UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: pegasus on November 19, 2014, 11:52:39 PM
-
The accusation that RM was the translatorman present that night is wrong wrong wrong. See DP statement, he saw that translator that night, and did not say it was RM. Another big clue is witness [Name removed]'s account claiming to see him wearing striped top 4th AM - proven wrong by photos of 4th AM. Biggest clue is ROB statement, he describes translatorman talking with GNR that night - the fact that all the GNR confirm RM was definitely not there there spells out clearly that the translatorman present that night was not RM, period.
95
-
The accusation that RM was the translatorman present that night is wrong wrong wrong. See DP statement, he saw that translator that night, and did not say it was RM. Another big clue is witness [Name removed]'s account claiming to see him wearing striped top 4th AM - proven wrong by photos of 4th AM. Biggest clue is ROB statement, he describes translatorman talking with GNR that night - the fact that all the GNR confirm RM was definitely not there there spells out clearly that the translatorman present that night was not RM, period.
Who is [Name removed], Pegasus?
I don't think translatorman was RM, either.
He had no reason that I can think of to lie. On the contrary, it would have given him a more solid alibi than being at home with Mum.
We have a thread somewhere on the phenomenon of how witness recollection can be modified by assumptions or new "information".
Who was translatorman, though? If it wasn't RM, it was someone who resembled him. Some people may have confused DP with RM running around that night, but obviously not amongst the T7.
I wonder if it might have been John Hill. Even though he requested the services of an interpreter for his statement, he would presumably have a working understanding of Portuguese.
It's possible that the GNR eventually realised who it was, but they don't seem to have been asked.
-
So why do SY want to speak to Murat...didn't he change his story about where he was on the night mmaddie went missing
-
So why do SY want to speak to Murat...didn't he change his story about where he was on the night mmaddie went missing
Presumably because of July testimony of ROB and FP and RO, which claimed he was the translatorman present that night. I've already pointed out the answer to this IMO there was a translatorman present that night but it was not RM
-
Presumably because of July testimony of ROB and FP and RO, which claimed he was the translatorman present that night. I've already pointed out the answer to this IMO there was a translatorman present that night but it was not RM
Perhaps it was the sightings by the independent witnesses Jenson, Wiltshire, Pennington & the unnamed barrister, of him lurking in a doorway smoking at around 2230hrs & also allegedly in the reception area which prompted SY to want to question him again.
He wasn't there later when the GNR arrived - all the attending officers were very specific about that in their statements.
-
Perhaps it was the sightings by the independent witnesses Jenson, Wiltshire, Pennington & the unnamed barrister, of him lurking in a doorway smoking at around 2230hrs & also allegedly in the reception area which prompted SY to want to question him again.
He wasn't there later when the GNR arrived - all the attending officers were very specific about that in their statements.
Did any of the independent witnesses mention Murat in their official statements or just to the newspapers after he had been made an arguido ?
-
Did any of the independent witnesses mention Murat in their official statements or just to the newspapers after he had been made an arguido ?
Did they have any reason to mention him in their official statements as he wasn't under suspicion initially?
-
Perhaps it was the sightings by the independent witnesses Jenson, Wiltshire, Pennington & the unnamed barrister, of him lurking in a doorway smoking at around 2230hrs & also allegedly in the reception area which prompted SY to want to question him again.
He wasn't there later when the GNR arrived - all the attending officers were very specific about that in their statements.
See ROB rog - he saw translatorman talking with GNR that night.
See DP rog - he saw translatorman talking with GNR that night.
All the GNR officers stated very clearly that RM was definitely NOT there that night.
It is so obvious - there was a translatorman present that night, he spoke with GNR officers, but it was not RM.
-
Did they have any reason to mention him in their official statements as he wasn't under suspicion initially?
What was to stop them going back to the police and making another statement as Martin Smith did ?
-
What was to stop them going back to the police and making another statement as Martin Smith did ?
I understood from media reports that the PJ were not interested in receiving further information from Wiltshire/Jenson but they both made additional statements to LP & Metado 3.
CP also reportedly had an argument with Murat, in front of PJ officers, about his presence in reception the previous evening.
-
I understood from media reports that the PJ were not interested in receiving further information from Wiltshire/Jenson but they both made additional statements to LP & Metado 3.
CP also reportedly had an argument with Murat, in front of PJ officers, about his presence in reception the previous evening.
Media reports ! Indeed !
So are you saying that there is no official proof that Wiltshire and Jenson ever made a statement to LP ? Of course any statement they gave Metedo3 could not be considered in any capacity official.
-
Media reports ! Indeed !
So are you saying that there is no official proof that Wiltshire and Jenson ever made a statement to LP ? Of course any statement they gave Metedo3 could not be considered in any capacity official.
doesn't have to be official but could still be acted upon
-
...CP also reportedly had an argument with Murat, in front of PJ officers, about his presence in reception the previous evening.
Source please?
-
Source please?
Seems media reports are not acceptable.
Murat was either there, or with his girlfriend, or at home eating a cheese & ham sarnie whilst talking with his mum for 5 hours, or maybe all 3......who needs independent witnesses!
-
... CP also reportedly had an argument with Murat, in front of PJ officers...
a media source or any source would be very acceptable please.
-
are murats interviews in the released files
-
a media source or any source would be very acceptable please.
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256
-
a media source or any source would be very acceptable please.
Seems getting back to the old stories is the way to go.
Ladies were staying there week before Mccains arrive they knew most of the people arround by the time Maddie was kidnapped. They claim Murat appearance immediately after alarm was raised.
British witnesses: 'We saw two blond men on balcony next to Madeleine apartment'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html#ixzz3JqKw2mhW
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_01/madieDM3012_468x687.jpg)
They were positioned just above the palm clear view toward restaurant
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_01/oceanclubDM3012_800x596.jpg)
-
doesn't have to be official but could still be acted upon
Acted on ? By whom ? Metodo3 ?
-
Seems getting back to the old stories is the way to go.
Ladies were staying there week before Mccains arrive they knew most of the people arround by the time Maddie was kidnapped. They claim Murat appearance immediately after alarm was raised.
British witnesses: 'We saw two blond men on balcony next to Madeleine apartment'
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html#ixzz3JqKw2mhW
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_01/madieDM3012_468x687.jpg)
They were positioned just above the palm clear view toward restaurant
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2008/01_01/oceanclubDM3012_800x596.jpg)
From the article it seems the sisters didn't mention Murat to the police, merely the blond men.
And yet another 'anonymous' barrister with 'information'. This case has certainly attracted more than its fair share of lawyer types !!
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/434972/Missing-Madeleine-McCann-was-spotted-alive-weeks-ago
-
For the benefit of those who can't read my invisible posts
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256
Sisters Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire say they are 100 per cent sure they saw Robert Murat nearby minutes after Madeleine McCann vanished.
A friend said last night: "Jayne and Annie know what they saw and that is that."
Annie, 58, and Jayne, 54, holidayed at the same resort complex and got to know Kate and Gerry McCann and their three children.
They say they saw Murat, 34 - the first person made an official suspect over four-year-old Madeleine's disappearance - smoking near the entrance 30 minutes after Kate McCann reported her daughter missing.
They told Leicestershire police about it when they returned home to Ayelsford in Kent.
And they recently contacted Metodo 3, the private detective agency hired by the McCanns to find Madeleine.
The day after she vanished they told police about two suspicious men they had seen in a ground floor apartment overlooking the tapas bar at the complex in Praia da Luz, Portugal.
The McCanns were dining with friends at the bar when Madeleine went missing.
A source close to the investigation said: "An officer went with them to the apartment to check it. Murat appeared and acted as an interpreter. Annie assumed he was working for police."
That night Murat joined them for a drink outside a friend's apartment.
The source said: "He was passing and enquired if everyone was OK.
"They all thought his behaviour a bit odd. He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans. He was very sweaty and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'.
"They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier.
"It was then that both the friend and Jayne Jensen remembered seeing him the night before at the scene.
"Jayne remembers seeing him outside the entrance, smoking cigarettes, between 10.30pm and 11pm.
"So every time they see him claiming he was not there on the night, they find it ridiculous."
British expat Murat was made an official suspect in the case almost immediately.
But he has always maintained he was at home with mum Jenny, 71, all night. She has backed his alibi.
The sisters refused to comment last night. But Jayne's son Joe said: "They had an exhaustive interview with the British police and stand by that statement."
The McCanns' spokesman Clarence Mitchell also refused to comment.
Six people have claimed they saw Robert Murat in the vicinity.
The McCanns' friends Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien say they saw him.
Charlotte Pennington, 20, of Leatherhead, Surrey, says he was hanging around reception - but when she confronted him next day as he translated her statement to police he denied it.
Two tourists told Metodo 3 they saw Murat walking outside the McCanns' flat.
-
Does anyone KNOW how tall Robert Murat is please?
-
Does anyone KNOW how tall Robert Murat is please?
He looks about average height in the photos where he is standing next to other men & Michaela, so probably about 5'9 - 5'10".
-
He looks about average height in the photos where he is standing next to other men & Michaela, so probably about 5'9 - 5'10".
I am thinking that he looks quite short on the one photograph recently posted. Short legs.
Someone said 5'7" on here recently. Is that right cos he always seemed fairly tall to me, prior to that photo.
Anyone know his proper height.? Please
-
Sisters Jayne Jensen and Annie Wiltshire say they are 100 per cent sure they saw Robert Murat nearby minutes after Madeleine McCann vanished.
So question 1.
What were they doing minutes after the child went missing hanging around the McCanns flat? We are led to beleive it was like the Marie Celeste that night in PDL, no one walking around anywhere, so how come two biddies clocked Murat outside or near to the McCanns flat....what were they doing there themselves? MINUTES we are talking about....but he was empty handed?
question 2. How did they see him so clearly it was dark at 10.05?
Its more likely if they saw anyone they saw David Payne, and looks remarkably like Murat, and was outside or nearto the flat around that time.......perhaps thats why the PJ dismissed it...
Also they are very similar in height too.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id218.html
-
So question 1.
What were they doing minutes after the child went missing hanging around the McCanns flat? We are led to beleive it was like the Marie Celeste that night in PDL, no one walking around anywhere, so how come two biddies clocked Murat outside or near to the McCanns flat....what were they doing there themselves? MINUTES we are talking about....but he was empty handed?
question 2. How did they see him so clearly it was dark at 10.05?
Its more likely if they saw anyone they saw David Payne, and looks remarkably like Murat, and was outside or nearto the flat around that time.......perhaps thats why the PJ dismissed it...
Also they are very similar in height too.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id218.html
Thank you for the link.
So according to the report the people who saw Murat were :
Two sisters who sold their story to a tabloid
Two unnamed witnesses who allegedly supplied Metodo3 with information but made no official statement
A barrister who made no official statement
The McCann's friends.
Not exactly conclusive proof, is it ! ( BTW that is some hatchet job ' sources close to the McCanns' did on Murat in the article ).
-
Thank you for the link.
So according to the report the people who saw Murat were :
Two sisters who sold their story to a tabloid
Two unnamed witnesses who allegedly supplied Metodo3 with information but made no official statement
A barrister who made no official statement
The McCann's friends.
Not exactly conclusive proof, is it ! ( BTW that is some hatchet job ' sources close to the McCanns' did on Murat in the article ).
IIRC Charlotte Penington also said she saw him on the 3rd.
Also Silvia Batista - who was supposed to be present at the 'confrontation' meeting with Murat - but who failed to turn up on the day.
-
IIRC Charlotte Penington also said she saw him on the 3rd.
Also Silvia Batista - who was supposed to be present at the 'confrontation' meeting with Murat - but who failed to turn up on the day.
Ah this Charlotte Pennington :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
No official statement with regard to Murat, merely a, paid for, tabloid interview.
-
Ah this Charlotte Pennington :
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-483715/Kate-McCann-DID-scream-Theyve-taken-claims-new-nanny-witness.html
No official statement with regard to Murat, merely a, paid for, tabloid interview.
LOL it's so easy to be a sceptic. If a newspaper article suits - then every word is gospel. If it doesn't it's dismissed as too questionable to be taken seriously.
What about Sylvia Batista's witness statement re Murat?
-
LOL it's so easy to be a sceptic. If a newspaper article suits - then every word is gospel. If it doesn't it's dismissed as too questionable to be taken seriously.
What about Sylvia Batista's witness statement re Murat?
Have you read the article ? Pennington specifically contradicts what the McCanns were saying at the time re: the alert, so is she a truthful witness or are you simply cherry-picking the parts you want to believe ?
As to Silvia Batista, it's much more credible that one person mistook another, say David Payne, for Murat than seven or eight.
-
Does anyone KNOW how tall Robert Murat is please?
Witness Statement
Silvia María Correio Ramos Batista
Date: 2007 – 05 – 15
She is responsible for maintenance of the OC resort in P da L. Because of her profession she knows many people from the English community who are resident in P da L.
She knows the Murat family, had done for about 30 years. Mainly Mr Murat and his wife, Jenny. Mr Murat was linked to a civil construction business and the development of tourist resorts, in Salema as far as she knows. Mr Murat died some years ago.
The Murats live in a house near to the OC, called Casa Liliana. When asked she says she does not remember whether the Murats have a son.
When asked, she says that on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, 3rd May, she was called by her boss at about 22.30. As she lives in Lagos, she arrived shortly afterwards at the resort. There were about 60 people close to apartment 5 A, helping to look for the girl.
She remembers, but is not absolutely certain, given the time that has passed, that from the start, there was an individual helping to look for Madeleine, about 1.70 tall, with sort, light brown hair, with thin framed, brown glasses, who was also helping to search.
She does not remember at what time she saw him. She does not remember how he was dressed. She does not remember whom he was with or know if he arrived on foot or by car.
The same individual, she knew later to be the son of the Murat’s, Robert Murat.
Robert speaks fluent English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR in Lagos, and later the PJ to translate the witness statements of some English individuals.
In principal, she thinks it should be possible to confirm whether Murat was there on the date that Madeleine disappeared as well as other details, with Paul and June from the Duke of Holland bar and Mr Byron from the property administration company JNB in P da L.
She clarifies that on Saturday (05-05-2007) or Sunday (06-05-2007) or even Monday (07-05-2007) she spoke to Robert for the first time, during breaks between interviews, where he was acting as translator.
She describes him as a pleasant and easy going individual. He was quite open and extrovert in the conversations with her, he never spoke of anything personal.
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/m/Timetables-from-STAFF/Silvia-Batista-Statements-1-1161164.html
-
Thank you for the link.
So according to the report the people who saw Murat were :
Two sisters who sold their story to a tabloid
Two unnamed witnesses who allegedly supplied Metodo3 with information but made no official statement
A barrister who made no official statement
The McCann's friends.
Not exactly conclusive proof, is it ! ( BTW that is some hatchet job ' sources close to the McCanns' did on Murat in the article ).
I thought there was a GNR officer who also claimed he saw Murat? And plus a Portuguese citizen?
-
I thought there was a GNR officer who also claimed he saw Murat? And plus a Portuguese citizen?
Not that I have ever heard of and Silvia Batista certainly doesn't sound very certain that she saw him either.
-
Witness Statement
Silvia María Correio Ramos Batista
Date: 2007 – 05 – 15
She is responsible for maintenance of the OC resort in P da L. Because of her profession she knows many people from the English community who are resident in P da L.
She knows the Murat family, had done for about 30 years. Mainly Mr Murat and his wife, Jenny. Mr Murat was linked to a civil construction business and the development of tourist resorts, in Salema as far as she knows. Mr Murat died some years ago.
The Murats live in a house near to the OC, called Casa Liliana. When asked she says she does not remember whether the Murats have a son.
When asked, she says that on the night of Madeleine’s disappearance, 3rd May, she was called by her boss at about 22.30. As she lives in Lagos, she arrived shortly afterwards at the resort. There were about 60 people close to apartment 5 A, helping to look for the girl.
She remembers, but is not absolutely certain, given the time that has passed, that from the start, there was an individual helping to look for Madeleine, about 1.70 tall, with sort, light brown hair, with thin framed, brown glasses, who was also helping to search.
She does not remember at what time she saw him. She does not remember how he was dressed. She does not remember whom he was with or know if he arrived on foot or by car.
The same individual, she knew later to be the son of the Murat’s, Robert Murat.
Robert speaks fluent English and Portuguese. He helped the GNR in Lagos, and later the PJ to translate the witness statements of some English individuals.
In principal, she thinks it should be possible to confirm whether Murat was there on the date that Madeleine disappeared as well as other details, with Paul and June from the Duke of Holland bar and Mr Byron from the property administration company JNB in P da L.
She clarifies that on Saturday (05-05-2007) or Sunday (06-05-2007) or even Monday (07-05-2007) she spoke to Robert for the first time, during breaks between interviews, where he was acting as translator.
She describes him as a pleasant and easy going individual. He was quite open and extrovert in the conversations with her, he never spoke of anything personal.
http://forum2.aimoo.com/MadeleineMcCann/m/Timetables-from-STAFF/Silvia-Batista-Statements-1-1161164.html
Hmmm. I'd suggest reading all of Silvia Batista's statements, translated by more than one person...
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
-
Robert Murat's way of conducting himself in the wake of Madeleine's disappearance roused suspicions that, ultimately, (as we know) led to him being constituted first arguido in the investigation.
Unfortunately, I no longer have a subscription to The Times on-line, but anyone who does might be able to post the following link to Robert Murat which casts his actions in the days that followed Madeleine's abduction in a different, and entirely positive, light:
http://www.thetimes.co.uk/tto/news/world/europe/article2595175.ece
-
Is this it, Ferryman?
Why do people think Robert Murat only has one eye? he has an eye defect of some kind in one of his eyes, but according to his mother who should know he does have two.
From Times Online
May 15, 2007
Profile: Robert Murat, suspect in Madeleine case
Robert Murat, a suspect in the disappearance of four-year-old Madeleine McCann, adored his own daughter and desperately missed her after his marriage broke down.
The former car salesman “lost” her when his wife, Dawn, returned to her native Norfolk with their daughter four months after the family had emigrated to Portugal because she was homesick and he stayed behind.
Mr Murat, 33, whose father is Portuguese, carried on as a self-employed property consultant on the Algarve, but visited the child regularly.
Gareth Bailey, a close friend and former colleague of the suspect at Inchcape Autoparc used car dealership in Norwich, where Mr Murat had worked for four years, said the family embarked on a new life in Portugal in 2005.
Married in 1994 in Deerham, Norfolk, the couple had been trying for a baby for years until she fell pregnant in 2002 and had looked forward to moving abroad.
”But Dawn was unhappy in Portugal and became homesick,” Mr Bailey said. “She is a Norfolk girl and her family are in Norfolk.
”She only stayed with Rob for three or four months before she decided to come home with [their daughter]. He had already got a life out there, so he decided to stay. At first, he kept his relationship with Dawn and kept flying back to the UK to spend time with her and her daughter.
”He was going backwards and forwards between Portugal and here all the time, often only staying a couple of days before going back there. In the end, their relationship just fizzled out.”
Friends today described Mr Murat's daughter, four, who is also blonde, as “his life”.
Mr Bailey, who last saw his friend two months ago, added: “He is a laidback guy who loves the wonderful weather and the relaxed lifestyle out there.
”But he was upset about being away from his daughter. She is his first child and she means a lot to him. When she was born, it was the best thing ever for him. I know he stays in contact with [her] and telephones her all the time from Portugal. She is his world and he loves her to bits.”
Mr Murat was born on November 20, 1973, at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, Hammersmith, west London - the elder son of John Henry Queriol Murat, a company director, who is Portuguese, and Jennifer (nee Eveleigh), from Sidmouth, Devon.
Mr Murat’s parents were then living in Richmond-upon-Thames, but moved to Portugal, where he was educated.
As a young man, he returned to Britain, where he took a variety of jobs and enjoyed playing darts and clay pigeon shooting.
Mr Murat, who lost an eye in a motorbike accident as a teenager when he crashed into the wall of a railway station, worked for the turkey tycoon, Bernard Matthews, at the company factory in Lenwade, Norfolk, between 1994 and 2000.
He and his wife, who has a son, David, now 20, by a previous marriage, bought a modest, semi-detached, three-bedroom house, now worth £190,000, in The Street, Hockering - a quiet Norfolk village near Deerham (population 230).
Mr Murat went on to become a successful car salesman with Inchcape for four years before moving on to work at Desira car dealership in Norwich, selling Nissans, Alfa Romeos, Fiats and Citroens.
But he also earned £150 a time as a translator for Norfolk police, using his language skills to help their inquiries among the large Portuguese community in the county. His wife has worked at Fenland council and acted as secretary to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in East Anglia.
Mr Bailey remains certain of his friend’s innocence. He said: “I would trust him with my own daughter. It was a complete shock to hear what has happened in Portugal. If I was to give him a character reference, I would describe him as brilliant and a real people person.
”He is ever such a likeable guy and probably one of the most helpful people you could come across. He was very conscientious when I worked with him and spent masses of time with customers - almost to the point where he would become annoying. It’s just the way he is.
”He is one of those overly helpful people who likes to get involved. Sometimes at work, I had to tell him to go away in a friendly way.”
Mr Murat had a reputation, not only in the car trade but in Hockering, as something of a Good Samaritan.
His next door neighbour, Colin Shackcloth, 85, said: “He is a lovely man, but, two years ago, I realised he was gone. I went round with a little present at Christmas, a box of chocolates and Dawn said: ’Robert has gone back and he is stopping there."
Mr Shackcloth, a retired display manager, added: “He always struck me as a down-to-earth kind of fellow. If you wanted anything, he would help. If you needed it, he would be round to replace a bulb for you. What he is supposed to have done just doesn’t fit.
”They were both very nice to us. We never had an angry word since they moved in about 11 years ago. I can’t say a bad word about him.”
Police stood guard at the house, from which Mrs Murat was driven away at speed by police late on Monday night carrying her daughter in a blanket.
The little girl and her mother are being cared for at an undisclosed address.
Mrs Murat’s mother, Margaret Chapman, who lives in Norwich declined to comment.
Geoffrey Livock, 71, said: “I was speaking to Dawn after the little girl went missing last week and she said that Rob had been helping out the police in Portugal. Dawn said she could not understand how anyone could take a little girl like that.”
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol...794603.ece
-
Is there a specific reason for starting this thread ferryman?
The profile casts interesting light on another side of Murat's character that might have been misinterpreted by Lori Campbell and others.
-
Is this it, Ferryman?
Why do people think Robert Murat only has one eye? he has an eye defect of some kind in one of his eyes, but according to his mother who should know he does have two.
From Times Online
May 15, 2007
Profile: Robert Murat, suspect in Madeleine case
Robert Murat, a suspect in the disappearance of four-year-old Madeleine McCann, adored his own daughter and desperately missed her after his marriage broke down.
The former car salesman “lost” her when his wife, Dawn, returned to her native Norfolk with their daughter four months after the family had emigrated to Portugal because she was homesick and he stayed behind.
Mr Murat, 33, whose father is Portuguese, carried on as a self-employed property consultant on the Algarve, but visited the child regularly.
Gareth Bailey, a close friend and former colleague of the suspect at Inchcape Autoparc used car dealership in Norwich, where Mr Murat had worked for four years, said the family embarked on a new life in Portugal in 2005.
Married in 1994 in Deerham, Norfolk, the couple had been trying for a baby for years until she fell pregnant in 2002 and had looked forward to moving abroad.
”But Dawn was unhappy in Portugal and became homesick,” Mr Bailey said. “She is a Norfolk girl and her family are in Norfolk.
”She only stayed with Rob for three or four months before she decided to come home with [their daughter]. He had already got a life out there, so he decided to stay. At first, he kept his relationship with Dawn and kept flying back to the UK to spend time with her and her daughter.
”He was going backwards and forwards between Portugal and here all the time, often only staying a couple of days before going back there. In the end, their relationship just fizzled out.”
Friends today described Mr Murat's daughter, four, who is also blonde, as “his life”.
Mr Bailey, who last saw his friend two months ago, added: “He is a laidback guy who loves the wonderful weather and the relaxed lifestyle out there.
”But he was upset about being away from his daughter. She is his first child and she means a lot to him. When she was born, it was the best thing ever for him. I know he stays in contact with [her] and telephones her all the time from Portugal. She is his world and he loves her to bits.”
Mr Murat was born on November 20, 1973, at Queen Charlotte’s Hospital, Hammersmith, west London - the elder son of John Henry Queriol Murat, a company director, who is Portuguese, and Jennifer (nee Eveleigh), from Sidmouth, Devon.
Mr Murat’s parents were then living in Richmond-upon-Thames, but moved to Portugal, where he was educated.
As a young man, he returned to Britain, where he took a variety of jobs and enjoyed playing darts and clay pigeon shooting.
Mr Murat, who lost an eye in a motorbike accident as a teenager when he crashed into the wall of a railway station, worked for the turkey tycoon, Bernard Matthews, at the company factory in Lenwade, Norfolk, between 1994 and 2000.
He and his wife, who has a son, David, now 20, by a previous marriage, bought a modest, semi-detached, three-bedroom house, now worth £190,000, in The Street, Hockering - a quiet Norfolk village near Deerham (population 230).
Mr Murat went on to become a successful car salesman with Inchcape for four years before moving on to work at Desira car dealership in Norwich, selling Nissans, Alfa Romeos, Fiats and Citroens.
But he also earned £150 a time as a translator for Norfolk police, using his language skills to help their inquiries among the large Portuguese community in the county. His wife has worked at Fenland council and acted as secretary to the Chartered Institute of Personnel and Development in East Anglia.
Mr Bailey remains certain of his friend’s innocence. He said: “I would trust him with my own daughter. It was a complete shock to hear what has happened in Portugal. If I was to give him a character reference, I would describe him as brilliant and a real people person.
”He is ever such a likeable guy and probably one of the most helpful people you could come across. He was very conscientious when I worked with him and spent masses of time with customers - almost to the point where he would become annoying. It’s just the way he is.
”He is one of those overly helpful people who likes to get involved. Sometimes at work, I had to tell him to go away in a friendly way.”
Mr Murat had a reputation, not only in the car trade but in Hockering, as something of a Good Samaritan.
His next door neighbour, Colin Shackcloth, 85, said: “He is a lovely man, but, two years ago, I realised he was gone. I went round with a little present at Christmas, a box of chocolates and Dawn said: ’Robert has gone back and he is stopping there."
Mr Shackcloth, a retired display manager, added: “He always struck me as a down-to-earth kind of fellow. If you wanted anything, he would help. If you needed it, he would be round to replace a bulb for you. What he is supposed to have done just doesn’t fit.
”They were both very nice to us. We never had an angry word since they moved in about 11 years ago. I can’t say a bad word about him.”
Police stood guard at the house, from which Mrs Murat was driven away at speed by police late on Monday night carrying her daughter in a blanket.
The little girl and her mother are being cared for at an undisclosed address.
Mrs Murat’s mother, Margaret Chapman, who lives in Norwich declined to comment.
Geoffrey Livock, 71, said: “I was speaking to Dawn after the little girl went missing last week and she said that Rob had been helping out the police in Portugal. Dawn said she could not understand how anyone could take a little girl like that.”
www.timesonline.co.uk/tol...794603.ece
That is indeed the one.
Thank you Brietta.
-
No surprise that some people are unable to grasp that Robert Murat's name is inextricably linked with events of May 3rd 2007, Praia da Luz and after ....
-
No surprise that some people are unable to grasp that Robert Murat's name is inextricably linked with events of May 3rd 2007, Praia da Luz and after ....
I don't think he will ever quite shake off the association and is probably more interested than most in Madeleine's case being brought to a resolution.
There were independent witness reports saying that he was seen on 3rd of May in the vicinity of the apartment. Which in itself is not a suspicious place to be seen at that time, in fact it would probably have been considered an 'alibi'.
He was a neighbour who could have been alerted by unusual activity and people shouting.
Being anxious to help, he could have been searching.
Obviously people saw a man who looked like Robert Murat ... was he ever identified by the investigation to confirm who he was and that he was indeed the man seen by witnesses?
-
I don't think he will ever quite shake off the association and is probably more interested than most in Madeleine's case being brought to a resolution.
There were independent witness reports saying that he was seen on 3rd of May in the vicinity of the apartment. Which in itself is not a suspicious place to be seen at that time, in fact it would probably have been considered an 'alibi'.
He was a neighbour who could have been alerted by unusual activity and people shouting.
Being anxious to help, he could have been searching.
Obviously people saw a man who looked like Robert Murat ... was he ever identified by the investigation to confirm who he was and that he was indeed the man seen by witnesses?
Please remind me of which other man could easily be taken for Murat and was there at the same time ?
-
Please remind me of which other man could easily be taken for Murat and was there at the same time ?
I can understand maybe one of the McCann's friends mistaking someone else for Robert Murat but three of them !!!
-
I can understand maybe one of the McCann's friends mistaking someone else for Robert Murat but three of them !!!
If you read about false memory recall, it's perfectly possible.
Someone with glasses could have been attempting to interpret that night and when Murat was made arguido, it could have been assumed that it was him. It's perfectly possible that in the confusion and exhaustion that Russ had got confused as to when Murat first spoke to him (it was only later that day after all).
It might even have been John Hill at some point that someone saw running around.
Others could have mistaken David Payne for Murat.
Or anyone else as yet not identified.
-
The profile casts interesting light on another side of Murat's character that might have been misinterpreted by Lori Campbell and others.
The description given by his former workmate and neighbours gives us a glimpse of some of the type of behaviour he evidenced in Luz when Madeleine went missing.
He liked to be in the thick of things. We can see that from the photographs taken of him mixing with police officers like 'one of the boys'.
When being helpful it was sometimes to the point of being annoying. It was this trait which brought him to the attention of the PJ inspectors when he asked questions about the ins and outs of the investigation apparently on occasion even trying to see what was on their desks.
Maybe he was also a victim of the lack of official information being released by the investigation allowing reporters time to start observing the people round about them.
-
Interesting he was called as a witness I assume in the latest Portuguese interviews. I wonder what leads they were pursuing there. Can only expect it was linked to some theory regarding Sergio and friends.
-
I can understand maybe one of the McCann's friends mistaking someone else for Robert Murat but three of them !!!
What other explanation is there?
-
Interesting he was called as a witness I assume in the latest Portuguese interviews. I wonder what leads they were pursuing there. Can only expect it was linked to some theory regarding Sergio and friends.
Strictly true but about a year ago nonetheless.
-
Well obviously more then just the one explanation - that they had mistakenly seen him.
1) He was there.
2) They are lying.
Can't think of anymore. Delete as appropriate 8)-)))
-
Strictly true but about a year ago nonetheless.
Yep, I wonder where the investigation is right now? If there are further interviews we could at least speculate some more. Very quiet for a long time now... To speculate, I wonder if they quizzed him last time on the alleged sightings that night by 3 of the tapas group... Be interesting to know how convinced the 3 of them are about seeing him that night...
-
Well obviously more then just the one explanation - that they had mistakenly seen him.
1) He was there.
2) They are lying.
Can't think of anymore. Delete as appropriate 8)-)))
3) False memory recall. I've posted quite a few studies on this (including videos).
-
3) False memory recall. I've posted quite a few studies on this (including videos).
Thanks I'll have a look, but the false memory recall comes under the similar banner as mistakenly seen him, so imo 3 possible scenarios that I can think of.
-
The description given by his former workmate and neighbours gives us a glimpse of some of the type of behaviour he evidenced in Luz when Madeleine went missing.
He liked to be in the thick of things. We can see that from the photographs taken of him mixing with police officers like 'one of the boys'.
When being helpful it was sometimes to the point of being annoying. It was this trait which brought him to the attention of the PJ inspectors when he asked questions about the ins and outs of the investigation apparently on occasion even trying to see what was on their desks.
Maybe he was also a victim of the lack of official information being released by the investigation allowing reporters time to start observing the people round about them.
Thank you, Brietta.
That succinctly sums up what I took from the profile.
-
Yep, I wonder where the investigation is right now? If there are further interviews we could at least speculate some more. Very quiet for a long time now... To speculate, I wonder if they quizzed him last time on the alleged sightings that night by 3 of the tapas group... Be interesting to know how convinced the 3 of them are about seeing him that night...
It would be interesting to know whether he appeared on that occasion at the behest of the MPS or the PJ.
-
It would be interesting to know whether he appeared on that occasion at the behest of the MPS or the PJ.
And more interesting, what it achieved.
-
And more interesting, what it achieved.
I have long been of the opinion that all these "suspects" etc have been interviewed by The Met on the basis of "'ere you were out and about on the night of the third tell us what you saw". Against the background it is the witnesses right to ask for arguido status if he so wishes.
-
If you read about false memory recall, it's perfectly possible.
Someone with glasses could have been attempting to interpret that night and when Murat was made arguido, it could have been assumed that it was him. It's perfectly possible that in the confusion and exhaustion that Russ had got confused as to when Murat first spoke to him (it was only later that day after all).
It might even have been John Hill at some point that someone saw running around.
Others could have mistaken David Payne for Murat.
Or anyone else as yet not identified.
In this case I don't think false memory comes into it, Carana. A man looking very much like Robert Murat, David Payne (who would not be misidentified by the other members of his party) and John Hill was identified as taking an interest in proceedings.
They would probably have been able to say, "No, I was not standing in that particular spot, smoking ... I don't smoke anyway." Or " I was never in that spot, I was in the beach area for most of the evening."
If it wasn't any of them, it was someone, so why might it not have been appropriate to make the attempt to find him, particularly as Robert Murat was elsewhere at the time and it would have been important to him if that man was identified, particularly as he remained an arguido for so long.
-
In this case I don't think false memory comes into it, Carana. A man looking very much like Robert Murat, David Payne (who would not be misidentified by the other members of his party) and John Hill was identified as taking an interest in proceedings.
They would probably have been able to say, "No, I was not standing in that particular spot, smoking ... I don't smoke anyway." Or " I was never in that spot, I was in the beach area for most of the evening."
If it wasn't any of them, it was someone, so why might it not have been appropriate to make the attempt to find him, particularly as Robert Murat was elsewhere at the time and it would have been important to him if that man was identified, particularly as he remained an arguido for so long.
Angus Symington (I believe a cousin of Murat's) was another who looked uncannily alike to Murat.
-
A veritable pox of Robert Murat lookylikeys descended upon the village.
Where to from here ?
-
Angus Symington (I believe a cousin of Murat's) was another who looked uncannily alike to Murat.
I've seen pictures of them together or maybe side by side photographs to illustrate how similar they are.
It should also be noted that the three from the McCann group were not the only people who saw a man who they identified as Robert Murat. For example, sisters Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen and in one of her statements, Silvia Batista.
There were one or two others whose names I can't recall.
-
I've seen pictures of them together or maybe side by side photographs to illustrate how similar they are.
It should also be noted that the three from the McCann group were not the only people who saw a man who they identified as Robert Murat. For example, sisters Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen and in one of her statements, Silvia Batista.
There were one or two others whose names I can't recall.
IIRC Charlotte Pennington was another one.
-
IIRC Charlotte Pennington was another one.
So that makes
Annie Wiltshire
Jayne Jensen
Silvia Batista
Charlotte Pennington ... and there was an unnamed barrister who I've seen it said might have been Raj Balu, whether that is the case or not ... with the McCann three friends included that would make about nine sightings.
He must have been doing something or there was something about him to make all these people take particular notice given everything else that was going on.
-
A lot of it is covered in the Archiving Process.
Some of it isn't.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
pages 4605 on
-
How many of the witnesses knew that RM had told the police he wasn't at OC that night when they stated that they'd seen him?
-
Murat is not in the frame, or are some people on here suggesting he is ?
-
Murat is not in the frame, or are some people on here suggesting he is ?
He's not out of the frame yet, is he?
-
Like with so many things, we simply don't know.
-
He's not out of the frame yet, is he?
...and what makes you say that ?
He has been interviewed, unlike the mccanns in this investigation.
I suggest your response is carefully worded.
-
How many of the witnesses knew that RM had told the police he wasn't at OC that night when they stated that they'd seen him?
There's no reason why Murat shouldn't have been out and about on the night.
-
There's no reason why Murat shouldn't have been out and about on the night.
What ???
-
He's not out of the frame yet, is he?
Bearing in mind that ruling document in this case remains the archiving report then he is not in the frame.
-
Bearing in mind that ruling document in this case remains the archiving report then he is not in the frame.
I incline to the view that's the safe assumption, in the absence of anything specific to the contrary ....
-
...and what makes you say that ?
He has been interviewed, unlike the mccanns in this investigation.
I suggest your response is carefully worded.
He had an alibi which could not be otherwise substantiated.
He was under suspicion by the PJ & now re-questioned by OG for reasons best known to SY.
-
There's no reason why Murat shouldn't have been out and about on the night.
I agree. First, he was apparently in a bar, rather inebriated. Then he was apparently at a JW meeting.
It's when he told the PJ he was at home all evening that suspicions would have been heightened.
-
So that makes
Annie Wiltshire
Jayne Jensen
Silvia Batista
Charlotte Pennington ... and there was an unnamed barrister who I've seen it said might have been Raj Balu, whether that is the case or not ... with the McCann three friends included that would make about nine sightings.
He must have been doing something or there was something about him to make all these people take particular notice given everything else that was going on.
Hmm...
Annie Wiltshire, no statement, so a source is required.
Jayne Jensen, no statement, so a source is required.
Silvia Batista, statement 15 May 2007, (after Murat was an arguido), thinks there was a man, whom she only got introduced to days later, who might have been Murat. But she gives 3 names to cross-check, as they would know better than her.
Charlotte Pennington, statement 7 May 2007 (before Murat was an arguido), no mention of Murat (why should she when she probably did not know him), more importantly no reference to someone looking on that night while others searched.
Raj Balu, statement made after Murat was an arguido, no mention of Murat.
Neil Berry, statement made after Murat was an arguido, no mention of Murat.
June Wright (named by Silvia Batista as someone who knew Murat). After Murat was made an arguido she gave a statement that she did no see him there that night.
Paul Wright - ditto as per June Wright.
Six of the Tapas 9 failed to indicate that Murat was there that night.
Various policemen who were there that night said they could not recall Murat being there.
This stuff would not pass muster in a criminal court of law. I didn't follow all the who-sued-whom in the civil courts, but it strikes me that we are getting dangerously close to that territory with this thread.
-
I guess the Portuguese lifting his arguido status when the case was archived and he winning a substantial libel payout from the UK press pre lifting of arguido status is not relevant?
-
The question remains - how many people who said they saw RM that night knew, before they made their assertions, that he had told the PJ in his arguido statement he was at home all evening?
-
The question remains - how many people who said they saw RM that night knew, before they made their assertions, that he had told the PJ in his arguido statement he was at home all evening?
What about SiL's post two up?
-
The question remains - how many people who said they saw RM that night knew, before they made their assertions, that he had told the PJ in his arguido statement he was at home all evening?
Actually, the question could be, how many people mistook Murat for someone else ? &%+((£
-
The question remains - how many people who said they saw RM that night knew, before they made their assertions, that he had told the PJ in his arguido statement he was at home all evening?
I would suggest that events have superseded that anyway.
His arguido status was lifted.
It seems to me you are beginning to skate on thin ice to be remotely suggesting anything else.
-
Actually, the question could be, how many people mistook Murat for someone else ? &%+((£
Certainly not his wife, or 2 other members of the Tapas group.
-
Interesting he was called as a witness I assume in the latest Portuguese interviews. I wonder what leads they were pursuing there. Can only expect it was linked to some theory regarding Sergio and friends.
Not necessarily. It could simply be a few loose ends of any kind that SY wanted to check on if they were going through it systematically.
-
In this case I don't think false memory comes into it, Carana. A man looking very much like Robert Murat, David Payne (who would not be misidentified by the other members of his party) and John Hill was identified as taking an interest in proceedings.
They would probably have been able to say, "No, I was not standing in that particular spot, smoking ... I don't smoke anyway." Or " I was never in that spot, I was in the beach area for most of the evening."
If it wasn't any of them, it was someone, so why might it not have been appropriate to make the attempt to find him, particularly as Robert Murat was elsewhere at the time and it would have been important to him if that man was identified, particularly as he remained an arguido for so long.
Who thought they'd seen him that evening before he was in the spotlight as an arguido?
Did the PJ check who else could have been around that evening who may have resembled Murat?
Re being an arguido: in PT law, an arguido normally retains that status until the end of the process.
-
How many of the witnesses knew that RM had told the police he wasn't at OC that night when they stated that they'd seen him?
Wasn't the fact that he'd said that he wasn't there during the coverage around arguido time what alerted the three Tapas who thought that they had seen hhim?
-
Hmm...
Annie Wiltshire, no statement, so a source is required.
Jayne Jensen, no statement, so a source is required.
Silvia Batista, statement 15 May 2007, (after Murat was an arguido), thinks there was a man, whom she only got introduced to days later, who might have been Murat. But she gives 3 names to cross-check, as they would know better than her.
Charlotte Pennington, statement 7 May 2007 (before Murat was an arguido), no mention of Murat
Great post and a continuing lesson to those who think "because it was reported in the News of the World it must be true" and then go on to use those pet bunny rabbit cage fillers as "evidence"
Eg:
Charlotte Pennington was reported to have said she saw Murat in the Mccanns kitchen that night...so obviously untrue/laughable on every level
-
Wasn't the fact that he'd said that he wasn't there during the coverage around arguido time what alerted the three Tapas who thought that they had seen hhim?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
*snipped*
There was a woman who worked, I think she was work, had worked in the bar in Praia da Luz and she had actually almost invited herself up onto the balcony and was just quite drunk and not being, just not saying anything very helpful and I remember getting quite cross with her, saying 'Look', you know, 'Why are you here', you know, 'If you're going to be helpful get out and look for her' and, erm, and I remember Gerry actually asking her quite politely if she wouldn't mind just leaving them. Erm, I think she was the only one really that, that actually came anywhere near the apartment that wasn't one of us or a Policeman. Erm, I was conscious, yeah, of a lot of Policemen in the, I don't know what you call them, the GNR or, they had the boots, the long boots and the uniform, so they were milling around the front and the back, again, all speaking Portuguese, we didn't really understand, you know, what they were saying or what they were doing. Erm, and I think, as I've said in my other statement, that's when I, around that time I saw Robert MURAT and that was at the front of the apartment. A I say, I'd been to'ing and fro'ing between the front and the back and I'd come out of the front, really just to see if anyone knew, had any information of what was happening, and, erm, Robert MURAT actually walked over to me and shook my hand and introduced himself, erm, and told me that he was, that he was a local, he was working with the Police and he spoke Portuguese and if I needed any help or wanted any help with translation then, erm, you know, he'll be there to help us. And I withdrew from him, I didn't, I don't know why specifically I remember him, I mean, I haven't got a very good memory for faces, I think the others will say, or people, but I remember him very clearly, because he looked a bit strange and he had a squint, he had glasses, he appeared as if he was with the Police, because he was standing in front of all these uniformed Police, and maybe it was my assumption that he was with them, erm, yet he was saying he was a local, and I didn't quite, in my mind, I said, well how come you're a local living down the road and you're here in plain clothes yet you're saying you're with the Police, it didn't, it just seemed a bit odd, erm, and he seemed overly in my face, I can't think of a better way of putting it, he was very quite sort of almost forceful in his introduction and, you know, at that point I was sort of almost trying to steer people away from the apartment, any extra people that weren't really needed in there, just because of what was going on inside and Kate's state, so I didn't really want somebody who I didn't know, erm, in there, erm, and I think I said in my previous statement to the PJ, there was just something that made me uneasy
1485
'Had you seen him before he introduced himself''
Reply
'No'.
01.07.15
1485
'Ever''
Reply
'No'.
1485
'During the time that you were there''
Reply
'No. No, and I didn't see him again. I was aware, I mean, as I say, on the balcony you could see down to the street and I was aware of him, erm, being around after he'd introduced himself and, again, he always seemed to be with the, these uniformed Police, in their vicinity, I wouldn't say he was with them, I don't know what his role was, but he was certainly around, but I didn't speak to him again'. 1485
'So a one and only time''
Reply
'Yeah'.
1485
'And exactly where did that conversation take place''
Reply
'It was kind of outside, erm, Rachael and Matt's apartment, in the front'.
1485
'That is the road side''
Reply
'On the road side, but it was under the cover, sort of between the, where the stairs are and Rachael and Matt's apartment, that area'.
1485
'Alright. And which direction did he come from''
Reply
'He, well he sort of came from the stair, where the stairwell was, that direction, and I was coming out of Kate's, erm, apartment'.
1485
'So did he look to you like he had come from the actual apartment block''
Reply
'He was already in the apartment block when I met him so'.
1485
'Alright. And you say he was in front of the local GNR''
Reply
'Yeah, they were behind him and, as I say, it was my assumption he was with them'.
1485
'Yeah. Did you actually see him or hear him speak to the local Police''
Reply
'No'.
1485
'Did he actually offer you any assistance, any service or, I know you are saying''
Reply
'Saying translating, that was what he said to me. I mean, he did introduce his name and I couldn't have told you it was Robert MURAT, I couldn't recall his name at all, but I recognise him'.
01.08.59
1485
'Right. Oh I see. So when he told you, he was a Robert MURAT, and then you realised who he was later on from the''
Reply
'When I realised, in fact, it was the day he was made, erm, brought in for questioning and we were watching SKY News, it was the afternoon in my apartment and Russell was in the apartment, and obviously, you know, again, we were all very shocked, there was any progress, who is this man, and he was on telly and it showed a picture and I was like 'Oh, is that the guy that was around on the night acting as translator', you know, 'with the squint', because you couldn't see in this picture, and Russell said 'Yeah, yeah, that's him', but I hadn't seen him at all in the days following, erm, you know, Madeleine's disappearance, that, that on the telly was the next time I'd seen him'.
1485
'Yeah'.
Reply
'And that's again what makes me positive that he was the man, because, as I said, the squint was apparent on the TV and I said 'Oh is that', and Russell should remember this, you know, 'Is that the guy that's got the squint' and he was like 'Yeah, yeah, that's the same man' and I said then 'Oh, yeah, I saw him on the night outside'. But at that point we'd, erm, again this is something that's baffled me, why would we lie about it because at that point seeing him around the apartment after Madeleine's disappearance doesn't mean anything, erm, and we didn't know at that point that he had denied being there on the night, you know, we, we were just saying 'Oh, yeah, he was around', we've got no reason to, to make that up or lie, it's of no consequence whether he was there or not afterwards, of implicating him in anything, so'.
.
-
This from the witness who never knew which day it was that anythng much happened
hEr rogatory interview is littered with words such as:
It was Sunday or Monday, it was Monday or Tuesday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and so on
OK then, it is fairly obvious her pattern continued, she met Murat Thursday or Friday, yes, the Friday!
Problem solved.
-
This from the witness who never knew which day it was that anythng much happened
hEr rogatory interview is otters with words such as:
It was Sunday or Monday, it was Monday or Tuesday, Tuesday or Wednesday, and so on
OK then, it is fairly obvious her pattern continued, she met Murat Thursday or Friday, yes, the Friday!
Problem solved.
The witness is quite specific. The encounter took place at night. By the Friday night Kate was no longer in 5a.
-
The witness was wrong and her husband disagreed with her too
-
That was on the morning of the 4th May.
"I think this was my first meeting with Robert MURAT when he was, in my eyes, being very helpful you know liaising with the Police, translating with the Police, offering, offering consolation along with other people, he wasn’t the only person, you know being a supportive member of the public." (ROB)
No police saw him there that night. He was present with them the next morning on the 4th May.
-
The witness was wrong and her husband disagreed with her too
FP's husband was not present at the time. Please provide the cite showing DP said FP was mistaken.
-
That was on the morning of the 4th May.
"I think this was my first meeting with Robert MURAT when he was, in my eyes, being very helpful you know liaising with the Police, translating with the Police, offering, offering consolation along with other people, he wasn’t the only person, you know being a supportive member of the public." (ROB)
No police saw him there that night. He was present with them the next morning on the 4th May.
Did ROB state that he was at any time in front of the McCann apartment with the PJ or anyone else that night?
-
Did ROB state that he was at any time in front of the McCann apartment with the PJ or anyone else that night?
How could Russell and Fiona see Murat with the police that night when not one policeman saw him? Explain? There's an alternative. They could be getting confused with the morning of the 4th when Murat was with the police.
-
FP's husband was not present at the time. Please provide the cite showing DP said FP was mistaken.
Neither of them could definitely say they saw Murat that night, though they did, but then backtracked and said couldn't be definite
FP only identified him by his "squint" as if he was the only person in PDL to have one, hey? she couldn't remember the name he gave when he introduced himself that night but she recognised hm when he appeared n the telly after being made arguido
DP is more sure it was Friday morning he met Murat, same with ROB IIRC which fits the facts
Not very reliable witnesses for Murat "being there that night" are they? You do have to wonder how so many got it so wrong
By the way Misty you do know Ferryman started this thread allegedly in order to paint Mr Murat in a good light, I thought that was so very thoughtful and kind of him lol!! Catch you later!
-
How could Russell and Fiona see Murat with the police that night when not one policeman saw him? Explain? There's a credible alternative. They are getting confused with the morning of the 4th when Murat was with the police. Simples.
So FP can be confused, but the GNR officers who saw many folk that night & a lot of RM over the coming days couldn't have been confused?
-
So FP can be confused, but the GNR officers who saw many folk that night & a lot of RM over the coming days couldn't have been confused?
A) RM had an alibi
B) he said he wasn't there
C) the GNR said he wasn't there
D) one witness says he was
To continue with this is going to need some deletes.
-
This thread has been merged into the original topic.
Having read through the original posts I can see that there was every opportunity for misidentification in the darkness especially when there were men there that night who could have been mistaken for Robert Murat.
The other point which is worth mentioning is that Murat heard the police sirens and surely would have wondered what on earth was going on so close to his own home. Did he possibly pop out for a nosey? Question is however, why deny it, there was no reason for doing so?
-
This thread has been merged into the original topic.
Having read through the original posts I can see that there was every opportunity for misidentification in the darkness especially when there were men there that night who could have been mistaken for Robert Murat.
The other point which is worth mentioning is that Murat heard the police sirens and surely would have wondered what on earth was going on so close to his own home. Did he possibly pop out for a nosey? Question is however, why deny it, there was no reason for doing so?
[/b]
Maybe being hauled in by the police and knowing about the 'robust' questioning techniques of the PJ - he simply panicked. His mother was also well aware that locals could be too scared to come forward - and for similar reasons - which is why she set out a 'table' for those locals to anonymously leave any info they had.
-
[/b]
Maybe being hauled in by the police and knowing about the 'robust' questioning techniques of the PJ - he simply panicked. His mother was also well aware that locals could be too scared to come forward - and for similar reasons - which is why she set out a 'table' for those locals to anonymously leave any info they had.
Which still leaves the question why did no one who knew him say he was there that night ?
-
Which still leaves the question why did no one who knew him say he was there that night ?
THAT is the only relevant question here, they didn't, ergo he wasn't there, from the mouths of reliable and relevant witnesses not a medley of all sorts who knew nothing about anything
-
Which still leaves the question why did no one who knew him say he was there that night ?
How many of the OC staff or holidaymakers would have known who he was? He had lived in the UK for years, only returning to Luz in 2005 and had spent much of his time from Sept 2006 to May 2007 in the UK.
Sylvia Batista said she had known the Murat family for over 30 years but she didn't know of Robert's existence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
*snipped*
SECOND PAGE BATISTA
She's here as a witness. She is responsible for maintenance in the Ocean Club Resort located in Praia da Luz - Lagos. Because of her profession she knows many people of the English community, who live in Praia da Luz.
She knows the Murat (sic !) family, who has been there for about 30 years. In particular Mr. Murat and his wife Jenny. Mr. Murat was linked to building business and development of tourism enterprises, in Salema in her opinion. Mr. Murat died some years ago.
The Murat live in a house named "casa Liliana", near the Ocean Club.
Asked, she said not to remember whether the Murats have any child.
-
How many of the OC staff or holidaymakers would have known who he was? He had lived in the UK for years, only returning to Luz in 2005 and had spent much of his time from Sept 2006 to May 2007 in the UK.
Sylvia Batista said she had known the Murat family for over 30 years but she didn't know of Robert's existence.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
*snipped*
SECOND PAGE BATISTA
She's here as a witness. She is responsible for maintenance in the Ocean Club Resort located in Praia da Luz - Lagos. Because of her profession she knows many people of the English community, who live in Praia da Luz.
She knows the Murat (sic !) family, who has been there for about 30 years. In particular Mr. Murat and his wife Jenny. Mr. Murat was linked to building business and development of tourism enterprises, in Salema in her opinion. Mr. Murat died some years ago.
The Murat live in a house named "casa Liliana", near the Ocean Club.
Asked, she said not to remember whether the Murats have any child.
I believe Murat was a regular police interpreter. Also Martin Smith, a regular holidaymaker in PDL, certainly knew Murat by sight so it would be safe to assume that many of the regular holidaymakers and expats did too.
-
I believe Murat was a regular police interpreter. Also Martin Smith, a regular holidaymaker in PDL, certainly knew Murat by sight so it would be safe to assume that many of the regular holidaymakers and expats did too.
He had been an interpreter for Norfolk police, not the Portuguese.
Martin Smith was nowhere near 5a during the searches.
How many "regular holidaymakers" were in the vicinity that night who knew a man who'd barely been in Portugal or 15 years?
If he disappeared off home by 2340hrs, not many folk would have seen him during the night anyway.
-
Mrs Murat said the reason she set up her 'table' was because she realised some locals would be too scared to approach the police. Why do you think they would be scared of getting involved with the police?
-
He had been an interpreter for Norfolk police, not the Portuguese.
Martin Smith was nowhere near 5a during the searches.
How many "regular holidaymakers" were in the vicinity that night who knew a man who'd barely been in Portugal or 15 years?
If he disappeared off home by 2340hrs, not many folk would have seen him during the night anyway.
He was also a translator for the Portuguese police and translated several of the statements in this case. I mentioned Martin Smith because if he knew him then probably many of the expats and regular holidaymakers in PDL did.
-
Mrs Murat said the reason she set up her 'table' was because she realised some locals would be too scared to approach the police. Why do you think they would be scared of getting involved with the police?
I suppose for the same reason as many people in the UK don't talk to the police after a serious incident.
-
I suppose for the same reason as many people in the UK don't talk to the police after a serious incident.
[/b]
That's news to me but I doubt if it's because they were scared of how they might be treated in the police station - and so decided it would be safer not to get involved. I'm sure the Portuguese were well aware of how some of their policemen conducted interviews. As we know, torturing witnesses was one of those ways.
To imagine the Portuguese themselves were oblivious to such behaviour is totally unrealistic IMO,
-
[/b]
That's news to me but I doubt if it's because they were scared of how they might be treated in the police station - and so decided it would be safer not to get involved. I'm sure the Portuguese were well aware of how some of their policemen conducted interviews. As we know, torturing witnesses was one of those ways.
To imagine the Portuguese themselves were oblivious to such behaviour is totally unrealistic IMO,
It may be news to you Benice but unfortunately it's true.
-
It may be news to you Benice but unfortunately it's true.
You still haven't said why. What are the reasons why a person would be scared to come forward with info in the UK?
-
Mrs Murat said the reason she set up her 'table' was because she realised some locals would be too scared to approach the police. Why do you think they would be scared of getting involved with the police?
Haven't you heard of crimestoppers?
-
The sisters:
"They all thought his behaviour a bit odd. He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans. He was very sweaty and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'.
"They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier.
"It was then that both the friend and Jayne Jensen remembered seeing him the night before at the scene.
"Jayne remembers seeing him outside the entrance, smoking cigarettes, between 10.30pm and 11pm.
"So every time they see him claiming he was not there on the night, they find it ridiculous."
No idea if it was him they saw smoking outside that evening, but they seem to have got DP and Murat mixed up over the T-shirts.
4 May
DP (in stripey T-shirt)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/j_tannerd_payne--skys.jpg)
Murat (in navy T-shirt)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/neilberry.jpg)
-
Haven't you heard of crimestoppers?
I have - but apparently Mrs Murat hadn't. Did they have an equivalent method of reporting crime in Portugal at that time?
-
The sisters:
"They all thought his behaviour a bit odd. He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans. He was very sweaty and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'.
"They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier.
"It was then that both the friend and Jayne Jensen remembered seeing him the night before at the scene.
"Jayne remembers seeing him outside the entrance, smoking cigarettes, between 10.30pm and 11pm.
"So every time they see him claiming he was not there on the night, they find it ridiculous."
No idea if it was him they saw smoking outside that evening, but they seem to have got DP and Murat mixed up over the T-shirts.
4 May
DP (in stripey T-shirt)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/j_tannerd_payne--skys.jpg)
Murat (in navy T-shirt)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/neilberry.jpg)
Good catch.
Personally, I've seen nothing to make me suspicious of Robert Murat.
-
There was a woman who worked, I think she was work, had worked in the bar in Praia da Luz and she had actually almost invited herself up onto the balcony and was just quite drunk and not being, just not saying anything very helpful and I remember getting quite cross with her, saying 'Look', you know, 'Why are you here', you know, 'If you're going to be helpful get out and look for her' and, erm, and I remember Gerry actually asking her quite politely if she wouldn't mind just leaving them. Erm, I think she was the only one really that, that actually came anywhere near the apartment that wasn't one of us or a Policeman. (FP)
That drunk woman could be Jayne Jensen &%+((£
Mrs Jensen, a bar manager. "I left Annie in the bar and came back up to the apartments to see if I could help."
-
Good catch.
Personally, I've seen nothing to make me suspicious of Robert Murat.
Neither have I.
More importantly, Kate doesn't seem to have any either, once she'd got over the drip-feed of leaky insinuations.
-
Neither have I.
More importantly, Kate doesn't seem to have any either, once she'd got over the drip-feed of leaky insinuations.
Fed to her by the leaks from The PJ itself. This was a disgrace in the land of Secrecy.
-
You still haven't said why. What are the reasons why a person would be scared to come forward with info in the UK?
Provided you are WASP, well dressed, speak Queen's English and have the demeanour of being well heeled no problem otherwise keep your head down. May be it shouldn't be like that and some will swear blacks white it isn't like that, but the reality is it is like that.
-
You still haven't said why. What are the reasons why a person would be scared to come forward with info in the UK?
Our police don't do a very good job of protecting witnesses, especially in respect of violent crime. Friends of ours found that out after their details were leaked to the accused & his mates stepped in. The accused escaped justice as our friends withdrew their statements, after their house was trashed & their car burnt out. No-one was charged for that either due to lack of evidence.
-
"there was somebody who was alsotranslating for us that evening who I briefly chatted to, stood next to a policeman, that I thought to be Robert MuratT, but I would never say conclusively that that was Robert Murat" (DP rog)
Note that DP was not sure whether it was RM and did not fly to Portugal (only FP ROB and RO did) on 15 June to testify that it was RM. The solution is simple - in addition to SB, there was another person helping to translate that night who resembles RM but is not RM, whom some witnesses mistook for RM.
-
Our police don't do a very good job of protecting witnesses, especially in respect of violent crime. Friends of ours found that out after their details were leaked to the accused & his mates stepped in. The accused escaped justice as our friends withdrew their statements, after their house was trashed & their car burnt out. No-one was charged for that either due to lack of evidence.
If he was translating it should be easy enough to find out who was; the police will have a list naming everyone who assisted in the translations.
-
If he was translating it should be easy enough to find out who was; the police will have a list naming everyone who assisted in the translations.
I tend to be of the opinion - if he looked like RM, translated like RM, lived in the vicinity like RM - then it most likely was RM.
As you said - why didn't the PJ seek out this doppelganger to clear up any confusion & help substantiate RM's alibi?
A simple question, addressed to all those who said he was there, would have been "what was the translator wearing?".
-
I tend to be of the opinion - if he looked like RM, translated like RM, lived in the vicinity like RM - then it most likely was RM.
As you said - why didn't the PJ seek out this doppelganger to clear up any confusion & help substantiate RM's alibi?
A simple question, addressed to all those who said he was there, would have been "what was the translator wearing?".
So Murat is lying ?
-
I tend to be of the opinion - if he looked like RM, translated like RM, lived in the vicinity like RM - then it most likely was RM.
As you said - why didn't the PJ seek out this doppelganger to clear up any confusion & help substantiate RM's alibi?
A simple question, addressed to all those who said he was there, would have been "what was the translator wearing?".
No, if he looked like Murat, then he just looked like him to people who didn't know him (and the alleged doppelganger) there is not a single person who knew him who said he was there
Translating like Murat?
This whole suspicion of him being there, mixing, translating as well, talking to police, is a non starter IMO. The locals and police knew him, why on earth would he say he wasn't there when he would have been spotted by people who knew him.
-
So Murat is lying ?
That would depend on which of his version of events you wish to believe. He did make several alterations to his statements.
-
No, if he looked like Murat, then he just looked like him to people who didn't know him (and the alleged doppelganger) there is not a single person who knew him who said he was there
Translating like Murat?
This whole suspicion of him being there, mixing, translating as well, talking to police, is a non starter IMO. The locals and police knew him, why on earth would he say he wasn't there when he would have been spotted by people who knew him.
That's a good summary Mercury.
Everyone who claims to have seen RM that night did not know RM.
They saw another bilingual local who resembles RM.
-
That would depend on which of his version of events you wish to believe. He did make several alterations to his statements.
He has always maintained that he was nowhere near 5a on the night of the third.
-
No, if he looked like Murat, then he just looked like him to people who didn't know him (and the alleged doppelganger) there is not a single person who knew him who said he was there
Translating like Murat?
This whole suspicion of him being there, mixing, translating as well, talking to police, is a non starter IMO. The locals and police knew him, why on earth would he say he wasn't there when he would have been spotted by people who knew him.
Please tell us how many folk other than JW & BVW knew him by sight & were present around the Tapas reception until 2340hrs. How did the GNR officers know him?
-
What happened is there were two people translating between searchers and GNR that night, one was female employee SB, and the other was a local man who vaguely resembles RM. Some people saw that man translating that night, then saw vaguely-similar-looking RM translating next day, and merged the two men in memory.
Two witnesses were there that night who did know RM (local lady JW and local man BW) and they both state very clearly that RM was not there.
-
What happened is there were two people translating between people and GNR that night, one was employee SB, and the other was a local man who vaguely resembles RM. Some people saw that man translating that night, then saw vaguely-similar-looking RM translating next day, and merged the two men in memory.
Two witnesses who did know RM were there that night (local lady JW and local man BW) and they both state very clearly that RM was not there.
And FP was quite specific, too, right down to the eye defect.
Why did the PJ find it necessary to bring back to Portugal the 3 witnesses for the meeting with RM in the July? Had they not established by that time RM was not in the vicinity offering his services for a short while?
Is it your opinion that JW & BvW saw everyone who was in & around 5a that evening?
-
Please tell us how many folk other than JW & BVW knew him by sight & were present around the Tapas reception until 2340hrs. How did the GNR officers know him?
The point was there will have been people who would have seen and recognised him, not every single resident was interviewed
As for the GNR/PJ , presumably he has helped them in the past translating so that is how they might know him, several have said they don't recall seeing him, some arrived later but one GNR officer was there at 11 ish and says he didn't see him
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA-1.htm
And you haven't answered my question, why lie when the lie could so easily be exposed as one...and why lie anyway as if being there meant something important??
-
What happened is there were two people translating between searchers and GNR that night, one was female employee SB, and the other was a local man who vaguely resembles RM. Some people saw that man translating that night, then saw vaguely-similar-looking RM translating next day, and merged the two men in memory.
Two witnesses were there that night who did know RM (local lady JW and local man BW) and they both state very clearly that RM was not there.
With so many expats there and living there a long time, I imagine there could have been a few translators around...or even Portuguese people with an excellent command of English
-
And FP was quite specific, too, right down to the eye defect.
Why did the PJ find it necessary to bring back to Portugal the 3 witnesses for the meeting with RM in the July? Had they not established by that time RM was not in the vicinity offering his services for a short while?
Is it your opinion that JW & BvW saw everyone who was in & around 5a that evening?
FP imagined she saw him that night, after all, she excelled at saying a whle multitude of times for various events eg it was Sunday or Monday, Tuesday or Wednesday, maybe Thursday, very unreliable witness IMO
and 150 metres away indoors is exactly nowhere near
-
The point was there will have been people who would have seen and recognised him, not every single resident was interviewed
As for the GNR/PJ , presumably he has helped them in the past translating so that is how they might know him, several have said they don't recall seeing him, some arrived later but one GNR officer was there at 11 ish and says he didn't see him
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/NELSON-DA-COSTA-1.htm
And you haven't answered my question, why lie when the lie could so easily be exposed as one...and why lie anyway as if being there meant something important??
Why would the GNR/PJ have previously employed him to translate for them when they had an official list of translators? The scale of translation required in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance was unprecedented, hence the police welcomed whatever help was available.
Wherever the "translator" was, he certainly wasn't standing outside the Tapas Bar or 5a all night.
Why change his original alibi - he wasn't originally under any suspicion. If he had been, he would have had to explain his early presence that night, bearing in mind the cars with the sirens went to the 24hr reception first.
-
And FP was quite specific, too, right down to the eye defect.
Why did the PJ find it necessary to bring back to Portugal the 3 witnesses for the meeting with RM in the July? Had they not established by that time RM was not in the vicinity offering his services for a short while?
Is it your opinion that JW & BvW saw everyone who was in & around 5a that evening?
SB told the PJ that RM was there that night and told them to ask JW and BW to confirm it.
Therefore SB had seen JW and BW there at the same time she saw the man she mistook for RM.
That's why she told the PJ to ask them.
Both JW and BW said definitely RM was not there.
-
Inconsistencies can suggest many things besides innocence or guilt, such as a lack of knowledge or inaccurate recollection. Sometimes they can even be as a result of the question being misunderstood (especially when there is a language barrier).
-
SB told the PJ that RM was there that night and told them to ask JW and BW to confirm it.
Therefore SB had seen JW and BW there at the same time she saw the man she mistook for RM.
That's why she told the PJ to ask them.
Both JW and BW said definitely RM was not there.
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
*snipped*
He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21.45 - 21.50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present.
When questioned he said that the police wasn’t there yet but arrived about 5 minutes later.
When asked he says that he has known Robert Murat for about 3 or 4 years, making clear that his relation with him is limited to 'good morning' and 'good evening'.
When questioned he says that he did not see Murat on the night of the events and he makes it clear that if Murat had been at the scene he would have remembered.
He adds that he was not on the scene for much time as he went to search the beach areas.
On that night, the last time he was at the scene was at about 01.00, he did not see Murat at that time either.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
I conclude from his statement he was at the 24 hour reception, then went to the beach.
JW - I believe she was the slightly inebriated bar worker P/F referred to in post 112, who irritated KM.
-
Inconsistencies can suggest many things besides innocence or guilt, such as a lack of knowledge or inaccurate recollection. Sometimes they can even be as a result of the question being misunderstood (especially when there is a language barrier).
So, by your reasoning, the inconsistencies in Murat's statements are just as likely to be innocent misunderstandings/inaccurate recollection/ lack of knowledge than pointers to guilt. Thank you for clearing that up.
-
SB told the PJ that RM was there that night and told them to ask JW and BW to confirm it.
Therefore SB had seen JW and BW there at the same time she saw the man she mistook for RM.
That's why she told the PJ to ask them.
Both JW and BW said definitely RM was not there.
SB never identified RM
-
Why would the GNR/PJ have previously employed him to translate for them when they had an official list of translators? The scale of translation required in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance was unprecedented, hence the police welcomed whatever help was available.
Wherever the "translator" was, he certainly wasn't standing outside the Tapas Bar or 5a all night.
Why change his original alibi - he wasn't originally under any suspicion. If he had been, he would have had to explain his early presence that night, bearing in mind the cars with the sirens went to the 24hr reception first.
I can't answer questions that I have no knowledge about...but there's no real evidence he was there, Im not sure why gu so want him to have been there
-
So, by your reasoning, the inconsistencies in Murat's statements are just as likely to be innocent misunderstandings/inaccurate recollection/ lack of knowledge than pointers to guilt. Thanks for clearing that up Misty.
Indeed, Murat was interviewed weeks later, poor recall is a concrete excuse for any Inconsistencies
-
I can't answer questions that I have no knowledge about...but there's no real evidence he was there, Im not sure why gu so want him to have been there
Can you find reference in a statement to any translator, other than Sylvia B, being present on the scene that night?
-
Can you find reference in a statement to any translator, other than Sylvia B, being present on the scene that night?
It doesn't matter, for all the reasons given before......Murat being the abductor just doesn't cut it
Unless you have a theory.....of what he did when and how
-
It doesn't matter, for all the reasons given before......Murat being the abductor just doesn't cut it
Unless you have a theory.....of what he did when and how
Of course it matters. He was physically identified as being the person seen for a period that night by more than one witness. That was reinforced by the person offering his services as a translator. He was in the vicinity of 5a.
So, if it wasn't RM, just who was it? Another person the PJ failed to identify, interview & eliminate?
My theory is almost irrelevant to this issue.
-
Of course it matters. He was physically identified as being the person seen for a period that night by more than one witness. That was reinforced by the person offering his services as a translator. He was in the vicinity of 5a.
So, if it wasn't RM, just who was it? Another person the PJ failed to identify, interview & eliminate?
My theory is almost irrelevant to this issue.
Nope, all wrong,sorry misty, there is no reliable evidence he was there... If you have this then share it
And your theory certainly IS relevant if you're calling into doubt and suspecting someone...
-
Nope, all wrong,sorry misty, there is no reliable evidence he was there... If you have this then share it
And your theory certainly IS relevant if you're calling into doubt and suspecting someone...
See post #60, Mercury.
Who was the person they all saw, if not RM? Did they all imagine the same person - and think very carefully about how you answer that when you know my opinion of Smithman.
-
See post #60, Mercury.
Who was the person they all saw, if not RM? Did they all imagine the same person - and think very carefully about how you answer that when you know my opinion of Smithman.
You really have it in for Murat, don't you.
Why is that ?
-
Let's not start with the insults, please. It is Sunday.
-
So, numerous people (and not limited to the McCann group) claiming to have seen Murat out and about on the evening of May 3rd must all be mistaken. That's fair enough. Where does that leave Mr Smith's "60-80% sure the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann" then?
Are we now able to concede that witness statements are not terribly reliable and therefore by accepting that obvious fact, can we conclude that it is highly unlikely given everything else we know about the events and movements of that evening that Smithman was Gerry?
No, I thought not.
&%+((£
-
So, numerous people (and not limited to the McCann group) claiming to have seen Murat out and about on the evening of May 3rd must all be mistaken. That's fair enough. Where does that leave Mr Smith's "60-80% sure the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann" then?
Are we now able to concede that witness statements are not terribly reliable and therefore by accepting that obvious fact, can we conclude that it is highly unlikely given everything else we know about the events and movements of that evening that Smithman was not Gerry?
No, I thought not.
&%+((£
excellent post
-
While I can see the significance of Smithman, who was seen carrying a small child at a crucial moment, I cannot see the significance of a Murat look-alike, who wasn't.
-
While I can see the significance of Smithman, who was seen carrying a small child at a crucial moment, I cannot see the significance of a Murat look-alike, who wasn't.
No, what you can see is what you want to see. You want it to be Gerry, you don't want it to be Murat. Your prejudice is showing.
-
No, what you can see is what you want to see. You want it to be Gerry, you don't want it to be Murat. Your prejudice is showing.
I haven't mentioned Gerry at all. Identifying Smithman is crucial, whoever he turns out to be. Identifying Murat look-alike seems much less important as he was only seen after the event and wasn't carrying a child.
-
So, numerous people (and not limited to the McCann group) claiming to have seen Murat out and about on the evening of May 3rd must all be mistaken. That's fair enough. Where does that leave Mr Smith's "60-80% sure the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann" then?
Are we now able to concede that witness statements are not terribly reliable and therefore by accepting that obvious fact, can we conclude that it is highly unlikely given everything else we know about the events and movements of that evening that Smithman was not Gerry?
No, I thought not.
&%+((£
Good comparision Alfred. The people who claimed that RM was at the scene that night were FP RO ROB DP SB CP and reportedly [Name removed] and AW. The thing all those people have in common is that they did not know RM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing RM on a later date either in person or on TV.
The people who claimed they saw GM carrying a child that night were MS and (in a different location) tourists RM and SM. They did not know GM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing GM on TV at a later date.
All those identifications were absolutely wrong, they are examples of human brains subconsciously and retrospectively merging in memory two people they did not know.
-
I haven't mentioned Gerry at all. Identifying Smithman is crucial, whoever he turns out to be. Identifying Murat look-alike seems much less important as he was only seen after the event and wasn't carrying a child.
It would be quite important if it turned out those witnesses were right and Murat was lying though wouldn't it?
-
Good comparision Alfred. The people who claimed that RM was at the scene that night were FP RO ROB DP SB CP and reportedly [Name removed] and AW. The thing all those people have in common is that they did not know RM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing RM on a later date either in person or on TV.
The people who claimed they saw GM carrying a child that night were MS and (in a different location) tourists RM and SM. They did not know GM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing GM on TV at a later date.
All those identifications were absolutely wrong, they are examples of human brains subconsciously and retrospectively merging in memory two people they did not know.
8@??)(
-
It would be quite important if it turned out those witnesses were right and Murat was lying though wouldn't it?
Not necessarily. If he had lied about his whereabouts, (which hasn't been proved), it could have been for reasons totally unrelated to Madeleine's disappearance.
-
Good comparision Alfred. The people who claimed that RM was at the scene that night were FP RO ROB DP SB CP and reportedly [Name removed] and AW. The thing all those people have in common is that they did not know RM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing RM on a later date either in person or on TV.
The people who claimed they saw GM carrying a child that night were MS and (in a different location) tourists RM and SM. They did not know GM at all, not even by sight. They made their identifications only retrospectively after seeing GM on TV at a later date.
All those identifications were absolutely wrong, they are examples of human brains subconsciously and retrospectively merging in memory two people they did not know.
A good point well expressed.
-
Not necessarily. If he had lied about his whereabouts, (which hasn't been proved), it could have been for reasons totally unrelated to Madeleine's disappearance.
It would be important to establish the reason for lying to the police though don't you agree? He was an arguido after all!
PS: I don't believe he was lying so don't all jump down my throat.
-
Not necessarily. If he had lied about his whereabouts, (which hasn't been proved), it could have been for reasons totally unrelated to Madeleine's disappearance.
Agreed!
-
So, numerous people (and not limited to the McCann group) claiming to have seen Murat out and about on the evening of May 3rd must all be mistaken. That's fair enough. Where does that leave Mr Smith's "60-80% sure the man carrying the child was Gerry McCann" then?
Are we now able to concede that witness statements are not terribly reliable and therefore by accepting that obvious fact, can we conclude that it is highly unlikely given everything else we know about the events and movements of that evening that Smithman was Gerry?
No, I thought not.
&%+((£
Why ask a question then answer it yourself ?
T.O.W.I.A
-
Of course it matters. He was physically identified as being the person seen for a period that night by more than one witness. That was reinforced by the person offering his services as a translator. He was in the vicinity of 5a.
So, if it wasn't RM, just who was it? Another person the PJ failed to identify, interview & eliminate?
My theory is almost irrelevant to this issue.
Surely the key point is that, (at least so far as we are aware) there is nothing linking Murat to Madeleine's abduction.
Murat was legally and lawfully entitled to be out on the night (whether he actually was or not) and there might be reasons wholly unconnected to Madeleine's disappearance why he might not be keen for it be known that he was out and about.
At most, that amount to an informal witness's obligation to answer all questions truthfully (an internal Portuguese matter, I imagine, they would not choose to pursue this far down the line.)
There was also the find of Summers and Swan that a landline phone call was made from the Murats' residence to his girlfriend at (I think) around Midnight?
Murat must have been home to make that call.
-
It would be quite important if it turned out those witnesses were right and Murat was lying though wouldn't it?
As it would be with Gerry.
-
Not necessarily. If he had lied about his whereabouts, (which hasn't been proved), it could have been for reasons totally unrelated to Madeleine's disappearance.
His mother's statement is that he was home with her from about 8pm to about midnight and that he never left the house in that period.
Therefore, for there to be anything in this would require Murat to lie, and his mother to lie, and we are in conspiracy territory.
It's a lot more believable that some people who did not know him at the time, but became alerted to him later, simply mistakenly identified him.
-
His mother's statement is that he was home with her from about 8pm to about midnight and that he never left the house in that period.
Therefore, for there to be anything in this would require Murat to lie, and his mother to lie, and we are in conspiracy territory.
It's a lot more believable that some people who did not know him at the time, but became alerted to him later, simply mistakenly identified him.
One thing that puzzles me is why anyone should have specifically noticed this person (whoever he was) given that he would have been one of dozens, if not hundreds of people out and about after the event that night.
-
His mother's statement is that he was home with her from about 8pm to about midnight and that he never left the house in that period.
Therefore, for there to be anything in this would require Murat to lie, and his mother to lie, and we are in conspiracy territory.
It's a lot more believable that some people who did not know him at the time, but became alerted to him later, simply mistakenly identified him.
Agreed, it's retrospective mistaken identification. But it's important to realise that FP RO ROB DP CP SB [Name removed] and AW were not deliberately lying - they did see a different man that night, who is bilingual and (to people who know neither of them, and none of those 8 witnesses did) vaguely resembles RM. I've already pointed people to DP's rog statement, he saw and briefly spoke with this man, thought it might be RM, but was certainly not sure of that, which is why he did not fly out to Portugal on 15th June.
-
Agreed, it's retrospective mistaken identification. But it's important to realise that FP RO ROB DP CP SB [Name removed] and AW were not deliberately lying - they did see a different man that night, who is bilingual and (to people who know neither of them, and none of those 8 witnesses did) vaguely resembles RM. I've already pointed people to DP's rog statement, he saw and briefly spoke with this man, thought it might be RM, but was certainly not sure of that, which is why he did not fly out to Portugal on 15th June.
Which would suggest that FP, RO and ROB were adamant that the man they saw was RM and didn't change their stance after the stand-off.
-
Agreed, it's retrospective mistaken identification. But it's important to realise that FP RO ROB DP CP SB [Name removed] and AW were not deliberately lying - they did see a different man that night, who is bilingual and (to people who know neither of them, and none of those 8 witnesses did) vaguely resembles RM. I've already pointed people to DP's rog statement, he saw and briefly spoke with this man, thought it might be RM, but was certainly not sure of that, which is why he did not fly out to Portugal on 15th June.
May I ask how you know this man is bilingual?
From memory, Fiona Payne said something along the lines of RM explained he was bilingual and got stuck in when one of the T9 returned (but the T9 statement says nothing about such a meeting).
If the bilingual bit drops out, then all we've got is a man vaguely like Murat seemingly rubber-necking on the night. And lots of people rubber-necked in the days after the incident. Hence my interest in the bilingual bit, as that takes things further.
-
Which would suggest that FP, RO and ROB were adamant that the man they saw was RM and didn't change their stance after the stand-off.
it is not a crime to say you believed you saw someone......hence the supposed lawsuit never happened
-
May I ask how you know this man is bilingual?
From memory, Fiona Payne said something along the lines of RM explained he was bilingual and got stuck in when one of the T9 returned (but the T9 statement says nothing about such a meeting).
If the bilingual bit drops out, then all we've got is a man vaguely like Murat seemingly rubber-necking on the night. And lots of people rubber-necked in the days after the incident. Hence my interest in the bilingual bit, as that takes things further.
The man that night (whom some people mistook for RM) is bilingual because several statements say so, for example
"... there was somebody who was was translating for us that evening who I briefly chatted to, stood next to a policeman, that I thought to be Robert Murat but I would never say conclusively that that was ..." (DP rog)
-
The man that night (whom some people mistook for RM) is bilingual because several statements say so, for example
"... there was somebody who was was translating for us that evening who I briefly chatted to, stood next to a policeman, that I thought to be Robert Murat but I would never say conclusively that that was ..." (DP rog)
By the rogatory interviews ROB was back peddling with regard to Murat and DP was distancing himself from any sort of identification too.
-
Why ask a question then answer it yourself ?
T.O.W.I.A
Is it against forum rules? It was a rhetorical question. I posed it, knowing full well what the answer would be from the "sceptics" on the board. If you have a problem with that then I suggest you S.I.W.T.S.D.S.
-
As it would be with Gerry.
And your point is...?
-
His mother's statement is that he was home with her from about 8pm to about midnight and that he never left the house in that period.
Therefore, for there to be anything in this would require Murat to lie, and his mother to lie, and we are in conspiracy territory.
It's a lot more believable that some people who did not know him at the time, but became alerted to him later, simply mistakenly identified him.
Can we also apply this same logic to other witness statements? I say yes, but what about those who choose to believe Mr Smith was a 100% right in his identification, and not just 60-80%?
-
Can we also apply this same logic to other witness statements? I say yes, but what about those who choose to believe Mr Smith was a 100% right in his identification, and not just 60-80%?
The partial identification of Gerry as Smithman by the Smith elders can be trashed for stronger reasons.
-
By the rogatory interviews ROB was back peddling with regard to Murat and DP was distancing himself from any sort of identification too.
I wonder if Murat was discussed at the Rothley meeting ?
Yes ROB backpeddled reasonably in rog but still didn't realise he is merging two different men.
DP saw and spoke with the man but was never sure it was RM - that's why he was not there accusing RM at the Jun 15/16 confrontation.
Manager SB thought it was RM but then realised it wasn't and that's why she was not at the Jun 15/16 confrontation.
-
The man that night (whom some people mistook for RM) is bilingual because several statements say so, for example
"... there was somebody who was was translating for us that evening who I briefly chatted to, stood next to a policeman, that I thought to be Robert Murat but I would never say conclusively that that was ..." (DP rog)
I can find no reference in any of the GNR officers' statements to a translator other than Sylvia B.
I can find no reference in other English people's statements to a male translator that night/.
"I was talking with Robert MURAT. He was err somebody that I would not a hundred percent say that I saw the night before but there was somebody who was also err who was translating for us that evening who I you know briefly chatted to, stood next to a Policeman, that I you know thought to be Robert MURAT but I would never say conclusively that that was Robert MURAT. And then but I just said I'm not, in my mind, I'm not dealing with him I'm getting much better with the other lady you know because they were just, you know pontificating around the area and I just wanted direct answers" ......the DP rog quote in its entire context.
"
-
The partial identification of Gerry as Smithman by the Smith elders can be trashed for stronger reasons.
But the reason you have described a propos Murat is surely also valid in this instance, yes?
-
[Name removed] and AW saw not-RM late night 3rd, then saw not-RM again daytime morning 4th, then saw RM later daytime 4th. They subconsciously in memory merged the two men into one. That's how the ridiculous pythonesque accusation of "Saying one needs to change one's clothes when one has already changed them" came about.
-
[Name removed] and AW saw not-RM late night 3rd, then saw not-RM again daytime morning 4th, then saw RM later daytime 4th. They subconsciously in memory merged the two men into one. That's how the ridiculous pythonesque accusation of "Saying one needs to change one's clothes when one has already changed them" came about.
That assertion is dependent on the relative distance of the viewer from the source at the time of identification.
-
I can find no reference in any of the GNR officers' statements to a translator other than Sylvia B.
I can find no reference in other English people's statements to a male translator that night/.
"I was talking with Robert MURAT. He was err somebody that I would not a hundred percent say that I saw the night before but there was somebody who was also err who was translating for us that evening who I you know briefly chatted to, stood next to a Policeman, that I you know thought to be Robert MURAT but I would never say conclusively that that was Robert MURAT. And then but I just said I'm not, in my mind, I'm not dealing with him I'm getting much better with the other lady you know because they were just, you know pontificating around the area and I just wanted direct answers" ......the DP rog quote in its entire context.
"
The rogs of DP RO FP ROB, and the confrontation statements of RO FP ROB, all indicate that the man they saw that night was translating.
-
The rogs of DP RO FP ROB, and the confrontation statements of RO FP ROB, all indicate that the man they saw that night was translating.
You have already dismissed their identification.
What other independent sources were there?
-
You have already dismissed their identification.
What other independent sources were there?
They were right about there being a man there that night translating. I'm not dismissing that. No way would they make that up. The one thing these honest witnesses got wrong was their identification days later of that man as RM.
-
They were right about there being a man there that night translating. I'm not dismissing that. No way would they make that up. The one thing these honest witnesses got wrong was their identification days later of that man as RM.
Close up & personal, Pegasus, doesn't normally result in 3 or 4 people all making the same identification error.
According to their statements, the officers in attendance that night were all asked if they saw RM in the immediate aftermath.
What explanation would there be as to why they weren't asked if they saw or communicated with a man who resembled RM, or why none of them would have volunteered such information?
-
Close up & personal, Pegasus, doesn't normally result in 3 or 4 people all making the same identification error.
According to their statements, the officers in attendance that night were all asked if they saw RM in the immediate aftermath.
What explanation would there be as to why they weren't asked if they saw or communicated with a man who resembled RM, or why none of them would have volunteered such information?
Possibly because the PJ were after Murat at the time and didn't think beyond that. In the same vein as dismissing Tannerman without checking the evening crèche records, or thinking to ask anyone if they themselves or anyone they knew was carrying their own child that evening.
-
Close up & personal, Pegasus, doesn't normally result in 3 or 4 people all making the same identification error.
...(snip)
Yes but in most cases there aren't two similar looking people, this case was unusual because there were.
I'm not just theorising here, I'm also working from visual evidence at the scene.
-
BTW the 4th May statements were done in two batches, GM KM MO DP JT were taken to Portimão morning 4th May, then RO FP ROB DW were taken to Portimão in afternoon 4th May.
Now here's a coincidence - the 3 witnesses RO FP ROB, who later flew to Portugal mid-June for the confrontation with RM, had all been in the afternoon batch on May 4th - none of them were in the morning batch.
-
BTW the 4th May statements were done in two batches, GM KM MO DP JT were taken to Portimão morning 4th May, then RO FP ROB DW were taken to Portimão in afternoon 4th May.
Now here's a coincidence - the 3 witnesses RO FP ROB, who later flew to Portugal mid-June for the confrontation with RM, had all been in the afternoon batch on May 4th - none of them were in the morning batch.
What significance do you give to that, Pegasus?
-
Yes but in most cases there aren't two similar looking people, this case was unusual because there were.
I'm not just theorising here, I'm also working from visual evidence at the scene.
If you have visual evidence of the scene that night then you have the rest of us at a disadvantage.
FP -saw this person when KM was inside 5a on night of 3rd
DP -saw said person presumably just after GNR arrived & SB had arrived - so at OC reception or 5a?
ROB- "That he saw Murat for the first time at this moment in the Rua Silva in front of the apartment where the events occurred, near to the parking area."
RO -'Erm well most of the time I spent talking to Jane and sort of checking on Grace, erm and saw, I remember the nannies coming up to talk to us, some of the Mark WARNER nannies and they'd been searching and looking round the village and sort of you know, rallying friends and people that they knew, erm I mean we were waiting for the Police for a lot of that time cos they didn't turn up for ages, erm and, and then when the GNR did arrive, erm you know, they came to say hello and erm Sylvia was there with them and so was Robert MURAT, erm there were other people sort of milling around in the background but Sylvia introduced herself and so did Robert MURAT, erm I mean he just introduced himself to me as Robert and we shook hands, erm and then sort of remember talking to somebody from I think, think (inaudible) one of the apartments on the floor above, sort of an older guy, kind of said oh he went missing when he was a child for about ten days and he, and he, you know he came back again sort of thing, well he was, I can't remember whether he said he was taken or, it wasn't that he'd run away, I mean maybe he sort of too young to remember or something but he said that he was missing and he'd reappeared, erm and yeah just and then erm after the Police arrived, erm I mean we were just you know talking about what we should do and then I thought of ringing James LANDALE and you know seeing if we could get it on the news, erm and made those phone calls, erm and then the PJ arrived"
If the PJ believed RM & his alibi, then why did they call 3 witnesses back for a "confrontation"?
-
The Tapas group had no reason to lie about RM or anyone else who was on the scene. Living in close proximity, he would have had a legitimate reason to be there, had he heard the noise outside. But he only heard sirens and his dogs seemingly never alerted at all.
-
The Tapas group had no reason to lie about RM or anyone else who was on the scene. Living in close proximity, he would have had a legitimate reason to be there, had he heard the noise outside. But he only heard sirens and his dogs seemingly never alerted at all.
You say they had no reason to lie about RM ?
Yet he was put in the frame by people who 'saw' him there.
-
If you have visual evidence of the scene that night then you have the rest of us at a disadvantage.
FP -saw this person when KM was inside 5a on night of 3rd
DP -saw said person presumably just after GNR arrived & SB had arrived - so at OC reception or 5a?
ROB- "That he saw Murat for the first time at this moment in the Rua Silva in front of the apartment where the events occurred, near to the parking area."
RO -'Erm well most of the time I spent talking to Jane and sort of checking on Grace, erm and saw, I remember the nannies coming up to talk to us, some of the Mark WARNER nannies and they'd been searching and looking round the village and sort of you know, rallying friends and people that they knew, erm I mean we were waiting for the Police for a lot of that time cos they didn't turn up for ages, erm and, and then when the GNR did arrive, erm you know, they came to say hello and erm Sylvia was there with them and so was Robert MURAT, erm there were other people sort of milling around in the background but Sylvia introduced herself and so did Robert MURAT, erm I mean he just introduced himself to me as Robert and we shook hands, erm and then sort of remember talking to somebody from I think, think (inaudible) one of the apartments on the floor above, sort of an older guy, kind of said oh he went missing when he was a child for about ten days and he, and he, you know he came back again sort of thing, well he was, I can't remember whether he said he was taken or, it wasn't that he'd run away, I mean maybe he sort of too young to remember or something but he said that he was missing and he'd reappeared, erm and yeah just and then erm after the Police arrived, erm I mean we were just you know talking about what we should do and then I thought of ringing James LANDALE and you know seeing if we could get it on the news, erm and made those phone calls, erm and then the PJ arrived"
If the PJ believed RM & his alibi, then why did they call 3 witnesses back for a "confrontation"?
Obviously by the shelving of the case the PJ did believe Murat's alibi as he was released from his arguido status without a stain on his character. Or are you saying that even when the AG declares you innocent you may not be ?
-
You say they had no reason to lie about RM ?
Yet he was put in the frame by people who 'saw' him there.
No, he was under suspicion because of his behaviour with the media & excessive interest in the police investigation of which he was playing a part.
Anyone out on the street on the night of the 3rd was a potential suspect, not just RM.
Suspicion against him grew when he changed his alibi.
-
Obviously by the shelving of the case the PJ did believe Murat's alibi as he was released from his arguido status without a stain on his character. Or are you saying that even when the AG declares you innocent you may not be ?
Has there been an 8 year hate campaign waged against RM & demands for him to be jailed?
-
No, he was under suspicion because of his behaviour with the media & excessive interest in the police investigation of which he was playing a part.
Anyone out on the street on the night of the 3rd was a potential suspect, not just RM.
Suspicion against him grew when he changed his alibi.
'...because of his behaviour with the media & excessive interest..'
He offered to help translate I recall.
How many other people were there and offered to help Misty ?
How many others looked like David Payne ?
-
'...because of his behaviour with the media & excessive interest..'
He offered to help translate I recall.
How many other people were there and offered to help Misty ?
How many others looked like David Payne ?
Many people got involved with the searches, Stephen, but there was only one who was constantly questioning the police about what they had discovered & attempting to view official documents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
960 to 961 Results of informal conversation with Robert Murat 2007.05.11 - Inspector Pedro Varanda
How many others "looked like DP" & spoke Portuguese and smoked?
-
No, he was under suspicion because of his behaviour with the media & excessive interest in the police investigation of which he was playing a part.
Anyone out on the street on the night of the 3rd was a potential suspect, not just RM.
Suspicion against him grew when he changed his alibi.
Yes it applies to a few people.
-
Many people got involved with the searches, Stephen, but there was only one who was constantly questioning the police about what they had discovered & attempting to view official documents.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
960 to 961 Results of informal conversation with Robert Murat 2007.05.11 - Inspector Pedro Varanda
How many others "looked like DP" & spoke Portuguese and smoked?
You really have it in for Murat.
Why ?
Is he still an arguido ?
-
You really have it in for Murat.
Why ?
Is he still an arguido ?
I'm discussing the topic of this thread,
Is he still an arguido? GA insinuated he is one again
Would you rather we discuss light molecules?
-
I'm discussing the topic of this thread,
Is he still an arguido? GA insinuated he is one again
Would you rather we discuss light molecules?
When did GA insinuate that ?
This fixation with Murat, do you have it ?
-
SB's description is different to the others, it doesn't even resemble RM at all. The hair colour is completely wrong. The glasses lens colour is completely wrong. And no mention by her of the man she saw doing any translating. The man she refers to is clearly IMO an MW tourist involved in the very early searches immediately after the alarm keen to help find the child.
The different man, referred to by DP ROB RO and FP as translating that night before SB arrived, is IMO probably a long term expat, but definitely not RM. Many long-term expats do learn portuguese BTW. And having shortish dark hair and wearing glasses are nothing unusual.
-
You say they had no reason to lie about RM ?
Yet he was put in the frame by people who 'saw' him there.
I don't understand why you think his presence in the vicinity of apartment 5A would be at all suspicious; he was a neighbour who by nature was exceedingly anxious to help in the days after the event.
Why do you think the people who came forward to confirm their sighting of him would be lying to the police of two countries about it?
-
When did GA insinuate that ?
This fixation with Murat, do you have it ?
GA's interview 23/1/15 after libel trial session (transcript)
*snip*
Gonçalo Amaral – Because of interferences that took place, without interferences we would have gone further. Have no doubts about that. That is why the process was archived. When the shelving took place, the couple and another person were arguidos. Any one of them could have requested the opening of the instruction and continued the process. None of them did it, the couple because they didn’t want to, they didn’t want to do it, and the other person because he received compensation from the British courts, so he didn’t do it, he was very satisfied, and now it seems that he is an arguido again. This is what happens –
-----------------------------------------------------------
RM is the topic here.
Why are you fixated on what I may be fixated on?
-
SB's description is different to the others, it doesn't even resemble RM at all. The hair colour is completely wrong. The glasses lens colour is completely wrong. And no mention by her of the man she saw doing any translating. The man she refers to is clearly IMO an MW tourist involved in the very early searches immediately after the alarm keen to help find the child.
The different man, referred to by DP ROB RO and FP as translating that night before SB arrived, is IMO probably a long term expat, but definitely not RM. Many long-term expats do learn portuguese BTW. And having shortish dark hair and wearing glasses are nothing unusual.
Yes, the important point is that SB did not state she witnessed her man translating and she was told by someone else that it was RM.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
*snipped*
She remembers, although she is not absolutely certain, given the time already elapsed, that an individual of about 1,70m, short light brown hair, with thin framed and light brown glasses, wanted from the start to help finding the child Madeleine McCann.
She doesn't remember at what time she saw him.
She doesn't remember how he was dressed up.
She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT.
..........
She states that she spoke for the first time with Robert on Saturday (05-05-2007) or Sunday (06-05-2007) or may be on Monday (07-05-2007), during the breaks between the interviews in which he participated as a translator.
-
Yes, the important point is that SB did not state she witnessed her man translating and she was told by someone else that it was RM.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm
*snipped*
She remembers, although she is not absolutely certain, given the time already elapsed, that an individual of about 1,70m, short light brown hair, with thin framed and light brown glasses, wanted from the start to help finding the child Madeleine McCann.
She doesn't remember at what time she saw him.
She doesn't remember how he was dressed up.
She doesn't remember who was with him, whether he came walking or in some vehicle. That same individual, she was told later, is the son of Morat, his first name is ROBERT.
..........
She states that she spoke for the first time with Robert on Saturday (05-05-2007) or Sunday (06-05-2007) or may be on Monday (07-05-2007), during the breaks between the interviews in which he participated as a translator.
"short light brown hair, with thin framed and light brown glasses" (source: SB statement)
Obviously this doesn't even vaguely resemble RM who had short dark hair, and glasses with clear lenses.
-
"short light brown hair, with thin framed and light brown glasses" (source: SB statement)
Obviously this doesn't even vaguely resemble RM who had short dark hair, and glasses with clear lenses.
The lenses - google images show some photos of thin framed-spectacles with brown lenses & more than one pair were worn in the early days.
-
The lenses - google images show some photos of thin framed-spectacles with brown lenses & more than one pair were worn in the early days.
There is nothing unusual about thin-framed glasses lots of people have them.
Tinted lenses are a little more unusual, especially at nighttime.
Certainly on the 4th RM's lenses are clear, definitely not the tinted lenses described by SB.
To make the man seen by SB into RM you will also have to magically change his hair colour to the "light brown" described by SB. There is no translation error here, because SB gave her statement in portuguese and it says the man's hair is "castanho claro" which means light brown.
RM has dark hair, not light brown. Therefore the man seen by SB was definitely not RM.
-
Having rubbished SB's identification of RM, next to rubbish the identification by [Name removed] and AW and the pythonesque "offences under the SYHNCYCWYH Act" accusation.
-
Having rubbished SB's identification of RM, next to rubbish the identification by [Name removed] and AW and the pythonesque "offences under the SYHNCYCWYH Act" accusation.
Is that the "Should you have not changed your clothes when you're hot" act?
It's more difficult to disprove [Name removed]'s accusation when you a)don't know how close she was to the smoking man on the night of the 3rd b)how close she was to DP when she mistook him for smoking man c)what [Name removed]'s eyesight is like.
He did fixate on those 2 ladies, though, didn't he, for a little while?
Why don't you do CP next?
-
Witnesses [Name removed] and AW reportedly claimed that RM changed his clothes sometime during the day of 4th May and then denied it.
"He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans. He was very sweaty and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'. They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256
In fact RM was wearing blue tshirt and jeans for the whole of 4th May, as proven by many photos, and especially by a photo of him wearing blue tshirt and jeans at about 9.30AM, shortly after he first arrived with SC.
This proves that RM is telling the truth.
And proves absolutely that the witnesses [Name removed] and AW were seriously mistaken.
In fact the man they saw in a "striped shirt" was someone else, not RM.
The way this honest mistake by two witnesses was seized on by whoever was spoonfeeding the brit press and used against RM is shameful IMO
-
Is that the "Should you have not changed your clothes when you're hot" act?
It's more difficult to disprove [Name removed]'s accusation when you a)don't know how close she was to the smoking man on the night of the 3rd b)how close she was to DP when she mistook him for smoking man c)what [Name removed]'s eyesight is like.
He did fixate on those 2 ladies, though, didn't he, for a little while?
Why don't you do CP next?
Very close Misty, actually it's the little-known "Saying You Have Not Changed Your Clothes When You Have" Act of Parliament, according to my pal Flying Fox of the Yard. The absurdity of the accusation is proven by one of the very first photos we have morning 4th, where RM can be clearly seen with several of the T9 at about 930am, and he is wearing blue tshirt and jeans. Any one of those T9 members in that photo could have told you that the "changed clothes" accusation fed to the brit press was completely false.
-
Witnesses [Name removed] and AW reportedly claimed that RM changed his clothes sometime during the day of 4th May and then denied it.
"He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans. He was very sweaty and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'. They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier."
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256
In fact RM was wearing blue tshirt and jeans for the whole of 4th May, as proven by many photos, and especially by a photo of him wearing blue tshirt and jeans at about 9.30AM, shortly after he first arrived with SC.
This proves that RM is telling the truth.
And proves absolutely that the witnesses [Name removed] and AW were seriously mistaken.
In fact the man they saw in a "striped shirt" was someone else, not RM.
The way this honest mistake by two witnesses was seized on by whoever was spoonfeeding the brit press and used against RM is shameful IMO
From a distance.....
-
From a distance.....
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5701.0;attach=5807;image
That photo (morning 5th May) is definitely not RM, Misty.
-
GA's interview 23/1/15 after libel trial session (transcript)
*snip*
Gonçalo Amaral – Because of interferences that took place, without interferences we would have gone further. Have no doubts about that. That is why the process was archived. When the shelving took place, the couple and another person were arguidos. Any one of them could have requested the opening of the instruction and continued the process. None of them did it, the couple because they didn’t want to, they didn’t want to do it, and the other person because he received compensation from the British courts, so he didn’t do it, he was very satisfied, and now it seems that he is an arguido again. This is what happens –
-----------------------------------------------------------
RM is the topic here.
Why are you fixated on what I may be fixated on?
No, I am observing.
You seem to want Murat in the frame for an 'abduction'.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?action=dlattach;topic=5701.0;attach=5807;image
That photo (morning 5th May) is definitely not RM, Misty.
Source says photo from morning of 4th May.
I didn't mean he was RM, just that from a distance he resembled RM.
-
Source says photo from morning of 4th May.
I didn't mean he was RM, just that from a distance he resembled RM.
Just as Gerry McCann apparently resembled Smithman.
-
I'm discussing the topic of this thread,
Is he still an arguido? GA insinuated he is one again
Would you rather we discuss light molecules?
One has to be careful about the true meaning of arguido and what it represents. In Portugal the term arguido is simply a designation. Anyone has the right to this status if police are taking an interest in them, it affords the individual certain legal rights. There is no equivalent in the British legal system.
An arguido might or might not be an official suspect, he or she might not even be a defendant.
-
No, I am observing.
You seem to want Murat in the frame for an 'abduction'.
I am so pleased you now know the difference between observing & advising, as I wouldn't dream of advising someone who clearly has a far superior intellect to mine.
Once again - discussing the topic, Stephen.
-
One has to be careful about the true meaning of arguido and what it represents. In Portugal the term arguido is simply a designation. Anyone has the right to this status if police are taking an interest in them, it affords the individual certain legal rights. There is no equivalent in the British legal system.
An arguido might or might not be an official suspect, he or she might not even be a defendant.
I'm sure GA knew what he was saying.
I seem to recall SY wanted all those 11 people of interest, including RM, questioned as witnesses rather than arguidos.
-
One has to be careful about the true meaning of arguido and what it represents. In Portugal the term arguido is simply a designation. Anyone has the right to this status if police are taking an interest in them, it affords the individual certain legal rights. There is no equivalent in the British legal system.
An arguido might or might not be an official suspect, he or she might not even be a defendant.
So we are wrong to say that the McCanns or Murat were ever suspects in this case then?
-
One has to be careful about the true meaning of arguido and what it represents. In Portugal the term arguido is simply a designation. Anyone has the right to this status if police are taking an interest in them, it affords the individual certain legal rights. There is no equivalent in the British legal system.
An arguido might or might not be an official suspect, he or she might not even be a defendant.
what is an official suspect...there are suspects...that's all
as regards arguido it seems to be very similar to being interviewed under caution in the UK
-
Source says photo from morning of 4th May.
I didn't mean he was RM, just that from a distance he resembled RM.
Superficially resembles RM because has short dark hair and glasses. That photo is actually dated 5th (caption saying 4th is wrong). Man with baguette is some kind of helper who was assigned to them.
-
I am so pleased you now know the difference between observing & advising, as I wouldn't dream of advising someone who clearly has a far superior intellect to mine.
Once again - discussing the topic, Stephen.
Poor sarcasm.
Meanwhile, you are clearly fixated with Murat
Is he a suspect ?
-
Poor sarcasm.
Meanwhile, you are clearly fixated with Murat
Is he a suspect ?
Sarcasm is not my forte.
I have less interest in him than you have in the daily neglect/no abduction mantra.
He is/was a person of interest to SY. I know no more. Do you?
-
So if Murat was there that night? Which is not proven, What does that mean in relation to Madelenes disappearance? Isn't this question the real point of this thread?
Btw Misty where's the evidence that Charlotte Pennington saw him?
-
Sarcasm is not my forte.
I have less interest in him than you have in the daily neglect/no abduction mantra.
He is/was a person of interest to SY. I know no more. Do you?
You do realize that if people such as yourself didn't repeat the abduction mantra ad nauseum, then I would not be doing the reverse.
The offer has been made several times before, and ignored.
-
So if Murat was there that night? Which is not proven, What does that mean in relation to Madelenes disappearance? Isn't this question the real point of this thread?
Btw Misty where's the evidence that Charlotte Pennington saw him?
If RM was there that night, then the question of why he elected to distance himself from the scene as far as the PJ were concerned would need to be addressed.
Whilst not being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, he may hold information about others who were on the scene at the time.
CP - there are various newspaper reports, none of which provide a precise version of what she witnessed, & when.
-
If RM was there that night, then the question of why he elected to distance himself from the scene as far as the PJ were concerned would need to be addressed.
Whilst not being involved in Madeleine's disappearance, he may hold information about others who were on the scene at the time.
CP - there are various newspaper reports, none of which provide a precise version of what she witnessed, & when.
Thanks for agreeing paper reports/ Metodo 3s statements are total bollocks vis a vis Charlotte
As for Murat potentially hiding an abductor, honestly, misty! Get real! What for???
-
You do realize that if people such as yourself didn't repeat the abduction mantra ad nauseum, then I would not be doing the reverse.
The offer has been made several times before, and ignored.
If we didn't discuss the abduction scenario then we would merely be kowtowing to the masses who profess to know far more about the troof than SY or the PJ.
It would be far more stimulating for everyone if you engaged in proper debate than maintained a one-dimensional stance.
-
Thanks for agreeing paper reports/ Metodo 3s statements are total bollocks vis a vis Charlotte
As for Murat potentially hiding an abductor, honestly, misty! Get real! What for???
I said nothing about RM hiding any abductor. I merely said, had he been there, he may have held information about others who were there that the PJ weren't aware of. He may have had a jolly good reason, legal or illegal, for not wanting to engage further with the PJ.
The important issue is primarily to establish if he really was there that night. Isn't that what the investigation was supposed to do - or did the PJ just fly the Tapas 3 back for the sake of it?
-
If we didn't discuss the abduction scenario then we would merely be kowtowing to the masses who profess to know far more about the troof than SY or the PJ.
It would be far more stimulating for everyone if you engaged in proper debate than maintained a one-dimensional stance.
One dimensional ?
There lies an irony with the nature of the mccann supporters such as yourself.
Abduction, abduction, abduction, and of course Murat. 8**8:/:
-
One dimensional ?
There lies an irony with the nature of the mccann supporters such as yourself.
Abduction, abduction, abduction, and of course Murat. 8**8:/:
Unlike BoJo, I am unable to debate a topic from 2 different viewpoints at the same time.
In the absence of definitive evidence of means, motive & opportunity in relation to the parents, alternative ideas have to be explored and I consider abduction to be the most likely scenario.
If you don't like the fact that I see the case rather differently to you - tough.
-
Unlike BoJo, I am unable to debate a topic from 2 different viewpoints at the same time.
In the absence of definitive evidence of means, motive & opportunity in relation to the parents, alternative ideas have to be explored and I consider abduction to be the most likely scenario.
If you don't like the fact that I see the case rather differently to you - tough.
Is that what is called a strop ?
-
I said nothing about RM hiding any abductor. I merely said, had he been there, he may have held information about others who were there that the PJ weren't aware of. He may have had a jolly good reason, legal or illegal, for not wanting to engage further with the PJ.
The important issue is primarily to establish if he really was there that night. Isn't that what the investigation was supposed to do - or did the PJ just fly the Tapas 3 back for the sake of it?
If he was lieing because of other "interests" then he has NOTHING to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann so why are you labouring him so much?
-
Is that what is called a strop ?
Don't be ridiculous. Strops are for real issues, like bad hair days.
-
Unlike BoJo, I am unable to debate a topic from 2 different viewpoints at the same time.
In the absence of definitive evidence of means, motive & opportunity in relation to the parents, alternative ideas have to be explored and I consider abduction to be the most likely scenario.
If you don't like the fact that I see the case rather differently to you - tough.
They had all those
Means - didnt need them if was an accident whilst away
Motive - life/ family being destroyed
Opportunity - Was there for removal
Edited
-
If he was lieing because of other "interests" then he has NOTHING to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann so why are you labouring him so much?
This is a discussion forum.
It is the subject of the thread, Mercury.
There is a lot of information in the public files & media about him.
He, inadvertently or otherwise, has a lot to do with the MM case.
Why are you so touchy about it?
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256
"The day after she vanished they told police about two suspicious men they had seen in a ground floor apartment overlooking the tapas bar ... A source close to the investigation said: "An officer went with them to the apartment to check it. Murat appeared and acted as an interpreter. Annie assumed he was working for police. That night Murat ... was passing and enquired if everyone was OK ... He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans ... and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'. They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier."
Let's get this straight - RM claims he had been wearing a blue tshirt and jeans all day - but the two lady witnesses claim that for the first part of the day he was wearing a striped shirt and trousers.
So let's go back and find probably the first photo we have of morning 4th - taken about 9.30am - and we'll see who is lying.
Striped shirt and trousers = the witnesses are correct.
Blue tshirt and jeans = RM is telling the truth and the witnesses are very seriously mistaken.
What do you think?
Looks like blue tshirt and jeans to me.
-
This is a discussion forum.
It is the subject of the thread, Mercury.
There is a lot of information in the public files & media about him.
He, inadvertently or otherwise, has a lot to do with the MM case.
Why are you so touchy about it?
Not touchy at all Misty, I couldn't care less, just don't see a connection, perhaps you have it but won't tell what you think and btw discussion forums mean discussing , not just casting aspersions, so spit it out, I'm sure Murat wont Sue you
-
They had all those
Means - no one checking on them
Motive - life/ family being destroyed
Opportunity - same as means
That is only applicable to a death scenario.
-
http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256
"The day after she vanished they told police about two suspicious men they had seen in a ground floor apartment overlooking the tapas bar ... A source close to the investigation said: "An officer went with them to the apartment to check it. Murat appeared and acted as an interpreter. Annie assumed he was working for police. That night Murat ... was passing and enquired if everyone was OK ... He was wearing a navy blue T-shirt and jeans ... and said, 'I must shower and change, I've been in these all day'. They felt that was strange because he had been in a striped shirt and trousers earlier."
Let's get this straight - RM claims he had been wearing a blue tshirt and jeans all day - but the two lady witnesses claim that for the first part of the day he was wearing a striped shirt and trousers.
So let's go back and find probably the first photo we have of morning 4th - taken about 9.30am - and we'll see who is lying.
Striped shirt and trousers = the witnesses are correct.
Blue tshirt and jeans = RM is telling the truth and the witnesses are very seriously mistaken.
What do you think?
Looks like blue tshirt and jeans to me.
Maybe the source close to the investigation got it wrong?
How were AW & [Name removed] able to first take a PJ officer to the apartment without the use of an interpreter?
-
That is only applicable to a death scenario.
I mixed up/misunderstood means and opportunity and had amended my post but still a death scenario, so where's the evidence there was nodeath, nowhere, in fact most statistics point to it in stranger abductions
-
no credible witness statements of Robert Murat that night, no reason to suspect him in the disappearance, so what's the point f this thread still?zzzzzzz
-
Maybe the source close to the investigation got it wrong?
How were AW & [Name removed] able to first take a PJ officer to the apartment without the use of an interpreter?
On 4th [Name removed] and AW went to apartment 5C with a police officer. IMO obviously this was a police officer who spoke at least a little english. While they were there a man arrived uninvited and offered to translate. The two witnesses thought it was RM (retrospectively as they did not know him at all). It wasn't RM. It was a different man, wearing a striped shirt. I've already proved photographically that RM was not wearing a striped shirt - he was wearing a blue tshirt from first thing in the morning on 4th until the evening, exactly like he said, photos don't lie.
-
The "source close to the investigation" in http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/sisters-saw-murat-at-mccann-flat-531256 obviously had an inside ability to obtain information from M3 and to choose to feed it to the UK press. Therefore that same source presumably had access to at least two of the people who were standing outside the stairwell area at about 9.30am with RM and could plainly see that he was wearing a blue tshirt and jeans from the beginning of the day exactly as he says. That single fact, easily checkable by the so-called "source close to the investigation", obviously means the 2 lady witnesses mistook a different man for RM, and IMO it was extremely irresponsible, if the "source" knew that, to bandy this guff to all the UK papers in Dec 2007 knowing it was incorrect.
-
On 4th [Name removed] and AW went to apartment 5C with a police officer. IMO obviously this was a police officer who spoke at least a little english. While they were there a man arrived uninvited and offered to translate. The two witnesses thought it was RM (retrospectively as they did not know him at all). It wasn't RM. It was a different man, wearing a striped shirt. I've already proved photographically that RM was not wearing a striped shirt - he was wearing a blue tshirt from first thing in the morning on 4th until the evening, exactly like he said, photos don't lie.
I agree RM was wearing a blue T-Shirt early the next morning.
Do we have photographic evidence of what he was wearing in the afternoon & evening?
-
I agree RM was wearing a blue T-Shirt early the next morning.
Do we have photographic evidence of what he was wearing in the afternoon & evening?
When he spoke with [Name removed] AW and RB on a groundfloor block 6 balcony evening 4th he was wearing blue tshirt and jeans. IMO all photos of him daytime 4th show him wearing blue tshirt and jeans, contradicting the "source close to the investigation".
It is worrying that some of the UK papers also used a photo to illustrate this Dec 2007 story. But not the easily available photos of RM on morning 4th wearing blue tshirt and jeans, which would have immediately proven the story to be rubbish. Instead they were fed a photo of RM on a later date, wearing a checked shirt (presumably the closest to striped that the "source" could find) and non-jean trousers, which increases further the deceptiveness of this misleading press-feed.
-
When he spoke with [Name removed] AW and RB on a groundfloor block 6 balcony evening 4th he was wearing blue tshirt and jeans. IMO all photos of him daytime 4th show him wearing blue tshirt and jeans, contradicting the "source close to the investigation".
It is worrying that some of the UK papers also used a photo to illustrate this Dec 2007 story. But not the easily available photos of RM on morning 4th wearing blue tshirt and jeans, which would have immediately proven the story to be rubbish. Instead they were fed a photo of RM on a later date, wearing a checked shirt (presumably the closest to striped that the "source" could find) and non-jean trousers, which increases further the deceptiveness of this misleading press-feed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
(events of 4th May)
--- In the meantime the tracker dogs arrived that undertook a more rigorous form of search.
--- Then, having told several of the present people, including officers of the GNR, that he spoke two languages, he was taken to some places to make verbal translations for people who wanted to testify, remaining in that role during the afternoon. On the evening of that day by 19:00-19:30 went to see Michaela, returning to Luz about 23:00-23:30.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
That evening, the two sisters joined the barrister and his wife for a glass of wine on the balcony of their apartment.
They were discussing Madeleine's disappearance and the apparent failure of the police to set up a crime scene when Mr Murat walked past, saw them and joined them uninvited.
Mrs Jensen said: "He was wearing a blue T-shirt and jeans and he said he needed to go home and change because it had been a long day, which was odd, because he had already changed out of the clothes he had been wearing earlier."
After Mr Murat left, the barrister told the sisters he found him "odd".
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html#ixzz3p9NwQn1b
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Newspapers & statement not really tallying up.
-
Ths is getting sooooo boring
-
Ths is getting sooooo boring
Proving that accusations against an innocent man are false is not boring.
1. The man SB saw that night was not RM - because it's proven photographically that RM does not have light brown hair. 2. The man [Name removed] saw that night was not RM - she confused him with another man - proven photographically. 3. For the same reason, the man RB saw that night was not RM. 4. DP who spoke briefly with the man that night was not even sure if it was RM and therefore did not attend the confrontation.
Four down, four to go, and next is CP. But first a sidenote - when she went to enter the apartment she was told "No, no, she's not here, she's not here"
-
Deleted
-
RB was not the unnamed barrister out walking with his family around 10pm.
Not sure where you get the walking with family around 10?
I thought sitting on a friend's balcony, heard GM, joined early search, saw same man [Name removed] saw.
-
Not sure where you get the walking with family around 10?
I thought sitting on a friend's balcony, heard GM, joined early search, saw same man [Name removed] saw.
Wrong witnesses, sorry, now deleted.
-
Not sure where you get the walking with family around 10?
I thought sitting on a friend's balcony, heard GM, joined early search, saw same man [Name removed] saw.
You are discrediting the word of a barrister who was pictured with RM the next day? You think he made a mistake, too, and stood by it several months down the line?
-
http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
*snipped*
On the following morning, 4th May he also participated in some searches and, as in his professional capacity he manages apartment 5E of the OC Garden (in the same block as the apartment from which Madeleine disappeared) he suggested that the authorities should visit that apartment, in case someone had tried to enter it while it was unoccupied.
He went to the apartment with a GNR officer and after a few seconds Robert Murat also entered the apartment without anyone having requested his presence.
The witness says that he found Murat's presence in the apartment to be strange, adding that after he entered the apartment he gave the witness a 'pat on the side' and said 'thanks for your collaboration'. During this situation the witness thought that Murat worked for the police. On that morning the witness saw Murat moving around the site a lot and saw him enter and leave the apartment Madeleine disappeared from, without knowing whether he was with anyone there. He said that Murat moved a lot between the authorities and journalists.
When asked, he thinks that on that morning * Murat was wearing a yellow shirt and light coloured trousers.* The witness cannot be certain but he thinks those were the clothes Murat was wearing.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Someone who DID know RM.
Maybe he had multiple changes of clothes that day. Confusion is good.
-
You are discrediting the word of a barrister who was pictured with RM the next day? You think he made a mistake, too, and stood by it several months down the line?
Only one of that witness's statements is in the published files, it's dated May 2008 and it certainly does not even mention RM.
The allegation that this witness said they saw RM on the night of the 3rd comes to us only from press reports which were fed to the press by someone who in Dec 2007 had good access to both the press and to M3.
-
@Misty. BW's statement that RM was wearing a yellow shirt and light coloured trousers on morning 4th is IMO incorrect (he does say he's not sure). RM was certainly wearing those clothes on a later date, but not on the 4th. He was wearing blue tshirt and jeans from first thing in morning 4th until just after visiting RB balcony evening 4th. BW is getting the 4th and a later date mixed up IMO.
-
Proving that accusations against an innocent man are false is not boring.
1. The man SB saw that night was not RM - because it's proven photographically that RM does not have light brown hair. 2. The man [Name removed] saw that night was not RM - she confused him with another man - proven photographically. 3. For the same reason, the man RB saw that night was not RM. 4. DP who spoke briefly with the man that night was not even sure if it was RM and therefore did not attend the confrontation.
Four down, four to go, and next is CP. But first a sidenote - when she went to enter the apartment she was told "No, no, she's not here, she's not here"
I
Trying to implicate an innocent man is boring that's all I said
-
@Misty. BW's statement that RM was wearing a yellow shirt and light coloured trousers on morning 4th is IMO incorrect (he does say he's not sure). RM was certainly wearing those clothes on a later date, but not on the 4th. He was wearing blue tshirt and jeans from first thing in morning 4th until just after visiting RB balcony evening 4th. BW is getting the 4th and a later date mixed up IMO.
I can't find a photo of him in a yellow T-shirt, do you have one, please? He does seem to be more of a formal shirt man, judging by most of the photos.
Is it not bordering on the ridiculous to think that so many people made mistakes about one man?
-
I can't find a photo of him in a yellow T-shirt, do you have one, please? He does seem to be more of a formal shirt man, judging by most of the photos.
Is it not bordering on the ridiculous to think that so many people made mistakes about one man?
There WERE not SO MANY PEOPLE ,not even one , not a single one.
-
There WERE not SO MANY PEOPLE ,not even one , not a single one
And you KNOW that because?
-
And you KNOW that because?
No dear, YOU are the one insisting that several people said Murat was there, to date you haven't proved a single one was right....leave you to it lol
-
No dear, YOU are the one insisting that several people said Murat was there, to date you haven't proved a single one was right....leave you to it lol
I don't have to prove it, that's SY/PJ's job. But it only takes one piece of hard evidence to add to all the circumstantial evidence..... you'd have a hard job convincing a jury all those people were wrong.
-
I don't have to prove it, that's SY/PJ's job. But it only takes one piece of hard evidence to add to all the circumstantial evidence..... you'd have a hard job convincing a jury all those people were wrong.
Hard evidence for what?!
And what bloody circumstantial evidence. ....??
-
Hard evidence for what?!
And what bloody circumstantial evidence. ....??
Night, Mercury.
-
I can't find a photo of him in a yellow T-shirt, do you have one, please? He does seem to be more of a formal shirt man, judging by most of the photos.
Is it not bordering on the ridiculous to think that so many people made mistakes about one man?
There's a yellow shirt photo somewhere but I don't have link, and its a later date than the 4th.
All the people who claimed to have seen him there that night were victims of the same irrational brain processes. They did not know RM, not even by sight. See the McClusky statements for an example of the same psychological phenomenon - the mind retrospectively adapts memories to try to form connections where there are none
-
Night, Mercury.
You posted last night you don't suspect him and now you're sending a different message, confused, but yes night out of here
You still owe an answer to my questiin post 261 though maybe after breakfast????
Hmmmm important questions unanswered
-
There's a yellow shirt photo somewhere but I don't have link, and its a later date than the 4th.
All the people who claimed to have seen him there that night were victims of the same irrational brain processes. They did not know RM, not even by sight. See the McClusky statements for an example of the same psychological phenomenon - the mind retrospectively adapts memories to try to form connections where there are none
It seems far too important to certain people that anything which implicates RM in any way whatsoever needs to be discredited by phrases such as victims of irrational brain processes. Do cadaver dogs suffer the same affliction?
-
I don't have to prove it, that's SY/PJ's job. But it only takes one piece of hard evidence to add to all the circumstantial evidence..... you'd have a hard job convincing a jury all those people were wrong.
It would be easy as cake Misty. For example I would simply call as witnesses GM KM DP FP DW MO and JT because they were all standing right next to RM first thing on morning 4th and they will all confirm he was wearing blue tshirt and jeans exactly as he stated - and so the "changed clothes then denied it" allegation would be laughed out of court.
-
It would be easy as cake Misty. For example I would simply call as witnesses GM KM DP FP DW MO and JT because they were all standing right next to RM first thing on morning 4th and they will all confirm he was wearing blue tshirt and jeans exactly as he stated - and so the "changed clothes then denied it" allegation would be laughed out of court.
What he was wearing at 9.30 is not in dispute as there is photographic evidence of that & no-one has denied he was on the scene on 4/5.
Where is the evidence of what he was wearing later in the day, apart from a blue T-shirt in the evening which may or may not have been the same one he had on in the morning.
Do you think that, by the way he was dressed first thing, he would have been mistaken as being with the PJ?
-
It seems far too important to certain people that anything which implicates RM in any way whatsoever needs to be discredited by phrases such as victims of irrational brain processes. Do cadaver dogs suffer the same affliction?
It is a fact that RM was wearing a blue t-shirt when he first arrived outside the apartment on morning 4th. Photos prove it. Photos of GM and KM and several of the T7 standing right next to him in a blue tshirt. Yet still some people will still claim the "changed clothes" story is true. It's puzzling how someone could publish that story when the proof it is wrong was so easily accessible.
-
@Pegasus
Sorry if I came over as rather rude. I do respect your opinion, even if I don't always agree with it.
Night.
-
(snip)...Where is the evidence of what he was wearing later in the day ...(snip)
The evidence is photos throughout the day Misty, all in the same blue tshirt and jeans, exactly as the witness truthfully stated.
-
Has it not already been proved that Robert Murat was wearing a blue tee shirt in the morning and that someone else was wearing a striped blue tee shirt?
I could have sworn I saw those two photos somewhere. On this thread even.
-
It seems far too important to certain people that anything which implicates RM in any way whatsoever needs to be discredited by phrases such as victims of irrational brain processes. Do cadaver dogs suffer the same affliction?
Hmm, I wonder who else that is applied to?
-
It seems far too important to certain people that anything which implicates RM in any way whatsoever needs to be discredited by phrases such as victims of irrational brain processes. Do cadaver dogs suffer the same affliction?
You seem hell bent on putting Murat in the frame for Madeleine's disappearance.
and this seems increasingly a libellous pathway.
-
It is a fact that RM was wearing a blue t-shirt when he first arrived outside the apartment on morning 4th. Photos prove it. Photos of GM and KM and several of the T7 standing right next to him in a blue tshirt. Yet still some people will still claim the "changed clothes" story is true. It's puzzling how someone could publish that story when the proof it is wrong was so easily accessible.
Interesting point, Misty. There are, I believe witness statements that his demeanour was such that it led people to suppose he was part of the GNR team taking part in searches.
(http://cdn.cmjornal.xl.pt/2014-11/img_757x426$2014_11_19_22_35_34_418642.jpg)
-
You seem hell bent on putting Murat in the frame for Madeleine's disappearance.
and this seems increasingly a libellous pathway.
The people who put Robert Murat in the frame for Madeleine's disappearance were the same people who did likewise for her parents.
Why do you feel free to denigrate and malign the Drs McCann while defending the rights enjoyed by Robert Murat, which I would remind you, are exactly the same rights which should be enjoyed by the Drs McCann, but which are denied them with tedious regularity by motley groups of sceptics?
There is nothing libellous in discussing the statements made by credible witnesses that they saw Robert Murat in the vicinity of the McCann apartment on the 3rd.
Even if he had been there ... so what? Nothing at all suspicious in that at all.
Police suspicions were aroused by his changing alibis ... not by his presence to an event in the near vicinity of his home.
-
Quite, so suggesting the parents dunnit is libellous, same as suggesting it was Murat - do you understand this?
He obviously doesnt
-
Person A = Smoking man on night 3rd (seen but not met by [Name removed]/RB)
Person B = Translator man/striped shirt man [Name removed] encountered on 4th at 5C & once later p.m
Person C= RM = Blue T-shirt man/man who went to balcony where [Name removed]/AW/RB were enjoying wine - early evening
[Name removed] met Person B when he translated to PJ for her.
[Name removed] thinks that person B & C is the same as person A.
RB thinks that person C is also person A.
RB engaged in searches with person C.
Person C must have met [Name removed]/RB prior to evening to have approached them on their balcony.
Person C is wearing different clothing to earlier encounter with [Name removed] when described as person B, but same as RM a.m.
Could somebody please explain why person B cannot be person C (change of clothes) but person A could be Person B if there are 2 translators who look almost identical.
-
Robert Murat was an arguido. That status was lifted in 2008.
He was interviewed by the Portuguese police, a year ago, on behalf of the Metropolitan Police Service. There seems to be no record of him being an arguido now or having been interviewed by the Portuguese police in their reopened investigation.
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/546700/Murat-quizzed-for-four-hours-in-Yard-hunt-for-Madeleine
The Scotland Yard squad says it is keeping an “open mind” about the case.
-
You seem hell bent on putting Murat in the frame for Madeleine's disappearance.
and this seems increasingly a libellous pathway.
No. Madeleine disappeared at least half an hour before RM was first placed at the scene & RM was not seen carrying a child.
It would be entirely brazen or very foolhardy for a person to return to the scene of a crime he had not long committed, make himself visible & actually introduce himself to people around the crime scene. Then it would be even more foolhardy to deny his presence to the police.
The question is - why did so many people make the same mistaken identification, if that's indeed what it was?
Who was this person? What was he doing there? Was he Smithman?
A
-
No. Madeleine disappeared at least half an hour before RM was first placed at the scene & RM was not seen carrying a child.
It would be entirely brazen or very foolhardy for a person to return to the scene of a crime he had not long committed, make himself visible & actually introduce himself to people around the crime scene. Then it would be even more foolhardy to deny his presence to the police.
The question is - why did so many people make the same mistaken identification, if that's indeed what it was?
Who was this person? What was he doing there? Was he Smithman?
A
I think a person who looked like Robert Murat was at the scene shortly after Madeleine's disappearance ... if he was helping out either in the search or in translating ... why is his name not on record?
-
The situation concerning the first suspect, ROBERT MURAT, will now be approached, thus following a line of the succession of the facts, without prejudice of returning to the description of occurrences further ahead.
A few days after the facts took place, suspicions were raised concerning an individual that resides approximately 100/150 metres away from apartment 5A, identified as ROBERT JAMES QUERIOL EVELEIGH MURAT.
suspicions arose initially due to the formulation by a British journalist, who found the special commitment and curiosity of MURAT in this case to be strange, which had reminded her of another [case] that had taken place in the United Kingdom with similar outlines and where the guilty persons had actively participated in searches.
The reasons for said suspicion are duly listed within the information that is contained in the process, on pages 308, 328, 442, 461, 957, 960, 961 and 986 to 1000, being certain that they ended up being reinforced, some time later, by elements of the holiday group that asserted, contrary to what MURAT said, that he had participated in the searches on the evening of the disappearance.
In an initial phase, before the investigation was deepened, this individual gathered the conditions to be pointed out as a suspect. The conditions that are intrinsical to his suspect status, can be analysed, as stated before, on the routine reports that were mentioned above.
In order to confirm or dismiss the suspicions about ROBERT MURAT, searches and telephone surveillance were requested, pages 995 to 1013, both on the suspect and on the individuals with whom he directly or indirectly interacted, namely with who he met almost daily and maintained telephone contacts.
Despite the exhaustive and methodical investigation into MURAT and the persons close to him, no elements whatsoever were collected to relate him to the crime that was under investigation, and it should be noted that contrary to what witnesses within the group stated concerning his hypothetical participation in the searches on the night of the disappearance, other witnesses (like SILVIA BAPTISTA and elements of the GNR) asserted that they had not seen him during those diligences
Beyond the communication interceptions and forensic exams of the computers belonging to them, which pointed to nothing useful, several searches were also performed in the suspect’s home, as mentioned earlier, with cino-technical assistance and exploration of the subsoil, both physically and by technological detection means, which also did not allow for the collection of exact evidence.
Be aware that, in relation to the utilization of very advanced technological means, in the area of the detection of strange bodies in the subsoil or enclosed [walled in], these were performed specifically by technicians from Aveiro University, using equipment that allowed a detailed search of the area.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/P_J_FINAL_REPORT.htm
-
it would be very interesting to know what questions Grange asked him
-
I think a person who looked like Robert Murat was at the scene shortly after Madeleine's disappearance ... (snip)
Yes.
The people who state they saw a man translating that night are DP FP RO ROB.
They did truthfully see a man translating that night, but it was not RM , it was another person who superficially resembles him.
-
A reminder to all members.
Bad language will not be tolerated on this forum. Any member found to be persistently breaching this rule will have their membership suspended. Please continue to report non compliances as and when they occur.
Admin
-
The man seen by SB that night, she does not not say he was translating, she just says he was keen to help search, this was simply one of the tourists from another building helping search very soon after the disappearance.
A different man was seen by CP and [Name removed] and RB that night, none of them say he was translating, just that he was standing there, this is a different man to the man seen by SB
Milling around the apartment at various times during the panic were about 100 people, obviously this would include quite a few males with short hair and glasses.
-
Has it ever been explained why this character was singled out from the crowd as being sufficiently unusual to be even noticed.?
-
Has it ever been explained why this character was singled out from the crowd as being sufficiently unusual to be even noticed.?
It was only after RM was incorrectly suspected, and truthfully said he wasn't there that night.
-
It was only after RM was incorrectly suspected, and truthfully said he wasn't there that night.
So FP was untruthful when she said she met him while KM was still inside 5a?
-
I believe mistaken is the word 8)-)))
-
So FP was untruthful when she said she met him while KM was still inside 5a?
FP did see a man. He came up to her and introduced himself. The fact is that FP does NOT remember what name he gave. That is how poor the recollection is. And she does not remember even a single item of clothing he was wearing. It was not RM. He was not there. It was a different man.
-
FP did see a man. He came up to her and introduced himself. The fact is that FP does NOT remember what name he gave. That is how poor the recollection is. And she does not remember even a single item of clothing he was wearing. It was not RM. He was not there. It was a different man.
How many people have to be mistaken for the word of a person, who made at least 17 alterations (not counting lies)
to his own statement, to be the truth? Please bear in mind RM's first recollection of the evening of the 3rd was that he was with his girlfriend.
-
How many people have to be mistaken for the word of a person, who made at least 17 alterations (not counting lies)
to his own statement, to be the truth? Please bear in mind RM's first recollection of the evening of the 3rd was that he was with his girlfriend.
Would you care to substantiate your post ?
-
Would you care to substantiate your post ?
Which part in particular?
-
Which part in particular?
All of it.
As it stands, you are more than implying that Murat was involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
-
All of it.
As it stands, you are more than implying that Murat was involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
Has it been proved that he wasn't
-
All of it.
As it stands, you are more than implying that Murat was involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
He just had poor recall of memory and changed his statement to compensate for it &%+((£
Nothing suspicious about that ma'am it happens to everyone all the time.
-
He just had poor recall of memory and changed his statement to compensate for it &%+((£
Nothing suspicious about that ma'am it happens to everyone all the time.
why haven't SY stated he is not involved and given us all the evidence to prove it...sounds fishier than a pair of kippers to me
-
He just had poor recall of memory and changed his statement to compensate for it &%+((£
Nothing suspicious about that ma'am it happens to everyone all the time.
I wonder who you mean Alice ? &%+((£
-
why haven't SY stated he is not involved and given us all the evidence to prove it...sounds fishier than a pair of kippers to me
Because it is nowt to do with them?
-
Because it is nowt to do with them?
anyone with even basic degree level understanding of body language can see that he is hiding a big secret...wouldn't surprise me if SY are just clearing the decks and waiting to pounce...they would need to get a watertight case first as Portugal are sticklers for proper evidence
-
anyone with even basic degree level understanding of body language can see that he is hiding a big secret...wouldn't surprise me if SY are just clearing the decks and waiting to pounce...they would need to get a watertight case first as Portugal are sticklers for proper evidence
That has been said of others as well.
Now what did John Stalker say ? &%+((£
-
How many people have to be mistaken for the word of a person, who made at least 17 alterations (not counting lies)
to his own statement, to be the truth? Please bear in mind RM's first recollection of the evening of the 3rd was that he was with his girlfriend.
Actually only three people attended the confrontation to accuse RM.
SB didn't - because she realised she was wrong and in fact it wasn't RM she saw.
DP didn't (and he had actually spoken with the man) because no way was he anywhere near sure it was RM.
-
All of it.
As it stands, you are more than implying that Murat was involved in Madeleine's disappearance.
Name: ROBERT JAMES QUERIOL EVELEIGH MURAT
08-Processo, Volume VIII, pages 1947-1956
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1947
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1948
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1949
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1950
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1951
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1952
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1953
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1954
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1955
08_VOLUME_VIIIa_Page_1956
Processo, Volume VIII, pages 1947-1956 (10 pages)
WITNESS STATEMENT OF ARGUIDO: ROBERT MURAT
Asked if he wanted to respond to the facts that are imputed against him, he responded:
---- Yes, he intends to respond to the questions that are going to be put to him.
---- Despite having British nationality he understands perfectly the Portuguese language both spoken and written therefore the presence of a translator is not necessary in this interview.
---- Asked if he confirms his previous testimony he responded that because on the day the interrogation was conducted he was very tired and does not remember exactly what was said at that time, that is he recalls in general terms what he said, but does not remember the detail of some statements.
---- His previous declarations having been read to him he confirmed having made them, however it is his wish to amend some of affirmations that were made then [at that time] as he had confused some events, in particular in what he said with respect to the dates and times of what happened. He stated events that he said had happened on Wednesday 02 and that now he more calmly recalls them having happened on Thursday and vice versa. There are also other events that he now recalls happened in those two days in particular that he wants to disclose.........
.---- The defendant intended to clarify that on the morning of 02 [May] he did not leave the house by 10:00-10:30, as stated previously but in fact he had met with Sergey Malinca on 02 [May], Wednesday, in the Baptista supermarket, at 10:00, he having arrived 15 to 20 minutes before and accompanied by Michaela whom he had gone to collect at her home in the VW. They talked about the Romigen web site that Sergey was setting up. The meeting lasted about 30 minutes and in the end Sergey left alone with the accused and Michaela having proceeded to Lagos.
---- Asked for what reason he had not previously remembered this meeting, given that he had said previously that that morning he had left the house by 10:00-10:30, he said now that on the date of the first interrogation he was "rattled" and had not remembered this fact.
---- To this point he wants to say that on the day prior to his interrogation he went to bed around 03:00, having up to that time accompanied officers of the PJ, namely Inspector Reis Sxxxxx, who invited him for coffee in the bar Bom Vivant, where they remained until about that hour he being certain that he was woken up at 07:00 when PJ officers went to his house. So he had slept for only about 4 hours and was therefore very tired...............
05-Processo, Volume V, pages 1170-1178 (9 pages)
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1170
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1171
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1172
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1173
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1174
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1175
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1176
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1177
05_VOLUME_Va_Page_1178
Processo, Volume V, pages 1170-1178
WITNESS STATEMENT OF ARGUIDO: ROBERT MURAT
......... Contrary to what he said originally, he was not with MICHAELA when she went to a Jehovah witnesses' meeting between 20:00 and 22:00, which is why he didn't phone her, because she turns her phone off.
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Pegasus believes several people were mistaken. I believe RM's memory lapses to be more than questionable in relation to Pegasus's assertion.
This does not implicate RM in Madeleine's disappearance. It merely required much more detailed scrutiny than the PJ ever gave it, to determine the reasons behind the "mistakes".
-
That has been said of others as well.
Now what did John Stalker say ? &%+((£
I found stalker quite creepy....surely that cannot be his real name...do we know if he has been interviewed by Grange
-
anyone with even basic degree level understanding of body language can see that he is hiding a big secret...wouldn't surprise me if SY are just clearing the decks and waiting to pounce...they would need to get a watertight case first as Portugal are sticklers for proper evidence
Same answer again. It is nowt to do with the MPS.
-
If I attended a confrontation to identify and potentially ruin a man, I would make damn sure out of basic fairness that anything which might have even slightly impeded my cognitive skills that night got written down in black and white on my confrontation statement.
-
I found stalker quite creepy....surely that cannot be his real name...do we know if he has been interviewed by Grange
He was a policeman dave . 8**8:/:
-
If I attended a confrontation to identify and potentially ruin a man, I would make damn sure out of basic fairness that anything which might have even slightly impeded my cognitive skills that night got written down in black and white on my confrontation statement.
The UK has ID parades rather than face-to-face confrontations, doesn't it? Were the 3 Tapas members aware of what was going to happen?
Why do you suppose the PJ never had the Smiths & GM back for a similar confrontation?
-
He was a policeman dave . 8**8:/:
I thought he sold security shutters ...double glazing and life insurance
-
Whatever else Stalker said, he said he believed that Madeleine had been Abducted.
-
anyone with even basic degree level understanding of body language can see that he is hiding a big secret...wouldn't surprise me if SY are just clearing the decks and waiting to pounce...they would need to get a watertight case first as Portugal are sticklers for proper evidence
That's strange, because I have watched several video interviews with this man, and his body language and whole demeanour I find to be extremely straightforward, answering questions directly, and he immediately strikes me as an extremely honest man. Can you give us an example Davel of any man in this case whose body language you rate as highly as that please?
-
That's strange, because I have watched several video interviews with this man, and his body language and whole demeanour I find to be extremely straightforward, answering questions directly, and he immediately strikes me as an extremely honest man. Can you give us an example Davel of any man in this case whose body language you rate as highly as that please?
he's working the old double bluff or shuffle as it is commonly known
-
Whatever else Stalker said, he said he believed that Madeleine had been Abducted.
That was his assumption at the time.
I wonder what he thinks now, after all this time and NO TRACE OF ABDUCTION ?
-
That was his assumption at the time.
I wonder what he thinks now, after all this time and NO TRACE OF ABDUCTION ?
could it be that several high ranking government ministers are involved and there is a cover up taking place....conservative of course
-
That's strange, because I have watched several video interviews with this man, and his body language and whole demeanour I find to be extremely straightforward, answering questions directly, and he immediately strikes me as an extremely honest man. Can you give us an example Davel of any man in this case whose body language you rate as highly as that please?
Do you have a link to a video interview where he mentions Madeleine by name, please?
-
That was his assumption at the time.
I wonder what he thinks now, after all this time and NO TRACE OF ABDUCTION ?
he may have been supporting abduction purely to promote his particular brand of security shutters which I believe cannot be opened from the outside
-
he's working the old double bluff or shuffle as it is commonly known
So you don't name any man in this case whose body language you rate higher for honesty than RM's?
Which man in this case has the most honest body language in your expert opinion?
-
could it be that several high ranking government ministers are involved and there is a cover up taking place....conservative of course
Why not ask Sadie.
She's fond of conspiracy theories. 8((()*/
-
So you don't have anyone in this case whose body language you rate higher for honesty than RM's?
Gerry and Kate spring immediately to mind
-
Why not ask Sadie.
She's fond of conspiracy theories. 8((()*/
it seems Sadie has been abducted...perhaps she was getting too close to the truth...if you get my drift
-
it seems Sadie has been abducted...perhaps she was getting too close to the truth...if you get my drift
Of course dave.
She's been grabbed by the illuminati's. 8)-)))
-
What percentage of the 3 sitting opposite RM at the confrontation had cogniton skills at 100% evening May 3rd?
Clue - the answer is circular
-
Of course dave.
She's been grabbed by the illuminati's. 8)-)))
I believe sadly that may be the case
-
Of course dave.
She's been grabbed by the illuminati's. 8)-)))
do you believe it's her own fault and there is no one else to blame
-
Can we cut out the derailment and tone down the libel please.
-
do you believe it's her own fault and there is no one else to blame
I would imagine she's stuck somewhere in a celestial teapot between your two favourite planets. 8(>((
-
What percentage of the 3 sitting opposite RM at the confrontation had cogniton skills at 100% evening May 3rd?
Clue - the answer is circular
Had RM not been drinking earlier in the day? Can you be sure he'd consumed no alcohol at home that evening?
-
I would imagine she's stuck somewhere in a celestial teapot between your two favourite planets. 8(>((
whats your favourite planet...Uranus
-
whats your favourite planet...Uranus
That was original dave. &%&£(+ &%&£(+ &%&£(+
-
getting back on track...does Roger Murat have an independent alibi for the evening
-
Gerry and Kate spring immediately to mind
Which man in this case has the most honest body language of all in your opinion?
-
Had RM not been drinking earlier in the day? Can you be sure he'd consumed no alcohol at home that evening?
Next you'll be claiming he was bottleman?
-
It's a shame Dr Amaral was already an arguido in a similar case otherwise he could have brought him in...roughed him up a bit and got him to sing like a canary.......case solved...UK taxpayer 12 mill better off and Amaral could have enjoyed his retirement
-
Next you'll be claiming he was bottleman?
Was he asked if he'd consumed any alcohol? You feel it was a factor in the cognitive skills of the Tapas 3.
-
Was he asked if he'd consumed any alcohol? You feel it was a factor in the cognitive skills of the Tapas 3.
You would have to ask medical professionals about whether a glass of wine or two has any affect on cognitive and motor skills or affects memory recall. You can read the statements of all 4 people present at the confrontation and work out which ones were drinking tea or coffee or whatever that night
-
You would have to ask medical professionals about whether a glass of wine or two has any affect on cognitive and motor skills or affects memory recall. You can read the statements of all 4 people present at the confrontation and work out which ones were drinking tea or coffee or whatever that night
Volume VIII, pages 1959-1964 (6 pages)
WITNESS STATEMENT (3 of 3) OF ARGUIDO: ROBERT MURAT
Date: 2007/07/11; Time: 10:00; Location: DIC Portim�o
Officer: Paulo F., Inspector.
*snipped*
---- At 14:30 the present interview was restarted.
---- 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.
---- Questioned he says that when he heard the sound of a siren he was with his mother in the kitchen, still talking, it would be about 22:00/22:30, the time he estimates taking into account that they had the television on. Questioned he said not to recall if the sound was continuous or discontinuous. He remembers only that at that time there was the sound of voices from both their talk and the sound of television, not recalling other sounds in the background. He remembers well having heard that sound given that after it he commented to his mother that it seemed that he was in her house in England given that there he assiduously heard the sound of sirens. He was not aware of other noises namely raised voices or the dogs barking outside the property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost as vague as "I know nothing, Mr Fawlty".
-
Volume VIII, pages 1959-1964 (6 pages)
WITNESS STATEMENT (3 of 3) OF ARGUIDO: ROBERT MURAT
Date: 2007/07/11; Time: 10:00; Location: DIC Portim�o
Officer: Paulo F., Inspector.
*snipped*
---- At 14:30 the present interview was restarted.
---- 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.
---- Questioned he says that when he heard the sound of a siren he was with his mother in the kitchen, still talking, it would be about 22:00/22:30, the time he estimates taking into account that they had the television on. Questioned he said not to recall if the sound was continuous or discontinuous. He remembers only that at that time there was the sound of voices from both their talk and the sound of television, not recalling other sounds in the background. He remembers well having heard that sound given that after it he commented to his mother that it seemed that he was in her house in England given that there he assiduously heard the sound of sirens. He was not aware of other noises namely raised voices or the dogs barking outside the property.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Almost as vague as "I know nothing, Mr Fawlty".
No its nothing like Manuel Misty, it's an honest witness account.
But while we are visiting Fawlty Towers here's something Basilian
"Oh I can explain that Sybil I was in a rush and when I picked it up I thought it was a torch"
-
No its nothing like Manuel Misty, it's an honest witness account.
But while we are visiting Fawlty Towers here's something Basilian
"Oh I can explain that Sybil I was in a rush and when I picked it up I thought it was a torch"
You've got me with the torch - was that in Communication Problems, with Mrs Richards?
-
Well, one of them was on a laptop for best part of 2 hours....but that's a separate issue.
You've got me with the torch - was that in Communication Problems, with Mrs Richards?
If you mean typing the timeline on a laptop, that was on the 7th or 8th not the 3rd.
I made up the basil torch quote, it belongs on another thread anyway as its nothing to do with RM or the people who mistakenly identified him. ETA please post a little louder as I have my hearing aid turned down