Re: Robert Murat versus Jane Tanner?

by Autumn 17.02.10 17:11

Interesting to see how our press cover this. Can't see the McCanns being too happy about their main eye-witness appearing in Court suspected of lying. Depending on the outcome, this could throw a hugh question mark over her 'bundleman' account.

by vaguely1 17.02.10 17:42

Nothing in the press at all at the moment. Surely someone out there is interested Robert Murat versus Jane Tanner? - Page 2 234726

by Autumn 17.02.10 18:11

In all fairness, there isn't much on the net either. Does anyone know if the case is aready in progress?

by vaguely1 17.02.10 18:15

Apparently it's being decided if there is a case to be heard.

Interesting questions raised elsewhere about why it wouldn't be heard in the UK, as per when he sued newspapers.

It's all a bit fuzzy at the moment.

by aliberte2 18.02.10 2:32

Autumn wrote:Interesting to see how our press cover this. Can't see the McCanns being too happy about their main eye-witness appearing in Court suspected of lying. Depending on the outcome, this could throw a hugh question mark over her 'bundleman' account.

Will it Come to Court?
He's Simply Filed a Complaint... and Over a Year Ago.
Of Course this is a Country that Will Sue an English Person and Allow Criminal Charges for Making a Good Faith Complaint to the Bar Association about An Unscrupulous Barrister.
So Who Knows how Low they Can go.

by bunny 18.02.10 17:14

Its seems someone has been setting people up.

Cant name my source and no one has to believe me but........It's absolute rubbish.

Now ask yourselves why this rumour was put about? who was responsible for the majority of this?

by vaguely1 18.02.10 17:16

My source says it's time for dinner.

by hedge 18.02.10 17:17

the people on twitter were determined that this story come out and come out this week, I wonder why if the alleged complaint was made 18 months ago. So many people, so many agenda's and again Madeleine forgotten by all except her family.

by vaguely1 18.02.10 17:19

Bunny, is there any case at all, against the others who aren't tanner and were originally mentioned?

by bunny 18.02.10 17:20

Well, it makes you wonder why posters would spread such rubbish.

Morais was one of the main supporters of this guff from what I recall.

by bunny 18.02.10 17:20

vaguely1 wrote:Bunny, is there any case at all, against the others who aren't tanner and were originally mentioned?

None

by vaguely1 18.02.10 17:22

What a strange turn of events. So it was internet rumour mill?

Trouble at t'bureau?

by bunny 18.02.10 17:29

I personally think it was orchestrated. You only have to look at twitter to see that.

Some posters (i'll mention no names) are all to quick to complain about the McCanns trying to steer people away from bad news. Now this is a prime example of just exactly how far some are willing to go in order to hide the impending loss of the court case with Amaral.

They put this about so that his loss wouldnt been the main topic.

by hedge 18.02.10 17:32

Distraction and spin. same old same old.

by bunny 18.02.10 17:39

The sad thing is that the few posters who have been lied to (antis) won't care at all. They will be quite happy so long as its to damage the McCanns or their friends.

by Autumn 18.02.10 17:54

Bunny, you cannot start a thread stating as fact that Murat V Tanner is a lie. This may well be your opinion but, without a source to back it up, you cannot dismiss it as a lie.

I suggest that you amend the title of this thread to make clear that this is your opinion as opposed to fact.

by hedge 18.02.10 17:56

bunny wrote:The sad thing is that the few posters who have been lied to (antis) won't care at all. They will be quite happy so long as its to damage the McCanns or their friends.

I suppose if some individuals do genuinely believe that the mccanns are wrong'uns then they just might be persuaded to believe that the ends justifies the means and so don't get too precious about such things as fact and truth and transparency etc

Just a thought.

by bunny 18.02.10 18:09

Autumn, hold on a second. See these threads

The Timeline - A Work Of Fiction
Goncalo Amaral a liar

Where are the facts for those? are they in the thread title?

by Autumn 18.02.10 18:10

According to mwilliamsthomas:

Murat filed two seperate criminal proceedings over a year ago - 1st against Tanner and 2nd against 3 of the McCann friends.

by Cath 18.02.10 18:22

Looks like it takes the prosecutor a lot of time to decide if he's going to file charges then.
That case concerning Amaral and Leonor's partner took less time.

by bunny 18.02.10 18:23

Well, as she never identified Murat then it would be one hell of a strange case big grin

by vaguely1 18.02.10 18:25

bunny wrote:Well, as she never identified Murat then it would be one hell of a strange case

Although even if she did how do you prove mistaken identity? Especially as the identification was done without the standard rules and regs.

The whole point is that a member of the public is not an expert witness, and therefore any evidence they give, if true to the best of their knowledge, is never going to be any better than just that.

by Cath 18.02.10 18:26

Unless somebody can prove she's identified him with malignant intents, I don't expect there'll be a case.

And what Vaguely's said (she's beaten me again, as usual)

by Autumn 18.02.10 18:28

Bunny, once again you are attempting to mislead. My OP on the Timeline thread explains why I believe it to be a work of fiction.

You, howver, have started a thread which is basically just a feeble attempt at starting a rumour. Pathetic.

by bunny 18.02.10 18:29

There isnt a case......think about it. If someone DID (and they didnt) id someone as a witness then how many witness's will never bother coming forward?

Its just so utterly ridiculous.

Its all a lie

by bunny 18.02.10 18:31

Autumn, I dont think that is the case at all.....but to keep you happy would you like me to add that as yet I cant name my source?

would that make you feel better?

by Autumn 18.02.10 18:38

bunny wrote:There isnt a case......think about it. If someone DID (and they didnt) id someone as a witness then how many witness's will never bother coming forward?

Its just so utterly ridiculous.

Its all a lie

Your opinion of course, bunny. My belief is that the whole thing is starting to unravel, cracks are appearing and I expect some of the tapas group will be getting very nervous thinking

If Tanner is exposed as a liar in Court, it should be enough to get the case re-opened.

by bunny 18.02.10 18:40

Really, well it looks like Amaral was exposed as a liar today and I dont think they will re open the case. It's good though that we agree on wanting the case re opened.

by hedge 18.02.10 18:41

How can someone be accused of lying when she has always been clear that she didn't think it was Robert Murat she saw, she has hardly sought the spotlight, she has stuck by judicial secrecy apart from one documentary to rightfully try to clear her name, the press managed to balls up everything she and the police had said so specutacularly that some people genuinely thought she had changed her statements and descriptions, the whole thing was crazy.

by Snowy 18.02.10 18:41

Autumn, the sad fact is that the Tanner/Murat story is itself a rumour. It started on a forum, spread to Twitter, someone gave Keir what was supposed to be Pagarate's number....and we get a confirmation.

I always thought it was a strange tale because the basis for any prosecution is tenuous, and I would have thought Mr Murat has better things to do with his money.

So please, don't shoot the messenger on this one, just yet. let's wait until we do actually know. For those of us that have watched the rumour unfold and seen how the 'confirmation' was obtained, it's been a very surreal experience.

So lietrally nothing would surprise me.