Re: Dr Roberts still on the case

by stillsloppingout 11.02.14 14:32

NickE wrote:jozi:Sorry I mean that I don't have any knowledge about swinging,it came from the police.

JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

I think there is a thread about this.

One of the only things i have been told about this case , where the person who told me was unequivocal about it , was that the McCann's WERE swingers . [ a well known former paper among others ,knows full well. ] .

This info, was when i realised they were being protected . and there circle of "friends " probably includes somebody who can pull strings at the top . [ the footballer reference is interesting , as some swingers do swing 360 degrees !! ]

But the good news..... there lack of quality supporters in court in Portugal appears like they have been thrown to the wolves .

all imo

by tiny 11.02.14 14:44

stillsloppingout wrote:
NickE wrote:jozi:Sorry I mean that I don't have any knowledge about swinging,it came from the police.

JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

I think there is a thread about this.
One of the only things i have been told about this case , where the person who told me was unequivocal about it , was that the McCann's WERE swingers . [ a well known former paper among others ,knows full well. ] .

This info, was when i realised they were being protected . and there circle of "friends " probably includes somebody who can pull strings at the top . [ the footballer reference is interesting , as some swingers do swing 360 degrees !! ]

But the good news..... there lack of quality supporters in court in Portugal appears like they have been thrown to the wolves .

all imo

If true, I pity the poor sods who got stuck with kate or gerry :puke:

by HelenMeg 11.02.14 15:11

jozi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:One of the unusual aspects of this holiday, for me, was the fact that all the children were dumped in the creche every day.
Because OC was a swinging palace
Kate:We were so into each other,you know".

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?

The whole point about swinging holidays is that you do take the kids along - you just make sure there are plenty of supervised activities / nursery / creche available.
You dont leave the kids behind and say to Granny ' Oh do us a favour and mind the kids for a few days - we're going swinging'.
The fact that you're taking kids actually makes it a lot easier to hide the fact you will be swinging. All the resorts that cater for swinging make sure there is plenty of
supervision for kids so the adults get plenty of free time. Its part of the package. You dont swing all day - you just have plenty of opportunity to indulge as and when...

by tiny 11.02.14 15:22

Would swinging be a big deal in this day and age,it sure wouldn't worry me if people said they were swingers,each to their own.

by Guest 11.02.14 15:30

HelenMeg wrote:
jozi wrote:
NickE wrote:
Ladyinred wrote:One of the unusual aspects of this holiday, for me, was the fact that all the children were dumped in the creche every day.
Because OC was a swinging palace
Kate:We were so into each other,you know".

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?
The whole point about swinging holidays is that you do take the kids along - you just make sure there are plenty of supervised activities / nursery / creche available.
You dont leave the kids behind and say to Granny ' Oh do us a favour and mind the kids for a few days - we're going swinging'.
The fact that you're taking kids actually makes it a lot easier to hide the fact you will be swinging. All the resorts that cater for swinging make sure there is plenty of
supervision for kids so the adults get plenty of free time. Its part of the package. You dont swing all day - you just have plenty of opportunity to indulge as and when...

Fair comment but my mind boggles as to why the Mom-in law went too!!

by Praia 11.02.14 15:36

The Panorama programme had lovely shots of pampas grass swaying in the ocean breeze, check out the music they chose to play on this BBC show about the "abduction", a non too subtle reference to drugs! Add in "Twin Peaks" and you have.........

by Guest 11.02.14 16:53

For those innocent souls who don't know the significance of pampas grass......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8923263/Mariella-Frostrup-accidentally-invites-swingers-with-pampas-grass.html

by russiandoll 11.02.14 17:11

latest

By Dr Martin Roberts
11 February 2014

SWIMMING AGAINST THE TIDE

It is said that the Anglo-Saxon king, Cnut the Great (otherwise known as Canute), revealed the omnipotence of a higher authority when he had his throne set down on a beach and unsuccessfully commanded the waves not to encroach upon his feet. Whatever his motives, the ancient king's demonstration of the ocean's stubbornness is both classical and convincing. However much his followers might have believed in his personal magisterial powers, there could be no denying the weight of evidence.

The abduction of Madeleine McCann, fixed in time to the night of 3 May, 2007, is an assumption which has no evidence to support it; only further assumptions. The one certainty is that the child has been missing for seven years since. Despite presenting to the Police (and the world) an account of how her daughter Madeleine was last seen asleep in her own bed, Kate McCann has also said, quite incongruously, 'You don't expect someone to come into your apartment and take your child out (of) your bed'. The question this raises is quite why anyone recounting such an event might wish to re-position the locus of a genuine crime. What is there to be gained from going against the grain?

In isolation the remark is puzzling. A slip of the tongue perhaps, made while the tide is still off-shore. But time passes, and the waves become more numerous as they surge in the same inward direction.

The contradiction inherent in Kate McCann's extraordinary 'bed' reference finds company in the false statements made, not only by the McCanns but by various members of their holiday entourage, in relation to the four days immediately preceding Madeleine's disappearance (see: Monday's Child – McCannfiles). What possible reason could there have been for misrepresenting events prior to the commission of the crime as understood, or should one say 'assumed'? In tandem with this questionable behaviour, it is clear from the records of Madeleine's attendance at the holiday crèche that these same four days are not unequivocally accounted for in that context either.

What was it Kate McCann said in her book once upon a time? 'One coincidence, two coincidences – maybe they're still coincidences. Any more than that and it stops being coincidence.'

A week's worth of lies (coincidence number one). A week's worth of dubious crèche records (coincidence number two). Shall we go for the hat-trick?

The young Mark Warner nanny, Catriona Baker was questioned by Portuguese police at the beginning of their investigation. Months later she was 'outed' by the Daily Mail (14.10.2007), her situation at that time represented thus:

'The McCanns believe Ms Baker is a key witness in the defence that they are assembling with the aid of a team of lawyers and investigators.'

Bearing in mind the timing of events as fixed by the McCanns' own accounts, this statement is, on the face of it, rather perplexing. How, exactly, can someone coming into innocuous contact with Madeleine before her 'abduction' become a key witness in the McCanns' defence afterwards? And what manner of charge were they planning to defend themselves against? Not the abduction of their own daughter, surely? Nocturnal neglect, perhaps? The worst case scenario, as generally understood, might have been something in connection with a fatal accident occurring on the Thursday night; again, after Catriona Baker's duties as 'nanny' had been discharged.

Could Catriona have been considered a character witness therefore? No. She hardly knew the McCanns. A witness to their movements then? No. She was elsewhere for most of the day - everyday. A witness to Madeleine's abduction? No. It happened at night. She would have been out enjoying herself, as she put it, when not resting at home. Was she someone who witnessed a stalker, or stalkers, immediately before or after the abduction? No. She said not in her first statement to the police. What could possibly have been her role within the McCann defence strategy therefore?

Common sense dictates that Catriona Baker's value as a 'key witness' could only pertain to the period of time she spent in her capacity as 'nanny', something the McCanns have acknowledged and the Daily Mail have explained: "She was witness to the McCanns' movements during the week they were on holiday in Portugal and fed Madeleine less than three hours before she disappeared."

Except that, but for fleeting glances in the morning and at mid-day, she very obviously was not a witness to the McCanns' movements 'that week they were in Portugal'; a week which embraced exactly the same four days less than adequately accounted for by others, including the McCanns themselves. And that makes her recruitment as a potential witness for the defence anything but coincidental.

Comparison of Catriona's own 'evidence', as given to the PJ, with the Daily Mail's clarification of her later value to the McCanns, reveals how, like Michael Wright latterly in Lisbon, she was to be 'briefed'.

CB (6.5.2007): It was always Madeleine's parents that would bring her to and fetch her from the "Minis".

Compare this with Gerry McCann's own statement four days later:

'The deponent and KATE returned to the OCEAN CLUB. They stayed there, talking, until 16H45, at which time the twins went to the meal area. At 17h00, as usual, MADELEINE arrived accompanied by the nannies and the other children. After her arrival, MADELEINE dined, having finished at 17H30.'

On the subject of episodes untoward she is quite voluble:

She replies that since that date and until Thursday, the 03rd of May, 2007, she was with Madeleine every day, but is unable to specify if she was present on the Sunday morning.

She replies that within the exercise of her functions, both inside the building and outdoors (above specified activities), she never noticed anyone suspiciously observing the children under her care. She didn't notice anyone taking pictures of the children, namely of Madeleine.

She refers that her colleagues never mentioned anything concerning their children, either.

The deponent mentions that following Madeleine's disappearance, she didn't see or hear anything, no plausible reason that could explain what caused said disappearance.

And yet, five months later, the Daily Mail was able to offer its readers:

'On the morning after Madeleine's disappearance it is believed she even told Portuguese police of a man she had seen acting 'suspiciously' around the apartments.'

And

'Intriguingly, Ms Baker revealed to one friend - spoken to by this newspaper - that she told Portuguese police of a man she saw acting strangely near the apartments in the days leading up to Madeleine's disappearance on May 3.'

Intriguing indeed.

What may well have been 'believed' by a McCann spokesperson clearly did not represent what Catriona Baker herself had previously said.

In November 2007 Catriona Baker paid the McCanns a personal visit at their home in Rothley. The following April she was interviewed again by police.

"On Thursday the 3rd of May 2007, I remember Gerry having accompanied Madeleine to the club between 9h15 and 9h20 in the morning. I do not remember who came to pick her up for lunch but after she returned in the afternoon for a dive/swim. These activities were realized with the other children. On this day I remember that we sailed and I saw friends of the McCanns on the beach, David and Jane. Around 14h45 Madeleine returned to the Minis Club on top of the reception but I do not remember who accompanied her. This afternoon we went swimming."

This is of course that strangest of days, when Madeleine went swimming in her gap top and broderie Anglaise shorts, having earlier been for a boat trip at the beach where no-one else saw her, apart from Cat Baker that is. The nanny's most significant evidential contribution here however is this one:

"I stayed with Madeleine, 3 years old, in my group (Minis Club that week) together with Ella, daughter of Jane Tanner. Either Kate or Gerry would accompany Madeleine every day in the morning and would return at lunch hour to take her back."

Admittedly she had said something vaguely similar to Portuguese police originally, but she had also proceeded to observe:

"Since the beginning, when she received the little girl, it appeared to her that her parents were affable and showed their interest in her well being, as they cared to inquire what Madeleine did and even accompanied some of the child's outdoors activities."

So name one. And if that doesn't sound like the McCanns, then maybe we're not talking about Madeleine either. The fact that the McCanns were clearly planning to field (concoct?) answers to such questions as 'Where was Madeleine on...?' further validates those very questions

by bristow 11.02.14 17:55

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:For those innocent souls who don't know the significance of pampas grass......

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/celebritynews/8923263/Mariella-Frostrup-accidentally-invites-swingers-with-pampas-grass.html

Yes my friend and I were laughing as we remember her parents having a big pampas grass in their front garden! big grin

by Guest 11.02.14 18:52

tiny wrote:
stillsloppingout wrote:
NickE wrote:jozi:Sorry I mean that I don't have any knowledge about swinging,it came from the police.

JOSE BARRA da COSTA Former Policia Judiciaria There are people who guarantee that this is a couple who practice 'swinging' - i.e. sexual relationships between couples and then changing partners, and that this practice would allow in this type of...

I think there is a thread about this.
One of the only things i have been told about this case , where the person who told me was unequivocal about it , was that the McCann's WERE swingers . [ a well known former paper among others ,knows full well. ] .

This info, was when i realised they were being protected . and there circle of "friends " probably includes somebody who can pull strings at the top . [ the footballer reference is interesting , as some swingers do swing 360 degrees !! ]

But the good news..... there lack of quality supporters in court in Portugal appears like they have been thrown to the wolves .

all imo

If true, I pity the poor sods who got stuck with kate or gerry :puke:

And, AFAIC, this includes Gerry & Kate

by Jemmied_Shatter 11.02.14 19:41

I sometimes read these topics and can't help feeling that the "pointlessness" of the discussions are in some way part of the Night and Fog that surrounds this case. The evidence is in the facts:
Kate McCann lied repeatedly about the Jemmied shutters and the Window. Why?
Kate McCann refused to answer questions put to her by the Police. Why?
Kate and Gerry McCann have both said "A senior Social Services representative has told them their actions were well within the bounds of responsible parenting" That is frankly another lie.
Instead of getting frustrated about tannerman, tractorman, trawlerman, Muratman, shadowman, swarthy creepyman, beige trouserman, dogs, paedophile rings , gypsies tramps and theives, burglars, missing keys, sacked staff, child sex tourist barristers, (fill in the rest someone) , Try to concentrate on the facts because if ever this were to go to a jury trial those 3 facts would be enough to sway opinion.
ontopic

by sallypelt 11.02.14 19:47

Jemmied_Shatter wrote:I sometimes read these topics and can't help feeling that the "pointlessness" of the discussions are in some way part of the Night and Fog that surrounds this case. The evidence is in the facts:
Kate McCann lied repeatedly about the Jemmied shutters and the Window. Why?
Kate McCann refused to answer questions put to her by the Police. Why?
Kate and Gerry McCann have both said "A senior Social Services representative has told them their actions were well within the bounds of responsible parenting" That is frankly another lie.
Instead of getting frustrated about tannerman, tractorman, trawlerman, Muratman, shadowman, swarthy creepyman, beige trouserman, dogs, paedophile rings , gypsies tramps and theives, burglars, missing keys, sacked staff, child sex tourist barristers, (fill in the rest someone) , Try to concentrate on the facts because if ever this were to go to a jury trial those 3 facts would be enough to sway opinion.

Jemmied, if this ever gets to court, who are they going to prosecute? They can't find a LIVING person, other than the guilty, because it would NEVER stand up to scrutiny. The dogs, lies, the not answering questions when your child has gone missing. This has turned into a farce. The only thing that is keeping my spirits up, was when AR asked the public to let the PJ and SY get on with the job. I would like to think that these two forces are letting all the tosh that is written in MSM go right over their heads. And while people are debating this rubbish, SY and the Portuguese can get on with the job unhindered. Well, that's what I like to believe, at least!

by Praia 11.02.14 20:21

Jemmied, in Portugal the case would be heard by Judges, no jury.

by HelenMeg 11.02.14 20:26

sallypelt wrote:
Jemmied_Shatter wrote:I sometimes read these topics and can't help feeling that the "pointlessness" of the discussions are in some way part of the Night and Fog that surrounds this case. The evidence is in the facts:
Kate McCann lied repeatedly about the Jemmied shutters and the Window. Why?
Kate McCann refused to answer questions put to her by the Police. Why?
Kate and Gerry McCann have both said "A senior Social Services representative has told them their actions were well within the bounds of responsible parenting" That is frankly another lie.
Instead of getting frustrated about tannerman, tractorman, trawlerman, Muratman, shadowman, swarthy creepyman, beige trouserman, dogs, paedophile rings , gypsies tramps and theives, burglars, missing keys, sacked staff, child sex tourist barristers, (fill in the rest someone) , Try to concentrate on the facts because if ever this were to go to a jury trial those 3 facts would be enough to sway opinion.

Jemmied, if this ever gets to court, who are they going to prosecute? They can't find a LIVING person, other than the guilty, because it would NEVER stand up to scrutiny. The dogs, lies, the not answering questions when your child has gone missing. This has turned into a farce. The only thing that is keeping my spirits up, was when AR asked the public to let the PJ and SY get on with the job. I would like to think that these two forces are letting on the tosh that is written in MSM go right over their heads. And while people are debating this rubbish, SY and the Portuguese can get on with the job unhindered. Well, that's what I like to believe, at least!

Agree Sallypelt

Pointless discussions are exactly what those who are 'being protected' want us to have. They want us to spend our time debating 'neglect (which didn't happen), paedophilia (which didn't happen) Tapas evening meals (which didn't happen) and many other things 'which didn't happen' so that we never get around to discussing the stuff that did. E.g the swinging event at PDL that week, the VIP guests whose reputation is to be prevented at any cost etc etc . they want us to tie ourselves up in knots about neglect and beach trips and tennis (which never happened).

by RIPM 11.02.14 20:38

HelenMeg wrote:
sallypelt wrote:
Jemmied_Shatter wrote:I sometimes read these topics and can't help feeling that the "pointlessness" of the discussions are in some way part of the Night and Fog that surrounds this case. The evidence is in the facts:
Kate McCann lied repeatedly about the Jemmied shutters and the Window. Why?
Kate McCann refused to answer questions put to her by the Police. Why?
Kate and Gerry McCann have both said "A senior Social Services representative has told them their actions were well within the bounds of responsible parenting" That is frankly another lie.
Instead of getting frustrated about tannerman, tractorman, trawlerman, Muratman, shadowman, swarthy creepyman, beige trouserman, dogs, paedophile rings , gypsies tramps and theives, burglars, missing keys, sacked staff, child sex tourist barristers, (fill in the rest someone) , Try to concentrate on the facts because if ever this were to go to a jury trial those 3 facts would be enough to sway opinion.

Jemmied, if this ever gets to court, who are they going to prosecute? They can't find a LIVING person, other than the guilty, because it would NEVER stand up to scrutiny. The dogs, lies, the not answering questions when your child has gone missing. This has turned into a farce. The only thing that is keeping my spirits up, was when AR asked the public to let the PJ and SY get on with the job. I would like to think that these two forces are letting on the tosh that is written in MSM go right over their heads. And while people are debating this rubbish, SY and the Portuguese can get on with the job unhindered. Well, that's what I like to believe, at least!

Agree Sallypelt

Pointless discussions are exactly what those who are 'being protected' want us to have. They want us to spend our time debating 'neglect (which didn't happen), paedophilia (which didn't happen) Tapas evening meals (which didn't happen) and many other things 'which didn't happen' so that we never get around to discussing the stuff that did. E.g the swinging event at PDL that week, the VIP guests whose reputation is to be prevented at any cost etc etc . they want us to tie ourselves up in knots about neglect and beach trips and tennis (which never happened).

The main thing is to be diverted into thinking it happened on another day, but not Thursday the 3rd May.

by Guest 11.02.14 20:38

PeterMac wrote: [...]
c) Madeleine was changed out of white pyjamas / nightdress into the pink top Eeyore ones later. (If that sounds stupid, try reading the book !)

***

by DurhamGuy1967 12.02.14 13:06

IMO There are theories of swinging and cocaine use and this is why people have been coerced into not telling the whole truth or worse. I believe these activities may explain the poor recollection of activities on earlier days in the holiday and some of the phone calls in this time period. However, it’s not enough to conspire to illegally dispose of the body of a child.

The only thing I think could bind the number of people involved with covering up this accidental death of a child is that Madeline died as a result of sedation by something like Ketamine. Ketamine is a sedative available for veterinary medicine, is used as an anesthetic in pediatrics and is used as an illegal recreational drug and so could probably be supplied by a drug dealer who could supply other illegal substances such as cocaine. This could either be directly because of an overdose or an accident while sleep walking or as a result anaphylaxis shock caused by a severe allergic reaction. It could also be a result of impurities in this illegally purchased drug, maybe it caused illness in other Tapas children?

The Ketamine would show at postmortem, it would implicate the parents, it would implicate those that administered it, it would implicate the supplier of the Ketamine and, to a lesser degree, it would implicate anyone else that had sedated their own children in this way. As a class A drug is not the sort of thing you would want to be caught with in your luggage so I believe it was supplied by someone resident in Pria de Luz.

by sallypelt 12.02.14 13:14

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:IMO There are theories of swinging and cocaine use and this is why people have been coerced into not telling the whole truth or worse. I believe these activities may explain the poor recollection of activities on earlier days in the holiday and some of the phone calls in this time period. However, it’s not enough to conspire to illegally dispose of the body of a child.

The only thing I think could bind the number of people involved with covering up this accidental death of a child is that Madeline died as a result of sedation by something like Ketamine. Ketamine is a sedative available for veterinary medicine, is used as an anesthetic in pediatrics and is used as an illegal recreational drug and so could probably be supplied by a drug dealer who could supply other illegal substances such as cocaine. This could either be directly because of an overdose or an accident while sleep walking or as a result anaphylaxis shock caused by a severe allergic reaction. It could also be a result of impurities in this illegally purchased drug, maybe it caused illness in other Tapas children?

The Ketamine would show at postmortem, it would implicate the parents, it would implicate those that administered it, it would implicate the supplier of the Ketamine and, to a lesser degree, it would implicate anyone else that had sedated their own children in this way. As a class A drug is not the sort of thing you would want to be caught with in your luggage so I believe it was supplied by someone resident in Pria de Luz.

Oh Dear! And so the rumour begins. Introduce this line from above: "The only thing I think could bind the number of people involved with covering up this accidental death of a child is that Madeline died as a result of sedation by something like Ketamine" and we are off.

by lj 12.02.14 15:03

I can think of dozens of drugs taken accidentally or given to sedate that could have caused Madeleine's death and get her parents in hot water.

I believe the protection they have experienced has nothing to do with what they were in to (the thought alone is obscene). I believe all kind of important people jumped on the bandwagon because it was such a good publicity op. After all you don't let a good disaster go to waste. There they are standing up for a tiny citizen, who got in trouble abroad, no doubt being assaulted by swarthy villains. They never thought it would be possible the parents had something to do with it. Now they are trapped, having to admit their stupidity is impossible. Anyone who has ever dealt with politicians and other VIPs know that that's the biggest sin. You can go to the whores, steal money, lie, accept money for favors, falsify records etc etc, all that is survivable and with a good sob story can even advance your career, stupidity can't. I firmly believe that is the only reason for the cover up.

I doubt if we will ever find out what really happened. The McCanns likely by now believe their own lies. I expect nothing from either the Portuguese or the British investigation. So I guess we will be stuck with a plethora of plots for many good thrillers.

by RIPM 12.02.14 19:08

DurhamGuy1967 wrote:IMO There are theories of swinging and cocaine use and this is why people have been coerced into not telling the whole truth or worse. I believe these activities may explain the poor recollection of activities on earlier days in the holiday and some of the phone calls in this time period. However, it’s not enough to conspire to illegally dispose of the body of a child.

The only thing I think could bind the number of people involved with covering up this accidental death of a child is that Madeline died as a result of sedation by something like Ketamine. Ketamine is a sedative available for veterinary medicine, is used as an anesthetic in pediatrics and is used as an illegal recreational drug and so could probably be supplied by a drug dealer who could supply other illegal substances such as cocaine. This could either be directly because of an overdose or an accident while sleep walking or as a result anaphylaxis shock caused by a severe allergic reaction. It could also be a result of impurities in this illegally purchased drug, maybe it caused illness in other Tapas children?

The Ketamine would show at postmortem, it would implicate the parents, it would implicate those that administered it, it would implicate the supplier of the Ketamine and, to a lesser degree, it would implicate anyone else that had sedated their own children in this way. As a class A drug is not the sort of thing you would want to be caught with in your luggage so I believe it was supplied by someone resident in Pria de Luz.

In the interest of knowledge, Ketamine is a Class C drug which is to be updated to a Class B drug imminently. Are you therefore simply ill informed or merely trying to distract?

by Guest 12.02.14 19:18

Thank you for that info RIPM. I do not have any knowledge of drug classification whatsoever, so blindly accepted what DurhamGuy said about Ketamine. Was this one of the chemicals used by Michael Jackson at the time of his death?

by nglfi 12.02.14 19:24

I don't think it would be necessary for the drug administered to be an illegal one (Ketamine). If the parents had given Maddie any drug at all to sedate her, surely this would be illegal and contrary to oaths they have both taken as doctors. The body, if found, would reveal many secrets the parents couldn't afford to be revealed. However, I have thought recently that the reason statements of the t7 are so contradictory may simply be because they were so p###ed for the entire holiday. Not sure any more than alcohol was present though. At least, there isn't any evidence I've read about.

by diatribe 12.02.14 19:32

jozi wrote:

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?

Why indeed and so far as the men were concerned, unless their extra curricular activities included a game of forfeit involving a short straw, why take Jane Tanner. big grin

by Guest 12.02.14 20:19

diatribe wrote:
jozi wrote:

If it is a swingers paradise .....why take the kids on holiday ?
Why indeed and so far as the men were concerned, unless their extra curricular activities included a game of forfeit involving a short straw, why take Jane Tanner.

That's very harsh diatribe. Maybe she has other attributes, such as easily persuaded and very keen to please...