Jenny Murat on Kate McCanns book

Some interesting points re Robert Murat,Tigger - his and JT type DNA being found in the Burgau apartment seems a pretty amazing co-incidence if not theirs but I'm inclined to think if there was such a stack of evidence indicating his involvement he wouldn't have been cleared. The indications are that he was pretty comprehensively investigated and it would would make no sense to have cleared him officially in the way he was if the PJ were able to link him to the case. Of course there's always the possibility they got that wrong but clear him they did and from then on his position differed from the McCs, however that is spun by the team.

It's truly unfortunate that the McCs didn't come under similar scrutiny early on and opportunities such as forensic examination of the family's clothing at the outset weren't taken. I say that not as a McC hater - far from it - like many I would like them to have been definitvely ruled in or out, charged or let go for reasons other than that they failed to co-operate so the investigation eventually shut up shop. It seems inconceivable, IMO, that parents of a missing child would allow that to happen under any circumstances as the official investigation was their only real chance of finding out what happened to their daughter and saving her, if that were possible. Who wouldn't endure the most hostile and unpleasant scrutiny if at the end the investigation were convinced of their non involvement and therefore able to move on to concentrate on finding the real perpetrator/s? Why waste time giving media interviews, blogging, jogging, touring other countries, picking up and dropping off pals from the airport, and issuing posters highlighting an eye defect which didn't actually exist when the real work to be done was in assisting the investigation in every way possible and being proactive in that if there were apparent deficiencies?

Even amid the panic of the discovery, why did no-one in the group attempt to ensure the crime scene wasn't contaminated unnecessarily? So what if the GNR dropped ash as KMcC indignantly commented, when the group seem to have done nothing to preserve the scene? Given the profession of most of them, the lack of forensic awareness demonstrated within the group was astounding. Why the rush to get all the McC family clothing laundered, including the victim's, instead of preserving any potential evidenc? Why wait 3 months or so before suggesting taking hair samples if sedation by the abductor were suspected? Why not be proactive instead of berating the GNR/PJ for their deficiencies when a child's life is at stake? Maybe the GNR/PJ were remiss and collection of forensics mishandled but how unfortunate for the missing child there seemed to be nobody among this group of professionals with the ability or willingness to rectify this. Instead we are told the PJ said it was ok for the clothes to go to the laundry; they didn't ask for hair samples until it was too late etc, etc. Ok, so Portugal was third world and there was no FBI but shame the remarkable tenacity, ability and proactivitlity demonstrated in mobilising the "fighting fund" and press campaign didn't extend to ensuring no opportunity to gather evidence was wasted.

Re the mt-DNA: that wouldn't be anywhere enough in Portugal where a full 100% match is required. I think the evidence they had was too circumstantial and if they hadn't been forced by JT's identification to arrest him, they'd have found evidence simply by keeping an eye on him.

Murat's behaviour after winning the settlement was analysed (see the report on the Madeleine Foundation website) when he gave a speech to the Cambridge Union, there was not a whisper of resentment against the Tapas 9 in his speech. He attacked the press, but not the McCanns or their three friends who had identified him as being the abductor.

Apparently in the Panorama documentary last April, he slated Amaral. Not the people whose 'evidence' forced Amaral to arrest him.

Below is an extract of the comment (Mad.Found.) http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/ on his speech at the Cambridge Union.

As many noted, whilst Murat bitterly attacked the British tabloid press, he completely failed to tell his student audience that the McCanns’ chief press spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, was amongst those to articulate a possible connection between Robert Murat and double child-murderer Ian Huntley. Neither did he mention the McCanns having pointed the finger at him in January 2008; they had claimed that there was cogent evidence that Murat was a ‘spotter for a gang of paedophiles’.

Just as puzzling: neither did Murat criticise Jane Tanner for identifying him as the abductor on 14 May 2007, nor did he have a word of condemnation for the other three members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had a day or two later positively identified him as having been hanging round the Ocean Club apartments on the evening of 3 May.

Clarence Mitchell had made the ‘Huntley’ reference to Murat. The McCanns referred to evidence that he was a ‘spotter for a paedophile gang’. Jane Tanner was adamant that he was the abductor she’d allegedly seen. Three others of the ‘Tapas 9’ claimed they’d seen Murat near the McCanns’ apartment the night Madeleine was reported missing - and tried to out-face Murat at a tense confrontation with him organised by the Portuguese Police on 11 July. Yet in his Cambridge Union address, Murat was totally silent about all of this.

Why? Why did he vent his spleen on the tabloids - and not on Mitchell and six members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had so actively conspired to smear him?

If we knew the answer to this riddle, we would be much the wiser - and perhaps nearer the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

unquote

Fair comment, some odd behaviour from RM. Maybe one day we'll find out whether or not there was any connection with the T9 but unfortunately at the moment the reveiw appears to be looking everywhere, anywhere but at the actions of the group from the night in question to the present day, so not holding out much hope of a breakthrough. Got to go now.

Monty Heck wrote:Some interesting points re Robert Murat,Tigger - his and JT type DNA being found in the Burgau apartment seems a pretty amazing co-incidence if not theirs but I'm inclined to think if there was such a stack of evidence indicating his involvement he wouldn't have been cleared. The indications are that he was pretty comprehensively investigated and it would would make no sense to have cleared him officially in the way he was if the PJ were able to link him to the case. Of course there's always the possibility they got that wrong but clear him they did and from then on his position differed from the McCs, however that is spun by the team.

It's truly unfortunate that the McCs didn't come under similar scrutiny early on and opportunities such as forensic examination of the family's clothing at the outset weren't taken. I say that not as a McC hater - far from it - like many I would like them to have been definitvely ruled in or out, charged or let go for reasons other than that they failed to co-operate so the investigation eventually shut up shop. It seems inconceivable, IMO, that parents of a missing child would allow that to happen under any circumstances as the official investigation was their only real chance of finding out what happened to their daughter and saving her, if that were possible. Who wouldn't endure the most hostile and unpleasant scrutiny if at the end the investigation were convinced of their non involvement and therefore able to move on to concentrate on finding the real perpetrator/s? Why waste time giving media interviews, blogging, jogging, touring other countries, picking up and dropping off pals from the airport, and issuing posters highlighting an eye defect which didn't actually exist when the real work to be done was in assisting the investigation in every way possible and being proactive in that if there were apparent deficiencies?

Even amid the panic of the discovery, why did no-one in the group attempt to ensure the crime scene wasn't contaminated unnecessarily? So what if the GNR dropped ash as KMcC indignantly commented, when the group seem to have done nothing to preserve the scene? Given the profession of most of them, the lack of forensic awareness demonstrated within the group was astounding. Why the rush to get all the McC family clothing laundered, including the victim's, instead of preserving any potential evidenc? Why wait 3 months or so before suggesting taking hair samples if sedation by the abductor were suspected? Why not be proactive instead of berating the GNR/PJ for their deficiencies when a child's life is at stake? Maybe the GNR/PJ were remiss and collection of forensics mishandled but how unfortunate for the missing child there seemed to be nobody among this group of professionals with the ability or willingness to rectify this. Instead we are told the PJ said it was ok for the clothes to go to the laundry; they didn't ask for hair samples until it was too late etc, etc. Ok, so Portugal was third world and there was no FBI but shame the remarkable tenacity, ability and proactivitlity demonstrated in mobilising the "fighting fund" and press campaign didn't extend to ensuring no opportunity to gather evidence was wasted.

tigger wrote:Re the mt-DNA: that wouldn't be anywhere enough in Portugal where a full 100% match is required. I think the evidence they had was too circumstantial and if they hadn't been forced by JT's identification to arrest him, they'd have found evidence simply by keeping an eye on him.

Murat's behaviour after winning the settlement was analysed (see the report on the Madeleine Foundation website) when he gave a speech to the Cambridge Union, there was not a whisper of resentment against the Tapas 9 in his speech. He attacked the press, but not the McCanns or their three friends who had identified him as being the abductor.

Apparently in the Panorama documentary last April, he slated Amaral. Not the people whose 'evidence' forced Amaral to arrest him.

Below is an extract of the comment (Mad.Found.) http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/ on his speech at the Cambridge Union.

As many noted, whilst Murat bitterly attacked the British tabloid press, he completely failed to tell his student audience that the McCanns’ chief press spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, was amongst those to articulate a possible connection between Robert Murat and double child-murderer Ian Huntley. Neither did he mention the McCanns having pointed the finger at him in January 2008; they had claimed that there was cogent evidence that Murat was a ‘spotter for a gang of paedophiles’.

Just as puzzling: neither did Murat criticise Jane Tanner for identifying him as the abductor on 14 May 2007, nor did he have a word of condemnation for the other three members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had a day or two later positively identified him as having been hanging round the Ocean Club apartments on the evening of 3 May.

Clarence Mitchell had made the ‘Huntley’ reference to Murat. The McCanns referred to evidence that he was a ‘spotter for a paedophile gang’. Jane Tanner was adamant that he was the abductor she’d allegedly seen. Three others of the ‘Tapas 9’ claimed they’d seen Murat near the McCanns’ apartment the night Madeleine was reported missing - and tried to out-face Murat at a tense confrontation with him organised by the Portuguese Police on 11 July. Yet in his Cambridge Union address, Murat was totally silent about all of this.

Why? Why did he vent his spleen on the tabloids - and not on Mitchell and six members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had so actively conspired to smear him?

If we knew the answer to this riddle, we would be much the wiser - and perhaps nearer the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

unquote

Who paid him money?

Who paid him the most money?

Who is his Kowtowee?

To whom does he kowtow?

ShuBob wrote:I don't believe Murat is involved in any way, shape or form.

Ermm...
How to explain why he say nothing about team mccanns who dragged his name into mud and put him and his family through hell; he blamed the press for his hellish years of reputation ruination when it wasn't the press who fingered him.

How to explain his clandestine meeting with Brian Kennedy, both sides accompanied by their respective lawyer?

More importantly, as arguido, he has the right to ask for the process to stay open - why didn't he?

There is definitely some mystery surrounding the relationship between Murat and Mccanns.

In my view he was involved post the fact, whether knowingly or unknowingly is the $64M question?

Wasnt it said during 3As days that prior to the fateful day Kate visited Murat in his house, or is that forum myth?

Worth posting that tigger, well done!
Have a good day all, and take care.
It's snowing over here

parapono

quote Monty Heck [ from an excellent post]

"Ok, so Portugal was third world"

I am reading this as your opinion, MH, although it sounds more like a point that would be made by the McCanns and pals. Fancy that, a group of middle class professionals choosing it as their holiday destination.....
I was very surprised by your comment, MH, because [ please correct me if I am wrong here] from what I have read Portugal is very much a developped country. In what respects is it third world?

russiandoll wrote:quote Monty Heck [ from an excellent post]

"Ok, so Portugal was third world"

I am reading this as your opinion, MH, although it sounds more like a point that would be made by the McCanns and pals. Fancy that, a group of middle class professionals choosing it as their holiday destination.....
I was very surprised by your comment, MH, because [ please correct me if I am wrong here] from what I have read Portugal is very much a developped country. In what respects is it third world?

I have a Portuguese neighbour, she finds the medical facilities in Portugal far better than those in the highly developed Netherlands. Portugal may have declined economically over the centuries, but Lisbon was one of the most important capitals of the entire world in the 17th and 18th centuries.
I'm sure MH didn't mean it like that, the Portuguese were the great seafarers of all time, according to Gerry they don't have a 'Royal Navy'. No Gerry, that's because they're not a monarchy, their navy is pretty good, especially seeing as they've a long history.
Gerry also said (Swedish interview - see Moa's topic on full length videos) that he'd expected helicopters. Implying that there weren't any used. They did use helicopters for the search, so how come these derogatory remarks re the Portuguese still filter through? We may thank both TM and the British tabloids for that.

aiyoyo wrote:

ShuBob wrote:I don't believe Murat is involved in any way, shape or form.

Ermm...
How to explain why he say nothing about team mccanns who dragged his name into mud and put him and his family through hell; he blamed the press for his hellish years of reputation ruination when it wasn't the press who fingered him.

How to explain his clandestine meeting with Brian Kennedy, both sides accompanied by their respective lawyer?

More importantly, as arguido, he has the right to ask for the process to stay open - why didn't he?

There is definitely some mystery surrounding the relationship between Murat and Mccanns.

In my view he was involved post the fact, whether knowingly or unknowingly is the $64M question?

Wasnt it said during 3As days that prior to the fateful day Kate visited Murat in his house, or is that forum myth?

I can't explain. It's my belief based almost exclusively on the archiving dispatch.

Just to clarify, Portugal is a beautiful country with great people. In saying "Portugal is third world" in my last post I was paraphrasing the attitude of certain parts of the British media to Portugal in relation to this case which is certainly not my view. I think the PJ did the best job they could under difficult circumstances and there was massive support from local people, many of whom were sceptical about what had happened but who put the child's need to be found above all else. One of the things that got my goat (so to speak) in the early months was what appeared to be a cynical use of the extremely photogenic church for various positive photo opps, all in very poor taste.

Excellent posts from Monty Heck, exactly what I think myself but I couldn't express it so well as that. I have visited PDL and absolutely love it and the wonderful Portuguese people, and I am incensed at the way they have been slandered and the reputation of their country trashed by this disgraceful case. Although I have to say, PDL this autumn seemed to be thriving, with lots of visitors enjoying the lovely weather and hospitality, and long may that continue.

Monty Heck wrote:Just to clarify, Portugal is a beautiful country with great people. In saying "Portugal is third world" in my last post I was paraphrasing the attitude of certain parts of the British media to Portugal in relation to this case which is certainly not my view. I think the PJ did the best job they could under difficult circumstances and there was massive support from local people, many of whom were sceptical about what had happened but who put the child's need to be found above all else. One of the things that got my goat (so to speak) in the early months was what appeared to be a cynical use of the extremely photogenic church for various positive photo opps, all in very poor taste.

Bad taste comes naturally to the TM imo. As proved by the photographs of Kate posing with cuddlecat (shame that website/marketing ploy never took off because even the general public might have smelt a rat).
Looking at HideHo's video today on the 'boozy lunches' which were highlighted just as the focus moved away from abduction, proves the extensive spin to discredit the Portuguese police.
Imo it's almost childish revenge, the PJ didn't play ball, instead they did their job too well and spoiled it all.
The McCanns and their friends were suffering from the common British superiority complex which is ingrained in people from their background and fed by the tabloids. 'Me white man, you dago' is what comes over. Only people of limited intelligence suffer from this complaint.
A watered-down version of this leaks out of every interview and the bewk is full of it. A childish, petulant 'account of the truth.
All my opinion of course.

Speaking of 'Bad Taste'... my daughter's nursey friend was going to a Bad Taste party. Guess who he went as?
Yep, Kate . Bad shoes, cuddlecat, etc.
Yes, even some nurses think she is crass in the extreme.

You don't happen to have a picture ...?

Ashwarya wrote:Excellent posts from Monty Heck, exactly what I think myself but I couldn't express it so well as that. I have visited PDL and absolutely love it and the wonderful Portuguese people, and I am incensed at the way they have been slandered and the reputation of their country trashed by this disgraceful case. Although I have to say, PDL this autumn seemed to be thriving, with lots of visitors enjoying the lovely weather and hospitality, and long may that continue.

And an excellent post from YOU
I too am infuriated with the negative cooments and attitudes towards the Portuguese. My children ex husband ex mum in law and grandchild live on the Algarve (Portimao) and are Portuguese, on my 2yearly visits back in 2007/08/09 was disgusted to read the english media headlines - every single english man or women I met were directed by me straight to the PJ Files the dogs etc etc, Maddie always came up in our discussions and 99% of them were NOT aware of the McCanns pack of lies. I made it my mission to inform everyone I met and in fact still do....................and will continue to do so

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:Re the mt-DNA: that wouldn't be anywhere enough in Portugal where a full 100% match is required. I think the evidence they had was too circumstantial and if they hadn't been forced by JT's identification to arrest him, they'd have found evidence simply by keeping an eye on him.

Murat's behaviour after winning the settlement was analysed (see the report on the Madeleine Foundation website) when he gave a speech to the Cambridge Union, there was not a whisper of resentment against the Tapas 9 in his speech. He attacked the press, but not the McCanns or their three friends who had identified him as being the abductor.

Apparently in the Panorama documentary last April, he slated Amaral. Not the people whose 'evidence' forced Amaral to arrest him.

Below is an extract of the comment (Mad.Found.) http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/ on his speech at the Cambridge Union.

As many noted, whilst Murat bitterly attacked the British tabloid press, he completely failed to tell his student audience that the McCanns’ chief press spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, was amongst those to articulate a possible connection between Robert Murat and double child-murderer Ian Huntley. Neither did he mention the McCanns having pointed the finger at him in January 2008; they had claimed that there was cogent evidence that Murat was a ‘spotter for a gang of paedophiles’.

Just as puzzling: neither did Murat criticise Jane Tanner for identifying him as the abductor on 14 May 2007, nor did he have a word of condemnation for the other three members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had a day or two later positively identified him as having been hanging round the Ocean Club apartments on the evening of 3 May.

Clarence Mitchell had made the ‘Huntley’ reference to Murat. The McCanns referred to evidence that he was a ‘spotter for a paedophile gang’. Jane Tanner was adamant that he was the abductor she’d allegedly seen. Three others of the ‘Tapas 9’ claimed they’d seen Murat near the McCanns’ apartment the night Madeleine was reported missing - and tried to out-face Murat at a tense confrontation with him organised by the Portuguese Police on 11 July. Yet in his Cambridge Union address, Murat was totally silent about all of this.

Why? Why did he vent his spleen on the tabloids - and not on Mitchell and six members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had so actively conspired to smear him?

If we knew the answer to this riddle, we would be much the wiser - and perhaps nearer the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

unquote

Who paid him money?

Who paid him the most money?

Who is his Kowtowee?

To whom does he kowtow?

Simple explanation is that they are all working for the same 'boss'

I hold this whole thing for a hoax, a charade
IMO

parapono

eta Merry Christmas to all who are thus inclined

I too personally think that Robert Murat is "one of the gang".

Jean wrote:I too personally think that Robert Murat is "one of the gang".

Me as well.

parapono wrote:

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:Re the mt-DNA: that wouldn't be anywhere enough in Portugal where a full 100% match is required. I think the evidence they had was too circumstantial and if they hadn't been forced by JT's identification to arrest him, they'd have found evidence simply by keeping an eye on him.

Murat's behaviour after winning the settlement was analysed (see the report on the Madeleine Foundation website) when he gave a speech to the Cambridge Union, there was not a whisper of resentment against the Tapas 9 in his speech. He attacked the press, but not the McCanns or their three friends who had identified him as being the abductor.

Apparently in the Panorama documentary last April, he slated Amaral. Not the people whose 'evidence' forced Amaral to arrest him.

Below is an extract of the comment (Mad.Found.) http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/ on his speech at the Cambridge Union.

As many noted, whilst Murat bitterly attacked the British tabloid press, he completely failed to tell his student audience that the McCanns’ chief press spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, was amongst those to articulate a possible connection between Robert Murat and double child-murderer Ian Huntley. Neither did he mention the McCanns having pointed the finger at him in January 2008; they had claimed that there was cogent evidence that Murat was a ‘spotter for a gang of paedophiles’.

Just as puzzling: neither did Murat criticise Jane Tanner for identifying him as the abductor on 14 May 2007, nor did he have a word of condemnation for the other three members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had a day or two later positively identified him as having been hanging round the Ocean Club apartments on the evening of 3 May.

Clarence Mitchell had made the ‘Huntley’ reference to Murat. The McCanns referred to evidence that he was a ‘spotter for a paedophile gang’. Jane Tanner was adamant that he was the abductor she’d allegedly seen. Three others of the ‘Tapas 9’ claimed they’d seen Murat near the McCanns’ apartment the night Madeleine was reported missing - and tried to out-face Murat at a tense confrontation with him organised by the Portuguese Police on 11 July. Yet in his Cambridge Union address, Murat was totally silent about all of this.

Why? Why did he vent his spleen on the tabloids - and not on Mitchell and six members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had so actively conspired to smear him?

If we knew the answer to this riddle, we would be much the wiser - and perhaps nearer the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

unquote

Who paid him money?

Who paid him the most money?

Who is his Kowtowee?

To whom does he kowtow?

Simple explanation is that they are all working for the same 'boss'

I hold this whole thing for a hoax, a charade
IMO

parapono

eta Merry Christmas to all who are thus inclined

Hello everyone, hope you all had a wonderful Christmas

With regards to the first part of the post. The mtDNA analysis may not prove absolute conclusive evidence on its own, however the analysis does not rule anyone out, so leaves open the possibility of an association. In these types of analysis (mtDNA) the testimonies and conclusions must always (in every case) state that the samples found could have come from a maternal relative.

What the report should have stated is, ‘the Morphology analysis showed the evidence samples were identical to reference samples’, but mtDNA testing showed predictable mtDNA sequences to maternal relatives. However these tests weren't done, or shouldn’t have been done simply to find living or deceased maternal relatives- ie anyone from the same bloodline. why ?, because they had definite reference hair samples to compare with any hairs found and it appears from the report that there was a definite association.

Hello and welcome tombraider!

You seem to be well up on DNA. I believe the association was made in the report and we must also keep in mind that a large percentage of reports were held back by the PJ. Not everything was published.
Imo what was held back would prove the case well enough for a British Court.
I seem to remember that it was officially stated that the mtDNA found in a car and in the Burgau apartment was associated with Jane Tanner and Robert Murat.

The DNA reports are somewhat ambiguous and it might interest you to pick up on Gerry's statement in the Swedish interview that 'of course there was DNA of Maddie in the car because both our DNA was in there'. Hmm, never knew it was a bunch of mixed up smarties but would have to accept the word of a real live doctor....

On another tack: we see no evidence at all that the tapas 9 have remained 'good friends'. Quite the opposite, after the Rothley meeting in November 07, which was reported by the press, no meetings took place that were reported. Imo there simply were none.
Imo too, most of the group didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
Me, big white man, You, dago policeman. Me tell you how it is, you listen.
That was more or less the attitude from day one. The McCanns were unlucky, they got educated, intelligent policemen, some with better university degrees than they'd ever be able to achieve themselves.

tigger wrote:Hello and welcome tombraider!

You seem to be well up on DNA. I believe the association was made in the report and we must also keep in mind that a large percentage of reports were held back by the PJ. Not everything was published.
Imo what was held back would prove the case well enough for a British Court.
I seem to remember that it was officially stated that the mtDNA found in a car and in the Burgau apartment was associated with Jane Tanner and Robert Murat.

The DNA reports are somewhat ambiguous and it might interest you to pick up on Gerry's statement in the Swedish interview that 'of course there was DNA of Maddie in the car because both our DNA was in there'. Hmm, never knew it was a bunch of mixed up smarties but would have to accept the word of a real live doctor....

On another tack: we see no evidence at all that the tapas 9 have remained 'good friends'. Quite the opposite, after the Rothley meeting in November 07, which was reported by the press, no meetings took place that were reported. Imo there simply were none.
Imo too, most of the group didn't know what they were getting themselves into.
Me, big white man, You, dago policeman. Me tell you how it is, you listen.
That was more or less the attitude from day one. The McCanns were unlucky, they got educated, intelligent policemen, some with better university degrees than they'd ever be able to achieve themselves.

Tanner was at the birthday party of the twins in 2008 and Mrs Payne stepped in when Gerry did a runner had to return suddenly for work commitments during the trial with GA.

Tombraider wrote:

parapono wrote:

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:Re the mt-DNA: that wouldn't be anywhere enough in Portugal where a full 100% match is required. I think the evidence they had was too circumstantial and if they hadn't been forced by JT's identification to arrest him, they'd have found evidence simply by keeping an eye on him.

Murat's behaviour after winning the settlement was analysed (see the report on the Madeleine Foundation website) when he gave a speech to the Cambridge Union, there was not a whisper of resentment against the Tapas 9 in his speech. He attacked the press, but not the McCanns or their three friends who had identified him as being the abductor.

Apparently in the Panorama documentary last April, he slated Amaral. Not the people whose 'evidence' forced Amaral to arrest him.

Below is an extract of the comment (Mad.Found.) http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/ on his speech at the Cambridge Union.

As many noted, whilst Murat bitterly attacked the British tabloid press, he completely failed to tell his student audience that the McCanns’ chief press spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, was amongst those to articulate a possible connection between Robert Murat and double child-murderer Ian Huntley. Neither did he mention the McCanns having pointed the finger at him in January 2008; they had claimed that there was cogent evidence that Murat was a ‘spotter for a gang of paedophiles’.

Just as puzzling: neither did Murat criticise Jane Tanner for identifying him as the abductor on 14 May 2007, nor did he have a word of condemnation for the other three members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had a day or two later positively identified him as having been hanging round the Ocean Club apartments on the evening of 3 May.

Clarence Mitchell had made the ‘Huntley’ reference to Murat. The McCanns referred to evidence that he was a ‘spotter for a paedophile gang’. Jane Tanner was adamant that he was the abductor she’d allegedly seen. Three others of the ‘Tapas 9’ claimed they’d seen Murat near the McCanns’ apartment the night Madeleine was reported missing - and tried to out-face Murat at a tense confrontation with him organised by the Portuguese Police on 11 July. Yet in his Cambridge Union address, Murat was totally silent about all of this.

Why? Why did he vent his spleen on the tabloids - and not on Mitchell and six members of the ‘Tapas 9’ who had so actively conspired to smear him?

If we knew the answer to this riddle, we would be much the wiser - and perhaps nearer the truth about what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

unquote

Who paid him money?

Who paid him the most money?

Who is his Kowtowee?

To whom does he kowtow?

Simple explanation is that they are all working for the same 'boss'

I hold this whole thing for a hoax, a charade
IMO

parapono

eta Merry Christmas to all who are thus inclined

Hello everyone, hope you all had a wonderful Christmas

With regards to the first part of the post. The mtDNA analysis may not prove absolute conclusive evidence on its own, however the analysis does not rule anyone out, so leaves open the possibility of an association. In these types of analysis (mtDNA) the testimonies and conclusions must always (in every case) state that the samples found could have come from a maternal relative.

What the report should have stated is, ‘the Morphology analysis showed the evidence samples were identical to reference samples’, but mtDNA testing showed predictable mtDNA sequences to maternal relatives. However these tests weren't done, or shouldn’t have been done simply to find living or deceased maternal relatives- ie anyone from the same bloodline. why ?, because they had definite reference hair samples to compare with any hairs found and it appears from the report that there was a definite association.

Hello Tombraider and welcome,

quoted snip......because they had definite reference hair samples to compare with any hairs found and it appears from the report that there was a definite association.

Now that explains it nice and simply, so they had definite proof through hair samples

Thank you for the Welcome tigger, Nina and all

I'm conscious about turning this into a genetics discussion / topic, so will make it a quick reply.


If a DNA profile obtained from an evidence sample and a person’s profile sample are indistinguishable -ie they match, then this is evidence that the samples have a ‘common source’. In reality, not in GM’s ‘smartie land’ there is always a risk of contaminated matching and Madeleine’s DNA would I have no doubt have been present on just about everything the family had with them which would of course contain predictable biological inherited DNA sequences. Obviously this applies to any sample in any case/ investigation and should have been taken into consideration along with the fact that there may be the presence of DNA from multiple sources. If this was done and the result proved as we have read, to show a sequence of 15 out of 19 genetic markers matching the reference sample of one person then there is little doubt that that persons 'smarties' contributed to that sample.

@Tombraider
Welcome

IIRC the haplo types of Murat an Jane Tanner were similar.

And what is that all about definite hair samples, of whom? Madeleine?
Madeleine McCann? Lead me the way through the files and show me where you found that, please

Kindest regards

parapono