5 Dec 2007


This I believe to be the truth. The video of the reporter asking Kate and Gerry McCann this and Gerry's angry response - turning his head to one side in an aggressive way prior to refusing to comment and stomping off with the silent Kate and Clarence in tow had already convinced me of this. I have also heard reports of a labour party rally in Leicester. Then I read Ironside's report today. His information has consistently proved to be accurate and highly informative and look forward to him checking this further.

So, the mystery deepens - just what is Murat's involvement in this case. Three of the McCann friends and a nanny accuse him of hanging around as if to be an abductor. There is no credible evidence to corroborate this. They are the only witnesses and all members of "Team McCann" and so highly suspect. In spite of suggestions by a nanny he was hanging around the apartment in July and December 2006 - no other child snatches have taken place in the area. Overwhelmingly there is not a shred of evidence of any abductor being at the apartment that night. Attempts have further been made to implicate his girlfriend but she has an alibi checked out by the PJ that she was 10 miles away at a prayer meeting.

So what are the alternatives ? Gerry has told how he specially picked out PDL as a family friendly resort. Did he specially pick it out because he knew Murat was there? If so, this has the most sinister implications of all. That their actions were planned and it was also planned to blame Murat. In the early stages PJ did not find Jane Tanner's allegations concerning Murat credible and were therefore reluctant to produce any description of the "abudctor". Jane Tanner's descriptions have changed and recently a picture was produced of a suspect with long hair. There seems a clear attempt by her, with the benefit of hindsight, to stop pointing the finger at Murat. Is that because she knows how much trouble the framing of an innocent man may get her into? This did not stop three others from the group angrily accusing him in a PJ organised confrontation in July. In the earlier stages I reached the conclusion that Murat must be involved in some way in disposal of the body in return for a large cash payment from the Find Maddie Fund. I think I was probably wrong in thinking that. I believe Murat was made an arguido on pressure from British authorities to believe the accounts of three British doctors that he was indeed involved. There is not a shred of doubt in my mind that the parents are involved and the friends seeking to cover for them. In short I quite reasonably accept the Police view. So I pose myself the simple question - if Murat did help them in disposal of the body - why would they so blatantly point the finger at him? This leads me to the conclusion that Murat is not involved at all. There has been a very unpleasant attempt to fit him up.

This is a complex mystery and I would really welcome other people's thoughts on this. If my thinking is right then plainly they could not release Murat as an arguido because it would allow people to know to much about the investigation and cause it harm. He probably knows that and that is why he looks genuinely calm and smiling when you see him of late. If what I believe is true I do hope that both he and his girlfriend achieve substantial compensation for their ordeal. If I am wrong and Murat is part of the coverup then I am prepared to accept that but I cannot accept that he "abducted" Madeleine.

05.12.07, 6:32pm
Dont know if true but a friend has told me that El Mundo reported today that British Police have video/photo evidence of links between Murat and Mccanns...Its late now cant get a copy will try tomorrow....
• Posted by: IRONSIDE


docmac said...

Hi Viv

I have always discounted any involvement by Murat in this case. I always thought of him as someone who was in the wrong place at the wrong time. I just never thought that that place might have been Exeter! Excellent lateral thinking on your part. I'm going to have to 'mull' (my place of birth :-)) over this one. Very interesting.

If you have been looking at the forum for the past couple of hours do you think that someone seems to change personality completely when the 'monitor' is away? I get the distinct impression that someone is writing posts and then getting other(s) to post using their identity, especially that someone encounters any tough opposition or gets threatened with being reported to the forum mods. MSN and similar technologies are amazing tools, but need to be used with some discretion.

felicity said...

I am pleased to read your thoughts on Murat and am really sorry I ever doubted him! I really do think I was wrong and they got the correct arguidos some months later, having always suspected them.

The startling volte-face by JaneGT has not escaped my attention! I am sorry the other few continue to be led by the nose and manipulated because they make themselves look very silly and lacking in .......nous

eureka said...

Hi, Regarding docmac's comment, I did notice a few days ago that Maureen posted her email address to Rosie, and have wondered whether the contolling one is pulling a few strings there.

As for Murat's involement I always thought it was sheer bad luck that a journalist thought his helpful presence suspicious, and who knows perhaps because he was familiar to the parents, he seemed a suitable scape-goat to them. Just opportunist for them to go down that road. Obviously no basis to it at all. By the way, wasn't Charlotte Pennington an aspiring actress (and career fairy), and the one who saw the shady man in the boat in the bay who tried to hide from her, and wore a reflective jacket. Mmmm just the thing to wear when abducting someone of course! She wouldn't be seeking any limelight there I suppose.

felicity said...

Hiya Eureka "the controlling one" LOL any thoughts on the ID of the controller who list herself as a man but talks like a vicious old spinster - weird!

Interesting concensus seems to be deleloping on poor Murat then - handy Patsy!

Dont know about Pennington being an aspiring actress/career fairy I could put it even blunter than that - attention seeking money grabbing fawning little toad! Like you say if you was going to abduct a child a reflective jacket would be obligatory dress! Well if he hadnt of been wearing that jacket she would not have "seen" him I suppose....Credibility = shot to pieces - ability to tell good stories to the kids - well maybe but I would have a few other concerns about her!

Nice to hear from you again - your views are always welcome - so keep them coming! By the way, and speaking of a good sense of humour -= did you see 07 earlier on:

Hey Old Hippy,

How Are you, how's the leg!

That did cause me great amusement! But I am rather surprised our feisty Dunbarton lass/friend of the family did not utter one of her favourites in response "away man and boil your head" or "go suck a hedgehog"...(!)What a cute bunch!

Hope to catch you again laters and those with a sense of humour - please bring them with you!


eureka said...

Yes Viv, 07 has been coping refreshingly well. I get the impression that the controller has been desperately telling everyone how foolish they are not to be like him/her; that everyone is innocent until proven guilty except the PJ, Murat and girlfriend, and all evidence in the press is a smear except reports of 'inconclusive' DNA. She thinks she is centre of the universe now.
I think this week could show whether there really is political interference or not, depending on whether permission is smoothly given to question the Tapas bunch. Though I think the speedy Ambassador's meeting in Faro looks promising.