Gerry / Murat - No comment

by Guest 30.07.14 11:31

In the interests of fairness does anyone have the full version of this interview?

Reporter: "Did you know Robert Murat?"

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

This looks like they both read prepared statements in front of the cameras and it could be they were not going to comment on anything - it just happened the Murat question was first to be refused.

So did they answer other questions at the time?

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 13:53

If thats the explanation, its still a funny way for him to have worded his response. Surely he would have said something more like "I'm not going to answer any additional questions right now." ?

However, its also slightly strange that he wouldn't just deny knowing RM beforehand.

The only explanation that makes sense to me is that (A) He did know RM beforehand, (B) There WAS some involvement of RM in the events of that week, (C) This involvement would potentially be damaging to Gerry if found out, but: (D) evidence that he DID know RM was potentially easy to find, or likely to come out (hence him not directly lying about it).

This makes me think that if someone could find evidence of RM knowing Gerry beforehand a big part of the jigsaw puzzle might come into view.

Also, the other potentially strange facts about RM are that:

He made the late night call to Malinka which he tried to deny.
I seem to remember reading here that he had his phone switched off and then switched back on at exactly the same times as Gerry.
The unexplained meeting he had with Brian Kennedy, one of the Mccann's wealthy benefactors.

by Justformaddie 30.07.14 14:03

Maybe he wasn't allowed to comment, when was Murat made a suspect? If they did know him, why would the tapas9 sorry 4 (I think) give evidence against him? Confusing IMO

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 14:12

3 Possible answers off the top of my head:

As a threat.

As a false charade whereby he was assured that he'd eventually be released and promised he could receive a huge legal payout.

Because maybe not all those 4 Tapas were fully aware of RM's involvement with Gerry.

by Justformaddie 30.07.14 15:34

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

by Guest 30.07.14 15:58

No has the full film so we can see the full context?

Also he may have been told not to comment as Murat was a suspect?

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 16:15

BlueBag wrote:
Also he may have been told not to comment as Murat was a suspect?

But notice he didn't say "Sorry I'm not allowed to make any comments about Robert Murat." He just says "I'm not going to comment on that."

Why use this more suspicious wording?

Also, as I've commented before: I wonder why the journalist even thought to ask that question? Did they suspect or know something?

by missmar1 30.07.14 16:48

Justformaddie wrote:Maybe he wasn't allowed to comment, when was Murat made a suspect? If they did know him, why would the tapas9 sorry 4 (I think) give evidence against him? Confusing IMO

When you are asking everyone for their money and help to find your missing daughter - the least you can do is be civil and polite when asked valid questions by the very same media that you turned to to help broadcast the above message !

I have always thought Gerry Mccann's response to that question was quite out of order for a grieving dad to come out with - imo, a totally innocent dad would just answer the question by saying yes or no or explain he was not allowed to answer ? If a genuine abduction had taken place, surely an honest answer was called for ? what difference did it make whether they knew eachother before or not ?

To just say " I am not going to comment on that " makes me think Gerry Mccann went straight on the defensive for some reason . all my opinion only.

by Guest 30.07.14 16:55

Research_Reader wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Also he may have been told not to comment as Murat was a suspect?

But notice he didn't say "Sorry I'm not allowed to make any comments about Robert Murat." He just says "I'm not going to comment on that."

Why use this more suspicious wording?

Also, as I've commented before: I wonder why the journalist even thought to ask that question? Did they suspect or know something?

"Suspicious wording"?

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with what he said if he had been told to make no comment about that or anything else.

And the reason the journalist asked is because Murat had just been made a suspect.

Nothing is to be gained here by not being fair where it's due.

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 17:05

Its not a question of me 'not being fair'. There are a series of suspicious facts about RM that make a lot of people, including me, suspect that he might have been involved in some way with a cover-up. The words that people use to answer a straight-forward question can be very revealing sometimes, and can at least be worth analysing. The point I am making is why answer in a way that potentially casts suspicion on yourself, when you could just say "I've been told I can't talk about RM at this time." ?

by missmar1 30.07.14 17:05

BlueBag wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Also he may have been told not to comment as Murat was a suspect?

But notice he didn't say "Sorry I'm not allowed to make any comments about Robert Murat." He just says "I'm not going to comment on that."

Why use this more suspicious wording?

Also, as I've commented before: I wonder why the journalist even thought to ask that question? Did they suspect or know something?

"Suspicious wording"?

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with what he said if he had been told to make no comment about that or anything else.

And the reason the journalist asked is because Murat had just been made a suspect.

Nothing is to be gained here by not being fair where it's due.

Imo, he could have answered in a less arrogant manner.

by Guest 30.07.14 17:07

missmar1 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Also he may have been told not to comment as Murat was a suspect?

But notice he didn't say "Sorry I'm not allowed to make any comments about Robert Murat." He just says "I'm not going to comment on that."

Why use this more suspicious wording?

Also, as I've commented before: I wonder why the journalist even thought to ask that question? Did they suspect or know something?

"Suspicious wording"?

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with what he said if he had been told to make no comment about that or anything else.

And the reason the journalist asked is because Murat had just been made a suspect.

Nothing is to be gained here by not being fair where it's due.
Imo, he could have answered in a less arrogant manner.

He's an arrogant person.

I think we've all come to realise that.

by Justformaddie 30.07.14 17:09

Maybe Murat was another f:::::: t:::: as they knew he'd nothing to do with it and that could've stopped the money rolling in big grin

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 17:19

missmar1 wrote: Imo, he could have answered in a less arrogant manner.

Arrogant yes, but usually focused on deflecting suspicion away from himself, not answering in a way that increases suspicion.

Taken on its own it might not be that important, but there are this series of suspicious facts - RM rushing back to Luz, denying the late-night phonecall to Malkina, the phone being switched off at the same time as Gerry's - that beg for an explanation.

by missmar1 30.07.14 17:34

Research_Reader wrote:
missmar1 wrote: Imo, he could have answered in a less arrogant manner.

Arrogant yes, but usually focused on deflecting suspicion away from himself, not answering in a way that increases suspicion.

Taken on its own it might not be that important, but there are this series of suspicious facts - RM rushing back to Luz, denying the late-night phonecall to Malkina, the phone being switched off at the same time as Gerry's - that beg for an explanation.

Yes, imo, he does try to deflect suspicion away from himself, but as you say, there are a series of suspicious facts, on their own they can mean nothing, but all put together - they can appear quite suspicious....for instance, his reply to Mrs Fenn that a "wee girl had gone missing " eh? What father would say A GIRL when referring to his own daughter ?

I think if he really did make that remark ( other posters may know if he did ) then it beggars belief he did not say it was his own child that had gone missing....sounds like he didn't want any offers of help off Mrs Fenn for some reason all my opinion.

by missmar1 30.07.14 17:40

BlueBag wrote:
missmar1 wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Research_Reader wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Also he may have been told not to comment as Murat was a suspect?

But notice he didn't say "Sorry I'm not allowed to make any comments about Robert Murat." He just says "I'm not going to comment on that."

Why use this more suspicious wording?

Also, as I've commented before: I wonder why the journalist even thought to ask that question? Did they suspect or know something?

"Suspicious wording"?

In my opinion there is nothing wrong with what he said if he had been told to make no comment about that or anything else.

And the reason the journalist asked is because Murat had just been made a suspect.

Nothing is to be gained here by not being fair where it's due.
Imo, he could have answered in a less arrogant manner.

He's an arrogant person.

I think we've all come to realise that.

Imo, he should be reminded when being interviewed, just who is to blame for leaving their children alone in the first place ( Thats if they were ) - hopefully his arrogance may then diminish a little when he puts his mouth into gear.

by Research_Reader 30.07.14 17:42

Yes. There have been posts before that say criminal psychologists know that when someone is guilty but trying to hide it, they use language that distances themselves from the event. Hence saying 'wee girl' rather than 'my daughter'.

by **Tony Bennett** 30.07.14 20:35

BlueBag wrote:
[Gerry McCann] is an arrogant person.

BlueBag, this was your fourth attempt on the thread to try and get round the all-too-obvious point that Dr Gerald McCann's response to the simple question: 'Did you already know Robert Murat?' was at best evasive - and far more than likely a dead giveaway as what the true answer to the question would have been, had Dr McCann not refused to comment but had given an honest answer.

Research_Reader has run rings round you in his replies and I respectfully suggest you may wish to retire from this debate.

by Guest 30.07.14 20:42

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
[Gerry McCann] is an arrogant person.
BlueBag, this was your fourth attempt on the thread to try and get round the all-too-obvious point that Dr Gerald McCann's response to the simple question: 'Did you already know Robert Murat?' was at best evasive - and far more than likely a dead giveaway as what the true answer to the question would have been, had Dr McCann not refused to comment but had given an honest answer.

Research_Reader has run rings round you in his replies and I respectfully suggest you may wish to retire from this debate.

Tony, I have yet to see anyone provide context for Gerry's comment. All we have is a short clip of film embedded in a news item about Murat being made arguido.

Are you saying it's impossible that he was told by the PJ or others not to comment on Murat or anything in general?

You of all people should know the importance of context.

Yes he was being "evasive" if he was told to not comment... yes?

You can't read what you want to read into his comment without knowing the full context.

by canada12 30.07.14 20:49

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
[Gerry McCann] is an arrogant person.
BlueBag, this was your fourth attempt on the thread to try and get round the all-too-obvious point that Dr Gerald McCann's response to the simple question: 'Did you already know Robert Murat?' was at best evasive - and far more than likely a dead giveaway as what the true answer to the question would have been, had Dr McCann not refused to comment but had given an honest answer.

Research_Reader has run rings round you in his replies and I respectfully suggest you may wish to retire from this debate.

Tony, I have yet to see anyone provide context for Gerry's comment. All we have is a short clip of film embedded in a news item about Murat being made arguido.

Are you saying it's impossible that he was told by the PJ or others not to comment on Murat or anything in general?

You of all people should know the importance of context.

Yes he was being "evasive" if he was told to not comment... yes?

You can't read what you want to read into his comment without knowing the full context.

Please excuse me if I'm wrong, but I believe that may be the only time in any of the answers that Gerry has given over the past seven years that he's ever responded, "No comment." In the news business, responding with "No comment" is as good as a confirmation. If Gerry had not known Murat in advance, why wouldn't he just have said "No."?

by **Tony Bennett** 30.07.14 20:51

BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
[Gerry McCann] is an arrogant person.
BlueBag, this was your fourth attempt on the thread to try and get round the all-too-obvious point that Dr Gerald McCann's response to the simple question: 'Did you already know Robert Murat?' was at best evasive - and far more than likely a dead giveaway as what the true answer to the question would have been, had Dr McCann not refused to comment but had given an honest answer.

Research_Reader has run rings round you in his replies and I respectfully suggest you may wish to retire from this debate.

Tony, I have yet to see anyone provide context for Gerry's comment. All we have is a short clip of film embedded in a news item about Murat being made arguido.

Are you saying it's impossible that he was told by the PJ or others not to comment on Murat or anything in general?

You of all people should know the importance of context.

Yes he was being "evasive" if he was told to not comment... yes?

You can't read what you want to read into his comment without knowing the full context.

Y-A-W-N. Research_Reader has fully adressed the irrelevant pleading by you of 'context' in your vain attempt to get Dr McCann off the hook on this one.

by Smokeandmirrors 30.07.14 20:51

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.

by Guest 30.07.14 20:53

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?

by Guest 30.07.14 20:54

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:
[Gerry McCann] is an arrogant person.
BlueBag, this was your fourth attempt on the thread to try and get round the all-too-obvious point that Dr Gerald McCann's response to the simple question: 'Did you already know Robert Murat?' was at best evasive - and far more than likely a dead giveaway as what the true answer to the question would have been, had Dr McCann not refused to comment but had given an honest answer.

Research_Reader has run rings round you in his replies and I respectfully suggest you may wish to retire from this debate.

Tony, I have yet to see anyone provide context for Gerry's comment. All we have is a short clip of film embedded in a news item about Murat being made arguido.

Are you saying it's impossible that he was told by the PJ or others not to comment on Murat or anything in general?

You of all people should know the importance of context.

Yes he was being "evasive" if he was told to not comment... yes?

You can't read what you want to read into his comment without knowing the full context.
Y-A-W-N. Research_Reader has fully adressed the irrelevant pleading by you of 'context' in your vain attempt to get Dr McCann off the hook on this one.