It is currently Sat Sep 23, 2017 10:52 pm

All times are UTC [ DST ]





Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 
  Previous topic | Next topic 
Author Message
PostPosted: Mon Oct 21, 2013 12:00 pm 
Offline
Administrator
Administrator

Joined: Thu Aug 20, 2009 7:52 pm
Posts: 117

recorded and broadcast by Channel4 yesterday[18th February]

Short transcript from 5'03'' - full transcript below

C4 reporter: We've learned that Robert Murat is, has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry over things she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably if he gets the same kind of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they would support it* [that/him/them]?

Clarence Mitchell: I'm not going to comment on any details on what Mr. Murat or his legal representative are doing, suffice to say that Jane Tanner never directly named Mr. Murat as the man she saw, and you can go back to the Portuguese police files that were released in 2008 and see that for yourself. She never actually named Mr. Murat as the prime suspect.

*doubts on the exact word said by the reporter

Transcript Excerpt of the [now banned] documentary 'Maddie, the Truth of the Lie'

17.53 - The Leads and Murat

18.10 – Over 350 leads were followed.

18.18 – The Polícia Judiciária says that the next few hours may bring new developments.

18.24 – Robert Murat is made an arguido after a long interrogation at the Polícia Judiciária in Portimão.

Olegário de Sousa
Chief PJ Inspector

18.31 – A male individual, aged 33 and a resident in the area of the events has been made an arguido. He was questioned as such, and no evidence has been collected that could justify his detention and further judicial questioning.

19.11 – The journalist suspected him, but we didn’t follow what the journalist said. We followed the analysis of the facts. The facts were analysed, what actually had happened, and we followed a testimony, a testimony that had to be weakened in order to advance the abduction theory. Jane Tanner’s testimony. Because otherwise, the abduction theory died right there. The major foundation for the abduction was what that witness had seen: a man carrying a child, walking into the direction of Robert Murat’s house.

19.45 – Maybe people don’t know, but the search at Robert Murat’s house takes place on a Monday morning, and on Sunday evening, we’re in a meeting with the Public Ministry, with the prosecutor, with the judge, me and Dr Luís Neves, we’re at the court house while diligences are being carried out in Praia da Luz. Diligences to confirm the suspicion against Robert Murat. And Mrs Jane Tanner is placed inside a police surveillance vehicle, several people walk by, policemen, people that Mrs Jane Tanner had never seen before, and Mr Robert Murat among them, and she says that from the way he walks, he is the person that was carrying the child.

20.27 – In fact, Jane Tanner’s memory progressively improves as time goes by. The first e-fit that she helps to draw is a vague sketch. She later makes a positive identification of Robert Murat as the man that she saw that night. Several months later, she participates in a new e-fit, now miraculously remembering every facial trace of a man that is very different from the Murat that she recognised earlier on.

20.55 - Another document that weighed in at incriminating Robert Murat was a psychological profile by English experts, which in very general traces stated that his voluntary attitude during the days that followed the crime, helping the investigators and the family, could be the mask of a criminal.

Jane Tanner Statement extract [part V] given to Leicestershire Police Constabulary in April 2008

4078

“Can’t find the specific part in there but I think, obviously it’s covered in the first one anyway, so it’s not particularly relevant to any (inaudible) time, going back to the second one there. Before we move on to then Gerry and Kate’s questions that they want to ask, is there anything else that you want to say in relation to everything we’ve discussed so far”?

Reply

“Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?

4078

“Yes, yes go on”.

Reply

“Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.

4078

“Right”.

Reply

“You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.

4078

“No”.

Reply

“But I just thought it was”.

4078

“Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him”.

Reply

“Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.

4078

“Yes”.

Reply

“And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.

4078

“Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.

Reply

“Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.

4078

“Get to the truth of the matter”?

Reply

“Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.

4078

“No”.

Reply

“Because I took it seriously”.

4078

“So there’s no collaboration between you all”?

Reply

“No”.

4078

“(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?

Reply

“No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.

4078

“Yes”.

Reply

“So I just thought it was important to say that really”.

4078

“Yes”.

Reply

“(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.

4078

“Truth to what happened that night”?

Reply

“Yeah”.

4078

“It’s, is how they’ve said it, it’s not something you concocted up between you”.

Reply

“No, it was”.

4078

“And come to a conclusion that that must have been him”?

Reply

“Yeah”.

4078

“That’s genuinely was something at the time”?

Reply

“Yeah sort of at the time yeah”.

4078

“Okay. Is there anything else that you need to speak about”?

Reply

“Erm no I don’t think so, don’t think anything else is”.


Note: 4078 is the DC officer signature number

Clarence Mitchell interview full transcript, with many thanks to jjp

Clarence Mitchell - Well Kate and Gerry are very pleased and relieved that the judge has done absolutely the right thing in their view by agreeing to their demand for the injunction to stay in place against Mr Amaral's so-called work. It was causing serious ongoing disruption and damage to the search for their daughter because people, if they believed what he'd written, would think that she was dead and wouldn't even bother to look for her or pursue any information if they came across it. That is absolutely wrong. There is no evidence at all to suggest that she has been harmed, let alone killed and every reason for the search to continue. And that's what Kate and Gerry now want - the focus to come back onto the search for their daughter.

C4 Reporter - Don't the public have the right to make their own mind up? If what he says about them is completely untrue and that's obviously proven, shouldn't he be allowed to say it and the public make up their own mind?

Clarence Mitchell - But under the laws of defamation, as a journalist you will well know, that if you allege somebody is, in effect, responsible for the death of their child and, in effect, has covered it up that is prima facie defamatory of your good name. And therefore they not only, but they, they not only had to take action on that basis but more importantly than their own reputation or the damage that was doing to their wider family they felt it was important to stop people believing this because it would mean that the search for Madeleine was hindered. So this was a clear-cut case of defamation, regardless of the rights and wrongs. Yes, you have the freedom of speech to say what you want within the rule of law.

C4 Reporter - Obviously this isnt the end, unfortunately, for Kate and Gerry McCann on this issue. (muffled) ... is going to take the question forward. He says he is going to take this to the European Court of Human Rights.

Clarence Mitchell - That absolutely is his right and he's perfectly entitled to do that and if that legal process starts in due course, well then we, that will be dealt with at that time. But for now Kate and Gerry feel that the strength of their case is strong. They felt that this was an absolute injustice being committed against them and indirectly against Madeleine herself. And as a result they are very pleased, and as I say relieved that the judge has agreed with them and has made it clear that this injunction has to stay in place and that Mr. Amaral does not benefit from his, er, this work.

C4 Reporter - Returning to the search for Madeleine. I mean with this, (?mumbled words?)* this in mind does this make the search for Madeleine easier?

Clarence Mitchell - Well hopefully it will do. Yes, hopefully people will see this and see that this particular attack on them has been ended and as a result they need to focus on the key message, if you like, that we want to get across today and that is that the judge has effectively agreed that it should all be about Madeleine from now on. What came out during this case - there were two broad areas. One, there is no evidence at all to suggest she has been harmed. And two, no police force anywhere is actively looking for her, shockingly even when presented with new information and leads as the Portuguese have been. Those were dismissed as not relevant to the investigation. Well, the private investigators would like to look at much of that information to establish if indeed there may be any relevance in there. The search for Madeleine will not stop. Kate and Gerry will not give up until they know what's happened to their daughter. And at the moment it remains a complete mystery and they are conducting as best an investigation as they can on their own limited resources at present. It's incumbent upon both the British and Portuguese Police now to mount as effective and credible an investigation as they can and if that involves some sort of independent review of the existing evidence and potential leads then so be it. But the search for Madeleine needs to be the focus from now on not noises off stage from the likes of Mr Amaral.

C4 Reporter - It's been a long time now since Madeleine disappeared. Kate and Gerry....

Clarence Mitchell - It's been nearly three years.

C4 Reporter - Do they still feel hopeful that she can be found.

Clarence Mitchell - Kate and Gerry have always drawn strength from the fact that there is no evidence to suggest she has been harmed, in any way, whatsoever. Yes, of course, nearly three years on its appalling that they are still having to hope. They would have wanted her home the very first day. But in the absence of that evidence, to tell us, any of us what has happened to her, they will continue to believe as best they can that there is hope. And every time, even if they begin to doubt that... Every time something like Jaycee Lee Dugard happens in California, in America where someone is discovered, in her case, eighteen years after she went missing and was long presumed dead. It can happen. Its rare. Kate and Gerry will keep going on that basis.

C4 Reporter - With rulings like today do you think Kate and Gerry are swaying public opinion in their favour?

Clarence Mitchell - Well, that's a matter for the public isn't it really? I mean Kate and Gerry will keep going. They didn't start this legal action. They don't want to appear to be litigious for the sake of it. They're not. They didn't write this book. They didn't write this DVD. Mr Amaral did. And what he said in it was fundamentally wrong and damaging to the search and that's why they took the action. Yes, they hope that people, fair minded people will see this and see the agony that's been heaped upon their shoulders on top of the loss of Madeleine and will hopefully be with them in the search for Madeleine from now on.

C4 Reporter - We've learned that Robert Murat is, has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry over things she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably if he gets a similar sort of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they would support it [that/him/them]**?

Clarence Mitchell - I'm not going to comment on any details on what Mr. Murat or his legal representative are doing, suffice to say that Jane Tanner never directly named Mr. Murat as the man that she saw, and you can go back to the Portuguese police files that were released in 2008 to see that for yourself. She never actually named Mr. Murat as the prime suspect.

C4 Reporter - Last question. I think a lot of people would say that quite a lot of money has been made from Madeleine's disappearance from various court cases. How much has been made and is this being used in legal hearings like the one we've seen in Portugal?

Clarence Mitchell - The fund is there to assist Kate and Gerry in whatever way necessary. There are a number of other backers as well outside the fund who also assist at times. The bulk, in fact all of the public money that came in in the early stages was all spent entirely properly on the search for Madeleine, on the investigative costs and everything else around that. Most of the monies that are still in the fund now are actually there from either the settlements against the Express Group newspapers and other media outlets that have also defamed them and so that is money that was, if you like, brought in through court action, not the public. And on top of that the most recent monies that have come in have been through supporters kindly donating at a fund-raising event and again they would be more than happy as supporters to see the money spent in any way that assists Kate and Gerry and the wider family and their investigators in the search for Madeleine.

C4 Reporter - Last question. Obviously, the ruling today upheld a temporary injunction (?mumbled words?)* as well. What steps or how far away are (?mumbled words?)* from getting a permanent ruling?

Clarence Mitchell - That's a matter for the lawyers in Portugal. They'll assess the verdict. They will be examining it in detail to see exactly what the judge has said today. And they no doubt will move towards that goal at some point in the future. I don't know the exact timetable but clearly there's not much point in going for a temporary injunction if it doesn't become permanent and that will happen. But I am quite sure that any appeal by Mr Amaral's side will possibly delay that. But that as I say is purely a matter for the lawyers to decide in due course.

transcript notes

* mumbled words from reporter

** mumbled words from reporter - I have used the suggestions from Joana here as I believe that the word 'it' is likeliest but other words are possible.


in JM's blog


Top
 Profile  
 
Display posts from previous:  Sort by  
Post new topic Reply to topic  [ 1 post ] 

All times are UTC [ DST ]


Who is online

Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 1 guest


You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot post attachments in this forum

Search for:
Jump to:  



All the statements, opinions and comments made on this forum are done on a matter of public interest and under the right of freedom of speech as stated in Article 37 of the Portuguese Constitution, Article 10 of the European Convention on Human Rights and UN's Article 19 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights.


Free phpBB hosting by ProphpBB | Powered by phpBB | Report Abuse | Privacy