Chit Chat
There is currently 1 person viewing this thread.
These 410 comments are related to the topic:
Martin Brunt , sky "journalist"
Martin Brunt , sky "journalist"
sort by:
Show
per page
Replies: 410
|
By:
I don't why everybody seems to think that the police are going to tell you ANYTHING with regard to their investigations. Why would they want details in the public domain?
Just as an example: When that student was murdered in Bristol there were all sorts of theories going about as to who did it. The landlord? The boyfriend? The landlord's mate? Somebody who followed her home from the office party? Strangely, it was none of these. It was somebody who had NEVER been mentioned in any police or media reports. Do you think it was a surprise to the police like it was to the public? Highly unlikely. Do you seriously think that the police never thought to ask the landlord "Who lives next door, sir"? You couldn't make it up...but unfortunately, most of you DO! I am quite happy to declare that I haven't got a clue what happened...which is only to be expected. |
|
By:
*don't know why* FFS. I'm getting worse!
 |
|
By:
|
|
By:
As for Naydam.... every time this case comes up on here he just demonstrates that he has never seriously read anything on the case at all . He frequently responds to things people post against the McCanns implying that the info is made up, when it is a matter of fact if he could be bothered to look at the links people provide . Every thread he repeats the McCann myths that have been popularized by The Sun,Mirror etc 'the police didn't look for the abductor , they just focused on the parents from the start ' and he has nothing to say against any of the evidence that is presented other than the (British) Police must have checked all this out .
Well if they have done why don't they reveal why the McCanns are not to be considered as suspects , why don;'t they explain all the discrepancies / oddities that have been raised on this thread so that no one will suspect them anymore . The idea that they have some secret proof of abduction that they won't reveal is laughable . 'The police don't want all the info in the public domain'  The entire investigation is in the public domain ! All the witness statements/ timelines , suspects considered from 2007 has been published . The suspects Scotland Yard have put forward now are people who were checked out in 2007 , or based on efits from back then .How many cases must the UK police screw up before Naydam loses his faith in their genius ? These are the cops who need 3 or 4 searches of houses and parks to find dead bodies that have been there all along. He even picks as an example of their expertise the Jo Yeates murder !! Yes it did come a as surprise to the police that the dutch guy was the killer ! .. because he gave them an alibi and they said 'ok fine' and left him alone for weeks , meanwhile they arrested the landlord because he had funny hair  and it was only when the killer's girlfriend called them and basically said she knew he did it that they had another look at him . |
|
By:
The phones of murat and mccann being switched off and on 32 hours apart within minutes of each other the day before she went missing is strong enough evidence they knew each other, Murat should still be a suspect and it may explain why no dna / fingerprints were ever found in the flat other than that off the mccanns, if gerry simply walked out with madeliene and passed her to him
 |
|
By:
Well, I've just been composing quite a long reply...but somehow it's gorn! I guess I must have caught a wrong key. I'll regard it as an omen act of God!
|
|
By:
The phones of murat and mccann being switched off and on 32 hours apart within minutes of each other the day before she went missing is strong enough evidence they knew each other,
'Strong' evidence. FFS..what is your IQ? |
|
By:
They switched their phones off within 5 minutes of each other on the 2nd of May
They both switched their phones back on 32 hours later again within 5 minutes of each other. Are you telling me this is some amazing coincidence , it['s my my IQ you need to question Gerry McCaan was asked "did you know Robert Murat He replied "No comment" ? If he didn't know Murat, then why did he not simply say "no"? no comment is as good as saying yes as he had no reason whatsoever not to answer directly. |
|
By:
I am telling you that this would be laughed out of court as 'strong evidence' that they knew each other.
IF, it it factually true in the first place. |
|
By:
Yes "strong evidence" is the wrong phrase I used, but you must admit it is highly unlikely they didn't know each other. You can watch the brief clip of Gerry Refusing to answer that question on youtube. It's hard to think any other way.
|
|
By:
you must admit it is highly unlikely they didn't know each other
Are you on drugs? Why is it highly unlikely that the didn't know each other? As regards 'No Comment'...Gerry would be very unwise to answer that question with anything other than a 'No Comment'. What if he had had a brief chat with Murat about the weather in a newsagent whilst buying a paper in the week running up to the disappearance. And this exchange was caught on cctv. Or sat beside him in a bar. Very possible btw cause Luz is tiny. |
|
By:
I think most people would say that Gerry should have been more concerned with what was at the time a search for his daughter than he was about his own legal rights.
|
|
By:
You cannot infer from this comment that he was more concerned with protecting his legal rights at the time than he was about the search for his daughter.
|
|
By:
no ozy, I'm not on drugs.
The question was "did you know robert murat" not "have you ever met robert murat", he could either way have quite simply said, "I don't know him, and if I have ever met him briefly, I can't remember" I am open to whether they are guilty or not, but you cannot just disregard and pass off such strong coincidences. Who ever switches off their phone for prolonged periods if at all? but more to the point, the fact, based on the police's records of their phone activity,that both of their phones were switched off with 5 minutes of each other and then both switched on 32 hours later both within 5 minutes of each other is really one hell of a coincidence don't you think, I don't know anyone that ever switches their phone off at any point, maybe to silent or vibration, but not off for no apparent reason, and they've never explined this either. If you switch off your phone then your phone will not be able to send ping's to the nearest phone mast, meaning they didn't want their locations at certain times on the 2nd / 3rd of may to be known. |
|
By:
At the time the question was asked Murat, had been heavily involved in the search, so there is a good chance he did know him by that point. And what is 'knowing'? No comment is the correct answer to the media.
As regards the phones being 'switched off' there is little or no point in analysing this as the very premise is completely open to conjecture. You can read about it here; http://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t320-why-were-both-murat-s-and-gerry-mccann-s-mobiles-switched-off-for-the-same-32-hours-on-2-and-3-may-2007 |
|
By:
I was not talking about his failure to answer one question. I was talking about the McCanns failure to answer nearly 50 questions several of which were questions about their exact actions immediately after they discovered their daughter was missing. Some of which were questions the police would have asked even if it was certain their daughter had been abducted.
|
|
By:
Are you talking about when they were made officially suspects?
|
|
By:
The questions they refused to answer when interviewed by police.
|
|
By:
Your reference to '50' questions unanswered leads me to believe you are refering to when they were made Official Supects, several week after the disappearance. It had become a witch hunt at this point and they took this decision under legal advice. Wisely imo.
Are you suggesting in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance that they failed to answer police questions, thus hindering the investigation at this time. This is news to me. |
|
By:
http://youtu.be/6qNhoWz0rQw?t=22s
Again he could quite clearly have said, if he had met him after the disappearance, that until that point, he had never met him, there is no need whatsoever to say no comment. His body language is that of anger and annoyance he'd been asked, basically ozy it's bollox to suggest he was advised not to answer such a straightforward question, if he was advised to it was bad advice as anyone with half a brain would no it would only arouse more suspicion. Also, why was he laughing and joking a week later after she had disappeared as if he hadn't a care in the world ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask If my daughter had been abducted 6 days earlier I'd be in bits, he seemed not to have a care in the world. |
|
By:
he seemed not
Is that a legal term? |
|
By:
Also, why was he laughing and joking a week later after she had disappeared as if he hadn't a care in the world ?http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=9VlS-gO5Ask
If my daughter had been abducted 6 days earlier I'd be in bits, he seemed not to have a care in the world. If I'd have killed my daughter 6 earlier I'd be in bits, he seemed not to have a care in the world. What's your point? |
|
By:
The first series of questions were to do with reconstructing the crime scene inside the apartment and establishing a time line of events when their daughter was discovered missing. They started off by refusing to answer even these questions. These were not loaded questions.
|
|
By:
re the Murat question...had he answered truthfully, i.e 'I might have done, I am not sure, I don't think so'...that would have been seized upon as equally suspicious. Its hard to win.
|
|
By:
No point being keep being smart arse ozy, I am just asking the question.
Shrewd dude, the point is, it's very unnatural behaviour, I would have thought that was obvious. |
|
By:
Again, Paddletoe, you fail to refer clearly to what set of questions you are refering.
To repeat; Your reference to '50' questions unanswered leads me to believe you are refering to when they were made Official Supects, several week after the disappearance. It had become a witch hunt at this point and they took this decision under legal advice. Wisely imo. Are you suggesting in the immediate aftermath of the disappearance that they failed to answer police questions, thus hindering the investigation at this time. This is news to me. |
|
By:
You are not asking questions, Scandinavian haven, you have clealry made up your mind.
For example seizing upon an internet reference to 'phones being off' as strong evidence' rather than bothering to establish the veracity of the underlying claim. That is what someone with an open mind would do. |
|
By:
I was referencing what roberthall had investigated and included in his documentary, that is a pretty bizarre ting to have made up otherwise. If you read my comments on this thread, I have looked at their possible guilt/innocence from both angles.
Are you sure your name isn't clarence mitchell |
|
By:
Have you read the link I referenced?
|
|
By:
When they were interviewed they clearly hindered the investigation whether that was immediately afterwards or two months afterwards.
|
|
By:
Completely different set of circumstances, paddletoe. It had become a witch hunt by then and self preservation had become the priority.
|
|
By:
Ozy, you have to be member of the linked site on your link to read it, but yes I read this part, Look at that thread (it's not long) that I've directed you to and you'll get your answer. The information about DrGM's and RM's mobile telephones comes from the various telephone records held and released to the public by the PJ. The detailed sources are given within that thread.
|
|
By:
Read the entire link. A similar conclusion is reached on the thread you cannot access.
|
|
By:
tobermory 12 Oct 14 05:07
As for Naydam.... every time this case comes up on here he just demonstrates that he has never seriously read anything on the case at all . He frequently responds to things people post against the McCanns implying that the info is made up, when it is a matter of fact if he could be bothered to look at the links people provide . Every thread he repeats the McCann myths that have been popularized by The Sun,Mirror etc 'the police didn't look for the abductor , they just focused on the parents from the start ' and he has nothing to say against any of the evidence that is presented other than the (British) Police must have checked all this out . Well if they have done why don't they reveal why the McCanns are not to be considered as suspects , why don;'t they explain all the discrepancies / oddities that have been raised on this thread so that no one will suspect them anymore . The idea that they have some secret proof of abduction that they won't reveal is laughable . 'The police don't want all the info in the public domain' Laugh The entire investigation is in the public domain ! All the witness statements/ timelines , suspects considered from 2007 has been published . The suspects Scotland Yard have put forward now are people who were checked out in 2007 , or based on efits from back then . How many cases must the UK police screw up before Naydam loses his faith in their genius ? These are the cops who need 3 or 4 searches of houses and parks to find dead bodies that have been there all along. He even picks as an example of their expertise the Jo Yeates murder !! Yes it did come a as surprise to the police that the dutch guy was the killer ! .. because he gave them an alibi and they said 'ok fine' and left him alone for weeks , meanwhile they arrested the landlord because he had funny hair Blush and it was only when the killer's girlfriend called them and basically said she knew he did it that they had another look at him . Very well said especially in relation to plod's farcical investigation of the Jo Yeates murder. |
|
By:
Wesdaq. Will you please stop reading things into what you THINK I said. I've never mentioned any secret 'proof' about anything. I simply said that it is unreasonable to expect the police to tell everybody about how their investigations are proceeding. I would have thought that was obvious. I never even indicated abduction, or any other possibility for that matter. Regardless of what caused the kid's disappearance, the police need to gather enough evidence to prove any charges they may make. Whether that be against an abductor, the parents, the Tapas 9 OR the peg-seller that somebody mentioned.
I WILL say that I am surprised about about the Jo Yeates case if what you say is actually what happened. If the police just glibly accepted the alibi of the Dutch fella, then they were fools. I'll have a look at what info is available. |
|
By:
naydam,
it wouldn't be the first time you make a statement (re Jo Yeates case) without being aware of the facts. |
|
By:
I agree. Although I haven't yet decided that the police didn't intend to interview (or re-interview) the Dutch fella.
I haven't had time to look yet. |
|
By:
Well, I've had a look. I suppose the relevant Jo Yeates facts are that she was reported missing sometime on the 19th December and her body was found on 25th December. So, it all hinges upon when the Dutch fella went home for Christmas. Until they found the body it was just another missing person file. So what would Wesdaq suggest that the police could have or should have one at that time? Lock up all the tenants and the landlord and her workmates and the guy from the pizza shop (he was at that time the last known person to see her)?
Also, please bear in mind that the prime suspects would be the parents or the boyfriend or other people that she knew closely. I learned that from earlier posts on here! And, as far as I can ascertain, Jo didn't know the Dutch fella. Once again, of course, I could be wrong on that and, if so, I apologise beforehand. |
|
By:
*should have done* FFS!
|
|
By:
police made a huge hugh hagh about the missing pizza ,yet once the lad was arrested it never got mentioned again in or out of court as far as i,m aware
|