Re: The strange case of Robert Murat

Mimi Thu 20 Nov 2014, 9:21 am

wlbts wrote:
Mimi wrote:Would it be better to interview, say RM, as a witness or as an arguido ?

He has to be given arguido status in order to be asked direct accusatory questions. But he would also have the right to have a lawyer present, and have the right to remain silent. Weirdly, arguido status also gives you the right to lie without legal action being taken.

My guess is that the questions will fall somewhere in between, and this might be the cause of some friction between the two police forces.

Thanks wlbts. Fascinating how it differs from UK.

Andrew Thu 20 Nov 2014, 10:28 am

I have always been a bit on the fence with regards to RM.

Did he inadvertently 'help' in some way, shape or form...

Did he have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything...

Or was he in on it from the get go.

I for one feel that he knows a lot more that what he has let on and hopefully will tell all he knows now.

'The biggest cock up' or words similar has always intrigued me. What does he know?

Baldrick Thu 20 Nov 2014, 10:32 am

Tristar wrote:
Justformaddiemccann wrote:I had always thought RM had proof of being at home that night, through a phone call made to someone from his landline?

I've not seen proof of this - but I am happy to be corrected

But even if there was a landline call made from Jenny's house - and the metadata bears that out

a) who made the call - is there a recording of the content/speaker?

b) Casa Liliana to 5 a - is about 110 yards distance - even if there was proof of Robert Murat having made a
landline call

- unless that call lasted all night - he could have easily walked up to 5a or to the general OC parameter in just under a minute - without breaking out into a sweat.

That I know - because I timed my walk.

I depends entirely what night. THE NIGHT or the night the Mccanns have told us

Justformaddiemccann Thu 20 Nov 2014, 10:47 am

Ha! So true!

Helenmeg Thu 20 Nov 2014, 11:03 am

I am confused about RM's involvement - he is very convincing when he speaks - if he lies then he is very good at it - much better than G and K.

I think he would have been a person who enjoyed being part of something - and if he was asked to 'help' in some way he would have obliged and enjoyed being needed. If anything, I think he was asked to help after M had died. I think he would not have mind having the finger pointed at him and may have agreed to this - understanding that he would subsequently receive a pay off (which he obviously did). There are too many coincidences (such as mobile phone timings and calls ) for him not to have been involved, IMO.

Helenmeg Thu 20 Nov 2014, 11:07 am

wlbts wrote:I get the feeling that SY really didn't want this to go public yet, but now that it has their hand has been partially revealed and they might have to move sooner than they had intended. It's definitely the final phase, question is how long that phase is going to be.

I don't think they're interested in Murat as a witness. They've already interviewed Malinka. I expect they're very interested in the 30 second call from Murat to Malinka on 3rd May at about 11:30pm (among other things). The call that neither of them initially remembered. And the desperation to hire a car on the 12th May, the day of the gardener's interview. And I doubt that SY would bother interviewing Murat if they didn't have something up their sleeve, otherwise it would be a waste of time, unless what they want to do is compare inconsistencies between witness statements.

This desperation to hire a car on 12th May -( that day was when Gerry wore the same outfit as he wore in the LP) - do we have any theories about this? affraid

**candyfloss** Thu 20 Nov 2014, 11:15 am

Just a gentle reminder, regarding Mr Murat and others to be questioned, we have to be careful what we say......no accusations or libellous posts please.

Dee Coy Thu 20 Nov 2014, 11:25 am

@chirpyinsect. Thanks for that interesting article from Mr Murat's ex-wife. A lot of background information in there. One thing leapt out from the Mail report:
"He was very family-orientated from the start and never liked going out to pubs and clubs. He was virtually tee-total."

...which doesn't quite fit in with the reference to him in Martin Smith's statement:
"— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone."

The article did emphasise his outgoing personality, though.

Guest Thu 20 Nov 2014, 11:30 am

Dee Coy wrote:@chirpyinsect. Thanks for that interesting article from Mr Murat's ex-wife. A lot of background information in there. One thing leapt out from the Mail report:
"He was very family-orientated from the start and never liked going out to pubs and clubs. He was virtually tee-total."

...which doesn't quite fit in with the reference to him in Martin Smith's statement:
"— Adds that in May and August of 2006, he saw ROBERT MURAT in Praia da Luz bars. On one of these occasions, the first, he was inebriated and spoke to everyone."

The article did emphasise his outgoing personality, though.

That could both easily be true. Somebody who doesn't drink much will get drunk after just a moderate amount of alcohol. His wife is or certainly was Jehovah's witness, so she would not approve of drinking and certainly not confirm it.

Anne Thu 20 Nov 2014, 12:08 pm

Tristar wrote:
Justformaddiemccann wrote:I had always thought RM had proof of being at home that night, through a phone call made to someone from his landline?

I've not seen proof of this - but I am happy to be corrected

But even if there was a landline call made from Jenny's house - and the metadata bears that out

a) who made the call - is there a recording of the content/speaker?

b) Casa Liliana to 5 a - is about 110 yards distance - even if there was proof of Robert Murat having made a
landline call

- unless that call lasted all night - he could have easily walked up to 5a or to the general OC parameter in just under a minute - without breaking out into a sweat.

That I know - because I timed my walk.

This is a strange but interesting phone call between Robert Murat and Martin Brunt.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRUNT_MURAT.htm

Tristar Thu 20 Nov 2014, 12:22 pm

Andrew wrote:I have always been a bit on the fence with regards to RM.

Did he inadvertently 'help' in some way, shape or form...

Did he have absolutely nothing whatsoever to do with anything...

Or was he in on it from the get go.

I for one feel that he knows a lot more that what he has let on and hopefully will tell all he knows now.

'The biggest cock up' or words similar has always intrigued me. What does he know?

Quite Andrew, this is the exact quote:

"Basically, I'm just an ordinary, straightforward guy who's the victim of the biggest f***-up on this planet - if you'll excuse the language," he said.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-459316/Madeleine-Is-Robert-Murat-suspect-scapegoat.html#ixzz3JbvLvlA5

The whole article bears revisiting - very thorough for a Daily Wail piece IMO

Anne Thu 20 Nov 2014, 12:38 pm

Anne wrote:
Tristar wrote:
Justformaddiemccann wrote:I had always thought RM had proof of being at home that night, through a phone call made to someone from his landline?

I've not seen proof of this - but I am happy to be corrected

But even if there was a landline call made from Jenny's house - and the metadata bears that out

a) who made the call - is there a recording of the content/speaker?

b) Casa Liliana to 5 a - is about 110 yards distance - even if there was proof of Robert Murat having made a
landline call

- unless that call lasted all night - he could have easily walked up to 5a or to the general OC parameter in just under a minute - without breaking out into a sweat.

That I know - because I timed my walk.

This is a strange but interesting phone call between Robert Murat and Martin Brunt.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRUNT_MURAT.htm

Justformaddiemccann Thu 20 Nov 2014, 12:41 pm

Anne wrote:
Anne wrote:
Tristar wrote:
Justformaddiemccann wrote:I had always thought RM had proof of being at home that night, through a phone call made to someone from his landline?

I've not seen proof of this - but I am happy to be corrected

But even if there was a landline call made from Jenny's house - and the metadata bears that out

a) who made the call - is there a recording of the content/speaker?

b) Casa Liliana to 5 a - is about 110 yards distance - even if there was proof of Robert Murat having made a
landline call

- unless that call lasted all night - he could have easily walked up to 5a or to the general OC parameter in just under a minute - without breaking out into a sweat.

That I know - because I timed my walk.

This is a strange but interesting phone call between Robert Murat and Martin Brunt.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRUNT_MURAT.htm

Wow, thanks Anne, never seen that before. To me it seems that MB believes RM?

Guest Thu 20 Nov 2014, 12:47 pm

I've just had a thought regarding GM's and RM's phones been switched on and off at the same time on 2nd May, could RM have lent his phone to GM during the week for someone else to use as a friendly gesture if GM needed a phone for some reason, RM being known around the resort for "helping people out" and the person "to go to" if anything is needed. RM lending his phone at the time may not have seemed out of the ordinary to him to help out Brits on holiday who had mobiles but didn't take their chargers with them. Perhaps RM lent his phone to GM through a third party so the two of them didn't actually meet.

It may seem a stupid idea but just something I've never thought of before.

Anne Thu 20 Nov 2014, 12:52 pm

Yes it does Justformaddiemccann,

Tristar Thu 20 Nov 2014, 12:52 pm

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:I've just had a thought regarding GM's and RM's phones been switched on and off at the same time on 2nd May, could RM have lent his phone to GM during the week for someone else to use as a friendly gesture if GM needed a phone for some reason, RM being known around the resort for "helping people out" and the person "to go to" if anything is needed. RM lending his phone at the time may not have seemed out of the ordinary to him to help out Brits on holiday who had mobiles but didn't take their chargers with them. Perhaps RM lent his phone to GM through a third party so the two of them didn't actually meet.

It may seem a stupid idea but just something I've never thought of before.

Very plausible that mobiles switched hands in

a time of crisis, and I don't think Baptista's - the biggest retail outlet in Luz would have stocked mobile phones
in 2007 somehow.

seahorse Thu 20 Nov 2014, 12:53 pm

I always found this a bit odd from Stephen Carpenter's Rogatory:

"SC: Humm, no, its probably nothing relevant, the only thing since all of this happened and from reading the papers, I'm not sure if I am right or wrong, but his involvement in the translations was due to my intervention, clearly it was I who, based upon what he told me, took him to see Gerry, humm..and just that, I do not know whether it was already explained and wasn't published in the papers or I do not know why (inaudible) I think that the reason for his involvement was because of me.

.
DCF: Mmm.

SC: And then the first thing that he said was "Well, I did not actually offer my services, I "bumped" into this individual.

DCF: Yes:

SC: That is the only, only thing that I would correct and I think it is a bit strange that someone would state that they offer themselves as a volunteer, or the way in which it really happened after having told me that he spoke Portuguese fluently, I said to him "Well, in this case that could be useful" and afterwards accompanied him - and that was how he (inaudible) thought that it was a bit strange. Because the way he said it gave the impression that it was voluntary."

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN-CARPENTER.htm

Probably not important though and could just be because of mis-reporting in the press.

Guest Thu 20 Nov 2014, 1:00 pm

Deleted - I got confused with posters' names.

Tristar Thu 20 Nov 2014, 1:02 pm

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
Anne wrote:Yes it does Justformaddiemccann,

Thanks for that vote of "no confidence" Anne.

the danger of quotes

Guest Thu 20 Nov 2014, 1:04 pm

Tristar wrote:
Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
Anne wrote:Yes it does Justformaddiemccann,

Thanks for that vote of "no confidence" Anne.

the danger of quotes

That reply from Anne wasn't meant for me, I got confused with my "forum name", I forgot who I was. Duh!!

Tristar Thu 20 Nov 2014, 1:05 pm

Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
Tristar wrote:
Don't Forget Madeleine wrote:
Anne wrote:Yes it does Justformaddiemccann,

Thanks for that vote of "no confidence" Anne.

the danger of quotes

That reply wasn't meant for me, I got confused with my "forum name", I forgot who I was. Duh!!

still funny - and the world needs a chuckle now and again Very Happy

Burst Thu 20 Nov 2014, 1:06 pm

Mimi wrote:
wlbts wrote:
Mimi wrote:Would it be better to interview, say RM, as a witness or as an arguido ?

He has to be given arguido status in order to be asked direct accusatory questions. But he would also have the right to have a lawyer present, and have the right to remain silent. Weirdly, arguido status also gives you the right to lie without legal action being taken.

My guess is that the questions will fall somewhere in between, and this might be the cause of some friction between the two police forces.

Thanks wlbts. Fascinating how it differs from UK.

Actually, these mentioned rights that fall into an arguido's or suspect's basket, don't differ much. For instance, the right to lie to the police is just a consequence of the right to not incriminate yourself, a right that in some way or another exists in every western legal system.
Another thing I'd like to add, while I am not absolutely sure about this, is that here it's the British enquiring by the hands of the Portuguese, and I think that as an implication a change of legal status would not be called arguido, but (British) suspect. So I don't think that here's any difference at (or is it in?) play.

Btw I don't expect Murat to be a suspect, just guessing. He'd been framed, wrongly pointed out in the past, and I expect he'll be a witness. I speculate.

Dee Coy Thu 20 Nov 2014, 1:10 pm

Anne wrote:

This is a strange but interesting phone call between Robert Murat and Martin Brunt.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BRUNT_MURAT.htm

[/quote]

Brunt: "The only people who say Murat was there [on the night of the 3rd] are friends of the McCanns"

Tristar Thu 20 Nov 2014, 1:13 pm

Burst wrote:
Mimi wrote:
wlbts wrote:
Mimi wrote:Would it be better to interview, say RM, as a witness or as an arguido ?

He has to be given arguido status in order to be asked direct accusatory questions. But he would also have the right to have a lawyer present, and have the right to remain silent. Weirdly, arguido status also gives you the right to lie without legal action being taken.

My guess is that the questions will fall somewhere in between, and this might be the cause of some friction between the two police forces.

Thanks wlbts. Fascinating how it differs from UK.
Actually, these mentioned rights that fall into an arguido's or suspect's basket, don't differ much. For instance, the right to lie to the police is just a consequence of the right to not incriminate yourself, a right that in some way or another exists in every western legal system.
Another thing I'd like to add, while I am not absolutely sure about this, is that here it's the British enquiring by the hands of the Portuguese, and I think that as an implication a change of legal status would not be called arguido, but (British) suspect. So I don't think that here's any difference at play.

Btw I don't expect Murat to be a suspect, just guessing. He'd been framed, wrongly pointed out in the past, and I expect he'll be a witness. I speculate.

Spot on - my understanding (gained from a BBC radio programme in 2007) is that an arguido is a person of interest rather than a suspect - the latter term invoking finger pointing at guilt - arguido state means
protecting the person of interest from self incriminating.

When the BBC programme went out - the Portuguese solicitors on it stated that 10% of the Portuguese population were in the arguido state. It's kind of a holding position.

Anyroad, that's how I understood it.

ETA: exchange between Levenson and Gerry McCann:

Q. One key event in this narrative is you becoming, if
18 I pronounce it right, arguido, under Portuguese law,
19 which occurred on 7 September 2007, and this is
20 paragraph 34 of your witness statement. To be clear
21 about it, and you'll correct me if I'm wrong because you
22 know more about this than me, arguido does not mean
23 "suspect", it means "person of interest"; is that
24 correct?
25 A. That's what we were advised was the closest correlation or translation within UK law at the time,

Tristar Thu 20 Nov 2014, 1:29 pm

If I was in a legal pickle in Portugal

I'd much rather be an arguido than a witness

But the UK MSM failed and continues to fail, explaining this important difference

'Suspect' - sells newspapers - 'Persons of interest' is a bit meh

Sponsored content