Sunday, 5 December 2010
WITNESS FOR THE PROSECUTION.
The following goes to furthering the question of whether Amaral makes for a reliable, or for that matter, even a truthful witness.
The following is an extract from a recent interview given by Amaral on Spanish TV.
PLEASE NOTE CAREFULLY, we are using Amaral's OWN WORDS here.
There is news of a criminal complaint by Robert Murat against Jane Tanner, one of the friends of the McCanns. She was questioned at the time of the investigation?
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?
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]?
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.
The brilliant detective has now gone on public record as stating that Jane Tanner, one of the McCann’s friends, positively identified Robert Murat as a suspect in the investigation. But, is that true? It seems not. See the following press articles.
The woman who believes she saw Madeleine McCann being abducted revealed yesterday that she has never named Robert Murat to police as the man she saw.
Instead, Jane Tanner, 36, thinks he was “Mediterranean looking”.
Miss Tanner, one of the so- called Tapas Nine, says she remains “stricken with guilt” over failing to prevent the abduction.
”I felt I could have stopped this all from happening,” she said. “I think of that every day. I have to live with it for ever, that guilt is never going to go away.”
But she admitted: “I simply don’t know if I could identify again the man I saw that night. I’ve never pointed the finger at Robert Murat because I simply don’t know if it was him or not.
”I would say the man I saw was more local, or Mediterranean looking, rather than British. He had dark, almost black, long hair and had swarthy skin.
Three friends who were staying with the parents of Madeleine McCann when their daughter was abducted are being re interviewed by Portuguese police this morning.
Rachael Oldfield, Russell O’Brien and Fiona Payne flew from Britain to give further statements about the night Madeleine disappeared 69 days ago.
They are being questioned ay the local headquarters of the Polícia Judiciária in Portimao about the chronology of events on the night and details of people seen at the resort where they were staying.
They were in a group having dinner with Kate and Gerry McCann at a tapas restaurant at the time their daughter was snatched from her bed in the Ocean Club resort in Praia da Luz on May 3.
And the clincher, here is a photograph, above, of the three friends at the time of this face to face meeting.
Rachael Oldfield, Russell O’Brien and Fiona Payne. NOT, as Amaral falsely claimed in his statement above, Jane Tanner.
What are we to make of this? Well, one thing is perfectly clear, and that is that Jane Tanner did NOT identify Robert Murat, and was most definatly NOT at this face to face meeting, contrary to what Amaral said. In addition, a British Ex-pat Portuguese associate has looked into the public registration of forthcoming cases, and thus far has found no official record of any upcoming case, libel or otherwise, mentioning either Murat or Tanner. So, was the ‘Brilliant’ detective simply mistaken? Or was he, for reasons known only to himself, lying? There is a growing suspicion, though admittedly no proof as yet among the ‘McCann believers’ that, due to the timing of the release of this news, Mr Murat was put up to this libel case by Amaral, perhaps to gain some sort of revenge against the McCann’s, or more likely to deflect attention away from his loosing of the recent book injunction case. Either way, we now suggest that Amaral’s character as any kind of credible witness is now shredded beyond repair. I doubt Mr Murat reads this blog, but if he does can I suggest, with all honesty, if he IS considering it, he drop this ill concieved libel case and have nothing more to do with Amaral. No good will come of it, just as nothing good will come as a result of associating with this Goncalo.