Robert Murat may SUE Mr Birch

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/07/robert-murat-likely-to-sue-south.html?utm_source=BP_recent - maybe Robert should start with Jane Tanner for swearing under oath he "abducted" Madeleine.

Karen wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/07/robert-murat-likely-to-sue-south.html?utm_source=BP_recent - maybe Robert should start with Jane Tanner for swearing under oath he "abducted" Madeleine.

Morning Karen

Spot on, and since the UK police and politicians, Clarence Mitchell, Jim Gamble, and all those ex-defectives have been bleating on endlessly about "the abduction," they obviously believe Ms Tanner!

Andy Redwood MUST be desperately consulting with the Portuguese police as we speak, and pushing for this excavation in a big way..........

MAY sue...if that were me I WOULD dig that little bit off concrete up, charge the man THEN sue.

kitti wrote:MAY sue...if that were me I WOULD dig that little bit off concrete up, charge the man THEN sue.

Easy really isn't it kitti, Murat could have had that Garden dug up yesterday, proved the guy was wrong, he could sue him after proving he is wrong, the guy has admitted trespassing 4 times.....and all Murat does is say he may sue??

Why dosen't the AG's Office come out and say this story is garbage, that there is noway this could have happened, why don't they put in to print that Murats Garden and driveway were extensively dug up and the House and grounds were underservillance for a year afterwards and this could not have happened?, no we have silence and noboddy doing anything, except SY wanting more info from Burch.

pennylane wrote:

Karen wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/07/robert-murat-likely-to-sue-south.html?utm_source=BP_recent - maybe Robert should start with Jane Tanner for swearing under oath he "abducted" Madeleine.

Morning Karen

Spot on, and since the UK police and politicians, Clarence Mitchell, Jim Gamble, and all those ex-defectives have been bleating on endlessly about "the abduction," they obviously believe Ms Tanner!

Andy Redwood MUST be desperately consulting with the Portuguese police as we speak, and pushing for this excavation in a big way..........

Morning Pennylane

yep! agreed Andy deadwood pushing for excavation in a big way - he wants to prove his theory to the world that :
"Madeleine McCann is either alive or sadly Madeleine is dead"

In the video Burch does actually say that SY did indeed ask for further information from him

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t20921-land-developer-says-he-knows-where-madeleine-mccann-is-buried-video

Karen wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Karen wrote:http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2012/07/robert-murat-likely-to-sue-south.html?utm_source=BP_recent - maybe Robert should start with Jane Tanner for swearing under oath he "abducted" Madeleine.

Morning Karen

Spot on, and since the UK police and politicians, Clarence Mitchell, Jim Gamble, and all those ex-defectives have been bleating on endlessly about "the abduction," they obviously believe Ms Tanner and not the CSI blood and cadaver dogs!

Andy Redwood MUST be desperately consulting with the Portuguese police as we speak, and pushing for this excavation in a big way..........

Morning Pennylane

yep! agreed Andy deadwood pushing for excavation in a big way - he wants to prove his theory to the world that :
"Madeleine McCann is either alive or sadly Madeleine is dead"

Blimey, it's uncanny... the enormous insight of the man and his team.

Karen wrote:


yep! agreed Andy deadwood pushing for excavation in a big way - he wants to prove his theory to the world that :
"Madeleine McCann is either alive or sadly Madeleine is dead"

The point being that Redwood was not then - and is not now - authorised to disclose meaningful details of the direction and interim conclusions of the Review. To prejudice a good opportunity to move forward would be unprofessional and quite wrong.

We howl with righteous indignation when Amaral and the PJ are brought to task by "pros" and the Media, yet criticise SY and Redwood even when we do not, cannot and will not (for a good while) know what they are up to?

The End Is Nigh wrote:

Karen wrote:


yep! agreed Andy deadwood pushing for excavation in a big way - he wants to prove his theory to the world that :
"Madeleine McCann is either alive or sadly Madeleine is dead"

The point being that Redwood was not then - and is not now - authorised to disclose meaningful details of the direction and interim conclusions of the Review. To prejudice a good opportunity to move forward would be unprofessional and quite wrong.

But he did disclose meaningful details TEIN.... He outright confirmed Madeleine was abducted by a stranger. Openly disregarding all evidence to the contrary early in the (cough) Review was unprofessional and suspicious (imho).

Don't confuse poor presentational technique (or, as some suggested at the time, "strategy") with giving the game away ......................

It was clearly stated at the beginning of the Review that its findings would not be made public and they haven't been

The End Is Nigh wrote:Don't confuse poor presentational technique with giving the game away ......................

It was clearly stated at the beginning of the Review that it's finding would not be made public and they haven't been

Sorry TEIN, I know you must be frustrated by my stance on this but I'm not buying the 'poor presentational technique' bit. Someone with Andy Redwood's years on the force would know better. The whole thing reeks (imo).

Frustrated? Not in the least.

But I do agree that there is a whiff about it: I get "Perfume", some get "Ordure"


It's the outcome that matters, not the fluff in-between.

The End Is Nigh wrote:Frustrated? Not in the least.

But I do agree that there is a whiff about it


It's the outcome that matters, not the fluff in-between.

Absolutely and I long to be hopelessly wrong in my dark scepticism.

pennylane wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Don't confuse poor presentational technique with giving the game away ......................

It was clearly stated at the beginning of the Review that it's finding would not be made public and they haven't been

Sorry TEIN, I know you must be frustrated by my stance on this but I'm not buying the 'poor presentational technique' bit. Someone with Andy Redwood's years on the force would know better. The whole thing reeks (imo).

I'm with you pennylane Age progression pictures and drumming the abduction theory endlessly does not inspire me with confidence in our Great British Police.

Lillyofthevalley wrote:In the video Burch does actually say that SY did indeed ask for further information from him

https://missingmadeleine.forumotion.net/t20921-land-developer-says-he-knows-where-madeleine-mccann-is-buried-video

Redwood is just looking for that 140th lead. 139 is such an awkward number to keep reeling out.

kitti wrote:MAY sue...if that were me I WOULD dig that little bit off concrete up, charge the man THEN sue.

You would think that would be the case Kitti...nothing seems to be that straight forward though .. does it.

dazedandconfused wrote:

pennylane wrote:

The End Is Nigh wrote:Don't confuse poor presentational technique with giving the game away ......................

It was clearly stated at the beginning of the Review that it's finding would not be made public and they haven't been

Sorry TEIN, I know you must be frustrated by my stance on this but I'm not buying the 'poor presentational technique' bit. Someone with Andy Redwood's years on the force would know better. The whole thing reeks (imo).

I'm with you pennylane Age progression pictures and drumming the abduction theory endlessly does not inspire me with confidence in our Great British Police.[/b]

It certainly doesn't inspire confidence dazed!

Any detectives, or ex-detectives, who dismiss the CSI blood and cadaver dogs' findings that point directly to the McCanns involvement are showing their dubious colours (imo). It's one thing to acknowledge it isn't enough stand alone evidence to charge anyone, but it's quite another to openly ignore it as if it were completely irrelevant to the case, and go directly to stranger abduction, hence wasting precious time and resources trying to make a square plug fit in a round hole. Most particularly since the parents and friends have fiddled with and altered their version of events ad nauseum, which should be a big red flag to anyone and everyone who cares about Madeleine's fate!

So Robert Murat does not sue the mccanns and their tapas friends after they tried to frame him for Maddie's abduction without a single piece evidence, he did not sue Lori Campbell after she made the most slanderous & libellous claims 'in public' on the basis of a "feeling" and without a single shred of evidence......But sees fit to sue Birch..Anyone would think murat was on the 'inside' from the start!

jd16 wrote:So Robert Murat does not sue the mccanns and their tapas friends after they tried to frame him for Maddie's abduction without a single piece evidence, he did not sue Lori Campbell after she made the most slanderous & libellous claims 'in public' on the basis of a "feeling" and without a single shred of evidence......But sees fit to sue Birch..Anyone would think murat was on the 'inside' from the start!

Indeed!

My suspicions have never wandered far from the 3 'M's'

McCann/Murat/Malinka

jd16 wrote:So Robert Murat does not sue the mccanns and their tapas friends after they tried to frame him for Maddie's abduction without a single piece evidence, he did not sue Lori Campbell after she made the most slanderous & libellous claims 'in public' on the basis of a "feeling" and without a single shred of evidence......But sees fit to sue Birch..Anyone would think murat was on the 'inside' from the start!

What has Murat and the McCanns got to lose, remember Birch has admitted on sky news he TRESPASSED 4 TIMES ON MURATS LAND, come on Gerry and Kate, get intouch with Dave again and demand this 2nd driveway at Murats be dug up..........
But for some strange reason these three ex arguidos don't seem to want to show this guy for what he is, with his most slanderous & libellous claims??

STRANGE TO SAY THE LEAST!!!!

pennylane wrote:

jd16 wrote:So Robert Murat does not sue the mccanns and their tapas friends after they tried to frame him for Maddie's abduction without a single piece evidence, he did not sue Lori Campbell after she made the most slanderous & libellous claims 'in public' on the basis of a "feeling" and without a single shred of evidence......But sees fit to sue Birch..Anyone would think murat was on the 'inside' from the start!

Indeed!

My suspicions have never wandered far from the 3 'M's'

McCann/Murat/Malinka

yes, instead of being the 3 'A's it should be the 3 'M's!

pennylane wrote:

jd16 wrote:So Robert Murat does not sue the mccanns and their tapas friends after they tried to frame him for Maddie's abduction without a single piece evidence, he did not sue Lori Campbell after she made the most slanderous & libellous claims 'in public' on the basis of a "feeling" and without a single shred of evidence......But sees fit to sue Birch..Anyone would think murat was on the 'inside' from the start!

Indeed!

My suspicions have never wandered far from the 3 'M's'

McCann/Murat/Malinka

My suspicions have never wavered far either pennylane from 3 M&M's (and I dont mean the sweets) McCann/McCann/Murat imo.

jd16 wrote:

pennylane wrote:

jd16 wrote:So Robert Murat does not sue the mccanns and their tapas friends after they tried to frame him for Maddie's abduction without a single piece evidence, he did not sue Lori Campbell after she made the most slanderous & libellous claims 'in public' on the basis of a "feeling" and without a single shred of evidence......But sees fit to sue Birch..Anyone would think murat was on the 'inside' from the start!

Indeed!

My suspicions have never wandered far from the 3 'M's'

McCann/Murat/Malinka

yes, instead of being the 3 'A's it should be the 3 'M's!

Good one jd!

Lillyofthevalley wrote:
What has Murat and the McCanns got to lose, remember Birch has admitted on sky news he TRESPASSED 4 TIMES ON MURATS LAND, come on Gerry and Kate, get intouch with Dave again and demand this 2nd driveway at Murats be dug up..........
But for some strange reason these three ex arguidos don't seem to want to show this guy for what he is, with his most slanderous & libellous claims??

STRANGE TO SAY THE LEAST!!!!

Exactly true Lillyofthevalley. They sue people who purport theories based on the 'facts' like TB, they sue the lead detective who has all the facts (more than anyone has) and is doing his job, yet do nothing in accusations like this from Birch....Incredibly strange

I'm not to sure how easy it would be to
sue Birch successfully.
Birch has not 'pointed the finger' at Murat
and said "he done it." in fact, I believe he
states that Murats are not involved. Its
the location that draws Murat into the fray.
Birch states that he has entered the property
illegally, not once, but on four occasions.
This maybe an area were Murat may show
distain but Birch could hardly have knocked
his door and said "can I search your garden?"
If Birch shows that he was motivated by the
intent to find a missing child, and that was
his sole purpose then I can't see Murat being
sued as a result of tresspass or the location
of it.
Just my opinion of course.