The Jane Tanner surveillance of Robert Murat episode.

[John]

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?

[Robittybob1]

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.

[Mr Gray]

all i  wanted  to know  was who is this we  he speaks off?

for you and others who have raised this point before...we does not mean everyone as you seem to think it does.....it really is that simple

[slartibartfast]

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?

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.

[Benice]

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

[ferryman]

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

good analysis.

Just one point to add.

Never forget who brought us those interviews, Duarte Levy ....

[Mr Gray]

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.

the waters are not muddied unless you want them to be

[mercury]

good analysis.

Just one point to add.

Never forget who brought us those interviews, Duarte Levy ....

this  is a copy of the official LP interview of Tanner

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/Tanner3of7_HO3.pdf


If you want to mark out the changes made by Levy, do so, and then share them here, and then forward on to the police as evidence that Levy criminally altered the interviews and spread the altered versions to the internet

Otherwise remove your accusation

[mercury]

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?

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

[mercury]

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 carryng somethng?

[Robittybob1]

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

[mercury]

You should know that.  You could have sore joints or muscular weakness that shows up with carrying weight

Lets not get away from the point of the  thread

[misty]

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

[mercury]

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

[misty]

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?