The Jane Tanner surveillance of Robert Murat episode.

[slartibartfast]

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.

[Robittybob1]

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?

[slartibartfast]

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?

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?

[Benice]

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.

  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. 

[Brietta]

The artist's impression of the abductor, released 25 October 2007

http://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.

[Benice]

The artist's impression of the abductor, released 25 October 2007

http://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.

An excellent post Brietta.    Amaral's persistent attempts to discredit Jane Tanner at every opportunity is proof IMO that he knew he had ignored vital evidence.    IIRC he went as far as to  claim that JT attended the 'confrontation' meeting with RM - as proof that she had previously identified him.   If so - that is complete lie as she did not attend that meeting. 

(from memory so will be happy to be corrected if necessary).

[pathfinder73]

  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”.

[ferryman]

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”.

There was some debate about whether Robert Murat was out and about on the night or whether he wasn't (as asserted by Murat's mother, who insists Robert spent the night with her).

No one disputes that.

And (conceivably) that (if the PJ are convinced Murat was out and about on the night) could give rise to separate proceedings because *Murat (at that stage) was an informal witness, and informal witnesses (by Portuguese law) are obliged to tell the truth.

Key point: at no time did Jane Tanner (or any other of the McCanns' friends) suggest Murat had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance.

The suggestion that she (or any other of the McCanns' friends) might have is a lie, put about by Goncalo Amaral and propagated by disciples of Goncalo Amaral.

Said disciples should stop (propagating Amaral's lies).

*Edited to replace Amaral with Murat

[Mr Gray]

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

[ferryman]

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).

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

[stephen25000]

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).

So we should believe in every word the mccanns say.

[misty]

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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?

[misty]

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?

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.