Sunday, February 26, 2012

Matthew Oldfield Gaffe !

Spotted by Pamalam

For late comers who are only now taking an interest in this case, you will not not understand the significance of Oldfield's gaffe. It has never been clear where anyone slept in apartment 5a. However, what is crystal  clear that on the day May 2nd , the twins cots were in seperate rooms, later placed together for the evening of May 3rd.


1 Hair - the owner - Matthew Oldfield

Most strange, the only hair found in apartment 5a were from men - O'Brien - David Payne and Matthew Oldfield - no females from the group ?

Wednesday, February 15, 2012

Matthew Oldfield : The Telegraph Picked Up On Oldfields Inconsistancies.

9:30pm Dr Matthew Oldfield left the table and offered to check the McCann children. In his first police statement he said he merely listened at the door of apartment 5a but later said he had gone in and noticed that the room seemed lighter than the others, as if the shutters had been opened.

He cannot be certain whether Madeleine was there.

Matthew Oldfield : Accused Of Late Diagnosis Resulting In The Patients Death

Dr. Russell O'Brien Quote:
However, he remembers that Matthew Oldfield did experience a situation which consisted of a patient’s family member accusing the team lead by Matthew of the untimely death of his patient.
This family member accused the team of making a late diagnosis which resulted in the death of said patient.
He has no other knowledge of any threats made against Matthew Oldfield or his medical team except for this case which was formally lodged in the hospital where his team worked.

Tuesday, February 14, 2012

#McCann : Libel Trial - If Called OLDFIELD May Find Himself In The Position Of Arguido.

Dr. Matthew Oldfield, why, if as some believe the McCanns are innocent have they not questioned Oldfields statements ?

McCann ,it is claimed last saw Madeleine around 9 pm. Matt did the alleged 9.30 check claiming to have seen the twins breathing. Matt's, description of the cots is correct, however one cot has both sides filled in , the filled in side facing the door (as photograph of crime scene clearly shows)  Oldfield could not possibly have seen one of the twins breathing without entering the room and peering into the cot, to do this he would have had to pass Madeleines bed TWICE !   AND yet Oldfield STILL insists he did not see Madeleine, the ONLY reason he was in the apartment, to check on ALL three children. Therefore it is beyond bizarre to even comprehend on his return to the tapas bar he did not relay this to the McCanns !

If the McCanns are innocent then Matthew Oldfield is the Prime suspect and this should be proven in the libel trial if he is called to repeat his allegations.

1)  He claims not to have seen Madeleine

2 ) More importantly he could not possibly have seen one of the twins breathing without entering the room which he has denied.

3) If he has lied about entering the room the question should be why ?

4) Making Oldfield a suspect may be the only way to get at the truth.

5) It is VITAL that Dr.Amaral's lawyer requests the cleaner of Apartment 5A to testify, she witnessed cots in seperate rooms, May 2nd 2007.

Verbatim : From Dr.Matthew Oldfields Rogatory

So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room, there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here".


The room: Madeleine's bed, left, the twins' cots and an empty bed under the shuttered window
The room: Madeleine's bed, left, the twins' cots and an empty bed under the shuttered window

Memories: Madeleine at 2.29pm on the day she disappeared

Monday, February 13, 2012

Dr.Matthew Oldfield :Rogatory - 'We Were There For Three Weeks AND A Broken Shutter On The First Day ?

Reply "Erm, no, my initial thought is there's nothing that's leapt out that I haven't mentioned before. Erm, I mean, there was no sort of strange people or anything unusual with the, with the flat. Some people had, I mean, gardeners came round to trim the gardens once or twice, or maybe just once a week, I mean, because we were there for three weeks, maybe they came round slightly more.

Erm, somebody had workmen in maybe during, the shutter we broke, the shutter, erm, broke for, the outside shutter by the patio door broke for us on the first day, I think it went back up into its, so you couldn't actually drop it on the outside, the shutter by the patio, but we didn't drop that anyway, erm, until we got in at night, but I think it broke and it had to be, and I think they did come, yes, they did come and repair it. But apart from that there wasn't really anybody else (inaudible)".


Reply "The shutters, we didn't open all week, because there's kind of no point. I mean, we went in that bedroom for G**** to sleep during that day, it needed to be dark and kept it at an even temperature, there was no point putting it up and down.

I know the, one of the things I said in my statement, when we talk about the Thursday, was where the two windows were only the one, and I thought the two were on this bedroom rather than this one and so, you know, I said, you go through, but there's actually two more, apparently two on those, they showed me a photograph of that.

So that's something I know that I got mistaken by, I thought there were two on next door, because I don't think I'd ever noticed it because I think because we'd never pulled up the shutters, they were always sort of down, we just didn't interfere with those".

The Tapas 9 : Made ' A Pact Of Silence' Concerning The Disappearance Of 3 Year Old Madeleine McCann

Kingston Doctor Is Maddy Witness

Kingston Hospital has confirmed that its consultant Dr Matthew Oldfield is a key witness in the investigation into disappearance in Portugal of Madeleine McCann.

Reports in the national press said that Dr Matthew Oldfield, a consultant endocrinologist, and his wife, Rachael, a recruitment consultant, were dining with the McCanns at the resort in Praia da Luz on May 3, the night Madeleine went missing.

Reports say Dr Oldfield was the last to check on Madeleine before her mother discovered her to be missing at 10pm.

In his statement to police, which was not officially released but was leaked to newspapers, he allegedly admitted only listening at the door or just popping his head round, sparking speculation she may have gone missing before 9.30pm.

Dr Oldfield worked with Gerry McCann at a Leicester Hospital before moving to London.

National press reports said he was one of three witnesses brought forward by Portuguese police to a meeting with Robert Murat, over discrepancies in witness accounts. He told them he had seen Mr Murat near the apartment but Mr Murat said he was in all night.

Colin Todd, medical director at Kingston Hospital NHS Trust, said: "We can confirm that Dr Matthew Oldfield is a consultant at the trust and has been in employment here since 2004.

"This is a private matter for Dr Oldfield and the trust will not be making any further comments on this matter."

Sunday, February 12, 2012

#NHS : Dr. Matthew Oldfield May Be Questioned In Madeleine McCann Review - Vital I Would Have Thought OLDFIELD Has Clearly Not Told The Truth.

Thursday, 26 May 2011

posted by Radio Jackie News Team @ 12:29 PM

Consultant from Kingston Hospital may be questioned in Madeleine McCann review

Met Police Commissioner Sir Paul Stephenson is to face questions over missing Madeleine McCann.

The review will look closely at the moments before and after the 3 year old vanished.

It’s not yet clear whether members of the so called 'Tapas 9' will be asked to contribute information.

The name refers to the friends of Kate and Gerry who were dining with them on the night of the disappearance.

One of them, Dr Matthew Oldfield, a consultant at Kingston Hospital, was the last person to check on the McCann children that night.

He didn’t, however, check to see if Madeleine was in her bed.

#NHS : Rachael And Matthew Oldfield Had No Intention Of Returning To Portugal For The Vital Police Reconstruction. It Was NOT Up To The Oldfields To Run The Investigation And Decide On Whether Or Not A Reconstruction Was Necessary BUT This Is What They Were Clearly Doing !

Rachael and Matthew Oldfield

Email to Rachael Oldfield from Stuart Prior

17 April 2008

Table of Contents : Vol XVI page 4226

From : Prior Stuart
Subject : Re-enactment questions
To : "Rachael Oldfield"
Date : Thursday, April 17th, 2008

Dear Rachael and Matthew,

As you are aware I had the opportunity to discuss the proposed re-enactment in Portugal, of Madeleine's disappearance with the PJ Director and Senior Investigating Officer Paulo Rebelo. I explained the concerns that you and the other holidaying friends had raised over your involvement in this re-enactment.

He informed me that he would consider the comments that each of you made and would discuss these issues with Senior colleagues of the PJ and the Prosecutor.

He has now had the opportunity to do this and has forwarded the attached document to me which explains the Portuguese position in relation to the concerns that you have raised.

He has asked that I forward a copy of this response to each of you.

I trust that these answers will assist you and the others in reaching a decision as to whether you intend to participate in the proposed re-enactment.

If you wish to discuss this further then please do not hesitate in getting in touch with myself.


Leicestershire Constabulary.

Email response from Rachael Oldfield

23 April 2008

Table of Contents: Vol XVI Page 4225

From : Rachael Oldfield ()
To : "Prior Stuart"
Cc : "Matthew Oldfield" ()
Sent : Wednesday, April 23rd, 2008.
Subject : Re : Re-enactment questions

Dear Stuart,

Thank you for your e-mail and the attached response from the PJ.

We remain unconvinced that this reconstruction is necessary. Our most
significant question hasn't been answered, ie, how is it going to help find Madeleine/materially benefit the search for her?

Point 14 of the PJ's response says that they consider this re-enactment "highly important". Why is that? What are they really trying to get out of a reconstruction?

Either they believe our version of the events of May 3rd 2007, or they don't. If they do, why the need for a reconstruction? If they don't believe us, do they want a reconstruction so we can convince them otherwise?

If the purpose of a reconstruction is to convince the Prosecutor to lift Kate and Gerry's arguido status then we would consider taking part in it. If it is to properly focus the investigation on the person seen carrying a child away from the apartment, again, we would consider taking part because that would help to find Madeleine.

We just need to be properly convinced of the reasons for doing a re-enactment.

We know you are the middle man in all this but we are sorry for more questions !
Please give either of us a call if you would like to talk through the above. Also if you feel this e-mail should be forwarded to the PJ please could you let us know.

Many thanks,
Kind regards,
Yours sincerely,
Rachael and Matthew Oldfield.

Email to Ricardo Paiva from Stuart Prior

24 April 2008

Table of contents: Vol XVI page 4224

From : Stuart Prior
Date : 24th April 2008
To : Ricardo Manuel Gonçalves Paiva
Subject : FW : Re-enactment questions.


This is the first reply received from the friends of the McCann's.

It seems to be the same as when you were in the UK that Rachael and Matthew would be willing to attend if they are satisfied as to the purpose of the re-enactment but clearly do not feel the previous answers from Paulo cover their questions.

Could you please discuss the attached e-mail with Paulo, see if any further answers can be clarified and get back to me.


#NHS : Dr. Matthew Oldfields Alleged ' CHECK'

May 4th, 2007 statement:

That the light in question was from an artificial source but not inside the bedroom, rather from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

May 10th, 2007 statement:

He recalls having thought that in that bedroom there was more brightness than there was in his daughter's room (where the external blinds were always fully closed), adding to have had the feeling that that light was coming from the outside – making the point that both were turned in the same direction.
Consequently, he admits the possibility of the light he was perceiving was owing to the blinds being raised, denying however that he was capable of assessing the height at which it may have been.

April 2008 statement: 

"..and I can’t see the shutters because the curtains were shut and, they’re similar curtains to the ones you’ve got in there, and you just get an impression of just like green and yellow, but they were closed, they weren’t sort of blowing about, because I’m sure I’d have noticed if there was sort of movement like that. But the room seemed light, and we spent a lot of time talking about this, whether it could be light coming in from the street outside, but there was a light behind us in the room and for some reason I thought, I got the impression of light coming through the doorway from behind me.."

 Matthew Oldfield is a medic but one must wonder if he has a problem with his eye a sworn statement he told police the curtains were green and yellow . The room light enough for Oldfield to see the twins breathing but not light enough to see Madeleine and the curtains are clearly a shade of pìnk !

The room: Madeleine's bed, left, the twins' cots and an empty bed under the shuttered window

#NHS :Dr.Matthew Oldfield's Statement, Verbatim, Says ....


"So I approached the room but I didn't actually go in because you could see the twins in the cots and one of the, you could see the twins in the cots because they're in with, sort of the cots were in the middle of the room with sort of a gap of about sort of maybe a foot between the two, the cots had sort of got that fabric end and sort of a mesh side, so you could see the sides and you could see them, erm, see them breathing and there were two there and it was all completely quiet. And the other things you could see in the room, there was a, there was another bed at the back underneath the window at the far side and you could see the end of the bed, another bed here".

FOOTNOTE : Dr. Oldfield could see ALL of these things and it was light enough for him to see the twins breathing but not light enough to see Madeleine - how very strange !

The room: Madeleine's bed, left, the twins' cots and an empty bed under the shuttered window
The room: Madeleine's bed, left, the twins' cots and an empty bed under the shuttered window

#NHS :Dr Matthew Oldfield, husband of Rachael Oldfield, is alleged to have checked on the McCanns' children at 9.30pm. However, he is reported to have since admitted that he did not actually see Madeleine in her bed but assumed she was there because he couldn't hear any noise.

As one can clearly see Madeleine is alleged to have been abducted from the bed on the left, Matthew Oldfield could not have failed to notice her had he looked further into the room to check on the twins ?

The room: Madeleine's bed, left, the twins' cots and an empty bed under the shuttered window
The room: Madeleine's bed, left, the twins' cots and an empty bed under the shuttered window

#NHS : Dr. Matthew Oldfield - Rogatory Interview

#NHS : Dr. Matthew Oldfield - EXIT STRATEGY by Dr Martin Roberts

30 December 2009



Those conversant with academic enterprises will be familiar with the term ‘paradigm shift’, where new data forces a theoretical re-appraisal. For the most part progress is made on the basis of modest adjustments, but every now and then the upheaval is cataclysmic, as with the discoveries of Copernicus, Newton, and Einstein for instance.

In as much as police investigation of a crime seeks consistency in any interpretation of the perpetrator’s actions, the requirement for a generally valid explanatory paradigm also pertains. Hence the importance of evidential inconsistencies which point to those corners of the room where, for whatever reason, the carpet appears not to fit; flaws in understanding which inhibit rather than encourage a solution to the problem overall.

In the case of Madeleine McCann, there exist, even after two years and more, unexplained inconsistencies, apparent from the outset, which may yet suffice to isolate the more appropriate of two competing paradigms, i.e. abduction or something else.

No more than cursory examination of the McCanns’ initial statements to Portuguese police is needed to reveal a conspicuous lack of uniformity, the resolution of which may have wider explanatory power than one might at first suppose, as it opens the door to questions of a slightly different nature than the very many raised so far. As it happens, the opening of doors is the central issue here.

Gerry McCann’s statement, made on 4 May 2007, records the following detail:
“Thus, at 9.05 p.m., Gerry entered the apartment using his key, the door being locked, and went to the children’s room and noted that the twins and Madeleine were OK.

He then took several minutes going to the toilet. He left the apartment and bumped into someone with whom he had played tennis and had a brief conversation. He then returned to the Tapas.”

“At 10.00 p.m., Kate went to check on the children. She went into the apartment, using her key and saw that the bedroom door was completely open, the window was also open, the shutters raised and the curtains open.

The doors were locked except the one at the back as already noted above” (a reference to Matthew Oldfield’s visit in between: “he went through Gerry’s apartment, going in through a glass door (the patio door) at the side of the building, which was always open”).

Kate McCann’s statement (again 4 May) echoed the detail of her husband’s in respect of Matthew Oldfield’s entering through the unlocked patio door, yet provided a contradictory account of her own access:

“Around 10.00 p.m., Kate went to check on her children, entering the apartment via the back lateral door which was closed but not locked.”

We are faced, quite simply, with overlapping yet conflicting accounts – of doors locked, unlocked, then locked once again according to Gerry McCann. The concomitant status described by Kate McCann is that of ‘unlocked throughout.’

Without progressing a single additional facet in this case, it is immediately apparent that someone is lying.

The obvious questions ensue: Who? And Why?

Paradoxically, addressing these in reverse order is the more advantageous approach, so, second things first, let’s consider the question ‘why?’ in both general and specific terms.

If a crime is committed against a person and identifying the criminal is the primary police objective, what would provoke a victim into lying about their own movements before, during or after the incident?

Frankly, even concealment of ‘contributory negligence’ is counter-productive.

Ethically speaking at least, a bicycle parked outside the supermarket ought not to be interpreted as an invitation to a bicycle thief (however much apologists might wish to argue otherwise).

In such a case the police sensibly focus their attention on recovering the stolen property and prosecuting the culprit. Whilst covering one’s own tracks might seem appropriate in something like insurance fraud, it is scarcely necessary otherwise.

If Madeleine McCann was abducted by an anonymous paedophile, as the parents have constantly invited everyone to believe, the prevailing purpose of all parties would or should have been to locate the child at the earliest opportunity.

 To assist in that endeavour anyone remotely connected with the situation should have explained themselves truthfully, warts and all. And yet we have the McCanns themselves irrelevantly lying about their own access to the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared; hence evidence, from the first, to suggest that the paradigm of stranger abduction is an inappropriate explanation for the child’s absence.

Do these lies contribute to a ‘cover’ for an abductor (what parent of a missing child would do such a thing?) or camouflage for the teller(s)? If the latter, then the abduction paradigm may be discarded forthwith.

What is equally apparent is that whilst ‘contributory negligence’ may have nothing genuinely to do with one’s child being abducted (and need not be introduced into the equation therefore), it may have everything to do with some other condition or outcome.

Thus the McCanns’ readiness to lie points distinctly away from abduction by a person or persons unknown, and toward something else entirely.

So much for lying about locked doors in general. The specifics, no less puzzling initially, eventually point in the same direction.

The News of the World (May 11, 2008) explained: “The patio door could only be bolted from the inside which would have meant them having to walk around to the front every time they wanted to check on their children.”

If the patio door could only be secured from the inside, it follows that it would not have been possible to unlock it from outside. This situation is confirmed by the evidence of Saleigh and Paul Gordon who, accompanied by their two children, occupied apartment 5A before the McCanns, between April 21st and 28th 2007. Paul also confirms that the couple always felt safe and that the front door was equipped with a double lock, while the one at the back only locked from inside the apartment.

Hence Gerry’s use of a key must have been in relation to the front door.

Kate’s entering the apartment using her own key (according to husband Gerry) implies that the patio door was still locked at 10.00 p.m. (otherwise why not use it?) Yet both attest to Matthew Oldfield having entered their apartment via the unlocked patio door in between times, whilst Kate repudiates her own use of any key.

The McCanns’ lies concerning door security extended beyond their own premises even.

They early on ventured to suggest that they didn’t lock their back doors, but left them unlocked in case of fire (Daily Mail, 11.8.2007).

However, they did not include Matthew Oldfield, for one.

If leaving their patios unlocked had been a consensus decision, Matthew Oldfield clearly broke ranks. As far as his own apartment was concerned, “… the patio doors would be shut and locked, errm… the outside, errm… shutter wouldn’t have been down until we were in there.” (Rogatory Interview).

Whether Matthew Oldfield ever entered the McCann apartment at all is a very real question.

His own interpretation of what he saw once inside is so impoverished as to suggest that he is actually describing the view from outside the patio doors, rather than inside. Although we can be reasonably sure he made the claimed dormitory excursion at about 9.30 p.m., it is rather less certain that Kate McCann actually advised him to enter 5A via the patio, or that he acted upon the suggestion, since Oldfield was not alone. He was in the company of Russell O’Brien, the two of them having left the Tapas bar together.

Describing his interaction with Kate McCann at the Tapas table, Matthew Oldfield explains, “… she said that the patio door was open and go in through there. And there was me and Russell as well, so, errm… you know, it seemed, at the time, a very reasonable thing to do, even though it was the first time that we’d certainly done it.” (Rogatory Interview).

According to O’Brien, they each entered their own apartment initially, Oldfield afterwards joining him in 5D.

Oldfield’s recollection in connection with 5A however is, as stated, that it was the first time he and Russell had entered the McCann apartment via the patio door. Furthermore, that “… there was a light behind us in the room.”

Since Russell O’Brien makes no mention of entering 5A himself, one has to wonder, first, why Oldfield should have included him in his account of that act, and second, exactly when and how the two of them were positioned in relation to the light in question. Even if Matthew Oldfield did indeed enter the McCann apartment that night, are we to suppose that, having offered to check on the well-being of a group of sleeping children, he would step inside, then inexplicably stop before reaching the relevant bedroom?

These specifics tie in with the initial question as to which of the McCanns was lying when first interviewed by Portuguese police.

Were it to be the case that Matthew Oldfield remained outside 5A all the while, then the answer would be simple: both of them. Which in turn leads to a development of the earlier argument, that stories of access, and of comings and goings during the evening of 3rd May, 2007 are irrelevant to any genuine case of stranger abduction.

If the McCanns, for whatever reason, were intent on ‘setting people up’ that night (as their various deliberate references to the notorious crying incident suggest they might have been), would they have as good as invited Matthew Oldfield to discover an empty bed?


That would have meant Kate McCann opening the bedroom window and exposing the twins to the cold before leaving for the Tapas bar.

Nevertheless, despite the virtual irrelevance of their associates’ activities to any tale of child snatching, they were clearly intent on giving an impression of concerned parenthood and, with that in view, placing Matthew Oldfield inside their apartment.

If Gerry simply inserted a fictitious reference between two more reliable book-ends, Kate must have realised that, having described Oldfield as opening the patio doors at 9.30, they would have been open to her as well.

Six days later (May 10) and Gerry McCann is already rectifying his recollection, claiming to have exited and re-entered his own apartment via unlocked patio doors.

Despite indications to the contrary (e.g. Oldfield’s initial claim when interviewed on May 4 that, during the meal, it was usual that every 15 minutes (as on all nights) one of the adults went to the apartments to check if the children were sleeping), there never was any rosta for checking on each others’ children, either before or during May 3rd, as Matthew Oldfield subsequently informs us (Rogatory Interview):
“Well mainly all of your apartment and Gerry and Kate’s obviously. Up until the Wednesday night, from what you have already said then, you didn’t go into Gerry and Kate’s apartment, well, sorry, you didn’t check on Gerry and Kate’s children?”
Matthew Oldfield:
Getting on for 9.00 p.m. on Thursday 3 May
MO: “
So I went and listened, I went… I found the time, because we’d only just been in there, about fifteen minutes ago, and I just listened outside her shutters, so I just passed along that wall that goes to the two, sort of to the McCann’s apartment, so I listened outside our shutters and went along to their shutter and had a listen out there, not because I’d been asked to, but… or it’s not the sort of thing you think about, it’s just kind of, errm…”
Now, on the origin of Oldfield’s 9.30 p.m. check:
 ”Erm, so I went to check on G**** and I stood up and Russell stood up and said he was going to go and check as well, and Kate stood up and I said, you know, ‘do you want us to go and check on…’, errm… ‘do you want me to go and check on your kids’, errm… and she said ‘yes’. And I think I offered at that point, just because we had been together all week and we had similar routines and it just kind of seemed like a nice thing to do that would save her a journey back up and, you know, it may or it may not have been different.”

All very ad hoc you notice, even down to the open patio door reference quoted earlier, which should have been unnecessary if everyone were doing the same thing, i.e. leaving their patio doors unlocked.

What all this has to do with stranger abduction can be summed up in a single word – nothing.

Hence we should subscribe to a paradigm shift and view the McCanns’ mendacious behaviour in the light, not of their embellishing any abduction scenario, but of preparing their defences in respect of another unspecified matter altogether; an exit strategy in a rather different direction.

 It is as though, having set the hares running and provoked an inevitable inquisition, the McCanns instinctively addressed themselves to issues unraised and which had a direct bearing on something of which they were guilty, i.e. child abandonment, rather than something of which they were not, namely abduction.

This being a reflection of their preoccupation at the time, it provides confirmation, if such were needed, that the cause of their immediate concern was neither Madeleine’s abduction nor the subsequent desire for her safe return.

And that conclusion alone renders the McCanns favoured hypothesis redundant.

Source –

#NHS : Matthew OldField Statement May 10th 2007

#NHS : Matthew OldField Statement May 4th 2007

Matthew David Oldfield's statement 04/05/07 @ 11.30am

The interview begins at 11.30am on 04/05/07. It is made in the presence of inspector Patricia D.
As with previous statements, the interviewee having no command of the Portuguese language, an interpreter was requested.

It is Angela F.M. and as with all previous statements, the interview was read over and its contents explained. After having shown his agreement with his statements, the interviewee confirmed and signed as accurate, the deed that followed, conjointly with the, "sworn," interpreter. This was normal procedure since the start of the interviews.

In signing, the interpreter commits herself legally concerning the accuracy of her translation.

On the subject, the interviewee says:

It is of his own free will and of his own accord that he adds his statements in the context of the present proceedings. That he has been on holiday in Portugal since April 28th 2007 and that he is staying at the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz. That he expects to return to England on Saturday May 5th 2007. That he has known Madeleine's parents for around five years. That the little girl will be 4 years old next Saturday. That he was spending his holiday with Madeleine and her parents. That they had come as a group and that this group is composed of 9 adults and eight children. The adults are Diane, David and Fiona (children: ***** and ***) Russell and Jane (children **** and ****) Rachael (daughter ******) respectively the wife and the daughter of the interviewee, Gerry and Kate (children: Amelie, Sean - twins aged two - and Madeleine)

That the idea of spending the holiday in Portugal came from the couple David and Fiona and that it is they who reserved the accommodation. That this reservation was made 4 or 5 months ago. That since they arrived in Portugal, until last night, the days were all the same. In the morning, the group woke between 6.30 and 8am and that they all went on foot to the, "Millennium," around 10 minutes from the complex. That only Madeleine's parents, Madeleine and the twins had breakfast in their apartment due to the fact that they have three very small children.

That after breakfast, the children were left at the mini-clubs of the complex. Madeleine and **** go to the mini-club for their age and the other children go to another club for younger children. At lunchtime, the habit was to meet up in one of the apartments occupied by the group to have lunch there with the children. In the afternoon, the children have a sleep in their respective apartments under the supervision of an adult. The other adults do sporting activities within the complex. After their afternoon sleep, the children return to the mini-club

That around 4.45pm, the children eat at the "Tapas," restaurant inside the tourist complex. After eating, the children went to play in a playground in the complex, supervised by adults. At around 8pm, the children went to sleep and at around 8.30pm, the adults went to dinner at the "Tapas" restaurant. While they were eating, the children were sleeping in their respective apartments without the constant supervision of an adult. The interviewee adds that, as the restaurant is around 1 minute from the apartments, randomly, an adult would be going frequently to check on the children in the apartments.
"That, as part of the mini-club activities, Madeleine will have gone to the beach, together with OC employees, he not knowing how many times that had occurred. The rest of the activities were in the interior of the tourist complex.
That the apartment occupied by the parents of Madeleine and their children was immediately before
[next to] his."

How the evening progressed.

The interviewee says that the day yesterday was identical to the previous ones and that, as on all other nights, at around 8.45pm, he and his wife left their daughter asleep in the apartment and went to the "Tapas" restaurant.

That the couple Kate and Gerry, Madeleine's parents were already at the restaurant. That they had arrived at the restaurant five minutes before them. The rest of the adults arrived at the restaurant around five minutes after the interviewee and his wife. That the last to arrive at the restaurant was the couple David and Fiona. That the latter arrived at the restaurant at around 9pm.

That around 9.05pm, the interviewee went to the area of the apartments. Notably to the area near the windows of all the children's bedrooms. That he did not hear any noise. That he considered that all the children were sleeping. That all the children's bedroom windows were closed, notably the windows
that gave access to the bedroom occupied by Madeleine." . That after this check, he returned to the restaurant, saying that all the children were asleep. However, Gerry, Madeleine's father, went to the area of the apartments to check for himself if the children were asleep. That Gerry would have entered  into his apartment and that he checked to make sure that Madeleine and the twins were sleeping in their bedroom, where it was quite dark. The bedroom door was left open [ajar].That five minutes later, Gerry came back to the group in the restaurant.

In answer to a question from the inspector, the interviewee says that Gerry will have gone to check at that time because he will not have heard the witness say that he had been there.

That during the meal, it was usual that every 15 minutes (as on all some of the adults went to the apartments to check if the children were sleeping. That normally this checking was done inside the apartments (Visual checking), but that, to be honest, sometimes this checking was only done from the outside, near the bedroom windows (Auditory checking)

As normal, dinner began at 9.30pm.

At around 9.25pm, the interviewee went into his apartment and Madeleine's apartment to check on the children. He states that the door of the bedroom that was o
ed by Madeleine and the twins, was open and that there was enough light in the bedroom for him to see the twins in their cots. That he couldn't see the bed occupied by Madeleine, but as it was all quiet, he deduced that she was sleeping. That the light was not from an artificial source inside the apartment, but perhaps something coming from outside through the bedroom window. That it seemed to him that the shutters of the parents' bedroom window were open without knowing if the window was also open.

The apartment has two bedrooms, a lounge, a small kitchen and a bathroom. The couple's bedroom has a window which is visible from the restaurant. The children's bedroom windows look out on the road outside the tourist complex. Then the interviewee went back to the restaurant.

He states that the bedroom has two windows. The twins occupy two cots placed in the middle of the room and Madeleine occupies a bed pushed against the wall, facing the wall which has the two windows that look out onto the outside of the complex. That the door through which he entered the apartment was closed but not locked. That he doesn't know if it is usual for Madeleine's parents to leave the door closed but not locked because that door is visible from the restaurant.

At around 10pm, Kate, Madeleine's mother, went to her apartment to check on her children. She came back totally shocked, shouting, saying that Madeleine was no longer in her bedroom. At that time all the adults were in the restaurant. Then, the whole group went to Madeleine's bedroom and checked that the twins were sleeping OK. That there was no sign of a burglary in the apartment. Only one window in the childrens' bedroom was open. The window was open and the respective shutter
[external blinds]

That during the holiday, and notably during the day yesterday and during dinner, nothing appeared unusual to the interviewee. That there wasn't the slightest change in the behaviour of any of the group, notably in that of Kate or Gerry and their respective children.

Question: And outside the group?
No, there was nothing unusual and he knows of nothing special happening. That the tourist complex was quiet and that nothing unusual happened there. That during the day the children were under the supervision of the
respective mini-club staff. That Madeleine is the daughter of both Gerry and Kate. That he doesn't know if Madeleine was suffering from any illness or if she was taking medication. That Madeleine is very lively, obedient, communicative and extrovert. Madeleine's parents are both very friendly, communicative, happy and sensible. That the couple have an excellent relationship with their children, not making any difference in the treatment of each. That the three children were very much wanted by the couple, all three being the result of, "In Vitro," fertilisation.

The interviewee thinks that it is a kidnapping with the intention to demand a ransom from the parents, because these are people who are very comfortable financially.