'Did you know Robert Murat?' Gerry's answer makes me very uncomfortable

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related

This snippet has always seemed very uncomfortable - there may be an innocent explanation for things said or unsaid, but still uncomfortable.

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related
This snippet has always seemed very uncomfortable - there may be an innocent explanation for things said or unsaid, but still uncomfortable.

There is an innocent explanation. Mitchell said there was one for every piece of evidence the Police either had, or did not have.


It is just that no one can think of what it might be in this case !

Is that what they call in legal speak, very compelling circumstantial evidence?

Stella wrote:Is that what they call in legal speak, very compelling circumstantial evidence?

Why didn't he just lie, and say "No" ?
Why didn't he admit it ?
Why ?
If the McCans wanted conspiracy theories they went about it the right way, right from the start.

As soon as the question was asked, in tandem, both Kate and Gerry McCann look downwards first. That is shame. Then Gerry very defensively claims he's not going to answer that. In a split second he has two basic choices, either fight or flight. This is when you hear this internal show of anger, just as a dog would growl. It is like he is clearing his throat, but really it is a livid grunt. It is caused by anger and frustration, it is made when someone is trying to say something they do not want anyone else to hear.

Stella wrote:As soon as the question was asked, in tandem, both Kate and Gerry McCann look downwards first. That is shame. Then Gerry very defensively claims he's not going to answer that. In a split second he has two basic choices, either fight or flight. This is when you hear this internal show of anger, just as a dog would growl. It is like he is clearing his throat, but really it is a livid grunt. It is caused by anger and frustration, it is made when someone is trying to say something they do not want anyone else to hear.

Very good, Stella, I would have to agree with your more detailed analysis - such a lot told in just those 4-5 seconds of the clip

Stella wrote:As soon as the question was asked, in tandem, both Kate and Gerry McCann look downwards first. That is shame. Then Gerry very defensively claims he's not going to answer that. In a split second he has two basic choices, either fight or flight. This is when you hear this internal show of anger, just as a dog would growl. It is like he is clearing his throat, but really it is a livid grunt. It is caused by anger and frustration, it is made when someone is trying to say something they do not want anyone else to hear.

And then he turns away. He cannot bear to look at the person who has just asked him the question, and dare not face a supplementary.

Watch the clip right to the end. He grabs Kate by the arm, drags her away, he is rough with her. She will have bruises there tomorrow. Is he afraid that she will say something to incriminate him, or using her as a target for his anger? He is a violent man with a nasty temper.

I just wish I was there to see if it was Gerry's action to leave, or Mitchell's signal to leave.

This is one of the things I am working on at the moment as I believe there is a connection between the Healy's and Murat's family. Not sure what yet though.

If ever Gerry decides to give up being a doctor, I see a future career for him as a politician - they know all about refusing to answer questions.



In case anyone has never heard of the infamous interview with Jeremy Paxman and Michael Howard, here's a link:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Uwlsd8RAoqI

But was Gerry McCann not angling for a position as a politician in the early months?

Mind "no comment" will not wash when you are not the "bereft father of a missing girl" so he is probably not suited. Particularly with his propensity to sneer all the time (it does not engender belief in the populace) - Well not with me anyway

Sadly (but not surprisingly) Jeremy Paxman was not in attack dog mode when he interviewed Gerry.



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=vIvFkXkVn1I&feature=player_embedded

I really hope the review thoroughly examines this and all matters which have led to the mystery and speculation of this case. All the matters which have triggered huge doubts and suspicions should be unravelled once and for all ie was there a broken fridge or not? Was there a blue tennis bag or not? Did Gerry know Murat or not? What was the mobile phone traffic all about? etc etc.



SY, if you read this, it is simply not going to be good enough to gloss over these matters. Many members of the public have been baffled, shocked angered by this case and it is their taxes funding this review so really you have a duty to sort the wheat from the chaff, get to the bottom of contradictions and speculation once and for all. If these matters go uninvestigated it will be a travesty.



If the Mc's were the victims of a heinous crime, with no wrongdoing by them in the eyes of the law, then the law must also help them to restore their reputations backed up with real fact and substance in the form of published investigative report from Scotland Yard.

Please Scotland Yard. Read all the McCann families versions of the shutters being broken (these were given out over the night of the 3rd and the day of the 4th May 2007 when it wasn't proven they weren't jemmied/forced/broken. Even Brian Healy (Kate's Dad) and David Payne (who was there in PDL) said this so to the press although it is not in the Portuguese files it is still evidence!

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related

This snippet has always seemed very uncomfortable - there may be an innocent explanation for things said or unsaid, but still uncomfortable.

I wonder if there could be a different interpretation here. Namely, that Gerry McCann knew of Robert Murat, but Murat didn't know him. I don't know how that would make sense, but it seems there was a deliberate attempt to incriminate him from very early on - whatever the reason for that could be.

I think there is a connection. Not a close one maybe but a connection nevertheless. Remember Gerry answered the questions Kate McCann did not - yet did not answer this question from a journalist (well said "no comment") Why?

@puzzled wrote:

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related

This snippet has always seemed very uncomfortable - there may be an innocent explanation for things said or unsaid, but still uncomfortable.

I wonder if there could be a different interpretation here. Namely, that Gerry McCann knew of Robert Murat, but Murat didn't know him. I don't know how that would make sense, but it seems there was a deliberate attempt to incriminate him from very early on - whatever the reason for that could be.

puzzled, I will back you up here! I can't remember now the site or the article or even the author, but I read an interesting piece on this online.
Isn't Murat in property somehow?
The hypothesis I read stated their belief was that Murat, without knowing who the recipient was procured keys to an empty Luz property. Hence how Gerry may have heard of him but not vice versa. Remember how many times K + G have stated that 'someone holds the key to unlock where Madeleine is being kept', perhaps literally so not metaphorically?
Now I've written it down, I'm not sure, it could have been Dr Martin Roberts? But I'm really not sure.
It did seem somewhat plausible to me, but having read above about Gerry and Murat's 'matching' phone records, I'm not so sure!

@rainbow-fairy wrote:

@puzzled wrote:

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related

This snippet has always seemed very uncomfortable - there may be an innocent explanation for things said or unsaid, but still uncomfortable.

I wonder if there could be a different interpretation here. Namely, that Gerry McCann knew of Robert Murat, but Murat didn't know him. I don't know how that would make sense, but it seems there was a deliberate attempt to incriminate him from very early on - whatever the reason for that could be.

puzzled, I will back you up here! I can't remember now the site or the article or even the author, but I read an interesting piece on this online.
Isn't Murat in property somehow?
The hypothesis I read stated their belief was that Murat, without knowing who the recipient was procured keys to an empty Luz property. Hence how Gerry may have heard of him but not vice versa. Remember how many times K + G have stated that 'someone holds the key to unlock where Madeleine is being kept', perhaps literally so not metaphorically?
Now I've written it down, I'm not sure, it could have been Dr Martin Roberts? But I'm really not sure.
It did seem somewhat plausible to me, but having read above about Gerry and Murat's 'matching' phone records, I'm not so sure!

hey rainbow-fairy,

I remember reading that as well it was quite an interesting article by Dr Roberts and the way the mccann's mention keys a lot ... and found it again:

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/05/that-key-bit-of-information.html

Yes, that's where I saw the idea, on the McCann files. It's here, dated 24th January 2010:

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id301.html

Stewie wrote:

@rainbow-fairy wrote:

@puzzled wrote:

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related

This snippet has always seemed very uncomfortable - there may be an innocent explanation for things said or unsaid, but still uncomfortable.

I wonder if there could be a different interpretation here. Namely, that Gerry McCann knew of Robert Murat, but Murat didn't know him. I don't know how that would make sense, but it seems there was a deliberate attempt to incriminate him from very early on - whatever the reason for that could be.

puzzled, I will back you up here! I can't remember now the site or the article or even the author, but I read an interesting piece on this online.
Isn't Murat in property somehow?
The hypothesis I read stated their belief was that Murat, without knowing who the recipient was procured keys to an empty Luz property. Hence how Gerry may have heard of him but not vice versa. Remember how many times K + G have stated that 'someone holds the key to unlock where Madeleine is being kept', perhaps literally so not metaphorically?
Now I've written it down, I'm not sure, it could have been Dr Martin Roberts? But I'm really not sure.
It did seem somewhat plausible to me, but having read above about Gerry and Murat's 'matching' phone records, I'm not so sure!

hey rainbow-fairy,

I remember reading that as well it was quite an interesting article by Dr Roberts and the way the mccann's mention keys a lot ... and found it again:

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/05/that-key-bit-of-information.html

And not forget the well used frace " window of opportunity"

Stewie wrote:

@rainbow-fairy wrote:

@puzzled wrote:

@Smokeandmirrors wrote:http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related

This snippet has always seemed very uncomfortable - there may be an innocent explanation for things said or unsaid, but still uncomfortable.

I wonder if there could be a different interpretation here. Namely, that Gerry McCann knew of Robert Murat, but Murat didn't know him. I don't know how that would make sense, but it seems there was a deliberate attempt to incriminate him from very early on - whatever the reason for that could be.

puzzled, I will back you up here! I can't remember now the site or the article or even the author, but I read an interesting piece on this online.
Isn't Murat in property somehow?
The hypothesis I read stated their belief was that Murat, without knowing who the recipient was procured keys to an empty Luz property. Hence how Gerry may have heard of him but not vice versa. Remember how many times K + G have stated that 'someone holds the key to unlock where Madeleine is being kept', perhaps literally so not metaphorically?
Now I've written it down, I'm not sure, it could have been Dr Martin Roberts? But I'm really not sure.
It did seem somewhat plausible to me, but having read above about Gerry and Murat's 'matching' phone records, I'm not so sure!

hey rainbow-fairy,

I remember reading that as well it was quite an interesting article by Dr Roberts and the way the mccann's mention keys a lot ... and found it again:

http://steelmagnolia-steelmagnolia.blogspot.com/2011/05/that-key-bit-of-information.html

Hi Stewie, thanks loads for that! I've read so much over the last four years, on so many sites I forget where I've read them, but some really stick in the head and that was one. In fact, think I'll re-read it. I know at the time I read it it seemed quite plausible ;-)

IMHO - It has always been about an appartment. If you believe the dogs, she was stored and therefore must have been 'chilled'.

Edit to add - So was RM doing a bit of appartment letting? There are hundreds there, at that time of year, sitting unoccupied. Luz is a 'timeshare' resort (and was in 2007).

Was Murats payout (BK) a wee bit of 'hush' money? Doesn't really matter, in the big picture, which side offered, or asked. It is about the appartment!

@listener wrote:IMHO - It has always been about an appartment. If you believe the dogs, she was stored and therefore must have been 'chilled'.

Edit to add - So was RM doing a bit of appartment letting? There are hundreds there, at that time of year, sitting unoccupied. Luz is a 'timeshare' resort (and was in 2007).

Was Murats payout (BK) a wee bit of 'hush' money? Doesn't really matter, in the big picture, which side offered, or asked. It is about the appartment!

listener, you are right it's about the apartment.

Yes, IIRC, in the article mentioned above, it stated that Murat was some kind of lettings agent?
I think the PJ had a firm idea of all this and what went on - it's no accident all were made arguido's. I don't believe PJ would make RM arguido on the say-so of a jumped-up journo Lori Campbell. Or was she doing a similar thing to Jane Tanner? Muddying water while confirming official stories?

Yep. Despite what K + G will have us believe, the Portuguese police ARE NOT STUPID (leastways no more so than our own - LP anyone?)