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 3 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 Me on 23.06.11 9:40

Stella wrote:
@Me wrote:
Ah the convicted perjurer line again. This is in relation to the Cipriano case, based on the evidence of a child murderer who was having an incestuous affair with her brother and murdered her daughter.

This from a convicted murderer whose story changed so many times and who couldn’t identify the persons responsible for torturing her.

Let’s be clear exactly what Amaral was found guilty of. He was found guilty of “false testimony” because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his staff, that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.

This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Amaral testified to, could not be proved.

However his defence, according to what the papers in Portugal said throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.

So you can use that as a stick to diminish his credibility or you can look at the facts and draw your own conclusions as to the validity of that charge and his involvement in it.

I have been looking everywhere for an explanation to this argument, so thank you very much Me for doing this. I will be keeping a copy of this on my hard drive now, as it will no doubt crop up again at some point.

You have a lot of patience with these posters. Thank you.

Hi Stella, thanks! I have sourced that from a number of articles i've seen relating to that case.

Actually i like the fact that Ringo is on here. It's clear where his allegiancies lie but he puts his points forward well and free from the vitriol that other "pros" display.

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 23.06.11 9:48

Yes Ringo is different. I can't help but think that after a cobra meeting back at base, they have now sent in their stealth bomber for you, instead of their spitfire.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Ringo on 23.06.11 9:59

[quote]
@Me wrote:I don’t know the answer to that as the search warrant hasn’t been translated I believe. Interestingly the search warrant to tap their phones was rejected, which suggests there must be a firm requirement of some evidence before warrants are issued. Agree?

Or are you inferring they are issued in Portugal on a whim?

I'm inferring nothing. It is you who is doing an awful lot of inferring. You are suggesting that the PJ would not have searched Murat's apartment or brought him in for questioning without JT's positive ID, but yet you concede that you do not know what evidence (if any) the police had on the McCanns before searching their apartment and effects. Can you see the fault in your processes of deduction there? There may have been other evidence that the police felt they had on Murat, you don't know it, I don't know it. You cannot infer that JT gave a positive ID of Murat simply from the fact that the police searched his apartment the next day. In fact, wouldn't it have made more sense, if, having made a positive ID on Murat that he would have been arrested that day? If not, why not?


The point is that the timing of the undercover operation and the subsequent issuing of the warrant and Arguido status, and with no other evidence readily available in the file, infers strongly that the ID was the sole basis for those warrants being granted. Doesn’t the coincidence of the timings strike you as just too great to be blamed on anything else? If your answer is no then please tell me on what basis you think Murat was searched and made an Arguido.


See above.


No I haven’t side stepped anything, I have admitted previously it wasn’t in the file. Irrespective of what documents are or aren’t in the released files we can safely deduce what happened though as I have illustrated above coupled with Amaral’s testimony.


No we can't safely deduce anything from any of the things that you have use to illustrate you deductions. You have again avoided the very salient points that I raised in my last post ie: why was there no signed statement, why was JT never questioned about this 100% sighting down the station, why in fact is it never mentioned in the PJ's files again. It is important that you ask yourself these questions. Remember this would have been the most important piece of eveidence and yet - nothing!

Why there is nothing in the RELEASED files no one can say for sure but the fact remains Tanner was in that van, she was taken there to identify Murat, the very next day after that Murat had his property searched and was made Arguido.


Aha! Would it be safe for me to infer by your use of capitals here that you believe that somewhere lurking in a dusty file in Portugal is JT's signed statement that she did ID Murat? Well if so, you can make up any stuff you like in that case that might be sitting in the UNRELEASED files, anything at all to back up any belief you might have. The question you would still have to ask yourself is - why would the police not release such an important piece of evidence, especially if they were keen to nail the Tapas 9 as liars on a mission to frame Murat?

Given the lack of information in the files we have to draw our own conclusions. I have drawn mine based on those facts.

No - I am drawing my conclusions based on facts, you are drawing your conclusions based on inference.


You have said she didn’t ID him only on the basis that there was nothing in the files to confirm this. But the lack of a report in the file doesn’t change the fact that her actions led to his search and Arguido status and the background information we have from her roggy interview and the testimonies she and others gave after he was made Arguido.


You're doing it again - "the fact that her actions led to his search and arguido status". This is not a fact, it is your belief nothing more.

If you don’t believe that then that’s your choice but it’s naivety in the extreme to believe a positive ID wasn’t forthcoming as the basis for Murat’s subsequent status.

Preoposterous for all the reasons I have so far given. It is far more naive in my opinion to believe that she did positively ID him and that somehow for reasons you cannot explain this was never officially recorded, or that if it was, that it has mysteriously gone missing. THAT'S naivity.


Well she said in her rogatory statement she didn’t “REALLY know who he was” when she met him. So it’s not a fact to say she didn’t even recognise him is it? Huge difference in what she said and what you claimed she said.

Here’s what she actually said:

I hadn’t met him at this point, so I didn’t really know who he was and I wasn’t really taking it in because I was worried sick I was about to be abducted by the people

That seems to me to be a double ended statement. She's claiming that she didn't REALLY know him and that she wasn't TAKING IT IN. She's covering all bases there!

Given that her partner had already met him before this then again I take that with a big pinch of salt hence the evasivness of her answer.


I think you have misunderstood. When Jane was in the van and Murat walked past, he was at such a distance and obscured from her view that she did not recognise him as the man she had met half an hour earlier.

Also considering the date of her roggy statements I treat her comments with the utmost suspicion as Murat had been cleared of any involvement at the point she gave her statement. Clearly after Murat had been cleared she could not claim it was him could she, nor could she say she had ID’d him?


Why not? Anyway, if she had positively ID'ed him why was she not questioned about this?

Plus she had held meetings with the group and their legal representatives and no doubt her “story” over this business had been, what’s the best way to describe it, “worked on” over the fullness of time.


More inference from you - I prefer to stick to the known facts.

Equally important is the fact that she was never asked outright in her roggy interview if she did positively ID him and was shamefully led by the officer taking the statement in the answer she gave.


Oh I see. So, the officer doing the rogs was incompetent or perhaps in on the plot too, huh?

I repeat the facts are Tanner was taken to ID him and as a result of what she said a warrant was issued to search his property and he was made arguido.


And I repeat - this is not a fact. It is your belief, nothing more.

Ah the convicted perjurer line again. This is in relation to the Cipriano case, based on the evidence of a child murderer who was having an incestuous affair with her brother and murdered her daughter.

This from a convicted murderer whose story changed so many times and who couldn’t identify the persons responsible for torturing her.

Let’s be clear exactly what Amaral was found guilty of. He was found guilty of “false testimony” because he upheld, under oath - five months after the 'events' - the version that he had been given by his staff, that Leonor Cipriano had been injured when she tried to commit suicide by throwing herself over the railing of the stairs inside the PJ building in Faro.

This was considered to be a false testimony because the facts that Amaral testified to, could not be proved.

However his defence, according to what the papers in Portugal said throughout the trial, and to statements that his lawyer made to the media, outside the court building, was that he could not have given another version of the facts because this was what the inspectors who witnessed the episode, reported to him.

So you can use that as a stick to diminish his credibility or you can look at the facts and draw your own conclusions as to the validity of that charge and his involvement in it.

He was found guilty of "false testimony" - no need to say anything more, is there? Don't be side-tracked by the awful crime he was investigating, the fact is he lied under oath. That is not my inference, that is fact. One may use this fact to infer that Amaral is not the most honest of (ex) cops and that is certainly what I am doing here, I admit. But if you're allowed to do it, then so am I!! You failed to address incidentally the point about the supposed court action Murat is taking against JT that Amaral confirmed in an interview recently. Do you know anymore about it?


No I don’t think everyone could have pulled it off but equally it didn’t require a criminal mastermind to carry it off. A bit of planning and a bit of help from others within the group .

A bit of help??! I think you are rather under-estimating the huge risks the Tapas 7 would have had to take in order to help their friends pull off this deception. But putting that to one side, if you don't believe that it would take a criminal mastermind to pull off such an audacious deception then that is absolutely fine - as I've said before, that is simply your opinion, and one which differs from mine. Little point arguing about it any further.


I never came into the thread making a claim about that though did i? I came in to pick you up on your points, but as we’re having one of those “conversations” I keep mentioning (and you seem to struggle with) it’s no problem for me to confirm my thoughts on it.

Why you think my thoughts on it are so important I don’t know but I’m happy to oblige nonetheless.
In what way would you say I was struggling Me? When I made my observations about the OP I didn't really expect to get bogged down in hugely detailed analyses of the Rogs, or witness statements, but you have DEMANDED THAT I ADDRESS YOUR POINTS. I think I have aquitted myself quite well and without struggle but there we must leave it as this is far too time consuming and I have work to get on with.

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 23.06.11 10:01

Stella wrote:Yes Ringo is different. I can't help but think that after a cobra meeting back at base, they have now sent in their stealth bomber for you, instead of their spitfire.

Well, I'm very flattered that you think so, but as I have said in my previous post I can't stick around all day - I have work to crack on with. I may pop back later.

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 23.06.11 11:46

Coffee Break!

Just been having a brief read of Amaral's book about why they decided to search Murat's apartment, and this is what it says:

Instead of taking the exit road for Portimão, I continue my journey on the motorway. I need to reconstruct the individual's path. If he had planned his crime, he probably wouldn't have taken this direction. And if, on the other hand, he hadn't planned it? I need to work it out for myself. In Vilada Luz, I park my car below the apartment blocks. Journalists are on the lookout around the apartment; fortunately, they don't see me. I walk the same route that the stranger must have taken. I arrive in front of a house with a neglected garden. Inside, there are two parked cars, whose registration numbers I note down. I communicate the numbers to the police in Portimão and wait there for the result of the check. After a few minutes, a green vehicle, driven by an individual wearing glasses, stops in front of the entrance to the house. The driver goes in quickly. His face is familiar to me but I don't know who he is. I notice a child's seat inside the car. The man comes back out a little later, supporting an elderly lady whom he accompanies towards the area of the swimming pools and the Tapas restaurant. They cross a park where a few buildings have been erected. Madeleine's parents took this route to take their children to the play centre, near the main reception area of the hotel complex. Since the start of the investigation , a team has been permanently on the premises and an apartment has been placed at their disposal. I am about to make enquiries of the police officer on duty when the individual comes back from his walk and greets him as he passes.

- You know that man?

- Yes, he presented himself to the GNR on Friday morning and offered his services as an interpreter. He is of English origin but speaks good Portuguese. He's called Robert Murat.

As the law demands, all foreign people interviewed by the police must have the benefit of an interpreter. In this investigation, the considerable number of interviews we had to conduct in record time forced us to call on the services of volunteers.

- And this guy, you checked him out? No criminal record or trouble with the law?

- No, no, it's all OK, but I didn't know he lived here. It's true that his house is on the route taken by the abductor.

- Stay here, carry on being friendly with him; I'm going to Portimão to see what we've got on him: we've got to find out more about this guy.

I immediately telephone the team to alert them. The Director of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Faro has to be involved in a meeting the same morning, where we will discuss the case of Robert Murat. We decide to request the latter's help again in order not to lose sight of him. We must act with the utmost speed, because Madeleine could be in one of the houses he has access to. The investigators continue to check the information we have about him. He is English, aged 33 and is separated from his wife. The latter lives in Great Britain with their daughter; the latter is nearly the same age as Madeleine and looks like her. The English journalist to whom he gave this information during an interview was immediately distrusting of him and the reasons that motivated him to help the police. Murat has lived with his mother in Vila da Luz for several years, but he goes to England regularly. Back from his last stay in Exeter on May 1st, he has to return there on the 9th. He is ready to postpone his departure, desirous above all, he states, of helping the police to find Madeleine.

His behaviour starts to seriously intrigue us. He often makes reference to similar cases that happened in the United Kingdom and which he seems to know in detail. He displays suspicious curiosity and seeks to know more. He offers to help us identify possible suspects. He knows the workings of the Ocean Club and the habits of the holiday-makers very well. He even, allegedly, tried secretly to access the investigation files. It is also known that he visits web sites of a pornographic nature.

His mother has set up a desk near the Tapas restaurant in order to gather and give out information about Madeleine. We don't know if this woman's actions are philanthropic in nature, or if she is hoping to keep well-informed of all the information circulating about the case. Members of the British agency CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre), take a close interest in Murat and work to develop his psychological profile.

If it's him that's holding Madeleine, we must monitor all his contacts and places he has access to. His house is therefore being closely watched. Technicians arrive from Great Britain with sophisticated equipment, capable of detecting the presence of people inside a building. Unfortunately, the characteristics of the building make this computer display impossible. So, stick to the investigations and conventional tailing. This is how we discover his relationship with a married woman of German origin, Michaela Walczuch. She is 32 and works as an estate agent. She is the wife of Luis Antonio, a Portuguese man aged 33, a technician responsible for the maintenance of swimming pools. The couple have an 8 year-old daughter and live in Faro. The relationship is strange. Michaela is still living with her spouse, and Robert visits them as if it's no big deal. All of them seem happy with this situation. And the little girl? What does she think about it?

On May 12th, the suspect rents a car, in which he drives kilometres over rough tracks for basic essentials. He explains later: that day, his mother had needed his car for her information desk. We are assuming that he noticed he was being followed.

We then decide to search his residence and the vehicles he uses. During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and the judge go to the court in Portimão, where, in view of the growing suspicion and the urgency of the situation, a search warrant is issued to them.

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance....etc


It is very clear from this that the PJ had already decided to search Murat's apartment, regardless of anything that JT may or may not have said to support their suspicions.

I would also like to know (but cannot find reference to) if the police ever put it to Murat that they had a positive ID of him walking through the streets of PdL with a child in his arms. If they did, how did he respond, and if they didn't (bearing in mind that you believe JT had "fingered" him two days earlier) why on earth not?!

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 23.06.11 11:53

@Ringo wrote:Coffee Break!

Just been having a brief read of Amaral's book about why they decided to search Murat's apartment, and this is what it says:

Instead of taking the exit road for Portimão, I continue my journey on the motorway. I need to reconstruct the individual's path. If he had planned his crime, he probably wouldn't have taken this direction. And if, on the other hand, he hadn't planned it? I need to work it out for myself. In Vilada Luz, I park my car below the apartment blocks. Journalists are on the lookout around the apartment; fortunately, they don't see me. I walk the same route that the stranger must have taken. I arrive in front of a house with a neglected garden. Inside, there are two parked cars, whose registration numbers I note down. I communicate the numbers to the police in Portimão and wait there for the result of the check. After a few minutes, a green vehicle, driven by an individual wearing glasses, stops in front of the entrance to the house. The driver goes in quickly. His face is familiar to me but I don't know who he is. I notice a child's seat inside the car. The man comes back out a little later, supporting an elderly lady whom he accompanies towards the area of the swimming pools and the Tapas restaurant. They cross a park where a few buildings have been erected. Madeleine's parents took this route to take their children to the play centre, near the main reception area of the hotel complex. Since the start of the investigation , a team has been permanently on the premises and an apartment has been placed at their disposal. I am about to make enquiries of the police officer on duty when the individual comes back from his walk and greets him as he passes.

- You know that man?

- Yes, he presented himself to the GNR on Friday morning and offered his services as an interpreter. He is of English origin but speaks good Portuguese. He's called Robert Murat.

As the law demands, all foreign people interviewed by the police must have the benefit of an interpreter. In this investigation, the considerable number of interviews we had to conduct in record time forced us to call on the services of volunteers.

- And this guy, you checked him out? No criminal record or trouble with the law?

- No, no, it's all OK, but I didn't know he lived here. It's true that his house is on the route taken by the abductor.

- Stay here, carry on being friendly with him; I'm going to Portimão to see what we've got on him: we've got to find out more about this guy.

I immediately telephone the team to alert them. The Director of the Department of Criminal Investigation in Faro has to be involved in a meeting the same morning, where we will discuss the case of Robert Murat. We decide to request the latter's help again in order not to lose sight of him. We must act with the utmost speed, because Madeleine could be in one of the houses he has access to. The investigators continue to check the information we have about him. He is English, aged 33 and is separated from his wife. The latter lives in Great Britain with their daughter; the latter is nearly the same age as Madeleine and looks like her. The English journalist to whom he gave this information during an interview was immediately distrusting of him and the reasons that motivated him to help the police. Murat has lived with his mother in Vila da Luz for several years, but he goes to England regularly. Back from his last stay in Exeter on May 1st, he has to return there on the 9th. He is ready to postpone his departure, desirous above all, he states, of helping the police to find Madeleine.

His behaviour starts to seriously intrigue us. He often makes reference to similar cases that happened in the United Kingdom and which he seems to know in detail. He displays suspicious curiosity and seeks to know more. He offers to help us identify possible suspects. He knows the workings of the Ocean Club and the habits of the holiday-makers very well. He even, allegedly, tried secretly to access the investigation files. It is also known that he visits web sites of a pornographic nature.

His mother has set up a desk near the Tapas restaurant in order to gather and give out information about Madeleine. We don't know if this woman's actions are philanthropic in nature, or if she is hoping to keep well-informed of all the information circulating about the case. Members of the British agency CEOP (Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre), take a close interest in Murat and work to develop his psychological profile.

If it's him that's holding Madeleine, we must monitor all his contacts and places he has access to. His house is therefore being closely watched. Technicians arrive from Great Britain with sophisticated equipment, capable of detecting the presence of people inside a building. Unfortunately, the characteristics of the building make this computer display impossible. So, stick to the investigations and conventional tailing. This is how we discover his relationship with a married woman of German origin, Michaela Walczuch. She is 32 and works as an estate agent. She is the wife of Luis Antonio, a Portuguese man aged 33, a technician responsible for the maintenance of swimming pools. The couple have an 8 year-old daughter and live in Faro. The relationship is strange. Michaela is still living with her spouse, and Robert visits them as if it's no big deal. All of them seem happy with this situation. And the little girl? What does she think about it?

On May 12th, the suspect rents a car, in which he drives kilometres over rough tracks for basic essentials. He explains later: that day, his mother had needed his car for her information desk. We are assuming that he noticed he was being followed.

We then decide to search his residence and the vehicles he uses. During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and the judge go to the court in Portimão, where, in view of the growing suspicion and the urgency of the situation, a search warrant is issued to them.

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance....etc


It is very clear from this that the PJ had already decided to search Murat's apartment, regardless of anything that JT may or may not have said to support their suspicions.

I would also like to know (but cannot find reference to) if the police ever put it to Murat that they had a positive ID of him walking through the streets of PdL with a child in his arms. If they did, how did he respond, and if they didn't (bearing in mind that you believe JT had "fingered" him two days earlier) why on earth not?!

I'm working on your other post and will come back to you on it.

In relation to this point you do know what happened on the night of the 13th May don't you? That was the night (approx 7.30pm) when Jane Tanner went on her little mission.

You want to take a guess where that "growing suspicion" had come from then?

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 23.06.11 11:59

I knew I remembered the 13th of May from somewhere !!

I think he was made an arguido because of this. To keep him quiet !!

From Panorama On May 13th 2007
JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria

"There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of... "

BILTON: When you say: "there are people who say..." I'm assuming you are quoting....

DA COSTA: People who know obviously. I cannot reveal the source here because I would lose it.
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id48.html

On May 15th Robert Murat is declared arguido

To get their hands on his computer and then Malinka's computer too.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 23.06.11 12:04

@Me wrote:

In relation to this point you do know what happened on the night of the 13th May don't you? That was the night (approx 7.30pm) when Jane Tanner went on her little mission.

You want to take a guess where that "growing suspicion" had come from then?

Could it have had something to do with Barra da Costa's public interview and the frenzy that followed in the press !!

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by lj on 23.06.11 13:03

@Hilary wrote:
candyfloss wrote:
@Ringo wrote:
@lj wrote:
You mean the same FSS that said they did not test hairs from the car because they were not blond enough??


Can I see the source for that? It's the first I've heard of it!



Examination and results
Reference objects
I received [obtained] information from the pillow-case SJM/1, the tops SJM2, 4 and 5, and the hairbrush SJM/36 belonging to Madeleine McCann or used by her. The hair found on these objects was used in substitution of [in place of] reference samples of her hair, [which were] not considered to be authentic samples of her hair.

No hair was recovered from the pillow-case SJM/1 nor the hairbrush SJM/36.

A total number of twelve [12] hairs or hair fragments were recovered from the tops SJM/2, SJM/4 and SJM/5. All of these appeared to be hair and not down, being mainly blonde in colour. One of the hairs was brown and distinctly darker than the other hairs, suggesting, at the least, that this was a hair from someone else.

The remaining eleven hairs/fragments varied in length from 4 millimetres to 45 millimetres [~1/8" to ~1,3/4"]. I could not conclude that all hairs were from the same person. If they had been from Madeleine McCann, then they are not representative/typical/characteristic of a sample of her hair, given the length of that seen in photographs of her.

Objects from the Renault Scenic - licence plate 59-DA-27
The following objects recovered from the scenic were subjected to examination:
1A, 1B, 1C, 1D,
2A, 2B, 2C, 2D, 2E,
3,
4A, 4B, 4C,
5A, 5B, 5C,
6A, 6B, 6C,
7A, 7B, 7C,
8A, 8B, 8C,
9 and
11 (2 objects).

There were more than two hundred hairs, down or fragments of hair and down. The majority appeared to be different from the blonde reference hairs recovered from SJM2, 4 and 5. Furthermore, no blonde hair consistent with that seen in photographs of Madeleine McCann was found.

Approximately 15 hairs, down or fragments were blonde and fair, presenting a similarity with the reference material. All were of insufficient length to make a solid [definitive] comparison. Furthermore, they are too short to do mitocondrial DNA tests. Folicle root material is insufficient for standard DNA tests.

Four hairs - one from 7B and three from 7C - were sent for Low Copy Number DNA testing. The results of those tests will be presented by my colleague John Lowe.

Conclusion
In the objects recovered from the Scenic, there were around 15 blonde/fair hairs similar to the reference hairs from SJM2, 4 and 5. However, as it was not possible to do solid [definitive] or significant [forensically meaningful] tests it is not possible for me to determine if, or not, these could have been from Madeleine McCann.

The conclusions expressed in the present deposition are based on information available at the date of the examination. In the case that there are changes to that information, or additional information becomes available, it may be necessary to reconsider my interpretation and conclusions. That re-evaluation will be most effective when done immediately prior to any judgement.

A.L. Palmer

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JOHN_LOWE.htm




Very scientific, the hairs weren't Madeleine's because they didn't look like the hair in the photo's??????????


____________

To my reading, the hairs/hair fragments judged more likely to be Madeleine's were too short (the longest being only 45mm) and/or lacking sufficient folicular root material to enable regular DNA tests to be undertaken - therefore attempts were made to run low copy number DNA tests on the best of the two hundred plus hairs found in the Scenic. Only fifteen of the two hundred plus hairs/hair fragments recovered from the car were judged to be similar to the hairs recovered from Madeleine's tops, and of those, four were sent for low copy DNA testing.

Perhaps the more interesting part is that 'the reference samples for her hair were not considered to be authentic samples of her hair'. (I believe baby/toddler hair is finer than that of an older child - so perhaps it was simply a case of the twins' hair having been submitted as the reference samples rather than Madeleine's, and this being discernible by the forensic examiner - unless there were some initial DNA tests which had already confirmed the sample reference hairs as belonging to someone other than Madeleine). Either way, it is a very strange and interesting inclusion.... One also wonders (in view of us all shedding around 100 head hairs a day) why no regular length hairs belonging to Madeleine were recoverable from the apartment, her clothing, or bedding in either Portugal or Leicester.

I do not personally believe the FFS is incompetent or has any vested interest in not undertaking a proper investigation; what is evident is that lay people are unable to interpret or appreciate the stringent processes involved in reaching the conclusions forensic examiners make, but for anyone to claim that certain tests were not run merely because the hair 'was not blonde enough' is a gross misrepresentation by any standard!

The hair samples must have been very poor for low copy DNA tests to have been deemed desirable. The results of low copy number DNA tests are subject to controversy as the process is relatively new and the results not universally recognised in courts of law; low copy DNA tests are only run in the hope of being able to create a full DNA profile where none exists, and from the tiniest sample...it is not true that tests were not run due to the colour of the hair - what is clear is that through a process of elimination four of the most suitable hairs/fragments of those considered more likely to have belonged to Madeleine, WERE subjected to the only tests that could be run on them due to the poor condition of the recovered hairs/fragments.


Ah the FFS must be so happy to have a fan blindly believing them.

It is however wrong to discard hairs pure on visual examination, that is not only the opinion of this not so lay person, but also from various experts who are specialized in that field.

____________________
"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 : 3274
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 23.06.11 13:51

@Me wrote:

We then decide to search his residence and the vehicles he uses. During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and the judge go to the court in Portimão, where, in view of the growing suspicion and the urgency of the situation, a search warrant is issued to them.

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance....etc



It is very clear from this that the PJ had already decided to search Murat's apartment, regardless of anything that JT may or may not have said to support their suspicions.

I would also like to know (but cannot find reference to) if the police ever put it to Murat that they had a positive ID of him walking through the streets of PdL with a child in his arms. If they did, how did he respond, and if they didn't (bearing in mind that you believe JT had "fingered" him two days earlier) why on earth not?!

I'm working on your other post and will come back to you on it.

In relation to this point you do know what happened on the night of the 13th May don't you? That was the night (approx 7.30pm) when Jane Tanner went on her little mission.

You want to take a guess where that "growing suspicion" had come from then?
Look, it's written as clear as day in Amaral's book, the reasons for their suspicions about him and their decision to search his residence. These were established BEFORE JT's episode in the van. He even writes "before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him..." The search is already a given by that point, as Amaral states. He does not write "before we can get the search warrant we need JT to positively ID Murat", does he? Please address the fact that despite writing about the interview with Murat directly after writing about JT's supposed ID of him, that no questions are put to Murat about JT's supposed sighting. Why not?

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 23.06.11 14:37

I am working on a reply, in between doing a spot of work, but the most salient fact of all regarding the Tanner / Murat sighting i feel deserves a post of it's own so as not to dilute its importance in my lengthy reply.

The fact then creates a question for Ringo.

Here's the fact:

From her answers in her Rogatory statement Jane Tanner did not deny that she had identified the person she had watched from within the surveillance vehicle, Robert Murat, as the person she had seen on May 3.

The immediate question then is:

Why not?

Given the detail of the questioning and her replies and given that the issue could have been sorted once and for all in a single line answer along the lines of “They produced Robert Murat and I didn't think it was the man I'd seen on May 3 and I told them so" why did she not say this?

Answers on a postcard please......

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 Me on 23.06.11 14:46

@Ringo wrote:
@Me wrote:

We then decide to search his residence and the vehicles he uses. During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and the judge go to the court in Portimão, where, in view of the growing suspicion and the urgency of the situation, a search warrant is issued to them.

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance....etc



It is very clear from this that the PJ had already decided to search Murat's apartment, regardless of anything that JT may or may not have said to support their suspicions.

I would also like to know (but cannot find reference to) if the police ever put it to Murat that they had a positive ID of him walking through the streets of PdL with a child in his arms. If they did, how did he respond, and if they didn't (bearing in mind that you believe JT had "fingered" him two days earlier) why on earth not?!

I'm working on your other post and will come back to you on it.

In relation to this point you do know what happened on the night of the 13th May don't you? That was the night (approx 7.30pm) when Jane Tanner went on her little mission.

You want to take a guess where that "growing suspicion" had come from then?
Look, it's written as clear as day in Amaral's book, the reasons for their suspicions about him and their decision to search his residence. These were established BEFORE JT's episode in the van. He even writes "before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him..." The search is already a given by that point, as Amaral states. He does not write "before we can get the search warrant we need JT to positively ID Murat", does he? Please address the fact that despite writing about the interview with Murat directly after writing about JT's supposed ID of him, that no questions are put to Murat about JT's supposed sighting. Why not?

@Ringo wrote:Amaral, who wasn't in the van with JT to the best of my knowledge has said quite a few things about this case which have turned out not to be strictly accurate. In fact let's not forget the inconvenient truth that he is a convicted perjuror.

Ah ok so you want to beleive Amaral ONLY when it suits your argument but not when it counters it?

In relation to the exact point raised and not wanting to use the "dodgy translation" excuse often espoused by Pro MCCann's i am of the belief that indeed a decision by the PJ may have been made to search his property before JT's sighting.

That doesn't mean they could have done one without the sighting being the determining factor in the issuing of the warrant does it?

However the fact is if you now want to use Amaral's book as a point of reference that a search warrant was only applied for AFTER Tanner's sighting - as evidenced by Amaral's comment:

During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and
the judge go to the court in Portimão, where, in view of the growing
suspicion and the urgency of the situation, a search warrant is issued
to them


Clear now?

____________________
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

a question for ringo the wrongo

Post by ROSA on 23.06.11 14:56

if the mccanns are innocent? about Madeleine? where is she then ?

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 Ringo on 23.06.11 15:14

@Me wrote:I am working on a reply, in between doing a spot of work, but the most salient fact of all regarding the Tanner / Murat sighting i feel deserves a post of it's own so as not to dilute its importance in my lengthy reply.

The fact then creates a question for Ringo.

Here's the fact:

From her answers in her Rogatory statement Jane Tanner did not deny that she had identified the person she had watched from within the surveillance vehicle, Robert Murat, as the person she had seen on May 3.

The immediate question then is:

Why not?

Given the detail of the questioning and her replies and given that the issue could have been sorted once and for all in a single line answer along the lines of “They produced Robert Murat and I didn't think it was the man I'd seen on May 3 and I told them so" why did she not say this?

Answers on a postcard please......

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. She says quite clearly in the Rogatory Interview that

"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”.

And

"I didn’t myself see him on the night at all"

How could she have made it any plainer? You say she does not deny that the person she identified was Murat, can you highlight that bit for me 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 Ringo on 23.06.11 15:19

@Me wrote:
Ah ok so you want to beleive Amaral ONLY when it suits your argument but not when it counters it?

Ha, ha! I knew you'd come back with that! Do you believe Amaral now or not? Here, I know how you see every discrepancy in the Tapas 9's statements as proof of guilt so how do you account for the fact that in his book Amaral says:

On July 11th at 10am, a confrontation is organised between the witnesses - Rachael Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien - and Robert Murat. Nothing new comes out of it.

And then in an interview last year he says:

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.


First he says JT wasn't at the confrontation with Murat, and then he says she was there - how odd. Was she there or not, in your opinion? Can we rely on Amaral to tell us the truth of the matter or not? Where is Jane Tanner's statement in which she says whe recognised Murat from his walk? Where is the diligence that he talks about? Or is he making it all up?

You decide!

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 23.06.11 15:20

@Ringo wrote:
@Me wrote:
Ah ok so you want to beleive Amaral ONLY when it suits your argument but not when it counters it?

Ha, ha! I knew you'd come back with that! Do you believe Amaral now or not? Here, I know how you see every discrepancy in the Tapas 9's statements as proof of guilt so how do you account for the fact that in his book Amaral says:

On July 11th at 10am, a confrontation is organised between the witnesses - Rachael Mampilly, Fiona Payne and Russell O'Brien - and Robert Murat. Nothing new comes out of it.

And then in an interview last year he says:

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.


First he says JT wasn't at the confrontation with Murat, and then he says she was there - how odd. Was she there or not, in your opinion? Can we rely on Amaral to tell us the truth of the matter or not? Where is Jane Tanner's statement in which she says whe recognised Murat from his walk? Where is the diligence that he talks about? Or is he making it all up?

You decide!

Read my edited reply. It goes into more detail.

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 23.06.11 15:25

@Me wrote:[
However the fact is if you now want to use Amaral's book as a point of reference that a search warrant was only applied for AFTER Tanner's sighting - as evidenced by Amaral's comment:

During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and
the judge go to the court in Portimão, where, in view of the growing
suspicion and the urgency of the situation, a search warrant is issued
to them


Clear now?

I already quoted and highlighted this passage of Amaral's book in a previous post - what is your point? Nowhere does it say the search warrant was dependent on a positive ID from JT. I will say it again that the police had obviously already made up their mind to search Murat's apartment. The fact that they were able to search the McCanns' apartment too without any tangible evidence that I can see anywhere in the files would tend to suggest that suspicion alone is enough to grant a search warrant in these instances.

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 23.06.11 15:43

@Ringo wrote:
@Me wrote:I am working on a reply, in between doing a spot of work, but the most salient fact of all regarding the Tanner / Murat sighting i feel deserves a post of it's own so as not to dilute its importance in my lengthy reply.

The fact then creates a question for Ringo.

Here's the fact:

From her answers in her Rogatory statement Jane Tanner did not deny that she had identified the person she had watched from within the surveillance vehicle, Robert Murat, as the person she had seen on May 3.

The immediate question then is:

Why not?

Given the detail of the questioning and her replies and given that the issue could have been sorted once and for all in a single line answer along the lines of “They produced Robert Murat and I didn't think it was the man I'd seen on May 3 and I told them so" why did she not say this?

Answers on a postcard please......

I'm sorry, I don't understand your point. She says quite clearly in the Rogatory Interview that

"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”.

And

"I didn’t myself see him on the night at all"

How could she have made it any plainer? You say she does not deny that the person she identified was Murat, can you highlight that bit for me please?

You are not quoting her comments relating to the undercover operation. You are quoting other aspects of her Rogatory statement which bear no relevance to whether, when she was in that van she gave a positive ID of Murat.

Let me make it clearer for you.

Jane Tanner in her rogatory interview, in relation solely to the under cover operation, never once stated that when she was in the back of the van she DID NOT give a positive identification of Murat as Bundleman

Let me hand this over to Blacksmith for you:

She said absolutely nothing. This is the full and complete transcript of Jane Tanner's description of whether or not she identified the passing Murat as Bundleman:

"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 [the officers in the street, not in the van] 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. [Not a word so far about the issue] 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 [my italics JB. Note that this does not refer to the identification or otherwise of Murat in the street as Bundleman but to her apparent failure to recognise the Murat in the street with the Murat she had encountered outside his house] well, you know, half an hour before, so. Erm, and then, erm, [here come the erms] 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". [Still not a single confirmation or denial of the identification]

As Jane Tanner might say, Whew!

The transcript does not tell us how Jane Tanner got away with this dying fall. Did her words tail off slowly? Had she, once again, started to sob? Had she bored DC Ferguson to death? Or had he found out what he wanted to know?

"Now," he says, "you are left with that mental image in your head about the man carrying the child."
[He is talking about her description of the May 3 sighting earlier in the interview]

"Um," said Jane.

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

[NB not "did you link the two of those that night?"]

"I don't think so. I mean, I don't, phew, I don't, I don't think it, no, there doesn't, there's no, but then the person I see in the paper doesn't really look like my recollection of the person I met on the way to meet Bob Small. [Still not a word] It's really annoying because normally I would have probably taken more notice but I was so worried about what I was going to do, because I didn't know at this point at all, I didn't really take any notice, but I think it was too short and [still nothing] I remember it being, being long into the neck and not so. [still nothing] Again, I don't really, when I saw Robert Murat outside his house he looked quite little to me, but then when you see him on the telly he seems quite bit, so I can't, again, I don't think the build, the build was right, I don't..." [She describes Murat outside his house and on the television. No mention of what she said and did in the van.]

Another dying fall.The officer effectively ends the matter, with a question that is not only leading but does not concern the subject of the surveillance responses at all, only whether or not M/S Tanner feels, in April 2008, that Murat and Bundleman are the same person.

"So you don't feel, in your heart of hearts".
"No".
"You don't feel it was the same person?"[NOT "you didn't SAY it was the same person.]
"No, I don't, no".

Hardly a surprise, that last answer. But it had been quite a performance. It is almost superfluous to point out that the whole issue could have been dealt with in fifteen seconds had M/S Tanner wished to do so – along the lines of yes, they produced Robert Murat and I didn't think it was the man I'd seen on May 3 and I told them so. Jane Tanner, for whatever reasons, skilfully evaded the only issue at hand.

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 23.06.11 16:06

That is, in my view, really scraping the barrel. It was a long, drawn out interview in which she was obviously trying to give as much information as possible, she was not being asked to give a brief summary that could be delivered in a few pat words . She clearly states several times in her Rog that the man was not Murat, why should what you have selected from the Rog be of any consequence to the point? She was never actually asked the question: did you identify the man as Murat, so it is not that surprising that she does not actually say "no, I never identified the man as Murat".

You are completely grasping at straws and focusing on trivial minutiae whilst ignoring the glaring, obvious facts. JT did not give a positive id of Murat, there is no mention of a positive id of Murat anywhere in the files, she was not called upon to confront Murat with the other Tapas members (why not??), Murat was never challenged with her supposed ID of him that night, there is nothing at all to suggest that Murat's apartment would not have been searched without a positive ID. Of course, none of this will make a blind bit of difference to your firm held beleif that she did ID him that night, but all you have is belief, nothing tangible to base your suspicions on. I meanwhile am able to assess all the evidence and come to the only logical conclusion. SHE DID NOT POSITIVELY ID MURAT!! Sorry for shouting...

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 23.06.11 16:13

@Ringo wrote:That is, in my view, really scraping the barrel. It was a long, drawn out interview in which she was obviously trying to give as much information as possible, she was not being asked to give a brief summary that could be delivered in a few pat words . She clearly states several times in her Rog that the man was not Murat, why should what you have selected from the Rog be of any consequence to the point? She was never actually asked the question: did you identify the man as Murat, so it is not that surprising that she does not actually say "no, I never identified the man as Murat".

You are completely grasping at straws and focusing on trivial minutiae whilst ignoring the glaring, obvious facts. JT did not give a positive id of Murat, there is no mention of a positive id of Murat anywhere in the files, she was not called upon to confront Murat with the other Tapas members (why not??), Murat was never challenged with her supposed ID of him that night, there is nothing at all to suggest that Murat's apartment would not have been searched without a positive ID. Of course, none of this will make a blind bit of difference to your firm held beleif that she did ID him that night, but all you have is belief, nothing tangible to base your suspicions on. I meanwhile am able to assess all the evidence and come to the only logical conclusion. SHE DID NOT POSITIVELY ID MURAT!! Sorry for shouting...

No my friend it is you who are scraping the barrel.

The bit quoted is the only part that relates specifically to the issue of the undercover operation, which for the sake of our discussion is the only relevant part of the rogatory, isn't it?

You're clutching at straws by quoting parts of her rogatory which do not relate to the undercover operation or what she said or didn't say whilst in that van. I quoted every part of the rogatroy relating to that operation and nowhere there does she deny that she didn't positively identify Murat.

It's really this simple:

If whilst in that van she did not positively ID Murat (as you claim) why did she not actually say:

yes, they produced Robert Murat and I didn't think it was the man I'd seen on May 3 and I told them so

It's a simple question and a really straightforward reply if she had not ID'd him.

So why didn't she say that?

I'd appreciate your answer please.

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 Angelique on 23.06.11 16:15

Wasn't it also a Reporter/newsperson who said she was suspicious of Murat?

____________________
Things aren't always what they seem

Angelique

Posts : 1396
Reputation : 35
Join date : 2010-10-19

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Me on 23.06.11 16:17

@Angelique wrote:Wasn't it also a Reporter/newsperson who said she was suspicious of Murat?

Yes a Daily Mirror reporter said he reminded her of Ian Huntley!

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 23.06.11 16:32

@Me wrote:No my friend it is you who are scraping the barrel.

The bit quoted is the only part that relates specifically to the issue of the undercover operation, which for the sake of our discussion is the only relevant part of the rogatory, isn't it?

You're clutching at straws by quoting parts of her rogatory which do not relate to the undercover operation or what she said or didn't say whilst in that van. I quoted every part of the rogatroy relating to that operation and nowhere there does she deny that she didn't positively identify Murat.

It's really this simple:

If whilst in that van she did not positively ID Murat (as you claim) why did she not actually say:

yes, they produced Robert Murat and I didn't think it was the man I'd seen on May 3 and I told them so

It's a simple question and a really straightforward reply if she had not ID'd him.

So why didn't she say that?

I'd appreciate your answer please.

*Sigh* It would be really nice if, just for once, someone would concede that I have made some very valid obsesrvations on this forum in relation especially to this point. I have knocked myself out giving you all the very good reasons why it is blatantly obvious that JT did not positively id Robert Murat! Why are you sooooo determined to cling to the notion that she did? Does the whole case pivot on this one point?


I don't understand why one part of the Rogatory interview should stand in isolation from another. You say it's a simple question to answer but was she ever asked it? Do you answer questions that you were not asked? In any case she DOES answer in a round about way, many times by making it crystal clear throughout the Rogatory that she did not ID Murat. Why should it be suspicious that she doesnt come straight to the point and say it in one sharp, concise statement - what actually is that indicative of, in your view?

Perhaps you would like to address some of the questions I have put to you throughout this thread -

eg: the discrepancies in Amarals book versus his interview - why did he say JT was at the confrontation with Murat in his interview but not in his book? Why does he talk of a diligence in which he claims she identified him from the way he walked? Where is this so-called damning piece of evidence?

The fact that Murat was never questioned about JT's supposed positive ID of him

The fact that JT was not included in the confrontation with Murat (there are signed documents from the other 3 on that occasion but not from JT so we will have to assume that Amaral was perhaps having a "senior moment" in his interview last year.

The fact that having supposedly given a positive ID of Murat, JT was never apparently asked to sign a statement to that effect and was never questioned about it again by the PJ.

These are the really relevant questions you should be asking, not why JT didn't explicitly state in one short sentence "I did not ID Murat" in her Rogatory. Perhaps you could give your thoughts on them?

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 23.06.11 16:35

@Ringo wrote:
@Me wrote:[
However the fact is if you now want to use Amaral's book as a point of reference that a search warrant was only applied for AFTER Tanner's sighting - as evidenced by Amaral's comment:

During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and
the judge go to the court in Portimão, where, in view of the growing
suspicion and the urgency of the situation, a search warrant is issued
to them


Clear now?

I already quoted and highlighted this passage of Amaral's book in a previous post - what is your point? Nowhere does it say the search warrant was dependent on a positive ID from JT. I will say it again that the police had obviously already made up their mind to search Murat's apartment. The fact that they were able to search the McCanns' apartment too without any tangible evidence that I can see anywhere in the files would tend to suggest that suspicion alone is enough to grant a search warrant in these instances.

Ok let me make this point clearer for you as well. The police WANTED to search Murat's property. But in order to perform a search they need a search warrant, agreed?

If they wanted to search and didn't need a warrant or Tanner's testimony why did they not perform the search BEFORE Tanner's identification in the van?

Why was the warrant applied for AFTER Tanner's identification.

@Ringo wrote:The fact that they were able to search the McCanns' apartment too
without any tangible evidence that I can see anywhere in the files would
tend to suggest that suspicion alone is enough to grant a search
warrant in these instances.

So if that's the case why was the PJ's request to tap the Mccann's phones REJECTED by a judge? That would suggest that suspicion alone isn't enough to grant a search warrant, doesn't it?

____________________
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 23.06.11 16:45

[quote]
@Me wrote:
Ok let me make this point clearer for you as well. The police WANTED to search Murat's property. But in order to perform a search they need a search warrant, agreed?

If they wanted to search and didn't need a warrant or Tanner's testimony why did they not perform the search BEFORE Tanner's identification in the van?

Why was the warrant applied for AFTER Tanner's identification.

Well I don't know the answer to this but I could speculate if you like. The police had already decided to search Murat's property and they felt to strengthen their application for a warrant it would be great to go to the Judge with a positive ID of him from a witness. The fact that they didn't get that turned out to be immaterial to the granting of the search warrant, in fact, the fact that JT hadn't been able to state categorically that it WASN'T Murat might have added strength to their application. But - I don't like speculating, we don't know exactly what the police used as leverage do we? But there certainly wasn't a signed statement from JT ID'ing Murat that we can be pretty confident about!


So if that's the case why was the PJ's request to tap the Mccann's phones REJECTED by a judge? That would suggest that suspicion alone isn't enough to grant a search warrant, doesn't it?

Again - I have no idea why the judge didn't grant a request to tap the McCanns phones but it was probably viewed as an unacceptable breach of their privacy or human rights or something. But, tell me - what in your view was the evidence that granted the police their search warrant for the McCanns' apartment? Was there anything like a positive ID of Gerry carrying a child through the streets?

Ringo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 3 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