The Jane Tanner surveillance of Robert Murat episode.

[Jean-Pierre]

That's helpful. Perhaps you could help me then:

I haven't found anything to substantiate how long any remaining odour has been correctly attributed to the alerts of dogs, or the evidence of dog handlers, related to a potentially deceased child, with an unknown post-death potential contamination period, in the absence of any physical remains, and which might have been discernible three months later in an apartment which had been visited and occupied by dozens of people after the event.

If such cases are widely known, I'd be interested in reading about them.

Snap Carana.  I have searched both public and academic libraries and whilst there is quite a lot of material relating to both cases and studies where a physical body or body parts have been discovered through the use of dogs, (plus a case with carpet tiles) I can find nothing relating to the persistentency of Cadaver odour in the absence of any detectable source.

So I think the ball in now rather in Faithlily / Stephens court to provide evidence that Kate was mistaken in her book, stataing a maximum of 30 days.

[stephen25000]

That's helpful. Perhaps you could help me then:

I haven't found anything to substantiate how long any remaining odour has been correctly attributed to the alerts of dogs, or the evidence of dog handlers, related to a potentially deceased child, with an unknown post-death potential contamination period, in the absence of any physical remains, and which might have been discernible three months later in an apartment which had been visited and occupied by dozens of people after the event.

If such cases are widely known, I'd be interested in reading about them.

Have a look through the following links using google Carana. There are many variables involved.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?source=search_app&gws_rd=cr&ei=w0snUvOiMfOn0wXgtYE4#psj=1&q=how+long+does+cadaver+odour+linger

[faithlilly]

Snap Carana.  I have searched both public and academic libraries and whilst there is quite a lot of material relating to both cases and studies where a physical body or body parts have been discovered through the use of dogs, (plus a case with carpet tiles) I can find nothing relating to the persistentency of Cadaver odour in the absence of any detectable source.

So I think the ball in now rather in Faithlily / Stephens court to provide evidence that Kate was mistaken in her book, stataing a maximum of 30 days.

The Eugene Zappata case. No detectable source was found when the dogs were brought in 27 years after his wife's disappearance, yet after pleading guilty to her murder, Zappata confessed to having stored his wife's body in the places indicated by the dogs.

[Jean-Pierre]

Thank you faith and stephen.  Interesting - particularly the residual scent study which I hadnt seen before.  Not a precise correaltion but enough to suggest detectable scent can remain for more than 30 days in the right circumstances. 

[stephen25000]

Thank you faith and stephen.  Interesting - particularly the residual scent study which I hadnt seen before.  Not a precise correaltion but enough to suggest detectable scent can remain for more than 30 days in the right circumstances.

No problemo JP.

[Carana]

Have a look through the following links using google Carana. There are many variables involved.

https://www.google.co.uk/webhp?source=search_app&gws_rd=cr&ei=w0snUvOiMfOn0wXgtYE4#psj=1&q=how+long+does+cadaver+odour+linger

Thanks, I've read through many of these before. I'll have a closer look at the Zapata one.

[faithlilly]

Thanks, I've read through many of these before. I'll have a closer look at the Zapata one.

Oh it's easy to find Carana. It's the case the McCanns were going to use, just before Zapata confessed.

[DCI]

How did this Murat v. Tanner case evolve? I don't recall ever reading anything more about it.

Must have been a secret trial, Carana. Remember Amaral said he was heard as a witness? 

[Jean-Pierre]

Is this the one?

http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/robert-murat-criminal-complaint-against.html

Fascinating.

Especially the bit about article 365...

I wonder who else that could apply to.....

[Redblossom]

Unless anyone thinks  the whole story was fabricated for some reason.....then it seems likely it was dropped early on

ETA After reading Luzs post quoting DCI asserting that Mr Amaral made it all up, ie Murat bringing an action aganst Tanner, DCI needs to back it up! And explain how Murats lawyer and Kier Simmonds ITV journalist and others just went along with the alledged fairy story.....!

[ferryman]

Just as. in Eddie's reaction to the Renault, it wasn't established until after the ignition key was examined in the laboratory that Eddie had reacted to cellular material with a dna profile that was Gerry's, so the dogs in the Zappata case no doubt reacted to something or other wholly unconnected to the murder of Mrs Zappata (and no doubt much more recent).

[Redblossom]

Just as. in Eddie's reaction to the Renault, it wasn't established until after the ignition key was examined in the laboratory that Eddie had reacted to cellular material with a dna profile that was Gerry's, so the dogs in the Zappata case no doubt reacted to something or other wholly unconnected to the murder of Mrs Zappata (and no doubt much more recent).

You never fail to amuse FM with your defacto statements based on nothing except your wishful thinking, LoooL

No doubt, no doubt, ? Says who? You? or a dog handler? too funny

Anyway the thread is about the surveillance van exercise....and whether Tanner fingered Murat as bundleman, which by all accounts she did at the time

[Luz]

Amaral was no where near the van. He was sitting in the police station waiting for result. He also said it was a car, Jane was in. She was on her way to meet Bob Small and the GNR officers.

Amaral also made the bullshit up about Murat taking Jane to court. Did it happen? NO!

If you have to use Morais as a source, then god help us!

And you reckon you have read the statements.  >@@(*&)

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”.

4078    “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”.

Reply    “Umm”.

4078    “And you said, you described his hair quite well.  Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”

Reply    “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”.

Amazed that you were there to see it all!

[Luz]

The Portuguese AG gave no credence to that supposed identification which Amaral claims - or he would have mentioned it as part of the evidence the PJ acquired - in fact as the most important piece of evidence they had acquired to justify making Murat an arguido.

Very good point.

WRONG.

The nomination of arguidos is confined to a JUDGE (the regional Prosecutor ). The PJ is a criminal investigation police that cannot act unless under the decision of a nominated judge by the Public Ministry-PM. Whatever is published is dependent from the will/decision of the PM and not the PJ.
After six years I find it incredible that some of you are still so "thick" that haven't understood how the system works. Or is it that you prefer to aim your fire at a single identifiable person rather than to the many individuals, and the system, that were responsible for the non-clearance as primary suspects of the McCann?!

Or maybe because you know that the ultimate responsible to keep being the primary suspects to have been involved in the crime of the disappearance of their daughter were the ones you wish to preserve.

[ferryman]

From Jane Tanner's rogatory:

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”.
 
4078    “Now you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child”.
Reply    “Umm”.
 
4078    “And you said, you described his hair quite well.  Having seen MURAT then and obviously in the papers since, could you link the two of those?”
Reply    “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 a

So, can we please have an end to (Amaral's) nonsense (repeated by posters on this board) that Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat?