Re: Sunday Express tomorrow BRING THEM ALL BACK TO PORTUGAL

by espeland 06.05.13 18:33

[/b]Maybe we should be looking at things that happened before, maybe something in the COMARE days.[/b]

I don't think it has anything to do with COMARE. I did once get banned for a month from The Maddie Case Files for suggesting someone and don't intend to repeat that. big grin

Maybe Murat's suggestion that attention be paid to the days before 3rd May was made for a good reason.

by Pershing36 06.05.13 18:41

espeland wrote:

I don't think it has anything to do with COMARE. I did once get banned for a month from The Maddie Case Files for suggesting someone and don't intend to repeat that.

Why are we not allowed to question it? Surely that was the link that gave them the direct contact to Gordon Brown, wasn't his brother part of it? GB was the one who appeared to stick his nose in and possibly why GA was removed from the case.

I personally think it is of up most importance to ensure everything is as fine and dandy as we have been told.

by suzyjohnson 06.05.13 18:42

ShuBob '......To put the bluntly, the tapas lot are stuck between a rock and a hard place as far as a reconstruction is concerned. They are damned if they do it and damned if they don't. It's entirely of their own making.......' Maybe that was the cause of the unhappiness at the Rothley service, maybe it's caused a right row in the McCann household.

Espeland, Murat was present at some key interviews as translator, he probably knows, or suspects, a lot more than we know.

by wilbeth 06.05.13 19:08

Why can't they/haven't they used actors to play the part of the Tapas 9. Surely they would have to follow the statements made thus giving the same result. Surely then they could be questioned?? Another question I was also wondering - does anyone know if the Tapas 9 group are still close friends with each other or the McCanns? If I'd been forced to lie (which I wouldn't) I'd give them the widest birth possible. scratchhead

I look forward to the day we see justice prevailed on the front page of the Express! I hope it's getting closer, am beginning so have some hope again! cheerleader

by **PeterMac** 06.05.13 23:23

wilbeth wrote:Why can't they/haven't they used actors to play the part of the Tapas 9. Surely they would have to follow the statements made thus giving the same result. Surely then they could be questioned?? Another question I was also wondering - does anyone know if the Tapas 9 group are still close friends with each other or the McCanns? If I'd been forced to lie (which I wouldn't) I'd give them the widest birth possible.
I look forward to the day we see justice prevailed on the front page of the Express! I hope it's getting closer, am beginning so have some hope again!

They tried during the Mockmentary, and the girl who played the part of KM was withdrawn and then sworn to silence ! (Which may tell you all you need to know)
The fact remains that it is IMPOSSIBLE to reconstruct the events of 21:00 to 21:15, 3/5/07 on the basis of what the Tapas 9 have said.
It cannot be done.
They know that.
There will be no reconstruction.
But let us hope that the Express does not stop its clamour for one !

by russiandoll 07.05.13 0:32

message on twitter saying parents of a friend of a friend spoke to Met re review, Met had asked for info from people who were in PdL 2 weeks prior to McCann and co holiday week

by jeanmonroe 07.05.13 1:44

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/361930/Jenny-Murat-Kate-McCann-printed-such-awful-things-about-my-Robert-in-her-Madeleine-book

By:
James MurrayPublished: Sun, December 2, 2012

Jenny Murat: Kate McCann printed such awful things about my Robert in her Madeleine book

A MOTHER whose son was wrongly linked to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann has hit out at the way he is portrayed in a best-selling book about the mystery.

In the book published last summer, Kate wrote: "Two officers talked openly about Robert Murat, who remained an arguido [suspect] and drip-fed us snippets of ‘evidence’ linking him to Madeleine."
RAPID U-TURN!

However, later in the book she (KM) writes: "Nothing we were told by the police indicated Murat took Madeleine or was in any way involved in her abduction."

Mrs Murat, now working on her own book about the case, added: "I am sick of all the half-truths and innuendos, so I do want a full and accurate record of the truth. It is important that our story is told."

*(I AM SICK OF ALL THE HALF TRUTHS AND INNUENDOES)

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

SALLY EVELEIGH
Robert Murat's aunt
Robert is sticking to his guns, he was not there on that night, there was not a shred of evidence against him being there on that night, so.. you know, that question definitely needs to be answered, why are they putting a finger at Robert.

*(WHY ARE THEY PUTTING A FINGER AT ROBERT?)

What do you think Jenny?

JENNY MURAT
Robert Murat's mother
I just don't understand why they're lying. On May 3rd I'd been out taking the dogs out which I do every single night of my life, and I got home about 8 o'clock and Robert was already there and he was in all the evening.

*( I JUST DON'T UNDERSTAND WHY THEY'RE LYING)

　

　

by aiyoyo 07.05.13 3:11

ShuBob wrote:Newintown, I think in law they are allowed not to incriminate themselves. It will be hugely damaging to the McCanns if SY suggest they take part in a reconstruction and they refuse. I think even Lorraine Kelly will not be able to ignore the significance of such a refusal.

Exactly, they can refuse what wont look good for them, especially after they've told the public relentlessly they will do anything to cooperate or that they'd and will always cooperate fully with the Police. The significance wont be lost on the Public or the likes of Lorraine Kelly etc.

Personally I dont think the Police will call for a reconstruction because of the predictable legal and practical obstacles.

by lj 07.05.13 6:26

Woofer wrote:It is NOT for them to have an opinion on it.

If they are told they have to do it, they do NOT have a choice fgs. The law is the law. You can`t merely say `Sorry officer, but I don`t agree with you`.

I think they can. SY has no jurisdiction, so they can investigate whatever they want, but they have no authority to force them to be interviwed.
I wonder if that is the reason the McCanns spoke with Cameron: he told them that if they want to be cleared they will have everyone cooperate in a re interview and reconstruction.

edited to add:
Maybe Murat knows that the reconstruction is a topic now for the SY, and he is trying to force the tapas bunch to cooperate.

edit to add 2
I should have read to the end, I see a lot of us think among the same lines.

by aiyoyo 07.05.13 7:10

lj wrote:
Woofer wrote:It is NOT for them to have an opinion on it.

If they are told they have to do it, they do NOT have a choice fgs. The law is the law. You can`t merely say `Sorry officer, but I don`t agree with you`.

I think they can. SY has no jurisdiction, so they can investigate whatever they want, but they have no authority to force them to be interviwed.
I wonder if that is the reason the McCanns spoke with Cameron: he told them that if they want to be cleared they will have everyone cooperate in a re interview and reconstruction.

edited to add:
Maybe Murat knows that the reconstruction is a topic now for the SY, and he is trying to force the tapas bunch to cooperate.

edit to add 2
I should have read to the end, I see a lot of us think among the same lines.

Sorry, Cameron would not have suggested such thing because that would be like implying they were involved.

Besides if it was a private meeting with Cameron (as reported) who told the tabloid about it?

I dont believe Cameron met with them. If was just spin.

by russiandoll 07.05.13 9:13

Must correct one of my own recent posts. I commented that on twitter the rabid pros are saying that the 48 hour timeline statement was not attributed to Murat, along with the usual tweets that we are thick for not seeing that and that the article was not casting any doubt on the group's accounts of events but was in factg supportive of them. Eh?
I then commented that the sub-headline sees JM mentioning that Murat made this remark but that it was not in the body of the text.
This was an error on my part, because the opening lines clearly say that the businessman mentions the importance of a 48 hour timeline.

I also find a few other things of interest.

“The reconstruction should cover the critical period just before and after the abduction.”

Very curious about all of this. Why now from Murat? And why the Express ?

by Lostfridge 07.05.13 11:00

russiandoll wrote:message on twitter saying parents of a friend of a friend spoke to Met re review, Met had asked for info from people who were in PdL 2 weeks prior to McCann and co holiday week

are we really taking onboard twitter comments from a friend of a friend now!?

by **tigger** 07.05.13 11:12

Lostfridge wrote:
russiandoll wrote:message on twitter saying parents of a friend of a friend spoke to Met re review, Met had asked for info from people who were in PdL 2 weeks prior to McCann and co holiday week

are we really taking onboard twitter comments from a friend of a friend now!?

Yes, if the friends are those of Russiandoll. yes

by Lostfridge 07.05.13 11:23

tigger wrote:
Lostfridge wrote:
russiandoll wrote:message on twitter saying parents of a friend of a friend spoke to Met re review, Met had asked for info from people who were in PdL 2 weeks prior to McCann and co holiday week

are we really taking onboard twitter comments from a friend of a friend now!?

Yes, if the friends are those of Russiandoll.

I must be missing something then? how so?

by Woofer 07.05.13 11:27

lj wrote:
Woofer wrote:It is NOT for them to have an opinion on it.

If they are told they have to do it, they do NOT have a choice fgs. The law is the law. You can`t merely say `Sorry officer, but I don`t agree with you`.

I think they can. SY has no jurisdiction, so they can investigate whatever they want, but they have no authority to force them to be interviwed.
I wonder if that is the reason the McCanns spoke with Cameron: he told them that if they want to be cleared they will have everyone cooperate in a re interview and reconstruction.

edited to add:
Maybe Murat knows that the reconstruction is a topic now for the SY, and he is trying to force the tapas bunch to cooperate.

edit to add 2
I should have read to the end, I see a lot of us think among the same lines.

lj - I know it has no jurisdiction over the disappearance, at least until the Portuguese close the case, but the UK does have jurisdiction over the later fraud and deception which took, and still takes place here imo.

In the case of a homicide or manslaughter committed abroad, a British Citizen can be dealt with and punished in the UK. See Section 9 of Offences Against The Person Act 1861.

http://www.legislation.gov.uk/ukpga/Vict/24-25/100/section/9

by tiny 07.05.13 11:39

russiandoll wrote:message on twitter saying parents of a friend of a friend spoke to Met re review, Met had asked for info from people who were in PdL 2 weeks prior to McCann and co holiday week

If this the case ,I can see sy putting forward an imaginary abducter being the one that took Madeleine.

by russiandoll 07.05.13 14:28

Just to clarify....I saw a tweet from a major tweeter on Maddie case, simpy that the Met had asked for information from people in the area up to 2 weeks before the McCann holiday. When I asked who had given the tweeter that info, he replied that it was someone he was acquainted with through a friend.
I am not saying that this is truthful, just wanted to report the tweet.

Also another person on twitter posted that her friend's grandparents, who were staying close to the McCann apartment, have been interviewed by the Met.

The problem with twitter is that while you see genuine info there is also the mischief- making contingent.

by Lostfridge 07.05.13 15:25

russiandoll wrote:Just to clarify....I saw a tweet from a major tweeter on Maddie case, simpy that the Met had asked for information from people in the area up to 2 weeks before the McCann holiday. When I asked who had given the tweeter that info, he replied that it was someone he was acquainted with through a friend.
I am not saying that this is truthful, just wanted to report the tweet.

Also another person on twitter posted that her friend's grandparents, who were staying close to the McCann apartment, have been interviewed by the Met.

The problem with twitter is that while you see genuine info there is also the mischief- making contingent.

Hi RD. thanks for the clarification. I honestly doubt very much that the SY have re-interviewed anyone , and if these report were true then I would be seriously concerned about the SY review. If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

by **PeterMac** 07.05.13 15:42

Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.

No. LAST.

by Guest 07.05.13 15:50

PeterMac wrote:
Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.
No. LAST.

Sunday Express tomorrow BRING THEM ALL BACK TO PORTUGAL - Page 10 160807

yep.

by ShuBob 07.05.13 16:00

PeterMac wrote:
Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.
No. LAST.

Makes sense. But what about Murat? Do peripheral witnesses (for want of a better term) get interviewed first before active witnesses such as Murat?

by aiyoyo 07.05.13 16:05

ShuBob wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.
No. LAST.

Makes sense. But what about Murat? Do peripheral witnesses (for want of a better term) get interviewed first before active witnesses such as Murat?

Guess he will be placed just before Tapas 7 and Mccanns on the queue.

by Guest 07.05.13 16:09

candyfloss wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.
No. LAST.

yep.

Sunday Express tomorrow BRING THEM ALL BACK TO PORTUGAL - Page 10 254380686

by tiny 07.05.13 16:11

Portia wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.
No. LAST.

yep.

Sunday Express tomorrow BRING THEM ALL BACK TO PORTUGAL - Page 10 110921

by Lostfridge 07.05.13 16:11

PeterMac wrote:
Lostfridge wrote: If it was a serious review and they had got to the stage of interviewing witnesses then those closest to the victim would surely be interviewed again first?!.
No. LAST.

Why do you say that Peter?.

I doubt SY has interviewed anyone anyway

Log in for more topics