Robert Murat - The Strongest Link?

Madeleine case - Robert Murat waits 10-years for TVi "peadophile" compensation

Paul Rees

A former suspect in the muratMadeleine McCann disappearance case, Robert Murat, has had a compensation award confirmed by Portugal’s Supreme Court of Justice which has ruled that TVi must pay up for calling him a paedophile.

The Court ruled that Robert Murat was fully justified in seeking compensation from TVi, which in 2007 had described him as a 'paedophile,' "in several live television broadcasts during news coverage of the case.

The ruling judges, under Fernanda Isabel Pereira, unanimously rejected the appeal that was lodged by the TV station and which helped drag the case on for ten years.

Murat will receive a payment of €16,000 from TVi and another €4,000 from the journalist who called him a paedophile, in a live broadcast in 2007.

The Supreme Court heard that the television station referred to Murat as a 'paedophile and that the police had found that “Murat frequented pages of sexual violence on the computer and communicated online through code messages."

The judges heard that Robert Murat, who lived in the Algarve at the time of Madeline McCann’ disappearance , "was jobless and economically dependent on his mother" and "was identified, pointed at and disturbed whenever he went out" and who received threats to his life and the lives of family members.

TVI argued that it limited itself to reporting facts already described by the Portuguese and foreign media, but the judges did not accept this argument.

The Supreme Court decided to uphold the earlier decision and compel TVi to pay the €16,000 to Murat and €4,000 from the journalist who offended him.

Murat was libelled in more than 100 articles in the British tabloid press over the disappearance of Madeline in May 2007..

Murat accepted more than £600,000 in damages from 11 UK newspapers after a hearing in the high court lasting less than seven minutes in July 2008.

The Daily and Sunday Express and Daily Star from Express Newspapers; the Daily Mail, Evening Standard, and Metro of Associated Newspapers; the Daily and Sunday Mirror and the Scottish Daily Record of the MGN group; and News Group's Sun and News of the World - acknowledged that the stories they had run about Murat over nine months were entirely untrue, should never have been made and were unreservedly withdrawn.

Murat’s friend Michaela Walczuch and Sergey Malinka, an IT consultant and friend of the other two, also received six-figure damages.

Among the false and highly defamatory allegations, many spread luridly across front pages, were claims that Murat and his friends had been part of a paedophile ring, that they had lied to the police, and that DNA evidence of Madeleine had been found in his house.

Robert Murat was one of the first defendants (arguidos) in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann on May 3, 2007, but there was never any evidence against him and the Briton was cleared early on.

One year for full compensation through the UK courts, ten years in Portugal while the public is assured by the government that everything is OK with the justice system.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I haven't time for this but here's the gist - sorry about the presentation, it's been copied over from a pdf..

The situation concerning the first suspect, ROBERT MURAT, will now be
approached, thus following a line of the succession of the facts, without
prejudice of returning to the description of occurrences further ahead.
A few days after the facts took place, suspicions were raised concerning an
individual that resides approximately 100/150 metres away from
apartment 5A, identified as ROBERT JAMES QUERIOL EVELEIGH
MURAT.

These suspicions arose initially due to the formulation by a British
journalist, who found the special commitment and curiosity of MURAT in
this case to be strange, which had reminded her of another [case] that had
taken place in the United Kingdom with similar outlines and where the
guilty persons had actively participated in searches.

The reasons for said suspicion are duly listed within the information that is
contained in the process, on pages 308, 328, 442, 461, 957, 960, 961 and
986 to 1000, being certain that they ended up being reinforced, some time
later, by elements of the holiday group that asserted, contrary to what
MURAT said, that he had participated in the searches on the evening of
the disappearance.

In an initial phase, before the investigation was deepened, this individual
gathered the conditions to be pointed out as a suspect. The conditions that
are intrinsic to his suspect status, can be analysed, as stated before, on
the routine reports that were mentioned above.

In order to confirm or dismiss the suspicions about ROBERT MURAT,
searches and telephone surveillance were requested, pages 995 to 1013,
both on the suspect and on the individuals with whom he directly or
indirectly interacted, namely with whom he met almost daily and
maintained telephone contacts.

Despite the exhaustive and methodical investigation into MURAT and the
persons close to him, no elements whatsoever were collected to relate him
to the crime that was under investigation, and it should be noted that
contrary to what witnesses within the group stated concerning his
hypothetical participation in the searches on the night of the
disappearance, other witnesses (like SILVIA BAPTISTA and elements of
the GNR) asserted that they had not seen him during those diligences.

Beyond the communication interceptions and forensic exams of the
computers belonging to them, which pointed to nothing useful, several
searches were also performed in the suspect’s home, as mentioned earlier,
with cino-technical assistance and exploration of the subsoil, both
physically and by technological detection means, which also did not allow
for the collection of exact evidence.

Be aware that, in relation to the utilization of very advanced technological
means, in the area of the detection of strange bodies in the subsoil or
enclosed [walled in], these were performed specifically by technicians from
Aveiro University, using equipment that allowed a detailed search of the
area.

This [research] continued in the same way in relationship to all the vehicles
of the group, with no results.

The homes and vehicles were examined in great detail by the Scientific
Police Laboratory, without finding any relevant vestiges.

The analyses of the telephone and electronic communications (reports in
appendix II) and the resultant correlation, had the same results.

In the interrogation headquarters, the suspect denied any involvement with
the process. The interviews with all the elements, with personal and
professional relationships with ROBERT MURAT, also did not deliver
anything of value as evidence.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

ANALYSIS REPORT OF THE FIRST 11 VOLUMES OF THE INQUIRY (pages 1-3004) Central Department of Criminal Investigation, February, 5th, 2008


INTRODUCTION

In the continuity of the work already developed in reference to the analysis of the communications (voice phone calls, SMS and MMS), we proceeded, by solicitation of the DIC of Portim', to the operational analysis of the Inquiry 201/07.0GALGS.

For that matter, we were delivered a copy, on digital format, of the 11 volumes (pages 1 to 3004), that constituted the process at that time; discs and maps with the registration of the phone contacts of the arguido Robert Murat, his mother Jennifer Murat, the witnesses Michaela Walazuch, Luis Antonio and Sergey Malinka; registrations and maps of the calls made from public booths in Praia da Luz; copies of the videos made during the cynotechnic searches.

With this amount of information (interviews, inquests, etc.), we pretended to clarify what had happened on the night of May the 3rd, 2007, in the apartment 5A, of the resort named Praia da Luz Ocean Club, and to find any element that could lead to the identification of the author of the facts.

To realize the requested analysis, it was used the informatics tools: Analyst Notebook V.6 and Excel, for the realization of the Graphs (charts) and tables, of which we annex those considered pertinent; and we used the database of this police ' SPO.

Throughout our work we were frequently contacted by colleagues that were on the field, in the attempt to verify if a certain mobile phone number had activated any antenna, of the 3 national operators, that serve Praia da Luz on any of the 3 days that we have registers for.
~~~~~~
METHODOLOGY

In the first phase, we proceeded to a careful reading of the files taking notes of the elements that could contribute, in any way, to the composition of the chronograms of the facts. From that reading is clear that much of the proof is testimonial.

So, at this phase, we compared the declarations of the Ocean Club's employees with the phone registries of the 3 operators, to figure out if there is any incongruence between the depositions made and their presence at the place, when they claimed that they were absent from that locality.

Following this line of reasoning it was determined that two witnesses ' Bernardino (page. 372) and Ecaterina (pag 596) ' activated one of the antennas, beyond the time that they stated having left that area.
After this phase, Excel tables were created based on the depositions of the different intervenients, the maps with the registry of the entrance and exits of the creches, the R.D.E. and other information. From these maps charts were created (in annex).

On these charts we find:
- Timelines of entities

- Boxes of events

[Note: figures are not exhibited here for difficulties with edition]

As the Analyst Notebook executes automatically the correlations that it finds on the tables with the data, it's up to the analyst to read it, and according with the results, to enunciate one or more hypothesis.

So, apart from the traces recovered on that occasion and on others, both from the apartment 5A, as from the residence of Robert Murat, and from its analysis, this report is based on the statements of the several intervenients that are translated on the annexed charts.

These are separated by the following types: first declarations; second declarations; third declarations; R.D.E.; Registry pages from the creches; telephone contacts; and others.

This categorization was made in order to find any discrepancy on the depositions of the different witnesses and arguidos. That is, we aimed to check if there were significant changes in their statements.

The statements were then reproduced on a graphic form, being the personal or group routines represented on daily graphs. For instance, if a witness declared that on the 29th had lunch at home, and that was their routine until the 3rd, that event will appear on the graphs for those days. Those situations can be observed when on the 'event's boxes' the word ROUTINE appears.

This procedure was adopted for the graphs based on the first depositions and Rs.D.E. The graphs for the second and second statements this method was not used, because we chose to make graphs for the new elements supplied by the witnesses, avoiding, this way, to repeat everything that had been done for the first depositions.
~~~~~~~~~~~~

Still on the kidnapping side, Robert Murat, at a certain time of the investigations, became a suspect of the crime.

Let's enumerate some facts that led to such a suspicion, and demonstrate some important aspects that must be taken into account by the investigation, that result from data within the files.

Reasons that led to the suspicion:

a) According to a British journalist, R. Murat started having suspicious attitudes close to those professionals of the British media. He didn't want to be photographed and didn't give any identification element apart from his nick name ' 'ROB' (pag. 308).

b) His residence was in the direction that, according to Jane, was taken by the unknown that was carrying a child (pag.46).

c) The attitudes taken by him and referred on page 329.

d) Anonymous denounce that suggests that he was an individual that frequently viewed sites of 'heavy sexual contents' (page 461).

e) His behaviour while acting as a translator, showing an unusual interest, that surpassed the functions for which he was nominated, he showed curiosity about the diligences that had been realised and the ones that were to be performed (pag 960, passim).

f) Having been present on the night of the facts, according to the declarations of Rachel Mampilly (pag 1296); Fiona Payne (1323) and Russell (page 1945).

From the analysis it results that Murat arrived in Portugal, coming from Britain on May the 1st, his mother went to get him from the airport (annex 68).

From the acts ('autos') it is deprehended that a very strong relationship exists between Robert and Michaela, and that they try to be together, whenever it's possible. On the same day of his arrival, immediately after passing by his home, he went to visit her in Lagos, where Michaela resides with her husband and daughter.

On the 2nd and 3rd, they declared to have been together. According to the antennas they activated, on those two days, they stayed within the Lagos area.

When they are not together they contact by mobile phone, which occurs at the end of the day, compare the annexes 68 and 75; and 70, 71 and 79.

On the 3rd, they were together all day, according to their statements that originated the annexes 70 to 72.

They met at 9:30h and were around the Lagos area in meetings and at Michaela's house. Around 19:30h, Murat left her place and returned to Praia da Luz. During the period they were together there are no phone contacts between the two.

They only establish that sort of contact at 23:20h, having Michaela called Murat after, according to the statements on pag 1184 and 1544, arriving home from the church meeting she frequents.

Only the witnesses Rachael Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien, without we understanding why, state that they saw him on the night of the facts, helping as a translator the members of the GNR. However they are the only ones to stand that. Several witnesses denied that fact. Some of those witnesses are residents at Praia da Luz and know Robert, from sight, for several years (annexes 72 and 73).

The mother refers that Murat stayed at home all the time, close to her, after having entered at 19:30h.
Nothing of interest resulted from the searches realised to his residence, that allowed to infer that he was involved, in any way, on the disappearance of Madeleine. That is, no traces of the presence of Madeleine were found on the places accessed by Robert.

The exams performed by the Medical Forensic Laboratory to the hair found at his residence and vehicles (pag 2426), the DNA recovered was of the haplotype of Robert Murat.

From the analysis realised to every communication, since November the 1st, 2006 until July 19th, 2007, of Robert, Michaela, Sergey, Jennifer and Luis Antonio, it's evident that Robert and Malinka only contacted each other 8 times, annex 87.

There is no relationship between Sergey and Luis Antonio, and between this last one and Robert, neither between those two and the residence of Robert Murat, between April 30th and May 4th (annexes 82 to 86).
~~~~~~~~~~~~

RECOMMENDATIONS

In the case of Murat, there are also no discrepancies on his statements.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

I'm aware Murat still gets discussed a lot.

My own personal opinion since that time, and it is only an opinion/feeling is that Murat wasn't directly involved at all.

Could it be that he is just somewhat of a busybody (an extreme busybody) the type who enjoyed getting involved and inserting himself, feeling important and useful.

Granted, nobody can deny that there were some questionable behaviour from him, all the lies be originally gave to police and then the changing of his story with these lies multiple times.

Perhaps he was indeed up to some sort of shady shenanigans in his personal/business life at that time, but not necessarily shady shenanigans to do with the McCann debacle.

I totally agree with you Farcical - I think it a case of trying to fit a square peg into a round hole to fill a few gaps, so to speak.

Take anyone on the planet and if you look hard enough you might find a link, a connection or reason to doubt but essentially it boils down to baseless supposition.

After nigh on 17 years and a hell of a lot of questions and discussion, I don't think Robert Murat was in any way involved in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann nor the aftermath.  He had history of interpreting for the police in Britain and abroad, I believe him to be someone who was just trying to help out - to assist in the trauma of a missing child, who wouldn't?

Weaving Murat into the web of deception again only discredits the official Portuguese investigation, he was thoroughly investigated by the Portuguese judiciary after being fingered by the British journalist and a few others - if there was any reason to suspect him they would have spotted it.  The same way as they very early on spotted discrepancies with the McCanns statements and that of their group of friends/acquaintances.

The odd thing here is Gerry McCann refusing to confirm or deny that he knew Murat, if I am remembering correctly.

CaKeLoveR wrote:The odd thing here is Gerry McCann refusing to confirm or deny that he knew Murat, if I am remembering correctly.

I hear what you're saying. There could be another reason for this though. Perhaps he had met Robert Murat, maybe even after the disappearance, in some passing capacity? So he couldn't actually say 'no' he'd never met him.

Farcical wrote:

CaKeLoveR wrote:The odd thing here is Gerry McCann refusing to confirm or deny that he knew Murat, if I am remembering correctly.

I hear what you're saying. There could be another reason for this though. Perhaps he had met Robert Murat, maybe even after the disappearance, in some passing capacity? So he couldn't actually say 'no' he'd never met him.

But didn't also want to say 'yes' as he was becoming aware that Robert Murat was being looked at, and didn't want any association, even if that association was just a passing, brief meeting?

A lot of these bit part players have enjoyed their fifteen minutes; and most of them have been less than truthful. Poor Madeleine.

i do agree.

nothing happens in a vacuum. there is always happening all kind of stuff in the lives of other people around, and it is always difficult to get a good look in which of these are also part of a case, this case or just other business.

people have there own needs and important things in their life and it can make a lot of noise, but for the case at hand it is a lot of noise too.

it was not only because the eyes of the police came out, but also the public and the media. 

and there was enough that could be harmed in name and reputation. there was even quite a lot of new investment. try to sell the ultimate 'holiday experiences', if the public thought is isn't that the place they nick children from their beds. tourism was the employer for many. 

and even to see sentiments and the result in approach change here and there, is because they just have to keep up with the flow of thought about the case.

i think it helped the mccann's a lot at times, but after the case already happened. i do still not see enough to that the timeline and story was not in the hands of the mccann's, until the gnr arrived.
they did not have to play the amateur, because they are amateurs. 

and i do not like to discredit the first portuguese investigation. first because they still do know much more than i ever can, and information you have can lead to a complete different picture. and i can not even think or find a case that needs so much people, who never had any training in hoe to keep stuff secret and still being able to keep their mouths shut. also by my own experiences, it is and was embarrassing how crooked people, who did really awful things could do it, without it ever became known to people living with them. and even often ended up to assist without having ever known what they had been assisting. 

and people do use other people very often, without the other party knows or even understand they are used. and if they found out, that is easy getting into deep emotions, and ends up a lot of times in not seeing a way out anymore. these others have lives too, important things in their lives, they feel a need to protect. 

it would even be very unique if the case of madeleine mccann was truly the only case with crimes involved that evening, and most would not have been found out for some time, and besides right our criminal, there is also shady business too. most still within the law, but not to show of in public. 

murat was probably of the last group, a local fixer. he probably is still somewere a local fixer. small cake. he works by talking. is it an example of the upstanding citizen, no, but that does not tell he is truly part of this case for me. 
shady stuff with investments in holiday lets, setting up businesses or most likely just lines and networks that deliver what the local market asks, yes, he is your man. that swinger element, there are people into that, and that means, you can find people who organize it. but because it also happens, is not making it part of a case you have to work. 

murat had already a network, he has roots in the algarve, he had a network. and we are not asked to agree with things in his lifestyle, we are not even asked to understand it, or why others do it. 
there are elements in the files to get into a conclusion, it was financially not a very successful time in the business as usual by murat. he just saw a opportunity, maybe not direct, that could have been just a member of the public that wanted to help. being seen with the local police, could have build up trust in other people around. could have give him more authority in later events he would or could exploit later on.

even when you can write out all elements that became known about murat, do not forget we know of most of them because the sole purpose of that information and the gathering of it was to see if he fitted in the case of madeleine mccann.

even if you end up with overlapping timelines, of mostly partly overlapping, it does not tell they are or must be part of one single timeline, just happening parallel is a real thing. telling lies does not mean you must be part of something in this case, but only he had a reason for himself to hide something, and that could be just something that was important for only him. people have often just their very own reason, it can even be different from one moment to the next. i do not have to know if it is a good reason, because it is not mine, but theirs. and some people are just doing it out of habit. 

did this guy needed to be looked in, yes. it is the type of guy, you get a sniff of uneasiness easily. and if your nose gets that smell, it needs looking into, not because you know, but you want to be sure what it means in and for your case. he has enough points that could translate into possibilities in the case. the distance, and local knowledge and doing shady business was already enough. his nosiness too. he was no longer only there in the investigation to help out, he was working already for his own. he did seek connection to the uk media, and that could mean money for an exclusive. or at least free drinks in a bar, nice lunches and being advertised as the fixer. he was just eating from all sides. 

and even if , and usually you simply will always find points that keep a question mark, you do not have to discard them, but there can be enough other information that put it to a much lower grade on the board. 
information in an investigation is never thrown out, because new information can and will you look from the next angle to the same older information again. 

the figure of murat is very common in all larger investigations, even many smaller ones, and if you give them space they can become quite a nuisance, it are hardly the kind you will trust easily. 

and i realize i have a quite high standard for what i call evidence. and even for facts. both are during an investigation never more than possible evidence and possible facts, because it is not the goal of the investigation to prove both, that part will always be up to the courts. only there is can become evidence or a fact. my mind is trained in that way. all i could deliver has to serve a purpose in the court later on. 

can i say i am 100% sure murat is not an element in this case, no. going by the material that is there from the investigation, i can not give him a higher qualification in this case. but there is room for other cases in that area. also he became an element after the gnr got in this case. all before that moment on may 3 2007 does not meet my own threshold of proven influence before that moment. 

the information that is mostly used for that, needs counter information to get it from a parallel event into just one and the same. for me it always must be the information itself, that tells its meaning, not just fill it in with all possible meanings there could be.  it must be the information that guides, not how it does fit. guiding is allowed but not endless. because of the risk it becomes only your own opinion, and not a factual one.
and yes, i am quite a hardliner in that.