Re: What was so special about Burgau?

by Gillyspot Thu Sep 29, 2011 9:14 am

By the way where does the website get its TAGs from. I have checked view source (which is usual way to hide tags) and these words are not there.

Just as an aside I have checked on whoisdomain and although the website was set up in 1997 it only had multiple changes (i e was updated) from 15th May 2007.

We have 27 historical whois records for jacinto-murat.pt.
Here is a complete list of dates that we have whois records for.

You must Log In or Open an Account to view the historical whois records.

2007

2007-05-15

2007-05-20

2007-05-25

2007-05-26

2007-09-20

2008

2008-01-03

2008-05-08

2008-09-16

2008-10-21

2009

2009-01-03

2009-02-14

2009-04-22

2009-07-13

2009-09-29

2009-11-25

2010
2010-01-18
2010-01-25
2010-01-27
2010-03-28
2010-05-27
2010-07-23
2010-09-15
2010-11-09
2010-12-30

2011

2011-02-24

2011-05-20

2011-07-29

Odd or what since Murat was aguido at that time.

by Guest Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:00 am

Great find Gillyspot. Can you quickly take screenshots of all that please, before it gets deleted, thanks.

by Guest Thu Sep 29, 2011 10:04 am

Those dates are quite significant for other reasons also.
From Panorama broadcasted on May 13th 2007
JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria
There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...
BILTON: When you say: "there are people who say..." I'm assuming you are quoting....
DA COSTA: People who know obviously. I cannot reveal the source here because I would lose it.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id48.html

On May 15th Robert Murat is declared arguido

Those dates:
2007-05-15
2007-05-20
2007-05-25
2007-05-26
2007-09-20

It looks to me like someone was trying to put the cat back in the bag.

by kikoraton Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:13 pm

I've just stumbled upon this thread, and by doing so have been obliged to revisit the puzzling business of the haplotypes in the Burgau apartment. By the way, I arrived at this thread because I followed a suggestion (by tigger I think) that from the blue chairs it could be concluded that the apartment was used for a photoshoot. (I hope I've got that right, tigger).
Anyway, my reason for posting here is that I have come to suspect in the last few days that Jane Tanner did, indeed, know Robert Murat before April 2007, and that it may have been he who was in contact with her on three occasions listed in the PJ Phone Records. They are as follows:

Quote "The first record from this number occurs on 29/04/2007 at 4:12:33, on antenna
"Luz Centro 2"; and the last dated on 17 May, 2007, at 10:10:01 on antenna
"Aeroporto-Faro 2".
The existence of 294 records is observed, in which only 3,74% occur before the
disappearance of the young girl.
APRIL 2007
On 29th the mobile phone that is owned by Jane Tanner has two activations,
including the one referred to above, both on the antenna "Luz Centro 2".
On 30th there exist only two records, at 18:31:14 and 20:41:44, also on that
antenna. "

The key times are:
0412 on the morning of 29 April (which could be Murat informing Tanner that he had made the booking for his flight, which we know took place that night, between midnight and 0200 AFAIR), and
1831 and 2041 on 30 April, which might be last-minute arrangements for Murat's flight early the next morning.

It's only a hunch, but if I'm correct, the relationship Tanner/Murat was a very significant one. There's some way to go before anyone could accuse them of being in the apartment at Burgau whilst Madeleine was photographed there.
Please someone tell me if I have misread the thread, or paid insufficient attention to it.

by **tigger** Sun Oct 02, 2011 8:55 pm

I also like Stewie's posts re the tags for Google search. I haven't a clue how to find that sort of thing.
Now I'm sure SY would be well informed as to how say a novice paedo would go about making contacts? Once they have contacts it would be easy.
Hey, Kikoraton, the telephone work you've done is amazing.
I'll go through this whole thread again. JT is one shady lady.

by kikoraton Sun Oct 02, 2011 9:19 pm

Ah thanks tigger, but I've had to ask on another thread "where can I find my own phone records analysis?" I'm such a duffer, I thought I'd done some on JH (as opposed to my mate santacoloma, who did a lot on another forum) but now I just don't remember where it is.
Age, y'know.

by kikoraton Mon Oct 03, 2011 9:10 pm

What was so special? That the apartment was occupied by both Jane Tanner and Robert Murat, albeit possibly at different times.
See the Phone Records thread.

by Guest Tue Oct 04, 2011 9:41 am

Why did the PJ want forensics done on that specific apartment? I don't but the story of someone taking photographs of children on the beach, that has to be a cover story.

by kikoraton Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:27 am

..............................unless the couple on the beach had the same preferences as the couple whose haplotypes were found.

by Guest Tue Oct 04, 2011 11:29 am

Then who was it I wonder, who informed the PJ and knew this apartment well enough to know who visited it ??

by Angelique Mon Jan 02, 2012 12:52 am

Not sure if it has been said already but I think both the "balcony picture" and the "ice-cream picture" are taken in the same place. Or, Madeleine has been photoshopped into a picture of the balcony.

The blue and white in the top left hand corner on the ice-cream picture could be the chair and the edge of the white table.

Burgau - What was so special about Burgau? - Page 6 Balcon10

Burgau - What was so special about Burgau? - Page 6 Balcon10

Burgau - What was so special about Burgau? - Page 6 Maddie10

by jd Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:11 am

The ice cream photo was taken back in the UK in Rothley and also probably photoshopped. It wasn't taken in Burgau. BUT....Burgeau is very significant and I have my reasons why

by jd Mon Jan 02, 2012 1:15 am

Stella wrote:Then who was it I wonder, who informed the PJ and knew this apartment well enough to know who visited it ??

it was the mobile pings and the DNA. Someone who knew Murat

by aiyoyo Mon Jan 02, 2012 5:47 am

[

Burgau - What was so special about Burgau? - Page 6 Images?q=tbn:ANd9GcRrbZKCy4FmSIC7ERcm_n0jBY0l_1Mbzm4EDQwfmr23ySui0AE7

Burgau - What was so special about Burgau? - Page 6 Madeline-mccann-994778521

Burgau - What was so special about Burgau? - Page 6 Balcony

Late in this thread. Few points:

Mccanns' house in Rothley is a brick house (see image in the this link)
http://img.breitbart.com/images/2007/9/11/070912062034.ndtpvawq/SGE.TML42.120907061843.photo01.photo.jpg

If taken in mccann's backyard, Rothley's brick exterior is not in accord with the photo, furthermore in a totally different colour.
IF taken in door where bricks are painted over, how to explain outdoor furniture?
More pertinent to the point if taken indoor surely the mccanns can't possibly have furniture of the same sort and colour as a hol apt in Burgau? Besides those are clearly outdoor furniture and photos taken outdoor. The ice-cream photo is clearly of a balcony.

Some questions:
What made Police DNA JT and Murat?
Were they seen in the Burgau's apartment? Some thing must have arouse police suspicions.
When was photos taken? No body knows I would imagine.
Where did Police obtain JT and Murat's samples for forensics?
I dont understand the potential match statement. It is either a match or not a match, what would render it potential?

About the blue-eyes-shadow photo in question, few points.
It is inconsistent with a child playing with mummy's make up - a 3-year old child's own application would definitely be more haphazard while the photo showed a neat make up.

A beautician applied it must be forum myth as it is in direct contradiction with kate's statement of child playing with adult's make up.

If it was Maddie's make up adventure day and photos captured for family album surely more than one shot would have been taken, so why chose this peculiar one to release - the angle and expression are all wrong - cold and clinical. Surely there are others to choose from ?

If Maddie had applied it surely she would want to show it off as any child does. Tilting her head back that way is a bizzare way to model her eyes shadow art work, and photographer not correcting her angle is also bizzare.
Not to mention tilting head that way back is so uncomfortable especially when subject ought to be looking at the camera.
Maddie looks as if she wasn't aware she was photographed - so how weird!

One important question: is source/link where posters copied photos from reliable?
The mccanns released version seems to have a different background IIRC.
The contradictory could only mean one side photoshopped it.

Depending on authenticity of source then the coincidences ought to be clarified by Police if they hadnt done so.

by Genbug Mon Jan 02, 2012 7:56 am

My input on the make-up photo, for what it's worth.

As the mother and grandmother of girls, I don't believe that makeup was applied by a three year old. Apart from anything else, in my experience, it's always the lipstick they head for first, never eyeshadow.

As well as the bright blue eyeshadow (does anyone actually still wear blue eyeshadow??) there is white highlighter immediately below her lower lashes. Absolutely no way did a three year old apply this makeup, in my opinion.

Is the mark on her cheekbone attributed to spilt eyeshadow? Because it looks very much like a bruise to me, the colour isn't consistant.

I read in another thread that a beautician allegedly applied the makeup. WHY would you let a beautician make such a hash of putting makeup on your small child which makes her look like a hooker? And what kind of beautician would actually do this?

Re the background, it is exactly the same as the wall of my balcony in my Spanish apartment - same texture and same colour. Very popular in Spain and Portugal but something I have never seen here in the UK. It's like a fine artex type covering with built in colour pigment, i.e. even if you chip it, the colour is still there. Also, assuming the blue in the bottom corner of the picture was a chair, how many chairs of that colour have you ever seen in the UK? Again, popular in Spain and Portugal, but not here.

by russiandoll Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:09 am

enlarge the ice cream photo, look at the colours underneath the blue and white areas . It looks identical to the ceramic floor tiles on the balcony of that photo of the exterior of Burgau apartment. Can anyone put side by side please? I am convinced, absolutely, that the ice cream photo was taken on the Burgau apartment balcony.

by Guest Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:17 am

Looks like both makeup and ice cream pic is taken on this balcony ..

by russiandoll Mon Jan 02, 2012 10:19 am

Can anybody please enlarge the photos even more, for closer examination? These look to me to be tiles that are brown with a cream coloured mottling in both photos and the location as far as I can see is identical...Burgau. That stucco -effect exterior wall looks identical in both photos and def Mediterranean to me. The blue item behind Maddie in that make- up photo looks like a paddle for a dinghy or some sort of small craft you would use on a holiday in this area.
I have only ever paid attention to the blue and white in that ice cream photo, it is the positioning now of those 3 colours near Maddie that convinces me this ice cream photo was taken at this foreign apartment.

by **tigger** Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:12 am

russiandoll wrote:Can anybody please enlarge the photos even more, for closer examination? These look to me to be tiles that are brown with a cream coloured mottling in both photos and the location as far as I can see is identical...Burgau. That stucco -effect exterior wall looks identical in both photos and def Mediterranean to me. The blue item behind Maddie in that make- up photo looks like a paddle for a dinghy or some sort of small craft you would use on a holiday in this area.
I have only ever paid attention to the blue and white in that ice cream photo, it is the positioning now of those 3 colours near Maddie that convinces me this ice cream photo was taken at this foreign apartment.

It's a little difficult with the ice cream photo since that is very heavily photoshopped. There is a dark corner under her right elbow which makes no sense and above that looks like the tiled surface on the photograph of the balcony. I don't think it was taken in Rothley just because she is wearing the same dress as in the 'skirting board' photograph. I really think Burgau - imo the blue behind Maddie in the other photo is a chair again, the photographer could have needed a very high angle if she tilted her head up. Actually, one could arrange a few pieces of furniture and experiment. I still think both have part of the chairs in there (these blue chairs are not evident in OC or indeed anywhere in the UK where most of these items are green or white).
The fact that there is a bracket visible above her head - could just be the other end wall of the balcony.

by Guest Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:18 am

tigger wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Can anybody please enlarge the photos even more, for closer examination? These look to me to be tiles that are brown with a cream coloured mottling in both photos and the location as far as I can see is identical...Burgau. That stucco -effect exterior wall looks identical in both photos and def Mediterranean to me. The blue item behind Maddie in that make- up photo looks like a paddle for a dinghy or some sort of small craft you would use on a holiday in this area.
I have only ever paid attention to the blue and white in that ice cream photo, it is the positioning now of those 3 colours near Maddie that convinces me this ice cream photo was taken at this foreign apartment.

It's a little difficult with the ice cream photo since that is very heavily photoshopped. There is a dark corner under her right elbow which makes no sense and above that looks like the tiled surface on the photograph of the balcony. I don't think it was taken in Rothley just because she is wearing the same dress as in the 'skirting board' photograph. I really think Burgau - imo the blue behind Maddie in the other photo is a chair again, the photographer could have needed a very high angle if she tilted her head up. Actually, one could arrange a few pieces of furniture and experiment. I still think both have part of the chairs in there (these blue chairs are not evident in OC or indeed anywhere in the UK where most of these items are green or white).
The fact that there is a bracket visible above her head - could just be the other end wall of the balcony.

Totally agree with both of You. On the makeup pic,the thing in her hair,is it the same as on the pool picture..?
Im very convinced this are taking in burgau...

by Guest Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:22 am

100 % sure makeup photo is taken on that balcony..fits perfectly with the walls , black windows and the blue Chairs.

by aiyoyo Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:28 am

russiandoll wrote:Can anybody please enlarge the photos even more, for closer examination? These look to me to be tiles that are brown with a cream coloured mottling in both photos and the location as far as I can see is identical...Burgau. That stucco -effect exterior wall looks identical in both photos and def Mediterranean to me. The blue item behind Maddie in that make- up photo looks like a paddle for a dinghy or some sort of small craft you would use on a holiday in this area.
I have only ever paid attention to the blue and white in that ice cream photo, it is the positioning now of those 3 colours near Maddie that convinces me this ice cream photo was taken at this foreign apartment.

can i please add, be grateful if those who know how post up also photo of rothley side by side these photos and you will see the brick wall contrast couldnt be greater than north and south poles from the wall in these two photos.

These photos definitely werent taken at chez mccanns which makes kate statement in the newspaper report that the make up photo was taken a week earlier than PDL holiday a whole load of bull excrement.

by aiyoyo Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:42 am

tigger wrote:
russiandoll wrote:Can anybody please enlarge the photos even more, for closer examination? These look to me to be tiles that are brown with a cream coloured mottling in both photos and the location as far as I can see is identical...Burgau. That stucco -effect exterior wall looks identical in both photos and def Mediterranean to me. The blue item behind Maddie in that make- up photo looks like a paddle for a dinghy or some sort of small craft you would use on a holiday in this area.
I have only ever paid attention to the blue and white in that ice cream photo, it is the positioning now of those 3 colours near Maddie that convinces me this ice cream photo was taken at this foreign apartment.

It's a little difficult with the ice cream photo since that is very heavily photoshopped. There is a dark corner under her right elbow which makes no sense and above that looks like the tiled surface on the photograph of the balcony. I don't think it was taken in Rothley just because she is wearing the same dress as in the 'skirting board' photograph. I really think Burgau - imo the blue behind Maddie in the other photo is a chair again, the photographer could have needed a very high angle if she tilted her head up. Actually, one could arrange a few pieces of furniture and experiment. I still think both have part of the chairs in there (these blue chairs are not evident in OC or indeed anywhere in the UK where most of these items are green or white).

The fact that there is a bracket visible above her head - could just be the other end wall of the balcony.

Ice cream photo
Forget the same dress which could be worn over and over again.
It cant have been Rothey because how to explain the blue chair and white table outdoor furniture in the background.
If outside Rothey the brick wall will show through.
Besides the grotty (sp) tiled floor evident in the background is definitely not interior of chez mccanns.
It's definitely taken outdoor because they are outdoor tiles - more like balcony tiles.

Make up photo
Putting aside the piece of blue something peeping through, it is the wall that interests me, and it ain't exterior wall of chez mccanns that is for sure.

These two photos were not taken where kate claimed them to be.
Though she didn't exactly say where they were taken she implied they were taken at home in Rothley when she said the make up incident took place at home a week before their holiday in PDL. Why was she lying about it? Or was it taken in UK but just not Rothley. In that case it would mean Maddie had to go out in that make -up - nothing makes sense in kate's statement.

Anyway, may I ask where did posters find these photos?

by Nina Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:47 am

I agree re the Burgau apartment being the venue for the eye shadow photograph. It is more than coincidence that the wall and the blue of the chair should be in the apartment shot and also the eye shadow shot.

I have always assumed that the removal of Madeleine from the creche only 15 minutes after enrolling was due to the fact that she was either crying, having a twopenneth strop or some other reason for her parents to be called to take her away. I now question whether she was enrolled and then taken away after 15 minutes for some other reason.

by aiyoyo Mon Jan 02, 2012 11:54 am

Nina wrote:I agree re the Burgau apartment being the venue for the eye shadow photograph. It is more than coincidence that the wall and the blue of the chair should be in the apartment shot and also the eye shadow shot.

I have always assumed that the removal of Madeleine from the creche only 15 minutes after enrolling was due to the fact that she was either crying, having a twopenneth strop or some other reason for her parents to be called to take her away. I now question whether she was enrolled and then taken away after 15 minutes for some other reason.

Is anyone saying the make up photo was taken on May3rd?

I dont believe anyone knows when the picture was taken even if it was taken where people think it was taken.

I am confusing even myself. ARRGHHHHH!!