MadeleineMcCann Aimoo Forum List | Ticket | Today | Member | Search | Who's On | Help | Sign In | |
Title: Police Witness Statements
MadeleineMcCann > TIMELINE & RECONSTRUCTIONS > Thursday May 3rd 10.00pm - 4.00am Go to subcategory：
Author Content
TinLizzy
  • Rank：Diamond Member
  • Score：1787
  • Posts：1787
  • From：Canada
  • Register：11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Date Posted：05/27/2010 6:11 PMCopy HTML

Processo Vol XV
 
Pages 3856-3858
 
Witness Statement
 
João Franciso Páscoa Luis Trigo Barreiras
 
Date: 2007/11/20
 
Time: 14h00
 
DIC Portimão
Occupation: PJ Deputy Specialist
Place of work: Criminal Investigation Department Portimão
 
He is a specialist in the area of Criminology for the PJ and works in the Criminal Investigation department in Portimão.
 
His professional responsibilities are to carry out examinations at crime scenes, such as detecting finger prints, biological examinations as well as the identification, signalling and collection of other traces. He is also responsible for making photographic reports and sketches. On the date of the events – 3rd May 2007 he was on duty at the Portimão DIC.
 
At about 00h10 on the morning of the 4th, he had just finished filing a report about a fire, when he was informed that a child had disappeared in Praia da Luz.
 
He was brought into service together with an Inspector from the station. It was the inspector’s duty to take notes of the services as well as all the information relating to them. The inspector who accompanied him on that date, Vitor Martins, informed him that the case in question was that of the disappearance of a small girl, of British nationality, who was staying at the Ocean Club with her parents.
 
They immediately left for the scene and arrived about 30 – 40 minutes later, at about 00h40/00h50.
 
When they arrived at the scene, which they immediately identified due to the presence of GNR officers, as well as quite a lot of people who were walking around the street searching for the child, they immediately went to the apartment in question, where they found several people, including some GNR officers, as well as the head of the Lagos GNR station.
 
He states that the people inside the apartment and close to it, entered and left the building and circulated in the whole apartment, completely freely, in other words, without there being any restriction or care in preserving the scene.
 
He said that these people were the friends of the parents of the missing girl and a lady responsible for the resort called Silvia.
 
He was shown the room the child had disappeared from, having noticed that people also entered and left that room without any care in the sense of preserving traces. Inside this room there were two children, babies, sleeping in two cots placed in the middle of the room.
 
It was requested that the babies were moved, which was done accordingly, the witness having subsequently put his gloves on to begin the on-site inspection.
 
At that moment one of the GNR officers told the witness that they had already searched for the girl in the wardrobes and other places in the apartment without having taken any care as to leaving their own traces or for destroying or adulterating any traces that might be of interest to the investigation.
 
After the arrival of the witness and his colleague Vitor Martins the scene was isolated and the inspection began, namely the collection of statements and inspection of the scene, the respective reports that were subsequently attached to the process documents.
 
The witness carried out finger print testing on the inside of the bedroom window, where the girl had been sleeping, leaving other examinations for the following day given that on that occasion these tests could not be carried out in the best technical conditions. For this reason, the apartments and the surrounding area were sealed off, watched over by the GNR officers who remained on site.
 
As far as he knows, after the first examination, other members from the finger print detection service and also officers from the LPC Crime Scene arrived at the scene.
 
The witness states that, at a given moment, the father of the missing girl led him to understand that he had already contacted the Sky News TV station and informed them of the situation.
 
As much the father as the girl's mother looked quite worried with the situation and he can even confirm that the mother was very agitated and out of control, crying a lot and shouting in an uncontrolled manner, saying in English "They have taken her".
 
He remembers that he remained on the scene until about 04.00. There were many people in the street. He does not remember having seen Robert Murat there on that occasion.
 
When questioned, he says that it was a fresh night with some breeze. It was not a clear night, nor was it very dark. Referring to the light conditions around the apartment, he says they were very dark, and thinks that even on a bright night there would always be little light around the apartment because of the trees and lack of street lights.
 
Reads, ratifies and signs.



Processos Vol 15 Pages 3862-3864

Witness Statement
Date 04/12/2007 Time: 14H00

Vitor Manuel Martins

Occupation : PJ Officer

He is an inspector with the PJ and currently works at the Porto PJ Directorate.

That he was placed on a service commission to the Criminal Investigation Department in Portimão, for 3 years, from 09 November 2004 to 09 November 2007.

On the night of 3rd May 2007 he was on duty at the Portimão DIC, in the company of Inspector Manuel Queirós, who was acting as head of the station.

When questioned he confirms the integrity of the service information drawn up from the station’s inquiries carried out in the early morning of 04/05/2007, adding that he arrived on the scene about 30 – 40 minutes after the phone call from the GNR, at about 00.40/00.50.

At the scene, there were already some elements from the GNR and some people walking around the OC grounds, searching for the child.

In the apartment where the family was staying, there were different persons, including the friends of the girl’s parents, who were immediately invited to leave the apartment, in order to preserve the scene.

Inside the room that was indicated as being that of the missing girl, there were two children, babies, who appeared to sleeping in two cots placed in the middle of the room.

A request was made to the OC services director for the family to be re-allocated and accordingly the babies were taken out of the room, so that the site could be searched.

The OC services manager introduced him to the missing girl’s parents, who looked quite tired and anguished, particularly the mother who appeared more upset and was therefore less receptive to conversation, which led the witness to converse only with the girl’s father.

After the site had been isolated, he proceeded to make an inspection, together with the inspection and photographic report carried out by Deputy Specialist João Barreiras.

He states that he always maintained telephone contact with his superiors, in order to inform them of the inquiries carried out, until, at a time he cannot recall, after having completed the inquiries requested, he received orders from his superiors to return to the Portimão DIC, where the report was subsequently compiled.

He then states that upon leaving the apartment was locked, leaving the space preserved for the GNR elements that were stationed next to the apartment.

He does not recall having seen Robert Murat on that occasion.

When questioned he states he does not remember how light it was that night, nor does he remember the climatic conditions, given that quite some time has passed since the event.

That Gerald McCann, the missing girl’s father, informed him that the children of the couple’s friends were in another apartment and that they were being looked after by the mother of one of the friends, who was never present in the apartment whilst the inquiries were being carried out.

Finally, he states that the photograph of the missing girl was handed to him by Gerald McCann, the girl’s father, he does not remember seeing the photo in the possession of any other person.

Reads, ratifies, signs.

Witness Statement
Date: 20-11-2007 Time: 16H30 Place: D.I.C. de Portimão
Officer responsible: Paulo Ferreira, Inspector

Manuel Joaquim Pessoa de Lencastre Queiroz

Profession: Inspector with the Polícia Judiciária


On the 3rd May, at about 08.30, I went on duty at the station until 08.30 on 4th May.
At about 00.10 a call was received from the GNR in Lagos to communicate the disappearance of a British girl who was on holiday with her parents at the OC in PdL.

Almost half an hour later, Inspector Martins accompanied by Assistant Specialist J. Barreiras left for the scene to carry out any inquiries that were necessary, including a Judicial Inspection of the scene..

At the beginning the possibility was considered that the child had left the apartment of her own will, and that she couldn’t have gone far from the scene and that she would be found wandering/lost (at this time there were already dozens of people looking for her).

However, a little more than an hour later, about 02.00/02.30, as the child had not been found, he decided to contact SEF at Faro airport with the aim of alerting them in case anyone would board accompanied by some child, whoever she was and those accompanying her should be duly identified, however the various calls made were not attended. In the face of this situation I contacted the Faro Station from the police and told them what was going on and asked them to alert the SEF.

I also decided to alert the GNR in Lagos so that they would send out a warning so that the car and foot patrols that were out on the ground would pay attention and identify cars with people out driving at that time who were accompanied by a child (children).

During the early morning in question I received some telephone calls from people whom, with the exception of one, expressed themselves in Portuguese to ask whether an English girl had really disappeared in Lagos and about what was being done with relation to this and I informed them that this was true and that inquiries were being made in order to find her. One of these calls, from the person who did not express themselves in Portuguese but in English and which was received between 04.30 and 05.30, was made by someone who identified themselves as being from the Sky News TV chain and who requested the same information mentioned earlier.
No more is said. Reads, ratifies and signs.



GNR

Processos Vol V Pages 1333 – 1334
Witness Statement

Armando Augusto Morais

Occupation: GNR Officer


He has been a GNR officer since 1982. He currently works in the Portimao Territorial Group, working within the forensics service.

On 4th May he was called at about 01.15, he arrived at the OC at about 1.55, accompanied by the officer Laçao.

They presented themselves to Sergeant Duarte from the GNR Lagos post and were informed by him of the disappearance of a small girl from the resort. There were other GNR officers present at the scene, but he does not remember their names. There were also PJ officers present.

After having established exactly where the girl had disappeared from, he was given a piece of her clothing by one of his colleagues, whose name he does not remember.

From the door of the apartment, accompanied by his dog, he walked around the entire perimeter of the resort and revised the interior of several of the apartments.

As he did not obtain any results in the area close to the resort, he extended the perimeter of the search to a distance of 1 km.

He does not remember having seen plain clothed officers at the scene.

He remembers having seen the McCann couple once, near to the door of the apartment. He did not have any dialogue with them as he does not speak English.

He says that he did not have any dialogue with anyone, limiting himself to exercising his functions, accompanied by his dog, with whom he searched.

He says that he never entered the apartment which Madeleine disappeared from, he was only in the access corridor to the apartment.

When asked, he said that he only saw Robert Murat on the second day of the searches, during the morning of 05-05-2007, near to a GNR vehicle, parked at the site.

He never spoke to Murat. He does not remember having seen Murat in the early morning of 4th May.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs.

<!--"''"-->
<!--/table tableId="table_d2e37"-->
TinLizzy Share to: Facebook Twitter MSN linkedin google yahoo #1
  • Rank：Diamond Member
  • Score：1787
  • Posts：1787
  • From：Canada
  • Register：11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Re：Police Witness Statements

Date Posted：06/02/2010 10:52 AMCopy HTML


http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post6163.html#p6163
Processos, volume III
Pages 762 to 765

Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR -Sniffer Dogs
Location: GNR-Queluz

The deponent states that:
• He comes to the process in the role of Chief of the GNR Search and Rescue Team. He coordinated all the work carried out by the two sniffer dogs in the Luz zone and the immediate areas relating to the disappearance of the English minor Madeleine McCann from the Ocean Club.
• He remembers that on the 4th of May of the current year, around 23H00, they attempted to tentatively identify and thus reconstruct the path taken by the missing minor. They gave the dogs a Turkish bath towel which was supposedly used by the child in question. This operation was realised by two different dogs.
• That after having given the sniffer dog the towel and next to the residence of the missing girl, more specifically, next to apartment block 5A and 5, the first sniffer dog headed toward the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he headed in the direction of block 4, returned around block 5, and came down a road that exists between this block and the leisure area (pools, restaurants, etc). He turned right; in the direction of the aforementioned apartment and headed toward the main road. There, he crossed the street and next to the wall of block 6, turned right, and headed toward the contiguous parking area. More concretely, he headed next to a light post and sniffed the ground around that post. After this, he crossed the street again and headed toward the access zone to the restaurants and pool area, sniffing the door which was closed at that time. He again went to the parking zone, and at that point, lost the scent.
• When carrying out this operation with the second dog, he followed the same rout, took the same direction and headed toward the light post in the parking lot mentioned above. He sniffed the area and at that point appeared to have lost the scent. The only difference was that this dog did not head toward the entrance of the restaurant or the pool area.
• None of the dogs used in this search, after having been given the towel supposedly used by the child, entered into block 5 but went immediately to the street between the apartment and the leisure area. It should be taken into account that the second sniffer dog may have been conditioned by the first sniffer dog. That is to say that in the case of doubt, the second dog may have followed the second of the first.
• Taking into account the aforementioned results, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing child passed by that location, on that day or on a previous day. This situation can be explained by the nature of the terrain, that is, it is a small space enclosed by walls and as such lingering scents would take longer to dissipate.
• Yesterday (08.05.2007) around 23H45, this search action was repeated but this time the dogs were sent into blocks 5 and 4 of the ‘Ocean Club’ resort. During this operation, and given the time that had passed combined with the heat, the results that were achieved are very relative given that the dog will confirm all the odours it scents, certainly alerting to those that are most active, namely due to the fact that the apartment was occupied. It is also noted that the dog’s perception in the interior may be affected by noise.
• The initial diligence carried out with first sniffer dog, after having sniffed the towel used in the previous operation, began searching and showing interest in some doors leading to other apartments. He did not show any interest or even approach other apartments. In none of these actions did the dog give the signal to his trainer, Soldado Fernandes. It is certain however, that the dog signalled next to apartments 5J, 5H, and 4G. He showed great interest in sniffing these doors and the immediate areas. Next to door 5H there were two bags of rubbish and the odour may have distracted the dog. Outside 4G was a tray of plates, cutlery and cloth napkins that had apparently been used. This apartment is where the parents of the missing child were staying (at the time). Concerning apartment 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people in the interior or he could have sniffed an odour that needed to be confirmed.
• He states that after the search inside block 5, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route on 04.05.07, being the existent road of that apartment and the leisure area (pools and restaurant) and then went to the same parking area. At that point, the scent was lost. This situation may be related to the fact that the biggest concentration of odours are in that area and due to the fact that odours are better preserved near walls and away from major winds. It is certain that upon reaching the main road and turning right is where the biggest concentration of odours exist. This is where the dog lost interest.
• The second dog was taken through the same operation and also showed interest at the door of apartment 5J. This same dog jumped on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head as though in search of an odour. As related above, this interest could have been the result of various factors but it is certain that in this area the scent was intense. In the exterior, the sniffer dog immediately headed to the parking area next to block 6 and there apparently lost the scent.
• I would like to clarify that a search in a bad area, where a more intense odour perceived by the sniffer dog, such as in an urban area due to the large concentration of external odours, make it possible to confuse the dog. In this situation, search activity is very difficult as is the case when some time has passed since the event in question.
• Because he is asked, he states that in relation to this, it is difficult to evaluate precisely the work of the sniffer dog. It is clear that some conditions involved in this action augment the degree of uncertainty. The signalling of the dog may only signify that they are confirming an intense odour in a zone. On the other hand, given the interest of the dog(s) in some of the apartment doorways, this could signify nothing, but could also very well mean that the dog has caught the odour. The dog did not demonstrate to its owner that it had found the scent it was searching for.
• And nothing more was said. Reads, ratifies and signs.


Processos, volume III
Pages 785 to 788

Witness Statement of Pedro Miguel Esteves Fernandes
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: GNR Officerr - Sniffer Dogs
Location: GNR-Ajuda

That he comes to the process as witness and states:
• That he is part of the Dog Search Team. In this capacity he serves as a scientific trainer and works with two sniffer dogs. He was asked to bring his team to the Luz zone (Lagos) related to the disappearance of the minor from the Ocean Club.
• On the 4th of May of the current year, around 22H30, he was asked to use the dogs in conjunction with a search that attempted to retrace the steps taken by the missing minor. His role was to use the dogs’ skills by allowing them to sniff a towel which had supposedly been used by the minor in question.
• That after the dogs were given this scent from the towel and near apartment 5A of block 5, the first sniffer dog headed to the door of that apartment. Immediately afterward, he turned to block 5, using a circumvented route to block 5, and came to the road between this block and the leisure area of the resort (pools, restaurant, etc), and turned to the left, or around the referred to apartment and headed to the main road. Having reached there, he crossed the road and next to a wall of block 6, crossed the road again, turned right and headed to the parking zone of the resort. More specifically, the dog went next to the light post and began smelling that location. After searching that zone, he again crossed the road and headed toward the entrance to the pool and restaurant area, and smelled the door which was closed at that hour. He turned again to the parking zone and stopped or lost the scent at this point.
• When he effected the same operation with the second dog, in general, this dog took the same route and headed to the light post and showed interest there and ended by losing the scent at this point. It should be stated that the one difference is that this second dog did not head toward the entrance to the restaurant and pool zone. But he does state that the dogs followed a ‘scent trail’, a signal for the animal who was working. He is certain that they were not conditioned in any direction.
• None of the dogs used in this search action, after having smelled the towel, went into block 5 but headed to the zone which gives access to the road between the apartment and the leisure area. He states it should be noted that the second dog may have been conditioned by the original path taken by the first sniffer dog as he may have smelled the first dog’s path taken.
• Taking into account the aforementioned result, he states that it can be confirmed with a certain degree of certainty that the missing minor passed that location, on the day of the events or before that date. This situation can be explained by the configuration/layout of the area. That space is reduced and flanked by walls. This helps to conserve scents that may otherwise be affected by winds, etc. He would like to clarify that these sniffer dogs are more used to effecting this type of work in rural settings where there is not such a great concentration of odours.
• Yesterday (08/05/07) around 23H45, this search action was repeated but was centred on the dogs inside blocks 5 and 4 of the resort. He adds that in this type of operation, given the time that had lapsed, and with the heat that could already be felt, the results obtained may be highly relative given that the dog will confirm all the scents it comes across. It is certain the dog will react to more active scents, namely because the apartment is occupied. Also, any noise perceived by the dog in the apartment may make the dog loose interest.
• Initiating the diligence, the first sniffer dog, after having smelled the towel used in the previous operation, began searching, it being certain that next to the doors of some apartment he demonstrated major interest whilst he did not even approach others. In none of these actions did the dog give him a signal that he had caught the scent of the missing child. It is certain however, that near apartment 5J, 5H and 4G, that the dog showed major interest in smelling the doors and the immediate areas. He states that next to 5H, there were two bags of rubbish which may condition the dog. Just outside apartment 4G was a tray with plates, cutlery and cloth napkins, apparently used. It is certain that this apartment is the one where the missing child’s parents were lodged (at the time). In relation to the dog’s interest at doorway 5J, the same may have been conditioned by the presence of people inside the apartment.
• After completing the search in the interior of block 5, verandas and apartment access, and whilst in the exterior, the sniffer dog took the same route he had taken on 04/05/07, being the road between that apartment and the leisure area—pool sand restaurant, and headed toward the same parking area. There he lost the scent of the search. This situation may be explained by the fact that the biggest concentration of odours in that location have been preserved and protected from the winds due to the adjoining walls. When this dog got to the main road, he turned right where a large dispersion of odours existed. Here the dog lost the scent.
• The second dog was submitted to the same operation. He too showed interest in the door of apartment 5J. Here he got up on his hind paws to the parapet of the veranda and raised his head in such a way as to catch the odour. As mentioned previously, this interest may be due to various factors but it is certain that at this location the dog scented an intense odour. In the exterior, the sniffer-dog immediately took the first road, heading toward the parking area next to block 6, and there lost the scent.
• He clarifies that a search in a rural area, where a scent is much more intense is immediately noted by the sniffer dog but in an urban area, the great concentration of external odours make it possible to confuse the dog, This makes searching difficult as does the time passed between the event and the search.
• When questioned, he states that in relation to an action of this nature, it is difficult to evalauate precisely the work of the dogs, even though he is well aware what these dogs are capable of. The conditions that surrounded this search made the degree of uncertainty that much greater. The dogs may have signified or confirmed intense odours in that zone, however, they may have also merely have given a confirmation of a scent. They did not demonstrate that they had detected the odour in question.
• And nothing more was said, finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs.
Copyright © 2000- Aimoo Free Forum All rights reserved.