CMTV Gonçalo Amaral - O Enigma - with English subtitles

[stephen25000]

More a case of 'loosely based on a true story'  - IMO   

With the alledged help of JK, making it a wizard buk.

[G-Unit]

Groundhog day?   We've done all this before.

IMO the wording in bold is an unfinished sentence and should have ended with a series of full stops............ and not just one full stop.

There are other examples of the typist failing to do this in JT's statement.

Having just stated that she didn't think it was RM that she saw - JT would hardly then contradict herself immediately after.    That makes no sense.    And if the interviewing officer thought she had just contradicted herself - surely she would have asked Jane for clarification at that point.

IMO Jane is referring to the decision to contact Bob Small and not to RM.

From Kate's book re the IP
Quote
It was perhaps telling that Jane had not been required to sign anything, since the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary allowed claims to be made later that she had identified Murat as the man she'd seen on 3rd May.  This was completely untrue, Jane would've loved to have been able to make a definite identification, because it might have helped the investigation, but the fact is she couldn't.  The set-up was so inadequate that she was unable even to recognise Murat as the man she had met half and hour earlier, let alone say with any certainty that he was the one she had see ten days before.
End quote

So what are your points?

In your opinion there should be more than one full stop.
In your opinion Jane contradicted herself.
In your opinion the interviewer would have mentioned that.
In your opinion Jane was talking about something completely different.
Finally, you give us Kate's opinion.

Thank you for all the opinions. Do you have any actual evidence that your opinions are correct?

[Brietta]

I take it that the extract below is the bit you refer to as balderdash Brie?

Goncalo Amaral - Chapter 7 - Truth of the lie.

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?


Has Jane Tanner ever denied this version of events?
Is there any reason why this version of events is false?

Jane Tanner has never deviated from the initial description she gave to the police ... including the fact she didn't see the man's face.
IMO She has never identified Murat as that man ... and why Amaral makes the claim that she did is puzzling to say the least.

[Brietta]

Goncalo Amaral - Chapter 8 - Truth of the lie

At this time, images of Robert Murat - considered to be the main suspect - begin to be
circulated all over the world. After they return to Ireland, the Smiths continue to follow
the case. They learn that, according to Jane Tanner's statements, Murat is definitely the
man encountered on the night of the abduction. Mr Smith then gets in touch with the
Irish police to relate what he saw on the night of May 3rd. He insists, categorically, that
the man they came across with the little girl in his arms was not Robert Murat. He is
sure of it because he knows him.

Had Murat not become a suspect does anyone think the Smiths would even have bothered to come forward?

3 May 2007: the Smith family pass a man carrying a child

15 May 2007: Robert Murat is declared arguido

16 May 2007: the Smith’s recall their sighting of the 3rd

26 May 2007: three of the Smith family return to Portugal; in their statements they affirm they would be unable to recognise the individual they saw … but Martin Smith says it definitely was not Murat.

In my opinion if Murat had not been constituted Arguido we would never have heard of the Smith family sighting on the third ... nor would we have heard of the later addition to Martin Smith's statement after Gerry McCann was constituted arguido identifying him as the man he previously affirmed he was unable to identify.

[misty]

I don't think you mean that the way it sounds?

I do. Why did MS come forward with his family to report the sighting of a man they wouldn't be able to recognise again, only to slip in the remark that the man definitely wasn't Robert Murat?  No-one had suggested it was, as no-one had previously seen this man - unless MS was equating him to the description of Tannerman or the news report that the police thought Tannerman was Murat.
Why would RM have needed an "alibi" in the Tannerman scenario if he was at home with his mother? Why would MS think he needed an "alibi"?
When it comes to the Smiths, I am reminded of Tom Cruise's lightbulb moment in "A Few Good Men". The Smith children were reportedly terrified, the resort was buzzing with press, police & searchers, people passing out fliers, gossip - yet the remaining Smiths, including Aoife did......absolutely nothing.

[Brietta]

With the alledged help of JK, making it a wizard buk.

In my honest and humble opinion you and Jassie don't half chalk up a tremendous amount of wasted bandwith between you.

[Robittybob1]

In my honest and humble opinion you and Jassie don't half chalk up a tremendous amount of wasted bandwith between you.

It can be mildly humorous. 

[Alice Purjorick]

In my honest and humble opinion you and Jassie don't half chalk up a tremendous amount of wasted bandwith between you.

Does that infringe a rule of some sort ?

[jassi]

In my honest and humble opinion you and Jassie don't half chalk up a tremendous amount of wasted bandwith between you.

Not as much as you with your cut & paste epics  IMO

[stephen25000]

In my honest and humble opinion you and Jassie don't half chalk up a tremendous amount of wasted bandwith between you.

There is nothing wrong with a bit of the craic from time to time.

[faithlilly]

I do. Why did MS come forward with his family to report the sighting of a man they wouldn't be able to recognise again, only to slip in the remark that the man definitely wasn't Robert Murat?  No-one had suggested it was, as no-one had previously seen this man - unless MS was equating him to the description of Tannerman or the news report that the police thought Tannerman was Murat.
Why would RM have needed an "alibi" in the Tannerman scenario if he was at home with his mother? Why would MS think he needed an "alibi"?
When it comes to the Smiths, I am reminded of Tom Cruise's lightbulb moment in "A Few Good Men". The Smith children were reportedly terrified, the resort was buzzing with press, police & searchers, people passing out fliers, gossip - yet the remaining Smiths, including Aoife did......absolutely nothing.

By the time the Smiths were interviewed Murat was an arguido. It would have been a dereliction of duty for the police not to ask if the man MS saw was Murat.

It always makes me wonder why supporters put so much effort into discrediting the Smith sighting.

[G-Unit]

3 May 2007: the Smith family pass a man carrying a child

15 May 2007: Robert Murat is declared arguido

16 May 2007: the Smith’s recall their sighting of the 3rd

26 May 2007: three of the Smith family return to Portugal; in their statements they affirm they would be unable to recognise the individual they saw … but Martin Smith says it definitely was not Murat.

In my opinion if Murat had not been constituted Arguido we would never have heard of the Smith family sighting on the third ... nor would we have heard of the later addition to Martin Smith's statement after Gerry McCann was constituted arguido identifying him as the man he previously affirmed he was unable to identify.

That's very close to a certain Mr Bennett's opinion about the Smiths.  I wonder why the perfectly trained professional Metropolitan police detectives used those e-fits?..............

[Benice]

So what are your points?

In your opinion there should be more than one full stop.
In your opinion Jane contradicted herself.
In your opinion the interviewer would have mentioned that.
In your opinion Jane was talking about something completely different.
Finally, you give us Kate's opinion.

Thank you for all the opinions. Do you have any actual evidence that your opinions are correct?

Here is evidence of unfinished sentences that are incorrectly typed as whole sentences in this statement:
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 it is out of context with the existing discussion for JT to be referring to RM at that point in the interview. 

AIMHO

[jassi]

By the time the Smiths were interviewed Murat was an arguido. It would have been a dereliction of duty for the police not to ask if the man MS saw was Murat.

It always makes me wonder why supporters put so much effort into discrediting the Smith sighting.

Are you really?  Its because the Smith sighting is contrary to the McCann narrative  and so cannot possibly be allowed any credibility -  IMO

[stephen25000]

Are you really?  Its because the Smith sighting is contrary to the McCann narrative  and so cannot possibly be allowed any credibility -  IMO

Precisely Jassi.