Strange Witness Statements

[pegasus]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
Date: 2007/07/11; Time: 10:00; Location: DIC Portimão
Officer: Paulo F., Inspector.

*snip*
Questioned the defendant reaffirms that in truth on the afternoon of 03 May he arrived at Casa Liliana around 19:00/19:30 having left the VW stopped in front of the house, that is outside the property, immediately entering into the property. Questioned he does not remember the clothes he was wearing at the time. Nor does he remember if his mother was at home or not. Nor does he recall in detail what he did. He remembers that at one time he spoke with his mother, however he cannot recall whether she arrived meanwhile or she was already there. He remembers that they were sitting in the kitchen and the defendant remembering that he ate, how long with his mother he does not remember. Confronted with the testimony of his mother who told that she arrived at the house around 20.30 and that Robert had also arrived at that moment, he says that he cannot account
for having arrived at the same time as his mother.

___________________________________________________________________

I ask again - which car did JM use to go to the Baptista? How did she not know her son was home if his car was parked outside?

I see no discrepancy in that text. Also remember that we have a strong and clear witness statement that the child was present and well at about 9.05pm. The investigation starts at the moment a person is last seen.

[pathfinder73]

  Paedo obsession connection - yes the McCann detectives are a clown act except for Henri Exton.

Exton confirmed last week that the fund had silenced his investigators for years after they handed over their controversial findings. He said: “A letter came from their lawyers binding us to the confidentiality of the report.” He claimed the legal threat had prevented him from handing over the report to Scotland Yard’s fresh investigation, until detectives had obtained written permission from the fund.

Their report said the Smiths were “helpful and sincere” and concluded: “The Smith sighting is credible evidence of a sighting of Maddie and more credible than Jane Tanner’s sighting”. The evidence had been “neglected for too long” and an “overemphasis placed on Tanner”.

The new focus shifted the believed timeline of the abduction back by 45 minutes…

The potential abductor seen by the Smiths is now the prime suspect in Scotland Yard’s investigation, after detectives established that the man seen earlier by Tanner was almost certainly a father carrying his child home from a nearby night creche. The Smith E-Fits were the centrepiece of the Crimewatch appeal.

One of the Oakley investigators is quoted. He claims:

“I was absolutely stunned when I watched the programme . . . It most certainly wasn’t a new timeline and it certainly isn’t a new revelation. It is absolute nonsense to suggest either of those things . . . And those E-Fits you saw on Crimewatch are ours.”

http://www.anorak.co.uk/372377/madeleine-mccann/madeleine-mccann-the-private-detectives-secret-e-fits.html/

[pegasus]

"...the fund had silenced his investigators for years..."

It's amazing how much information can fit into 8 words.

[Carana]

It's amazing how much information can fit into 8 words.

"Information"? Has it been revealed what the £55k payout actually concerned?

[pegasus]

"Information"? Has it been revealed what the £55k payout actually concerned?

I don't know about 55k.
It is just odd, that private investigaters who had valuable information about the case, and obviously wanted to hand it to the SY investigation, reportedly, if true, had to write to a limited company to ask permission first.

[misty]

Why do you suppose no-one leaked any information from the report to the media before SY got involved?

[Brietta]

It's amazing how much information can fit into 8 words.

It took the newspapers slightly more than eight words to inform the public of the way in which the head of this firm squandered the money intended to look for a missing child ... while ignoring calls being made by the public as a result of the information appeals made by her parents.

Why are crooks always right and Madeleine McCann's family always wrong and anything said by the former truthful and the latter lies.

Give me one good reason why the Fund should not have sacked Oakley International and give me one good reason why they should have trusted any of the work allegedly carried out by them.

[Alice Purjorick]

It took the newspapers slightly more than eight words to inform the public of the way in which the head of this firm squandered the money intended to look for a missing child ... while ignoring calls being made by the public as a result of the information appeals made by her parents.

Why are crooks always right and Madeleine McCann's family always wrong and anything said by the former truthful and the latter lies.

Give me one good reason why the Fund should not have sacked Oakley International and give me one good reason why they should have trusted any of the work allegedly carried out by them.

None; always provided there was a contract between "The Fund Ltd" and Oakley International Ltd. Was there do we know?

[pathfinder73]

Why do you suppose no-one leaked any information from the report to the media before SY got involved?

The McCanns stopped any info being leaked and they didn't want a report out saying they are two different sightings when they are trying to claim it's the same man - one who had a haircut inbetween Also that sighting is more credible but Tannerman is still on their website. Who is running their investigation? Not the investigators.

3 years after their report still no Smithman efits released but here's Tannerman the patsy

[pegasus]

Why do you suppose no-one leaked any information from the report to the media before SY got involved?

When SY started their investigation I guess they approached all known PI companies who had worked on the case and asked for all relevant information.

[pegasus]

It took the newspapers slightly more than eight words to inform the public of the way in which the head of this firm squandered the money intended to look for a missing child ... while ignoring calls being made by the public as a result of the information appeals made by her parents.

Why are crooks always right and Madeleine McCann's family always wrong and anything said by the former truthful and the latter lies.

Give me one good reason why the Fund should not have sacked Oakley International and give me one good reason why they should have trusted any of the work allegedly carried out by them.

One very good reason: Because the fund had checked them out before hiring them.
And another: Because they managed to get 2 efits connected with the Smith sighting.

[misty]

When SY started their investigation I guess they approached all known PI companies who had worked on the case and asked for all relevant information.

That still doesn't explain why the likes of KH didn't seek out the highest bidder if there was anything untoward in those files.

[Carana]

None; always provided there was a contract between "The Fund Ltd" and Oakley International Ltd. Was there do we know?

If there wasn't a contract, wouldn't the accountants / auditors have wondered where such a substantial amount of money had disappeared to?

[Alice Purjorick]

If there wasn't a contract, wouldn't the accountants / auditors have wondered where such a substantial amount of money had disappeared to?

Of course, however there seems to be some confusion whether "The Fund" or Brian Kennedy funded it.
It is not immediately apparent from the accounts filed at CH whether "The Fund Ltd" contracted with Oakley or not. There is nothing to suggest it in the 2007/8 accounts which are broken down to a degree. The 2009 accounts are not broken down and show a lump sum of approaching £1MM as "Merchandising and Campaign Costs" so conceivably it is in there. I don't really care, all I was doing was pointing out who can do what with which and to whom in a contractual sense; ie if Kennedy placed the order and funded it "The Fund Limited" have no contractual relationship and consequently no powers.

[Brietta]

One very good reason: Because the fund had checked them out before hiring them.
And another: Because they managed to get 2 efits connected with the Smith sighting.

I don't think there is any evidence to support that the efits were associated with the Smith sighting ... there is evidence to the impossibility and thus the implausibility of that.
Oakley International failed to pass on information given to them and thus miserably failed to fulfil any assurances given to their employers ... the sickening fact that money intended to enable the search for a missing child funded instead a jet set lifestyle for the company's main man ... makes these people less than trustworthy.

A fact confirmed by the Times apology and out of court settlement.