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

tigger wrote: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.

I told you, I agree that all these links, if true, are really odd, especially the highlighted sentence above... IMO, RM didn't sue (or blame) the McCanns after being falsely accused for many good reasons.. Better to take the money, keep silence and stay away from them...

Just a gthought......who took the photo of the McCanns praying on the Bed.??????

Panda wrote:

Just a gthought......who took the photo of the McCanns praying on the Bed.??????

I think that photo is from the Amaral documentary and it's actors.

maive wrote:

tigger wrote: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.

I told you, I agree that all these links, if true, are really odd, especially the highlighted sentence above... IMO, RM didn't sue (or blame) the McCanns after being falsely accused for many good reasons.. Better to take the money, keep silence and stay away from them...

Well, when / if we find out what happened at that time I for one will be stunned if it does not transpire that the McCanns had local knowledge and help. I am not suggesting it was Mr Murat in case I get whooshed however I believe Madeleine was handed into the care of others for safe keeping prior to being returned to her family. I believe that is what Gerry was doing that night, and if it was him the Smiths saw he was on his way to a rendevous, albeit in a panic as things had not gone as originally planned. The alternative is that a blue bag was picked up by the helpers from the flower bed and the Smith sighting is a mistaken identity. All imo.

AnnaEsse wrote:

Panda wrote:

Just a gthought......who took the photo of the McCanns praying on the Bed.??????

I think that photo is from the Amaral documentary and it's actors.

Thanks AnnaEsse....there was I thinking it really WAS the McCanns....I'LL get my coat.

gillyspot wrote: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?

I think Robert Murat has maintained a dignified silence about the McCanns and their troupe of actors.

mossman wrote:

maive wrote:

tigger wrote: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.

I told you, I agree that all these links, if true, are really odd, especially the highlighted sentence above... IMO, RM didn't sue (or blame) the McCanns after being falsely accused for many good reasons.. Better to take the money, keep silence and stay away from them...

Well, when / if we find out what happened at that time I for one will be stunned if it does not transpire that the McCanns had local knowledge and help. I am not suggesting it was Mr Murat in case I get whooshed however I believe Madeleine was handed into the care of others for safe keeping prior to being returned to her family. I believe that is what Gerry was doing that night, and if it was him the Smiths saw he was on his way to a rendevous, albeit in a panic as things had not gone as originally planned. The alternative is that a blue bag was picked up by the helpers from the flower bed and the Smith sighting is a mistaken identity. All imo.

Am I mistaken or the blue bag disappeared AFTER that night (may 3rd)? The PJ took pictures of it that night so it was not used to carry Madeleine that night.. so whatever was on that flowerbed it was not the blue bag imo.

Also, with the T7, the McCanns had enough «helpers» in PDL.. no need to implicate more people (for example RM). More people are implicated, more risky it was for the McCanns and IMO, this is exactly the biggest problem of K+G... It's hard to keep mouths shut for a long time, so if the review is genuine, T7 will tell the truth... hopefully..!

maive wrote:

mossman wrote:

maive wrote:

tigger wrote: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.

I told you, I agree that all these links, if true, are really odd, especially the highlighted sentence above... IMO, RM didn't sue (or blame) the McCanns after being falsely accused for many good reasons.. Better to take the money, keep silence and stay away from them...

Well, when / if we find out what happened at that time I for one will be stunned if it does not transpire that the McCanns had local knowledge and help. I am not suggesting it was Mr Murat in case I get whooshed however I believe Madeleine was handed into the care of others for safe keeping prior to being returned to her family. I believe that is what Gerry was doing that night, and if it was him the Smiths saw he was on his way to a rendevous, albeit in a panic as things had not gone as originally planned. The alternative is that a blue bag was picked up by the helpers from the flower bed and the Smith sighting is a mistaken identity. All imo.

Am I mistaken or the blue bag disappeared AFTER that night (may 3rd)? The PJ took pictures of it that night so it was not used to carry Madeleine that night.. so whatever was on that flowerbed it was not the blue bag imo.

Also, with the T7, the McCanns had enough «helpers» in PDL.. no need to implicate more people (for example RM). More people are implicated, more risky it was for the McCanns and IMO, this is exactly the biggest problem of K+G... It's hard to keep mouths shut for a long time, so if the review is genuine, T7 will tell the truth... hopefully..!

One person with a conscience and enough integrity to want the truth to come out about a small child who disappeared into thin air is all it will take. Just one person. Surely there is one amongst them?

thank you maive you are correct, my mind is working overtime and not thinking properly. all though i still believe the blue bag was left there with contents that allowed the dogs to alert and i believe they had help of some description from someone who knew the area, and that is not to say whoever provided assistance knew what they were doing at that time.

mossman wrote:thank you maive you are correct, my mind is working overtime and not thinking properly. all though i still believe the blue bag was left there with contents that allowed the dogs to alert and i believe they had help of some description from someone who knew the area, and that is not to say whoever provided assistance knew what they were doing at that time.

Totally agree.. Maybe they didn't know what they were doing.. but by now, they should have a good idea...

AnnaEsse, yes just one person.. I am positive about that.. As I said, too much people involved, someone will talk

AnnaEsse I agree and you would think so but i think that is why re-questioning of all of their friends is important, if they feel SY are getting that close, they might just talk. Probably in order to save themselves, but at least talk.

Would you ruin the reputation of all those rich and famous people, statesmen, goodness knows what oganisations including MI6 etc etc for what? - the life of a 3 year old girl? You're likely to wake up padlocked into a holdall sat in a bath for even thiinking of telling the truth about what happened.

NoStone wrote:Would you ruin the reputation of all those rich and famous people, statesmen, goodness knows what oganisations including MI6 etc etc for what? - the life of a 3 year old girl? You're likely to wake up padlocked into a holdall sat in a bath for even thiinking of telling the truth about what happened.

Or not waking up -ever.

dazedandconfused wrote:

NoStone wrote:Would you ruin the reputation of all those rich and famous people, statesmen, goodness knows what oganisations including MI6 etc etc for what? - the life of a 3 year old girl? You're likely to wake up padlocked into a holdall sat in a bath for even thiinking of telling the truth about what happened.

Or not waking up -ever.

Imagine being privy to some of the stuff Mitchell knows. All his high earnings, and just look at the bloody state he's in!

Very true maive.

Trouble is that now they (those on the periphery) also will be aware of the penalties (jail) for what they have done (even though it may be unknowingly at the time).

A summary of Murat’s 17 changes of story about what he did on 1, 2, 3 and 4 May


1. Remembers that on 1 May he tried to contact Jorge da Silva.

2. Remembers that on 2 May he didn’t leave home at 10.30 but instead had a meeting with Sergei Malinka at the Batista Supermarket.

3. He had in fact taken Michaela and Malinka back to his mother’s house in Praia da Luz for a further discussion, something he’d omitted to tell the police in the first interview.

4. He now remembered visiting his bank and paying in 287.51 euros.

5. He now remembered he’d called at the home of Francisco Pagarete, his lawyer, that morning.

6. He now remembers that he had met Francisco Pagarete that afternoon.

7. He now remembers that another of Jorge’s sons was present at their meeting in the café in the afternoon.

8. The meeting in the café went on much longer than he had said previously.

9. He thinks that Michaela Walczuk’s husband Luis Antonio may not have been present at Michaela’s house that evening, contrary to what he had previously said.

10. On 3 May, he had not woken at 9.00am as previously stated, but at 8.00am.

11. He had not driven to Michaela’s house after 10.00am as previously stated; instead he had left home at 8.45am for a 9.30am meeting with the owner of the business tourist complex called ‘Gold Bunker’ in the Espiche district and her father-in-law.

12. He now remembered that he had visited two apartments for about 30 minutes, probably on the afternoon of 3 May.

13. He and Michaela had lunch with them, a fact he had not disclosed to police before.

14. Michaela’s daughter Christine was not with them that day contrary to his previous story.

15. They went to the Palmares Golf Club in the afternoon, another fact Murat had failed to disclose.

16. He now admitted to making two telephone calls, to Sergei Malinka and Michaela, at 11.39pm and 11.40pm that night.

17. He previously said he had woken at 9.00am on Friday 4 May. He now admitted he had telephoned Michaela at 8.27am and must have got up earlier.



We know that Murat came back to Portugal in a hurry on 1 May.

His own account says that he booked his ticket on that very day. He seems to have booked his flight ticket at between midnight and 2.00am. His sister Samantha took him to the airport to catch the 7.00am flight. Murat must have been up and about at not long after 4.00am that morning to get up, travel by car to the airport and check in etc.

There seems to be, without doubt, a significant degree of urgency about Murat’s movements on 1 May. In his statement he said that he met only his mother (who fetched him from Faro airport) and Michaela that day, but since then we’ve learnt that he called at Jorge da Silva’s shop.

Was his early morning flight dash from Exeter to Praia da Luz just in order to get ‘Romigen’ moving? Did he really need to meet urgently with a top local lawyer for that reason? Two years later, Romigen appears to be still only a ‘shell’ company.

So we pose this question: did something significant happen on Monday 30 April which required him to jet out to Portugal immediately and confer with a number of powerful and well-connected people in Praia da Luz?
Murat was made an arguido on 15 May 2007.




The Kennedy meetings in Portugal were on 13 November 2009.

It's important to remember that there were two separate meetings:

Meeting 1 - Portimao

Present:

Kennedy
Smethurst
PJ Inspector Ferrreira
PJ Inspector Paiva
Francisco Marco, boss of Metodo 3
Representative from the Spanish govt Kidnapping/Abduction agency
and maybe some of these were accompanied by colleagues

Meeting 2 - Vila do Bispo, Burgau

Present:

Kennedy
Smethurst
Murat
Pagarete
Murat's Mum
Murat's Aunt
Murat's Uncle.

Note that the only two who were present at both meetings were Kennedy and Smethurst.

Posted by Tony Bennett
http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t306p80-the-mystery-of-robert-murat-the-17-changes-in-his-story

Let's also not forget that Gerry (in the bewk) had been to Portugal for golfing weekends (there are quite a few around PdL).
David Payne had friends of friends locally who organized new mobiles for them on the 4th of May.
Jane Tanner had been to Portugal three times (don't know where). ROB as well I believe.

Imo it is very likely that Murat and Gerry knew each other. Why didn't Gerry simply say he didn't know Murat when asked? He was furious after that press conference, dragging Kate away with him. It's probably still on youtube.

Yes that certainly was a question that Gerry didn't want to answer and we can only wonder why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=relmfu

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Yes that certainly was a question that Gerry didn't want to answer and we can only wonder why.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=relmfu

I think it was just not on the list of acceptable questions and Gerry was treating it with the contempt he thought it deserved.

It was Sandra Felgueiras that posed that question to gerry interestingly enough

Jane Tanner received a mysterious call at around 4.12am on the morning of the 1st May. An extremely odd time for someone to be calling especially on a holiday. Maybe it was Murat giving her details that he had managed to book a flight?

jd16 wrote:It was Sandra Felgueiras that posed that question to gerry interestingly enough

Jane Tanner received a mysterious call at around 4.12am on the morning of the 1st May. An extremely odd time for someone to be calling especially on a holiday. Maybe it was Murat giving her details that he had managed to book a flight?

From the 'Madeleine Foundation' article on Murat:

There appear to be some unusual aspects of some of the telephone records relating to the ‘Tapas 9’ prior to 3 May 2007. Jane Tanner appears to have received a call made at 4.12am on the previous day, Sunday 29 April. There is a strange patterns of mobile calls made at around 10.00pm on Tuesday 1 May. We also know that Dr Gerald McCann received either 12 or 14 voicemail messages on 2 May, while Dr Kate McCann began wiping calls from her mobile on the same day.
unquote.

I read somewhere else too that the booking of the flight was earlier than the 1st of May - it is still very short notice and Murat's sister had to drive him down to the airport around 4.00 a.m. on the first. He would have arrived about 7.00 a.m. on the 1st, which turned out to be a very busy day, as Autumn showed in her post. If the flight was booked on the night of the 29th and the 4.12 a.m. phone call was in fact on the 30th April? The night of the 29th/30th I mean.
It certainly looks as if the flight details might have been passed on.
http://www.madeleinefoundation.org.uk/ - articles - scroll down for articles on Murat nr. 20.

Its the only thing that makes sense. Lets not forget Murat and Tanner were only yards away from each other in Exeter the whole week before...freak coincidence?

jd16 wrote:Its the only thing that makes sense. Lets not forget Murat and Tanner were only yards away from each other in Exeter the whole week before...freak coincidence?

---and in Burgau mtDNA was found which links to both Murat and JT. (hairs, not conclusive enough but extremely coincidental). Brian Kennedy met with Murat in November 07 twice, once in Burgau.

And after this meeting their story changes...They back off Murat...another freaky coincidence?

tigger wrote:

jd16 wrote:Its the only thing that makes sense. Lets not forget Murat and Tanner were only yards away from each other in Exeter the whole week before...freak coincidence?

---and in Burgau mtDNA was found which links to both Murat and JT. (hairs, not conclusive enough but extremely coincidental). Brian Kennedy met with Murat in November 07 twice, once in Burgau.

- " The Haplotype identified by the letter S, present in 2 samples, (apartment in Burgau), and identical to that of Jane Michelle Tanner (JT), meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. “


The basic morphology of human hairs is shared by every individual in the population, but the arrangement, distribution, and appearance of individual microscopic characteristics within different regions of hair allow a skilled hair examiner to differentiate hairs between individuals.
Although hair comparisons are not a basis for absolute personal identification it is very unusual to find hairs from two different individuals that exhibit the same characteristics.


Mitochondrial DNA analysis is not a unique identifier and in all test conclusions it is important that a mitochondrial DNA analyst state clearly, both in a final report and in testimony, that an individual and his or her maternal relatives cannot be excluded as the donor of a questioned hair.

" “meaning those samples were from that person or individuals of the same maternal bloodline. "

The question is, have they specifically excluded the people who's reference samples matched the hairs found ?
Does stating the samples are identical , mean those samples were from those persons or individuals of the same maternal bloodlines and does that exclude the person who’s known reference sample matched the sample found ? ..... Not that I can see.