Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins night Madeleine was taken.

[Robittybob1]

Raised the issue with whom?

We have a statement from the FLOs that the McCanns queried sedation at a meeting after they arrived on the 4th.

Where is the evidence it was raised either on the night of the 3rd or the early hours of the 4th?

Well there isn't evidence that early but the fact that it was raised on the 5th is plenty early enough for the PJ to do residue analysis tests, yet I must admit the result would not tell us much.
But it would be enough to counter the PJ claim that Kate only brought up the issue of drug testing the twins when it was known by her that the results would be negative.   
In other words an early positive result would have pointed the finger back on her in their view too, but it shouldn't have.

I don't think you read my question properly.  Try again.

Maybe it would be like someone insisting on taking a polygraph test.  A guilty person would shy away.  But the results of the polygraph are unknown and how is one to interpret them?
Kate insists on the drug testing but results of the test are unknown and how is one to interpret them?

[sadie]

In the context of whether or not the McCanns expressed their concerns to the police about the possibility of sedation during the period of their "neglect", can you explain why, in the circumstances, the PJ deemed it necessary to carry out a drug test on the Irish family's baby yet not on the twins?

Touchee misty

Yep, how come the police drug tested the Irish family baby ? .... yet decided iwould not test the Mccann twins, despite Kate having expressed her concern and wanting it.

[ShiningInLuz]

Please don't asnwer my post with questions of your own.  My post referred to Kate PRETENDING to raise the issue, so to answer your question "raised with NO ONE".  Now answer my question, oh dear no I can't ask you what you think can I, otherwise I"ll be accused of being the thought police again.

That means you are inviting the forum to speculate on a hypothetical situation for which you have no evidence.

You know that is not permitted.

[slartibartfast]

In the context of whether or not the McCanns expressed their concerns to the police about the possibility of sedation during the period of their "neglect", can you explain why, in the circumstances, the PJ deemed it necessary to carry out a drug test on the Irish family's baby yet not on the twins?

Early on, the Police were convinced by the McCann's narrative and as doctors will have probably have given them a deference which in retrospect got in the way of a proper investigation.

[misty]

Was a drug test carried out on the Irish family's baby?  There is no verification that I am aware of that this incident happened, so I cannot comment on the facts of the matter.  But I am not willing to accept the word of two drunks who argued on the Algarve whilst neglecting an 18 month old child.

If it is your opinion that events went as these two described, then fine as you are entitled to your opinion.  IMO, they are typical of the louts who come out here on holiday, get pissed, get involved with the system, then slag it off.

Screaming "McCanns", "Calpol" and dodgy Portuguese police seems to be a standard recipe.

The report of this incident by the Irish parents appears to have first been made to the Daily Mail, unless you can find a link to a report in the Portuguese press prior to 22/5/14. There is no reason to disbelieve the account given, stating that blood tests were carried out due to suspicions of sedation.
The baby was not guilty of anything. The twins were not guilty of anything. Do the Portuguese police now behave in a different way because of what they failed to do on 3/4 May 2007 & during the following days as several sources have been proven to have been aware of the concerns over the twins' unresponsive state?

[Alfie]

Early on, the Police were convinced by the McCann's narrative and as doctors will have probably have given them a deference which in retrospect got in the way of a proper investigation.

Were they?  So Amaral wasn't suspicious of them from the off and lied in his book that he was, right?

[slartibartfast]

Were they?  So Amaral wasn't suspicious of them from the off and lied in his book that he was, right?

You're very black and white?

[slartibartfast]

Were they?  So Amaral wasn't suspicious of them from the off and lied in his book that he was, right?

Can you provide a cite?

[ferryman]

Can you provide a cite?

Amaral said in the El Mundo interview that he suspected the McCanns (sic) from day one.

[Alfie]

Can you provide a cite?

Have you not read the great man's book?

[ferryman]

Were they?  So Amaral wasn't suspicious of them from the off and lied in his book that he was, right?

Alfie's (small) mistake is that the claim didn't come in his book (I don't think!); rather, in interview.

But it certainly came!

And lo!

DL: At which point in time did you consider the McCanns to be suspects?

GA: Let’s see: In terms of suspicion, from the very first hour. The procedures in this type of case are to find out who the persons are, who the missing person is, in this case the missing child, and to find out all the antecedents. And now the first question that is asked from the English authorities, from the British police forces, is that one. Who were the parents, that group of people, and who was the child, was she the target of abuse, was she not. Then, it evolves, it’s a formal procedure, its general for all cases and when the first statements are made, that’s the day when we start to suspect that something is wrong. Things evolved, they were suspects until we reached the work of the English dogs and then the suspicions ultimately became indicia [evidence].

https://www.blogger.com/blogin.g?blogspotURL=https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2009_02_01_archive.html

Not so much the first day as the first hour.

So Alfie isn't wholly right ....

[slartibartfast]

Alfie's (small) mistake is that the claim didn't come in his book (I don't think!); rather, in interview.

But it certainly came!

And lo!

https://www.blogger.com/blogin.g?blogspotURL=https://joana-morais.blogspot.co.uk/2009_02_01_archive.html

Not so much the first day as the first hour.

So Alfie isn't wholly right ....

So he says the first avenue for any police force is the check the parents. Not quite what you would like us to think it says.

[ferryman]

So he says the first avenue for any police force is the check the parents. Not quite what you would like us to think it says.

The "suspicion" stretched right through to a wholly unjustified imposition of arguido status, on both parents; not remotely what is meant in an English and (I daresay) a UK context when it is enunciated as a principle that those closest to a missing person are borne in mind as person(s) of interest in that disappearance.

[stephen25000]

The "suspicion" stretched right through to a wholly unjustified imposition of arguido status, on both parents; not remotely what is meant in an English and (I daresay) a UK context when it is enunciated as a principle that those closest to a missing person are borne in mind as person(s) of interest in that disappearance.

Tell me ferryman, what percentage of missing child cases are found to be involving a member of the family or close associates ?

[ferryman]

Tell me ferryman, what percentage of missing child cases are found to be involving a member of the family or close associates ?

Percentages? 

Are you aware of the prosecutor's fallacy?