The framing of Robert Murat

by Cristobell 13.07.12 16:55

I am having a debate with a 'pro' on another forum, who insists that JT did not identify RM at any time. She also claims that the tapas 3 who identified RM as being there on the night of the 3rd, came forward after they had seen him on Sky News.

In effect, it seems to me, that she is saying that RM was made an arguido based on the speculation of Lori Campbell.

Does anyone know if Bob Small - the Leicestershire detective who arranged for the covert operation for JT to observe RM from the inside of a van, made a statement?

Do the PJ files reveal why they made RM an arguida?

Also does anyone know if RM is still pursuing his case against JT?

by Invinoveritas 13.07.12 17:12

Most of what you want to know can be found in the link below:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by Cristobell 13.07.12 18:11

Invinoveritas wrote:Most of what you want to know can be found in the link below:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Many thanks, there is much information there, though I think I will have to plough through the police files. From what I can see Rachel, Russell and Fiona claimed on 4th May that they had seen RM the night before. As too did Charlotte Pennington.

The strange surveillance exercise took place on Sunday 13th May, dawn raids were carried out at Casa Lililian and several other addresses simultaneously the next day, 14th May, and RM was made an arguido on 15th.

I suppose what I am really looking for is evidence of the surveillance exercise from the police, particularly as the Pros are now saying that JT never identified RM as the abductor.

by uppatoffee 13.07.12 18:27

Cristobell wrote:
Invinoveritas wrote:Most of what you want to know can be found in the link below:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Many thanks, there is much information there, though I think I will have to plough through the police files. From what I can see Rachel, Russell and Fiona claimed on 4th May that they had seen RM the night before. As too did Charlotte Pennington.

The strange surveillance exercise took place on Sunday 13th May, dawn raids were carried out at Casa Lililian and several other addresses simultaneously the next day, 14th May, and RM was made an arguido on 15th.

I suppose what I am really looking for is evidence of the surveillance exercise from the police, particularly as the Pros are now saying that JT never identified RM as the abductor.

I think Kate and Gerry also said they didn't put much emphasis on the coloboma too, and we all know how true that statement was! big grin

by Invinoveritas 13.07.12 18:52

Cristobell wrote:
Invinoveritas wrote:Most of what you want to know can be found in the link below:

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Many thanks, there is much information there, though I think I will have to plough through the police files. From what I can see Rachel, Russell and Fiona claimed on 4th May that they had seen RM the night before. As too did Charlotte Pennington.

The strange surveillance exercise took place on Sunday 13th May, dawn raids were carried out at Casa Lililian and several other addresses simultaneously the next day, 14th May, and RM was made an arguido on 15th.

I suppose what I am really looking for is evidence of the surveillance exercise from the police, particularly as the Pros are now saying that JT never identified RM as the abductor.

I quote from Goncalo Amaral´s book: Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking.

I´ll post a book link if you require it

by pennylane 13.07.12 18:58

Clarence Mitchell indignantly claimed that 'At no time did Jane Tanner name Robert Murat.' It's the usual slimy play on words we've come to expect from the pink pimp. Of course Tanner didn't name him, she wasn't supposed to know him. Yet she and (not one, not two, but) three other tapasniks identified him, plus Charlotte Pennington I believe. That's pretty compelling stuff I'd say. Either Murat's lying when he says he was at home all night with his mum; or the tapasniks and Pennington are lying when they claim they saw him; or all of them lying.....

Mistaken identity I could accept from one or two of the tapasniks..... but not all five people.

by tuom 13.07.12 19:06

Is there a picture/map anywhere on here showing the OC apartments and RM Mother's house , I am curious to see the distance and surrounding areas , please and TY[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **PeterMac** 13.07.12 21:22

tuom wrote:Is there a picture/map anywhere on here showing the OC apartments and RM Mother's house , I am curious to see the distance and surrounding areas , please and TY[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

by tuom 13.07.12 21:33

PeterMac wrote:
tuom wrote:Is there a picture/map anywhere on here showing the OC apartments and RM Mother's house , I am curious to see the distance and surrounding areas , please and TY[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

[url=http://mccannfiles.com/id94.html

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Thank You.

by **tigger** 02.12.12 6:21

I'm posting this here as well as Leveson because with the Leveson/McCann's demand for new laws we're getting into interesting territory.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Murat was compensated by the press but quite a number of allegations came direct from the McCanns, even as late as January 2008. For even when TM stated that they no longer thought Murat was the kidnapper, he was defined as a 'spotter' for paedophiles. I think it's in the timeline for that month.

The interesting problem here is that the book was serialised in the press and therefore the allegations written by KM can be directly attributed to her.

Jenny Murat is writing a book too, not that I like Murat one bit - imo he was the patsy and certainly didn't know he was going to be pointed out by the very people he had 'helped'.

by **PeterMac** 02.12.12 7:35

Is this almost the first time the Express have ventured into McCann territory for a long time - since the payout ?
If so, it looks as though battle lines are being drawn.
Sun - v - Express

by **PeterMac** 02.12.12 7:49

There is also this, which probably deserves a new thread.

Express
Sunday December 2,2012
By Tracey Kandohla
KATE McCann fears her husband’s criticism of the Prime Minister may hamper the search for missing daughter Madeleine.
Gerry McCann hit out after David Cameron rejected Lord Leveson’s call for a new press law. He said that while he respected the PM he disagreed with his viewpoint.
Kate simply urged Mr Cameron to “embrace the report and act swiftly”. A source close to the McCanns said yesterday: “Kate and Gerry are relying on the Prime Minister to keep the Scotland Yard review, which he ordered, ongoing.
“The last thing Kate wants is to annoy or upset the PM and does not want there to be any backlash.” Kate now wants reassurance from the Government that the 18-month case review will continue.
The McCanns and the parents of Milly Dowler were among victims of press intrusion who declined to meet Culture Secretary Maria Miller to discuss the report. Kate wants to reschedule the meeting. The Home Office said there was no deadline on the Met review.
The last thing Kate wants is to annoy or upset the PM and does not want there to be any backlash
A source close to the McCanns

Search ? What search ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

by **tigger** 02.12.12 8:42

PeterMac wrote:There is also this, which probably deserves a new thread.
Express
Sunday December 2,2012
By Tracey Kandohla
KATE McCann fears her husband’s criticism of the Prime Minister may hamper the search for missing daughter Madeleine.
Gerry McCann hit out after David Cameron rejected Lord Leveson’s call for a new press law. He said that while he respected the PM he disagreed with his viewpoint.
Kate simply urged Mr Cameron to “embrace the report and act swiftly”. A source close to the McCanns said yesterday: “Kate and Gerry are relying on the Prime Minister to keep the Scotland Yard review, which he ordered, ongoing.
“The last thing Kate wants is to annoy or upset the PM and does not want there to be any backlash.” Kate now wants reassurance from the Government that the 18-month case review will continue.
The McCanns and the parents of Milly Dowler were among victims of press intrusion who declined to meet Culture Secretary Maria Miller to discuss the report. Kate wants to reschedule the meeting. The Home Office said there was no deadline on the Met review.
The last thing Kate wants is to annoy or upset the PM and does not want there to be any backlash
A source close to the McCanns

Search ? What search ?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

I've just had a quick lie-down with a wet towel on my head but it's not working. Our Trace is telling us that Kate wants to be nice otherwise the PM might take her best toy away. Gerry tells us (see Leveson) that the MP's have to redeem themselves. Redemption from what? Now that's not playing nice.
Kate doesn't want to upset the PM, although the SY review (which isn't looking for Maddie at all but going through tons of reports and records) hasn't been mentioned. Gerry's upsetting the MPs - I've heard of married people not having meaningful conversations anymore....

It's like this: if Gerry's upsetting the MPs, some if not all of which are the PM's MPs, it's quite possible that MPs not strictly belonging to the PM will find this criticism from one member of the electorate who is in fact not likely to vote for the PM's MPs, but more likely for opposition MPs, who should have been representing his views all along but apparently haven't done so in view of the redemption issue which didn't specify any particular MP or party but MPs in general.
spin

by Liz Eagles 02.12.12 9:24

There seems to be no end to playing the victim card imo.

When the SY review comes to a natural end (which it has to) it could then be argued with the 'poor us' outcries that SY could have gone that extra mile if the PM hadn't been upset.

If the press gagging legislation has already been introduced by then we'll probably never get to know the real findings.

Sounds like a good ploy to me. The mighty dragon and the sensitive damsel approaches are first class.

Just my humble opinion.

by Angelique 02.12.12 10:11

acquila

I have for some time been really uptight about the ("poor us/victim) card as it seems to come into play whatever surfaces in the media/Inquiry/Review ect. and can be effectively twisted and reformed into any shape that is pro-McCann. And in many circumstances at the cost of a deserving cause.

This excerpt in the Express about Jenny Murat that tigger posted for instance shows it in action. I have included it merely as a recent point. It seems everything is one way, the McCann way. I have to say whoever is driving this strategy is a master of the art.

I wonder how many are strewn along the way and are still suffering from being drawn into this morass.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

"She explained: “Again we were denied an opportunity to put our side of the story. Robert was the subject of a most disgraceful character assassination, yet was not even invited to contribute to the debate. His life has been hugely damaged. This tragedy consumes us, day in, day out."

by Liz Eagles 02.12.12 10:52

GM is disappointed there is no road map and time-frame for the implementation of Leveson's recommendations. Oh dear, even Leveson can't do things properly. There is a certain irony to the words 'road map and time-frame' given the lack of clarity in the McCanns' versions of their movements to check on their children.

KM wants things to happen swiftly. GM wants swift action. They're both singing from the same hymn sheet in that respect.

The SY review findings could possibly be gagged by new legislation if my understanding is correct.

There is no time-frame placed on the SY review. It's ongoing.

It could be argued that speed is the vital key.

All in my opinion.

There's an old saying of my Mother's which went along the lines of 'it's good to have bread and butter today but it's good to have jam for tomorrow'.

by Monty Heck 02.12.12 10:58

The Express article on Jenny Murat is an interesting development; we rarely hear in the press about the former first arguido, the only one actually cleared, exonerated, etc while the others lost their opportunity to demonstrate their innocence (not the exact wording of the procurator).

Ironic that the McCs are able to put in print their opinions and views of RM ("the diary" was particularly scathing of him) with apparent impunity while taking every available opportunity to cry foul at their own perceived mistreatment by the media. The media they manipulated via their PR team; RM on the other hand had no team to deflect the negative publicity surrounding him when investigated and made arguido.

Ironic also thay align their experience with that of Bob Dowler, that other "person of interest" to a missing person enquiry who was exonerated but not without first undergoing a most harrowing experience. It would be interesting to speculate the outcome of the Dowler case had BD refused to answer questions or to co-operate with the enquiry. Despite these seemingly glaring differences in the situations of these individuals with that of the McCs (co-operation followed by exoneration of two individuals and non co-operation followed by limbo for the other two), the media seems intent on portraying them as being all in the same metaphorical boat, which is curious to say the least.

by **tigger** 12.12.12 8:36

From 'The truth of the Lie' By G. Amaral:

As the law demands, all foreign people interviewed by the police must have the benefit of an interpreter. In this investigation, the considerable number of interviews we had to conduct in record time forced us to call on the services of volunteers.

‘And this guy, you checked him out? No criminal record or trouble with the law?’

‘No, no, it's all OK, but I didn't know he lived here. It's true that his house is on the route taken by the abductor’.

‘Stay here, carry on being friendly with him; I'm going to Portimão to see what we've got on him: we've got to find out more about this guy’.

I immediately telephone the team to alert them. The Director of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Faro has to take part in a meeting the same morning, where we will discuss the case of Robert Murat. We decide to request the latter's help again in order not to lose sight of him. We must act with the utmost speed, because Madeleine could be in one of the houses he has access to. The investigators continue to check the information we have about him. He is English, aged 33 and is separated from his wife.

The latter lives in Great Britain with their daughter; the latter is nearly the same age as Madeleine and looks like her. The English journalist to whom he gave this information during an interview was immediately distrusting of him and the reasons that motivated him to help the police. Murat has lived with his mother in Vila da Luz for several years, but he goes to England regularly. Back from his last stay in Exeter on May 1st, he has to return there on the 9th. He is ready to postpone his departure, desirous above all, he states, of helping the police to find Madeleine.

His behaviour starts to seriously intrigue us. He often makes reference to similar cases that happened in the United Kingdom and which he seems to know in detail. He displays suspicious curiosity and seeks to know more. He offers to help us identify possible suspects. He knows the workings of the Ocean Club and the habits of the holiday-makers very well. He even, allegedly, tried secretly to access the investigation files. It is also known that he visits web sites of a pornographic nature.

His mother has set up a desk near the Tapas restaurant in order to gather and give out information about Madeleine. We don't know if this woman's actions are philanthropic in nature, or if she is hoping to keep up-to-date with all the information circulating about the case. Members of the British agency, CEOP [Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre], take a close interest in Murat and work to develop his psychological profile.

unquote

Notes: there is a report in the PJ files from an officer to his superior who caught Murat going through documents.
The journalist is of course Lori Campbell. Looks like Jim Gamble was on the spot pretty soon too!
It's clear that they already know a few things about Murat before they ever searched the house.
What I find most interesting is that Murat was supposed to be back in the UK on the 9th.

by ShuBob 12.12.12 9:54

What's the relevance of the date of his supposed return, Tigger?

by **tigger** 12.12.12 10:05

ShuBob wrote:What's the relevance of the date of his supposed return, Tigger?

He lives with his mother in Portugal, he is either summoned to PdL or has a sudden need to go there and books a flight in some haste. Arrives on the 1st, takes active part in police matters, offers to identify suspects.
Whilst in PdL has a very busy few days, meeting with his lawyer amongst other activities. When made arguido on the 15th he needs to change his original statement on 17 points.
But initially he expected to return to the UK on the 9th. Why? He lives in Portugal, visits GB, not the other way round.
What was so urgent to get him to fly to Portugal, was it going to be of short duration? How would he know that to be the case? He was asked by the PJ to stay longer before the 9th, in the event I don't think he could leave Portugal until the arguido status was lifted in 2008. I've never heard of Murat complaining that he missed a job or an appointment around the 9th.

by **Tony Bennett** 12.12.12 10:32

tigger wrote:
ShuBob wrote:What's the relevance of the date of his supposed return, Tigger?

He lives with his mother in Portugal, he is either summoned to PdL or has a sudden need to go there and books a flight in some haste. Arrives on the 1st, takes active part in police matters, offers to identify suspects.
Whilst in PdL has a very busy few days, meeting with his lawyer amongst other activities. When made arguido on the 15th he needs to change his original statement on 17 points.
But initially he expected to return to the UK on the 9th. Why? He lives in Portugal, visits GB, not the other way round.
What was so urgent to get him to fly to Portugal, was it going to be of short duration? How would he know that to be the case? He was asked by the PJ to stay longer before the 9th, in the event I don't think he could leave Portugal until the arguido status was lifted in 2008. I've never heard of Murat complaining that he missed a job or an appointment around the 9th.

This is a difficult one.

There certainly needs to be a very convincing explanation for him booking a flight late on April 30th/May 1st, being driven to Exeter at 5am and taking the 7am Exeter to Faro flight.

Murat has, I think (correct me if I'm wrong) maintained that he had to fly over to see his lawyer because there were some urgent matters to attend to regarding his divorce. I think it was said that Michaela Walczuk was getting restless because she wanted to marry Murat ASAP. It's not a story I have ever found to be convincing.

Murat said he was in England 'renovating his grandmother's house in Sidmouth'. I daresay Murat could turn round and say: "Well, I needed a few days in Praia da Luz to see my lawyer about the divorce, and spend a few precious days with my sweetheart, Michaela. But then I simply had to get back to England to finish off the renovations".

by ShuBob 12.12.12 11:39

tigger wrote:
ShuBob wrote:What's the relevance of the date of his supposed return, Tigger?

He lives with his mother in Portugal, he is either summoned to PdL or has a sudden need to go there and books a flight in some haste. Arrives on the 1st, takes active part in police matters, offers to identify suspects.
Whilst in PdL has a very busy few days, meeting with his lawyer amongst other activities. When made arguido on the 15th he needs to change his original statement on 17 points.
But initially he expected to return to the UK on the 9th. Why? He lives in Portugal, visits GB, not the other way round.
What was so urgent to get him to fly to Portugal, was it going to be of short duration? How would he know that to be the case? He was asked by the PJ to stay longer before the 9th, in the event I don't think he could leave Portugal until the arguido status was lifted in 2008. I've never heard of Murat complaining that he missed a job or an appointment around the 9th.

I would imagine- indeed expect- that the PJ checked out all these details out before producing the final report.

by **tigger** 12.12.12 17:54

Here is an interesting article on Max Clifford representing Murat until Murat got himself another PR person.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here's a snippet:

Together with Nicola Phillips from my office, I spent a huge amount of time and effort over many months talking to Robert and his Aunt Sally, often late at night and doing everything possible to help them and stop the unjustifiable media onslaught.

So you can imagine this week how I felt when Robert admitted to me he was paying a PR firm that he had been introduced to by his legal team. Having worked free of charge and in the words of Robert and his Aunt Sally, "been both wonderfully supportive and successful", I was not happy.

In spite of this I am very pleased with what we at MCA did for Robert and his family, as many of the things written about him without so much as a shred of evidence were totally disgusting.

Robert continues to have a huge battle on his hands to clear his name and to get his life back on track and I wish him and his family every success in achieving this.

[...]
In response PR Office founder Shimon Cohen said his agency was 'engaged by [Murat's legal team] Simons Muirhead & Burton to provide litigation PR support for yesterday's hearing'.
unquote

That can't have been cheap so where was the money for the lawyers going to come from? Because Murat also had a very active lawyer in Portugal.

by Nina 12.12.12 18:46

tigger wrote:Here is an interesting article on Max Clifford representing Murat until Murat got himself another PR person.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

Here's a snippet:

Together with Nicola Phillips from my office, I spent a huge amount of time and effort over many months talking to Robert and his Aunt Sally, often late at night and doing everything possible to help them and stop the unjustifiable media onslaught.

So you can imagine this week how I felt when Robert admitted to me he was paying a PR firm that he had been introduced to by his legal team. Having worked free of charge and in the words of Robert and his Aunt Sally, "been both wonderfully supportive and successful", I was not happy.

In spite of this I am very pleased with what we at MCA did for Robert and his family, as many of the things written about him without so much as a shred of evidence were totally disgusting.

Robert continues to have a huge battle on his hands to clear his name and to get his life back on track and I wish him and his family every success in achieving this.

[...]
In response PR Office founder Shimon Cohen said his agency was 'engaged by [Murat's legal team] Simons Muirhead & Burton to provide litigation PR support for yesterday's hearing'.
unquote

That can't have been cheap so where was the money for the lawyers going to come from? Because Murat also had a very active lawyer in Portugal.