which was misquoted. The evening herald paied his solicitors fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at this moment.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.

Forwarded, please
[illegible signature]
(L**** H****)


(Page 6)

I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidendence I will be liable to prosecution if I state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.

I would like to state that the statement that I made on the 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual I saw on the 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average built, 5ft 10" in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top may be a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a light [?] cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on the 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10pm. I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on the 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10pm on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could be the same person. It was the way Gerrard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on the 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may be the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerrard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10pm, footage on the 9th September 2007 I gave this matter serious consideration and on the 20th Sptember2007 I contacted Leicester Police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of the 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one that felt the same as me was my wife Mary. She had seen the video clip of Gerrard McCann walking down the stairs off the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.

Thank you Maria for the Smiths Translation.

I think MS appears to be genuine and I tend to think the person he saw carrying a child sounds very much like it could have been Madeleine.

I know when on holiday you often see people carrying their sleeping children, but you dont often see the children in their Pjs. We know the evenings were chilly at this time of year, most parents would have put something on the childs feet and would also have put something round the child, even if it was their own jacket.

I do not however believe for one minute the person he saw was Gerry McCann. We know Gerry was factually speaking with Jez Wilkins at 9:15pm and he was at the Tapas at 10pm when Kate raised the alarm.

Also Mr. Smith refers to the man looking awkward carrying the child as if he was not use to it. With 3 children under 4 I am sure Gerry would most certainly know how to carry a child.

There is also the description of the trousers, I would assume it has been checked out what Gerry was wearing that evening. You can bet your bottem dollar that if Gerry was wearing creamy beige, much would have been made of it by now!

There are definate similarities with what JT saw, the only problem being the timings.

There is another detail bothering me. Definitely, there was a man carrying a child, Smith saw him, as well as other members of his family. Granted, this sighting wasn't much publicised until end of September. However, with all the noise around the case and this sighting after that date, why didn't anyone come forward saying 'It was me' if that guy didn't have anything to fear or hide?

maria wrote:There is another detail bothering me. Definitely, there was a man carrying a child, Smith saw him, as well as other members of his family. Granted, this sighting wasn't much publicised until end of September. However, with all the noise around the case and this sighting after that date, why didn't anyone come forward saying 'It was me' if that guy didn't have anything to fear or hide?

Hi Maria, I totally agree. But again I blame this on Amaral. You have a little girl missing, a witness that gave quite a detailed and comprehensive statement on the 27th May and yet none of this was publicised. There should have been an urgent televised appeal for this man to come forward.

The only time Amarals ears prick up, other than when someone mentions lunch, is when Mr. Smith mentions Gerry McCann, then suddenly Mr. Smith becomes a very crucial and credible witness!

NO, I just came accros that, we DO NOT know who those individuals are, as pages are missing. We only know that there are references to paedophiles WITH A CRIMINAL record, but we also DO NOT know which diligences have been made to clear them of Madeleine's abduction. That is what I found strange, why 'protect' known paedophiles, hiding their identity?

Please, not Martin Smith, no!!!!

Sorry I had to delete your post but you are very welcome to re write and re submit it.

Processo, volume IIIa page 12

************************************************
Date 2007/05/08
Name Mário Domingos Moreira
...
Born 1944/11/19
Nationality Portuguese
Address **************** Lagos

Called to the inquries said:

--He comes to the inquiries as a witness, with the intent of giving informations as to clarify the facts under investigation.

--When asked, he says he has been an employee of the company "THE OCEAN CLUB" for around 20 years, currently working in the Maintenance Department, being exclusively assigned to maintenance in the interior of the apartments.

--Asked, he refers that his working shift starts at 09:00 and ends at 18:00, with one hour lunch time at 13:00. Weekly rest on Sunday and Monday.

--Asked about the facts, he refers that he saw the minor’s mother only once. This happened when, in the accomplishment of his duties and after an order from his superiors, he went to apartment 5A. His services had been requested because the shutter of the bedroom oriented towards the back, with a view of the restaurant "O TAPAS" , was damaged, and also to give that progenitor instructions on how to use the washing machine. To a question, he refers that the shutters malfunction was on the stoppers which limit their openning. He adds that this malfunction is very frequent, as some force is needed initially to lift the shutter and adding the fact that the mechanism may be unknown to some tourists, they nedlessly maintain that force continuously, against any need, resulting in the violent destruction of the respective stoppers.

--When asked, he refers that he never works alone, as he is always part of a team of two elements. The second individual is his colleague LUÍS FERRO who accompanied him in the works described above.

--Because it was asked , he answered that on the days preceeding and following the facts, he did not notice any strange element/object/fact that could catch his attention and that could be related with the disappearance, while doing his duties inside the apartments or when circulating within the various areas of the Tourism Complex.

--The same way, he said that he did not noticed any individual that could show any strange behaviour.

--On the day and time of the facts, he says that he was at his residence with his family, namely his wife. His bother-in-law also lives with him. As to his two daughters already adults, they lead their lives independently.

--And he said no more. Read the statement he found it correct and is going to sign.

maria wrote:Processo, volume IIIa page 12

************************************************
Date 2007/05/08
Name Mário Domingos Moreira
...
Born 1944/11/19
Nationality Portuguese
Address **************** Lagos

Called to the inquries said:

--He comes to the inquiries as a witness, with the intent of giving informations as to clarify the facts under investigation.

--When asked, he says he has been an employee of the company "THE OCEAN CLUB" for around 20 years, currently working in the Maintenance Department, being exclusively assigned to maintenance in the interior of the apartments.

--Asked, he refers that his working shift starts at 09:00 and ends at 18:00, with one hour lunch time at 13:00. Weekly rest on Sunday and Monday.

--Asked about the facts, he refers that he saw the minor’s mother only once. This happened when, in the accomplishment of his duties and after an order from his superiors, he went to apartment 5A. His services had been requested because the shutter of the bedroom oriented towards the back, with a view of the restaurant "O TAPAS" , was damaged, and also to give that progenitor instructions on how to use the washing machine. To a question, he refers that the shutters malfunction was on the stoppers which limit their openning. He adds that this malfunction is very frequent, as some force is needed initially to lift the shutter and adding the fact that the mechanism may be unknown to some tourists, they nedlessly maintain that force continuously, against any need, resulting in the violent destruction of the respective stoppers.

--When asked, he refers that he never works alone, as he is always part of a team of two elements. The second individual is his colleague LUÍS FERRO who accompanied him in the works described above.

--Because it was asked , he answered that on the days preceeding and following the facts, he did not notice any strange element/object/fact that could catch his attention and that could be related with the disappearance, while doing his duties inside the apartments or when circulating within the various areas of the Tourism Complex.

--The same way, he said that he did not noticed any individual that could show any strange behaviour.

--On the day and time of the facts, he says that he was at his residence with his family, namely his wife. His bother-in-law also lives with him. As to his two daughters already adults, they lead their lives independently.

--And he said no more. Read the statement he found it correct and is going to sign.

Thankyou Maria...........

Thank you very much Maria, that was helpful. So now we know it wasn't the laundry man that helped Luis at the apartment.

Thanks maria, great stuff

Is that the same luis as the poolman?

I've read Luis' statement (the poolman) and yes, he refers that he was there. So, yes, it was him.

Thanks Maria, that's interesting.
So Mario D. Moreira helped Luis Ferro in the apartment. And Luis Ferro is also the pool man. Did I get that right?

It was the pool man who got the 'ransom' call isn't it?

Is that true, was it the poolman that got the ransom call.

Why would a poolman even have a resort voice mail (got that right have I that the ransom call was left on voice mail)? I can believe he has a mobile, but not that it would be possible to access it via the resort number.

That to me would indicate that the call went to him because someone knew he worked there.

How strange?

But before I jump to conclusions, this needs to be confirmed.

Sorry, just checked some things. It was a pool cleaner who got the call, but her/his name was Paula C. Vieira. according to what I read.

And I should have been sleeping by now, so I say :goodnight:

Cath

Same question, how could a pool cleaner get an external resort call to his voice mail? One would think that if someone wanted to ring the resort, then they would ring the main switch, which would be manned.

Was it just luck that someone got to his voice mail, or was it a local who knew he worked there?

This is so very strange, and worse, had a British child in the background.

Did the pool cleaner keep the message and did the PJ hear it? Was it verified?

It seems we have the start of a mess here...

There are TWO poolmen: one is an OC employeee, LUIS FERRO, and the other a self employed person, LUIS ANTÓNIO.

The person who was at the apartment is the OC employee, Luís Filipe Monteiro Ferro.

Luís Filipe Duarte António is the self employed husband (or ex) of Michaela and also in charge of several other private pools, including Murat's, etc.

Does this help?

Outros apensos relatório de análise dos primeiros 11 volumes


Report of analisys of the first 11 volumes (pages 1 to 3004)
Date 5th February 2008
Inspector Paulo Dias

*************************************

(page 14)

(...) The initial dog training took place using human blood and decomposing stillborn pigs. The importance of this is that the dog learned to distinguish that a DECOMPOSING CORPSE is not food. That ensures that the dog will ignore a ‘bacon sandwich’ and the ‘kebab’ odours etc, which are always present in the environment. On top of it the dog will not mark a meal prepared at home or at other places. For instance, the dog will still be efficient searching for a corpse in a coffe shop where the customers sit down eating bacon sandwiches. As a complement of this training, the dog received additional training in the US, in association with the FBI, where exclusively human remains are used (sic) (pages 2493 and 2494).

This description raises a question that we would like to see answered: could the dog be ‘marking’ not the odours emmanated directly or indirectly (through contamination) from a cadavre, but instead the odour of putrefacting blood?

These dogs are means of proof production and cannot be used as proof themselves. They must be seen as mere instruments. Any vestige, even if invisible to the naked eye, obtained with the help of these dogs, must be subjected to forensic proof at an accredited laboratory.

So much so, that it is Martin Grime himself who refers in his report (page 2271): "Although it can not constitute proof to be presented in court, it can help in the gathering of intelligence for Serious Crimes investigation".

In this case, the dogs marked several places. Having the experts of the Scientific Police Laboratory recovered the residues that might exist – these residues, in its majority, as understood from the videos, were not visible at naked eye-, they kept those "marked" objects, which were sent to laboratories, so that the applicable exams could be made, to enable the recovery and identification of DNA profiles that could be extracted from those residues and, if possible, to determine the type of residue that was present.

From the screening of the videos made when the dogs were at work and previously refered, some doubts were raised. We do not want, or can, take the place of the dog trainer, only to alert, with this next paragraph, to some facts that should be clarified, in our opinion.

Being the dog trained to react when he detects what he is looking for, why, in the majority of the cases, we can see the dog passing by the places in a not interested mood, until he marks a place where he already had been several times?

In one of the videos, it is possible to see that the dog "Eddie" sniffs Madeleine’s toy, more than once, bites it, throws it in the air, and only after the toy is hidden is when he "marks" it as refered in page 2099. Why didn’t he mark the first time he sniffed the toy?

On top of everything that has been said about the dogs, we should also take in consideration that the result of the forensic exam carried out by the experts of the Scientific Police Laboratory immediately following the facts and previously refered (see footnote 2 [page 5 of this report]), where no haematic [blood] residues were detected.


(...)