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

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

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

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.

by jmbd 14.02.10 15:52

well it's going to be in the book so it must be right.

by jmbd 14.02.10 16:47

no one would ever publish 2 books that didn't contain the truth would they?

by Snowy 14.02.10 21:25

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.

I hope you read the rest of the evidence in the files about why Robert Murat was made arguido. Not least was the PJ's own suspicions about Murat, reported and on file at an extremely early date. It was actually the PJ - in his book, GA claims it was him personally - that first identified that Robert Murat's house laid in the exact direction that Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man walking with a child,

I would ask you to remember that Tanner could not possibly have known this when she made her first statement.

Therefore the proximity of Murat's house only assumed importance much later. I think you are reading something into the Inspector's report that simply is not there.

by aliberte2 15.02.10 21:29

Tony Bennett wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:Thank you Inyx.

For me this type of comment is no different from those that are released by Mr Mitchell or my Mr Murat, or by the McCanns.

All the key people in this have to be presumed to be talking to fit their own agenda...
The McCanns'/Team McCann's/Clarence Mitchell's/The British government's agenda: 'The McCanns are innocent, Madeleine was abducted'

Goncalo Amaral's agenda: 'The McCanns are not innocent, Madeleine wasn't abducted'.

You left out "And I'm getting Rich Off Of it. TV Deals, Book Deals, Talking Head Deals." For Amaral's.

by aliberte2 15.02.10 21:31

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.

Was he accurate and Well Sourced When he Supported the McCanns and Couldn't Look into Kate McCann's Eyes because he Couldn't Handle the Pain?

by **Tony Bennett** 15.02.10 21:34

aliberte2 wrote:
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.

Was he accurate and Well Sourced When he Supported the McCanns and Couldn't Look into Kate McCann's Eyes because he Couldn't Handle the Pain?

I think he was mistaken. Wasn't this in the very earliest days he said/wrote this?

by aliberte2 15.02.10 22:07

Tony Bennett wrote:
aliberte2 wrote:
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.

Was he accurate and Well Sourced When he Supported the McCanns and Couldn't Look into Kate McCann's Eyes because he Couldn't Handle the Pain?
I think he was mistaken. Wasn't this in the very earliest days he said/wrote this?

So he Was Not Accurate if he was Mistaken.

by **Tony Bennett** 15.02.10 22:18

aliberte2 wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
aliberte2 wrote:
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.

Was he accurate and Well Sourced When he Supported the McCanns and Couldn't Look into Kate McCann's Eyes because he Couldn't Handle the Pain?
I think he was mistaken. Wasn't this in the very earliest days he said/wrote this?

So he Was Not Accurate if he was Mistaken.

REPEAT: Wasn't it in the very earliest days that he said/wrote this?

by aliberte2 15.02.10 22:32

I Believe So, But Does it Change that he was NOT ACCURATE?

by vaguely1 15.02.10 22:44

and does it change the fact that there's no police evidence of Tanners identification?

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