Re: Scotland Yard to investigate Robert Murat again.

by Guest 20.11.14 9:37

[quote="Okeydokey"]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."

[/quote]

Lets see if I get me old arithmetics right:

Switch-off at 3.00 pm on Wednesday 2nd 2007
stayed off for 32 hrs;
Switch on therefore at 3.00 pm + 8 hrs => 23.00 hrs (11 pm) on Thursday 3rd 2007?

How odd:

What could RM have been doing in complete radio silence from wednesday till Maddies disappearance first came to light?

An who with?

by Guest 20.11.14 9:39

Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?

by aiyoyo 20.11.14 9:46

margaret wrote:

Either certain people have leaked it, or the police leaked it to put pressure on certain people....

Well.......he must be (cleared I mean), else why is he going to be re-interviewed only as a witness, when if the status wasn't cleared but only suspended then shouldn't the status automatically resume by default upon further/future re-interview or re-interrogation ?

Since PJ and SY have often stated they don't do running commentary, I wonder where the leak came from ? Particularly BBC known for stringent, restricted and selective reportings where did they get this info from? Even RM himself claimed he's not been informed about it?

If Police leaked it, it won't be about putting pressure IMO, as that would be counter-productive. Pre-warning affords the person/s chance to destroy evidence if they hadn't done so or allow them time to be more thorough in the destroying of evidence.

by **Tony Bennett** 20.11.14 10:07

BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?

The facts are these.

Robert Murat was indeed 'stitched up' by:

1. Jane Tanner on 13 May (she ID'd Murat who walked by a police van she was sitting in)

2. Rachael Oldfield
3. Fiona Payne
4. Russell O'Brien - all on (if memory serves) 15 & 16 May

Arguably he was also 'stitched up' by:

5. MI5/British police profilers, who told Goncalo Amaral that Murat 'fitted the profile of the abductor 90%' (all set out in Amaral's book, 'The Truth About A Lie')

6. Control Risks Group and
7. Detective Superintendent Bob Small - both of whom advised and spoke to Jane Tanner in the hours before she ID'd Murat (who looked nothing like her initial description of the abductor on 4 May and nothing like Melissa Little's later drawing of 'Tannerman')

8. Lori Campbell of the Mirror and the Independent and
9. Clarence Mitchell, then the Head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit - both of whom pointed the finger at Murat in the early days

10.)
11.)
12.) At least five other people who in the months to come were to claim that they had also seen Murat 'hanging around the Ocean Club' late on
13.) 3 May
14.)

That's one heck of a lot of people who 'stitched up' Murat.

Now look back for a moment at Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 above - NINE people.

All of these, one way or another, sooner or later, retracted their identifications of Murat.

These retractions cam over a period of months after the 'high summit' meeting between the Murat Team and the McCann Team at Salsalitas, the Burgau villa of Ralph & Sally Eveleigh, Murat's uncle and aunt, when Robert Murat and his mother squared up to Brian Kennedy, each flanked by their respective lawyers, Francisco Pagarete and high-ranking Freemason Edward Smethurst.

That was on 13 November 2007.

Look at the press reports from 1 January 2008 onwards, and you'll see how Nos. 1 to 4 and Nos. 10 to 14 all came out, sometimes via sources or spokesmen, to say things like 'I think I mistook Angus Symington/David Payne (take your pick) for Robert Murat'. The British press were helpfully provided by sources with photos of Symington and Payne looking as alike as possible to Robert Murat.

Who were those sources?

Within the story of the 'stitching-up' of Murat, and then the sudden change of tack after the 'high noon' summit in the Eveleighs' villa, lies one of the keys to this mystery.

@ BlueBag You asked: "Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachael?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?@

REPLY: I don't yet know.

But I believe what I described above suggests a deliberate plan to get him named as a suspect, orchestrated by the British security services

by jozi 20.11.14 10:56

BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?

IMO its a wild goose chase and what better way to get the world and his dog cencentrating on dodgy Murat instead of the Mcs....is there any other way ?

by MRNOODLES 20.11.14 11:32

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?
The facts are these.

Robert Murat was indeed 'stitched up' by:

1. Jane Tanner on 13 May (she ID'd Murat who walked by a police van she was sitting in)

2. Rachael Oldfield
3. Fiona Payne
4. Russell O'Brien - all on (if memory serves) 15 & 16 May

Arguably he was also 'stitched up' by:

5. MI5/British police profilers, who told Goncalo Amaral that Murat 'fitted the profile of the abductor 90%' (all set out in Amaral's book, 'The Truth About A Lie')

6. Control Risks Group and
7. Detective Superintendent Bob Small - both of whom advised and spoke to Jane Tanner in the hours before she ID'd Murat (who looked nothing like her initial description of the abductor on 4 May and nothing like Melissa Little's later drawing of 'Tannerman')

8. Lori Campbell of the Mirror and the Independent and
9. Clarence Mitchell, then the Head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit - both of whom pointed the finger at Murat in the early days

10.)
11.)
12.) At least five other people who in the months to come were to claim that they had also seen Murat 'hanging around the Ocean Club' late on
13.) 3 May
14.)

That's one heck of a lot of people who 'stitched up' Murat.

Now look back for a moment at Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 above - NINE people.

All of these, one way or another, sooner or later, retracted their identifications of Murat.

These retractions cam over a period of months after the 'high summit' meeting between the Murat Team and the McCann Team at Salsalitas, the Burgau villa of Ralph & Sally Eveleigh, Murat's uncle and aunt, when Robert Murat and his mother squared up to Brian Kennedy, each flanked by their respective lawyers, Francisco Pagarete and high-ranking Freemason Edward Smethurst.

That was on 13 November 2007.

Look at the press reports from 1 January 2008 onwards, and you'll see how Nos. 1 to 4 and Nos. 10 to 14 all came out, sometimes via sources or spokesmen, to say things like 'I think I mistook Angus Symington/David Payne (take your pick) for Robert Murat'. The British press were helpfully provided by sources with photos of Symington and Payne looking as alike as possible to Robert Murat.

Who were those sources?

Within the story of the 'stitching-up' of Murat, and then the sudden change of tack after the 'high noon' summit in the Eveleighs' villa, lies one of the keys to this mystery.

@ BlueBag You asked: "Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachael?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?@

REPLY: I don't yet know.

But I believe what I described above suggests a deliberate plan to get him named as a suspect, orchestrated by the British security services

It's seems all very 70s cop show with a dose of Barry George.

Somebody up high playing God in saying, 'he deserves to get locked up so he can take the fall for this one'.

Just my opinion of course.

by Guest 20.11.14 12:22

The Burgau meeting on 13th November 2007, ties in nicely with the tapas class 9 old school reunion allegedly held at a Rothley hotel, a little later that same month. More than just a coincidence I think.

The Telegraph published an article early December 2007, although perhaps intended to be favourable for the groups public image, nevertheless quite revealing:

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

The ever present 'source' (either close to the family or the investigation) can always be relied on to dribble bits of information to the press when necessary, as can be exemplified by quotes like:

　

"Of course it was emotional and deeply sad for all involved," the source said and also admitted that it was an opportunity to discuss events amid reports that the group are to be re-interviewed by police.

"It was an opportunity for the group to discuss the events of the summer and to talk about what may happen next," the source continued.

"They wanted to talk about possibly being interviewed by police again and what that may entail."

The willingness of the friends to meet dispels claims that some of them had fallen out with the couple and wanted to change their witness statements given to Portuguese police.

"It was a show of solidarity under police claims that one or two had wanted to change their stories," said the source.

"That is just not the case and the meeting showed that. It was a meeting to express support by the friends and just to see each other again. They hadn't seen each other properly."

by Daryl Dixon 20.11.14 12:43

BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?

Maybe JT and the others didn't know 'he was in on it' and just told the PJ what they saw?

Edited to add: my thinking is that the Tapas group were unaware of what was happening.

by MRNOODLES 20.11.14 12:51

Thinking out loud. Does this suggest that the attempt to stitch Murat up and failing. Is autually holding up the fragile house of cards as it were?

I mean, the tapas 7 and the twosomes are bound together to keep schtum because they all have the possible threat of perverting the course of justice hanging over their heads.
Murat knows it, Gerry knows he knows it. But there's a lack of proof unless somebody talks.

My opinion.

by noddy100 20.11.14 12:54

Maybe they are going to interview all former arguidos as witnesses this time
It would send the message out to the McCanns that they may be next

by stillsloppingout 20.11.14 12:55

Daryl Dixon wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?

Maybe JT and the others didn't know 'he was in on it' and just told the PJ what they saw?

Edited to add: my thinking is that the Tapas group were unaware of what was happening.

Probably true i would add were not fully up to speed on what was happening , RM would have been a useful patsy [ why do you think they used the Maddie pic with the football [ Everton ] shirt on ? . It was to mirror Holly and Jessica's [ soham ] Man Utd kit pictures , and further 'LIKEN " Murat with Huntley .
There is an awful lot of subtle sh** that is going on . including there shaping of the media by reading these fora , and planting stuff to counter . or confuse .

RM should come clean , hold a press conference , Lawyered up and speak . as i have said if not why not ?.

by NickE 20.11.14 15:02

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?
The facts are these.

Robert Murat was indeed 'stitched up' by:

1. Jane Tanner on 13 May (she ID'd Murat who walked by a police van she was sitting in)

2. Rachael Oldfield
3. Fiona Payne
4. Russell O'Brien - all on (if memory serves) 15 & 16 May

Arguably he was also 'stitched up' by:

5. MI5/British police profilers, who told Goncalo Amaral that Murat 'fitted the profile of the abductor 90%' (all set out in Amaral's book, 'The Truth About A Lie')

6. Control Risks Group and
7. Detective Superintendent Bob Small - both of whom advised and spoke to Jane Tanner in the hours before she ID'd Murat (who looked nothing like her initial description of the abductor on 4 May and nothing like Melissa Little's later drawing of 'Tannerman')

8. Lori Campbell of the Mirror and the Independent and
9. Clarence Mitchell, then the Head of the government's Media Monitoring Unit - both of whom pointed the finger at Murat in the early days

10.)
11.)
12.) At least five other people who in the months to come were to claim that they had also seen Murat 'hanging around the Ocean Club' late on
13.) 3 May
14.)

That's one heck of a lot of people who 'stitched up' Murat.

Now look back for a moment at Nos. 1, 2, 3, 4, 10, 11, 12, 13 and 14 above - NINE people.

All of these, one way or another, sooner or later, retracted their identifications of Murat.

These retractions cam over a period of months after the 'high summit' meeting between the Murat Team and the McCann Team at Salsalitas, the Burgau villa of Ralph & Sally Eveleigh, Murat's uncle and aunt, when Robert Murat and his mother squared up to Brian Kennedy, each flanked by their respective lawyers, Francisco Pagarete and high-ranking Freemason Edward Smethurst.

That was on 13 November 2007.

Look at the press reports from 1 January 2008 onwards, and you'll see how Nos. 1 to 4 and Nos. 10 to 14 all came out, sometimes via sources or spokesmen, to say things like 'I think I mistook Angus Symington/David Payne (take your pick) for Robert Murat'. The British press were helpfully provided by sources with photos of Symington and Payne looking as alike as possible to Robert Murat.

Who were those sources?

Within the story of the 'stitching-up' of Murat, and then the sudden change of tack after the 'high noon' summit in the Eveleighs' villa, lies one of the keys to this mystery.

@ BlueBag You asked: "Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachael?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?@

REPLY: I don't yet know.

But I believe what I described above suggests a deliberate plan to get him named as a suspect, orchestrated by the British security services

Is there anything that indicates that R.M could be a Mason Bro. ?

by ShuBob 20.11.14 18:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
BlueBag wrote:Why did Jane Tanner and others (Rachel?) try and stitch him up if he was in on it?
The facts are these.

Robert Murat was indeed 'stitched up' by:

1. Jane Tanner on 13 May (she ID'd Murat who walked by a police van she was sitting in)

2. Rachael Oldfield
3. Fiona Payne
4. Russell O'Brien - all on (if memory serves) 15 & 16 May

Arguably he was also 'stitched up' by:

5. MI5/British police profilers, who told Goncalo Amaral that Murat 'fitted the profile of the abductor 90%' (all set out in Amaral's book, 'The Truth About A Lie')

[...]]

Let's try and stick to facts. The 'profilers' were sent to PdL by CEOP headed by Jim Gamble.

by Vicky87 20.11.14 19:08

BBC site thinks Murat is being spoken to as a witness, not a suspect

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

A source close to the case has told the BBC that Mr Murat, one of 11 people being interviewed by officers in Portugal, will be treated as a witness.

He has always denied any involvement in the disappearance and said that his conscience "is clear".

Madeleine was three when she went missing in Praia da Luz in May 2007.

Mr Murat was the first person to be declared a suspect or 'arguido' in the investigation and was later cleared by police in Portugal.

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

'Conscience clear'

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."

Mr Murat's wife has also been listed as one of the four witnesses the Metropolitan Police wish to have questioned regarding Madeleine's disappearance.

Four of the 11 speaking to police are being interviewed as witnesses and seven as 'arguidos' - a status in the Portuguese judicial system referring to individuals whom police may reasonably suspect are linked to a crime.

Robert Murat Mr Murat and his wife are understood to be due to speak to police
British detectives had been scheduled to fly out to observe the questioning next week, but this was postponed on Tuesday night, believed to be due to legal technicalities.

British police can sit in on the interviews but are not allowed to ask direct questions.

In June, Portuguese and British police searched three sites in the Algarve resort but found no evidence relating to the case.

The following month, four suspects, all Portuguese citizens, were questioned by Portuguese detectives in Faro but this led to no new developments.

The interviews were observed by officers from the Met Police, which is conducting its own investigation.

The McCann family were staying in an apartment in the Algarve resort of Praia da Luz when Madeleine went missing. Her parents had been at a restaurant near their apartment that evening.

The Met launched a fresh investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, codenamed Operation Grange, in July 2013.

The request to interview the 11 people of interest comes from Letters of International Request submitted to Portugal's Attorney General by British detectives from the operation.

A Metropolitan Police spokesman said: "Scotland Yard is not prepared to provide a running commentary."

by NickE 20.11.14 19:54

Daily Express

Expat Robert Murat: Maddy police wanting to interview me is ‘fantasy land’
BUSINESSMAN Robert Murat yesterday dismissed claims he is set to be interviewed again about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann as “fantasyland.”

By: Gerard Couzens, Tracey Kandohla and John Twomey
Published: Thu, November 20, 2014

Robert Murat today in Praia de Luz
The British-born property developer insisted he has had no advanced warning of a proposed witness interview next week.
Mr Murat spoke after a leading Portuguese newspaper alleged Scotland Yard detectives have requested for him to be re-interviewed.
Detectives first questioned him after three-year-old Madeleine vanished from the family apartment in a holiday resort in Praia da Luz on the Algarve in 2007.
At the time, Portuguese police officials described him as an arguido or “suspect”. But he was never arrested or charged with any offence.
After months of protesting his innocence, his arguido status was removed in 2008.
Yesterday he said: “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.”
Francisco Pagarete, Mr Murat’s lawyer, said he was aware of the Portuguese newspaper report.
He added: “My client has not received anything from the authorities.”

Robert Murat was quizzed after 2007 disappearance of Madeleine
"All I know is I haven’t had anything official it’s all just fantasy land."

The Jornal de Noticias claimed Mr Murat is named on a list of witnesses whom Scotland Yard has asked the Portuguese police to interview again.
Yard detectives have sat in on interviews as part of Operation Grange – the Metropolitan Police’s multi-million pound investigation into Madeleine’s disappearance.
After Yard officers supervised the digging up of areas around the holiday resort, Mr Murat said: “Unfortunately, I’ll always be linked to it.
“It’s always going to have an effect on me because peoples’s opinions of what happened are so varied. I was cleared of everything right back in 2008 but the fact is that in some people’s mind there’s still going to be a link.
“So finding out the truth of what happened will conclusively take me out of that.
“It’s really important that something does happen and they do find out what happened.”
Mr Murat, 40, who grew up in Devon, lives in Lagos, a 10-minute drive from Praia da Luz. He has previously said that he should be re-quizzed by police.
He said: “They need to speak to everybody, including myself. I have no problem with that whatsoever. And they need to get the Portuguese involved in a much more constructive way.
“To get somewhere now, they need to have a joint team working here together in Praia da Luz.”
Yesterday, a Scotland Yard spokesman declined to comment on the article in the Jornal de Noticias.
He said: “We refuse to give a running commentary.”

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

Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell?

by ShuBob 20.11.14 21:58

Murata IS a witness. At the very least, he saw the aftermath of the disappearance and even interpreted for some of the tapas members. The finger of guilt was also pointed at him by some of these people. It will be a travesty is he isn't interviewed as part of any new investigation. Same goes for the tapas 9 and people like Jez Wilkins and Bridget O'Donnell.

by **PeterMac** 20.11.14 22:36

"If back in 2007 the smell of death had been detected in Murat's home, car and on his clothing would he be a free man right now ? "

Well, Kate ? What do you think. You wanted to Kill him, published that to the world, and so far as anyone knows you have never apologised or tried to resile from that position.
From which we assume your Fatwah still holds . . . ?

by **PeterMac** 20.11.14 22:43

NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

by maebee 20.11.14 23:55

The Met launched a fresh investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, codenamed Operation Grange, in July 2013

They might be out by two years but at least there's no mention of Abduction. "Missing" and "disappearance" are a step in the right direction.

by TheTruthWillOut 21.11.14 0:11

maebee wrote:
The Met launched a fresh investigation into Madeleine's disappearance, codenamed Operation Grange, in July 2013

They might be out by two years but at least there's no mention of Abduction. "Missing" and "disappearance" are a step in the right direction.

Not sure of the timings, but technically wasn't it a review to begin with in 2011 and then an investigation from July 2013?

by aiyoyo 21.11.14 8:35

PeterMac wrote:
NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.

He did not volunteer / come forward to speak to the PJ/SY when the investigation was reopened, that says something.

by Daryl Dixon 21.11.14 9:33

PeterMac wrote:
NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

I fail to see what information Murat could possibly have as a witness when he was sitting indoors having cups of tea with his mum all evening. He was apparently unaware that a child had gone missing until the morning. It's a good job that he has such an ironclad alibi... provided by his mother, sigh.

by Guest 21.11.14 10:15

Daryl Dixon wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

I fail to see what information Murat could possibly have as a witness when he was sitting indoors having cups of tea with his mum all evening. He was apparently unaware that a child had gone missing until the morning. It's a good job that he has such an ironclad alibi... provided by his mother, sigh.

Maybe he saw something between Tuesday evening and Thursday evening.

by Rogue-a-Tory 21.11.14 10:25

Daryl Dixon wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

I fail to see what information Murat could possibly have as a witness when he was sitting indoors having cups of tea with his mum all evening. He was apparently unaware that a child had gone missing until the morning. It's a good job that he has such an ironclad alibi... provided by his mother, sigh.

Alibi would be absolutely bombproof if someone had turned up at his door that evening & seen him with his mother, in her pyjamas, looking all angelic and like, you know......Anytime between 6-30 & 7 for between 30 seconds or 30 minutes.......... laughat

by NickE 21.11.14 11:04

BlueBag wrote:
Daryl Dixon wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.
Perhaps he has grown to live with whatever things were haunting his private life, and is now over them and determined to tell the truth, no matter what . . .

This could happen to one of more of the tapas group as well, of course.
Is eternal damnation - on earth as well as in the afterlife - worse than a few weeks of ridicule and some largely misinformed criticism ?
If you do the right thing, then ultimately people will acknowledge that .

I fail to see what information Murat could possibly have as a witness when he was sitting indoors having cups of tea with his mum all evening. He was apparently unaware that a child had gone missing until the morning. It's a good job that he has such an ironclad alibi... provided by his mother, sigh.
Maybe he saw something between Tuesday evening and Thursday evening.

Yes,I agree, and hopefully the police have looked closer at the days earlier that week. Sagres, Burgau, crying incident, the phone calls, Creche Records ... unt zu weiter

by ShuBob 21.11.14 15:58

aiyoyo wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
NickE wrote:Why does he want to be questioned by police if he was "cleared" and have no information to tell ?

Perhaps he has information which the PJ did not find, and in their rush to believe the lying Tapas 7 and make him "arguido" got lost, and which he has never had the opportunity to reveal.
Perhaps he is wanting to have the opportunity to say things that previously he had been reluctant to.

He did not volunteer / come forward to speak to the PJ/SY when the investigation was reopened, that says something.

Is this a fact?

by j.rob 21.11.14 16:48

Given that, imo, this has all been some kind of giant scam, then you need to follow the money.

Which potential suspects have financially benefited as a result of the disappearance of Madeleine? (Of course a lot of people have benefitted financially from Madeleine's disappearance such as lawyers/detectives/spin doctors/PR and marketing firms/Sky/media in general. To name but a few. The ethics of this is all highly dubious, imo, but they are not potential suspects. More like vultures, really.)

Potential suspects who financially benefited from Madeleine's disappearance:

1. The McCanns - with The Fund to allegedly 'find' her but in reality to Carter Ruck themselves up to the eye-balls. And win libel suits to make more money.

2. The Tapas crowd - were awarded pay-outs from damages when the Express was sued for libel by Carter Ruck (a law suit at least partly funded by the general public - if The Fund had been used for legal costs?)

3. Robert Murat. Received £600,000 for the the 'stress and suffering' of being made a patsy (or so it would seem to me. As has been noted in a thread elsewhere, he was remarkably unfazed, despite what he claims and despite that ridiculously staged, imo, taped telephone conversation between Martin Brunt of Sky and Robert Murat. I'm convinced that was deliberately staged .)

by j.rob 21.11.14 17:01

Check out the Brunt - Murat taped telephone conversation. There is even a gloriously obvious deception when Martin Brunt is talking to either Murat or Murat's mother Jennifer and she tells Brunt that Robert has been made 'arguido'. Brunt asks Jennifer what this means. She then asks Robert and explains what it means to Martin Brunt.

lol4

Yeah, like the chief crime correspondent at Sky TV who is wrapped up in the case as closely as a fly in a spider's web, imo, has to ask Robert Murat's mother what 'arguido' means? Pull the other one. And this is days, weeks even, after Madeleine's alleged 'abduction' and he still hasn't worked out what 'arguido' means? Even as he speaks on the phone to the self-appointed (apparently) police translator who has been pulled in for questioning??

More McScam, methinks.

Kate similarly in her book claims to have been completely clueless about how the police/legal process in Portugal works. Not knowing the difference between the GNR and the PJ. When no doubt both Kate and Gerry had done their home-work on this score. Albeit not enough to be remotely convincing in either their actions and behaviour or their police statements, imo.

The Mcs and Tapas really did fluff their lines, imo. No wonder Brunt looks like a man condemned.

A theory, as always.

by Guest 21.11.14 18:20

j.rob wrote:Given that, imo, this has all been some kind of giant scam, then you need to follow the money.

Which potential suspects have financially benefited as a result of the disappearance of Madeleine? (Of course a lot of people have benefitted financially from Madeleine's disappearance such as lawyers/detectives/spin doctors/PR and marketing firms/Sky/media in general. To name but a few. The ethics of this is all highly dubious, imo, but they are not potential suspects. More like vultures, really.)

Potential suspects who financially benefited from Madeleine's disappearance:

1. The McCanns - with The Fund to allegedly 'find' her but in reality to Carter Ruck themselves up to the eye-balls. And win libel suits to make more money.

2. The Tapas crowd - were awarded pay-outs from damages when the Express was sued for libel by Carter Ruck (a law suit at least partly funded by the general public - if The Fund had been used for legal costs?)

3. Robert Murat. Received £600,000 for the the 'stress and suffering' of being made a patsy (or so it would seem to me. As has been noted in a thread elsewhere, he was remarkably unfazed, despite what he claims and despite that ridiculously staged, imo, taped telephone conversation between Martin Brunt of Sky and Robert Murat. I'm convinced that was deliberately staged .)

Yep follow the money.

And maybe I'd add the MSM itself as well j.rob

All imo

by j.rob 21.11.14 19:21

BlackCatBoogie wrote:
j.rob wrote:Given that, imo, this has all been some kind of giant scam, then you need to follow the money.

Which potential suspects have financially benefited as a result of the disappearance of Madeleine? (Of course a lot of people have benefitted financially from Madeleine's disappearance such as lawyers/detectives/spin doctors/PR and marketing firms/Sky/media in general. To name but a few. The ethics of this is all highly dubious, imo, but they are not potential suspects. More like vultures, really.)

Potential suspects who financially benefited from Madeleine's disappearance:

1. The McCanns - with The Fund to allegedly 'find' her but in reality to Carter Ruck themselves up to the eye-balls. And win libel suits to make more money.

2. The Tapas crowd - were awarded pay-outs from damages when the Express was sued for libel by Carter Ruck (a law suit at least partly funded by the general public - if The Fund had been used for legal costs?)

3. Robert Murat. Received £600,000 for the the 'stress and suffering' of being made a patsy (or so it would seem to me. As has been noted in a thread elsewhere, he was remarkably unfazed, despite what he claims and despite that ridiculously staged, imo, taped telephone conversation between Martin Brunt of Sky and Robert Murat. I'm convinced that was deliberately staged .)

Yep follow the money.

And maybe I'd add the MSM itself as well j.rob

All imo

Yes indeed. I am still curious about the headline of that dreadful article -exonerating the McCanns - that Bridget O'Donnell - wife of TV drama director Jez Wilkins - who 'just happened' (Jez that is) to be in a crucial place at a crucial time that night and even bumped into Gerry on his alleged 'last check' - wrote, I think in December 2007 for The Guardian.

The title was: 'My months with Madeleine.'

????

Jez and Bridget are supposed to have met the McCanns that week on holiday so how could Bridget have had 'months' with Madeleine? Maybe Madeleine was supposed to have had months with Bridget? But, didn't because there was 'a disaster'.

IMO