Gerry / Murat - No comment

Cristobell wrote:

Hicks wrote:

Cristobell wrote:Thank to Johanna for clarifying the situation regarding the flight booking.  I actually find commentators who admit an error and go out of their way to correct it, to be the most honest.  Its those who believe they are infallible that worry me.

As I said earlier, I don't think it is here nor there.  Everything doesn't revolve around Kate and Gerry, and RM was merely getting on with this life and responding to the anxious call from his girlfriend.

It is worth nothing that Robert Murat was introduced as a suspect on 8th May via an anonymous phone call.  He was already being lined up as a suspect by someone.  The initial phone came from a woman speaking fluent Portuguese and alleging that he was watching 'suspect material' on the internet, and that there may be 'gang' activity. 

RM was, on paper, the ideal patsy.  Separated from his wife and daughter, living with his mother, and easy access and escape from 5A.  When Gerry gave that ambiguous comment, he knew full well who Robert Murat was, as Hobs tells us, people will go out of their way to avoid lying directly.  We know from the off Kate and Gerry were assisted by CEOP, whose speciality was profiling and tracking down those who watch pornography online.  The scenario being that RM, driven insane by the child pornography he was watching online acted on it and stole a child from a holiday apartment.

Who was the woman who gave the anonymous tip off?  Did anyone ever bother to track her down?  Someone was pointing the finger at RM, but it took a further nudge from Lori Campbell (of the Sun) to get the PJ to follow the correct lead. 

Regarding the incident of Jane Tanner naming Robert Murat as a suspect. Jane Tanner was asked to take part in a covert exercise which involved hiding in a van and watching RM walk past to see if she could recognise him.  It was organised by British detective Ron Small (?).  Jane unequivocally identified RM as the man she saw.  She has since denied this and unfortunately it is not recorded in the files that were released (they held many back), but it should be remembered that following Robert Murat's arrest on 15th May, two further members of the Tapas gang came forward to say they saw RM on the night.

I don't think it could be any clearer, that the McCanns and their friends were fitting RM up, and if they could have got away with it, they would have.

Cristobel, you may well be correct in your assumption that Murat was just an innocent fitted up by the McCann's and they're friends, however, the material provided by Johanna Renstein proves nothing other that Murat booked his flight on the 30th instead of the 1st May.
The emails from his girlfriend also prove nothing. Michaela Walczuch seems to have lied about where she was on the night Madeleine disappeared. She said she has attended a Jehovah's Witness meeting, yet others claimed she was not there as she had been thrown out of the church a year back due to her 'unconventional lifestyle'. Add to this not one, but two potential witnesses who came forward to say they had seen Michaela with a child resembling Madeleine.

Murat definitely denied the call he made to Malinka on the 3rd, that is until he was shown the proof.... then he remembered.

If you believe that, then you have totally discarded the evidence of the dogs.

From my experience with this case, any theory that does not take account of the dogs' alerts in the apartment and car, are not worth pursuing.

Hi Christobel, I did not write that I believed the two potential witnesses, or that I disregarded the dogs evidence. I was merely pointing out that Murat's girlfriend did not have an alibi for the evening of the 3rd May. Also that she was implicated in the early investigation. She was supposedly seen with A child 'resembling' Madeleine. That statement could be taken to mean she was with another child who was the same age, same colouring. Murat himself said that Madeleine looked like his own daughter. I was trying to look at that particular statement( about Murat's girlfriend) from all angles.

BlueBag wrote:More from Kate about Murat being made arguido:

"We met up with Alan Pike to talk through how we were feeling. Strange, was the short answer: for a brief period I found myself feeling positive, almost excited, that we might be nearer to finding Madeleine. That evaporated when we went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona. They told us she'd seen Robert Murat's  outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky.   As Fiona and David speculated, I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it. Within the space of a couple of hours I went from feeling cautiously optimistic to very, very low. Another long, dark night followed. 

So at least 11 days (Murat was made arguido on 14th) after Madeleine disappeared David and Fiona decide to tell Kate that actually he was hanging around 5a that night....

It beggars belief.

BlueBag - Not only that. Murat wasn't noticed by anyone outside apartment 5A prior to MM's disappearance, so the tapas three must have meant he was around after 10 pm. If Murat had taken MM, why on earth would he be outside the apartment after 10 pm at all?

Hicks - I think Murat's daughter was in the Uk at the time

Woofer wrote:I don`t have a copy of Kate`s book, but didn`t someone say that she described RM as very sweaty and looking like the type of person that was bullied as a child ?  If so, she was trying to paint him as a `disturbed` type in her book.  Much like her spiteful references to tweedledum and tweedledee.  We can judge instantly who is the bully IMO.

I actually have a (now) much thumbed hardback copy of Kate's book Woofer - it was destined for recycling   

I've had to rethink my first sentence here Woofer, will have to send it to you by pm, for fear of setting cats among pigeons, lol.  Suffice to say, it is a compelling read, and highly recommended to those studying the psychopath course!

I would judge Kate to have been among those bullies she refers to.  Anyone familiar with the 'Mean Girls' film genre, will instantly recognise 'Hot Lips Healy', I am sure.  The more cultured among us, can compare to Jane Austen*.  Many of us will have encountered HLH's during our school days, and bizarrely even in adult work places, some girls, and indeed boys, simply never grow out of it.  Happily, some of us can spot their type in a nanosecond and know their weak spots      





I am afraid I have to agree with Mark Twain 'Everytime I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shinbone!'  

BlueBag wrote:More from Kate about Murat being made arguido:

"We met up with Alan Pike to talk through how we were feeling. Strange, was the short answer: for a brief period I found myself feeling positive, almost excited, that we might be nearer to finding Madeleine. That evaporated when we went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona. They told us she'd seen Robert Murat's  outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky.   As Fiona and David speculated, I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it. Within the space of a couple of hours I went from feeling cautiously optimistic to very, very low. Another long, dark night followed. 

So at least 11 days (Murat was made arguido on 14th) after Madeleine disappeared David and Fiona decide to tell Kate that actually he was hanging around 5a that night....

It beggars belief.

You've missed out a sentence:

".....we went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona told us she'd seen Robert Murat outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky. It had belatedly begun to dawn on me that it probably wouldn't be good news at all if someone living as close as Robert Murat was involved. As Fiona and David speculated I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it.

Why would the proximity of where Robert Murat lived necessarily be a factor in whether or not there would be 'good news'? Good news meaning a good outcome in terms of finding Madeleine alive and well.....? Or 'good news' meaning something else...?

Making Robert Murat a suspect put paid to all the silly 'sightings' from around the globe, of course. 

Statistically, when a child mysteriously disappears, it often has something to do with family, friends or someone known to the child, rather than a completely random stranger. Having a local man who knows the area and many people well as a suspect places the focus of the investigation very much in the close proximity of the Ocean Club. Rather than in a far-flung destination anywhere in the word.

It strikes me that there might was some division in the TM camp over Murat being made a suspect. While some of their Tapas friends appear to have wanted to put him firmly in the frame, I sense that there was uneasiness over this decision from the McCanns themselves. 

As evidenced by Gerry's peculiar remark about treating suspects as 'we wish' to be treated. And by what Kate has written in her book.

On page 157: Kate writes: "Nothing we were told by the police indicated that Murat took Madeleine or was in any way involved in her abduction."

This suggests to me that Murat did have some involvement - even if it (some of the involvement) was unwitting or not fully realized. (For instance, allowing access to empty property by providing keys without necessarily asking too many questions. Apart from anything, why did he lie so much about where he was/what he was doing around the time of Madeleine's disappearance?

If he did book his flight at the last minute on the night of 30th April, that would seem to suggest that *something* unexpected or unplanned happened prior to midnight on the 30th April? Some extra help or assistance or something was needed.

Or was Murat a deliberate patsy?

"As Fiona and David speculated I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it."

Why? Because he was 'too close'? 

I wonder why Jane Tanner wanted him in the frame, if what I have read on here is true? Kate states very clearly in her book that Jane Tanner never made a positive identification of Robert Murat. 

"It was perhaps telling that Jane had not been required to sign anything, since the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary allowed claims to be made later that she had identified Murat as the man she had seen on 3 May. This was completely untrue."

Hmm - I wonder what all that was about?!

j.rob wrote:

BlueBag wrote:More from Kate about Murat being made arguido:

"We met up with Alan Pike to talk through how we were feeling. Strange, was the short answer: for a brief period I found myself feeling positive, almost excited, that we might be nearer to finding Madeleine. That evaporated when we went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona. They told us she'd seen Robert Murat's  outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky.   As Fiona and David speculated, I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it. Within the space of a couple of hours I went from feeling cautiously optimistic to very, very low. Another long, dark night followed. 

So at least 11 days (Murat was made arguido on 14th) after Madeleine disappeared David and Fiona decide to tell Kate that actually he was hanging around 5a that night....

It beggars belief.

You've missed out a sentence:

".....we went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona told us she'd seen Robert Murat outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky. It had belatedly begun to dawn on me that it probably wouldn't be good news at all if someone living as close as Robert Murat was involved. As Fiona and David speculated I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it.

Why would the proximity of where Robert Murat lived necessarily be a factor in whether or not there would be 'good news'? Good news meaning a good outcome in terms of finding Madeleine alive and well.....? Or 'good news' meaning something else...?

Making Robert Murat a suspect put paid to all the silly 'sightings' from around the globe, of course. 

Statistically, when a child mysteriously disappears, it often has something to do with family, friends or someone known to the child, rather than a completely random stranger. Having a local man who knows the area and many people well as a suspect places the focus of the investigation very much in the close proximity of the Ocean Club. Rather than in a far-flung destination anywhere in the word.

It strikes me that there might was some division in the TM camp over Murat being made a suspect. While some of their Tapas friends appear to have wanted to put him firmly in the frame, I sense that there was uneasiness over this decision from the McCanns themselves. 

As evidenced by Gerry's peculiar remark about treating suspects as 'we wish' to be treated. And by what Kate has written in her book.

On page 157: Kate writes: "Nothing we were told by the police indicated that Murat took Madeleine or was in any way involved in her abduction."

This suggests to me that Murat did have some involvement - even if it (some of the involvement) was unwitting or not fully realized. (For instance, allowing access to empty property by providing keys without necessarily asking too many questions. Apart from anything, why did he lie so much about where he was/what he was doing around the time of Madeleine's disappearance?

If he did book his flight at the last minute on the night of 30th April, that would seem to suggest that *something* unexpected or unplanned happened prior to midnight on the 30th April? Some extra help or assistance or something was needed.

Or was Murat a deliberate patsy?

"As Fiona and David speculated I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it."

Why? Because he was 'too close'? 

I wonder why Jane Tanner wanted him in the frame, if what I have read on here is true? Kate states very clearly in her book that Jane Tanner never made a positive identification of Robert Murat. 

"It was perhaps telling that Jane had not been required to sign anything, since the absence of documentary evidence to the contrary allowed claims to be made later that she had identified Murat as the man she had seen on 3 May. This was completely untrue."

Hmm - I wonder what all that was about?!

Unfortunately, the covert police operation Jane was involved in never made it to the files released online, maybe because it was British led.  However, it should be noted that Robert Murat was picked up the next day.

Cristobell wrote:
Unfortunately, the covert police operation Jane was involved in never made it to the files released online, maybe because it was British led.  However, it should be noted that Robert Murat was picked up the next day.

The above quote is regarding JT's identification of Robert Murat as she man she saw at 9.15 pm on 3rd May which Kate McCann denies that JT said in her book.

Reply: 

And I suppose from that we can deduce that what Jane Tanner did not say was that she was certain it was not Murat that she had seen crossing that road at 9.15 pm. 

In fact, Jane drew up an efit later on that, as we all know, looked nothing like Murat. I would expect her to have told the McCanns, with some urgency, 'I think they've got the wrong man, he's nothing like the man I saw' But I have never heard the McCanns say anything like this, which you might expect them to have done, in order to find the right suspect, and therefore their daughter, as soon as possible.

Kate gives a description of it in her book, which may or may not be accurate, of course!

"It later transpired that on the evening before Murat was taken in for questioning, the police had summoned Jane to a mysterious rendezvous in the car park next to the Millennium area, refusing to say why they wanted to see her and insisting she told no one. Their behaviour seemed so sinister that she was quite scared.

"Russell walked her to the car park. On the way they passed Casa Liliana, just as Murat was returning to his villa in his van. He stopped to speak to Russ, whom he must have seen around, eager to tell him what he and his mother were doing to help find Madeleine. Jane, who had never met Murat, was not taking much notice. She was just anxious to get going and for this cloak-and-dagger meeting to be over with. When Russell managed to extricate them, Murat said he needed to be off, too, mentioning that the police wanted to see him."

Ha! 

Even if Jane had not known or met Murat before the start of the ill-fated 'holiday', surely she would have become aware of his role as interpreter? The evening before Murat was questioned would be 13th May, I do believe. Given that Murat acted as translator for quite a few people and both him and his mother were quite active in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance - as evidenced by what Kate has written above, it seems highly improbable that Jane had never met Murat and wasn't taking much notice of him. 

Based on the above I strongly suspect that by the time Murat was taken in for questioning Jane had both met him and was also taking a great deal of notice of him and what he was doing! And why would Russell need to "extricate them?!" Bit of a Freudian slip, perhaps! Surely Kate meant Russell wanted to extricate himself from them! And if Russell was obliged to "extricate himself" from Murat and his mother, it seems unlikely that Murat would have told Russell that 'he needed to be off, too'.

Seems that perhaps quite a few potential suspects had a need to extricate not only themselves but other people too! And they all needed to be off. 

Off the hook?

What I find amusing is how Kate appears to claim that Russell only met Murat for the first time when he was walking Jane to the car park to watch the 'identity parade' (because Jane was, apparently, 'quite scared' of the sinister behaviour of the Portuguese police) on the evening before Murat was taken in for questioning (which would have been 14th May). Interesting timing! A little tete a tete between some of the Tapas and Murat and his mother, perhaps?

And Kate claims that it was only when Murat appeared on the TV news on 15th May that Russell pointed him out as 'the man who had stopped to talk to them outside Casa Liliana the previous evening.' 

And while Jane "was concerned that he might have been picked up purely as a result of the amateurish identity parade in which she had unwittingly participated", "like Fiona, Russell declared he'd seen Murat outside apartment 5A on the evening of 3 May, as, they discovered, had Rachael."

Why didn't Russell recognize Murat as the man he had seen outside apartment 5A on the fateful evening the previous day when Murat and his mother had stopped to talk to him? And apparently Murat was 'so eager to tell him what he and his mother were doing to help find Madeleine' that Russell had been forced to "extricate" - not himself but them!

I like it!  

Kate also gives a curious description of how Jane described the van that she got into to make the identification. It was disguised to resemble a refrigerated delivery vehicle ("Like Sooty's van," she told us). Kate also writes how Jane described the identity parade as "amateurish."

The insinuations are clear: the Portuguese police are bumbling. Like "Tweedledum and Tweedledee" - as Kate describes the first two policemen on who arrived on the scene on Thursday evening. So, we have Tweedledum and Tweedledee in a Sooty van then, do we?!

I wonder what impression Kate and Jane made on the Portuguese police?

 

suzyjohnson wrote:

Cristobell wrote:
Unfortunately, the covert police operation Jane was involved in never made it to the files released online, maybe because it was British led.  However, it should be noted that Robert Murat was picked up the next day.

The above quote is regarding JT's identification of Robert Murat as she man she saw at 9.15 pm on 3rd May which Kate McCann denies that JT said in her book.

Reply: 

And I suppose from that we can deduce that what Jane Tanner did not say was that she was certain it was not Murat that she had seen crossing that road at 9.15 pm. 

In fact, Jane drew up an efit later on that, as we all know, looked nothing like Murat. I would expect her to have told the McCanns, with some urgency, 'I think they've got the wrong man, he's nothing like the man I saw' But I have never heard the McCanns say anything like this, which you might expect them to have done, in order to find the right suspect, and therefore their daughter, as soon as possible.

According to Kate in her  book the covert police operation was led by the PJ.

"From the car park Jane was driven round to a nearby street, where a PJ officer asked her to get into the back of a van......"

"Jane phoned DCS Bob Small. She told him she'd encountered Murat before her rendezvous with the PJ......"

Cristobell wrote:

Woofer wrote:I don`t have a copy of Kate`s book, but didn`t someone say that she described RM as very sweaty and looking like the type of person that was bullied as a child ?  If so, she was trying to paint him as a `disturbed` type in her book.  Much like her spiteful references to tweedledum and tweedledee.  We can judge instantly who is the bully IMO.

I actually have a (now) much thumbed hardback copy of Kate's book Woofer - it was destined for recycling   

I've had to rethink my first sentence here Woofer, will have to send it to you by pm, for fear of setting cats among pigeons, lol.  Suffice to say, it is a compelling read, and highly recommended to those studying the psychopath course!

I would judge Kate to have been among those bullies she refers to.  Anyone familiar with the 'Mean Girls' film genre, will instantly recognise 'Hot Lips Healy', I am sure.  The more cultured among us, can compare to Jane Austen*.  Many of us will have encountered HLH's during our school days, and bizarrely even in adult work places, some girls, and indeed boys, simply never grow out of it.  Happily, some of us can spot their type in a nanosecond and know their weak spots      





I am afraid I have to agree with Mark Twain 'Everytime I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shinbone!'  

That derogatory remark about Murat was made by journalist Bridget O'Donnell in an article published months after Madeleine 'disappeared'. Bridget is married to Jeremy Wilkins, the TV producer (Big Fat Gypsy Wedding). 

Kate writes about the article in her book:

"In a newspaper article by Bridget published several months down the line, she describes how the officer wrote down their answers to his questions on a loose piece of paper rather than in a notebook."

Tut, tut - too much sardine munching no doubt, Bridget!

"Of greater concern was his reaction to a photocopied picture of a little girl he noticed lying on their table. He asked them if she was their daughter. Bridget explained that this was Madeleine, the little girl they were supposed to be looking for. 'My heart sunk for the McCanns' she remembered."

In the article Bridget also writes that the Portuguese police didn't bother to contact them after they returned home. Which is untrue. Detective Amaral sent an urgent fax to Leics police on 7th May with a list of questions he wanted Jez to answer, as well as a sketch of where he bumped into Gerry. 

So this was a bit of a porkie then, wasn't it?

"The British police came round shortly after our return. Jes was pleased to give them a statement. The Portuguese police had never asked."


As far as I can see the article appeared in December 2007. A bit of damage limitation going on it would seem?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

j.rob wrote:Even if Jane had not known or met Murat before the start of the ill-fated 'holiday', surely she would have become aware of his role as interpreter?

Exactly right.

She knew precisely who he was, and about all the translating he'd been doing with the Tapas 9.

She knew exactly what she was doing by identifying him.

The Tapas 3 (FP, RO and RO'B) knew exactly what they were doing by making up stories about seeing Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May.

IMO she had clearly been briefed in advance to identify Murat, by any or perhaps all of Det Chief Supt Bob Small of Leics Police/CEOP/MI5/Control Risks Group/Special Branch/other branches of the British security services.

Crikey, Mr B! I had not thought of that. Hmmmm....

Egg-face man whom JT saw looks nothing like Murat, yet Jane later identified Murat as the man she saw carrying a child.

How bizzare is that that Tannerman - slim, loose style clothing, hippy hair, not wearing glasses - could be confused with Murat - stocky, taller, short hair, wear glasses, tuck-in shirt. The image of Tannerman and Murat is like chalk and cheese.

We went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona told us she'd seen Robert Murat outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky. It had belatedly begun to dawn on me that it probably wouldn't be good news at all if someone living as close as Robert Murat was involved. As Fiona and David speculated I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it.

If the Paynes knew Madeleine was dead and the Mcs behind it, why were they speculating about Murat and what about that kate did not want to hear?

Tony Bennett wrote:

j.rob wrote:Even if Jane had not known or met Murat before the start of the ill-fated 'holiday', surely she would have become aware of his role as interpreter?

Exactly right.

She knew precisely who he was, and about all the translating he'd been doing with the Tapas 9.

She knew exactly what she was doing by identifying him.

The Tapas 3 (FP, RO and RO'B) knew exactly what they were doing by making up stories about seeing Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May.

IMO she had clearly been briefed in advance to identify Murat, by any or perhaps all of Det Chief Supt Bob Small of Leics Police/CEOP/MI5/Control Risks Group/Special Branch/other branches of the British security services.

It's a puzzle.

If they were stitching him up (and I'm not saying they were not), where was that going without any evidence?

j.rob wrote:

Cristobell wrote:

Woofer wrote:I don`t have a copy of Kate`s book, but didn`t someone say that she described RM as very sweaty and looking like the type of person that was bullied as a child ?  If so, she was trying to paint him as a `disturbed` type in her book.  Much like her spiteful references to tweedledum and tweedledee.  We can judge instantly who is the bully IMO.

I actually have a (now) much thumbed hardback copy of Kate's book Woofer - it was destined for recycling   

I've had to rethink my first sentence here Woofer, will have to send it to you by pm, for fear of setting cats among pigeons, lol.  Suffice to say, it is a compelling read, and highly recommended to those studying the psychopath course!

I would judge Kate to have been among those bullies she refers to.  Anyone familiar with the 'Mean Girls' film genre, will instantly recognise 'Hot Lips Healy', I am sure.  The more cultured among us, can compare to Jane Austen*.  Many of us will have encountered HLH's during our school days, and bizarrely even in adult work places, some girls, and indeed boys, simply never grow out of it.  Happily, some of us can spot their type in a nanosecond and know their weak spots      





I am afraid I have to agree with Mark Twain 'Everytime I read Pride and Prejudice, I want to dig her up and hit her over the skull with her own shinbone!'  

That derogatory remark about Murat was made by journalist Bridget O'Donnell in an article published months after Madeleine 'disappeared'. Bridget is married to Jeremy Wilkins, the TV producer (Big Fat Gypsy Wedding). 

Kate writes about the article in her book:

"In a newspaper article by Bridget published several months down the line, she describes how the officer wrote down their answers to his questions on a loose piece of paper rather than in a notebook."

Tut, tut - too much sardine munching no doubt, Bridget!

"Of greater concern was his reaction to a photocopied picture of a little girl he noticed lying on their table. He asked them if she was their daughter. Bridget explained that this was Madeleine, the little girl they were supposed to be looking for. 'My heart sunk for the McCanns' she remembered."

In the article Bridget also writes that the Portuguese police didn't bother to contact them after they returned home. Which is untrue. Detective Amaral sent an urgent fax to Leics police on 7th May with a list of questions he wanted Jez to answer, as well as a sketch of where he bumped into Gerry. 

So this was a bit of a porkie then, wasn't it?

"The British police came round shortly after our return. Jes was pleased to give them a statement. The Portuguese police had never asked."


As far as I can see the article appeared in December 2007. A bit of damage limitation going on it would seem?

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

You`re right j.rob - thanks for the correction.   It`s not like Bridget to be so unkind is it.

aiyoyo wrote:Egg-face man whom JT saw looks nothing like Murat, yet Jane later identified Murat as the man she saw carrying a child.  

How bizzare is that that Tannerman - slim, loose style clothing, hippy hair, not wearing glasses - could be confused with Murat -  stocky, taller, short hair, wear glasses, tuck-in shirt.  The image of Tannerman and Murat is like chalk and cheese.

@ aiyoyo

Exactly right - but the story gets even more bizarre later on.

Incidentally, Dr Kate McCann spends a very convoluted 4 pages of her book, 'madeleine' (pp. 133-7 for the record), trying to explain and justify Jane's bizarre decision to identify Murat. It is almost excruciating to read, because of course such a bizarre identification is impossible to explain. In trying to find the passage in the book just now, I looked in the index under 'Jane Tanner'. Strangely, all the other page references in the book to Jane Tanner are given there, but not this one - I had to flick through the book for some time to find the long passage.

Events developed rapidly after the 'summit' meeting on 13 November 2007 between Murat and his lawyer and Brian Kennedy's lawyer, Freemason Edward Smethurst.

Bit by bit, Jane Tanner resiled from her identifcation of Murat.

Bit by bit, statements injected into the British press by 'a source close to the McCanns' began suggesting that the Tapas 3 (RO, FP & RO'B) - who had claimed that Murat had been seen around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May - were 'mistaken'. Maybe they had confused him with Angus Symington, or even David Payne, who were said to 'look like Murat'. Helpfully, the 'source close to the McCanns' provided images of Symington and Payne that bore a superficial resemblance to Murat.

In late 2007, Melissa Little, who had drawn the Tannerman sketch published in October 2007, was asked and paid by Brian Kennedy to draw up another one.

This time it was of a suspect who became known as 'Monsterman' or 'George Harrison man'. With the help of Detective Superintendent 'call-me-Stu' Prior, the 'source close to the McCanns' teed up a media blitz on Monsterman at the end of January 2008, a News of the World front-pager complete with a mock Crimewatch presentation the following day by 'the source close to the McCanns'.

The man had a moustache and straggly hair, and looked about 50 years old.

Yet Jane Tanner, who had initially described seeing a young man with sleek long black hair whose face she hadn't seen, now pronounced herself '60% to 80% certain (whatever that really means) that 'Monsterman' and her Tannerman were one and the same.

In the space of just 9 months, therefore, Jane Tanner's description of the man she claimed to have seen carrying a child on 3 May had undergone a remarkable evolution:

3 May: "It's a youngish bloke with long black hair"

13 May (from the police van): "I am adamant that it was Robert Murat"

From 13 November onwards: "I am not so sure now that it was Robert Murat", and finally

End of January 2008: "I'm 60% to 80% sure that 'Monsterman' is the man I saw". 


And if that is not bizarre enough for you already:


In April 2008 she told Leicestershire Police that it was definitely NOT Murat that she had seen (after having been influential in his being made a suspect), and...

In August 2009, at another mock Crimewatch presentation by 'a source close to the McCanns', the McCann Team's leading private detective, Dave Edgar from Crewe, said: "Jane Tanner might have seen a woman, not a man".

what a joke that woman is and should remain for ever more.

HelenMeg wrote:what a joke that woman is and should remain for ever more.

She has been hung out to dry by Grange
Shown to be a charlatan, and possibly a fantasist by TM. Or even worse an outright liar. I don't know which
And yet TM's entire strategy for many years was to rely on her bizarre "sighting" and defamatory, wrong, incorrect, and possibly conspiratorial identification of Murat

It took Edgar to begin the destruction of her story, and Redwood to finish it.
Has she, alone, been responsible for the delay, disruption, and all the other words, to the "Search" ?

I know St Katherine forgave her for not telling anyone - (except Gerry and the rest of the group, obviously !)
But has she forgiven her for buggering up any hope of finding Madeleine by giving false testimony ?
I think the answer is contained in the question
If there was no abduction, then all sightings and all evidence tending to lead towards suspects of whatever description, and state of being alive or dead, are entirely irrelevant.
And when asked about them, even seven years later, the natural tendency would be to laugh, grin, gurrn and snigger - which is incidentally what they do.
QED

aiyoyo wrote:Egg-face man whom JT saw looks nothing like Murat, yet Jane later identified Murat as the man she saw carrying a child.  

How bizzare is that that Tannerman - slim, loose style clothing, hippy hair, not wearing glasses - could be confused with Murat -  stocky, taller, short hair, wear glasses, tuck-in shirt.  The image of Tannerman and Murat is like chalk and cheese.

We went round to see Fiona and David. Fiona told us she'd seen Robert Murat outside apartment 5A on the night of Madeleine's disappearance. Then I began to feel panicky. It had belatedly begun to dawn on me that it probably wouldn't be good news at all if someone living as close as Robert Murat was involved. As Fiona and David speculated I became more and more anxious. I didn't want to hear it.

If the Paynes knew Madeleine was dead and the Mcs behind it, why were they speculating about Murat and what about that kate did not want to hear?  

I think it is possible that she wasn't dead on Thursday evening. I think she may have been removed from the resort then (or earlier). I suspect Murat may have (possibly unwittingly at least in part) played an important role as he had keys and access to property. As well as many contacts. Dr Roberts has analysed some of the McCann statements and observed that there is a particular point in time when Gerry and other family members use words and phrases that might be consistent with confirmation that Madeleine is dead. Or, if she was dead (or dying) by Thursday it may be only a few people were aware of that - but that later on Gerry confirmed this to be the case. Especially if wider family initially thought she was still alive.

I think it is possible she died outside the apartment but her body was brought back when they thought they had got away with the random abductor story. The fact that Kate in her book flags up road blocks, helicopter searches etc - as does David Payne - and early sighting in Morroco etc - suggests to me they wanted to take the search for Madeleine as far away from Luz as possible. Some passages in Kate's book suggest to me that Kate, at any rate, did not know where Madeline had been taken and what condition she was in. Her account of being driven back to the police station at high speed because there had been a sighting at a petrol station is very suspicious, IMO. I think she is terrified that Madeliene has been found and of what this would reveal. Police also found her behaviour over this suspicious. 

As this case does appear to have some unpleasant whiff of paedophilia surrounding it - even the friends and family have suggested that - it is perhaps of note that there was evidence of some questionable online viewing from Murat and Makela. And evidence of lying. I would imagine that what the parents and friends told us at the beggining was the motive for the crime provides some explanation for the cover-up. I think it is suspicious that no- one woke up the twins and I suspect that is because they had been drugged.

But I still think that the theory that there was a pre-planned abduction has some merit. But it went wrong. Hence the botched time-lines. As others have noted the only independent eye-witness to have seen Madeleine as alive and well (assuming the child she saw was Madeleine and not one of the other 'blonde, pretty and pink' three/four year old is the cleaner who saw the McCann family on Sunday.

Has anyone ever found proof of her boarding card or flight tickets, for instance? 

Why did Gerry have to return to the UK to get items with her DNA, for instance? They must have done one hell of a spring- clean. And if she had been in the crèche there would be DNA there. 

Does anyone know who are the co-owners of the Smith family apartment?

BlueBag wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

j.rob wrote:Even if Jane had not known or met Murat before the start of the ill-fated 'holiday', surely she would have become aware of his role as interpreter?

Exactly right.

She knew precisely who he was, and about all the translating he'd been doing with the Tapas 9.

She knew exactly what she was doing by identifying him.

The Tapas 3 (FP, RO and RO'B) knew exactly what they were doing by making up stories about seeing Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May.

IMO she had clearly been briefed in advance to identify Murat, by any or perhaps all of Det Chief Supt Bob Small of Leics Police/CEOP/MI5/Control Risks Group/Special Branch/other branches of the British security services.

It's a puzzle.

If they were stitching him up (and I'm not saying they were not), where was that going without any evidence?

Nowhere, just playing for time, just a distraction

suzyjohnson wrote:

BlueBag wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote:

j.rob wrote:Even if Jane had not known or met Murat before the start of the ill-fated 'holiday', surely she would have become aware of his role as interpreter?

Exactly right.

She knew precisely who he was, and about all the translating he'd been doing with the Tapas 9.

She knew exactly what she was doing by identifying him.

The Tapas 3 (FP, RO and RO'B) knew exactly what they were doing by making up stories about seeing Murat hanging around the Ocean Club on the evening of 3 May.

IMO she had clearly been briefed in advance to identify Murat, by any or perhaps all of Det Chief Supt Bob Small of Leics Police/CEOP/MI5/Control Risks Group/Special Branch/other branches of the British security services.

It's a puzzle.

If they were stitching him up (and I'm not saying they were not), where was that going without any evidence?

Nowhere, just playing for time, just a distraction

That's what you get for being helpful, IMO
It's a shame when you help someone, you automatically seem suspicious.

Wasn't there an idiot British news reporter, a woman, who reported her suspicions about him to the PJ? She thought he was too interested in the case or something. It sounded to me like the plot of some weak tv programme / novel.

Which incidentally a few of the elements of 'the abduction' sound like as well; open windows, red herrings etc.

That was Lori Campbell. There's a brief mention of her here.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

j.rob wrote:
Even if Jane had not known or met Murat before the start of the ill-fated 'holiday', surely she would have become aware of his role as interpreter?

And then to turn around and said to the police that the interpreter looked dodgy and they'd seen him loitering around the apartment, yeah right?
Why did they not tell the Police from the off, the moment they saw him with them in the police station interpreting for them? Why did they not alert PJ they did not want him interpreting for them because they are suspicious of him?

I can't recall when they alerted to the PJ their suspicions of Murat but definitely not from the get go; that much seems pretty clear.
JT cognitive ability must be retarded if fresh from memory of having just seen the man carrying a child and then on seeing the man supposedly Murat again less than 24 hours later failed to recognise him as being the man she saw night before. Yet she was later able to say definitively it was him. How does that work?