The strange case of Robert Murat

Mimi wrote:

caricature wrote:Hadn't seen this before,he was happy with the investigation,despite being made arguido,some difference to G&K.
Kind of put Kelly in her place regards the e-fits.

Yep, Kelly didn`t like him saying that the GNR did a fantastic job - she hurried him off at that point.

Ooer, not seen that clip before, thanks for posting Mimi

No, she wasn't having him praise the police and local people was she?  And she refers to them as if they are personal friends.  

Robert Murat has the relaxed air of someone who has nothing to hide, the complete opposite in fact of the highly strung, uptight, always on edge, starry couple.  He shows no bitterness whatsoever towards to the Portuguese police or the people around him.  Clearly, no-one in his local community believes him to be involved - if they did, his life in PDL would be untenable.

Robert Murat has my sympathy, unfortunately, his proximity to 5A and his single status, made him an obvious suspect for those with a murky agenda and it still does.  He took the heat off the McCanns in the summer of 2007 and nearly 8 years on, armchair detective in chief Tony Bennett is still gunning for him.  It doesn't really matter how ludicrous an idea is, Tony Bennett will find a way to manipulate it so it fits his theory.  And his theory is, people all around him are indulging in sexual practices that he does not approve of and they must be named and shamed.  Nearly all his interests have deviant sex at the root of them, same with Gamble. They have the same fire and brimstone passion as all the former (ugly) Witchfinder Generals who have made names for themselves throughout history.  If ya aint doing it like the bible says, yer gonna fry, and for the ugly (inside and out) witchfinder generals, hopefully in this life too.

Robert Murat does have an air of someone who appears to be telling the truth I agree. However not every liar is nervous and shifty and not every nervous person is a liar. I have no idea if RM played any part in  this but he did not kidnap Madeleine that is for sure.
. So is he relaxed and casual because he knows they can't pin anything that he is being accused of on him? Or is he super cool because he is telling the truth. I wouldn't stake my house on it but there are enough question marks not to rule him out. All IMO.

@ Cristobel - It was Caricature that found and posted the video, not me.

I do agree, RM seems relaxed. Mind you he never has looked suspect.

Cristobell wrote:

Mimi wrote:

caricature wrote:Hadn't seen this before,he was happy with the investigation,despite being made arguido,some difference to G&K.
Kind of put Kelly in her place regards the e-fits.

Yep, Kelly didn`t like him saying that the GNR did a fantastic job - she hurried him off at that point.

Ooer, not seen that clip before, thanks for posting Mimi

No, she wasn't having him praise the police and local people was she?  And she refers to them as if they are personal friends.  

Robert Murat has the relaxed air of someone who has nothing to hide, the complete opposite in fact of the highly strung, uptight, always on edge, starry couple.  He shows no bitterness whatsoever towards to the Portuguese police or the people around him.  Clearly, no-one in his local community believes him to be involved - if they did, his life in PDL would be untenable.

I tend to agree,Murat was intended to be stitched up,he was recently interviewed again wasn't he.
If there is one thing that might just persuade me about OG,was the recent interviews with people from the OC and those close to it.But then doubting Thomas says it was just checking on the many (all and sundry) and not the few (tapas 7)

Aled Jones seemed to have his nose in the air - the way he questioned RM was rather abrupt.

Well I suppose Aled does belong to the righteous group.

chirpyinsect wrote:

caricature wrote:Hadn't seen this before,he was happy with the investigation,despite being made arguido,some difference to G&K.
Kind of put Kelly in her place regards the e-fits.

2 glaring inaccuracies right away. Madeleine was not acting as a ball girl whilst her parents played tennis and it was stated that police had issued efits of several men when it was the 2 created by the Smiths that are shown but acknowledged as being of the same man.

Agree. Unfortunately, it is things like that, that make me wonder if this case is being whitewashed. That the parents were playing tennis with Madeleine as the ball girl is pure fantasy - even they don't claim that in their statements! It does however project the image of loving parents having family time with their kids, that is, it reinforces the same message that comes from the McCanns, an innocent family caught in a nightmare.

Interesting interview. Murat knows things, imo, and also knows he's in the clear.

Confident enough in that interview and in his openness about being re-interviewed by OG last year to convince me that his main priority is to have this cleared up so he's free to move on in his life. Bit like the McCanns wanted when they pestered for a review, I wonder?

Whether or not this means he is completely innocent of all activity connected with the events I, like Chirpy, am not sure. But he's confident enough to know the main implications cannot touch him, I feel.

Cristobell wrote:
 

Agree.  Unfortunately, it is things like that, that make me wonder if this case is being whitewashed.  That the parents were playing tennis with Madeleine as the ball girl is pure fantasy - even they don't claim that in their statements!  It does however project the image of loving parents having family time with their kids, that is, it reinforces the same message that comes from the McCanns, an innocent family caught in a nightmare.

Cristobell, for the last few years you have been the chink that gave me hope, small though it is, that the British investigation is genuine. I've always been more convinced of the whitewash scenario, I'm afraid, as I've I've followed the corruption and selfish backside-covering of those in power with dismay for years (not just with this case). (I have no faith in the integrity of the Establishment nor, indeed with many people in smaller positions of 'power' who have sufficient wealth and/or connections to fund their own self-interests. Plus those that were foolish enough to allow themselves to become vulnerable to blackmail and so find themselves an elevated pawn as a result. I'm very cynical.)

But you were my small shred of conviction that justice may be an option here. You have always been a compelling voice on the sheer implausibility that ALL the police involved with Grange can be involved in a cover-up, of the appropriatness of the appointment of Nicola Hall, of the fact that the Blair/Brown government may have been involved but that subsequent governments have no need to continue the charade. What on earth has happened to change your mind?

And what of the Portuguese investigation, in which I have placed my faith that justice may prevail despite the attempts of the British?

Dee Coy wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
 

Agree.  Unfortunately, it is things like that, that make me wonder if this case is being whitewashed.  That the parents were playing tennis with Madeleine as the ball girl is pure fantasy - even they don't claim that in their statements!  It does however project the image of loving parents having family time with their kids, that is, it reinforces the same message that comes from the McCanns, an innocent family caught in a nightmare.

Cristobell, for the last few years you have been the chink that gave me hope, small though it is, that the British investigation is genuine. I've always been more convinced of the whitewash scenario, I'm afraid, as I've I've followed the corruption and selfish backside-covering of those in power with dismay for years (not just with this case). (I have no faith in the integrity of the Establishment nor, indeed with many people in smaller positions of 'power' who have sufficient wealth and/or connections to fund their own self-interests. Plus those that were foolish enough to allow themselves to become vulnerable to blackmail and so find themselves an elevated pawn as a result. I'm very cynical.)

But you were my small shred of conviction that justice may be an option here. You have always been a compelling voice on the sheer implausibility that ALL the police involved with Grange can be involved in a cover-up, of the appropriatness of the appointment of Nicola Hall, of the fact that the Blair/Brown government may have been involved but that subsequent governments have no need to continue the charade. What on earth has happened to change your mind?

And what of the Portuguese investigation, in which I have placed my faith that justice may prevail despite the attempts of the British?

I find it rather odd too Cristobell.  You were so vocal against those who were saying whitewash, yet now all of a sudden you agree?  There is nothing that has happened of late that would make you think this surely, in fact with all the nastiness going on, discrediting people  and trying to frighten people away then I would think whitewash is definitely not on the cards. I am puzzled

Katie Hopkins, Sonia Poulton both working for Rupert Murdock. Both the mouthpieces of the establishment imo. Was all that hype on their spat on ITV just a staged event? Both spewing out controversial subjects that certainly will not benefit the masses. So where does that leave Cristobel. Hope I am wrong.

Dee Coy wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
 

Agree.  Unfortunately, it is things like that, that make me wonder if this case is being whitewashed.  That the parents were playing tennis with Madeleine as the ball girl is pure fantasy - even they don't claim that in their statements!  It does however project the image of loving parents having family time with their kids, that is, it reinforces the same message that comes from the McCanns, an innocent family caught in a nightmare.

Cristobell, for the last few years you have been the chink that gave me hope, small though it is, that the British investigation is genuine. I've always been more convinced of the whitewash scenario, I'm afraid, as I've I've followed the corruption and selfish backside-covering of those in power with dismay for years (not just with this case). (I have no faith in the integrity of the Establishment nor, indeed with many people in smaller positions of 'power' who have sufficient wealth and/or connections to fund their own self-interests. Plus those that were foolish enough to allow themselves to become vulnerable to blackmail and so find themselves an elevated pawn as a result. I'm very cynical.)





But you were my small shred of conviction that justice may be an option here. You have always been a compelling voice on the sheer implausibility that ALL the police involved with Grange can be involved in a cover-up, of the appropriatness of the appointment of Nicola Hall, of the fact that the Blair/Brown government may have been involved but that subsequent governments have no need to continue the charade. What on earth has happened to change your mind?

And what of the Portuguese investigation, in which I have placed my faith that justice may prevail despite the attempts of the British?

Hi Dee Coy, sorry to have sounded as if I have given up all hope. Logic tells me that it would be impossible for this case to be whitewashed, even more so after DCI Redwood implied that Madeleine may have died in the apartment as that opens the one can of worms the McCanns have gone to great lengths to keep shut.

However, I recently had a long conversation with Joana Morais, and it doesn't seem as if there is any will to get a prosecution in Portugal. In all these years, and even with the Portuguese re-opening the investigation, there is not even the slightest hint that the parents or their friends have been interviewed, let alone interrogated. And just as the British can send rogatory letters to the PJ, the PJ can send them to Scotland Yard with regard to interviewing the British contingent. It could be that it has all been done with the utmost secrecy and there hasn't been a single leak in the 4 years of the investigation, but how likely is that? We know all about the people who are interviewed in Portugal, they make headlines. What about the tapas group, the friends and family who joined the parents in PDL, the nannies, the VIPS rushing to the McCanns' aid - have they been interviewed?

I honestly thought from a political perspective, that the case would have broken before the General Election, and that it is dragging on is not a good sign. And the Crimewatch reconstruction could be interpreted in several ones. One it fully supports the McCanns and their friends version of events, even, helpfully clearing Jane Tanner's name, or it was intended to spook the main participants into spilling the beans. Well obviously that didn't happen.

I do not understand the difficulties Scotland Yard are having. The abduction story is possibly one of the flimsiest any police force has ever encountered, the Tapas statements just don't stand up to scrutiny. However, this case isn't unique. In the USA, the parents of Lisa Irwin and Isabel Celis are just as phoney as the McCanns (and better actors), and their cases too hover unprosecuted while the parents run fundraising campaigns and regular birthday appeals.

I still hold out hope for the truth DeeCoy, and it might well be that the police are still holding out for a watertight case for the prosecution before news on anything breaks, but I am not as optimistic as I once was, and I think these calls for the investigation to be abandoned do not bode well. However, on the plus side, there are definite signs of panic coming from Team McCann and the attack on Brenda Leyland was an ill thought out sign of desperation. In addition, the McCanns are no longer appearing on the breakfast sofas - for the first time in nearly 8 years, they appear to be lying low, apart from the bizarre announcement that they are donating £1m to the Fund. From that we can read that the McCanns still seem to be determined to conduct their own investigation, and the only reason they would need to do that, would be because the Scotland Yard investigation is not going the way they want it to.

candyfloss wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
 

Agree.  Unfortunately, it is things like that, that make me wonder if this case is being whitewashed.  That the parents were playing tennis with Madeleine as the ball girl is pure fantasy - even they don't claim that in their statements!  It does however project the image of loving parents having family time with their kids, that is, it reinforces the same message that comes from the McCanns, an innocent family caught in a nightmare.

Cristobell, for the last few years you have been the chink that gave me hope, small though it is, that the British investigation is genuine. I've always been more convinced of the whitewash scenario, I'm afraid, as I've I've followed the corruption and selfish backside-covering of those in power with dismay for years (not just with this case). (I have no faith in the integrity of the Establishment nor, indeed with many people in smaller positions of 'power' who have sufficient wealth and/or connections to fund their own self-interests. Plus those that were foolish enough to allow themselves to become vulnerable to blackmail and so find themselves an elevated pawn as a result. I'm very cynical.)

But you were my small shred of conviction that justice may be an option here. You have always been a compelling voice on the sheer implausibility that ALL the police involved with Grange can be involved in a cover-up, of the appropriatness of the appointment of Nicola Hall, of the fact that the Blair/Brown government may have been involved but that subsequent governments have no need to continue the charade. What on earth has happened to change your mind?

And what of the Portuguese investigation, in which I have placed my faith that justice may prevail despite the attempts of the British?

I find it rather odd too Cristobell.  You were so vocal against those who were saying whitewash, yet now all of a sudden you agree?  There is nothing that has happened of late that would make you think this surely, in fact with all the nastiness going on, discrediting people  and trying to frighten people away then I would think whitewash is definitely not on the cards. I am puzzled

I have never been vocal against those believe in a whitewash, I have debated with them and put forward my opinion, but I have never, ever, been against someone for having a different opinion to myself! As if! I have also never claimed to KNOW the answer to this case, it has more twists, turns and red herrings than Death on the Orient Express, it is what makes this case endlessly fascinating.

Realistically, there is NO way this case can be whitewashed, but in 2007 when things all became clear, we would never have imagined that 8 years on, the case would still be unsolved. I have to say that I am now beginning to get vexed and indeed a tad frustrated. Just how much more evidence do they need? I suppose SY have at least ended the search for a 'live child' farce, which can't have gone down well with the McCanns, but they still do not appear to making any move whatsoever towards closing in on the main players and the last people to see Madeleine alive. It seems SY are in the same position as the PJ found themselves, that is, they don't have enough to prove their case. That can only be because the McCanns and their friends are still refusing to co-operate with the police. The Crimewatch reconstruction, apart from presenting a happy family image, was made with actors and at a different location, that is it did not include the McCanns or the tapas group - why not?

I am not so sure there will be a whitewash, so much as a fizzling out. That is, SY may be stumped by a tenacious group of liars who have sworn never to break the pact. However, there are far too many people involved for the pact to survive indefinitely, something has got to give.

Thanks for your replies, Cristobell.

I agree, there is very little chance of a complete whitewash, the genie has squeezed his fat belly past the bottle top and has his arms braced against the rim in his efforts for freedom. But there is scope for a fizzle out, and possibly still for a patsy (perhaps dead) to be fitted into the framework of facts that have leaked.

If the Portuguese investigation is to be shelved again, I wonder if this would mean a whole lot of new files being released and a new can of worms to boot. In fact, I wonder if this is what OG are trying to prevent, or rather pre-empt, by ingratiating themselves into their investigation as much as possible - is this OG's raison d'être, the explanation for the continuation of the seemingly fruitless and costly investigation?

Joana's sudden withdrawal, a flop down of exhaustion and discouragement it would seem, does not bode well. Her intimation that there is no will in Portugal for the investigation to bear fruit there is a blow. A massive blow, as I really believed they were the only hope. Perhaps that is what the British have realised (or maybe influenced?), and so is the reason we are now hearing mutterings of OG coming to an end?

Sorry to sound so pessimistic. And of course, there are thousands of voices that will be hard-pushed now to let this lie.

IMO the McCs never wanted a review. They publicly asked for one, when they knew there was one coming. IMO again, they definitely didn't want a full-blow investigation, but they couldn't stop it.
Now their spin is pushing on the uninformed public to stop the investigation for financial motifs. Ten million GBP is a lot of money for most, whereas it is in fact a drop on a hot plate ...
If you've followed this case closely over nearly 8 years, you recognise all the signs.

I keep my faith in SY and PJ, especially since they've gone completely silent since December.
Their smoke-and-mirror game is over, has hopefully produced positive information which we are not party of and will - time as it may take - bring out the truth WITH evidence.

chirpyinsect wrote:
2 glaring inaccuracies right away. Madeleine was not acting as a ball girl whilst her parents played tennis and it was stated that police had issued efits of several men when it was the 2 created by the Smiths that are shown but acknowledged as being of the same man.

Was it ever said officially that they were from the descriptions given by the Smiths?
The release of these,give's a little hope,at the time Redwood dismissed tannerman,which to me was a shot across the bows,then Redwood introduced the e-fits,now the find Madeleine site still has Tannerman but no mention of these other two,at odds with OG perchance?

Caricature. Andy Redwood said on Crimewatch in Oct 2013 that the efits were drawn up by 2 of the witnesses when talking about the Smith family and he mentioned that the 2 were of 1 man. Subsequently TB's FOI request clarified that it was the Smiths who had created them and they were of 1 man although you know who still refutes that and insists we have been lied to by OG.

caricature wrote:

chirpyinsect wrote:
2 glaring inaccuracies right away. Madeleine was not acting as a ball girl whilst her parents played tennis and it was stated that police had issued efits of several men when it was the 2 created by the Smiths that are shown but acknowledged as being of the same man.

Was it ever said officially that they were from the descriptions given by the Smiths?
The release of these,give's a little hope,at the time Redwood dismissed tannerman,which to me was a shot across the bows,then Redwood introduced the e-fits,now the find Madeleine site still has Tannerman but no mention of these other two,at odds with OG perchance?

TB sent a FOI to the Met requesting the answer to this. He received a response confirming the e-fits were indeed drawn from the Smith descriptions. Tony did confirm this on CMOMM, but it was buried within another unrelated thread - Summer and Swan I believe. As an ex-member I can't search for this on CMOMM, but I have found this link today which reproduces TB's original request and gives the official Met response:

https://www.whatdotheyknow.com/request/questions_about_two_e_fits_of_a?unfold=1#incoming-574640

It appears to be a site which coordinates FOI requests and there are other requests on there by TB.

Here is the relevant part of the Met's response:


DECISION

I will answer your questions in turn.

At Question 1 you asked:

On what date or dates did DCI Redwood or others meet with Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan?

The MPS response is:

15/02/2013

At Question 2 you asked:

Who, apart from DCI Redwood and the authors, was present at those meetings?

The MPS response is:

An MPS Detective Inspector was also present at the meeting. The names and details of witnesses are never given out and are covered by the Section 40(2)(3) which is detailed below.

At Question 4 you asked:

Did members of the Irish family create these e-fits, or were the 'two witnesses' mentioned by Matthew Amroliwala who drew up the e-fits actually other witnesses? If so, please state who they were.

The MPS response is:

The program was referring to members of the Irish family who created the e-fits.

At Question 5 you asked:

Are the e-fits of the same man, or not?

The MPS response is:

Yes they are the same man.

Thank you,I'm on my tablet now,computer has died,so if my ramblings Don,t make sense,you know why.

Think this needs hauling back on subject! Tigger way back in November (20th I think) 2014 posted about the Tapas phone records,the lack of activity followed by single rings and messages all occurring at same time. A suspicion that Exeter could link Jane and Murat,Stephen Carpenter introducing,we believe ,a complete stranger to Gerry,who then volunteers with an offer to help,an unusual silence when Gerry later ,is asked if he had met Robert Murat before? Oh there may be a body under the drive. Maybe life looks that nutty way from the outside it certainly does in this affair. Oh and someone mentioned , I forget what post , that Robert Murat may have hired a car on the 12th and let the McCanns use it! Whew!, I haven't heard that before so I tried to find something on it. Here what I found......

Sunday 29th July 2007

Robert Murat gave his ex-wife address when he rented a car on May 12

Publicada por Paulo Reis em 10:27:00  
Email ThisBlogThis!Share to TwitterShare to FacebookShare to Pinterest


http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.uk/2007/07/robert-murat-gave-his-ex-wife-address.html

From only in America blogspot new one from Dr Martin Roberts - re Robert Murat.....

Access all Areas -15th October

Link below..


Teddy ‏@TeddyShepherd  · 25m25 minutes ago  
Robert Murat - dirty #McCann Access All Areas by Dr Martin Roberts http://bit.ly/1GIkWPc

candyfloss wrote:From only in America blogspot new one from Dr Martin Roberts - re Robert Murat.....

Access all Areas -15th October

Link below..


Teddy ‏@TeddyShepherd  · 25m25 minutes ago  
Robert Murat - dirty #McCann Access All Areas by Dr Martin Roberts http://bit.ly/1GIkWPc

Access All Areas by Dr Martin Roberts


In retrospect there are a couple of topics surrounding this case to which I feel I should have given more attention, the crèche records to mention one and Robert Murat another.

My reasons for not doing so, or my excuse if you will, is that the amount of work I was producing at the time was such, that some areas of this case received less than my undivided attention. In truth the crèche records receiving no attention whatsoever.

But of Murat I can offer no excuse, I committed the cardinal sin, I took him at face value. And if there is one thing this case has taught us, nothing but nothing can be evaluated thus.

There was one occasion however when Murat chinked my hinky meter. After having . . .
"the total and utter destruction of mine and my family's life and caused immense distress"
for which he was duly compensated, later went on to utter this:
Mr Murat said: “It must be a ­tremendously difficult time of year for them and of course as a human being you feel for them and for the loss of their daughter. Express
Now I know it could be a matter of personalities, but had I gone though all the trauma that Murat claims to have experienced, I don't think I would be quite so forgiving, or quite so magnanimous. Far from it. Very far from it.  

Given the subsequent revelations writ below, I conclude that every word that has passed Murat's lips is suspect, and by default must also include anything said by his mother, Jenny Murat.

~




ACCESS ALL AREAS
By Dr Martin Roberts
15 October 2015

On the 4 May, 2007, following the international (no less) announcement of Madeleine McCann’s disappearance from apartment 5A, the Ocean Club literally played ‘open-house’. Robert Murat, who was on the scene and talking to GNR officers that very morning, later said, when questioned as ‘arguido’ on 14 July:
“Together with an officer of the GNR and an employee of the resort with several keys, entered several apartments, opened with the keys or by the tenants in order to locate the child. Some of the apartments were closed and there were no keys, these sites were flagged by the GNR man.

“At that time he met John Hill, manager of MARK WARNER, who supplied them with more keys to other apartments.

“Prior to this occasion, he did not know the interior of the "Ocean Club", only entering the resort after the disappearance.

“In the meantime the tracker dogs arrived that undertook a more rigorous form of search.”
Sure enough. There is a statement on record from Marina Castela (Ocean Club general manager), taken on 16 May, which describes Robert Murat’s entering various apartments as he later said, but not quite the way he said it:
“She saw the suspect, Robert Murat, for the first time on that day at about 12.30 when the witness went to meet GNR officers whom she cannot identify, to open the doors for them and speak to guests staying in apartments in block 6….

“When she was beginning this task together with GNR officers, this individual appeared, she does not know from where, he immediately saw what operations were going on, speaking ostensibly to the guests from the first two apartments, explaining to them what they were doing there, showing much will and anxiety in the transmission of this information.

“Given his behaviour, for a few minutes the witness thought that he belonged to one of the security forces, namely the PJ.

“The GNR officer who was with them did not speak any English nor say anything.

“After the second apartment, the witness says that Robert's attitude was not the most correct, as he spoke to the guests in a very dry and affirmative way and she took the initiative to introduce herself to the clients, not letting him speak.

“She thinks that is the reason why he immediately disappeared and did not accompany them to the rest of the apartments.”
Not exactly the tandem task as described by Murat. John Hill also seems not to have put in an appearance on this occasion either (in his own statement to police of 20 June, he makes no mention of his own activities that day or any interaction with Robert Murat for any purpose whatsoever).

Since Ms Castela describes Murat’s intervention here as occurring shortly after 12.30 p.m., we might suppose that he was dressed in a blue t-shirt and jeans – not because she says so, but because others did.

Sisters Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen were reported (The Sun - 27 December, 2007) to have interacted socially with Robert Murat that very same day (4 May), having not long previously been to the police to report having seen two men acting suspiciously on the ground floor balcony of a supposedly empty (block 5) apartment the afternoon before (3 May). The sisters apparently thought it odd when Murat announced:
‘I must go and shower and change, I’ve been in these clothes all day.’
According to their account, he had been in a striped shirt and grey trousers not long beforehand.

This report was picked up from one first appearing in the Portuguese press (Diario de Noticias). The Sun also tells how the sisters ‘have given an "extensive interview" to cops detailing their suspicions about suspect Robert Murat’ (and of which there is no trace among the files released to the public – perhaps because the sisters apparently voiced their concerns to Leicestershire Police on their return to the UK, and the questionable Spanish agency Metodo 3 subsequently, their information welcomed by that ubiquitous ‘source close to the investigation’).

The reliability of Witshire and Jensen’s further sighting of Robert Murat (outside the apartments on the night of 3 May, and deemed significant by that aforementioned ‘source’) is of less immediate relevance than their description of Robert Murat’s keenness to divest himself of a blue t-shirt, which he had presumably done by the time he made his way to block 6 and his interaction with Maria Castela. Although she had misgivings about his demeanour, she made no comment as to his ‘sweaty’ attire.

Someone who did observe Robert Murat’s style of dress, however, was property manager Barend Weijdom (interviewed by police on 16 May, 2007). He recalled seeing Murat on the morning of 4 May dressed in a yellow shirt and light coloured trousers. These may or may not have been grey, but Weijdom makes no reference to stripes in respect of the shirt (as distinctive a feature as its colour one would imagine).

Blue t-shirt, yellow shirt, striped or otherwise, wearing the garment since breakfast hardly equates to ‘all day’ endurance when scarcely noon. If the Wiltshire-Jensen retelling has any substance, then there is something odd about Murat’s apologia to them, just as there would seem to be about his inspection story, as it relates to Block 6 at least, especially since none of the GNR officers interviewed, including dog handlers, recorded having been in the company of one Robert Murat that morning, 4 May. But someone else did.

Barend Weijdom’s role as property manager saw him responsible for apartment 5E, which, like 5J diagonally above it, was unoccupied at the time. Such was his professional concern, that on the morning of the 4th he suggested to the authorities that they check it out, in case it too had been entered inappropriately (the McCanns having first reported a break-in don’t forget). The core of Weijdom’s statement is particularly germane:
“He went to the apartment with a GNR officer and after a few seconds Robert Murat also entered the apartment without anyone having requested his presence.

“The witness says that he found Murat's presence in the apartment to be strange, adding that after he entered the apartment he gave the witness a 'pat on the side' and said 'thanks for your collaboration'. During this situation the witness thought that Murat worked for the police. On that morning the witness saw Murat moving around the site a lot…”
Here, at last, we have Robert Murat entering an Ocean Club apartment in the company of a GNR officer and one other. Except he didn’t. He followed them inside. And far from being an Ocean Club employee brandishing a set of keys, Weijdom was an independent operator, making use of one key in his possession. (It seems as if Murat has deliberately conflated his experience at 5E with that of his later visit to block 6).

Robert Murat’s explanation of his activities in relation to this sorry tale are therefore inaccurate, and not for the first time. Weijdom’s brief account enables us to draw a few pertinent conclusions besides.

Murat’s attention grabbing (‘Look at me, I’m a policeman’) behaviour, enacted in the presence of Maria Castela and her GNR associates at Block 6 on the Friday afternoon, had first been practised in and around block 5 that same morning. Apartment 5E was one of six in block 5 that were not in Mark Warner’s custody, so to speak (E, F, G, J, N, O were not on cleaner Maria da Silva’s rosta). Since we know that 5G was occupied by its owner, Mrs Fenn, and that responsibility for 5E had been delegated to Barend Weijdom (who had a key to the place), it seems only reasonable to suppose that 5J, also known to have been empty for quite a period of time, was itself owned in absentia, and the key left in the charge of a local ‘manager’ (such as Barend Weijdom, for example).

We don’t really know what Robert Murat was wearing that morning; the different accounts conflict. We can however tell that his self-aggrandizing explanation for his presence in and around the Ocean Club on Friday 4 May is an exaggeration at the very least, a lie at worst, as is his claim, again made during his ‘arguido’ interview that:

“never in his life has he entered the apartment where Madeleine was when she disappeared, neither before nor after the events under investigation."
‘Never’ was a rather dangerous word to use under the circumstances, especially when one considers Weijdom’s further evidence:
“On that morning the witness saw Murat moving around the site a lot and saw him enter and leave the apartment Madeleine disappeared from, without knowing whether he was with anyone there. He said that Murat moved a lot between the authorities and journalists.”
Indeed the witness testimony of conscientious Barend Weijdom should be given more than merely due regard:
“He heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40 from P**** B******, a Dutchman and owner of the Atlantico restaurant, who passed by the witness near the Baptista supermarket, in P da L and who asked for his help in searching for Madeleine.

“He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21.45 - 21.50. At this time various local people and MW staff were present.”
When did Kate McCann say she did her ‘check’ again?

Martin Roberts

Now, this last bit is interesting and raises the issue of whether there were two alarms raised and for what reason this might have been necessary. There was some discussion on this a year or so ago on here:

https://maddiemccannmystery.forumotion.co.uk/t162p75-that-smithman-sighting

Was there a subdued leaking around 9.30ish that a child was missing and this spread word-of-mouth and people started searching for a child that had wandered off?

And then, around half an hour later the "official" alarm occurred, perhaps Kate screaming happened because she had suddenly made an horrific discovery? Or perhaps Smithman had arrived at the complex, knowing he'd been seen by a whole family and Tannerman and the "abduction" doctrine were both brought suddenly and necessarily to light?

Just speculative theory, as ever.

I can't recall off the top of my head, but I do remember , there were quite a few people who said the alarm or panic, or whatever you want to call it, started way before the 2200hrs last check.

Be interesting to see a list of who actually stated this...

I'm sure some have been withheld though, again if I can remember, which I can't.

It always seems to roll back to Murat,good old Robert. I think that someone went to the night crèche certainly prior to 10pm and raised the alarm causing some of the nannies to run and "help". So the idea of a double alarm is far from silly.

Emma Wilding, Nanny, May 07 2007 – “That night around  22.00 she took knowledge that Madeleine had disappeared and together with another colleague helped in searching for her”. Emma doesn’t specify exactly wh....

So if she found out at around ten we can assume that it happened prior to ten? Even if they were told early,the events that Kate talks about on her own, happened,running round looking in cupboards different rooms and even wardrobes. Running outside till finally running to Tapas to get everyone else involved, surely 5 to 10 mins at least and then someone running to the night crèche.....

Again, all this last minute stuff... Indicates to me it was all last minute and massive panic it was.

Grabbing a stickerbook and tearing off a page to jot down 2 scenarios.

The cock and bull statements from anyone close and including the Mc's... I mean that list goes on.

Gerry inadvertently met the Smiths.. etc.

It really could be and probably is as simple as all that.

Under the influence and pressure ... etc.

Imo etc.