Why Robert Murat became a suspect and then an arguido.

[ferryman]

From the files, reasons that led to suspicions against Robert Murat.

Jane gets a mention (just) right at the end.

B - Detailed Analysis

[this section to be completed soon]

C - The suspicions about Robert Murat and his constitution as an arguido

Apart from the suspect being seen on the location of the occurrence and speaking about the event with the persons that were around there, namely journalists, his name was on the list of interpreters, and he made a commitment as such (Commitment Act on page 1577).

On the 6th of May 2007 the PJ received a fax from the Leicestershire Constabulary (page 307) in which this police transmits that a reporter from the Sunday Mirror, Lori Campbell, had communicated that certain behaviours of the suspect compromised him, namely by giving his name without any information about himself, by having conflicting relationships with several people and being worried when a photograph of him was taken for that newspaper, which led the English Police to request that he was relieved of interpreter duties.

The files further contain:

- On page 328 a report of an external diligence tells that, on the 4th of May 2007, the suspect offered his assistance to the GNR to help with anything that was needed, namely as an interpreter;

- That on the 6th of May 2007 the signatory of said report was approached by several journalists indicating the arguido with suspicious behaviours, in the sense of what was already explained concerning the fax;

- On page 461 an anonymous information, where a telephone call from a woman who tries to incriminate the suspect is reported, although no facts were presented;

- On page 957 there is a report about an external diligence that resulted from a trip to the location where, according to witness Jane Tanner, she saw, a short time before she knew that Madeleine had disappeared, a man carrying a child walking into the direction of the suspect's house, Casa Liliana;

- On page 960 the service information according to which the curiosity that the arguido showed in the investigation was found strange.

In order to be able to be heard about the suspicions that befell him, Robert Murat was made an arguido on the 14th of May 2007 [9], having declared that he has already served as an interpreter during process actions, that he has a daughter that was born in 2002 and lives in England where he visits her several times, having returned to Portugal on the 1st of May 2007 and that he rented a vehicle because his mother uses the VW at the stand that was put up in Luz to support Madeleine's family.

That on the 3rd of May 2007 he didn't leave home in the evening, having heard a siren at around 10.30 p.m. or shortly afterwards, a fact that he commented with his Mother, but didn't come outside to investigate.

On Friday the 4th of May 2007 he was alerted by his Mother to the disappearance of a child in Praia da Luz, according to news on "Sky News", having then walked to the location of the disappearance, where he was introduced to the child's parents, offering his assistance.

That afterwards, with a GNR officer and a member of the resort staff, they entered several apartments, with the purpose of locating the child. That before this occasion, he didn't know the inside of the "Ocean Club".

He further clarified, because he was asked, that he was the main suspect among the journalists, therefore from that moment onwards he refused speaking to them, including in that refusal the mention of his full name, or allowing to be photographed.

He further clarified that he has nothing to do with the child's disappearance, and knows nothing about this case, explaining that he asked an English policeman about the manner in which the British police was able to trace a person in a given location and at a given time and if the police could trace him at home through his mobile phone, but he did this to prove his innocence.

On the other hand, rather unpleasant references were made to his personality, as was the case of a witness that has known him for many years [10].

It should be further referred that witnesses Rachel Mampilly, Russell James O'Brien and Fiona Elaine Payne mentioned that they saw arguido Robert Murat at the "Ocean Club" resort on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

During the confrontation that took place on the 11th of July 2007 [11], these witnesses, just like the arguido, maintained their previous positions.

Nevertheless, the positions are different regarding the witnesses that were heard, because while Sílvia Baptista [12] admits it is very possible that a person with the arguido's characteristics was helping to search for Madeleine on the night of the disappearance, other witnesses, Paul Wright, June Wright, Barend Weijdon and GNR officer José Baptista Roque [13], among other officers, mentioned that they didn't see the arguido on location that night.

Facing the suspicions that befell the arguido, considering what he seemed to transmit and the type of occurrence that was under investigation, whose real scope was not, like now, delimitated, and in order to confirm them or to set them aside, taking into account that they were indispensable for the continuation of the investigation, searches were made at the arguido's house as well as at his mother's and telephone interceptions were carried out, both on the arguido and on those with whom he directly or indirectly interacted, namely with whom he met on an almost daily basis and with whom he kept telephone contact.

Searches were also performed at the location where he started to spend the night at, the Quinta Salsalito, which is a vast place of difficult control, therefore the search on this location might permit the collection of elements that are reputed to be of high interest for the investigation, but those searches had no effect whatsoever.

During the searches at Casa Liliana, two rain water cisterns near the pool were checked, the missing minor's trail was searched by the GNR's sniffer dog team, both inside and outside the residence, searches were equally performed inside three vehicles that were parked there, and the matching photographic report was carried out by members of the CSS (Crime Scene Sector), experts from the Criminal Police Lab, but nothing positive was attained.

From the forensics exams to Serghei Malinka's, Robert Murat's and Jenny Murat's computers [14], it could be concluded that the contents of the examined drives produced nothing that could compromise them as participants in any illicit activity, namely the one that was being investigated in the process.

From the interception of communications, the telephone contact record of arguido Robert Murat, his mother Jennifer Murat, witnesses Michaela Walazuch, Luís António and Sergey Malinka; records and maps of the telephone calls that were made from public telephone booths in Praia da Luz nothing flows that could have any indicative use.

From the analysis that was performed on every contact, from the 1st of November 2006 until the 19th of July 2007, by Robert, Michaela, Sergey, Jennifer and Luís António, results that Robert and Malinka, only contacted each other eight times [15], that there were no relations between Sergey and Luís António, nor between him and Robert, nor between either of them and the Murat residence, between the 30th of April and the 4th of May 2007 [16].

Searches were performed at the residence, and the subsoil was explored with a Geo-radar (GPR), - which consists of a radar antenna that transmits electromagnetic energy in the shape of an impulse within frequencies between 25 MHz and 1 GHz. Those impulses are partially reflected through sub-superficial geological structures, captured with a receiving antenna and marked as a time record of continuous bi-directional path which is presented as a pseudo-geological record section - e these technical searches neither found nor marked anything of interest to the files [17].

Searches were equally performed with the use of sniffer dog support, with the dog Eddie that detects cadaver odour, and it was verified that the dog signalled nothing [18]. The examination of the targets' vehicles (arguido and people who interacted with him), nothing was found.

Therefore, despite the suspicions that befell the arguido, - partly because they were induced, albeit involuntarily, by himself, namely the protagonism that he assumed both with the group of friends, which the McCann couple was part of, and with the journalists, showing his great curiosity in finding out what diligences had been performed and which were to be performed, and by objective elements and the fact that his residence is located in the direction which, according to Jane, was taken by the stranger who carried the child in his arms - and which therefore demanded his constitution as an arguido. It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child's disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.

Jane played no part in Murat being made an arguido, and certainly never identified him as the man she saw.

Amaral lied.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

[Lyall]

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".

These are new times, Anne. Post-Blair and Iraq, if nobody with a voice feels either motivated or brave enough to comment anything is possible.

[AnneGuedes]

These are new times, Anne. Post-Blair and Iraq, if nobody with a voice feels either motivated or brave enough to comment anything is possible.

Did Shannon Matthews' mum have a spokesperson ?

[AnneGuedes]

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.

Good grief, Benice ! How can you know and say that ? What evidence have you that those inspectors were a tragedy for Madeleine ? The lack of finding her ? Let's please wait until SY suggests so.
Don't you think that Madeleine's undetermined tragedy occurred in the evening of the 3rd of May ? Neither of these inspectors had heard of her then and if they weren't alerted earlier, whose fault was it, since the cellphones functioned perfectly and Mrs Fenn offered her landline ?

[j.rob]

Perhaps the McCanns and their friends were the ones that told the lies, rather than Amaral.

" It should be further referred that witnesses Rachel Mampilly, Russell James O'Brien and Fiona Elaine Payne mentioned that they saw arguido Robert Murat at the "Ocean Club" resort on the night that Madeleine disappeared."

Three members of the group told the police that they saw Robert Murat. That, put alongside Jane Tanners 'sighting' of a man carrying a child, who appeared to fit the description of Murat, put Murat under suspicion.

Or are you saying that those witnesses lied to the police and in fact didn't see Murat that night? And maybe you are suggesting that Jane Tanner's 'sighting' which the police never believed was reliable was also a lie?

So, if the McCanns and their friends lied about what happened that night, given that they are the most important witnesses, it is not that surprising that Robert Murat came under suspicion.

[j.rob]

It should be further referred that witnesses Rachel Mampilly, Russell James O'Brien and Fiona Elaine Payne mentioned that they saw arguido Robert Murat at the "Ocean Club" resort on the night that Madeleine disappeared.

During the confrontation that took place on the 11th of July 2007 [11], these witnesses, just like the arguido, maintained their previous positions.

Nevertheless, the positions are different regarding the witnesses that were heard, because while Sílvia Baptista [12] admits it is very possible that a person with the arguido's characteristics was helping to search for Madeleine on the night of the disappearance, other witnesses, Paul Wright, June Wright, Barend Weijdon and GNR officer José Baptista Roque [13], among other officers, mentioned that they didn't see the arguido on location that night.

Perhaps the McCanns friends lied to the police about seeing Murat that night. Other people didn't see him that night. And of course if we do not chose to believe the McCann abduction theory (and there is no reason to believe it) then we can see why the McCanns and their friends might want to implicate other people in the disappearance of Madeleine.

[j.rob]

Page 157 of Kate's book: 'Several witnesses including Fiona, Russ and Rachael reported seeing Murat near our apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.'

But other witnesses  - Paul Wright, June Wright, Barend Weijdon and GNR officer José Baptista Roque [13], among other officers, mentioned that they didn't see the arguido on location that night.

Murat was not there. He was at home with his mother.

Personally, I believe the four other witnesses, and the other officers, as well as Murat and his mother.

If all those people are correct, we have to ask whether Fiona, Russ and Rachael lied or whether they just have bad memories and bad eye-sight.

[j.rob]

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.       

Well, you may describe the police as crooked. Personally I think there are other people who are crooked.

Nothing is ever anything to do with the McCanns, is it? They are just poor innocent victims of nasty people who go around stealing their children and making up stories.

Four of the McCanns friends told the police they saw Murat outside the apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.

No-one else saw him there. And he wasn't there.

Amaral never found Jane Tanner to be a reliable witness for the simple reason that she wasn't a reliable witness. Anyone with half a brain can work that out.

The fact that Jane Tanner claims she saw a man carrying a child near the resort means only one thing. That is what Jane Tanner claims she saw. It doesn't mean there WAS a man there Nor does it mean that even if there was a man carrying a child that it was Madeleine's abductor.

Jane Tanner, the McCanns and their friends have given a remarkable amount of weight to what Jane Tanner claims she saw.

Page 154 of Kate's book: 'To our huge relief, the next day the PJ finally released Jane's description of the man who in all probability carried Madeleine away.'

How could Kate possibly make that claim. 'In all probability' is an interesting phrase. It is used by doctors quite a bit. It is reassuringly woolly as it leaves for the possibility of doubt but yet still firmly plants an idea.

Amaral presumably had to pay lip-service to her absurd 'sighting' but, as a detective with a brain in his head, he no doubt was keeping a very open mind.

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]

Don't know what happened in the above post. It should not all be in a quote.  The gist of what I was trying to say is that I do not believe Amaral ever found the McCanns or their friends reliable witnesses. He probably paid lip-service to the identity parade while keeping his mind open and smelling a very large rat. As for Amaral being crooked, are you suggesting that the McCann abduction theory was plausible? The McCann's friends were the only people to claim that Murat was outside the McCann's apartment that night. No-one else agrees with them. Were they lying or do they just have collective bad eyesight? Jane Tanner claims she saw a man carrying a child. The McCanns inexplicably assume that this is Madeleine's abductor. There is no evidence for Jane Tanner's claim. The Portugese police didn't believe her.

I think the pot should stop calling the kettle black.

[Eleanor]

Don't know what happened in the above post. It should not all be in a quote.  The gist of what I was trying to say is that I do not believe Amaral ever found the McCanns or their friends reliable witnesses. He probably paid lip-service to the identity parade while keeping his mind open and smelling a very large rat. As for Amaral being crooked, are you suggesting that the McCann abduction theory was plausible? The McCann's friends were the only people to claim that Murat was outside the McCann's apartment that night. No-one else agrees with them. Were they lying or do they just have collective bad eyesight? Jane Tanner claims she saw a man carrying a child. The McCanns inexplicably assume that this is Madeleine's abductor. There is no evidence for Jane Tanner's claim. The Portugese police didn't believe her.

I think the pot should stop calling the kettle black.

The McCann's friends were not the only people who thought they saw Robert Murat outside 5A that night.  Stop making things up.

[Lyall]

The McCann's friends were not the only people who thought they saw Robert Murat outside 5A that night.  Stop making things up.

But were they the first?

[ferryman]

The gist of what I was trying to say is that I do not believe Amaral ever found the McCanns or their friends reliable witnesses. He probably paid lip-service to the identity parade while keeping his mind open and smelling a very large rat.

Perish the very suggestion that an [...moderated out as unproven ....] liar like Goncalo Amaral should find the McCanns and their friends 'reliable witnesses', especially after Jane Tanner was vindicated by proper detective-work by the Scotland Yard team.

Did Amaral ever find that fridge he insisted he was on the brink of finding at the point he was removed from the investigation the McCanns are supposed to have stored the body of Madeleine in?

[John]

We never did get to the bottom as to how Russell was so adamant that he had seen Murat near the Ocean Club Garden hours after Madeleine disappeared and later that morning even spoke with him.  Surely a young professional medical doctor couldn't have being so wrong?

[Redblossom]

We never did get to the bottom as to how Russell was so adamant that he had seen Murat near the Ocean Club Garden hours after Madeleine disappeared and later that morning even spoke with him.  Surely a young professional medical doctor couldn't have being so wrong?

Thing about him is he was adamant he was right but also said he could have been wrong!
One of the more obnoxious of  the t9

[John]

A credible witness then?  ...NOT