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

Extract from 'Truth About A Lie' by Goncalo Amaral follows:

On May 12th, the suspect [Robert Murat] rents a car, in which he drives kilometres over rough tracks for basic essentials. He explains later: that day, his mother had needed his car for her information desk. We are assuming that he noticed he was being followed.

We then decide to search his residence and the vehicles he uses. During the night of May 13th, the Prosecutor of the Republic and the judge go to the court in Portimao, which, in view of the growing suspicion and the urgency of the situation, issues them with a search warrant.

JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT

Before the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May 3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers, goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?

The investigator, with whom Murat is on friendly terms, is with him in a bar until 2 o'clock in the morning. We are not about to relax surveillance. As soon as he gets home, police officers are stationed around his house in order to monitor all entrances. The crisis unit is buzzing; the teams are preparing for the search. It will be carried out at 7am - the legally designated time - when the journalists are not yet on the streets.

The operation is kept secret. We request reinforcements from the GNR. For the moment, we have no evidence against Murat, only suspicions. If we had been certain that Madeleine was in the house, we wouldn't have had to wait for daylight to intervene. Scenes of crime specialists accompany us in the search for evidence. Outside, two rainwater recovery tanks are explored with the help of divers. We pack up a few items of clothing to send to a laboratory that will carry out the search for fibres, hair, traces of blood that possibly came from Maddie. The cars are also gone over with a fine tooth comb. Laptops are seized and their contents examined by specialists. We find a cutting from a British newspaper, dated 23rd September 2006, that refers to a case of paedophilia.

THE FIRST SUSPECT

Robert Murat is placed under investigation and interviewed at the offices of the police in Portimao from 10am.

As I've pointed out to 'figaro', 'Inyx' and others on another thread, by November Tanner had changed her line to: 'It might have been Murat, it might not have been'.

By the time of her Rogatory interviews in April 2008, she had changed her tune once again to: 'It wasn't Robert Murat'.

That should put paid for once and for all to the ridiculous and embarrassing (for them) claims by 'figaro' and 'Inyx' that my source was a tabloid and that in any case I was wrong when I asserted that Tanner had identified Murat as the abductor on 13 May.

Extract from 'Truth About A Lie' by Goncalo Amaral follows:.....

Thank you for confirming what I wrote here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's not in the files, you're quoting Amaral's book.
And a tabloid apparently as you've posted a link to it.

Now can you please convince me by posting a link to the files? I've searched for it and never found anything to support your claim.
Ty

Inyx wrote:Extract from 'Truth About A Lie' by Goncalo Amaral follows:.....

Thank you for confirming what I wrote here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's not in the files, you're quoting Amaral's book.
And a tabloid apparently as you've posted a link to it.

Now can you please convince me by posting a link to the files? I've searched for it and never found anything to support your claim.
Ty

You're aware of course that only about three-quarters of the files have been disclosed to the public?

Instead of worrying about whether it's 'in the files' or not, here's a straight question for you.

Do you accept that on 13 May, exactly as Dr Amaral describes, Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat?

Or not?

Not. The account of that day is all in the files. The files say differently. So we have Amarals word against Tanners. Oh and the fact that she would be really stupid to lie as Bob Small would know that and so would other members of the police.

Do you really beleive that Tannner has lied? I dont...not for one second.

That should put paid for once and for all to the ridiculous and embarrassing (for them) claims by 'figaro' and 'Inyx' that my source was a tabloid and that in any case I was wrong when I asserted that Tanner had identified Murat as the abductor on 13 May..
Tony Bennett


Posts: 845
Join date: 2009-11-25

Err you posted the link to the mccann files and there sat a tabloid report saying what you were saying. If its so ridiculous why did you post that link?

Tony Bennett wrote:

Inyx wrote:Extract from 'Truth About A Lie' by Goncalo Amaral follows:.....

Thank you for confirming what I wrote here:
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

It's not in the files, you're quoting Amaral's book.
And a tabloid apparently as you've posted a link to it.

Now can you please convince me by posting a link to the files? I've searched for it and never found anything to support your claim.
Ty

You're aware of course that only about three-quarters of the files have been disclosed to the public?

Instead of worrying about whether it's 'in the files' or not, here's a straight question for you.

Do you accept that on 13 May, exactly as Dr Amaral describes, Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat?

Or not?

Tabloids, Amaral's book and now you're claiming it's in 'missing files'?
No, I don't accept anything without proof, e.g. a link to the files. Amaral's got a lot of things wrong in his book.

Also logic tells me if Tanner identified him, like you claim, she wouldn't have made that statement like she did in the Rogatories, or else she would have been confronted with that 'earlier' statement.

Mr Bennett, could you enlighten us as to where Amaral received his degree to enable him the title doctor. Some have suggested it is bogus and from some online "university".

Jane tanner was never at the showdown with Murat. It was her partner. Thats another thing wrong with your booklet.

I have been following the story that Tanner is suppsedly being sued by Murat and I have to say I think it's nonsense. I have come to this conclusion after carefully studying everything in the public arena about what she said about Murat.

The ONLY source that we know of for her supposedly IDing Murat from the van is GA's book. The roagtory is not even clear about whether she ID'd him at the time or not, because surprisingly she isn't asked. She does however say that she does not think it is him at the time of the roggy.

She is on record as saying (Daily Mail, November 2007) that she never pointed the finger at him. It would be surprising if she allowed herself to be caught out in such an easily-proved falsehood.

She has never said anything negative about Robert Murat publicly. He is not mentioned in her statements taken in Portugal.

She was indeed not present at the 'confrontation', although her partner was. This is because she never claimed to have seen Robert Murat on the night of the 3rd, like some of the others. In fact she is clear she had never laid eyes on him before he stopped his car to speak to O'Brien just before the surveillance (which let's face it, was a bit of a SNAFU really).

There are others who would have been a surer target, I would have thought, including the Portuguese resident who accused him of sexual violence and bestiality.

So all in all I find the whole thing so unlikely that I will not convinced until I hear it either reported from a proper, checkable source, or from the mouths of one of the parties to the supposed action.

So, in response to this question: Do you accept that on 13 May, exactly as Dr Amaral describes, Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat?

The results so far:

Don't know - 1
Evading the question - 2
Amaral made the whole thing up, as he is a liar - 2

Amaral is wrong, You can add that to your totals.

Tony Bennett wrote:So, in response to this question: Do you accept that on 13 May, exactly as Dr Amaral describes, Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat?

The results so far:

Don't know - 1
Evading the question - 2
Amaral made the whole thing up, as he is a liar - 2

Well, you can put me down as a don't know because we don't have the EVIDENCE in front of us.

And I would respectfully suggest that neither do you, or anyone who wasn't there.

And I'll repeat the relevant part of my reply, just to make sure it's not twisted by someone.

Do you accept that on 13 May, exactly as Dr Amaral describes, Jane Tanner identified Robert Murat?

No, I don't accept anything without proof, e.g. a link to the files. (Amaral's got a lot of things wrong in his book.)

vaguely1 wrote:JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT

Before
the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him
as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The
vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May
3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers,
goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner
is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She
definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?


Does anyone know if there is a copy of the translators report in either Amarals book or the police files for this event?

Amaral makes quite a strong statement - it would be interesting to know which translator told him of Jane Tanners words.

The police officers who were hiding in the police van with blacked-out windows (which you could see out of from the inside) would have made a statement directly to Amaral and his team.

I am glad this forum is coming to accept that Jane Tanner did indeed identify Robert Murat on 13 May as the abductor she'd seen 10 days earlier, thus practically ensuring that Murat would be arrested and become an arguido.

Once we have accepted that fact, we can then perhaps go on to analyse why she should have been so certain - and why she maintained it was Murat for as long as she did.

It might also prove no coincidence that in the same week that Brian Kennedy (and his in-house lawyer Edward Smethurst) met Murat (and his lawyer Francisco Pagarete) in the Algarve [viz., 13 November 2007], Jane Tanner suddenly started being quoted in the British press [viz., 16 November 2007] saying she was no longer sure it was Murat that she'd seen.

There's a bigger and darker picture here - and it's about time we all delved into it a lot more thoroughly.

I'm not accepting it until there is some official paperwork to show for it. Certainly not accepting it from Amaral's book which seems to be using this unlogged and unverified conversation to explain away their interest in Murat without accepting their own part in it.

I would like to know who was there to translate for Tanner and I would like to see her signed copy of that translation. A Formal witness identification wouldn't be carried out without a paper trail.

It's reasons such as these that I am against the writing of books by those professionally involved in unsolved crimes.

vaguely1 wrote:JANE TANNER FORMALLY RECOGNISES ROBERT MURAT

Before
the search, we want to assure ourselves that Jane Tanner recognises him
as the individual she saw on the night of the disappearance. She is sitting inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being spotted. The
vehicle is parked at the exact spot where she was on the night of May
3rd. Robert Murat, anonymous amongst plain clothes police officers,
goes up the road in the same way as the alleged abductor. Jane Tanner
is adamant: it certainly is Robert Murat that she saw that night. She
definitely recognises his way of walking. But does he resemble the description she painted previously?


Does anyone know if there is a copy of the translators report in either Amarals book or the police files for this event?

Amaral makes quite a strong statement - it would be interesting to know which translator told him of Jane Tanners words.

Vaguely there's not copy of her statement about that day in Amarals book. Nor in the DVD files. Good question, even though I doubt it's a translators mistake.
LP had her statements when they questioned her. PJ was present as well.
If she contradicted herself about that, they would have asked her questions about it.
And it should have been mentioned in the PJ final report as well.
There's no evidence she's ever identified Murat as the man she's seen that night carrying a child.
On the contrary, this is what her partner said :

Russell James O'Brien
Date: 2007.05.16
When asked, he says that according to his wife Jane, she did not see Murat on the night of the events (as she had spent most of the time looking after her children.)

I am glad this forum is coming to accept that Jane Tanner did indeed identify Robert Murat on 13 May as the abductor she'd seen 10 days earlier, thus practically ensuring that Murat would be arrested and become an arguido.

You're a bit economical with the truth here Tony.
I don't accept anything without proof, e.g. a link to the files.

No, not a translation mistake Inyx - just more whether there was actually even a translator present in the van for this formal identification.

I am concerned that it appears more important to convince people of 'facts' that have no official corroboration than it is to seek the truth. A sentence in a book does not become a truth just because we choose to side with the person who wrote it.

To presume it as a truth and to them commit further words to paper based on it - when actually we have no evidence to back it up - seems foolish, and open to error.

Get it (re the translator in the bus). Perhaps it's mentioned in the Rog. Will have a look.

Yes, I'm equally worried about the way people try to convince people of 'facts' without corroboration by what's in the files. People's imagination and tabloid stories created too many myths early on. It's time we stick to facts.

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, whichever side of the fence you sit. Have to be.

This is why the factual contents of the files are so important.

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'.

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'.

Well, I make no comment on the British Government's agenda, because I don't see that they have one. If Tanner sat and made a formal identification of this importance then there needs to be some form of translation report, or some statement in the files. Either these are empty weasel words, or it's an official identification. If it's an official identification then I would expect some official paperwork.

vaguely1 wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote: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'.

Well, I make no comment on the British Government's agenda, because I don't see that they have one. If Tanner sat and made a formal identification of this importance then there needs to be some form of translation report, or some statement in the files. Either these are empty weasel words, or it's an official identification. If it's an official identification then I would expect some official paperwork.

Absolutely.

But then only 75% of the files have been disclosed.

I am obliged to you, vaguely1, for this sentence:

"If Tanner sat and made a formal identification of this importance then there needs to be some form of translation report, or some statement in the files".

You are right to recognise the extreme importance of this statement in the history of this matter.

I would add that the role of Robert Murat also deserves to be put under the microscope; it needs to be much better understood.

I also consider that Goncalo Amaral was, in his book, telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his report on Tanner identifying Murat on 13 May.

I am not sure where we can find other evidence about the very important event but hope that between us all, we can find it.

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”.

Tony Bennett wrote:

vaguely1 wrote:

Tony Bennett wrote: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'.

Well, I make no comment on the British Government's agenda, because I don't see that they have one. If Tanner sat and made a formal identification of this importance then there needs to be some form of translation report, or some statement in the files. Either these are empty weasel words, or it's an official identification. If it's an official identification then I would expect some official paperwork.

Absolutely.

But then only 75% of the files have been disclosed.

I am obliged to you, vaguely1, for this sentence:

"If Tanner sat and made a formal identification of this importance then there needs to be some form of translation report, or some statement in the files".

You are right to recognise the extreme importance of this statement in the history of this matter.

I would add that the role of Robert Murat also deserves to be put under the microscope; it needs to be much better understood.

I also consider that Goncalo Amaral was, in his book, telling the truth, the whole truth and nothing but the truth in his report on Tanner identifying Murat on 13 May.

I am not sure where we can find other evidence about the very important event but hope that between us all, we can find it.

I don't think you need to be obliged to me - I think we're all capable of understanding the importance of a formal identification. The trouble is there doesn't seem to have been a formal identification. There appears to have been an attempt at getting one ........and then nothing, until Mr Amaral writes a book explaining away the reason Murat was made arguido.

It's taking a huge leap of faith to pin your reputation on the fact that this translation and statement of identification is in the part of the files that you haven't seen.

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.

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.

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.

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

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.