Robert Murat.

candyfloss wrote:I really don't know how I feel about Robert Murat. I was convinced he was 100 per cent innocent at one stage., but having read through the files, it has left me with this little niggle......... I wouldn't like to say for definite one way or another. The jury's still out. I always wondered why he hadn't done a series of interviews and his story serialised in one of the papers or magazines, and not told his side of the story, which makes me wonder if he has been told to keep or is there another reason

candyfloss wrote:I don't know how I feel about Robert Murat. I was convinced he was 100 per cent innocent at one stage, but having read through the files, it has left me with this little niggle...I wouldn't like to say for definite one way or another. The jury's still out. I always wondered why he hadn't done a series of interviews and his story serialised in one of the papers or magazines, and not told his side of the story, which makes me wonder if he has been told to keep quiet...or is there another reason?

kathyBelle wrote:If anyone does believe that Robert Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance, can they please tell me why? I might have missed some information, that would have made me think the same.

shibboleth wrote:Is Max Clifford still representing him?

kathyBelle wrote:Hi Candy, Robert Murat successfully sued one or more newspaper groups for telling lies about him in their newspapers.

REPLY: He got his 600 grand about 4 months after Brian Kennedy and his in-house lawyer Edward Smethurst met Murat and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete in Portugal on 13 November 2007 (see my article for furthe rinformation).

I don't know why he hasn't told his story,

REPLY: He can't tell the truth about it. I'm sure that was part of the deal hammered out between Kennedy, Murat and their respective lawyers on 13 November. At the same time, consider Kennedy's role in all this - flying out to see Murat, a suspect...interviewing and intimidating witnesses into not making statements to the Portuguese police, appointing Metodo 3, Kevin Halligen, Dave Edgar etc.

maybe it is because he is taking Jane Tanner to court and he isn't allowed to speak because of the sub judice rule.

REPLY: As I've said openly on this forum on a number of occasions, I do not believe that there is a Murat vs. Tanner legal action.

I remember Robert Murat's lawyer standing outside Mr Murat's mum's home, saying that Mr Murat had requested he was made an arguido, after being questioned yet again over Madeleine's disappearance.

REPLY: This is simply untrue. He wasn't questioned 'yet again'. He was questioned for the first time by police on 14 May 2007 and made an arguido because he was a suspect! And during that first interview, he lied 17 times about his movements between 1 and 4 May, as my article analyses in detail.

Robert Murat was stood alongside his lawyer, when he made the statement, although he didn't speak. The lawyer went on to say that the reason Mr Murat asked to be made an arguido, was because it gave him certain rights, he didn't have when he was questioned as a witness. Such as the right to have a lawyer present and the right to remain silent.

REPLY: Spin, smoke and mirrors from the lawyer.

As we know he was made an arguido, but he later said via his lawyer, that he wished he hadn't requested the status. He said that once the police cleared him of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance, he expected to be released from the status. He wasn't - he had to wait until the McCanns were either charged or released from their arguido status. I read that the reason he was not going to be released from the status was to stop him going to the press and giving his side of the story.

REPLY: That was just speculation. One of the crucial events in this whole mystery is why Jane Tanner adamantly identified Robert Murat as the person she claimed to have seen at 9.15pm. She did so from a police van with a two-way window on Sunday 13 May, as described in detail in Amaral's book. She did so after being briefed by staff from Control Risks Group and Leicestershire Police. Only when this event is fully understood can we begin to see what was really going on re Murat.

Don't forget that within the next 48 hours, three of the 'Tapas 9' went to the police and claimed to have seen Murat outside the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May. They followed that up on 11 July 2007 with a so-called 'confrontation' with Murat where the 'Tapas 3' insisted they had seen Murat hanging around that night, against Murat's denial (see my article). Only months later, and only after the historic Kennedy-Murat deal, Jane Tanner chnaged her story, saying she was no longer sure she had seen Murat and then trying to deny she had ever identified him. At the same time, the McCanns made statements that they were 'no longer sure' Murat was involved, and then we had the stories about Murat looking like David Payne etc., so as to cast doubt on whether the 'Tapas 3' had ever seen Murat.

Finally let us not forget that when asked, in the early days, whether he already knew Murat, Dr Gerald McCann looked nervously up in the air, avoided the interviewer's eyes, and said hastily: "I am not going to comment on that". That effectively told the world that he already did know Murat, probably in connection with some activity they were both involved in that both wished to keep secret.

kathyBelle wrote:Hi Tony, thank you for your information. I'm sorry but I heard Robert Murat's lawyer say that he requested he was made an arguido.

REPLY: Just to clarify; your statement was perfectly correct. It was Murat's (Portuguese) lawyer who was not telling the truth.

I have read on the internet that he was questioned several times

REPLY: Yes, but my point was that Murat was made an arguido after his very first interview by police on 14 May 2007. He wasn't so much interviewed 'several times' as twice more, on 10 and 11 July 2007. But that was two months after he was made arguido.

and his mother's home and garden was was searched at least twice. Now the second sentence in my post may or may not be true, but the first sentence is definitely true.

I have looked on the net to see if I can find any information about Robert Murat requesting arguido status. All I can find is a BBC news report, dated the 15th of May 2007, which says that Robert Murat may have requested arguido status.

REPLY: Goncalo Amaral in his book says that he and his team declared Murat to be an arguido after Jane Tanner identified him. He says nothing about Murat saying 'Please may I be an arguido'.

I don't understand why Robert Murat was cleared of being involved with Madeleine's disappearance, if he was found to have told lies.

REPLY: There was no evidence that Murat was involved in causing Madeleine to disappear, as I said. As for his obvious lies, clearly the police decided not to prosecute him for his lies.

The McCanns may have been released from their arguido status, but they are still suspected by the PJ, of being involved with Madeleine's disappearance. I would imagine the lies they told are one of the reasons they are still suspected.

REPLY: Certainly, yes. But then, in contrast to Murat, they were suspected of 'causing or allowing' Madeleine's disappeafance.

Regarding Robert Murat, suing Jane Tanner, according to Joana Morais forum, the case was lodged in a Portuguese court a few months ago. No more information was being given out about the case. Maybe Joana will be able to tell you if the case is going ahead and when it is going ahead.

REPLY: I think that either there is no such case - or if there is, it was only ever initiated for 'cosmetic' purposes. I don't think for one moment that even if papers were file dby Murat, the matter will ever reach a hearing.

aiyoyo wrote:I don't know what to make of Murat. The Police, at least Amaral, gave the impression he was made scapegoat by Team McCann, which begs the question: was it pre-arranged? I would have thought not.

REPLY: Look again at the sequence of events:

1. Control Risks Group and Leicestershire Police talk to Jane Tanner

2. At the same time 'experts' in profiling from CEOP and MI5 etc. purport to profile Murat as the likely abductor, with '90% certainty' according to Amaral in his book

3. On 13 May 2007, Jane Tanner claims Murat is the man she saw carrying a child on 3 May, despite obvious differences btween Murat and the man she described carrying a child

4. On 14 and 15 May three of the 'Tapas 9' all suddenly claim they saw Murat outside the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May

5. The same 'Tapas 3' attend a 'confrontation' with Murat at Portimao Police Station on 11 July, and swear blind they saw Murat on the night of 3 May, despite Murat's denials

6. LATER - and crucially soon AFTER the Kennedy-Murat encounter on 13 November:

a) Jane Tanner begins to say she wasn't sure she saw Murat
b) the McCanns tone down their words against Murat, now only saying he 'might have been involved' rather than that he actually abducted Madeleine
c) the 'Tapas 3' are no longer sure they saw Murat, amidst Clarence Mitchell-planted stories of Murat looking a bit like David Payne
[NOTE: I document these changes, which occurred mainly in January 2008, in my article]

7. Murat gets a £600,000 pay-out whilst still an arguido.

I suspect he knows [at least one] member of the T9, but he couldn't have anything to do with the death of Maddie.

He might have been used like to provide info about computer[s], 'phone card, and general area info, without him realising he was helping to cover up a crime in the sense those info was needed for cover up.

REPLY: His 17 lies when interviewed on 14 May tell a different story. The account of how he came to translate so many interviews for the Portuguese police (see for example the statement of Stephen Carpenter) is doubtful. By the time we get to 3 May, I am sure Murat has been lined up to act as the translator when the 'Tapas 9' were interviewed. I believe it was no accident that he was there at the right time to perform this service...which was in the interests of the McCanns and their friends.

No one puts him at the crime scene on the night of May 3rd, that bit is also bit strange considering his living quarters is in close proximity to the resort and considering there was a search party, surely someone would have told him but apparently not.

REPLY: Of course he knew what was going on. He later admitted to 'phone calls to Michaela Walczuk and Sergei Malinka at around 11pm on 3 May.

The BK meeting with him was no doubt highly suspicious but as to whether he accepted anything is anyone's guess. Of course some people suspected the meeting was possibly to buy his silence, but it could well be he second guessed BK's move so brought his own lawyer along so that he wouldn't be intimidated or that they couldn't make things difficult for him. Maybe BK was negotiating with him to drop any thought of charges against JT and/or the three who fingered him - and nothing to do with silencing him, because he wasn't in cahoots over the cover-up plan.

REPLY: I agree that it is still a matter of speculation as to what brought Murat, Kennedy and their respective lawyers together. If we had a tape-recording of that meeting, I suspect we would be able to slot in many pieces of this jigsaw.

The Press payout could well be a simple and straightforward case of no evidence to support their libel, thus no legal leg to stand on - so better to pay out then be caught in a long drawn-out battle which will cost the papers more if the losing party also had to bear legal cost of the winning party. On the whole his appearance in the whole thing is bizarre and an enigma. I can't believe anyone can be so unlucky to the at the wrong place wrong time;

REPLY: Exactly! He was surely in the right place at the right time!

dragged through mud, and life made hell and he kept silence after the papers' payout. Maybe he's just a simple guy who wants to get on his life without the hassle of legal entanglements or maybe he's waiting for the McCanns to be tried before making his move...who knows?

REPLY: In his one-and-only public speech on the issue, at Cambridge on 5 May 2009, Murat explicitly supported the abducton theory and asked people to 'look for Madeleine'.

No doubt there will be complications if he were to take any of the T9 to court, because case is not solved, the presence in court of any of the T9 member could stir up plenty shit and the legal battle could be an arduous journey to get vindicated.

Again who knows, until this case goes to court, all is conjecture.

REPLY: No. In fact we - by now - have quite a bit of material available about what the McCann Team and others have been doing behind the scenes, and we are able to draw at least some conclusions or inferences.

If only the PP had decided to take the McCanns to Court, based on the circumstantial evidence which would have been plenty enough for most countries like UK or USA...then the case would have been resolved one way or another. Now it is quite something else.

Angelique wrote:I think about Murat a lot. I am instinctively drawn to be curious about this man.

He, I believe, is also very much like the Manager of MW.

Anyway besides that, I think because of Gerry's comment when asked about him - Gerry made a fatal mistake by saying what he did. It then makes us curious, unless he did "that" on purpose and I don't think he did.

I think Murat was involved, he was a translator, he had inside information, he has connections with apartments to rent in Praia da Luz, he knows the area very well and probably has lots of contacts he can access.

I think he was used, served his purpose then ended up a patsy to shine the light away from the McCanns. The visit from Kennedy was to arrange a deal. I think he got money to shut up.

Angelique

aiyoyo wrote:Excuse me for being slow - if he was involved with the case in the sense of knowing one of them and unwittingly being used by them for their purpose, then discarded, then what has his sexual inclination got to do with the case? Was it proven he watched child porno? Only speculation or probably smear campaign wasn't it? We are of consensus he wasnt the cause of Maddie's death aren't we? The witnesses were probably paid to smear him or they had personal grudge with him.

It's quite usual for all sorts of people to pop up claiming to know the victim or perpetrator and make all sort of unsubstantiated claims...

RESIDENT OF PRAIA DA LUZ 15-05-07 TIME 16.15 1286 to 1288 Witness statement of Carlos Manuel Matos Costa 2007.05.15 05-Processo V: Pages from 1286 to 1288 (3 pages) 05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1286 05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1287 05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1288 Processos, Vol V Pages 1286 to 1288 Witness Statement of Carlos Manuel Mateus Costa Date: 2007.05.15. Hour: 16H15 Location: DIC Portimao Profession: Businessman That he comes to the process as a witness and states: • At seeing today and yesterday’s notices in the media, he has decided to give the following statement. • States that he has known Robert Murat for about 25 years. That he worked with him at “Jacinto & Murat” from 1982 to 1984. This firm was owned by Robert’s father who has since passed away. At this time, Robert was eight years old. Immediately one noticed that Robert had a strange personality, staying away from people, and not wanting to engage. He had somewhat of a violent attitude. He remembers an episode where Robert, on the veranda on the first floor of the firm, threw vases from that exterior without checking to see if anyone was underneath him. • At this time, the witness lived in Vila do Bispo. He was the neighbour of a British couple, P.L. and P.L. who are now deceased. This couple had a daughter whose name was L******, who was 17 years old. They were friends of Robert’s mother, JAN MURAT. She was always with her son and they would often go to the home next to the deponent’s in that same village. At this point Robert was 12 years old. • L******, the neighbour already mentioned, told him that Robert had tried to have sexual relations with her mother’s cat. The animal responded by scratching him on various parts of his body. These injuries were seen by the by the deponent given that he [Robert] had visited the Castelejo beach in Vila do Bispo on various occasions. On one of these occasions, he saw Robert scratching at excoriations. He was told by L****** that Robert had killed the cat out of spite. He also states that he witnessed a macabre episode perpetrated by Robert. He saw him once again trying to have relations, this time with the family dog, who ended up being forced into the house, situated in Almadena, Eiras Velhas. • Beside this, he states that when he went to the beach with Robert, he [Robert] would stay away from the rest of the group (about 15/20 metres) and not say a word to anyone the whole day. • He also adds that a cousin of Robert, of British nationality, whose name he does not know, and who lives in his house, has suffered an assault by Robert. For this reason, she left the home. These acts were hidden by Robert’s mother, who protected him and who never punished him. At this point, Robert was 16 years old. • He would like to add that according to what he knows about Robert, he was not surprised that he was described as a disturbed person who could very easily turn violent. He is also someone with a sadistic and deviant sexual personality, and who also is misanthropic. This is based on contact with him for 15 years. • He also states that it is his opinion that Robert could have committed a crime of this nature—abduction of a child. That he does not have the capacity of getting involved in a paedophile ring. If he did abduct this child, then the witness believes she may be dead. He concludes this from Robert’s violent and deviant personality. He adds still that he also was violent with his mother when he was reprimanded and would react by kicking her. • He asserts that Robert did receive psychiatric treatment whilst in the U.K. • He has no other elements to offer the investigation. • And nothing more was said, finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs.

kathyBelle wrote:I have read certain posts, where I get the feeling that some posters think that Robert Murat, is involved with Madeleine's disappearance. I always thought that he wasn't involved and I thought the Portuguese police came to the same conclusion, after he was questioned several times. I don't know how many times Mr Murat's mum's house and garden were searched, but it was at least twice to my knowledge.

The police were a lot more thorough when they investigated Robert Murat, than they were with the McCanns. There was no proof that Robert Murat, was involved with Madeleine's disappearance and if it wasn't for that reporter who was suspicious of him, because he was in her words "hanging around" the police, he probably would never have been questioned.

The police on the other hand, had proof that the McCanns were involved, by at least neglect, but they were treated with kid gloves and allowed to go wherever they pleased.

If anyone does believe, that Robert Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance, can they please tell me why? I might have missed some information, that would have made me think the same.

Tony Bennett wrote:

aiyoyo wrote:Excuse me for being slow - if he was involved with the case in the sense of knowing one of them and unwittingly being used by them for their purpose, then discarded, then what has his sexual inclination got to do with the case? Was it proven he watched child porno? Only speculation or probably smear campaign wasn't it? We are of consensus he wasnt the cause of Maddie's death aren't we? The witnesses were probably paid to smear him or they had personal grudge with him.

It's quite usual for all sorts of people to pop up claiming to know the victim or perpetrator and make all sort of unsubstantiated claims...

aiyoyo, responding to the above and in particular to the two phrases I have bolded, here is one of the statements I was referring to.

I place it here so that people can judge if it was from a witness 'paid to smear Murat' or from someone 'claiming to know the victim/perpetrator' and making 'unsubstantiated comments'.

Carlos's statement was made the very day after Murat was arrested:

RESIDENT OF PRAIA DA LUZ 15-05-07 TIME 16.15 1286 to 1288 Witness statement of Carlos Manuel Matos Costa 2007.05.15 05-Processo V: Pages from 1286 to 1288 (3 pages) 05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1286 05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1287 05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1288 Processos, Vol V Pages 1286 to 1288 Witness Statement of Carlos Manuel Mateus Costa Date: 2007.05.15. Hour: 16H15 Location: DIC Portimao Profession: Businessman That he comes to the process as a witness and states: • At seeing today and yesterday’s notices in the media, he has decided to give the following statement. • States that he has known Robert Murat for about 25 years. That he worked with him at “Jacinto & Murat” from 1982 to 1984. This firm was owned by Robert’s father who has since passed away. At this time, Robert was eight years old. Immediately one noticed that Robert had a strange personality, staying away from people, and not wanting to engage. He had somewhat of a violent attitude. He remembers an episode where Robert, on the veranda on the first floor of the firm, threw vases from that exterior without checking to see if anyone was underneath him. • At this time, the witness lived in Vila do Bispo. He was the neighbour of a British couple, P.L. and P.L. who are now deceased. This couple had a daughter whose name was L******, who was 17 years old. They were friends of Robert’s mother, JAN MURAT. She was always with her son and they would often go to the home next to the deponent’s in that same village. At this point Robert was 12 years old. • L******, the neighbour already mentioned, told him that Robert had tried to have sexual relations with her mother’s cat. The animal responded by scratching him on various parts of his body. These injuries were seen by the by the deponent given that he [Robert] had visited the Castelejo beach in Vila do Bispo on various occasions. On one of these occasions, he saw Robert scratching at excoriations. He was told by L****** that Robert had killed the cat out of spite. He also states that he witnessed a macabre episode perpetrated by Robert. He saw him once again trying to have relations, this time with the family dog, who ended up being forced into the house, situated in Almadena, Eiras Velhas. • Beside this, he states that when he went to the beach with Robert, he [Robert] would stay away from the rest of the group (about 15/20 metres) and not say a word to anyone the whole day. • He also adds that a cousin of Robert, of British nationality, whose name he does not know, and who lives in his house, has suffered an assault by Robert. For this reason, she left the home. These acts were hidden by Robert’s mother, who protected him and who never punished him. At this point, Robert was 16 years old. • He would like to add that according to what he knows about Robert, he was not surprised that he was described as a disturbed person who could very easily turn violent. He is also someone with a sadistic and deviant sexual personality, and who also is misanthropic. This is based on contact with him for 15 years. • He also states that it is his opinion that Robert could have committed a crime of this nature—abduction of a child. That he does not have the capacity of getting involved in a paedophile ring. If he did abduct this child, then the witness believes she may be dead. He concludes this from Robert’s violent and deviant personality. He adds still that he also was violent with his mother when he was reprimanded and would react by kicking her. • He asserts that Robert did receive psychiatric treatment whilst in the U.K. • He has no other elements to offer the investigation. • And nothing more was said, finds it in conformity, ratifies and signs.

kathyBelle wrote:What I do find strange about this case is, Robert Murat, who was only suspected by the police of being involved with Madeleine's disappearance, was investigated a lot more thoroughly than the McCanns.

REPLY: I don't think that's true at all, please see below.

The police had enough evidence to arrest and charge the McCanns, the minute they went to their apartment and found that Madeleine had disappeared because of the McCanns' neglect. The British Government hadn't got involved, at the time the police went to the McCanns' apartment, so the police had no excuse not to arrest the McCanns.

Robert Murat was taken in for questioning within hours of Madeleine's disappearance

REPLY: KathyBelle, this statement is completely untrue (see also my previous reply to you). He was taken in for questioning on Monday 14 May, 11 days after Madeleine disappeared. That was the first time he was questioned.

and he was questioned again and again, until he was made an arguido, around 2 weeks after Madeleine disappeared.

REPLY: No. He was translating for the first few days, not 'being questioned again and again'. He was first questioned on 14 May. He was questioned again on 10 and 11 July. And that's it.

aiyoyo wrote:[To me it seems the witness is a very disturbed person whose mental or psychological health needs checking out. I wonder what the police made of that statement, as in - was it given any credibility?

REPLY: To some extent Carlos's evidence was confirmed by a second, anonymous witness. Here is her statement, which we also need to consider:

02-Processos Volume II PJ Record 8th May 2007-
At about 20.00 the police received a phone call from a number that could not be identified, from a person with a female voice speaking in correct Portuguese, who did not want to be identified for reasons of safety. She refers to an individual who abducted Madeleine, who knows how to keep quiet and is quite close to the police. When asked who she was referring to she said it was an individual who resides in Praia da Luz, who has an English mother, who speaks this language very well, who was near the area since the disappearance of the little girl, supposedly with the intention of helping the investigation. She said this man was called Robert and that he used to consult internet chats of a pretty heavy sexual nature. He would also use internet for contacts with different acquaintances he had in other countries, especially in the UK. She said most of the mails he sent were encrypted due to the monitoring of the kind of content they possessed. This is why she wanted to alert the authorities about the characteristics of this man, who, in her opinion, could have sexual motives and knows the area perfectly for committing this type of crime.

This female witness was proved dead right over the encryption - Murat's computer did use encryption. Moreoever, he was at a total loss to explain why material on his computer was encrypted. This is a fact we simply cannot ignore in understanding Murat.

Honestly I seriously can't see anyone paid to smear Murat in that fashion. To smear maybe, but to smear in that fashion - saying he tried to have sex with a cat! Just don't make sense. Besides, because of the speed this man appeared, just a few short days after the incident, how did anyone (presuming there's a payer) find him so quickly? Unless one knows Murat from before and his friends, it's not an easy task...sourcing a friend of his who would smear him. If you ask me I don't think this chap was paid, more like he's got some mental disorder.

REPLY: This witness was someone who'd known Murat for 30 years. He gave detailed particulars of his connections with Murat. He came forward the very day after Murat was taken in for questioning. Despite the graphic allegations which we instinctively recoil from, Murat took no action against Carlos. Carlos gave police a checkable account. He gave details of other people who would know about Murat. I see no evidence of mental disturbance in this man's statement. He describes awful things we would prefer not to think about. But they do happen, as we read about from time to time.

If anyone consipired to frame Murat, it would have to come from McCanns' close friends, as in the Tapas 7 or CM or people like that.

REPLY: And it did! Murat was framed by a combination of:

1. Jane Tanner's identification
2. Three of the 'Tapas 9' claiming they'd seen him outside the Ocean Club on the night of 3 May
3. The same 'Tapas 3' maintaining at a confrontation on 11 July that they really had seen Murat
4. Profiles by Control Risks Group and MI5 identifying him as the likely abductor
5. Conversations Jane Tanner had on 12 and/or 13 March with Control Risks Group and Leicestershire Police Officers
6 Lori Campbell.

They saw an opportunity when the journalist [Lori campbell] openly bad mouthed him. That journalist (off hand can't remember her name) should be the first person Murat sued, so I find it strange he's let her off.

REPLY: Part of the deal, aiyoyo. The powers-that-be arrange for him to collect 600 grand. In return, he says only what he is asked to say, and no more.

She was so derogatory and insulting - it was her remarks that cast first suspicion on Murat.

REPLY: And she was almost certainly 'primed' by Clarence Mitchell, with whom she had previously wsorked closely on the Soham child murders.

soulthief wrote:lmao.

kathyBelle wrote:Regarding Robert Murat, I wasn't in Portugal when Madeleine disappeared, so I have to rely on information that I have read on the net, or hear various people say in media interviews and discussions on radio programmes.

As I have previously said, I heard Robert Murat's lawyer say he requested he was made an arguido, because of the times he was questioned over this incident. It appears that Robert Murat's lawyer, was telling lies when he made that statement outside of Mr Murat's home.

I read and heard that Robert Murat, was taken in for questioning, within hours of Madeleine's disappearance, because of the female journalist's suspicions around him. I also read and heard he was taken in for questioning several times, before he was made an arguido. It appears that what I read and heard, isn't true.

I read and heard, that the P.J. were more thorough when they investigated Robert Murat, than they were when they investigated the McCanns. It appears that what I have read and heard is also untrue...

...I've given myself a ticking off.

saloongirl wrote:Which member of the Tapas Team is it that Murat resembles? Is it David Payne? I often wondered if David Payne was seen somewhere he shouldn't have been, and the Tapas Team were trying to make out it was really Murat.