Clarence

If the McCann's are prosecuted, I predict:


Clarence will say that he knew all along and that he has spent the last 6 years working undercover assisting the police with their investigations.


He's going to emerge from this smelling of roses ...pink roses 

Poe wrote:If the McCann's are prosecuted, I predict:


Clarence will say that he knew all along and that he has spent the last 6 years working undercover assisting the police with their investigations.


He's going to emerge from this smelling of roses ...pink roses 

I rather doubt that, as he would have to pay back almost £1/2m in wages.

if not commenting due to operation grange, why have they needed a spokesman anyway, Maybe he does other work for them now in that fund or on line /checking deleting  work:thumbsupa: for them etc!!

Peneda Geres wrote:
I rather doubt that, as he would have to pay back almost £1/2m in wages.

We don't know the terms of his contract, who he actually works for or who pays him. Does his salary appear to come from the fund? If so that could simply be another money laundering opportunity.

In my opinion, Clarence is a wily old snake who knows only too well how these things work. There's no way he'd risk his neck for the McCanns or anyone else.


Anyway, this is just my opinion. I wanted to put it out there so that if I'm right, I can pretend to be super-intelligent but if I'm wrong ...well ....let's just say I won't be too upset 
.

half a million in wages to Mitchell,  hmm not bad work if you can get it.    If Mr. and Mrs. have been paying his wages, then I think they need to state publicly why they needed to make mortgage payments out of the fund which was set up to look for Maddie.

I don't think I will ever get over  hearing the news about the mortgage repayments.  If I had done that I would hang my head in shame, never mind going on tv and whining about how unfair they have been treated by newspaper and joining hacked off etc. etc.

Plebgate, I don't think I've ever seen two people who thought the world revolved around them more than these two; according to them everyone else except themselves is to blame for everything.

I have always wondered just what Clarence was doing getting involved with all this. Having just read a bit about his background, now I think I know, who is best placed for all the inside story irrespective of whether Madeleine is found alive, or whether some other evidence surfaces regarding who is responsible for her disappearance, or whether the McCanns themselves were involved. Oh yes, it's Clarence, ready to cash in, whatever the outcome, he can't lose in that respect can he?

suzyjohnson wrote:I have always wondered just what Clarence was doing getting involved with all this. Having just read a bit about his background, now I think I know, who is best placed for all the inside story irrespective of whether Madeleine is found alive, or whether some other evidence surfaces regarding who is responsible for her disappearance, or whether the McCanns themselves were involved. Oh yes, it's Clarence, ready to cash in, whatever the outcome, he can't lose in that respect can he?

I think he can.   He never, so far as I know used the form of words "The McCanns want me to say on their behalf . . ., or The McCanns want to make it clear . .   or The Mccanns wish to deny  . . ."
He always spoke in the first person, as if he had the evidence and the knowledge of what he was saying.
If and only IF, evidence surfaces about who was really responsible, I think he can and should be taken to the cleaners.
Even investigated for attempting to pervert, or obstruction.

Not sure about that one PeterMac, Clarence, presumably, wasn't responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, and is only giving his opinions on the basis of what he knows. He might end up looking like a bit of an idiot, but surely he can't be prosecuted for anything?

After all half the British press are saying similar things to what Clarence is saying ........

suzyjohnson wrote:Not sure about that one PeterMac, Clarence, presumably, wasn't responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, and is only giving his opinions on the basis of what he knows. He might end up looking like a bit of an idiot, but surely he can't be prosecuted for anything?

After all half the British press are saying similar things to what Clarence is saying ........

***
Or saying WHAT Clarence is saying. Until they get a green light, of course

I have to say, though, that I've been always puzzled WHY it was the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit, who was delegated to Foreign Office to go and speak for the McCs.

According to Kate it was CM who put himself forward for the job. But I found it strange that from the very start the parents of a missing child would need (and paid for) a media monitoring service. Surely searching for Madeleine is a lot more important than searching through words?

If and big IF the evidence emerged of the perpetrators, Pinky will find himself rowing up stream without a paddle on the same canoe with his notorious clients.
He'll become more infamous than he can ever imagine at best, and at worst he'll end up in the next cell as his infamous clients, for having helped them perverting the course of justice.

On the back of his exemplary performance (deception) he can't say he was merely blindly following clients' instructions, that won't wash especially if you take into context his lies about Leh sighting etc etc - that went beyond acting for clients.

For that matter even CR will become even more notorious for their fearsome position (or disposition) than they dreamed.

Mitchell's another full of his own self importance. I loved it when Jon Gaunt kicked his pink ass.  I think you are right Aiyoyo and if Michell is in the "know" he's in trouble. If he's not you'll know when the shit hits the fan, he'll drop them like a hot potato. Then wait for the back peddling.

Châtelaine wrote:I have to say, though, that I've been always puzzled WHY it was the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit, who was delegated to Foreign Office to go and speak for the McCs.

 Just a reminder of this, reported on the forum a couple of years back:

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

On 23 July 2011 I wrote this letter to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office FOI Act Section:

From: Anthony Bennett M.A.
66 Chippingfield
Essex
CM17 0DJ

Tel:               01279 635789      

e-mail: ajsbennett@btinternet.com

Saturday 23 July 2011

Foreign Secretary

Att. Freedom of information Section
King Charles Street
LONDON
SW1A 2AH

Dear Sir/Madam

re: Freedom of Information Act 2000 Request: Foreign Office briefings to Clarence Mitchell re the McCanns in 2007

On 31 January 2008, the Daily Mail reported as follows:

QUOTE

“British police and child protection officers do not suspect Madeleine McCann's parents of involvement in her disappearance, the couple's spokesman said.

Clarence Mitchell said officials had assured him in private briefings that they were treating the case as one of ‘rare stranger abduction’.

He was speaking last night as he launched an outspoken attack on the "appalling" standards of some media coverage of the disappearance of Kate and Gerry McCann's daughter in Portugal in May”.

UNQUOTE

The report followed his speech at a meeting titled: ‘The McCanns and the Media’ at the London School of Economics the previous day (30 January 2008).

These ‘private briefings’ appear to have been provided by, inter alia, staff of the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, hence my addressing my Freedom of Information Act request to yourself.

In response to my FoI Act request of December 2007 [ FOI 0010-08 (CONS 03/2008) ]on related matters, you replied: “Clarence Mitchell was seconded by the Central Office of Information, where he was the Director of the Media Monitoring Unit, to the Foreign and Commonwealth Office, on 21 May 2007”.

At the time Madeleine McCann disappeared, Clarence Mitchell was working as the Head of the Media Monitoring Unit at the Central Office Information, and based I understand in the Cabinet Office.

My questions are:

(1) How many ‘private briefings’ of Clarence Mitchell were held either by Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff, or which were attended by Foreign and Commonwealth Office staff?

(2) On what dates?

(3) Who else attended those briefings?

(4) Who gave the briefings? - please name all Foreign and Commonwealth Office officials who gave those briefings

(5) Did the officials brief that this was a case of ‘rare stranger abduction’ only, or did they brief about other possibilities?

I await hearing from you.

Yours faithfully

Anthony Bennett


+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++


The gist of their reply was this:

"I apologise for the delay in answering your request but it was important that we conducted the necessary searches for information you requested. However, after extensive searches, I can confirm that the Foreign and Commonwealth Office does not hold any information relating to 'private briefings' attended by Clarence Mitchell".

And that's it!

Puzzling indeed!

As the meaning is not clear as to whether CM lied as in there was no private briefing as he claimed, or FCO did not keep record of Private Meeting.

I think CM bluff has been called out.

If he's lying through as many teeth for his clients, there must be a reason for that. He's up shit creek if and when investigators knock on his door.

Isn't it ironic? Mitchell has been very vocal in telling us that the McCann's had NOTHING to do with their daughter's disappearance, but was only too ready to pin it on Murat.

"Clarence Mitchell was also involved in the coverage of the Soham murders. Clarence Mitchell made comparisons between this case and the case of Maddie McCann by saying, "An outcome similar to Holly and Jessica is possible. I don't want to, and I can't, talk about Robert Murat but some journalists who worked with me in Soham, and that were now in Portugal, saw resemblances between that case and Robert Murat. And I won't say more."

http://gerrymccan-abuseofpower-humanrights.blogspot.co.uk/2008/08/clarence-mitchell-ongoing-profile.html

What is equally puzzling is why did Murat not sue CM for setting him up as patsy.

aiyoyo wrote:If and big IF the evidence emerged of the perpetrators, Pinky will find himself rowing up stream without a paddle on the same canoe with his notorious clients.
He'll become more infamous than he can ever imagine at best, and at worst he'll end up in the next cell as his infamous clients, for having helped them perverting the course of justice.

On the back of his exemplary performance (deception) he can't say he was merely blindly following clients' instructions, that won't wash especially if you take into context his lies about Leh sighting etc etc - that went beyond acting for clients.

For that matter even CR will become even more notorious for their fearsome position (or disposition) than they dreamed.

I have a feeling he will regret telling the public to 'stick the money in an envelope and post it to Rothley'.  Wonder if he thought up the collection boxes around the resort, or maybe that was one of Gerry's, once he realised that they did indeed need lots of money in their time of crisis. perhaps at the time of his epiphany, the Good Lord told him to find buckets and label them 'Give Generously', who knows. 

For anyone who's interested I have put a longer version of my earlier post on my blog.

Aiyoyo, I can only suppose Murat has not had access to the same money that the McCanns have for suing people.

I have always felt really sorry for Murat and what he has been put through, when he was only trying to help by translating. 

Thank God for Martin Smith, when he was asked could he have seen Murat carrying Madeleine at 9.50pm on May 3rd, he said he knows Murat and he was certain it wasn't him

suzyjohnson wrote:Aiyoyo, I can only suppose Murat has not had access to the same money that the McCanns have for suing people.

I have always felt really sorry for Murat and what he has been put through, when he was only trying to help by translating. 

Thank God for Martin Smith, when he was asked could he have seen Murat carrying Madeleine at 9.50pm on May 3rd, he said he knows Murat and he was certain it wasn't him

He got more money than the mccanns got from suing the press.

suzyjohnson wrote:I have always felt really sorry for Murat and what he has been put through, when he was only trying to help by translating. Thank God for Martin Smith, when he was asked could he have seen Murat carrying Madeleine at 9.50pm on May 3rd, he said he knows Murat and he was certain it wasn't him

suzyjohnson, I have a polite question for you.

How can you feel sorry for Robert Murat when, as has been discussed on this forum many times, he blatanly lied on at least 17 factual matters about his movements on 1 to 4 May, when first questioned by police on 14 May?

I think you must have read the threads which discuss this?

This was, after all, an investigation into a missing child who needed to be found as soon as possible.

Were the police entitled to honesty from Robert Murat?

There can be many reasons for people to be economical with the truth. And it's sometimes trying to hide something which has no direct relation with the subject case, but on the other hand is not always completely unrelated either. To give you an example [hypothetical]: a lot of people in stressful jobs [celebrity entertainers, politicians, medics, e.g. cardiologists] do for the benefit of relaxation tend to drink and use recreational drugs [e.g. cocaine]; something which is not freely available on holiday abroad and can absolutely not be taken on a plane ... Enter stage left: the "dauphin" of PdL, as a friend of mine in Portugal once described Murat, the man who knew everyone and everything ... Just saying ...

Châtelaine wrote:There can be many reasons for people to be economical with the truth. And it's sometimes trying to hide something which has no direct relation with the subject case, but on the other hand is not always completely unrelated either. To give you an example [hypothetical]: a lot of people in stressful jobs [celebrity entertainers, politicians, medics, e.g. cardiologists] do for the benefit of relaxation tend to drink and use recreational drugs [e.g. cocaine]; something which is not freely available on holiday abroad and can absolutely not be taken on a plane ... Enter stage left: the "dauphin" of PdL, as a friend of mine in Portugal once described Murat, the man who knew everyone and everything ... Just saying ...

I wish it were possible to favourite on here Chatelaine, please take it my sentiments are there.  I cannot make up my mind at all about Murat, but certainly can see him as a 'go to' guy.  However, my problem with that theory, is that going to prison labelled a childkiller, is probably the worst thing that could happen to anyone and I believe he would have told all during intense interviewing once he discovered they were pointing the finger at him.  Your post is making me have a rethink.

Could have been a lot of money to be made that week

To be honest, Tony Bennett, I haven't read any threads that discuss Murat and I didn't know there was any questions regarding what he told police. I had just assumed that he had wrongly been brought into the frame and that he had been cleared of involvement. One of the few aspects of this case I've not read a fair bit about. Of course, now Murat is considered innocent regarding the disappearance of Madeleine and, presumably, still deserves some sympathy regarding the situation he was put in overall? However, thanks for pointing out Tony, I'll look into it before commenting on Murat again.

suzyjohnson wrote:To be honest, Tony Bennett, I haven't read any threads that discuss Murat and I didn't know there was any questions regarding what he told police. I had just assumed that he had wrongly been brought into the frame and that he had been cleared of involvement. One of the few aspects of this case I've not read a fair bit about. Of course, now Murat is considered innocent regarding the disappearance of Madeleine and, presumably, still deserves some sympathy regarding the situation he was put in overall? However, thanks for pointing out Tony, I'll look into it before commenting on Murat again.

There is a great deal about Murat in the information section of this forum, but please start with this detailed examination of his 17 lies:


Murat’s police interview on 11 July

At 10.00am on 11 July, Murat faced further questions from Inspector Paulo Ferreira. Here are the main points from this interview.

• Murat remembered that the ’phone numbers for ‘Roger’, 44780xxxxxxx, and 44770xxxxxxxx, are both mobile ’phone numbers of two partners who buy and sell land and whom he knows professionally.
• He said he’d been in England ‘about a month’ before returning to Portugal on 1 May. He’d been renovating the house that used to belong to his grandmother and is now owned by his mother. He and his mother had struck a deal; he would renovate that house in Devon; she would invest in ‘Romigen’.
• His mother had paid for the trip to England.
• Whilst over in England, he’d been in contact with his sister and brother-in-law, his nephews, and his long-standing friend Mário R____ C____ (‘Czech’) who lived nearby in Exeter.
• Whilst in England he kept in internet contact with his future partners Jorge da Silva and his son Jason, and of course his partner Michaela.
• He cannot be sure if he kept in touch with Sergei Malinka during this period.
• He said that whilst in England, negotiations with his potential future business partners had stalled. This was why he decided to travel to Portugal. He wanted to progress this matter, believing that he was the only person who could do so.
• He booked his air ticket with ‘flybe’ by internet on the same day he travelled, namely Tuesday 1 May.
• The night before flying out, he slept in the house of sister and brother-in-law. His sister Samantha took him to the airport. He flew from Exeter to Faro.
• During his stay in England he did not have contact with the McCanns nor any of the ‘Tapas 9’ and he is not aware that any member of his family had had any contact with, or knew any of them beforehand.
• Asked again if he was involved on the night that Madeleine disappeared or was in Mark Warner Ocean Club helping in the searches and contacting several people, around 11.30pm to midnight, he replied again: ‘Categorically, No’. He maintained that he hadn’t left his mother’s house after around 7.30pm that evening.

Following this further interview, the police then arranged the ‘confrontation’ between Murat and Rachel Mampilly/Oldfield, Russell O’Brien and Fiona Payne, which we discussed above.

The questioning of Murat recommenced in the afternoon. Murat again said that he arrived at his mother’s house at between 7.00pm and 7.30pm on 3 May, which is not consistent with his mother’s account, as she puts Robert’s arrival at about 8.15pm to 8.30pm, after she returned from the supermarket. He couldn’t remember what clothes he was wearing and he still couldn’t remember whether his mother was there or not when he arrived. Nor could he recall what he did that evening after he got in.

The police put to him his mother’s clear recollection that she came back to her house at around 8.30pm and that she recalls Robert arriving about the same time. Murat said couldn’t explain the discrepancy. He confirmed that he and his mother heard sirens at ‘between 10.00pm and 10.30pm’ but says again that didn’t hear the sounds of dogs barking or raised voices.

Asked about his renting a grey Hyundai Getz on Saturday 12 May from Cma Auto Rent in Praia da Luz, he recalled hiring the car in the afternoon. He said he’d done so because his mother was using the VW over the weekend and the Skoda was being repaired in the garage and he had no other means of transport. His mother returned the car the following Tuesday [15 May]. He said he’d used the car to drive round the Lagos and Portimão areas, and probably drove ‘no more than 60 to 120 miles’. Only he had driven it.

It was put to him that the clock in the car showed that it had been driven over 400 miles. Murat’s response was: ‘That’s not true’. He said it must be an error by the car hire company.

Pausing there, let us look at a contemporaneous account about Murat’s hiring of his car on 12 Saturday, in an article by Ian Herbert. We will immediately notice, on reading the first paragraph, that, according to this article, he apparently gives an entirely different reason for hiring out this car. Here is the article:

QUOTE

Suspect in hunt for missing girl ‘wanted hire car immediately’

By Ian Herbert in Praia da Luz - Friday, 18 May 2007

“Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal have been told how their prime suspect, the Briton Robert Murat, was impatient to rent a car two days before he was first questioned by police, because he claimed his own was needed by those involved in the search for the four-year-old.

“Staff at the Autorent 3 dealership here say they asked Mr Murat to wait until after their lunchbreak finished at 3pm last Saturday - Madeleine's fourth birthday. But he said he needed the vehicle immediately.

“Maria Rocco, the member of staff who received Mr Murat's call at the dealership, opposite the church where Madeleine's parents have been praying regularly, called police to report Mr Murat's request after hearing of his arrest. He said: ‘I need a car for myself because the English people who are looking for the little girl need to borrow my car’, Mrs Rocco recalled. ‘You could tell from his voice that he needed it in a hurry. I was puzzled. Why would he need to lend his car to somebody else [in the search]?’ The revelation comes after police questioned Mr Murat's mother, Jennifer, yesterday about her son's alleged involvement in Madeleine's abduction. Yesterday it was reported that police arrived at Mrs Murat's £600,000 villa in Praia da Luz to quiz her about her role concerning her son's alibi on the night of the abduction.

“Results of these interviews will join Mrs Rocco's evidence, which was supported by the form Mr Murat signed when he collected a Hyundai Getz at 5.16pm that day. It will certainly have interested Portuguese police, since the ground search for Madeleine was being scaled down last Saturday and Mr Murat's mother's car, a green VW van, seen in the area that weekend, was available. Mr Murat has indicated that he was aware last weekend that police were tailing him. He complained to them about this shortly before the raid on his house.

“Police are also focussing their inquiries on telephone calls between Mr Murat and a Russian computer scientist, Sergei Malinka. One of these was reportedly made by Mr Malinka a few minutes after 10pm on 3 May, the time when Madeleine's parents discovered she was missing from her room at a Mark Warner resort in the Algarve town.

“The Russian left his flat in Praia da Luz on Wednesday night with police, who had removed a laptop and two computer hard drives. Mr Malinka declined to discuss his ’phone calls with Mr Murat yesterday, but insisted that videos seized from his house had no paedophile content. He confirmed his name and number were in Mr Murat’s phone.

“Yesterday, Mr Malinka protested his innocence. He said: ‘I am not a suspect in this case. I am merely a witness questioned like eight or nine others. Everything that has been said about me is lies...There have been claims in the press that I am some kind of sexual maniac or paedophile. It is nonsense. My career is destroyed and my life is ruined’.

“Mr Malinka remains one of the investigation's 100 witnesses, rather than a suspect like Mr Murat, but the policeman leading the inquiry, Oligario Sousa, did not rule out that situation changing. ‘[He is] not a suspect but it could be in the course of the investigation that something could change’, he said. ‘It's a very dynamic investigation’.

“Mr Malinka, who moved to Portugal from Moscow seven years ago, says he spent several weeks helping Mr Murat and his German girlfriend, Michaela Walczuk, set up a property website a year ago. He said Mr Murat was a client, not a friend, despite reports that they had been photographed together several times after Madeleine's disappearance. ‘I had a working relationship with him [Robert]. How friendly can you be with a client?’ he said.

UNQUOTE

It is clear that by the date of that article, many serious rumours were in full swing about Murat and his friend Malinka. We might note that that weekend, Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann were discussing a possible visit to the Roman Catholic shrine at Fatima in Ourém. The 400 miles that Murat had driven would have enabled him to travel to Fatima and back. Or he could have reached Lisbon and back within the 400 miles, or even Huelva in Spain and back. Did someone want to meet him covertly and insist that he travelled in a hired car? Or did Murat need to meet someone?

One additional mystery is that Murat used his ex-wife's Norfolk address in Hockering, Norfolk, when he hired the Hyundai Getz, which he ‘needed in a hurry’ from Auto Rent. Why not give his local address or, if he wanted to give an English address, that of one of his sisters in Devon? The questions about Murat’s actions just seem to pile up.

The police then asked an important question in the interview. They wanted to know why he had apparently not madeany calls on his mobile ’phone between 3.00pm on Wednesday 2 May and late on the evening of Thursday 3 May. Murat couldn’t explain it except to say that he was ‘with Michaela most of the time and she was the person he most frequently ’phoned’. The significance of this is that the mobile ’phone records of Dr Gerald McCann showed that he switched off his mobile ’phone within six minutes of Murat doing so and switched it on again some 32 hours later again within six minutes of Murat doing likewise. It is a coincidence of timing that cries out for an explanation. One suggestion made is that they both used Pay-as-you-Go mobiles during this period, discarding them later.

We might note at this juncture the responses the two men gave as to whether they already knew each other. When reporter Sandra Felgueiras asked Dr Gerald McCann whether he already knew Robert Murat, Dr McCann hastily said: “I'm not going to comment on that” whilst his body language clearly showed that he was uneasy with the question. As one observer noted: “The absence of a firm denial makes the positive answer much more likely to be correct”.

Robert Murat's answer to a similar question was: “"I've never met the man before and the idea that I'd met him when he was campaigning for the Labour Party is laughable. I've been a Conservative all my life." (Daily Express, 14 September 2007).

Murat then went on to tell police that he’d never entered the apartment where Madeleine was, neither before nor since she disappeared.

The police now questioned Murat about other matters. The police had his landline and mobile ’phone records. They put to him the numbers held in his mobile ’phone and asked whom he’d been ringing. His answers, for the record and for anyone wanting to analyse his telephone records, are in Appendix 1. We are unsure whether they yield anything of significant interest.

He was asked if he knew someone who owned a boat. He said his uncle had a boat stored at the back of his home. Last year, when he worked for ‘Remax’, he had sold an apartment to a Snr I____ and he knows that he possesses a boat, but doesn’t know where this boat is, and never saw it. He only had a business relationship with Snr I____.

Murat added that he thought that a friend of Michaela’s husband Luis, called Steve, also had a boat, but he’d never seen it and wasn’t sure. Murat also noted that he knew Nelson P____, who was the son of Carlos P____, who had an ‘embarcaçiáo’, but Murat never saw it nor knew where it was kept. Asked if on the day Madeleine disappeared, or subsequently, he had been around the Marina or the port area, he said he had not.

Murat was then shown a photograph by the police, and identified the man in the photo as a Romanian man that he knew who had done some gardening at his mother’s house. Murat had been seen talking to the Romanian after Madeleine disappeared, and said he’d been asking the Romanian if he could translate into Romanian an appeal for people to look for Madeleine.

I. A summary of Murat’s 17 changes of story about what he did on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May

You may by now have lost count of the number of changes in Robert Murat’s story about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May, so here’s a convenient summary of his new account of events, and how these contradicted his earlier account of events:

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 10.30am 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 Praia 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 that morning 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 and Michaela had visited two apartments for about 30 minutes, probably on the afternoon of 3 May.

13. He and Michaela had lunch with the owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex and her father-in-law, a fact he had not disclosed to police before.

14. Michaela’s daughter C______ 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.