Re: The Mystery of Robert Murat: The 17 changes in his story

by DCB1 06.01.10 11:34

For me the strangest thing is that he failed to mention that he was at the supermarket (right next door to where the events happened) on the morning of 2 May. The area which the GNR dogs went to.

GM went to the supermarket that morning as well.

by vaguely 06.01.10 11:36

Was it a very quiet supermarket, or did anyone else pop in there that morning?

by DCB1 06.01.10 11:40

vaguely wrote:Was it a very quiet supermarket, or did anyone else pop in there that morning?

I've no idea - cafe as well with tables outside isn't it?

by **Jill Havern** 06.01.10 11:48

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

I wonder why this poster was put up in Baptista's supermarket window and what the secret is?

by vaguely 06.01.10 11:57

Jill, do you have a link for where the image is from? ty.

by **Jill Havern** 06.01.10 12:00

vaguely wrote:Jill, do you have a link for where the image is from? ty.

Yes, Martin Brunt took the photo and posted it on his blog along with this narrative:

"I found this tasteful advert prominently displayed in Baptista's supermarket down the hill from the Ocean Club in Praia da Luz from where Madeleine McCann disappeared two-and-a-half years ago.

I can't decide whether the Vila Luz marketing department should be fired for its stupidity or admired for its daring initiative.

And if it's the latter, what took them so long?"

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

by vaguely 06.01.10 12:02

by vaguely 06.01.10 12:04

I thought it was being linked to Murat.

It's actually a naff advert.

I had presumed it was because of the wording of it - very similar to the wording on a lot of new developments etc.

by Perelli 06.01.10 12:17

Tony Bennett wrote:
Perelli wrote:Has it never occurred to anyone that Murat might have had other reasons, totally unrelated to Madeleine McCann, for being a bit cagey and not totally honest...
Does that really explain why he concealed meetings with his lawyer and a top local businessman?

Why he avoided mentioning his 'phone calls to Michaela Walczuk and Sergei Malinka at 11.40pm on the very night Madeleine disappeared?

For that matter, what about the encrypted material on his computer, which we'll come to in our fuller article?

But I agree with you that he was 'not totally honest'. Murat himself claimed that he was 'tired and confused'.

Thanks for your reply Mr.Bennett, it is appreciated. To all of the above questions I can honestly reply - I DON'T KNOW the reasons why, however I can think of hundreds of non-Madeleine related reasons if I set my mind to it (which I won't), but the question remains, are you claiming that you do KNOW (i.e. Mr. Murat himself has told you about the motivation and reasoning behind his actions)?

I am sorry if I didn't make myself very clear, I didn't mean to imply that I have any view with regard to Mr. Murat's honesty (or lack of it), but there is a chance that he was telling the truth, maybe he WAS tired and confused?

by DCB1 06.01.10 12:50

vaguely wrote:I thought it was being linked to Murat.

It's actually a naff advert.

I had presumed it was because of the wording of it - very similar to the wording on a lot of new developments etc.

I am very surprised that one of the Portuguese forum people has not been there to ask what it means.

by Guest 06.01.10 12:54

Can't i say cough but not <>

by vaguely 06.01.10 13:00

DCB1 wrote:
vaguely wrote:I thought it was being linked to Murat.

It's actually a naff advert.

I had presumed it was because of the wording of it - very similar to the wording on a lot of new developments etc.

I am very surprised that one of the Portuguese forum people has not been there to ask what it means.

Well I guess that Mr Brunt cropped his photo to not include the website address and telephone number underneath.

by DCB1 06.01.10 13:04

vaguely wrote:
DCB1 wrote:
vaguely wrote:I thought it was being linked to Murat.

It's actually a naff advert.

I had presumed it was because of the wording of it - very similar to the wording on a lot of new developments etc.

I am very surprised that one of the Portuguese forum people has not been there to ask what it means.

Well I guess that Mr Brunt cropped his photo to not include the website address and telephone number underneath.

Ah !

by **Tony Bennett** 06.01.10 13:33

Perelli wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Perelli wrote:Has it never occurred to anyone that Murat might have had other reasons, totally unrelated to Madeleine McCann, for being a bit cagey and not totally honest...
Does that really explain why he concealed meetings with his lawyer and a top local businessman?

Why he avoided mentioning his 'phone calls to Michaela Walczuk and Sergei Malinka at 11.40pm on the very night Madeleine disappeared?

For that matter, what about the encrypted material on his computer, which we'll come to in our fuller article?

But I agree with you that he was 'not totally honest'. Murat himself claimed that he was 'tired and confused'.

Thanks for your reply Mr.Bennett, it is appreciated. To all of the above questions I can honestly reply - I DON'T KNOW the reasons why, however I can think of hundreds of non-Madeleine related reasons if I set my mind to it (which I won't), but the question remains, are you claiming that you do KNOW (i.e. Mr. Murat himself has told you about the motivation and reasoning behind his actions)?

No.

But let us look at the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance as a vast jigsaw, as yet very much uncompleted.

Any fact relating to one of the main 'participants' that week could be (I don't say is) a part of that jigsaw.

The more pieces we can accumulate, the clearer the picture becomes.

Put like that, a transcript of what Robert Murat talked about with his mother, his aunt, his uncle, his lawyer Francisco Pagarete, Brian Kennedy and Brian Kennedy's lawyer Edward Smethurst at that meeting at Vila do Bospo on 13 November 2009 would no doubt give us quite a few extra pieces.

by DCB1 06.01.10 13:37

13 November 2007

by vaguely 06.01.10 13:37

Tony Bennett wrote:
Perelli wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Perelli wrote:Has it never occurred to anyone that Murat might have had other reasons, totally unrelated to Madeleine McCann, for being a bit cagey and not totally honest...
Does that really explain why he concealed meetings with his lawyer and a top local businessman?

Why he avoided mentioning his 'phone calls to Michaela Walczuk and Sergei Malinka at 11.40pm on the very night Madeleine disappeared?

For that matter, what about the encrypted material on his computer, which we'll come to in our fuller article?

But I agree with you that he was 'not totally honest'. Murat himself claimed that he was 'tired and confused'.

Thanks for your reply Mr.Bennett, it is appreciated. To all of the above questions I can honestly reply - I DON'T KNOW the reasons why, however I can think of hundreds of non-Madeleine related reasons if I set my mind to it (which I won't), but the question remains, are you claiming that you do KNOW (i.e. Mr. Murat himself has told you about the motivation and reasoning behind his actions)?
No.

But let us look at the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance as a vast jigsaw, as yet very much uncompleted.

Any fact relating to one of the main 'participants' that week could be (I don't say is) a part of that jigsaw.

The more pieces we can accumulate, the clearer the picture becomes.

Put like that, a transcript of what Robert Murat talked about with his mother, his aunt, his uncle, his lawyer Francisco Pagarete, Brian Kennedy and Brian Kennedy's lawyer Edward Smethurst at that meeting at Vila do Bospo on 13 November 2009 would no doubt give us quite a few extra pieces.

Isn't that what the police should be doing?

by Guest 06.01.10 13:46

No the PJ are to busy torturing people to worry about collecting proper evidence.

by vaguely 06.01.10 13:51

ooh, low punch. I'm sure the majority of the PJ are decent folk who've been very let down by this incident.

by Guest 06.01.10 13:54

Ok, the original investigating officer

by Perelli 06.01.10 14:40

vaguely wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Perelli wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Perelli wrote:Has it never occurred to anyone that Murat might have had other reasons, totally unrelated to Madeleine McCann, for being a bit cagey and not totally honest...
Does that really explain why he concealed meetings with his lawyer and a top local businessman?

Why he avoided mentioning his 'phone calls to Michaela Walczuk and Sergei Malinka at 11.40pm on the very night Madeleine disappeared?

For that matter, what about the encrypted material on his computer, which we'll come to in our fuller article?

But I agree with you that he was 'not totally honest'. Murat himself claimed that he was 'tired and confused'.

Thanks for your reply Mr.Bennett, it is appreciated. To all of the above questions I can honestly reply - I DON'T KNOW the reasons why, however I can think of hundreds of non-Madeleine related reasons if I set my mind to it (which I won't), but the question remains, are you claiming that you do KNOW (i.e. Mr. Murat himself has told you about the motivation and reasoning behind his actions)?
No.

But let us look at the mystery of Madeleine McCann's disappearance as a vast jigsaw, as yet very much uncompleted.

Any fact relating to one of the main 'participants' that week could be (I don't say is) a part of that jigsaw.

The more pieces we can accumulate, the clearer the picture becomes.

Put like that, a transcript of what Robert Murat talked about with his mother, his aunt, his uncle, his lawyer Francisco Pagarete, Brian Kennedy and Brian Kennedy's lawyer Edward Smethurst at that meeting at Vila do Bospo on 13 November 2009 would no doubt give us quite a few extra pieces.

Isn't that what the police should be doing?

Maybe they already DID do that and that this is the very reason they decided that there were NO evidence to suggest any criminal activity and consequently none of the Arguidos were charged with anything? It COULD actually be that simple...

by Guest 06.01.10 14:44

two and a half years of antis whining and twisting wasted? How very dare you suggest something so simple Perelli?

by Perelli 06.01.10 15:39

PearlB wrote: two and a half years of antis whining and twisting wasted? How very dare you suggest something so simple Perelli?

Glutton for punishment, me thump

by littlepixie 06.01.10 18:53

I wonder if Murats wife is or ever was a Jehovas Witness or if she was just studying. Witnesses are not allowed to look at porn. I have an african carved fertility figure in my living room which has bare breasts.
I never gave it a second thought until I noticed that every time the Witnesses left my house this statue had its back to me. The first couple of times I thought it had been knocked accidentally then it dawned on me, after reading the Gods Love booklet, that this statue was very offensive to their beliefs. They simply could not look at it so I removed it.

Murat could have been trying to hide things from the Witnesses but what and why I have no idea.

by preciousramotswe 06.01.10 19:06

Robert Murat was taken for questioning on 14 May 2009 hours after Jane Tanner, a close friend of Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann, had identified him as the abductor she claimed to have seen walking away from the McCanns’ apartment at 9.15pm on the night Madeleine McCann was reported missing. Later Tanner was to deny that she had positively identified Murat as the abductor, but Murat was arrested and declared ‘arguido’ on the basis of her identification evidence and other suspicions about his activities during the days following Madeleine’s disappearance.

There is a BIG problem with this Tony, and it's one of the reasons why you need to be very careful.

There is simply no evidence that Tanner ever identified Murat as the man she had seen.

The only person who claims this is Amaral.

It is NOT in the files.

And given that Amaral has made other claims which have not held up to scrutiny, I advise you to be very careful about constructing an entire argument around this 'fact' which may be nothing of the kind.

In fact the PJ had extremely strong suspicions about Mr Murat which they had come to all on their own, and if they didn't they would never have made him arguido.

by preciousramotswe 06.01.10 19:14

Perelli wrote:Has it never occurred to anyone that Murat might have had other reasons, totally unrelated to Madeleine McCann, for being a bit cagey and not totally honest about his whereabouts and motives. We already know he had his finger in the pie of various ventures, property related and others (he seem to have been a bit of a Jack of all trades, to be honest). Not EVERYTHING under the sun has to do with this disappearance, people have lives and secrets and may have done things in the past that they wouldn't want everyone to know about. The inability to recognise this fact leads to a one dimensional and blinkered view of reality which ultimately gives rise to all this senseless speculation and one weird conspiracy theory after another being floated about. However, what it never leads to is finding the real truth about anything at all. JMHO

What's more Perelli, Murat's relationship with Michaela was frowned upon by his mother, if she even knew the full extent of it, and he was not allowed to take girlfriends to Casa Liliana.
In addition, her husband was not aware of the true nature of their affair and thought that Murat's frequent visits were simply business. Or at least that is what he told the police.

So Murat had plenty to hide. I think he freaked when he realised the spotlight was on him.