Kate Marie Healy : ARGUIDA status

Volume X, pages 2557-2561

Arguido questioning of Kate Marie Healy, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.

Location: CID Portimão
Of British nationality, the arguida cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguida’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.

She now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist her are explained to her, and she is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].

She is informed of the facts that befall her, and said that she does not wish to make a statement.
When asked, on the 3rd of May 2007, at around 10 p.m., when she entered the apartment, what she saw and what she did, where she searched, what she handled, she did not reply.

If she looked inside the couple’s bedroom’s wardrobe, she said she would not reply. When shown two photographs of her bedroom’s wardrobe, and requested to describe its contents, she did not reply.

When asked for the reason why the curtain behind the sofa under the side window, whose photograph was shown to her, is ruffled, she did not reply. She did not reply to the question if someone passed behind that sofa.

When asked for how long she searched inside the apartment after detecting the disappearance of her daughter Madeleine, she did not reply.

When asked why she said right away that Madeleine was abducted, she did not reply.
Presuming that Madeleine had been abducted, why she left the twins alone at home to go to the Tapas to raise the alarm, even because the supposed abductor might still be inside the apartment, she did not reply. Why she did not ask the twins right away what had happened to their sister, or why she did not asked them later on, she did not reply.

When questioned about having raised the alarm at the Tapas, what exactly she said, which words she used, she did not reply.

When asked about what happened after she raised the alarm at the Tapas, she did not reply. When asked whether she had a mobile phone with her at that moment, she did not reply. When asked why she went to alert her friends instead of shouting from the balcony, she did not reply.

When asked who contacted the authorities, she did not reply. When asked who participated in the searches, she did not reply. When asked if anyone outside of the group learned bout Madeleine’s disappearance during the following moments, she did not reply.

When asked if any neighbour had offered to help after the alarm about the disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, she did not reply.

When asked if Jane mentioned to her that she’d seen a man with a child, that night, she did not reply.

When asked how the authorities were contacted and which police force was alerted, she did not reply.
When asked, during the searches and already with the police present, in what locations Madeleine was searched for, how and in what manner, she did not reply. When asked why the twins did not wake up during that search, or when they were taken to the upper floor, she did not reply.

When asked whom she phoned after the facts, she did not reply. When asked if she phoned “Sky News”, she did not reply. When asked about the danger of phoning the media, alerting them about the abduction, which could have an effect on the abductor, she did not reply.

Questioned if they requested the presence of a priest, she did not reply.

When asked about the manner in which Madeleine’s face was divulged, if through photographs or other media, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that during the search she remained sat on her bed inside her bedroom without moving, she did not reply.

When asked about her behaviour that night, she did not reply. And questioned about whether or not she was able to sleep, she did not reply.

When asked if before the trip to Portugal she made a comment about a bad presentiment or presages, she did not reply.

When asked about Madeleine’s behaviour, she did not reply. When asked if she suffered of any illness or took some medication, she did not reply. When asked about Madeleine’s relationship with her siblings, friends and school mates, she did not reply.

When asked about her professional life, and at how many and which hospitals she had worked, she did not reply. Being a doctor, and questioned about her speciality, she did not reply. When asked about whether she worked shifts, at the emergency room or in other services, she did not reply. If she worked every day, she did not reply. When asked if at a given moment she quit working and why, she did not reply.

When asked if it is true that her twin children have difficulty in falling asleep, that they are restless and that it upsets her, she did not reply.

When asked whether or not it is true that sometimes she felt desperate over her children’s behaviour and that it upset her very much, she did not reply.
When asked whether or not it is true that in England she considered the possibility of handing over Madeleine’s guardianship to a relative, she did not reply.
When asked if at home (in England) she gave her children medication and what kind of medication, she did not reply.

During this session, several dog inspection movies of forensic character were shown to her, where the dogs can be seen marking human cadaver odour and human blood traces, and only of human type, and the comments of the expert that headed the diligence can be heard.

After watching and after cadaver odour was signalled in her bedroom next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa that was pushed against the living room window, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.
Also marked, now by the human blood detection dog behind the aforementioned sofa, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.
With cadaver odour being signalled in the vehicle that they rented approximately one month after the disappearance, license plate 59-DA-27, she said that she cannot explain more than what she has mentioned already.

When confronted with the result of the collection of Madeleine’s DNA, whose analysis was carried out by a British lab, behind the sofa and in the vehicle’s boot, situations that were explained above, she said that she cannot explain any more that what she has mentioned already.

When asked if she had any responsibility or intervention in her daughter Madeleine’s disappearance, she did not reply.

When asked if she is aware of the fact that by not replying to the questions asked, she places the investigation, which seeks to find out what happened to her daughter, at risk, she replied yes, if that is what the investigation thinks.
When questioned if she wants to add anything, she replied negatively.

The illustrious defence lawyer is offered the word, he says he has nothing to argue or to request.
At around 2.30 p.m., this questioning is finished.

She says nothing further. Reads, confirms, ratifies and signs, as do the defence lawyer and the interpreter.

There is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/05/footnote-provided-by-kate-mccann.html

Legal details regarding the reconstruction and Portuguese law

02 May 2008

Table of contents: Vol XVI Page 4303 to 4305

Completed on 2nd May 2008.

=CLS=

The re-enactment of the fact is a procedure set forth in the Portuguese Law (Section 150 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure, which is below given as part of this order) and consists of re-enacting, as accurately as possible, the situation where an event is said or is supposed to have occurred, and it also consists of repeating the way it has happened.

The re-enactment has, in this inquiry, a rather particular nature, taking into account that it aims at re-enacting facts occurred about a year ago, by means of a proximity to the situation in which they occurred, and also being aware of the inconvenience that a trip to Portugal might represent to a group of British Citizens, although knowing that it represents a milestone of solidarity among friends and towards friends who find themselves in a particularly painful and difficult situation.

It shall also be noted that, although this procedure is considered to be very important to the investigation, it will only take place if all the below mentioned witnesses are present, considering that the arguidos (formal suspects) have already shown they are available to participate in the re-enactment.

The purpose is to gather all the participants - the arguidos Gerald McCann and Kate Healy, the witnesses who were having dinner at the Tapas Restaurant on 3rd May 2007, and who took turns to check on their children who were sleeping in the respective apartments, as well as another witness who spoke with the arguido Gerald, who will perform what they did on the abovementioned date, as accurately as they recall, so that what is in their written statements can be confirmed. This will allow conclusions to be drawn on how things happened on site, thus making adjustments that will allow the investigation to determine the need for any supplemental procedure.

Page 4304 (Page 2 of 3)

The re-enactment that shall have the participation of the abovementioned group of people, as well as of any character whose figurative presence might be necessary to the visualization of the events, shall take place on 15th May, between 5.30 p.m. and 11.00 p.m. On 16th May all the procedure shall be formalized, according to what had already been settled for this date and considering that all the participants meant to be present have already been informed accordingly. This cannot be subject to any change due to the time and place where the procedure shall take place.

The re-enactment will be performed at the space of the abovementioned Restaurant, Block of Apartments where the facts occurred on that date, and in the surrounding area, and it will be carried out by the Policia Judiciária, with the respective video recording and with the cooperation of the Police Authorities required by the PJ.

The arguidos Gerald and Kate shall be notified through their Legal Representatives. The notification of the witnesses David Anthony Payne, Fiona Elaine Payne, Dianne Webster, Russell James O'Brien, Jane Michelle Tanner, Matthew David Oldfield, Rachael Mariamma Jean Mampilly and Jeremy Wilkins shall be made with the cooperation of the British Police, at Policia Judiciária's request.

Each notified person shall receive a copy of this Order - concerning the re-enactment.

Proceed accordingly.

APPENDIX - Copy of Section 150 of the Portuguese Code of Criminal Procedure

Of the re-enactment of events

Section 150

Assumptions and Procedure

1- A re-enactment of events is admissible whenever deemed necessary to ascertain whether a fact could have occurred in a determined way. This consists of reproducing,

Page 4305 (Page 3 of 3)

as accurately as possible, the situation in which the fact is said to have occurred or is supposed to have occurred, as well as of repeating the way it has happened.

2- The Order requring the re-enactment of the fact shall bear a short indication as to it's object, date, time and place where the procedure shall take place as well as to the way it will be carried out, eventually using audiovisual means. The same Order shall appoint experts to carry out specific operations.

3- Publicity of the proceedings shall be avoided as much as possible.

The witnesses are notified of the Prosecutor's decision

Silvia Batista: 3rd Statement and her Observations most interesting

Translated by Astro:

Vol VIII

Pages 1975 - 1977

Witness Statement

Silvia Batista

2007 - 07 - 26

“Concerning the matter of the process, the witness said:

That she has given statements for several times within the process, and remembers the contents of what she stated before, therefore reproducing the contents of the previous statements into this statement.

The deponent offers another statement because with the passage of time, since Madeleine’s disappearance, she has remembered some details of the facts that she witnessed, which she considers of some interest to the investigation.

Like she said before, she was alerted to Madeleine’s disappearance between 10.30 and 11 p.m. She was at home and was informed about the event through a telephone call. She immediately went to the Ocean Club, where she arrived only minutes before the GNR officers. When she arrived at the resort, she went immediately to apartment 5A, where she met several persons both on the inside and on the outside of the apartment. She went into the apartment but left it right away without speaking to anyone, because she was informed that the GNR officers were at the main reception, so she went to meet them.

When she arrived near the GNR officers, she verified that Gerry, Madeleine’s father, was behind her, in the company of another individual whose identity she doesn’t remember. At that moment, Gerry placed both knees on the floor, hit the floor with both hands, too, placing himself like a praying arab, and shouted out twice in rage, and it was not possible to understand what he said. Then Gerry got back on his feet and accompanied the deponent and the other individual who was in the GNR car, to apartment 5A.

Already on location, the deponent entered the apartment and asked those who were present both for the passports of all family members and photographs of the missing person. The deponent walked Gerry to the GNR car, so he could deliver the requested documents. She states that she carried out these diligences, and other diligences, at the request of the GNR Commander as they used the deponent’s knowledge of the English language to translate the questions that were asked from the missing person’s family members, and the answers that were given. She remembers that Gerry gave the GNR Commander several photographs of the missing person. These were postcard-type photographs, taking their size and shape into account. They were actually photographs of the size and shape of a postcard, and they seemed to be all similar to her.

She also realised that from the very first moment on, both Gerry and the rest of the group members insisted in stating that Madeleine had been abducted, all of them using the word “abducted” instead of missing, and they all showed great interest in informing the press about the situation.

 

The deponent further recalls that she entered the room where Madeleine had been sleeping. She now remembers that the door was closed. The inside of the room was dark.

The shutters were down, and light entered only through its holes.

The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open.

Gerry, who accompanied the deponent during this visit, with the GNR officers also present, said that it had been him who had closed the window because the babies were still sleeping inside, which the deponent could verify as true.

(If Gerry closed the window where are his fingerprints? What evidence is there that the window was ever open ? The McCanns word ! )

Gerry mentioned that when he noticed that Madeleine was missing, he had found the window and shutters open, and the curtains fluttering.The deponent recalls that the cots that were used by the babies were placed in the middle of the room and aligned, and therefore she found it strange that someone could have taken Madeleine from the bed where she was sleeping up to the window, because there was no space to get through.

The deponent opened the bedroom’s wardrobe to check if eventually Madeleine was hiding inside.

Then they all left the room, and someone closed its door again.

The deponent remained in the living room for a while, with the GNR officers, Gerry and the other group members that were there in a frenzy, going in and out and speaking on their mobile phones.

She noticed that none of the group members, including the child’s mother and father, were busy looking for her.

The mother was sitting on the master bedroom’s bed, the father accompanied the deponent and the GNR officers and the other group members walked in and out and spoke on the phone, apparently concerned about informing the press about the event.

She thought that the child’s mother was downbeat with the situation, the father showed his concern and also asked both for the press to be alerted and for dogs to be brought in for the search.

Concerning the others, she can only recall that Fiona and her husband, Payne, were hysterical about the situation.

At a given moment, right after the PJ’s elements arrived, the child’s parents removed the twins from the cots where they still slept, and took them into the apartment on the first floor.

At Kate’s request, the deponent removed the soft toys and a blanket from the cots, and also took them to the first floor. The babies’ cots were left only with the mattresses.


The deponent also wishes to mention that at around 3 a.m. Madeleine’s parents asked for the presence of a priest on location.
 

They didn’t explain the reason why they wanted a priest, but the deponent found the fact strange as there were no indications that the little girl was dead, and that’s the circumstance under which usually the presence of a priest is requested.


At a given moment, the deponent translated the deposition from one of the ladies that belonged to the group of English people, namely one that she indicates as being a brunette.
 

This lady told the GNR officers, and the deponent translated, that she had seen a man crossing the road, possibly carrying a child.

The deponent found that situation strange because she was convinced that when she saw this man, the lady was positioned in a spot that has no viewing angle to the location where she had seen the man.

She doesn’t know exactly where the lady was positioned when she saw the man passing by, but she knows that she indicated that she saw him passing on the street that lies in front of the window to the bedroom where Madeleine was, walking into the direction of the street that leads to the Baptista supermarket.


When questioned about the clothes that the English group members wore that night, she mentions that she only remembers that Fiona wore a green blouse, Gerry wore a dark coloured shirt, and Fiona’s husband wore light-coloured trousers, she thinks cream-coloured.


And she stated nothing further.”

Silvia Batista 2nd Statement

Processos Vol V


Pages 1289 – 1290

Witness Statement

Silvia María Correio Ramos Batista

Date: 2007 – 05 – 15

She is responsible for maintenance of the OC resort in P da L. Because of her profession she knows many people from the English community who are resident in P da L.

She knows the Murat family, had done for about 30 years. Mainly Mr Murat and his wife, Jenny. Mr Murat was linked to a civil construction business and the development of tourist resorts, in Salema as far as she knows. Mr Murat died some years ago.

The Murats live in a house near to the OC, called Casa Liliana. When asked she says she does not remember whether the Murats have a son.

When asked, she says that on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, 3rd May, she was called by her boss at about 22.30. As she lives in Lagos, she arrived shortly afterwards at the resort. There were about 60 people close to apartment 5 A, helping to look for the girl.

She remembers, but is not absolutely certain, given the time that has passed, that from the start, there was an individual helping to look for Madeleine, about 1.70 tall, with sort, light brown hair, with thin framed, brown glasses, who was also helping to search.

She does not remember at what time she saw him. She does not remember how he was dressed. She does not remember whom he was with or know if he arrived on foot or by car.

The same individual, she knew later to be the son of the Murat’s, Robert Murat.

Robert speaks fluent English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR in Lagos, and later the PJ to translate the witness statements of some English individuals.

In principal, she thinks it should be possible to confirm whether Murat was there on the date that Madeleine disappeared as well as other details, with Paul and June from the Duke of Holland bar and Mr Byron from the property administration company JNB in P da L.

She clarifies that on Saturday (05-05-2007) or Sunday (06-05-2007) or even Monday (07-05-2007) she spoke to Robert for the first time, during breaks between interviews, where he was acting as translator.

She describes him as a pleasant and easy going individual. He was quite open and extrovert in the conversations with her, he never spoke of anything personal.


Reads, ratifies, signs.

Silvia Batista the most reliable of witnessess. Part 1

Processos

Volume II

Pages 355 - 356

Silvia Maria Correia Ramos Batista

Date/Time: 2007/05/07 11H20
Maintenance Services Director
Portuguese

Concerning the issue of the process said:

. That she works at the Ocean Club since 03/03/1996, having exercised this time in the function of receptionist—for around one year and a half, Reception Manager—for around three years and since this year to the present date, Director of Maintenance Services;

. That the function of Director of Maintenance and Services she is responsible , in the area of services the hiring of people, and in the area of maintenance is responsible for the admission of employees and for the good functioning of all the machinery that composes the Ocean Club, principally, in the apartments, pools, gardens, fending, etc;

. As concerns the admission of employees, this is done in the traditional way, or is, when the need for an employee is determined in an area, the situation is commented on between the various people responsible and the rest of employees;

. Generally, it is an existing employee or other who indicates that they know of someone, in the majority of cases, resident in Lagos;

. In whatever the case, there is always a labour contract made with the employee, for a minimum of six months, and a file exists of said employee which contains identification details of said person and information regarding previous professional practices;

. An exception is made when a business in contracted to carry out a service and whose business is responsible for the employees, those being in the meanwhile accompanied by that who is responsible for works and maintenance, Mister Joao Carlos Silva Batista;

. She is aware of that which occurred in the Ocean Club resort and is aware of the disappearance of the child, around 22H30 on the 03 of May, 2007, following a telephone call from her Administrator George Robin Crossland;

. She immediately went to the Ocean Club resort, and already there were the GNR, and a search was immediately carried out throughout the resort with e search being carried out by many residents and employees of the Ocean Club;

. That on the date 03/05/07, her workday began at 09H30, having entered in the Ocean Club, through the Club Zone, having walked around the pool area and prior to that the other pools;

. At around 13H00, she went to lunch in Lagos, together with her husband, Mister Joao Carlos Silva Batista, and returned around 14H30;

. That around 18H00 she left the Ocean Club resort, having returned to the same, as a result of the circumstances already described, at around 23H00;

. That during the day 03/05/07 she did not detect nothing abnormal or different on this day;

. That she also was not told of any abnormal situation which happened;

. That after the happenings and in conversation with the rest of the employees and Ocean Club management, nothing was related to her or commented upon regarding the situation that was abnormal, namely the presence of strange people in the resort;

. That the Ocean Club resort does not have a CCTV system, nor policing of the resort district;

. And nothing further was said. Having read the statement, she finds it in conformity and signs it;

. The document is duly signed by me, Helder Carmo, an Inspector with this Polícia Judiciária.

Gerry McCann's confession: 'There is No evidence to implicate us in her DEATH'

The final words should be left to Madeleines father, who has left us in no doubt as to her fate. Gerry McCann, tired and drained, for a moment off guard , in a gravel voice confirms Madeleine is indeed dead...0.20 into the video he states ' there is NO evidence to implicate us in her DEATH' ...R.I.P. Madeleine Beth wherever you may be xx