MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

by Rosie Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:06 am

There have been various scare stories circulating the internet about Robert Murat intending to sue four of the witnesses, that have allegedly given detrimental statements to Portuguese police about him.
We have seen the Express which pretty much tells only what we have already known for the past few days. Yesterday on Sky News we had Martin Brunt telling us that "three" witnesses had been reported to the PJ and that the PJ were investigating whether they should be prosecuted.

In short again Brunt is telling us nothing that we do not already know. The only thing that is clear about this "story" is that it is a story cobbled together by innuendo and yet more innuendo and that it started on the liar's blog of Joana Morais. Whether it has any credence has yet to be discovered, but anything attached to Joana Morais has to carry the warning of 'Reader Beware' as it could all turn out to be yet another load of codswallop from this bitter and twisted "cerebrally" challenged jingoistic person. Thinking about this, it would seem to me that Morais has probably taken a very small fragment of this and mis-translated it as she always does to make it seem something that it is not. Remember that the truth and Joana Morais are actually diametrically opposed, if you keep this in mind, one will not worry too much about anything that she says (or invents), because most of it turns out to be factually incorrect, lies or just plain conjecture on her behalf. Remember she was recently forced to apologise to Dra Isabel Duarte for inferring that the lawyer is a terrorist! Joana Morais thought she could lie about Isabel and get away with it, she soon discovered she could not.

Back to the Murat "thing", this may surprise people, but I am actually hoping that IF this story is true (and we have no confirmation of this as yet, no real confirmation anyhow) if it is true and the judge does send it to court, I think this would be the best possible outcome and then in a court of law this whole ridiculous scenario can be thrashed out and sorted out, the "four" witnesses have absolutely nothing to fear from this and everything to gain. The people that have things to fear from this legal process are indeed Amaral and even Murat, after all it is his face and his life that are once again going to be splashed all over the front pages!

The place to refute the anti Madeleine's and their vitriol, lies and venom, is in a court of law and I for one would welcome that!

I am not in the least bit concerned if this goes to court and I really don't think the "tapas four" should be either.

I have asked myself IF this is true is it a put up job? If it is then the very very last thing that Amaral will want is this going to court, personally I think Murat is taking a huge gamble! I hope they lose and I hope this does go to court and then finally once and for all these ridiculous arguments and misconceptions can be thrashed out and laid to rest properly in a court of law and NOT on blogs and internet forums.

I have asked myself IF it is true and Murat is so upset about being made an arguido, then shouldn't he be prosecuting the person who actually made him an arguido NOT the witnesses who were actually asked if they saw anything?

Bearing in mind that once again the person involved in this controversy, is no other than Goncalo Amaral. He was heading this investigation when Murat was made an arguido, he must have authorised it, the buck stops with him, ultimately as head of the investigation he took the decision to make Murat an arguido, how can he possibly blame anyone else? If he did not bother to investigate the witnesses claims properly and just decided to make Murat an arguido on what they said in their statements then this is his problem, not theirs!

IF Murat has a case at all, it would be against Amaral and not the friends.

For this to go anywhere Murat would have to prove that the friends deliberately lied and how is he going to do that? I do not think they deliberately lied, if they say they saw him there, why should that be a lie? Either way this is not something that can be proved but if it did come down to proof then the witnesses have their sighting actually backed up by other professional people, a barrister included. What has Murat got to back his story up? He has several changes of statements declaring where he was that night? Who forced him to change his statement like that, the friends? Of course not. If this goes to court how is this going to help him? Because this would be presented by the witnesses legal teams and it would be picked over mercilessly and it does not look good for Murat at all.

We also have the conundrum of Jane Tanner saying that she did NOT think the man she saw looked like Robert Murat, so who asked her that question? I seem to remember this was Amaral himself in a parked van, where Jane was taken to look at Murat as he walked along and she did NOT identify Murat as the man she saw. The files back this up.

The whole thing about the witness statements has been taken and changed by anti Madeleine's with axes to grind (preferably into the skulls of anyone who remotely sound like they are talking the truth)!

This is why I really hope this goes to court, but I have doubts that this will happen, a judge is going to look at this and rule it ridiculous and kick it out, however if this happens like this we will have the Amaral camp immediately claiming that the McCanns are being protected by "dark forces". However, if this does go to court then it is all going to come out about how Murat changed his story several times and that the four witnesses were not the only people that swore they saw Murat outside the apartment that night, we have all read in the files how he was regarded by other people taking part in the searches, these people range from tourists and locals and people who worked for Mark Warner. The four friends have a very powerful back up, what has Murat got? A disgraced ex bent corrupt copper saying he will stand witness for him? This in itself is totally ridiculous as it was his poor judgement if you like that had Murat made an arguido in the first place, so is Amaral then going to turn around and once again blame the McCanns and their friends for his own appalling judgement and abysmal detecting skills? Is he going to say that he made Murat an arguido simply because of what the friends said in their witness statements? It will not look good on Amaral and it will certainly not look good on Murat, it will reopen the whole thing and put Murat's face on all the front pages of the press, once again and this is why I think in my opinion that Murat could possibly have been threatened and coerced into bringing this action, to me this absolutely stinks of Goncalo Amaral and his thuggish friends!

If this does go to court and Amaral is a witness, how bizarre is that going to be? Amaral has written in his now banned book of lies about Murat and it is not very complimentary! How is Amaral and Murat and their legal teams going to get past this in a court of law? For sure the legal teams of the "four" witnesses will seize on this and they will use it to tear into both Murat and Amaral and all the while this is happening, both Amaral and Murat's credibility will be sinking like lead balloons, already the Portuguese people are beginning to wake up to the fat that they have been had over by Goncalo Amaral and led a merry dance up the convicted liars garden path! With the judgement yesterday and the book ban upheld people are beginning to realise they have been lied to and that in *FACT* Amaral does NOT have a shred of evidence to back his claims up and because of him, the investigation onto this innocent little child has been fatally jeopardised.

So far from being despondent about this, I am actually praying that this gets to court because if it does then the lid is going to come off and the REAL culprits and their lies and their motives for telling so many lies and for doing all they can to STOP the search for Madeleine is going to be revealed.

It takes us right back to square one, why did Amaral a police inspector with many years investigative experience under his belt, 1) NOT attend the crime scene? 2) Proceeded to make every single mistake under the sun, thus thwarting this investigation and stopping it in its tracks?

For the first time the question will be asked of Amaral "Why did you let this happen"?

This whole thing has folly for both Murat and Amaral stamped all over it, so I personally hope that it DOES go to court!

by Pedro Silva Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:34 am

Hey Murat, there is only one you should sue: GA.

by christabel Sat Feb 20, 2010 12:57 am

Pedro Silva wrote:Hey Murat, there is only one you should sue: GA.

Pedro,

Perhaps he will also sue the Ex work colleagues that said all those filthy things about him, and also his cousin he is "alledged to have tried to rape". His list could be endless, not forgetting Lori Cambell.

by Rosie Sat Feb 20, 2010 2:24 am

Perhaps he will also sue all those other witnesses that gave statements saying they saw him outside apartment 5a on the night that Madeleine was abducted? Oh and Murat should not forget his friend Tuck Price, after all he said that Murat was in the bar all night, when according to Murat he wasn't, so what was all that about? Will Murat sue Tuck Price?

If Murat thinks this is bad, it has only just begun, it will get rockier and rockier.

Oh dear Moron Morais what have you started? Don't you know this is the very last thing that your hero wanted?

Any news on a decision yet Joana?

by Cath Sat Feb 20, 2010 3:54 am

Strange, can't find Tuck Price's statement on the DVD.
Anybody who's got a link???

by christabel Sat Feb 20, 2010 7:28 am

Cath wrote:Strange, can't find Tuck Price's statement on the DVD.
Anybody who's got a link???

I don't think you will either Cath, funny that isn't it?

by Peaceful1 Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:11 am

I think a whole can of worms could be opened up here if Murat goes ahead.
It does stink of amaral yes.

by christabel Sat Feb 20, 2010 8:24 am

Peaceful1 wrote:I think a whole can of worms could be opened up here if Murat goes ahead.
It does stink of amaral yes.

Here's 2 more for him to sue

Annie Wiltshire, 58, of Aylesford, Kent, and Jayne Jensen, 54, of Maidstone, Kent, were on holiday in Praia da Luz at the same time as the McCanns, it was reported.
They believe they saw Mr Murat smoking cigarettes near the Ocean Club at about 10.30pm on May 3 - about half an hour after Madeleine was found to be missing.

by Rosie Sat Feb 20, 2010 9:48 am

Clarence was asked about Jane Tanner and Murat on the video you put up on the other thread Chris, he said he will not comment on it, but would say that Jane Tanner has NEVER ONCE named Murat and the Portuguese files will confirm this!

Robert Murat does not stand to gain one little bit from doing whatever the hell he is doing, or trying to do, in fact if he persists it is going to put him right back in the frame and on every front page again and in the end it will be for nothing, he cannot sue Jane Tanner for something she did not say.

Murat knows he only stands to lose from this action, so why on earth is he bringing it? He is in a lose - lose situation, yet bizarrely he is said to be bringing this action against JT and ignoring all those that have defamed him, like Amaral has done in his book! There is something really odd about this, I think Murat may have been lent on by Amaral, it is the only thing that makes sense and look at the timing!

I wonder what the hold is?

Does Amaral think we do not actually know what is happening here? Amaral is panicking, desperate actions from a desperate man!

by Peaceful1 Mon Feb 22, 2010 11:23 am

These two women who said they saw Murat the night Madeleine went missing, said that it was Murat who translated for them to the PJ and they didn't know who he was.
Ok, Murat was translator, so why when he was made arguido, did the PJ not re-interview these two women?
If I was one of these two women, and had given a statement via Murat, later learned he was made arguido....I'd be wanting to give the PJ another statement, this time with my own translator.
Why didn't the PJ re-interview these two women, surely it must have gone through their minds...hello..Murat translated what these 2 were saying, what if, he didnt translate exactly what they were saying?
Sorry I'm rambling coz I am rushing and brain is in overdrive!

by Cath Mon Feb 22, 2010 7:12 pm

The ladies returned to the UK. They were interviewed by the British police.

"But it was not until six weeks ago that a formal statement was finally
taken.
The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence and later met private detectives from Metodo 3, the agency employed by the McCanns to find their daughter.
[snip]
The next day, said Mrs Jensen, Mr Murat introduced himself to her and her sister."

Their statement's aren't on the DVD, just like Tuck Price's statement is missing.....
Strange, isn't it?

by Pedro Silva Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:30 pm

I agree with you Cath: strange indeed.

by Pedro Silva Mon Feb 22, 2010 8:30 pm

I agree with you Rosiepops.

by Sponsored content

MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?

Re: MURAT - IS HE OR ISN'T HE?