Dr Martin Roberts: A Tanner in the works

EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
19 January 2010


A TANNER IN THE WORKS

If lies are two a penny, then a 'tanner' should give you at least a dozen.

Jane Tanner is the invisible woman, able to pass two people standing in an otherwise deserted street without herself being noticed; not even by the one facing her at the time.

Her visual acuity is such that, under sparse artificial lighting, at night, and at a distance of some fifteen feet plus, she was able to resolve at a glance the small pattern on a pair of recumbent child's pyjama trousers (which she could see), as well as suggesting the colour of the matching top (which she could not see), despite the orange cast imposed by street lamps ("I feel, I thought I saw pink pyjamas and I thought I could see colours but I don't know, it was fairly orange so I don't know"). And yet the child was being carried by an adult with seemingly no discernible facial characteristics whatsoever; not even in profile.

However, the official PJ account of Tanner's first witness statement, taken on 4 May, 2007 records that 'when asked, she says she would probably be able to identify the individual she saw, being able to identify him from the side and from his manner of walking.' Hence Jane Tanner managed to extract sufficient information from her encounter to allow her to identify the nocturnal pedestrian she saw crossing the street ahead of her. She believed it to have been one Robert Murat.

Understandably keen to assure themselves that Jane Tanner would subsequently recognise Robert Murat as the individual she saw on the night of Madeleine McCann's disappearance, Portuguese police execute a modest 'stake out'. They place Ms Tanner inside an unmarked car, whose tinted windows allow her to see out without being seen herself, and park the vehicle at the very spot where she claims to have been on the night of May 3rd. As Robert Murat, loosely accompanied by plain clothes police officers, passes up the road in the same way as the party previously spotted by her, Jane Tanner is adamant that it was Robert Murat whom she saw that night. She recognises his gait.

Robert Murat, I am sure, would not take offence at anyone remarking on his defining feature, which is not the disposition of his feet. Owing to an unfortunate motorcycle accident as a young man, he now has only one viable eye. Spectacles are essential and he wears them constantly. Whilst he has an understandable bias in his eyesight therefore, it is not mirrored in the action of his limbs, which are perfectly normal. Surely someone with night vision so acute they can describe the pattern, cut, and hue of a small area of textile glimpsed at a distance, would have noticed if the child carrier himself wore glasses, even seen from the side. He didn't. Therefore he was not Robert Murat, whom Tanner recognised simply on the basis of his walking 'purposefully.'

Tanner's memory has the extraordinary characteristic of becoming clearer with time and encouragement. Cognitively 'induced', she sees the child in pyjamas for what they were, rather than the amorphous textile bundle they might have seemed previously. It just took that extra stimulus for things to fall into place. She herself has said that she didn't remember the pyjamas until she was put under a cognitive 'spell' several hours after the original sighting. On 20 November, 2007 she told The Sun newspaper that "at around 11.15, two policemen arrived and I told them. Later CID arrived. They did this thing called a cognitive technique, where they put you back in the moment, and it was then that I remembered the pyjamas." But what did she tell the two policemen who arrived first?

One of the officers in question was Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa (GNR Patrol), who afterwards reported that '...his colleague went to check the area around the apartments and the Tapas Bar, while the witness remained next to the apartment, just outside it. At that moment a female individual... who was in the neighbouring apartment, said that she saw an individual carrying a child, running, and that because of the pyjamas she was wearing it could have been Madeleine.

There are already cases on record of psychopaths feigning hypnosis (e.g. Albert Bianchi), so coming forward with the notion of pyjamas (having previously articulated the same), when given a gentle nudge to the psyche by a police inspector, is hardly original.

You know who your friends are with Jane. Or do you? On 8 April 2008 she had the following to say, inter alia, to a detective constable from Leicestershire Police who was interviewing her at the time:

Jane Tanner: "Errr... so, yeah... so, David... so, we said... we decided, oh yeah, we'll go and it'll be nice to see everybody, and we know Kate and Gerry, we'd sort of socialised with them but not as well probably as the other... as the other two couples."

Leicestershire Police: "Mmm..."

JT: "Errr... but they'd been on holiday with David and Fiona before and so... and they've got children the same age as well, you know. Obviously Madeleine's the same age as E***, so a bit of a nice group."

LP: "So you knew them all but you hadn't all been on holiday as a group before?"

JT: "No, we've been with Matt and Rachael and David and Fiona. And David and Fiona had been with Kate and Gerry but we hadn't been, not the eight, or the nine of us including Fi's mum, we hadn't been on holiday before."

A year earlier and the information she disclosed might have been a little different.

'In September 2003, the McCanns and their friends Matthew Oldfield, Rachael Mampilly, Russell O'Brien and Jane Tanner spent a week in Umbria in Italy, where they went to attend David and Fiona Payne's wedding.’ (The Forbidden Investigation).

Neither David nor Fiona Payne is Italian. Hence, six friends found themselves at the wedding of two further friends, and all of them together in a foreign country. That sounds very much like eight people on holiday to me, and if a trained doctor cannot arrive at 'eight' as the sum of six plus two then something is seriously wrong with our educational system. (o.k., so we know that to be the case, but no one would suspect standards to have sunk quite that low).

This is, by any measure, a shameful catalogue of deliberate falsehoods. But if you can tell a man by the company he keeps, as well as acknowledging equality of the sexes, then Jane Tanner was not alone in her mendacity; not by a long chalk. Gerry and Kate McCanns' duplicity is risibly blatant. Matthew Oldfield talks of his activities inside an apartment as though his perspective view were from outside. Is it any wonder that these were the star players in the McCann inspired documentary 'Madeleine was Here'?

Whether by accident or design, the 'Tanner sighting' has become the maypole around which all the other colourful threads in the McCann fairytale are entwined. Yet there are more sides to it than a threepenny bit, suggesting that design might have played a role, and that this isn't quite a case of the tail wagging the dog.

Jane Tanner's seemingly coincidental sighting is but one of a medley of events itemised, for the benefit of the PJ in the first instance, by Tapas 7 members. So scrupulous were they concerning the chronology of the sequence overall, that they saw fit to annotate it twice, with small, and on the face of it insignificant, amendments. As is the case with so many things, the process itself turns out to be as interesting as the result.

The informational specifics are as follows:

The first list:

8:45 Everyone meets at the pool for dinner
9:00 Matt Oldfield listens at the windows of apts 5A,B,D
ALL blinds are closed
9:15 Gerry McCann goes to the room? bedroom door open
9:20 Jane Tanner checks 5D, sees a stranger carrying a child
9:30 Russell O'Brien in 5D, child is sick
9:55
10:00 Alarm given after Kate

The second list:

8:45 Pool
Matt returns 9:00-9:05 - listens at all, the 3 all have closed blinds
Gerry 9:10-9:15 - goes to room? bedroom door open
9:20/5 Jane checks apt 5D. Sees stranger with a child
9:30 Russell and Matt check the three
9:35 Matt sees the twins
9:50 Russell returns
9:55 Kate sees Madeleine is missing
10:00 Alarm

These lists, drawn up at the time the first GNR officers arrived on the scene, each include one entry shared almost verbatim: 'Jane (Tanner) checks apt 5D. Sees a stranger carrying a child.' The subject of this observation would later experience angst and remorse in equal measure; angst that inhibited her, so we are told, from telling the parents of Madeleine McCann, at the earliest opportunity, that she had personally seen someone who might have carried off their child, and remorse over not having done so until several hours later, once she had recalled the pyjamas; the same pyjamas she had previously mentioned at 11.15 p.m. when she thought her sighting important enough to bring to the attention of the GNR. So why should she not wish to inform the McCanns, even under duress? It is clear from her statements to police, both in Portugal and in retrospect, that her 'close encounter of the abduction kind' came as a surprise to Gerry McCann when first he heard mention of it.

Angst, remorse, and a revelation or two

From Jane Tanner's rogatory interview we glean the following:

Jane Tanner: "I didn't want to say to Kate at that point, which might sound odd now, you know, 'Oh, why wouldn't you say straight away to Kate', but, you know, the thought of telling the mother of a child that you might have seen being carried away is, it's too horrible to even say. So I just said to Fi, errm... you know, 'I think I might have seen somebody a bit odd when I came back to do one of the checks'. And I don't know whether she, I mean, she was just sort of like... I don't know whether she took it in properly, but, errm... and then they just carried on... carried on the searching."

News too sensitive for Kate's ears is therefore confined to Fiona Payne. Or is it? Way back in time (4 May, 2007) Jane Tanner gave a witness statement to the effect that 'As she (sic) concerns the man she saw, she only spoke to Gerald about this, not entering into details, and to the police.'

So it wasn't Fiona Payne she spoke to after all, but Gerry McCann. Well, maybe that depends on whether there’s an 'R' in the month. Jane Tanner's testimonial record is analogous to the lady who confesses adultery twice - once with the neighbour and once with the Rugby club's first XV, as further scrutiny of her Rogatory interview reveals:

LP: "Who else did you speak to?"

JT: "I'm trying to think of the order... it was, sort of like... it was Rachael first, then it was Fi and I can't remember when Russell and Matt came back, they came back at, errm... tut, I don't know whether they came back first or I told them or who else was there, but as soon, the police... when the police came, I know Rachael went straight away to get them to say, so that I could tell the GNR, I think... yeah, the GNR, what I'd seen, but I do'’t know if I told anybody else. I can't remember when people like Sylvie, who was the translator... I'm not sure when she arrived whether it was before the Police arrived or after the Police arrived or whenever, but..."

LP: "But you told the Police when they came?"

JT: "Yeah, when they arrived, Rachael, I think, went and got the GNR and I told the GNR chap and then when the PJ actually arrived they came and got me to go and talk to the, the PJ".

The actual sequence of disclosure is confirmed much later on in the interview:

"Rachael was the first person I told. And then Fiona and then I think when Russell and Matt or Russell and Dave, whoever it was that came back, I then, then told them."

Like the cuckolded husband, Gerry McCann is conspicuously absent from the roll call. Rachel Oldfield's own witness statement of 11 May, 2007 confirms:

'Further to that, about 10 minutes after Kate raised the alarm about the disappearance, the deponent was with Jane in the apartment of the latter. While talking, Jane told her that when she came to see their children, and passed Gerald talking to "Jez", she saw a man with a child, supported in his arms, which would not be a baby and could have been more or less the age of Madeleine... Asked, says that, initially Jane focused more on the description of the man and, only a few days later, did she make reference to the clothes that the child would have worn, which would be pyjamas.

So the world and its neighbour knew about Tanner’s sighting of 'man carrying child' almost from the outset, but 'child with pyjamas' was a later development; unless of course you happened to be GNR patrolman, Nelson Filipe Pacheco da Costa.

LP: "So when you went into Gerry and Kate's apartment who else was there?"

JT: "Errm... I think there was Russ... I think Russell came with me and there was Sylvie who was the translator.

"I can't remember which... there was some... there was a PJ chap was sitting on the... by the table. And there was Gerry who was standing by the... the bedroom door."

LP: "And how was Gerry at that point?"

JT: "Oh he was just, well obviously, obviously distraught..."

LP: "And what was Gerry's reaction to what you said?"

JT: "Well I don't even know whether he took it in, I mean, he was just... he was, you know, obviously just standing there looking absolutely horrified, so..."

So, despite Gerry McCann's being in the immediate vicinity as Russell O'Brien writes out the timeline featuring Jane Tanner’s sighting (indeed, as others have established, he was sitting at the table at the time), he appears to have been taken aback by Tanner's personal revelation. A sympathetic view of this reaction would be that Gerry was alarmed to discover that an opportunity for intervention appeared to have passed them by. A more quizzical interpretation rests on the supposition that GM actually furnished O'Brien and Oldfield with the details for the timeline, as well as the child's book on which they might write it (the latter is highly likely, the book having been Madeleine's own after all). Yet there is another possibility.

Gerry McCann's acting skills are, shall we say, noticeably underdeveloped. He cannot conceal his own discomfort when fielding awkward questions in public, for instance. Is it likely then that he would have feigned surprise for Jane Tanner's benefit? If not, and his surprise was therefore genuine, why should he have looked 'horrified?' Surely if his child had not long been spirited away, his face ought to have conveyed something more akin to relief, possibly even a certain animation, given that someone might be in a position to identify, or at least help identify, his daughter's abductor.

Simply playing devil's advocate and supposing that, whatever else, Madeleine was not abducted, provides an immediate explanation for Gerry's astonishment. For how can Jane Tanner be in a position to know something about the detail of an event that did not take place? That someone should come forward with independent validation of a lie must have been unsettling to say the least. Even more unsettling for Gerry McCann was Jane Tanner's continued insistence subsequently.

Other commentators have previously pointed out how the McCanns have been careful to disseminate their opinions/claims etc. among close friends, family members and various 'sources', making it the more difficult to lay blame for any misrepresentation at their door; a deliberate dissociation. Under the circumstances pertaining in the early hours of 4 May, 2007, one might reasonably expect the McCanns to have embraced Jane Tanner's revelation wholeheartedly from the outset. Yet they appear not to have done so. Although they each made mention of the Tanner 'sighting' during their respective police interviews, Gerry, rather than elaborate the description advanced by Tanner when given the opportunity, simply referred the police to her for details. Not a desperately committal attitude really, suggesting that Gerry had not quite immersed himself in Jane Tanner's representation of events.

Whilst this may appear to be stretching a point, or reading too much into the situation, the point is inexorably enlarged by examples of the McCanns' later behaviour toward their star witness and what she had to say. Isolated these may be. Contradictory they are not.

Under interview (and there have been quite several), Jane Tanner's confidence in her story, even if not her degree of accuracy, has been unwavering. From the outset she was sure she could identify the man she had seen in the darkness (from a distance of 50 metres according to Kate McCann). Is it not therefore a little odd, to say the least, that the McCanns seem not once to have encouraged the production of a 'visual' for the benefit of all those people they presumed to be searching for their daughter? That task was left to the Pinkertons. It was not the McCanns but Spanish detective agency Metodo 3 who commissioned the understandably derided artist's impression of 'Bundleman', fully five months after Madeleine's disappearance.

So much for urgency. How about faith in one's friends? The obvious illustration in this case has to be the documentary, 'Madeleine Was Here', and the reconstruction that wasn't. Which of us, having seen this production, can forget the confluence of Gerry McCann's and Jane Tanner's 'evidence' - the certitude; the unimpeachable unanimity? What we recall, as clear as crystal, are the disagreements, the McCann dogma, and the tears that flowed immediately afterwards. Now what was that all about? Without question, Gerry McCann's dissociation from Jane Tanner's story was apparent, even after an interval of two years.

If attention needed to be focussed on the evil abductor crossing the road ahead of all three bystanders (Gerry, Jane and Jes Wilkins), what difference did it make on which side of the road Gerry and his Tennis buddy were standing at the time? As far as the 'abductor' goes, nothing at all, since one or other of the conversationalists ought to have noticed him, whichever side of the road they were on. But Jane? Common sense dictates that, had she passed them on the same side of the street (as she claimed), she must have been nigh on unmissable. The chances of her not being recognised (or better yet, passing completely unnoticed) are somewhat improved when the parties are physically separated.

So why should Gerry McCann have been so determined to irrigate the seeds of doubt? Because Jane Tanner's so-called sighting was, and is, a double-edged sword, as keen along one edge as the other. On the plus side 'Bundleman' represents confirmation of the story. On the other, his reported presence on the street at exactly the same time as Gerry McCann implies, inevitably, that he must have gained access to apartment 5A before Gerry himself had done so. He could not have accomplished all he has been credited with otherwise. That being so, Gerry is faced with little choice but to entertain, albeit in retrospect, the likelihood that the intruder had hidden himself from view once Gerry had followed him inside, and that, as we know, was simply not possible (unless for some reason the intruder was in the process of abducting Madeleine from her parents' bedroom), since Gerry personally visited the children's bedroom, via the lounge, before leaving (he also visited the toilet). If Matthew Oldfield was able to see the twins breathing through a crack in the door, then Gerry McCann couldn't have missed an adult trying in vain to conceal himself.

Consistently (and conveniently) Gerry McCann fails to notice the abductor both inside and outside the apartment. Yet at the same time he is loathe to pass up the opportunity of capitalizing upon Tanner's 'evidence'. So what does he do? Exactly what he has always done - reap whatever benefit is to be had from favourable observations delegated to others, who then find themselves, knowingly or otherwise, to be the focus of attack should the information turn out to be questionable.

Thus has Jane Tanner been pilloried, even here, for her 'unreliability' as a witness, whilst Gerry has positioned himself strategically, such that he cannot be called upon to offer support. After all, he cannot even confirm that their paths crossed in the street. In truth it is not in his interest to do so. Cynically, he is prepared to accept the credibility that the sighting of an 'abductor' confirms, but should the story go 'belly up', then it was nothing to do with him was it?

Noticeable flurry of activity from Dr. Roberts during the last couple of days, really pushing home the point and emphasising the importance of a reconstruction to prove or disprove the abduction. hypothesis.

Agreed T4two. Certainly seems that Dr Roberts thinks change could be afoot.
I just WISH that a UK publication would print his articles. They are truly fantastic. That could not be construed as libellous, as they are just statements and utterings analysed.
In particular, 'Clear as Crystal' was absolutely on the money. If that appeared in public media, I don't think there could be many people left who would believe the abduction hypothesis to be remotely possible.
Gold star, Dr Roberts

From the rogatory interviews:

4078    “Err I think I’ve read somewhere that, was it Ella had a foot operation?”
Reply    “Yes, the week before. It didn’t go…”
4078    “You got your timing’s wrong.”
Reply    “Err yeah the week before we went she was in hospital because she had, well she had a small abscess on her foot which sort of got some bug in it that caused her to have very high temperatures so they had to do a very minor operation just to take the puss out to, you know, to do that, and I think she came out of hospital on the wed, I think it was the Wednesday, and we sort of asked a lot of medical advice as to whether we should go or not and we very, so close that we didn’t go but then in the end we thought well if we go there’s probably more distractions for her there with the friends being there than being stuck at home with us and I say the Doctor said there was no problem in going as long as we kept her out the pool for the first bit so yeah, err so we were this close to, well I say it was almost like we weren’t going to go and then we suddenly at the end of the day said…”
4078    “That’s my stomach started to rumble, that’s rather typical of me at this time of the morning I’m afraid. So by the time you went on holiday, Ella was fit and well?”
Reply    “She was fine apart from err her foot, she couldn’t wear her shoe so we bought her some mike stuff slippers so she was wearing slippers just to keep it covered, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.”“If I just start by the Sunday and ask you what you can remember about it.”
Reply    “Yeah I think that first Sunday Ella didn’t go to the kids club straight away purely because it’s the first day there and obviously because she had been poorly the week before we thought we’d just see how she, how she is you know before she goes, so she didn’t go, she didn’t go to the kids club.

Right, okay, so on the Monday you tennis’ed, windsurfed, picked up Evie.”
Reply    “Yeah.”
4078    “And Ella.”
Reply    “Yeah for lunch. I think Ella went back, I can’t say for sure but I think Ella went back in the afternoon.

“Yeah fine, yeah they were, they were tired. I think the Wednesday night, there was one night when Ella had a complete meltdown and sort of, she’s not sort of a tantrumy child but she was so tired she just sort of crashed and screamed during bath time. I think that might have been, I’m not sure if that was the Wednesday, it could have been the Wednesday but she just had a complete, you know how the kids do when they’re tired, complete meltdown and there’s screaming and they’re so tired it was quite hard to settle her but then she just, she just crashed, but there was, I think that was the Wednesday night that she, I mean by, when we were playing in the play area she sort of lay on the floor and started, which she doesn’t do at all so we knew she was, we knew she was shattered at that point. But I think that, I think that was the Wednesday.”
unquote.

Full of interest imo - I posted after Dr. Roberts' article because it's probably good to keep together.

tigger wrote:From the rogatory interviews:

4078 “Err I think I’ve read somewhere that, was it Ella had a foot operation?”
Reply “Yes, the week before. It didn’t go…”
4078 “You got your timing’s wrong.”
Reply “Err yeah the week before we went she was in hospital because she had, well she had a small abscess on her foot which sort of got some bug in it that caused her to have very high temperatures so they had to do a very minor operation just to take the puss out to, you know, to do that, and I think she came out of hospital on the wed, I think it was the Wednesday, and we sort of asked a lot of medical advice as to whether we should go or not and we very, so close that we didn’t go but then in the end we thought well if we go there’s probably more distractions for her there with the friends being there than being stuck at home with us and I say the Doctor said there was no problem in going as long as we kept her out the pool for the first bit so yeah, err so we were this close to, well I say it was almost like we weren’t going to go and then we suddenly at the end of the day said…”
4078 “That’s my stomach started to rumble, that’s rather typical of me at this time of the morning I’m afraid. So by the time you went on holiday, Ella was fit and well?”
Reply “She was fine apart from err her foot, she couldn’t wear her shoe so we bought her some mike stuff slippers so she was wearing slippers just to keep it covered, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.”“If I just start by the Sunday and ask you what you can remember about it.”
Reply “Yeah I think that first Sunday Ella didn’t go to the kids club straight away purely because it’s the first day there and obviously because she had been poorly the week before we thought we’d just see how she, how she is you know before she goes, so she didn’t go, she didn’t go to the kids club.

Right, okay, so on the Monday you tennis’ed, windsurfed, picked up Evie.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “And Ella.”
Reply “Yeah for lunch. I think Ella went back, I can’t say for sure but I think Ella went back in the afternoon.

“Yeah fine, yeah they were, they were tired. I think the Wednesday night, there was one night when Ella had a complete meltdown and sort of, she’s not sort of a tantrumy child but she was so tired she just sort of crashed and screamed during bath time. I think that might have been, I’m not sure if that was the Wednesday, it could have been the Wednesday but she just had a complete, you know how the kids do when they’re tired, complete meltdown and there’s screaming and they’re so tired it was quite hard to settle her but then she just, she just crashed, but there was, I think that was the Wednesday night that she, I mean by, when we were playing in the play area she sort of lay on the floor and started, which she doesn’t do at all so we knew she was, we knew she was shattered at that point. But I think that, I think that was the Wednesday.”
unquote.

Full of interest imo - I posted after Dr. Roberts' article because it's probably good to keep together.

Calculated to neutralize mrs Fenn? Screaming Ella instead of screaming/manhandled/offed Maddie Mc Cann?

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:From the rogatory interviews:

4078 “Err I think I’ve read somewhere that, was it Ella had a foot operation?”
Reply “Yes, the week before. It didn’t go…”
4078 “You got your timing’s wrong.”
Reply “Err yeah the week before we went she was in hospital because she had, well she had a small abscess on her foot which sort of got some bug in it that caused her to have very high temperatures so they had to do a very minor operation just to take the puss out to, you know, to do that, and I think she came out of hospital on the wed, I think it was the Wednesday, and we sort of asked a lot of medical advice as to whether we should go or not and we very, so close that we didn’t go but then in the end we thought well if we go there’s probably more distractions for her there with the friends being there than being stuck at home with us and I say the Doctor said there was no problem in going as long as we kept her out the pool for the first bit so yeah, err so we were this close to, well I say it was almost like we weren’t going to go and then we suddenly at the end of the day said…”
4078 “That’s my stomach started to rumble, that’s rather typical of me at this time of the morning I’m afraid. So by the time you went on holiday, Ella was fit and well?”
Reply “She was fine apart from err her foot, she couldn’t wear her shoe so we bought her some mike stuff slippers so she was wearing slippers just to keep it covered, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.”“If I just start by the Sunday and ask you what you can remember about it.”
Reply “Yeah I think that first Sunday Ella didn’t go to the kids club straight away purely because it’s the first day there and obviously because she had been poorly the week before we thought we’d just see how she, how she is you know before she goes, so she didn’t go, she didn’t go to the kids club.

Right, okay, so on the Monday you tennis’ed, windsurfed, picked up Evie.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “And Ella.”
Reply “Yeah for lunch. I think Ella went back, I can’t say for sure but I think Ella went back in the afternoon.

“Yeah fine, yeah they were, they were tired. I think the Wednesday night, there was one night when Ella had a complete meltdown and sort of, she’s not sort of a tantrumy child but she was so tired she just sort of crashed and screamed during bath time. I think that might have been, I’m not sure if that was the Wednesday, it could have been the Wednesday but she just had a complete, you know how the kids do when they’re tired, complete meltdown and there’s screaming and they’re so tired it was quite hard to settle her but then she just, she just crashed, but there was, I think that was the Wednesday night that she, I mean by, when we were playing in the play area she sort of lay on the floor and started, which she doesn’t do at all so we knew she was, we knew she was shattered at that point. But I think that, I think that was the Wednesday.”
unquote.

Full of interest imo - I posted after Dr. Roberts' article because it's probably good to keep together.

Calculated to neutralize mrs Fenn? Screaming Ella instead of screaming/manhandled/offed Maddie Mc Cann?

That's what I thought too! Not quite specific enough to draw too much attention/questioning to themselves, but just a little anecdote to potentially place a question mark over an elderly womans statement, casting that little piece of "reasonable doubt". Cunning, very cunning.

Their little explanations for everything a la Mitchell, for things found or yet to be found are all little casters of "reasonable doubt" IMO. Too many coincidences and too many contorted excuses. And this is a big part of why so many people are not fooled by this chicanery.

....“Yeah fine, yeah they were, they were tired. I think the Wednesday night, there was one night when Ella had a complete meltdown and sort of, she’s not sort of a tantrumy child but she was so tired she just sort of crashed and screamed during bath time. I think that might have been, I’m not sure if that was the Wednesday, it could have been the Wednesday but she just had a complete, you know how the kids do when they’re tired, complete meltdown and there’s screaming and they’re so tired it was quite hard to settle her but then she just, she just crashed, but there was, I think that was the Wednesday night that she, I mean by, when we were playing in the play area she sort of lay on the floor and started, which she doesn’t do at all so we knew she was, we knew she was shattered at that point. But I think that, I think that was the Wednesday.”
unquote.

Not Wednesday then, JT really is a trooper - 5 x in one short narrative. I'm also interested in Ella's foot, would have been wearing sandals I'd think. But they're not mentioned.
As Dr. Roberts said: 'Are you listening Mr. Policeman?' Indeed we are Ms. Tanner. with interest.

Smokeandmirrors wrote:

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:From the rogatory interviews:

4078 “Err I think I’ve read somewhere that, was it Ella had a foot operation?”
Reply “Yes, the week before. It didn’t go…”
4078 “You got your timing’s wrong.”
Reply “Err yeah the week before we went she was in hospital because she had, well she had a small abscess on her foot which sort of got some bug in it that caused her to have very high temperatures so they had to do a very minor operation just to take the puss out to, you know, to do that, and I think she came out of hospital on the wed, I think it was the Wednesday, and we sort of asked a lot of medical advice as to whether we should go or not and we very, so close that we didn’t go but then in the end we thought well if we go there’s probably more distractions for her there with the friends being there than being stuck at home with us and I say the Doctor said there was no problem in going as long as we kept her out the pool for the first bit so yeah, err so we were this close to, well I say it was almost like we weren’t going to go and then we suddenly at the end of the day said…”
4078 “That’s my stomach started to rumble, that’s rather typical of me at this time of the morning I’m afraid. So by the time you went on holiday, Ella was fit and well?”
Reply “She was fine apart from err her foot, she couldn’t wear her shoe so we bought her some mike stuff slippers so she was wearing slippers just to keep it covered, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.”“If I just start by the Sunday and ask you what you can remember about it.”
Reply “Yeah I think that first Sunday Ella didn’t go to the kids club straight away purely because it’s the first day there and obviously because she had been poorly the week before we thought we’d just see how she, how she is you know before she goes, so she didn’t go, she didn’t go to the kids club.

Right, okay, so on the Monday you tennis’ed, windsurfed, picked up Evie.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “And Ella.”
Reply “Yeah for lunch. I think Ella went back, I can’t say for sure but I think Ella went back in the afternoon.

“Yeah fine, yeah they were, they were tired. I think the Wednesday night, there was one night when Ella had a complete meltdown and sort of, she’s not sort of a tantrumy child but she was so tired she just sort of crashed and screamed during bath time. I think that might have been, I’m not sure if that was the Wednesday, it could have been the Wednesday but she just had a complete, you know how the kids do when they’re tired, complete meltdown and there’s screaming and they’re so tired it was quite hard to settle her but then she just, she just crashed, but there was, I think that was the Wednesday night that she, I mean by, when we were playing in the play area she sort of lay on the floor and started, which she doesn’t do at all so we knew she was, we knew she was shattered at that point. But I think that, I think that was the Wednesday.”
unquote.

Full of interest imo - I posted after Dr. Roberts' article because it's probably good to keep together.

Calculated to neutralize mrs Fenn? Screaming Ella instead of screaming/manhandled/offed Maddie Mc Cann?

That's what I thought too! Not quite specific enough to draw too much attention/questioning to themselves, but just a little anecdote to potentially place a question mark over an elderly womans statement, casting that little piece of "reasonable doubt". Cunning, very cunning.

Their little explanations for everything a la Mitchell, for things found or yet to be found are all little casters of "reasonable doubt" IMO. Too many coincidences and too many contorted excuses. And this is a big part of why so many people are not fooled by this chicanery.

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

Nina wrote:[quote="tigger" [...]

Not Wednesday then, imo. JT really is a trooper.

She certainly is, but why?[/quote]
***
I have many times before said: "Look at Tanner".
She and GM are only pretending that they don't like each other. IMO IMO!
Tin hat on and gone.
Good night

Portia wrote:

tigger wrote:From the rogatory interviews:

4078 “Err I think I’ve read somewhere that, was it Ella had a foot operation?”
Reply “Yes, the week before. It didn’t go…”
4078 “You got your timing’s wrong.”
Reply “Err yeah the week before we went she was in hospital because she had, well she had a small abscess on her foot which sort of got some bug in it that caused her to have very high temperatures so they had to do a very minor operation just to take the puss out to, you know, to do that, and I think she came out of hospital on the wed, I think it was the Wednesday, and we sort of asked a lot of medical advice as to whether we should go or not and we very, so close that we didn’t go but then in the end we thought well if we go there’s probably more distractions for her there with the friends being there than being stuck at home with us and I say the Doctor said there was no problem in going as long as we kept her out the pool for the first bit so yeah, err so we were this close to, well I say it was almost like we weren’t going to go and then we suddenly at the end of the day said…”
4078 “That’s my stomach started to rumble, that’s rather typical of me at this time of the morning I’m afraid. So by the time you went on holiday, Ella was fit and well?”
Reply “She was fine apart from err her foot, she couldn’t wear her shoe so we bought her some mike stuff slippers so she was wearing slippers just to keep it covered, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.”“If I just start by the Sunday and ask you what you can remember about it.”
Reply “Yeah I think that first Sunday Ella didn’t go to the kids club straight away purely because it’s the first day there and obviously because she had been poorly the week before we thought we’d just see how she, how she is you know before she goes, so she didn’t go, she didn’t go to the kids club.

Right, okay, so on the Monday you tennis’ed, windsurfed, picked up Evie.”
Reply “Yeah.”
4078 “And Ella.”
Reply “Yeah for lunch. I think Ella went back, I can’t say for sure but I think Ella went back in the afternoon.

“Yeah fine, yeah they were, they were tired. I think the Wednesday night, there was one night when Ella had a complete meltdown and sort of, she’s not sort of a tantrumy child but she was so tired she just sort of crashed and screamed during bath time. I think that might have been, I’m not sure if that was the Wednesday, it could have been the Wednesday but she just had a complete, you know how the kids do when they’re tired, complete meltdown and there’s screaming and they’re so tired it was quite hard to settle her but then she just, she just crashed, but there was, I think that was the Wednesday night that she, I mean by, when we were playing in the play area she sort of lay on the floor and started, which she doesn’t do at all so we knew she was, we knew she was shattered at that point. But I think that, I think that was the Wednesday.”
unquote.

Full of interest imo - I posted after Dr. Roberts' article because it's probably good to keep together.

Calculated to neutralize mrs Fenn? Screaming Ella instead of screaming/manhandled/offed Maddie Mc Cann?

Was this the child walking up the steps with Madeleine when she fell getting on the plane ? Did that child have a slipper on then ? I do not recall noticing it before, but I cannot check videos atm due to broadband problems. Would like to know the answer though if anyone call recall.

The child with Madeleine walking up the steps was the Paynes' elder daughter, not Jane Tanner's.

Here is the video of Madeleine walking up the plane steps and on the bus..........................

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

Your post has crossed with mine, Nina.

This link provides "stills" from the airport footage and all the photos supposedly taken on the holiday.

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

Thank you nina/jean/candyfloss.

Her feet do not appear to be visible at all in the stills.

What struck me though was from JT's description, the little girl had a wound which you would not really want to get wet and dirty so soon after a procedure. Sand in particular would be a nightmare to try and clean so I'm a bit surprised the little girl was off to the beach with the kids club. JT even says the doctor said keep her out of the pool for a bit. Taking "a lot of medical advice" on whether or not she should travel, sounds a bit more detailed than giving your gp a quick ring.

She gives a description of it being touch and go as to whether or not they went on holiday, yet once they arrived they dropped the kids like their suitcases and off they went to do some sort of mini olympics for the week.

So while I don't doubt the procedure happened, I find it odd it didn't really seem to feature at all once they landed.

Sami, just to confirm that the child in the video is NOT Jane Tanner's.

It certainly seems that the Tapas 9 children were way down on their parents' list of priorities when it came to organising activities on the holiday.

Jean wrote:Sami, just to confirm that the child in the video is NOT Jane Tanner's.

It certainly seems that the Tapas 9 children were way down on their parents' list of priorities when it came to organising activities on the holiday.

sami has raised some valid points here though. Jean, I always thought that was Maddie and Ella going up the stairs and in the airport bus sitting next to each other, which child was it?

As she couldn't wear 'normal shoes' and JT goes on about some Mickey Mouse type shoe, it should be easy to spot. I'd forgotten Dr. Roberts' point about JT barely knowing the McCanns. Which is rubbish if all 8 of you have been on holiday for a week in Italy in 2003.
JT is so the key to this imo. I think she adores Kate and would have done anything for her.

In any case, as Sami says, a foot operation is painfull and doesn't heal in a week. I've had all sorts of treatments on my heel and it took forever to heal and after every treatment I was limping badly. Just the type of small 'operation' that Ella must have had.
quote JT :
“She was fine apart from err her foot, she couldn’t wear her shoe so we bought her some mike stuff slippers so she was wearing slippers just to keep it covered, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.” unquote
Funny JT should mention it at all, it wasn't apparently relevant to the case, either that or as the PJ had made up the list of questions, there was a very good reason to ask it.

The child in the video [airplane stairs and airport bus] is Lily Payne, not Ella O'Brien.
McCanns and Paynes were on a different flight to Portugal than Oldfields and O'Brien/Tanner.

ETA there are some doubts about the video being the April 2007 trip to Portugal ... However, IMO there's no doubt that in the bus it's the McCann and Payne families & Diana Webster.

tigger wrote:

Jean wrote:Sami, just to confirm that the child in the video is NOT Jane Tanner's.

It certainly seems that the Tapas 9 children were way down on their parents' list of priorities when it came to organising activities on the holiday.

sami has raised some valid points here though. Jean, I always thought that was Maddie and Ella going up the stairs and in the airport bus sitting next to each other, which child was it?

As she couldn't wear 'normal shoes' and JT goes on about some Mickey Mouse type shoe, it should be easy to spot. I'd forgotten Dr. Roberts' point about JT barely knowing the McCanns. Which is rubbish if all 8 of you have been on holiday for a week in Italy in 2003.
JT is so the key to this imo. I think she adores Kate and would have done anything for her.

In any case, as Sami says, a foot operation is painfull and doesn't heal in a week. I've had all sorts of treatments on my heel and it took forever to heal and after every treatment I was limping badly. Just the type of small 'operation' that Ella must have had.
quote JT :
“She was fine apart from err her foot, she couldn’t wear her shoe so we bought her some mike stuff slippers so she was wearing slippers just to keep it covered, but yeah compared to how poorly she was the actual abscess on her foot was tiny, it was sort of a toxic shock type bug so it made her poorly than the actual cut on her foot so to speak.” unquote
Funny JT should mention it at all, it wasn't apparently relevant to the case, either that or as the PJ had made up the list of questions, there was a very good reason to ask it.

Toxic shock is potentially life-threatening.
The child was -according to JT- very poorly.
Yet the trip to PdL was SO important they still went ahead with it.

Why?

Thank you all, that's what I was wondering - if that was the same child or not, now I know.

I've looked through photos from the holiday in the files most appear to be grey scale or black and white so the images are blurry and it is difficult to see which child is which, not to mention make out their feet so I will never know the answer I suppose.

I don't know. The Tappas statements are so hard to read, sometimes when you see a synopsis of one, as in JT's earlier in this thread something strikes you. Whilst I know their child had been ill etc., reading it again in this thread it just stuck out this time for some reason.

I have a difficult time accepting the whole group were as indifferent to the childrens needs as they appear to want us to believe. For the stereotypical yummy mummies such as were in that group, appearance is everything. It does not fit.

One of the Tanner / O'Brien children (the elder one I think, so the same one with the feet problem) was also claimed to be vomiting on Thursday night - on one visit a change of sheets was necessary - and yet her parents want us to believe that they still thought it was okay to leave her unattended.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on!

Jean wrote:One of the Tanner / O'Brien children (the elder one I think, so the same one with the feet problem) was also claimed to be vomiting on Thursday night - on one visit a change of sheets was necessary - and yet her parents want us to believe that they still thought it was okay to leave her unattended.

Pull the other one, it's got bells on!

And also Rachel Oldfields child, who was nothing more than a baby. Her statement should carry a health warning, you would not want to be eating your dinner while she waxes lyrical about the stench from the poor wee childs nappies.

Wasn't matt oldfield also sick on the Sunday or Monday, rachael oldfield ill on the Wednesday, Evie O'Brien was ill too on the Tuesday...then gerry mccann sprained his ankle playing tennis on the Monday or Tuesday!!

The doctors needed the doctors!

I dont think there was any sick baby or any other illness that week,i think they are all liars,each and every one of them.

jd wrote:Wasn't matt oldfield also sick on the Sunday or Monday, rachael oldfield ill on the Wednesday, Evie O'Brien was ill too on the Tuesday...then gerry mccann sprained his ankle playing tennis on the Monday or Tuesday!!

The doctors needed the doctors!

From Blacksmith bureau 15/3/12:

McCann Tendon Injury [medical] A disabling injury to the Achilles tendon, often caused by sports activity such as badminton or, particularly, tennis. The MTI is unique in fully healing within fifteen minutes.

Worth a re-read: [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

tiny wrote:I dont think there was any sick baby or any other illness that week,i think they are all liars,each and every one of them.

I tend to agree.I see this as a desperate effort at retro-fitting, but with each one of the group thinking they had to do it, with the result that they all did it, and almost every adult and almost every child is described as seriously ill at some point in a very short holiday.
Like so much, it doesn't make sense.

gerry mccann had quite an eventful few weeks by all accounts....sprained his ankle, had his daughter abducted, his credit cards stolen, saved a passengers life on an airplane, saved a drunk on the side of the road!!

If only any of it were true!