The
purpose of this short article, intended mainly to those who are maybe
‘newcomers’ to the details surrounding Madeleine McCann’s reported
disappearance, is to answer the question: Have Gerry & Kate McCann been ‘cleared’ - formally or otherwise - of any involvement in the
disappearance, from the Portuguese holiday resort of Praia da Luz, of
their daughter?
If,
for example, you consult Wikipedia’s article on Madeleine McCann, it
states this: “In July 2008, the McCanns were cleared by the Portuguese
Attorney-General”. Is this really true?
Background
On
Thursday 3 May 2007, Kate McCann reported Madeleine as missing. She was
quite clear from the outset that she ‘knew’ Madeleine had been abducted.
Thus began the world’s biggest-ever search for a child claimed to be
missing. Hundreds of Portuguese police searched for Madeleine and then
formally investigated her disappearance. There were thousands of
reported ‘sightings’ of Madeleine in dozens of countries; all false.
Things
changed in August 2007. Some of Britain’s top police officers, based at
the National Police Intelligence Agency, including Britain’s top
criminal profiler, Lee Rainbow, advised Portuguese detectives that they
should investigate the possible involvement of the McCanns in
Madeleine’s disappearance. The Portuguese police called in
internationally-renowned British police dog handler Martin Grime to
examine locations in Praia da Luz, including the McCanns’ apartment and
their hired car.
His
two dogs - a cadaver dog and a bloodhound - found the smell of a human
corpse in nine separate locations connected to the McCanns, but nowhere
else. These included three locations in their apartment, two in their
hired car, and two on Kate McCann’s clothes. Blood and body fluids which
could have been from Madeleine McCann were found in some of the same
locations (see below).
On 7 September 2007, the investigation co-ordinator, Dr Gonçalo Amaral, pulled the McCanns in for questioning, and made them arguidos,
that is, formal suspects - on suspicion of hiding Madeleine’s body.
While Gerry McCann answered police questions, Kate refused to answer
any, replying ‘no comment’. She had every legal right to do so, but it
was strange behaviour for someone allegedly looking for her missing
daughter.
The
McCanns described the suspicions against them as ‘ludicrous’ and
‘unhelpful’. Gerry McCann later went on to claim that police sniffer
dogs were ‘notoriously unreliable’ - despite their increasing use by
police forces across the world, and their increasing reliability and
precision in detecting odours of a variety of materials, from bodies to
drugs, explosives and even certain medical conditions.
On
2 October 2007, Dr Amaral was removed from the investigation into
Madeleine’s disappearance. The Portuguese judicial authorities then
appointed a new investigation co-ordinator. He reported to the District
Attorney (not the Attorney-General as stated on Wikipedia) for that
region of Portugal, Jose de Magalhaes e Menezes. He issued a report on
the investigation, signed off by Deputy Attorney-General Joao Melchior
Gomes, which was made public in July 2008. The McCanns rely on this
report for their claim that they were ‘cleared’. So let’s now examine in
more detail the contents of his ruling.
The District Attorney’s ruling of July 2008 in the Madeleine McCann case
The
quotation that the McCanns rely on is this, found on page 4,649 of the
file of police documents in the case released to the public later that
year:
“I
order…the filing of the papers concerning the suspects Gerald Patrick
McCann and Kate Marie Healy [the surname then used by Dr Kate McCann],
as there is no evidence that they committed any crime defined by Article
277.1 of the Code of Criminal Procedure”.
But let us now look at some of the other statements in the Attorney-General’s report.
The contents of the District Attorney’s report
The District Attorney nowhere says the McCanns have been ‘cleared’.
In fact, on page 4648, he declares: “…it must be clearly understood that this is notequivalent to final and irreversible closure of the enquiry”.
On page 4647 of the same report, we also read these words:
“No
evidence was obtained which would enable the average person…to arrive
at a clear and honest conclusion as to how the child was taken from the
apartment (dead or alive, and if dead whether by negligent or wilful manslaughter)”. On the same page, the District Attorney adds: “We
do not have any grounds whatsoever for saying, with the necessary
degree of certainty, exactly what crime(s) may have been committed
against Madeleine McCann”.
The
District Attorney, earlier in his report (page 4605), summarises the
lack of evidence that Madeleine was abducted as follows: The possibility of abduction was exhaustively investigated. No ransom was ever requested, nor were there any sufficiently consistent clues found to support this theory”.
Later
in his report he notes: (page 4643, also pages 4597-8) “Whilst it is an
undeniable fact that Madeleine disappeared from Apartment 5A in the
Ocean Club, the manner and circumstances in which it happened are
unclear, despite the huge number of investigations, and the potential
range of crimes suggested. The potential range of crimes suggested throughout the enquiry - including abduction for sexual purposes or other uses and accidental death and hiding of the body - still stands”.
Contradictions
The
District Attorney’s report is clearly unhappy with the many
contradictions as between the different witness statements of the
McCanns and their friends. On page 4597 of his report, for example he
says:
“All
members of the group including the McCanns were questioned exhaustively
several times in order to compile as many facts as possible to help get
at the truth. The witnesses’ statements revealed important details
which were not entirely understood and coherent”. Later (page 4636), he
emphasised this point again: “There were certain points in the
statements and witnesses which, apparently at least, were contradictory
or lacked physical support”. He went on to list five important
contradictions, which can be summarised as follows:
[*]
Relating
to the claim by the McCanns’ friend Jane Tanner that she had walked up a
lane between the Ocean Club and the apartment at around 9.15pm on the
night Madeleine was reported missing
[*]
Relating to how the shutters and window of the children’s bedroom were found open with no sign of a break-in
[*]
Relating to doubts about how many times the McCanns and their friends checked on their children that night
[*]
Relating
to multiple contradictions between the evidence of Kate McCann and the
McCanns’ friend David Payne about an alleged meeting between them at
around 6,30pm on the evening Madeleine was reported missing
[*]
Relating
to the claims by Jane Tanner that she really saw someone walking with a
child near the McCanns;’ apartment at around 9.15pm that evening.
The refusal of the McCanns and all their friends to take part in a reconstruction of the events of 3 May 2007
In
order to get at the truth about what really happened on the day
Madeleine was reported missing, the Portuguese police wanted to bring
the McCanns and their friends back to Portugal for a reconstruction. They all refused to attend. The District Attorney says (page 4597):
“Despite every effort by the Judiciary Police and the Public Prosecutor’s Office, this was not possible”.
Almost in despair, towards the end of his report, he writes (page 4638):
“Although
the Portuguese authorities did everything to facilitate their journey
to Portugal, for reasons unknown, and after clarifying the many
questions they raised about the need for the journey, they decided not
to attend. The people most prejudiced were the McCanns
themselves, who lost the opportunity to prove what they had always
protested, their innocence. It also hindered the investigation because the above facts remained unexplained”.
The evidence of two British cadaver dogs
Several
pages of the District Attorney’s report deal with the findings of an
internationally renowned British police dog handler, Martin Grime. He
was called in on the advice of the top ‘criminal profiler’ in the
National Police Intelligence Agency, Lee Rainbow, and another senior
British police officer, Mark Harrison. He took with him to Portugal two
so-called ‘cadaver dogs’, one, Eddie, trained to alert only to the scent
of a human corpse, and Keela, trained to alert to blood. On pages
4628-9 of his report, the District Attorney states that:
“The results of the search with these dogs, filmed and on file, were as follows:
Eddie ‘marked’ the following areas where he detected the odour of a human corpse:
[*]Area near wardrobe in McCanns’ bedroom in their holiday apartment
[*]Area near window of the lounge of the McCanns’ apartment
[*]An area in the garden below the veranda
[*]In a wardrobe containing the pink soft toy ‘Cuddle Cat’ at the villa rented by the McCanns after they left their apartment
[*]An item of clothing belonging to Kate McCann
[*]Another item of clothing belonging to Kate McCann
[*]A T-shirt of one of the children
[*]An area below the driver’s door of the Renault Scenic hired by the McCanns
[*]The key of the vehicle (which police had hidden in a firefighting sandbox)
Additionally, Keela, the ‘blood’ dog, alerted to human blood in all these places which were also ‘marked’ by Eddie:
[*]In the same place in the lounge in the apartment
[*]Below the tiles in the lounge, after the tiles had been taken up
[*]The bottom of the left curtain below the window in the lounge
[*]The bottom right-hand side of the boot of the Renault Scenic
[*]The storage pocket in the driver’s door, which contained the driver’s key
[*]The driver’s key (again, when it was hidden in a firefighting sandbox)”
The District Attorney added these three significant comments:
a)“The work of these dogs can be appreciated much better on film” (page 4629)
b)“These [particular] dogs have been used successfully many times by Scotland Yard and the FBI” (page 4630), and
c)“Scientist Dr John Lowe, from the British Forensic Science Service, Birmingham, says that the [police] normally accept the word of the handler” (page 4630).
[
NOTE: There are many YouTube videos of the cadaver dogs alerting to the
odours of a human corpse and blood in the McCanns’ holiday apartment,
on some of their clothes, and in their hired car. Here are some links:
Towards
the end of his report, the District Attorney refers again to the alerts
of the two dogs, and to the other evidence in the case, and writes this
(page 4635):
“The
fact that the parents were the last people known to have been with
Madeleine, alive and in a known place, particularly with the possibility
of a body having been in the apartment and in the vehicle used by the
parents…meant they had to be placed under suspicion. The parents had no
plausible explanation for these facts. Faced with the evidence produced
by the dogs and the laboratories, they had to be named as suspects…”
It
should be clear from these many quotations from the District Attorney’s
report - the very report that the McCanns rely on to claim that they
have been ‘cleared’ - that the report does notclear
them. On the contrary, as can be seen, even in this District Attorney’s
final report, there remain many grounds for suspecting the McCanns of
active involvement in the disappearance of their daughter. The original
investigation co-ordinator, Dr Amaral, commented: "This is not a
declaration of innocence".
An
article in the Portuguese newspaper in July 2008 pointed out that: “The
case will remain classed by the appointed prosecutor, Magalhães e
Menezes, as one of possible homicide and hiding a body. Although the
McCanns will no longer be formal ‘suspects’, archiving the case does not
remove the Police’s suspicions against the couple”.
What other indications are there that we should not treat the McCanns as ‘cleared’?
In
this short article, we don’t have the space to deal with the actual
evidence that suggests that the McCanns were involved in their
daughter’s disappearance. All we will do is simply point to the simplest
ways for people to explore this issue further. Here are a few
suggestions for you to consider:
[*]Read
the book on the case, ‘The Truth of the Lie’, by the original
co-ordinator of the investigation to Madeleine’s disappearance, Dr
Goncalo Amaral. Published in Portuguese in 2008, it gives a first-hand
account of his investigation and the evidence he found. Translated and
published in nine European languages already, an English translation may
be read online here:
[*]Watch
the documentary for Portuguese TV made by Dr Amaral about the Madeleine
McCann case. Seen by millions already, it summarises the evidence in
his book. Watch it on YouTube, complete with English subtitles, here:
[*]Read the
hard-hitting interim report of Inspector Tavares de Almeida, filed on
10 September 2007, three days after the McCanns were made suspects. It
explains in clear terms all the evidence that led to them being pulled
in for questioning and made formal suspects. You can read it online (and
print off a copy) here:
There’s also a useful library of research articles there.
There’s lots more on the internet. The above are just ‘tasters’ to get you started.
What others have said on whether or not the McCanns have been ‘cleared’
Many
current and former police officers, other experts and writers continue
to cast serious doubt on the McCanns’ version of events. Here are just a
few quotations from them:
Moite Flores, former police inspector
and now political commentator in Portugal: “The only thing proven was
that there was no abduction. I have no doubt that the child died”
Lee Rainbow, Britain’s top criminal profiler: “Madeleine's
father was the last one to see her alive. The family is a lead that
should be followed. Contradictions in Gerald McCann's statements might
lead us to suspect a homicide”.
Assistant Chief Constable of Leicestershire Police
(2007): “While both or one of [the McCanns] may be innocent, there is
no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's
disappearance”.
Former top British detective, John Stalker: “My gut instinct is that some big secret is probably being covered up”.
Ricardo Paiva, one of the chief detectives on the original investigation, told a Lisbon court in January 2010: “I
share Gonçalo Amaral’s statement in the book. Maddie died, probably in a
tragic accident, and all indications point towards the parents hiding
the body”. Director of the Portuguese National Counter-Terrorism Unit, Luís Neves: “Hiding a body and accidental death are possibilities”.
Breaking down in tears, distraught Kate said of the Portuguese police:
“They want me to lie – I’m being framed.
“Police don’t want a murder in Portugal and all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they’re blaming us.”
The problem is, kate doesn't leak that it was an accident where they panicked and covered up.
First she says "I'm being framed."
This then implies that evidence exists proving Maddie is dead.
This
evidence has then been found by someone, probably the PJ, and then
placed in locations and on items that would link kate to a dead Maddie.
The
only evidence found that would frame kate are the body fluids in the
hire car and in the apartment behind the sofa,and the reactions of the
blood and cadaver dogs.
The cadaverine scent could come from any dead person, dogs cannot tie a specific cadaverine scent to a specific person.
The body fluids are a different matter.
They can be tested and blood group and DNA learned.
Even in cases where the sample isn't ideal, a lot can still be learned to exclude certain groups of people, male or female.
In
this case we learned that 15 of 19 markers showed it could have come
from Maddie, 4 markers were too damaged to be conclusively identified.
This does not exclude Maddie as being the donor despite what their supporters claim.
This was a big help to the mccanns.
Portugal
requires a 15/15 match.Only a select number of STR markers are used in
forensic DNA profiling (10 in the UK and 13 in the US)
In the UK they would now be cooling their heels in a prison cell.
Kate tells us though that she is being framed.
This means that she has told us that the evidence found in the apartment and hire car does in fact belong to Maddie.
This
also tells us that, at that point, Maddie was in a physical condition
that would allow for samples to be taken and then placed in the hire car
and apartment.
What would not be known is when said samples were obtained from Maddie's remains.
They
could have been obtained at some point early in the investigation
within a couple of days of her alleged abduction or, they could have
been obtained any time up to the point the cadaver dogs were brought in.
The
problem here though is, if the samples had been obtained early on
within a couple of days, how would they know to plant the incriminating
evidence in the car which would become the car the mccanns hired 25 days
later?
The police could be the ones who planted the evidence.
However, it could also be gerry or another member of the tapas 7.
Even gerry's family admitted they were expecting charges to be filed against kate.
It
would suit his needs perfectly and fit his personality if he planted
the evidence on kate's pants, the child's red t shirt and cuddle cat as
well as in the apartment and hire car.
Should arrests be made then kate was the fall guy, the evidence implicated on her as nothing was found on any of his clothing.
If
the samples had been obtained early on in the saga, how would the
samples have been placed where they were found without attracting
attention, especially the hire car?
The first thing done would be to see who had hired said car previously and who had access to it.
It
still doesn't explain why if the samples were obtained to frame kate,
why no mention was made of finding her remains or anything relating to
Maddie
Since this is what kate is claiming, why then did the PJ not
go the whole hog and announce they had found Maddie's remain and that
charges would now be filed against those involved in her death and
subsequent disposal.
If the PJ had found Maddie's remains, why did
they then conceal her remains again after getting a few samples and then
plant said samples to frame kate?
The case would have been solved within days or weeks.
Millions
would not have been wasted on chasing imaginary sightings or following a
specific remit limiting the investigation of both the police and
private investigators to that of an abduction of a live child.
Kate would be cooling her heels in prison, gerry gets custody of the children and probably a book and movie deal, maybe more.
He
disappears into the sunset, away from public view perhaps to be tempted
out and back into the limelight with a role on some important board or
maybe with a political role, maybe even a position in the House of
Lords, an institution worthy of his knowledge and expertise.If she tried
to implicate him, he could plead that he was as deceived as us, he was
shocked when he learned the truth, or, that he lied to protect his
children and kate's mental health issues.\
Alternatively.\
He
tried to get her the help she needed figuring that since Maddie was
dead, no good could come from admitting what really happened.
He was doing what any loving father and husband would do.
Cue
the tears and a new fund to provide the twins with a secure future and
perhaps a new book or movie deal showing how much he suffered yadda
yadda.
We know the PJ have made no such announcement then or since.
We
still get so called sighting cropping up in the media which are swiftly
debunked, usually when something that paints the mccanns in a bad
light or is sensitive to them such as Dr. Amaral's damages case.
Since
the PJ have not announced finding her remains nor produced her body,
the obvious conclusion is that kate was not being framed as she claimed.
She
has admitted that the evidence found, specifically the body fluids,
are in fact from Maddie, the child they claim was abducted and is still
alive contrary to all the statistics.
“Police don’t want a MURDER in Portugal"
This is the big open mouth insert feet moment.
The leaked admission of what happened to Maddie.
The
mccanns and chums, their extended family and not forgetting clarrie,
all claim Maddie is still alive and not seriously harmed (what do they
think paedophiles will be doing to Maddie if she were alive?)
Now, if Maddie was still alive as alleged, what kate would and should have said if she was innocent of any involvement is:
“Police don’t want AN ABDUCTION in Portugal".
An abduction is what was alleged to have happened and would be at the forefront of kate's mind.
Since
she has already told us there is evidence to show Maddie is dead and
that the Police are framing her with said evidence, the next expected
statement would be:
“Police don’t want a DEATH/CHILD'S DEATH in Portugal"
This allows her to admit Maddie is dead and that evidence exists proving such.
It allows for her to claim it was an accidental death, a death allowed for by Dr. Goncalo Amaral.
This could be that she fell off the sofa after being sedated, banged her head or broke her neck or whatever and died.
They
found Maddie dead, panicked because of what an autopsy would reveal
(long term sedation or signs of abuse of some kind) and concocted a plan
to fake an abduction.
An autopsy would reveal things they didn't
want revealed, things that could result in loss of the twins, loss of
their medical licenses, their jobs, their home, their friends and
status.
Better to admit to a lesser crime and, if needs be try and wangle a plea deal than have the truth come out.
Reputations though damaged would eventually be repaired, they would be just another footnote in the pages of history.
Forgotten by the public in the next big story involving a child, more so the more years that pass.
Perhaps a passing mention in future media stories decades down the line..
However kate didn't say that.
Kate leaked the truth of what really happened.
Kate told the world it was a MURDER. Not manslaughter. Not negligent homicide. Not
a death caused by accident, such as kate and gerry having yet another
row and when it got physical (remember all the bruising on kate's wrist
and arms?) and Maddie just didn't get out the way quick enough, was hit,
punched or roughly shoved resulting in her falling and banging her head
or breaking her neck.
MURDER.
We don't know if this murder was preplanned, especially given the demeaning language when referring to Maddie.
The distancing language by apparently the family and extended families.
This would provide a motive.
Maddie was no longer wanted, no longer considered a apart of the family.
She was perhaps considered a burden,
The fact that Maddie's body had to be disposed of.
The fact that kate refused to answer the question about handing Maddie's care to another family member.
Or.
If her murder was a direct result of another crime being committed against her such as physical or sexual abuse.
Perhaps
kate had simply had enough of a demanding, attention seeking Maddie, a
child who may have pressed one of kate's buttons once too often and kate
lost it and lashed out in the temper we know she has.
We know Maddie was a victim of murder, of a homicide, whether deliberate or accidental for kate has told us so.
"all the publicity about them not having paedophile laws here, so they’re blaming us.”
Their
laws are lax, this is a given, however the UK also has a dubious track
record for dealing with paedophiles, especially high ranking ones such a
politicians, celebs, sports stars, the media and such like.
Kate has to blame it on Portugal in order for the abduction claim to have any chance of being believed.
The mccanns have to blame anyone except themselves and members of the tapas 7.
The publicity strangely enough has pretty much all come the mccann camp.
We
were being responsible parents by allegedly leaving our toddlers home
alone in an unlocked apartment and it was Portugal's poor laws that
allowed a paedophile to get into our unsecured apartment and abduct
Maddie.
It is all Portugal's fault not ours.
So is used to explain something was said or done.
Here she is blaming the Portuguese for what happened to Maddie rather than accepting any kind of responsibility.
Responsibility is something neither of the mccanns nor their chums have accepted or admitted to.
The mccanns even claimed they were advised that they were being responsible parents.
They have, to date, declined to tell just which esteemed and expert personage told them this.
Perhaps they shopped around until they found someone who, given enough incentive, said what they wanted.
Kate is preempting the question she thinks is coming, she is using words thought by the mind a microsecond before being spoken.
Here
she is thinking paedophile laws and how lax they are and why the
Portuguese are blaming herself and gerry and possibly the rest of the
tapas 7.
Perhaps this is why Portugal was chosen for the
vacation, the very early season where there wouldn't be too many
tourists around sticky beaking into private business and what was not
their concern.
Whatever happened to Maddie, kate has admitted Maddie is dead, that it was a murder.
It is worth noting the pronouns kate uses. I and ME in relation to lying and being framed thus taking ownership.It is first person singular.
Note the change in pronoun though when it comes to the publicity about not having paedophile laws.
Here the pronoun changes to US.
Here she indicates unity and shared cooperation.
It is a first person plural pronoun.
It shows the spreading around and sharing of involvement or guilt.
Often
seen with children and teenagers when caught and they say we all did it
or everybody was doing it.It minimises their own personal involvement
whilst implicating others.
It minimises her own personal involvement whilst implicating others.
Is this perhaps the reason for the choice of location, the time of year and the people invited to share the vacation with them?
Every time one of them speaks, they leak more marbles of truth.
I
wonder if sometimes kate leaks deliberately in order to hasten the end
of all the stress, the lies and to allow her to grieve openly and
publicly as Maddie then gets her dignified burial.
Even though
she is involved, she can begin the process of healing as can the twins,
who will have to deal with the emotional fallout of knowing their were
lied to for the last 9 years by their parents, their extended family,
those they trusted
I hope all concerned accept the help that is offered.
It is the first step to healing.
The first step in the process of being allowed to finally grieve.
It is the first step in finally accepting responsibility for their actions and accepting the consequences.
It is the first step in beginning a new future.
Was Madeline McCann moved in a bag? David Payne was asked about this.
Taken from David Paynes rogatory statement, answering a question about the 'bag'. He insists Gerry didn't have one.
1485 "What about a kit bag' Would they have a kit bag with them?"
Reply "Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know, err I mean I used to be a squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''
In
the SCAN technique of Statement Analysis, as taught by Avinoam Sapir
(LSI SCAN) we recognize that each individual has a personal, subjective,
internal dictionary and it is the work of SCAN to "decode" this.
For example, in teaching interviewing, I ask people to write down what comes to mind when I say the word "boy" aloud.
This word would appear to be quite simple, and not in need of definition nor clarity. Not so.
Here are some of the responses to the word "boy":
1. Newborn at the hospital
2. 21 year old adult in the military
3. 8 year old in Little League
4. 25 year old who has "failed to launch"
Note
the distance between in the ages alone! This is why SCAN does not
"interpret" one's words, but seeks to enter into the subject's own
personal dictionary. Exempt from this principle are:
Pronouns
Articles
Objective Time on a Clock
Pronouns
are instinctive and highly reliable for guidance. When one says "we",
we know that the one was not alone, for example.
Articles are also instinctive and are reliable: "I met a man and he drew the gun on me..." Uh oh.
Therefore,
a follow up question (or two) is necessary to allow the subject to
interpret for himself. This is critical in the topic of human
sexuality, as President Clinton has well exampled.
"I was making love to her" spoken in 1945 means something entirely different than the exact same words spoken today.
We
now need to know what a "kit bag" is, especially since it comes from a
different culture. The subject, himself, gives us some help:
Err he certainly didn't have a great big tennis bag or a, you know,
The
word "certainly" indicates sensitivity about having a bag. "Certainly"
indicates that he wants us to accept something without question. We do
not.
Next, we note that he does not say that "he" did not have a
bag, only that he did not have a "great big" tennis bag. Follow up
questions:
What kind of bag did he have?
Did he have a tennis bag?
Was it a small bag?
Was it a big bag, but not a "great" big bag?
We use the subject's own words and get him to clarify for us.
For him, it is not just a bag, and it is not just a big bag, but a "great big bag"
The
words, "you know" are a habit of speech, and like any habit, we note
when it arises and when it does not. It shows an acuteawareness of the
presne e of the Interviewer or the audience. I use it when I get a bit
nervous before a crowd, for a variety of reasons, but especially when
bringing forth a principle that I know will be initially resisted. The
Reliable Denial, when in the presence of law enforcement students, is
one such point. Jaded from street interviews, it is difficult to get
them to accept this phenomena because it appears too simple. I
understand. I trusted Mr. Sapir's judgement because I was so impressed
with his work, that I presupposed it to be true. Thousands of
interviews (not hundreds) has only confirmed his genius for me, and the
high level of reliability of this principle.
err I mean I used to be a
squash, a semi-professional squash player and you know they certainly didn't have anything that I would call a kit bag from days when I played''
As parents of kids over than 7 know, where there is a "that", there is a "this."
"I
didn't do that, Mom!" means that the child did something. Just not
"that", and a follow up question will show what it is the little boy
did!
"The teacher said you ran after Sally Sue and pulled her
hair!" "I didn't do that, Mom!" is true enough: he didn't run after
her when he pulled her hair: she was standing right next to him.
The
repetition of being a "squash player" is sensitive, as he uses it as a
way to persuade that he would know what "that" bag looks like. I
believe that they did not have a squash bag which would be "that", but
this indicates that they did have a bag ("this") which is, as a "semi
professional" can attest to!
Note that "certainly" is repeated,
further weakening his assertion. He is deceptive. He is truthful that
they likely did not have the same bag he had when he played semi
professional squash, but his purpose of persuading us reveals his own
weakness. The bag may have been very close to a squash bag ("when I
played" is even further weakening) and likely some squash players today
use it (just not when he played!).
This is a bit of "linguistic
gymnastic" stretching of words, which belie the need to stretch.
Simple truth would have looked like this:
"They didn't have a bag."
If
he is not able nor willing to say this, we won't say it for him. Next
comes the admission that there was a bag, but before we leave the
statement, did you "follow the pronouns" in your analysis?
He went from "he" to "they."
Oops.
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "You know, a lot of sport, err if they had a rucksack with some water in that would be, you
know, about as big as it got, you know a small rucksack. But it certainly wasn't a big tennis, you
know, things that you could put a tennis racquet in.'
1485 "Yeah.'
Reply "There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that,
it would have been just purely, if they had anything''
The
subject is cutely aware that the inference is not putting a tennis
racquet in the bag, but a small child. His repetition of "tennis
racquet" (as seen in repetition) allows us to know that he is not
plainly speaking of what he knows.
Another excellent 'Madeleine' film from the Richard D. Hall collections, all of which can be found here: http://www.madeleinefilms.net/
At the end of this 'Gambling with Paedophiles' film, Richard puts out an appeal for someone who has an excellent command of both the English and Portuguese languages who can translate accurately English into Portuguese. The MMRG are looking to put Portuguese subtitles into Richard's films. Fee to be negotiated. We already have someone who has volunteered to do the editing work for us, we just need a translator.
Gerry McCann talks about sedatives (BBC Panorama 19/11/07)
From PeterMac's free e-book: Chapter 5: Sedation
In this study we attempt to answer three questions
1 Were the twins sedated on the night of 3rd May 2007?
2 If so, were they sedated by an intruder ?
3 If so, but not by an intruder, then by whom ?
1 Were the twins sedated on the night of 3rd May 2007?
The question of sedation of the three McCann children is one which has caused problems since the very beginning.
Reported facts.
Around 10 pm 3rd May 2007 Kate McCann entered the apartment in the
holiday resort and reported Madeleine missing. The younger twins were
still in their travel cots in the same room, and were asleep.
What followed is a matter of public record. The apartment was
searched, several times, by many people, the surrounding area was
searched by large numbers of police and ex-pats and villagers, and huge
amount of activity was directed to discovering Madeleine’s whereabouts.
All were in vain.
BUT . . . during all of this commotion -
despite a window and shutters having been open for an hour on a cold night, despite the door slamming shut, despite curtains blowing into the room, despite their mother frantically opening and closing wardrobes and cupboards despite their mother rushing out screaming for help, despite the entire Tapas 7 group searching throughout the apartment, despite Kate and the Tapas group shouting Madeleine’s name outside, despite Gerry McCann’s closing and opening the shutters multiple times despite Mrs Webster’s similarly attempting to open the shutters but failing, despite the Police investigating the scene, despite Gerry’s “roaring like a lion” and then prostrating himself on the floor, despite both parents repeating this action and wailing despite Kate’s checking the twins for vital signs, despite the twins being lifted from their cots by people not their parents, and despite their being carried out into the cold night air, and to another apartment. [1.1]
Despite all of this . . . the twins did not wake
Kate McCann stated in 2011 that she had suspected sedation from the
very first. Given the above perhaps this is understandable. [1.2]
In her book, “madeleine’, which she described as “A Version of the Truth”, she says this explicitly.
3 May 2007 (NOTE: this information was not released until May 2011)
p. 75 “Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins, too?” [1.3]
She also reported this to the Officer in the case 3 August 2007 (NOTE: this information was not released until June 2008) “due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of
some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the
three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation
which Kate refers to being possible . .”[1.4] The McCanns then organised their own drug tests 24 September 2007
Forensic scientist from Control Risks take hair samples from Kate and the twins at the McCanns’ own request [1.5]
A family member was ‘allowed’ to release this to the press. 02 October 2007
“Madeleine was drugged by her abductor”, says her grandmother [1.6]
Gerry McCann reconfirms their suspicions 19 Nov. 2007 “Gerry McCann: The twins were still sleeping in the their cots so
. . . we tried to leave it as undisturbed as possible, and they slept
very soundly until we moved them out their cots into another apartment .
. which does make you wonder if there was [sic] any substances used to
keep them asleep.” [1.7] Independent witnesses report and confirm the McCanns’ suspicions25 April 2008 (referring to early May 2007) They also
wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that
the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the
abduction. [1.8] 5 Nov. 2007 Diane Webster - Fiona Payne’s mother:
“Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise
going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think
there was, they must have been err drugged with something.” . . . Q: “So how would you imagine that they may have been drugged?” DW: “Err by the abductor. I think Madeleine would have been drugged as well.” [1.9] 10 April 2008 Fiona Payne: “But they were
okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the
time it did seem weird . . . they didn’t wake up and, again, that was
quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people
that weren’t their parents, they didn’t, they didn’t wake up.”[1.10]
Their own private detectives make a statement 11 Oct. 2009 Former police detectives David Edgar and Arthur Cowley . . . are
convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007
fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out
all three children. The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months
old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were
taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the
detectives that they, too, must have been drugged. [1.11] And just before the release of her book ‘madeleine’, Kate says she believes they were drugged. 13 May 2011
Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken.
Kate McCann said the kidnapper who seized Madeleine may also have
drugged her other two children, as she launched a new appeal in the hunt
for her missing girl today.
Mrs McCann said she had to check that twins Sean and Amelie were still
breathing because they did not wake as they began a frantic search for
the missing three-year-old. [1.12]
Those then are the facts relating to the McCanns’ belief in sedation of the twins, and by extension, of Madeleine.
NOTE: Levels of sedation are assessed according to the The Ramsay Sedation
Scale. RSS. This was the first scale to be defined for sedated patients
and was designed as a test of rousability. The RSS scores sedation at
six different levels, according to how rousable the patient is. It is an
intuitively obvious scale and therefore lends itself to universal use,
not only in the ICU, but wherever sedative drugs or narcotics are given.
It can be added to the pain score and be considered the sixth vital
sign. Ramsay Sedation Scale
1 Patient is anxious and agitated or restless, or both
2 Patient is cooperative, oriented and tranquil
3 Patient responds to commands only
4 Patient exhibits brisk response to light glabellar (forehead) tap or loud auditory stimulus
5 Patient exhibits a sluggish response to light glabellar tap or loud auditory stimulus
6 Patient exhibits no response [1.13]
The twins are clearly in point 6 on the scale. They are failing
to respond to external stimuli, cold, light, noise - including
screaming, the inevitable jolting of the cots placed so close together
in a small room during the search and window / shutter procedures, human
touch, being picked up by person other than their own parents, and so
on. [1.14]
We should remember that Kate McCann and Fiona Payne are both qualified anaesthetists.
Even a non qualified parent should recognise the difference between a
child which was merely asleep, and one that was sedated. or unconscious.
We return to this aspect in the third question. So to restate the original question - were the twins sedated?
The reply must surely be, that having regard to all the available
evidence, we can confirm the parents’ and witnesses original and
subsequent thoughts and say that on the balance of probabilities - the twins Amelie and Sean McCann were sedated
We now turn to the second question
2 Were the twins sedated by an “intruder”.
Medical note for non-medical readers There are five routes for the administration of sedation. Injection, inhalation of gas, or by mouth are the most common three. Absorption per rectum or per vaginam are possible, but specialised and rare. All methods require some co-operation on the part of the patient.
* Injection of three small children without
raising the alarm is almost unthinkable. Intra-muscular injections take
between 3 and 15 minutes to work. Intravenous injection is difficult.
(Paediatric anaesthetics is a specialised subject: finding a vein is
more difficult than with an adult) Injection of three children, in
turn, in silence, is a suggestion which is difficult to accept by anyone
with experience of children.
* Administration of sedative by
mouth would require all three to be at least half awake, so they could
sit up to drink and swallow, and in any event drugs taken in this way
require time to act. The fastest acting such drugs in regular use take
around 20 minutes to begin acting. Each child, in turn, would need to have the drug administered. * Anaesthetic gas requires equipment for its effective administration, and leaves a distinctive smell. The classic “filling the room with chloroform”,
or other gas exists only in Victorian novels, and in any event would
overcome the intruder himself, unless he had breathing equipment, in
addition to the equipment for administering to the children. (It would
incidentally also require the window and door to be shut !) Even
properly administered gas inhalation normally requires time, measured in
minutes, before sedation begins. Again, each child would have to be sedated in turn.
Because
it has been raised, we must briefly consider the McCanns’ principal
private detectives, Edgar and Cowley, and their statement that
chloroform was used on all three children.[2.1]
Chloroform is the stuff of Victorian melodrama, and like ether has no
place in modern medical practice. It has a distinctive sweet smell that
lingers for a very long time. Inhalation of the vapour gives an
ice-cold feeling that can cause immediate vomiting. Any doctor, and
indeed any O level chemistry student knows and can immediately
identify chloroform. The liquid produces burn marks on the sensitive
skin round the nose and mouth, [2.2]
What is interesting is that the McCanns have allowed this suggestion to
remain in the public consciousness, and have never corrected the
impression given. Even less have they specifically repudiated the
possibility of the use of chloroform. Matthew Oldfield was asked in
detail about any unusual smell in the apartment when he entered. He
stated he detected nothing. [2.3]
As on commentator has aptly said, an intruder would need nothing more than a bottle of chloroform, a rag, and a kidney dish for the vomit. [2.4]
Given a sufficiently heavy dose a child could be unconscious in 15 seconds.
But importantly it would start to wake immediately the anaesthesia were
stopped. It would wake, cry, and probably vomit. It would NOT remain comatose for three or more hours, then drift into normal sleep, and then wake the next morning with no after effects. [2.5]
Observation.
Jane Tanner’s description of the “abductor’ did not include anaesthetic
equipment or gas cylinders, nor even a back pack in which they might be
carried, and nothing was found in the apartment or the immediate
surrounding area.
The “Window of Opportunity” The window of opportunity for an intruder has been discussed in
another study. This is a straightforward assessment based on the times
taken from Gerry McCann’s leaving the Tapas bar, walking to the
apartment, entering, seeing the children, completing the tasks he
reports, and then leaving by the patio doors. Jane Tanner who left the
table five minutes later by her own account, saw him talking to Jez
Wilkins the street a few seconds before she saw the person who the
McCanns now insist was the ‘abductor’ of Madeleine. [2.6]
Allowing for the time to exit the apartment and cross the car park to
the point where he was seen, gives the window of opportunity inside the apartment of around 1 minute and 20 seconds.
In that time he has to
• Enter the apartment
• Sedate all three children - in the dark
• Select Madeleine as the victim - in the dark
• Open the shutters and window - if he used the front door to enter
• Pick Madeleine out of her bed - in the dark
• Turn her round so that her head is now to his left, rather than to his
right, which is the way he would have approached her in the bed.
• Exit the apartment, either through the opened window and shutters, or
through the front door, which he must then close silently behind
him. and then
• Walk to the left along the path in front of the apartment, walk straight ahead across the car park, and then walk to the right
along the road, and cross the street in front of Jane Tanner, the
father of the very child he had just abducted, and another man who
has his own child in a buggy.
We
repeat, taking into account the travelling time, he has around one
minute and twenty seconds in which to achieve the first seven items on
the list
• No equipment or paraphernalia was found.
• There was no smell of anaesthetic gas
• Two children aged 2 years were left comatose for 10 hours
* When they woke no after effects were recorded. [2.7]
So far as can be ascertained - there is NO substance or technique known to medical science which can do this.
So to restate the original question - were the twins sedated by an intruder ?
The answer must be, that having regard to all the available evidence, we can surely say that on the balance of probabilities - the twins Amelie and Sean McCann were not sedated by an intruder. In fact the evidence and logic is such that this conclusion moves on the legal continuum a long way from merely “On the balance of probabilities” and very much further towards “Beyond a reasonable doubt”
We now turn to the third question
If the twins were sedated, but not by an ‘intruder” - then by whom ? Specifically we must ask whether the parents were involved
This is a more problematic issue. The parents clearly now accept
that the twins were sedated, and if they wish to deny the second answer
will have to draw on their medical and expert anaesthetic knowledge to
show why that conclusion is wrong, how it might have achieved, and what
substance or technique might have been used.
In the absence of such an explanation, however, it is surely justifiable
to continue to examine some features of this extraordinary case.
The McCanns have wavered between initial acceptance, through a period of
stout denial during which they aggressively threatened to sue, and
ultimately back to a clear statement that they now believe the children
were indeed sedated.
This is part of the genesis of the story. It repeats some of what was seen earlier. Initial recognition and acceptance 3 May 2007 (NOTE: this information was not released until May 2011)
p. 75 “Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins, too ?” [3.1]
5 May 2007 (NOTE: statement dated 25 April 2008) “They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would
suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to
facilitate the abduction.” [3.2]
3 August 2007 (NOTE: this information was not released until June 2008) “due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of
some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the
three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation
which Kate refers to being possible . .”[3.3]
August 2007 Q: Do you think the children were sedated?
A: There is no doubt. (Here he told an anecdote: that Kate called a
colleague of Gonçalo Amaral's in the PJ, in August, to ask them to check
the twins for traces of sedation. Apparently Kate was alone when she
called, and a bit upset. That same afternoon, Gerry called and cancelled
the request.)[3.4] First denials that the parents had used sedation August 2007 See previous entry. “That same afternoon, Gerry called and cancelled the request.” [3.5]
10 August 2007 ( or thereabouts) Gerry: “you know we’re not gonna comment, on anything but you know
there is absolutely no way we use any sedative drugs or anything like
that an’ you know we we have co-operated with the police we’ll answer
any queries ermm … any tests that they want to do. . . “ [3.6]
Implied acceptance of possibility24 September 2007
Forensic scientist from Control Risks take hair samples from Kate and the twins at the McCanns’ own request [3.7]
2 October 2007
“Madeleine was drugged by her abductor”, says her grandmother [3.8]
Resumed denials 20 October 2007
Scientific tests now support the denials by Gerry and Kate McCann that they ever sedated their children, it emerged yesterday.[3.9]
25 Oct. 2007 The McCanns, of Rothley, Leics, were asked if reports that they sedated their children were true. Cardiologist Gerry replied: "It is ludicrous. These sort of questions are nonsense and we shouldn't be giving them the time of day. There is absolutely no suggestion that Madeleine, or the children, were drugged. It's outrageous."[3.10]
Oct 2007
Oprah Winfrey "And then, there were the... the hurtful rumours
that you drugged Madeleine or that you gave her sedatives; that you
accidentally caused her... her death..." KM: (After a long pause) "I mean we know it's all lies." GM: "It's just nonsense you know, there's no... that people
can have theories and that's all it is, there's no evidence to suggest
any of that and it's absolute ludicrous, you know, and it's..."[3.11] Second acceptance of possibility 19 Nov. 2007 “Gerry McCann: The twins were still sleeping in the their cots so . .
. we tried to leave it as undisturbed as possible, and they slept very
soundly until we moved them out their cots into another apartment . . which does make you wonder if there was [sic] any substances used to keep them asleep.”[3.12] Independent Witnesses 25 April 2008 (referring to early May 2007)
They also wanted to know whether the PJ had any evidence that would
suggest that the person who took Madeleine had used any substance to
facilitate the abduction. [3.13] 5 Nov. 2007 Diane Webster - Fiona Payne’s mother:
“Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise
going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think
there was, they must have been err drugged with something.” . . .
“So how would you imagine that they may have been drugged?”
“Err by the abductor. I think Madeleine would have been drugged as well.” [3.14] 10 April 2008 Fiona Payne: “But they were
okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the
time it did seem weird . . . they didn’t wake up and, again, that was
quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people
that weren’t their parents, they didn’t, they didn’t wake up.”[3.15]
NOTA BENE: July 2008
Documents in the case including witness statements were released to the
public. At this point Diane Webster’s and Fiona Payne’s statements
(above) became public knowledge, and may have been seen by the McCanns
for the first time.
Public statements that it MUST have happened11 Oct. 2009Former police detectives David Edgar and Arthur Cowley . . . are
convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007
fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out
all three children. The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months
old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were
taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the
detectives that they, too, must have been drugged. [3.16]
13 May 2011
Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken.
Kate McCann said the kidnapper who seized Madeleine may also have
drugged her other two children, as she launched a new appeal in the hunt
for her missing girl today.
Mrs McCann said she had to check that twins Sean and Amelie were still
breathing because they did not wake as they began a frantic search for
the missing three-year-old. [3.17]
How then are we to make sense of this ?
Firstly we note that on occasion the question being asked is whether the
children were sedated, but the McCanns answer a totally different one.
The parents deny sedating the children themselves, but often do not
address the question of whether they were sedated by someone else.
Some forensic linguistics analysts have proffered views on why this might happen.
It is also striking that we are never told of the laboratory which
performed the analysis on the hair samples, we are never shown the
results, and in fact we have to turn to an Indian newspaper to find these details. Here it is stated that a company called TrichoTest performed the analysis. [3.18] [3.19]
And yet even then we have this strange passage, “All the hair samples produced negative results. While this didn’t
totally exclude the possibility that the children had been sedated,
especially given the time that had elapsed, it meant nobody else (including the PJ and the media) could prove otherwise.”[3.20]
The emphasis is not on the twins’ welfare or whether some noxious
substance had been administered. Kate McCann is purely concerned with
whether there is sufficient “proof” against the parents. But at the same time she is by implication admitting that the twins might have been sedated.
There are other bizarre aspects of the hair analysis. Laboratories
advertise their ability for analyse for a period of 90 days. The
McCanns’ samples were not taken until 24th September, almost six months =
144 days later. Although it is possible at that stage to test for
continuous drug use, it is not believed in any event that a single dose
of a drug, given in the tiny amount appropriate to a 2 year old would be
sufficient for successful identification on analysis.
Kate describes the process as leaving her looking as it she had alopecia. [3.21] The laboratories state they need one sample taken from close to the scalp, no larger than “a shoelace tip” [3.22]
Whilst this may simply be “journalistic licence” to evoke sympathy
from the reader, or to add some human interest, that could be accepted
if the book were not described as “very truthful”.
So we look to the statements
Gerry McCann made three statements. 4 May, 10 May, 7 Sept. 2007
Kate McCann made two statements. 4 May, 9 Sept. 2007
In each of these in relation to the continued sleeping of the twins
through the entire episode, and the possibility of sedation there is
precisely - NOTHING.
The whole issue is simply side-stepped. Even in the book it is glossed over
p. 75 “I wandered into the children’s bedroom several times to
check on Sean and Amelie. They were both lying on their fronts in a kind
of crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked
under their tummies. In spite of the noise and lights and general
pandemonium, they hadn’t stirred. They’d always been sound sleepers, but
this seemed unnatural. Scared for them, too, I placed the palms of my
hands on their backs to check for chest movement, basically, for some
sign of life. Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her
quiet? Had the twins, too? It was not until about 11.10pm that two
policemen arrived from the nearest town, Lagos, about five miles away.
To me they seemed bewildered and out of their depth, and I couldn’t
shake the images of Tweedledum and Tweedledee out of my head. I realise
how unfair this might sound, but with communication hampered by the
language barrier and precious time passing, their presence did not fill
me with confidence at all.” [3.23] There are some strange and worrying aspects to this extract.
The use of “wandered” as a verb of motion during this frantic phase of a search for a missing child.
On the previous and adjacent pages we find ”Yelled”, “hitting out at
things”, “banging my fists on the railings”, ” running from pillar to
post”, “ran back”, “dashed over”., “throwing open” “hurtling out”
“started screaming”,” was hysterical”, “sprinted back” and many
other more intensely active verbs clearly carefully selected to give a
real impression of terror, speed and urgency. [3.24]
Here we are given “wandered into the bedroom” as the verbal
phrase defining the action of the mother of an missing child checking
that her two remaining children who she suspected had been
anaesthetised, werestill alive ![3.25]
A number of other points surely present themselves for further comment.
• The strange way in which the children were lying,. Though this position is in itself not unusual, there is the fact that both were lying in the same way
• The fact that “despite the noise and pandemonium they hadn’t stirred” still less woken.
• Kate describing this as “unnatural”.
• Kate placing the palms of hands on their backs, to check for “chest movement”.
• Her chilling use of the phrase “. . .basically, for sign of life”
• Her thoughts “Had the twins too [been given some kind of sedative] ?”
For many people
this passage will sound quite extraordinary. Doctors, nurses, police
officers, ambulance crews, fire officers, paramedics, St John Ambulance
staff, and many others are taught in their basic training about the
importance of rousing people. Drunks, drug addicts, people with head
injuries, and those who have suffered smoke inhalation are roused, and
in some cases are to be shaken into consciousness. Failure to rouse a
patient should lead to immediate medical assistance being sought, or
transportation to the nearest casualty department.
Failure
regularly to rouse someone in a police cell is a very serious
disciplinary offence, the penalty for which may be dismissal from the
service.
But we are told that a qualified anaesthetist merely “. . placed the palms of my hands on their backs to check for chest movement, basically, for some sign of life”. [3.26] The Royal College of Nursing is quite clear about this. In “Standards
for assessing, measuring and monitoring vital signs in infants,
children and young people - RCN guidance for children’s nurses and
nurses working with children and young people” they say, very simply
Infants and children less than six to seven years of age are predominantly abdominal breathers therefore, abdominal movements should be counted.
They emphasise “the particular vulnerability of infants and young children to rapid physiological deterioration”
And later discussing recovery room protocols • following a simple procedure – vital signs should be recorded every 30 minutes for two hours, then hourly for two to four hours until the child is fully awake, eating and drinking.[3.27]
When we add to this the curious way the children were lying, on their fronts in a kind of crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked under their tummies.“
which clearly must restrict the abdominal breathing in a child of that
age, the failure by either of the parents or the other qualified
anaesthetist present to modify this posture is very difficult to
understand.
Levels of sedation are assessed according to the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS)
1 Patient is anxious and agitated or restless, or both 2 Patient is cooperative, oriented and tranquil 3 Patient responds to commands only 4 Patient exhibits brisk response to light glabellar (forehead) tap or loud auditory stimulus 5 Patient exhibits a sluggish response to light glabellar tap or loud auditory stimulus 6 Patient exhibits no response[3.28]
The twins are clearly in point 6 on the scale. They are failing
to respond to external stimuli, cold, light, noise - including
screaming, the inevitable jolting of the cots placed so close together
in a small room during the search and window / shutter procedures, human
touch, and then being picked out of their cots by persons not their
parents, taken outdoors into the dark and cold air, into the light and
warmth of a neighbouring apartment, where they are placed in different
cots.
it is hard to believe that neither parent would have picked them up, but
there is no evidence that they did. It is also worthy of note that
Dr. Fiona Payne was with Kate McCann at this time. It seems no one was
with the twins.
Although it is capable of interpretation this piece is placed in the
narrative of the book around 11:00pm, an hour after the discovery. It
is placed between the incident when both Kate and Fiona Payne shout “something short and to the point” at Mrs Fenn, and the arrival of the police at 11:10pm. [3.29]
Kate herself states
p. 74 “He’d [Gerry had] asked Fiona to stay with me. I was in
our bedroom, on my knees beside the bed, just praying and praying and
praying. . . “ [3.30] The next paragraph talks of Kate’s “sitting on the bed”
whilst Emma Knights from Mark Warner came in, and then goes on to talk
about Kate’s being out on the veranda when another woman appeared, and
so on.
In other words neither doctor was in the twins’ room performing any
clinical checks for vital signs, or carrying out any procedures for
rousing them.
Both doctors, each of whom is a qualified anaesthetist, failed to address the simplest but the most important questions. Why can they not be roused ? And then - Given that they cannot be roused, what procedure, and / or what
substance has been used to sedate these two children to this extent ?
We now know that any sedation must have been administered within 1
minute and 20 seconds, in a narrow time window between Gerry McCann’s
leaving the apartment, and Jane Tanner’s seeing the abductor carrying
Madeleine, so obviously the substance was extremely fast acting, and
very powerful.
The two anaesthetists did not have that information, but must
nevertheless have believed that sedation had occurred within the
previous half hour between Oldfield’s visit and Kate’s.
So what precisely did the two qualified anaesthetists assume had been used, and how did they suppose it had been administered ? Why did they accept that the dosage had been exactly correct for children of this age and size ?
Was it still being absorbed and was the level in the tissues still
increasing ? Were they coming round, or were they drifting into even
deeper level of unconsciousness, coma, and possible death ? What
were the likely or possible side effects - vomiting, breathing
difficulties, lung congestion, ventricular or atrial fibrillation, brain
damage, liver or kidney failure, or any of the many other possible
sequelae that both will have studied at length and been examined on in
detail. What precisely did they identify or diagnose ?
Medical Note for non-medical readers - shortened (see earlier)
There are five routes for the administration of sedation.
* Injection
* By mouth
* Inhalation of anaesthetic gas
being the three most usual.
Observation.
Jane Tanner’s description of the “abductor’ did not include anaesthetic
equipment or gas cylinders, nor even a back pack in which they might be
carried, and nothing was found in the apartment or the immediate
surrounding area.
Reminder
The McCanns, and many of their Tapas7 friends are medically trained.
Both Dr. Kate McCann and Dr. Fiona Payne are trained to a high standard in anaesthetics. In fact both were Junior Registrars.
Their continued insistence on sedation by an ‘intruder’ as a viable
proposition, when combined with the unambiguous admission in their
statements, in interviews, and in the book, of clearly defined
professional negligence in their manifest failure to provide, or even
consider, any form of resuscitation or aftercare, is baffling.
But these qualified anaesthetists simply put a palm on a child’s back,
or a finger under its nose, (according to Dr Fiona Payne). There is no
record of whether each child was turned, undressed and examined minutely
for needle stick marks, or had its mouth, nose and throat cleared or
checked for the presence of a chloroform soaked rag, had its breath
smelled for evidence of drugs, gas or ketones, had its pupil response
monitored, had its heart rate taken, had other reflexes tested, or was
roused until fully conscious. These would be standard procedures.
There is no record of proper and medically correct post-anaesthesia care. None. Nothing.
On the contrary, what evidence there is points to the twins’ having
simply been left for a considerable period unattended, and then some
two hours later scooped up out of their travel cots, in the bedclothes
in which they slept, and being carried, still sleeping, out into the
cold night air and round to an adjacent apartment where they were again
left to sleep. [3.31]
Neither doctor performed any of the usual and medically required tests
or procedures appropriate to recovery from anaesthesia. It is a matter
of record that the twins were not taken to a hospital for assessment.
On the facts
therefore the doctors were in serious and negligent breach of a whole
series of medical protocols for which people have been struck off the
register. [3.32]
And even more strangely, they have admitted this in statements and in
the book. They have made no attempt to suggest that they acted
correctly.
If we rely purely on what they have said, we find that it is
corroborated by independent witnesses, and it leads to the following
conclusion - They would be guilty of a most serious breach of professional
standards, so serious that striking off the Medical Register would be
appropriate.
We are given many instances in her own book of Kate McCanns’ loss of
control, kicking out at inanimate objects, hitting railings with her
fists, throwing herself on the floor, wailing and so on. We are however
also given clear examples where she was not acting in this way,
being more calm and professionally purposeful, going out into the street
to see what was happening, having a blunt discussion with a witness in
the apartment above, “wandering” into the twins’ room, and ultimately “keeping vigil” in total silence for the rest of the night.[3.33]
However, it must be said
• For a normal distressed and anxious parent to behave in this way
towards two apparently anaesthetised children would be unforgivable. • For an educated professional person it would be grossly negligent. • For two qualified anaesthetists it is absolutely unthinkable.
If we find that it is indeed unthinkable,
then we must wish to believe that their actions were not negligent,
that they were not in breach of any protocols, and that their apparent
lack of action does not bear any negative interpretation.
But
for that to be true they would have to have known precisely why the
twins were unconscious, what substance had been administered, in what
dose, by whom, and when.
And they have always denied this.
But despite that, and to address the original question, having regard to the available evidence, we may be tempted to take the charitable view, and to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities,
the parents may have been involved in the sedation of the twins.
PLEASE NOTE: I am fully aware that this logical progression may offend, and that lawyers may wish to say it is defamatory.
If so, I not only apologise unreservedly and withdraw it, but on receipt
of any complaint of defamation will immediately refer the matter to the
GMC, with a view to the striking off the Medical Register of Dr Fiona Payne and Dr Kate Healy / McCann.
The GMC is the proper authority in matters of this nature.
This is not a matter for legal argument.
It is a question of professional competence.
