Pat Brown

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jd16 wrote:

<< And why did the police make murat suspect >>

I thought Murat requested Arguido status for himself?

Yes, he did, because Arguido status also gives you extra rights such as asking your own questions in the investigation. I think he did it to protect himself.

[quote]

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I hope it's okay to post this link to the first of an interesting series of articles by Tony Bennett about Robert Murat. I do feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions about his possible involvement.

Totally agree.
RM was in the UK when the Macs started that holiday.
Within days he had arrived in PDL on a hastily arranged flight, as if he had been summoned by someone.

[quote="duncanmac"]

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I hope it's okay to post this link to the first of an interesting series of articles by Tony Bennett about Robert Murat. I do feel that there are a lot of unanswered questions about his possible involvement.

Totally agree.
RM was in the UK when the Macs started that holiday.
Within days he had arrived in PDL on a hastily arranged flight, as if he had been summoned by someone.

I totally agree too for what its worth.

What ever happened to the legal action that Robert Murat was taking against Tanner? Not heard anything about this for a long while.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jd16 wrote:

<< And why did the police make murat suspect >>

I thought Murat requested Arguido status for himself?

I don't know if murat requested himself, to my knowledge it was jane tanner backed up by 3 other tapas 9 members that got the police to make him suspect. Outside of the tapas 9, the only outside tapas 9 witness was charlotte pennington (whose statements are more contradictory & far fetched than the tapas 9 put together they are just unreal), and a 'feeling' of suspicion from clarence mitchells friend Lori Campbell

Though I would agree murat was called over to help with the coverup, and most likely had interests of a more adult nature too....My point was from the facts we have been given by the tapas 9 in their statements & trying to make them fit. They say that the abduction happened at 9.15pm as this is when jane tanner saw the abductor running at the top of the road. But 15 mins later at 9.30pm matt says the apartment was normal with shutters down & window closed. Kate says at 10pm shutters were up and window open. So from these tapas 9 'facts'...One has to asked how did the shutters be open between 9.30-10pm if the abduction happened at 9.15pm? And if the abductor escaped via the window & shutters and it has to be at 9.15pm for jane tanner to have seen him, then why did gerry and Jez not see when they were outside the apartment with one of them at least facing the apartment window? Not to mention the big noise these shutters make heard especially in a quiet road

Of course according to the taps 9 timelines, it is impossible for the abduction to have taken place at 9.15pm, so why did the police make murat suspect because (for arguments sake) even if he was him at 9.15pm the abduction could not have taken place at this time.

The only possible explanation would be that murat escaped throughout the patio door but after getting away to where he was going, he left Maddie where he took her, and then went all the way back some 20 mins later to the apartment to open the windows and shutters and make a crime scene....Absolutely ridiculous I know but this is the only conclusion taken from the tapas 9 timelines

SteveT wrote:What ever happened to the legal action that Robert Murat was taking against Tanner? Not heard anything about this for a long while.

I think brian kennedy saw to this

IT WAS SAID LEANNE WAGSTAFF SAW MURAT,NOT SURE IF TRUE.

chrissie wrote:

Angelina wrote:Was there actually a towel found in a barn...I was under the impression it was forum myth?

It was an Aztec towel. There is an Sunday Express article dated 2 December 2007 on MCF but I'm not sure if I am allowed to bring it across to here.

Could it have been owned by the Mcs - they are obviously keen on Aztec design, as shown in this pic :-

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/mm-2-.jpg

Well I read ages ago right at the beginning that Robert Murat had a daughter that was around the same age as Madeleine and bore a resemblance to her. And I've always wondered why Gerry McCann did not give a proper answer when asked if he knew Robert Murat. Why not a simple yes or no.

The End Is Nigh wrote:

jd16 wrote:

<< And why did the police make murat suspect >>

I thought Murat requested Arguido status for himself?

According to Robert Murat's lawyer, he did request arguido status and when the police found no evidence to suggest he was involved with Madeleine's disappearance, he expected to be released from the status. I read that he was very upset to learn that he would not be released from the status, until the McCanns were charged or released from their status.

Apparantly Mr Murat said he wished he had never requested the arguido status, he only requested it in the first place, because it gave him certain rights, including the right to have a lawyer present, when he was questioned. Unlike Kate McCann, he answered every question that was put to him. Also he was made to stay in Praia da Luz and attend a police station every 5 days, whereas the McCanns were given back their passports and given permission to go home. They even had a police escort to the Algarve airport.

A while ago, I searched the net for information regarding Robert Murat's arguido status. I did it because on another forum, I was accused of making the whole thing up, by a McCann supporter, who believed Robert Murat was behind Madeleine's disappearance. The only thing I could find, was a webpage that said he may or may not have requested arguido status.

Maybe interesting to read:

http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2009/04/niggle-and-strange-tale-of-robert-murat.html

Annabel

Many thanks for the link to a very interesting article.

What some people don't understand or even believe is that when necessary "anything and everything" will be used to make sure disinformation is put out to render an investigation useless.

Even to the point of arranging a "fingering" of a suspect. It is wholly possible that Murat was a "stooge" and a "enabler" at the same time.

Time is what the McCanns wanted and time is what they have acquired.

kathybelle wrote:According to Robert Murat's lawyer, he did request arguido status and when the police found no evidence to suggest he was involved with Madeleine's disappearance, he expected to be released from the status. I read that he was very upset to learn that he would not be released from the status, until the McCanns were charged or released from their status.

Apparantly Mr Murat said he wished he had never requested the arguido status, he only requested it in the first place, because it gave him certain rights, including the right to have a lawyer present, when he was questioned. Unlike Kate McCann, he answered every question that was put to him. Also he was made to stay in Praia da Luz and attend a police station every 5 days, whereas the McCanns were given back their passports and given permission to go home. They even had a police escort to the Algarve airport.

A while ago, I searched the net for information regarding Robert Murat's arguido status. I did it because on another forum, I was accused of making the whole thing up, by a McCann supporter, who believed Robert Murat was behind Madeleine's disappearance. The only thing I could find, was a webpage that said he may or may not have requested arguido status.

Thanks kathybelle this is new info to me and significant and what is important is 'when' murat requested arguido status, whether is was before he was made suspect or after as this will tell his motives for asking for arguido status. If you find any more info please post it up and I'll too try to find out more

Murat has become a side point in what I was trying to originally say. Which was from the tapas 9 statements the 9.15pm jane tanner sighting is totally flawed. It could not have happened if 15 mins later at 9.30pm matt was in the apartment with shutters up and windows closed, this is what the mccanns are saying happened and that when kate went to the apartment at 10pm with her reconstruction that the open window and shutters open is what made her think something was wrong and then she saw Maddie had gone, i.e. they are saying that the abduction happened between 9.30-10pm but jane tanner saw her abductor at 9.15pm. The tapas 9 statements prove this is a lie and all those photo fits of who jane tanner saw a lie too, as the abduction did not happen when she saw her man/woman with child at 9.15pm.

I am only further questioning why someone was made suspect on the basis of this 9.15pm sighting which from the statements is proven not to have happened, or at very least if jane tanner did see someone at 9.15pm it was not an abductor because the abduction had not happened at this time

Further more to Pats latest profiling, I would only disagree with her re the Smith sighting. Putting aside the obvious to me that it was to give murat an alibi, if this sighting truly happened then you would have to believe that Maddie died on the night of 3rd May for this to be true. But there is so much evidence to prove that she died prior to May 3rd and it is pointing to April 30th, so in this case why is gerry running through the streets with her on May 3rd. Pat backs this up by saying that gerry was in the tapas bar all night so why would he leave at 10pm and run through the streets with Maddie if she had died days previous...not going to happen I am afraid, the Smith sighting is not true however you look at it

jd16 wrote:Further more to Pats latest profiling, I would only disagree with her re the Smith sighting. Putting aside the obvious to me that it was to give murat an alibi, if this sighting truly happened then you would have to believe that Maddie died on the night of 3rd May for this to be true. But there is so much evidence to prove that she died prior to May 3rd and it is pointing to April 30th, so in this case why is gerry running through the streets with her on May 3rd. Pat backs this up by saying that gerry was in the tapas bar all night so why would he leave at 10pm and run through the streets with Maddie if she had died days previous...not going to happen I am afraid, the Smith sighting is not true however you look at it

Not necessarily so jd16! If Madeleine had been injured earlier in the week, recieving treatment from the collected Doctorate with a plan to fly her back as a tired sick little girl, that might explain why she was not around in the earlier part of the week etc. If however she unexpectedly died on the 3rd May there was no choice but to hastily arrange her disappearence - hence the panic!

Old article:

http://truthformadeleine.com/2007/09/mccanns-are-lying/

http://patbrownprofiling.blogspot.com/2012/02/criminal-profiling-topic-of-day-smith.html

Criminal Profiling Topic of the Day: The Smith Sighting vs Jane Tanner's

The Smith family sighting or the Jane Tanner sighting; which is more likely to be someone carrying off Maddie than the other? Or, could they be, as the McCanns now encourage us to believe, the same man?

Let's start with a question we commonly hear about possible suspect sightings: when someone is spotted near a crime scene who has nothing to do with the crime but never comes forward and says, "That was me," doesn't that prove that the person spotted is indeed the suspect?

Not necessarily. First of all, the sighting may not even be a fact. Jane Tanner's sighting lacks credibility, so is no surprise that some innocent man carrying a child in his outstretched arms hasn't come forward (although Stephen Carpenter, another British vacationer, admitted to crossing the road fifteen minutes later with his wife and children). On the other hand, the Smith family sighting at approximately 9:50-9:55 is very credible since nine witnesses saw the man and they have no connection to the McCanns. So, that no one came forth to admit being that man may be because he is really the one carrying off Maddie.

Secondly, some people just don't want to admit it was them and then have the unpleasant repercussions of having to deal with the police and the media. Look what happened to Murat.

Next, we have the issue of how the child was carried. Dead or alive, the Smith sighting suspect carried the child up against his body in a more normal carry position. The child's arms were hanging down which would be absolutely the case with a dead child (although it is also possible with a live one). Mr. Smith later saw a video of Gerry carrying one of his remaining children and thought the man his family had seen could well be him. The Jane Tanner sighting has the abductor holding a limp child in his outstretched arms. This is an odd way to carry a child any distance as it is awkward and tiring. Also, if the man abducted the child, he would be far smarter to carry the child up against his shoulder where he could duck his head down alongside the child's head and keep his own face somewhat hidden. Carrying the child at waist level leaves one's face exposed and draws attention to the person due to the odd positioning of the child.

And how does it make sense that the abductor would carry the abducted child that way? If he scooped Maddie up from her bed, her head would naturally end up over his right arm and Jane Tanner wouldn't have seen two little feet. And how does the man get out the door and close it behind him with both hands cradling the child? (Not to mention, closing the door when you are in a hurry - since "the abductor" already have left evidence of a break-in with the open window - it is hardly is worth the effort.)

Mr. Smith believes Gerry McCann may be the man he saw on the Rua da Escola. Some say this is an impossibility because Gerry was dining in the Tapas Restaurant at the time of the sighting. Well, he is if you believe some of the statements of the Tapas 9 but there is no independent corroboration by any of the waiters that he was there exactly when Kate sounded the alarm after 10 pm nor can any independent witness put Gerry in the Tapas restaurant for the period of time prior to Kate raising the alarm. So there is nothing to say that this wasn't Gerry that the Smith's saw who then dumped the child he was carrying and returned to take his seat in the Tapas just before Kate showed up.

But, could he have made it to the location of the Smith sighting and back in time? Before I went to Praia da Luz I was told by some the idea was laughable, that the Smith sighting was quite a distance from the Tapas - half a mile is what the McCanns claim in their documentary, Madeleine was Here.

Voice over: It is possible that JT is not the only person who saw Madeleine being carried away by the abductor. 40 minutes after J(T)’s sighting and half (1/2) mile away from the Mc’s apartment a family also saw a man carrying a young girl away from the town.

When I looked at a map before I went to Portugal on Google and put in the locations, I did come up with 800 meters (half-mile) but that was by car and followed a rather circuitous route. the walking route didn't seem that far and, indeed, Google said it would take six minutes.

This is the advantage of going to the location of the crime scene. I walked the route myself from the McCann's apartment and the Smith sighting and it took me exactly five minutes at a moderately fast pace. It took me another minute and a half to reach the beach. So, the time Gerry would need from the time the Smiths would have seen him and get back to the Tapas bar and include a body drop off is about eight minutes. He could be in his seat before Kate raised the alarm. And that is eight minutes if he didn't run back, in which case, he could be arrive sooner.

And, yes, it does take a bit of time to hide the body, but, in a pinch and a panic, I saw three good places to ditch a corpse in a hurry; a storage shed right by the road only part way to the beach (cutting an extra minute or so off the trip), a large clump of reeds where the road accesses the beach and one could quickly stuff the little body into, and, also at that location, a number of overturned small boats one could temporarily store a body underneath. At this point in time, if one would just trying to lose a dead child, any place might do, including a dumpster of which there were a number of in the area. If the body is later found in any of the those places, it could be suspected that a sex predator dumped his victim there, and, if the body wasn't immediately discovered and one had time to find a better spot to prevent the child being found and an autopsy done, any of these places could be revisited and the body moved in the dark early morning hours. If there was no one out searching, these locations are dead quiet and no one is around; I can testify to since I spent from 3 am to 5 am wandering about Praia da Luz and never ran into anyone.

Which sighting is more likely to be Madeleine McCann? The Smith sighting, clearly, but the McCanns will have none of it unless it is the same man that Jane Tanner saw. I repeat what I stated in my last blog; there is no reason for the McCanns to disqualify the Smith sighting as a stand-alone sighting of the person who took Madeleine unless Gerry does not really have an alibi for 9:50-9:55 pm.

Very interesting the time you could leave tapas & down to the beach & back again,imo if indeed it was gerry,i think he had another tapas child with him untill he found a witness or nine...madeleine was not found with a lot of people searching,amaral stating about the use of a fridge/freezer & the time frame for a dead body to give a cadaver signal & it fits their agenda to a t...but why would they have jt sighting so much earlier is a fly in the ointment

STEPHEN CARPENTER

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm

Which ever way the McCanns try and spin the sighting why on earth were they NOT banging on the Smiths doors for more information re the sighting, they had one of their cronies to visit him (not sure if this is true) and one can only wonder why.

Madeleine was being carried exactly the same way the idiot carried Sean after legging it from Portugal - the Smiths saw Gerry and he knows it!

Tick tock!

Annabel wrote:STEPHEN CARPENTER

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm

Thanks Annabel.

I ploughed through it and marvelled yet again at the Police technique for taking Statements.....enough to put anyone off making a Statement after
reading this one and the others taken at LP in 2008. I think someone aught to train the Police , really, I"m not joking, you get much more out of a
person if you are concise , friendly, but above all direct. Carpenter must have been sorry he volunteered a Statement .

chrissie wrote:
And, yes, it does take a bit of time to hide the body, but, in a pinch and a panic, I saw three good places to ditch a corpse in a hurry; a storage shed right by the road only part way to the beach (cutting an extra minute or so off the trip), a large clump of reeds where the road accesses the beach and one could quickly stuff the little body into, and, also at that location, a number of overturned small boats one could temporarily store a body underneath. At this point in time, if one would just trying to lose a dead child, any place might do, including a dumpster of which there were a number of in the area. If the body is later found in any of the those places, it could be suspected that a sex predator dumped his victim there, and, if the body wasn't immediately discovered and one had time to find a better spot to prevent the child being found and an autopsy done, any of these places could be revisited and the body moved in the dark early morning hours. I repeat what I stated in my last blog; there is no reason for the McCanns to disqualify the Smith sighting as a stand-alone sighting of the person who took Madeleine unless Gerry does not really have an alibi for 9:50-9:55 pm.

I don't agree with Pat abotu those hiding locations, l think a body was never meant to be found, previous abuse, not recent can be verified.

As for an alibi for Gerry for 9.50-9.55... What is the time frame between Gerry talking to Jez Wilkins and Kates raising the alarm? That is the time of an alibi needed for Gerry.

Found it: From mccann files Jez Wilkins statement...

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id327.html
[quote]
We returned to our apartment. We decided to spend the evening-in, watching television. Our son was awake and unable to sleep. I decided to take him for a walk in his pram. I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn't see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out of the top road. I met him near some stairs and a ground floor flat.

There was a gate leading up to some stairs. I was pretty certain that he had left the apartment. We spoke for a few minutes. He said 'you're on walking duty'. I said I was staying in and the pro's and con's and what to do with the children. He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks, he may stay in one night. I don't remember anyone else walk past with a child. The conversation lasted for about three (3) to five (5) minutes. He was acting completely normal from what I know of him so far. /quote]

So they only spoke for a maximum of 5 minutes and if we take Jez Wilkins's later time of 8.30 that makes it 8.35pm at the latest, and Kate saw Madeleine missing at 10pm. So Gerry really needs an alibi for an hour an 25 minutes which coincidentally does contain the time of the Smith sighting. Long enough to do something untoward.

BTW, the bit l highlighted in red, what sort of parent is this? I'm never sure whether neglect really did happen but what an outrageous thing to say - clearly shows the children were second to enjoyment.

I agree Karen, other wise we would have had the Mccanns bringing the Smiths sighting into their "wider agenda" also why would they have JT's sighting which is the opp to were the Smiths saw Gerry.

Hi margaret,


I left about 8.15 pm – 8.30 pm. I was pushing the pram around the complex and went to the toilet near the bar. I couldn't see inside the restaurant. As I got the baby to sleep, I was on my way back to the apartment. I came out of the top road. I met him near some stairs and a ground floor flat."

Jez Wilkins left about 8.15 - 8.30 pm .......by the time he walked around with the pushchair, stopped to spend a penny it is feasible he met Gerry about
9pm as Gerry says.

Margaret

You wrote:

He said that if he was staying two (2) weeks, he may stay in one night

I think if you figure that all the children were in one apartment and they were taking turns, if he was there for two weeks, his turn would at most be "one night".