I've never said children don't die from banging their heads....I've said that they don't die immediately and I am 100% right ....so once more you have got the facts wrong. In this case the pathologists are not even sure a head injury was the cause of death...you need to read and understand the article before making any claims
As was stated on other occasions, a blow can also lead to death, for a variety of reasons.
It doesn't have to be immediate.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Head_injury
We have been through this a million times. If death happened due to a fall between 8.30 and 10 death would have had to have been immediate...which does not happen with head injuries from household falls
Not if the fall happened before.
and can you prove that rapid death could not occur with a blunt force trauma ?
It wasn't possible to reach a definite conclusion why this poor child died, but she did, regardless of the medically trained help available. The fall may or may not have contributed. There are similarities with the case of MM. Both had been to the beach and a swimming pool. both were tired.
It wasn't possible to reach a definite conclusion why this poor child died, but she did, regardless of the medically trained help available. The fall may or may not have contributed. There are similarities with the case of MM. Both had been to the beach and a swimming pool. both were tired.Wow, such startling similarities, I'm surprised you didn't mention that both were young girls too. Is it not the case that most young children on a beach holiday return to their holiday accommodation after a long day of swimming and having fun feeling a bit sleepy?
It wasn't possible to reach a definite conclusion why this poor child died, but she did, regardless of the medically trained help available. The fall may or may not have contributed. There are similarities with the case of MM. Both had been to the beach and a swimming pool. both were tired.[/b]
I knew a girl once many years ago, she had only just left school and had gone to visit friends in London. They were in a mini, she was in the back, there was a side impact collision, she hit her head and died. There wasn't a mark on her.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel here I am afraid.
Sincere condolences to Chloe's family. The circumstances of her death have caused them the most extreme trauma, shame their grief is not respected and has instead been turned into a tawdry debating point which in my opinion bears not the slightest relation to the subject under debate.
Strange how whenever people find example of children dying in what seem trivial circumstances in response to claims by some that children are nearly indestructible in a domestic setting, the faux indignation kicks in.
Strange how whenever people find example of children dying in what seem trivial circumstances in response to claims by some that children are nearly indestructible in a domestic setting, the faux indignation kicks in.
It seems that some people have decided that only one scenario can be discussed in relation to the McCann case.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel here I am afraid.
Sincere condolences to Chloe's family. The circumstances of her death have caused them the most extreme trauma, shame their grief is not respected and has instead been turned into a tawdry debating point which in my opinion bears not the slightest relation to the subject under debate.
you don't seem to have understood the article and seen how it is not relevant to the case....I second what Brietta has said......
wrong again...I have welcomed discussion about how Maddie could have died in an accident as you well know....problem for the sceptics is that there is no real explanation for an accident scenario
There is no explanation that is accepted by you, I think you mean? This article shows that a seemingly healthy child can, tragically, die. That fact has been denied consistently by some.
There is no explanation that is accepted by you, I think you mean? This article shows that a seemingly healthy child can, tragically, die. That fact has been denied consistently by some.I'm well aware a healthy child can die...as Eleanor says...and I have repeatedly said...it takes several hours...
There is no explanation that is accepted by you, I think you mean? This article shows that a seemingly healthy child can, tragically, die. That fact has been denied consistently by some.It is only relevant if you can describe a theory in which Madeleine fell over and bashed her head, dying several hours later and make it fit the known facts. Can you?
wrong again...I have welcomed discussion about how Maddie could have died in an accident as you well know....problem for the sceptics is that there is no real explanation for an accident scenario
Well said Brietta, I agree.
It is only relevant if you can describe a theory in which Madeleine fell over and bashed her head, dying several hours later and make it fit the known facts. Can you?
Hypocrisy or what.
mccann supporters like to draw parallels with other cases.
That depends on whether a fall is required. In the article posted there seems to be some disagreement between the pathologists as to whether the child's death was related to her fall or not. If a fall is required it could have been one which raised no alarms, just as the child's fall in the article raised no alarms. Such a fall could have taken place at any time.
That depends on whether a fall is required. In the article posted there seems to be some disagreement between the pathologists as to whether the child's death was related to her fall or not. If a fall is required it could have been one which raised no alarms, just as the child's fall in the article raised no alarms. Such a fall could have taken place at any time.
if maddie had had a serious fall she would have had symptoms as pointed out by the doctor in this article. The doctor does not believe the fall caused her deathso what did?
also say a fractured skull etc wouldnt show up right away and the little girl was only 2 so probbaly couldnt communicate headache/pain etc
so what did?
if maddie had had a serious fall she would have had symptoms as pointed out by the doctor in this article. The doctor does not believe the fall caused her death
there is not..cite
Supposition.
What symptoms ?
It has been done.
Now cite evidence for abduction, and not a belief.
look at natasha richardson she was in a ski accident hit her head was lucid and was fine and then died hours later and she was a adult
so posters are now accepting that a fall would not have caused immediate death
this thread is about head trauma...you cannot provide a cite
this thread is about head trauma...you cannot provide a cite
Strange how whenever people find example of children dying in what seem trivial circumstances in response to claims by some that children are nearly indestructible in a domestic setting, the faux indignation kicks in.
many young men have died here from a one punch blow to the head etc im sure in the uk too
Can you prove a direct blow to the head can't cause immediate death ?
Meanwhile, a blow to the head can result in death later.
Which has been discussed before.
Scraping the bottom of the barrel here I am afraid.
Sincere condolences to Chloe's family. The circumstances of her death have caused them the most extreme trauma, shame their grief is not respected and has instead been turned into a tawdry debating point which in my opinion bears not the slightest relation to the subject under debate.
So, what are some trying to say here, with the death of this child who had a fall and died during the night.
Are they saying that Madeleine had a fall as Amaral stated in his book, but died hours later? In which case there would be no cadaver scent behind the sofa as Kate did her check at 10 o'clock, what was that about two hours after leaving the apartment?
For what reason are we having to read about this child? It has no bearing at all to the Madeleine case.
You don't have to read about it at all. Just ignore the thread.
So, what are some trying to say here, with the death of this child who had a fall and died during the night.
Are they saying that Madeleine had a fall as Amaral stated in his book, but died hours later? In which case there would be no cadaver scent behind the sofa as Kate did her check at 10 o'clock, what was that about two hours after leaving the apartment?
For what reason are we having to read about this child? It has no bearing at all to the Madeleine case.
Sorry should have worded it better, why has this sad story of this child been posted here.
That depends on whether a fall is required. In the article posted there seems to be some disagreement between the pathologists as to whether the child's death was related to her fall or not. If a fall is required it could have been one which raised no alarms, just as the child's fall in the article raised no alarms. Such a fall could have taken place at any time.Yes, and? Can you describe a scenario in which an injury sustained earlier resulted in death and the need to cover it up, and within the timescales we have to work with?
This thread is about a seemingly healthy child dying unexpectedly for reasons which are unclear. The pathologists didn't agree as to whether her fall contributed or not.Is there any suggestion of foul play?
Because it is very relevant to the original police investigation which came to the conclusion that Maddie could had died after sustaining a fall onto a tiled floor. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
Because it is very relevant to the original police investigation which came to the conclusion that Maddie could had died after sustaining a fall onto a tiled floor. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
So you know what happened to Maddie? Best tell DCI Wall because she has no idea!!
The cause of Chloe's death is unknown.
There is not the slightest correlation between her death and that of a child who may subsequently die after suffering a head trauma.
Quote
Her autopsy found Chloe showed early signs of bronchopneumonia on her lungs and sepsis, but she couldn't definitely say this caused or led to her death.
End Quote
The fact that she bled from her nose and mouth may indicate other causes of death ... but in any case the tragic circumstances bear no parallels to Madeleine McCann's disappearance ... short of both children were on a family holiday in Portugal.
this article seems to have spooked some wonder why.... 8)-)))
Because it is very relevant to the original police investigation which came to the conclusion that Maddie could had died after sustaining a fall onto a tiled floor. Is that so difficult to comprehend?
Yes I do, and so do DCI Wall she was abducted.
A Portuguese pathologist found she died from a severe head injury following a blow to the back of the head. That is good enough for me regardless of what a British coroner found much later.
@)(++(* @)(++(* @)(++(* massive FAIL %56&
A Portuguese pathologist found she died from a severe head injury following a blow to the back of the head. That is good enough for me regardless of what a British coroner found much later.
except that she fell forward and hurt the front of her head....so much for the Portuguese pathologist
this article seems to have spooked some wonder why.... 8)-)))
the front of your head is the temple
anyone who believes that is possible in the timeframe is seriously deluded...as amaral was
the front of your head is the temple
Were you there?
Are you a detective?
Are you deluded?
If the answer to all 3 is NO, have a coconut!!
Were you there?
Are you a detective?
Are you deluded?
If the answer to all 3 is NO...have a coconut!!
Were you there?
Are you a detective?
Are you deluded?
If the answer to all 3 is NO...have a coconut!!
doesnt this little girls death proove that if maddie had the same accident and died the same way if gerry and kate had been there maddie might be alive now?
except that she fell forward and hurt the front of her head....so much for the Portuguese pathologist
Means nothing, Pathologist Dr da Silva Roubaco, carrying out a post-mortem examination in Portugal, said he found a 5cm bruise on the back of her scalp and some bleeding in the brain and ruled she died from a severe head injury brought on by the slip.
Maybe I should have added pathologist to my earlier list?
Means nothing, Pathologist Dr da Silva Roubaco, carrying out a post-mortem examination in Portugal, said he found a 5cm bruise on the back of her scalp and some bleeding in the brain and ruled she died from a severe head injury brought on by the slip.davel seems to think toddlers dont die from accidents/ head injuries doesnt he??
Maybe I should have added pathologist to my earlier list?
davel seems to think toddlers dont die doesnt he??
davel seems to think toddlers dont die from accidents/ head injuries doesnt he??
Carly how could the same thing have happened to Madeleine? The McCann's left 5a at 8 o'clock, Kate checked at 10 o'clock, if Madeleine had had a fall and banged her head it would have had to have been during those two hours, so, if Madeleine died HOURS later as did the child in this article, then Madeleine would have been alive when Kate checked on her wouldn't she?
A person sustaining cranial trauma can expire at any stage thereafter.
Carly how could the same thing have happened to Madeleine? The McCann's left 5a at 8 o'clock, Kate checked at 10 o'clock, if Madeleine had had a fall and banged her head it would have had to have been during those two hours, so, if Madeleine died HOURS later as did the child in this article, then Madeleine would have been alive when Kate checked on her wouldn't she?
I made this post this morning so it is a few hours ago and it looks like you have forgotten...
I've never said children don't die from banging their heads....I've said that they don't die immediately and I am 100% right ....so once more you have got the facts wrong. In this case the pathologists are not even sure a head injury was the cause of death...you need to read and understand the article before making any claims
she fell forward...I have studied pathology as part of my degree
Means nothing, Pathologist Dr da Silva Roubaco, carrying out a post-mortem examination in Portugal, said he found a 5cm bruise on the back of her scalp and some bleeding in the brain and ruled she died from a severe head injury brought on by the slip.
Maybe I should have added pathologist to my earlier list since you deem to know more than the pathologist who examined the child after her death?
davel seems to think toddlers dont die from accidents/ head injuries doesnt he??
A person sustaining cranial trauma can expire at any stage thereafter.
exactly as i said earlier remember natasha richardson? liam neesons wife she was fine and then wasnt
you need to differentiate between a head injury caused by a domestic fall and a car acccident
The second pathologist totally disagreed...and as the child fell forwards and struck the front of her head the first pathologist sounds like an idiot
Death by poisoning and strangulation are much more likely than by head injury.
The English pathologist admitted her examination was hampered because of the post mortem examination already carried out in Portugal. The Portuguese conclusion stands.
she fell forward...I have studied pathology as part of my degree
The English pathologist admitted her examination was hampered because of the post mortem examination already carried out in Portugal. The Portuguese conclusion stands.why is there so much DENIAL by mcann supporters abot stuff like this? they cant accept reality at all imo this article has manyy paraells with maddie because who knows if the same thing didnt happen to her?
You need a cite for that, it isn't in the article.
so are we accepting head injury doesn't fit the bill ...after 8 years
You need a cite for that, it isn't in the article.
it is in the article she fell forwards
might stand for you as someone who has no knowledge of pathology....and it isn't what the court has said
No, though it is not most likely cause of fatal injury in the home.
Nope.
She died in Portugal, the original examination was carried out in Portugal so their conclusions are good enough for me.
The blow was also not consistent with the way Chloe fell forwards, Winchester Coroner's Court heard.
Mr Godding told the court: 'I caught her slip out the corner of my eye - she fell forwards, but I think just on to her knees.'
So unless someone saw her fall and her head hit the floor it's a moot point. The original report identified injuries consistent with a blow to the back of the head.
removedi was thinking with this little girl could she have had a sezuire or a underlying congental illness /disease it doesnt say why she fell over does it?
"Mr Godding told the court: 'I caught her slip out the corner of my eye - she fell forwards, but I think just on to her knees.'"
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3353124/Toddler-died-hours-slipping-marble-floor.html#ixzz3tvm1c7Lv
doesnt this little girls death proove that if maddie had the same accident and died the same way if gerry and kate had been there maddie might be alive now?How do you figure that out? The little girl's parents were there, one was a qualified nurse and they were still unable to prevent her death!
Why would a second PM be held? The article doesn't mention the reason
That's what I said. To me it says he heard a fall, turned and she was on her knees, he then made an assumption.
Routine when a death occurs abroad. A coroner is obliged under English law to carry out an autopsy when a violent or unnatural death occurs even if that death occurred overseas.
See Section 9 in below attached PDF file.
Is there any suggestion of foul play?
Good grief - are you being serious? Mr Godding didn't HEAR her fall he SAW her slip and fall forwards out of the corner of his eye. It's there in black and white. Your description bears no resemblance to what he said.
Quote
Mr Godding told the court: 'I caught her slip out the corner of my eye - she fell forwards, but I think just on to her knees.'"
Unquote
A Portuguese pathologist found she died from a severe head injury following a blow to the back of the head. That is good enough for me regardless of what a British coroner found much later.
And an Australian woman committed suicide by hitting herself over the head with an axe four times, according to a Portuguese Pathologist.
...and?
...and?
An Australian Pathologist found Defence Wounds to her hands and said that she had been murdered. Unless you think it is possible to hit yourself over the head with an axe four times.
So much for Portuguese Pathologists.
so the question remains...why did the coroner request a second post mortem
The key part is "but I think". It suggests he wasn't actually watching at the time.
according to angelo ...if this is what the Portuguese pathologist said...it must be true..
And an Australian woman committed suicide by hitting herself over the head with an axe four times, according to a Portuguese Pathologist.
You'd be surprised at the inventive ways people have to end it all.
Snort. ORLY.
No it doesn't, the guidelines are very clear and since the child's death was unnatural the English coroner decided that an autopsy was appropriate.
And? Shit happens davel. People kill themselves all the time using strange objects.Do people commit suicide with one hand and try and defend themselves from themselves with the other?
the guidelines you supplied do not mention a second post mortem...the guidelines I supplied show that a second post mortem is NOT ROUTINE and at the discretion of the coroner...seeing as a post mortem had already been carried out it was unusual for the coroner to request a second one...and NOT ROUTINE as you have claimed
You'd be surprised at the inventive ways people have to end it all.
The guidelines I attached earlier state that a second post mortem is routinely carried out in England and Wales when an unnatural death occurs overseas. In this case a sudden unexplained death of a child would most certainly require an autopsy in Portugal under Portuguese law and another one when repatriated to the UK given that the cause of death was uncertain.
Most definitely.
The guidelines I attached earlier state that a second post mortem is routinely carried out in England and Wales when an unnatural death occurs overseas. In this case a sudden unexplained death of a child would most certainly require an autopsy in Portugal under Portuguese law and another one when repatriated to the UK given that the cause of death was uncertain. In the event the English pathologist could not undertake a proper examination given the damage already caused by the first autopsy. In such a situation where two pathologists fail to agree an open verdict is returned. However, under Portuguese law her death was confirmed as cranial trauma brought about by a fall.
more absolute rubbish....no cite for that either I'm sure
You obviously haven't a clue but then that's not surprising given your recent efforts.
You obviously haven't a clue but then that's not surprising given your recent efforts.
An open verdict is only used in the last resort where there is insufficient evidence to enable the coroner or the jury to reach one of the other conclusions.
The English pathologist couldn't carry our a proper autopsy so could not establish cause of death. English law requires that an open verdict be returned in such a situation.
However, the Portuguese pathologist had no such problem having observed a 5cm bruise on the back of her scalp and some bleeding in the brain. She ruled the child died from a severe head injury brought on by the slip.
You have made two claims and been unable to substantiate either...perhaps you should have a little more respect for those who do actually know what they are talking about
I have stated the position in crystal clear terms but all you went to do as per usual form is nitpick and obfuscate.
To repeat, an English pathologist has no option but to carry out an autopsy on the body of any British National who dies overseas in unnatural circumstances. To refuse to do so would be highly irregular.
that is correct....but only if PM has not been carried out abroad...there is no mention of a routine second PM as you have claimed...keep digging
that is correct....but only if PM has not been carried out abroad...there is no mention of a routine second PM as you have claimed...keep digging
Have you any idea why a second PM should have been ordered?
Because it was an 'unnatural' death overseas and English law required it. (unless of course davel knows better)I do know better and have give a link
I do know better and have give a link
A SECOND PM is NOT routine
I think the point here is that this couldn't have happened to Madeleine because there wasn't sufficient time for her to hit her head and then die after The McCanns left the apartment to go to dinner.
But if Madeleine had hit her head before they went to dinner then it would hardly have been their fault. This child was checked at 9pm when she was sleeping and again at 10pm, just as Madeleine was, except that Madeleine was missing and this child was dead.
No blood on Madeleine's pillow, but also no reason for not calling an ambulance if she was in dire straights. Or to dispose of her body, if this had even been possible.
Why ever not Ellie? She could have fallen over the settee and hit her head on the tiled floor and succumbed instantly or at any time thereafter.It's the "succumbed instantly" bit that doesn't work does it? Or the any time thereafter if you want to make the dog alerts work.
Why ever not Ellie? She could have fallen over the settee and hit her head on the tiled floor and succumbed instantly or at any time thereafter.
I think the point here is that this couldn't have happened to Madeleine because there wasn't sufficient time for her to hit her head and then die after The McCanns left the apartment to go to dinner.
But if Madeleine had hit her head before they went to dinner then it would hardly have been their fault. This child was checked at 9pm when she was sleeping and again at 10pm, just as Madeleine was, except that Madeleine was missing and this child was dead.
No blood on Madeleine's pillow, but also no reason for not calling an ambulance if she was in dire straights. Or to dispose of her body, if this had even been possible.
Why ever not Ellie? She could have fallen over the settee and hit her head on the tiled floor and succumbed instantly or at any time thereafter.
Instantly is hardly likely. She was in bed asleep at 9pm, unless you think Gerry put her back to bed and left her unconscious for Kate to find. Kate who then hid her body God knows where.
She had all day to fall and hit her head. We don't know if there was any reason not to call an ambulance.And this would have necessitated a cover up why exactly?
I have stated the position in crystal clear terms but all you want to do as per usual form is nitpick and obfuscate.
To repeat, an English pathologist has no option but to carry out an autopsy on the body of any British National who dies overseas in unnatural circumstances. To refuse to do so would be highly irregular.
If Madeleine McCann's remains were found in Portugal an autopsy would be undertaken both in Portugal and the UK. In such circumstances a second autopsy would be both routine and essential!
She had all day to fall and hit her head. We don't know if there was any reason not to call an ambulance.
And this would have necessitated a cover up why exactly?
That would be for those who covered up to know Alfred.It is for those proposing the scenario to throw out some possible motives for a cover-up (perhaps with some supporting circumstantial evidence if at all possible) of accidental death caused by a bump on the head earlier in the day.
It's always Time. Or the lack of that kills these arguments.
Instantly is hardly likely. She was in bed asleep at 9pm, unless you think Gerry put her back to bed and left her unconscious for Kate to find. Kate who then hid her body God knows where.
There just isn't any time span that would make sense for them to conceal Madeleine's body Eleanor. They just couldn't have done it.
There is no instantly in these cases
It takes several hours for the pressure to build up to cause death
I don't believe there was a mishap indoors. What works for me and many British detectives who have looked at the disappearance is that she got out and then met with some sort of accident.
Depends what the first autopsy found and if histologic specimens and photographs were available....perhaps they weren't in this case
It is for those proposing the scenario to throw out some possible motives for a cover-up (perhaps with some supporting circumstantial evidence if at all possible) of accidental death caused by a bump on the head earlier in the day.
I believe the established fact is that nobody saw her after 5.30pm except her parents and it was they who raised the alarm after 10pm.What about David Payne?
You made me say it remember. Woof!I made you bark?!
There just isn't any time span that would make sense for them to conceal Madeleine's body Eleanor. They just couldn't have done it.
Wasn't Madeleine in the crèche for the majority of the day prior to her disappearance (certainly it's one of the sticks used to beat her parents with) - so if she'd had an accident and hurt herself would it not have been logged in the crèche accident book?
There is no plausible or logical reason why two loving caring parents would cover up the death of a child caused by an accidental bump on the head sustained earlier in the day. If you disagree then kindly propose a plausible or logical reason.
Weak answer davel and very uninformed if I might say so. If Madeleine is found dead a post mortem examination will be mandatory in the UK regardless of any external factors.
That has been by several posters at various times, but you want to keep the blinkers on, as regards abduction.
and just for dave.................
THERE'S NAE EVIDENCE OF THAT. 8)--))
there is according to SY
There is no plausible or logical reason why two loving caring parents would cover up the death of a child caused by an accidental bump on the head sustained earlier in the day. If you disagree then kindly propose a plausible or logical reason.
not according to a govt website...link already provided...you are just trying to deflect from your incorrect claim that a second PM is routine...the only reason for a second PM is if the family, police or Coroner request one
Poppycock davel. A knock on the head can cause instant death.
there is according to SY
Did they have one? Did a nanny caring for 7 children have time to write in one? If it happened at the beach or pool did she remember to write it down later? Pure speculation, I admit, like your assumption that there was one. That nanny had no idea - she said the parents accompanied the child on some of the creche activities. The parents seem to have forgotten all about that though.All nurseries and infant / primary schools have an accident book I believe, so I'd be surprised if the crèche wasn't also required to have one.
They didn't want a postmortem because............there are theories as to why that could be.There are no theories that make sense for a loving caring pair of parents to wish to cover up. Drug, sex of physical abuse are not normal behaviours of loving caring parents to show towards their children.
They only deem it a possibility.
They didn't want a postmortem because............there are theories as to why that could be.
There are no theories that make sense for a loving caring pair of parents to wish to cover up. Drug, sex of physical abuse are not normal behaviours of loving caring parents to show towards their children.
All nurseries and infant / primary schools have an accident book I believe, so I'd be surprised if the crèche wasn't also required to have one.
I've never said children don't die from banging their heads....I've said that they don't die immediately and I am 100% right
does that answer your question
Prove it.
so now you accept I have answered your question
I've never said children don't die from banging their heads....I've said that they don't die immediately and I am 100% right
does that answer your question
You haven't any evidence to back up your claim.
first there is the physiology of head injuries...death is caused by a build up of pressure in the subdura...this takes time. Head injuries by falls have never caused instant death...but delayed death at least hours later
Mere words and yet no proof.
death from a fall is caused by a subdural haematoma...death is not instant
That is a statement only.
There are many "accidents" that can occur in the home which can kill children instantly, or within a very short period of time, to argue aganst this is ridiculous as it is all documented
The fact remains theres a "window of opportunity" for a child in this cases situation to have suffered something that caused death, and that window could have started at any time since they were last seen
davel denys that children die right away from accidents
They do, it depends on what "accident".... If a child swallowed bleach ir drugs or fell down stone steps or choked on blind cords etc etc could well end up dead, not sure what his problem is....hundreds and thousands of toddlers die every year all over the world at home..but it is said it is impossible MM died due to an accident whilst home alone we are told
Mr Amaral's theory did not involve Madeleine swallowing bleach ~ it did not involve her swallowing drugs ~ it did not involve blind cords ~ it didn't suggest anything about stone steps.. His theory is very specific on how he believes Madeleine met her end.
davel denys that children die right away from accidents
For those who still don't understand....a fall in a house where a child bangs their head results in a subdural haematoma. This can be fatal but death is never immediate and occurs hours or some times days later. Therefore the idea that Maddie fell and died whilst the mccanns were at the tapas is impossible
Of course it is possible.
They weren't in the Tapas Bar on just one night, WERE THEY.
An accident could have occurred quite easily on one of the other nights.
do you read any of the posts..CHILDREN DO DIE IN ACCIDENTS but not immediately from subdural haematoma
For those who still don't understand....a fall in a house where a child bangs their head results in a subdural haematoma. This can be fatal but death is never immediate and occurs hours or some times days later. Therefore the idea that Maddie fell and died whilst the mccanns were at the tapas is impossiblePersonally, I don't see why. Why is it impossible for Madeleine to bang her head at 8:30 when the parents left and not die before 10pm? Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
Personally, I don't see why. Why is it impossible for Madeleine to bang her head at 8:30 when the parents left and not die before 10pm? Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
The banged head theory could involve a bang at a previous time. Any time after Madeleine reached 5A but before the parents went out, and there is plenty of time.
If the bang happened earlier, and was either not seen or not recorded, there is also plenty of time. Madeleine was pale, washed out, tired at high tea.
To rule out a head bang you need to be able to prove that no such head bang occurred, a task that is impossible. Just as, in absence of evidence stronger than 'Madeleine was tired', you cannot conclude it was a head bang.
There is no evidence that any of the McCann children suffered a head injury. All were exceptionally tired.
There is no explanation, hypothetical or otherwise why loving parents would dispose of their daughter's remains as if she was so much trash?
I'm not in the slightest sure what the tragedy involving little Chloe Godding and her family has in common with the disappearance of Madeleine McCann or why anyone should imagine that it had any relevance at all.Totally agree.
There are two families in very different circumstances who will be 'celebrating' Christmas as best they can without their daughters ... what a pity that some posters have seen fit to turn Chloe's tragic death into a weapon with which to excoriate the family of the other.
I don't suppose Chloe's parents will ever be aware of how their daughter's death is being used here and the nature of the discussion it has engendered ... or at least I hope they never will ... but one never knows. Seen through their eyes ... I think they would find it all very distasteful indeed.
There is no evidence that any of the McCann children suffered a head injury. All were exceptionally tired.I was simply commenting on the possibility or otherwise of a head injury sustained on 3 May leading to death.
There is no explanation, hypothetical or otherwise why loving parents would dispose of their daughter's remains as if she was so much trash?
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3353124/Toddler-died-hours-slipping-marble-floor.html
Toddler died hours after slipping on marble floor in her family's Portuguese holiday apartment after day at the beach
Pathologsts disagree on cause of death and coroner recorded open verdict
By Keiligh Baker for MailOnline
Published: 05:34 EST, 10 December 2015 | Updated: 07:31 EST, 10 December 2015
Chloe Godding had been playing with her brother on the beach but shortly after the family returned to the apartment she fell and may have struck her head
A two-year-old girl died on a family holiday in the Portuguese Algarve just hours after slipping on the marble floor of a holiday apartment, an inquest heard today.
Toddler Chloe Godding, from Chandler's Ford, in Hampshire, had been playing with her brother on the beach but shortly after the family returned to the apartment she fell and it is thought she may have struck her head.
Winchester Coroner's Court heard although Chloe immediately got up following her fall, just hours later her mother Lucy, 33, found her lying face down in a blood-soaked pillow shortly after putting her to bed.
Mrs Godding, a qualified nurse, picked Chloe up and tried to resuscitate her in the living room of the apartment but the little girl was comatose and her lips were blue.
Chloe's father Nicholas, 36, rang for an ambulance while a desperate Mrs Godding ran out of the apartment screaming 'help me please' along the corridor outside.
A passing English trainee doctor came to her aid and began to help with the chest compressions until an ambulance arrived.
But by the time Chloe arrived at hospital after a lengthy 30 minute wait for an ambulance her parents were told she had died.
A coroner was unable to give a definite cause of death for the youngster, who died on May 8 this year in the seaside resort of Albufeira.
A Portuguese pathologist found she died from a severe head injury following a blow to the back of the head, but Dr Samantha Holden, who carried out a second autopsy in the UK, found little evidence to support this finding.
The blow was also not consistent with the way Chloe fell forwards, Winchester Coroner's Court heard.
The toddler, who was about to turn three at the end of May, slipped after returning from the resort's swimming pool with no shoes on at around 5.30pm.
She screamed and called for her mother, saying: 'Mummy, cuddle! Mummy, cuddle!'
Mrs Godding checked her over but could not find any signs of injury.
She told the inquest: 'She was straight up at that point. She was not red at all, there was no bump or anything. I think she would say if she was hurting.'
The inquest heard later that evening Chloe behaved normally, eating dinner and reading a book with her parents before going to bed.
Mrs Godding put her daughter to bed and checked on her at around 9pm, when she said she was 'snoring'.
But when she checked on her again at 10.30pm to kiss her children goodnight, she described a smell of faeces coming from Chloe's bed.
She said: 'She had never opened her bowels sleeping. She was still lying face down but she was looking really uncomfortable.
'Her face was straight down in the pillow. My husband sat on the bed and tapped her on the shoulder, and she didn't move.
'He pulled her left shoulder up, her face turned over and I just saw approximately 20cm of blood on her pillow.
'Her eyes were closed but there was blood around her nose, and her lips were blue. We both screamed.
'I grabbed her and ran into the living room to begin trying to resuscitate her.'
As she did so, she described red liquid coming from her mouth while Mr Godding and Chloe's grandparents desperately called for an ambulance.
Chloe's mother, a nurse, checked on her after her fall and could not see any signs of injury
+3
Chloe's mother, a nurse, checked on her after her fall and could not see any signs of injury
She added: 'It all seemed hopeless. I picked her up and ran along the corridor screaming at people, saying 'help me please, help me'.'
Mr Godding told the court: 'I caught her slip out the corner of my eye - she fell forwards, but I think just on to her knees.'
Pathologist Dr da Silva Roubaco, carrying out a post-mortem examination in Portugal, said he found a 5cm bruise on the back of her scalp and some bleeding in the brain and ruled she died from a severe head injury brought on by the slip.
I cannot think of anything worse than a death of this kind in the family. 'I can only give you my sympathy. It's very unfortunate we haven't come to a clear cause at the end of it
- Senior Coroner Grahame Short
However, Dr Holden in the UK said she was 'not convinced' Chloe suffered a head injury after carrying out her own autopsy, but she admitted her examination was hampered because of the post mortem examination already carried out in Portugal.
She said: 'My belief is Chloe's death wasn't as a result of any trauma.It would be unusual without seeing a skull fracture or severe hemorrhage, which was not described in the initial post mortem report.
'Even after she had fallen she was acting quite normally.'
Her autopsy found Chloe showed early signs of bronchopneumonia on her lungs and sepsis, but she couldn't definitely say this caused or led to her death.
Senior Coroner Grahame Short, recording an open verdict as her cause of death could not be ascertained, said: 'I do have some difficulty in this case.
'Chloe was an apparently healthy two-year-old girl on holiday with her family. She wasn't showing any signs of illness but was a bit tired.
'When she came back to the apartment sometime around 5.30pm she fell in the hallway.It appears to me this was an accidental slip of some kind, but precisely what happened is unclear.
'But upon hearing the evidence there is nothing to conclude that Chloe fell backwards and struck the back of her head in the way that seems to have been identified by the first post mortem.'
He added: 'Chloe Godding died due to an unascertained medical cause at around 5.30pm. I cannot think of anything worse than a death of this kind in the family.
'I can only give you my sympathy. It's very unfortunate we haven't come to a clear cause at the end of it.'
After the inquest a heartbroken Mrs Godding paid tribute to her daughter and said the family 'misses her every minute of every day'.
She said: 'Chloe will always be our beautiful daughter, she was always smiling and a lover of life.
'We are obviously devastated that Chloe is no longer here with us and miss her every minute of every day.
'In such a heartbreaking and life changing tragedy, we try to take comfort in the fact that every day of Chloe's life was a happy one for her.
'She woke up every single day smiling and went to bed each night happy.
'She never had any worries in the world and was totally adored by her whole family. If love could have saved Chloe, she would have lived forever.
'We are grateful for all the support shown by friends, as well as the local community, and we want to take this opportunity to thank everybody for their help.
'We would appreciate some time now as a family to absorb the findings from the inquest in privacy.'
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-3353124/Toddler-died-hours-slipping-marble-floor.html#ixzz3trk6I08c
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
i thought davel once said toddlers dont die from hitting their heads??
160
A Portuguese pathologist found she died from a severe head injury following a blow to the back of the head, but Dr Samantha Holden, who carried out a second autopsy in the UK, found little evidence to support this finding.
The blow was also not consistent with the way Chloe fell forwards, Winchester Coroner's Court heard.
The toddler, who was about to turn three at the end of May, slipped after returning from the resort's swimming pool with no shoes on at around 5.30pm.
Seems as if this was a tragic, freak, accident ...
So accidents do happen.
Don't they ferryman ?
Seems as if this was a tragic, freak, accident ...
Who has ever denied it?
In the mccann case you have.
if only you could see how muddled your post and thinking is...the first post is a general observation and your second post takes the answer and refers it to a specific observation...bizarre
The most likely scenario, based purely on evidence is abduction. Personally, I would consider that evidence forensic, as it does not rely on witness statements that may be inaccurate, but if you mean forensic as in physical evidence from a lab, then no.
What evidence Shining ?I am digging through the phone records.
No need to...she died, she didnt disappear....in suspicious circumstances and not been found since!
Quote
we are discussing the circumstances of a childs death and how it might link with the mysterious disappearnace of Madeleine Mccann
End quote
There is not a single similarity in this tragic story story of a little girl and her family and what happened in Madeleine's case or anything which would give any understanding of what might have happened to Madeleine.
Chloe's parents know all to well what happened to her... how on earth does it lead to any understanding at all of what might have happened to Madeleine?
Oh dear. Let's try to make it simple. One of the theories about Madeleine's disappearance is that she died accidentally. Some have argued that no-one dies so quickly. The story shows that it can happen. That's it.
Oh dear. Let's try to make it simple. One of the theories about Madeleine's disappearance is that she died accidentally. Some have argued that no-one dies so quickly. The story shows that it can happen. That's it.How quickly did this poor chlld die then after hitting her head?
Oh dear. Let's try to make it simple. One of the theories about Madeleine's disappearance is that she died accidentally. Some have argued that no-one dies so quickly. The story shows that it can happen. That's it.
lets make it even simpler...she died some hours later.....the story supports my posts.....but from what we have read her death may have had nothing to do with a fall
she died from ahead wound according to the Portuguese PM......yet the parents say she never bumped her head ...why are you and others not accusing them of being liars
Exactly.
Quote
we are discussing the circumstances of a childs death and how it might link with the mysterious disappearnace of Madeleine Mccann
End quote
There is not a single similarity in this tragic story story of a little girl and her family and what happened in Madeleine's case or anything which would give any understanding of what might have happened to Madeleine.
Chloe's parents know all to well what happened to her... how on earth does it lead to any understanding at all of what might have happened to Madeleine?
You know, theories need evidence to support them.
You can't pluck fanciful notions out of thin air and call it a theory.
Or rather, you can if you are Goncalo Amaral, but that's not good detective work; outright lousy detective work to falsely attribute the same approach to other detectives working on your team ...
Exactly.
Quote
we are discussing the circumstances of a childs death and how it might link with the mysterious disappearnace of Madeleine Mccann
End quote
There is not a single similarity in this tragic story story of a little girl and her family and what happened in Madeleine's case or anything which would give any understanding of what might have happened to Madeleine.
Chloe's parents know all to well what happened to her... how on earth does it lead to any understanding at all of what might have happened to Madeleine?
Some people have no difficulty in plucking an abduction theory out of thin air.
Some people have no difficulty in plucking an abduction theory out of thin air.
And that is the crux...not a single piece of irrefutable evidence, direct or circumstantial, to support it...and people have the gall to be shocked that anyone would question it and then go on to castigate and moralise
@)(++(*
Says more about them all the time
She died some hours later than what?
Irrefutable evidence ...
Direct or circumstantial ...
Alice would have a field-day with that ....
She died some hours later than what?hitting her head, apparently.
hitting her head, apparently.
Irrefutable evidence ...
Direct or circumstantial ...
Alice would have a field-day with that ....
read the article again and you might make more sense
Oh dear. Let's try to make it simple. One of the theories about Madeleine's disappearance is that she died accidentally. Some have argued that no-one dies so quickly. The story shows that it can happen. That's it.
how does this story show someone can die so quickly when we don't know the cause of death
With what specifically?
It shows that a seemingly healthy child can be put to bed and can be found dead later. We don't know what time she was put to bed, or what the time of death was.
depends on the age...this child certainly wasn't healthy......signs of sepsis and broncho pneumonia.....you cannot make any judgement with only an article in the mail as your source....we would need far more information...that's what science teaches us
Facts. The child showed no signs of illness. She was put to bed. She was found dead. Those are the relevant points, no other information is needed to demonstrate that the sequence of events can happen.
no...these are the facts according to the mail......in order to make an informed judgement we would need to confirm all the facts...and see if there are more...that's a scientific approach...
why are you ignoring facts...according to the mail.......such as the bruise on the back of the childs head.....that doesn't fit your case so you choose to ignore...where did that large bruise come from...was the pathologist totally mistaken...more questions than answers in the article
Facts. The child showed no signs of illness. She was put to bed. She was found dead. Those are the relevant points, no other information is needed to demonstrate that the sequence of events can happen.Assume nothing, believe nobody, check everything.
The article was posted to demonstrate that an apparently healthy child can die pretty quickly. The questions you are raising are relevant to the case quoted, but are not relevant to the McCann case.
On topic ...
Sometimes tragedies or traumatic events happen for which parents can't, or shouldn't be, blamed.
Madeleine's disappearance is one.
The tragic death of Chloe is another ....
Its not about blame its about facts...can children die from accidents....yes they can and do all the time but several people here have bust their guts to state it is impossible it could have happened to Madeleine
A glimmer of light, yes, I agree. It isn't about blame.
The rest of the discussion centres on why people continue to blame the McCanns for what happened to Madeleine.
If they had made different choices a traumatic event might have been avoided.
I think we can surmise they will never make the same choice again.
But they pay a heavy (and enduring) price for the choice they did make.
Isn't it fair to leave it there?
Its not about blame its about facts...can children die from accidents....yes they can and do all the time but several people here have bust their guts to state it is impossible it could have happened to Madeleine
what I have said is that death from ahead injury could not have happened within the timeframe
Why does it have to be a head injury?
it doesn't...but that is what posters have claimed for the past 8 yrs...including amaral
Children can die suddenly for no discernible reason whatsoever;
Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood (SUDC) occurs in children over the age of twelve months. The cause of death remains unexplained after thorough case investigation including: examination of the death scene, performance of a complete autopsy, and a review of the child's and family's medical history. SUDC is a diagnosis of exclusion given when all known and possible causes of death have been ruled out.
http://www.sudc.org/About/FAQs
Children can die suddenly for no discernible reason whatsoever;Presumably you don't believe that MAdeleine died of SUDC otherwise why the need for a cover up?
Sudden Unexplained Death in Childhood (SUDC) occurs in children over the age of twelve months. The cause of death remains unexplained after thorough case investigation including: examination of the death scene, performance of a complete autopsy, and a review of the child's and family's medical history. SUDC is a diagnosis of exclusion given when all known and possible causes of death have been ruled out.
http://www.sudc.org/About/FAQs
Children die for a reason..SUDC seems to be an American term used when that reason cannot be found...
Again we have the time frame...could a child deteriorate and die within 90 mins...where are the case histories...they don't seem to exist
what I have said is that death from ahead injury could not have happened within the timeframe
Do you enjoy pointless arguments when you damning well I won't accept your opinion on that ?You have made my point very well
Do you enjoy pointless arguments when you damning well I won't accept your opinion on that ?
For those who still don't understand....a fall in a house where a child bangs their head results in a subdural haematoma. This can be fatal but death is never immediate and occurs hours or some times days later. Therefore the idea that Maddie fell and died whilst the mccanns were at the tapas is impossible
Personally, I don't see why. Why is it impossible for Madeleine to bang her head at 8:30 when the parents left and not die before 10pm? Improbable, yes. Impossible, no.
The banged head theory could involve a bang at a previous time. Any time after Madeleine reached 5A but before the parents went out, and there is plenty of time.
If the bang happened earlier, and was either not seen or not recorded, there is also plenty of time. Madeleine was pale, washed out, tired at high tea.
To rule out a head bang you need to be able to prove that no such head bang occurred, a task that is impossible. Just as, in absence of evidence stronger than 'Madeleine was tired', you cannot conclude it was a head bang.
It's not an opinion it's a fact
I must say davel, that must be the silliest thing you have ever posted. Of course she could have fallen and died while her parents were at the tapas. Death can in many cases be almost instantaneous if a child breaks its neck in a fall.
An excellent post.
How would Maddie fall and break her neck inside the apartment
Then we have SL claiming it's possible Maddie had a fall that fractured her skull earlier and no one noticed
Both those ideas are ridiculous
My post certainly isnt
Rubbish.
Accidents can happen which parents are unaware of at the time.
Delayed effects, but this has been dealt with before.
theres more chance of Father Christmas being real
How would Maddie fall and break her neck inside the apartment
Then we have SL claiming it's possible Maddie had a fall that fractured her skull earlier and no one noticed
Both those ideas are ridiculous
My post certainly isnt
Outside? Quite a fall that!
(http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/JA/0149PDL5.jpg)
What's the point
I provided overwhelming proof the Express did not apologise but Stephen still couldn't accept it
How would Maddie fall and break her neck inside the apartment
Then we have SL claiming it's possible Maddie had a fall that fractured her skull earlier and no one noticed
Both those ideas are ridiculous
My post certainly isnt
To demonstrate whether you deal in facts or over exaggerated turns of phrase?
you are well aware that we have been through this before and no one could come up with an example of a child dying in circumstances that would fit this scenario....your effort was death on an exercise machine...there were no such exercise machines in the apt...the whole idea of an accidental death inside the apartment in the timescale is absolutely preposterous...
It's very simple actually. I remember back some years ago when we lived in Spain. A toddler climbed onto a deckchair and somersalted over the back of it striking his forehead on a tiled patio floor. A huge golfball sized bump ensued. It could have been so much worse so easily. A fractured skull can go unnoticed very easily given the right circumstances and it is a bit disingenuous of you not to admit it if I may say so.
Indeed we have been over this, and a prior accident, when the parents weren't there, their attention diverted, is quite feasible.
you are well aware that we have been through this before and no one could come up with an example of a child dying in circumstances that would fit this scenario....your effort was death on an exercise machine...there were no such exercise machines in the apt...the whole idea of an accidental death inside the apartment in the timescale is absolutely preposterous...
I know but I have never made the claim I have made "millions" of posts as you have. I was just asking you to back up the assertion or admit your claim of millions was wrong and merely an "over exaggerated turn of phrase".
give us an example then of how this might happen
I know but I have never made the claim I have made "millions" of posts as you have. I was just asking you to back up the assertion or admit your claim of millions was wrong and merely an "over exaggerated turn of phrase".
no...it's called a figure of speech...shall we highlight everyone now
So you admit you trade in figures of speech rather than accuracy that you berate other posters about?
It's very simple actually. I remember back some years ago when we lived in Spain. A toddler climbed onto a deckchair and somersalted over the back of it striking his forehead on a tiled patio floor. A huge golfball sized bump ensued. It could have been so much worse so easily. A fractured skull can go unnoticed very easily given the right circumstances and it is a bit disingenuous of you not to admit it if I may say so.
if this is such realistic scenario it would be really easy to find a death that occurred in this timescale....truth is...no one has ever been able to..
Remember
Subdural haematoma, as a result of a fall.
Delayed effect.
Quite possible.
it is quite feasible an accident happened earlier.
As we know the children were left for extended periods of time for several nights.
Accidents do happen, denying it is ridiculous.
Subdural hematomas do occur.
it would ahve to be quite a severe fall which would not go unnoticed...lots of tears etc...symptoms would become obvious.
maddie was heard crying for 75 minutes by mrs fenn
it would ahve to be quite a severe fall which would not go unnoticed...lots of tears etc...symptoms would become obvious.
Have a read.
http://patient.info/health/subdural-haematoma-leaflet
I still can't get my head around the fact that some think that the McCann's if they found Madeleine dead behind the sofa, would instead of giving her a decent burial, would hide her body!!
If Kate found Madeleine, what are the odds of her bungling Madeleine into a cupboard and not running off to say she had found Madeleine dead?
If she was found dead, why invent an abduction? it would have been much easier to have said she died during the night. Or even if they did decide on hiding her for some bizarre reason that I really can't think of, then telling no one and just hiding her that night, then saying she had been abducted during the night, either by opening a window or saying they forgot to lock the patio doors, that would have been a better idea as then they wouldn't be blamed for leaving her alone.
After all they knew of this wonderful place where she would never be discovered.
maddie was heard crying for 75 minutes by mrs fenn
Unfortunately there are people who do all kinds of things for all sorts of reasons. Just because you can't get your head around something doesn't make it impossible.
Unfortunately there are people who do all kinds of things for all sorts of reasons. Just because you can't get your head around something doesn't make it impossible.
just because you cannot "get your head round " the abduction that almost certainly happened
Be very careful when you say Mrs Fenn heard Madeleine as she says nothing of the sort, she said she heard a child crying. I believe what she heard was Amelie, followed by Sean then Madeleine called Daddy.
If Madeleine had been found unconscious/dead in the apartment that night, as a result of an accident, and the McCanns had rushed her to hospital in a taxi, how diligently do you think the PJ would have investigated the circumstances surrounding her death? Would there even have been an investigation if they just said, e.g. that she fell off the bed & banged her head?
Would the parents have even been forced to disclose they were dining out and left the children unattended for short periods of time?
OF COURSE THE ACCIDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED.
and it wasn't short periods of time they were left alone.
OF COURSE THE ACCIDENT WOULD HAVE BEEN INVESTIGATED.
and it wasn't short periods of time they were left alone.
Well it certainly wasn't because they sedated her, as calpol is not a sedative, also they would have known that Madeleine could have been found and it would have been worse for them if she was. Who jeopardises their whole life like that?
Go back to the opening post before shouting at me. Then present a more informed response.
Calpol? Are there no other medicines which can be used for sedation? Apparently it's quite common on long flights to knock one's kids out to keep them quiet. If Madeleine had been found deceased with sedatives in her system then 'the abductor' would have been to blame, as per the questions about sedation asked of the police..
Why should people be careful? I have seen police officer statements misquoted and complete fabrications quoted as facts. That'll be the day when everyone sticks to the facts.
Here are the facts;Mrs Fenn said it was not a younger child and it was a girl. she seemed to think it was the same child all through, so it was unlikely to be all three taking turns;
and that due the tone of the crying seemed to be a young child and not a baby of two years of age or younger. Apart from the crying that continued for approximately one hour and fifteen minutes, and which got louder and more expressive, the child shouted ?Daddy, Daddy?,............she never told the McCann's that she had heard their daughter crying previously on 1st May because she thought it would just increase their suffering.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/PAMELA_FENN.htm
.
What sedatives do you think they would give a three year old and two two year olds? Nothing was found in 5a.
I know nothing about sedatives but they would know, obviously. If I sedated my children I wouldn't leave the sedative lying around for anyone to find, would you?
.
What sedatives do you think they would give a three year old and two two year olds? Nothing was found in 5a.
I can't imagine the McCann's both Drs. giving adult sedatives to the children. There is nothing to say that they took sedatives either. Kate McCann had her hair tested too and it came back that she hadn't taken any drugs.
No need for adult sedatives;
Antihistamines can knock out even the loudest child on a plane. Is it safe -- or just bad parenting?
http://www.salon.com/2012/03/21/the_benadryl_solution/
One in 5 families admits to using sedative drugs, including Phenergan, on their children for a quieter life on road trips
Read more: http://www.smh.com.au/national/one-in-5-families-admits-to-using-sedative-drugs-including-phenergan-on-their-children-for-a-quieter-life-on-road-trips-20150403-1me7av.html#ixzz3wPV7mycx
Follow us: @smh on Twitter | sydneymorningherald on Facebook
detailsfell down small gap between sofa back and wall
fell down small gap between sofa back and wallhttp://metro.co.uk/2015/12/18/toddler-dies-after-getting-stuck-behind-sofa-5573288/
http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/18/toddler-dies-after-getting-stuck-behind-sofa-5573288/
A toddler died from a heart attack after he became stuck behind a sofa while playing with his brother.
Jacob Moore was climbing on top of the sofa with his three-year-old brother Isaac when he slipped and fell down the back.
The 16-month-old struggled to breathe and had a heart attack. His mother, Victoria Moore, rushed the toddler to hospital where he remained in critical condition for 10 days, after which the family agreed to let doctors turn off his life support machine.
‘Victoria went into the kitchen to finish of what she needed to do, the door was open and our son who is three tries to get her attention,’ said Jacob’s father, 42-year-old Simon.
She went to see what he wanted and could see that Jacob was trapped between the wall and the back of the sofa and his chin was trapped.
‘He looked very grey and very ill. She tried helping and a builder heard her screaming. The emergency services were called and he was taken to hospital. Doctors told us very quickly that his chances of survival was very poor.’
Tests at Manchester Children’s hospital showed Jacob’s brain was starved of oxygen due to the fall. Coroners Officer Rita Wilkinson said the house was immaculately tidy and the home was ‘child-friendly’.
At the inquest today, the coroner commended Mr Moore for his bravery and thanked him for giving evidence.
He recorded a verdict of accidental death.
=====================================================================
died in hospital after 10 days...so still no death in 90 mins
It has been explained to you already.
An accident could have happened before that evening.
Delayed effect.
you cannot explain anything to me about accidents. For eight years it has been claimed Maddie had an accident whilst the McCanns were at the tapas.....hundreds of posts....now it looks like posters have finally realised what I ahve been saying is correct....so you now come up with a new theory. So what has been claimed for the last eight years is rubbbish...as is what you are claiming now
you cannot explain anything to me about accidents. For eight years it has been claimed Maddie had an accident whilst the McCanns were at the tapas.....hundreds of posts....now it looks like posters have finally realised what I ahve been saying is correct....so you now come up with a new theory. So what has been claimed for the last eight years is rubbbish...as is what you are claiming now
I found out that even if you know someone who died in an accident, the chance of finding any information on the Internet about the death, beyond obituaries, is very slim.
are you suggesting that the McCanns would worry that a antihistamine would be found in Maddie's blood..
I'm not suggesting anything except that drugging children to keep them quiet is apparently fairly common.
Isn't it the height of good parenting - something we all do ?
I'm sure I read that somewhere.
Isn't it the height of good parenting - something we all do ?in which case I'm sure you'll be able to find a cite for this absurd allegation.
I'm sure I read that somewhere.
I'm not suggesting anything except that drugging children to keep them quiet is apparently fairly common.Drugging small children with what exactly is fairly common?
In certain circles apparently, along with leaving small children home alone. Had I known all this I could have had a much easier time when I had three children under five years of age. I took flights with them and worked hard to keep them amused and I paid baby-sitters when I wanted to go out.
I'm not suggesting anything except that drugging children to keep them quiet is apparently fairly common.
I'm not suggesting anything except that drugging children to keep them quiet is apparently fairly common.
in which case I'm sure you'll be able to find a cite for this absurd allegation.
you cannot explain anything to me about accidents. For eight years it has been claimed Maddie had an accident whilst the McCanns were at the tapas.....hundreds of posts....now it looks like posters have finally realised what I ahve been saying is correct....so you now come up with a new theory. So what has been claimed for the last eight years is rubbbish...as is what you are claiming now
Is it? I've never heard of anyone drugging their children to keep them quiet.
The McCann's children were in a routine, bath milk, story bed, which is the procedure I followed, if kept in a routine most children will go off to sleep quite happily.
Don't "Alfie Old Boy" me - that is a goading remark and I will report it the next time you use it. As for your cite, does it back up your statement re: drugging children "Isn't it the height of good parenting - something we all do ?" - if so perhaps you could highlight the relevant part for me, thanks.
Not so absurd, Alfie old boy. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2305529/Why-I-drug-children-airplanes-We-know-hell-bawling-toddlers-flights-But-mums-controversial-solution-.html
Don't "Alfie Old Boy" me - that is a goading remark and I will report it the next time you use it. As for your cite, does it back up your statement re: drugging children "Isn't it the height of good parenting - something we all do ?" - if so perhaps you could highlight the relevant part for me, thanks.
I wouldn't say it's common in fact I don't know anyone who has ever done it]
Long haul flights .... Can usually book a night flight and the children sleep
According to the article you quoted one in five drug their children
Sounds like rubbish
But if you read it in the paper you think it's true
You ask for a cite, I give you a cite. If you don't like it, then tough.Your cite does not back up your claim, so it's irrelevant.
If a death was covered up to these extreme lengths the police know what would be the most probable reason for it.
And they have said the McCanns are not suspects and spent eleven million in Portugal look it for a suspect
And they have said the McCanns are not suspects and spent eleven million in Portugal look it for a suspect
From the article.So - that's one woman's opinion - and that means "it's the height of good parenting and something we all do" does it?
' Dr Roger Henderson, one of Britain’s leading medics, says parents drugging children is not a new phenomenon. ‘We’ve come a long way, thank goodness, from the Victorian days of doling out opium, gin and laudanum for a good night’s sleep,’ he says. ‘Sedating children on aeroplanes is just the 21st-century equivalent.’
Provided guidelines and dosage are followed correctly, he sees no problem with parents resorting to Phenergan on flights.
‘There’s no harm in administering it occasionally,’ he says. ‘But I wouldn’t recommend regular use.’
That’s fine by me. With all our Airmiles used up we’ll be caravanning in Cornwall this summer. Though I’ll take a bottle just in case we get stuck in traffic. '
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2305529/Why-I-drug-children-airplanes-We-know-hell-bawling-toddlers-flights-But-mums-controversial-solution-.html#ixzz3wSZ2VLIN
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
and they have found NOTHING.
By the way, didn't the article the other day, say over £12 million ?
So - that's one woman's opinion - and that means "it's the height of good parenting and something we all do" does it?
Just to be pedantic, some of it will have been spent on G4S in this country.
I'm not suggesting anything except that drugging children to keep them quiet is apparently fairly common.
It clearly isn't one woman, and of course I am referring to the doctor.The doctor stated it's not something to be done on a regular basis though he sees no harm in occasional use - and how does this back up the claim that it is "the height of good parenting and we're all doing it" exactly?
..and I certainly don't approve of amateurs administering drugs.
The doctor stated it's not something to be done on a regular basis though he sees no harm in occasional use - and how does this back up the claim that it is "the height of good parenting and we're all doing it" exactly?
The doctor stated it's not something to be done on a regular basis though he sees no harm in occasional use - and how does this back up the claim that it is "the height of good parenting and we're all doing it" exactly?
I'm not suggesting anything ...G-Unit will not nail her colours to any particular sedative mast and this is why:
What I quote, combined with the rest of your sentence, makes the whole sentence as a lie.
The because it has happened, in a particular instance, it must have happened ... line of circular reasoning really is beyond the pale.
EXCEPT:
A little girls was kidnapped from a bath of a ground-floor flat while all the family was in ...
And because it did happen, the scenario of Madeleine being abducted is entirely plausible.
I am using a it did happen, there it might have happened ... line of argument to argue for innocence.
That is wholly acceptable.
Others use the same line of reasoning to argue for guilt.
That is beyond the pale.
Shame you don't recognise sarcasm .If it was sarcasm why did you attempt to justify your remark with a cite?
G-Unit will not nail her colours to any particular sedative mast and this is why:
Apparently it is common for parents to administer an antihistamine to children to help them sleep. It is not illegal to do so and as it is so common, and could be argued that the child was given the antihistamine for perfectly legitimate reasons then finding traces of the antihistamine in a body of a child that died accidentally would not necessitate a cover up.
This therefore means that whilst "everyone and his dog" is giving their kids antihistamine left right and centre, it's obviously not a plausible "sceptic" theory that it happened in this case, which means they have to turn their attention to more sinister, possibly illegal sedatives, none of which they seem able or willing to name, nor provide any evidence for their use.
If it was sarcasm why did you attempt to justify your remark with a cite?
G-Unit will not nail her colours to any particular sedative mast and this is why:
Apparently it is common for parents to administer an antihistamine to children to help them sleep. It is not illegal to do so and as it is so common, and could be argued that the child was given the antihistamine for perfectly legitimate reasons then finding traces of the antihistamine in a body of a child that died accidentally would not necessitate a cover up.
This therefore means that whilst "everyone and his dog" is giving their kids antihistamine left right and centre, it's obviously not a plausible "sceptic" theory that it happened in this case, which means they have to turn their attention to more sinister, possibly illegal sedatives, none of which they seem able or willing to name, nor provide any evidence for their use.
Because you asked for one - always happy to oblige 8)--))That was foolish, you should have simply acknowledged that your remark was sarcasm and therefore irrelevant to the discussion.
Who saw Chloe Godding falling?
Only her father who saw her falling forward from the corner of his eye.
Who saw Chloe hit her head?
No-one. It is thought "she may have struck her head."
Chloe was seen to fall forward, but the Portuguese pathologist determined death was due to "a severe head injury following a blow to the back of the head," a finding which was not corroborated by a second post mortem carried out in the UK.
With all due respect to Chloe Godding's parents who have suffered a life changing event one has to wonder why an "unexplained death" of a toddler which relies on the testimony of her parents for the sequence of events leading up to it has made an appearance on a Madeleine McCann board where we have come full circle yet again to cast innuendo after innuendo at her parents who have also suffered a life changing event.
The Drs McCann have no no control over knowing what happened to Madeleine just as Mr and Mrs Godding had no control over what happened to Chloe, but will eventually be able to reconcile to what happened because they experienced it. Madeleine McCann's parents have not been able to experience that closure.
Chloe's death is unexplained. Pathologists disagree the cause and an open verdict was recorded by the coroner.
Madeleine's disappearance is unexplained.
One has to wonder the driving force behind the hatred that can sustain a nine year campaign of vitriol against a bereaved family because of their determination to discover what happened to their daughter.
'Madeleine's disappearance is unexplained.'
I'm pleased to here that from a Mccann supporter.
A statement of fact.
Has any supporter said it was explained
Posted repeatedly about an 'abduction' by an 'abductor' could lead one to think that is a fact when it isn't.
Posted repeatedly about an 'abduction' by an 'abductor' could lead one to think that is a fact when it isn't.So could you please tell us what sedative you believe may have been administered to Madeleine McCann?
Of course abduction is not a fact and I have never said it was
All other avenues having been investigated the balance of probability lies with Madeleine McCann having been abducted from the McCann apartment in May 2007.
There is an absence of evidence to suggest otherwise ... the absence of Madeleine points to an abductor and an abduction.
If all the investigative avenues had been exhausted at the time and the search for a missing child had taken priority over the determination to replicate the Cipriano conviction the question of what may have happened to Madeleine might have been answered.
There is a mystery about what happened to Chloe Godding and many unanswered questions that no-one will ever be able to get to the bottom of. Neither her parents ~ the medical profession ~ or the coroner will ever be able to give a definitive interpretation of events.
Why the Drs McCann, their family and all with the most tenuous association with them are pilloried on a daily basis and all sorts of rubbish bandied about concerning them, must surely be one of the most reprehensible 'mysteries' of Madeleine McCann's case.
Is this merely your opinion or do you know it as a fact with some documentary evidence of same you would care to share with us?
All other avenues having been investigated the balance of probability lies with Madeleine McCann having been abducted from the McCann apartment in May 2007.
There is an absence of evidence to suggest otherwise ... the absence of Madeleine points to an abductor and an abduction.
If all the investigative avenues had been exhausted at the time and the search for a missing child had taken priority over the determination to replicate the Cipriano conviction the question of what may have happened to Madeleine might have been answered.
There is a mystery about what happened to Chloe Godding and many unanswered questions that no-one will ever be able to get to the bottom of. Neither her parents ~ the medical profession ~ or the coroner will ever be able to give a definitive interpretation of events.
Why the Drs McCann, their family and all with the most tenuous association with them are pilloried on a daily basis and all sorts of rubbish bandied about concerning them, must surely be one of the most reprehensible 'mysteries' of Madeleine McCann's case.
loads of documentary evidence.....
Amaral blames the parents on a hunch..same as cipriano
no real evidence against the parents...mccanns and cipriano
pj put pressure on parents to confess
all documented
Not a sausage, in reality to support abduction.
never mentioned suasages or abduction
Is this merely your opinion or do you know it as a fact with some documentary evidence of same you would care to share with us?
You state "loads" then quote little.
loads of documentary evidence.....
Amaral blames the parents on a hunch..same as cipriano
no real evidence against the parents...mccanns and cipriano
pj put pressure on parents to confess
all documented
It is an opinion formed by comparison of the known facts of the Cipriano case and the McCann case. The most important known facts of which are that two little girls have ~ vanished without trace ~ from locations in close proximity to each other.
It is an opinion which appears to be shared by the family of Joana Cipriano, one of the missing children ...
Quote:
The family of a girl who vanished just seven miles from the Portuguese resort where Madeleine McCann disappeared are convinced the cases are connected.
On the day of Madeleine's fifth birthday, Joana Cipriano's relatives have urged detectives to investigate links between the two disappearances - saying there are too many disturbing similarities for the evidence to be ignored.
http://news.sky.com/story/603144/disturbing-similarities-with-madeleine
It is an opinion formed by comparison of the known facts of the Cipriano case and the McCann case. The most important known facts of which are that two little girls have ~ vanished without trace ~ from locations in close proximity to each other.
It is an opinion which appears to be shared by the family of Joana Cipriano, one of the missing children ...
Quote:
The family of a girl who vanished just seven miles from the Portuguese resort where Madeleine McCann disappeared are convinced the cases are connected.
On the day of Madeleine's fifth birthday, Joana Cipriano's relatives have urged detectives to investigate links between the two disappearances - saying there are too many disturbing similarities for the evidence to be ignored.
http://news.sky.com/story/603144/disturbing-similarities-with-madeleine
You are speculating.
and that is all that it is.
+ desperation to find a link.
No desperation. There is already a link by proximity.
You state "loads" then quote little.
Coincidental events maybe but no evidence there was a "determination to replicate....".
You state "loads" then quote little.
Coincidental events maybe but no evidence there was a "determination to replicate....".
You are avoiding the question I asked.
Your post might have assumed some validity were you capable of arguing exactly what did not replicate the circumstances which ~ in my opinion ~ led to the assumption that a formula which had resulted in conviction and therefore kudos??? for the investigators.
The parallels even included the opportunity to make a bob or two from best sellers written by cops on both cases. I rather suspect you have no argument (what's new?) for the simple reason none exists ... the hypothesis being very reasonable.
Pure desperation.
Nota Bene ... I have amended my post to Alice as follows ...
"Your post might have assumed some validity were you capable of arguing exactly what did not replicate the circumstances which ~ in my opinion ~ led to the assumption that a formula which had resulted in conviction and therefore kudos??? for the investigators, was worth trying again in similar circumstances."
I'm finding both of your postings tiresome and I do so wish you would both up your games from the favoured non sequiturs you espouse.
Please do try to make it a bit more interesting and less negative when you post or you won't be worth reading.
I've quoted bigger
loads of documentary evidence.....
Amaral blames the parents on a hunch..same as cipriano
no real evidence against the parents...mccanns and cipriano
pj put pressure on parents to confess
all documented
You find my posts tiresome, so how do you suppose I view yours.
Rhetorical question, of corse.
Yours are no more than a boring tiertribe of abduction, abduction and abduction.
Regardless of the fact there is b....r all evidence to support it.
You missed both sets of suspects confessed...oh wait a minute....
I think you mention abduction a lot more than anyone else
Forgive me for being a spoilsport, but what has this to do with a marble floor ?
Your post might have assumed some validity were you capable of arguing exactly what did not replicate the circumstances which ~ in my opinion ~ led to the assumption that a formula which had resulted in conviction and therefore kudos??? for the investigators, was worth trying again in similar circumstances.
The parallels even included the opportunity to make a bob or two from best sellers written by cops on both cases. I rather suspect you have no argument (what's new?) for the simple reason none exists ... the hypothesis being very reasonable.
My query was around your assertion that there was a "determination to replicate......" implying, by the use of the word determination, that it was deliberate on the part of the PJ.
I don't need to put up a cogent argument contrary to yours, it is down to you to justify your stated position and field questions preferably without your customary sneering, goading and boasting.
I am at a loss with your use of ~ "sneering" ~ "goading" ~ "boasting". However, it probably explains quite a lot and if intended to be offensive ... yet another miserable failure of your posting style.
Mmmm so you concede the main point of my post then.
Your rather ham fisted attempt at insult makes any further communication between us rather futile as well as making anything else you wish to post an irrelevance as far as I am concerned.
Please desist from making assumptions on my behalf on the assurance that your posts are likely to be as relevant to my thinking as is raising the family tragedy of a little girl's death to the entirely unrelated family tragedy of a missing child.
A family tragedy firmly in the hands of the two people who initiated the events.
Can we cut out the insults please.
I blame the abductor
Yes we know Dave, the fictional abductor.
Have a care, Stephen.
Have a care in what Eleanor ?
Contrary to what you may think or state, abduction has not been proved.
Your rather ham fisted attempt at insult makes any further communication between us rather futile as well as making anything else you wish to post an irrelevance as far as I am concerned.
Please desist from making assumptions on my behalf on the assurance that your posts are likely to be as relevant to my thinking as is raising the family tragedy of a little girl's death to the entirely unrelated family tragedy of a missing child.
Yes we know Dave, the fictional abductor.
if you state..
A family tragedy firmly in the hands of the two people who initiated the events.....if there is an abductor then this is not true...therefore you are stating opinion as fact
Abduction has not been proved.
The McCann's left their children unattended and at some point Madeleine disappeared.
FACTS.
http://metro.co.uk/2015/12/18/toddler-dies-after-getting-stuck-behind-sofa-5573288/ ...(snip)Misty you are good at searching.
... 10 days ...But how long would it have been if there had been no rescuer present Davel?
But how long would it have been if there had been no rescuer present Davel?
One minute? One and a half?
Abduction has not been proved.
The McCann's left their children unattended and at some point Madeleine disappeared.
FACTS.
just as Ben Needham was left
NO comparison at at all.I don't want to labour the point but if Ben had not been left unattended he would still be here...fact
His mother was working.
His grandparents were looking after him I believe.
Neither his mother or grandparents were drinking and dining the hours away.
find an example that fits....you cannot
They went out for dinner Stephen, the way you harp on you'd think they were roaring alcoholics.
What is done is done, the McCann's live with it every day.
But how long would it have been if there had been no rescuer present Davel?
One minute? One and a half?
The sad case of 16 month old Jacob Moore is not a scenario I could envisage involving Madeleine.
Jacob's gross motor skills were not developed enough for him to ascend the upright sofa back with any degree of safety and he would not have had the ability to descend using backward steps.
Madeleine, on the other hand, at 3-4 years would have been able to climb onto the sofa safely and open the curtains if the sofa was situated very close to the wall, with no gap to fall down through. If the sofa was several inches from the wall, logic dictates that she would squeeze herself behind it whilst standing upright on the floor.
Back on-topic: there is literally nothing (from the opening post) remotely comparable with circumstances of Madeleine's disappearance.
On a board dedicated to discussing circumstances of Madeleine's abduction I'm unclear why the opening post was allowed?
The opening post relates to people's refusal to believe that death can occur in a very short time. Therefore it is relevant to demonstrate the possibility of other scenarios in addition to a possible abduction.
But no one has come up with a realistic scenario...if you remember you suggested a ruptured aorta...the sort of injury arising in a car accident
Swallowing something and choking to death.
This has to my knowledge only happened at meal times...also choking is a most unpleasant and traumatic death...maddie would have woken the twins
This has to my knowledge only happened at meal times...also choking is a most unpleasant and traumatic death...maddie would have woken the twins
This has to my knowledge only happened at meal times...also choking is a most unpleasant and traumatic death...maddie would have woken the twins
Swallowing something and choking to death.And why would this have necessitated a cover up?
And why would this have necessitated a cover up?
They were sleeping soundly and couldn't have done anything even if they had woken.
they would have been traumatised...there would be a lot of noise...someone would have heard
Why on all counts?
That wasn't the question.As you believe the McCanns covered up the death of their child I would say it was a very relevant question.
As you believe the McCanns covered up the death of their child I would say it was a very relevant question.
Why were the twins sleeping soundly, whilst Madeleine was wandering round banging her head and swallowing dangerous objects, that's what I'd like to know.
They were sleeping soundly and couldn't have done anything even if they had woken.
I thought we had been told not to tell other posters what they believe?I'm not telling you something you don't already know, why be coy about it?
please explain
But no one has come up with a realistic scenario...if you remember you suggested a ruptured aorta...the sort of injury arising in a car accident
I'm not telling you something you don't already know, why be coy about it?
ETA when did all these new rules come into play? If you tell me I believe Madeleine was abducted, then I wouldn't have a problem with that at all.
To be traumatised they would have to understand what was happening.
If she choked on something like a bottle top it could be quite quick, she would not necessarily have been in the bedroom. She wouldn't be able to make a lot of noise.
You just said that I believe that the McCanns covered up Madeleine's death. I have never said that and to honest I am fairly open minded on the subject of what happened and could accept many possible scenarios.
I find that very hard to believe...for someone who is open minded you align yourself totally with the sceptics and in fact accepted the post as moderator as a sceptic to address the balance......perhaps you just think you are open minded
You just said that I believe that the McCanns covered up Madeleine's death. I have never said that and to honest I am fairly open minded on the subject of what happened and could accept many possible scenarios.So you accept Madeleine may have been abducted by a stranger then?
I don't have beliefs in the case, just tend to base my stance on the balance of probabilities. If evidence changes or new evidence emerges then my stance will change.
So you accept Madeleine may have been abducted by a stranger then?
Of course.great. What I find harder to accept is your contention that after all this time you have no opinions on what occurred on the night of 3rd May 2007. In short I simply don't buy that at all.
Why were the twins sleeping soundly, whilst Madeleine was wandering round banging her head and swallowing dangerous objects, that's what I'd like to know.
Everyone has beliefs and opinions based on there understanding of the evidence..... i don't believe anything blindly and could change my beliefs if any new evidence came to light.. ..........i find you quite one sided..you only contradict and question posts made by supporters... I understand there have been several complaints re your biased moderating ...so to claim you are open minded is more than a little strange
Strangely enough I find you a bit one sided. If John isn't happy with my moderating I am sure he will say something.
...and the refuting of the choking scenario has somehow been overlooked.
I believe ...based on the evidence that maddie was removed from the apartment by a stranger and that her parents and friends are in no way criminally involved in her disappearance...if new evidence comes to light to contradict that then I am happy to reconsider
isnt choking to death usally silent?? i read the other day how a little girl choked to death on an grape its like when a child drowns that is usally silent too
no
We don't know why they were sleeping soundly, but by all reports they were, even when all and sundry were in and out of the apartment. They didn't wake at all, it appears.And yet we are to believe that Madeleine was wide awake that evening getting into difficulties, despite the fact that she was left fast asleep and that both her siblings were sleeping soundly.
And yet we are to believe that Madeleine was wide awake that evening getting into difficulties, despite the fact that she was left fast asleep and that both her siblings were sleeping soundly.
Cite.
I don't think we are going to get one.
I don't think we are going to get one.
Par for the course.
Yesterday stephen claimed that witnesses in the cipriano case had said she had maltreated Joanna...when I asked stephen for a cite he said"look it up yourself"...in fact I cannot remember that last time stephen provided a cite....so no...you will not be getting one
so death by choking is rare ...and usually occurs at mealtimes. Every night millions of children are put to bed and do not choke.....
From what I read here, some people will not accept the fact that babies and young children do have accidents in the home of all sorts, all the time, some silent, some makng a noise, some seen, some go unnoticed, many are fatal, many are instant. The reason they wont accept it is possible in this case is because it would entail a parental removal, and its all rather silly.Unless you were a fly on the wall in 5a at the time you cant have a clue. Indeed, the PJ a coule of months ago , albeit from an unnamed source have stated they have no clue whatsoever what happened.
Stranger abduction is a lot rarer.
I don't accept what you are saying because the important part is wrong...totally wrong...totally utterly wrong..
children have accidents in the home.......very few fatal....almost never instant.....highlighted in red is total twaddle
You seem to have forgotten the last line of your sig.
Well you wouldnt, and Im not going to spend my evening arguing because you are always right, totally right and totally utter right lol
Stranger abduction is a lot rarer.
From what I read here, some people will not accept the fact that babies and young children do have accidents in the home of all sorts, all the time, some silent, some makng a noise, some seen, some go unnoticed, many are fatal, many are instant. The reason they wont accept it is possible in this case is because it would entail a parental removal, and its all rather silly.Unless you were a fly on the wall in 5a at the time , 5.30 to 10, you cant have a clue. That doesnt include delayed reaction from a previous injury too. Indeed, the PJ a coule of months ago , albeit from an unnamed source have stated they have no clue whatsoever what happened.
I wonder whether, for a split second, Chloe's parents had any reservations about calling for the emergency services, given the circumstances in which they discovered their daughter? Given the report by the Portuguese coroner, this could have turned out horribly differently.
Is it possible that the real cause of this accidental death was completely missed and it's absolutely nothing to do with any head injury or fall?
Are you referring to the bronchopneumonia aspect which the original pathologist missed?IMO it's clear that it's nothing related with the bruising, and nothing directly related with the very minor fall (although it might possibly be indirectly related), and as I understand it the UK expert completely ruled both those factors out? IMO you're in the correct very general direction Misty. IMO the presented symptoms, once you ignore those two things, clearly indicate a very specific and recently moderately well documented accidental cause, and I am thinking I should email one of the experts involved rather than post it here. But, completely unqualified, I am possibly wrong.
IMO it's clear that it's nothing related with the bruising, and nothing directly related with the very minor fall (although it might possibly be indirectly related), and as I understand it the UK expert completely ruled both those factors out? IMO you're in the correct very general direction Misty. IMO the presented symptoms, once you ignore those two things, clearly indicate a very specific and recently moderately well documented accidental cause, and I am thinking I should email one of the experts involved rather than post it here. But, completely unqualified, I am possibly wrong.
I read all the articles, discarded all assumptions, and just made a list of all the actual symptoms, and googled them Misty.
Sorry, you weren't watching your son and he fell out of a window because of this, and you didn't feel guilty about that?
Hoping I read that wrong :S
No, you didn't read it wrong. Find me a parent that watches their children 24/7. It just isn't possible.Of course not. And accidents do happen. I feel guilty if my kids fall over and hurt themselves at any point though, so I just cant understand not feeling guilty when you weren't actually watching a kid and hthey fell out of a window. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Maybe I care too much or something, or am overly sensitive &%+((£
And I did exactly the same as The McCanns, checking on them every half an hour. And No, I don't feel guilty about that either.
God save me from Perfect Parents.
Of course not. And accidents do happen. I feel guilty if my kids fall over and hurt themselves at any point though, so I just cant understand not feeling guilty when you weren't actually watching a kid and hthey fell out of a window. Different strokes for different folks I guess. Maybe I care too much or something, or am overly sensitive &%+((£
Why would you leave your kids alone and only check on them every half hour?
I know this is none of my business, just genuinely curious of what kind of a situation would call for this
No, it isn't any of your business. And this Forum isn't going to get to decimate my circumstances at the time because I feel no need to explain.I never said that..it was you that immediately mentioned not feeling guilty. Along with randomly stating you left your child(or children) alone for periods of 30 mins at a time. Which is an odd thing to add for no reason &%+((£
But if you think I just walked away without a passing thought then you are very sadly mistaken.
I learned to cope with the bumps and bruises. I had a few of my own, and no one was neglecting me.
I never said that..it was you that immediately mentioned not feeling guilty. Along with randomly stating you left your child(or children) alone for periods of 30 mins at a time. Which is an odd thing to add for no reason &%+((£I did exactly the same as the mccanns 25 years ago but the apt was locked...wouldn't do it now
I did exactly the same as the mccanns 25 years ago but the apt was locked...wouldn't do it nowI would hope noone would do it now, I know a fair few people did it years back thoguh. I read a story a couple of days ago about a mother who left her child alone and the child died in a fire. So it clearly hasn't sank in with everyone and some still feel it is acceptable to leave young children alone.
I never said that..it was you that immediately mentioned not feeling guilty. Along with randomly stating you left your child(or children) alone for periods of 30 mins at a time. Which is an odd thing to add for no reason &%+((£
I did exactly the same as the mccanns 25 years ago but the apt was locked...wouldn't do it now