THE SUSPECT WHO ASKED TOO MANY QUESTIONS/MURAT/DAILY MAIL

How interesting

THE SUSPECT WHO ASKED TOO MANY QUESTIONS


'Aroused suspicions': Robert Murat in his police mug shot
Police suspected Robert Murat because of his 'constant questions' about MadeleineMcCann's disappearance, according to the case files.

On May 11 – three days before the British expat was named as the first formal suspect – an officer said he had noticed his questions and suggestions and added: 'He aroused my suspicions.'
Mr Murat, now 34, was formally cleared as an arguido, official suspect, last month, when Portugal's attorney-general said there was no evidence he had committed any crime.

He had volunteered his services as a translator as police were trying to interview British tourists in Praia da Luz, but officer Pedro Varanda said he had showed an 'unusual curiosity' in the case.
His comments, recorded in the police files, came just five days after a British journalist told Leicestershire Police she had also noticed Mr Murat showing an intense interest in developments.

Mr Varanda said: 'We noticed that he questioned me persistently, over and over, as to the ID of the potential suspects and the strategy of the investigation in the next few days.

'Because he was so insistent and because of his attitude, he aroused my suspicions. I always told him to pay attention to the job he was supposed to be doing – because at that time the investigation was under the secrecy of justice rule.

'He also had an enormous knowledge of the dynamics of the Ocean Club, and the routines the McCann family and their friends had taken up.'

Mr Murat, a property consultant, was taken for questioning on May 13 and named an arguido the next day.

Police searched the villa he shares with his mother, some 200 yards from the McCann's holiday apartment, but found nothing.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1041818/British-police-feared-Madeleine-stolen-order-Belgian-paedophile-ring.html

'He also had an enormous knowledge of the dynamics of the Ocean Club, and the routines the McCann family and their friends had taken up.'

Interesting Christabel!
How did he know the dynamics of the ocean club and McCann + friends routines? I find this odd.

Mandz wrote:'He also had an enormous knowledge of the dynamics of the Ocean Club, and the routines the McCann family and their friends had taken up.'

Interesting Christabel!
How did he know the dynamics of the ocean club and McCann + friends routines? I find this odd.

Morning all.

I wonder if amaral made murat an arguido for his own good. Would it be outside the realms of possibility if a policeman and a witness were involved in allof this? Now murat's got himself a nice little nest egg and looks as though he's been let off scott free. As Bridget O'Donnell said "He put me in mind of a boy at school who had been bullied." Is there a possibility he hasd some involvement in this? Not forgetting that his girlfriend's ex husband was (and might still be) the pool cleaner.

From this article it is clear the reason Murat was made an Arguido! He had actually aroused the suspicions of police officers, note the plural! I always knew it couldnt have just been on the strength of the Tapas3.

Why would Murat have knowledge of the McCanns routines ? very strange! its a shame, imo, the initial search was not carried out thoroughly.

i think its high time someone other then portuguese police investigated mr murat!! several people say they saw him that night!! a reporter said he acted strange and now police officers!!

Allegedly murat lied about his were abouts that night several times!! he has changed the statement he gave the police about his account of his whereabouts. WHY!! also police dogs followed a trail from ocean club to his villa!!

please please get this man checked out!!

IS THE EFIT NUMBER 2 MURAT WITHOUT THE GLASSES??

Eye witnesses are not always reliable, especially if the person they saw is similar to a known suspect. So in other words, if there was a look alike there, the witnesses would now identify that person as Murat because he is familiar to them and this is because he was made an arguido. Think about that for a while and then consider if the only reason he was made an arguido is because he was asking too many questions. I wonder also, if he may have been encouraged to ask questions because the first ones he asked (which could have been out of concern) were answered willingly. He may have asked the questions because he was genuinely concerned. And he may have known the McCanns movements due to other interviews that he acted as the interpreter in. The fact that no physical evidence has turned up to indicate he was involved means that he either wasnt involved, or he perhaps he was a spotter, or perhaps he was out that night (doing something he shouldnt) and he saw something he shouldnt have.

I seriously doubt that in Britain or Australia, he would even have been named as a person of interest. Not saying he wouldnt have been investigated, because of course he would have but it would have been done quietly, so as not to influence potential witnesses. Do you see where I am coming from?

And as for the dogs, it is not known if they were even following the right trails, and even if they were, there is no way to know the timing, it could be a trail from a few days before. We dont know if all the McCanns went for a walk on any day of their holidays and went past Murat's villa. This proves nothing. It doesnt even indicate that Madeleine went on that path, just that it is possible she did.

I am well aware that you all have concerns about Mr Murat, but I am pointing out that these things do not prove anything. They are as insubstantial as the evidence against the McCanns. And that making Murat and arguido may have actually hampered the investigation, as it may have prompted the additional witnesses that came out later to point the finger at the wrong man.

dianeh wrote:

Eye witnesses are not always reliable, especially if the person they saw is similar to a known suspect. So in other words, if there was a look alike there, the witnesses would now identify that person as Murat because he is familiar to them and this is because he was made an arguido. Think about that for a while and then consider if the only reason he was made an arguido is because he was asking too many questions. I wonder also, if he may have been encouraged to ask questions because the first ones he asked (which could have been out of concern) were answered willingly. He may have asked the questions because he was genuinely concerned. And he may have known the McCanns movements due to other interviews that he acted as the interpreter in. The fact that no physical evidence has turned up to indicate he was involved means that he either wasnt involved, or he perhaps he was a spotter, or perhaps he was out that night (doing something he shouldnt) and he saw something he shouldnt have.

I seriously doubt that in Britain or Australia, he would even have been named as a person of interest. Not saying he wouldnt have been investigated, because of course he would have but it would have been done quietly, so as not to influence potential witnesses. Do you see where I am coming from?

And as for the dogs, it is not known if they were even following the right trails, and even if they were, there is no way to know the timing, it could be a trail from a few days before. We dont know if all the McCanns went for a walk on any day of their holidays and went past Murat's villa. This proves nothing. It doesnt even indicate that Madeleine went on that path, just that it is possible she did.

I am well aware that you all have concerns about Mr Murat, but I am pointing out that these things do not prove anything. They are as insubstantial as the evidence against the McCanns. And that making Murat and arguido may have actually hampered the investigation, as it may have prompted the additional witnesses that came out later to point the finger at the wrong man.

Hi both,

I have always believed that there is more than meets the eye with this matter.I don't Go on about him as much as I used to .But i tend to remember the early days when there were many changes in alibis and also reports that he asked people to give him an alibi.In my opinion this guy wouldn't need to ask for an alibi if his alibi he already has holds up?? I also remember that he was suspected the same way Ian huntly was when he hung around the crime scene all the time. In a recent report a guy said he got really suspicious as he continually asked him the same questions over and over again....asking for details on descriptions of the abductor etc.I also read a report the other day that said character profile experts said there was a 90%chance that he could have been involved in madeleine's abduction.Of course these are just reports in recent news and cant be taken as 100% accurate. But like minxy i feel that there is more here to be followed up before things are put into files and locked away.
Lets just say there are questions I would liked answered accurately before i could put this to the back of my thought