Re: WHEN JANE TANNER CRIED

by **tigger** 14.03.14 10:26

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. winkwink

by John (In)DEED 14.03.14 10:39

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)

by **PeterMac** 14.03.14 11:04

whatliesbehindthesofa wrote:
If I were a policeman, Jane Tanner would be my very first port of call.

Interesting that an old friend of mine, RAF P&SS, Counter intelligence and so on, flicked through TB's book one evening and came to exactly the same conclusion.
As did a very senior Barrister, Head of Chambers, who was staying.
Said words to the effect "It's obvious. She died and they have concealed the death and the body."

by Guest 14.03.14 11:17

@ 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 ...

by russiandoll 14.03.14 11:27

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]

by John (In)DEED 14.03.14 11:52

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) thumbup

by John (In)DEED 15.03.14 11:51

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.

by **tigger** 15.03.14 12:25

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.

by John (In)DEED 15.03.14 13:02

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?

by John (In)DEED 15.03.14 13:17

[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? new

[/size]
[size=14.545454025268555]Poor Kate..[/size]

by Garrincha 15.03.14 13:58

Hello John indeed – I wonder if in a past life you might perhaps have done any pioneering work on long-distance [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?

by Guest 15.03.14 15:37

Garrincha wrote:Hello John indeed – I wonder if in a past life you might perhaps have done any pioneering work on long-distance [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]?

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

by Guest 15.03.14 16:50

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!

by John (In)DEED 15.03.14 17:57

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

by lj 16.03.14 4:33

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

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

Here is nr 3.

by Brian Griffin 26.11.14 4:07

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?

by Guest 26.11.14 19:52

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.

by Brian Griffin 27.11.14 5:14

by Guest 27.11.14 9:03

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?

by Brian Griffin 27.11.14 9:21

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.

by Guest 27.11.14 9:26

Yes.. Gerry was quick to interrupt when the "watching football" comment slipped out.

He was only away 5 to 10 mins when Kate allegedly said this according to the "official" timeline.

It's crazy on many levels.

by **PeterMac** 27.11.14 9:42

BlueBag wrote:Yes.. Gerry was quick to interrupt when the "watching football" comment slipped out.
He was only away 5 to 10 mins when Kate allegedly said this according to the "official" timeline.
It's crazy on many levels.

And it explains why the entire group, probably on very sound legal advice, refused to go anywhere near a "reconstruction"

It is simply IMPOSSIBLE to reconstruct what they each say happened.
This video only involved three or them, and five minutes of Window of Opportunity., and it just falls to pieces with their Ace Detective eventually having to say that none of it matters anyway
which of course was serendipitously persipicacious, since Tannerman was exposed as a father / fraudulent invention / irrelevance 5 years later.