WHEN JANE TANNER CRIED

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Eileen McCann gave an interview in which she said that Madeleine had spent Christmas 2005 with her. I took this to mean that she was there with the rest of her family but others took it literally to mean that she was there on her own.

If I can find the interview I'll post it.

I definitely don't think there's proof that she was there on her own.

P.S. Found it quickly. http://frommybigdesk.blogspot.co.uk/2009/12/madeleine-mccann-christmas-appeal-from.html

Sorry Anna, I don't agree with your interpretation of Eileen's words! All she meant from the way I read them is that the McCanns were there for Christmas 2005 but next time they came for new year instead.

I agree with your interpretation.  The spoken word is much less precise than the written word.  I can't find anything in her words that indicates that Madeleine was there by herself.

If this photo of a family gathering was taken at Christmas 2005 - and Amelie looks the right age for that - that would get rid of the idea that Madeleine was the only one at her grandmother's then.

http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/Paul-FionaGregor-madeleine.jpg

How can we be sure the photo is taken at Christmas 2005?  Amelie could be any age from 6-12 months, the room doesn't look particularly festive, and Madeleine could have spent Christmas with her paternal grandmother with her uncle and his children visiting on the day G&K, with the twins, came to collect her.

dantezebu wrote:And also in the GM 10th May 2007 statement:

"He then returned to the TAPAS, between 21h10 and 21h15, dinner having gone as normal. As the movement of people at the table was frequent, he does not know if, when he returned, anyone else was absent, namely JANE. At around 21h30 he drew KATE's attention to the fact that it was time for her to go to see the children, MATHEW having immediately volunteered to substitute her, given the fact that she was chatting. Three to four minutes later MATHEW returned, saying only "all is quiet" (SIC), he having entered through the back door, given that he did not have the key and it was usual for them to enter in that way.

After MATHEW arrived and before KATE left, he does not recall if anyone else was absent, although it was very probable that such had happened. He thinks that, on that night, none of the adults nor children were ill. Asked, he mentions that the daughter of RUSSEL and FIONA would have been ill on Tuesday.


Half and hour later, without anything to remark, it being 22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children."


So he doesn't recall Jane coming back to the table. ROB going to check with MO. ROB staying in his apartment with his ill daughter and not returning to the table. Jane leaving the table to relieve ROB. ROB coming back to the table for his big juicy steak. And gets confused thinking that ROB and FP have a daughter together.
Clearly this was a man who was very distracted that evening, or wasn't there at all.

Thanks for that reminder.
We can see Gerry's brain leaking information like a sieve.

The 3rd was the ONLY night that no- one was ill. It's likely that Fiona did the nanny duty on the Tuesday and perhaps he doesn't want to mention ROB separately as it seems both ROB and JT knew more than the others, or did more.

He puts himself firmly at the table from the time he returned from his chat with JW and 10.03 is, like the '9.04 by his watch' from Kate's book, far too precise a time to give. Now this is two exact times coming from the same source.
This is the 10th of May statement which is significant, the holes were being stopped, PR was on the job and imo the second statement came after that clip of Happy Gerry on the balcony. Iirc he was at the police station for about 8 hours.
Not only that, the following day David Beckham was on TV with Maddie's photograph. By the 10th, imo they were already untouchable. The press had already been brought into line and were allowed arranged photo opportunities.

Dante and Zebu, you're spot on - he wasn't there.

tigger wrote:

dantezebu wrote:And also in the GM 10th May 2007 statement:

"He then returned to the TAPAS, between 21h10 and 21h15, dinner having gone as normal. As the movement of people at the table was frequent, he does not know if, when he returned, anyone else was absent, namely JANE. At around 21h30 he drew KATE's attention to the fact that it was time for her to go to see the children, MATHEW having immediately volunteered to substitute her, given the fact that she was chatting. Three to four minutes later MATHEW returned, saying only "all is quiet" (SIC), he having entered through the back door, given that he did not have the key and it was usual for them to enter in that way.

After MATHEW arrived and before KATE left, he does not recall if anyone else was absent, although it was very probable that such had happened. He thinks that, on that night, none of the adults nor children were ill. Asked, he mentions that the daughter of RUSSEL and FIONA would have been ill on Tuesday.


Half and hour later, without anything to remark, it being 22h03, he again alerted KATE that it was time to check the children."


So he doesn't recall Jane coming back to the table. ROB going to check with MO. ROB staying in his apartment with his ill daughter and not returning to the table. Jane leaving the table to relieve ROB. ROB coming back to the table for his big juicy steak. And gets confused thinking that ROB and FP have a daughter together.
Clearly this was a man who was very distracted that evening, or wasn't there at all.

Thanks for that reminder.
We can see Gerry's brain leaking information like a sieve.

The 3rd was the ONLY night that no- one was ill. It's likely that Fiona did the nanny duty on the Tuesday and perhaps he doesn't want to mention ROB separately as it seems both ROB and JT knew more than the others, or did more.

He puts himself firmly at the table from the time he returned from his chat with JW and 10.03 is, like the '9.04 by his watch' from Kate's book, far too precise a time to give.  Now this is two exact times coming from the same source.
This is the 10th of May statement which is significant, the holes were being stopped, PR was on the job and imo the second statement came after that clip of Happy Gerry on the balcony. Iirc he was at the police station for about 8 hours.
Not only that, the following day David Beckham  was on TV with Maddie's photograph. By the 10th, imo they were already untouchable. The press had already been brought into line and were allowed arranged photo opportunities.

Dante and Zebu, you're spot on - he wasn't there.

Just to note what an absolute ars*ho*e Gerry McCann is. Assembly at pool 8.45. Paynes arrive 9. p.m.
Gerry checks kids 9.03. Arrives back 9.10 - 9.15 (later after meeting Jez though).
9.30 tells Kate to get up and check kids.
Then again at 10, tells Kate to get up and check kids.
Sorry, I'd have lamped any man that didn't at least take on his fair share....Why did he think it his prerogative to 'remind Kate' that it was time for her to do 'her' check.
All disgusting lies and behaviour. Poor Maddie, what dysfunctional parents she had.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t4749-was-kate-on-bed-rest-throughout-pregnancy-for-twins-who-cared-for-madeleine
"At twenty-four weeks, a transvaginal
ultrasound scan to measure the cervix (the shorter it is, the
greater the risk of the mother going into premature labour)
revealed that mine had pretty much reduced to nothing.
I
was immediately put on to a trolley and admitted to a ward,
where I was to remain on bed rest to reduce the
gravitational pressure. The tears flowed, initially not so
much because of the risk to my pregnancy but because I
was distraught at the prospect of being parted from
Madeleine.

At twenty-seven weeks I began to bleed and had to go
back into hospital. ???'We were worried about the babies
being born prematurely in the Netherlands'????. If that happened
we would have to stay on after Gerry’s fellowship had
ended, with no family support and no income, so it was
imperative to get me back home as soon as possible –
provided, of course, our specialist felt it was safe enough
for me to travel. He did, and on 1 December, a month
ahead of schedule, we departed for the UK. On the advice
of my consultant I flew, accompanied by my Auntie Janet,
with Gerry, Madeleine and most of our belongings following
by car and ferry."

she moved sometime in December I believe. It's in the bewk
 In January 2005, while Kate was pregnant with the twins, they stayed for a week in Lanzarote, an island in the Canaries. 
link
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2922p160-the-creche-enquiry

So..Then it was o.k to take the risk of premature  born baby's outside the U.K?

I am a Newbe,
The Mccannstory always raised some quetions..

The always changing part raise the more questions.
So.. in the ' Crimewatch' 2013 is the focus on the man in 5c.
On the Dutch voice over The mccann checked the windows and curtains before they left.
Redwood is saying the Mccanns are no persons of interest..

But this case is a mix of the classic in history
 Lindbergh
(taken from the bed)
Natalee missing on a holiday.
Jonbennet. pretty, young
Abuse pedo ..
G&K.. 
The children ever found after years are taken from the street.

 People stolen from home..
For the money
Children more get hurt or abducted by the parents then stolen from bed..

Kate thinks it seems the U.K children are very special..
Do.. in Brasil or even Berlin are children living on the street, sexual abuse, abdoned..
Not that special?
Weird ..the Mccann are broadcasting different story's.
Is it because in most of Europe they don't speak English, or...
They have really no clue what they are really saying?
Don't see before broadcasting, 
Don't read the book back
Or think we all buy it?
I mean.. they get paid to do the interviews.
So the questions are probaly even 'known' before.
Probaly the  carterruck fear?
To not get deeper?
Sandra did well, or some others to..
But the 'crimewatchtour' was..
Yeah, i mean , you know..like..
The perfect picture..trying to sell.
No dogs..
Missing girl move on to abduction.
Sell the fear..
So my first post..

To continue the first part of your post:

She travelled to the Uk.
She apparently has a holiday whilst heavily pregnant with twins. Who were born on 1st feb. 2005
She is up, walking , visiting family during that period as is clear from that peculiar episode in the book where a family member has a heart attack, which is first seen as a joke, then the cardiovascular expert goes to phone for an ambulance and Maddie uses a toy stethoscope to listen to the stricken man's heart.

Not completing a fellowship of a year's duration is a heavy price to pay for what seems to have been not to have been sufficient reason to do so.

Welcome btw.   

tigger wrote:To continue the first part of your post:

She travelled to the Uk.
She apparently has a holiday whilst heavily pregnant with twins. Who were born on 1st feb. 2005
She is up, walking , visiting family during that period as is clear from that peculiar episode in the book where a family member has a heart attack, which is first seen as a joke, then the cardiovascular expert goes to phone for an ambulance and Maddie uses a toy stethoscope to listen to the stricken man's heart.

Not completing a fellowship of a year's duration is a heavy price to pay for what seems to have been not to have been sufficient reason to do so.

Welcome btw.   

Well of topic.
Anyway.

But I mean If you really go to all that trouble (ivf)
Or wanted kids for years..
Well..
You don't take any risk.

And the coloboma..
It can indicate a syndrome.
Hartproblems genitale problems, ear problems.

There was always something wrong with the pictures.
In many of them it looks like she is having make up.
Also the one eating icecream no vingernails..
So.. K&G never spoke of healthproblems.
Coloboma can indicate serious one
(hope my spelling isn't to bad)

@ JOHN[IN]DEED

That's indeed a very strange story. Flying to the U.K. I can understand. When you have medical problems, you'd prefer to be in your home country [and at home]. So permission given to fly in her circumstances is to be believed. However, then flying a month later to Lanzarote, is IMO a big red flag. Most airway companies only accept women pregnant with multiple babies until 32 weeks. For others the limit is 36 weeks. And they only accept women with pregnancy complications, if they have a doctor's attest that it's safe for them to fly. So, how can a woman pregnant with twins and having serious medical problems have been permitted to fly to have a HOLIDAY a month or less before their babies were born?

ETA: I just checked the PJfiles. The McCanns went to Lanzarote in January 2003, whilst Kate was 6 months pregnant with Madeleine. So my above concerns don't apply ...

On 2nd May topic I said much the same.  Apart from Tannerman, Jane goes into too much detail  in her early discussions with the police for what should have been an insignificant day and in so doing places Kate and Maddie in specific places at certain times. None of the others in the group give so much info about the Wednesday, in fact Gerry speaks as if it was a day that did not occur along with 30th April. As for the account of the truth...

 the 2nd day is key and Tanner imho is the only person they need to talk to for the truth [ then for the details, certain others ]

 One or both Mcs appear to have had some leverage over some in that group. She went to great lengths to protect her man, perhaps the leverage was to do with ROB.

 [the Paynes seem to fly under the radar , so I would concentrate on them also]

Châtelaine wrote:@ JOHN[IN]DEED

That's indeed a very strange story. Flying to the U.K. I can understand. When you have medical problems, you'd prefer to be in your home country [and at home]. So permission given to fly in her circumstances is to be believed. However, then flying a month later to Lanzarote, is IMO a big red flag. Most airway companies only accept women pregnant with multiple babies until 32 weeks. For others the limit is 36 weeks. And they only accept women with pregnancy complications, if they have a doctor's attest that it's safe for them to fly. So, how can a woman pregnant with twins and having serious medical problems have been permitted to fly to have a HOLIDAY a month or less before their babies were born?

ETA: I just checked the PJfiles. The McCanns went to Lanzarote in January 2003, whilst Kate was 6 months pregnant with Madeleine. So my above concerns don't apply ...

So. i had it wrong..
Glad you set it right.
 A twinpregnancy is heavy.
Travelling knowing the child can pop out is a great risk.
Try to go home I can understand.

( Good you checked it) 

John (In)DEED wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:@ JOHN[IN]DEED

That's indeed a very strange story. Flying to the U.K. I can understand. When you have medical problems, you'd prefer to be in your home country [and at home]. So permission given to fly in her circumstances is to be believed. However, then flying a month later to Lanzarote, is IMO a big red flag. Most airway companies only accept women pregnant with multiple babies until 32 weeks. For others the limit is 36 weeks. And they only accept women with pregnancy complications, if they have a doctor's attest that it's safe for them to fly. So, how can a woman pregnant with twins and having serious medical problems have been permitted to fly to have a HOLIDAY a month or less before their babies were born?

ETA: I just checked the PJfiles. The McCanns went to Lanzarote in January 2003, whilst Kate was 6 months pregnant with Madeleine. So my above concerns don't apply ...

So. i had it wrong..
Glad you set it right.
 A twinpregnancy is heavy.
Travelling knowing the child can pop out is a great risk.
Try to go home I can understand.

( Good you checked it) 

But in the early Dutch Tv http://www.eenvandaag.nl/criminaliteit/32058/kleuter_nog_altijd_spoorloos
One of the friends is telling she was a few weeks pregnant before she left.
Also Kate went to P.G because of the children care
P.G don't need study to?
The voice over said they stayed longer than one year.


[size=12.727272033691406]Also..in the first few  days, weeks.. missing there were many people who told us how decent K&G are..[/size]
[size=12.727272033691406]I mean..[/size]
Does it help to find a little girl by praising the parents?

Or even say the Dutch parents also take risk every day, take the children on a bike?
Well..I don't think toddlers or baby's should biking on their own..

So.. they made 'their' Madeleine 'our Maddy'
They love to tell about the family, the friends, and paint the perfect picture..
The Barbie world.

John (In)DEED wrote:

John (In)DEED wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:@ JOHN[IN]DEED

That's indeed a very strange story. Flying to the U.K. I can understand. When you have medical problems, you'd prefer to be in your home country [and at home]. So permission given to fly in her circumstances is to be believed. However, then flying a month later to Lanzarote, is IMO a big red flag. Most airway companies only accept women pregnant with multiple babies until 32 weeks. For others the limit is 36 weeks. And they only accept women with pregnancy complications, if they have a doctor's attest that it's safe for them to fly. So, how can a woman pregnant with twins and having serious medical problems have been permitted to fly to have a HOLIDAY a month or less before their babies were born?

ETA: I just checked the PJfiles. The McCanns went to Lanzarote in January 2003, whilst Kate was 6 months pregnant with Madeleine. So my above concerns don't apply ...

So. i had it wrong..
Glad you set it right.
 A twinpregnancy is heavy.
Travelling knowing the child can pop out is a great risk.
Try to go home I can understand.

( Good you checked it) 

But in the early Dutch Tv http://www.eenvandaag.nl/criminaliteit/32058/kleuter_nog_altijd_spoorloos
One of the friends is telling she was a few weeks pregnant before she left.
Also Kate went to P.G because of the children care
P.G don't need study to?
The voice over said they stayed longer than one year.


Also..in the first few  days, weeks.. missing there were many people who told us how decent K&G are..
I mean..
Does it help to find a little girl by praising the parents?

Or even say the Dutch parents also take risk every day, take the children on a bike?
Well..I don't think toddlers or baby's should biking on their own..

So.. they made 'their' Madeleine 'our Maddy'
They love to tell about the family, the friends, and paint the perfect picture..
The Barbie world.

Kate returned to the UK partly because she didn't like the bedside manner of the Dutch doctors.
Allegedly she returned on the 1st December 2004. either with family or on her own.
She was seven months pregnant when she left.
On her evidence ( the book) she did attend a family gathering at least once. So imo there was no urgent need for constant bedrest if you can be driven to places, fly and attend gatherings.

I agree with you about all the nice things these so-called friends and colleagues are saying.
Happy family? I don't think so.

So 7 weeks, 7 months..
A huge difference.
I think .

27 weeks.
So they were born in Februari?
Left Amsterdam in December?
Well..
K&G bring up all needless information by their friends.
(Jammed shutters, ivf)
It don't even fit.
So why are they presenting such big mistakes?

Why do we need to know K&G had ivf, or even living in the Netherlands?
Public attention to their whole family and friends.
It sure helps to.. find her alive?

[size=14.545454025268555]ETA[/size][size=14.545454025268555]: I just checked the PJfiles. The McCanns went to Lanzarote in January [/size][size=14.545454025268555]2003,[/size][size=14.545454025268555] whilst Kate was 6 months pregnant with [/size][size=14.545454025268555]Madeleine[/size][size=14.545454025268555]. So my above concerns don't apply .[/size]


[size=14.545454025268555]Madeleine was born in May..[/size]
[size=14.545454025268555]So the English are 10 months pregnant?  [/size]
[size=14.545454025268555]Poor Kate..[/size]

Garrincha wrote:Hello John indeed – I wonder if in a past life you might perhaps have done any pioneering work on long-distance radio transmission?

Garrincha, your antennae have detected something?  I was wondering too.

John (In)DEED wrote:

tigger wrote:To continue the first part of your post:

She travelled to the Uk.
She apparently has a holiday whilst heavily pregnant with twins. Who were born on 1st feb. 2005
She is up, walking , visiting family during that period as is clear from that peculiar episode in the book where a family member has a heart attack, which is first seen as a joke, then the cardiovascular expert goes to phone for an ambulance and Maddie uses a toy stethoscope to listen to the stricken man's heart.

Not completing a fellowship of a year's duration is a heavy price to pay for what seems to have been not to have been sufficient reason to do so.

Welcome btw.   

Well of topic.
Anyway.

But I mean If you really go to all that trouble (ivf)
Or wanted kids for years..
Well..
You don't take any risk.

And the coloboma..
It can indicate a syndrome.
Hartproblems genitale problems, ear problems.

There was always something wrong with the pictures.
In many of them it looks like she is having make up.
Also the one eating icecream no vingernails..
So.. K&G never spoke of healthproblems.
Coloboma can indicate serious one
(hope my spelling isn't to bad)

No dear, it isn't. But did you mean genetic problems perhaps? 

& Wellcome!

Portia wrote:

John (In)DEED wrote:

tigger wrote:To continue the first part of your post:

She travelled to the Uk.
She apparently has a holiday whilst heavily pregnant with twins. Who were born on 1st feb. 2005
She is up, walking , visiting family during that period as is clear from that peculiar episode in the book where a family member has a heart attack, which is first seen as a joke, then the cardiovascular expert goes to phone for an ambulance and Maddie uses a toy stethoscope to listen to the stricken man's heart.

Not completing a fellowship of a year's duration is a heavy price to pay for what seems to have been not to have been sufficient reason to do so.

Welcome btw.   

Well of topic.
Anyway.

But I mean If you really go to all that trouble (ivf)
Or wanted kids for years..
Well..
You don't take any risk.

And the coloboma..
It can indicate a syndrome.
Hartproblems genitale problems, ear problems.

There was always something wrong with the pictures.
In many of them it looks like she is having make up.
Also the one eating icecream no vingernails..
So.. K&G never spoke of healthproblems.
Coloboma can indicate serious one
(hope my spelling isn't to bad)

No dear, it isn't. But did you mean genetic problems perhaps? 

& Wellcome!

Thanks
Yeah.. genetic problems.
https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t9279p10-terminally-mccanned
Or problems with the light.
I've only met one who had a irisdefect, on both eyes,like that
Also had diabetes, and other problems.

I've read it can happen after a trauma to.
So .. 
I never understood why they made a trademark of that eye..
Or both docters are not knowing if it was a coloboma.
As a parent..you should know..
In the 'Maddie agening' it is hardly never mentioned.
So.. by agening her eye is grown 'normal'  then?
Also.. Children are all born with blue eyes..I.ve been told.
Some are so dark they are almost black.
Can even turn into lightblue later.

In my past life,well a long time ago..
I was probaly a cat, bug, pig or dog..

Ladyinred wrote:

Garrincha wrote:Hello John indeed – I wonder if in a past life you might perhaps have done any pioneering work on long-distance radio transmission?

Garrincha, your antennae have detected something?  I was wondering too.

Here is nr 3.

Halfwit wrote:Unable to sleep I've been thinking back to when she burst into tears in (I think) the first reconstruction.

Maybe she cries easily, I don't, but she was overcome with tears and I feel sure that they were genuine. At the time I thought she was reliving a sad memory and my heart went out to her.

Now I think she realised at that moment that she was being thrown to the wolves.  Gerry really was denying her on camera.  She may have been silly, I won't and can't excuse the silly cow, but I'm wondering if she came to any sense she might have and did the right thing.

Is there a video of this anywhere?

Here you go, Brian.

Note how editing has made it look like she's crying with despair after not twigging that Tannerman was up to no good immediately she saw him, when, in fact, the lighting and positioning of the other people indicate the floods burst just after Gerry's undermining of her credibility. Also note how he jumps in to stifle the football comment.

From about 30 seconds in.

Dee Coy wrote:

Here you go, Brian.

Note how editing has made it look like she's crying with despair after not twigging that Tannerman was up to no good immediately she saw him, when, in fact, the lighting and positioning of the other people indicate the floods burst just after Gerry's undermining of her credibility.  Also note how he jumps in to stifle the football comment.

From about 30 seconds in.

"The most important thing is what you saw not where Jerry and Jez stood."

Really?

What about how reliable her memory is?

I seems to me too vague to be real testimony. Note the way Jane seems to be explaining and justifying (things like 'I must have been standing here because of so and so and the pram must have been pointing this way etc.), which to me seems like she is making up certain elements of the testimony to fit in with the physical location at that time of night. Why not 'I was standing here. The pram was there'? Because it's all fabrication, in my opinion.

And Gerry was very fast to pounce on Jane's slip up. Gerry, you were watching the footie and getting beered up rather than checking on your children, weren't you? This clip as much as proves it. The WTF moments just keep on coming with this case.

In my opinion.