The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

Please note that when you register your username must be different from your email address!


ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Your views on Robert Murat...which of these statements is closest to your views about him?

1. He was an entirely innocent victim who had nothing to do with Madeleine McCann and fully deserved his £600,000+ libel damages for the wicked way the press treated him
 
2. There are a number of aspects of his conduct which raise significant questions in my mind
 
3. His lies about his movements between 1 and 4 May, his conduct whilst translating, his being identified by no fewer than 4 of the Tapas 9, and other matters, make me think he had a definite role to play in events that followed Madeleine's reported disa
 
 
 
View results

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by Tony Bennett on 21.08.12 20:44

The discussion on here is problematic because some have researched Robert Murat in depth and others clearly have not.

Here, to aid the discussion, are some extracts (parts of Chapters I, J and K) from my long article on 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?



J. Other problems with Murat’s account of events

We have summarised the 17 changes of Murat’s story. Here we shall just pick out a few other queries raised by Murat’s two, highly contradictory accounts.

If one reads the police witness statement of Jorge da Silva (made on 16 May 2007, two day after Murat was pulled in for questioning) - the person whom Murat met several times on 1, 2 and 3 May - it is hard to get an accurate picture of what Murat, da Silva and his two sons were all talking about. True, it is said they discussed Murat’s proposed ‘Romigen’, but exactly what they discussed is not made clear. Murat claims that at around 4.00pm on 2 May he and his lawyer Fracisco Pagarete met da Silva and one of his sons in a bar near the Marina - but da Silva does not confirm this.

One observer wrote: “Jorge da Silva’s statement reads to me as though he was bemused and bewildered by the attention he and his son were getting from Robert Murat and Michaela”. On one occasion he said Murat had asked him to attend a meeting, at the Golf Club, and then Murat didn’t offer to get him any food.

It looks almost as if da Silva was being pressurised into attending those meetings with Murat and his lawyer. One suggestion advanced by some is that Murat’s real purpose was to meet a number of important people but wished to hide their identity; hence da Silva was ‘in tow’ so that Murat, if asked, could claim that he had only been meeting with da Silve to discuss ‘Romigen’.

Another curiosity is why the Portuguese Police did not apparently make enquires about the anonymous ‘builder from Lisbon’ who was supposed to attend the Golf Club meeting, but didn’t.

Another matter we need to note is that Murat and his girlfriend Michaela Walczuk both, separately, made statements to the Portuguese police on 14 May. Yet several days later, Walczuk went to the police station, apparently of her own free will, to make another statement, with various ‘corrections’ and ‘clarifications’ to her original statement. It would not be unfair to suggest the possibility that after they had made their respective statements, they met, conferred, and realised that in certain key respects, their stories did not tally.

Also, why did Murat first make the ridiculous claim that Dr Pagarete met him and Michaela sitting in his mother’s VW Transporter? He later had to replace that tale by stating that, instead, he had met members of the da Silvas family at that time.

Murat and Michaela Walczuk, indeed, had made a real hash of remembering what they did on the all-important date of Thursday 3 May. Murat says he went to Michaela’s and they had ‘talked in her apartment until noon’. But Walczuk said, instead, that a person called ‘Catia’ had been there, apparently to talk about a project called ‘Montinho da Ouro’, translated as ‘Gold Bunker’, and that then she and Murat had travelled to meet Malinka at Batista’s supermarket café.

Altogether, for example, there were three wholly different accounts of where Murat and Walczuk had lunch that day.

To the simple question: ‘Where did you have lunch that day?’, there were three different answers:

Murat said: ‘With Michaela at the Galp service station on the motorway’.

Michaela said: ‘We had lunch with the da Silvas at the Restaurant Antonio at Porto Mos’…

…while Jorge da Silva said: ‘They took me to a Golf Club for a meeting and I didn’t get any lunch at all’.


In her second statement, Michaela told the police that she now remembered that she and Murat had had lunch at the Galp service station after all. She had fallen into line with Murat’s story.

Michaela Walczuk’s claim of attending a Jehovah’s Witness meeting on the evening of 3 May

At this point we will look briefly at one other controversial matter, namely Michaela Walczuk’s claim that on the evening of 3 May she was at a Jehovah’s Witness meeting.

Michaela Walczuk claimed that from around 6.30pm to 8.30pm on 3 May, she was attending a Jehovah’s Witness (JW) congregation in Lagos de Baia. She is careful, however, in her second statement to the police to make clear that whilst she attends the assemblies, she no longer takes part in what are called the ‘congregational classes’. She explained that because she had ‘betrayed’ her husband in her affair with Robert Murat, she had not been practising the religious principles of her faith.

She claimed that the JW meeting lasted from 6.30pm to nearly 8.30pm. She then goes on to say that she did not on this occasion stay behind to talk to other members as she usually did. She says she left ‘without speaking to anyone’. She said that the reason was because she had her young daughter with her and had to leave early because it was ‘a school night’.

If it was an assembly she attended and not a class, and if - as Michaela implies - she left without talking to anyone, it would be hard for the police to confirm whether Michaela was present or not.

In her second statement (but not her first), she told police: “For about three years, I attended the assemblies, but did not take part in the congregation, only because I had betrayed my husband, which is not compatible with the Biblical principles that I profess”. Michaela said that her husband Luis Antonio had also attended JW meetings in Lagos, along with Teofila and Marina Castel.

Michaela also pointed out that during Murat’s translation work at the Ocean Club, he met a couple called Teofilo and Marina Castela. Teofilo is the Administrative Services Manager at the Ocean Club. Both Murat and Michaela know the couple as they belong to the same JW group in Lagos. In her statement Michaela says she knows of other JWs working at the Ocean Club.

But Teofilo Castela, in November 2007, challenged parts of Michaela’s statement about attending the meeting. His account was reported in the Evening Standard. The report said that Castela had stated that Michaela Walczuk had been ‘thrown out of the congregation’, though he didn’t say why. He added that the police hadn’t interviewed him. Significantly, he added: “She was cast aside. It was before this year [2007]. The church has certain rules and they must not be broken”.

But, strangely, neither Teofila Castela nor his wife Marina (who was in charge of the Ocean Club’s Hygiene and Comfort Department) mentioned any of this in their original statements to police in May. Marina Castela’s duties included handling the keys to the apartments, including that of Apartment 5A where the McCanns were staying.

Joao Olim Junior, who worked for Walczuk's husband Luis Antonio, made a statement to the police. He was in charge of a company vehicle on the night Madeleine disappeared. Olim was also a JW and said he attended the ‘Bible meeting’ on the evening of 3 May. He mentions Michaela several times by name in his statement but does not confirm that she was present that evening. Whether Michaela Walczuk did attend that meeting is still therefore very much in doubt. Was she somewhere else that evening?

The da Silvas

In view of the importance of the da Silva family in the various rounds of meetings Robert Murat had between Tuesday 1 May and Thursday 3 May, there has been interest in Murat’s connections with that family. Several other individuals with the surname ‘da Silva’ were contacted by the Portuguese Police in their enquiries.

Marina Castela (see above) gave a detailed witness statement in which she explained that the person responsible for cleaning Apartment 5A was an employee called Maria Julia Serafim da Silva. There has been speculation that she might be related to the da Silva father and sons whom Murat was so anxious to meet (as we have seen above) as soon as he returned to Praia da Luz in the early hours of Tuesday 1 May.

Another witness with the surname da Silva - Maria Manuela Martins da Silva - said was visiting the sister of her boyfriend in another Ocean Club apartment (Block 6, Apartment 5) during the afternoon and evening of 3 May. From the ground floor kitchen window of that apartment, there was a direct view across to the back windows of the apartment occupied by Madeleine McCann [Source: Police Files 02 - Processos Volume II, Pages 469 to 470a].

Unusually, some five days later, Maria was able to recall the exact time she left that apartment - 9.58pm. She says she remembers the exact time because she asked her friend the time, and she responded after checking this on the telephone in the lounge. Maria da Silva left with her boyfriend in a green Opel Frontera, parked in the private parking area of Block 6. As they drove away, she recalled seeing a small car, perhaps grey in colour, parked close to the window of the McCann apartment. By coincidence the route taken by GNR officer, Pedro Miguel Esteves Fernandes and the Search & Rescue dogs in the early hours of 4 May, lost track of Madeleine's scent in the private parking area of Block 6.

The following da Silvas are noted in the Portuguese Police files:

· Maria Julia Serafim da Silva - responsible for cleaning Apartment 5A - and supervised by Marina Castela

· Jorge Manuel da Silva - Businessman and shop owner that Murat and Walczuk meet with at golf club for several hours on the afternoon of May 3rd and elsewhere at other times

· Maria Manuela Martins da Silva - staying with the sister of boyfriend in Apartment Block 6 of the Ocean Club

· Celeste Da Conceicao Antao da Silva - A cleaner at the Ocean Club, Celeste is the first to report that there had been a spate of burglaries in the resort

· Joquim Silva - A member of the 100-strong Jehovah's Witness congregation, who did not confirm Michaela Walczuk's claim of attendance a JW meeting on the night of 3 May. He is featured in a report by the Evening Standard.

The key found in the Murats’ home

A key, which some feel could be important in the case, was found in ‘Casa Liliana’, the Murats’ home. It was the key to Luis Antonio's store room. Antonio was Michaela’s husband. The simple question is, what would it be doing at the Murats’ house?

True, Michalea was at that time still married to Antonio, and both she and Murat seemed to be regular visitors at Antonio’s house. Did Murat have a set of Antonio’s keys? Was Murat using Antonio’s store room keys (and perhaps others?) during the days prior to Madeleine being reported missing?


K. The encryption systems on Robert Murat’s computer, and his explanation for having them there

The Portuguese Police found encryption systems on Robert Murat’s computer, just as predicted by the second witness we learnt about above.

Here we print an edited summary of Robert Murat’s response to the police’s questions about his computer. The interview with him took place on 14 May 2007, just 11 days after Madeleine was reported missing.

Robert Murat, in answer to a question, said that no-one, without his authorisation, had ever accessed his computer systems. Apparently he had three such systems. One was called ACER, which has the Vista operating system installed. Another was a system developed by ASUS, and then he had a third system, his own ‘LG’ system. These last two systems had the XP operating system installed.

He told the police that it was by mere chance, and as a result of his mother’s choice, that the computer systems were interconnected and shared the access to the internet through an ADSL Modem-Router.

The contract for internet access, with SAPO - that is, Portugal Telecom - had been signed by his mother.


He told police that he did not consider himself an expert in computers and I.T. communications, but admitted to having used computers for ten years. He added that his current ADSL Modem-Router equipment was, so far as he recalled, an SMC brand. This was significant as it makes it possible to operate a network of computers via a ‘network-without-wires’, or ‘WiFi’ - wireless networking.

He was asked by the Portuguese police why the various computer systems that he had in his house were unsynchronised - that is, gave completely different times as to when, for example, he sent out e-mails. Murat told police that, as far as he knew, his computer systems had clocks with the date and time that were set to the official time. He could not explain why they were, in fact, unsynchronised.

He suggested that it might be due to the installation of the computers having been done by an outside company, ‘125 Computers’, whose headquarters were in Mexilhoeira-Grande. This company had configured all his operating systems.

Murat told the police that, so far as he knew, only ‘normal computer programs’ were on his computers. He said that the operating system and tools would be those typical of Microsoft family, such as word processing, spreadsheet, an internet browser called ‘Internet Explorer’, and anti-virus programs.

He went on to explain that his commercial activity was in the area of real estate. He advertised homes for sale on the internet. His computer programs, he said, were only what he needed for his commercial activity.

Asked if he had any unusual systems installed on computer, he referred only to a common computer program called ‘CCleaner’. This, he said, was just to improve the performance of his systems, and could not be used for example to erase traces of child pornography that might be on his computer. The CCleaner program was installed, he said, at his son’s suggestion. Murat admitted he did not know the full potential of the ‘CCleaner’ program. [NOTE: The CCleaner program does not wipe data from a hard disk].

The police put to him that a computer expert had told him that the ‘CCleaner’ program was designed to, inter alia, delete all the following: the history of navigation on the internet, temporary files, the exchange of files, recently used documents, the register of applications, the various registry files or ‘logs’, and the ‘garbage can’ or ‘recycle bin’. Murat said he’d used the program for about three years but that he didn’t know any details about how it operated; just that it enabled his computer to run more efficiently.

He was asked explicitly if he used encryption systems on his computer. He said categorically that he did not. He was asked specifically if he used strong encryption systems in his internet browser. He again denied it and emphasised that he does not use encrypted communications on the internet or in his computer system.

He added that he did not use, nor has, encrypted data in his systems, nor did he use enciphering to mask, hide or prevent access to data contained in his systems. Asked if he used encryption or enciphering in e-mail communications, he simply told the Portuguese police that he did not know what encryption was or how to use it.

The Portuguese Police now had Murat in a corner, as they had indeed found encryption and enciphering systems on his computer. The police asked him how he could explain the presence of several encrypted or enciphered files on in his systems, seeing that he is an experienced computer user for over ten years - and given that he had earlier in the interview declared that no-one else had had access to his computer network without authorisation.

Murat replied: "I would not know how to explain that”.

Finally, the police asked Murat to explain the contradiction of his maintaining that his network was ‘unprotected’ or ‘open’, whilst at the same time his experience must have told him that he needed to take action to keep his computer network secure. The police say that Murat replied: “I haven’t thought about that”.

Murat said he never used computers in cyber cafés in Praia da Luz or elsewhere. Murat was asked if he had ever talked to anyone besides his lawyer on how he could prove his innocence, either personally, or by telephone, or in cafés, or elsewhere. It was put to him that there might have been a conversation about police techniques for establishing the guilt or innocence of a suspect.

At this point, Murat asked for a break.

Resuming after an interval, Murat said he had spoken on this subject mainly with family and friends. But he also now remembered having spoken with Portuguese Police Inspectors on one occasion at his home when he asked about whether someone could be tracked through the antennas of mobile ’phone masts to prove whether he had been at home at any given time. The Inspectors had replied, he said, that it would be possible, but told him not to worry about it.

He was then asked if he knew a British Police Officer by the name of Phil. He answered: ‘Yes’. He agreed that he had asked Phil about how British police might be able to establish whether a person could have been in a given place at a given time. But couldn’t remember any ’phone conversation.

Murat was then shown a transcription of a telephone interception, contained in pages 1681 to 1690 from the police files. He still couldn’t remember this ’phone conversation, maintaining that he’d only talked to him either in his aunt’s home or in a bar...

[REST SNIPPED]

____________________

The amazing symbiosis between bees and flowers:

https://answersingenesis.org/evidence-for-creation/god-created-plant-pollinator-partners/  

avatar
Tony Bennett
Researcher

Posts : 14978
Reputation : 3029
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 70
Location : Shropshire

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by Guest on 21.08.12 20:49

@jd wrote:I don't believe anything the mccanns and their cronies say, the statements alone prove this. gerry mccann did not answer the question about murat, he said 'no comment', so I can't be picking and choosing when to believe gerry mccann as he never answered the question. People who answer in this way 99% of the time have something to hide

I am totally suspicious of murat with his involvement in helping with the cover up, absolutely 100% suspicious. If he wasn't in any way involved then why the need to hold meetings in November 2007 with the aim of coming to an agreement of him going silent and taking a pay off for his troubles a few months later? It was not the police who held this meetings with murat, but brian 'bulldozer' kennedy who was a director of the Maddie fund and was very busy in interfering with the Maddie police investigation. Rangers Football Club will testify his tactics of getting what he wants!

Why were the Tapas 9 so intent in trying to set him robert murat for the abduction? They didn't pick his name from a tree, they had a reason
I think they identified him after Lori Campbell had already done it and his photo was already being shown on TV?

Rachel Oldfield statement, May 15th:

She did not see him again, except for yesterday, when he was shown on various television channels as a suspect in the abduction of Madeleine.
She then felt her suspicions about this individual would be confirmed, feeling bad for not having expressed them earlier to others and to the police.

I agree with you and Tony about the November 2007 meeting. I'm not saying he's a saint and always acted unselfishly, but actions he may have taken in November, and his motivations then, can't really be used as an indication of his motivations and actions in May. It's not evidence he had any links with them six months earlier in my view.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by tigger on 21.08.12 21:06

@ShuBob wrote:That report is from December 2007, Tigger. The PJ's final report along with the archiving dispatch came after. Is there any evidence that Murat failed to cooperate with the investigation despite early discrepances in his statements?

and @ tcat - I'm impressed that you seem to need more than one source for any quote. There may well be, but I don't have it, I have the original quote.
Up to now I've always found it best to just quote the original source, which this one is, you can choose to believe it or not.

The PJ's final report does not contain all the information available to them and quite a large percentage of the documents have not been released. The PJ found him suspicious for their own reasons and had him followed and had his phone tapped before 14/5. Therefore the final report will not contain material which they could use if the process is re-opened. The same goes for the McCanns.

What with the mtDNA of Murat and Jane Tanner in connection with Burgau, the Burgau connection by itself, the photographs of Maddie connected with that again - Murat pops up a little too often for comfort. Look up the topic on Burgau as background information.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by jd on 21.08.12 21:19

Fiona Payne 16th May 2007

"- That in the following days she saw him various times with numerous reporters who were in the locale. " [Robert Murat]

Fiona Payne 10th April 2008

When I realised, in fact, it was the day he was made, erm, brought in for questioning and we were watching SKY News, it was the afternoon in my apartment and Russell was in the apartment, and obviously, you know, again, we were all very shocked, there was any progress, who is this man, and he was on telly and it showed a picture and I was like 'Oh, is that the guy that was around on the night acting as translator', you know, 'with the squint', because you couldn't see in this picture, and Russell said 'Yeah, yeah, that's him', but I hadn't seen him at all in the days following, erm, you know, Madeleine's disappearance, that, that on the telly was the next time I'd seen him'.

...Also Russell O'Brien had Robert Murat's phone number in his mobile phone on the morning of 4th May 2007!!
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by ShuBob on 21.08.12 21:22

@tigger wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:That report is from December 2007, Tigger. The PJ's final report along with the archiving dispatch came after. Is there any evidence that Murat failed to cooperate with the investigation despite early discrepances in his statements?

and @ tcat - I'm impressed that you seem to need more than one source for any quote. (Reply: Excuse me. Where have I asked for more than one source? I've simply asked for information from AFTER the archiving dispatch which I base my opinion on.) There may well be, but I don't have it, I have the original quote.
Up to now I've always found it best to just quote the original source, which this one is, you can choose to believe it or not.

The PJ's final report does not contain all the information available to them and quite a large percentage of the documents have not been released. (Reply: This goes without saying. I can only judge based on the information to hand. The report made it quite clear the McCanns were uncorporative. The same could have been said of Murat.) The PJ found him suspicious for their own reasons and had him followed and had his phone tapped before 14/5. Therefore the final report will not contain material which they could use if the process is re-opened. The same goes for the McCanns.

What with the mtDNA of Murat and Jane Tanner in connection with Burgau, the Burgau connection by itself, the photographs of Maddie connected with that again - Murat pops up a little too often for comfort. Look up the topic on Burgau as background information.

I will say again, Murat may be a dodgy character. He way well turn out to be involved in this charade. However, with the available evidence ("AVAILABLE" being the operative word), I see nothing to suggest he hasn't cooperated fully with the investigation into Maddie's disappearance.

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by jd on 21.08.12 21:28

@ShuBob wrote: I will say again, Murat may be a dodgy character. He way well turn out to be involved in this charade. However, with the available evidence ("AVAILABLE" being the operative word), I see nothing to suggest he hasn't cooperated fully with the investigation into Maddie's disappearance.

He didn't tell the police the whole truth as he changed his story on a number of occasions when caught out from what he previously stated
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by jd on 21.08.12 21:30

Murat pops up a little too often for comfort.

Never has a truer word been said...he does
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by tigger on 21.08.12 21:31

Yes indeed, his memory was somewhat refreshed after the first interview so that he was able to correct his earlier account on 17 separate points.




____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by Guest on 21.08.12 21:31

@tigger wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:That report is from December 2007, Tigger. The PJ's final report along with the archiving dispatch came after. Is there any evidence that Murat failed to cooperate with the investigation despite early discrepances in his statements?

and @ tcat - I'm impressed that you seem to need more than one source for any quote. There may well be, but I don't have it, I have the original quote.
Up to now I've always found it best to just quote the original source, which this one is, you can choose to believe it or not.

The PJ's final report does not contain all the information available to them and quite a large percentage of the documents have not been released. The PJ found him suspicious for their own reasons and had him followed and had his phone tapped before 14/5. Therefore the final report will not contain material which they could use if the process is re-opened. The same goes for the McCanns.

What with the mtDNA of Murat and Jane Tanner in connection with Burgau, the Burgau connection by itself, the photographs of Maddie connected with that again - Murat pops up a little too often for comfort. Look up the topic on Burgau as background information.
I'm looking at it. It's giving me a headache DNA again, and I'm no expert. But I'll keep reading
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by ShuBob on 21.08.12 21:32

@jd wrote:
@ShuBob wrote: I will say again, Murat may be a dodgy character. He way well turn out to be involved in this charade. However, with the available evidence ("AVAILABLE" being the operative word), I see nothing to suggest he hasn't cooperated fully with the investigation into Maddie's disappearance.

He didn't tell the police the whole truth as he changed his story on a number of occasions when caught out from what he previously stated

And like I pointed out to you earlier, neither did Bob Dowler but he had nothing to do with his daughter's disappearance and murder.

People lie for different reasons. Even the McCanns! I gave them the benefit of doubt until that position became untenable. I haven't reached that point with Murat. It's my prerogative as is yours to be suspicious of him.

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by jd on 21.08.12 21:33

candyfloss wrote: Is this an absolute fact though jd? Is it Portuguese law, and has anyone got a link to show this is the case please, because I have read it so many times and believed it to be true, but it would be good to see a link for something concrete about it.

I have read this a number of times that this is the case and there are 3 suspects who will regain their status if the case is reopened. Will try to find a link that has more concrete information on it, the final PJ report should clarify the situation I would think. Will read through it

____________________
Who pulled the strings?...THE SYMINGTONS..And the Scottish connections...Look no further if you dare
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by jd on 21.08.12 21:36

@ShuBob wrote:
And like I pointed out to you earlier, neither did Bob Dowler but he had nothing to do with his daughter's disappearance and murder.

What has Bob Dowler got to do with anything. Entirely different case, circumstances and informations. It was a real case to start with unlike the mccanns which is all fake
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by ShuBob on 21.08.12 21:38

@jd wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:
And like I pointed out to you earlier, neither did Bob Dowler but he had nothing to do with his daughter's disappearance and murder.

What has Bob Dowler got to do with anything. Entirely different case, circumstances and informations. It was a real case to start with unlike the mccanns which is all fake

Oh dear!

Never mind!

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by jd on 21.08.12 21:38

@ShuBob wrote:
Oh dear!

Never mind!

My exact words to you!
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by ShuBob on 21.08.12 21:42

@jd wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:
Oh dear!

Never mind!

My exact words to you!

I have no idea why you appear so combative but I'll leave you to it

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by tigger on 21.08.12 21:49

This is an interesting 'old' topic to read too:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t832-robert-murat-the-hire-car

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.
avatar
tigger

Posts : 8114
Reputation : 53
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile http://fytton.blogspot.nl/

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by jd on 21.08.12 21:50

@jd wrote:Fiona Payne 16th May 2007

"- That in the following days she saw him various times with numerous reporters who were in the locale. " [Robert Murat]

Fiona Payne 10th April 2008

When I realised, in fact, it was the day he was made, erm, brought in for questioning and we were watching SKY News, it was the afternoon in my apartment and Russell was in the apartment, and obviously, you know, again, we were all very shocked, there was any progress, who is this man, and he was on telly and it showed a picture and I was like 'Oh, is that the guy that was around on the night acting as translator', you know, 'with the squint', because you couldn't see in this picture, and Russell said 'Yeah, yeah, that's him', but I hadn't seen him at all in the days following, erm, you know, Madeleine's disappearance, that, that on the telly was the next time I'd seen him'.

...Also Russell O'Brien had Robert Murat's phone number in his mobile phone on the morning of 4th May 2007!!

So this is a direct lie from Fiona Payne. One statement she says she saw robert murat in the following days, the next statement she says she never saw him for about 10 days when she saw him on TV. Which is it? How can her story be so different. And Russell O'Brien who was in the room watching TV with Fiona Payne had robert murats phone number on him the whole time! Their statements are so contradictory and full of lies its laughable

The Tapas 9 are also trying to say that after robert murat ran off with Maddie that he came back an hour later to the scene, and to direct the GNR in the searches as well as translating, if anyone is dumb enough to believe the jane tanner sighting...the one where gerry mccann and jez wilkins were right outside the window chatting when it could have happened according to tanner's version of events. And Russell O'Brien was 2 doors down looking after their sick child in the apartment at the same time too..maybe this is when they swapped phone numbers!!

avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by jd on 21.08.12 21:51

@ShuBob wrote:I have no idea why you appear so combative but I'll leave you to it

Maybe look in the mirror first to see who is being combative
avatar
jd

Posts : 4151
Reputation : 27
Join date : 2011-07-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by Miraflores on 21.08.12 21:52

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.

Hmm, no, Exeter is a small airport not far from the city. I used to live there and have flown from there a number of times. A six o'clock check in for a seven o'clock flight would be ample, in my experience. So Murat could probably have slept until 5.30.
avatar
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2011-06-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by sharonl on 21.08.12 21:59

Setting aside Robert Murats' own behaviour for a moment, there are a few more burning questions

1. Why did Jane Tanner move away from bundleman as the person that she allegedly saw that night and formerly identify Robert Murat instead?

2. Why were we then informed that Murat had a double who was at the Ocean club that night, but not informed that the double was a relative of his and of David Symington, co-owner of the Ocean Club.

3. Why did the McCanns benefactor Brian Kennedy meet with this man who was suspected of abducting the child that he was funding the search for?

It seems to me that Murat took the focus away from the McCanns for a few days (created a few news stories) and promptly cleared his name by putting a look-a-like in the picture. He was suitably compensated for his troubles later.

If someone was arrested on suspicion of abducting a child that you knew would you hold a meeting with him and his lawyers? Or would you let the police investigate?

There is something really fishy about all this.

____________________
"WE ARE ALL IN THIS TOGETHER" - Rebekah Brooks to David Cameron
avatar
sharonl


Posts : 4843
Reputation : 887
Join date : 2009-12-29

View user profile http://www.cold2012.org.uk

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by ShuBob on 21.08.12 22:03

@sharonl wrote:Setting aside Robert Murats' own behaviour for a moment, there are a few more burning questions

1. Why did Jane Tanner move away from bundleman as the person that she allegedly saw that night and formerly identify Robert Murat instead?

2. Why were we then informed that Murat had a double who was at the Ocean club that night, but not informed that the double was a relative of his and of David Symington, co-owner of the Ocean Club.

3. Why did the McCanns benefactor Brian Kennedy meet with this man who was suspected of abducting the child that he was funding the search for?

It seems to me that Murat took the focus away from the McCanns for a few days (created a few news stories) and promptly cleared his name by putting a look-a-like in the picture. He was suitably compensated for his troubles later.

If someone was arrested on suspicion of abducting a child that you knew would you hold a meeting with him and his lawyers? Or would you let the police investigate?

There is something really fishy about all this.

I eagerly await the day the full details about THAT meeting are made public. I believe it will happen. One day!

ShuBob

Posts : 1896
Reputation : 67
Join date : 2012-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by Guest on 21.08.12 22:16

@tigger wrote:This is an interesting 'old' topic to read too:

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t832-robert-murat-the-hire-car
I'm aware there were apparent questions re: mobile phone data and the hire car. My point is, similar to ShuBob's I think, that the Portuguese police appear to have been satisfied (eventually) and that he appears to have cooperated with them, unlike the McCanns and their friends.

I'm just approaching this logically. If we believe in the Portuguese police, why do we not trust their conclusions about Murat? If Mr Amaral had any remaining doubts about Murat, why did he not include them in his book? If the McCanns and/or some or all of their friends are responsible for Madeleine's disappearance, why are we convinced they needed any help from anybody else? Is there any indication the Portuguese police believed this?

I do believe it's better to have more than one source for information, tigger, otherwise the good intentions of people can unintentionally run the risk of ending up a bit Joe Vialls, and it's easy for theories to be dismissed by others when there is no corroboration for crucial parts.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by Guest on 21.08.12 23:09

@jd wrote:
@ShuBob wrote:That report is from December 2007, Tigger. The PJ's final report along with the archiving dispatch came after. Is there any evidence that Murat failed to cooperate with the investigation despite early discrepances in his statements?

The fact robert murat did have discrepancies and changes to his statements should give you cause for suspicion. If he spoke the truth he would't need to change and suddenly remember things
I feel it's easy for us to be critical, but Murat found himself right in the centre of an extraordinary situation, with a huge media presence on his doorstep. Who knows how we would react under that pressure if we were suddenly a suspect in such a massive case? I know how I think I would react - I'd panic and my answers would be all over the place. I might tell lies too in my panic. None of us can appreciate the situation he was in I think.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by Olive_Boyle on 21.08.12 23:31

I'd just like to say that I think this discussion will come down to a matter of opinions and that nothing either side can say will change minds.

Tcat and Shubob have more or less said everything that I believe and I just wanted to add my support.

My opinion is that Murat had nothing to do with the disappearance of MM. From my reading he has answered all questions regarding the abduction honestly but been cagey with regards to his personal life, maybe because his affairs aren't totally whiter than white and he doesn't want the world to know.

I want to say to Tony that I feel really uneasy with the way he is approaching this and would suggest he is more careful but I know that he doesn't accept this type of comment easily and I'll get slated, all I'm trying to do is offer friendly advice. Looking in from the outside it seems like an ill conceived point to make.

Tony, if as you think he has something to do with the McCann's it will come out eventually. You have enough on your plate to deal with what's going on at the moment surely. Stop being a stubborn fool and instead of trying to prove a point with Murat, focus your efforts with fighting your battle against the McCann's.

Olive_Boyle

Posts : 122
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-05-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: ROBERT MURAT: Should he be 'left alone'?

Post by Guest on 22.08.12 0:27

I think you're right Olive, as you say nobody is going to change their
minds. We should just leave it at that I think. Tony has his tactics and
he's the one being pursued - threads like this one and some of the
others are his choice in the end.
avatar
Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum