Madeleine McCann: Robert Murat’s Relief
MADDYWATCH - Anorak’s at-a-glance guide to press coverage of Madeleine McCann
DAILY MIRROR: “Murat: It’s big relief”
Madeleine McCann suspect Robert Murat, 34, last night spoke of his joy that he looks likely to be officially cleared in days.
After having his computers returned, he said at his Praia da Luz home last night: “I’m so relieved.”
No mention of the Mirror’s super sleuth Lori Campbell who fingered “weird” Murat.
DAILY MAIL: “Murat could soon be cleared as Madeleine suspect after police return his possessions”
Even his computer - with the Sun’s “kid porn”.
His lawyer Francisco Pagarete said: “The police received an order from the public prosecutor to give everything back to Robert. All his items have been returned. We believe it is another step towards his clearance as a suspect. It’s a good sign.
“But we will have to wait and see. There is nothing official saying his status as an arguido is being revoked.”
Even if yesterday the Sunday People had “CLEARED” him.
No word from the The Mail’s Neil Sears, who told us: “There was something more to the friendly expat who called himself ‘Rob’ than met the eye.” Murat made Sears “feel slightly uncomfortable”.
DAILY TELEGRAPH: “Robert Murat close to being cleared over Madeleine McCann disappearance”
Robert Murat has moved a step closer to being cleared as a suspect in Madeleine McCann’s disappearance after police returned possessions seized from him 10 months ago.
Says hi mother, Jenny Murat, 74: “Every single item that the police took has been returned to us. Of course we hope it means Robert’s arguido status will be lifted shortly. But we’ve had no official confirmation that that is the case and we’re not getting too excited.”
Madeleine McCann: Speculation and survival
Posted: 24th, March 2008 | In: Madeleine McCann Comments (978) | Follow the Comments on our RSS feed: RSS 2.0 | TrackBack | Permalink
Comments
- leesmith on Michelle Obama Is A Monkey And Other Offensive Google Images
- magnetite on Church Gives Soul Tattoos To Worshippers
- Evie Walton on Peter Andre ‘Begs’ Katie Price To Come Home
- yampster on The Chilcot Inquiry Into The Iraq War, In Pictures
- yampster on Join The Campaign For Straight Gay Marriages
March 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
Maybe we should debate the negligence aspect because weve not heard that one before and besides, that will solve the case and be more akin to the level of debate some posters thrive.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:43 am
I don’t know if anyone here is a member of Truth M’luds forum but it has been hacked. Some of you may remember M’lud from the MF and also the 3A. Having been banned from the 3A he/she set up their own forum.
I apologise to the admin of Anorak if this post is inappropriate but felt that there may be members here who are also members of M’luds forum.
http://searchformaddy.makeforum.org/
If you don’t wish to click on the link above this is the text taken from the source HTML code.
“Was it easy? Yeah.
Why’d I do it?
Because there comes a time when I wonder, who is above me in skill.
I’ve met talented hackers, and people who waste their genius talen. But no one as good as I am.
You think of who is on top, wondering if theres someone out there you do not know about, someone who is even better.
Then it hits you.
You’re on top.
Anonymous Fucking Owns You.
Hello.
Srsly guyz, Digimon is not real.
But mudkipz? Fuck yeah they’re real!
(g00ns.net Owns You)
Credits: Anonymous, PartyVan IRC (irc.partyvan.info), Encyclopedia Dramatica, and all the other /i/nsurgents and /b/tards out there.”
–
To me the reference to /i/nsurgents and /b/tards points to a visitor of 4chan, though why a hacker would target a Madeleine McCann forum is puzzling.
Anyway if the Mods and Admin feel this is inappropriate they are at liberty to delete it or alter it.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:42 am
94…Annie_M
Any follow-up…..re confirmation ?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:41 am
92
scroll the troll
such fun
March 24th, 2008 at 11:38 am
#
99
can’t say no Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
9
Garth
Your level of debate speaks for yourself
I’ve been here only to see the behaviour of the posters
Now ,i’m off for better sites
Enjoy
————-
Ah what a shame…………not to your liking?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
84
Ferdinand Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
Ferdinand, the copes really strech you
Your endurance your brain your heart your emotions your life
Even if one feels as you say so rightly that there is no point anymore in answering/repeating over and over the same answers to the same questions you just want to scream at them tell them to fuck off and shut up.Yes
Its simply better not do this andFULLY cooperate give away everything because the copes “know”, they are trained to recognise genuine or dodgy signs
Not a nice job
March 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
97
SteveT
The next few weeks should be very interesting
March 24th, 2008 at 11:37 am
#
95
Matt. Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
91…Garth
And you sitting behind your computer showing you haven’t a clue oher
than abject sycophancy.
#
—————–
Brilliant. Well done!
March 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
9
Garth
Your level of debate speaks for yourself
I’ve been here only to see the behaviour of the posters
Now ,i’m off for better sites
Enjoy
March 24th, 2008 at 11:36 am
jo 79
I do tend to agree with that except that, if you thought you were about to be charged with a crime you didn’t commit, you might want to be very careful about some questions. And we don’t know really which questions, if indeed any, Kate refused to answer.
For example, if she was asked,
“Did Madeleine’s behaviour ever really get on your nerves?”
or
“Is it true that Gerry didn’t help you enough with the children?”
She might have been very careful not to give an answer. The truthful one (for many mothers!), might have been “Yes, of course!” but she might have worried that her reply would be used against her in some way. (Obviously, I’ve no idea how much Gerry helps with the children! These are just examples.)
Of course, the alternative with such questions would have been simple : lie. I don’t know why she didn’t answer all the questions, but just lie. Maybe she didn’t want to lie?
If she was asked,
“How did blood get into the back of the car?”, or
“Why do you think the dogs are reacting to the boot of your hire car?”
she might have thought it better to say nothing than start speculating. Her lawyer might have advised that. I simply don’t know.
So, although I do agree with you that I would instinctively want to answer all and any questions relating to my child’s disappearance, I can imagine that in a hostile, long interrogation, with questions suggesting that I’d killed my child, I might well follow my (Portuguese) solicitor’s advice not to answer certain questions.
If that’s what happened anyway. Who knows for sure?
I’m not saying they are not guilty but I don’t think we know yet. There seems to be as much “evidence” pointing one way as the other.
(Obviously they are guilty of leaving the children asleep in the apartment while they ate at the restaurant, so don’t let’s go over that old matter again!)
March 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
94
Annie_M
Surprising, just before the interviews. Could it be the PJ want to turn up the heat?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:35 am
#
85
jo Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
7
We want the truth and justice for Madeleine dont WE?
—————
So justice is to continue to discredit the McCanns is it jo. Blimey, you changed your tune? Or is it just when it suits?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:34 am
91…Garth
And you sitting behind your computer showing you haven’t a clue oher
than abject sycophancy.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:33 am
Hi all
News just on sky:
Murat no longer a suspect!
March 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
89 Châtelaine
was he tapas 10?
i a convinced there was a tapas 10
such fun
March 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
#
90
âde Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
85 jo
mornin’
garth is here on this forum for one purpose
to clear the names of the odious pair
by any means possible
nothing more and nothing less
that’s why i choose to ignore him and scroll on
————–
Well fuck off then!
March 24th, 2008 at 11:32 am
#
87
Matt. Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:30 am
84…Ferdinand
The answering of Police questions is not a matter for a hissy fit.
It is a duty for a witness to do so…..a missing child is more important than
a personal dislike such questions being asked.
—————-
Of course Matt. You sitting there behind your computer know exactly how it feels dont y ou? I think not!
March 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
85 jo
mornin’
garth is here on this forum for one purpose
to clear the names of the odious pair
by any means possible
nothing more and nothing less
that’s why i choose to ignore him and scroll on
March 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
Something completely different: this guy Alex Woolfall keeps interesting me since months now. At the time I found some photos from early days and wondered who that guy was. Later on we found out that it was Alex Woolfall, a big shot in crisis management. He was already in PdL when G&K gave their very first public statement on May 4. I’ve seen the photos, but strangely enough cannot find them anymore now, only photos from later on [smiling at the church - like G & K b.t.w.]. But now I saw him very briefly again in this CBS programme. He really was there behind them on May 4. How did he get there so fast?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:31 am
#
82
Matt. Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
81…Garth
“””Police they had trusted””””
Nonsense…Team McCann have been trying to discredit the PJ since the
night of May 3rd..
—————–
Lets make it a little clearer matt shall we.
A police force whom were the only ones able to carryout the investigation made some remakable cockups. The McCanns had to stick with it and put faith in them. Noone else could help them. They were constantly being reassured by this police force that they believed Madleine to be alive.
Do you blame them for having concerns? And then their tiny bit of faith in the PJ that they were clinging onto was taken away. How must that feel?
And can you give me any examples prior to the arguido status where it states the McCanns have discredited the PJ?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:30 am
84…Ferdinand
The answering of Police questions is not a matter for a hissy fit.
It is a duty for a witness to do so…..a missing child is more important than
a personal dislike such questions being asked.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
83 Justlooking Says:
“When there are much easier options available ( and I leave this to your imagination), why would an alleged child predator go for someone who is in a family resort?”
Yes, that’s the big unanswered question.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:29 am
78
Garth
Beware of the media we all know this now
It is precisely because the mccanns have refused to answer that they have been made arguidos
They are the ones who threw this cloud of suspicion over their heads
At the first first beginning the PJ was focused on the abduction and they really went for a massive search etc…you know the rest now
There are enough infos in the media -correct and incorrect- to create a picture
Only the PJ has the power to elucidate case
To make justice TO Madeleine has become an extremely delicate matter because do we all agree with this?
We want the truth and justice for Madeleine dont WE?
March 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
79 jo Says:
“that -even if you/we were “scared” and if you/we were really totally innocent you/we would be scared because it is scary- you/we would answer because this is simply the most reasonable thing to do”
I could imagine that the atmosphere in the interviews became rather hostile at some point. So there might come a point where you feel that further discussion doesn’t make sense any more.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:27 am
68
Ferdinand
My point is this.
There are many easy targets, as you say, the elderly, woman alone etc.
When there are much easier options available ( and I leave this to your imagination), why would an alleged child predator go for someone who is in a family resort? A privately bounded area, with CCTV, staff, parents etc., especially this child who was in a large group of adults.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:25 am
81…Garth
“”"Police they had trusted”"”"
Nonsense…Team McCann have been trying to discredit the PJ since the
night of May 3rd..
March 24th, 2008 at 11:23 am
#
79
jo Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am
71
Garth Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
It doesnt stick with you but I can imagine how they felt. It sticks with me!
********
Garth (we may have our “differences” and both be silly) but I believe that -even if you/we were “scared” and if you/we were really totally innocent you/we would be scared because it is scary- you/we would answer because this is simply the most reasonable thing to do
—————–
Dont talk wet! Scarey of what ffs? They were innocent! The only thing they were concerned with was that their daughter was missing! And to add to that, the police force they trusted had now turned on them. Scared? Totally pissed off and firkin annoyed i would have thought!
March 24th, 2008 at 11:22 am
76…Justlooking
Only the truth will actually fit…..and that seems to be well off-limits to their
backfitting excapades.
March 24th, 2008 at 11:21 am
71
Garth Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
It doesnt stick with you but I can imagine how they felt. It sticks with me!
********
Garth (we may have our “differences” and both be silly) but I believe that -even if you/we were “scared” and if you/we were really totally innocent you/we would be scared because it is scary- you/we would answer because this is simply the most reasonable thing to do
March 24th, 2008 at 11:18 am
#
70
jo Says:
March 24th, 2008 at 11:13 am
66
great debate
An article here: Kate fears charging…..
Fear and panic
I do not like to witness this kind of things
I cant help: my stomach churns
http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2007/sep/07/ukcrime.madeleinemccann
#
—————-
Is there any chance you can stop digging up the usual crap!
No wonder you struggle!