Red Flags

[Tober]

Red flags are suspicions. Suspicions are not evidence of guilt, but they do tell investigators where to look for evidence. Let's discuss the red flags in this case concerning Kate and Gerry McCann. IMO

[Tober]

Going by the McCann's version of events, the alleged crime (abduction) took place between 9:05 and 10 p.m. This would be our "starting point" for the crime. However, if the children were sedated (there is supporting evidence that they may have been), then two dynamics change: 1) The crime may not be abduction; and 2) The assumed starting point for the crime may be wrong, it may have taken place earlier. IMO

[Louisadelmar]

Going by the McCann's version of events, the alleged crime (abduction) took place between 9:05 and 10 p.m. This would be our "starting point" for the crime. However, if the children were sedated (there is supporting evidence that they may have been), then two dynamics change: 1) The crime may not be abduction; and 2) The assumed starting point for the crime may be wrong, it may have taken place earlier. IMO

What is the supporting evidence?

[TuscanDreams]

What is the supporting evidence?

There isn't any, IMO.

[Tober]

What is the supporting evidence?

Supporting evidence that the McCann children may have been sedated on the night in question: 1) The observed condition of the children after LE arrival. With all of the commotion they didn't awake, even when carried out; 2) Their sister had just been abducted (allegedly), which means an intruder entered the flat and was in the presence of those children, yet their parents didn't awaken them to be positive they were allright and nothing was done to them; 3) When Kate went back to the restaurant to inform the others, she left the children alone where she assumes Maddy was just abducted from; 4) There are reports that police found a syringe with a particular medication in the flat; 5) There are reports that Gerry has admitted they sedated the kids. - Were the children not awakened because they couldn't be, due to the level of sedation? IMO

[dallasvic]

There is no evedience or her parents would be in jail.They would not have had their passporsts or been able to leave.:D

[Jayelles]

There is so much speculation and misinformation being posted that I simply don't have the energy to debate it.

Re Kate leaving the twins to run back to the company and raise the alarm.....The flat was very close to the tapas bar. If anyone is in doubt about how far away it is, then look at one of the many aerial photos of the complex which have been posted on the web. In the aerial photos, you can see the tennis courts. A tennis court is approximately 100 feet long - approximately 35 paces for a man. Then compare the distance between the tapas bar and the flat with the length of the tennis court and it will give you some idea of just how close they were. The pool isn't large. The pools in these holiday resort hotels are really just splash pools for kids to have fun in.

Wild speculation at this stage isn't helpful IMO. I've seen suggestions that Maddie had been abused because she looks sad in my avatar! My avatar doesn't even show her whole face. I only see a photo of a child who isn't smiling for the camera and the reason that particular photo was published was BECAUSE she wasn't smiling and you could see her eye "flash" more clearly than if she'd crinkled up her eyes to smile.

The only red flags I see so far are in the way the police are handling the investigation.

[Tober]

Does the McCann's story on the night in question raise a red flag? Does the story sound genuine, or like a work? A red flag might be raised due to the contradictory behavioral patterns, i.e. we want to go party so we'll leave the kids alone, yet we'll go and check on them every half hour; we'll consume a good amount of wine, yet we'll certainly remember to check the kids on time; we'll leave the kids alone, yet we won't lock the door. If their story is a work, it does a few things for them: 1) Presents them with an alibi, i.e. we were at dinner with witnesses when something bad happened to Maddy, therefore we couldn't have had anything to do with it; 2) Provides an opportunity for an intruder to have entered the flat, i.e. we weren't watching the kids, that's when she was taken. We left the door and windows unlocked, that's how the intruder got in; 3) We checked on the kids, Maddy was there, all was fine. Kate does the last check, Maddy is gone, therefore she was abducted. The crime can't be anything but abduction. IMO

[jadensmokes]

IMO, the only red flags are those raised by PJ. Now that they have apparently exhausted any other avenues, they are falling back to the parents as suspects. When there is a doubt, the parents would be the usual primary suspects, but it has taken them 4 months to reach this point? And, I do not trust DNA collected from 1 month after Madeleine went missing. How tainted could that be? Also, there have been claims that the DNA was not a 100% match, so it could be DNA for the bio siblings, could it not?

[dallasvic]

The only red flags. The police do not know what they are doing and had hit a brick wall and needed a escape goat. BIG RED FLAG!!!

[Athena]

If the McCanns had anything to do with this it does remain to be seen and I too have questions re: sedating the children. If a syringe was found in the room it is possible it contained whatever medication was used to sedate the children? Having said that we don't know yet who sedated the children? I've read reports that Gerry has denied that the children were sedated and I've read reports that they admitted it. Right now we are feeding on the media frenzy and don't know yet what is true and what is not so for now I will reserve judgement on the case.

Re: Leaving them alone; personally I do not believe they were close enough where they were able to monitor those children in that room. As a parent I find that the parents were definitely negligent for leaving their children unsupervised. It is unacceptable and even if they did not have anything to do with missing Madeleine; leaving their children alone was simply irresponsible. JMO

Map of resort:

http://tinyurl.com/3ayvwp

[elvislives]

There is so much speculation and misinformation being posted that I simply don't have the energy to debate it.

Re Kate leaving the twins to run back to the company and raise the alarm.....The flat was very close to the tapas bar. If anyone is in doubt about how far away it is, then look at one of the many aerial photos of the complex which have been posted on the web. In the aerial photos, you can see the tennis courts. A tennis court is approximately 100 feet long - approximately 35 paces for a man. Then compare the distance between the tapas bar and the flat with the length of the tennis court and it will give you some idea of just how close they were. The pool isn't large. The pools in these holiday resort hotels are really just splash pools for kids to have fun in.

Wild speculation at this stage isn't helpful IMO. I've seen suggestions that Maddie had been abused because she looks sad in my avatar! My avatar doesn't even show her whole face. I only see a photo of a child who isn't smiling for the camera and the reason that particular photo was published was BECAUSE she wasn't smiling and you could see her eye "flash" more clearly than if she'd crinkled up her eyes to smile.

The only red flags I see so far are in the way the police are handling the investigation.

Now that one is funny! The picture from your avatar is a still frame from a home video. I have seen the video clip which shows Maddie smiling and laughing with what appear to be cousins or friends. At one point she apparently turned her head and was not smiling which allowed a perfect view of the flash in her iris. THAT is why they publicized that particular frame--with the hopes that someone might recognize her from her distinctive iris.

I too am growing weary of all the foolish speculation and misinformation. Many are apparently so dimwitted that if they hear something reported (even in a tabloid) they buy it, hook , line and sinker. It actually terrifies me that there are so many people who are incapable of critical thinking. Considering that we are living in the 21st century in democratic countries, that is a sad commentary indeed.

[Jayelles]

Now that one is funny! The picture from your avatar is a still frame from a home video. I have seen the video clip which shows Maddie smiling and laughing with what appear to be cousins or friends. At one point she apparently turned her head and was not smiling which allowed a perfect view of the flash in her iris. THAT is why they publicized that particular frame--with the hopes that someone might recognize her from her distinctive iris.

I too am growing weary of all the foolish speculation and misinformation. Many are apparently so dimwitted that if they hear something reported (even in a tabloid) they buy it, hook , line and sinker. It actually terrifies me that there are so many people who are incapable of critical thinking. Considering that we are living in the 21st century in democratic countries, that is a sad commentary indeed.

I've always refrained from hassling you with medical questions, but I'm curious about her eye. Is that an actual tear in the iris? If so, would it affect her sight?

I've always felt that her distinctive eye was a mixed blessing. On one hand, it would make identifying her more easy, but on the other, I've always felt that an abductor, realising this might be more inclined to harm her.

[Jayelles]

If the McCanns had anything to do with this it does remain to be seen and I too have questions re: sedating the children. If a syringe was found in the room it is possible it contained whatever medication was used to sedate the children? Having said that we don't know yet who sedated the children? I've read reports that Gerry has denied that the children were sedated and I've read reports that they admitted it. Right now we are feeding on the media frenzy and don't know yet what is true and what is not so for now I will reserve judgement on the case.

Actually, far from knowing "who" sedated the children, we don't even know that they WERE sedated.

Re: Leaving them alone; personally I do not believe they were close enough where they were able to monitor those children in that room. As a parent I find that the parents were definitely negligent for leaving their children unsupervised. It is unacceptable and even if they did not have anything to do with missing Madeleine; leaving their children alone was simply irresponsible. JMO

Map of resort:

http://tinyurl.com/3ayvwp

It is a fact that Americans see this as terribly negligent. I'm not sure if that's the same as saying that they invited it or deserved it.

It is also a fact that the McCanns were far from alone in doing this and that it is really not at all unusual in Europe for parents to put their children to bed and then go to the hotel/resort restaurant for some Mum and Dad time on holiday - checking on them periodically. My family come from a village where no-one ever locks their doors and I daresay people who live in towns would consider that terribly negligent - perhaps inviting trouble.

Having said this, I am NOT going to get into an argument about it because it's a contentious issue and apparently a cultural one. Kate McCann has expressed how bitterly she regrets doing it now.

BTW, I have always refrained from commenting on the Ramsey/pageant issue because IMO that too is a cultural issue - practiced by some and horrifying to others.

[Louisadelmar]

[...]
It is a fact that Americans see this as terribly negligent. I'm not sure if that's the same as saying that they invited it or deserved it.

It is also a fact that the McCanns were far from alone in doing this and that it is really not at all unusual in Europe for parents to put their children to bed and then go to the hotel/resort restaurant for some Mum and Dad time on holiday - checking on them periodically. My family come from a village where no-one ever locks their doors and I daresay people who live in towns would consider that terribly negligent - perhaps inviting trouble.

Having said this, I am NOT going to get into an argument about it because it's a contentious issue and apparently a cultural one. Kate McCann has expressed how bitterly she regrets doing it now.

BTW, I have always refrained from commenting on the Ramsey/pageant issue because IMO that too is a cultural issue - practiced by some and horrifying to others.

Yes. We have a French friend who did this when she first came here. Although I don't usually get involved n people's parenting decisions we told her she should stop because although probably her kids would be fine; IF anything did happen she'd be in a world of legal trouble.

[elvislives]

I've always refrained from hassling you with medical questions, but I'm curious about her eye. Is that an actual tear in the iris? If so, would it affect her sight?

I've always felt that her distinctive eye was a mixed blessing. On one hand, it would make identifying her more easy, but on the other, I've always felt that an abductor, realising this might be more inclined to harm her.

It is not a tear but a congenital anomaly (an irregularity caused during fetal develpment) called coloboma of the iris. It is almost always benign and causes no interference with vision (unless the 'flash' is not connected with the pupil, in which case a patient might see ghost images or shadows). Maddie's appears connected and tho I have not heard her parents or her doctors comment on this, I would venture a guess that it causes no problems for her at all as that is usually the case.

I've always thought it was a major benefit in the search for her since it is a fairly unusual feature, but after reading your post I agree it is a mixed blessing.

[Jayelles]

Yes. We have a French friend who did this when she first came here. Although I don't usually get involved n people's parenting decisions we told her she should stop because although probably her kids would be fine; IF anything did happen she'd be in a world of legal trouble.

When my son was a baby, no-one took a pram into a shop - they all got parked outside the shops. You would go and check periodialy to make sure the baby wasn't yelling, but it wasn't until a baby got snatched from outsie a shop that people started taking the prams into the shops. From time to time we read of children being left at home while the mother goes out clubbing (one of the Yorkshire Ripper's victims famously did this) and I think it's relatively rare fortunately. But when you are on holiday, in a hotel or hotel/apartment complex, you're not expecting your child to be abducted from the room. My principle concerns would be that my child would choke or that there would be a fire. Not that he/she would be abducted. Especially not in one of the Med countries where crimes against children are so rare.

ETA - I actually don't think a Portuguee did this. I think it will have been a tourist who did it.

[Athena]

Actually, far from knowing "who" sedated the children, we don't even know that they WERE sedated.

Hi Jay,
When I first read this I thought "what is she talking about"? It was not typed in the way I meant it. What I meant was even if they were sedated doesn't mean the parents did it.
It is a fact that Americans see this as terribly negligent. I'm not sure if that's the same as saying that they invited it or deserved it.

Here you are misinterpreting my words. I never said they invited or deserved it. I would never say anything like that. I just said it was negligent and irresponsible IMO. I did not realize it was a "cultural" difference so I'll just say as an "American parent"

BTW, I have always refrained from commenting on the Ramsey/pageant issue because IMO that too is a cultural issue - practiced by some and horrifying to others.

I don't think beauty pageants are "cultural" but personal choice. JMO

[Jayelles]

Hi Jay,
When I first read this I thought "what is she talking about"? It was not typed in the way I meant it. What I meant was even if they were sedated doesn't mean the parents did it.


Here you are misinterpreting my words. I never said they invited or deserved it. I would never say anything like that. I just said it was negligent and irresponsible IMO. I did not realize it was a "cultural" difference so I'll just say as an "American parent"



I don't think beauty pageants are "cultural" but personal choice. JMO


Well I didn't say you did say that they invited it or deserved it, just that I wasn't sure if it was the same thing.

By pageants being "cultural" - are they not more common in the South? In which case could that not be a cultural thing?

The Americans are not alone in thinking children shouldn't be left alone - the Portuguese think this too. Go to this page and click on the video link to hear a Portuguee discussing the fact that the Brits and Dutch often leave their children asleep while they go to the bar or restaurant (it's a short video and he is near the end:-

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1284044,00.html

I think the McCanns genuinely thought their children would be safe. We don't expect someone to enter our property and steal our children - especially not in a busy and reputedly safe resort where there would be plenty of people milling around - even at that time of the evening.

[Athena]

Well I didn't say you did say that they invited it or deserved it, just that I wasn't sure if it was the same thing.

By pageants being "cultural" - are they not more common in the South? In which case could that not be a cultural thing?

The Americans are not alone in thinking children shouldn't be left alone - the Portuguese think this too. Go to this page and click on the video link to hear a Portuguee discussing the fact that the Brits and Dutch often leave their children asleep while they go to the bar or restaurant (it's a short video and he is near the end:-

http://news.sky.com/skynews/article/0,,70131-1284044,00.html

I think the McCanns genuinely thought their children would be safe. We don't expect someone to enter our property and steal our children - especially not in a busy and reputedly safe resort where there would be plenty of people milling around - even at that time of the evening.

Beauty pageants are held in almost if not every state in the US so I don't know that I would call it "cultural" as opposed to more prevalent in the South?

Thanks for the other link. I'm sure the McCanns, if they had nothing to do with Madeleine's disappearance, did not think like that. Apparently the other parents with them did as well. It's just unusual for me as an American with all the kooks worldwide to accept that it's not irresponsible so I accept that it may be due to cultural differences now that I understand that. However, after this case, perhaps it won't be.

[Jayelles]

It is not a tear but a congenital anomaly (an irregularity caused during fetal develpment) called coloboma of the iris. It is almost always benign and causes no interference with vision (unless the 'flash' is not connected with the pupil, in which case a patient might see ghost images or shadows). Maddie's appears connected and tho I have not heard her parents or her doctors comment on this, I would venture a guess that it causes no problems for her at all as that is usually the case.

I've always thought it was a major benefit in the search for her since it is a fairly unusual feature, but after reading your post I agree it is a mixed blessing.


Thanks for the explanation. I'd never seen anything like it before. I have a friend who has two odd coloured eyes (one brown and one blue) though! I've seen this in other people too.

[andU]

While leaving one's children isn'a a practice condoned here in the US, I had assumed it was a cultural practice there. I certainly won't judge these parents. I, at this point, have little belief in what is being made public because of the laws in Portugal we can't be sure that anything released is official. I get impatient, wanting more info yet, not sure about believing what is available. I wonder if there are any US news reporters there? Not that they would have any more reliable sources than what is available. It is looking like a long drawn out thing to me.

[Jayelles]

While leaving one's children isn'a a practice condoned here in the US, I had assumed it was a cultural practice there. I certainly won't judge these parents. I, at this point, have little belief in what is being made public because of the laws in Portugal we can't be sure that anything released is official. I get impatient, wanting more info yet, not sure about believing what is available. I wonder if there are any US news reporters there? Not that they would have any more reliable sources than what is available. It is looking like a long drawn out thing to me.

Many years ago, my next door neighbour asked me to babysit for her little girl whilst she went to hear her husband playing in a concert but the "babysitting" involved me going in and checking on the baby every half hour. I don't know whether she didn't see any need for someone to sit in her house for a few hours or whether she didn't like to ask me to do this when I had a young baby myself. Her little girl was six months older than my son and he was only weeks old at the time so I'd guess her little girl was under a year old at the time.

I've never done that with my own children although we did use a baby listening service several times on one holiday we took when our older children were aged 3 and 6 months. We liked to go to the shows at this holiday complex and all we had to do was notify the baby listening service manager where we would be. Someone listened at the door of our apartment every half hour or so and if they heard a baby crying, they'd get a message to the parents. It was done in a humorous way. If the parents were at the show, someone would hand the compere a bit of paper and he would read out "baby crying at such and such an apartment" and the audience would all cheer and clap as the parent would stand up and make a hasty exit.

Incidentally, the neighbour I mentioned above had two little girls who are both doctors now and believe it or not, people who knew their family thought the girls were overly protected by the parents! They were always chaperoned to school events and were rarely allowed to stay over at friends' houses! Funny old world eh?

[andU]

Many years ago, my next door neighbour asked me to babysit for her little girl whilst she went to hear her husband playing in a concert but the "babysitting" involved me going in and checking on the baby every half hour. I don't know whether she didn't see any need for someone to sit in her house for a few hours or whether she didn't like to ask me to do this when I had a young baby myself. Her little girl was six months older than my son and he was only weeks old at the time so I'd guess her little girl was under a year old at the time.

I've never done that with my own children although we did use a baby listening service several times on one holiday we took when our older children were aged 3 and 6 months. We liked to go to the shows at this holiday complex and all we had to do was notify the baby listening service manager where we would be. Someone listened at the door of our apartment every half hour or so and if they heard a baby crying, they'd get a message to the parents. It was done in a humorous way. If the parents were at the show, someone would hand the compere a bit of paper and he would read out "baby crying at such and such an apartment" and the audience would all cheer and clap as the parent would stand up and make a hasty exit.

Incidentally, the neighbour I mentioned above had two little girls who are both doctors now and believe it or not, people who knew their family thought the girls were overly protected by the parents! They were always chaperoned to school events and were rarely allowed to stay over at friends' houses! Funny old world eh?

Yes, it is a funny old world! Is a 'holiday' the same to you as a vacation is to we in the US? As I read it sounds as though it may be but I fear assumption of anything.

[Jayelles]

Yes, it is a funny old world! Is a 'holiday' the same to you as a vacation is to we in the US? As I read it sounds as though it may be but I fear assumption of anything.

yes - holiday = vacation. Sorry, I usually remember to say vacation because I know you tend to use holiday for Christmas etc.

[andU]

yes - holiday = vacation. Sorry, I usually remember to say vacation because I know you tend to use holiday for Christmas etc.

Thank you. No apology needed, though.

[Mysteri]

Supporting evidence that the McCann children may have been sedated on the night in question: 1) The observed condition of the children after LE arrival. With all of the commotion they didn't awake, even when carried out; 2) Their sister had just been abducted (allegedly), which means an intruder entered the flat and was in the presence of those children, yet their parents didn't awaken them to be positive they were allright and nothing was done to them; 3) When Kate went back to the restaurant to inform the others, she left the children alone where she assumes Maddy was just abducted from; 4) There are reports that police found a syringe with a particular medication in the flat; 5) There are reports that Gerry has admitted they sedated the kids. - Were the children not awakened because they couldn't be, due to the level of sedation? IMO

Leaving rhe twins alone AGAIN gives the whole show away. SHE knew they would be safe because she knew who 'abducted' Madeleine.

It's a wonder she wasn't arrested at the time !!


imo

[One2Snoop]

There is so much speculation and misinformation being posted that I simply don't have the energy to debate it.

Re Kate leaving the twins to run back to the company and raise the alarm.....The flat was very close to the tapas bar. If anyone is in doubt about how far away it is, then look at one of the many aerial photos of the complex which have been posted on the web. In the aerial photos, you can see the tennis courts. A tennis court is approximately 100 feet long - approximately 35 paces for a man. Then compare the distance between the tapas bar and the flat with the length of the tennis court and it will give you some idea of just how close they were. The pool isn't large. The pools in these holiday resort hotels are really just splash pools for kids to have fun in.

Wild speculation at this stage isn't helpful IMO. I've seen suggestions that Maddie had been abused because she looks sad in my avatar! My avatar doesn't even show her whole face. I only see a photo of a child who isn't smiling for the camera and the reason that particular photo was published was BECAUSE she wasn't smiling and you could see her eye "flash" more clearly than if she'd crinkled up her eyes to smile.

The only red flags I see so far are in the way the police are handling the investigation.

When this topic was first started I couldn't think of a thing to add to it. You hit the nail on the head Jayelles. ITA.

[Mysteri]

Thus far there are too many questions in this case.
The hair in the boot of the car along with body fluids.
In any culture it's not intelligent nor loving to leave three such young children alone, night after night. I am glad the mother has expressed regret.

It's sad IF she and the father are innocent that they have had to endure critique when they are already so fragile and yet it's inevitable in such a case where the victim is so very young and the parents seen as her protectors, 24/7, particularly in a foreign country when the children didn't know the language.

Yet in many parts of the world , it isn't simply 'cultural' but in fact against the law to leave children under 12 or 14 unsupervised.

Two doctors could have surely afforded an au pair or nanny for their children. There's no excuse for them being left alone, ever. No matter how close the tapas bar was....it wasn't made of glass and neither was the room where the children slept under possible medication. It may as well have been a mile away , they couldn't check on the children without physically entering the room.

imo

[TuscanDreams]

As far as leaving the kids alone, I wouldn't do it, but my European grandmother sure did. She left my brothers and I alone in Mississippi and thought nothing of it. A friend would call for tea and off she'd go, making sure we had snacks and television to keep us company. Of course, my father wanted to throttle her.

It's a cultural thing, I get that. I don't agree with it, but it's not a red flag to me.

[Tober]

At about 9:30 pm, Dr. Oldfield allegedly went to check on the McCann children. In his first police statement he said he only listened at the door. Since then he has changed that to saying he actually went in and noticed the room to be lighter (because the shutters were opened). Assuming he did check on them but only by listening at the door (as he initially said), some questions arise: 1) Did the McCanns intentionally tell him to only listen at the door, and not to go inside? 2) Was the door really unlocked as the McCanns allege? 3) If the door was unlocked, then why did Dr. Oldfield only listen at the door? 4) Wouldn't it have been easier to simply open the door and look in on the children, if in fact the door was unlocked? 5) Did Dr. Oldfield change his story about his check to support the McCann's version of events? IMO

[bullmoose]

Thus far there are too many questions in this case.
The hair in the boot of the car along with body fluids.
In any culture it's not intelligent nor loving to leave three such young children alone, night after night. I am glad the mother has expressed regret.

It's sad IF she and the father are innocent that they have had to endure critique when they are already so fragile and yet it's inevitable in such a case where the victim is so very young and the parents seen as her protectors, 24/7, particularly in a foreign country when the children didn't know the language.

Yet in many parts of the world , it isn't simply 'cultural' but in fact against the law to leave children under 12 or 14 unsupervised.

Two doctors could have surely afforded an au pair or nanny for their children. There's no excuse for them being left alone, ever. No matter how close the tapas bar was....it wasn't made of glass and neither was the room where the children slept under possible medication. It may as well have been a mile away , they couldn't check on the children without physically entering the room.

imo
We really do not know if the fluids or hair were actually found in the trunk of the car; IMO, it smells a lot like horseplop. We certainly are hearing a lot of planted stories that are extremely prejudicial towards Madeline's parents if true; the diaries might just as well have been released straight to the media as to the authorities. Why the obvious attempt to reshape public opinion agaist the McCanns? It sounds like fraud to me, an attempt to frame the parents. JMHO

[Jayelles]

As far as leaving the kids alone, I wouldn't do it, but my European grandmother sure did. She left my brothers and I alone in Mississippi and thought nothing of it. A friend would call for tea and off she'd go, making sure we had snacks and television to keep us company. Of course, my father wanted to throttle her.

It's a cultural thing, I get that. I don't agree with it, but it's not a red flag to me.

Some people allow their kids out to play/wander the streets at a fairly young age. Others allow them to walk to school on their own at a young age. One would imagine that there is more danger in this than in leaving sleeping children alone in an apartment. When I was little, children went out to play all day and only returned home for meals. The biggest danger was considered to be crossing a main road or going into the field where the bull was kept. Times are constantly changing - but they don't change everywhere at the same time. People who live in countries with a higher crime rate are likely to be more cautious than those who live in safer communities.

I also have to wonder if the people who criticise the McCanns for their actions are perfect parents themselves and have never exposed their child to danger (wittingly or unwittingly).

[TuscanDreams]

I also have to wonder if the people who criticise the McCanns for their actions are perfect parents themselves and have never exposed their child to danger (wittingly or unwittingly).

Well, I'll be happy to throw this in the mix. I thought I was a great parent and my daughter is a train wreck. I never left her alone, etc. No way do I have a right to judge what others do. That said, I do think leaving the kids alone was an error, a mistake. But hindsight is 20/20 and I think that many kids are probably left alone at the same resort that Maddie was abducted from.

My thing is this: If Maddie hadn't been abducted, leaving her alone with the twins wouldn't be such a big deal. We have no idea of how many kids are left there alone, every night.

[elvislives]

Some people allow their kids out to play/wander the streets at a fairly young age. Others allow them to walk to school on their own at a young age. One would imagine that there is more danger in this than in leaving sleeping children alone in an apartment. When I was little, children went out to play all day and only returned home for meals. The biggest danger was considered to be crossing a main road or going into the field where the bull was kept. Times are constantly changing - but they don't change everywhere at the same time. People who live in countries with a higher crime rate are likely to be more cautious than those who live in safer communities.

I also have to wonder if the people who criticise the McCanns for their actions are perfect parents themselves and have never exposed their child to danger (wittingly or unwittingly).

I am sure, Jay, that these holier than thou parents never even blinked until their children were 12-14 years of age. Blinking would be irresponsible and selfish as they might miss something.

Surely they also sleep right beside their children every night since there have been many cases where children have been snatched right from their beds at night with the parents in the house. Obviously these horribly overprotected children never develop a sense of self esteem and need a life time of psychotherapy, but that is a small price to pay to make absolutely certain that they are not abducted.
:rolleyes:

[elvislives]

Well, I'll be happy to throw this in the mix. I thought I was a great parent and my daughter is a train wreck. I never left her alone, etc. No way do I have a right to judge what others do. That said, I do think leaving the kids alone was an error, a mistake. But hindsight is 20/20 and I think that many kids are probably left alone at the same resort that Maddie was abducted from.

My thing is this: If Maddie hadn't been abducted, leaving her alone with the twins wouldn't be such a big deal. We have no idea of how many kids are left there alone, every night.

CLEARLY the McCanns made a bad judgement call, as did John Walsh's wife when she left Adam alone in an arcade so she could shop nearby. Attacking the McCanns for this decision in the midst of their horrid despair is akin to attacking the mother of Elizabeth Smart imo. It was Elizabeth's mother who left the kitchen window open (since she had burned the dinner) which allowed the kidnapper the opportunity to get into the house and abduct Elizabeth.

I think every parent of an abducted child must have tremendous guilt that they werent there to protect their child. To criticize the McCanns in the depths of their despair is just plain cruel imo.

You may as well burn Erin Runion at the stake for allowing her daughter to play in the front yard with no adult supervision. Also, all the children who have been snatched while riding their bikes....How dare their parents allow them to ride a bike outside of the house!! I find all the monday morning quarterbacking to be quite appalling and cold hearted under the circumstances. JMO

[Jayelles]

CLEARLY the McCanns made a bad judgement call, as did John Walsh's wife when she left Adam alone in an arcade so she could shop nearby. Attacking the McCanns for this decision in the midst of their horrid despair is akin to attacking the mother of Elizabeth Smart imo. It was Elizabeth's mother who left the kitchen window open (since she had burned the dinner) which allowed the kidnapper the opportunity to get into the house and abduct Elizabeth.

I think every parent of an abducted child must have tremendous guilt that they werent there to protect their child. To criticize the McCanns in the depths of their despair is just plain cruel imo.

You may as well burn Erin Runion at the stake for allowing her daughter to play in the front yard with no adult supervision. Also, all the children who have been snatched while riding their bikes....How dare their parents allow them to ride a bike outside of the house!! I find all the monday morning quarterbacking to be quite appalling and cold hearted under the circumstances. JMO

Elvis, you know how some cough mixtures say "may cause drowsiness. if affected do not drive or operate machinery"? Is it possible that they contain a sedative similar to that found in sleeping medicines?

If she'd been taking cough medicine in the weeks/months prior to going on holiday, could it be detected in her hair?

[bullmoose]

Elvis, you know how some cough mixtures say "may cause drowsiness. if affected do not drive or operate machinery"? Is it possible that they contain a sedative similar to that found in sleeping medicines?

If she'd been taking cough medicine in the weeks/months prior to going on holiday, could it be detected in her hair?

Over the counter sleeping aids here in the States have the very same ingredients as over the counter cough medicenes, IMO. they are an antihistamine. JMHO

[elvislives]

Elvis, you know how some cough mixtures say "may cause drowsiness. if affected do not drive or operate machinery"? Is it possible that they contain a sedative similar to that found in sleeping medicines?

If she'd been taking cough medicine in the weeks/months prior to going on holiday, could it be detected in her hair?

The active ingredient in OTC cough medicines that causes the drowsiness is diphenhydramine hydrochloride. Diphenhydramine is an extremely safe drug as evidenced by the fact that the US FDA allows it to be sold over the counter and specifically labels it as safe for young children. I am not aware of any fatal overdose of this med.

But in response to your question about whether or not it would show up in hair, I do not know. The hair tests that are available today are either a 5 or 7 screen panels which tests for opiates, amphetamines, cannaboids, and other illicit drugs. I am not aware of any hair test that would test for diphenhydramine specifically, but that is because hair tests were developed to detect drugs of abuse. Diphenhydramine is NOT a drug of abuse so there would be no need to develop a hair test for it. But it is possible it could be detected thru specialized tests, but I am not certain. I am at work and will ask someone who should know the true answer. More to follow.

One more point about hair tests is that they can test for the presence of drugs, but not the quantity. I only point this out because I heard it reported that a "lethal dose of sedatives" was found in the hair from the trunk. That is definitely a false report. If sedatives were found in the hair, they cannot determine what dosage was administered.

[Tober]

If the McCanns would leave their children alone, is it reasonable to expect that they'd ALSO leave the doors and windows unlocked? Since the children were being left alone, wouldn't we expect that two intelligent adults would then be sure to lock the doors and windows? Are they only claiming to have left them unlocked so as to allow for an intruder to have been able to enter and abduct Maddy? IMO

[One2Snoop]

If the McCanns would leave their children alone, is it reasonable to expect that they'd ALSO leave the doors and windows unlocked? Since the children were being left alone, wouldn't we expect that two intelligent adults would then be sure to lock the doors and windows? Are they only claiming to have left them unlocked so as to allow for an intruder to have been able to enter and abduct Maddy? IMO

Did they leave the door unlocked so those who took turns checking on the children had access? :shrug: I think someone had spied Maddie early on and was watching for the perfect opportunity to snatch her. IMO, JMO.

[Jayelles]

The active ingredient in OTC cough medicines that causes the drowsiness is diphenhydramine hydrochloride. Diphenhydramine is an extremely safe drug as evidenced by the fact that the US FDA allows it to be sold over the counter and specifically labels it as safe for young children. I am not aware of any fatal overdose of this med.

But in response to your question about whether or not it would show up in hair, I do not know. The hair tests that are available today are either a 5 or 7 screen panels which tests for opiates, amphetamines, cannaboids, and other illicit drugs. I am not aware of any hair test that would test for diphenhydramine specifically, but that is because hair tests were developed to detect drugs of abuse. Diphenhydramine is NOT a drug of abuse so there would be no need to develop a hair test for it. But it is possible it could be detected thru specialized tests, but I am not certain. I am at work and will ask someone who should know the true answer. More to follow.

One more point about hair tests is that they can test for the presence of drugs, but not the quantity. I only point this out because I heard it reported that a "lethal dose of sedatives" was found in the hair from the trunk. That is definitely a false report. If sedatives were found in the hair, they cannot determine what dosage was administered.


Thank you again Elvis. That is an excellent point actually and I remember now from the Madeleine Smith murder case that they couldn't exclude the possibility that her victim may have been an "arsenic eater" - i.e. that he regularly swallowed small doses of arsenic through choice as opposed to her having killed him with a massive dose of arsenic.

[andU]

Yes, Elvis, that was interesting and a great point to make! Thank you!
Ya know, as much as we want to know what is happening in this case, we dare not believe everything (actually, much of nothing) that we read since there seem to be fiction in all reports coming from the media. The authorities need to get that dirty cop off the case, too. It doesn't do much in the way of enhancing tourists to have that information 'out there'.
Frustrating!

[elvislives]

A few things I've learned about hair/drug testing that some might find interesting:

Without a body (in which case they could examine the liver which can indicate dosage) they can only determine the presence of drugs whether they are testing hair or body fluids.

A crude example: if one is arrested for drunk driving and a urine or blood sample is collected, it can be determined e.g. that the accused had a .1 blood alcohol content (meaning that alcohol represented 10% of the pts blood).

Now assume for a moment that alcohol is not a substance that evaporates. If there is say a car accident with blood everywhere, but the body is missing and the crash site is not discovered for 25 days and the police tested the blood, what might they conclude? Again we are presuming for this exercise that alcohol does not evaporate but many components in blood DO evaporate, so if the police tested an old sample they may very well conclude (erroneously) that the victim had a .8 blood alcohol content (a lethal dose). I hope this makes sense--I was just using the alcohol example since that is something that most are familiar with. The point being, if the PJ are testing old samples and drawing conclusions, they are going to get inaccurate information as the ratios will change with time. So if they tested body fluids in the trunk there is NO WAY they can determine that she was given a lethal dose of drugs.

But back to hair: In order to test hair for drugs they need 50-70 strands minimum. Those strands would indicate presence of drugs used over the past 90 days, but again cannot determine quantity ingested. Also hair is very slow growing, so if Maddie was given a heavy dose of sedatives the night she went missing, it would not be present in her hair. It may be present in the hair folicle, but without a body, they would not have that.

Also, Jay, I did find out that diphenhydramine can be detected in hair. It would be impossible to determine whether it came from cough syrup, Nyquil, benadryl, etc, but it can be detected. Again, just for emphasis, the test used is an EIA (enzyme immunoassay) which gives a positive or a negative only, but cannot differentiate between a mild dose and a lethal one.

The long and the short of it is that all these media reports that they have determined that she was OD'ed are patently FALSE. It makes me wonder what else the media reports that is total BS.

[dallasvic]

We do know Maddies parents admitted giving the kids sedatives that night. They are doctors and would have knowledge of drug testing. They would have used something that can't be detected unless you know what you are looking for.
The BIG Red Flag:patriot: to me is that if the police said they had enough to arrested McCann's on why did they not do it and not let them leave the country. Why didn't they do drug test on the twins since they admitted giving all the kids a drug and they were unresponsive to when they went in and picked them up and carried them out.To many WHYS here:shrug:

[elvislives]

We do know Maddies parents admitted giving the kids sedatives that night. They are doctors and would have knowledge of drug testing. They would have used something that can't be detected unless you know what you are looking for.
The BIG Red Flag:patriot: to me is that if the police said they had enough to arrested McCann's on why did they not do it and not let them leave the country. Why didn't they do drug test on the twins since they admitted giving all the kids a drug and they were unresponsive to when they went in and picked them up and carried them out.To many WHYS here:shrug:

Is this true Dallasvic? I have heard they denied sedating their children. And the only drugs that might go under the radar screen of detection would be very specific IV anesthetics (such as succinol choline), but that would suggest a premeditated murder.

And even if they didn't drug test the twins immediately, they could certainly do a hair test NOW to determine whether they were drugged.

[elvislives]

I heard on the news that Branson (blanking on his first name)---the British Airway guy has donated a substantial amount of money to the McCann's legal defense. There is also an anonymous donor who gave a large amount. Also the AMA has a fund going for thier defense too since almost everyone in the medical community believes they are being railroaded (not necessarily intentionally, but due to an inept and flawed investigation).

[Jayelles]

I heard on the news that Branson (blanking on his first name)---the British Airway guy has donated a substantial amount of money to the McCann's legal defense. There is also an anonymous donor who gave a large amount. Also the AMA has a fund going for thier defense too since almost everyone in the medical community believes they are being railroaded (not necessarily intentionally, but due to an inept and flawed investigation).

I hope he doesn't read here :-) Richard Branson is the owner of Virgin - one of BA's biggest competitors LOL

[Jayelles]

Is this true Dallasvic? I have heard they denied sedating their children. And the only drugs that might go under the radar screen of detection would be very specific IV anesthetics (such as succinol choline), but that would suggest a premeditated murder.

And even if they didn't drug test the twins immediately, they could certainly do a hair test NOW to determine whether they were drugged.

They did deny giving her any sedatives. It was reported in the news that the police tried to get them to admit giving her sedatives and they consistently denied it. But within a few days it was being reported on discussion forums that they had admitted it.

Wouldn't sedatives make a child dozy during the day? I've never taken any kind of sedative so I don't know what kind of effect they would have.

[elvislives]

I hope he doesn't read here :-) Richard Branson is the owner of Virgin - one of BA's biggest competitors LOL

Ooooh what a faux pas!!! I will now open my mouth and insert my foot....;)

[Jayelles]

Ooooh what a faux pas!!! I will now open my mouth and insert my foot....;)

Will it fit ? :D

[elvislives]

They did deny giving her any sedatives. It was reported in the news that the police tried to get them to admit giving her sedatives and they consistently denied it. But within a few days it was being reported on discussion forums that they had admitted it.

Wouldn't sedatives make a child dozy during the day? I've never taken any kind of sedative so I don't know what kind of effect they would have.

It would depend on what sedatives were given and when. IF they gave the children an OTC med containing diphenhydramine in the evening, it would likely make them sleep thru the night and would wear off by the next day. But I can't emphasize enough how SAFE a drug diphenhydramine is. The notoriously conservative US FDA allows this drug to be sold over the counter and labels it as safe for children and pregnant women (actually I think the package labels say 'if you are pregnant or nursing consult your physician before taking this med' which simply shifts any liability to the MD). Even tiny fetuses have not been harmed by this drug and they are subject to adult doses!!

If however they drugged their children with a more powerful prescription sedative, then the half life would be longer and it would likely make them groggy during the day. But keep in mind that both of these parents are MDs and would have undergone an anethesiology rotation during their training. It is simply inconcievable to me that they would have taken such a huge risk unless they WANTED to kill their children, which imo is absurd.

[Tober]

They did deny giving her any sedatives. It was reported in the news that the police tried to get them to admit giving her sedatives and they consistently denied it.

It is also being reported that Gerry has since admitted they sedated the kids. IDIs and MDIs can't really say for sure either way until something official is put out. However there are supporting factors that the kids may have been sedated, as evidenced by the McCann's willingness to go party while leaving the kids alone, and by the observed condition of the twins. IMO

[elvislives]

Will it fit ? :D

Sure it will. I have a BIG mouth, just ask my husband....;)

[Portabella]

I am prone to disregard the "leaving of the children alone" as a cultural difference. I have heard repeatedly about "listening services" which tells me that they were raised to believe that this would be acceptable. So, in light of that, I don't find it as neglectful as if they were American where this is actually unheard of and actually a crime.

Why would they leave the windows open, maybe it was warm...if they felt they had nothing to worry about, why not leave them open. As far as keeping the door unlocked, I could see them doing this to lower the noise factor while checking in on the children, while fumbling for keys and unlocking the door you would be more likely to awake the kids.

As far as the medications...I have noticed that when my little one who has allergies takes Benadryl it makes him sleepy. Would I use this to put him to sleep , no not likely. However, I could see someone utilizing it for that.

Now, again, not trying to defend them, just pondering/analyzing what is being said here. My son could sleep through a tornado, severe storm and amazing amount of household activity. I have had to move him from my bed (not on medication by the way) to his bed and he is dead weight, he does not move although he is half drooping down as he is heavy as hell. I could see how a set of exausted twins could sleep through an abduction....between the sea air (makes me sleepy as heck) and an extremely active day they could be exausted. JMHO

[Jayelles]

I am prone to disregard the "leaving of the children alone" as a cultural difference. I have heard repeatedly about "listening services" which tells me that they were raised to believe that this would be acceptable. So, in light of that, I don't find it as neglectful as if they were American where this is actually unheard of and actually a crime.

Why would they leave the windows open, maybe it was warm...if they felt they had nothing to worry about, why not leave them open. As far as keeping the door unlocked, I could see them doing this to lower the noise factor while checking in on the children, while fumbling for keys and unlocking the door you would be more likely to awake the kids.

As far as the medications...I have noticed that when my little one who has allergies takes Benadryl it makes him sleepy. Would I use this to put him to sleep , no not likely. However, I could see someone utilizing it for that.

Now, again, not trying to defend them, just pondering/analyzing what is being said here. My son could sleep through a tornado, severe storm and amazing amount of household activity. I have had to move him from my bed (not on medication by the way) to his bed and he is dead weight, he does not move although he is half drooping down as he is heavy as hell. I could see how a set of exausted twins could sleep through an abduction....between the sea air (makes me sleepy as heck) and an extremely active day they could be exausted. JMHO

Before you completely disregard it, please google "baby listening service" and see how many european hotels offering it come up in the results.

[bullmoose]

All these 'reported admission' printed in the tabloids; its so eerily similar to the Circus in Colorado with Jonbenet's murder; all this 'leaked' info from the cops; I don't believe a word of it unless and until I see one or more of the parents admit it on tape. Everything else, IMHO, is self-serving salacious lies by an inept bunch of cops trying ti cover their butts; oh wait is this the Madeline board or the Jonbenet board? its like an echo chamber in here, isn't it? JMHO:biggrin:

[dallasvic]

They did deny giving her any sedatives. It was reported in the news that the police tried to get them to admit giving her sedatives and they consistently denied it. But within a few days it was being reported on discussion forums that they had admitted it.

Wouldn't sedatives make a child dozy during the day? I've never taken any kind of sedative so I don't know what kind of effect they would have.

This is true J they first denied then stated later they had given all of them a sedative. It is in one of the articles Odette has posted on the updates only thread.:seeya:

[Portabella]

I followed your advise and googled it under many different headings, and yes it just confirms what I had believed, "baby listening services" are heavily used in Britain especially, which would justify why I could disregard the thought of her being negligent based on her upbringing and cultural differences.

[One2Snoop]

I heard on the news that Branson (blanking on his first name)---the British Airway guy has donated a substantial amount of money to the McCann's legal defense. There is also an anonymous donor who gave a large amount. Also the AMA has a fund going for thier defense too since almost everyone in the medical community believes they are being railroaded (not necessarily intentionally, but due to an inept and flawed investigation).

:beer: Yes you heard right. I think he was the first one or started the fund. I posted this article on sunday in the updates section and Odette has posted some since then.... ( I guess this means it was Monday there because of time change?)

September 17, 2007 02:00am
BILLIONAIRE Sir Richard Branson is giving £100,000 ($238,000) to create a fighting fund to help the McCanns to clear their names.

http://www.news.com.au/mercury/story/0,22884,22427570-923,00.html

[elvislives]

It is also being reported that Gerry has since admitted they sedated the kids. IDIs and MDIs can't really say for sure either way until something official is put out. However there are supporting factors that the kids may have been sedated, as evidenced by the McCann's willingness to go party while leaving the kids alone, and by the observed condition of the twins. IMO

Tober, Would you kindly point me to the article you reference that states that Gerry admits to sedating the children? I scanned thru all of the news updates and couldnt find it. I did find this excerpt from an article that Odette posted today:

The dangers of sedating babies
September 18, 2007 Edition 1


Kate and Gerry McCann are shocked that detectives have named them as suspects in their daughter Madeleine's disappearance in Portugal.

But the rumour has remained strong: that Kate accidentally overdosed the child on sedatives.

The McCanns have fiercely denied accusations that they accidentally gave their eldest, who was weeks away from her fourth birthday, an overdose.

But there has been a shadow over their denials, initially because their other children - 2-year-old twins Amelie and Sean - seemingly slept deeply throughout the turbulent night Madeleine went missing.

The couple say they have never used any kind of sedative on their children and never would.



Perhaps I am missing something, but it appears to me that the idea that the McCanns admitted to sedating their children is nothing more than unsubstantiated gossip. If you have a reliable source would you please post it?

And such conjecture that they the twins must have been drugged in order to sleep thru the commotion of the evening is severely flawed imo. When my children were little they literally slept thru a 6.5 RS earthquake. Pictures fell off the walls, china and vases fell over and broke, the security alarm went off, yet they snoozed thru it all and I can assure you they were not drugged. Just very heavy sleepers. But as I stated before this would be a VERY simple thing for the police to prove by hair testing the twins.

[Sharon]

.

I too am growing weary of all the foolish speculation and misinformation. Many are apparently so dimwitted that if they hear something reported (even in a tabloid) they buy it, hook , line and sinker. It actually terrifies me that there are so many people who are incapable of critical thinking. Considering that we are living in the 21st century in democratic countries, that is a sad commentary indeed.

Thats worded so well!! People are dimwitted and have no intension of using critical thinking because it spoils their own sense of enjoyment.

You have to understand that there is a subculture of people who live their lives through cases like this. They socialise, form `relationships`, deep bonds and a sense of belonging by being part of these groups.

The same thing can be observed on the R. forums, especially ones on other sites. The amount of wicked speculation almost smacks of lynch mobs...and in many cases it does indeed smack of a lynch mob.

And keep in mind it is soooo easy, you dont have to use much of the old brain cells either.

You just say stuff like.....Maybe the Mum sold her daughter to slavery because she was jealous of her.....did you see the photo of the Mum, you can tell she would do something like that and not even blink, you can tell from the photo that she was really happy inside and just pretending to mourn, I even heard that she practices porn with her husband,that doesnt sound very Christion to me, maybe she didnt want M. getting in the way of her sex life etc etc.

I really hope that there are enough people who are willing to look at the facts and not get carried away with fanciful ignorant home detective work from the tabloids.

[Sharon]

All these 'reported admission' printed in the tabloids; its so eerily similar to the Circus in Colorado with Jonbenet's murder; all this 'leaked' info from the cops; I don't believe a word of it unless and until I see one or more of the parents admit it on tape. Everything else, IMHO, is self-serving salacious lies by an inept bunch of cops trying ti cover their butts; oh wait is this the Madeline board or the Jonbenet board? its like an echo chamber in here, isn't it? JMHO:biggrin:

All I can say is that for some still clinging to the tabloid gossip from the R. case...this would be like a gift from the heavens. Another Mother to deamonise for eternity. So much dirt to dig, where will they start!!!!!!

[Kathy Jo]

I've been following the discussions about the sleep medications with great interest. I am the mom of 4 officially diagnosed ADHD kids (i.e., hyperactive off the charts). My kids are all teens and off medications now, but they were medicated for their own safety for a while when they were young. (My boys would get up in the middle of the night, unlock the front door, and walk into the road! Once we even found my daughter on the roof of our house!) In fact, the psychiatrist told us to use Benadryl to help them calm down and sleep at night. We used it for a few years, safely, and effectively, under the doctor's orders. So, I could see two doctorlike the McCanns knowing how to use it.

On the other hand, assuming that they did NOT medicate the kids, it is still reasonable that the two younger kids might be hard to wake up normally! Even without meds, my little ones could sometimes sleep through the noisiest situations. Every parent has had the experience of carrying a very sleepy kid out to their car, etc., and the kid never wakes up!

[Sharon]

It's just unusual for me as an American with all the kooks worldwide to accept that it's not irresponsible so I accept that it may be due to cultural differences now that I understand that. However, after this case, perhaps it won't be.

Athena, Im with you on that one 100%. No one as far as I know in Australia would leave children of that age alone. We are also into the watching them 24/7. Even when we go shopping, we are aware of the possibility that there are kooks hiding behind every corner, just waiting to snatch our children under our own noses!!!! Well sight exaduration, but that is what we are hearing on the news all the time. We are hearing of kids being molested while the Mum is close by in a department store but not watching her child.

The thought of leaving babies is weird....what if they started choking or crying or fell out of bed etc. But...if it is a cultural thing I can accept that. Just as I accept that in times past our parents used to never lock our house, and us kids could play in the street til it got dark etc.

Much of what we do is determined by what others around us are doing eg the culture. I believe in some countries people leave their babies outside in the street when they go into a shop. This is a very different way of living and we must factor it in with these parents, difficult as it may be.

[dallasvic]

I've been following the discussions about the sleep medications with great interest. I am the mom of 4 officially diagnosed ADHD kids (i.e., hyperactive off the charts). My kids are all teens and off medications now, but they were medicated for their own safety for a while when they were young. (My boys would get up in the middle of the night, unlock the front door, and walk into the road! Once we even found my daughter on the roof of our house!) In fact, the psychiatrist told us to use Benadryl to help them calm down and sleep at night. We used it for a few years, safely, and effectively, under the doctor's orders. So, I could see two doctorlike the McCanns knowing how to use it.

On the other hand, assuming that they did NOT medicate the kids, it is still reasonable that the two younger kids might be hard to wake up normally! Even without meds, my little ones could sometimes sleep through the noisiest situations. Every parent has had the experience of carrying a very sleepy kid out to their car, etc., and the kid never wakes up!

:seeya: Hi Kathy Jo
Excellent post and WELCOME TO CL:seeya:

[dallasvic]

Athena, Im with you on that one 100%. No one as far as I know in Australia would leave children of that age alone. We are also into the watching them 24/7. Even when we go shopping, we are aware of the possibility that there are kooks hiding behind every corner, just waiting to snatch our children under our own noses!!!! Well sight exaduration, but that is what we are hearing on the news all the time. We are hearing of kids being molested while the Mum is close by in a department store but not watching her child.

The thought of leaving babies is weird....what if they started choking or crying or fell out of bed etc. But...if it is a cultural thing I can accept that. Just as I accept that in times past our parents used to never lock our house, and us kids could play in the street til it got dark etc.

Much of what we do is determined by what others around us are doing eg the culture. I believe in some countries people leave their babies outside in the street when they go into a shop. This is a very different way of living and we must factor it in with these parents, difficult as it may be.


I AGREE with you

[elvislives]

You just say stuff like.....Maybe the Mum sold her daughter to slavery because she was jealous of her.....did you see the photo of the Mum, you can tell she would do something like that and not even blink, you can tell from the photo that she was really happy inside and just pretending to mourn, I even heard that she practices porn with her husband,that doesnt sound very Christion to me, maybe she didnt want M. getting in the way of her sex life etc etc.
.

It would certainly take a psychotic mom to be jealous of a close relationship between her children and their dad, a normal mother would hope for that. I think such bizarre allegations speak more to the mindset of the accuser than those they are accusing. JMO

[Jayelles]

I read an article in which the McCanns were quoted as saying that they have never denied giving all 3 children medication to induce sleep. So it is odd to see them later denying that they gave sedatives. Perhaps they are quibbling over terms, for they admitted giving the children Calpol -- then perhaps they have decided to consider that this is not a sedative?

One2Snoop wrote:
"Did they leave the door unlocked so those who took turns checking on the children had access?"

But then we have O'Brien saying that he did not enter but only put his ear to the door. We have the mother (of one doctor) saying that they did not even do the rounds, but only checked on their own kids.

Also odd that they claim there was forced entry through shutters , though police and staff found no evidence of this.

It almost seems as if they were not sure whether or not they should claim that the doors were unlocked, but decided to do so. If they vacillated on this kind of thing while talking to the police, the police would of course have been very suspicious right away.


Could you provide a link to this article?

[elvislives]

I read an article in which the McCanns were quoted as saying that they have never denied giving all 3 children medication to induce sleep. So it is odd to see them later denying that they gave sedatives. Perhaps they are quibbling over terms, for they admitted giving the children Calpol -- then perhaps they have decided to consider that this is not a sedative?

.

I have yet to see where the McCanns admitted to giving thier children anything, but for the sake of discussion I'll take your word for it. IF the McCanns gave their children Calpol Night (the equivilent of Tylenol Cold & Allergy in the States) then they would certainly not be alone in that. I know many people who "drug" their children with Tylenol Cold before a long flight for example so the children won't bother other passengers. I am not condoning this, but It is an extremely safe drug.

The active ingredient in Calpol Night that causes the drowsiness is diphenhydramine. It is not a sedative but an antihistamine. I scoured the FDA website last night and could find NO cases of fatal overdoses of diphenhydramine. I can assure you that if there was even ONE case where this compound killed a child, there would be warnings all over the package (to protect the manufacturer from liability). It would also likely be pulled off the market as an OTC drug (the US FDA is extremely conservative). The ONLY cases I could find where diphenhydramine was found in a patient who died of a fatal overdose were cases where multiple prescription drugs were also found (e.g. Anna Nicole Smith had diphenhydramine in her system when she died, but it was NOT the drug that killed her).

[Jayelles]

It would certainly take a psychotic mom to be jealous of a close relationship between her children and their dad, a normal mother would hope for that. I think such bizarre allegations speak more to the mindset of the accuser than those they are accusing. JMO

I know you speak the truth :-) As the McCann's new spokesman has said, if this weren't so serious, some of the stories would be laughable.

[One2Snoop]

I know you speak the truth :-) As the McCann's new spokesman has said, if this weren't so serious, some of the stories would be laughable.

LOL I was just having this same thought as I was reading the discussion thread. Keystone cops came to mind too. :tongue:

[Jayelles]

elvislives wrote:
"IF the McCanns gave their children Calpol Night (the equivilent of Tylenol Cold & Allergy in the States) then they would certainly not be alone in that. I know many people who "drug" their children with Tylenol Cold before a long flight for example so the children won't bother other passengers. I am not condoning this, but It is an extremely safe drug."

In one breath you say you are not condoning it, but that lots of people do it , and it is safe. That sounds to me like you are condoning it, or at least attempting to mitigate any culpability.

Do you think it is appropriate for doctors to administer Calpol to children for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturers? I do not. I think it constitutes child abuse and medical malpractice. You apparently do not.

This issue is separate from the issue of whether or not sedatives were administered.

Now, there was an admission by the family that Calpol was given to all 3 children. Shortly following that, the Portuguese newspapers reported that sedatives were administered. So there is a question of whether these two (Calpol vs. sedatives) were being mixed up, or if in fact the children had also injested sedatives. This cannot be determined without further evidence being made public.

However, we also have an admission by the family that the children had been left alone every night for the past week, under similar circumstances. (Thus, there was some speculation that an abductor was able to observe their daily pattern and make off with the girl.)

This is a blatant admission by the McCanns that they are guilty of child neglect, and are responsible for any abduction if one did take place.

So I look at this and see parents who are willing to give medicine to children who are not ill, just to make them sleepy, for their own convenience. They admit leaving the children alone on a nightly basis. They don't use babysitters even though the resort makes them available.

elvis wrote: "The active ingredient in Calpol Night that causes the drowsiness is diphenhydramine. It is not a sedative but an antihistamine. I scoured the FDA website last night and could find NO cases of fatal overdoses of diphenhydramine."

How comforting to know that the girl probably did not die as a result of the Calpol. But the discomforting point is that no matter what happened to her is the direct result of the preceding gross parental neglect.

Was she abducted? Did she die from overdose or allergic reaction to sedatives or Calpol? Did she wander off and fall into a deep pit? None of these scenarios absolves the parents of grave responsibility. And no amount of Team McCann spinning can change this fundamental fact.

The issue of whether the McCanns accidentally killed the girl looms large in the media, but in reality it is less important than their abhorrent behavior prior to the girl's disappearance. Steadfastly they have tried to evade responsibility for this with their intense media campaign, hiring of official spokesmen, etc.

Indeed, even if they did accidentally kill the girl, the accident itself pales in significance without reference to the behavior of the couple before the accident, and then of course afterwards.

Do you have a source for the McCann's admitting they gave all three of their children calpol?

[Jayelles]

Is it OK for a doctor to administer a painkiller for the purposes of sedation?

Well as I have already explained, Calpol isn't a sedative, it's a painkiller. If a child was unsettled because they had a fever or a gum-ache, then yes, Calpol would kill the pain/lower the fever and allow the child to settle down to sleep. Would Calpol sedate a well child? No it wouldn't. Calpol is paracetemol. Paracetemol does not make one drowsy. There is no warning not to drive or operate machinery with paracetemol.

Cough medicines and anti-allergy medicines can make you drowsy though.

The facts speak for themselves in the case. The only spin is from those trying to weave a case against the McCanns based on tabloid speculation and misinformation.

No-one is admitting that the McCanns had to walk 100-200 metres because that is quite plainly false.

[elvislives]

In one breath you say you are not condoning it, but that lots of people do it , and it is safe. That sounds to me like you are condoning it, or at least attempting to mitigate any culpability.

I believe you missed my point. It has been reported that Maddie was fatally overdosed with diphenhydramine. As I stated, after an extensive search on the FDA database, I was unable to find a single case of a fatal overdose from diphenhydramine. That certainly does not mean that none have occurred. But one would have to have an excessive overdose even to experience the hallucinations you reference. Perhaps your theory is that the McCanns intentionally killed their daughter?

Do you think it is appropriate for doctors to administer Calpol to children for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturers? I do not. I think it constitutes child abuse and medical malpractice. You apparently do not.

I am not sure why you think you have the ability to read my mind. But I must inform you that your psychic abilities are quite flawed. I do not think it appropriate to give unneccessary medications.

As far as giving medications for purposes other than the intended indications by the manufacturers, this is done all the time and is LEGAL for MDs. It is called 'off label' usage and is both legal and condoned by the FDA if it is in the best interest of the patient. It was recently discovered that Lipitor is effective in slowing the progression of Altzheimers, Lipitor is indicated by the manufacturer as a cholesterol lowering drug and has no indication for use to treat Altzheimers. But many MDs are legally dispensing this drug to Altzheimers patients OFF LABEL and it is perfectly legal. I really I got off on a bit of a tangent here, but since you appear to be such a stickler for accuracy I thought I would point out your error.



Now, there was an admission by the family that Calpol was given to all 3 children. Shortly following that, the Portuguese newspapers reported that sedatives were administered. So there is a question of whether these two (Calpol vs. sedatives) were being mixed up, or if in fact the children had also injested sedatives. This cannot be determined without further evidence being made public.

Again not everything being reported in the news has been accurate. There are countless examples if you would take the time to read the threads.

This is a blatant admission by the McCanns that they are guilty of child neglect, and are responsible for any abduction if one did take place.

Do you also hold John Walsh's wife accountable for Adam's murder? For it was she who left him alone in an arcade so she could shop nearby.
Samantha Runion's mother also allowed her to play in the front yard with no adult supervision, so she must also be guilty of murder.
And the Petit family in Cheshire Connecticut was murdered after the father left the basement door unlocked allowing the intruders to get into the house. I assume you think he should be on death row for triple homocide?

BTW: welcome to crime library ;)

[Jayelles]

Jayelles wrote:



Where is your proof of this? Are you disputing the link I provided on another thread detailing a 120m walk, including descriptions and photos?

Why don't you give us the precise distance in meters, along with your source?

Refer to my post on the discussion thread. Intelligent posters will be able to look at the aerial photo and work out whether 4-7 (equivalent to 120-200 metres) of these tennis courts would fit between the tapas bar and the apartment.

http://bp1.blogger.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/RlowOZfs4eI/AAAAAAAAAZw/NnmhuElEmVI/s1600-h/Aerial_Photo_Ocean_Club_Eng.gif

NOTE : Bear in mind that the McCanns entred and left the apartment by the patio doors at the poolside of the apratment and not the rear window as circled in the photo.

[elvislives]

elvislives wrote:



No, I did not miss your point. But as you yourself have been so quick to point out, much that is published is inaccurate. Perhaps the dose was very high, but not fatal, for example.

That WAS my point, that the reports that she was fatally overdosed with diphenhydramine is most likely an inaccurate news report.



Considering that my source indicated that death can and does result from overdose, this would be an understatement.

You appear to be quite naive about medical-legal liability. I presume (and please correct me if I am wrong) that the source you cited was a package insert from the manufacturer? You might educate yourself by reading package inserts from other medications or browsing thru the PDR. Most of them list death and a whole host of other things as possible side effects (even if they have NEVER been reported). This simply releases the manufacturer from legal liability.

Have you ever had even a minor surgical procedure? I'm not sure where you live, but all the informed consents you sign in the US before a procedure caution you about every possible outcome, even those that have NEVER happened. The reason for this is to relieve the physician and the hospital from liability, even if it is unrelated to the procedure.

An example: drugs, either OTC, prescription, or anethesia can be quite safe for pregnant women. The FDA classifies them into categories (A,B,C,D) for safety. However, ALL medications administered to pregnant women carry strong warnings that it could harm the fetus. Why would they do that if there was NEVER a case nor any indication that a drug could harm the fetus? Answer: CYA. There have been many cases where pregnant women who have given birth to a baby with say Down's Syndrome (or any other birth defect) have thought, hmmmm I took tylenol when I was pregnant, so that must have caused my baby to get Downs and so they sue for millions. There is NO evidence that tylenol causes downs or any other birth defect, NONE, but juries tend to sympathize with suffering pts at the expense of drug companies with deep pockets. So with all due respect, your "evidence' is naive to say the least.



What do you mean "excessive"? I suggest you re-read the reference material. The UK permits a dosage of 100mg. Recreational usage for the deliriant effect involves dosages from 225mg. That's only slightly more than two-fold. And these are presumably figures for adults. As I said, it is likely that thresholds for toddlers are not well understood.

I believe my point here was that the drug is not safe, as you had claimed.

Again your ignorance of the medical legal liability climate is apparent.



I merely asked you the question, since you had not made a clear statement. This should have been an indication to you that I did not know what you think.

Actually you said this: "Do you think it is appropriate for doctors to administer Calpol to children for a purpose other than intended by the manufacturers? I do not. I think it constitutes child abuse and medical malpractice. You apparently do not.

Which did not suggest you were confused or in need of clarification on my position.

This is all very interesting, and I do appreciate the details, but the "off-label" purpose we are discussing is the sedation of toddlers for the convenience of parents who want to drink and socialize. So let me ask you specifically about this: are you asserting that this usage is legal?

First of all, you are making a number of assumptions here. Are you certain that Maddie did not have alergies or any other condition for which this drug might be appropriate?

And I am no expert on Portuguese laws, but it is indeed legal in the US to give benadryl (e.g.) to children to calm them even tho that is not its intended use.



Your rhetoric is impressive, but there is no indication of relevance. I stated that the McCanns would be responsible for any abduction that had taken place. Now you bring in other cases, with no hint of parallels. Was Adam a toddler? Then I guess the woman would be responsible for his death, but not "accountable" for the murderer's actions.

I disagree. I think the parallels are strong indeed. Adam was 5 or 6 and was left in an arcade ALONE. There are countless cases where parents inadvertantly placed their children in harms way with grave consequences. Perhaps you feel entitled to revictimize them, but I just think it extremely cruel.



More twisting of my meaning. Is this your habit? I did not say the McCanns would be "guilty" of the resultant crime (abduction or murder) -- I said they would be responsible for it occurring. Any one with common sense and a modicum of critical thinking skills can see this, IMO.

I assume you are deliberately distorting my argument. I did not say the McCanns should be punished for the crime committed by the abductor. I said they would be guilty of criminal neglect which resulted in the abduction. The punishment they should receive would be for child endangerment.
Indeed, I wonder why they are not being prosecuted for child neglect and endangerment right now. Perhaps they will be, eventually. They should be, IMO.


I am not deliberately distorting your words. I am simply asking that you apply the same criticism to ALL other abducted children whose parents inadvertantly placed them in harms way.

[elvislives]

Jayelles wrote:


I've been content to let the discussion proceed hypothetically. There are several sources. Here are two:

David Connett and Amol Rajan in Praia da Luz
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...?service=print



Also,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20765844...wsweek/page/3/



I see that no one is answering my direct question of whether or not it is alright for a physcian to administer a drug manufactured as a painkiller for the purposes of sedation. My own opinion is that this is professional negligence and medical malpractice, as well as child abuse. The McCanns should not be allowed to practice medicine and they should not be allowed to care for children.

I do not see McCann apologists openly admitting that the distance they had to walk to check on their sedated children was well over 100m, and quite possibly 200m. The McCanns have admitted leaving their toddlers alone every night for a week preceding the disappearance (I trust you do not need a source for this).

All of this constitutes gross and aggravated child neglect and child endangerment. But all we hear from McCann apologists are various tricky spins designed to falsely mitigate or cover up this irresponsbile and criminal behavior.

So whether or not the girl was abducted from the apartment, abducted after wandering off in a daze looking for her intoxicated parents, or accidentally killed by these parents is actually quite irrelevant with regard to the persistent and continuous child neglect that had been occurring prior to the disappearance. Whatever has happened to the girl, most certainly happened as a result of the parents' inexcusable behavior.
Now after the McCanns and their apologists deftly avoid this primary responsibility for the fate of the girl, they expect people to believe their stories, even when the stories are contradictory and constantly changing. Indeed, with the new "spokesman" installed, we have a whole new version of events being trotted out in the press.

So, yes, perhaps the McCanns did not accidentally kill their child. Perhaps , drugged and delirious, she wandered off into the night, and was "snatched" off the street somewhere. Or perhaps the abductor did observe the parents extraordinary criminal neglect over a period of days, and took advantage of it.

I just hope that if the girl is found alive, she is not returned to the McCanns. JMO, of course.

Neither of the links provided by Hideki worked for me. Does anyone else have trouble with them or is it my PC?

[Jayelles]

Neither of the links provided by Hideki worked for me. Does anyone else have trouble with them or is it my PC?

The links don't work for me either, but I googled a phrase and found the same quote in the Belfast Telegraph.

It means nothing - certainly not what Hideki is trying to suggest. I would say it would be neglect NOT to give a child some painkiling syrup if it had a cold/fever or teething pains.

[dallasvic]

[quote=elvislives;8989676]Is this true Dallasvic? I have heard they denied sedating their children. And the only drugs that might go under the radar screen of detection would be very specific IV anesthetics (such as succinol choline), but that would suggest a premeditated murder.

And even if they didn't drug test the twins immediately, they could certainly do a hair test NOW to determine whether they were drugged.[/qu

They did finally admit giving all 3 kids a sedative that night. I will go back an see if I can find it an Odette might know too. Your right about the hair they can go back as far as 6 months and tell amount about when too

[One2Snoop]

Is this true Dallasvic? I have heard they denied sedating their children. And the only drugs that might go under the radar screen of detection would be very specific IV anesthetics (such as succinol choline), but that would suggest a premeditated murder.

And even if they didn't drug test the twins immediately, they could certainly do a hair test NOW to determine whether they were drugged.

They did finally admit giving all 3 kids a sedative that night. I will go back an see if I can find it an Odette might know too. Your right about the hair they can go back as far as 6 months and tell amount about when too

I think we need to get clarified whats considered a sedative. According to whats being reported it was nothing more than something compared to childrens Tylenol. IMO , this is not a sedative. Thank you Jayelles for clearing this up for us.

Posted by Jayelles:
Is it OK for a doctor to administer a painkiller for the purposes of sedation?

Well as I have already explained, Calpol isn't a sedative, it's a painkiller. If a child was unsettled because they had a fever or a gum-ache, then yes, Calpol would kill the pain/lower the fever and allow the child to settle down to sleep. Would Calpol sedate a well child? No it wouldn't. Calpol is paracetemol. Paracetemol does not make one drowsy. There is no warning not to drive or operate machinery with paracetemol.

Cough medicines and anti-allergy medicines can make you drowsy though.

The facts speak for themselves in the case. The only spin is from those trying to weave a case against the McCanns based on tabloid speculation and misinformation. (ITA :beer: o2s)

snip

[dallasvic]

I think we need to get clarified whats considered a sedative. According to whats being reported it was nothing more than something compared to children's Tylenol. IMO , this is not a sedative. Thank you Jayelles for clearing this up for us.

Posted by Jayelles:


Thanks O2S & Jayelles,

I knew the was a article about it. I thought that might have been what they called a sedative over there.Seem things are different in different countries. I should NEVER ASSUME something. SORRY EVERYONE:shrug:
Thanks to both of you for coming to the rescue.:seeya:

[One2Snoop]

Thanks O2S & Jayelles,

I knew the was a article about it. I thought that might have been what they called a sedative over there.Seem things are different in different countries. I should NEVER ASSUME something. SORRY EVERYONE:shrug:
Thanks to both of you for coming to the rescue.:seeya:

No problemo dallasvic. :seeya: It gets more difficult by the day to keep everything straight from tabloid trash to actual facts.

Where's Maddie? :shrug: :rose:

[dallasvic]

No problemo dallasvic. :seeya: It gets more difficult by the day to keep everything straight from tabloid trash to actual facts.

Where's Maddie? :shrug: :rose:

I agee I stay so :confused:

[Jayelles]

Jayelles wrote:



Intelligent posters will realize that the only relevant distance is that which had to be walked by someone from the restaurant to the apartment.

I provided you with a link and excerpts (repeated below) that describes this route, with pictures. The route distance is described in two segments of 60m each, giving a distance of 120m.

You ignored this, and instead give us an aerial photo with no distances marked, inviting us to imagine a straight-line as-the-crow flies distance, measuring with tennis courts. The source I cited already gives this distance, which is 70m.

The only relevant distance is the distance from that table to the apartment -- the distance someone would have to travel in order to check on the children. That distance was said to be 120m, but even this is not quite the full distance, for various reasons.

For example, supposedly the Tapas 9 members are checking on 4 apartments, not just the McCanns. They will have walked a farther distance if they first checked on the other three.

However, as a minimum, the route is 120m. Since you have claimed this detailed information is false, then prove your claim.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/liv...page_id=181 1

It's interesting that your posts started by claiming a distance of 200m:-

http://bp1.blogger.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/RlowOZfs4eI/AAAAAAAAAZw/NnmhuElEmVI/s1600-h/Aerial_Photo_Ocean_Club_Eng.gif


Incidentally, the apartment was surely not visible from where the McCanns sat, and it was apparently a 200 meter walk from their table to their apartment.



...continued by claiming a distance of 120m

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8992197&postcount=676


And I might add that much of what has been reported in the British press (not just tabloids) has been biased, "misreported and inaccurate" -- for example the distance from the restaurant to the apartment has been repeatedly and incessantly referred to as "just metres away" when the actual distance was at least 120m.



and you are now claiming 70m - which is equivalent to the distance I suggested in the first place!

70m isn't far off 200 FEET!

As I have said on numerous occasions, I believe that the correct distance is 200 feet but that somewhere along the line, someone erroneously reportee this as 200 metres and it has become a false "fact".

[Jayelles]

I'd like to make a point about polygraphs.

On another forum, a poster made a comment along the lines of it "speaking volumes" about the McCanns that they hadn't taken polygraphs.

Polygraphs aren't used by LE here. You'll see them on daytime TV shows like Tricia, but that's about all.

[elvislives]

Could you provide a link to this article?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Hideki
I read an article in which the McCanns were quoted as saying that they have never denied giving all 3 children medication to induce sleep. So it is odd to see them later denying that they gave sedatives. Perhaps they are quibbling over terms, for they admitted giving the children Calpol -- then perhaps they have decided to consider that this is not a sedative?

One2Snoop wrote:
"Did they leave the door unlocked so those who took turns checking on the children had access?"

But then we have O'Brien saying that he did not enter but only put his ear to the door. We have the mother (of one doctor) saying that they did not even do the rounds, but only checked on their own kids.

Also odd that they claim there was forced entry through shutters , though police and staff found no evidence of this.

It almost seems as if they were not sure whether or not they should claim that the doors were unlocked, but decided to do so. If they vacillated on this kind of thing while talking to the police, the police would of course have been very suspicious right away.


Could you provide a link to this article?
__________________
Bumped for Hideki

Hideki, you provided 2 links in an earlier post---I am not sure if those links contained the proof as to which drug(s) the McCanns allegedly gave to their children, but both were dead ends so I am sure you will clarify.

Would you kindly provide proof of the specific drug that you claim the McCanns gave to the kids?

As you know Calpol (aceteminaphen) and Calpol Night (which contains diphenhydramine) are have VERY different properties. Diphenhydramine can have sedative-like side effects but aceteminophen definitely does not.

Thank you in advance for the clarifying link.

[elvislives]

I'd like to make a point about polygraphs.

On another forum, a poster made a comment along the lines of it "speaking volumes" about the McCanns that they hadn't taken polygraphs.

Polygraphs aren't used by LE here. You'll see them on daytime TV shows like Tricia, but that's about all.

FWIW many innocent parents of missing children fail polygraphs due to the stress they are under (Steve Groene for example) and guilty people can fool a polygraph by taking certain meds (such as beta blockers). They are considered unreliable and are therefore inadmissable in American courts.

[Jayelles]

FWIW many innocent parents of missing children fail polygraphs due to the stress they are under (Steve Groene for example) and guilty people can fool a polygraph by taking certain meds (such as beta blockers). They are considered unreliable and are therefore inadmissable in American courts.

Oh my goodness! I just turned on the Channel Five news and they reported that the McCanns have asked to be given polygraphs to show that they are innocent!

What a coincidence!

[Jayelles]

Channel Five has a dreadful website and I couldn't find the news article there, but here is the same story from Channel 4:-

http://www.channel4.com/news/articles/society/law_order/mccanns+we+will+take+lie+test/828552

Madeleine McCann's parents say they are prepared to take a lie detector test to prove their innocence, friends have revealed.

Friends say the couple want to prove they have nothing to hide after being declared "arguidos" by Portuguese police.

SNIP

Apparently they hope the test will eliminate remaining doubts. A friend said: "If they are asked to take a lie detector test by police they would.

"They have said all along that they want to cooperate fully with the Portuguese police, but as of today they have received no such request from the Portuguese authorities.

"Kate and Gerry are happy to do anything that will help clear their names."

[Results]

I hope they do take a poly....that might change my mind on MO of them that is if they pass of course. They are not off my POI list yet. JMHO

[elvislives]

I hope they do take a poly....that might change my mind on MO of them that is if they pass of course. They are not off my POI list yet. JMHO

If they take a poly I hope they take it in conjunction with a drug screen. For some reason I get the sinking feeling that if they pass a poly, people will then say..."Well they are doctors so they surely know what medications they can take to beat a polygraph." And if indeed the polygraph is given along with a drug screen, I am sure there will still be those who claim they took drugs that cannot be detected.

IMO the McCanns are in a no-win situation unless some pedofile is caught red handed with Maddie, as in the Shasta Groene case. I feel sure if Shasta had not been spotted with her abductor, her father would likely have been tried and convicted of murder. :(

[Results]

If they take a poly I hope they take it in conjunction with a drug screen. For some reason I get the sinking feeling that if they pass a poly, people will then say..."Well they are doctors so they surely know what medications they can take to beat a polygraph." And if indeed the polygraph is given along with a drug screen, I am sure there will still be those who claim they took drugs that cannot be detected.

IMO the McCanns are in a no-win situation unless some pedofile is caught red handed with Maddie, as in the Shasta Groene case. I feel sure if Shasta had not been spotted with her abductor, her father would likely have been tried and convicted of murder. :(

Your probably right that nothing they do for some will convince them but I'm not out to hurt anyone and I'm sure not out to say the parents are guilty no matter what. I'm just not convinced either way of who did what, when, and where. I'm not for anybody except Maddy. I hope that the parents aren't involved and I hope that Maddy is still alive. JMHO

[dallasvic]

I totally agree. I hope they do take the poly.

[Sharon]

It would certainly take a psychotic mom to be jealous of a close relationship between her children and their dad, a normal mother would hope for that. I think such bizarre allegations speak more to the mindset of the accuser than those they are accusing. JMO

EL, thats some of the things I sadly heard people speculate about P. on `that` board. It got too depressing (for me personally) to see what people were really capable of thinking about a normal Mum who had lost a child. In the end it is like you say, all about the mindset of the accuser. But, it comes as an avelanche when you get a whole group of them together, they turn into a feeding frenzie with no regard to truth or logic. Poeple turn it into their god given right to torment the Mother as a hobbie!!!

I think it wont happen as much here because there are some better educated people involved from the get go, especially with the pr team and perhaps country politics (loyalty) meaning the tide wont turn fanatically against these parents by most Westerners.

[Sharon]

Jayelles wrote:


I've been content to let the discussion proceed hypothetically. There are several sources. Here are two:

David Connett and Amol Rajan in Praia da Luz
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/ne...?service=print



Also,
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20765844...wsweek/page/3/



I see that no one is answering my direct question of whether or not it is alright for a physcian to administer a drug manufactured as a painkiller for the purposes of sedation. My own opinion is that this is professional negligence and medical malpractice, as well as child abuse. The McCanns should not be allowed to practice medicine and they should not be allowed to care for children.

I do not see McCann apologists openly admitting that the distance they had to walk to check on their sedated children was well over 100m, and quite possibly 200m. The McCanns have admitted leaving their toddlers alone every night for a week preceding the disappearance (I trust you do not need a source for this).

All of this constitutes gross and aggravated child neglect and child endangerment. But all we hear from McCann apologists are various tricky spins designed to falsely mitigate or cover up this irresponsbile and criminal behavior.

So whether or not the girl was abducted from the apartment, abducted after wandering off in a daze looking for her intoxicated parents, or accidentally killed by these parents is actually quite irrelevant with regard to the persistent and continuous child neglect that had been occurring prior to the disappearance. Whatever has happened to the girl, most certainly happened as a result of the parents' inexcusable behavior.
Now after the McCanns and their apologists deftly avoid this primary responsibility for the fate of the girl, they expect people to believe their stories, even when the stories are contradictory and constantly changing. Indeed, with the new "spokesman" installed, we have a whole new version of events being trotted out in the press.

So, yes, perhaps the McCanns did not accidentally kill their child. Perhaps , drugged and delirious, she wandered off into the night, and was "snatched" off the street somewhere. Or perhaps the abductor did observe the parents extraordinary criminal neglect over a period of days, and took advantage of it.

I just hope that if the girl is found alive, she is not returned to the McCanns. JMO, of course.

I almost splattered my coffee in shock at reading your last comment, on how if M. is found alive she SHOULD NOT be given back to her parents!!!!!!

I have NO comment due to be temporarily dumbfounded.

And, I am not willing to get an infraction for saying what I really think either!!!

[dallasvic]

Please everyone,

Let take a deep breath and remember why we are here.:rose:MADDIE:rose:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/MADELINEMOD1509_468x440.jpg

[Jayelles]

Please do not resort to lying and distorting what I have posted.

I began posting my mentioning that various distances had been reported in the press, from 40m to 200m, most often giving the deceptive "just metres away". I gave you a source and excerpts that show the straight-line distance to be 70m, and I clearly indicated that the longer distances represented the distance that must be walked, and stated that this is the only relevant distance. I cited a source that analyzed in detail, with photos, the 120m distance (walked) from the restaurant to the apartment. This distance was carefully documented, so I selected it as a minimum, but I noted reasons it would be actually even longer, such as: supposedly the Tapas 9 were doing rounds at 4 apartments, not just going to and fro one apartment.

At no point did I claim the relevant distance is 70m. The minimum distance walked in order to check on the child was 120m.

Again, please do not distort and lie about what I post. Thank you.



"Relevant distance?" What is that? My friend lives around the corner. I can see her house from my upsairs windows and it would be about 100m away. I could walk across the road to her house and that would be 100m. OR I could go up to the corner, turn right instead of left, go around the block and arrive back at her house and it would probably be quarter of a mile distance.

Aerial photos clearly show the complex has various paths meandering around the pool and garden areas. So what if someone could technically take a scenic route and make it a longer walk? The only "relevant distance" I see is the shortest route.

I won't be replying to any more of your posts on this topic. It's a completely irrelevant debate.

And FWIW, I quoted your posts so that everyone could see what you'd written and compare it with my comments. If I was going to "lie" about what you were saying, I'd hardly have done that!

[Jayelles]

Just today an article appeared that coincidentally is right along the lines I was speaking about.

http://news.yahoo.com/s/time/20070921/wl_time/themccannstrialbymedia


Despite months of Team McCann PR and overt media sympathy, even in Britain 80% of the people doubt the McCanns are innocent. I'm not sure who was stunned by this fact -- it does not surprise me one bit.

It should not tax the imagination too much to realize that outside of Britain, among those who are following the case, just about no one thinks the McCanns are innocent. I have yet to meet anyone who does.

And before you McCann supporters jump on me again, you should realize that it is your own attitude that has created the deep skepticism. Right from the start it looked like the McCanns were evading responsibility. And your posts defending the McCanns and urging people to sympathize with them are nothing but a continuation of that charade.

You'd be better off just shutting your mouths, and waiting for the forensic results, because the more you talk, the worse the McCanns look.

This is a complete misrepresentation/distortion of the poll which was taken.

In fact, the poll was not about innocence OR guilt (which I don't believe would be lawful in the UK anyway). Here are the three questions which were in the poll in question:-

Turning now to the disappearance of the young girl Madeleine
McCann, the British toddler missing in Portugal, some people
have criticised her parents for leaving her unsupervised when
she disappeared. Do you agree or disagree with such
criticisms?

Agree - they were wrong to leave her alone (71%)
Disagree - most parents have done this at times, they were just very
unlucky (23%)
Not sure (6%)

Madeleine McCann's parents have been criticised in the
Portuguese press but given a sympathetic treatment in the
British press. Which of these statements best sums up your
view?

The Portuguese local press has been right to criticise (22%)
The Portuguese local press is wrong and the British press has been
right to treat them sympathetically (29%)
The British press has been wrong, and should have been more
critical of Madeleine’s parents (27%)
Don't know (22%)

Some say Madeline McCann's parents have been given
sympathetic treatment here because they are middle-class
professionals. Do you agree or disagree with this?
Agree - that is why they have been treated sympathetically (54%)
Disagree - any British family would have been treated
sympathetically (34%)
Don't know (12%)

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/resultstoplines.pdf

Here is another article from the same publication:-

[quote]Look what they’ve done to Kate and Gerry McCann. Here were two people deserving of the most intense public sympathy. On a superficial level they got it – by the media bucketload. Yet did you not sense from an early stage an undertone of irritation at the couple? I’ve sensed it everywhere I go: not a sign of doubt about their innocence, which most of us take for granted, but a feeling, nevertheless, that they in some way invited trouble – though we banish the thought as brutal and wrong.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article2507926.ece

This is my experience too. No-one I have spoken to thinks they are guilty (and everyone is speaking about it). There are varying degrees of criticism over the fact that they left the kids in the apartment but I have not come across a single person in real life (i.e off the forums) who thinks they harmed their daughter.

[elvislives]

elvislives wrote:

You are wrong. Go back and re-read. Package inserts from the manufacturer do not include normal dosages taken by recreational users.

What exactly am I reading in your post? Would you kindly cite the source and a link for the information you posted.? The manufacturers package insert (which is approved by the FDA as reliable based on clincially proven information) is here:

Diphenhydramine Oral

Why is this medication prescribed?

Diphenhydramine, an antihistamine, relieves red, irritated, itchy, watery eyes; sneezing; and runny nose caused by hay fever, allergies, and the common cold. It also may relieve the itching of insect bites, sunburns, bee stings, poison ivy, poison oak, and minor skin irritation. Diphenhydramine is also used to prevent and treat motion sickness, induce sleep, treat Parkinson's disease, and relieve cough caused by minor throat or airway irritation.

This medication is sometimes prescribed for other uses; ask your doctor or pharmacist for more information.

How should this medication be used?

Diphenhydramine comes as a tablet, capsule, and liquid to take by mouth. It usually is taken three or four times a day. For motion sickness, diphenhydramine is taken 30 minutes before departure and, if needed, before meals and at bedtime. Diphenhydramine is taken at bedtime for sleep. Follow the directions on the package or on your prescription label carefully, and ask your doctor or pharmacist to explain any part you do not understand. Take diphenhydramine exactly as directed. Do not take more or less of it or take it more often than prescribed by your doctor.

What side effects can this medication cause?

Diphenhydramine may cause side effects. Tell your doctor if any of these symptoms are severe or do not go away:

dry mouth, nose, and throat
drowsiness
upset stomach
chest congestion
headache

Warnings:

If you experience any of the following symptoms, call your doctor immediately:

vision problems
difficulty urinating
muscle weakness
excitement (especially in children)
nervousness

If you experience a serious side effect, you or your doctor may send a report to the Food and Drug Administration's (FDA)

What special precautions should I follow?

Before taking diphenhydramine,

tell your doctor and pharmacist if you are allergic to diphenhydramine or any other drugs.
tell your doctor and pharmacist what prescription and nonprescription medications you are taking, especially other medications for colds, hay fever, or allergies; medications for depression or seizures; muscle relaxants; narcotics (pain medications); sedatives; sleeping pills; tranquilizers; and vitamins.
tell your doctor if you have or have ever had asthma, lung disease, glaucoma, ulcers, difficulty urinating (due to an enlarged prostate gland), heart disease, high blood pressure, seizures, or an overactive thyroid gland.
tell your doctor if you are pregnant, plan to become pregnant, or are breast-feeding. If you become pregnant while taking diphenhydramine, call your doctor.
if you are having surgery, including dental surgery, tell the doctor or dentist that you are taking diphenhydramine.
you should know that this drug may make you drowsy. Do not drive a car or operate machinery until you know how this drug affects you.
remember that alcohol can add to the drowsiness caused by this drug.
What should I do if I forget to take a dose?

Take the missed dose as soon as you remember it. However, if it is almost time for the next dose, skip the missed dose and continue your regular dosing schedule. Do not take a double dose to make up for a missed one.


What should I do in case of overdose?

In case of overdose, call your local poison control center at 1-800-222-1222 0r 911.

What other information should I know?

Keep all appointments with your doctor.

Do not let anyone else take your medication. Ask your pharmacist any questions you have about refilling your prescription.

Last Revised March 2007


You could best educate yourself by re-reading the post, and noting that both hallucinogenic propeties of the drug, and recreational use of the drug are discussed in the excerpt. Moreover, along with "coma and death" as a possible reult of overdose, comes a note that the treatment of overdosing is "most commonly" done by IV in hospital.

I have reread the post and again PLEASE CITE THE SOURCE FROM WHICH THIS INFORMATION CAME.

Now, go back to your original post, and see if you still think your comment that the drug is "extremely safe" is well considered. Thank you.

The drug is approved as an OVER THE COUNTER medication and is specifically labeled as safe for children and Yes is considered safe, not only by me, but by the US FDA.

I am also still patiently waiting for you to post the source that proves this drug was even given to M. If she was never given this drug (and you have yet to provide proof that she has), then this whole discussion is moot. So please first post your proof that Maddie was given this med, then post your link to the information you quoted. TIA

p.s. If you don't do so, you risk losing all credibility ;)

[elvislives]

It's interesting that your posts started by claiming a distance of 200m:-

http://bp1.blogger.com/_mXbRBcSh0gs/RlowOZfs4eI/AAAAAAAAAZw/NnmhuElEmVI/s1600-h/Aerial_Photo_Ocean_Club_Eng.gif




...continued by claiming a distance of 120m

http://boards.crimelibrary.com/showpost.php?p=8992197&postcount=676




and you are now claiming 70m - which is equivalent to the distance I suggested in the first place!

70m isn't far off 200 FEET!

As I have said on numerous occasions, I believe that the correct distance is 200 feet but that somewhere along the line, someone erroneously reportee this as 200 metres and it has become a false "fact".

Those inconsistences reported by Hideki were not lost on me either, Jay. He may just be confused.

[elvislives]

This is a complete misrepresentation/distortion of the poll which was taken.

In fact, the poll was not about innocence OR guilt (which I don't believe would be lawful in the UK anyway). Here are the three questions which were in the poll in question:-

Turning now to the disappearance of the young girl Madeleine
McCann, the British toddler missing in Portugal, some people
have criticised her parents for leaving her unsupervised when
she disappeared. Do you agree or disagree with such
criticisms?

Agree - they were wrong to leave her alone (71%)
Disagree - most parents have done this at times, they were just very
unlucky (23%)
Not sure (6%)

Madeleine McCann's parents have been criticised in the
Portuguese press but given a sympathetic treatment in the
British press. Which of these statements best sums up your
view?

The Portuguese local press has been right to criticise (22%)
The Portuguese local press is wrong and the British press has been
right to treat them sympathetically (29%)
The British press has been wrong, and should have been more
critical of Madeleine’s parents (27%)
Don't know (22%)

Some say Madeline McCann's parents have been given
sympathetic treatment here because they are middle-class
professionals. Do you agree or disagree with this?
Agree - that is why they have been treated sympathetically (54%)
Disagree - any British family would have been treated
sympathetically (34%)
Don't know (12%)

http://extras.timesonline.co.uk/resultstoplines.pdf

Here is another article from the same publication:-

[quote]Look what they’ve done to Kate and Gerry McCann. Here were two people deserving of the most intense public sympathy. On a superficial level they got it – by the media bucketload. Yet did you not sense from an early stage an undertone of irritation at the couple? I’ve sensed it everywhere I go: not a sign of doubt about their innocence, which most of us take for granted, but a feeling, nevertheless, that they in some way invited trouble – though we banish the thought as brutal and wrong.

http://www.timesonline.co.uk/tol/comment/columnists/matthew_parris/article2507926.ece

This is my experience too. No-one I have spoken to thinks they are guilty (and everyone is speaking about it). There are varying degrees of criticism over the fact that they left the kids in the apartment but I have not come across a single person in real life (i.e off the forums) who thinks they harmed their daughter.

Thank you, Jay for clarifying this. That indeed was a misrepresentation of the facts.

[Sharon]

Sharon wrote:


The parents are clearly guilty of habitual and regular child neglect. They have admitted leaving two 2-year olds and a 3-year old alone for hours, every night, for a week. Meanwhile, they were indulging in wine at a place from which they could neither see their children or hear them. I should think hearing that would be enough to splatter your coffee.


I'd say you have no comment, because there is no defense of such gross child neglect.



And yet shortly afterward, you posted this objectionable remark:

[QUOTE]

which I did report as an abusive post.

What is interesting about posts on this Forum made by McCann apologists is that clearly for them "the ends justifies the means" and they are willing to

1) lie and distort concerning what has been published in the media or what has been posted by others
2) engage in personal attacks on people who do not believe the McCanns are innocent or are fit to be parents
3) readily demand others support their opinions with substantiation, but frequently do not do so themselves

These are precisely the conspicuous attributes of Team McCann that alienate people and further their suspicions that the Portugese police are correct in their appraisal of the McCanns, while deepening their impression that the McCanns are unrepentant and deserve no sympathy whatsoever. JMO

Hideki, when you quote incorrect drug information it makes one wonder if you are speaking from first hand experience, as this is not a true result from the drug in question. And for what its worth, i also read the info on the drug and asked many members of my family who are doctors and specialists. Oh, I almost forgot......my first hand experience says that giving your kids pain killers and or sleep inducers does NOT cause any harm or negative side effects. No hallusinations here....maybe you know different?????

[Sharon]

<*R>

Thank you Cat. Do you think that halluscinations are a possibility with this child over the counter drug too??? If someone is going to spread lies about t his case, surely I can ask them how they came to this conclusion, because it is NOT a medical fact. Should we report people who are spreading lies and malitious gossip too?

When someone says that a perfectly good Mother is bad and should not have her missing child returned to her, well I would think that is much more cruel, low, offensive and reportable than me questioning her science. Now if the said poster is basing her `logic` on lies and falsities, then I think the said poster should be adding that it is her opinion only.

[elvislives]

Please everyone,

Let take a deep breath and remember why we are here.:rose:MADDIE:rose:
http://img.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2007/09_02/MADELINEMOD1509_468x440.jpg

Thank you, Dallasvic, for bringing us all back to reality and remembering the victim of this horrible crime. I hope she is out there somewhere and returned safely to her loving family .:rose:

[Sharon]

Thank you, Dallasvic, for bringing us all back to reality and remembering the victim of this horrible crime. I hope she is out there somewhere and returned safely to her loving family .:rose:

Thanks from me too. I am finished with any debate that does not directly add to the real reason we are here. Maddie is the real victim here. Bickering about the parents just gives the real perp. a free pass while precious resources are being diverted away from catching him/ them.

I also hope she is returned safely to her family.:rose:

[elvislives]

Shall I take it you condone humor at the expense of someone else?

I think the reporting system is there for a reason but if it amounts to nothing at this board I see why you are not using it.
Keeping post like yours and mine right now of the thread would be beneficial for the discussion IMO.

You are right, cat. Humor probably has no place here as we are discussing a kidnapped toddler. Some of us use it as a coping mechanism when dealing with these hideous crimes, not that that is any excuse.

But I am a passionate person, especially for victims of crime. And imo the family of an abducted child are victims of the most horrific crime any parent can imagine. So when people are visciously attacking the parents of a kidnapped toddler, I sometimes lose my cool and retaliate. I prefer to retaliate with humor over vile verbal assaults.

I find viscious verbal attacks aimed at the McCanns no different from viscious verbal attacks against the Walsh's, the Smarts, the Runions, the Lundsfords, or any other crime victim.

There are many people who blame victims of rape by saying that they deserved it for walking alone at night or wearing short skirts, or any other reason. My opinion is that a woman could be walking alone at night with no clothes on at all and no one has the right to attack and rape her. I realize others disagree.

I have known several victims of violent crime who say that the accusatory reaction and blame they have received after the crime was just as bad and even more emotionally hurtful as the attack itself. So when people blame the victims of crime for a criminal's inexcusable behavior I find it particularly disgusting. But this of course is jmo.

[One2Snoop]

Hideki

This has nothing to do with the medication you are discussing but it has everything to do with the crediability of Wikipedia. From my understanding, it's been common knowledge for quite some time now that Wikipedia shouldn't be considered a reliable source when doing research on a topic. It's unreliable info in my opinion and therefore I find it flawed as far as a linked source is concerned. JMO Elvislives isn't making that up.
Do your own search on Wikipedia, you'll find hundreds of online entries stating the same thing about it being unreliable info.



Credibility Of Wikipedia Takes a Dive After Wired Exposé
Online encyclopedia outed as bias tool of intelligence agencies, corporations by new Wikipedia Scanner database

Prison Planet | August 14, 2007
Paul Joseph Watson
The credibility of the online encyclopedia Wikipedia has taken another dive after a newly developed software program exposed how the CIA, corporations like Diebold and others routinely edit entries to bury criticism and manipulate the truth.

In our previous investigation , we revealed how a group of trolls were engaged in a concerted campaign to erase the 9/11 truth movement, along with a host of other controversial subjects, out of cyber existence by voting to delete pages about subjects and individuals that obviously warrant a page on Wikipedia.

Examples we cited included such manifestly provable "conspiracy theories" as "List of Republican sex scandals," "People questioning the 9/11 Commission Report" and "Movement to impeach George W. Bush".

Trolls were even allowed to delete the Wiki page for Dylan Avery, who has appeared on Fox News, CNN and in hundreds of newspaper reports. Avery is the producer of the most watched documentary film in Internet history, he clearly merits a biography page on an online encyclopedia, but Wikipedia had no qualms in letting Morton Devonshire and other trolls deep six the entry.

http://www.infowars.com/articles/science/internet_wikipedia_credibility_takes_dive_after_wi red_expose.htm

[Jayelles]

<*R>

Thank you Cat. Do you think that halluscinations are a possibility with this child over the counter drug too??? If someone is going to spread lies about t his case, surely I can ask them how they came to this conclusion, because it is NOT a medical fact. Should we report people who are spreading lies and malitious gossip too?

When someone says that a perfectly good Mother is bad and should not have her missing child returned to her, well I would think that is much more cruel, low, offensive and reportable than me questioning her science. Now if the said poster is basing her `logic` on lies and falsities, then I think the said poster should be adding that it is her opinion only.

Thankfully, there is little chance of the McCanns losing their children. Social workers have already done their routine investigation and had their been any danger of them losing their children, something would have been done by now.

There have been several high-profile cases where lives have been ruined when children were unnecessarily placed in care. In particular, there were the falsely diagnosed cases of sexual abuse in Cleveland and Orkney. They were disgraceful.

In a recent documentary, about placing children in care, social workers said it's very much a last resort. The best place for all children is in the home with both loving parents.

[Jayelles]

Sharon wrote:


The information I provided about diphenhydramine was correct. The tactic of Elvislives is to discredit the website Wikipedia, but the information I provided comes from reliable texts found in that bibliography. Elvislives, on the contrary, could only provide information from the manufacturer directed at customers.

Both of you are lying about my information being incorrect. Almost certainly you did not even bother to research it.

Diphenhydramine has hallucenogenic properties, and the normal dosage for people abusing the drug is between 225mg and 450mg. In contrast, the UK permits a single dose of 100mg, while the USA only permits 50mg.

In our discussion context, it means that the danger for the children was not merely death by overdose, but disorientation, confusion and hallucinations. For example, if the child woke up in such a state, she is much more likely to go wandering around outside.
So, yes, Elvislives, the drug is safe when used properly, but you were making the ridiculous claim that it is "extremely safe" on the basis of there being few deaths by overdose. Firstly, the McCanns were not using the drug properly, and secondly the danger was not limited to death from overdose.

And please Jay, no more nonsense about "Calpol" not being a sedative, when everyone knows we are talking about "Calpol Night". Anyway, this is an issue that can await the British forensic analysis results, to see if the high drug levels found are conclusive or not.

elvislives wrote:


I provided the source for the poll which gave the result that only 20% of Britons believe the McCanns are innocent. In fact, that was the subject of the whole article.

If you think they got it wrong, you should write a letter-to-the-editor, but based on your past distortions, I will just assume right off the bat that you are now citing a completely different poll.

Even so, in this other poll that you mention (no source provided), 71% of people were unwilling to excuse the McCanns' gross child neglect. Only a small percent thought it was excusable. So I guess those on this Forum who have expressed that ludicrous view are definitely in the minority. And, remember, that is in Britain. Outside of Britain, even fewer people sympathize with the McCanns.

Good luck with your(plural to all McCann defenders) incessant spin campaign, and your attempts to convert the 80% of Britons who think the McCanns are not innocent. You are going to need a lot of luck. How do you expect to persuade people with contrived arguments based on lies and distortion? I'd suggest you remain silent, instead of digging yourself deeper and deeper into a hole.


The articles you quoted stated "Calpol", not "Calpol Night".

The fact that you prefer to (mis)quote a misleading and spinning article about the poll rather than the actual poll itself speaks volumes IMO.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to suspect that someone is yanking our chains :cool:

[One2Snoop]

The articles you quoted stated "Calpol", not "Calpol Night".

The fact that you prefer to (mis)quote a misleading and spinning article about the poll rather than the actual poll itself speaks volumes IMO.

I don't know about anyone else, but I'm starting to suspect that someone is yanking our chains :cool:

Glad I'm not the only one who noticed. ITA :beer:

Where's Maddie. :rose:

[cat840]

You are right, cat. Humor probably has no place here as we are discussing a kidnapped toddler. Some of us use it as a coping mechanism when dealing with these hideous crimes, not that that is any excuse.


Just for the record I think humor can have a positive effect and as you say lighten up the horrific subject to help you cope with it.

I just don't like to see humor used at the expense of other posters.

[bullmoose]

[quote=elvislives;8989676]Is this true Dallasvic? I have heard they denied sedating their children. And the only drugs that might go under the radar screen of detection would be very specific IV anesthetics (such as succinol choline), but that would suggest a premeditated murder.

And even if they didn't drug test the twins immediately, they could certainly do a hair test NOW to determine whether they were drugged.[/qu

They did finally admit giving all 3 kids a sedative that night. I will go back an see if I can find it an Odette might know too. Your right about the hair they can go back as far as 6 months and tell amount about when too

I would certainly like to see where the McCanns admitted to sedating their children; until I see them admitting it on camera; it is just horseplop to make them look bad. Nothing more than tabloids and inept cops trying to blacken the parents' good name. Give me a link to this 'admission' if you can. JMHO

[One2Snoop]

I would certainly like to see where the McCanns admitted to sedating their children; until I see them admitting it on camera; it is just horseplop to make them look bad. Nothing more than tabloids and inept cops trying to blacken the parents' good name. Give me a link to this 'admission' if you can. JMHO

ITA bullmoose. :beer: These ridiculous claims that the McCann's should be charged with child abuse/neglect is nothing more than a witch hunt by people on the internet who have nothing better to do. IMO.
The McCann's made a horrible mistake (lapse in judgement) and chose to do their own checking/listening in on their children instead of using the service provided by the resort. They weren't the only couple who chose this route in this vacationing group of 9 people.
I have to wonder who'd be hounded by the media and the Portuguese police if the resort were responsible for Maddie's kidnapping? Something tell's me it wouldn't be the parents but whoever was responsible (via the resort) for "listening in" that night. Someone has to be the scapegoat. It only makes sense. Not!

Have Portuguese LE found the man in the McCann's photo yet? The one taken with Gerry, the twins and Maddie on the playground???? :shrug:

[dallasvic]

[quote=dallasvic;8993282]

I would certainly like to see where the McCanns admitted to sedating their children; until I see them admitting it on camera; it is just horseplop to make them look bad. Nothing more than tabloids and inept cops trying to blacken the parents' good name. Give me a link to this 'admission' if you can. JMHO


I am still checking for that link on the parents giving the kids something that night. I asked Odette and she said she remebered it too.;) Keep looking

[dallasvic]

ITA bullmoose. :beer: These ridiculous claims that the McCann's should be charged with child abuse/neglect is nothing more than a witch hunt by people on the Internet who have nothing better to do. IMO.
The McCann's made a horrible mistake (lapse in judgment) and chose to do their own checking/listening in on their children instead of using the service provided by the resort. They weren't the only couple who chose this route in this vacationing group of 9 people.
I have to wonder who'd be hounded by the media and the Portuguese police if the resort were responsible for Maddie's kidnapping? Something tell's me it wouldn't be the parents but whoever was responsible (via the resort) for "listening in" that night. Someone has to be the scapegoat. It only makes sense. Not!

Have Portuguese LE found the man in the McCann's photo yet? The one taken with Gerry, the twins and Maddie on the playground???? :shrug:

Hi O2S,

Have you read this. I don't know if they are looking for the guy or not.:shrug:
I SAW MADDY IN MOROCCO

DAILY EXPRESS - By James Murray, Investigations Editor - Sunday September 23,2007

A witness has told police he is 100 per cent certain that a little girl he saw in a Marrakesh hotel lobby was Madeleine McCann.
He saw her a few hundred yards from another “credible” sighting.

There is a task force in Morocco they formed after the 2 sightings
link:
http://www.dailyexpress.co.uk/posts/view/19916

[Jayelles]

I have yet to see where the McCanns admitted to giving thier children anything, but for the sake of discussion I'll take your word for it. IF the McCanns gave their children Calpol Night (the equivilent of Tylenol Cold & Allergy in the States) then they would certainly not be alone in that. I know many people who "drug" their children with Tylenol Cold before a long flight for example so the children won't bother other passengers. I am not condoning this, but It is an extremely safe drug.

The active ingredient in Calpol Night that causes the drowsiness is diphenhydramine. It is not a sedative but an antihistamine. I scoured the FDA website last night and could find NO cases of fatal overdoses of diphenhydramine. I can assure you that if there was even ONE case where this compound killed a child, there would be warnings all over the package (to protect the manufacturer from liability). It would also likely be pulled off the market as an OTC drug (the US FDA is extremely conservative). The ONLY cases I could find where diphenhydramine was found in a patient who died of a fatal overdose were cases where multiple prescription drugs were also found (e.g. Anna Nicole Smith had diphenhydramine in her system when she died, but it was NOT the drug that killed her).


Here is an article which explains the misunderstanding over the McCann's "admitting" they gave their children sedatives:-

Some British-Portuguese issues are simply lost in translation. One of the best-read papers in Portugal, the Correio da Manha, ran this headline last Saturday: MADELEINE’S GRANDFATHER ADMITS PARENTS USED SEDATIVES. Well, not exactly. The newspaper’s claim has become popular with the locals in Praia da Luz but is in fact based on inaccurate reporting. Madeleine’s grandfather did indeed tell reporters that the McCanns gave the children Calpol, but Calpol is nothing more than a solution of liquid paracetamol (known as acetaminophen in the United States), marketed specifically for the treatment of children with flu-like symptoms or teething problems. It is one of the most common child medications in Britain, is available over-the-counter at pharmacies and is a common feature in most family medicine cabinets.



http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/20765844/site/newsweek/page/0/

[One2Snoop]

Here is an article which explains the misunderstanding over the McCann's "admitting" they gave their children sedatives:-

It certainly does clear up the misunderstanding because as many of us suspected it was inaccurate reporting in the first place.

Thanks for posting that info Jayelles. :patriot:

[Sharon]

ITA bullmoose. :beer: These ridiculous claims that the McCann's should be charged with child abuse/neglect is nothing more than a witch hunt by people on the internet who have nothing better to do. IMO.
The McCann's made a horrible mistake (lapse in judgement) and chose to do their own checking/listening in on their children instead of using the service provided by the resort. They weren't the only couple who chose this route in this vacationing group of 9 people.
I have to wonder who'd be hounded by the media and the Portuguese police if the resort were responsible for Maddie's kidnapping? Something tell's me it wouldn't be the parents but whoever was responsible (via the resort) for "listening in" that night. Someone has to be the scapegoat. It only makes sense. Not!

Have Portuguese LE found the man in the McCann's photo yet? The one taken with Gerry, the twins and Maddie on the playground???? :shrug:

Well said!!!

[Pelicanette]

There is no evidence that I have seen of heavy or inappropriate sedation of the children. That is rumor and/or exaggeration. It cannot be proven, either.

Many children are heavy sleepers. One of mine used to sleep through thunderstorms, parties, etc.

Many adults are also heavy sleepers.

I do not know that Kate left the children unattended to go back to the restaurant to get Gerry. I do not know that she did not check on the twins to make sure they were okay, either. That is all rumor and conjecture without any basis.

I really see no red flags where Gerry and Kate are concerned. None of us know what we would do in that terrible situation. Perhaps we would react in exactly the same way Kate did. We just do not know.

To say that Madeleine died earlier and that Kate and Gerry and some friends they enlisted to help them get rid of her body were able to go ahead to dinner and have a fine old time laughing with their pals is ludicrous. Even O.J. Simpson was described as nervous and sweating profusely and not himself at a social function after he killed Ron and Nicole.

Nobody could do what some people are saying the McCanns did. Even the ones who want to blame them admit they had to have help and just how do you get prominent doctors to help you hide a body? It is insane.

I would not hide a body for a friend. Would you?

[dallasvic]

There are to many things that point in other directions.The sightings and the suspect that said he was not there and we have witness that say he was.
Also the nanny said Kate was so distrait that she could hardly speak.

[lodfafner]

From what is reported we know that the people at the dining table didn't know anything was wrong until Kate came stumbling back from the appartment.

Kate says that she was looking for Maddie for about 10min before going back to the restaurant. Is this correct?

Here is a thing that strikes me as really odd.
In that case why didn't anybody hear Kate calling out for Maddie while she was looking for her??

A friend of mine had a child gone missing and the mothers frantic calls for the daugther was heard all over the neightbourhood to the extent that neighbours started coming to the house to look what was going on. I just can't imagine anybody searching for their missing child and not call out for her

"Maddie where are you"
"Stop hiding, it's not funny anymore"
or something like that.

IMO nobody heard Kate because she never called out for Maddie because she knew what had happened to her.

[Sharon]

From what is reported we know that the people at the dining table didn't know anything was wrong until Kate came stumbling back from the appartment.

Kate says that she was looking for Maddie for about 10min before going back to the restaurant. Is this correct?

Here is a thing that strikes me as really odd.
In that case why didn't anybody hear Kate calling out for Maddie while she was looking for her??

A friend of mine had a child gone missing and the mothers frantic calls for the daugther was heard all over the neightbourhood to the extent that neighbours started coming to the house to look what was going on. I just can't imagine anybody searching for their missing child and not call out for her

"Maddie where are you"
"Stop hiding, it's not funny anymore"
or something like that.

IMO nobody heard Kate because she never called out for Maddie because she knew what had happened to her.

I suppose that settles it then.

Kate didnt yell loud enough (according to you) for it to be genuine......but then other things that she did (according to others) like hold her daughters teddy clost to her face....were overly caring indicating faked.

If it wasnt so tradgic it would be funny...because I can see that if you have it in for someone...you will see EVERYTHING they do as guilty.

Ive learnt not to try to debate with people who are `wanting` to see certain things. Im sure we are all free to interprete the evidence as we see fit.

[One2Snoop]

From what is reported we know that the people at the dining table didn't know anything was wrong until Kate came stumbling back from the appartment.

Kate says that she was looking for Maddie for about 10min before going back to the restaurant. Is this correct?

Here is a thing that strikes me as really odd.
In that case why didn't anybody hear Kate calling out for Maddie while she was looking for her??

A friend of mine had a child gone missing and the mothers frantic calls for the daugther was heard all over the neightbourhood to the extent that neighbours started coming to the house to look what was going on. I just can't imagine anybody searching for their missing child and not call out for her

"Maddie where are you"
"Stop hiding, it's not funny anymore"
or something like that.

IMO nobody heard Kate because she never called out for Maddie because she knew what had happened to her.

Not a red flag IMO. She was probably frantic or in shock - do you have a link to that statement about her stumbling back to the resturant? I just posted this article on another thread and sounds like she was screaming to me. :shrug:

Kate McCann DID scream 'They've taken her' claims new nanny witness
By DAN NEWLING -

Last updated at 16:41pm on 25th September 2007
The first eyewitness account of the frantic moments after Madeleine McCann disappeared can be revealed today.


Nanny Charlotte Pennington confirms that Kate McCann did scream: "They've taken her, they've taken her!"

The mother's precise words have become a pivotal issue in the case, with Portuguese police questioning why she would automatically assume Maddie had been abducted.

Mrs McCann's family have countered this by insisting they recall her shouting: "Madeleine's gone."

Miss Pennington, however, one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

The 20-year-old Briton, who tended children for the Mark Warner holiday complex in Praia da Luz, firmly believes the McCanns are innocent.

Speaking publicly for the first time yesterday, she described Mrs McCann in the aftermath as "a broken woman" who was shuddering and unable to move.

The vital witness: Nanny Charlotte Pennington

"We are trained to comfort people in this type of situation but she was just inconsolable," she said.

snip

.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483715&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

[Jayelles]

From what is reported we know that the people at the dining table didn't know anything was wrong until Kate came stumbling back from the appartment.

Kate says that she was looking for Maddie for about 10min before going back to the restaurant. Is this correct?

Here is a thing that strikes me as really odd.
In that case why didn't anybody hear Kate calling out for Maddie while she was looking for her??

A friend of mine had a child gone missing and the mothers frantic calls for the daugther was heard all over the neightbourhood to the extent that neighbours started coming to the house to look what was going on. I just can't imagine anybody searching for their missing child and not call out for her

"Maddie where are you"
"Stop hiding, it's not funny anymore"
or something like that.

IMO nobody heard Kate because she never called out for Maddie because she knew what had happened to her.

I don't think there's a mystery about this.

The bar and restaurant areas of hotels abroad usually have music playing. In fact, most restaurants have music playing. Some of them have live music. Bt all accounts, the Tapas bas at the Ocean Club was a lively and popular restaurant and guests would start queuing at 10am to book a table for the evening. My guess is that those who were seated IN the restaurant wouldn't have been able to hear much other than the music and general buzz of a busy restaurant.

[Jayelles]

Not a red flag IMO. She was probably frantic or in shock - do you have a link to that statement about her stumbling back to the resturant? I just posted this article on another thread and sounds like she was screaming to me. :shrug:

Kate McCann DID scream 'They've taken her' claims new nanny witness
By DAN NEWLING -

Last updated at 16:41pm on 25th September 2007
The first eyewitness account of the frantic moments after Madeleine McCann disappeared can be revealed today.


Nanny Charlotte Pennington confirms that Kate McCann did scream: "They've taken her, they've taken her!"

The mother's precise words have become a pivotal issue in the case, with Portuguese police questioning why she would automatically assume Maddie had been abducted.

Mrs McCann's family have countered this by insisting they recall her shouting: "Madeleine's gone."

Miss Pennington, however, one of the first people to set foot in the couple's apartment after the disappearance, says she heard the mother use both phrases.

The 20-year-old Briton, who tended children for the Mark Warner holiday complex in Praia da Luz, firmly believes the McCanns are innocent.

Speaking publicly for the first time yesterday, she described Mrs McCann in the aftermath as "a broken woman" who was shuddering and unable to move.

The vital witness: Nanny Charlotte Pennington

"We are trained to comfort people in this type of situation but she was just inconsolable," she said.

snip

.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/articles/news/news.html?in_article_id=483715&in_page_id=1770&ct=5

This is just another example of muddy, cofused reporting.

In the interview the nanny gave to one British newspaper, she claimed that Kate McCann said both "they've taken her" and "Madeleine's gone" but she couldn't remember which she'd said first. The newspaper said the nanny went to the apartment and was there when the friends all went there. How likely is it that the nanny was in the Tapas bar along with the friends to hear kate's first words?

The creche offered a twilight service where the children were settled down to watch videos on floor cushions. Wasn't the nanny supervising the children?

Why did the nanny go to the McCann apartment? Did the McCanns go and check to see if Maddie had found her way to the creche?

It seems to me that people involved in the case say one word to a journalist and the journlists make up the rest of the story!

[andU]

This is just another example of muddy, cofused reporting.

In the interview the nanny gave to one British newspaper, she claimed that Kate McCann said both "they've taken her" and "Madeleine's gone" but she couldn't remember which she'd said first. The newspaper said the nanny went to the apartment and was there when the friends all went there. How likely is it that the nanny was in the Tapas bar along with the friends to hear kate's first words?

The creche offered a twilight service where the children were settled down to watch videos on floor cushions. Wasn't the nanny supervising the children?

Why did the nanny go to the McCann apartment? Did the McCanns go and check to see if Maddie had found her way to the creche?

It seems to me that people involved in the case say one word to a journalist and the journlists make up the rest of the story!

I so agree, Jayelles. The media has to add sensationalism to almost everything they report. It makes me angry because, yes - I do want the latest facts - but I would like to see only the facts, without the reporter's two cents worth added. When I was a child, I remember thinking that the news that my parents used to watch was very dry and boring.

[JBRnotforgotten]

In my own opinion I dont care what she said I just wish they would focus on the search more and worry about he said she said later after Madeleine is found.

[bullmoose]

In my own opinion I dont care what she said I just wish they would focus on the search more and worry about he said she said later after Madeleine is found.

The inaccurate reporting, which borders on the realm of a rum-soaked reporters' fantasy at most times, and never has anything to do with anything factual, is IMO, eerily reminiscent of the reporting in a case ten years back. So much malicious fiction masquerading as actual reporting. JMHO

[Pelicanette]

Resorts are busy and often much noisier than one might realize. The flat was near a street, and there was probably music at the restaurant. People in their flats might have been playing their televisions. In other words, Kate might have yelled a lot and not been heard. But probably if she yelled at all, it was Madeleine's name, and who would really pay that much attention to a mother calling for her child? I am sure in a family resort parents are always calling out the names of their children.

But we do not know for sure just what Kate said and when and she doubtlessly cannot recall clearly what she said and did under that much stress.

[dallasvic]

Resorts are busy and often much noisier than one might realize. The flat was near a street, and there was probably music at the restaurant. People in their flats might have been playing their televisions. In other words, Kate might have yelled a lot and not been heard. But probably if she yelled at all, it was Madeleine's name, and who would really pay that much attention to a mother calling for her child? I am sure in a family resort parents are always calling out the names of their children.

But we do not know for sure just what Kate said and when and she doubtlessly cannot recall clearly what she said and did under that much stress.

Hi P,

I agree. They say she was so distrait that she could hardly speak. When I was little is went to a friends house and did not tell my parents. When they could not find me ,later I was told my mother went weak in the knee's and could not stand much less talk. My dad was running every where . People act differently to such shock.:shrug:

[Jayelles]

Problems re the sniffer dog "evidence":-

What about the discoveries of the “cadaver” sniffer dog?

Mr and Mrs McCann were shown a police video of a sniffer dog used to find corpses “going crazy” when it approached the hire car. Reports also claim that is discovered the scent on the vehicle’s key fob. Mrs McCann is reported to have explained that in her work as locum GP she came into contact with six corpses in the weeks leading up to Algarve holiday.

This seems a high number for a locum GP working just a couple of days a week but would be easy to check against surgery records.

The crucial difficulty with the sniffer dog “evidence” is that it cannot distinguish between corpses. This type of dog is trained to find bodies, not identify where dead bodies have been. Crucially, they can become excited by other scents.

[Jayelles]

Professor Carolyn Hamilton offers her legal opinion

Carolyn Hamilton is the Director of the Children's Legal Centre, an independent charity based at the University of Essex dedicated to the promotion of children's rights, and a practising barrister. She has acted as an expert for the United Nations in the field of juvenile justice and, more particularly, representing the rights of children in armed conflict.

http://www2.essex.ac.uk/human_rights_centre/people/staff/hamilton.shtm


Scenario 4:You go out for dinner in a hotel complex on holiday abroad, leaving a child aged 3 and twins aged 18 months in a locked room. You return to check on them every half hour.

If the parents have taken all the risks into account and decided that it is safe to leave the children, this would probably be reasonable. If the children were awake or a bit older and able to wander around, or potentially even to open the door to an intruder, perhaps not. But asleep, with the door locked and people constantly checking up on them, it is likely to be reasonable.

You should be checking on them very regularly. I don’t think it’s any less safe in Continental Europe than it is here. Leaving children alone in this manner is not desirable, but parents have to balance the demands of life and will probably have to consider such issues regularly.

A parent needs to ensure that children are safe if they are left alone. Leaving them for a short while, asleep, in a locked room with regular checks is acceptable. Leaving them for two hours, or with unlocked doors, is not.


http://women.timesonline.co.uk/tol/life_and_style/women/families/article1762734.ece


It's a good article - worth reading regardless of the McCann case. Especially the bits about the bee stings and bicycles!

[Pelicanette]

In spite of what people may think, neither country (England or Portugal) has charged the parents of Maddy McCann with negligence. That matter is pretty much settled. It may not have been the wisest thing to do, but it obviously did not meet the level of negligence or abuse.

Even if the parents were negligent in leaving the kids alone, it would not prove that they harmed Maddy in any way or are responsible for her disappearance. Those are two separate things.

Thus far, the police do not know whether Maddy is dead or alive. They are making assumptions about her being dead, but they have no proof of that. If they did, I think we would have heard about it by now.

So-called sniffer dogs are not reliable as evidence. They may give police some indication or some path to follow, but they should never be confused with proof. As has been stated, they can "alert" at the wrong times. And they are trained to find cadavers or evidence of cadavers, not to identify bodies.

A dog may "alert" and become agitated at the smell of drugs or another dog or the smell of death of an animal. Dogs are just not that reliable. They may be right about something or wrong about something.

The car hire evidence would always be questionable because so many people have rented it and because it has been taken all kinds of places. Perhaps it ran over an animal at some point or came in contact with a dead animal on the road. Can a dog reliably distinguish between a human cadaver and that of a dead animal on the road?

Transferrance of dna is highly probable, since the McCanns moved many of Maddy's things in the car when they changed flats.

None of it is worth a hill of beans if you ask me. Not as proof. It may suffice for rumormongering, but it is not proof or even reliable evidence.

[cat840]

The inaccurate reporting, which borders on the realm of a rum-soaked reporters' fantasy at most times, and never has anything to do with anything factual

Sadly these rum-soaked reporters manages to sell their their rumblings. Facts does not sell, rum does. Rum gives room for speculation, rum is good for conversation.

New rum every day so the readers don't get bored. No news means you have to rum dip some old stories and resell. Facts are also dangerous to report on because facts can be checked. When the purpose for reading news is conversation and not facts the rum-soaked reporters have a field day.

Which is most interesting for the general public, the new discovery of the nobel price laureates or the dress queen Silvia wore at the banquet?

What is most interesting for the general public about the Maddie case? Jonbenet sleuths have been talking about bedwetting and pineapple for 10+ years. I guess in 10 years we still be talking about cadaver dogs, fridges, Marocco, how wide a pool is, how mishandled the case were and of course how certain people acted and looked during certain interviews. And all along none of these things will solve the case.

JMHO, cheers.

[bullmoose]

Sadly these rum-soaked reporters manages to sell their their rumblings. Facts does not sell, rum does. Rum gives room for speculation, rum is good for conversation.

New rum every day so the readers don't get bored. No news means you have to rum dip some old stories and resell. Facts are also dangerous to report on because facts can be checked. When the purpose for reading news is conversation and not facts the rum-soaked reporters have a field day.

Which is most interesting for the general public, the new discovery of the nobel price laureates or the dress queen Silvia wore at the banquet?

What is most interesting for the general public about the Maddie case? Jonbenet sleuths have been talking about bedwetting and pineapple for 10+ years. I guess in 10 years we still be talking about cadaver dogs, fridges, Marocco, how wide a pool is, how mishandled the case were and of course how certain people acted and looked during certain interviews. And all along none of these things will solve the case.

JMHO, cheers.
Certainly none of what any of us post will solve this or any other case; the Jack the Ripper case is still being debated fully a century later. I think all of us posters are driven to post because of our sincere desire to see a resolution of the case wherein the actual perps are caught and punished for their crimes. When a case like this one, or the Jonbenet case catches the public, and our imaginations, we feel compelled to offer our thoughts and opinions online to others similarly moved. It is easy to get caught up in cases where it strongly appears that the local cops have botched the investigations. I find the local cops' tendancy to scapegoat the parents to be curious and despicable, in all such cases. JMHO:biggrin:

[sharlock]

Certainly none of what any of us post will solve this or any other case; the Jack the Ripper case is still being debated fully a century later. I think all of us posters are driven to post because of our sincere desire to see a resolution of the case wherein the actual perps are caught and punished for their crimes. When a case like this one, or the Jonbenet case catches the public, and our imaginations, we feel compelled to offer our thoughts and opinions online to others similarly moved. It is easy to get caught up in cases where it strongly appears that the local cops have botched the investigations. I find the local cops' tendancy to scapegoat the parents to be curious and despicable, in all such cases. JMHO:biggrin:
Today while watching the news there were reports of the McCanns using the fund setup to find Maddy to make mortgage repayments and my head literally started to ache. This case has been turned into a farce by the medias desire to focus on the McCanns and not the progress or lack thereof of Madeleines recovery.
If and I mean if the McCanns did use some of this money to pay a mortgage payment then I beleive their will be a reasonable explanation not that they will be given the chance to give it by the majority of people. They have not even used any of that money to pay for their legal team but have had those covered by Richard Branton, neither have been able to work since Madeleine has gone missing and my heart breaks for their loss. It doesn't matter at all that this family made the mistake of leaving their children unattended anymore and is something they have expressed deep regret over already. Their explanations were not them trying to excuse their actions imo but explain them as they were asked to do yet people insist this should be construed as them showing no remorse (it is unbeleivable). In every forum up to now on this site I have been impressed by the posters here ability to discern fact from media hype and regardless of which point of view was chosen I have never before seen people basing their opinions on things that they have absolutely no proof of and no way to tell. It has been proven that many things that have been printed were untrue or misleading yet in this case some people beleive they suddenly DO have the ability to tell the lies from the truth and to pick out the damning from the distorted even though no factual information or provable information has been released and without it there can be no proof that the McCanns are capable let alone guilty of killing their daughter.
I thought that by law people were innocent until proven guilty and anyone who chooses to beleive the McCanns may be guilty (which in itself is not an unreasonable position to take) should refrain from making personal statements about the character of Gerry and Kate which are nothing more than slanderous but focus on trying to find the proof which they need. As I am currently leaning towards the possibility of an intruder taking Maddie I scour the photos that have been released take note of any name I see related to the case and attempt background checks in an effort to try and link together the puzzle. What the media reports is read and dissected for truths or just as importantly the reasons behind untruths and this in no way detracts from my efforts or desire to find Madeleine. I do not understand how people can justify placing apparent thoughts all over the place that are callous and vicious and beleive that they can avert critiscism of this by then saying well I haven't said they did it for sure. The dislike of the McCanns can be physically felt through many peoples posts but I have trouble understanding how anyone can feel attacked or slighted by Gerry or Kate simply because it has been reported that they felt hurt and attacked by some of the public and were trying to understand why, or that Gerrys blogs portray how he is attempting to create a sense of normality around his remaining children and that is then taken to mean that he can't possibly care about looking for Maddy anymore? This type of anger to me does seem irrational and as it is now resonating throughout all the threads involving Maddy I want to take this opportunity to say just one more thing please- Madeleine McCann is missing and we are no closer to finding her, lets investigate everyone involved or related to the case in any way and hopefully find a link that brings Maddy home; lets investigate the parents too because we have too but can we let go of those feelings of dislike and any feelings of bitterness towards Kate and Gerry and realise that the media is responsible for our opinions in these matters not the McCanns and the media is printing those things that will sell the most newspapers not necessarily the truth. No one can honestly say that they are able to tell which bits are truthful until the media can be trusted to quote people correctly and check all of their leaks are credible before printing and as this is not likely to happen anytime soon we should realise that those opinions which have come from quotes found in the media are quite possibly not warranted and therefor can only get in the way of an impartial investigation.

[andU]

I totally agree with you, Sharlock! You have a way with words, a good way.

[bullmoose]

I totally agree with you, Sharlock! You have a way with words, a good way.

Sharlock, let me chime in with andU and say that your post is thoughtful and well written; I too, couldn't have said it half so well. :beer:

[Eagle1]

The only way anyone can assert at this point that any of the Tappas 9 are innocent is if they were actually there! And that's not going to happen. I've skipped from your initial questions to the last page, as they are just imo arrogantly wasting our time trying to CONTROL our opinions, judging by the insults. It's evidently about power, not finding out what really happened to the child, and has to be ignored because she may be alive and in danger and we need to concentrate on her, not the fun-loving distracting suspects.

Back on topic, red flags, your post is the first one I've seen stating that there was actually some medication in the syringe. Which I have to admit could be evidence that it was planted by someone trying to implicate the parents, so, do you have a source for this new fact that was overlooked until now? I've given you a new rep point, this is so valuable.

There are some more things I'd like to comment on but didn't jot them down so, later.

[Eagle1]

Leaving rhe twins alone AGAIN gives the whole show away. SHE knew they would be safe because she knew who 'abducted' Madeleine.

It's a wonder she wasn't arrested at the time !!
imo

Her leaving the twins there in such circumstances, I mean. In fact, when Gerry says he noticed Maddie wasn't in bed, assumed she'd gone into the parents' bed, it sounds like he also knew, we have to admit.

Plus, the grandmother was actually criticizing Maddie, that there was a good side and a naughty side, very unusual attitude to have when you've just lost someone, and Kate was complaining that Maddie did things to get attention after the twins' arrival, which is perfectly normal for all oldest children, not at all naughty. It's just unheard of for a parent and/or grandparent to talk about a lost child negatively. They've stopped talking like that now, of course, having been advised that it puts a lot of suspicion on them, not LE's fault, or the media's, by any stretch of the imagination.

Someone at another forum was saying her mother wanted a boy, and tolerated her until her brother was born, then put her into Care, whatever that is, probably in England. I don't think we have it in America. Isn't that sad? She now works in the psychiatry field, understandably. Then there was that little boy in America, so abused by both parents that he died, Ricky somebody. Anyone remember the last name and some of that story? Goes to show you it happens. Not saying definitely anyone did that in this case, but the only way we could know is if we were actually there. Police know they have to prove in court whatever they come up with.

Where there's smoke there's USUALLY fire, and I have this instinct the McCanns know who "abducted" Maddie, and that she's being shuttled around, hence the many sightings. DNA can be planted, I heard on a TV show. Usually people don't store clothing and trash underneath the carpet of a car, in the tire well. Not saying the DNA proves anything except that they have a story for everything. Somebody else could have planted the DNA, and/or, another theory about that, we've been hearing it's not conclusive, and now we're hearing that it is. Just stalling for time, maybe.

One corrupt cop may have been involved, so has a motive to try to frame parents (or just stall for time that way, politics?) as in the Ramsey case where a new snapshot was added covertly to the evidence folder, showing a dictionary that had not been in the original crime scene??? Other than that possibility, I think to be respectable we have to respect LE in general and appreciate that they risk their lives for us every day. Let's don't waste our time criticizing them with no supporting evidence they've erred. Time is of the essence if Maddie's still alive.

Some of us who're known as extra gentle persons may surprise the world how firm we can be about something as important as justice for a helpless innocent child who may never have been very appreciated by her relatives. Odette has just posted a snapshot of Maddie horseback riding, with a helmet on, and Kate beside her, looking....depressed or something, as in the snapshot of a relative, not Kate, holding Maddie up to see her b.d. cake, age 2. As usual I have to state I'm not accusing the parents before the time, which is up to the justice system, not us. Elvislives resigned I believe from the board, before keeping a promise to me that she would provide a link to a video where Maddie was asked some perplexing question. I should have listened closely the first time, before I lost it, and have been unable to find it.

Now I'm wondering did Elvislives listen to it again, and find that I was right, the videographer's question was an important clue, and decide she didn't want to get involved in something bit international? I've looked and looked for the video w/out the loud music which seems to have been recorded over it.

[sharlock]

Her leaving the twins there in such circumstances, I mean. In fact, when Gerry says he noticed Maddie wasn't in bed, assumed she'd gone into the parents' bed, it sounds like he also knew, we have to admit.

Plus, the grandmother was actually criticizing Maddie, that there was a good side and a naughty side, very unusual attitude to have when you've just lost someone, and Kate was complaining that Maddie did things to get attention after the twins' arrival, which is perfectly normal for all oldest children, not at all naughty. It's just unheard of for a parent and/or grandparent to talk about a lost child negatively. They've stopped talking like that now, of course, having been advised that it puts a lot of suspicion on them, not LE's fault, or the media's, by any stretch of the imagination.

lets examine here what is the LE's or medias fault? should they be held responsible for leaking information on a case illegally and for printing false allegations while the parents of the missing child have been advised they will be charged with a crime if they retort or reply or in any way release details of the investigation? If God forbid my son was to die tomorrow and I was asked to describe him I would tell stories of the funny, loving, naughty, mischievious things that only a small child can get away with. I would honour his memory and show my love through truthful tales and that would not be unheard of or show that I in any way did not care for him. My issue with comments like these is that they are misleading and imply a certainty that you are aware of how any innocent people should act in a sitution as tragic as losing a child. It insults my intelligence to expect me to beleive these statements place suspicion squarely on the shoulders of the McCanns or that a photo is sufficient to suggest probable child abuse of Maddie or even enough to suggest it could be so. More importantly though it detracts from the theory that the McCanns could be guilty. Vague ideas and suppositions are not the basis for furthering our investigations. I know you are a very intelligent person who has the ability to think outside the box so I would be interested in your opinions of why the Tappas nine and the McCanns should not be beleived as long as they are based on more than wild speculations. Wild being the operative word here. Speculation is fine but when I can turn around and put stories of my own childhood experiences and those of a family pet being shot into a paragraph and have something as concrete as the speculations you have written I think we are stepping outside the realms of good sense.


Someone at another forum was saying her mother wanted a boy, and tolerated her until her brother was born, then put her into Care, whatever that is, probably in England. I don't think we have it in America. Isn't that sad? She now works in the psychiatry field, understandably. Then there was that little boy in America, so abused by both parents that he died, Ricky somebody. Anyone remember the last name and some of that story? Goes to show you it happens. Not saying definitely anyone did that in this case, but the only way we could know is if we were actually there. Police know they have to prove in court whatever they come up with.


Someone at another forum was saying that her parents wanted a dog until they were better off financially and that falling pregnant early was terribly inconvenient. Maybe we should check out if the McCanns have brought a dog recently. Might mean something maybe?
Then there was my boyfreinds family who shot their sons dog because he wasn't looking after it properly does anyone think thats a normal thing to do?
You know I knew someone who ranaway from home once at the age of 5 (myself) and went down the road and asked a neighbour if she could live there! I'm not saying Maddie definitely did that just that maybe she could have and a kindly neighbour took her in? What do you think:o .

Where there's smoke there's USUALLY fire, and I have this instinct the McCanns know who "abducted" Maddie, and that she's being shuttled around, hence the many sightings. DNA can be planted, I heard on a TV show. Usually people don't store clothing and trash underneath the carpet of a car, in the tire well. Not saying the DNA proves anything except that they have a story for everything. Somebody else could have planted the DNA, and/or, another theory about that, we've been hearing it's not conclusive, and now we're hearing that it is. Just stalling for time, maybe.

One corrupt cop may have been involved, so has a motive to try to frame parents (or just stall for time that way, politics?) as in the Ramsey case where a new snapshot was added covertly to the evidence folder, showing a dictionary that had not been in the original crime scene??? Other than that possibility, I think to be respectable we have to respect LE in general and appreciate that they risk their lives for us every day. Let's don't waste our time criticizing them with no supporting evidence they've erred. Time is of the essence if Maddie's still alive.

Some of us who're known as extra gentle persons may surprise the world how firm we can be about something as important as justice for a helpless innocent child who may never have been very appreciated by her relatives. Odette has just posted a snapshot of Maddie horseback riding, with a helmet on, and Kate beside her, looking....depressed or something, as in the snapshot of a relative, not Kate, holding Maddie up to see her b.d. cake, age 2. As usual I have to state I'm not accusing the parents before the time, which is up to the justice system, not us.


http://i6.tinypic.com/66wb283.jpg
Are you serious??? This is the photo you are claiming shows a DEPRESSED Kate beside her? Talk about seeing what you want to see!


Elvislives resigned I believe from the board, before keeping a promise to me that she would provide a link to a video where Maddie was asked some perplexing question. I should have listened closely the first time, before I lost it, and have been unable to find it.

Now I'm wondering did Elvislives listen to it again, and find that I was right, the videographer's question was an important clue, and decide she didn't want to get involved in something bit international? I've looked and looked for the video w/out the loud music which seems to have been recorded over it.

Well elvislives did say she was a doctor so maybe she is one of the tappas nine and part of a conspiracy? I feel certain she didn't leave the forum because she was upset with some things that had been said to her as she told us and relayed to Freshwater. Sorry sarcasm was never my strong point and is actually uncalled for. I know I should really just delete that bit but I want people to know how reading that paragraph about Elvis lives made me feel. She was always very helpful and giving of her time and I do seriously doubt that she cancelled her membership and didn't reply to your question because she suddenly found merit in what you had to say without having heard the tape, as she had claimed to have done.
I never really understood the power the media had over an investigation or the publics opinion until now. It is quite scary really. The dissappearance of Maddie is unsolved and I commend the people here for caring enough about this little girl to devote their time and I have no reason to doubt any posters sincerity in caring for the wellbeing of Maddie but if Maddie was miraculously returned tomorrow and was to one day read the thoughts of the posters of the world I would like to think that she could do so and even look at the accusations against her parents knowing that people just wanted to check every possibility instead of seeing a vicious attack on them without any proof.

[Eagle1]

....................

Re: Leaving them alone; personally I do not believe they were close enough where they were able to monitor those children in that room. As a parent I find that the parents were definitely negligent for leaving their children unsupervised. It is unacceptable and even if they did not have anything to do with missing Madeleine; leaving their children alone was simply irresponsible. JMO


Big amen to that. There's simply NO excuse.

Police may be up against worldwide gangs for all we know, and I'd expect they need our encouragement a lot more than these parents do, who I for one haven't seen or heard of actually looking for Maddie themselves.

As I'm always saying when people try to blame the police, they risk their lives for us every day. If you watch cop shows on TV, they're always getting shot protecting the public. They didn't lose this little girl! And Interpol and other agencies, maybe even FBI and/or intel, are also working on the case, a difficult one even for them. Let's try to remember and respect them as they truly deserve, not scapegoat them just because they're there.

Also, a TV show about a doctor killing his wife revealed succinol chlorine (sp?) BURNS going in, so there would have been crying that Mrs. Fenn probably would have heard, and it's a killer! That's at least one drug we know wasn't used on the McCann three children.

[Eagle1]

http://i6.tinypic.com/66wb283.jpg
Are you serious??? This is the photo you are claiming shows a DEPRESSED Kate beside her? Talk about seeing what you want to see! No, it's not, and I always use qualified statements, probably would have said "might" be depressed! It was a picture of a great aunt holding Maddie up that I was referring to, and I wouldn't have stated anything definite about it......................
knowing that people just wanted to check every possibility instead of seeing a vicious attack on them without any proof.


I could answer you in kind about your very vicious attack on me, Sharlock, taking up a lot of space, some of which I've edited out, but I think I'm a more mature person. For the record, I love animals, and that was terrible about people thoughtlessly killing dogs, but it's off topic here. We are discussing finding little Maddie.

Everyone knows Elvislives says she's a doctor, fine, but I have a perfect right to wonder why she promised me, seemed very responsible, she would again locate the video where the guy asked Maddie something, then very abruptly left with no explanation. Smart alec ridicule about absolutely everything I say isn't helping us find Maddie, not helping in any way whatsoever.

Nobody here has made any vicious attack on the McCanns. Those who think they KNOW what happened and that they couldn't have had any involvement WEREN'T THERE, you seem to expect us not to realize. You couldn't possibly know any more than those of us who're wisely looking for red flags and loopholes that just might somehow help find Maddie.

Just believing in the McCanns and, as another poster does at another forum, not you, calling us "evil" isn't finding her. It's an over-emotional snap decision based on absolutely nothing except that MOST parents wouldn't give away their kids. Not saying, of course, that they did but there are always exceptions, for instance a postpartum depressed mother putting her baby into an oven, thinking it was evil. Don't jump to the conclusion I'm accusing them. I don't claim to have been there. I promise I wasn't. Most of us aren't claiming to know.

I've already said this, I know, but it's extremely unusual, maybe unprecedented, for surivors to criticize a so-recently-lost loved one.

It would arouse police suspicions, and thinking peoples' everywhere.

Maddie evidently wasn't hyperactive, according to published reports of other witnesses who said she was a shy little angel, trying to push a heavy high chair from a corner of a restaurant for one of the twins. Anything she did to get her usual amount of attention after the overwhelming twins came is perfectly normal.

That's all evidence that Kate and her mother may have expected grown-up perfection from a 3-yr old who'd been an only child until then, Notice I say "may have". It's certainly more than enough to raise suspicions.

[sharlock]

I could answer you in kind about your very vicious attack on me, Sharlock, taking up a lot of space, some of which I've edited out, but I think I'm a more mature person. For the record, I love animals, and that was terrible about people thoughtlessly killing dogs, but it's off topic here. We are discussing finding little Maddie.

Everyone knows Elvislives says she's a doctor, fine, but I have a perfect right to wonder why she promised me, seemed very responsible, she would again locate the video where the guy asked Maddie something, then very abruptly left with no explanation. Smart alec ridicule about absolutely everything I say isn't helping us find Maddie, not helping in any way whatsoever.

Nobody here has made any vicious attack on the McCanns. Those who think they KNOW what happened and that they couldn't have had any involvement WEREN'T THERE, you seem to expect us not to realize. You couldn't possibly know any more than those of us who're wisely looking for red flags and loopholes that just might somehow help find Maddie.

Just believing in the McCanns and, as another poster does at another forum, not you, calling us "evil" isn't finding her. It's an over-emotional snap decision based on absolutely nothing except that MOST parents wouldn't give away their kids. Not saying, of course, that they did but there are always exceptions, for instance a postpartum depressed mother putting her baby into an oven, thinking it was evil. Don't jump to the conclusion I'm accusing them. I don't claim to have been there. I promise I wasn't. Most of us aren't claiming to know.

I've already said this, I know, but it's extremely unusual, maybe unprecedented, for surivors to criticize a so-recently-lost loved one.

It would arouse police suspicions, and thinking peoples' everywhere.

Maddie evidently wasn't hyperactive, according to published reports of other witnesses who said she was a shy little angel, trying to push a heavy high chair from a corner of a restaurant for one of the twins. Anything she did to get her usual amount of attention after the overwhelming twins came is perfectly normal.

That's all evidence that Kate and her mother may have expected grown-up perfection from a 3-yr old who'd been an only child until then, Notice I say "may have". It's certainly more than enough to raise suspicions.
You are right Eagle 1 I never did say evil nor suggest it and also have not implied in any way people shouldn't be looking closely at the McCanns but I guess your last sentences shows in a way I never could why we do have different beleifs.
Maddie evidently wasn't hyperactive, according to published reports of other witnesses who said she was a shy little angel, trying to push a heavy high chair from a corner of a restaurant for one of the twins. Anything she did to get her usual amount of attention after the overwhelming twins came is perfectly normal.

That's all evidence that Kate and her mother may have expected grown-up perfection from a 3-yr old who'd been an only child until then, Notice I say "may have". It's certainly more than enough to raise suspicions.
No in my opinion it is not more than enough to raise suspicion. In fact if we could use things like this to raise suspicion on a regular basis then absolutely noone would be safe from suspicion. JMHO as you have yours and I beleive voicing my beleifs was neither immature or vicious.

[Eagle1]

I like your statement, Sharlock. And you're right, neither of us intends any too-strong statements. It's just a very emotional case.

The one thing we disagree about is both Kate and her mother saying things like Maddie could be naughty. I think it's more than enough to arouse police suspicion and you don't agree.

The following doesn't of course prove my view of that, but it is an example, about human nature. A con artist who called himself a preacher, was always singing hymns and quoting the most popular scriptures only to fool. people, killed his wife and went around gathering sympathy about the "kind" of woman she was, completely false. He told that she'd left him. In the end the villagers found her body in the river, her throat cut looking like another mouth, and there was a riot. He had been trying to kill her two children too and they'd taken to the river in a rowboat, sleeping in the boat, almost starved. Blah, blah, blah. You already know this kind of story. In my decades of living, 50th wedding anniversary day after tomorrow, I've just never seen truly loving relatives remember anything even slightly negative about their missing one. On that I rest my case. Didn't just fall off the tree. I've been around a while. To me it's shocking. I hear you that you don't agree. Fine. Have a good day. It's beginning to look and feel like November.

[andU]

I like your statement, Sharlock. And you're right, neither of us intends any too-strong statements. It's just a very emotional case.

The one thing we disagree about is both Kate and her mother saying things like Maddie could be naughty. I think it's more than enough to arouse police suspicion and you don't agree.

The following doesn't of course prove my view of that, but it is an example, about human nature. A con artist who called himself a preacher, was always singing hymns and quoting the most popular scriptures only to fool. people, killed his wife and went around gathering sympathy about the "kind" of woman she was, completely false. He told that she'd left him. In the end the villagers found her body in the river, her throat cut looking like another mouth, and there was a riot. He had been trying to kill her two children too and they'd taken to the river in a rowboat, sleeping in the boat, almost starved. Blah, blah, blah. You already know this kind of story. In my decades of living, 50th wedding anniversary day after tomorrow, I've just never seen truly loving relatives remember anything even slightly negative about their missing one. On that I rest my case. Didn't just fall off the tree. I've been around a while. To me it's shocking. I hear you that you don't agree. Fine. Have a good day. It's beginning to look and feel like November.

Any mother or grandmother who denies her child/grandchild ever being naughty is not a truthful person. They are children, they are imperfect human beings, they are inquisitive and want to learn. Being naughty can cover a lot of ground - the child could be exploring or could be testing the parents/grandparents by doing something that he/she knows is against what has been taught him/her.

[Eagle1]

Everyone, We only call our children or grandchildren naughty when they're with us and we're feeling edgy, never never never when they're missing and possibly dead! Maybe the slip of the tongue really means something.

They say O.J. Simpson talked about Nicole as if she had it coming, in his book "If I Did It", or the start of a book he may not have finished. I don't really keep up with him.

No, they didn't come right out and say she had it coming, or we had to farm her out to someone else, she was so difficult. But "what if" that woman getting into the taxi might turn out to be a distant relative? Mind you I'm not saying she is. I have no idea what's going on but I do know it's not appropriate or normal to be criticizing someone in such a crisis. Don't know if this was an enormously important slip of the tongue or what.

In case I didn't emphasize this enough, note that I'm trying to go after the woman getting into the taxi too, not just the named suspects.

[andU]

Everyone, We only call our children or grandchildren naughty when they're with us and we're feeling edgy, never never never when they're missing and possibly dead! Maybe the slip of the tongue really means something.

They say O.J. Simpson talked about Nicole as if she had it coming, in his book "If I Did It", or the start of a book he may not have finished. I don't really keep up with him.

No, they didn't come right out and say she had it coming, or we had to farm her out to someone else, she was so difficult. But "what if" that woman getting into the taxi might turn out to be a distant relative? Mind you I'm not saying she is. I have no idea what's going on but I do know it's not appropriate or normal to be criticizing someone in such a crisis. Don't know if this was an enormously important slip of the tongue or what.

In case I didn't emphasize this enough, note that I'm trying to go after the woman getting into the taxi too, not just the named suspects.

I see no comparrison to the OJ murders and Maddie gone missing. Nicole and Ron were adults, as well as OJ, I presume. Maddie is a child, being naughty is what children do, that's how they learn right from wrong. Personally, and in my opinion, I don't like to label children as naughty, they do have naughty behaviors, I admit.

[Tober]

I see no comparrison to the OJ murders and Maddie gone missing.
She's not really comparing the cases per se, she's pointing out the unusual statements and how they might be a clue. IMO

[Eagle1]

She's not really comparing the cases per se, she's pointing out the unusual statements and how they might be a clue. IMO

Precisely. I was speaking of the general principle that some killers try to say the victim had it coming, instead of showing any remorse. I was not saying Kate killed Maddie. I don't even think she's dead, there have been so many alleged sightings, and no real proof that she's dead. I believe there are dental records to prove Baby Grace definitely isn't Maddie.

We've all heard of terror "cells" here, there, and everywhere. Maybe there are also other kinds of cells that we haven't heard of yet. Intel, maybe?

I'm thinking at this moment there's SOME kind of world experiment afoot, possibly something so new we'd never guess it. It hasn't been too many years since the "Stockholm Syndrome" was discovered, before the Pattie Hearst kidnapping. Might they be working on something like that? Don't ask me who. It's someone else's turn.

Because she's been with several different people in the alleged sightings, and whoever or whatever they are, they may have several other little girls similar to her, interchangeable whenever they're questionned. The little girl always turns out to be the daughter of some native, by some strange coincidence. Just letting imagination wander because we don't have much else to go on right now unless those "friends" stop teasing and tell some truth. If they can tell that the McCann people are pressuring them, then why can't they tell the rest of it, to prove that?

The latest sighting, in Bosnia, Gerry says is being taken seriously, but who knows if he's right? It was near some famous Catholic shrine. Anyone know which one? I don't think he'd be consenting to his child being used in any kind of study, put through all this stress that's bound to harm her. If, if, if there is some experiment. Just beating the bushes helplessly.

[Pak31]

I have a question. Before I ask it though I want everyone who reads this to know that I really don't have an opinion as to what happened to Maddie. We have been bombarded with news reports, that seem to tell a different story each time that I am so confused so I don't know what to believe. But, my question is this, if Maddie's parents, especially her mother, are SO torn up over her abduction, can't speak, can't eat, can't sleep, etc. then why did they leave her and her two younger siblings alone in a hotel room the faced a street in a resort they were not familiar with?? I mean if they have so much love for her how could they just leave her unattended like that?? They are so distraught over her kidnapping yet they had no problem leaving her alone. I know you will say it was normal, or they never thought she'd be taken, or they were very close by or that I am asking it after the fact. I just don't understand it. I am not saying that Maddie being gone is their fault but she is gone because no adult was in that room with three very small children.

[Eagle1]

[QUOTE=Pak31;90..........But, my question is this, if Maddie's parents, especially her mother, are SO torn up over her abduction, can't speak, can't eat, can't sleep, etc. then why did they leave her and her two younger siblings alone in a hotel room the faced a street in a resort they were not familiar with?? [/QUOTE]

I know, you don't want to see the next generation of young people handle their children this way in a world growing ever more dangerous.

It does also seem like a farce, the many strange things that have been said and the "friends" claiming they know something but have to fear the McCs' powerful connections.

Let's face it, tho', Maddie may not have much time left to survive!!! The captors may get that tired of her wanting her Daddy!

Let's brainstorm ideas for finding her before it's too late!

After that, the truth about guilt or innocence can be argued properly by lawyers, not us. There aren't many, maybe none, left who're still trying to excuse the negligence because in the back of their mind they know they did it and just didn't get caught. We don't have time for that, either pro or con. I haven't been believing Maddie's dead, but I'm getting really afraid she soon may be, the way "they", her captors, have switched her to different caretakers in different countries.

Anyone have a simple map of where Bosnia is? I for one had geography long before there was any such place. And she may be just as far in the opposite direction by now.