The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hi!

A very warm welcome to The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™ forum.

Please log in, or register to view all the forums, then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.


Jill Havern
Forum owner

Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Strange?

Post by suzyjohnson on 09.03.13 9:41

Aiyoyo, it seems KM is trying to explain FP's comment that KM kept checking the twins. KM wouldn't have known that FP had told the police until all the statements became available.

PeterMac, very interesting posts re sedation, thanks

____________________


suzyjohnson

Posts : 1004
Reputation : 132
Join date : 2013-03-03

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by tigger on 09.03.13 9:49

In contrast the diary tells us this about the twins:

SATURDAY, JUNE 2:
Fed up again 'poor M. Once again it took a long time before S and A were sorted..


SATURDAY, JULY 7: We had breakfast and got the children ready as usual. At 10.30 the four of us went to the Algarve Shopping Centre.
The plan was to buy sandals and some other things for the children. However the journey was a disaster. We had to stop three times on the way there, since Sean and Amelie were crying alternately.
unquote

Both of these are Saturdays - the 'family' day that Gerry loves to put in his blog. They had no alternative: the only day the creche was closed.

The twins' hair was cut very short some months afterwards. Soon afterwards their hair was tested for drugs.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Thank you

Post by Guest on 09.03.13 10:53

Thank you all for your replies, especially Peter Mac.

Fiona's testimony was clearly a gaffe, which had to be addresses/redressed.
I'm not quite sure about the sequence. Is it possible that the LI statements were made available to the McCs, so that they were well aware of this gaffe some time before madeleine was published?

If the combination of what you say and the assumed size of the cots is correct, then even putting the twins into those cots unguarded in itself is a shining example of parental negligence!

Kate (madeleine, p.69):

"Gerry came through to say goodnight. We helped Sean and Amelie give their big sister a night-night kiss before laying them in their adjacent travel cots. Then we kissed the twins (already in their cots-> how?) and kissed Madeleine, already snuggled down with het princess' blanket and Cuddle Cat -a soft toy she'd been given soon after she was born and never went to bed without.
We were in no doubt that all three would be asleep in an instant.

As always we left the door open to allow a glimmer of light into the room"

Kate & Gerry then stay in the appartment for just under an hour, 'relaxing with a drink' (according to Kate)

I quote this for research purposes only.

How could they be so sure the three children would be asleep in a instant and would not wake up later?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Nina on 09.03.13 10:59

@PeterMac wrote: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.

So what precisely did the two 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

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. There is no record that 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.

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 left to sleep.

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.

However, it must be said that for a normal distressed and anxious parent to behave in this way 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.

clapping1 Brilliant post PeterMac.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2656
Reputation : 221
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by joyce1938 on 09.03.13 11:58

Do i remember correctly ,if i say i had thought one of the nannies went to apartment fas and the twins were allready NOT THERE,been moved ,if so they were not around long enough to wake with all the noise and goings on ,yes i do fel its very possable they had been given somethig to sleep ,by her actions to see if they were o k fingers under nose ,can someone confirm this ?joyce1938

joyce1938

Posts : 807
Reputation : 87
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Guest on 09.03.13 12:22

Brilliant post, indeed, PeterMac.

I have had and still have various theories as to what has happened.
The only thing I am convinced about is that THEY know.
In fact, Kate has said this herself in reply to a question [IIRC outside Lisbon Court]: "I know more than you do" ... But ... she won't tell us, yet.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Guest on 09.03.13 12:46

@Portia wrote:Thank you all for your replies, especially Peter Mac.

Fiona's testimony was clearly a gaffe, which had to be addresses/redressed.
I'm not quite sure about the sequence. Is it possible that the LI statements were made available to the McCs, so that they were well aware of this gaffe some time before madeleine was published?

If the combination of what you say and the assumed size of the cots is correct, then even putting the twins into those cots unguarded in itself is a shining example of parental negligence!

Kate (madeleine, p.69):

"[i]Gerry came through to say goodnight. We helped Sean and Amelie give their big sister a night-night kiss before laying them in their adjacent travel cots. Then we kissed the twins (already in their cots-> how?)

IIRC the rogatories were in the public domain before Madeleine was published.

IMO The book was solely written and published to explain all controversion away.
Ill advisedly me thinks. Pat Brown advised them on her blog not to say another word..

Arrogantly Kate states that her lawyers had gone through the book to make sure all was above board,
my words of course, this is my interpretation only.
Arrogance triggers mistakes.
Her lawyer IM stated under oath that she had nor read the official pt files.
IIRC she stated that she had not read Madeleine either??

What is happening now here and on other real life or internet forums is that we find all the discrepancies these, by the McCanns hired lawyers, could not find, as they were
'not informed'

Much like IM stating under oath she was 'instructed' Madeleine was abducted.

All the same it's doubly worth it to continue discussion on those sensitive topics,
this one, the photos the 'Fund'

Have a nice weekend all

parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Guest on 09.03.13 13:03

@Portia
Weren't some of the questions in those rogatories questions the McCanns wanted asked?
If so, quite possibly they were informed of the statements soon after.
By whom? I don't know, LP, dear Stuart or just the straight formal line Clarence Mitchell ....
Anybody?

I dont think it likely they were leaked by the Portuguese though titter


parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by aiyoyo on 09.03.13 14:09

parapono wrote:
IMO The book was solely written and published to explain all controversion away.

And for the MONEY.


Her lawyer IM stated under oath that she had nor read the official pt files.
IIRC she stated that she had not read Madeleine either??

IM is just a puppet who does what her bosses told her to do, and all her bosses has to do is to follow Clients instruction blindly for MONEY.

It's all about MONEY. Mccanns dont care for us to have the truth, just money on the back of Maddie's name; and their lawyers dont care about the truth, just silvers to line their pocket.



What is happening now here and on other real life or internet forums is that we find all the discrepancies these, by the McCanns hired lawyers, could not find, as they were
'not informed'

parapono


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Guest on 09.03.13 15:29

@aiyoyo
I totally agree woth you, it has become a far better post now.
thanks

parapono

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by plebgate on 09.03.13 22:31

She has a fair few solicitors, who is to know who told her what. Never any names given, like the un-named barrister who told them about the responsible parenting.

plebgate

Posts : 5464
Reputation : 1178
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Guest on 10.03.13 10:29

parapono wrote:
@Portia wrote:Thank you all for your replies, especially Peter Mac.

Fiona's testimony was clearly a gaffe, which had to be addresses/redressed.
I'm not quite sure about the sequence. Is it possible that the LI statements were made available to the McCs, so that they were well aware of this gaffe some time before madeleine was published?

If the combination of what you say and the assumed size of the cots is correct, then even putting the twins into those cots unguarded in itself is a shining example of parental negligence!

Kate (madeleine, p.69):

"[i]Gerry came through to say goodnight. We helped Sean and Amelie give their big sister a night-night kiss before laying them in their adjacent travel cots. Then we kissed the twins (already in their cots-> how?)

IIRC the rogatories were in the public domain before Madeleine was published.

IMO The book was solely written and published to explain all controversion away.
Ill advisedly me thinks. Pat Brown advised them on her blog not to say another word..

Arrogantly Kate states that her lawyers had gone through the book to make sure all was above board,
my words of course, this is my interpretation only.
Arrogance triggers mistakes.
Her lawyer IM stated under oath that she had nor read the official pt files.
IIRC she stated that she had not read Madeleine either??

What is happening now here and on other real life or internet forums is that we find all the discrepancies these, by the McCanns hired lawyers, could not find, as they were
'not informed'

Much like IM stating under oath she was 'instructed' Madeleine was abducted.

All the same it's doubly worth it to continue discussion on those sensitive topics,
this one, the photos the 'Fund'

Have a nice weekend all

parapono

As any lawyer can tell you, there is an unsurmountable gap between a lawyer telling a judge: 'Maddie Mc Cann was abducted' and : my clients have instructed me to tell you Maddie Mc Cann was abducted'.

The first version: a judge may believe the child was indeed abducted, provided he finds the lawyer thrustworthy.

The second: he will not, knowing from the chosen phrase the lawyer himself does not believe his clients.
That's the neat way for an attorney to bypass the dilemma of defending a criminal. The man has a right to be defended, but not a right to be believed. If the attorney uses the words" my client informs me', then that client has had it, and both the judge and the attorney know that.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by PeterMac on 10.03.13 10:59

@Portia wrote:
As any lawyer can tell you, there is an unsurmountable gap between a lawyer telling a judge: 'Maddie Mc Cann was abducted' and : my clients have instructed me to tell you Maddie Mc Cann was abducted'.
The first version: a judge may believe the child was indeed abducted, provided he finds the lawyer trustworthy.
The second: he will not, knowing from the chosen phrase the lawyer himself does not believe his clients.
That's the neat way for an attorney to bypass the dilemma of defending a criminal. The man has a right to be defended, but not a right to be believed. If the attorney uses the words" my client informs me', then that client has had it, and both the judge and the attorney know that.
Under normal circumstances a lawyer is not under oath, but merely acting as the mouthpiece for the client.
In the strange circumstances of the recent case however, IM was actually giving evidence from a sworn affidavit. She was herself under oath.
How she was allowed to give hearsay evidence is not clear to me, but mercifully the point was made and is in the record, that she had no evidence to support her assertion.
I am unclear whether if her evidence proves to be wrong, she herself will have been guilty of perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice, or whether she can somehow blame her clients. But of course they have been very careful never to have given evidence, nor to have made a sworn statement within the jurisdiction of the English law.
We know that the statements they made in portugal contain errors - discrepancies - or lies, depending which word you want to apply.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 144
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Guest on 10.03.13 11:36

@PeterMac wrote:
@Portia wrote:
As any lawyer can tell you, there is an unsurmountable gap between a lawyer telling a judge: 'Maddie Mc Cann was abducted' and : my clients have instructed me to tell you Maddie Mc Cann was abducted'.
The first version: a judge may believe the child was indeed abducted, provided he finds the lawyer trustworthy.
The second: he will not, knowing from the chosen phrase the lawyer himself does not believe his clients.
That's the neat way for an attorney to bypass the dilemma of defending a criminal. The man has a right to be defended, but not a right to be believed. If the attorney uses the words" my client informs me', then that client has had it, and both the judge and the attorney know that.
Under normal circumstances a lawyer is not under oath, but merely acting as the mouthpiece for the client.
In the strange circumstances of the recent case however, IM was actually giving evidence from a sworn affidavit. She was herself under oath.
How she was allowed to give hearsay evidence is not clear to me, but mercifully the point was made and is in the record, that she had no evidence to support her assertion.
I am unclear whether if her evidence proves to be wrong, she herself will have been guilty of perjury or attempting to pervert the course of justice, or whether she can somehow blame her clients. But of course they have been very careful never to have given evidence, nor to have made a sworn statement within the jurisdiction of the English law.
We know that the statements they made in portugal contain errors - discrepancies - or lies, depending which word you want to apply.

Hello PM,

I see no discrepancy here: IM told Judge T under oath that her clients had instructed her to say so-and-so.
Never did she say it was the truth a/o she herself believed the information.

Yet another own goal.

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Strange?

Post by Monty Heck on 10.03.13 12:14

There were indeed a number of references in the blog and the diary to the effect that the twins were not "good sleepers" who went readily and punctually to bed of an evening post abduction. I recall from the blog that it was notable enough to mention that the twins had been got to bed early without fuss, while being cared for in their absence by Trish and Sandy Cameron.
It is strange that a parent would leave children to sleep in such an awkward posture for such a prolonged period as described by KMcC, without making them more comfortable. A more comforable posture would make it easier to check vital signs, as K & FP have both admitted was being done. The question is, if you are so worried that you spend the night checking vital signs of your remaining children when you are convinced your other child has just been stolen, why take no action whatever to find out what was administered, or to report your concerns to the police? There was a strong possibility of material evidence having been obtainable during that crucial early stage of the investigation, which any parent, far less those medically qualified, surely would not wish to be overlooked.
That this was not raised by any of the parties concerned is extremely telling. I was very recently a juror in a trial of a serious crime in which the prosecution case was heavily circumstantial. Before retiring to consider the verdict, we were informed that strong circumstantial evidence may carry as much weight as material evidence such as CCTV or forensic evidence.
I try to take the same approach to the McC case as to this real life example and the inescapable conclusion is that there is overwhelming circumstantial evidence that these children were being sedated by their parents. If it were put before a jury that these parents, believing that their children in those circumstances showed signs of heavy sedation but they did nothing other than monitor breathing, those jurors would ask themselves why they did not report this to investigating officers or attempt to find out what had been administered. An entirely reasonable inference to draw would be that these, medically qualified, parents did not behave in a way which would be expected in these circumstances because they already knew what had been given, having administered it themselves. The fact of the children having been sedated does not, in and of itself mean that Ms parents had a hand in her disappearance but establishing this point, which exposes the obfuscation practiced by all of the key witnesses, would mean the only way sensible way forward would be to thoroughly investigate the entire group.
I personally do not subscribe to the conspiracy theories surrounding this case, but if Grange does not go back to the beginning and fully address this point, about which there is a welter of circumstantial evidence then it is indeed an entire waste of time, effort and money. Spending time sifting through a mountain of paper evidence is all very well but witness evidence above all needs to be reivewed and this operation must not fail to do this.

Monty Heck

Posts : 470
Reputation : 1
Join date : 2012-09-09

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by aiyoyo on 10.03.13 12:37

@plebgate wrote:She has a fair few solicitors, who is to know who told her what. Never any names given, like the un-named barrister who told them about the responsible parenting.

Ya, but IM is the likely the most junior, that's why she was picked on and told to prepare the affidavits in her name on behalf of their infamous clients, meaning IM ended up giving evidence on her sworn affidavits. The mccanns have never been in that position ie giving evidence in Court under Oath. They managed to avoid that so far even when they had taken a few individuals and the Express to court.
It was always their lawyers in the UK and Portugal who did their dirty jobs for them.


aiyoyo

Posts : 9611
Reputation : 318
Join date : 2009-11-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by plebgate on 11.03.13 12:50

You're not wrong there aiyoyo, always somebody else to do it for them. Even looking after their children on holiday.

plebgate

Posts : 5464
Reputation : 1178
Join date : 2013-02-01

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Upsy Daisy on 19.03.13 14:53

The plan was to buy sandals and some other things for the children.
However the journey was a disaster. We had to stop three times on the
way there, since Sean and Amelie were crying alternately.
unquote


didn't GM tell his relative on the phone, the night Madeleine went missing that 'there has been a disaster'........??? I think most parents would agree that having to stop the car because of crying toddlers can hardly qualify as a disaster, surely no more than 'normal' behaviour??? Or, do they have some secret formula that prevents such incidents from happening thus such occurrence being deemed as extraordinary?!?!

____________________
Grammatical Error of The Day : It's should 'have', NOT should 'of'......

Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by russiandoll on 19.03.13 14:56

a pretty typical journey with toddlers imo..disaster is no more than dramatic language used for effect. laughable really when you think about real disasters like tsunamis and earthquakes. and your child vanishing off the face of the earth.

____________________



             The great enemy of the truth is very often not the lie — deliberate,
contrived and dishonest — but the myth — persistent, persuasive and
unrealistic.
~John F. Kennedy


russiandoll

Posts : 3942
Reputation : 7
Join date : 2011-09-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Nina on 19.03.13 15:10

It's a disaster if you are a parent who sees normality as something out of the very ordered waking minute by waking minute. And grizzling children are the norm, get a grip Kate.

____________________
Not one more cent from me.

Nina

Posts : 2656
Reputation : 221
Join date : 2011-06-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Upsy Daisy on 19.03.13 15:13

yes russiandoll........rather exaggerated description - surely typical of their personalities though.

____________________
Grammatical Error of The Day : It's should 'have', NOT should 'of'......

Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Upsy Daisy on 19.03.13 15:18

yes nina....the 'overly controlling parent type 'springs to mind.... yes, get a grip indeed KM

____________________
Grammatical Error of The Day : It's should 'have', NOT should 'of'......

Upsy Daisy

Posts : 437
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2011-04-11

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by tigger on 19.03.13 16:17

@aiyoyo wrote:
@plebgate wrote:She has a fair few solicitors, who is to know who told her what. Never any names given, like the un-named barrister who told them about the responsible parenting.

Ya, but IM is the likely the most junior, that's why she was picked on and told to prepare the affidavits in her name on behalf of their infamous clients, meaning IM ended up giving evidence on her sworn affidavits. The mccanns have never been in that position ie giving evidence in Court under Oath. They managed to avoid that so far even when they had taken a few individuals and the Express to court.
It was always their lawyers in the UK and Portugal who did their dirty jobs for them.


Not the only one who told them there was nothing wrong with their parenting. 5th May.

Alan is a clinical partner at the Centre for Crisis Psychology, pioneers in psychological trauma aftercare following disasters at home and abroad. They have worked with the families and survivors of the Bradford fire, the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the World Trade Center terrorist attacks and the 2004 tsunami, to name just a few. Alan himself, we would learn, had been involved in the aftermath of, among other horrors, coach crashes in Gran Canaria, Cuba and South Africa, three hurricanes and the terrorist bombing at Sharm el Sheikh two years earlier.
Alan must be used to seeing people in states of profound distress, and he certainly found two in apartment 4G at the Ocean Club. By this stage I was beginning to feel that there just wasn’t any way up. He started by asking us about our home, our family and our normal lives. He told us we seemed like model parents. unquote

A whole list of natural disasters to encompass the 'abduction' as well? Then this man who has just met them ' model parents'.

____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by Hobs on 19.03.13 16:28

He told us we seemed like model parents.


Seemed like does not mean they are model parents, only that their appearance at the time gave the impression of being model parents.

We are not told what type of model parents they seemed to be.

Were they models parents for neglect?

Were they model parents for sociopaths?

What they don't tell us is they seemed like model parents who cared for their children.



If they cannot tell us something , we cannot assume

Hobs

Posts : 722
Reputation : 294
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 52
Location : uk

View user profile http://tania-cadogan.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Strange? (Questions about sedation arising from Kate's book 'madeleine')

Post by tigger on 19.03.13 17:10

@Hobs wrote:He told us we seemed like model parents.


Seemed like does not mean they are model parents, only that their appearance at the time gave the impression of being model parents.

We are not told what type of model parents they seemed to be.

Were they models parents for neglect?

Were they model parents for sociopaths?

What they don't tell us is they seemed like model parents who cared for their children.

If they cannot tell us something , we cannot assume

I particularly like the tagging on of the abduction to: the Bradford fire, the sinking of the Herald of Free Enterprise, the World Trade Center terrorist attacks and the 2004 tsunami, to name just a few. Alan himself, we would learn, had been involved in the aftermath of, among other horrors, coach crashes in Gran Canaria, Cuba and South Africa, three hurricanes and the terrorist bombing at Sharm el Sheikh. unquote

See? It was a natural disaster after all. Alan Pike said so himself. What's more - a natural disaster that happened to Model Parents.


____________________
Lasciate ogni speranza, voi ch'entrate.

tigger

Posts : 8112
Reputation : 25
Join date : 2011-07-20

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 4 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum