8 May 2009

Deposition of 12-year-old girl according to case files

Deposition of T. M. S., aged 12, a resident in Luz, on the 9th of May 2007, 4 p.m.
Page 800-804, volume III of process 201/07.0GALGS

"Comes to the process as a witness. Understands the Portuguese Language, as she has been living in Portugal since the age of two months (approximately eleven years ago). Still, an interpreter is present [name withheld].

Her parents are separated, she initially resided in Monchique, and now in Praia da Luz, since 2005, at the address that is stated above, with her Mother.

She also mentions that she lived in the apartment where the missing child was staying, that belonged to her Grandmother, who is already deceased. That she didn’t actually reside there, but spent extensive and repeated periods of time there, with her Grandmother and her Mother. The apartment was bought in 1994 and sold in 2002 and therefore she knows it perfectly, both from the inside and from the outside.

She wishes to clarify. On the 30th of April, Monday, at around 8 a.m. and when she was walking to the bus stop for the school bus that leaves at 8.15, a path that she walks every day when there is school, she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine’s house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house’s balcony. This happened when she was walking down the street, on the left side, which was right in front of the balcony, and the distance between them was the width of the road. That when she was walking down she decided to look at the pathway, because as she lived there, she likes to watch the house and the neighbouring garden. She walked with her mother, that she is certain she didn’t see the man, and she was walking two dogs on a leash, which forced them to cross the road, a bit further down. At that moment she saw the man more closely, as they crossed the road, and then lost visual angle when they finished crossing.

Says that the man didn’t see the deponent, because he was staring at the balcony.

She presumes that nobody was on Madeleine’s house’s balcony, but she cannot state it beyond doubt.

After crossing, she caught the bus and went to school and her mother went on the beach to walk the dogs.

When she returned from school, at around 5.30/5.40 p.m., after leaving the bus, she walked a different path, because the bus has a stop on the street where she lives, and therefore she doesn’t need to walk down to the ‘Ocean Club’. She didn’t see the man again at that time, nor did she see him again until the 2nd of May, Wednesday, after the bank holiday.

That on that day she didn’t go to school because she was sick with an infection in her right ear. Still, and feeling somewhat better, at around noon she left on her own, as her mother was at work, with the dogs, and went to the ‘Alisuper’ supermarket which is located on a perpendicular to Rua Direita, where she bought chocolates for €3,63. Then she walked to the pharmacy, which is located below the ‘Baptista’ supermarket, on a lateral perspective, where she bought a box of tampons for her ears, to prevent water from getting in, and spent €4,55. Then she went to ‘Baptista’ supermarket to buy cereal bread, because they don’t sell it at ‘Alisuper’. She left the dogs tied at the back entrance of ‘Baptista’ and went in to buy the bread. She paid, left ‘Baptista’, collected the dogs, and walked across the supermarket’s hall to the main entrance, approximately four/five metres, which exits to the street where she had seen the man. She started walking up the street on the left side going up, and saw the man, this time in front of the ‘Ocean Club’s’ reception, once more looking at Madeleine’s house in an ostensive manner, where he stood he could observe, she thinks, the house’s two side windows and part of the balcony. She thinks that he could also be looking at the other residences that are located in the same direction.

That as she was walking up she walked right in front of the man, and observed him directly, an action that he did not retaliate, because he never looked at the deponent. The distance that she observed him from was the width of the road.

After walking by the individual, she walked towards her house, through the road to the right, and never looked back to the man, or turned around to observe him better.

After that day she never saw him again.

As she said before, she left home at 12 p.m. and returned at 12.35 p.m., which means she crossed with the man at around 12.25/12.28 (the rest of the walk takes about seven minutes).

On the next day, Thursday (03.05.2007) she walked the same path as on the 30th, at the same time, but didn’t see the man, and never saw him again, as she said before.


Concerning the individual, she describes him as being: Caucasian race, light skin, so he wasn’t Portuguese, but could be British, according to her criteria. Approximately 180 cm tall, thin complexion, 30/35 years of age. Short hair, like shaved with 1 cm of length and fair, but she isn’t sure if it was blonde because the sun was reflecting, and made perception more difficult. She didn’t see the eyes because he wore dark glasses of black colour, with a structure of mass, a thick frame. He had a large forehead. Nose of normal size, a bit pointy and sharp. Large ears, close against the head. Mouth with thin lips, she didn’t see his teeth. Chin pointing up, which stood out on a face that she describes as sharp. No beard, no moustache, a clean shave. No other special signs, apart from some small pimples on the face as a result of shaving. He looked ugly, even ‘disgusting’.

The first time that she saw him he was wearing a sports style jacket of thin black leather, with a zipper and several pockets also with similar zippers, in silver. She saw no label or inscription. The jacket was open, therefore she saw a white t-shirt, with a dark blue label near the waist, which she cannot identify very well.

Trousers, she thinks, of blue jeans, worn out. Sports shoes (trainers) in black and grey, with a wave, maybe ‘Nike’ in a colour that she can’t remember.

The second time, he wore the same jacket, this time zipped up, because the day was colder than the first one, windy. She didn’t notice the rest of the clothing. She says that on that day he had a pen with a string attached to one of his pockets.

The first time, he was leaning against the wall against his hands, and the second time, he had his hands in his pockets.

She never saw him with any photo camera, or any mobile phone, although the second time, he might have a device in his pocket, which she detected by the shape.

When asked, she says that she saw no vehicle near the man, only a few vehicles, but near the ‘Baptista’.

When asked she says that she saw Madeleine once, on a day that she cannot indicate, on the balcony where the man was staring at, the first time. She even waved at her because it was a small child, in a caring gesture.

A map of the area is added, where A is the spot of the first sighting and B the spot for the second one. The ‘Baptista’ supermarket and Madeleine’s apartment.

She said that she can recognise the man both personally and photographically, and create a photofit.

Therefore I interrupt the present deposition and show the deponent photographs of individuals with similar characteristics.

I resume the deposition where it is consigned that the diligence resulted negatively, according to a report that is annexed.

She didn’t say anything further. The deposition is read and approved, ratified and signed together with the interpreter that assisted.

The present deposition is written and signed."



17 comments:

  1. So, this ugly disgusting creepy stranger was standing in full view, in daylight, staring at the apartment? Please don't insult people's intelligence.

    ReplyDelete
  2. Exactly! He has no sense to disguise his appearance or act in a subtle manner, rather stand in the street in broad daylight quite obviously staring at the apartment, he has no skills as an abductor! But fortunately he then manages to be in the area, with all the Tapas group going up and down the street and this time is successfully not observed and goes on to commit the perfect crime, leaves no DNA and is not seen taking Madeleine through the streets. Ludicrous!!!

    ReplyDelete
  3. I watched the "reconstruction" with my 13 year old son last night.
    He remarked that as the first identikit was that of an egg it must have hatched into the guy with the ugly creepy appearance.

    You know, I genuinely believe the McCann entourage are convinced the public are cretins.

    ReplyDelete
  4. I doubt that the dilligences carried out will be in the process files.

    More than likely part of the files that the UK succeeded in keeping under secrecy.

    ReplyDelete
  5. On page 800, the interview with T. M. S. is presented, who saw on two occasions and on several other days, an individual observing the apartment from which MADELEINE disappeared. A photo-fit was created based on the witness' indications . . . diligences were performed which led to the identification of MICHAEL ANTHONY GREEN, who was the target of diverse diligences without incriminatory results, pages 632 to 726 of Volume III, Appendix VI. Beyond this individual, there were other diligences performed at this level, also without useful results for the investigation, as is explained throughout Appendix VI"-(end)


    Which rather debunks the McCann's "tec's" spin that this was not investigated by the PJ.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Perhaps the 2 UK cops need to visit specsave, considering they couldn't read the PJ final report concerning Green.

    ReplyDelete
  7. Astro/EQUIPA: muito importante este esclarecimento,POIS,muito importante.Agradeço,POIS CLARO.

    mc

    ReplyDelete
  8. On channel 4 online, uk, 'Madeleine McCann",
    there are photos of Maddie and the parents.
    The last photo shows a very thin man, without glasses.
    Could it be Payne?
    Who could tell me?

    ReplyDelete
  9. I remember when this report came out and thinking that the photofit looked like McCann. Now it seems they want to like this and draw attention to some 'other' artist's impression...just HOW many different men were watching 5A those days? It is a popular resort indeed! ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  10. Anyone ever thought that it WAS McCann, doing his own research, checking on views of the apartment from different angles, seeing how visible it was?? ;-)

    ReplyDelete
  11. If the McCanns were so certain that these dilligences hadn't been carried out - why didn't they ask for the instructional phase?

    ReplyDelete
  12. The photo on channel 4:
    If it is not Payne, it must be Adolf Eichman.

    ReplyDelete
  13. These photofits look like a cross between Gerry McCann and David Payne.

    ReplyDelete
  14. Well well, the little girl produces an e-fit of a man with almost razored hair and she must the witness the McCanns refer to. So who created this further ugly creature that looks nothing like him. This man who the little girl saw twice hanging around on the street. I am going on hols in just over a week, I intend to make sure I just keep moving, otherwise I will a crime suspect, if Kate and Gez have anything to do with it!

    I hope their dozy detective hangs his head in shame and realises he is taking money off people who genuinely wanted to help find Madeleine. He needs to ask himself the question, do I have integrity or am I another McCann lacky paid for out of generous public donations for a little girl I will not be allowed to look for.

    Farce, sickening farce, just how dare they keep behaving in this way?

    ReplyDelete
  15. ..."she noticed the presence of a male individual, at the back of Madeleine’s house, on a little pathway to the apartments that exists there, looking in an ostensive manner at the house’s balcony."

    ..."this time in front of the ‘Ocean Club’s’ reception, once more looking at Madeleine’s house in an ostensive manner, where he stood he could observe, she thinks, the house’s two side windows and part of the balcony"


    Notice the recurrent way she describes the man's attitude, "ostensive", like he didn't care less if he got spotted by anyone from the apartment. When she first saw him, he was standing outside the 5A small garden, looking directly at the patio doors, at 8:00am; at that early an hour the McCanns must still be inside the apartm., we know they had breakfast in, and only left around 9:am to take the children to the creche. The man could easily be seen by them, but he seemed undisturbed by that possibility, in fact, by his general attitude, it seems in fact, that he wanted to be seen, almost like he wanted to make "someone" aware that he was there! And the same goes for the other sighting, on the other side of the road, he still makes no effort to conceal himself, he's defiantly standing out!
    Anyone with obscure and malignant intentions would not show himself openly, if by some reason someone was watching the McCanns and the group, to know their timings and routines, quite certainly that person(s) would try to be as inconspicuous as possible, BUT NOT THIS MAN!!!
    Was someone trying to send a "message/warning" to the McCanns?...


    Rosie

    ReplyDelete
  16. A couple of vital points.

    The police identified the man, its in the files. Michael Green - see the three arguidos web site.

    The 'spotty man' has been made to look like Gerry McCann (see three arguidos). I beleive this is an attempt to explain why the Irish witness recognised the man carrying a child as being Gerry McCann.

    In short, the so called detectives have created a fals photo fit and they have effectively confirmed that the sighting after Tanners WAS Gerry McCann - in my humble opinion.

    ReplyDelete
  17. looking in an ostensive manner - What about if he was a british trying to buy or to hire an appartment?
    or triying to rent it? could be a Real State worker?

    bullshit, bullshit, bullshit.

    ReplyDelete