If the children were being sedated...

[Alfred R Jones]

...with powerful sedatives unsuitable for minors (as is given as a reason by many McCann "sceptics" for the joint cover-up) then why are there reports of at least one of the children crying for an hour or more on one of the nights?  Is it normal for a child who has been given a large enough quantity of sedatives (sufficient at any rate to cause their parents to be most likely charged with an offence should their drugging activities ever come to light) to wake up within a few hours of their dosage and cry loudly for an hour or more?  Or for a child to get up out of her bed shortly after being sedated to climb up onto a sofa to look out of a window, only to then succumb to a fatal fall, as has been suggested by Amaral and others?

Or can we finally dismiss the notion that the children were being sedated as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claim?

[pathfinder73]

"But it is my belief there was somebody either in, or trying to get in, the children's bedroom that night, and that is what disturbed them. The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top. It looked like a tea stain.
At the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was."

What was it? Sedative, semen? This could be the missing piece of the jigsaw to understand what happened to Madeleine.

[Alfred R Jones]

OK so if  we can dismiss the theory that the children were being sedated and that it was an abduction then what credible theories, with back-up evidence, are we left with?

[jassi]

OK so if  we can dismiss the theory that the children were being sedated and that it was an abduction then what credible theories, with back-up evidence, are we left with?

I've no idea, but do carry on 

[Alfred R Jones]

"But it is my belief there was somebody either in, or trying to get in, the children's bedroom that night, and that is what disturbed them. The only other unexplained detail I remember from that morning was a large, brown stain I noticed on Madeleine's pink Eeyore pyjama top. It looked like a tea stain.
At the time I just assumed it was a drink spillage that had escaped our attention, and that might well be all it was."

What was it? Sedative, semen? This could be the missing piece of the jigsaw to understand what happened to Madeleine.

If this was a missing piece of the jigsaw that somehow proved the McCanns complicity in a cover-up, why did Kate McCann reveal it to the world?

[slartibartfast]

...with powerful sedatives unsuitable for minors (as is given as a reason by many McCann "sceptics" for the joint cover-up) then why are there reports of at least one of the children crying for an hour or more on one of the nights?  Is it normal for a child who has been given a large enough quantity of sedatives (sufficient at any rate to cause their parents to be most likely charged with an offence should their drugging activities ever come to light) to wake up within a few hours of their dosage and cry loudly for an hour or more?  Or for a child to get up out of her bed shortly after being sedated to climb up onto a sofa to look out of a window, only to then succumb to a fatal fall, as has been suggested by Amaral and others?

Or can we finally dismiss the notion that the children were being sedated as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claim?

How do you explain the apparent lack of response of the twins on the night in question. Even KM was concerned?

[Benice]

...with powerful sedatives unsuitable for minors (as is given as a reason by many McCann "sceptics" for the joint cover-up) then why are there reports of at least one of the children crying for an hour or more on one of the nights?  Is it normal for a child who has been given a large enough quantity of sedatives (sufficient at any rate to cause their parents to be most likely charged with an offence should their drugging activities ever come to light) to wake up within a few hours of their dosage and cry loudly for an hour or more?  Or for a child to get up out of her bed shortly after being sedated to climb up onto a sofa to look out of a window, only to then succumb to a fatal fall, as has been suggested by Amaral and others?

Or can we finally dismiss the notion that the children were being sedated as there is absolutely no evidence whatsoever to support the claim?

It seems to me that the McCanns are very health conscious - and careful about their children's diets.  A tea biscuit and a few crisps being regarded as a treat.   I don't think for a minute they would have considered introducing drugs of any kind into their children's systems at any time.    Calpol being the only exception - but which IIRC contained no sedatives.

The tests carried out back in the UK showed no indication of any drugs having been ingested by herself or the twins for the previous 5? months - that timescale taking them back to before they went to PdL.

[Alfred R Jones]

I've no idea, but do carry on 

My view as I'm sure you're quite aware is that when we look at all the known facts about this case the only logical conclusion (and the one that SY have also arrived at) is that Madeleine was taken by a stranger.  However, enough about my views, I was more interested in views of McCann sceptics who accept that it is highly unlikely the children were sedated but don't think she was abducted either and to then examine whether the known facts fit any alternative scenarios.

[Mr Gray]

My view as I'm sure you're quite aware is that when we look at all the known facts about this case the only logical conclusion (and the one that SY have also arrived at) is that Madeleine was taken by a stranger.  However, enough about my views, I was more interested in views of McCann sceptics who accept that it is highly unlikely the children were sedated but don't think she was abducted either and to then examine whether the known facts fit any alternative scenarios.

I hope you have a lot of time on your hands

[slartibartfast]

I hope you have a lot of time on your hands

Must have to spend so much of it on here....

[jassi]

My view as I'm sure you're quite aware is that when we look at all the known facts about this case the only logical conclusion (and the one that SY have also arrived at) is that Madeleine was taken by a stranger.  However, enough about my views, I was more interested in views of McCann sceptics who accept that it is highly unlikely the children were sedated but don't think she was abducted either and to then examine whether the known facts fit any alternative scenarios.

I try to be even-handed and apply the same rules of logical throughout.
If one accepts that lack of evidence rules one thing out, then that must equally apply to other events that are not supported by evidence.

If there were a simple answer to any of this, someone would already be languishing behind bars. As it is, seven years on, nobody is any nearer a solution than at the start.

[Alfred R Jones]

How do you explain the apparent lack of response of the twins on the night in question. Even KM was concerned?

Kate McCann was right to be concerned - one of her children had gone missing and whoever had taken her would have come into contact with her twins too.  I believe she was concerned that they might have been drugged by the intruder, which I suppose is a possibility but there is no evidence that such a thing occurred.   

From personal experience I know that kids can sleep through an awful lot.  I too have marvelled and been amazed by it, like Kate McCann, but never had any reason to suspect foul play in my own children's deep sleep.  It was just one of those things.  Look at the twin asleep in his father's arms, a child who had presumably slept through an aeroplane landing, being removed from his seat-belt and seat, picked up and carried out of a plane into the cooler (or warmer) air of the outside world, down several steps and into the teeth of a media scrum in which his father had to respond to reporters' questions, all this without seeming to wake up. 

[Alfred R Jones]

I try to be even-handed and apply the same rules of logical throughout.
If one accepts that lack of evidence rules one thing out, then that must equally apply to other events that are not supported by evidence.

If there were a simple answer to any of this, someone would already be languishing behind bars. As it is, seven years on, nobody is any nearer a solution than at the start.

The simple answer is that Madeleine was taken by a stranger whilst asleep in the apartment.  Any other scenario is simply too problematic when one tries to make the known facts fit it.  The fact that we don't know who took her is because of a lack of evidence pointing to any specific individual and this explains why no one is languishing behind bars yet.

[sadie]

The simple answer is that Madeleine was taken by a stranger whilst asleep in the apartment.  Any other scenario is simply too problematic when one tries to make the known facts fit it.  The fact that we don't know who took her is because of a lack of evidence pointing to any specific individual and this explains why no one is languishing behind bars yet.

Yet.

[jassi]

The simple answer is that Madeleine was taken by a stranger whilst asleep in the apartment.  Any other scenario is simply too problematic when one tries to make the known facts fit it.  The fact that we don't know who took her is because of a lack of evidence pointing to any specific individual and this explains why no one is languishing behind bars yet.

That might be your answer, but not one shared by all, particularly in the absence of any evidence.

One cannot conjure a figment of imagination out of mid-air and pass it off as the definitive solution, just because it is 'the only logical answer'