Re: Gerry / Murat - No comment

by canada12 30.07.14 20:57

BlueBag wrote:Murat had just been made arguido, it was hot news.

The McCanns had a media monitoring unit watching and advising everything they did.

You have no idea if they were told not to comment by them or the PJ.

I strongly suspect they were.

As you "the only time he said no comment"... they said it all the time "we can't talk about that because of the secrecy laws.."... remember?

Yes, but they didn't say, "No comment." in those instances. They used "we can't talk about that because of the secrecy laws" to their advantage. In speaking of Murat, Gerry could have said, "I'm not able to say anything as it may jeopardize the investigation." Instead, he said, "No comment."

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 20:58

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.

And the wider context to this is aforementioned list of additional suspicious behaviour of RM which suggests that he had links to the events of Madeleine's disappearance.

by Guest 30.07.14 20:58

canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Murat had just been made arguido, it was hot news.

The McCanns had a media monitoring unit watching and advising everything they did.

You have no idea if they were told not to comment by them or the PJ.

I strongly suspect they were.

As you "the only time he said no comment"... they said it all the time "we can't talk about that because of the secrecy laws.."... remember?

Yes, but they didn't say, "No comment." in those instances. They used "we can't talk about that because of the secrecy laws" to their advantage. In speaking of Murat, Gerry could have said, "I'm not able to say anything as it may jeopardize the investigation." Instead, he said, "No comment."

Does it matter what words he used?... if he was asked not to comment then what he said was perfectly ok.

by canada12 30.07.14 20:59

BlueBag wrote:
canada12 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Murat had just been made arguido, it was hot news.

The McCanns had a media monitoring unit watching and advising everything they did.

You have no idea if they were told not to comment by them or the PJ.

I strongly suspect they were.

As you "the only time he said no comment"... they said it all the time "we can't talk about that because of the secrecy laws.."... remember?

Yes, but they didn't say, "No comment." in those instances. They used "we can't talk about that because of the secrecy laws" to their advantage. In speaking of Murat, Gerry could have said, "I'm not able to say anything as it may jeopardize the investigation." Instead, he said, "No comment."

Does it matter what words he used?... if he was asked not to comment then what he said was perfectly ok.

Please see Research_Reader's excellent response above.

by Guest 30.07.14 21:00

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.

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 21:01

BlueBag wrote:
Does it matter what words he used?... if he was asked not to comment then what he said was perfectly ok.

Only if you believe that different words convey different meanings!

by Guest 30.07.14 21:02

Research_Reader wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Does it matter what words he used?... if he was asked not to comment then what he said was perfectly ok.

Only if you believe that different words convey different meanings!

Yours is the only interpretation of the meaning I take it.

There are no other possibilities?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.07.14 21:03

BlueBag wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Does it matter what words he used?... if he was asked not to comment then what he said was perfectly ok.

Only if you believe that different words convey different meanings!

Yours is the only interpretation of the meaning I take it.

There are no other possibilities?

I warned you politely earlier.

Your mask has slipped a lot quicker and further than I'd expected.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.07.14 21:04

Oh I remember alright, yet the same tired old nonsense was drawn out even after the arguido status was lifted. There is absolutely no question that Mr McCann cannot handle certain topics or areas of interest. Body language, a tiny nuance, speaks a thousand words. And those areas they try to refute they do by spouting absolute crap. The dogs for example, and the matter of them being "unreliablele". Utter rubbish. I have personally spoken to one of the countries most eminent figures in dog detection and had the lowdown on the training methods and success rates. These dogs CANNOT give false positives. To claim otherwise is an absolute falsehood. Any sniffer dog trainer could attest to the methods of training and accuracy. Any claim to the contrary is completely ignorant. So why did Dr McCann so publicly make a completely false and unsubstantiated claim?

Why have they done so on more than one issue? Their record of presenting the truth over the last seven years is completely reprehensible, and the fact that they have not been pulled up on their appalling behaviour surely indicates an involvement of sorts of something that those more important than them wish to remain concealed. These ordinary people telling an extraordinarily shabby tale, and being allowed to get away with it, is indicative of something much darker.

by Guest 30.07.14 21:05

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Does it matter what words he used?... if he was asked not to comment then what he said was perfectly ok.

Only if you believe that different words convey different meanings!

Yours is the only interpretation of the meaning I take it.

There are no other possibilities?
I warned you politely earlier.

Your mask has slipped a lot quicker and further than I'd expected.

What does that mean?

Are you serious?

Did you read any of my other posts?

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 21:05

Bluebag: " Yours is the only interpretation of the meaning I take it.

There are no other possibilities?"

Not at all. But it sounds like I'm not the only person who notices a difference in meaning between the two sentences!

Equally, you keep saying that context is important, well why not consider the wider context of the strange series of facts about RM that have never been properly accounted for?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.07.14 21:16

Research_Reader wrote:Bluebag: " Yours is the only interpretation of the meaning I take it.

There are no other possibilities?"

Not at all. But it sounds like I'm not the only person who notices a difference in meaning between the two sentences!

Equally, you keep saying that context is important, well why not consider the wider context of the strange series of facts about RM that have never been properly accounted for?

IMO, if it were possible, you have made an even more telling point against BlueBag's arrant nonsense than in your previous posts on this thread.

And your avatar...I never comment on avatars, but I'll now make an exception... lol4

by Guest 30.07.14 21:26

My point is that you have no idea if Gerry was told not to comment.

It's quite evident that you don't - be honest.

That's not arrant nonsense.

There's just a lot of interpretation and supposition going on - you are trying to extract more from the comment than is there.

Yes there might be something more to Murat/McCann but what Gerry here says isn't a smoking gun.

And if you bothered to read my other posts you would see I'm no friend of the McCanns.

Mask slipped indeed.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.07.14 21:30

BlueBag wrote:My point is that you have no idea if Gerry was told not to comment.

I fully understand your point, and have done all along, it's just that it was a very bad point to make in the first place.

And you have made a very bad point much worse IMO by flogging a dead horse ever since

by **sharonl** 30.07.14 21:30

Justformaddie wrote:He's smart, but I don't think he'd put his life on the line, life in jail wouldn't make me risk it for money but there's defiantly people who would I'm sure, who knows with this case, any things possible IMO

Is this where Smith comes in?

The tapas friends point the finger at Murat, it goes too far and Murat gets arrested, then along comes another frequent visitor to PDL who, along with two family members, claims to have seen the abductor, just as Tanner had described, and he is adamant that this was NOT Murat. A few DNA tests and the evidence of this witness and Murat is in the clear.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.07.14 21:31

BlueBag wrote:My point is that you have no idea if Gerry was told not to comment.

It's quite evident that you don't - be honest.

That's not arrant nonsense.

There's just a lot of interpretation and supposition going on - you are trying to extract more from the comment than is there.

Yes there might be something more to Murat/McCann but what Gerry here says isn't a smoking gun.

And if you bothered to read my other posts you would see I'm no friend of the McCanns.

Mask slipped indeed.

Oh yes it is even by the most basic of standards of body language interpretation. If he had been instructed in such a matter, he would feel confident that his comment was correct under the circumstances. His body language literally screams deception and discomfort. It is pretty unequivocal.

by secrets and lies 30.07.14 21:33

It's just dire when potentially interesting topics like this get railroaded.

I think they point being made is that HOW GM answered that question is very telling. In that case the words themselves become redundant.

To me, that answer was in no way typical of what one might expect from a scared, grieving father. But then there was no indication of fear or grief at all, was there?

When we balance that answer against the other "we have been advised not to comment.." type answers, this one stands out as being all the more significant.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.07.14 21:35

secrets and lies wrote:It's just dire when potentially interesting topics like this get railroaded.

I think they point being made is that HOW GM answered that question is very telling. In that case the words themselves become redundant.

To me, that answer was in no way typical of what one might expect from a scared, grieving father. But then there was no indication of fear or grief at all, was there?

When we balance that answer against the other "we have been advised not to comment.." type answers, this one stands out as being all the more significant.

Spot on.

Anyone with half a functioning brain cell can see that the taped response by Dr McCann falls short of "normal" in every way possible.

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 21:43

Tony Bennett wrote:
And your avatar...I never comment on avatars, but I'll now make an exception...

Thanks. There is a certain absurd dark humour in all this. Despite the fact that we mustn't forget why we are all so determined to see the truth come to light.

by Cristobell 30.07.14 21:51

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.

I have always felt that Gerry was posturing when asked that question. He could not hide his love of the attention, and having the media at his feet. I clearly remember the inappropriate glee in Gerry's voice when he told Ian Hill 'if they knew, they wouldn't tell him', when asked if anyone had been watching them.

I think he knew Murat, but only in the sense that 3 of his friends had pointed him out as a suspect. Jane Tanner, though she later denied it, identified him during the covert stake out, where Jane suspected she was being kidnapped, and two of the tapas friends remembered seeing him on the night. Gerry knew Murat alright and he and the others were more than happy to point the finger at him, as it took the focus away from themselves. Murat for them was a gift from the Gods. A single man, who lived yards away from the apartments, he was the perfect stooge.

The idea that the are connected as friends, and indeed accomplices, is in my opinion, ridiculous. The McCanns want us to look at Robert Murat, it takes the heat off them, and they have no scruples whatsoever. No doubt one of the tasks assigned to the various private detectives they employed, was to dig dirt on Murat. That nothing has surfaced in 7 years, puts him in the clear imo.

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 21:55

Cristobell, do you not find it suspicious that RM rushed back to Luz with apparent haste, and denied being on the phone to Malinka late on the night of Madeleine's apparent disappearance, and then when caught in his lie said he couldn't remember what they talked about?

by Smokeandmirrors 30.07.14 22:05

I personally suspect Murat and Malinka of some sort of data transferral, given the encryption on the computers. IMO neither of them come out of this "whiter than white". Of course this is supposition on my part based on known facts garnered from the PJ files, they both are still shrouded in a cloud of Q marks.

There are just too many "odd" factors and "co-incidences" to ignore. The problem is coming up with the gem that is "beyond all reasonable doubt". And of course, depending on whether Grange is legit, or a protection exercise for those high in power at this current time who are embroiled in a pedophile ring.

by Cristobell 30.07.14 22:06

BlueBag wrote:Murat had just been made arguido, it was hot news.

The McCanns had a media monitoring unit watching and advising everything they did.

You have no idea if they were told not to comment by them or the PJ.

I strongly suspect they were.

As for your "the only time he said no comment"... they said it all the time "we can't talk about that because of the secrecy laws.."... remember?

I think Gerry was squirming because Murat was the poor sod, they were going to hang. Three of the gang were ready to give evidence against him!

I think Gerry also likes to give the impression that the police keep him constantly updated. Who remembers 'the information is, this is an abduction'. 'The information' really? We know now where the information was coming from, but it wasn't from his new best buddy Goncalo Amaral. Gerry did not want the press to know that the PJ were telling them nothing, that would arouse suspicion.

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 22:09

Cristobell wrote:
The idea that the are connected as friends, and indeed accomplices, is in my opinion, ridiculous.

Ridiculous in what sense? That its not possible that Gerry and Robert knew one another? I see no barrier to this being true at all. Gerry could easily have met him on an earlier trip.

Cristobell:
"The McCanns want us to look at Robert Murat, it takes the heat off them, and they have no scruples whatsoever. No doubt one of the tasks assigned to the various private detectives they employed, was to dig dirt on Murat. That nothing has surfaced in 7 years, puts him in the clear imo."

Respectfully I think this is a logical error. If you make an assumption and derive a prediction from it, then if that prediction doesn't come true you should question your initial assumption rather than use it to make further assumptions.

i.e. its akin to me saying: I recon the Pope wants to shoot me, but the fact that he hasn't succeeded means he must be a really bad shot.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.07.14 22:13

Research_Reader wrote:Cristobell, do you not find it suspicious that RM rushed back to Luz with apparent haste, and denied being on the phone to Malinka late on the night of Madeleine's apparent disappearance, and then when caught in his lie said he couldn't remember what they talked about?

I will attempt on answer on behalf of Cristobell.

She commented on one of the many threads on here which documents Murat's 17 proven lies when first interviewed by police on 15 May 2014. These were 17 deliberate lies told about a missing three-year old child, when he had an absolute duty to tell the truth.

He had been asked about his movements on 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th May, given his sudden return to Praia da Luz on an early morning flight on Tuesday 1 May. When re-interviewed on 10 July, he attempted to repeat those selfsame lies, only to be stopped in his tracks when the police produced his mobile 'phone pings which revealed how comprehensively he had lied to the police. He then amended his original statement in at least 17 different respects, claiming he had been 'too tired' on 15 May to 'remember the truth'.

Cristobell totally exonerated this conduct, making some excuses for it which (IMO) wholly lacked credibility.

Cristobell is a paid-up member of the 'Murat-is-innocent-of anything-to-do-with-the-Madeleine-McCann-case' brigade, a bit like JillyCL on MCF.

Therefore I predict that she will once again find some excuse for Murat's strange conduct re his 'phone call to Malinka, and will find nothing remotely suspicious about it.