Robert Murat Revisited

Tony Bennett wrote:XTC wrote this:

+++++++++++++++++++++

Lori Campbell, a Sunday Mirror journalist, reports Robert Murat to Leicestershire police as she believes he has been acting suspiciously.

[View short clip of Lori Campbell here]

This is the 7th of May 07. So my question is: Who led who?

REPLY: You say below that the PJ were under pressure to arrest someone. I agree. All the following are candidates for having created such waves and suspicions around Robert Murat that it was almost inevitable that Goncalo Amaral's men would arrest him:

1. Jane Tanner
2. Bob Small
3. Men from Control Risks Group
4. Clarence Mitchell (worked closely with Lori Campbell before)
5. Dr Joe Sullivan, psychologist
6. Men from MI5
7. Other men from Leicestershire Police
8. Other men from other branches of the security services, e.g. Special Branch, or 'criminal profilers'
9, The British Ambassador.

Maybe several of these all played their part?
 
 
The chain appears to me as Lori Campbell reports to the LP that Murat looks dodgy - Bob Small and his team on the basis of that claim sit JT in a darkened van later on and allegedly says Murat is the man she saw that night. That is the sequence as I see it. The PJ are under pressure to do something - they make him an arguido after raiding his mothers house on the 15/5/07.

As I said previously he never asked for Consular assistance and was never offered it.

REPLY: He also didn't bother asking for a solicitor to be present at his police interviews. Why not? Did he know it was a complete set-up and that he would eventually be released because he had nothing to do with the reason Madeleine disappeared?

Why didn't he ask and why wasn't it offered? In fact a memo from the British Government basically said avoid him like the plague. So, the McCanns get an Ambassador no less and Murat gets no assistance at all. This is all before he made his 17 changes to his former statements and therefore his arguido status wasn't on the basis of that

REPLY: I agree - but you haven't explained yet WHY Murat lied so much in his initial interview. Why did he? What was he hiding?

or anything on his or Malinka's computers. Just my view that's ll.

Re: Deducting:

Yes Deducting - deducing takes a good deal of intelligence and as far as SY have performed so far it's a trait that they are currently lacking.

Deducting from 38? persons of interest whilst 9 additional persons are missing from the list. We're down to around 33? after the Tractor Man the Guitar playing man and three charity collectors. Only 33 to go. This could last for years through deducting not deducing.

REPLY: As I have tried to say on many occasions.

In my view there was only one investigation into Madeleine's disappearance that counted and that is Amaral and his team’s investigation. Everything else since then has been viewed  on blogs - read in papers - seen on TV and has had an effect on all the pronouncements of the major players who were around the scene that week and after so it's no surprise to me that the stories changed over the intervening years never mind in just one year.

Re: Police method.

I would say that DCI Redwood and his team are working backwards. This is deducting suspects one by one until there are no more persons of interest left out of the 38 except the additional 9 who were investigated by Mr Amaral and his team. Beyond this they (SY) are self limiting because the Tapas 9 have been left out of the equation. These 9 are the investigating forward group - as in starting at 29th of April 07 to May the 3rd and beyond.

REPLY: They'be hardly been DEDUCTING suspects, XTC. They have been adding them like wildfire. They had 60, say they've eliminated 22, and now have 38 left. Plus, was it 500+ suspected registered sex offenders to check out? And 30,000 mobile 'phone records. Before we know it, we'll soon have 380 suspects, not 38
 
Redwood wants to start on May the 3rd at approximately 9.30pm on as this leaves out (in my opinion) the last alleged checker of the children in 5a. Start there, go to Smith sighting is a theory doing the rounds, as if there is a trap being set for the Tapas group.

REPLY: Unlike some, I see no alleged 'traps'. I just see:

* endless paper-reading
* endless collection of statistics
* endless trips to Portugal
* endless e-fits of suspects and 'persons of interest'
* endless rumours of improbable abductors
* endless drain of taxpayers' money...

... with nothing of value achieved.

The alternative to this is that once SY have done all their deducting that it is inevitable that they will be led to the real culprits. As I said it is as if SY have not read a word of the PJ or AG's reports if they are solely following this. They are working backward from the Smith family. A window for abduction of 30 minutes, yet they know (or if they don’t know - they should) that Mrs Fenn was told a child has gone missing at 10.30pm. That's a least an hour in my book to do XY and Z.

The bad news is that in my sad opinion the search for Madeleine ended for some on the 4th of May 07. Mr Amaral and his team were the only ones genuinely looking for Madeleine beyond that time. Since then every mad theory and media speculation has only served to bury the poor child (metaphorically) under a pile of mis-information and deception so much so that in reality she no longer exists as an individual (dead or alive). That is the worst aspect of this whole mystery.

REPLY: Once again I am having some trouble following your line of argument and thinking, but, no matter, thanks for your reply

tigger wrote:

Needless to say, imo the evidence is there, imo Murat was in it up to his neck, but not involved in the disappearance itself, but rather an accessory after the fact. Doing his level best right up to the moment he was made an arguido, which particular event may not have been part of the plan.

Cristobell wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ayniia wrote:Markus please stop quoting the press as being the files or something...

@ Markus 2

I think that's correct.

If this one press story is your main basis for saying that Murat might have been a cause of Madeleine's disappearance, then you are placing a massive amount of weight on what is in effect no evidence at all.

What he might have done after Madeleine's disappearance, and the perverted sexual interests of Murat and Malinka, are most definitely matters of interest, but do not suggest that Murat was in any way responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Whether Gerry McCann and Robert Murat already knew each other is another matter of interest

But having looked at the link you gave, I found this bit more interesting and relevant:

QUOTE

Meanwhile new claims have been made that Gerry McCann organised a game of tennis in the days after his daughter Madeleine disappeared.

In an allegation likely to infuriate the McCanns, a waiter at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Laz said Gerry and Kate were "very cool" after she vanished and seemed less upset than their friends.

The waiter said: "What we found really strange was Gerry, days after the little girl disappeared, calmly playing tennis. He played with an old couple from England.

"I thought that everybody else in the group seemed more upset and stressed and bothered than the parents.

"They were so cool about it. I never saw them cry or anything. They played tennis and went jogging.

"They didn't seem as distraught as their friends. If my kid disappeared I'd go insane. I wouldn't be able to function. They'd have to lock me away."

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

UNQUOTE

 the perverted sexual interests of Murat and Malinka, are most definitely matters of interest,

Of interest to whom Tony?

There is no evidence they have ever harmed anyone, and we can be pretty certain that their backgrounds have been checked over by dozens if not hundreds of investigators, especially those hired by the McCanns.

Such is human nature, what is perverted to some people, is not to others, and who could possibly be in a position to judge? Who draws the line? What is the line? If a headmaster likes to wear 6inch heels and a sparkly dress at the weekend, is he unfit to teach kids?

I don't really care, nor do most people, what consenting adults get up to or watch, (as long as no-one vulnerable is hurt, obviously) its all a matter of personal taste which leads on of course to that huge question, what is good, and what is bad taste?

In a survey of elderly people, when asked what they regretted most when looking back, the majority of them said they should have had more sex! For many people, their sex comes via the internet and I don't think the government, or indeed anyone, should have the right to pry into peoples' quirks to the extent that they can be incriminated for their viewing history. Its a bit Big Brother and its a bit creepy.

plebgate wrote:Yes Tony has given a good post I think.

As to who cares what consenting adults get up to as long as it doesn't hurt anyone - my view is that plenty of people get hurt when consenting adults watch porn.   Women and children a lot of the time when watching porn becomes "a must" for the male in their lives.   Many watch it morning, noon and night and think about it an abnormal amount of time, some to the point of being unable to hold down a job.  

Also I heard recently that the whole of the porn industry in USA has twice had to be shut down because some "actors" had been found to be HIV positive, so yes consulting adults whether "actors" or viewers can and do get hurt by this filth.

As for the survey of older people, the majority saying that they wished they had had sex more often, how many were men, who conducted the survey?  Was it an internet porn site by any chance?

Tony Bennett wrote:
But it is well known that many of those who drift towards committing acts of sexual abuse have trodden this path of:

watching soft porn >>> watching hard core porn >>> watching other forms of sex commonly viewed as deviant or perverted >>> watching child sexual abuse images >>> commiting acts of child sexual abuse

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

As you know I'm not religious but I do like my Biblical quotes...

Tony Bennett wrote:

plebgate wrote:Yes Tony has given a good post I think.

As to who cares what consenting adults get up to as long as it doesn't hurt anyone - my view is that plenty of people get hurt when consenting adults watch porn.   Women and children a lot of the time when watching porn becomes "a must" for the male in their lives.   Many watch it morning, noon and night and think about it an abnormal amount of time, some to the point of being unable to hold down a job.  

Also I heard recently that the whole of the porn industry in USA has twice had to be shut down because some "actors" had been found to be HIV positive, so yes consulting adults whether "actors" or viewers can and do get hurt by this filth.

As for the survey of older people, the majority saying that they wished they had had sex more often, how many were men, who conducted the survey?  Was it an internet porn site by any chance?

Thank you for making all these points, but especially the one in red.

Because anything we see makes an impression on the mind, one way or another. For good or for evil. That is why the TV and film media are so persuasive.

Pornography images are graphic and undoubtedly stay in, and prey on, the mind, as you say, plebgate.

I read a recent statistic that said something like 25% of all time on the internet, or 25% of all connections made to the internet, was for the purpose of watching pornography. The word 'staggering' doesn't cut it. 'Appalling' does, perhaps.

There are child sex abusers who have been counselled and who have openly conceded that they have traced their gradual descent into committing gross acts against children to the very first time they watched so-called 'soft' porn  

  

Clay Regazzoni wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:
But it is well known that many of those who drift towards committing acts of sexual abuse have trodden this path of:

watching soft porn >>> watching hard core porn >>> watching other forms of sex commonly viewed as deviant or perverted >>> watching child sexual abuse images >>> commiting acts of child sexual abuse

I'd just like to qualify that and say that, like the similarly oft quoted "inevitable" progress from soft to hard drugs, it's certainly true for some people. I've seen more hardcore pornography than I would have liked to and, frankly, if anything it had the opposite effect on me to the one you describe. As you know I'm not religious but I do like my biblical quotes, and the one about idle hands rings true here I think. A healthy, stable upbringing, good relationships with family, friends and work colleagues, varied interests and perhaps a few outdoor pursuits and I think you are much better prepared to deal with these things and keep them in perspective.

I couldn't possibly comment on whether the above applies to Mr. Murat or not.

plebgate wrote:Yes Tony has given a good post I think.

As to who cares what consenting adults get up to as long as it doesn't hurt anyone - my view is that plenty of people get hurt when consenting adults watch porn.   Women and children a lot of the time when watching porn becomes "a must" for the male in their lives.   Many watch it morning, noon and night and think about it an abnormal amount of time, some to the point of being unable to hold down a job.  

Also I heard recently that the whole of the porn industry in USA has twice had to be shut down because some "actors" had been found to be HIV positive, so yes consulting adults whether "actors" or viewers can and do get hurt by this filth.

As for the survey of older people, the majority saying that they wished they had had sex more often, how many were men, who conducted the survey?  Was it an internet porn site by any chance?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

Ayniia wrote:Markus please stop quoting the press as being the files or something...

@ Markus 2

I think that's correct.

If this one press story is your main basis for saying that Murat might have been a cause of Madeleine's disappearance, then you are placing a massive amount of weight on what is in effect no evidence at all.

What he might have done after Madeleine's disappearance, and the perverted sexual interests of Murat and Malinka, are most definitely matters of interest, but do not suggest that Murat was in any way responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Whether Gerry McCann and Robert Murat already knew each other is another matter of interest

But having looked at the link you gave, I found this bit more interesting and relevant:

QUOTE

Meanwhile new claims have been made that Gerry McCann organised a game of tennis in the days after his daughter Madeleine disappeared.

In an allegation likely to infuriate the McCanns, a waiter at the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Laz said Gerry and Kate were "very cool" after she vanished and seemed less upset than their friends.

The waiter said: "What we found really strange was Gerry, days after the little girl disappeared, calmly playing tennis. He played with an old couple from England.

"I thought that everybody else in the group seemed more upset and stressed and bothered than the parents.

"They were so cool about it. I never saw them cry or anything. They played tennis and went jogging.

"They didn't seem as distraught as their friends. If my kid disappeared I'd go insane. I wouldn't be able to function. They'd have to lock me away."

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

UNQUOTE

 the perverted sexual interests of Murat and Malinka, are most definitely matters of interest,

Of interest to whom Tony?

There is no evidence they have ever harmed anyone, and we can be pretty certain that their backgrounds have been checked over by dozens if not hundreds of investigators, especially those hired by the McCanns.

Such is human nature, what is perverted to some people, is not to others, and who could possibly be in a position to judge? Who draws the line? What is the line? If a headmaster likes to wear 6inch heels and a sparkly dress at the weekend, is he unfit to teach kids?

I don't really care, nor do most people, what consenting adults get up to or watch, (as long as no-one vulnerable is hurt, obviously) its all a matter of personal taste which leads on of course to that huge question, what is good, and what is bad taste?

In a survey of elderly people, when asked what they regretted most when looking back, the majority of them said they should have had more sex! For many people, their sex comes via the internet and I don't think the government, or indeed anyone, should have the right to pry into peoples' quirks to the extent that they can be incriminated for their viewing history. Its a bit Big Brother and its a bit creepy.

Continuing to respond to this now on the Murat thread, as I understand that this thread is only basically about the Scotland Yard proposed 'dig' in Praia da Luz.


REPLIES IN BLUE TO CRISTOBELL BELOW
MY REPLIES IN RED - HOPE ITS NOT CONFUSING!

+++++++++++++


[Tony B] ...the perverted sexual interests of Murat and Malinka, are most definitely matters of interest,

Of interest to whom Tony?

There is no evidence they have ever harmed anyone, and we can be pretty certain that their backgrounds have been checked over by dozens if not hundreds of investigators, especially those hired by the McCanns.

REPLY: Let's put it this way, Cristobell.


You are the co-ordinator of an investigation into a missing child. The case has become an international cause celebre.

You then get an anonymous telephone call from someone too frightened to give their name - a common experience for police forces all over the world. From such 'phone calls, invaluable information is often given.

The snatcher could have been a paedophile. The grieving parents think it could have been paedophiles. Newspaper articles appear everywhere speculating that this was the work of a paedophile. Examples of previous paedophile snatches and murders are produced.

The anonymous caller saus very specifcially that a man from Praia da Luz, whom she clearly identifies, has child sexual abuse on his computer and that he encrypts it.

The after that, you get a 'phone call from a family friend (Carlos Costa) who has known Murat well for 20 years. He tells you that Murat has a record of violence and very perverted sexual interests. 

Do you take an interest in him?

Or not?  


Of course, and they did.  They have come under an enormous amount of scrutiny and if there was any evidence against them - for anything - we would have heard. 


Such is human nature, what is perverted to some people, is not to others, and who could possibly be in a position to judge? Who draws the line? What is the line?

Obviously, in this case: (1) possessing and viewing child sexual abuse images and (2) bestiality. I'm surprised you even asked the question

My answer was generic, not this case specifically.  

If a headmaster likes to wear 6inch heels and a sparkly dress at the weekend, is he unfit to teach kids?

Depends on the context. If it is an adult fancy dress ball, why not? Otherwise, yes, he probably is unfit. Headteachers, above all in a school, must set a good example - be a role moldel  

The key word was 'weekend'.  Even I don't think it would be suitable attire for a Monday morning assembly. Is he a role model on his weekends? his days off?  Is he allowed no private life? 

I don't really care, nor do most people, what consenting adults get up to or watch, (as long as no-one vulnerable is hurt, obviously)

This is a police investigation of a child who may have been abducted and murdered. You are told that Murat

a) has child sexual abuse on his computer
b) reguarly watches 'Red Clouds' and other hard core porn
c) has bestilaity on his computer
d) has encrypted material on his computer
e) has been violent to people 
f) has made unwanted sexual advances on females.

Which of the above would concern you as an investigator?

Again, my answer was generic and not specific to this case.  Of course, in the circumstances, Robert Murat should have been investigated and he was.  

it's all a matter of personal taste which leads on of course to that huge question, what is good, and what is bad taste?

In a survey of elderly people, when asked what they regretted most when looking back, the majority of them said they should have had more sex! For many people, their sex comes via the internet and I don't think the government, or indeed anyone, should have the right to pry into peoples' quirks to the extent that they can be incriminated for their viewing history. Its a bit Big Brother and its a bit creepy.

But the point here is that a 3-year-old girl is missing, and you have a man in view as a suspect. Of course you search his computer. Of course you're concerned that he's encrypted a lot of material on it.

No, of course viewing porn, even hard core porn, is not a criminal offence these days, although it might have been under the Obscene Publications Act not so far back in time.

But it is well known that many of those who drift towards committing acts of sexual abuse have trodden this path of:

watching soft porn >>> watching hard core porn >>> watching other forms of sex commonly viewed as deviant or perverted >>> watching child sexual abuse images >>> commiting acts of child sexual abuse

Regarding the first line of the above paragraph, millions more have seen imagines of soft porn, hard porn, deviant and perverted (who can judge what is deviant and perverted - its a question of taste) and have not gone on to watch child porn nor have they committed act of child sexual abuse. Where are you going here Tony?  What is your solution? 

Markus 2 wrote:QUOTE :CRISTOBELL .Of course, and they did.  They have come under an enormous amount of scrutiny and if there was any evidence against them - for anything - we would have heard. 
 
 


 
Like the Jimmy Savile case he came under scrutiny many times yet no one did anything about it. So could easily happen with him, wonder what they are keeping back.

No comparison, this is case specific, a child is still missing.  There are a many determined detectives out to discover what happened to Madeleine, the fact that the McCanns pointed the finger at Murat, goes against them.  


 
People get away with anything and everything nowadays viewing or partaking in bestiality for starters, not your normal mind is it ? Not many partial to that sort of thing I would think.
 
Not quite sure what anything and everything is Markus, its never occurred to me to wonder whether the people I meet have intimate relationships with their sheep (consenting or otherwise), on the whole I would say they probably don't, but I'm obviously very naive as I had no idea bestiality was rife.


Saw somewhere that the Smiths were closer to Murat then people think now that is an avenue to research.
The more I read the more I am convinced these two FRIENDS WHO LIKE THE SAME PORN AND WHAT EVER ELSE are in it somewhere.

Cristobell wrote:

plebgate wrote:Yes Tony has given a good post I think.

As to who cares what consenting adults get up to as long as it doesn't hurt anyone - my view is that plenty of people get hurt when consenting adults watch porn.   Women and children a lot of the time when watching porn becomes "a must" for the male in their lives.   Many watch it morning, noon and night and think about it an abnormal amount of time, some to the point of being unable to hold down a job.  

Also I heard recently that the whole of the porn industry in USA has twice had to be shut down because some "actors" had been found to be HIV positive, so yes consulting adults whether "actors" or viewers can and do get hurt by this filth.

As for the survey of older people, the majority saying that they wished they had had sex more often, how many were men, who conducted the survey?  Was it an internet porn site by any chance?

No, it was a mainstream survey, and made headlines at the time.  And no, it was not predominantly men, the old ladies were equally as forthright.  I have often quoted the survey to elderly people I know, and they have all giggled and agreed.

Markus 2 wrote:Martin Smith visits Portugal at least three times every year, staying at an apartment he owns within the Estrela da Luz complex.
 LUCKY for Robert Murat that the Smith family knew of him
Is he anything to do with property  thus having a closer connection with Murat
Thought I better put this on this site or I might be accused of being a troll  , just keeping an open mind  on it, thats  all. Seems like a lot of Irish investors over there.
Have to admit Gerry looked jittery in the Fiona Bruce interview though . ?
 
 
Sources said the “field operation” will begin in the Portuguese holiday resort of Praia da Luz within days.

The first area to be examined is one the size of three football pitches across the road from the Ocean Club resort where the McCanns were staying when Madeleine disappeared.

Holiday flats funded by Irish investors were going to be built on the land until the economic crisis forced the project’s cancellation.

Land near the resort’s Our Lady of the Light Church – where the McCanns prayed for Madeleine’s safe return – is also expected to be examined.

Nina wrote:

Markus 2 wrote:Martin Smith visits Portugal at least three times every year, staying at an apartment he owns within the Estrela da Luz complex.
 LUCKY for Robert Murat that the Smith family knew of him
Is he anything to do with property  thus having a closer connection with Murat
Thought I better put this on this site or I might be accused of being a troll  , just keeping an open mind  on it, thats  all. Seems like a lot of Irish investors over there.
Have to admit Gerry looked jittery in the Fiona Bruce interview though . ?
 
 
Sources said the “field operation” will begin in the Portuguese holiday resort of Praia da Luz within days.

The first area to be examined is one the size of three football pitches across the road from the Ocean Club resort where the McCanns were staying when Madeleine disappeared.

Holiday flats funded by Irish investors were going to be built on the land until the economic crisis forced the project’s cancellation.

Land near the resort’s Our Lady of the Light Church – where the McCanns prayed for Madeleine’s safe return – is also expected to be examined.

I wonder if in May 2007 there were any placards on this land advertising the fact that blocks of holiday flats were going to be built in the near future? Indeed was there any preliminary infrastructure already in place.