Author Topic: Has Amaral now been vindicated? The Tanner sighting was of no consequence.  (Read 13815 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Lyall

  • Guest
 >@@(*&) The Portuguese police not taking the sighting seriously has just been demonstrated to have been correct thinking?

It wasn't them who gave it massive publicity.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 04:30:35 AM by John »

Offline sadie

>@@(*&) The Portuguese police not taking the sighting seriously has just been demonstrated to have been correct thinking?

It wasn't them who gave it massive publicity.

Read http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2652.0 before making judgement.

Apart from that, Jane Tanner still could have seen another man, cos her description is remarkably like that of the Smiths.  Also, carrying a child in that manner, if correctly portrayed, would be well nigh impossible for such a long distance

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.
« Last Edit: October 28, 2013, 04:28:32 AM by John »

Offline sadie

The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.
1)  Amaral refused to believe Jane Tanner.  He lost his potential Goden Witness.  Now I am not sure on this, but did he also put lies into her mouth?  I fancy he did, but pls correct me if I am wrong

2)  I never heard or saw Gerry Mccann ridicule Jane Tanner.  He is a very strong minded man and he thought that he was correct.  He did over-rule her, but he never ridiculed her to my knowledge


It is important to get facts right Anne or else myths develop.

That is why I have apologised so profusely.  Whilst I got the facts of positions and directions right, I failed to take into account other factors which changed the equation.  I got it wrong overall and I admitted it.

How about you?

Lyall

  • Guest
1)  Amaral refused to believe Jane Tanner.  He lost his potential Goden Witness.  Now I am not sure on this, but did he also put lies into her mouth?  I fancy he did, but pls correct me if I am wrong

2)  I never heard or saw Gerry Mccann ridicule Jane Tanner.  He is a very strong minded man and he thought that he was correct.  He did over-rule her, but he never ridiculed her to my knowledge


It is important to get facts right Anne or else myths develop.

That is why I have apologised so profusely.  Whilst I got the facts of positions and directions right, I failed to take into account other factors which changed the equation.  I got it wrong overall and I admitted it.

How about you?

Dodgy, very dodgy ground for you Sadie. JT's sighting was used by a great many people, and claims were made by them that I don't believe she actually ever did make herself. I'd leave it at that if I were you.

Offline Carana

The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.

I'm sorry. What do mean by Gerry ridiculing Jane? I never read or saw him doing that. When would that have been?

icabodcrane

  • Guest
1)  Amaral refused to believe Jane Tanner. 





Got that right then,  didn't he  ? 

(  and in what way did he  'put lies in her mouth'  ?   )   

Lyall

  • Guest
I'm sorry. What do mean by Gerry ridiculing Jane? I never read or saw him doing that. When would that have been?

The 'reconstruction' in the 2009 Cutting Edge programme is what they mean.

Offline DCI

  • Sr. Member
  • ****
  • Posts: 2585
  • Total likes: 6
  • Why are some folks so sick in the head!!!
Got that right then,  didn't he  ? 

(  and in what way did he  'put lies in her mouth'  ?   )

What did she lie about? Amarals the liar, look what he said re Murat!
Kate's 500 Mile Cycle Challenge

https://www.justgiving.com/KateMcCann/

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
The 'reconstruction' in the 2009 Cutting Edge programme is what they mean.
Yes, poor Jane who tried so much to help !

Offline Carana

Re: Has Amaral now been vindicated? The Tanner sighting was of no consequence.
« Reply #10 on: October 15, 2013, 04:27:18 PM »
The 'reconstruction' in the 2009 Cutting Edge programme is what they mean.

Ok, thanks. Is that the scene where Gerry and Jane agreed to disagree as to where they were actually standing?
I don't see that as either of them ridiculing the other, they simply had different recollections.

Was Anne suggesting that Gerry a) ridiculed her? and, if so, b) was the first to do so?

I'd find that a somewhat strange assessment as opposed to being declared a non-credible witness by the PT press and by Amaral himself way prior to that 2009 programme.


Just at random:

"It is false, wrong, most of the replies are not true" tvmais (no online link, appears in magazine only)
 
Hernâni Carvalho
10 September 2008

Interview with Amaral in reply to the McCanns' interview with Expresso.

The PJ discredits Jane Tanner's testimony. They say that when she saw said man with the child, you [Gerry] were chatting nearby and it was impossible that you hadn't seen him as well…
 
(Gerry says he didn't see because his back was turned while he was chatting with a friend.)
 
Jane Tanner's testimony has evolved in an inverse manner to human mentality. Initially, she had seen only a person at a distance. As time went by, she started remembering details in such a manner that at the end, she even remembered the texture of the clothing that the man and the little girl were wearing. That was how she pointed at Murat. The only deposition that is credible is the Smiths'.


www.mccannfiles.com

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Has Amaral now been vindicated? The Tanner sighting was of no consequence.
« Reply #11 on: October 15, 2013, 04:28:25 PM »


It is important to get facts right Anne or else myths develop.

Tell this to yourself and please don't pretend I said SYman was staying in G6.

Offline Carana

Re: Has Amaral now been vindicated? The Tanner sighting was of no consequence.
« Reply #12 on: October 15, 2013, 04:34:05 PM »
24 July 2008


Correio da Manhã – As the case investigator, what is your thesis?

Gonçalo Amaral – The little girl died in the apartment. Everything is in the book, which is faithful to the investigation until September: it reflects the understanding of the Portuguese and the English police and of the Public Ministry. For all of us, until then, the concealment of the cadaver, the simulation of abduction and the exposure or abandonment were proved.

What led you to indict the McCanns over all of those crimes?

It all starts with an abduction theory that is forced by the parents. And the abduction is based on two facts: one is Jane Tanner's testimony that says she saw a man passing in front of the apartment, carrying a child; the other is the bedroom window, which, according to Kate, was open when it should have been closed. It was proved that none of that happened.

How was it proved?

Jane Tanner is not credible: she identifies and recognizes different people. She starts with Murat, later on someone else is mentioned, according to the drawing done by a witness, and she already says that is the person, completely different from Robert Murat.

Jane Tanner's testimony drove the abduction theory.

In order to advance into that direction, it would be necessary to give her credit: there was no other indicium of the abduction. And the issue of the bedroom window, where Maddie and her siblings slept, is vital. It leads to simulation. This means, whether or not it was open when Jane says that she saw the man carrying the child. The little girl’s mother, Kate, is the only person that mentions the open window.

Cadaver was frozen or kept in the cold Correio da Manhã
 
24 July 2008
Thanks to Joana Morais for translation

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id286.html

Offline Carana

Re: Has Amaral now been vindicated? The Tanner sighting was of no consequence.
« Reply #13 on: October 15, 2013, 04:39:15 PM »
Precisely because Ms Tanner's sighting was questioned (basically because nobody saw her while she saw everybody), the suggestion of Mr McCann that she was mistaking the side of the street was too much. Apart from that he wasn't saying the truth (see JW's statement)

So you find that Amaral declaring Jane Tanner to be a non-credible witness back in 2008 doesn't ridicule her?

This is what you'd said:
The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.

AnneGuedes

  • Guest
Re: Has Amaral now been vindicated? The Tanner sighting was of no consequence.
« Reply #14 on: October 15, 2013, 04:55:00 PM »
So you find that Amaral declaring Jane Tanner to be a non-credible witness back in 2008 doesn't ridicule her?

This is what you'd said:
The Portuguese are usually warm hearted persons, they wouldn't ridicule Ms Tanner as Mr McCann first did.
No, Carana, simply because Mr Amaral, who isn't Ms Tanner's friend, didn't publicly (watched by millions of people) tell Ms Tanner that she wasn't credible.
Finding Ms Tanner not credible wasn't very original : the MP thought the same.