Secondary drowning

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - if you cannot post links to your claims maybe tell us where to look . 

You say Madeleine died around 3pm on Thursday afternoon from secondary drowning , how did you come up with this time please ? 

According to the creche files Madeleine was at the creche activities - chalk drawing , then a pool dive at 3.30 . 

She was apparently at  high tea at the Tapas at 5.30 then taken back to the apartment at around 6pm which is when Kate makes her claim that Madeleine was pale and tired and wanted to be carried . No witnesses to this and nothing said by the nannies . 

As for the secondary drowning , I can find no reference to " frothy pink vomit " , breathless, coughing , wheezing immediately obvious . As the children had to walk back to the creche from the beach , surely someone would have noticed this , plus she would a soaking wet and need a change of clothes, then she was collected for lunch walking back to the apartment , after lunch is when the Mccanns claim the " last photo " was taken of then sitting around the pool . She certainly does look like a suffering child ! ( although I'm sure you're aware of the research done into this photo NOT being taken on Thursday as claimed ) 

Looking forward to your response  .

Arnold wrote:

Verdi wrote:

Arnold wrote:Hello Verdi, 

It was Jessica, the daughter of Neil Berry who remembered the incident. It was her straw hat. 


OC sailing employees Alice Standley and Chris Unsworth were present when Madeleine jumped into the ocean. They were heard by police. 

She got water in her lungs which caused lack of oxygen hours later. 
The physical symptoms described by Kate are linked to secondary drowning. 

This scenario has never been investigated. It was overlooked by policemen who never heard of it.

It has a total different timeline. 

I do hope that forum members will investigate this tragic drowning scenario in which Madeleine died around 3.00pm in apartment 5A. 

Lack of evidence of an abduction becomes now an abduction of a dead body. The dogs didn’t lie.
This scenario give answers to many unanswered questions. 

But first one have to change the timeline to understand what really could have happened that day.

With the greatest respect Arnold, if you want forum members to help support your theory you need to be more specific, as it stands you don't appear to have anything to substantiate your theory apart from a few words allegedly said by holidaymaker Neil Berry during filming of a Netflix show.  A show that is so far removed from fact and evidence it beggars belief that anyone would take it seriously.

Have a look at the forum thread about the Netflix Madeleine McCann 'documentary'.

On the one hand you say .... 'OC sailing employees Alice Standley and Chris Unsworth were present when Madeleine jumped into the ocean. They were heard by police.' and seconds later you say .... 'This scenario has never been investigated. It was overlooked by policemen who never heard of it.'




Where does the timeline fit in with your theory - what timeline are you referring to.

I hope your intentions here are honourable Arnold.

It isn’t a theory but a by the PJ and Operation Grange overlooked possibility which can’t be excluded without an serious investigation. As far as I know was the PJ and OG in March 2020 informed about this sailing incident.
This is still an unsolved case. 
It was no murder, no abduction, no neglect according to this unexpected and sudden tragic event.

That shows this new timeline.

You are seriously taking the myth Arnie - again!

I have better things to waste my time than you.  Enjoy your stay ....

to arnold, in real investigation police officers do not have knowledge of all medical ways to die, that part and the information needed from it for any investigation is delivered by medical people, most of then only will get you answers after a view at a body, or the post mortem.

and it does not matter what the cause was, all you have to know is accidental or with assistance of third parties. so if you read again the first report of tavares almeida, even without a body, it was already most likely that what started this case was an accidental death. and in this part there is no criminal element at all. that is exactly why the term accidental is used and what is means. to die accidentally, is not a crime. it was in the first part of this investigation simply seen as what started the criminal aspects of this case, a unlegal manner of disposing of the body, and the staging of an abduction. 

and it could help if you do not tell us as if you know it by 100%, because all you do write down is only your opinion, of what could have happened, or you must have been a witness of it all, and that would make us very curious. 

there could have been so much very different ways to end up accidentally dead for a human being. without a body that is very hard to prove. not all would even leave clear signs on a body. and that is why we do post mortems by the hands of people who have a education and experience in that field, the we in investigation , is all people working together in solving a case, and police officers have other parts of that job to do. 
police officers and forensic teams are the most well known in it, but are also in reality very different expertises, there is not simply all could do all of the tasks. but there could be a lot of others in it as well.

and it sounds unimportant, but your frame of mind sounds as if you are superieur to all those people that have worked their share in this case, and you sounds as someone who thinks he is capable to be judge and jury about the quality of their work. and that makes me curious, so i have some questions for you?

but by dumping out the police did not even looked into that, you disqualify yourself very much, you ended up on a forum were you find a nice mix of all kind of people, but also some who had made their own hands dirty as officers of the law. and these ones do know you talk without such experiences, because of how you are writing it down. 

you are fully right in police offers that did not research drowning, not a primary one, or a secondary one. i can not remember if the term secondary drowning was still in use in 2007, of course in populair media it would, but not in the first aid handbooks. 
but they had a forensic team on the ground to study relics and traces of what could have taken place, if it happened in or around 5a. 

so i would ask you, how does a trace or relic of the by your wording 'frotty pink vomit' shows up on a possible crime scene? the way you write it down implies you have that kind of knowledge. how did you get that knowledge? did you ever seen those relics or traces yourself, did you have first hand knowledge of a person that was in a state of 'secondary drowning' or died as a result from it? 

and were did you get the knowledge that police officers, and other officers of the law, in a hot summer country and a long coastline and a very high number of private pools and communal pools still never heard of that people could end up dead as a result of unhealthy contact with water. 

and how many police officers in your own country are educated on a high enough medical level to get such diagnosis? and are they allowed to make such a diagnosis by the law of your country? 

also your statement for time of death, are you able to tell use what was the start of the event that resulted in a secondary drowning and why you got to 15.00 hours as time of death, and not say 17.00 hours, or even later, or earlier? 
your own definition of 'secondary drowning' is welcome also.

Arnold wrote:As a new member I have to wait some days for putting links to my posts.

That can't be right, sounds to me like there might be a technical fault.

Could you please give details of any problem you are experiencing trying to post links so admin can look into it, also if you can copy or take a screenshot of on-screen messages you have seen or even just type the message, it would be very helpful.

It's very important for members to report problems they have with posting on the forum.

Sooner rather than later - thanks.

To Onehand.




you are fully right in police offers that did not research drowning, not a primary one, or a secondary one. i can not remember if the term secondary drowning was still in use in 2007, of course in populair media it would, but not in the first aid handbooks. 
but they had a forensic team on the ground to study relics and traces of what could7 have taken place, if it happened in or around 5a. 

so i would ask you, how does a trace or relic of the by your wording 'frotty pink vomit' shows up on a possible crime scene? the way you write it down implies you have that kind of knowledge. how did you get that knowledge? did you ever seen those relics or traces yourself, did you have first hand knowledge of a person that was in a state of 'secondary drowning' or died as a result from it? 


You can find your answer on this site:

You can find it on 


livehealthyaustin dot com    /2014/07/03/secondary-drowning-recognizing-the-signs-is essential-to-survival/


Or search on ‘frothy pink lungfluid’





To VERDI

This was the text about the links today again: 

‘ New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days. Please contact the forum administrator for more information.

To Onehand.

Another link about the forensic evidence on the wall behind the sofa.

healthjunta   dot. com / pink-frothy-sputum

To ONEHAND 

You can also search for ‘ Pulmonary Edema’ and the ‘drowning’ link

mayoclinic dot org.  diseases-conditions / pulmonary-edema. / symptoms / causes /

To ONEHAND

In this never investigated scenario the real timeline began between 10.30am and 11.15am, after Madeleine jumped into the ocean to save Jessica Berry’s straw hat. The ‘near drowing’.

A Non-heart-related (noncardiogenic) pulmonary edema

• Near drowning. Inhaling water causes fluid buildup in the lungs that is reversible with immediate medical care.
  
  

arnold, yes it was outdated, so you and the ones who did write those pieces did miss out on the proceedings, or did not attend the 2002 congress about drowning held in amsterdam. 

this congress was held to bring all kinds of facts and fiction back to facts and definitions over the whole world.

there was a consensus reached about a lot of that secondary drowning stuff, because 95% of the information out there and still rehearsed was not clear, or correct. why they found that needed, was because every tom dick and harry, from specialist care to just a member of the public had their very own concept of what was meant under secondary drowning, it even had very different names for the same state. 

but even if we take it on , that such a phenomena really does exist, and that was why i also asked what your definition of secondary drowning is, were is your evidence for the near drowning, or water struggling event of madeleine, a jump in the water, from a young child, that has already the capability to swim, is a very different starting point, than a near drowning, the human body has a reflex, wherein the ability is there to close off the access of a fluid like water penetrating into the longs. 

i choose phenomena, because you told us, she died at 15.00 hours from it, your link does speak about something in 72 hours. 

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

and did you really checked the references written under this piece written by a nurse of a 175 bed hospital in texas?

pub med only serve by the link a pretty old article, 1980.

the first is this one; https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC1714551/?page=1

this is the link to a pdf, i use to copy some of the first lines of the introduction;

In any series of drowned or near-drowned individuals, patients are described who initially respond well to resuscitation but whose respiratory function deteriorates over the next few hours. The phenomenon is well known from case reports,'-4

do you really conclude a resuscitation in the story in netflx spoken out by the father or a girl you say told the story of a dive for a hat. and you think no one told the parents, they had a bit of a accident, and you know , there are witness statements that places at least one doctor on that beach, that also is part of the tapas9. 

who did that first aid?

next, at least a true expert, still you can hardly reach a set time from that, and there is again spoken of far greater event, than could be filtered from netflix.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

the cdc has some facts about non fatal drowning.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

the second link to the cdc is no longer there, it would have gone to a awareness week in 2012.

News story from Good Day Austin leads just to the home news page of a local media. 

the next link does not tell a lot about forensics of pink frothy sputum, 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

forensics look for relics and traces, this website does not tell anything about forensics, forensics is the other side of what cause an event. but i learned that sputum with blood in it, or frothy sputum gives a very distinct pattern if it left a body, even different in appearance by different speeding. 

you serve yourself as an expert, you know what has taken place, you show no room for other possibilities, so i ask you as an expert how did it show up in this crime scene, maybe that is better, before i just asked how it would show up on a crime scene, so i mean how does it look? 

there are pictures and i do not see any relic or trace of any deposit that i can classify as pink frothy sputum, so to know there was pink frothy sputum as you declare, please do show your evidence. and let's do the follow up question with it, how do you decide if the pink frothy sputum deficit is from your secondary drowning or is just the result of ordinary decomposing of the lungs. just give the number of the swab, or the nearest one swabbed. 

i do not search for frothy lung fluids, because i already have a bit of knowledge about quite a lot of different frothy lung fluids, it is not only a thingy in humans, but a pretty common thing to see in animals too. still living and after death. they could have other colors besides pink. it was very common in overdosed addicts, but they are not that common anymore. 

for links to the pj files, just type the name of the file itself. but to make a non working link, just type a point or a questionmark before the https. 

i have nothing personal against you, but i am just very curious to see how you got so sure of what you state, most of use got hardly beyond a theory by opinions. this case lacks evidence, so i do like to see what you have found and how, and where.

I didn’t claim this possibility but read about it lately on Twitter and a blog ShininginLuz from an Englishman living in the Algarve. He wrote about memory and Don’t you forget about me - a song by the Simple Minds and apparently used by the parents of Madeleine in their Fundraising.
Most of the 105 comments starting in March 2020 were about this unsolved case and contained this scenario about secondary drowning. I wondered why I never heard or read about this, so I looked on forums in the UK to see if this possibility was investigated. I didn’t found anything. That was odd because near drowning could be deadly if there is no observation after the sailing event on Thursday morning. 
This site is an investigated forum Jill Havern said, but Verdi, a moderator wrote as a welcome that I was taking a myth without even investigating this possibility. Rather weird to act like a gatekeeper who knows what’s true or not in this missing person case.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] - you are using one comment made by Neil Berry in the Netflix documentary , which contained many inaccuracies and despite the Mccanns saying they wanted no part of it was a vehicle for their innocence . 

The comment by Neil Berry about Madeleine launching herself into the sea for his daughters hat has no credibility to it at all . 

There is no EVIDENCE that this incident really happened . Berry was not there to witness it , his daughter has said nothing to back him up , they kept it quiet , allegedly , for 12 years , Why ? Remember msm " we pay for your stories " ! 

No mention from the nannies , the instructors , the Mccanns , those members of  Tapas 7 who were on the beach any other parents !  Maddie was allegedly crying " I'm scared , I'm scared " in the boat , not likely to jump into the sea then . 

Sorry Arnold , but I do think you're on a non starter with your theory . 
Have a good  day .

this is one that has some talk about drowning;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

even your line of thinking gets a bit attention.

but that story would the tabloids have been fighting for, human interest, by the missing child her self. 

and would taking a dive not have ruined the beautiful bought for the holidays outfit, it would not have fitted very well in this piece of kate her fantasies of course;

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]

but all we know is just what people told, filtered by their own reasons and to decide what they wanted to tell. 
and the result is still it does not fit the truth. 

but i always like to read theories, but this one has no foundation, no backbone, so yes i do like to see how go got to your story line. why do you believe the story as told in the netflix series, why 15.00 hours as time of death.

secondary drowning is as told by experts not what is used on a lot of websites, that have a kind of tabloid medical advice on it. if you look at the scientific version in reports, articles and reviews, even the older ones from the eighties, a lot of populair writing about it, is so overly simplified it lacks al what really can, or is happening as a result of water related accidents. 

and if this tale is indeed what had taken place, the mccanns would have put greentrust, ocean club, mark warner and even the local government before the courts, no way they would have projected guilt to their own name and actions, or lack there of. even doktors need information before the can make decisions to do something or not.

and do we really see it happening, that a wet to the skin madeleine was been made to walk back to the creche, had to stay there over an hour til mummy got to get her at 12.25. you did get the idea how mad kate can be , outside the camera time, that beautiful smock dress, specially bought for the holiday, ruined by seawater, kate would have exploded. 

they could not have used the last photo after that, and no nasty abducting basterd would have gotten time to 
see madeleine in het beautiful dress. she would not have worries about madeleine, the one that was a good swimmer, that liked it very much and happily had jumped in a freezing pool at the day of arrival. 

such a dive for a hat , had ruined the complete script for that day. 

and wouldn't it be nice when jessica berry has told, but that dress got wet some hours before that picture was made? 

and would nanny cat have called mummy kate , to get her dead daughter from the creche, wasn't she not at the tennis courts. 

so why would all that be fake and the miss berry story true? if this only started on 15.00 hours, they had no reasons to lie about anything till 12.25 of course. 

that is the big fat problem with this case, we only have knowledge of what people did tell, and they have told different stories about the same events, so they make it very hard, even if you try to believe them.

Secondary drowning symptoms and signs

The following are the symptoms of secondary or delayed drowning:

Persistent coughing

Labored breathing
Chest pain

Extreme fatigue or exhaustion, lethargy

Vomiting

Fever

Irritability or mood changes

Difficulty talking

Confusion or disorientation

Dry drowning symptoms and signs

The symptoms of dry drowning are very similar to those of secondary or delayed drowning and include:

Persistent coughing

Labored or high-pitched breathing

Extreme fatigue or exhaustion, lethargy

Vomiting

Fever

Irritability or mood changes

Difficulty talking

Confusion or disorientation
Bluish skin color

This link gives a lot of medical information about the drowning proces.



 The website is ……… islasurf.org/dry-drowning-secondary-drowning-near-drowning

no help verdi,

first in the medical world it does not exist under these kind of names, today they are mostly taken together into non fatal drowning as the cdc it uses, or just water related accidents. 

and did does not matter what list of symptoms you use, because it is when they exist and what had to happen before you can get to see them.

the clou is in resuscitation, the people who experience this non fatal drowning, did only survive it with assist of others. and even if people get their airways free and in use again, the could seem to be just healthy wet people, this is the group that non fatal drowning is about.

not just a gulp of water that reached your longs, the concept of secondary drowning, near drowning, of dry drowning has no medical definition, they are used by the members of public and media as the same thing, but often with a lot of not needed spectacle, some years ago a amercan father got a story out in the press, his son, he said died after a week in a very spontane manner because of secondary drowning, one of the experts on this matter said no, that was not in any way possible. yes , the father had a dead child, but not from secondary drowning.

there is a big fat problem with the misuse ans misunderstanding from such definition driven by media and people in the streets. it is thanks to that last part there is a misunderstanding of even what it looks if someone is drowning.

in 2002 a very large group of experts from the whole world had taken the task to make a difference, to get rid of words that does not tell what happened, with descriptions that are not clear or even part of what could happen in water related accidents. those lists you see around are indeed all symptoms that have been seen in after water related accidents, but it has not the name secondary or dry, or near drowning.

and back to this case, it is almost impossible a little girl, that loved the water, was able to swim already, had even no problem to dive in very cold water, had a non fatal drowning experience, that needed the help of others to overcome dying, walked nicely and free of care back to the creche, and absolutely no one ever talked about that, to die from it at 15.00 hours, and with the only seen or named result a bit overtired, not from sickness, as said per doctor mccann. 

and no word of such a thing in the media also, and very much more telling in the official statement. 

when you use something said, you must believe what is told is true.

there are a lort of serious complications possible when you get something other in your lungs then air, and a lot of symptoms are in your list, verdi, but not as one existing medical event under those names, and most times in a pattern together. 

the only lesson when someone had a water related accident is, simply always get the medics in, and let them take them to hospital. that is the place they can tell you based on the kind of event and the effects they see in a body , what you have to look out for, and children under 6 always need a check up. it is not something to look up in doctor google, and diagnose yourself. 

but i see nothing in any statement about the story of the famous dive for a hat, and children that experience non fatal drowning are usually the talk of the town, village, at any table. also the tabloids would have used it on the frontpage, in the largest print they had, human interest in a story like this, that is their specialty. 

but do not use populair medical sites to explain a medical condition and build a case on it. that is just plain stupid. and to help you, do take a look into the references and pick the ones of the expert people.

anton, that is a nice article to read up on drowning and non fatal drowning. this information is out there from 2002 on warts, and even well before that in circles of experts. 

i shall give the link to it; https://www.islasurf.org/dry-drowning-secondary-drowning-near-drowning/

now you have read this, do you still think this had happened to madeleine, after a tale of a voluntary dive in the water, by a child that could swim. and not one single person had talked about it before. not the dive itself, but the process of non fatal drowning?

Arnold wrote:To VERDI

This was the text about the links today again:

‘ New members are not allowed to post external links or emails for 7 days. Please contact the forum administrator for more information.

Thank you for getting back to me.

It doesn't stop you typing the source yourself, for example .... 'this is documented in the PJ files, page and reference number or some other source reference'.

As it stands, you post information claiming that it's documented, without a reference source, it doesn't add up to much. You make claims written in such a way that indicate fact but are not fact - like the pink frott.

Anyway, a few more days and you will be able to post-up links, I can wait.

I started reading the research group conclusions and found this as an example of fabricated evidence and false statements.


(iii) An unconvincing account of Madeleine being at the beach for a min-sail with the Lobster group on Thursday 3 May


You wrote that I was taking the myth and that you don’t want to waste time about this never investigated  ‘drowning’ scenario.


I was hoping that members of this forum would investigate this new information, thanks to Jessica, the daughter of Neil Berry. 

i believe what she told her dad. You could ask her about the event and the panic reaction of the OC employees.


You also could ask Chris Unsworth and Alice Stanley who also were present that morning. Dr. David Payne, his wife and their kids and Jane Tanner and kids were also on the beach that Thursday morning when Madeleine went sailing twice and brought by a speedboat to open water where the yellow catamaran was. 

In the afternoon Russell O’Brien and Matthew Oldfield had also a sailing incident (!) They all laughed about their story during high tea in the beach restaurant, while Kate was seen running on the beach around 5.00pm and according to this new timeline Madeleine already died and her body hid behind the sofa. 

It seems that no one wants to revisit the timeline. 

Maybe that’s why this unsolved case became a never ending story.

I will take your myth and walk away.





m

there is no such thing as one timeline set in stone. there are very different views on exactly that subject around. for a hard timeline you simply need evidence, to set some things in stone, and that is exactly why this case is not officialy solved, i do think the portuguese first investigation did solved most of this case already, but there are still many points to look into. 

the only hard evidence is the registered phonecall to the gnr, that a child had gone missing., that indeed a child with the description of the missing child did arrive in portugal. everything else is far to much based on as told, and very little is possible to verify it all. 

if you tell you was getting your groceries, i want to hear , what you bought, in what shop, if you still have a receipt, because if that is important as part of a possible timeline, i want to be able to check, so you can get out and ask the shopkeeper if he remember a certain client, if they have a camera on the premises. because that could make something told into hard evidence it did happen. 

not handwritten lists, that usually are available as a stock on a shelf, because they are daily used, so if identical forms and writing devices are there, it is easy to just make one you prefer, in stead of an original. 

so you start with a comment made by a young child, many years before, not even by her own mouth spoken, in a commercial tv production, that no one out there ever had heard before into evidence it did happen. 
you tell it is in statements, we say it is not. 

i know just a link is easier, but you could have use a citation by copy paste from the translations of those statements you mean. 

secondly you start googling about secondary drowning, a diagnosis you maybe have once get in your head from a non medical expert source. not doing your homework very good and thorough it looks like you never had looked very deep in that matter. and decide to build up a timeline from there.

so next you state she died at 15.00 hours, not why, or how, only from your understanding and incorrect understanding of what you think must be secondary drowning. 

and then you decide to test your own sandcastle to the test and put it on this forum. 

and now you are mad, and disappointed, because we do not want to discus it. maybe you have to do a fresh google search on discussion too.

if the building blocks are not good, than they can not fit in a timeline.

if you really believed in this timeline of yours, you could just by easy googling already have found out, it is no new suggestion, the only thing a bit more fresh is the dive for a hat story. but i can easily find the same line of thinking with a suggestion of a water related accident in earlier discussion, an almost identical is to find on reddit, and other social media and forums. 

you just not calculated in, you would met someone online, who had a three day course in the subject of water related accidents for officer of the law and the fire brigade. and from field experience knows what is really is in real life, and that is not what the populair websites, the click bait ones make of it. and there is nothing in the files or the media, that could give even a grain of notion to think such an event had indeed could have taken place, it is only air, so for me it cannot be a foundation to built a timeline from. 

and it is not i'm not interested how you get there, i always give others a chance, but it is your timeline, you have to fight for it. 

and it is my time always worth, because say you indeed had found something that could possibly a factor we not already have looked into, in yours it would mean, there was nothing to hide until 15.00 hours on 3 may 2007. it goes still very much against the produced statements of the people in this case. so it is not a very complete timeline, where was she when she died, how do you see the facts and circumstances in that, who was there. 

it is very true, that every hour earlier, the more time is available to hide what you want to be kept hidden. 
but everything has opportunities and could leave their marks. 

so if you had written madeleine died at 15.00 hours, and you would place that happening in 5a, my question next would be, why did the party one apartment up, sitting after lunch on the terrace of the apartment of pamela fenn did not notice anything, look into the carol tranmer statement, they were there til 18.30 hours.
sitting outside looking at strange men. 

and because of what i did write in my first sentences, this case just have that, everytime you think, maybe this, maybe that, it would not work out, others have that too. or had that too. if you look in the work of the mmrg group on this forum, they have a quite solid timeline built, but still enough point they are open to discussion. and have not a very strong or set opinion about parts of this case. 

but it is your timeline, you have to defend it, and fight for it.  giving in now looks like you do not have it worked out jet. you can not say we would not want to discuss it, and walking away, why, are there no points for you to make on other discussions out here?

I read about the event in December 2021 in The Mirror, an article from March 15 2019 written by Emmeline Saunders, opinion editor. It was a link on the blog I mentioned. 

  ……. /madeleine-mccann-netflix-documentary-final-14139138 

And it’s not my timeline and this investigative forum shows it’s own myth by ruling out something they don’t believe happened.
Madeleine is banned by the researchers from the beach on Thursday morning. 


Just like the Pj, the Leiscester police and the MET reviewers.

i think you are very wrong.

there is ground to look into this case, as not happening all on that supposed evening of 3 may. 

so isn't is strange, when someone get in the opinion madeleine died earlier than at that evening, that could only result is a madeleine that could not have been on the beech. sheer logic. dead people do not walk to beaches. 

personally i think, not believe, believe is not something i learned to work with in cases, that an earlier demise of madeleine is possible. there is no evidence that say differently, and there are facts and circumstances and smaller indications that the chance she was no longer alive , well before that evening make it solid enough to look into it. 

you said, you believe that in a different way, so it is up to you to defend your words, it is your opinion, not mine. 

i did likely just the same as all others in this topic, read what you typed and reacted on parts of it, i had questions about. i wanted to hear how you got there, believing is easy, thinking is harder, for thinking you need a lot of information and process that. well in this topics you speak about a diagnosis, that is in itself non existant, and often understand in a very wrong way, non fatal drowning is the best fitting term, or when you are not able to pull out a diagnosis, because you lack the knowledge for that, water related accident could do. 

you have been painting from your believes, a nearly 4 year old, that goes to the beach with a group of other children of the creche from mark warners, in pdl. the child was very nice so when a hat was blown of the head of a mate, she just dived after it out of the boat she was in, picked it up and then nothing, nothing, nothing, hours of nothing, and she died at 15.00 hours. 

she died in 5a, that was not very clear, and you found proof of pink frothy sputum traces. and later she was hidden behind the sofa of 5a. 

well you got me curious, because it is very much not understand, that you need a non fatal drowning, and that is far more than a gulp of water. what by the way in an person, even a young child that has a ability to swim, already rare is, human bodies have a safety built in, to not get fluids in lungs. so even drowning could happen, without water ever reaching into the lungs. drowning is water in the lungs is also a myth. 

so even if she had got a gulp of water in het airways, it would be the first case ever described as a person that died, after just a gulp of water intake, that had not shown any form or sign of actual drowning, that was also very short in the water, was able to swim, that showed after that absolutly no sign of drowning, also no one noticed even she was wet, hairs and clothing must have been wet. there is no mention of something like a resuscitation, after taken from the water, no signs of non fatal drowning, and she had just to walk back and was able to do that with the other children. 

the nany must have looked just to the other side, because when explicit asked about the behavior of said child, she only could tell about the i'm afraid to be in the boat incident, that she solved by taking her on her lap, and the child calmed and stayed for just another go in that same boath. so no tears from the emotion of almost drowning, no tears of being upset because of fluid in het lungs, no coughing, or any other sign. 

just hoppa, out of the boat, walking with sammy the snake fully wet to the creche above the head reception, no one who saw a trace of seeping water from clothes, the receptionist did not see a wet child. 

and the child just keep on playing for over an hour til mummy got there, that did not see a still wet set of clothes, probably the new outfit specialy bought for the holiday, nothing wrong with seeing details our kate, 12.25, just going for lunch, some time to play, all without showing any symptoms at all, outside a by a experienced gp typed as very tyred, not sick, to die at 15.00 hours.

but let us take a look back, how the by summers and swan repaired truth in their book, also used by netflix.

It details how events unfolded on the afternoon of May 3, which saw Madeleine take a boat out to sea with other children.
It reads: “After lunch, over at the Mini Club, nanny Cat Baker decided to take her chance out on the water.
“With Baker heading their ‘snake’, the line of children trooped down the beach for an outing on a boat.”
The book revealed how Madeleine “was fearful” and cried on Ms Baker's lap.
She then told Ms Baker: “I’m scared.”
The nanny added: “She soon got over it though.”
The book continues, revealing how Madeleine went to bed with a smile on her face.
The authors added: “When some of the other children returned to shore, she stayed on board.
“After that, there was lots of swimming. 
"When handed over to Kate that evening, her mother was to recall 'Madeleine seemed really tired, very very tired.'"
“She asked her mother to carry her back to the apartment before revealing: ‘Mummy, I’ve had the best day ever.’”
as is to find in this link;
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
o'dear, this what is in the files; 
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] look at the time.
and it must have happend in the morning,because mis berry was not there in the afternoon;
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
and the next one;

sandancer wrote:There is no EVIDENCE that this incident really happened . Berry was not there to witness it , his daughter has said nothing to back him up , they kept it quiet , allegedly , for 12 years , Why ? Remember msm " we pay for your stories " !

No evidence of this either, another creation from the Netflux/Neil Berry story-line..

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]