Saturday, 14 July 2007

Robert Murat interview with Martin Brunt, from Sky News: Portuguese CID is analysing the facts, in order to decide what action will be taken

Robert Murat may have violated the law, when he talked with Martin Brunt, from Sky News, about details of the crime investigation concerning to Madeleine McCann’s abduction. Portuguese CID spokesman told Gazeta Digital that “Polícia Judiciária has already information about the interview and is analysing the facts, in order to take a proper action”.
Witnesses and “arguidos” (formal suspects that haven’t yet been accused, in the Portuguese legal system) are forbidden to talk about the crime investigation. Doing it means they committed a crime. The final decision about prosecuting Robert Murat for breaching the “Secrecy Law” in a crime investigation will be taken by the Public Prosecutor’s Office.

6 comments:

pd said...

Paulo,just a thought. How does murat's status as an arguido prevent him from commenting on the investigation, whereas it doesn't prevent Mr McCann (as a witness) touring the world doing the same, including to an assembly of British police. I truly do not understad this, as I thought there were as many restrictions on witnesses as on 'suspects'.
In Britain, Mr McCann said that his daughter had been 'snatched from her bed while sleeping'. He also maintains she is still alive. And for some time was convinced she was NOT in Portugal. These are all highly-contested matters governing the investigation.
Which is, to say the least, an interesting version of the direction of the police investigation.
Also, I am surprised there is not more in the Portuguese press relating to the astonishing - and sudden - appearance of the three English witnesses.
Arent' there Portuguese nationals who work in the Ocean Club who said Murat was not there that night? Why are the PJ so adamant he was?
But at long last, one of my questions to you is beginning to be answered - the two Oldfields, Payne, O'Brien and Jane Tanner have now been named as having been in the tapas bar that evening. I'm surprised you are so hard on the Sol article - at the very least, it was the first place with the guts to name the McCann Party, after all.
Now we need to know who went back to check; when they went back; how long they were away.
I am interested in this, simply to ascertain whether any of the McCanns party have an alibi as strong as Robert Murat's.
As you know, everyone needs an alibi. Don't they?
Thanks for the information as always.

Paulo Reis said...

Pd,

I never heard or read Gerry McCann talking about specific details of the crime investigation. About the fact that Madeleine was kidnapped while sleeping, this is the crime and a fact that is of public knowledge. "Arguidos" and witnesses can't talk about the crime investigation - meaning, details related with the Police investigation or considered by Police as being part of the crime investigation. I remember Gerry refused, on a TV interview, to tell who was the last person to see Madeleine and at what time it happened, justifying his denial with the necessity to respect Portuguese law. And I think it’s natural a father saying he believes his kidnapped daughter is alive, I’m not sure if that was a detail given to him y Police or just the hope of father…
Almost all Portuguese newspapers had references and identified the three McCann friends that came to Portugal to be confronted with Robert Murat, the same with TV and radio. And in the first days after May 3, they also referred in detail to the seven McCann friends that were having dinner together, that night.
I can’t tell you the reasons of the convictions of PJ about Murat being at Madeleine’s room after she vanished – they don’t talk with me about that!
I don’t think I was hard on weekly “Sol”, PD. They wrote Gerry and Kate, and their friends were considered suspects by Police – this is a fact. I asked PJ if they had changed their position, made public almost two months ago – Gerry and Kate were not suspects. PJ told me “no, we didn’t change our position, we don’t consider Madeleine’s parents as suspects” – that is another fact. I just wrote six or seven lines with this, without comment…
And no, “Sol” was not the first Portuguese media to name some of McCann friends. Others did it, before “Sol”. If McCann friends have or not alibi as strong as Murat, I don’t know. But I would like very much to know it (and I have been trying hard...) because that would be a good story for any journalist…

Regards,

Paulo Reis

Paulo Reis said...

Pd,

I never heard or read Gerry McCann talking about specific details of the crime investigation. About the fact that Madeleine was kidnapped while sleeping, this is the crime and a fact that is of public knowledge. "Arguidos" and witnesses can't talk about the crime investigation - meaning, details related with the Police investigation or considered by Police as being part of the crime investigation. I remember Gerry refused, on a TV interview, to tell who was the last person to see Madeleine and at what time it happened, justifying his denial with the necessity to respect Portuguese law. And I think it’s natural a father saying he believes his kidnapped daughter is alive, I’m not sure if that was a detail given to him y Police or just the hope of father…
Almost all Portuguese newspapers had references and identified the three McCann friends that came to Portugal to be confronted with Robert Murat, the same with TV and radio. And in the first days after May 3, they also referred in detail to the seven McCann friends that were having dinner together, that night.
I can’t tell you the reasons of the convictions of PJ about Murat being at Madeleine’s room after she vanished – they don’t talk with me about that!
I don’t think I was hard on weekly “Sol”, PD. They wrote Gerry and Kate, and their friends were considered suspects by Police – this is a fact. I asked PJ if they had changed their position, made public almost two months ago – Gerry and Kate were not suspects. PJ told me “no, we didn’t change our position, we don’t consider Madeleine’s parents as suspects” – that is another fact. I just wrote six or seven lines with this, without comment…
And no, “Sol” was not the first Portuguese media to name some of McCann friends. Others did it, before “Sol”. If McCann friends have or not alibi as strong as Murat, I don’t know. But I would like very much to know it (and I have been trying hard...) because that would be a good story for any journalist…

Regards,

Paulo Reis

Paulo Reis said...

Pd,

I never heard or read Gerry McCann talking about specific details of the crime investigation. About the fact that Madeleine was kidnapped while sleeping, this is the crime and a fact that is of public knowledge. "Arguidos" and witnesses can't talk about the crime investigation - meaning, details related with the Police investigation or considered by Police as being part of the crime investigation. I remember Gerry refused, on a TV interview, to tell who was the last person to see Madeleine and at what time it happened, justifying his denial with the necessity to respect Portuguese law. And I think it’s natural a father saying he believes his kidnapped daughter is alive, I’m not sure if that was a detail given to him y Police or just the hope of father…
Almost all Portuguese newspapers had references and identified the three McCann friends that came to Portugal to be confronted with Robert Murat, the same with TV and radio. And in the first days after May 3, they also referred in detail to the seven McCann friends that were having dinner together, that night.
I can’t tell you the reasons of the convictions of PJ about Murat being at Madeleine’s room after she vanished – they don’t talk with me about that!
I don’t think I was hard on weekly “Sol”, PD. They wrote Gerry and Kate, and their friends were considered suspects by Police – this is a fact. I asked PJ if they had changed their position, made public almost two months ago – Gerry and Kate were not suspects. PJ told me “no, we didn’t change our position, we don’t consider Madeleine’s parents as suspects” – that is another fact. I just wrote six or seven lines with this, without comment…
And no, “Sol” was not the first Portuguese media to name some of McCann friends. Others did it, before “Sol”. If McCann friends have or not alibi as strong as Murat, I don’t know. But I would like very much to know it (and I have been trying hard...) because that would be a good story for any journalist…

Regards,

Paulo Reis

pd said...

Hi paulo,thanks for the thorough reply.
Firstly, if the PJ are as you say treating the disappearance solely as an abduction, then this is certainly news in the UK.
Mr McCann has made several references to the case - right from the outset, with the jemmied shutters, up to and including the statement that Madeleine was 'snatched from her bed while sleeping' which are all absolutely related to the case.
As, indeed, are the comments on his blog regarding the three witnesses - friends of his - who were giving evidence last week.
I understand there is one official suspect in the case - Robert Murat - so that is not in question.
But I would be concerned if he was being regarded as the only possibility in the case.
And I can only express surprise that the several friends of the McCanns, who were on holiday with them, have only had their identities revealed via the Sol article in the first instance and over this last week when they were recalled to Portugal.
The British press did not reveal any of their details - even as regards exactly how many of them there were - at any point over the last two months.
Now, whatever about Portuguese law, Paulo, ordinary investigative journalism of even the lightest kind would have chased those people down with some energy.
The fact that didn't happen and that the most basic details of this case are shrouded in mystery are two reasons why there is so much scepticism in the UK regarding it. For instance, Jane Tanner - who saw the man carrying what appeared to be a child at 9.30pm - has now disappeared again from press coverage. It is now being reported that that witness has yet to be identified.
Now, that is very odd, Paulo.
I remain unconvinced by so much in this case - as you well know, because you highlighted it first, the family's immediate realisation that Madeleine had been abducted does not tally with the very long delay in calling the PJ.
If the PJ are solely focusing on Murat, then this case is at risk of not coming to a conclusion one way or another. Which is why I wondered if there were any other people 'in the frame', even as options if Murat's alibi stands up.

Phew!
Best regards!

Grannyfinn said...

Brunt's latest blog refers to that prosecution. He is rather confusing in his article with snide remarks about the long lunches of Portuguese police. Then he tells an odd story of his dinner with a British chief constable. What do you make of that?
Best regards from Finnish grandmother