Robert Murat may SUE Mr Birch

I'm quite positive that if someone had said I acted like the 'soham murderer' I would get that person in a court off law quickly and ask what gives them the right to say those sort off things and sue them for slander or defamation and also sue them on behalf off my small child who suffered and is still suffering because off this.

Forget about Robert murats feelings in all this, he only knows why he's kept quite in all this but surely he should be thinking about his children in all this and get on with doing everything he can to get to the bottom off this, for his children's sake.

@ Marxman.I totally agree to all you are saying re murat.It seems to me that anyone who is connected to this case dont give two fxxkx about Madeleine.If murat was so innocent in all of this he would do all in his power to help with the case.But no.He sues a newspaper,not anyone else until this man came along.Really what is the proplem of having the garden dug again.He could claim expenses from the mcs,after all by having his garden dug up again IS helping the mcs.I am sure they should be very pleased that he would help in that way.And as for those yokes,the mcshow could they reall dismiss this man s theory.Its beyond me.They have done nothing.......NOTHING at all to help with this case except to do interviews where only their questions are allowed to be asked.Sue folk.Open an online shop.Print up some posters.Deaden any theories that anyone one else has.Blacken folks names.etc.For me it has way gone beyond a joke now.

I think you have summed it up perfectly Steve, nobody does give a toss about Madeleine,
we certainly cannot dismiss Murat as being involved. People who have nothing to hide do not
change their statements numerous times for a start. For the Mccanns it is quite obvious money
appears to be the main thing they are interested in with constant lies coming from their mouths.

In relation to the review I agree with Penny, the stuff the Police coming out with seems dubious
to say the least, plus research what previous cases some of these coppers have been involved with.
Dont forget what came out at Levenson re Police, News of the World etc.

Basic policing is being ignored here, the first thing is starting with hauling them all in because their
statements contradict each other and have been changed many times. Haul them all over to PDL to do a reconstruction to expose the farce. Personally I think the comments which have come out from Redwood and Horrocks are totally out of order and for Redwood to make any comments when he is investigating a case of this nature is unprofessional as far as I can see.

I agree with your post Cherry... What I can't remember is the sequence that Redwood is supposed to be'reviewing' the information in. At some point I think we were told that he had began with the stuff amassed by the McCann's own investigators, or sent to KM and GM directly, and then he would be moving on to the bumf held by the Leicestershire police, and would be ending up with all the information from the PJ. Am I wrong about this? It might account for some of the shallowness of his earlier comments if he was going on what was collected by Edgar and co! Frankly, I was amazed that he did that Panorama programme. I think a dignified silence as he worked through all the records was indicated.

kitti wrote:I'm quite positive that if someone had said I acted like the 'soham murderer' I would get that person in a court off law quickly and ask what gives them the right to say those sort off things and sue them for slander or defamation and also sue them on behalf off my small child who suffered and is still suffering because off this.

Forget about Robert murats feelings in all this, he only knows why he's kept quite in all this but surely he should be thinking about his children in all this and get on with doing everything he can to get to the bottom off this, for his children's sake.

To successfully sue for libel you have to be sure the person sued is good for a damages claim or at the very least to pay your court costs or you yourself could end up out of pocket. Maybe Murat was advised that economically the action wasn't viable.

First of all If I were the Murat's I wouldn't touch a blade of grass or a piece of concrete in their garden. Tongues will only start wagging if they do and they will be accused of trying to remove any evidence that shows Madeleine is buried in their garden. If I were them, I would ask the PJ if they could arrange to have the garden dug over, even if it meant reopening the case.

Maybe the Murat's have spoken to the PJ, because when the news broke of Stephen Birch's "findings" in their garden, Robert Murat said he would welcome the garden being dug over. Or at least that is what one of the media reports said, I didn't physically hear him say this.

For those who ask why didn't Robert Murat sue Jane Tanner, he filed a criminal complaint against her, back in 2010.

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

As far as I can remember, there was no evidence at all to link Robert Murat with Madeleine's disappearance. Anyone who believes in the PJ including Dr Amaral, are dissing them when they keep insisting Robert Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance, especially now they are believe Madeleine is buried in Mrs Murat's garden.

I don't wish to offend anyone with my comments, I'm only saying how it looks to me when posters are still saying Robert Murat is involved with Madeleleine's disappearance. Maybe I'm missing something and this is why I feel this way. I am only 100% sure the McCanns are involved with Madeleine's disappearance, because of what I heard them say to the media.

Hi Kathy,

I think I am right in saying that even those who believe GM may have known RM prior to the hols, do not believe RM had anything to do with harming Madeleine. I certainly don't.

pennylane wrote:Hi Kathy,

I think I am right in saying that even those who believe GM may have known RM prior to the hols, do not believe RM had anything to do with harming Madeleine. I certainly don't.

Hi Penny

I should have directed my post at those who believe Robert Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance. I know there are many people on here, who don't believe Mr Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance, but there are some who do. Of the ones who do believe he is, I would like to know how they reach that conclusion, when the PJ found no evidence to link him, with Madeleine's disappearance. Only because I may have missed something.

I have spent most of my time criticising the McCanns and those who blatently helped them with money and other means of support. So I could have missed something that linked Mr Murat with Madeleine's disappearance.

kathybelle wrote:

pennylane wrote:Hi Kathy,

I think I am right in saying that even those who believe GM may have known RM prior to the hols, do not believe RM had anything to do with harming Madeleine. I certainly don't.

Hi Penny

I should have directed my post at those who believe Robert Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance. I know there are many people on here, who don't believe Mr Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance, but there are some who do. Of the ones who do believe he is, I would like to know how they reach that conclusion, when the PJ found no evidence to link him, with Madeleine's disappearance. Only because I may have missed something.

I have spent most of my time criticising the McCanns and those who blatently helped them with money and other means of support. So I could have missed something that linked Mr Murat with Madeleine's disappearance.

No need at all to apologise kathy

I think it was discovered that Murat told some porkies to the PJ and that aroused suspicion. But I've never seen anyone here accuse him of being the abductor.

pennylane wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

pennylane wrote:Hi Kathy,

I think I am right in saying that even those who believe GM may have known RM prior to the hols, do not believe RM had anything to do with harming Madeleine. I certainly don't.

Hi Penny

I should have directed my post at those who believe Robert Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance. I know there are many people on here, who don't believe Mr Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance, but there are some who do. Of the ones who do believe he is, I would like to know how they reach that conclusion, when the PJ found no evidence to link him, with Madeleine's disappearance. Only because I may have missed something.

I have spent most of my time criticising the McCanns and those who blatently helped them with money and other means of support. So I could have missed something that linked Mr Murat with Madeleine's disappearance.

No need at all to apologise kathy

I think it was discovered that Murat told some porkies to the PJ and that aroused suspicion. But I've never seen anyone here accuse him of being the abductor.

Hi Penny

I haven't seen anyone accuse Robert Murat of being Madeleine's abductor, only that he is involved. I didn't know he had told lies to the PJ and he has done himself no favours, by doing that and thanks for telling me this. Maybe I should use these and read about Robert Murat in the PJ files.

kathybelle wrote:

pennylane wrote:

kathybelle wrote:

pennylane wrote:Hi Kathy,

I think I am right in saying that even those who believe GM may have known RM prior to the hols, do not believe RM had anything to do with harming Madeleine. I certainly don't.

Hi Penny

I should have directed my post at those who believe Robert Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance. I know there are many people on here, who don't believe Mr Murat is involved with Madeleine's disappearance, but there are some who do. Of the ones who do believe he is, I would like to know how they reach that conclusion, when the PJ found no evidence to link him, with Madeleine's disappearance. Only because I may have missed something.

I have spent most of my time criticising the McCanns and those who blatently helped them with money and other means of support. So I could have missed something that linked Mr Murat with Madeleine's disappearance.

No need at all to apologise kathy

I think it was discovered that Murat told some porkies to the PJ and that aroused suspicion. But I've never seen anyone here accuse him of being the abductor.

Hi Penny

I haven't seen anyone accuse Robert Murat of being Madeleine's abductor, only that he is involved. I didn't know he had told lies to the PJ and he has done himself no favours, by doing that and thanks for telling me this. Maybe I should use these and read about Robert Murat in the PJ files.

Yes it's good to go back to basics, but I get bogged down very quickly when I start reading them all. I think I've got what's termed as 'information overload.'

I agree. Murat is damned if he does and damned if he doesn't, if I were him, I would say and do nothing at all, until he was told to by an "official" force.

Someone on another forum alleging to be Stephen Birch said:
Good evening to everyone. I hope that you all well, and that am able to shed some light on the questions that you have posted. I,ve decided to come onto this blog and inform you as to the status of the investigation. I want to state that the sole objective of this investigation is to find MADELEINE MC CANN, and to bring closure to this case for millions of people. I want to further state, that no one person owns the right to the investigation, and if it had not been for the Portuguese Police making information about the case available to the public, I would not have been able to work on this case. I,ve stated from the onset that finding MADELEINE MC CANN will narrow the investigation, and assist the Portuguese Police into solving this case. The Portuguese Police in my opinion did an excellent job under very difficult circumstances. It's not easy to conduct an investigation when language, long distances and international sitings extend the scope of works.

I familiarized myself with information provided by the Portuguese Police. I read over 12 000 pages, often walking out of my office to a rising sun. From the begining I decided to create a hypothesis, I had limited resources and limited time, so I created a hypothesis that MADELEINE died on the 3rd MAY 2007 and was buried in Praia da luz on that same evening. Anything outside that hypothesis, would create to many permatations, and I would not be able to solve the case. Given my hypothesis and the limiting of permatations, time became a critical component of the investigation. Every minute became inportant.My favourite imaginery character Sherlock Homes once said, and I quote,"if you are able to take the impossible out of the equation, the rest is academic. Inorder to do that, you must have extreme attention to detail, which I believe I have.

I am going to answer a couple of questions, obviously I cannot deal with all of them. Here goes. Well how did I get into the yard with the big dogs??? Well at night one large dog is kept in the front of the property, while all 3 other dogs sleep inside the house with Mrs Jenny Murat.That's only on cold nights. On warm nights, the dogs circulate, hence I only went in on cold windy nights.Wind played a pivotable role and I had to wait for a northerly wind to blow before entering the property.(in otherwords I was down wind of the big dog) Why did I not dig?? Well actually I really did try to dig. On my fourth entrance into the property, I went in only with a spade to dig, and after I moved the top layer of stones away with my hands, encountered a hard sticky tarr layers. I tried to dig through it, but the noise was to loud, and so I gave up. Remember it was 5am in the morning, and the sound of a spade slamming into hard tarr travels. Why did I choose that location to search?? Well can I be granted the right to hold over on that question, you see, inorder to answer that question, I need to start accusing people other than the Murat family, and I don't want to do that before we recover MADELEINE. With regard to the British press, I am deeply dissapointed that they did not cover the story, even thou the rest of the world thought it important. Lastly I am now liasing with the Portuguese Police and am waiting for a response. I hope that we can all stay focussed, that sanity can prevail, and we can establish one way or another whether MADELEINE MC CANN is buried underneath the rear pebble driveway of CASA LILLIANA. Keep well Stephen Birch

Dogs, even when they sleep inside, can hear when someone's in the garden that shouldn't be.

What is Stephen Birch? A Journalist? Then he would know that the wind played a PIVOTAL role, not a pivotable role. A pivot table is something that you create in an Excel spreadsheet. And surely a noise was TOO loud? "Loud" is not a verb.

In any case, if this nutter IS genuine, he is admitting that he cased the joint for several days, tried to dig up somebody's private property without their consent, and has been basically stalking the Murats. I find this all very sinister and creepy. I hope the PJ lock him up. At least that would deter any other nutters from trying the same.

CONFIRMED...Murat to sue birch.


But he's not suing tanner for saying he is a child abductor!

kitti wrote:CONFIRMED...Murat to sue birch.


But he's not suing tanner for saying he is a child abductor!

Bingo! Even though not one, but four of the tapasniks identified him as lurking around the apartment on that ill-fated night, Murat seemed uninterested in saying anything detrimental about them during his big financial win. Probably something to do with Kennedy's visit.

I don't think Birch is bothered about being sued. He seems to know what he's doing in that regard.

pennylane wrote:

kitti wrote:CONFIRMED...Murat to sue birch.


But he's not suing tanner for saying he is a child abductor!

Bingo! Even though not one, but four of the tapasniks identified him as lurking around the apartment on that ill-fated night, Murat seemed uninterested in saying anything detrimental about them during his big financial win. Probably something to do with Kennedy's visit.

I don't think Birch is bothered about being sued. He seems to know what he's doing in that regard.

What is he suing him for ? Surely if it is in relation to Birch's allegations, the ground will have to be dug - otherwise how can Murat say the allegations are false.

mossman wrote:

pennylane wrote:

kitti wrote:CONFIRMED...Murat to sue birch.


But he's not suing tanner for saying he is a child abductor!

Bingo! Even though not one, but four of the tapasniks identified him as lurking around the apartment on that ill-fated night, Murat seemed uninterested in saying anything detrimental about them during his big financial win. Probably something to do with Kennedy's visit.

I don't think Birch is bothered about being sued. He seems to know what he's doing in that regard.

What is he suing him for ? Surely if it is in relation to Birch's allegations, the ground will have to be dug - otherwise how can Murat say the allegations are false.

It's probably some 'illegal entry/property destruction/trespassing/distress' type thing.

A lawyer will always find something to pursue.

pennylane wrote:

mossman wrote:

pennylane wrote:

kitti wrote:CONFIRMED...Murat to sue birch.


But he's not suing tanner for saying he is a child abductor!

Bingo! Even though not one, but four of the tapasniks identified him as lurking around the apartment on that ill-fated night, Murat seemed uninterested in saying anything detrimental about them during his big financial win. Probably something to do with Kennedy's visit.

I don't think Birch is bothered about being sued. He seems to know what he's doing in that regard.

What is he suing him for ? Surely if it is in relation to Birch's allegations, the ground will have to be dug - otherwise how can Murat say the allegations are false.

It's probably some 'illegal entry/property destruction/trespassing/distress' type thing.

A lawyer will always find something to pursue.

This will be interesting. The illegal entry option, is of course an option, but surely this would be a course to bring criminal charges against him for tresspassing etc. This is easy, Birch has admitted to doing this. It will be up to the police I guess if they can/wish to bring criminal charges against him.

The suing in relation to his allegations, which will be much more lucrative, will need to be proven. How do you prove that other than showing there is nothing there. Of course Murat can get his shovel and do it himself, not the best way. Might this jolt the PJ into digging - is that what Birch wants ?

Iris wrote:What is Stephen Birch? A Journalist? Then he would know that the wind played a PIVOTAL role, not a pivotable role. A pivot table is something that you create in an Excel spreadsheet. And surely a noise was TOO loud? "Loud" is not a verb.

In any case, if this nutter IS genuine, he is admitting that he cased the joint for several days, tried to dig up somebody's private property without their consent, and has been basically stalking the Murats. I find this all very sinister and creepy. I hope the PJ lock him up. At least that would deter any other nutters from trying the same.

Iris Birch could be Bin Laden's love child, a nutter or a Journalist with bad spelling (I'm sure he isn't the only Journo with bad spelling).....as long as he helps to get this case re-opened is all I'm bothered about!!

Why would he sue Birch and not Tanner or the other Tapas Friends who tried to set him up, if anyone is a nutter, then Murat surely must be.

http://www.tvi.iol.pt/videos/13663179

starts at 27:00.

journalist:

Case Madeleine McCann:

Robert Murat will present a complaint against South-African entrepreneur who invaded his property in search for Maddie´s body, in cause is the crime of house violation, the man who had titles in the press last week stephen birch, that jumped the walls of the fence of the British citizen in Praia da Luz (Lagos), at least 4 times, always during night, walked in the garden with a device geo-radar which allows to detect changes, objects in the soil, assures to be in the garden 60 cm deep that is buried the body of the child disappeared 5 years ago.

The couple McCann made known that wants this information checked in the terrain, an official source of the Directory of PJ told TVI that there are no steps predicted, the process is archived.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


http://www.cmjornal.xl.pt/detalhe/noticias/nacional/portugal/robert-murat-vai-processar-sul-africano

translation:

For trespassing

Robert Murat to sue the South African

Robert Murat to sue Stephen Birch, the South African businessman who claims to have evidence that Maddie is buried in the Murat villa in Praia da Luz, Lagos, Algarve.

Briton accuses Birch invasion of private property, because the very South African assumed that entered the house on the ground to analyze the soil with a geo-radar machine.

As reported in CM, Birch, an entrepreneur in the real estate industry and passion for the case of Maddie, raided the ground, with the machine, taking advantage of times when Murat was not at home.

Birch says he found evidence that the British girl, who disappeared on May 3, 2007, is buried beneath a passage on cement, built after the disappearance, about 60 cm from the surface.

The South African defied Murat to dig the site, and to press the authorities to investigate the track, put a video on the Internet with its conclusions.

Could someone please answer a question?

How can Murat sue Birch based solely on
Birch's evidence/statement?
What if Birch retracts his statement and
says "I didn't invade your space, I was
jesting in order to get the case opened"

Then what?

marxman wrote:Could someone please answer a question?

How can Murat sue Birch based solely on
Birch's evidence/statement?
What if Birch retracts his statement and
says "I didn't invade your space, I was
jesting in order to get the case opened"

Then what?

He's supposedly got photos and video hasn't he? Assuming they are genuine (have doubts about that) then wouldn't they be proof he'd been in the Murat garden?

marxman wrote:Could someone please answer a question?

How can Murat sue Birch based solely on
Birch's evidence/statement?
What if Birch retracts his statement and
says "I didn't invade your space, I was
jesting in order to get the case opened"

Then what?

Exactly marxman. Stephen Birch has factored in fully the potential for Murat suing him and winning, and feels the risks are minuscule.