Jenny Murat on Kate McCanns book

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

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?

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?

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.

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.

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?

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

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

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.

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.

parapono wrote:@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

joyce1938 wrote:I think the reason was ,some hairs seemed to be wrong colour and were discarded,so were not used to find out anything ?as far as my memory serves me ,there was talk of thatfor some time ,no one could understand that at all? joyce 1938

Tombraider wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:I think the reason was ,some hairs seemed to be wrong colour and were discarded,so were not used to find out anything ?as far as my memory serves me ,there was talk of thatfor some time ,no one could understand that at all? joyce 1938

Hello joyce 1938, this is correct, samples found on 3 tops supposedly belonging to Madeleine, 11 hairs if I'm not mistaken, were compared to photographs or a photograph of Madeleine and they could not determine whether or not they were in fact samples of her hair.

It should have been a relatively simple test to find a reference sample belonging to Madeleine, after all they were able to identify other individuals hair samples which were found, even 53 that were believed to be from KM or a maternal relative - someone from the same bloodline.

Interesting also and what I think is key to this is that neither of the twins hairs were identified in the report. Now anyone would think that was impossible but no where in the report does it specifically identify any hairs as belonging to them.

So, if they didn't have reference samples of the twins hair how could they possibly compare and identify any hairs found as belonging to Madeleine and this I believe is why the only option they had was to try and find a comparison using photo's.

parapono wrote:

Tombraider wrote:

joyce1938 wrote:I think the reason was ,some hairs seemed to be wrong colour and were discarded,so were not used to find out anything ?as far as my memory serves me ,there was talk of thatfor some time ,no one could understand that at all? joyce 1938

Hello joyce 1938, this is correct, samples found on 3 tops supposedly belonging to Madeleine, 11 hairs if I'm not mistaken, were compared to photographs or a photograph of Madeleine and they could not determine whether or not they were in fact samples of her hair.

It should have been a relatively simple test to find a reference sample belonging to Madeleine, after all they were able to identify other individuals hair samples which were found, even 53 that were believed to be from KM or a maternal relative - someone from the same bloodline.

Interesting also and what I think is key to this is that neither of the twins hairs were identified in the report. Now anyone would think that was impossible but no where in the report does it specifically identify any hairs as belonging to them.

So, if they didn't have reference samples of the twins hair how could they possibly compare and identify any hairs found as belonging to Madeleine and this I believe is why the only option they had was to try and find a comparison using photo's.

Yeah but yeah but no...
Comparison using which photos exactly, we have a full range of 'purportedly' Madeleine photos,
from the initial far too young poster photo, compared with for instance the Donegal pic, where the girl looks far older.
The hair colours in all these pics also differ enormously.

Which makes 'comparison by using photos' an insult to common sense, let alone to science.

IMO of course

parapono

worriedmum wrote:Does that mean that no samples were taken from the twins or parents as 'control' samples? I thought that was normal scientific procedure?

parapono wrote:errr no again. We simple do not know, as the files are incomplete. Mouth swabs were taken from the parents, the tapas 7 and many more people, all to be found in the files as they have been made public. The files include their signatures.
Now, although in the official correspondence, the necessity of mouthswabs to be taken from the twins can be found, no correspondence, no permission by their parents, no exhibit numbers nor results, no receipts, there is nothing to be found in that part of the files that is available about mouthswabs taken from either twin.

But, at the FSS the scientist (Leslie Denton? not sure) concluded that the DNA on the pillow case from Rothley was from a female child of
the McCanns,, not being the female twin


parapono