Have we been too harsh on the book ?

Are they part of a Grange conspiracy ?

 I keep coming back to their choice of words here
p.3 and p.21 they point out - unnecessarily - that both Kate and FP are trained professional anaesthetists.
p 170 he has both parents denying they gave the children any medication
BUT THEN on p 80 when discussing the sedation of the three children, having drivelled on about Chloroform and its more modern equivalents, and by implication effectively ruled them out because of the lack of lingering smell, they then say  
"Should a drug be inexpertly handled - or should a patient or victim, perhaps resisting, draw a deep breath and inhale too great a concentration of the drug -
cardiac arrest may occur, Amateur anaesthesia can kill."

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’ [= Amateur. PM]  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.  [3.31]
Neither doctor performed any of the usual and medically required tests or procedures appropriate to recovery from anaesthesia.  It is a matter of record that the twins were not taken to a hospital for assessment.
On the facts therefore the doctors were in serious and negligent breach of a whole series of medical protocols for which nurses have been struck off the register.  [3.32]
And even more strangely, they have admitted this in statements and in the book.  They have made no attempt to suggest that they acted correctly.

If we rely purely on what they have said, we find that it is corroborated by independent witnesses, and it leads to the following conclusion -
They would be guilty of a most serious breach of professional standards, so serious that striking off the Medical Register would be appropriate.

We are given many instances in her own book of Kate McCanns’ loss of control, kicking out at inanimate objects, hitting railings with her fists, throwing herself on the floor, wailing and so on.  We are however also given clear examples where she was not acting in this way, being more calm and professionally purposeful, going out into the street to see what was happening, having a blunt discussion with a witness in the apartment above, “wandering” into the twins’ room, and ultimately “keeping vigil” in total silence for the rest of the night. [3.33]

However, it must be said 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.
But despite that, and to address the original question, having regard to the available evidence, we may be tempted to take the charitable view, and to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities,
the parents may have been involved in the sedation of the twins.

And they have always denied this.
But despite that, and to address the original question, having regard to the available evidence, we may be tempted to take the charitable view, and to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, 
the parents may have been involved in the sedation of the twins.

BlueBag wrote:Peter,
Is this in the book????

And they have always denied this.
But despite that, and to address the original question, having regard to the available evidence, we may be tempted to take the charitable view, and to conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, 
the parents may have been involved in the sedation of the twins.

aquila wrote:I'm taking a simplistic view that it's more than strange S&S were even granted a meeting with Andy Redwood to write what the publishers describe as a definitive book - which it clearly isn't.

S&S surely couldn't have had senior members of OG in effect proof reading pages before publishing could they? That would be most unprofessional of SY and would set a precedent that anyone wanting to write about Madeleine's disappearance can speak to Andy Redwood and have their work sanctioned in some way so as not to interfere with a live investigation. That would be bizarre wouldn't it?

So for me, I can only see the strangeness of S&S's claim to have had an audience with AR in the first place. I mean, was this meeting conducted over tea and biscuits after work in a cafe or was it on 'company time' in the offices of Belgravia?

To consider that SY are in cahoots with the authors is totally outrageous isn't it?

So, so many questions.

Snifferdog wrote:

aquila wrote:I'm taking a simplistic view that it's more than strange S&S were even granted a meeting with Andy Redwood to write what the publishers describe as a definitive book - which it clearly isn't.

S&S surely couldn't have had senior members of OG in effect proof reading pages before publishing could they? That would be most unprofessional of SY and would set a precedent that anyone wanting to write about Madeleine's disappearance can speak to Andy Redwood and have their work sanctioned in some way so as not to interfere with a live investigation. That would be bizarre wouldn't it?

So for me, I can only see the strangeness of S&S's claim to have had an audience with AR in the first place. I mean, was this meeting conducted over tea and biscuits after work in a cafe or was it on 'company time' in the offices of Belgravia?

To consider that SY are in cahoots with the authors is totally outrageous isn't it?

So, so many questions.

yes, especially since this is still an ongoing review turned investigation. I have never heard of such a thing before??? How can it be???

Okeydokey wrote:I like the way you're messing with their minds Peter by turning them into "haters" but I think the answer to your question must be a resounding no.
I suspect that because the explanatory gaps are there, looming over the whole book, then sub-consciously they can't help being attracted to them...without meaning to they keep coming up with some of these "connect the dots" comments...

Brian Griffin wrote:Peter, I think they've got you second-guessing yourself and looking for things that aren't intended to be there, possibly because of the authors' prestigious track record making you unable to believe they could present such poorly organised and edited material for publication. Listen to how aggressively pro-McCann they are in their interview. Was that really necessary for people trying to slip another message past the reader? Why the use of the word 'hater' rather than the gentler and less-emotive 'sceptic'? Why delete all Facebook comments they don't like? Surely they'd leave them up if they were trying to tell people something else. In my opinion.

PeterMac wrote:
And surely the Authors are honourable wo / men.

BlueBag wrote:

PeterMac wrote:
And surely the Authors are honourable wo / men.

Et tu Petra?

Brian Griffin wrote:Peter, I think they've got you second-guessing yourself and looking for things that aren't intended to be there, possibly because of the authors' prestigious track record making you unable to believe they could present such poorly organised and edited material for publication. Listen to how aggressively pro-McCann they are in their interview. Was that really necessary for people trying to slip another message past the reader? Why the use of the word 'hater' rather than the gentler and less-emotive 'sceptic'? Why delete all Facebook comments they don't like? Surely they'd leave them up if they were trying to tell people something else. In my opinion.

Have we been too harsh on the book ?

if an accidental death had occured it would be because an amateur had administered any drug.



Maybe the book is aimed at MENSA members though PeterM, as it all sounds too cryptic for me, (an average Joe)  who would hate to read  a book which gives definitive answers and then would have  to sit and consider deeply any possible messages being sent out .   Glad I haven't read it if that is what has to be done by your average Joe reader.  

Would be good if PeterM's post was posted on their FB page and let them tell the readers whether there are "cryptic" messages within the book. 


Oh err, any such question would probably be whooshed though imo.

Okeydokey wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:Peter, I think they've got you second-guessing yourself and looking for things that aren't intended to be there, possibly because of the authors' prestigious track record making you unable to believe they could present such poorly organised and edited material for publication. Listen to how aggressively pro-McCann they are in their interview. Was that really necessary for people trying to slip another message past the reader? Why the use of the word 'hater' rather than the gentler and less-emotive 'sceptic'? Why delete all Facebook comments they don't like? Surely they'd leave them up if they were trying to tell people something else. In my opinion.

My suspicion  - no more - is that Summers is past it and this is a cut and paste job put together by Swan.  

Her best known books are on Nixon, Sinatra and 9-11 - books that could almost write themselves I would suggest, given the huge amount of material already in the public realm.  

Here's a quote from Robbyn which for me sums up the level she's operating at:

" I’m embarrassed to admit that I used to read the fine-print ads in the back of women’s magazines for things like magic inflatable pants that sweated off the pounds while you slept.

Even then something told me it couldn’t be true. If it were so easy, wouldn’t everyone be thin? I remember wanting to compare the claims and see if there was any way to prove or disprove them."

Wow! Such a penetrating intelligence..."something" told her it couldn't be true.  Her sixth sense is truly amazing!

http://www.thewomenseye.com/2011/09/08/interview-robbyn-swans-new-book-the-eleventh-day/

The point about the McCann case is that it requires a mastery of a huge amount of information that has NOT already been analysed and gone over in public. The PJ files are available but no one has yet undertaken a really detailed analysis.  Equally for all the huge amount of words written about this case, no one has done a really in depth analysis of Kate and Gerry's background or the lead up to the disappearance of MMcC. No one has interviewed the Gaspars. No one has interviewed any of the Tapas 9 in any depth apart from Ummer Queen Jane Tanner.

I am simply not convinced that Summers and Swan put in anywhere near enough the required amount of work to be able to claim to have written the definitive account.

BlueBag wrote:I can only think that a Ninja did it. (Trained in anesthetics).

Did Gerry check the ceiling when he went in?
" />