The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
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.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!

Gerry / Murat - No comment

Page 5 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 11, 12, 13  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Research_Reader on 31.07.14 10:19

@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Yes, Sandra threw him a curved ball and the manner of the response spoke volumes IMO.


Exactly!

The words he uses. His facial expression. His body language. His turning away. It all speaks volumes.

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by HelenMeg on 31.07.14 10:19

@Carrry On Doctor wrote:Morning all

Just catching up on things from yesterday and skimming through the Cristobel / TB exchange.

Personally, having looked at both sides I find RM's actions and subsequent changes of story very suspicious. As I write, Tony has just confirmed that GM had been golfing to Portugal before. Maybe they did know each other personally, maybe not, but one thing that seems very likely is the GM knew of RM and his role.

It is possible that GM response to Sandras question, taken solely on those words, could indeed refer to some restriction on commenting on an investigation, but I find GM's choice of words quite odd if that were the case. When you watch the video of this question, and how GM squirms when asked about RM, there is no doubt IMO.

I said yesterday that RM may not have been told the full story, but the circumstances of his travel, him not then fulfilling the reason he gave for his travel (to sort out a British divorce), subsequent changes of story, and meeting with McCann lawyers strongly suggest to me;

1. RM, possibly unwittingly, was used to facilitate a cover up, and maybe as a patsy.
2. MBM met her fate prior to 1st May

I think that access to vacant properties, in light of the continual reference to 'someone who could hold the key', is significant.

IMO of course.
Carry on Doctor

I wholeheartedly agree with everything you wrote. Seems very straightforward

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by HelenMeg on 31.07.14 10:21

@HelenMeg wrote:
@suzyjohnson wrote:'Gerry: "Errr, I don't want to comment too much about the investigation. Errr, in general terms, terms of suspects, and I know there's been a lot of media... errm, response to that. I would say, as a family, and I hope that everyone else here treats all suspects the way that we would hope to be treated and that they are presumed innocent until someone is charged, arrested and convicted of any criminal offence. Errr, we have been assured by the British police that the information that we get is similar to what you would expect to get at home. And, you know, we don't want too much detail. When there's real developments we want to know about them."

Sandra Felgueiras (RTP): "But did you know Robert Murat?" Gerry: "I'm not going to comment on that." (coughs, and turns his head away from the inerviewer)'

----------------------------------

I know you can get a different impression when watching an interview but from this text, above, I would say that GM's response ''I'm not going to comment on that'' is merely related to his earlier statement, ''I don't want to comment too much about the investigation'' In other words he is just repeating what he had just said previously and I don't read anything particularly suspicious into what he said.


I think the more remarkable phrase from this particular interview is GM's response that, no, he didn't have any new appeal to the person who had taken Madeleine, as Hobs mentions above. I would expect a parent in this situation to want to try and reassure his daughter, and to ask, once again, for an abductor to bring his daughter home.
Well I have to say I strongly disagree with your comments in the first paragraph. Sandra's question is straightforward - and not related specifically to the investigation. When you watch the video it is plain to see that GM is wrong-footed and has to think twice - before giving his 'telling' response.

A normal and reasonable response to Sandra's question would have been
1. No, I did not
2. Yes, he's an acquaintance of mine

or - if not wishing to disclose this information but having nothing to hide
3. Sorry - I cant comment any further

But he was put on the spot - and it looked very much as if he had something to hide as he then had to turn immediately away.
In addition to everything else...it looks highly suspicious that gm had a link to RM that he wished to hide.
We would not be here discussing this now if he had made a normal and reasonable response.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by BlueBag on 31.07.14 10:40

@Research_Reader wrote:Yet Gerry uses a very suspicious form of words to answer this question.

"I'm not going to comment on that"


Very suspicious.


After saying he wasn't going to comment on the investigation 30 seconds before.


But I bow to the language and body language experts, mind readers and soothsayers.


I'm out of this one and find a thread where there is perhaps a more fair-minded approach.
avatar
BlueBag

Posts : 4403
Reputation : 2222
Join date : 2014-06-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Research_Reader on 31.07.14 10:52

Think about it a bit more carefully before you give such a sarcastic dismissal.

You have the world's press watching you. You are just asked whether you had a previous relationship with a man who is suspected in involvement with the disappearance of your young daughter. EVEN if you are innocent, you are going to give an answer which leaves them no room to make you look guilty. 

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Tony Bennett on 31.07.14 10:57

@BlueBag wrote:
After saying he wasn't going to comment on the investigation 30 seconds before.

Er, he wasn't being asked about the investigation. Let me remind you, the question was 'Do you already know Robert Murat?'


But I bow to the language and body language experts, mind readers and soothsayers.

Very wise. And not forgetting the logician amongst us, Research_Reader. 


I'm out of this one

At last! Endlich! Enfin!

and find a thread where there is perhaps a more fair-minded approach.

You'll find it hard, BlueBag. This forum is such an unfair place. Would you not be better off finding a much more fair-minded place more open to your ideas about the significance or otherwise of a bloke who, on being asked a simple 'Yes or No' question about whether he knows a named person...

* is clearly embarrassed by the question

* answers 'I am not going to comment'

* avoids the interviewer's eyes, and

* turns away his face from the interviewer?


____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14728
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by HelenMeg on 31.07.14 11:00

@BlueBag wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:Yet Gerry uses a very suspicious form of words to answer this question.

"I'm not going to comment on that"


Very suspicious.


After saying he wasn't going to comment on the investigation 30 seconds before.


But I bow to the language and body language experts, mind readers and soothsayers.


I'm out of this one and find a thread where there is perhaps a more fair-minded approach.
I find it oddly worrying that this has quickly developed into such a contentious issue. The only approach that seems to be not 'fair-minded' is your own., You wont contemplate that there may something suspicious here.

Whilst I find the behavior and response (along with many other indicators) highly -suspicious - I still am open minded enough to accept others will have a different opinion. I wouldn't flounce off elsewhere and refuse to contribute on a thread. I would simply accept that there will often be differences of opinion.

HelenMeg

Posts : 1782
Reputation : 208
Join date : 2014-01-08

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Justformaddie on 31.07.14 11:00

@suzyjohnson wrote:'Gerry: "Errr, I don't want to comment too much about the investigation. Errr, in general terms, terms of suspects, and I know there's been a lot of media... errm, response to that. I would say, as a family, and I hope that everyone else here treats all suspects the way that we would hope to be treated and that they are presumed innocent until someone is charged, arrested and convicted of any criminal offence. Errr, we have been assured by the British police that the information that we get is similar to what you would expect to get at home. And, you know, we don't want too much detail. When there's real developments we want to know about them."

Sandra Felgueiras (RTP): "But did you know Robert Murat?" Gerry: "I'm not going to comment on that." (coughs, and turns his head away from the inerviewer)'

----------------------------------

I know you can get a different impression when watching an interview but from this text, above, I would say that GM's response ''I'm not going to comment on that'' is merely related to his earlier statement, ''I don't want to comment too much about the investigation'' In other words he is just repeating what he had just said previously and I don't read anything particularly suspicious into what he said.


I think the more remarkable phrase from this particular interview is GM's response that, no, he didn't have any new appeal to the person who had taken Madeleine, as Hobs mentions above. I would expect a parent in this situation to want to try and reassure his daughter, and to ask, once again, for an abductor to bring his daughter home.
That's what I'd noticed, as don't talk about the investigation, I can't. But I'm allowed to talk to maddie and I'm not going to! Evil IMO

____________________
Parents=protection high5 
avatar
Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by suzyjohnson on 31.07.14 11:04

@Research_Reader wrote:Yet some people think its ridiculous that GM and RM could have known one another.

Some people just seem to operate on the basis: don't bother me with the facts, I've already made my mind up!

Research Reader, from Tony Bennet's quote above your post, KM wrote that she had never been to Portugal before but that GM had been there previously to play golf. She didn't say specifically here that GM had actually been to PdL. 

I don't think that anyone on here is discounting the facts, just trying to make sense of it all.

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1192
Reputation : 261
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Justformaddie on 31.07.14 11:10

I think we all gotta remember that debating on this sort of thing is how we can get closer to to truth. We are all here for one thing so, debating inconsistencies and actions will help all of us in the end. If and when this is all revealed, as someone else said, we could meet up for a huge celebration! EVERYONE, here has helped in some way and sometimes we don't agree clearly with people, we can still give each other a pat on the back and say well done!

____________________
Parents=protection high5 
avatar
Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by missmar1 on 31.07.14 11:28

@HelenMeg wrote:
@suzyjohnson wrote:'Gerry: "Errr, I don't want to comment too much about the investigation. Errr, in general terms, terms of suspects, and I know there's been a lot of media... errm, response to that. I would say, as a family, and I hope that everyone else here treats all suspects the way that we would hope to be treated and that they are presumed innocent until someone is charged, arrested and convicted of any criminal offence. Errr, we have been assured by the British police that the information that we get is similar to what you would expect to get at home. And, you know, we don't want too much detail. When there's real developments we want to know about them."

Sandra Felgueiras (RTP): "But did you know Robert Murat?" Gerry: "I'm not going to comment on that." (coughs, and turns his head away from the inerviewer)'

----------------------------------

I know you can get a different impression when watching an interview but from this text, above, I would say that GM's response ''I'm not going to comment on that'' is merely related to his earlier statement, ''I don't want to comment too much about the investigation'' In other words he is just repeating what he had just said previously and I don't read anything particularly suspicious into what he said.


I think the more remarkable phrase from this particular interview is GM's response that, no, he didn't have any new appeal to the person who had taken Madeleine, as Hobs mentions above. I would expect a parent in this situation to want to try and reassure his daughter, and to ask, once again, for an abductor to bring his daughter home.
Well I have to say I strongly disagree with your comments in the first paragraph. Sandra's question is straightforward - and not related specifically to the investigation. When you watch the video it is plain to see that GM is wrong-footed and has to think twice - before giving his 'telling' response.

A normal and reasonable response to Sandra's question would have been
1. No, I did not
2. Yes, he's an acquaintance of mine

or - if not wishing to disclose this information but having nothing to hide
3. Sorry - I cant comment any further

But he was put on the spot - and it looked very much as if he had something to hide as he then had to turn immediately away.
In addition to everything else...it looks highly suspicious that gm had a link to RM that he wished to hide.
We would not be here discussing this now if he had made a normal and reasonable response.
 
Totally agree with you HelenMeg.

missmar1

Posts : 253
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-05-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Tony Bennett on 31.07.14 11:29

@suzyjohnson wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:Yet some people think its ridiculous that GM and RM could have known one another.

Some people just seem to operate on the basis: don't bother me with the facts, I've already made my mind up!
Research Reader, from Tony Bennett's quote above your post, KM wrote that she had never been to Portugal before but that GM had been there previously to play golf. She didn't say specifically here that GM had actually been to PdL. 
But Research_Reader's general point remains valid.

Where in Portugal did Dr Gerald McCann play golf? 

Maybe at the golf courses close to Praia da Luz, of which there are several.

Where did he stay when he played golf in Portugal?

Possibly Praia da Luz.  

Fellow-members of his Rothley Golf Club were regulars at some of the golf courses around Praia da Luz, a matter that IIRC HelenMeg has investigated on this forum in some detail.

Why did Murat lie about where he was on the afternoon of 3 May?

He admitted, when police confronted him with his mobile 'phone pings, that he was at the Palmeras Golf Club that afternoon.

Why was he there?

Who else was there with him?

And for that matter why had he switched off his normal mobile 'phone for the day?

And exactly where was Gerry McCann that afternoon?

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14728
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Tony Bennett on 31.07.14 11:34

@Justformaddie wrote:...debating on this sort of thing is how we can get closer to to truth. We are all here for one thing...
No, that's not the case.

Throughout the life of this forum, there has been a regular stream of posters here whose intention is precisely the opposite - to stop us getting closer to the truth.

There was recently a wholesale clear-out of a number of them.

It's vital that we keep a close watch out for any more that may turn up here

____________________

"This is a faithful saying, and worthy of all acceptation, that Christ Jesus came into the world to save sinners" - Paul's first letter to his disciple Timothy,  1 Timothy 1 v 15

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14728
Reputation : 2847
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by aiyoyo on 31.07.14 11:40

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:Context for the reply? The body language surrounding the comment is enough for anyone to make a reasonable deduction. Every time Gerry is asked about one of the "hot potatoes" he squirms and wriggles and nearly climbs out of his own skin. It is cringeworthy how Mr McCann has absolutely no control over his bodily giveaways.

The only correct answer to the question would be "no, I didn't know him before" - if indeed that was the truth. There is no secrecy, you either knew someone or you didn't. His answer and accompanying body language provides the true answer, and anyone trying to obfuscate that is merely making a bit of an arse of themselves. A five year old could interpret that clip correctly and probably be appalled at the bad fist Gerry made of the matter.

Granted overall context is important, but in this instance the question was a simple one :  "Did you know Murat" - that is the only context that should apply. There is a world of difference between "No Comment" and "I am not going to comment on that"  -- as in nothing to say vs not going to tell you; also as in, evasive vs devious.

If he did not know Murat, what could be simplier than giving an outright answer "NO", or even "No Comment".

If the "did you know Murat" question was a follow-on question from the context of Murat being arguidoed then Gerry's answer is indeed odd and given to suspicion.

The man was arrested, suspected of being involved in your daughter's disappearance, and you can't answer a simple question on National TV with a direct straight forward 'Yes or No' answer as to whether  DID YOU or DID YOU NOT know the suspect?
He is a suspect for heaven sake, just on this context alone, your answer is important.
He must know the inference of that question, how can he not know?  He answer suggests he knew knew the inference.

In the context of observation of Portuguese secrecy code obliged upon him not to talk about all matters relating to the investigation, what's stopping him saying so, he has been known to cite that when it suited his purpose going further to say he risks 2 year imprisonment otherwise; or simply answer the question to the point Yes or No, or no comment.  

So, why pertaining to the matter of Murat, he can't say the same or better still give an honest answer to a simple question.  I don't believe for a blinking second he received official warning not to comment on matter that is subject specific, particularly where Murat is concerned.   The restraint imposition by law is a generic one where the case is concerned.

Unless of course people mean he'd been warned by friends/family not to comment on Murat then that is a different matter altogether.  I don't believe Gerry need or can be told what to do/say and what not to do/say.  Gerry is not a stupid man, far from it, he knows the inference and the implication of that question.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Justformaddie on 31.07.14 11:53

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Justformaddie wrote:...debating on this sort of thing is how we can get closer to to truth. We are all here for one thing...
No, that's not the case.

Throughout the life of this forum, there has been a regular stream of posters here whose intention is precisely the opposite - to stop us getting closer to the truth.

There was recently a wholesale clear-out of a number of them.

It's vital that we keep a close watch out for any more that may turn up here
Unfortunately your right about that Tony, I've been shocked aswell about the clear out recently. It is hard for me to understand why anyone would want to hide the truth, but with this MMU there are some. Luckily, we've excellent mods to control that stuff, but gotta keep alert IMO

____________________
Parents=protection high5 
avatar
Justformaddie

Posts : 540
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2014-05-13
Location : On my iPad

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by aiyoyo on 31.07.14 11:54

@BlueBag wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:There is a world of difference between the following two statements:

"I'm not going to comment on that."


"I've been told I can't make any comments about Mr Murat at this time."

The former leaves a cloud of suspicion over you, the later is what anyone would want to say to avoid that cloud of suspicion.
Says you.

Do you think you would get away with that in court?

They are both the same thing, one is more concise.

There is a world of difference between "I'm not going to comment" and "I can't comment", especially when apply in Court. As in I can but I won't vs I cannot.
avatar
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Reputation : 321
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Research_Reader on 31.07.14 11:56

One additional thought: Why was Clarence Mitchell standing there the whole time? Answer = to protect his client from the journalists twisting anything he might say, or probing him unfairly. In essence he was there to protect Gerry and Kate against having bad headlines written about them.

So after Gerry's dodgy refusal to answer the question, why didn't Clarence pipe up (either immediately or at the end) and clarify by saying something like: "Gerry can't comment on Mr Murat right now. You aren't to take it that his remark means they know each other." or "The reason Gerry didn't answer that question is because we're not here today to comment on the investigation."

After all, he'd want to, if at all possible, avoid the possibility of headlines like:

"Gerry refuses to deny knowing Maddy suspect"






____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by aquila on 31.07.14 12:10

If you read the transcript of the interview it's plain to see that this was 'campaign launchpad...5, 4, 3, 2, 1...we have lift-off' (Thunderbirds are Go).

That's exactly what it was.

Clarence Mitchell wasn't interested in anything else and neither was Gerald McCann. Clarence did his job very well.

Clarence stood his 'client' in front of cameras with a script. Sandra Fulgeiras (she's a star) asked the only controversial question and it was dismissed. That's water off a duck's back to Clarence and Gerry.

The result was that Gerald McCann, amazingly announced the campaign, the money, the intention to travel blah blah whilst someone had been made a suspect!
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8700
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Research_Reader on 31.07.14 12:13

@aquila wrote:
Clarence Mitchell wasn't interested in anything else and neither was Gerald McCann. Clarence did his job very well.


So you don't think Clarence was interested in protecting his client against speculation or negative headlines? You don't think thats the kind of thing highly paid PR gurus are interested in?

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by aquila on 31.07.14 12:20

@Research_Reader wrote:
@aquila wrote:
Clarence Mitchell wasn't interested in anything else and neither was Gerald McCann. Clarence did his job very well.


So you don't think Clarence was interested in protecting his client against speculation or negative headlines? You don't think thats the kind of thing highly paid PR gurus are interested in?
The purpose of that interview was to announce 'the campaign' and that's what it did.

A journalist of substance (Sandra Fulgeiras) asked probably the only awkward question which was dismissed.

The only people questioning this dismissal is us.

In terms of PR it was a great interview for Clarence and his 'client'.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8700
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Research_Reader on 31.07.14 12:24

He allowed a suspicious answer to go on the record and didn't challenge or clarify it. Thats not the kind of thing that PR gurus let slip through the net accidentally.


PR people know that it doesn't matter whether or not you get your core message read out, if a 'bad' question goes unchallenged it can risk de-railing your core message and possibly turn into a bad headline.

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by aquila on 31.07.14 12:31

@Research_Reader wrote:He allowed a suspicious answer to go on the record and didn't challenge or clarify it. Thats not the kind of thing that PR gurus let slip through the net accidentally.
If you take the balance of things you are going to be asked in a press conference you'll find that one awkward question is a triumph.

As for Clarence being a PR 'guru', I'd rather someone take a look at why he gave up his job in government to go champion the McCanns and subsequently become a PPS for the Conservative Party.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8700
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Research_Reader on 31.07.14 12:36

@aquila wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:He allowed a suspicious answer to go on the record and didn't challenge or clarify it. Thats not the kind of thing that PR gurus let slip through the net accidentally.
If you take the balance of things you are going to be asked in a press conference you'll find that one awkward question is a triumph.

As for Clarence being a PR 'guru', I'd rather someone take a look at why he gave up his job in government to go champion the McCanns and subsequently become a PPS for the Conservative Party.


I disagree. That one question, if answered badly or with ambiguity, can BECOME the news story. Thats why PR gurus will often pipe up and clarify or challenge a journalist on a question in order to seal off the chance of them taking the answer the wrong way.

Also, why he was assigned to the McCanns and why he ran as an MP do not diminish the fact that he was a highly paid PR guru who had been in charge of a team of people at the Government's media monitoring unit. Whatever we might think of his ethics or politics, there is no doubt that he knew what he was talking about when it comes to trying to control a media story.

____________________
avatar
Research_Reader

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by aquila on 31.07.14 12:42

@Research_Reader wrote:
@aquila wrote:
@Research_Reader wrote:He allowed a suspicious answer to go on the record and didn't challenge or clarify it. Thats not the kind of thing that PR gurus let slip through the net accidentally.
If you take the balance of things you are going to be asked in a press conference you'll find that one awkward question is a triumph.

As for Clarence being a PR 'guru', I'd rather someone take a look at why he gave up his job in government to go champion the McCanns and subsequently become a PPS for the Conservative Party.


I disagree. That one question, if answered badly or with ambiguity, can BECOME the news story. Thats why PR gurus will often pipe up and clarify or challenge a journalist on a question in order to seal off the chance of them taking the answer the wrong way.

Also, why he was assigned to the McCanns and why he ran as an MP do not diminish the fact that he was a highly paid PR guru who had been in charge of a team of people at the Government's media monitoring unit. Whatever we might think of his ethics or politics, there is no doubt that he knew what he was talking about when it comes to trying to control a media story.
I don't really want to debate on this but if you take on balance the objective of the press interview it achieved its aim. Loads of cameras, loads of journalists all ready to present copy to their pages.

I doubt any of them had time to analyse much....there would have been a scrum to get their reporting onto pages.

It's a percentage game.
avatar
aquila

Posts : 8700
Reputation : 1687
Join date : 2011-09-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

Post by Cristobell on 31.07.14 12:46

@Research_Reader wrote:Yet some people think its ridiculous that GM and RM could have known one another.

Some people just seem to operate on the basis: don't bother me with the facts, I've already made my mind up!
I don't think its ridiculous that GM could have known Robert Murat, I just don't think it is important.  I should add, it wasn't a case of 'don't bother me with the facts', I have been following this case in depth for 7 years and the red herring (RM) given to us by Jane Tanner and the Tapas friends, is just that, a red herring.

Cristobell

Posts : 2436
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-10-12

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 13 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 ... 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