Murat - harmless or not?

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Murat - harmless or not?

Post  Kepharel on Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:03 pm

Just on the basis of the PJ files and nothing else, Robert Murat is a fantasist IMO with an uncanny ability to be both in the right place at the wrong time and the wrong place at the right time almost simultaneously. If he hadn’t returned to Portugal on the 1st May, delayed it by even a couple of days, his life would have been a whole lot simpler. He just seems to be the kind of guy whose life is lived as one long list of coincidences, of an order that would reduce even Victor Meldrew to tears.  But is a penchant for pornography and being fingered by Tapas peeps, with all of the disagreeable baggage they have collected along the way, enough to set him up as bundleman:  Much better to take the bark of Eddie or Keela who sniffed their way through Casa Liliana but alerted to nothing and the ground penetrating radar also employed that cam up empty.  It’s worth pointing out too that no GNR officer can recall seeing Murat on that night, contrary to RO’B who says he saw him talking to them. Then on the other hand, on hearing police sirens outside of your house, wouldn’t you pop out and see what is going on?
What is curious for me is PJ files translation of their contacts with Murat and the far more aggressive content of Chapter 7 of the Amaral book published a year later. But in the end I would offer
Since Murat's first interview, which they attended, the specialists have continued to refine the profile of the suspect. They have heard about the statement from one of his so-called childhood friends, put on file by the police department: according to him, Murat had an affirmed penchant for bestiality. He recounted his attempts at sexual relations with a cat and a dog, subsequently killed, he states, with cruelty. Moreover, he allegedly attempted to rape his 16 year-old cousin. This individual describes Murat as someone violent with behavioural problems, a sexual pervert, sadist, and misanthropist. We are somewhat sceptical.”
For my part, I would agree with that final sentence, and suggest such a person as described by one of his “childhood friends” would more likely be serving out a jail term than running around trying to assist the police. It strikes me that with friends like that who needs enemies.
For me, Murat seems to be very much under the control of his mother.  He lives at her house; he relies on her finances, and carries her debit card around with him.  He is effectively unemployed, wandering around PDL and Lagos while trying to start up a business that will be funded by his mother. His life seems to have been led without focus or purpose and his marriage is on the rocks; he needs to feel useful and important, hence his pro-active attempts at involvement with MBM’s disappearance.

But Is there anything dodgy that has cropped up in the PJ files for me then?  Well a couple of things that some of you guys may know more about than I are the SMS communications in the Locale of the Lagos Hotel, Lagos Marina, and Club Nautico on the 8th May around 19:00.  All things boats spring to mind.  Then of course there are the telecoms made on his mobile at around 03:30 on 4th May.  Another bizarre moment comes on the 2nd May with an apparent business meeting with MW and SM in the Batista Supermarket, surreal doesn’t describe it.


Posts : 130
Join date : 2012-01-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  Tony Bennett on Sat Aug 03, 2013 3:46 pm


Are you aware of this material, part of a much longer article I wrote about Murat over three years ago?


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:


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.


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.

A possible interpretation of these changes of story could be along these lines; namely that during his first statement, Murat did not want to admit to:

• meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista supermarket on 2 May at around 10.00am
• he and Michaela being in the Espiche/Almádena area at around 9.30am on 3 May
• his meeting with the owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex
• he, Michaela and the da Silvas being at the Palmares Golf Club on the afternoon of 3 May
• that he had visited two apartments on the afternoon of 3 May.

We make no other comment on the large number of changes of story but leave the reader to form his or her own judgment as to why there were so many changes. We will however add this discussion by a poster on the ‘maddiecasefiles’ internet forum, who analysed these discrepancies in Murat’s account of those few days:

“Jorge Miguel Rocha da Silva tells us that even on the day Murat returned from Exeter (1 May), he tried to get in touch da Silva at the children’s clothing shop that he runs with his wife. He couldn’t, as it was a public holiday. On the following two days (2 & 3 May) he insisted that that da Silva meet him at short notice. A few days later, three days before Murat was made an arguido, Michaela Walczuk was still inviting him to get-togethers at her apartment.

“The official line from Murat is that he was talking to da Silva to persuade him to invest in his and Michaela’s venture: ‘Romigen’. Yet to this day, Romigen appears to be no more than a ‘shell’ company, just a paper idea for selling property via the internet. It doesn’t seem as though the company required any significant cash injection. And if we look at da Silva’s statements, if Murat had any intention of buying land to make money out of it, this was never made apparent to da Silva even after several hours of apparently unprofitable conversation - or rather, so it's been said, of long and puzzling silences.

“On his first full day back in Praia da Luz (2 May), Murat did manage to get in touch with da Silva at the shop. He took da Silva and his two sons to a café bar for the first round of talking. We know that Murat rang his lawyer no less than four times that day. In addition, in da Silva’s first statement to the PJ, he said that: “They did some talking in Mrs Murat’s VW Transporter”. He says rather vaguely that the discussion was ‘to develop some details of the intended business’.

“The following day (3 May), Murat, Michaela, Jorge da Silva and his sons met again for a long session on 3 May, at the Palmares Golf Club.
It is hard to understand from Jorge da Silva’s account what all these meetings were really about”.

So what could they have been about? Was the true content of these discussions being concealed?

We know that Murat came back to Portugal in apparent haste on 1 May.

His own account says that he booked his ticket on that very day. He seems to have booked his flight ticket at between midnight and 2.00am. His sister Samantha took him to the airport to catch the 7.00am flight. Murat must have been up and about at not long after 4.00am that morning to get up, travel by car to the airport and check in etc.

There seems to be, without doubt, a significant degree of urgency about Murat’s movements on 1 May. In his statement he said that he met only his mother (who fetched him from Faro airport) and Michaela that day, but since then we’ve learnt that he called at Jorge da Silva’s shop. Why did da Silva have these long discussions with Murat? Was it really just about Romigen?

Was his sudden early morning flight from Exeter to Praia da Luz just in order to get ‘Romigen’ moving, or to finalise his divorce as he claimed on another occasion? Did he really need to meet urgently with a top local lawyer for that reason?  Two years later, Romigen appears to be still only a ‘shell’ company, or at most a ‘front’ for something else.

So we pose this question: did something significant happen on Monday 30 April which required him to jet out to Portugal immediately and confer with a number of powerful and well-connected people in Praia da Luz?


                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"

Tony Bennett

Posts : 13804
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  Kepharel on Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:18 pm

I’ve had time to read Tony Bennett’s article, and find the conclusions drawn from the facts compulsive reading.  Yet my ‘Only Fools and Horses’ Trigger assessment of him still has some juice in it IMO. All I was trying to do in my post is flag up the possibility that sometimes, things are simply what we are being told they are, or at the very least evasion needn't always have conspiracy as its father.  Take TB’s suggestion that Murat was being evasive regarding his meeting with Sergi Malinka, and other things, leaving us open to decide that this evasiveness could possibly be as a result of goings on with the MBM’s disappearance.  First off, you have at least to give credit for his volunteering to provide those corrections in the first place.  He could have kept quiet; fingers crossed, and fielded any revelations as they came. While Malinka would have been a certainty for the PJ to pick up on, with all the connotations that implied; none of the other stuff would have been on their radar, would it? Also he never let the police down in making himself available for interview, not something that can be said for those Tapas wimps running scared of a reconstruction. Secondly, wouldn't the probable explanation be a baser, simpler and just plain selfish one.
Malinka really is a piece of work.  The PJ found 27 disks full of pornography, one of which contained images of bestiality.  There is also testimony with the PJ that an email attachment on a computer on his premises, accidentally opened, contained paedophile material.  Remembering Murat’s fondness for pornography could it be that those days Malinka said were spent at Murat’s villa refining his website took a different complexion from time to time, something Murat would naturally want to avoid.
TB then introduces us to the fact that Romigen is still a shell company to this day.  If I had just won £600K libel damages (July 2008), I don’t think I would be in a hurry to continue with developing a Company driven by a website and a few local entrepreneurs.  As for the early flight, maybe it was a short booking cheapo at a god forsaken hour to save money. Turning to the hire car: Murat says he was due to fly back to the UK on the 9th, so maybe it was a better idea to give the hire company the more permanent address in Norfolk rather than a local address he would soon be vacating.
Of the two readings, I think TB’s is obviously the better researched (I did an afternoon on my post) and almost certainly closer to the truth and a better guide to other forum members. I believe so, but there again I'm just an argumentative sod!! So just maybe……..


Posts : 130
Join date : 2012-01-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  Woofer on Sat Aug 03, 2013 11:33 pm

Not sure about RM`s involvement, but seems likely there is some.  But feel he`s not a complicated person - perhaps just one who could easily be gulled and manipulated.


Posts : 3390
Join date : 2012-02-06

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  Tony Bennett on Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:10 am

@Kepharel wrote:  First off, you have at least to give credit for his volunteering to provide those corrections in the first place...
 To quote John McEnroe, you cannot be serious!

Murat was confronted at his second interview by the PJ on 10 July 2007 with the unarguable data from mobile 'phone antenna which proved that his initial tales of what he was doing from 1 May through to 4 May 2007 were mostly a pack of lies.

He needed to call a 'time out' break, after which he returned later on 10 July to give an entirely different version of events from that which he gave on 14 May when first questioned.

And this was about the whereabouts of a missing 3-year-old!

He had no choice but to revise his story, admitting to having told at least 17 untruths.

His excuse was that he had been 'too tired' on 14 May to remember the truth.


                            "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?" - Amelie, May 2007 -  "Maddie's Jammies. Where is Maddie?"

Tony Bennett

Posts : 13804
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  sallypelt on Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:26 am

Sunday, September 14, 2008

 Robert Murat: What are you thinking?
  by Eyes at 3:37 PM

A reader asked me my opinion on Robert Murat last week, and kindly provided me with some very good video links.

I was always curious about Robert Murat because I never saw him speak, but he spoke publicly in late July. Here is his interview. You can watch him on video, or read the transcript which I also provide (below).

Did you know that Murat has been cleared of his suspect "arguido" status like the Kate and Gerry McCann?

Watch Robert Murat Speak Here
[b style="font-weight: bold;"]Murat wants arquido explanation[/b]
[b style="font-weight: bold;"]BBC News[/b]

[b style="font-weight: bold;"]Murat[/b]:
I would like to know ... ah... why... um... uh... I was made an arguido...ah..because ah, sincerely, I don't understand I... why I was made an arguido. Um...yeah, I would like to find out. I would like to find out.

[b style="font-weight: bold;"]Reporter:[/b]
Would there be satisfaction or anger... (inaudible...if you understand this please send me the text).

[b style="font-weight: bold;"]Murat: [/b]
Well, I can't really answer that because, ah, they may have, ...they may have had, um............they may have felt, should I say, that...that there was a reason to do it, and if there's a justifiable reason to make me an arguido, um, then... I have to look at it and be sensible about it. Um, it doesn't help in anyway shape or form, me, um, here, 14 months down the line, ah, still an arguido, but that is the law of Portugal. Now this happened in Portugal and as much as we do not like how the legal system works in Portugal, this is their legal system and they are doing their job.

Read moreThis interview is a real hair-raiser for me. The day I saw it, I had to get up and walk away. It really bothered me.

Five days before the date of the above video (and transcript), Murat won a lawsuit against the press for libel, and spoke out. He said "The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter destruction of mine and my families life, and caused immense distress". Notice how he reads from a script?

This makes absolute sense if Murat is a victim here, and was unjustly looked at for a crime he didn't commit.

Fast forward five days (in this video), Murat confirms he is still being looked at as an "arguido" though news was already circulating that he would likely be cleared in the near future. With that, Murat tells us he wants to know why he was made an arguido.

Naturally, we should expect the same response in this video as when Murat talked about the libel suit. After all, if the police inaccurately labeled him an arguido, this is what caused the media frenzy, and ultimately what would have caused the destruction of Murat's life, and where his deepest wounds and anger would reside.

With that, we should see a man who is feeling violated, misunderstood and unjustly treated. Is this what we see when we watch Murat speak here?

Absolutely not.

What we see, instead, is a man who is enjoying the spotlight. You'd think in this interview that Murat was sitting down for an afternoon tea, and not a serious conversation about how his life was ruined. He is enjoying speculating and bantering about this whole scenario as if it had no implications for him, yet he readily acknowledges he is still a suspect. Look at how he smirks and grins.

More importantly, we don't see any distress, or feelings of violation. We don't see anger for all the pain he has supposedly had to endure. We don't see a hint that this is a man who was wrongly looked at, put under the microscope, called a suspect and had his life destroyed as he says himself.

I am flabbergasted to say the least. His behavior is a complete contradiction to the circumstances that he wants us to believe here. It is totally different than the script he read out to the media after he won his libel suit, but it shouldn't be.

It's one thing not to be bothered by the entire frenzy and to ignore it because he knows he is innocent, and that the police couldn't possibly have anything on him. It's quite another to tell us it devastated his life and to go after the press, but to then turn around and act like it was no big deal, and entertain that if the Portuguese police had reason to call him a suspect that they are just "doing their job" and that he should be "sensible" about it, [b style="font-weight: bold;"]is absurd[/b].

It's flat out pompous.

If the police inaccurately labeled you a suspect, would you ever entertain such nonsense?

I can't believe I am even seeing this arrogance.

Is that how you would feel if you have been wrongly looked at as a suspect for an entire year? After the police searched your house multiple times? After your life was supposedly ruined, and the media trashed your name around the world?

If shoddy detective work destroyed your life, was inaccurate or faulty, I can be 100% confident in saying that you'd [b style="font-weight: bold;"]never [/b]go there. It defies logic. It's like asking the devil to take a closer look at you and beat you, unjustifiably, just one more time.

What injured man does this? Is Murat really a victim here?

Look at this sentence:

I can't really answer that because, ah, [b style="font-weight: bold;"]they may have[/b], ...they may have had, um............they may have felt, should I say, that...that there was a reason to do it...

When you watch Murat speak here, he is talking naturally up until he says the words "they may have..." At that point, something stops him. You can clearly see his thought process stop and hesitate, and then he switch gears.

Was Murat actually thinking the police [b style="font-weight: bold;"]may have had [/b][b style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"]reason [/b][b style="font-weight: bold;"]or [/b][b style="font-style: italic; font-weight: bold;"]evidence [/b][b style="font-weight: bold;"]to call him a suspect? [/b]Is he curious because he wants to know what they have, knowing they haven't had enough to charge him in 14 months?

If there is one person on this earth who should [b style="font-weight: bold;"]never [/b]have doubts about Murat's innocence, it should be Robert Murat himself. Instead he is playing the "What if game..." with us.[b style="font-weight: bold;"]...[/b]begging us to look at him closer.

It gives me the chills, that's for sure.

It's a cockiness at a level that I don't recall seeing before. It's downright arrogant and flippant, like someone who thinks they are smarter than everyone.

Has Murat outsmarted the system? It sure makes you wonder


Posts : 3272
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  tigger on Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:28 am

Murat also said that it was the 'biggest c......  up in history'. 

For something to have gone wrong, there must have been  a  plan. 

Smug and arrogant -we've seen that in the main players in this drama.  They pulled a fast one, it went wrong but they were saved and they ended up more secure and richer than they'd even thought possible. 

But six years on, by the very same agency (media, Internet) they used, too much information is out. 
Six years on - a lot of that lovely money is gone but the hard facts remain. 

-  the same conjuring trick won't work this time.

IMO of course.

Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.


Posts : 8112
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  Kepharel on Sun Aug 04, 2013 7:29 am

Hi Sallypelt

Soz couldn't get connection to work, but I get the drift from your comments.  As I said in my original post:
His life seems to have been led without focus or purpose and his marriage is on the rocks; he needs to feel useful and important, hence his pro-active attempts at involvement with MBM’s disappearance.”
Here we have a man who sees his Andy Warhol 15 minutes of fame on the world theatre and plays it for all he is worth, knowing there is a Shepherd’s Crook, stage left, waiting to catch him around the neck and haul him back out of the limelight forever and into the obscurity and anonymity from whence he came.


Posts : 130
Join date : 2012-01-29

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  tigger on Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:20 pm

So Murat is so hungry for publicity still that he gets a headline in the British press telling the Tapas 12 to come back to Portugal?

I think the money ran out. 600.000 doesn't go anywhere these days and also - like the T9 - he's safe from prosecution in this case at least. There is no statement that I can recall which is similar to the statement from the Leicester Police about the Drs. McCann.

Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.


Posts : 8112
Join date : 2011-07-20

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  Five Star on Sun Aug 04, 2013 12:39 pm

I wonder if REMAX have hot air balloons in Portugal?   They do where I live....... A good way to advertise I suppose.

Five Star

Posts : 110
Join date : 2013-02-21
Location : erf

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  sallypelt on Sun Aug 04, 2013 1:54 pm


Posts : 3272
Join date : 2012-11-10

Back to top Go down

Re: Murat - harmless or not?

Post  Ayniia on Sat Oct 19, 2013 1:29 pm

Very interesting body language tells it all,also I liked this comment,spot on...
freyahr :
That little cough was a sign to say to Kate don't you dare comment either. Hit a nerve with that question!

"My advice to any British tourist ,please come to Portugal,please come to the Algarve but if you're coming as a family holiday treat it as a family holiday and do things together, don't leave the kids"
Words from an ExPat Algarve resident


Posts : 546
Join date : 2013-03-21
Location : Portugal

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top

Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum