Re: Hobs' theory: What I believe may have happened to Madeleine McCann

by Carrry On Doctor 13.02.17 19:01

From Textusa Blog (and slightly off topic) but perhaps pertinent to the discussion above.

".....Portuguese justice system considered as PROVEN FACT that the dogs detected human blood "

So if blood dog alerts are 'proven fact', then cadaver dog alerts are too ?

Whilst many previous guests of 5A may have cut themselves and bled, literally, all over the apartment, no one else is on record as having died there. Taking the above quote as accurate interpretation, I cant help thinking that the supreme court have gone into seemingly unnecessary detail (this example amongst others that took us by surprise) for a reason.

Its as if they want to provide justification for further questioning, or reconstruction.
This time though, it couldn't be declined.

by Verdi 13.02.17 20:11

Carrry On Doctor wrote:
Its as if they want to provide justification for further questioning, or reconstruction.
This time though, it couldn't be declined.

Wishful thinking!

The primary function of the Supreme Court was to resolve 'the conflict between freedom of speech and the right to good name and reputation of the plaintiffs'. If you can decipher legalese, I think you will find the court referenced material from the book, the investigation and the documentary/televised reportage in order to reach a fair conclusion.

The Supreme Court have no authority to initiate nor direct a police investigation, they are there purely as an arbitrator. The courts decision was in favour of Goncalo Amaral's freedom of speech - that's where it ends.

by Carrry On Doctor 13.02.17 21:10

Thank you for your unsurprising response, agent [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

In the spirit of the topic, and in light of your encyclopedic knowledge of the case, I invite you (once again) to tell us in detail what YOU believe happened to Madeleine.

by one day we will find you 13.02.17 21:56

Carrry On Doctor wrote:Thank you for your unsurprising response, agent [You must be registered and logged in to see this link.].

In the spirit of the topic, and in light of your encyclopedic knowledge of the case, I invite you (once again) to tell us in detail what YOU believe happened to Madeleine.

i totally agree.what is the experts theory he obviously knows more then anyone else,may be he should ask the yard if he can be included in operation to find her big grin

by **Hobs** 13.02.17 22:02

Erm, tut, I looked, when I went into the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine, erm, Madeleine's bed was sort of folded back, the sheets, quite kind of neatly really, erm, Sean and Amelie were fast asleep in their cots, they didn't stir, you know, I was opening the cupboards in the room and moving around the room, they didn't stir at all, which that was, that was odd…..’’

Oops fiona.
This bit stands out particularly

when I went into the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine, erm, Madeleine's bed was sort of folded back,

Note first she self edits, She say Madeleine, pauses to self edit and then continues with Madeleine's bed.
What was she going to say?

Madeleine was...?

Then the next interesting and telling snippet

the room was dark.

Maddie was allegedly abducted from her bedroom, the twins were still there sleeping allegedly, kate had also allegedly raced around the apartment doing a quick search whilst the shutter and windows were open and curtains were whooshing.
She then runs to the tapas bar screaming someone has taken her (or variation of which depending which version you believe)
The group then run back to apartment 5a to allegedly search.
How then did kate manage to search the bedroom with the lights off as we are told by fiona?

Why then does fiona tell us I was opening the cupboards in the room and moving around the room?

I have to assume it was in the dark since she hasn't told me the lights were turned on.
Given a child is allegedly missing, allegedly abducted, why did no one turn the lights on?
Were they also tiptoing around the room so as not to disturb the sleeping twins?

Common sense and instinct would be to turn the lights on and make a thorough check of the room and yes that would also include moving the 'sleeping' twins.

by Nina 13.02.17 22:16

Hobs wrote:Erm, tut, I looked, when I went into the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine, erm, Madeleine's bed was sort of folded back, the sheets, quite kind of neatly really, erm, Sean and Amelie were fast asleep in their cots, they didn't stir, you know, I was opening the cupboards in the room and moving around the room, they didn't stir at all, which that was, that was odd…..’’

Oops fiona.
This bit stands out particularly

when I went into the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine, erm, Madeleine's bed was sort of folded back,

Note first she self edits, She say Madeleine, pauses to self edit and then continues with Madeleine's bed.
What was she going to say?

Madeleine was...?

Then the next interesting and telling snippet

the room was dark.

Maddie was allegedly abducted from her bedroom, the twins were still there sleeping allegedly, kate had also allegedly raced around the apartment doing a quick search whilst the shutter and windows were open and curtains were whooshing.
She then runs to the tapas bar screaming someone has taken her (or variation of which depending which version you believe)
The group then run back to apartment 5a to allegedly search.
How then did kate manage to search the bedroom with the lights off as we are told by fiona?

Why then does fiona tell us I was opening the cupboards in the room and moving around the room?

I have to assume it was in the dark since she hasn't told me the lights were turned on.
Given a child is allegedly missing, allegedly abducted, why did no one turn the lights on?
Were they also tiptoing around the room so as not to disturb the sleeping twins?

Common sense and instinct would be to turn the lights on and make a thorough check of the room and yes that would also include moving the 'sleeping' twins.

And how did she open the cupboards when one of the cots was right up to the doors?

by one day we will find you 13.02.17 22:23

Hobs wrote:Erm, tut, I looked, when I went into the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine, erm, Madeleine's bed was sort of folded back, the sheets, quite kind of neatly really, erm, Sean and Amelie were fast asleep in their cots, they didn't stir, you know, I was opening the cupboards in the room and moving around the room, they didn't stir at all, which that was, that was odd…..’’

Oops fiona.
This bit stands out particularly

when I went into the room that Madeleine was sleeping in, the room was dark, Madeleine, erm, Madeleine's bed was sort of folded back,

Note first she self edits, She say Madeleine, pauses to self edit and then continues with Madeleine's bed.
What was she going to say?

Madeleine was...?

Then the next interesting and telling snippet

the room was dark.

Maddie was allegedly abducted from her bedroom, the twins were still there sleeping allegedly, kate had also allegedly raced around the apartment doing a quick search whilst the shutter and windows were open and curtains were whooshing.
She then runs to the tapas bar screaming someone has taken her (or variation of which depending which version you believe)
The group then run back to apartment 5a to allegedly search.
How then did kate manage to search the bedroom with the lights off as we are told by fiona?

Why then does fiona tell us I was opening the cupboards in the room and moving around the room?

I have to assume it was in the dark since she hasn't told me the lights were turned on.
Given a child is allegedly missing, allegedly abducted, why did no one turn the lights on?
Were they also tiptoing around the room so as not to disturb the sleeping twins?

Common sense and instinct would be to turn the lights on and make a thorough check of the room and yes that would also include moving the 'sleeping' twins.

very good point hobs.everyone should watch dr payne's interview to uk police on youtube its by richard hall.he adds so much bullshit to straight questions where he could just say yes or no.but like most people when telling a lie to a simple question we add lots of nonsense in the answer thinking if we just said yes or no it would look suspicious.thats exactly what dr payne was up too.when asked about the kids he says i saw all '3' of them,why noy just say i saw the kids were there.he has to emphasise the number of kids he saw 3.other nonsense in the same question .they looked like angels they were so happy .lots of contradictions between what he says and what kate says about that vist

by sandancer 13.02.17 22:37

They didn't stir at all , which that was, that was odd !

So odd Fiona that you didn't bother to check to see if they were alright ?

So odd Fiona that you as an aneasthetist left them to " sleep "

So odd that their mother apparently kept putting her fingers under their noses, or on their backs depending on which version you go by to check for breathing ?

Oh yes Fiona that really is odd !

by Roxyroo 13.02.17 22:41

Yup, to hell with worrying about waking the twins or not by that point. Child missing, lights on, look everywhere, grab ur two other kids, THEN run for help. Who, in this same situation wld really be worrying about not waking the still sleeping kids? Not any mother i know! And mums can supposedly lift cars off their trapped children, so i dont imagine lifting two babies at once would be THAT hard in an emergency situ, jeez I've been lifting my daughter for 22years now!

by one day we will find you 13.02.17 22:51

Roxyroo wrote:Yup, to hell with waking the twins or not by that point. Child missing, lights on, look everywhere, grab ur two other kids, THEN run for help. Who, in this same situation wld really be worrying about not waking the still sleeping kids? Not any mother i know! And mums can supposedly lift cars off their trapped children, so i dont imagine lifting two babies at once would be THAT hard in an emergency situ, jeez I've been lifting my daughter for 22years now!

quite true well said.

by Verdi 13.02.17 22:52

Something about the twins presence in the bedroom of apartment 5a on the night of 3rd/4th May and the alleged state of unconsciousness just doesn't add up.

The duty PJ officer responsible for examinations at crime scenes, such as detecting finger prints, biological examinations as well as the identification, signalling and collection of other traces and making photographic reports (this includes the photographs of the empty cots posted up-thread) and sketches, who attended the crime scene with his colleagues had this to say in his witness statement taken on 20th November 2007.

Note: This occurred some weeks after the case coordinator, Goncalo Amaral, was removed from the case...

At about 00.10 on the morning of the 4th, he had just finished filing a report about a fire, when he was informed that a child had disappeared in Praia da Luz.

He was brought into service together with an Inspector from the station. It was the inspector's duty to take notes of the services as well as all the information relating to them. The inspector who accompanied him on that date, Vitor Martins, informed him that the case in question was that of the disappearance of a small girl, of British nationality, who was staying at the OC with her parents.

The immediately left for the scene and arrived about 30 - 40 minutes later, at about 00.40/00.50.

When they arrived at the scene, which they immediately identified due to the presence of GNR officers, as well as quite a lot of people who were walking around the street searching for the child, they immediately went to the apartment in question, where they found several people, including some GNR officers, as well as the head of the Lagos GNR station.

He states that the people inside the apartment and close to it, entered and left the building and circulated in the whole apartment, completely freely, in other words, without there being any restriction or care in preserving the scene. .

He said that these people were the friends of the parents of the missing girl and a lady responsible for the resort called Silvia.

He was shown the room the child had disappeared from, having noticed that people also entered and left that room without any care in the sense of preserving traces. Inside this room there were two children, babies, sleeping in two cots placed in the middle of the room.

It was requested that the babies were moved, which was done accordingly, the witness having subsequently put his gloves on to begin the on-site inspection."
----------

Strangely, Kate McCann's autobiography 'madeleine' , more or less accords with this record of events with added embellishment about checking the twins breathing etc. - even though she didn't appear to be with the twins at any stage of the proceedings according to her version of the truth, so it's not clear exactly when the twins were removed from the bedroom. Indeed, according to Kate McCann, she didn't feel the need to cling onto the twins for dear life until they were removed to the Paynes' apartment.

The thing that puzzles me is, given the circumstances, why the twins were left in that bedroom on their own whether they were asleep, awake or unconscious. What distraught parent would leave their remaining children alone in the same room they claim their daughter had been abducted, with all the chaos going on around? The rest of the group had their own children to attend to, Jane Tanner was said to have been hanging around their apartment, Dianne Webster was at a loose end and the O'Brien/Oldfield must have been looking after their own children - the only two in constant attendance at the McCann'ery appears to have been Fiona and David Payne.

In short - why weren't the twins immediately removed from apartment 5a and taken to one of the other apartments? It doesn't make sense - at least not to me. When exactly was the photograph of the empty cots taken? Realistically, were they ever in that bedroom on that night or were they shunted in and out for effect - did the parents really leave them alone in that bedroom after they claim Madeleine was abducted?

Bit like cuddlecat and the blue bag - now you see it now you don't.

by one day we will find you 13.02.17 22:57

sandancer wrote:They didn't stir at all , which that was, that was odd !

So odd Fiona that you didn't bother to check to see if they were alright ?

So odd Fiona that you as an aneasthetist left them to " sleep "

So odd that their mother apparently kept putting her fingers under their noses, or on their backs depending on which version you go by to check for breathing ?

Oh yes Fiona that really is odd !

maybe as an aneasthetist she knew they would not wake because only the tapas 9 know what was given to the kids to get them to sleep.ive allways felt it was something stronger than calpol.imo

by **Tony Bennett** 13.02.17 23:01

sandancer wrote:They didn't stir at all, which that was, that was odd !

So odd Fiona that you didn't bother to check to see if they were alright?

So odd Fiona that you as an aneasthetist left them to "sleep"?

So odd that their mother apparently kept putting her fingers under their noses, or on their backs depending on which version you go by to check for breathing?

Oh yes Fiona that really is odd !

@ sandancer
@ one day we will find you

But of course it may well be that most of the accounts of what happened on the night of Thursday 3 May are pure fiction.

The above accounts are from Kate McCann and Fiona Payne.

But were the twins even in that room that night?

Was Madeleine even alive that day anyway?

Once we examine and establish the answers to these questions, Fiona Payne's account may just turn out to be one more amongst many fabrications in this case.

Every statement in this case must be carefully assessed as to its credibilty, and as to the independence of each witness.

by one day we will find you 13.02.17 23:08

Tony Bennett wrote:
sandancer wrote:They didn't stir at all, which that was, that was odd !

So odd Fiona that you didn't bother to check to see if they were alright?

So odd Fiona that you as an aneasthetist left them to "sleep"?

So odd that their mother apparently kept putting her fingers under their noses, or on their backs depending on which version you go by to check for breathing?

Oh yes Fiona that really is odd !
@ sandancer
@ one day we will find you

But of course it may well be that most of the accounts of what happened on the night of Thursday 3 May are pure fiction.

The above accounts are from Kate McCann and Fiona Payne.

But were the twins even in that room that night?

Was Madeleine even alive that day anyway?

Once we examine and establish the answers to these questions, Fiona Payne's account may just turn out to be one more amongst many fabrications in this case.

Every statement in this case must be carefully assessed as to its credibilty, and as to the independence of each witness.

yes youve hit the nail on the head there tony.only then will we get a better picture of what happened.its fair to say all the statements from the tapas 9 about that day are bogus .the interview given to uk police by dr payne is clear evidence he is lying just watch it on youtube its concrete proof.

by sandancer 13.02.17 23:12

Didn't one of the nannies say the twins weren't there when she arrived ?

Cuddlecat , on a high shelf ( whoosh , sorry no high shelf )

Blue bag in the wardrobe ( whoosh gone ) Gerry didn't have a bag big enough to hide err you know a tennis racket in !!!

Twins not in the room , twins in the room !

Was a magician present that night ? Maybe Dianne Webster was the assistant !!

by one day we will find you 13.02.17 23:20

sandancer wrote:Didn't one of the nannies say the twins weren't there when she arrived ?

Cuddlecat , on a high shelf ( whoosh , sorry no high shelf )

Blue bag in the wardrobe ( whoosh gone ) Gerry didn't have a bag big enough to hide err you know a tennis racket in !!!

Twins not in the room , twins in the room !

Was a magician present that night ? Maybe Dianne Webster was the assistant !!

the blue bag is very interesting did martin grime say find the blue bag.if maddie could fit in it than it would have been no problem for a big man like dr oldfield to swing it over his shoulder and take it where ever he liked no one seeing that would think it odd.as long as it happened before maddie was reported missing

by Verdi 13.02.17 23:21

sandancer wrote:Didn't one of the nannies say the twins weren't there when she arrived ?

Cuddlecat , on a high shelf ( whoosh , sorry no high shelf )

Blue bag in the wardrobe ( whoosh gone ) Gerry didn't have a bag big enough to hide err you know a tennis racket in !!!

Twins not in the room , twins in the room !

Was a magician present that night ? Maybe Dianne Webster was the assistant !!

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

by Verdi 13.02.17 23:29

?

one day we will find you wrote:
Tony Bennett wrote:
sandancer wrote:They didn't stir at all, which that was, that was odd !

So odd Fiona that you didn't bother to check to see if they were alright?

So odd Fiona that you as an aneasthetist left them to "sleep"?

So odd that their mother apparently kept putting her fingers under their noses, or on their backs depending on which version you go by to check for breathing?

Oh yes Fiona that really is odd !
@ sandancer
@ one day we will find you

But of course it may well be that most of the accounts of what happened on the night of Thursday 3 May are pure fiction.

The above accounts are from Kate McCann and Fiona Payne.

But were the twins even in that room that night?

Was Madeleine even alive that day anyway?

Once we examine and establish the answers to these questions, Fiona Payne's account may just turn out to be one more amongst many fabrications in this case.

Every statement in this case must be carefully assessed as to its credibilty, and as to the independence of each witness.
yes youve hit the nail on the head there tony.only then will we get a better picture of what happened.its fair to say all the statements from the tapas 9 about that day are bogus .the interview given to uk police by dr payne is clear evidence he is lying just watch it on youtube its concrete proof.

Can you please provide a link to a YouTube video where Dr David Payne is interviewed by the UK police - I would very much like to watch it?

Thank you howdy

.

by one day we will find you 13.02.17 23:41

google 'the true story of madeleine mccann' .youtube.ive not learnt how to post links yet new to the game

by ChippyM 13.02.17 23:53

Hobs wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
one day we will find you wrote:i feel the mccans gave maddie something a lot stronger than calpol.one of the group had said their child was sick and vomited and he had to clean it up before returning to the group.i feel it wasnt his child that was sick and vomiting.it was maddie and maybe the reason she died'choked on her vomit after being drugged at bedtime

What if all the children were left together and accidentally consumed varying amounts of some drug or substance which shouldn't have been left accessible? Then 1 or more of the children become ill as a result, 1 recovers, 1 does not. A group of doctors could monitor the ill children and think all will recover. When one doesn't recover as expected they are left being responsible for an overdose AND not getting the child to hospital as they should have done.

Either this or more than one child could have been given some kind of sedative intentionally...then the illness scenario again.

These 2 scenarios could explain the 'pact' and solidarity of the group. It could also explain the breathing checks on the Twins by an unnerved parent who is paranoid about the health of their remaining children.
Kate and gerry could havce explained away an accidental overdose.
Maddie found the pills and thinking it was candy ate them, this happens more than you think and we often see and hear reports in the media of children ingesting drugs, detergent pouches, sundry poisonous chemicals etc.

They could have claimed they didn't know she had taken them and when they returned and checked on them before bed, all 3 appeared well and sleeping.
They only realized what had happened when they woke the next day and found Maddie dead in bed or found her dead in the sitting room after she had apparantly woken, gone into the sitting room and died there as a result of a fall or overdose.

As they had been drinking they could have claimed they heard nothing due to sleeping the sleep of the inebriated.

No prosecution since it was 'accidental' public sympathy or scorn given they were doctors and should have known better about keeping medication out of the reach of children.

Possibly a telling off from the GMC for the same reason.

Maddie gets a dignified burial, kate can grieve and life goes on.

That Maddie disappeared would strongly indicate that whatever caused Maddie's death could not be explained away as an accident.

Signs of long term sedation.
Medication not prescribed to Maddie by an independent doctor.
Signs of unexplained injuries.
Signs of sexual abuse. such as genital injury.
Signs of old healed injuries.
Signs of injuries that would have warranted treatment at a hospital but no record of said treatment(s)
Signs of injuries older but healing.

(Snipped ) ............

What I said about the children possibly overdosing doesn't exclude other possibilities, I'm not sold on one theory only.

I also don't believe everything that is said about leaving the children alone either. The 'checking' on the night in question obviously looks like a decoy 'neglect' event that makes an abduction look possible. Still, they COULD have left them alone at least one night or even alltogether under the supervision of one person taking turns etc.

The drug they overdosed on could actually have been a recreational substance. Maybe as a group of doctors, using illegal drugs they wouldn't want this to come to light and cause them to lose their jobs?

There could also be a combination of factors such as one or more of the group knows about abuse also. I can't help but come back to the Gaspar statement and think of the terrible implications of maybe drugging a child intentionally.

Whilst I'm not sure a straight forward accident would avoid an autopsy anyway, (don't sudden deaths ussually result in them?)
I do agree someone wanted the body to be hidden to avoid an autopsy at all costs.

by Verdi 13.02.17 23:57

one day we will find you wrote:google 'the true story of madeleine mccann' .youtube.ive not learnt how to post links yet new to the game

That's Richard D Hall's estimable video. Richard D. Hall of Rich Planet and member of this forum.

Where can I find a video of an interview between the UK police and David Payne?

by one day we will find you 14.02.17 0:10

Verdi wrote:
one day we will find you wrote:google 'the true story of madeleine mccann' .youtube.ive not learnt how to post links yet new to the game
That's Richard D Hall's estimable video. Richard D. Hall of Rich Planet and member of this forum.

Where can I find a video of an interview between the UK police and David Payne?

ask the police for it.you can clearly see doctor payne sitting there.now if you think he is not saying what is being pointed out by richard.than i suggest you contact the police and ask to see dr paynes statement so you can expose richard.if you cant do that than its put up or shut up iam afraid.have you made any videos on the case or even on youtube if not than i suggest you dont knock other peoples hard work.no offence big grin

by Basil with a brush 14.02.17 0:15

ChippyM wrote:
Hobs wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
one day we will find you wrote:i feel the mccans gave maddie something a lot stronger than calpol.one of the group had said their child was sick and vomited and he had to clean it up before returning to the group.i feel it wasnt his child that was sick and vomiting.it was maddie and maybe the reason she died'choked on her vomit after being drugged at bedtime

What if all the children were left together and accidentally consumed varying amounts of some drug or substance which shouldn't have been left accessible? Then 1 or more of the children become ill as a result, 1 recovers, 1 does not. A group of doctors could monitor the ill children and think all will recover. When one doesn't recover as expected they are left being responsible for an overdose AND not getting the child to hospital as they should have done.

Either this or more than one child could have been given some kind of sedative intentionally...then the illness scenario again.

These 2 scenarios could explain the 'pact' and solidarity of the group. It could also explain the breathing checks on the Twins by an unnerved parent who is paranoid about the health of their remaining children.
Kate and gerry could havce explained away an accidental overdose.
Maddie found the pills and thinking it was candy ate them, this happens more than you think and we often see and hear reports in the media of children ingesting drugs, detergent pouches, sundry poisonous chemicals etc.

They could have claimed they didn't know she had taken them and when they returned and checked on them before bed, all 3 appeared well and sleeping.
They only realized what had happened when they woke the next day and found Maddie dead in bed or found her dead in the sitting room after she had apparantly woken, gone into the sitting room and died there as a result of a fall or overdose.

As they had been drinking they could have claimed they heard nothing due to sleeping the sleep of the inebriated.

No prosecution since it was 'accidental' public sympathy or scorn given they were doctors and should have known better about keeping medication out of the reach of children.

Possibly a telling off from the GMC for the same reason.

Maddie gets a dignified burial, kate can grieve and life goes on.

That Maddie disappeared would strongly indicate that whatever caused Maddie's death could not be explained away as an accident.

Signs of long term sedation.
Medication not prescribed to Maddie by an independent doctor.
Signs of unexplained injuries.
Signs of sexual abuse. such as genital injury.
Signs of old healed injuries.
Signs of injuries that would have warranted treatment at a hospital but no record of said treatment(s)
Signs of injuries older but healing.

(Snipped ) ............

What I said about the children possibly overdosing doesn't exclude other possibilities, I'm not sold on one theory only.

I also don't believe everything that is said about leaving the children alone either. The 'checking' on the night in question obviously looks like a decoy 'neglect' event that makes an abduction look possible. Still, they COULD have left them alone at least one night or even alltogether under the supervision of one person taking turns etc.

The drug they overdosed on could actually have been a recreational substance. Maybe as a group of doctors, using illegal drugs they wouldn't want this to come to light and cause them to lose their jobs?

There could also be a combination of factors such as one or more of the group knows about abuse also. I can't help but come back to the Gaspar statement and think of the terrible implications of maybe drugging a child intentionally.

Whilst I'm not sure a straight forward accident would avoid an autopsy anyway, (don't sudden deaths ussually result in them?)
I do agree someone wanted the body to be hidden to avoid an autopsy at all costs.

I'm pretty much with you ChippyM on this. But lean quite a bit more towards her being sexually abused. Think the mother was probably turning a blind eye to it, if she wasn't participating herself. The father is very suspect to me. Not to mention the weirdo friends who were with them. As you say, an accident is too tragic, even a weak bonding between mother and child would cause enough distress to the mother and father, that they would be forgiven as their loss is already enough and added with guilt. So something is being hidden for sure. Meds maybe, but meds with sexual abuse? Oh yes.

by Basil with a brush 14.02.17 0:22

one day we will find you wrote:
Verdi wrote:
one day we will find you wrote:google 'the true story of madeleine mccann' .youtube.ive not learnt how to post links yet new to the game
That's Richard D Hall's estimable video. Richard D. Hall of Rich Planet and member of this forum.

Where can I find a video of an interview between the UK police and David Payne?
ask the police for it.you can clearly see doctor payne sitting there.now if you think he is not saying what is being pointed out by richard.than i suggest you contact the police and ask to see dr paynes statement so you can expose richard.if you cant do that than its put up or shut up iam afraid.have you made any videos on the case or even on youtube if not than i suggest you dont knock other peoples hard work.no offence

I think estimable is admirable? And that was Verdi's acknowledgement.

by one day we will find you 14.02.17 0:27

ChippyM wrote:
Hobs wrote:
ChippyM wrote:
one day we will find you wrote:i feel the mccans gave maddie something a lot stronger than calpol.one of the group had said their child was sick and vomited and he had to clean it up before returning to the group.i feel it wasnt his child that was sick and vomiting.it was maddie and maybe the reason she died'choked on her vomit after being drugged at bedtime

What if all the children were left together and accidentally consumed varying amounts of some drug or substance which shouldn't have been left accessible? Then 1 or more of the children become ill as a result, 1 recovers, 1 does not. A group of doctors could monitor the ill children and think all will recover. When one doesn't recover as expected they are left being responsible for an overdose AND not getting the child to hospital as they should have done.

Either this or more than one child could have been given some kind of sedative intentionally...then the illness scenario again.

These 2 scenarios could explain the 'pact' and solidarity of the group. It could also explain the breathing checks on the Twins by an unnerved parent who is paranoid about the health of their remaining children.
Kate and gerry could havce explained away an accidental overdose.
Maddie found the pills and thinking it was candy ate them, this happens more than you think and we often see and hear reports in the media of children ingesting drugs, detergent pouches, sundry poisonous chemicals etc.

They could have claimed they didn't know she had taken them and when they returned and checked on them before bed, all 3 appeared well and sleeping.
They only realized what had happened when they woke the next day and found Maddie dead in bed or found her dead in the sitting room after she had apparantly woken, gone into the sitting room and died there as a result of a fall or overdose.

As they had been drinking they could have claimed they heard nothing due to sleeping the sleep of the inebriated.

No prosecution since it was 'accidental' public sympathy or scorn given they were doctors and should have known better about keeping medication out of the reach of children.

Possibly a telling off from the GMC for the same reason.

Maddie gets a dignified burial, kate can grieve and life goes on.

That Maddie disappeared would strongly indicate that whatever caused Maddie's death could not be explained away as an accident.

Signs of long term sedation.
Medication not prescribed to Maddie by an independent doctor.
Signs of unexplained injuries.
Signs of sexual abuse. such as genital injury.
Signs of old healed injuries.
Signs of injuries that would have warranted treatment at a hospital but no record of said treatment(s)
Signs of injuries older but healing.

(Snipped ) ............

What I said about the children possibly overdosing doesn't exclude other possibilities, I'm not sold on one theory only.

I also don't believe everything that is said about leaving the children alone either. The 'checking' on the night in question obviously looks like a decoy 'neglect' event that makes an abduction look possible. Still, they COULD have left them alone at least one night or even alltogether under the supervision of one person taking turns etc.

The drug they overdosed on could actually have been a recreational substance. Maybe as a group of doctors, using illegal drugs they wouldn't want this to come to light and cause them to lose their jobs?

There could also be a combination of factors such as one or more of the group knows about abuse also. I can't help but come back to the Gaspar statement and think of the terrible implications of maybe drugging a child intentionally.

Whilst I'm not sure a straight forward accident would avoid an autopsy anyway, (don't sudden deaths ussually result in them?)
I do agree someone wanted the body to be hidden to avoid an autopsy at all costs.

good points chippy.i think that incident was explained by one of them as maddie trying to suckle jerry nipple while he was holding her .poor explanation in my book.if it was just an accident they would be demonised for leaving her alone but if drugs had a part in the accident than thats a whole new can of worms for them.i totally agree an autopsy must not be done in this case .and they succeeded .as for kate ive never heard of a catholic woman with such a vile thought process and language 'you fxxking tosser you fxxking tosser' its in her book