In Mr Amaral's own words...
"Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance."
www.joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2010/02/robert-murat-criminal-complaint-against.html
When Robert Murat was effectively 'fingered' by Tanner ...
No evidence it ever happened.
Maybe the undercover observation of Robert Murat by Amaral and Tanner using an unmarked police van never happened either??
Maybe the undercover observation of Robert Murat by Amaral and Tanner using an unmarked police van never happened either??
Maybe the undercover observation of Robert Murat by Amaral and Tanner using an unmarked police van never happened either??
To get back to events. When Robert Murat was effectively 'fingered' by Tanner the scope of the investigation widened. That net saw the Malinka connection revealed and all that it brought with it.
Undoubtedly Mr Amaral thought he was onto a Russian Mafia child sex ring, something which was well established on the Spanish Costas at that time.
Yes, I agree about the media hype and the scramble to print the next fantasy tale, a bit like the one by the Mail and posted by Sadie on the other thread this morning.What's fantasy about a sighting by a sensible woman, a Doctor, Angelo ?
And yes, I have read the files at great length. Murat was put in the frame from day 1 for some reason. The poor b....r only wanted to help, he had a daughter back home in Old Blighty and felt some of what the McCanns were feeling for a lost daughter.
Maybe the undercover observation of Robert Murat by Amaral and Tanner using an unmarked police van never happened either??Just another forum myth Angelo ... and encouraged by Amaral. Pls dont forget that Amaral is a convicted liar.
It is recorded (in the files) that an attempt was made to give JT an opportunity to identify the man she saw carrying a child.
It is also recorded that they met Murat en route to the van and chatted to him.
If JT was going to recognise him, it surely would have been at that point. But there's no evidence she did.
It is recorded in the files that at the crucial moment when Jane was about to make the sighting, a car pulled out and blocked her view.
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”.
so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before,
That's the key bit, isn't it?
They met a man en route to the van JT was (later) sure was definitely Robert Murat.
But when it came to the "sighting" she didn't even recognise him as the man she was speaking to minutes before ...
Just another forum myth Angelo ... and encouraged by Amaral. Pls dont forget that Amaral is a convicted liar.
Can you find anything in the files, Angelo, that says what you are saying?
Nah!
Jane Tanner talking about Robert Murat:
At what point in your opinion did Ms Tanner think it was Murat?
By saying she thought it was she is clearly saying at some point she did identify Murat.
When do you think that was?
In order to understand how and when Tanner identified Murat you need to understand the difference between present and past tense in relation to the rogatory interviews.What you are saying doesn't make sense to me Albertini
That tells you all you need to know, if of course, you want to see it.
so I didn't really, but I didn't even recognise it as the person I'd been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before,
That's the key bit, isn't it?
They met a man en route to the van JT was (later) sure was definitely Robert Murat.
But when it came to the "sighting" she didn't even recognise him as the man she was speaking to minutes before ...
That was later in the rogatory interview, and related to whether Murat was seen around the Ocean Club complex on the night of the 3rd (when the GNR were there). A couple of the other Tapas 7 thought they had seen him.
It does not relate to the Bob Small / Refrigerated Van / was Murat the man seen carrying the child. Tanner says it wasn't.
Two quite separate issues.
Jane Tanner talking about Robert Murat:
At what point in your opinion did Ms Tanner think it was Murat?
By saying she thought it was she is clearly saying at some point she did identify Murat.
When do you think that was?
Nope, because if you read the preceding passage she deals with the sighting AND the van episode in terms of seeing him on the way to do it:
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”.
The important thing is that at one point she did think Murat was "him".
They weren't talking about the surveillance which JT did. They'd moved on from that. It's apparent that the police officer questioning her didn't think JT was admitting that she thought Murat was the man in the identity parade - as surely she would have stopped at that point and questioned JT about it - as JT would have effectively been contradicting her previous statement that she did NOT positively identify Murat. Nothing lilke that happened because JT was talking about a completely different event.
IMO she is saying that although she didn't see Murat herself on the night of the 3rd, FP and the others did think THEY had seen him and because none of them knew at that point that he was going to deny being there at all, she assumed it WAS him they saw. Hence ''I just thought it was'' (him).
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
" 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”."
They were talking about whether Murat was at the complex on the night in question. Rachel and Russell thought they had seen him.
She HAD seen him while the PJ were trying to their rather inept "surveillance" - they bumped into him.
But Tanner is very emphatic in both her initial interview, and in the subsequent rogatory interview, that Robert Murat was NOT the man she saw carrying the child.
Now you can either accept that, Albertini, or not. It really makes absolutely no difference either way.
_________________
Edited to add an extract from Tanners Rogatory Interview (snipped from a larger body of work):
"And, erm, then Bob drove me up to where, erm, the rest of the team were to do the surveillance. Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories”.
4078 “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”
Reply “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. It’s really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”.
4078 “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”.
Reply “No”.
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”."
They weren't talking about the surveillance which JT did. They'd moved on from that. It's apparent that the police officer questioning her didn't think JT was admitting that she thought Murat was the man in the identity parade - as surely she would have stopped at that point and questioned JT about it - as JT would have effectively been contradicting her previous statement that she did NOT positively identify Murat. Nothing lilke that happened because JT was talking about a completely different event.
IMO she is saying that although she didn't see Murat herself on the night of the 3rd, FP and the others did think THEY had seen him and because none of them knew at that point that he was going to deny being there at all, she assumed it WAS him they saw. Hence ''I just thought it was'' (him).
They weren't talking about the surveillance which JT did. They'd moved on from that. It's apparent that the police officer questioning her didn't think JT was admitting that she thought Murat was the man in the identity parade - as surely she would have stopped at that point and questioned JT about it - as JT would have effectively been contradicting her previous statement that she did NOT positively identify Murat. Nothing lilke that happened because JT was talking about a completely different event.
IMO she is saying that although she didn't see Murat herself on the night of the 3rd, FP and the others did think THEY had seen him and because none of them knew at that point that he was going to deny being there at all, she assumed it WAS him they saw. Hence ''I just thought it was'' (him).
Nope, because if you read the preceding passage she deals with the sighting AND the van episode in terms of seeing him on the way to do it:
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”.
The important thing is that at one point she did think Murat was "him".
She is talking about the others seeing him and also about rinigng Bob Small about what she saw on the way to the surveillance van. She is talking about both episodes and ends it by saying she (not the others) "thought it was" (him)
Jane Tanner's initial interview makes no mention of Murat.
Jane Tanner is talking about what she felt when she was giving the rogatory interview NOT what she felt on the night hence the use of present instead of past tense.
So she says:
I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no
Instead of:
I didn't think so. I mean, didn't, phew, didn't, didn't think it, no
And:
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”."[/b]
Instead of
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I didn't, no”."[/b]
So what she is saying is that as she gives that statement in 2008 she does not think it was Murat, which is not the same as saying she didn't think it was him back in 2007 on that night.
Syntax leaves no doubt here. I wonder why English speakers (as mother language) don't see that.
Jane Tanner is talking about what she felt when she was giving the rogatory interview NOT what she felt on the night hence the use of present instead of past tense.
So she says:
I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no
Instead of:
I didn't think so. I mean, didn't, phew, didn't, didn't think it, no
And:
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”."[/b]
Instead of
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I didn't, no”."[/b]
Oh dear oh dear oh dear- are you REALLY arguing semantics over this rogatory interview?
The following will give you a bit of a clue:
_____________________
Jane Tanner's rogatory interview, which took place on 08 April 2008, sourced from Duarte Levy
Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview I
Jane Tanner - Record Of Tape Recorded Interview I Duarte Levy Wordpress
Posted by Duarte Levy
January 28, 2009 • 1:18 AM
If you are happy to do that, then I am afraid you are on your own 8)--)) @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
The UK police were only allowed to ask what they had been instructed to by the Portuguese police. They were not allowed to interrogate any of the friends or build on any of their answers.
Oh dear oh dear oh dear- are you REALLY arguing over interpretators!
Well, that's up to you, but in the context of what she says the tense in which she speaks highlights the issue at hand.
It's hardly semantics, it's hugely relevent, but you don't want to see that because it doesn't support your view.
Amongst the questions:
* Any further questions deemed useful, necessary or pertinent in view of the previous replies.
* And also (questions drawn up by the arguidos (formal suspects).
Besides, the PJ were there for quite a few of the interviews, weren't they?
Not interpreters - but any document that has been interpreted from one language to another will inevitably lose some of the subtleties of tense and meaning - which renders an argument based on such things rather pointless.
My main concern is Duarte Levy. This is the man of "photos" notoriety - and a journalist with an axe to grind really cannot be taken as a reliable source.
____________________
Albertini or inideed anyone else - a challenge for you -
can you come up with any source which says that Jane Tanner specifically identified Robert Murat as the man she saw carrying a child?
Not interpreters - but any document that has been interpreted from one language to another will inevitably lose some of the subtleties of tense and meaning - which renders an argument based on such things rather pointless.
My main concern is Duarte Levy. This is the man of "photos" notoriety - and a journalist with an axe to grind really cannot be taken as a reliable source.
____________________
Albertini or inideed anyone else - a challenge for you -
can you come up with any source which says that Jane Tanner specifically identified Robert Murat as the man she saw carrying a child?
Yes, Jane herself.
As per the "i thought it was" comment.
In summary - these are two entirely different things. 4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.
clearly does not realte to the man Tanner saw carrying a child.
So what in your opinion does Jane's comment relate to?
It is quite simple really: Rachel and Russell thought they had seen Murat at the OC complex on the night of the 3rd, after the disappearance and when the GNR had been called. Tanner was not sure - hence the second extract from Tanner's rogatory interview culminating in "I thought it was". If you actually read the extract, thenh it is pretty self explanatory.
It is in no way related to whether he was the man she saw carrying a child.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
According to Mr Amaral from his book.
Jane tanner Formally Recognises Robert Murat
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
According to Mr Amaral from his book.
Jane tanner Formally Recognises Robert Murat
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
So there we have it, Robert Murat walks in a similar way to that of Bundleman but doesn't resemble him.
According to Mr Amaral from his book.
Jane tanner Formally Recognises Robert Murat
Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?
So there we have it, Robert Murat walks in a similar way to that of Bundleman but doesn't resemble him.
I think you will have to read it for yourself - it was as a response to Russell and Rachel having apparently cliamed that Murat was at the OC complex on the night of the 3rd. Murat denied this. It seems Jane was not sure.
_____________________
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”.
_____________
Albertini - I really cannot see how you are making any connection between this episode and the "surveillance / refrigerated van" one - where Tanner very clearly states that Murat was NOT the man she saw carrying a child.
Now - you still have not really answered the question - can you find a source which says that Tanner identifed Murat as the man she saw carrying a child?
This episode was obviously traumatic for Ms Tanner, she was sort of out of her mind, thinking she was abducted herself and by the Spanish police at that.
Why? If she had seen what she thought was Murat there on the night why not give statements as Rachel and Rob did at that time?
From an interview with Amaral (O Crime, 25 Feb. 2010):
There is news of a criminal complaint by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?
Amaral: That process exists, yes, I was even heard as a witness. Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.
Who are they?
Amaral: Those who I remember, besides Jane Tanner, were her husband and the wife of Oldfield. They faced a confrontation with Mr Murat.
And how would you evaluate her testimony [Jane Tanner]?
Amaral: As I said, she, at first, said she saw him at the scene. Then she began to retract it, saying that, after all, she had recognized him through an Indentikit picture. For several months, she came to recognize a number of people, through Identikit pictures. This speaks for itself about the credibility of her statements. Yet in the investigation there is a moment, a confrontation between the people previously mentioned, who say that Murat was there at the time the alarm was raised. That, and other things, is what has motivated the libel suit that Murat has brought against Ms. Tanner.
http://forums.digitalspy.co.uk/showpost.php?p=38782117&postcount=623
Portuguese scan:
http://www.mccannfiles.com/imagelib/sitebuilder/misc/show_image.html?linkedwidth=actual&linkpath=http://www.mccannfiles.com/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderpictures/OCrime25February2010.jpg&target=tlx_picbkf0
Hmmm.
I'm pretty confident Jane Tanner was not one of those who took part in the confrontation ...
On July 11th at 10am, a confrontation is organised between the witnesses - Rachael Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien - and Robert Murat. Nothing new comes out of it. The former persist in stating that the suspect was definitely in the area on the night of the disappearance. Murat denies the whole thing and even accuses them of lying. Each side stands its ground. The only positive aspect of this meeting: the McCanns' friends undertake to return to Portugal for the purpose of the investigation. That will not happen.
The Gospel according to St Goncalo (again)
I'm looking for the account of the confrontation from the files.
I'm fairly confident Jane Tanner didn't take part in it.
She didn't have to as she already identified him two days earlier.
The Gospel according to St Goncalo (again)
I'm looking for the account of the confrontation from the files.
I'm fairly confident Jane Tanner didn't take part in it.
Sorry. Re-read that. Amaral doesn't say Jane took part.
I don't see Tanner's signature on that document?
Neither do I.
In that article, Amaral seems to have got Jane Tanner mixed up with Fiona Payne.
She seems to be trying to explain why she agree to ring Bob Small (and this was AFTER the van episode).
I really don't see the issue.
The reason she rang Bob Small isn't the issue.
Her saying "i just thought it was", is the issue.
If you can't see why that admission would be important then i can't help you.
It can not have been describing Murat as the others had, as tanner never made a statement saying she saw him around the OC.
Ther only time she can have "just thought it was" was in relation to the van episode.
How did this Murat v. Tanner case evolve? I don't recall ever reading anything more about it.
Kate and her husband had access to the files, are highly intelligent individuals and had extensively researched the use of cadaver dogs, yet Kate still managed to state wrongly in her book that cadaver scent only lasted thirty days.
Another fantasy?
Is there a definitive answer to that question, Faith? How do you know that 30 days is wrong?
Try some research in the area.
Faith claimed that Kate McCann was wrong in saying that scent remains detectable for 30 days.
So I think it is up to Faith (or even your goodself) to come up with a reason why 30 days is inaccurate. Over to you...
No it isn't.
It is up to km to justify her ludicrous claim of 30 days.
Like I said you do need to do some research.
Meanwhile to give you an example of how long 'organic' remains linger. Relatively recently a paleontologist found D.N.A. fragments of a female T-Rex in a fossil in excess of 65 million years ago, along with residual cell structure and proteins of the animal in question. Not quite Jurassic Park, but a clear indication that organic remains 'linger.'
Fascinating.
- Did dogs help to uncover this?
- Is the history of PdL known?
No it isn't.
It is up to km to justify her ludicrous claim of 30 days.
Like I said you do need to do some research.
Meanwhile to give you an example of how long 'organic' remains linger. Relatively recently a paleontologist found D.N.A. fragments of a female T-Rex in a fossil in excess of 65 million years ago, along with residual cell structure and proteins of the animal in question. Not quite Jurassic Park, but a clear indication that organic remains 'linger.'
No it isn't.
It is up to km to justify her ludicrous claim of 30 days.
Like I said you do need to do some research.
Meanwhile to give you an example of how long 'organic' remains linger. Relatively recently a paleontologist found D.N.A. fragments of a female T-Rex in a fossil in excess of 65 million years ago, along with residual cell structure and proteins of the animal in question. Not quite Jurassic Park, but a clear indication that organic remains 'linger.'
Interesting of course, but irrelevant to the matter in question. In this case, there were no organic remains.
In simple terms, the two main constituents of "cadaver odour" are cadaverine and putrescine, which are diamine compounds. formula NH2(CH2)5NH2. They are Volatile Organic Compounds, (VOCs), which means that they have a low boiling point at ordinary room temperatures and pressures, and therefore give off vapour easily. Which is why you can smell it.
It also the reason why a trace of a VOC on its own (i.e. not accociated with the organic source, which will over time replenish the compound until it dries out) will evaporate. If you think about a perfume - (another VOC) it will be quite strong when first applied and then will decay over time, becoming undetectable after a few hours or a couple of days.
The smell will linger longer in damp, cool conditions which inhibit evaporation, and will decay quicker in warm or hot, dry conditions because it will evaporate more quickly. After a period of time, the volatile elements will evaporate completely
So it follows that a fluid containing cadaverine and putrecine, with no associated organic carrier or source will evaporate over time, and this time will be affected by humidity and temperature. So conditions in pdl during the summer period would not be conducive to long term survival.
So without an organic carrier it would appear that 30 days is pretty much the limit of "cadaver scent" being present.
http://pubchem.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/summary/summary.cgi?cid=273&loc=ec_rcs#x291
I really hate to disappoint you, but I have a degree in Chemistry and don't need to be told what I already know.
As to the 30 days, that is variable and not a simple limit.
We also, do not know under what conditions the body was stored, and the compounds you listed are the tip of the google iceberg.
Was the source not Blacksmith ?
As you have a degree in Chemistry, it should be a simple matter to provide relevant research studies to disprove the "30 day" comment made by Kate McCann in her book.
If you had bothered to read, you will have noticed that I mentioned environmental factors and their influence on volatility.
Following the alerts by the dogs, could you just remind the forum what forensic material was actually found, and what the results of the forensic tests were?
What body? have I missed something?
You have stated 30 days.
Not me. You need to prove it.
So back it up, or withdraw it.
As to environmental factors, I'm more than well aware of those.
I dont need to prove anything. ?{)(**
Kate McCann stated it in her book. Faithlilly, a few posts back, said "Kate and her husband had access to the files, are highly intelligent individuals and had extensively researched the use of cadaver dogs, yet Kate still managed to state wrongly in her book that cadaver scent only lasted thirty days."
So I think it the onus is on Faithlilly to come up with some evidence that to support her contention that Kate is wrong. Or you, as you seem to have stepped in.
I am sure with your interest in this case and your degree in chemistry you can provide some evidence that Kate McCann is wrong...... or maybe you can't. The ball is very firmly in your court now Stephen. are you up to it?
I really hate to disappoint you, but I have a degree in Chemistry and don't need to be told what I already know.
As to the 30 days, that is variable and not a simple limit.
We also, do not know under what conditions the body was stored, and the compounds you listed are the tip of the google iceberg.
That's helpful. Perhaps you could help me then:
I haven't found anything to substantiate how long any remaining odour has been correctly attributed to the alerts of dogs, or the evidence of dog handlers, related to a potentially deceased child, with an unknown post-death potential contamination period, in the absence of any physical remains, and which might have been discernible three months later in an apartment which had been visited and occupied by dozens of people after the event.
If such cases are widely known, I'd be interested in reading about them.
That's helpful. Perhaps you could help me then:
I haven't found anything to substantiate how long any remaining odour has been correctly attributed to the alerts of dogs, or the evidence of dog handlers, related to a potentially deceased child, with an unknown post-death potential contamination period, in the absence of any physical remains, and which might have been discernible three months later in an apartment which had been visited and occupied by dozens of people after the event.
If such cases are widely known, I'd be interested in reading about them.
Snap Carana. I have searched both public and academic libraries and whilst there is quite a lot of material relating to both cases and studies where a physical body or body parts have been discovered through the use of dogs, (plus a case with carpet tiles) I can find nothing relating to the persistentency of Cadaver odour in the absence of any detectable source.
So I think the ball in now rather in Faithlily / Stephens court to provide evidence that Kate was mistaken in her book, stataing a maximum of 30 days.
Thank you faith and stephen. Interesting - particularly the residual scent study which I hadnt seen before. Not a precise correaltion but enough to suggest detectable scent can remain for more than 30 days in the right circumstances.
Have a look through the following links using google Carana. There are many variables involved.
https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?source=search_app&gws_rd=cr&ei=w0snUvOiMfOn0wXgtYE4#psj=1&q=how+long+does+cadaver+odour+linger
Thanks, I've read through many of these before. I'll have a closer look at the Zapata one.
How did this Murat v. Tanner case evolve? I don't recall ever reading anything more about it.
Just as. in Eddie's reaction to the Renault, it wasn't established until after the ignition key was examined in the laboratory that Eddie had reacted to cellular material with a dna profile that was Gerry's, so the dogs in the Zappata case no doubt reacted to something or other wholly unconnected to the murder of Mrs Zappata (and no doubt much more recent).
Amaral was no where near the van. He was sitting in the police station waiting for result. He also said it was a car, Jane was in. She was on her way to meet Bob Small and the GNR officers.
Amaral also made the bullshit up about Murat taking Jane to court. Did it happen? NO!
If you have to use Morais as a source, then god help us!
And you reckon you have read the statements. >@@(*&)
So we then carried on and I met Bob SMALL and Russell wrote down the number plate of the car just in case I was taken away. And, erm, then Bob drove me up to where, erm, the rest of the team were to do the surveillance. Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories”.
4078 “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”
Reply “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. It’s really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”.
The Portuguese AG gave no credence to that supposed identification which Amaral claims - or he would have mentioned it as part of the evidence the PJ acquired - in fact as the most important piece of evidence they had acquired to justify making Murat an arguido.
Very good point.
4078 “Do you remember his car?”
Reply “It was the green, it was the green, I think it’s a green PASSAT, he was in a green, it’s the one that had been used for the, erm, post, the what’s it, you know, the anonymous information post where people could, because that’s what he was showing us, he was actually showing. And I remember thinking at the time ‘He’s very keen to show us’, you know, ‘show us what he was doing’, but, you know, we thought ‘Oh great’, but. So we then carried on and I met Bob SMALL and Russell wrote down the number plate of the car just in case I was taken away. And, erm, then Bob drove me up to where, erm, the rest of the team were to do the surveillance. Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories”.
4078 “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “And you said, you described his hair quite well. Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”
Reply “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. It’s really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take a
From Jane Tanner's rogatory:
So, can we please have an end to (Amaral's) nonsense (repeated by posters on this board) that Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat?
We don't know what Jane Tanner told the investigation outside of her official statements so cannot discount an identification that pushed the investigation in RMs direction.Is this same argument available to every statement in the file? That there is information outside of the file would definitely be true but how do we handle that possibility?
Is this same argument available to every statement in the file? That there is information outside of the file would definitely be true but how do we handle that possibility?
We don't know what Jane Tanner told the investigation outside of her official statements so cannot discount an identification that pushed the investigation in RMs direction.
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/d-KeuItRgjqYNLCKvOdgwUKRh7jY5kcFqOIeRqyeQJXJm8kFYdt0-QJZnyabEira93zxVQ=s170)The artist's impression of the abductor, released 25 October 2007http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007
Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".
The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.
Gerry's blog - Release of the artist's impression, 26 October 2007
Referring to Metodo 3:
'They have also released a sketch of an eyewitness who saw a man carrying a small child away from near the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. We believe this child was Madeleine. The Portuguese police have released the description of the man previously: he is 35-40 years old, approximately 5ft 8in - 5ft 10in (1.72-1.78m), Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance, slim build with dark hair.'
Jane Tanner - Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann', 19 November 2007
RB: (Voice over) Jane Tanner is the only one of the group of friends who has agreed to speak to us. She denies recent reports that both she and her partner want to change their witness statements.
(To Tanner) I heard that you've not yet spoken to the media before and yet you've been much discussed. Why have you chosen to speak now?
JT: Well, I've not spoken because the Portuguese police told us not to talk about the case at all, and.. you know, from day one we've done everything we can to help them with the investigation. I think maybe I'm talking now because I'm being called a liar and a fantasist and all this, and I know what I saw and I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.
Jane Tanner - witness statement 10 May, 16.35pm
'Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, Madeleine Beth McCann had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version. That, indeed, there had passed in front of her a man carrying, in his arms, a barefoot child.
Martin Brunt talking about Jane Tanner on Sky.com 28 November 2007
"The police at the time, off the record told us that they thought Jane Tanner was not a very reliable witness. They were not suggesting that what she was saying was done in malice, but they thought she was changing her story from time to time. That’s why they never issued any appeal around it"
There is no mystery about the Tanner sighting.
Nor should there ever have been.
The Portuguese had the witness statement ... the Portuguese had the description provided by the witness. The only problem was that the Portuguese police did not believe the eye witness testimony.
Probably explains why the Fund had to resort to the unheard of precedence of employing an artist to produce something a bit more advanced than the drawing of a hairy egg.
Jane Tanner suffered years of derision and being called a liar because yet again the initial investigation failed. Yet another glaringly obvious omission had to be covered up and attention distracted from a botched investigative opportunity.
Jane Tanner has been one of the major fall guys for that incompetence for the simple reason she is a crucial witness whose testimony was ignored.
I am mystified as to the use of the allegation that she identified the carrier as Robert Murat and the allegation rife for some time that Murat was in the process of suing her as a result.
Much of the mystery and unanswered questions arising from Madeleine's disappearance revolve around the primary inability and lack of knowledge and experience of those leading the most important phase of the investigation into a missing child ... the golden hours.
They appear to have been making procedure up as they went along and the handbook seemed to have one chapter entitled "THE MOTHER DUNNIT!" to the exclusion of inconvenient evidence which pointed in a different direction.
At no time did Jane Tanner ever identify Murat as the man she saw. If she had - then a witness statement to that effect would have been taken from her as a matter of urgency because - from Amaral's point of view - that would be absolutely crucial evidence which he could use to build a case against the man he was investigating at the time - and who was about to be brought in for interview.
The fact that he declined to take any statement at all from JT after the ID parade - can only be because she had nothing to say which was of any help to him re the 'case' against Murat. There can be no other credible reason IMO.
Neither is there any credible reason imo - why she should suddenly decide to claim to anyone - at any time - that she did actually identify Murat after all. That simply makes no sense imo.
There was no case against Robert Murat so Jane Tanner didn't need to make any statement about picking his walking out in the surveillance operation before they raided his property.
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”.
If one of the investigators says someone said something, even if not in a statement, we have to take it at face value. Why would the investigator lie?
we dont have to take anything at face value.....we are entitled to question everything.
Amaral said he could prove maddie died in the apartmnet ...he couldnt
Add to that that Amaral has a criminal conviction (handed down by the Portuguese courts) for covering for colleagues who beat a suspect to a point of near blindness while she was tied to a chair (with a bag over her head so she couldn't identify her assailants) and it mystifies me that anyone should place an ounce of credence on anything he (Amaral) says (or has said).
What did The MPS say about the Jane Tanner sighting I wonder ?
It was only three years ago give or take a few weeks so someone ought to be able to remember.
MPS vindicated JT's original testimony & thus discredited the opinion of the original PJ investigation team.
The MPS said, as I recall, Ms Tanner saw some geezer with a child neither of whom were anything to do with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. This allowed the time line to be shifted making someone else, who had been carrying a child, a person of interest.
I fail to understand how the MPS have discredited anything to with the opinion of the original investigation team. The MPS have yet to formally report anything.
Is your comment based on Sr Amaral's book or something of more substance?
We don't know what Jane Tanner told the investigation outside of her official statements so cannot discount an identification that pushed the investigation in RMs direction.
(http://lh3.googleusercontent.com/d-KeuItRgjqYNLCKvOdgwUKRh7jY5kcFqOIeRqyeQJXJm8kFYdt0-QJZnyabEira93zxVQ=s170)The artist's impression of the abductor, released 25 October 2007http://www.mccannfiles.com/id30.html
The PJ make the first public appeal, 25 May 2007
Detectives issued a description of a man seen on the night the four-year-old went missing in the resort of Praia Da Luz in the Algarve. Officers said the man was "carrying a child or an object that could have been taken as a child".
The man is said to be white, aged 35-40, 5ft 10in tall, medium build with hair that was short on top. He was wearing a dark jacket, beige or golden long trousers and dark shoes. At a news conference, Ch Insp Olegario de Sousa urged the man or anyone who had seen him to come forward.
Gerry's blog - Release of the artist's impression, 26 October 2007
Referring to Metodo 3:
'They have also released a sketch of an eyewitness who saw a man carrying a small child away from near the apartment on the night Madeleine disappeared. We believe this child was Madeleine. The Portuguese police have released the description of the man previously: he is 35-40 years old, approximately 5ft 8in - 5ft 10in (1.72-1.78m), Caucasian with southern European/Mediterranean appearance, slim build with dark hair.'
Jane Tanner - Panorama documentary, 'The Mystery of Madeleine McCann', 19 November 2007
RB: (Voice over) Jane Tanner is the only one of the group of friends who has agreed to speak to us. She denies recent reports that both she and her partner want to change their witness statements.
(To Tanner) I heard that you've not yet spoken to the media before and yet you've been much discussed. Why have you chosen to speak now?
JT: Well, I've not spoken because the Portuguese police told us not to talk about the case at all, and.. you know, from day one we've done everything we can to help them with the investigation. I think maybe I'm talking now because I'm being called a liar and a fantasist and all this, and I know what I saw and I think it's important that people know what I saw because I believe Madeleine was abducted.
Jane Tanner - witness statement 10 May, 16.35pm
'Confronted with the information that the [tracker] dog teams had followed the scent trails in which, purportedly, Madeleine Beth McCann had not passed the intersection where she indicated a man carried a child, she affirmed, immediately, that she was not lying, maintaining the honesty of her initial version. That, indeed, there had passed in front of her a man carrying, in his arms, a barefoot child.
Martin Brunt talking about Jane Tanner on Sky.com 28 November 2007
"The police at the time, off the record told us that they thought Jane Tanner was not a very reliable witness. They were not suggesting that what she was saying was done in malice, but they thought she was changing her story from time to time. That’s why they never issued any appeal around it"
There is no mystery about the Tanner sighting.
Nor should there ever have been.
The Portuguese had the witness statement ... the Portuguese had the description provided by the witness. The only problem was that the Portuguese police did not believe the eye witness testimony.
Probably explains why the Fund had to resort to the unheard of precedence of employing an artist to produce something a bit more advanced than the drawing of a hairy egg.
Jane Tanner suffered years of derision and being called a liar because yet again the initial investigation failed. Yet another glaringly obvious omission had to be covered up and attention distracted from a botched investigative opportunity.
Jane Tanner has been one of the major fall guys for that incompetence for the simple reason she is a crucial witness whose testimony was ignored.
I am mystified as to the use of the allegation that she identified the carrier as Robert Murat and the allegation rife for some time that Murat was in the process of suing her as a result.
Much of the mystery and unanswered questions arising from Madeleine's disappearance revolve around the primary inability and lack of knowledge and experience of those leading the most important phase of the investigation into a missing child ... the golden hours.
They appear to have been making procedure up as they went along and the handbook seemed to have one chapter entitled "THE MOTHER DUNNIT!" to the exclusion of inconvenient evidence which pointed in a different direction.
Former Portuguese police coordinator Amaral will be privy to lots of stuff about the case which will never be in the public domain. It isn't rocket science folks.
In Jane Tanner's own words, she didn't want to put anything at Robert Murat's door but she just thought it was him... hmm
“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”.
@)(++(* all i wanted to know was who is this we he speaks off?
Despite everything we can all agree that Amaral was right. Jane Tanner did not see an abductor and this was confirmed by Redwood of Scotland Yard. What she did was to wrong foot the investigation, it didn't exactly help that she failed initially to rule Murat out as being the man she saw that night.
And as for the identification, Jane Tanner looked at Murat walking and told police she was sure he was the same man, she recognised the way he walked, with no doubt. As time progressed however she appears to have changed her mind.
www.miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4130.msg151622#msg151622
Jane Tanner saw a man carrying a child outside the McCann apartment. The only 'wrong footing' of that evidence was the inability of the investigators to investigate it competently.
Jane Tanner never pointed the finger at Murat. That was a matter entirely the doing of the PJ. After reading the report in the files it is in my opinion one of the investigative opportunities they carried out efficiently. Despite the indications they followed not translating into evidence against Murat it was right and proper that they were investigated.
In Jane Tanner's own words, she didn't want to put anything at Robert Murat's door but she just thought it was him... hmm
“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”.
It was a strange thing to say, "But I just thought it was"?
Could it be that Murat had been discussed by members of the tapas group prior to the identification episode? It was claimed that Murat was there on the night of the disappearance, something he vehemently denied. Was he the perfect stooge?
Well no, because she was describng the way he walked was the way the man she saw walked, that was at 9 15 many hours before murat alledgedly spoke to members of tapas psrty that night/early morning and if and when they had discussions about himHow many different types of walk are there?
How many different types of walk are there?Its not just the type of walk its the gait ,how a particular person moved and Tanner said Murat moved the same way as the person she saw carryng a child that night
Its not just the type of walk its the gait ,how a particular person moved and Tanner said Murat moved the same way as the person she saw carryng a child that nightBut unless the person was carrying a child that is NOT a fair comparison either is it?
though many here want to assert she never fingered murat when she obviously did
Dont ask me any more questions if you want them answered instantly Im off to bed
Well no, because she was describng the way he walked was the way the man she saw walked, that was at 9 15 many hours before murat alledgedly spoke to members of tapas party that night/early morning and if and when they had discussions about him
Surely the remark about the similiarity in the way the men walked was made after the claim that Murat was there that night? Was the claim that he was there that night not in part the catalyst which led to his arrest and subsequent designation as an arguido?I think in that regard it would be interesting to go back and see who appears to be the first to say Murat was there that night.
@)(++(* all i wanted to know was who is this we he speaks off?
It was a strange thing to say, "But I just thought it was"?
Could it be that Murat had been discussed by members of the tapas group prior to the identification episode? It was claimed that Murat was there on the night of the disappearance, something he vehemently denied. Was he the perfect stooge?
It was a strange thing to say, "But I just thought it was"?
Could it be that Murat had been discussed by members of the tapas group prior to the identification episode? It was claimed that Murat was there on the night of the disappearance, something he vehemently denied. Was he the perfect stooge?
This has been discussed at length before on this forum. My opinion has not changed,
The few words bolded above - is an unfinished sentence IMO - but the typist has put a full stop instead of the customary several full stops used to indicate that. There are many examples of the same mistake being made by the typist doing that. For example:
QUOTE
4078 “So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts”. (an unfinished sentence - but ending in a full stop)
4078 “You don’t feel it was the same person?”
Reply “No, I don’t, no”.
End quote.
QUOTE
Reply “I know, the problem is, it’s just getting the Press and the”. (an unfinished sentence but ending in a full stop)
End quote
IMO that should have been typed as
''I know, the problem is, it's just getting the Press and the...'' (an unfinished sentence - therefore ending in several full stops)
QUOTE
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”. (an unfinished sentence but ending in a full stop)
End quote
IMO that should have been typed as ''But I just thought it was....'' and as she was talking about her reasons for phoning Bob Small at the time - I think that comment was in relation to why she thought it was important to do that and was not referring to her surveillance of Murat. To claim that it was Murat she saw at that point would make no sense at all because of her comment immediately prior - stating that she did NOT think he was the man she saw.
It's highly pertinent IMO that the police officer asking the questions (and who - unlike us - was actually there at the time) didn't consider - 'But I just thought it was.' - as being a contradictory claim to her two previous ones.
If she had - then she would have surely homed in on it and made a point of clarifying exactly which of the claims made by JT was the correct one - because if she thought JT was now claiming that the man she saw on the 3rd was in fact Murat - after twice stating that he wasn't the man - then that would be an important change of evidence which needed to be recorded. No such clarification takes place in the wake of that comment.
AIMHO
The collaboration between the members of the tapas group has been one factor that has muddied the waters and made it very difficult to understand who actually saw or did what.
good analysis.
Just one point to add.
Never forget who brought us those interviews, Duarte Levy ....
Surely the remark about the similiarity in the way the men walked was made after the claim that Murat was there that night? Was the claim that he was there that night not in part the catalyst which led to his arrest and subsequent designation as an arguido?
But unless the person was carrying a child that is NOT a fair comparison either is it?
Do you change the WAY you walk when carrying something?You should know that. You could have sore joints or muscular weakness that shows up with carrying weight
You should know that. You could have sore joints or muscular weakness that shows up with carrying weight
Video showing RM walking. Looks like he has a slight limp & a distinctive hip movement.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-robert-murat-arriving-at-casa-liliana-news-footage/495100138
How does that help to know if tanner told the pj from the surveillance van it was him or not
Is recognising the way someone walks the same as positively identifying a person solely by that means?Yes according to amarals book
Yes according to amarals book
He said she identified him
That he made this up is not a good argument
Neither is her vague in vague rogatory
Amaral wasn't present during the surveillance exercise - but the search warrants were already in place. What does that tell you?Not A lot
Video showing RM walking. Looks like he has a slight limp & a distinctive hip movement.Slightly shorter right leg.
http://www.gettyimages.co.uk/detail/video/exterior-shots-of-robert-murat-arriving-at-casa-liliana-news-footage/495100138
Slightly shorter right leg.
Yes according to amarals book
He said she identified him
That he made this up is not a good argument
Neither is her vague in vague rogatory
I was under the impression Amaral's book was an accurate reflection of the investigation under his leadership, as determined by the Portuguese courts.
JT said she saw a man + child. The original investigation clearly never followed up the statements of the 8 families who used the MW creche that night. Instead, they chose to cast extreme doubt on JT's testimony, tantamount to accusing her of fabrication.
The catalyst was that journo who said he reminded her of huntley, she phoned police in uk on may 7
The tapas group added to it
both testimonies having no basis in fact or evidence
This has been discussed at length before on this forum. My opinion has not changed,
The few words bolded above - is an unfinished sentence IMO - but the typist has put a full stop instead of the customary several full stops used to indicate that.
QUOTE
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”. (an unfinished sentence but ending in a full stop)
End quote
IMO that should have been typed as ''But I just thought it was....'' and as she was talking about her reasons for phoning Bob Small at the time - I think that comment was in relation to why she thought it was important to do that and was not referring to her surveillance of Murat. To claim that it was Murat she saw at that point would make no sense at all because of her comment immediately prior - stating that she did NOT think he was the man she saw.
It's highly pertinent IMO that the police officer asking the questions (and who - unlike us - was actually there at the time) didn't consider - 'But I just thought it was.' - as being a contradictory claim to her two previous ones.
If she had - then she would have surely homed in on it and made a point of clarifying exactly which of the claims made by JT was the correct one - because if she thought JT was now claiming that the man she saw on the 3rd was in fact Murat - after twice stating that he wasn't the man - then that would be an important change of evidence which needed to be recorded. No such clarification takes place in the wake of that comment.
the waters are not muddied unless you want them to be
I've heard it all now @)(++(*
She was asked a direct question about the man she saw, her response had nothing to do with Bob Small. Tanner obviously thought it was Murat she saw but in hindsight changed her mind or had it changed for her like so much in this case.
Can you give any reason why the police officer (having heard this complete change of mind on JT's part) didn't question her about it - especially as if you are correct - it directly contradicted what she had said only seconds previously.
It reminds me of the TV documentary where she directly challenged Gerry McCanns version of events and ending up crying on Edgar's shoulder. Oh dear!!
The fact that she and Gerry had different memories of where he stood did not come as a shock to her - she already knew that was the case - so why would she get upset about it?
IMO she got upset because she was having to re-live what was probably the worst night of her life to date.
If JT had identified RM then Amaral would have taken a witness statement from her at the time as a matter of urgency - and not told his officers to send her home after the ID parade which is what he did. That makes no sense.
He wasn't there himself and AFAIK none of the people who were there have ever claimed - either officially or unofficially - that she positively identified RM.
JT was there - why would she lie when she knew there were police officers present who would know she was lying and who could all make witness statements to that effect?
Amaral does lie about JT in his efforts to discredit her as a credible witness. She did not 'formally' identify RM as he claimed in his book. A 'formal 'identification would have to entail witness statements both from her and the other PJ officers present. There are none. Neither did she attend the confrontation meeting with RM. That is another false claim made by Amaral.
The fact that Amaral's claims about JT's 'formal' identification of RM does not get a mention by the AG in his final report (in the section about RM) is proof enough IMO that no such identification ever happened.
It seems to me that Amaral regarded JT as a credible enough witness when he asked her to attend the ID parade, but once that failed and he decided to go after the parents - her evidence became an inconvenience to him - hence his efforts to discredit her at every opportunity - even to the extent of lying about her. A totally unacceptable way for any police officer to behave towards any witness at any time IMO.
Added to by CM doing the tapping the side of his nose routine.
Or she was bullied and belittled by himSome very interesting insights here. I have often wondered if we could still use this natural divide between the doctors to unravel the inner workings of the Tapas 9.
Tanner and the mccanns are not the best of friends
Kate mccann was cold towards her in that documentary
I reckon theyve used her
JMO of course, have to go out now
That may be your interpretation.
The court ruled there was nothing in the book that was not in the files or that infringed the McCanns rights which is a different proposition.
From memory, that wasn't quite how it was stated concerning what was in the files and what wasn't.
There are details that are most certainly not in the accessible files, and some that are absent that would have provided a more objective view in terms of context.
IMO, the book is relatively tame compared to the documentary and in particular his increasingly strange claims in his pre- and post-book claims in the media.
Do you mean the court did state there were things in the book that were not in the file that were an infringement t of the McCanns rights?
I've heard it all now @)(++(*
She was asked a direct question about the man she saw, her response had nothing to do with Bob Small. Tanner obviously thought it was Murat she saw but in hindsight changed her mind or had it changed for her like so much in this case.
It reminds me of the TV documentary where she directly challenged Gerry McCanns version of events and ending up crying on Edgar's shoulder. Oh dear!!
Do you mean the court did state there were things in the book that were not in the file that were an infringement t of the McCanns rights?