Channel 5 now!! Murat is on

Palmeras16 wrote:

Panda wrote:Palmeras16, thanks, was the Barrister another witness that night , if not why would the sisters need a Barrister to corroborate their story?

He was an independent witness, Panda, who also claimed to have seen Murat smoking a cigarette near the McCann's apartment that night. That's what I meant by corroborate, sorry to confuse. There was one other person who claimed to have seen him and that may have been Neil Berry, but that's just a guess on my part.

Well it appears that a few people , not a couple , have said they saw him near 5a on that night. Jane Tanner also identified him from a Police Car so why didn't the Portugese have him in a line-out so all these people could confirm it was him they saw, rather remiss of the Portugese Police I would say. He was also an arguido if memory serves me, when was it lifted? Do you think he wasn't taken seriously because the Police were after the McCanns??

wasn't it someone in the news media who drew attention to the lookalike David Payne and Robert Murat. I couldn't tell who was who from the photos they ran alongside each other. there were suggestions that they were mistaking David Payne for Robert Murat, and that I can believe. No I don't know where the newspaper is im sure its on mccannfiles or pamalam s site somewhere..

Tanzi,

Not sure if it was in the papers, but remember a lot of discussions on their similarities.

Everyone who lives in PdL knows Murat. Not one of the locals who have known him for many years said they saw him. I wonder why...

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/PAYNEMURAT.htm

The Murat - Payne resemblance.

I've said it before and I'll say it again, if Robert Murat had been seen outside the McCanns apartment, there would have been nothing sinister about this. He lived in the area and he had to pass the apartment on occasions, to go about his business. However on the night he was supposed to have been seen outside the apartment, his mother said he was at home. The police checked the alibi and it was found to be true.

Claudia has already said that Robert Murat was known to the locals and if they had seen him anywhere near the McCanns apartment, they would have spoken out.

I get the feeling that there are people who will always believe Robert Murat, was seen outside the McCanns apartment and they are of the opinion that the Portuguese police, should never have accepted his alibi. This is so wrong, because as I've said many times, Robert Murat, was investigated more thoroughly than the McCanns. Every bit of his property including his computer, was seized and taken away by the police. Allegations were made to the police, that there was unsavoury images on his computer. The police found nothing on his computer, that would lead them to believe he was involved with Madeleine's disappearance and it was returned to him, along with the rest of his property.

Mrs Murat's home and garden was searched thoroughly more than once, by the Portuguese police, they found nothing. When Keela and Eddie, were sent to the McCanns apartment to look for evidence, they were taken over to Mrs Murat's home to do a search, they too found nothing.

Regarding Robert Murat, being an arguido, in a news report, I heard Robert Murat's lawyer, say that his client had requested he was made an arguido. He said he made the request, because he had been taken in for questioning more than once as a witness and he wasn't allowed to have a lawyer present, when he was questioned. His lawyer said that the arguido status would allow him to have a lawyer present as well as other rights.

When Robert Murat's property was returned to him, he was told by the police, that he was in the clear regarding Madeleine's disappearance. He fully expected to be released from the arguido status, but he was told he would have to remain an arguido, until the McCanns were either charged or cleared of any involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Robert Murat later stated that he wished he had never requested the arguido status.

I cannot believe that I am the only person who heard Robert Murat's lawyer tell the media, that Robert Murat had asked for the arguido status. I can see him now stood alongside his lawyer, when his lawyer told the media he had requested the arguido status.

I've looked for information about this subject on the internet, but I can't find anything. At one time, there was a BBC report which stated that Robert Murat, may have asked for the arguido status, it didn't say definitely. In the link below, the report states that a person can request the arguido status, but it doesn't state Robert Murat requested the status.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/6657977.stm

I really don't know why people have 'it in' for Robert Murat. In my opinion, if he had taken part in any aspect of Madeleine's disappearance, he would have kept a low profile. He wouldn't have put himself forward, to act as an interpreter, for the Portuguese police.

Some might say the McCanns would have kept a low profile, if they were involved with Madeleine's disappearance. This might well have been true, if the British Government, hadn't protected them from day one. Also the McCanns quickly realised that there was money to be made from Madeleine's disappearance.

The difference between Robert Murat and the McCanns, is that he cooperated with the police, from the day he was taken in for questioning as a witness, to the day he was questioned as an arguido.

According to Russell O'Brien "When asked, he says that as far as he can remember, Robert was translating conversations between two officers and various people who were searching for Madeleine."

And according to Fiona Payne "That during this night, she saw him walking to and fro, the majority of the time accompanied by the police, and always with an air of authority, offering suggestions and trying to lead the situation."

So, both O'Brien and Payne claim to have seen Robert with the police on May 3. This would have been very easy to verify whether or not this was true just by asking all of the police officers who were there that night if they had seen or spoken with him. If none of them saw him , then O'Brien and Payne were either mistaken or lying.

Also, from Fiona's statement:

"That she found the presence of this individual at the site very strange, and never got to know what his role was (contrary to other people who were there, and who belonged to the police or the resort)."

"That at a certain time, he said that he was there to help the police but his behaviour was not compatible with this role, in that he looked to be leading the process, stating that he was offering his help in all that was necessary."

"That she found his behaviour so excessively strange that she stayed as far away from him as she could."

These comments are all very odd. Fiona should be forced to answer why she felt Murat's presence was strange, why she considered his behavior not to be compatible with his role, and why she found his behavior so excessively strange. None of these statements make any sense at all.

Keela wrote:

Palmeras16 wrote:In addition to Fiona Payne, Rachel Oldfield and Russell O'Brien, who claimed to have seen Robert Murat outside the McCann apartment that night, there were five other witnesses who also thought they had seen him. Charlotte Pennington, Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen plus two others, whose names I can't recall.

Didn't Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen climb out of the woodwork a few years after the event?

This is interesting and it mentions the Jenson sisters, money laundering etc..

http://whathappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.pt/2013/06/gary-hagland-mysterious-seventh-man-in_23.html?spref=tw

The police verified Robert Murat's alibi that he was at home with his mother, at the time he was supposedly seen outside or walking past the apartment, alongside police officers.  

Do you honestly think, that given the fact the way the police investigated Robert Murat, his property and his mum's home and garden, they would verify his alibi, that he was at home with his mother, when all the time he was with police officers,  walking past the McCanns apartment?

Do you think Robert Murat would have lied, knowing full well that all the time he was there and with the police?  

In my opinion, this is nothing but a 'witch hunt' against Robert Murat, by people who will always believe without a shred of evidence, that Robert Murat played some part in Madeleine's disappearance.

What has Robert Murat ever done, to deserve this 'witch hunt'? More to the point, why are people half believing Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien? Unless Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida, was telling a pack of lies in his report, according to his report, Payne, O'Brien and the rest of the group, including the McCanns, lied from day one of the investigation.

Right on-message Kathybelle. Well done. Admin will be very pleased.

Palmeras16 wrote:Right on-message Kathybelle. Well done. Admin will be very pleased.

Care to share something that contradict any facts in kathybelle's post?

Not at all Margaret, I was merely congratulating Kathybelle for being on-message. This forum is all about being on-message with no room for any type of deviation, so I'm sure that one or two of the Mods will be delighted with Kathybelle's sterling efforts.

Far be it from me to suggest that an alibi given by a mother for her son is often not given much consideration, especially if there are six or seven witnesses who contradict her statement, but then, what do I know.

That's just a cheap dig palmeras, this forum deals in facts.  Some of the tapas group and people may have said Robert Murat was outside 5a but it doesn't make it fact. We all know he looks like David Payne who would have been in the vicinity all night, perhaps mistaken identity?

How do you explain that those who knew Murat himself never saw him outside 5a or in PDL that night?

Funnily enough l don't believe Murat 100% his statements certainly changed alot around the time of Maddies disappearance, but at this point l do think he was at home that night.

margaret wrote:Some of the tapas group and people may have said Robert Murat was outside 5a but it doesn't make it fact.

Absolutely right, and similarly Mrs Murat stating her son was at home doesn't make it fact either.

margaret wrote: How do you explain that those who knew Murat himself never saw him outside 5a or in PDL that night?

I'm not at all surprised. PDL at that time of year, and at that time of night, would have been very quiet with only a handful of tourists going back to their apartments after an evening out. Also it's mainly tourists, not residents, who sit out on balconies of an evening in early May, as the nights can be rather chilly.

margaret wrote: Funnily enough l don't believe Murat 100% his statements certainly changed alot around the time of Maddies disappearance

Careful there Margaret or you'll find yourself over on the dark side, with me

It's quite hilarious to imagine that RM spent part of the night 'investigating' and translating in the company of Police officers and none of them remember it. Almost as hilarious as JT's description of the 'abductor'...

Palmeras16 wrote:Not at all Margaret, I was merely congratulating Kathybelle for being on-message. This forum is all about being on-message with no room for any type of deviation, so I'm sure that one or two of the Mods will be delighted with Kathybelle's sterling efforts.

Far be it from me to suggest that an alibi given by a mother for her son is often not given much consideration, especially if there are six or seven witnesses who contradict her statement, but then, what do I know.

I wonder why you're still here, then. Speaking for myself, I find you quite useful.

Claudia79 wrote:I wonder why you're still here, then. Speaking for myself, I find you quite useful.

Speaking for myself, I never give you a second thought, Claudia. While you're here being useful, do you have a date for Amaral's libel trial yet?

Palmeras16 wrote:

Claudia79 wrote:I wonder why you're still here, then. Speaking for myself, I find you quite useful.

Speaking for myself, I never give you a second thought, Claudia. While you're here being useful, do you have a date for Amaral's libel trial yet?

Good to know. As long as you're aware that you are still here because we decided so. S**t stirrers only get to be here if they're useful. Actually, no. But if or when I do, you won't read it. Unless you hack the PM facility, that is.  

I hope that the date of the trial will be published for us all to see. We certainly can't count on there being any coverage in the mainstream media.

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I hope that the date of the trial will be published for us all to see. We certainly can't count on there being any coverage in the mainstream media.

When the information becomes public, it will obviously be published here. If by any chance I hear about the date before but get asked not to publicise, I won't, obviously.

Whispers have it that Mr Amaral is still trying to reach settlement with the McCanns, which is why there is no trial date yet.

Palmeras16 wrote:Whispers have it that Mr Amaral is still trying to reach settlement with the McCanns, which is why there is no trial date yet.

I really needed my LOL emoticon but I'm on my tablet!

I think Mr Amarel is looking forward to putting the mccanns where they truly belong.

I can't see why Palmeras shouldn't be on here....I thought anyone could be as long as they were polite and caused no trouble.

I also can't see why Amaral would back down now....seems like he's already lost everything he ever owned....can't get much lower than that.

Lioned wrote:I think Mr Amarel is looking forward to putting the mccanns where they truly belong.

I certainly would were I him. They their mouthpiece and their sycophants have set out to ruin him completely, simply because he wouldn't follow along with and back up their childish stories and lies.
If there is any justice in this world they should be shown for what they are and be ordered to recompense Amaral the destruction of his family, his career and reputation....
Then perhaps the truth behind the lies will emerge.