Is Robert Murat About To Close This Case?

XTC wrote:

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.

Hello XTC - I don't know if you have read much of Kikoratton on Twitter :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He's been quite prolific over late November/December/January - well worth a read -

- just my opinion, though.

Hi missbeetle

Thanks for the info. I have read a few of kikorattans twitters and it is a very elaborate plot that led to the unelaborate
definition of a set of non broken shutters as the reason why Madeleine went missing. All interesting theories though.

The thing about  DCI Redwood ( now retired ) is that one of the few public announcements he made the tracking of
phone movements ( must be mobiles - house phones don't move) almost sound threatening. As if to say - We know
you are out there and we're coming to get you.

As far as Robert Murat and Gerry McCann meeting at the Palmeras Golf Club goes then both RM's and GM's mobiles
should triangulate there between or at certain times on a certain date. Easily checkable if DI Redwood was being
truthful.

The problem is that is only half an investigation so RM's phone shows up but GM's may never have been looked at.

Also there are many on the web who claim to have worked for GCHQ and it would be very interesting to know how they
work when something big occurs? As an example the French Terrorist attacks in Paris. The mobiles would be red hot during
and after the event and I would assume that GCHQ  would keep the info gleaned for years just in case of further threats.

Just as an aside there was a poster on the old 3a's called Stinky Sardine who wrote some very good guides to the Judicial
Process in Portugal re : Arguidos.

I'll have to paraphrase him here but basically once the case was archived arguido status is dropped unless the arguido's wish
to keep that status. He also said that if the case was ever to re-open then all former arguidos automatically become arguidos
again.

This hasn't happened to my knowledge to all the former arguidos.

Can good citizens of PdL now walk the streets unhindered?

If you agree with the unnoficial PJ thoughts - they always could. In fact before during and after.

Allopinion.

missbeetle wrote:

...

Hello XTC - I don't know if you have read much of Kikoratton on Twitter :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He's been quite prolific over late November/December/January - well worth a read -

- just my opinion, though.

Hi missbeetle, just noticed ur post.

I've tweeted with kiko several times and so I did a grep to get his latest tweets and discovered even more possible forgeries in the Creche Records re O'B ...should be able to get your own daughter's name correct , one would think. I also have tweets going back a lot longer.

I'll get a full copy of the Creche Register. It could well show that the whole week was confused and parents signing for other parent's children.

After all, what's the point of the OC having a Creche Register if any person can come along and sign out anybody else's children?

I think there is a strong possibility that it was a Madelene who was presented at the Creche all week starting on the Monday , hence many would believe the real Madeleine was alive all week.

whatsupdoc wrote:

missbeetle wrote:

...

Hello XTC - I don't know if you have read much of Kikoratton on Twitter :

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
He's been quite prolific over late November/December/January - well worth a read -

- just my opinion, though.

Hi missbeetle, just noticed ur post.

I've tweeted with kiko several times and so I did a grep to get his latest tweets and discovered even more possible forgeries in the Creche Records re O'B ...should be able to get your own daughter's name correct, one would think. I also have tweets going back a lot longer.

I'll get a full copy of the Creche Register. It could well show that the whole week was confused and parents signing for other parent's children.

After all, what's the point of the OC having a Creche Register if any person can come along and sign out anybody else's children?

I think there is a strong possibility that it was a Madelene who was presented at the Creche all week starting on the Monday, hence many would believe the real Madeleine was alive all week.

There seem to be basically two theories about the creche records:

1. That they were altered with the co-operation of Mark Warner, after something happened to Madeleine, to give the impression that Madeleine was there all week

2. That there was ANOTHER girl there that week, also called 'Madeleine', though maybe with a different spelling of her name.

sharonl has come up with a third theory - a variation of No. 1 - that the creche records were forged with the help of the nanny in charge of Madeleine's 'Lobster' group - Catriona Baker - but maybe without the knowledge or consent of Mark Warner.

kikoratton's theory of a substitute Madeleine - either pre-planned, or who became available during the week after something happened to Madeleine - does not appear (to me, anyway) to have sufficient evidence to support it.

However, IF (and it is a big 'if') kikoratton's second tweet above is right, that does harmonise with several things that we know or believe.

As I understand it, kikoratton is saying that 12 texts sent by Robert Murat. Michaela Walczuk and Kate McCann on Tuesday 1 May became 12 voicemails deleted by Gerry McCann on Wednesday 2 May.

I would like to see a lot more evidence for this than a 140-character tweet.

But, again, IF, if kikoratton is right, the information in his tweet harmonises with two other major developments in the case that we have been analysing:

1. Who exactly 'phoned/spoke to Murat on Monday 30 April and summoned him back in a rush to Portugal?

and

2. Was the 'Last Photo' a genuine photo taken on Sunday 29 April?    

These two matters, taken together, both suggest that something very significant may have happened between Sunday lunchtime that week - and the 'phone call(s) to Murat the following day

Just a couple of quickies, Tony.  I've followed kiko for quite some time on Twitter and he knows me and I tend to go along with his train of thoughts. I think Madeleine met her demise at the w/e  and Monday seems to have been a very quiet day. What happened on that day?

The Last Pic that I studied  was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo data which is usually very telling, others have.

whatsupdoc wrote:The Last Pic that I studied was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo data which is usually very telling, others have.

You really need to study carefully the evidence on the two excellent 'Last Photo' threads on this forum.

I suggest that the evidence that this was a genuine photo taken earlier in the week is overwhelming

Tony / admin -  not sure where to ask this question. Textusa has recently put up a post that seems to implicate Neil Berry, another guest at OC that week.

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


I cant seem to find anything on Neil Berry on CMOMM. Have I missed something...has it been discussed ?

Tony Bennett wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:The Last Pic that I studied was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo data which is usually very telling, others have.

You really need to study carefully the evidence on the two excellent 'Last Photo' threads on this forum.

I suggest that the evidence that this was a genuine photo taken earlier in the week is overwhelming

It has been discussed for years , Tony. The picture I studied was not genuine. I don't recall anyone discussing the errors in the background or the mid-area. The rocks in the foreground were copied across. I've used photo manipulation progs for 20 years.

That's my opinion.

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony / admin -  not sure where to ask this question. Textusa has recently put up a post that seems to implicate Neil Berry, another guest at OC that week.

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


I cant seem to find anything on Neil Berry on CMOMM. Have I missed something...has it been discussed ?

A mate of mine down in my local, the Fox and Rabbit, reckons Neil Berry was hanging around in the stairwell just waiting for a text message telling him to come to the apartment to partake of some 'swinging activities.'

Dave, my mate, can be very persuasive with his theories on the McCann saga, especially when he is full of ale.

Thanks for that Gaggsy. Textusa is suggesting that Neil Berry's role is more significant than just being another swinger.

I wondered if it had been discussed elsewhere on this forum ?

whatsupdoc wrote:
The Last Pic that I studied  was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo data which is usually very telling, others have.

I agree and posted the 5 main spot the differences on the last picture thread between the two pics in my avatar. Another contributor added a 6th. All six point to things that were added to the last pic, highly unlikely or improbably removed from the solo version.

Gaggzy wrote:

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Tony / admin -  not sure where to ask this question. Textusa has recently put up a post that seems to implicate Neil Berry, another guest at OC that week.

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


I cant seem to find anything on Neil Berry on CMOMM. Have I missed something...has it been discussed ?

A mate of mine down in my local, the Fox and Rabbit, reckons Neil Berry was hanging around in the stairwell just waiting for a text message telling him to come to the apartment to partake of some 'swinging activities.'

Dave, my mate, can be very persuasive with his theories on the McCann saga, especially when he is full of ale.

Gaggzy

The question if this tale of swinging is true is- what time did this swinging start?

After tennis - the meal at the Tapas Bar or just before Madeleine's disappearance?

7.30pm might be a bit early for a swing?

If my News of the World antannae is right drink and cocaine accompany swinging.

It's an aid to confidence apparently

p.s. As all the best journalists say - I made my excuses and left.

Too early?

Opinion though.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:The Last Pic that I studied  was probably the worst cobbled fake I have seen. I don't know what the original was like. The copy I studied was altered in the foreground and the background. It was really badly done. I didn't look into the Exo [Exif - T.B.] data which is usually very telling, others have.

I agree and posted the 5 main 'spot the differences' on the last picture thread between the two pics in my avatar. Another contributor added a 6th. All six point to things that were added to the last pic, highly unlikely or improbably removed from the solo version.

This is confusing.

It is accepted that an extractkon of an image of Madeleine alone from the 'Last Photo' was done.

There is nothing wrong about doing that unless the intention is to mislead.

It was quite acceptable IMO for the McCanns to do a minor amount of photoshopping from the 'Last Photo' in order to produce a clear and attractive image of Madeleine.

But...

@ Rogue-a-Tory and whatsupdoc  

...surely after the discussions we have had on this forum of late, you do not still think that the 'Last Photo' itself has been photoshopped?

We covered all that recently on these two threads:

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

...and the overwhelming consensus there was that the forensic evidence produced on those two threads clearly pointed in the direction of it having been a genuine, unaltered, unphotoshopped photo, but probably taken on the Sunday or Monday that week - with just the EXIF data altered.

I hope you'll both be able to say that you agree that the Last Photo is a genuine, unphotoshopped photo  

Sorry Tony, I disagree with the conclusion. If the Last Photo is genuine but dated a few days earlier, then the solo has to be photoshopped. That's an awful lot of effort to go simply to produce a close up of Madeleine, to remove Gerry's elbow & bit of Amelie.

?? Of course it's photoshopped to produce just the picture of MBM.....I don't think that anybody is disputing that. What they're disputing is the TIME/DATE it was taken.
JohnyT

plebgate wrote: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.

Bringing my quote from this topic here: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"

Ayniia wrote:
“The reconstruction should cover the critical period just before and after the abduction.”
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
...When reading the part of the files about him and his mother, it says he didn't had much money at the time and his mother was the one paying for his flights between Portugal and the UK. So I wondered, why book a flight at like 3am for the next morning when that would be much more expensive? Who paid for that? What was so urgent? Sudden business matters that can't be talked over the phone? I don't buy that one...

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Sorry Tony, I disagree with the conclusion. If the Last Photo is genuine but dated a few days earlier, then the solo has to be photoshopped. That's an awful lot of effort to go simply to produce a close up of Madeleine, to remove Gerry's elbow & bit of Amelie.

Sorry for double posting and about an off topic but in the last photo matter we all will have to agree to disagree . It's a covered subject in so many topics, yet everyone it's entitled to it's opinion. True or false, everyone has it's pair of eyes and no matter what experts say, people will believe them or not.
My opinion, Amelie has no arm,period. Discussing the truth or falseness of the picture won't take us anywhere IMHO. Shadows,time of day,weather,flowers blooming, whatever , we'll never agree so we'll have to respect each other's opinions and not try to make people see what they don't. Just MHO.

Ayniia wrote:

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:Sorry Tony, I disagree with the conclusion. If the Last Photo is genuine but dated a few days earlier, then the solo has to be photoshopped. That's an awful lot of effort to go simply to produce a close up of Madeleine, to remove Gerry's elbow & bit of Amelie.

[Snipped] "last photo matter we all will have to agree to disagree"
[Snipped] "True or false, everyone has it's (sic) pair of eyes and no matter what experts say, people will believe them or not.
[Snipped] "My opinion, Amelie has no arm,period. Discussing the truth or falseness of the picture won't take us anywhere IMHO. Shadows,time of day,weather,flowers blooming, whatever , we'll never agree so we'll have to respect each other's opinions and not try to make people see what they don't. Just MHO"

I run my own business, a small part of which involves engraving from photographic images received from customers who request various edits to be made.

However, most of my income over the last few years comes not from my own minor edits for engraving, but from my skills being sought by business colleagues who run their own well-established photographic businesses (i.e. mainly wedding/birth photography), who require digital images to be 'touched up' or fundamentally altered, in one of several commonplace ways. I am thus quite experienced in manipulating images...and often correcting images that have already been (clumsily) altered. Note: I could take the Last Photo and edit out Gerry and Amelie to leave just Madeleine to the same standard as the 'Madeleine on her own' photo and it would take me less than an hour. At least once a week I am given a photo, with lots of people in it, and asked to edit out either all, or just some, of the people... it's a common request, and such editing is not remotely suspicious. For example, I have an informal contract with a local undertakers to edit people out of group photos so as the image of the 'individual' can be C02 lasered onto a granite headstone. It's so easy to do I sometimes don't even bother to charge them. So, anyone that conjours up a 'conspiracy' about the 'Last Photo' being edited to show just MBM simply doesn't have any practical, working knowledge of (easily) manipulating digital images.  

Anyway, getting back to the topic of the Last photo....

My hobbies (now for +30yrs) include astronomy and optics. My previous career was in Business Analysis, (of which I was highly successful, able to semi-retire in my early 40s). Thus I have, (I think) a proven pedigree in:
(a) Objective, impartial, analysis of data, &
(b) A working, practical, knowledge of manipulating photographs.

If my (provable, 'income-earning', experience) counts for anything I would like to state:
- I see no evidence whatsoever of manipulation (i.e. 'Photoshopping') in the last photo. The only possible 'image anomaly' relates to the pixels around the 'hair bead' in Madeleine's hair. However, I must say that the perceived pixel anomalies are within the bounds of what occurs with digital photography and so in no way constitute 'proof' of manipulation.
- That the claim that the photo was taken on 3rd May 2007 at 2.29pm (or as Clarence says...1.29pm) can be positively challenged by simply comparing the sun's angle (as shown by the shadows cast) through a number of (factual, mathematically accurate) astronomical sites
- That the claim that the photo was taken on 3rd May 2007 at 2.29pm (or as Clarence says...1.29pm) can be positively challenged by looking at the available weather data for that date/time.

It is therefore my opinion, both as a professional Business Analyst who was sought after for many years because of my impartiality, rationality and unbiased approach...  and more recently as someone who is sought after on a daily basis by, and who now makes most of their living through, their skill with photo editing software (i.e. The professional and highly technical 'Corel Draw XV', as well as the choice of amateurs, namely the ubiquitous and rather clumsy, 'Photoshop', ), that:

- It is a genuine, unadulterated, photo (albeit I reserve a wee bit of judgement regarding *only* the blurring surrounding the hair-braid)
- It was not taken on the 3rd May 2007 at 14.29 (or 13.29) due to the unarguable evidence of plotting the sun's position, and also due to the weather data for that day/week
- And thus it can be concluded that the only unarguable 'issue' with the 'Last photo' is that the Exif data has been altered in order to support the claim that it was, instead, taken on the afternoon of the 3rd May 2007

I will therefore try and resist getting into a debate with people who see 'false arms', 'false heads', 'ghost dogs' and 'supernatural shadows' as I suspect the people who claim to see those are on this site to intentionally detract from, and undermine, the otherwise excellent analysis and debate that this forum facilitates.

If any poster can, however, present someone with a competent professional (and provable) pedigree in digital photography and photographic manipulation (instead of just a 'having a feeling' owing to their lack of understanding of the commonplace effects of image compression, etc.), then I will happily offer many hours a day swapping data, and professional analysis, with them privately until an agreed and fully informed consensus may be posted. Thus, may I respectfully suggest that, if anyone is serious about seeking justice for Madeleine, that any attempt to claim 'false arms', 'false heads', 'ghost dogs' or 'Wee Willy Winky', etc., is discussed offline and via private message.


In summary:  The Last photo is claimed by Madeleine's parents to have been taken on 3rd May. However, the evidence that it was not taken on that day, at that time, is to me very simple and very clear and can only be successfully challenged by challenging the Laws of Physics. The evidence presented by the Last Photo and the clear manipulation of its Exif data does not need to be obfuscated by spurious, mis-informed, albeit no doubt well intentioned, conjecture.

Knitted,  Would having the original photo make any difference at all to your opinion of the last photo?

I could use more or less any digital photo manipulation software to turn Gerry plus one of the twins plus Madeleine into Madeleine alone.

The only other way I could produce Madeleine alone is by asking Gerry to leave, twin to leave, refocus on Madeleine to blur out the background but keep her sharp.  And then I need Madeleine to be identical to the first pic.  Tough ask for a 4 year old.

I dare say there is, somewhere on the forum, a long-winded debate about whether this is the last photo or not, and whether it was taken on 3rd May or not.

Perhaps there is a relevance.  Given that Madeleine was placed by independent witnesses at high tea in the Tapas area at around 5:30pm, I'm just not seeing why this photo is important.

I think the importance / relevance is whether it adds to the catalogue of Mactruths

In saying that - this is a Murat thread so why all this photoshop tennis is placed here i do not know

Elça Craig wrote:

Perhaps there is a relevance.  Given that Madeleine was placed by independent witnesses at high tea in the Tapas area at around 5:30pm, I'm just not seeing why this photo is important.

Not true, high tea didn't happen on 3 May.

LombardySkeptik wrote:I think the importance / relevance is whether it adds to the catalogue of Mactruths

In saying that - this is a Murat thread so why all this photoshop tennis is placed here i do not know

  I realised that hence why the discussion hasn't been pursued by me.

I used to be a "Murat has nothing to do with it " supporter. Then the more I knew, the more I started wondering. I said this previously, if you read his PJ interviews he says his mother was the one paying for his plane flights. So WHY book a flight so suddenly when it was for sure much more expensive than booking with some time in advance? What was the urgency? I think we all know the answer to that. IMHO Murat's role was to get some place / fridge in where to hide the body, maybe even not knowing that was what "people " wanted to hide. His statement about "the time before " the "abduction " says a lot to me. I wish we (the Portuguese police ) could grant him immunity in exchange for his information, I think that would get the case solved for good. IMO he was a facilitator of something because he had access to many vacant apartments in PDL being a real estate agent at the time. He tried to get inside the investigation by offering help to translate... and then JT and the rest of the tapas folks framed him... just MOO, MHO and all that.

Good theory. To hide a body in a foreign country, let alone a hellish lair, would require assistance of some kind - assistance too in removing from that original hiding place.

Why on earth Murat has never been made to state or indeed able to explain the haste for catching a plane from Exeter within hours of making a booking is beyond me. Also the co-ordinating switching off of phones between him and GM requires serious explanation.