General discussion about the latest news (not search related)

[jassi]

I suppose it would depend upon whether it was an offical leak or an unofficial leak.

[Brietta]

I suppose it would depend upon whether it was an offical leak or an unofficial leak.

There are official leaks?

Do give out the information you have on those.

[jassi]

One can't prove anything but I'm sure that there are leaks approved by the authorities and those that aren't

[Brietta]

One can't prove anything but I'm sure that there are leaks approved by the authorities and those that aren't

Surely if it cannot be proved, it should not be said as if it were fact.

It should be expressed as a matter of opinion.

[jassi]

Which, of course, is why I originally used the words 'I suppose', which does not indicate fact, merely a supposition.

[Carana]

But the 4 are still arguidos and 11 are still witnesses. This is what I am pointing out.. That there might be something going on behind the screen that we have no clue about due to no media coverage but these are the facts: 4 arguidos and 11 witnesses.

Yes, I understand that.

However... a few questions.

If, indeed, the four alleged arguidos were so constituted, no one knows why. It may be McCann-related or not. It may be the nature of the questions submitted which may have been considered on the cusp of a legal threshold. There could have been a misunderstanding over the interpretation of the legal situation in an international context. There may have been McCann-related questions, but which may have their origin in suspected non-related activities of a potentially illegal nature. No one knows whether those questioned requested arguido status themselves (even if only to benefit from legal advice in an unfamiliar situation).

I'm just being cautious.

They may all be innocent people. If that's the case, they don't deserve to have wild speculation posted about them any more than the McCanns and their friends do.

My thought is in general terms, not about any specific poster.

[VIXTE]

Yes, I understand that.

However... a few questions.

If, indeed, the four alleged arguidos were so constituted, no one knows why. It may be McCann-related or not. It may be the nature of the questions submitted which may have been considered on the cusp of a legal threshold. There could have been a misunderstanding over the interpretation of the legal situation in an international context. There may have been McCann-related questions, but which may have their origin in suspected non-related activities of a potentially illegal nature. No one knows whether those questioned requested arguido status themselves (even if only to benefit from legal advice in an unfamiliar situation).

I'm just being cautious.

They may all be innocent people. If that's the case, they don't deserve to have wild speculation posted about them any more than the McCanns and their friends do.

My thought is in general terms, not about any specific poster.

Of course. I agree with you 100%.  I just pointed out at that because people are still in old mind set while the investigation seems to be moving. 

[pegasus]

Murat resembled 2 other people one of which was David Payne, in actually uncanny likeness to him and i would think he would have been walking around at that time. ....

DP was not the man mistaken for RM that night. Here are two undisputable proofs of that.

1. FP testified about seeing the man that night. Assuming she does know what her OH looks like, it was not DP she saw.

2. DP himself testified about seeing and speaking to this man that night. I have checked and assure you there were no full-length mirrors in the stairwell area. Therefore the man DP saw was not DP.

It says little for SY's detective skills if they have not yet identified this man yet - it should be easy with their resources - it was definitely not RM, not DP, not AS, not JH. It was a bilingual male, probably with glasses. who was helping to translate that night , an innocent helper.

[Anna]

I do feel sorry for RM and his wife.
He is fairly, newly married with a young family and seven years later, he still has the McCann history, His old arquido status and sighting of him near 5A, dragging him down.
 He did however say that he was prepared to answer the necessary questions if asked. I hope this case will be solved soon, for the sake of many innocent people.

[Brietta]

Of course. I agree with you 100%.  I just pointed out at that because people are still in old mind set while the investigation seems to be moving.

Me too ... they are all definitely innocent until there is enough evidence found to change that status. 
There are indeed people around who are stuck in the past to the extent of being unable to see the wider picture, but did the Flat Earth Society ever disband?

      back to the latest news

If I were in the situation of having to present myself for questioning either as a witness or arguido in the case of a missing child, if I could afford to, I would definitely instruct a lawyer to accompany me.
Just common sense.

I find the press reports (if they are to be believed?) that Robert Murat did not answer questions already asked as an arguido a bit confusing.

When he was an arguido he had the right to refuse to answer incriminating questions and I am sure his lawyer at the time would so advise.

SY would of course already have a transcript of his interview question and anwers ... it is interesting that there appears to be so many for which they require clarification ... and it is interesting that there is resistance to providing that, particularly as he is on record on quite a few occasions over the years stating his eagerness to help in any way he can.

[pegasus]

I do feel sorry for RM and his wife.
He is fairly, newly married with a young family and seven years later, he still has the McCann history, His old arquido status and sighting of him near 5A, dragging him down.
...

Me too. And it is because SY appear to not have the grassroots investigative ability to realise that RM was certainly not the man seen that night by DP FP RO ROB SB and [Name removed]. Ask the GNR officers whom this man was seen talking to, by most of those witnesses - 100% definite it was not RM.

And as for the [Name removed] sighting morning 4th in a striped top - that was not RM she saw - there are almost simultaneous photos of
(a) RM in blue tshirt and jeans morning 4th exactly as he said
(b) the different man in a striped top whom [Name removed] saw morning 4th IMO.

[misty]

I do feel sorry for RM and his wife.
He is fairly, newly married with a young family and seven years later, he still has the McCann history, His old arquido status and sighting of him near 5A, dragging him down.
 He did however say that he was prepared to answer the necessary questions if asked. I hope this case will be solved soon, for the sake of many innocent people.

Why? He chose to get involved and behave in a manner which aroused suspicion.
I expect he answered nearly every question on Friday with "I refer you to the answer I gave in my original statements."

[Brietta]

DP was not the man mistaken for RM that night. Here are two undisputable proofs of that.

1. FP testified about seeing the man that night. Assuming she does know what her OH looks like, it was not DP she saw.

2. DP himself testified about seeing and speaking to this man that night. I have checked and assure you there were no full-length mirrors in the stairwell area. Therefore the man DP saw was not DP.

It says little for SY's detective skills if they have not yet identified this man yet - it should be easy with their resources - it was definitely not RM, not DP, not AS, not JH. It was a bilingual male, probably with glasses. who was helping to translate that night , an innocent helper.

Then it should have been very simple to find out who he was if he was taking such a prominent part in the proceedings ... the police should have had a note of his name and contact details.

[Brietta]

Me too. And it is because SY appear to not have the grassroots investigative ability to realise that RM was certainly not the man seen that night by DP FP RO ROB SB and [Name removed]. Ask the GNR officers whom this man was seen talking to, by most of those witnesses - 100% definite it was not RM.

And as for the [Name removed] sighting morning 4th in a striped top - that was not RM she saw - there are almost simultaneous photos of
(a) RM in blue tshirt and jeans morning 4th exactly as he said
(b) the different man in a striped top whom [Name removed] saw morning 4th IMO.

We really have no idea of the direction SY are taking with their current question and answer sessions ... I am sure HOLMES will be having a high old time with it all.

[slartibartfast]

We really have no idea of the direction SY are taking with their current question and answer sessions ... I am sure HOLMES will be having a high old time with it all.

Computer says no...