Hat Trick
By Dr Martin Roberts
24/01/2016
“Neither the parents or any other member of the group are either persons of interest or suspects” (DCI Andy Redwood (retd.)).
From which it follows, that should anyone develop evidence to suggest the McCanns circulated photographs of Madeleine’s pyjamas taken before she disappeared, said evidence would be ignored by Operation Grange on the grounds that the McCanns were neither persons of interest nor suspects.
It follows also, that should someone bring to the attention of investigators conflicting statements by Dr David Payne, which record the complete impossibility of his last seeing Madeleine McCann on two separate occasions,* said contradiction too would be ignored, on the grounds that other members of the group were neither persons of interest nor suspects.
Despite these observations seeming to indicate misdemeanours at the Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, prior to Madeleine McCann’s supposed abduction (supposed by Operation Grange that is) and hence prior to ‘point zero’ (as defined by DCI Redwood), they would not qualify for further scrutiny within the remit of the investigation, for the reasons above mentioned.
Robert Murat, however, is not to be numbered among other members of the McCann group and has already been recognised as a person of interest to the investigation.
So when, in an earlier statement to Police, he alludes to Madeleine McCann having been taken from an apartment other than 5A,** there can be no excuse for overlooking the significance of his remarks, because, for Madeleine to have been removed from somewhere else, despite her parents declaring her absent from their own apartment, she must have been relocated beforehand.
Martin Roberts
~
*At 6.30 p.m. in the company of Kate McCann, according to David Payne’s own rogatory statement http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DAVID-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm
*At 5.00 p.m. in the company of both parents, according to a document read and referred to by DC 1756 Marshall in October 2007 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATERINA-PAYNE-INCIDENT.htm
** Robert Murat (arguido statement): “never in his life has he entered the apartment where Madeleine was when she disappeared, neither before nor after the events under investigation." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
**Barend Wijdom (witness statement): “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." http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
Supposing both Murat and Weijdom to be telling the truth, then Murat can only be referring to an apartment other than 5A.
Previous: Access All Areas
Previous: Bring Out Your Dead
42 comments:
Many thanks, Martin.
Would one be right in thinking that “…these observations seeming to indicate misdemeanours at the Ocean Club…” could, alternatively, indicate felony?
“Supposing both Murat and Weijdom to be telling the truth, then Murat can only be referring to an apartment other than 5A.” Irrefutably so!
Also at http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/BAREND_WEIJDOM.htm
“He heard about the news being investigated on the evening of 3rd May at about 21.30 - 21.40…” Before 22.00!
“He then went to the place where the events occurred which was at about 21.45 - 21.50…” Before 22.00!
“When questioned he said that the police wasn’t there yet but arrived about 5 minutes later.” Before 22.00 therefore!
“On that morning the witness saw Murat moving around the site a lot and saw him enter and leave the apartment Madeleine disappeared from…” It seems most unlikely that Weijdom cold have been unaware at the time of the statement that MBM had allegedly disappeared from apartment 5A.
Kind regards.
rtgr
rtgr @09:57
"Would one be right in thinking that “…these observations seeming to indicate misdemeanours at the Ocean Club…” could, alternatively, indicate felony?"
One may indeed be right in thinking that. I have simply chosen to tread carefully.
The other significant observations of Weijdom's are considered in an earlier essay here (Access All Areas). They give the lie to the McCann story in general, whereas here the concern is with Murat in particular.
Kind regards
Martin R.
Martin Roberts 25 January 2016 at 10:35
Most grateful for you comments and reference.
“I have simply chosen to tread carefully.”
Wise. No questions here.
“The other significant observations of Weijdom's are considered in an earlier essay here (Access All Areas). They give the lie to the McCann story in general, whereas here the concern is with Murat in particular.”
Noted and appreciated.
I always bear in mind the depth of you research of this case as well as the importance of your findings and conclusions.
On this occasion, the remarks I‘ve made were meant to simply point to what I’ve found in the Weijdom's statement on reading it today. I was in no doubt that you must have dealt with those discrepancies somewhere. My memory had not offered me a ready reference to your recent Access All Areas, and therefore I offer you my
memory’s and my apologies for any inconvenience caused.
Kind regards and good wishes.
rtgr
She arrived in Praia da Luz on 4 May 2007, about 09h30/10h00.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_PIRES.htm
"In her walk close to the uncultivated ground to the north and a few metres from the resort, she encountered a man, about 50 years old who greeted her in English, asking her if she was involved in the searches for the missing child.
She had said no, then had affirmed that she had also come to look, partly to appease her conscience.
In this context the man proposed that he and she went to an address, apparently uninhabited, but not abandoned, with the intention of looking for the child and because he did not want to be the only person doing an 'invasion of property'.
After they entered the parking area of the residence, where they called out to confirm if anyone else was there, they were approached, outside, by a woman, seemingly advanced in age, about 70 years old...
...The conversation with both the above people was all in English, the old lady having said that she lived about 100 metres from the resort and that the previous night she heard the Police arrive, due to the sirens, according to her at 22h00."
Anonymous @12:44
Is that you, M?
Intriguing!
Sounds like the old lady could have been Jenny Murat, but the man would not have been RM had she been speaking directly to him. (He would not need to be told by his own mother, where she lived). It would work though if she had been addressing the witness in English.
The fascinating questions this raises are: why should the man have proposed visiting that address in particular (which obviously was not Casa Liliana), and why should JM have turned up there when she did?
Kind regards
Martin R.
Anonymous @12:44
Just read the statement for myself. It's a gem. Thank you. It's clear the old lady was indeed JM, but it's not certain the third party was her son.
It needs some careful thought.
Kind regards
Martin R.
rtgr@12:33
No inconvenience whatsoever.
Kind regards
Martin R.
And thank you, Himself, for another smashing pictorial composition. Perhaps kind Gerry would do better if he looked for ‘a cure’ rather than scratching himself all over while ‘doctoring’ his tales.
Kind regards and good wishes to you and your family.
rtgr
Snipped from CMoMM I am sure they won't mind
@NickE wrote:
Quoting Kiko:
"I always said Robert Murat's texting at 2200 on 1/5 was directly connected with K McCann's which started 2 mins after Murat's had finished.
Here's another funny thing: Murat pairs of SMS 2200 1/5 separated by: 1 min, 3 mins, 6 mins. KM's at 2216 by 1 min, 3 mins, 7 mins. Connect!" .
I've also read it but dared not post it.
Thanks, Anonymous.
rtgr
Anonymous @14:37
How strange! I've only just read that there myself. Put it together with the info. at 12:44 above and the coincidences implicating the Murats just keep on adding up.
What was the old dear doing in the immediate vicinity of an unoccupied dwelling where another man (not her son) just happened to be looking for Madeleine? Or was he looking for somewhere to put her?
Regards
Martin R.
Martin Roberts 25 January 2016 at 14:57
“I've also read it but dared not post it.”
rtgr 25 January 2016 at 14:52
I've also read it but dared not post it out of respect for our host, I should have said.
What was the old dear doing in the immediate vicinity of an unoccupied dwelling where another man (not her son) just happened to be looking for Madeleine? Or was he looking for somewhere to put her?
What indeed? How interesting…
Talking about ploughing (re my last post for you on a neighbouring thread) (and digging), I think I ‘dig’ your pointer in one of your earlier posts their.
Like master, like dog. Like farther, like son.
Kind regards.
rtgr
Martin R. @13:04
Quite intriguing indeed.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_PIRES.htm
"She [Maria Pires] advances that she had pondered many times on this situation, but she had always thought it to be unimportant, only today when she saw written with enough certainty that the lady [Jenny Murat] referred to having found out about the disappearance on day 4 (May) through a phone call, clearly contradicting what she had said to the deponent on the morning of that same day 4 (May), did she decide to communicate that event."
Kind regards,
Maren
Maren 25 January 2016 at 16:29
Hi, Maren, and thank you.
Good wishes.
rtgr
rtgr
I am not against CMoMM per se, but I do take exception to anything penned, or should I say "researched" by a liar, a thief, a closet pervert, a homophobic racist cunt and not least, a Creationist.
No excuse for 'hate mail' to David Attenborough, even if he is very wrong
Evolution didn't happen, there is no mechanism for non-life to become life, there is no mechanism by which an creature can add new DNA to itself, no-one has a clue how man is supposed to have descended from the first cell, and the fossil record speaks of special creation, with no evidence of the antecedents of any creature amongst the fossils - and fossils supposed to be hundreds of millions of years old looking just like the very same creatures today (so-called 'living fossils').
The fact that there is a Creator, a Designer, who designed each animal, bird, insect, flower, tree etc. is really very obvious when you stop to pause and think about it, but hate mail of the kind sent to David Attenborough is clearly wrong.
The man has an absolute genius for unfolding the natural - or I should say, created - world for us, and making it interesting, indeed fascinating - but every second I watch his programmes I think of the amazing ingenuity and engineering and design ability of our Creator, and am stunned and saddened that he cannot see this for himself. - Tony Bennett
Stupidity and arrogance combined to such a degree that it staggers the imagination.
No-one is born homosexual
No, not one person is 'born homosexual'.
Homosexuals are often made, commonly around the issue of a poor or disrupted father-child relationship.
Or it may be a lifestyle choice.
And if so, so be it, so long as it does not interfere with anyone else's lifestyle choice, and so long as they are aware of all the health risks.
But 'born homosexual'?
No, no, no - Tony Bennett
What a sanctimonious arrogant cunt of man.
Hi Dr Roberts I note there is a argument brewing on other sites about the involvement of Mrs Fenn in helping the mccanns promote their neglect theory which ultimately lead to their abduction theory. I know you have often said no neglect = no abduction. Can you tell me if you agree that Mrs Fenns statement is a bit to convenient in support of the neglect theory. Did you ever right about it
I must apologise Himself it was me who posted it - promise I won't do it again.
I have no problem with what was posted, it wasn't Bennett's thread. I just don't want his bullshit contaminating my blog.
His threads are like his creationism, twist the facts to suit an agenda.
It's that simple.
Me on Catholicism, so you can Imagine where I stand on Creationism.
http://goodqualitywristbands.blogspot.com/2010/04/devil-made-me-do-it-but-isnt-it-21st.html
Anonymous @12:13
Back on topic - almost.
"I know you have often said no neglect = no abduction. Can you tell me if you agree that Mrs Fenns statement is a bit to convenient in support of the neglect theory. Did you ever right about it?"
I'm not sure I've often said, 'no neglect = no abduction' personally but I cannot disagree.
You ask me whether I agree to an opinion regarding Mrs Fenn, which you clearly hold, i.e. her statement(s) being supportive of the neglect theory.
Unlike yourself I have no opinion either way. I have not examined Mrs Fenn's contribution to events, although I may have mentioned them in passing.
At this stage, after almost 9 years, I am more interested in cutting to the chase than scrutinizing the periphery, hence the three specific points raised in the item above (none of which involve Mrs Fenn).
Regards
Martin R.
Himself 26 January 2016 at 12:09
Dear Himself
The 26 January 2016 at 12:20 post above is not mine and I have no idea whose it is or to what it refers.
At the moment, I’ve no time to explain in detail how it happened that I wrote what I did. I will explain later today.
For now, please accept my sincere apologies for my having erroneously implied clandestine censorship which has no place on this blog.
Scheiße!
Good wishes.
rtgr
At this stage, after almost 9 years, I am more interested in cutting to the chase than scrutinizing the periphery,
You have it in one dear boy.
If the claimed point of access, the shutters, along with the dog's alerts, can be dismissed by the cops as seemingly unimportant, what does Mrs Fenn matter?
Pity one or two others don't adopt the same philosophy.
The single most important thing about Mrs Fenn is that the question which should have been foremost in the minds of parents of an abducted child was never asked of her by either parent.
Martin Roberts 26 January 2016 at 12:55
Himself 26 January 2016 at 13:58
“At this stage, after almost 9 years, I am more interested in cutting to the chase than scrutinizing the periphery…”
And so am I.
“The single most important thing about Mrs Fenn is that the question which should have been foremost in the minds of parents of an abducted child was never asked of her by either parent.”
Absolutely. I am familiar with this argument and would argue likewise.
Many thanks to you both.
Peace.
rtgr
rtgr @14:53
Seconded!
Mit freundlichen Grüßen.
Maren
Himself @13:58
Outside of what might be described as the 'clued-up quorum' here, I see no sign of anyone questioning the merit of the three allegations put forward above, much less their combined significance. And yet we are introduced to discussions of Mrs Fenn elsewhere...
Should that tell us anything?
As disappointing as it may be, at this stage it speaks to me of Operation Grange being soon closed, to a chorus of mute acceptance, and the McCanns finally swanning off with a substantial wedge. The web-site and donation button may remain in situ for the sake of appearances but nothing more.
If I may borrow your line for this one instance - 'I despair'
Still, at least the piece is 'date stamped'.
Kind regards all
Martin R.
Maren January 2016 at 15:30
Danke gleichfalls!
You are fab!
I’m awful :-(
I’ve been gazing at the Goya, which Himself has kindly offered me from his archives to encourage my contemplating my sins -:( Bereft of faith, I am contemplating the Goya.
rtgr
Martin @16.15, and the quorum!
Still, at least the piece is 'date stamped'.
Date stamped. Quite. And there too there were those who readily ignored the potential. A single irrefutable (let alone 3 of them) will be worth more to 'us' than any number of "profiles". (Notwithstanding "imminent arrests" ffs)
Regards to all,
Ag.
“…despair is only for those who see the end beyond all doubt. We do not.”
J.R.R. Tolkien
I can’t put it better.
We remember Madeleine and stand by her. We have given her our word on this. Where does despair come in? Isn’t there a ‘No Entry’ sign on our door?
There is no victory in this war, only the battles.
Relax and take it easy.
Kind regards to all of you, the determined and compassionate.
Always yours
rtgr
Thank you rtgr. Well said as always!
Ag.
rtgr @18:16
Ag. @18:25
Relax people. I was merely mimicking a figure of speech (see any one of Himself's collection of Grommit 'face palming' visuals for a true interpretation).
Kind regards
Martin R.
Maren @12:44, 16:29
Comparing the statements of Maria Pires, Jenny and Robert Murat, Maria's account of JM's 'contradiction', as well as JM's own claim to having heard police siren(s) around 10.00 p.m. on the night of 3 May (before the police were called, and an hour before the first GNR patrol arrived), might have a peculiar explanation.
RM's account gives the impression that his mother was led by HIS suggestion of 'sirens' (between 10.00 and 10.30 - still half an hour early notice), which reminded him of living in England.
To judge from their line of questioning, the PJ to have been unconvinced he was telling the truth. They obviously knew what their own police sirens sounded like - but did Murat?
Kind regards
Martin R.
Martin R. @20:18
Questioned he [RM] said not to recall if the sound was continuous or discontinuous.
It’s a trick question isn’t it. They didn’t believe him.
He remembers well having heard that sound given that after it he commented to his mother that it seemed that he was in her house in England given that there he assiduously heard the sound of sirens.
-------------------------
Asked, she [JM] explains that while they were talking in the kitchen, she is not able to say when, she recalls having heard a siren ringing at least once. Although not usual, she also did not "connect" because it could possibly have been an ambulance.
No mention of her son's comment.
-------------------------
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MARIA_PIRES.htm
The conversation with both the above people was all in English, the old lady having said that she lived about 100 metres from the resort and that the previous night she heard the Police arrive, due to the sirens, according to her at 22h00.
The old lady said she had been eating dinner with her son when she heard the sirens, that is the Police, it being that it was at that time that she became aware of the disappearance of a girl from the ‘Ocean Club’.
Unless Maria misunderstood JM, I wonder why did JM mention "22h00" to her which time she doesn't recall in her witness statement. And how did JM become aware of the disappearance at that time, or why did she tell that to MP?
"The man, about 50 years" took part in conversation. Is it known who he is?
Kind regards,
Maren
Further to my 26 January 2016 at 13:30 post
Dear Himself
I came across Kiko’s message imbedded in TB’s post and that’s why I felt it would be inappropriate for me to refer to it on this blog.
On 25 January 2016 at 14:52 I posted: “I've also read it but dared not post it.”
And at 15:43: “I've also read it but dared not post it out of respect for our host, I should have said.”
Having posted the latter, I realised that having appended out of respect for our host to the former, I had altered and amplified the initial unintended ambiguity. By then, my attention had already been diverted to other (unrelated) matters and consequently I made no timely correction which in hindsight I would’ve liked to have made.
I am sorry for the disruption and upset I may have caused and I apologise once again.
Kind regards.
rtgr
Further to my 26 January 2016 at 13:30 post
Dear Himself
I came across Kiko’s message imbedded in TB’s post and that’s why I felt it would be inappropriate for me to refer to it on this blog.
On 25 January 2016 at 14:52 I posted: “I've also read it but dared not post it.”
And at 15:43: “I've also read it but dared not post it out of respect for our host, I should have said.”
Having posted the latter, I realised that having appended out of respect for our host to the former, I had altered and amplified the initial unintended ambiguity. By then, my attention had already been diverted to other (unrelated) matters and consequently I made no timely correction which in hindsight I would’ve liked to have made.
I am sorry for the disruption and upset I may have caused and I apologise once again.
Kind Regards.
rtgr
Himself
I’ve just learned that you have recently been unwell. I am echoing Agnos: “Himself, it sounds altogether too commonplace to say "take care of yourself", and I know that obligations don't always make that possible - but do!”
I apologise for having made a bit of a mess on this thread today having posted the same message twice, the second with tags absent in the first (within the penultimate paragraph). Ain’t I a pain..?
Good wishes to you and your family.
Peace.
rtgr
Maren @08:18
I don't believe we know the identity of the man in Maria's company (I don't anyway).
As regards JM's echoing her son's claim regarding police sirens, for that is what I suspect she was doing, I've just been told by a local police rep. that they have discretionary use of their sirens after dark (in cases of emergency, i.e. in response to 999 calls. I do not know the equivalent Portuguese number).
Just how much of an 'emergency' did the GNR believe they were responding to? (They had to find that out from OC reception! Do they even have sirens fitted to their vehicles?). No one contacted them before 10.40 p.m. and they showed up 20 minutes later (from Odiaxere).
Thus we have an omni-directional sound source, approaching at speed from a few miles away, and which most probably would not have been called into play until virtually at the destination, if at all), i.e. barely a few minutes before 11.00 p.m.
Neither RM nor JM could possibly have heard a relevant siren before, say, 10.50. The story as told is therefore fiction. The question is: was it a fiction knowingly shared by the two of them, or inflicted by the one upon the other?
Put simply, was Jenny Murat an accomplice to the intrigue from the off, or was she 'strung along' by her son? (I think the question relates directly to the issue of who, exactly, got him out of bed to book that early flight several days previously).
Kind regards
Martin R.
Martin Roberts 27 January 2016 at 13:48
Thank you, Martin. Another hit! You are unstoppable, and that keep us all well fed.
I am perusing once again your Access All Areas.
The ultimate sentence of your prolegomenon: “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.”
Would I be right in assuming that my following interpretation of the above would be correct: Given the subsequent revelations writ below, I conclude that every word that has passed Murat's lips is suspect, and by default I must also include in the suspect category anything said by his mother, Jenny Murat?
Please advise.
Kind regards.
rtgr
rtgr @15:14
"The ultimate sentence of your prolegomenon"
The words aren't mine I'm afraid. It was himself who wrote the introduction. Perhaps you should put the question to him. However, given the latest info. unveiled by Maren and the indications that JM was at the very least repeating a fiction constructed by her son it would not be unreasonable on anyone's part to hold her in some suspicion.
Kind regards
Martin R.
Martin R. 26 January 2016 at 16:15
Outside of what might be described as the 'clued-up quorum' here, I see no sign of anyone questioning the merit of anything of importance?
That Op Grange and the veracity of the Met goes unchallenged by the majority, is I think, a true metric of the intellect of the people who have involved themselves in this case. And if you want proof of that, just take a look at Twitter these days, it's a total embarrassment. Collectively they wouldn't make a halfwit.
I say majority, bar about a dozen or so who reside in the real world.
Disregarding the masses though, we shall carry on doing what we do, cataloguing for the record and raising awareness. That awareness working two ways, not solely for the benefit of the plebs, but directed equally towards the establishment. They need to be aware that WE are aware.
Not that I think for a moment such awareness will make the slightest bit of difference when the Met/Home Office foist upon us "gor blimey" writ in spades.
The PJ? I think we can forget the PJ, as you yourself noted, the PJ are grasping their ankles.
And yes Martin, this is a nice little quorum gathered here, and I thank you all for your input. Hopefully I can add to that input when family matters settle down somewhat.
Peace be upon you and thank you all for your good wishes.
rtgr
Don't fret so, there's a good fellow.
Martin Roberts 27 January 2016 at 17:44
Many thanks, Martin.
Kind regards.
rtgr
Himself 27 January 2016 at 17:53
I don’t do fretting, I do being passionate. The two may appear indistinguishable, yet they are distinct.
Many thanks and good wishes.
rtgr
For Maren
Scrutiny of RM/JM statements reveals further inconsistencies regarding sirens etc. I am seriously wondering whether RM needed an alibi for the hour 10.00 - 11.00 p.m., hence the mutually agreed tale of the sirens heard by both while they were in the kitchen at home.
That story is unconvincing (it did not convince the PJ either).
Kind regards
Martin R.
Post a Comment