Re: Scotland Yard to investigate Robert Murat again.

by phil_burton 19.11.14 15:07

jeanmonroe wrote:All this BS about RM is just that........BS!

The MET/SY CAN get an European Arrest Warrant, issued, immmediately, today, and 'nick' him in Portugal under that warrant.

They know where he 'lives'!

If he were such a 'danger' to little girls in PDL, WHY hasn't Mahogany arrested him YEARS ago, on a EAW?

The UK police were quick enough to get an EAW for Asya King's parents weren't they?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
30 August 2014 Last updated at 18:44
Ashya King: European arrest warrant issued for parents
A European arrest warrant has been issued for the parents of a five-year-old boy with a brain tumour, missing from hospital since Thursday.

Is DCI Mahogany seriously expecting us to believe that, Madeleine, who is in her dungeon lair, with her abductor, in one of the lawless villages, within a 10km radius of PDL, according to Dave 'Igrabbedit' Edgar, PI for McCanns, and she can stay THERE until 'paperwork' is sorted out?

When a 'person', in PDL, MAY 'know' where that dungeon is?

But DCI Mahogany's NOT going to issue an EAW, TODAY, or re-interview this possible danger to young, only female UK white kids, until the new year?

Just when you thought OG couldn't pull yet another 'stroke'...we get THIS...BS!

eta: Sky News saying RM was a 'SUSPECT' in Portugal

Wonder when they'll start saying Ge££y and Hate Mc were also 'SUSPECTS'?

IMO, its been clear since the "searches" earlier this year that SY were working on the thesis that she died in the apartment, and either the body, or articles linked to the body were dumped in an around PDL.

Still thinking this is positive news

by j.rob 19.11.14 15:08

Tony Bennett wrote:This may be of interest, Chapter Q from my 2010 article: 'Robert Murat: From arguido to applause' - which deals with Robert Murat's reactions 5 days after news that he'd just won £600,000 in libel damages:

+++++++++++++++++++++

Q. Robert Murat’s interview five days after he received his £600,000 libel award

Asked to comment on his libel victory, Murat declared, on SKY TV, and reading from a prepared text: “The newspapers in this case brought about the total and utter destruction of mine and my family’s life, and caused immense distress”.

Five days after Robert Murat received his libel pay-out, and while still an arguido, he gave a TV interview for the BBC. This is how the interview went:

Murat: “I would like to know why...um...er... I was made an arguido...er, because, er, sincerely, I don't understand why I was made an arguido. Erm, yeah, I would like to find out. I would like to find out.
Reporter: “Would there be satisfaction or anger when the police, if they do, fully clear you?”

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

The U.S.-based website ‘Eyes for Lies’ has analysed this interview, looking at the facial expressions. The full analysis by the ‘Eyes’ website (run by a U.S. lady) can be viewed here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

In summary, the ‘Eyes’ website makes these points:
‘Eyes’ suggests that five day later, we would expect Murat to be showing the same sign of distress as in the statement he made five days earlier on SKY.
QUOTE
“We should see a man, who is angry, violated, misunderstood and unjustly treated”.
She continues: “Is this what we see when we watch Murat speak here? Absolutely not. What we see, instead, is a man who is enjoying the spotlight. You'd think in this interview that Murat was sitting down for an afternoon tea, and not a serious conversation about how his life was ruined. He is enjoying speculating and bantering about this whole scenario as if it had no implications for him, yet he readily acknowledges he is still a suspect.
“Look at how he smirks and grins. More importantly, we don't see any distress, or feelings of violation. We don't see anger for all the pain he has supposedly had to endure. We don't see a hint that this is a man who was wrongly looked at, put under the microscope, called a suspect and had his life destroyed as he says himself. His behaviour is a complete contradiction to the circumstances that he wants us to believe here. It is totally different than the script he read out to the media after he won his libel suit, but it shouldn't be.
“It’s one thing not to be bothered by the entire frenzy and to ignore it because he knows he is innocent, and that the police couldn't possibly have anything on him. It's quite another to tell us it devastated his life and to go after the press, but to then turn around and act like it was no big deal, and entertain the idea that if the Portuguese police had reason to call him a suspect that they are just ‘doing their job’ and that he should be ‘sensible’ about it, is absurd.
“It's flat out pompous. If the police inaccurately labelled you a suspect, would you ever entertain such nonsense? I can't believe I am even seeing this arrogance. Is that how you would feel if you have been wrongly looked at as a suspect for an entire year? After the police searched your house multiple times? After your life was supposedly ruined, and the media trashed your name around the world?
“If shoddy detective work destroyed your life, was inaccurate or faulty, I can be 100% confident in saying that you'd never go there. It defies logic. If there is one person on this earth who should never have doubts about Murat's innocence, it should be Robert Murat himself…”

UNQUOTE
We think these are perceptive observations and would recommend people to view the full article.
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
ETA: BBC now running this as one of its top stories:

19 November 2014 Last updated at 12:13

Madeleine McCann: Ex-suspect Murat 'faces new questions'

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Police investigating the disappearance of British girl Madeleine McCann are to question former suspect Robert Murat, the BBC has learned.

British police are due to travel to Portugal to sit in on the questioning of eleven people of interest.

A source close to the case has told the BBC that two of the eleven are Mr Murat and his wife.

Mr Murat was named as an arguido, or, suspect, in the case in 2007 but was later cleared by Portuguese police.

He won substantial damages from various media organisations and has always denied any involvement in Madeleine McCann's disappearance.

Madeleine, of Rothley, Leicestershire, was three when she went missing from her family's holiday apartment on 3 May 2007.

So does this mean he was in on the McScam from the word go?

Or was he drafted in at the last minute (the last minute flight booking that week) to sort out the *disaster*, take the heat away from the Mcs and Tapas and with a promise that he would be financially rewarded?

Whatever the case, he has benefitted financially from the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. As have so many people, her parents included, imo.

by jeanmonroe 19.11.14 15:17

Where's the EAW issued, TODAY, for RM?

Pretty 'serious' crime is child 'abduction' right?

As RM is 'supposed' to have been 'named' in the ILOR, BY the Met's OG, DCI Mahogany, lets have the EAW issued TODAY and have 'im 'nicked'..................NAAWWWW!

Even if only to 'eliminate' him from 'inquiries'!

by jeanmonroe 19.11.14 15:21

A source close to the case has told the BBC that two of the eleven are Mr Murat and his wife........
--------------------------------------------

That leaves NINE!

thinking

by Sceptic 19.11.14 15:48

jeanmonroe wrote:Where's the EAW issued, TODAY, for RM?

Pretty 'serious' crime is child 'abduction' right?

As RM is 'supposed' to have been 'named' in the ILOR, BY the Met's OG, DCI Mahogany, lets have the EAW issued TODAY and have 'im 'nicked'..................NAAWWWW!

Even if only to 'eliminate' him from 'inquiries'!

This is still and always will be a Portuguese investigation - Robert murat is a Portuguese citizen they don't need an EAR.
any trial regarding the disappearance of madeleine mccann will be in Portugal

by margaret 19.11.14 15:49

jeanmonroe wrote:A source close to the case has told the BBC that two of the eleven are Mr Murat and his wife........
--------------------------------------------

That leaves NINE!

Exactly. SY have investigated everything IMO and ruled out everyone else just leaving the tapas 9.

by MRNOODLES 19.11.14 15:58

Sceptic wrote:
jeanmonroe wrote:Where's the EAW issued, TODAY, for RM?

Pretty 'serious' crime is child 'abduction' right?

As RM is 'supposed' to have been 'named' in the ILOR, BY the Met's OG, DCI Mahogany, lets have the EAW issued TODAY and have 'im 'nicked'..................NAAWWWW!

Even if only to 'eliminate' him from 'inquiries'!
This is still and always will be a Portuguese investigation - Robert murat is a Portuguese citizen they don't need an EAR.
any trial regarding the disappearance of madeleine mccann will be in Portugal

I thought he held dual citizenship. Anyway I was going to ask if anybody knew if SY still needed all these permissions to speak to Muat, or is there a shortcut?

by MissesWillYa 19.11.14 17:01

aquila wrote:
Smokeandmirrors wrote:Very interesting indeed. The police must get to the bottom of Gerry's "I'm not going to comment on that" when asked if he previously knew Murat. IMO this is one of the key red flags of the case
I don't think it's just did Gerry know Murat SY need to probe. It's whether any of the Tapasniks/PR machine et al knew him as well.

Just my opinion.

Jane Tanner especially, IMO.

by aiyoyo 19.11.14 17:37

Robert Murat could be interviewed again in Madeleine case
IN [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] · 19-11-2014 12:46:00 · [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
British expat Robert Murat, the first person to be declared a suspect or arguido in the Madeleine McCann investigation back in 2007, is reported to be among the 11 people police want to speak to in the case.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

Questioning of seven suspects and four witnesses had been slated to start next Monday, but was postponed on Tuesday evening due to what Portuguese authorities termed “legal issues.”

A source close to the investigation said Wednesday that Robert Murat has been listed as one of the four witnesses by the Met.

Speaking to The Portugal News on Wednesday, Robert Murat said neither he nor his lawyer had received a formal request to appear before detectives in the Algarve, but said he “would do so freely”.

“My conscience is clear and I have no problem speaking to the police again”.

He has not been officially informed, but the newspapers already knew ahead of him about it.

by Evening_All 19.11.14 18:02

jeanmonroe wrote:A source close to the case has told the BBC that two of the eleven are Mr Murat and his wife........
--------------------------------------------

That leaves NINE!

I've wondered this too. For so many people of interest to be in the spotlight once again surely by now at least ONE of that group will say enough is enough. Some of them will have children approaching their teens, are they really going to continue with their lies even to them? Very very hard to swear a teenager to secrecy.
bomb

by sar 19.11.14 18:09

sar wrote:update, nothing on bbc or sky at 14.00hrs list of main stories. Sky has it on ticker tape

The BBC has been running the Murat story prominently since 12.13 this lunchtime, it is currently the SEVENTH down their list of news stories and is the SIXTH most watched today

- Moderator

apologies moderator, wasn't aware of this at the time. Was watching 'normal' telly. Big bold blue letters, does this mean I'm in trouble?

by Guest 19.11.14 18:59

Excuse me

I just heard the BBC news. Did I hear it right: the lady anchor said that it is the PJ that wants to talk to RM?

Not AR/SY?

Sounds like a two-pronged attack to me. AR/SY doing the legwork, and the PJ the thinking/coordinating?

And what whith this AR/SY liaison chap sitting in with the PJ for the whole of this year?
This last piece of information came up when staff reduction from 38 down to ?? plus 6 civilians was debated in the media.

We may all be in for a big, big surprise

by tungsten tel 19.11.14 19:07

I really hope the "protection" has been removed and Robert Murat sings like a canary to save his own skin . Ive always felt the one day someone would lose there nerve and spill the beans . Maybe , just maybe its Robert Murat .

by TheTruthWillOut 19.11.14 19:07

The PJ always conduct the interviews in Portugal Portia, with SY observing and asking the PJ to ask other questions etc.

UPDATE: Robert Murat has given an interview to Channel 5 News saying he is NOT one of the 11 to be interviewed - Moderator

++++++

Robert Murat rejects claims he will be questioned again over disappearance of Madeleine McCann

He told 5News (Channel 5 News) the reports are ‘fantasy-land’.

Robert Murat has rejected claims that he is to be interviewed by police again in connection with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann.

He told 5 News: “At the moment the situation is I haven't been informed about anything. I really can't say anything about it.

“All I know is I haven't had anything official... no comment. It's all just fantasy-land.”

He has always denied any involvement in the girl's disappearance.

Mr Murat was first questioned by police when the three-year-old went missing in 2007.

He was the first person to be declared an arguido or suspect during the police search.

But he was later awarded substantial libel damages over allegations about his involvement.

Mr Murat was never arrested by police.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by TheTruthWillOut 19.11.14 19:59

Interesting Tony, though I'm not sure why you edited that into my post?

Here is what Murat told the BBC:

Speaking to the BBC from the Algarve, Mr Murat said neither he nor his lawyer had received a formal request to appear, but said he "would do so freely".
He said: "My conscience is clear and I have no problem speaking to the police again."

by ChippyM 19.11.14 20:01

phil_burton wrote:IMO, its been clear since the "searches" earlier this year that SY were working on the thesis that she died in the apartment, and either the body, or articles linked to the body were dumped in an around PDL.

Still thinking this is positive news

At least one reporter tweeted that he had seen police pick up 'objects' in the searches, so I am optimistic that they were actually looking for something specific and not just randomly searching on the off chance as many have claimed.
And don't forget Bernard Hogan Howe dropping the phrase 'murder investigation' in 2 interviews he did this year re. the case.

If R.M. is now saying he WON'T be interviewed, is this another case of spin in order to deflect from who will be interviewed or is it a leak of some genuine information that R.M isn't supposed to know?

If it's a genuine leak, the timing is curious just after announcing no-one will be interviewed until next year, I would like to think it's a tactic to increase pressure on certain people.....but then again...

by NickE 19.11.14 20:16

Channel 5 News, Robert Murat.

by ChippyM 19.11.14 20:16

tungsten tel wrote:I really hope the "protection" has been removed and Robert Murat sings like a canary to save his own skin . Ive always felt the one day someone would lose there nerve and spill the beans . Maybe , just maybe its Robert Murat .

My theory is that there has got to be some pretty nefarious interests and activities linking some of the people in this case and that is why they don't break ranks.....stay silent and you may be convicted of perverting the course of justice, speak openly and you might have to admit to being an abuser and face those consequences such as a jail sentence and the treatment from other inmates. Just speculating of course.

by mysterion 19.11.14 20:47

I wonder if a lot more is now known about "activity" in PDL in April/May 2007 and that a complete revisit of all the evidence provided by witnesses is required. Maybe OG have been very busy indeed. I've pencilled in May 2015 for a result.

by MissesWillYa 19.11.14 20:49

Is RM currently married to MW? Just curious.

by jeanmonroe 19.11.14 20:52

Anyone know IF RM was, at anytime, actually IN G5A?

Pity him, if he was!

Sounds to me like a classic 'MET' (BG) 'set up/ fit up/ stitch up'!

UNKNOWN DNA?........................Murat?

UNKNOWN 'HAIRS'.....................Murat?

TV prog yesterday.....M Nightingdale...........Murat.

ITV news today.........M Nightingdale...........Murat.

Shouldn't be too long before a 'source' close to the McCann's says 'Kate has always 'suspected' ...........Murat'

Wonder when, if, we'll hear from Jenny M, 'soon'

re: "WHY are those doctors, FP, R O'B and RO, LYING about Robert?" JM.

Murat might soon be needing this man - his lawyer, Francisco Pagarete. Murat 'forgot' to tell the PJ , when first questioned, that he'd met with his lawyer on Wednesday 2 May. Pagarete was by his side at that crunch meeting between the Murat Team and the McCann Team at 'Salsalita', the Eveleighs' villa, on 13 November 2007, with Kennedy & Smethurst across the table from Murat and Pagarete.

When news of this meeting leaked out, Kennedy said he'd made the journey to Portugal 'to offer Murat a job looking for Madeleine'

- Moderator

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by NickE 19.11.14 21:35

MissesWillYa wrote:Is RM currently married to MW? Just curious.

According to Portuguese media, yes.

"..............Robert’s wife, Michaela Walczuch, and her former husband, Luís António......................."

by MissesWillYa 19.11.14 21:37

NickE wrote:
MissesWillYa wrote:Is RM currently married to MW? Just curious.
According to Portuguese media, yes.

"..............Robert’s wife, Michaela Walczuch, and her former husband, Luís António......................."

Thanks, NickE. I must have misread that line.

by **sharonl** 19.11.14 21:52

The Portuguese seem reluctant to work with British police and who could blame them? But, without the PJ, on what authority could NSY possible interview any Portuguese resident even if he is ex-pat?

IMO this is just spin, unless of course the PJ are questioning Murat and NSY have jumped on bandwagon.

But, if it were the PJ, would it be splattered all over the press? How odd that we only here about bits of the investigation that the McCanns would want us to hear.

by XTC 19.11.14 22:04

mysterion wrote:I wonder if a lot more is now known about "activity" in PDL in April/May 2007 and that a complete revisit of all the evidence provided by witnesses is required. Maybe OG have been very busy indeed. I've pencilled in May 2015 for a result.

From what I've read of SY's modus operandi from the start is that they have put a great deal of store in phones and phone records.

That's a good place to start I think. Everyone's ( and I hope they have analysed everyone ) who had a mobile phone and was near PdL that day and night should have been found by now I would hope ( even JT's discredited bundleman - if he had a mobile?).

The positions should be known of these people if these phones were used on the day. Whether the contents and texts etc are known is not
known. Hopefully SY do know these things?

Therefore as an example if RM and his mobile was moving around PdL that day it should be known. If he went to the Golf course at a certain time and if GM did the same it should be known. Unless - some people didn't have their mobiles with them? The problem in my opinion with phones is that any planning of the cunning kind would not be carried out via mobiles and in the during and after period the same would apply
I think.

If burglarA rang accomplice B on his/her mobile or texted ( even worse ) that the deed had been done etc it's a pretty obvious line of enquiry for the police to follow.

Which brings me to a theory that whomever removed Madeliene from wherever would not announce to the mobile phone provider and the checking police that the dastardly deed had been done.

What the perpetrators might not know though is that just because your mobile is turned off it doesn't mean that there isn't a signal.
From the bit I know about mobiles the signal is always trying to connect to a phone mast. It's only ever truly off when you take the battery out.

Possibly SY ( and the PJ ) may know who was where but not about any calls made or texts sent whilst the act was occurring. If your phones off you aren't going to make a call anyway. The main thing being - I imagine to place phones as near as possible to 5a ( if indeed that was where Madeleine was taken from?) at ceratin times of the day or night. The night being the most important I assume for SY and the PJ.

The biggest problem for both forces are the people who were walking round PdL without mobiles. Most of them are untraceable. Just like a remover who wasn't carrying a mobile phone that night possibly? If this theory is to hold water then it suggests that the remover was one person without a mobile phone. In other words the remover had no need to tell anyone by phone about anything - just remove.

Only a theory though.

Re: the BBC reports.

Simply put I think the media has assumed that the interviews of the alleged 11 was a done deal.

This is what happens when you rely on unreliable sources.

SY don't do running commentaries but the media does.

My only surprise it that the usually circumspect BBC plonked it on the website and flagged it as semi - breaking news on the Six O'Clock Bulletin.

I wonder if there is a wrestling match going on between the BBC and Sky over who owns Madeleine's story from now on?

All Opinion.

by NickE 19.11.14 22:18

There are reasons why the case is not solved after 7.5 years.
I think that one of the reason is that they seem to be locked up at May 3rd
I really hope SY and PJ have rewind the tape and looked at the events earlier that week.
Creche records,phone calls/text.................
IMO.

by **Tony Bennett** 19.11.14 22:43

XTC wrote:
Therefore as an example if RM and his mobile was moving around PdL that day it should be known. If he went to the Golf course at a certain time and if GM did the same it should be known.

This is all a matter of record so far as Robert Murat is concerned.

The PJ analysed his 'phone records and trapped him by producing them when he was re-interviewed on 10 and 11 July 2007. Murat gulped, asked for 'time out' to take stock of the situation, and then admitted that he'd told the police a pack of lies about what he'd really been doing from 1st to 4th May.

I wrote it all up in detail in Chapters H and I of my article 'Robert Murat: From Arguido to Applause', pp, 66-79.

Here it is for anyone who's not read it yet: winkwink

+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

H. The second set of police interviews with Murat - on 10 and 11 July, two months after he was made ‘arguido’

We’ll take his two interviews separately.

Murat’s police interview on 10 July

Murat was asked to attend for questioning by Portuguese police on 10 July and told he had the right to consult a solicitor. He didn’t require either a solicitor or translator to be present with him. He was asked to confirm his previous testimony. He replied, however, that on the day of his earlier interview (14 May) he was very tired and didn’t remember the details of what he said on that occasion.

His previous statement was then read out to him. He confirmed the general thrust of his statement, but said he wanted to amend some of ‘afmações’ [details] as he said he had confused some events, in particular as regards the dates and times of when they happened.

He said that things he said happened on Wednesday 2 May he now more calmly recalled had happened on Thursday 3 May - and vice versa. And he now said there were ‘other facts’, including some that he now remembered having occurred in those two days that he wanted to tell police about.

The new information that he volunteered included:

·         In Norfolk he had lived with his ex-wife Dawn, his own daughter S____, and his wife’s adopted son David in Hockering, near Norwich.

·         His grandmother lived in Sidford, not Sidmouth [the two places are close to each other].

·         He couldn’t give details of the exact dates he worked for certain companies, but said he worked for ‘Nissan’ and also ‘Inchcape’, including vocational training in sales.

·         When his father died, he returned from England to live with his mother in Portugal.

·         His divorce from Dawn had been finalised on 4 July 2007.

·         When visiting England he usually stayed with his sister Samantha Murat, or in her boyfriend’s home, or in his late grandmother’s house, which he was renovating.

·         Michaela had accompanied him to England on three previous occasions, but Michaela’s daughter had only accompanied on one of those three occasions, at Christmas 2006.

We might just note briefly that Murat’s father died in 1986 when the young Robert Murat was 12. It is not clear what was he doing in England away from his mother. He may have been living with his father or might possibly have been placed in a boarding school. After all, his father, grandfather and uncles had all been schooled at Bradfield College and various preparatory schools. The Murats had several homes in England - in London, Dorset, Kent and Devon.

Murat now began to correct other more important statements he’d previously made about events on 2 and 3 May 2007. He changed his account significantly.

He said that on the morning of Wednesday 2 May he had not in fact left his home by 10.30am, as stated previously, but in fact met with Sergei Malinka that morning at the Batista supermarket, at around 10.00am. That was a major change of story, no doubt prompted by the police having pinpointed, by looking at pings to local mobile ’phone masts from Murat’s mobile ’phone, exactly where he really was that morning.

After that he’d gone to Michaela’s and brought her back to his mother’s home in Praia da Luz where he told police that they discussed the ‘Romigen’ company that apparently Sergei Malinka was also involved in, as he had been designing the website for the proposed company. He said that after a half-hour meeting, he and Malinka left together, and following that he returned home to take Michaela back to Lagos.

The Portuguese Police were naturally curious as to why Murat had not remembered, when he was questioned two months earlier, this important meeting, especially as, when first questioned, that meeting would only have taken place a few days beforehand. He justified his lack of memory by stating that he had only had four hours’ sleep the night before. He said he’d been up until about 3.00am the night before his first interview, drinking coffee and talking to an Inspector Reis S____ at the ‘Bom Vivam’ bar. He’d been woken at 7.00am the following morning by officers from the Portuguese Police.

Murat confirmed that he had also that morning [2 May] paid in, in sterling cash, the sum of 287.51 euros to a bank, apparently called the Credit Agricultural Bank. He said the bank was just 200 yards or so from the house of his lawyer, Francisco Pagarete. It was after going to the bank that he’d gone to Pagarete's house. He said that this sum had come from a Lloyds Bank account in his or his mother’s name, as he’d wanted to transfer it into his Portuguese bank account. This prompted concerns that Murat may have used the debit and credit cards of his mother.

Murat confirmed that he’d called at Dr Francisco Pagarate’s home at about 11.00am to 11.30am - but this visit was unannounced, and he wasn’t there. He now added the new details that he called Pagarete on his mobile ’phone and arranged to meet him later that day.

Referring to his meetings later in the day, he now recollected that he had, after all, met Pagarate that afternoon; also, that when he met with Jorge and his son Jason, another of Jorge’s sons had been present. He now said that after meeting with Pagarete they did not, as he’d said in his earlier interview, return to Lagos with Michaela and her daughter, but instead met once again with Jorge and his sons at the café in the Marina area, to carry on talking about their proposed business plans. They left the café when the owner said he was about to close it.

Murat now remembered that he gave Jorge and one of his sons a lift in his mother’s VW Transporter to the ’bus stop, then drove on to Lagos with Michaela and her daughter. They didn’t arrive back until 8.00pm. Then, Michaela had begun, straightaway, to cook the dinner. He said he was now not sure that Luis Antonia returned to the house that evening. Murat said he left Lagos between 10.30pm and 11.00pm and arrived back home between 10.45pm and 11.15pm. He drove by the usual route and didn’t recollect stopping anywhere. Pressed once more by the police, he now stated ‘with absolute certainty’ that he did not make any stops or calls on the way back home.

The police then put to him that he’d made a telephone call at around 3.42pm to Pagarete. Murat confirmed that he rang to check that he was there.

He confirmed that he was up until around 1.30am that morning, emphasising that his mother would often be up until that time, doing things like ‘feeding the cats and other business’ before retiring to bed.

Then there was another detail that Murat ‘remembered’. He said that during the afternoon of 2 or 3 May, he had visited two apartments, both belonging to the same owner, near the ‘rotunda of the Ball’, in Lagos, with Michaela - apparently ‘for issues related to business’. The visits took about 20-30 minutes.

Now Murat comes to various changes of story as to what happened on Thursday 3 May, the day Madeleine was reported missing. He again emphasises how tired and confused he had been when he gave his earlier statement.

Now he told the police quite a different account of that day’s events.

He now said he woke at 8.00am and left the house by 8.45am. In fact, he said, he had a scheduled appointment to keep at a business tourist complex called ‘Gold Bunker’ in the Espiche district near Almádena. Michaela was with him. He was asked about how Michaela happened to be with him as early as 8.45am, but now remembered that she had ‘come over to Praia da Luz’, but didn’t say how, and the police didn’t press him. He said that they both then drove in his mother’s VW Transporter to the meeting, arriving there at 9.30am. He says it was there in Espiche that they had a meeting, although Michaela Walczuk had claimed the meeting had taken place in her apartment.

A possible explanation for Murat ‘remembering’ his visit to Espiche is that by then, he knew that the police records of his mobile ’phone placed him at Espiche that morning.

He now told police about the details of this meeting, which he had been entirely unable to remember during his first interview with them. There, he and Michaela had met the female owner’s father-in-law [unnamed in the Portuguese Police files]. He asserted that he didn’t remember his name but said that he was a ‘builder from Lagos’. The owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex [also unnamed] arrived to join the meeting a little later.

They continued talking and all had lunch together - making it all the more remarkable that Murat had omitted to give details of this meeting at his earlier interview.

After lunch, Murat and Michaela had gone to the Marina in Lagos where they met with Jorge and his son again. But contrary to his previous claims, Michaela’s daughter, C______, did not accompany them that day.

Now Murat said they went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, where they remained until the time to pick up C______, i.e. around 3.30pm. Murat said that Jorge and his son Jason were again in the car. He dropped them off near the Post Office on the way to pick up C______. The three of them then drove to Michaela’s house for 3.45pm and stayed there until around 7.30pm. He says he then drove straight home and didn’t stop anywhere en route.

For the rest of the evening, he stuck to his account, but acknowledged that he made two telephone calls that night, one to Sergei Malinka at 11.39pm and another at 11.40pm to Michaela. He couldn’t remember having made these calls, but acknowledged that he did make these calls although he couldn’t remember what they were about. Up until recently, the Daily Mail was still, bizarrely, carrying on its website a public apology to Sergei Malinka for ever having suggested that the two men spoke with each other that night.

Now Murat went on to change his account of what happened the day after Madeleine was reported missing, Friday 4 May.

He had to admit that he’d ’phoned Michaela at 8.27 am, though he again couldn’t remember what it was about. He admits therefore that he woke well before 9.00am that morning, the time he had previously given the police for when he had woken up.

Murat’s police interview on 11 July

At 10.00am on 11 July, Murat faced further questions from Inspector Paulo Ferreira. Here are the main points from this interview.

- Murat remembered that the ’phone numbers for ‘Roger’, 44780xxxxxxx, and 44770xxxxxxxx, are both mobile ’phone numbers of two partners who buy and sell land and whom he knows professionally.

- He said he’d been in England ‘about a month’ before returning to Portugal on 1 May. He’d been renovating the house that used to belong to his grandmother and is now owned by his mother. He and his mother had struck a deal; he would renovate that house in Devon; she would invest in ‘Romigen’.

- His mother had paid for the trip to England.

- Whilst over in England, he’d been in contact with his sister and brother-in-law, his nephews, and his long-standing friend Mário R____ C____ (‘Czech’) who lived nearby in Exeter.

- Whilst in England he kept in internet contact with his future partners Jorge da Silva and his son Jason, and of course his partner Michaela.

- He cannot be sure if he kept in touch with Sergei Malinka during this period.

- He said that whilst in England, negotiations with his potential future business partners had stalled. This was why he decided to travel to Portugal.

- He wanted to progress this matter, believing that he was the only person who could do so.

- He booked his air ticket with ‘flybe’ by internet on the same day he travelled, namely Tuesday 1 May.

- The night before flying out, he slept in the house of sister and brother-in-law. His sister Samantha took him to the airport. He flew from Exeter to Faro.

- During his stay in England he did not have contact with the McCanns nor any of the ‘Tapas 9’ and he is not aware that any member of his family had had any contact with, or knew any of them beforehand.

Asked again if he was involved on the night that Madeleine disappeared or was in Mark Warner Ocean Club helping in the searches and contacting several people, around 11.30pm to midnight, he replied again:

‘Categorically, No’. He maintained that he hadn’t left his mother’s house after around 7.30pm that evening.

Following this further interview, the police then arranged the ‘confrontation’ between Murat and Rachel Mampilly/Oldfield, Russell O’Brien and Fiona Payne, which we discussed above.

The questioning of Murat recommenced in the afternoon. Murat again said that he arrived at his mother’s house at between 7.00pm and 7.30pm on 3 May, which is not consistent with his mother’s account, as she puts Robert’s arrival at about 8.15pm to 8.30pm, after she returned from the supermarket. He couldn’t remember what clothes he was wearing and he still couldn’t remember whether his mother was there or not when he arrived. Nor could he recall what he did that evening after he got in.

The police put to him his mother’s clear recollection that she came back to her house at around 8.30pm and that she recalls Robert arriving about the same time. Murat said couldn’t explain the discrepancy. He confirmed that he and his mother heard sirens at ‘between 10.00pm and 10.30pm’ but says again that didn’t hear the sounds of dogs barking or raised voices.

Asked about his renting a grey Hyundai Getz on Saturday 12 May from Cma Auto Rent in Praia da Luz, he recalled hiring the car in the afternoon. He said he’d done so because his mother was using the VW over the weekend and the Skoda was being repaired in the garage and he had no other means of transport. His mother returned the car the following Tuesday [15 May]. He said he’d used the car to drive round the Lagos and Portimão areas, and probably drove ‘no more than 60 to 120 miles’. Only he had driven it.

It was put to him that the clock in the car showed that it had been driven over 400 miles. Murat’s response was: ‘That’s not true’. He said it must be an error by the car hire company.

Pausing there, let us look at a contemporaneous account about Murat’s hiring of his car on 12 Saturday, in an article by Ian Herbert. We will immediately notice, on reading the first paragraph, that, according to this article, he apparently gives an entirely different reason for hiring out this car. Here is the article:

QUOTE

Suspect in hunt for missing girl ‘wanted hire car immediately’

By Ian Herbert in Praia da Luz - Friday, 18 May 2007

“Police investigating the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in Portugal have been told how their prime suspect, the Briton Robert Murat, was impatient to rent a car two days before he was first questioned by police, because he claimed his own was needed by those involved in the search for the four-year-old.

“Staff at the Autorent 3 dealership here say they asked Mr Murat to wait until after their lunchbreak finished at 3pm last Saturday - Madeleine's fourth birthday. But he said he needed the vehicle immediately.

“Maria Rocco, the member of staff who received Mr Murat's call at the dealership, opposite the church where Madeleine's parents have been praying regularly, called police to report Mr Murat's request after hearing of his arrest. He said: ‘I need a car for myself because the English people who are looking for the little girl need to borrow my car’, Mrs Rocco recalled. ‘You could tell from his voice that he needed it in a hurry. I was puzzled. Why would he need to lend his car to somebody else [in the search]?’ The revelation comes after police questioned Mr Murat's mother, Jennifer, yesterday about her son's alleged involvement in Madeleine's abduction. Yesterday it was reported that police arrived at Mrs Murat's £600,000 villa in Praia da Luz to quiz her about her role concerning her son's alibi on the night of the abduction.

“Results of these interviews will join Mrs Rocco's evidence, which was supported by the form Mr Murat signed when he collected a Hyundai Getz at 5.16pm that day. It will certainly have interested Portuguese police, since the ground search for Madeleine was being scaled down last Saturday and Mr Murat's mother's car, a green VW van, seen in the area that weekend, was available. Mr Murat has indicated that he was aware last weekend that police were tailing him. He complained to them about this shortly before the raid on his house.

“Police are also focussing their inquiries on telephone calls between Mr Murat and a Russian computer scientist, Sergei Malinka. One of these was reportedly made by Mr Malinka a few minutes after 10pm on 3 May, the time when Madeleine's parents discovered she was missing from her room at a Mark Warner resort in the Algarve town.

“The Russian left his flat in Praia da Luz on Wednesday night with police, who had removed a laptop and two computer hard drives. Mr Malinka declined to discuss his ’phone calls with Mr Murat yesterday, but insisted that videos seized from his house had no paedophile content. He confirmed his name and number were in Mr Murat’s phone.

“Yesterday, Mr Malinka protested his innocence. He said: ‘I am not a suspect in this case. I am merely a witness questioned like eight or nine others. Everything that has been said about me is lies...There have been claims in the press that I am some kind of sexual maniac or paedophile. It is nonsense. My career is destroyed and my life is ruined’.

“Mr Malinka remains one of the investigation's 100 witnesses, rather than a suspect like Mr Murat, but the policeman leading the inquiry, Oligario Sousa, did not rule out that situation changing. ‘[He is] not a suspect but it could be in the course of the investigation that something could change’, he said. ‘It's a very dynamic investigation’.

“Mr Malinka, who moved to Portugal from Moscow seven years ago, says he spent several weeks helping Mr Murat and his German girlfriend, Michaela Walczuk, set up a property website a year ago. He said Mr Murat was a client, not a friend, despite reports that they had been photographed together several times after Madeleine's disappearance. ‘I had a working relationship with him [Robert]. How friendly can you be with a client?’ he said.

UNQUOTE

It is clear that by the date of that article, many serious rumours were in full swing about Murat and his friend Malinka. We might note that that weekend, Dr Gerald and Dr Kate McCann were discussing a possible visit to the Roman Catholic shrine at Fatima in Ourém. The 400 miles that Murat had driven would have enabled him to travel to Fatima and back. Or he could have reached Lisbon and back within the 400 miles, or even Huelva in Spain and back. Did someone want to meet him covertly and insist that he travelled in a hired car? Or did Murat need to meet someone?

One additional mystery is that Murat used his ex-wife's Norfolk address in Hockering, Norfolk, when he hired the Hyundai Getz, which he ‘needed in a hurry’ from Auto Rent. Why not give his local address or, if he wanted to give an English address, that of one of his sisters in Devon? The questions about Murat’s actions just seem to pile up.

The police then asked an important question in the interview. They wanted to know why he had apparently not made any calls on his mobile ’phone between 3.00pm on Wednesday 2 May and late on the evening of Thursday 3 May. Murat couldn’t explain it except to say that he was ‘with Michaela most of the time and she was the person he most frequently ’phoned’. The significance of this is that the mobile ’phone records of Dr Gerald McCann showed that he switched off his mobile ’phone within six minutes of Murat doing so and switched it on again some 32 hours later again within six minutes of Murat doing likewise. It is a coincidence of timing that cries out for an explanation. One suggestion made is that they both used Pay-as-you-Go mobiles during this period, discarding them later.

We might note at this juncture the responses the two men gave as to whether they already knew each other. When reporter Sandra Felgueiras asked Dr Gerald McCann whether he already knew Robert Murat, Dr McCann hastily said: “I'm not going to comment on that” whilst his body language clearly showed that he was uneasy with the question. As one observer noted: “The absence of a firm denial makes the positive answer much more likely to be correct”.

Robert Murat's answer to a similar question was: “"I've never met the man before and the idea that I'd met him when he was campaigning for the Labour Party is laughable. I've been a Conservative all my life." (Daily Express, 14 September 2007).

Murat then went on to tell police that he’d never entered the apartment where Madeleine was, neither before nor since she disappeared.

The police now questioned Murat about other matters. The police had his landline and mobile ’phone records. They put to him the numbers held in his mobile ’phone and asked whom he’d been ringing. His answers, for the record and for anyone wanting to analyse his telephone records, are in Appendix 1. We are unsure whether they yield anything of significant interest.

He was asked if he knew someone who owned a boat. He said his uncle had a boat stored at the back of his home. Last year, when he worked for ‘Remax’, he had sold an apartment to a Snr I____ and he knows that he possesses a boat, but doesn’t know where this boat is, and never saw it. He only had a business relationship with Snr I____.

Murat added that he thought that a friend of Michaela’s husband Luis, called Steve, also had a boat, but he’d never seen it and wasn’t sure. Murat also noted that he knew Nelson P____, who was the son of Carlos P____, who had an ‘embarcaçiáo’, but Murat never saw it nor knew where it was kept. Asked if on the day Madeleine disappeared, or subsequently, he had been around the Marina or the port area, he said he had not.

Murat was then shown a photograph by the police, and identified the man in the photo as a Romanian man that he knew who had done some gardening at his mother’s house. Murat had been seen talking to the Romanian after Madeleine disappeared, and said he’d been asking the Romanian if he could translate into Romanian an appeal for people to look for Madeleine.

I. A summary of Murat’s 17 changes of story about what he did on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May

You may by now have lost count of the number of changes in Robert Murat’s story about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May, so here’s a convenient summary of his new account of events, and how these contradicted his earlier account of events:

1.   Remembers that on 1 May he tried to contact Jorge da Silva.

2.   Remembers that on 2 May he didn’t leave home at 10.30am but instead had a meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista Supermarket.

3.   He had in fact taken Michaela and Malinka back to his mother’s house in Praia da Luz for a further discussion, something he’d omitted to tell the police in the first interview.

4.   He now remembered visiting his bank and paying in 287.51 euros.

5.   He now remembered he’d called at the home of Francisco Pagarete, his lawyer, that morning.

6.   He now remembers that he had met Francisco Pagarete that afternoon.

7.   He now remembers that another of Jorge’s sons was present at their meeting in the café in the afternoon.

8.   The meeting in the café went on much longer than he had said previously.

9.   He thinks that Michaela Walczuk’s husband Luis Antonio may not have been present at Michaela’s house that evening, contrary to what he had previously said.

10.                On 3 May, he had not woken at 9.00am as previously stated, but at 8.00am.

11.                He had not driven to Michaela’s house that morning after 10.00am as previously stated; instead he had left home at 8.45am for a 9.30am meeting with the owner of the business tourist complex called ‘Gold Bunker’ in the Espiche district and her father-in-law.

12.                He now remembered that he and Michaela had visited two apartments for about 30 minutes, probably on the afternoon of 3 May.

13.                He and Michaela had lunch with the owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex and her father-in-law, a fact he had not disclosed to police before.

14.                Michaela’s daughter C______ was not with them that day, contrary to his previous story.

15.                They went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, another fact Murat had failed to disclose.

16.                He now admitted to making two telephone calls, to Sergei Malinka and Michaela, at 11.39pm and 11.40pm that night.

17.                He previously said he had woken at 9.00am on Friday 4 May. He now admitted he had telephoned Michaela at 8.27am and must have got up earlier.

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

·         meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista supermarket on 2 May at around 10.00am

·         he and Michaela being in the Espiche/Almádena area at around 9.30am on 3 May

·         his meeting with the owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex

·         he, Michaela and the da Silvas being at the Palmares Golf Club on the afternoon of 3 May

·         that he had visited two apartments on the afternoon of 3 May.

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

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

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

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

“The following day (3 May), Murat, Michaela, Jorge da Silva and his sons met again for a long session on 3 May, at the Palmares Golf Club.

It is hard to understand from Jorge da Silva’s account what all these meetings were really about”.

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

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

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

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

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

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

J. Other problems with Murat’s account of events

SNIPPED

by Okeydokey 20.11.14 1:27

Tony raises a number of v. interesting and legitimate questions. I guess the crux is this:

"The police then asked an important question in the interview. They wanted to know why he had apparently not made any calls on his mobile ’phone between 3.00pm on Wednesday 2 May and late on the evening of Thursday 3 May. Murat couldn’t explain it except to say that he was ‘with Michaela most of the time and she was the person he most frequently ’phoned’. The significance of this is that the mobile ’phone records of Dr Gerald McCann showed that he switched off his mobile ’phone within six minutes of Murat doing so and switched it on again some 32 hours later again within six minutes of Murat doing likewise. It is a coincidence of timing that cries out for an explanation. One suggestion made is that they both used Pay-as-you-Go mobiles during this period, discarding them later."

by violet6000 20.11.14 2:49

I am so excited to hear of this news. I have read a lot about this case over the years, although I have only made one previous post--fairly recently on this board. It related to Murat. I do think that he orchestrated much of the week's activities and likely links all the various players together. I believe there were (nefarious?) connections between him & G. I am guessing folks either helped bc they thought it was all due to an accident and/or for personal financial gain. However, I still wonder if something more sinister was afoot. Either way, I think this is a very good sign of justice to come.