RM vs JT

by aiyoyo 11.08.10 3:52

From Blacksmith recent handful of articles pertaining to it and from what I can gather the case is still before the Judge for determining whether charges are good to go ahead, but chances iffish....

Lots of disinformation and obfuscation in the background.
Afaiu, 'refrigerator van' surveillance not on files (as in removed), and insinuation that maybe the identification just a fig of Inspector Amaral's imagination. But, maybe not so..Lucky thing, thanks to Bob Small involvement, files can still be found in UK drawers.

All very confusing - why is everything pertaining to the lying pairs and chummies so complicating?

Also there's tint of hint mccanns 'secret rendevous' with Theresa May maybe related to this case, as in they're seeking for files info to be released to them.

by aiyoyo 11.08.10 11:51

http://blacksmithbureau.blogspot.com/

by **Tony Bennett** 11.08.10 13:23

aiyoyo wrote:From Blacksmith recent handful of articles pertaining to it and from what I can gather the case is still before the Judge for determining whether charges are good to go ahead, but chances iffish....

Lots of disinformation and obfuscation in the background.

You can say that again.

Or, rather, I will.

Lots of disinformation and obfuscation in the background.

And some of it I daresay coming from 'Blacksmith'.

The FACT of Jane Tanner identifying Robert Murat from the police van and the surrounding involvement that very day of Control Risks Group personnel and Bob Small of Leicestershire Police talking to Jane Tanner beforehand are central to an understanding of the case as a whole.

The so-called '100 words' about this in Amaral's book are well worth reading, re-reading and commiting to memory.

As we read them, we would do well to dwell on, inter alia, these questions:

1. Why Lori Campbell a few days previously had pointed the entire British press in the direction of Robert Murat as the likely suspect

2. Why Murat left in a considerable hurry for Praia da Luz on the morning of Tuesday 1 May

3. Why in his statements to the PJ on 10 and 11 July Murat changed his statement made to the PJ on 14 May in at least 17 different material respects

4. Why Jane Tanner (according to Amaral) was adamant that it was Murat she saw on 3 May when in fact Murat bore very little resemblance to the man in mustard chinos she purported to have seen on 3 May

5. Why there was a carefully stage-managed series of newspaper stories about Jane Tanner and the McCanns between November 2007 and January 2008 gradually shifting their focus away from Robert Murat as the suspect (this is documented in our article about Murat at www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk - Articles)

6. Why Brian Kennedy and his lawyer Edward Smethurst met with Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete on 13 November 2007

7. Why the 'pro's are over-zealously trying to deny that Tanner DID identify Murat on 13 May as Amaral states.

P.S. I have said all along that there is no Murat v Tanner court case, all that may have happened is that for cosmetic and disinformation purposes some court paper or other may have been filed back in 2008, but I'm sure there was never any intent on Murat's behalf to continue with this, especially after he got his six hundred grand. I can't undertstand why people keep bringing it up

by aiyoyo 11.08.10 15:48

Tony Bennett wrote:
aiyoyo wrote:From Blacksmith recent handful of articles pertaining to it and from what I can gather the case is still before the Judge for determining whether charges are good to go ahead, but chances iffish....

Lots of disinformation and obfuscation in the background.
You can say that again.

Or, rather, I will.

Lots of disinformation and obfuscation in the background.

And some of it I daresay coming from 'Blacksmith'.

The FACT of Jane Tanner identifying Robert Murat from the police van and the surrounding involvement that very day of Control Risks Group personnel and Bob Small of Leicestershire Police talking to Jane Tanner beforehand are central to an understanding of the case as a whole.

The so-called '100 words' about this in Amaral's book are well worth reading, re-reading and commiting to memory.

As we read them, we would do well to dwell on, inter alia, these questions:

1. Why Lori Campbell a few days previously had pointed the entire British press in the direction of Robert Murat as the likely suspect

2. Why Murat left in a considerable hurry for Praia da Luz on the morning of Tuesday 1 May

3. Why in his statements to the PJ on 10 and 11 July Murat changed his statement made to the PJ on 14 May in at least 17 different material respects

4. Why Jane Tanner (according to Amaral) was adamant that it was Murat she saw on 3 May when in fact Murat bore very little resemblance to the man in mustard chinos she purported to have seen on 3 May

5. Why there was a carefully stage-managed series of newspaper stories about Jane Tanner and the McCanns between November 2007 and January 2008 gradually shifting their focus away from Robert Murat as the suspect (this is documented in our article about Murat at www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk - Articles)

6. Why Brian Kennedy and his lawyer Edward Smethurst met with Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete on 13 November 2007

7. Why the 'pro's are over-zealously trying to deny that Tanner DID identify Murat on 13 May as Amaral states.

P.S. I have said all along that there is no Murat v Tanner court case, all that may have happened is that for cosmetic and disinformation purposes some court paper or other may have been filed back in 2008, but I'm sure there was never any intent on Murat's behalf to continue with this, especially after he got his six hundred grand. I can't undertstand why people keep bringing it up

Meaning what?

The UK police cooperating with HMG under coercion - a big conspiracy to protect mccanns?

RM was part of the conspiracy, idea planted by the UK govt?

He agreed to be a subtle patsy for an undisclosed sum? Compensation from UK press, plus maybe ? sum from BK?

Why then did he return to PT 2 days earlier before demise of MBM?
was MBM already dead by then?

The idea to Identify him from a van originated from Bob Small?
This style of operation in breach with accepted practice in PT? to discredit Amaral?

Why did Amaral testify for RM....or is it a disinformation? There has never been a filing, Blacksmith was deliberately obsfucating matter?

Why did RM agree to get his name drag in the mud? Money?

No wonder the case is not solved.

by Judge Mental 11.08.10 16:16

3. Why in his statements to the PJ on 10 and 11 July Murat changed his statement made to the PJ on 14 May in at least 17 different material respects

4. Why Jane Tanner (according to Amaral) was adamant that it was Murat she saw on 3 May when in fact Murat bore very little resemblance to the man in mustard chinos she purported to have seen on 3 May

5. Why there was a carefully stage-managed series of newspaper stories about Jane Tanner and the McCanns between November 2007 and January 2008 gradually shifting their focus away from Robert Murat as the suspect (this is documented in our article about Murat at www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk - Articles)

6. Why Brian Kennedy and his lawyer Edward Smethurst met with Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete on 13 November 2007

by Judge Mental 11.08.10 16:17

6. Why Brian Kennedy and his lawyer Edward Smethurst met with Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete on 13 November 2007

6. Why Brian Kennedy and his lawyer Edward Smethurst met with Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete on 13 November 2007

6. Why Brian Kennedy and his lawyer Edward Smethurst met with Robert Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete on 13 November 2007

by aiyoyo 12.08.10 8:38

Alright, I concede the meeting can't be to exchange pleasantry.

So what's the conclusion?

by **Tony Bennett** 12.08.10 8:54

aiyoyo wrote:Alright, I concede the meeting can't be to exchange pleasantries. So what's the conclusion?

Of course, we can't come to a conclusion.

Like so many things in this case, it is kept secret, so we are left to speculate.

For example, Dr Kate Mcann assured us that she knew 'instantly' at 10.00pm on 3 May 2007, when she says she entered her apartment, that Madeleine had been abducted. When asked the simple question: 'How did you know?', she hid behind the convenient cloak of "I can't say anything at all about that because of Portugal's strict judical secrecy laws which prevent me saying anything about an ongoing investigation". Not that that stopped the McCanns from picking and choosing bits of the investigation that they WERE happy to talk about.

But she has failed to answer that question ever since.

Why?

One thing we can be absolutely sure of, if two high-powered lawyers were present, is that weighty legal matters were being discussed between Kennedy and Murat. I would think also that it is by no means unreasonable to speculate that the two men were involved in some kind of 'deal', perhaps with something in the nature of a legally binding contract between the two men being drawn up and signed.

It was of course an outrageous breach both of Portugal's strict judicial secrecy laws - and drove a coach and horses through Portugal's ban on anyone interfering with an investigation - for Kennedy to meet and discuss the Madeleine McCann case with a declared arguido.

Put that together with - according to Mark Hollingsworth - Kennedy's men interfering with potential witnesses in the case to such an extent that they were intimidated into not talking to the Portuguese police, and some of us may feel that Kennedy was more than a tad fortunate not to end up in a Portuguese court charged with quite serious offences.

And I've not even mentioned the Kennedy-inspired '24-hour stake-out' yet!

by aiyoyo 12.08.10 9:30

Oh I realised the lawyers were brought along for a reason, and that it's got to do with legally binding some sort of 'DEAL'.......if accepted?

What I fail to understand is why a 'blood money deal' is done so overtly and not covertly?

Did he agree to accept $X for reputation in mud, that prohibits him from ever suing the finger pointers?

So is the RM vs JT case a forum myth? Anyone?

by aiyoyo 13.08.10 8:18

On the other hand, both sides could have invited lawyers along to make sure they didnt incriminate themselves.

If it was about a deal, it could have been done more secretively...the fact that it was done covertly may suggest RM didnt know what to expect at the meeting.......just my opinion.