The mysteries of Robert Murat and the 'Salsalito Summit': A discussion thread

Another superb article from the MMRG.

I hadn't realised how close the Smith's and the McCluskey's fairy stories were

This lengthy piece of investigative research is considered to be a monumental achievement, thanks to the Madeleine McCann Research Group (MMRG).

The article has now been visited by in excess of 1,000 readers which is very encouraging, considering the case of Madeleine McCann's disappearance has slowly slipped into the shadows of late.  Still, there is much work to be done if we are to ever see justice for the little girl so badly let down by herown familly and the establishment.

To help this important research project progress, member contribution is essential to iron out any grey areas, clarify specific points and above all else, to thrash out the many diverse aspects of this convoluting subject.

What better way to start the ball rolling than by lodging your opinion by voting in the poll added to the beginning of this thread.

Member participation in this important area of research would be very much appreciated and valued.  It's a free for all so don't be put off by thinking you're off-topic, providing you keep within the framework of the overall subjects.

Thank you.

Jill Havern wrote:Another superb article from the MMRG.

I hadn't realised how close the Smith's and the McCluskey's fairy stories were

Look no further than Brian Kennedy (the double glazier) who made it his business to grease a few willing palms. Not necessarily personally but through his paid army of pseudo private dicks et al.

I shouldn't be surprised if he, Brian Kennedy, had/has strong contacts in the world of media. On reflection, the Smith and McCluskey stories were rewarded with a reasonable degree of press coverage.

Now I don't have any particular reason to doubt the evidence provided by Richard and Susan McCluskey in their witness statements taken on 9th May 2007, only six days after Madeleine McCann's disappearance was reported to the Portuguese police.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14767p175-documented-evidence#410313

Under such circumstances, that of a missing three year old child, any decent citizen would report an unusual situation they witnessed, should it be of interest to an official investigation, no matter how bizarre it might seem.  I can't fault the McCluskeys for trying to assist the investigation.

The proceedings that followed later that summer however, appear to be less convincing.

The McCluskeys later testimony reveals a totally different story.  Apart from being a distinct departure from their May 2007 witness statements - the sighting, there is a marked similarity with that of the Irish family man, Martin Smith.

Martin Smith and family members could arguably be considered  reliable witnesses from their early account of a sighting in late May 2007 - Richard and Susan McCluskey could arguably be considered reliable witnesses from their early account of a sighting in May 2007 but ....

Of a sudden, following the McCanns return to the UK in September 2007, these two seemingly unconnected family witnesses give a surprisingly similar account of identification - Gerry McCann descending from the aircraft!  Two totally different descriptions of incidents witnessed in May 2007 gel into one exact identification .... Gerry McCann!?!

Martin Smith has been discussed extensively here on CMOMM, revealing a great divide of opinion but what of Richard McCluskey and his wife? Why would they so dramatically change their version of events, the witness sighting between May 2007 and September 2007?

Personally I don't consider the McCluskeys to be of any great importance aside from perhaps being offered (and accepting) an incentive to elaborate on their original story but the Smith family is a whole different ball game.  Their circumstance could of course be on a par with the McCluskey i.e. they were offered an incentive to enhance their original story but that doesn't explain the Smiths prior extraordinary behaviour.

Whatever happened beforehand, there is a strong indication that both factions were persuaded to provide specific evidence following the return of the McCanns to the UK in September 2007.  The private investigation benefactor was none other than Brian Kennedy, the mega-rich double glazier ....

Verdi wrote:Now I don't have any particular reason to doubt the evidence provided by Richard and Susan McCluskey in their witness statements taken on 9th May 2007, only six days after Madeleine McCann's disappearance was reported to the Portuguese police.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t14767p175-documented-evidence#410313

Under such circumstances, that of a missing three year old child, any decent citizen would report an unusual situation they witnessed, should it be of interest to an official investigation, no matter how bizarre it might seem.  I can't fault the McCluskeys for trying to assist the investigation.

The proceedings that followed later that summer however, appear to be less convincing.

The McCluskeys later testimony reveals a totally different story.  Apart from being a distinct departure from their May 2007 witness statements - the sighting, there is a marked similarity with that of the Irish family man, Martin Smith.

Martin Smith and family members could arguably be considered  reliable witnesses from their early account of a sighting in late May 2007 - Richard and Susan McCluskey could arguably be considered reliable witnesses from their early account of a sighting in May 2007 but ....

Of a sudden, following the McCanns return to the UK in September 2007, these two seemingly unconnected family witnesses give a surprisingly similar account of identification - Gerry McCann descending from the aircraft!  Two totally different descriptions of incidents witnessed in May 2007 gel into one exact identification .... Gerry McCann!?!

Martin Smith has been discussed extensively here on CMOMM, revealing a great divide of opinion but what of Richard McCluskey and his wife? Why would they so dramatically change their version of events, the witness sighting between May 2007 and September 2007?

Personally I don't consider the McCluskeys to be of any great importance aside from perhaps being offered (and accepting) an incentive to elaborate on their original story but the Smith family is a whole different ball game.  Their circumstance could of course be on a par with the McCluskey i.e. they were offered an incentive to enhance their original story but that doesn't explain the Smiths prior extraordinary behaviour.

Whatever happened beforehand, there is a strong indication that both factions were persuaded to provide specific evidence following the return of the McCanns to the UK in September 2007.  The private investigation benefactor was none other than Brian Kennedy, the mega-rich double glazier ....

Thank you very much @Verdi for this careful and very well reasoned post about the extraordinary coincidence of Martin Smith, and Richard McCluskey, both suddenly contacting the police (in Ireland and in England) with claims to have 'recognised' Gerry McCann as the man they said they had seen carrying Madeleine back in May 2007 - based on a TV bulletin which showed Gerry McCann carrying his son Sean down from the plane at East Midlands Airport on Sunday 9 September - two days after he and his wife has been named formal suspects by the Portuguese Police.

As you suggest, it seems far, far too coincidental to be treated at face value. There must be more to it. 

I fully agree with the suggestion that both Smith and McCluskey may have been offered incentives and/or were persuaded to make these ridiculous claims. 

In the case of Martin Smith, it still seems incredible to me that anyone could take his claims of having 'recognised' Gerry McCann, based on a few seconds' video of him walking off a plane over four months after his original sighting. And as I've repeated so often on the SMITHMAN threads, his sighting...


* wasn't reported straightaway
* he waited 13 days to report it
* he says he was prompted by his son Peter allegedly 'phoning him and saying "Am I dreaming or did we see a young girl being carried down the street on the night Madeleine disappeared?"
* he only reported it immediately after someone he knew, Robert Murat, was made a suspect  
* he was absolutely sure that the man was not Robert Murat, although...
* his sighting was in the dark on a 'weakly lit' street
* he only saw the man for a few seconds
* he didn't get a proper look at his face 
* he said he would never be able to recognise him again
* he was only '60% to 80% certain anyway
* within three months of his 'recognising' Gerry McCann he was gaily working with Brian Kennedy, Kevin Halligen and Henri Exton to draw up two highly questionable efits in the search fo a phantom abductor
* he co-operated with the McCanns' Channel 4/Mentorn Media 'Mockumentary' in 2009
* he co-operated with Kate McCann's book 'madeleine' in 2011
* he allowed his sighting to be used on the McCanns' website from 2011, and
* he co-operated with DCI Andy Redwood of Operation Grange to produce a BBC programme, watched by 7 million, about a phantom abductor which put his very doubtful claimed 'sighting' right at the heart of the show - 'the centre of our focus', as Redwood put it.

---- 

If, as @Verdi has suggested, both Smith and McCluskey were offered and accepted 'incentives', or were 'persuaded' by someone (with which I agree), the question must be: who gave them him incentives; who persuaded them?

The question that naturally follows is: Cui bono? - Who benefits?


I suggest the answer is probably ROBERT MURAT, and those around him.

Why?

1 He was a formal suspect

2 He had been accused by Jane Tanner

3 He had been accused by Fiona Payne

4 He had been accused by Russell O'Brien

5 He had been accused by Rachael Mampilly/Oldfield

6 He therefore had a vested interest in getting back at the McCanns

7 The McCanns being made formal suspects gave Murat the opportunity for revenge.

8 Murat already knew Martin Smith, and I suggest they may have had a connection that runs rather deeper than we have been  told. It is very possible that Murat may have known McCluskey. 


In any event, the mysterious claims in September 2007 by Smith and McCluskey to have 'recognised' Gerry McCann seem to support the thrust of the MMRG article. 



.

Thank you, I'm delighted with this response - we can't allow Madeleine McCann to slip into the shadows, even if current news is at a virtual standstill.  The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann (CMOMM) and the Madeleine McCann Research Group (MMRG) will not give-up this worthwhile pursuance of justice for the little three year old child without a voice, until the bitter end.  

It would be extremely helpful if other members could contribute to this important thread - even if only by counter-argument.  As I've said elsewhere, you are not asked to agree with the content, your opinions as regards the content would be welcome.  How else can we iron out the creases?

Tony Bennett wrote:In the case of Martin Smith, it still seems incredible to me that anyone could take his claims of having 'recognised' Gerry McCann, based on a few seconds' video of him walking off a plane over four months after his original sighting.

This is a point that stands out above all else, particularly considering the Smith family allegedly witnessed the stranger on a dimly lit street at around 10:00 pm. To a lesser degree, the same can be said of the McCluskeys later identification of Gerry McCann having seen video footage of the McCanns return to the UK in September 2007.  But as I said, I don't consider McCluskey to be of any great importance;  There were quite a few seemingly odd sightings and incidental reports afloat within the first year following Madeleine McCann's alleged 'disappearance'.  Again, a strong indication that witnesses were being 'bought' by some very benevolent hand.  

The prominent figure here would appear to be the millionaire, Brian Kennedy, who after only a few minutes listening to the plight of the McCanns, was so convinced of their innocence he was prepared to hand them the services of his in-house legal team and finance their spokesman and various private detective agencies - with little or no experience of investigating abducted children.  If only we knew when, if ever, Brian Kennedy withdrew his financial backing.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15551-bearing-false-witness#391176

I don't wish to detract from this exemplary work by the MMRG and associates by turning this into another Martin Smith debacle. He does however, snugly fit-in with the Salsalito Summit hypothesis taken from the beginning - May 2007 and how events evolved with the passing of time.  Each part of this extensive research needs to be carefully viewed and weighed up bit by bit, to get the complete picture into perspective.

The argument presented, putting Robert Murat in focus in those early days makes a lot of sense.  Although I don't necessarily agree with some of the finer points, for example, when and why Robert Murat arrived in Luz in May 2007.  Looking through a wide angle lens, Sally Eveleigh is an intriguing piece of this protracted saga - she was/is obviously well connected, in particular the publicist Max Clifford, the imprisoned sex offender -  another red flag in my view.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t15043-unanswered-prayers-vanity-fair#384713

It is part of the odd dynamic of this story that when I phone Sally Eveleigh, Murat’s cousin, who also lives in Praia da Luz, her first remark is that she cannot utter a syllable about Murat without the O.K. of her British press agent, the famously rambunctious Max Clifford. And when his blessing is secured, her second is: “Wonderful, darling, see you shortly. Robert can’t talk to you, because he’s an arguido. But we’ll have a bit of a party, won’t we?”

When I arrive at her massive house, lined with rosy tile and Moroccan rugs, Sally greets me in floor-length blue voile trimmed with pretty stones. And the party includes Murat: five feet 10 inches, dark-haired, wearing beige trousers, serving us tea, wine, and cigarettes.
Vanity Fair

It actually makes sense to me.

The reported Vanity Fair encounter with Sally Eveleigh sounds a bit Bondesque to me.

The scruffy bloke with a paunch, the Robert Murat we've grown to know and distrust, doesn't quite fit in with the portrayed 007 image.



Was he playing down his true persona for some reason?

I need to look deeper into this.  At present, I can't decide whether he was a willing patsy when named arguido, or whether he was genuinely caught-up in the McCanns spin of media attention and other shenanigans.  It was after all a UK journalist, the Sun if I remember rightly,  who raised suspicions about Murat's behaviour.

The PJ at the time were investigating the case of a missing three year old child when Robert Murat appeared on the scene.  Apart from offering his services as an interpreter, certain PJ officers thought his movements suspicious - they would not have been aware of any outer strategy orchestrated by the McCann team and UK authorities.  If indeed such strategy was in operation.

In short, was Robert Murat working for the benefit of the McCanns when inopportunely fingered by the PJ, sending the whole plan off course?

Sorry, thinking out loud!