Last post we spoke of one of the ix (nine) interactions Yvonne Martin had with the authorities pertaining to the Maddie case.
We dealt with interaction ii – The anonymous letter.
Even though we tackled a very controversial issue the expected warm breeze of silence that touched our cheeks told us the seas ahead continue to be calm and ridiculously flat so we see no reason for us not to continue to point the bow of our vessel towards the horizon and proceed with our trip through these dead-still waters.
Today we will deal with Yvonne Martin's interactions iii and iv:
iii – Calls PJ, date uncertain but educated guess would say on June 12 or the day before;
iv – Speaks to PJ at her residence, June 12.
A – CALLING PJ
This is simply one of the most important interactions between Yvonne Martin and the authorities but has gone completely unnoticed up to now as far as we have been able to see.
The reason for this importance is very simple and very easy to understand: it’s her doing. And because it’s her doing, it shows want.
It’s her who decides to call PJ and tell them she wants to speak to them.
How do we know this? By the first paragraph of her first statement on June 12: “In the sequence of information conveyed to this police, a team made up by the signee and by colleague Carlos Antunes, went to the residence of YVONE WARREN MARTIN (…) Sargaçal (…), being that from conversation with the referred YVONE the following was determined:”
PJ, even if only for practical reasons weren’t knocking on every door in Praia da Luz. Much less in Lagos, or Sargaçal where Yvonne Martin resided. That’s what press conferences and appeals are for: to have people who think they may have relevant information to come to them and not the police going around talking to everyone in the hope they can find them.
For PJ to go to Yvonne Martin’s residence, it was because they received “information conveyed” and this information could only have been conveyed to the PJ by Yvonne Martin.
This has enormous implications as we hope to show. Both in the intervention itself as in the ones that followed.
We don’t have the hour when the conversation between Yvonne Martin and the PJ at her residence took place, only the day, June 12.
That means we don’t know when exactly Yvonne Martin conveyed the information to the PJ, or in simple terms, when she called and asked to talk to them.
We think that by taking into account the high profile status of the case she called them on that day and they immediately sent a team out. For that reason we will be assuming that this interaction took place on June 12, some hours before PJ arrived at her house.
Let’s do a quick recap of what we know happened up to that point in time.
- Yvonne Martin has gone to Luz on May 4. DP has made a negative impression on her and she, although she can’t be precise, suspects he may be a paedophile with whom she has crossed paths with during her career;
- On site does nothing about it. Goes back home and does nothing about it for 3 weeks;
- Then on May 25 she hears a description of a man carrying a child and wearing a dark jacket and she immediately connects that to a man she has seen wearing a polo shirt;
- Prompted by the PJ’s description mentioned above the senior social worker writes an anonymous letter to the British police because the McCanns behaved strangely, the apartment had no sign of a break in and her professional experience showed that in 99,99% of the cases of children disappearing the family and friends are involved. Because of all these reasons the police should look up and see if David Payne is a registered paedophile or child abuser.
More than a month later after being in Luz and about 3 weeks after she wrote the anonymous letter, she decides on June 12 to call the PJ to tell them she wants to speak to them.
There can only be one reason for Yvonne Martin to call PJ: she has seen no response from authorities to the anonymous letter she wrote and decides to press the issue further.
She supposedly has contacted the British police via this anonymous letter and on NOT seeing any reference on the MSM to a paedophile being involved nor any reference to David Payne being involved, decides to “ask” authorities why nothing had been done.
And so she contacts the PJ.
But the question that must be asked is how does she know nothing was done about her anonymous letter?
How does she know the clues she gave aren’t being followed, that police weren’t following them discreetly constructing a case against Payne the paedophile and to catch others possibly involved?
But above all, how does she know the content her letter hasn’t been, correctly, disregarded?
Wasn’t she so vague in the way she points the finger to Payne?
She seems to say that in the letter she just asks authority to check the registers to see if he was there but doesn’t say he was there.
But let’s imagine she’s very precise in that letter – we don’t know what was written in that letter – and has said possibly something like “David Payne is a paedophile” written in bold and underlined, they could have done all the checks they should have done and found nothing.
They could have found no visible link between Payne and paedophilia and just said “Thank you, ma’am, we inform you that although you had suspicions and concerns we have found no evidence linking David Payne to paedophilia or to child abuse”.
Problem is that there was no ma’am to thank as the supposed letter was anonymous. Police couldn’t give any feed-back about it to its author even if it wanted to.
Note that by calling the PJ after having written the anonymous letter she does not consider the possibility that Payne checked out ok and was innocent of all her suspicions.
However what is to be noted is that with this call she shows interested determination, insistence and persistence. No hesitation whatsoever.
The fact she called them means very clearly she is not at all hesitant that to her Payne is the suspect the police should focus on.
She has gone out of her way twice to point the finger in his direction: the anonymous letter and the phone call.
That means certainty, no question about that.
This interaction and the one before, the anonymous letter, are very important because they are “baggage”.
When the reader first reads her first statement the reader has no way of knowing how committed she was to getting Payne seen as a paedophile. And when the reader has the information the reader doesn’t go back to read this statement under this new light and so disregards it.
The reader just reads a candid and earnest statement from someone who found someone “odd” and who just wanted to help the investigation.
No, Yvonne Martin si not candid and simply worried. She’s a precise accuser and has a precise target: David Payne and is determined to accuse him.
B – 1ST STATEMENT, JUNE 12
1. Summary of statement (1)
- Yvonne Martin says she sees in her house at 07:00 on Sky News or BBC a minor – as in singular – had disappeared in Luz;
- Because of her profession she feels obliged to help, goes to Luz;
- Arrives at 09:00, sees Kate, Gerry and David by the apartment;
- Identifies herself, presents credentials starts to talk to Kate;
- Kate tells her couple took Maddie;
- David interrupts and takes Kate and Gerry away;
- David later comes back and informs her that the McCanns no longer want to talk to her or want her help;
- Says after this she sees David twice, once when he’s with an older woman (Dianne Webster?) and the McCann twins and the other when he’s with PJ officers;
- Meanwhile (very important word this one, not afterwards or a little later but meanwhile) she hears near the Tapas reception that the consul is coming, decides to wait for him;
- Describes Payne;
- Says when back home and AFTER seeing Payne on TV she comes to the conclusion she may have crossed paths with him, not sure if suspect or witness;
- Says she can pick him out of if shown photographs and then suggest that with that photo they can go check English police database to see if Payne has been related with crimes involving minors.
2. Morning news
Yvonne Martin says she hears at 07:00 am a news report about Maddie having disappeared.
Sky News first reports this at 07:48:
“Presenter: Some more breaking news for you this morning. Errr... We're just hearing that a search is underway for a 3-year-old British girl who's gone missing in the Algarve area of Portugal; and she went missing last night. Hundreds of people have been searching for the girl; and that search continuing this morning. So we will try to get as much on that as for... for you as soon as we can; errr... that, errr... missing girl in Luz and we will bring it to you as soon as we get further detail.”
Yvonne Martin seems to have a problem with time.
We have seen in our previous post how she first says she took 2 weeks to write the anonymous letter then to find out it had to be 3 weeks and now we find out that what she says she hears at 07:00 was aired in fact almost an hour later, at 07:48.
Morning is the time of routine. From when we get up until we leave the house we know if we’re on time or if we’re late. One can only have that perception if one has a set routine as reference.
To have heard something on TV that impresses us to the point of feeling obliged to get out of the house and travel to the other side of Lagos, one must be able to remember what one was doing at the time and then pinpoint it.
For example, it would be natural for her to have said “I saw it when I was having my cereal, so that would be around 7:20/7:30” or “I was just pouring my coffee, so that would be around 07:15”, etc.
One can pinpoint time quite accurately in the morning.
To say that in the morning one hears something at 07:00 on TV when it was aired at 07:48 is an unacceptable inaccuracy.
If this was in the afternoon, it would be understandable but it is when we wake up, when all minutes count, so a 48 minute discrepancy is not.
By the way, who was to guarantee the child would not return safely or be found unharmed soon after the report? Why does she assume the “missing” will be a long-term one or even permanent?
She says she arrives in Luz at 09:00 and says she sees the McCann couple and a third element (who seems familiar to her). Walks to them and identifies herself “presenting her credentials” and then starts to speak immediately with the mother.
As she wasn’t working in the UK her credentials would be worthless in Portugal. She should have known that.
Social workers are registered to work in the UK but have no authority to act abroad.
And in the UK social workers can’t operate in another area outside the one of the local authority they work for. They aren’t authorised to do so.
Her credentials are only relevant to the UK and only for the area of a particular local authority.
Because they are worthless outside the area of work and have to be reported immediately if lost, social workers keep their credentials safe, not even carrying them in handbags when not on duty. They are accountable if they lose them under such circumstances.
Social workers certainly don’t take credentials on holiday and even if a person also resides abroad the credentials stay where they are valid and useful: in the UK.
Outside the UK the credentials of a British social worker opens as many doors as a Tesco card. By the way as there aren’t any Tescos in Portugal the vast majority of the Portuguese don’t have an idea what that card may be. Just like would happen with the credentials of a British social worker there.
If a social worker acts in the name of their employer without authority then they are liable to disciplinary action for bringing the name of their agency into disrepute.
They have no right to question people in a case not known and registered with their local authority.
Social workers operate under orders from a court or where families approach the local authority and ask for help on a non-court order basis.
A UK policeman on holiday in Portugal is just a man on holiday. Same with any social worker.
In Portugal she wouldn’t be able to look after any children other than as a friend or acquaintance, as anyone could. Being a social worker in the UK does not alter that.
All she could do was to say in this situation would be “I'm a UK social worker. Is there anything I can do to help?”. But if she had acted as a professional and advised accordingly she was working beyond her remit.
Yvonne Martin in this instance wasn't faced with an emergency and she should know as a professional that better qualified and legitimately appointed people, the Portuguese social workers, would be sent in if they were needed.
If she had concerns about David Payne she should have contacted her managers in UK and they could have made contact with the police.
If she had been certain, she should have told the PJ on the spot.
If she wasn't sure, she should have phoned her head office in UK for advice and pass it to them to deal with.
The news report only says “a 3-year-old British girl who's gone missing” so we can’t see in what way does this statement make her obliged professionally to help.
It’s like being a mechanic hearing that a car has been stolen bolting out the door to go help fix a car that he’s just been told wouldn’t be there because it has been stolen.
Child protection social workers are not about helping parents. The welfare of the child is their primary responsibility. Working with parents may promote the welfare of the child who is the priority.
Residential social workers look after children in care. So a child may have two social workers, one residential and other community based who liaise.
Adults who have mental health, physical disability, learning difficulties, dementia, may have a social worker but specific to their needs. Yvonne Martin says she specifically works for child protection.
To help the parents of a missing child with no other children involved a psychologist would be more appropriate rather than a social worker. When she leaves her house Yvonne Martin doesn’t know there are other children besides the one who has gone missing.
If one of the McCanns were arrested in the UK a social worker might need to assess risk to remaining children in the care of the other parent, if circumstances weren't clear.
If the McCanns had a missing child in the UK their local authority wouldn't send a social worker in, unless maybe they wanted advice on how to explain things to the twins. Again, when Yvonne Martin leaves her house she doesn’t know about the twins. She doesn’t know the missing child has siblings.
If she left her house out of empathy, it’s legitimate, out of professional obligation it’s not.
A UK social worker abroad is just a person abroad but will continue to be a social worker. She doesn’t leave her professional skillsets in the UK.
This means that a social worker knows better than anyone else what a social worker should or should not do when faced with a “professional” situation abroad as she’s fully aware of professional limitations and boundaries.
If a social worker in the UK knows that even on duty and under the appropriate authority she shouldn’t meddle with the police work of a crime scene, she ought to know she should behave in exactly the same way abroad.
Plus she should also know that all the social working to be done on site abroad is to be done by the local social workers and by them alone.
Yvonne Martin is not a newbie to the profession, she has 25 years of experience.
So we can say that her behaviour in Luz as far as we are shown was by far not expected from an experienced UK social worker on foreign soil.
She flaunts her credentials as if she was some sort of FBI or CSI agent in an American TV show. She seems to think everyone she shows them will recognise these credentials and bow before their importance.
She plays the role of the private investigator whilst claiming be playing one of social worker.
She’s clear that she’s not there as merely a concerned citizen but as a professional social worker, even if she should have known beforehand she was completely outside any jurisdiction and that there was no child to help for the one who made her leave the house was missing and she knew that before she left.
If she was acting as a response to an inner call from her professional self, why not any question about asking if anyone from the equivalent Portuguese social services had been around? And why not one question about the twins and their welfare?
Kate McCann in her book:
“It was about 10am by the time a couple of PJ officers turned up. (One of them, in his thirties, tall and well built, I thought of for ages simply as John. I’m not sure he ever gave us his name, but later – much later – we found out that it was João Carlos.) They told us they had to take us and our friends to the police station in Portimão. We couldn’t all go at once as somebody needed to look after the children. After some discussion, it was agreed that Gerry and I, Jane, David and Matt would be interviewed first and the PJ would come back for the others later in the day. Fiona and Dianne took Sean and Amelie to their club along with the other children. While our world was falling apart, the best way of trying to keep theirs together seemed to be to stick with what they were used to.
Gerry and I travelled in one police car with the others following in a second vehicle. It was an awful journey. It took twenty, twenty-five minutes, but it felt much longer. (…)
Our first impressions of the police station were not encouraging. Basic and shabby, it didn’t seem conducive to efficiency and order. We were shown to a small waiting area separated from the control room – where calls and faxes came in – only by windows and a glass door, which was left ajar. In the control room, officers in jeans and T-shirts smoked and engaged in what sounded more like light-hearted banter than serious discussion.
I know as well as anybody that one shouldn’t judge people – or perhaps places, either – on appearances, but it all made me immensely nervous. I was appalled by the treatment we received at the police station that day. Officers walked past us as if we weren’t there. Nobody asked how we were doing, whether we were OK or needed anything to eat or drink or to use the bathroom. Our child had been stolen and I felt as if I didn’t exist. I’ve tried to rationalize it since: maybe they just couldn’t imagine how it felt to be a parent in such circumstances, or maybe they couldn’t speak English and it seemed better or easier simply to avoid us. Whatever the case, it was a horribly isolating experience.
At some point that morning we’d become aware that friends and family were appearing on television expressing our concern about the lack of police activity overnight. I think I’d registered Trisha and a good friend in Glasgow popping up on the TV in the apartment. Gerry has a memory of seeing some familiar faces on the set in the police control room. (…)
After an hour or so, Gerry, Matt and Jane were taken off for questioning. I remember constantly looking at the clock, counting the hours since we’d last seen Madeleine, my terror mounting with every five minutes that passed.”
As a side note, if ever there was a day childcare needed, Friday May 4 in Praia da Luz would be it.
Kate does speak of sticking “with what they were used to” and wasn’t leaving the kids at childcare something they were used to do? There was the lunch time period but we’re sure that under the circumstances Mark Warner would make sure they were taken care of during the period.
If there was a time for keeping the kids out of the way this was it so if there was a structure to leave kids well-tended to, why did Russ, Rachael, Fiona and Dianne stay behind to take care of the kids?
Gerry McCann was heard in Portimão at 11:15.
Just going by Kate’s words, they arrived at the station at 10:15. For that then they left Luz at 09:50/09:55. Which would mean the PJ officers arrived in Luz after the same PJ officers took them to Portimão to be questioned.
Google maps says it takes 28 minutes. But this is in 2015. That is in theory and in 2007 the roads weren’t as good so let’s say, to be realistic and say it took 30/40 minutes, which means the convoy would have left around 09:35/09:45.
Kate is clear in showing that this trip was done with no hurry whatsoever.
In fact she complains that PJ police seemed to show no sense of urgency about the case or about them.
So it’s very unlikely for PJ to have arrived in Luz, quickly rounding up who they wanted to question, push them into the cars and bolt towards Portimão so that they could put them in some obscure room and then forget about all of them for an hour.
We are being generous with the time. In fact it seems the PJ came even earlier than we have estimated above, they came at 08:30.
“This news item was broadcast at 14:00 on May 4th. The following news item (below) confirms that the man in the brown jacket is an officer of the Policia Judiciaria, who had come to collect them at 08:30am that morning. That makes this footage being recorded just 10/11hours after Madeleine had been reported missing.
The PJ officer appears to be looking round for David Payne, who we see at the end of the clip sitting in the front passenger seat of the car. Presumably, Kate and Gerry went in one car, driven by the PJ officer, whilst Jane Tanner, Matthew Oldfield and David Payne went in a second car.
Presumably, their partners Russell O'Brien, Rachael Oldfield and Fiona Payne stayed behind to mind their children.
At the start of the clip Gerry says "Where are we going?"”
The McCannfiles, the website from where the quote above is from opens its 04 May 2007 page with this picture:
It has the following caption: “Picture above, 04 May 2007, about 11 hours after Madeleine had been reported missing: The McCanns, officers of the PJ and some members of the Tapas Group gather at 08:30am outside the holiday apartments, prior to their departure to the police station in Portimão.”
We think the 08:30 time of departure from Luz to be realistic. Not because we think there was any sense of urgency but we are sure was one of priority.
It’s expectable for the PJ to have gone go and picked up for questioning the missing child’s parents and their friends first thing in the morning.
We seem to be having Yvonne Martin arriving at 09:00 after the 3 people she says she talks to are no longer in Luz as they had left half an hour earlier.
But let’s suppose that the PJ convoy left around 09:30. That means she has about half an hour to arrive, identify herself, engage in conversation with Kate, have Payne interrupt and take her and Gerry away, have him come back a little later and then see him in 2 different occasions, one of which is David Payne with a woman we suppose was Dianne Webster and the McCann twins doing something that Kate describes in her book was done by Fiona and not David and allow for PJ to arrive, gather and coordinate things, such as who was to accompany the McCanns and who was to stay, get the convoy ready and drive off towards Portimão.
She does say she crosses with Payne three times during that period, so the man was free and walking around. Even taking the twins somewhere before he was taken to Portimão.
On a following post we will see how ridiculous all this is as on the following day, June 13, Yvonne Martin pushes her arrival time in Luz to 09:30.
The twins are very important to unravel the “Yvonne Martin” mystery.
Twice in the statement of this day she mentions them: “This third element of the group, appeared to be intimate with the family, because as well as the beginning of the conversation [with her], as when some of some “media” elements arrived, it was him who started to explain what was going on and to answer the questions made, thus sparing the couple this one more hardship. Afterwards, came to note that intimacy when she saw him taking care of the twins of the couple, also minors” and “During this time, she saw the third element two more times:
The first when he was being accompanied by an older woman and the McCann twins, showing the trust the couple had in him by giving him the safeguard of their children.”
Seeing Payne with the twins really affected her. She really noticed that.
The question that one however must ask is how did she know they were the McCann twins?
How did she know that they weren’t Payne’s children? Even if she has seen the McCanns hand over the twins to Payne (why would they as he was to go with them to Portimão?) she had no way to relate the twins to the McCanns.
At best she could only say is that she thought or supposed they were the children of the McCanns – and explain why she thinks this way – instead of being as adamant about it as she is.
The situation she describes is that of Dianne Webster and David Payne alone with the twins and no Kate or Gerry around. The only possible association to make would be to think the 4 were family, nana and dad walking with the children.
Plus, at this stage she doesn’t know the McCanns have any other children. She doesn’t know Maddie has siblings.
To say that she got to know the twins afterwards and now over a month later was able to say the 2 children she saw with that older woman and man briefly were the McCann twins is ridiculous.
First because the only three faces that we all were required to see were that of Maddie, Kate and Gerry. The twins were never the stars of the show.
And second are we supposed to believe that a person who cannot recollect the face of a possible scar-faced paedophile memorises the faces of two children when they are accompanied by said scar-faced paedophile?
There was only one possibility for her to know that those children were from the McCanns and that would be if she returned to Luz after that day.
Kate seems to say that:
“A middle-aged British lady suddenly materialized beside me and introduced herself. She announced that she was, or had been, a social worker or child protection officer and insisted on showing me her professional papers, including, I think, her Criminal Records Bureau certificate. She asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me and told me she wanted me to go through everything that had happened the previous night. She was quite pushy and her manner, her very presence, were making me feel uncomfortable and adding to my distress.
David was standing nearby. Concerned, he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credentials were, it was an inappropriate intrusion. And something about it, something about her, just didn’t feel right. I was glad I extricated myself. This woman would pop up several times in the days and months to come and I still don’t really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve.”
If this is true, that she returned various times to Luz and there observe the McCanns and Payne why doesn’t she say so to the police?
If this is true then it means she “stalked” the case. She showed a great interest in it. And if that happened is it credible for her not to know who exactly David Payne was if he was indeed a paedophile?
And then take 3 weeks to write and anonymous letter? And then another 3 weeks to call PJ and when they arrive at her doorstep be so vague about him?
You be the judge, please.
There’s doubt about where the conversation between Yvonne Martin and the McCanns + Payne took place.
As we all know, apartment 5A is bordered by two streets: to the East, Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins and to the North, Rua Dr. Agostinho da Silva.
Kate, with her “she asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me” is saying the conversation took place inside the apartment’s parking lot as we’re not seeing any other low wall they could sit on.
But Yvonne Martin says that “meanwhile she heard comments near the resort’s reception that the British consul would be coming on site, so she decided to wait for this element with the objective of offering her services”.
It’s meanwhile, not later, not afterwards. We have already noted this before on this post.
This “meanwhile” places the conversation on Rua Dr. Francisco Gentil Martins. Besides the way she describes the conversation we imagine the 4 of them standing. Payne interrupts and takes the couple away and then later comes back. This is not a sitting down scenario. Nowhere does Yvonne Martin one mention sitting down or getting up.
What is the importance of this?
Well it makes Stephen Carpenter’s statement even stranger. Apparently he walks to the Tapas reception and only sees Russ and Matt (by exclusion the only “two of the McCann friends” available to be seen) and doesn’t notice that a few yards away to his right there are 3 or 4 people. Nor does he notice them when he, Russ and Matt return from their “leisurely” walk from one reception, Tapas, to the other, Main, to make a phone call that isn’t made because the receptionist amazingly couldn’t speak English and come back.
By the way, Matt, would be going with Kate and Gerry to PJ at Portimão at 08:30.
“She clarified that she is able of doing a photographic recognition of the individual, having highlighted that with that identified photograph it is possible to access the English police’s database and clarify there if the same [individual] has been related with crimes involving minors.”
Crimes involving minors? Is that plausible terminology to be used by a social worker after she has written an anonymous letter and called the police because of her suspicions of a paedophile?
We are very surprised that her statement didn’t begin with a “listen, I called you because I suspect that the McCann friend with the glasses may be a paedophile and may be involved in what happened to Maddie”. After her anonymous letter and her call that’s what would be expected.
No ifs, no buts. The possible crime in question demanded a cut to the chase attitude and for her to go straight to the point and call it what it is, paedophilia.
It was not a “crime against minors”, it was paedophilia. In this case nepiophilia.
“Crime against minors” can be many things and as Maddie had disappeared and Payne was indeed a friend of the couple, the natural deduction to make from these words would not be paedophilia but child trafficking.
If we were PJ we would be thinking that Yvonne Martin was pointing to a child trafficker with these words.
Although paedophilia is present in some child trafficking, the majority of these cases are linked to couples unable to have children.
These are the ones who pay good money to have a child. Childless couples are the ones who keep and maintain the market for this crime. By saying Payne could be related to “crimes against minors” she was saying that it could have been their friend who took and sold the couple’s daughter.
For a social worker to say “crime against minors” instead of the very clear and precise “paedophilia” is, to say the least, a hugely irresponsible.
8. Anonymous letter
Where is it in this statement? Why wasn’t it mentioned?
We have listed above the number of interactions Yvonne Martin had with the authorities:
i – In Luz with a GNR officer on May 4;
ii – Anonymous letter to the British police 3 weeks later (she says 2);
iii – Calls PJ, date uncertain but educated guess would say on June 12 or the day before;
iv – Speaks to PJ at her residence, June 12;
v – Speaks to PJ at PJ, June 13;
vi – PJ “archives” both of her statements, date uncertain but we would guess soon after June 13;
vii – PJ “unarchives” her statements, date uncertain but we would guess around end of October, beginning of November;
viii – PJ notifies her come to PJ to give a statement, date uncertain but we would guess on Nov 13 or the day before;
ix – Speaks to PJ at PJ, November 14.
Up to this post we have dealt only with ii, iii and iv (in blue). The others to be dealt with in future posts.
(1) Yvoone Martin's June 12 statement:
“On the past 04 MAY, by 07:00, she took knowledge through an English TV company, Sky News or BBC, of the disappearance of a minor of that nationality, in Praia da Luz – Lagos;
For having performed he duties, for 25 years, in the area of child protection, felt obliged to provide help to her fellow countrymen, having gone to Praia da Luz;
At 09:00, she found the McCann couple by the apartment from where the girl had disappeared, accompanied by a third element, who seemed to her quite familiar;
This third element of the group, appeared to be intimate with the family, because as well as the beginning of the conversation [with her], as when some of some “media” elements arrived, it was him who started to explain what was going on and to answer the questions made, thus sparing the couple this one more hardship. Afterwards, [she] came to note that intimacy when she saw him taking care of the twins of the couple, also minors;
She identified herself, presenting her credentials, having immediately started to talk with the mother as she was visibly upset with the situation;
During the conversation the mother told her she couldn’t understand why a couple had abducted her daughter;
Meanwhile, the third element of the couple had become aware of this conversation, interrupting it and took the couple away from her;
That same element came, a little later to tell her that the couple no longer intended to speak to her and declined her help, an act she found quite strange;
Meanwhile she heard comments near the resort’s reception that the British consul would be coming on site, so she decided to wait for this element with the objective of offering her services [préstimos];
During this time, she saw the third element two more times:
The first when he was being accompanied by an older woman and the McCann twins, showing the trust the couple had in him by giving him the safeguard of their children [filhos]
The second, accompanying what seemed to her to be police officers in civilian clothes;
Is about 35 yrs
Has about 1,80 metres in height
Is of normal built
Having short and dark hai
Using graduated glasses of small dimensions and rectangular lenses
Having a round face
Presenting a scar above his eyebrow and left cheek
Speaking in English with a South of England accent
Wearing clear colour trousers, cream or beige colour, and a polo of a dark colour.
Already home following the case, through the English TV, she saw the same individual and, this time, the doubt she initially had disappeared, coming to the conclusion that that face had already passed by her during her professional activity of protecting minors, failing to discern if has a suspect/arguido or witness;
She clarified that she is able of doing a photographic recognition of the individual, having highlighted that with that identified photograph it is possible to access the English police’s database and clarify there if the same [individual] has been related with crimes involving minors.”