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 4 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 Ringo on 23.06.11 16:58

@Me wrote:
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?

In fact what this does show is that the PJ can make an application for a warrant (or for action to be taken against supsects - in this case phone tapping) without any actual evidence to support the application - so there was nothing to stop them taking the same approach with the application of a warrant for Murat's place either. No evidence needed!

Anyway, that's my input for the day over. Bye for now.

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 Angelique on 23.06.11 17:01

Is it possible that because there was some procedural error regarding the "JT in a van" sighting. That any statement she subsequently signed would not be forthcoming and has either been left out of the files and/or withheld.

____________________
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 17:34

@Ringo wrote:*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.

Are you being deliberately obtuse? You have made some valid points but you refuse to accept or answer the most salient point of all in this issue. Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. We are talking about one specific issue which goes to the heart of the Tanner / Murat identification.

Namely the only time that she has faced questions on that undercover operation she chose not to give the only answer that was truly relevant:

“Did she or did she not whilst in that van give the police a positive identification of Murat as Bundle Man. “

You haven’t given an answer as to why when given the opportunity to clarify what she did say in that van, she said everything APART from whether she gave the officers present a positive identification or not. This is the only question in town relating to that operation and she didn’t provide an answer.
Why?

@Ringo wrote: 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?

So if, as you say she didn’t ID him then why did she not simply say so? It’s that simple and a 15 second answer and would have saved the rigmarole of the answers she did give. Yet she never said that. You have to ask why.

I’m not clinging to anything but clearly if she did give that positive ID her credibility falls to pieces, that’s why it’s so important and pivotal.

Because if on that day she DID say Murat was bundleman and then as it was later proved that Murat had nothing to do it with it then there is no bundle man is there? There is no Jane tanner sighting and now we don’t have an abductor. Of course it’s pivotal to the McCann’s case.

@Ringo wrote:I don't understand why one part of the Rogatory interview should stand in isolation from another.

I think you haven’t quite grasped this very relevant point. What she said in other parts of her Rogatory bears no relevance to what she said solely on the issue of whether, when she was in the van, she positively Identified Murat as bundleman.

Her saying in 2008 in her Rogatory that she was sure Murat wasn’t bundle man is not the same question (or indeed answer) to whether on the night of the 13th May 2007 whilst in a police van she provided a positive identification to the officers present that Murat was bundle man.

It’s a completely different question and issue. Can you see that? It’s important you grasp that concept.

@Ringo wrote: You say it's a simple question to answer but was she ever asked it? Do you answer questions that you were not asked?

Oh do come off it. Of course it’s a simple answer and if you look at any of the answers she gave in relation to the surveillance operation she could have ended them by saying that

“in the end I couldn’t confirm to the officers present in that van that Murat was the same person I saw on the night of May 3rd”.

It is central to and the only point of the whole issue of the surveillance operation! And had she not identified him I’m certain she would have used that opportunity to say so, don’t you?

@Ringo wrote: 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.

No she doesn’t!! She does not state that in that van she did not identify Murat as bundle man. She does state that in relation to Murat and bundleman in general terms but she does not answer that very different and very specific question.

@Ringo wrote: 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?

it shows an absolute unwillingness on her part to state on record what she did actually say to the officers in that van on the 13th May. Given that the rest of her statement shows that she does not think Murat is bundle man then if that is what she said to the officers in that van there is no reason for her not to say that, is there?

Yet she doesn’t so the only explanation for this can be that the identification she gave about Murat in that van is different to the answers she gave regarding Murat in the rest of her interview.


@Ringo wrote: 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.

I’m working on it but I’ve already spent too much time on here today.

@Ringo wrote: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?

Clearly given what i've stated above these are not as relevant as what Tanner said on that night but i will come baxck to you on these points nonetheless.

____________________
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 Me on 23.06.11 20:11

@Angelique wrote:Is it possible that because there was some procedural error regarding the "JT in a van" sighting. That any statement she subsequently signed would not be forthcoming and has either been left out of the files and/or withheld.

Hi Angelique

Having spent more time looking through the files i have changed my opinion and now believe that this is the case. The more i have seen this evening supports this theory in fairness to Ringo.

The identification was botched as Tanner bumped into Murat on the way to the van and engaged him in conversation prior to getting in the van to then identify him again.

From reading both the files (i finally found the documents pertaining to the warrant after spending all day trawling for them) and then Blacksmith's piece about the matter it seems Amaral at the time valued the identification in itself but he didn't want to go near the way it had been collected.

It also adds weight to Amaral’s account, that a decision had been made to search Murat’s properties and the identification by Tanner was the final decisive factor.

I still believe that the warrant was applied for after Tanner's confirmation but her evidence wasn't used in the warrant application, i presume, because to do so, given the tainted nature of how it was procured, would have actively jeopardised the granting of the application.

However the procedural nature of the granting of the warrant is not the core issue here. The core issue is still and will always ever be whether whilst in that van Tanner positively identified Murat or not and my position on that remains vehemently unchanged.

We come back to Tanner’s performance in her Rogatory statement where she goes out of her way to not say if she did or didn’t identify Murat as Bundle man whilst in that van.

Let’s be clear that this is the central issue. Because if she did identify Murat as the man she saw carrying Madeleine whilst in the van, then her account, and the central (and only) piece of evidence underpinning the abduction theory goes up in smoke.

If as Ringo speculates she didn’t give a positive identification then there was absolutely no reason why she couldn’t have said so unequivocally in her Rogatory statement.

In fact had she not identified him in that van or had said she wasn’t sure it was him, as Ringo speculates, then actively stating that in her Rogatory interview would only serve to boost the reliability of her account.

Why would anyone not say something which is true if it increases the credibility of their statement?

You also have to remember that the man sat in the van with her (Bob Small) was from Leicestershire Police and the officer taking her Rogatory statement was also from Leicestershire Police.

Whilst there was nothing in the PJ files about the undercover operation you can be certain that there was something in Leicestershire Police’s files about it as Bob Small was there - and seemingly arranged the operation with the PJ’s blessing.

So clearly she knew, and will have been advised by her lawyers, that if she said something in her Rogatory interview to Leicestershire Police that she hadn’t said to Bob Small of Leicestershire Police in that van on 13th May 2007 she was blatantly perjuring herself in front of two officers from the same police force.

So the only possible reason she didn’t say in that Rogatory interview “I was asked if the man in front of me was the same man I saw carrying Madeleine and I said no definitely not” or “I was asked if the man in front of me was the same man I saw carrying Madeleine and I said I wasn’t sure” was without doubt because that isn’t what she said in that van to Bob Small.

And if she didn’t say either of those things in the van or the Rogatory interview then the only statement she could possibly have said at that time to Bob Small was that yes Murat was the same man she saw carrying Madeleine on that night.

Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

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 22:22

Why doesn't Clarence Mitchell just deny that Mr Murat has a case against JT? He obviously must know, so why not say there is no truth in it, instead he says................

Video: Clarence Mitchell Spinning for the McCanns ...and for Jane Tanner


Short transcript from 5'03'' - full transcript bellow

C4 reporter: We've learned that Robert Murat is, has a legal complaint against one of the friends of Kate and Gerry over things she said about his alleged involvement in Madeleine's disappearance. Presumably if he gets the same kind of ruling that Kate and Gerry got today, they would support it* [that/him/them]?

Clarence Mitchell: I'm not going to comment on any details on what Mr. Murat or his legal representative are doing, suffice to say that Jane Tanner never directly named Mr. Murat as the man she saw, and you can go back to the Portuguese police files that were released in 2008 and see that for yourself. She never actually named Mr. Murat as the prime suspect.

*doubts on the exact word said by the reporter





http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/video-clarence-mitchell-spinning-for.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Hilary on 23.06.11 22:40

@lj wrote:
@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.

___________

I have no good reason to believe the FSS would be willing to collude with the McCann family in order to mislead law enforcement and the general public and over the death of their three year old child, no. How absurd a suggestion that would be. The hairs have not been discarded; as is usual in such cases, only some of the available evidence was tested, leaving the remainder available for further tests, should circumstances require it. It would, of course, be unwise to destroy ALL the hairs by submitting them to the same tests - as testing procedures often destroys evidence it is not surprising, or unusual, for only a few of the hairs to have been tested. As it is, further tests with improved science, can remain a possibility.

Hilary

Posts : 21
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by lj on 23.06.11 22:47

Since English is not my first language I made sure to check the dictionary:
dis·card   
[v. dih-skahrd; n. dis-kahrd] Show IPA
–verb (used with object)
1.
to cast aside

and then follows the to get rid off part.

Discard in my post was meant in the way of the first dict entry.

As far as absurdity goes: The behaviour of some of the British based organizations might be called that way.

As for why? There have been many theories, and everyone is of course welcome in their own.

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

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

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

lj

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Gillyspot on 23.06.11 22:55

I am sure that the Mccanns will be able to provide further DNA evidence if they have left poor Madeleine's room as she left it as Kate says in the book (if they have actually and not turned it into a money safe)

Gillyspot

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

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 23:47

Me

You wrote:

"So clearly she knew, and will have been advised by her lawyers, that if she said something in her Rogatory interview to Leicestershire Police that she hadn’t said to Bob Small of Leicestershire Police in that van on 13th May 2007 she was blatantly perjuring herself in front of two officers from the same police force.

So the only possible reason she didn’t say in that Rogatory interview “I was asked if the man in front of me was the same man I saw carrying Madeleine and I said no definitely not” or “I was asked if the man in front of me was the same man I saw carrying Madeleine and I said I wasn’t sure” was without doubt because that isn’t what she said in that van to Bob Small.

And if she didn’t say either of those things in the van or the Rogatory interview then the only statement she could possibly have said at that time to Bob Small was that yes Murat was the same man she saw carrying Madeleine on that night.

Which is what I’ve been saying all along."
------------------------------------------------------------------------
This is how I read it - but it was a long time ago when I read her statements and I think the meeting at The Rothley Hotel when her lawyers warned her.

But I thought it was to do with Murat taking her to Court that she had to "waffle".

Have I taken a wrong turning somewhere ?

____________________
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 Hilary on 24.06.11 1:55

honeybunch wrote:I am sure that the Mccanns will be able to provide further DNA evidence if they have left poor Madeleine's room as she left it as Kate says in the book (if they have actually and not turned it into a money safe)

Indeed, there is every reason to hope the FSS is by now in receipt of some authentic reference samples against which to compare the evidence.

Hilary

Posts : 21
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-05-17

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by lj on 24.06.11 3:51

lets hope any further testing will be done by a true independent lab.

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

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

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

lj

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Ringo on 24.06.11 11:45

[quote]
@Me wrote:
Are you being deliberately obtuse?


No I most certainly am not!! I do however feel as if I am banging my head against a brick wall here, and it's getting very tiresome.

You have made some valid points but you refuse to accept or answer the most salient point of all in this issue. Let’s be clear what we’re talking about here. We are talking about one specific issue which goes to the heart of the Tanner / Murat identification.

Namely the only time that she has faced questions on that undercover operation she chose not to give the only answer that was truly relevant:

“Did she or did she not whilst in that van give the police a positive identification of Murat as Bundle Man. “


Was she ever asked this specific question in her rogatory?


You haven’t given an answer as to why when given the opportunity to clarify what she did say in that van, she said everything APART from whether she gave the officers present a positive identification or not. This is the only question in town relating to that operation and she didn’t provide an answer.
Why?


If this was the very most important question of the whole rogatory then why wasn't she asked it?



So if, as you say she didn’t ID him then why did she not simply say so? It’s that simple and a 15 second answer and would have saved the rigmarole of the answers she did give. Yet she never said that. You have to ask why.


She does say so, she just takes alot of words to say it! Accuse her of verbiosity if you must, though I don't believe it is a crime.


I’m not clinging to anything but clearly if she did give that positive ID her credibility falls to pieces, that’s why it’s so important and pivotal.

Because if on that day she DID say Murat was bundleman and then as it was later proved that Murat had nothing to do it with it then there is no bundle man is there? There is no Jane tanner sighting and now we don’t have an abductor. Of course it’s pivotal to the McCann’s case.


I don't think it's as clear cut as that. She *might* have positvely ID'ed the walking man with child, and then later said she must have been mistaken and that would not have been the first time such a thing has happened, especially as you have already conceded that the whole ID process was botched. She would have been able to use that as a very good reason for explaining why she was mistaken. It would not mean that she definietely didn't see someone would it?





I think you haven’t quite grasped this very relevant point. What she said in other parts of her Rogatory bears no relevance to what she said solely on the issue of whether, when she was in the van, she positively Identified Murat as bundleman.

I have quite grasped it, thanks. Basically the only stick you have to beat Jane Tanner with is the fact that she did not say precisely what you demand she say. ie: "I did not ID Murat while I was in the van". That is basically all you've got against her, and it ain't much!

Her saying in 2008 in her Rogatory that she was sure Murat wasn’t bundle man is not the same question (or indeed answer) to whether on the night of the 13th May 2007 whilst in a police van she provided a positive identification to the officers present that Murat was bundle man.

It’s a completely different question and issue. Can you see that? It’s important you grasp that concept.

Don't be absurd - of course it is not a completely different issue! It is simply a lack of spelling things out in absolutely precise detail. If she wasn't asked the question "did you positively id Murat when you were in the van?" then why would she feel the need to say "no, I did not id Murat when I was sitting in the van". It's obvious from what she says in the context of the whole rogatory interview that this is what she means.

Oh do come off it. Of course it’s a simple answer and if you look at any of the answers she gave in relation to the surveillance operation she could have ended them by saying that

“in the end I couldn’t confirm to the officers present in that van that Murat was the same person I saw on the night of May 3rd”.


And it is for this simple omission alone (not providing an answer to a question she wasn't asked) that you think she is lying about the whole thing? Can't you see how crazy that is??

It is central to and the only point of the whole issue of the surveillance operation! And had she not identified him I’m certain she would have used that opportunity to say so, don’t you?


She does, over and over again, but not in a specific way to suit you.

No she doesn’t!! She does not state that in that van she did not identify Murat as bundle man. She does state that in relation to Murat and bundleman in general terms but she does not answer that very different and very specific question.



No, because she wasn't asked it!!! What do you suppose she was basing her opinion on that she didn't think it was Murat if it wasn't the ID operation from the back of the van? Another sighting of him on another day?

it shows an absolute unwillingness on her part to state on record what she did actually say to the officers in that van on the 13th May. Given that the rest of her statement shows that she does not think Murat is bundle man then if that is what she said to the officers in that van there is no reason for her not to say that, is there?

Why would she be "unwilling" to do that? There is no signed statement to say that she did positively ID him is there? Nothing at all to catch her out.

Yet she doesn’t so the only explanation for this can be that the identification she gave about Murat in that van is different to the answers she gave regarding Murat in the rest of her interview.


No, there is another explanation and that is she didn't think it was necessary to summarise precisely in one short concise statement what she had already been saying!

At the end of the day Me you believe that JT positively ID'ed Murat, despite the fact that

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

and the reasons for your certainty that she did ID him are:

1) she never said specifically in her rogatory "I did not ID Murat from the back of the van" (even though she makes it clear throughout her interview that she did not think it was him).
2) Murat's house was searched the day after the ID parade.

Well if you think you've got the stronger case here, then I'm afraid I simply cannot agree. It must surely be plain to anyone who is prepared to assess these facts calmly, logically and without any sort of agenda that Jane Tanner never positively ID'ed Murat.

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 24.06.11 11:53

@Me wrote:You also have to remember that the man sat in the van with her (Bob Small) was from Leicestershire Police and the officer taking her Rogatory statement was also from Leicestershire Police.

Whilst there was nothing in the PJ files about the undercover operation you can be certain that there was something in Leicestershire Police’s files about it as Bob Small was there - and seemingly arranged the operation with the PJ’s blessing.

So clearly she knew, and will have been advised by her lawyers, that if she said something in her Rogatory interview to Leicestershire Police that she hadn’t said to Bob Small of Leicestershire Police in that van on 13th May 2007 she was blatantly perjuring herself in front of two officers from the same police force.

So the only possible reason she didn’t say in that Rogatory interview “I was asked if the man in front of me was the same man I saw carrying Madeleine and I said no definitely not” or “I was asked if the man in front of me was the same man I saw carrying Madeleine and I said I wasn’t sure” was without doubt because that isn’t what she said in that van to Bob Small.

And if she didn’t say either of those things in the van or the Rogatory interview then the only statement she could possibly have said at that time to Bob Small was that yes Murat was the same man she saw carrying Madeleine on that night.

Which is what I’ve been saying all along.

Ahem. If there was something in the Leicestershire files to the effect that JT had made a positive sighting of Murat in the back of the van, then why was she never challenged about this in the interview which was carried out by the er...Leicestershire police?? She repeatedly says throughout the Rog that she didn't think it was Murat, so why didn't the interviewer then say, "ah, but we have this piece of paper in our files from Bob Small that says you positively ID'ed him!"?

Over to you...

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 24.06.11 12:03

From JT's rogatrory statement



4078

“Right”.

Reply

“You know, or said yeah, had said that he wasn’t there on the night, so you know was immediately, I think it was immediately, I’m not trying to push anything onto Robert MURAT’s door, cos as I say I don’t think it was him that I saw”.

4078

“No”.

Reply

But I just thought it was”.


Surely this indicates that at some point earlier, Murat's name must have been mentioned as the man she saw, otherwise why say that?

.
http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/video-clarence-mitchell-spinning-for.html

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by lj on 24.06.11 13:29

why was she never challenged about this in the interview which was carried out by the er...Leicestershire police??


spit coffee spit coffee laugh laugh rotfl rotfl

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

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

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

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

lj

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 24.06.11 15:03

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




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

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

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Ringo on 24.06.11 15:18

I think you have both rather missed the point, with your smiley emoticons.

Me has asserted that JT could not bring herself to say "I did not positively ID Murat in the van" because she knew that this would perjure herself as Bob Small would have somewhere in the Leicestershire files a piece of paper that proved she HAD ID'ed him. In other words she might get into big trouble with them.

However, as she stated throughout her interview with the Leicestershire police that she had not ID'ed Murat, it begs the question - why did they not challenge her about it? Or, if Leicestershire police were (as you seem to be suggesting) such inept pussycats who were somehow in collusion with the Tapas 9, why would she then have baulked at saying that she did ID Murat in her interview?

Do you see what I am driving at? Probably not!!

Perhaps instead of trying to ridicule individual sentences I have written you might like to have a go at answering some of other points I have raised concerning JT, such as why:

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

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

Ringo

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 24.06.11 15:35

@Ringo wrote:

Do you see what I am driving at? Probably not!!

Perhaps instead of trying to ridicule individual sentences I have written you might like to have a go at answering some of other points I have raised concerning JT, such as why:

1) there is no signed statement from her to say she ID'ed Murat, surely the single most important piece of evidence in the whole case up to that point.
Are you aware that thousands of pages of incriminating stuff has been witheld from the DVD?
2) she was never asked to take part in a repeat ID parade after the first one was botched.
Two words. Hole and Deeper.
3) she was never questioned about her positive ID'ing of Murat by the PJ
Most likely witheld.
4) she was not included in the face-to-face confrontation with Murat that the three others took part in
Did the others SEE Bundleman ?
5) Murat was not taken in for questioning for a full two days after her positively ID'ing him, let alone arrested which would surely be the likely immediate outcome of a positive ID in this country.
Arrested on what? Having a face that looks like an Egg? She never said Bundleman was wearing glasses, Robert does !!
6) Murat was never told by the police that he had been positively ID'ed carrying a child outside Apartment 5A, or asked any questions about it.
I'm not surprised. A waste of Police time.

You might also like to explain why Amaral made no mention of JT appearing with the other 3 Tapas members at the confrontation with Murat in his book It's a waste of time seeing as he knows bundleman never existed (despite having written all about her supposed positive ID of him) and then subesequently in a more recent interview claimed that she had been there after all. This is a major inconsistency, in your eyes only the likes of which you will be hard pressed to find in anything the McCanns have ever said or written. Do me a favour. Doors locked, doors unlocked. Curtains blew open, pulled curtains open.......and on, and on it goes. Don't make me laugh.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 24.06.11 15:56

There are hundreds of pages missing from the files as we know, including

4692 to 4706 - Letter to the Tribunal from lawyers acting for ACPO
17 Processos Vol XVII Pages 4692 - 4706
WITH THANKS TO INES
[url=http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LAWYERS_UK_POLICE.htm]4692 to 4706 [/url]- Letter to the Tribunal from lawyers acting for ACPO

Letter from lawyers representing British police forces requesting that certain documentation from UK police files be withheld from the DVD for public release



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

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 24.06.11 16:17

I did my own count, way before Ines did (his/hers) and I think it is more like 6,000 missing pages as explained below.


From the PJ final report:

“Regarding the enormous scale of this investigation, one must note that it evolved into a main body of 17 volumes, and the further organisation of 55 volumes integrated into 9 appendices. In total, 12,000 pages and other relevant elements were examined and analysed. Besides this, 22 dossiers were also created, consisting of more than 5,000 pages that refer to fanciful and disproven theories/leads.”

From MY physical check on the DVD:

The total number of pages released on the DVD appears to be just over 11,000 pages, divided into these sections:

Processo - 17 volumes (4,713)

Carta Rogatories - 55 volumes divided into 9 appendices (548)

= which is the 12,000 pages according to the PJ final report.

Apensos - 22 dossiers (6,521)

= which must be the 5,000 pages according to the PJ final report.





You can clearly see that the Processo and Carta Rogatories is the section which seems to be where the missing pages are. The Processo and Carta Rogatories is supposed to come to a total of 12,000 pages, but the DVD for that section only contains 5,261.

The Apensos according to the PJ final report, contains approximately 5,000 pages, but the DVD for that section actually contains 6,521. Which is by far the most similar in comparison.



IMO, I think we can clearly see that it is the Processo and Carta Rogatories, in the main body of the process which has the 6,000 missing pages.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Guest on 24.06.11 16:28

Let me ask you a question for a change Ringo.

If Kate and Gerry are as innocent as you would have us believe. Why did the Police need to apply to have so many pages removed from the files?

Innocent people have nothing to hide, right ?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

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

Post by Angelique on 24.06.11 16:28

I remember reading that in Portugal it is a crime to implicate someone who you are not completely sure is involved with/or has some connection to a crime. I think that JT learnt about this after the "JT in the van" episode and decided to do her best at retaining her credibility - and on advice from lawyers.

I thought that this was why JT waffled in her interview with LP. ?

I also think that LP knew that and it was why the Officer “helped" her with producing such a non-sensible interview.

____________________
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 lj on 24.06.11 19:59

@Ringo wrote:I think you have both rather missed the point, with your smiley emoticons.
snipped

Ah, I recognize the empty and utterly misplaced feeling of superiority the McCanns so often show.

You fell for them, fella, just as I knew you would.


ETA: OK some more then, just to make you happy woohooo fan woohooo

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

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

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

lj

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

View user profile

Back to top Go down

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

Post by Me on 25.06.11 10:29

I give up.

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

QUESTION 1

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

QUESTION 2

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

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

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

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

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

She did however say this:

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

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

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

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

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 25.06.11 11:13

I agree with that explanation Me.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Page 4 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