Why Robert Murat became a suspect and then an arguido.

[j.rob]

Not sure I have much confidence in DC Redwood - he worked on the Jill Dando case, didn't he, and look what came of that? Still, we can but hope that our police force do not come out of this appalling mess with even more egg on their faces.

We must be the laughing stock of the rest of the world.

[Eleanor]

The Libel Action was brought nearly five years ago, and there is no doubt that if The McCanns hadn't done this then Amaral would just have gone on and one and on.

[j.rob]

What, you mean he might have solved the case, is that what you mean?

I believe the McCann's are attempting to recover legal costs against Amaral.

That's what I call chutpah.

Still, we can hope that, eventually, a judge will put an end to the McCanns going on and on and on and on.

[Eleanor]

What, you mean he might have solved the case, is that what you mean?

I believe the McCann's are attempting to recover legal costs against Amaral.

That's what I call chutpah.

Still, we can hope that, eventually, a judge will put an end to the McCanns going on and on and on and on.

It is Amaral who has held up the case.

[j.rob]

Its a shame that he was taken off the case under pressure. A great shame. Still, hopefully justice will eventually be done for Madeleine. But what has this got to do with Robert Murat? I suppose Amaral knew that Murat was a patsy but had to play along with it, at least for a bit. Seems like there was a lot of bad press about Murat but once the PJ files were released, it became clear they had to drop that particular one.

Did the McCann's ever apologize to him?

[Eleanor]

Its a shame that he was taken off the case under pressure. A great shame. Still, hopefully justice will eventually be done for Madeleine. But what has this got to do with Robert Murat? I suppose Amaral knew that Murat was a patsy but had to play along with it, at least for a bit. Seems like there was a lot of bad press about Murat but once the PJ files were released, it became clear they had to drop that particular one.

Did the McCann's ever apologize to him?

Did Amaral ever apologise for the hideous things he said about Robert Murat in his book?

[ferryman]

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.

The reference to the Gaspar statements was in response to the comment on Amaral's powers of deduction.  Unlike the poster I was responding to, I have no faith in Amaral's powers of deduction.

And the comment you cite should be placed in context. 

How were Madeleine's best interests served by leaking a lie as vicious as "Gerry not Madeleine's father" (for example)?

[AnneGuedes]

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

But in Europe ? In German Roman System, this isn't thinkable, it would be counterproductive. Even lawyers are very careful with what they say. The would never pinkyclaim "ludicrous".

[AnneGuedes]

The reference to the Gaspar statements was in response to the comment on Amaral's powers of deduction.  Unlike the poster I was responding to, I have no faith in Amaral's powers of deduction.

And the comment you cite should be placed in context. 

How were Madeleine's best interests served by leaking a lie as vicious as "Gerry not Madeleine's father" (for example)?

Have you the money for the champagne, or should we contribute ?

[AnneGuedes]

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.

The public has the right to pay, even if it's only half a pound. The Fund is no charity and discretion has to be respected. Are you complaining ?

[ferryman]

Have you the money for the champagne, or should we contribute ?

Champagne?

Where do you get such notions from?

[j.rob]

The reference to the Gaspar statements was in response to the comment on Amaral's powers of deduction.  Unlike the poster I was responding to, I have no faith in Amaral's powers of deduction.

And the comment you cite should be placed in context. 

How were Madeleine's best interests served by leaking a lie as vicious as "Gerry not Madeleine's father" (for example)?

Oh right. They are quite interesting, though, aren't they, the Gaspar statements? I still don't see why you brought that up on a thread about Murat. The obvious linking theme here would be references to paedophilia as the Gaspers suggested that David Payne made lewd gestures that could be interpreted as having an interest in paedophilia.

Given that Murat was made a suspect not long after the McCanns claimed that their daughter had  been abducted by a paedophile, I presume that there was some suspicion that he might have an interest in paedophilia. And I do believe it was suggested that there was some evidence that he might have looked at child porn on his computer. I know there were comments made of this nature at the time. As to their veracity, I have no idea.

However, the Gasper statements can be read. It must have been a difficult decision for the Gaspers but I understand that when they learned that David Payne had been with the McCanns on holiday when Madeleine disappeared, they felt concerned enough to contact the police and express their concerns.

[Benice]

Its a shame that he was taken off the case under pressure. A great shame. Still, hopefully justice will eventually be done for Madeleine. But what has this got to do with Robert Murat? I suppose Amaral knew that Murat was a patsy but had to play along with it, at least for a bit. Seems like there was a lot of bad press about Murat but once the PJ files were released, it became clear they had to drop that particular one.

Did the McCann's ever apologize to him?

Why would they apologise?  It wasn't anything to do with them that Murat came to the PJ's attention.  All they knew was that he was being investigated and the PJ led them to believe it would only be a matter of time before they had the evidence to arrest him.       It was only after KM read the files that she realised that was not the case and that there was no evidence against him.

Strange how Amaral found JT to be a perfectly credible witness when he was arranging for her to take part in the identify parade with RM .  Why would he do that if he didn't believe her?       It was only when his case against RM failed and he turned his attention to the McCanns that he realised that JT's testimony had now become  'inconvenient' to him.       

His answer to that little problem was to set out to discredit her by lying about her - even claiming that she had formally identified RM - when the truth is that she had NOT identified him at all - at any time.   

You think it was a great shame he was taken off the case?  Good grief!        I think it was a tragedy for Madeleine that the lead investigator and his 2nd in command in charge of her case both turned out to be crooked policemen - whose abuse of their positions as policemen resulted in criminal convictions for the pair of them.      There can be no greater 'shame' than that IMO. 

 

[j.rob]

As to Gerry not being Madeleine's biological father, I have absolutely no idea whether he is or isn't although the newspaper which made the claim stands by the veracity of the claim and to my knowledge has not been sued by the McCanns.

So I really cannot comment on whether it was a 'vicious lie' or not. Why don't you contact the newspaper and check out their sources?

In cases where children have been conceived by IVF, there is always the possibility, I presume, of sperm/egg donation. Not an area I know a lot about.

If you were to advance a hypothesis that either of both of the the McCanns had a lack of attachment to Madeleine  then that might provide some explanation for that.

[Eleanor]

As to Gerry not being Madeleine's biological father, I have absolutely no idea whether he is or isn't although the newspaper which made the claim stands by the veracity of the claim and to my knowledge has not been sued by the McCanns.

So I really cannot comment on whether it was a 'vicious lie' or not. Why don't you contact the newspaper and check out their sources?

In cases where children have been conceived by IVF, there is always the possibility, I presume, of sperm/egg donation. Not an area I know a lot about.

If you were to advance a hypothesis that either of both of the the McCanns had a lack of attachment to Madeleine  then that might provide some explanation for that.

You are twisting things.  The Gaspars did not agree in their statements.  And Gerry was confirmed as Madeleine's father.