Advertisement
If you have a new account but are having problems posting or verifying your account, please email us on hello@boards.ie for help. Thanks :)
Hello all! Please ensure that you are posting a new thread or question in the appropriate forum. The Feedback forum is overwhelmed with questions that are having to be moved elsewhere. If you need help to verify your account contact hello@boards.ie

[2011-2012] What really happened to Madeleine McCann?

1246712

Comments

  • Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    Anyway trying to get back on topic ...

    The book by the Portugese policeman "The truth of the lie" is a very interesting read.

    There is a transcript here http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html

    The thing that jumped out to me was the cadaver dogs brought in from the UK, In 200 cases, they had never been wrong. In this case they found cadaver smell in the wardrobe and behind the sofa as well as the hired car (I cannot figure that one out). The hotel confirmed they had no record of any previous guests dying in that apartment.

    What I also found very strange was the fact that Kate MCann answered no comment to every question put to her in her police interview.

    I'd have to say I am not in the abduction camp at all. The only evidence points to a death in the apartment. However,while its shocking that they left the kids night after night, but God forbid, if anything ever happened my daughter, whether it was my fault or not, I could not bring myself to hide her body and not have a proper resting place. I'd prefer to do life in jail than dispose of the body.

    If they did that they deserve to burn in hell.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,060 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    Anyway trying to get back on topic ...

    The book by the Portugese policeman "The truth of the lie" is a very interesting read.

    There is a transcript here http://joana-morais.blogspot.com/2009/04/maddie-truth-of-lie-documentary.html

    The thing that jumped out to me was the cadaver dogs brought in from the UK, In 200 cases, they had never been wrong. In this case they found cadaver smell in the wardrobe and behind the sofa as well as the hired car (I cannot figure that one out). The hotel confirmed they had no record of any previous guests dying in that apartment.

    What I also found very strange was the fact that Kate MCann answered no comment to every question put to her in her police interview.

    I'd have to say I am not in the abduction camp at all. The only evidence points to a death in the apartment. However,while its shocking that they left the kids night after night, but God forbid, if anything ever happened my daughter, whether it was my fault or not, I could not bring myself to hide her body and not have a proper resting place. I'd prefer to do life in jail than dispose of the body.

    If they did that they deserve to burn in hell.
    What jumped out at me was the accumilation of oddities , one odd thing you let go , two you find odd , three you look up and take note and four or five you begin to doubt .All together in the case there are so many litle discrepencies and lies and odd behaviour that the whole thing is beginning to look so very fishy .
    Phones cleared , stories dont match , times dont match , lies, dogs evidence disputed , sueing anyone who dares to question .body language , not searching , leaving the twins to go off on trips when their daughter had gone missing , not answering questions, blogs , timing a jog , I could go on and on . One of these in isolation would mean nothing ,gather them all together and its no wonder people are very wary /


  • Registered Users Posts: 505 ✭✭✭annieoburns


    If I were entertaining in my back garden, it would presume a warm night and in which case many of the windows of the house would be open allowing sound to travel. Being a mother, I would have an ear tuned to hear those noises your own child might make on waking from a bad dream etc. It also allows the sound of the house phone/doorbell to be heard outdoors. Again if entertaining there would be constant traffic to and fro to the house to fetch supplies and with an older child a safe way to come down thru the familiar surroundings of their own home to reach the parents.

    Sorry, own back garden versus distant restaurant via public roads? no contest.

    I am interested in the child monitor's range of use. Do these act in the same manner as a cordless phone? Would it work over such a distance? Were they actually used by the other couples or did they just have them along 'just in case'.


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Well said Misty , I am of the opinion that Lugha is winding us all up for sport .Except a little girl is missing and its no sport for her
    I am not answering any hypothetical BBQ scenarios that didnt happen . Because whether or not we consider pretend BBQ scenario bad , good or indifferent is so irrelevent to the Mc Cann situation .
    :)
    No I am not winding you up. And I’m not fooled for one minute that either of you pretending you don’t know what I am asking and why I am asking it. My point is not so much about good or bad parenting per se, it about how impartial or balanced are or are not when looking at this story.

    And if you have one standard of parenting for the McCanns and another one for everyone else (and I think your answers, or rather non-answers suggest you do) then that IMO points to a clear bias against the McCanns.

    But I agree with you on one count, there is little point in pursuing this further with you. And of course it should be said there is no obligation on anyone to be unbiased in any of their views.

    And the question remains if anyone else wants to have a tilt at it. :)


  • Registered Users Posts: 3,235 ✭✭✭lugha


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    The thing that jumped out to me was the cadaver dogs brought in from the UK, In 200 cases, they had never been wrong.
    The evidence of the dogs, if genuine, is very strong and is about the only substantial evidence against the McCanns. But I think the claim of never wrong in 200 cases could not possibly be true.

    Not because the dogs could not be that good but because I don't see how it would be possible to ascertain in any one case whether the dog correctly identified the presence of a body. You would need some way to independently verify that a body was indeed present, or not. And if you could do that, they why would you need the dogs? Am I missing something here?
    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    What I also found very strange was the fact that Kate MCann answered no comment to every question put to her in her police interview.
    She was a suspect at the time and presumably acted on the advise of her lawyer. It is all very well saying "if she had nothing to hide she had nothing to fear" but that ignores the fact that the right to silence is there to protect the innocent, not the guilty.

    And as you point out, there was at that time quite strong evidence against her. If you were in that situation and you were innocent. But the police still had very incriminating evidence against you, do you not think you would be a little bit cautious and concerned that you might be held responsible for a crime you did not commit?

    And it should be also pointed out that those questions were for the main part fairly mundane. Do you think that in all 50 cases there was something specific Kate was concealing when she did not answer the question?


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    If I were entertaining in my back garden, it would presume a warm night and in which case many of the windows of the house would be open allowing sound to travel. Being a mother, I would have an ear tuned to hear those noises your own child might make on waking from a bad dream etc. It also allows the sound of the house phone/doorbell to be heard outdoors. Again if entertaining there would be constant traffic to and fro to the house to fetch supplies and with an older child a safe way to come down thru the familiar surroundings of their own home to reach the parents.

    Sorry, own back garden versus distant restaurant via public roads? no contest.

    I am interested in the child monitor's range of use. Do these act in the same manner as a cordless phone? Would it work over such a distance? Were they actually used by the other couples or did they just have them along 'just in case'.
    Good question regarding monitor's I will go & have a quick look & see because I do know in the Statement's David Payne & Rachel oldfield both took their's to Portugal & there is some comment's about Rachel putting said Monitor on some kind of wall. Rachel also makes reference to David Paynes being the Dog's Gonads...:)

    This Monitor work's from the following distance.....•Range up to 100m indoors and 250m outdoors
    Nursery Unit

    •8 channels (manual selection)
    •Sound activated or continuous sound transmission
    •4 Functions:
    •Movement + Sound with tic
    •Movement + Sound without tic
    •Movement only
    •Sound only
    •Night light (illuminated halo)
    •Adjustable sound activated microphone sensitivity (4 levels)
    •Low battery indicator (warning light)
    •Alarm indicator (warning light)
    This was the first one I came to on google & I think around £79.95..

    http://www.babymonitorsdirect.co.uk/


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,670 ✭✭✭Peppa Pig


    On the issue of the no comments and Kate McCann's questioning, what I found strange about it was that Gerry McCann answered all of his.


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    Peppa Pig wrote: »
    On the issue of the no comments and Kate McCann's questioning, what I found strange about it was that Gerry McCann answered all of his.
    Something I have found quite confusing too, Because if as it has been claimed the Mccann's was advised not to answer any question's...So why did Gerry answer them all & Kate none?! Doesn't make any sense like alot of this case!


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 cru


    As a parent, I would not leave my child unless I was confident they would not wake, or else I would use a baby moniter, we have a cheap one that has almost a kilometer range but there are much better models available some even send images, if they didnt have a moniter for 3 kids they were very confident of them not waking and as doctors they would have had access to various seditives,

    nobody ever asks where was the baby moniter??????

    That to me is one of the most telling pieces of evidence.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,060 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    cru wrote: »
    As a parent, I would not leave my child unless I was confident they would not wake, or else I would use a baby moniter, we have a cheap one that has almost a kilometer range but there are much better models available some even send images, if they didnt have a moniter for 3 kids they were very confident of them not waking and as doctors they would have had access to various seditives,

    nobody ever asks where was the baby moniter??????

    That to me is one of the most telling pieces of evidence.
    As far as I know the Mc Canns had no baby monitor .It was never mentioned that they had one .One of the other couples did have one and Paynes had one .


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 cru


    To me no baby monitor means they did not expect any of their 3 children to awaken while they were away,

    I have one child when he wakes during the night he cries, if other kids are there he'll wake them too, the chances of one of the three kids waking up is quite large especially as the twins were babies. Parents are always listening for their children waking up, its something that regulary occurs.

    If we leave our child asleep out of hearing we use a baby moniter or we make arrangements for somebody to be withinn hearing distance.

    How could the McCanns be so certain that none of them would wake up, not just one night but from what I understand this happened everynight.

    I think they sedated the kids every night they went out, probably being doing it for years.


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,060 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    cru wrote: »
    To me no baby monitor means they did not expect any of their 3 children to awaken while they were away,

    I have one child when he wakes during the night he cries, if other kids are there he'll wake them too, the chances of one of the three kids waking up is quite large especially as the twins were babies. Parents are always listening for their children waking up, its something that regulary occurs.

    If we leave our child asleep out of hearing we use a baby moniter or we make arrangements for somebody to be withinn hearing distance.

    How could the McCanns be so certain that none of them would wake up, not just one night but from what I understand this happened everynight.

    I think they sedated the kids every night they went out, probably being doing it for years.
    Apperently Madeleine had a star chart on the fridge and got stars for staying in her own bed .That to me is clear indication that they knew Madeleine could wake .Coupled with the fact that Madeleine told them that she ans Sean cried the night before its clear they knew the children could wake up . Which then makes you wonder how three small children were all asleep at 7;30 . One child will flake out , two is a lucky break but all three in bed asleep by 7 ;30 is a real rarity IMO .


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Which then makes you wonder how three small children were all asleep at 7;30 . One child will flake out , two is a lucky break but all three in bed asleep by 7 ;30 is a real rarity IMO .

    The twins were tested for sedatives and none were found in their systems.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭badabing106


    The twins were tested for sedatives and none were found in their systems.
    -

    Ah , your forgetting a small bit to the full story!


    The twins were tested in September 2007, 4 months after Madeleine McCanns "abduction"!

    Kate McCann later claimed that she believed that the "abductor" drugged the twins, why would she not get them tested straight away if she thought they were in any harm!?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,060 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    The twins were tested for sedatives and none were found in their systems.
    Four months later after a hair cut . !:rolleyes:


  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 cru


    Kate McCann later claimed that she believed that the "abductor" drugged the twins, why would she not get them tested straight away if she thought they were in any harm!?

    Aha the plot thickens,

    Imagine if the "abductor" used a seditive that Dr McCann had recently prescribed for persons as yet unknown.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Four months later after a hair cut . !:rolleyes:

    No need for the rolly eyes.

    Each inch of hair contains a months worth of evidence. As long as the twins had four inches of hair, the tests are perfectly valid - or are you disputing that?


  • Registered Users Posts: 16,060 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    No need for the rolly eyes.

    Each inch of hair contains a months worth of evidence. As long as the twins had four inches of hair, the tests are perfectly valid - or are you disputing that?
    Yes ,sorry for rolly eyes , tiredness makes me tetchy! I wonder why Mrs Cann waited all that time to have them tested , when in her book she suspected they may have been drugged on the night Madeleine went missing. Very remiss of a parent not to have that checked straight away and make sure her babies wernt in any danger of an insidious drug .
    Of all people Dr Mc Cann knew they hidden , slow insidious danger of a toxic substance in a young child .So , by her own admission she questioned whether they may have been drugged yet failed to ensure they hadnt been on May 4 ,or indeed for 4 months .


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Yes ,sorry for rolly eyes , tiredness makes me tetchy! I wonder why Mrs Cann waited all that time to have them tested , when in her book she suspected they may have been drugged on the night Madeleine went missing. Very remiss of a parent not to have that checked straight away and make sure her babies wernt in any danger of an insidious drug .
    Of all people Dr Mc Cann knew they hidden , slow insidious danger of a toxic substance in a young child .So , by her own admission she questioned whether they may have been drugged yet failed to ensure they hadnt been on May 4 ,or indeed for 4 months .

    Well, as doctors, I would suspect they knew the signs of the after effects of drugs in a child's system. Therefore, when the twins awoke without any of those signs, they were suitably reassured.

    In the midst of all the panic that night, it was probably something that may have just crossed their minds. If the twins awoke without any ill-effects, there doesn't seem to be any reason why they should have felt the need to have them tested afterwards.

    The reason they got them tested four months later was probably to disprove the PJ's theories about them drugging their children on the night in question.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭badabing106


    Well, as doctors, I would suspect they knew the signs of the after effects of drugs in a child's system. Therefore, when the twins awoke without any of those signs, they were suitably reassured.

    In the midst of all the panic that night, it was probably something that may have just crossed their minds. If the twins awoke without any ill-effects, there doesn't seem to be any reason why they should have felt the need to have them tested afterwards.

    The reason they got them tested four months later was probably to disprove the PJ's theories about them drugging their children on the night in question.

    Are you forgetting that they got their hair cut?, it was not the same hair as 4 months ago so the tests would not disprove the Polices theories

    Its not really an afterthought, when one of your daughters has just been "abducted" and you suspect that your kids were drugged also .It is a potentially crucial nugget of information!


    That would be vital information to know for an investigation! it would be very important information to know if the kids were drugged or not. It would be important to know the exact drug given to them, what amount and when it was given to them! etc etc .Im sure that Kate mcCann would know this, especially as she is a doctor!. That she would keep this to herself is a bit bizarre

    I can't imagine any parents suspecting their kids to be drugged by a person that "abducted" one of their other children and withholding this information as an afterthought :eek:


  • Advertisement
  • Registered Users Posts: 16,060 ✭✭✭✭iamwhoiam


    Well, as doctors, I would suspect they knew the signs of the after effects of drugs in a child's system. Therefore, when the twins awoke without any of those signs, they were suitably reassured.
    In the midst of all the panic that night, it was probably something that may have just crossed their minds. If the twins awoke without any ill-effects, there doesn't seem to be any reason why they should have felt the need to have them tested afterwards.

    The reason they got them tested four months later was probably to disprove the PJ's theories about them drugging their children on the night in question.
    Well they shouldnt have been reassured at all becuase as doctors they would be very aware that certain drugs have a very slow rate of damage , they are insidious and creep into the blood and the damage is days later .Take Paracetomol , its up to four days later that the liver is damaged , the drug is causing a toxicity for days .
    Most parents who suspected an abductor had taken their daughter and drugged their babies would make damn sure they were tested , kept safe , toxicilogy done and be absolutely sure and positive that no hint of drug was in the bloodstream
    No checking pulse , respiratory rate or feeling a head will tell you if a child has been drugged . I know anaesthetists and GPS and nurses who have brought their kids in because under no circumstance would they leave a child who has taken something to chance .They know better .

    Of all people a GP and anaesthetist and a cardiac surgeon should have known better and got the babies checked out .Why didnt they ? Very very strange in my opinion to have that suspicion and not act on it .
    Kate Mc Cann was either very remiss in ignoring her instinct or she didnt have the suspicion in the first place or she wasnt worried because she knew exactaly why the twins were sleeping soundly through chaos all round them .


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    What stand's out to me is if someone took Maddie because they wanted a child so badly to love & nurture. Then why a nearly four year old child?!
    It would make far more sense if the Mccann's we're being watched for this reason to take the twin's who would likely forget about their own parent's very quickly! & they would also be far easier to teach a new Language etc etc etc!
    Other's think the Mccann's was being watched by a paedophile ring, Again why not take all three kids?! If they was prepared to take the risk then why not?. It's like being robbed & just taking the Copper's & leaving the silver & gold! It doesn't even bare thinking about really turn's my stomach the thought of people like these having this Child! I don't think we can ignore it though!
    Another way this child could have disappeared was by the Parent's being involed...I just can't believe it tbh maybe that's because as a Mother I just couldn't carry on without one of my babies! I know I couldn't just dump their little body as if they we're a piece of rubbish!
    The only other way would be if one of the Friend's we're involved & the Mccann's genuinly aren't involved & do believe Maddie was abducted!


  • Registered Users Posts: 2,876 ✭✭✭deelite


    I thought one of the strangest things in the case was "cuddles bear" - as a mum I could never understand (not going into why he was on the top of the wardrobe) was why Kate washed him. I still have my kids first outfit they wore when they were fjrst born (still unwashed and still smell of baby).


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    deelite wrote: »
    I thought one of the strangest things in the case was "cuddles bear" - as a mum I could never understand (not going into why he was on the top of the wardrobe) was why Kate washed him. I still have my kids first outfit they wore when they were fjrst born (still unwashed and still smell of baby).
    I also wonder why Cuddle Cat wasn't taken with Maddie if these people we're watching then they would have seen how attached Maddie was to this bear, So if Maddie was taken by someone who wanted a child to love this would have helped sool Maddie!
    I don't get the washing of it either like you say the smell alone I would personally cherish forever.!
    It was supposed to have been washed because it had suntan Lotion onit?!


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Are you forgetting that they got their hair cut?, it was not the same hair as 4 months ago so the tests would not disprove the Polices theories

    Hair grows from the scalp, so even if you cut it at the end, the evidence would still be available. As long as there was at least four centimetres of hair, you can trace back any substances in the system back that far.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570315/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-takes-drug-test.html
    The drug tests, which were conducted in September, form part of a dossier of evidence compiled by the McCanns' legal team to demolish the police case against them.
    Edward Smethurst, the lawyer coordinating the McCanns' defence, said: "Hair grows by about a centimetre a month so if you have eight centimetres of hair, you can test for drugs going back eight months.
    "With the appropriate, fully-accredited experts, hair samples were taken from Sean, Amelie and Kate and the conclusion was no evidence of sedatives or drugs were found.


    *I mentioned it was inches in my earlier post, when in fact it was merely centimeters.


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    iamwhoiam wrote: »
    Well they shouldnt have been reassured at all becuase as doctors they would be very aware that certain drugs have a very slow rate of damage , they are insidious and creep into the blood and the damage is days later .Take Paracetomol , its up to four days later that the liver is damaged , the drug is causing a toxicity for days .
    Most parents who suspected an abductor had taken their daughter and drugged their babies would make damn sure they were tested , kept safe , toxicilogy done and be absolutely sure and positive that no hint of drug was in the bloodstream
    No checking pulse , respiratory rate or feeling a head will tell you if a child has been drugged . I know anaesthetists and GPS and nurses who have brought their kids in because under no circumstance would they leave a child who has taken something to chance .They know better .

    Of all people a GP and anaesthetist and a cardiac surgeon should have known better and got the babies checked out .Why didnt they ? Very very strange in my opinion to have that suspicion and not act on it .
    Kate Mc Cann was either very remiss in ignoring her instinct or she didnt have the suspicion in the first place or she wasnt worried because she knew exactaly why the twins were sleeping soundly through chaos all round them .

    If a high level of Paracetomol had been administered to the infants (enough to knock them out), there would be abdominal pain and severe vomiting after they awoke (certainly during the proceeding 24 hours). Most parents would know something was badly amiss if their children were this sick, especially parents who were medically trained.

    Besides, It is highly doubtful that an abductor would take the time to drug the twins, when they had such a small frame of time to take a child. Like I said, probably just a knee jerk panic reactionary theory from Kate at the time.

    As has been stated, the twins were scientifically proven not to have drugs in their systems at the time of the incident, so insinuating the McCanns drugged or sedated them that night is wrong.


  • Registered Users Posts: 1,423 ✭✭✭badabing106


    Hair grows from the scalp, so even if you cut it at the end, the evidence would still be available. As long as there was at least four centimetres of hair, you can trace back any substances in the system back that far.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570315/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-takes-drug-test.html




    *I mentioned it was inches in my earlier post, when in fact it was merely centimeters.
    Hair grows from the scalp, so even if you cut it at the end, the evidence would still be available. As long as there was at least four centimetres of hair, you can trace back any substances in the system back that far.

    http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1570315/Madeleine-McCanns-mother-takes-drug-test.html




    *I mentioned it was inches in my earlier post, when in fact it was merely centimeters.

    Remember that Your scientific evidence reporting that the twins were not sedated are the claims made by The defense lawyers being paid huge sums of money by Team McCann .



    09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2315


    When Kazlux and others met with Mr. Amaral (Portugese investigator)

    At the beginning you said drugging the children is the most likely the cause of death but Gerry and Kate swear they didn’t."

    We wanted the twins tested for antihistaminica. The older types work sedating. You can find the traces up to 2 months after use. We were never allowed to test the twins until 3 months later when Kate called a collegue of mine. She wants an end to all the gossip and offers to have the twins tested for traces of sleeping pills. Kate knows as a doctor this is useless.
    But a little while later the same collegue receives a phonecall from Gerry who cancelles Kates’s offer and apologizes for her neurotic behaviour. We already knew Gerry traces all calls Kate makes


    The McCannss took Calpol, Nurofen, antacids and antihistamine remedies on holiday.


  • Registered Users Posts: 186 ✭✭Mistyeyes321


    Remember that Your scientific evidence reporting that the twins were not sedated are the claims made by The defense lawyers being paid huge sums of money by Team McCann .



    09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2315


    When Kazlux and others met with Mr. Amaral (Portugese investigator)

    At the beginning you said drugging the children is the most likely the cause of death but Gerry and Kate swear they didn’t."

    We wanted the twins tested for antihistaminica. The older types work sedating. You can find the traces up to 2 months after use. We were never allowed to test the twins until 3 months later when Kate called a collegue of mine. She wants an end to all the gossip and offers to have the twins tested for traces of sleeping pills. Kate knows as a doctor this is useless.
    But a little while later the same collegue receives a phonecall from Gerry who cancelles Kates’s offer and apologizes for her neurotic behaviour. We already knew Gerry traces all calls Kate makes


    The McCannss took Calpol, Nurofen, antacids and antihistamine remedies on holiday.
    :eek: Does gerry do that trace her call's? That's just strange imo why would he do that?:eek: Never heard this before..


  • Registered Users Posts: 10,962 ✭✭✭✭dark crystal


    Remember that Your scientific evidence reporting that the twins were not sedated are the claims made by The defense lawyers being paid huge sums of money by Team McCann .



    09_VOLUME_IXa_Page_2315


    When Kazlux and others met with Mr. Amaral (Portugese investigator)

    At the beginning you said drugging the children is the most likely the cause of death but Gerry and Kate swear they didn’t."

    We wanted the twins tested for antihistaminica. The older types work sedating. You can find the traces up to 2 months after use. We were never allowed to test the twins until 3 months later when Kate called a collegue of mine. She wants an end to all the gossip and offers to have the twins tested for traces of sleeping pills. Kate knows as a doctor this is useless.
    But a little while later the same collegue receives a phonecall from Gerry who cancelles Kates’s offer and apologizes for her neurotic behaviour. We already knew Gerry traces all calls Kate makes


    The McCannss took Calpol, Nurofen, antacids and antihistamine remedies on holiday.

    Many parents take such medications on holiday with them. Calpol, antacids and Neurofen do not sedate. Antihistamines are very common remedies for insect bites and hayfever. Many parents would bring such products with them for such purposes. Not in order to sedate their children.

    No matter who the tests were carried out on behalf of, there is no denying the home-office approved scientists who did the tests were professional and their conclusions were that no harmful drugs were administered to the twins that night.

    http://truthformadeleine.com/2007/11/kate-takes-drug-tests-to-prove-she-wasnt-on-anti-depressants-when-madeleine-vanished/
    The drug tests were carried out by Home Office approved experts in September after the finger of suspicion was first pointed at the couple.
    Edward Smethurst, the lawyer co- ordinating their defence team, told the Evening Standard: “Hair grows by about a centimetre a month so if you have eight centimetres of hair, you can test for drugs going back eight months.
    “With the appropriate, fully accredited experts, hair samples were taken from Sean, Amelie and Kate and the conclusion was no evidence of sedatives or drugs were found.
    “There were various stories circulating that Kate might somehow be unstable and might be depressed, but the tests demonstrate that the kind of drugs she might be on did not show up.”
    Independent tests were also carried out on the couple’s Renault Scenic hire car and found no traces of Madeleine.


  • Advertisement
  • Closed Accounts Posts: 6 cru


    The twins were tested for sedatives and none were found in their systems.

    Actually no evidence for the type(s) of seditives they were tested for was found in their systems


This discussion has been closed.
Advertisement