A few questions

[Little Jedi]

You clearly stated tannerman did not exist that is different from saying that tannerman did exist but scotland yard eliminated him as a suspect.

Tanners testimony was correct, as scotland yard proved that a man matching her description was at the right location at the right time carrying a child matching the description she gave. She never lied so I do not understand why you think she should face criminal prosecution. It is not her fault that the original team never checked the creche records.


Could you please provide any evidence that tanner perverted the course of justice?

You stated that Tanner identified Murat as the man she saw, I have not seen anything in her statements or the Portuguese attorney generals report (which details the reasons Murat was made an aguido) that suggests she identified Murat as the man she saw.

Could you please provide your source for this claim.

Scotland yard have not said anything about his skin or hair, but the photo they released clearly showed him to have dark hair matching tanners description. This can be seen on the crime watch video I linked to above.

I do not understand your jibe that tanner might claim to have post natal depression. She has been proven by scotland yard to have spoken the truth.

Apparently the McCanns are questioning the Met's findings now.

" the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment.
However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person"

http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

 

[brit1981]

Again,

Websleuths Crime Sleuthing Community - View Single Post - A few questions


It hasn't got anything to do with Caylee !!

It's a statement on forensic report relevant as to what evidence MAY have been in car indicating 'dead source'

DNA is still the same alive or dead.

How is the forensics report on the Anthony case in any way relkevant . the forensic reports clearly state what was found in the mccann car, and I linked to the witheld file list which did not contain forensic reports. So I do not see what was or was not found in the Anthony case has any relevance to the mccann case.

 

[brit1981]

Apparently the McCanns are questioning the Met's findings now.

" the Metropolitan Police now believe this man may represent a guest at the Ocean Club who was carrying his daughter back to their apartment.
However as it is not possible to be certain that these two men are actually the same person"

http://www.findmadeleine.com/campaigns/unidentified_people.html

In the link I provided above scotland yard say they believe this is the man. Therefore the findmadeleine site still asking that if anyone saw the man is not wrong as it pays to be on the safe side. They are not telling people to ignore scotland yard, just pointing out that it might be two different men so do not ignore any worries or sightings any potential witnesses may have.

And I don't see what that has to do with anything anyway, let alone your thought process with the lcn.

 

[Little Jedi]

The only thing I can figure your doing with the hair evidence is pulling it out of thin air. I'm not sure why you would do that so I'm confused to why you posted it.

'Pulling what out of thin air ??'

It was from an Official Report of evidence referencing the ability if forensic's show it was from a 'deceased source'

Caylee, hair, where it was found is irrelevant !!

Again.....

QUOTES....
this is a discussion thread titled 'A Few Questions'

Questions ......replys......responses .....= Discussion.

And as everyone seems to need a reference / link in every post now as to any answer/ reply given .....
(even though most have been posted before in this very thread !!!)
it is going to get even more confusing .

 

[Deleted member 39678]

'Pulling what out of thin air ??'

It was from an Official Report of evidence referencing the ability if forensic's show it was from a 'deceased source'

Caylee, hair, where it was found is irrelevant !!

Again.....

QUOTES....
this is a discussion thread titled 'A Few Questions'

Questions ......replys......responses .....= Discussion.

And as everyone seems to need a reference / link in every post now as to any answer/ reply given .....
(even though most have been posted before in this very thread !!!)
it is going to get even more confusing .

I still don't understand how forensic hair evidence from Caylee's case relates to this case.

 

[brit1981]

'Pulling what out of thin air ??'

It was from an Official Report of evidence referencing the ability if forensic's show it was from a 'deceased source'

Caylee, hair, where it was found is irrelevant !!

Again.....

QUOTES....
this is a discussion thread titled 'A Few Questions'

Questions ......replys......responses .....= Discussion.

And as everyone seems to need a reference / link in every post now as to any answer/ reply given .....
(even though most have been posted before in this very thread !!!)
it is going to get even more confusing .

But no one asked about the Anthony case, so the evidence found there has no relevance here. The reports in the mccann case clearly show nothing to indicate decomposing human material, the withheld files did not contain forensic reports, so it matters not what the forensics in the Anthony case showed in this instance. We could pick any case and say such and such was used to prove death, but it does not mean anything for this case.

 

[SapphireSteel]

No what we've got is an entire mountain of evidence that is not easily explained.

[modsnip]

What was hinky has just become hinkier.

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

No what we've got is an entire mountain of evidence that is not easily explained.

And now actions which also need to be explained such as Tanner identifying Murat and Team McCann suppressing the efits.

What was hinky has just become hinkier.

:cow:

Please can you provide a link to support your claim of a mountain of unexplained evidence. The final report goes through the initial reasons for aguido status and the reasons for this being removed which included there being no indications the mccann committed any crime, an alibi etc nothing in it supports the idea there is a mountain of evidence against the mccanns.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Can you please link to the evidence of your claim tanner identified Murat. The final report above goes through the reasons for Murat's aguido status and it mentions nothing about this, neither do any of tanners statements ( which can be found on same site). You have made this claim before, and did not provide a link when asked then.

You have also claimed the mccanns suppressed the e.fits. can you provide a source for this. The Sunday times were the source of claims the e.fits had been suppressed, but they published a follow-up article which said that the mccanns had not suppressed them and that they had been given to the police straight away in Portugal and upon the review beginning in the uk. If the police decided these should not be released then thats up to them, they may well have had good reason. Its not possible to link to the times as it is subscription only online. But the police deciding to not release them until recently is not the same as the mccanns supressing them and there is no evidence of this.

 

[Little Jedi]

Littlejedi,

The problem is that although you are quoting problems with lcn its coming across, to me anyway, as if you think this increases the chance the DNA was from madeleine. But you do not explain your thought process to reach this conclusion ( if indeed that is what you meant).
It would not matter if other components were found due to contamination in this situation. This is because kate and Gerry's DNA contains components consistence with all of madeleines components, therefore they could never be excluded even if the sample consisted of all, and only, components consistant with madeleine mccann.

It means nothing of the sort.

It's means it's unreliable (see previous links for scientific research & facts)

My 'thought process' comes from researching credible sources.
Not picking & choosing (or not linking to facts when you keep arguing the same things)

And due to the fact FSS were under investigation & licensing suspended at the time any analysis wouldn't stand up in court.

 

[Little Jedi]

Please can you provide a link to support your claim of a mountain of unexplained evidence. The final report goes through the initial reasons for aguido status and the reasons for this being removed which included there being no indications the mccann committed any crime, an alibi etc nothing in it supports the idea there is a mountain of evidence against the mccanns.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Can you please link to the evidence of your claim tanner identified Murat. The final report above goes through the reasons for Murat's aguido status and it mentions nothing about this, neither do any of tanners statements ( which can be found on same site). You have made this claim before, and did not provide a link when asked then.

You have also claimed the mccanns suppressed the e.fits. can you provide a source for this. The Sunday times were the source of claims the e.fits had been suppressed, but they published a follow-up article which said that the mccanns had not suppressed them and that they had been given to the police straight away in Portugal and upon the review beginning in the uk. If the police decided these should not be released then thats up to them, they may well have had good reason. Its not possible to link to the times as it is subscription only online. But the police deciding to not release them until recently is not the same as the mccanns supressing them and there is no evidence of this.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id272.html

 

[Little Jedi]

Please can you provide a link to support your claim of a mountain of unexplained evidence. The final report goes through the initial reasons for aguido status and the reasons for this being removed which included there being no indications the mccann committed any crime, an alibi etc nothing in it supports the idea there is a mountain of evidence against the mccanns.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Can you please link to the evidence of your claim tanner identified Murat. The final report above goes through the reasons for Murat's aguido status and it mentions nothing about this, neither do any of tanners statements ( which can be found on same site). You have made this claim before, and did not provide a link when asked then.

You have also claimed the mccanns suppressed the e.fits. can you provide a source for this. The Sunday times were the source of claims the e.fits had been suppressed, but they published a follow-up article which said that the mccanns had not suppressed them and that they had been given to the police straight away in Portugal and upon the review beginning in the uk. If the police decided these should not be released then thats up to them, they may well have had good reason. Its not possible to link to the times as it is subscription only online. But the police deciding to not release them until recently is not the same as the mccanns supressing them and there is no evidence of this.

Maybe you should do some research of your own rather than dispute people who obviously have :

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/


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.'

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id272.html


Sunday Times 'Apology' ??

' we referred to efits ...........prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008..........
We also understand that a copy including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in [/b]August 2011[/b]..... We apologise for the distress caused."

They certainty don't make any 'apologies' for the article.
In fact it seems more of a correction of one small detail.
There is no apology or corrections to the rest of the article.

Note: Sticking by the Private Investigators claim of being removed when they started questioning their findings, being legally 'gagged' from disclosing any of their findings etc....

No corrections regarding this ....

Or Apologies.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

 

[Junebug99]

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...rranean-man-took-Madeleine.html#ixzz0fQNlbj4t

Here Jane specifically said she didn't think it was Murat.

 

[Junebug99]

Who is making those claims in your link?

 

[InspectorGadget]

No what we've got is an entire mountain of evidence that is not easily explained.

[modsnip]

What was hinky has just become hinkier.

:cow:

If you had a mountain of evidence the McCanns would probably have been arrested and charged.

 

[InspectorGadget]

It means nothing of the sort.

It's means it's unreliable (see previous links for scientific research & facts)

My 'thought process' comes from researching credible sources.
Not picking & choosing (or not linking to facts when you keep arguing the same things)

And due to the fact FSS were under investigation & licensing suspended at the time any analysis wouldn't stand up in court.

It's not unreliable, it is inconclusive. Any DNA evidence will always be inconclusive sourced from a place that both Madeleine, her parents, brother and sister may also have been, no matter who does the analysis.

 

[brit1981]

Maybe you should do some research of your own rather than dispute people who obviously have :

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/


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.'

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id272.html


Sunday Times 'Apology' ??

' we referred to efits ...........prepared by private investigators for the McCanns and the Fund in 2008..........
We also understand that a copy including the efits was passed to the Metropolitan police in [/b]August 2011[/b]..... We apologise for the distress caused."

They certainty don't make any 'apologies' for the article.
In fact it seems more of a correction of one small detail.
There is no apology or corrections to the rest of the article.

Note: Sticking by the Private Investigators claim of being removed when they started questioning their findings, being legally 'gagged' from disclosing any of their findings etc....

No corrections regarding this ....

Or Apologies.

http://www.thesundaytimes.co.uk/sto/comment/regulars/corrections/article1357081.ece

As for Murat,that comes from amaral, a convicted criminal whose conviction is for perjury ( http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/102810/McCann-detective-guilty-of-perjury ). It does not match the final report which I linked to above or any of tanners statements which are at the same site. Amarals statement demonstrates two things firstly that his claims do not match the police files. Secondly, the fact he tried to get a potential witness to identify someone in this manner is appalling. Murat was not informed, there was no lawyer present, there was no attempt at an actual identity parade using men of similar colouring and stature wearing similar clothing. It was absolutely terrible behavior by the police.

The times article made a point of saying that the e.fits had not been suppressed for some reason your quote of the article has not included that bit or the earlier dates the e.fits were given to the Portuguese.
The original article did not say they were removed after questioning their findings, but it does mention the financial crisis involving Kevin halligan who it is alleged took the funds money but did not pay oakley the investigators in this case. It also states that oakley themselves had to have over the e.fits to the police after being asked to by the find. That suggests the fund did not gave the e.fits themselves which given oakley never got paid in their eyes is not surprising. And if course any private investigators have a confiudebntiality clause, its normal for any contract but as this involves a missing child confidentiality clauses do not bar people from going to the police. It just stops people selling their story to red tops. If you read the article oakley got the confidentiality clause letter from the funds lawyers not the mccanns.

 

[brit1981]

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id272.html

So your evidence there is a mountain of evidence does not come from the files, but a convicted perjurer?

 

[brit1981]

It means nothing of the sort.

It's means it's unreliable (see previous links for scientific research & facts)

My 'thought process' comes from researching credible sources.
Not picking & choosing (or not linking to facts when you keep arguing the same things)

And due to the fact FSS were under investigation & licensing suspended at the time any analysis wouldn't stand up in court.

Let's go through your points one by one.

So if lcn is unreliable, how does that indicate it is more likely madeleine,'s DNA given the fifteen alleles claim claim from the fss lcn analysis, the DnA was found in a car used by people whose components are consistant with all of madeleines components and then analyses by people who had some components consistant with madeleine.

You still fail to explain your thought process, you do not explain why you think the problems with lcn mean it is more likely to be madeleines DNA.

So what if it would be thrown out of court, that just means even the fifteen alleles claim could not be used. The court cannot have non experts just making random claims about the DNA, they need experts.

So if lcn is unreliable that means nothing in so far as claiming the DNA could be madeleines, it could be anyone's.

 

[~n/t~]

Please can you provide a link to support your claim of a mountain of unexplained evidence. The final report goes through the initial reasons for aguido status and the reasons for this being removed which included there being no indications the mccann committed any crime, an alibi etc nothing in it supports the idea there is a mountain of evidence against the mccanns.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm

Can you please link to the evidence of your claim tanner identified Murat. The final report above goes through the reasons for Murat's aguido status and it mentions nothing about this, neither do any of tanners statements ( which can be found on same site). You have made this claim before, and did not provide a link when asked then.

You have also claimed the mccanns suppressed the e.fits. can you provide a source for this. The Sunday times were the source of claims the e.fits had been suppressed, but they published a follow-up article which said that the mccanns had not suppressed them and that they had been given to the police straight away in Portugal and upon the review beginning in the uk. If the police decided these should not be released then thats up to them, they may well have had good reason. Its not possible to link to the times as it is subscription only online. But the police deciding to not release them until recently is not the same as the mccanns supressing them and there is no evidence of this.

Suppressed efits
Madeleine McCann Suspect E-Fit 'Produced By Former Spies In 2008 And Suppressed By Parents'

http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/2013/10/27/madeleine-mccann-kate-gerry-mi5_n_4167645.html


If you have the subscribed version of the times with the revised article please post some of it and include the link. Thanks

 

[~n/t~]

Robert Murat criminal complaint against Jane Tanner
Today, a UK media journalist, ITV'S Keir Simmons was able to confirm with Mr. Pagarete, Robert Murat's lawyer, that he has filed a legal complaint against Jane Tanner.

According to Portuguese Journalist Frederico Duarte de Carvalho's twitter, the case which is still at the inquest phase and under the secrecy of justice, is taking place at the Criminal Court of Lagos, in the Algarve, and apparently Mr. Amaral has already testified. Jane Tanner has not yet been constituted as an arguida, nor has she appeared in court.

Robert Murat's criminal complaint against Jane Tanner for calumnious denunciation, has already heard some witnesses, and will continue to hear some more, one of which is Ricardo Paiva, the PJ inspector who is currently being called as a 'liar' by the McCanns Portuguese lawyer, Isabel Duarte.


http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2010/02/robert-murat-criminal-complaint-against.html