PDA

View Full Version : Robert Murat New Details



martin walkerdine
01-04-2008, 08:18 AM
By John Kelly Updated:06:57, Friday January 04, 2008
<H2>An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat.

</H2>http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1535927.jpg Robert Murat

Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year.
The Smith family's suspicions were aroused because the man made no response when they asked if the barefoot child was asleep.
"He just put his head down and averted his eyes, which is very unusual in a tourist town at such a quiet time of the year," said Mr Smith.
Initially the Smith family thought nothing more of the encounter - and even the next day when the story broke they still didn't make the connection.
"We were home two weeks when my son rang me up and asked was he dreaming or did we meet a man carrying a child the night Madeleine was taken," said Mr Smith.
"We all remembered the same recollection, and I felt we should report it to the police.

"We've all been beating ourselves up that we should have made the link sooner, if only we'd remembered the next day.
"But the Portuguese police said you see these things on holiday all the time."
The Smiths did contact the Portuguese police once they had returned to Ireland, but say they have had no contact with the officers investigating the case since May last year.
"I rang the Portuguese police and they took a statement from me on the phone," said Mr Smith.
"They asked me to make a statement to the Gardai, which I did, and two days later Leicestershire police got on to us.
"My eldest son, Peter, my youngest daughter, Aoife, and I then flew to Luz to make a statement. They didn't seem to be the most efficient police you ever came across - and that was the last time we had any contact with the investigation.
http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1531600.jpg Madeleine McCann is still missing

"I don't know if this information will help the McCanns, but anything we can do to help try to solve it, we will.
"We were looking at all the commotion on Sky News and we really felt quite helpless. We had two grandchildren with us at the time and it had a terrible effect on them - they all wanted to sleep in the same room as us."
But Mr Smith is certain that the man he and his family saw that night was not Robert Murat, who is still officially an "arguido" in the Madeleine McCann investigation.
"I told police it was definitely not him because the man wasn't as big as Murat - I think I would have recognised him because I'd met him several times previously.
"He was wearing beige trousers and a darker top. We all put him in his early 40s and I didn't think he was Portuguese."
Mr Smith's sighting is similar to the one reported by Jane Tanner, a friend of the McCann family.
A spokesman for the McCanns said detectives from the Spanish agency hired to investigate the case are now hoping to speak to the Smiths.
Retired Mr Smith, 58, does not wish to appear on camera in order to protect his family from media intrusion.

poco
01-04-2008, 08:31 AM
They didn't make the connection the next day when the story broke????

colomom
01-04-2008, 09:50 AM
By John Kelly Updated:06:57, Friday January 04, 2008
<H2>An Irish tourist who saw someone carrying a child in a blanket on the night Madeleine McCann disappeared insists that the mystery man was not Robert Murat.

</H2>http://static.sky.com/images/pictures/1535927.jpg Robert Murat

Martin Smith, from Drogheda in Co Louth, was on holiday in Praia Da Luz with his family when they bumped into the man just before 10pm on May 3 last year.
~snip~

Hey Martin,

We have a great thread titled Media Links that would be a better place for pasting news stories that you find. Even the General Discussion thread would be a better place rather than opening up new threads for a single news story. Unless, of course, it is a HUGE breaking news type story.

Thanks for helping us keep the number of threads to a minimum in order to avoid confusion.
:)

Salem
01-04-2008, 12:02 PM
This is old news. This story first broke in May sometime, I don't remember exactly when. I remember the Irishman being quoted as saying he knew Murat and that the man carrying the child was definitely NOT Murat.

I think they are recirculating the news to offset the other reported sitings of Murat near the apartment that night. However, I agree with a couple of the other posters here, and ask -- would the criminal return to the scene of the crime within a matter of minutes? Would 30 minutes have been long enough for him to have walked down to the beach and back, doing what ever he did with Maddie in the same span of time?

Salem

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
01-04-2008, 12:20 PM
Forgive me for asking probably a rhetorical question, but does anyone know exactly when Tanner gave her final description of Bundleman complete with clothing description? I know first he was egg man, then bundleman, then man carrying a child. Did she change her description to reflect Smith's? (Since his info was made public in May). If so, I bet she is kicking herself for shareing in the time line so quickly...that would be a little harder to take back...and still gel with the rest of the groups statements.

Pinkhammer
01-04-2008, 05:15 PM
You forgot Jane's description for the sketch of "Slicked-back-hair --Dancing-with-the-Stars" man.

txsvicki
01-06-2008, 02:00 AM
I don't understand why the Smith's had to ask themselves if they were dreaming when remembering seeing a man carrying a child and especially not immediately remembering and connecting when hearing of Madeline's disappearance. Why didn't any of these people remember, become alarmed, and tell the McCann's as soon as they heard! They must all be sort of slow or didn't want to get involved or something.

Texana
01-13-2008, 07:53 PM
I don't understand why the Smith's had to ask themselves if they were dreaming when remembering seeing a man carrying a child and especially not immediately remembering and connecting when hearing of Madeline's disappearance. Why didn't any of these people remember, become alarmed, and tell the McCann's as soon as they heard! They must all be sort of slow or didn't want to get involved or something.

It is odd, isn't it?

Floh
01-13-2008, 08:00 PM
why is there an advertisement in the first post?

iNTERESTEDWOMAN
01-13-2008, 11:17 PM
I don't understand why the Smith's had to ask themselves if they were dreaming when remembering seeing a man carrying a child and especially not immediately remembering and connecting when hearing of Madeline's disappearance. Why didn't any of these people remember, become alarmed, and tell the McCann's as soon as they heard! They must all be sort of slow or didn't want to get involved or something.


I think it is because no one knew. The McCanns only alerted the British press...while in the same breath condemning the PLE. ( less than 2 hours after the "abduction").

ThoughtFox
01-14-2008, 03:37 AM
Forgive me for asking probably a rhetorical question, but does anyone know exactly when Tanner gave her final description of Bundleman complete with clothing description? I know first he was egg man, then bundleman, then man carrying a child. Did she change her description to reflect Smith's? (Since his info was made public in May). If so, I bet she is kicking herself for shareing in the time line so quickly...that would be a little harder to take back...and still gel with the rest of the groups statements.
The new pic was released last October:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/crime/article/0,,2199701,00.html

And I agree with colomom that it would be nice if martin would please post on the regular threads and only start a new one if it is something really new. Thanks. That's just a way to keep news and discussion on a few threads instead of having a discussion that is choppy and hard to follow on five threads.

Salem
01-26-2008, 04:39 PM
Why has there been no report of what the Irish family thinks of the photofits????????:confused: :confused:

They "almost bumped" into a man carrying a child and they thought it was somewhat odd the man did not respond when they asked if the child was sleeping! They saw the man, they talked to him. At a minimum they should be able to give some input as to what that man looked like:eek:

How come no one has "reportedly" checked with them to confirm the sketches?

Hmmmmmmmm - curiouser :waitasec: and curiouser.......:waitasec:

Salem

Texana
01-26-2008, 07:20 PM
Why has there been no report of what the Irish family thinks of the photofits????????:confused: :confused:

They "almost bumped" into a man carrying a child and they thought it was somewhat odd the man did not respond when they asked if the child was sleeping! They saw the man, they talked to him. At a minimum they should be able to give some input as to what that man looked like:eek:

How come no one has "reportedly" checked with them to confirm the sketches?

Hmmmmmmmm - curiouser :waitasec: and curiouser.......:waitasec:

Salem


Maybe that was done when the family flew to Luz and gave the description in person to the Portuguese police. The article was a bit sketchy on the details of the actual conversations with the police.

Isabella
05-10-2009, 12:26 PM
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/100070/Murat-is-married-on-beach

Congratulations to them both and im so pleased they have been able to move on from the horrors of the past couple of years.

Horrors that they should never have had to endure :( Shame on the friends of the McCanns who falsely who falsely accused him :(

Barnaby
05-11-2009, 08:15 PM
Very glad that Murat can find happiness now after the nightmare that the McCanns & friends put him through!

brit1981
06-14-2012, 05:09 AM
It was actually a journalist who reported him to the police as suspicious. I have a feeling the journalist then wrote an article about it and her experience. It appeared the suspicions were groundless. The McCanns only knew him as a man who was helping interpret, and said they had never seen him until he was introduced to them. Some of their friends said they thought they might have seen him near the flat after the abduction (when lots of others were milling around), but were not certain. Jane Tanner did not recognize him as the man she saw carrying the child, neither did the Smiths. The McCanns have publicly stated that after they read the PJ files, they could not see any reason why he was made an aguido. Murat later won compensation from several British newspapers.

saggymoon
06-20-2012, 02:18 AM
It was actually a journalist who reported him to the police as suspicious. I have a feeling the journalist then wrote an article about it and her experience. It appeared the suspicions were groundless. The McCanns only knew him as a man who was helping interpret, and said they had never seen him until he was introduced to them. Some of their friends said they thought they might have seen him near the flat after the abduction (when lots of others were milling around), but were not certain. Jane Tanner did not recognize him as the man she saw carrying the child, neither did the Smiths. The McCanns have publicly stated that after they read the PJ files, they could not see any reason why he was made an aguido. Murat later won compensation from several British newspapers.

Here we go again, who said they were not certain? three of them made statements to the PJ it was Murat they saw on the night. Nothing there to say they were not sure.

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post532.html#p532

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post7039.html#p7039
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post7160.html#p7160

Sad for them that everyone who knew robert murat who were there on the night ie locals who knew him and police say he was not there! And yes Jane Tanner pointed the finger at him when police took her inside a van and asked her to identify him, she said it was him she saw that night based on the way he walked. Hilarious how months later tanner said the man she saw bore an 89% resemblance to an efit of Mrs Cooper the creepy scary man
the one with long hair and big teeth and a humungous moustache which tanner never noticed but she managed to notice that there was a tiny frill on the childs pyjamas at a big distance and under poor light and that the man didnt have any creases in his trousers and that he had one inch heels on LOL

As for Lori Cambell I do believe her husband was arrested in the phone hacking scandal in the UK, wouldnt really put any weight to anything she said at the time, journalist wannabbees waste of space

brit1981
06-20-2012, 05:35 AM
No jane tanner did not say that she recognized him as the man she saw that night. Again I do not consider random websites like "maddiecasefiles" to be in the least bit reliable. The police introduced her to Murat and then took her in a van and when some men walked past, including Murat she was asked to see if she recognized one of them as the man she had seen that night. She said she could not even recognize him as the man she had met five minutes ago. But the story does point out how unprofessional the police were. In identity parades the suspect should have a right to ahve a lawyer and independent person witness it, the way the police carried it out was disgraceful.
It was lori campbell who reported murat to the police, not the mccanns, and to be honest it looed like she had no reason to report murat whatsoever.
A lot of these websites are basing their info on other random websites and news stories that the papers admitted were untrue.

saggymoon
06-20-2012, 08:37 AM
No jane tanner did not say that she recognized him as the man she saw that night. Again I do not consider random websites like "maddiecasefiles" to be in the least bit reliable. The police introduced her to Murat and then took her in a van and when some men walked past, including Murat she was asked to see if she recognized one of them as the man she had seen that night. She said she could not even recognize him as the man she had met five minutes ago. But the story does point out how unprofessional the police were. In identity parades the suspect should have a right to ahve a lawyer and independent person witness it, the way the police carried it out was disgraceful.
It was lori campbell who reported murat to the police, not the mccanns, and to be honest it looed like she had no reason to report murat whatsoever.
A lot of these websites are basing their info on other random websites and news stories that the papers admitted were untrue.
it doesn't matter if you consider maddiecasefiles as reliable or not what matters is if it is.. The links I gave were to the tapas three statements who said Murat was there that night which was the original point of the discussion where you said they weren't really sure whether he was or not. Their statements prove what you said was incorrect.
The statements are taken from the official police files so I am unsure what you mean by they get info from random websites. Could you give us a link to a reliable non random website then for info as every one mentioned here gets ridiculed by you. Thanks. Btw where did you get your info on Jane tanner in the van surveillance?

brit1981
06-20-2012, 05:14 PM
try the bbc. websites set up by anonymous people can not be considered reliable. For instance if I was taken to court by the mccanns for libel I could use the fact that something was written on the bbc as a defence, but I could not use the fact it was a site like the mccannfiles or any of the blogspots etc that have been put up anonymously on the internet.
Can I just point out that this is the position I take with any internet research. Sites must be reliable, use reliable sources that can be backed up as anyone can put anything on the internet. I remember reading that teachers were having problems with this as students were going onto the internet and just googling and assuming any website they found with information counted as a source. there was a particular problem with students finding holocaust denial sites and treating them as just as reliable as proper sites.

saggymoon
06-20-2012, 07:56 PM
try the bbc. websites set up by anonymous people can not be considered reliable. For instance if I was taken to court by the mccanns for libel I could use the fact that something was written on the bbc as a defence, but I could not use the fact it was a site like the mccannfiles or any of the blogspots etc that have been put up anonymously on the internet.
Can I just point out that this is the position I take with any internet research. Sites must be reliable, use reliable sources that can be backed up as anyone can put anything on the internet. I remember reading that teachers were having problems with this as students were going onto the internet and just googling and assuming any website they found with information counted as a source. there was a particular problem with students finding holocaust denial sites and treating them as just as reliable as proper sites.

you avoided the points and questions in my previous post, why is that? and for the record none of the three websites in the discussion are from anonymous people. even if they were anonymous what is crucial is that the info contained therein is correct, which it is, unless you know different and can post it

as for the bcc, they are not bastions of truth, witness for example one of their reporters saying that mr amaral said f**** the mccans which he certainly did not and after complaints they retracted this and ruled the reporter was wrong and were willing to offer a public apology