Scotland Yard takes over the inquiry into Maddie's disappearance from Portuguese plus *UPDATE* CPS lawyers fly to Portugal

jd wrote:Yes a most brilliant article that informs all the details about murat

I don't think he did translate jane tanners statement on May 4th. There is nothing on the statemnt with his name on it and it also says this at the start "As she is a British citizen and does not understand written or spoken Portuguese, she is assisted by the interpreter, Filipa Silva"

Plus murat was in PDL at that time and only just getting involved and discovering what had happened....so we are led to believe!

candyfloss wrote:The bottoms were mainly white, with tiny pink flowers,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
   The bottoms are all JT says she saw........

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

margaret wrote:Christobell, l've read too that the 'pink' pyjamas she remembered seeing couldn't be true because under the sodium street lighting along that road, the colour pink isn't seen as pink?

margaret wrote:

candyfloss wrote:The bottoms were mainly white, with tiny pink flowers,

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]
   The bottoms are all JT says she saw........

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

Yes, sorry my mistake she said with pink flowers didn't she?

margaret wrote:
Thanks JD, because l'm refereshing my memory about her trying to frame Murat.  We know Murat translated for the early statements from the tapas goup so l wonder when Tanner actually first met Murat.

Murat was hanging around offering help to the group so l tend to think they'd met before May 13th when she identified him.

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

'On Sunday 13 May, Jane Tanner positively identified Robert Murat as the man she had seen on the night of 3 May.'

Part G on Tonys work may have the answer but the site is a bit slow at the moment.

Cristobell wrote:Then of course we have Dave Edgar saying Jane may have seen a woman

AndyB wrote:

Cristobell wrote:Then of course we have Dave Edgar saying Jane may have seen a woman

I think he could be right. I'm wondering if the person that Jane Tanner originally described was actually Jane Tanner herself in case anyone had seen her. They could've confirmed her "sighting" of a "man" thereby deflecting attention from herself. The description is certainly vague enough and there's that clip of her being interviewed where she clearly says "I carried her" before hesitating as she realised the mistake.

AndyB wrote: [...] It's just that I find it a little bit reminiscent of how Id carry one of our (small) dogs if they've rolled in horse/cow/dog muck

jd wrote:

margaret wrote:
Thanks JD, because l'm refereshing my memory about her trying to frame Murat.  We know Murat translated for the early statements from the tapas goup so l wonder when Tanner actually first met Murat.

Murat was hanging around offering help to the group so l tend to think they'd met before May 13th when she identified him.

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

'On Sunday 13 May, Jane Tanner positively identified Robert Murat as the man she had seen on the night of 3 May.'

Part G on Tonys work may have the answer but the site is a bit slow at the moment.

I would bet that murat and tanner already knew each other before the holiday. The week previous, when murat was less than half a mile away from tanners house in Exeter

Ayniia wrote:
And there's the hairs in Burgau possibly from Jane and Murat and the fact that's possible they're even family related because their DNA.

plebgate wrote:The more I think about things the more I think that Mr. & Mrs. (at least) have been questioned, possibly pinky as well.  Absolutely nothing coming from their camp about anything.   Granny rolled out a couple weeks back reportedly saying something like they hadn't told her that SY were reporting back to them.   

The only reason I can think that Mrs. would not tell her mother that SY were in contact with them is because they have been told not to discuss anything with anyone.

It has been reported in the papers for a while that SY have been in contact, but did the "contact" change to questioning? Therefore obliged to keep their mouths shut even to closest family?

Just my opinion, but the silence sure is deafening from all parties.

zodiac wrote:I remember reading these tweets a few months ago:

dh [email=‏@dhnewstweet]‏@dhnewstweet[/email]  26 Mar 
Clarence Mitchell seen walking into Scotland Yard a few minutes ago #McCann

dh [email=‏@dhnewstweet]‏@dhnewstweet[/email]  26 Mar 
@veniviedivici I nearly dropped my Starbucks when I saw him
 
Clarence Mitchell [email=‏@mitch_1uk]‏@mitch_1uk[/email]  26 Mar 
@dhnewstweet Big difference between walking past SY and going into it Simply untrue I was in SY. Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy loons

dh [email=‏@dhnewstweet]‏@dhnewstweet[/email]  26 Mar 
@mitch_1uk Apologies for that. I stand corrected. Those loons normally spot a fake sighting a mile off.

pleb-nobby-Lobby [email=‏@veniviedivici]‏@veniviedivici[/email]  26 Mar 
@dhnewstweet #snigger at Fake sighting ref. Do you think he got it ? @mitch_1uk


At the time, I wondered why he chose to reply to the tweet and use the label 'the conspiracy loons' when he could have just ignored the tweet. Especially as MPS are supposedly in regular contact with his clients and they are kept fully updated on the progress of their work. Therefore it perhaps wouldn't have been odd for him to be seen going into or walking past SY. However, in my opinion, I now find it odd that he chose to reply and reply in the manner he did. Especially as, I now know, 22 days later this meeting took place:

Top prosecutor looks at new leads in Madeleine McCann hunt

A CPS spokeswoman said: “Prosecutors from CPS London and ­investigators from the Metropolitan Police Service visited their Portuguese counterparts on April 17-18 to discuss possible next steps in ­relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. We continue to work with the police on this case.”

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

Châtelaine wrote:

AndyB wrote: [...] It's just that I find it a little bit reminiscent of how Id carry one of our (small) dogs if they've rolled in horse/cow/dog muck

***
Without wanting to be graphic: a dead body tends to lose / leak bodily fluids ...

Châtelaine wrote:BTW as it is IMO absolutely impossible for JT to have seen an abductor, whilst passing GM & JW, and in view of her little slip-up "I" in the Panorama interview, I still do tend to think that she's describing something she's seen or done at another moment in time.

AndyB wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:

AndyB wrote: [...] It's just that I find it a little bit reminiscent of how Id carry one of our (small) dogs if they've rolled in horse/cow/dog muck

***
Without wanting to be graphic: a dead body tends to lose / leak bodily fluids ...

Indeed. Thats why it was wrapped up in a bundle of blankets?

Châtelaine wrote:BTW as it is IMO absolutely impossible for JT to have seen an abductor, whilst passing GM & JW, and in view of her little slip-up "I" in the Panorama interview, I still do tend to think that she's describing something she's seen or done at another moment in time.

Quite possibly but consider this potential scenario (which I offer as pure idle speculation rather than a serious theory):
1) Maddie is dead and, for reasons best known to themselves, the McCanns are trying to cover it up
2) Someone has arranged (possibly Robert Murat) for someone with a boat to bury the body at sea
3) Jerry is going to take the body to the boat but gets held up talking to Jez (who, at least at this stage, is in the dark about the conspiracy)
4) There is panic in the apartment that Jerry is going to be late so Jane agrees to take the body (maybe because she knows Murat?)
5) As she carries the body she notices Jerry & Jez talking
6) Fearful that Jez has seen her, she invents the story of her going to check the kids and "seeing" a man, whose appearance is similar to Jane, walking with a bundle where Jane has just walked.
7) When its realised that Jez didn't see anything the "sighting" is useless so the description of what she saw changes to something more useful

zodiac wrote:I remember reading these tweets a few months ago:

dh [email=‏@dhnewstweet]‏@dhnewstweet[/email]  26 Mar 
Clarence Mitchell seen walking into Scotland Yard a few minutes ago #McCann

dh [email=‏@dhnewstweet]‏@dhnewstweet[/email]  26 Mar 
@veniviedivici I nearly dropped my Starbucks when I saw him
 
Clarence Mitchell [email=‏@mitch_1uk]‏@mitch_1uk[/email]  26 Mar 
@dhnewstweet Big difference between walking past SY and going into it Simply untrue I was in SY. Sorry to disappoint the conspiracy loons

dh [email=‏@dhnewstweet]‏@dhnewstweet[/email]  26 Mar 
@mitch_1uk Apologies for that. I stand corrected. Those loons normally spot a fake sighting a mile off.

pleb-nobby-Lobby [email=‏@veniviedivici]‏@veniviedivici[/email]  26 Mar 
@dhnewstweet #snigger at Fake sighting ref. Do you think he got it ? @mitch_1uk


At the time, I wondered why he chose to reply to the tweet and use the label 'the conspiracy loons' when he could have just ignored the tweet. Especially as MPS are supposedly in regular contact with his clients and they are kept fully updated on the progress of their work. Therefore it perhaps wouldn't have been odd for him to be seen going into or walking past SY. However, in my opinion, I now find it odd that he chose to reply and reply in the manner he did. Especially as, I now know, 22 days later this meeting took place:

Top prosecutor looks at new leads in Madeleine McCann hunt

A CPS spokeswoman said: “Prosecutors from CPS London and ­investigators from the Metropolitan Police Service visited their Portuguese counterparts on April 17-18 to discuss possible next steps in ­relation to the disappearance of Madeleine McCann. We continue to work with the police on this case.”

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

2) Someone has arranged (possibly Robert Murat) for someone with a boat to bury the body at sea

lj wrote:

plebgate wrote:The more I think about things the more I think that Mr. & Mrs. (at least) have been questioned, possibly pinky as well.  Absolutely nothing coming from their camp about anything.   Granny rolled out a couple weeks back reportedly saying something like they hadn't told her that SY were reporting back to them.   

The only reason I can think that Mrs. would not tell her mother that SY were in contact with them is because they have been told not to discuss anything with anyone.

It has been reported in the papers for a while that SY have been in contact, but did the "contact" change to questioning? Therefore obliged to keep their mouths shut even to closest family?

Just my opinion, but the silence sure is deafening from all parties.

Or because the contacts with SY are of such a nature that Kate rather not talks about it. Remember her reaction on being made arguido "what will my parents think of this?"

Woofer wrote:Wasn`t JT seen by Jez anyway - when he first set out on his walk with the buggy - describing her as a woman dressed in purple?

Jez wrote:"I left my apartment pushing my son's pram so that he could sleep. I did not have a particular direction to follow nor did I have a specific time to do this. I left the apartment and turned right. I walked via the lower street, looked to the building block where the McCann apartment was situated and saw a woman dressed in purple clothing. I referred to this woman in relation to the questions asked by Jane Tanner."
{...}
"Now I know her name, description of the clothes and photos which I have seen in the press. At that time I knew of her as a member of the group but did not know her name. I do not remember having seen her when I spoke with Gerry, but I believe I saw her when I first ventured out. She was stopped on the street in front of one of the group's apartments when I passed her down towards the exit to my apartment. I do not know if it was her apartment or not. I remember that she was wearing the colour purple."