Why Robert Murat became a suspect and then an arguido.

[misty]

I realised a long time ago that RM is innocent, because it would be absurdly stupid (if he had been there that night and been seen by dozens of searchers and numerous GNR officers) to then claim he wasn't there.
How anyone can still imagine he was there that night defies understanding.

What time did the first GNR officers venture out onto the streets?
What time did nanny CP reportedly see him?

[Brietta]

I realised a long time ago that RM is innocent, because it would be absurdly stupid (if he had been there that night and been seen by dozens of searchers and numerous GNR officers) to then claim he wasn't there.
How anyone can still imagine he was there that night defies understanding.

It all depends on which alibi of his actual whereabouts was decided to be the correct one.

[misty]

It all depends on which alibi of his actual whereabouts was decided to be the correct one.

I don't believe RM ever anticipated he would come under suspicion.

[pegasus]

What time did the first GNR officers venture out onto the streets?
What time did nanny CP reportedly see him?

The first GNR arrived at 5A area a little after 11pm IMO.

CP saw the man (who I have pointed out is not RM) at about 10.30pm according to one report, or at about midnight according to another report. Best to look for a video interview - that would be more reliable than tabloid articles.

[pegasus]

It all depends on which alibi of his actual whereabouts was decided to be the correct one.

It is consistent. He arrived home about 8pm and stayed there until next morning when he went out to speak with SC.

[misty]

It is consistent. He arrived home about 8pm and stayed there until next morning when he went out to speak with SC.

He originally said he was with his girlfriend (MW) that night.

[pegasus]

He originally said he was with his girlfriend (MW) that night.

Page number in files would be useful

[misty]

Page number in files would be useful

I think you know that particular statement never reached the files, possibly due to that pre-interview tipple he enjoyed with a certain PJ Inspector.

[Brietta]

I think you know that particular statement never reached the files, possibly due to that pre-interview tipple he enjoyed with a certain PJ Inspector.

He does however make reference to it during his interview on the 14th

05-Processo, Volume V, pages 1170-1178 (9 pages)

He ate a sandwich of cheese and ham sitting in the kitchen with his mother, until 22:00 or 23:00. 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

[misty]

He does however make reference to it during his interview on the 14th

05-Processo, Volume V, pages 1170-1178 (9 pages)

He ate a sandwich of cheese and ham sitting in the kitchen with his mother, until 22:00 or 23:00. 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.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm

Thanks, Brietta.

[pegasus]

I think you know that particular statement never reached the files, possibly due to that pre-interview tipple he enjoyed with a certain PJ Inspector.

So you are claiming that someone is guilty of lying, and your source is a statement which you have never seen, and which you say is not in the files because the interviewer and interviewee had a tipple before the interview?

[misty]

So you are claiming that someone is guilty of lying, and your source is a statement which you have never seen, and which you say is not in the files because the interviewer and interviewee had a tipple before the interview?

Sorry - it was in news reports & I'm too tired right now to find the links. Brietta has just provided you with the reference to it in the files. I will find you the link to  telephone recording proving the little tipple he had with RS tomorrow.
Night, all.

[pegasus]

"Contrary to what he said originally, he was not with MICHAELA when she went to a Jehovah witnesses' meeting"
Similar to the alleged changing of story from doing check by front door with key, to doing check by patio doors.
In both cases (RM, and GM/KM) the earlier interview was mis-transcribed IMO.
IMO they did not change their story, he did not change his story.
It seems unfair to accuse either them or him on these alleged changes of story when in neither case do we have the full transcription of the earlier statement.

[Brietta]

"Contrary to what he said originally, he was not with MICHAELA when she went to a Jehovah witnesses' meeting"
Similar to the alleged changing of story from doing check by front door with key, to doing check by patio doors.
In both cases (RM, and GM/KM) the earlier interview was mis-transcribed IMO.
IMO they did not change their story, he did not change his story.
It seems unfair to accuse either them or him on these alleged changes of story when in neither case do we have the full transcription of the earlier statement.

There is no doubt that Mr Murat did change his story, unless "contrary to what he said originally" means different things to different people.  All that is open for discussion is why.

The circumstances in which statements were made is entirely different. 
Initial statements made in the immediate aftermath of the discovery that your child is missing using volunteer interpreters because you do not speak Portuguese are almost bound to contain errors. 

A person making a statement who is not emotionally involved some time after the event when the initial panic has subsided ... who is fluent and making the statement in Portuguese ... retracting the glaring error of providing information falsely naming a person as an alibi, must surely have set the antennae of the investigating officers twitching.

[stephen25000]

There is no doubt that Mr Murat did change his story, unless "contrary to what he said originally" means different things to different people.  All that is open for discussion is why.

The circumstances in which statements were made is entirely different. 
Initial statements made in the immediate aftermath of the discovery that your child is missing using volunteer interpreters because you do not speak Portuguese are almost bound to contain errors. 

A person making a statement who is not emotionally involved some time after the event when the initial panic has subsided ... who is fluent and making the statement in Portuguese ... retracting the glaring error of providing information falsely naming a person as an alibi, must surely have set the antennae of the investigating officers twitching.

How many times did the mccanns and the rest of the group change their stories/accounts of events ?