The Jane Tanner surveillance of Robert Murat episode.

[ferryman]

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?

But what else does Mr Amaral say in his book that can't be trusted?

[Jean-Pierre]

Thank you Angelo. 

That is right up there with other pronouncements:-

"Correio da Manhã - What do you think happened to the body?

Gonçalo Amaral – Everything indicated that the body, after having been at a certain location, was moved into another location by car, twenty something days later. With the residues that were found inside the car, the little girl had to have been transported inside it.

How can you state that?

Due to the type of fluid, we policemen, experts, say that the cadaver was frozen or preserved in the cold and when placed into the car boot, with the heat at that time [of the year], part of the ice melted. On a curb, for example, something fell from the trunk's right side, above the wheel. It may be said that this is speculation, but it's the only way to explain what happened there."

[Benice]

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.

So why did Amaral say she didn't need to go to the police station to sign a statement to that effect?  A positive identification of the man who was seen carrying Madeleine away would have been the most momentous piece of evidence thus far in the whole case and he would have been able to wave the witness statement in front of Murat when he made him an Arguido.    The reason he didn't get her to sign a written statement was because in that statement she would have said she could NOT positively identify Murat as the man she saw - and that was no good to him.  Better to have no statement at all and then he could say what he liked which IMO is what he did.

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.

[ferryman]

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.

[ferryman]

In fact, the pointers that led to Robert Murat being declared an arguido are detailed in the files.

Nowhere is there mention of Jane Tanner identifying him as the man she saw carrying a child ...

[Carana]

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.

Where has she ever stated that?

[Albertini]

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. 

And why would Jane Tanner "just think it was him" if she was referring to what Russell and Rachel saw?

That's nothing to do with Jane and whether she thought "it was him".

Jane never claimed to have seen Murat or anyone else hanging round the OC in any of her statements so how can she then, to use your logic, not be sure it was him she saw around the OC if she never actually said she saw him or thought she saw him there?

_____________________   

 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.

It's really quite simple. The only time that Jane Tanner could have "just thought it was him" was in relation to the surveillance van episode.

She made no statement regarding Murat at any other time and indeed she never mentions when discussing what Rachel and Rob said that she saw him as well.

She then goes back to discussing the van episode before saying i just thought it was.

The point is that the only time she had contact with Murat was in relation to the van episode. She did not make a statement fingering him as the others had done.

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?

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? 

[Carana]

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.

[AnneGuedes]

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?

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.
There are many possible answers to why she couldn't ethically accuse a complete stranger to have carried a child away the night Madeleine went missing :
1)her statement would be a heavier compromise than what  her acquaintances said about seing a fishy guy around
2)she thought she knew the man she saw
3)her sighting was authentic except for the time and the place

[Angelo222]

According to Mr Amaral in his book, Rachael, Fiona and Russell all recalled seeing Murat in the immediate vicinity of apartment 5 shortly after the realisation that Madeleine disappeared but took two weeks to disclose this and then only after having mingled with him for much of that time.

Bear in mind that the Tanner surveillance episode must have been carried out just before the PJ got a search warrant and searched the Murat villa on May 13th when later that morning Robert Murat was taken in for interview and given arguido status.

For The Profilers, Murat Is The Guilty Party

As if the memory of the McCann's family friends suddenly came back to them all, - Rachael Mampilly, wife of Matthew Oldfield, Fiona Payne, wife of David Payne, and Russell O'Brien Jane Tanners partner, recall having seen Murat on the night of May 3rd, shortly after the announcement of the disappearance, in the immediate vicinity apartment 5A.  They themselves were in direct contact with him during the previous days.  However, it is only on May 16th that they deliver this information to us.  As for the officers of the National Guard who were on the spot, they didn't see him that night, only the next morning, when he came to offer his services as interpreter.

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.

[DCI]

Also According to Mr Amaral in his book,
 
FOR THE PROFILERS, MURAT IS THE GUILTY PARTY
 
Since Murat’s first interview, which they attended, the specialists have continued to refine the profile of the suspect. They have heard about the statement from one of his so-called childhood friends, put on file by the police department: according to him, Murat had an affirmed penchant for bestiality. He recounted his attempts at sexual relations with a cat and a dog, subsequently killed, he states, with cruelty. Moreover, he allegedly attempted to rape his 16 year-old cousin. This individual describes Murat as someone violent with behavioural problems, a sexual pervert, sadist, and misanthropist. We are somewhat sceptical. All the same, according to the English profilers, there is a 90% chance that he is the guilty party. That seems to us to be a bit too easy. We think that drawing conclusions based essentially on the statement of an ex-convict is rather dangerous.

[Carana]

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.

[ferryman]

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 ...

[Angelo222]

Her partner was one of the three tapas 7 group members who placed Murat near to apartment 5 shortly after Madeleine disappeared so as a couple they must have been discussed this at length. When she was asked to take part in an undercover surveillance of Murat she must have realised that the police were seriously considering him as a suspect.

[Angelo222]

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.

What I would like to know is why Robert Murat has not sued this trio for malicious defamation??