Re: Robert Murat.

by Cheshire Cat 10.11.10 13:18

Tony Bennett wrote:
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.
Yes, David Payne. It was also said that Murat looked like one of the Symingtons.

You said: "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".

REPLY: No, I don't think that theory stands up. David Payne would have been seen in and around the Ocean Club after 10.00pm on 3 May; he participated (after a fashion) in the search for Madeleine.

There was what appeared to be a Mitchell-co-ordinated attempt around about the beginning of 2008 to develop stories around Murat looking like Payne and Symington. Photos of them looking similar were most helpfully provided to the media...by someone. This was part of what I suggest was a deliberate process of removing suspicions against Murat, after he and Brian Kennedy had struck a deal at their crucial meeting on Tuesday 13 November at the Eveleighs' villa on the Algarve.

As one astute observer pointed out when the press was in full cry saying the 'Tapas 3' mistook Payne for Murat, one of the three 'Tapas 3' who had up until then loudly proclaimed 'I saw Murat outside the Ocean Club' was Fiona Payne, wife of Dr David Payne.

The same observer commented: "You would think a wife would be able to tell whether she saw her husband or not".

I suppose Payne is the most Murat looking of the Tapas males but there is hardly a striking resemblance!

Payne is older than Murat and has very little hair - Murat has a thick curly mop.

by soulthief 10.11.10 13:20

kathyBelle wrote:
soulthief wrote:lmao.

I've given myself a ticking off.

Not sure of what you mean? I was loling that its so cliquey it doesnt matter what I write no one answers or responds...guess you proved me wrong

by Guest 10.11.10 13:22

Cheshire Cat wrote:Kathybelle

If Robert Murat has nothing to hide, why does he not re-open the process?

Surely this would be the best way of allowing him to explain the contradicitons in his account of events, whilst clearing his name in the public areana for once and for all? If he had no part in the cover-up what-so-ever this would be revealed as the investigation progressed, assuming the investigation was not hindered by political forces. For example proper questioning of David Payne and Jayne Tanner may bring to light new evidence that the original enquiry failed to glean.

I have found that since I opened my mind to the role of Murat and the fact that Madeleine may have met her demise sometime before 3 May 2007 I have become satisfied that the McCann's would have had access to enough local knowledge and sufficient time to make it feasible for them too have covered up the death and hide the body.

I fear that those who refuse to accept Murat's role as being no more than a helpful soul who volunteered his services as a translator will never solve this crime.

But then how do you account for the Smith sighting on 3rd May, in which M SMith is 60/80 per cent sure it was GM?

by saloongirl 10.11.10 13:25

Thank you Mr Bennett. Sometimes my posts don't always come across properly, I didn't mean to imply that anyone (including Fiona) genuinely mistook Payne for Murat, rather that they deliberately led people (perhaps potential eye witnesses ) to believe that they had seen Murat when it was actually Payne they had seen. I always used to believe that Murat was not involved in any way but reading other people's interesting posts I am now in two minds about that. I shall be interested to see how this thread develops.

by Guest 10.11.10 13:26

soulthief wrote:
kathyBelle wrote:
soulthief wrote:lmao.

I've given myself a ticking off.

Not sure of what you mean? I was loling that its so cliquey it doesnt matter what I write no one answers or responds...guess you proved me wrong

Aw soulthief, nobody ignores you. It's not cliquey as you put it. Very often when I post no one responds, or other posts go up and yours is missed. Don't take it to heart big grin

by Cheshire Cat 10.11.10 13:34

candyfloss wrote:
Cheshire Cat wrote:Kathybelle

If Robert Murat has nothing to hide, why does he not re-open the process?

Surely this would be the best way of allowing him to explain the contradicitons in his account of events, whilst clearing his name in the public areana for once and for all? If he had no part in the cover-up what-so-ever this would be revealed as the investigation progressed, assuming the investigation was not hindered by political forces. For example proper questioning of David Payne and Jayne Tanner may bring to light new evidence that the original enquiry failed to glean.

I have found that since I opened my mind to the role of Murat and the fact that Madeleine may have met her demise sometime before 3 May 2007 I have become satisfied that the McCann's would have had access to enough local knowledge and sufficient time to make it feasible for them too have covered up the death and hide the body.

I fear that those who refuse to accept Murat's role as being no more than a helpful soul who volunteered his services as a translator will never solve this crime.

But then how do you account for the Smith sighting on 3rd May, in which M SMith is 60/80 per cent sure it was GM?

I think the fact that Mr Smith was 60/80 percent sure is partly why Amaral wanted to bring him in for a reconstruction. Mr Smith was not 100% sure although he did have a "flash back" moment when he saw GM descend the stairs of the aircraft. What is not in doubt is that the Smith family saw a man with a small child. Perhaps a "staged abduction" that was neither GM or MM?

by **Jill Havern** 10.11.10 13:46

Tony Bennett wrote:As one astute observer pointed out when the press was in full cry saying the 'Tapas 3' mistook Payne for Murat, one of the three 'Tapas 3' who had up until then loudly proclaimed 'I saw Murat outside the Ocean Club' was Fiona Payne, wife of Dr David Payne.

The same observer commented: "You would think a wife would be able to tell whether she saw her husband or not".

Would that be the same Fiona Payne who didn't know her own age? Didn't know if she was 30 or 35? Robert Murat. - Page 2 82678

Quote from her rogatory interview:

"Erm, erm, I’m thirty, I’ll work that out actually, I’m thirty-five years old. I work as an Anaesthetist at Leicester and Leicester Registrar. I’m married to David Payne."

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic40.html

by **Jill Havern** 10.11.10 13:51

soulthief wrote:
kathyBelle wrote:
soulthief wrote:lmao.

I've given myself a ticking off.

Not sure of what you mean? I was loling that its so cliquey it doesnt matter what I write no one answers or responds...guess you proved me wrong

Definitelty not cliquey here soulthief, it's just that we see you as part of the furniture now! Robert Murat. - Page 2 725573

by soulthief 10.11.10 16:42

candyfloss wrote:
soulthief wrote:
kathyBelle wrote:
soulthief wrote:lmao.

I've given myself a ticking off.

Not sure of what you mean? I was loling that its so cliquey it doesnt matter what I write no one answers or responds...guess you proved me wrong

Aw soulthief, nobody ignores you. It's not cliquey as you put it. Very often when I post no one responds, or other posts go up and yours is missed. Don't take it to heart

I dont take it to heart, twas an observation that is all. I would however beg to differ on the clique, I have seen posts where there are several just saying thank you to for example Mr Bennett yet ignore what could lead to an interesting debate..

by kathyBelle 10.11.10 16:55

soulthief wrote:
kathyBelle wrote:
soulthief wrote:lmao.

I've given myself a ticking off.

Not sure of what you mean? I was loling that its so cliquey it doesnt matter what I write no one answers or responds...guess you proved me wrong

soulthief, Robert Murat. - Page 2 655851

sorry I misread your post. I thought you were giving me a gentle reminder that I should have said "in my opinion" when you posted lmao. I now know what lmao means.

I hope I haven't offended you and I've given myself another ticking off. Robert Murat. - Page 2 90835

by Autumn 10.11.10 16:59

soulthief wrote:
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.
I believe he was involved, probably after the fact, as in conspiracy after the fact and perverting the course of justice, I haven't read any of the other posts so dont know what others think, wanted to answer then see what others views are.
Firstly there is the Exeter link..he has connections to there and very close to one of the Tapas crew who I cant recall, think maybe it was O'Brien..then there is the Michaela thing, didn't her husband clean the MW pool and have keys? Wasn't it said she wasn 't at the Jehovah's meeting she claimed to be at? I know later these discrepancies were cleared up but were they? Or was it more cover from unknown protectors? Then there is the calls to Malinka...the cleaning of the hard drives of the pc,s the dispute between him and Murat as to when they spoke and about what. Most damning of all for me is the fact that Murat has never spoken publicly about his ordeal nor has he sought to press charges against any of the Tapas crew, the McCanns or the P.J.
thats my take on Murat, I believe he helped dispose of the body and he helped distract the P.J.

That is my belief also Soulthief, and it is puzzling why he has never pressed charges against those you mention and also Clarence who likened him to Ian Huntley. Wasn't there also something about Murat lending Gerry his car or was that never proven - I'l have another read of Murat's statements as he was questioned about this but need to refresh my memory.

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.10 17:19

soulthief wrote:I believe he was involved, probably after the fact, as in conspiracy after the fact and perverting the course of justice, I haven't read any of the other posts so don't know what others think, wanted to answer then see what others views are.

REPLY: His sudden flight to Faro in the early hours of Tuesday 1 May cries out for explanation. Murat's explanation is unconvincing. Had something already happened to Madeleine by then?

Firstly there is the Exeter link...he has connections to there and very close to one of the Tapas crew who I can't recall, think maybe it was O'Brien...

REPLY: I'm not sure there is any evidence of a previous link between Dr Russell O'Brien and Murat. Do you have a source?

...then there is the Michaela thing, didn't her husband clean the MW pool and have keys?

REPLY: Not sure. I think Luis Antonio's house key was found at Murat's house, I may be wrong.

Wasn't it said she wasn't at the Jehovah's meeting she claimed to be at?

REPLY: Yes. Have covered this in my article on Murat.

I know later these discrepancies were cleared up, but were they? Or was it more cover from unknown protectors? Then there is the calls to Malinka...the cleaning of the hard drives of the pc's, the dispute between him and Murat as to when they spoke and about what.

REPLY: Many many questions remain about Murat's role.

Most damning of all for me is the fact that Murat has never spoken publicly about his ordeal nor has he sought to press charges against any of the Tapas crew, the McCanns or the P.J.

REPLY: These are highly relevant considerations when we consider Murat's role. But then 600 grand buys silence.

Thats my take on Murat, I believe he helped dispose of the body and he helped distract the P.J.

REPLY: He appears to have known Dr Gerald McCann before the holiday. His mobile and Dr Gerald McCann's were both switched off for the exact same period for 30 hours (within 6 minutes) on 2 and 3 May. Murat lied 17 times about his movements between 1 and 4 May, including lying about visiting certain properties. These are all pieces of the jigsaw.

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

FROM CHAPTER I OF 'ROBERT MURAT -FROM ARGUIDO TO APPLAUSE'

I. A summary of Murat’s 17 changes of story about what he did on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May

You may by now have lost count of the number of changes in Robert Murat’s story about what he was doing between 1 and 4 May, so here’s a convenient summary of his new account of events, and how these contradicted his earlier account of events:

1. Remembers that on 1 May he tried to contact Jorge da Silva.

2. Remembers that on 2 May he didn’t leave home at 10.30am but instead had a meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista Supermarket.

3. He had in fact taken Michaela and Malinka back to his mother’s house in Praia da Luz for a further discussion, something he’d omitted to tell the police in the first interview.

4. He now remembered visiting his bank and paying in 287.51 euros.

5. He now remembered he’d called at the home of Francisco Pagarete, his lawyer, that morning.

6. He now remembers that he had met Francisco Pagarete that afternoon.

7. He now remembers that another of Jorge’s sons was present at their meeting in the café in the afternoon.

8. The meeting in the café went on much longer than he had said previously.

9. He thinks that Michaela Walczuk’s husband Luis Antonio may not have been present at Michaela’s house that evening, contrary to what he had previously said.

10. On 3 May, he had not woken at 9.00am as previously stated, but at 8.00am.

11. He had not driven to Michaela’s house that morning after 10.00am as previously stated; instead he had left home at 8.45am for a 9.30am meeting with the owner of the business tourist complex called ‘Gold Bunker’ in the Espiche district and her father-in-law.

12. He now remembered that he and Michaela had visited two apartments for about 30 minutes, probably on the afternoon of 3 May.

13. He and Michaela had lunch with the owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex and her father-in-law, a fact he had not disclosed to police before.

14. Michaela’s daughter C______ was not with them that day, contrary to his previous story.

15. They went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, another fact Murat had failed to disclose.

16. He now admitted to making two telephone calls, to Sergei Malinka and Michaela, at 11.39pm and 11.40pm that night.

17. 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.
A possible interpretation of these changes of story could be along these lines; namely that during his first statement, Murat did not want to admit to:

meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista supermarket on 2 May at around 10.00am
he and Michaela being in the Espiche/Almádena area at around 9.30am on 3 May
his meeting with the owner of the ‘Gold Bunker’ complex
he, Michaela and the da Silvas being at the Palmares Golf Club on the afternoon of 3 May
that he had visited two apartments on the afternoon of 3 May.

We make no other comment on the large number of changes of story but leave the reader to form his or her own judgment as to why there were so many changes. We will however add this discussion by a poster on the ‘maddiecasefiles’ internet forum, who analysed these discrepancies in Murat’s account of those few days:

“Jorge Miguel Rocha da Silva tells us that even on the day Murat returned from Exeter (1 May), he tried to get in touch da Silva at the children’s clothing shop that he runs with his wife. He couldn’t, as it was a public holiday. On the following two days (2 & 3 May) he insisted that that da Silva meet him at short notice. A few days later, three days before Murat was made an arguido, Michaela Walczuk was still inviting him to get-togethers at her apartment.

“The official line from Murat is that he was talking to da Silva to persuade him to invest in his and Michaela’s venture: ‘Romigen’. Yet to this day, Romigen appears to be no more than a ‘shell’ company, just a paper idea for selling property via the internet. It doesn’t seem as though the company required any significant cash injection. And if we look at da Silva’s statements, if Murat had any intention of buying land to make money out of it, this was never made apparent to da Silva even after several hours of apparently unprofitable conversation - or rather, so it's been said, of long and puzzling silences.

“On his first full day back in Praia da Luz (2 May), Murat did manage to get in touch with da Silva at the shop. He took da Silva and his two sons to a café bar for the first round of talking. We know that Murat rang his lawyer no less than four times that day. In addition, in da Silva’s first statement to the PJ, he said that: 'They did some talking in Mrs Murat’s VW Transporter'. He says rather vaguely that the discussion was ‘to develop some details of the intended business’.

“The following day (3 May), Murat, Michaela, Jorge da Silva and his sons met again for a long session on 3 May, at the Palmares Golf Club. It is hard to understand from Jorge da Silva’s account what all these meetings were really about”.

So what could they have been about? Was the true content of these discussions being concealed?

We know that Murat came back to Portugal in apparent haste on 1 May.

His own account says that he booked his ticket on that very day. He seems to have booked his flight ticket at between midnight and 2.00am. His sister Samantha took him to the airport to catch the 7.00am flight. Murat must have been up and about at not long after 4.00am that morning to get up, travel by car to the airport and check in etc.

There seems to be, without doubt, a significant degree of urgency about Murat’s movements on 1 May. In his statement he said that he met only his mother (who fetched him from Faro airport) and Michaela that day, but since then we’ve learnt that he called at Jorge da Silva’s shop. Why did da Silva have these long discussions with Murat? Was it really just about Romigen?

Was his sudden early morning flight from Exeter to Praia da Luz just in order to get ‘Romigen’ moving, or to finalise his divorce as he claimed on another occasion? Did he really need to meet urgently with a top local lawyer for that reason? Two years later, Romigen appears to be still only a ‘shell’ company, or at most a ‘front’ for something else.

So we pose this question: did something significant happen on Monday 30 April which required him to jet out to Portugal immediately and confer with a number of powerful and well-connected people in Praia da Luz?

by **Tony Bennett** 10.11.10 17:34

Autumn wrote:...it is puzzling why he has never pressed charges against those you mention and also Clarence who likened him to Ian Huntley.

The solution to this puzzle lies I think in what was discussed between Brian Kennedy and his lawyer and Robert Murat and his lawyer at the Portugal meeting on Tuesday 13 November 2007.

Kennedy: "We want you to play the role of innocent victim, agree not to sue anyone like Mitchell or Tanner, and make one final speech at the Cambridge Student Union saying how beastly the press were to you and saying that the priority is to find Madeleine who was taken by a wicked abductor. How much do you want?"

Murat: "No less than six hundred grand".

Kennedy: "Done".

The pair shake hands.

The lawyers exchange signed copies of the contract.

by soulthief 10.11.10 18:15

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
soulthief wrote:
kathyBelle wrote:
soulthief wrote:lmao.

I've given myself a ticking off.

Not sure of what you mean? I was loling that its so cliquey it doesnt matter what I write no one answers or responds...guess you proved me wrong

Definitelty not cliquey here soulthief, it's just that we see you as part of the furniture now!

LoL shall take that as a compliment...I hope this is a rather fancy chesterfield sofa furniture item!

by soulthief 10.11.10 18:16

kathyBelle wrote:
soulthief wrote:
kathyBelle wrote:
soulthief wrote:lmao.

I've given myself a ticking off.

Not sure of what you mean? I was loling that its so cliquey it doesnt matter what I write no one answers or responds...guess you proved me wrong

soulthief, sorry I misread your post. I thought you were giving me a gentle reminder that I should have said "in my opinion" when you posted lmao. I now know what lmao means.

I hope I haven't offended you and I've given myself another ticking off.

No course you haven't. Crossed wires. thumbsup

by ufercoffy 11.11.10 18:03

• 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,

muratfan is a fan of Robert Murat who likes to try to shag dogs and cats? Robert Murat. - Page 2 890363

-------

eta

Robert Murat. - Page 2 145161

muratfan....doggyshag lover lol!

by Judge Mental 11.11.10 18:38

soulthief. We are definitely not cliquey here, so please continue with your postings and do not think you are being ignored.

by Magichands 11.11.10 21:16

candyfloss wrote:

But then how do you account for the Smith sighting on 3rd May, in which M SMith is 60/80 per cent sure it was GM?

Sorry O/T however I just wanted to add that originally (prior to BK's visit) MS didn't appear to have any doubts;

Processos, Volume XI
2871 to 2875—Smith Family Memorandum regarding contact with PJ after McCanns return home

From: DC Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

DC John Hughes

by Guest 11.11.10 21:22

Magichands wrote:
candyfloss wrote:

But then how do you account for the Smith sighting on 3rd May, in which M SMith is 60/80 per cent sure it was GM?

Sorry O/T however I just wanted to add that originally (prior to BK's visit) MS didn't appear to have any doubts;

Processos, Volume XI
2871 to 2875—Smith Family Memorandum regarding contact with PJ after McCanns return home

From: DC Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

DC John Hughes

Thank you Magichands, and welcome thumbsup

by Cheshire Cat 11.11.10 21:26

Magichands wrote:
candyfloss wrote:

But then how do you account for the Smith sighting on 3rd May, in which M SMith is 60/80 per cent sure it was GM?

Sorry O/T however I just wanted to add that originally (prior to BK's visit) MS didn't appear to have any doubts;

Processos, Volume XI
2871 to 2875—Smith Family Memorandum regarding contact with PJ after McCanns return home

From: DC Hughes
Sent: Thursday, 20th September, 2007 15:42
CC: Prior Stuart
Re: FW: Smith Family

This is the Irish family that saw a man transporting a child on the night in question and returned to Portugal to collaborate with the investigation. Martin Smith contacted our department stating that after having observed the McCann family on TV alighting from the plane, he believes that the person he saw carrying the child that night was Gerry McCann. For your information.

DC John Hughes

I do not believe Kennedy actually visited Martin Smith - he attempted to contact him but Mr Smith was not interested.

What Mr Smith saw was something that needed following up - as GA planned to do.

The person the Smith's saw was wearing beige trousers - beige slacks seemed to be all the rage in Praia Da Luz in May 2007!

"He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut."

by Magichands 11.11.10 21:42

Cheshire Cat wrote:

I do not believe Kennedy actually visited Martin Smith - he attempted to contact him but Mr Smith was not interested.

What Mr Smith saw was something that needed following up - as GA planned to do.

The person the Smith's saw was wearing beige trousers - beige slacks seemed to be all the rage in Praia Da Luz in May 2007!

"He was wearing cream or beige-coloured cloth trousers in a classic cut."

Apologies for O/T

Its not quite clear whether the contact by BK was in person or by other means from the below statement. I seem to recall it was in person however I have no source for that.

Processos, Volume XVI, pgs. 4129 to 4414
4135 to 4139—Additional statement from Martin Smith 2008.01.30 (English)

Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough

Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann

I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.

He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor’s letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor’s fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.

I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.

Forwarded please

Sergeant

Liam Hogan

by soulthief 11.11.10 23:31

Autumn wrote:
soulthief wrote:
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.
I believe he was involved, probably after the fact, as in conspiracy after the fact and perverting the course of justice, I haven't read any of the other posts so dont know what others think, wanted to answer then see what others views are.
Firstly there is the Exeter link..he has connections to there and very close to one of the Tapas crew who I cant recall, think maybe it was O'Brien..then there is the Michaela thing, didn't her husband clean the MW pool and have keys? Wasn't it said she wasn 't at the Jehovah's meeting she claimed to be at? I know later these discrepancies were cleared up but were they? Or was it more cover from unknown protectors? Then there is the calls to Malinka...the cleaning of the hard drives of the pc,s the dispute between him and Murat as to when they spoke and about what. Most damning of all for me is the fact that Murat has never spoken publicly about his ordeal nor has he sought to press charges against any of the Tapas crew, the McCanns or the P.J.
thats my take on Murat, I believe he helped dispose of the body and he helped distract the P.J.

That is my belief also Soulthief, and it is puzzling why he has never pressed charges against those you mention and also Clarence who likened him to Ian Huntley. Wasn't there also something about Murat lending Gerry his car or was that never proven - I'l have another read of Murat's statements as he was questioned about this but need to refresh my memory.

Yes I recall something about Murats car but can not recall what. another funny thing is Mitchell has never apologised publicly for likening him to Huntley and the McCanns have never really touched upon the subject, when Gerry wouldnt answer to knowing Murat was definitely a massive flag that there was something between the whole sorry arsed crowd of them.

by soulthief 11.11.10 23:32

Judge Mental wrote: soulthief. We are definitely not cliquey here, so please continue with your postings and do not think you are being ignored.

by Judge Mental 12.11.10 1:20

Caught you again. You are quite right of course with regards to Mitchell not making a public apology to Murat. Using the name of a convicted paedophile still firmly fixed in the memory of the general public, was a shocking and deplorable connection to have made. One would have thought this was something Mitchell would have swiftly dealt with during at least one of his laborious interviews.

Why did Mitchell and L Campbell feel compelled to whip up such hysteria?

Robert Murat. - Page 2 234726

by soulthief 12.11.10 14:11

Judge Mental wrote: Caught you again. You are quite right of course with regards to Mitchell not making a public apology to Murat. Using the name of a convicted paedophile still firmly fixed in the memory of the general public, was a shocking and deplorable connection to have made. One would have thought this was something Mitchell would have swiftly dealt with during at least one of his laborious interviews.

Why did Mitchell and L Campbell feel compelled to whip up such hysteria?

I know it sounds mad and far fetched I think Murat knew he was to be blamed and allowed it. I think it was part of the plan to throw the pj off the scent when the McCanns realised their time checks and alibis were not as cast iron as they initially thought, Murat became rich by this, he had money form the Media for slander but never from he McCanns or their cronies, I think he helped with the disposal and hung around listening to what the pj was saying and told the McCanns, I think blaming Murat was part of the smokescreen agreed by him in return he got to sue the express and for all we know got money from the McCanns for helping, that would explain his silence and the Exeter link. He knew he had an alibi, he knew no DNA or forensic link would be found so allowing them to accuse him did not hurt him in the long run, in fact it done him a favour

by Judge Mental 12.11.10 14:31

@ soulthief

He would have been taking an enormous risk, without cast-iron guarantees. The McCanns had immediately stated that they were looking for an abductor, and had given word that they were convinced they were looking for a paedophile or paedophiles. What sort of man would wish to carry such a label, even in the short term?

Having a number of the Tapas 9 standing before him and accusing him of being in the area where Madeleine allegedly disappeared, could very well have seen this man lose his liberty wth immediate effect.

One does have to admit that his statements regarding his own movements are peculiar to say the least, and that further cross-questioning should have ensued to clear up those discrepancies.

Robert Murat. - Page 2 234726

by soulthief 12.11.10 16:50

Judge Mental wrote:@ soulthief

He would have been taking an enormous risk, without cast-iron guarantees. The McCanns had immediately stated that they were looking for an abductor, and had given word that they were convinced they were looking for a paedophile or paedophiles. What sort of man would wish to carry such a label, even in the short term?

Having a number of the Tapas 9 standing before him and accusing him of being in the area where Madeleine allegedly disappeared, could very well have seen this man lose his liberty wth immediate effect.

One does have to admit that his statements regarding his own movements are peculiar to say the least, and that further cross-questioning should have ensued to clear up those discrepancies.

Hi Judge..Look either Murat was involved without the McCanns in the death or if you wanna call it disappearance without the Mc's or he was involved with them, the evidence points to the McCanns involvement..so we can discount he was involved without the Mccanns, if you accept he was somehow involved then it had to be with the McCanns..If you accept he helped dispose of the body, hid it or whatever, then he was in cahoots with them, so what you then have to think is why would they frame someone who helped them? Why would tanner identify someone who was assisting them? Why would kate? it has to be part of the plan. yes the accusations of paedophilia were damning but ultimately in the eyes of the public he was cleared.

by ufercoffy 13.11.10 17:58

Errors and Omissions in Costa and Pollard Murat Statement at Pamalam's Gerrysblogs

http://www.thesargeants.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=268

by **Tony Bennett** 13.11.10 18:39

[quote="ufercoffy"]Errors and Omissions in Costa and Pollard Murat Statement at Pamalam's Gerrysblogs

http://www.thesargeants.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=268[/quote]
ufercoffy, thank you for posting and I wish to make some comments on blackwatch's article, which I have now read.

The only time that 'blackwatch' has ever contacted me was when he discovered I was writing a long article on Murat.

He offered to co-operate, I suppose in much the same way as Greeks sometimes bear gifts.

This all seemed to go well in the early weeks, as I freely exchanged all my research material and drafts with him and he made comments. In truth he added very little to what I had written and he was somewhat sceptical about my tentative conclusions.

As my article neared completion, he suddenly turned very nasty, coming up with loads of unjustified criticisms and then saying he wanted no association whatsoever with my final article.

In the event, as I've always tried to acknowledge those who've helped me with anything, I added a brief note at the end of the article acknowledging the assistance I had had from 'blackwatch' in compiling the article.

'blackwatch' went absolutely ballistic, condemning me on the internet and in personal e-mails in highly agggressive language and accusing me of breaching an 'agreement' not to associate him in any way with the article.

I found it baffling at the time that he seemed to want to help me with the Murat article, then turned against me with vitriol when he didn't like the finisihed product.

However, with the benefit of also looking at this article, perhaps a pattern is beginning to emerge.

I noted these references:

QUOTE 1

Some of the errors can be explained by Jacinto not being in contact with Murat snr in later years, but the information about his financial status is interesting. What kind of man was Murat Snr? What kind of people were so keen to see Murat's reputation spoiled?

UNQUOTE

QUOTE 2

The bigger question remains though: why has someone (either within the PJ or those responsible for the original scans and translations) gone to so much trouble to obfuscate and confuse the general significance of these two statements? Was there a deliberate attempt to sully the reputation of Robert Murat?

UNQUOTE

I am going therefore to pose a question of 'blackwatch':

Why do you consistently seek to defend the reputation of Robert Murat - why do you never question his role in all of this?

Finally, the 'blackwatch' article is noteworthy for another 'blackwatch' trait - criticising some of those who have done most to help try to uncover the truth about what happened to Madeleine McCann.

Here he is with a totally unnecessary dig at 'Pamalam':

QUOTE

I've always been struck by the incongruity of Pamalam's website. This is someone who claims to be an ordinary grandmother with little or no experience of blogging or websites prior to July 2007 and yet has the extraordinary foresight and nous to register her website in the United States (hostingfroggy server - safe from litigation) and bangs on a littleknown US domain privacy service to protect her identity. That's pretty savvy for your average Newcastle granny, isn't it? She registers the domain using a UK registrar (webfusion) and instead of using their hosting platforms - she uses one based in the US.

UNQUOTE

I am beginning to wonder at the incongruity of blackwatch's utterings.