Author Topic: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?  (Read 155885 times)

0 Members and 2 Guests are viewing this topic.

Offline Brietta

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #180 on: February 12, 2016, 10:14:52 PM »
Various men walked across the road and JT thought he was the one she saw on the night. She didn't know that was RM crossing the road but the police did. So they later ask MS was it him. What is the problem? It's no big mystery.

Jane Tanner never identified Robert Murat.

How could she?  She did not see the face of the person she saw carrying a child.

Where is her identification recorded in the files?
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #181 on: February 12, 2016, 10:29:42 PM »
Jane Tanner never identified Robert Murat.

How could she?  She did not see the face of the person she saw carrying a child.

Where is her identification recorded in the files?

She pointed him out crossing the road side on not face on so of course she didn't know who it was.  Amaral is telling the truth unless you have evidence to suggest not. JT did the surveillance and that's a fact!
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline blonk

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #182 on: February 12, 2016, 10:46:15 PM »
Jane Tanner neveridentified Robert Murat.

How could she?  She did not see the face of the person she saw carrying a child.

Where is her identification recorded in the files?
There is a massive conflict of evidence about whether she did or not identify Robert Murat.

It's odd that, since Jane Tanner simply denies that she did identify Murat, Kate McCann devotes 3 whole pages of her book, 'madeleine' (Hardback, pp. 134-146) to dealing with the claim, which suggests it's important to her for some reason.

Goncalo Amaral insists that Jane was adamant in identifying Murat.

Jane is equally insistent that she did not.

One of them is plainly being untruthful and it seems to be one person's word against another, as AFAIK there's nothing about it in the files. Some will believe Goncalo, some will believe Jane.

But is what is really very odd is why within 48 hours of Murat being made arguido, all the following contacted the PJ and stated that they were sure they had seen Murat around the Ocean Club late on the evening of 3rd May: Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.

It was a story they stuck to rigidly at a confrontation held at Portimao Police Station on 11 July.

Bit months later, some of them said they weren't so sure after all           

Offline misty

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #183 on: February 12, 2016, 11:03:22 PM »
There is a massive conflict of evidence about whether she did or not identify Robert Murat.

It's odd that, since Jane Tanner simply denies that she did identify Murat, Kate McCann devotes 3 whole pages of her book, 'madeleine' (Hardback, pp. 134-146) to dealing with the claim, which suggests it's important to her for some reason.

Goncalo Amaral insists that Jane was adamant in identifying Murat.

Jane is equally insistent that she did not.

One of them is plainly being untruthful and it seems to be one person's word against another, as AFAIK there's nothing about it in the files. Some will believe Goncalo, some will believe Jane.

But is what is really very odd is why within 48 hours of Murat being made arguido, all the following contacted the PJ and stated that they were sure they had seen Murat around the Ocean Club late on the evening of 3rd May: Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.

It was a story they stuck to rigidly at a confrontation held at Portimao Police Station on 11 July.

Bit months later, some of them said they weren't so sure after all           

RM was an arguido & as such had the right to know what evidence the police had against him.
I believe the PJ told him during his interrogation that someone had positively identified him as the carrier of the child seen at approx 9.15pm, in the hope that he would confess. This was the same tactic they used on Kate & Gerry McCann with the cadaver dog alerts

Offline Brietta

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #184 on: February 12, 2016, 11:11:31 PM »
There is a massive conflict of evidence about whether she did or not identify Robert Murat.

It's odd that, since Jane Tanner simply denies that she did identify Murat, Kate McCann devotes 3 whole pages of her book, 'madeleine' (Hardback, pp. 134-146) to dealing with the claim, which suggests it's important to her for some reason.

Goncalo Amaral insists that Jane was adamant in identifying Murat.

Jane is equally insistent that she did not.

One of them is plainly being untruthful and it seems to be one person's word against another, as AFAIK there's nothing about it in the files. Some will believe Goncalo, some will believe Jane.

But is what is really very odd is why within 48 hours of Murat being made arguido, all the following contacted the PJ and stated that they were sure they had seen Murat around the Ocean Club late on the evening of 3rd May: Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.

It was a story they stuck to rigidly at a confrontation held at Portimao Police Station on 11 July.

Bit months later, some of them said they weren't so sure after all           

Jane Tanner never identified Robert Murat as the man she saw carrying the child.

She is perfectly clear about that, as we have previously discussed. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4130.msg151610#msg151610

Had she done so ... where is her affidavit to that effect in the files??

Tapas Nine witness says 'Mediterranean man took Madeleine'
By DAVID WILKES and VANESSA ALLEN
Last updated at 10:12 20 November 2007


The woman who believes she saw Madeleine McCann being abducted revealed yesterday that she has never named Robert Murat to police as the man she saw.

Instead, Jane Tanner, 36, thinks he was "Mediterranean looking".

Miss Tanner, one of the so- called Tapas Nine, says she remains "stricken with guilt" over failing to prevent the abduction.

"I felt I could have stopped this all from happening," she said. "I think of that every day. I have to live with it for ever, that guilt is never going to go away."

But she admitted: "I simply don't know if I could identify again the man I saw that night. I've never pointed the finger at Robert Murat because I simply don't know if it was him or not.

"I would say the man I saw was more local, or Mediterranean looking, rather than British. He had dark, almost black, long hair and had swarthy skin.
 
"He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress."
 
Miss Tanner, a mother of two, said Madeleine's parents Kate and Gerry have told her she shouldn't feel any guilt about what happened.

Though some details of Miss Tanner's interview emerged at the weekend, it was broadcast in full on BBC1's Panorama programme last night.
 
She spoke out as it emerged that the private detectives hired by the McCanns are investigating claims that a witness saw a child who looked like Madeleine with a couple on May 5, two days after the girl disappeared in Portugal.
 
The unnamed witness was said to have identified one of the couple as Michaela Walczuch, the girlfriend of Murat.
In a picture yesterday, she bore an uncanny likeness to a figure drawn by a forensic artist from Miss Tanner's recollections.
 
Although the impression, commissioned by the McCanns, has no facial features, the length of the figure's brown hair is like Miss Walczuch's.
 
The build of Murat's girlfriend and her style of clothing also match the impression.
 
German-born Miss Walczuch, 34, refused to comment when approached outside her home in Lagos, which she shares with her estranged husband Luis Antonio and their eightyearold daughter.
 
Her lawyer later described the allegation against her as ridiculous.
 
Murat, 33, who remains an official suspect in the case, lives in Praia da Luz with his 71-year-old mother Jenny.
He has insisted he was at home the night Madeleine vanished. Miss Tanner appealed to people to "rack their brains" to see if they know the man she saw.
 
Tears welling in her eyes, marketing executive Miss Tanner, of Exeter, said: "Every day I see him there, striding away, carrying Madeleine away and I try desperately to remember more detail.
 
"I think about it over and over again. It's horrible.
 
"He had his face turned away from me, sort of sideways and it was very dark. I just didn't see it properly, I wish to God I had."
 
Miss Tanner, the first of the seven friends who were on holiday with Mr and Mrs McCann to speak out, says she saw the man carrying a child around 9.15pm on May 3 as she made her way back to her apartment at the Mark Warner holiday complex in Praia da Luz.
She was holidaying with her partner Dr Russell O'Brien, 36, Madeleine's parents and five other friends.
The group were taking it in turns to check on their children who they had left in their apartments while they dined together at a nearby tapas bar.

Explaining why the group had left their children in their rooms - something Mr and Mrs McCann, of Rothley, Leicestershire, have been heavily criticised for - Miss Tanner said: "I think we were lulled into a sense of security by the fact that it was very much a family resort and quite quiet."

It was on one of her regular checks to see her two daughters, age two and four, that Miss Tanner saw the suspect, about ten to 15ft in front of her, cross from left to right, carrying a child.
 
She said that when she was later told Madeleine had disappeared "the image of that man carrying the child came into my head and I felt physically sick".
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495092/Tapas-Nine-witness-says-Mediterranean-man-took-Madeleine.html#ixzz0fQNlbj4t

"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #185 on: February 12, 2016, 11:49:06 PM »
I've never pointed the finger at Robert Murat because I simply don't know if it was him or not.

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”.
Jane Tanner    “But I just thought it was”.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Brietta

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #186 on: February 13, 2016, 12:37:18 AM »
I've never pointed the finger at Robert Murat because I simply don't know if it was him or not.

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”.
Jane Tanner    “But I just thought it was”.

She neither thought it was or said it was anywhere in any of her statements. Don't you ever get fed up reinventing the wheel?

**Snip
Reply    “Erm I think the only part which, I mean it’s more relevant to everybody else than to me, it’s probably some of the Robert MURAT bits, in terms of erm Rachel, Fi and Russ and into, erm it was sort of how that came about and how they came to give their statements on that, I don’t know whether it’s a good time to talk about that”?
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”.
 Reply    “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078    “Yes”.
 Reply    “And I, I mean I didn’t myself see him on the night at all but somebody did say to me, who translated for you, was it the lady or the man and it, it was the lady, I said, Sylvie and I hadn’t seen a man but again I don’t know whether that has any relevance that there was somebody else there translating, you know during the night so”.
4078    “Okay, that’s certainly a point worth bringing up when we interview the other people that have seen him there on the night”.
 Reply    “Yeah exactly, I’m not trying to, cos I feel you know, if he’s not involved, the poor chap’s had as much crap as us really, I feel very, you know, he’s not involved but I do think it’s important that”.
4078    “Get to the truth of the matter”?
 Reply    “Get to the truth of the matter and the truth is you know they, when they asked me to ring Bob SMALL to make these statements, we didn’t even know that he’d erm, hadn’t, hadn’t said he was there on the night and they didn’t know that I’d done the surveillance”.
4078    “No”.
 Reply    “Because I took it seriously”.
4078    “So there’s no collaboration between you all”?
 Reply    “No”.
 4078    “(Inaudible) completely independent other than that”?
 Reply    “No, I hadn’t even, I mean when I got back, I didn’t even tell Russell what I’d done cos I took very seriously what the Police said in terms of not you know, not telling anybody”.
4078    “Yes”.
 Reply    “So I just thought it was important to say that really”.
4078    “Yes”.
 Reply    “(Inaudible), it’s not trying to build more of a case against him at all, it’s just my involvement in that side”.
4078    “Truth to what happened that night”?
 Reply    “Yeah”.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
"All I'm going to say is that we've conducted a very serious investigation and there's no indication that Madeleine McCann's parents are connected to her disappearance. On the other hand, we have a lot of evidence pointing out that Christian killed her," Wolter told the "Friday at 9"....

Offline pegasus

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #187 on: February 13, 2016, 04:06:00 AM »
JT did NOT identify RM ...
Agreed 100%. JT did NOT identify RM.

Offline Benice

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #188 on: February 13, 2016, 09:06:31 AM »
There is a massive conflict of evidence about whether she did or not identify Robert Murat.

It's odd that, since Jane Tanner simply denies that she did identify Murat, Kate McCann devotes 3 whole pages of her book, 'madeleine' (Hardback, pp. 134-146) to dealing with the claim, which suggests it's important to her for some reason.

Goncalo Amaral insists that Jane was adamant in identifying Murat.

Jane is equally insistent that she did not.

One of them is plainly being untruthful and it seems to be one person's word against another, as AFAIK there's nothing about it in the files. Some will believe Goncalo, some will believe Jane.

But is what is really very odd is why within 48 hours of Murat being made arguido, all the following contacted the PJ and stated that they were sure they had seen Murat around the Ocean Club late on the evening of 3rd May: Fiona Payne, Rachael Oldfield and Russell O'Brien.

It was a story they stuck to rigidly at a confrontation held at Portimao Police Station on 11 July.

Bit months later, some of them said they weren't so sure after all           


I think an injection of common sense is required here.

If JT had identified RM as the man she saw on 3rd May - then clearly Amaral would have told his men to bring her to the police station at the speed of light once they phoned him with that momentous news - so that she could make and sign a statement ASAP!.        A positive identification by a witness of a suspect who they already had in their sights and were about to interview -  would have been a massively important piece of evidence.   IMO Amaral would have been delighted to have such a witness statement to wave in front of RM.

So what did he do?   He told his men not to bring her to the police station -  that she didn't need to sign  anything and to send her home!!   IOW he did the exact opposite of what normal procedure would have required -  if a positive identification of a suspect had been made by a witness.
.     
JT never did make a statement and AFAIK the PJ officers with her didn't make statements either.   In the AG's final report he makes no mention of a positive ID of RM by Jane Tanner in the part of this report where he gives the reasons for RM 'being made an Arguido.   That can only be because no such evidence existed for him to consider. 

The only person making that claim is Amaral in his book -  where in the absence of any supporting evidence from the files -  he states that JT 'FORMALLY' identified RM.   So much for his argument that the claims made in his book are based on 'the files'.

IMO in view of the above  - anyone who has any difficulty in deciding whether it is JT or Amaral who has lied about the ID have not only closed their eyes to the known facts -  but have  completely dispensed with common sense, logic and reasoned thought - in order to cling on to their wishful thinking.

Also there is nothing odd at all in the fact that members of the group  - after seeing RM's face on TV - and recognising him as someone they had seen on the 3rd - they passed that information onto the police.   It's what normal people do.

AIMO.



The notion that innocence prevails over guilt – when there is no evidence to the contrary – is what separates civilization from barbarism.    Unfortunately, there are remains of barbarism among us.    Until very recently, it headed the PJ in Portimão. I hope he was the last one.
                                               Henrique Monteiro, chief editor, Expresso, Portugal

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #189 on: February 13, 2016, 09:06:58 AM »
Agreed 100%. JT did NOT identify RM.

So you think Amaral made up the surveillance operation? JT pointed a man out. She didn't know who it was but the police did so they ask MS the question.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2016, 11:44:21 AM by Eleanor »
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Carana

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #190 on: February 13, 2016, 09:38:47 AM »
So you think Amaral made up the surveillance operation? JT pointed a man out. She didn't know who it was but the police did so they ask MS the question.

No. The surveillance operation clearly took place, but JT didn't identify Murat. She made that clear when interviewed under caution.

If she had, she'd have been whisked off to make a statement to that effect, which didn't happen.

Amaral has a tendency to "misunderstand" things. According to him, JT was at the confrontation meeting with Murat. She wasn't.
« Last Edit: February 13, 2016, 11:44:51 AM by Eleanor »

Offline Eleanor

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #191 on: February 13, 2016, 09:38:58 AM »
Stick to the Topic, Please.

Offline Carana

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #192 on: February 13, 2016, 09:42:37 AM »
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”.
 Reply    “Yeah I think, I just want to make it clear that from my own point of view, they gave that information as soon as it came onto Sky and asked and you know they were sort of like, oh let’s ring Bob SMALL to see if it’s relevant at this point and at that point, none of us knew that he wasn’t there on you know, that he didn’t say that he was there on the night and”.
4078    “Yes”.

The context is clearly the decision to call Bob Small to notify him that the other three believed he was translating on the night.

JT didn't get to finish her sentence. The transcript should have had "..." to indicate that, but instead it ends with a full stop, just as it does further on "there on the night and".

Offline pathfinder73

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #193 on: February 13, 2016, 09:43:29 AM »
No. The surveillance operation clearly took place, but JT didn't identify Murat. She made that clear when interviewed under caution.

If she had, she'd have been whisked off to make a statement to that effect, which didn't happen.

Amaral has a tendency to "misunderstand" things. According to him, JT was at the confrontation meeting with Murat. She wasn't.

The police were there and didn't make this up. Amaral came to the conclusion she was an unreliable witness. How did he later morph into George Harrison and she was sure it was him? Jane didn't even see him face on.
Smithman carrying a child in his arms checked his watch after passing the Smith family and the time was 10:03. Both are still unidentified 10 years later.

Offline Carana

Re: Was Martin Smith mistaken about his 60% - 80% certainty after all?
« Reply #194 on: February 13, 2016, 09:53:44 AM »
OK. Take it a step further.
 Who was it who introduced Smithman in the first place? Who provided the description?
More importantly - did anyone ever suggest at the point of the statements being taken that the man MS introduced into the equation could have been RM?
AS wasn't asked about him. PS wasn't asked.
Why did MS rule RM out before he'd even been ruled in?

I'm not sure what you mean, Misty.

What I find plausible is that one or other of the Smiths mentioned their sighting to others at some point and the media swooped down on him.  The media were aware of Lori Campbell's suspicion as she made a whole scoop out of it a couple of days after she'd contacted her head office and then LP. MS had been hassled by the media, which had distorted whatever he'd said (presumably that he'd seen Murat) and he sued them. He then tried to rectify the situation, i.e., that it was NOT Murat.





02-Processo, Volume 2, Page 307-308
02_VOLUMEIIa_Page_307
02_VOLUMEIIa_Page_308
Letter from Leicester Constabulary
to Portugal Incident Room/Madeleine McCann

6th May 2007

Sir,

Lori CAMPBELL a reporter from the Sunday Mirror has contacted Leicestershire Police to report the following.