Calpol

[SapphireSteel]

I don't get why people are making an issue out of Calpol or Calpol night. They're both made for children, after all, there wouldn't be any scandal if they had given either to Madeliene. Calpol's not chloroform, it would be pretty hard to give a fatal overdose to a child even if you have no medical training.

Plus, there's no evidence that they used it anyway, so this is all pure speculation.

I think the issue is if they knowingly accessed something they knew was illegal in the UK.

This would go an awfully long way toward explaining motive in Maddie's disappearance...two highly respected medical professionals knowingly dosing their children with an illegal substance, then killing one with it? Tut tut. Even Gerry wouldn't be able to bully his way out of that one.

That would most certainly have had a negative impact on their precious careers and reputations, if it had become known.

 

[Cappuccino]

Lol at Calpol Night as an illegal substance. Its a child's medicine, like junior aspirin, or junior Night Nurse.

 

[Donjeta]

I don't get why people are making an issue out of Calpol or Calpol night. They're both made for children, after all, there wouldn't be any scandal if they had given either to Madeliene. Calpol's not chloroform, it would be pretty hard to give a fatal overdose to a child even if you have no medical training.

Plus, there's no evidence that they used it anyway, so this is all pure speculation.

The therapeutic dose and the lethal dose of paracetamol aren't very far from each other so I don't think it would be so hard to give a child an overdose. But I suppose they know this as doctors.


Googling it I found that the LD50 for difenhydramin in rats is about 500mg/kg of body weight. The LD50 of paracetamol in rats is 1,944 mg/kg.
LD50 means the dose that is lethal to half of the subjects so some will die at lower doses.

Children's recommended dosages are about 10 mg of paracetamol/kg of bodyweight, so the LD50 in rats is only about five times that. (It's not necessarily just the same in humans but there are obvious problems in testing the LD50 in children so the rats'll have to do.)

The thing about paracetamol is that it usually doesn't kill you right off, it takes a while for you to die slowly of liver failure and I don't think Madeleine was reported to have any symptoms of that.

 

[brit1981]

There is no evidence they used medications illegally or legally. It just seems people are working backwards and trying to come up with a motive. It woudl be veyr hard to kill a child outright with paracetamol, normally they woudl be prior indications of liver damage (jaundice etc). But even if someohow Madeleine had overdosed and died of a paracetamol overdose, why the big cover-up. Children do manage to grab medications, parents do sometimes turn their backs and children get hold of somethign they should not have done. Surely it would have been simplier to say kate's back was turned looking after the twins and Madeleine grabbed the calpol and drank it (I loved calpol as a child and as it was a medicine as a toddler it never woudl have occurred to me it was dangerous). Also why not help her as it is not as if someone would have died instantly from it?

 

[SapphireSteel]

The motive is clear to me.

The "big cover up" had to be staged, to protect EVERYONE'S reputations and careers.

It is fairly obvious to me that the McCanns should have been charged with neglect, yet weren't...one of the mysteries of elitist Britain. If they had been charged, they would almost certainly have lost their jobs. Neglect charges automatically mean they are no longer "responsible persons" and they would be liable to lose their accreditation as practitioners...be "struck off".

Career and reputation appears extremely important to Gerry McCann. I cannot blame him, he started very low down in the pecking order of British society and has ended up near the top, through sheer hard work and application. He appears a man who is not about to give up his hard won lifestyle nor his sense of respectability and superiority that being one of the world's foremost cardiolgists no doubt brings.

If we add in the fact that their neglect may have led to a manslaughter/homicide investigation, they really are ruined...in their own eyes at least.

High stakes indeed.

The Tapas 7? Who knows what dirty little secrets were employed, and at what stage. Most of the Tapas were probably ignorant of what had occurred, but there have been questions about the exact nature of the relationship between these consenting adults. Certainly they spent every night partying with each other, extended eating and drinking sessions in exotic climates which may have led to any sort of intimate goings on...perhaps some on film...enough to keep peoples mouths shut in the short term, at least.

These people were relying on not being suspects. They attempted to steer the investigation from day one.

 

[brit1981]

The motive is clear to me.

The "big cover up" had to be staged, to protect EVERYONE'S reputations and careers.
Why? What were they covering up. No-one has come up with any evidence the Mccanns or their friends had anythign to cover up.

It is fairly obvious to me that the McCanns should have been charged with neglect, yet weren't...one of the mysteries of elitist Britain. If they had been charged, they would almost certainly have lost their jobs. Neglect charges automatically mean they are no longer "responsible persons" and they would be liable to lose their accreditation as practitioners...be "struck off".

They did not commit neglect under Portuguese law, and if Madeleine had died and her death been covered up, then it had to have been during the five thirty to eight thirty period when her mother was there which means neglect would not have come into it anyway. The McCanns and their friends admitted straight away thta they were only checking on the children after eight thirty so they did not try to cover that up. So what exactly are they trying to cover-up, does anyone have any evidence of anything?

Career and reputation appears extremely important to Gerry McCann. I cannot blame him, he started very low down in the pecking order of British society and has ended up near the top, through sheer hard work and application. He appears a man who is not about to give up his hard won lifestyle nor his sense of respectability and superiority that being one of the world's foremost cardiolgists no doubt brings.

With all due respect to Gerry, who thinks he is one of the worlds foremost cardiologists? he works at a general hospital near leicester. he has done very well, but hardly at the top of british society. And even if he was being a cardiologist hardly means someone is likely to dump the body of their first born like a piece of rubbish.

If we add in the fact that their neglect may have led to a manslaughter/homicide investigation, they really are ruined...in their own eyes at least.

They admitted leaving the children so what neglect are they covering up? If Madeleine died before eight thirty then neglect was not an issue, if she died after eight thirty then why admit leaving her if they were trying to cover up neglect, and how exactly between eight thirty and ten were they supposed to have found her dead, concocted a plan, and dispose dof her body given that witnesses including those outside the Tapas seven put neither gerry and kate alone together between eight thirty and ten, and only alone for about five minutes each in that time.
High stakes indeed.

The Tapas 7? Who knows what dirty little secrets were employed, and at what stage. Most of the Tapas were probably ignorant of what had occurred, but there have been questions about the exact nature of the relationship between these consenting adults.

Certainly they spent every night partying with each other, extended eating and drinking sessions in exotic climates which may have led to any sort of intimate goings on...perhaps some on film...enough to keep peoples mouths shut in the short term, at least.

Exactly what are you suggesting, and who has raised these questions and do they have any evidence? I would hardly think sitting at dinner and having wine with dinner constitutes partying. And if they were being blackmailed what is the time frame, and why. If madeleine died before dinner why the cover-up, and if she died after how is it possible that she was found dead, her body hidden, and he rparents came up with a plan and blackmailed everyone whilst at dionner where there were other guests and staff to hear?So far it just seems wild imaginings to now come up with a theory that blackmail and intimate filming were involved

These people were relying on not being suspects. They attempted to steer the investigation from day one.
I have never seen evidence of this.[/QUOTE]

 

[SapphireSteel]

The motive is clear to me.

The "big cover up" had to be staged, to protect EVERYONE'S reputations and careers.
Why? What were they covering up. No-one has come up with any evidence the Mccanns or their friends had anythign to cover up.

It is fairly obvious to me that the McCanns should have been charged with neglect, yet weren't...one of the mysteries of elitist Britain. If they had been charged, they would almost certainly have lost their jobs. Neglect charges automatically mean they are no longer "responsible persons" and they would be liable to lose their accreditation as practitioners...be "struck off".

They did not commit neglect under Portuguese law, and if Madeleine had died and her death been covered up, then it had to have been during the five thirty to eight thirty period when her mother was there which means neglect would not have come into it anyway. The McCanns and their friends admitted straight away thta they were only checking on the children after eight thirty so they did not try to cover that up. So what exactly are they trying to cover-up, does anyone have any evidence of anything?

Career and reputation appears extremely important to Gerry McCann. I cannot blame him, he started very low down in the pecking order of British society and has ended up near the top, through sheer hard work and application. He appears a man who is not about to give up his hard won lifestyle nor his sense of respectability and superiority that being one of the world's foremost cardiolgists no doubt brings.

With all due respect to Gerry, who thinks he is one of the worlds foremost cardiologists? he works at a general hospital near leicester. he has done very well, but hardly at the top of british society. And even if he was being a cardiologist hardly means someone is likely to dump the body of their first born like a piece of rubbish.

If we add in the fact that their neglect may have led to a manslaughter/homicide investigation, they really are ruined...in their own eyes at least.

They admitted leaving the children so what neglect are they covering up? If Madeleine died before eight thirty then neglect was not an issue, if she died after eight thirty then why admit leaving her if they were trying to cover up neglect, and how exactly between eight thirty and ten were they supposed to have found her dead, concocted a plan, and dispose dof her body given that witnesses including those outside the Tapas seven put neither gerry and kate alone together between eight thirty and ten, and only alone for about five minutes each in that time.
High stakes indeed.

The Tapas 7? Who knows what dirty little secrets were employed, and at what stage. Most of the Tapas were probably ignorant of what had occurred, but there have been questions about the exact nature of the relationship between these consenting adults.

Certainly they spent every night partying with each other, extended eating and drinking sessions in exotic climates which may have led to any sort of intimate goings on...perhaps some on film...enough to keep peoples mouths shut in the short term, at least.

Exactly what are you suggesting, and who has raised these questions and do they have any evidence? I would hardly think sitting at dinner and having wine with dinner constitutes partying. And if they were being blackmailed what is the time frame, and why. If madeleine died before dinner why the cover-up, and if she died after how is it possible that she was found dead, her body hidden, and he rparents came up with a plan and blackmailed everyone whilst at dionner where there were other guests and staff to hear?So far it just seems wild imaginings to now come up with a theory that blackmail and intimate filming were involved

These people were relying on not being suspects. They attempted to steer the investigation from day one.
I have never seen evidence of this.[/QUOTE]

The problem is the McCann Supporters definition of evidence tends to be flexible and variable depending on what issue you are discussing.

If you are discussing something that works for Team McCann, it immediately becomes unquestioned "evidence" even though it is little better than manufactured hearsay.

If you are discussing something clearly against McCann interest, suddenly "evidence" requires a much higher standard, such as testimony in a court of law, which we all know the McCanns have expertly dodged for five years now.

ullhair:

You cannot definitively state on one thread that the PJ are actively involved in covering up for a serial child murderer (with no evidence), then proceed to blindly ignore published fact on another.

This is called "bias" and is the enemy of any analytical thinker. It skews reasoning, which in turn causes thought processes and the conclusions reached to be flawed.

:shakehead:

There is clear, black and white confirmation that Team McCann requested (and got) British governmental interference and influence at the highest levels from the very beginning, which I would want explained if I were a British citizen.

 

[fabgod]

The problem is the McCann Supporters definition of evidence tends to be flexible and variable depending on what issue you are discussing.

If you are discussing something that works for Team McCann, it immediately becomes unquestioned "evidence" even though it is little better than manufactured hearsay.

If you are discussing something clearly against McCann interest, suddenly "evidence" requires a much higher standard, such as testimony in a court of law, which we all know the McCanns have expertly dodged for five years now.

ullhair:

You cannot definitively state on one thread that the PJ are actively involved in covering up for a serial child murderer (with no evidence), then proceed to blindly ignore published fact on another.

This is called "bias" and is the enemy of any analytical thinker. It skews reasoning, which in turn causes thought processes and the conclusions reached to be flawed.

:shakehead:

There is clear, black and white confirmation that Team McCann requested (and got) British governmental interference and influence at the highest levels from the very beginning, which I would want explained if I were a British citizen.

SapphireSteel
I must agree with you in regard to the McCann supporters, and the constant request for "evidence".
Its never going to change, in the face of "evidence" it is just ignored and the same all encompassing statement is trotted out for the millionth time.

There is no attempt whatsoever to try to engage in a constructive debate it is simply destructive, but I would guess that is the whole point of it.

It would be interesting to hear the response if for any reason there was a need to call in tracker dogs in a case that affected those same supporters who constantly bang on about how unreliable the dogs are, if one of their families had a missing person that could be found, I cant for one minute imagine any of them refusing the help, but then that would be the real world and not the fantasy one wouldn't it?

As for the request for evidence, show me one piece of evidence that points to an abductor, thats "evidence" not the tired old "there is no evidence to suggest the McCanns were involved"

 

[SapphireSteel]

It is farcical.

That word keeps popping up in this entire mess.

Isn't there a saying that the quickest way to become an idiot, is to argue with one?

:waitasec:

 

[Donjeta]

If there is a long post and you want to insert your own comments in the middle please could you make it easier to read by using the quote function.

It gets hard to figure out who said what when there are bolded bits and colored bits and quotes that aren't marked very clearly.

You can do it by highlighting the desired portion of the post and adding the quote tags using the quote bubble, or adding the tags by hand.
Write [ quote ] where you want the quote to start and [ / quote ] where it ends (remove the spaces, I put them there so the tags would show and not alter the layout)
Write your response after the end quote tag.
Put your next quote between the quote tags, add your response. You can do it as many times as you like.

Make sure that you've got as many end-quote tags as there are begin-quote tags, otherwise it doesn't look right.

If you quote someone quoting somebody else it would be nice to add "So-and so said" and "Whatshisface said" in the right spot.

 

[SapphireSteel]

If there is a long post and you want to insert your own comments in the middle please could you make it easier to read by using the quote function.

It gets hard to figure out who said what when there are bolded bits and colored bits and quotes that aren't marked very clearly.

You can do it by highlighting the desired portion of the post and adding the quote tags using the quote bubble, or adding the tags by hand.
Write [ quote ] where you want the quote to start and [ / quote ] where it ends (remove the spaces, I put them there so the tags would show and not alter the layout)
Write your response after the end quote tag.
Put your next quote between the quote tags, add your response. You can do it as many times as you like.

Make sure that you've got as many end-quote tags as there are begin-quote tags, otherwise it doesn't look right.

If you quote someone quoting somebody else it would be nice to add "So-and so said" and "Whatshisface said" in the right spot.

I don't bother with most of it.

I just pick out one bit, usually the last paragraph there's something to work with.

:lol:

 

[Tink]

To me, some of the most important evidence that makes me feel the McCanns are likely to be involved in what happened to Madeleine is their behaviour.

First, they spent very little time with their children on this family holiday, and left them alone while they were at the restaurant, even though they knew they had woken and cried previously. Not illegal, as we have been reminded over and over, but certainly a sign of some detachment and unconcern about the children's emotional needs.

Secondly, when Kate goes to the apartment and apparently discovers her child missing, she responds in what seems to me a very odd way. She leaves her twins alone in the apartment (not knowing if an abductor is still close by), does not stop to call for Madeleine (who might have just wandered outside, presumably) and runs all the way back to the restaurant to announce that the child has been taken.

Third, when the group comes back to the apartment, almost the first thing they do is make a time line of their activities that evening. What? If the child has been taken or has wandered away, what the heck does their timeline matter? Who cares who got to the table first or who checked when? Get out there and look for her!!

Fourth, there is a video taken soon after where Gerry is laughing about something and mocking I think one of the police. I have friends who have lost children (not a kidnapping, but a death) and they didn't laugh for a long time. Their emotions seem false. They go running

Fifth, in another video Kate comments that Madeleine will be giving whoever took her "what for" or "a piece of her mind" something like that. Knowing that if she was kidnapped, it is probably a sexual predator, that seems incredibly inappropriate. No concern for her child's probable suffering. To be able to say you think your child has been taken AND act as though she's probably having fun giving the person a hard time - well, to me that says you don't really think she's been taken.

Sixth, I believe that the day after Madeleine "went missing" they put the twins back in the creche. Again, not illegal, but more evidence of detachment from their children.

Seventh, there is a video of a TV show where the McCanns talk sadly about hoping to find Madeleine. Then the interview ends, and apparently not realizing the camera is still rolling, they get up laughing and smiling. Again, their emotions seem false.

Need to get supper made, or I could go on.

Oh, sorry, I think I have drifted away from the Calpol topic...

Tink

 

[Donjeta]

Sorry, nothing to do with Calpol but Tink's post reminded me of this article.

Kate McCann: My struggle to control 'very difficult' Madeleine
Last updated at 19:06 17 September 2007

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ontrol-difficult-Madeleine.html#ixzz26rGBAhJz

Kate McCann has revealed that she struggled to control Madeleine McCann after the birth of her and Gerry's twins, it was revealed today.

Missing Madeleine would run around 'screaming...shouting for my attention', the mother-of-three said.

In an interview given to a Portuguese magazine before she was named as a suspect in the case of the four-year-old's disappearance, Kate also said the first six months of Madeleine's life were "very difficult" and that the girl had suffered from colic.

Speaking about Madeleine's upbringing, Kate, a 39-year-old GP, told Portugal's Flash! magazine: "She cried practically for 18 hours a day. I had to permanently carry her around."
This period explained "the strong bond between mother and daughter", she said.

Speaking of the twins' birth

"She managed to deal perfectly with this new reality, although she herself at the time was still a baby.

"The worst thing is that she started to demand lots of attention, especially when I was breast-feeding them.
"She would run up and down screaming in the background, shouting for my attention."

There is a lot of annoyance at Madeleine seeping through. I dunno... It just seems odd to me that the parents of an abducted little toddler can come up with and tell the world about so many things that were wrong with the child and used to drive them up the wall. Who the heck cares that their child used to scream for attention if the only thing you want is to get the child back and to be able to give her attention again. It reads more like justifying doing something to Madeleine than begging to have her back.

And there is this odd quote:

"I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ontrol-difficult-Madeleine.html#ixzz26rIc75hC


It could be a translation issue since the original source is a Portuguese paper.

 

[SapphireSteel]

To me, some of the most important evidence that makes me feel the McCanns are likely to be involved in what happened to Madeleine is their behaviour.

First, they spent very little time with their children on this family holiday, and left them alone while they were at the restaurant, even though they knew they had woken and cried previously. Not illegal, as we have been reminded over and over, but certainly a sign of some detachment and unconcern about the children's emotional needs.

Secondly, when Kate goes to the apartment and apparently discovers her child missing, she responds in what seems to me a very odd way. She leaves her twins alone in the apartment (not knowing if an abductor is still close by), does not stop to call for Madeleine (who might have just wandered outside, presumably) and runs all the way back to the restaurant to announce that the child has been taken.

Third, when the group comes back to the apartment, almost the first thing they do is make a time line of their activities that evening. What? If the child has been taken or has wandered away, what the heck does their timeline matter? Who cares who got to the table first or who checked when? Get out there and look for her!!

Fourth, there is a video taken soon after where Gerry is laughing about something and mocking I think one of the police. I have friends who have lost children (not a kidnapping, but a death) and they didn't laugh for a long time. Their emotions seem false. They go running

Fifth, in another video Kate comments that Madeleine will be giving whoever took her "what for" or "a piece of her mind" something like that. Knowing that if she was kidnapped, it is probably a sexual predator, that seems incredibly inappropriate. No concern for her child's probable suffering. To be able to say you think your child has been taken AND act as though she's probably having fun giving the person a hard time - well, to me that says you don't really think she's been taken.

Sixth, I believe that the day after Madeleine "went missing" they put the twins back in the creche. Again, not illegal, but more evidence of detachment from their children.

Seventh, there is a video of a TV show where the McCanns talk sadly about hoping to find Madeleine. Then the interview ends, and apparently not realizing the camera is still rolling, they get up laughing and smiling. Again, their emotions seem false.

Need to get supper made, or I could go on.

Oh, sorry, I think I have drifted away from the Calpol topic...

Tink

:goodpost:

I think you have put your finger on what is so disturbing about this case. There are just too many instances of incredibly cold behaviour beginning way before May 3 2007.

I remember reading that the McCanns alone decided to breakfast in their room because they found the walk to the restaurant with the twins and Madeleine to much to manage. Now as a past parent of little kids, I know that mum and dad can easily contain three, if they work as a team.

Apparently the McCanns couldn't.

Was this because it was just tiresome and annoying, or was it because Madeleine simply would not behave? Common sense would dictate carrying a twin each and Madeleine strolling hand in hand between both parents...why did this arrangement not work for the McCanns? Was Madeleine simply too naughty?

If she was very naughty, or difficult, which Kate and the sleeping charts suggest, or excessively shy as they creche workers report, it could indicate some sort of behavioural issue. Couple that with the potential implications of her coloboma and the thought starts to creep in...was Madeleine somehow "surplus to requirements"? I find it unusual that in most photos of Madeleine she was not making eye contact with the camera. There also appears no pure joy or excitement...I have a million photos of my childrens eyes shining at me like beacons because I have caught them in some gleeful mischief or other. I see none of that in Madeleine's photos. She appears dull in almost every image I've seen of her. Am I alone in this?

Her parents had a lovely little pigeon pair, was it only then they realised that their older daughter was somehow flawed?

Could a driven egotist such as Gerry somehow convince Kate that she was imperfect, and as such, no longer needed in their family dynamic?

I see the (now famous) black and white portrait of the happy, posed McCanns in their casual jeans and white shirts, and cannot help but see it as a perfect little family of four, with Madeleine trailing at the periphery like an afterthought.

A more natural, loving pose would be parent at each side, children in the middle. Or father at the back or side, then mum, then the kids together. If you have ever sat for a portait with your children you will know it is natural instinct to grab them and pose with your arms around them (whether they like it or not ).

Most of the informal photos I have of my children are either of them doing something together, them doing something with their father, or them doing something with me. The formal ones are me and the ex with a child each on our knee...if we'd have had three, the third would have been holding a sibling, not sat off to the side like a red headed stepchild.

I also cannot recall a single photo of Madeleine with Kate apart from the portrait...correct me if I'm wrong.

Another oddity for such an allegedly cherished child.

The above is my OPINION ONLY therefore requires neither "proof" nor "evidence".

:cow:

 

[brit1981]

Sorry, nothing to do with Calpol but Tink's post reminded me of this article.

Kate McCann: My struggle to control 'very difficult' Madeleine
Last updated at 19:06 17 September 2007

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ontrol-difficult-Madeleine.html#ixzz26rGBAhJz





Speaking of the twins' birth


There is a lot of annoyance at Madeleine seeping through. I dunno... It just seems odd to me that the parents of an abducted little toddler can come up with and tell the world about so many things that were wrong with the child and used to drive them up the wall. Who the heck cares that their child used to scream for attention if the only thing you want is to get the child back and to be able to give her attention again. It reads more like justifying doing something to Madeleine than begging to have her back.

And there is this odd quote:



Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/art...ontrol-difficult-Madeleine.html#ixzz26rIc75hC


It could be a translation issue since the original source is a Portuguese paper.

This is one fo the stories that was found to be without any basis. There was a lot of this around this time. If you look at the leveson enquiry (it has its own homepage) you can see there were story after story that was just made up, the papers even admitted it.

 

[brit1981]

:goodpost:

I think you have put your finger on what is so disturbing about this case. There are just too many instances of incredibly cold behaviour beginning way before May 3 2007.

I remember reading that the McCanns alone decided to breakfast in their room because they found the walk to the restaurant with the twins and Madeleine to much to manage. Now as a past parent of little kids, I know that mum and dad can easily contain three, if they work as a team.

Apparently the McCanns couldn't.

Was this because it was just tiresome and annoying, or was it because Madeleine simply would not behave? Common sense would dictate carrying a twin each and Madeleine strolling hand in hand between both parents...why did this arrangement not work for the McCanns? Was Madeleine simply too naughty?

If she was very naughty, or difficult, which Kate and the sleeping charts suggest, or excessively shy as they creche workers report, it could indicate some sort of behavioural issue. Couple that with the potential implications of her coloboma and the thought starts to creep in...was Madeleine somehow "surplus to requirements"? I find it unusual that in most photos of Madeleine she was not making eye contact with the camera. There also appears no pure joy or excitement...I have a million photos of my childrens eyes shining at me like beacons because I have caught them in some gleeful mischief or other. I see none of that in Madeleine's photos. She appears dull in almost every image I've seen of her. Am I alone in this?

Her parents had a lovely little pigeon pair, was it only then they realised that their older daughter was somehow flawed?

Could a driven egotist such as Gerry somehow convince Kate that she was imperfect, and as such, no longer needed in their family dynamic?

I see the (now famous) black and white portrait of the happy, posed McCanns in their casual jeans and white shirts, and cannot help but see it as a perfect little family of four, with Madeleine trailing at the periphery like an afterthought.

A more natural, loving pose would be parent at each side, children in the middle. Or father at the back or side, then mum, then the kids together. If you have ever sat for a portait with your children you will know it is natural instinct to grab them and pose with your arms around them (whether they like it or not ).

Most of the informal photos I have of my children are either of them doing something together, them doing something with their father, or them doing something with me. The formal ones are me and the ex with a child each on our knee...if we'd have had three, the third would have been holding a sibling, not sat off to the side like a red headed stepchild.

I also cannot recall a single photo of Madeleine with Kate apart from the portrait...correct me if I'm wrong.

Another oddity for such an allegedly cherished child.

The above is my OPINION ONLY therefore requires neither "proof" nor "evidence".

:cow:

There are lots of photos of Kate with madeleine, and lots where Madeleine is laughing and smiling and even video releasd of her running around singing, and not one shred of evidence Gerry was an egotist. I do not find their behaviour odd or cold at all. maybe it is a class thing.
And as for the posing of the portraits, most I have seen have the parents traditionally sta behind the children, the McCann portrait is rather modern and relaxed. Again maybe this is a class thing.

 

[Donjeta]

This is one fo the stories that was found to be without any basis. There was a lot of this around this time. If you look at the leveson enquiry (it has its own homepage) you can see there were story after story that was just made up, the papers even admitted it.

I think you need to look it up and give us a link when you claim for a fact that a MSM article is without any basis.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There are lots of photos of Kate with madeleine, and lots where Madeleine is laughing and smiling and even video releasd of her running around singing, and not one shred of evidence Gerry was an egotist. I do not find their behaviour odd or cold at all. maybe it is a class thing.
And as for the posing of the portraits, most I have seen have the parents traditionally sta behind the children, the McCann portrait is rather modern and relaxed. Again maybe this is a class thing.

Ah yes the "class" thing in elitist Britain.

The "upper classes" apparently find absolutely nothing unusual in leaving babies alone in foreign hotel rooms, shoving them off to boarding school at the earliest possible opportunity, in the old days having entire wings of stately homes devoted to child rearing which was done largely by staff.

The trouble with this "class" theory is that both McCanns were "lower class", born and bred.

 

[SapphireSteel]

There are lots of photos of Kate with madeleine, and lots where Madeleine is laughing and smiling and even video releasd of her running around singing, and not one shred of evidence Gerry was an egotist. I do not find their behaviour odd or cold at all. maybe it is a class thing.
And as for the posing of the portraits, most I have seen have the parents traditionally sta behind the children, the McCann portrait is rather modern and relaxed. Again maybe this is a class thing.

Can you please post a link, as I said, I have not seen them.

TIA

 

[Donjeta]

I googled a few pages of image results and found one.

http://www.thesun.co.uk/sol/homepage/news/3570610/Kate-McCann-I-smashed-bed-in-rage-at-cops.html


They aren't too many about me with my kids either so I can't hold it against her. It's just that we're not too big on photography and when someone takes photos of the kids it's usually me so I don't end up in the photos.