The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

MURAT revisited

Page 6 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Research_Reader on 28.02.14 19:58

I suppose in terms of 'helping out', there are three possible scenarios (or a combination thereof):

(1) He was helping out by providing access to a location to hide a body

(2) He agreed to be a 'patsy' in exchange for a lot of money in order to draw the heat away from what really happened

(3) He was there to be an 'inside man' on the police investigation and to report back on what witnesses were saying

____________________

Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Scatologist

Post by Tony Bennett on 28.02.14 21:35

Blacksmith, still admired by some on this forum, has once again leapt to the defence of Robert Murat, against whom he will accept no negative word whatsoever.

He has also once again projected his deeply scatological, obscene mind on to someone else, as we see from this extract from his latest piece, titled: 'Diary 28 February':

QUOTE:

Our periodic long range endoscopy of the cesspit sites reveals that the blameless Robert Murat, who never once chose to involve himself in our lives as the McCanns did, is still being targeted by the vicious little failure and guardian of our national morals, Mr A Bennett.  Mr Bennett's latest head-first descent to sniff around the soiled underpants at the bottom of Mr Murat's laundry basket, a diet on which he apparently thrives, and his subsequent minute and loving close analysis of the deposits thereon, reveals, he says, "cause for concern". 

Yes, Mr Bennett.

UNQUOTE



It's a useful reminder that 'John Blacksmith', as Antony Sharples likes to call himself, has on many previous occasions, and today again, pronounced this forum as a 'cesspit'.

OK, he might be right about some things, but does any member here really want to use valuable bandwidth, reproducing the ramblings of someone with such a scatological mind - and who views us all here as members of a cesspit?

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14224
Reputation : 2421
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Research_Reader on 28.02.14 23:36

There are far too many strange facts and co-incidences surrounding Murat's behaviour. He's definitely connected to the case in ways he hasn't admitted.

____________________

Research_Reader

Posts : 261
Reputation : 60
Join date : 2013-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Guest on 01.03.14 7:28

@Tony Bennett wrote:
OK, he might be right about some things, but does any member here really want to use valuable bandwidth, reproducing the ramblings of someone with such a scatological mind - and who views us all here as members of a cesspit?

Er... with respect Tony, isn't that what you've just done?  tongue 

I only ever get to read Blacksmith secondhand through the auspices of this forum anyway. From the limited amount I have seen, it doesn't look like I'm missing much.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Guest on 01.03.14 9:07

Must admit that I agree with you there, Clay.

I gave up on Blacksmith for good after his (or their?) disgusting on a level with muratfan rant just before Christmas and will be happy never to read anything else from him.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by MrsC on 01.03.14 9:18

@Tony Bennett wrote:HelenMeg,

In order to better understand Murat, can I recommend you, if you have not already done so, to look at ANOTHER Murat interview, analysed on the 'Eyes for Lies' site, here:

http://blog.eyesforlies.com/2008/09/robert-murat-what-are-you-thinking.html 

No-one who wants to understand Murat's role in all this should pass up the opportunity to view, and carefully consider, what the 'Eyes for Lies' lady has to say about him here.

This lady appears to believe the McCann people are honest, innocent and uninvolved in the disappearance of MM.  nah  I find that incredible!

[url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Gerry McCann]http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Gerry%20McCann[/url]

____________________
Sooner or later in life, we will all take our own turn being in the position we once had someone else in.

*

The measure of a man's real character is what he would do if he knew he would never be found out...

Thomas Babington Macaulay

MrsC

Posts : 255
Reputation : 48
Join date : 2011-05-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Tony Bennett on 01.03.14 9:45

@MrsC wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:HelenMeg,

In order to better understand Murat, can I recommend you, if you have not already done so, to look at ANOTHER Murat interview, analysed on the 'Eyes for Lies' site, here:

http://blog.eyesforlies.com/2008/09/robert-murat-what-are-you-thinking.html 

No-one who wants to understand Murat's role in all this should pass up the opportunity to view, and carefully consider, what the 'Eyes for Lies' lady has to say about him here.

This lady appears to believe the McCann people are honest, innocent and uninvolved in the disappearance of MM.  I find that incredible!

[url=http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Gerry McCann]http://blog.eyesforlies.com/search/label/Gerry%20McCann[/url]
Indeed. Her verdict on the McCanns has been the subject of a great deal of comment in the past.

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14224
Reputation : 2421
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by HelenMeg on 01.03.14 13:44

@HelenMeg wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:Just trying to jot down a bit of a timeline for RM:

1st May: Back to PdL after 10 days in Exeter

2nd May:
Met Malika at Batista - then took Malinka and Michaela to his Mum's house for more talks
Met his lawyer that morning too and then again in afternoon
Switched mobile phone off at 3pm for rest of day (within 6 mins of GM's mobile being switched off)

3rd May 
At Palmares Golf Club in afternoon (initially lied about this )
Mobile phone back on late evening (within 6 mins of GM's mobile phone being switched back on)
Phoned Malinka at 11:39pm

need to build on this - was it possible that Gerry met him at the golf club on 3rd May afternoon. I have suspected previously that GM was superimposed on last photo in order to prove he was at OC instead of elsewhere.
I am wondering whether GM's phone was switched off at 3pm 3rd May so that he could go somewhere without being traced by signal.

"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."
 
Robert Murat on Gerry McCann, Daily Express, 14 September 2007 (no link,

This is not the response of someone who has not genuinely met GM - too much embellishment. If GM was innocent which at the time it was presumed he was, then RM would have no reason to give an impression that 'no way do I know Gerry Mc Cann'.
He would just say no, OR YES - no problem either way. Instead, he strenuously denies knowledge - which can only be because there is something to cover up at all costs.
Doug D - this is where I copied that post to

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by j.rob on 01.03.14 14:04

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@j.rob wrote:Was Murat a 'double bluff'? - as in he was identified by many of the Tapas gang as having being outside the McCann's apartment the evening that Madeleine was allegedly 'abducted'...so they all 'pointed the finger' on cue....

Which put him up as being 'falsely accused' - when in actual fact he was instrumental in some way in what happened.
Just to put it on the record once again, I do not think that Robert Murat played any part in causing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

But in answer to your query, I will list 10 points of concern about Robert Murat:

1. There are indications that he and Gerry McCann already knew each other before April 2007
2. For no apparent reason, he suddenly booked a flight at midnight on 30 April/1 May 2007 and flew out to Faro hours later from Exeter, near where he was living at the time
3. As you may have seen on the thread, he lied comprehensively to the police about his movements on 1 to 3 May, when first interviewed, changing his story in at least 17 respects two months later
4. He seems to have been deliberately framed by British secuirty services, who told the PJ that he fitted the crimnal profile of the likley abductor
5. He was framed by Jane Tanner, who insisted it was Murat she saw at 9.15pm on 3 May. She later changed her story
6. He was also framed in the two days that followed by three more of the Tapas AND later by four more others, who all said he was hanging round the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May. AGAIN, all changed their stories later.

From points 1 to 6, I see evidence that Robert Murat was called in to do a job, maybe act as a willing patsy, becoming a prime suspect and taking the heat off someone else.

In addition,

7. He admitted to regularly watching hard core porn on the 'Red Clouds' site
8. A witness said he had child sex abuse material on his computer
9. The PJ said he had encrypted material on his computer - which Murat could not explain, and
10. A witness who knew him well, Carlos Costa, gave a detailed description of his sexual deviancy as a teenager, which included sex or attempted sex with animals.

Points 7 to 10 raise obvious concerns.
He has clearly been a key player in all the drama surrounding the case. Arriving in the resort at a crucial time. Offering assistance in translating at an early stage. 

What does Kate have to say about him? On page 87 she describes how he arrived outside the apartment the day after Madeleine's disappeared with Steve Carpenter as he had offered to assist with interpreting.

"I was grateful for any help we could get.....He seemed very personable and was happy to be of service."

Kate describes how: "I was holding a photograph of Madeleine, which he asked me to see. As he studied it, he told me about his daughter back in England who was the same age, and who, he said, looked just like  Madeleine. I was a little irked by this. In the circumstances, it seemed rather tactless, even if he was simply trying to empathize. I didn't think his daughter could possibly be as beautiful as Madeleine - though of course, as her mum, I didn't think any other little girl could be as beautiful as Madeleine. When he had finished translating, he turned and began to walk briskly away. Realizing I didn't know his name, I caught up with him and asked.

'Robert.' he said.
'Thank you, Robert,' I said.

As always, one is rewarded with a fascinating insight into the machinations of Kate's brain. Here we have a potentially very helpful witness. Bi-lingual, with a child of a similar age and looking similar, who presumably knows the resort well and knows a lot of people. In other words, he is part of the local network. 

If we take the view that Murat was nothing more than an innocent bystander who wanted to be helpful, It would not be unreasonable for Kate to have some hope that Murat could be a useful ally - even if just in helping with translations (which is an interesting role, given the questions surrounding his role in the drama). But Kate manages to, allegedly, take offence and turn what he has said into some kind of competitive 'my child is better looking than you child' game.

Why did she write this? Apart from revealing, once again, her unbelievable immaturity, I think it is to create a image of herself as the adoring Madonna. 

On page 134, Kate describes how Murat was reported to the police by a Sunday Mirror journalist, Lori Campbell, 'suspicious of what she felt was his odd behaviour apparently he had been hanging around the media pack, constantly asking questions. Taking what others perceive as an unusual level of interest doesn't make you a criminal, of course, but it worried several people among the press corps.'

She then describes how she feels about the news that Murat had been made an arguido. 

"We met up with Alan Pike to talk through how we were feeling. Strange, was the short answer: for a brief period I found myself feeling positive, almost excited, that we might be nearer to finding Madeleine. That evaporated when we went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona. They told us she'd seen Robert Murat's  outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky.   As Fiona and David speculated, I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it. Within the space of a couple of hours I went from feeling cautiously optimistic to very, very low. Another long, dark night followed. 

This passage is typical of Kate's confounding mind-set which is purporting to want one thing, yet providing evidence to the contrary. So a week after Madeleine's disappearance there is a major breakthrough - an arguido. And how does Kate feel about this?

"Strange." But then "for a brief period I found myself feeling positive, almost excited we might be nearer to finding Madeleine."

Okay. Odd juxtaposition of emotions. If it were my child that had been missing for a week and a local man had just been made a suspect I am not sure I would be feeling "excited". I imagine it would be more like having a huge bolder in your chest - you would desperately want there to be good news, but the reality might be one's worst nightmare. 

Anyway, this feeling apparently evaporates after listening to Fiona and David speculating and being told by them that they had seen Murat outside the McCAnn apartment on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. 

At this point, Kate starts to feel panicky. 

But why now, and not before?  What is it that has caused her mood to change so dramatically? "It had belatedly begun to dawn on me that it probably wouldn't be good news at all if someone living as close as Robert Murat was involved."


Why is the proximity of where the suspect lives 'bad news' for Kate? She seems to be suggesting that it would be much better news if the person involved lived further away. What kind of news, exactly, is Kate referring to? Does she mean that the outcome for Madeleine might be better if the suspect lived further away? And if so, why? Given that she and Gerry are supposedly trying to rescue Madeleine from the hands of a kidnapper, you would be inclined to believe it would be easier if the kidnapper or accomplices were nearby. Whatever the outcome for Madeleine, there would be clues closer to home. One would imagine it would be an easier case to solve than if the kidnapper had hot-footed it to Australia or indeed anywhere else around the globe.

But no. This suspect will not do at all for the McCanns, despite 'helpful' intervention by a Mirror journalist. He is simply 'far too close to home' - and 'close to home' is not a place where the McCanns appear to want to find Madeleine, or indeed a place they want to find themselves or anything else.

j.rob

Posts : 2243
Reputation : 231
Join date : 2014-02-02

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Silver Shuffle on 02.03.14 10:41


Silver Shuffle

Posts : 99
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-24

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by HelenMeg on 02.03.14 12:49

@j.rob wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@j.rob wrote:Was Murat a 'double bluff'? - as in he was identified by many of the Tapas gang as having being outside the McCann's apartment the evening that Madeleine was allegedly 'abducted'...so they all 'pointed the finger' on cue....

Which put him up as being 'falsely accused' - when in actual fact he was instrumental in some way in what happened.
Just to put it on the record once again, I do not think that Robert Murat played any part in causing the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

But in answer to your query, I will list 10 points of concern about Robert Murat:

1. There are indications that he and Gerry McCann already knew each other before April 2007
2. For no apparent reason, he suddenly booked a flight at midnight on 30 April/1 May 2007 and flew out to Faro hours later from Exeter, near where he was living at the time
3. As you may have seen on the thread, he lied comprehensively to the police about his movements on 1 to 3 May, when first interviewed, changing his story in at least 17 respects two months later
4. He seems to have been deliberately framed by British secuirty services, who told the PJ that he fitted the crimnal profile of the likley abductor
5. He was framed by Jane Tanner, who insisted it was Murat she saw at 9.15pm on 3 May. She later changed her story
6. He was also framed in the two days that followed by three more of the Tapas AND later by four more others, who all said he was hanging round the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May. AGAIN, all changed their stories later.

From points 1 to 6, I see evidence that Robert Murat was called in to do a job, maybe act as a willing patsy, becoming a prime suspect and taking the heat off someone else.

In addition,

7. He admitted to regularly watching hard core porn on the 'Red Clouds' site
8. A witness said he had child sex abuse material on his computer
9. The PJ said he had encrypted material on his computer - which Murat could not explain, and
10. A witness who knew him well, Carlos Costa, gave a detailed description of his sexual deviancy as a teenager, which included sex or attempted sex with animals.

Points 7 to 10 raise obvious concerns.


Kate describes how: "I was holding a photograph of Madeleine, which he asked me to see. As he studied it, he told me about his daughter back in England who was the same age, and who, he said, looked just like  Madeleine. I was a little irked by this. In the circumstances, it seemed rather tactless, even if he was simply trying to empathize. I didn't think his daughter could possibly be as beautiful as Madeleine - though of course, as her mum, I didn't think any other little girl could be as beautiful as Madeleine. When he had finished translating, he turned and began to walk briskly away. Realizing I didn't know his name, I caught up with him and asked.

'Robert.' he said.
'Thank you, Robert,' I said.

As always, one is rewarded with a fascinating insight into the machinations of Kate's brain. Here we have a potentially very helpful witness. Bi-lingual, with a child of a similar age and looking similar, who presumably knows the resort well and knows a lot of people. In other words, he is part of the local network. 

If we take the view that Murat was nothing more than an innocent bystander who wanted to be helpful, It would not be unreasonable for Kate to have some hope that Murat could be a useful ally - even if just in helping with translations (which is an interesting role, given the questions surrounding his role in the drama). But Kate manages to, allegedly, take offence and turn what he has said into some kind of competitive 'my child is better looking than you child' game.

Why did she write this? Apart from revealing, once again, her unbelievable immaturity, I think it is to create a image of herself as the adoring Madonna. 
Well I think that Kate inserted that little paragraph to doubly reinforce the point that the Mc Canns did not know Robert Murat - they badly didn't want anyone to think they knew Robert!!

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by tigger on 01.04.14 14:04

This is from the Sol article which can be read on McCannfile.com.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id117.html

I'm copying this part of it not so much because it referes to Murat but Gerry's (Mr. Control) reaction.


On the next day, the media circus was fully installed. The first reports are on Sky News first thing in the morning, even before portuguese press takes hold of the story. Journalists and locals dispute the information. Robert Murat, the son of an English mother and a Portuguese father, with little luck in business, does not waste the opportunity. He moves from failed businessman into the role of a translator for the press and the police. Some British journalists, after sucking him to the bones, start suspecting his availability.
Quote
The Murat contradiction

Contrarily to the GNR elements and the Ocean Club's staff, who participated in the searches on the night before and assure they did not see Murat around, Gerry and some of his friends guarantee that he was there. And thus he becomes an arguido.

Gerry and Kate's friends, who are interrogated tightly by the PJ over almost a month, refuse to clarify this contradiction, when asked by Sol. "We have a pact. This is our matter only. It is nobody else's business", says David Payne, another element with the group. Minutes after we tried to contact Kate, Gerry, in a fury, calls the Sol journalist: "What do you think you are doing? Do you think you're better than the Portuguese police? I'm going to forward your contact to PJ and you will have to explain yourselves".

Unquote

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by XTC on 01.04.14 22:42

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:What was the cockpit comment?
I think HelenMeg may mean the bit where Murat says that this case has been 'the biggest f___-up ever', or similar.

That would suggest this to me.

That he agreed to play a part in the events from, say, 4 May onwards (translating etc.).

But that then something happened which went way beyond what he had (literally) bargained for.
I remember  the " No comment " comment when the parents were asked about Robert Murat.

I also remember those who were taken to the police station to confront Mr Murat. Nothing much came of it-from memory.

Also I'm not convinced that it was Lori Campbell who came up with the suspicion that Murat may be worth a deeper look. That was a more
senior media player.

As for the " Eyes for Lies " expert it seemed that Murat's interview had the air of resignation about it and a subtle defence of the Portuguese law and its police. Perhaps the lady needs a new pair of eyes to spot lies?

Someone did an interview for Sky claiming to know Robert Murat and she said she had known him at school and that he had a glass eye
which he used to take out as a joke. The thing is that he doesn't have a glass eye so she didn't know him at all I think.

In terms of character I think he is one of those people that is obliging and because of his families connections in Prai De Luz he may fancy
himself - or really is - a Go to person. What they go to to the go to man for may have landed him in it later I don't know. But I suspect that the local GNR knew him quite well and would vouch for him. It was particularly notable that the UK authorities did not offer him
Consular ( or certainly not Ambassadorial ) assistance when he was made an arguido. For myself there was something in that but it's just a
feeling based on what action Governments take and moreso what actions they don't take. As far as I know he had the right to ask for
assistance but he never asked and the UK Government never offered.

The only thing I can't understand is why Robert Murat never heard the commotion going on near his mother's house as hundreds of people searched all over and were shouting out Madleiene's name? As the possible go to man then his door should have been knocked on very early to assist in the search but apparently it never was and Mr Murat didn't join in the search. That's the only curious non act for me
re: Robert Murat. I do think that his  .........up was a result of the after not the before. Someone wanted him lined up as a diversion I think
but it wasn't MS Campbell who lined him up and many more people were involved in doing that. The question is why would they lie? To what end?

There is phrase in selling that you can always sell more easily to a fellow salesman. Journalists and media pundits do the same. They are a pushover because they never let facts get in the way of a story. There just isn't enough time.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by tigger on 02.04.14 6:53

@XTC

Re consular assistance -  Wikileaks revealed an instruction NOT. To give assistance to Murat.

As for not hearing the commotion:  he knew all about it of course but as he was an accessory after the fact imo, it looked better if he should be brought into the case by a third party.

Re my post  - I thought it amazing that Gerry himself phoned Sol with what seems to me pure Glaswegian intimidation.
Was Sol spoiling the  patsy plan?  I don"t believe that Murat signed up to be the patsy,  considering that his compensation exceeded that of the McCanns by some 20%.  That may not have been just for bad press. I know it was paid by the press but someone may have interceded as to the amount awarded.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 38
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Tony Bennett on 02.04.14 8:01

@XTC wrote:
The only thing I can't understand is why Robert Murat never heard the commotion going on near his mother's house as hundreds of people searched all over and were shouting out Madleiene's name?...his door should have been knocked on very early to assist in the search but apparently it never was and Mr Murat didn't join in the search. That's the only curious non-act for me...
The 'only thing', XTC?

You must be aware that Robert Murat deliberately lied in 17 respects about his movements on 1 to 4 May, when first questioned by the PJ on 15 May?

As you know, he only changed his story when trapped by the 'pings' his mobile 'phone made on local mobile 'phone masts.

When re-interviewed on 10 & 11, July he called for a 'break' in his police interview when the mobile 'phone 'pings' were produced. After the break, he came back, completely changed his story, and pleaded that he'd been 'too tired' to tell the truth when first questioned on 15 May.

Of course Muart knew perfectly well what was happening in Praia da Luz on the night of 3 May as you point out.

But how do you explain his 17 lies?

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14224
Reputation : 2421
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by HelenMeg on 02.04.14 9:46

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@XTC wrote:
The only thing I can't understand is why Robert Murat never heard the commotion going on near his mother's house as hundreds of people searched all over and were shouting out Madleiene's name?...his door should have been knocked on very early to assist in the search but apparently it never was and Mr Murat didn't join in the search. That's the only curious non-act for me...
The 'only thing', XTC?

You must be aware that Robert Murat deliberately lied in 17 respects about his movements on 1 to 4 May, when first questioned by the PJ on 15 May?

As you know, he only changed his story when trapped by the 'pings' his mobile 'phone made on local mobile 'phone masts.

When re-interviewed on 10 & 11, July he called for a 'break' in his police interview when the mobile 'phone 'pings' were produced. After the break, he came back, completely changed his story, and pleaded that he'd been 'too tired' to tell the truth when first questioned on 15 May.

Of course Muart knew perfectly well what was happening in Praia da Luz on the night of 3 May as you point out.

But how do you explain his 17 lies?
The more I have read on Murat in terms of this case, the more evident it seems that he was firmly planted there to play a role.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by canada12 on 02.04.14 10:06

In the first year or two of the story there was a very concerted effort to give the impression (in the chat groups) that Murat was a wholly innocent resident of PDL who was falsely accused by the Tapas members who were flown out to Portugal to ID him in a lineup. There were a lot of people who leapt to his defense and worked very hard to counter any negative stories about him.

It's interesting how the passage of time (as well as access to written evidence) has given us new "eyes" and a fresh perspective. It does seem as though Murat's in it up to his neck, doesn't it. He's always struck me as rather seedy, and the revelation of the circumstances of his lying just confirms in my mind that we were right in the first instances to look more closely at this man's possible involvement.

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 198
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by HelenMeg on 02.04.14 10:35

@canada12 wrote:In the first year or two of the story there was a very concerted effort to give the impression (in the chat groups) that Murat was a wholly innocent resident of PDL who was falsely accused by the Tapas members who were flown out to Portugal to ID him in a lineup. There were a lot of people who leapt to his defense and worked very hard to counter any negative stories about him.

It's interesting how the passage of time (as well as access to written evidence) has given us new "eyes" and a fresh perspective. It does seem as though Murat's in it up to his neck, doesn't it. He's always struck me as rather seedy, and the revelation of the circumstances of his lying just confirms in my mind that we were right in the first instances to look more closely at this man's possible involvement.
Yes, and I think he gained a lot financially from the involvement, the compensation being his pay off.  I believe he may have been on world cruises as a result, from looking at his facebook.  It seems to me though, that in the early days he felt as if he had been set up - then later seemed to feel more protected. Similarly, GM when he first came out that police station, looked as though he knew it was all over, then gained assurance that he was protected.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by HelenMeg on 02.04.14 10:38

@HelenMeg wrote:
@canada12 wrote:In the first year or two of the story there was a very concerted effort to give the impression (in the chat groups) that Murat was a wholly innocent resident of PDL who was falsely accused by the Tapas members who were flown out to Portugal to ID him in a lineup. There were a lot of people who leapt to his defense and worked very hard to counter any negative stories about him.

It's interesting how the passage of time (as well as access to written evidence) has given us new "eyes" and a fresh perspective. It does seem as though Murat's in it up to his neck, doesn't it. He's always struck me as rather seedy, and the revelation of the circumstances of his lying just confirms in my mind that we were right in the first instances to look more closely at this man's possible involvement.
Yes, and I think he gained a lot financially from the involvement, the compensation being his pay off.  I believe he may have been on world cruises as a result, from looking at his facebook.  It seems to me though, that in the early days he felt as if he had been set up - then later seemed to feel more protected. Similarly, GM when he first came out that police station, looked as though he knew it was all over, then gained assurance that he was protected.
What I'm trying to say is that the whole lot of them were vulnerable and then at a certain point, felt protected - that they were home and dry and nothing could happen to them.  Certainly, in the early weeks when RM and K/GM were made arguidos they were certainly not feeling 'protected' at that point. Their smugness occurred later but I haven't pinpointed exactly when they started to feel 'above the law'..

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Hicks on 02.04.14 11:41

@HelenMeg wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@XTC wrote:
The only thing I can't understand is why Robert Murat never heard the commotion going on near his mother's house as hundreds of people searched all over and were shouting out Madleiene's name?...his door should have been knocked on very early to assist in the search but apparently it never was and Mr Murat didn't join in the search. That's the only curious non-act for me...
The 'only thing', XTC?

You must be aware that Robert Murat deliberately lied in 17 respects about his movements on 1 to 4 May, when first questioned by the PJ on 15 May?

As you know, he only changed his story when trapped by the 'pings' his mobile 'phone made on local mobile 'phone masts.

When re-interviewed on 10 & 11, July he called for a 'break' in his police interview when the mobile 'phone 'pings' were produced. After the break, he came back, completely changed his story, and pleaded that he'd been 'too tired' to tell the truth when first questioned on 15 May.

Of course Muart knew perfectly well what was happening in Praia da Luz on the night of 3 May as you point out.

But how do you explain his 17 lies?
The more I have read on Murat in terms of this case, the more evident it seems that he was firmly planted there to play a role.
and was it just a coincidence that Murat translated only for Diane Webster? Was this because she was not aware of the truth and therefore couldn't be trusted ?

Hicks

Posts : 976
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2013-07-16
Age : 58

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by tiny on 02.04.14 12:50

Diane Webster must be aware of the truth by now and yet she still say nothing,the whole lot of them are plain disgusting.

tiny

Posts : 2274
Reputation : 2
Join date : 2010-02-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Guest on 02.04.14 13:07

Yes, tiny, we can analyse and deconstruct until the cows come home, we all know they are liars and IMO DW is complicit in MBM's disappearance just as all the other relatives and players in this tragedy.  I just hope these awful people know that the clock is ticking.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by Mirage on 02.04.14 13:11

@HelenMeg wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@canada12 wrote:In the first year or two of the story there was a very concerted effort to give the impression (in the chat groups) that Murat was a wholly innocent resident of PDL who was falsely accused by the Tapas members who were flown out to Portugal to ID him in a lineup. There were a lot of people who leapt to his defense and worked very hard to counter any negative stories about him.

It's interesting how the passage of time (as well as access to written evidence) has given us new "eyes" and a fresh perspective. It does seem as though Murat's in it up to his neck, doesn't it. He's always struck me as rather seedy, and the revelation of the circumstances of his lying just confirms in my mind that we were right in the first instances to look more closely at this man's possible involvement.
Yes, and I think he gained a lot financially from the involvement, the compensation being his pay off.  I believe he may have been on world cruises as a result, from looking at his facebook.  It seems to me though, that in the early days he felt as if he had been set up - then later seemed to feel more protected. Similarly, GM when he first came out that police station, looked as though he knew it was all over, then gained assurance that he was protected.
What I'm trying to say is that the whole lot of them were vulnerable and then at a certain point, felt protected - that they were home and dry and nothing could happen to them.  Certainly, in the early weeks when RM and K/GM were made arguidos they were certainly not feeling 'protected' at that point. Their smugness occurred later but I haven't pinpointed exactly when they started to feel 'above the law'..

The Expresso interview of Sept 5th 2008 struck me a very significant turning point. They were arrogant and laughing throughout. They openly cocked a snook at the PJ who could have stopped them leaving. The smirks and private looks at one another. They are untouchable at this stage and their behaviour amounts to a boastful showcasing of their being special. Notice at 1.17 KH cutting across GM to cover his gaffe about text messages: GM:'There was no way there were 16 (text) messages on the day .... . Then he starts with the laughing as her strident voice drowns his mistake.

Think of the other times when she has sat there and let him take the lead with her echoing his views, usually prefaced with 'As Gerry says....'  Listen to her combative 'No - they could have stopped us from going home.'Then the face pulling that openly challenges the questioner? At the start GM has a job not to burst out laughing and leans forward on the table to try and disguise it. He talks about the DNA all mixed up.

This is the first interview they gave after their arguido status was lifted. Such a contrast to the deafening silence now. Could this mean the PJ have reinstated arguido status as they pursue a different line of enquiry to SY?



____________________
Kate McCann: "It's too 'ot. Give 'im a minute."

Mirage

Posts : 1719
Reputation : 487
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by HelenMeg on 02.04.14 17:08

@Mirage wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@HelenMeg wrote:
@canada12 wrote:In the first year or two of the story there was a very concerted effort to give the impression (in the chat groups) that Murat was a wholly innocent resident of PDL who was falsely accused by the Tapas members who were flown out to Portugal to ID him in a lineup. There were a lot of people who leapt to his defense and worked very hard to counter any negative stories about him.

It's interesting how the passage of time (as well as access to written evidence) has given us new "eyes" and a fresh perspective. It does seem as though Murat's in it up to his neck, doesn't it. He's always struck me as rather seedy, and the revelation of the circumstances of his lying just confirms in my mind that we were right in the first instances to look more closely at this man's possible involvement.
Yes, and I think he gained a lot financially from the involvement, the compensation being his pay off.  I believe he may have been on world cruises as a result, from looking at his facebook.  It seems to me though, that in the early days he felt as if he had been set up - then later seemed to feel more protected. Similarly, GM when he first came out that police station, looked as though he knew it was all over, then gained assurance that he was protected.
What I'm trying to say is that the whole lot of them were vulnerable and then at a certain point, felt protected - that they were home and dry and nothing could happen to them.  Certainly, in the early weeks when RM and K/GM were made arguidos they were certainly not feeling 'protected' at that point. Their smugness occurred later but I haven't pinpointed exactly when they started to feel 'above the law'..

The Expresso interview of Sept 5th 2008 struck me a very significant turning point. They were arrogant and laughing throughout. They openly cocked a snook at the PJ who could have stopped them leaving. The smirks and private looks at one another.  They are untouchable at this stage and their behaviour amounts to a boastful showcasing of their being special. Notice at 1.17 KH cutting across GM to cover his gaffe about text messages: GM:'There was no way there were 16 (text) messages on the day .... .  Then he starts with the laughing as her strident voice drowns his mistake.

Think of the other times when she has sat there and let him take the lead with her echoing his views, usually prefaced with 'As Gerry says....'  Listen to her combative 'No - they could have stopped us from going home.'Then the face pulling that openly challenges the questioner? At the start GM has a job not to burst out laughing and leans forward on the table to try and disguise it. He talks about the DNA all mixed up.

This is the first interview they gave after their arguido status was lifted. Such a contrast to the deafening silence now. Could this mean the PJ have reinstated arguido status as they pursue a different line of enquiry to SY?


Just watching that interview and yes - the word 'untouchable' sums it up completely.  Noone would have guessed their daughter was missing, they are like defiant teenagers who have escaped going to jail.
I know we have said not to get personal but just watching that makes me despise this pair so much.  Daughter 'missing'  and all they care about is themselves.  They are so sanctimoniously wrapped up in how they have escaped justice, that you'd never have thought they had a daughter missing. Despicable pair ..  so hope they do not get away with anything they have done.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 206
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: MURAT revisited

Post by XTC on 02.04.14 23:03

@HelenMeg wrote:
@Tony Bennett wrote:
@XTC wrote:
The only thing I can't understand is why Robert Murat never heard the commotion going on near his mother's house as hundreds of people searched all over and were shouting out Madleiene's name?...his door should have been knocked on very early to assist in the search but apparently it never was and Mr Murat didn't join in the search. That's the only curious non-act for me...
The 'only thing', XTC?

You must be aware that Robert Murat deliberately lied in 17 respects about his movements on 1 to 4 May, when first questioned by the PJ on 15 May?

As you know, he only changed his story when trapped by the 'pings' his mobile 'phone made on local mobile 'phone masts.

When re-interviewed on 10 & 11, July he called for a 'break' in his police interview when the mobile 'phone 'pings' were produced. After the break, he came back, completely changed his story, and pleaded that he'd been 'too tired' to tell the truth when first questioned on 15 May.

Of course Muart knew perfectly well what was happening in Praia da Luz on the night of 3 May as you point out.

But how do you explain his 17 lies?
The more I have read on Murat in terms of this case, the more evident it seems that he was firmly planted there to play a role.
Yes these are all very fair points and my last (and for me the most important question) is why he and his mother apparently didn't
hear the shouting of the searchers and the general urgency that would ensue all round the area of the house.

This is only an opinion but he strikes me as a man who is willing to help as it may gain him likeability and a small bit of status or importance.

Many people are like that but it's not a fault. But I think it was this overwillingness that landed him into arguidoship. It is often forgot that he was made an arguido way before the McCann couple. I genuinely think that he was made an arguido firts for various reasons.

1.) As the media was on his case he might speak to the media. and 2.) It was for his own protection in Law. A third more nebulous reason
could have been that Mr Amaral smelt a rat very early on as to why the British police ( Bob Small et al) were too keen to get Jane Tanner
 to state that he was the man she saw carrying a child on the night of the 3rd. According to our new found friend DCI Redwood
it definitely was not him. Add to that the massive contradiction of people who knew him well ( including Mr Smith if I'm correct?) saying he wasn't there on the night of the 3rd against people who allegedly didn't know him from Adam ( the confrontationers) you have to ask why
those who don't know him would say that he was there? I think this was media inspired like the teacher in the case of the young woman
killed by a neighbour. Easy target for the media and a grand diversion form the main players. It was a good move to make him an arguido and obviously if he was then he would have to be thoroughly investigated. Accordingly he was and no evidence of his involvement with Madeleine's disappearance was shown nevermind indicated. Whereason the other side of the arguido coin indications abound.

Having said all that there may be reasons why he was cagey in answering questions. It's not everyday that the police suspect you of having committed a crime,  a serious one at that. His relationship with Malinka may have been explored deeper but I don't see it in the
published files. This appears to be based on the discussion of an internet site or  a way of setting one up. Possibly a porn site I don't know
under the guise of exploring setting up an esate agent site I just don't know so my comment is a guess.

I will end with the little I know about the Socio Economics of PdL in those days and probably these days. There are big players  medium players and small players. The bigger the player the bigger the power to influence. Influence was at work from hour one in this mystery
where an alleged Socialist Prime Minister asked a favour of another alleged Socialist Prime Minister. The second UK alleged Socialist Prime Minister mad e a phone call allegedly to ask if Mr Amaral had been taken off the case. For myself these are the phone calls that count and not Mr Murat's or even the Tapas 9 calls. Murat was a bystander . Not completely innocent of everything but I'm sure Mr Amaral knew that eventually before being ' removed ' like Madeleine from the investigation.

What I think I do know is that the big players are not Socialists of any stripe and that they were - prior to the crash - just as tied in to the
financial movers and shakers in the world as they are still. Even in the small part of the world called the Algarve. If Murat was involved he
wouldn't be told anything. He is a small fish in a big pond. A stagnant murky pond of economics and politics.

XTC

Posts : 210
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-23

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 5, 6, 7 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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