UK Justice Forum 🇬🇧
Disappeared and Abducted Children and Young Adults => Madeleine McCann (3) disappeared from her parent's holiday apartment at Ocean Club, Praia da Luz, Portugal on 3 May 2007. No trace of her has ever been found. => Topic started by: Miss Taken Identity on July 18, 2018, 11:29:40 PM
-
If the children were drugged as Kate suggested, she was in the best position to identify what could be used.
345
-
If the children were drugged as Kate suggested, she is in a better position to identify what could be used.
Kate was in a better position than whom to identify the drug used to sedate the children? Do different sedatives present differently? Can an experienced anasethetist whos job is to anaesthetise patients prior to surgery tell just by observing a sedated child what drug they have been given? Perhaps a cite or two would be handy here. Looking forward to being educated on this matter in due course.
-
Kate was in a better position than whom to identify the drug used to sedate the children? Do different sedatives present differently? Can an experienced anasethetist whos job is to anaesthetise patients prior to surgery tell just by observing a sedated child what drug they have been given? Perhaps a cite or two would be handy here. Looking forward to being educated on this matter in due course.
Kate suspected the children were 'sedated' this may have been a miss used word in that context.However, staying with that context I know that Kate having suspected the children were drugged would be able to offer further information. for example: taking hair samples can detect drugs consumed up to one year in some cases,detecting smells as another. As a Fully trained anaesthetist she would have a specialist knowledge of pharmaceuticals and how they work on children. I have already mentioned dosage etc.
I believe this claim was made to offer a reason for the children very deep sleep that night, at a later date because, if she suspected at the time she would insist her children be examined. She didn't ask for her children to be examined. So really she MAY have just offering an off the cuff excuse or reason.
I cannot cite as this is my opinion. but google 'anaesthetist' See what comes up...
-
Kate suspected the children were 'sedated' this may have been a miss used word in that context.However, staying with that context I know that Kate having suspected the children were drugged would be able to offer further information. for example: taking hair samples can detect drugs consumed up to one year in some cases,detecting smells as another. As a Fully trained anaesthetist she would have a specialist knowledge of pharmaceuticals and how they work on children. I have already mentioned dosage etc.
I believe this claim was made to offer a reason for the children very deep sleep that night, at a later date because, if she suspected at the time she would insist her children be examined. She didn't ask for her children to be examined. So really she MAY have just offering an off the cuff excuse or reason.
I cannot cite as this is my opinion. but google 'anaesthetist' See what comes up...
Only if the hair is left uncut for a year. If the person gets their hair cut and it removes the hair grown at the time of the chemical administration the hair with the evidence will be removed.
-
Kate suspected the children were 'sedated' this may have been a miss used word in that context.However, staying with that context I know that Kate having suspected the children were drugged would be able to offer further information. for example: taking hair samples can detect drugs consumed up to one year in some cases,detecting smells as another. As a Fully trained anaesthetist she would have a specialist knowledge of pharmaceuticals and how they work on children. I have already mentioned dosage etc.
I believe this claim was made to offer a reason for the children very deep sleep that night, at a later date because, if she suspected at the time she would insist her children be examined. She didn't ask for her children to be examined. So really she MAY have just offering an off the cuff excuse or reason.
I cannot cite as this is my opinion. but google 'anaesthetist' See what comes up...
so Kate thought the children may have been sedated....is that supposed to be some sort of evidence of her einvolvement ...its extremely weak
-
We can rule out w & w and an accident, and it would explain why an alleged abductor was able to remove Madeleine from her bed without disturbing her. IMO.
-
We can rule out w & w and an accident, and it would explain why an alleged abductor was able to remove Madeleine from her bed without disturbing her. IMO.
On what basis are you assuming that if two children were sedated therefore a third child was also sedated?
-
On what basis are you assuming that if two children were sedated therefore a third child was also sedated?
"Best guess"
-
"Best guess"
There is no evidence that any children were sedated. The McCanns suggested the possibility initially.
-
On what basis are you assuming that if two children were sedated therefore a third child was also sedated?
On the basis of why the hell would you only do two of three, and leave out the one we all know had problems with sleeping??
-
There is no evidence that any children were sedated. The McCanns suggested the possibility initially.
Possibly because of a change in their expected behaviour...
1. They are small children they do tend to wake up.
2.They were known to wake up , they had a chart at home.
3.It was said that MBM reported the crying and a child woke up
4. The parents insisted that a slight noise from a door or a light on would wake them up- they would know this from experience
5. This a the reason they gave for using a particular door for baby listening.
So for them self same children to sleep though lights on- doors open. shutters open wind blowing curtains, abductor rummaging, many people talking and parents screaming then well it is reasonable to ask why do you think this was?
And to add . The parents didn't seem surprised that their children didn't wake up with all the commotion. and suggesting they were drugged by an abductor is taking the persis... I revert back to how would an abductor know dosage to administer to children without knowing weight height and any allergies which could conflict.
-
Right. I won’t ask you if you believe they were given something stronger as you don’t like your beliefs questioned but I would just repeat that if the twins were sedated to the point of being unrousable then everything I said in my previous post still stands - we can rule out w & w and an accident, and it would explain why an alleged abductor was able to remove Madeleine from her bed without disturbing her. IMO.
Who are you suggesting admisistered this sedation to allow this supposed abduction.
-
Who are you suggesting admisistered this sedation to allow this supposed abduction.
Who knows?
-
BLACK or WHITE, good example. If this, then that, if that then this. You weren't there, you don't know what happened exactly, you don't know to what extent the kids roused or turned over momentarily or otherwise, Kate is well within her rights to speculate that her kids may have been sedated based on her own observations, and doesn't need you to tell her how she should or shouldn't have behaved. IMO.
Neither of us were there so we have to rely on the testimony of those who were. If I find what they say doesn't make sense to me then I'll say so.
-
Neither of us were there so we have to rely on the testimony of those who were. If I find what they say doesn't make sense to me then I'll say so.
And if what you say doesn’t represent a fair, objective and nuanced appraisal of the facts then I shall say so too.
-
And if what you say doesn’t represent a fair, objective and nuanced appraisal of the facts then I shall say so too.
And if it is opinion put IMO or make it clear it is your own thoughts.
-
And if it is opinion put IMO or make it clear it is your own thoughts.
As I did in my previous post. IMO.
-
Who are you suggesting admisistered this sedation to allow this supposed abduction.
Well, this is one of those quick fix situations that makes a black hole- a bigger black hole.
Wondering why the children who were light sleepers on many nights, became very deep sleepers that night even with all the chaos going on and windows open with winds blowing,causing doors to bang! on a cold night. Kate, explains this by suggesting they were drugged.
My point is to get someone to stay unconscious for a length of time and not accidentally over dose them, that
'drugger person' would have to know weight ,height .age and any known allergies which may conflict with what ever drug is used. KATE would know this as a trained anaesthetist. So one has to wonder why she would suggest that. OR not explain it.
-
Well, this is one of those quick fix situations that makes a black hole- a bigger black hole.
Wondering why the children who were light sleepers on many nights, became very deep sleepers that night even with all the chaos going on and windows open with winds blowing,causing doors to bang! on a cold night. Kate, explains this by suggesting they were drugged.
My point is to get someone to stay unconscious for a length of time and not accidentally over dose them, that
'drugger person' would have to know weight ,height .age and any known allergies which may conflict with what ever drug is used. KATE would know this as a trained anaesthetist. So one has to wonder why she would suggest that. OR not explain it.
The twins we're not unconscious...
-
The twins we're not unconscious...
Oh No?
Let us see what the book thingy says...
unconscious
ʌnˈkɒnʃəs/Submit
adjective
1.
not awake and aware of and responding to one's environment.
conscious
ˈkɒnʃəs/Submit
adjective
1.
aware of and responding to one's surroundings.
They were in such a very deep sleep! Mum thought they were drugged as an explanation, therefore being drugged they would be deemed unconscious.
So I look forward to your cite and explanation.
-
Oh No?
Let us see what the book thingy says...
unconscious
ʌnˈkɒnʃəs/Submit
adjective
1.
not awake and aware of and responding to one's environment.
conscious
ˈkɒnʃəs/Submit
adjective
1.
aware of and responding to one's surroundings.
They were in such a very deep sleep! Mum thought they were drugged as an explanation, therefore being drugged they would be deemed unconscious.
So I look forward to your cite and explanation.
That's a very poor definition and would include someone who is, asleep.... The twins, were not unconscious
-
The biggest difference between someone who is asleep and someone who is unconscious is the fact that a sleeping person can be aroused if the stimulus is strong enough. Apologies if I am wrong but I believe no attempt was made to arouse the sleeping twins. If such an attempt had been made and was unsuccessful then one could claim they were unconscious and required intervention to bring them around.
-
The biggest difference between someone who is asleep and someone who is unconscious is the fact that a sleeping person can be aroused if the stimulus is strong enough. Apologies if I am wrong but I believe no attempt was made to arouse the sleeping twins. If such an attempt had been made and was unsuccessful then one could claim they were unconscious and required intervention to bring them around.
Kate referred to sedation... That doesn't render someone unconscious... If the twins had been unconscious Kate would have been very concerned... She wasn't so I think it's, safe to assume they we're not unconscious
I think this is where a lot of the misunderstood criticism has, arisen... Some posters seem to think the twins, we're unconscious having been given some sort if general anaesthetic rather than some sort of sedative... As an anaesthetist Kate would quickly be able to recognise the difference
-
Well, this is one of those quick fix situations that makes a black hole- a bigger black hole.
Wondering why the children who were light sleepers on many nights, became very deep sleepers that night even with all the chaos going on and windows open with winds blowing,causing doors to bang! on a cold night. Kate, explains this by suggesting they were drugged.
My point is to get someone to stay unconscious for a length of time and not accidentally over dose them, that
'drugger person' would have to know weight ,height .age and any known allergies which may conflict with what ever drug is used. KATE would know this as a trained anaesthetist. So one has to wonder why she would suggest that. OR not explain it.
We can discount the likelihood that Madeleine woke and wandered or got up and had an accident or accidentally died which leaves abduction, and would explain why she didn't wake up during the abduction. ?>)()< 8(>(( ^*&&
-
I caution posters that when replying to posts to phrase responses in such a manner that does not breach forum rules. TY
-
That's a very poor definition and would include someone who is, asleep.... The twins, were not unconscious
Yes, those dictionaries can't be trusted. So, as you spoke with Kate ,obviously, why did she say they were drugged/sedated and who did this without medical knowledge? She obviously suggested it for some reason.
It's great you have all this information to hand.
I know some weird doctors who say when you are in a deep sleep this can be classed as being unconscious.... again ppft what would they know...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------We can discount the likelihood that Madeleine woke and wandered or got up and had an accident or accidentally died which leaves abduction, and would explain why she didn't wake up during the abduction. ?>)()< 8(>(( ^*&&
My argument is quite simple. IF Kate suggested the children were drugged, she must have had a suspicion at the time- OR if going by that memory thingy they suffer from, and she had this as an afterthought then whom did she think would do this. The fact she is an expert she could have at least explained how this could have been done. Considering the timing and knowledge of drugs and getting it right.
I do not know if the children were drugged or not. I am merely discussing what Kate said.
ps a paedo gang would not take one child and leave the other two!!!
-
Yes, those dictionaries can't be trusted. So, as you spoke with Kate ,obviously, why did she say they were drugged/sedated and who did this without medical knowledge? She obviously suggested it for some reason.
It's great you have all this information to hand.
I know some weird doctors who say when you are in a deep sleep this can be classed as being unconscious.... again ppft what would they know...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
My argument is quite simple. IF Kate suggested the children were drugged, she must have had a suspicion at the time- OR if going by that memory thingy they suffer from, and she had this as an afterthought then whom did she think would do this. The fact she is an expert she could have at least explained how this could have been done. Considering the timing and knowledge of drugs and getting it right.
I do not know if the children were drugged or not. I am merely discussing what Kate said.
ps a paedo gang would not take one child and leave the other two!!!
It is not up to Kate to explain how a sedative may have been administered to her children. She may be an anaesthetist but as far as I know she is not an expert in drugging children in order to abduct them.
-
The biggest difference between someone who is asleep and someone who is unconscious is the fact that a sleeping person can be aroused if the stimulus is strong enough. Apologies if I am wrong but I believe no attempt was made to arouse the sleeping twins. If such an attempt had been made and was unsuccessful then one could claim they were unconscious and required intervention to bring them around.
This is why people were questioning the sleep state of the children John. There was more than enough stimulus to awake light sleepers! that night. They even suggested that they used a particular door so as not to wake the children!
There seems to be a misconception that skeptics are accusing Kate of drugging her children. It was Kate making accusations but not offering up any further information, as who it could have been and when did they get the opportunity owing to the 'checking a lot more than usual that night' of the children, and how they know dosages...
-
It is not up to Kate to explain how a sedative may have been administered to her children. She may be an anaesthetist but as far as I know she is not an expert in drugging children in order to abduct them.
I take it you are not in the medical fraternity? because they always offer up reasoning for their judgements. That is why I am asking why she didn't offer up her explanation of her judgement.
IMO Kate made an accusation against a imaginary stranger abductor.
Cite please. you know what Kate knows?
-
It is not up to Kate to explain how a sedative may have been administered to her children. She may be an anaesthetist but as far as I know she is not an expert in drugging children in order to abduct them.
She raised the possibility not us, therefore she must believe it was possible. I have looked at various substances and methods and in my opinion it wasn't possible.
-
I take it you are not in the medical fraternity? because they always offer up reasoning for their judgements. That is why I am asking why she didn't offer up her explanation of her judgement.
IMO Kate made an accusation against a imaginary stranger abductor.
Cite please. you know what Kate knows?
Do you understand the phrase “as far as I know”?
-
She raised the possibility not us, therefore she must believe it was possible. I have looked at various substances and methods and in my opinion it wasn't possible.
It’s not possible to sedate a child in such a situation? OK, you clearly know best.
-
It’s not possible to sedate a child in such a situation? OK, you clearly know best.
If anyone can suggest a method or substance which makes sense I'm willing to listen. As yet I haven't seen any.
-
If anyone can suggest a method or substance which makes sense I'm willing to listen. As yet I haven't seen any.
So we can discount sedation entirely from the equation then.
-
So we can discount sedation entirely from the equation then.
Madeleine's grandmother bought it;
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564727/Madeleine-McCann-drugged-says-grandmother.html
-
Madeleine's grandmother bought it;
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564727/Madeleine-McCann-drugged-says-grandmother.html
But you know Madeleine couldn’t have been sedated so clearly she is wrong.
-
But you know Madeleine couldn’t have been sedated so clearly she is wrong.
That post must be factually wrong Please amend it.
-
Do you understand the phrase “as far as I know”?
The questions being raised are: where in the tight time line, they created, was this drugging to occur, and how soon after administering the drug was this abduction to take place?
If the children were not drugged (and there is no evidence), one wonders why KATE would suggest it and not discuss the likelihood of it taking place- while watching them patio doors- well the top corner of one.
-
The questions being raised are: where in the tight time line, they created, was this drugging to occur, and how soon after administering the drug was this abduction to take place?
If the children were not drugged (and there is no evidence), one wonders why KATE would suggest it and not discuss the likelihood of it taking place- while watching them patio doors- well the top corner of one.
Why did Kate suggest it? Well I don’t know because I’m not Kate, but maybe because her children continued to sleep through the disturbance and maybe because she was convinced that a bad person had been in their bedroom and done bad things to her children and maybe because she was thinking more as a mother than as a trained anaesthetist. Who knows?
-
That post must be factually wrong Please amend it.
Why? The serious researcher on the forum has claimed there is no way a child could have been sedated in such a scenario, are we to question her research?
-
But you know Madeleine couldn’t have been sedated so clearly she is wrong.
I don't know any such thing. I know that I haven't seen an explanation of how and with what it could have been done which convinces me.
-
Why? The serious researcher on the forum has claimed there is no way a child could have been sedated in such a scenario, are we to question her research?
Does that mean you can say "But you know Madeleine couldn’t have been sedated so clearly she is wrong."?
Who is "you" and who is "she"?
-
I don't know any such thing. I know that I haven't seen an explanation of how and with what it could have been done which convinces me.
Then as per your thinking on the abduction (no explanation of how it could have happened which convinces you) you must just as surely dismiss it as a possibility, no?
-
Does that mean you can say "But you know Madeleine couldn’t have been sedated so clearly she is wrong."?
Who is "you" and who is "she"?
I don’t know - who are you?
-
Then as per your thinking on the abduction (no explanation of how it could have happened which convinces you) you must just as surely dismiss it as a possibility, no?
Just an opinion in the end.
-
As far as the calpol claim is concerned it has been established that none of the skeptic members on this forum,as far as I am aware, hold this view and never have. Bit of a moot thread in that respect.
However, there is still the question about Kate claiming the children were drugged. Again-As an afterthought.
I would like to know the reason for this claim and who could have the time, skill and knowledge to administer it. Was this a brush off remark or a genuine offer of information due to some presenting evidence?
-
As far as the calpol claim is concerned it has been established that none of the skeptic members on this forum,as far as I am aware, hold this view and never have. Bit of a moot thread in that respect.
However, there is still the question about Kate claiming the children were drugged. Again-As an afterthought.
I would like to know the reason for this claim and who could have the time, skill and knowledge to administer it. Was this a brush off remark or a genuine offer of information due to some presenting evidence?
Kate was still of the same opinion in her 2011 book;
"we had always suspected that all three children might have been sedated by the abductor"
Why? Assumptions;
"Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment..............Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound"
How?
I have been unable to find anything on that subject.
-
Kate was still of the same opinion in her 2011 book;
"we had always suspected that all three children might have been sedated by the abductor"
Why? Assumptions;
"Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment..............Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound"
How?
I have been unable to find anything on that subject.
How what?
-
Kate was still of the same opinion in her 2011 book;
"we had always suspected that all three children might have been sedated by the abductor"
Why? Assumptions;
"Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment..............Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound"
How?
I have been unable to find anything on that subject.
I'd call them observations not assumptions. "Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment."
"Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound" Well who heard her?
-
I'd call them observations not assumptions. "Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment."
"Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound" Well who heard her?
Well who heard her ? (&^& Good one Rob!
-
@ShiningInLuz
A story has surfaced elsewhere, via Anne Guedes, about Paiva & Amaral wanting to check the empty milk cartons left in the apartment on 3/5 which had been used to dispense the 3 children's bedtime drinks. Presumably this relates in some way to the possibility of sedation. Could you check out the provenance of this story, please?
-
@ShiningInLuz
A story has surfaced elsewhere, via Anne Guedes, about Paiva & Amaral wanting to check the empty milk cartons left in the apartment on 3/5 which had been used to dispense the 3 children's bedtime drinks. Presumably this relates in some way to the possibility of sedation. Could you check out the provenance of this story, please?
Apologies for the delay - this disappeared off my radar.
In answer to your question re provenance, sorry, no.
Anne occasionally comments on my blog. Beyond that, we are not in communication.
Anne is not hard to find on the Internet, and you could always try via her blog.
I haven't heard anything before this about empty milk cartons.
-
Apologies for the delay - this disappeared off my radar.
In answer to your question re provenance, sorry, no.
Anne occasionally comments on my blog. Beyond that, we are not in communication.
Anne is not hard to find on the Internet, and you could always try via her blog.
I haven't heard anything before this about empty milk cartons.
OK, thanks anyway. I was just interested in when Paiva & Amaral allegedly decided they wanted to test the milk cartons. Given all the other potential evidence which slipped though the PJ net IMO, somehow retaining the trash from 5A that evening would not have been a priority imo.
-
OK, thanks anyway. I was just interested in when Paiva & Amaral allegedly decided they wanted to test the milk cartons. Given all the other potential evidence which slipped though the PJ net IMO, somehow retaining the trash from 5A that evening would not have been a priority imo.
They didn't retain the bed sheets so I too imagine they never thought of retaining the rubbish.
-
I'd call them observations not assumptions. "Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment."
"Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound" Well who heard her?
I think assumption is the correct use in the case of Kate saying "Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound"
How could Kate possibly know her daughter was snatched from her bed, and how could she know her daughter did not make a sound as this snatching took place-if she wasn't there?
The suspicion is: the children were light sleepers, they had woke during the night we know this because of Mrs Fenns statement and Maddie also asks about being left alone and waking up, and we are told they left and used a certain entrance so as not to wake the children.
However, on this occasion this one night we have shutters Being jemmied, cold night and the window is open-blowing curtains, banging doors, more checks than usual for that week by various tapas crew, lots of people in and out the apartment- the bedroom. parents screeching- people shouting for MBM in the vacinity. and the children who could wake up with a light on or door opening slept through all that. Yes. that does rouse suspicion.
-
I think assumption is the correct use in the case of Kate saying "Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound"
How could Kate possibly know her daughter was snatched from her bed, and how could she know her daughter did not make a sound as this snatching took place-if she wasn't there?
The suspicion is: the children were light sleepers, they had woke during the night we know this because of Mrs Fenns statement and Maddie also asks about being left alone and waking up, and we are told they left and used a certain entrance so as not to wake the children.
However, on this occasion this one night we have shutters Being jemmied, cold night and the window is open-blowing curtains, banging doors, more checks than usual for that week by various tapas crew, lots of people in and out the apartment- the bedroom. parents screeching- people shouting for MBM in the vacinity. and the children who could wake up with a light on or door opening slept through all that. Yes. that does rouse suspicion.
You might be suspicious but to me they are deductions from the observation Kate made.
-
You might be suspicious but to me they are deductions from the observation Kate made.
To observe something you have to see it. Kate McCann didn't see her daughter being carried off so couldn't deduce anything.
-
To observe something you have to see it. Kate McCann didn't see her daughter being carried off so couldn't deduce anything.
Look at the meaning of deduction:
"deduction
deduction noun (THINKING)
the process of reaching a decision or answer by thinking about the known facts, or the decision that is reached:
Through a process of deduction, the detectives discovered the identity of the killer.
All we can do is make deductions from the available facts."
So you don't observe the thing being deducted.
-
Look at the meaning of deduction:
"deduction
deduction noun (THINKING)
the process of reaching a decision or answer by thinking about the known facts, or the decision that is reached:
Through a process of deduction, the detectives discovered the identity of the killer.
All we can do is make deductions from the available facts."
So you don't observe the thing being deducted.
So how do you deduce that someone was silent if you weren't there to see or hear?
-
So how do you deduce that someone was silent if you weren't there to see or hear?
on the evidence...if you were there you would not have to deduce anything...you would know
-
So how do you deduce that someone was silent if you weren't there to see or hear?
Did you notice Kate’s use of the word “apparently”?
-
on the evidence...if you were there you would not have to deduce anything...you would know
What evidence?.
-
on the evidence...if you were there you would not have to deduce anything...you would know
Are you suggesting Kate was there?
-
Are you suggesting Kate was there?
If you are having to ask me I'm clearly not suggesting it
-
If you are having to ask me I'm clearly not suggesting it
It appears you are but I find that hard to believe hence the question.
-
What evidence?.
the open window and the missing child.....those convinced Kate Maddie had been abducted
-
the open window and the missing child.....those convinced Kate Maddie had been abducted
We were discussing Kate's assumption that Madeleine made no sound. There is no evidence to base that on imo.
-
We were discussing Kate's assumption that Madeleine made no sound. There is no evidence to base that on imo.
How about the fact that Mrs Fenn with her acute hearing didn’t claim to hear any shrieking or crying that night?
-
How about the fact that Mrs Fenn with her acute hearing didn’t claim to hear any shrieking or crying that night?
Perhaps there was nothing to hear until about 22:30.
From her statement.
During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out
-
So how do you deduce that someone was silent if you weren't there to see or hear?
No one reports hearing a child cry. None of the neighbours report it, none of the Tapas 9 nor any of the Tapas restaurant workers report hearing anything.
-
Perhaps there was nothing to hear until about 22:30.
From her statement.
Exactly. It would hard to argue that it was all quiet after 10:30 PM. Taking into account Pam Fenn: "During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out"
-
No one reports hearing a child cry. None of the neighbours report it, none of the Tapas 9 nor any of the Tapas restaurant workers report hearing anything.
The Moyes were at home from around 9.15pm and were on their balcony for some of that time, they heard nothing. Russell was also in the building and heard nothing.
-
Exactly. It would hard to argue that it was all quiet after 10:30 PM. Taking into account Pam Fenn: "During the day nothing unusual happened, until almost 22.30 when, being alone again, she heard the hysterical shouts from a female person, calling out"
Didn't Kate discover Madeleine missing at 10.00pm?
-
Didn't Kate discover Madeleine missing at 10.00pm?
So we are told but we were considering noise. Certainly various people heard Kate screaming but what is the earliest? We were really considering whether anyone heard Madeleine crying out, but any noise will do.
-
So we are told but we were considering noise. Certainly various people heard Kate screaming but what is the earliest? We were really considering whether anyone heard Madeleine crying out, but any noise will do.
Madeleine was missing by ten ... if there had been any noise from her it would have been heard sometime between the last sighting of her and then.
-
Perhaps there was nothing to hear until about 22:30.
From her statement.
Hence Kate’s assumption that Madeleine made no sound, as no one in the immediate vicinity reported hearing any.
-
Hence Kate’s assumption that Madeleine made no sound, as no one in the immediate vicinity reported hearing any.
Assumption or deduction
-
Assumption or deduction
Not only did she assume there was no sound, she assumed it was due to the child being sedated. Just as she assumed the twins didn't wake for the same reason. Even her supporters have pointed out that they might just have been tired.
-
Not only did she assume there was no sound, she assumed it was due to the child being sedated. Just as she assumed the twins didn't wake for the same reason. Even her supporters have pointed out that they might just have been tired.
you are wrong...kate ddint assume the twins ahd been sedated...she questioned the possibility
-
Not only did she assume there was no sound, she assumed it was due to the child being sedated. Just as she assumed the twins didn't wake for the same reason. Even her supporters have pointed out that they might just have been tired.
So what?
-
So what?
Sp not enough evidence to deduce, she assumed.
-
Sp not enough evidence to deduce, she assumed.
And does that make her a bad person? No. Does that make her a person not to be trusted? No. What does it make her then? Why does it matter to you whether she deducd or assumed? Do you have a cite for her assuming the kids had been sedated?
-
And does that make her a bad person? No. Does that make her a person not to be trusted? No. What does it make her then? Why does it matter to you whether she deducd or assumed? Do you have a cite for her assuming the kids had been sedated?
Second nature for a doctor. Make a diagnosis. An assumption most of the time.
-
And does that make her a bad person? No. Does that make her a person not to be trusted? No. What does it make her then? Why does it matter to you whether she deducd or assumed? Do you have a cite for her assuming the kids had been sedated?
It makes her a Dr who knew her children were light sleepers, on this occasion notice they were unduly quiet, even with such massive disruptions, not to tell the police at the scene, she suspected her children were sedated.
But waited and mentioned as an after thought. As a trained anaesthetist and mother of said children, this should have been very noticeable. I wonder why she didn't mention this at the time...
-
The Moyes were at home from around 9.15pm and were on their balcony for some of that time, they heard nothing. Russell was also in the building and heard nothing.
That is irrelevant as we do not know what time this assumed disappearance, from her bed by a stranger, took place.
There are no independent witnesses from when they left the creché to when Kate 'discovered' missing daughter. That is a lot of hours!
It also opens up the whole- was she abducted from the bed claims. If she wandered and was found, would she scream if she thought someone was going to help her? or if she knew the person. Only two scenarios I can think of
-
It makes her a Dr who knew her children were light sleepers, on this occasion notice they were unduly quiet, even with such massive disruptions, not to tell the police at the scene, she suspected her children were sedated.
But waited and mentioned as an after thought. As a trained anaesthetist and mother of said children, this should have been very noticeable. I wonder why she didn't mention this at the time...
How do you know she didn't mention it at the time? Do you have a verbatim transcript of every word spoken by the woman that night?
-
Let’s be clear. No one who was with Kate that night mentions her desperately trying to point out to either the GNR or the PJ officers that her remaining children may have been sedated. Not Fiona Payne who was with her most of the night. Not her husband who you would have thought would be equally interested in their children’s comatose state. Not Silvia Batista who would have had to have translated Kate’s urgent requests. Not any police officer.
Further if Kate had thought her requests for help were being ignored don’t you think she would have complained about it to someone at the time ? Her friends, her family, the FLO the next day ? She and her husband complained about the borders not being closed, why not that they didn’t receive any help when their children may have been in danger ? If true think how well that would have played in the press.
DISTRAUGHT KATE IGNORED AS HER BABIE’S LIVES HUNG IN THE BALANCE.
-
Ignoratio elenchi, also known as irrelevant conclusion,[1] is the informal fallacy of presenting an argument that may or may not be logically valid, but fails nonetheless to address the issue in question.
-
Let’s be clear. No one who was with Kate that night mentions her desperately trying to point out to either the GNR or the PJ officers that her remaining children may have been sedated. Not Fiona Payne who was with her most of the night. Not her husband who you would have thought would be equally interested in their children’s comatose state. Not Silvia Batista who would have had to have translated Kate’s urgent requests. Not any police officer.
Further if Kate had thought her requests for help were being ignored don’t you think she would have complained about it to someone at the time ? Her friends, her family, the FLO the next day ? She and her husband complained about the borders not being closed, why not that they didn’t receive any help when their children may have been in danger ? If true think how well that would have played in the press.
DISTRAUGHT KATE IGNORED AS HER BABIE’S LIVES HUNG IN THE BALANCE.
Did Kate ever say at any point to anyone ever that she felt her "babie's" (sic) lives hung in the balance? Or were in severe jeopardy? Or that they were in a comatose state?
-
Did Kate ever say at any point to anyone ever that she felt her "babie's" (sic) lives hung in the balance? Or were in severe jeopardy? Or that they were in a comatose state?
Not that I recall.
-
That is irrelevant as we do not know what time this assumed disappearance, from her bed by a stranger, took place.
There are no independent witnesses from when they left the creché to when Kate 'discovered' missing daughter. That is a lot of hours!
It also opens up the whole- was she abducted from the bed claims. If she wandered and was found, would she scream if she thought someone was going to help her? or if she knew the person. Only two scenarios I can think of
Arlindo suggests there was a disturbance, which usually involves sound. This is something I haven't looked into as yet. "A few minutes later, when it was around 21H20, he heard some clamour, which made him leave toward the restaurant, a few meters away, and was then informed that a child had disappeared."
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/ARLINDO-PELEGA.htm
Definitely a sound.
-
Did Kate ever say at any point to anyone ever that she felt her "babie's" (sic) lives hung in the balance? Or were in severe jeopardy? Or that they were in a comatose state?
Checking them for signs of life?
-
Checking them for signs of life?
Did she find any?
-
Did she find any?
She was a doctor! Sure did.
-
Did she find any?
She checked for breathing and she found breathing.
@Rob. I'm not even trained in first aid, but I could check for breathing.
-
She checked for breathing and she found breathing.
@Rob. I'm not even trained in first aid, but I could check for breathing.
So could I.
-
She checked for breathing and she found breathing.
@Rob. I'm not even trained in first aid, but I could check for breathing.
If they had been in a coma breathing would likely have been laboured - was it? No. Being a doctor she was able to judge that their lives did not “hang in the balance”, IMO.
-
If they had been in a coma breathing would likely have been laboured - was it? No. Being a doctor she was able to judge that their lives did not “hang in the balance”, IMO.
Is that a medical fact or your opinion?
I don't believe that any doctor who suspects sedation can decide that the sedation isn't life-threatening simply by checking that the patient is breathing.
-
Is that a medical fact or your opinion?
I don't believe that any doctor who suspects sedation can decide that the sedation isn't life-threatening simply by checking that the patient is breathing.
,by placing her hand on the childs abck it would be clear if the rate and depth of breathing was normal and hence no cause for concern....sedation is not general anaesthesia
-
,by placing her hand on the childs abck it would be clear if the rate and depth of breathing was normal and hence no cause for concern....sedation is not general anaesthesia
I would have thought if some kind of sedation was possible and not knowing what was possibly administered then the best place would have been an hospital.
-
I would have thought if some kind of sedation was possible and not knowing what was possibly administered then the best place would have been an hospital.
but you are not a doctor and kate is
-
Is that a medical fact or your opinion?
I don't believe that any doctor who suspects sedation can decide that the sedation isn't life-threatening simply by checking that the patient is breathing.
Well, iirc you don’t believe the children were sedated anyway despite not being a doctor yourself, so if you can decide that third hand years later....
-
but you are not a doctor and kate is
And of course there was medical equipment to hand should things have taken a turn for the worse.
-
And of course there was medical equipment to hand should things have taken a turn for the worse.
kate was clear the twins were not in danger...why would things take a turn for the worse...waht would cause taht
-
,by placing her hand on the childs abck it would be clear if the rate and depth of breathing was normal and hence no cause for concern....sedation is not general anaesthesia
So her only evidence for suggesting sedation was that they didn't wake up.
-
So her only evidence for suggesting sedation was that they didn't wake up.
Seems so, do you have a problem with that?
-
kate was clear the twins were not in danger...why would things take a turn for the worse...waht would cause taht
If Kate was clear there was no danger then there was no sedation so where did suspicion of sedation arise from?
-
Seems so, do you have a problem with that?
Perhaps Kate should have told the police. In my opinion that would have been an interesting conversation.
"I think my children may have been sedated"
"What makes you think that?"
"Despite all the noise and disturbance they haven't woken up"
"Have you tried to waken them?"
"No"
"Why not?"
"They're breathing"
-
Perhaps Kate should have told the police. In my opinion that would have been an interesting conversation.
"I think my children may have been sedated"
"What makes you think that?"
"Despite all the noise and disturbance they haven't woken up"
"Have you tried to waken them?"
"No"
"Why not?"
"They're breathing"
Exactly G Unit. Kate allegedly went back into the flat and found Madeleine missing, she checked on the twins and found them strangely sleepy and they didn't awake despite all the noise of the search. She said she thought they may have been sedated yet didn't take them to hospital to check what had caused them to be so sleepy?
She was a trained anaesthetist yet even though apparently believing the twins to have been sedated she didn't think it important to get the twins checked out even though that would surely have helped in case whatever the twins were given may have even proved fatal to them as she wouldn't have known what they were given?
Then she leaves it months to get the twins checked out for sedatives. Really?
-
,by placing her hand on the childs abck it would be clear if the rate and depth of breathing was normal and hence no cause for concern....sedation is not general anaesthesia
Then why does Kate say in her book that she was concerned enough at their condition to alert a police officer to the fact ? You can’t have it both ways.
-
Then why does Kate say in her book that she was concerned enough at their condition to alert a police officer to the fact ? You can’t have it both ways.
"I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated" [madeleine]
GNR Officers Nelson da Costa and Jose Roque make no mention of this. Neither does the person translating for them; Silvia Batista.
We can only assume that they didn't hear Kate's reported fears and that she didn't make any further efforts to get their attention.
-
"I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated" [madeleine]
GNR Officers Nelson da Costa and Jose Roque make no mention of this. Neither does the person translating for them; Silvia Batista.
We can only assume that they didn't hear Kate's reported fears and that she didn't make any further efforts to get their attention.
Fiona Payne who was with Kate most of the night makes no mention of it either nor, it would appear, did she raise her concerns with her husband.
-
Then why does Kate say in her book that she was concerned enough at their condition to alert a police officer to the fact ? You can’t have it both ways.
You can if you are KATE apparently...
Kate gave nauseating details about her missing daughters genitals in her book. This was explained by supporters that being a doctor she would talk in this way. So where are the details about her concern for her twins-checking her twins> she checked they were breathing? were one or both in a coma? did she try to wake them?
Did Kate not suspect drug use- when the door banged and it didn't wake the children? or the cold night and wind blowing ect... nothing seemed to wake them..
-
You can if you are KATE apparently...
Kate gave nauseating details about her missing daughters genitals in her book. This was explained by supporters that being a doctor she would talk in this way. So where are the details about her concern for her twins-checking her twins> she checked they were breathing? were one or both in a coma? did she try to wake them?
Did Kate not suspect drug use- when the door banged and it didn't wake the children? or the cold night and wind blowing ect... nothing seemed to wake them..
Hmmmm ... it's a wee while since you've used that one ^*&&
I do agree though that it must be nauseating for the parent of a missing child to have to contemplate everything which might have happened or even be happening to that child and be nauseated dwelling on it.
What do you make of people who dwell on these aspects which must flood the nightmares of those who care about the missing ... who neither know or care about that child?
Don't you think that Kate being an anaesthetist and all and her doctor friend took the appropriate hands on reaction as they nursed the sleeping children?
Or do you wonder like Amaral ... what "We've let her down!" meant ^*&&
-
Hmmmm ... it's a wee while since you've used that one ^*&&
I do agree though that it must be nauseating for the parent of a missing child to have to contemplate everything which might have happened or even be happening to that child and be nauseated dwelling on it.
What do you make of people who dwell on these aspects which must flood the nightmares of those who care about the missing ... who neither know or care about that child?
Don't you think that Kate being an anaesthetist and all and her doctor friend took the appropriate hands on reaction as they nursed the sleeping children?
Or do you wonder like Amaral ... what "We've let her down!" meant ^*&&
I agree with Amaral when he wonders why Kate said nothing at the time.
-
"I reported my fears that all three children could have been sedated" [madeleine]
GNR Officers Nelson da Costa and Jose Roque make no mention of this. Neither does the person translating for them; Silvia Batista.
We can only assume that they didn't hear Kate's reported fears and that she didn't make any further efforts to get their attention.
The only alternative to that IMO is that the PJ and Silvia were in some conspiracy.
In fact if the two officers required a translator to understand Kate, it could be just Silvia's reluctance to pass on the message from Kate. How would Kate know if her request was or wasn't passed on, if Silvia spoke Portuguese to the GNR officers?
-
I agree with Amaral when he wonders why Kate said nothing at the time.
Amaral was the main man in the investigation ... haven't you ever wondered why he didn't order more than a sniffing test if there was any question of the children being drugged?
-
Amaral was the main man in the investigation ... haven't you ever wondered why he didn't order more than a sniffing test if there was any question of the children being drugged?
Was he made aware that the twins may have been drugged? Did Kate flag her concerns up to the police in Portugal. In fact did she do so to anyone at the time. I can't recall reading anything in the files about this.
-
Was he made aware that the twins may have been drugged? Did Kate flag her concerns up to the police in Portugal. In fact did she do so to anyone at the time. I can't recall reading anything in the files about this.
Read back on the thread. Kate did raise concern immediately.
I also believe she raised the issue with the British FLO's.
-
Hmmmm ... it's a wee while since you've used that one ^*&&
I do agree though that it must be nauseating for the parent of a missing child to have to contemplate everything which might have happened or even be happening to that child and be nauseated dwelling on it.
What do you make of people who dwell on these aspects which must flood the nightmares of those who care about the missing ... who neither know or care about that child?
Don't you think that Kate being an anaesthetist and all and her doctor friend took the appropriate hands on reaction as they nursed the sleeping children?
Or do you wonder like Amaral ... what "We've let her down!" meant ^*&&
"Hmmmm ... it's a wee while since you've used that one ^*&&
It wasn't me who thought it or wrote it- so why does it bother you so much I mention it to make a comparison?
I do agree though that it must be nauseating for the parent of a missing child to have to contemplate everything which might have happened or even be happening to that child and be nauseated dwelling on it.
Yes, I agree. but then their behaviour in Portugal doesn't seem to equate to her concerns of such things...
What do you make of people who dwell on these aspects which must flood the nightmares of those who care about the missing ... who neither know or care about that child?
I do not presume to know.
Don't you think that Kate being an anaesthetist and all and her doctor friend took the appropriate hands on reaction as they nursed the sleeping children?
No, I don't think they did enough... If those children were suspected of being drugged- they apparently did nothing.
Or do you wonder like Amaral ... what "We've let her down!" meant ^*&&
I don't wonder like Amaral... what "We've let her down!" meant. I have a very good idea what she meant. ^*&&
-
Read back on the thread. Kate did raise concern immediately.
I also believe she raised the issue with the British FLO's.
I believe Kate did raise the issue that the Madeleine and the twins could have been drugged. Why would they test Madeleine's bed for drugs if they just thought she had woke and wandered?
-
I believe Kate did raise the issue that the Madeleine and the twins could have been drugged. Why would they test Madeleine's bed for drugs if they just thought she had woke and wandered?
cite for bed tested for drugs...
-
cite for bed tested for drugs...
I can't recall the bed being tested.
-
I can't recall the bed being tested.
I believe the first forensic examination included sniffing for odours.
-
I believe the first forensic examination included sniffing for odours.
Who did the sniffing? Any cite for that Brietta?
-
cite for bed tested for drugs...
The area of the pillow of the bed from the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving negative
-
Who did the sniffing? Any cite for that Brietta?
I believe it was the original Portuguese team of forensic investigators ... no point in sniffing at any further remove.
-
Thanks Brietta and Lace. Here is the cite Lace
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
-
Thanks Brietta and Lace. Here is the cite Lace
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
Thank you Sunny.
-
Only certain drugs- in liquid form, would offer an odour. I have discussed this previously. It would depend how it was administered. e.g oral, annal or injection. It would also depend on the time-scale. How soon after MBM was reported missing. I have also mentioned previously and was shot down by supporters, that Kate being an anaesthetist would have recognised odours of certain drugs.
Airports have sniffer dogs who can select the scent if certain drugs and types of explosives.
-
Thanks Brietta and Lace. Here is the cite Lace
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
Thanks Sunny.
I knew it had happened.
It is just one of those things which one reads somewhere at sometime ... but you've saved me a slog of having to find it again.
-
Read back on the thread. Kate did raise concern immediately.
I also believe she raised the issue with the British FLO's.
She didn't tell them of her fears about the twins, though, did she?
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
-
Thanks Brietta and Lace. Here is the cite Lace
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
Thank you Sunny. Interesting read- difficult to find forensic samples due to the 'traffic' in the bedroom. Obviously it wasn't deemed as a 'crime scene ' by the Tapas... One gets the impression that a lot of people were in that one small bedroom 'searching' for MBM, why else would anyone other than the police go in there?
-
Thank you Sunny. Interesting read- difficult to find forensic samples due to the 'traffic' in the bedroom. Obviously it wasn't deemed as a 'crime scene ' by the Tapas... One gets the impression that a lot of people were in that one small bedroom 'searching' for MBM, why else would anyone other than the police go in there?
So, when finding your child missing, you would immediately think 'no one enter the bedroom it's a crime scene' would you?
-
She didn't tell them of her fears about the twins, though, did she?
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
IMO Kate did tell the police about her concerns for the twins, Kate mentions it in her book and it is very strange that one of the officers should mention the twins didn't wake up with all the noise going on, how was he to know they hadn't woken and gone back to sleep?
-
I believe Kate did raise the issue that the Madeleine and the twins could have been drugged. Why would they test Madeleine's bed for drugs if they just thought she had woke and wandered?
The twins weren’t mentioned. Of course this would have been the ideal time to ask for them to be tested if their parents had concerns. It makes you wonder why the didn’t.
-
IMO Kate did tell the police about her concerns for the twins, Kate mentions it in her book and it is very strange that one of the officers should mention the twins didn't wake up with all the noise going on, how was he to know they hadn't woken and gone back to sleep?
Your opinion is irrelevant Lace. The statements of the witnesses say otherwise.
-
Perhaps Kate should have told the police. In my opinion that would have been an interesting conversation.
"I think my children may have been sedated"
"What makes you think that?"
"Despite all the noise and disturbance they haven't woken up"
"Have you tried to waken them?"
"No"
"Why not?"
"They're breathing"
Did Kate say she didn’t attempt to wake them up? But putting that to one side for a minute - you have previously stated that you don’t believe the children were sedated, therefore in your opinion they must have only been sleeping deeply. Given that, do you not also think it would have been possible to remove a child from her bed without her waking up and screaming?
-
Did Kate say she didn’t attempt to wake them up? But putting that to one side for a minute - you have previously stated that you don’t believe the children were sedated, therefore in your opinion they must have only been sleeping deeply. Given that, do you not also think it would have been possible to remove a child from her bed without her waking up and screaming?
I can only comment on what the witnesses said they thought or did. Speculating on what they might have thought or done I try to leave to others.
Did I say I didn't believe the children were sedated?
I have no idea whether a particular child could have been removed from her bed without her waking up and screaming.
-
I can only comment on what the witnesses said they thought or did. Speculating on what they might have thought or done I try to leave to others.
Did I say I didn't believe the children were sedated?
I have no idea whether a particular child could have been removed from her bed without her waking up and screaming.
I believe you said you had researched the subject of sedation and could not find anything to support the idea that they had been, did I misunderstand?
-
She raised the possibility not us, therefore she must believe it was possible. I have looked at various substances and methods and in my opinion it wasn't possible.
^^^this post.
-
Perhaps Kate should have told the police. In my opinion that would have been an interesting conversation.
"I think my children may have been sedated"
"What makes you think that?"
"Despite all the noise and disturbance they haven't woken up"
"Have you tried to waken them?"
"No"
"Why not?"
"They're breathing"
Going back to this post now - what makes you think the conversation would have gone like this?
-
^^^this post.
Thank you. What I was saying there was that I don't believe it was possible for an intruder to sedate three children at some point between 8.30 and 10 pm, which is what Kate McCann appears to be suggesting.
-
Thank you. What I was saying there was that I don't believe it was possible for an intruder to sedate three children at some point between 8.30 and 10 pm, which is what Kate McCann appears to be suggesting.
OK, well you don’t believe Calpol was used either, so what substances do you think could have been used?
-
OK, well you don’t believe Calpol was used either, so what substances do you think could have been used?
Why are you asking this question? all hypothetical so you and Davel can argue those substances were NOT used- hypothetically!
It is Kate who would be better to ask- she is the expert in these matters.
I have stated that I feel with Kate's expertise in these matters and, it was her who brought this matter up, she would be in a better position to gage what was used and who would have the skill and time to administer this. I have already mentioned that the skill would be knowing the child's weight and height & age, and knowledge of any allergies to prevent death by over dose or allergic reaction.
It isn't a difficult question to ask of her really...So I can't understand the issues supporters have with people asking.
-
The twins weren’t mentioned. Of course this would have been the ideal time to ask for them to be tested if their parents had concerns. It makes you wonder why the didn’t.
Kate says she did mention it. Why did the Police officer mention the twins didn't wake up with all the noise going on? How did he know? What noise was going on when he was there, according to the statement he heard them crying in their bedroom, kneeling down apparently.
-
Your opinion is irrelevant Lace. The statements of the witnesses say otherwise.
I was asking a question. The Police Officer was a witness, and unless he knew what the other witnesses had said about the twins not waking up, how did he know they didn't wake up and go back to sleep again? Unless Kate had mentioned it to him.
-
Why are you asking this question? all hypothetical so you and Davel can argue those substances were NOT used- hypothetically!
It is Kate who would be better to ask- she is the expert in these matters.
I have stated that I feel with Kate's expertise in these matters and, it was her who brought this matter up, she would be in a better position to gage what was used and who would have the skill and time to administer this. I have already mentioned that the skill would be knowing the child's weight and height & age, and knowledge of any allergies to prevent death by over dose or allergic reaction.
It isn't a difficult question to ask of her really...So I can't understand the issues supporters have with people asking.
I’m asking the question because I’m interested in the answer, G-Unit has researched the subject, has ruled out certai. substances and methods of delivery if given by a would-be abductor, bit hasn’t ruled out sedation entirely. She must have some reason for ruling out one scenario but not the other, that’s why I asked, is there a law against it?
-
OK, well you don’t believe Calpol was used either, so what substances do you think could have been used?
I can find nothing which is easy to administer to a sleeping child and which keeps them sleeping for eight hours with no ill effects.
-
I can find nothing which is easy to administer to a sleeping child and which keeps them sleeping for eight hours with no ill effects.
Yes, me either, but then we are not specialists or experts with access to medical information of the children, and if the drugging abductor was a stranger- he /she /they wouldn't have this either!
Edit:Forgot to add... the time factored in to administer this without getting caught!
We come back to why would Kate suggest this ?
-
I was asking a question. The Police Officer was a witness, and unless he knew what the other witnesses had said about the twins not waking up, how did he know they didn't wake up and go back to sleep again? Unless Kate had mentioned it to him.
Just a guess but maybe because he has eyes ?
-
Yes, me either, but then we are not specialists or experts with access to medical information of the children, and if the drugging abductor was a stranger- he /she /they wouldn't have this either!
Edit:Forgot to add... the time factored in to administer this without getting caught!
We come back to why would Kate suggest this ?
Why wouldn’t someone intent on kidnapping a child have knowledge of which drugs to use to sedate a child?
-
I believe the first forensic examination included sniffing for odours.
Interesting, for that shows they might have considered the use of chloroform.
-
Just a guess but maybe because he has eyes ?
He was there observing the twins continuously all night was he?
-
She didn't tell them of her fears about the twins, though, did she?
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
They are working through the liaison officers, so I would hope the liaison officers passed that request on.
-
I can find nothing which is easy to administer to a sleeping child and which keeps them sleeping for eight hours with no ill effects.
Intra Nasal ketamine delivered by atomiser.....but what would I know
-
I don't see "Intra Nasal ketamine delivered by atomiser" working for 8 hours. It appears to be for short term sedation with the young patient being alert within 3 hours or so.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02402868
It can also possibly give a child nightmares
Ketamine may result in deeper sedation and is dose dependent, utilize the initial dose at 6mg/kg and repeated doses at 3mg/kg until desired sedation is achieved.
Be aware that ketamine causes a bitter taste (lyophilized) when administered
Behavioral changes (nightmares, enuresis nocturna, and irritability) in children less than five (unable to understand reasons for experience)
https://wikem.org/wiki/Intranasal_sedation
So hardly no side effects. 2 minutes on google.
So what do you know?
-
I don't see "Intra Nasal ketamine delivered by atomiser" working for 8 hours. It appears to be for short term sedation with the young patient being alert within 3 hours or so.
https://clinicaltrials.gov/ct2/show/NCT02402868
It can also possibly give a child nightmares
Ketamine may result in deeper sedation and is dose dependent, utilize the initial dose at 6mg/kg and repeated doses at 3mg/kg until desired sedation is achieved.
Be aware that ketamine causes a bitter taste (lyophilized) when administered
Behavioral changes (nightmares, enuresis nocturna, and irritability) in children less than five (unable to understand reasons for experience)
https://wikem.org/wiki/Intranasal_sedation
So hardly no side effects. 2 minutes on google.
So what do you know?
A child who is sedated at 9 will sleep through the night....
It's a very good sedative for children and was used in the cave rescue in thailand
Every drug has side effects...
-
But what about a child under 5 which is what I was talking about.
-
But what about a child under 5 which is what I was talking about.
Gunit said she couldn't find any possible drug.....I offered one that I'm pretty sure she had not considered
-
Very true but you said it was used on the boys in Thailand. As far as I can recall whatever they were given was to calm them down enough to get them out of the cave system. They needed to still be mobile not out cold. Also as I have shown there are side effects to giving this drug and it also mainly needs to be replenished regularly to keep a child unconscious.
Can you show a cite where it can be given to 2 and 3 year olds, knock them unconscious for 8 hours with no side effects please?
-
Very true but you said it was used on the boys in Thailand. As far as I can recall whatever they were given was to calm them down enough to get them out of the cave system. They needed to still be mobile not out cold. Also as I have shown there are side effects to giving this drug and it also mainly needs to be replenished regularly to keep a child unconscious.
Can you show a cite where it can be given to 2 and 3 year olds, knock them unconscious for 8 hours with no side effects please?
The twins were not unconscious....I've given s possible sedative...I'm not interested in another pointless argument
-
I didn't think you would be able to provide a cite Davel.
-
I didn't think you would be able to provide a cite Davel.
I will let others judge if my post had any value...gunit said..sleep for 8 hrs....not knocked unconscious...
-
I will let others judge if my post had any value...
If you were to provide a cite then it may be of even more value than you think it is.
-
If you were to provide a cite then it may be of even more value than you think it is.
Gunit never asked for a drug that could ...knock a child unconscious for 8 hrs...try reading her post again
For what gunit did ask...IN Ketamine is a good suggestion
-
Gunit never asked for a drug that could ...knock a child unconscious for 8 hrs...try reading her post again
For what gunit did ask...IN Ketamine is a good suggestion
I think you will find that G Unit's post said pretty much exactly that and I quote
I can find nothing which is easy to administer to a sleeping child and which keeps them sleeping for eight hours with no ill effects.
And here is your link
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9913.msg476166#msg476166
-
I think you will find that G Unit's post said pretty much exactly that and I quote
I can find nothing which is easy to administer to a sleeping child and which keeps them sleeping for eight hours with no ill effects.
And here is your link
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9913.msg476166#msg476166
No...you said..knocked unconscious for 8 hours...gunit said sleep for 8 hours...can you really not see the difference
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5358746/
Adequate sedation in children between 0 to 14. without any serious adverse effects
-
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC5358746/
Adequate sedation in children between 0 to 14. without any serious adverse effects
Your link is an interesting article, albeit from March 2017.
"Ketamine is commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in children."
I wonder what the state of play was in 2007, who would have access to the knowledge at that time, who would have access to Ketamine, who would have experience of using it on young children.
Those requirements seem to rule out 6 of the 7 arguidos, plus sundry other miscreants such as smellyman.
Jolly interesting read. 8((()*/
-
Your link is an interesting article, albeit from March 2017.
"Ketamine is commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in children."
I wonder what the state of play was in 2007, who would have access to the knowledge at that time, who would have access to Ketamine, who would have experience of using it on young children.
Those requirements seem to rule out 6 of the 7 arguidos, plus sundry other miscreants such as smellyman.
Jolly interesting read. 8((()*/
Which arguido are you not ruling out as having access to ketamine and why?
-
Your link is an interesting article, albeit from March 2017.
"Ketamine is commonly used for procedural sedation and analgesia (PSA) in children."
I wonder what the state of play was in 2007, who would have access to the knowledge at that time, who would have access to Ketamine, who would have experience of using it on young children.
Those requirements seem to rule out 6 of the 7 arguidos, plus sundry other miscreants such as smellyman.
Jolly interesting read. 8((()*/
Ketamine is also a recreational drug & can be acquired on the black market.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289345212_New_trends_of_Ketamine_consumption_in_Europe
-
There was a long list of possible sedatives when I looked into it.
-
Ketamine is also a recreational drug & can be acquired on the black market.
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/289345212_New_trends_of_Ketamine_consumption_in_Europe
Time for bed Gonçalo said.
I'll read the article in the morning.
G'nite.
-
Intra Nasal ketamine delivered by atomiser.....but what would I know
Not bad, but it doesn't always work and when it does it lasts about an hour.
https://emj.bmj.com/content/31/9/789.2
-
Not bad, but it doesn't always work and when it does it lasts about an hour.
https://emj.bmj.com/content/31/9/789.2
It provides clinical sedation for an hour....sedation enough to suture wounds ..it's sedative effect would not wear off after an hour..
Again .....it may not enable all children to be sutured....but it always sedates....to varying levels
-
Can it be given to a child that is already asleep?
-
Can it be given to a child that is already asleep?
Give a little first...then a little more after a few minutes
Yes...an atomiser spray into the nose
I'm not suggesting it was...just answering gunit post
-
Just a guess but maybe because he has eyes ?
Yes he does!! He saw the twins asleep, they searched the bedroom they were in, he must have left the bedroom, so how did he know they hadn't woken up and settled back to sleep? IMO Kate told him they hadn't.
-
Yes he does!! He saw the twins asleep, they searched the bedroom they were in, he must have left the bedroom, so how did he know they hadn't woken up and settled back to sleep? IMO Kate told him they hadn't.
Again Lace your opinion is irrelevant when the witness statements say otherwise.
If Kate had told him the twins were abnormally sleepy what reason would he have had for not summoning help ? Do you really think a police officer, perhaps with children of his own, would be so callous as to put the twins in danger ? Further why would he even mention the twins abnormally sleepy state when he knew he may be accused later on of ignoring their mother’s requests for help? Lastly who translated these requests for help ? It certainly wasn’t Silvia Batista.
-
Again Lace your opinion is irrelevant when the witness statements say otherwise.
If Kate had told him the twins were abnormally sleepy what reason would he have had for not summoning help ? Do you really think a police officer, perhaps with children of his own, would be so callous as to put the twins in danger ? Further why would he even mention the twins abnormally sleepy state when he knew he may be accused later on of ignoring their mother’s requests for help? Lastly who translated these requests for help ? It certainly wasn’t Silvia Batista.
He says he did mention the twins abnormally sleepy state though didn't he? He said he thought it was strange, so why didn't he question it when he was there?
-
Again Lace your opinion is irrelevant when the witness statements say otherwise.
If Kate had told him the twins were abnormally sleepy what reason would he have had for not summoning help ? Do you really think a police officer, perhaps with children of his own, would be so callous as to put the twins in danger ? Further why would he even mention the twins abnormally sleepy state when he knew he may be accused later on of ignoring their mother’s requests for help? Lastly who translated these requests for help ? It certainly wasn’t Silvia Batista.
The GNR officers were questioned again in October 2007. That's when they confirmed that the twins remained asleep while they were there; particularly during their search of the children's bedroom.
-
He says he did mention the twins abnormally sleepy state though didn't he? He said he thought it was strange, so why didn't he question it when he was there?
He did mention it but why would he if he knew he may be accused later of not acting on pleas from the children’s mother ? Why not pretend he didn’t even notice ? As to why he didn’t question it could it possibly be because the parents weren’t questioning it ?
So to round things up. Neither of the parents claimed at any time before Kate’s testing request, while Gerry was in Washington, that the twins had been sedated. Although the parents asked the FLOs if any substance had been used to facilitate their daughter’s abduction they did not tell them of their worries that the twins may have been sedated ( remember Kate’s alleged frantic requests for help on the night) or ask that they be tested. Of course if the twins had indeed been sedated the substance used could have helped in identifying a perpetrator. Not one of the people surrounding Kate that night, not even her husband, claim they witnessed Kate asking for help. The only translator present was not asked to translate Kate’s alleged pleas to the officers.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest Kate raised any concerns on the night that her children had been sedated and to claim she did in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is simply sticking your head in the sand.
-
The GNR officers were questioned again in October 2007. That's when they confirmed that the twins remained asleep while they were there; particularly during their search of the children's bedroom.
As the GNR officers knew nothing of the twins sleep pattern it would have been hard for them to know if sleeping that deeply was actually normal for them.
-
As the GNR officers knew nothing of the twins sleep pattern it would have been hard for them to know if sleeping that deeply was actually normal for them.
That would not be the basis of their comment.
-
He did mention it but why would he if he knew he may be accused later of not acting on pleas from the children’s mother ? Why not pretend he didn’t even notice ? As to why he didn’t question it could it possibly be because the parents weren’t questioning it ?
So to round things up. Neither of the parents claimed at any time before Kate’s testing request, while Gerry was in Washington, that the twins had been sedated. Although the parents asked the FLOs if any substance had been used to facilitate their daughter’s abduction they did not tell them of their worries that the twins may have been sedated ( remember Kate’s alleged frantic requests for help on the night) or ask that they be tested. Of course if the twins had indeed been sedated the substance used could have helped in identifying a perpetrator. Not one of the people surrounding Kate that night, not even her husband, claim they witnessed Kate asking for help. The only translator present was not asked to translate Kate’s alleged pleas to the officers.
There is absolutely nothing to suggest Kate raised any concerns on the night that her children had been sedated and to claim she did in the face of overwhelming evidence to the contrary is simply sticking your head in the sand.
It doesn't answer the question as to how the Police Officer can say the twins didn't wake up during the search of the apartment does it? How did he know they stayed asleep? What I am saying is the twins could have woken and gone back to sleep as far as he knew, yet he says he found it strange they didn't wake.
-
It doesn't answer the question as to how the Police Officer can say the twins didn't wake up during the search of the apartment does it? How did he know they stayed asleep? What I am saying is the twins could have woken and gone back to sleep as far as he knew, yet he says he found it strange they didn't wake.
How do we know if the twins had woken up then gone back to sleep. In my experience when there is a large amount of noise and a child is awoken by it particularly at night in the dark, they will let you know that they are awake very quickly and expect them to come to you. Wouldn't you expect the twins to be scared if they woke up in a dark noisy house with no parents apparent?
-
It doesn't answer the question as to how the Police Officer can say the twins didn't wake up during the search of the apartment does it? How did he know they stayed asleep? What I am saying is the twins could have woken and gone back to sleep as far as he knew, yet he says he found it strange they didn't wake.
What exactly does the officer say ?
-
What exactly does the officer say ?
exactly.
-
It doesn't answer the question as to how the Police Officer can say the twins didn't wake up during the search of the apartment does it? How did he know they stayed asleep? What I am saying is the twins could have woken and gone back to sleep as far as he knew, yet he says he found it strange they didn't wake.
He was asked and he gave his opinion.
-
Give a little first...then a little more after a few minutes
Yes...an atomiser spray into the nose
I'm not suggesting it was...just answering gunit post
So you agree it lasts for an hour or so. So how does your intranasal ketamine work for 8 hours or more with the twins again?
-
So you agree it lasts for an hour or so. So how does your intranasal ketamine work for 8 hours or more with the twins again?
you are starting to sound a bit obsessed...the same way as every sedative effects lasts for 8 hours or so...try google...do you understand half life ...try google again
-
you are starting to sound a bit obsessed...the same way as every sedative effects lasts for 8 hours or so...try google...do you understand half life ...try google again
A half life wouldn't keep the twins virtually unconscious for 8 hours without further application of intranasal ketamine IMO. Can you show me different. All the reading I have read shows that if the dose is small then the patient will awaken within an hour or so. The twins did not wake despite the "circus" going on in 5a. Can you explain?
-
A half life wouldn't keep the twins virtually unconscious for 8 hours without further application of intranasal ketamine IMO. Can you show me different. All the reading I have read shows that if the dose is small then the patient will awaken within an hour or so. The twins did not wake despite the "circus" going on in 5a. Can you explain?
Can you give me a cite where the patient will waken in an hour or so?
-
How do we know if the twins had woken up then gone back to sleep. In my experience when there is a large amount of noise and a child is awoken by it particularly at night in the dark, they will let you know that they are awake very quickly and expect them to come to you. Wouldn't you expect the twins to be scared if they woke up in a dark noisy house with no parents apparent?
In my experience children of just over two, don't always wake and cry for someone to come to them. I presume it would be dark in their room at home, as the McCann's tried to make the bedrooom the same as at home so as not to upset their routine. I have gone into my childrens bedroom when they were two and searched in drawers, even turning the light on and they haven't woken up. Why would they be scared? They had slept in that room all week, that is a long time to a small child. I have witnessed my children waking turning over and going back to sleep without even seeing me there, so how a Police officer can say they never woke and he thought it strange without knowing if it was normal to them is rather peculiar.
-
A bit from Gerry's arguido statement
When questioned if the twins woke while the apartment was being searched, he replies negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, and can find no reason for it happening. He still thought at this moment that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later.
Why wait a few days later to tell the police this.
-
Can you give me a cite where the patient will waken in an hour or so?
OK found it.
Intranasal: Analgesic effect: Up to 60 minutes (Carr 2004); Recovery: Children 2 to 6 years: 34 to 46 minutes (Bahetwar 2011)
https://www.drugs.com/ppa/ketamine.html
Can you find a cite for 8 hours now please.
-
OK found it.
Intranasal: Analgesic effect: Up to 60 minutes (Carr 2004); Recovery: Children 2 to 6 years: 34 to 46 minutes (Bahetwar 2011)
https://www.drugs.com/ppa/ketamine.html
Can you find a cite for 8 hours now please.
That says analgesic effect..60 minutes
It doesn't say they wake up in 60 minutes
-
That says analgesic effect..60 minutes
It doesn't say they wake up in 60 minutes
A cite would be helpful.
-
A cite would be helpful.
Sunny needs to provide the cite that children...wake up...after 60 mins....she's provided a cite re the analgesic effect so she obviously doesn't understand.
-
I'll have a look at it.
-
Sunny needs to provide the cite that children...wake up...after 60 mins....she's provided a cite re the analgesic effect so she obviously doesn't understand.
Here you are.
Following intravenous administration, ketamine produces anesthetic effect rapidly (within 30 seconds following a 2 milligram per kilogram dose) and lasts for about 5 to 10 minutes. Intramuscular administration produces anesthetic effects in 3 to 4 minutes, lasting 12 to 25 minutes. The sedative effects of ketamine can last for 45 minutes to 2.5 hours, which explains why sub-anesthetic doses can be used for analgesia alone. The larger the total dose of ketamine, the longer the time until complete recovery.
https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/narcotics-safes/articles/3031532-Ketamine-Drug-Whys/
Ok this time it is intravenous but I can't see the effect being longer than 2.5 hours if applied internasally.
Cite for 8 hours now Davel. Show us YOU know what you are talking about, as you claim.
-
Nope you obviously don't understand a word of what you are posting.
Not a convincing body swerve old top.
The question was related to time lapse NOT what is the correct term for according to.......?
So let's try to concentrate on that eh?
How about transposing it thus: "If the stuff is administered up someones 'ooter* for how long will it be effective"? your call at a time frame with whatever conditions you wish to put on it stated.
* apologies to any North American guests. Over here 'ooter is a nose @)(++(*
-
Nope you obviously don't understand a word of what you are posting.....it's intra nasally not inter nasally...but if you want to think you are the expert be my guest
I never claimed to know anything about it beyond googling. It was yourself that made that claim and yet again you have failed to provide the required cite. Do you have a reason for not responding to my request, perhaps you don't know what you are talking about.
-
Not a convincing body swerve old top.
The question was related to time lapse NOT what is the correct term for according to.......?
So let's try to concentrate on that eh?
How about transposing it thus: "If the stuff is administered up someones 'ooter* for how long will it be effective"? your call at a time frame with whatever conditions you wish to put on it stated.
* apologies to any North American guests. Over here 'ooter is a nose @)(++(*
Patient would be clinically sedated with analgesia for about an hour...with a half life of 2 to 3 hours...after 4 to 6 hours there would still be 25% of the original dose in the blood stream and after 6 to 9 hours 12.5%....not enough to provide clinical sedation or analgesia but enough to keep little Johnny in a nice deep sleep....sleep and 8 hrs being the points I replied to in gunits original post
-
Patient would be clinically sedated with analgesia for about an hour...with a half life of 2 to 3 hours...after 4 to 6 hours there would still be 25% of the original dose in the blood stream and after 6 to 9 hours 12.5%....not enough to provide clinical sedation or analgesia but enough to keep little Johnny in a nice deep sleep....sleep and 8 hrs being the points I replied to in gunits original post
Cite that it would "keep little Johnny in a nice deep sleep....sleep and 8 hrs being the points I replied to in gunits original post" please. Only the third (or is it fourth) time of asking.
-
I have provided a detailed explanation as to why a child would sleep for 8 hrs after a single dose of ketamine....I would think most posters understand it...the fact you don't is your problem
But no cite though Davel. Your detailed explanation as you call it is only your opinion without a correct cite. Why should I or others believe you just because you say it. It isn't the first time you have failed to provide a cite when requested.
-
Patient would be clinically sedated with analgesia for about an hour...with a half life of 2 to 3 hours...after 4 to 6 hours there would still be 25% of the original dose in the blood stream and after 6 to 9 hours 12.5%....not enough to provide clinical sedation or analgesia but enough to keep little Johnny in a nice deep sleep....sleep and 8 hrs being the points I replied to in gunits original post
Does it have both alpha and beta half lives?
-
What evidence is there that the twins were not sedated. Not the drug test months later surely ? If we don’t know how they were sedated how do we know that they were tested for the correct drug ?
-
What evidence is there that the twins were not? *&(+(+
-
Does it have both alpha and beta half lives?
of course
-
Ketamine
Consciousness
Given that many paediatric sedations take place in ED in the evening and often around or after a child’s usual bed-time,
a child (> 6 months of age) may be discharged asleep if more than 1 hour has elapsed since last IV sedative/narcotic, or
>2 hours since last IM sedative/narcotic AND if the child is rousable with gentle stimulation.
Fully awake (normal age appropriate verbalisation or interactivity, follows commands) - 2 points
Rousable but unable to follow commands (if usually able) - 1 point
Unresponsive - 0 points, not for discharge until rousable.
Google cite http://www.anzctr.org.au/AnzctrAttachments/370334-24.02.16%20KINDER%20Protocol%20version%202.0.pdf
Yours?
-
What evidence is there that the twins were not? *&(+(+
Just as Kate was forced to undertake drug tests to disprove the smears bandied about regarding herself ... it was deemed necessary that the twins had to be likewise tested for the same reason.
Snip
It is understood the couple’s legal team hired forensic specialists to examine hair samples from the twins, who were in the same room as Madeleine in the Ocean Club apartment in Praia da Luz when she disappeared an May 3, and no trace of sedative was found.
A source close to the legal team said: “It would be logical for tests to be carried out on the twins to show that they have never been given sedatives.
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1566664/Proof-McCanns-did-not-sedate-Madeleine.html
-
I see my last post was whooshed. The crux of it was why weren't the twins and Kate tested within days rather than months of Maddie going missing. What drugs would show up in their hair samples and were there any that would not. Particularly Ketamine as it has appeared on this thread already. Just IMO of course.
-
I have if you read back. They may not "wake up" but they were "rousable" after 2 hours. I can't find a cite from you saying they were not rousable after 8 hours. You being the expert it should be easy. Thanks Davel.
-
I have if you read back. They may not "wake up" but they were "rousable" after 2 hours. I can't find a cite from you saying they were not rousable after 8 hours. You being the expert it should be easy. Thanks Davel.
So no cite for waking up after one hour...I never said they would not be rousable after 8 hours I said they would sleep for 8 hours...your claims are totally jumbled
-
So no cite for waking up after one hour...I never said they would not be rousable after 8 hours I said they would sleep for 8 hours...your claims are totally jumbled
I did modify my post to 2.5 hours here
Here you are.
Following intravenous administration, ketamine produces anesthetic effect rapidly (within 30 seconds following a 2 milligram per kilogram dose) and lasts for about 5 to 10 minutes. Intramuscular administration produces anesthetic effects in 3 to 4 minutes, lasting 12 to 25 minutes. The sedative effects of ketamine can last for 45 minutes to 2.5 hours, which explains why sub-anesthetic doses can be used for analgesia alone. The larger the total dose of ketamine, the longer the time until complete recovery.
https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/narcotics-safes/articles/3031532-Ketamine-Drug-Whys/
Ok this time it is intravenous but I can't see the effect being longer than 2.5 hours if applied internasally.
And I did say rousable. Kids can sleep for a lot longer than 8 hours without any sedative help as anyone knows. We were talking about the twins and their lack of response despite the noise and disruption they experienced on the 3rd/4th May 2007.
Or are you as a self proclaimed expert on these matters now trying to say that kids sleep for 8 plus hours at a time? Yes they do and they do it all the time. That isn't what the discussion was about.
-
I did modify my post to 2.5 hours here
Here you are.
Following intravenous administration, ketamine produces anesthetic effect rapidly (within 30 seconds following a 2 milligram per kilogram dose) and lasts for about 5 to 10 minutes. Intramuscular administration produces anesthetic effects in 3 to 4 minutes, lasting 12 to 25 minutes. The sedative effects of ketamine can last for 45 minutes to 2.5 hours, which explains why sub-anesthetic doses can be used for analgesia alone. The larger the total dose of ketamine, the longer the time until complete recovery.
https://www.ems1.com/ems-products/narcotics-safes/articles/3031532-Ketamine-Drug-Whys/
Ok this time it is intravenous but I can't see the effect being longer than 2.5 hours if applied internasally.
And I did say rousable. Kids can sleep for a lot longer than 8 hours without any sedative help as anyone knows. We were talking about the twins and their lack of response despite the noise and disruption they experienced on the 3rd/4th May 2007.
Or are you as a self proclaimed expert on these matters now trying to say that kids sleep for 8 plus hours at a time? Yes they do and they do it all the time. That isn't what the discussion was about.
if i was petty, I would ask you for a cite as to where I have proclaimed to be an expert.....when my words were im not an expert...gunits original post referred to children sleeping for 8 hours.
-
Members are reminded that cites must be provided in accordance with the forum rules. On several occasions recently cites have been requested but never provided. Asking for a cite is not goading but compliance.
From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.
Moderators and Editors take note!
-
I think if you claim to have used ketamine professionally you should tell us something that convinces us you are a professional.
-
Well I thought you were clearly claiming personal experience. Weren't you claiming to be some sort of expert? You've lost me now.
Davel: What is your personal experience with the use of ketamine?
-
Well I thought you were clearly claiming personal experience. Weren't you claiming to be some sort of expert? You've lost me now.
Davel: What is your personal experience with the use of ketamine?
My experience is in sedation and some general anaesthesia...
-
My experience is in sedation and some general anaesthesia...
But not in the use of ketamine. Is that what you are now saying?
-
But not in the use of ketamine. Is that what you are now saying?
it isnt what I am now saying...provide a cite if you think i have said something different
From this moment onward, posts making significant claims which are not backed up by a cite will be removed.
-
I have never claimed to have used ketamine if you read my posts...I have claimed 40 years experience in sedation..
Some original posts have been removed but this is still as a quote "Quote from: Davel on Today at 06:18:17 PM
I have provided a detailed explanation as to why a child would sleep for 8 hrs after a single dose of ketamine....I would think most posters understand it...the fact you don't is your problem"
So that reference to ketamine is not from personal experience. Have I understood that correctly?
-
Some original posts have been removed but this is still as a quote "Quote from: Davel on Today at 06:18:17 PM
I have provided a detailed explanation as to why a child would sleep for 8 hrs after a single dose of ketamine....I would think most posters understand it...the fact you don't is your problem"
So that reference to ketamine is not from personal experience. Have I understood that correctly?
It's from my personal knowledge of how sedatives work based on my extensive experience with sedatives
-
OK but is it true none of that extensive experience is with ketamine?
It was the fact I asked a multi choice question and you didn't answer the question.
If you read my posts I've answered your question several times
-
You made a specific claim. If it is true you will be able to provide a cite as per forum rules.
What claim was that
-
I don't need to provide a cite for personal experience
Personal experience does not constitute an acceptable alternative to providing a proper cite. If any member wishes to offer a professional opinion as an alternative to providing a recognised cite then they must reveal their credentials as I have done.
That said, it is neither a requirement or policy that any member must reveal their identity at any time although several members have chosen to do just that.
-
Personal experience does not constitute an acceptable alternative to providing a proper cite. If any member wishes to offer a professional opinion as an alternative to providing a recognised cite then they must reveal their credentials as I have done.
That said, it is neither a requirement or policy that any member must reveal their identity at any time although several members have chosen to do just that.
Next john...could you point out where I have not provided a cite... because I just don't see it
-
Next john...could you point out where I have not provided a cite... because I just don't see it
Neither do I Davel (the cite I mean).
-
I haven't been a party to the earlier discussion but I do think it reasonable to provide a cite where technical matters are being debated.
I have provided cites....so could someone point out where I have not...
-
Neither do I Davel (the cite I mean).
You have made a claim I have not provided a cite...I deny that...it's now up to you to show where I have not provided a cite
-
Next john...could you point out where I have not provided a cite... because I just don't see it
Start again I'd say.
You have made a claim I have not provided a cite...I deny that...it's now up to you to show where I have not provided a cite
Start afresh please.
-
Start again I'd say.
Start afresh please.
Sunny had accused me of not proving a cite...under the rules she needs to provide the information
-
Sunny had accused me of not proving a cite...under the rules she needs to provide the information
Earlier quote from you
I have provided a detailed explanation as to why a child would sleep for 8 hrs after a single dose of ketamine....I would think most posters understand it...the fact you don't is your problem
Again, cite please.
-
Earlier quote from you
I have provided a detailed explanation as to why a child would sleep for 8 hrs after a single dose of ketamine....I would think most posters understand it...the fact you don't is your problem
Again, cite please.
You provided a cite showing the half life of ketamine...I provided a detailed explanation using the half life to show that there would be 12.5% of the initial dose even after 6 to 9 hours...it's the same principle as failing the breathyser the morning after....I think that is a reasonable explanation that most could follow
-
Simple way to stop the ‘disruption’, don’t have a cite then don’t make a claim.
-
You provided a cite showing the half life of ketamine...I provided a detailed explanation using the half life to show that there would be 12.5% of the initial dose even after 6 to 9 hours...it's the same principle as failing the breathyser the morning after....I think that is a reasonable explanation that most could follow
So that was an opinion only then.
-
I am actually here to discuss Davel, your "half life" of 12.5% wouldn't have the children in a sedated state or my cite was wrong when it said in 2.5 hours the chldren were rousable.
-
So that was an opinion only then.
No it wasn't opinion...it was a logical explanation based on facts...I would have thought you would have understood it
-
Simple way to stop the ‘disruption’, don’t have a cite then don’t make a claim.
Easier way is to say it's a rumour . 8((()*/
-
I am actually here to discuss Davel, your "half life" of 12.5% wouldn't have the children in a sedated state or my cite was wrong when it said in 2.5 hours the chldren were rousable.
I never said 12.5 would produce a sedated state...but obviously it would still have some effect
-
No it wasn't opinion...it was a logical explanation based on facts...I would have thought you would have understood it
"Logical explanation" would still be an opinion. Maybe even though one worthy of acceptance. I never say I don't care for other's opinions. It gives us a chance to see where they are coming from.
-
I never said 12.5 would produce a sedated state...but obviously it would still have some effect
Why "obviously" and what effect would it have. You say you are the knowledgeable one so you provide a cite. From what I have read and cited it would make very little difference.
-
It was a cite. Whether it passed your rigorous cite evaluation test is neither here nor there.
It is not a cite unless it validates the original claimed point IMO, and remember I'll be the one of the moderators moderating.
-
It was a cite. Whether it passed your rigorous cite evaluation test is neither here nor there.
Cites rarely pass the evaluation test of those demanding them, had you not noticed?
-
Cites rarely pass the evaluation test of those demanding them, had you not noticed?
I understand that as we all interpret what we read in different ways.
-
Could someone please explain the relevance of the ketamine intranasal spray? Was such a product found at the apartment?
-
No relevance actually John. Just a claim made by Davel as a possible way to sedate children for up to 8 hours.
-
Could someone please explain the relevance of the ketamine intranasal spray? Was such a product found at the apartment?
Nope, Davel merely suggested it as a sedative that could have been used on children already sleeping against a claim from another poster that they had researched sedatives and could find nothing that would work for 8 hours or which could be effectively administered. Davel volunteered an opinion and now is being badgered for cites for something that is of minor importance to in the scheme of things. It’s all really ridiculous IMO.
-
Davel volunteered an opinion
But he didn't call it an opinion and still has not. Opinion would be fine.
-
Whether it wasn’t relevant to the original post is not the issue. You asked for a cite and were given one.
So as long as a cite is given, the relevance doesn’t really matter? Well now we know!
-
But he didn't call it an opinion and still has not. Opinion would be fine.
Can you please not truncate my posts, it’s bad form, thanks.
-
Can you please not truncate my posts, it’s bad form, thanks.
Apologies Vertigo Swirl I will post in full and bold the relevant parts then.
-
Whether it wasn’t relevant to the original post is not the issue. You asked for a cite and were given one.
... and here was me thinking that the reason for providing a cite was to substantiate a post ... but it seems any cite will do??? I really think not.
-
But you haven't provided a cite when asked...neither have many other posters
When have I not provided a cite. I can recall 3 to 4 times you have failed (this one being a case in point).
-
... and here was me thinking that the reason for providing a cite was to substantiate a post ... but it seems any cite will do??? I really think not.
It was to substantiate a claim made within a thread. The cite was relevant to the claim if not to the original post.
-
Could someone please explain the relevance of the ketamine intranasal spray? Was such a product found at the apartment?
It was portrayed as a possible sedative used on the McCann kids.
-
Apologies Vertigo Swirl I will post in full and bold the relevant parts then.
Just put “snip” for the bits you remove.
-
Could someone please explain the relevance of the ketamine intranasal spray? Was such a product found at the apartment?
G-unit said she had been unable to find a drug that would put the kids to sleep for the required amount of time, Davel suggested Ketamine.
-
G-unit said she had been unable to find a drug that would put the kids to sleep for the required amount of time, Davel suggested Ketamine.
Not quite correct....gunit asked for a drug that would result in s child sleeping for 8 hours......ketamine wouldn't put a child to sleep for 8 hours but would result in sleep for 8 hours...due to its half life....many children sleep for 8 hours in any event....I supposed I should put...imo
-
It was portrayed as a possible sedative used on the McCann kids.
I never suggested it was used on the children...I could be petty and request a cite...but I'm not
-
I can find nothing which is easy to administer to a sleeping child and which keeps them sleeping for eight hours with no ill effects.
I suggested intra nasal ketamine.....the post does not even mention the McCann children
Ketamine provides clinical sedation for one HR ...cited given.but due to its 2 to 3 HR half life... cited..it would mean the child would sleep for 8 hrs...imo...as most children sleep for 8 hours anyway
I also cited an article which stated it could be given to 0 to 14 year old with no serious side effects along with several other cites
That to me seems a reasonable answer to a post
The only difference is that last night I omitted the one imo...because I assumed that most posters realise that after sedation or general anaesthesia patients tend to sleep for some time.....do I need another imo there
-
It was to substantiate a claim made within a thread. The cite was relevant to the claim if not to the original post.
It didn't substantiate the claim that " even their own son IS (present tense) questioning the whole sordid episode apparently".
The cite was a link to four year old articles about S*** mentioning that he had overheard Amarals sordid theory about his parents disposing of Madeleine's body,
Really!
However as you feel a cite has only to be provided but not be relevant, I guess this qualifies as a cite in your opinion, but not in mine.
-
I agree... according to John last night it should not be allowed without naming names
We'll deal with that if it ever happens again. Rare situation IMO.
-
I find that obeying the rules keeps me out of trouble. I recommend that other members try it instead of arguing about them.
I'm still not convinced that a sedative could be administered to sleeping children and produce the effect described by Kate McCann, Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster.
The children's bedroom was searched by Kate and Gerry McCann, Fiona Webster, Amy Tierney and the GNR officer. That would involve a light being turned on. There was reportedly a lot of noise also. The twins were then carried out of the apartment. I believe that they were carried to 4G first then to 5H later. They reportedly never woke up.
-
I find that obeying the rules keeps me out of trouble. I recommend that other members try it instead of arguing about them.
I'm still not convinced that a sedative could be administered to sleeping children and produce the effect described by Kate McCann, Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster.
The children's bedroom was searched by Kate and Gerry McCann, Fiona Webster, Amy Tierney and the GNR officer. That would involve a light being turned on. There was reportedly a lot of noise also. The twins were then carried out of the apartment. I believe that they were carried to 4G first then to 5H later. They reportedly never woke up.
You still have not supplied a cite for a direct quote from Duarte
I don't think the twins were sedated....but in a hypothetical situation IN Ketamine would be the best solution...imo
-
Not quite correct....gunit asked for a drug that would result in s child sleeping for 8 hours......ketamine wouldn't put a child to sleep for 8 hours but would result in sleep for 8 hours...due to its half life....many children sleep for 8 hours in any event....I supposed I should put...imo
Are you offering that opinion as a qualified medical professional or as a layman?
-
I am asking you as a senior moderator and since you profess to be a bit of an expert in various disciplines I was curious which one you are today? Members are entitled to know if you have a professional qualification in chemistry or medicine since you claimed such yesterday or are you merely providing an opinion as a layman.
If you are offering a qualified opinion I suggest you make admin aware of your status as has become accepted practice.
-
Since you profess to be a bit of an expert in various disciplines I was curious which one you are today? Members are entitled to know if you have a professional qualification in chemistry or medicine since you claimed such yesterday or are you merely providing an opinion as a layman.
Excellent...could you provide a cite for my claiming a qualification in chemistry or medicine...cites are now de rigeur...you obviously can't so your post should be removed
-
I don't. Even if I did and they suggest that you do sedate people as you have claimed that doesn't mean you're an expert on the properties of every sedative in existence, does it? I know you didn't make that claim, btw, that was suggested by another poster.
Knowing how to use something isn't the same as knowing all about it.
Being qualified to administer sedation is quite strictly controlled and requires an understanding of the principles and drugs used in sedation
-
It's from my personal knowledge of how sedatives work based on my extensive experience with sedatives
Would you like to expand on this claim as you yourself have stated that only a professional would have such knowledge?
-
If a dentist places a dental implant it takes about 10 mins....but the pt is booked for an hour to prep patient and surgery...that leaves 50 mins free time.....he could see another patient in another surgery or just chill on his smart phone.
-
Would you like to expand on this claim as you yourself have stated that only a professional would have such knowledge?
I am a professional and I have the knowledge and yuo have failed to provide a cite
-
I am a professional and I have the knowledge and yuo have failed to provide a cite
So you think a dentist abducted Maddie and used ketamine from his personal kit to sedate her?
-
So you think a dentist abducted Maddie and used ketamine from his personal kit to sedate her?
I've said I don't think the children were sedated
-
If a dentist places a dental implant it takes about 10 mins....but the pt is booked for an hour to prep patient and surgery...that leaves 50 mins free time.....he could see another patient in another surgery or just chill on his smart phone
So it could take an hour?
-
I've said I don't think the children were sedated
I wasn't being serious about that by the way. If there was an abductor he would have to have used something to disable his victim instantly like chloroform. Isnt there a delay with ketamine which would render it pretty useless in that situation?
-
So it could take an hour?
no....pt booked for an hour...most of that time is prepping the surgery and cleaning afterwards.....
-
I wasn't being serious about that by the way. If there was an abductor he would have to have used something to disable his victim instantly like chloroform. Isnt there a delay with ketamine which would render it pretty useless in that situation?
Im not suggesting ketamine was used ..no real delay with IN ketamine..it would be a good choice in the circumstances but i dont think it was used
-
I wasn't being serious about that by the way. If there was an abductor he would have to have used something to disable his victim instantly like chloroform. Isnt there a delay with ketamine which would render it pretty useless in that situation?
I hate to go there again ... but hasn't that been said, without naming any substance, of the children's drowsiness on the 3rd?
Didn't Madeleine ask to be carried home?
-
I hate to go there again ... but hasn't that been said, without naming any substance, of the children's drowsiness on the 3rd?
Didn't Madeleine ask to be carried home?
There's no getting away from it, everyone involved was stunned that the twins never roused once despite the hullabaloo and all the toing and froing. In my opinion the PJ lost a valuable opportunity to test the twins for any signs that they had been drugged.
-
I hate to go there again ... but hasn't that been said, without naming any substance, of the children's drowsiness on the 3rd?
Didn't Madeleine ask to be carried home?
The claim about Madeleine first appeared in Madeleine but in no statement or article before that.
I’m not aware of any claim that the twins were drowsy on the third. Do you have a cite ?
-
This Thread is hilarious.
-
There's no getting away from it, everyone involved was stunned that the twins never roused once despite the hullabaloo and all the toing and froing. In my opinion the PJ lost a valuable opportunity to test the twins for any signs that they had been drugged.
I'm not really bemused by the twins sleeping, particularly at the end of a busy day after a busy week.
I've been at both ends of the spectrum recently with a whole spate of eighteenths and one or two firsts. I was at a first birthday party on Monday where the Birthday Boy and a few others slept through an indescribable level of noise ... kids ... music ... and barking dogs.
Three weeks ago at another first birthday ... exactly the same ... the only difference being it was the Birthday Girl who led the sleep in.
Children can sleep through anything in my opinion.
-
I'm not really bemused by the twins sleeping, particularly at the end of a busy day after a busy week.
I've been at both ends of the spectrum recently with a whole spate of eighteenths and one or two firsts. I was at a first birthday party on Monday where the Birthday Boy and a few others slept through an indescribable level of noise ... kids ... music ... and barking dogs.
Three weeks ago at another first birthday ... exactly the same ... the only difference being it was the Birthday Girl who led the sleep in.
Children can sleep through anything in my opinion.
We know from Kate that the children could wake in the night when there was very little commotion going on which makes their unresponsiveness on the night and morning after Maddie disappeared all the more curious imo.
-
Question to davel.
What cite are you referring to that I have not provided?
-
We know from Kate that the children could wake in the night when there was very little commotion going on which makes their unresponsiveness on the night and morning after Maddie disappeared all the more curious imo.
been discussed at length and imo there could be quite a natural explanation
-
Question to davel.
What cite are you referring to that I have not provided?
this one today..
Members are entitled to know if you have a professional qualification in chemistry or medicine since you claimed such yesterday
I have not claimed either..Im not particularly bothered but i am being accused...falsely imo...of not giving cites..
my professional qualifications...BDS ...LDS.RCS(Eng).....and a member of SAAD...no cite provided ...take it or leave it
-
I find that obeying the rules keeps me out of trouble. I recommend that other members try it instead of arguing about them.
I'm still not convinced that a sedative could be administered to sleeping children and produce the effect described by Kate McCann, Fiona Payne and Dianne Webster.
The children's bedroom was searched by Kate and Gerry McCann, Fiona Webster, Amy Tierney and the GNR officer. That would involve a light being turned on. There was reportedly a lot of noise also. The twins were then carried out of the apartment. I believe that they were carried to 4G first then to 5H later. They reportedly never woke up.
So if that wasn't a sedative what do you think could be an alternative explanation?
-
I could expalin ..but I choose not too
There is such a thing as retirement.
-
I've said I don't think the children were sedated
So why do you think that, yet say IN Ketamine would give similar results?
-
So why do you think that, yet say IN Ketamine would give similar results?
they may have been...but I think that its more likely it was simple tiredness....
-
The claim about Madeleine first appeared in Madeleine but in no statement or article before that.
I’m not aware of any claim that the twins were drowsy on the third. Do you have a cite ?
I recall Kate saying this so it is in a video rather than a statement. IIRC
-
We know from Kate that the children could wake in the night when there was very little commotion going on which makes their unresponsiveness on the night and morning after Maddie disappeared all the more curious imo.
We saw Sean being carried from the plane in his father's arms while fast asleep. After hitting fresh air at the door, the engine noise and the noise from the media scrum, he didn't stir.
There is no rhyme or reason for a sleeping child or what will awaken one.
-
no....pt booked for an hour...most of that time is prepping the surgery and cleaning afterwards.....
Cleaning is important. In the late 1960's I had two wisdom teeth removed. I choose to be knocked out and the last thing I saw was the dentist opening a drawer and taking his extraction tool out of it. I had a terrible infection afterwards and often wondered if that implement had been sterilized. I don't know what went on but my cheek and tongue were both lacerated.
-
this one today..
Members are entitled to know if you have a professional qualification in chemistry or medicine since you claimed such yesterday
I have not claimed either..Im not particularly bothered but i am being accused...falsely imo...of not giving cites..
my professional qualifications...BDS ...LDS.RCS(Eng).....and a member of SAAD...no cite provided ...take it or leave it
Only someone with a professional qualification would claim this.
It's from my personal knowledge of how sedatives work based on my extensive experience with sedatives
I asked you if it was in the medical or chemistry industry, no goading intended by the way.
-
Cleaning is important. In the late 1960's I had two wisdom teeth removed. I choose to be knocked out and the last thing I saw was the dentist opening a drawer and taking his extraction tool out of it. I had a terrible infection afterwards and often wondered if that implement had been sterilized. I don't know what went on but my cheek and tongue were both lacerated.
Wisdom teeth would not be easy to extract, they are right at the back IMO
-
Only someone with a professional qualification would claim this.
I asked you if it was in the medical or chemistry industry, no goading intended by the way.
That's fine...best just to get on with the discussion
-
It seems to me that if Madeleine was abducted then some substance must have been used to render her unconscious otherwise she would have screamed the place down. The twins however might well have slept through the entire thing being totally oblivious that their older sister had been taken.
-
It seems to me that if Madeleine was abducted then some substance must have been used to render her unconscious otherwise she would have screamed the place down. The twins however might well have slept through the entire thing being totally oblivious that their older sister had been taken.
Apparently they did.
-
Wisdom teeth would not be easy to extract, they are right at the back IMO
I think they're quite well rooted too. No doubt he struggled, I felt like a horse had kicked me in the face when I woke up.
-
It seems to me that if Madeleine was abducted then some substance must have been used to render her unconscious otherwise she would have screamed the place down. The twins however might well have slept through the entire thing being totally oblivious that their older sister had been taken.
I'm not sure about that ... she could have been frozen by fear.
If Madeleine's was an opportune abduction ... I think it unlikely she was drugged ... particularly as I've seen nothing said about that being in the mo of either the man who was carrying out the attacks on children in their homes in the area or the burglars who were operational in the holiday resort.
It would be likely that she had been subdued by the use of drugs if her abduction had been planned. In my opinion there was enough eye witness observation recorded in the files to make a planned abduction a feasible possibility.
-
I'm not sure about that ... she could have been frozen by fear.
SNIP
But didn't an abductor carry her through the streets. Surely she would at least be thrashing around to get away not lying still for up to 40 minutes in a stranger's arms. I can't see being frozen by fear lasting that long particularly when moving around in the outside and past other people. This is IMO of course. Perhaps you could explain Brietta.
-
But didn't an abductor carry her through the streets. Surely she would at least be thrashing around to get away not lying still for up to 40 minutes in a stranger's arms. I can't see being frozen by fear lasting that long particularly when moving around in the outside and past other people. This is IMO of course. Perhaps you could explain Brietta.
Have you ever seen me claim that Madeleine was carried through the streets for forty minutes?
-
No but the abductor would have had to carry her somewhere. Apologies I was looking at the time of Gerry's last sighting of Maddie to the Smith's sighting and assumed the abductor must have been walking around for up to (i did say up to) 40 minutes. Do you believe in the smith sighting Brietta and could you see Madeleine lying frozen whilst being carried around the village?
Kate said she thought Madeleine would give them her "tuppenceworth" as I think I have read.
-
I'm not sure about that ... she could have been frozen by fear.
If Madeleine's was an opportune abduction ... I think it unlikely she was drugged ... particularly as I've seen nothing said about that being in the mo of either the man who was carrying out the attacks on children in their homes in the area or the burglars who were operational in the holiday resort.
It would be likely that she had been subdued by the use of drugs if her abduction had been planned. In my opinion there was enough eye witness observation recorded in the files to make a planned abduction a feasible possibility.
A quick application of some substance over her mouth would have ensured there wasn't a squeak out of her which might have drawn attention to what was happening. As for an opportune abduction from a bedroom, I've never heard of such a thing.
-
A quick application of some substance over her mouth would have ensured there wasn't a squeak out of her which might have drawn attention to what was happening. As for an opportune abduction from a bedroom, I've never heard of such a thing.
You would need to define that substance...it not as easy as it seems...imo...and from what I have heard chloroform leaves quite a lingering smell
-
You would need to define that substance...it not as easy as it seems...imo...and from what I have heard chloroform leaves quite a lingering smell
There are lots of household chemicals freely available off the shelf which if applied over the nose and mouth with a cloth will render a person temporarily unconscious almost immediately. A quick surf around the internet identifies many of them so it wouldn't have been terribly difficult for any abductor to get his hands on them.
-
You don’t have to take my word for it. There are photographs I took while there on gerrymccannblogs.
My only interest in davel’s occupation is that he claims expertise that derives from it.
How do we know it was you who took the photographs?
-
It seems to me that if Madeleine was abducted then some substance must have been used to render her unconscious otherwise she would have screamed the place down. The twins however might well have slept through the entire thing being totally oblivious that their older sister had been taken.
She could have been abducted asleep. Why not?
-
She could have been abducted asleep. Why not?
If the previous two nights were anything to go by then she had a predisposition to awakening in the night so that would suggest she would not have gone quietly. Indeed, someone posted a quote from Kate earlier suggesting that she would have struggled with any would-be abductor. So I can only surmise that some form of sedation would have been required to overcome her.
-
If the previous two nights were anything to go by then she had a predisposition to awakening in the night so that would suggest she would not have gone quietly. Indeed, someone posted a quote from Kate earlier suggesting that she would have struggled with any would-be abductor. So I can only surmise that some form of sedation would have been required to overcome her.
Personally I don’t believe a child that has been fast asleep is going to start kicking and screaming the second it is picked up out of bed and removed from the bedroom.
-
Personally I don’t believe a child that has been fast asleep is going to start kicking and screaming the second it is picked up out of bed and removed from the bedroom.
I suppose it depends on the child but Kate was adamant that Maddie would have kicked up a fuss.
-
I suppose it depends on the child but Kate was adamant that Maddie would have kicked up a fuss.
Do you have a cite?
-
I suppose it depends on the child but Kate was adamant that Maddie would have kicked up a fuss.
As was her grandmother.
-
Do you have a cite?
Kate even joked that Madeleine is probably giving her kidnapper a taste of her forceful character.
She said: "Madeleine is such a sociable child, so funny and engaging.
"She has a lot of personality. Her name actually means 'tower of strength'.
"She hated it when we called her Maddie. She'd say 'My name is Madeleine' with an indignant look.
"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-mccanns-agony-498019
Just for you Vertigo Swirl.
-
No but the abductor would have had to carry her somewhere. Apologies I was looking at the time of Gerry's last sighting of Maddie to the Smith's sighting and assumed the abductor must have been walking around for up to (i did say up to) 40 minutes. Do you believe in the smith sighting Brietta and could you see Madeleine lying frozen whilst being carried around the village?
Kate said she thought Madeleine would give them her "tuppenceworth" as I think I have read.
In my opinion an abductor would have got Madeleine out of sight at the earliest opportunity either into a vehicle or into a building.
-
I suppose it depends on the child but Kate was adamant that Maddie would have kicked up a fuss.
My interpretation of her remark was that Madeleine on realising she had been taken from her parents would have been capable of voicing her concern.
Not perhaps while she was drowsy but certainly when she realised she had been taken.
Perhaps Kate was voicing her hopes that Madeleine would be aware of what had happened and indeed that she would still be alive to kick up a fuss.
-
In my opinion an abductor would have got Madeleine out of sight at the earliest opportunity either into a vehicle or into a building.
Into a vehicle certainly which renders the Smith sighting all the more mysterious as the man has never come forward.
-
Into a vehicle certainly which renders the Smith sighting all the more mysterious as the man has never come forward.
Had the Smith sighting been promoted in Portugal...or the rest of Europe
-
Kate even joked that Madeleine is probably giving her kidnapper a taste of her forceful character.
She said: "Madeleine is such a sociable child, so funny and engaging.
"She has a lot of personality. Her name actually means 'tower of strength'.
"She hated it when we called her Maddie. She'd say 'My name is Madeleine' with an indignant look.
"I bet she's giving whoever she's with her tuppence worth."
https://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/kate-mccanns-agony-498019
Just for you Vertigo Swirl.
Thanks for the cite but it doesn’t say that Madeleine would have kicked up a fuss in the process of being abducted, only that she would currently (ie in 2007/08) be giving her abductor a hard time. Now, if I was really childish I would keep on demanding a cite that confirms what John wrote, thankfully for all concerned I’m not.
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564727/Madeleine-McCann-drugged-says-grandmother.html
“Speaking on the 150th day since Madeleine went missing and ahead of a renewed publicity campaign aimed at finding her, the 69-year-old told the Belfast Telegraph the family were “going through hell” as the endless stream of police leaks about Gerry and Kate’s involvement in their daughter’s disappearance continued.
Related Articles
Kate McCann will risk jail to find Madeleine 30 Sep 2007
Mrs McCann, who lives in Scotland and runs a pub, said: “I really believe they (whoever took her) gave her a drug.
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”
-
https://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1564727/Madeleine-McCann-drugged-says-grandmother.html
“Speaking on the 150th day since Madeleine went missing and ahead of a renewed publicity campaign aimed at finding her, the 69-year-old told the Belfast Telegraph the family were “going through hell” as the endless stream of police leaks about Gerry and Kate’s involvement in their daughter’s disappearance continued.
Related Articles
Kate McCann will risk jail to find Madeleine 30 Sep 2007
Mrs McCann, who lives in Scotland and runs a pub, said: “I really believe they (whoever took her) gave her a drug.
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”
Thank you, that is an acceptable cite. Actually, scrap that, it wasn’t said by Kate McCann so not acceptable.
-
Thanks for the cite but it doesn’t say that Madeleine would have kicked up a fuss in the process of being abducted, only that she would currently (ie in 2007/08) be giving her abductor a hard time. Now, if I was really childish I would keep on demanding a cite that confirms what John wrote, thankfully for all concerned I’m not.
There is a lot of information in interviews with Kate and Gerry. I have not yet discovered how to index a video and to remember what is within them. A cite to information withing a video is extremely difficult unless one is specifically discussing it.
-
Thank you, that is an acceptable cite. Actually, scrap that, it wasn’t said by Kate McCann so not acceptable.
I would imagine a cite with a quote by Gerry's mother would be acceptable. She of course would know Madeleine very well. But if it isn't good enough for you then it isn't
-
I would imagine a cite with a quote by Gerry's mother would be acceptable. She of course would know Madeleine very well. But if it isn't good enough for you then it isn't
John wrote that Kate was adamant Madeleine would have kicked up a fuss on being picked up from her bed, not Gerry’s mum. I have no doubt if Davel had written what John did and you’d asked for a cite you would have rejected it on the same grounds.
-
I would imagine a cite with a quote by Gerry's mother would be acceptable. She of course would know Madeleine very well. But if it isn't good enough for you then it isn't
Speaking as a gran, I would like to think I know my grandchildren very well but I believe their parents are far more familiar with them
And Gerry's mother lived a distance away and would not spend nearly as much time with her grandchildren as fortunately I do.
-
I would imagine a cite with a quote by Gerry's mother would be acceptable. She of course would know Madeleine very well. But if it isn't good enough for you then it isn't
Or Kate's mother, in fact anyone who knew Madeleine's character would just about do.
Speaking as a gran, I would like to think I know my grandchildren very well but I believe their parents are far more familiar with them.
And Gerry's mother lived a distance away and would not spend nearly as much time with her grandchildren as fortunately I do.
Kate's parents seem to know more about the kids IMO.
-
Speaking as a gran, I would like to think I know my grandchildren very well but I believe their parents are far more familiar with them
And Gerry's mother lived a distance away and would not spend nearly as much time with her grandchildren as fortunately I do.
Why do you think that the McCanns asked the FLOs if anything had been used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction if they didn’t believe she would have to have been sedated for it to be achieved ?
-
Why do you think that the McCanns asked the FLOs if anything had been used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction if they didn’t believe she would have to have been sedated for it to be achieved ?
I've no doubt that they considered everything and anything which could have been a contributing factor in Madeleine's abduction. IMO.
Why not share their concerns with those who were there to help and support.
-
Why do you think that the McCanns asked the FLOs if anything had been used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction if they didn’t believe she would have to have been sedated for it to be achieved ?
Did the FLOs past that concern to the PJ?
I've no doubt that they considered everything and anything which could have been a contributing factor in Madeleine's abduction. IMO.
Why not share their concerns with those who were there to help and support.
Name one if you can.
-
Did the FLOs past that concern to the PJ?
Name one if you can.
Name who?
-
I've no doubt that they considered everything and anything which could have been a contributing factor in Madeleine's abduction. IMO.
Why not share their concerns with those who were there to help and support.
Indeed but you have to agree that her parents hadn’t ruled out the fact that Madeleine may have needed to be sedated in order to abduct her?
-
Thanks for the cite but it doesn’t say that Madeleine would have kicked up a fuss in the process of being abducted, only that she would currently (ie in 2007/08) be giving her abductor a hard time. Now, if I was really childish I would keep on demanding a cite that confirms what John wrote, thankfully for all concerned I’m not.
Kate was making the point that Madeleine was not a push over. But if you want to split hairs and engage in yet another marathon safari into the cite jungle so be it.
-
Name who?
Whoever falls into the category "Why not share their concerns with those who were there to help and support."
-
John wrote that Kate was adamant Madeleine would have kicked up a fuss on being picked up from her bed, not Gerry’s mum. I have no doubt if Davel had written what John did and you’d asked for a cite you would have rejected it on the same grounds.
Where did my post go? From the cite given earlier. Not John it was Eileen McCann
Mrs McCann, who lives in Scotland and runs a pub, said: “I really believe they (whoever took her) gave her a drug.
“There is no way they carried her out of there without her awakening.
“If she was taken when she was sleeping by somebody she did not know, she would have screamed the place down.”
-
Indeed but you have to agree that her parents hadn’t ruled out the fact that Madeleine may have needed to be sedated in order to abduct her?
I have no idea of what they ruled in and ruled out.
I would imagine they went through various scenarios but what was ruled in or out , I do not know.
-
Indeed but you have to agree that her parents hadn’t ruled out the fact that Madeleine may have needed to be sedated in order to abduct her?
That is not a question, it is more a statement of fact that you are asking someone to agree with you. It is really opinion at best.
I have no idea of what they ruled in and ruled out.
I would imagine they went through various scenarios but what was ruled in or out , I do not know.
Erngath's response seems to show what you say is a fact is faulty.
-
Whoever falls into the category "Why not share their concerns with those who were there to help and support."
I assume they did share all their concerns with those who were there to help and support but I can't name any of the FLOs .
-
I have no idea of what they ruled in and ruled out.
I would imagine they went through various scenarios but what was ruled in or out , I do not know.
I understand that but to ask the question they must have at least considered that it was possible. Agreed ?
-
I understand that but to ask the question they must have at least considered that it was possible. Agreed ?
I have no doubt they considered every eventuality.
Off to watch the tennis.
The two German brothers opposing each other!
-
I assume they did share all their concerns with those who were there to help and support but I can't name any of the FLOs .
OK so you were talking about the FLOs. OK so they did share their concerns with them, that bit is in the file, but what is the benefit of that unless the FLO then do something about those concerns, and that bit is not covered in the file.
-
Kate was making the point that Madeleine was not a push over. But if you want to split hairs and engage in yet another marathon safari into the cite jungle so be it.
I have already made it very clear that that is not my style, I leave that sort of behaviour to the sticklers for the forum rules.
-
Please note that this thread has now been cleaned of all inappropriate and/or off-topic comments.
Please keep it that way. TY
-
I have no doubt they considered every eventuality.
Off to watch the tennis.
The two German brothers opposing each other!
So they must have considered Madeleine waking and having to be sedated a possibility.
-
They must also have considered the possibility that she wandered off of her own accord despite their denials that this would be possible. IMO a nearly 4 year old can open patio door and could well be the sort of child to close them too. I know of a child when 3 that did both of those things even so far as closing the door as her mother was trying to get through it. I cannot provide a cite for this clearly but is is my opinion nevertheless.
-
They must also have considered the possibility that she wandered off of her own accord despite their denials that this would be possible. IMO a nearly 4 year old can open patio door and could well be the sort of child to close them too. I know of a child when 3 that did both of those things even so far as closing the door as her mother was trying to get through it. I cannot provide a cite for this clearly but is is my opinion nevertheless.
According to the final report teh PJ regarded it as highly unlikely that maddie had woke and wandered
-
According to the final report teh PJ regarded it as highly unlikely that maddie had woke and wandered
Ah but unlikely is not impossible is it. IMO abduction is extremely unlikely but I suppose also not impossible.
-
According to the final report the PJ regarded it as highly unlikely that maddie had woke and wandered
That report is merely expressing an opinion on that possibility.
Ah but unlikely is not impossible is it. IMO abduction is extremely unlikely but I suppose also not impossible.
Absolutely correct.
-
Ah but unlikely is not impossible is it. IMO abduction is extremely unlikely but I suppose also not impossible.
they said highly unlikely...not unlikely.....they did not say abduction was unlikely...if woke and wandered is highly unlikely ...and the parents are not suspects...taht makes abduction likely
-
they said highly unlikely...not unlikely.....they did not say abduction was unlikely...if woke and wandered is highly unlikely ...and the parents are not suspects...taht makes abduction likely
You are still working with probabilities not certainties.
-
You are still working with probabilities not certainties.
Agreed.....but that's how many things work...
I don't disagree that it is possible that the McCann's are not what I think they are...but it is so unlikely that it doesn't register on the scale
-
They must also have considered the possibility that she wandered off of her own accord despite their denials that this would be possible. IMO a nearly 4 year old can open patio door and could well be the sort of child to close them too. I know of a child when 3 that did both of those things even so far as closing the door as her mother was trying to get through it. I cannot provide a cite for this clearly but is is my opinion nevertheless.
Is it your opinion that a sedated child would do this?
-
No but that wasn't part of the discussion I was replying to.
-
No but that wasn't part of the discussion I was replying to.
There has been no actual proof the kids were sedated.
-
I agree Robittybob1
-
Agreed.....but that's how many things work...
I don't disagree that it is possible that the McCann's are not what I think they are...but it is so unlikely that it doesn't register on the scale
In my experience it's very difficult to be sure if one's assessment of a person is correct. Respected people with no criminal past have been shown to have been indulging in criminal acts and people with criminal records have been shown to have been not guilty.
-
Agreed.....but that's how many things work...
I don't disagree that it is possible that the McCann's are not what I think they are...but it is so unlikely that it doesn't register on the scale
I assume that when you say "it is so unlikely that it doesn't register on the scale" it is your opinion as it isn't factually based in my opinion.
-
I have already made it very clear that that is not my style, I leave that sort of behaviour to the sticklers for the forum rules.
But you do like having a dig at the moderators here as your signature shows.
-
There are lots of household chemicals freely available off the shelf which if applied over the nose and mouth with a cloth will render a person temporarily unconscious almost immediately. A quick surf around the internet identifies many of them so it wouldn't have been terribly difficult for any abductor to get his hands on them.
Raymond Hewlett used paint thinners, if something like that was used the window could have been opened to let the smell of it out.
-
Raymond Hewlett used paint thinners, if something like that was used the window could have been opened to let the smell of it out.
Oh lol....surly kmac would have smelt that ...before the door slammed .
-
Raymond Hewlett used paint thinners, if something like that was used the window could have been opened to let the smell of it out.
The smell wouldn't have dissipated that quickly even with a window open. I know when I clean a brush out it takes hours for that smell to go. Now I clean my brushes outside. This is IMO of course.
-
Raymond Hewlett used paint thinners, if something like that was used the window could have been opened to let the smell of it out.
But why bother - we are assured that the alleged abductor was in and out in no time at all, so it wouldn't matter if a smell lingered. What would (s)he care?
-
But why bother - we are assured that the alleged abductor was in and out in no time at all, so it wouldn't matter if a smell lingered. What would (s)he care?
Only if there was an MO of sedation in other attacks in the Algarve. Which would be news to me.
-
Only if there was an MO of sedation in other attacks in the Algarve. Which would be news to me.
I agree with that.
There was no mention of the use of sedation by the perpetrator of the assaults on the children in their beds in holiday accommodation ... nor is there any indication that the burglars operating in the Mark Warner apartments carried a sedative with them.
(One wonders if those burglars confined their area of operation to the holiday accommodation or were they equally as active in the village itself?)
But there is nothing to say that the perpetrator was a native of the Algarve or even Portuguese. There was nothing to prevent a stranger importing their own MO and introducing it there.
-
I agree with that.
There was no mention of the use of sedation by the perpetrator of the assaults on the children in their beds in holiday accommodation ... nor is there any indication that the burglars operating in the Mark Warner apartments carried a sedative with them.
(One wonders if those burglars confined their area of operation to the holiday accommodation or were they equally as active in the village itself?)
But there is nothing to say that the perpetrator was a native of the Algarve or even Portuguese. There was nothing to prevent a stranger importing their own MO and introducing it there.
Mmmm maybe someone going on holiday
-
What doesn't make sense to me is that Kate claimed she thought that the children were sedated right from the start yet did nothing about it for months. She of all people should have known the risks to the children of being sedated by an unknown substance yet she didn't get them checked out or have samples taken to ensure there was nothing poisonous given to them which may be detrimental to their long term health or even, god forbid kill the twins.
Can any one explain her reasoning on this.
-
What doesn't make sense to me is that Kate claimed she thought that the children were sedated right from the start yet did nothing about it for months. She of all people should have known the risks to the children of being sedated by an unknown substance yet she didn't get them checked out or have samples taken to ensure there was nothing poisonous given to them which may be detrimental to their long term health or even, god forbid kill the twins.
Can any one explain her reasoning on this.
What sort of poisonous substance had you in mind, that sedates a child with no noticeable immedate ill effects that can harm or kill a child in later life?
-
I was talking about at that particular moment in time. You come home to your flat and a child is gone. You know everything was definitely OK before you left for the tapas at 8.30-8.45pm (so just over 1.5hrs ago). Your other children appear strangely lethargic and you wonder whether they have been sedated. You are concerned what they have been given. DO you a) do nothing except check their breathing or do you b) get them checked out immediately to see if they have been given something that poisons them (at the very least they could be allergic to this substance). Personally I would go with b.
-
What doesn't make sense to me is that Kate claimed she thought that the children were sedated right from the start yet did nothing about it for months. She of all people should have known the risks to the children of being sedated by an unknown substance yet she didn't get them checked out or have samples taken to ensure there was nothing poisonous given to them which may be detrimental to their long term health or even, god forbid kill the twins.
Can any one explain her reasoning on this.
I don't think anyone will because you can't - find any reason
like when she was checking they were breathing ..she was obviously worried . but didnt do anything.
https://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/10/fiona-payne-kate-mccann-kept-putting.html
-
I agree with that.
There was no mention of the use of sedation by the perpetrator of the assaults on the children in their beds in holiday accommodation ... nor is there any indication that the burglars operating in the Mark Warner apartments carried a sedative with them.
(One wonders if those burglars confined their area of operation to the holiday accommodation or were they equally as active in the village itself?)
But there is nothing to say that the perpetrator was a native of the Algarve or even Portuguese. There was nothing to prevent a stranger importing their own MO and introducing it there.
Brietta could you explain to me why a burglar would take a sleeping child and leave all the McCanns valuables in place. It doesn't make sense to me.
-
I was talking about at that particular moment in time. You come home to your flat and a child is gone. You know everything was definitely OK before you left for the tapas at 8.30-8.45pm (so just over 1.5hrs ago). Your other children appear strangely lethargic and you wonder whether they have been sedated. You are concerned what they have been given. DO you a) do nothing except check their breathing or do you b) get them checked out immediately to see if they have been given something that poisons them (at the very least they could be allergic to this substance). Personally I would go with b.
Thanks for sharing. This is the way I see it. Kate’s eldest child had just disappeared. Her other two children were sound asleep, showing no signs of breathing difficulties and being looked after by experienced doctors, including herself, an experienced anaesthetist. Kate’s immediate priority was Madeleine. Yes, she was concerned that they may have been sedated but rushing the twins to A & E would have a) taken her away from the vicinity of Madeleine’s disappearance and b) would have only resulted in the twins receiving the same sort of monitoring as they were already receiving from the doctors on hand. The next day the twins were OK and Kate had other things on her mind.
-
Thanks for sharing. This is the way I see it. Kate’s eldest child had just disappeared. Her other two children were sound asleep, showing no signs of breathing difficulties and being looked after by experienced doctors, including herself, an experienced anaesthetist. Kate’s immediate priority was Madeleine. Yes, she was concerned that they may have been sedated but rushing the twins to A & E would have a) taken her away from the vicinity of Madeleine’s disappearance and b) would have only resulted in the twins receiving the same sort of monitoring as they were already receiving from the doctors on hand. The next day the twins were OK and Kate had other things on her mind.
You say the same sort of monitoring but I would imagine they may give the twins blood tests etc to identify any foreign substances that they have been given. This would confirm whether or not they were drugged and what would have happened if one of the twins had a seizure due to the drug given, in a hospital setting with equipment and other drugs it would be much more likely to have a happy outcome.
I am adding the above is my opinion. I have provided cites later in the thread though.
-
Thanks for sharing. This is the way I see it. Kate’s eldest child had just disappeared. Her other two children were sound asleep, showing no signs of breathing difficulties and being looked after by experienced doctors, including herself, an experienced anaesthetist. Kate’s immediate priority was Madeleine. Yes, she was concerned that they may have been sedated but rushing the twins to A & E would have a) taken her away from the vicinity of Madeleine’s disappearance and b) would have only resulted in the twins receiving the same sort of monitoring as they were already receiving from the doctors on hand. The next day the twins were OK and Kate had other things on her mind.
Do you have a cite for the monitoring equivalence to hospital?
-
Do you have a cite for the monitoring equivalence to hospital?
No. I was talking bollocks. Is that the correct answer?
-
No. I was talking bollocks. Is that the correct answer?
Your prerogative.
-
You say the same sort of monitoring but I would imagine they may give the twins blood tests etc to identify any foreign substances that they have been given. This would confirm whether or not they were drugged and what would have happened if one of the twins had a seizure due to the drug given, in a hospital setting with equipment and other drugs it would be much more likely to have a happy outcome.
Could you provide a cite regarding the hospital procedures when a child is admitted to hospital when it is suspected they may have been sedated, thanks.
-
I assume that when you say "it is so unlikely that it doesn't register on the scale" it is your opinion as it isn't factually based in my opinion.
Sentences with the words "I think" are clearly noted as opinion OK.
As Davel said:
"I don't disagree that it is possible that the McCann's are not what I think they are...but it is so unlikely that it doesn't register on the scale."
-
OK sorry I missed that bit Robittybob1 *%^^&
-
Your prerogative.
Yes, silly me for imagining that a bunch of experienced doctors watching over two sleeping children would be able to discern whether they were getting into difficulties or facing a life-threatening situation.
-
What doesn't make sense to me is that Kate claimed she thought that the children were sedated right from the start yet did nothing about it for months. She of all people should have known the risks to the children of being sedated by an unknown substance yet she didn't get them checked out or have samples taken to ensure there was nothing poisonous given to them which may be detrimental to their long term health or even, god forbid kill the twins.
Can any one explain her reasoning on this.
That appears to be factually incorrect when you read the statements from the Liaison officers.
-
What sort of poisonous substance had you in mind, that sedates a child with no noticeable immedate ill effects that can harm or kill a child in later life?
Halothane comes to mind. It causes liver problems.
"Background
Halothane and other halogenated inhalational anesthetic agents, such as enflurane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane, are known to cause severe liver dysfunction. The National Halothane Study, a retrospective analysis, reviewed the incidence and mortality rates of postoperative hepatic necrosis from 1959-1962. [1] This study found that, of 82 cases of fatal hepatic necrosis, 9 cases were deemed likely to be drug induced. Seven of the 9 patients had received halothane. Based on this study, the risk of fatal halothane hepatotoxicity was estimated to be 1 in 35,000. When the World Health Organization (WHO) drug monitoring database was reviewed for the medications that most commonly cause fatal hepatotoxicity; halothane was one of the 10 most common causes. Given this risk, halothane is not recommended for use in adults."
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/166232-overview
-
Do you have a cite for the monitoring equivalence to hospital?
There are plenty of cases where patients gone to hospital have to wait an extraordinary amount of time in the waiting room before being examined.
-
Could you provide a cite regarding the hospital procedures when a child is admitted to hospital when it is suspected they may have been sedated, thanks.
Your request for a cite is cancelled as it was said "but I would imagine" so it isn't a claim but an opinion based on imagination.
-
Halothane comes to mind. It causes liver problems.
"Background
Halothane and other halogenated inhalational anesthetic agents, such as enflurane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane, are known to cause severe liver dysfunction. The National Halothane Study, a retrospective analysis, reviewed the incidence and mortality rates of postoperative hepatic necrosis from 1959-1962. [1] This study found that, of 82 cases of fatal hepatic necrosis, 9 cases were deemed likely to be drug induced. Seven of the 9 patients had received halothane. Based on this study, the risk of fatal halothane hepatotoxicity was estimated to be 1 in 35,000. When the World Health Organization (WHO) drug monitoring database was reviewed for the medications that most commonly cause fatal hepatotoxicity; halothane was one of the 10 most common causes. Given this risk, halothane is not recommended for use in adults."
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/166232-overview
Wouldn’t you need a machine and mask for delivering this anasthetic?
-
Halothane comes to mind. It causes liver problems.
"Background
Halothane and other halogenated inhalational anesthetic agents, such as enflurane, isoflurane, sevoflurane, and desflurane, are known to cause severe liver dysfunction. The National Halothane Study, a retrospective analysis, reviewed the incidence and mortality rates of postoperative hepatic necrosis from 1959-1962. [1] This study found that, of 82 cases of fatal hepatic necrosis, 9 cases were deemed likely to be drug induced. Seven of the 9 patients had received halothane. Based on this study, the risk of fatal halothane hepatotoxicity was estimated to be 1 in 35,000. When the World Health Organization (WHO) drug monitoring database was reviewed for the medications that most commonly cause fatal hepatotoxicity; halothane was one of the 10 most common causes. Given this risk, halothane is not recommended for use in adults."
https://emedicine.medscape.com/article/166232-overview
Halothane is not a sedative....it's a very short acting anaesthetic..i don't think it would fit the bill as something that would have been given to the twins to keep them asleep..
It wasnt used to induce anaesthesia but to maintain it...often for several hours so that's when rare situations like halothane hepatitis might rarely occur..
If it was to produce problems their would be symptoms...and the twins didn't show these symptoms
-
Wouldn’t you need a machine and mask for delivering this anasthetic?
That wasn't what you asked for originally but any volatile substance could be applied via a cloth like they did with chloroform I'd imagine. I can't remember doing this myself but I do remember being knocked out with chloroform.
-
That wasn't what you asked for originally but any volatile substance could be applied via a cloth like they did with chloroform I'd imagine. I can't remember doing this myself but I do remember being knocked out with chloroform.
Again it's very short acting...how long were you knocked out fot
-
Yes, silly me for imagining that a bunch of experienced doctors watching over two sleeping children would be able to discern whether they were getting into difficulties or facing a life-threatening situation.
That’s not what you said. You said...
... would have only resulted in the twins receiving the same sort of monitoring as they were already receiving from the doctors on hand.
-
Unlike the movies, chloroform is not fast acting. A soaked rag held over a victim's face would take up to five minutes to render them unconscious. Once unconscious an individual would require additional applications to remain “under”. The effects of chloroform on a human is proportional to exposure and dosage.
Quoted from online article
-
Halothane is not a sedative....it's a very short acting anaesthetic..i don't think it would fit the bill as something that would have been given to the twins to keep them asleep..
It wasnt used to induce anaesthesia but to maintain it...often for several hours so that's when rare situations like halothane hepatitis might rarely occur..
If it was to produce problems their would be symptoms...and the twins didn't show these symptoms
Madeleine is missing and the twins are not so it is just an assumption the same substances were possibly used on all three of them. The twins could have been sedated but Madeline given halothane for the short acting anaesthetic effect.
It is all hypothetical as we just do not know what happened.
-
That’s not what you said. You said...
It’s what I meant.
-
Unlike the movies, chloroform is not fast acting. A soaked rag held over a victim's face would take up to five minutes to render them unconscious. Once unconscious an individual would require additional applications to remain “under”. The effects of chloroform on a human is proportional to exposure and dosage.
Quoted from online article
Well when I was a kid I went to the dentist and he sedated me with a cloth impregnated with something. I was told to count and I didn't stay conscious for long. What substance would that have been 55 years ago?
Was it ether?
-
Madeleine is missing and the twins are not so it is just an assumption the same substances were possibly used on all three of them. The twins could have been sedated but Madeline given halothane for the short acting anaesthetic effect.
It is all hypothetical as we just do not know what happened.
So basically we can make anything up and day it could have happened and should be taken seriously...it isn't what's possible it's what's probable that's important....
-
So basically we can make anything up and day it could have happened and should be taken seriously...it isn't what's possible it's what's probable that's important....
Are you saying the alleged abductor had lots of experience in the use of these sedatives?
-
Well when I was a kid I went to the dentist and he sedated me with a cloth impregnated with something. I was told to count and I didn't stay conscious for long. What substance would that have been 55 years ago?
How long and how goods your memory from 55 hrs ago
Could have been lots of things but sounds an incredibly dangerous thing to do....could have been ether...
The point is how long were you out for...prob less than a minute...and that's all it takes to take s tooth out
-
Are you saying the alleged abductor had lots of experience in the use of these sedatives?
I think sedation is unlikely
-
Kate admits that in the first 48 hours she and her husband were non functioning so not exactly ideal individuals for monitoring unresponsive children. Not one of their friends claim they made any attempt to monitor the children.
-
Kate admits that in the first 48 hours she and her husband were non functioning so not exactly ideal individuals for monitoring unresponsive children. Not one of their friends claim they made any attempt to monitor the children.
aIf they were non-functioning how do you expect them to have made rational decisions then?
PS: love the way you have me on ignore yet are still responding to my posts. ^*&&
-
What about the magic gas they use in France to put the whole household to sleep...seems to happen quite a lot
Yet doctors don't know what this gas is and it never seems to be used outside France...are french burglars expert anaesthetists
-
Sceptics posters seem to think if they can't work out how something is done...then it must be impossible... faith couldn't work out how I do the job I do and post all day...so she assumes it's impossible....good example
-
How long and how goods your memory from 55 hrs ago
Could have been lots of things but sounds an incredibly dangerous thing to do....could have been ether...
The point is how long were you out for...prob less than a minute...and that's all it takes to take s tooth out
It was a pretty traumatic time, so I remember that bit "Dr Neumann" was the dentist. I can't recall his first name.
-
It was a pretty traumatic time, so I remember that bit "Dr Neumann" was the dentist. I can't recall his first name.
Alfred E?
-
It was a pretty traumatic time, so I remember that bit "Dr Neumann" was the dentist. I can't recall his first name.
40 hrs ago in the UK halothane and flouthane were not ised to put children to sleep...it would be nitrous oxide then halothane to keep them asleep as an adjunct with nitrous oxide
-
Alfred E?
Would that be Fred Neumann? I can't remember but Fred Neumann runs well together. What made you ask that?
-
What about the magic gas they use in France to put the whole household to sleep...seems to happen quite a lot
Yet doctors don't know what this gas is and it never seems to be used outside France...are french burglars expert anaesthetists
Gas was used in Scotland many years ago. It could be administered by a qualified dentist, however a doctor and nurse had to be present to administer intravenously for difficult extractions or full extractions. My Uncle was a dentist.
-
Gas was used in Scotland many years ago. It could be administered by a qualified dentist, however a doctor and nurse had to be present to administer intravenously for difficult extractions or full extractions. My Uncle was a dentist.
Gas and intravenous agents...brietal...could be given by a dentist...no doctor necessary..the Poswillow report changed everything
-
Brietta could you explain to me why a burglar would take a sleeping child and leave all the McCanns valuables in place. It doesn't make sense to me.
Whoever took Madeleine took one of the most valuable things in the apartment ... but your question to me is off topic since it makes no reference to whether or not Madeleine was drugged or not.
In my opinion there could have been a link to a burglar who might have been no stranger to substance abuse and therefore dealers who may have had access to something which could be used to subdue a child.
Drug users and drug dealers are not nice people ... and burglars with an expertise in invading homes and getting out without being seen ... are not terribly nice individuals either.
Madeleine may have been seen as a valuable commodity and ... money talks.
-
Gas and intravenous agents...brietal...could be given by a dentist...no doctor necessary..the Poswillow report changed everything
So if sedation was involved we should include dentists as possible suspects, is that the conclusion?
-
Whoever took Madeleine took one of the most valuable things in the apartment ... but your question to me is off topic since it makes no reference to whether or not Madeleine was drugged or not.
In my opinion there could have been a link to a burglar who might have been no stranger to substance abuse and therefore dealers who may have had access to something which could be used to subdue a child.
Drug users and drug dealers are not nice people ... and burglars with an expertise in invading homes and getting out without being seen ... are not terribly nice individuals either.
Madeleine may have been seen as a valuable commodity and ... money talks.
Remember there was a huge reward. If this wasn’t done in isolation there would have been someone on the periphery willing to talk for money.
-
So if sedation was involved we should include dentists as possible suspects, is that the conclusion?
I don't think so
-
Remember there was a huge reward. If this wasn’t done in isolation there would have been someone on the periphery willing to talk for money.
Is that a fact, or your opinion?
-
Is that a fact, or your opinion?
It was a conditional statement "If this wasn’t done in isolation ...."
-
Remember there was a huge reward. If this wasn’t done in isolation there would have been someone on the periphery willing to talk for money.
Yet again you are risking deflecting the thread from its topic. We should be discussing whether or not Madeleine and the twins were drugged ... in my opinion it would be a good idea to stick to that subject.
-
Yet again you are risking deflecting the thread from its topic. We should be discussing whether or not Madeleine and the twins were drugged ... in my opinion it would be a good idea to stick to that subject.
It was you who mentioned drug addicts. Drug addicts are very partial to easy money I’m told.
-
It was you who mentioned drug addicts. Drug addicts are very partial to easy money I’m told.
Cite please. "It was you who mentioned drug addicts" show us the cite.
-
Cite please. "It was you who mentioned drug addicts" show us the cite.
#409
-
#409
"Drug users and drug dealers are not nice people ... and burglars with an expertise in invading homes and getting out without being seen ... are not terribly nice individuals either."
OK thanks "users and dealers" but not "addicts".
-
"Drug users and drug dealers are not nice people ... and burglars with an expertise in invading homes and getting out without being seen ... are not terribly nice individuals either."
OK thanks "users and dealers" but not "addicts".
Though of course Drug Users are not nice people is a sweeping generalisation.
-
Though of course Drug Users are not nice people is a sweeping generalisation.
I was using the "Search" function for "addicts" and there were no recent usages of the word on the forum, so it got me confused. I didn't try "drug" as I thought it would yield too many results.
Live and learn as they say.
-
Could you provide a cite regarding the hospital procedures when a child is admitted to hospital when it is suspected they may have been sedated, thanks.
I have a cite from the police
Initial response if drug or salt-induced poisoning is suspected
Where the investigating officer suspects that drug or salt-induced poisoning is the cause of apparent illness, this should be brought to the attention of an examining physician. A request should be made for appropriate blood, hair and urine samples to be obtained for forensic analysis and hospital use. Some toxins are present in body fluids for only a limited time following administration. The investigating officer should, therefore, identify and seize any material that contains body fluids from the child (eg, traces of blood, vomit, urine or faeces). Feeding bottles and other equipment associated with feeding the child should also be seized for examination along with samples of any leftover food. Advice should be obtained from a CSI on the correct storage, packaging and submission of any items seized.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/child-abuse/concern-for-a-child/#initial-response-if-drug-or-salt-induced-poisoning-is-suspected
And this
Emergent Clinical Care
Drug testing may identify possible toxins when a patient presents with altered mental status. In truly emergent situations, consent may be inferred, and testing should be considered in accident victims, after a suicide attempt, for unexplained seizures, for syncope or arrhythmias, or in the presence of toxidromal signs and symptoms that render the patient incapable of informed consent. In the case of a toxidrome, physical findings should guide the clinician to test for a specific panel of substances, even with minimal or no history available. A positive test result for a substance suspected on the basis of clinical findings is less likely to be a false-positive or spurious result because of the higher pretest probability in this setting. However, drug testing has significant limitations, even in the emergency setting. Standard laboratory tests detect drug metabolites with an unreliable frequency and often have reference ranges far lower than therapeutic dosages; thus, they may identify substances that are present but not causing the observed symptoms. Emergency management of an obtunded patient, such as the decision to give naloxone, is made on clinical grounds and not on the basis of results of a laboratory test. Nonetheless, the results of a drug test may be helpful in determining management once the patient is stabilized. 19
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/6/e1798
I hope that these two will answer your question.
-
That appears to be factually incorrect when you read the statements from the Liaison officers.
Difficult to say really as the FLO statements were given in April 2008 and my post was based upon the McCanns initial response to the twins lethargy. We don't know when the FLO's were told by the McCanns about their drug concerns. The officer I mentioned earlier in this thread didn't get to PDL until the 5th May 2007.
I hope this clarifies my earlier post Robittybob1
-
Difficult to say really as the FLO statements were given in April 2008 and my post was based upon the McCanns initial response to the twins lethargy. We don't know when the FLO's were told by the McCanns about their drug concerns. The officer I mentioned earlier in this thread didn't get to PDL until the 5th May 2007.
I hope this clarifies my earlier post Robittybob1
Did you you read the statements? The meeting between the McCanns and the FLO was on the 5th. So IMO they were informed immediately. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm
"In relation to the above I would like to mention that at approximately 20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ.
I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction."
-
I have a cite from the police
Initial response if drug or salt-induced poisoning is suspected
Where the investigating officer suspects that drug or salt-induced poisoning is the cause of apparent illness, this should be brought to the attention of an examining physician. A request should be made for appropriate blood, hair and urine samples to be obtained for forensic analysis and hospital use. Some toxins are present in body fluids for only a limited time following administration. The investigating officer should, therefore, identify and seize any material that contains body fluids from the child (eg, traces of blood, vomit, urine or faeces). Feeding bottles and other equipment associated with feeding the child should also be seized for examination along with samples of any leftover food. Advice should be obtained from a CSI on the correct storage, packaging and submission of any items seized.
https://www.app.college.police.uk/app-content/major-investigation-and-public-protection/child-abuse/concern-for-a-child/#initial-response-if-drug-or-salt-induced-poisoning-is-suspected
And this
Emergent Clinical Care
Drug testing may identify possible toxins when a patient presents with altered mental status. In truly emergent situations, consent may be inferred, and testing should be considered in accident victims, after a suicide attempt, for unexplained seizures, for syncope or arrhythmias, or in the presence of toxidromal signs and symptoms that render the patient incapable of informed consent. In the case of a toxidrome, physical findings should guide the clinician to test for a specific panel of substances, even with minimal or no history available. A positive test result for a substance suspected on the basis of clinical findings is less likely to be a false-positive or spurious result because of the higher pretest probability in this setting. However, drug testing has significant limitations, even in the emergency setting. Standard laboratory tests detect drug metabolites with an unreliable frequency and often have reference ranges far lower than therapeutic dosages; thus, they may identify substances that are present but not causing the observed symptoms. Emergency management of an obtunded patient, such as the decision to give naloxone, is made on clinical grounds and not on the basis of results of a laboratory test. Nonetheless, the results of a drug test may be helpful in determining management once the patient is stabilized. 19
http://pediatrics.aappublications.org/content/133/6/e1798
I hope that these two will answer your question.
Salt induced poisoning is quite rare. I don't know if you could really follow those detailed instructions, but as far as I could follow them, if the kids were appearing just asleep and breathing and not in any immediate danger they would just be left to sleep it off.
"such as the decision to give naloxone, is made on clinical grounds and not on the basis of results of a laboratory test. Nonetheless, the results of a drug test may be helpful in determining management once the patient is stabilized."
Treatment is made on clinical grounds. If they are sleeping let them sleep seems logical to me.
-
Did you you read the statements? The meeting between the McCanns and the FLO was on the 5th. So IMO they were informed immediately. http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm
"In relation to the above I would like to mention that at approximately 20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ.
I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction."
Your last paragraph isn’t a question to the FLOs, “have the twins been drugged” though.
-
Salt induced poisoning is quite rare. I don't know if you could really follow those detailed instructions, but as far as I could follow them, if the kids were appearing just asleep and breathing and not in any immediate danger they would just be left to sleep it off.
"such as the decision to give naloxone, is made on clinical grounds and not on the basis of results of a laboratory test. Nonetheless, the results of a drug test may be helpful in determining management once the patient is stabilized."
Treatment is made on clinical grounds. If they are sleeping let them sleep seems logical to me.
What he said.
-
Your last paragraph isn’t a question to the FLOs, “have the twins been drugged” though.
Who knows the precise words used - this is fourth or fifth hand reporting.
-
Who knows the precise words used - this is fourth or fifth hand reporting.
No it was a direct statement given to other police by the person who heard what the McCanns asked although to be fair it was translated into Portuguese. But definitely not fourth or fifth hand reporting IMO
-
No it was a direct statement given to other police by the person who heard what the McCanns asked although to be fair it was translated into Portuguese. But definitely not fourth or fifth hand reporting IMO
Kate speaks to the FLO, the FLO tells the police, the police write it down in Portuguese, it’s translated back into English. 4th hand reporting IMO.
-
Kate speaks to the FLO, the FLO tells the police, the police write it down in Portuguese, it’s translated back into English. 4th hand reporting IMO.
It’s not a complicated sentence.
-
Kate speaks to the FLO, the FLO tells the police, the police write it down in Portuguese, it’s translated back into English. 4th hand reporting IMO.
Should I chose to be pedantic I could say third hand reporting as we are talking about the FLO's statement and what he heard.
-
deleted
-
It’s not a complicated sentence.
So is it your opinion that the only words spoken by Kate and Gerry on the subject to the FLO were:
“We question whether there is any suggestion that drugs were used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction”?
-
In their original rogatory questions the PJ's questions to the FLO's were more detailed. Following a request by Stuart Prior, those questions were deleted and replaced with the one question suggested by Prior. Even so, two of the FLO's went a bit further and gave some detail. I wonder why Prior felt it necessary to change the questions to be asked?
The public Prosecutor of the Portimao jurisdiction in Portugal, requests to the competent judicial authorities in the United Kingsom in complement with the Letter of Request despatched under official 3704438 dated of the 23/01/2008 to omit and replace the questions formulated under point XIV (only in replacement of part (N| 7) where it inquired "Can you point out any incident with Kate or Gerald McCann?", XVI and XXII with the new wording, due to formal imperatives and main request of the responsible for the accomplishment of the Letters of Request, Mr Stuart Prior, which the translation refers to.
Point XIV - remove the question n| 7, replacing it by the following: "Was there anything said or done by Kate or Gerald McCann in your presence or during any contact with them that raised any suspicion that they had any knowledge of what happened to Madeleine, other than of the circumstances described to the Portuguese investigators?"
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/RESPONSE-ROGATORY.htm
-
So is it your opinion that the only words spoken by Kate and Gerry on the subject to the FLO were:
“We question whether there is any suggestion that drugs were used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction”?
That’s what FLO reported, that the McCanns had questioned.... if they had asked if they had been drugged, IMO the FLO would have reported such.
-
If the PJ hadn't had to amend their questions the FLO's may have been able to give more information. The original questions can't be seen in full, but ;it's possible to see enough to suggest that the answers would have clarified what was said;
(http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/CR2/cr2_120.jpg)
-
The thread is veering Off Topic ... please make the attempt to stick to discussion of whether or not all three children had been sedated by an intruder. Thank you
-
That’s what FLO reported, that the McCanns had questioned.... if they had asked if they had been drugged, IMO the FLO would have reported such.
Of course they would. Why didn’t they also request that the twins be tested for drugs ?
-
Your last paragraph isn’t a question to the FLOs, “have the twins been drugged” though.
"any suggestion" would include drugging the twins IMO. There was no way to directly run tests on Madeleine.
-
Who knows the precise words used - this is fourth or fifth hand reporting.
What did you mean precisely? What do you mean " this is fourth or fifth hand reporting"?
-
Posters are reminded of the forum rules and in particular should keep comments, RELATIVE, AMIABLE and CONSTRUCTIVE. You could call it the RAC of the forum world.
Please do not engage in sniping, goading or name calling as such conduct will attract penalties.
Have a great weekend everyone!!
-
That’s what FLO reported, that the McCanns had questioned.... if they had asked if they had been drugged, IMO the FLO would have reported such.
Why would they ask the FLO if they had been drugged?
-
Why would they ask the FLO if they had been drugged?
That is what is being suggested IMO. The FLO’s were the first to be informed of the suspicion of drugging.
-
That is what is being suggested IMO. The FLO’s were the first to be informed of the suspicion of drugging.
Sorry, I’m following. The McCanns raised the issue of the possibility that sedation may have played a part in Madeleine’s disappearance with the FLOs the next day and this is problematical because...?
-
It wasn't the next day it was at the very least 2 days later Vertigo Swirl.
-
Sorry, I’m following. The McCanns raised the issue of the possibility that sedation may have played a part in Madeleine’s disappearance with the FLOs the next day and this is problematical because...?
Except the cites show they didn’t.
-
Wonder if they continued with ‘because we believe our remaing children were drugged too. We did tell the officers on the night but they seem to have ignored us. Please could you ask the PJ if they’ll have them tested”.........no I don’t think so either.
-
Except the cites show they didn’t.
Why not? That’s exactly what the cite shows -what am I missing?
-
It wasn't the next day it was at the very least 2 days later Vertigo Swirl.
When did the FLOs arrive?
-
Why not? That’s exactly what the cite shows -what am I missing?
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction.
This isn’t the same as we think the children were drugged.
-
So, two days after Madeleine’s disappearance the McCanns raise the issue of the possibility that Madeleine was drugged with the FLOs and may or may not have expressed fears that the twins too had been drugged. Why would they bring this up at all if they had been responsible in the first place, knowing that there would be a possibility that the twins would be tested too? Surely on the ball police detectives would have had the twins tested to rule in or out the use of sedatives, the McCanns were not to know in advance if the police WERE on the ball enough to do so.
-
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction.
This isn’t the same as we think the children were drugged.
What’s the principle difference in your view?
-
What’s the principle difference in your view?
What it says. They were asking if there was a suggestion of drugs being used not if drugs were use.
-
If the McCanns hadn’t made the police aware that the twins had been unusually unresponsive why would the police even consider that they’d been drugged ?
-
What it says. They were asking if there was a suggestion of drugs being used not if drugs were use.
That’s an incredibly nit-picky point particularly as it’s a second or third hand reporting of the words the McCanns actually DID use. I can’t believe the McCanns spoke one single short sentence to the FLO about it with no further conversation or elaboration.
-
If the McCanns hadn’t made the police aware that the twins had been unusually unresponsive why would the police even consider that they’d been drugged ?
Because if the police considered the possibility that Madeleine had been drugged it should have crossed their minds that the other children may have been interfered with in a similar way. Aren’t detectives supposed to think outside the box and look for clues like this, or do they have to wait to be spoonfed information?
-
Some people think the McCanns raised the issue of sedation because they knew that if Madeleine’s body were found it would be examined and a sedative discovered and this would point the finger at them. This makes no sense because bringing up the issue in advance is not going to change anything and they could just as well have blamed it on an abductor after the body was found.
-
The McCanns when asking the FLO if there was anything used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction could merely have been fishing for information.
-
The McCanns when asking the FLO if there was anything used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction could merely have been fishing for information.
How on earth would the FLOs have known anything about it? Fishing for what information anyway?
-
Sorry, I’m following. The McCanns raised the issue of the possibility that sedation may have played a part in Madeleine’s disappearance with the FLOs the next day and this is problematical because...?
It is problematic because it is not clear that anything was done about the request to the FLOs. Did the request get passed onto the PJ and what did the PJ do to settle the question?
-
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction.
This isn’t the same as we think the children were drugged.
It would not have been raised in isolation. The whole discussion is not reported IMO.
-
If the McCanns hadn’t made the police aware that the twins had been unusually unresponsive why would the police even consider that they’d been drugged ?
Because of what all the others said in their statements.
-
The McCanns when asking the FLO if there was anything used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction could merely have been fishing for information.
They could have been. But what do you think?
-
The McCanns when asking the FLO if there was anything used to facilitate Madeleine’s abduction could merely have been fishing for information.
There were two related subjects mentioned to the FLO's. The crying the night before (it's still 'the twins', note, not Madeleine and Sean), and possible sedation.
The crying incident, they thought, may have been triggered by 'the abductor' the previous night.
As no-one cried on Thursday, perhaps 'the abductor' returned with the means of silencing the children?
Did the PJ find any evidence that Madeleine had been sedated?
I would like to mention that at approximately 20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ.
I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm
-
There were two related subjects mentioned to the FLO's. The crying the night before (it's still 'the twins', note, not Madeleine and Sean), and possible sedation.
The crying incident, they thought, may have been triggered by 'the abductor' the previous night.
As no-one cried on Thursday, perhaps 'the abductor' returned with the means of silencing the children?
Did the PJ find any evidence that Madeleine had been sedated?
I would like to mention that at approximately 20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ.
I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm
Perhaps the morning of the disappearance recollection was to cover the fact that sedation had been administered more than once ?
-
It is problematic because it is not clear that anything was done about the request to the FLOs. Did the request get passed onto the PJ and what did the PJ do to settle the question?
We don't know what was done because it's not disclosed.The FLO's, it should be noted, aren't messenger boys. They are police officers who listen to what people have to say and make their own minds up if it's of use to the investigators. Although they are sympathetic they are also used to gather information useful to the investigation. The PJ weren't accustomed to using them. They got the hang of it later and used Paiva in the role.
-
There were two related subjects mentioned to the FLO's. The crying the night before (it's still 'the twins', note, not Madeleine and Sean), and possible sedation.
The crying incident, they thought, may have been triggered by 'the abductor' the previous night.
As no-one cried on Thursday, perhaps 'the abductor' returned with the means of silencing the children?
Did the PJ find any evidence that Madeleine had been sedated?
I would like to mention that at approximately 20.00 on the 5th May, I arrived at the McCann apartment with other family communications officers. We were asked several times during this meeting about questions that Gerald and Kate would like to have followed up and responded to by the PJ.
I remember that during the meetings, Kate revealed that Madeleine had spoken with her in the morning of her disappearance and said that she remembered the twins had cried during the night and that she wanted to know why neither her mother or father had appeared. Kate asked herself whether this fact could have any relation with Madeleine’s disappearance.
Gerry and Kate also questioned whether there was any suggestion that pointed to the use of drugs to facilitate Madeleine's abduction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/JIM_McGARVEY.htm
Very interesting to consider how the three nights could have been connected. Mrs Fenn reporting crying on Tuesday night. Madeleine complaining about lack of parental attention on the Wednesday night and Madeleine missing with the twins possibly sedated on the Thursday night.
I can see a scenario where all 3 nights are connected, can you?
-
We don't know what was done because it's not disclosed.The FLO's, it should be noted, aren't messenger boys. They are police officers who listen to what people have to say and make their own minds up if it's of use to the investigators. Although they are sympathetic they are also used to gather information useful to the investigation. The PJ weren't accustomed to using them. They got the hang of it later and used Paiva in the role.
Could the FLOs have run toxicology tests themselves while in Portugal?
-
Perhaps the morning of the disappearance recollection was to cover the fact that sedation had been administered more than once ?
How does that work then?
-
We also don't know when the McCanns spoke about drugs to the FLO there is no record of a date only that they did at some point and as the FLO's arrived (or at least one did) on 5th May 2007 and the statement was given in April 2008 how do we know if the McCanns did not speak to the FLO's say around September 2007 when I think they publicly raised the possible drugged scenario and had the twins tested. All my opinion of course.
-
We also don't know when the McCanns spoke about drugs to the FLO there is no record of a date only that they did at some point and as the FLO's arrived (or at least one did) on 5th May 2007 and the statement was given in April 2008 how do we know if the McCanns did not speak to the FLO's say around September 2007 when I think they publicly raised the possible drugged scenario and had the twins tested. All my opinion of course.
Why would they even bother to raise the possibility months later if they were somehow involved?
-
The CSI team tested Madeleine's bedding on 4/5 for traces of chloroform by sniffing, which proved negative, Can anyone think of a reason why the bedding wasn't bagged & sent off for toxicology tests and, at the same time, the PJ asking if the twins had displayed any unusual symptoms which required further investigation?
-
Why would they even bother to raise the possibility months later if they were somehow involved?
It could be for the same reason that they decided to get the twins and kate checked for drugs in November 2007. But you have to ask them why they did that then and not sooner. IMO
-
The CSI team tested Madeleine's bedding on 4/5 for traces of chloroform by sniffing, which proved negative, Can anyone think of a reason why the bedding wasn't bagged & sent off for toxicology tests and, at the same time, the PJ asking if the twins had displayed any unusual symptoms which required further investigation?
The PJ had nothing to suggest drugs had been used and the McCanns hadn’t mentioned any unusual symptoms in their first witness statements so why would the PJ enquire further about the twins ?
-
The PJ had nothing to suggest drugs had been used and the McCanns hadn’t mentioned any unusual symptoms in their first witness statements so why would the PJ enquire further about the twins ?
That is a very poor excuse to use on behalf of a team of expert criminal investigators.IMO.
-
Could the FLOs have run toxicology tests themselves while in Portugal?
I can't think why they would want to. They couldn't test Madeleine and there was no evidence to suggest that the twins had been sedated.
-
That is a very poor excuse to use on behalf of a team of expert criminal investigators.IMO.
Is it ?
I was trying to think of a case where a child was abducted from her bed and their siblings were tested for drugs as a matter of course. I couldn’t think of one. Can you ?
-
I can't think why they would want to. They couldn't test Madeleine and there was no evidence to suggest that the twins had been sedated.
Kate McCann was insisting Madeleine had been abducted. The CSI team sniffed bedding in an attempt to detect the use of chloroform. Was that the extent of obtaining potential evidence which would help show how an abduction had been facilitated without disturbing the other 2 occupants in the bedroom?
-
Is it ?
I was trying to think of a case where a child was abducted from her bed and their siblings were tested for drugs as a matter of course. I couldn’t think of one. Can you ?
If the kids were all in the same room maybe it is something to consider doing.
-
Is it ?
I was trying to think of a case where a child was abducted from her bed and their siblings were tested for drugs as a matter of course. I couldn’t think of one. Can you ?
I'd struggle to find a case, other than Rosie Tapia, where a child was taken from a room with multiple occupants.
-
I'd struggle to find a case, other than Rosie Tapia, where a child was taken from a room with multiple occupants.
Were the other occupants tested for drugs ?
-
Were the other occupants tested for drugs ?
No idea. It happened in USA in 1995.
-
I can't find anything either Misty.
I have though found an old link to an article on here
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=7852.0
Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken
Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386093/Kate-McCann-Kidnapper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html#ixzz4Tpd4uTpc
Follow us: @MailOnline on Twitter | DailyMail on Facebook
Does the forum think this is really practical? What would be the point?
A good summary of the issues here:
http://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/133307/MADELEINE-EXCLUSIVE-All-three-children-drugged
"They are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children.
The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.
Had the twins been tested for drugs immediately, any medication used could have been established, making it easier to identify the kidnapper, but vital time was lost.
Chloroform can be made easily and other sedatives, such as the horse tranquilliser ketamine, are commonly in circulation in the criminal underworld.
Even now, however, experts say there may be forensic clues on clothing or bedding which could yield a breakthrough."
290
Interesting that Edgar appears to claim (IMO) that the McCanns thought chloroform may have been used. This article dates from 2009 by the way. The post above appears to be a shortened version of the Express news story
https://www.express.co.uk/news/uk/133307/MADELEINE-EXCLUSIVE-All-three-children-drugged
I hope this works as I have never tried to quote from another thread before.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2595.msg90942#msg90942
Worth a read again from an revered sceptic author re. the use of chloroform.
IMO the twins were not sedated by either their parents or an intruder. There was no need if they didn't stir & speed is of the essence in the crime of abduction.
-
I don't know her and to be honest she doesn't make sense to me apart from the horror of child sexual abuse (i will not call it pornography).
That is horrific.
-
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2595.msg90942#msg90942
Worth a read again from an revered sceptic author re. the use of chloroform.
IMO the twins were not sedated by either their parents or an intruder. There was no need if they didn't stir & speed is of the essence in the crime of abduction.
Yet their mother and father thought they may have been sedated. Why are you second guessing them ?
-
Yet their mother and father thought they may have been sedated. Why are you second guessing them ?
I'm not second-guessing them as my opinion is offered in hindsight.
-
I'm not second-guessing them as my opinion is offered in hindsight.
Isn't most of the comment on McCann made with the benefit of the exact science of hindsight?
-
I'm not second-guessing them as my opinion is offered in hindsight.
Are you deliberately making the task of moderation more difficult. To me the statement "I'm not second-guessing them as my opinion is offered in hindsight" is just a bit beyond my understanding.
-
Chloroform can be made easily and other sedatives, such as the horse tranquilliser ketamine, are commonly in circulation in the criminal underworld.
this was 2009....interesting I mentioned ketamine last week and got a whole load of abuse...LOL
-
Are you deliberately making the task of moderation more difficult. To me the statement "I'm not second-guessing them as my opinion is offered in hindsight" is just a bit beyond my understanding.
Perhaps you should look at the question before the answer?
-
Perhaps you should look at the question before the answer?
Was there a question? I'm working on "second-guessing" I know opinion and hindsight.
second-guess
verb
gerund or present participle: second-guessing
1.
anticipate or predict (someone's actions or thoughts) by guesswork.
"he had to second-guess what the environmental regulations would be in five years' time"
2.
NORTH AMERICAN
criticize (someone or something) with hindsight.
"no one should second-guess police officers whose lives are on the line"
Did you use definition 1 or 2?
"I'm not second-guessing (anticipating or predicting (someone's actions or thoughts) by guesswork) them as my opinion is offered in hindsight"
OK Faithlilly could have used it in the North American sense instead in that you criticized (someone or something) with hindsight.
-
It could be for the same reason that they decided to get the twins and kate checked for drugs in November 2007. But you have to ask them why they did that then and not sooner. IMO
IMO no one has been able to proffer any credible reason why Kate McCann would deliberately raise the possibility of sedation if she herself had been involved in sedating her own children.
-
I'm not second-guessing them as my opinion is offered in hindsight.
What wisdom has hindsight endowed you with that would equate to being in the bedroom of 5a and seeing the unresponsive state of the twins ? Kate, Gerry, Fiona Payne, Dianne Webster and several police officers were and, even with hindsight, believed the twins may have been drugged.
-
IMO no one has been able to proffer any credible reason why Kate McCann would deliberately raise the possibility of sedation if she herself had been involved in sedating her own children.
Amaral did at some time as he proposed Kate raised the issue late at a time when it was no longer provable.
-
Amaral did at some time as he proposed Kate raised the issue late at a time when it was no longer provable.
To what end?
-
What wisdom has hindsight endowed you with that would equate to being in the bedroom of 5a and seeing the unresponsive state of the twins ? Kate, Gerry, Fiona Payne, Dianne Webster and several police officers were and, even with hindsight, believed the twins may have been drugged.
I respect Misty's wisdom but whether she is right on this one is debatable.
-
To what end?
Well as we say in NZ "to cover his arse". He didn't do it timely either so put the blame on Kate.
-
Well as we say in NZ "to cover his arse". He didn't do it timely either so put the blame on Kate.
Fair point but I was more interested in what possible motivation Kate could have had for drawing attention to the possibility of sedation if this was something she herself had facilitated.
-
Fair point but I was more interested in what possible motivation Kate could have had for drawing attention to the possibility of sedation if this was something she herself had facilitated.
He implied she was trying to look innocent.
-
What wisdom has hindsight endowed you with that would equate to being in the bedroom of 5a and seeing the unresponsive state of the twins ? Kate, Gerry, Fiona Payne, Dianne Webster and several police officers were and, even with hindsight, believed the twins may have been drugged.
Why do you use the word "may" if the consensus was they had been drugged?
-
Why do you use the word "may" if the consensus was they had been drugged?
Unless the twins were tested and a definitive answer formed it is only a possibility but the individuals there at the time believed that due to the unresponsive stare of the twins that sedation was by far the most likely possibility.
-
Unless the twins were tested and a definitive answer formed it is only a possibility but the individuals there at the time believed that due to the unresponsive stare of the twins that sedation was by far the most likely possibility.
You included police officers in the list of individuals there. Again, what excuse was there for them not acting professionally & arranging for the twins to be tested? Are all victims of crime in Portugal supposed to have knowledge of investigative procedure or should they be just left to it?
-
It wouldn't matter if they had been tested as a small whiff of chloroform wouldn't have been detectable anyway since it metabolizes out of a living body in a matter of hours.
If the PJ performed a sniff test on the children's bedclothes then they most probably were looking for signs of chloroform.
-
It wouldn't matter if they had been tested as a small whiff of chloroform wouldn't have been detectable anyway since it metabolizes out of a living body in a matter of hours.
And if they'd been subjected to a large whiff of chloroform which left them in an unresponsive state & placed their lives in grave danger - what then?
-
And if they'd been subjected to a large whiff of chloroform which left them in an unresponsive state & placed their lives in grave danger - what then?
I understand that if large amounts are used that it can be detected in the victim's blood but again, a blood sample would need to be taken within hours. Chloroform apparently burns the skin on contact so was there ever any reference to the twins being checked for burning around their nose and mouth?
-
I understand that if large amounts are used that it can be detected in the victim's blood but again, a blood sample would need to be taken within hours. Chloroform apparently burns the skin on contact so was there ever any reference to the twins being checked for burning around their nose and mouth?
That would have, again, been the responsibility of the PJ/CSI team but seemed to have never been addressed.
IMO the concern apparently shown about the twins by the non-police witnesses is evidence that the adults were not habitually sedating the children to facilitate interruption-free dining.
-
Why do you use the word "may" if the consensus was they had been drugged?
Did anyone ever express the thought as definite?
-
And if they'd been subjected to a large whiff of chloroform which left them in an unresponsive state & placed their lives in grave danger - what then?
I'd be surprised if chloroform ever did that. Once the source is removed the patient is not going to get deeper into sedation.
-
That would have, again, been the responsibility of the PJ/CSI team but seemed to have never been addressed.
IMO the concern apparently shown about the twins by the non-police witnesses is evidence that the adults were not habitually sedating the children to facilitate interruption-free dining.
Whether it was the police's responsibility or not, the McCanns as doctors would have the experience and training to see if chloroform had been used on the twins. I assume they saw no burning around the nose or mouth at that time but then of course Dave Edgar made the statement later that year that the couple believed the children could have been given chloroform.
Chloroform
The toxic dose of chloroform is 7 to 25 mg/dL (0.59 to 2.1 mmol/L).21 At inhaled concentrations of less than 1500 ppm, physical effects of dizziness, tiredness, and headache are reported; anesthesia occurs at a range of 1500 to 30,000 ppm. Chloroform causes irritation to the respiratory tract. It will cause dry mouth, sedation, confusion, and loss of consciousness within 5 to 10 minutes, and unconsciousness may last up to 30 minutes after removal from exposure. Fatalities occur after 5 to 10 minutes at doses of 25,000 ppm or greater by inhalation.21 Often, death is sudden (“sudden sniffing death”) from ventricular dysrhythmias thought to be induced by sensitization of the myocardium to catecholamines.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/chloroform
So it lasts only up to 30 minutes. I didn't think it worked for hours. I have also read that it can cause damage to the liver and kidneys.
-
Whether it was the police's responsibility or not, the McCanns as doctors would have the experience and training to see if chloroform had been used on the twins. I assume they saw no burning around the nose or mouth at that time but then of course Dave Edgar made the statement later that year that the couple believed the children could have been given chloroform.
Chloroform
The toxic dose of chloroform is 7 to 25 mg/dL (0.59 to 2.1 mmol/L).21 At inhaled concentrations of less than 1500 ppm, physical effects of dizziness, tiredness, and headache are reported; anesthesia occurs at a range of 1500 to 30,000 ppm. Chloroform causes irritation to the respiratory tract. It will cause dry mouth, sedation, confusion, and loss of consciousness within 5 to 10 minutes, and unconsciousness may last up to 30 minutes after removal from exposure. Fatalities occur after 5 to 10 minutes at doses of 25,000 ppm or greater by inhalation.21 Often, death is sudden (“sudden sniffing death”) from ventricular dysrhythmias thought to be induced by sensitization of the myocardium to catecholamines.
https://www.sciencedirect.com/topics/medicine-and-dentistry/chloroform
So it lasts only up to 30 minutes. I didn't think it worked for hours. I have also read that it can cause damage to the liver and kidneys.
Do you have a cite for the McCanns saying they believed chloroform was used?
-
He implied she was trying to look innocent.
Still not a credible reason for drawing attention to a dastardly deed you have supposedly committed yourself.
-
Still not a credible reason for drawing attention to a dastardly deed you have supposedly committed yourself.
If she did sedate her own kids, I agree she wouldn't draw attention to that possibility, but it would look just as bad if she tries to deny it.
-
Do you have a cite for the McCanns saying they believed chloroform was used?
I gave a cite last night. Look it up yourself.
-
Do you have a cite for the McCanns saying they believed chloroform was used?
IIRC there are no cites "for the McCanns saying they believed chloroform was used".
I gave a cite last night. Look it up yourself.
Have I missed something?
-
IIRC there are no cites "for the McCanns saying they believed chloroform was used".
Have I missed something?
On post #484 Robittybob1
Dave Edgar was quoted as saying "They are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children"
I didn't actually say that the McCanns said it I said Dave Edgar and Vertigo Swirl was putting words in my mouth so to speak. All IMO of course.
-
On post #484 Robittybob1
Dave Edgar was quoted as saying "They are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children"
I didn't actually say that the McCanns said it I said Dave Edgar and Vertigo Swirl was putting words in my mouth so to speak. All IMO of course.
Who are “the couple” you refer to in the sentence above then? Reply #511
-
Who are “the couple” you refer to in the sentence above then? Reply #511
Part of my post #511
Whether it was the police's responsibility or not, the McCanns as doctors would have the experience and training to see if chloroform had been used on the twins. I assume they saw no burning around the nose or mouth at that time but then of course Dave Edgar made the statement later that year that the couple believed the children could have been given chloroform.
Look above and you see I said Dave Edgar made the statement not the McCanns.
-
Part of my post #511
Whether it was the police's responsibility or not, the McCanns as doctors would have the experience and training to see if chloroform had been used on the twins. I assume they saw no burning around the nose or mouth at that time but then of course Dave Edgar made the statement later that year that the couple believed the children could have been given chloroform.
Look above and you see I said Dave Edgar made the statement not the McCanns.
OK, now please post the cite to support your statement above, thanks.
-
I already have VS see post #484 again.
-
I already have VS see post #484 again.
I have read it several times and at no point does Dave Edgar suggest that the McCanns believed chloroform was used, you are mistaken.
-
You are right Vertigo Swirl. I see now it was Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley who were convinced not the McCanns.
-
You are right Vertigo Swirl. I see now it was Dave Edgar and Arthur Cowley who were convinced not the McCanns.
8((()*/
-
It seems the first the PJ heard about sedation was three months after Madeleine disappeared.
3rd September 2007 Ricardo Paiva.
Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine's twin siblings, because, as she said, she remembered that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, in spite of all the commotion and noise made by the authorities and other persons who were looking for Madeleine in apartment 5A of the OC, the twins never woke up, having been transported to another apartment, they remained asleep, due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
-
It seems the first the PJ heard about sedation was three months after Madeleine disappeared.
3rd September 2007 Ricardo Paiva.
Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine's twin siblings, because, as she said, she remembered that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, in spite of all the commotion and noise made by the authorities and other persons who were looking for Madeleine in apartment 5A of the OC, the twins never woke up, having been transported to another apartment, they remained asleep, due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
So unless Kate had brought it up sedation would never even crossed their minds, bless them. Why did she bother bringing it up then (nb: this question is rhetorical and is not directed at G-unit)
-
It seems the first the PJ heard about sedation was three months after Madeleine disappeared.
3rd September 2007 Ricardo Paiva.
Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine's twin siblings, because, as she said, she remembered that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, in spite of all the commotion and noise made by the authorities and other persons who were looking for Madeleine in apartment 5A of the OC, the twins never woke up, having been transported to another apartment, they remained asleep, due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
It seems what I would term an essential investigative skill ... that of observation ... and recording and acting as a result ... was largely unknown to the original Portuguese investigators.
Why else would you suppose the victims of crime should have to read up on possibilities using British manuals after the crime against their child unless the Portuguese were ignorant of them or just didn't bother in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance?
In my opinion the quote you have chosen illustrates yet another omission from a failed investigation.
-
It seems what I would term an essential investigative skill ... that of observation ... and recording and acting as a result ... was largely unknown to the original Portuguese investigators.
Why else would you suppose the victims of crime should have to read up on possibilities using British manuals after the crime against their child unless the Portuguese were ignorant of them or just didn't bother in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance?
In my opinion the quote you have chosen illustrates yet another omission from a failed investigation.
I suppose dealing with a group of doctors there may have been a natural if unfortunate tendency to defer to their knowledge.
-
I suppose dealing with a group of doctors there may have been a natural if unfortunate tendency to defer to their knowledge.
You’d have thought the police who are supposed to be trained to question everything and to think out of the box might have shared the suspicions about doctors that so many sceptics seem to have, but no, you seem to be suggesting that the PJ were in awe of the group’s collective medical training. Bizarre to say the least.
-
You’d have thought the police who are supposed to be trained to question everything and to think out of the box might have shared the suspicions about doctors that so many sceptics seem to have, but no, you seem to be suggesting that the PJ were in awe of the group’s collective medical training. Bizarre to say the least.
They were looking for a missing girl, IMO thought to have probably wandered off. Initial response by the GNR would depend on how the T9 were introduced.
-
There was a story in the Daily Express on 14th May 2007 saying that the Portuguese police 'believe Madeleine may have been drugged with chloroform by her abductor'. It says detectives visited Chemist's shops to ask if they had sold anything suspicious, including travel sickness pills.
Many of the stories in the UK press were blamed on the Portuguese journalists, but I don't think this story was printed by a Portuguese newspaper, so where did it come from? Not from the PJ; there's no evidence that they were following this line of inquiry in May 2007.
Interestingly, travel sickness pills have been used to sedate children, but 'the abductor' would have had to find a way to get them into the child.
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20070514/281616710936235
-
They were looking for a missing girl, IMO thought to have probably wandered off. Initial response by the GNR would depend on how the T9 were introduced.
Really? Three months later they still thought she’d woke and wandered? I thought Amaral was suspicious of them all from the get go...
-
There was a story in the Daily Express on 14th May 2007 saying that the Portuguese police 'believe Madeleine may have been drugged with chloroform by her abductor'. It says detectives visited Chemist's shops to ask if they had sold anything suspicious, including travel sickness pills.
Many of the stories in the UK press were blamed on the Portuguese journalists, but I don't think this story was printed by a Portuguese newspaper, so where did it come from? Not from the PJ; there's no evidence that they were following this line of inquiry in May 2007.
Interestingly, travel sickness pills have been used to sedate children, but 'the abductor' would have had to find a way to get them into the child.
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20070514/281616710936235
it would be interesting to know how to get a pill into a child awake or asleep, do you have a cite for this method of sedation?
-
it would be interesting to know how to get a pill into a child awake or asleep, do you have a cite for this method of sedation?
Crush it into a powder, open mouth and pour in. Not sure how long it would take to take effect.
-
it would be interesting to know how to get a pill into a child awake or asleep, do you have a cite for this method of sedation?
I used to give my children half of an adult tablet when they were small if I had no junior disprin, There were few special medicines for children then. I used a dissolvable pill, but there are liquids nowadays.
Phenergan Elixir is used to treat the following conditions:
For short term use: to treat adults with difficulty sleeping (insomnia)
To treat allergic conditions such as hay fever or rashes (like nettle rash or hives)
To stop you feeling sick (nausea) or being sick (vomiting) such as travel sickness
For short term use: as a sedative for children aged 2 years and above
https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/5586/pil
-
Crush it into a powder, open mouth and pour in. Not sure how long it would take to take effect.
Or mix the powder into a drink.
-
I used to give my children half of an adult tablet when they were small if I had no junior disprin, There were few special medicines for children then. I used a dissolvable pill, but there are liquids nowadays.
Phenergan Elixir is used to treat the following conditions:
For short term use: to treat adults with difficulty sleeping (insomnia)
To treat allergic conditions such as hay fever or rashes (like nettle rash or hives)
To stop you feeling sick (nausea) or being sick (vomiting) such as travel sickness
For short term use: as a sedative for children aged 2 years and above
https://www.medicines.org.uk/emc/product/5586/pil
Interesting that sedating a child is given as a possible use for a legally available product.
-
Who are “the couple” you refer to in the sentence above then? Reply #511
"Former police detectives David Edgar and Arthur Cowley have spent months re-analysing every shred of evidence.
They are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children."
-
I have read it several times and at no point does Dave Edgar suggest that the McCanns believed chloroform was used, you are mistaken.
We all make mistakes from time to time.
-
The McCanns denied using sedatives. It would be impossible to prove who gave the drug if it was a one off. If these drugs were regularly used then they could be found in the hair samples.
-
On the night the substance would have been found in the children’s blood.
-
On the night the substance would have been found in the children’s blood.
I agree, but who was going to run the tests?
-
It still doesn’t address the question of why the McCanns would have raised the issue of sedation in the first place, does it? if it is legal to use (and its use can be as a travel sickness and anti histamine too) then what did the McCanns have to fear from its use being revealed? Surely being found out as the coverer-up of their own child’s death is far more risky.
-
On the night the substance would have been found in the children’s blood.
And could have been attributed to an abductor, as you yourself have reasoned for why in your opinion the body had to be found at a distance from the apartment.
-
And could have been attributed to an abductor, as you yourself have reasoned for why in your opinion the body had to be found at a distance from the apartment.
It doesn't even have to be an abductor. It could be anyone else who has considered the McCann kids needed extra care.
-
It doesn't even have to be an abductor. It could be anyone else who has considered the McCann kids needed extra care.
Any such person would in my opinion be defined as an abductor, Robitty.
-
It doesn't even have to be an abductor. It could be anyone else who has considered the McCann kids needed extra care.
It's not the substance, it's getting it into three sleeping children that is difficult to explain imo.
-
It's not the substance, it's getting it into three sleeping children that is difficult to explain imo.
Indeed. It would have been hard to explain how an abductor had managed to administer to three children a medicine that had to be taken orally and also in the time available.
-
Indeed. It would have been hard to explain how an abductor had managed to administer to three children a medicine that had to be taken orally and also in the time available.
Then can anyone proffer a reason as to why The McCanns would have drawn attention to the possibility that the children had been sedated?
-
It's not the substance, it's getting it into three sleeping children that is difficult to explain imo.
An atomiser spray
-
Indeed. It would have been hard to explain how an abductor had managed to administer to three children a medicine that had to be taken orally and also in the time available.
The other mystery imo is why the Express said on 14th May the PJ were visiting local Pharmacies asking about sedatives. Where on earth did that story come from?
-
The other mystery imo is why the Express said on 14th May the PJ were visiting local Pharmacies asking about sedatives. Where on earth did that story come from?
Wherever it came from it is proof that the idea of the kids having been sedated was planted within two weeks of Madeleine’s disappearance. If you think it was the McCanns who planted this idea but also believe it was they who sedated their kids, the question you would have to ask is why would they do this? Please note, that’s not a question for which I require an answer from G-Unit.
-
Then can anyone proffer a reason as to why The McCanns would have drawn attention to the possibility that the children had been sedated?
They didn't until three months later.
-
I suppose dealing with a group of doctors there may have been a natural if unfortunate tendency to defer to their knowledge.
The group of doctors were in my opinion running around like headless chickens but irrespective of that the police are supposed to be the experts in criminal matters and in my opinion were the people to whom others should have been deferring. It was their responsibility and their job to take charge ... and in my opinion it was down to them to consider all possibilities including checking the children involved.
It's called due diligence I believe and covering all the bases.
According to the cite provided by GU, Ricardo Paiva, who 'found it strange' that Kate had been alerted to "a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl."
I find it strange that Kate had to retrieve that information regarding the use of drugs in kidnap cases from sources other than the PJ.
I find it strange that the Portuguese found it strange and I find it equally strange that the Portuguese cops found it strange that readily available crime handouts had been sourced by a couple desperate to familiarise themselves with police procedures in a case such as theirs.
I find it strange and indeed mind boggling that the Portuguese investigators were unfamiliar with missing child procedures and were unabashed to admit it.
Amaral made a big deal of it in his book and in my opinion displayed his ignorance when he questioned Gerry's choice of holiday reading and research material on abduction when he wrote ...
Snip
"... leaves nothing at all to the imagination about the drama the family is living through. With amazement the police officers discover a series of books and manuals exclusively intended for police services and government agencies.
- Missing and Abducted Children: A Law-Enforcement Guide to Case Investigation and Program Management, National Center for Missing & Exploited Children;
- Training Courses, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre);
- Making Every Child Matter...Everywhere, CEOP (Serious Organised Crime Agency - Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre).
Mark Harrison himself wonders how Gerald McCann could have obtained these books." Amaral ... his book
Doctors are not criminologists ... nor were they practitioners on the 3rd and 4th of May ... they were civilian witnesses and victims. The experts here were the police and the task of investigating all aspects concerning a missing child fell to them.
Which included in my opinion the medical examination of the children left behind to ensure their well being. In this instance they should have been the experts.
-
Wherever it came from it is proof that the idea of the kids having been sedated was planted within two weeks of Madeleine’s disappearance. If you think it was the McCanns who planted this idea but also believe it was they who sedated their kids, the question you would have to ask is why would they do this? Please note, that’s not a question for which I require an answer from G-Unit.
On the other hand this question has be asked;
If the McCanns truly feared that all three children had been sedated by 'an abductor', why didn't they tell the PJ?
-
Crush it into a powder, open mouth and pour in. Not sure how long it would take to take effect.
All three children at once?
-
They didn't until three months later.
Why raise it at all, three months later (if indeed that is true)?
-
All three children at once?
Sequentially, I'd have thiught 8)--))
-
On the other hand this question has be asked;
If the McCanns truly feared that all three children had been sedated by 'an abductor', why didn't they tell the PJ?
If the McCanns didn’t tell the PJ their fears that the children had been sedated, and it wasn’t up to the PJ to figure it out for themselves, then how did the story about the PJ checking local chemists get into the papers less than two weeks later?
-
Why raise it at all, three months later (if indeed that is true)?
That's what the evidence says. Three months after Madeleine disappeared the PJ were focusing on her parents. The sedation was probably mentioned in order to get them to focus on what mattered to the parents; the 'abductor'.
-
If the McCanns didn’t tell the PJ their fears that the children had been sedated, and it wasn’t up to the PJ to figure it out for themselves, then how did the story about the PJ checking local chemists get into the papers less than two weeks later?
The only people who suspected sedation told them? Hoe many journalists had that story? I have only seen one.
-
That's what the evidence says. Three months after Madeleine disappeared the PJ were focusing on her parents. The sedation was probably mentioned in order to get them to focus on what mattered to the parents; the 'abductor'.
Please have a care about how you word your posts ... in my opinion that one is sailing close to the wind of libel. TY
-
That's what the evidence says. Three months after Madeleine disappeared the PJ were focusing on her parents. The sedation was probably mentioned in order to get them to focus on what mattered to the parents; the 'abductor'.
Probably mentioned by whom?
-
The only people who suspected sedation told them? Hoe many journalists had that story? I have only seen one.
Who suspected sedation two weeks post Madeleine’s disappearance?
-
Who suspected sedation two weeks post Madeleine’s disappearance?
Excellent question.
-
That's what the evidence says. Three months after Madeleine disappeared the PJ were focusing on her parents. The sedation was probably mentioned in order to get them to focus on what mattered to the parents; the 'abductor'.
On what date did the McCanns meet with Jim McGarvey and mention their concerns about the possible involvement of a sedative used in connection with Madeleine’s disappearance?
-
From Steven Markley’s statement (Leics police) which proves beyond doubt that the McCanns raised the issue of sedation very early on and not three months later as claimed by G-Unit.
“At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.
One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction”.
Once again, I ask - why raise the possibility at all if they were responsible for the sedation and knowing that their two remaining children could be tested at any time by a police force capable of arriving at that logical investigative step?
-
From Steven Markley’s statement (Leics police) which proves beyond doubt that the McCanns raised the issue of sedation very early on and not three months later as claimed by G-Unit.
“At about 20.00 on Saturday 5th May 2007, I arrived at the apartment where Kate and Gerry were staying, with other officers. During the meeting Gerald and Kate had a number of questions to which they wanted follow up and responses from the PJ.
One of these questions was that they wanted the PJ to be aware of was Madeleine's revelation about Wednesday night, when she said that she was left alone during the night. She told Kate and Gerry that she remembered the twins crying and that she wanted to know why neither her mother nor her father had gone to the room to see what was happening.
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction”.
Once again, I ask - why raise the possibility at all if they were responsible for the sedation and knowing that their two remaining children could be tested at any time by a police force capable of arriving at that logical investigative step?
What evidence would have remained by Sunday 6 May?
-
What evidence would have remained by Sunday 6 May?
According to the experts the twins’ hair may have revealed evidence of sedation, but don’t ask me, I’m not an expert on the subject.
-
I believe drug use would only be visible in the hair after prolonged use.
-
I believe drug use would only be visible in the hair after prolonged use.
So the McCanns really would have had nothing to fear from a drug test on their kids, unless anyone here is suggesting that they sedated their kids over a long period?
-
So the McCanns really would have had nothing to fear from a drug test on their kids, unless anyone here is suggesting that they sedated their kids over a long period?
If the twins had been tested on 3rd, 4th of May, a different picture may have emerged.
-
I’ve been thinking about the stain on Madeleine’s pyjamas, was Madeleine sick while the McCanns weren’t there?
Could the question about the use of sedation have been merely a smokescreen, the implications I'm sure members can work out for themselves?
-
Really? Three months later they still thought she’d woke and wandered? I thought Amaral was suspicious of them all from the get go...
That was/is the narrative.
-
If the twins had been tested on 3rd, 4th of May, a different picture may have emerged.
It may have shown a sedative of some sort was used but not who administered or how.
-
That was/is the narrative.
???
-
It may have shown a sedative of some sort was used but not who administered or how.
That would depend on whether it was a one -off or part of a more regular pattern.
-
Then can anyone proffer a reason as to why The McCanns would have drawn attention to the possibility that the children had been sedated?
That is the point Kate was making to the FLOs was that she was wondering if there was a connection with what Madeleine had said Thursday morning about the night before. Kate says she had a tea stain on her pyjamas, i.e. something administered by mouth had spilt IMO.
Kate was thinking even at that stage someone else was "caring" for her kids giving them drinks etc when they were not there IMO.
Later remember someone saw a caring couple enter the apartment the night before. Reported in the papers but not in the file.
That is why Kate wanted the kids tested because it wasn't the McCanns giving the kids the sedatives, it was someone else interfering with their kids IMO.
-
Wherever it came from it is proof that the idea of the kids having been sedated was planted within two weeks of Madeleine’s disappearance. If you think it was the McCanns who planted this idea but also believe it was they who sedated their kids, the question you would have to ask is why would they do this? Please note, that’s not a question for which I require an answer from G-Unit.
It is not often but I really do thing the combined efforts of the forum has raised a great point here.
-
They didn't until three months later.
Cite please.
-
If the McCanns didn’t tell the PJ their fears that the children had been sedated, and it wasn’t up to the PJ to figure it out for themselves, then how did the story about the PJ checking local chemists get into the papers less than two weeks later?
Well it didn't come from the PJ. Perhaps the journalists made it up. That would be a bit of a coincidence though, wouldn't it?
-
Well it didn't come from the PJ. Perhaps the journalists made it up. That would be a bit of a coincidence though, wouldn't it?
Why do you stage categorically it didnt come from the PJ, if I may be so bold to inquire, no obligation to respond if course.
-
Cite please.
I already posted the link to Paiva's note where he says Kate told him.
-
I already posted the link to Paiva's note where he says Kate told him.
Well where is it?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
"Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine's twin siblings, because, as she said, she remembered that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, in spite of all the commotion and noise made by the authorities and other persons who were looking for Madeleine in apartment 5A of the OC, the twins never woke up, having been transported to another apartment, they remained asleep, due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl."
I do remember you making that post using this reference http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9913.msg477720#msg477720 but it doesn't prove that the issue had not been raised before then.
-
G-unit also posted http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9937.msg477866#msg477866
"TTOTL page 89 (pdf)
It is only three months later that Kate speaks about this possibility, suggesting that the police procede with these tests.
Ricardo Paiva 3rd September 2007
Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine's twin siblings,
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm"
If Amaral says he only knew about this 3 month later the British FLO seem to have let the McCanns down IMO.
The McCanns did not speak directly to Amaral, they were talking to Ricardo Paiva, so it was only hearsay what Amaral was reporting in TTOTL on this matter.
-
I have already proved that thr McCanns brought up sedation as a possibility within two days of Madeleine’s disappearance.
-
Well where is it?
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SERVICE_INFORMATION.htm
"Strangely, Kate also made several requests, three months after the disappearance of Madeleine, that the police should take blood, hair and nail tests of Madeleine's twin siblings, because, as she said, she remembered that on the day of Madeleine's disappearance, in spite of all the commotion and noise made by the authorities and other persons who were looking for Madeleine in apartment 5A of the OC, the twins never woke up, having been transported to another apartment, they remained asleep, due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible according to what she read in a criminal investigation manual given to her by the British authorities, that would have been the procedure of the abductor in the real case involving abduction, rape and murder of the girl."
I do remember you making that post using this reference http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9913.msg477720#msg477720 but it doesn't prove that the issue had not been raised before then.
I have provided the evidence which exists. Anyone wishing to deny what it says needs to find evidence which contradicts it. Kate McCann has told a different story, but there's no evidence supporting her claims. There's also no possible reason why she didn't raise the matter on 4th May in her police interview.
-
I have provided the evidence which exists. Anyone wishing to deny what it says needs to find evidence which contradicts it. Kate McCann has told a different story, but there's no evidence supporting her claims. There's also no possible reason why she didn't raise the matter on 4th May in her police interview.
Have you got access to a taped recording of all she spoke during the interview on the 4th? No, I don't believe you have, so you can not claim to know what she raised in her interview on the 4th.
-
Have you got access to a taped recording of all she spoke during the interview on the 4th? No, I don't believe you have, so you can not claim to know what she raised in her interview on the 4th.
I deal with what is, not what might have been.
-
I deal with what is, not what might have been.
Well then don't claim to know what was raised or not raised in the interview on the 4th.
-
I deal with what is, not what might have been.
What is [recorded] is that the McCanns raised the possibility of sedation as early as the 5th May 2007. Did the FLOs not pass on the McCanns concerns? If they did, were they ignored by the PJ? If so, why?
(I have made minor corrections for clarity)
-
I deal with what is, not what might have been.
You are contradicting yourself...you do deal with what might have been...post today...
That's what the evidence says. Three months after Madeleine disappeared the PJ were focusing on her parents. The sedation was probably mentioned in order to get them to focus on what mattered to the parents; the 'abductor'.
-
What is [recorded] is that the McCanns raised the possibility of sedation as early as the 5th May 2007. Did the FLOs not pass on the McCanns concerns? If they did, were they ignored by the PJ? If so, why?
(I have made minor corrections for clarity)
There certainly isn’t anything in the files that would lead us to believe that the FLOs passed the information on to the PJ.
-
You are contradicting yourself...you do deal with what might have been...post today...
That's what the evidence says. Three months after Madeleine disappeared the PJ were focusing on her parents. The sedation was probably mentioned in order to get them to focus on what mattered to the parents; the 'abductor'.
Are you highlighting the use by G-unit of the word "probably"?
-
Are you highlighting the use by G-unit of the word "probably"?
correct
-
correct
And "The sedation was probably mentioned in order to get them to focus on what mattered to the parents; the 'abductor'" is rather like second guessing as well. Guessing the purpose behind the possible mention - second guessing.
-
And "The sedation was probably mentioned in order to get them to focus on what mattered to the parents; the 'abductor'" is rather like second guessing as well. Guessing the purpose behind the possible mention - second guessing.
probably meaning ...what might be...rather than what is
-
There certainly isn’t anything in the files that would lead us to believe that the FLOs passed the information on to the PJ.
Other that searching the apartment for drugs, sniffing things and the report of enquires with the chemist.
So it is not no evidence but not much on record.
-
There certainly isn’t anything in the files that would lead us to believe that the FLOs passed the information on to the PJ.
So of it’s not in the files it didn’t happen, is that your contention?
-
Search of the apartment pre-dates McCanns chat with the FLO so can’t have been as a result of it.
Pharmacy story seems to have no basis in fact.
-
Search of the apartment pre-dates McCanns chat with the FLO so can’t have been as a result of it.
Pharmacy story seems to have no basis in fact.
OK IYO what dates are you working with. Not asking for cites just your impression of the situation.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9913.msg477804#msg477804 G-unit mentions the search at the pharmacies was on the 14th May whereas the FLOs had their meeting with the McCanns on the 5th May.
-
Well then don't claim to know what was raised or not raised in the interview on the 4th.
There is no reason to suspect that things said by the witness were ignored.
-
What is [recorded] is that the McCanns raised the possibility of sedation as early as the 5th May 2007. Did the FLOs not pass on the McCanns concerns? If they did, were they ignored by the PJ? If so, why?
(I have made minor corrections for clarity)
They asked if the PJ had any evidence suggesting that Madeleine was sedated. The answer was no.
-
Other that searching the apartment for drugs, sniffing things and the report of enquires with the chemist.
So it is not no evidence but not much on record.
Did they search 5A for drugs? I know the forensic people sniffed her pillow. The report about chemists may not be true, it's not in the files.
Whatever the forensic people did was done on 4th. It had nothing to do with the FLO's who arrived on 5th.
-
So of it’s not in the files it didn’t happen, is that your contention?
If it's not in the files there's no evidence that it happened.
-
They asked if the PJ had any evidence suggesting that Madeleine was sedated. The answer was no.
I thought there was no evidence that thr FLOs ever passed on the questions to the PJ?
-
If it's not in the files there's no evidence that it happened.
And yet we know the files do not contain every statement recorded, so what else might be missing?
-
They asked if the PJ had any evidence suggesting that Madeleine was sedated. The answer was no.
Cite please.
-
Cite please.
You seem to be almost exclusively targeting G-Unit for cites. Is there any reason for this ?
-
You seem to be almost exclusively targeting G-Unit for cites. Is there any reason for this ?
Well she is the only one so far making statements that aren't covered by the provisions for opinion. Generally G-unit and I get on OK, so I'm not picking on her, afaik.
Vertigo Swirl asked for a clarification too http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9913.msg477889#msg477889 so I feel it needs answering.
-
I thought there was no evidence that thr FLOs ever passed on the questions to the PJ?
The two are not mutually exclusive.
-
The two are not mutually exclusive.
??? According to G-Unit, when asked the PJ said there was no evidence of sedation. Who asked them and when, and where is their recorded answer? I think we need a cite, don’t you?
-
The two are not mutually exclusive.
How to work out if two events are mutually exclusive - https://youtu.be/Gxtn1I74M3k
So if VS says "I thought there was no evidence that the FLOs ever passed on the questions to the PJ?"
and it is said that they are not mutually exclusive. Can we have the FLOs passing on the questions to the PJ and there being no evidence of the questions being passed on happening at the same time? Yes so they are not mutually exclusive.
-
How to work out if two events are mutually exclusive - https://youtu.be/Gxtn1I74M3k
So if VS says "I thought there was no evidence that the FLOs ever passed on the questions to the PJ?"
and it is said that they are not mutually exclusive. Can we have the FLOs passing on the questions to the PJ and there being no evidence of the questions being passed on happening at the same time? Yes so they are not mutually exclusive.
G-Unit said “they asked”, but has previously argued that there is no evidence that “they asked”. Who is “they”?
-
??? According to G-Unit, when asked the PJ said there was no evidence of sedation. Who asked them and when, and where is their recorded answer? I think we need a cite, don’t you?
They asked the FLOs who, one would assume, would the people answering.
-
I thought there was no evidence that thr FLOs ever passed on the questions to the PJ?
It's a fact that the answer was no, whether the FLO's asked the PJ or not;
The area of the pillow of the bed from the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving negative
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
-
They asked the FLOs who, one would assume, would the people answering.
So assumptions basically.
-
And yet we know the files do not contain every statement recorded, so what else might be missing?
The files contain every statement taken by the PJ in my opinion.
-
Cite please.
Please could you provide a cite for 'searching the apartment for drugs'?
-
The files contain every statement taken by the PJ in my opinion.
I thought there was proof that certain statements were not in the files? An index reference to them, but no statement? Someone more well versed in the files than I can correct me if I’m mistaken.
-
G-Unit said “they asked”, but has previously argued that there is no evidence that “they asked”. Who is “they”?
The McCanns asked the FLO's;
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
-
I thought there was proof that certain statements were not in the files? An index reference to them, but no statement? Someone more well versed in the files than I can correct me if I’m mistaken.
There are statements and other information which are referenced in the files but weren't released for various reasons.
There are other statements which never made it into the files. AFAIK they were taken by UK police officers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
-
There are statements and other information which are referenced in the files but weren't released for various reasons.
There are other statements which never made it into the files. AFAIK they were taken by UK police officers.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
So the files are not complete then, just as I said.
-
The McCanns asked the FLO's;
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the abduction.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/STEPHEN_MARKLEY.htm
So we have established, contrary to previous assertions, that the McCanns did ask about sedation very early on in the investigation, now who gave them an answer and where is this recorded?
-
It's a fact that the answer was no, whether the FLO's asked the PJ or not;
The area of the pillow of the bed from the minor disappeared was inspected with the intention to detect the presence of some smell [aroma] characteristic of volatile substances typical of chloroform or ether, this search proving negative
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
What day was this test on the pillow done?
-
So we have established, contrary to previous assertions, that the McCanns did ask about sedation very early on in the investigation, now who gave them an answer and where is this recorded?
The McCanns asked if the PJ had any evidence suggesting that Madeleine had been sedated. A fairly easily understood question with a simple answer. In my opinion it doesn't matter if they were given the answer and by whom? We know the question and we know the answer.
-
The McCanns asked if the PJ had any evidence suggesting that Madeleine had been sedated. A fairly easily understood question with a simple answer. In my opinion it doesn't matter if they were given the answer and by whom? We know the question and we know the answer.
What is relevant to the argument is that the McCanns raised the issue of possible sedation very early on in the investigation, not 3 months later as has been asserted before.
-
From Madeleine
All the same, we were reassured to see some UK police that day in the shape of three family liaison officers (FLOs) from the Leicestershire force, which had also officially logged Madeleine as missing. They came to introduce themselves and to outline their dual role: supporting us and our family and acting as a conduit for the flow of information between us and the PJ. After the trouble we’d had getting anyone in the PJ to talk to us, that was a relief, although the FLOs would soon find themselves almost as frustrated as we were in this regard.
The police and judiciary in the country where a crime has been committed have primacy in any investigation. If interviews need to be conducted or lines of inquiry followed in another country, they request such help under mutual legal assistance treaties and protocols, and results are sent back to them. The Portuguese police were apparently reluctant early on to accept any help beyond this from their counterparts in the UK. However, in addition to the Leicestershire FLOs, they did permit forensic psychologists from CEOP, the Child Exploitation and Online Protection Centre, and an analyst from the National Policing Improvements Agency to come to Praia da Luz the following week. Even that may have been unprecedented: we understood this was the first time the Portuguese authorities had ever allowed any foreign force into the country to assist in an investigation. In such a situation, an element of pride is bound to come into play, and the relationship always seemed quite tricky. It never amounted to an effective pooling of information, ideas or intelligence.
It appeared that the British officers were told very little about what was going on and that their role was essentially confined to making suggestions or volunteering resources. The local police, not used to disclosing the details of an investigation, were clearly wary of answering all the questions they were being asked. According to what we would hear a few weeks down the line, the Leicestershire officers were told in no uncertain terms that if the PJ declined any ideas they proposed or refused offers of additional expertise they must accept this. If they didn’t, they would be excluded from the investigation completely.
Still, we were very grateful for their involvement, which would substantially improve communications. In the coming weeks we would meet DCS Bob Small, who we found straight-talking and honest. A lot of hard work went on at home as well, where DS Stuart Prior, the senior investigating officer, was kind enough to show our relatives round the incident room – and Gerry, too, later on.
-
What is relevant to the argument is that the McCanns raised the issue of possible sedation very early on in the investigation, not 3 months later as has been asserted before.
It was three months before they mentioned that the twins may have been sedated.
-
The McCanns asked if the PJ had any evidence suggesting that Madeleine had been sedated. A fairly easily understood question with a simple answer. In my opinion it doesn't matter if they were given the answer and by whom? We know the question and we know the answer.
Wasn't Amaral working on the assumption that Madeleine had been sedated?
-
What is relevant to the argument is that the McCanns raised the issue of possible sedation very early on in the investigation, not 3 months later as has been asserted before.
Why did the McCanns raise the possibility at all ? Sedation is vert rarely used in abductions involving small children I would have thought. It’s an odd question to ask if, with hindsight, they thought the twins had simply been sleeping deeply and there was no evidence to suggest Madeleine had been sedated.
-
Wasn't Amaral working on the assumption that Madeleine had been sedated?
When?
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
"The PJ specialist team, which went to the site to collect evidence, excluded the existence of any product that could have been administered to the missing girl in order to maintain her in a state of unconsciousness nor the presence of blood traces."
How did they "exclude the existence of any product that could have been administered to the missing girl in order to maintain her in a state of unconsciousness"?
-
When?
I'm searching for answers not giving them.
-
I'm searching for answers not giving them.
You asked;
Wasn't Amaral working on the assumption that Madeleine had been sedated?
Please give any cites which confirm this, and you might like to pinpoint the stage of the investigation when he worked on the assumption.
-
You asked;
Wasn't Amaral working on the assumption that Madeleine had been sedated?
Please give any cites which confirm this, and you might like to pinpoint the stage of the investigation when he worked on the assumption.
I'm asking a question. I'm not making a statement. No cite required IMO.
-
I'm asking a question. I'm not making a statement. No cite required IMO.
We seem to disagree on the nature of a question.
Wasn't Amaral working on the assumption that Madeleine had been sedated?
Possible answers are Yes or No. But what if the answer isn't so simple? In my opinion he wasn't working on that assumption from day 1. So which period of the investigation are you thinking of?
-
Why did the McCanns raise the possibility at all ? Sedation is vert rarely used in abductions involving small children I would have thought. It’s an odd question to ask if, with hindsight, they thought the twins had simply been sleeping deeply and there was no evidence to suggest Madeleine had been sedated.
Perhaps logic and reason go out the window when one of your kids disappears into thin air?
-
Perhaps logic and reason go out the window when one of your kids disappears into thin air?
Perhaps, perhaps not.
-
It was three months before they mentioned that the twins may have been sedated.
But only a day or so before they raised the possibility of sedation as part of the (alleged) abduction. So, once again I have to raise the question - why, if sedation is something they themselves had performed, did they even mention it at all in the first place? This would be drawing attention to something that some people believe they went to great and illegal lengths to hide.
-
Perhaps, perhaps not.
I'm glad you're agreeing that clear, logical thinking might evade you if you were desperately searching for answers to explain your child's disappearance.
-
We seem to disagree on the nature of a question.
Wasn't Amaral working on the assumption that Madeleine had been sedated?
Possible answers are Yes or No. But what if the answer isn't so simple? In my opinion he wasn't working on that assumption from day 1. So which period of the investigation are you thinking of?
It has been a while since I looked a O' Enigma. OK it could be claimed this is GA going off on a limb on his own. I've got a feeling he was talking about the drugs the McCanns had with them. I find keeping all the information in your head a mission. A lot was made out of what Kate's father had said IIRC.
-
But only a day or so before they raised the possibility of sedation as part of the (alleged) abduction. So, once again I have to raise the question - why, if sedation is something they themselves had performed, did they even mention it at all in the first place? This would be drawing attention to something that some people believe they went to great and illegal lengths to hide.
They were drawing attention to something which could be neither proved nor disproved. In my opinion that equals starting a rumour.
-
They were drawing attention to something which could be neither proved nor disproved. In my opinion that equals starting a rumour.
You have to start somewhere - take samples test them, then work out where the metabolites came from.
-
You have to start somewhere - take samples test them, then work out where the metabolites came from.
Take which samples? Test them how? For what?
This is fantasy land, IMO.
-
Take which samples? Test them how? For what?
This is fantasy land, IMO.
Take hair samples from the twins and the parents and test them.
-
I'm glad you're agreeing that clear, logical thinking might evade you if you were desperately searching for answers to explain your child's disappearance.
Are you also agreeing that it might not?
-
They were drawing attention to something which could be neither proved nor disproved. In my opinion that equals starting a rumour.
It could have been proved, either by the discovery of the body or by testing the other children. The McCanns could not have known in advance that neither of those events would have occurred, and I hardly think that expressing a concern that your disappeared daughter may have been drugged constitutes “starting a rumour”. That implies deliberate intent to deceive or mislead IMO.
-
You have to start somewhere - take samples test them, then work out where the metabolites came from.
You have to have a reason to start first. I have seen nothing which would lead a police force to start taking samples.
-
You have to have a reason to start first. I have seen nothing which would lead a police force to start taking samples.
Well the GNR remarked on the twins sleeping through the commotion, a child had disappeared in mysterious circumstances from a room in which two other children were left, just what would it have taken for the lightbulb to be switched on?
-
Take hair samples from the twins and the parents and test them.
So now enlighten me as to testing capability re hair samples for sedatives, in Portugal in May 2007.
Not CSI Las Vegas please - Portugal.
-
It could have been proved, either by the discovery of the body or by testing the other children. The McCanns could not have known in advance that neither of those events would have occurred, and I hardly think that expressing a concern that your disappeared daughter may have been drugged constitutes “starting a rumour”. That implies deliberate intent to deceive or mislead IMO.
A rumour is an unverified account. The sedation story is unverified.
-
A rumour is an unverified account. The sedation story is unverified.
Starting a rumour has negative connotations as well you know. When do you believe the McCanns started this rumour in your view? Was it when they asked the FLOs if there was any evidence of sedation used? Was it three months later when they had the twins tested? Do asking questions and trying to get answers constitute starting rumours in your view? Oops. Guilty of asking you questions, sorry no need to reply, all rhetorical.
-
Why, if they had sedated their own children, would the McCanns "start a rumour" within days that sedation was involved in Madeleine's disappearance? How did they propagate this rumour and where is the evidence that they did so?
-
But only a day or so before they raised the possibility of sedation as part of the (alleged) abduction. So, once again I have to raise the question - why, if sedation is something they themselves had performed, did they even mention it at all in the first place? This would be drawing attention to something that some people believe they went to great and illegal lengths to hide.
I have given explanation. Unfortunately it was removed.
Safe to say if a legal drug which had sedative effects was given to the children it would be undetectable a few days later yet remnants of the drug remaining in the apartment eg in undetected vomit, may still have been a danger to the parents.
-
I have given explanation. Unfortunately it was removed.
Safe to say if a legal drug which had sedative effects was given to the children it would be undetectable a few days later yet remnants of the drug remaining in the apartment eg in undetected vomit, may still have been a danger to the parents.
If Madeleine died shortly after receiving a dose of this legal drug are you telling me it wouldn’t have been detectable at post-mortem? I don’t understand what you’re suggesting by your undetected vomit comment.
-
Well the GNR remarked on the twins sleeping through the commotion, a child had disappeared in mysterious circumstances from a room in which two other children were left, just what would it have taken for the lightbulb to be switched on?
They remarked, when asked, in November 2007. They're not detectives, and even if they were they didn't know it was unusual. Perhaps Kate McCann, who said (after the event) that she did see it as unusual, should have told them. Failing that she could have told the PJ when they arrived. Or the day after when they interviewed her. Then there were the FLO's on 5th. So many missed opportunities.
-
They remarked, when asked, in November 2007. They're not detectives, and even if they were they didn't know it was unusual. Perhaps Kate McCann, who said (after the event) that she did see it as unusual, should have told them. Failing that she could have told the PJ when they arrived. Or the day after when they interviewed her. Then there were the FLO's on 5th. So many missed opportunities.
If they didn’t know it was unusual why did they remark on it in the first place? You don’t seem to be crediting the GNR with much perception or presence of mind... By the 4th May morning her twins were fine and she had rather more pressing things on her mind, but in any case she raised the issue on the 5th with thr FLOs, thereby drawing atention to the possibility of sedation, something which IMO would be a very stupid thing to do if she and her husband had routinely been sedating all her kids.
-
Gerry McCanns rogatory
When questioned if the twins woke while the apartment was being searched, he replies negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, and can find no reason for it happening. He still thought at this moment that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later. When questioned, he says he never gave his children anything to help them sleep, nor did Kate. When asked why he did not ask the twins what happened to their sister, he says that when the events took place they still did not speak fluently, which is now a normal developmental difficulty. At this point he did not ask them because he thought that they would not have the correct perception of what had happened, in addition to thinking that they would have been sleeping.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
From the Guardian
9.05pm: Gerry returns to the apartment through the unlocked patio doors to check on the children. Earlier that week, the McCanns had used a key to go in through the front door next to the children's bedroom but, worrying the noise might wake the children, they began using the patio doors, leaving them unlocked.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann
So Gerry thought it was "not normal" but didn't speak to the police about it until "several days later".
-
Gerry McCanns rogatory
When questioned if the twins woke while the apartment was being searched, he replies negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, and can find no reason for it happening. He still thought at this moment that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later. When questioned, he says he never gave his children anything to help them sleep, nor did Kate. When asked why he did not ask the twins what happened to their sister, he says that when the events took place they still did not speak fluently, which is now a normal developmental difficulty. At this point he did not ask them because he thought that they would not have the correct perception of what had happened, in addition to thinking that they would have been sleeping.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
From the Guardian
9.05pm: Gerry returns to the apartment through the unlocked patio doors to check on the children. Earlier that week, the McCanns had used a key to go in through the front door next to the children's bedroom but, worrying the noise might wake the children, they began using the patio doors, leaving them unlocked.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann
So Gerry thought it was "not normal" but didn't speak to the police about it until "several days later".
Sorry, you have completely confused me. What exactly are you driving at?
-
Sorry, you have completely confused me. What exactly are you driving at?
Apologies if I wasn't clear but I was trying to explain that Gerry thought the twins sleeping was not normal yet only spoke to the police several days later.
When questioned if the twins woke while the apartment was being searched, he replies negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, and can find no reason for it happening. He still thought at this moment that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later.
The other cite was to explain that they said they stopped using the front door in case it woke the children.
Basically the children weren't heavy sleepers so the twins not waking was not their normal behaviour.
-
If Madeleine died shortly after receiving a dose of this legal drug are you telling me it wouldn’t have been detectable at post-mortem? I don’t understand what you’re suggesting by your undetected vomit comment.
It would have been detectable at post-mortem. That’s the point.
If the stain on Madeleine’s pyjama top was vomit, her parents may have been afraid she had vomited while they weren’t there and that vomited, if found by the forensic team, would reveal the sedative in her system. This of course wouldn’t have been a problem unless sedation was also found in the remaining children.
-
Apologies if I wasn't clear but I was trying to explain that Gerry thought the twins sleeping was not normal yet only spoke to the police several days later.
When questioned if the twins woke while the apartment was being searched, he replies negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, and can find no reason for it happening. He still thought at this moment that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later.
The other cite was to explain that they said they stopped using the front door in case it woke the children.
Basically the children weren't heavy sleepers so the twins not waking was not their normal behaviour.
I did pick up on Gerry saying in his rog statement that the twins were never given anything to make them sleep by either him nor Kate.
I find nothing unusual in the children sleeping soundly ... but I do thoroughly understand the terror and the worry of parents trying to make sense of their daughter's disappearance and contemplating every avenue as to how that might have been effected.
I have seen Sean sleeping deeply in a noisy airport and in the midst of a media scrum ... I have therefore no compunction in thinking that he was capable of being deeply asleep despite the confusion outside his room in the aftermath of Madeleine's disappearance.
-
It would have been detectable at post-mortem. That’s the point.
If the stain on Madeleine’s pyjama top was vomit, her parents may have been afraid she had vomited while they weren’t there and that vomited, if found by the forensic team, would reveal the sedative in her system. This of course wouldn’t have been a problem unless sedation was also found in the remaining children.
Surely the McCanns would have been aware of any vomit before the forensic team? And it still doesn’t explain why the McCanns would draw attention to sedation if they knew there was a chance that sedative was found in Madeleine’s body, particularly not if it was a sedative considered difficult to administer to a sleeping child.
-
Apologies if I wasn't clear but I was trying to explain that Gerry thought the twins sleeping was not normal yet only spoke to the police several days later.
When questioned if the twins woke while the apartment was being searched, he replies negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, and can find no reason for it happening. He still thought at this moment that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later.
The other cite was to explain that they said they stopped using the front door in case it woke the children.
Basically the children weren't heavy sleepers so the twins not waking was not their normal behaviour.
Acording to some here the McCanns never mentioned it to the police for three months, so presumably these doubters must believe Gerry was lying in his statement, though the police would be suspicious of him for lying about such a poiint...
-
Surely the McCanns would have been aware of any vomit before the forensic team? And it still doesn’t explain why the McCanns would draw attention to sedation if they knew there was a chance that sedative was found in Madeleine’s body, particularly not if it was a sedative considered difficult to administer to a sleeping child.
Was Madeleine’s body found then ?
I think it would have been quite obvious to the McCanns by the time they talked to the FLOs that it was unlikely that Madeleine’s body would be found.
-
Gerry McCanns rogatory
When questioned if the twins woke while the apartment was being searched, he replies negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, and can find no reason for it happening. He still thought at this moment that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later. When questioned, he says he never gave his children anything to help them sleep, nor did Kate. When asked why he did not ask the twins what happened to their sister, he says that when the events took place they still did not speak fluently, which is now a normal developmental difficulty. At this point he did not ask them because he thought that they would not have the correct perception of what had happened, in addition to thinking that they would have been sleeping.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN-ARGUIDO.htm
From the Guardian
9.05pm: Gerry returns to the apartment through the unlocked patio doors to check on the children. Earlier that week, the McCanns had used a key to go in through the front door next to the children's bedroom but, worrying the noise might wake the children, they began using the patio doors, leaving them unlocked.
https://www.theguardian.com/uk/2008/apr/11/madeleinemccann
So Gerry thought it was "not normal" but didn't speak to the police about it until "several days later".
Sunny - some very good work there. You have taken on a very big task to try and understand this case quite a considerable time after the event.
Just to make it clear Gerry and Kate McCann did not do a rogatory interview like the other members of the Tapas 7. They were involved in arguido interviews instead. That word is in the URL you posted but you start off saying
"Gerry McCanns rogatory". it was Gerry McCanns arguido interview instead. OK.
The PJ say they did a test on the pillow from the apartment for "chloroform and ether". The test is not that well described and it is not clear when the test was performed or what exactly was done to prove "chloroform and ether" were not used.
I think the PJs point is that ""chloroform and ether" use would show abduction by a 3rd party, and what they had done was enough to eliminate 2 very likely chemicals that may have been used.
I would only be happy if I knew what test and when and proof that that test was reliable in the first place.
-
Thank you Robittybob1 I am trying to pick it up and learn as I go along. That is why I joined here. Unfortunately as you have seen I have strong views too.
I am not sure whether or not any one used any sedatives on the children but I think the parents reaction was odd at the time by not taking them to the hospital for checking out if they had concerns. Of course this is my opinion.
-
Was Madeleine’s body found then ?
I think it would have been quite obvious to the McCanns by the time they talked to the FLOs that it was unlikely that Madeleine’s body would be found.
OK that is opinion, but on a very serious note. Why would "it be obvious to the McCanns by the time they talked to the FLOs that it was unlikely that Madeleine’s body would be found"?
Are you thinking they knew she was hidden in a place that would never be found?
-
Was Madeleine’s body found then ?
I think it would have been quite obvious to the McCanns by the time they talked to the FLOs that it was unlikely that Madeleine’s body would be found.
How on earth would they have been able to come to that conclusion after 2 days?!
-
Why, if they had sedated their own children, would the McCanns "start a rumour" within days that sedation was involved in Madeleine's disappearance? How did they propagate this rumour and where is the evidence that they did so?
The Daily Express had a stab at it on 14th May.
-
The Daily Express had a stab at it on 14th May.
Cite please.
-
The Daily Express had a stab at it on 14th May.
Cite please?
-
Unlike some, I don't ignore requests for cites. Have you found one for the apartment being searched for drugs yet, Rob?
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9913.msg477735#msg477735
-
I have found it
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20070514/281616710936235
I can't copy and paste though as this is a pdf.
-
I have found it
https://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20070514/281616710936235
I can't copy and paste though as this is a pdf.
No mention in that article to suggest the McCanns were responsible for starting a sedation “rumour”, this can’t be the article G-Unit was referring to.
-
There was a story in the Daily Express on 14th May 2007 saying that the Portuguese police 'believe Madeleine may have been drugged with chloroform by her abductor'. It says detectives visited Chemist's shops to ask if they had sold anything suspicious, including travel sickness pills.
Many of the stories in the UK press were blamed on the Portuguese journalists, but I don't think this story was printed by a Portuguese newspaper, so where did it come from? Not from the PJ; there's no evidence that they were following this line of inquiry in May 2007.
Interestingly, travel sickness pills have been used to sedate children, but 'the abductor' would have had to find a way to get them into the child.
http://www.pressreader.com/uk/daily-express/20070514/281616710936235
How would you know there was no line of inquiry following this?
-
Thank you Robittybob1 I am trying to pick it up and learn as I go along. That is why I joined here. Unfortunately as you have seen I have strong views too.
I am not sure whether or not any one used any sedatives on the children but I think the parents reaction was odd at the time by not taking them to the hospital for checking out if they had concerns. Of course this is my opinion.
]What do you think the hospital would have done? Would they take samples that would be used in a case, or would that information be privileged? Who was to pay for a bank of tests need to cover multiple potential drugs?
-
]What do you think the hospital would have done? Would they take samples that would be used in a case, or would that information be privileged? Who was to pay for a bank of tests need to cover multiple potential drugs?
I have provided partial cites on this as I couldn't find an exact one obviously. I would have expected the portuguese to pay for whatever tests were required to firstly ensure that the twins were safe and not poisoned and secondly see if any sedative had been given, and hopefully this information may give the police a lead on a possible abductor. We have had a poster earlier on this thread say that Raymond Hewlett used paint thinners to sedate children. Do you see why I say this?
-
No mention in that article to suggest the McCanns were responsible for starting a sedation “rumour”, this can’t be the article G-Unit was referring to.
Either the journalists invented the story or someone gave it to them.
-
I have provided partial cites on this as I couldn't find an exact one obviously. I would have expected the portuguese to pay for whatever tests were required to firstly ensure that the twins were safe and not poisoned and secondly see if any sedative had been given, and hopefully this information may give the police a lead on a possible abductor. We have had a poster earlier on this thread say that Raymond Hewlett used paint thinners to sedate children. Do you see why I say this?
I did read that link. I expressed my doubt that doctors would run extensive tests on the twins the day if they looked normal then.
-
How would you know there was no line of inquiry following this?
I can only say that I have been unable to find any evidence suggesting it.
-
Either the journalists invented the story or someone gave it to them.
But you have already suggested that this is evidence of the McCanns starting a rumour. That’s a rather serious allegation - more a blatant lie than starting a rumour, if there was no truth in the report.
-
Either the journalists invented the story or someone gave it to them.
OK someone gave it to them. Who gave it to them?
-
OK someone gave it to them. Who gave it to them?
Why on earth would the McCanns give them this story? It makes no sense. They would have to have approached an Express journo and told them the tall tale, with the caveat “please don’t tell anyone we told you”. Why would they do this?
-
OK someone gave it to them. Who gave it to them?
I don't know. Did any Portuguese journalists run this story? If not, it didn't come from a Portuguese journalist. Were the PJ following this line of inquiry? If not it didn't come from them. Have any chemists ever claimed to have been asked about sedatives? If not then it wasn't them.
-
How on earth would they have been able to come to that conclusion after 2 days?!
If it wasn’t where you put it and you realised what had happened.
-
Why on earth would the McCanns give them this story? It makes no sense. They would have to have approached an Express journo and told them the tall tale, with the caveat “please don’t tell anyone we told you”. Why would they do this?
We have been told by Richard Bilton that the McCann camp were willing to exchange information with journalists. He says he refused, but others may have collaborated.
-
We have been told by Richard Bilton that the McCann camp were willing to exchange information with journalists. He says he refused, but others may have collaborated.
It could have been instigated by the British liaison officers.
-
If it wasn’t where you put it and you realised what had happened.
How would you know two days later what had happened and that there was no chance of the body being found?
-
We have been told by Richard Bilton that the McCann camp were willing to exchange information with journalists. He says he refused, but others may have collaborated.
So you truly believe that the McCann camp (the conspiracy to “start rumours” broadens) planted a completely false story about the police checking local pharmacies. Oookay then... (&^&
-
How would you know two days later what had happened and that there was no chance of the body being found?
And this were going so well VS. You know my theory. Extrapolate from there.
Anyway after two days even if the body was found there would only be evidence of one child being given medicine with a sedative effect, not three and not nearly as suspicious. It would also be hard to prove whether the drug had been given to facilitate the abduction ( difficult) or after the abduction to keep her the child quite ( not so difficult).
-
And this were going so well VS. You know my theory. Extrapolate from there.
Anyway after two days even if the body was found there would only be evidence of one child being given medicine with a sedative effect, not three and not nearly as suspicious. It would also be hard to prove whether the drug had been given to facilitate the abduction ( difficult) or after the abduction to keep her the child quite ( not so difficult).
Yes I know what your theory is and the question still stands. How could you confidently predict that the child you casually tossed in a bin two days previously would never be found?
-
Yes I know what your theory is and the question still stands. How could you confidently predict that the child you casually tossed in a bin two days previously would never be found?
You go back to the bin, the child is not there. You are told at some point in the next couple of days that the bins are emptied in the early hours of the morning. It really isn’t rocket science. Besides as I said one child found with a sedative drug in their blood is a lot less suspicious than three.
-
You go back to the bin, the child is not there. You are told at some point in the next couple of days that the bins are emptied in the early hours of the morning. It really isn’t rocket science. Besides as I said one child found with a sedative drug in their blood is a lot less suspicious than three.
So you’d know that once the bin had been emptied you’d be in the clear, even though the reason you hid her in the bin in the first place was so that she would be quickly discovered? Right you are then.
As for your second point, we seem to be going round in circles back to my original point which was why would you deliberately draw attention to sedation as being involved if you yourself had administered a sedative and there was a likelihood of the body being recovered, and lo and behold! found to contain a sedative? It makes no sense and would make you look more suspicious.
-
IMO, the PJ missed the perfect opportunity to put this particular issue to rest for ever. The very fact that so many people raised the possibility was justification enough that they be tested.
-
IMO, the PJ missed the perfect opportunity to put this particular issue to rest for ever. The very fact that so many people raised the possibility was justification enough that they be tested.
So many people ? Who actually raised the issue when testing the twins would have yielded a result ? The only people were the McCanns and we don’t even know if their question was passed to the PJ by the FLOs.
-
So many people ? Who actually raised the issue when testing the twins would have yielded a result ? The only people were the McCanns and we don’t even know if their question was passed to the PJ by the FLOs.
There is some evidence it had been. There were thorough examinations of the apartment for spillages, empty containers, syringes, and the pillow (from Madeleine's bed IIRC) was checked in some way for traces of Chloroform and ether. Unsure of the date but if it was after the meeting with the FLOs then that could be a sign of a response rather than the PJ working on their own initiative.
-
There is some evidence it had been. There were thorough examinations of the apartment for spillages, empty containers, syringes, and the pillow (from Madeleine's bed IIRC) was checked in some way for traces of Chloroform and ether. Unsure of the date but if it was after the meeting with the FLOs then that could be a sign of a response rather than the PJ working on their own initiative.
The forensic examination was carried out on the 4th. The FLO's arrived in Portugal on 5th.
-
So many people ? Who actually raised the issue when testing the twins would have yielded a result ? The only people were the McCanns and we don’t even know if their question was passed to the PJ by the FLOs.
Why would the FLOs mention that they’d been asked the question by the McCanns if they subsequently failed to pass it on to the PJ? That would just be making themselves look bad wouldn’t it?
-
The forensic examination was carried out on the 4th. The FLO's arrived in Portugal on 5th.
So it is possible that as part,of the FLO’s briefing, they were told about the forensic exam enabling them to answer the McCann’s question.
-
So it is possible that as part,of the FLO’s briefing, they were told about the forensic exam enabling them to answer the McCann’s question.
The forensic results came back in a day? Impressive. Strange that the FLOs would not mention the fact that they had already answered the McCanns question about sedatives in their statements.
-
Out of interest what items were forensicslly tested for the presence of sedatives? Bedclothes? Cuddlecat?
-
So you truly believe that the McCann camp (the conspiracy to “start rumours” broadens) planted a completely false story about the police checking local pharmacies. Oookay then... (&^&
UK editors and journalists have blamed the Portuguese press for the untrue stories they printed. The Portuguese press have claimed that they got their stories from the PJ.
As far as I know the PJ didn't investigate sedation in May 2007 and the Portuguese press didn't report on it either.
The Express got the story from somewhere or they invented it.
-
UK editors and journalists have blamed the Portuguese press for the untrue stories they printed. The Portuguese press have claimed that they got their stories from the PJ.
As far as I know the PJ didn't investigate sedation in May 2007 and the Portuguese press didn't report on it either.
The Express got the story from somewhere or they invented it.
How can you be certain that the Portuguese press did not report this story in May 2007? Why does the story have to come either from the PJ or the McCanns?
-
Out of interest what items were forensicslly tested for the presence of sedatives? Bedclothes? Cuddlecat?
What does "forensically tested" really mean? Can looking with your eyes and smelling something with your nose qualify as forensic testing?
For a simple answer (Wikipedia) "Forensic science is the application of science to criminal and civil laws, mainly—on the criminal side—during criminal investigation, as governed by the legal standards of admissible evidence and criminal procedure.
Forensic scientists collect, preserve, and analyze scientific evidence during the course of an investigation. While some forensic scientists travel to the scene of the crime to collect the evidence themselves, others occupy a laboratory role, performing analysis on objects brought to them by other individuals.[1]
-
The forensic examination was carried out on the 4th. The FLO's arrived in Portugal on 5th.
Well I agree it started on the 4th. Did they complete it in a day?
-
How can you be certain that the Portuguese press did not report this story in May 2007? Why does the story have to come either from the PJ or the McCanns?
I haven't seen any evidence that the story was covered by the Portuguese media. I don't know who was interacting with the press in May 2007, but the PJ and the McCanns have both been accused of leaking stories.
-
Well I agree it started on the 4th. Did they complete it in a day?
There's no mention of it taking more than one day. There's also no mention of searching for drugs, Rob.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
-
I haven't seen any evidence that the story was covered by the Portuguese media. I don't know who was interacting with the press in May 2007, but the PJ and the McCanns have both been accused of leaking stories.
For the McCanns to leak a story they would need to know about it first.
-
For the McCanns to leak a story they would need to know about it first.
IMO G-Unit is implying that the McCann made up the story and gave it to the Express two weeks after Madeleine’s disappearance, though quite why they should do this is anyone’s guess.
-
I haven't seen any evidence that the story was covered by the Portuguese media. I don't know who was interacting with the press in May 2007, but the PJ and the McCanns have both been accused of leaking stories.
Unless there is a database of all the news articles that appeared in the Portuguese press in May 2007 regarding this case for you to check I really don’t see how you could make a judgement about this either way.
-
There's no mention of it taking more than one day. There's also no mention of searching for drugs, Rob.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/5A_FORENSIC_4_5_7.htm
It is somewhere else then IIRC.
-
I haven't seen any evidence that the story was covered by the Portuguese media. I don't know who was interacting with the press in May 2007, but the PJ and the McCanns have both been accused of leaking stories.
Can you give us an example of a story leaked by the McCanns please so I have an idea of what you are alleging.
-
From what I can see the media made up the drugging story themselves.
Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.
Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family [NOTE: that is Ricardo Paiva], asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.
She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.
And we know that the sedatives have timings to act and timings to be expelled, that varies between six and 200 hours.
The medical knowledge of the McCann is enough to know such, even if their professional activity never passed by performing toxicology exams.
From
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Modified to say perhaps all it really says is that Almeida didn't leak it and it was unlikely to be the police or he would have had an idea of what they were looking at when the stories broke, but it still could have been the McCanns but of course I cannot confirm this.
Back to original post.
-
Can you give us an example of a story leaked by the McCanns please so I have an idea of what you are alleging.
The so-called deal allegedly offered by the PJ was quickly related to
Philomena McCann who made sure it got to the UK media.
-
From what I can see the media made up the drugging story themselves.
Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.
Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family [NOTE: that is Ricardo Paiva], asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.
She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.
And we know that the sedatives have timings to act and timings to be expelled, that varies between six and 200 hours.
The medical knowledge of the McCann is enough to know such, even if their professional activity never passed by performing toxicology exams.
From
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Modified to say perhaps all it really says is that Almeida didn't leak it and it was unlikely to be the police or he would have had an idea of what they were looking at when the stories broke, but it still could have been the McCanns but of course I cannot confirm this.
Right before you get too carried away explain the sentence in your quote:
"The medical knowledge of the McCann is enough to know such, even if their professional activity never passed by performing toxicology exams."
What do you think that means?
-
The so-called deal allegedly offered by the PJ was quickly related to
Philomena McCann who made sure it got to the UK media.
That was not actual evidence but a misunderstanding whether it was a plea bargain or not. Anything else involving evidence?
-
Right before you get too carried away explain the sentence in your quote:
"The medical knowledge of the McCann is enough to know such, even if their professional activity never passed by performing toxicology exams."
What do you think that means?
I have no idea as it is garbled.
Sorry, I wasn't using that part of the quote in my thinking that bit just got tagged on at the end .
My thinking was that Almeida was a senior officer with the police and he would surely know what investigations the PJ were carrying out when the pharmacy story appeared in the media. If they were doing nothing of the sort then it could be concluded that it wasn't a police leak. So that leaves a McCann story or a media fantasy.
-
I have no idea as it is garbled.
Sorry, I wasn't using that part of the quote in my thinking that bit just got tagged on at the end .
My thinking was that Almeida was a senior officer with the police and he would surely know what investigations the PJ were carrying out when the pharmacy story appeared in the media. If they were doing nothing of the sort then it could be concluded that it wasn't a police leak. So that leaves a McCann story or a media fantasy.
Well would you go back to the section that you needed to quote and explain it bit by bit as to what you think each bit means please.
To me you seem to jump to a conclusion real quick.
-
Modified post for #715
From what I can see the media made up the drugging story themselves.
Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
From
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Modified to say that if Almeida thought it was the media then as he was a senior officer in the case then it was not the police as IMO he would know if there was a possible leak particularly if they were not investigating pharmacies at that time. There is a possibility that it could still be the McCanns giving the story to the media but I don't have any reason why they should do so.
Hope this makes more sense Robittybob1
-
OK I will modify the post Robittybob1
It would be better to do a new one so we can follow the conversation. Thanks.
Do you take all of what Tavares says as gospel?
"Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
Distant in time Kate's father, the grandfather of the minor, Brian Healy, admits to the press that Kate could have administered some medication to the little girl, Calpol, to help the child (children'') to sleep, contrary to what his daughter Kate had stated.
Kate, through the PJ inspector that acted as 'liaison' with the family [NOTE: that is Ricardo Paiva], asked why samples weren't taken from the twins in order to test that hypothesis. She knew well enough at that time, more than 3 months later, that such exam would be inviable.
She went further and said that we ' the investigation ' should verify that the kidnapper had sedated Madeleine, to accomplish the action and he had also sedated the twins 'to consummate the act' however she didn't say that at the right moment.
And we know that the sedatives have timings to act and timings to be expelled, that varies between six and 200 hours."
First bit "the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents." What does he mean by forwarded? Is that like forwarding an email? Or is he saying the media made it up?
-
Hi, I have done so (original post is back to what it was) and I hope this is all OK now. 8((()*/
-
That was not actual evidence but a misunderstanding whether it was a plea bargain or not. Anything else involving evidence?
The McCanns leaked the story to the media.
-
The McCanns leaked the story to the media.
What story? When? It was a story given to the media, it wasn't leaked it was known full well where it came from.
-
It would be better to do a new one so we can follow the conversation. Thanks.
Do you take all of what Tavares says as gospel?
First bit "the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents." What does he mean by forwarded? Is that like forwarding an email? Or is he saying the media made it up?
I actually think he means they "put forward" the story of sedation as in there were articles about it. I don't think it is proof that the story was made up by the media.
I don't treat everything he says as gospel but I believe that he believed in everything he was saying at this time and he believed it was factual. Ie I don't think he was lying about anything. Why would he?
-
Modified post for #715
From what I can see the media made up the drugging story themselves.
Let's see: the media forwarded the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
From
A report by Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida to the Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/TAVARES_ALMEIDA.htm
Modified to say that if Almeida thought it was the media then as he was a senior officer in the case then it was not the police as IMO he would know if there was a possible leak particularly if they were not investigating pharmacies at that time. There is a possibility that it could still be the McCanns giving the story to the media but I don't have any reason why they should do so.
Hope this makes more sense Robittybob1
OK in the sentence where it says "forwarded" could you put what you think "forwarded" means please.
For example: The media forwarded [repeated what the PJ told them about] the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
another example: The media forwarded [made up their own story about] the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
But I want your version as to what you think he is saying please?
I see you have used the term "put forward" so it becomes The media forwarded [put forward] the hypothesis that the children could have been sedated to be kept asleep and allow some rest to the parents.
Does "put forward" in that sense just mean "publicised"?
-
If we use the dictionary definition of Put forward:
"put sth/sb forward. US put sth/sb forth. — phrasal verb with put uk /pʊt/ us verb putting, put, put. to offer an idea or opinion, or suggest a plan or person, for other people to consider: The proposals that you have put forward deserve serious consideration.
That is making it sound as it was the paper's idea. Was he right to blame the papers?
-
If we use the dictionary definition of Put forward:
"put sth/sb forward. US put sth/sb forth. — phrasal verb with put uk /pʊt/ us verb putting, put, put. to offer an idea or opinion, or suggest a plan or person, for other people to consider: The proposals that you have put forward deserve serious consideration.
That is making it sound as it was the paper's idea. Was he right to blame the papers?
Ah I see what you mean. I hadn't thought about the differences in the wording. My use of "put forward" was incorrect.
Almeida said "the media forwarded" but why would he say that? If the police had given the media that information, there would be no reason to mention the media as this was a legal interim statement. Perhaps he believed that the media "forwarded" the story as possibly given by the McCanns as his statement mentions this below:
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
He considered them to be lying anyway so why not a McCann originated leaked story.
All IMO.
-
Ah I see what you mean. I hadn't thought about the differences in the wording. My use of "put forward" was incorrect.
Almeida said "the media forwarded" but why would he say that? If the police had given the media that information, there would be no reason to mention the media as this was a legal interim statement. Perhaps he believed that the media "forwarded" the story as possibly given by the McCanns as his statement mentions this below:
Where he concludes, after analyzing all the evidence gathered, that the child is dead and the parents were responsible for cadaver occultation, and the entire GROUP was lying since the first day of the investigation.
He considered them to be lying anyway so why not a McCann originated leaked story.
All IMO.
Considering that the PJ said they have no evidence against the McCanns I do wonder what evidence Tarvares spent time analysing. Surely it is possible he came to an incorrect decision.
-
Considering that the PJ said they have no evidence against the McCanns I do wonder what evidence Tarvares spent time analysing. Surely it is possible he came to an incorrect decision.
Of course it is possible. We could all be wrong on here at different times. Hopefully though he was at least looking at the evidence when reaching his conclusion. As john said the PJ would have more information available to them than we will ever have.
I don't think the PJ said they had no evidence against the McCanns though or the SC wouldn't have said what she did.
IMO of course.
-
Of course it is possible. We could all be wrong on here at different times. Hopefully though he was at least looking at the evidence when reaching his conclusion. As john said the PJ would have more information available to them than we will ever have.
I don't think the PJ said they had no evidence against the McCanns though or the SC wouldn't have said what she did.
IMO of course.
Why would evidence pointing to the McCanns’ guilt not be included with all the other evidence in the files? IMO it is nonsense to suggest that there is secret evidence against them, and is the sort of nonsense that allows for all sorts of conspiracy theories.
-
Why would evidence pointing to the McCanns’ guilt not be included with all the other evidence in the files? IMO it is nonsense to suggest that there is secret evidence against them, and is the sort of nonsense that allows for all sorts of conspiracy theories.
Vertigo Swirl I said "information" not "secret evidence" . There may be discussions etc that took place that weren't in the files. You weren't there and I wasn't there either but Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida was.
Again IMO.
-
Why would evidence pointing to the McCanns’ guilt not be included with all the other evidence in the files? IMO it is nonsense to suggest that there is secret evidence against them, and is the sort of nonsense that allows for all sorts of conspiracy theories.
Just a thought though. If the PJ did have a file called secret evidence that they could use at some stage. Once the case is archived and the secret evidence is not included in the file, it could "lost".
-
Vertigo Swirl I said "information" not "secret evidence" . There may be discussions etc that took place that weren't in the files. You weren't there and I wasn't there either but Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida was.
Again IMO.
What’s the difference between information (critical to the investigation which helped Tavares Almeida arrive at his conclusions but not included in the files) and secret evidence then?
-
Vertigo Swirl I said "information" not "secret evidence" . There may be discussions etc that took place that weren't in the files. You weren't there and I wasn't there either but Chief Inspector Tavares de Almeida was.
Again IMO.
Indeed he was ... but whether or not you want to hang on his every word is a matter for you. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71033#msg71033
All of which was going on in the background of Madeleine's case.
-
Just a thought though. If the PJ did have a file called secret evidence that they could use at some stage. Once the case is archived and the secret evidence is not included in the file, it could "lost".
If there was information which could have been used against the McCanns do you think they wouldn't have used it?
-
If there was information which could have been used against the McCanns do you think they wouldn't have used it?
No they would have used it, but what if the secret information was going to point in another direction altogether?
If they get too focused on the McCanns as it appears they would tend to miss the other stuff.
This was emphasised in the Mona Blades Cold Case documentary aired 2 weeks ago in NZ. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/cold-case/episodes/s1-e1 I don't know if that link works over there.
-
No they would have used it, but what if the secret information was going to point in another direction altogether?
If they get too focused on the McCanns as it appears they would tend to miss the other stuff.
This was emphasised in the Mona Blades Cold Case documentary aired 2 weeks ago in NZ. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/cold-case/episodes/s1-e1 I don't know if that link works over there.
I believe the investigation did place too much focus on the McCanns which might have meant they missed other stuff but that is a long way off thinking that they deliberately perverted the course of justice. That is a step too far.
-
I believe the investigation did place too much focus on the McCanns which might have meant they missed other stuff but that is a long way off thinking that they deliberately perverted the course of justice. That is a step too far.
Hmmm? *%6^
Do you think so?
-
I believe the investigation did place too much focus on the McCanns which might have meant they missed other stuff but that is a long way off thinking that they deliberately perverted the course of justice. That is a step too far.
‘Other stuff’ which OG seem to have also missed in 7 years.
-
I believe the investigation did place too much focus on the McCanns which might have meant they missed other stuff but that is a long way off thinking that they deliberately perverted the course of justice. That is a step too far.
Let's hope they didn't go that far. I'm still planning for a trip over there next year and I'd like to think everything is above board.
-
‘Other stuff’ which OG seem to have also missed in 7 years.
The PJ were rather overwhelmed with information and people coming and going from the resort, Top that off with the language barrier. It is interesting that the second documentary in the TVNZ Cold Case series was a case where the NZ police had to deal with Vietnamese speaking suspects.
It ended up the police actually used a potential suspect to interpret between then and the wife of the missing man.
I couldn't help but see the similarity between that case and the McCann case. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/cold-case/episodes/s1-e2
-
The PJ were rather overwhelmed with information and people coming and going from the resort, Top that off with the language barrier. It is interesting that the second documentary in the TVNZ Cold Case series was a case where the NZ police had to deal with Vietnamese speaking suspects.
It ended up the police actually used a potential suspect to interpret between then and the wife of the missing man.
I couldn't help but see the similarity between that case and the McCann case. https://www.tvnz.co.nz/shows/cold-case/episodes/s1-e2
I think you may be right. They had dozens of potential sightings of Madeleine to follow up, they had the McCanns asking them to follow up psychics information and other peoples claims such as Danie Krügel, it would be hard to keep on track.
Brietta, Vertigo Swirl, I actually wasn't meaning secret evidence (I have already said this) against the mccanns, rather that Almeida was working the case every day and seeing the information as it arrived within the police force. This plus discussions between the police officers would give him an insight we now don't have or were you both there.
I have seen a lot of criticism of the original PJ work but I honestly think any police force would find it difficult with all the information flying in and the UK media's constant criticism. Also just look at how many sightings there were in 2007 that would have to be followed up IMO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_sightings_of_Madeleine_McCann
-
Indeed he was ... but whether or not you want to hang on his every word is a matter for you. http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=2140.msg71033#msg71033
All of which was going on in the background of Madeleine's case.
It sounds like Almeida was working with the DCCB in Lisbon in 2000. If it's the same man, that is.
-
It sounds like Almeida was working with the DCCB in Lisbon in 2000. If it's the same man, that is.
He received a suspended sentence earlier. But he keeps his job.
"suspended sentence
noun LAW
a judicial punishment which is not enforced unless a further crime is committed during a specified period.
"a two-year suspended sentence""
-
I think you may be right. They had dozens of potential sightings of Madeleine to follow up, they had the McCanns asking them to follow up psychics information and other peoples claims such as Danie Krügel, it would be hard to keep on track.
Brietta, Vertigo Swirl, I actually wasn't meaning secret evidence (I have already said this) against the mccanns, rather that Almeida was working the case every day and seeing the information as it arrived within the police force. This plus discussions between the police officers would give him an insight we now don't have or were you both there.
I have seen a lot of criticism of the original PJ work but I honestly think any police force would find it difficult with all the information flying in and the UK media's constant criticism. Also just look at how many sightings there were in 2007 that would have to be followed up IMO
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Reported_sightings_of_Madeleine_McCann
Yes Sunny, we have all read that criticism just hours after MBM was claimed to be missing. The fantasies procured by some supporters that the PJ would spend many years and man hours checking every gypsy camp,every paedophile in the entire world is laughable if it were not so serious. The McCanns made it a global search .. why? well it has been suggested to keep the police from looking at them? what made McCanns think the whole world should be involved in criticising a police force and not criticise them? arrogance dear friends...
Their daughters disappearance is their responsibility- they cared only about themselves. They took a risk and lost.
Now back to sedation.... when was this supposed to have taken place with all the comings and goings apparently that one night? The drugger was taking a huge risk of getting caught...
-
‘Other stuff’ which OG seem to have also missed in 7 years.
That should justify at least another 12 months funding by the Home Office then.
-
That should justify at least another 12 months funding by the Home Office then.
The ‘last lead’ was 18 months ago. If they haven’t cracked it by now what’s the chance they ever will ?
-
The ‘last lead’ was 18 months ago. If they haven’t cracked it by now what’s the chance they ever will ?
I thought you were of the view that OG had the McCanns firmly in their sights and things were getting a bit uncomfortable for the dastardly duo...?
-
The ‘last lead’ was 18 months ago. If they haven’t cracked it by now what’s the chance they ever will ?
They may well have already cracked the case. Presenting a cast-iron case to the Portuguese AG which doesn't allow for any legal loopholes to be enacted before people can be arrested may well prove to be the difficulty.
IMO.
-
They may well have already cracked the case. Presenting a cast-iron case to the Portuguese AG which doesn't allow for any legal loopholes to be enacted before people can be arrested may well prove to be the difficulty.
IMO.
Do you have an idea of who the UK police have in mind as a suspect Misty?
-
Do you have an idea of who the UK police have in mind as a suspect Misty?
That would be interesting to know.
-
I thought you were of the view that OG had the McCanns firmly in their sights and things were getting a bit uncomfortable for the dastardly duo...?
Notice the ‘if’.
-
They may well have already cracked the case. Presenting a cast-iron case to the Portuguese AG which doesn't allow for any legal loopholes to be enacted before people can be arrested may well prove to be the difficulty.
IMO.
I absolutely agree.
-
Do you have an idea of who the UK police have in mind as a suspect Misty?
None whatsoever, Sunny. I only know who I suspect, although I have 2 different theories.
-
Notice the ‘if’.
If they’d cracked it by now, charges would have been brought. They haven’t so they haven’t.
-
If they’d cracked it by now, charges would have been brought. They haven’t so they haven’t.
They might be still gathering evidence.
-
If they’d cracked it by now, charges would have been brought. They haven’t so they haven’t.
Knowing who the perpetrators are and having enough evidence to charge them are two different things. Evidence has to be found which is solid enough to take to court.
-
Knowing who the perpetrators are and having enough evidence to charge them are two different things. Evidence has to be found which is solid enough to take to court.
They can only know who the perpetrators are if they have some solid new evidence which wasn’t available to the initial investigation. Why have they not been made arguidosand questioned about this new evidence?
-
They can only know who the perpetrators are if they have some solid new evidence which wasn’t available to the initial investigation. Why have they not been made arguidosand questioned about this new evidence?
I believed I was accused on another thread of saying that the McCanns invented stories for the media.That accusation has now been withdrawn, but now I'm being accused on the same thread of 'suggesting' or 'hinting' that the McCanns passed on false stories to the media.
I would like to point out that the meaning others chose to apply to my posts is their opinion, it's not a fact.
-
They can only know who the perpetrators are if they have some solid new evidence which wasn’t available to the initial investigation. Why have they not been made arguidosand questioned about this new evidence?
Perhaps the investigating authorities want to wait until they have a cast iron case ?
-
Please stick to the topic of the thread which is; "Could all three children have been sedated by an intruder?"
Thank you
-
They can only know who the perpetrators are if they have some solid new evidence which wasn’t available to the initial investigation. Why have they not been made arguidosand questioned about this new evidence?
Don't overlook the possibility of re-evaluation/re- interpretation of existing evidence.
-
Don't overlook the possibility of re-evaluation/re- interpretation of existing evidence.
Snip
05.05.2017 21:00 by Fernanda Cachão and Mónica Palma
In the dishwasher were still cups with traces of chocolate milk, which were never analyzed, and which could have served to prove the use of a drug - which would corroborate the hypothesis of accidental death and concealment of cadaver defended by the first coordinator of the investigation .
https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/seguranca/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-de-regresso-a-praia-da-luz-video
Not just milk ... but chocolate milk ... and never mentioned till ten years down the line. Just goes to show "the truth is out there" or words to that effect!
-
I'm sure that knowing it was chocolate milk, not just ordinary milk, has advanced the investigation enormously.
-
Snip
05.05.2017 21:00 by Fernanda Cachão and Mónica Palma
In the dishwasher were still cups with traces of chocolate milk, which were never analyzed, and which could have served to prove the use of a drug - which would corroborate the hypothesis of accidental death and concealment of cadaver defended by the first coordinator of the investigation .
https://www.sabado.pt/portugal/seguranca/detalhe/goncalo-amaral-de-regresso-a-praia-da-luz-video
Not just milk ... but chocolate milk ... and never mentioned till ten years down the line. Just goes to show "the truth is out there" or words to that effect!
Are you now admitting there were facts recorded but held back from the release file?
-
Are you now admitting there were facts recorded but held back from the release file?
Some facts are more important that others...
-
Are you now admitting there were facts recorded but held back from the release file?
There will be a lot of stuff withheld from the public Rob.
-
Perhaps the investigating authorities want to wait until they have a cast iron case ?
Such as..? No forensics, no CCTV, no body, no murder weapon, so....what then?
-
Don't overlook the possibility of re-evaluation/re- interpretation of existing evidence.
There’s certainly not enough of that to draw any conclusions of the the “case cracked” variety IMO.
-
There will be a lot of stuff withheld from the public Rob.
I hope Brietta reads this.
-
I hope Brietta reads this.
I can assure you that for operational reasons the police keep a lot of stuff secret, it's all part of the game.
-
I can assure you that for operational reasons the police keep a lot of stuff secret, it's all part of the game.
I assume you're speaking from experience John? Am I also correct to assume that the only evidence presented to the CPS by the UK police is that which they think will secure a conviction?
-
I can assure you that for operational reasons the police keep a lot of stuff secret, it's all part of the game.
What reason would the PJ have for witholding stuff from the PJ files, which did include statements from the Gaspars, for example?
-
What reason would the PJ have for witholding stuff from the PJ files, which did include statements from the Gaspars, for example?
The Gasper statements were taken by the UK police, not the PJ.
-
The Gasper statements were taken by the UK police, not the PJ.
Were they not included in the released PJ files?
-
I assume you're speaking from experience John? Am I also correct to assume that the only evidence presented to the CPS by the UK police is that which they think will secure a conviction?
In theory there requires to be full disclosure but that doesn't always happen for many reasons. Investigations can sometimes develop tunnel vision resulting in miscarriages of justice.
-
What reason would the PJ have for witholding stuff from the PJ files, which did include statements from the Gaspars, for example?
Many reasons but primarily the need to withhold evidence which could otherwise jeopardise the investigation.
-
Were they not included in the released PJ files?
I read somewhere the rogatory statements were not included in the released file, but were added to the McCann PJ file collection later. My impression is that there are different degree of release on the CD depending on who was getting the copy.
-
I read somewhere the rogatory statements were not included in the released file, but were added to the McCann PJ file collection later. My impression is that there are different degree of release on the CD depending on who was getting the copy.
It appears the copy released to Kate McCann was more extensive than the one in the McCann PJ file.
-
Many reasons but primarily the need to withhold evidence which could otherwise jeopardise the investigation.
There was no live investigation to jeopardise when the files were released.
-
There was no live investigation to jeopardise when the files were released.
It was still able to be opened again.
-
In theory there requires to be full disclosure but that doesn't always happen for many reasons. Investigations can sometimes develop tunnel vision resulting in miscarriages of justice.
Are you saying that the police, in theory, hand over all their files to the CPS, but they sometimes keep some back? The numbering system used by the Portuguese police would make that difficult to do imo. The prosecutor would notice.
-
Are you saying that the police, in theory, hand over all their files to the CPS, but they sometimes keep some back? The numbering system used by the Portuguese police would make that difficult to do imo. The prosecutor would notice.
Do you know how Kate McCanns file was numbered? Each release could be numbered differently.
Who is to know the prosecutor himself may wish to hold back certain files.
In the McCann case there has been no trial so full disclosure has not been raised as an issue.
-
I hope this makes it clearer but I have looked and to me the individual pages are marked with pen or pencil so I imagine the one that the McCanns have would be marked with the same numbers on the same pages.
See this one for example, top right hand corner (http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_470.jpg)
-
I hope this makes it clearer but I have looked and to me the individual pages are marked with pen or pencil so I imagine the one that the McCanns have would be marked with the same numbers on the same pages.
See this one for example, top right hand corner (http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P2/02_VOLUME_IIa_Page_470.jpg)
I don't think imagination would be enough to prove that. I could imagine them to be different whereas you imagine them to be the same.
If there was evidence that the files are referenced within themselves with valid numbering maybe I'd believe you
-
I don't think imagination would be enough to prove that. I could imagine them to be different whereas you imagine them to be the same.
If there was evidence that the files are referenced within themselves with valid numbering maybe I'd believe you
I see there is a signature at the top of the page. I have checked and the other pages I have looked at have the same signature. It is not a question of believing me I simply pointed out that the pages were numbered.
Numbering the pages afterwards makes more sense to me than trying to number them at the time as there may have been more than one policeman working on it and creating a page at the same time. How on earth would they keep track of the number? Whether you "believe me" is immaterial, the point is the pages were numbered individually and I am sure it was by the PJ and probably at the time of the archiving so that they could keep track of the information.
-
Do you know how Kate McCanns file was numbered? Each release could be numbered differently.
Who is to know the prosecutor himself may wish to hold back certain files.
In the McCann case there has been no trial so full disclosure has not been raised as an issue.
So let's take just one statement. On 4th May Kate McCann's statement was taken. At some point it was filed and the pages were numbered 58 to 65.
For the files released to the McCanns to have different numbers the PJ would have had to create two sets of files as they went along. Why would they do that?
-
So let's take just one statement. On 4th May Kate McCann's statement was taken. At some point it was filed and the pages were numbered 58 to 65.
For the files released to the McCanns to have different numbers the PJ would have had to create two sets of files as they went along. Why would they do that?
Exactly G-Unit.
-
So let's take just one statement. On 4th May Kate McCann's statement was taken. At some point it was filed and the pages were numbered 58 to 65.
For the files released to the McCanns to have different numbers the PJ would have had to create two sets of files as they went along. Why would they do that?
Are there any numbered pages referred within the PJ documents referred by using the hand written page number?
on this page "The trace evidence described before and referenced as #1 to #7 were delivered to the Lisbon Office of the National Institute of Legal Medicine, under cover of delivery note #156/2007-CR/L a copy of which is attached, for further laboratory examination."
CR/L number could be PJ reference system.
-
Are there any numbered pages referred within the PJ documents referred by using the hand written page number?
Pardon?
-
Pardon?
Find a PJ document that refers to another document within the file. How do they make the reference?
-
Find a PJ document that refers to another document within the file. How do they make the reference?
Do they do that?
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Plenty of page numbers referenced in this report.
Proof also than thousands more pages are not on the internet.
-
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/LEGAL_SUMMARY.htm
Plenty of page numbers referenced in this report.
Proof also than thousands more pages are not on the internet.
Firstly, therefore. pages have only one page number in these files. For the McCann's files to have different numbers they would need to have a completely different set of files created at the same time as these files.
Secondly, the only pages missing are those listed here;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
-
Firstly, therefore. pages have only one page number in these files. For the McCann's files to have different numbers they would need to have a completely different set of files created at the same time as these files.
Secondly, the only pages missing are those listed here;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
There are other pages missing in Outros Apensos which are not listed on your link.
-
There are other pages missing in Outros Apensos which are not listed on your link.
I will be interested to see your evidence.
-
Firstly, therefore. pages have only one page number in these files. For the McCann's files to have different numbers they would need to have a completely different set of files created at the same time as these files.
Secondly, the only pages missing are those listed here;
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MISSING_PAGES.htm
So define "missing pages"? In a book if pages were missing the numbers would skip the exact number of pages missing.
-
I would like you all get back on topic, and transfer any evidence of missing pages to the missing pages thread please.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9960.0 Misty we would like you to respond over there please.
-
I would like you all get back on topic, and transfer any evidence of missing pages to the missing pages thread please.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9960.0 Misty we would like you to respond over there please.
Thanking you all, for being compliant.
-
I would like you all get back on topic, and transfer any evidence of missing pages to the missing pages thread please.
http://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=9960.0 Misty we would like you to respond over there please.
I can't be bothered scrolling back to when this was taken off topic. Has anyone offered even a smidgen of explanation as to who,why, and how, and when These children were 'sedated'. OR why Kate mentions it without offering details.
-
I can't be bothered scrolling back to when this was taken off topic. Has anyone offered even a smidgen of explanation as to who,why, and how, and when These children were 'sedated'. OR why Kate mentions it without offering details.
My impression is that Kate becomes aware with hindsight that someone was interfering with her kids.
There was the stain on Madeleine's pyjamas the Thursday morning, and then the way the twins slept so soundly on Thursday night.
-
My impression is that Kate becomes aware with hindsight that someone was interfering with her kids.
There was the stain on Madeleine's pyjamas the Thursday morning, and then the way the twins slept so soundly on Thursday night.
Ah Yes The pyjama stain. Why bother to mention that as well? Again we have an expert on medicine- in particular sedation. And she can't tell what that stain might be? not even guess? I just find that very difficult to believe.
-
Ah Yes The pyjama stain. Why bother to mention that as well? Again we have an expert on medicine- in particular sedation. And she can't tell what that stain might be? not even guess? I just find that very difficult to believe.
So you think there are those who can recognise every stain!
-
So you think there are those who can recognise every stain!
The characteristics of that stain should have told Kate much.
How big was the stain? Precisely where was it located? What did it smell of? Even I can recognise tea.
It seems to have come out in the wash, suggesting it was water-based rather than oil-based.
When did the story of the tea stain enter the public domain? Is there a reference to it before 'madeleine'?
-
The characteristics of that stain should have told Kate much.
How big was the stain? Precisely where was it located? What did it smell of? Even I can recognise tea.
It seems to have come out in the wash, suggesting it was water-based rather than oil-based.
When did the story of the tea stain enter the public domain? Is there a reference to it before 'madeleine'?
She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
-
The characteristics of that stain should have told Kate much.
How big was the stain? Precisely where was it located? What did it smell of? Even I can recognise tea.
It seems to have come out in the wash, suggesting it was water-based rather than oil-based.
When did the story of the tea stain enter the public domain? Is there a reference to it before 'madeleine'?
Exactly!
-
She noticed a stain, supposedly of tea, on Madeleine's pyjama top, which she washed a little later that same morning. She hung it to dry on a small stand, and it was dry by the afternoon.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm
So it is in the PJ Files, date 6 Sep 2007. *&(+(+