The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part III
C - The suspicions about Robert Murat and his constitution as an arguido
Apart from the suspect being seen on the location of the occurrence and speaking about the event with the persons that were around there, namely journalists, his name was on the list of interpreters, and he made a commitment as such (Commitment Act on page 1577).
On the 6th of May 2007 the PJ received a fax from the Leicestershire Constabulary (page 307) in which this police transmits that a reporter from the Sunday Mirror, Lori Campbell, had communicated that certain behaviours of the suspect compromised him, namely by giving his name without any information about himself, by having conflicting relationships with several people and being worried when a photograph of him was taken for that newspaper, which led the English Police to request that he was relieved of interpreter duties.
The files further contain:
- On page 328 a report of an external diligence tells that, on the 4th of May 2007, the suspect offered his assistance to the GNR to help with anything that was needed, namely as an interpreter;
- That on the 6th of May 2007 the signatory of said report was approached by several journalists indicating the arguido with suspicious behaviours, in the sense of what was already explained concerning the fax;
- On page 461 an anonymous information, where a telephone call from a woman who tries to incriminate the suspect is reported, although no facts were presented;
- On page 957 there is a report about an external diligence that resulted from a trip to the location where, according to witness Jane Tanner, she saw, a short time before she knew that Madeleine had disappeared, a man carrying a child walking into the direction of the suspect’s house, Casa Liliana;
- On page 960 the service information according to which the curiosity that the arguido showed in the investigation was found strange.
In order to be able to be heard about the suspicions that befell him, Robert Murat was made an arguido on the 14th of May 2007 , having declared that he has already served as an interpreter during process actions, that he has a daughter that was born in 2002 and lives in England where he visits her several times, having returned to Portugal on the 1st of May 2007 and that he rented a vehicle because his mother uses the VW at the stand that was put up in Luz to support Madeleine’s family.
That on the 3rd of May 2007 he didn’t leave home in the evening, having heard a siren at around 10.30 p.m. or shortly afterwards, a fact that he commented with his Mother, but didn’t come outside to investigate.
On Friday the 4th of May 2007 he was alerted by his Mother to the disappearance of a child in Praia da Luz, according to news on “Sky News”, having then walked to the location of the disappearance, where he was introduced to the child’s parents, offering his assistance.
That afterwards, with a GNR officer and a member of the resort staff, they entered several apartments, with the purpose of locating the child. That before this occasion, he didn’t know the inside of the “Ocean Club”.
He further clarified, because he was asked, that he was the main suspect among the journalists, therefore from that moment onwards he refused speaking to them, including in that refusal the mention of his full name, or allowing to be photographed.
He further clarified that he has nothing to do with the child’s disappearance, and knows nothing about this case, explaining that he asked an English policeman about the manner in which the British police was able to trace a person in a given location and at a given time and if the police could trace him at home through his mobile phone, but he did this to prove his innocence.
On the other hand, rather unpleasant references were made to his personality, as was the case of a witness that has known him for many years .
It should be further referred that witnesses Rachel Mampilly, Russell James O’Brien and Fiona Elaine Payne mentioned that they saw arguido Robert Murat at the “Ocean Club” resort on the night that Madeleine disappeared.
During the confrontation that took place on the 11th of July 2007 , these witnesses, just like the arguido, maintained their previous positions.
Nevertheless, the positions are different regarding the witnesses that were heard, because while Sílvia Baptista  admits it is very possible that a person with the arguido’s characteristics was helping to search for Madeleine on the night of the disappearance, other witnesses, Paul Wright, June Wright, Barend Weijdon and GNR officer José Baptista Roque , among other officers, mentioned that they didn’t see the arguido on location that night.
Facing the suspicions that befell the arguido, considering what he seemed to transmit and the type of occurrence that was under investigation, whose real scope was not, like now, delimitated, and in order to confirm them or to set them aside, taking into account that they were indispensable for the continuation of the investigation, searches were made at the arguido’s house as well as at his mother’s and telephone interceptions were carried out, both on the arguido and on those with whom he directly or indirectly interacted, namely with whom he met on an almost daily basis and with whom he kept telephone contact.
Searches were also performed at the location where he started to spend the night at, the Quinta Salsalito, which is a vast place of difficult control, therefore the search on this location might permit the collection of elements that are reputed to be of high interest for the investigation, but those searches had no effect whatsoever.
During the searches at Casa Liliana, two rain water cisterns near the pool were checked, the missing minor’s trail was searched by the GNR’s sniffer dog team, both inside and outside the residence, searches were equally performed inside three vehicles that were parked there, and the matching photographic report was carried out by members of the CSS (Crime Scene Sector), experts from the Criminal Police Lab, but nothing positive was attained.
From the forensics exams to Serghei Malinka’s, Robert Murat’s and Jenny Murat’s computers , it could be concluded that the contents of the examined drives produced nothing that could compromise them as participants in any illicit activity, namely the one that was being investigated in the process.
From the interception of communications, the telephone contact record of arguido Robert Murat, his mother Jennifer Murat, witnesses Michaela Walazuch, Luís António and Sergey Malinka; records and maps of the telephone calls that were made from public telephone booths in Praia da Luz nothing flows that could have any indicative use.
From the analysis that was performed on every contact, from the 1st of November 2006 until the 19th of July 2007, by Robert, Michaela, Sergey, Jennifer and Luís António, results that Robert and Malinka, only contacted each other eight times , that there were no relations between Sergey and Luís António, nor between him and Robert, nor between either of them and the Murat residence, between the 30th of April and the 4th of May 2007 .
Searches were performed at the residence, and the subsoil was explored with a Geo-radar (GPR), - which consists of a radar antenna that transmits electromagnetic energy in the shape of an impulse within frequencies between 25 MHz and 1 GHz. Those impulses are partially reflected through sub-superficial geological structures, captured with a receiving antenna and marked as a time record of continuous bi-directional path which is presented as a pseudo-geological record section – e these technical searches neither found nor marked anything of interest to the files .
Searches were equally performed with the use of sniffer dog support, with the dog Eddie that detects cadaver odour, and it was verified that the dog signalled nothing . The examination of the targets’ vehicles (arguido and people who interacted with him), nothing was found.
Therefore, despite the suspicions that befell the arguido, - partly because they were induced, albeit involuntarily, by himself, namely the protagonism that he assumed both with the group of friends, which the McCann couple was part of, and with the journalists, showing his great curiosity in finding out what diligences had been performed and which were to be performed, and by objective elements and the fact that his residence is located in the direction which, according to Jane, was taken by the stranger who carried the child in his arms – and which therefore demanded his constitution as an arguido. It is nevertheless certain that through the collected evidence, said suspicions gradually emptied themselves, until the point where any connection of the arguido to the child’s disappearance was set aside, which is why, at the end, the archiving of the process will be determined.
 Notice on page 1169
 Questioning report on page 1288
 Confrontation report on pages 1957/1958
 Questioning report on page 1290
 Questioning report on pages 1338, 1328, 1330 and 1349
 Forensics – Appendix-1, Vol. IV, V and VI
 Analyses report, annex 87
 Analyses report, annexes 82 to 86
 Search and Apprehension report on page 2130-v
 Dog Inspection report, page 2131"
in: Processo 201/07.0 GALGS - Volume XVII - pages 4639-4645 (Public Prosecutor's Archiving Dispatch)
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part I
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part II
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part III
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part IV
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part V
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VI
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VII
The Archiving of the Madeleine McCann Process: One Year On - Part VIII
PDF File via Expresso