The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Hello!

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.

When posting please be mindful that this forum is primarily about the death of a three year old girl.

Regards,

Jill Havern
Forum owner

Terminally McCanned?

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by John (In)DEED on 15.03.14 21:17

@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...
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WWqL3vNRK64
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..

John (In)DEED

Posts : 16
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.03.14 22:00

@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?

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14212
Reputation : 2390
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by canada12 on 15.03.14 22:20

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

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 198
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Tony Bennett on 15.03.14 22:29

@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

____________________


2007 (28 June) Dr Gerry McCann: “I have no doubt we will be able to sustain a high profile for Madeleine’s disappearance in the long-term”.

2017 (February) Dr Kate McCannthrust into a global bidding war…news giants battle to sign her up for the 10th anniversary…offered huge bids…bombarded with offers…30 sitting on the table…getting new bids every other day…one told Kate and Gerry: ‘Name your price!’
                        


Tony Bennett
Researcher/Moderator

Posts : 14212
Reputation : 2390
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 69
Location : Harlow, Essex

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by John (In)DEED on 15.03.14 22:48

@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?

John (In)DEED

Posts : 16
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2014-03-14

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by bodiddly on 15.03.14 23:07

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. :)

____________________
A lie cannot live...Martin Luther King, Jr.

bodiddly

Posts : 77
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-15

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Vicky87 on 15.03.14 23:09

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

Vicky87

Posts : 13
Reputation : 13
Join date : 2013-10-16

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by jeanmonroe on 15.03.14 23:25

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

Posts : 5317
Reputation : 1176
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by canada12 on 15.03.14 23:52

@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 can clearly see the headboard behind the dressing table.

If you look at this photo...


...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.

canada12

Posts : 1461
Reputation : 198
Join date : 2013-10-28

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Hobs on 16.03.14 0:00

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.

____________________
The little unremembered acts of kindness and love are the best parts of a person's life.

Hobs

Posts : 745
Reputation : 358
Join date : 2012-10-20
Age : 53
Location : uk

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

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Woofer on 16.03.14 1:09

@Tony Bennett wrote:
@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. We don`t know for sure she was alive on the 3rd - KM`s `carrying home` scenario could have been juxtaposed with another day (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. Maybe it would if the injury had occured whilst in the lunch hour in the Mcs care, yet they had still sent her to the creche, Cat Baker had assessed it as needing hospital attention, advised the parents and they then ignored her advice believing they knew best.  In this case it may not have necessitated reporting it in an Accident Book.  It would explain them having to keep CB on side.  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?  Because they would have been totally negligent in not following advice and allowing the condition to worsen.

This is of course discussion of a possibility only.

Woofer

Posts : 3390
Reputation : 12
Join date : 2012-02-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by PeterMac on 16.03.14 8:00

Or she was down the back of the sofa when they got back from the Tapas and slept apart on 2nd, and died overnight.
Neither checked the children before they turned in, as they were both cross and not speaking to each other.
Possibly

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Guest on 16.03.14 8:04

@PeterMac wrote:Or she was down the back of the sofa when they got back from the Tapas and slept apart on 2nd, and died overnight.
Neither checked the children before they turned in, as they were both cross and not speaking to each other.
Possibly

... and perhaps drunk?

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Irisheyes on 16.03.14 8:28

@bodiddly wrote: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 completely agree with this post apart from the socks part. I have young children and they insist on wearing socks with summer shoes as the inevitably find the shoes "lumpy". They have to wear some socks inside out so that they cant feel the seam too! I have three kids and 2 are like this and it is very commmon. It looks odd and i see other kids running around sock free but what can you do! They just dont find it comfortable.


Irisheyes

Posts : 29
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Guest on 16.03.14 8:32

Ladyinred wrote:
@PeterMac wrote:Or she was down the back of the sofa when they got back from the Tapas and slept apart on 2nd, and died overnight.
Neither checked the children before they turned in, as they were both cross and not speaking to each other.
Possibly

... and perhaps drunk?

....and so instead of calling for help (emergency services, police) they decided to conceal her body and concoct an unbelievable fantasy about an abduction.
...so risking themselves being accused of all kinds of acts upon their child.
Instead of gaining the obvious sympathy from all, for an accident that could in reality happen to anyone. And being quietly left to grieve and a proper burial for Maddie at home.

makes sense......

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Irisheyes on 16.03.14 8:35

The main reason to avoid an autopsy is sedation imo.

Irisheyes

Posts : 29
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-10-27

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Guest on 16.03.14 8:41

@Irisheyes wrote:The main reason to avoid an autopsy is sedation imo.

But sedation with something that would not normally be given to a child.
Not calpol, not phergan or other antihistamines.
There could have been a legitimate reason for giving these.
Death from calpol (paracetemol) takes days from liver failure, horrible.
Maddie could have hayfever and that could be used as an excuse for the antihistamines ( the puffy eyes in some photos could be an indication of this).

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by PeterMac on 16.03.14 9:20

dantezebu wrote:
@Irisheyes wrote:The main reason to avoid an autopsy is sedation imo.

But sedation with something that would not normally be given to a child.
Not calpol, not phergan or other antihistamines.
There could have been a legitimate reason for giving these.
Death from calpol (paracetemol) takes days from liver failure, horrible.
Maddie could have hayfever and that could be used as an excuse for the antihistamines ( the puffy eyes in some photos could be an indication of this).

And Gerry had TERFENADINE (Seldane in the United States, Triludan in the United Kingdom, and Teldane in Australia) which was so dangerous that it was withdrawn in the 1990s
Why he had it we may never know.
If he had used that on Madeleine he would have been guilty, not only of neglect, but of something much more serious.
Enough reason to avoid a post mortem and toxicology ?
And the twins were comatose, almost certainly sedated, as the McCanns eventually admitted after a year of denials and anger at the suggestion !
But they never followed it through.

____________________


PeterMac
Researcher

Posts : 10170
Reputation : 149
Join date : 2010-12-06

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Guest on 16.03.14 9:26

@PeterMac wrote:Or she was down the back of the sofa when they got back from the Tapas and slept apart on 2nd, and died overnight.
Neither checked the children before they turned in, as they were both cross and not speaking to each other.
Possibly
***
Not checking on their children and finding one dead the next morning is gross neglect. And an autopsy would have established the time of dead and proof that. If there's anything obvious in this sad tale, it's that post mortem had to be avoided at all costs. And this theory is one of the more "innocent" reasons to explain that ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by joyce1938 on 16.03.14 9:34

yes peter mac , I too have voiced that opinion at one time ,and it could have been that way as if come home after plenty wine ,you may not check too well before dropping into bed ,the rest would be a nightmare . joyce1938

joyce1938

Posts : 813
Reputation : 93
Join date : 2010-04-20
Age : 78
Location : england

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Guest on 16.03.14 9:46

@PeterMac wrote:
dantezebu wrote:
@Irisheyes wrote:The main reason to avoid an autopsy is sedation imo.

But sedation with something that would not normally be given to a child.
Not calpol, not phergan or other antihistamines.
There could have been a legitimate reason for giving these.
Death from calpol (paracetemol) takes days from liver failure, horrible.
Maddie could have hayfever and that could be used as an excuse for the antihistamines ( the puffy eyes in some photos could be an indication of this).

And Gerry had TERFENADINE (Seldane in the United States, Triludan in the United Kingdom, and Teldane in Australia) which was so dangerous that it was withdrawn in the 1990s
Why he had it we may never know.
If he had used that on Madeleine he would have been guilty, not only of neglect, but of something much more serious.
Enough reason to avoid a post mortem and toxicology ?
And the twins were comatose, almost certainly sedated, as the McCanns eventually admitted after a year of denials and anger at the suggestion !
But they never followed it through.

This is just my current opinion only:
My concern with the twins being sedated as evidence that Maddie had died as a result of sedation is exactly that, the twins were almost definately sedatated.
If Maddie had died as a result of sedation that would be good reason NOT to sedate the remaining two children.
Firstly, if it had been an unexpected reaction to a drug (as opposed to OD) then there would be the risk of the same happening to either one or both of the twins. These reactions are usually caused by an abnormality in metabolising the drug and are often genetic.
Secondly, it would point directly to sedation as an element in the whole scenario. At the same time as dispposing of Maddies body I think the sedative drugs would have been well disposed of too.
Thirdly, although the caring parents or any of the other trained medical professionals did not seek assessment and treatment for the twins, they could not count on the fact that the police would not notice the condition of the twins and them themselves take action.
Fouthly, any unexpected drugs found in Maddies system could easily be explained away by accidental ingestion. It would be easier to stage a scene of empty bottle/ pill packet than a scene of adbuction.

My thoughts are that the twins were sedated on the night of the third possibly so that that Act 1, Scene 1 could go ahead without the twins witnessing any of the play and this becoming actual witnesses. And also because an awake twin crying would attract attention to the flat and deter the "abductor", when they needed a calm quiet set.



Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Rasputin on 16.03.14 10:02

If the child had died overnight through mis-calculated sedation then discovered in the morning it surely would have been apparent to any person attending  either with or without medical knowledge that ' this hasnt just happened ' ....catch 22 ...do we own up ? or do we conceal and save our own arses ?, its a no-brainer for me which these two would have opted for .

____________________
"I'm not buying it" Wendy Murphy

Rasputin

Posts : 269
Reputation : 0
Join date : 2013-11-13

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by jeanmonroe on 16.03.14 11:59

Rachael Oldfield:

" if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to REVIVE a child, erm”.
-----------------------------------------------

Re: my earlier post on Ms Richardson.

(revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head")

So not sure why RO would have said 'BEEN' (bumped ON the head)

Sounds like a 'diliberate' act rather than 'an accidental 'bump' on the head'.

Surely she would have said "if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the her head or you know WHATEVER........'

Well i, for one, think her 'choice' of words, is ODD!

jeanmonroe

Posts : 5317
Reputation : 1176
Join date : 2013-02-07

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by Guest on 16.03.14 12:58

I agree.
And IIRC she mentioned the presence of quite a number of doctors and them being able to "revive" twice ...

Guest
Guest


Back to top Go down

Re: Terminally McCanned?

Post by ultimaThule on 16.03.14 15:29

@jeanmonroe wrote:Rachael Oldfield:

" if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to REVIVE a child, erm”.
-----------------------------------------------

Re: my earlier post on Ms Richardson.

(revealed the cause of death was an "epidural hematoma due to blunt impact to the head")

So not sure why RO would have said 'BEEN' (bumped ON the head)

Sounds like a 'diliberate' act rather than 'an accidental 'bump' on the head'.

Surely she would have said "if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the her head or you know WHATEVER........'

Well i, for one, think her 'choice' of words, is ODD!
Blunt force trauma to the side of the head is a common cause of epidural hematoma.  

The slogan is 'one punch can kill' and, at the time of writing, numerous convicted felons are serving time for murder and manslaughter because they threw 'one punch' at their victims.

That said, where a child has died as result of accidentally hitting their head on an unforgiving surface no parent or carer should have need to fear the consequences of reporting the death to the relevant authorities, even in cases where death is not discovered until some hours after the event.  

Similarly, where death has occurred as a result of swallowing substances such as sedative/sleeping drugs which are delivered in tablet or liquid form and which a small child has mistaken for sweets/treats, there should be no fear of reporting the event to the relevant authorities. 

It's a fact that accidents happen and, where fatal accidents happen to children, authorities worldwide recognise the need for sensitivity with regard to the feelings of their parents/carers/guardians albeit, as in all cases of unexpected death, there may be need for autopsy to confirm the cause.  Although the police may be involved at an early stage, punitive action in cases of accidental death is rarely taken because it is also recognised that the guilt felt by those who hold themselves responsible for failing to prevent accident to a child in their care is punishment enough.

ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Reputation : 3
Join date : 2013-09-18

View user profile

Back to top Go down

Page 2 of 7 Previous  1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6, 7  Next

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


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