UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Alfred R Jones on April 13, 2014, 01:36:05 PM
-
...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?
-
"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.
-
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?
-
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 8(0(*
-
"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?
-
...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?
-
...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.
-
I've no idea, but do carry on 8(0(*
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.
-
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
-
I hope you have a lot of time on your hands
Must have to spend so much of it on here....
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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.
-
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'
-
Yet.
Yet what?
-
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.
-
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'
who are you quoting?
-
who are you quoting?
No one. Why?
-
No one. Why?
So these are your own thoughts then? It seems from what you have said that you accept that abduction is the only logical answer, even if you can't see any other reason to believe it happened.
-
So these are your own thoughts then? It seems from what you have said that you accept that abduction is the only logical answer, even if you can't see any other reason to believe it happened.
Your power of deduction is poorer than you think.
I strung the words together for sarcastic emphasis, not because I believe them. Unfortunately sarcasm doesn't always show through on the internet.
-
Your power of deduction is poorer than you think.
I strung the words together for sarcastic emphasis, not because I believe them. Unfortunately sarcasm doesn't always show through on the internet.
My mistake. I take it then you don't believe that abduction is the simplest, most logical answer as to what happened to Madeleine McCann. This leads me to ask what you DO consider to be the most logical scenario based on the known facts...?
-
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.
How do you know k. mccann has told the truth ?
-
Stephen
SY may have knowledge that you and I dont have. You have to accept this
From things they have said, they obviously do not believe that any of the Tapas group are involved.
We are all speculating to one extent or another.
One thing for sure, there is no trace of Madeleine to date.
-
My mistake. I take it then you don't believe that abduction is the simplest, most logical answer as to what happened to Madeleine McCann. This leads me to ask what you DO consider to be the most logical scenario based on the known facts...?
I have no firm idea. I am simple unwilling to accept a scenario that has no evidence to support it, thus her disappearance remains a mystery.
-
Do you think the children were sedated by their parents?
-
I have no firm idea. I am simple unwilling to accept a scenario that has no evidence to support it, thus her disappearance remains a mystery.
OK. I don't know you or your posting history but I had assumed (maybe wrongly?) that your belief was that the parents were involved in a cover-up. This must at some point have shaped your beliefs as to what you think is the most logical, simplest explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, but then again maybe not.
-
We are all speculating to one extent or another.
One thing for sure, there is no trace of Madeleine to date.
I disagree, there are pointers, but I cant give more details. Sorry
-
I disagree, there are pointers, but I cant give more details. Sorry
'pointers' ?
That means anything you want it to mean.
-
Perhaps you do not quite understand.
How do you know km has given a true account of the events that occurred on may the 3 rd 2007 ?
..........and who said sedation ?
It is known the mccanns had certain medications to hand.
Who has said sedation? Where do you want me to start?
The subject of this thread is "if the children were being sedated.." and goes on to ask if so, why was at least one of them crying in the night for over an hour, and why did one of them (according to Goncalo Amaral) get out of bed shortly after being given a sedative and have a fatal accident? All this activity in supposedly sedated children - is it logical or likely?
-
Who has said sedation? Where do you want me to start?
The subject of this thread is "if the children were being sedated.." and goes on to ask if so, why was at least one of them crying in the night for over an hour, and why did one of them (according to Goncalo Amaral) get out of bed shortly after being given a sedative and have a fatal accident? All this activity in supposedly sedated children - is it logical or likely?
The twins weren't active, or do you forget that.
As to what the mccanns administered to their children, do we know what, if any, and in what quantities ?
In one of my lessons a couple of weeks ago where the subject, pun intended, of drug use came up, he mentioned his mother giving calpol to him and his siblings when he was younger. I asked why, he responded 'to keep us quiet'.................
P.S. I know calpol isn't a sedative.
-
Who has said sedation? Where do you want me to start?
The subject of this thread is "if the children were being sedated.." and goes on to ask if so, why was at least one of them crying in the night for over an hour, and why did one of them (according to Goncalo Amaral) get out of bed shortly after being given a sedative and have a fatal accident? All this activity in supposedly sedated children - is it logical or likely?
8@??)( Good to see logic, Alfred
-
OK. I don't know you or your posting history but I had assumed (maybe wrongly?) that your belief was that the parents were involved in a cover-up. This must at some point have shaped your beliefs as to what you think is the most logical, simplest explanation for Madeleine's disappearance, but then again maybe not.
Its fair to say that I don't consider them blameless and think they have a lot to answer for. To me, they come across as an unpleasant couple, unwilling to accept their culpability.
I don't believe there is a simple solution to this, else it would already have been solved, given that we have had SY's finest on the case for several years.
-
Its fair to say that I don't consider them blameless and think they have a lot to answer for. To me, they come across as an unpleasant couple, unwilling to accept their culpability.
I don't believe there is a simple solution to this, else it would already have been solved, given that we have had SY's finest on the case for several years.
I disagree with your final sentence. Many cases have a fairly simple explanation yet remain unsolved. Let's take the case of the disappearance of Claudia Lawrence for example. The simple, logical, most likely explanation is that Claudia was abducted on her way to work early one morning. There is no evidence whatsoever to support this theory save for the fact that the woman disappeared never to be seen or heard of again (so far). The case has had a huge amount of (no doubt) fine police investigative work over a number of years and yet it remains unsolved.
-
8@??)( Good to see logic, Alfred
.............and the twins sadie ?
-
Who has said sedation? Where do you want me to start?
The subject of this thread is "if the children were being sedated.." and goes on to ask if so, why was at least one of them crying in the night for over an hour, and why did one of them (according to Goncalo Amaral) get out of bed shortly after being given a sedative and have a fatal accident? All this activity in supposedly sedated children - is it logical or likely?
I am pretty sure the crying was a different night. 8-)(--)
-
The twins weren't active, or do you forget that.
As to what the mccanns administered to their children, do we know what, if any, and what quantities ?
In one of my lessons a couple of weeks ago where the subject, pun intended, of drug use came up, he mentioned his mother giving calpol to him and his siblings when he was younger. I asked why, he responded 'to keep us quiet'.................
P.S. I know calpol isn't a sedative.
According to Kate McCann (obviously therefore to be completely disregarded by you) Madeleine stated that both she and Sean had been calling for their parents the night before. So - either Kate McCann is lying about this account (why?) or she is telling the truth, and these two children were awake a few short hours after apparently being sedated (according to those who seem to think the McCanns drugged their kids so they could go out "on the lash").
-
I am pretty sure the crying was a different night. 8-)(--)
Yes it was a different night to the one that Madeleine disappeared.
-
According to Kate McCann (obviously therefore to be completely disregarded by you) Madeleine stated that both she and Sean had been calling for their parents the night before. So - either Kate McCann is lying about this account (why?) or she is telling the truth, and these two children were awake a few short hours after apparently being sedated (according to those who seem to think the McCanns drugged their kids so they could go out "on the lash").
How do you know when km told the truth ?
Where you there ?
As to the drinking, indisputable.
As to whether the apartment was locked or unlocked, well we only have their word for that.
-
According to Kate McCann (obviously therefore to be completely disregarded by you) Madeleine stated that both she and Sean had been calling for their parents the night before. So - either Kate McCann is lying about this account (why?) or she is telling the truth, and these two children were awake a few short hours after apparently being sedated (according to those who seem to think the McCanns drugged their kids so they could go out "on the lash").
Sedation isn't always effective - it can sometimes be quite hit and miss.
-
How do you know when km told the truth ?
Where you there ?
As to the drinking, indisputable.
As to whether the apartment was locked or unlocked, well we only have their word for that.
I have not claimed to know when Kate told the truth - either she did and the kids were awake the night before, or she didn't and one would have to ask why she would lie about such a detail. In any case, the fact that there was at least one child crying somewhere in the near vicinity for over an hour was confirmed by Pamela Fenn who presumably would have no reason to lie, unless we are to doubt the word of every witness as a matter or course.
-
I have not claimed to know when Kate told the truth - either she did and the kids were awake the night before, or she didn't and one would have to ask why she would lie about such a detail. In any case, the fact that there was at least one child crying somewhere in the near vicinity for over an hour was confirmed by Pamela Fenn who presumably would have no reason to lie, unless we are to doubt the word of every witness as a matter or course.
Now remind me Mr. Jones, how did km refer to Mrs Fenn after she expressed her concerns ?
Mrs. Fenn of course had no reason to lie, whilst km ,if concealing the truth,did.
-
You might be surprised at how many have tried to rubbish Mrs Fenn's testimony.
-
Sedation isn't always effective - it can sometimes be quite hit and miss.
Can you give me any further information on this? Kate and Gerry are doctors so would presumably know about the most effective methods of sedation wouldn't you think?
-
Now remind me Mr. Jones, how did km refer to Mrs Fenn after she expressed her concerns ?
Mrs. Fenn of course had no reason to lie, whilst km ,if concealing the truth,did.
therefore we can take it as truth that at least one child in the near vicinity was awake during that night for a prolonged period, unlikely therefore to have been sedated.
-
Can you give me any further information on this? Kate and Gerry are doctors so would presumably know about the most effective methods of sedation wouldn't you think?
Within a clinical setting, they certainly should, but ad hoq on holiday could be quite different, when they wouldn't necessarily have the most effective methods to hand - ( hypothetically, of course.)
-
Is it not possible that after the crying incident the dosage of sedatives given was increased to prevent a repeat?
-
therefore we can take it as truth that at least one child in the near vicinity was awake during that night for a prolonged period, unlikely therefore to have been sedated.
We do not know what the mccanns did or didn't do on each night or day, regarding medications.
..................or do you know better ?
-
Is it not possible that after the crying incident the dosage of sedatives given was increased to prevent a repeat?
Or even that the crying incident was the catalyst for sedation? Hypothetically of course.
-
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.
If she was concerned, why was it that she didn't get them checked out? Do you think that Madeleine was drugged by the intruder?
-
If she was concerned, why was it that she didn't get them checked out? Do you think that Madeleine was drugged by the intruder?
An intriguing question, to which, presumably, only she knows the answer.
-
Within a clinical setting, they certainly should, but ad hoq on holiday could be quite different, when they wouldn't necessarily have the most effective methods to hand - ( hypothetically, of course.)
If they had gone on holiday without taking the "most effective methods" with them, where do you suppose they might have sourced other, less effective methods?
-
Is it not possible that after the crying incident the dosage of sedatives given was increased to prevent a repeat?
An increased dosage on the night Madeleine went missing would seem to rule out the likelihood of Madeleine getting out of bed and falling off a sofa. It also considerably reduces the amount of time available for all the other necessary components of the cover- up to have occurred.
-
If she was concerned, why was it that she didn't get them checked out? Do you think that Madeleine was drugged by the intruder?
Possibly. As for your first question I don't know, could only speculate.
-
Possibly. As for your first question I don't know, could only speculate.
Kate seemed to make a lot of unusual choices that evening
1. Not shouting from the balcony (just like dining in your back garden)
2. Not getting the twins checked over
3. Not shouting out Madeleine's name when she found her gone
I could go on..
-
An intriguing question, to which, presumably, only she knows the answer.
More pertinently imo - why didn't the PJ get them checked out. If it was proved that drugs had been administered then surely that would be vital evidence - and because of that I don't think the McCanns could have had checks done themselves - IMO it could only done under the auspices of the PJ - as part of an ongoing enquiry.
Quote from KM's book
''Since Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound, we had always suspected that all three children might have been sedated by the abductor. We mentioned this to the police that night and several more times in the following weeks, but no testing of urine, blood or hair, which could have revealed the presence of drugs, had ever been done.''
Unquote
A report from a FLO also confirms that the McCanns asked the PJ about the possibility of drugs having been used.
However, IIRC it was the PJ's decision not to do the tests.
-
Kate seemed to make a lot of unusual choices that evening
1. Not shouting from the balcony (just like dining in your back garden)
2. Not getting the twins checked over
3. Not shouting out Madeleine's name when she found her gone
I could go on..
Indeed - she could have fainted on the spot with the shock - or her throat could have been so constricted with fear and her mouth so dry that she couldn't speak - or her legs could have turned to jelly so that she couldn't run........ the list of all the different ways sudden and extreme shock can affect a human being is very long.
-
Indeed - she could have fainted on the spot with the shock - or her throat could have been so constricted with fear and her mouth so dry that she couldn't speak - or her legs could have turned to jelly so that she couldn't run........ the list of all the different ways sudden and extreme shock can affect a human being is very long.
.....or she was trying to deflect from what really happened.
-
.....or she was trying to deflect from what really happened.
Deflect what from whom exactly?
-
Kate seemed to make a lot of unusual choices that evening
1. Not shouting from the balcony (just like dining in your back garden)
2. Not getting the twins checked over
3. Not shouting out Madeleine's name when she found her gone
I could go on..
Do points 1 & 3 have anything to do with the question of whether the children were sedated or not?
-
Indeed - she could have fainted on the spot with the shock - or her throat could have been so constricted with fear and her mouth so dry that she couldn't speak - or her legs could have turned to jelly so that she couldn't run........ the list of all the different ways sudden and extreme shock can affect a human being is very long.
So that's why Jane didn't tell Kate about the abductor!
-
If they had gone on holiday without taking the "most effective methods" with them, where do you suppose they might have sourced other, less effective methods?
Who Knows? As a GP, she would be offered all sorts of pharmaceutical samples.
-
Deflect what from whom exactly?
>@@(*&)
-
So that's why Jane didn't tell Kate about the abductor!
JT had no idea that Madeleine would not be found at any moment so why would she want to add to Kates terrible distress at that time when there may have been no need to. As soon as the police arrived she told them - and that is all that mattered.
Anyway we are way off topic - so my last post on this.
-
Who Knows? As a GP, she would be offered all sorts of pharmaceutical samples.
Whilst on holiday?
-
More pertinently imo - why didn't the PJ get them checked out. If it was proved that drugs had been administered then surely that would be vital evidence - and because of that I don't think the McCanns could have had checks done themselves - IMO it could only done under the auspices of the PJ - as part of an ongoing enquiry.
Quote from KM's book
''Since Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound, we had always suspected that all three children might have been sedated by the abductor. We mentioned this to the police that night and several more times in the following weeks, but no testing of urine, blood or hair, which could have revealed the presence of drugs, had ever been done.''
Unquote
A report from a FLO also confirms that the McCanns asked the PJ about the possibility of drugs having been used.
However, IIRC it was the PJ's decision not to do the tests.
See now, this is one of those head-scratching occasions that occur frequently in this case
Here was Kate McCann so concerned that her children might have been drugged that she mentioned it to the police
Yet she did not, once, attempt to rouse them ... to SEE if they'd been drugged or not
She is a doctor ... a qualified anethetist ... who would surely have recognised the symptoms of a child who has been sedated by the response they give ( or fail to give ) on being roused
Why didn't she try to wake them up ?
-
See now, this is one of those head-scratching occasions that occur frequently in this case
Here was Kate McCann so concerned that her children might have been drugged that she mentioned it to the police
Yet she did not, once, attempt to rouse them ... to SEE if they'd been drugged or not
She is a doctor ... a qualified anethetist ... who would surely have recognised the symptoms of a child who has been sedated by the response they give ( or fail to give ) on being roused
Why didn't she try to wake them up ?
How do you know if, with all the distress she was suffering, she had even taken in that the twins were (maybe) especially sleepy that night? Or was it the next day ... or the day after that etc., when upon reflection and listening to others, she wondered?
And anyway, Icabod to wake a sleeping child up? Twins at that?
You are REAL, are you Icabod?
Wake them up! Jeez.
With all that distress and chaos they would never have got to sleep again. The yowling would have been horrendous.
-
How do you know if, with all the distress she was suffering, she had even taken in that the twins were (maybe) especially sleepy that night? Or was it the next day ... or the day after that etc., when upon reflection and listening to others, she wondered?
And anyway, Icabod to wake a sleeping child up? Twins at that?
You are REAL, are you Icabod?
Wake them up! Jeez.
With all that distress and chaos they would never have got to sleep again. The yowling would have been horrendous.
Benice quoted Kate saying that she had told the police, on the very night Madeleine went missing, that she was concerned all three children had been sedated by an intruder
If she was concerned enough to mention the possibility to the police then of course it is reasonable to think she would have tried to rouse the twins
I mean, if she was really concerned that they might have been sedated then the obvious thing to do was to try and wake them ... so she would know for sure whether her kids had been drugged or not
... yet she never even tried
That makes no sense
-
How do you know if, with all the distress she was suffering, she had even taken in that the twins were (maybe) especially sleepy that night? Or was it the next day ... or the day after that etc., when upon reflection and listening to others, she wondered?
And anyway, Icabod to wake a sleeping child up? Twins at that?
You are REAL, are you Icabod?
Wake them up! Jeez.
With all that distress and chaos they would never have got to sleep again. The yowling would have been horrendous.
Yet the twins never woke up through all the commotion, now why is that I wonder ?
-
Yet the twins never woke up through all the commotion, now why is that I wonder ?
it's all been discussed ..millions of times...you obviously haven't been paying attention
-
it's all been discussed ..millions of times...you obviously haven't been paying attention
Oh, but I have. 8((()*/
-
How do you know if, with all the distress she was suffering, she had even taken in that the twins were (maybe) especially sleepy that night? Or was it the next day ... or the day after that etc., when upon reflection and listening to others, she wondered?
And anyway, Icabod to wake a sleeping child up? Twins at that?
You are REAL, are you Icabod?
Wake them up! Jeez.
With all that distress and chaos they would never have got to sleep again. The yowling would have been horrendous.
Leave them alone Sadie? With a paedophile on the loose?
Are you REAL Sadie?
THINK about it. Jeez.
-
Some interesting posts guys. The twins sleeping even while Gerry and Kate are wailing in the bed in the next room is hard to take in. By the way I don't make any excuses for using the word 'wailing' as it precisely describes the pain they were experiencing. The pain of having lost Madeleine but the unanswered question is how lost? Deceased, abducted or both?
-
Some interesting posts guys. The twins sleeping even while Gerry and Kate are wailing in the bed in the next room is hard to take in. By the way I don't make any excuses for using the word 'wailing' as it precisely describes the pain they were experiencing. The pain of having lost Madeleine but the unanswered question is how lost? Deceased, abducted or both?
I don't find it hard to take in at all. I'm sure many people have been at weddings, family parties or other social gatherings where a disco for instance is blasting out - and seen little tots fast asleep in their buggies totally oblivious to the racket going on around them.
-
I don't find it hard to take in at all. I'm sure many people have been at weddings, family parties or other social gatherings where a disco for instance is blasting out - and seen little tots fast asleep in their buggies totally oblivious to the racket going on around them.
I did make the point earlier about the McCann child being removed from the aeroplane and taken down the steps by his father to face the media scrum, all the while remaining seemingly fast asleep.
-
I did make the point earlier about the McCann child being removed from the aeroplane and taken down the steps by his father to face the media scrum, all the while remaining seemingly fast asleep.
Quite. Some children do sleep soundly. Little Sean was fast asleep during all the plane/tarmac noise. Amelie was only just awake and didn't seem fazed by yet more photographers.
-
...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?
Is it possible that the children were sedated as a consequence of the hour and a quarter crying episode, witnessed by the upstairs neighbour, Mrs Fenn ?
Is it possible that the children were given something to make them sleep more soundly because their waking up was disrupting their parents evening arrangements ?
Is that possible ?
-
...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?
I dont believe they were sedated prior to May 3rd, however I believe they were perhaps sedated on that night 3rd May to ensure that they slept soundly.
The child was sedated and became unsteady on her legs when she woke up and perhaps that could be the reason why she fell....
I only take one 2mg Diazepam every night, and when I get up during the night i am really wobbly, also sometimes the tablet has the opposite effect and I cant sleep.
-
Is it possible that the children were sedated as a consequence of the hour and a quarter crying episode, witnessed by the upstairs neighbour, Mrs Fenn ?
Is it possible that the children were given something to make them sleep more soundly because their waking up was disrupting their parents evening arrangements ?
Is that possible ?
Anything's possible but is it feasible that ALL the parents sedated ALL their children because of the crying of one child on one night? If not, is it likely that ALL the parents would agree to cover up the misdemeanours of those that did? Or is it possible for the McCanns to have carried out this subterfuge all by themselves? And, if the McCann children were sedated to ensure that they slept very soundly, then at what point during the evening would it likely have become apparent that one of them wasn't actually sleeping but had died, do you suppose?
So many questions to ponder, so many possibilities, how many likelihoods though?
-
I dont believe they were sedated prior to May 3rd, however I believe they were perhaps sedated on that night 3rd May to ensure that they slept soundly.
The child was sedated and became unsteady on her legs when she woke up and perhaps that could be the reason why she fell....
I only take one 2mg Diazepam every night, and when I get up during the night i am really wobbly, also sometimes the tablet has the opposite effect and I cant sleep.
And do you believe that the McCanns' friends are covering up for the McCanns ill-advised administering of sedatives, and if so why would they do that, in your view?
-
Is it possible that the children were sedated as a consequence of the hour and a quarter crying episode, witnessed by the upstairs neighbour, Mrs Fenn ?
Is it possible that the children were given something to make them sleep more soundly because their waking up was disrupting their parents evening arrangements ?
Is that possible ?
I've long had serious doubts, not about the witness Pamela Fenn, but about her statement as we read it on line.
-
I've long had serious doubts, not about the witness Pamela Fenn, but about her statement as we read it on line.
Didn`t Madeleine ask why her mother hadn`t come when she and Sean cried the night before she disappeared?
Kate McCann herself spoke about it........ and the "waking" aspect of leaving the children alone was on her mind enough for her to discuss it with Fiona Payne.
-
[... quote previously deleted as off topic ..]
There is no evidence either way whether the children were given sedatives or not.
Both the PJ and the mccanns are at fault here, and testing should and could have been done very easily in the following days.
Thew mccanns tests later were irrelevant and not independent.
It has also been stated by km,she feared the children had been sedated, so why the hell didn't the mccanns as Doctors insist on the procedure being carried out.
Perhaps they were too busy 'searching'. 8)-)))
-
Is there anyone who can post even the tiniest bit of evidence either that sedatives were found in Apartment 5A or that any of the McCann children were ever sedated?
Till somebody manages to come up with at least a tiny bit of evidence for either, then there really is not much point to the thread at all.
I look forward to seeing some evidence so that debate can commence on the subject.
Well, as it happens, Kate McCann offers what she considers possible evidence of the children having been sedated ;
"On the night Madeleine was taken, you may remember, Gerry and I had been very concerned that Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment. Since Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound, we had always suspected that all three children might have been sedated by an abductor"l
There you have it ... Kate McCann's 'evidence' for the children possibly having been sedated
Or do you reject her observations that night as being non-evidential ?
-
Didn`t Madeleine ask why her mother hadn`t come when she and Sean cried the night before she disappeared?
Kate McCann herself spoke about it........ and the "waking" aspect of leaving the children alone was on her mind enough for her to discuss it with Fiona Payne.
The "cause and effect" is interesting.
Right at the outset, way before the McCanns were declared arguidos, the McCanns confided in the PJ that Madeleine had related to them that she had cried for a spell during their absence.
Then the witness in closest proximity to the crime when it occurred, first interviewed months afterwards, apparently about a crime of which she herself was a victim and reported, suddenly offers this apparent account of Madeleine crying.
The crime of which Mrs Fenn was a victim gets a mention (just!) in her statement, right at the end.
And Pamela Fenn's niece Carol Tramner says not a word about this apparent "revelation" of Mrs Fenn's.
Ally that to the fact that Mrs Fenn is on record as saying she didn't even know the family had moved in to the holiday apartment and ...
-
Sourced elsewhere. In reference to Calpol.
Noting, in the article it does state,Calpol is not to be given to children under the age of 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CALPOL NIGHT WHICH WAS NOT TAKEN OFF THE MARKET UNTIL 2009
Calpol night oral solution contains two active ingredients, paracetamol and diphenhydramine hydrochloride.
Paracetamol is a simple painkilling medicine used to relieve mild to moderate pain and fever. Despite its widespread use for over 100 years, we still don't fully understand how paracetamol works to relieve pain and reduce fever. However, it is now thought that it works by reducing the production of prostaglandins in the brain and spinal cord.
The body produces prostaglandins in response to injury and certain diseases. One of the effects of prostaglandins is to sensitise nerve endings, causing pain (presumably to prevent us from causing further harm to the area). As paracetamol reduces the production of these nerve sensitising prostaglandins it is thought it may increase our pain threshold, so that although the cause of the pain remains, we can feel it less.
It is thought paracetamol reduces fever by affecting an area of the brain that regulates our body temperature (the hypothalamic heat-regulating center).
Diphenhydramine is a type of medicine called a sedating antihistamine. It enters the brain in sufficient quantities to cause drowsiness.
Read more: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol-night.html#ixzz2yylJzAbh
Follow us: @NetDoctor on Twitter | NetDoctorUK on Facebook
-
Sourced elsewhere. In reference to Calpol.
Noting, in the article it does state,Calpol is not to be given to children under the age of 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CALPOL NIGHT WHICH WAS NOT TAKEN OFF THE MARKET UNTIL 2009
Calpol night oral solution contains two active ingredients, paracetamol and diphenhydramine hydrochloride.
Paracetamol is a simple painkilling medicine used to relieve mild to moderate pain and fever. Despite its widespread use for over 100 years, we still don't fully understand how paracetamol works to relieve pain and reduce fever. However, it is now thought that it works by reducing the production of prostaglandins in the brain and spinal cord.
The body produces prostaglandins in response to injury and certain diseases. One of the effects of prostaglandins is to sensitise nerve endings, causing pain (presumably to prevent us from causing further harm to the area). As paracetamol reduces the production of these nerve sensitising prostaglandins it is thought it may increase our pain threshold, so that although the cause of the pain remains, we can feel it less.
It is thought paracetamol reduces fever by affecting an area of the brain that regulates our body temperature (the hypothalamic heat-regulating center).
Diphenhydramine is a type of medicine called a sedating antihistamine. It enters the brain in sufficient quantities to cause drowsiness.
Read more: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol-night.html#ixzz2yylJzAbh
Follow us: @NetDoctor on Twitter | NetDoctorUK on Facebook
Perhaps you could point out when Calpol Night first appeared on the market and where it has been established that the McCanns had it with them.
-
Perhaps you could point out when Calpol Night first appeared on the market and where it has been established that the McCanns had it with them.
On the first point, i will e-mail the manufacturer tomorrow.
On the second, ask the mccanns. 8((()*/
-
Perhaps you could point out when Calpol Night first appeared on the market and where it has been established that the McCanns had it with them.
Well done Carana!
Calpol nigt!
A completely different drug from calpol
The first removed from the market, around the time Kate and Gerry were made arguidos in their daughter's disappearance ...
-
Well done Carana!
Calpol nigt!
A completely different drug from calpol
The first removed from the market, around the time Kate and Gerry were made arguidos in their daughter's disappearance ...
We shall see on that. 8((()*/
-
Sourced elsewhere. In reference to Calpol.
Noting, in the article it does state,Calpol is not to be given to children under the age of 6.
---------------------------------------------------------------------
CALPOL NIGHT WHICH WAS NOT TAKEN OFF THE MARKET UNTIL 2009
Calpol night oral solution contains two active ingredients, paracetamol and diphenhydramine hydrochloride.
Paracetamol is a simple painkilling medicine used to relieve mild to moderate pain and fever. Despite its widespread use for over 100 years, we still don't fully understand how paracetamol works to relieve pain and reduce fever. However, it is now thought that it works by reducing the production of prostaglandins in the brain and spinal cord.
The body produces prostaglandins in response to injury and certain diseases. One of the effects of prostaglandins is to sensitise nerve endings, causing pain (presumably to prevent us from causing further harm to the area). As paracetamol reduces the production of these nerve sensitising prostaglandins it is thought it may increase our pain threshold, so that although the cause of the pain remains, we can feel it less.
It is thought paracetamol reduces fever by affecting an area of the brain that regulates our body temperature (the hypothalamic heat-regulating center).
Diphenhydramine is a type of medicine called a sedating antihistamine. It enters the brain in sufficient quantities to cause drowsiness.
Read more: http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol-night.html#ixzz2yylJzAbh
Follow us: @NetDoctor on Twitter | NetDoctorUK on Facebook
Ah.
The key point is not when it was withdrawn, but when it was introduced, just about the time the |McCanns were made arguidos.
Branding: Calpol expands kids' remedies
12.09.2007
inShare
Children's medicine brand Calpol is broadening its range with the addition of three variants.
The brand, which is owned by Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, is rolling out Calpol Night, a pain-relief medicine; CalCough, a cough remedy, which comes in Chesty and Tickly variants, and CalCold, which relieves cold and flu symptoms in children aged three months and over. It is also introducing a Calpol Vapour Plug & Nightlight.
The launch of the products, which will be available from this month, will be backed by a marketing and PR campaign.
In the year to June 2007, Calpol had a 60% share of the children's pain and fever relief category, according to IRI.
Pfizer hopes that the additional products will grow its share of the children's medicines market by 4.5% in 2008, which would equate to an extra £6.5m in sales.
If Madeleine has ever, in her life, been given the drug, that would have been by her abductor.
-
Perhaps you could point out when Calpol Night first appeared on the market and where it has been established that the McCanns had it with them.
The McCanns detailed in their statements which medications they carried on holiday to Portugal and Calpol was among them. If Gerry could get his hands on Terfenadine after it had been removed from the list of prescribed drugs in the UK he...
-
The McCanns detailed in their statements which medications they carried on holiday to Portugal and Calpol was among them. If Gerry could get his hands on Terfenadine after it had been removed from the list of prescribed drugs in the UK he...
he what, John?
-
Ah.
The key point is not when it was withdrawn, but when it was introduced, just about the time the |McCanns were made arguidos.
Branding: Calpol expands kids' remedies
12.09.2007
inShare
Children's medicine brand Calpol is broadening its range with the addition of three variants.
The brand, which is owned by Pfizer Consumer Healthcare, is rolling out Calpol Night, a pain-relief medicine; CalCough, a cough remedy, which comes in Chesty and Tickly variants, and CalCold, which relieves cold and flu symptoms in children aged three months and over. It is also introducing a Calpol Vapour Plug & Nightlight.
The launch of the products, which will be available from this month, will be backed by a marketing and PR campaign.
In the year to June 2007, Calpol had a 60% share of the children's pain and fever relief category, according to IRI.
Pfizer hopes that the additional products will grow its share of the children's medicines market by 4.5% in 2008, which would equate to an extra £6.5m in sales.
If Madeleine has ever, in her life, been given the drug, that would have been by her abductor.
I shall await the reply from Johnson and Johnson.
-
Looks like somebody has already been down that route
Our Ref: XXXXXX-Letter
Date: XXXX 2009
Dear Madam/Sir
Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning Calpol Infant Suspension (120mg paracetamol per 5ml).
Calpol Infant Suspension contains paracetamol which is used to relieve pain and reduce fever. As you rightly point out, it does not have sedative properties. We are keen to ensure that consumers understand how to use all of our products correctly. In the case of Calpol, we ensure clear messages in our advertising to ensure correct usage. The product also contains clear instructions for use on the box and within the enclosed patient information leaflet.
Thank you for your concern regarding the reputation of our product and the suggestion that we contact Mr Amaral. We will give your suggestion due consideration.
Yours sincerely
Johnson & Johnson Ltd
XXXXXX XXXXXXXX BSc (Hons)
Medical Information Officer
Professional Information Ltd
on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd
-
Looks like somebody has already been down that route
Our Ref: XXXXXX-Letter
Date: XXXX 2009
Dear Madam/Sir
Thank you for your recent enquiry concerning Calpol Infant Suspension (120mg paracetamol per 5ml).
Calpol Infant Suspension contains paracetamol which is used to relieve pain and reduce fever. As you rightly point out, it does not have sedative properties. We are keen to ensure that consumers understand how to use all of our products correctly. In the case of Calpol, we ensure clear messages in our advertising to ensure correct usage. The product also contains clear instructions for use on the box and within the enclosed patient information leaflet.
Thank you for your concern regarding the reputation of our product and the suggestion that we contact Mr Amaral. We will give your suggestion due consideration.
Yours sincerely
Johnson & Johnson Ltd
XXXXXX XXXXXXXX BSc (Hons)
Medical Information Officer
Professional Information Ltd
on behalf of Johnson & Johnson Ltd
For Calpol night ?
For reference purposes:
http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/18986/SPC/Calpol+Infant+Suspension
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/l-unit1/documents/websiteresources/con014180.pdf
-
Stephen. I am not quite sure why you are banging on about calpol night. I am sure you find it terribly interesting, but it really is irrelevant to the discussion in hand as it was not released until September 2007.
The McCanns had a medication called Calpol. Now I think called Calpol Infant Suspension. And it is OK for children over 6 months old.
-
The McCanns detailed in their statements which medications they carried on holiday to Portugal and Calpol was among them. If Gerry could get his hands on Terfenadine after it had been removed from the list of prescribed drugs in the UK he...
But it was not banned from being prescribed in the UK. It was perfectly legal to prescribe terfenadine to adults in the UK (and I believe may well still be).
As for Calpol night, would you go as far as suggesting that it was illegally given to Gerry or Kate by the company prior to its being permitted in the UK? If so, I would be wary of a libel action from that company.
-
For Calpol night ?
For reference purposes:
http://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/medicine/18986/SPC/Calpol+Infant+Suspension
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/l-unit1/documents/websiteresources/con014180.pdf
Unless you are intending this to be a libel on the company which produced Calpol Night and are inferring that it was released to Gerry and Kate before official permission was granted in mid 2007 for it to be used in the UK then I suggest you make your point clear.
Calpol night was not released in the UK till September 2007.
Your posts are as usual rather irrelevant because you either do now wish to learn the facts about the matter or are deliberatly trying to disrupt.
-
Unless you are intending this to be a libel on the company which produced Calpol Night and are inferring that it was released to Gerry and Kate before official permission was granted in mid 2007 for it to be used in the UK then I suggest you make your point clear.
Calpol night was not released in the UK till September 2007.
Your posts are as usual rather irrelevant because you either do now wish to learn the facts about the matter or are deliberatly trying to disrupt.
Incorrect.
The marketing authorisation in UK for Calpol Night was granted on 12th Jan 2007.
A variation on the PSUR Reporting Period was granted on the 15/07/2007 from 6 months to 3 years.
http://www.mhra.gov.uk/home/groups/l-unit1/documents/websiteresources/con014180.pdf
It is you who needs to learn the facts and as you didn't even provide a source for your statement, what does that make you ?
I may have more to add to this , if and when I receive a reply from the company concerned.
P.S. At this point I am trying to ascertain when samples of the product where being tested prior to release of the product to the general public.
-
Madeleine especially was extraordinarily tired that afternoon / evening. She was so tired that The Mccanns had to carry her back from the Tapas at about 5.30pm IIRC
All three children were too tired to play on the slide and climbing frame thingy, as usual, before bed on May 3rd. It seems it was the norm for all the Tapas group kiddies to be have their tea at the Tapas, have their baths, get their jamies on then meet outside for a short play together on the tapas kiddie stuff. I bet thta was the highlight of their day... but they were just too tired >@@(*&)
Why were they too tired that night? I have always felt that someone at the Tapas restaurant slipped a sedative / sleeping draught into their hot chocolate or in a sandwich ... whatever.
I simply cannot understand the tiredness of all three of them .. but especially Madeleine... so tired thta she had to be carried home. Maybe a double dose given to her hidden in her drink? Dunno
The twins slept very deeply that night too. >@@(*&)
-
Madeleine especially was extraordinarily tired that afternoon / evening. She was so tired that The Mccanns had to carry her back from the Tapas at about 5.30pm IIRC
All three children were too tired to play on the slide and climbing frame thingy, as usual, before bed on May 3rd. It seems it was the norm for all the Tapas group kiddies to be have their tea at the Tapas, have their baths, get their jamies on then meet outside for a short play together on the tapas kiddie stuff. I bet thta was the highlight of their day... but they were just too tired >@@(*&)
Why were they too tired that night? I have always felt that someone at the Tapas restaurant slipped a sedative / sleeping draught into their hot chocolate or in a sandwich ... whatever.
field`s baby
I simply cannot understand the tiredness of all three of them .. but especially Madeleine... so tired thta she had to be carried home. Maybe a double dose given to her hidden in her drink? Dunno
The twins slept very deeply that night too. >@@(*&)
Wasn`t Dr. Oldfield`s baby ill with diarrhoea and also Dr O`Brien`s small daughter sick that evening?
Maybe the McCann children were simply feeling a bit under the weather..... Infants fight off a bug going round or react to it in different ways, don`t they?
-
Wasn`t Dr. Oldfield`s baby ill with diarrhoea and also Dr O`Brien`s small daughter sick that evening?
Maybe the McCann children were simply feeling a bit under the weather..... Infants fight off a bug going round or react to it in different ways, don`t they?
That is true, but no indications of illness with the Mccann children have been given, so I think it unlikely tbh
Was Matts baby ill then? I missed that.
-
Wasn`t Dr. Oldfield`s baby ill with diarrhoea and also Dr O`Brien`s small daughter sick that evening?
Maybe the McCann children were simply feeling a bit under the weather..... Infants fight off a bug going round or react to it in different ways, don`t they?
This was the day of the sailing activity iirc. No wonder Maddie was exhausted.
-
That is true, but no indications of illness with the Mccann children have been given, so I think it unlikely tbh
Was Matts baby ill then? I missed that.
This is from Rachael`s rog....
"1578 “Okay, and when you went to check on Grace, what sort of checks would you conduct”?
Reply “Erm well we’d go into the room, which ordinarily we wouldn’t do to be honest, erm but she seemed to have diarrhoea and kind of, I mean she’d settled quite well actually cos she’d been tired every evening, erm but every morning when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her grow bag and so there’s all of this sort of horrendous smell, so in the evenings when we were checking, we’d go into the room just to see if you know, there was any sort of smell yet, erm and just to make sure she was alright, to make sure she hadn’t been sick, partly I think cos Matt had been sick, just wanted to make sure that she hadn’t been, in case it was some sort of bug”."
-
This is from Rachael`s rog....
"1578 “Okay, and when you went to check on Grace, what sort of checks would you conduct”?
Reply “Erm well we’d go into the room, which ordinarily we wouldn’t do to be honest, erm but she seemed to have diarrhoea and kind of, I mean she’d settled quite well actually cos she’d been tired every evening, erm but every morning when she woke up, she had diarrhoea and it had gone right through her grow bag and so there’s all of this sort of horrendous smell, so in the evenings when we were checking, we’d go into the room just to see if you know, there was any sort of smell yet, erm and just to make sure she was alright, to make sure she hadn’t been sick, partly I think cos Matt had been sick, just wanted to make sure that she hadn’t been, in case it was some sort of bug”."
Thanks Carew, but nothing about the Mccann children being sick or ill ... Just extremely tired.
-
This was the day of the sailing activity iirc. No wonder Maddie was exhausted.
Was it the day of the sailing activity?
Sailing never tired me. I adored it, especially in rough weather.
But you might be right? Dunno
-
Was it the day of the sailing activity?
Sailing never tired me. I adored it, especially in rough weather.
But you might be right? Dunno
Didn`t Cat Baker`s statement mention that Madeleine had cried on her lap due to being "scared" at the launch of the safety boats which took the children to the sailing boats?
She was apparently happy later, though.........but stresses can add up and possibly explain tiredness after an active day.............
( especially following the disturbed night before when she woke and cried but no-one came. )
-
Any answer to the question I asked you last night davel ?
-
Any answer to the question I asked you last night davel ?
what question was that...your questions are easily answerred
-
what question was that...your questions are easily answerred
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
No davel thats your mini me ego talking.
Think calpol night and gilet. 8)-)))4
-
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(*
No davel thats your mini me ego talking.
Think calpol night and gilet. 8)-)))4
just give me the post number
-
just give me the post number
Do it yourself, unless of course you are incapable. >@@(*&)
-
Do it yourself, unless of course you are incapable. >@@(*&)
Ive looked at your posts and there is not one question directed towards me last night...notice you have started the insults...doesn't bother me in the slightest
-
Ive looked at your posts and there is not one question directed towards me last night...notice you have started the insults...doesn't bother me in the slightest
Interesting that.
Someone has erased the question.
It was a simple question.
So here it is again.
Do you agree gilet got it completely wrong in her statement to me about calpol night ?
-
Interesting that.
Someone has erased the question.
It was a simple question.
So here it is again.
Do you agree gilet got it completely wrong in her statement to me about calpol night ?
Nobody "erased" your question. You didnt ask it in the first place. So I think maybe an apology to Davel would be in order. Although I dont think anyone will be holding their breath.
The gestation of pharma products is measured in months. Calpol night was launched in September 2007, following its authorisation in January 2007.
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/737476/branding-calpol-expands-kids-remedies
-
Nobody "erased" your question. You didnt ask it in the first place. So I think maybe an apology to Davel would be in order. Although I dont think anyone will be holding their breath.
The gestation of pharma products is measured in months. Calpol night was launched in September 2007, following its authorisation in January 2007.
http://www.marketingmagazine.co.uk/article/737476/branding-calpol-expands-kids-remedies
Wrong Jean Pierre.
I asked the question.
Also, you ignore the other section of my post.
The product would have been 'out' for testing purposes.
-
Madeleine especially was extraordinarily tired that afternoon / evening. She was so tired that The Mccanns had to carry her back from the Tapas at about 5.30pm IIRC
All three children were too tired to play on the slide and climbing frame thingy, as usual, before bed on May 3rd. It seems it was the norm for all the Tapas group kiddies to be have their tea at the Tapas, have their baths, get their jamies on then meet outside for a short play together on the tapas kiddie stuff. I bet thta was the highlight of their day... but they were just too tired >@@(*&)
Why were they too tired that night? I have always felt that someone at the Tapas restaurant slipped a sedative / sleeping draught into their hot chocolate or in a sandwich ... whatever.
I simply cannot understand the tiredness of all three of them .. but especially Madeleine... so tired thta she had to be carried home. Maybe a double dose given to her hidden in her drink? Dunno
The twins slept very deeply that night too. >@@(*&)
I do not think the Drs McCann sedated either Madeleine or the twins.
There is a belief among some that Madeleine was not abducted in a burglary gone wrong by a panicking burglar but was taken in a planned abduction.
The same school of thought thinks this could have involved an OC employee.
The difficulties of administering a sedative by the perpetrator although not insurmountable are agreed to be very difficult if done at the time, Raymond Hewlett allegedly subdued his victims with paint stripper.
I think Sadie has come up with the most workable solution when she says the three might have been drugged by someone at the Tapas restaurant, which would have been so easy to do.
There are no reports of Sean and Amelie being disturbed by all the activity in 5a nor when they were removed and put to bed elsewhere.
On the contrary, their deep sleep was noted.
The person seen by the Smiths was carrying a child who was apparently deeply asleep, as was the child seen being carried by Jane Tanner.
I am going with Sadie’s analysis of how and when sedatives might have been administered to the McCann children until someone comes up with a better idea.
There couldn’t have been too many people with access to the food preparation area or serving the children, which could have been easily checked back in 2007, don’t know what the chances are now.
-
Wrong Jean Pierre.
I asked the question.
Also, you ignore the other section of my post.
The product would have been 'out' for testing purposes.
Maybe there is some deep dark McCann led conspiracy to stop you asking questions. Or maybe you forgot to write it. 8(0(*
Now, the bit in bold - Could you provide some corroboration of that please?
-
I do not think the Drs McCann sedated either Madeleine or the twins.
There is a belief among some that Madeleine was not abducted in a burglary gone wrong by a panicking burglar but was taken in a planned abduction.
The same school of thought thinks this could have involved an OC employee.
The difficulties of administering a sedative by the perpetrator although not insurmountable are agreed to be very difficult if done at the time, Raymond Hewlett allegedly subdued his victims with paint stripper.
I think Sadie has come up with the most workable solution when she says the three might have been drugged by someone at the Tapas restaurant, which would have been so easy to do.
There are no reports of Sean and Amelie being disturbed by all the activity in 5a nor when they were removed and put to bed elsewhere.
On the contrary, their deep sleep was noted.
The person seen by the Smiths was carrying a child who was apparently deeply asleep, as was the child seen being carried by Jane Tanner.
I am going with Sadie’s analysis of how and when sedatives might have been administered to the McCann children until someone comes up with a better idea.
There couldn’t have been too many people with access to the food preparation area or serving the children, which could have been easily checked back in 2007, don’t know what the chances are now.
The children ate at around 6ish and were asleep at around 8ish right? So you have a sedative administered orally that takes two hours to take effect?
Although the children were said to be tired that night, their parents showed no concern at them being left alone so I assume that they weren't abnormally tired or displaying signs of sedation like floppiness for example.
Remember that Kate Mccann was a trained anaesthesiologist so would be very aware of the signs of sedation.
I assume that you are claiming that the sedative was mixed in with either food or drink, so no slow release capsule could be used?
What sedative would take two hours to have effect yet last many hours afterwards?
-
I am with Cariad on this. In my view it is better to try to maintain at least a tenuous grip on reality, rather than stray in to the realms of fantasy.
There are no sedatives that have a two hour delay. And particuloarly in the case of chidren who metabolise faster anyway.
To cite personal experience, two of my children used to rush around, and then fall so deeply asleep that an earthquake would not shift them. So it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they were simply tired and fell deeply aspleep.
-
I am with Cariad on this. In my view it is better to try to maintain at least a tenuous grip on reality, rather than stray in to the realms of fantasy.
There are no sedatives that have a two hour delay. And particuloarly in the case of chidren who metabolise faster anyway.
To cite personal experience, two of my children used to rush around, and then fall so deeply asleep that an earthquake would not shift them. So it is not beyond the bounds of possibility that they were simply tired and fell deeply aspleep.
Kate herself suggests the idea of stranger sedation so given that she was a fully qualified anaesthetist, I wonder how she thought it would have been dispensed?
-
Kate herself suggests the idea of stranger sedation so given that she was a fully qualified anaesthetist, I wonder how she thought it would have been dispensed?
More probably at the time of abduction, rather than some sort of premptive drugging in the late afternoon.
-
I am with Cariad on this. In my view it is better to try to maintain at least a tenuous grip on reality, rather than stray in to the realms of fantasy.
There are no sedatives that have a two hour delay. And particuloarly in the case of chidren who metabolise faster anyway.
Well, it appears Kate, herself, entered the realms of fantasy you speak of ;
"Could Madeleine's apparently excessive tiredness on that last Thursday afternoon have been caused by some kind of tranquillizer administered earlier in the day, or even the night before ?"
( Kate's book, page 130 )
-
Well, it appears Kate, herself, entered the realms of fantasy you speak of ;
"Could Madeleine's apparently excessive tiredness on that last Thursday afternoon have been caused by some kind of tranquillizer administered earlier in the day, or even the night before ?"
( Kate's book, page 130 )
Nice quote Icabodcrane 8((()*/ I hadn't realised Kate was also suspicious that the kids had been doped earlier that day.
Remember too that the children had dinner while the parents had a beer at the Paraiso Beach Bar that afternoon according to waiter João.
www.abcnews.go.com/print?id=3637499
-
Perhaps you should read this article Jean Pierre on that subject. There are plenty of others.
Meanwhile I await the answer from Johnson and Johnson, as I indicated before, if you had been taking notice. >@@(*&)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/09/health.nhs
-
The children ate at around 6ish and were asleep at around 8ish right? So you have a sedative administered orally that takes two hours to take effect?
Although the children were said to be tired that night, their parents showed no concern at them being left alone so I assume that they weren't abnormally tired or displaying signs of sedation like floppiness for example.
Remember that Kate Mccann was a trained anaesthesiologist so would be very aware of the signs of sedation.
I assume that you are claiming that the sedative was mixed in with either food or drink, so no slow release capsule could be used?
What sedative would take two hours to have effect yet last many hours afterwards?
Kate thought Madeleine might have been given a tranquillizer the night before the evening she disappeared
As you say, Kate is a qualified anesthetist ... so I guess she must be aware of a tranquillizer that can be administered to a child in the evening ... where the child wakes up bright as a button at 7.30am the next morning ... and then becomes excessively tired some 18 hours after the tranquillizer was given
I wasn't aware such a 'slow acting' sedative existed ... but Kate is the expert, and she seems to think it does
-
... if you had been taking notice.
Of what?
-
... if you had been taking notice.
Of what?
That's your problem ferryman, not mine. 8((()*/
-
Kate thought Madeleine might have been given a tranquillizer the night before the evening she disappeared
As you say, Kate is a qualified anesthetist ... so I guess she must be aware of a tranquillizer that can be administered to a child in the evening ... where the child wakes up bright as a button at 7.30am the next morning ... and then becomes excessively tired some 18 hours after the tranquillizer was given
I wasn't aware such a 'slow acting' sedative existed ... but Kate is the expert, and she seems to think it does
I did pass this in front of my son who dabbles in such things and he was puzzled too. So who knows.
-
Perhaps you should read this article Jean Pierre on that subject. There are plenty of others.
Meanwhile I await the answer from Johnson and Johnson, as I indicated before, if you had been taking notice. >@@(*&)
http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2003/feb/09/health.nhs
Of course it goes on - indeed it is the basis of the film the Contant Gardener. But are you actually suggesting that Calpol Night (given that it received approval in January 2007) comes into that category? If so then you are so far away with the faries that you are beyond help.
Maybe you fondly imagine the reply from Johnson and Johnson will be different from that posted further up the thread (if you had been paying attention). I fear you will be a bit disappointed. 8)--))
-
I did pass this in front of my son who dabbles in such things and he was puzzled too. So who knows.
It is puzzling that Kate ( a qualified anesthetist ) would think that a tranquillizer could be taking affect some 18 hours after administration
Especially given that even the effects of deep anaesthetic ( the type used in surgery ) have 98% worn off after 15 hours
-
Of course it goes on - indeed it is the basis of the film the Contant Gardener. But are you actually suggesting that Calpol Night (given that it received approval in January 2007) comes into that category? If so then you are so far away with the faries that you are beyond help.
Maybe you fondly imagine the reply from Johnson and Johnson will be different from that posted further up the thread (if you had been paying attention). I fear you will be a bit disappointed. 8)--))
I never said such a thing as you know.
Testing drugs before general release is a standard procedure.
Didn't you know that John Pierre ?
Perhaps it is you who is spending too much time at the bottom of the garden with the fairies. 8)--))
-
It is puzzling that Kate ( a qualified anesthetist ) would think that a tranquillizer could be taking affect some 18 hours after administration
Especially given that even the effects of deep anaesthetic ( the type used in surgery ) have 98% worn off after 15 hours
I can only agree, it is a puzzle.
-
One question that intrigues me is whether Amaral's reference to calpol night in his book would be libel by Portuguese law.
It certainly would by UK ...
MADELEINE SLEEPS BADLY
One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
Amaral has stopped (just) short of saying Kate and Gerry gave Madeleine the drug.
But that is the impression far too many people have formed, including Morais, who wrote a particularly vicious blog on the subject.
So is Amaral's reference libel?
-
One question that intrigues me is whether Amaral's reference to calpol night in his book would be libel by Portuguese law.
It certainly would by UK ...
MADELEINE SLEEPS BADLY
One of the police officers who went to the McCanns' home in England, reported that a medical monitoring chart for Madeleine was posted in the kitchen. This referred to her sleep problems and made clear that she was waking several times in the night. The paternal grandfather stated that Kate gave the little girl - and also the twins - Calpol, a medication designed to facilitate falling asleep. That seems to be a common practice in Great Britain; they even talk about a "Calpol generation." In recent years, the possible presence of an antihistamine with sedative effects in Calpol has aroused great controversy. Recently, the same laboratory put Calpol Night on the market, whose ingredients clearly list that it contains an antihistamine.
Amaral has stopped (just) short of saying Kate and Gerry gave Madeleine the drug.
But that is the impression far too many people have formed, including Morais, who wrote a particularly vicious blog on the subject.
So is Amaral's reference libel?
You do not know what the mccanns did, do you ferryman ?
Unless of course you were there.
-
I used Calpol on my own children when they were toddlers on many occasions as a soother and never ever found a problem. Personally I don't see what the issue is. The McCanns took Calpol on holiday because it worked.
-
I used Calpol on my own children when they were toddlers on many occasions as a soother and never ever found a problem. Personally I don't see what the issue is. The McCanns took Calpol on holiday because it worked.
For reference purposes:
http://www.theecologist.org/green_green_living/behind_the_label/346400/behind_the_label_calpol.htmlOther ingredients
'Calpol of course doesn't just contain paracetamol. It is a veritable cocktail of sweeteners, flavourings, preservatives and colourants to make the product appealing and palatable to infants. These additives include strawberry 'flavouring' and carmoisine (E122- suspected carcinogen, banned in Austria, Japan, Norway, Sweden and the US) to produce its pink colour.
It also contains, Maltitol (a mild laxative), glycerol (E422 - large quantities can cause headaches, thirst and nausea), sorbitol (E420 - large quantities can cause stomach upset), the paraben preservatives methyl parahydroxybenzoate (E218 - suspected hormone disrupter and allergen), propyl parahydroxybenzoate (E216 - suspected hormone disrupter and allergen), ethyl parahydroxybenzoate (E214 - suspected hormone disrupter, banned in France and Australia), and a thickener xanthan gum (E415 - no known adverse effects).
Being such an interesting E-cocktail, it's not surprising that it can cause allergic reactions (such as skin rashes and hayfever-like symptoms), tiredness, unexpected bleeding or tendency towards bruising as well as headache, nausea.
Using paracetamol to treat fever may also result in your child having a seemingly endless round of colds, since the body's natural fever reaction was not allowed to kill the virus causing the illness leaving your child to be reinfected again and again.
E122 and E218 can lead to hyperactivity, and the Hyperactive Children's Support Group identifies them as likely causes of mysterious and sudden cases of ADHD-like hyper-activity.'
.......................and there is so much more information out there.
-
So you've given up on pursuing the red herring that calpol night might have had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance, have you, Stephen?
-
I never said such a thing as you know.
Testing drugs before general release is a standard procedure.
Didn't you know that John Pierre ?
Perhaps it is you who is spending too much time at the bottom of the garden with the fairies. 8)--))
Oh dear. Perhaps a simple explanation will in fact be needed.
Calpol Night received marketing authorisation in December 2006. Before it can receive marketing authorisation testing and clinical trials will have to be complete. The McCann went on holiday in May 2007. Why do you imagine they would have been testing Calpol Night in May 2007 - given that it already had marketing authorisation?
-
So you've given up on pursuing the red herring that calpol night might have had anything to do with Madeleine's disappearance, have you, Stephen?
The calpol is a minor issue.
It's all about the mccanns and the made up abduction ferryman.
Try and pay attention.
It would help. 8((()*/
-
The children ate at around 6ish and were asleep at around 8ish right? So you have a sedative administered orally that takes two hours to take effect?
Although the children were said to be tired that night, their parents showed no concern at them being left alone so I assume that they weren't abnormally tired or displaying signs of sedation like floppiness for example.
Remember that Kate Mccann was a trained anaesthesiologist so would be very aware of the signs of sedation.
I assume that you are claiming that the sedative was mixed in with either food or drink, so no slow release capsule could be used?
What sedative would take two hours to have effect yet last many hours afterwards?
No....the parents didn`t seem concerned at the time about abnormal tiredness/floppiness/signs of sedation........rather the reverse.
Didn`t Gerry mention in the "Crimewatch" programme that they discussed increasing the frequency of the checks on account of the possibility of the children waking as Madeleine & Sean had the night before?
Also Kate expressed concern to Fiona Payne about the possibility of Madeleine waking distressed again...........wondering whether it was better for her to get out and find them, or wake and find herself locked in.
-
That is true, but no indications of illness with the Mccann children have been given, so I think it unlikely tbh
Was Matts baby ill then? I missed that.
Did you really?.........
Rereading this thread, I was surprised that you didn`t know that Dr Oldfield/Rachael Mampilly`s baby had diarrhoea/possible tummy bug that evening and her parents were concerned about her vomiting, Sadie.
Jane Tanner/Russell O`Brien`s small daughter was sick, necessitating a change of bedsheet.
Two of the McCann infants had woken distressed and alone the night before......
.........Makes you wonder where the "empathy" with their children was that evening.
-
Sedation.
-
What a blast from the past! One of my many alter egos on this forum. How lovely to see Alfred R Jones being bumped back into life. Sedation indeed. The sort of sedation that has kids screaming and running around leaping off sofas. I think it's called Calpol.
-
What a blast from the past! One of my many alter egos on this forum. How lovely to see Alfred R Jones being bumped back into life. Sedation indeed. The sort of sedation that has kids screaming and running around leaping off sofas. I think it's called Calpol.
Why use Calpol, Alf, when there's a whole pharmacy at your disposal?
Why not Midazolam, for example? With the right expertise and correct dosage, perfectly harmelss.
-
Why use Calpol, Alf, when there's a whole pharmacy at your disposal?
Why not Midazolam, for example? With the right expertise and correct dosage, perfectly harmelss.
Good point. Yes I seem to recall someone saying the McCanns had brought along a veritable conucopia of drugs with them to knock the kids out with, not just the potentially lethal Calpol. I think there’s even a photo of this somewhere - a whole holiday apartment side table covered in pills, syringes, and liquids. Sadly they don’t seem to have got their heads around calibrating the doses as those pesky kids were up crying all night and one of them was up about jumping on the sofa as soon as her parents’ backs were out that sliding door.
-
Good point. Yes I seem to recall someone saying the McCanns had brought along a veritable conucopia of drugs with them to knock the kids out with, not just the potentially lethal Calpol. I think there’s even a photo of this somewhere - a whole holiday apartment side table covered in pills, syringes, and liquids. Sadly they don’t seem to have got their heads around calibrating the doses as those pesky kids were up crying all night and one of them was up about jumping on the sofa as soon as her parents’ backs were out that sliding door.
That's it, Alf, but only the ones who weren't cot-bound, obviously.
-
That's it, Alf, but only the ones who weren't cot-bound, obviously.
They were the ones screaming all night, being as they were impervious to the effects of the strong sedatives administered to them after a hard day's work at the kids club.
-
They were the ones screaming all night, being as they were impervious to the effects of the strong sedatives administered to them after a hard day's work at the kids club.
Jesus fck, you have changed.
Now we're venturing back in to the realm of the old 'incremental dosage theory', post the crying on the 1st and the spate of generally ill kids.
Good of Kate to corroborate Mrs. Fenn's account for us though. One of the few verifiable, corroborated facts in this tapestry of tw..tery.
-
Jesus fck, you have changed.
Now we're venturing back in to the realm of the old 'incremental dosage theory', post the crying on the 1st and the spate of generally ill kids.
Good of Kate to corroborate Mrs. Fenn's account for us though. One of the few verifiable, corroborated facts in this tapestry of tw..tery.
I have changed but there's no need to bring our Lord's name into it. My understanding of sedatives such as Midazolam is that it sedates people, especially children and calms them down, so that being the case it still doesn't quite explain why having upped the dose on Madeleine she is then up and about within the hour throwing herself off the sofa (or down the verandah stairs as some would prefer). Much as I agree that's almost certainly what happened it's still a puzzle. Now, how do you think Gerry broke the news at the table, or do you think he told Kate later after her hysterics had subsided a bit?
-
I have changed but there's no need to bring our Lord's name into it. My understanding of sedatives such as Midazolam is that it sedates people, especially children and calms them down, so that being the case it still doesn't quite explain why having upped the dose on Madeleine she is then up and about within the hour throwing herself off the sofa (or down the verandah stairs as some would prefer). Much as I agree that's almost certainly what happened it's still a puzzle. Now, how do you think Gerry broke the news at the table, or do you think he told Kate later after her hysterics had subsided a bit?
Quid Pro Quo, Alf. I tell you things, you tell me things. Not about this case, though. About yourself. Actually, not about yourself, about the case. Quid pro quo. Yes or no?
...but I will give you a clue, Midazolam is merely an example of potentially available anaesthesiological ecutrements one might have to hand.
-
Quid Pro Quo, Alf. I tell you things, you tell me things. Not about this case, though. About yourself. Actually, not about yourself, about the case. Quid pro quo. Yes or no?
...but I will give you a clue, Midazolam is merely an example of potentially available anaesthesiological ecutrements one might have to hand.
What do you want to know: pre-Vince or post-Vince?
-
Let’s list the sedatives that have the opposite effect of sedating sleepy children, ie: ones that might wear off within an hour despite an increased dose and which make little kiddies wake up and wander about within an hour or so of them falling into a deep sedative-induced sleep. Let’s start a list, it might lead somewhere….
-
Let’s list the sedatives that have the opposite effect of sedating sleepy children, ie: ones that might wear off within an hour despite an increased dose and which make little kiddies wake up and wander about within an hour or so of them falling into a deep sedative-induced sleep. Let’s start a list, it might lead somewhere….
Unfortunately my knowledge of the subject extends to the information I have provided, having had 2nd hand experience of the substance identified.
However, as a layman I would imagine that, despite their collective expertise, sedation of children of differing ages for a specified time period is not an exact science. Trial and error would be required.
Why didn't AM cry, only SM and MM - again, corroborated by KM?
-
Unfortunately my knowledge of the subject extends to the information I have provided, having had 2nd hand experience of the substance identified.
However, as a layman I would imagine that, despite their collective expertise, sedation of children of differing ages for a specified time period is not an exact science. Trial and error would be required.
Why didn't AM cry, only SM and MM - again, corroborated by KM?
You’d think what with both of them being doctors and her an anesthetist too and what with it being towards the end of the holiday that they would have got it down to a fine art by then wouldn’t you? Not to mention the fact that all the other non-anesthetist members of the group managed to keep their kids quiet all week without any problems. Very odd. Anyway, perhaps someone more expert than you can shed some light on which sedatives have the opposite effects to those intended when administered to small, sleepy kids.
BTW Are we ok speculating wildly about this? I know we always so “no evidence of abduction “ in order to shut down that particular theory but I guess it’s ok to speculate as long as we’re only focusing on the McCanns and not completely innocent men like Bruckner?
-
You’d think what with both of them being doctors and her an anesthetist too and what with it being towards the end of the holiday that they would have got it down to a fine art by then wouldn’t you? Not to mention the fact that all the other non-anesthetist members of the group managed to keep their kids quiet all week without any problems. Very odd. Anyway, perhaps someone more expert than you can shed some light on which sedatives have the opposite effects to those intended when administered to small, sleepy kids.
BTW Are we ok speculating wildly about this? I know we always so “no evidence of abduction “ in order to shut down that particular theory but I guess it’s ok to speculate as long as we’re only focusing on the McCanns and not completely innocent men like Bruckner?
You neglect to mention the 'double dose' theory. It's possible.
-
You neglect to mention the 'double dose' theory. It's possible.
I’m not familiar with this theory, please explain.
-
I’m not familiar with this theory, please explain.
I know you're new to all this sceptic malarkey, but essentially maybe they double dosed, with GM doing it, then KM also administering a dose (overdose). It’s not as if the children in the party were exhibiting the best of health during the holiday, with sickness seemingly commonplace.
-
What do you want to know: pre-Vince or post-Vince?
I'm sure you're familiar with why Ms Moyet stuck with the name Alf? Quite an inspiring tale of defiance in the face of veiled misogyny.
-
I know you're new to all this sceptic malarkey, but essentially maybe they double dosed, with GM doing it, then KM also administering a dose (overdose). It’s not as if the children in the party were exhibiting the best of health during the holiday, with sickness seemingly commonplace.
I see. So one dose has a sedative effect and a second dose acts like an antidote to the first dose making them wake up and wander around in a daze? I see, thanks for the clarification.
-
I'm sure you're familiar with why Ms Moyet stuck with the name Alf? Quite an inspiring tale of defiance in the face of veiled misogyny.
More than familiar dear.
-
I see. So one dose has a sedative effect and a second dose acts like an antidote to the first dose making them wake up and wander around in a daze? I see, thanks for the clarification.
...and just like that, there's the real VS.
-
...and just like that, there's the real VS.
Not at all, I am perfectly open to the idea that a double dose would have the opposite effect on a small sleepy child, I’m just not that familiar with the science behind it, So, if anyone has a link to this double dosing phenomenon whereby a small sleepy child is given double dose of a powerful sedative and then is awake enough after an hour or so of deep sleep to thenclimb the furniture or open sliding doors I would love to read it. I always think some basis in reality is nice in cases like this, just a little bit of evidence I’m sure you would agree?
Anyhow, in the meantime let’s assume you’re spot on. Where on the timeline do you suppose she was discovered and whereabouts in the apartment? You seem to hold great store by the blood spatter so behind the sofa perhaps? Please paint a picture of how you see the tragic events unfolding up to that point, if you don’t mind.
-
Not at all, I am perfectly open to the idea that a double dose would have the opposite effect on a small sleepy child, I’m just not that familiar with the science behind it, So, if anyone has a link to this double dosing phenomenon whereby a small sleepy child is given double dose of a powerful sedative and then is awake enough after an hour or so of deep sleep to thenclimb the furniture or open sliding doors I would love to read it. I always think some basis in reality is nice in cases like this, just a little bit of evidence I’m sure you would agree?
Anyhow, in the meantime let’s assume you’re spot on. Where on the timeline do you suppose she was discovered and whereabouts in the apartment? You seem to hold great store by the blood spatter so behind the sofa perhaps? Please paint a picture of how you see the tragic events unfolding up to that point, if you don’t mind.
Fck knows. What do you think?
I do know, on the balance of probabilities, the 15 matching DNA markers mean that was MM's bodily fluid. So again, Mrs Alf Sceptic, what do you think?
I'm beginning to smell a rat here.....
-
Fck knows. What do you think?
I do know, on the balance of probabilities, the 15 matching DNA markers mean that was MM's bodily fluid. So again, Mrs Alf Sceptic, what do you think?
I'm beginning to smell a rat here.....
I don't suppose you care if you are right or wrong. And nor do I.
-
I don't suppose you care if you are right or wrong. And nor do I.
Of course not, nothing here is of any relevance. It's just a wee game.
In the immortal words of the late Jim Morrison, 'nobody here gets out alive'.
-
Of course not, nothing here is of any relevance. It's just a wee game.
In the immortal words of the late Jim Morrison, 'nobody here gets out alive'.
Of all the words to edit out of that post, you decided upon Elatron? Please accept my apologies for any offence caused.
-
Fck knows. What do you think?
I do know, on the balance of probabilities, the 15 matching DNA markers mean that was MM's bodily fluid. So again, Mrs Alf Sceptic, what do you think?
I'm beginning to smell a rat here.....
Fck knows appears to be your only working theory and it’s not terribly impressive. I think it’s unlikely that Madeleine died in the apartment on the evening of the 3rd May. I think it must have happened earlier because I don’t think heavily sedated children get out of bed within an hour of being tucked up in bed, I don’t think it’s plausible that she fell off the sofa spraying blood everywhere or down the stairs to be discovered by one of thr Tapas group who then immediately hatched a plot round the dinner table, I don’t think Gerry’s dumb enough to carry her uncovered corpse through town at the same time the alarm is being raised so yeah, it’s got to have all happened earlier in the holiday. Now, what do you think, or is it still fck knows? You seem convinced she died in the apartment and are willing to speculate about sedation and double doses so surely your speculation goes beyond that point? Come on, we need a really brilliant cast iron plausible, logical theory and so far there isn’t one but I feel with my brains and your beauty we can finally achieve this.
-
Fck knows appears to be your only working theory and it’s not terribly impressive. I think it’s unlikely that Madeleine died in the apartment on the evening of the 3rd May. I think it must have happened earlier because I don’t think heavily sedated children get out of bed within an hour of being tucked up in bed, I don’t think it’s plausible that she fell off the sofa spraying blood everywhere or down the stairs to be discovered by one of thr Tapas group who then immediately hatched a plot round the dinner table, I don’t think Gerry’s dumb enough to carry her uncovered corpse through town at the same time the alarm is being raised so yeah, it’s got to have all happened earlier in the holiday. Now, what do you think, or is it still fck knows? You seem convinced she died in the apartment and are willing to speculate about sedation and double doses so surely your speculation goes beyond that point? Come on, we need a really brilliant cast iron plausible, logical theory and so far there isn’t one but I feel with my brains and your beauty we can finally achieve this.
The McCanns didn't have access to a car on the evening of May 3rd, it makes sense that Gerry’s only option was to carry Maddie, clothed not uncovered, through the dark deserted streets. It's not that there isn't a logical & plausible explanation that involves the McCanns, rather that you refuse to accept the eye witness testimony of it.
-
The McCanns didn't have access to a car on the evening of May 3rd, it makes sense that Gerry’s only option was to carry Maddie, clothed not uncovered, through the dark deserted streets. It's not that there isn't a logical & plausible explanation that involves the McCanns, rather that you refuse to accept the eye witness testimony of it.
It wasn’t his only option to pick the exact moment the alarm was raised. It wasn’t his only option to walk through the part of town most likely to be seen. It wasn’t his only option to carry a corpse in his arms when he had a perfectly good blue sportsbag for the job. But ok, if it was Gerry at that time (and the evidence that it was him is shaky at best) explain tne logical and plausible theory up to that point. When in the timeline did Madeleine die, who discovered her dead, which of the group also knew and when were they informed? And how did the defrosted bodily fluids get in the back of the hire car?
-
It wasn’t his only option to pick the exact moment the alarm was raised. It wasn’t his only option to walk through the part of town most likely to be seen. It wasn’t his only option to carry a corpse in his arms when he had a perfectly good blue sportsbag for the job. But ok, if it was Gerry at that time (and the evidence that it was him is shaky at best) explain tne logical and plausible theory up to that point. When in the timeline did Madeleine die, who discovered her dead, which of the group also knew and when were they informed? And how did the defrosted bodily fluids get in the back of the hire car?
She died some time on the 3rd of May. Either Kate, Gerry or both of them discovered her dead, particularly if they murdered her. I don't know who else knew if anyone & it wasn't defrosted Maddie juice in the hire car imo
-
Where did Brueckner murder Maddie? How did he murder her? What did he do with her Body? Who else knew about the Murder? I mean, obviously, if we can't answer these questions then Brueckner must not have murdered her.
-
Fck knows appears to be your only working theory and it’s not terribly impressive. I think it’s unlikely that Madeleine died in the apartment on the evening of the 3rd May. I think it must have happened earlier because I don’t think heavily sedated children get out of bed within an hour of being tucked up in bed, I don’t think it’s plausible that she fell off the sofa spraying blood everywhere or down the stairs to be discovered by one of thr Tapas group who then immediately hatched a plot round the dinner table, I don’t think Gerry’s dumb enough to carry her uncovered corpse through town at the same time the alarm is being raised so yeah, it’s got to have all happened earlier in the holiday. Now, what do you think, or is it still fck knows? You seem convinced she died in the apartment and are willing to speculate about sedation and double doses so surely your speculation goes beyond that point? Come on, we need a really brilliant cast iron plausible, logical theory and so far there isn’t one but I feel with my brains and your beauty we can finally achieve this.
It's still fck knows. I'd at one point been inclined to believe HCW with his unequivocal fingering of CB, given his apparent certainty in his new evidence. But 4 years on, which is a record by the way, I've checked, he's actually further away from charging CB than ever. It's clear he has nothing, as his reliance on and his testing of his hobo testimony demonstrates. He needed those charges to stick so he could then use his hobos futher down the line.
So, to answer your question, there's even less evidence of an abduction now than ever, as HCW has blown part of his narrative / corroboration. It's a mortal blow.
Unless, of course, there's another strawman out there they can try to pin it on; what's the odds of another paedo-abductor waiting in the wings (I'm surprised they didn't bump into eachother outside 5a)
This leaves us with a fcking great vacuum, with the only remotely feasible explanation being the statistically most likely cause being parental involvement filling it.
As an aside, and I've discussed this at length with you misguided McCannerettes (did you swoon over Les McKeown and dress up in plaid too? Such an impressionale bunch), HCW has inadvertently introduced more reasonable doubt. Yes, the explicit language of 'reasonable doubt' may not actually be used, the principle is embedded in the inquisitorial system's safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions. Because HCW decided to turn the most recent trial in to a circus, resulting in the judge castigating him for broadcasting CB to the globe, any circumstantial evidence will be essentially soiled goods, the bar for burden of proof raised and FF may only need reach into his breast pocket and pull out the reasonable doubt card, perhaps even before it gets to trial, given the pre-screening legal system in Germany - they ain't gonna risk getting burned twice, not with the biggest trial the world has seen since Nuremberg.
-
Where did Brueckner murder Maddie? How did he murder her? What did he do with her Body? Who else knew about the Murder? I mean, obviously, if we can't answer these questions then Brueckner must not have murdered her.
If an abductor removed a child from an apartment and drove her away then he could plausibly and logically have murdered her and dumped her body in some remote spot in his own time whenever he fancied and no one need be any the wiser. Obviously that couldn’t possibly have happened but whether you admit it or not the timeline for the McCanns ti murder and dispose of a body is very much tighter. Obviously they did it, but I don’t think it was remotely realistic that it happened on the evening of the 3rd May. It makes no sense.
-
She died some time on the 3rd of May. Either Kate, Gerry or both of them discovered her dead, particularly if they murdered her. I don't know who else knew if anyone & it wasn't defrosted Maddie juice in the hire car imo
Whose defrosted bodily fluids were they then? So are you saying the child was not sedated or that she was deliberately murdered with an od of sedatives?
-
It's still fck knows. I'd at one point been inclined to believe HCW with his unequivocal fingering of CB, given his apparent certainty in his new evidence. But 4 years on, which is a record by the way, I've checked, he's actually further away from charging CB than ever. It's clear he has nothing, as his reliance on and his testing of his hobo testimony demonstrates. He needed those charges to stick so he could then use his hobos futher down the line.
So, to answer your question, there's even less evidence of an abduction now than ever, as HCW has blown part of his narrative / corroboration. It's a mortal blow.
Unless, of course, there's another strawman out there they can try to pin it on; what's the odds of another paedo-abductor waiting in the wings (I'm surprised they didn't bump into eachother outside 5a)
This leaves us with a fcking great vacuum, with the only remotely feasible explanation being the statistically most likely cause being parental involvement filling it.
As an aside, and I've discussed this at length with you misguided McCannerettes (did you swoon over Les McKeown and dress up in plaid too? Such an impressionale bunch), HCW has inadvertently introduced more reasonable doubt. Yes, the explicit language of 'reasonable doubt' may not actually be used, the principle is embedded in the inquisitorial system's safeguards to prevent wrongful convictions. Because HCW decided to turn the most recent trial in to a circus, resulting in the judge castigating him for broadcasting CB to the globe, any circumstantial evidence will be essentially soiled goods, the bar for burden of proof raised and FF may only need reach into his breast pocket and pull out the reasonable doubt card, perhaps even before it gets to trial, given the pre-screening legal system in Germany - they ain't gonna risk getting burned twice, not with the biggest trial the world has seen since Nuremberg.
I literally lost the will to live half way through that post but fyi Alan was my preferred BCR. But of the stuff I did read your logic is absolutely whack imo humblest opinion.
-
Where did Brueckner murder Maddie? How did he murder her? What did he do with her Body? Who else knew about the Murder? I mean, obviously, if we can't answer these questions then Brueckner must not have murdered her.
His hobo mates seemed particularly devoid of detail, yet have various versions of CB's apparent previous activities off pat. You'd have thought CB would be equally boashut upl about his most infamous crime?
A solitary, poorly analysed, debunked circa 2007 (remember, the technology is actually 4 years older though) phone mast ping, places his phone somewhere between where he lived and Luz. No, it's apparent that he wasn't even there, unless he's Raffles the Friendly Paedo Ninja, creeping in and out unseen, leaving not a scintilla of his presence. Which is why we can't answer the why, where and who...there is no why, where or who.
-
Whose defrosted bodily fluids were they then? So are you saying the child was not sedated or that she was deliberately murdered with an od of sedatives?
This is a great question, because they belonged to someone, right?
-
This is a great question, because they belonged to someone, right?
Is this the one where the DNA mix was too complex to be interpreted ?
Never heard of that as a flaw in DNA analysis prior to 2007
-
Is this the one where the DNA mix was too complex to be interpreted ?
Never heard of that as a flaw in DNA analysis prior to 2007
I'm no molecular biologist, but I can only assume they can discern human DNA from that of a European sea bass.
Unless it's a sea brass, which is another matter entirely and quite a niche profession.
-
This is a great question, because they belonged to someone, right?
Exactly. There was a frozen body in that boot, so work back from there.
-
Is this the one where the DNA mix was too complex to be interpreted ?
Never heard of that as a flaw in DNA analysis prior to 2007
No, as the General will confirm the DNA results had 15 “Maddie” markers making it virtually a slam dunk case. DNA is the key isn’t that so, Mr The General Sir?
-
No, as the General will confirm the DNA results had 15 “Maddie” markers making it virtually a slam dunk case. DNA is the key isn’t that so, Mr The General Sir?
Well the bodily fluids behind the couch / in the cracks of the tiles matched 15 markers, which is statistically significant and 'very likely to be that of MM'.
So yes, pretty much, belatedly reported nose bleeds aside.
At ease Private Alf.
-
Exactly. There was a frozen body in that boot, so work back from there.
Go on then.
We have MM's DNA in bodily fluids in 5a behind the couch (statistically significant / almost certainly hers)
We have a blood dog alert in the same place where the fluids were found.
We have MM who is missing and no other tenants have reported people dying / going missing in there / from there.
We have a long gap in days prior to the car being hired.
We have GM pissing about with refrigration devices that don't belong to him.
We have the hire history of the vehicle.
We have fairly solid eye witnesses stating the boot was left open for prolonged periods, again, on of the very few facts corroborated by the McC's themselves (funny how they continually come up with a story when faced with solid eye witness statements, but failed to mention any of it prior to, despite being potentially significant in the search for their daughter).
We have bodily fluids (mixed sample) in the boot of the car.
We have a cadaver dog alerting to said car and the car key, oddly enough.
-
Well the bodily fluids behind the couch / in the cracks of the tiles matched 15 markers, which is statistically significant and 'very likely to be that of MM'.
So yes, pretty much, belatedly reported nose bleeds aside.
At ease Private Alf.
The fact that Maddiedna was found in the apartment is not exactly massively surprising. The fact that her defrosting bodily fluids were found in the boot of the hire car 23 days after her disappearance (according to His Eminence, the Right Honorable Doctor Senor Amaral) is massively significant. Work back from there and you have the mystery solved.
-
Go on then.
We have MM's DNA in bodily fluids in 5a behind the couch (statistically significant / almost certainly hers)
We have a long gap in days prior to the car being hired.
We have GM pissing about with refrigration devices that don't belong to him.
We have the hire history of the vehicle.
We have fairly solid eye witnesses stating the boot was left open for prolonged periods, again, on of the very few facts corroborated by the McC's themselves (funny how they continually come up with a story when faced with solid eye witness statements, but failed to mention any of it prior to, despite being potentially significant in the search for their daughter).
We have bodily fluids (mixed sample) in the boot of the car.
We have a cadaver dog alerting to said car and the car key, oddly enough.
Excellent work defective. Keep going.
-
Excellent work defective. Keep going.
I've edited the original.
-
Excellent work defective. Keep going.
So what do all those things tell you?
-
So what do all those things tell you?
That she was stored in a freezer and her body moved to the back of the hire car 23 days later and that's when they disposed of the body. It's as obvious as the Roman (by way of Auckland) nose on your craggy and beautiful face isn't it? So let's have no more of the "fck knows". You know only too well. Bai Jove you'd make Senor Mr Doctor Amaral proud.
-
Now the thing is...
With all this overwhelming evidence of McCann guilt the Portuguese authorities failed to bring the case to court. Utilizing previously stated logic, a failure to bring a case to court in this way can mean only one thing. They didn't do it and someone else must have. Drat.
-
Now the thing is...
With all this overwhelming evidence of McCann guilt the Portuguese authorities failed to bring the case to court. Utilizing previously stated logic, a failure to bring a case to court in this way can mean only one thing. They didn't do it and someone else must have. Drat.
You're a shit sceptic.
You're officially excommunicated from the movement.
There's a bin bag by your locker.
Goodbye, Alf.
-
You're a shit sceptic.
You're officially excommunicated from the movement.
There's a bin bag by your locker.
Goodbye, Alf.
I don't think this is Goodbye the General, sir. I think this is merely until the next time (which knowing us is probably in a few minutes). You never did ask to see my theory. It explains the bodily fluids and everything. Oh well, you can lead a General to water....
-
I don't think this is Goodbye the General, sir. I think this is merely until the next time (which knowing us is probably in a few minutes). You never did ask to see my theory. It explains the bodily fluids and everything. Oh well, you can lead a General to water....
Go on then, you're recommunicated, ffs.
If this theory of yours even remotely whiffs of supporterism I'll have you fed to the inexpertly taxidermied lions, just so you know.
-
Go on then, you're recommunicated, ffs.
If this theory of yours even remotely whiffs of supporterism I'll have you fed to the inexpertly taxidermied lions, just so you know.
It’ll have to be later, I’m a bit busy right now. Don’t worry you are going to love it. I wrote it about 10 yars ago and my thinking has actually shifted to “died before 3rd May” because of all the compelling reasons supporting that particular theory but nonethelss I’m sure you’ll agree that my paedo sex ring theory hangs together very neatly. Laterz Babes xxx
-
That she was stored in a freezer and her body moved to the back of the hire car 23 days later and that's when they disposed of the body. It's as obvious as the Roman (by way of Auckland) nose on your craggy and beautiful face isn't it? So let's have no more of the "fck knows". You know only too well. Bai Jove you'd make Senor Mr Doctor Amaral proud.
There must have been a freezer as lots saw Gerry carrying a freezer to the dump even in front of the media. How far the dump was I don't know but Gerry I think is very strong.
-
There must have been a freezer as lots saw Gerry carrying a freezer to the dump even in front of the media. How far the dump was I don't know but Gerry I think is very strong.
I'm not one for asking for corroboration of claims, as most of mine are semi-fabricated, half-truths or outright falsehoods, but I'm going to have to see some verification of Gerry manhandling a freezer though the streets of Luz in front of the world's media.
-
I'm not one for asking for corroboration of claims, as most of mine are semi-fabricated, half-truths or outright falsehoods, but I'm going to have to see some verification of Gerry manhandling a freezer though the streets of Luz in front of the world's media.
Tsk. Call yourself a sceptic? It’s. In. The. Files.
Maybe.
-
I'm not one for asking for corroboration of claims, as most of mine are semi-fabricated, half-truths or outright falsehoods, but I'm going to have to see some verification of Gerry manhandling a freezer though the streets of Luz in front of the world's media.
https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/1dka9yt/the_refrigerator/?rdt=58972
I'm so glad you are questioning this as it is entirely false of course. Amaral was first to start this ridiculous rumour saying they must have kept Madeleine in a freezer then transported her in the hire car as the dog had alerted to Madeleines DNA in the car which was frozen before defrosting.
-
It soon went viral. Gerry was accused of taking the fridge/freezer to the dump. How he managed to dodge the media is not explained.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/1dka9yt/the_refrigerator/?rdt=58972
I'm so glad you are questioning this as it is entirely false of course. Amaral was first to start this ridiculous rumour saying they must have kept Madeleine in a freezer then transported her in the hire car as the dog had alerted to Madeleines DNA in the car which was frozen before defrosting.
Hold your horses. We have it as one of the Honorable General's unassailable FACTOIDS from earlier today, specifically:
"We have GM pissing about with refrigration devices that don't belong to him".
Has he changed his mind about this critical piece of information without putting up so much as a fight? I'm beginning to doubt his credentials as a seriously sceptical searcher of truth and justice 4 Maddie.
-
https://www.reddit.com/r/MadeleineMccann/comments/1dka9yt/the_refrigerator/?rdt=58972
I'm so glad you are questioning this as it is entirely false of course. Amaral was first to start this ridiculous rumour saying they must have kept Madeleine in a freezer then transported her in the hire car as the dog had alerted to Madeleines DNA in the car which was frozen before defrosting.
Can you prove it's false, after all you mentioned it?
-
Can you prove it's false, after all you mentioned it?
to be fair you mentioned it before Lace.
-
Can you prove it's false, after all you mentioned it?
No Police force has looked into this ridiculous theory of Amaral's that speaks for itself
-
No Police force has looked into this ridiculous theory of Amaral's that speaks for itself
The fact of the Watergate cover-up is not nearly as interesting as the step into making the cover-up. And when you understand the step, you understand that Richard Nixon lied. That he was a criminal.
Bob Woodward
-
No Police force has looked into this ridiculous theory of Amaral's that speaks for itself
Maybe that's why they can't solve the case.
-
Maybe that's why they can't solve the case.
You coming round to the old “stored in a freezer and moved 23 days later inthe hire car” theory of senor doctor Goncalo Amaral then? Good boy, I knew you’d see sense eventually.
-
You coming round to the old “stored in a freezer and moved 23 days later inthe hire car” theory of senor doctor Goncalo Amaral then? Good boy, I knew you’d see sense eventually.
It's the only logical & plausible explanation for Madeleine’s disappearance.