The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi,

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and start chatting with us!

Enjoy your day,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Gillyspot on 25.06.11 11:28

[quote="Me"].........
4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the ]color=green]Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.[/color]
.......

Two interesting points here I think. Firstly Rachel arrives and says they are searching Murats house "Oh I saw him blah, blah blah" then they all seem to have seen him on the night of the 3rd and then Jane thinks - well it might be him them that was bundleman so lets go with that. So if the T9 had all been kept apart after Madeleines disappearance would their stories be the same as now? Oh I dont think so!

Gillyspot

Posts : 1470
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2011-06-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Another question for Ringo

Post by Marian on 25.06.11 15:30

This has been posed elsewhere on the site but without an answer as yet. Do you know if there is a pro McCann website where others who are sceptical of the McCanns are treated as fairly as you are on this site? I'm not being sarcastic or anything, it's just that the pro McCann sites tend to be frequented by trolls who merely hurl abuse (sometimes really vile) at anyone who questions the official version of events. If you are aware of any sites which encourage healthy debate from both sides, no doubt you will let us know.

Marian

Posts : 1147
Reputation : 5
Join date : 2010-12-19
Location : England

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Dr_Evil on 25.06.11 22:50

Stella wrote:

Wrong. They found 15 markers that match to Madeleine McCann. It is the interpretation afterwards and the u-turn in the results supplied to the Portuguese, is what needs to be explained. Let's hope the Met look into that.

In the US they will convict a person on as low as 10 or 13 markers. In Portugal they legally require 19.

Wrong they found 15 markers that could equate to any on the McCann family. These markers make up the genetic fingerprints, however the remaining few markers are the unique ones that seperate each person from another. I believe thats why they don't do LCN in the country. Hope that helps you all.

Dr_Evil

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Dr_Evil on 25.06.11 22:56

Stella wrote:
Goncalo Amaral is the most senior detective you have, with over 30 years worth of experience in witnessing crime scenes. Fluid that has dried up, obviously looks a certain way to someone who has seen it many times before.

If you are not happy with his conclusions, then I suggest you take it up with him direct.

Can i ask a question please (sorry i seem to pick your posts out but it is not intentional),Goncalo Amaral, was he the senior investigating officer, the officer in charge or the co-ordinator. Just i have seen him mentioned indifferent roles and wondered what peole knew what was right

Dr_Evil

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Dr_Evil on 25.06.11 23:02

Stella wrote:
@lj wrote:
why was she never challenged about this in the interview which was carried out by the er...Leicestershire police??




You mean the police who had people go over their old statement first, confer with their spouse (and/or friends) and have the statements change next day ?????

The very same Police force that also asked them if they would like something to drink now or at any time, to "just ask".

Think you will find that the Police have to do that under PACE regulations and do it with every suspect.

Dr_Evil

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by lj on 26.06.11 1:51

@Dr_Evil wrote:
Stella wrote:
@lj wrote:
why was she never challenged about this in the interview which was carried out by the er...Leicestershire police??




You mean the police who had people go over their old statement first, confer with their spouse (and/or friends) and have the statements change next day ?????

The very same Police force that also asked them if they would like something to drink now or at any time, to "just ask".

Think you will find that the Police have to do that under PACE regulations and do it with every suspect.

Good to see fresh recruitments. winkwink

I hope you're talking about the drink and not what I posted earlier.


____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Dr_Evil on 26.06.11 12:03

Yes the drinks

Dr_Evil

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by ufercoffy on 26.06.11 13:37

@lj wrote:Good to see fresh recruitments. winkwink

Just what the doctor/s ordered big grin

____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?  Shocked

ufercoffy

Posts : 1641
Reputation : 4
Join date : 2010-01-04

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Guest on 26.06.11 14:11

@Dr_Evil wrote:Yes the drinks

Just out of interest, do you know if that would have been the case back in 2008?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Guest on 26.06.11 15:18

@Dr_Evil wrote:
Stella wrote:

Wrong. They found 15 markers that match to Madeleine McCann. It is the interpretation afterwards and the u-turn in the results supplied to the Portuguese, is what needs to be explained. Let's hope the Met look into that.

In the US they will convict a person on as low as 10 or 13 markers. In Portugal they legally require 19.

Wrong they found 15 markers that could equate to any on the McCann family. These markers make up the genetic fingerprints, however the remaining few markers are the unique ones that seperate each person from another. I believe thats why they don't do LCN in the country. Hope that helps you all.

Don't be absurd. Two close relatives would share similar markers, but not as many as 15.

Bodily fluids that have "previously been frozen" would not include samples from Kate and the twins.

But keep clutching..

Perhaps you would like to explain how that may have come about in your eyes ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Dr_Evil on 26.06.11 15:19

Stella wrote:
@Dr_Evil wrote:Yes the drinks

Just out of interest, do you know if that would have been the case back in 2008?

I would say yes as PACE was introduced in the 1990's i believe, (apparently 1984 and updated since then)

Dr_Evil

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Dr_Evil on 26.06.11 15:20

Stella wrote:
@Dr_Evil wrote:
Stella wrote:

Wrong. They found 15 markers that match to Madeleine McCann. It is the interpretation afterwards and the u-turn in the results supplied to the Portuguese, is what needs to be explained. Let's hope the Met look into that.

In the US they will convict a person on as low as 10 or 13 markers. In Portugal they legally require 19.

Wrong they found 15 markers that could equate to any on the McCann family. These markers make up the genetic fingerprints, however the remaining few markers are the unique ones that seperate each person from another. I believe thats why they don't do LCN in the country. Hope that helps you all.

Don't be absurd. Two close relatives would share similar markers, but not as many as 15.

Bodily fluids that have "previously been frozen" would not include samples from Kate and the twins.

But keep clutching..

Perhaps you would like to explain how that may have come about in your eyes ?

I just go by what i have read . Yes i have read that the body was frozen, but that sounds a little far fetched to be honest.. I believe it was in a forensic report, though i cannot be sure, where they said about the 15 markers

Dr_Evil

Posts : 42
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-06-25

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Guest on 26.06.11 15:46

@Dr_Evil wrote:

Yes i have read that the body was frozen, but that sounds a little far fetched to be honest..

"Far fetched", why? People freeze bodies all the time to cover up their crimes.

It could have very well gone something like this;

Madeleine dies on the 28th
On the 29th they pay cash to rent a nearby apartment
On the 3rd they shout abduction
In June they move the frozen body
In July they leave car boot open all night to air

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by lj on 26.06.11 15:56

@ufercoffy wrote:
@lj wrote:Good to see fresh recruitments.

Just what the doctor/s ordered

Indeed! I had to think about that one, because I am dying to get some of the stuff you're dripping in ...............

____________________
"And if Madeleine had hurt herself inside the apartment, why would that be our fault?"  Gerry

http://pjga.blogspot.co.uk/?m=0

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

lj

Posts : 3275
Reputation : 148
Join date : 2009-12-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Ringo on 27.06.11 11:17

@Me wrote:I give up.

You have consistently failed (either deliberately or other wise) to understand the fundamental difference between two questions:

QUESTION 1

Do you think here and now as you are sat giving your Rogatory interview in 2008 that Murat was bundle man?

QUESTION 2

Did you on the night of May 13 2007 when in the back of that van positively identify Murat as bundle man to the assembled police officers?

The answer to question 1 cannot be applied as a given to question 2 because they are very different questions.

The fact Tanner never specifically answers question 2 cannot be denied by you, and to do so makes you look silly.

However given the details of answers she gave to all other questions it is safe to assume beyond reasonable doubt that had Ms Tanner NOT provided a positive ID in the back of that van she would have stated as such in order to boost the overall credibility of her statement and tie in with her assertion in that statement that Murat wasn't bundle man. She had every opportunity to clear the issue up but chose not to.

Now you can dress this up how you want but the fact is she did not confirm that she did not identify Murat. Given the nature of her interview why would she not have confirmed this had she not identified him?

She did however say this:

4078 “Yes, yes go on”.
Reply “Erm well I think it’s when I’d done the, well I did the surveillance and then the next day after that, I think it came on Sky News about whether they were searching, what the MURAT’s house, so that’s Rachel sort of came running down at that point and sort of said, have you seen this blah, blah and at this point, nobody knew that I’d done the surveillance cos the Portuguese Police were very adamant that I shouldn’t tell anybody and I didn’t tell anybody for days actually, I didn’t even tell them then that it was actually, that I’d done it, I mean it was a couple of days afterwards. So Rachel came down and sort of said, oh I saw him blah, blah, blah and then I think Russell, I can’t remember who else but then somebody else said oh they, they saw him and etc., so at that point it was, I rang Bob SMALL cos I’d got, I’d got his number from the day before for them and you know, they sort of, you know to say, oh is this, is this relevant and also I wanted to tell him that I’d seen him on the way to the doing the surveillance as well yeah just for that, so I think it’s just to make the point really that I think at that point, they didn’t know that Robert MURAT said he wasn’t there on the night”.
4078 “Right”.
Reply “You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.
4078 “No”.
Reply “But I just thought it was”.

Can you therefore explain what “but I just thought it was” and what she means by that?

To anyone with a modicum of common sense that reply states that at some point she thought Murat was bundleman.

At which point do you think that was if not in the surveillance operation?

You give up? tell you what, after reading the last few pages of this thread that is exactly how I feel too.

You did promise Me, to give some serious thought to some of the valid points I have already raised in this thread and which I have summarised twice now for convenience. Tell you what, before we both give up on each other, I promise to address this post properly if you first answer these points. Here they are again -

1) there is no signed statement from her to say she ID'ed Murat, surely the single most important piece of evidence in the whole case up to that point.
2) she was never asked to take part in a repeat ID parade after the first one was botched.
3) she was never questioned about her positive ID'ing of Murat by the PJ
4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in
5) Murat was not taken in for questioning for a full two days after her positively ID'ing him, let alone arrested which would surely be the likely immediate outcome of a positive ID in this country.
6) Murat was never told by the police that he had been positively ID'ed carrying a child outside Apartment 5A, or asked any questions about it.

You might also like to explain why Amaral made no mention of JT appearing with the other 3 Tapas members at the confrontation with Murat in his book (despite having written all about her supposed positive ID of him) and then subesequently in a more recent interview claimed that she had been there after all. This is a major inconsistency, the likes of which you will be hard pressed to find in anything the McCanns have ever said or written.

Ringo

Posts : 265
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Me on 27.06.11 12:04

Good I’m glad we agree on something.

What you’re trying to do is to show that the lack of information in the files as definite proof that Tanner didn’t identify Murat. You can’t do that because we know there are over 5000 pages not released from the official files and Leicestershire Police haven’t released the files they hold. So just because the information isn’t in the released files that does not automatically mean she didn’t positively identify Murat as bundle man in that van.

When we look at the information we do have available we can try and determine what did happen and actually we can see what did in fact happen.

So given we know the surveillance operation happened but also given there is no mention of this operation in the released files we have to assume the information relating to that operation are in the unreleased files. That doesn’t even take into account what Leicester plod have on the affair.

What we do know is that the operation happened; we also know Amaral wasn’t there. We also know from Amaral (whether you choose to believe it or not) that Tanner was adamant Murat was bundleman.

We also know that following that operation the very next day Murat’s house was searched and the day after he was made arguido.

Finally we also know from Tanner’s Rogatory statement that the PJ asked her to keep quiet about the operation, that at no point did she ever deny identifying Murat as bundleman despite having the perfect opportunity to do so and in fact, most importantly of all, we know at some point in the process she did believe Murat was bundle man. This was when she was discussing the outline of the operation and from her own mouth.

So you can choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la but those are facts we do know which all point to Tanner clearly identifying Murat as bundle man.

1)there is no signed statement from her to say she ID'ed Murat, surely the single most important piece of evidence in the whole case up to that point. – no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files.
2) she was never asked to take part in a repeat ID parade after the first one was botched. – no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files
3) she was never questioned about her positive ID'ing of Murat by the PJ - no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files
4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in - no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files
5) Murat was not taken in for questioning for a full two days after her positively ID'ing him, let alone arrested which would surely be the likely immediate outcome of a positive ID in this country. - no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files
6) Murat was never told by the police that he had been positively ID'ed carrying a child outside Apartment 5A, or asked any questions about it. - no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files

Finally can you please explain what you think Jane Tanner means when she said in her statement:

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”.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Guest on 27.06.11 12:17

What is strange is that when CM was asked to comment on the Murat v Tanner court case he said I am not going to comment on what Mr Murat and his lawyers are doing (words to that effect). Why didn't he just deny it as press speculation or his usual "ludicrous" comment. He is always very quick about denying such things and he didn't. And how did Mr Murat get this information, if it's not in the released files? Was he told about it at the time in an interview, which is not released.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Guest on 27.06.11 12:24

Yes, as an arguido, I believe he would have been entitled to know everything that has been said about him.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Ringo on 27.06.11 14:35

@Me wrote:Good I’m glad we agree on something.

What you’re trying to do is to show that the lack of information in the files as definite proof that Tanner didn’t identify Murat. You can’t do that because we know there are over 5000 pages not released from the official files and Leicestershire Police haven’t released the files they hold. So just because the information isn’t in the released files that does not automatically mean she didn’t positively identify Murat as bundle man in that van.

When we look at the information we do have available we can try and determine what did happen and actually we can see what did in fact happen.

So given we know the surveillance operation happened but also given there is no mention of this operation in the released files we have to assume the information relating to that operation are in the unreleased files. That doesn’t even take into account what Leicester plod have on the affair.

What we do know is that the operation happened; we also know Amaral wasn’t there. We also know from Amaral (whether you choose to believe it or not) that Tanner was adamant Murat was bundleman.

We also know that following that operation the very next day Murat’s house was searched and the day after he was made arguido.

Finally we also know from Tanner’s Rogatory statement that the PJ asked her to keep quiet about the operation, that at no point did she ever deny identifying Murat as bundleman despite having the perfect opportunity to do so and in fact, most importantly of all, we know at some point in the process she did believe Murat was bundle man. This was when she was discussing the outline of the operation and from her own mouth.

So you can choose to stick your fingers in your ears and shout la la la but those are facts we do know which all point to Tanner clearly identifying Murat as bundle man.

1)there is no signed statement from her to say she ID'ed Murat, surely the single most important piece of evidence in the whole case up to that point. – no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files.
2) she was never asked to take part in a repeat ID parade after the first one was botched. – no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files
3) she was never questioned about her positive ID'ing of Murat by the PJ - no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files
4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in - no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files
5) Murat was not taken in for questioning for a full two days after her positively ID'ing him, let alone arrested which would surely be the likely immediate outcome of a positive ID in this country. - no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files
6) Murat was never told by the police that he had been positively ID'ed carrying a child outside Apartment 5A, or asked any questions about it. - no idea as operation was not mentioned in released files

Aha, the good ol "Get Out Of Jail Free" option of the mysterious unreleased files. Well you know, there's all sorts in those files, anything in fact that you want there to be in order to win an argument. I expected better of you to be honest.

So, in your view every shred of information pertaining to the ID parade was witheld from the released files, any mention of it excised from Murat's interview and from the Tapas group's face-to-face confrontation with him, right? And, JT *might* have attended another ID parade with Murat but that bit hasn't been released in the files? And she *might* have been questioned about her positive ID by the PJ but they didn't release her statement? Now, what possible reason can you think of for all of this information to be held back? In fact Amaral himself doesn't even mention any of it in his book (apart from revising his story in the later interview to include JT in the face-to-face interview with Murat for some mysterious reason).

To summarise, in the absence of there being any actual evidence that JT did ID Murat in the van and despite the fact that you have "no idea" about any of the points I have raised you are still 100% certain that she did, based only on the fact that, given the opportunity to say "I did not identify Murat from the back of the van", that she failed to do so precisely and succinctly (even though it was a question she was never even asked by the interviewer).


Incidentaly, looking back at JT's Rog statement about the surveillance operation, perhaps you could tell me what you think JT means by the part I have highlighted


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”.

Now, she is talking very specifically about what she is looking at out of the surveillance van and she says that what she sees "didn't jog any memories". Does that in fact sound like a woman who is being reticent about whether or not she positively ID'ed Murat? If her interviewer had then asked "did you positively ID Murat in the back of the van?" directly after she'd said that it didn't jog any memories, what do you reckon her reply would have been, in light of what she'd just said? In fact the interviewer does actually ask for clarity a few seconds later when he asks "So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts...You don’t feel it was the same person?", to which she clearly replies "No, no I don't no"

This is the very last time I am going to make this point, which you clearly don't accept, but there really is nothing more I can say about this - it is absolutely crystal clear to me from JT's Rog that she did not positively ID Murat in the back of the van - "it didn't jog any memories".


Finally can you please explain what you think Jane Tanner means when she said in her statement:

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”.
[/quote]

I can explain what I think she means but it doesn't mean I'm right of course! I am purely surmising...

We are unable to get a realistic version of precisely what is being said and how it is being said from a mere transcript, there are no pauses (which one might indicate with ... or [pause] or [long pause], nor is there any indication of whether or not the speaker has been cut off in mid-sentence by the interviewer. If you take what JT says here purely on what is written down it is this "I don't think it was him that I saw...but I just thought it was". That sentence clearly does not make any sense.

What is more likely however is that she was going on to say something like "I don't think it was him I saw...but I just thought it was important to stress that point" or "...but I just thought it was important to bring that up again" but before she can finish her sentence she is interrupted by the interviewer putting words into her mouth with "Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him" That makes more sense to me, especially as nowhere else in her rogatory interview does JT ever make mention of saying she thought she saw Murat that night.

Ringo

Posts : 265
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Me on 29.06.11 16:59

@Ringo wrote:
Aha, the good ol "Get Out Of Jail Free" option of the mysterious unreleased files. Well you know, there's all sorts in those files, anything in fact that you want there to be in order to win an argument. I expected better of you to be honest.

So, in your view every shred of information pertaining to the ID parade was witheld from the released files, any mention of it excised from Murat's interview and from the Tapas group's face-to-face confrontation with him, right? And, JT *might* have attended another ID parade with Murat but that bit hasn't been released in the files? And she *might* have been questioned about her positive ID by the PJ but they didn't release her statement? Now, what possible reason can you think of for all of this information to be held back? In fact Amaral himself doesn't even mention any of it in his book (apart from revising his story in the later interview to include JT in the face-to-face interview with Murat for some mysterious reason).

To summarise, in the absence of there being any actual evidence that JT did ID Murat in the van and despite the fact that you have "no idea" about any of the points I have raised you are still 100% certain that she did, based only on the fact that, given the opportunity to say "I did not identify Murat from the back of the van", that she failed to do so precisely and succinctly (even though it was a question she was never even asked by the interviewer).


Incidentaly, looking back at JT's Rog statement about the surveillance operation, perhaps you could tell me what you think JT means by the part I have highlighted


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”.

Now, she is talking very specifically about what she is looking at out of the surveillance van and she says that what she sees "didn't jog any memories". Does that in fact sound like a woman who is being reticent about whether or not she positively ID'ed Murat? If her interviewer had then asked "did you positively ID Murat in the back of the van?" directly after she'd said that it didn't jog any memories, what do you reckon her reply would have been, in light of what she'd just said? In fact the interviewer does actually ask for clarity a few seconds later when he asks "So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts...You don’t feel it was the same person?", to which she clearly replies "No, no I don't no"

This is the very last time I am going to make this point, which you clearly don't accept, but there really is nothing more I can say about this - it is absolutely crystal clear to me from JT's Rog that she did not positively ID Murat in the back of the van - "it didn't jog any memories".


Finally can you please explain what you think Jane Tanner means when she said in her statement:

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”.

I can explain what I think she means but it doesn't mean I'm right of course! I am purely surmising...

We are unable to get a realistic version of precisely what is being said and how it is being said from a mere transcript, there are no pauses (which one might indicate with ... or [pause] or [long pause], nor is there any indication of whether or not the speaker has been cut off in mid-sentence by the interviewer. If you take what JT says here purely on what is written down it is this "I don't think it was him that I saw...but I just thought it was". That sentence clearly does not make any sense.

What is more likely however is that she was going on to say something like "I don't think it was him I saw...but I just thought it was important to stress that point" or "...but I just thought it was important to bring that up again" but before she can finish her sentence she is interrupted by the interviewer putting words into her mouth with "Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him" That makes more sense to me, especially as nowhere else in her rogatory interview does JT ever make mention of saying she thought she saw Murat that night.

Nope not a get out of jail free card. You could argue that had some of the details of the undercover operation actually been in the PJ files.

Yet there is no mention of it at all in the files yet we know it happened. So do you think because it’s not in the files it didn’t happen?

You seem to be arguing that but it’s clearly nonsense, but if there is no record of it in those files and knowing as we do that the operation did actually happen, what other conclusion can you draw?

The only conclusion is that the details relating to it must be in the unreleased files whether that be the PJ’s files, Leicestershire Police’s files or both.

So it’s not a get out of jail card. Its understanding what we know happened with what’s been released and drawing the only viable conclusion.

I am certain she did identify Murat on the basis of what I’ve previously stated.

The operation happened (despite not being mentioned in the files), we also know Amaral wasn’t there. We also know from Amaral’s testimony that Tanner was adamant Murat was bundleman. Amaral’s testimony on this issue has never been rebutted or denied by Bob Small, Jane tanner or any of the other officers present in that van. If this was made up why wouldn’t they have said so, particularly Tanner?

We also know that following that operation the very next day Murat’s house was searched and the day after he was made arguido.

Finally we also know from Tanner’s Rogatory statement that the PJ asked her to keep quiet about the operation, that at no point did she ever deny identifying Murat as bundleman despite having the perfect opportunity to do so and in fact, most importantly of all, we know from her own words that at some point in the process she did believe Murat was bundle man. This was when she was discussing the outline of the operation and she said it in her own words.

I have no idea why this information wasn’t released but that isn’t the issue here. We can’t answer for either the PJ or Leicester plod’s motives for what they chose to release or not. We don’t even know why she was asked about the undercover operation as it wasn’t on the list of questions supplied by the PJ for Leicestershire Police to ask. So there’s no point agonizing over questions we simply can’t answer.

However the details of what was and wasn’t released does not change the fact of what she said in that van.

Thanks for bringing up that single line of Tanner’s Rogatory. I’m glad you mentioned it. What part of that statement to you demonstrates a clear and unequivocal denial that she did identify Murat as Bundleman whilst in that van on 13th May 2007 (I’ll give you a clue: none of it).

Her saying in 2008 it didn’t jog any memories is NOT the same as her saying she did not provide a positive identification in that van on that night. Again you’re shoe horning her replies into answering a completely different question.

Of course she’s being very reticent! Jesus wept, because if she wasn’t being reticent she would simply have said she didn’t identify him.
So given she said it didn’t jog any memories why would she not finish off that sentence by saying “ so I therefore told the assembled officers Murat wasn’t the man I had seen carrying Madeleine.”

That is surely the natural conclusion to that sentence, yet she didn’t say that. Why do you think that is?

I’ll tell you why, because she is very clearly backtracking from what she did say in that van in order to fit in with the rest of her statement in 2008 that Murat wasn’t Bundle man.

That’s the whole point and sole reason she was so evasive on the issue of whether she identified Murat as bundle man.

Because that’s the elephant in the room. If she says in that statement that Murat was Bundleman her evidence goes up in smoke and there is no bundle man. No bundle man and suddenly the McCann’s claim of abduction is even thinner than it is now.

She did say she “believed” he was although at the time of her Rogatory interview in 2008 (you know when Murat was in the clear) she doesn’t think it was him.

Not the same ball park, not the same league and not even the same sport in terms of answering the relevant question.

And you said you were expecting more from me? You’re joking, you need to look at yourself when you have taken to adding your own words to Tanner’s statements to make a point about what you think she meant!

That is simply desperation and over reaching on your part in order to try and counter something which is irrefutable.

If that is what she really meant then she would have said it. End of. She did say everything else after all but not that.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Replies to 'Ringo'

Post by Tony Bennett on 29.06.11 17:40

@Ringo wrote:You did promise Me, to give some serious thought to some of the valid points I have already raised in this thread and which I have summarised twice now for convenience. Tell you what, before we both give up on each other, I promise to address this post properly if you first answer these points. Here they are again -

1) there is no signed statement from her to say she ID'ed Murat, surely the single most important piece of evidence in the whole case up to that point.
2) she was never asked to take part in a repeat ID parade after the first one was botched.
3) she was never questioned about her positive ID'ing of Murat by the PJ
4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in
5) Murat was not taken in for questioning for a full two days after her positively ID'ing him, let alone arrested which would surely be the likely immediate outcome of a positive ID in this country.
6) Murat was never told by the police that he had been positively ID'ed carrying a child outside Apartment 5A, or asked any questions about it.

You might also like to explain why Amaral made no mention of JT appearing with the other 3 Tapas members at the confrontation with Murat in his book (despite having written all about her supposed positive ID of him) and then subesequently in a more recent interview claimed that she had been there after all. This is a major inconsistency, the likes of which you will be hard pressed to find in anything the McCanns have ever said or written.
Butting in to this discussion, some points...

1. To say that Tanner did not ID Robert Murat from the police van would be tantamount to asserting that Goncalo Amaral invented virtually the whole of that chapter. Amaral like the rest of us mortals makes mistakes and doesn't get everything right, but it is a very serious charge to say that he invented the whole scenario. Had he completely made this up, he would surely have been challenged by now

2. Amaral is quite clear that the British intelligence operatives, MI5, criminal profilers etc. that were circling around this case from Day One had already (before Jane Tanner ID'd Murat on 13 May) made it clear to Amaral's men that they were '90% certain' that Murat was the abductor, as he fitted the profile of the likely abductor. I have major question marks about how they reached that conclusion and I would suggest that a possible line of enquiry here is that certain people, influential, powerful people, intended that Murat should be the chief suspect, maybe even the 'Fall Guy' in all of this

3. Examining carefully what followed Tanner's ID of Murat and his being pulled in for questioning, the three 'Tapas' members' [R Oldfield, F Payne and R O'Brien] sudden claims to have seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club seem suspect. After Brian Kennedy's notorious meeting with Murat on 13.11.07, there was a pattern of Jane Tanner, the McCanns and their 'Tapas' friends issuing statements which gradually rowed back from their statements about Murat

4. The 'Murat as Fall Guy' theory is stronly supported by a close examination of the dirty work done by Brian Kennedy and Metodo 3 during 2007 when they conducted a campaign to accuse Murat (I am currently completing a long article on Kennedy and will say more about this very soon).

Against that background, my replies to 'Ringo's 6 points:


1) there is no signed statement from her to say she ID'ed Murat, surely the single most important piece of evidence in the whole case up to that point
It could be among the withheld statements, however, I had to ID someone who stole my wallet containing £150 many years ago, I did ID the right perpetrator from 10 men but never signed anything. It went to court where I again had to identify him, but again never signed anything. [He needed the cash to buy drus, of course]

2) she was never asked to take part in a repeat ID parade after the first one was botched.
That's an interesting claim. What evidence have you that this ID exercise was 'botched'?

3) she was never questioned about her positive ID'ing of Murat by the PJ
Well, like I said above, you make your ID (in this case apparently Tanner was ADAMANT it was Murat), and then that's it. No-one comes back to you weeks later and says: 'Are you sure...?'

4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in
Because the simple issue was whether these three had in fact seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the late evening of 3 May. Tanner never said she had seen Murat there. She merely said: 'I'm sure that's the bloke I saw carrying a child at about 9.15pm on 3 May'

5) Murat was not taken in for questioning for a full two days after her positively ID'ing him, let alone arrested which would surely be the likely immediate outcome of a positive ID in this country.
I thought it was the next day, I may be wrong. I seem to recall that Murat was driving a hired car around Praia da Luz the weekend of 11-13 May and the police were closely monitoring him. As a matter of procedure in England, no, a positive ID does not usually result in a kneejerk arrest

6) Murat was never told by the police that he had been positively ID'ed carrying a child outside Apartment 5A, or asked any questions about it.
So far as we know.

These matters are all matters which McCann-believers on various forums constantly attack:

1. Tanner's identification of Murat
2. The British security services' profiling of Murat as the likely suspect
3. Murat's 17 lies to the police when first questioned
4. Evidence that Kennedy and Metodo 3, on the McCann Team's orders, kept on producing stories keeping Murat in the frame [Steel Magnolia has a recent good write-up on this subject on her blog].

The disappearance of Madeleine McCann cannot IMO be fully understood without a knowledge of Murat's role in all of this. Tanner's ID of Murat was crucial and I think she did what she was told to do at the time.



Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13972
Reputation : 2147
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Me on 29.06.11 18:20

Hi Tony, thanks for your post.

Just a couple of points i wanted to pick up on.

The idea that the operation was botched stems from the fact that Tanner and her partner bumped into Murat as they were walking to the van to perform the under cover operation.

So she ran into the person she was, not 5 minutes later, going to identify as bundleman! I am sure this alone would get the evidence thrown out of court.

In relation to the question of whether information about the operation is in the unreleased files that to me that is the only conclusion one can draw knowing as we do that the event actually happened and that there was nothing in the released files detailing it.

There is no doubt it happened, so there must be a record of it somewhere, if it's not been released it must be in the unreleased files.

What is strange is why Leicestershire Police brought it up in her Rogatory interview when the PJ hadn't requested questions be asked about it. What is even more puzzling is when they did bring it up why didn't they ask her the relevant question that she so (in)elegently danced around.

In relation to Murat his property was searched the day after the ID and then he was made Arguido the day after that. I don''t think anyhting untoward can be read into the fact that it was 36-48 hours after the operation that he was made Arguido.

Me

Posts : 683
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-22

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Guest on 29.06.11 18:26

EXPAT IS TO SUE TAPAS BAR FRIENDS

Robert Murat is taking legal action against four of the McCanns' friends

Friday February 19,2010
By Daily Express Reporter

BRITON Robert Murat, wrongly labelled a suspect in the Madeleine investigation, is taking legal action against four of the McCanns’ friends, it was revealed yesterday.


The estate agent has lodged a “criminal complaint” against Jane Tanner, 39, who claimed she saw a man carrying a child near the McCanns’ holiday apartment on the night Madeleine vanished.

A second complaint has been made against Ms Tanner’s partner, Dr Russell O’Brien, and Fiona Payne and Rachael Oldfield, also members of the so-called Tapas Seven.

It is understood that the complaints centre on allegations that the four gave evidence to Portuguese police which led to them making Mr Murat, 35, a suspect in the investigation.

The expat, who lived in Praia da Luz at the time, was found to have no involvement in Madeleine’s disappearance.

Details of the allegations, lodged at a court in Lagos in the Algarve, are unclear because under Portuguese law the parties involved cannot discuss them.


http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/159124/Expat-is-to-sue-tapas-bar-friends

Also this

http://www.zimbio.com/Madeleine+McCann/articles/iPQA0eZZFe-/Robert+Murat+sue+4+Tapas+friends+McCanns

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Ringo on 29.06.11 18:31

@Me wrote:
@Ringo wrote:
Aha, the good ol "Get Out Of Jail Free" option of the mysterious unreleased files. Well you know, there's all sorts in those files, anything in fact that you want there to be in order to win an argument. I expected better of you to be honest.

So, in your view every shred of information pertaining to the ID parade was witheld from the released files, any mention of it excised from Murat's interview and from the Tapas group's face-to-face confrontation with him, right? And, JT *might* have attended another ID parade with Murat but that bit hasn't been released in the files? And she *might* have been questioned about her positive ID by the PJ but they didn't release her statement? Now, what possible reason can you think of for all of this information to be held back? In fact Amaral himself doesn't even mention any of it in his book (apart from revising his story in the later interview to include JT in the face-to-face interview with Murat for some mysterious reason).

To summarise, in the absence of there being any actual evidence that JT did ID Murat in the van and despite the fact that you have "no idea" about any of the points I have raised you are still 100% certain that she did, based only on the fact that, given the opportunity to say "I did not identify Murat from the back of the van", that she failed to do so precisely and succinctly (even though it was a question she was never even asked by the interviewer).


Incidentaly, looking back at JT's Rog statement about the surveillance operation, perhaps you could tell me what you think JT means by the part I have highlighted


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”.

Now, she is talking very specifically about what she is looking at out of the surveillance van and she says that what she sees "didn't jog any memories". Does that in fact sound like a woman who is being reticent about whether or not she positively ID'ed Murat? If her interviewer had then asked "did you positively ID Murat in the back of the van?" directly after she'd said that it didn't jog any memories, what do you reckon her reply would have been, in light of what she'd just said? In fact the interviewer does actually ask for clarity a few seconds later when he asks "So you don’t feel, in your heart of hearts...You don’t feel it was the same person?", to which she clearly replies "No, no I don't no"

This is the very last time I am going to make this point, which you clearly don't accept, but there really is nothing more I can say about this - it is absolutely crystal clear to me from JT's Rog that she did not positively ID Murat in the back of the van - "it didn't jog any memories".


Finally can you please explain what you think Jane Tanner means when she said in her statement:

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”.

I can explain what I think she means but it doesn't mean I'm right of course! I am purely surmising...

We are unable to get a realistic version of precisely what is being said and how it is being said from a mere transcript, there are no pauses (which one might indicate with ... or [pause] or [long pause], nor is there any indication of whether or not the speaker has been cut off in mid-sentence by the interviewer. If you take what JT says here purely on what is written down it is this "I don't think it was him that I saw...but I just thought it was". That sentence clearly does not make any sense.

What is more likely however is that she was going on to say something like "I don't think it was him I saw...but I just thought it was important to stress that point" or "...but I just thought it was important to bring that up again" but before she can finish her sentence she is interrupted by the interviewer putting words into her mouth with "Because there had been some dispute as to whether they’ve actually seen him when they’ve said they’ve seen him" That makes more sense to me, especially as nowhere else in her rogatory interview does JT ever make mention of saying she thought she saw Murat that night.

Nope not a get out of jail free card. You could argue that had some of the details of the undercover operation actually been in the PJ files.

Yet there is no mention of it at all in the files yet we know it happened. So do you think because it’s not in the files it didn’t happen?

You seem to be arguing that but it’s clearly nonsense, but if there is no record of it in those files and knowing as we do that the operation did actually happen, what other conclusion can you draw?

The only conclusion is that the details relating to it must be in the unreleased files whether that be the PJ’s files, Leicestershire Police’s files or both.

So it’s not a get out of jail card. Its understanding what we know happened with what’s been released and drawing the only viable conclusion.

I am certain she did identify Murat on the basis of what I’ve previously stated.

The operation happened (despite not being mentioned in the files), we also know Amaral wasn’t there. We also know from Amaral’s testimony that Tanner was adamant Murat was bundleman. Amaral’s testimony on this issue has never been rebutted or denied by Bob Small, Jane tanner or any of the other officers present in that van. If this was made up why wouldn’t they have said so, particularly Tanner?

We also know that following that operation the very next day Murat’s house was searched and the day after he was made arguido.

Finally we also know from Tanner’s Rogatory statement that the PJ asked her to keep quiet about the operation, that at no point did she ever deny identifying Murat as bundleman despite having the perfect opportunity to do so and in fact, most importantly of all, we know from her own words that at some point in the process she did believe Murat was bundle man. This was when she was discussing the outline of the operation and she said it in her own words.

I have no idea why this information wasn’t released but that isn’t the issue here. We can’t answer for either the PJ or Leicester plod’s motives for what they chose to release or not. We don’t even know why she was asked about the undercover operation as it wasn’t on the list of questions supplied by the PJ for Leicestershire Police to ask. So there’s no point agonizing over questions we simply can’t answer.

However the details of what was and wasn’t released does not change the fact of what she said in that van.

Thanks for bringing up that single line of Tanner’s Rogatory. I’m glad you mentioned it. What part of that statement to you demonstrates a clear and unequivocal denial that she did identify Murat as Bundleman whilst in that van on 13th May 2007 (I’ll give you a clue: none of it).

Her saying in 2008 it didn’t jog any memories is NOT the same as her saying she did not provide a positive identification in that van on that night. Again you’re shoe horning her replies into answering a completely different question.

Of course she’s being very reticent! Jesus wept, because if she wasn’t being reticent she would simply have said she didn’t identify him.
So given she said it didn’t jog any memories why would she not finish off that sentence by saying “ so I therefore told the assembled officers Murat wasn’t the man I had seen carrying Madeleine.”

That is surely the natural conclusion to that sentence, yet she didn’t say that. Why do you think that is?

I’ll tell you why, because she is very clearly backtracking from what she did say in that van in order to fit in with the rest of her statement in 2008 that Murat wasn’t Bundle man.

That’s the whole point and sole reason she was so evasive on the issue of whether she identified Murat as bundle man.

Because that’s the elephant in the room. If she says in that statement that Murat was Bundleman her evidence goes up in smoke and there is no bundle man. No bundle man and suddenly the McCann’s claim of abduction is even thinner than it is now.

She did say she “believed” he was although at the time of her Rogatory interview in 2008 (you know when Murat was in the clear) she doesn’t think it was him.

Not the same ball park, not the same league and not even the same sport in terms of answering the relevant question.

And you said you were expecting more from me? You’re joking, you need to look at yourself when you have taken to adding your own words to Tanner’s statements to make a point about what you think she meant!

That is simply desperation and over reaching on your part in order to try and counter something which is irrefutable.

If that is what she really meant then she would have said it. End of. She did say everything else after all but not that.

Me, congratulations, you've just succeeded in making my head explode....

Forgive me if I don't go over all this again. I am totally at a loss as to what more I can say, so absolute is your denial about what is as clear as the nose on your face.

But perhaps I will just say this
-

Why would JT be afraid to say that she did positively ID'ed Murat in the van during her rogatory? You say that if she had said this that this would somehow invalidate her sighting and her credibilty as a witness - but why?? By your own admission, the whole process was very flawed, so flawed in fact that you speculate that this is the reason they never took a statement. So if she did positively ID Murat and it was subsequently revealed that it couldn't have been him, then all she had to say in her rogatory statement is "I did ID Murat, but I really didn't have a clear view of him, the whole process was a mess, the windows were steamed up, I must have been mistaken. Clearly the man I saw bore close similarities to Murat, but remember it was getting dark when I saw the abductor and blah blah blah - but I now know it wasn't him". To use an example, if a witness to a robbery positively IDs the robber, but that suspect is subsequently cleared it doesn't mean a robbery didn't take place does it? Witnesses are positively ID'ing the wrong people all the time, it doesn't mean that they were lying about being witnesses!!

I would also ask why if this is so critical to the whole investigation the Leicestershire Policeman asking the questions did not ask for more clarity on this issue. You say Bob Small would have it on some secret file that she did ID Murat, so why wasn't that question put to her? I.e: "You say now that it didn't jog any memories, but at the time you told Bob Small that you were sure it was him - why"?

By the way, it's a low blow of you to berate me for speculating on what JT meant in her rog when that is precisely what you asked me to do!! I prefaced my speculation by saying I did not know and was very clear about that.

Ringo

Posts : 265
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: A Kate's “Oops… I Think I’ve Just Confessed” Moment

Post by Ringo on 29.06.11 18:40

Two points Tony

@Tony Bennett wrote:1. To say that Tanner did not ID Robert Murat from the police van would be tantamount to asserting that Goncalo Amaral invented virtually the whole of that chapter. Amaral like the rest of us mortals makes mistakes and doesn't get everything right, but it is a very serious charge to say that he invented the whole scenario. Had he completely made this up, he would surely have been challenged by now


I am not asserting that he made up the whole scenario of the sighting from the van as that is verified by what JT says. However Amaral was not there, and I am asserting that he did get it wrong about her positively ID'ing Murat, yes.


'

4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in
Because the simple issue was whether these three had in fact seen Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the late evening of 3 May. Tanner never said she had seen Murat there. She merely said: 'I'm sure that's the bloke I saw carrying a child at about 9.15pm on 3 May'


Then why did Amaral claim in an interview last year that she WAS at the face-to-face confrontation with Murat, contradicting what he wrote in his book?

Ringo

Posts : 265
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 5 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum