Murat v Tanner. ?

Anyone remember the result of this ?

Some time back around 2010 i think there was a criminal complaint made by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?

Amaral: That process exists, yes, I was even heard as a witness. Tanner was questioned in the Maddie process yes, as a witness. First she said she saw Murat at the scene, recognized him by the way he walked. And then she said other things, later on. Besides there was a diligence in which she said that yes, it was him, and there were later recognitions and a witness confrontation carried out between them, with Murat, in which they said it was him.

Who are they?

Amaral: Those who I remember, besides Jane Tanner, were her husband and the wife of Oldfield. They faced a confrontation with Mr Murat.

And how would you evaluate her testimony [Jane Tanner]?

Amaral: As I said, she, at first, said she saw him at the scene. Then she began to retract it, saying that, after all, she had recognized him through an Indentikit picture. For several months, she came to recognize a number of people, through Identikit pictures. This speaks for itself about the credibility of her statements. Yet in the investigation there is a moment, a confrontation between the people previously mentioned, who say that Murat was there at the time the alarm was raised. That, and other things, is what has motivated the libel suit that Murat has brought against Ms. Tanner.

I don't think anything will come off this because Murat changed his statement so many times......regarding being seen outside the apt that night.



As far as suing tanner....it ain't gonna happen, too many worms will be let out off their cans. At the moment Murat has some sort off life now albeit the gossiping behind his back but does he want to go down that road again and back square one....no.

kitti wrote:I don't think anything will come off this because Murat changed his statement so many times......regarding being seen outside the apt that night.



As far as suing tanner....it ain't gonna happen, too many worms will be let out off their cans.  At the moment Murat has some sort off life now albeit the gossiping behind his back but does he want to go down that road again and back square one....no.

Really? I thought he consistently maintained that he was in his house all evening.

Yes Jassi, he did, and he also received 600,000 pounds compensation so i doubt he will want to get involved with anything to do with the McCanns again.

Panda wrote:Yes Jassi, he did, and he also received 600,000 pounds compensation so i doubt he will want to get involved with anything to do with the McCanns again.

nice little earner...why not go for some more easy pickings? Jane Tanner is either a liar or needs an eye test...wonder if she would fail the wooden spoon test on purpose?

matthew wrote:

Panda wrote:Yes Jassi, he did, and he also received 600,000 pounds compensation so i doubt he will want to get involved with anything to do with the McCanns again.

nice little earner...why not go for some more easy pickings? Jane Tanner is either a liar or needs an eye test...wonder if she would fail the wooden spoon test on purpose?

Hi matthew, I suspect Jane Tanner just wishes this case was over and by Redwood discounting her testimony he has effectively called her a Liar.Maybe there is truth to the rumour that Russell performed a tracheotomy on Madeleine and Jane lied to protect him, not sure she would have done the same just for the McCanns . Do you think the day will dawn when the truth is revealed and justice for Madeleiene is seen to be done. Much rests on the McCann/Amaral trial result.

matthew wrote:

Panda wrote:Yes Jassi, he did, and he also received 600,000 pounds compensation so i doubt he will want to get involved with anything to do with the McCanns again.

nice little earner...why not go for some more easy pickings? Jane Tanner is either a liar or needs an eye test...wonder if she would fail the wooden spoon test on purpose?

Would it be worthwhile though? Its not as if she would have any money - she hasn't written a book about her experiences.

I just came across that last night on another forum looking at old threads and it reminded me that a lot was being made of it but it just seemed to fizzle out.
It is part of an interview with Amarel,i dont know where from but it seems to suggest that an 'action' had commenced and Amarel says he appeared as a witness.There was talk of judicial secrecy and nothing more was heard.It was about the same time the mccanns started on Amarel i think.
There was talk of a criminal action against Tanner ?

Panda wrote:

matthew wrote:

Panda wrote:Yes Jassi, he did, and he also received 600,000 pounds compensation so i doubt he will want to get involved with anything to do with the McCanns again.

nice little earner...why not go for some more easy pickings? Jane Tanner is either a liar or needs an eye test...wonder if she would fail the wooden spoon test on purpose?

Hi matthew, I suspect Jane Tanner just wishes this case was over and by Redwood discounting her testimony he has effectively called her a Liar.Maybe there is truth to the rumour that Russell performed a tracheotomy on Madeleine and Jane lied to protect him, not sure she would have done the same just for the McCanns . Do you think the day will dawn when the truth is revealed and justice for Madeleiene is seen to be done. Much rests on the McCann/Amaral trial result.

Hi Panda, Redwood didn't discount Tanners testimony, he said she had seen someone but it was just a father taking his child home.

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

matthew wrote:

Panda wrote:Yes Jassi, he did, and he also received 600,000 pounds compensation so i doubt he will want to get involved with anything to do with the McCanns again.

nice little earner...why not go for some more easy pickings? Jane Tanner is either a liar or needs an eye test...wonder if she would fail the wooden spoon test on purpose?

Hi matthew, I suspect Jane Tanner just wishes this case was over and by Redwood discounting her testimony he has effectively called her a Liar.Maybe there is truth to the rumour that Russell performed a tracheotomy on Madeleine and Jane lied to protect him, not sure she would have done the same just for the McCanns . Do you think the day will dawn when the truth is revealed and justice for Madeleiene is seen to be done. Much rests on the McCann/Amaral trial result.

Hi Panda, Redwood didn't discount Tanners testimony, he said she had seen someone but it was just a father taking his child home.

Hi wjk, it effectively ruled out any suggeston that it was Maddeleine though and  altered the timelines so there was a 2 hour gap between checking, leaving more than enough time for an abduction......I think that was his intention. He has also said he thinks Madeleine could be alive, obviously helping the McCanns when he should be more discreet. How could he be sure the guy he found was the one Jane saw? UUM, was this the same guy who had saved his child's pyjamas that were a match for Madeleines' even though it was dark and with very little lighting , the pattern could be seen?

Was told Russel O'Brien is no longer registered at Jane Tanners address

matthew wrote:Was told Russel O'Brien is no longer registered at Jane Tanners address

That's interesting Matthew.

Such a pity there has not been a "what the tapas did next" type of documentary..... could be very interesting indeed. Might be a good project for our old friend Jez.

mossman wrote:

matthew wrote:Was told Russel O'Brien is no longer registered at Jane Tanners address

That's interesting Matthew.

Such a pity there has not been a "what the tapas did next" type of documentary..... could be very interesting indeed.  Might be a good project for our old friend Jez.

That's what i thought...RO'B was the only tapas member missing from the court steps,think at least one tapas member has broken ranks & who could tell Operation Grange that JT's bundleman was crecheman...probably all of them

matthew wrote:

mossman wrote:

matthew wrote:Was told Russel O'Brien is no longer registered at Jane Tanners address

That's interesting Matthew.

Such a pity there has not been a "what the tapas did next" type of documentary..... could be very interesting indeed.  Might be a good project for our old friend Jez.

That's what i thought...RO'B was the only tapas member missing from the court steps,think at least one tapas member has broken ranks & who could tell Operation Grange that JT's bundleman was crecheman...probably all of them

It was also his Rogatory Interview there was a problem recording on 8th April and had to be re-done on 10th April. I have always wondered about that very basic error by the police.

Panda wrote:

wjk wrote:

Panda wrote:

matthew wrote:

Panda wrote:Yes Jassi, he did, and he also received 600,000 pounds compensation so i doubt he will want to get involved with anything to do with the McCanns again.

nice little earner...why not go for some more easy pickings? Jane Tanner is either a liar or needs an eye test...wonder if she would fail the wooden spoon test on purpose?

Hi matthew, I suspect Jane Tanner just wishes this case was over and by Redwood discounting her testimony he has effectively called her a Liar.Maybe there is truth to the rumour that Russell performed a tracheotomy on Madeleine and Jane lied to protect him, not sure she would have done the same just for the McCanns . Do you think the day will dawn when the truth is revealed and justice for Madeleiene is seen to be done. Much rests on the McCann/Amaral trial result.

Hi Panda, Redwood didn't discount Tanners testimony, he said she had seen someone but it was just a father taking his child home.

Hi wjk, it effectively ruled out any suggeston that it was Maddeleine though and  altered the timelines so there was a 2 hour gap between checking, leaving more than enough time for an abduction......I think that was his intention. He has also said he thinks Madeleine could be alive, obviously helping the McCanns when he should be more discreet. How could he be sure the guy he found was the one Jane saw? UUM, was this the same guy who had saved his child's pyjamas that were a match for Madeleines' even though it was dark and with very little lighting , the pattern could be seen?

I understand what you are saying, Panda. I think Redwood was giving Tanner a 'get out clause' for some reason by NOT making out she is a liar. I wonder why?
And I don't believe for a second this guy kept his childs PJ's for that length of time either. The whole thing is a load of nonsense imo

Jane Tanner is a liar. She has chopped and changed her statements so many times that they all can't be the truth. Ergo, there are lies.

Keela wrote:Jane Tanner is a liar. She has chopped and changed her statements so many times that they all can't be the truth. Ergo, there are lies.

Yes indeed. Why is the question. I do not believe she particularly liked Gerry even before this happened and the Madeleine documentary showed clearly what Gerry thought of her, reducing her to tears.

Blood is thicker than water as they say and my opinion is she agreed to lie to protect Russell O'Brien. What she was protecting him from is the question.

Murat changed his story quite a few times.

I dont think he would want to put himself in a position where HE would be scrutinised and give an opportunity for journos to dig deeper into his life....hes had enough.

Keela wrote:Jane Tanner is a liar. She has chopped and changed her statements so many times that they all can't be the truth. Ergo, there are lies.

Exactly! I'd like to know why Redwood basically made up a father picking up his child to make it look like she's not a liar! Because, I don't believe this guy even exists! He'd have been walking the other way if he was coming from the crèche, for a start!

wjk wrote:

Keela wrote:Jane Tanner is a liar. She has chopped and changed her statements so many times that they all can't be the truth. Ergo, there are lies.

Exactly! I'd like to know why Redwood basically made up a father picking up his child to make it look like she's not a liar!

Because

(A). It enables whatever whitewash plan is in the pipeline; or

(B). Tanner and / or another Tapas have tod the truth and Crecheman was invented to save her from further ridicule; or

(C). Redwood is a cunning old fox and wanted to scare the life out of those who know so shook some branches hoping apples will fall.

The fact that he went to so much trouble to "show" us the man and clothing makes me suspect he knew a high percentage of the sane, rational world would question his near orgasmic revelation. I don't think I have ever seen a policeman display such excitement. So whichever the reason, he thinks its fantastic.

Lets pray its B or C, mossman.

What if it's none of those but in fact SY did find a parent with a child being carried - wouldn't matter which was he was going or what time.

SY can wave off the jimmied shutters comments as those of parents in hysteria rather than people clearly attempting to stage the scene - so why would it matter so much if the guy jane saw was walking the opposite way - or at a half hour earlier - they are willing to tolerate a certain amount of subterfuge and still believe the parents are innocent - based on the parents in their panic lying to save themselves from appearing neglectful (we've all done it, right? Understandable, they are scared like children of mummy and daddy finding out that they made a real MESS so they hid facts and made some up?)

I don't think SY made up a tourist so there is no reason to attribute motives for that. But if they DID make one up out of whole cloth then the reason would not be to exonerate or help mcCanns because clearly they want the PJ to help them and one of the first things the PJ would want to know is, who is this person you found. They'd be caught out. And I think this guy said the PJ actually had talked to him earlier and knew of him and had ruled him out. If they did not do any such thing (as check the local night crèche records) that would be amazing - they know who this person is SY is speaking about, or they would scream foul here and they'd be right.