905 to 917 Witness statement
of Matthew David Oldfield
2007.05.10
918-Consent for mouth swab
for Matthew David Oldfield |
|
TRANSLATION BY ALBYM |
|
04-Processo 04
Page 905 to 917 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_905 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_906 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_907 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_908 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_909 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_910 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_911 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_912 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_913 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_914 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_915 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_916 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_917 |
 |
|
04_VOLUME_IVa_Page_918 |
 |
[M Oldfield's Statement 10th
May
Again, there
were several omissions from, and
errors in, the original Portuguese.
I corrected those that I found.
Also, much of the Portuguese
statement is written with a
convoluted 'future + past' verb
construct that attributes an
'uncertainty' to the words, whereas
I have translated much of it in a
non-literal manner to make it read
more definitively. Hence, the reader
must understand that neither the
Portuguese nor my translation
necessarily constitute the exact
words spoken by Oldfield.
If you read MO's Rogatory Letter
testimony you will get a sense of
the difficulty the Portuguese
interpreter faced when listening to
this man.]
Matthew Oldfield 10 May PART I
In respect of the McCanns (Gerald
and Kate), the deponent clarifies
that he has known them only for
about four years, since the wedding
of David and Fiona Payne which took
place in the summer of 2003 in
Italy.
However, he relates knowing that the
McCanns already knew the other
couples for some years and they had
been on holiday previously with
them, together with the Paynes.
He relates that, due to his
friendship with the other two
couples he had been on holiday in
Greece for a week, and they had
expected the trip to Portugal to
have been similar to that week.
Asked, he clarifies that, the
similarity between this and the
previous occasion was that all
couples were accompanied by their
offspring.
Because it was asked, he relates
that the McCanns had not
participated in the above trip to
Greece alleging to not know if, at
that time, they were asked to join
the group of excursionists.
Consequently, he clarifies to never
have been on any trip with the
McCanns except for this one to
Portugal.
Regarding the present trip, and as
far as he knows, the McCanns
participated at the invitation of
the Paynes.
He clarifies that DP personally took
charge of the organisation [of this
trip], in a similar manner to what
he thinks happened in relation to
the above mentioned trip to Greece
the previous year.
In this way, it will have been this
last individual [DP] who chose
Portugal as the tourist destination,
adding that, considering the
expected climatic conditions and the
time period of the holiday, Mark
Warner would be the only operator
available to them with a final
destination of Praia da Luz.
At that time DP will have contacted
the tourist operator Mark Warner
with the intention to purchase
tourist packages and to reserve the
respective journeys.
Prompted he relates that David will
have personally assumed payment of
the costs of the packets of the
other families, each of which
amounts would be repaid to him
afterwards.
In this way he relates they arrived
in Portugal on 28 May adding that
all would have lodging reserved in
the Ocean Club Garden until 5 May -
the date on which they would have
returned to England.
Prompted about the motives which
contributed to choose the operator
Mark Warner he explains that it is
usual for this operator to work with
tourist complexes that possess some
requisites demanded by his family
and the others who make up the
group, namely: sports activities
with instructors (especially tennis
and water sports), childrens'
activities, and restaurants within
the resort enclosure in a way that
they can be accessed without the
need for any kind of transportation.
For the rest, he relates that the
couples would give preference to
resorts that have 'baby listening'
services available.
Pressed to define 'baby listening'
service he clarifies that that
service can be summed up as a
watching, by doing 'rounds' of the
outside of an apartment in the
course of which someone checks for
noise coming from the location where
children are sleeping and, if noise
is heard, to alert the respective
parents of that situation.
Furthermore, he wishes to make clear
that while making the aforementioned
reservations the operator had told
them that a 'baby listening' service
was not in place in the Ocean Club
Garden.
That fact had made some of the
couples - and himself in particular
- reluctant to come to Portugal
because all the families have minor
children.
As far as he [MO] is concerned, he
wishes at this time to add that, in
conversation with DP on a date he
does not recall with certainty but
likely to have been on 7 or 8 May,
he [DP] confided in him that that,
at that time, KH had been
particularly reluctant about coming
to Portugal because she had had a
bad feeling [presentiment] about the
children of the group and the
non-existence of the 'baby sitting'
service.
Nevertheless, he relates that, they
had discussed this problem resolving
to make the trip since the operator
had assured them accommodation
sufficiently close together that,
collectively, they had managed to
assure the checking and supervision
of their respective progeny.
Consequently, David had taken charge
of negotiations with the operator to
have all lodgings as close to each
other as possible. Nonetheless, and
because he was asked, he adds that
on leaving England they did not know
the exact apartments which they had
been allotted.
Nevertheless, he relates that DP had
asked the operator that they be
provided with lodgings in close
proximity to each other because, as
a group, they intended to perform
that kind of checking collectively
over the children of each family.
Nonetheless he admits that they were
only informed of their respective
apartments on arrival in Portugal.
About the inherent conditions of the
travel plan subscribed to by the
couples, he clarifies that they had
acquired 'half-board' packets -
i.e., inclusive of flight,
transfers, lodging, breakfast and
dinner.
In that sense he relates that all
members of the group would eat meals
in OC restaurants as follows:
breakfast would be at the Millenium,
situated slightly away from the
residential block where they were
lodged (close to the main street,
the Lagos road, about 10 minutes on
foot), while dinner would be at the
Tapas restaurant, situated next to
the swimming pools of their
residential block.
.
The sole exception to this rule
would be by the McCanns who would
eat breakfast in their apartment, he
considering that that was done due
to the fact that they had three
small children and the distance
between [their flat] and the
Millenium. Nevertheless he wished to
point out that, on the night of 28
May the group had dined at Millenium
as the Tapas was closed.
Aside from this he relates that on
all other days they dined always at
Tapas.
With respect to lunch, he relates
that the couples usually ate it as a
group in one of the four apartments,
adding that the Payne's apartment
was commonly used due to its larger
size.
Prompted about the dinner
reservations/bookings at Tapas, he
relates that the first time thay
made a reservation was on Sunday,
not knowing who had made it. Asked
if it could have been ROB the
deponent admitted that that was
possible, reiterating to not know
for sure who had made it.
relating to the other days, he
clarifies that on Monday morning his
wife undertook such reservation,
adding still that it would have been
for all the remaining days except
for Friday, 4 May, as there was to
have been a Tennis Club dinner that
night.
He clarifies that the above
reservation was made for nine people
for 20h30.
Prompted to identify the apartment
in which the four couples had been
lodged, the deponent said that the
McCanns were in apartment 5A; he,
his wife and daughter in 5B; the
O'Brien's in 5D; and the Payne's in
5H.
While the above all related to
residential Block G, he says that
the first three are situated on the
ground floor, the last being on the
first floor; he adds that the McCann
flat was at the extreme left when
accessing the block from the main
entrance, and immediately adjacent
to his flat; the O'B was in front of
the main entrance behind the
stairway used to go to the upper
floors, and, lastly, the Payne flat
was immediately above that of the
O'Briens.
Asked about criteria for the
distribution of couples between the
flats as described in the preceding
paragraph, he relates that Mark
Warner had taken charge of the
allotment of couples and flats.
For this reason, he does not know
the nature of that criteria, all the
more since, similar to the others,
he only found out which flat he had
been allotted when he arrived at the
resort - the time at which they were
each given the keys to their
corresponding flats, one key per
couple (that being a metal key, not
an access card).
Nevertheless, he relates to have
known that, in his particular case,
he would have been allotted 5B
because it is the smallest flat
(with only one bedroom) as he had
only one small child.
Pertaining to the routine undertaken
by the four couples during the
period before the disappearance of
MBM, he relates that, generally,
they all dedicated themselves to
sporting pastimes.
In his particular case, he gave
priority to water sports (such as
sailing) and, then, tennis.
As for the rest, they also did
various sports, pointing out that
the McCanns never did any water
sports.
By the way, he relates that, on a
date he does not recall for sure but
on one day in the past week during
which it rained in PdL (thinking it
was 2 May, the day before the
disappearance) he went on a
40-minute run on the streets around
the resort together with KM.
Asked about any time he was away
from PdL he responded in the
negative, stating that, the same as
all others in the group, he had not
done so because he had no means of
transport to facilitate any such
movement.
Consequently, and the question
asked, he relates that none of the
couples possessed a hired motor car.
Of the rest, he denied the
possibility of any of them to have
driven periodically any motor car
that might have been provided to
them by a third party, given that
none of them had any friends or
acquaintances residing or holidaying
in the vicinity.
Prompted to outline what had
happened on 3 May, the deponent the
following:
- he woke up about 06h30/07h00 going
to take breakfast at Millennium at
08h00 with his wife and daughter. He
does not recall who [else] was with
them. He knows that GM, KM and their
children did not breakfast there
because they always did that in
their apartment.
Regarding the other group members he
cannot remember who was in the
Millennium that morning. He is sure
that he was not accompanied by the
whole group given that they were not
always accompanied by the same
people during this meal - thinking
that only DP or ROB would have been
there with their respective
children.
Adding that as each day passed there
were fewer group members who went
there for breakfast, opting to have
it in their apartments, due to the
distance of the restaurant from
their residences.
After breakfast he walked to the
beach, arriving about 09h30 to go
sailing. He knows that on that
morning DP and FP were also there,
not recalling if he went there with
either of those individuals or if
they were already there when he
arrived. He was sailing until about
11h00 due to which he was late for
the tennis class he had booked for
that time, together with his wife.
About 12h10 he went with his wife to
pick up his daughter from kids club.
Subsequently the three of them went
to the Payne apartment for lunch. He
clarifies that he lunched there with
the Paynes, their children and
mother-in-law, and with ROB and JT.
He does not recall if KM and GM were
there.
Later, sometime between 13h30 and
14h00, he and his family went to
their apartment to put their
daughter down for a sleep, remaining
there until about 14h15/14h30 - the
time at which he decided to go to
find ROB, he also having returned to
his own flat, to call him for them
both to go sailing.
After their sport (sometime between
15h30 and 15h45) they both went to
the beach where they met up with the
rest of the group, including
children, staying there until about
17h00. He clarifies that GM, KM and
their children were not at the
beach.
Leaving the beach they went to the
beach restaurant where they fed the
children while the adults limited
themselves to a few drinks.
About 18h00 he, ROB and DP went to a
social men's tennis match, held in
the above resort area, where they
remained until about 19h00. He
clarifies that when they arrived at
that meeting GM was already there,
with KM and her children watching
the match, the rest of the women and
children joining them [KM and
children] later.
At 19h00 he, ROB and DP had finished
the match, having then gone to their
respective apartments in which they
found other members of the group.
The deponent said he stayed in his
apartment until 19h45 at which time,
together with his wife, he went to
the Tapas restaurant where GM and KM
were already and, from what was said
afterwards, Jane. Later, about
20h50, ROB arrived.
The deponent added that DP, FP and
DW were still not present - and as
he could see their apartment lights
burning - he resolved to go to them,
clarifying that he did not reach
that apartment as those people were
already on their way to the
restaurant. He clarifies [further]
that he met them near the living
quarters, at the corner next to the
main door of the McCann apartment.
Benefiting from meeting them next to
the residences, he adds that, on his
own initiative, he made a 'listening
check' at the bedroom window of MBM
and the twins at 21h05. That he
limited himself to approach the
bedroom window on the outside of the
apartment to check if the children
were crying or awake.
He adds to have not heard any noise
nor perceived anything out of the
ordinary. He went on to do the same
check at the bedroom windows of his
daughter and ROB's daughters.
About 5/10 seconds after the
checking he returned to the
restaurant seeing that all other
group members were already there.
They proceeded to order dinner
[immediately] after which GM went to
his apartment to check his children.
Asked if, at that instant, JT also
went to her flat, he says he does
not recall, adding that they were
gone at the same time as each other.
On the other hand, he cannot be
precise [about] which of the two
returned first.
.
Nevertheless, he wishes to add that
he has no idea about anyone having
possibly mentioned the possibility
of both having been together.
Asked why GM had gone to the
apartment at that time if the
deponent had been there a few
minutes before, he relates that GM
might not have heard him say that
all was well, adding further that he
had not personally checked the
children at that time.
Asked if there was
some agreement about checking all
the children of the group he says
that it was common practice for one
member of each couple to stand up
each 15 minutes with the objective
to go to check their own child(ren).
|
|
|
Matthew Oldfield 10 May
PART II
.
Some minutes later, at 21h25, the deponent went to
his apartment to do a further check, he having done
that together with ROB who intended to do the same
with his two girls.
At that time he offered
[made himself available] to perform a check in the
bedroom of MBM.
Questioned about his motives for such a check, going
against the prevailing/established procedure, or -
why would two people have gone to check the three
apartments (in this case the witness and ROB going
to check their own apartments and that of GM), the
deponent explained that both [men] had suggested
that KM remain in the restaurant [they] assuming the
responsibility of verifying the children.
Nonetheless, and the question asked, he relates not
being able to state exactly if the suggestion was
made by himself or by ROB, adding not being able to
clarify why it was done, but, in the case of it
having been he [MO] to make such a suggestion it
would have been due to, having spent days on holiday
together, [there already being] a very close
friendship with the couple [allowing him] to enter
their apartment.
That, on that occasion, ROB and he went to their own
residences, to check on their own children. After
leaving his apartment he went to that of ROB who
opted to stay there to calm his daughter who was
crying, that done with the deponent went alone to
the McCann apartment. He clarifies that ROB's
daughter was ill, with vomiting.
To this end, he took
the quickest route between ROB's apartment and the
side garden gate entrance to the rear patio of the
McCann residence, to which he gained access through
the glass sliding door into the apartment lounge.
The door was closed but not locked as KM had said it
would be.
That he did not enter the bedroom where MBM and the
twins were sleeping. He recalls that the bedroom
door was half open, making an angle of 50 degrees.
He does not know how far away he was from the
bedroom door. He recalls having the perception that
the window curtains - green in colour - were drawn
closed but could not determine if the window was
closed or open. Concerning the external blinds he
clarifies that he did not see if it was closed or
open. 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.
The question asked, he
was sure that, at the time of his first being in the
vicinity of MBM's bedroom, reported as 21h05 in the
course of which he had approached the the window of
that bedroom from the outside for the purpose of an
auditory check, the blinds were, in his view, fully
closed.
Consequently, he is convinced that at the time of
the second check the blinds were more open than on
the first check, given that he considers that the
light inside the bedroom, undoubtedly coming from
the outside, could not have been coming through it
[the blinds] if they had been fully closed.
Following on, convinced that everything was within
normality, given that he perceived no noise to make
him think otherwise, and further, due to, in his
mind, having managed to glimpse the two twins inside
their cots, the deponent returned to the restaurant
to finish dinner.
Asked, he clarifies to not have seen MBM lying on
the bed in the bedroom because from where he was
during the check he had no sight of that bed.
The question asked, he
relates that he thinks he returned to Tapas between
21h25 and 21h30, telling the others in the group
that he found everything within normality in the
residential block.
The question asked, he
clarifies not having told MBM's parents the facts of
having found the door half-open, estimating it about
50 degrees, and having perceived the above mentioned
brightness inside [the room], he related not having
done it because he didn't attach any relevance to
them [the facts].
Asked, he relates that, at that time, he rejoined
the table of travelling friends, all except ROB who
stayed in his apartment due to the indisposition his
daughter.
The question asked, he
relates that, due to the large size of the whole
group, comprising nine adults (four couple and FP's
mother), the deponent and the others always occupied
the same table because it was the only one that
could handle so many people.
Asked, he relates that, from where that table was
positioned the group would have sight of the
apartments they were occupying.
Nevertheless, he admits that it was a tenuous sight
considering the distance to the apartments
(estimated as about 50 to 100 metres), and further,
due to their vision being impaired by a transparent
oilcloth [tarpaulin] that covered the area in which
the tables were located.
Consequently, he admits it being possible for
someone to have entered the ground-floor apartments
without being detected, through [by way of] the
patios that were round the back of the residential
block.
Nevertheless, he relates not having perceived any
movements at the rear of the McCann apartment during
the last of the checks that he took part in.
Consequently, it had been an enormous surprise to
receive the news of the disappearance of small MBM.
.
By the way, he
clarifies that that news had been communicated to
all the friends who were in the Tapas by KM
subsequent to her having personally been to her flat
to check that her children were well.
The question asked, he
relates that she had gone there alone to do that at
21:50.
Noticing the disappearance KM returned in panic to
the restaurant where the deponent was in order to
tell her husband, GM.
The question asked, he
relates being convinced that, at the time of that
communication, all the group members were in the
restaurant - the reason for which he supposes that
ROB had rejoined them in the meantime.
In view of such news
all group members rushed to GM's apartment which was
accessed through the rear entrance, namely by the
sliding glass door facing the pool.
.
Asked, he relates that when he entered the
apartment, from memory, he did not approach MBM's
bedroom therefore cannot provide any details about
its condition.
Asked, the deponent denies that at any time he had
perceived any suspicious movements undertaken by
unknown individuals (or by group members) to the
date of the event or in the days that preceded it.
In the same way he
relates never to have perceived suspicious movements
undertaken by any motor vehicles in the vicinity of
the resort where they were lodged.
.
by the way, he relates
never to have perceived the presence of a blue light
motor vehicle in the vicinity of the Ocean Club
Garden.
Regarding the situation at hand, he relates to not
know with absolute certainty any matters that
surrounded them [the events], as well as the
motivations that could have given rise to them.
In the same way, he
does not know for sure the possible existence of
conjugal, professional or other problems that might
have possibly resulted in someone undertaking the
removal [taking] of that small child.
The question asked, he
reiterates that during the group's stay in PdL they
had always dined at the Tapas, except for the first
night when they did it at the Millenium.
.
On the other hand he
relates that only those adults who were part of
their group met for dinner at their table.
By the way, he denied
that at any time did any individuals named IRWIN
form part of the table, refuting equally that he had
made the acquaintance of anyone so named.
The question asked, he
relates that he entered the McCann apartment for the
first [and only] time on the night of the
disappearance (i.e. 3 May), and [that was] on the
second check reported above, namely at 21h25.
On the other hand he
points out that he was on foot for all the trips he
made outside the resort, similar to all other group
members.
The question asked he
says that there had been no change in his sleep
[sleeping pattern]. He does not recall bouts of
insomnia nor of overly deep sleep.
Questioned about other changes in his health - or of
his family - he recalls that the three had had
intestinal problems: he on 28 April; from memory,
his wife on 30 April or 1 May, and his daughter on 7
May.
Regarding the other group members he does not know
if there were changes in their health.
Prompted about relationships of friendship, or
other, of the deponent or other group members, with
persons resident in Portigal, the witness says he
knows no-one in this country and thinks the same
applies to the other holidaying friends.
Also he would not know other holiday makers. He
thinks that the same applies to the rest of the
group members.
Asked about the drinking of alcoholic beverages by
the group members the deponent admits that all the
member did (including himself), admitting further
that they did in quantities unusually high [for
them] in virtue of them fully enjoying the holidays.
Nevertheless he relates that despite what is
reported in the preceding paragraph they did not any
of their cognitive faculties, adding, by way of
example, that they could possibly consume about six
bottles of wine.
The question asked, he
relates that this was his second time in Portugal,
the first occurred in 1999 when he spent a single
night in Lisboa.
With respect to the other group members, he knows
only that JT had been here previously on various
occasions, he thinks for professional reasons,
adding further that she had also visited together
with ROB.
Prompted to reveal any other things that might
possibly help in understanding the events under
investigation, the deponent was unable to do so,
alleging a total lack of knowledge about other
circumstances which might possibly have surrounded
it, beyond those already reported above.
The question asked, he
relates that during his stay he used the same mobile
phone that he used in England.
The question asked, he
relates that he used the number since 2002.
Prompted to define what he
understands by 'auditory check', he clarified that
it was a check in which he does not establish visual
contact with the children - limiting himself to
check for noises that could indicate some problems
with them |
|
