When was Murat ruled out?

[Wonderfulspam]

So what?  he hasn't been cleared and that's the main thing.  Because he was once an arguido he cannot claim the system ruled him out of the investigation.  Poor guy.

He hasn't been cleared but there's no evidence against him.

That's pretty damning for everyone whom there's no evidence against.

[Brietta]

It seems there was a point when Jane Tanner thought it was Murat that she saw;

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”.
https://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JANE_TANNER_RIGATORY.htm

You know perfectly well the logical explanation for that ... Carana has had to bring it to the forum often enough.

If Jane Tanner had been able to give a formal identification of Robert Murat there would be a witness statement to that effect.  I believe the big gun was around for such an event which patently did not happen.

So Murat was NEVER ruled in by Jane.

So when was it Murat was ruled out ?  Any cogent idea ?

[Mr Gray]

He hasn't been cleared but there's no evidence against him.

That's pretty damning for everyone whom there's no evidence against.

so he hasnt been cleared....there is evidence against him but nothing of any significance.

[Wonderfulspam]

so he hasnt been cleared....there is evidence against him but nothing of any significance.

Yes but what is it?

A reporter thought he was Ian Huntley.

He made a phone call.

What else?

[Mr Gray]

Yes but what is it?

A reporter thought he was Ian Huntley.

He made a phone call.

What else?

You agree he has nt been ruled out...even though there is next to no evidence against him....what do you have to do to be ruled out I wonder

[Eleanor]

Absolutely but he’d have been very aware that by putting the incident in his book it would be brought to the attention of  many other people, including English policemen, who were there at the time. BTW have you ever heard any of the English police who were there at the time refute Amaral’s claim ? Besides Tanner’s attempted denial while being questioned about the incident in her rogatory was less than convincing.

What has this got to do with a signed statement from Jane Tanner that Amaral failed to get?

No Statement.  No Proof.

[pathfinder73]

You know perfectly well the logical explanation for that ... Carana has had to bring it to the forum often enough.

If Jane Tanner had been able to give a formal identification of Robert Murat there would be a witness statement to that effect.  I believe the big gun was around for such an event which patently did not happen.

So Murat was NEVER ruled in by Jane.

So when was it Murat was ruled out ?  Any cogent idea ?

Jane told the PJ that Murat was the same man crossing the road - saw him side on. Murat had thicker hair like the real Tannerman aka Totman. Neither are short haired Smithman. Or do you believe this reconstruction did not take place?

[G-Unit]

You know perfectly well the logical explanation for that ... Carana has had to bring it to the forum often enough.

If Jane Tanner had been able to give a formal identification of Robert Murat there would be a witness statement to that effect.  I believe the big gun was around for such an event which patently did not happen.

So Murat was NEVER ruled in by Jane.

So when was it Murat was ruled out ?  Any cogent idea ?

Has she? All I can find is this;

Exactly, Benice. It's clear to me that they are both talking at the same time in some instances.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=3550.msg229597;topicseen#msg229597

[Vertigo Swirl]

Do you think Murat still thinks he hasn't been officially cleared of suspicion and that he is still ruled in to the McCann disappearance?  And if he took legal action against a paper that said he was still a suspect would he lose on that basis, in your opinion?

No response to this I see. ^^^

[Vertigo Swirl]

He hasn't been cleared but there's no evidence against him.

That's pretty damning for everyone whom there's no evidence against.

So he's still in the frame then, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on in any lawsuit against anyone who claimed he hadn't been cleared and was still ruled in as a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. Glad we got that one sorted.

[Wonderfulspam]

So he's still in the frame then, and wouldn't have a leg to stand on in any lawsuit against anyone who claimed he hadn't been cleared and was still ruled in as a suspect in Madeleine's disappearance. Glad we got that one sorted.

You haven't been cleared either.
The only people on planet earth who have been formally cleared are the McCanns, on account of all that abduction evidence the police discovered.
What was that again?

[faithlilly]

From start to finish including in her rogatory statement, Jane Tanner never deviated from what she had seen.  If Amaral's attempt at surveillance had worked out as he thought it would she would have been wheeched off to put her signature to a statement before she could blink.
No witness statement + no signature = no identification then or at any later time.


So when exactly was it that Murat was ruled out ?

I believe the sort of surveillance operation undertook was illegal in Portugal.

Why do you think none of the English officers there like Bob a Small have ever refuted Amaral’s claim ?

[Vertigo Swirl]

You haven't been cleared either.
The only people on planet earth who have been formally cleared are the McCanns, on account of all that abduction evidence the police discovered.
What was that again?

So does that make me a suspect then?

[Wonderfulspam]

So does that make me a suspect then?

Everyone is a suspect, except the McCanns.

Where were you on May 3rd?

Did you make any phone calls that night?

[Vertigo Swirl]

Everyone is a suspect, except the McCanns.

Where were you on May 3rd?

Did you make any phone calls that night?

I've never been to Portugal.  Does that still make me a suspect?