Wandering Off Topic

[Vertigo Swirl]

Which suggests that they had no reason to suspect that the children were not OK.

Erm...didn’t they immediately suspect the parents of being up to no good with one kid already missing?  How does that equate to “no reason to suspect that the children were not ok”?

[Vertigo Swirl]

If the mother of a missing child tells the police she fears her other children have been sedated the police are duty bound to call medical help, I would have thought.

Then they were derelict in their duties weren’t they.

[Robittybob1]

Then they were derelict in their duties weren’t they.

Which police are you talking about?  The first two GNR could NOT speak English, so Kate can't tell them anything without Silvia's help, but according to Fiona there is no one called Silvia there.
The next were the PJ to arrive and they wanted the apartment empty, so they wanted the sleeping twins moved so they too weren't concerned for their safety.

[Vertigo Swirl]

Which police are you talking about.  The first two GNR could NOT speak English, so Kate can't tell them anything without Silvia's help, but according to Fiona there is no one called Silvia there.
The next were the PJ to arrive and they wanted the apartment empty, so they wanted the sleeping twins moved so they too weren't concerned for there safety.

We are told that pretty much every police person that came into contact with the McCanns and their friends that night viewed them with suspicion and / or incredulity.  Couple this with the fact that one child had gone missing but others remained in the care of their parents then, if the police’s number one duty should have been to protect the remaining children they clearly failed to do so and are all therefore derelict in their duties.  At least according to G-Unit logic that is.

[G-Unit]

They don't go and set up roadblocks just because Kate said Madeleine was abducted.  OK so which of the things said by a frantic mother are the GNR or PJ going to take notice of in the first day?
Next day the twins might have appeared 100% normal.  I can see why nothing is being done.

The other person there with Kate was Fiona also a doctor, had she backed up Kate on her request maybe things would have been different.  There is a second opinion there right on hand.

So a mother tells two policemen she fears her twins have been sedated. She is clearly hysterical so the police ignore her. Meanwhile the twins have been sedated with something quite dangerous and are deteriorating into unconciousness. By the time sineone checks them they are near death. Who's fault is it if they die?

[Vertigo Swirl]

So a mother tells two policemen she fears her twins have been sedated. She is clearly hysterical so the police ignore her. Meanwhile the twins have been sedated with something quite dangerous and are deteriorating into unconciousness. By the time sineone checks them they are near death. Who's fault is it if they die?

Whoever gave them the drug, ultimately.  The police would have  been guilty of not taking a mother’s fears seriously.

[G-Unit]

Whoever gave them the drug, ultimately.  The police would have  been guilty of not taking a mother’s fears seriously.

That's why the police wouldn't ignore a mother who was worried about her children. They would have acted.

[Vertigo Swirl]

That's why the police wouldn't ignore a mother who was worried about her children. They would have acted.

Weird logic.  The police always do the right thing, always act correctly, never get done for errors of judgement, or incompetence, well at least they do  in Portugal I expect, where everything is practically perfect. 

It’s the equivalent of me saying a doctor would never ignore a patient ‘s life threatening symptoms , because they are professionals who would be blamed if the patient died.  Now I’m almost certain you don’t buy that logic!

[G-Unit]

Weird logic.  The police always do the right thing, always act correctly, never get done for errors of judgement, or incompetence, well at least they do  in Portugal I expect, where everything is practically perfect. 

It’s the equivalent of me saying a doctor would never ignore a patient ‘s life threatening symptoms , because they are professionals who would be blamed if the patient died.  Now I’m almost certain you don’t buy that logic!

If the police had ignored Kate McCann's fears she had the option of telling John Hill, Emma Knight, and various others. If she really feared her children had been sedated by a criminal why did she mention if just once, was ignored and dropped the subject?

[Vertigo Swirl]

If the police had ignored Kate McCann's fears she had the option of telling John Hill, Emma Knight, and various others. If she really feared her children had been sedated by a criminal why did she mention if just once, was ignored and dropped the subject?

Maybe she had other worries on her mind?  Maybe her kids showed signs of movement and dispelled any immediate fears for their safety?  Maybe she did, and her fears were played down or ignored by others?   Was the issue of sedation not raised by the McCanns in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance?

See how I answered your questions?  Shame you never address mine in the same direct and forthright way.

Why would Kate McCann lie about this issue?  What does she gain from doing so?  Some say the McCanns raised the issue of sedation just in case Madeleine’s body was found and contained sedatives.  What difference would it have made to the case if this had happened and the McCanns had not mentioned their concerns about the twins?  Is it logical to assume that a would be abductor would definitely have administered drugs to ALL the kids not just the one he planned to abduct?  Conversely is it beyond the realms of possibility that a would be abductor with evil intent might have planned to remove all three children and therefore drugged them all?   Just what is the significance of Kate mentioning or not mentioning the possible sedation of her kids that evening?

A straight and direct answer to these questions would be much appreciated but I know it’s unlikely you will, therefore see these all as rhetorical and not aimed at you specifically. 

[Vertigo Swirl]

oh, and one more (rhetorical) question - why do you believe some of the things in Kate’s book to be true but not others?  On what basis do you pick and choose?

[Vertigo Swirl]

and here’s another question.  Is the fact that no one that night mentioned Kate’s sedation claims in their statements evidence that Kate is a liar.  In otherwords is absence of evidence, evidence she is a liar?

[G-Unit]

Maybe she had other worries on her mind?  Maybe her kids showed signs of movement and dispelled any immediate fears for their safety?  Maybe she did, and her fears were played down or ignored by others?   Was the issue of sedation not raised by the McCanns in the immediate aftermath of Madeleine’s disappearance?

See how I answered your questions?  Shame you never address mine in the same direct and forthright way.

Why would Kate McCann lie about this issue?  What does she gain from doing so?  Some say the McCanns raised the issue of sedation just in case Madeleine’s body was found and contained sedatives.  What difference would it have made to the case if this had happened and the McCanns had not mentioned their concerns about the twins?  Is it logical to assume that a would be abductor would definitely have administered drugs to ALL the kids not just the one he planned to abduct?  Conversely is it beyond the realms of possibility that a would be abductor with evil intent might have planned to remove all three children and therefore drugged them all?   Just what is the significance of Kate mentioning or not mentioning the possible sedation of her kids that evening?

A straight and direct answer to these questions would be much appreciated but I know it’s unlikely you will, therefore see these all as rhetorical and not aimed at you specifically.

The problem as I see it is the disjointed nature of Kate's narrative. She tells us what she said, but not what the reaction was. Her next statement is that the officers 'looked around'. We don't know if they heard her, answered her, or ignored her. It seems she made no further attempt to get her fears acknowledged.

You have answered my questions by speculating about what the answers might be, not by telling me what the answers are. I can only answer your questions by speculating also.

You ask why Kate McCann would lie. Amswer; I don't know.

There is one question of interest. The significance is that Kate McCann criticises the Portuguese police because they didn't test the twin's urine, hair or blood for sedatives. In order for them to do that they would need to suspect sedation had taken place. She claims to have told them of her suspicions on 3rd and several times after that. The police say she didn't. They tried to find out if she told the UK FLO's, but their questions were changed by Stuart Prior. Markley and McGarvey volunteered the information that drugging was mentioned, but not in connection to the twins.

[Vertigo Swirl]

The problem as I see it is the disjointed nature of Kate's narrative. She tells us what she said, but not what the reaction was. Her next statement is that the officers 'looked around'. We don't know if they heard her, answered her, or ignored her. It seems she made no further attempt to get her fears acknowledged.

You have answered my questions by speculating about what the answers might be, not by telling me what the answers are. I can only answer your questions by speculating also.

You ask why Kate McCann would lie. Amswer; I don't know.

There is one question of interest. The significance is that Kate McCann criticises the Portuguese police because they didn't test the twin's urine, hair or blood for sedatives. In order for them to do that they would need to suspect sedation had taken place. She claims to have told them of her suspicions on 3rd and several times after that. The police say she didn't. They tried to find out if she told the UK FLO's, but their questions were changed by Stuart Prior. Markley and McGarvey volunteered the information that drugging was mentioned, but not in connection to the twins.

So your criticism seems to be more about her authorship then on this occasion, in that she didn’t recount faithfully word for word every thought and deed that took place that evening.  I think that’s somewhat unreasonable but you’re entitled to your view.
You ask me to speculate and then seem critical of the fact that I did, well again that’s somewhat unreasonable too in my opinion, but not unusual.
The fact that you in turn refuse to speculate is also unreasonable considering you asked me to do it, but predictable. 
You don’t know why Kate would lie, but have you actually given any thought to why she might or are you just content to leave it at that?  Because in my opinion that shows a lack of critical thinking, and it’s what any investigator worth their salt would do in an attempt to understand individual suspects’ motivations for their actions.  Again IMO.
Do you have a cite for the police saying Kate McCann did not raise any concerns about sedation with them?  Which police?  Stuart prior “changed the questions”.  There seems to be an implication in your mentioning this, beyond simply stating a fact, IMO you will deny this, as usual.  Finally, do you think it’s up to the mother of a missing child to suggest to the police that they investigate all possibilities including examining the brother and sister of the missing child who were either a) the only other human beings in the room when Madeleine was taken by person(s) of ill intent or b) the surviving children of negligent parents who may possibly have killed their child deliberately or not and hidden the body?

[Brietta]

So your criticism seems to be more about her authorship then on this occasion, in that she didn’t recount faithfully word for word every thought and deed that took place that evening.  I think that’s somewhat unreasonable but you’re entitled to your view.
You ask me to speculate and then seem critical of the fact that I did, well again that’s somewhat unreasonable too in my opinion, but not unusual.
The fact that you in turn refuse to speculate is also unreasonable considering you asked me to do it, but predictable. 
You don’t know why Kate would lie, but have you actually given any thought to why she might or are you just content to leave it at that?  Because in my opinion that shows a lack of critical thinking, and it’s what any investigator worth their salt would do in an attempt to understand individual suspects’ motivations for their actions.  Again IMO.
Do you have a cite for the police saying Kate McCann did not raise any concerns about sedation with them?  Which police?  Stuart prior “changed the questions”.  There seems to be an implication in your mentioning this, beyond simply stating a fact, IMO you will deny this, as usual.  Finally, do you think it’s up to the mother of a missing child to suggest to the police that they investigate all possibilities including examining the brother and sister of the missing child who were either a) the only other human beings in the room when Madeleine was taken by person(s) of ill intent or b) the surviving children of negligent parents who may possibly have killed their child deliberately or not and hidden the body?

Madeleine's disappearance became a police matter as soon as it was reported to them and the responsibility to gather evidence was their remit.

I believe they did sniff Madeleine's bedclothes for a sedative which might have left a trace but perhaps a routine blood test for the twins the next morning might have been useful. 
But that would have been a decision for the investigators to make ... not the victims.

The children were very closely monitored by doctors, at least one of whom was a practising anaesthetist, http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/FIONA-PAYNE-ROGATORY.htm who obviously did not consider them to be in any immediate danger as a result of sedation.
So the evidence was that the twins were physically fine ... but there was no evidence collected and checked for traces of drugs in their systems.

That was a diligence which was the responsibility of the investigating authorities to perform.  They didn't order the necessary checks to be carried out resulting in no evidence being collected allowing free rein on nonsensical lies and fables to be used to smear of Madeleine's parents as a result.
Not least of which was Amaral's misunderstanding of the properties of 'Calpol'.

'Syringe Found In Madeleine's Apartment'
POLICE hunting for missing Madeleine McCann discovered a syringe in her parents’ bedroom, it was dramatically claimed last night
In the latest slur against Kate and Gerry McCann, the hypodermic needle was allegedly found in a cupboard at the apartment where their daughter vanished.
http://www.gerrymccannsblogs.co.uk/press/4aug7/express-30-08-07.htm