The Murats Alibies and Timelines

Processo, Volume VI
pages 202-205

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


Date 2007/05/23

Name Maria Cecília Pereira Pires
...
Born 1969/06/16
Nationality Portuguese
Address Lagoa
Profession Journalist
Employer Portugal Resident


To the inquiries said:

-- She has been a journalist for 16 years, working for the abovementioned paper for the last month.

-- When asked, she answered that on the past 4 th of May she was sent by her management to Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to follow the disappearance of a minor girl.

-- She adds that she was informed that the child’s disappearance took place at the “Ocean Club” resort belonging to “Mark Warner” group and that the family of the missing child had McCann as surname.

-- Questioned she answered that she arrived at Praia da Luz around 09:30/10:00, having headed to the mobile GNR post where she got some information, having then joined other colleagues where she got deeper knowledge about the events.

-- She clarifies that due to the little information available and taking in consideration that the disappearance had taken place only a few hours before, she decided to wander about the streets surrounding the resort.

-- She adds that her decision was also linked to the fact that some questions were raised about the possibility that the young girl could have wandered herself and therefore could still be nearby.

-- During her wanderings she approached a scrubby place situated north and only a few meters away from the resort, being that at this point a male individual around 50 years old approached her, speaking in English asked her if she was involved in the searches for the missing child.

-- The now respondent answered no, although she also said that she too was looking for, a bit to appease her conscience.

-- In this context, the individual suggested the deponent that they both went to a villa, apparently inhabited but not abandoned, in order to look for the child and so that it wouldn’t be just one person which could look like “property trespassing”.

-- After they reached the parking area of the residence, where they called out in order to verify if there was anyone inside, they noticed that, on the outside, a female person, looking of old age, about 70 years old, of 1,5 or 1,6 meters high, grey hair pulled back as a “banana” hairdo, so the previously referred individual took the initiative of talking to this Lady, inviting her to go into the cited residence with him and the deponent with the intent of finding the missing child, to which the Lady agreed.

-- She clarifies that the man geared towards the swimming pool area while the deponent stayed a bit behind with the old Lady as she walked more slowly.

-- During this walk the elder Lady told the deponent that she felt somewhat uncomfortable with this situation of the missing child commenting that the parents surely were going through severe distress.

-- The talk with both abovementioned people was held always in English, having the Lady referred that she lived 100 meters away from the resort and that the night before she noticed the arrival of the Police around 22:00 because of the sirens.

-- The mentioned Lady said that she had been having dinner with her son when she heard the sirens, that is the Police, being that then was when she was aware [knew, perceived] the disappearance of a little girl from the “Ocean Club”.

-- The deponent clarifies that the Lady did not mention child [‘criança’] or little boy [‘menino’ also means child], she was precise referring a “little girl”, which the deponent didn’t find strange at the time as by that time on the 4 th everybody knew it was a little girl.

-- The abovementioned Lady also referred that her son was cooperating with the Police in the attempt to find the child.

-- She adds that after walking through the terrain around the mentioned residence where they found nothing, as well as the house pool, they were intercepted by a neighbour, she believes of German nationality, who asked them in English what were they doing there and after their answer informed that the Police had already been there with some dogs.

-- During the conversation the old Lady referred being a neighbour, having the now respondent asserting being a journalist, being that the other individual only referred being around only looking for the child, finishing the now deponent by leaving the place while the others stayed chatting between them.

-- All this situation looked quite normal to her under the circumstances.

-- Asked, she answered that she came to know the Lady’s son, person that the press identified as Robert Murat, person who moved at ease among journalists and police, speaking both Portuguese and English.

-- She refers that on the 5 th this individual told her that the british journalists were saying that him (Robert Murat) was one of the suspects for the little girl disappearance, looking very annoyed with the subject, having stated that he was going to stay away in order not to give chance to any more comments, being that from that moment on it was very difficult for her to contact him.

-- She clarifies that when she saw the pictures of the information gathering kiosk, built by Robert’s mother, she confirmed that the old Lady that she spoke to on the 4 th and who accompanied the now deponent on the search of the surrounding space of the house was the same person who had set up the kiosk.

-- To a question, she answered that today when reading the news she noticed a sentence, said by Robert’s mother, where the same affirms having had knowledge of the little girl’s disappearance by 07:00 on the 4 th through a phone call and that that would have been the time when she decided to set up that said information gathering kiosk, situation the she found highly strange and having in consideration the events on the 4 th and the conversation that took place then.

-- She affirms that she only knew the Lady’s name through the papers, as on the 4 th she did not identify herself.

-- She adds that she pondered several times to pass this information, but she always postponed it because she thought of no importance, only today and when she saw written with certainty that that Lady only had knowledge of the disappearance on the 4 th and through a phone call, clearly contradicting what she had told the deponent that morning of the 4 th, did she decided to come forward with the information.

-- Because asked she says she has no grievances against the mentioned people, never having met them before being however correct that the news of an alibi construction and the apparent incongruence between what had been stated to the deponent by the Lady on the 4 th and what she read on the papers today the 23 rd of May made her feel compelled to bring these facts to the authorities’ knowledge.

-- And she said no more. Read the report that she found correct, ratifies and is signing.

clairesy wrote: (snipped)

Shes looks like a typical ''i didn't do it we are on the wrong side of the
fence ...you see....just look at us... the side we are on is clearly finding the child....not
taking her''
(snipped)