The Jane Tanner surveillance of Robert Murat episode.

[mercury]

Is recognising the way someone walks the same as positively identifying a person solely by that means?

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

[misty]

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?

[mercury]

Amaral wasn't present during the surveillance exercise - but the search warrants were already in place. What does that tell you?

Not A lot
Pretty standard expect
Does it matter that amaral wasnt there?strengthens the argument that the surveillance exercise  occurred and amaral relayed the result...at least someone did, the LP have been like silent baboons

[Robittybob1]

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

Slightly shorter right leg.

[misty]

Slightly shorter right leg.

IMO you are correct to be of the opinion gait would be altered if carrying a child and the surveillance exercise was therefore a poorly considered identity attempt.

[Benice]

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

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.   

[Alice Purjorick]

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.

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.

[Alice Purjorick]

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

Added to by CM doing the tapping the side of his nose routine.

[Angelo222]

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.

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!!

[Angelo222]

the waters are not muddied unless you want them to be

Does that remark apply to the declined reconstruction too?

[Benice]

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.

[mercury]

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.

So many assumptions, so many reasons you give to make out JT did NOT identify RM in the exercise when shes never actually said herself she didnt  lol

And bob smalls activities there are not recorded anywhere so we cant check THAT
You just assume amaral was lying about a police exercise

[mercury]

Added to by CM doing the tapping the side of his nose routine.

Why of course, which makes it even more of a stitch up job

Note also the date of LPs memo confirming the journalists correspondence  was a day earlier than she said she contacted them, ie she did so at breakneck speed but lied about it

[mercury]

Or she was bullied and belittled by him
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

[Robittybob1]

Or she was bullied and belittled by him
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

Some 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.
There are the allegiances and tensions between partners and then friends and then as a group on the whole.
I'm nearly at the end of Kate's book I wonder if she touches on these aspects in the last chapter.