Tanner and Murat. The 13th? Or the 14th?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.02.10 13:03

Inyx wrote:Nope. She doesn't mention anybody's name, except for Bob Small.
After she's talked about the surveillance, there's been a break in the interview.

There's something else though. May 13th 2007 is a Sunday.

4078 “So you were due back on, you were due to have flown back on the Saturday, the fifth?”
Reply “The Saturday, yeah, and we flew back on, well the Thursday, it was actually two weeks from the day, from the third, so, whatever”.
4078 “About the seventeenth?”
Reply “Yeah, about the seventeenth, yeah”.

so I arranged to meet Bob SMALL in a car park at half seven or something at night

And then, I can’t remember exactly what day the surveillance was, but then there was the, the surveillance when, erm, they took me round the back of the van for the surveillance day and I think that was probably, maybe the Tuesday or the Monday of the week before we went back”.

We are making rapid progress.

We now agree that Jane Tanner was spoken to by Bob Small and taken to a police van where it was pre-arranged for Murat to walk by.

We are only disagreeing, really, about whether this very important event took place on Sunday 13 May or Monday 14 May.

If the evidence supports that it was on Monday 14 May rather than Sunday 13 May, I am totally willing to accept that.

by Cath 14.02.10 13:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
Inyx wrote:Nope. She doesn't mention anybody's name, except for Bob Small.
After she's talked about the surveillance, there's been a break in the interview.

There's something else though. May 13th 2007 is a Sunday.

4078 “So you were due back on, you were due to have flown back on the Saturday, the fifth?”
Reply “The Saturday, yeah, and we flew back on, well the Thursday, it was actually two weeks from the day, from the third, so, whatever”.
4078 “About the seventeenth?”
Reply “Yeah, about the seventeenth, yeah”.

so I arranged to meet Bob SMALL in a car park at half seven or something at night

And then, I can’t remember exactly what day the surveillance was, but then there was the, the surveillance when, erm, they took me round the back of the van for the surveillance day and I think that was probably, maybe the Tuesday or the Monday of the week before we went back”.
We are making rapid progress.

We now agree that Jane Tanner was spoken to by Bob Small and taken to a police van where it was pre-arranged for Murat to walk by.

We are only disagreeing, really, about whether this very important event took place on Sunday 13 May or Monday 14 May.

If the evidence supports that it was on Monday 14 May rather than Sunday 13 May, I am totally willing to accept that.

We never disagreed about whether this event took place (btw Monday or Tuesday she's said).
We disagree about the validity of your claim she's identified him on that occasion as the man she's seen on the night of May 3rd.

by vaguely1 14.02.10 13:13

Tony Bennett wrote:
Inyx wrote:Nope. She doesn't mention anybody's name, except for Bob Small.
After she's talked about the surveillance, there's been a break in the interview.

There's something else though. May 13th 2007 is a Sunday.

4078 “So you were due back on, you were due to have flown back on the Saturday, the fifth?”
Reply “The Saturday, yeah, and we flew back on, well the Thursday, it was actually two weeks from the day, from the third, so, whatever”.
4078 “About the seventeenth?”
Reply “Yeah, about the seventeenth, yeah”.

so I arranged to meet Bob SMALL in a car park at half seven or something at night

And then, I can’t remember exactly what day the surveillance was, but then there was the, the surveillance when, erm, they took me round the back of the van for the surveillance day and I think that was probably, maybe the Tuesday or the Monday of the week before we went back”.
We are making rapid progress.

We now agree that Jane Tanner was spoken to by Bob Small and taken to a police van where it was pre-arranged for Murat to walk by.

We are only disagreeing, really, about whether this very important event took place on Sunday 13 May or Monday 14 May.

If the evidence supports that it was on Monday 14 May rather than Sunday 13 May, I am totally willing to accept that.

No disagreement that she was asked to ~~make~~ (edit to read 'take part in') a formal identification. The date is not hugely relevant. The event happened.

The disagreement (on my part) is on taking a sentence in a book and using it as a factual analysis of what was said during that event.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.02.10 13:26

vaguely1 wrote:No disagreement that she was asked to ~~make~~ (edit to read 'take part in') a formal identification. The date is not hugely relevant. The event happened.

The disagreement (on my part) is on taking a sentence in a book and using it as a factual analysis of what was said during that event.

Right, can we move on to discussing this disturbing evidence, which comes from an article by Paulo Reis. Is this fabrication? Or the truth?

QUOTE

In the early afternoon of Sunday 13 May 2007, Jane Tanner spoke to what she called ‘some of the people that Kate and Gerry brought in’. It has since been established that these were almost certainly two men, Kenneth Farrow and Michael Keenan, from a group called ‘Control Risks Group’ (CRG), a private intelligence agency which appeared to have no track record whatsoever of looking for missing children and seemed to operate covertly and very much ‘in the shadows’. They had arrived at Faro Airport on the flight from Gatwick that very morning. Some CRG staff may already have been in Praia da Luz before that flight. Mr Farrow is the ex-head of the Economic Crime Unit in the City of London Police and Mr Keenan had been a Superintendent from the Metropolitan Police with specialist fraud and investigative experience. These were just two out of a vast collection of professionals that seemed to descend on Praia da Luz in the days immediately following Madeleine going missing: public relations experts, British police officers, counsellors and advisers, Consular staff and private investigators. It is hard to know how some of them could realistically have been flown in to help search for Madeleine. Some of these people seemed much more used to crisis management than to helping to find a missing child.

Returning to Control Risks Group, the question of who actually asked them to become involved and who agreed to pay for their services has never been made clear. Reports suggest that they were a top-level ‘crisis management team’ who had been brought in by media advisers Bell Pottinger on behalf of Mark Warner. But what seems clear is that their initial mission was to advise Jane Tanner in connection with her identification of the abductor.

It seems probable that she told CRG, as she had earlier told an officer from Leicestershire Police (probably Bob Small), that she could identify the ‘abductor’ if she were to see him in profile and in context.

It seems that no sooner had Jane Tanner finished speaking to the two top CRG men than she took a telephone call from Bob Small, a senior Leicestershire Police Officer already in Praia da Luz helping the Portuguese Police. He told her that the police wanted to see her. He actually made a mistake and said ‘the Spanish police’. It is likely, by that time, that covert plans had already been made to induce Mr Murat to walk across the top of the road, north of Apartment 5A, where Miss Tanner claimed to have seen the ‘abductor’. This situation was thus the precise context in which she believed she could make an identification.

UNQUOTE

by Cath 14.02.10 13:29

Right, can we move on to discussing this disturbing evidence, which comes from an article by Paulo Reis. Is this fabrication? Or the truth?

Nope. An article is no evidence. This article in particular is speculation.

by vaguely1 14.02.10 13:34

How did we move on from your assertion that Jane Tanner identified Murat (based on what you have read in a book) .....without establishing whether what is written in the book actually happened?......what is the rush to move on?

As for the new article above, even the author doesn't know if it's factual or not -

by **Tony Bennett** 14.02.10 13:34

Inyx wrote:Right, can we move on to discussing this disturbing evidence, which comes from an article by Paulo Reis. Is this fabrication? Or the truth?

Nope. An article is no evidence. This article in particular is speculation.

I believe it to be a well-sourced, accurate article.

by vaguely1 14.02.10 13:35

Tony Bennett wrote:
Inyx wrote:Right, can we move on to discussing this disturbing evidence, which comes from an article by Paulo Reis. Is this fabrication? Or the truth?

Nope. An article is no evidence. This article in particular is speculation.
I believe it to be a well-sourced, accurate article.

Which contains several comments by the author that the author is both speculating, and making links that he is unsure about.

by vaguely1 14.02.10 13:36

The main question that needs answering, in relation to the original purpose of this thread is:

Is there independent and official proof showing that Jane Tanner positive identified Murat as the man seen carrying a child on night of 3rd May.

Without that being answered we have made no progress whatsoever.

by bunny 14.02.10 14:02

The only reliable source of information is the files, surely?

Therefore, Tanner did not identify Murat!

To put anything else into the public domain saying otherwise is libellous IMO.

by vaguely1 14.02.10 14:06

bunny wrote:The only reliable source of information is the files, surely?

Therefore, Tanner did not identify Murat!

To put anything else into the public domain saying otherwise is libellous IMO.

Our only reliable source....of course there is a chance that all this is verifiable in other documentation as yet unreleased.

But at the moment - no, nothing to document this supposed identification.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.02.10 14:43

vaguely1 wrote:
bunny wrote:The only reliable source of information is the files, surely?
Therefore, Tanner did not identify Murat! To put anything else into the public domain saying otherwise is libellous IMO.
Our only reliable source...of course there is a chance that all this is verifiable in other documentation as yet unreleased.

But at the moment - no, nothing to document this supposed identification.

Well, let's have a look at something that IS in the files - AND in our new book coming out in a couple of weeks - the statement of Inspector Tavares de Almeida.

Here's an extract from his report. I've bolded the relevant parts for our purposes:

QUOTE

The evidence of Jane Tanner:

Continuing with our analysis of information offered to us, one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner, apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house. [He was later made an ‘arguido’ (suspect)].

This information directed and occupied our work for a long time. This may be an example of how information that is not correct may not only delay the investigation but could even have led to losing the little girl. Jane Tanner insisted on the truthfulness of her account. This led to certain scenarios being developed. But these scenarios were not sustained in reality despite long and intense work being carried out on that arguido [Murat].

There was a discrepancy [about the moment Jane Tanner allegedly saw an abductor] between the statements of Dr Gerald McCann and Jane Tanner. They claimed to have passed each other at only two or three metres’ distance [7 to 10 feet], yet failed to see each other.

How could they position themselves as both being together in quite a confined space, yet both fail to see each other walking by; or, more correctly, one sees the other but the other doesn’t see her? Even the exact location where they supposedly crossed each other’s paths is not very well defined by both.

The precise moment when Jane Tanner chose to make her statement about what she had ‘seen’ and the explanation for choosing that moment, is unreal. That is to say: it is not easy to accept that any witness (from the group), on seeing someone with a child in their arms walking away from the McCanns’ apartment, didn’t act and speak immediately. Then there is her description of the abductor being altered, or ‘perfected’. These reasons mean there is little credibilty in what she says.

UNQUOTE

I hope it's not 'libellous' to post that.

by vaguely1 14.02.10 14:49

one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner,
apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She
said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the
location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house.

I'm not understanding whether this passage refers to her sighting on the night, or on her part in the identification. Is this clarified anywhere?

by **Tony Bennett** 14.02.10 15:05

vaguely1 wrote:one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner,
apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She
said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the
location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house.

I'm not understanding whether this passage refers to her sighting on the night, or on her part in the identification. Is this clarified anywhere?

Unquestionably, this refers to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting on the night of 3 May. It comes in a passage of Tavares de Almeida's report which deals with the making an 'arguido' of Robert Murat.

by bunny 14.02.10 15:07

No not unquestionably at all!

Could you please provide proof? as yet again it does not say that Tanner identified Murat.......

by vaguely1 14.02.10 15:12

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner,
apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She
said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the
location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house.

I'm not understanding whether this passage refers to her sighting on the night, or on her part in the identification. Is this clarified anywhere?
Unquestionably, this refers to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting on the night of 3 May. It comes in a passage of Tavares de Almeida's report which deals with the making an 'arguido' of Robert Murat.

That's how I read it. That it refers to the sighting on the night. In her statement does she say "towards Robert Murat's house", or does she give a direction?

It doesn't mention an identification of Murat as a suspect.

by Cath 14.02.10 15:14

one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner, apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house.

That's not what she's said. She didn't even know him or where he lived when she's made her statement.
It's Almeida's interpretation. His words, not hers.
And it refers to the person she's seen on the night of May 3.

ETA SNAP Vaguely, you've beaten me to it.

by vaguely1 14.02.10 15:18

I have an uncomfortable feeling that there is a bit of back covering here on the part of the officers - and that these passages are text owe more to them explaining away their (wrongful?) interest in Murat - 'blame it one the mad English woman' than they do to finding out what actually went on that night.

I hope I'm wrong.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.02.10 15:21

vaguely1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner,
apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She
said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the
location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house.

I'm not understanding whether this passage refers to her sighting on the night, or on her part in the identification. Is this clarified anywhere?
Unquestionably, this refers to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting on the night of 3 May. It comes in a passage of Tavares de Almeida's report which deals with the making an 'arguido' of Robert Murat.

That's how I read it. That it refers to the sighting on the night. In her statement does she say "towards Robert Murat's house", or does she give a direction?

It doesn't mention an identification of Murat as a suspect.

The identification of Murat as the prime suspect by Jane Tanner on the evenin g of Sunday 13 may came after a series of events leading up to Murat being seen by Tanner walking past the police van with the blackened windows.

It's a pivotal event that to some extent, I admit, is shrouded and veiled in a very considerable degree of mystery.

I've shed what light on it that I can find.

I hope others can shed more light.

by vaguely1 14.02.10 15:26

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:one of the group’s members, Jane Tanner,
apparently became an important witness, due to what she told us. She
said she saw someone crossing the street at dinner time from the
location of the McCanns’ apartment towards Robert Murat’s house.

I'm not understanding whether this passage refers to her sighting on the night, or on her part in the identification. Is this clarified anywhere?
Unquestionably, this refers to Jane Tanner's claimed sighting on the night of 3 May. It comes in a passage of Tavares de Almeida's report which deals with the making an 'arguido' of Robert Murat.

That's how I read it. That it refers to the sighting on the night. In her statement does she say "towards Robert Murat's house", or does she give a direction?

It doesn't mention an identification of Murat as a suspect.
The identification of Murat as the prime suspect by Jane Tanner on the evenin g of Sunday 13 may came after a series of events leading up to Murat being seen by Tanner walking past the police van with the blackened windows.

It's a pivotal event that to some extent, I admit, is shrouded and veiled in a very considerable degree of mystery.

I've shed what light on it that I can find.

I hope others can shed more light.

It's not so much shrouded in mystery, as non-existent, at the moment. I can only see light being shed on the event if/when further files are released by the PJ.

by **Tony Bennett** 14.02.10 15:27

vaguely1 wrote:I have an uncomfortable feeling that there is a bit of back covering here on the part of the officers - and that these passages are text owe more to them explaining away their (wrongful?) interest in Murat - 'blame it one the mad English woman' than they do to finding out what actually went on that night.

I hope I'm wrong.

The active invovlement of Bob Small from Leicestershire Police and the two top staff from Control Risks Group with Jane Tanner before the identification of Murat is what may be crucial. The account by Paulo Reis appears to be well-sourced and is perfectly in line with the subsequent arrest of Murat. Just because Paulo Reis is a journalist doesn't mean he is wrong; he appears to have had a very well-informed source.

Remember that a full six months later, Jane Tanner was still only able to say: "It might have been Murat I saw, it might not". Once again, that is in perfect harmony with the account that she did indeed positively identify him on 13 May 2007.

by **Jill Havern** 14.02.10 15:27

This is the report by Tavares de Almeida I think if there's some people who haven't seen it

http://themaddiecasefiles.com/post422.html#p422

by vaguely1 14.02.10 15:38

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:I have an uncomfortable feeling that there is a bit of back covering here on the part of the officers - and that these passages are text owe more to them explaining away their (wrongful?) interest in Murat - 'blame it one the mad English woman' than they do to finding out what actually went on that night.

I hope I'm wrong.
The active invovlement of Bob Small from Leicestershire Police and the two top staff from Control Risks Group with Jane Tanner before the identification of Murat is what may be crucial. The account by Paulo Reis appears to be well-sourced and is perfectly in line with the subsequent arrest of Murat. Just because Paulo Reis is a journalist doesn't mean he is wrong; he appears to have had a very well-informed source.

Remember that a full six months later, Jane Tanner was still only able to say: "It might have been Murat I saw, it might not". Once again, that is in perfect harmony with the account that she did indeed positively identify him on 13 May 2007.

It seems she is saying 'I don't know' - that she is unable to either rule him in or out - this doesn't seem to be in harmony with what Amaral has written about her being certain that it was Murat.

Jane Tanner either did, or didn't identify Murat certainty. The PJ may or may not have had a translator present in the van. The point is - we don't know.

by Cath 14.02.10 15:47

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:I have an uncomfortable feeling that there is a bit of back covering here on the part of the officers - and that these passages are text owe more to them explaining away their (wrongful?) interest in Murat - 'blame it one the mad English woman' than they do to finding out what actually went on that night.

I hope I'm wrong.
The active invovlement of Bob Small from Leicestershire Police and the two top staff from Control Risks Group with Jane Tanner before the identification of Murat is what may be crucial. The account by Paulo Reis appears to be well-sourced and is perfectly in line with the subsequent arrest of Murat. Just because Paulo Reis is a journalist doesn't mean he is wrong; he appears to have had a very well-informed source.

Remember that a full six months later, Jane Tanner was still only able to say: "It might have been Murat I saw, it might not". Once again, that is in perfect harmony with the account that she did indeed positively identify him on 13 May 2007.

How often do we have to repeat it. There's no proof she's identified Murat as the man she's seen on the night of May 3rd.
Even if she's had contact with people of CRG how would that be crucial?

by bunny 14.02.10 15:52

Straws, clutching at.

Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Tanner and Murat. The 13th? Or the 14th?

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

The events that led up to Jane Tanner identifying Robert Murat as the abductor

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Well-sourced

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Tanner points the finger at Murat - but 'has ltttle credibility'

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Tanner on 3 May

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

More light needed to illuminate a dark area

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

What did Bob Small and Control Risks group say to Jane Tanner before the evening of 13 May?

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Re: Especially for 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others who don't think Jane Tanner identified Murat on 13 May 2007

Log in for more topics