VIDEO - McCann Investigation: Every Picture Tells a Story....

Kate must have known that Gerry had not completed at least part of his mission Anna as she lifted the shutters from the inside as indicated by her fingerprints!!

Their tales have more holes in them than a colander.

That should mean the good ship McScam will eventually sink.

The more I look at those photos the more disturbing I'm finding them. That device on the bed....is it a video camera? There was another camera in the lounge on the table.
Pillow arrangement..odd.
Camera? ODD.
Cable for the Video?
I don't like what I'm thinking. Not at all.

the slave wrote:The more I look at those photos the more disturbing I'm finding them. That device on the bed....is it a video camera? There was another camera in the lounge on the table.
Pillow arrangement..odd.
Camera? ODD.
Cable for the Video?
I don't like what I'm thinking. Not at all.

I think Gerry changed in a hurry out of the beige trousers after having his quick walk with a child through PdL. He must have been panicked - being seen by one or two people would be exactly what he wanted. Corroborative and independent witness of a man and child. T 8 all said he was at the table.
So two abductor sightings, JT and Gerry has JW to alibi him, Smiths, the whole table to say he was there. Fine.
But the Smiths consisted of nine people who saw him from all angles and spoke to him.
The child cannot have been Maddie - for a start she was wearing a long sleeved top.

Then I'm convinced that Maddie's body was long gone from 5a.
Certainly not being hidden and carried around that very night.
They could not know whether dogs were going to be brought in even that night.
They had no opportunity to clean the apartment after that evening - so it must have been thoroughly cleaned long before the police arrived to be devoid of Maddie's DNA.
5a was little more than a stage to play out the abduction that night. Imo.

The Smiths said that the trousers had buttons - as indeed can be seen some time later, when Gerry is wearing them. But they are certainly cleared away quickly - possibly just before the PJ arrive? It may be that the first photographs were taken by the GNR? I don't know.
He may have felt safe wearing them later, since the Smiths had not come forward immediately. I think the first statement was near the end of May.

Don't worry Slave! According to Rachel M. who was next door, the walls are so thin, unlikely that what you fear was happening. At least not there. Too risky.
The McCanns are just sloppy housekeepers by the looks of the apartments and the villa they've lived in.

tigger wrote:

the slave wrote:The more I look at those photos the more disturbing I'm finding them. That device on the bed....is it a video camera? There was another camera in the lounge on the table.
Pillow arrangement..odd.
Camera? ODD.
Cable for the Video?
I don't like what I'm thinking. Not at all.

I think Gerry changed in a hurry out of the beige trousers after having his quick walk with a child through PdL. He must have been panicked - being seen by one or two people would be exactly what he wanted. Corroborative and independent witness of a man and child. T 8 all said he was at the table.
So two abductor sightings, JT and Gerry has JW to alibi him, Smiths, the whole table to say he was there. Fine.
But the Smiths consisted of nine people who saw him from all angles and spoke to him.
The child cannot have been Maddie - for a start she was wearing a long sleeved top.

Then I'm convinced that Maddie's body was long gone from 5a.
Certainly not being hidden and carried around that very night.
They could not know whether dogs were going to be brought in even that night.
They had no opportunity to clean the apartment after that evening - so it must have been thoroughly cleaned long before the police arrived to be devoid of Maddie's DNA.
5a was little more than a stage to play out the abduction that night. Imo.

The Smiths said that the trousers had buttons - as indeed can be seen some time later, when Gerry is wearing them. But they are certainly cleared away quickly - possibly just before the PJ arrive? It may be that the first photographs were taken by the GNR? I don't know.
He may have felt safe wearing them later, since the Smiths had not come forward immediately. I think the first statement was near the end of May.

Don't worry Slave! According to Rachel M. who was next door, the walls are so thin, unlikely that what you fear was happening. At least not there. Too risky.
The McCanns are just sloppy housekeepers by the looks of the apartments and the villa they've lived in.

I don't go along with the theory of Gerry carrying another child, in the hope of being seen and subsequently being taken for the abductor. I think he was carrying Madeleine to wherever her body was hidden in the early days. Also, we only have the McCanns' word about what Madeleine had been wearing that night. I guess we have Jane Tanner's statement about the abductor and the pyjamas, but the pyjamas as shown by the McCanns would not have looked as they were described by JT: the Eeyore pyjamas had baggy cropped legs and would not have been tight around the ankles.

But if it was Madeleine's body he was carrying, his clothes must have been reeking of cadaver odour. The apartment could not be totally devoid of Maddie's DNA and that night there was simply no time or opportunity to do all that.

The GNR dogs would have been capable of detecting all these odours and followed them to wherever Gerry took the child. Imo there is simply no way there could still have been a dead body in 5a any time that day.
The GNR dogs did follow a trail to the Batista supermarket which Gerry had visited earlier on the 3rd. The GNR handlers suspected that they'd been given a towel that belonged to Gerry, not Maddie.

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

I believe something happened to Madeleine earlier in the week and, so far, I am not convinced of the Smith sighting...Not that I disbelieve the Smiths, but it is common to see people carrying children home at night and I am having difficulty in questioning the way the person was carrying the child. How many ways are there?

A comment by Goncalo Amaral that they are not in possession of the clothes Madeleine was wearing that day as well as the suggestion that noone slept in her bed that night (or Wed night) leads me to continue to believe that night was staged and anything in the apartment was meant to be seen as it was.

There are still issues with that but I still can't get my head around a last minute effort....Everything I have read points to discrepancies starting early in the week and it sends a biig signal 'WHY?' if nothing happened until Thursday night.

maive wrote:

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

Murat is a key person in all this. He also did very well out of this - around 600.000 pounds from the press in 2008. In 2009 he gave an address to the Cambridge Union, in which he blamed the press, but not so much as a word against any of the Tapas 9, none of these were mentioned. Yet three of them gave what was probably false testimony against him.
Murat lied to the PJ on something like 15 points about his movements between the 1st May and the 4th May.


As for coincidences: turning your phone off at exactly the same time as someone - is just believable, but switching it on again at exactly the same time is far too coincidental.
I think Murat was the patsy, imo he was the ideal person to find a temporary hiding place for the body. He was in the estate agent business, would certainly know of apartments that were empty and how long they'd be empty. He would also have had keys.

Imo Murat was far more aware of the real state of affairs than some of the T7. That's why they've come out with such conflicting stories. I think Jane Tanner and her husband know exactly what happened, the rest were possibly on a 'need to know' basis.
Why would Fiona tell the police how weird it was that the twins didn't wake up?
Why would Rachel say that with six doctors they'd be able to resuscitate a child?
Why would nearly all of them get their stories about checking wrong?
Imo they' simply weren't in on the real story - they backed up the McCanns to help them out and thought the whole thing would blow over in a few weeks or months.
They didn't neglect their children - the Paynes and JT and ROB also had a baby monitor (this only came out in the rogatory int.).

From the T7, Dianne Webster can be left out.
David Payne was asked to testify to seeing all three of the children early evening of the 3rd. (this was after the PJ wanted to find an independent sighting of Maddie on that day after tea time).
Fiona stressed how deeply the twins slept and the fact that Kate was checking whether they were breathing.
M. Oldfield said he'd checked and got the whole interior of 5a wrong, probably because he'd never been there.
Rachel M. said that they'd have been able to resuscitate a child - at that time there was no mention of an accident, only abduction.

tigger wrote:

maive wrote:

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

Murat is a key person in all this. He also did very well out of this - around 600.000 pounds from the press in 2008. In 2009 he gave an address to the Cambridge Union, in which he blamed the press, but not so much as a word against any of the Tapas 9, none of these were mentioned. Yet three of them gave what was probably false testimony against him.
Murat lied to the PJ on something like 15 points about his movements between the 1st May and the 4th May.


As for coincidences: turning your phone off at exactly the same time as someone - is just believable, but switching it on again at exactly the same time is far too coincidental.
I think Murat was the patsy, imo he was the ideal person to find a temporary hiding place for the body. He was in the estate agent business, would certainly know of apartments that were empty and how long they'd be empty. He would also have had keys.

Imo Murat was far more aware of the real state of affairs than some of the T7. That's why they've come out with such conflicting stories. I think Jane Tanner and her husband know exactly what happened, the rest were possibly on a 'need to know' basis.
Why would Fiona tell the police how weird it was that the twins didn't wake up?
Why would Rachel say that with six doctors they'd be able to resuscitate a child?
Why would nearly all of them get their stories about checking wrong?
Imo they' simply weren't in on the real story - they backed up the McCanns to help them out and thought the whole thing would blow over in a few weeks or months.
They didn't neglect their children - the Paynes and JT and ROB also had a baby monitor (this only came out in the rogatory int.).

From the T7, Dianne Webster can be left out.
David Payne was asked to testify to seeing all three of the children early evening of the 3rd. (this was after the PJ wanted to find an independent sighting of Maddie on that day after tea time).
Fiona stressed how deeply the twins slept and the fact that Kate was checking whether they were breathing.
M. Oldfield said he'd checked and got the whole interior of 5a wrong, probably because he'd never been there.
Rachel M. said that they'd have been able to resuscitate a child - at that time there was no mention of an accident, only abduction.

Great post tigger, a very good synopsis

AnnaEsse wrote:

tigger wrote:

the slave wrote:The more I look at those photos the more disturbing I'm finding them. That device on the bed....is it a video camera? There was another camera in the lounge on the table.
Pillow arrangement..odd.
Camera? ODD.
Cable for the Video?
I don't like what I'm thinking. Not at all.

I think Gerry changed in a hurry out of the beige trousers after having his quick walk with a child through PdL. He must have been panicked - being seen by one or two people would be exactly what he wanted. Corroborative and independent witness of a man and child. T 8 all said he was at the table.
So two abductor sightings, JT and Gerry has JW to alibi him, Smiths, the whole table to say he was there. Fine.
But the Smiths consisted of nine people who saw him from all angles and spoke to him.
The child cannot have been Maddie - for a start she was wearing a long sleeved top.

Then I'm convinced that Maddie's body was long gone from 5a.
Certainly not being hidden and carried around that very night.
They could not know whether dogs were going to be brought in even that night.
They had no opportunity to clean the apartment after that evening - so it must have been thoroughly cleaned long before the police arrived to be devoid of Maddie's DNA.
5a was little more than a stage to play out the abduction that night. Imo.

The Smiths said that the trousers had buttons - as indeed can be seen some time later, when Gerry is wearing them. But they are certainly cleared away quickly - possibly just before the PJ arrive? It may be that the first photographs were taken by the GNR? I don't know.
He may have felt safe wearing them later, since the Smiths had not come forward immediately. I think the first statement was near the end of May.

Don't worry Slave! According to Rachel M. who was next door, the walls are so thin, unlikely that what you fear was happening. At least not there. Too risky.
The McCanns are just sloppy housekeepers by the looks of the apartments and the villa they've lived in.

I don't go along with the theory of Gerry carrying another child, in the hope of being seen and subsequently being taken for the abductor. I think he was carrying Madeleine to wherever her body was hidden in the early days. Also, we only have the McCanns' word about what Madeleine had been wearing that night. I guess we have Jane Tanner's statement about the abductor and the pyjamas, but the pyjamas as shown by the McCanns would not have looked as they were described by JT: the Eeyore pyjamas had baggy cropped legs and would not have been tight around the ankles.

I absolutely agree with your post Anna, and I definitely do not go along with the theory of Gerry carrying another zonked out child and hoping to be seen in the act.

tigger wrote:

maive wrote:

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

Murat is a key person in all this. He also did very well out of this - around 600.000 pounds from the press in 2008. In 2009 he gave an address to the Cambridge Union, in which he blamed the press, but not so much as a word against any of the Tapas 9, none of these were mentioned. Yet three of them gave what was probably false testimony against him.
Murat lied to the PJ on something like 15 points about his movements between the 1st May and the 4th May.


As for coincidences: turning your phone off at exactly the same time as someone - is just believable, but switching it on again at exactly the same time is far too coincidental.
I think Murat was the patsy, imo he was the ideal person to find a temporary hiding place for the body. He was in the estate agent business, would certainly know of apartments that were empty and how long they'd be empty. He would also have had keys.

Imo Murat was far more aware of the real state of affairs than some of the T7. That's why they've come out with such conflicting stories. I think Jane Tanner and her husband know exactly what happened, the rest were possibly on a 'need to know' basis.
Why would Fiona tell the police how weird it was that the twins didn't wake up?
Why would Rachel say that with six doctors they'd be able to resuscitate a child?
Why would nearly all of them get their stories about checking wrong?
Imo they' simply weren't in on the real story - they backed up the McCanns to help them out and thought the whole thing would blow over in a few weeks or months.
They didn't neglect their children - the Paynes and JT and ROB also had a baby monitor (this only came out in the rogatory int.).

From the T7, Dianne Webster can be left out.
David Payne was asked to testify to seeing all three of the children early evening of the 3rd. (this was after the PJ wanted to find an independent sighting of Maddie on that day after tea time).
Fiona stressed how deeply the twins slept and the fact that Kate was checking whether they were breathing.
M. Oldfield said he'd checked and got the whole interior of 5a wrong, probably because he'd never been there.
Rachel M. said that they'd have been able to resuscitate a child - at that time there was no mention of an accident, only abduction.

M. Oldfield said he'd checked and got the whole interior of 5a wrong, probably because he'd never been there.

I don't recall reading anywhere that MO described the whole of the interior of the apartment. I may be wrong, but all I remember is his description of Madeleine's room having two windows and getting the colour of the curtains wrong. Where does he describe the rest of the apartment?

You're right, I was thinking of the children's room, I should have said the whole room.

Didn;t he also say that he browsed through a non existent shelf of books to see if there was some holiday reading?

Bobsy wrote:Didn;t he also say that he browsed through a non existent shelf of books to see if there was some holiday reading?

That sounds familiar.

tigger wrote:

maive wrote:

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

Murat is a key person in all this. He also did very well out of this - around 600.000 pounds from the press in 2008. In 2009 he gave an address to the Cambridge Union, in which he blamed the press, but not so much as a word against any of the Tapas 9, none of these were mentioned. Yet three of them gave what was probably false testimony against him.
Murat lied to the PJ on something like 15 points about his movements between the 1st May and the 4th May.


As for coincidences: turning your phone off at exactly the same time as someone - is just believable, but switching it on again at exactly the same time is far too coincidental.
I think Murat was the patsy, imo he was the ideal person to find a temporary hiding place for the body. He was in the estate agent business, would certainly know of apartments that were empty and how long they'd be empty. He would also have had keys.

Imo Murat was far more aware of the real state of affairs than some of the T7. That's why they've come out with such conflicting stories. I think Jane Tanner and her husband know exactly what happened, the rest were possibly on a 'need to know' basis.
Why would Fiona tell the police how weird it was that the twins didn't wake up?
Why would Rachel say that with six doctors they'd be able to resuscitate a child?
Why would nearly all of them get their stories about checking wrong?
Imo they' simply weren't in on the real story - they backed up the McCanns to help them out and thought the whole thing would blow over in a few weeks or months.
They didn't neglect their children - the Paynes and JT and ROB also had a baby monitor (this only came out in the rogatory int.).

From the T7, Dianne Webster can be left out.
David Payne was asked to testify to seeing all three of the children early evening of the 3rd. (this was after the PJ wanted to find an independent sighting of Maddie on that day after tea time).
Fiona stressed how deeply the twins slept and the fact that Kate was checking whether they were breathing.
M. Oldfield said he'd checked and got the whole interior of 5a wrong, probably because he'd never been there.
Rachel M. said that they'd have been able to resuscitate a child - at that time there was no mention of an accident, only abduction.

Why would nearly all of them get their stories about checking wrong?

Actually, until the truth comes out, we don't know who got their stories wrong. There are discrepancies and inconsistencies, but until somebody spills the beans and/or the police have evidence that shows who was lying, we don't know.

I can't understand why they would go through the patio doors when in one off rachel oldfields statements she said the mccanns window shutters and patio shutters were down.


ALL off the tapas CHANGED there stories AFTER they ALL met up in 2008 before there rogatories.

So as far as I'm concerned, apart from Webster , they were all minipulated into telling half truth and half lies to mingle a truth with a lie.

ALL off the tapas CHANGED there stories AFTER they ALL met up in 2008 before there rogatories..

At the very least they should all be charged at some stage with perverting the course of justice although I imagine some of them will be facing more charges than that.

maive wrote:

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

As the PJ themselves said, because of ambassadorial intervention on the 4th! (the Ambassador himself came down from Lisbon - a three hour drive - absolutely not the normal procedure) and consular intervention too (at least it was their job, the Ambassador should be dealing with political matters) - the PJ did not look at the parents for the first two days.
During that time all the children's clothes were washed at the OC laundry. Including all of Maddie's.
Only after the first days, adding up all the inconsistencies, did the PJ 'get heavy' re the parents.
Murat, imo was used as a patsy, a diversion to get the police 'back on track' to look away from the parents. I don't think it was a big risk and they may simply have 'dropped him in it' as it were, without telling him. There was nothing in the villa Liliana and nothing concrete to charge him with. Other than the id.
JT identified him positively on the 13th and on the 14th he was made an arguido. The tabloids had a field day.

Whilst Murat (as were the McCanns) was still an arguido in November 07, he had a meeting with Brian Kennedy in PdL. Why?
Murat made well over half a million out of it plus a hundred thousand each for his girlfriend and Malenka. None of it went into the Fund, which is why Kate still dislikes him so much?
The tabloids could have been gagged much sooner,my suspicion is that they were left to print more libel before being taken to task by the libel lawyers, who'd know all about this sort of thing. More libel, more money in settlement?
Each paper contributed about 50.000 pounds - a bargain in view of the millions of copies they'd sold with their stories. Newspaper industry at that time, was losing a lot of customers, I read somewhere it was in the region of 14% downturn. Maddie's iconic face on a front page was like printing money - still is sometimes.

I think one has to remember that the McCanns agenda suited other people's agenda perfectly at the time. Hopefully, that will change when the public gets bored with the same story.
It follows then that the newspaper industry will make a fantastic profit if the the McCanns were to be prosecuted.

tigger wrote:

maive wrote:

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

As the PJ themselves said, because of ambassadorial intervention on the 4th! (the Ambassador himself came down from Lisbon - a three hour drive - absolutely not the normal procedure) and consular intervention too (at least it was their job, the Ambassador should be dealing with political matters) - the PJ did not look at the parents for the first two days.
During that time all the children's clothes were washed at the OC laundry. Including all of Maddie's.
Only after the first days, adding up all the inconsistencies, did the PJ 'get heavy' re the parents.
Murat, imo was used as a patsy, a diversion to get the police 'back on track' to look away from the parents. I don't think it was a big risk and they may simply have 'dropped him in it' as it were, without telling him. There was nothing in the villa Liliana and nothing concrete to charge him with. Other than the id.
JT identified him positively on the 13th and on the 14th he was made an arguido. The tabloids had a field day.

Whilst Murat (as were the McCanns) was still an arguido in November 07, he had a meeting with Brian Kennedy in PdL. Why?
Murat made well over half a million out of it plus a hundred thousand each for his girlfriend and Malenka. None of it went into the Fund, which is why Kate still dislikes him so much?
The tabloids could have been gagged much sooner,my suspicion is that they were left to print more libel before being taken to task by the libel lawyers, who'd know all about this sort of thing. More libel, more money in settlement?
Each paper contributed about 50.000 pounds - a bargain in view of the millions of copies they'd sold with their stories. Newspaper industry at that time, was losing a lot of customers, I read somewhere it was in the region of 14% downturn. Maddie's iconic face on a front page was like printing money - still is sometimes.

I think one has to remember that the McCanns agenda suited other people's agenda perfectly at the time. Hopefully, that will change when the public gets bored with the same story.
It follows then that the newspaper industry will make a fantastic profit if the the McCanns were to be prosecuted.

Robert Murat was paid a substantial sum in damages, but his business had been ruined and he possibly lost a lot more from that and in terms of his reputation. So, we really can't say that he benefited from this.

Murat himself said that the whole thing was the ' biggest ......up in history'.
For that to be so, surely there must have been something in place to be .....d. up, a plan, an agreement...
He never said he was framed, which was in fact the case. He first and foremost blamed the press - not JT, not the Tapas, not the McCanns.

AnnaEsse wrote:

tigger wrote:

maive wrote:

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

As the PJ themselves said, because of ambassadorial intervention on the 4th! (the Ambassador himself came down from Lisbon - a three hour drive - absolutely not the normal procedure) and consular intervention too (at least it was their job, the Ambassador should be dealing with political matters) - the PJ did not look at the parents for the first two days.
During that time all the children's clothes were washed at the OC laundry. Including all of Maddie's.
Only after the first days, adding up all the inconsistencies, did the PJ 'get heavy' re the parents.
Murat, imo was used as a patsy, a diversion to get the police 'back on track' to look away from the parents. I don't think it was a big risk and they may simply have 'dropped him in it' as it were, without telling him. There was nothing in the villa Liliana and nothing concrete to charge him with. Other than the id.
JT identified him positively on the 13th and on the 14th he was made an arguido. The tabloids had a field day.

Whilst Murat (as were the McCanns) was still an arguido in November 07, he had a meeting with Brian Kennedy in PdL. Why?
Murat made well over half a million out of it plus a hundred thousand each for his girlfriend and Malenka. None of it went into the Fund, which is why Kate still dislikes him so much?
The tabloids could have been gagged much sooner,my suspicion is that they were left to print more libel before being taken to task by the libel lawyers, who'd know all about this sort of thing. More libel, more money in settlement?
Each paper contributed about 50.000 pounds - a bargain in view of the millions of copies they'd sold with their stories. Newspaper industry at that time, was losing a lot of customers, I read somewhere it was in the region of 14% downturn. Maddie's iconic face on a front page was like printing money - still is sometimes.

I think one has to remember that the McCanns agenda suited other people's agenda perfectly at the time. Hopefully, that will change when the public gets bored with the same story.
It follows then that the newspaper industry will make a fantastic profit if the the McCanns were to be prosecuted.

Robert Murat was paid a substantial sum in damages, but his business had been ruined and he possibly lost a lot more from that and in terms of his reputation. So, we really can't say that he benefited from this.

Hi AnnaEsse. Was Murat's so successful though?

Bobsy wrote:

AnnaEsse wrote:

tigger wrote:

maive wrote:

tigger wrote:

The phone activity in the previous days points very much to something important happening earlier on in the holiday.
The return of Murat to PdL on the 1st of May is imo also meaningful. He would have been the ideal person to arrange a safe hiding place. In particular the occasion on which both Gerry's and Murat's phones were turned off and on within seconds of each other - I think on the 1st or 2nd of May is imo quite significant.

I don't agree with all those theories about a «substitute», etc... BUT I have to say that that phone activity is really suspicious.. and I mean REALLY suspicious..

However, the link with Murat is a big stretch IMO.. They (T9) would have not mentioned Murat as a possible suspect if in fact he WAS implicated.. Come on, it makes no sense at all.. WHY on earth would you «sell» your accomplice right away after the fact?? Why would you put him in a position of telling what happened would have been the last possible solution in order to save himself? A way too risky IMO.. But I understand that all those coincidences are really odd.. But we should not forget that coincidences happen so..

As the PJ themselves said, because of ambassadorial intervention on the 4th! (the Ambassador himself came down from Lisbon - a three hour drive - absolutely not the normal procedure) and consular intervention too (at least it was their job, the Ambassador should be dealing with political matters) - the PJ did not look at the parents for the first two days.
During that time all the children's clothes were washed at the OC laundry. Including all of Maddie's.
Only after the first days, adding up all the inconsistencies, did the PJ 'get heavy' re the parents.
Murat, imo was used as a patsy, a diversion to get the police 'back on track' to look away from the parents. I don't think it was a big risk and they may simply have 'dropped him in it' as it were, without telling him. There was nothing in the villa Liliana and nothing concrete to charge him with. Other than the id.
JT identified him positively on the 13th and on the 14th he was made an arguido. The tabloids had a field day.

Whilst Murat (as were the McCanns) was still an arguido in November 07, he had a meeting with Brian Kennedy in PdL. Why?
Murat made well over half a million out of it plus a hundred thousand each for his girlfriend and Malenka. None of it went into the Fund, which is why Kate still dislikes him so much?
The tabloids could have been gagged much sooner,my suspicion is that they were left to print more libel before being taken to task by the libel lawyers, who'd know all about this sort of thing. More libel, more money in settlement?
Each paper contributed about 50.000 pounds - a bargain in view of the millions of copies they'd sold with their stories. Newspaper industry at that time, was losing a lot of customers, I read somewhere it was in the region of 14% downturn. Maddie's iconic face on a front page was like printing money - still is sometimes.

I think one has to remember that the McCanns agenda suited other people's agenda perfectly at the time. Hopefully, that will change when the public gets bored with the same story.
It follows then that the newspaper industry will make a fantastic profit if the the McCanns were to be prosecuted.

Robert Murat was paid a substantial sum in damages, but his business had been ruined and he possibly lost a lot more from that and in terms of his reputation. So, we really can't say that he benefited from this.

Hi AnnaEsse. Was Murat's so successful though?

His business? As far as I know, it was.

IMO Robert Murat's business may have been making some money but with a reputation ruined then who knows what he would have made. I am (was) self employed and can say that what he suffered was life changing (not in a good way). So I can see that he would consider his life ruined at that time. RM's attitude is as I would expect from an innocent party. - Unlike K & G McCanns response - laughing & joking whilst their child (not mine or Murats) was abducted by a "paedophile" - what parent could laugh then?