Terminally McCanned?

UltimaThule.... Her ears were very low set and her hand was extremely odd looking maybe a very notable birth defect possibly why the pics were photoshopped so much

kimHager wrote:UltimaThule.... Her ears were very low set and her hand was extremely odd looking maybe a very notable birth defect possibly why the pics were photoshopped so much

Madeleine was 'ALMOST PERFECT' says her loving father, Gerry. (CW. OCT 2013)

Implying that Madeleine did indeed have an IMPERFECTION of 'some sort'

What a great thing for a father to say about his first born daughter..................NOT!

I think the most plausible theory in this case is tragic accident eg head injury from falling off the sofa whilst looking for parents who were not in the apartment . This age group tends to soon tire when doing things out of their normal routine of which a holiday fits this category . When children begin nursery parents often remark how tired their children are and again when they start school full time . Every child is different but tiredness when doing something out of a childs normal routine is nothing unusual . One of mine at that age could literally fall asleep on a pin head and on starting nursery came home at lunch and slept all afternoon until time to pick up the others from school . Clumbsiness is not uncommen in this age group either and also having no sense of danger ie a child of this age would not think hmm no I best not climb on the sofa as I might fall and bang my head . 

It is true what they say when you have kids  especially this age group you need eyes in the back of your head that is why I find it even more abhorrent that 2 so called educated people doctors no less found it totally acceptable to leave a 3 year old and 2 year old twins alone to fend for themselves .

It also angers me greatly that these parents have not been charged with child neglect infact child abuse  and the twins taken into care . I have seen children placed into care for far less over the years and it really does beggar belief that according to Gerry he had been informed that their actions were well within the bounds of reasonable parenting . I would love to know who exactly informed the Mccanns of this as personally I think they should be struck of and never allowed to work with children ever again .

ultimaThule wrote:

frost wrote:None of the photos I have seen of Madeleine make me think she was terminally ill . I have spent 2 years previously on and off on a childrens cancer ward and also spent time on a childrens cardiac ward . Images I will never forget . She does not resemble a child close to the end of life nor does she resemble a child on steroids which many take for various medical conditions including children on chemo etc . I have been visiting a childrens day hospital for over 15 years and nothing in any photos , videos I have seen of her make me think she was ill .

I have seen photos in which the child* does not look well; some in which it could be she's taking, or has taken, steroids, and others in which I've suspected foetal alcohol sydrome.

*The reason I've opted to use 'the child' is that, IMO, many of the images which are puported to be those of Madeleine appear to be photos of two or more different children.

 Ultima I have 3 children myself and worked with disabled children for many years . These children were either born disabled or became disabled through accident , illness or abuse  . Madeleine does not look to me to be suffering from any illness whether that be congenital , acquired  or an illness as a result of something her mother did during pregnancy . 

A lot of children this age can look a little odd ie eyes too big for their face , forehead too big , hands not in proportion to the rest of the body etc etc . Usually it is merely the pace at which a child has developed infact if I am honest one of my children looked like an alien until about 2 1/2 years old and started  nursery at age 3 looking no more than 18 mths - 2 years old yet had the vocabulary of a 6 year old purely and simply because they were born at 26 weeks . To this day they still have a very high forehead  though not as noticeable which is a common feature of prem babies but now look  perfectly 'normal ' in every way and I suspect very few would be able to tell they were born so prematurley especially as they are now 5ft 10 . 

Many people have little quirks and who is to say what is normal and what is not normal . Im sure everyone on this forum could remark on some part of their body that they do not think is quite 'normal' I know I can  . I hate that word by the way I mean define 'normal' ............ it is not easy is it

kimHager wrote:Exactly PeterMac  my thoughts too was they cashed in. I just have a hard time thinking the dreaded M word.... I've thought accident but that doesn't need covering up.... Nothing about this case makes sense... Except in AC/DC's words.. Come on come on listen to the money talk...

It would need covering up if they had been arrogant enough not to take her to hospital but treat her/care for her themselves.   I doubt whether the cover-up would extend to calling in favours from officialdom - but who knows what aspects are involved.

Wherever possible I try to avoid using the 'n' word and I came to this forum with the belief that Madeleine was nothing other than a healthy little girl who had achieved all of the milestones which signify appropriate progress on the childhood road to maturity, frost.

However, as reported to the PJ by her parents after she was 'taken', Madeleine's height of 90cm is well below average for a white British female child who was just a few days off her 4th birthday and, as such, would/should have been cause for concern to health practitioners as it can be an indication of failure to thrive which may have a physical and/or emotional cause. 

As stated, I have seen images purportedly of Madeleine in which the child appears to be unwell and looks to be afflicted by certain disorders of which I have named only one.  In other images of what is purported to be the same the child, there is an absence of any sign which may give rise to speculation about her health and wellbeing.

This post by tigger may be of interest to you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and while I am not entirely convinced that, had she not been 'taken' at an early age, Madeleine was not long for this life, I don't feel able to discount the possibility that when her doting father described her 'almost perfect' appearance he was referring to that miniscule defect of the eye which is the coloboma that, against advice from the PJ - advice, I might add, that police forces around the world would give in similar circumstances and which one would have expected any concered parent to act upon - the McCanns were at pains to make known to the world as soon as was practically possible and which her loving mother subsequently claimed they 'didn't make much of'.   

Fwiw, to my eye the child shown tripping on the aircraft steps when boarding what is alleged to be the holiday flight on 29 April 2007 appears to have ginger hair not dissimilar in shade to that of Gerry McCann's natural hair colour and, regardless of whether or not she was afflicted with health issues, I remain of the opinon that after the birth of her twin siblings Madeleine became a scapegoat who was, effectively, excess baggage.

frost wrote:I think the most plausible theory in this case is tragic accident eg head injury from falling off the sofa whilst looking for parents who were not in the apartment . This age group tends to soon tire when doing things out of their normal routine of which a holiday fits this category . When children begin nursery parents often remark how tired their children are and again when they start school full time . Every child is different but tiredness when doing something out of a childs normal routine is nothing unusual . One of mine at that age could literally fall asleep on a pin head and on starting nursery came home at lunch and slept all afternoon until time to pick up the others from school . Clumbsiness is not uncommen in this age group either and also having no sense of danger ie a child of this age would not think hmm no I best not climb on the sofa as I might fall and bang my head . 

It is true what they say when you have kids  especially this age group you need eyes in the back of your head that is why I find it even more abhorrent that 2 so called educated people doctors no less found it totally acceptable to leave a 3 year old and 2 year old twins alone to fend for themselves .

It also angers me greatly that these parents have not been charged with child neglect infact child abuse  and the twins taken into care . I have seen children placed into care for far less over the years and it really does beggar belief that according to Gerry he had been informed that their actions were well within the bounds of reasonable parenting . I would love to know who exactly informed the Mccanns of this as personally I think they should be struck of and never allowed to work with children ever again .

           

ultimaThule wrote:Wherever possible I try to avoid using the 'n' word and I came to this forum with the belief that Madeleine was nothing other than a healthy little girl who had achieved all of the milestones which signify appropriate progress on the childhood road to maturity, frost.

However, as reported to the PJ by her parents after she was 'taken', Madeleine's height of 90cm is well below average for a white British female child who was just a few days off her 4th birthday and, as such, would/should have been cause for concern to health practitioners as it can be an indication of failure to thrive which may have a physical and/or emotional cause. 

As stated, I have seen images purportedly of Madeleine in which the child appears to be unwell and looks to be afflicted by certain disorders of which I have named only one.  In other images of what is purported to be the same the child, there is an absence of any sign which may give rise to speculation about her health and wellbeing.

This post by tigger may be of interest to you [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.] and while I am not entirely convinced that, had she not been 'taken' at an early age, Madeleine was not long for this life, I don't feel able to discount the possibility that when her doting father described her 'almost perfect' appearance he was referring to that miniscule defect of the eye which is the coloboma that, against advice from the PJ - advice, I might add, that police forces around the world would give in similar circumstances and which one would have expected any concered parent to act upon - the McCanns were at pains to make known to the world as soon as was practically possible and which her loving mother subsequently claimed they 'didn't make much of'.   

Fwiw, to my eye the child shown tripping on the aircraft steps when boarding what is alleged to be the holiday flight on 29 April 2007 appears to have ginger hair not dissimilar in shade to that of Gerry McCann's natural hair colour and, regardless of whether or not she was afflicted with health issues, I remain of the opinon that after the birth of her twin siblings Madeleine became a scapegoat who was, effectively, excess baggage.

Yes, uT, Madeleine being a scapegoat.  One of the aspects of this case which upsets me is when I read of MBM being described as demanding, a screamer etc.  IMO most children are these at various times of their development and is quite normal behaviour.  Of course, any young child is going to be affected by the arrival of twin siblings and this is the time when they need more attention, not to be pushed aside and expected to behave as an adult would.  Some people are simply not suited to being parents and perhaps there is a reason why K&G were not able to conceive naturally.  Apologies if I appear harsh in my opinion of this issue.

Regarding MBM's hair colour, I commented a while ago about a photo of her with ginger hair.

This picture has always made me feel a bit sad for Madeleine...
Here are the newly arrived twins, lined up for a photo in their carrycots... and there's Madeleine, parked on the end, to complete the picture of the offspring...and she looks so unhappy.

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

I'm the elder of two children and I well remember when my sister was born (I was four). I was very very resentful of not being the centre of attention anymore, and often had temper tantrums to try and get that attention back.

Consider Madeleine, who had to deal with double the effect.

I also find that photo very sad. She looks miserable. I think that when the twins came along the McCanns had a ready-made family of a boy and a girl and Madeleine, unfortunately, became 'surplus to requirements'. I know that sounds horrible, but that is what I believe. This could especially be the case if Gerry is not the biological father. Even if he is (and there was a story in a foreign newspaper which claimed he wasn't, I do believe - but how accurate it is I have no idea) both parents may well have found Madeleine 'very difficult' as she had colic. And, given that imo they are both narcissistic, it must have been quite a shock having their first child. Especially one who, according to the McCanns, had a strong personality. 

It sounds to me as though the McCanns were not up to the challenge of parenting an 18 month year old child who would have needed a lot of time and attention when twins came along. It's hard enough having a child of around that age when one sibling comes along. The situation needs to be handled with sensitivity in order for the child not to feel usurped. But with twins it must be doubly difficult.

But given that the McCanns were well educated people, with supportive family networks on both sides and with a reasonable amount of money to employ extra help with child-care, I cannot see why they could not have coped as well as anyone else with the first few years. Once the twins had reached the age of around three, and Madeleine five, it would all have become a lot easier. 

But I do believe that Madeleine had become the family scapegoat. And we know how much the McCanns love a scapegoat and are inclined to either idolize or despise people (especially Kate). 

When you look at that photo you can see that, despite Kate's saccharine prose in her book, family life chez-McCann was not exactly a bed of roses. And Gerry did not seem particularly 'bonded' with Madeleine. Once the twins came along, he could have played a very important role with her. But - even on the family holiday - Gerry was out playing tennis at that all-important (and frankly exhausting) part of the evening when the children are winding down and getting ready for bed. 

All in my opinion, obviously.

Agree with a lot of what you've said j.rob. And I remember that some members of the family - not sure if it was Kate's side or Gerry's - mentioning that at one point they were spending time with Kate to "help her look after the children" while Gerry was away working. If there's already a discussion about this elsewhere on the site, it would be great to revisit exactly what the details were. But to me, when I was reading this account, and reading between the lines, I got the impression that Kate really wasn't able to cope with looking after the children on her own. Which to me raises red flags about her emotional stability. Was she suffering from post-partum depression? Was she suffering from depression anyway? Were there any other emotional issues at work?

And I really have to question why they felt they needed to have more children in such a quick succession. One was enough of a handful. Why would you want another (or two?) so quickly?

One thought has occurred to me, and I'm not sure how valid it is. But if you have one child with a diagnosed disorder, and the only cure is a donation of blood or bone marrow, some parents have been known to have another child in order to provide a suitable donor for the first child. I wonder if the twins were conceived for that purpose...?

I don't think Madeleine had anything like Foetal Alcohol Syndrome but she did look unwell very often, with those bags under her eyes. She looked particularly unwell in the b/w family photo. She also often looked very unhappy. Questions include: why only one pic of newborn Madeleine ("so wanted, so precious!") which has Gerry holding the baby and Kate looking as if she had just popped by...not given birth.
Why no Christening pictures?
Why no pix that I can remember where she is having a birthday party or with little friends? Nearly always alone...

Yeah the few pics we have seen really don't tell us much except Madeleine looks sad. I really have to wonder if maybe she was sick and doesn't look it.... You know I believe she got in their way she probably did help with the twins and that is what I think happened.She was alone with the babies and had an accident maybe she drowned or fell whatever it was I think she probably wasn't in the best of health .whatever happened I think she died alone with only the babies there. That is so so sad. But my opinion only

canada12 wrote:One thought has occurred to me, and I'm not sure how valid it is. But if you have one child with a diagnosed disorder, and the only cure is a donation of blood or bone marrow, some parents have been known to have another child in order to provide a suitable donor for the first child. I wonder if the twins were conceived for that purpose...?

 Canada12  -I've been toying with that idea for a while now, but didn't feel confident enough to voice it.

There is a photo of a child who is purported to be Madeleine on a see-saw, wearing ill-fitting clothes which look as if they've come out of a rag bag, and to my eye it appears the child may have FAS or Downs syndrome, juliet.  However, as has been remarked on by others and as appears to be the case to me, the images which are in the public domain and which are all purported to be Madeleine McCann seem to be of more than one child.

As for the 'supportive family network' referred to by j.rob, the clans McCann and Healy may have turned out in force to enjoy a free holiday lend their support in Luz but are we expected to believe that family members such as auntie Trish, a nurse, and uncle Phil, a teacher, regularly took leave of absence from their professions or spent numerous weekends commuting between Scotland and Leicestershire to lend a hand in Queniborough while Kate was immobilised for months prior to the birth of the twins, or that they continued to provide ad hoc childcare after they were born and the family moved to Rothley?  

In actuality, any 'help' K&G received from family prior to their eldest daughter being 'taken' appears to have consisted of Kate's parents making regular trips from Sale to Rothley, supplemented with occasional babysitting by uncle Brian Kennedy and his wife Janet who, conveniently, live in the village.

Neverthless, the close ties Gerry has with his in laws, together with any indebtedness he may have felt for their help with caring for his spouse and children, didn't prevent him despatching them, along with his own mother, back to Blighty within 3 days of their arriving in Luz to console the bereft couple and I suspect uncle Phil may have suffered the same fate had she not been under orders to remain in Ullapool until the holiday for umpteen family members to Turkey the following month. 

Similarly, we are led to believe that Kate successfully conceived Madeleine on the second round of IVF in the UK and was first time lucky with the twins when she received free IVF in Amsterdam little more than a year later.   How fortunate the couple's savings were not depleted by treatment which can often result in others finding themselves broke or in debt and in a state of continuing childlessness. 

As to why the couple chose to increase their family so quickly, canada12, I suspect 'free' is a word which is music to Gerry's ears and it was Kate's intention to have 6 children...

ultimaThule wrote:There is a photo of a child who is purported to be Madeleine on a see-saw, wearing ill-fitting clothes which look as if they've come out of a rag bag, and to my eye it appears the child may have FAS or Downs syndrome, juliet.  However, as has been remarked on by others and as appears to be the case to me, the images which are in the public domain and which are all purported to be Madeleine McCann seem to be of more than one child.

As for the 'supportive family network' referred to by j.rob, the clans McCann and Healy may have turned out in force to enjoy a free holiday lend their support in Luz but are we expected to believe that family members such as auntie Trish, a nurse, and uncle Phil, a teacher, regularly took leave of absence from their professions or spent numerous weekends commuting between Scotland and Leicestershire to lend a hand in Queniborough while Kate was immobilised for months prior to the birth of the twins, or that they continued to provide ad hoc childcare after they were born and the family moved to Rothley?  

In actuality, any 'help' K&G received from family prior to their eldest daughter being 'taken' appears to have consisted of Kate's parents making regular trips from Sale to Rothley, supplemented with occasional babysitting by uncle Brian Kennedy and his wife Janet who, conveniently, live in the village.

Neverthless, the close ties Gerry has with his in laws, together with any indebtedness he may have felt for their help with caring for his spouse and children, didn't prevent him despatching them, along with his own mother, back to Blighty within 3 days of their arriving in Luz to console the bereft couple and I suspect uncle Phil may have suffered the same fate had she not been under orders to remain in Ullapool until the holiday for umpteen family members to Turkey the following month. 

Similarly, we are led to believe that Kate successfully conceived Madeleine on the second round of IVF in the UK and was first time lucky with the twins when she received free IVF in Amsterdam little more than a year later.   How fortunate the couple's savings were not depleted by treatment which can often result in others finding themselves broke or in debt and in a state of continuing childlessness. 

As to why the couple chose to increase their family so quickly, canada12, I suspect 'free' is a word which is music to Gerry's ears and it was Kate's intention to have 6 children...

[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
Well..
Free?
I know losing a child is very difficult.
At each age..
Parents often go 'their own way'
The Mccann are 'to perfect'.
I would blame myself, my spouse and never forgiff myself for spending time with friends..
'Move on'
I don't think my family would forgive me to..

PeterMac wrote:

Woofer wrote:The tiredness (if this can be believed as happening on the 3rd) could have come from a head injury earlier in the week.  On the Monday Maddie was taken out of the Lobsters after only 15 minutes.  Had she hit her head and her parents were called to collect her? - Not necessarily at the creche, could have been in the lunch hour.  Maybe Cat advised them to get her checked out at a hospital but they decided to handle the situation themselves (as they are all doctors).  If she had concussion, its affects are wide ranging and could be why she woke and couldn`t sleep on the Tuesday night.  It would explain `we`ve let her down`and the cosying up with Cat Baker afterwards.  Just an thought though.

This is a very interesting observation.
Some of us who think 2nd, have perhaps believed that the event  ( IT ) happened, and then the sequelae were inevitable over a short time.

Here in Spain, some time ago, a lad sustained an injury to the head - either falling off a ladder or tripping backwards once he had got off, or  . . . . what ?
The ambulance had great difficulty in persuading him that he should go to hospital for checks.   He was refusing.  
Conscious, and loquacious, and adamant that he was AOK.
He did go to the local hospital, and later that afternoon was airlifted to the ICU in Malaga.
Three days later he died.

And a friend of mine has been under civil and criminal proceedings for the last six years for being owner of the ladder, from which he may, or may NOT, have fallen.
Diagnosis - - - - ?
Compensation has set in

Follow the money.

The scenario advanced by Woofer and PeterMac is that Madeleine might have had some kind of head injury or concussion, maybe earlier in the week.

In Woofer's scenario, Madeleine is alive but tired at around 6pm on 3 May as Kate picks her up and carries her back to the apartment. (Where Gerry was supposed to be at this moment has never been explained). Woofer presumably suggsts the head injury was earlier in the week. 

In PeterMac's scenario, the head injury/concussion happened on or before 2nd May.

In Woofer's scenario, and I think in PeterMac's scenario as well, Madeleine has a head injury which does not immediately seem serious. She carries on going to the creche and is seen by others, etc. Then, later, it suddenly worsens and she dies.

Under such a scenario, I do not see that there would be any need to conceal her demise from anyone. The emergency services could be called if she suddenly worsened or died. The McCanns would have committed no crime.

There would be no need then for Dr Amaral's suggestion that Madeleine's body was deliberately hidden.

Why woud the McCanns need to hide the body under the above scenarios?

Tony, the only scenario I could see whereby they'd need to conceal the body is if the head injury was not accidental and could be proven to be not accidental by an autopsy.

canada12 wrote:Tony, the only scenario I could see whereby they'd need to conceal the body is if the head injury was not accidental and could be proven to be not accidental by an autopsy.

Quite so, I fully agree.

Therefore Woofer's scenario doesn't work, because if there was an obvious non-accidental injury, then no way would Madeleine have been 'out and about' during 3 May.

Similalrly, under PeterMac's scenario, he is presumably suggesting that if there was a non-accidental - but non-fatal - injury, then the McCanns kept Madeleine from public view until the moment when, sadly, her injury later became fatal.

For legal reasons let me just add that I do not suggest in any way that such a thing might have happened. I am simply trying to follow the logic of the scenarios put forward by Woofer and Petermac

Tony Bennett wrote:

canada12 wrote:Tony, the only scenario I could see whereby they'd need to conceal the body is if the head injury was not accidental and could be proven to be not accidental by an autopsy.

Quite so, I fully agree.

Therefore Woofer's scenario doesn't work, because if there was an obvious non-accidental injury, then no way would Madeleine have been 'out and about' during 3 May.

Similalrly, under PeterMac's scenario, he is presumably suggesting that if there was a non-accidental - but non-fatal - injury, then the McCanns kept Madeleine from public view until the moment when, sadly, her injury later became fatal.

For legal reasons let me just add that I do not suggest in any way that such a thing might have happened. I am simply trying to follow the logic of the scenarios put forward by Woofer and Petermac

So what was to find to incriminate the Mccann if her body was there to investigate?
 I mean..
Something hard to explain?
What are the protocol to follow when an accident cause dead?
Autopsie protocol?

I can believe in the possibility of MBM having some form of illness.
What I have to disagree with is a few points made.
What is wrong with the pic of the twins in their chairs with MBM  at the end. What difference does it make where she was sitting.
Do you think she should be placed in the middle of the twins, if so why and who are we to tell parents in what order their child should be photographed.
Also the remarks about her looking unhappy. I have taken thousands if photos over the years of my children as they grew. I would say in about 20% of them they smiled. The rest were moody faces and damn right peed off with me for making them sit still for all of the few seconds it took to take the pic.
As for the bags under her eyes. The skin around the eyes on toddlers is very thin and a lot of toddlers have this.
I have looked through all the photos and I can not see two different girls. I see one girl at growing ages to almost 4 years old.

My main issue with photos is the socks and the sandals.
I personally can not fathom as to why you would put your child in shorts t shirt sandals and socks. Why the socks. If it's warm enough for shorts and t shirt why the need for socks. Maybe it was just KM's fashion sense or maybe MBM feet had some form of deformity that would show her condition.

I don't know why I have it in my head that MBM may have been unwell.
She doesn't look it. However some children don't. I know a little girl with TS and she looks like any other little girl. Apart from her feet. I have worked with children and adults with all forms of illness and some look ill and some just don't. Some with autism look like one of the crowd but the behaviour will often show as different. You can not tell from the photos for definite either way.

As someone else pointed out, the "almost perfectly formed" speaks volumes.

Lastly regarding IVF. You can be successful on the first or any other subsequent attempt. The likelihood of success goes up after a successful pregnancy from IVF. Some people fail attempts yet get pregnant naturally against all the odds after.
I find nothing strange about it taking two attempts and then happening on the third attempt again. Also why wait to go again. KM was no teenager. It had taken ages to get MBM. Maybe they thought why not go now again with the free cycle and if it works great. Women are often most broody for a second child within the first year of having the first.

I am not sticking up for the McCann's. I dislike them as much as everyone on here and suspect them as much as everyone else on here.
I just wanted to voice my opinion.
If you looked through the photos I have taken over the years you would see edited pics from where I thought I was the new up and coming photography talent, moody miserable kids with different shades of blond hair, often from really blonde to almost red head looking. You may see pics of all the kids together and think I liked one less because I shoved them on the end. :)

I think there could definitely be something in this. I see no other reason for with-holding the kids' medical records.

On 16 March 2009, Richardson sustained a head injury when she fell while taking a beginner skiing lesson at the Mont Tremblant Resort in Quebec, Canada about 80 miles (130 km) from Montreal.
The injury was followed by a lucid interval, when Richardson seemed to be fine and was able to talk and act normally. Paramedics and an ambulance which initially responded to the accident were told they were not needed and left.
Refusing medical attention twice, she returned to her hotel room and about three hours later was taken to a local hospital in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts after complaining of a headache.
She was transferred from there by ambulance to Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur, Montreal, in critical condition and was admitted about seven hours after the fall.
The following day she was flown to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, where she died on 18 March at the age of 45.
An autopsy conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head", and her death was ruled an accident
-----------------------------------------------------------------

An autopsy conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head",
---------------------------------------------------------------

Could Madeleine have suffered an 'epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head' IF she came between two arguing parents, arguing about a certain aerobics instructor, and with an accidentally 'whooshing' hand had hit her head on a solid wall, table?

jeanmonroe wrote:On 16 March 2009, Richardson sustained a head injury when she fell while taking a beginner skiing lesson at the Mont Tremblant Resort in Quebec, Canada about 80 miles (130 km) from Montreal.
The injury was followed by a lucid interval, when Richardson seemed to be fine and was able to talk and act normally. Paramedics and an ambulance which initially responded to the accident were told they were not needed and left.
Refusing medical attention twice, she returned to her hotel room and about three hours later was taken to a local hospital in Sainte-Agathe-des-Monts after complaining of a headache.
She was transferred from there by ambulance to Hôpital du Sacré-Cœur, Montreal, in critical condition and was admitted about seven hours after the fall.
The following day she was flown to Lenox Hill Hospital in New York City, where she died on 18 March at the age of 45.
An autopsy conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head", and her death was ruled an accident
-----------------------------------------------------------------

An autopsy conducted by the New York City Medical Examiners Office on 19 March revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head",
---------------------------------------------------------------

Could Madeleine have suffered an 'epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head' IF she came between two arguing parents, arguing about a certain aerobics instructor, and with an accidentally 'whooshing' hand had hit her head on a solid wall, table?

Quite possibly! Or perhaps the headboard of a bed? Which, in the children's room, is conveniently NOT behind Madeleine's bed, because according to Kate, they had moved Madeleine's bed against the far wall in order to make room for the two cots.

If you look at this photo...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

...you can clearly see the headboard behind the dressing table.

If you look at this photo...
[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.]

...you can see where the NOTW has photographed the headboard behind the bed where it should be.

I made the point on another thread that the headboard had been moved but it was pointed out to me that the headboard was bolted to the wall. Following that logic, then, Madeleine's bed should have been where the dresser is and the headboard.

If the headboard was bolted to the wall, it is clearly on there solidly, is immovable, and could easily have caught a head on one of the edges.

Just following through with a thought, imo.

ETA: And in order to remove even the slightest idea that Madeleine could have hit her head on the headboard, it may have been conveniently hidden behind the dresser, so the question might not even be asked if the police were looking for logical places where a head injury could occur. In my opinion.

In todays litigious society, if Maddie suffered some form of head injury whilst she was in the care of the creche and subsequently died, i will bet my bottom dollar the gruesome twosome would have sued the creche, MW and anyone else they thought involved in her injury and netting a nice income.
Heck if she suffered an injury at the hands of another adult in the group then again, they would not only sue, they would be pressing charges.

Since they did none of the above one has to assume then there was a non accidental injury that caused Maddie's demise.
An injury that could not be explained away as an accident, thus there could be no autopsy for fear of what it would reveal, thus maddie had to vanish, had to be 'abducted'.

Nothing else explains away their behavior, especially in comparison to a multitude of other missing child cases where the parent/step parent/guardian claims abduction only to be later found guilty of neglect, child abuse and homicide
In cases where there have been no charges laid even though everyone knows who did it including LE.
No body huinders the investigation and the killer(s) are saying nothing or the state prosecutor doesn't have the cojones to go up against a highly paid defense attorney using circumstantial evidence.

Debbie bradley as an example. Baby Lisa was allegedly abducted from her bedroom. She never physically searched, refused tio fully co-operate with LE, failed a poly and was just about to confess after stating she expected to be arrested when a high flying attorney from NY joe tacopina (taco joe) showed up and promptly shut her down.

The we have the ramseys, billie dunn and shawn adkins, lena lunsford, terri horman, tiffany hartley, mark redwine justin dipietro and his sister and girlfriend and many others all indicating for deception yet still running free.