As for Robert Murat being drunk in a Bar, that was just some newspaper mixing up what someone said, probably Mr. Smith. There was a lot of that going on at the time.
Who do you think Pagarete was referring to whose intentions in respect of Murat were good but who dunhimbad?
I can only presume that Pagarete was referring to Mr. Smith. But I don't think it really matters.
There are two points to consider. Either Mr. Smith was talking about an incident in 2006. Or someone was attempting to give Robert Murat an alibi when he didn't need one. Neither of which were going to be crucial in pointing obvious suspicion at Robert Murat.
Put simply, if Pagarete was referring to Smith, then Smith's statement has been tampered with in some way so that what we read would not reflect what Pagarete says.
That is what matters (to me, at least), not any suggestion of doubt over Murat.
Frankly I don't care whether Murat was out and about on the night or whether he spent the evening with his mother.
I do care that the statements we read should reflect what the people who made them said.
Pagarete is a Lawyer, so he at least should know that he shouldn't jump to conclusions. If in fact he did.
Did or did not Pagarete attempt to bring a Prosecution against Jane Tanner, on behalf of Robert Murat, simply for giving a statement to The Police? Or so it seemed.
Or was it because Amaral said that Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat when in fact she never did?
I don't know enough about Pagarete to decide, and nothing ever came of it anyway.
But I find it difficult to believe that Pagarete is that stupid.
