Is Robert Murat About To Close This Case?

sallypelt wrote:This is taken from Jenny Murat's PJ statement, on how she first learnt about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann:

She says further that it was her daughter, Samantha, residing in England in the city of Exeter, who telephoned her to give her the news because by the morning our news was already running in the press of that country.

This is taken from Robert Murat's PJ statement, and how he first knew about Madeleine McCann's disappearance:


On Friday, 04/05, woke around 09:00, took a bath, went to the kitchen to his mother, the latter told him that something terrible had happened, because a child had disappeared in Praia da Luz, according to 'Sky News' that she had been watching


I don't know if something has been lost in translation in these statements, but there is a contradiction here of how they first heard about MM's disappearance. By their own admission, they heard sirens the night before, so, if Jenny Murat had had a phone call from her daughter in England, why did Robert Murat say that his mother told him that she's seen it on Sky News?

Jenny says "Our" news, i took that to mean regional news  and that she put sky news on when her daughter phoned.

Its strange..this statement : She says further that it was her daughter, Samantha, residing in England in the city of Exeter, who telephoned her to give her the news because by the morning our news was already running in the press of that country.
Would the daughter call to give the news to mom who was living in PDL..or would it be more reasonable to think Jenny M. ALREADY knew with it being her town it happened in. Wouldnt the daughter call to ask what happened? I believe Jenny and Robert M knew already, the poliece were goung door to door searching and how close was theirproperty again? I dont believe The Murats were that blinded to this.

kimHager wrote:Its strange..this statement : She says further that it was her daughter, Samantha, residing in England in the city of Exeter, who telephoned her to give her the news because by the morning our news was already running in the press of that country.
Would the daughter call to give the news to mom who was living in PDL..or would it be more reasonable to think Jenny M. ALREADY knew with it being her town it happened in. Wouldnt the daughter call to ask what happened? I believe Jenny and Robert M knew already, the poliece were goung door to door searching and how close was theirproperty again? I dont believe The Murats were that blinded to this.

KinHager, it's very ambiguous, I must admit. That's why I said that some things may have been lost in translation.

And here we thought Robert M was a perfect translator ROFL...hehe

__marla__ wrote:

sallypelt wrote:This is taken from Jenny Murat's PJ statement, on how she first learnt about the disappearance of Madeleine McCann:

She says further that it was her daughter, Samantha, residing in England in the city of Exeter, who telephoned her to give her the news because by the morning our news was already running in the press of that country.

This is taken from Robert Murat's PJ statement, and how he first knew about Madeleine McCann's disappearance:

On Friday, 04/05, woke around 09:00, took a bath, went to the kitchen to his mother, the latter told him that something terrible had happened, because a child had disappeared in Praia da Luz, according to 'Sky News' that she had been watching

@ __marla__

@ kimHager

@ sallypelt   

Robert Murat's claim that he 'woke around 9am and took a bath' on the morning of 4 May was exposed as untrue when he was subjected to rigorous questioning by the PJ over a two-day period, 10th & 11th July.

As I've said in my articles on Robert Murat's 17 lies (when first questioned on 14 May):

 
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.


I rather suspect that during this 8.27am 'phone call from Murat to his beloved, the subject of Madeleine's reported disappearance was discussed. 

Murat says he 'can't remember' what was discussed.

If I'm right and they did talk about Madeleine's disappearance, that rather casts doubt on Jenny Murat's claim that they only heard about Madeleine's  disappearance in a 'phone call from England.

Praia da Luz was swarming with police and villagers out looking for Madeleine Friday morning.

And the Murats were unaware?

I think Murat does have some explaining to do. If I were an investigator I would want some proper answers otherwise book him.

"Murat says he 'can't remember' what was discussed"
The conversation was between Murat and Michaela , surely she was  asked her version of the event ? , wasn't he  "too tired to tell the truth"  at one point as well ?

Very interesting Blacksmith post . worth a read . inc the link to textusa site
. May be worth discussing both of the posts opinions and findings and suggestions .

Snipped from John Blacksmith´s latest:
"The McCanns have lost in Portugal and Operation Grange is nearing its closing stages."


As "Stillslopp....." said, worth a read.

Interesting that Blacksmith and TextUSA are in agreement of there being no whitewash.

I have always had the same gut feeling (as I had about the M's on 4th May 2007) that ultimately OG wouldn't/couldn't be a whitewash. 

I'm really interested in how, if the M's/others are charged, how will it be "presented"? There are a lot people in the UK that will be very confused and have a lot of questions.......

I enjoy reading Blacksmith's blog, but I have to disagree with him about the whitewash - the more time passes the more I'm convinced there is one.  The Establishment and MSM's fawning and grovelling to the McCanns (especially the nauseatingly obsequious Leveson) can't just be down to that unjustified deference and respect that we Brits continue to show to all doctors. 

Might just be that the Scottish political / media mafia don't wanna show poor judgement and so can't afford for the parents they backed to now be shown up for what they are, but they DO appear to be protected at a very high level.

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.

Yes, of course. Unless they mean saw him that night after Madeleine's disappearance? But if Murat were responsible then I think the last place he would be likely to be was around the apartment.

The TextUSA and Blacksmith blogs are as thought-provoking as ever.  I liked TextUSA's theory that SY have always retained the option (and at times actively pursued) the whitewash, as well as looking for the truth.   That certainly would explain why their actions so often could be interpreted as support for either path.   TU believes that the announcement of Murat as witness/POI ends the whitewash road.  Is that reasonable?

From the start, SY have been exploring different endings:

1. Dead UK paedo as patsy
2. Dead Tractorman as patsy
3. 3 Burglars in burglary gone wrong
4. Smellyman serial sex-offender
5. Weird drug-addict locals and their cohorts (aka the 3 burglars)

Those were all whitewash endings. SY really liked (and BHH publicly backed) the 3 burglars story. They even showed us names and faces in the recent 'arguidos'.  SY tested each ending in the media to see if the public would buy it. But even with zero critical analysis from the cowed media, the answer was largely no.  

So now we have a new set of endings being tested:

1. Dodgy Malinka and his foreign g/f
2. Murat
3. Interviews with Sylvia Batista    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
4. Unknown others

Certainly that list does have a much different tone to it - and probably is a 'search for truth' line of enquiry.  But it's still just another option.  SY still have to get out of this mess - and without a body, a 'truthful' ending may be impossible.  If so, they can either close it saying "we have absolutely no idea".  Or they can say "evidence suggests abduction by unknown weirdo, but we can't find him, and it certainly wasn't the McCanns.".

That secondary ending is still a whitewash - simply a whitewash without proof (except if you count the Summers book!).  And even with Murat it remains an option.  

IMO, the case still needs SOMEONE to break ranks - the only questions are WHO could, and will they?

I have never believed that Murat was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. 

He might, possibly, have been up to something dodgy on May 3 rd but I don't believe it was anything to do with the McCanns.

I think the Tapas group tried to implicate him precisely because they knew he had nothing to do with it, and therefore would be soon be eliminated from the enquiry.

If Murat had been anywhere near apartment 5A prior to Madeleine's reported disappearance he may well have seen some suspicious characters of his own. But I doubt he was there at that time.

That 3 members of the Tapas group say he was just adds another person to the list of people walking back and forwards in the hour she was supposed to have vanished. (at least 8 people) If they meant that Murat was around the area after 10 pm, I would like to know why would he be if he had been involved in her disappearance? 

Earlier someone asked how Murat felt able to stay in PdL after everything that has happened. I think it would be because most people in PdL know him, knew him from before the MM affair and don't think he is responsible. 

I think that SY talking again to Murat, as a witness, is a good sign. I don't think he saw anything on the night. I don't think he is 'ready to do a deal' with SY and to tell all or anything like that. I just think SY want to clarify things with him.

And then I think you have to ask why they would reinterview Murat, who has been cleared as arguido, but not reinterview the Tapas group? So, I think SY would be looking to reinterview them next (with all the additional information they have learned during their investigation)

That's how it looks to me anyway.

Bishop Brennan wrote:The TextUSA and Blacksmith blogs are as thought-provoking as ever.  I liked TextUSA's theory that SY have always retained the option (and at times actively pursued) the whitewash, as well as looking for the truth.   That certainly would explain why their actions so often could be interpreted as support for either path.   TU believes that the announcement of Murat as witness/POI ends the whitewash road.  Is that reasonable?

From the start, SY have been exploring different endings:

1. Dead UK paedo as patsy
2. Dead Tractorman as patsy
3. 3 Burglars in burglary gone wrong
4. Smellyman serial sex-offender
5. Weird drug-addict locals and their cohorts (aka the 3 burglars)

Those were all whitewash endings. SY really liked (and BHH publicly backed) the 3 burglars story. They even showed us names and faces in the recent 'arguidos'.  SY tested each ending in the media to see if the public would buy it. But even with zero critical analysis from the cowed media, the answer was largely no.  

So now we have a new set of endings being tested:

1. Dodgy Malinka and his foreign g/f
2. Murat
3. Interviews with Sylvia Batista    [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
4. Unknown others

Certainly that list does have a much different tone to it - and probably is a 'search for truth' line of enquiry.  But it's still just another option.  SY still have to get out of this mess - and without a body, a 'truthful' ending may be impossible.  If so, they can either close it saying "we have absolutely no idea".  Or they can say "evidence suggests abduction by unknown weirdo, but we can't find him, and it certainly wasn't the McCanns.".

That secondary ending is still a whitewash - simply a whitewash without proof (except if you count the Summers book!).  And even with Murat it remains an option.  

IMO, the case still needs SOMEONE to break ranks - the only questions are WHO could, and will they?

Yes these pincer movement theories are interesting I think.

Get the chaff out of the way and then we can get to the wheat.

The problem for myself is whether SY's public remit is the same as their actual actions?

In other words: What are Scotland Yard really up to?

The public remit is that they are excluding the so called Tapas 9 from everything.

They have flagged up on Crimewatch various people observed by other various people who were
wandering about in PdL on the day of May the 3rd and prior to that day.

SY by the miracles of technology have studied mobile phone records ( and maybe texts and calls - I hope?)
and say that they did this first before re-checking some of the forensics from the INML. They don't say that
they have re-visited the FSS collected works but hopefully the Portuguese got back all the info and collected
material they sent to the UK. Some of that is next on the list according to public utterances.

The inferrance from the public utterances of SY is that they have a pretty good idea of who was where with their
mobiles in PdL on the various days and nights. They are quizzing ( and have quizzed ) many persons of interest and
some of less interest with a view to homing in on either suspects or witnesses to potential suspects.

Yet here we are again back to where it all ended ( or the trouble started?)  Post Amaral territory.

It is absolutely understandable that some people might think that as this latest group are re-questioned seven years later
that someone might have a confessorial moment and tell all. The thing is in my view is that all was told by these witnesses
the first time round. What more can they add to what they have already said?

I do get the impression in all fairness that both the PJ and SY are not telling the public everything ( for operational reasons )
and is the reason that many speculative theories are cropping up in the media -planted or otherwise.

It is a little strange though that the Portuguese Judicial Secrecy Laws appear not be applicable to the SY witnesses and/or
potential arguidos. If anything comes from these requestionings the Portuguese will be responsible for arguidoing these witnesses.
It is their investigation afterall.

The thing is whether the PJ are just going through the motions for diplomatic purposes and expect beggar all to come out of all this?

Or have they been convinced by SY that the suspects avenue ( other than the Tapas 9 ) is a route worth exploring to try and
convince SY that the excluded are worth including once again?

None of us know in my opinion because the only public stories are generated by the media and not SY. Only Crimewatch and the
fascinating seat shifting of Bernard Hogan Howe have given us some clues.

They don't seem to be in any rush either way to get the paint out yet.

We shall see as always but I remain skeptical.

Sylvia Batista is a very useful witness and may say a few things now she is no longer employed by MW. Perhaps
MW's Crisis Management arrangements might come under the spotlight possibly.

John Hill could be in the same boat but I don't know what he's doing now.

Could be interesting.

All opinion though.

XTC wrote:

...

It is absolutely understandable that some people might think that as this latest group are re-questioned seven years later
that someone might have a confessorial moment and tell all. The thing is in my view is that all was told by these witnesses
the first time round. What more can they add to what they have already said?

...

I think that highlights the real problem faced by OG. The PJ had a pretty good idea of what happened that night and who were responsible. Amaral's book makes it even clearer. They had a pretty good case too - just not quite good enough for a conviction, especially without Madeleine's body. Even if OG finally go and interview the same set of suspect, and review all the testimonies - they are likely to get to the same place.

But still not enough to prosecute.

The preceding 3 years have simply been SY making sure it really wasn't somebody else. To check and see if the PJ were wrong. With the recent list, and the fact that they are not re-interviewing the previous 4 arguidos, SY may well have concluded that the PJ were right and that it was the parents after all.

So how will they close it down? There are 'forces' that certainly want a whitewash ending of some sort. Basically any ending that gives a UK seal of approval to the "anyone but the McCanns". That ending remains still the most probable - unless someone cracks (unlikely) or a body is found (even more unlikely).

suzyjohnson wrote:I have never believed that Murat was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. 

He might, possibly, have been up to something dodgy on May 3 rd but I don't believe it was anything to do with the McCanns.

I think the Tapas group tried to implicate him precisely because they knew he had nothing to do with it, and therefore would be soon be eliminated from the enquiry.

If Murat had been anywhere near apartment 5A prior to Madeleine's reported disappearance he may well have seen some suspicious characters of his own. But I doubt he was there at that time.

That 3 members of the Tapas group say he was just adds another person to the list of people walking back and forwards in the hour she was supposed to have vanished. (at least 8 people) If they meant that Murat was around the area after 10 pm, I would like to know why would he be if he had been involved in her disappearance? 

Earlier someone asked how Murat felt able to stay in PdL after everything that has happened. I think it would be because most people in PdL know him, knew him from before the MM affair and don't think he is responsible. 

I think that SY talking again to Murat, as a witness, is a good sign. I don't think he saw anything on the night. I don't think he is 'ready to do a deal' with SY and to tell all or anything like that. I just think SY want to clarify things with him.

And then I think you have to ask why they would reinterview Murat, who has been cleared as arguido, but not reinterview the Tapas group? So, I think SY would be looking to reinterview them next (with all the additional information they have learned during their investigation)

That's how it looks to me anyway.

This is more or less my own view on Robert Murat's case connection - a rather peripheral figure, wheeled in and out of the picture to suit other peoples agenda as the occasion suits

Bishop Brennan wrote:

XTC wrote:

...

It is absolutely understandable that some people might think that as this latest group are re-questioned seven years later
that someone might have a confessorial moment and tell all. The thing is in my view is that all was told by these witnesses
the first time round. What more can they add to what they have already said?

...

I think that highlights the real problem faced by OG.  The PJ had a pretty good idea of what happened that night and who were responsible. Amaral's book makes it even clearer.   They had a pretty good case too - just not quite good enough for a conviction, especially without Madeleine's body.  Even if OG finally go and interview the same set of suspect, and review all the testimonies - they are likely to get to the same place.

But still not enough to prosecute.  

The preceding 3 years have simply been SY making sure it really wasn't somebody else.  To check and see if the PJ were wrong.    With the recent list, and the fact that they are not re-interviewing the previous 4 arguidos, SY may well have concluded that the PJ were right and that it was the parents after all.

So how will they close it down?  There are 'forces' that certainly want a whitewash ending of some sort.  Basically any ending that gives a UK seal of approval to the "anyone but the McCanns".   That ending remains still the most probable - unless someone cracks (unlikely) or a body is found (even more unlikely).  

The trouble is, even if a 'solution' is found, a whitewash won't really work because the McCanns will refuse to leave the media spotlight, keeping attention on themselves and the case whether it is closed or not, and they'll keep harping on that Madeleine is still alive, putting the police and government in a difficult position. "They gave up on our Maddie!" So the case will never really be closed.

This is something I've never been able to grasp: if the McCanns did have a hand in their daughter's disappearance (just a theory, you understand) then surely they'd want to get out of the public eye and hide themselves away as fast as possible, having dodged a bullet in Portugal. Their behaviour doesn't fit in with this theory and does make me wonder whether they had anything to do with the disappearance, in spite of all the other evidence, after all. It doesn't make sense to keep on putting yourself in harm's way if you've done something wrong and got away with it. Wait until the dust settles, apply for residency/citizenship elsewhere in the world (I imagine it would be pretty easy to get residency in places like Australia if you are both doctors under 40, as they were in 2007), change your name and let the whole thing pass into distant memory. Of course there will be bloggers and the such-like who discuss the case and put forward theories but they wouldn't make much trouble as attention fades - just a few 'deluded conspiracy theorists' but nothing on the scale of what we now have, and all because the McCanns keep in the public eye. Makes you wonder...

In my opinion.

Brian Griffin:

just a few 'deluded conspiracy theorists'
-----------------------------------------
Really?

Presumeably you 'include' GA/PJ in THAT 'statement'?

From what i 'know' about GA, i don't think being 'delusional' is one of his 'traits'.

istbc, of course,

I admit that the parents behaviour is most odd if you believe them to be in some way responsible for the child's disappearance but really...

Given the lack of evidence of an abduction and the evidence which heavily suggests someone died in that apartment...there is no wiggle room. A whitewash would have to explain how Maddie died, how her corpse was there long enough to leave cadaverine...none of it fits the timeline. The McCanns would have to admit they and their friends totally lied about the timeline and then have to explain WHY they lied.

And surely it's too much of a coincidence to suggest Maddie died that night and the dogs happened to sniff out someone else's blood and cadaverine.

Brian Griffin wrote:

This is something I've never been able to grasp: if the McCanns did have a hand in their daughter's disappearance (just a theory, you understand) then surely they'd want to get out of the public eye and hide themselves away as fast as possible, having dodged a bullet in Portugal. Their behaviour doesn't fit in with this theory and does make me wonder whether they had anything to do with the disappearance, in spite of all the other evidence, after all. It doesn't make sense to keep on putting yourself in harm's way if you've done something wrong and got away with it. Wait until the dust settles, apply for residency/citizenship elsewhere in the world (I imagine it would be pretty easy to get residency in places like Australia if you are both doctors under 40, as they were in 2007), change your name and let the whole thing pass into distant memory. Of course there will be bloggers and the such-like who discuss the case and put forward theories but they wouldn't make much trouble as attention fades - just a few 'deluded conspiracy theorists' but nothing on the scale of what we now have, and all because the McCanns keep in the public eye. Makes you wonder...

In my opinion.

My theory on the evasion plan is that TM was given advice/instruction on what to do by their 'handlers' when they reported in prior to the faked abduction. Recent cases highlight how effectively Saville, Smith, Harris etc were able to hide in plain sight. UK authorities will have been very aware of this having been involved in the aforementioned cases to a very large degree. Probably they though that it was a good idea & possible because they'd kept a number of very dodgy cases safe in that way.

However recent events have shown that not to be too clever, plus I believe that TM circus had gathered way too much momentum & indeed money for them to stop. A case of stopping pedalling and you fall off, not to the tarmac, but into an almighty abyss. Had '3 May 2007' happened in the last 18 months I think the advice would have been different.

Rogue-a-Tory wrote: A case of stopping pedalling and you fall off, not to the tarmac, but into an almighty abyss.

Please keep going Gerry ! ! There's a dog just below us
[img][You must be registered and logged in to see this link.][/img]

jeanmonroe wrote:Brian Griffin:

just a few 'deluded conspiracy theorists'
-----------------------------------------
Really?

Presumeably you 'include' GA/PJ in THAT 'statement'?

From what i 'know' about GA, i don't think being 'delusional' is one of his 'traits'.

istbc, of course,

I think you have misunderstood why I put that bit in brackets in the first place.

nomendelta wrote:I admit that the parents behaviour is most odd if you believe them to be in some way responsible for the child's disappearance but really...

Given the lack of evidence of an abduction and the evidence which heavily suggests someone died in that apartment...there is no wiggle room. A whitewash would have to explain how Maddie died, how her corpse was there long enough to leave cadaverine...none of it fits the timeline. The McCanns would have to admit they and their friends totally lied about the timeline and then have to explain WHY they lied.

And surely it's too much of a coincidence to suggest Maddie died that night and the dogs happened to sniff out someone else's blood and cadaverine.

From what I've seen so far, the McCanns don't have to explain anything: they just get away with it!

In my opinion.

I think it turned into an out-of-control juggernaut. It was a giant media hoax. A 'good' story to bury 'bad' news. Sell newspapers. Make people rich. Get a gullible public to donate money. Induce paranoia about 'stranger danger'. Promote a dodgy 'Missing People' organisation with Lord and Lady Mc on board, among others. Increase state control and intervention, probably, with things like DNA banks, possible micro-chipping etc. 

All very Big Brother, imo.

Robert Murat was handsomely rewarded for being a patsy. 

Something went wrong that week. The Mcs messed up. But the hoax went ahead.

Now, seven years down the line, the Mc's story had been dissected to death. It has no credibility whatsoever. 

But so many people were/are wrapped up in the affair, in one way or another. At high levels in some cases.

How to stop the juggernaut, though?

Rogue-a-Tory wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:

This is something I've never been able to grasp: if the McCanns did have a hand in their daughter's disappearance (just a theory, you understand) then surely they'd want to get out of the public eye and hide themselves away as fast as possible, having dodged a bullet in Portugal. Their behaviour doesn't fit in with this theory and does make me wonder whether they had anything to do with the disappearance, in spite of all the other evidence, after all. It doesn't make sense to keep on putting yourself in harm's way if you've done something wrong and got away with it. Wait until the dust settles, apply for residency/citizenship elsewhere in the world (I imagine it would be pretty easy to get residency in places like Australia if you are both doctors under 40, as they were in 2007), change your name and let the whole thing pass into distant memory. Of course there will be bloggers and the such-like who discuss the case and put forward theories but they wouldn't make much trouble as attention fades - just a few 'deluded conspiracy theorists' but nothing on the scale of what we now have, and all because the McCanns keep in the public eye. Makes you wonder...

In my opinion.

My theory on the evasion plan is that TM was given advice/instruction on what to do by their 'handlers' when they reported in prior to the faked abduction. Recent cases highlight how effectively Saville, Smith, Harris etc were able to hide in plain sight. UK authorities will have been very aware of this having been involved in the aforementioned cases to a very large degree. Probably they though that it was a good idea & possible because they'd kept a number of very dodgy cases safe in that way.

However recent events have shown that not to be too clever, plus I believe that TM circus had gathered way too much momentum & indeed money for them to stop. A case of stopping pedalling and you fall off, not to the tarmac, but into an almighty abyss. Had '3 May 2007' happened in the last 18 months I think the advice would have been different.

They need to keep the charade going, the stories they sell to the tabloids pay for their Carter Ruck protection. Without that, they'd be screwed.

In my opinion, of course.

Brian Griffin wrote:

nomendelta wrote:I admit that the parents behaviour is most odd if you believe them to be in some way responsible for the child's disappearance but really...

Given the lack of evidence of an abduction and the evidence which heavily suggests someone died in that apartment...there is no wiggle room. A whitewash would have to explain how Maddie died, how her corpse was there long enough to leave cadaverine...none of it fits the timeline. The McCanns would have to admit they and their friends totally lied about the timeline and then have to explain WHY they lied.

And surely it's too much of a coincidence to suggest Maddie died that night and the dogs happened to sniff out someone else's blood and cadaverine.

From what I've seen so far, the McCanns don't have to explain anything: they just get away with it!

In my opinion.

I'm talking about in a hypothetical non-whitewash situation. If SY come forward and say the child died...well even if they somehow exonerate the parents that still leaves the rather bizarre coincidence of all the evidence that the child died which the parents willfully ignored or dismissed. What are the chances of a child being killed by an intruder and leaving totally no trace yet dogs managed to find blood and traces of death in the same apartment that had nothing to do with the child?

Just had this same argument with my hairdresser while she was doing my hair - she is horrified by TM's negligence, but doesn't think the McCanns are involved in Madeleine's disappearance solely because "anyone who'd got away with it would've kept a very low profile and not invited all that publicity".

One thing to bear in mind is the speed and ease with which an EAW can be raised.  If the PJ in Portugal decide at any time that they want the McCanns arrested and brought back to Portugal in theory there is very little they can do about it (look at Ashya King's parents in Spain).  So my theory is that all this publicity and PR is in anticipation, to build up enough public opinion as resistance to a potential EAW just in case one is ever issued - they want the idea that they could be deported back to Portugal to be wholly unthinkable in the public's eye.

IIRC Kate said  (for what it's worth) that the reason they decided to sue Amaral was because one of the Portuguese broadsheets (can't remember which one) had begun to take his book very seriously - so I think they always live with the idea that an EAW is a very real threat.

Once David Cameron announced a full new investigation into the case (not just a review), he called their bluff - albeit unintentionally. They just had to grit their teeth and say they welcomed it.

However, I still have very little faith in OG.  There is far too much for too many people at a very high level to lose - still go for a whitewash ending myself.

Yes, JackieL. It's not enough for the Mcs to let the situation be ignored so it eventually goes away. Because for them, as you say, it will never go away until they are officially cleared. Only then will they have peace of mind that the knock at the door will never happen.

And the other reason to court publicity? Ker-ching. 

All my own opinion, as ever.