The latest "pretendy" sighting of Maddy in Spain.....

I can't bring myself to read the latest rubbish regarding the pretendy look-a-likey sighting.....

But is she a 3 year old or a 8 year old, because if its a 3 year old well it can't be Madeleine can it because she is NOW 8 years of age........If its a 8 year old Maddy how the hell do they know it is her, nobody knows what Maddy WOULD look like now because 5 years on she would be un-recognisable, and whoever had her would certainly make sure she didn't resemble the 3 year old Maddy in any such way.

The amount of people in the UK reading the Express today will be questioning yet another sighting, but what will these same readers think when they find out its yet another.....

Attention seeking wind up, just like the India sighting, aw I forgot our papers/media wont be informing us thats the PJ have denied this sighting and that its rubbish!!

When will all this end??????

If its a 8 year old Maddy how the hell do they know it is her

We are not sure what she actually looked like as a 3 year old!

jd16 wrote:

If its a 8 year old Maddy how the hell do they know it is her

We are not sure what she actually looked like as a 3 year old!

I agree. Madeleine looks so different in the many, many photos released.

The only picture that feels of what Maddie actually looked like was the Adobe photoshopped poolside pic

AnnaEsse wrote:

jd16 wrote:

If its a 8 year old Maddy how the hell do they know it is her

We are not sure what she actually looked like as a 3 year old!

I agree. Madeleine looks so different in the many, many photos released.

Two of my children, the eldest and youngest, looked very similar to each other when they were three/four years of age. Indeed there are photographs of them when it is difficult to say which child it is, very often i can only tell by the clothes worn or if the photo is from a holiday setting when i know my last child had not been born. Indeed the child himself thinks the photos are of him and not his brother. Looking at them now, you would never mix them up, they are completely different to each other and my youngest is just nearly seven. In those few years, they have both changed dramatically.

If Madeleine was in Spain for the past five years or any other country she is surely speaking the local language. She is hardly living bang in the middle of an ex pat community, going to an English speaking school, surrounded by English people. Other than the colomba, which we now know is not a colomba, there would be nothing to suggest to any tourist that a child might be Madeleine. A neighbour or friend in the area is not going to suddenly decide a little girl they have been looking at for the past five years might be her.

A fair haird child, eight years old, speaking Spanish in Nerja - what is there to be suspicious about ?? Of course the person with her could look like an egg. That would be suspicious.

http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/315122/Madeleine-McCann-spotted-in-spain-

I like the way the express have put inverted commas around "Spotted in Spain" as if they're taking the mick! And Clarence is still saying..."can't comment on operational details..."

Lillyofthevalley wrote:
When will all this end??????

Very soon hopefully LOTV, especially after reading what your son told you.

Magaret , aw lets us hope and pray its right what Ive been told

Its these sightings that get to me, and lots of other....... But what I would like to know is what age is this sighting suppose to be is it 3 or 8 years of age, becuase if Maddy is alive she will NOT look like a 3 years old NOWAY!, the only picture that seems to be shown to the public is the one of a 3 year old Maddy.....
Well if she is alive then she will NOT look like that will she, so how can it be a sighting of Maddy?????????????

saloongirl wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/315122/Madeleine-McCann-spotted-in-spain-

I like the way the express have put inverted commas around "Spotted in Spain" as if they're taking the mick! And Clarence is still saying..."can't comment on operational details..."

SG

I like the way Brunt says
I guess we can expect more of this as the fifth anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance approaches.

seems like he has their card well and truly marked!

well its all a bit predictable isnt it jimo

cherry1 wrote:

saloongirl wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/315122/Madeleine-McCann-spotted-in-spain-

I like the way the express have put inverted commas around "Spotted in Spain" as if they're taking the mick! And Clarence is still saying..."can't comment on operational details..."

SG

I like the way Brunt says
I guess we can expect more of this as the fifth anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance approaches.

seems like he has their card well and truly marked!

Brunt got close to Murat I think

jd16 wrote:

cherry1 wrote:

saloongirl wrote:http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/315122/Madeleine-McCann-spotted-in-spain-

I like the way the express have put inverted commas around "Spotted in Spain" as if they're taking the mick! And Clarence is still saying..."can't comment on operational details..."

SG

I like the way Brunt says
I guess we can expect more of this as the fifth anniversary of Madeleine McCann's disappearance approaches.

seems like he has their card well and truly marked!

Brunt got close to Murat I think

I'm still confused why Robert Murat, seems to be getting a lot of stick. I was under the impression that when that reporter told the police he was acting suspiciously, Mr Murat, was acting as an interpreter for the police. Apparantly the police had often asked for his help, when they were dealing with English people.

From what I've read and heard of Mr Murat, he seems to have made a scapegoat. Mr Murat was taken in for questioning more than once and when he was made an arguido, he was made an arguido at his request, or so his lawyer said. I have looked for information regarding his lawyer's statement, and the only thing I could find was, Mr Murat may have asked for arguido status, because it gave him certain rights.

The McCanns who were the perpetrators, were not taken in for questioning until September when they were eventually made arguidos. Kate McCann was taken in for questioning as a witness, questioned at length then allowed to return to her apartment. The media said she would return the next day and would probably be made an arguido. I would like to know when Kate McCann refused to answer those 48 questions? Were those questions asked, when she was still a witness? If she was still a witness, then the PJ could have arrested her there and then, because she she could not remain silent as a witness.

If Kate had been made an arguido, when the PJ asked her the 48 questions, then why did they not ask her those questions when she was still a witness? They knew and she knew that she didn't have to say anything once she was made an arguido.

Anyway to get back to Robert Murat, he lived with his mum and his mum has been to hell and back, because of this case. Although the Police knew the McCanns were the perpetrators of Madeleine's disappearance and knew they'd lied and lied and lied to save their own skins, they seemed more concerned with Robert Murat, who had already provided an alibi, than the McCanns.

Mrs Murat's home was searched more than once and her garden was also turned over more than once. All her son's property including his computer was removed from her home by the police. Yet the McCanns were allowed to roam free, carry on with their leisure activities and flit about from country to country, while Mr Murat had to stay put, in between questioning.

Mr Murat's property, including his computer which was practically pulled apart, was eventually returned to him. The police couldn't find anything in any of his property, or his mother's home and garden, that could link Mr Murat to Madeleine's disappearance. Yet he is still under suspicion, not by the Portuguese police, but by members of the public, who would rather believe he is to blame for whatever happened to Madeleine, while her parents are the victims of an horrific crime.

Mr Murat also gets stick from many members of internet forums. If it is true that Mr Murat knows Gerry McCann, it doesn't mean that he was involved with Madeleine's disappearance. It doesn't matter how many times he flew in and out of Portugal, it still doesn't mean he was involved with Madeleine's disappearance. Mr Murat's daughter lived in the UK, with Mr Murat's ex wife, no doubt many of his visits to the UK were to see her. If they weren't it still doesn't mean he was involved with Madeleine's disappearance.

One of the reason's people were suspicious of Robert Murat, was because he was supposedly seen outside the McCanns apartment. He had to walk past that apartment to go to the shops and he also used to visit the Tapas Bar. What about the guy who Gerry was talking to outside his apartment? Was he questioned at length by the police and asked what was he doing outside the apartment? Or was it Robert Murat, a Portuguese resident, who must have been linked to Madeleine's disappearance, because he was seen near the McCanns apartment.

Funny how Robert Murat's downfall came, because when he acted as an interpreter, the British reporter, said he was acting suspiciously and reported him to the police. I wonder if the McCanns knew this British reporter, or more to the point their media friend Jon Corner, knew this reporter. Because while the Portuguese police were busy doing a thorough investigation on Mr Murat, they were not doing a thorough investigation on the McCanns. I can only presume that they were told not to, by someone in a higher authority, whose ear had been bent by Gordon Brown.

I have never read or heard one thing, that would make me believe Robert Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance. I have read and heard plenty things, that make me know the McCanns are 100% responsible for Madeleine's disappearance. Most of what I have heard has come from the McCanns own mouths.

The Portuguese police have said, there is nothing to connect Robert Murat with Madeleine's disappearance and that is good enough for me.

The Portuguese police have not said there is nothing to connect the McCanns with Madeleine's disappearance, they just didn't have the power to do what they wanted to do in 2007 and have probably wanted to do ever since.

I think Murat - on the available evidence - is guilty of aiding a crime 'after the fact'.
That is, he had nothing to do with Maddie's disappearance but he may have had contacts whom he passed on to the McCanns to help them find a temporary hiding place. I actually think that was more or less the full extend of his involvement.

He may have done this without knowing the real story as imo did most to the Tapas 7.

However, the PJ wasn't best pleased with his help as interpreter because they saw him trying to have a look at documents which were nothing to do with the translation he was providing. The PJ were not at all keen to arrest him, but were forced by British profilers, the media and finally Jane Tanner's positive identification to make him an arguido.

Brian Kennedy's two meetings with him in November are interesting. Both meetings are before the Rothley meeting with all the T9.

Murat was proved to have been 'inaccurate' on over 14 facts he told the police about his movements the 1st of May, the day he arrived in PdL. He does know something but I think that nobody except the McCanns know the whole story. Murat may have fallen for the same story told to the Tapas. Whatever that was.

tigger wrote:I think Murat - on the available evidence - is guilty of aiding a crime 'after the fact'.
That is, he had nothing to do with Maddie's disappearance but he may have had contacts whom he passed on to the McCanns to help them find a temporary hiding place. I actually think that was more or less the full extend of his involvement.

He may have done this without knowing the real story as imo did most to the Tapas 7.

However, the PJ wasn't best pleased with his help as interpreter because they saw him trying to have a look at documents which were nothing to do with the translation he was providing. The PJ were not at all keen to arrest him, but were forced by British profilers, the media and finally Jane Tanner's positive identification to make him an arguido.

Brian Kennedy's two meetings with him in November are interesting. Both meetings are before the Rothley meeting with all the T9.

Murat was proved to have been 'inaccurate' on over 14 facts he told the police about his movements the 1st of May, the day he arrived in PdL. He does know something but I think that nobody except the McCanns know the whole story. Murat may have fallen for the same story told to the Tapas. Whatever that was.

Where did you get that from about Robert Murat trying to have a look at documents? And let's not forget Lori Campbell and Clarence Mitchell's contribution to the issue.

Robert was made an arguido at his own request so that he could have his lawyer present.

I dont think for one minute Robert Murat would escape any re-questioning. He might hold some vital information and the detail of his discussions with Kennedy would make interesting reading. I think that some people read his reluctance to show any anger or blame in the direction of the Mc's or JT as him being complicit with them. I think he probaly wants to avoid any litigation with them and after his claim against the papers - hopes it will all go away and he could lead a life. If he has had any contact with the Mc's I also think he was taken in by them but that should not stop him telling the police what he knows of the goings on in those days just before - and months after the girls disappearence.

As for having a nosey at other papers if he had the opportunity - well - would'nt you!???

NoStone wrote:I dont think for one minute Robert Murat would escape any re-questioning. He might hold some vital information and the detail of his discussions with Kennedy would make interesting reading. I think that some people read his reluctance to show any anger or blame in the direction of the Mc's or JT as him being complicit with them. I think he probaly wants to avoid any litigation with them and after his claim against the papers - hopes it will all go away and he could lead a life. If he has had any contact with the Mc's I also think he was taken in by them but that should not stop him telling the police what he knows of the goings on in those days just before - and months after the girls disappearence.

As for having a nosey at other papers if he had the opportunity - well - would'nt you!???

As for having a nosey at other papers if he had the opportunity - well - would'nt you!???

I have to admit to being a naturally curious/nosey person! If something is right under my nose, I have the tendency to wonder what it is.

From Jillhavernforum: topic: Robert Murat's role.
Quote
4. Right from early on 4 May, Murat became a translator for the Portuguese Police. In that position, he obtained information about the investigation, he put forward theories to the police, he suggested investigation strategies to them, and he was observed trying to read confidential investigation documents. These matters were made the subject of a report expressing serious concerns by one of the Inspectors to his seniors.

5. We know from Amaral’s book that a team from CEOP (or certainly including men from CEOP), described by Amaral as ‘profilers’, had by the weekend of 12/13 May not only come up with the profile of a likely abductor, but said that they were ‘90% sure’ [Amaral’s chapter on Murat] that Murat was the man they all were looking for. It is worth noting that they all focussed on the ‘fact’ that Madeleine had been abducted and it is obvious that these men from CEOP were not considering other possibilities.
unquote.

From 'The truth of the lie' by G Amaral:


His behaviour starts to seriously intrigue us. He often makes reference to similar cases that happened in the United Kingdom and which he seems to know in detail. He displays suspicious curiosity and seeks to know more. He offers to help us identify possible suspects. He knows the workings of the Ocean Club and the habits of the holiday-makers very well. He even, allegedly, tried secretly to access the investigation files. It is also known that he visits web sites of a pornographic nature.

Unquote.

tigger wrote:From Jillhavernforum: topic: Robert Murat's role.
Quote
4. Right from early on 4 May, Murat became a translator for the Portuguese Police. In that position, he obtained information about the investigation, he put forward theories to the police, he suggested investigation strategies to them, and he was observed trying to read confidential investigation documents. These matters were made the subject of a report expressing serious concerns by one of the Inspectors to his seniors.

5. We know from Amaral’s book that a team from CEOP (or certainly including men from CEOP), described by Amaral as ‘profilers’, had by the weekend of 12/13 May not only come up with the profile of a likely abductor, but said that they were ‘90% sure’ [Amaral’s chapter on Murat] that Murat was the man they all were looking for. It is worth noting that they all focussed on the ‘fact’ that Madeleine had been abducted and it is obvious that these men from CEOP were not considering other possibilities.
unquote.

From 'The truth of the lie' by G Amaral:


His behaviour starts to seriously intrigue us. He often makes reference to similar cases that happened in the United Kingdom and which he seems to know in detail. He displays suspicious curiosity and seeks to know more. He offers to help us identify possible suspects. He knows the workings of the Ocean Club and the habits of the holiday-makers very well. He even, allegedly, tried secretly to access the investigation files. It is also known that he visits web sites of a pornographic nature.

Unquote.

Tigger, none of that makes Robert Murat "guilty after the fact." Suspicion was thrown on him, but none of the searches uncovered anything. We need to be careful about what we say here. And please remind me of the subject of this thread. Is it Robert Murat?

I just can't make my mind up about Murat, if he was a connection/help to the McCanns why would the Tapas friends set him up, but then why has he gone into hiding? the last 4.5years whether he has been paid off by the UK Papers or not, why stay so quiet (unless he has been told to) I would make it my lifes work getting to/finding the people who were prepared to set me up, for a crime that I didn't commit, well thats if I was truly innocent!


Good to see Brunt still sitting firmly on the fence, unlike Kerr Simmons, he's getting slaughted on FB and Twitter

Lillyofthevalley wrote:I just can't make my mind up about Murat, if he was a connection/help to the McCanns why would the Tapas friends set him up, but then why has he gone into hiding? the last 4.5years whether he has been paid off by the UK Papers or not, why stay so quiet (unless he has been told to) I would make it my lifes work getting to/finding the people who were prepared to set me up, for a crime that I didn't commit, well thats if I was truly innocent!


Good to see Brunt still sitting firmly on the fence, unlike Kerr Simmons, he's getting slaughted on FB and Twitter

How would anyone go about finding or getting to those prepared to set him up? Private detectives? I think Robert Murat is simply getting on with his life. We don't know the extent of the police files which were kept under the secrecy of justice. And I don't think Robert has gone into hiding. He has a wife and a child and, imo, he is just getting on with trying to live an ordinary and peaceful life.

AnnaEsse wrote:

tigger wrote:From Jillhavernforum: topic: Robert Murat's role.
Quote
4. Right from early on 4 May, Murat became a translator for the Portuguese Police. In that position, he obtained information about the investigation, he put forward theories to the police, he suggested investigation strategies to them, and he was observed trying to read confidential investigation documents. These matters were made the subject of a report expressing serious concerns by one of the Inspectors to his seniors.

5. We know from Amaral’s book that a team from CEOP (or certainly including men from CEOP), described by Amaral as ‘profilers’, had by the weekend of 12/13 May not only come up with the profile of a likely abductor, but said that they were ‘90% sure’ [Amaral’s chapter on Murat] that Murat was the man they all were looking for. It is worth noting that they all focussed on the ‘fact’ that Madeleine had been abducted and it is obvious that these men from CEOP were not considering other possibilities.
unquote.

From 'The truth of the lie' by G Amaral:


His behaviour starts to seriously intrigue us. He often makes reference to similar cases that happened in the United Kingdom and which he seems to know in detail. He displays suspicious curiosity and seeks to know more. He offers to help us identify possible suspects. He knows the workings of the Ocean Club and the habits of the holiday-makers very well. He even, allegedly, tried secretly to access the investigation files. It is also known that he visits web sites of a pornographic nature.

Unquote.

Tigger, none of that makes Robert Murat "guilty after the fact." Suspicion was thrown on him, but none of the searches uncovered anything. We need to be careful about what we say here. And please remind me of the subject of this thread. Is it Robert Murat?

That's why I started with 'I think' but in future I will only use IMO.
Re the wandering off topic: I answered Kathybelle's post without realizing that we'd gone off topic. So sorry for that.
The phone records also implicate Murat, not just imo. The mud slinging re his personal life is unfortunately what happens - I'm sure that most of those stories - I read some which are really in the realm of fantasy - are completely untrue.
I've simply stuck with available evidence, such as the phone record, the PJ noticing him looking at documents, his many corrections on his movements in the first few days of May when questioned by the PJ and the two meetings with Brian Kennedy prior to the Rothley meeting in November.
I'm not surprised nothing was found to incriminate him. IMO he only facilitated, possibly by having the keys to an empty apartment or villa.
IMO again - we're of course still off topic here unfortunately - like most of the tapas 7, he helped 'after the fact' - most likely acting on incorrect information, to put it kindly.
I have no doubt that he is trying to live a normal life and is very fond of his daughter. Like others, he's been caught up in the maelstrom of the event. But IMO he does know more than he can afford to tell.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:I just can't make my mind up about Murat, if he was a connection/help to the McCanns why would the Tapas friends set him up, but then why has he gone into hiding? the last 4.5years whether he has been paid off by the UK Papers or not, why stay so quiet (unless he has been told to) I would make it my lifes work getting to/finding the people who were prepared to set me up, for a crime that I didn't commit, well thats if I was truly innocent!


Good to see Brunt still sitting firmly on the fence, unlike Kerr Simmons, he's getting slaughted on FB and Twitter

Good morning Lily

A while ago, Robert Murat made a criminal complaint against Jane Tanner and someone else, I'm almost sure the complaint was lodged in a Portuguese Court. I haven't heard what the outcome of this complaint was.

Robert Murat successfully sued the newspaper groups, because they printed lies about him. Isn't that what the McCanns and the Tapas 7 did?

The Portuguese police found no evidence that Robert Murat was involved in the disappearance of Madeleine. What I don't understand and never will, is why the Portuguese police were straight on to Robert Murat, the minute the finger was pointed at him, yet they let the McCanns roam free. As I said previously, they were very thorough in their investigation where Robert Murat was concerned, while the McCanns who were the cause of Madeleine's disappearance, were treated with "kid gloves".

I just hope that Robert Murat's daughter, is not hearing derogatory things said about her dad in the playground. I'm almost sure she is around the same age as Madeleine.

I've just found a link to the criminal complaint Robert Murat took out against Jane Tanner.

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/robert-murat-criminal-complaint-against.html

I hope we're not going to lock up every man who's ever visited a website of a pornographic nature, there would be more people in the jails than out of them in that case!

Iris wrote:I hope we're not going to lock up every man who's ever visited a website of a pornographic nature, there would be more people in the jails than out of them in that case!

Exactly, Iris!

how true iris and annaesse. im with you and no stone on this. hes keeping a low profile and getting on with his life, crumbs who wouldnt. As for looking at confidential papers, if they were in front of me, id read them, call me what you like, i d do that. As fir comparing this case with others, thats also what people do jimo.