Wednesday, May 16, 2012

Thoughts

Paulo Reis when he believed..link has since been removed.

Tuesday, 26 June 2007

Quote:My opinion about Gerry and Kate McCann

"I don’t believe, as a journalist, that the McCanns are, in any way, related with the abduction of Madeleine. I’ve been following this case, not only in the Web – I was also at Praia da Luz, for one week (May 17 to May 23). For the last two months, I also have followed the news on the Net very carefully and closely.

So, based on all the information I collected, either during my stay in Praia da Luz or in the Net, as a journalist, I CAN’T SEE THE SLIGHTEST EVIDENCE THAT GERRY AND KATE HAD SOMETHING TO DO WITH HER DAUGTHER DISAPEARENCE.

And I AM ABSOLUTELY SURE, WITH THE INFORMATION I HAVE, NOW, THAT THERE IS NOTHING THE MCCAN CAN BE ACCUSED OF, FROM A LEGAL OR CRIMINAL POINT OF VIEW. I may be wrong, but I STRONGLY BELIEVE THE CHANCE OF BEING WRONG IS VERY SMALL: 0,1 per cent, as I'm 99, 9 per cent sure of what I say.

As a human being, a common man, father of two boys (one, 22 years old, the other 11) let me tell you this: I was at an arm’s distance from the McCanns, when they gave a Press Conference at Praia da Luz. I looked into the eyes of Kate McCann and I saw so much pain and suffering that I had to take a deep breath to control myself, to avoid tears coming to my eyes and not let emotion overcome me! I was schocked to see so much pain in her eyes and in her look! That's someting that only people that has kids can understand and feel! "

Publicada por Paulo Reis em
http://gazetadigitalmadeleineandthemedi ... ccann.html

Friday, May 4, 2012

The Meet !

Why in heaven's name did Brian Kennedy, the multi-millionaire double glazing magnate who out of the goodness of his bountiful heart poured his energies and money into helping to find Madeleine (e.g. by appointing Metodo 3 and Kevin Halligen to help find her), take his lawyer, Freemason Edward Smethurst, to meet with the leading suspect in the case, Robert Murat, who was suspected of abducting or killing Madeleine. And why was Robert Murat's lawyer there?

Were they all on a mission to find Madeleine?

Or were they and their lawyers sorting out something very different and striking up some sort of deal, or even a contract?

Some of the answers maybe in Chapter N of our 120-page article on Robert Murat [ www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/Articles/ ].

Here it is:


N. Robert Murat’s meeting with Brian Kennedy in Portugal, 13 November 2007

We’ll now move right away from the events of early May 2007 and look at two meetings that were probably of great significance in this case that took place in Portugal in November 2007. One was between Robert Murat and Brian Kennedy, the multi-millionaire double glazing magnate who has effectively bankrolled the various private investigations which were supposed to be about finding Madeleine.

Others were also present at this meeting. He was also, as was made clear in John Whitehouse’s article on our website, the man who was at the centre of these intelligence operations, running them from a house believed to be in Knutsford, appointing the staff and directing them.

We now know that Brian Kennedy flew out in November 2007, about three weeks after this ’phone call, together with his in-house lawyer from the Latium Group, Edward Smethurst. This, briefly, is the Portuguese Police’s account of a meeting between them, Metodo 3, Brian Kennedy and Edward Smethurst. The date of it was probably arranged during or soon after the ’phone call of 19 October:

QUOTE

“We held a meeting on 13 November, with Inspectors Paulo Ferreira and Ricardo Paiva present, with Brian Kennedy, Director of the detective agency, Francisco Marco and one of his advisers, plus Antonio Jimenez, ex-chief of the Kidnapping Unit of Catalonia [Note: Other information suggests that Edward Smethurst was also present].

Brian Kennedy insisted that his motives were purely charitable, aimed at finding the truth, and generally helping missing children. He said he was interested in discovering the truth even if the McCann family, the friends, or any other person is found to be involved in the disappearance”.

UNQUOTE

Brian Kennedy’s involvement in the investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has been controversial. An article by Mark Hollingsworth in the Evening Standard in August 2009 claimed that “The involvement of Brian Kennedy and his son Patrick in the operation was counter-productive, notably when they were questioned by the local police [in Portugal] for acting suspiciously while attempting a 24-hour ‘stake out’.”

The ‘Evening Standard’ article also showed that, later, the relationship between Metodo 3 and the Portuguese police had ‘completely broken down’. Hollingsworth claimed that key witnesses were questioned ‘far too aggressively’ by Kennedy’s investigators, so much so that ‘some of them later refused to talk to the police’. Interference with witnesses to that extent could amount to a criminal offence.

We are not aware that any other nation allows people to interfere with potential witnesses in an investigation in such a way as to cause them to refuse to testify, as Mark Hollingsworth in his article claimed had happened in this case, due to Kennedy’s investigators.

It was Francisco Pagarete, Mr Murat’s Portuguese lawyer - the one whom he was so anxious to see when he flew out to Praia da Luz on 1 May - who confirmed that a second meeting involving Brian Kennedy took place at Mr Murat’s uncle’s house in the Algarve in November. He told the BBC: “[Brian Kennedy] came here to give his support to Robert and to say he doesn’t believe Robert was involved in this story in any way or sense. And he asked if Robert could help the investigation for the finding of Madeleine in any way”. Mr Pagarete added that Mr Kennedy had ‘promised to stay in touch with Mr Murat’ but ‘had not contacted him since’. Mr Pagarete also confirmed that Edward Smethurst was at the meeting.

The Portuguese paper Jornal de Notícias appeared to have some additional information about this meeting. Their report, early in 2008, said: “The meeting - a dinner that Brian Kennedy asked to be discreet and far away from the eyes of the press - took place in the end of last year at a house of Murat's relatives in Burgau (Vila do Bispo). At the dinner were Robert Murat and Kennedy, their respective lawyers, Jennifer Murat and the aunt and uncle of Murat” [NOTE: This appears in fact to have been Ralph Eveleigh, Murat’s uncle, and Sally Eveleigh, his cousin].

If Murat and Kennedy each had one lawyer with them - Pagarete and Smethurst - that makes seven people present at that dinner in Burgau: Murat and his mother, his uncle Ralph and cousin Sally Eveleigh, who ran the 8-room guest house at Vila do Bispo, two lawyers and Brian Kennedy.

What was discussed at this meeting that Kennedy didn’t want the press to know about?

This evening meeting was either on the same day, or very close to, the meeting that Brian Kennedy had with the Portuguese Police on 13 November 2007 that we referred to above. The two Portuguese Police Inspectors, Ferreira and Paiva, later submitted an account of their strange meeting with Brian Kennedy.

The report, which is amongst the documents contained in the police files, indicates that right at the start of the meeting, Brian Kennedy was keen to stress that his intentions were ‘purely charitable’, because he felt ‘concerned about cases of child neglect and child abduction’. The Director of Metodo 3, Francisco Marco, presented information to the PJ about three situations, allegedly received via their ‘hotline’.

The first of these concerned an incident that the British media had already referred to, at the end of October 2007: a woman who had been baby-sitting at the Ocean Club, in Apartment 5A in August/September 2006, said she spotted a man ‘hidden in the shadows’, the same day that Madeleine disappeared. A story about this had surfaced in the Sun on October 31.

According to the newspaper, “The nanny - identified only as M.H. - reported the frightening incident to the police in England after the hunt for Madeleine started in May, but did not speak to the police in Portugal”. Clarence Mitchell added that: “This evidence supports what we have always said, that Maddie was taken from her bed by an abductor”. The Portuguese Police had however ruled out this report, because the detectives considered that there was no proof that it was in any way related to Madeleine's disappearance.

The second piece of information was about the alleged existence of images of paedophilia on a computer at the home of Sergei Malinka, witnessed by the fiancé of a British woman, four years ago, when he was at Malinka's house. According to this witness, he questioned Malinka on the subject and he explained that the computer belonged to a client and that he would report it later to the authorities. All of the computers at Malinka's house were seized and examined, but the Portuguese Police report said that nothing of any relevance or suspicion was found.

The third piece of information referred to a detailed witness statement, according to the Metodo 3 report, about a woman handing what the witness was convinced was a child, wrapped in a blanket or a sheet, over a fence to a man, next to two parked vehicles, near a town 100 miles from the Algarve. The witness, a Portuguese lorry driver, M.G., looked at several photos and picked out Michaela Walczuk [Robert Murat’s girlfriend, now his wife], saying that her picture was the one that most resembled the woman he had seen.

The British media published a version of this story on 19 November 2007, but with different details. The METRO free paper boldly wrote: “A witness spotted Murat's German girlfriend, Michaela Walczuch, in a car with Maddie, on 5 May, in central Portugal”. On the same day, the Daily Mail published a similar story: “According to a source, a new witness identified Michaela Walczuch as the woman seen with the missing child, in central Portugal, 160 kilometres [100 miles] from where she disappeared on May 3rd”.

As usual, Clarence Mitchell had a few things to say to the media: “We are not going to comment on any line of the investigation except to say that we are encouraged by the fact that our investigators seem to be making progress. Kate and Gerry are not ruling out any possibility”.

The Portuguese Police studied this incident and questioned the Portuguese lorry driver, but the facts that he described to the police were somewhat different to those reported in the British press. The lorry driver said he saw a woman handing something to a man, over a fence, wrapped in what looked like a blanket. It wasn't heavy, because they did it easily and the fence was around 1.6 metres high (5 feet). Asked if it could have been the body of a child, he responded that nothing he had seen would indicate that.

Questioned also about the positive identification of Michaela Walczuk, according to Metodo 3's report, the witness told the Portuguese Police that he couldn't see the woman's face, because he was driving his lorry at 45/50 mph, and the couple were at some distance. He only chose Michaela's photo from amongst the others Metodo 3 had shown him because she had the same hair colour and similar build.

The actual facts which emerged from the lorry driver, then, did not seem anywhere near sufficient to justify the press headlines claiming that he had positively identified Murat and his girlfriend.

ENDS


The other meeting was between Brian Kennedy, the Portuguese Police, and the Spanish private detective agency recently chosen by Kennedy and the McCanns: Metodo 3. This took place in police headquarters in Portimao.

A report from the Portuguese Police referring to a ’phone call on 19 October, gives us some background; here it is:

On the 19th of October, we were contacted by Alberto Carbas, Chief of the Kidnapping Unit of the Commissary-General, based in Madrid, who passed to us the information that the McCann family had contracted a Spanish private detective agency known as ‘Metodo 3’. The costs of their investigation into Madeleine McCann were being covered by a Scottish multi-millionaire whose name is Brian Kennedy. His objective was to find Madeleine.

“We were asked if we were available and interested in meeting with a representative of Metodo 3 and the Spanish Commissary General and Chief of the Kidnapping Unit of the Police in Spain. The purpose of this proposed meeting, they said, was to find out the truth, but they stated that they would not interfere in police work. At most, they said, they would ‘complement’ our investigation. They firmly stated that they are not working directly for the McCann family, but for Brian Kennedy. They didn’t ask for any information regarding the investigation, nor was any offered to them, for obvious reasons”.

Wednesday, April 25, 2012

Hague


Spy Gareth Williams was found dead in his flat
Spy Gareth Williams was found dead in his flat
William Hague has ruled that key evidence in the ‘body-in-the-bag’ inquest into the death of an MI6 officer be heard in secret.
The Foreign Secretary signed an order prohibiting disclosure about details of the agent’s work with the British and US secret services.
The case has reignited the debate over secret justice and Government attempts to hold some inquests behind closed doors.
Gareth Williams, 31, who worked for the Secret Intelligence Service, MI6, was found dead in a sports bag in the bath of his flat 18 months ago amid claims he had been murdered by another country’s spies.
But Mr Hague, who has departmental responsibility for MI6, has signed a public interest immunity certificate authorising the withholding of details about his secret work, including joint operations with the American secret services.
A source close to the case said that the coroner, Dr Fiona Wilcox, has backed Mr Hague’s decision and the Government’s bid to keep the evidence secret. ‘The coroner was favourable to the arguments raised by the Government lawyers,’ the source said.
At a secret hearing nine days ago, lawyers for MI6 – which is headed by Sir John Sawers – told Dr Wilcox that the disclosure of details about Mr Williams’s work could harm Britain’s national interest.
Mr Williams, who is believed to have worked closely with  the American security services, had flown to the National Security Agency (NSA) – the Pentagon’s listening post – on several occasions and returned from his last trip to the US only weeks before his death in Pimlico, Central London.
At the secret hearing, MI6 lawyers cited the case of Binyam Mohamed, the former Guantanamo Bay detainee paid £1million compensation by the last Labour Government. It settled that case rather than publish secret material the US government had given in confidence to the Security Service, MI5.
There were no fingerprints other than Gareth's found anywhere, including the living room, and it is thought the flat was 'dry-cleaned'
There were no fingerprints other than Gareth's found anywhere, including the living room, and it is thought the flat was 'dry-cleaned'

Williams was found dead locked inside a North Face holdall in the bath of his flat, pictured
Williams was found dead locked inside a North Face holdall in the bath of his flat, pictured
But the case raised questions about whether Britain was using its intelligence relationship with the US to keep secret details about UK involvement in the American torture programme.
The chief: MI6's Sir John Sawers
The chief: MI6's Sir John Sawers
Last night, Geoffrey Robertson QC, who acted for the New York Times and Washington Post in the Binyam Mohamed case, compared the legal situation in the Williams inquest with Mohamed’s. He called for the Williams case to be opened up to greater public scrutiny, adding: ‘These documents [about Williams’s work] may be necessary to show how and why this man died.
‘The open justice principle in British law is based on [legal reformer] Jeremy Bentham’s insight that publicity is very good for justice as it “keeps the judges, while trying, under trial”.
‘Coroners are not judges and sometimes their decisions can be dreadful. It is essential that this coroner’s ruling be made public so that we can decide whether she is applying the proper principles and so the public can be confident she is taking the correct approach to this case – and is not being overawed by the over-suppressive Government arguments.’
Mr Williams, one of GCHQ’s codebreakers, is reported to have been sent to the NSA to work on encryption programmes that filter millions of communications every day. In 2010, the FBI  was called in to investigate Mr Williams’s death as a possible NSA security compromise.
A source in the Williams case said the coroner’s ruling has been communicated to the Government, but suggested it might not be made fully public. A spokesman for the coroner declined to say whether the judgment would be made fully public but said: ‘The coroner is yet to make a full ruling on any anonymity and public interest immunity.’
The Foreign Office said: ‘It was absolutely right and appropriate to seek a public interest immunity certificate. We would always seek to protect the identities of intelligence personnel and details of their operational work.’
Police have confirmed that the investigation is continuing and have not ruled out murder.


Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2126680/Hague-orders-body-bag-spy-evidence-heard-secret-MI6-agents-work-U-S-reported.html#ixzz1rQqVwIfN

Sunday, January 29, 2012

Rachel Mampilly - Russell O'Brian And Fiona Payne - Statement On Robert Murat

Thanks to Astro for the translation.

Processos Vol VIII

Pages 1957 (pdf page 16)

On the 11th of July, at around 10 am, in the offices of the Criminal Investigation Department of the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão, before me, Paulo Ferreira, Inspector, and Mr Guilhermino Encarnação, Joint National Director of the Polícia Judiciária, has appeared arguidos Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, who has already been duly identified in the process, to be questioned.


Following this diligence of questioning and given the fact that there are manifest contradictions between what the arguido has stated and what the witnesses, Rachel Mariamma Jean Mampilly, Russell James O’Brien, and Fiona Elayne Payne, who have also been duly identified in the process, have stated, the present diligence is carried out.

This diligence was carried out in the presence of the arguido’s defendant, Dr Francisco Pagarete, as well as Mrs Carla Esteves, a translator and interpreter who translated all the statements into the English language and vice versa, and the same was started at around 12.00 am.

The first person to be confronted, Rachel Mariamma Jean Mampilly, said that she confirms her statement on page 1212 of the process, namely that she saw the arguido who is present at this confrontation at around 11.30 pm of the 3rd of May 2007 under the circumstances that she leaves explicit in the document.

The second person to be confronted, Russell James O’Brien said that he confirms his statement on pages 1320 and 1321, namely when he refers that he saw the arguido Robert Murat on the night that the facts under investigation took place, which is to say the night when Madeleine disappeared, at around 1.00 am of the 4th of May, and in everything else confirms his deposition in terms of the contact that he had with the arguido.

The third person to be confronted, Fione Elaine Payne said that she confirms her deposition on pages 1323 and 1324, namely when she refers that she saw the arguido for the first time, personally, on the night of the 3rd of May at around 11.30 pm on the outside, near the door to the McCanns’ apartment, in the company of elements of the GNR who had meanwhile arrived on location. In everything else she confirms the circumstances under which she approached the arguido.

The fourth person to be confronted, arguido Robert James Queriol Eveleigh Murat, said that what the other persons in this confrontation said is a lie, because on the night of the disappearance of Madeleine he was not at that location, and in fact during the night of the 3rd of May 2007 he never left his house.

The persons involved in this confrontation said nothing further, the present document was read out to them and as they agree with its contents, it is to be signed by all the subjects.


= AUTO DE DILIGÊNCIA DE ACAREAÇÃO =

----- Aos 11 dias do mês de Julho, pelas 10H00, nas instalações do Departamento de Investigação Criminal de Portimão da Polícia Judiciária, perante mim, Paulo Ferreira, Inspector, encontrando-se comigo o senhor Dr. Guilhermino Encarnação, Director Nacional Adjunto da Policia Judiciária, compareceu o arguido ROBERT JAMES QUERIOL EVELEIGH MURAT, já devidamente identificado nos autos, a fim de se proceder ao seu interrogatório. Na sequência desta diligência de interrogatório e visto haver contradições entre aquilo que o arguido declarou e aquilo que as testemunhas, RACHEL MARIAMMA JEAN MAMPILLY, RUSSEL JAMES O'BRIEN, e FIONA ELAINE PAYNE, todas também já devidamente identificados nas autos, uma vez que resulta dos depoimentos dos mesmos existirem manifestas contradições com as respostas do arguido, procedeu-se à presente diligência.
----- Esta diligência foi levada a cabo na presença do defensor do arguido, senhor Dr. Francisco Pagarete, bem assim como da senhora Carla Esteves, tradutora e interprete que traduziu todas as declarações para língua inglesa e vice versa, tendo-se dado inicio à mesma pelas 12H00.
----- Pela primeira acareada, RACHEL MARIAMMA JEAN MAMPILLY foi dito que confirma o seu depoimento constante a folhas 1212 dos autos, nomeadamente que viu o arguido presente nesta acareação cerca das 23H30 do dia 03 de Maio de 2007 nas circunstâncias que deixa no auto explicito.
----- Pelo segundo acareado, RUSSEL JAMES O' BRIEN foi dito que confirma o seu depoimento constante de folhas 1320 e 1321, concretamente quando refere que viu o arguido ROBERT MURAT na noite em que ocorreram os factos ora em investigação, ou seja na noite em que a Madeleine desapareceu, cerca das 01H00 na madrugada do pretérito dia 04 de Maio, em tudo o resto confirma o seu depoimento no que diz respeito ao contacto que teve com o arguido.
----- Pela terceira acareada, FIONA ELAINE PAYNE foi dito que confirma o seu depoimento constante a folhas 1323 e 1324, nomeadamente quando refere que viu o arguido pela primeira vez, pessoalmente, na noite de 03 de Maio cerca das 23H30 no exterior, junto à porta do apartamento dos McCann em companhia de elementos da GNR que entretanto já tinham chegado ao local. Em tudo o resto confirma o circunstancionalismo da abordagem que fez ao arguido.
----- Pelo quarto acareado o arguido ROBERT JAMES QUERIOL EVELEIGH MURAT foi dito que é mentira o que os restantes acareados disseram porque nessa noite do desaparecimento da Madeleine não estava nem esteve nesse local, não tendo sequer na noite de 03 de Maio de 2007 saído de sua casa.
----- E mais não disseram os acareados, sendo-lhes lido o presente auto o acharam conforme indo o mesmo ser assinado por todos os intervenientes.


http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic852.html

Lori Campbell Statement On Robert Murat

Processos Vol II

Pages 307 - 308

Letter from Leicester Constabulary
to Portugal Incident Room/Madeleine McCann

6th May 2007

Sir,

Lori CAMPBELL a reporter from the Sunday Mirror has contacted Leicestershire Police to report the following.


Lori has been speaking to an interpreter who has been helping authorities with the investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance. He has only given his name as ‘ROR’ (sic) and has not given any background information about himself.

Lori has become suspicious of Rob as he has given conflicting accounts to various people and became very concerned when he noticed his photo being taken by the Mirror’s photographer. ‘ROB’ stated to Lori that he is going through a messy divorce in the UK at the moment and that he had a three year old daughter just like Madeleine, who he is separated from at the moment. He made a big show of telephoning his daughter in front of reporters, and Lori felt that he was being too loud and making a big thing of speaking to his daughter on the phone. The things that ‘ROB’ has said to Lori have raised her concerns about him.

Could you please call Lori who is still in Portugal to establish further details to identify ‘ROB’ in order to eliminate him from your enquiries on 07917 xxxxxx.

Submitted for information

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic852.html

Saturday, January 28, 2012

Maria Cecilia Pereira Pires (JOURNALIST) Claims Murat Was A Suspect May 5th ?

Processos VI
1581 to 1584

Witness Statement of Maria Cecilia Pereira Pires

Date: 2007.05.23

Profession: Journalist for Portugal Resident

She has been a journalist for about 16 years, but has worked for the above-referenced paper for about one month.Questioned, responds that on the 4th of May, 2007, she was asked to go to Praia da Luz, Lagos, in order to cover the case of a missing child.

She clarifies that she was informed that the disappearance of the child occurred in the Mark Warner Ocean Club resort, and that the family/child’s family surname was McCann.

She responds that when she arrived at Praia da Luz around 09H30/10H00, and as she headed to the GNR post where she gathered some information, she then headed next to a group of journalists where she learnt further case details.

Because so little time had passed since the disappearance, she took the decision to walk around the area of the resort.

She adds that this decision was also made due to the information that the child may have left the apartment of her own accord, and may still be in the immediate area.

During her walk, she came across a bare patch of land, situated north, a few meters from the resort. She met a male individual, about 50 years in age, who approached her and asked if she was involved in the [read organized?] search for the missing child.

The deponent told him that she was not, even though she confirmed that she was looking, in order to calm her conscience a bit.

In this context, the individual proposed that both of them head towards a house, apparently unlived in, but not abandoned, with the intent of looking for the child, and so it would not appear like trespassing.

After entering the parking area of the residence, where they called out to see if anyone was home, they verified that a woman was inside. This was a woman of advanced age, around 70 years old, 1,5 to 1,6 metres in height, with grey hair combed and coiffed in the shape of a “banana”. The individual with the deponent asked this older woman to help them search for this child.
This older woman agreed.

She clarifies that the individual headed toward the pool zone and the deponent, accompanied by the older woman, lagged behind as the older woman walked slowly.

During this time, the older woman exclaimed to the deponent that she was bothered with the entire situation of the disappearance and further commented that the parents had to be going through great anguish.

The above conversation occurred in English, with the older woman indicating that she lived about 100 metres from the resort, and that the night prior she noticed the arrival of the police due to their sirens.
This was around 22H00.

The woman in question told her that she had been having dinner with her son when she heard the sirens, and assumes that it was at this time that the disappearance was noted.


She clarifies that the older woman did not speak about a ‘child or a boy child’ and specifically mentioned “a girl child”. The deponent did not find this strange because by that time, May 4th, everyone knew it was a girl child that had gone missing.

The woman above also indicated that her son was working with the police in trying to locate the child.

She adds that after searching the area around the residence where they found nothing, (the same can be said for the pool neat the house), they were stopped by a neighbor. From what she could make out, he was German but asked them in English what was going on, and then after responded that the Police had been searching the area with dogs.

During the conversation with the older woman, the deponent was introduced to this individual. The deponent confirmed that she was a journalist. The other individual told them that he was searching for the child. The deponent then left the area and the other individuals staying behind.

This situation appeared to her very normal.

She responds that during her work, she came to know the son of the older woman. The journalists referred to him as Robert Murat. He was someone who was involved with the journalists and police with much freedom. He spoke both English and Portuguese.

She states that on the 5th of May, the British journalists affirmed that Robert Murat was one of the suspects in the missing child case. He appeared very much surprised at this and confirmed that he was going to back-off so that he would not be the subject of such comments. Following this point, it was very difficult to contact him.

She clarifies that when she saw the pictures at the information kiosk operated by Robert’s mother, she was certain that his mother was the same one she had met on the 4th.

She responds that when she read the notices, offered by Robert’s mother, she was taken aback by one sentence. That sentence read that the child had gone missing at 07H00 on the 4th of May. This information was supposedly proffered as a result of a telephone call she received. As a result, she set up the information kiosk. The deponent found this strange, given what had occurred between her and this woman on the 4th of May.

She affirms that she became aware of the name of the older woman from newspapers. On the day she initially met her (the 4th of May) this older woman did not identify herself.

She adds that she has many times pondered this situation but always thought it was of no significance.
Only today and when she saw what was written did she decide to communicate the fact. She knows with absolute certainty that this older woman was aware of the disappearance given what this older woman had stated to her the morning of May 4th.

Because she is asked, the deponent responds that she bears no grudge against these individuals who she has never seen before.
 She is certain that this appears an attempt to construct an alibi.
There is incongruence between what the older women is stating regarding the 4th and what can be read in the newspapers of today (23 of May, 2007).
She felt it her obligation to communicate these facts to the authorities.

And nothing more was said.

Reads, ratifies and signs.


http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic852.html