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

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?

by Cath 16.02.10 16:57

http://www.barlavento.online.pt/index.php/noticia?id=15228

Description of man released 25.05.2007

(googlespeak)
This is the first call by the Judicial Police since the day that Maddie McCann disappeared on 3 May.

At a press conference in Lagos, the Judicial Police (PJ) said that the man has short hair in front, but that covers the neck, resulting in the description made of the testimony of several persons who, in Praia da Luz, Lagos, claim to have seen a subject with these characteristics.

Now why would they do that if Tanner identified Murat as the man she's seen on the night of May 3rd??????? thinking

by jmbd 16.02.10 17:00

Is that the release that said the PJ had a profile of the abductor?

by Cath 16.02.10 17:06

Profile? No just a description.

The PJ is looking for a Caucasian man (white), with 1.75 meters tall and looking 35 to 40 years, seen at night and place of disappearance of Madeleine McCann, appealing to those who have seen the report to the authorities. short hair in front, but that covers the neck,

(just a c&p of googlespeak)

by jmbd 16.02.10 17:08

two slightly different descriptions there - do either of you have links please?

by Cath 16.02.10 17:11

Either of who? Both clippings are part of the same article.
I posted the link to the portuguese newspaper.

Three links :
Reis blog : http://gazetadigitalmadeleinecase.blogspot.com/2007/05/portuguese-police-released-description.html

Newspaper (portuguese) : http://www.barlavento.online.pt/index.php/noticia?id=15228

Googlespeak : http://translate.google.com/translate?js=y&prev=_t&hl=nl&ie=UTF-8&layout=1&eotf=1&u=http%3A%2F%2Fwww.barlavento.online.pt%2Findex.php%2Fnoticia%3Fid%3D15228&sl=pt&tl=en

At your service, sir!

by jmbd 16.02.10 17:12

apologies

by Cath 16.02.10 17:14

no need to. big grin

by Cath 16.02.10 19:35

Such a pity Tony didn't have time to post.

by jmbd 16.02.10 19:42

busy man - why on earth you make demands on his time defeats me.

by **Tony Bennett** 16.02.10 19:51

Snowy wrote:I hope you read the rest of the evidence in the files about why Robert Murat was made arguido. Not least [were] 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 - [who] first identified that Robert Murat's house laid in the exact direction that Jane Tanner claims to have seen a man [or a woman - Dave Edgar] walking with a child. I would ask you to remember that Tanner could not possibly have known this when she made her first statement...

Come off it.

Their hairs were foud together in a house in Burgau.

by Cath 16.02.10 19:52

Don't be such an old grumpy. I'm really interested in his opinion. About a lot of things. Food for thought.

ETA No Tony it wasn't their hairs.

by jmbd 16.02.10 19:54

together or a bit spread apart?

by vaguely1 16.02.10 19:55

Inyx wrote:Don't be such an old grumpy. I'm really interested in his opinion. About a lot of things. Food for thought.

ETA No Tony it wasn't their hairs.

Yes, nothing to show it was their hair personally.

Why was that particular property searched?

by jmbd 16.02.10 19:58

"Their hairs were foud together in a house in Burgau."

Intertwined, across each other, side by side?

by jmbd 16.02.10 20:07

people without many hairs on their head should not make bald assumptive statements without getting to the root of the facts.

everything on this forum seems so 07 - why?

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