Is Robert Murat About To Close This Case?

by sallypelt 24.11.14 0:26

The Madeleine McCann mystery deepens with the revelation that Scotland Yard officials are eyeing Robert Murat as a potential witness. The British expat has been interrogated in the past as a suspect, but The Mirror reports that he denies ever being around her the night she vanished over seven years ago. Now that Murat is being considered a witness, what could happen next in the search for the missing child, and who will end up being suspects in her disappearance?

The Huffington Post also shares the news of this development in Madeleine’s case, but they’ve omitted the fact that he’s a witness from their report. This is likely due to the tension that hovers over U.K. publications regarding the McCann disappearance, and the litigious nature of her parents and others involved in the case. To explain, Murat being a witness — and not a suspect — throws a kink into the theory that Madeleine was kidnapped. That’s made incredibly apparent by the #McCann hashtag on Twitter, as well as the #Murat hashtag, which are both pathways to heated discussion and debate. If Murat witnessed something that proves she was not kidnapped, then that may change the course of this case altogether. So what exactly did Robert Murat witness when the British child vanished?

Back in October, 2007, The Daily Mail reported that Madeleine McCann’s DNA was found in Robert Murat’s home, but only superficial traces were found. This complemented the detective’s theory that the child died in her parents’ rental apartment, only to be moved to a different location later until her body could be disposed of permanently. Similar evidence, in far larger amounts, was found in the McCann apartment, as well as a car that they rented after the girl disappeared.
It’s been over seven years since the girl vanished and since Murat was declared a suspect and quickly cleared of involvement. Since he is being questioned now as a witness, this could very well signal the near end of the case — or at least the investigation into who is responsible for the disappearance. Meanwhile, two people have remained completely silent since the revelation of this explosive news. Madeleine McCann’s parents have been critical of Murat in the past, but now that he’s a possible witness will they change their tune?

http://www.inquisitr.com/1630212/madeleine-mccann-update-is-robert-murat-about-to-close-this-case/

by Montclair 24.11.14 1:54

Maddie's DNA in Robert Murat's house? I think not.

by kimHager 24.11.14 3:25

I had not read that in the pj files...her dna in Murats home?

by Bishop Brennan 24.11.14 7:05

Could he crack the case? Quite possibly. He's an odd fish, but it seems just too significant that 4 of the Tapas 7 identified him as someone they saw 'hanging around 5A' on the night - only to withdraw the statements some time later. The blatant and clearly dishonest attempt to frame him for Maddie's abduction is extraordinary and little-commented on by the MSM. Who does that?

There are many theories about Murat - but my own opinion is that IF he is involved in some way then it is likely in conjunction with the McCanns / T7. It's also very odd that nobody in 7 years has definitively stated whether Murat knew the McCanns or the T7 before May 2007. It's a simple question, easily asked and just as easily answered. That it has never been answered suggests to me that the answer is unhelpful to the McCanns and the T7.

Perhaps the best hope is that he was involved, but can strike some kind of immunity deal for being the star witness. He might quite like that idea. It may depend on what his role (if any) was in the story and whether the public would accept it or simply lynch him on sight. If he did crack the case, he'd be famous for ever more.

by woodforthetrees 24.11.14 9:15

I dare say he has blown his £600k payout from the media between 2007 and now, so his silence since receiving his cheque will be lifted for sure....for the right fee.

This is all about money, fund money, media money, hush money.

Activity seems to pick up when cash runs low.

Blood money (IMO of course)

by sar 24.11.14 9:33

Would be interesting but not likely, if anything it might be time for some "house keeping" or "tying up some loose ends"?

Dr Kelly
Sean Hoare
Diana
Jill Dando

by MrsC 24.11.14 10:09

sar wrote:Would be interesting but not likely, if anything it might be time for some "house keeping" or "tying up some loose ends"?

Dr Kelly
Sean Hoare
Diana
Jill Dando

Brenda Leyland?

by plebgate 24.11.14 12:40

I have posted before that I am still wondering why Murat gave an interview to the Daily Express back in the Summer with the headline along the lines of Bring them all back to Portugal.

Nothing else after that as far as I can remember, but I thought at the time and still ask myself why that headline came about.

Interesting times ahead by the look of things.

by kimHager 24.11.14 13:43

I say if he can crack this case its well over due.A little girl is in all likelyhood dead and no ones spoken up.It is not too far fetched to think he would have played a part, I believe he took on the role of translator to keep tabs on what the PJ knew and said to relay back to those involved personally.Something must have got said or something that angered JT and so RM got the finger pointed..a warning of sorts?
Now he may be to the point where the truth would set him free...if he is innocent . JMO

by cockerspaniel 24.11.14 14:33

Bishop Brennan wrote:Could he crack the case? Quite possibly. He's an odd fish, but it seems just too significant that 4 of the Tapas 7 identified him as someone they saw 'hanging around 5A' on the night - only to withdraw the statements some time later. The blatant and clearly dishonest attempt to frame him for Maddie's abduction is extraordinary and little-commented on by the MSM. Who does that?

There are many theories about Murat - but my own opinion is that IF he is involved in some way then it is likely in conjunction with the McCanns / T7. It's also very odd that nobody in 7 years has definitively stated whether Murat knew the McCanns or the T7 before May 2007. It's a simple question, easily asked and just as easily answered. That it has never been answered suggests to me that the answer is unhelpful to the McCanns and the T7.

Perhaps the best hope is that he was involved, but can strike some kind of immunity deal for being the star witness. He might quite like that idea. It may depend on what his role (if any) was in the story and whether the public would accept it or simply lynch him on sight. If he did crack the case, he'd be famous for ever more.

TAKEN FROM ABOVE.....He's an odd fish, but it seems just too significant that 4 of the Tapas 7 identified him as someone they saw 'hanging around 5A' on the night - only to withdraw the statements some time later.

What if (and its just a thought) the tapas 4 DID see him on the night as he was helping the MCc`s in some way, and told the police that they had seen him in all honesty only to be told by K and G to withdraw that statement???

by jeanmonroe 24.11.14 14:36

Jenny, RM's mum, is 'quiet' isn't she?

She went 'mental' when the three 'doctors', FP, RO and R O'B, went back to Portugal, especially, for a 'confrontation' in the police station, with RM, and said 'things' about her Robert, didn't she?

Now, a week after her Robert is 'named' to be 'interviewed', ....................NOTHING!

thinking

Just an aside: DID FO, RO and R O'B ever 'sue' J Murat for saying/alledging all three of them were 'liars'?

by Daryl Dixon 24.11.14 15:55

cockerspaniel wrote: TAKEN FROM ABOVE.....He's an odd fish, but it seems just too significant that 4 of the Tapas 7 identified him as someone they saw 'hanging around 5A' on the night - only to withdraw the statements some time later.

What if (and its just a thought) the tapas 4 DID see him on the night as he was helping the MCc`s in some way, and told the police that they had seen him in all honesty only to be told by K and G to withdraw that statement???

I have had the same thought...

by mysterion 24.11.14 16:36

If the Tapas 4 did see someone hanging around 5a where 3 young children were left alone insecurely then surely they would have told K & G. K & G would then have confirmed this notification to the police in their statements.

by noddy100 24.11.14 16:40

If they did see someone hanging around why did they keep going out and leaving their children?

by **PeterMac** 24.11.14 17:23

mysterion wrote:If the Tapas 4 did see someone hanging around 5a where 3 young children were left alone insecurely then surely they would have told K & G. K & G would then have confirmed this notification to the police in their statements.

K&G could not even agree on which door they used, or whether the curtains were wide open, or tight closed and whooshing.
A stray Paed*** watching every night and taking notes (KM's TV performance !) is hardly likely to bother them.
And incidentally Kate has NEVER gone back to the police to alter her statement and put the tight closed curtains and slamming windows and whooshing doors on the record !

Why not ?

by kimHager 24.11.14 17:34

Because if she goes back telling that story again off to the funny farm she.goes. I think she wouldnt be able to think that fast on her toes and without Gerry there to lend a hand...without those squeezes and grips hars enough to leave bruises...she wouldnt know when to shut up and they cant have loose cannon kate on the tv and news LOL my opinion only

by Ashwarya 24.11.14 18:04

This is only an educated guess, but I have always thought it more likely that Robert Murat was contacted by the Ocean Club rather than by any of the tapas group or McCs. He was obviously well known in the Algarve property world, and having empty properties plus having English and Portuguese as native languages would have been seen as being very useful following whatever events had taken place in Praia da Luz that week. I feel sure his hastily arranged flight back to Portugal was in response to a call from a resident of Praia da Luz rather than one from a tourist. We know that the McCs are not renowned for their gratitude to anyone who helps them, so I would not be surprised if he was later discarded having served his initial useful purpose.

by **Tony Bennett** 24.11.14 19:58

Daryl Dixon wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote: TAKEN FROM ABOVE.....He's an odd fish, but it seems just too significant that 4 of the Tapas 7 identified him as someone they saw 'hanging around 5A' on the night - only to withdraw the statements some time later.

What if (and its just a thought) the tapas 4 DID see him on the night as he was helping the MCc`s in some way, and told the police that they had seen him in all honesty only to be told by K and G to withdraw that statement???
I have had the same thought...

@ Daryl Dixon

@ Bishop Brennan

@ jeanmonroe

@ cockerspaniel

@ Ashwarya

There is much, much more than meets the eye about the three Tapas 7 members who claimed that they saw Robert Murat hanging around near the Ocean Club late evening on 3 May.

I posted much more detail about this on the 'Scotland Yard to interview Robert Murat again' thread - here it is again so that we can gain a much fuller insight into how Robert Murat fits into this gigantic mystery. There were AT LEAST FOURTEEN different people who at different times pointed the finger at Murat.

And in looking at the bigger picture, we must also note that:

a) he was summoned back to Praia da Luz on 30th April (Monday),

b) he rushed back as soon as he was called,

c) the stories about why he rushed back are not consistent with each other,

d) when asked a simple question about whether he already knew Murat, Dr Gerald McCann answered in such a way as to suggest that he did, and

e) when asked by police on 14 May to give an account of his movements from 1st to 4th May, Murat deliberately misled the police in at least 17 material respects (see other threds on this forum), claiming when he was re-interviewed two months later that he had been 'too tired' to tell the truth.

These are all matters that IMO cry out for the truth to be told:

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

[FROM THE OTHER ROBERT MURAT THREAD]

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 Brian Griffin 24.11.14 20:00

Isn't there something in that 'Buried In Mainstream Media' documentary about Murat and Gerry both having their mobile phones switched off and on at the same times that aroused suspicion? I seem to remember something about that and the narrator saying it was worth an investigation in its own right, but I can't be sure where I saw it, or even whether I saw it now. Kate also makes reference to Murat in her book, doesn't she? Off the top of my head it's something about feeling like killing him. Here it is: "I'm sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can't." Charming! Better watch out, our Kate. People can get attacked on their doorstep by Sky News and blasted all over the newspapers for saying less. But then, Brenda wasn't a McCann, was she? The double standards in this whole affair are nothing short of disgusting!

If I were in Murat's shoes I'd have got as far away from PDL and the McCanns as possible, and refused to have anything to do with them. Wherever they go they bring trouble. They are the harbingers of misery.

In my opinion.

by sammyc 24.11.14 22:32

Holy Moses Brian Griffin - that is a cracking observation. One of the biggest mysteries of all this total sham is how Murat still feels confident to live and work in PdL regardless of what the entire village, natives and ex-pats, think of him. He is either innocent or compliant in some way with the disappearance, sorry abduction, of Madeleine. Don't get me wrong - I would rather leave than be constantly looked at with doubt yet my spouse would say 'I am staying, I haven't been convicted of anything so let the people gossip and surmise'. Where do other members stand on this point?

by XTC 24.11.14 22:40

Daryl Dixon wrote:
cockerspaniel wrote: TAKEN FROM ABOVE.....He's an odd fish, but it seems just too significant that 4 of the Tapas 7 identified him as someone they saw 'hanging around 5A' on the night - only to withdraw the statements some time later.

What if (and its just a thought) the tapas 4 DID see him on the night as he was helping the MCc`s in some way, and told the police that they had seen him in all honesty only to be told by K and G to withdraw that statement???
I have had the same thought...

having just read his chat with Martin Brunt it seems he was hoping that Brunt via ( Sarah a third person who may be able to get hold of British phone records ) could assist him in proving telephone calls he made on the night of the 3rd of May 07.

Bit of a strange on to me, as his home phone would be Portuguese and be a Portuguese supplier. Where would a British assistant be of any use unless it was to access a British mobile phone provider as a proof of wherehe was that night?

He said to Brunt that he made two calls from the home phone - one at 8.15pm and one at 11.53pm.

Also if my memory is correct he rang a policeman in the UK and they discussed tracing of mobile phones and calls.

Could it be that SY's analysis of mobile phone movements has flagged up a mobile number ( or numbers ?) of interest to the
investigation. I am bearing in mind that just because it's your mobile it doesn't mean it is you carrying it around PdL or yourself
using it. You might have lent it out to someone and not got it back? Or maybe your chip has ended up in someone elses phone?

Hopefully the interviews will be before Christmas. Could be interesting despite still being a skeptic.

Opinion though.

by Liz Eagles 24.11.14 22:56

sammyc wrote:Holy Moses Brian Griffin - that is a cracking observation. One of the biggest mysteries of all this total sham is how Murat still feels confident to live and work in PdL regardless of what the entire village, natives and ex-pats, think of him. He is either innocent or compliant in some way with the disappearance, sorry abduction, of Madeleine. Don't get me wrong - I would rather leave than be constantly looked at with doubt yet my spouse would say 'I am staying, I haven't been convicted of anything so let the people gossip and surmise'. Where do other members stand on this point?

I don't stand anywhere in particular on this point other than to say being awarded in excess of £600,000 for damages might have helped to stay in PDL (after a jolly good cruise for a bit of rest and recuperation). £600k isn't easily earned by the average person running a small business either but it does help to show the neighbours you've been damaged and you're an innocent party.

A couple of things that strike me is that there has never been anything taken up by either the McCanns, Murat or the media on the mad ramblings of Stephen Birch - who to my mind was the most helpful person to both the McCanns and Murat in terms of internet trolling (although it was Brenda Leyland who was singled out in a media extravaganza the likes of which I've never witnessed before).

Murat's mother took her car and 'set up shop' with posters if I recall, asking for people to come forward anonymously to her and she'd pass it onto the police - someone please help me out with a link. Jenny Murat was concerned that people who had rented out their holiday homes (something to this effect) without the relevant tax declaration/public permission etc could be reluctant to give information for fear of prosecution. It was to my mind quite weird that she would think to offer some sort of indemnity/anonymity during an investigation.

Just off the top of my head and all my opinion.

by sammyc 24.11.14 23:46

aquila wrote:I don't stand anywhere in particular on this point other than to say being awarded in excess of £600,000 for damages might have helped to stay in PDL (after a jolly good cruise for a bit of rest and recuperation). £600k isn't easily earned by the average person running a small business either but it does help to show the neighbours you've been damaged and you're an innocent party.

Understandable and you have made me think by that simple explanation and I reckon you have summed up perfectly why Murat is staying put but £600,000 damages and yet still talked about in connection with Madeleine? If he was totally innocent in this mystery surely his legal team could/would/should have gone the extra mile to rid him of this millstone round his neck. Yes, some would be happy to have people gossip about them for that return but the fact remains that Murat is still connected with the case of Madeleine's disappearance and will be forever until the truth comes out - and £600,000 to Murat, the long time property developer in the Algarve, is about £600 to me. Money - easy come, easy go. IMO

by woodforthetrees 25.11.14 8:49

sammyc wrote:Holy Moses Brian Griffin - that is a cracking observation. One of the biggest mysteries of all this total sham is how Murat still feels confident to live and work in PdL regardless of what the entire village, natives and ex-pats, think of him. He is either innocent or compliant in some way with the disappearance, sorry abduction, of Madeleine. Don't get me wrong - I would rather leave than be constantly looked at with doubt yet my spouse would say 'I am staying, I haven't been convicted of anything so let the people gossip and surmise'. Where do other members stand on this point?

You'll probably find that he remained there as no-one would buy his business or properties off him, through fear of being associated with the case or of OG forensic teams knocking on the door on a whim.

He may also like the limelight and notoriety as well, he seems that type IMO

by joyce1938 25.11.14 11:55

I think that we cant jump to any conclusion ,as so many lies are scattered amongst this case ,it seems by what we have all been looking at over last few years ,to make ones lies or may we call it mistakes ? more important that the rest ,would nit be playing fair. joyce1938