Jassi

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:35

But she says Jenny Murat put up a written notice peddling disinformation about the time that Maddie disappeared and that could be seen as a serious attempt to pervert the course of justice.

If people are so averse to even looking at witness statements that we have never seen before, well certainly I had not, then I wonder how they can be looking for the truth, notably by saying, oh well this one is a liar and needs corroboration.

The problem with this case is people have developed some pretty fixed attitudes about what they think might have happened and become very uncomfortable with anything that may cause them to look again. Or perhaps look at things logically and ask themselves, now why were the police maintaining him as an arguido as well? The Police are not stupid and they do not play conspiracy games either.

**Claudia79** Mon 21 Sep - 18:42

viv wrote:But she says Jenny Murat put up a written notice peddling disinformation about the time that Maddie disappeared and that could be seen as a serious attempt to pervert the course of justice.

If people are so averse to even looking at witness statements that we have never seen before, well certainly I had not, then I wonder how they can be looking for the truth, notably by saying, oh well this one is a liar and needs corroboration.

The problem with this case is people have developed some pretty fixed attitudes about what they think might have happened and become very uncomfortable with anything that may cause them to look again. Or perhaps look at things logically and ask themselves, now why were the police maintaining him as an arguido as well? The Police are not stupid and they do not play conspiracy games either.

Robert Murat (or the McCanns for that matter) couldn't have stopped being arguidos before, under Portuguese law because the case was still ongoing.

jassi Mon 21 Sep - 18:43

viv wrote:But she says Jenny Murat put up a written notice peddling disinformation about the time that Maddie disappeared and that could be seen as a serious attempt to pervert the course of justice.

If people are so averse to even looking at witness statements that we have never seen before, well certainly I had not, then I wonder how they can be looking for the truth, notably by saying, oh well this one is a liar and needs corroboration.

The problem with this case is people have developed some pretty fixed attitudes about what they think might have happened and become very uncomfortable with anything that may cause them to look again. Or perhaps look at things logically and ask themselves, now why were the police maintaining him as an arguido as well? The Police are not stupid and they do not play conspiracy games either.

What I am saying is that if Mrs Murat put up a written statement, then others must have read it, and you would expect corroborative statements as to what it said. You might even expect the police to have a copy of the notice.

It has not been proved that she ( Mrs Murat) put up disinformation, merely that the reporter says so.

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:43

woodward wrote:sorry laffin -I now appear to be stalking you but when you start working as a tag team with a dyed in the wool abduction supporter my antennae starts to wiggle-please-no jokes-Robert Murat was a patsy his setting up failed because the police were meticulous -no barking dogs at casa lilliana and you know it-maybe your just bored but I am having no part of Robert Murat slandering-lilemore was banned for doing exactly that the other day -do the mccanns need Robert to be libelled to bring down this site ? carter -ruck would have a much easier time proving libel of Robert because he really has beencleared and there really is not a shred of evidence against him-its happening elsewhere too-I no longer trust you or your motivation LAFFIN - lets put eachother on ignore I will make a formal complaint about the two threads you have started regarding the clearly innocent robert murat

I'm working on my own , stalk me if you choose to, submit your complaint, put me on ignore, phone Carter Ruck.

It's from the Files.

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:45

viv wrote:do the mccanns need Robert to be libelled to bring down this site

I fear your remarks including the above are quite paranoid. This is a witness statement from the process files, get a grip!

It's not often I agree with viv, but I will this time .

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:46

AND as I understand it CLAUDIA the police were obliged to make all 3 arguidos to allow them to have legal representatives at interview and to remove the obligation to answer all questions which applies to people who are simply witnesses

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:47

Again, this is another problem I find, people seem to want these forums to transform themselves into the Crown Court. What is wrong with discussing what a live witness says? I agree the police would and no doubt have looked for others who may have seen this and I do not know if more statements will come to light.

It does not mean Robert was definitely involved but the police clearly thought he may well have been and this statement is certainly interesting in suggesting his own mother was behaving in a pretty typical way to protect her son.

**Claudia79** Mon 21 Sep - 18:48

woodward wrote:AND as I understand it CLAUDIA the police were obliged to make all 3 arguidos to allow them to have legal representatives at interview and to remove the obligation to answer all questions which applies to people who are simply witnesses

Yes, under Portuguese law no one can be asked difficult questions which may result in one person incriminating himfelf/herself without making them arguidos. Moreover, witnesses have to answer all questions posed to them. Arguidos can refuse to answer any questions (as we are all well aware of). The arguido status can be attributed to someone but the person in question can also ask for it.

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:51

there is not a shred of evidence to link Robert Murat with the disappearance of Madeleine MCcann-none

edited to add -thankyou Caudia for that clarification

jassi Mon 21 Sep - 18:52

viv wrote:Again, this is another problem I find, people seem to want these forums to transform themselves into the Crown Court. What is wrong with discussing what a live witness says? I agree the police would and no doubt have looked for others who may have seen this and I do not know if more statements will come to light.

It does not mean Robert was definitely involved but the police clearly thought he may well have been and this statement is certainly interesting in suggesting his own mother was behaving in a pretty typical way to protect her son.

No problem in discussing witness statements at all, but you go further and say 'peddling disinformation'.
The reporter does not say that.

Furthermore, she says that Mrs Murat mentions hearing police sirens at around 22.00- she does not say that she knew the siren to be connected to Madeleine

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:53

woodward wrote:there is not a shred of evidence to link Robert Murat with the disappearance of Madeleine MCcann-none

edited to add -thankyou Caudia for that clarification

If you say so.

Your typeing seems to have deteriorated today.

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:54

and you seem to have swapped sides

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:56

What side am I on.

The side of the TRUTH.

**Claudia79** Mon 21 Sep - 18:57

Laffin and Woodward, take deep breaths and take it easy, please.
When Amber logs in I'm sure she will read the Complaints thread. In the meanwhile, put each other on ignore if you have to.

julygirl3210 Mon 21 Sep - 18:58

woodward wrote:there is not a shred of evidence to link Robert Murat with the disappearance of Madeleine MCcann-none

edited to add -thankyou Caudia for that clarification

I agree woodward. I think poor Murat was set up to be the patsy. In my opinion, he is totally innocent.

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 18:59

claudia-very wise -will do as you suggest

**fred** Mon 21 Sep - 19:00

julygirl3210 wrote:
woodward wrote:there is not a shred of evidence to link Robert Murat with the disappearance of Madeleine MCcann-none

edited to add -thankyou Caudia for that clarification

I agree woodward. I think poor Murat was set up to be the patsy. In my opinion, he is totally innocent.

I dunno if he is totally innocent (I have an open mind about his) but he would have been the most perfect patsy, the naughty one-eyed oddball (not my words) and the holy Mccanns, no contest!. Thank goodness for Amaral.

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 19:04

Laffin Assasin wrote:
viv wrote:do the mccanns need Robert to be libelled to bring down this site

I fear your remarks including the above are quite paranoid. This is a witness statement from the process files, get a grip!

It's not often I agree with viv, but I will this time .

I know we do not generally see eye to eye but also on this one I support you and I just cannot understand the defensive outpouring this is getting! Did he slip them a few bob, lord knows he can afford it Case Files discussions - Page 10 23324

This is not one of the McCanns Pretendy witnesses months, or let's face it a couple of years later, this is a real witness who gave a statement to the PJ at the time!

julygirl3210 Mon 21 Sep - 19:04

Gerrys reaction was thus, in my opinion. Murat was used as a translator for the Police. So yes, if Gerry had been asked questions by the police, and Murat was translating his words, then yes, Gerry DID know Murat. Simple as that. He knew that Murat translated his words into Portuguese.

**Christine** Mon 21 Sep - 19:05

Carrie wrote:Why can't we be open minded regarding Murat? I am.

Eversince Gerry said "no comment" to the question as to whether he knew him or not, I've been open minded. Why didn't Gerry simply say "no" if that was the case? As he didn't say "no", surely it is ok to think of the other option, which is, of course yes! None of us know, but what's wrong with debating this possibility? Why have a go at Laffin, for posting up info from the files -its all there - we can all do this if we wish. So much time has been debated on Gerry and Kate, on 3 Arguidos and other sites - let's not forget that there were, indeed 3 Arguidos - so what's wrong with including Murat?

I agree with you. Why can't it be published on here if it is in the PJ files? People can make their own mind up, and no one should be attacked for posting it.

jassi Mon 21 Sep - 19:07

Carrie wrote:Why can't we be open minded regarding Murat? I am.

Eversince Gerry said "no comment" to the question as to whether he knew him or not, I've been open minded. Why didn't Gerry simply say "no" if that was the case? As he didn't say "no", surely it is ok to think of the other option, which is, of course yes! None of us know, but what's wrong with debating this possibility? Why have a go at Laffin, for posting up info from the files -its all there - we can all do this if we wish. So much time has been debated on Gerry and Kate, on 3 Arguidos and other sites - let's not forget that there were, indeed 3 Arguidos - so what's wrong with including Murat?

If I remeber correctly, Mr Murat categorically denied knowing Dr McCann.
Do you think it likely that he would have done this if this could have been shown to be untrue ?

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 19:07

woodward wrote:and you seem to have swapped sides

Do you need reminding there should only be one person's side we are on, Madeleine's and finding the truth about what happened to her!!

Shame on you!

julygirl3210 Mon 21 Sep - 19:11

Carrie wrote:

Hi Julygirl :Hiya: Why didn't Gerry just say "yes" then??

Because Gerry knew full well that if he flounced off with Katey in tow the way he did, it would cast at least a slither of doubt on Murat. (which is what he wanted). Nothing is ever straightforward with our Gerry, who loves to embellish the truth in my honest opinion.

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 19:13

Thanks for those sensible comments and just for once I was really pleased with Laffin's thread, it was helpful and interesting and clearly took us all by surprise.

I have always had an open mind about the involvement of Murat, I do not have the same open mind about Kate and Gerry, I am convinced they (most particuarly he) are involved in her disappearance, but if Murat was also involved, I think it is helpful to look at that as a possibility and I just wonder why people seem to want to prevent us doing that? WE are not debating some silly Cooper type sighting/oh two years later I had a prick of conscience after all! Um I probably used the right word there! Case Files discussions - Page 10 613255

Guest Mon 21 Sep - 19:16

there is no problem with information from the files -but why would any one -appropo -of nothing suddenly start digging out old statements about the only person in this case with the means and the motivation to rightfully sue for libel in this country- we can discuss for example cooperman until the cows come home because he isnt a named individual whose possesions and property have been searched with a fine tooth comb and can actually prove their innocence-why these statements -why now?

Sponsored content

Case Files discussions

Jassi

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Jassi

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Laffin

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions

Sides?

Re: Case Files discussions

Carrie/Christine

Re: Case Files discussions

Re: Case Files discussions