Processos Vol V


Pages 1348 – 1349

Witness Statement

José María Batista Roque

Date: 2007 – 05 –16


Occupation: GNR Officer


He comes to the process for a second time, having made a previous statement giving details about the police intervention at the site of the events.

He has been a GNR officer since 1986, he currently works at the Lagos GNR post.

On 3rd May he was on duty at the events, he arrived at the OC at about 23.00 accompanied by Officer Costa. They were the first to arrive on the scene.

They went to the reception of the OC resort.

At that moment the girl’s father arrived at the reception who informed them of the situation.

After hearing what had happened he went to the exact site the girl had disappeared from accompanied by his colleague, Nelson Costa, the girl’s father, a woman acting as interpreter, whose surname was Ramos, and another individual, a friend of the girl’s father, whose name he does not remember.

He never spoke directly to the father or with any other persons of foreign nationality, the questions were formulated to the interpreter who acted an intermediary in the dialogue.

He remembers that inside the apartment Madeleine had disappeared from was the mother and another foreign woman, whom he assumed to be a friend of the family.

When asked, he says he never saw Murat on any of the occasions he was at the site.

No more is said. Reads, ratifies, signs.

Processos, volume III
Pages 762 to 765

Witness Statement of Antonio Freitas Silva
Date: 2007.05.09
Location: DIC Portimao
Occupation: 1st Sergeant GNR
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
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.

Statements linked in TOC

PROCESSO Vol II Pages 415 - 416

José María Batista Roque
Date/Time: 2007/05/07 18H45
G.N.R. Military Personnel

Concerning the issue of the process said;
. In the sequence of facts, he was with the patrol of the GNR that went to the Ocean Club Gardens establishment (situated in Para da Luz) on night of May 03, 2007, with the goal of investigating the circumstances that surrounded the disappearance of a minor, of British nationality, that was installed there temporarily, together with the rest of her more direct family – knowing these to be, the respective parents, and two siblings, twins, minors, whose name do not need to be clarified;
. Clarifies that the occurrence in question was transmitted to the above referenced patrol via radio, at time when they were located in Odiaxere;
. The patrol of which he took part, and now as a witness, went immediately to the principal reception of the aforementioned establishment, where there was encountered the father of the missing child;
. Following, this patrol went to the residence where the family of said minor was staying in the ‘Ocean Garden’ together with the father;
. At reaching the location, the two elements that made up the patrol , the current witness and his colleague, Nelson Costas, proceeded into the interior of the apartment, with the goal of investigating the contours which eventually surrounded the disappearance of that minor;
. In this sentiment, the deponent states that they searched al the dependencies of the residence and all the pieces of furniture, in order to confirm the disappearance -- effectively confirming that that she was not in the interior;
. The questioned made, the deponent states that the access to interior of the residence was accessed through a principal door- this is, a wood door which is placed facing north;
. Inside, the deponent encountered the mother and two siblings of the missing minor;
. The deponent stats that he is unable to specify if that entrance door was found open or closed when he reached the apartment during which he was taking in the facts with the witness is now clarifying;
. In the sequence of confirming the facts of the effective disappearance of that minor, he states that this has been communicated prior, for the reason of helping the Policia Judiciara;
. Urged to reveal other details that may be considered relevant to the investigation, the deponent reveals that he has no other knowledge of any elements that may help contribute to that end;
. And nothing more said, having read the statement, finds it in conformity and signs it;
. The document is duly signed by me …

Pedro Varanda, an Inspector with this Polícia Judiciária

Statement linked in toc.