Did the Mcanns refuse to alow the twins to be tested for drugs in their system

Plus, re:hair testing: this type of testing does not pick up every drug known to man. It is generally used to test for heavy metals. It would be very difficult to know a specific drug to test for, and furthermore, if only a single or a few doses had been given (say, only for the duration of the vacation) it is unlikely that - even if a specific drug was tested for - the testing of hair would return a positive result.

brit1981 said:

because they checked they were breathing and they were fine. The drugged theory did not come about until afterwards and even then only as in "in hindsight everything becomes significant" type way. And a child sleeping through noise does not mean they have gone into a coma.

Click to expand...

No but a child sleeping through a "stranger abduction" of their own sister from the next bed, would alarm any parent.

Except of course the McCann, whose reaction to this "threat" was to immediately leave the sleeping twins alone and at risk, to blare out the news to other diners in a restaurant.

As you do.

:furious:

It is common for children to fall alseep in rooms which are not their own and then be carried by an adult to the right room. If there is more than one child they do not all suddenly wake up because an adult has walked into the room. I have picked up a sleeping child and walked into another room and put them in their own bed, and then gone back and picked up their sleeping sibling, who had been sleeping next to them, and carry them thorugh without either of them waking up. A sleeping two year old not waking up because an adult comes into the room and picks up another sleeping child is not in the least bit unusual.

Besides the claims made by some on the internet do not stand up. First of all it is the children were sedated with non-sedative calpol. Then it is the mccanns sedated all of their children to ensure they slept through, but this does not match up with the fact that the mccanns checked their children regulary every night. If they had drugged the children so they stayed awake, why check them so often? No-one has come up with any evidence that the mccanns drugged their children, so they might as well claim anything.

brit1981 said:

It is common for children to fall alseep in rooms which are not their own and then be carried by an adult to the right room. If there is more than one child they do not all suddenly wake up because an adult has walked into the room. I have picked up a sleeping child and walked into another room and put them in their own bed, and then gone back and picked up their sleeping sibling, who had been sleeping next to them, and carry them thorugh without either of them waking up. A sleeping two year old not waking up because an adult comes into the room and picks up another sleeping child is not in the least bit unusual.

Besides the claims made by some on the internet do not stand up. First of all it is the children were sedated with non-sedative calpol. Then it is the mccanns sedated all of their children to ensure they slept through, but this does not match up with the fact that the mccanns checked their children regulary every night. If they had drugged the children so they stayed awake, why check them so often? No-one has come up with any evidence that the mccanns drugged their children, so they might as well claim anything.

Click to expand...

That is not fact, that is an outright untruth.

The McCann DID NOT check their children regularly every night.

The McCann decided to institute the fateful regime on one night only...the night Madeleine disappeared.

Every other night the children were left to cry alone and unattended.

This is undisputed fact.

SapphireSteel said:

That is not fact, that is an outright untruth.

The McCann DID NOT check their children regularly every night.

The McCann decided to institute the fateful regime on one night only...the night Madeleine disappeared.

Every other night the children were left to cry alone and unattended.

This is undisputed fact.

Click to expand...

No it is not a fact. The facts are according to witness that the mccanns did check the children regulary every night. Not one witness has come forward to say they know the mccanns only checked the children that night. To claim otherwise is incorrect.
Just because something is being pread on other forums and websites dedicated to trying to convince people madeleine is dead claim this is an undisputed fact does not make it one. Nothing in the PJ files backs up what you say. But if you have evidence that the witnesses are all lying and can prove that the mccanns only checked the children that night then I suggest you contact operation grange as it could be important evidence.

But if you are just going on what you have read on internet forums and booklets like fifty "facts" then I suggest you look at the PJ files more closely and ask yourself why people are spreading this lie, why do they want madeleine to be thought dead. I cannot think of any good reason, but I do know of at least one group who try to obtain money in spouting these untruths.

There really is no point arguing with the McCann Supporter.

Like the Ramsey Supporter before them, they are the only ones who know the truth of that night and everyone else is "spreading lies".

Yes you are right the McCann was a wonderful parental unit, never dropped the ball, never put their own needs before those of their babies, at all times were completely involved in their own children's care and upbringing.

Apart from all those times they stuck the kids in the creche all day and left them to fend for themselves in a foreign apartment at night.

:banghead:

mjak said:

Ironicly, if they did refuse to do this to me this is even more proof of their involvment. No parent who is traumatized by their missing child is going to hesitate for one second if LE says they think your other children might be drugged to have them tested. Innocent parents at this time have all their childrens wellbeing on their minds.

mjak

Click to expand...

Exactly (though I just think it has more to do with them drugging Madeline) but as well, if a perpetrator used a rare drug they would have a lead with which to track them down.

I don't think they killed her for the simple fact of where they could get rid of the body. People's suggestions of them 'burying her on the beach' don't seem to realize how a beach operates. You know those things called "waves" yeah they come back in again LOL Unless they chartered a boat and dumped her at sea I don't see how there hasn't been a body yet.

It's always been quite clear to me that they drugged her to get her to sleep. That is the level of culpability they had in this.


A. The mother knew instantly she'd been abducted and not wandered off
B. They didn't worry leaving her alone in the apartment
C. The neighbor had reported hearing her crying the night before but not this night
D. They didn't want to have the twins tested
E. Her mother washed her cuddle toy, why do that and wash away evidence?
F. They seem like they are hiding something. That's because as doctors they can't talk about it.

my replies in bold

Chewy said:

Exactly (though I just think it has more to do with them drugging Madeline) but as well, if a perpetrator used a rare drug they would have a lead with which to track them down.

I don't think they killed her for the simple fact of where they could get rid of the body. People's suggestions of them 'burying her on the beach' don't seem to realize how a beach operates. You know those things called "waves" yeah they come back in again LOL Unless they chartered a boat and dumped her at sea I don't see how there hasn't been a body yet.

But if she died because of a drug overdose her body has to be somewhere

It's always been quite clear to me that they drugged her to get her to sleep. That is the level of culpability they had in this.


A. The mother knew instantly she'd been abducted and not wandered off - the two patio gates were both shut and latched and the patio door closed, it is unlikely that a three year old would wander off and shut them behind her. The car park door is too big for a child of that age to open and fully close. The window was also open which madeleine could not have done. So i think her mother was right in thinking she had been abducted. I woudl ahve jumped to that conclusion.

B. They didn't worry leaving her alone in the apartment- it was seventy metres to walk there, just over fifty directly. She was asleep, and in most mark warner resorts nanny listenign services were use d- this is where a child is left in their room and every half an hour a nanny listens outside of the door for crying. This resort did nto offer it as the resort was spread throughout the village so was too spread out to complete the circuit in half an hour.
C. The neighbor had reported hearing her crying the night before but not this night - the neighbour said she only heard a child, she could nto be certain if it was one of the mccann children.
D. They didn't want to have the twins tested - the PJ never asked to get the twins tested. It was later the mccanns got the children tested.
E. Her mother washed her cuddle toy, why do that and wash away evidence? The PJ had nto taken it so they cannot have thought it was evidence, and it was washed ages after, and ages before the toy was looked at again. Toys like that do get filthy and parents do just shove them in the wash.
F. They seem like they are hiding something. That's because as doctors they can't tal - k about it. I think once rumours are dispelled and people look at the actual evidence not internet rumours they do not look like they are hiding anything. Besides if madeleine had died of an overdose why not just say she got hold of it herself, why involve the police liek this. If they had called an ambulance told them they think she drank some medicine thinking it was a drink/sweet etc, they woudl have taken her to hospital, and written it off as a tragic accident. They would have been no publicity whatsoever, other than a small headline on page four saying "a british child died in portugal after accidently taking some medicine" it certainly would not have influenced their jobs.

Click to expand...

I think you may have not read what I wrote correctly.

I don't think they killed her. I just think they drugged her. I'm sorry a listening service for a four year old locked in a hotel room? I am assuming that you do not have children because you don't seem to realize the inherent danger of leaving a child alone for several hours. She could have slipped in the bathroom and cracked her head, she could have toppled one of the babies out of the crib trying to pick them up? She could have swallowed something and choked.

It's inconceivable that two educated adults left their child alone in a hotel room with two other babies without drugging her.

Put it this way, if this was a story about the parents getting arrested for leaving their kids alone in the room and they said that they drugged her with a sedative. Most of us would chide them for it because it is risky but we'd say "Well if they were knocked out then the kids would sleep through. As long as they checked in case of fire every few minutes or so what's the big deal. And besides they are doctors so they know how much to give.'

To me it's not that big of a deal. I've done it on long plane rides giving my son benadryl and I know plenty of people who have given their kids a teeny bit of nyquil to help them sleep and get over a cold.

But once she was abducted they couldn't admit to it. Because now this action led to the abduction of their child. Their jobs would be on the line.

I think you are making excuses for the mother and not looking at it logically.

I woudl never use one myself, but these listenign services are really popular in the EU. Mark warner used the system in their campus style resorts. There was a case in a MW resort in Egypt where the nanny listened outside of the door, heard nothing so assume everything was OK and went on her way. However it turned out the child had got out of the room and was later found in the car park! Since madeleine disappeared MW no longer offer this service, but plenty still do. The mccanns friends had used one the previous year so I can see why they thought that checking the children every half hour was OK if they thought that the nanny listenign service was OK like thousands did. I do not agree with it, if there was a fire or something, a nanny listening outside the door for a few seconds every half an hour is going to be no help. BUt it is not unusual.

I do not think the mccanns drugged the children simply because no evidence of that has come forward. I did not realise you meant that you thought they had drugged her, and then someone else had abducted her, sorry I did misunderstand that.

As for her thinking straight away she had been abducted, well I have explained above why I think that is normal. But kate also described look around the flat, and how everyone else including gerry was saying madeleine would be there, so they must have thought she was capable of getting up and walking around.

Do you have children? Because I don't think you realize how ridiculous that statement is.


You are not making any sense. If they thought she could get up and walk around then why did they leave her alone in the room.

Also if I am not mistaken there is a pool in the resort that was near the room. That's insane to think they left their kid who "gets up and walks around" by themselves near a pool for a half hour or so at a pop.

It makes sense that they drugged her. I don't necessarily think anything is wrong with it and I think this is why they seem dishonest to everyone. YOU can tell they are withholding information.

I do not think they thought she would get up and walk around, just that when kate came back screaming, people were reassuring her that that is what had most likely happened and madeleine was therefore OK. If they had thought she was drugged up then presumably they would also have straight away thought she had been abducted.
And rightly or wrongly plenty of people in the EU do leave their children in these circumstances and rely on nanny listening services, which in my opinion provide a false sense of security. It was a stupid decision, but people make stupied decisions every day, just very few of them have such terirble consequences. The mccanns friends all left their children too (with one couple saying they were checking on their child because she was unwell and had a bad upset stomach - to me that is mad, why would you go out for dinner and risk leaving a baby in a a puddle of diarrhoea for half an hour, or what if she had vomited and choked!!!). I do nto agree with it at all, I just think plenty of people do and would not think they had to drug their children. Another couple there did not even check on their children and just used one of those monitors, which agains seems madness to me.

Just to clarify a couple of things, MW had never operated the nanny-listening service at PDL because the accommodation was spread around the village and not contained within the resort itself. I think that the Mc's and their friends were expecting this to be available and, on finding that it wasn't, decided to do it themselves. I can understand them making this decision but I don't think that they kept much to the schedule. I also agree that there are risks associated with this, whoever does it.
I believe that they did not use the evening drop-in creche because it meant leaving the kids wherever the creche was (onsite) but then having to likely wake them at 11.30 to take them home. Again I understand this but it seems more of a selfish decision.

Regarding whether the kids were drugged or not, I think that this is one of the areas where the Mc's have tied themselves in knots trying to explain everything away so that they look squeaky clean without realising they are contradicting themselves. I believe it was Kate's mum who said in an interview that Kate did give the kids Calpol to help them sleep, but the Mc's did not want to admit this (although I don't see why as many people do it) so they denied it. They could not then allow the kids to be tested because the results would likely be positive even if the Calpol had been given a couple of months before. When they were taking heat after the arguido status they suddenly decided that a test might be a good idea but on their terms making it pretty useless. Then of course they decided well OK the abductor might have drugged them forgetting that they already had produced tests showing allegedly no drugs present. It is this type of changing of storylines that makes people suspicious. If they gave a normal dose of Calpol why deny it? Everybody would just think that's normal (like they think leaving the kids alone is normal). It just makes people think that they had given more than a normal dose. Especially when it turns out that Fiona in her police statement thought it odd that Kate kept holding her hand close to the twins' faces that night to check that they were still breathing. In such circumstances you might expect them to welcome a drug test, but then they might just not have been thinking straight.

Chewy said:

Do you have children? Because I don't think you realize how ridiculous that statement is.


You are not making any sense. If they thought she could get up and walk around then why did they leave her alone in the room.

Also if I am not mistaken there is a pool in the resort that was near the room. That's insane to think they left their kid who "gets up and walks around" by themselves near a pool for a half hour or so at a pop.

It makes sense that they drugged her. I don't necessarily think anything is wrong with it and I think this is why they seem dishonest to everyone. YOU can tell they are withholding information.

Click to expand...

The pool was not near the room which was inside the resort whereas the accommodation was outside. I don't think she could have got into the resort without being noticed.

Incidentally theirs was not a traditional hotel room; it was not in fact a hotel at all. The accommodation comprised a number of low rise blocks of self-catering units, some (or all) of which are privately owned. I think that if she had got out of the room, it would be much more likely that she would have fallen down the quite steep (for a 3 yr old) steps leading to ground level.

The other problem with all this getting up and walking around business is that at first the Mc's said that the door was locked and so it was not possible for M to have wandered off. When it was shown that there had been no jemmying of the shutters, as they had first claimed, they had to have another way for the abductor to get in, so they admitted that they had left the patio door unlocked. But then that allows the possibility that M could have wandered off, an idea that for some reason they won't entertain.

First kates mother never said they used calpol as a sedative. Her father in an interview said clearly they never sedated the children, and later said that at most she gave them calpol like most parents. Calpol is also not a sedative.

The mccanns never said they locked thepatio door s. In the very first statements they said the patio doors were left unlocked. The patio doors could not be locked from the outside so if anyone used this to enter or exit like their statements said they did it meant it was unlocked.

It as thoughtw unlikely madeleine wandered off because not only was the patio door shut, the two gatesleading to the road were closed properly something a tree year ohlf would be unlikely to do.

The jemmying of the window came from media reports claiming to have spoken to family members. Thereis no dire ct quote of gerry or kate saying this I believe. However even if hey did why is it suspicious. It turned out the window and shutter could easily be opened from the outside but they were not to know this, so most people's assumption would be that the window had been forced or jemmied somehow. I also think they thought anyone entering via the patio would be seen from he tapas btar, but I do not think they would be as it was unlit, and had a lot of shrubbery and people at the taps bar were eating and talking not watching the patio.

sadly, peviosu tennant salso said there was some problem with the car park door, which meant that even though they locked it and left the key in it the cleaner could still open it from the outside. They sad they never found out why this could happen, and I have no idea if it was still like this when the mccanns were there. But all in all it seems to have been a frighteningly insecure flat.

http://madeleinemythsexposed.pbworks.com/w/page/39076140/Main Page

the above website is very good. It takes many of the myths about this case and looks at the actual facts to disprove them. It relies on primary sources rather han further internet myth.

brit1981 said:

First kates mother never said they used calpol as a sedative. Her father in an interview said clearly they never sedated the children, and later said that at most she gave them calpol like most parents. Calpol is also not a sedative.

The jemmying of the window came from media reports claiming to have spoken to family members. Thereis no dire ct quote of gerry or kate saying this I believe.

Click to expand...

Please don't get me wrong, I didn't come on here to have an argument with you but I thought that other posters may have been under certain misapprehensions. However I did get it wrong about Kate's mother when it was her father who said that they may have given her Calpol, which the Mc's confirmed they took with them. Like I say this is not unusual, we probably did the same. I did not say it is a sedative.

Re the shutters, here is a transcript from a televised interview with Gerry's sister (BBC East Midlands 4/4/07)

Trish Cameron: They last checked at half past nine; they were all sound asleep, sleeping; windows shut; shutters shut. Kate went back at ten o'clock to check; the front door was lying open; the window had been tampered with; the shutters had been jammied open... or whatever you call it, and Madeleine was missing.

So I don't think that can be "claiming" to be an interview. I agree it's still only a second hand version.

I wasn't there obviously and don't know what happened.

I am assuming the interview was on 04/05 rather than 04/04, but that is extremely close to when it happened. Can you imagine the confusion that had ensued. You get a call in the middle of the night, it is your sibling screaming his head off that his child is gone, I imagine you are not going to get a clear, conscise point by point account. We left the door we used unlocked, but the window was closed but someone must have forced it or something because it was open when we got back, easily becomes the front door was unlocked and the window had been tampered with.

Sorry I had thought you were saying kates mother (getting confused with her ftaher) has said they used calpol to sedate their children, because a lot of people have misquoted what he said to claim this.
The problem with this case is that there is so much internet rumour. Take the rumour of a missing sports bag. I heard people talking about this online yet when I looked into it there is not one account of this in the pj files, and not one first hand account of it anywhere it is all forum rumour.

But the site I linked to above is good because it backs everything up with the actual first hand accounts rather than just linking to another forum.

The "jemmied" shutters was one of the first lies.

The McCann spent the majority of the evening of 3 May and early hours of 4 May not searching for their daughter, but on the phone to various friends and family carefully laying down their story. Too many people are on record as hearing the exact same tale from the McCann for any doubt to be entertained that this is exactly the story they were peddling...from the very first HOUR of their baby's disappearance.

ullhair:

The fact that they spent so much time telling everyone Madeleine had been "abducted" instead of actually looking for her, is clear evidence of an attempt to steer the investigation. From the very first evening.

I for one would dearly like all the players assembled in a court room answering to a judge. This will never happen while the McCann still has funding, as the money goes to building walls against doubters and chasing them through the courts of Europe on spurious libel accusations.

As you do when your baby is missing...

:banghead:

My replies in bold

SapphireSteel said:

The "jemmied" shutters was one of the first lies.

First the phrase jemmied never came from either of the mccanns. Secondly it is important to remember that in parts of the UK a lot of people will use jemmied interchageably with forced, the person quoted is actually quoted as saying, tampered, jemmied or something. At no point did she say that the windows had definitly been jemmied. thirdly, even if the mccanns had said jemmied, what else were they supposed to think given they did not know at this point the window could be opened from the outside.

The McCann spent the majority of the evening of 3 May and early hours of 4 May not searching for their daughter, but on the phone to various friends and family carefully laying down their story. Too many people are on record as hearing the exact same tale from the McCann for any doubt to be entertained that this is exactly the story they were peddling...from the very first HOUR of their baby's disappearance.

Not true, the calls made were not mad euntil much later. And the mccanns did spend much of the time phsyically looking according to witness statements in the PJ files. There is no wher ein the PJ files claiming that the mccanns spent most of the time on the 'phone. Not one statement in the PJ files has the mccanns telling different people the exact same thing, they all just say they got told she had disappeared.

ullhair:

The fact that they spent so much time telling everyone Madeleine had been "abducted" instead of actually looking for her, is clear evidence of an attempt to steer the investigation. From the very first evening.

No it is not, first they looked at her, second why would they not think she had been abducted given that a child of that age would not have shut a door and two gates behind her. Katrice Lee's parents also insisted she had been abducted despite the police claiming she had probably wandered off, were they trying to steer the investigation too?


I for one would dearly like all the players assembled in a court room answering to a judge. This will never happen while the McCann still has funding, as the money goes to building walls against doubters and chasing them through the courts of Europe on spurious libel accusations.

First the mccanns do not use the fund to pay for libel cases. These are done on what americans call no win no fee, but in the UK all the costs are paid by the other side if they lose. They have not chased spurious libel accusations. The media printed untrue stroies based on lies from someone in the PJ, and admitted they were untrue and so made a front page apology, and agreed to pay compensation to the mccanns and their friends. However they refused compensation and instead the media made a donation to the find madeleine fund. Murat qalso sued and won and received a lot of compensation. This is not as strong as it could have been, in the Joanna Yeates case not only did he sue and win, but some of the media were prosecuted for contempt of court and found guilty. There was nothing unusual in what the mccanns, murat and the mccanns friends did.
Amaral, who has taken people to court for libel himself (although he lost and has to pay the other sides costs and those of the court), is being taken to court for libel as he has written things which are untrue and damage the hunt for madeleine (we only have to look at those who belive him on her to see the mccanns are right to say he damages the search), which is against her human rights. Amaral was also an aguido for the short time he was involved in the mccann case, and later found guilty. There were also problems with tax before madeleine disappeared
Tony bennett was also taken to court, and despite the defence for libel in the UK being just demonstrating you are telling the truth, he chose not to demonstrate this and instead agreed to not repeat the libel. Unfortunetly he has and is now back in court for contempt, and the judge has decreed this reactivates the libel case. Bennett has been in trouble for jumping on cases like this before, even before madeleine disappeared, and claiming conspiracy theories seems to be his thing (he also writes that evolution and dinosaurs are a conspiracy against the bible). He was found guilty of behaviour unbefitting a solicitor and shortly after resigned from the roll meaning he was no longer a solicitor, he later told a family he was a solicitor and acted for them, he had tried to prosecute people on spurious grounds, he had been investigated by the police for crimes and found guilty of criminal damage, he was banned from holding office in a political party, he was involved politically with a former member of the national front (a white nationalist party), etc and this was all befor emadeleine disappeared so for people to blame their woes on the mccanns is wrong. When someone is haressing your family you should take them to court to protect yourself and your family (bennett has turned up at their workplaces, places they take the children, at inquires gerry has attended, people involved in the funds houses, accused people of paedophilia, claimed pictures of a child eating an ice cream was sexually suggestive etc). He has also complained to the police,media, ofcom, the PM, tried to take people to court etc so has no reason to complain when the shoe is on the other foot.
The fact the mccanns are prepared to take libel action means they do not have a problem with these accusations being examined in court by a judge.


As you do when your baby is missing...

:banghead:

Click to expand...

brit1981 said:

My replies in bold

Click to expand...

Your statement that the mccanns have not used the fund to sue people is wrong. It is an established FACT backed up by their OWN accounts filed to companies house that they have for at least the last three years have used the fund to sue people so can you please stop saying they havent as its disinformation

The evidence is here:-

http://www.mccannfiles.com/

Scroll down the left menu to madeleines fund accounts