Why Robert Murat became a suspect and then an arguido.

[Lyall]

So  no direct quote from Kate then. Just as I thought.

That's why they had a spokesman

[Redblossom]

That's why they had a spokesman

*snortle*

[j.rob]

You didnt ask for one. You just said where? Show I showed you "where"



 

I presume that the McCann's would have tried to sue The Daily Mail and/or get an apology if they believed that the article was lying.

Jane Tanner identifies Murat

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id18.html

[AnneGuedes]

That's why they had a spokesman

Do you know of precedents in a child's disappearance case of parents using a spokesman ?
A spokesman implies media. If you close your door to them (which doesn't mean the media will stop informing on the case), no spokesman is needed.
Celebs who are clumsy in PR matter use spokesmen to be sure that the news will be appropriate and have an impact at least minimizing a negative image.

[Lyall]

Do you know of precedents in a child's disappearance case of parents using a spokesman ?
A spokesman implies media. If you close your door to them (which doesn't mean the media will stop informing on the case), no spokesman is needed.
Celebs who are clumsy in PR matter use spokesmen to be sure that the news will be appropriate and have an impact at least minimizing a negative image.

No I don't know of any precedents Anne, but there really never was a case like this one before.

Mohamed Al-Fayed had/has one - it's not entirely analogous but may have set a precedent. >@@(*&)

[j.rob]

Page 84 of Kate's book: "There was little doubt in my mind then, nor is there now, that what Jane saw was Madeleine's abductor taking her away."

Page 79 of Kate's book: "....Jane had seen a man....carrying a child.........having passed Gerry and Jes talking.....she had seen this man crossing the junction.....As soon as she heard about Madeleine's disappearance, everything fell into place and she felt sick."

Kate mentions Murat on page 88. On page 98 she mentions the family of 9 who saw a man carrying a child  who gave a similar description to Jane's,

On page 133 she writes about hearing that Robert Murat had been taking in for questioning.

In her book, Kate claims that Jane never identified Murat as the man she had seen on 3rd May.

However on page 134 Kate records that Fiona told us she'd seen Robert Murat outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. "Then I began to feel panicky."

However, by page 157, Kate is writing that "when I read through the PJ files .......I found nothing to implicate Murat."

Nevertheless: she does not entirely exonerate him, writing: "Several witnesses, including Fiona, Russ and Rachael, reported seeing Murat near our apartment on the night Madeleine vanished. He has always categorically denied being there and his mother confirmed that he was at home all evening."

So much for the Jane Tanner sighting. Still, the Portugese police always thought it was a turkey.

[j.rob]

Still, this article in the Daily Mail does not exactly paint Murat in a good light. There is also quite a bit of discussion about his mobile phone call that evening. At least he didn't delete it like certain other people that evening.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html

[Lyall]

Do you know of precedents in a child's disappearance case of parents using a spokesman ?
A spokesman implies media. If you close your door to them (which doesn't mean the media will stop informing on the case), no spokesman is needed.
Celebs who are clumsy in PR matter use spokesmen to be sure that the news will be appropriate and have an impact at least minimizing a negative image.

In the USA attorneys will have done a similar job, I'm sure there will have been many instances of that.

[Eleanor]

Don't forget that we still have this man coming from the wrong direction who appeared to be heading away from 5A.
It really isn't surprising if everyone, including me, thought he was the abductor.  And certainly, Jane Tanner saw someone.

[ferryman]

Yes - because their behaviour was suspicious. He was using his powers of deduction from day one. That's what detectives do. The behaviour of their friends was suspicious too.

As to Murat, a journalist from the Sunday Mirror contacted Leicestershire police suggesting that Murat's behaviour was suspicious (a bit like Huntley's behaviour after the disappearance of the two girls in Soham). This was on the 6th May - two days after Madeleine's alleged abduction.

Jane Tanner, on the evening of the alleged abduction, claimed that she saw a man carrying a child going in the direction of Murat's house. Tanner's suggestion was that she had seen Madeleine's abductor carrying Madeleine.
Did Tanner and others directly identify Murat as the man who she thought had abducted Madeleine?

This was all supposed evidence for the abduction theory. See how many people are sowing the seeds for that theory from the very beginning, despite (allegedly) not being there to witness the abduction, therefore not theoretically having any knowledge as to what had happened to Madeleine?

Did Jane Tanner positively identify Murat as the man she saw carrying a child (the inference being that the child was Madeleine)? In any event, it is on record that the Portugese police did not believe the sighting was important and did not find Tanner a reliable witness.

Aren't doctors supposed to keep an open mind when faced with the challenge of making a diagnosis? Statistically speaking, abduction of a child by a random unknown person is rare. The McCanns themselves openly acknowledged this and in fact cited it as a justification for leaving the children alone in the apartment - they simply did not believe that abduction by a stranger was a possibility.

Statistically speaking, when a child disappears, it often has something to do with parents/carers/someone who knows the child.

While I can understand why, if you were wishing to cover up a crime, you might want to frame someone, what is less easy to understand is Gerry's answer when asked if he knew Murat. 'No comment'.

In actual fact, Murat offered to help the McCanns,  by translating for instance.

I wonder what Murat has to say about the McCanns and their friends?

See, the trouble with Amaral is that he didn't even seem to understand the basic procedures and protocols of his own police force, as revealed in his comment about the Gaspar statements.

If Amaral is to be believed (he isn't!) the Gaspars made a joint statement.

The distinction is vital, because Mr Gaspar's statement could scarcely have been more different from his wife's.

That aside, basic procedure and protocol of police forces around the world (including the PJ) is to take individual witness statements.

Why didn't Amaral know/say that?

Incompetence?

Or attempt to mislead?

[Lyall]

Don't forget that we still have this man coming from the wrong direction who appeared to be heading away from 5A.
It really isn't surprising if everyone, including me, thought he was the abductor.  And certainly, Jane Tanner saw someone.

There's still the issue of the time and location of this sighting though. Redwood didn't say anything about that aspect.

[AnneGuedes]

See, the trouble with Amaral is that he didn't even seem to understand the basic procedures and protocols of his own police force, as revealed in his comment about the Gaspar statements.

If Amaral is to be believed (he isn't!) the Gaspars made a joint statement.

The distinction is vital, because Mr Gaspar's statement could scarcely have been more different from his wife's.

That aside, basic procedure and protocol of police forces around the world (including the PJ) is to take individual witness statements.

Why didn't Amaral know/say that?

Incompetence?

Or attempt to mislead?

I'd bet attempt to mislead all (except for more clever than the AG, i.e you). But he will soon be punished ! Prepare the champagne...

[j.rob]

See, the trouble with Amaral is that he didn't even seem to understand the basic procedures and protocols of his own police force, as revealed in his comment about the Gaspar statements.

If Amaral is to be believed (he isn't!) the Gaspars made a joint statement.

The distinction is vital, because Mr Gaspar's statement could scarcely have been more different from his wife's.

That aside, basic procedure and protocol of police forces around the world (including the PJ) is to take individual witness statements.

Why didn't Amaral know/say that?

Incompetence?

Or attempt to mislead?

interesting that you mention the Gasper statements although I am curious as to what they have to do with Robert Murat being made a suspect. Is there a link that we don't know about?

As for Amaral who the McCanns are suing, I am afraid I find him far more convincing than the McCanns and their friends. He also strikes me as considerably more, how should I put it, 'considered' is probably one way of putting it.

For instance, this observation of his strikes me as intelligent: "Everything should be about what happened to Madeleine. The case's core has shifted and it's now about money, celebrities and politics. It has become an industry - absurd."

I would not disagree with that. There are plenty of vultures feeding at the Madeleine trough.

[AnneGuedes]

There's still the issue of the time and location of this sighting though. Redwood didn't say anything about that aspect.

DCI Redwood found that Tannerman was in excess, so he suppressed him in order to see better. It seems that what he says, though, doesn't count, Tannerman's believers continue to believe (McCanns included). How is that coherent with the respect due to the old SY institution is beyond me.

[j.rob]

However I can see how the McCann's are clinging onto discrediting Amaral as if to a life-raft. It's strange how the British press are not covering the McCann's on going case against Amaral, though, isn't it? I would have thought it would be in the public interest.

And what is it Kate has said: she can forgive the (paedophile) abductors of Madeleine but not Amaral. What an extraordinary thing to say. And why would she say it?

All about 'reputation management' I suppose - a subject quite close to their hearts from the very beginning.

What exactly is the Madeleine Fund being used for? I think the public have a right to know given that the Fund aims to be transparent.