What Inspector Varanda thought about Robert Murat

by **Tony Bennett** 01.12.09 23:50

This report by Inspector Varanda on Robert Murat, dated 11 May 2007, is reproduced here courtesy of the Pamalam site:

Service Information document dated 11 May 2007 from Inspector Pedro Varanda relating to an informal conversation with Robert Murat

As you will know, Sir, on this day at 11h30, there appeared before the undersigned and (lady) Inspector Patricia Duarte, a British citizen called Diane Webster, holder of UK passport XXXXXXX, in order to hear her witness statement.

In the course of an informal approach that preceeded that work, it was determined that she was not conversant in Portuguese, written or spoken, and the service of an English-speaking interpreter was therefore called for.

In this function appeared a British citizen, Robert J.Q.E. Murat (duly identified in the files from previous work), official resident of Casa Liliana, Rua Ramalhete, Praia da Luz, Lagos.

The work [the DW interview] being concluded, and during an informal conversation that the undersigned began with that interpreter (as would be characteristic in this type of situation), Robert Murat displayed an unusual curiosity about the investigation that was developing around the disappearance of the minor Madeleine McCann that occurred on 3 May 2007.

As an example, it will be proper to point out that he has insistently and repeatedly questioned me about the identity of possible suspects, about the strategy outlined by the lead coordinator of the investigation and the work that might possibly have been considered for the coming days.

Faced with such an attitude, that was so unusual and absolutely inappropriate that I immediately became highly suspicious, I always ducked the questions, insistently requesting that person to be aware of the contractual duties pertaining to the role which he has assumed in this investigation, pointing out that it was presently the inquiry phase, and, naturally, covered by judicial secrecy.

It behoves me further to state that that suspicion became even more consolidated, following the fact that I became aware that Robert Murat would covertly attempt to catch glimpses of various procedural pieces i.e. items being prepared for the case file, that make up the present inquiry, to the point that I followed my own hunch, in order to conduct the Diane Webster interview.

Finally, and in the sense of reiterating the suspicious attitude shown by Robert Murat, I venture still to state that, beyond having manifested an enormous knowledge about the dynamics inherent in the functioning of the "Ocean Club Garden", in which the events under investigation had taken place, and of the routines followed by the McCann family and their companions during their respective stays in in Praia da Luz, he has tried persistently to influence the conduct of the present investigation, suggesting various analyses the agreement with which [i.e. had we agreed to follow those suggested lines of inquiry] could be intended to impute the perpetration of the present illegal act against the missing child to foreign third parties [i.e. to put the blame on, or to attribute the blame to, outside foreigners].

The above being laid bare - and without intending to place any competence on the above individual, nor the slightest imputation regarding my suspicions about what he actually intended to do - I have to bring the above incidents to your attention, in order for you to determine what may be appropriate.

11 May 2007
Inspector Pedro Varanda

++++++ ENDS ++++++

by Guest 27.12.09 23:13

It's not really common knowledge that Murat was translating witness statments before he was made arguido is it? Imagine the embarassment to the portuguese police if it was?

I wonder what was meant when he said that Murat had a great knowledge of the McCann's movements on holiday? bigshock

by **Tony Bennett** 27.12.09 23:22

Raffle wrote:It's not really common knowledge that Murat was translating witness statments before he was made arguido is it? Imagine the embarassment to the portuguese police if it was?

I wonder what was meant when he said that Murat had a great knowledge of the McCann's movements on holiday?

Perhaps Murat spoke to Gerald McCann after he flew back in a mad hurry at 5am on 1 May and before Madeleine was reported missing.

by Guest 27.12.09 23:27

Why would he have been in a mad hurry do you think?

by **Tony Bennett** 27.12.09 23:43

Raffle wrote:Why would he have been in a mad hurry do you think?

Because someone 'phoned him from Portugal and told him he was needed urgently.

He booked his flight ticket at 1.00am, pretty rare for someone who flies off 4 hours later!

by Guest 27.12.09 23:51

Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:Why would he have been in a mad hurry do you think?
Because someone 'phoned him from Portugal and told him he was needed urgently.

He booked his flight ticket at 1.00am, pretty rare for someone who flies off 4 hours later!

Except his activities could and indeed have been recorded and were easily checkable via the airline etc.

Now if he'd sneaked into Portugal on a dinghy in the middle of the night....... thinking

by Guest 27.12.09 23:57

Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:Why would he have been in a mad hurry do you think?
Because someone 'phoned him from Portugal and told him he was needed urgently.

He booked his flight ticket at 1.00am, pretty rare for someone who flies off 4 hours later!

Or spontaneous, like I've booked a flight to the UK once, I didn't even have time to book a hotel before I rushed to the airport.

Who would have phoned him from Portugal? Is it in the phone records?

by DCB1 28.12.09 0:01

Do the parts of your OP that you underlined remind you of any other case TB?

by **Tony Bennett** 28.12.09 0:01

Raffle wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:Why would he have been in a mad hurry do you think?
Because someone 'phoned him from Portugal and told him he was needed urgently.
He booked his flight ticket at 1.00am, pretty rare for someone who flies off 4 hours later!

Except his activities could and indeed have been recorded and were easily checkable via the airline etc.
Now if he'd sneaked into Portugal on a dinghy in the middle of the night...

You are surely joking, aren't you, Raffle?

You are surely aware that when interviewed on 10 and 11 July, Murat changed his story in at least 17 material respects from what he told police about his movements when first interviewed on 14 May?

Now why was his memory (cough) so poor on 14 May?

Here's his list of, er, 'recovered memories' if you want to check them:

A summary of Murat’s changes of story about 1, 2, 3 and 4 May

1. Remembers that on 1 May he tried to contact Jorge da Silva

2. Remembers that on 2 May he didn’t leave home at 10.30 but instead had a meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista Supermarket

3. He had in fact taken Michaela and Malinka back to his mother’s house in Praai da Luz for a further discussion, something he’d omitted to tell the police in the first interview

4. He now remembered visiting his bank and paying in 287.51 euros

5. He now remembered he’d called at the home of Francisco Pagarete, his lawyer, that morning

6. He now remembers that he had met Francisco Pagarete that afternoon

7. He now remembers that another of Jorge’s sons was present at their meeting in the café in the afternoon

8. The meeting in the café went on much longer than he had said previously

9. He thinks that Michaela Walczuk’s husband Luis Antonio may not have been present at Michaela’s house that evening, contrary to what he had previously said

10. On 3 May, he had not woken at 9.00am as previously stated, but at 8.00am

11. He had not driven to Michaela’s house after 10.00am as previously stated; instead he had left home at 8.45am for a 9.30am meeting with the owner of the business tourist complex called ‘Gold Bunker’ in the Espiche district and her father-in-law

12. He now remembered that he had visited two apartments for about 30 minutes, probably on the afternoon of 3 May

13. He and Michaela had lunch with them, a fact he had not disclosed to police before

14. Michaela’s daughter Christine was not with them that day contrary to his previous story

15. They went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, another fact Murat had failed to disclose

16. He now admitted to making two telephone calls, to Sergei Malinka and Michaela, at 11.39pm and 11.40pm that night

17. He previously said he had woken at 9.00am on Friday 4 May. He now admitted he had telephoned Michaela at 8.27am and must have got up earlier.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.12.09 0:03

Molly wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:Why would he have been in a mad hurry do you think?
Because someone 'phoned him from Portugal and told him he was needed urgently.

He booked his flight ticket at 1.00am, pretty rare for someone who flies off 4 hours later!

Or spontaneous, like I've booked a flight to the UK once, I didn't even have time to book a hotel before I rushed to the airport.

Who would have phoned him from Portugal? Is it in the phone records?

I think he and Michaela Walczuk said she 'phoned him. But I am not sure.

by DCB1 28.12.09 0:03

Yes he changed his first statements more than the tgroup changed theirs put together in relation to material facts.

by Guest 28.12.09 0:05

So, was there not enough evidence to charge him with anything relating to Madeleine, or did the police not do their jobs properly and investigate him correctly?

Massive embarassment to have a future arguido doing translations and having him privvy to what was going on in the investigation for the police though. I don't recall Amaral saying much about Murat though........

by **Tony Bennett** 28.12.09 0:10

DCB1 wrote:Do the parts of your OP that you underlined remind you of any other case TB?

Not really, but now that I've looked at the OP again, there are some parallels with Ian Huntley. As indeed Clarence Mitchell was very quick to point out to the world's media.

No doubt because it suited the McCann camp at the time, just as it suited Jane Tanner to identify glasses-wearing Murat as the abductor she'd seen a few days before, and just as it suited three of the 'Tapas 9' to swear blind that they'd seen Murat hanging round the apartments on the night of 3 May.

But their tune soon changed after Brian Kennedy and his in-house lawyer Edward Smethurst had a cosy fireside chat with Robert Murat and his Mum on 13 November.

I wonder what was discussed?

A possible libel award of six hundred grand, perhaps?

by DCB1 28.12.09 0:11

Raffle wrote:So, was there not enough evidence to charge him with anything relating to Madeleine, or did the police not do their jobs properly and investigate him correctly?

Massive embarassment to have a future arguido doing translations and having him privvy to what was going on in the investigation for the police though. I don't recall Amaral saying much about Murat though........

Don't forget his mum setting up a stall to collect information.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.12.09 0:12

Raffle wrote:So, was there not enough evidence to charge him with anything relating to Madeleine, or did the police not do their jobs properly and investigate him correctly?

Maybe both.

by Guest 28.12.09 0:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:Do the parts of your OP that you underlined remind you of any other case TB?
Not really, but now that I've looked at the OP again, there are some parallels with Ian Huntley. As indeed Clarence Mitchell was very quick to point out to the world's media.

No doubt because it suited the McCann camp at the time, just as it suited Jane Tanner to identify glasses-wearing Murat as the abductor she'd seen a few days before, and just as it suited three of the 'Tapas 9' to swear blind that they'd seen Murat hanging round the apartments on the night of 3 May.

But their tune soon changed after Brian Kennedy and his in-house lawyer Edward Smethurst had a cosy fireside chat with Robert Murat and his Mum on 13 November.

I wonder what was discussed?

A possible libel award of six hundred grand, perhaps?

Did Tanner in any statement ever say the person she saw was wearing glasses?

by Guest 28.12.09 0:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
Raffle wrote:So, was there not enough evidence to charge him with anything relating to Madeleine, or did the police not do their jobs properly and investigate him correctly?
Maybe both.

So why no leaflet?

by Guest 28.12.09 0:19

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:Do the parts of your OP that you underlined remind you of any other case TB?
Not really, but now that I've looked at the OP again, there are some parallels with Ian Huntley. As indeed Clarence Mitchell was very quick to point out to the world's media.

No doubt because it suited the McCann camp at the time, just as it suited Jane Tanner to identify glasses-wearing Murat as the abductor she'd seen a few days before, and just as it suited three of the 'Tapas 9' to swear blind that they'd seen Murat hanging round the apartments on the night of 3 May.

But their tune soon changed after Brian Kennedy and his in-house lawyer Edward Smethurst had a cosy fireside chat with Robert Murat and his Mum on 13 November.

I wonder what was discussed?

A possible libel award of six hundred grand, perhaps?

According to her Rogatory interview Jane didn't identify him as the man she saw on that night.
There's at least one more witness who's said she's seen him on that night.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.12.09 0:20

DCB1 wrote:Don't forget his mum setting up a stall to collect information.

Indeed not, DCB1, and a very interesting element of the whole story, if I may say so.

Strange, wasn't it, how Murat and his Mum both remember hearing police sirens at around 10.30pm but were about the only people in Praia da Luz not searching for Madeleine in those early hours?

And just what was it that made him 'phone Michaela Walczuk at 11.47pm that evening and his mate Sergei Malinka, who for some reason destroyed his hard drive before the police could examine it, just one minute later?

And, oh, lest we forget, this was another detail that Murat 'forgot' to tell the police about.

Until the police got hold of his 'phone and showed him the records.

Funny how he just couldn't remember making those calls and what he 'phoned them about.

Peculiar if you ask me.

If not suspicious.

by Guest 28.12.09 0:22

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:Don't forget his mum setting up a stall to collect information.
Indeed not, DCB1, and a very interesting element of the whole story, if I may say so.

Strange, wasn't it, how Murat and his Mum both remember hearing police sirens at around 10.30pm but were about the only people in Praia da Luz not searching for Madeleine in those early hours?

And just what was it that made him 'phone Michaela Walczuk at 11.47pm that evening and his mate Sergei Malinka, who for some reason destroyed his hard drive before the police could examine it, just one minute later?

And, oh, lest we forget, this was another detail that Murat 'forgot' to tell the police about.

Until the police got hold of his 'phone and showed him the records.

Funny how he just couldn't remember making those calls and what he 'phoned them about.

Peculiar if you ask me.

If not suspicious.

So why no leaflet on him? Honest question.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.12.09 0:25

Molly wrote:According to her Rogatory interview Jane didn't identify him as the man she saw on that night. There's at least one more witness who's said she's seen him on that night.

That Rogatory was in April 2008.

Tanner identified Murat - as the abductor she had seen - from the police van with the darkened windows. It was 'the way he walked', she said. (Murat must have walked 'purposely' ,then, much as I do when I set off from home at 5.25pm with a letter to post and have to catch the 5.30pm collection).

As a direct result of Jane Tanner's identification, Murat was arrested. She stuck to her story even after the artist's sketch of 'bundleman' came out in October 2007.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.12.09 0:26

Raffle wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:Don't forget his mum setting up a stall to collect information.
Indeed not, DCB1, and a very interesting element of the whole story, if I may say so.

Strange, wasn't it, how Murat and his Mum both remember hearing police sirens at around 10.30pm but were about the only people in Praia da Luz not searching for Madeleine in those early hours?

And just what was it that made him 'phone Michaela Walczuk at 11.47pm that evening and his mate Sergei Malinka, who for some reason destroyed his hard drive before the police could examine it, just one minute later?

And, oh, lest we forget, this was another detail that Murat 'forgot' to tell the police about.

Until the police got hold of his 'phone and showed him the records.

Funny how he just couldn't remember making those calls and what he 'phoned them about.

Peculiar if you ask me.

If not suspicious.
So why no leaflet on him? Honest question.

Be patient.

You won't have to wait long.

by DCB1 28.12.09 0:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
DCB1 wrote:Do the parts of your OP that you underlined remind you of any other case TB?
Not really, but now that I've looked at the OP again, there are some parallels with Ian Huntley. As indeed Clarence Mitchell was very quick to point out to the world's media.

No doubt because it suited the McCann camp at the time, just as it suited Jane Tanner to identify glasses-wearing Murat as the abductor she'd seen a few days before, and just as it suited three of the 'Tapas 9' to swear blind that they'd seen Murat hanging round the apartments on the night of 3 May.

But their tune soon changed after Brian Kennedy and his in-house lawyer Edward Smethurst had a cosy fireside chat with Robert Murat and his Mum on 13 November.

I wonder what was discussed?

A possible libel award of six hundred grand, perhaps?

Yes there is an apparent similarity with the Huntley case, as CM pointed out that journalists had picked up on.

I can't comment on the other parts of your reply.

by Guest 28.12.09 0:31

"Strange, wasn't it, how Murat and his Mum both remember hearing police sirens at around 10.30pm but were about the only people in Praia da Luz not searching for Madeleine in those early hours?"

The maintenance man didn't go searching either. But there's something else that's peculiar.
Murat/his mum have dogs. Before the police arrived people were searching, calling Madeleine's name. Surely the dogs should have barked as people were roaming around? So did they bark and why didn't they go outside to have a look or call the police? They should have known about the burglaries, the dogs could have been alerting to a burglar.

by littlepixie 28.12.09 0:37

I don't know Molly, where I work almost everyone I know within a mile radius has been burgled recently. I take all my dogs to work with me as sometimes I can't get home. I can't say they bark at every noise. Were there lots of burglaries that week in PDL?