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 6 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 Tony Bennett on 29.06.11 18:41

@Me wrote: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.

REPLY: Yes, that is right, but I think there is an issue as to who 'arranged' for Murat to walk by just at that point in time and also whether the PJ themselves knew whether this had actually happened. I believe Jane Tanner had a long 'chat' with Bob Small earlier that afternoon and also spoke to a couple of blokes from Control Risks Group earlier in the day. There was a very good discussion about all this one one of the Madeleine forums, I will see if I can find it.

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.

REPLY: Agree both paragraphs above.

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.

REPLY: Was this to give her a chance to explain that, as she now maintains, she never really identified Murat at all? I have noticed that the McCann-beleivers make statements like: "Look at Jane Tanner's rogatory - she tells you there that she never identified Murat". The fact that Tanner identified Murat on Sunday 13 May and that Goncalo Amaral has gone into great details about it is a severe embarrassment to the McCann Team - IMO that's a major reason they've made such strenuous efforts to ban 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.

REPLY: Agreed.

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13973
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 Tony Bennett on 29.06.11 18:47

@Ringo wrote: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?
REPLY:

Point 1: As I understand it there is no evidence whatsoever that he did get it wrong, i.e. you are making an assertion based on no evidence. All you are syaing, without any evidential basis, is: 'He might have got it wrong'

Point 2. OK, I've not seen this interview. Assuming (a) that it says exactly what you say its says and (b) that there has been an accurate translation of what he said, then it looks to me most like a simple error of recollection. No-one else that I am aware of (not the Tapas Three, not Murat) has said that Tanner was also in that confrontation, so it sounds like a simple slip

Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 13973
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 19:40

@Ringo wrote:Me, congratulations, you've just succeeded in making my head explode....

My pleasure, you're welcome

@Ringo wrote: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.

What is as clear as the nose on my face?? That Jane tanner NEVER states that she DID NOT identify Murat as bundleman in the back of that van? That is clear as day but you have chosen to think it is not despite there being not one word actually spoken by the woman herself saying that. You have been unable to produce one statement that even remotely suggests that she didn't provide a positive idenitfication of him.

There is nothing you can say or have said which proves she didn't ID him from that van. I agree with you that at the time of her Rogatory interview she didn't think Murat was bundleman but you have consistently failed to understand that her assertion that Murat was not bundleman in 2008 cannot be applied to the question of whether she did identify him as bundleman in that van on that night. That is a completely different question that she does not answer.

You mention that she said it didn't ring any bells. What didn't? She is saying that in 2008 sat in her Rogatory interview, it didn't ring any bells but, again that is not answering the very different question as to whether she did positively ID him or not.

Until you grasp that very basic concept your head is going to explode.

@Ringo wrote: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 have told you why she was afraid to confirm she had id'd Murat. A combination of credibility reduction (seeing as she solely carries the burden of the entire abduction theory) and quite possibly the threat of legal action from Murat (as detailed by Candy).

In the relation to the flawed process let's be clear on this. I mean flawed in terms of admissibility in court as a result of the accidental meeting with Murat prior to her entering the van.

I do not believe that botched her positive identification though. After all she inadvertently got an even closer look at Murat, then she got in the van and id'd him from further away.

She had two "gos" if you like at seeing him and she still said it was him! If she was in any doubt beforehand the accidental close up surely should have served to convince her one way or the other. It convinced her that it was him or failed to convince her it wasn't!

Well i accept that witnesses are wrong all the time and why Janey didn't say that only she (and her legal team i'm guessing) will ever truly know. I would surmise that the reason she didn't say that was because of the strength and positivity of the identification she gave as stated by Amaral.

How can you be "adament" and "recognise the way he walks" then when it is proven he had nothing to do with the matter say "oops sorry i got it wrong". Witnesses change their minds when their initial descriptions and idenitfications are less certain. Tanner didn't give her herself that wiggle room by the strength of her positive ID.


@Ringo wrote: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"?

As i have consistently stated we do not know Leicestershire plod's motives for even asking about the operation never mind why they didn't ask that specific question. Clearly they were playing their cards close to their chests and it strikes me they were trying to draw the information from her in some way. Why? I have no idea but again it's a side issue to whether she id'd him or not.


@Ringo wrote: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.

Right back at you, you claimed you expected more from me in relation to my comments regarding the unreleased files. I explained that several times to you, and i still believe that whilst the "unreleased files" answer can be used as an excuse in certain discussions it is relevant here given the event did happen but information relating to it is not in the files. So it is actually a completely fair and valid answer in this case.

Your summary of Jane Tanner's comments was not valid as you have actually put words into her mouth that she did not say, despite her having every chance to say "it". You can't be taken seriously trying to deny what she has said by adding your own words to her statements to convince us that she said something else!

The bottom line is she never answered that specific question despite being given every opportunity to do so and what she did say, most importantly, in the Rogatory statement was that at that time she "believed" Murat was bundleman.

Now you can attempt to sidetrack the core issues by asking why it wasn't recorded by the PJ or why she wasn't asked the direct question by Leicesterhsire Police, and it's all speculation in truth , however you cannot deny those two clear facts from her statements which clearly shows two things that prove beyond doubt she provided a positive identification of Murat.

1) She admitted she believed Murat was the man she saw.

2) She never admitted that she did not identify Murat as the man she saw.

____________________
What is certain is that since the start of the investigation there were  incongruent and even contradictory situations concerning the witness statements; the telephone records of calls that were made and received on mobile phones that belonged to the couple and to the group of friends that were on holidays with them; the movements of people right after the disappearance of the little girl was noticed, concerning the state in which the bedroom from where the child disappeared from was found (closed window? open window? partially open window?) etc., and the mystery would only become even thicker due to the clues that were left by the already mentioned sniffer dogs. - The Words of a JUDGE in relation to the McCanns

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 Ringo on 01.07.11 13:01

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@Ringo wrote: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?
REPLY:

Point 1: As I understand it there is no evidence whatsoever that he did get it wrong, i.e. you are making an assertion based on no evidence. All you are syaing, without any evidential basis, is: 'He might have got it wrong'

Point 2. OK, I've not seen this interview. Assuming (a) that it says exactly what you say its says and (b) that there has been an accurate translation of what he said, then it looks to me most like a simple error of recollection. No-one else that I am aware of (not the Tapas Three, not Murat) has said that Tanner was also in that confrontation, so it sounds like a simple slip

Here is the excerpt from the interview again Tony -

Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.
Who are they?
Those who I remember, besides Jane Tanner, were her husband and the wife of Oldfield. They faced a confrontation with Mr Murat.



So, Tony - are you saying that Amaral forgot to write about this very significant event in his book? Because he doesn't mention JT being at the face-to-face confrontation with Murat in it, nor is there anything in the files to support her being there, though there are signed statements from the other 3 to support the fact that they were present. Also there is photographic evidence of the three Tapas members who attended the meeting walking together in a group but JT is not with them. Most mysterious!

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 01.07.11 13:06

@Me wrote: however you cannot deny those two clear facts from her statements which clearly shows two things that prove beyond doubt she provided a positive identification of Murat.

1) She admitted she believed Murat was the man she saw.

2) She never admitted that she did not identify Murat as the man she saw.

Do you think a courtroom jury would accept that you had proven beyond doubt that JT positively ID'ed Murat? When you don't actually have any accompanying evidence at all apart from the word of an ex-cop who wasn't there on the day and who as I have just demonstrated seems to have some problems remembeing what did and did not happen.

JT never said she believed Murat was the man she saw, and no matter how you try and twist things nothing will ever change that fact.

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 Guest on 01.07.11 13:16

@Ringo wrote:
JT never said she believed Murat was the man she saw, and no matter how you try and twist things nothing will ever change that fact.

In your eyes only Ringo. You have no proof whatsoever to support that statement.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Ringo on 01.07.11 14:42

Stella wrote:
@Ringo wrote:
JT never said she believed Murat was the man she saw, and no matter how you try and twist things nothing will ever change that fact.

In your eyes only Ringo. You have no proof whatsoever to support that statement.

Well if it comes down to a matter of opinion again, then I think on balance I have a stronger case to support mine, than you do to support yours.

Jane Tanner has never said publicly that she ID'ed Murat. In fact she is on record saying several times that she was unable to identify Murat as the man she saw the night of 3rd May. There is nothing in the files to say that she did identify him, and no plausible reason that anyone can come up with to explain its absence or the absence of any further reference to her positively ID'ing Murat in the files. Remember this would have been the single most important piece of evidence against Murat and yet when he was questioned at length by the PJ they never said "you have been positively ID'ed carrying a child that night, please account for yourself".

Furthermore, there is no reason at all why, if she had ID'ed Murat that evening, that she could not have subsequently gone on to explain why she must have been mistaken - that the parade was compromised by a botched operation would have been the perfect explanation. If she had subsequently admitted to making a mistake then it would not invalidate her original sighting, nor do I believe would it give Murat grounds to take out a criminal case against her. Surely witnesses cannot be prosecuted for ID'ing the wrong man, otherwise no one would ever dare take part in an ID parade - it would be far too risky!

The only person who claims that JT definitely ID'ed Murat that day is someone who was not there, and who seems to have changed his story along the way, for reasons that are not clear at all.

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 01.07.11 14:59

@Ringo wrote:

Do you think a courtroom jury would accept that you had proven beyond doubt that JT positively ID'ed Murat? When you don't actually have any accompanying evidence at all apart from the word of an ex-cop who wasn't there on the day and who as I have just demonstrated seems to have some problems remembeing what did and did not happen.

Well if it went to court we'd call on Bob Small and the other officers in that van for their testimony wouldn't we? Then we'd see who is lying.

You mean apart from the woman herself admitting she believed it was? You have no accomanying evidence that she did not identify him becuase she has never said that. Which has been one of my points all along.

@Ringo wrote:JT never said she believed Murat was the man she saw, and no matter how you try and twist things nothing will ever change that fact.

Oh really?? Once again for your benefit:

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”.

So what she's saying here is:

she didn't think it was him that i saw (she's saying that in the terms of her sat there in her roggy interview in 2008), but that she just thought it was him when she was in the van.

If you can't see that her limited and carefully used words are a tacit admission that she identified him in that van then really your mind is completely closed and there is no point discussing anything else regaridng this case with you.

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 01.07.11 16:35

@Me wrote:

Well if it went to court we'd call on Bob Small and the other officers in that van for their testimony wouldn't we? Then we'd see who is lying.

And that Me, is the defining point in a nut shell.

Everyone in that van could testify against her, which has to be why so many statements are missing.

Me, are you now starting to think the record player has got stuck with this one ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Me on 01.07.11 17:03

Stella wrote:Me, are you now starting to think the record player has got stuck with this one ?

Slightly Stella.

Even now poor old Ringo is saying things like:

Jane Tanner has never said publicly that she ID'ed Murat.

We've gone over that several times where she clearly states she "thought" he was.

In fact she is on record saying several times that she was unable to identify Murat as the man she saw the night of 3rd May.

We've also gone over that multiple times but even now Ringo fails to understand the fundamental difference between Tanner saying in 2008 in her roggy that she didn't think Murat was bundle man and whether on that night back in May 2007 from the back of that van she positively identified him.

Two completely different questions that Ringo fails to understand and equally fails to understand that the answer to one cannot be used to answer the other.

There is nothing in the files to say that she did identify him, and no plausible reason that anyone can come up with to explain its absence or the absence of any further reference to her positively ID'ing Murat in the files. Remember this would have been the single most important piece of evidence against Murat and yet when he was questioned at length by the PJ they never said "you have been positively ID'ed carrying a child that night, please account for yourself".

Again we have covered this and explained why. There is no mention in any of the released PJ files yet we know the operation happened from her roggy. Therefore the details MUST be either in the unreleased files or the unreleased Leicestershire files.

Furthermore, there is no reason at all why, if she had ID'ed Murat that evening, that she could not have subsequently gone on to explain why she must have been mistaken - that the parade was compromised by a botched operation would have been the perfect explanation. If she had subsequently admitted to making a mistake then it would not invalidate her original sighting, nor do I believe would it give Murat grounds to take out a criminal case against her. Surely witnesses cannot be prosecuted for ID'ing the wrong man, otherwise no one would ever dare take part in an ID parade - it would be far too risky!

Again also covered. Whether it be fear of legal action from Murat or fear of her whole account being questioned she clearly didn't want to answer the question specifically. Yet at the same time her comment "that she believed it was him" which followed comments about it not ringing bells is actually a clear admission that she did identify him and was wrong as she was sat there in 2008 giving her roggy and knowing full well at that point Murat was innocent.

So she did actually go on to explain she was mistaken!

The only person who claims that JT definitely ID'ed Murat that day is someone who was not there, and who seems to have changed his story along the way, for reasons that are not clear at all.

No the one person who Ringo claims didn't idenitfy him has never said that she didn't identify him despite having every opportunity to do so. And the only reason we use Amaral's testimony is that he's the only who has written or spoken of it. Bob Small and the other police officers haven't. Maybe we should wait for their books.

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 Ringo on 04.07.11 14:10

Stella wrote:
@Me wrote:

Well if it went to court we'd call on Bob Small and the other officers in that van for their testimony wouldn't we? Then we'd see who is lying.

And that Me, is the defining point in a nut shell.

Everyone in that van could testify against her, which has to be why so many statements are missing.

Me, are you now starting to think the record player has got stuck with this one ?

What exactly would she be charged with, if they were called upon to testify against her, in your view?

Is it usual to for criminal proceedings to be taken against someone who incorrectly IDs a suspect in an ID parade (a botched one at that, compromised somewhat by the fact that the witness and suspect met just a few minutes earlier!!)?

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 04.07.11 14:12

@Me wrote:
Oh really?? Once again for your benefit:

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”.

So what she's saying here is:

she didn't think it was him that i saw (she's saying that in the terms of her sat there in her roggy interview in 2008), but that she just thought it was him when she was in the van.

If you can't see that her limited and carefully used words are a tacit admission that she identified him in that van then really your mind is completely closed and there is no point discussing anything else regaridng this case with you.

"So what she's saying here is," you say....hmm so all your evidence boils down to your own interpretation of what she meant in that one sentence in the Rog Interview and your mind is firmly closed to the possible explanation that I posited a few pages back I see - why is that, out of interest?

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 04.07.11 14:22

Me wrote: There is nothing in the files to say that she did identify him, and no plausible reason that anyone can come up with to explain its absence or the absence of any further reference to her positively ID'ing Murat in the files. Remember this would have been the single most important piece of evidence against Murat and yet when he was questioned at length by the PJ they never said "you have been positively ID'ed carrying a child that night, please account for yourself".

Again we have covered this and explained why. There is no mention in any of the released PJ files yet we know the operation happened from her roggy. Therefore the details MUST be either in the unreleased files or the unreleased Leicestershire files.


Must they? Why are you so certain of this? If no positive ID came of it, and JT was not required to sign anything then why are you so sure that this botched operation which achieved nothing would have been written up for the files?

Whether it be fear of legal action from Murat or fear of her whole account being questioned she clearly didn't want to answer the question specifically. Yet at the same time her comment "that she believed it was him" which followed comments about it not ringing bells is actually a clear admission that she did identify him and was wrong as she was sat there in 2008 giving her roggy and knowing full well at that point Murat was innocent.

Grasping at straws. As I have already explained several times, there is no reason why admitting that she positively ID'ed Murat (if indeed she had) would have invalidated her 3rd May witness statement, or brought about legal action against her (unless you can explain precisely what charges, with examples of other successfull prosecutions brought against people who have mistakenly ID'ed the wrong person in a ID parade...?)




And the only reason we use Amaral's testimony is that he's the only who has written or spoken of it. Bob Small and the other police officers haven't. Maybe we should wait for their books.

Funny how Amaral didn't write about JT being at the face-to-face confrontation with Murat in his book, but then went on to talk about it in an interview isn't it? Strikes me his testimony cannot be relied on regarding this matter, so best to disregard it in this instance I think.

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 Guest on 04.07.11 14:41

@Ringo wrote:

What exactly would she be charged with, if they were called upon to testify against her, in your view?
In my opinion, I would think something like attempting to pervert the course of justice on two grounds. Falsely admitting that she saw an abductor, when it is later proven that there was no abductor and falsely claiming that "she thought" it was him after the fact.

Is it usual to for criminal proceedings to be taken against someone who incorrectly IDs a suspect in an ID parade (a botched one at that, compromised somewhat by the fact that the witness and suspect met just a few minutes earlier!!)?
That depends on many factors I think. Foxy Knoxy's Ma & Pa are about to sued for libel by the Italians. Who knows what the Portuguese have in stall for all of the tapas group. As for your comment about Jane and Robert only meeting for the first time "a few minutes earlier" in a "botched ID", if it is later proven not to be the case and that they had met each other previously, your opinion on the botched ID is null and void and the proposed charges above would still be relevant. Remember Gerry's avoidance of previously knowing Robert? Was Jane directly asked if she had also met Robert before the night of the 3rd of May?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Ringo on 04.07.11 15:43

[quote="Stella"]
@Ringo wrote:

What exactly would she be charged with, if they were called upon to testify against her, in your view?
In my opinion, I would think something like attempting to pervert the course of justice on two grounds. Falsely admitting that she saw an abductor, when it is later proven that there was no abductor and falsely claiming that "she thought" it was him after the fact.

Even if you were able to prove that there were no abductor, it wouldn't invalidate JT's witness sighting. Would it invalidate the Smiths' sighting? Remember 3 other Tapas members are all on record as saying they saw Murat that evening - have they been charged with anything? If not, why not?


Is it usual to for criminal proceedings to be taken against someone who incorrectly IDs a suspect in an ID parade (a botched one at that, compromised somewhat by the fact that the witness and suspect met just a few minutes earlier!!)?
That depends on many factors I think. Foxy Knoxy's Ma & Pa are about to sued for libel by the Italians. Who knows what the Portuguese have in stall for all of the tapas group. As for your comment about Jane and Robert only meeting for the first time "a few minutes earlier" in a "botched ID", if it is later proven not to be the case and that they had met each other previously, your opinion on the botched ID is null and void and the proposed charges above would still be relevant. Remember Gerry's avoidance of previously knowing Robert? Was Jane directly asked if she had also met Robert before the night of the 3rd of May?

This is just idle speculation, nothing more.There is not one single shred of evidence that JT or Gerry had ever met Murat before, but don't let it stop you making stuff up to support your theories. Anyway, the answer to my question is no, it is not usual for criminal proceedings to be taken against someone who incorrectly IDs a suspect in an ID parade. If it was, no one would ever agree to take part in such a parade, for fear of pointing out the wrong person and going to prison for getting it wrong!

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 Guest on 04.07.11 16:00

[quote="Ringo"]
Stella wrote:
@Ringo wrote:

What exactly would she be charged with, if they were called upon to testify against her, in your view?
In my opinion, I would think something like attempting to pervert the course of justice on two grounds. Falsely admitting that she saw an abductor, when it is later proven that there was no abductor and falsely claiming that "she thought" it was him after the fact.

Even if you were able to prove that there were no abductor, it wouldn't invalidate JT's witness sighting.
Would it invalidate the Smiths' sighting? Remember 3 other Tapas members are all on record as saying they saw Murat that evening - have they been charged with anything? If not, why not?
The difference being, the others did not connect the alleged sighting of the abductor with Robert Murat.

Is it usual to for criminal proceedings to be taken against someone who incorrectly IDs a suspect in an ID parade (a botched one at that, compromised somewhat by the fact that the witness and suspect met just a few minutes earlier!!)?
That depends on many factors I think. Foxy Knoxy's Ma & Pa are about to sued for libel by the Italians. Who knows what the Portuguese have in stall for all of the tapas group. As for your comment about Jane and Robert only meeting for the first time "a few minutes earlier" in a "botched ID", if it is later proven not to be the case and that they had met each other previously, your opinion on the botched ID is null and void and the proposed charges above would still be relevant. Remember Gerry's avoidance of previously knowing Robert? Was Jane directly asked if she had also met Robert before the night of the 3rd of May?

This is just idle speculation, nothing more.There is not one single shred of evidence that JT or Gerry had ever met Murat before, but don't let it stop you making stuff up to support your theories.
Excuse me. There is video footage that shows Gerry refusing to answer a very simple question. Why was that so difficult for him to do? All I said was IF it can be proven that they did know each other beforehand...etc, It is you who once again is claiming that someone is making stories up. I've pretty much had enough of all this contant ping pong match arguing of yours Ringo. I'm sure it bores the pants off everyone else too.

Anyway, the answer to my question is no, it is not usual for criminal proceedings to be taken against someone who incorrectly IDs a suspect in an ID parade. If it was, no one would ever agree to take part in such a parade, for fear of pointing out the wrong person and going to prison for getting it wrong!
Rubbish. The difference is quite simple and you know it, so I'm not going to explain myself again.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Ringo on 04.07.11 17:02

Stella wrote:The difference being, the others did not connect the alleged sighting of the abductor with Robert Murat.

JT saw a man walking through PdL close to the apartment that Madeleine disappeared from. It *could* have been a parent with his child returning from the creche as has been speculated before. Just because she *may* have incorrectly identified the man as Murat does not mean that she was perverting the course of justice does it? Just that she *may* have been mistaken - no charges to answer, therefore no need to be worried about criminal charges if she had ID'ed Murat in the van.

Excuse me. There is video footage that shows Gerry refusing to answer a very simple question. Why was that so difficult for him to do? All I said was IF it can be proven that they did know each other beforehand...etc, It is you who once again is claiming that someone is making stories up. I've pretty much had enough of all this contant ping pong match arguing of yours Ringo. I'm sure it bores the pants off everyone else too.


If it bores you Stella, then there is no need to read this thread is there? Do you not suppose that if there had been any link at all between Murat and any of the Tapas 9 that this would have come out by now? Or do you think that the relationship was so secret that no one ever saw them together, there are no records of Murat travelling to Rothley, or the McCanns visiting PdL before, no mobile phone records to confirm their communications, so clandestine was their relationship that the police were completely foiled in their attempts to establish a link? You put forward as evidence that they *might* have known each other the fact that Gerry refused to answer a journalist's question about Murat at a point when the McCanns were constantly being reminded of the importance of judicial secrecy, this is very flimsy evidence to say the least.

Anyway, the answer to my question is no, it is not usual for criminal proceedings to be taken against someone who incorrectly IDs a suspect in an ID parade. If it was, no one would ever agree to take part in such a parade, for fear of pointing out the wrong person and going to prison for getting it wrong!
Rubbish. The difference is quite simple and you know it, so I'm not going to explain myself again.

Which part of what I wrote was rubbish? Do you think that people ARE criminally prosecuted for incorrectly ID'ing people in ID parades?

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 ROSA on 04.07.11 21:17

Ringo wrote
, there are no records of Murat travelling to Rothley, or the McCanns visiting PdL before
___________________________________________________________________________________

But was it their first time? The Sunday Times doesn't seem to think so. They printed on 13 May 2007 that: 'The McCanns are believed to have stayed once before in Praia da Luz and had returned because they considered it a safe resort.'

In the MSNBC documentary, Richard Gaisford said, when talking of Praia da Luz: "It's a very warm welcoming friendly place. And it was a place the McCanns knew well. They'd been to the resort before." (MSNBC Missing Madeleine en op 3arguidoforum)

ROSA

Posts : 1189
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2011-04-19
Location : Lakemba Sydney Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Willo on 04.07.11 22:38

Was not samples of Murats and J Tanners DNA both found together in a local PDL villa at some stage?

So much to remember. The smoke and mirrors game the McCann crew played (is playing) certainly makes it hard to retain and make sense of all the information that spews forth. In that regard I do begrudgingly admire them a bit like a fisherman appreciating the fight his catch put up. Difference being the McCanns will not be thrown back.

Willo

Posts : 141
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-24
Location : NZ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Cherry on 04.07.11 22:47

There is mention here about Tanner and Murat's DNA - see comment by Doughnut

http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2010/01/devils-favorite-sin.html

however this suggests DNA not found but hair samples.

http://www.thesargeants.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=291

Cherry

Posts : 2150
Reputation : 33
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : Emirates Stadium

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by ROSA on 04.07.11 22:57

Burgau Apartment
The statement was in response to hair samples found at the Solimar Apartments in Burgau. Results showed that the samples matched the haplotypes of Jane Tanner and Robert Murat. The reports in question were served by the Servicos de Genetica e Biologia Forense based in Lisbon at the request of Paulo Rebelo in a fax dated October 2007.

ROSA

Posts : 1189
Reputation : 31
Join date : 2011-04-19
Location : Lakemba Sydney Australia

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Willo on 04.07.11 23:42

Thank you for the link Cherry.

http://www.thesargeants.net/dblog/articolo.asp?articolo=291

I urge everybody to read these Blackwatches writings.

Here is an interesting few paragraphs about the hairs found in the Solimar appartments.

In terms of criminal forensics, however, the matches are not nearly close enough. It could not be established beyond a reasonable doubt that either of the samples belonged to Robert or Jane - only someone of the same bloodline. Any suggestions to the contrary would be purely speculative - if not outright misleading.

The Police also must consider whether or not someone who had come into close contact with either Jane or Robert could have left those hair samples in that apartment after carrying them there during a visit. Example scenarios:


  • Close associate/friend of Jane Tanner visits Burgau apartment, rubs sleeve with hand in bathroom and hair falls onto floor.


  • Close associate/friend of Robert Murat visits Burgau apartment, takes off jumper in bathroom and hair falls onto floor.


  • Mutual associate/friend of Jane Tanner and Robert Murat visits Burgau apartment, takes off jumper in bathroom and all hairs fall to the floor.

Of course the people most likely to have been in physical contact with each of the two would be their respective partners, but it could easily extend to business associates or close relatives.

It must be remembered that only one sample matching that of Robert Murat was found in the Burgau apartment and only two from Jane. If they had stayed in the apartment, one might expect a series of samples.

However, we shouldn't lose sight of the fact that these were exactly the same apartments where the CID's first suspects - the Polish Couple - were traced to, so their significance should not be dismissed.
What makes the finds unusual, however, are some minor circumstantial details: both parties were either living/staying in Exeter for sustained periods between January 2007 and May 2007 (Robert arriving back in Exeter in March and leaving again for Faro on May 1st 2007). Both parties are also known to Evangelical Christian Groups in the Exeter area; Robert taking in bible studies with Ian C Cook and his wife Elizabath Cook, court artist for SKY Television and the Associated Press) and Jane being an active member of an Evangelical Christian group in the Topsham district called St Leonards (the group regularly advertises for Street Pastors to engage with young on the streets of Exeter).
So it's a coincidence, if nothing else, especially when you consider that the samples (and their respective haplotypes) don't match any other witness who provided samples. But you can't make accusations based on odds or laws of probability.

Another fire in the house of mirrors or another mistake by Team McCann

Willo

Posts : 141
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2011-05-24
Location : NZ

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Ringo on 05.07.11 9:25

To recap on Me's rationale for why JT was reluctant to say very precisely in her Rogatory Interview in April 2008 that she did not ID Murat from the back of the van, ie: because she was afraid of perjuring herself and the possible legal ramifications that might ensue (though what these might actually be have never been properly spelled out), would Me like to comment on why it is then that in an interview in the Daily Mail dated 20th November 2007 (ie: 5 months BEFORE the Rogatory Statement) Jane Tanner says the following (which I believe is actually a direct quote from the Panorama programme in which Jane Tanner appears):

"I simply don't know if I could identify again the man I saw that night. I've never pointed the finger at Robert Murat because I simply don't know if it was him or not.

"I would say the man I saw was more local, or Mediterranean looking, rather than British. He had dark, almost black, long hair and had swarthy skin.
"He was dressed in that sort of smart casual way European people dress."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-495092/Tapas-Nine-witness-says-Mediterranean-man-took-Madeleine.html#ixzz1RDW62eYq

If Me's theory is correct then she would have said this knowing full well that lurking in some secret files is a piece of paper which directly contradicts what she has said on national television and therefore easily proving that she is a liar. Do you think this is likely? That she would voluntarily perjure herself on national TV, but be too afraid to in her Rog Interview 5 months later?

Thoughts please.

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 Cherry on 05.07.11 9:40

Just a couple of thoughts on that Ringo, If JT has been telling lies about what she saw or didnt see, sometimes people actually forget what they have said, so possibly she may have forgotten what was
said by herself previously. Speaking in general terms, when a person tells the truth, there is only what story, it doesnt change, it doesnt deviate, it is constant, I think this is what a lot of people have noticed about the interviews of the Mccanns, one minute they say one thing, the next totally different, if people are lying, they generally trip up sooner or later because they cant remember all of what they said previously imo

Even if she knew she had said something different and there was a piece of paper verifying what she
had previously said, unfortunately in some cases we know it is all too easy for pieces of paper or other kinds of evidence, to 'be lost'. imo

Cherry

Posts : 2150
Reputation : 33
Join date : 2009-12-01
Location : Emirates Stadium

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Ringo on 05.07.11 10:22

Thank you for your reply Cherry.

A far simpler, more plausible explanation is that Jane Tanner never positively ID'ed Murat in the back of the van. She has been entirely consistent about this and has never once said that she thought the man she saw that night was Murat. The only person who claims that she did is Amaral, and he wasn't even there when the alleged ID took place. If anyone is being inconsistent in their account of JT's testimony it is he, who failed to write about her being present at the face-to-face meeting with Murat that 3 other Tapas members attended in his book, and then subsequently "remembering" in a later interview that she was there and that there was a "diligence" to the effect that she had ID'ed Murat from his walk.

It is scarcely plausible that JT would forget something as immensely significant as positively ID'ing Murat as the man seen carrying a child on the night Madeleine disappeared a mere six months after doing so, is it?

Ringo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 6 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