The strange case of Robert Murat

I do think they should carry on to find "that child"

Doesn't Gerry sometime call Madeleine that. I personally wouldn't trust Murat as far has i could throw him, all in my own opinion of course.

Justformaddiemccann wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Justformaddiemccann wrote:Just read that the BBC says RM is to be spoken to as a witness.

But when??

Sorry Dee Coy, updated yesterday at 14:40

Apologies, JFMM - I had no intention of snapping . I meant, when are the interviews set to take place? Will they be postponed for SY, as reported in the Mirror, or will the PJ press ahead regardless? (A question for everyone, as the scheduling seems to be up in the air, atm.)

If they wait for OG, Murat my not be questioned until next year - a lot can happen in that amount of time... Just a bit frustrating!

candyfloss wrote:Robert Murat had almost £600,00 from newspapers in damages, plus unknown amount from Sky broadcaster too.

Murat wins libel pay-out from Sky

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7729145.stm


Court 'vindicates' McCann suspect

http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/7511363.stm

Mmmm Sky,murdoch empire.

Not sure what to make of Murat.This from 2008.

Last night, it was revealed the McCanns' financial backer, tycoon Brian Kennedy, had met Robert Murat, the first suspect in the case. The meeting took place at Mr Murat's aunt's house in the Algarve last year. Mr Murat's lawyer, Francisco Pagarete, said: 'We had a very pleasant dinner with Mr Kennedy. "He came here to give his support to Robert and to say he doesn't believe Robert was involved in this story in any way. "And he asked if Robert could help the investigation for the finding of Madeleine." It is understood the meeting in November was also attended by Mr Kennedy's lawyer, Edward Smethurst, who is co-ordinating the McCanns' legal affairs. Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-563826/Madeleine-One-year-Portuguese-police-ashamed-says-attorney-general.html#ixzz3Je81jZJW Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook wrote:

Another, out of court settlement but hey ho lets stand on the court's of Justice steps,make it look like we have fought the battle in side a court room.A bit like the Tapas 7 did.

RM made a phone call on the night of the 3rd MAY TO Malinka lasting approx 30 seconds at around 11:30pm .
For that reason alone he has to be of special interest. Both initially couldn't remember it.

Poppy wrote:I do think they should carry on to find "that child"  

Doesn't Gerry sometime call Madeleine that. I personally wouldn't trust Murat as far has i could throw him, all in my own opinion of course.

Or 'this girl' (Gerry on the steps of Lisbon Court) or 'a little girl' as Gerry said to Mrs. Fenn only half and hour after she'd gone 'missing'.

Helenmeg wrote:RM made a phone call on the night of the 3rd MAY TO Malinka lasting approx 30 seconds at around 11:30pm .
For that reason alone he has to be of special interest. Both initially couldn't remember it.

Has everybody forgotten that Malinka was very recently (temporarily) arrested and questioned?

Tigger, not forgetting the trailer (endlessly repeated to screaming point) to Crimewatch 2013 in which Kate said words to the effect of it wasn't us (she and Gerry) who did wrong, it was the person who came in and took a little girl.

Tigger wrote:

Helenmeg wrote:RM made a phone call on the night of the 3rd MAY TO Malinka lasting approx 30 seconds at around 11:30pm .
For that reason alone he has to be of special interest. Both initially couldn't remember it.

Has everybody forgotten that Malinka was very recently (temporarily) arrested and questioned?

Nope, I've mentioned it. This all makes sense - Malinka, the gardener, Murat and the other two. There were stories at the time of Malinka's questioning about hairs that were taken from his sofa - but we don't know the truth of that. IIRC, Malinka was given arguido status.

wlbts wrote:

Tigger wrote:

Helenmeg wrote:RM made a phone call on the night of the 3rd MAY TO Malinka lasting approx 30 seconds at around 11:30pm .
For that reason alone he has to be of special interest. Both initially couldn't remember it.

Has everybody forgotten that Malinka was very recently (temporarily) arrested and questioned?

Nope, I've mentioned it.  This all makes sense - Malinka, the gardener, Murat and the other two.  There were stories at the time of Malinka's questioning about hairs that were taken from his sofa - but we don't know the truth of that.  IIRC, Malinka was given arguido status.

No I`ve not forgotten either - he and Murat remain at the front of my mind. There were rumours that he had been questioned as a witness and cleared, but was this just because of what RM said about him back in July :-

"Local Briton Robert Murat - who was himself named as an arguido in the case before being cleared of any involvement - said it was "ridiculous" that Mr Malinka had been questioned as a suspect.

Mr Murat had worked with Mr Malinka in 2006 and 2007 setting up a property website.

He told the BBC: "It's absolutely ridiculous. It makes no sense.

"They've talked to him before, in 2007, so why are they talking to him again? He's a good professional and a hard worker. I don't know Sergey that well, but he is a nice lad."

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/uk-28101400

Keep in mind that `Fala` was etched on the pavement next to his burned out car.  He is a Portuguese national it seems.

That's the first time I've read what Murat said.  He really didn't like Malinka being questioned did he?

No he didnt. He knew him well enough to call him at 11:30pm at night on the 3rd May - to give a message in 30 seconds.

It amazes me that Murat gets a free pass from so many people on these forums.  So he won damages for being libelled - and so did the Tapas 9, are we supposed to believe them as well?

I've read through all the statements in the files, and the ones that fill me with suspicion are the ones that claim to have heard nothing about the disappearance until the following day.  Both Malinka and Murat claimed that they heard nothing until the morning.  Murat lived a stone's throw from the centre of the crisis.  Malinka lived in a flat in the centre of PdL.  There would have been hundreds of people scouring PdL until 3 or 4 in the morning, knocking on doors and shouting.  I find it very hard to believe that this went unnoticed by Murat and Malinka.   Additionally, Murat appears to have been a well connected guy in PdL - and nobody phoned him at all, despite him being only a couple of hundred yards away from the disappearance?

There are more inconsistencies and changes in the statements of Robert Murat than in all of the Tapas 9 statements.  I recognise that, rather than dismissing it just because it doesn't agree with a particular theory that I hold.

Murat and Malinka must have had a reason to claim that they heard nothing that night.

Murat and Malinka must have had a reason to claim that they hadn't spoken to each other that night.

Over to you, DCI Redwood.

Whats your theory ?
Im sure you could elaborate without libelling if thats the worry word.

Murat and Malinka must have had a reason to claim that they heard nothing that night.

Murat and Malinka must have had a reason to claim that they hadn't spoken to each other that night.


Your just supposing, or are we chin wagging ?

Its because of posts like yours I enjoy being on here wlbts.

I particularly liked this from RM

"I don't know Sergey that well, but he is a nice lad."

I wonder what Sergey would think about that?

SM and RM knew each other through work or computer stuff, I suppose RM could say he's a nice lad, but didn't know much about each other or like close friends would? I'm still just not sure were RM comes into it, yet.
IMO

Mimi wrote:I particularly liked this from RM

"I don't know Sergey that well, but he is a nice lad."

I wonder what Sergei would think about that?

I, wonder if Gerry would say the same thing about Murat

ChillyHeat wrote:Murat and Malinka must have had a reason to claim that they heard nothing that night.

Murat and Malinka must have had a reason to claim that they hadn't spoken to each other that night.


Your just supposing, or are we chin wagging ?

Kindly address the points I've made rather than taking personal jabs at me.  Surely we can talk about this with civility

It is a fact that Murat and Malinka claimed that they hadn't spoken to each other, when they had.  What is supposition about that?  Obviously if they did deny speaking to each other, they must have had a reason, whatever that reason was.  What is supposition about that?  I haven't speculated on their reasons - that would be supposition.  It's the job of the police to investigate further, and it looks very likely that indeed they are doing exactly that.

ChillyHeat wrote:
Whats your theory ?
Im sure you could elaborate without libelling if thats the worry word.

Robert Murat and Sergei Malinka are innocent people at the current time.  However, they both gave inconsistent statements and untruths that simply must be investigated by the police in a case where a nearly 4 year old girl went missing 7 years ago.

What difference does presenting a theory make?  I'm not here to be right, and I'm not here to libel people.  I'm here to keep up with current affairs related to the McCann case, and to have a chat about them.  Not to make accusations that aren't justifiable - these are real people we're talking about, not characters in an Agatha Christie novel.

bellisa wrote:Its because of posts like yours I enjoy being on here wlbts.

Same here

wlbts wrote:

ChillyHeat wrote:
Whats your theory ?
Im sure you could elaborate without libelling if thats the worry word.

Robert Murat and Sergei Malinka are innocent people at the current time.  However, they both gave inconsistent statements and untruths that simply must be investigated by the police in a case where a nearly 4 year old girl went missing 7 years ago.

What difference does presenting a theory make?  I'm not here to be right, and I'm not here to libel people.  I'm here to keep up with current affairs related to the McCann case, and to have a chat about them.  Not to make accusations that aren't justifiable - these are real people we're talking about, not characters in an Agatha Christie novel.

Great post, wlbts

Even Gerry McCann said that he had no problem with people "purporting" theories.

FWIW I too think that Robert Murat is implicated somehow, I'm not exactly sure how, and maybe it was not even intentional on his part.