Sunday, February 19, 2012

Robert Murat - ARGUIDO Statement Part 3

With many thanks to Albym ... tm#p8p1947

Volume VIII, pages 1959-1964 (6 pages)


Date: 2007/07/11; Time: 10:00; Location: DIC Portim�o
Officer: Paulo F., Inspector.

Defence attorney: Dr. Francisco Pagarete
Credentials no.: 498F
Office: Rua Conselheiro Joaquim Machado

The constitution of defendant status and the formalities provided for in Articles 58 and 196 of the CPP have been met in this case.

see also
He was warned that the lack of response or falsehood about his identity and criminal background does incur criminal liability.


Asked if he wanted to respond on the facts that are imputed against him, he responded:

---- Yes, he intends to continue to answer the questions that will be put to him.

---- Relating to the listing of phone numbers obtained from the agenda of his mobile, that was present yesterday with him, he remembers now that the numbers for Roger 447... and 447... are mobile phone numbers of two partners who buy and sell land with whom he is related professionally.

---- Asked he says that before the events under investigation in this inquiry he was in England for about a month, carrying out the reconstruction of the house that was previously his grandmothers and is now his mothers.
He made this trip at the request of his mother, given that they had agreed that he would carry out the repair in exchange for his mother investing in Romigen.

---- The trip, as well as all the money used in reconstruction, were the costs of his mother.
---- While in England he basically associated with his relatives who reside near there, the sister, the brother-in-law, the nephews, as well as with his friend of long-standing M.R.C. (Checo) who also resides in the area (Exeter).

---- There the defendant lived in the house of his mother.
During his stay in that place he continued to make contacts, via the Internet, with the future partners Jorge Sxxxx and Jason, as well as with Michaela.

---- Questioned he affirms that he does not remember for certain if he contacted in that way, or any other, Sergey Malinca, he being sure that that, in doing so, such messages or contacts with Sergey are kept on his computer given that he does not remember having deleted anything off the computer.
The computer that he used in England is one of those that were subsequently seized during the search carried out at his home.

---- During the contacts that he made with the future partners it happened that the negotiations stalled.
Therefore he decided to travel to Portugal to try to progress that matter because he believed that that could only be done personally.

---- He made the travel reservation to Portugal for 01 May.
 This reservation was made through the Internet, having used the site

---- Questioned he answered that the reservation was made exactly for 01 May, being sure that he did not anticipate/advance nor anticipate/advance such a reservation.

---- The night before the trip he slept in his brother-in-law Steve's home, where his sister and nephews also were.

---- He recalls that the flight that brought him from Exeter to Faro airport was in the morning, and it was his sister Samantha who drove him to the airport.

---- Questioned he affirms that during his stay in England he did not contact with any of the people who he later came to find here in Portugal, namely those who were involved in the disappearance of Madeleine.
He is not aware that any of his family has made any contacts or know any of those people, namely anyone close to the McCann couple.

---- Having been asked for the record if on the night that Madeleine disappeared he was in the Ocean Club helping in the searches and in contact with several people, about 23h30 to 24h00, the defendant replied categorically that he was not.
He affirms that he was not on that night helping in searches given that, as he had stated he did not leave the house from 19h30 on 03 May until the morning of 04 May.

---- For the record, at 12:00 noon, this interrogation was interrupted in order to proceed with an interview of confrontation between the defendant and witnesses RACHEL MARIAMMA JEAN MAMPILLY, RUSSEL JAMES O'BRIEN, and FIONA
ELAINE PAYNE, the competent document having been drawn up.

---- After that diligence and for the record, 12:40, this interrogation is interrupted to continue opportunely.

---- At 14:30 the present interview was restarted.

---- Questioned the defendant reaffirms that in truth on the afternoon of 03 May he arrived at Casa Liliana around 19:00/19:30 having left the VW stopped in front of the house, that is outside the property, immediately entering into the property.
Questioned he does not remember the clothes he was wearing at the time.
Nor does he remember if his mother was at home or not.
Nor does he recall in detail what he did.
He remembers that at one time he spoke with his mother, however he cannot recall whether she arrived meanwhile or she was already there.
He remembers that they were sitting in the kitchen and the defendant remembering that he ate, how long with his mother he does not remember.
Confronted with the testimony of his mother who told that she arrived at the house around 20.30 and that Robert had also arrived at that moment, he says that he cannot account for having arrived at the same time as his mother.

---- Questioned he says that when he heard the sound of a siren he was with his mother in the kitchen, still talking, it would be about 22:00/22:30, the time he estimates taking into account that they had the television on.
Questioned he said not to recall if the sound was continuous or discontinuous.
He remembers only that at that time there was the sound of voices from both their talk and the sound of television, not recalling other sounds in the background.
He remembers well having heard that sound given that after it he commented to his mother that it seemed that he was in her house in England given that there he assiduously heard the sound of sirens.
He was not aware of other noises namely raised voices or the dogs barking outside the property.

---- Questioned about if he considers it normal or abnormal the fact of not having made nor received calls on his mobile phone between 15:00 on 02 May until the night of 03 May he said that that fact seems normal to him since in that period of time he had been accompanied by Michaela she being the person with whom he usually speaks to on the phone.
However, he states that he had assumed no purposeful position [given no thought to] that that fact had happened.

---- Questioned he states that he rented a grey Hyundai car on Saturday, 12 May, from the Auto Rent firm in Praia da Luz.
He thinks that he picked up the car in the afternoon of that day.
This car was returned by his mother on Tuesday 15th of that month.
Basically he used the car in the area of Lagos and Portim�o.
He did not leave the Algarve with it.
He does not remember how many kilometres he drove with the car, however he estimates about 100 to 200 at most.
He informs having rented it because his mother was using the VW in the information table [she had set up] and the Skoda was in the workshop and he had no other means of transport.
Confronted with the fact that there is information that the car had done 700 km during the rental period, he says this is not true.
He denies having gone so many kilometres in that car, adding that to have more mileage than what he indicated that this will be an error of whoever read the mileage [odometer], the defendant was the only person to use the car.

---- Questioned he says that never in his life has he entered the apartment where Madeleine was when she disappeared, neither before nor after the events under investigation.

---- Questioned if he knows anyone who is the owner of a boat he said that his uncle has a boat stored in the back of his property but that is on land.
 Last year, when he worked in Remax, he sold an apartment to an English man that he knows is the owner of a boat, but does not know however where this boat would be, nor had he ever seen it.
His relationship with this person was strictly professional.
There is also a friend of Luis, the husband of Michaela, whom he thinks is called Steve and that he said that he has a boat.
The defendant has never seen that boat nor does he even know if that is true or not.
He has no contact with this person.
Nelson Pxxxxxx, who is in his mobile phone address book, is the son of a man called Carlos Pxxxxxx who is the owner of a vessel that the defendant however never saw nor knows where it is.
---- Asked if on the day of the disappearance of Madeleine or in subsequent days he was in any marina or in any port, he said no, that he was not in any of those places on those days.

---- For the record, the defendant having been shown a photograph in which one can observe the defendant speaking with an individual on '25 de Abril' road, in Praia da Luz, he said that such person is one known to him, a resident of Praia da Luz, who knows Robert, and that he knows him to be of Romanian nationality.
He met this individual on an occasion in which he, the Romanian, did some gardening work at Casa Liliana, which he thinks was contracted by his mother.
The contact that happened when they were photographed was based on a request that the defendant [should be: the Romanian] made to Robert in the sense of him [RM] making a translation of an appeal in the Romanian language regarding the disappearance of Madeleine.

---- Asked about if at any time he had used used computers in the cyber caf�s either in Praia da Luz or in other places he responded negatively, that is, he had never used computers in those locations.
He affirms further that [n]either Michaela [n]or Sergey also [n]ever did so in the presence of the defendant.

---- For the record the defendant was asked if he has had conversations wit any person, besides his lawyer, about the way he could prove his innocence, be it personally, be it by telephone, be it in caf�s, or in any other place, conversations that could conflict with police techniques to prove the guilt or innocence of a person.

---- For the record the defence attorney requested some time to explain the question to the defendant and he was permitted a short break in order for them to converse.

---- Resuming the interrogation the defendant said yes he had spoken about this subject but he did so primarily with the family and with intimate friends.
In particular he states that he remembers having spoken with Inspectors of the PJ on an occasion at his home when he asked them if they could, through the antennas of mobile phones, prove that he was at home at a given moment, to which they replied that it would be possible but that he should not be concerned about it because that matter was going to be handled.
Questioned he responded that he thinks he had not asked anyone else.

---- For the record it being asked of him if he knows a British police officer by the name of Phill, he answered yes.
 It also being asked of him if he had not asked this British police officer about the method that British police had to locate a person in a particular place and at a particular time, he said yes.
Asked if that conversation was had on a personal level [in person] or by phone he responded that it was personal [in person].
 For the record the transcript of of the telephone intercept recorded on pages 1681 to 1690 being shown to him, he states for the record that effectively he continues to not recall having telephoned Phil nor having spoken with him on the phone, although he does recall a
conversation that he had with this individual at the home of his aunt, perhaps in the bar, repeating it in the following manner:
He had asked Phil if the Police could locate him in the house through the mobile phone to thus prove his innocence.
Phill had replied that such would depend on the distance from the antennas [masts], namely their active radius.
 It being asked of the defendant if he had or had not asked [Phil] if he, the defendant, could be located to within a distance of one meter of the place where he was, he responded yes.
 It being looked for from him the reason for such a question when his home, without the adjacent land, is about 300 square meters not justifying, perhaps, that he had asked the question about the location of the defendant within a meter, unless the defendant had been elsewhere, he did not respond.
 It being asked of him for what reason he resorted to a British official given that he had already said previously he had good relations with the PJ and GNR, he said that when he asked officers of the PJ it was done to know if that technology was already in the possession of the Portuguese police.

---- He states not remembering if after that contact he had had any further [contact] on this matter with whomever that was.

[NOTE: I have no idea what the next three sentences are talking about. I cannot determine a context so I have given a literal word for word translation.]

---- Asked if later on that he had given an account that the PJ him/it would be, like him defendant, later [following], what the procedure that he/it adopted.
 He responded that he ended by noting [taking note of] the licence plate of a car and that an officer of the PJ, named Reis Sxxxxx, said to him that the car would not belong [pertain] to this corporation.
Questioned he said that all the contours [outlines] of this circumstantialism [all pertinent circumstances] were revealed to Michaela and possibly to other people, either by phone or in person.

---- Having read the statements the defendant intended to clarify that when he refused to answer the question that was put to him on lines 128 and 129, he did it on the advice of his lawyer.

---- The next day the conversation he had with Phill the defendant was again at the home of his aunt where he found Phill and that he said to the defendant that he could not speak more with him about this case given that he was informed by his superiors he could not do so.

Read and found it in agreement, ratifies and will sign.