This search turned up on the blog today, and given that Robert Murat is expected to be interviewed by police again, let’s re-cap on Robert Murat and the Tapas 9.
The shortest answer is no. At the time Madeleine disappeared there is no suggestion of a connection. ZERO.
After he was made an arguido, 3 members of the Tapas 9 remembered Robert Murat being at apartment 5A on the night Madeleine disappeared.
One problem is that neither Kate nor Gerry McCann remembers Robert Murat at the apartment that night. There was a shortage of translators between the English and Portuguese. Silvia Batista was working as well as she could on this point. Another translator, Mr Murat, would have been very valuable. But Kate and Gerry do not remember him that night.
Nor do the police.
After Robert was made an arguido, Silvia Batista, who knew the parents of Robert Murat but not Robert himself, thought Robert might have been at 5A on 3rd May, but she was not sure. She pointed out that an English couple working a bar in Luz were present that night and could clear things up.
That couple was Paul and June Wright, who helped in the first search and who knew Robert Murat. Both gave statements that Robert Murat was not there on 3rd May.
The police used a standard technique to try to resolve the situation. They got the 3 from the Tapas 9 into the same room as Robert Murat and had a face-off. The 3 stuck to their statement that Robert was present on the night. Robert stuck to his claim that he was not.
In brief, none of the Tapas 9 knew Robert Murat before Madeleine disappeared, but because of events, they became aware of him afterwards. I am not aware of any links beyond this.
Shining In Luz 
Lots of the more fanciful/ (idiotic) conspiracies revolve around Murat secretly being known to one or all of the T9. The foundation for that seems to be largely one televised interview in which GM is asked is he knew RM prior to the tragedy, and GM replied along the lines of ‘I’m not going to comment on that’. That was, of course, at the time when GM could not comment on very much at all. However, the thinking behind the mega-conspiracies is ‘if he didn’t know him, he could have just said so, instead of the ‘no comment’ response.’ Pretty flimsy. GM was having to respond that way to thousands of questions… probably his set reply. Yet from that 1,000 mental ships are launched into the sea of nonsense.
Was RM there at the OC on 3/5/’07? Well, that’s a different question altogether. Will have a ponder… there are IIRC roughly 4 other people just off the top of my head that place him there. Nobody has him translating or getting involved, though. The suggestion is invariably that he was observing from a short distance.
Here’s a question for you: if, hypothetically, RM were to be considered as a witness, rather than as a suspect, to what on earth is he a witness? As you say, despite a dozen (maybe not quite, but near enough)people placing him at the scene that night, he denies it. If the police believe his alibi#3 then all he can have witnessed is mumsy’s lovely tea-cakes.
So, if he were considered truthful, and is in the witness category, what possible information can he provide? Not there on the night. He’s got one eye. Not ideal.
I can’t see any (bar one long-shot), in the above hypothesis. In that case, I’d be guessing he is being interviewed as a suspect in a crime.
The long-shot is his being a witness to the behaviour of other suspects. Now, in that case, who they are and what they’re supposedly up to is anyone’s guess. But, as I said, I don’t see it as likely. Thoughts?
Got to say, though… my wild guessing in the dark is going pretty well. MW does indeed seem to be the German/Eastern European female, and RM/MW the couple. MW’s ex-husband looks likely too. If SM is brought in in the end, I’ll be 100% from the kicking tee. 😀
So what’s your theory then. In a rather grim situation it wise not to do a jolly, but sometimes you have to think outside the box, then see if what you thought makes you a genius or an asshole.
Sergey Malinka’s mother cleaned in block 5. (True. Not 5A, just in block 5.)
Sergey and his mother have a Russian background. (True.)
Sergey and Robert Murat were in phone communication at a very strange time after Madeleine disappeared. (True.)
Sergey’s Audi was burned-out one night. (True.) Was this to get rid of evidence that Madeleine had been transported in the vehicle? (Wild supposition.)
There you have it, it has become clear. Michaela, Robert Murat, and Sergey Malinka were clearly involved in a plot to kidnap and traffic a blond-haired little girl to Germany (Michaela) or Russia (Sergey or his mother). (WILD SUPPOSITION!)
Sergey’s mother could get the key to 5A or monitor the flat. (Wild supposition.) Robert could monitor the flat. (True, though there is NO evidence of this.) Michaela could sell a cherubic girl in Germany to a childless couple. (WILD SUPPOSITION WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!) Sergey’s father (PLEASE NOTE, I DO NOT HAVE A CLUE AS TO WHETHER SERGEY’S FATHER WAS ALIVE AT THE TIME, WHETHER HE WAS WITH THE FAMILY AT THE TIME OR WHETHER HE WAS IN LUZ AT THE TIME), Sergey’s father could sell a cherubic girl in Russia to a childless couple. (WILD, WILD SUPPOSITION WITH NO EVIDENCE WHATSOEVER!)
Let’s try to get back to reality.
Writing a fantasy story about Madeleine is easy. I knocked up the story above in real time with no trouble at all, given that the juicier elements do not rely on being true or being supported by evidence.
Things are grinding along slowly. I wouldn’t mind some progress on the Amaral – McCann libel case.
I think you have hit the nail on the head here.
If he is interviewed as a witness, then under Portuguese law, he has to reply to everything, and he cannot lie (both of which you can do as an arguido).
What I’m not getting is either status. As a witness, the evidence he gives cannot be used to prosecute him in Portugal. Plus I cannot fathom what he could give evidence about.
As an arguido he can refuse to comment or lie, so I still don’t get it. He answered almost every question that was put to him first time round. The only wobbly I can see in his grilling is that he used CCcleaner and he looked at porn.
I’m afraid that in either option, I can’t guess where SY are going. Perhaps they think they are heading for a prosecution at the Old Bailey and are juggling what would be allowed under the law of England and Wales when extracted from someone living under the jurisdiction of Portugal.
For me, this is just a wait-and-see.
All I’m saying is I’d be very suspicious of the 4 people I mentioned. They seem like massive weirdos (ok, that’s not concrete, it’s just human instinct… and in a case like this, all weirdos should be thoroughly investigated) and (possibly with the exception of the ex-husband, whose statements I have not seen) crucially, they all lied when questioned. And that’s a fact. Now, where you go from there is up to you.
It’s what they lie about too. What we know:
SM clearly lied about his relationship with RM being strictly business, and specifically about that phone call. His alibi is family saying her was at home. Not strong.
MW lied about her alibi. She claimed she’d been at a Jehovah’s Witnesses meeting, whereas the Jehovah’s Witnesses had expelled her from their midst because Jehovah didn’t look too kindly on her freaky love triangle with RM. When questioned, they claimed she had not been in their presence for over a year.
RM had three alibis, so by process of elimination 2 were false minimum. I’d go to 3/3. But rather interestingly, he also lied about, well, just about everything else. Again, that’s on record. If you watch near the end of the Novocastrian-with-the-eyebrows-of-intrigue’s fantasy epic 4-hour film, one useful thing he does is list 17 lies which RM told in his original statement, all about what he was up to. When re-interviewed and presented with the phone-ping evidence, he asked for a pause, and returned to change all of his stories. He said he had been too tired to tell the truth.
Of course, being a mentalist himself, he then has RM and GM plotting MBM’s murder over a round of golf… perhaps best skip the rest.
RM’s behaviour was odd all the way through. He strolled around the place with an implied air of authority. There’s a very good article about his very odd behaviour which I’ll dig up for you if you’re interested. He also translated for the MW nannies, and at the end, he handed them his number and said ‘if you see anything strange, call me.’ Chief Inspector Murat. In a separate article, a woman interviews him and remarks he doesn’t help himself… often he’s said he doesn’t care about MBM, he is the main focus, stuff like that. What it smacks to me of is of somebody who is enjoying the attention, despite what he was saying. Duper’s delight? Perhaps. Shout if you want those other links. Here’s one meanwhile:
http://www.eyesforlies.com/blog/2008/09/robert-murat-what-are-you-thinking/
If you go through the files and simply focus on Robert Murat, his character seems to be somewhat of a fantasist who likes to appear important. The property sales venture was rolled out to a number of people who had, frankly, limited interest in the venture.
I would therefore see a role as a translator and being in at the centre of the investigation as fitting his personality.
On the subject of changing statements, one of the Tapas waiters does the same. In statement 1, he worked with 4 year old children before getting a job from the head chef of the Ocean Club. In statement 2, his involvement with children is dropped, and it seems he asked another waiter at the OC if he could get a job. By statement 3 in the UK, all mention of children is dropped as he has now become a personal trainer.
Since the Tapas waiters were 1) well placed to see the baby monitor on the table and 2) had the opportunity to see the McCanns repeatedly using the patio door, I’d be interested in said person if I was in SY.
Since I didn’t follow the case at the time, I’m fairly ignorant when it comes to a blow-by-blow media history. All I can see is I can see no link between the T9 and Robert Murat prior to Madeleine’s disappearance. After that, like it or not, all were involved.
If you can come up with the other 4 you think put Murat at 5A on the night of 3 May, I’d be interested. It is somewhat of a challenge to cross-reference hundreds of statements and thousands of pages of files and get the answer right, but at the moment, on the balance of evidence, I’m sticking with the argument that there are too many people who should know and say he was not there, than those (T9 mainly) who had no prior knowledge of him, but say he was there. If you can dig out those names, I’d be grateful.
There are more, but for now: Annie Catherine Wiltshire and her sister Jane Jensen plus 1 unnamed British barrister who corroborated their statement, but was not interviewed himself, nanny CP (mentioned before, not CB, but CP) who challenged him and made very strong statements, and then two more tourists again, and from memory they were young and sisters, possibly Irish, can’t quite recall. Both said he was there and they had spoken to him. Can’t find them at the moment, though.
Add that into the T7 statements… including O’Brien, IIRC, stating he spoke to RM that night, and RM had told him he had a daughter himself (consistent with his odd behaviour the next day reported in that article). Accusatory finger plus ‘I’d know you anywhere, you ****, you were there!’. That’s pretty strong, cumulatively, I would say.
Then you have three alibis, and 17 lies about what he was doing and whom he was meeting, largely revolving around SM and MW. All I can say is he’d be high on the list of people I’d wish to have interviewed.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id218.html
This seems to be one source. The tabloids in Jan 2008.
Charlotte Pennington spoke formally (statement) to the Portuguese and informally (records) to the British police, but I cannot find any mention of Murat being present on 3rd May. I can only find it in the tabloids.
One unnamed British barrister not in the PJ files is, by definition, not someone I can comment on, but I can say that the media, particularly the tabloid media, was in a feeding frenzy at that time.
Annie Catherine Wilson (not yet found) and Ja(y)ne Jensen (possibly found) also fit into the category of never-gave-an-official-interview though turned-up-in-the tabloids (Jayne). I have not got far enough into this to come to an opinion about what was going on here. Onward and upward.
OK, now found.
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-504950/British-witnesses-We-saw-blond-men-balcony-Madeleine-apartment.html
Annie Wiltshire and Jayne Jensen. “The two women, both divorcees from Maidstone, Kent, spent 11 hours with British police officers providing details of their evidence.” I can’t say that they didn’t, but there is nothing on the files released. Very definitely no 11 hour interrogations. The women appear to have been popular for press interviews for around a week, in this article seeing blond men. In my previous link, they were seeing Robert Murat.
They DO turn up in the PJ files. They get a casual mention in the statement of Neil Berry, a holidaymaker who had an apartment near to 5A. The tale is not very exciting. Neil and an acquaintance, Raj Balu, had agreed to have a meal at the Tapas Restaurant that evening, but could not get a table. (Note to self, why? The Tapas Restaurant was closer to empty than full. Please check!)
Neil recalls having a drink in the company of Annie and Jayne earlier on 3rd May. Start – end – boring. Then his family and Raj’s family had a take-away at Neil’s.
No statement from the women. Some stuff in the press. Yes, they were in Luz, but …
Ok, not much time at the minute, but my theory is the press have mixed these women up… they can’t be witnesses to both Murat and odd blond man/men. Well, they could… but not likely, is it? Then you get people making statements to the press… why don’t the fuzz follow up on that?
I’ve read Pennington’s statement in Portugal. Do you have her record to English police? Can’t recall if I read that. What she did is talk to the press a couple of times… and the documentary. It’s been pointed out that placed together these accounts are quite unclear. She’s a problematic witness.
But she’s a witness nonetheless. She claims she not only saw RM, he translated for her, and she quizzed him, he denied it and clammed up. So was she mistaken?
We’d need to find out what the sisters in their 50s said they saw. Can’t trust the press… get everything wrong. Then whether those younger sisters existed, or if I imagined them. The barrister is reported upon, but no statement- again, police not helping if he does exist. Follow it up, or fine the red tops for disinformation.
Need a list of confirmed sightings of RM on the night in question.
Vanessa Allen was a reporter on both pieces, so she should have got the sisters sorted re sightings. If the sisters were in/around the Tapas area or block 5, there is no reason why they could NOT have seen both blond men and Murat. What troubles me is the time delay in this. Unless the story actually broke earlier, these reports are 8 months on from the incident. Even if the sisters discussed details when Murat was made an arguido, it still leaves a gap of several days. At the time of the incident, Murat’s presence standing opposite 5A smoking would have looked odd to all those who were actively searching. There should have been lots of people spotting him.
Any explanation as to how GM’s and RM’s fones pinged within 6 mins of each other at that golf club outside of PdL on the day MM disappeared.