 |
| (image from here) |
Foreword: As this post is lengthy, it will be posted in 3 parts. Today, we are publishing the first third.
The problem most (we would go as so far as saying all, including us) make when reading Stephen Carpenter’s rogatory statement of April 21, 2008 is… reading it.
Before doing that one should take one or two steps back, look at it from a distance. One must understand its background, its context, its objectives, its characters and its plots.
Only then should one start reading it.
But even then, one must also understand the incompetence of its main actor
You see, for the most important “play” of all this spectacle, they picked an actor used to playing Noddy in school plays and sent him off to play Othello at the Royal Shakespeare Company.
He forgets his lines, misses cues, confuses plots, says his lines before the time and skips whole pages of the script. It's like he's trying too hard. At times one feels he’s completely lost in the plot and doesn’t really know exactly where he is in the storyline.
Let’s then guide readers through the proposed exercise.
2. Background (updated Feb 25, 2015 09:00)
All chips had been placed by the Black Hats on the binomial Smith – Bundleman. The encounter with this Irish family had gone exactly as intended and when this family came forward they would make Bundleman real and so provide credibility to the abduction thesis.
Why it took Bundleman around 45 minutes to get to Rua da Escola Primária would be a detail easily overcome by myth creation and subsequent theories.
But as the reader knows, the Smiths didn’t come forward.
The Black Hats wasted no time waiting for them. They would arrive when they arrived, meanwhile it was important to feed the PJ with false suspects to keep them from investigating what really was there to be investigated.
The first suspect was Jez Wilkin's “Rastaman”. Right on the day after, May 4.
However the Black Hats quickly realised that this was a disastrous suspect because it drew attention to where it was least desired: the Tapas bar.
We wouldn’t be surprised if it wasn’t “someone” who pointed out to the PJ that Rastaman could probably be Sperrey in order to make this character disappear.
Among so many tourists, one just doesn’t look at a man with long curvy blond hair and conclude that he is a man with dreadlocks. But if one is told that the man with the curvy long blond hair had been at Tapas on the night in question and someone could have easily confused his hair with dreadlocks, then one might be convinced that it could be so.
It was urgent for the Black Hats to make Rastaman go away just as fast as he had arrived. So fast that they didn’t even bother to take him to Jez Wilkins for confirmation or denial.
 |
| (Michael Sperrey - phoyo from JH Forum) |
Sperrey was Rastaman, end of Rastaman.
May 4 went by and no sign of the Smiths.
On May 5, Denise Beryl Ashton, speaks of 2 men on her front doorstep on May 3, at 17:00, who say are “authorised to collect donations on behalf of an orphanage” which she assumes, from a question put to her, to be in Espiche, which in turn “regarding the orphanage, she became aware through other people and residents who told her that there was no such [orphanage] in Espiche”
On that same day, May 5, Richard and Susan McCluskey in Alvor, at around 01:00 on May 5, see a man stopping a van, getting out with a child in his arms and disappear over a bunker.
A woman appears and talks to them in Portuguese. Later, on September 12, 2007 (by coincidence after Martin Smith recognises Gerry as Smithman) Richard would recognise this woman as Kate:
“Having viewed recent news footage of Mrs McCann I am now almost certain that she is the female I described as being in a distressed state. I say this because of her slight build, high cheekbones and her eyes and hairstyle.
I've agonised for days over whether or not to contact the police about this because it is a terrible thing to accuse somebody of. It had just not crossed my mind that the child’s parents could in some way be involved in her disappearance.”
With thousands of front page photos of Kate, only in September does Richard recognise her as the woman he spoke with, in Portuguese, that night. Strange, to say the least.
May 5 goes by and still no signs of the Smiths.
On May 6 (it could have been on May 5) Derek Flack says he sees Pimpleman staring at apartment 5A and a parked white van next to it on the street. We have dealt extensively with Flack and is sightings in the following posts:
Flack, Residence Discrepancy
Flack, Memory Lapse
Flack, Faulty Memory Day
Flack and Pimpleman
Flack, The White Van
Flack, Distances & Angles
These suspects are keeping the
PJ busy but they don’t keep it seriously busy. The Black Hats cannot afford for
PJ not to be constantly distracted so the priority is to get PJ
seriously distracted.
So they launched “Operation Bait”.
- “Operation Bait”
Objective of “Operation Bait” was to offer the shark, in this case the PJ, a real nice chunk of meat so that it would keep circling around for as long as was necessary. But just to make it circle around it and not bite it.
If he ate it, then the exercise would be pointless as then the shark would go find the next prey, and that could be compromising. The idea was to give him bait and keep him fixed on it.
For that to happen, the bait had to be meaty. Had to have substance. Had to have credibility.
So without his knowledge, Robert Murat was “tied” to a rod and dipped into the sea. He was the bait of “Operation Bait”.
Why Robert Murat?
The Black Hats needed someone who they could control and who would allow himself to be controlled.
Someone who they could dip into the ocean but that they could also take out before the shark really bit.
Someone who, if the shark did bite, knew like the T9 knew, what really was at stake and who would best shut up, even if bitten.
Someone who knew that spilling the beans would be useless because it wouldn’t have any echo. No one would pick up on that the story and the “sentence” to which he would be condemned would be far worse than whatever the Portuguese justice system could ever dish out to him.
And, most importantly, someone who would spill “real blood” into the water so that the shark would really be convinced to circle him tirelessly.
It couldn’t be a guest, because it was about them the whole secrecy was about. Besides, to “use” one, even a minor player, would dangerously call attention to them. Wasn't that why the McCanns, those minor players, were being “protected”?
Guests out of the question to use for bait.
It couldn’t be someone local because he wouldn’t be enough of a stakeholder and could react like Joaquim Marques did with the TV camera outside Faro’s PJ.
It had to be someone in the know. Someone who would understand he was being framed and accept it.
Someone not only powerless to react but also with enough knowledge to know best not to do so.
The answer could only be one: Robert Murat.
We believe that he was part, at management level, of the swinging event organising structure.
We also believe that Maddie’s body stayed at his property on that first night up until around 4 am.
We believe he knew exactly what was going on, to its full extent.
We believe he was someone who fully understood the reasons why it was absolutely out of the question for any kind of scandal about what was going on.
Someone who, on seeing himself tied to a rod waist deep in the water, with a shark circling him, would moan and groan but would never reveal he knew why he was in that predicament nor who had put him in it.
He had more than enough time to clean all compromising data from his computer(s) so if the authorities found anything in them he would only have himself to blame.
Likewise, he also had enough time to get rid of all possible evidence that Maddie had ever been at his property. Again, if authorities found anything of her, the only one to blame was himself.
Murat presented the advantage that Bundleman had been seen going in the direction of his property.
“Operation Bait” was launched as early as Saturday, May 5. That’s when Murat is first heard knowing that he was lining-up to be a suspect and he’s not happy about it. This is what reporter from “Portugal Resident” Cecília Pires has to say:
“Asked she responded that in the course of her work she had come to know the son of that lady, person who the papers had shown as being Robert Murat, the person who moved with great ease among journalists and police, speaking in English and Portuguese.
She refers that this individual on May 5, referred to her that that English journalists were affirming that he would be one of the suspects in the disappearance of the girl, appearing to be quite bothered with the issue, having affirmed that he would move out of the way so as not to cause further comments, being from that moment on much more difficult to contact him.”
Cecília Pires who on the previous day, while wandering in the streets of Luz, had trespassed a property by suggestion, not to say invitation, of a 50 yr old man [quite a coincidence being the same age as Greyhairman] and both had been joined by Robert’s mother, Jenny Murat doing this.
Jenny Murat then tells Pires that the moment she realised a girl had gone missing was on the night of the May 3:
“The conversation with both the above mentioned people was always in English, having the old lady referred that she lived about 100 metres from the resort and that on the previous night she took notice of the Police arriving, due to the sirens, according to her, at 22h00.
The old lady referred that she had been eating dinner with her son when she heard the sirens, meaning the Police, being it then that she realised of the disappearance of a girl from the "Ocean Club"”
These sirens, about 100 metres from her house, would then become, on May 15 when Jenny Murat gives her statement to the PJ be just only a sound possibly carried by the wind all the way from the EN125, which is over 1,4 km away.
“Asked, she 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. (She recalls that sometimes, when the wind blows in a certain direction, it is possible to hear in the house sirens of police cars or ambulances that pass on the EN125).”
It's a fact that Cecília Pires' statement is on May 23, but for her to know about the story of the sirens on the next day May 4, shows us she is accurate. About Jenny Murat, not about the sirens.
The sirens in Portugal are used only to cut through traffic in broad daylight. At night, sirens cannot be used. It's traffic lights that are used. So not at all likely for sirens to have been used on the EN125 at almost 23:00.
Praia da Luz at night doesn't have any sort of traffic that could justify the use of traffic lights by the GNR.
But the siren story gets around. The “Herald Scotland” reports on May 7 that “the siren that cut through the night in Praia da Luz last Thursday was a new experience for most of the expats and holidaymakers frequenting the resort's bars, restaurants and terraces.”
A siren, not sirens. And it explains what siren it is: “for some of the older residents it jolted memories of past fishing boat disasters, the original reason for the siren's existence.”
Those kinds of sirens are exclusive to Fire Departments in Portugal and Praia da Luz doesn't have any. Older people do remember how the alarm was sounded whenever there was an accident at sea with the town's fishermen: church bells. It was the sound of church bells that the alarm of something wrong at sea was given.
No sirens on the night of May 3, unfortunately for all those who invented one(s).
Note that to Cecília Pires, Jenny Murat says they were having dinner at 22:00, but if one takes into account that the first call to the authorities was around 22:40, we would say the Murats would be having dinner close to 23:00, after both being home at 20:00.
Maybe that’s why this dinner then becomes “later they sat in the kitchen where they were talking for some time, having also eaten” on May 15.
Jenny Murat, on May 15, remembers it’s her daughter who tells her about it:
“She says further that it was her daughter, Samantha, residing in England in the city of Exeter, who telephoned her to give her the news because by the morning our news was already running in the press of that country”.
Cecília Pires is adamant about contradicting Jenny Murat:
“To a question asked she responds that today and when she read the news she took noticed of a phrase, said by Robert's mother, in that she affirms having had knowledge of the girl’s disappearance at 07h00 in the morning of 4 May through a telephone call and that it would have been at that time she decided to set up the information collection stall, a situation that the deponent found distinctly odd due to what had happened on 4 May and the conversation she had with that lady at that time.
She affirms that she found out the lady's name through the newspapers because on May 4 that lady did not identify herself.
She advances that she had pondered to communicate this situation many times but was always postponing because she thought it unimportant, only today when she saw written with sufficient certainty that the lady referred to having found out about the disappearance on May 4 through a phone call, clearly contradicting what she had said to the deponent on the morning of that same May 4, did she decide to communicate the fact.”
No reference on Cecília Pires' part about having read anything about sirens.
Note that Jenny Murat remembers the telephone call from her daughter on that morning of May 4 but doesn’t remember if on that day she woke up or not before her son:
“Asked, she assures that her son Robert did not leave the house that night. Furthermore, she says that he usually gets up first. On that day she does not remember if that was what happened.”
Jenny Murat also doesn’t mention telling her son that morning about the disappearance of the little girl, searching her property with her son nor about her son talking to Carpenter, things we would expect her to have mentioned, taking into account her statement is taken after her son has been named arguido.
She tells Cecília Pires, her son was simply “collaborating with the police in the attempt to find the child”. But how does she know this? Murat has walked out of the house to talk to an alleged stranger and then simply follows him down the cul-de-sac. How does she know what he went to do?
So on Sunday, May 6, 2007, PJ receives a letter from Leicestershire Police stating the suspicions of Lori Campbell, of the Sunday Mirror, in relation to Robert Murat:
“Lori CAMPBELL a reporter from the Sunday Mirror has contacted Leicestershire Police to report the following.
Lori has been speaking to an interpreter who has been helping authorities with the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. He has only given his name as 'ROR' and has not given any background information about himself.
Lori has become suspicious of Rob as he has given conflicting accounts to various people and became very concerned when he noticed his photo being taken by the Mirror's photographer. 'ROB' stated to Lori that he is going through a messy divorce
In the UK at the moment and that he had a three year old daughter just like Madeleine, who he is separated from at the moment. He made a big show of telephoning his daughter in front of reporters, and Lori felt that he was being too loud and making a big thing of speaking to his daughter on the phone. The things that 'ROB' has said to Lori have raised her concerns about him.
Could you please call Lori who is still in Portugal to establish further details to identify 'ROB' in order to eliminate him from your enquiries on 07917 xxxxxx.
Submitted for information”
Lori Campbell recognises she was the one who called Leicestershire Police to voice her concerns about Murat. Transcript of video:
“LC: I called Leicestershire Police back in the UK on Monday.
Reporter: Why?
LC: Because I was very suspicious about this man and his behaviour, some of the stories he was telling didn't ring true, facts didn't add up. He was being very vague about his background and he seemed too interested and ready to give information to the media”
It was very strange to hear Lori herself saying that she called Leicestershire Police “on Monday”.
That means that LP had already written about and sent to PJ, on Sunday May 6, Lori’s suspicions about Murat even before she had them herself, on Monday May 7.
Fascinating stuff.
On Monday, May 7, Murat confirms his suspicions that things are not going well for him:
“At some point on Monday, a well-known acquaintance since the age of twelve years, named GAYNOR EDWARDS, told him that he was the main suspect among the journalists. Subsequently he learnt that she was working for "Sky", with a journalist, and she was told that they were comparing with a case of homicide that occurred in the United Kingdom, in which two girls had been killed and that the perpetrators of the crime were close to the place of the investigation. From then on he refused to speak with journalists and alerted the the Police to this. That refusal [of his] was to not provide his full name, nor to allow the taking of a photograph”
On Tuesday May 8, the PJ receives an anonymous phone call from a woman stating:
“She refers to an individual who abducted Madeleine, who knows how to keep quiet and is quite close to the police. When asked who she was referring to she said it was an individual who resides in Praia da Luz, who has an English mother, who speaks this language very well, who was near the area since the disappearance of the little girl, supposedly with the intention of helping the investigation. She said this man was called Robert and that he used to consult Internet chats of a pretty heavy sexual nature. He would also use Internet for contacts with different acquaintances he had in other countries, especially in the UK. She said most of the mails he sent were encrypted due to the monitoring of the kind of content they possessed. This is why she wanted to alert the authorities about the characteristics of this man, who, in her opinion, could have sexual motives and opportunity, knowing the area perfectly for committing or collaborating in this type of crime.”
We would say the anon caller was a woman who knew Murat very well.
To the point of knowing his personal and private use of his computer(s). Computers that were searched for the word “swing” as we showed in our “Why swing?” post.
The computer forensic found nothing of encrypting mails in the computers and hard disks analysed. That means that we don’t know if he did or didn’t encrypt mails. He may or may have not. To erase the traces of an encrypting program is like the erasure of any other kind of program.
But, speculating he did, who would know? His mother? Maybe, but most likely not. Michaela? Could be. But if he did encrypt mails then there was a group of people who knew he did that: those who received them. After all, they would have to decrypt them on the other side, wouldn’t they?
A little too much knowledge for the T9 to have. A little too much knowledge and a little too much coordination to frame someone simply because he was proving to be a nosey arrogant idiot.
On May 5, when he voices his concerns to Pires, he has only been in place for about 24 hours.
If we only take into account the first official act, that was on May 6, when PJ received the Leicestershire Police’s letter about Campbell’s suspicions, Murat had been at his “post” for only 48 hours.
The T9 participation in “Operation Bait” is only after Murat has been named arguido, Rachael (May 15), Russ (May 16) and Fiona (May16). Tanner’s participation is not part of “Operation Bait”, as we’ll show later on, when we speak of Gonçalo Amaral’s unwitting “participation” in this operation.
On May 8, CEOP makes its entrance, as the Times reports the next day:
“Two British experts on sex offenders arrived in Portugal yesterday to help in the hunt for the kidnapper of missing Madeleine McCann.
The forensic behavioural analysts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which combats paedophiles, were sent in response to a request from the Lisbon Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that their arrival would ensure a range of experts was available to explore "every possible avenue" that may have led to Madeleine's disappearance.
One of the two British experts is the forensic psychologist Joe Sullivan. Mr Sullivan has helped police in Britain and Europe to investigate child sex murder, abduction, organised paedophile rings and underage internet pornography.”
We find this date of the arrival of CEOP profilers strange.
We have already expressed how ridiculous we thought the presence of the agency, CEOP – Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre – supposedly dedicated to protecting children from exploitation and online abuse would come to help solve an alleged crime that had nothing to do with child exploitation and online abuse.
But thanks to Sky News, we have now understood that all operations by UK pertaining the Maddie case was being coordinated by Jim Gamble, head of CEOP at the time, as we explained in our “Sky News – The Clarifying Report” post.
But as we said, we find very strange the date of arrival of the CEOP profilers. If they came to draw up the abductors’ profile based on the surroundings of where it happened and on the people present at the time, they should have come on May 4, or May 5 the latest.
To come in May 8, 5 days after Maddie had vanished, only makes sense that they would come to help analyse a probable suspect. Only there wasn’t one. For the PJ, that is. For CEOP, we think they already had someone in mind.
- Bogus suspects
“Operation Bait” was done with care. The bait had to be really convincing. That meant taking time doing it.
So while it developed, PJ kept being bombarded with bogus suspects.
We have already seen that Jez Wilkins reports Rastaman (May 4), Richard and Susan McCluskey report Alvor’s Bunkerman and “Portuguese” Kate (May 5), Denise Ashton reports 2 collectors from an orphanage that doesn’t exist (May 5) and Derek Flack reports Pimpleman and a white van parked next to apartment 5A (May 5).
On May 9 we have TS and her Pimpleman sightings. We dealt with her statement in the following posts:
TS, Road Side Discrepancy
TS, Child Abused
TS's 1st Sighting
TS's 2nd Sighting
TS confirms what Flack has seen. Flack confirms, with the van, Gerry's Guitarman, who he speaks of on May 10.
We dealt with the McCanns trip to the beach, in the following posts:
Dr Gerry McCann is a liar
Dr Gerry McCann is a liar (update)
Is Kate McCann a liar?
What Gerry McCann doesn’t realise is that the PJ has on May 8, identified the owner of Flack’s white van. It’s Barrington Norton, a 56 yr old itinerant musician who apparently lived in it, as Gonçalo Amaral refers in his book.
- The PJ and “Operation Bait”
But “Operation Bait” was to prove a flop. Lori Campbells’s “suspicions” about Murat are disregarded by the PJ.
Gonçalo Amaral says only this about it in his sbook: “He [Robert Murat] has come to mention this fact [that Murat has a daughter, of Maddie’s approximate age and appearance] to a British journalist, who at once doubted his intention to help the police.”
That’s it. That’s all the effect Lori Campbell's alleged suspicions had on the investigation.
Also the bogus suspects were having little effect on the PJ. It kept them busy but they weren't really being distractive.
The only one that is being given attention is Bundleman.
We know that many do not believe the character exists. We do. We believe that Bundleman is Tanner describing what she saw, when watching from apartment 5A Gerry McCann taking Maddie's body to Murat's property.
But even if Bundleman doesn’t exist, he's not a bogus suspect. He’s an integral part of the Black Hat cover-up storyline.
If the Smiths surfaced then Bundleman would become Smithman. Simple and straightforward,
If they don’t, Murat becomes Bundleman. The Black Hats would continue to use him as bait until Maddie’sThe Great Maddie War” post.
Then, when the McCanns would be made to walk to the Tower of London, Murat was to be discreetly taken off the hook.
As we said, “Operation Bait” is a flop. But, suddenly, the story has a surprising twist: it’s Gonçalo Amaral who turns it from a flop to a success.
On the morning of May 11, convinced that he’s chasing a ghost, he realises that they have searched a lot of properties in a very short period of time. He thinks that the privately owned villas have garden and pools and may have holes not detectable in a hasty search.
It’s with this thought in mind that he heads, unexpectedly, for Luz on that morning. From his book:
“In Vila da Luz, I park my car below those villas. There are already journalists around the apartment; fortunately they don’t see me. They’re more interested with the place of the facts. I walk the route eventually used by the abductor, I come to a villa, bordered by a net fence surrounding overgrown vegetation. Inside, there are two vehicles, whose licence numbers I give to the on duty shift in Portimão and wait for the result of the research. After a few minutes, a green van, driven by an individual wearing glasses, parks at the entrance to that villa, quickly going inside it. His face seemed familiar to me. But who is he? I had a quick look at the inside of the car, a child’s seat is visible. Suddenly the driver comes out of the villa helping an elderly woman, they walk towards the access area to the Tapas pools and restaurant, flanking the green area hidden by various houses.”
Amaral sees Murat and notices him. Not knowing from where he knows him is what has drawn his attention. He continues:
“In the hope of identifying the driver of the green van, I call to me the leader of one of those teams. I explain to him the reason of my presence and the interest in identifying the driver of that van. While we talked, we noticed that the individual to be identified was returning, who when passing by us greeted my interlocutor. I was astounded.
- Do you know that individual?
- Yes! He came to the GNR on Friday morning offering himself as a translator… he’s English but speaks Portuguese well… his name is Robert Murat
The number of inquiries, in English, to be done in such a short period of time had made us make use of volunteers in performing the task of translating in order to comply with the legal obligation of a translator in cases of inquiry of foreign citizens.
- Sorry… I know the difficulties in getting translators, but have you at least checked this guy out? Does he have criminal or police priors?
- Nothing! He seems to be clean… I didn’t know his house was this one… I wasn’t part of the team that visited it. You’re right… the house is in the direction of the route taken by the eventual abductor… What are we going to do?
- Stay here, carry on being friendly with him; I’m going to Portimão, we will see what exists about him. Keep him busy and go on talking to him to create empathy. We have to know about the life of this individual!”
What makes Amaral suspicious of Murat is the fact that Murat has offered himself to be a translator!
It’s not Lori Campbell’s “suspicions, it’s not any of the T9 but Gonçalo Amaral himself who, unwittingly, turns “Operation Bait” from a flop into a success.
The shark had found the bait by mere accident! And the shark starts to circle the bait not losing it from its sights for a single minute:
“By mobile I communicate what has happened. The Faro director is arriving at the department for the morning meeting and this will be one of the issues to discuss. The decision was taken to keep Murat with us: he will continue to serve as a translator one or more times. Not being able to set aside the hypothesis of Madeleine being alive, in that or another house, we have to be quick. The analysts are working on the information relative to Robert Murat. He’s of British nationality, is 33 yrs of age, and separated. The wife and daughter, of Maddie’s approximate age and appearance, live in England. He has come to mention this fact to a British journalist, who at once doubted his intention to help the police. Murat lives in the house of Vila da Luz with his mother for several years, spending some periods in England, from where he arrived on May 1, from Exeter, with a scheduled return for May 9. This return has been delayed because, according to him, he was interested in helping the police in the search for Madeleine. His behaviour becomes suspicious. He speaks of similar cases that happened in the UK, seems to know them in detail. There are reported facts that describe an unusual curiosity in the investigation, he has shown interest in the identity of eventual suspects, the planned strategy by the investigation’s coordination and the diligences that were to take place. In the contacts with the investigators he shows knowledge as to the way the Ocean Club works as well as the tourists’ routines. He has tried, in a furtive way, to look at the police files. On the other hand, his mother had set up a stand near the access to the Tapas restaurant, we don’t know if with philanthropic intent or of collection of information. He may have accessed sites of sexual nature, unknown if of adults or children.”
And then Gonçalo Amaral plays right into the Black Hats' hands:
“Elements of the British agency for the search of missing children and victims of paedophilia, a Child Explotation and Online Protection Centre – CEOP, start to work on Robert Murat’s profile, showing a great interest in it. It is decided to subject Robert Murat to tight surveillance. We want to identify and locate contacts and residences, we need more information about this character. As Madeleine may be alive and in his possession, we have to control his movements. Murat’s house is given special surveillance. From the United Kingdom technicians and technology able to detect people inside houses arrive. We want to know if Madeleine is alive in that house. The technology says nothing, taking into account the characteristics of the house, no positive results are obtained. We remain with human surveillance.”
From this moment, UK not only knows the shark has taken the bait but is in a position to help circle it. Note how CEOP profilers show “a great interest in” the drawing up of a profile for Robert Murat.
On Saturday May 12, the PJ conclude that Murat has detected the surveillance he’s being subjected to:
“On Saturday, 12, he will proceed to rent a vehicle. He will justify such renting because his mother has the need of the van to set up the stand to collect information and help for the McCann couple. With this rented vehicle he drives kilometres, on mostly off-road paths. These movements become suspicious; we conclude that Robert Murat has detected the surveillance.”
Now it’s urgent to move quickly. It’s decided to advance the searches of Murat’s property and vehicles. But Amaral finds there’s one thing to be done before that and it is to link Bundleman to Murat and there’s only one person who can do that: Jane Tanner.
“Before that decision, we proceeded with a informal [pouco formal] recognition diligence. The witness Jane tanner is placed in a surveillance van, from inside one can see out without being seen. The van is positioned in the place where Jane Tanner says she saw the abductor with the child in his arms. Investigators and Robert Murat then cross the street, in the same way the abductor would have done. Jane is peremptory in recognising Robert Murat as the abductor. Says she has no doubt due to the way he walks.”
Again, unlike general perception, it’s Amaral who brings the T9, more specifically, Jane Tanner into the “Murat” equation. It’s his decision. It's Amaral going to the T9 about Murat, not the T9 coming to Amaral.
But probably has shared this intention with his British counter-parts, thus explaining why Tanner so adamantly recognised Robert Murat as Bundleman.
The shark had found the bait by accident but “Operation Bait” was now under control of the Black Hats.
Kate, one of the most trustworthy persons in this case, says Tanner doesn’t make a positive identification in what she calls “the amateurish identity parade”. Because “they had wanted to park at the point where she’d seen the man and child on 3 May but there was another car there and they had to stop further down the road” and that meant “at that distance she couldn’t make him out properly and unfortunately, just as he crossed the road, he was obscured by the car in the space the police had wanted, which chose that moment to pull out”. Then because “he was walking along a path and her sightline was blocked by foliage”. Then because “by now the van windows were steaming up, too.”
So this was 10 days nearer summer than when Maddie disappeared and it’s so cold that the van windows steam up, so we can imagine how freezing it must have been on May 3. Yet people queued up to have dinner outdoors. Fascinating stuff, we keep saying.
This recognition is what the judge of the McCann v Amaral damages trial has noted “that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.”
Jane Tanner in her rogatory interview of April 08, 2008 talks quite in detail about this recognition episode. What we think the judge means as “not complete”, is the fact that Jane Tanner says in the files that she doesn't positively identify Robert Murat as Bundleman, as Kate explains in her book, and Gonçalo Amaral states she does, in his.
The remainder Tapas to be involved only come into “Operation Bait” after Murat has been named arguido. They only speak of Murat after he’s named arguido.
Surely if this had been planned by the T9, Jane would have gone to the police and by finding Murat suspicious would corroborate Lori Campbell’s concerns, but most importantly, would have confided in the remainder T9 of her suspicions about the man. If the group's intention was to frame him, then it would have been much more credible pointing the finger at Murat before he was named arguido then doing it after.
Gonçalo Amaral seems to agree with us:
“As if the memories of some friends of Madeleine’s parents had lit up, they suddenly remember having seen Robert Murat before and after elements of GNR arrived at the scene on the night of May 3, next to the apartment from where she disappeared. Robert Murat had already appeared in some newspapers and on TV and already had personal contact with these people, but only on May 16 do they speak of that fact. On that day, Rachael Mampilly, wife of Matthew Oldfield; Fiona Payne; wife of David Payne and Russel O’Brien, partner of Jane Tanner, declare they saw Robert Murat immediately after Madeleine’s disappearance, next to the apartment inhabited by the McCann family. The elements of GNR, sent to the area and who arrived after 23:00 of May 3, didn’t see him that night but did the following morning, when he came to them to help as a translator.”
Kate in her book offers an explanation for the T3’s untimely participation:
“Like Fiona, Russell declared he’d seen Murat outside apartment 5A on the evening of 3 May, as, they discovered, had Rachael.
Jane phoned DCS Bob Small. She told him she’d encountered Murat before her rendezvous with the PJ and mentioned that Russell and Rachael had said they’d noticed him outside our flat on the night Madeleine vanished, in case either piece of information was important. Although at that stage it didn’t appear to our friends to be noteworthy for Murat to have been nearby when Madeleine was abducted – he lived just along the road, after all, and there was no reason why he shouldn’t have been there – the police took further statements from Fiona, Russell and Rachael.”
So the police put Tanner in a van to identify a man as the man she saw carrying Maddie. Her partner and 2 friends tell her they’ve seen him nearby the apartment when Maddie disappeared and she has to call the Leicestershire Police family liaison officer to ask if it’s important?
And why don’t Russell, Rachael and Fiona figure out for themselves that it’s important?
Do they need a second opinion? Apparently they do. Do these people ask others if they can go to bed and sleep, and if they get no answer, stay awake all night?
And the missing child’s mother finds this completely natural and acceptable.
It’s like these people expect us to believe the real world is filled with leprechauns hiding pots with gold under rainbow ends and that we’re surrounded by unicorns grazing just because they tell us it is so.
But it’s not only because of the untimely participation of the T9 that Amaral, in our opinion, starts to question himself about the bait that appears before him.
Before Rachael, Russ and Fiona had come forward, the CEOP profilers who, according to Amaral “witnessed the first interrogation of Robert Murat” work on his profile. “The profilers end up defining Robert Murat’s profile. With a strong probability, of 90%, of him being responsible for Maddie’s abduction.”
This profile was based, again according to Amaral, on the statement “from a pseudo-friend from teen years appears, a person with a criminal record.”
This pseudo-friend is Carlos Manuel Mateus Costa, who says the following about Murat on May 15:
“- At this time, the witness lived in Vila do Bispo. He was the neighbour of a British couple, P.L. and P.L. who are now deceased. This couple had a daughter whose name was LP, who was 17 years old. They were friends of Robert's mother, JAN MURAT. She was always with her son and they would often go to the home next to the deponent's in that same village. At this point Robert was 12 years old.
LP, the neighbour already mentioned, told him that Robert had tried to have sexual relations with her mother's cat. The animal responded by scratching him on various parts of his body. These injuries were seen by the by the deponent given that he [Robert] had visited the Castelejo beach in Vila do Bispo on various occasions. On one of these occasions, he saw Robert scratching at excoriations. He was told by LP that Robert had killed the cat out of spite. He also states that he witnessed a macabre episode perpetrated by Robert. He saw him once again trying to have relations, this time with the family dog, who ended up being forced into the house, situated in Almadena, Eiras Velhas.
Beside this, he states that when he went to the beach with Robert, he [Robert] would stay away from the rest of the group (about 15/20 metres) and not say a word to anyone the whole day.
He also adds that a cousin of Robert, of British nationality, whose name he does not know, and who lives in his house, has suffered an assault by Robert. For this reason, she left the home. These acts were hidden by Robert's mother, who protected him and who never punished him. At this point, Robert was 16 years old.
He would like to add that according to what he knows about Robert, he was not surprised that he was described as a disturbed person who could very easily turn violent. He is also someone with a sadistic and deviant sexual personality, and who also is misanthropic. This is based on contact with him for 15 years.
He also states that it is his opinion that Robert could have committed a crime of this nature, the abduction of a child. That he does not have the capacity of getting involved in a paedophile ring. If he did abduct this child, then the witness believes she may be dead. He concludes this from Robert's violent and deviant personality. He adds still that he also was violent with his mother when he was reprimanded and would react by kicking her.
He asserts that Robert did receive psychiatric treatment whilst in the U.K.”
Note the FOAF (Friend-Of-A-Friend) technique. Of all Costa accuses Murat of, he hasn’t seen anything personally apart from the fact, says Costa, that Murat “would stay away from the rest of the group”. The rest is what LP tells him and what says he knows about a “cousin of Robert, of British nationality, whose name he does not know”.
To those saying it was the T9 framing Murat, we ask how did they find a witness like Costa?
To put up an impromptu play of significant proportions one has to have a theatre. That means one already has the building, the stage, the lights and the seats, and all one has to do is to find some people and have them say some lines.
The quality of the show may not be the best, but it is a spectacle. Impromptu shows are prompted by the occasion and not planned in advance. There will be mistakes, many of them, but the show will go on.
If one does not own a theatre, to put on such a play one has to before build the building and its stage, get and mount up the lights, set up the seating arrangements and only then start to think about who one needs to say the lines.
The “show” put in Luz regarding Maddie, was a big and complex production.
It wasn't well acted out, many mistakes were made, but that’s the risk of any impromptu play. But it was of a size and complexity that no group of 9 could put together. Only “producers” who already owned theatres could be behind the spectacle we witnessed and continue to do so.
Amaral thinks someone is over-egging the pudding, a common mistake made by the arrogant, as we’ll see repeatedly in this post:
“It seems, suddenly, too easy to us: we know little of profiling, but to make one up based on a testimony of a man with a record is in the way of making hasty conclusions, and even, with little consistency.”
What we have described is NOT a plot but the description of a complex series of events that, in our opinion, happened.
We can conclude that on May 17, 2007, when Stephen Carpenter gives his statement:
- The Black Hats tried to keep the PJ distracted with a series of bogus suspects;
- Faced with the absence of the Smiths they decide to keep the PJ not distracted but busy and elect a target which the PJ can concentrate on: Robert Murat.
- Not due to any Black Hats action but as the result out of genuine suspicion, the PJ suspects Murat and acts on it, with the help (?) of British counter-parts;
- Jane Tanner confirms Murat as the Bundleman [who in 2013 would turn out to be SY’s Crèche Dad];
- CEOP profile Murat giving him a 90% possibility of being the abductor, a profile which Amaral gave little or no credibility;
- 3 other members of the Tapas group, Rachael, Russell and Fiona remember, suddenly, seeing him nearby apartment 5A on the night of May 3, 2007. Amaral does not find these statements credible;
Unknown to all but Amaral, as genuine as were his suspicions about Murat on May 11 he, in our opinion, becomes convinced that Robert Murat was being set up.
We believe that from this moment on, Gonçalo Amaral suspects about the true intention of the British authorities in Luz.
But the most important thing to note about what concerns Carpenter, which this post is about, is that the period of May 11 to May 14 – from initial suspicion to Murat being named arguido – the British authorities get to know the true reasons for Murat having become a suspect: he offered himself to be a translator.
That is what Carpenter must try and “debunk”.
3. Context
So they launched “Operation Bait”.
- “Operation Bait”
Objective of “Operation Bait” was to offer the shark, in this case the PJ, a real nice chunk of meat so that it would keep circling around for as long as was necessary. But just to make it circle around it and not bite it.
If he ate it, then the exercise would be pointless as then the shark would go find the next prey, and that could be compromising. The idea was to give him bait and keep him fixed on it.
For that to happen, the bait had to be meaty. Had to have substance. Had to have credibility.
So without his knowledge, Robert Murat was “tied” to a rod and dipped into the sea. He was the bait of “Operation Bait”.
Why Robert Murat?
The Black Hats needed someone who they could control and who would allow himself to be controlled.
Someone who they could dip into the ocean but that they could also take out before the shark really bit.
Someone who, if the shark did bite, knew like the T9 knew, what really was at stake and who would best shut up, even if bitten.
Someone who knew that spilling the beans would be useless because it wouldn’t have any echo. No one would pick up on that the story and the “sentence” to which he would be condemned would be far worse than whatever the Portuguese justice system could ever dish out to him.
And, most importantly, someone who would spill “real blood” into the water so that the shark would really be convinced to circle him tirelessly.
It couldn’t be a guest, because it was about them the whole secrecy was about. Besides, to “use” one, even a minor player, would dangerously call attention to them. Wasn't that why the McCanns, those minor players, were being “protected”?
Guests out of the question to use for bait.
It couldn’t be someone local because he wouldn’t be enough of a stakeholder and could react like Joaquim Marques did with the TV camera outside Faro’s PJ.
It had to be someone in the know. Someone who would understand he was being framed and accept it.
Someone not only powerless to react but also with enough knowledge to know best not to do so.
The answer could only be one: Robert Murat.
We believe that he was part, at management level, of the swinging event organising structure.
We also believe that Maddie’s body stayed at his property on that first night up until around 4 am.
We believe he knew exactly what was going on, to its full extent.
We believe he was someone who fully understood the reasons why it was absolutely out of the question for any kind of scandal about what was going on.
Someone who, on seeing himself tied to a rod waist deep in the water, with a shark circling him, would moan and groan but would never reveal he knew why he was in that predicament nor who had put him in it.
He had more than enough time to clean all compromising data from his computer(s) so if the authorities found anything in them he would only have himself to blame.
Likewise, he also had enough time to get rid of all possible evidence that Maddie had ever been at his property. Again, if authorities found anything of her, the only one to blame was himself.
Murat presented the advantage that Bundleman had been seen going in the direction of his property.
“Operation Bait” was launched as early as Saturday, May 5. That’s when Murat is first heard knowing that he was lining-up to be a suspect and he’s not happy about it. This is what reporter from “Portugal Resident” Cecília Pires has to say:
“Asked she responded that in the course of her work she had come to know the son of that lady, person who the papers had shown as being Robert Murat, the person who moved with great ease among journalists and police, speaking in English and Portuguese.
She refers that this individual on May 5, referred to her that that English journalists were affirming that he would be one of the suspects in the disappearance of the girl, appearing to be quite bothered with the issue, having affirmed that he would move out of the way so as not to cause further comments, being from that moment on much more difficult to contact him.”
Cecília Pires who on the previous day, while wandering in the streets of Luz, had trespassed a property by suggestion, not to say invitation, of a 50 yr old man [quite a coincidence being the same age as Greyhairman] and both had been joined by Robert’s mother, Jenny Murat doing this.
Jenny Murat then tells Pires that the moment she realised a girl had gone missing was on the night of the May 3:
“The conversation with both the above mentioned people was always in English, having the old lady referred that she lived about 100 metres from the resort and that on the previous night she took notice of the Police arriving, due to the sirens, according to her, at 22h00.
The old lady referred that she had been eating dinner with her son when she heard the sirens, meaning the Police, being it then that she realised of the disappearance of a girl from the "Ocean Club"”
These sirens, about 100 metres from her house, would then become, on May 15 when Jenny Murat gives her statement to the PJ be just only a sound possibly carried by the wind all the way from the EN125, which is over 1,4 km away.
“Asked, she 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. (She recalls that sometimes, when the wind blows in a certain direction, it is possible to hear in the house sirens of police cars or ambulances that pass on the EN125).”
It's a fact that Cecília Pires' statement is on May 23, but for her to know about the story of the sirens on the next day May 4, shows us she is accurate. About Jenny Murat, not about the sirens.
The sirens in Portugal are used only to cut through traffic in broad daylight. At night, sirens cannot be used. It's traffic lights that are used. So not at all likely for sirens to have been used on the EN125 at almost 23:00.
Praia da Luz at night doesn't have any sort of traffic that could justify the use of traffic lights by the GNR.
But the siren story gets around. The “Herald Scotland” reports on May 7 that “the siren that cut through the night in Praia da Luz last Thursday was a new experience for most of the expats and holidaymakers frequenting the resort's bars, restaurants and terraces.”
A siren, not sirens. And it explains what siren it is: “for some of the older residents it jolted memories of past fishing boat disasters, the original reason for the siren's existence.”
Those kinds of sirens are exclusive to Fire Departments in Portugal and Praia da Luz doesn't have any. Older people do remember how the alarm was sounded whenever there was an accident at sea with the town's fishermen: church bells. It was the sound of church bells that the alarm of something wrong at sea was given.
No sirens on the night of May 3, unfortunately for all those who invented one(s).
Note that to Cecília Pires, Jenny Murat says they were having dinner at 22:00, but if one takes into account that the first call to the authorities was around 22:40, we would say the Murats would be having dinner close to 23:00, after both being home at 20:00.
Maybe that’s why this dinner then becomes “later they sat in the kitchen where they were talking for some time, having also eaten” on May 15.
Jenny Murat, on May 15, remembers it’s her daughter who tells her about it:
“She says further that it was her daughter, Samantha, residing in England in the city of Exeter, who telephoned her to give her the news because by the morning our news was already running in the press of that country”.
Cecília Pires is adamant about contradicting Jenny Murat:
“To a question asked she responds that today and when she read the news she took noticed of a phrase, said by Robert's mother, in that she affirms having had knowledge of the girl’s disappearance at 07h00 in the morning of 4 May through a telephone call and that it would have been at that time she decided to set up the information collection stall, a situation that the deponent found distinctly odd due to what had happened on 4 May and the conversation she had with that lady at that time.
She affirms that she found out the lady's name through the newspapers because on May 4 that lady did not identify herself.
She advances that she had pondered to communicate this situation many times but was always postponing because she thought it unimportant, only today when she saw written with sufficient certainty that the lady referred to having found out about the disappearance on May 4 through a phone call, clearly contradicting what she had said to the deponent on the morning of that same May 4, did she decide to communicate the fact.”
No reference on Cecília Pires' part about having read anything about sirens.
Note that Jenny Murat remembers the telephone call from her daughter on that morning of May 4 but doesn’t remember if on that day she woke up or not before her son:
“Asked, she assures that her son Robert did not leave the house that night. Furthermore, she says that he usually gets up first. On that day she does not remember if that was what happened.”
Jenny Murat also doesn’t mention telling her son that morning about the disappearance of the little girl, searching her property with her son nor about her son talking to Carpenter, things we would expect her to have mentioned, taking into account her statement is taken after her son has been named arguido.
She tells Cecília Pires, her son was simply “collaborating with the police in the attempt to find the child”. But how does she know this? Murat has walked out of the house to talk to an alleged stranger and then simply follows him down the cul-de-sac. How does she know what he went to do?
So on Sunday, May 6, 2007, PJ receives a letter from Leicestershire Police stating the suspicions of Lori Campbell, of the Sunday Mirror, in relation to Robert Murat:
“Lori CAMPBELL a reporter from the Sunday Mirror has contacted Leicestershire Police to report the following.
Lori has been speaking to an interpreter who has been helping authorities with the investigation into Madeleine's disappearance. He has only given his name as 'ROR' and has not given any background information about himself.
Lori has become suspicious of Rob as he has given conflicting accounts to various people and became very concerned when he noticed his photo being taken by the Mirror's photographer. 'ROB' stated to Lori that he is going through a messy divorce
In the UK at the moment and that he had a three year old daughter just like Madeleine, who he is separated from at the moment. He made a big show of telephoning his daughter in front of reporters, and Lori felt that he was being too loud and making a big thing of speaking to his daughter on the phone. The things that 'ROB' has said to Lori have raised her concerns about him.
Could you please call Lori who is still in Portugal to establish further details to identify 'ROB' in order to eliminate him from your enquiries on 07917 xxxxxx.
Submitted for information”
Lori Campbell recognises she was the one who called Leicestershire Police to voice her concerns about Murat. Transcript of video:
“LC: I called Leicestershire Police back in the UK on Monday.
Reporter: Why?
LC: Because I was very suspicious about this man and his behaviour, some of the stories he was telling didn't ring true, facts didn't add up. He was being very vague about his background and he seemed too interested and ready to give information to the media”
It was very strange to hear Lori herself saying that she called Leicestershire Police “on Monday”.
That means that LP had already written about and sent to PJ, on Sunday May 6, Lori’s suspicions about Murat even before she had them herself, on Monday May 7.
Fascinating stuff.
On Monday, May 7, Murat confirms his suspicions that things are not going well for him:
“At some point on Monday, a well-known acquaintance since the age of twelve years, named GAYNOR EDWARDS, told him that he was the main suspect among the journalists. Subsequently he learnt that she was working for "Sky", with a journalist, and she was told that they were comparing with a case of homicide that occurred in the United Kingdom, in which two girls had been killed and that the perpetrators of the crime were close to the place of the investigation. From then on he refused to speak with journalists and alerted the the Police to this. That refusal [of his] was to not provide his full name, nor to allow the taking of a photograph”
On Tuesday May 8, the PJ receives an anonymous phone call from a woman stating:
“She refers to an individual who abducted Madeleine, who knows how to keep quiet and is quite close to the police. When asked who she was referring to she said it was an individual who resides in Praia da Luz, who has an English mother, who speaks this language very well, who was near the area since the disappearance of the little girl, supposedly with the intention of helping the investigation. She said this man was called Robert and that he used to consult Internet chats of a pretty heavy sexual nature. He would also use Internet for contacts with different acquaintances he had in other countries, especially in the UK. She said most of the mails he sent were encrypted due to the monitoring of the kind of content they possessed. This is why she wanted to alert the authorities about the characteristics of this man, who, in her opinion, could have sexual motives and opportunity, knowing the area perfectly for committing or collaborating in this type of crime.”
We would say the anon caller was a woman who knew Murat very well.
To the point of knowing his personal and private use of his computer(s). Computers that were searched for the word “swing” as we showed in our “Why swing?” post.
The computer forensic found nothing of encrypting mails in the computers and hard disks analysed. That means that we don’t know if he did or didn’t encrypt mails. He may or may have not. To erase the traces of an encrypting program is like the erasure of any other kind of program.
But, speculating he did, who would know? His mother? Maybe, but most likely not. Michaela? Could be. But if he did encrypt mails then there was a group of people who knew he did that: those who received them. After all, they would have to decrypt them on the other side, wouldn’t they?
A little too much knowledge for the T9 to have. A little too much knowledge and a little too much coordination to frame someone simply because he was proving to be a nosey arrogant idiot.
On May 5, when he voices his concerns to Pires, he has only been in place for about 24 hours.
If we only take into account the first official act, that was on May 6, when PJ received the Leicestershire Police’s letter about Campbell’s suspicions, Murat had been at his “post” for only 48 hours.
The T9 participation in “Operation Bait” is only after Murat has been named arguido, Rachael (May 15), Russ (May 16) and Fiona (May16). Tanner’s participation is not part of “Operation Bait”, as we’ll show later on, when we speak of Gonçalo Amaral’s unwitting “participation” in this operation.
On May 8, CEOP makes its entrance, as the Times reports the next day:
“Two British experts on sex offenders arrived in Portugal yesterday to help in the hunt for the kidnapper of missing Madeleine McCann.
The forensic behavioural analysts from the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, which combats paedophiles, were sent in response to a request from the Lisbon Government. The Foreign and Commonwealth Office said that their arrival would ensure a range of experts was available to explore "every possible avenue" that may have led to Madeleine's disappearance.
One of the two British experts is the forensic psychologist Joe Sullivan. Mr Sullivan has helped police in Britain and Europe to investigate child sex murder, abduction, organised paedophile rings and underage internet pornography.”
We find this date of the arrival of CEOP profilers strange.
We have already expressed how ridiculous we thought the presence of the agency, CEOP – Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre – supposedly dedicated to protecting children from exploitation and online abuse would come to help solve an alleged crime that had nothing to do with child exploitation and online abuse.
But thanks to Sky News, we have now understood that all operations by UK pertaining the Maddie case was being coordinated by Jim Gamble, head of CEOP at the time, as we explained in our “Sky News – The Clarifying Report” post.
But as we said, we find very strange the date of arrival of the CEOP profilers. If they came to draw up the abductors’ profile based on the surroundings of where it happened and on the people present at the time, they should have come on May 4, or May 5 the latest.
To come in May 8, 5 days after Maddie had vanished, only makes sense that they would come to help analyse a probable suspect. Only there wasn’t one. For the PJ, that is. For CEOP, we think they already had someone in mind.
 |
| “Operation Bait” timeline |
- Bogus suspects
“Operation Bait” was done with care. The bait had to be really convincing. That meant taking time doing it.
So while it developed, PJ kept being bombarded with bogus suspects.
We have already seen that Jez Wilkins reports Rastaman (May 4), Richard and Susan McCluskey report Alvor’s Bunkerman and “Portuguese” Kate (May 5), Denise Ashton reports 2 collectors from an orphanage that doesn’t exist (May 5) and Derek Flack reports Pimpleman and a white van parked next to apartment 5A (May 5).
On May 9 we have TS and her Pimpleman sightings. We dealt with her statement in the following posts:
TS, Road Side Discrepancy
TS, Child Abused
TS's 1st Sighting
TS's 2nd Sighting
TS confirms what Flack has seen. Flack confirms, with the van, Gerry's Guitarman, who he speaks of on May 10.
We dealt with the McCanns trip to the beach, in the following posts:
Dr Gerry McCann is a liar
Dr Gerry McCann is a liar (update)
Is Kate McCann a liar?
What Gerry McCann doesn’t realise is that the PJ has on May 8, identified the owner of Flack’s white van. It’s Barrington Norton, a 56 yr old itinerant musician who apparently lived in it, as Gonçalo Amaral refers in his book.
 |
| Bogus suspects timeline |
- The PJ and “Operation Bait”
But “Operation Bait” was to prove a flop. Lori Campbells’s “suspicions” about Murat are disregarded by the PJ.
Gonçalo Amaral says only this about it in his sbook: “He [Robert Murat] has come to mention this fact [that Murat has a daughter, of Maddie’s approximate age and appearance] to a British journalist, who at once doubted his intention to help the police.”
That’s it. That’s all the effect Lori Campbell's alleged suspicions had on the investigation.
Also the bogus suspects were having little effect on the PJ. It kept them busy but they weren't really being distractive.
The only one that is being given attention is Bundleman.
We know that many do not believe the character exists. We do. We believe that Bundleman is Tanner describing what she saw, when watching from apartment 5A Gerry McCann taking Maddie's body to Murat's property.
But even if Bundleman doesn’t exist, he's not a bogus suspect. He’s an integral part of the Black Hat cover-up storyline.
If the Smiths surfaced then Bundleman would become Smithman. Simple and straightforward,
If they don’t, Murat becomes Bundleman. The Black Hats would continue to use him as bait until Maddie’sThe Great Maddie War” post.
Then, when the McCanns would be made to walk to the Tower of London, Murat was to be discreetly taken off the hook.
As we said, “Operation Bait” is a flop. But, suddenly, the story has a surprising twist: it’s Gonçalo Amaral who turns it from a flop to a success.
On the morning of May 11, convinced that he’s chasing a ghost, he realises that they have searched a lot of properties in a very short period of time. He thinks that the privately owned villas have garden and pools and may have holes not detectable in a hasty search.
It’s with this thought in mind that he heads, unexpectedly, for Luz on that morning. From his book:
“In Vila da Luz, I park my car below those villas. There are already journalists around the apartment; fortunately they don’t see me. They’re more interested with the place of the facts. I walk the route eventually used by the abductor, I come to a villa, bordered by a net fence surrounding overgrown vegetation. Inside, there are two vehicles, whose licence numbers I give to the on duty shift in Portimão and wait for the result of the research. After a few minutes, a green van, driven by an individual wearing glasses, parks at the entrance to that villa, quickly going inside it. His face seemed familiar to me. But who is he? I had a quick look at the inside of the car, a child’s seat is visible. Suddenly the driver comes out of the villa helping an elderly woman, they walk towards the access area to the Tapas pools and restaurant, flanking the green area hidden by various houses.”
Amaral sees Murat and notices him. Not knowing from where he knows him is what has drawn his attention. He continues:
“In the hope of identifying the driver of the green van, I call to me the leader of one of those teams. I explain to him the reason of my presence and the interest in identifying the driver of that van. While we talked, we noticed that the individual to be identified was returning, who when passing by us greeted my interlocutor. I was astounded.
- Do you know that individual?
- Yes! He came to the GNR on Friday morning offering himself as a translator… he’s English but speaks Portuguese well… his name is Robert Murat
The number of inquiries, in English, to be done in such a short period of time had made us make use of volunteers in performing the task of translating in order to comply with the legal obligation of a translator in cases of inquiry of foreign citizens.
- Sorry… I know the difficulties in getting translators, but have you at least checked this guy out? Does he have criminal or police priors?
- Nothing! He seems to be clean… I didn’t know his house was this one… I wasn’t part of the team that visited it. You’re right… the house is in the direction of the route taken by the eventual abductor… What are we going to do?
- Stay here, carry on being friendly with him; I’m going to Portimão, we will see what exists about him. Keep him busy and go on talking to him to create empathy. We have to know about the life of this individual!”
What makes Amaral suspicious of Murat is the fact that Murat has offered himself to be a translator!
It’s not Lori Campbell’s “suspicions, it’s not any of the T9 but Gonçalo Amaral himself who, unwittingly, turns “Operation Bait” from a flop into a success.
The shark had found the bait by mere accident! And the shark starts to circle the bait not losing it from its sights for a single minute:
“By mobile I communicate what has happened. The Faro director is arriving at the department for the morning meeting and this will be one of the issues to discuss. The decision was taken to keep Murat with us: he will continue to serve as a translator one or more times. Not being able to set aside the hypothesis of Madeleine being alive, in that or another house, we have to be quick. The analysts are working on the information relative to Robert Murat. He’s of British nationality, is 33 yrs of age, and separated. The wife and daughter, of Maddie’s approximate age and appearance, live in England. He has come to mention this fact to a British journalist, who at once doubted his intention to help the police. Murat lives in the house of Vila da Luz with his mother for several years, spending some periods in England, from where he arrived on May 1, from Exeter, with a scheduled return for May 9. This return has been delayed because, according to him, he was interested in helping the police in the search for Madeleine. His behaviour becomes suspicious. He speaks of similar cases that happened in the UK, seems to know them in detail. There are reported facts that describe an unusual curiosity in the investigation, he has shown interest in the identity of eventual suspects, the planned strategy by the investigation’s coordination and the diligences that were to take place. In the contacts with the investigators he shows knowledge as to the way the Ocean Club works as well as the tourists’ routines. He has tried, in a furtive way, to look at the police files. On the other hand, his mother had set up a stand near the access to the Tapas restaurant, we don’t know if with philanthropic intent or of collection of information. He may have accessed sites of sexual nature, unknown if of adults or children.”
And then Gonçalo Amaral plays right into the Black Hats' hands:
“Elements of the British agency for the search of missing children and victims of paedophilia, a Child Explotation and Online Protection Centre – CEOP, start to work on Robert Murat’s profile, showing a great interest in it. It is decided to subject Robert Murat to tight surveillance. We want to identify and locate contacts and residences, we need more information about this character. As Madeleine may be alive and in his possession, we have to control his movements. Murat’s house is given special surveillance. From the United Kingdom technicians and technology able to detect people inside houses arrive. We want to know if Madeleine is alive in that house. The technology says nothing, taking into account the characteristics of the house, no positive results are obtained. We remain with human surveillance.”
From this moment, UK not only knows the shark has taken the bait but is in a position to help circle it. Note how CEOP profilers show “a great interest in” the drawing up of a profile for Robert Murat.
On Saturday May 12, the PJ conclude that Murat has detected the surveillance he’s being subjected to:
“On Saturday, 12, he will proceed to rent a vehicle. He will justify such renting because his mother has the need of the van to set up the stand to collect information and help for the McCann couple. With this rented vehicle he drives kilometres, on mostly off-road paths. These movements become suspicious; we conclude that Robert Murat has detected the surveillance.”
Now it’s urgent to move quickly. It’s decided to advance the searches of Murat’s property and vehicles. But Amaral finds there’s one thing to be done before that and it is to link Bundleman to Murat and there’s only one person who can do that: Jane Tanner.
“Before that decision, we proceeded with a informal [pouco formal] recognition diligence. The witness Jane tanner is placed in a surveillance van, from inside one can see out without being seen. The van is positioned in the place where Jane Tanner says she saw the abductor with the child in his arms. Investigators and Robert Murat then cross the street, in the same way the abductor would have done. Jane is peremptory in recognising Robert Murat as the abductor. Says she has no doubt due to the way he walks.”
Again, unlike general perception, it’s Amaral who brings the T9, more specifically, Jane Tanner into the “Murat” equation. It’s his decision. It's Amaral going to the T9 about Murat, not the T9 coming to Amaral.
But probably has shared this intention with his British counter-parts, thus explaining why Tanner so adamantly recognised Robert Murat as Bundleman.
The shark had found the bait by accident but “Operation Bait” was now under control of the Black Hats.
Kate, one of the most trustworthy persons in this case, says Tanner doesn’t make a positive identification in what she calls “the amateurish identity parade”. Because “they had wanted to park at the point where she’d seen the man and child on 3 May but there was another car there and they had to stop further down the road” and that meant “at that distance she couldn’t make him out properly and unfortunately, just as he crossed the road, he was obscured by the car in the space the police had wanted, which chose that moment to pull out”. Then because “he was walking along a path and her sightline was blocked by foliage”. Then because “by now the van windows were steaming up, too.”
So this was 10 days nearer summer than when Maddie disappeared and it’s so cold that the van windows steam up, so we can imagine how freezing it must have been on May 3. Yet people queued up to have dinner outdoors. Fascinating stuff, we keep saying.
This recognition is what the judge of the McCann v Amaral damages trial has noted “that some of the facts in the book are not complete, and some facts that are in the book are not in the case files, including Jane Tanner's "informal" recognition of Robert Murat.”
Jane Tanner in her rogatory interview of April 08, 2008 talks quite in detail about this recognition episode. What we think the judge means as “not complete”, is the fact that Jane Tanner says in the files that she doesn't positively identify Robert Murat as Bundleman, as Kate explains in her book, and Gonçalo Amaral states she does, in his.
The remainder Tapas to be involved only come into “Operation Bait” after Murat has been named arguido. They only speak of Murat after he’s named arguido.
Surely if this had been planned by the T9, Jane would have gone to the police and by finding Murat suspicious would corroborate Lori Campbell’s concerns, but most importantly, would have confided in the remainder T9 of her suspicions about the man. If the group's intention was to frame him, then it would have been much more credible pointing the finger at Murat before he was named arguido then doing it after.
Gonçalo Amaral seems to agree with us:
“As if the memories of some friends of Madeleine’s parents had lit up, they suddenly remember having seen Robert Murat before and after elements of GNR arrived at the scene on the night of May 3, next to the apartment from where she disappeared. Robert Murat had already appeared in some newspapers and on TV and already had personal contact with these people, but only on May 16 do they speak of that fact. On that day, Rachael Mampilly, wife of Matthew Oldfield; Fiona Payne; wife of David Payne and Russel O’Brien, partner of Jane Tanner, declare they saw Robert Murat immediately after Madeleine’s disappearance, next to the apartment inhabited by the McCann family. The elements of GNR, sent to the area and who arrived after 23:00 of May 3, didn’t see him that night but did the following morning, when he came to them to help as a translator.”
Kate in her book offers an explanation for the T3’s untimely participation:
“Like Fiona, Russell declared he’d seen Murat outside apartment 5A on the evening of 3 May, as, they discovered, had Rachael.
Jane phoned DCS Bob Small. She told him she’d encountered Murat before her rendezvous with the PJ and mentioned that Russell and Rachael had said they’d noticed him outside our flat on the night Madeleine vanished, in case either piece of information was important. Although at that stage it didn’t appear to our friends to be noteworthy for Murat to have been nearby when Madeleine was abducted – he lived just along the road, after all, and there was no reason why he shouldn’t have been there – the police took further statements from Fiona, Russell and Rachael.”
So the police put Tanner in a van to identify a man as the man she saw carrying Maddie. Her partner and 2 friends tell her they’ve seen him nearby the apartment when Maddie disappeared and she has to call the Leicestershire Police family liaison officer to ask if it’s important?
And why don’t Russell, Rachael and Fiona figure out for themselves that it’s important?
Do they need a second opinion? Apparently they do. Do these people ask others if they can go to bed and sleep, and if they get no answer, stay awake all night?
And the missing child’s mother finds this completely natural and acceptable.
It’s like these people expect us to believe the real world is filled with leprechauns hiding pots with gold under rainbow ends and that we’re surrounded by unicorns grazing just because they tell us it is so.
But it’s not only because of the untimely participation of the T9 that Amaral, in our opinion, starts to question himself about the bait that appears before him.
Before Rachael, Russ and Fiona had come forward, the CEOP profilers who, according to Amaral “witnessed the first interrogation of Robert Murat” work on his profile. “The profilers end up defining Robert Murat’s profile. With a strong probability, of 90%, of him being responsible for Maddie’s abduction.”
This profile was based, again according to Amaral, on the statement “from a pseudo-friend from teen years appears, a person with a criminal record.”
This pseudo-friend is Carlos Manuel Mateus Costa, who says the following about Murat on May 15:
“- At this time, the witness lived in Vila do Bispo. He was the neighbour of a British couple, P.L. and P.L. who are now deceased. This couple had a daughter whose name was LP, who was 17 years old. They were friends of Robert's mother, JAN MURAT. She was always with her son and they would often go to the home next to the deponent's in that same village. At this point Robert was 12 years old.
LP, the neighbour already mentioned, told him that Robert had tried to have sexual relations with her mother's cat. The animal responded by scratching him on various parts of his body. These injuries were seen by the by the deponent given that he [Robert] had visited the Castelejo beach in Vila do Bispo on various occasions. On one of these occasions, he saw Robert scratching at excoriations. He was told by LP that Robert had killed the cat out of spite. He also states that he witnessed a macabre episode perpetrated by Robert. He saw him once again trying to have relations, this time with the family dog, who ended up being forced into the house, situated in Almadena, Eiras Velhas.
Beside this, he states that when he went to the beach with Robert, he [Robert] would stay away from the rest of the group (about 15/20 metres) and not say a word to anyone the whole day.
He also adds that a cousin of Robert, of British nationality, whose name he does not know, and who lives in his house, has suffered an assault by Robert. For this reason, she left the home. These acts were hidden by Robert's mother, who protected him and who never punished him. At this point, Robert was 16 years old.
He would like to add that according to what he knows about Robert, he was not surprised that he was described as a disturbed person who could very easily turn violent. He is also someone with a sadistic and deviant sexual personality, and who also is misanthropic. This is based on contact with him for 15 years.
He also states that it is his opinion that Robert could have committed a crime of this nature, the abduction of a child. That he does not have the capacity of getting involved in a paedophile ring. If he did abduct this child, then the witness believes she may be dead. He concludes this from Robert's violent and deviant personality. He adds still that he also was violent with his mother when he was reprimanded and would react by kicking her.
He asserts that Robert did receive psychiatric treatment whilst in the U.K.”
Note the FOAF (Friend-Of-A-Friend) technique. Of all Costa accuses Murat of, he hasn’t seen anything personally apart from the fact, says Costa, that Murat “would stay away from the rest of the group”. The rest is what LP tells him and what says he knows about a “cousin of Robert, of British nationality, whose name he does not know”.
To those saying it was the T9 framing Murat, we ask how did they find a witness like Costa?
To put up an impromptu play of significant proportions one has to have a theatre. That means one already has the building, the stage, the lights and the seats, and all one has to do is to find some people and have them say some lines.
The quality of the show may not be the best, but it is a spectacle. Impromptu shows are prompted by the occasion and not planned in advance. There will be mistakes, many of them, but the show will go on.
If one does not own a theatre, to put on such a play one has to before build the building and its stage, get and mount up the lights, set up the seating arrangements and only then start to think about who one needs to say the lines.
The “show” put in Luz regarding Maddie, was a big and complex production.
It wasn't well acted out, many mistakes were made, but that’s the risk of any impromptu play. But it was of a size and complexity that no group of 9 could put together. Only “producers” who already owned theatres could be behind the spectacle we witnessed and continue to do so.
 |
| The PJ and “Operation Bait” timelines |
Amaral thinks someone is over-egging the pudding, a common mistake made by the arrogant, as we’ll see repeatedly in this post:
“It seems, suddenly, too easy to us: we know little of profiling, but to make one up based on a testimony of a man with a record is in the way of making hasty conclusions, and even, with little consistency.”
What we have described is NOT a plot but the description of a complex series of events that, in our opinion, happened.
We can conclude that on May 17, 2007, when Stephen Carpenter gives his statement:
- The Black Hats tried to keep the PJ distracted with a series of bogus suspects;
- Faced with the absence of the Smiths they decide to keep the PJ not distracted but busy and elect a target which the PJ can concentrate on: Robert Murat.
- Not due to any Black Hats action but as the result out of genuine suspicion, the PJ suspects Murat and acts on it, with the help (?) of British counter-parts;
- Jane Tanner confirms Murat as the Bundleman [who in 2013 would turn out to be SY’s Crèche Dad];
- CEOP profile Murat giving him a 90% possibility of being the abductor, a profile which Amaral gave little or no credibility;
- 3 other members of the Tapas group, Rachael, Russell and Fiona remember, suddenly, seeing him nearby apartment 5A on the night of May 3, 2007. Amaral does not find these statements credible;
Unknown to all but Amaral, as genuine as were his suspicions about Murat on May 11 he, in our opinion, becomes convinced that Robert Murat was being set up.
We believe that from this moment on, Gonçalo Amaral suspects about the true intention of the British authorities in Luz.
But the most important thing to note about what concerns Carpenter, which this post is about, is that the period of May 11 to May 14 – from initial suspicion to Murat being named arguido – the British authorities get to know the true reasons for Murat having become a suspect: he offered himself to be a translator.
That is what Carpenter must try and “debunk”.
3. Context
It’s on May 14, 2007 that Carpenter decides to act.
His wife had supposedly heard “Madeleine, Madeleine” on May 3, the night Maddie went missing.
He on May 4, had supposedly seen with his own eyes a garage where someone allegedly lived and where children’s toys appeared completely out of context.
But only when he hears that Murat had been named arguido, does he decide to speak up. Fascinating.
And why? Because he thinks they have the wrong man.
He thinks that it’s more likely to be a 50 yr old man with grey hair, who he didn’t see, but supposedly knows of his existence from other two guests, Neil Berry and Raj Balu, rather than Robert Murat.
When in Luz, with the authorities there, he says nothing, but 10 days later, he decides to speak.
He contacts the UK Police, via Philomena McCann [we will get back to this later], on May 14, is contacted 2 days later and heard on May 17, 2007.
Carpenter is nothing but the first antidote of “Operation Bait”.
Remember that the bait, Murat, is meant only to make the shark circle. When the shark gets too close, it has to be pulled out of the water temporarily. And is kept out of the water until the shark gives up and starts to swim away. Then the bait goes back into the water so the shark picks up the scent again and resumes the circling.
Carpenter is the first yanking of Murat out of the water.
His mission, to make it very clear that he was the one responsible for Murat getting involved in the case. A guest stating in very clear terms that Murat had not been nosy.
There’s a justification for his involvement and that justification is him.
Last week, in our “Planting a spy” post we said that Murat was planted in the investigation to keep the “Dark Side” permanently updated about the investigation. Ironically, he’s replaced by the British Police in that role.
Murat very quickly becomes expendable. And they do a Murat on Murat.
What is a Murat? A Murat is a convenient and conscious change of one’s role, done by others on to him not in accordance to reason but due to changes in direction of winds of reality.
The winds of reality for Murat was the fact that the Smiths didn’t show up and so no chances could be taken.
What we didn’t say last week was that it was Carpenter who planted him.
We said both Murat and Carpenter say it was like that. But as we showed we don’t think the Carpenter – Murat encounter ever happened.
But from the effective synchronisation between their statements we can deduce that for the PJ, Murat comes by the hand of Gerry McCann (after being introduced to him by Carpenter).
It’s Gerry who approves Murat as a translator according to both Murat and Carpenter. So for the PJ it’s he, Gerry, who is the link to Murat and the investigation. And Murat has appeared by chance.
In our opinion, Murat is “brought” to Gerry, not by Carpenter but on orders from whoever was able to make decisions in Luz on May 4. For some reason Murat doesn’t even remember Carpenter’s name.
But Carpenter has further use.
The Black Hats have a problem on their hands. The laundryman, Mario Marreiros has seen Neil Berry at the “hole in the stairs” in block 5 when he has no reason to be there and looked very dodgy.
Neil Berry needs credibility and the laundryman has to be discredited as much as possible.
When Carpenter steps forward, on May 14, Both Raj Balu (May 6) and Neil Berry (May 7) have given their first statements.
These are not in the files, but on their respective rogatory statements of 2008 both ratify what they said.
We’re sure they both said they spent the night searching. But the alleged decision to have a take-away dinner with each other at Berry’s apartment makes them linked to each other. Their credibility is intertwined.
This means that on one side, if one is proved to be lying then other will have been lying too, and about the other, what one says about what the other has done has little or no value.
For example, Berry saying that he and Balu, or the other way around, helped in the searches means nothing because this doesn’t prove either went.
Before solving whatever problem they have with laundryman, they have their credibility problem to deal with.
They need an independent witness saying they were seen searching.
No one else, has said they were seen searching.
On May 17, for anyone to come forward and say they saw Balu and Berry helping search, outside any context, would make them look even more suspicious, as it would look like someone was coming to their rescue. These things have windows of opportunity and theirs had passed. It would draw further attention to them.
Now, the only way to “confirm” that Balu and Berry were out searching is to report something they say they saw.
Enter Greyhairman.
Carpenter by bringing on to the scene Greyhairman, is not bringing in a new suspect but giving credibility to Balu and Berry’s statements.
Greyhairman shows, or is supposed to show, that these 2 were indeed out searching that night.
Credibility gained, there’s still the problem of laundryman having seen Berry under the stairs.
Here the reader may fall into the temptation of asking, why, on May 17, would they be worried about what Marreiros may have seen, if on May 8, Marreiros has already stated to the PJ that “he does not know of anything suspicious that could be related to the events”.
Because they don’t know what he has told the PJ. Why? Because he’s Portuguese. He was heard in Portuguese by a Portuguese, so his statement was taken and put directly into the file. His “he does not know of anything suspicious that could be related to the events” is only of the knowledge of the detective who questioned him and of Marreiros himself.
But, say you, you have said that the Portuguese staff was told to lie, so why wasn’t Marreiros told to do the same? Or him having said he didn’t see anything suspicious” is already the result of such a request?
There’s this idea that the staff were aware of the swinging. Just because they worked in the resort. We will deal with this topic in detail in another post, but for now we propose that the reader does an exercise.
Please choose any hotel you know with some activity in the area you reside in.
Now imagine you can ask anything about any and all guests who stayed there last night of any of the hotel’s employees and you will get honest answers from anyone questioned.
All you will be able to find out is how many guests were in the hotel last night and their names. That’s about it.
How many of them did indeed stay and sleep in their rooms? We imagine the majority or even all, but is there a certainty? No. No one can answer that question with certainty.
How many of the guests staying there last night had sex? Again, no one knows (and, by the way, if anyone was to know the answer to this question that would mean the hotel had serious privacy issues).
Of those who had sex, how many had it with their spouse, and how many had with people they were not married to? No one knows.
Of those who had sex with people they were not married to, how many were cheating (meaning married or in a long-term relationship with another than the one they were with) and how many were simply having a one-night stand? No one knows.
Was there any wife-swapping last night? No one knows.
Was there swinging there last night? No one knows.
Why? Because it happens inside a room and what happens inside the room is only of the business of those inside it.
Yes, experienced eyes may be able to tell the difference of clients going into a room for fun or simply to rest, but even these eyes are unable to tell what kind of relationship exists between those who use it for fun.
Back to Tapas. The staff who were asked to lie, or better, were told to lie, about the T9 and all that was related with them.
Word was quickly spread that if asked, they were to say that that group had dinner at Tapas.
Some, in the know, were to say they participated in the searches that night. But if one is to look at all statements, only a small minority of the staff say they searched for Maddie.
The majority were either home or if in the resort doing something else but not exactly searching.
For Marreiros to be told to lie about Berry would be to ask a member of staff to lie about someone other than the McCanns and their friends.
Maybe they should have asked him. Maybe they didn't want to risk asking him. Maybe they overlooked asking him. Maybe when Berry told what had happened, it was too late to do anything about it.
When Marreiros lies, as he does, when he says he didn’t see anything suspicious, we think is because he's simply trying to keep himself away from the events.
Not to get involved in the problems with the “bifes” (a word commonly used in Portugal to define the British, meaning “steak” in reference to the sunburned pink skin they quickly get on arriving at the Algarve beaches) were having among themselves. It was their problem, he didn't want anything to do with it.
On May 9, 5 days after Maddie has disappeared, everyone in the area already knows that the story told by the parents wasn't exactly what the parents and their friends were telling.
The abduction didn’t make any sense and everyone was already certain that the little girl had died due to some accident and now the parents were “a fugir com o rabo da seringa” (which translates, running with their behinds away from the syringe).
Very quickly, because of the media circus put in place, the locals understood that the best attitude was to stay as far away from it as possible.
So Marreiros, although seeing a tourist in an odd place at an odd time, decides to “overlook” it and pretends he didn’t see anything.
However, Carpenter’s laundryman saga, proves one thing, in our opinion, that is that Marreiros is not under control.
The Black Hats don’t know what he has said to PJ but assume that Berry’s odd behaviour and odd location would be suspicious enough to have been referred.
They felt the need to discredit the man and they carried on with it.
To sum up the context of Carpenter’s statement:
First, to emphasise that Murat was introduced by him and not Murat volunteering his services as a translator (main plot);
Second, to give credibility to Balu and Berry’s statements as first phase to defend against any possible attacks from Marreiros (Greyhaired man plot);
Third, to withdraw credibility from Marreiros as a second phase of defence for Balu and Berry (Laundryman plot).
But when one gives a plumber a gardening job, one ends up with a garden with only weeds.
Carpenter is not only able to fail at these 3 tasks, as by losing himself in the script, he provides more information than he was supposed to.
Even to the point of proving our blog right, as you’ll see further on.
(to be continued)
Following chapters:
4. The Murat plot.
5. The Greyhairedman plot
6. The Laundryman plot
7. Miscellaneous Feet-in-the-mouth
Thanks Textusa - I always look forward to Fridays.
ReplyDeleteApologies again for not knowing the deep detail of this case but I have a couple of questions. 1) If MM's body was kept overnight at RM's property then why does he always say that his "conscience is clear"? All involved "know" that no death related crime is committed as the death was an accident, the crime was concealment and disposal of the body. Hence, Murat was involved and his conscience would not be clear. 2) My answer to this question would be that his clear conscience is because he was not involved in the death itself - but he seems to be an intelligent person and his mind would still focus on the real crime of which he is clearly involved, surely?
In relation to this the death also has to be explained. If purely accidental there is no reason for the McCanns not to report it. The swinging doesn't have to be disclosed to do this unless, for example, it was not purely accidental (e.g. sedation) and a reason for that action then has to be given. But, as I have read elsewhere, it seems that the children were not left alone and sedated so how can this death be exaplained and why does it have to be covered up?
I presume you would have covered this in other threads but I lack the available time to review everything in detail. I find your writings fascinating and would appreciate it if you could point me in the right direction. Thanks!
Re Marreiros and why they were worried on 17th May what he might have revealed:
ReplyDelete" . . . they don’t know what he has told the PJ. Why? Because he’s Portuguese. He was heard in Portuguese by a Portuguese, so his statement was taken and put directly into the file. His “he does not know of anything suspicious that could be related to the events” is only of the knowledge of the detective who questioned him and of Marreiros himself."
Of course. So obvious, so logical, but I missed it, thank you Textusa.
I'll have another read through later when I have more time to take it all in, I always have to read your posts several times because they're so detailed :)
Nuala x
Hi Textusa, extremely good first post,if the UK establishment really wanted to find out what happened on the 3 May 2007, with regard to Madeline McCann, they should have kept their snouts out of the trough? Brown,Blair,Clarence,Cameron!?
ReplyDeleteThere has to be no doubt about collusion and cover up with regard to the situation.
SY have spent in excess of over £10 million pound so far in their Operation Grange investigation?Pardon my phrase (Bollocks,Whitewash,Daz test) they would have been better off rounding the group of special friends,media moguls,mouth pieces up and charge them All with conspiracy to "Pervert the course Justice" with their web of lies and deceitfulness in the disappearance of Madeline McCann? After all didn't Kate answer one of the 48 questions properly," do you realise that by not answering the questions put to you,You are Jeopardising the Investigation of your daughters disappearance",wasn't her reply along the lines of "if that's what you think.Yes?
Actions speak Louder than words,"We never searched for Madeline", we have been really busy since Madeline disappeared, first 48 hrs as can be confirmed by BBC interview?
Gerry caught "smirking" through an Apartment door, you tube video, is that the "Normal reaction" of a distraught Adult whose eldest Daughter has recently been Abducted!
One can only hope the Truth will come out about what these perpetrators have done in the disappearance of Madeline, that is all that matters.
Shocking to think of Murat's involvement, but logical he was involved. Odd, too, that he took an very early morning flight from the UK to Portugal to attend a 'meeting'. Yet he and Tapas friends all sued MSM later. What brass necks. What a cover up.
ReplyDeleteVery informative post - thanks Textusa. Look forward to next Chapters.
ReplyDelete' This is the biggest xxxxxx on the planet' - he must have felt rather bewildered at first as he became the bait in Operation Bait.
Thanks so much for setting the context again.
Love your blog - small point (not material to substance) - a fugir com o rabo da seringa, literally means "moving away like a behind from a syringe" (fear). :)
ReplyDeleteGreat work!
Just been reading SC's statement detail from your link. Its a tragic case but sometimes I have to smile. He describes the initial tennis club coffee morning with sixteen participants and then how he first played tennis against Kate etc etc. I cant help but substitute swinging whenever they say they played tennis. He lists the names of whom he played tennis with and it wouldn't surprise me if ... well you know what I mean..
ReplyDeleteTextusa, always love your work. Only concern I've got is about your thought that MM was stored for any time at Murat address. I know that those dogs spent more time at that address than they did elsewhere. They were completely disinterested. If they had alerted there RM would have been long convicted by now. I don't know if you have any thoughts on that.
ReplyDeleteYou've answered a lot of my questions there Textusa and particularly why they tried to frame RM, I didn't understood that and it was bothering me, so that's spooky, you're reading my mind now and anticipating my questions before they're even asked ;-) and everything you've said there makes sense to me. Pieces of a jig saw nicely fitting together.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Anonymous 20 Feb 2015, 18:37:00 except I was substituting a couple of words. There is one paragraph where if you substitute "played tennis" with "had sex" it reads quite well.
There are a lot of slip ups, or near slip ups in SC's statement, here's a couple:
"Humm...I don't remember what I said in my statement, I am not sure about this because when I think about the past, and I know that he was playing tennis >> and I imagine something different, that's why...humm I can't specify hours and dates."
"In total there were approximately some sixteen people at this coffee morning and tennis was one of the activities that the >> man, or that both subscribed to during the week."
This: "On Sunday or Monday he twisted his ankle, but managed to keep on playing, and on Sunday morning he only played tennis with Kate, that you saw them both playing sport and they passed by you at the bar on the beach and this was Sunday or Monday at about mid day."
Was he stalking them? He seems to know their every move ;-)
There is huge emphasis on tennis in SC's statement, either meetings about it, actually doing it, and when not doing then it's still the main topic of conversation, and SC struggles with that of course. I wondered about a different analogy Textusa rather than your plumber/gardening one, I would have said that if you give a Carpenter an electrical job one runs the risk of producing shocks.
They had no idea I imagine, when they made these statements, that one day they would be available on the Internet for all to read.
That would have been a shock of course, but it must be truly shocking to see one's statements revealed for what they really are.
Great work :)
Nuala x
Excellent as always but may I ask, if as you assert, Madeleine's body was kept at the Murat residence for a period of time, why didn't the dogs alert when they were sent in?
ReplyDeleteAnonymous 20 Feb 2015, 21:18:00 and snook179 21 Feb 2015, 03:35:00
ReplyDeleteYou both ask the BIG QUESTION, why didn’t the EVRD dog signal Murat’s house? We thank you for that.
We will deal with that in a separate post in the blog. The problem raised is the question of timing. We have only yesterday published the 1st of a 3 part post, so most likely will only answer that question then. We will see how best to fit it in our schedule.
But the answer to the question lies in Apartment 5A. It shows why the EVRD dog didn’t signal anything at Murat’s, even though it was obviously the same dog, so with the exact same capacity to signal cadaverine in either place.
What we won’t do is like we have witnessed some doing, is to say they believe the EVRD dog cannot smell death in Apartment 5A, so not reliable, and then believe he can smell it because if there was any cadaverine at Murat’s he would have detected.
We don’t tweak to convenience the dog’s reliability. We fully believe in the EVRD’s dog’s reliability. Where he signalled cadaverine, a body was there, or was in contact with the object.
However, that doesn’t mean the dog signalled every place where the body was.
Again, we thank you for the question, and hope to clarify it soon.
The Sunday Times reported this in their article
ReplyDeleteTrolls face longer jail terms for spreading misery
Tony Grew Published: 18 October 2014
"Last month McCann and her husband Gerry handed police an 80-page dossier containing hundreds of tweets, Facebook messages and posts from online forums abusing them and accusing them of being involved in the disappearance of their daughter. Some of the messages were directed at their other children, nine-year-old twins."
http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/news/uk_news/Tech/article1473136.ece?CMP=OTH-gnws-standard-2014_10_18
http://pastebin.com/bMXT4pkm
Hi Textusa,post of 12.15,looks like their the victim again,I wonder if they mention their league of followers who posted evil vile tweets about the late Mrs Brenda Leyland, did they hand these in to the Police, oh I forgot they do not follow Twitter or Facebook, but a close friend called Michael who is paid to do this on their behalf does(Find Madeline Fund)!?
ReplyDeleteI check back regularly to see if there are any new comments Textusa and don't normally take much notice of the page counter but today it just keeps going up and up.
ReplyDeleteIs that normal, that many visitors?
Nuala x
Nuala,
DeleteWe have a colour code for daily visits from Blogger. Without referring what numbers they refer to, I can tell you that since we began keeping record (Jan 7, 2014 - don't ask why, it just happened) this is what we have registered:
pink - not satisfied - 0
yellow - expected, but wishing for more - 0
green - satisfied, goal reached - 24
light blue - very pleased - 154
(from here, we had to start inventing colours)
purple - ok, now that's a suprise - 157
dark blue - pat on the back people! - 48
black - this won't happen again - 17
brown - it's happened... but more - 6
red - ok, just enjoy - 1
dark pink - what can we say? - 1
We can tell you that we have, since April 19 last year, we have had a "very pleased" (light blue) number of visits.
Today, at this moment (19:30). it's purple, almost starting dark blue.
Answering you, we are very, very, very pleased. And we have to thank readers like you!
Be interesting to see which colour it finishes on then ;-)
DeleteWithout this blog I wouldn't know what to make of the Maddie case. I've read a lot elsewhere as well and there's plenty of good information out there but your blog is the only place that steers along the path of truth whilst explaining each step of the way and giving the reasoning behind it, so it's invaluable :)
Nuala x
http://portuguese-american-journal.com/civil-action-mccanns-vs-amaral-verdict-coming-soon-by-len-port/
ReplyDeleteCivil action: McCanns vs Amaral verdict coming soon – By Len Port
Posted on 13 February 2015.
By Len Port, Contributor(*)
The verdict in Kate and Gerry McCann’s civil action against the former lead detective Gonçalo Amaral may come sooner than expected because of a recent behind-the-scenes development in the long-drawn-out case.
The question of whether or not Kate and Gerry McCann are legally entitled to represent their daughter Madeleine in their claim for damages has taken a significant step closer to being resolved, according to a source close to the process.
Madeleine was made a ward of court in the UK in April 2008. In January last year, Amaral argued in Lisbon’s Palace of Justice that because Madeleine was still a ward of court the McCanns did not have the legal right to represent her in their Lisbon lawsuit against him and three other parties.
The Lisbon judge, Emília Melo e Castro, gave Madeleine’s parents the opportunity to obtain appropriate documentation about the ward of court matter from the British High Court.
The McCanns had a 30-day set period in which to present this. They did so without delay and much earlier than expected. The documentation was presented to the Lisbon court through the couple’s lawyers on 23 January. None of the defense lawyers has or is expected to raise any objections.
So it is now up to the Lisbon judge to decide the relatively straightforward matter of whether the documentation attests to the McCanns’ right to represent Madeleine. When this is settled, the trial is expected to move towards its last formal exchanges and then, finally, sooner than most people had anticipated, perhaps next month, a verdict.
The McCanns are seeking €1.2 million in damages for the severe distress they say has been caused to them by Amaral’s book, A Verdade da Mentira (‘The Truth of the Lie’), and a subsequent documentary.
The judge’s recent summary of the main points in the case that had been proved or not proved left Amaral and his supporters optimistic about the eventual outcome.
Amaral said this week that he was hoping for an acquittal and the lifting of financial difficulties that have burdened him since the McCanns decided to sue five years ago.
I follow you every week but the dogs are 100% so you now agree Gerry?
ReplyDeleteUnpublished Anonymous at 21 Feb 2015, 22:20:00
ReplyDeleteWe are not publishing your comment because you accuse someone of something, which is not of common knowledge, without any sort of back-up.
If you would like to submit a link for the 45 minute cadaverine claim, it would be helpful.
http://www.pubfacts.com/detail/17403590/Cadaver-dogs--a-study-on-detection-of-contaminated-carpet-squares.
ReplyDeleteCadaver dogs are known as valuable forensic tools in crime scene investigations. Scientific research attempting to verify their value is largely lacking, specifically for scents associated with the early postmortem interval. The aim of our investigation was the comparative evaluation of the reliability, accuracy, and specificity of three cadaver dogs belonging to the Hamburg State Police in the detection of scents during the early postmortem interval.
Carpet squares were used as an odor transporting media after they had been contaminated with the scent of two recently deceased bodies (PMI<3h). The contamination occurred for 2 min as well as 10 min without any direct contact between the carpet and the corpse. Comparative searches by the dogs were performed over a time period of 65 days (10 min contamination) and 35 days (2 min contamination).
The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75-100), specificity (91-100), and having a positive predictive value (90-100), negative predictive value (90-100) as well as accuracy (92-100).
Affiliation
Institute of Legal Medicine, University Medical Center Hamburg, Germany.
We would like to clarify that this post is not about EVRD dogs.
ReplyDeleteWe received valid questions about the fact that the EVRD didn't signal anything in Murat's property.
We have answered them by saying that they will be answered in detail in due time, so we ask readers to hold their questions and opinions about the dog topic until that time.
This post is about Sephen Carpenter's statement and is the 1st of 3 parts.
Hi Textusa!
ReplyDeleteRe reading some of the Staments and the Rogatory Statments,iam continually agast at the almost Blase' approach these "witnesses" have!!!!
It's as if those people were involved in an Investigation into missing Luggage and not the whereabouts of a 3yr,nearly 4,years old little girl! Absolutley astounding!
Textusa I suspect that the BHs may have been a bit unlucky that the Smiths time was set in stone with the credit card receipt. If it had not been the 45 minutes between bundleman and smithman would have been explained away as the smiths being mistaken about the time
ReplyDeleteGood point.
DeletehI Textusa, with regard to post of 13.58 credit cards, Did Gerry McCann pay for the hire car, Renault Scenic,which he and a group of cohorts used by credit/debit card,Mr John Brown?
ReplyDeleteAs he or spokesperson's stated he did not have a credit card whilst in Portugal 2007, but then had his wallet/ credit card stolen when returning back there from the UK, with special books not for sale to the public, found in the rented apartment?
The UK Government refused the PJ access to this information, Why, freedom of information Act, National Security?
Hi Textusa,
ReplyDeleteThanks for the latest addition, insightful as always.
Some other miscellaneous oddities not o often reference in SC's statements. perhaps to highlight your point that SC often gives away too much information, or just too many words, more than are required to relay details as perhaps actually intended.
1
"A man was sitting on the esplanade having a drink whilst waiting for a take away" - how do you know he was waiting for a take away?
"I hadn't realised that the Tapas bar had a take away service" - Well isn't that great? and who enlightened you they did then?
Full quote:
"Another couple whose names I do not remember, sat at the table opposite us. A man was sitting on the esplanade having a drink whilst waiting for a take away, I spoke to them briefly, I hadn't realised that the Tapas bar had a take away service." - What? So did they tell you about this man's takeaway for some reason? Was this the topic of conversation? Who were this couple? You say you spoke briefly, was it about the guy having take away or you concluded this because he was sitting with a drink - what are the reasons you believe he was waiting for takeaway? Too many info droplets into the 'validation needed' test tube.
2
"..and afterwards [after searching other apartments and contaminating possible crime scenes] we walked to the beach in the attempt to find the scent, to see of she had got lost alone or had fallen into the sea, and it was just him and me and the dog handlers, so that there was not any big theme of conversation, just walking the route - or on the way back, when we arrived we talked with different Portuguese police"
- What route? to the beach? there are many routes to the beach - or do you mean route the police [or handlers] were walking with the dogs, as in, up and down the beach? if so, why don't you just say something softer to that effect. Odd word choice, 'the route' quite specific. There was a lot of hanging out with the police that day.
3
UK Police officer - "then you met Neil and Raj who began to talk and told you that they had collaborated in the searches the night before" - that's that covered off.
4
"You told them that you remember that some of the reporters were being unfair and incorrect because they were treating the situation as that of a missing child and not of a child whom had been abducted"
This is gargantuan - he met them 3 times, and has decided it is unfair, inappropriate, to use the word 'missing' instead of 'abducted' when referencing a missing child - For some reason, SC is already into politics and PR - to a BBC reporter no less.
5
"That is why it could obviously be seen, these apartments could be looked over from above and all the lower parts and where we, hummm.. this is where the grey haired man was."
Continue please - 'where we, hummm' what? - Do continue... Where we were searching? No? Where we were doing what?
Lastly:
[UK officer reading PJ question in rotatory}
DCF: OK, and it asks here what his behaviour was like on Thursday, 3rd May'
SC: His behaviour during the day or'
DCF: On all the occasions that you saw him.
SC: Always very good.
- Why then differentiate to explicitly ask for a time if he was 'always very good' - you said you didn't see him the night of the 3rd, bar at the Tapas, but not after the alleged abduction by virtue that you were gone by 9:30pm - so why would you need this clarification? - Why the need to check the time the question refers to if you hadn't seen a need for his behaviour to be different than any other time you saw him?
Looking forward to your next post.
GP.
We would like to warn our readers that we’re currently updating partially this post.
ReplyDeleteTo be more precise, in its point 2 “Background”.
This post, as we have said was lengthy. Reason why it is being posted in 3 parts. Its extensiveness caused for us to overlook crucial information.
In continuing our research we realized that 3 statements in the files plus other assorted material were of the utmost importance to truly understand the background to Stephen Carpenter’s statement.
With this “new” information things about the background changed significantly.
It reinforces our beliefs and what we have written.
There is one correction to be made on what we have published last Friday and that was to say that “Operation Bait” was a success. It wasn’t. It was indeed a flop.
However, due to surprising twists and turns in what is indeed a complex set of events, this correction has made us to be even more convinced in our beliefs as to what the material truth pertaining the Maddie’s case is.
The current “Background” is wrong, by default.
We owe it to our readers to correct it before we publish part 2.
We hope to do that tomorrow morning.
Thank you all for understanding.
Thanks for letting us know. Look forward to the revisions so that we get an even greater understanding of the case.
ReplyDeleteUnpublished Anonymous at 24 Feb 2015, 22:03:00,
ReplyDeleteWe won't be told by you what we MUST do or when.
If you want to develop a contamination theory, there are blogs, possibly yours, where you can do that (not must, as we won't give you orders)-
You will have to wait patiently for what we intend to publish.
Good for you ! They have been hi jacking the truth and have expected everyone to shut up while they were busy covering their tracks, causing havoc in people's lives. Appreciate your investigation and that you are finding all the rats who helped mccanns build the confusion stories around their little girl.
DeleteWe inform readers that we have now published the updated "Background".
ReplyDeleteThanks for updating the background. You do such a great job in understanding all the little elements behind the actions. These people were reacting on a daily basis to events and thinking on their feet. What an enormous effort was made to hamper the investigation. That you have been able to see through it - and Amaral was too - is excellent. To hide the swinging party was so essential to them that it warranted this effort and resource
ReplyDeleteJust another puzzle from SC. When he relates meeting RM for the first time he proceeds to take him to see Gerry. The way he describes this is as if he had been to the apartment on the same morning,possibly having just come back from there? Can you ( or will you soon.)throw some light on that?
ReplyDeleteFrom SC interview McCannPJfiles......
he told me he was Robert and this was the first time I had seen this man. Robert mentioned that he had a daughter in Norfolk who was the same age as Madeleine, and that is why he was able to understand what they were going through. We walked back along the path that I had taken to Gerry's apartment and I explained that Robert spoke Portuguese fluently, he told Gerry that it was important to have someone who spoke the language so that nothing would be lost in translation.. And that was how Robert Murat was presented as a translator.
Anonymous 25 Feb 2015, 11:32:00,
DeleteThank you for your question, we have already answered it the Post Scriptum we wrote to our "Planting a spy" post"
http://textusa.blogspot.pt/2015/02/planting-spy.html
Knowing how the BH's have tried to shape perception of this case (stink bombs , clutter etc.), I wonder if the concept of TAPAS 9 was invented from the start to make us think this was a group of doctors on holiday. It is clear that a wider bunch of guests were involved and helped in the 'cover-up' - and that some of the other 60 guests knew members of the TAPAS 9 better than the TAPAS 9 knew each other. The focus on the TAPAS 9 may have been intended to mislead - to make us associate this with a small number of doctors (possibly there on a medical conf / pharmaceutical conf), deflecting from the wider group of guests who were evidently from all walks of life united by a 'party'. From their rogatory statements, some members of the TAPAS 9 only knew Kate and Gerry from FP's wedding in Italy and had scarcely met since then. Why link these 9 people when there were clearly stronger links between other members of the TAPAS 9 and other guests.. just wonder if it was clutter aimed to confuse and distract..
ReplyDeleteThey say there was a wedding in Italy, it doesn't make it true.
DeleteThanks for the update Textusa, you go to so much trouble to give us such detailed analyses and it's very appreciated :)
ReplyDeleteThe anon phone call on 8th May re Robert Murat, I thought that was someone trying to implicate him, rather than being someone who actually knew him, particularly because of this bit:
"She said most of the mails he sent were encrypted due to the monitoring of the kind of content they possessed."
That implies correspondence related to paedophilia. Swinging isn't illegal and any correspondence involving adults and sexual activity wouldn't require encryption, I imagine cyberspace is full of it, only if it concerned children would extra care need to be taken.
It seemed to me the anon woman was trying to imply RM was a paedophile hence a prime suspect for abducting a little girl and it was received the same day CEOP arrived whereas Costa's statement wasn't received until 15th May and RM was made a suspect on 14th May.
I'm probably missing something obvious though as usual ;-)
Nuala x
Nuala,
DeleteWe are into subjective territory on this.
We have thought up to now that the paedophilia stigmatisation was centered solely on David Payne.
Involving Gerry in the Gaspars episode, may prove us wrong and you right.
We saw the encryption as a possible means of communication between him and "Very Important Guests".
Reading your words, makes us think that you may be more spot-on on this than we are.
VIGs use third parties to do the communications for them, so we would agree with you.
Gonçalo Amaral considers your possibility.
The "manga" (japonese adult cartoons) found on one of the computers didn't help him much.
In our defence, we were clear that we were just speculating on the encrypting thing! :)
Thank you!
Textusa,
Deletehttp://www.gazettelive.co.uk/news/teesside-news/anime-fan-convicted-over-illegal-7958896
Manga illegal images
The law has changed in UK since 2007.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/CARLOS-COSTA.htm
DeleteSorry, forgot to add that RM cartoons would now be illegal in UK. They portray pre teens
DeleteAnonymous25 Feb 2015, 22:30:00 and 22:38:00,
DeleteTo be clear, we find manga profoundly distasteful. For the reason you speak of: portrayal of young teens, 14/15 yr old girls (would disagree with manga portraying pre-teens, 10-13 yrs girls)
But, and that is what matters in this case, not considered illegal in Portugal. So it's wrong saying (we know you didn't, but some do) that there were found paedo images in one of Murat's computers.
Distasteful, yes, illegal, no.
Thanks for the reply Textusa :)
DeleteI'm really looking forward to reading your next post tomorrow :)
Nuala x
Hi textusa, I wonder how long before ex DCI Redwood will become an associate as a private Investigator in "Leaving No Stone Unturned" into the disappearance /Abduction by a stranger as his conclusion whilst being lead detective on Operation Grange/whitewash?
ReplyDeleteThe lead ex- detective wanted to hear from the first named arquido, RM as a Person of Interest in this case,which he was to investigate as though the "Abduction had happened from the UK's perception" in the UK,which of course did not happen!.
Stephen Carpenter so called introduces Robert Murat to Gerry as an interpreter?
So how can DCI Nicola Wall not be able to interview Gerry of how well he knows Robert Murat,("i'm not going to comment on that") when Clarence Mitchell was stood at his side on the video? Person of Interest. Nicola?
Perhaps Nicola can also find out why Rob Oldfield had Robert Murat's phone contact details in his mobile, as didn;t DCI Redwood state that they had phone records available from the disappearance 3 May 2007, Rob Oldfield states he was first introduction to Robert Murat outside his Mothers Villa, morning of the 4 May 2007, when Madeline was last seen alive by the Tapas group of special friends,3 May 2007!
Perhaps, DCI.Wall can explain how Gerry's and Roberts mobile phones both have reconnection times at a certain time /date in Portugal,Golf course?
Hi Textuas, one thing bothering me about DCI Redwoods creche Dad explanation,bundle man why would creche Dads daughter be wearing Pyjamas when she is supposed to have been in the creche,did he dress her for bed then decide to to take her to the creche, very strange?
ReplyDeleteHi textusa, just realised my mix up of names in my post from13.12.
ReplyDeleteRussel O'brien, Jane Tanners partner instead of the name I used (Rob Oldfield) apologies to any Rob Oldfields!
so should read as,
Perhaps DCI Nicola Wall can find out why Russell O'Brien had Robert Murats phone contact details in his mobile phone as didn't DCI Redwood state he had phone records from around the time of the disappearance of Madeline 3 May 2007.
Russell states his first contact with Robert Murat the morning of 4 May 2007 outside his mothers villa residence, when Madeline was seen alive by the Tapas group of Special friends on the previous evening.
So Robert Murat meets both Gerry McCann and Stephen Carpenter,Russell O'Brien in one Morning, was (Jane Tanner their as well?)
Perhaps, DCI Wall can explain how Gerry's and Robert's mobile phones both have a sudden reconnection time at a certain time/date in Portugal,Golf course may be when they are supposedly not to have been introduced to one another yet?
Sincere apology over the name mix up,got carried away reading your posts, brain freeze!