Volume I, pages 52 - 57

Matthew Oldfield

On the subject, the interviewee says:

It is of his own free will and of his own accord that he adds his statements in the context of the present proceedings. That he has been on holiday in Portugal since April 28th 2007 and that he is staying at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. That he expects to return to England on Saturday May 5th 2007. That he has known Madeleine's parents for around five years. That the little girl will be 4 years old next Saturday. That he was spending his holiday with Madeleine and her parents. That they had come as a group and that this group is composed of 9 adults and eight children. The adults are Diane, David and Fiona (children: ***** and ***) Russell and Jane (children **** and ****) Rachael (daughter ******) respectively the wife and the daughter of the interviewee, Gerry and Kate (children: Amelie, Sean - twins aged two - and Madeleine)

That the idea of spending the holiday in Portugal came from the couple David and Fiona and that it is they who reserved the accommodation. That this reservation was made 4 or 5 months ago. That since they arrived in Portugal, until last night, the days were all the same. In the morning, the group woke between 6.30 and 8am and that they all went on foot to the, "Millennium," around 10 minutes from the complex. That only Madeleine's parents, Madeleine and the twins had breakfast in their apartment due to the fact that they have three very small children.

That after breakfast, the children were left at the "Kids Club" of the complex. Madeleine and **** go to the mini-club for their age and the other children go to another club for younger children. At lunchtime, the habit was to meet up in one of the apartments occupied by the group to have lunch there with the children. In the afternoon, the children have a sleep in their respective apartments under the supervision of an adult. The other adults do sporting activities within the complex. After their afternoon sleep, the children return to the "Kids Club."

That around 4.45pm, the children eat at the "Tapas," restaurant inside the tourist complex. After eating, the children went to play in a playground in the complex, supervised by adults. At around 8pm, the children went to sleep and at around 8.30pm, the adults went to dinner at the "Tapas" restaurant. While they were eating, the children were sleeping in their respective apartments without the constant supervision of an adult. The interviewee adds that, as the restaurant is around 1 minute from the apartments, randomly, an adult would be going frequently to check on the children in the apartments.






How the evening progressed.

The interviewee says that the day yesterday was identical to the previous ones and that, as on all other nights, at around 8.45pm, he and his wife left their daughter asleep in the apartment and went to the "Tapas" restaurant.

That the couple Kate and Gerry, Madeleine's parents were already at the restaurant. That they had arrived at the restaurant five minutes before them. The rest of the adults arrived at the restaurant around five minutes after the interviewee and his wife. That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.

That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows that gave access to the fourth apartment, that occupied by Madeleine. That after this check, he returned to the restaurant, saying that all the children were asleep. However, Gerry, Madeleine's father, went to the area of the apartments to check for himself if the children were asleep. That Gerry allegedly went into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door was half-open. That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant.

In answer to a question from the inspector, the interviewee does not know if Gerry met anyone while he was checking the children. He did not mention it.

That during the meal, it was usual that every 15 minutes (as on all nights) one of the adults went to the apartments to check if the children were sleeping. That normally this checking was done inside the apartments (Visual checking), but that, to be honest, sometimes this checking was only done from the outside, near the bedroom windows (Auditory checking)

As normal, dinner began at 9.30pm.

At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the fourth apartment (room?), that was occupied by Madeleine and the twins, was half-open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light in question was from an artificial source but not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

The apartment has two bedrooms, a lounge, a small kitchen and a bathroom. The couple's bedroom has a window which is visible from the restaurant. The children's bedroom windows look out on the road outside the tourist complex. Then the interviewee went back to the restaurant.

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked because that door is visible from the restaurant.

At around 10pm, Kate, Madeleine's mother, went to her apartment to check on her children. She came back totally shocked, shouting, saying that Madeleine was no longer in her bedroom. At that time all the adults were in the restaurant. Then, the whole group went to Madeleine's bedroom and checked that the twins were sleeping OK. That there was no sign of a burglary in the apartment. Only, one window in the children's bedroom was open. The window and the shutters were open.

That during the holiday, and notably during the day yesterday and during dinner, nothing appeared unusual to the interviewee. That there wasn't the slightest change in the behaviour of any of the group, notably in that of Kate or Gerry and their respective children.

Question: And outside the group?

No, there was nothing unusual and he knows of nothing special happening. That the tourist complex was quiet and that nothing unusual happened there. That during the day the children were under the supervision of the Kids Club's staff. That he doesn't know if Madeleine was suffering from any illness or if she was taking medication. That Madeleine is very lively, obedient, communicative and extrovert. Madeleine's parents are both very friendly, communicative, happy and sensible. That the couple have an excellent relationship with their children, not making any difference in the treatment of each. That the three children were very much wanted by the couple, all three being the result of, "In Vitro," fertilisation.

The interviewee thinks that it is a kidnapping with the intention to demand a ransom from the parents, because these are people who are very comfortable financially.

An Alby translation to clean up/replace google

Again, there were several omissions from, and errors in, the original Portuguese. I corrected those that I found. Also, much of the Portuguese statement is written with a convoluted 'future+past' verb construct that attributes an 'uncertainty' to the words, whereas I have translated much of it in a non-literal manner to make it read more definitively. Hence, the reader must understand that neither the Portuguese nor my translation necessarily constitute the exact words spoken by Oldfield.
If you read MO's Rogatory Letter testimony you will get a sense of the difficulty the Portuguese interpreter faced when listening to this man.

Matthew Oldfield 10 May PART I

In respect of the McCanns (Gerald and Kate), the deponent clarifies that he has known them only for about four years, since the wedding of David and Fiona Payne which took place in the summer of 2003 in Italy.

.
However, he relates knowing that the McCanns already knew the other couples for some years and they had been on holiday previously with them, together with the Paynes.

 
He relates that, due to his friendship with the other two couples he had been on holiday in Greece for a week, and they had expected the trip to Portugal to have been similar to that week.

.
Asked, he clarifies that, the similarity between this and the previous occasion was that all couples were accompanied by their offspring.

Because it was asked, he relates that the McCanns had not participated in the above trip to Greece alleging to not know if, at that time, they were asked to join the group of excursionists.

Consequently, he clarifies to never have been on any trip with the McCanns except for this one to Portugal.

Regarding the present trip, and as far as he knows, the McCanns participated at the invitation of the Paynes.


He clarifies that DP personally took charge of the organisation [of this trip], in a similar manner to what he thinks happened in relation to the above mentioned trip to Greece the previous year.


In this way, it will have been this last individual [DP] who chose Portugal as the tourist destination, adding that, considering the expected climatic conditions and the time period of the holiday, Mark Warner would be the only operator available to them with a final destination of Praia da Luz.

Nessa altura, DAVID terá contactado a operadora turística "MARK WARNER", a fim de proceder à compra dos pacotes turísticos e à reserva das respectivas viagens.
At that time DP will have contacted the tourist operator Mark Warner with the intention to purchase tourist packages and to reserve the respective journeys.

Indagado, refere que o DAVID terá assumido pessoalmente o pagamento das despesas relacionadas com a reserva dos pacotes das restantes famílias, as quais lograriam restituir-lhe posteriormente os montantes correspondentes a cada uma delas.
Prompted he relates that David will have personally assumed payment of the costs of the packets of the other families, each of which amounts would be repaid to him afterwards.


In this way he relates they arrived in Portugal on 28 May adding that all would have lodging reserved in the Ocean Club Garden until 5 May – the date on which they would have returned to England.


Prompted about the motives which contributed to choose the operator Mark Warner he explains that it is usual for this operator to work with tourist complexes that possess some requisites demanded by his family and the others who make up the group, namely: sports activities with instructors (especially tennis and water sports), childrens' activities, and restaurants within the resort enclosure in a way that they can be accessed without the need for any kind of transportation.


For the rest, he relates that the couples would give preference to resorts that have “baby listening” services available.

Pressed to define “baby listening” service he clarifies that that service can be summed up as a watching, by doing 'rounds' of the outside of an apartment in the course of which someone checks for noise coming from the location where children are sleeping and, if noise is heard, to alert the respective parents of that situation.

 
Furthermore, he wishes to make clear that while making the aforementioned reservations the operator had told them that a “baby listening” service was not in place in the Ocean Club Garden.


That fact had made some of the couples – and himself in particular – reluctant to come to Portugal because all the families have minor children.

 
As far as he [MO] is concerned, he wishes at this time to add that, in conversation with DP on a date he does not recall with certainty but likely to have been on 7 or 8 May, he [DP] confided in him that that, at that time, KH had been particularly reluctant about coming to Portugal because she had had a bad feeling [presentiment] about the children of the group and the non-existence of the “baby sitting” service.


Nevertheless, he relates that, they had discussed this problem resolving to make the trip since the operator had assured them accommodation sufficiently close together that, collectively, they had managed to assure the checking and supervision of their respective progeny.



Consequently, David had taken charge of negotiations with the operator to have all lodgings as close to each other as possible. Nonetheless, and because he was asked, he adds that on leaving England they did not know the exact apartments which they had been allotted.

 
Nevertheless, he relates that DP had asked the operator that they be provided with lodgings in close proximity to each other because, as a group, they intended to perform that kind of checking collectively over the children of each family.

 
Nontheless he admits that they were only informed of their respective apartments on arrival in Portugal.


About the inherent conditions of the travel plan subscribed to by the couples, he clarifies that they had acquired “half-board” packets – i.e., inclusive of flight, transfers, lodging, breakfast and dinner.


In that sense he relates that all members of the group would eat meals in OC restaurants as follows: breakfast would be at the Millenium, situated slightly away from the residential block where they were lodged (close to the “main street, the lakes road, about 10 minutes on foot”), while dinner would be at the Tapas restaurant, situated next to the swimming pools of their residential block.


The sole exception to this rule would be by the McCanns who would eat breakfast in their apartment, he considering that that was done due to the fact that they had three small children and the distance between [their flat] and the Millenium. Nevertheless he wished to point out that, on the night of 28 May the group had dined at Millenium as the Tapas was closed.


Aside from this he relates that on all other days they dined always at Tapas.


With respect to lunch, he relates that the couples usually ate it as a group in one of the four apartments, adding that the Payne's apartment was commonly used due to its larger size.


Prompted about the dinner reservations/bookings at Tapas, he relates that the first time thay made a reservation was on Sunday, not knowing who had made it. Asked if it could have been ROB the deponent admitted that that was possible, reiterating to not know for sure who had made it.

 
relating to the other days, he clarifies that on Monday morning his wife undertook such reservation, adding still that it would have been for all the remaining days except for Friday, 4 May, as there was to have been a Tennis Club dinner that night.

Esclarece que a referida reserva foi feita para nove pessoas, e para as 20H30.
He clarifies that the above reservation was made for nine people for 20h30.


Prompted to identify the apartment in which the four couples had been lodged, the deponent said that the McCanns were in apartment 5A; he, his wife and daughter in 5B; the O'Brien's in 5D; and the Payne's in 5H.


While the above all related to residential Block G, he says that the first three are situated on the ground floor, the last being on the first floor; he adds that the McCann flat was at the extreme left when accessing the block from the main entrance, and immediately adjacent to his flat; the O'B was in front of the main entrance behind the stairway used to go to the upper floors, and, lastly, the Payne flat was immediately above that of the O'Briens.


Asked about criteria for the distribution of couples between the flats as described in the preceding paragraph, he relates that Mark Warner had taken charge of the allotment of couples and flats.


For this reason, he does not know the nature of that criteria, all the more since, similar to the others, he only found out which flat he had been allotted when he arrived at the resort – the time at which they were each given the keys to their corresponding flats, one key per couple (that being a metal key, not an access card).

Ainda assim, refere ter conhecimento de que, no seu caso particular, ter-lhe-á sido atribuído o apartamento 5 B em virtude de se tratar do imóvel mais pequeno (com apenas um quarto), em virtude de apenas possuir uma filha menor.
Nevertheless, he relates to have known that, in his particular case, he would have been allotted 5B because it is the smallest flat (with only one bedroom) as he had only one small child.


Pertaining to the routine undertaken by the four couples during the period before the disappearance of MBM, he relates that, generally, they all dedicated themselves to sporting pastimes.


In his particular case, he gave priority to water sports (such as sailing) and, then, tennis.


As for the rest, they also did various sports, pointing out that the McCanns never did any water sports.


By the way, he relates that, on a date he does not recall for sure but on one day in the past week during which it rained in PdL (thinking it was 2 May, the day before the disappearance) he went on a 40-minute run on the streets around the resort together with KM.


Asked about any time he was away from PdL he responded in the negative, stating that, the same as all others in the group, he had not done so because he had no means of transport to facilitate any such movement.

Por conseguinte, e a pergunta feita, refere que nenhum dos casais possuía viatura automóvel alugada.
Consequently, and the question asked, he relates that none of the couples possessed a hired motor car.


Of the rest, he denied the possibility of any of them to have driven periodically any motor car that might have been provided to them by a third party, given that none of them had any friends or acquaintances residing or holidaying in the vicinity.


Prompted to outline what had happened on 3 May, the deponent the following:
- he woke up about 06h30/07h00 going to take breakfast at Millennium at 08h00 with his wife and daughter. He does not recall who [else] was with them. He knows that GM, KM and their children did not breakfast there because they always did that in their apartment.
Regarding the other group members he cannot remember who was in the Millennium that morning. He is sure that he was not accompanied by the whole group given that they were not always accompanied by the same people during this meal – thinking that only DP or ROB would have been there with their respective children.
Adding that as each day passed there were fewer group members who went there for breakfast, opting to have it in their apartments, due to the distance of the restaurant from their residences.


After breakfast he walked to the beach, arriving about 09h30 to go sailing. He knows that on that morning DP and FP were also there, not recalling if he went there with either of those individulas or if they were already there when he arrived. He was sailing until about 11h00 due to which he was late for the tennis class he had booked for that time, together with his wife.

About 12h10 he went with his wife to pick up his daughter from kids club.


Subsequently the three of them went to the Payne apartment for lunch. He clarifies that he lunched there with the Paynes, their children and mother-in-law, and with ROB and JT. He does not recall if KM and GM were there.


Later, sometime between 13h30 and 14h00, he and his family went to their apartment to put their daughter down for a sleep, remaining there until about 14h15/14h30 – the time at which he decided to go to find ROB, he also having returned to his own flat, to call him for them both to go sailing.


After their sport (sometime between 15h30 and 15h45) they both went to the beach where they met up with the rest of the group, including children, staying there until about 17h00. He clarifies that GM, KM and their children were not at the beach.


Leaving the beach they went to the beach restaurant where they fed the children while the adults limited themselves to a few drinks.

 
About 18h00 he, ROB and DP went to a social men's tennis match, held in the above resort area, where they remained until about 19h00. He clarifies that when they arrived at that meeting GM was already there, with KM and her children watching the match, the rest of the women and children joining them [KM and children] later.

At 19h00 he, ROB and DP had finished the match, having then gone to their respective apartments in which they found other members of the group.

.
The deponent said he stayed in his apartment until 19h45 at which time, together with his wife, he went to the Tapas restaurant where GM and KM were already and, from what was said afterwards, Jane. Later, about 20h50, ROB arrived.


The deponent added that DP, FP and DW were still not present – and as he could see their apartment lights burning – he resolved to go to them, clarifying that he did not reach that apartment as those people were already on their way to the restaurant. He clarifies [further] that he met them near the living quarters, at the corner next to the main door of the McCann apartment.


Benefiting from meeting them next to the residences, he adds that, on his own initiative, he made a “listening check” at the bedroom window of MBM and the twins at 21h05. That he limited himself to approach the bedroom window on the outside of the apartment to check if the children were crying or awake.
He adds to have not heard any noise nor perceived anything out of the ordinary. He went on to do the same check at the bedroom windows of his daughter and ROB's daughters.


About 5/10 seconds after the checking he returned to the restaurant seeing that all other group members were already there. They proceeded to order dinner [immediately] after which GM went to his apartment to check his children.

Perguntado se, nesse instante, a JANE também se teria dirigido ao respectivo apartamento, o depoente diz não se recordar, acrescentando que, a ter acontecido, tê-lo-iam feito ao mesmo tempo, na companhia um do outro.
Asked if, at that instant, JT also went to her flat, he says he does not recall, adding that they were gone at the same time as each other.



Nevertheless, he wishes to add that he has no idea about anyone having possibly mentioned the possibility of both having been together.

.
Asked why GM had gone to the apartment at that time if the deponent had been there a few minutes before, he relates that GM might not have heard him say that all was well, adding further that he had not personally checked the children at that time.


Asked if there was some agreement about checking all the children of the group he says that it was common practice for one member of each couple to stand up each 15 minutes with the objective to go to check their own child(ren).

An Alby translation to clean up/replace google

Matthew Oldfield 10 May PART II [the split being due to the 60,000 character posting limit.]


Some minutes later, at 21h25, the deponent went to his apartment to do a further check, he having done that together with ROB who intended to do the same with his two girls.

At that time he offered [made himself available] to perform a check in the bedroom of MBM.


Questioned about his motives for such a check, going against the prevailing/established procedure, or – why would two people have gone to check the three apartments (in this case the witness and ROB going to check their own apartments and that of GM), the deponent explained that both [men] had suggested that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the responsibility of verifying the children.


Nonetheless, and the question asked, he relates not being able to state exactly if the suggestion was made by himself or by ROB, adding not being able to clarify why it was done, but, in the case of it having been he [MO] to make such a suggestion it would have been due to, having spent days on holiday together, [there already being] a very close friendship with the couple [allowing him] to enter their apartment.


That, on that occasion, ROB and he went to their own residences, to check on their own children. After leaving his apartment he went to that of ROB who opted to stay there to calm his daughter who was crying, that done with the deponent went alone to the McCann apartment. He clarifies that ROB's daughter was ill, with vomiting.


To this end, he took the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the McCann residence, to which he gained access through the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge. The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it would be.


That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees. He does not know how far away he was from the bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that the window curtains – green in colour – were drawn closed but could not determine if the window was closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or open. He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside – making the point that both were turned in the same direction.


Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.


The question asked, he was sure that, at the time of his first being in the vicinity of MBM's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the course of which he had approached the the window of that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully closed.


Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of the second check the blinds were more open than on the first check, given that he considers that the light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from the outside, could not have been coming through it [the blinds] if they had been fully closed.


Following on, convinced that everything was within normality, given that he perceived no noise to make him think otherwise, and further, due to, in his mind, having managed to glimpse the two twins inside their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant to finish dinner.


Asked, he clarifies to not have seen MBM lying on the bed in the bedroom because from where he was during the check he had no sight of that bed.

The question asked, he relates that he thinks he returned to Tapas between 21h25 and 21h30, telling the others in the group that he found everything within normality in the residential block.


The question asked, he clarifies not having told MBM's parents the facts of having found the door half-open, estimating it about 50 degrees, and having perceived the above mentioned brightness inside [the room], he related not having done it because he didn't attach any relevance to them [the facts].


Asked, he relates that, at that time, he rejoined the table of travelling friends, all except ROB who stayed in his apartment due to the indisposition his daughter.


The question asked, he relates that, due to the large size of the whole group, comprising nine adults (four couple and FP's mother), the deponent and the others always occupied the same table because it was the only one that could handle so many people.


Asked, he relates that, from where that table was positioned the group would have sight of the apartments they were occupying.


Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight considering the distance to the apartments (estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further, due to their vision being impaired by a transparent oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which the tables were located.

Consequently, he admits it being possible for someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments without being detected, through [by way of] the patios that were round the back of the residential block.


Nevertheless, he relates not having perceived any movements at the rear of the McCann apartment during the last of the checks that he took part in.


Consequently, it had been an enormous surprise to receive the news of the disappearance of small MBM.


By the way, he clarifies that that news had been communicated to all the friends who were in the Tapas by KM subsequent to her having personally been to her flat to check that her children were well.


The question asked, he relates that she had gone there alone to do that at 21:50.


Noticing the disappearance KM returned in panic to the restaurant where the deponent was in order to tell her husband, GM.


The question asked, he relates being convinced that, at the time of that communication, all the group members were in the restaurant – the reason for which he supposes that ROB had rejoined them in the meantime. 

In view of such news all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the sliding glass door facing the pool.

Asked, he relates that when he entered the apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about its condition.
Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by unknown individuals (or by group members) to the date of the event or in the days that preceded it.

In the same way he relates never to have perceived suspicious movements undertaken by any motor vehicles in the vicinity of the resort where they were lodged.


by the way, he relates never to have perceived the presence of a blue light motor vehicle in the vicinity of the Ocean Club Garden.


Regarding the situation at hand, he relates to not know with absolute certainty any matters that surrounded them [the events], as well as the motivations that could have given rise to them.

.
In the same way, he does not know for sure the possible existence of conjugal, professional or other problems that might have possibly resulted in someone undertaking the removal [taking] of that small child.

The quaestion asked, he reiterates that during the group's stay in PdL they had always dined at the Tapas, except for the first night when they did it at the Millenium.


On the other hand he relates that only those adults who were part of their group met for dinner at their table.


By the way, he denied that at any time did any individuals named IRWIN form part of the table, refuting equally that he had made the acquaintance of anyone so named.


The question asked, he relates that he entered the McCann apartment for the first [and only] time on the night of the disappearance (i.e. 3 May), and [that was] on the second check reported above, namely at 21h25.

On the other hand he points out that he was on foot for all the trips he made outside the resort, similar to all other group members.


The question asked he says that there had been no change in his sleep [sleeping pattern]. He does not recall bouts of insomnia nor of overly deep sleep.


Questioned about other changes in his health – or of his family – he recalls that the three had had intestinal problems: he on 28 April; from memory, his wife on 30 April or 1 May, and his daughter on 7 May.

Regarding the other group members he does not know if there were changes in their health.


Prompted about relationships of friendship, or other, of the deponent or other group members, with persons resident in Portigal, the witness says he knows no-one in this country and thinks the same applies to the other holidaying friends.


Also he would not know other holiday makers. He thinks that the same applies to the rest of the group members.


Asked about the drinking of alcoholic beverages by the group members the deponent admits that all the member did (including himself), admitting further that they did in quantities unusually high [for them] in virtue of them fully enjoying the holidays.


Nevertheless he relates that despite what is reported in the preceding paragraph they did not any of their cognitive faculties, adding, by way of example, that they could possibly consume about six bottles of wine.

The question asked, he relates that this was his second time in Portugal, the first occurred in 1999 when he spent a single night in Lisboa.

.
With respect to the other group members, he knows only that JT had been here previously on various occasions, he thinks for professional reasons, adding further that she had also visited together with ROB.


Prompted to reveal any other things that might possibly help in understanding the events under investigation, the deponent was unable to do so, alleging a total lack of knowledge about other circumstances which might possibly have surrounded it, beyond those already reported above.

 0044777****456.
The question asked, he relates that during his stay he used the same mobile phone that he used in England.


The question asked, he relates that he used the number since 2002.


Prompted to define what he understands by “auditory check”, he clarified that it was a check in which he does not establish visual contact with the children – limiting himself to check for noises that could indicate some problems with them.