Gerry and Kate Mcann promoting Book on Late Late next week

Kess73

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hi Matthew23, I have the book and I think AudreyHepburn does too (never thought I could ever say Audrey Hepburn and myself had anything in common :D:D).

I think the McCanns are innocent myself, so the book gives me an insight into Kate McCanns behaviour, since I too, perceived her as distant, cold at times. It helps understand her personality. She didn't show it, as I thought, but cried and got angry in private, all along. She does moan an awful lot throughout the book, but in their situation who wouldn't ?

It gives an idea of how their lives are now totally engrossed in the search, and efforts to get authorities moving on how to handle missing children's cases.
It paints a picture of 2 people who have filled their lives with that, and are admitting that they needed to do that in order to cope.

It doesn't reveal anything ground breaking about the investigation, but it explains a lot of things that have been blown out of proportion in the media, or simply distorted for more drama.

For example, Jane Tanner, who never fully identified Robert Murat as the man who crossed the street with child, as was later claimed. She was placed by the police in a truck in ambush, and they waited for R. Murat to walk by in the street (they knew he was due to pass that way) , and asked her if it could be the same man. But she didn't have a clear view of the man (Murat) walking by at that moment, and she said it could be, but she wasn't quite sure, she couldn't be fully sure, first minutes a car passed by and blocked her view, then there were branches overhanging, and the windows in the truck were steamed up. The PJ didn't take a formal statement from her that evening, but later went on to say she had formally identified the man carrying the child as Robert Murat.

What it does is allow the McCanns to paint a totally different picture to what THEY said themselves in 2007.

Jane Tanner is on record saying that she was certain the man she saw was Robert Murat. Then when Murat was declared not a suspect Tanner changed her statement to being one where she saw a woman carrying the child, a woman who matched the pictures in the papers of Murat's girlfriend. When that girlfriend was announced not to be a suspect, then Tanner switched what she saw to it having been a dark/sallow skinned man with longish hair and a long moustache. Basically Tanner's "eyewitness" statement changed a number of times to match whatever was being said by the McCann's media team and the general UK media.

And I bet the book leaves out that Murat has filed a legal complaint against Jane Tanner, it was filed in 2010, based on some of the comments she made in public and to the media about her being certain she saw him that night carrying the child. So it is a bit more than the media distorting things for drama as the actual statement and interviews given in 2007 by Tanner clearly say that Murat was carrying the child.



Rachel Oldfield, Russell O'Brien, and Fiona Payne all gave statements saying that Murat WAS the man that they all saw hanging around the complex before the child was found to be missing.


Kate McCann between May and June 2007 said she was 100% that Robert Murat did it and that she knew he was guilty. She said this things despite the harm it could have on the man if he was not guilty and despite the damage comments like that could have on a legal case.


Some of what Kate is on record as saying/writing



“very hopeful, excited about this”. The day Murat was announced to be a suspect.


“Robert Murat continues to be the main suspect and for good reason, but unfortunately there isn’t strong evidence. Malinka and Michaela are also very much in the scene. I always had a bad premonition, uncomfortable, about Malinka. He is cold” This was three weeks after the child went missing.


“I had lots of hope that there would be progress in Murat’s situation. I’m sure that he is involved and I feel like killing him, but I can’t”. July 18th 2007


“I’m certain that he is guilty and I just want to scream” July 27th 2007



So Kate McCann can write what she likes in her book with whatever versions that she likes, but what she said back in 2007 is on record with the police, and they fact she wrote that stuff into her journal, the journal that was taken by the police and that she admitted was hers, just gives a hard copy of it.



They did their best to hang Murat out to dry, and even Kate McCann's mother was finding witnesses against Murat back in the UK and this "evidence" was brought up by Kate as some kind of proof against Murat. Funnily enough Rachel Oldfield, Russell O'Brien, and Fiona Payne all dropped what they had said about Murat from their statements when they asked to give new statements once Murat had an alibi and he got lawyered up. Plus the "witnesses" found by Kate and her mother back in the UK quickly dried up as a source.

sunflower27

Exactly, they are very quick to say they know who did it.

So it's OK for the McCanns to be innocent until proven guilty but not right for others. Nice.

Show Time

One simple lesson can be taken from this whole sorry affair.

NEVER LEAVE CHILDREN ALONE WHEN YOU GO OUT ON THE TOWN.


If Kate and Gerry had followed this most basic rule all would have been grand.

maebee

Once again. Kate does not know what the abductor did or did not do. I cannot comprehend why people think her views on the abductor theory have to be worked into any explanation? If she was involved, she knows everything. If she wasn’t she knows no more than you or me.

Pre being made an Arguida, KM said "I know more than you do." Not once since her Arguida status was lifted has she told us what she means by this.



http://www.zimbio.com/Gerry+McCann's+Blog/articles/s018RvX_iQM/Kate+McCann+knows+there

lugha

sunflower27 wrote: »

Exactly, they are very quick to say they know who did it.

So it's OK for the McCanns to be innocent until proven guilty but not right for others. Nice.

With respect, you are hardly in a position to throw that particular accusation at her. Was she not doing exactly the same as what you are doing here?

maebee wrote: »

Pre being made an Arguida, KM said "I know more than you do." Not once since her Arguida status was lifted has she told us what she means by this.

Simple answer to that is, "no Kate you don't". It strikes me as being in the same mode of thinking which had her insisting that an intruder did not come in the door. I don't think she can say such things with any authority.

AudreyHepburn

Mountainsandh wrote: »

Hi Matthew23, I have the book and I think AudreyHepburn does too (never thought I could ever say Audrey Hepburn and myself had anything in common :D:D).

I think the McCanns are innocent myself, so the book gives me an insight into Kate McCanns behaviour, since I too, perceived her as distant, cold at times. It helps understand her personality. She didn't show it, as I thought, but cried and got angry in private, all along. She does moan an awful lot throughout the book, but in their situation who wouldn't ?

It gives an idea of how their lives are now totally engrossed in the search, and efforts to get authorities moving on how to handle missing children's cases.
It paints a picture of 2 people who have filled their lives with that, and are admitting that they needed to do that in order to cope.

It doesn't reveal anything ground breaking about the investigation, but it explains a lot of things that have been blown out of proportion in the media, or simply distorted for more drama.

For example, Jane Tanner, who never fully identified Robert Murat as the man who crossed the street with child, as was later claimed. She was placed by the police in a truck in ambush, and they waited for R. Murat to walk by in the street (they knew he was due to pass that way) , and asked her if it could be the same man. But she didn't have a clear view of the man (Murat) walking by at that moment, and she said it could be, but she wasn't quite sure, she couldn't be fully sure, first minutes a car passed by and blocked her view, then there were branches overhanging, and the windows in the truck were steamed up. The PJ didn't take a formal statement from her that evening, but later went on to say she had formally identified the man carrying the child as Robert Murat.

I am indeed reading Kate's book and the above is exactly the verdict I would give.

Unfortunatly since Kate does say 'We killed our daughter and coldly covered it up and convinced the Tapas 9 (one of whom engaged in paedophile talk with Gerry) to lie for us and have been lying for the last four years and are nothing but cold hearted sociopaths' the book just will never be good enough for some people.

I would encourage to read it and make up your own mind on it.

sunflower27 wrote: »

Exactly, they are very quick to say they know who did it.

So it's OK for the McCanns to be innocent until proven guilty but not right for others. Nice.

Absolute rubbish. Anyone suspected of crime (which the McCanns no longer are by the way) is considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I

Absolute rubbish. Anyone suspected of crime (which the McCanns no longer are by the way) is considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of lies and you know it

I have seen you write " And you Know it"" in few posts now and to be honest I dont think it does you any favours in respect of an argument . I am willing to listen and to take in what people have to say .I am willing to change my mind if the argument is strong and based on fact .But I find that
"and you know it " a real turn off in any disscussion to be honest ,as its self rightous and a little patronising if I am honest .

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

I have seen you write " And you Know it"" in few posts now and to be honest I dont think it does you any favours in respect of an argument . I am willing to listen and to take in what people have to say .I am willing to change my mind if the argument is strong and based on fact .But I find that
"and you know it " a real turn off in any disscussion to be honest ,as its self rightous and a little patronising if I am honest .

I wasn't trying to be self-righteous so I apologise if it came across that way. I'll try to rephrase.

Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, not just the McCanns.

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I wasn't trying to be self-righteous so I apologise if it came across that way. I'll try to rephrase.

Everyone is considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law, not just the McCanns.

No worries . Just saying !

As for innocence , Yes everyone is and so we have to afford them that right too . They are sure are guilty of gross neglect though .

AudreyHepburn

iamwhoiam wrote: »

No worries . Just saying !

As for innocence , Yes everyone is and so we have to afford them that right too . They are sure are guilty of gross neglect though .

Neglect, yes they are guilty of that. But only that.

The poster I responded to seemed to feel no-one but the McCanns are afforded that right which I was simply saying was inaccurate.

Tigger

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am indeed reading Kate's book and the above is exactly the verdict I would give.

Unfortunatly since Kate does say 'We killed our daughter and coldly covered it up and convinced the Tapas 9 (one of whom engaged in paedophile talk with Gerry) to lie for us and have been lying for the last four years and are nothing but cold hearted sociopaths' the book just will never be good enough

which page

iamwhoiam

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Neglect, yes they are guilty of that. But only that.

The poster I responded to seemed to feel no-one but the McCanns are afforded that right which I was simply saying was inaccurate.

Yes, everyone is , altough totally off topic I saw a Louis Theroux documentary and in US a full prison wing of men who were awaiting trial . It was an eye opener for me .
Back to he Mc Canns I genuinely to feel that social workers at very least should have come out to the house and made it clear that the neglect was not condoned . The message should be loud and clear in my opinion .

AudreyHepburn

Tigger wrote: »

which page

I meant since she DOESN'T say......typo!

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

I am indeed reading Kate's book and the above is exactly the verdict I would give.

Unfortunatly since Kate does say 'We killed our daughter and coldly covered it up and convinced the Tapas 9 (one of whom engaged in paedophile talk with Gerry) to lie for us and have been lying for the last four years and are nothing but cold hearted sociopaths' the book just will never be good enough for some people.

I would encourage to read it and make up your own mind on it.



Absolute rubbish. Anyone suspected of crime (which the McCanns no longer are by the way) is considered innocent until proven guilty in the eyes of the law.

I agree with what you said in bold, but with the McCanns it seems that they want it to be that way for them, but as they say it is for others.

The comments made by Kate about Murat were a disgrace, and she afforded him or his name no mercy.

AudreyHepburn

Kess73 wrote: »

I agree with what you said in bold, but with the McCanns it seems that they want it to be that way for them, but as they say it is for others.

The comments made by Kate about Murat were a disgrace, and she afforded him or his name no mercy.

Of course they want to innocent until proven guilty, that's the way the law works.

On Murat, perhaps they were hasty but if you truely believed this man had hurt your daughter I doubt you would be willingly to say anything complimentary about him.

Show Time

Kess73 wrote: »

I agree with what you said in bold, but with the McCanns it seems that they want it to be that way for them, but as they say it is for others.

The comments made by Kate about Murat were a disgrace, and she afforded him or his name no mercy.

Could Murat sue them???

ISDW

iamwhoiam wrote: »

Yes, everyone is , altough totally off topic I saw a Louis Theroux documentary and in US a full prison wing of men who were awaiting trial . It was an eye opener for me .
Back to he Mc Canns I genuinely to feel that social workers at very least should have come out to the house and made it clear that the neglect was not condoned . The message should be loud and clear in my opinion .

How do you know that they didn't?

Kess73 wrote: »

I agree with what you said in bold, but with the McCanns it seems that they want it to be that way for them, but as they say it is for others.

The comments made by Kate about Murat were a disgrace, and she afforded him or his name no mercy.

I thought she made those comments in her private journal and that it was the PJ that made them public? Surely she cannot be held responsible for that, she is entitled to write what she wants in her private journal.

Kess73

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course they want to innocent until proven guilty, that's the way the law works.

On Murat, perhaps they were hasty but if you truely believed this man had hurt your daughter I doubt you would be willingly to say anything complimentary about him.

Kate McCann made comments about the man over the course of a few months though, and even after he was declared not to be a suspect any longer she still persisted with saying he was guilty and that he did do it. So fair enough she could believe it and react in the heat of the moment, but months worth of comments and damning the man as guilty pretty much after every police press release on things? Seems to me that Murat was their scapegoat and they were pinning everything on him being found guilty.


She basically blamed this man without any proof at all and went to town on his character and personality and her family gave interviews to the media in the UK about him as well as finding "witnesses" and "evidence" back in the UK to speak out against him. But their witnesses and evidence all turned out to be a load of nothing when it came to the crunch.

There were even stories about the man having a glass eye running in papers thanks to "information" passed on by UK witnesses, and Kate McCann's mother coming out claiming she had found a witness to Murat acting strange around a little girl. That witness also was unable to be found when it came to dealing with the police

They ran the same type of campaign against that man as they claimed was wrongly done to them. There were even "sources" who said he acted in a manner that reminded them of Ian Huntley. Talk about painting a picture of a man regarless of whether he is innocent or not.

Their friends lied with statements about the man, and showed their colours when Murat went down the legal route as they scurried to change their statements and suddenly they had not actually seen Murat hanging around the complex at all.

Tanner went a step further in her statement saying she was certain the man she saw carrying the child was Murat and she blabbed on about her certainty until Murat was declared not to be a suspect, then suddenly Tanner's versions changed agains and again to suit the press release of the McCanns.


Kate McCann even expressed her anger and spoke for her friends by saying they were angry as the nerve of Murat to dispute their versions at the police station. Yet those friends who were so sure they saw Murat at the complex before the child went missing suddenly decided their memories were not so good when challenged by Murat on it and they changed their 100% sure of what they saw statements.


Kate McCann seems to have a lot to say in her book, but it is amazing how a lot of what has been published is new versions of what was said and done in 2007 and contradict some of what she herself is on record saying or writing in 2007. Then again I imagine a bit of artistic licence would help with book sales.


Innocent until proven guilty. Only if your surname is McCann it would seem in this case.

Kess73

ISDW wrote: »

How do you know that they didn't?



I thought she made those comments in her private journal and that it was the PJ that made them public? Surely she cannot be held responsible for that, she is entitled to write what she wants in her private journal.

The same comments that were repeated in the media after friends and family somehow got hold of the comments before the police had the journal. Comments that were printed in the media whilst Murat was still a suspect.

Things like how the mother of Kate McCann was able to speak of Murat's background and about how she had personally had contact from people telling her about Murat. It went to the media first and then the police had to ask for the information.

The campaign against the man in the UK printed media was a pretty big one and he was all but declared guilty by that media with lots of quotes from friends and relatives of the McCanns.

Lots of comments by family of how "Kate is very upset that such and such a person is not arrested" or "Kate knows that person X did it"


We even had Kate making comments about how she knew far more than she could say whilst she was a suspect, as has been mentioned here alreasy, yet once the suspect tag was lifted Kate still was not able to answer what her claims were.

There is a hell of a lot of claims from the McCanns about how they KNOW things and about how the KNOW these things as being fact, but they never come out and actually back these things up with any kind of evidence. But each time they said something like that the media rushed to print stuff like how the McCanns know things and how these unmentioned things must be true.

Very muddy waters in this case and a lot of that has been done by the McCanns and their friends/media team with their flexible statements.

ISDW

Kess73 wrote: »

The same comments that were repeated in the media after friends and family somehow got hold of the comments before the police had the journal. Comments that were printed in the media whilst Murat was still a suspect.

Things like how the mother of Kate McCann was able to speak of Murat's background and about how she had personally had contact from people telling her about Murat. It went to the media first and then the police had to ask for the information.

The campaign against the man in the UK printed media was a pretty big one and he was all but declared guilty by that media with lots of quotes from friends and relatives of the McCanns.

Lots of comments by family of how "Kate is very upset that such and such a person is not arrested" or "Kate knows that person X did it"


We even had Kate making comments about how she knew far more than she could say whilst she was a suspect, as has been mentioned here alreasy, yet once the suspect tag was lifted Kate still was not able to answer what her claims were.

There is a hell of a lot of claims from the McCanns about how they KNOW things and about how the KNOW these things as being fact, but they never come out and actually back these things up with any kind of evidence. But each time they said something like that the media rushed to print stuff like how the McCanns know things and how these unmentioned things must be true.

Very muddy waters in this case and a lot of that has been done by the McCanns and their friends/media team with their flexible statements.

But where do they say these things? In the British print media? Sorry, I wouldn't believe anything I read in the tabloids. Someone in a post earlier on said that it was "sources close to the McCanns" now we all know that that means absolutely nothing.

Lots of people on here say they KNOW things. People don't always use the word know in the way that they should. Sometimes it is used instead of 'hope' because someone wants something to be true. If Kate said she knew Murat was involved, maybe it was because she wished he was, it would mean Madeleine was still close by and might be found. I can see people using it in that context tbh, without it being anything sinister.

Kess73

Show Time wrote: »

Could Murat sue them???

He has sued a number of media outlets who printed/repeated stuff about him and he won.


In 2010 he filed a case against the McCann's main eye witness, Jane Tanner, and if he wins she may potentially be looking at jail time due to certain things being stated as fact in places other than her statement.

Some quarters think that if he is successful against Tanner that he then may have a case against the McCanns over claims made about him.

Kess73

ISDW wrote: »

But where do they say these things? In the British print media? Sorry, I wouldn't believe anything I read in the tabloids. Someone in a post earlier on said that it was "sources close to the McCanns" now we all know that that means absolutely nothing.

Lots of people on here say they KNOW things. People don't always use the word know in the way that they should. Sometimes it is used instead of 'hope' because someone wants something to be true. If Kate said she knew Murat was involved, maybe it was because she wished he was, it would mean Madeleine was still close by and might be found. I can see people using it in that context tbh, without it being anything sinister.

She said she knew he was guilty. She said she knew he did it. She said she was sure of it. She said she wished she could kill him. She kept this mindframe with regards to the man for months at the very least.

She never said I think he is guilty, or I think he did it. She always stated it
like it was a proven fact.

Kate gets painted as an intelligent woman by the british media and by many people on here. If we are to accept that she does not fully understand how to use the word KNOW and uses it in the wrong context, then are we to think that other statements she made where she uses the word in a strong manner are just as open to the word having being used in an incorrect manner?


Afterall she knew the shutter was opened from the inside. She knows that the idea of the child getting up and opening a door could not have happened. She knows that "they" took the child. She "knows" a lot of things and generally paints them as fact.


A lot of the defence for the McCanns in terms of them being involved in anything boils down to people quoting things that the McCanns "knew" for certain.


The only thing I know for certain about this case is that a little girl went on holiday with her parents and did not come back. Beyond that nobody here can actually know whether the McCanns are really innocent in terms of them not knowing what exactly happened to their girl or if they are guilty of knowing what happened that night.

lugha

Kess73 wrote: »

A lot of the defence for the McCanns in terms of them being involved in anything boils down to people quoting things that the McCanns "knew" for certain.

No it doesn't. I have said repeatedly that what the McCann's think (or "know") counts for nothing. It is, for the most part, those who think the McCanns were somehow involved that continue to cite what the McCanns say.

The defence for the McCanns is the lack of evidence against them. And for me, there is only one piece of solid evidence against them (the dogs), which is not enough to bring a case against them. IMO, it is not even enough to be able to say that it is more likely than not that they are involved.

ISDW

Kess73 wrote: »

She said she knew he was guilty. She said she knew he did it. She said she was sure of it. She said she wished she could kill him. She kept this mindframe with regards to the man for months at the very least.

She never said I think he is guilty, or I think he did it. She always stated it
like it was a proven fact.

Kate gets painted as an intelligent woman by the british media and by many people on here. If we are to accept that she does not fully understand how to use the word KNOW and uses it in the wrong context, then are we to think that other statements she made where she uses the word in a strong manner are just as open to the word having being used in an incorrect manner?


Afterall she knew the shutter was opened from the inside. She knows that the idea of the child getting up and opening a door could not have happened. She knows that "they" took the child. She "knows" a lot of things and generally paints them as fact.


A lot of the defence for the McCanns in terms of them being involved in anything boils down to people quoting things that the McCanns "knew" for certain.


The only thing I know for certain about this case is that a little girl went on holiday with her parents and did not come back. Beyond that nobody here can actually know whether the McCanns are really innocent in terms of them not knowing what exactly happened to their girl or if they are guilty of knowing what happened that night.

Where did she say this?

Show Time

Kess73 wrote: »

He has sued a number of media outlets who printed/repeated stuff about him and he won.


In 2010 he filed a case against the McCann's main eye witness, Jane Tanner, and if he wins she may potentially be looking at jail time due to certain things being stated as fact in places other than her statement.

Some quarters think that if he is successful against Tanner that he then may have a case against the McCanns over claims made about him.

Thanks for the answer.

sunflower27

Kess73 wrote: »

Lots of comments by family of how "Kate is very upset that such and such a person is not arrested" or "Kate knows that person X did it"

There is a hell of a lot of claims from the McCanns about how they KNOW things and about how the KNOW these things as being fact, but they never come out and actually back these things up with any kind of evidence. But each time they said something like that the media rushed to print stuff like how the McCanns know things and how these unmentioned things must be true.

Very muddy waters in this case and a lot of that has been done by the McCanns and their friends/media team with their flexible statements.

Exactly. Interesting how much the McCanns know what happened that night when they were off drinking wine away from the room and they had conflicting comments about such basic things as the shutters being closed, no open.... no, definitely closed....

DerekWaters

sunflower27 wrote: »

Exactly. Interesting how much the McCanns know what happened that night when they were off drinking wine away from the room and they had conflicting comments about such basic things as the shutters being closed, no open.... no, definitely closed....

The shutter thing is appalling to be honest, the abductor would have needed wings to leave through that window without leaving a shred of evidence. Such a pity Turbity didnt pull Gerry up on it when he repeated the same bull**** on the LLS.

+ the only finger prints found on the window handle was Kates :mad:

alie

I am reading their book at the moment, there are so many inconsistincies in her tale, i dont understand how a mother on findind one child missing could then leave the apartment and her other 2 kids there alone again, and on suspecting they were given a sedative not to have brought them to a hospital to have a blood test done. And to also be able to go jogging when she said herself she didnt eat for days and could barely move!!

Mistyeyes321

AudreyHepburn wrote: »

Of course they want to innocent until proven guilty, that's the way the law works.

On Murat, perhaps they were hasty but if you truely believed this man had hurt your daughter I doubt you would be willingly to say anything complimentary about him.

On the latter part of your Post I have to say until we're in that position none of us know for sure how we would react...Having been down this road myself through the Magistrates court's then onto Crown court for the person involed to be given a Three month suspended sentence....I can say hand on heart if I was ever in this Situation again, I wouldn't ever go down the Legal route again...This may sound irrational & scary but I would shout his/Her name from the roof top's, So on this I can understand especially if Mrs Mc was sure it was this person who took her Child! I know this isn't the right message to put out there really when we're looking at it from a PC point of View...However when you have a Child who has been Damaged by these sicko's for life you start looking bat this from a very Different point of View!

Mistyeyes321

Kess73 wrote: »

The same comments that were repeated in the media after friends and family somehow got hold of the comments before the police had the journal. Comments that were printed in the media whilst Murat was still a suspect.

Things like how the mother of Kate McCann was able to speak of Murat's background and about how she had personally had contact from people telling her about Murat. It went to the media first and then the police had to ask for the information.

The campaign against the man in the UK printed media was a pretty big one and he was all but declared guilty by that media with lots of quotes from friends and relatives of the McCanns.

Lots of comments by family of how "Kate is very upset that such and such a person is not arrested" or "Kate knows that person X did it"


We even had Kate making comments about how she knew far more than she could say whilst she was a suspect, as has been mentioned here alreasy, yet once the suspect tag was lifted Kate still was not able to answer what her claims were.

There is a hell of a lot of claims from the McCanns about how they KNOW things and about how the KNOW these things as being fact, but they never come out and actually back these things up with any kind of evidence. But each time they said something like that the media rushed to print stuff like how the McCanns know things and how these unmentioned things must be true.

Very muddy waters in this case and a lot of that has been done by the McCanns and their friends/media team with their flexible statements.

WOW what a post...Most of this I didn't know until you have just mentioned I did in another post a couple days ago ask regarding Murat. Who he was & how he was connected To this case...I have seen on a couple of statements like Payne's where for no reason he is saying something like...No No i'm not saying Murat was there...Which made me wonder who he was...