Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner

by Praiaaa 20.05.13 10:23

Story here

http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/400796/Mystery-couple-seen-going-into-McCanns-flat-on-night-before-sobbing-Madeleine-disappeared

by plebgate 20.05.13 10:31

I see they have Maddie as sobbing the night before.

Wonder if the Frucks have been on to the Express this morning?

In the article they were asking if a couple had a computer in order to get the media involved? How strange.

by Praiaaa 20.05.13 10:35

Its odd that the article header refers to the crying the night before, but half-way through it changes to a different topic - can surely not be the same the middle-aged couple? Confusing.

by plebgate 20.05.13 10:38

It's all confusing and I can't keep up with it all. It does seem to me though that something is brewing, what it is who knows, but headlines which state that Maddie was sobbing the night before she disappeared is really not good news for them imo and knowing how the Frucks like to get in quick I am surprised the headline is still there.

by worriedmum 20.05.13 10:42

quote ''A source said: “Police were astonished when this
new information came to light. Officers spoke to other key witnesses to
discover more about the middle-aged couple.
“Apparently they were concerned about the crying and went to see if they could comfort the girl.”'' unquote

Surely this implies that there was at least one conversation with the couple. So who are the 'key witnesses' who have kept this so close to their chests for the last six years that the police were 'astonished'.
?????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????????

by garfy 20.05.13 12:12

[first put on wrong topic]

probably way off the mark but.........hasnt G A always said he has an ace up his sleeve..[does anyone remember this]...also something about information ..not in the files..that he has

by Newintown 20.05.13 13:31

garfy wrote:[first put on wrong topic]

probably way off the mark but.........hasnt G A always said he has an ace up his sleeve..[does anyone remember this]...also something about information ..not in the files..that he has

Didn't 2 of the Tapas want to change their statements at some time, sorry I can't remember which 2 if was (I've got a memory like a sieve!). Could they have been the key witnesses referred to. Did they in fact change their statement to say they went in to comfort Madeleine after hearing her crying (maybe they were going back to their own apartment for some reason), but this was not picked up of being very important by the PJ at the time. Could have Madeleine had an accident in the apartment, they found her but haven't really said what did happen at that point? Could she have been cleaned up, put to bed and she was more badly hurt then realised at the time. Didn't Jane Tanner say all of the group were doctors and could have "resuscitated Madeleine" if need be. Or maybe my imagination is running wild which it tends to do on occasions Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 847771

Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 847771

ETA: If it was the 2 tapas friends they would have known the apartment was not locked, not like two complete strangers who were walking by at the time and heard a child crying. How would two complete strangers know they could get into the apartment?

by Guest 20.05.13 13:40

Newintown wrote:
garfy wrote:[first put on wrong topic]

probably way off the mark but.........hasnt G A always said he has an ace up his sleeve..[does anyone remember this]...also something about information ..not in the files..that he has

Didn't 2 of the Tapas want to change their statements at some time, sorry I can't remember which 2 if was (I've got a memory like a sieve!). Could they have been the key witnesses referred to. Did they in fact change their statement to say they went in to comfort Madeleine after hearing her crying (maybe they were going back to their own apartment for some reason), but this was not picked up of being very important by the PJ at the time. Could have Madeleine had an accident in the apartment, they found her but haven't really said what did happen at that point? Could she have been cleaned up, put to bed and she was more badly hurt then realised at the time. Didn't Jane Tanner say all of the group were doctors and could have "resuscitated Madeleine" if need be. Or maybe my imagination is running wild which it tends to do on occasions

I think you're right.

This corresponds with the theory that it's the Tapasniks, not some unknown quantity in the adjourning blocks, are being flushed out.

Seems to me (PM correct me if Im wrong) that the police from both sides of the Pond have drawn a perimeter and are closing in, eliminating the impossible and improbable one step at a time.

by **tigger** 20.05.13 13:57

See also the Rothley meeting topic.
From timeline january 08:

O'Brien and Tanner named as two who wanted to change story
Dr
Russell O'Brien and his partner Jane Tanner are named as the two
friends reported last year to have told police they wanted to change
their account of that evening.Police were said to believe Dr O'Brien, 36, wanted to change his statement to claim he also saw the man."
unquote

The fact that the O'Briens had a baby monitor but stated they didn't in early interviews was 'allowed' to surface in the rogatory interviews. There's quite a lot about these changing statements in November I believe. Even mentioning legal advice. Imo this was arranged during the Rothley meeting.

by Newintown 20.05.13 14:01

tigger wrote:See also the Rothley meeting topic.
From timeline january 08:

O'Brien and Tanner named as two who wanted to change story
Dr
Russell O'Brien and his partner Jane Tanner are named as the two
friends reported last year to have told police they wanted to change
their account of that evening.Police were said to believe Dr O'Brien, 36, wanted to change his statement to claim he also saw the man."
unquote

The fact that the O'Briens had a baby monitor but stated they didn't in early interviews was 'allowed' to surface in the rogatory interviews. There's quite a lot about these changing statements in November I believe. Even mentioning legal advice. Imo this was arranged during the Rothley meeting.

Thanks for that Tigger. I've just found a link from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568706/Madeleine-Tapas-Two-want-to-change-story.html

That's even more suspicious if it was Tanner who wanted to change her statement and it was her who said about the group "being able to resuscitate Madeleine" in an interview she gave, I think it was the one on TV when she was talking about seeing the abductor.

by margaret 20.05.13 14:16

Newintown wrote:

Thanks for that Tigger. I've just found a link from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568706/Madeleine-Tapas-Two-want-to-change-story.html

That's even more suspicious if it was Tanner who wanted to change her statement and it was her who said about the group "being able to resuscitate Madeleine" in an interview she gave, I think it was the one on TV when she was talking about seeing the abductor.

Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 172348

That was Rachael Oldfield

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2694-rachel-oldfield-s-resuscitation-comment

by Newintown 20.05.13 14:29

margaret wrote:
Newintown wrote:

Thanks for that Tigger. I've just found a link from the Telegraph:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1568706/Madeleine-Tapas-Two-want-to-change-story.html

That's even more suspicious if it was Tanner who wanted to change her statement and it was her who said about the group "being able to resuscitate Madeleine" in an interview she gave, I think it was the one on TV when she was talking about seeing the abductor.

That was Rachael Oldfield

[url=https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2694-rachel-oldfield-s-resuscitation-comment

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2694-rachel-oldfield-s-resuscitation-comment[/quote[/url]]

I had a slight niggling feeling that it wasn't Jane Tanner but I don't like to contradict posters as I'm useless at remembering things and finding things on the forum myself. It still doesn't account for why Jane Tanner made that "resuscitation" comment though.

by Newintown 20.05.13 15:24

Deleted - I enlarged on my previous post and lost most of it.

by Guest 20.05.13 16:01

Newintown wrote:[...] It still doesn't account for why Jane Tanner made that "resuscitation" comment though.

*** It was Rachel Oldfield, see above, who made the resuscitation remark ...

by Newintown 20.05.13 16:07

Châtelaine wrote:
Newintown wrote:[...] It still doesn't account for why Jane Tanner made that "resuscitation" comment though.
*** It was Rachel Oldfield, see above, who made the resuscitation remark ...

Thank you, I did answer, but I keep losing my posts for some reason.

by tiny 20.05.13 16:19

Are this couple as well as the 8 cleaners(star) being sought and are they connected.
These 8 cleaners( who according to Martin Brunt were foreign now turns they are English) could they be kate and Gerry and tapas 6,as I think diane Webster was too drunk to know what was going on IF this abduction took place when they said it did.

by aiyoyo 20.05.13 16:28

Châtelaine wrote:
Newintown wrote:[...] It still doesn't account for why Jane Tanner made that "resuscitation" comment though.
*** It was Rachel Oldfield, see above, who made the resuscitation remark ...

And, it was Rachel whose apt is right next to Mccanns who'd stayed inside her apt on May 2nd and went to bed at 9.00 clockish.

This new claim of middle-aged couple seen entering 5A, and the resuscitation remark may take on a different meaning.

by Guest 20.05.13 16:35

Newintown wrote: Thank you, I did answer, but I keep losing my posts for some reason.

***
It happens to me too from time to time. Never found out why ...

Try typing your text in a Word document, [which also allows you to use GB English spelling check - most fora use US English as standard] and then select the entire text, copy and past into the comment box.

by Newintown 20.05.13 16:42

Châtelaine wrote:
Newintown wrote: Thank you, I did answer, but I keep losing my posts for some reason.
***
It happens to me too from time to time. Never found out why ...

Try typing your text in a Word document, [which also allows you to use GB English spelling check - most fora use US English as standard] and then select the entire text, copy and past into the comment box.

I have tried that in the past with Word but it messes up the size of the typestyle but someone (could have been PeterMac) advised me to type the text in Wordpad but the text goes right off the end of the page (like landscape style) so it's difficult to read what you've typed unless you scroll backwards and forwards all the time. I will just have to type in Word, copy and past it to Wordpad then past it to the forum - very long winded - sometime's I haven't got that much patience, that's why I lose my posts Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 742129

Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 742129

by sami 20.05.13 16:42

aiyoyo wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Newintown wrote:[...] It still doesn't account for why Jane Tanner made that "resuscitation" comment though.
*** It was Rachel Oldfield, see above, who made the resuscitation remark ...

And, it was Rachel whose apt is right next to Mccanns who'd stayed inside her apt on May 2nd and went to bed at 9.00 clockish.

This new claim of middle-aged couple seen entering 5A, and the resuscitation remark may take on a different meaning.

Well if the crying was such that it caught the attention of two passers by, then Rachel has got to have heard something if she was only next door. She would have been aware the kids were alone so she would naturally be more aware of any noises.

by Guest 20.05.13 16:44

Newintown wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:
Newintown wrote: Thank you, I did answer, but I keep losing my posts for some reason.
***
It happens to me too from time to time. Never found out why ...

Try typing your text in a Word document, [which also allows you to use GB English spelling check - most fora use US English as standard] and then select the entire text, copy and past into the comment box.

I have tried that in the past with Word but it messes up the size of the typestyle but someone (could have been PeterMac) advised me to type the text in Wordpad but the text goes right off the end of the page (like landscape style) so it's difficult to read what you've typed unless you scroll backwards and forwards all the time. I will just have to type in Word, copy and past it to Wordpad then past it to the forum - very long winded - sometime's I haven't got that much patience, that's why I lose my posts

Just copy and paste before you press send.

by Guest 20.05.13 16:48

@ Newintown

I've noticed that copy & paste on this forum tend to scr*w-up the text lay-out. When checking the text in Preview, it still looks O.K. But when the comment is submitted it looks completely "different". I found a solution, which is that you submit the text and then immediately go back to your published scr*wed-up post and select "edit". Then you can reformat the text and submit again. Good luck Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 110921

Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 110921

by bobbin 20.05.13 17:04

Châtelaine wrote:@ Newintown

I've noticed that copy & paste on this forum tend to scr*w-up the text lay-out. When checking the text in Preview, it still looks O.K. But when the comment is submitted it looks completely "different". I found a solution, which is that you submit the text and then immediately go back to your published scr*wed-up post and select "edit". Then you can reformat the text and submit again. Good luck

If you do go to edit, to make spacing changes etc. BE VERY CAREFUL NOT to press the 'back-space key' if the curser is outside of the editing area/box or it will just disappear/like it deletes it. Sometimes if you press the back arrow on your screen (mine is apple-mac, and it's top left) you can get back to where you were before the 'loss' and start again, but if you do not accidentally go 'outside of the typing/answer box', life is easier. Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 442775674

Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 442775674

just tried to get the editing to go wrong and it won't. S*ds law in reverse....good luck with your editing newintown. Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 3139096799

Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 3139096799

by Guest 20.05.13 17:16

I work exclusively with iMac too, Bobbin. Cannot understand people staying with bl**dy PC ... I won't touch them, just always have one, though, for administration as nobody seems to have been interested so far to make a decent bookkeeping programme for creative Apple Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 742129

Anyway, the real advantage of writing in Word and then do copy/paste is that IF something goes wrong, you can past the same text again and ... sigh, sigh ... start re-editing the lay-out ...

by Newintown 20.05.13 17:27

Châtelaine wrote:I work exclusively with iMac too, Bobbin. Cannot understand people staying with bl**dy PC ... I won't touch them, just always have one, though, for administration as nobody seems to have been interested so far to make a decent bookkeeping programme for creative Apple

Anyway, the real advantage of writing in Word and then do copy/paste is that IF something goes wrong, you can past the same text again and ... sigh, sigh ... start re-editing the lay-out ...

All of this is going right over my head as I'm in the middle of gardening and keep popping in and out every 20 mins or so to read the forum, will digest it later when it gets dark and can't carry on in the garden - at least it keeps me away from the housework Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 110921

by Guest 20.05.13 17:37

As famous Dutch soccer player Johan Cruyff [known for shooting off his mouth ...] once said: "Every disadvantage has its advantages". [or the other way around?] Daily Express - witnesses who contradict Jane Tanner 742129

by sammyc 20.05.13 22:00

Why did Rachel stay in her apartment, adjacent to the McCann's, on the night of the 2nd? Was her child poorly that night so she stayed in to look after her child? If so, why didn't she offer to babysit Maddie and the twins at the same time so K and G could go on the lash. If you have to stay in and look after one child then you might as well look after 5 children at the same time. Well that's what I and my group of friends have done and still do.