The twins slept all the way through the commotion.

[slartibartfast]

Mine was for the removal of teeth IIRC and maybe for operations, of which I had three when I was 6 or 7.

I dont think they  use it any more in the UK, but I am not sure.

Stopped being used in the US in the early 20th century...are you sure you don't mean nitrous oxide?

[Wonderfulspam]

Retro-fitting is exactly what "sceptics" do best.  Perhaps you could retrofit an explanation as to why Kate McCann even brought up the subject of the twins possibly having been drugged if this was indeed the cause of their own daughter's death?  I'm sure you'll have a very creative answer.

Maddie had to be drugged by the abductor because she would have screamed her head off if Tannerman had just picked her up & walked off with her.

How else could she be carried in a strangers arms without fuss, other than dead?

[Alfred R Jones]

So, the McCanns had to point at drugs being used to explain the lack of a screaming Madeleine by Tannerman - I see.

 This is an example of retro-fitting by "sceptics".  Never mind that there actually WAS a 'Tannerman', who actually WAS carrying a sleeping child, and totally disregard the possibility that an abductor could equally as likely have been carrying a sleeping child rather than a dead or drugged one. 

When the father picked up his sleeping child from the crèche are we to assume that it would have been completely impossible for him to have done so without the child waking up fully, checking to see who was picking her up before falling asleep again?

[faithlilly]

Retro-fitting is exactly what "sceptics" do best.  Perhaps you could retrofit an explanation as to why Kate McCann even brought up the subject of the twins possibly having been drugged if this was indeed the cause of their own daughter's death?  I'm sure you'll have a very creative answer.

As there has been so much debate about her or her husband not seeking help when it was obvious that she had concerns because of the twins unresponsiveness ( hand on back to check for breathing etc )  it would have looked odd if Kate had not mentioned her actions and explained them.

Fortunately for her the vast majority of the people reading her book will not have been aware that there is not one witness statement that confirms her claim that she voiced her claims to the GNR that night, not her friend Fiona, even though she mentions the twins lack of reaction to the commotion, not Silvia Batiste who would have to have translated Kate's concerns, not even her husband who, you would imagine would be not only the first person she would voice her concerns to but would also share those concerns and help her in persuading the GNR to call medical help.

[Wonderfulspam]

So, the McCanns had to point at drugs being used to explain the lack of a screaming Madeleine by Tannerman - I see.

 This is an example of retro-fitting by "sceptics".  Never mind that there actually WAS a 'Tannerman', who actually WAS carrying a sleeping child, and totally disregard the possibility that an abductor could equally as likely have been carrying a sleeping child rather than a dead or drugged one. 

When the father picked up his sleeping child from the crèche are we to assume that it would have been completely impossible for him to have done so without the child waking up fully, checking to see who was picking her up before falling asleep again?

B*llocks could he, total stranger comes in through the noisy front door ('that's why we ended up coming in through the back' said Mr McCann once upon a time) takes her out of bed & passes her out the window or whatever the f..k he's supposed to have done with her & she don't bat an eyelid, & there he is wandering round the town for 45 minute or something, where he passes the Smith family (since Kate believed the two could possibly be the same man) and she's still out for the count & the abductors changed her pyjamas!

[Alice Purjorick]

So, the McCanns had to point at drugs being used to explain the lack of a screaming Madeleine by Tannerman - I see.

 This is an example of retro-fitting by "sceptics".  Never mind that there actually WAS a 'Tannerman', who actually WAS carrying a sleeping child, and totally disregard the possibility that an abductor could equally as likely have been carrying a sleeping child rather than a dead or drugged one. 

When the father picked up his sleeping child from the crèche are we to assume that it would have been completely impossible for him to have done so without the child waking up fully, checking to see who was picking her up before falling asleep again?

Well it is plausible is it not? to paraphrase someone not a million miles away.
 

[Alfred R Jones]

Well it is plausible is it not? to paraphrase someone not a million miles away.
 

What do you think?  I know it's plausible as I have children and I know they can be picked up without waking them.  I also know that others "sceptics" mainly maintain it's completely impossible.  So, what do you think?

[ferryman]

See above.

What additional information is there in the files not in Kate's book?

Oh yes, silly me.

If they'd read the files, they'd have "known" that Kate's father contradicted Kate and Gerry on use of sedatives with the children ....

Hmmmmmmmmmmmmmmm!

[Alice Purjorick]

What do you think?  I know it's plausible as I have children and I know they can be picked up without waking them.  I also know that others "sceptics" mainly maintain it's completely impossible.  So, what do you think?

Do the skeptics say "completely impossible" or is that merely your interpretation of their "improbable"?
If the postulation is that an abductor broke in removed the child and wandered around with her without her waking up then plausible but improbable.
What I actually think is that a little girl went missing and despite the attempts of two police forces and three detective agencies of varying competence and world wide publicity, no credible sighting has been made in seven years and no one has much idea of what really happened. That would lead me to believe she is probably dead rather than living an appalling life in the so called lawless hinterland of Portugal (can such a small EU member state reliant on tourism really have one of those?) or leading the life of Riley with a wealthy couple who had been childless.
What do you really think? We know you like to tell us the "skeptics" are wrong and are are deficient in varying qualities according to the day of the week but you never break cover and give us a rational opinion of your own. Give us treat sir. We are literally bustin' to know what your bostin premise is.

[Alfred R Jones]

Do the skeptics say "completely impossible" or is that merely your interpretation of their "improbable"?
If the postulation is that an abductor broke in removed the child and wandered around with her without her waking up then plausible but improbable.
What I actually think is that a little girl went missing and despite the attempts of two police forces and three detective agencies of varying competence and world wide publicity, no credible sighting has been made in seven years and no one has much idea of what really happened. That would lead me to believe she is probably dead rather than living an appalling life in the so called lawless hinterland of Portugal (can such a small EU member state reliant on tourism really have one of those?) or leading the life of Riley with a wealthy couple who had been childless.
What do you really think? We know you like to tell us the "skeptics" are wrong and are are deficient in varying qualities according to the day of the week but you never break cover and give us a rational opinion of your own. Give us treat sir. We are literally bustin' to know what your bostin premise is.

Tsk, such sarcasm ill behoves you madam but seeing as you asked so acidly I shall tell you... I think Madeleine was abducted, most likely by a paedophile, abused, murdered and disposed of somewhere in the vicinity of PdL on or shortly after the night she disappeared.  I don't insist that my theory is correct, I hope I am wrong and that she is still alive.  There is no evidence that she is dead so one can understand why her parents and those that love her continue to hope. 

[Wonderfulspam]

Eileen McCann, mother of Gerry McCann, told the Derry Journal (14.9.2007 and later picked up by the Sunday Mirror)

"If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know she would have screamed the place down.

"I really believe they gave her a drug. There is no way they carried her out of there without her wakening,"

[Alice Purjorick]

Eileen McCann, mother of Gerry McCann, told the Derry Journal (14.9.2007 and later picked up by the Sunday Mirror)

"If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know she would have screamed the place down.

"I really believe they gave her a drug. There is no way they carried her out of there without her wakening,"

Granny's do have a way of being right I find.
So if this granny is right and there was no way that the child could have been carried without being awakened we have three possibilities.
 The child woke and screamed
 The child was drugged

[Wonderfulspam]

Granny's do have a way of being right I find.
So if this granny is right and there was no way that the child could have been carried without being awakened we have three possibilities.
 The child woke and screamed
 The child was drugged

Or, The child was already dead.

I'm putting my money on that one.

[Alice Purjorick]

Eileen McCann, mother of Gerry McCann, told the Derry Journal (14.9.2007 and later picked up by the Sunday Mirror)

"If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know she would have screamed the place down.

"I really believe they gave her a drug. There is no way they carried her out of there without her wakening,"

It is my experience that grannies verily do have a way of being right.
So if this granny is right and there was no way that the child could have been carried out without being awakened we would seem to have five possibilities.
 The child awakened and made nary a sound
 The child awakened and screamed.
 The child was drugged.
 The child was dead.
 The child was not carried out.
Obviously from those events others would logically flow.
Anymore for anymore?

[Mr Gray]

Granny's do have a way of being right I find.
So if this granny is right and there was no way that the child could have been carried without being awakened we have three possibilities.
 The child woke and screamed
 The child was drugged

didn't granny say there is no way Kate and Gerry could be involved...and as Granny is usually right