2 January 2008

Justice for Madeline McCann

A scenario of a criminal case for you to base a judgement on.

Please forget any background thoughts or information that you may have and look solely at the evidence that I state.

This is a hypothetical case based on a real case.

Lets just say that a murder has been committed and there is absolutely no forensic evidence like DNA or a murder weapon to help support a police investigation into the murder.

There are however witnesses who were present in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night in question, who each observed their surroundings and who was present in those surroundings.

The police arrest someone based on evidence not known to the public and make them an official suspect in the murder case.

This suspect gives the police a text book water tight alibi about his movements on the night in question that the murder was committed.

He said that he was at his girlfriends house all night that is a stones throw away from the murder scene, sitting in the kitchen talking and he never left the house once during the course of the evening.

His girlfriend supports this alibi with a statement under oath.

This text book water tight alibi and no forensic evidence linking this person to the crime prevents the police from charging the suspect with the murder, but the suspicion is still aimed at the person based on information that is not yet known to the public.

The police continue with their investigation into the murder and find no forensic evidence linking anyone to the murder.

They do however have witness statements from those who were in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night in question.

Out of the witnesses there are 9 who claim to have seen the suspect who is under suspicion for the murder, in the vicinity of the crime scene on the night the murder took place, even though the suspect denies this and has an alibi to back up his denial.

Out of the 9 witnesses there is a Barrister, Business woman, several nannies and friends of the victim who all state categorically under oath that they saw him there.

Either the 9 witnesses are lying or the suspect and his alibi are lying.

If you was the chief investigating officer what would you think about the suspect and his alibi?

To our knowledge there is no forensic evidence linking the suspect to the crime, what there is though is a suspect and his only witness lying about his movements on the night in question.

The question has got to be; why has the suspect in the murder enquiry lied about his movements on the night the murder took place?

You might not be able to arrest and charge the suspect for murder but you have a solid lock tight case that would stand up in a court of law proving that the suspect and his girlfriend have lied about his movements when the murder happened so have perverted the course of justice in a very serious crime.

Is it not the chief investigating officer's duty to charge the suspect with perverting the course of justice which holds a hefty prison sentence with the hope that the suspect or his accomplice eventually tells the truth about their movements and the reason for them lying.

If you are a suspect in a very serious crime and you lie about your alibi then does this not raise the suspicion of guilt?

Not only that, if there are also discrepancies in the two statements given as the alibi, does this not prove that the alibi you have been given is false.

If you was a judge, barrister, lawyer or police investigator looking at this case and these were some of the facts before you, would you not agree with my words?

And if no action is taken about a chief suspect who is lying about his movements on the night that the murder took place, then does this not then present some serious questions that need answering about the team that investigating the crime and the justice system whose responsibility it is to bring charges?

9 credible witnesses would stand up in any court of law on planet Earth, compared to a chief suspect and his girlfriend who would lie for her boyfriend anyway, especially if she knew he was guilty.

This scenario is obviously based on Robert Murat, the chief suspect in the abduction of Madeline McCann and if no action is taken against him and his mother then what does this say to the whole world?

He might not have been the one who stole the innocent child from her bed, but from where I am sitting he is definitely complicit in the crime based on lying about his movements on the night in question - Why else lie?

Hi elderly mother is also perverting the course of justice on behalf of her son.

In her mind, are the rest of her years alive on planet Earth worth sacrificing to save her son.

People are trying to discredit the 9 witnesses saying that they waited 8 months before coming forward, if those people that state that had an ounce of intelligence then they would know that these witnesses did not just crawl out of the wood work being paid by Metodo3 8 months later, these witnesses will either be on Portuguese police records or British police records from months back, stating exactly what they are stating now.

Robert Murat is due to have his arguido status lifted tomorrow and has told the Portuguese police to put up or shut up.

No matter what happens, once the International courts are brought to bare upon this case we will know through the subsequent enquiry as to who it was within the Portuguese Establishment who has chosen not to charge Robert Murat with his complicity in this crime - That is if they do not charge him of course.

We wait now until tomorrows deadline to see whether the Portuguese police are going to exercise their official duty in this case and charge Robert Murat and his mother for perverting the course of justice in the case of the kidnapped little child Madeline McCann.

Daily Mail: Put up or shut up

Further reading: Robert Murat - A profile

Further reading: The historic mistake

Further reading: The noose around their necks


Anonymous said...

Murat will have his status changed for the better all for saying "put up, or shut up" and now the McCains are being listed as "prime Suspects" with less proof against them than there is against Murat and to think there was once a saying both the English and Americas lived by, "and JUSTICE for ALL" but not any more.


Minnea said...

I absolutely agree with you:

I think there is lot of good questions conserning Murat and Malinka. Why Malinka lied that he hadn’t spoken to Murat in over a year, but the phone records show he had exchanged several calls with Murat on the night Madeleine vanished and CCTV showed them talking in person in the days that followed.

And why Malinka wiped clean hundreds of files on his computer hard drive minutes before police swooped on his apartment in Praia da Luz.


Why very nervous Malinka said in Sky news-interview: "I don't rape little kids. I'm a normal man." Has anyone claimed he rapes little kids?


Why Robert Murat hurriedly hired a car two days before he was arrested - despite already having two vehicles and why he lied Madeleines parents need to borrow his car? This was not true.


Murat had kid porn on his computer. It is illegal, why nobody arrested him?


Why Walczuch lied she was at a Jehovah's meeting in Lagos, four miles from Praia da Luz, on the night of May 3. But church elder Brother Teofilo Castila said: "She was thrown out of the church a year ago."


Why PJ made Robert Murat an arguido 14.5.2007 and 15.5.2007 PJ/Sousa announced they have no evidence to arrest Murat. I mean it is really strange, how often have you seen police investigates somebody just one day?


Lot of lies, lot of questions and no answers. Before I get answers to these questions and many more, I believe they all are involved Madeleine's abduction.