The Death of a Whitewashing

An Alentejo House with it's typical "Murat finishing"

The Alentejo is that part of Portugal’s territory immediately north of Algarve and goes all the way up to the river Tejo, as a general reference.

It stretches across two thirds of central and southern Portugal and takes in undulating prairies, endless olive trees, cork trees, wheat fields, white-washed houses, Roman ruins, charming towns and an all embracing tranquillity.

Its houses are very typical. Post-card typical. White-washed with a vibrant blue, or dark yellow, stripe on its contours which is what gives them their unmistakable identity.

The simplistic but remarkable contrast of this against the remainder of its whitewashed walls have made these houses centrepieces of many an artist’s work.

But a little known fact is that artistic effect is not intended to be artistic but an intelligent response to a problem.

Stating the obvious, whitewashing a house makes it white from top to bottom, ideal to deflect the heat from the Sun of Alentejo’s scorching summer afternoons.

The problem is that this whiteness easily gets dirty. By human hands on doors and windows and by raindrops hitting the ground near the walls and so soiling it.

The solution was to paint this colourful stripe around the areas where the whitewashing would be spoiled.

We now call it the “Murat finishing”. Or to not whitewash where it’s useless or stupid to do so.

When Robert Murat was nominated as a “Person of Interest” by SY last week, the UK showed very clearly that whitewashing in the Maddie case is useless.

The chances of it ever being done were already very, very slim, not to say impossible, as we stated in our “Maddie’s Pandora’s Box”: We then said it was “not that simple or that achievable.”

Having  publicly played the Robert Murat card, the UK has made whitewashing impossible in the Maddie case. Not difficult but impossible.

It all has to do with the fact that Robert Murat is a dot that can only be joined with the truth.

Let’s go back to May 2011, when SY was given the apparently simple job of joining up some dots on the McCann case and as swiftly as possible put the couple behind bars.

As we know, it was overlooked that there was a missing dot: Maddie’s body. Without it, the Met was unable to complete the puzzle it had been ordered to do.

Because of that many other stories had to be invented.

We have from the start said that whitewashing wouldn’t be a solution but that doesn’t mean it wasn’t considered and we even believe it was pursued with conviction.

Having come to the conclusion that the original joining of dots could not be achieved the options available to those deciding what to do next would seem clear: close without conclusion or come-up with some sort of result.

We think that at a certain point in time a decision to go for the truth was taken. However all those involved knew exactly how powerful the “Dark Side” is.

So the tactic was to pursue truth, covertly and slowly but keeping the door to whitewashing clearly open. This was done, in our opinion, with 2 objectives.

The first was to pursue it if possible. If when trekking the path to truth it was perceived that whitewashing was feasible, then the route was to be changed. The second, was not to be hostile towards the “Dark Side” and avoid its reaction.

SY started to draw up new dots to be joined on the board.

We would say, that up to Robert Murat, using some imagination we could join them up around the 3 Burglars.

Even Burgundyman, the never heard of sex-assaulter, we repeat, we could with a lot of imagination and total absence of reason, join him up with the 3 Burglar story.

But all changed with Robert Murat.

There’s simply no way, whatever imagination one uses, to join this dot, Robert Murat, with the whitewashing dots.

Robert Murat cannot be a bystander to the burglary. Murat was the single most scrutinised individual in the process.

His house and his computers were examined. His phone use analysed.

Murat was the only arguido for many months. The other 2, the McCanns, were only arguidos on Portuguese soil for only a couple of days, if that. Their lives didn’t go through the same scrutiny Murat’s did.

Could Murat be the patsy?

During the investigation it was tried. Channel 5 criticised the media coverage of Robert Murat, but didn’t seem to realise that not only had the 2 CEOP representatives in PdL profiled him as a suspect, but 3 of the Tapas group had also insisted they saw him near the McCann apartment on the night of the 3rd of May.

He even faced those accusing him of being outside his house that night and maintained his position with conviction.

All was done then to make Murat look guilty. And he staunchly and publicly rejected the role.
And after the process was archived, the McCanns persisted in maintaining the cloak of suspicion around Murat.

Kate’s book has a lot to say about Murat and the role of her friends.

On page 133, relating to the day Murat was made an arguido, Kate describes watching breaking news on television, watching the police going into Murat’s house and taking out property. They had been given no prior warning of this event, according to Kate.

“We were terrified that the next thing we were going to see was an officer carrying out a little body bag.”

A very melodramatic statement. In reality, what she would have seen if the police had discovered a body, would have been a white- suited forensics team, who would have examined the body in situ. The parents would then have been informed of any such finding. Is it remotely likely that such a discovery would have been revealed on the news in this manner?

What is Kate actually saying here?

On page 134- Kate describes the suspicions of reporter Lori Campbell, who reported Robert Murat’s behaviour to the police. There follows a description of Jane Tanner’s unsuccessful attempt to identify a man, from a van disguised as a refrigerated delivery lorry.

On page 136, Jane tells Leicester police officer Bob Small that Russell and Rachael Oldfield had noticed Murat outside the McCann apartment THE NIGHT that Madeleine “VANISHED”. She doesn’t say Fiona noticed him, but says the police took “FURTHER” statements from “Fiona, Russell and Rachael”. Why forget Fiona initially?

On page 156- 2 PJ officers “drip feed” Kate information about Murat, “snippets of evidence” linking him to Maddie’s disappearance (note, not abduction) but not enough to charge him, including a newspaper clipping entitled “Lock up your daughters” which claimed Casanova had been a paedophile. Here, Kate adds a detail which may not have been widely known, to ensure we have a good idea of the type of subject matter that interests Murat.

To clarify rumours about material found on seized computers, there is material of a pornographic nature held in the PJ Files Outros Apensos 3, 339-551- with this warning from the translator – “Please note that there are pornographic images (albeit in cartoon form) on this file.” See pages 469 to 476. As it was viewed by the PJ, it was obviously not considered illegal or related to paedophiliac activities by Murat. This material is quite widespread in Japan and is called manga.

On Page 157 - Kate reads the PJ files in 2008 and found nothing to implicate Murat, but then goes on to write:

“Several witnesses, including Fiona, Russ and Rachael, reported seeing Murat near our apartment on the night Madeleine vanished. [that word again]. He has always categorically denied  being there, and his mother confirmed that he was at home all evening.”

So is Kate calling her friends or Murat liars? Which is it?

On pages 195-6, o 11JUL07, Fiona Rachael and Russell return to Portugal to clarify their statements in relation to their sightings of Robert Murat. A confrontational interview is arranged; a legal procedure bringing witnesses together to argue out the inconsistencies in statements, according to Kate. Silvia Batista was supposed to be joining them, but didn’t. Murat’s lawyer was present.

Months later, the 3 stick to their statements.  Murat says “…. he hadn’t been outside the apartment  on May 3rd and that the 3 of them were lying.”  

So, again, is Kate saying her friends are telling the truth, having had time to reflect and consider they may have been mistaken? We think we must assume she supports their version, given her unstinting praise of “my dear friend Fiona” We must assume therefore, she is accusing Murat of lying?

On page 188 - Kate raises the subject of the sighting of Murat by the 3 friends with PJ officer Luis Neves.

“No, Kate!” He snapped. Our friends HADN’T mentioned this in their statements, he said. Slightly thrown by this aggressive response, I insisted, a little nervously, that I was sure they had: not in their first statements, but in the ones they had given when Murat was named as arguido, having recognised him immediately from the television news…

At our next meeting, Neves was to change tack and tell us that one of the Ocean Club managers, Silvia Batista the lady who had translated for us on 3 May) had also reported seeing Robert Murat inside our apartment that night.”

What about the McCanns? Wouldn’t they know if they had seen Murat in their apartment that night? The book seems to pose more questions than answers on the subject of Robert Murat.

We noted no mention of the role of CEOP or Joe Sullivan regarding the profiling of Murat in Kate’s book.

So we’re down to the following options for the materialisation of the whitewashing:

Robert Murat is the patsy. Taking into account Murat’s behaviour back in 2007/2008, we would rate this possibility as NIL.

Robert Murat helps the burglar thesis. Taking into account that would mean contradicting all he has said to authorities we would also rate this possibility as NIL.

See any other option? We don’t.

Murat, without uttering a single word, has blown to smithereens any and all possibilities of there ever being a whitewashing.

Murat, without uttering a word, because SY has considered him a ‘Person of Interest’ to the Maddie case has closed the whitewashing case.

Only remaining open now are the truth and re-archiving ones.

He’s a dot that cannot be connected to the whitewashing ones: 3 Burglars and Burgundyman.

He’s a dot that can ONLY be connected to the truth dots.

Because he IS a dot. He’s on the board. He’s a card that has been played. It’s on the table He’s a move that cannot be retracted.

By pointing the finger at Murat, SY is saying that whitewashing is useless. Best forget all about that and start concentrating on colouring things.

Remember when we said in our “Doomed Pieces, Emerging Heroes” that the libel trial McCanns v The Times would have been a checkmate move?

Then there was an IF.

It would have been IF it had happened. We made it clear that it would be a checkmate move if the libel trial was true.

A libel trial with the all the media attention it would have had.

We believe our post, by exposing the intention, even if only read by the few and stubborn, emptied out the purpose of this move and all ended up just being something completely unnoticed whereby the McCanns won whatever money just happened to have fallen out of Rupert Murdoch’s pocket that moment, £50,000, but not keeping it for themselves (the Fraudulent Fund) but having to hand it over to some charity.

But now, SY has now announced checkmate. With no IFs.

Now it all looks like we have been transported back in time. It’s as if the game went back to 2007/2008. Maddie is dead. The attention of SY, but not the PJ, focuses on persons of interest connected to the Ocean Club. Forensics is top of the game.

Basically the only difference is that it’s SY in the hot seat, not PJ. It’s SY that will be accountable for whatever conclusion it decides to come.

Being in the hot seat does not mean SY have taken over jurisdiction. It hasn’t. It only means the eyes of the world are on SY now like they were on PJ back in 2007/2008. Any prosecution in this case will always have to be done in Portugal

Because SY is in the driver’s seat there was “disagreement” between UK and Portugal about what legal status Murat should be heard. If as a witness or an arguido.

The third possibility, allegedly put forward by UK, of him being heard as a “PoI” – a status that doesn’t even exist in Portugal – provides clarity to this controversy.

It has nothing to do with the rights of the individual at stake but simply with the British public opinion.

To clarify something about arguido v witness, BOTH are allowed not to answer questions. A witness may keep silent if he thinks answer may bring him legal consequences.

So the silence of each simply has different interpretations although the end-results are the same.

To put it in practical terms, if a witness is asked something he may refuse to answer because he thinks the answer may bring judicial accountability incriminating him. The reason why for the silence cannot be clarified at that moment because he has first to become an arguido as, according to his decision, there is now a suspicion of him having done something wrong. As soon as he becomes an arguido he can lie about why he didn’t answer question.

Back to Murat and his legal status in the interrogations. It’s obvious that the Brits cannot afford to report back to Britain that Murat is AGAIN an official suspect on the Maddie case, and this time by the hand of SY.

It all has, in our opinion, to do with tactics. Murat an official suspect right now is like putting too much salt in the broth. It spoils it.

So we think SY proposed (insisted) that he be heard as a witness. That would put him on centre stage but not in the spotlight yet.

We think the Portuguese prosecutor, upon reading what was to be asked, thought that he had to be heard as an arguido to guarantee his rights.

“Could we meet half way?” We imagine SY asking. “You know, you guarantee his rights in Portugal and we don’t have to call him a suspect back home. What do you say? What about “Person of Interest”? It has quite a nice ring to it…”

We can only guess what Inês Sequeira must have told them to do…

We wouldn’t be surprised if SY wouldn’t let go of Robert Murat in this second batch of “PoI”, claiming that an agreement about his legal status could not be reached.

But, if in the remainder of “PoI” there are cards that more important than Murat, then we see no reason for him to be dropped. UK media just has to start their bloody campaign before the closure of the McCann V Amaral damages trial.

Lastly, we have an interesting card being played: the Bravura Dam.

It is indeed a wild card.

Not to be confused with the Arade dam, searched so thoroughly by Marcos Aragão Correia  and Metodo 3.

Bravura dam was searched by PJ. It’s in the PJ Files.

So why bring it up now?

We have to wait for this piece to tell us where it fits in the puzzle.

But if we have to make a wild guess about it, then we would say it could be one of 2 reasons.
The first is to make an intentional confusion between the Aradde dam with this one. Doing this would widen the “circle of interest” all the way to Barcelona, where Metodo 3 was from. A subtle way of saying to the other side “we know what you did all those summers  ago...”

The second would be an ideal place to find a tennis bag. As everyone knows tennis is so popular among British tourists in the Luz area that we wouldn’t be surprised if a tennis bag was “surprisingly” found.

But, as we said, this piece of the puzzle is still a riddle.

Lastly, a word about the detention of the Portuguese ex-PM Jose Socrates. We will let justice do its work without providing any opinion but we would say the nepotistic network that supported the Maddie’s case cover-up on the Portuguese side has been significantly weakened.

Gordon Brown retiring a coincidence? Who knows?