Re: If Madeleine McCann died on Sunday 29 April, what was really going on behind the scenes that week?

by **Madeleine McCann Research** 19.02.22 19:18

On the subject of why Robert Murat jetted out to Praia da Luz at 7am on Tuesday 1 May, we now reproduce part of an article on the former Madeleine Foundation website:

********

Why did Robert Murat change his story to the police, in 17 separate particulars, about what he did on 1st, 2nd, 3rd and 4th May 2007?

We publish in this short article a summary of 17 separate changes by Robert Murat in his account to the Portuguese police of events between 1 and 4 May in Praia da Luz. This article is an extract from our longer analysis of the actions and role of Robert Murat, one of three people formally named as suspects in the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, along with Dr Gerald McCann and his wife Dr Kate McCann. Our longer article is titled: “The Mystery of Robert Murat: From Arguido to Applause” and can be found in 6 parts elsewhere on our website.

Robert Murat was first questioned by police on 14 May 2007, just 11 days after Madeleine was reported missing. The list below shows how he changed his story when later interviewed on 10 and 11 July. Below our list is a brief discussion of this extraordinary number of very specific changes in his accounts to his police interrogators.

Here, then, is a convenient summary of his new account of events, and how these contradicted his earlier account of events:

Remembers that on 1 May he tried to contact Jorge da Silva.
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.
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.
He now remembered visiting his bank and paying in 287.51 euros.
He now remembered he’d called at the home of Francisco Pagarete, his lawyer, that morning.
He now remembers that he had met Francisco Pagarete that afternoon.
He now remembers that another of Jorge’s sons was present at their meeting in the café in the afternoon.
The meeting in the café went on much longer than he had said previously.
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.
On 3 May, he had not woken at 9.00am as previously stated, but at 8.00am.
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.
He now remembered that he and Michaela had visited two apartments for about 30 minutes, probably on the afternoon of 3 May.
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.
Michaela’s daughter C______ was not with them that day, contrary to his previous story.
They went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, another fact Murat had failed to disclose.
He now admitted to making two telephone calls, to Sergei Malinka and Michaela, at 11.39pm and 11.40pm that night.
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:

QUOTE

"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”.

UNQUOTE

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 Vera Krista 19.02.22 20:04

In my humble opinion you don't book ticket in between 12 am to 2 am unless there's an emergency.

by **sharonl** 19.02.22 22:37

Vera Krista wrote:In my humble opinion you don't book ticket in between 12 am to 2 am unless there's an emergency.

IIRC Murat claimed that he was heading back to PDL for business purposes, to set up his company, Romigen. What could be so urgent about that in the early hours of the morning? Even if it was urgent, wouldn't he have tried to book his flight during the day after speaking with his business partners? What could be so urgent about this in the early hours that he would need to book a flight between 12am and 2am, then leave at 4am for the airport? Has he ever stated what was so urgently important? Where did he go and what did he do when he first arrived in PDL that would justify this mad rush?

by **crusader** 20.02.22 0:01

It's known Murat flew to Portugal on Fly Be on 1st May 7am, do we know which airport he flew from and the times of any other flights to Portugal on 1st May?

He wasn't planning on staying in Portugal, he was planning to fly back to the UK for a medical appointment on the 9th may.

by Guest 20.02.22 0:10

Please refresh my memory .... how do we know exactly when Robert Murat booked the flight to Portugal?

Not when did he travel but when did he book the flight.

From my experience you have to travel when flights are available, not necessarily when you want to travel.

by sequested 20.02.22 6:59

IIRC he flew from Exeter. As of today, FlyBe & TUI still offer the same route.
I wonder what he was doing in Exeter ? Aren’t there other links to that town ?!

by **Tony Bennett** 20.02.22 7:41

crusader wrote:It's known Murat flew to Portugal on Fly Be on 1st May 7am, do we know which airport he flew from and the times of any other flights to Portugal on 1st May?

He wasn't planning on staying in Portugal, he was planning to fly back to the UK for a medical appointment on the 9th may.

He flew from Exeter. At the time, he was staying with one of his sisters in Sidmouth, on the coast about 25 miles east of Exeter. He stated that he was renovating a house nearby belonging to his grandmother.

I think we must be very sceptical about his claim to be planning to return on 9 May for a 'a medical appointment'. What medical appointment? A blood test? An appointment with a consultant? An operation? Did he actually book a flight back on Tuesday 8th May so that he could keep that appointment? He never said so.

From memory either Robert Murat or Flybe confirmed the time he booked the flight, I believe the PJ checked this.

Regarding the claimed 'medical appointment', why should we believe anything Robert Murat tells us? Murat committed wholesale perjury and perverted the course of justice by lying comprehensively to the PJ when first questioned by them. In England such a serious offence carries a maximum penalty of 14 years. He made at least SEVENTEEN false statements to the police, which he had to retract when questioned a second time two months later (10 & 11 July 2007).

And whilst acting as an interpreter, he acted so deviously that Inspector Varanda recommended he be removed from his post. Which he was

by Vera Krista 20.02.22 10:46

sharonl wrote:
Vera Krista wrote:In my humble opinion you don't book ticket in between 12 am to 2 am unless there's an emergency.

IIRC Murat claimed that he was heading back to PDL for business purposes, to set up his company, Romigen. What could be so urgent about that in the early hours of the morning? Even if it was urgent, wouldn't he have tried to book his flight during the day after speaking with his business partners? What could be so urgent about this in the early hours that he would need to book a flight between 12am and 2am, then leave at 4am for the airport? Has he ever stated what was so urgently important? Where did he go and what did he do when he first arrived in PDL that would justify this mad rush?

If you are flying for business purposes, you start looking for tickets as soon as you confirm things with your business partners so unless your business partners are over the other continent such as USA, Canada, NZ, Australia, you don't do meeting in the middle of the night.

Was not he staying with her sister who was a student at Exeter University, & allegedly Murat's knew one of the Tapas.

We have passenger itinerary
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]We know he intended to return on the 9th but He changed the flight to Saturday 12th of his own accord, and for the same reason, at the request of Police, he said, once again he changed the journey [for his return to England] to the 19th. The first change in the trip cost the respondent 41 pounds.

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

by **crusader** 20.02.22 10:58

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

As we can see from the above information, it wasn't the first time he had booked a flight at short notice.

by sequested 20.02.22 11:38

crusader wrote:Thank you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As we can see from the above information, it wasn't the first time he had booked a flight at short notice.

How can you tell from that info that he booked flights at short notice ?
My question is : why are there 2 lines for each flight almost the same, the only difference being the Class (O, H & L) all denote Economy ?

by sequested 20.02.22 11:40

Sorry, forget that…..didn’t see “create date” and “flight date”.

by Guest 20.02.22 13:58

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

by **CaKeLoveR** 20.02.22 14:11

You are all rooting out some good info, I wish had that ability, and a better memory.

by **Madeleine McCann Research** 25.02.22 21:57

crusader wrote:Thank you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

As we can see from the above information, it wasn't the first time he had booked a flight at short notice.

True. There was one previous time.

Somewhere we seem to recollect that the time of Murat's booking was mentioned. We will try and find it.

If there was cast-iron evidence that Murat booked his flight in a hurry, that would tend to indicate an urgent reason for his trip to Praia da Luz.

But far more persuasive evidence that Murat was up to no good is surely provided by:

a. His lying to police

b. His poor excuse for lying ("I was too tired to be able to remember the truth")

c. His dubious set of movements even when he said he was telling the truth (as per his 10/11 July interviews) and

d. His dishonest and erratic conduct as an interpreter

by Guest 26.02.22 8:54

a, b and c are the same matter, ever met an honest car dealer of real estate seller?

for d i want to see proof on the interpeter part.

because the portuguese police officers maybe did not speak english very fluently, or good enough, does not mean they understand none of it.

most first statements are made in reporting style, meaning not in their own words, but a summary of what could be of use for the investigation. these are not the kind who would be part of the files used in court, you just get your witness back in and will use a certified translator for a next statement with often even more information.

you have a need of quickly gathering as much information as is out there, it was 2007 meaning not all available rooms could already have a usable set of voice registration on the go. and we do not know if the pj had access to such facilities, or had transportable ones to use in the apartment in the ocean club.
in those days your own notes and memory were still needed, there was no simple way to tape all.

look at what happened in the uk in 2008 during the rogatories, that did not work very well at all.

also a reporting style statement is made in a specific way, steered on what your superior likes, and based on protocol. and in this case not a certified translator is used, so it would be not strange to see back the same ways of expression.

murat had to fool at least 6 inspectors of the pj. and another translator was used in two different statements.

from 6 may onwarts lori campells tipped the leichestershire police, what was send to portugal on that date.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

for telling porkies to red top reporters, and not let them take pictures of him, at least that is not criminal at all, nasty of course lori campbell could have write her own porkies very well.

and for playing busy body in the investigation, well there was a sellers market for each point that got out to the press. and if certain publication write out under every story they are willing to pay for it.

by Vera Krista 26.02.22 19:22

onehand wrote:a, b and c are the same matter, ever met an honest car dealer of real estate seller?

for d i want to see proof on the interpeter part.

because the portuguese police officers maybe did not speak english very fluently, or good enough, does not mean they understand none of it.

most first statements are made in reporting style, meaning not in their own words, but a summary of what could be of use for the investigation. these are not the kind who would be part of the files used in court, you just get your witness back in and will use a certified translator for a next statement with often even more information.

you have a need of quickly gathering as much information as is out there, it was 2007 meaning not all available rooms could already have a usable set of voice registration on the go. and we do not know if the pj had access to such facilities, or had transportable ones to use in the apartment in the ocean club.
in those days your own notes and memory were still needed, there was no simple way to tape all.

look at what happened in the uk in 2008 during the rogatories, that did not work very well at all.

also a reporting style statement is made in a specific way, steered on what your superior likes, and based on protocol. and in this case not a certified translator is used, so it would be not strange to see back the same ways of expression.

murat had to fool at least 6 inspectors of the pj. and another translator was used in two different statements.

from 6 may onwarts lori campells tipped the leichestershire police, what was send to portugal on that date.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

for telling porkies to red top reporters, and not let them take pictures of him, at least that is not criminal at all, nasty of course lori campbell could have write her own porkies very well.

and for playing busy body in the investigation, well there was a sellers market for each point that got out to the press. and if certain publication write out under every story they are willing to pay for it.

Wasn’t there two reporters one left her small baby at home to report about Maddie Case & the other one went for a long World Tour not soon (I think for a year) with her fiancé / partner..

by **sharonl** 18.03.22 21:34

Bumping this thread. If we are to find out what went on during that holiday and why there is an establishment coverup, we need to determine the movements of the McCanns and their associates in the days leading up to May 3rd.

Their activities from April 29th to May 1st is very vague to say the least.

This concerns not only the tapas 9 but all those involved who were in PDL prior to May 3rd,

What was going on?

by Guest 19.03.22 0:51

Tuesday 1st May 2007 is when it all kicked-off in my humble opinion.

That's when the story-line started to take shape, admittedly not declared until the night of 3rd May 2007 but in retrospect.

Why else did the dubious 'tennis court' photograph appear on the scene, if not to place a living Madeleine at the Ocean Club on Wednesday 2nd May 2007.

There lies the clue - total lack of photographic evidence of a living Madeleine after the playground photographs taken on Saturday 28th/Sunday 29th April 2007.

That has always been the [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] to me!

Even back in 2007 digital photography was the trend, families never take a holiday with their children without taking scores of photographs.

Where are they ....

by Guest 19.03.22 1:02

It's late so I don't wish to elaborate at this moment but remember the emphasis placed on the 'short cut' discovered between the apartment block and the child care facilities?

Added to the alleged account of Gerry McCann leaving by the front door of the apartment whilst Kate McCann and children left by the patio door and the precarious stone steps to the lower level.

Why didn't they leave together - either way?

By all appearances the intention was to divert attention from a missing family member. Not too difficult considering a holiday environment where the key players are unknown.

by **PeterMac** 19.03.22 5:43

I mentioned this in a previous chapter, which I now can't find.

The short cut, and the [alleged] separation of the family when they left the apartment,
would mean they had a preemptive response to anyone who said they had not seen them together as a family of FIVE,
AND for anyone who said they never saw either parent taking Madeleine to the creche.

by **Jill Havern** 19.03.22 5:57

PeterMac wrote:I mentioned this in a previous chapter, which I now can't find.

The short cut, and the [alleged] separation of the family when they left the apartment,
would mean they had a preemptive response to anyone who said they had not seen them together as a family of FIVE,
AND for anyone who said they never saw either parent taking Madeleine to the creche.

Is it this chapter?
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

If you use the search facility and put in a key word or two (i.e. front door) you get this chapter...

by **crusader** 19.03.22 7:38

Snipped from Gerry's second statement 10th May.

Returning to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.

This makes no sense at all, Kate struggling with 3 children down a set of steps, while Gerry simply walks out of the front door, I'm not buying that for 1 second.

by **sharonl** 19.03.22 17:51

crusader wrote:Snipped from Gerry's second statement 10th May.

Returning to Thursday, after breakfast, about 09h00, KATE and the children left by the rear door, he having left by the front door, which he locked with the key, having also closed and locked the rear door from the inside.

This makes no sense at all, Kate struggling with 3 children down a set of steps, while Gerry simply walks out of the front door, I'm not buying that for 1 second.

I only buy it because I believe that they left by different doors and probably by slightly different times, to avoid being seen as a family of only four. If Kate had the twins with her then she could plausibly claim, if asked, that Madeleine was with Gerry.

by **crusader** 19.03.22 19:04

If that was the plan, to avoid being seen as a family of only 4, they would have had to spend nearly the whole week never being seen together as a family of 5 every day.

In his 2nd statement Gerry said they went to the beach on Tuesday, all leaving by the front door due to them having the pushchairs.

by **PeterMac** 19.03.22 21:35

The day it was pouring with rain, so the children didn't go on the sand but they bought ice-creams and sunglasses . . .
That Tuesday ?

"In the afternoon Gerry and I decided to take the children down to the beach. To be honest, I think they’d have been just as happy to go back to their clubs, but we wanted to do something slightly different with them, just the five of us. We borrowed a double buggy from Mark Warner to make the walk easier for Sean and Amelie. The weather wasn’t great: in fact, on the beach it started to rain. A bit of rain is not something that bothers a Scotsman like Gerry, but Sean and Amelie didn’t like the feel of the wet sand and insisted, in the way two-year-olds do, on being carried.
Our trip to the beach wasn’t exactly a roaring success and the kids certainly weren’t thanking us for it. Still, we made the best of it, and the suggestion of ice-creams soon brought smiles to three little faces. The children and I sat down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking arrangement we had at dinner? I haven’t ever been able to rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head it would have been in the former situation.
Having polished off her ice-cream, Madeleine asked if she could go back to Mini Club now, please. So much for extra family time! Before heading up the road, we stopped at a shop on the corner of Rua da Praia and Avenida dos Pescadores, one of several open-air, market-style stalls, as Gerry needed a pair of sunglasses. A couple of the women who worked there were sitting by the stall, admiring and making a fuss of the children, who responded quite happily. These ladies were warm and friendly, this is the kind of thing that happens every day, especially in southern European countries, and I only remember it at all because of what subsequently happened.
You may be wondering not only what relevance all these minute details might have to anything, but also how I can recall them so distinctly and how accurate my recollections can possibly be. "
[Err Yes. We are]

Too much information. Too much insistence on FIVE FIVE

by **CaKeLoveR** 19.03.22 21:40

'So much for extra family time' - they spent as little time as possible with the children.

by Guest 20.03.22 0:50

The point is, there is no evidence to support any of the claims made by Gerry and Kate McCann.

After the initial arrival day/s, they opted to breakfast and lunch alone in their own apartment. They used a shortcut which can't be verified. They left apartment 5a by different means thus dividing the family of five which can't be verified.

Then there is the daily childcare records to consider. For a tour company that prides itself on it's childcare facilities and awareness, the documented registers of attendance and activities appear very slapdash indeed.

Personally I wouldn't expect to see any better from any tour company, no matter what their supposed reputation. It's all very laid-back and do as you down right pleazy until something goes horribly wrong - then and only then do they jump to attention.

What goes on in the underbelly of any hotel or other tourist accommodation is an eye opener. The client has no idea ....

It's no wonder Mark Warner called on their PR experts to bail them out of a rather sticky situation.

by Guest 20.03.22 1:44

Tuesday 1st May 2007

During Gerry’s tennis lesson, Madeleine and Ella came to the adjoining court with their Mini Club for a mini-tennis session. Jane and I stayed to watch them. It chokes me remembering how my heart soared with pride in Madeleine that morning. She was so happy and obviously enjoying herself. Standing there listening intently to Cat’s instructions, she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals that I ran back to our apartment for my camera to record the occasion. One of my photographs is known around the world now: a smiling Madeleine clutching armfuls of tennis balls. At the end of their session, the children had been asked to run around the court and pick up as many balls as they could. Madeleine had done really well and was very pleased with herself. Gerry loves that picture.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN

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

by Guest 21.03.22 12:41

Slightly off-piste for which I make no apology.

This Express report is probably one of the most significant [You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] ever published..

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