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.