Was Madeleine's height a factor?

[sadie]

She never thought of the kitchen though;

In the kitchen were cutting elements used to prepare the meals and which were not put out of sight.
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN_ARGUIDO.htm

Neither parent noticed the danger of children getting onto that balcony, it seems.

She never thought of the kitchen though;

In the kitchen were cutting elements used to prepare the meals and which were not put out of sight.

Not a lot of danger with the cutting elements which were not put out of sight.


Madeleine was 90cm tall, with her eyes approx set approx 2" (5cm) down so they were roughly 85cm off the ground.

Standard worktops are 36" high in the UK.  Probably virtually the same all over Europe.

36" = 91.44cm.

Madeleine wasn't tall enough to see the cutting elements ...  There would be no interest in anything she couldn't see.


14

[ShiningInLuz]

She never thought of the kitchen though;

In the kitchen were cutting elements used to prepare the meals and which were not put out of sight.

Not a lot of danger with the cutting elements which were not put out of sight.


Madeleine was 90cm tall, with her eyes approx set approx 2" (5cm) down so they were roughly 85cm off the ground.

Standard worktops are 36" high in the UK.  Probably virtually the same all over Europe.

36" = 91.44cm.

Madeleine wasn't tall enough to see the cutting elements ...  There would be no interest in anything she couldn't see.

Unless she had a serious medical condition or was unusual in the extreme, Madeleine was a metre or slightly more tall.

Source RCPCH - Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - UK girls aged 4.

Our kitchen worktops are 89cm, and fittings are a dishwasher and a washing machine/tumble dryer.  Unless 5A's washing machine was a non-standard size, it should have a worktop at around 89cm.

[sadie]

Unless she had a serious medical condition or was unusual in the extreme, Madeleine was a metre or slightly more tall.

Source RCPCH - Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - UK girls aged 4.

Our kitchen worktops are 89cm, and fittings are a dishwasher and a washing machine/tumble dryer.  Unless 5A's washing machine was a non-standard size, it should have a worktop at around 89cm.

Madeleine was 90 cm tall.  Her eyes would be at least 5cm down from the top of her head

Therefore she would not be able to see any cutting implements on a kitchen worktop ... which has a standard height of 90cm to match the height of the standard cooker.  She couldn't see them so there was NO danger.


Please allow this shortened version to stand ... John.

It is important to have correct facts rather than incorrect ones.

[ShiningInLuz]

Madeleine was NOT four .  She was three.  A fairer way to estimate her likely height would have been to take an average of heights for three year old and four year olds and taken the average

Madeleine was not thought to be as tall as you are saying.  See below, from the Official Files

She was thought to be 90 cm tall

http://mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/MADELINE.htm

PRESENT Family Name : McCANN
FAMILY NAME AT BIRTH : McCANN
Forenames : Madeleine Beth
Sex : F
DATE AND Place OF Birth: 12th May 2003 - Leicester, United Kingdom
Also known as Maddie.
OTHER DATES OF BIRTH USED : N/A
FATHER'S FAMILY NAME AND FORENAMES: McCann Gerald Patrick.
MOTHER'S MAIDEN NAME AND FORENAMES : HEALY Kate Marie
IDENTITY : CONFIRMED
NATIONALITY : BRITISH (CONFIRMED)
IDENTITY DOCUMENTS - BRITISH PASSPORT No 45XXXXXXX, issued on 4th August 2003 (UNITED KINGDOM) (Valid until 4th August 2008)
Occupation : N/A
Language Spoken : English
MARITAL STATUS : N/A
DESCRIPTION:
HEIGHT : 90 cms
HAIR : Blond
EYE: Green/Blue
BUILD : Slim
DISTINGUISHING MARKS AND CHARACTERISTICS :
Left Eye : Blue and Green colour
Right Eye : Green colour with a Brown spot in Retina
Small brown mark on Left Leg Calf.
Teeth : EUA

Her eyes would be 5 cm, or more, from the top of her head at 85 cm max from the floor

So she would be unable to see anything on the worktop of a kitchen above 85cm. height.



Standard heights for worktops. 
My bog standard kitchen has a worktop height of 90cm.  All the appliances are integrated.

There are screwed legs on most kitchen units to adjust for floor uneveness and minimally adjust height.  But the standard height for cookers is 90cm so a good fitter will try and adjust the feet to make the kitchen unit height match the cooker and other appliance heights.

http://www.argos.co.uk/product/2768474 New World Cooker

I think you will find that most kitchen counters are about 90m cm high to match the appliances.


I repeat,
Madeleine was too short.  She could NOT see any cutting implements on the worktops, so she would have had no interest in them. 

No danger there.

I know Madeleine went into the files as 90cm.  But it does not make it a fact.

From memory, Madeleine went into the files as 90cm first on Gerry's 4 May 2007 statement.  Then in Kate's 4 May 2007 statement.  And then in the part you have quoted above.

And 90cm went out on her 'missing' poster.

So 90cm it was, until a part of the files requested that an identical pair of M&S pyjamas be tested by the INML and noted in the description that they were sized for someone of 97cm.  That set my alarm bells ringing.

I was interested in whether Madeleine could be responsible for the raised shutter and open window.  With the files establishing the window ledge height at 92cm and a 90cm tall Madeleine, it seemed highly improbable.

But those pyjamas were labelled 97cm and were due to be replaced by new ones when Madeleine turned 4, according to M&S age ranges.  That extra 7cm prompted me to look up information on the height and weight of UK girls on their 4th birthday, which was only a few days away for Madeleine.  12 May 2007 from your post.

And according to the RCPCH - Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - UK girls aged 4.  If Madeleine was small for her age - out of every 4 UK girls aged 4 she was smaller than 3 of them - then she would have been 1m tall.  If she was average it only goes up to 1.02m.

But at 90cm tall it is so runty that the RCPCH says such children should be assessed to see if they have medical problems.

Promote 90cm if you wish Sadie, but that would imply that both McCann parents, as doctors, were negligent in their child's healthcare.  I can see nothing whatsoever to support this.  I prefer to believe the RCPCH data.

Madeleine was tall enough and heavy enough (source RCPCH) to open the shutter and the window.  It does not mean she did.  It means she had the physical capability.

Madeleine was tall enough to see over the kitchen worktop, whether it was my kitchen at 89cm or yours at 90cm.  It matters not a jot.

Madeleine was tall enough and heavy enough to get the unlocked patio doors open.  Again, this does not mean that is what happened.

[sadie]

I know Madeleine went into the files as 90cm.  But it does not make it a fact.

From memory, Madeleine went into the files as 90cm first on Gerry's 4 May 2007 statement.  Then in Kate's 4 May 2007 statement.  And then in the part you have quoted above.

And 90cm went out on her 'missing' poster.

So 90cm it was, until a part of the files requested that an identical pair of M&S pyjamas be tested by the INML and noted in the description that they were sized for someone of 97cm.  That set my alarm bells ringing.

I was interested in whether Madeleine could be responsible for the raised shutter and open window.  With the files establishing the window ledge height at 92cm and a 90cm tall Madeleine, it seemed highly improbable.

But those pyjamas were labelled 97cm and were due to be replaced by new ones when Madeleine turned 4, according to M&S age ranges.  That extra 7cm prompted me to look up information on the height and weight of UK girls on their 4th birthday, which was only a few days away for Madeleine.  12 May 2007 from your post.

And according to the RCPCH - Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health - UK girls aged 4.  If Madeleine was small for her age - out of every 4 UK girls aged 4 she was smaller than 3 of them - then she would have been 1m tall.  If she was average it only goes up to 1.02m.

But at 90cm tall it is so runty that the RCPCH says such children should be assessed to see if they have medical problems.

Promote 90cm if you wish Sadie, but that would imply that both McCann parents, as doctors, were negligent in their child's healthcare.  I can see nothing whatsoever to support this.  I prefer to believe the RCPCH data.

Madeleine was tall enough and heavy enough (source RCPCH) to open the shutter and the window.  It does not mean she did.  It means she had the physical capability.

Madeleine was tall enough to see over the kitchen worktop, whether it was my kitchen at 89cm or yours at 90cm.  It matters not a jot.

Madeleine was tall enough and heavy enough to get the unlocked patio doors open.  Again, this does not mean that is what happened.

You think !
 
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.

As for the pyjama size.  Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new.  They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.

I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about [ 65cm <<<Sorry!] 85 cm above the floor.

Non integrated Kitchen units  match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor

Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter.  She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger

[xtina]

You think !
 
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.

As for the pyjama size.  Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new.  They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.

I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about 65 cm above the floor.

Non integrated Kitchen units  match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor

Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter.  She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger

but she could have reached them in a drawer...feeling around with her hand would be dangerous

[ShiningInLuz]

You think !
 
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.

As for the pyjama size.  Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new.  They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.

I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about [ 65cm <<<Sorry!] 85 cm above the floor.

Non integrated Kitchen units  match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor

Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter.  She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger

If one of the more senior mods on the forum wish to chop this, it is fine by me.  Equally, if the powers that be wish to split this off onto another topic, so be it.

I do not prefer the parent's assessment over that of the RCPCH.  Parents don't get paid to work out normal and abnormal child sizes.  The RCPCH does - that's why it is there.

Neither Kate nor Gerry stated that Madeleine had been measured recently.  This leaves estimation.

"How tall is Madeleine?"  Answer "About 3 feet."

"No, we need it in metric, how tall is Madeleine?"  Answer "I don't know.  How tall is 3ft in metric units?"

"Let me see.  36 inches by 2.5 cm per inch.  That would make her 90cm tall.  Was she 90cm tall?"  Answer "Yeah, I think so, she was probably about 90cm tall."

Speculation of course, but the challenges of the M&S pyjama size and the RCPCH data won't go away.

Why you are mentioning new pyjamas is beyond me.  M&S thought Madeleine should have gone into a larger set on her 4th birthday.  One's bigger than those intended for a child of 97cm.  The RCPCH agrees.

[Alice Purjorick]

You think !
 
I prefer the parents assessment and the official files on this one.

As for the pyjama size.  Crikey, my kids almost drowned in theirs when they were new.  They always had to have ankle close cuffed ones or else they would have been tripping over them.

I think from all the evidence, we can fairly safely estimate Madeleines eye level as about [ 65cm <<<Sorry!] 85 cm above the floor.

Non integrated Kitchen units  match the height of standard cookers etc and the worktops are pretty close to 90cm above the floor

Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter.  She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger

An interesting but erroneous proposition.
The logical extension of that proposition has all sorts of manifestly untrue implications.

[sadie]

An interesting but erroneous proposition.
The logical extension of that proposition has all sorts of manifestly untrue implications.

care to elaborate ?

[sadie]

If one of the more senior mods on the forum wish to chop this, it is fine by me.  Equally, if the powers that be wish to split this off onto another topic, so be it.

I do not prefer the parent's assessment over that of the RCPCH.  Parents don't get paid to work out normal and abnormal child sizes.  The RCPCH does - that's why it is there.

Neither Kate nor Gerry stated that Madeleine had been measured recently.  This leaves estimation.

"How tall is Madeleine?"  Answer "About 3 feet."

"No, we need it in metric, how tall is Madeleine?"  Answer "I don't know.  How tall is 3ft in metric units?"

"Let me see.  36 inches by 2.5 cm per inch.  That would make her 90cm tall.  Was she 90cm tall?"  Answer "Yeah, I think so, she was probably about 90cm tall."

Speculation of course, but the challenges of the M&S pyjama size and the RCPCH data won't go away.

Why you are mentioning new pyjamas is beyond me.  M&S thought Madeleine should have gone into a larger set on her 4th birthday.  One's bigger than those intended for a child of 97cm.  The RCPCH agrees.

People often buy new clothes when they go away.  Pjays included.

[ShiningInLuz]

People often buy new clothes when they go away.  Pjays included.

She didn't have new pyjamas.  She had one's for 2-3 year olds i.e. replace at age 4.

The twins had newish pyjamas, for those aged 2 to 3.  Sean's were for a child of 98cm, so I guess his pyjamas were baggy.

[sadie]

She didn't have new pyjamas.  She had one's for 2-3 year olds i.e. replace at age 4.

The twins had newish pyjamas, for those aged 2 to 3.  Sean's were for a child of 98cm, so I guess his pyjamas were baggy.

Now you mention it, I remember it being said that she wore pyjamas for a 2-3 year old.

Do you still think she was over 90cm tall?

[ShiningInLuz]

Now you mention it, I remember it being said that she wore pyjamas for a 2-3 year old.

Do you still think she was over 90cm tall?

I KNOW that she wore pyjamas for a 2-3 year old.  She had pyjamas appropriate to a child who would not reach 4 until the 12 May 2007, as per your post.

She had 9 days to go before she hit her 4th birthday.

And yes, she was over 90cm tall according to both the pyjama makers and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.  Unless she needed to be checked for a significant medical condition.

[Alice Purjorick]

care to elaborate ?

This was your proposition:
"Madeleine could NOT see what was on the counter.  She could not see the cutting implements, so they were no danger"

[G-Unit]

I KNOW that she wore pyjamas for a 2-3 year old.  She had pyjamas appropriate to a child who would not reach 4 until the 12 May 2007, as per your post.

She had 9 days to go before she hit her 4th birthday.

And yes, she was over 90cm tall according to both the pyjama makers and the Royal College of Paediatrics and Child Health.  Unless she needed to be checked for a significant medical condition.

Average heights;

 2.5 years    3ft 0.9 in (93.8 cm)    3ft 0.3in (92.3 cm)
 3 years    3ft 2.6in (98.1 cm)    3ft 2.1in (96.7 cm)
 3.5 years    3ft 4.2in (102 cm)    3ft 3.6in (100.7 cm)
 4 years    3ft 5.7in (105.8 cm)    3ft 5.1in (104.5 cm)
http://www.onaverage.co.uk/body-averages/average-child-height

M & S heights;

Girls Pyjamas & Dressing Gowns
Age (years)    12-18 months   18-24 months           2-3                  3-4                    4-5                     5-6
Height       30-32¼              32¾-35½               35½-38½        38½-41          41-43¼      43¼-45¾
CMS                                                                       90.1-97.8         97.8-104.1