UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Alfie on January 17, 2017, 06:39:41 PM
-
According to Amaral:
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
So, what statements by Jane Tanner re: Murat definitely being the man she saw were circulating the world in May 2007?
-
The quote above is from Amaral's excellent and truthful book "The Truth of the Lie" btw. 8)--))
-
Good God, has it got this bad?
Tis time to look at what Amaral actually had to say. What else did he have to say
-
The quote above is from Amaral's excellent and truthful book "The Truth of the Lie" btw. 8)--))
I knew it had something to do with the truth!
-
So as Amaral is the honourable, highly respected ex-detective on the case we must surely take his word as verbatim. That being the case could we have further details on the Jane Tanner statements in which she claimed Murat was the man she saw that so upset the Smiths? Anyone?
-
So as Amaral is the honourable, highly respected ex-detective on the case we must surely take his word as verbatim. That being the case could we have further details on the Jane Tanner statements in which she claimed Murat was the man she saw that so upset the Smiths? Anyone?
Isn't this a problem of having only a part of the whole file.
-
I cannot think of anything half arsed smart enough to say that wouldn't exactly involve Libel, as this Forum appears to be classifying Libel at the moment.
-
IMO the PJ should have determined why the Dogs at Casa Liliana weren't heard barking by the occupants on the night of the 3rd May 2007.
That would help determine the veracity of certain other statements.
-
IMO the PJ should have determined why the Dogs at Casa Liliana weren't heard barking by the occupants on the night of the 3rd May 2007.
That would help determine the veracity of certain other statements.
What dogs at Casa Liliania?
-
What dogs at Casa Liliania?
The ones JM had walked earlier that evening.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
*snipped*
"He does not know if his mother was at home, but thinks so because it was late for her to walk the dogs, as they usually leave at 17:00 and return at 19.00".
-
The ones JM had walked earlier that evening.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ROBERT-MURAT.htm
*snipped*
"He does not know if his mother was at home, but thinks so because it was late for her to walk the dogs, as they usually leave at 17:00 and return at 19.00".
Many thanks.
I have been down that neck of the woods, perhaps 2014, and only got barked at by 1 Casa Liliana dog. But that tells us diddley-squat about 2007.
Thanks again for the info.
-
Many thanks.
I have been down that neck of the woods, perhaps 2014, and only got barked at by 1 Casa Liliana dog. But that tells us diddley-squat about 2007.
Thanks again for the info.
Here are the dogs which she had at the villa in mid 2016.
-
Here are the dogs which she had at the villa in mid 2016.
I believe they were Serra da Estrela dogs ~ described as ... "The Estrela Mountain Dog is an alert and dedicated guardian, often seen patrolling the property in search of intruders, rather than calmly waiting for them."
http://molosserdogs.com/m/articles/view/836-estrela-mountain-dog
-
I believe they were Serra da Estrela dogs ~ described as ... "The Estrela Mountain Dog is an alert and dedicated guardian, often seen patrolling the property in search of intruders, rather than calmly waiting for them."
http://molosserdogs.com/m/articles/view/836-estrela-mountain-dog
Thanks for identifying the breed. I think she needed them, given all the adverse publicity. They must be a bit of a handful for her, though.
I don't know which dogs she had in 2007 but somewhere in the files(?) it was mentioned that RM had to restrain them when Eddie was checking the place out.
-
So as Amaral is the honourable, highly respected ex-detective on the case we must surely take his word as verbatim. That being the case could we have further details on the Jane Tanner statements in which she claimed Murat was the man she saw that so upset the Smiths? Anyone?
Why do you say "upset the Smiths"?
Also I wonder what encountered means in this sentence: "They learn that, according to Jane Tanner’s statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction".
I can't imagine he is saying Tannerman is Robert Murat, but he might be. So would an abductor take a child, hide it in a cellar, and then return to the scene of the crime and offer to become a translator? I suppose stranger things have happened.
-
Why do you say "upset the Smiths"?
Also I wonder what encountered means in this sentence: "They learn that, according to Jane Tanner’s statements, Murat is definitely the man encountered on the night of the abduction".
I can't imagine he is saying Tannerman is Robert Murat, but he might be. So would an abductor take a child, hide it in a cellar, and then return to the scene of the crime and offer to become a translator? I suppose stranger things have happened.
Amaral claims in his book that it was Jane Tanner's statements that prompted the Smiths to spring to Murat's defence and get in touch with the police in the first place. So I wanted to know which statements by Jane Tanner re: Murat were available to the Smiths in Ireland in May 2007?
-
Amaral claims in his book that it was Jane Tanner's statements that prompted the Smiths to spring to Murat's defence and get in touch with the police in the first place. So I wanted to know which statements by Jane Tanner re: Murat were available to the Smiths in Ireland in May 2007?
Was it possible that Murat was in direct contact with the Smiths. They were acquainted.
-
Who was the millionaire guy who contacted the Smiths to make the E-fits (Brian Kennedy), he was able to contact the Smiths, so really it is possible Smiths knew Murat and contacted him. For the Smiths were regulars to Praia da Luz weren't they.
From Martin Smith's statement. " That he has an apartment in Luz, Lagos, located in the Estela da Luz Urbanizaco, A1C. This apartment is co-owned by a friend whose name is Li** ON****. He normally visits Portugal three times a year. When here, he stays in the apartment."
" He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits."
-
Who was the millionaire guy who contacted the Smiths to make the E-fits (Brian Kennedy), he was able to contact the Smiths, so really it is possible Smiths knew Murat and contacted him. For the Smiths were regulars to Praia da Luz weren't they.
From Martin Smith's statement. " That he has an apartment in Luz, Lagos, located in the Estela da Luz Urbanizaco, A1C. This apartment is co-owned by a friend whose name is Li** ON****. He normally visits Portugal three times a year. When here, he stays in the apartment."
" He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits."
Tortured logic there.
-
Tortured logic there.
It was tortured.
We know the Smiths knew Robert Murat but not the other way around We do not know if Murat knew the Smiths. So the Smiths could have contacted Murat. But either option is possible.
-
Who was the millionaire guy who contacted the Smiths to make the E-fits (Brian Kennedy), he was able to contact the Smiths, so really it is possible Smiths knew Murat and contacted him. For the Smiths were regulars to Praia da Luz weren't they.
From Martin Smith's statement. " That he has an apartment in Luz, Lagos, located in the Estela da Luz Urbanizaco, A1C. This apartment is co-owned by a friend whose name is Li** ON****. He normally visits Portugal three times a year. When here, he stays in the apartment."
" He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits."
How would Murat know the Smiths (who he barely knew) had seen a man carrying a child through town?
-
How would Murat know the Smiths (who he barely knew) had seen a man carrying a child through town?
It was publicised that Murat was made an arguido, that upset Martin Smith, so Martin Smith looks up the phone book and rings Robert Murat. The Smiths tell RM what they have seen.
-
It was publicised that Murat was made an arguido, that upset Martin Smith, so Martin Smith looks up the phone book and rings Robert Murat.
I fear you are fantasizing again.
-
It was publicised that Murat was made an arguido, that upset Martin Smith, so Martin Smith looks up the phone book and rings Robert Murat. The Smiths tell RM what they have seen.
"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"
Robert Murat would have been aware of what Jane Tanner had said in her statements. For he was a translator for a week or so.
-
It was publicised that Murat was made an arguido, that upset Martin Smith, so Martin Smith looks up the phone book and rings Robert Murat. The Smiths tell RM what they have seen.
No, the Smiths got in touch with the police, not Murat. The question I have is - why did Amaral say they had read Jane Tanner's statements?
-
I fear you are fantasizing again.
That was largely from this thread Jassi.
-
No, the Smiths got in touch with the police, not Murat. The question I have is - why did Amaral say they had read Jane Tanner's statements?
The Smiths could ring lots of people. OK they rang the Police but that doesn't stop them ringing Murat. I wouldn't be surprised if Murat was aware of Jane's first couple of statements.
In your quote of Amaral it doesn't say "read" but just "learned that".
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
-
They could ring lots of people. OK they rang the Police but that doesn't stop them ringing Murat. I wouldn't be surprised if Murat was aware of Jane's first couple of statements.
In your quote of Amaral it doesn't say "read" but just "learned that".
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
Why would the Smiths suspect the man they allegedly saw was the same man JT saw? No description of the clothing Tannerman was wearing was released to the public until the 24/5/07.
-
Who was the millionaire guy who contacted the Smiths to make the E-fits (Brian Kennedy), he was able to contact the Smiths, so really it is possible Smiths knew Murat and contacted him. For the Smiths were regulars to Praia da Luz weren't they.
From Martin Smith's statement. " That he has an apartment in Luz, Lagos, located in the Estela da Luz Urbanizaco, A1C. This apartment is co-owned by a friend whose name is Li** ON****. He normally visits Portugal three times a year. When here, he stays in the apartment."
" He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits."
That was while Mr Smith was still convinced he'd seen Gerry.
After he'd realised his (honest) mistake, he changed his mind, also, about producing the efit.
As did his wife, Mary.
-
"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"
Robert Murat would have been aware of what Jane Tanner had said in her statements. For he was a translator for a week or so.
How does that follow?
-
How does that follow?
He was there listening, interpreting and taking an interest in the case.
-
That was while Mr Smith was still convinced he'd seen Gerry.
After he'd realised his (honest) mistake, he changed his mind, also, about producing the efit.
As did his wife, Mary.
The statement we are discussing doesn't seem to be a point in time but like the complete picture over an extended period
"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."
I don't know which encounter Amaral is talking about. Is it the 9:15 PM encounter with Tannerman or just Jane's encounter with the nosey Robert Murat who possibly turns up after the event like hundreds of others did?
-
Why would the Smiths suspect the man they allegedly saw was the same man JT saw? No description of the clothing Tannerman was wearing was released to the public until the 24/5/07.
How do we know what encounter Amaral is talking about? "I don't know which encounter Amaral is talking about. Is it Jane's 9:15 PM encounter with Tannerman or just the encounter with the nosey Robert Murat who possibly turns up after the event like hundreds of others did?"
-
The statement we are discussing doesn't seem to be a point in time but like the complete picture over an extended period
"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."
I don't know which encounter Amaral is talking about. Is it the 9:25 encounter with Tannerman or just the encounter with the nosey Robert Murat who possibly turns up after the event like hundreds of others did.
Jane Tanner has never identified RM as the man she saw on the 3rd May. She did not even know he was a suspect until she saw him on the TV after he had been made an arguido.
If (during the ID parade) she had identified RM as the man she had seen on the 3rd - the PJ would definitely have taken a statement from her to that effect. However, as she was unable to identify anyone as the man she had seen - they didn't take a statement of any kind from her - but sent her home instead.
-
Jane Tanner has never identified RM as the man she saw on the 3rd May. She did not even know he was a suspect until she saw him on the TV after he had been made an arguido.
If (during the ID parade) she had identified RM as the man she had seen on the 3rd - the PJ would definitely have taken a statement from her to that effect. However, as she was unable to identify anyone as the man she had seen - they didn't take a statement of any kind from her - but sent her home instead.
Are you sure of your facts about this? Where is this covered now in the file or elsewhere?
-
Jane Tanner has never identified RM as the man she saw on the 3rd May. She did not even know he was a suspect until she saw him on the TV after he had been made an arguido.
If (during the ID parade) she had identified RM as the man she had seen on the 3rd - the PJ would definitely have taken a statement from her to that effect. However, as she was unable to identify anyone as the man she had seen - they didn't take a statement of any kind from her - but sent her home instead.
Of course, what JT did say is that, en route to the van from which she would attempt the sighting, they met none other than - you guessed it - Robert Murat and chatted to him.
The 'identification' attempt was surely null and void from that point, but went ahead anyway, and guess what?
At just the moment Jane was to make the attempted identification from the van, another vehicle pulled out and blocked her view.
Farce upon farce, compounded by Murat's lawyer, who made empty noises about Murat suing Jane Tanner.
To be clear, even if Jane had identified Robert Murat (she did not!) Murat would have had no grounds to sue JT unless he could show that Jane Tanner had acted maliciously.
Similarly, no one had a right to sue Yvonne Martin, and rightly so.
It is a cardinal principle of statements given to the police that if they are given in good faith, the person who gives them is protected.
The job of the police, in any country, would be impossible otherwise.
-
Jane Tanner has never identified RM as the man she saw on the 3rd May. She did not even know he was a suspect until she saw him on the TV after he had been made an arguido.
If (during the ID parade) she had identified RM as the man she had seen on the 3rd - the PJ would definitely have taken a statement from her to that effect. However, as she was unable to identify anyone as the man she had seen - they didn't take a statement of any kind from her - but sent her home instead.
Dont you think Tanner would have had a good idea that Murat was a suspect after the van incident?
-
Are you sure of your facts about this? Where is this covered now in the file or elsewhere?
I found this reference to Murat in Jane Tanner's rogatory statement.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm
"4078 “Right. And when you first became aware of this man holding the child, if you can try and picture in your mind, as I am sure you have done over and over again, and start from the top of his head and work your way down and tell me what he looked like?”
Reply “You see this is where now I’m really, I don’t even know whether it’s worth doing this, because there’s been so much, since then I’ve had the, when they took me round for the surveillance to look at, and I’m guessing now it’s MURAT they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don’t know, but I think I’d prefer just to stick with what I said in my original statement, in terms of the, because even, I mean, this is coming back to the sketch, even when I did the sketch, by that stage, you know, things were, were murky, I needed to that sketch that first night, I mean, they took me in to do the sketch, but they only had, erm, front facing software, so you know, and at that point I said, you know, is there, can I do, because the clothes and everything was the thing was the thing that was the most in my mind then and I can remember saying to the chap I met on the stairs earlier, I think it’s (inaudible), is it?”
4078 “Yeah”.
Reply “Because he took me in the car back and forth and I can remember saying to him on the way back ‘Look, is there a way I can do a sketch with clothes, you know, do you have software or any way that I can do a sketch of the clothes or a side, a side view’. And he sort of said ‘No, we don’t have that feasible, you know, feasibility or availability’. And I said then ‘Can I do that when I go back to the UK’, you know, because at that point it was in my head and it would have been, and they were the bits that I think would have been recognisable to get down on paper. But at that point it was like ‘Oh no, we can’t do that, we don’t work in that way’. Which I can understand and, you know, now obviously I think ‘Oh I should have pushed and really pushed’, but at that point you rely on, you don’t, you know, you’re just in such shock and you just think ‘Okay that’s the way things do’, but”
.
4078 “Yeah”.
Reply “But, I mean, I think, so the things that I’m happy, that are still in my head, that still stick in my head is the hair and it was longer, it was sort of longish and, erm, I don’t know how to (inaudible), but each, each, almost the hair was long, the bits of hair were long, so it was long into the neck, you know, sort of in, when people have a number one or whatever at the back and it’s shaved, not shaved up, but, you know, sort of layered up, this was more long into the neck, so sort of long, each, each individual hair was long, erm, and dark, it was sort of quite dark and glossy, that sticks in my head. And sort of the dark, dark clothes and quite billowy, not billowy clothes, but quite baggy, sort of they seemed, erm, not ill fitting but quite baggy clothes, like not jeans, but trousers sort of not Chinos but not Farrahs either, but sort of baggy’ish sort of ill fitting more than. And they’re the bits that I remember quite vividly sort of”.
4078 “And what colours?”
Reply “Dark colours, but again it was, I think it was quite dark, so dark, sort of darkish jacket but then a more, a lighter trouser but a horrible colour, again this is, sort of a yellowy dark browny, horrible, but not, not a nice colour trousers, but then I wonder whether that was the lights making them look, making them look more of a sort of a mustard, it wasn’t mustard because that’s too bright, but it was just like a, as I say they weren’t nice, they weren’t the sort of clothes I’d expect somebody on a MARK WARNER holiday to, they was, I can’t think of the material, I tried to describe this before, but sort of a cottony material but baggy”.
4078 “You know the artist’s impression that you”.
Reply “Umm”.
4078 “That has been circulated a lot. How happy are you with that?”
Reply “Erm, phew, reasonably, but, I mean, it was the best I could do after that time, I mean, it was more, the hair was the one thing on that that I wasn’t completely happy about but we couldn’t get it any better because it was the sort of, I almost think that might have been slightly too long or just, but on the whole I think the actual sort of style and everything was, was fairly right. I mean, I tried to do that though from my original description that we wrote down, sort of well afterwards (inaudible) we tried to get all our thoughts down and I tried to do it as much as I could from that, because six months on, as I say, there was, I think the problem is there’d been so much put into my head since then, like doing the surveillance and, you know, looking at people on that and things, it was very hard to, to do it”."
So what did that say? " and I’m guessing now it’s MURAT they wanted me to look at and, you know, all the other bits and bobs, I really don’t know, ..."
I suppose in poor translation you could isolate this as Janes' statement "and I’m guessing now it’s MURAT".
-
What I am noticing is that Jane is having quite a detailed discussion with the PJ without the apparent need of an interpreter while she is doing the first drawings.
-
He was there listening, interpreting and taking an interest in the case.
You would need to prove he [Sr Murat] was there post JT interview with the means and opportunity to access her statement and /or interrogate the PJ officer present and/or the interpreter.
-
You would need to prove he [Sr Murat] was there post JT interview with the means and opportunity to access her statement and /or interrogate the PJ officer present and/or the interpreter.
There is the interview with Lori Campbell that explains it all.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BI0ud541smo
or in English
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=jExBfGR7Fio
For 13 days after Madeleine's disappearance RM is made an arguido.
-
So Russell, we walked, so I arranged to meet Bob SMALL in a car park at half seven or something at night or whatever it was, so Russell and I walked up to, erm, to meet Bob SMALL and, by chance, erm, we walked up, we’d missed the throng of Press that were at the top of the road, we actually walked up by Robert MURAT’s house and he came down in his car, in his van at that point, stopped, and he knew Russ, he’d met Russell earlier in the week, so he actually jumped out to say ‘Hi’ to Russell and he was showing us, erm, things in the back of his car as to what he was doing with the, erm, because they’d set up a stop where people could come and give their own evidence”.
4078 “Yeah, I can remember that”.
Reply “So he’d actually jumped out and I’d never, I’d never, I hadn’t met him at this point, so I didn’t really know who he was and I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I was about to be abducted by the people”.
4078 “By the Spanish Police?”
Reply “And taken to the Spanish Police, so I was a bit sort of like, you know. Erm, and so we stopped to talk, that was probably a couple of minutes, and he was trying to show us all this stuff, but I was, at that point, I was thinking ‘Oh shut-up I need to go and meet Bob SMALL’”.
4078 “Do you remember his car?”
Reply “It was the green, it was the green, I think it’s a green PASSAT, he was in a green, it’s the one that had been used for the, erm, post, the what’s it, you know, the anonymous information post where people could, because that’s what he was showing us, he was actually showing. And I remember thinking at the time ‘He’s very keen to show us’, you know, ‘show us what he was doing’, but, you know, we thought ‘Oh great’, but. So we then carried on and I met Bob SMALL and Russell wrote down the number plate of the car just in case I was taken away. And, erm, then Bob drove me up to where, erm, the rest of the team were to do the surveillance. Erm, so I went off in the back of this like refrigerated, well it was pretending to be a refrigerated, erm, van and took it round to the point on the road and obviously, in hindsight now, I realise they were probably calling Robert MURAT to try and get him to walk across, across the top of the road so that, you know, I could see. But it was a bit odd because there was a car, where we were parked there was a car that moved just at that point that he appeared and then two other people walked by, so I didn’t really, but I didn’t even recognise it as the person I’d been talking to five minutes before, well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, then went, I think because it has gone a bit wrong because this car had been there and then tried to set it up elsewhere, but again I couldn’t really see, I couldn’t really see that well and, you know, it didn’t look, it didn’t jog, jog any memories”.
So who still thinks Jane identified Robert Murat?
-
How does that follow?
RM was an arguido so he was entitled to know exactly what evidence the PJ had against him. Maybe the questioning officer waved a piece of paper in front of his & his lawyer's faces...you know how it goes....
-
So who still thinks Jane identified Robert Murat?
Hang on, let's see what Jane says:
" “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. It’s really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn’t know at this point at all, I didn’t really take any notice, but I think it was too short and I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. Again, I don’t really, when I saw Robert MURAT outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can’t, again, I don’t think the build, the build was right, I don’t”."
I think that was a no.
-
RM was an arguido so he was entitled to know exactly what evidence the PJ had against him. Maybe the questioning officer waved a piece of paper in front of his & his lawyer's faces...you know how it goes....
Oh yeah! right Nobby. So it is to do with RM being arguido rather than an interpreter ? So Robbity is confused and has it all round his neck ?
-
RM was an arguido so he was entitled to know exactly what evidence the PJ had against him. Maybe the questioning officer waved a piece of paper in front of his & his lawyer's faces...you know how it goes....
The McCanns were made arguidos too and they didn't get some of the file till after the case was shelved.
-
Oh yeah! right Nobby. So it is to do with RM being arguido rather than an interpreter ? So Robbity is confused and has it all round his neck ?
I think Robert Murat felt he could solve the case and that made some of the people there concerned so they ganged up on him and he was taken off the job of being a translator.
You just have to look at the group of witnesses that saw him or thought they saw him to get an idea of who that might be.
In amongst Russell's statements were conversations between Murat and ROB confirming thoughts like this.
It would be information gained from being an interpreter, being a local, asking questions as Lori reports and later as an arguido, if additional information was presented to him. There was also that confrontation meeting between RM and his accusers that a lot of information would have been divulged to RM.
Kate writes about it. It could be in the file. Does anyone know if the confrontational meeting is evidenced?
-
08-Processo, Volume V, pages 1957 to 1958
-
08-Processo, Volume V, pages 1957 to 1958
3 say he was there but he calls them liars and that is that. I have a feeling they were getting confused with a lookalike Robert Symington.
"Following on [prior] interrogatory work and contradictions having been seen between that which the defendant said and that of the witnesses, RACHEL MARIAMMA JEAN MAMPILLY, RUSSEL JAMES O'BRIEN, and FIONA ELAINE PAYNE, all also duly identified in the file, given that in the depositions of these people there exist clear contradictions with the answers of the defendant, this present work proceeded. ....
---- By the fourth confronter the accused ROBERT JAMES QUERIOL EVELEIGH MURAT it was said that it is a lie [fabrication] what the other confronters had said because on that night of the disappearance of Madeleine he was not nor had been in that place, not having on the night of 03 May 2007 even gone out of his house."
-
3 say he was there but he calls them liars and that is that. I have a feeling they were getting confused with a lookalike Robert Symington.
AS wasn't there, he was 6 miles away.
More than the 3 Tapas diners place him there that night.
-
AS wasn't there, he was 6 miles away.
More than the 3 Tapas diners place him there that night.
Who? Was Robert Symington away?
Who were the others? "More than the 3 Tapas diners place him there that night".
-
Who? Was Robert Symington away?
Who were the others? "More than the 3 Tapas diners place him there that night".
It's Angus, not Robert S.
Jayne Jenson & Annie Wiltshire
Charlotte Pennington
An unnamed barrister out with his family.
Possibly Raj Balu.
-
For information
Witnesses claimed to have seen Robert Murat the night Maddie disappeared.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.0
-
It's Angus, not Robert S.
Jayne Jenson & Annie Wiltshire
Charlotte Pennington
An unnamed barrister out with his family.
Possibly Raj Balu.
OK got that now. Thanks they do look alike don't they? "Robert Murat and Angus Symington, son of the owner of the Ocean Club Complex. ("estate agent Angus Symington, 37, has almost identical hair, complexion, facial features, height and build and wears similar glasses." - Madeleine: Robert Murat has a double - mirror.co.uk)"
Google images and http://aangirfan.blogspot.co.nz/2008/11/madeleine-mccann-symington-family.html
-
It's Angus, not Robert S.
Jayne Jenson & Annie Wiltshire
Charlotte Pennington
An unnamed barrister out with his family.
Possibly Raj Balu.
I realise who I was trying to remember now, for I knew his first name was Robert and it was Robert Naylor. Now there is one photo of him on the Google images and if it is the same Robert Naylor it could be him they were confusing with Robert Murat. They look reasonably close.
(https://pbs.twimg.com/media/BWsVMIUCEAAk_hR.jpg)
(https://i.guim.co.uk/img/static/sys-images/Guardian/Pix/pictures/2014/12/10/1418214416073/Robert-Murat-010.jpg?w=700&q=20&auto=format&usm=12&fit=max&dpr=2&s=4df465596480dc354603eba3b8f17aeb)
-
The unanswered question, Robittybob, is why there was never any identification made by the PJ of the Murat look-alike translating on the night 3rd May. Had he been identified then there would have been no reason to recall the 3 Tapas diners from the UK for a confrontational meeting with RM. Not one of the officers there that night was asked who was also translating besides Sylvia.
-
The unanswered question, Robittybob, is why there was never any identification made by the PJ of the Murat look-alike translating on the night 3rd May. Had he been identified then there would have been no reason to recall the 3 Tapas diners from the UK for a confrontational meeting with RM. Not one of the officers there that night was asked who was also translating besides Sylvia.
I didn't even know there was a male translator. Where does he come in?
Well put it this way I don't think Silvia would have mentioned a male lookalike to RM if it was Angus Symington
-
I didn't even know there was a male translator. Where does he come in?
Well put it this way I don't think Silvia would have mentioned a male lookalike to RM if it was Angus Symington
You need to spend an hour reading through the thread Brietta posted the link to, that should help.
-
You need to spend an hour reading through the thread Brietta posted the link to, that should help.
There is some interesting stuff in there
Post with the most names and references was one by SIL
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg281156#msg281156
"Hmm...
Annie Wiltshire, no statement, so a source is required.
Jayne Jensen, no statement, so a source is required.
Silvia Batista, statement 15 May 2007, (after Murat was an arguido), thinks there was a man, whom she only got introduced to days later, who might have been Murat. But she gives 3 names to cross-check, as they would know better than her.
Charlotte Pennington, statement 7 May 2007 (before Murat was an arguido), no mention of Murat (why should she when she probably did not know him), more importantly no reference to someone looking on that night while others searched.
Raj Balu, statement made after Murat was an arguido, no mention of Murat.
Neil Berry, statement made after Murat was an arguido, no mention of Murat.
June Wright (named by Silvia Batista as someone who knew Murat). After Murat was made an arguido she gave a statement that she did no see him there that night.
Paul Wright - ditto as per June Wright.
Six of the Tapas 9 failed to indicate that Murat was there that night.
Various policemen who were there that night said they could not recall Murat being there.
This stuff would not pass muster in a criminal court of law. ......"
What I couldn't make out was why Misty keeps saying Charlotte Pennington also saw RM but there was no hint of it in her statements.
-
It is in Fiona's statement that she mentions someone offered to be a translator. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg281178#msg281178
-
Does anyone know what is happening here?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/j_tannerd_payne--skys.jpg)
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg281281#msg281281
-
The unanswered question, Robittybob, is why there was never any identification made by the PJ of the Murat look-alike translating on the night 3rd May. Had he been identified then there would have been no reason to recall the 3 Tapas diners from the UK for a confrontational meeting with RM. Not one of the officers there that night was asked who was also translating besides Sylvia.
The one thing that Silvia seems to remember was that name "Robert" so it might have been Robert Naylor who was guest of OC that week. Was he still a client on the 3rd?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg281805#msg281805
-
That was while Mr Smith was still convinced he'd seen Gerry.
After he'd realised his (honest) mistake, he changed his mind, also, about producing the efit.
As did his wife, Mary.
This is the bit which fascinates me about the case. All this behind the scene negotiating between the Smiths and Kennedy to produce two efits. And now Alfie has introduced this other level of intrigue between Murat, Tanner and the Smiths. Then add in the fact that these efits are not released for another 5 years after SY has introduced Crecheman which really clears Murat from being Tannerman.
This is a case where it is very difficult to be certain about anything.
-
This is the bit which fascinates me about the case. All this behind the scene negotiating between the Smiths and Kennedy to produce two efits. And now Alfie has introduced this other level of intrigue between Murat, Tanner and the Smiths. Then add in the fact that these efits are not released for another 5 years after SY has introduced Crecheman which really clears Murat from being Tannerman.
This is a case where it is very difficult to be certain about anything.
There really is no mystery.
Martin Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an efit at a point when he believed, still, that he might have seen Gerry.
Very obviously, he declined.
Why would anyone produce an efit of a man they thought was Gerry?
It was at, or towards, the end of the first (shelved) enquiry that Mr Smith realised he had been honestly mistaken to suppose he had seen Gerry, and accordingly, he agreed to produce the efit.
Now, this is the bit where everyone shrieks, but the fact remains that the Smiths, Martin and his wife Mary, (eventually) produced two efits of the same man the Smiths all saw that evening.
Those efits (in effect) accuse someone (at that juncture unnamed) of having an appearance matching the appearance of someone, at least potentially, Madeleine's abductor.
Releasing such images of (potentially) a key figure in events (Madeleine's abductor) needed the backdrop of a live and ongoing police enquiry to release it.
Scotland Yard were, themselves, in possession of the efits for a considerable time before they released the efits into the public domain.
It isn't rocket-science.
-
There really is no mystery.
Martin Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an efit at a point when he believed, still, that he might have seen Gerry.
Very obviously, he declined.
Why would anyone produce an efit of a man they thought was Gerry?
It was at, or towards, the end of the first (shelved) enquiry that Mr Smith realised he had been honestly mistaken to suppose he had seen Gerry, and accordingly, he agreed to produce the efit.
Now, this is the bit where everyone shrieks, but the fact remains that the Smiths, Martin and his wife Mary, (eventually) produced two efits of the same man the Smiths all saw that evening.
Those efits (in effect) accuse someone (at that juncture unnamed) of having an appearance matching the appearance of someone, at least potentially, Madeleine's abductor.
Releasing such images of (potentially) a key figure in events (Madeleine's abductor) needed the backdrop of a live and ongoing police enquiry to release it.
Scotland Yard were, themselves, in possession of the efits for a considerable time before they released the efits into the public domain.
It isn't rocket-science.
Apart from the first 2 sentences, pure opinion.
-
Apart from the first 2 sentences, pure opinion.
No it's not.
It's all evidence-based.
-
No it's not.
It's all evidence-based.
Wrong, no evidence involved, just wishful thinking.
-
Wrong, no evidence involved, just wishful thinking.
Wrong!
-
Wrong!
Produce the evidence.
-
Produce the evidence.
Mary and Martin Smith, from Ireland, told police they saw a man carrying a child matching Madeleine’s description at around 10pm on Rua da Escola Primaria, 500 yards from the McCanns’ apartment. He was heading towards the beach, did not look like a tourist and did not seem comfortable carrying the child, they said.
Their evidence was compelling, but it was only in October 2013 that two e-fit images of the man, compiled by police from descriptions given by Mr and Mrs Smith, were released by Scotland Yard to coincide with a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction of Madeleine’s disappearance. He remains a suspect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/
From the Carter-Ruck website:
Sunday Times apologises and agrees to pay
Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in libel
damages
Carter-Ruc k Solicitor s
6 St Andre w Stree t
Londo n EC4 A 3 A E
The Sunday Times has agreed to pay Kate and Gerry McCann £55,000 in
libel damages (all of which they will donate to two charities - Missing
People and the Joe Humphries Memorial Trust).
T 0 2 0 735 3 500 5
F 0 2 0 735 3 555 3
Mr and Mrs McCann's complaint related to an article by the Sunday Times'
"Insight" team published on the front page of the newspaper in October
2013. The article alleged that Mr and Mrs McCann and Madeleine's Fund
had kept secret from the investigating authorities crucial evidence (primarily
consisting of "e-fits" obtained by private investigators) relating to their
daughter's abduction.
D X 3 3 3 Chancer y Lan e
www.carter-ruck.co m
The Sunday Times' allegations were completely false. As the newspaper
now accepts, there is no question of the McCanns having sought to
suppress any evidence; indeed all of the material collated by the private
investigators had been provided to the relevant Portuguese and
Leicestershire police four years earlier. The private investigators' report
(including the e-fits) was also provided to the Metropolitan Police in 2011
shortly after the Met commenced its review into Madeleine's
disappearance.
The Sunday Times has also agreed to pay the McCanns' legal costs of
bringing the complaint.
Partners
Alasdair Pepper
Guy Martin
Nigel Tait
Ruth Collard
Cameron Doley
Claire Gill
Adam Tudor
Isabel Martorell
Stephen Loughrey
The McCanns have today issued a statement commenting on this case, a
copy of which is attached.
For further information please contact Adam Tudor at adam.tudor@carterruck.com
or Zoe Brocket at zoe.brocket@carter-ruck.com
Scotland Yard, not the McCanns chose the moment to release efits they had been in possession of for 4 years.
-
Mary and Martin Smith, from Ireland, told police they saw a man carrying a child matching Madeleine’s description at around 10pm on Rua da Escola Primaria, 500 yards from the McCanns’ apartment. He was heading towards the beach, did not look like a tourist and did not seem comfortable carrying the child, they said.
Their evidence was compelling, but it was only in October 2013 that two e-fit images of the man, compiled by police from descriptions given by Mr and Mrs Smith, were released by Scotland Yard to coincide with a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction of Madeleine’s disappearance. He remains a suspect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/
How about a citation from the Police ??? 8**8:/:
Directly from the Police.
-
Mary and Martin Smith, from Ireland, told police they saw a man carrying a child matching Madeleine’s description at around 10pm on Rua da Escola Primaria, 500 yards from the McCanns’ apartment. He was heading towards the beach, did not look like a tourist and did not seem comfortable carrying the child, they said.
Their evidence was compelling, but it was only in October 2013 that two e-fit images of the man, compiled by police from descriptions given by Mr and Mrs Smith, were released by Scotland Yard to coincide with a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction of Madeleine’s disappearance. He remains a suspect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/
From the Carter-Ruck website:
Scotland Yard, not the McCanns chose the moment to release efits they had been in possession of for 4 years.
Nothing about the Smiths admitting being mistaken?
-
Mary and Martin Smith, from Ireland, told police they saw a man carrying a child matching Madeleine’s description at around 10pm on Rua da Escola Primaria, 500 yards from the McCanns’ apartment. He was heading towards the beach, did not look like a tourist and did not seem comfortable carrying the child, they said.
Their evidence was compelling, but it was only in October 2013 that two e-fit images of the man, compiled by police from descriptions given by Mr and Mrs Smith, were released by Scotland Yard to coincide with a BBC Crimewatch reconstruction of Madeleine’s disappearance. He remains a suspect.
http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/2016/03/16/madeleine-mccann-latest-are-police-any-closer-to-knowing-the-tru/
From the Carter-Ruck website:
Scotland Yard, not the McCanns chose the moment to release efits they had been in possession of for 4 years.
IMO, that Telegraph article is replete with inaccuracies, to the point of being quite misleading.
Just in this section we have a claim that the man was heading towards the beach, when none of the witness statements support such a claim.
Presumably the uncomfortable carrying method comes from elsewhere, given that it does not appear in the statements.
The e-fits were compiled by police - or did the PIs employed by the McCanns compile them, as they claim in 2008, when OG was not in the offing.
Mr Raynor attributes them to Mary and Martin Smith. This puzzles me in that both Mary and Martin thought the man they saw alighting from a plane carrying a child, one Gerry McCann, was akin to the man they had seen that night. So why would one of them produce an e-fit that looks nothing like Gerry?
As to 'remains a suspect' this is a partial truth. It omits the part where DCI Redwood said the man might be perfectly innocent.
I hope Mr Raynor's reporting of other stories is of a higher quality.
-
IMO, that Telegraph article is replete with inaccuracies, to the point of being quite misleading.
Just in this section we have a claim that the man was heading towards the beach, when none of the witness statements support such a claim.
Presumably the uncomfortable carrying method comes from elsewhere, given that it does not appear in the statements.
The e-fits were compiled by police - or did the PIs employed by the McCanns compile them, as they claim in 2008, when OG was not in the offing.
Mr Raynor attributes them to Mary and Martin Smith. This puzzles me in that both Mary and Martin thought the man they saw alighting from a plane carrying a child, one Gerry McCann, was akin to the man they had seen that night. So why would one of them produce an e-fit that looks nothing like Gerry?
As to 'remains a suspect' this is a partial truth. It omits the part where DCI Redwood said the man might be perfectly innocent.
I hope Mr Raynor's reporting of other stories is of a higher quality.
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
(PJ Statement)
-
Nothing about the Smiths admitting being mistaken?
It needs a modicum of intelligence to appreciate that the Smiths would not produce an efit of a man they thought was Gerry.
-
You need to spend an hour reading through the thread Brietta posted the link to, that should help.
It was a most interesting couple of hours and some important observations by Pegasus.
-
Apart from the first 2 sentences, pure opinion.
And the first two sentences were wrong.
-
Statement dated 30 January, 2008:
Detective Branch
Drogheda
County Lough
Re – Investigation into the disappearance of Madeleine McCann
I took an additional statement from Mr Smith as requested. His wife does not want to make another statement. I showed him the video clip and he stated that it was not the clip that alerted him but the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007.
He has been contacted by numerous tabloid press looking for stories. He has been contacted by Mr Brian Kennedy who is supporting the McCann family to take part in a photo fit exercise. He has given no stories or helped in any photo fits. He sent a solicitor's letter to six papers in relation material that was printed that was misquoted. The Evening Herald paid his solicitor's fees and all papers printed an apology. His photograph appeared in another tabloid paper and this matter is being pursued at the moment.
I do not believe that Martin Smith is courting the press and my view his is a genuine person. He is known locally and is a very decent person.
Forwarded please
Sergeant
Liam Hogan
I hereby declare that this statement is true to the best of my knowledge and belief and that I make it knowing that if it is tendered in evidence I will be liable to prosecution if i state in it anything which I know to be false or do not believe to be true.
I would like to state that the statement I made on 26th May 2007 in Portugal is correct. The description of the individual that I saw on 3rd May 2007 carrying a child is as follows. He was average build, 5 foot 10' in height, brown hair cut short, aged 40 years approximately. Wearing beige trousers and darkish top maybe a jacket or blazer. He had a full head of hair with a tight cut. This individual was alone. I saw Gerard McCann (sic) going down the plane stairs carrying one of his children on 9th September 2007 BBC news at 10 PM, I have been shown the video clip by Sergeant Hogan which I recognise. A clip I have seen before on the Internet. In relation to the video clips of Gerard McCann and the person I saw on 3rd May 2007 when I saw the BBC news at 10 PM on 9th September 2007 something struck me that it could have been the same person. It was the way Gerard McCann turned his head down which was similar to what the individual did on 3rd May 2007 when we met him. It may have been the way he was carrying the child either. I would be 60-80% sure that it was Gerard McCann that I met that night carrying a child. I am basing that on his mannerism in the way he carried the child off the plane. After seeing the BBC news at 10 PM, footage on the 9th September 2007 I contacted Leicestershire police with this information. During that time I spoke to all my family members who were with me on the night of 3rd May 2007 about this and the only one who felt the same way as me was my wife. She had seen the video clip of Gerard McCann walking down the stairs of the plane earlier that day. We did not discuss this until some days later. This statement has been read over to me and is correct.
No efits produced at the end of January 2008
-
It needs a modicum of intelligence to appreciate that the Smiths would not produce an efit of a man they thought was Gerry.
Would you like to explain why then please?
-
Would you like to explain why then please?
Gerry is not in need of identification.
-
There really is no mystery.
Martin Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an efit at a point when he believed, still, that he might have seen Gerry.
Very obviously, he declined.
Why would anyone produce an efit of a man they thought was Gerry?
It was at, or towards, the end of the first (shelved) enquiry that Mr Smith realised he had been honestly mistaken to suppose he had seen Gerry, and accordingly, he agreed to produce the efit.
Now, this is the bit where everyone shrieks, but the fact remains that the Smiths, Martin and his wife Mary, (eventually) produced two efits of the same man the Smiths all saw that evening.
Those efits (in effect) accuse someone (at that juncture unnamed) of having an appearance matching the appearance of someone, at least potentially, Madeleine's abductor.
Releasing such images of (potentially) a key figure in events (Madeleine's abductor) needed the backdrop of a live and ongoing police enquiry to release it.
Scotland Yard were, themselves, in possession of the efits for a considerable time before they released the efits into the public domain.
It isn't rocket-science.
"There really is no mystery." Wrong; there definitely is.
"Martin Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an efit at a point when he believed, still, that he might have seen Gerry." So do you know when Brian Kennedy first approached the Smiths?
-
"There really is no mystery." Wrong; there definitely is.
"Martin Smith was approached by Brian Kennedy to produce an efit at a point when he believed, still, that he might have seen Gerry." So do you know when Brian Kennedy first approached the Smiths?
30 January 2008
-
Not that I mind, but we seem to have drifted somewhat from the thread title ?{)(**
-
30 January 2008
Based on what evidence? Was it a personal communication?
-
Based on what evidence? Was it a personal communication?
Martin Smith gave a statement on 30 January 2008 stating that he had given no efits.
-
Martin Smith gave a statement on 30 January 2008 stating that he had given no efits.
Was that the same statement where he says Brian Kennedy had already been in touch. So back to my original question: how much earlier was that contact?
-
Was that the same statement where he says Brian Kennedy had already been in touch. So back to my original question: how much earlier was that contact?
Please may we post on topic.
Reminder: Jane Tanner ~ Robert Murat ~ and alleged statements
Off topic posts will be deleted and there is always the off chance a gem might be lost to posterity ... highly unlikely, I know, but one never knows.
Thank you
-
— Urged, he states that the individual did not appear to be a tourist. He cannot explain this further. It was simply his perception given the individual's clothing. He states that the individual carried the child in his arms, with her head laying on the individual's left shoulder, that being to the right of the deponent. He adds that he did not hold the child in a comfortable position, suggesting [the carrying] not being habitual.
(PJ Statement)
I stand corrected. Mea culpa.
Thank you.
Now I have a different problem. The left and the right do not appear to fit the photo reconstruction. I guess I need to go back and check the originals in Portuguese.
Hmmm.
-
It was a most interesting couple of hours and some important observations by Pegasus.
Which ones in particular?
-
Which ones in particular?
They would be off topic here but I posted one in http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7805.msg376822#msg376822
-
Did you think these two guys are both Robert Murat? http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg281281#msg281281
-
No. Murat's sideburns (pic 2) look longer than those of the guy in pic 1
Glasses frames look different as well.
-
Not that I mind, but we seem to have drifted somewhat from the thread title ?{)(**
We have.
In fairness, though, I think it's long since established that Jane Tanner did not identify Robert Murat as the man she saw.
-
No. Murat's sideburns (pic 2) look longer than those of the guy in pic 1
That's what I thought too and the length of hair. Different top and trousers as well.
Is that Jane Tanner?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/j_tannerd_payne--skys.jpg)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/neilberry.jpg)
So is one Robert Naylor (Jayne and Naylor) and the other Robert Murat talking to Balu?
Maybe the top one RM has had a recent hair cut. And taken on a different day.
-
We have.
In fairness, though, I think it's long since established that Jane Tanner did not identify Robert Murat as the man she saw.
Not really, we have a senior policeman involved in the case who said she did.
-
That's what I thought too and the length of hair. Different top and trousers as well.
Is that Jane Tanner?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/j_tannerd_payne--skys.jpg)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/neilberry.jpg)
So is one Robert Naylor (Jayne and Naylor) and the other Robert Murat talking to Balu?
Maybe the top one RM has had a recent hair cut. And taken on a different day.
Stripey T-shirt man is DP. Check out google images for frontal view.
-
You can see why it is confusing
(https://encrypted-tbn2.gstatic.com/images?q=tbn:ANd9GcQn-hbQzIu5E63ca_i796PJmLiGR26djvfXQubutFxn_9bBjWHF)
-
Not really, we have a senior policeman involved in the case who said she did.
Where is the evidence of this? A senior policeman who gets a positive id on a suspect but who then fails to record that evidence is not a policeman anyone can trust or take seriously I'm afraid. Jane Tanner is adamant she did not ID Murat, there is no record in the files of her doing so, nor is there any likelihood of this mysterious piece of evidence existing in a file marked SECRET. JT would not deny ID'ing Murat if there was the remotest possibility of there being official written or taped testimony to the contrary. We can conclude from this that Amaral "misremembered".
-
Where is the evidence of this? A senior policeman who gets a positive id on a suspect but who then fails to record that evidence is not a policeman anyone can trust or take seriously I'm afraid. Jane Tanner is adamant she did not ID Murat, there is no record in the files of her doing so, nor is there any likelihood of this mysterious piece of evidence existing in a file marked SECRET. JT would not deny ID'ing Murat if there was the remotest possibility of there being official written or taped testimony to the contrary. We can conclude from this that Amaral "misremembered".
I had to try and ID someone in a identity parade and I tell you honestly it isn't easy, it definitely isn't an exact science.
-
I had to try and ID someone in a identity parade and I tell you honestly it isn't easy, it definitely isn't an exact science.
Without a shadow of a doubt, Jane Tanner did not identify Robert Murat or any other named individual as the man she saw crossing the road carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4130.msg151774#msg151774
-
Without a shadow of a doubt, Jane Tanner did not identify Robert Murat or any other named individual as the man she saw crossing the road carrying a child the night Madeleine disappeared,
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=4130.msg151774#msg151774
OK that is then, but Amaral might say she didn't say this when he used her to id RM.
What is the meaning of “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. "
It sounds like she was with someone she thought was RM but when she see photos of RM she does recognise him. So who was it she met going to see Bob Small?
-
OK that is then, but Amaral might say she didn't say this when he used her to id RM.
What is the meaning of “I don’t think so. I mean, I don’t, phew, I don’t, I don’t think it, no, there doesn’t, there’s no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn’t really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob SMALL. "
It sounds like she was with someone she thought was RM but when she see photos of RM she does recognise him. So who was it she met going to see Bob Small?
Just read Jane Tanner's rogatory statement ... it is unequivocal ... Jane Tanner did not identify Robert Murat.
-
Just read Jane Tanner's rogatory statement ... it is unequivocal ... Jane Tanner did not identify Robert Murat.
I did have a clearer understanding of what she was talking about after reading this essay "Thursday, 23 April 2009
The “Niggle” and Strange Tale of Robert Murat
Was it a Conspiracy to Pervert the Course of Justice?
PJ Reis and Associates"
http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.co.nz/2009/04/niggle-and-strange-tale-of-robert-murat.html
I now might understand the story behind Jane's rogatory interview.
-
According to Amaral:
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
So, what statements by Jane Tanner re: Murat definitely being the man she saw were circulating the world in May 2007?
It has been pointed out that Amaral also said ""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."
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2160.msg71825#msg71825
-
Quote from: ferryman on January 19, 2017, 09:03:40 PM
We have.
In fairness, though, I think it's long since established that Jane Tanner did not identify Robert Murat as the man she saw.
------------------------------------------------------
Not really, we have a senior policeman involved in the case who said she did.
Quote from Kate's book.
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's seen on 3 May. This was completely untrue.
unquote
Page 172 - updated copy.
-
Kate has called Amaral a liar - he should sue her for defamation.
-
Kate has called Amaral a liar - he should sue her for defamation.
What?
Surely you don't doubt that Amaral is a liar?
Read his book!
-
Kate has called Amaral a liar - he should sue her for defamation.
That I would like to see!
-
That I would like to see!
So would I, for then we would get to see the written statement that Amaral has as to whether Jane ID Robert Murat or not.
-
That I would like to see!
In this country, I would like to see it.
I'm not so sure about Portugal.
-
Not really, we have a senior policeman involved in the case who said she did.
We have a liar convicted for lying by the Portuguese courts.
-
We have a liar convicted for lying by the Portuguese courts.
Every case has to be judged on its own merits.
-
How do we know what encounter Amaral is talking about? "I don't know which encounter Amaral is talking about. Is it Jane's 9:15 PM encounter with Tannerman or just the encounter with the nosey Robert Murat who possibly turns up after the event like hundreds of others did?"
Jane doesn't say she saw Murat attempting to help with translations on the night of the 3rd like three others of her group do.
So what I said above is wrong quote " "I don't know which encounter Amaral is talking about. Is it Jane's 9:15 PM encounter with Tannerman or just the encounter with the nosey Robert Murat who possibly turns up after the event like hundreds of others did?"
but now I see Amaral also called Jane Tanners attempt at Identifying RM from the surveillance an encounter maybe he talking about that time.
ao it becomes ""I don't know which encounter Amaral is talking about. Is it Jane's 9:15 PM encounter with Tannerman or just the encounter with RM at the identification attempt."
-
Formerly it was stated:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg282207#msg282207
"The people who state they saw a man translating that night are D....P.... FP RO ROB.
They did truthfully see a man translating that night, but it was not RM , it was another person who superficially resembles him."
It was funny but there didn't seem to be any requirement for proof in those days.
-
Further posts on similar topic:
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=5701.msg282235#msg282235
"The man seen by SB that night, she does not not say he was translating, she just says he was keen to help search, this was simply one of the tourists from another building helping search very soon after the disappearance.
A different man was seen by CP and [Name removed] and RB that night, none of them say he was translating, just that he was standing there, this is a different man to the man seen by SB
Milling around the apartment at various times during the panic were about 100 people, obviously this would include quite a few males with short hair and glasses."
How many similar looking persons is that now?
-
That's what I thought too and the length of hair. Different top and trousers as well.
Is that Jane Tanner?
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Tappas9/j_tannerd_payne--skys.jpg)
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/neilberry.jpg)
So is one Robert Naylor (Jayne and Naylor) and the other Robert Murat talking to Balu?
Maybe the top one RM has had a recent hair cut. And taken on a different day.
The man in the picture with ?R Balu is not Robert Murat IMO.
I have seen Robert Murat and he is quite a tall man. This can be seen on certain videos as well.
-
Of course it's Robert Murat. Do these photos help?
(http://media.gettyimages.com/photos/lagos-portugal-recent-picture-of-british-national-robert-murat-with-picture-id74154583?s=594x594)
(http://skynews4.typepad.com/photos/uncategorized/2007/07/10/350murat.jpg)
(http://i.telegraph.co.uk/multimedia/archive/00635/news-graphics-2007-_635681a.jpg)
-
100% certain it is Robert Murat. The position of his moles are like a fingerprint.
-
Where is the evidence of this? A senior policeman who gets a positive id on a suspect but who then fails to record that evidence is not a policeman anyone can trust or take seriously I'm afraid. Jane Tanner is adamant she did not ID Murat, there is no record in the files of her doing so, nor is there any likelihood of this mysterious piece of evidence existing in a file marked SECRET. JT would not deny ID'ing Murat if there was the remotest possibility of there being official written or taped testimony to the contrary. We can conclude from this that Amaral "misremembered".
Like your argument in another thread, why would he write such a thing in a book if he knew it not to be true? There were several officers involved in the exercise, including Bob Small, who would have been able to disprove his lie if untrue so why would he make up such a thing?
-
Like your argument in another thread, why would he write such a thing in a book if he knew it not to be true? There were several officers involved in the exercise, including Bob Small, who would have been able to disprove his lie if untrue so why would he make up such a thing?
Was Bob Small there with Jane at the time? I don't think so.
-
100% certain it is Robert Murat. The position of his moles are like a fingerprint.
I have to agree about the mole positions ... but Robert is quite a tall man, NOT 5'-7" as some on here like to claim
http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XjXZzXuQpAg/Uc3ZAh7eRgI/AAAAAAAAACI/TlxQ-0TRoUo/s1600/initial+suspect+murat.jpg
My apologies for all the blurb, I dont know how to remove it.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/-XjXZzXuQpAg/Uc3ZAh7eRgI/AAAAAAAAACI/TlxQ-0TRoUo/s1600/initial+suspect+murat.jpg)
Despite the fact that he is leaning over, which would have the effect of making him look shorter, his height is similar to the PJ Officers .... and I cant believe that they all would be only 5'-7"
I think that the Robert Murat that I saw was at least 5'-10" tall. He noticeably has an upright stance and is very deep chested with arms set unusually well back in his shoulders. A good looking guy with a longish well boned face and excellent physique, head held high on a good neck... and a more, or less, continuous little smile at the corners of his mouth. He looked a very pleasant guy.
The guy in your photos looks pasty and puffy faced and seems to have a much thicker neck along with a less erect stance, and rounded back. Also quite short. They just dont look the same guy
A photo was posted on here a couple of years ago which was very obviously photoshopped across the legs making Robert look considerably shorter. I commented and it was wiped immediately.
I cant understand why people are trying to make Robert Murat shorter than he really is ... but I have to admit those moles are like finger prints ... so long as they are not photoshopped.
-
Maybe he'd just had a bad night's sleep before those photo's on the 4th were taken, Sadie.
-
Maybe he'd just had a bad night's sleep before those photo's on the 4th were taken, Sadie.
A VERY bad night by the looks of things. Cant think he slept a wink. Perhaps the noise of the search kept him awake?
That doesn't account for the thick neck, the posture, or the height differences tho
-
A VERY bad night by the looks of things. Cant think he slept a wink. Perhaps the noise of the search kept him awake?
That doesn't account for the thick neck, the posture, or the height differences tho
I will admit I had a good long look at the photos a while back as, like you, I wasn't entirely convinced it was the same person - more because of the hairline than anything else. However, as Robittybob said, the moles are the key. I think it's just the camera angle in the "puffy face" photo.
I'm sure if he'd heard a rumpus outside overnight, he'd have been straight out!
-
I will admit I had a good long look at the photos a while back as, like you, I wasn't entirely convinced it was the same person - more because of the hairline than anything else. However, as Robittybob said, the moles are the key. I think it's just the camera angle in the "puffy face" photo.
I'm sure if he'd heard a rumpus outside overnight, he'd have been straight out!
I haven't thought of this point before, but try working out where the police car on its hurry up call at Valverde went to get to OC reception. And from there to 5A.
Hmmm.
-
His appearance seems to change with the seasons. In some pics he appears to have lost the moles.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/05_01/robmuratPA1405_468x375.jpg)
(http://cdn.images.express.co.uk/img/dynamic/1/590x/Robert-Murat-today-in-Praia-de-Luz-537588.jpg)
-
His appearance seems to change with the seasons. In some pics he appears to have lost the moles.
(http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/05_01/robmuratPA1405_468x375.jpg)
In this 2009 pic he still has them.
https://www.theguardian.com/media/2009/mar/06/tabloids-madeleine-mccann-robert-murat
-
Not to be confused, distant relatives Robert Murat (left) and Angus Symington, son of the owner of the Ocean Club Complex. Both families are connected through the Maynard Atkinson line.
(http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_NE-72ZXux-g/SSmOHihyb5I/AAAAAAAAGok/XQ4OVRUDT4s/s400/0+Murat+%26+Symington.jpg)