Scotland Yard to investigate Robert Murat again.

Daryl Dixon wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?

Maybe JT and the others didn't know 'he was in on it' and just told the PJ what they saw?


Edited to add: my thinking is that the Tapas group were unaware of what was happening.

Tony Bennett wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?

The facts are these.

Robert Murat was indeed 'stitched up' by:

1. Jane Tanner on 13 May (she ID'd Murat who walked by a police van she was sitting in)

2. Rachael Oldfield
3. Fiona Payne
4. Russell O'Brien - all on (if memory serves) 15 & 16 May

Arguably he was also 'stitched up' by:

5. MI5/British police profilers, who told Goncalo Amaral that Murat 'fitted the profile of the abductor 90%' (all set out in Amaral's book, 'The Truth About A Lie')

6. Control Risks Group and
7. Detective Superintendent Bob Small - both of whom advised and spoke to Jane Tanner in the hours before she ID'd Murat (who looked nothing like her initial description of the abductor on 4 May and nothing like Melissa Little's later drawing of 'Tannerman')

8. Lori Campbell of the Mirror and the Independent and
9. Clarence Mitchell, then the Head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit - both of whom pointed the finger at Murat in the early days

10.)
11.)
12.) At least five other people who in the months to come were to claim that they had also seen Murat 'hanging around the Ocean Club' late on
13.) 3 May
14.)   

That's one heck of a lot of people who 'stitched up' Murat.

Now look back for a moment at Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 above - NINE people.

All of these, one way or another, sooner or later, retracted their identifications of Murat.

These retractions cam over a period of months after the 'high summit' meeting between the Murat Team and the McCann Team at Salsalitas, the Burgau villa of Ralph & Sally Eveleigh, Murat's uncle and aunt, when Robert Murat and his mother squared up to Brian Kennedy, each flanked by their respective lawyers, Francisco Pagarete and high-ranking Freemason Edward Smethurst.

That was on 13 November 2007.

Look at the press reports from 1 January 2008 onwards, and you'll see how Nos. 1 to 4 and Nos. 10 to 14 all came out, sometimes via sources or spokesmen, to say things like 'I think I mistook Angus Symington/David Payne (take your pick) for Robert Murat'. The British press were helpfully provided by sources with photos of Symington and Payne looking as alike as possible to Robert Murat.

Who were those sources? 

Within the story of the 'stitching-up' of Murat, and then the sudden change of tack after the 'high noon' summit in the Eveleighs' villa, lies one of the keys to this mystery.

@ BlueBag    You asked:  "Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachael?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?@

REPLY: I don't yet know.

But I believe what I described above suggests a deliberate plan to get him named as a suspect, orchestrated by the British security services 

Tony Bennett wrote:

BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?

The facts are these.

Robert Murat was indeed 'stitched up' by:

1. Jane Tanner on 13 May (she ID'd Murat who walked by a police van she was sitting in)

2. Rachael Oldfield
3. Fiona Payne
4. Russell O'Brien - all on (if memory serves) 15 & 16 May

Arguably he was also 'stitched up' by:

5. MI5/British police profilers, who told Goncalo Amaral that Murat 'fitted the profile of the abductor 90%' (all set out in Amaral's book, 'The Truth About A Lie')

[...]]

Portuguese police investigating the disappearance of British girl Madeleine McCann are to question former suspect Robert Murat, the BBC has learned.

A source close to the case has told the BBC that Mr Murat, one of 11 people being interviewed by officers in Portugal, will be treated as a witness.

He has always denied any involvement in the disappearance and said that his conscience "is clear".

Madeleine was three when she went missing in Praia da Luz in May 2007.

Mr Murat was the first person to be declared a suspect or 'arguido' in the investigation and was later cleared by police in Portugal.

He won substantial damages from various media organisations and has always denied any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance.

'Conscience clear'

Speaking to the BBC from the Algarve, Mr Murat said neither he nor his lawyer had received a formal request to appear, but said he "would do so freely".

He said: "My conscience is clear and I have no problem speaking to the police again."

Mr Murat's wife has also been listed as one of the four witnesses the Metropolitan Police wish to have questioned regarding Madeleine's disappearance.

Four of the 11 speaking to police are being interviewed as witnesses and seven as 'arguidos' - a status in the Portuguese judicial system referring to individuals whom police may reasonably suspect are linked to a crime.

Robert Murat Mr Murat and his wife are understood to be due to speak to police
British detectives had been scheduled to fly out to observe the questioning next week, but this was postponed on Tuesday night, believed to be due to legal technicalities.

British police can sit in on the interviews but are not allowed to ask direct questions.

In June, Portuguese and British police searched three sites in the Algarve resort but found no evidence relating to the case.

The following month, four suspects, all Portuguese citizens, were questioned by Portuguese detectives in Faro but this led to no new developments.

The interviews were observed by officers from the Met Police, which is conducting its own investigation.

The McCann family were staying in an apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine went missing. Her parents had been at a restaurant near their apartment that evening.

The Met launched a fresh investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, codenamed Operation Grange, in July 2013.

The request to interview the 11 people of interest comes from Letters of International Request submitted to Portugal's Attorney General by British detectives from the operation.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "Scotland Yard is not prepared to provide a running commentary."

NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

The Met launched a fresh investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, codenamed Operation Grange, in July 2013

maebee wrote:

The Met launched a fresh investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, codenamed Operation Grange, in July 2013

They might be out by two years but at least there's no mention of Abduction. "Missing" and "disappearance" are a step in the right direction.

PeterMac wrote:

NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.

PeterMac wrote:

NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

Daryl Dixon wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

I fail to see what information Murat could possibly have as a witness when he was sitting indoors having cups of tea with his mum all evening. He was apparently unaware that a child had gone missing until the morning. It's a good job that he has such an ironclad alibi... provided by his mother, sigh.

Daryl Dixon wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

I fail to see what information Murat could possibly have as a witness when he was sitting indoors having cups of tea with his mum all evening. He was apparently unaware that a child had gone missing until the morning. It's a good job that he has such an ironclad alibi... provided by his mother, sigh.

BlueBag wrote:

Daryl Dixon wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

I fail to see what information Murat could possibly have as a witness when he was sitting indoors having cups of tea with his mum all evening. He was apparently unaware that a child had gone missing until the morning. It's a good job that he has such an ironclad alibi... provided by his mother, sigh.

Maybe he saw something between Tuesday evening and Thursday evening.

aiyoyo wrote:

PeterMac wrote:

NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.

He did not volunteer / come forward to speak to the PJ/SY when the investigation was reopened, that says something.

j.rob wrote:Given that, imo, this has all been some kind of giant scam, then you need to follow the money.

Which potential suspects have financially benefited as a result of the disappearance of Madeleine? (Of course a lot of people have benefitted financially from Madeleine's disappearance such as lawyers/detectives/spin doctors/PR and marketing firms/Sky/media in general. To name but a few. The ethics of this is all highly dubious, imo, but they are not potential suspects. More like vultures, really.)

Potential suspects who financially benefited from Madeleine's disappearance:

1. The McCanns - with The Fund to allegedly 'find' her but in reality to Carter Ruck themselves up to the eye-balls. And win libel suits to make more money.

2. The Tapas crowd - were awarded pay-outs from damages when the Express was sued for libel by Carter Ruck (a law suit at least partly funded by the general public - if The Fund had been used for legal costs?)

3. Robert Murat. Received £600,000 for the the 'stress and suffering' of being made a patsy (or so it would seem to me. As has been noted in a thread elsewhere, he was remarkably unfazed, despite what he claims and despite that ridiculously staged, imo, taped telephone conversation between Martin Brunt of Sky and Robert Murat. I'm convinced that was deliberately staged .)

BlackCatBoogie wrote:

j.rob wrote:Given that, imo, this has all been some kind of giant scam, then you need to follow the money.

Which potential suspects have financially benefited as a result of the disappearance of Madeleine? (Of course a lot of people have benefitted financially from Madeleine's disappearance such as lawyers/detectives/spin doctors/PR and marketing firms/Sky/media in general. To name but a few. The ethics of this is all highly dubious, imo, but they are not potential suspects. More like vultures, really.)

Potential suspects who financially benefited from Madeleine's disappearance:

1. The McCanns - with The Fund to allegedly 'find' her but in reality to Carter Ruck themselves up to the eye-balls. And win libel suits to make more money.

2. The Tapas crowd - were awarded pay-outs from damages when the Express was sued for libel by Carter Ruck (a law suit at least partly funded by the general public - if The Fund had been used for legal costs?)

3. Robert Murat. Received £600,000 for the the 'stress and suffering' of being made a patsy (or so it would seem to me. As has been noted in a thread elsewhere, he was remarkably unfazed, despite what he claims and despite that ridiculously staged, imo, taped telephone conversation between Martin Brunt of Sky and Robert Murat. I'm convinced that was deliberately staged .)

Yep follow the money.

And maybe I'd add the MSM itself as well j.rob

All imo

j.rob wrote:

BlackCatBoogie wrote:

j.rob wrote:Given that, imo, this has all been some kind of giant scam, then you need to follow the money.

Which potential suspects have financially benefited as a result of the disappearance of Madeleine? (Of course a lot of people have benefitted financially from Madeleine's disappearance such as lawyers/detectives/spin doctors/PR and marketing firms/Sky/media in general. To name but a few. The ethics of this is all highly dubious, imo, but they are not potential suspects. More like vultures, really.)

Potential suspects who financially benefited from Madeleine's disappearance:

1. The McCanns - with The Fund to allegedly 'find' her but in reality to Carter Ruck themselves up to the eye-balls. And win libel suits to make more money.

2. The Tapas crowd - were awarded pay-outs from damages when the Express was sued for libel by Carter Ruck (a law suit at least partly funded by the general public - if The Fund had been used for legal costs?)

3. Robert Murat. Received £600,000 for the the 'stress and suffering' of being made a patsy (or so it would seem to me. As has been noted in a thread elsewhere, he was remarkably unfazed, despite what he claims and despite that ridiculously staged, imo, taped telephone conversation between Martin Brunt of Sky and Robert Murat. I'm convinced that was deliberately staged .)

Yep follow the money.

And maybe I'd add the MSM itself as well j.rob

All imo

Yes indeed. I am still curious about the headline of that dreadful article -exonerating the McCanns - that Bridget O'Donnell - wife of TV drama director Jez Wilkins - who 'just happened' (Jez that is) to be in a crucial place at a crucial time that night and even bumped into Gerry on his alleged 'last check' - wrote, I think in December 2007 for The Guardian.

The title was: 'My months with Madeleine.'

????

Jez and Bridget are supposed to have met the McCanns that week on holiday so how could Bridget have had 'months' with Madeleine? Maybe Madeleine was supposed to have had months with Bridget? But, didn't because there was 'a disaster'.


IMO

• Share 93
  
  
  
  
• inShare4
  
• Email
  

• Bridget O'Donnell
  
• 
  
• The Guardian, Friday 14 December 2007