The GP's GP - Why the Change?

by skyrocket 16.12.15 12:59

The Mc's GP from October 2002 (at the latest) to mid-March 2007 was Dr Philip Hussey of Syston Health Centre, which looks to be about 2km from Queniborough. This GP seems to have seen the Mc's through all the births of their children and they remained with him/the practice up to the middle of March 2007, except for their brief period in Amsterdam. They returned to the practice when they returned to the area at the end of 2004 with Madeleine aged about 19 months, 3 months before the birth of the twins. The Mc's moved to Rothley at this time (which seems to be 6/7 km from the Syston Practice), but remained with the same practice.

So what prompted the change to the Mountsorrel Practice of Dr Schofield in the middle of March 2007, over 2 years after they had moved to Rothley? Wouldn't it be more rational to stay with the practice who knew your history and the history of all of your 3 children? Afterall, the Syston Practice would appear to be only 10 minutes further by car and both parents are doctors.

Statements from the PJ Files:

1 to 3-Witness Statement of Philip Hussey (2008.05.15)
Testimony from Ph.HU
Age if less than 18 years:
Occupation:
This deposition (comprising _ pages and signed by me) is true and according to my understanding. I am aware that, if proven to the contrary, I will be subject to prosecution if I have voluntarily testified to something with
knowledge of it being false or not corresponding to the truth.
Date: May 15, 2008
Signature __________________________________

I am the above mentioned person living at the address previously supplied to police.
I am a GP at the Center for Health at Syston and my qualifications are as follows: MB, CHB, MRCGP.
I have practised my profession at this location for 22 years.
I was visited by police officers from Leicestershire who are conducting an investigation by order of the Portuguese authorities regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007.
When the McCann family lived in Queniborough, Leicestershire they were included in my consultancy; Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie were all my clients.
Kate's first consultation was on 20 October 2000, and Gerry on 19 December 2000, Madeleine was included since birth.
There was a period in which the family did not use our services, which coincided with the change of residence to the Netherlands where he spent a season, but upon their return resumed their affiliation with us.
When the twins Sean and Amelie were born, both were registered in my clinic.
It could be said that I know Kate well, the couple faced some problems of conception and I recall that Kate was particularly desperate for a family. After treatment for infertility and when pregnant with Madeleine she could not be more happy because she wanted that child so much.

I met Kate and Gerry once at a social event at the home of Professor Gershlick who is a colleague of Gerry. I remember sitting close to Kate during the dinner. We spoke about the difficulties of medicine in general and of the problems within the National Health Service. I got on well with both of them.
I never had any doubts about the state of mental health of Kate and Gerry and I never prescribed them sedatives or any medication that could alter the psychological state of Kate or Gerry.
Also, I never had doubts regarding the physical or psychological well-being of the children. Madeleine was seen by the duty doctor when born and by our nurses during the routine vaccinations. If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen.
The last time I saw Kate as a patient was on March 10, 2006.
Knowing how much the couple wanted a family, I do not believe that they would have had any kind of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.
This testimony was made by me and it is true according to my understanding.

****************************************

Testimony from Ian Richard Schofield 14 May 2008
3-Witness statement of Ian Richard Schofield (Dr. at Alpine Practice) 2008.05.14

Testimony of: Ian Richard SCHOFIELD
Age is less than 18 years:
Occupation: Physician (General Practice)
This deposition (comprising 1 page and signed by me) is true and according to my understanding. I am aware that, if proven to the contrary, I will be subject to prosecution if I have voluntarily testified to something with
knowledge of it being false or not corresponding to the truth.
Date: May 14, 2008
Signature ______________________________________

I am a GP and senior partner in Alpine Practice in Rothley Road, Mountsorrel and in summary my qualifications are respectively at MBChB, DRCOG, MRCGP.
I am currently, and have been for 14 months, the GP of the McCann family. Before Madeleine's disappearance, I had only consulted Kate McCann once and never had assisted Gerry, nor ever had reason to deal with the twins Sean and Amelie and only saw them once after the disappearance of Madeleine.
As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children.
I never prescribed Kate or Gerry any medication that could alter their behaviour or demeanour.
I never had any doubt about the psychological welfare of the children.
The only thing I can affirm is that Kate and Gerry are a very genuine couple, affectionate and careful [caring] parents. They always kept me, social services and other authorities informed on the progress of the investigation that followed the disappearance of Madeleine.
After the disappearance of Madeleine, I met Kate and Gerry at their home and never had any cause for concern about the twins.
This testimony was prepared from a series of questions raised by DC Ferguson and DC Holliday of the Leicestershire police, following the request by the Portuguese PJ.
This testimony was made by me and it is true according to my understanding.

by deafoldbat 16.12.15 16:14

So neither GP were ever concerned about Madeleine's apparent eye defect?

by thingy 16.12.15 16:32

I wonder if the doctors were asked about the 6 dead bodies that Kate came into contact with when she took Maddie's cuddlecat to work with her.

by skyrocket 16.12.15 16:48

Just re-read the GP's statements.

This line from Dr Hussey is interesting:

Madeleine was seen by the duty doctor when born and by our nurses during the routine vaccinations. If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen.

Does this mean/imply that he never saw Madeleine in the almost 4 years she was registered with the practice? Also, does it suggest that she was seen only once by any of the practice doctors i.e. 'Madeleine was seen by the duty doctor when born'. Perhaps this is the norm for children of doctors (parents can diagnose any minor ailments).

by Richard IV 16.12.15 19:54

@skyrocket - it sounds as if he never saw her but has avoided actually saying it.

http://www.gmc-uk.org/guidance/10247.asp

The above is GMC guidance on doctors treating their own families - it seems it`s not advised but they refrain from specifically saying so.

If I were a doctor and my new baby had the terrible colic that MBM is said to have had, I would definitely get another doctor to check her over.

If they diagnosed all her ailments (and tots can have quite a lot,i.e. tummy aches, ear aches, rashes, temperatures, coughs, colds, teething etc.) they must have also prescribed medication as well.

by **Hobs** 17.12.15 1:57

skyrocket wrote:The Mc's GP from October 2002 (at the latest) to mid-March 2007 was Dr Philip Hussey of Syston Health Centre, which looks to be about 2km from Queniborough. This GP seems to have seen the Mc's through all the births of their children and they remained with him/the practice up to the middle of March 2007, except for their brief period in Amsterdam. They returned to the practice when they returned to the area at the end of 2004 with Madeleine aged about 19 months, 3 months before the birth of the twins. The Mc's moved to Rothley at this time (which seems to be 6/7 km from the Syston Practice), but remained with the same practice.

So what prompted the change to the Mountsorrel Practice of Dr Schofield in the middle of March 2007, over 2 years after they had moved to Rothley? Wouldn't it be more rational to stay with the practice who knew your history and the history of all of your 3 children? Afterall, the Syston Practice would appear to be only 10 minutes further by car and both parents are doctors.

Statements from the PJ Files:

1 to 3-Witness Statement of Philip Hussey (2008.05.15)
Testimony from Ph.HU
Age if less than 18 years:
Occupation:
This deposition (comprising _ pages and signed by me) is true and according to my understanding. I am aware that, if proven to the contrary, I will be subject to prosecution if I have voluntarily testified to something with
knowledge of it being false or not corresponding to the truth.
Date: May 15, 2008
Signature __________________________________

I am the above mentioned person living at the address previously supplied to police.
I am a GP at the Center for Health at Syston and my qualifications are as follows: MB, CHB, MRCGP.
I have practised my profession at this location for 22 years.
I was visited by police officers from Leicestershire who are conducting an investigation by order of the Portuguese authorities regarding the disappearance of Madeleine McCann in May 2007.
When the McCann family lived in Queniborough, Leicestershire they were included in my consultancy; Kate, Gerry, Madeleine, Sean and Amelie were all my clients.
Kate's first consultation was on 20 October 2000, and Gerry on 19 December 2000, Madeleine was included since birth.
There was a period in which the family did not use our services, which coincided with the change of residence to the Netherlands where he spent a season, but upon their return resumed their affiliation with us.
When the twins Sean and Amelie were born, both were registered in my clinic.
It could be said that I know Kate well, the couple faced some problems of conception and I recall that Kate was particularly desperate for a family. After treatment for infertility and when pregnant with Madeleine she could not be more happy because she wanted that child so much.

I met Kate and Gerry once at a social event at the home of Professor Gershlick who is a colleague of Gerry. I remember sitting close to Kate during the dinner. We spoke about the difficulties of medicine in general and of the problems within the National Health Service. I got on well with both of them.
I never had any doubts about the state of mental health of Kate and Gerry and I never prescribed them sedatives or any medication that could alter the psychological state of Kate or Gerry.
Also, I never had doubts regarding the physical or psychological well-being of the children. Madeleine was seen by the duty doctor when born and by our nurses during the routine vaccinations. If there had been cause for concern in any of the children, it would have been brought to my attention, and this did not happen.
The last time I saw Kate as a patient was on March 10, 2006.
Knowing how much the couple wanted a family, I do not believe that they would have had any kind of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine.
This testimony was made by me and it is true according to my understanding.

****************************************

Testimony from Ian Richard Schofield 14 May 2008
3-Witness statement of Ian Richard Schofield (Dr. at Alpine Practice) 2008.05.14
Testimony of: Ian Richard SCHOFIELD
Age is less than 18 years:
Occupation: Physician (General Practice)
This deposition (comprising 1 page and signed by me) is true and according to my understanding. I am aware that, if proven to the contrary, I will be subject to prosecution if I have voluntarily testified to something with
knowledge of it being false or not corresponding to the truth.
Date: May 14, 2008
Signature ______________________________________

I am a GP and senior partner in Alpine Practice in Rothley Road, Mountsorrel and in summary my qualifications are respectively at MBChB, DRCOG, MRCGP.
I am currently, and have been for 14 months, the GP of the McCann family. Before Madeleine's disappearance, I had only consulted Kate McCann once and never had assisted Gerry, nor ever had reason to deal with the twins Sean and Amelie and only saw them once after the disappearance of Madeleine.
As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children.
I never prescribed Kate or Gerry any medication that could alter their behaviour or demeanour.
I never had any doubt about the psychological welfare of the children.
The only thing I can affirm is that Kate and Gerry are a very genuine couple, affectionate and careful [caring] parents. They always kept me, social services and other authorities informed on the progress of the investigation that followed the disappearance of Madeleine.
After the disappearance of Madeleine, I met Kate and Gerry at their home and never had any cause for concern about the twins.
This testimony was prepared from a series of questions raised by DC Ferguson and DC Holliday of the Leicestershire police, following the request by the Portuguese PJ.
This testimony was made by me and it is true according to my understanding.

NEVER does not mean DID NOT

by skyrocket 17.12.15 8:41

@deafoldbat

Yes - a coloboma would have needed regular specialist input from birth and you would assume at least a few related GP visits. Very, very strange that the Mc's pushed the coloboma so much during the first year or so, when it never actually existed. Why on earth would any genuine person do this I wonder! The fact they did, right from the getgo, would suggest that they were confident of their position very early on.

They have since played the coloboma down and 're-diagnosed' the mark in Madeleine's eye as merely a fleck (which is not a medical condition and is extremely common). I can understand Dr Hussey not giving any medical details, but the lack of contact would seem to confirm no colomboma. Again, suggests confidence verging on arrogance, in their changing of a major aspect of their daughter's physical appearance.

In an article (extract below) from BBC online in Feb 2008, the Mc Team were still pushing the existence of the coloboma ('eye defect' stressed) and its importance in the search for their daughter (the LOOK campaign). Note the parts I have underlined. Surely this amounts to mis-leading an investigation - have they been asked to actually explain why they did it? Of course the reason would appear clear to most but the Mc's can't say what we all suspect can they?
The GP's GP - Why the Change? O

Last Updated: Thursday, 21 February 2008, 15:38 GMT The GP's GP - Why the Change? O

E-mail this to a friend

Printable version

How common is Madeleine's eye defect?

A girl resembling Madeleine McCann has been spotted in France by a woman who says she had the same eye blemish as the missing girl's. Police have dismissed the sighting, but how common is the defect?
Referred to as the "mark of Madeleine" the blemish on the four-year-old's right eye has played a key part in the campaign to highlight her disappearance, emphasised in posters and videos.
It was at the centre of the latest possible sighting of her. Dutch student Melissa Fiering says she saw a girl who looked like Madeleine McCann at a service station in the South of France.
She believed it was the youngster, who went missing from the Portuguese resort of Praia da Luz last May, because she had a dark smudge on her right iris. However, police examining CCTV evidence have determined it was not the missing girl.

THE ANSWER
Colobomas are extremely rare - about 0.007% of the population

It's not the first reported sighting of Madeleine, but a spokesman for the McCann family said it was "more worthy than most" because of the eye defect.

While French police have ruled out the latest "sighting" of Madeleine, given the rareness of the eye defect it's perhaps not surprising Ms Fiering believed she had seen the missing girl.

"I looked in her eye because I'd seen on TV that Madeleine's got a defect in her right iris and I saw this girl had it," she told the Daily Mirror. "I could hardly believe my eyes, but I knew for sure it was her."

Also, as @Richard IV pointed out, apart from any eye problems, what about all the other usual childhood ailments? Perhaps the Mc's are liassez-faire about illness. All the doctors I know (and I know a few) swing the other way and are bordering on neurotic about illness (one told me 'the more you know, the worse you get'!).

Apart from the lack of actual contact MBM had with GP's (UK) in almost 4 years (it would have been interesting if the Dr Hussey had been asked about his contact with the twins), I'm still wondering about the transfer to another medical practice just 6 weeks prior to the Luz holiday. Something we will probably never know the reason for and quite possibly/probably of no relevance to the 'disappearance' but at least the fact is on the table.

by woodpecker 17.12.15 10:52

I can understand transfering to the nearer practice if it was necessary to visit the GP often. But from the statements, the Mccanns and the children were rarely seen and Madeleine not at all. As Kate only worked part-time getting to the GP on occasion would not mean taking time off to make the longer journey to the original practice. Both Mccanns have cars so remaining with their practice when they moved was obviously not a big issue as it would have been be if neither had cars. I find it really odd that they changed close to that fateful holiday. Was there some dispute with the practice and the GP is being tactful? Or did he annoy them in some way and he isn't aware of it? People change doctors if they are not happy with the service they are getting as well as for geographical reasons.

by skyrocket 17.12.15 11:10

@woodpecker

I agree - 2 main reasons would be change of address or a disagreement of some sort.

Bear in mind that the Mc's:

- lived in Queniborough and registered themselves and Madeleine with the Syston Practise of Dr Hussey (about 2 km away);

- they then went to Amsterdam for about a year and returned when Madeleine was 19 months old in Dec 2004. They bought a house in Rothley (about 6/7km from the Syston Practice) but stayed with Dr Hussey in Syston and registered the twins with this practice when they were born in Feb 2005;

- they remained with Dr Hussey's practice in Syston (as you say no problem to get to with transport) for over 2 more years;

- they transferred to the nearer Mountsorrel Practice of Dr Schofield just 6 weeks prior to Luz in the middle of March 2007. One has to assume there was a good reason rather than location or it would have been done on buying in Rothley.

by Liz Eagles 17.12.15 11:42

It would seem the McCanns weren't interested in paperwork. Gerry McCann's driving licence wasn't altered with a change of address (something we all have to do). This would be the driving licence used to hire a car in PDL iirc.

With regards to the registration of a doctor in close proximity to their new address it could be that they just couldn't be bothered with paperwork.

by Guest 17.12.15 20:41

11-Processo Vol 11 - Letter regarding rogatory content from Carlos Abreu.

Snipped:

GERALD PATRICK MCCANN and KATE MARIE HEALY, better identified in the documents referenced above, approach, very respectfully, to set forth and request, Sir, the following:

1 - Since the applicants stopped being considered witnesses, moving to suspects of the disappearance of Madeleine McCann, witnesses central to the discovery of truth were not questioned, or re-questioned.

2 - With the recent investigations, witness interviews and interrogations of the applicants, new questions were raised and doubts aroused, broadening, in this way, the object of the investigation, as well as matters of fact considered relevant to the investigations.

3 - Indeed, the Investigation departed from confining itself to the disappearance of the minor, proceeding to embrace other matters, allegedly connected with her.

4 - It is therefore essential to hear these witnesses who can explain facts now very relevant, such as the way the couple treated their children, their personality and routine and, even, the reactions manifested by them after the disappearance and the consequent psychological and emotional state.

5 - So, and because it is believed essential and indispensable for the establishment of the facts and consequent discovery of the truth, they come to request the hearing of the following groups of witnesses, all present and with direct knowledge of the facts:

Group 6 (Professionals who can confirm that there was no abnormality in the way Kate and Gerry treated their children):

Dr. Phil Hussey
Dr Ian Schofield
----------

Questions for Group 6:

How long have you known Gerald McCann and Kate Healy and in what capacity? Have you ever had any concerns about their mental health?
Have you ever prescribed any sedatives or mood altering drugs for Kate or Gerald?
Have you ever had any concerns for the well-being of their children?
----------

Dr. Scholfield and Dr. Hussey were called upon by Kate and Gerry McCann to be interviewed as character witnesses. This has no connection to the health of Madeleine, I venture to suggest that the McCanns would not have named anyone to speak of their general disposition if negative reports were likely. Schofield in particular, judging by his rogatory interview, is a personal friend of the McCanns, if not before certainly after Madeleine's disappearance - no great surprise considering they're all in the same line of business.

More interesting in my opinion is why the the PJ were denied access to the health records of the McCann family - Gerry, Kate, Madeleine and the twins.

by skyrocket 17.12.15 21:25

@Verdi - I agree that the fact the Mc's refused to give access to their families medical records may very well be significant. Also, that it would be unlikely that the Mc's would have asked for the interviews if they had any doubts about the outcome. Infact, we learn from the statements that it was Dr Philip Hussey who the Mc's had socialised with prior to Madeleine's disappearance.

However, I beg to differ regarding your opinion that the GP's statements have no significance regarding Madeleine's health. Their statements show that neither of the doctors had seen MBM in their capacity as the Mc's GP. We are told that MBM was apparently only seen once by a duty GP in the UK between her birth and her disappearance - which seems unusual. Also, it confirms that she absolutely did not have a coloboma.

As stated, my main query was why the change in GP's more than 2 years after the move to Rothley and just before the Ireland/Luz holidays. It may be it was merely down to dissatisfaction with the Syston Practice.

by Guest 17.12.15 22:37

skyrocket wrote:@Verdi - I agree that the fact the Mc's refused to give access to their families medical records may very well be significant. Also, that it would be unlikely that the Mc's would have asked for the interviews if they had any doubts about the outcome. Infact, we learn from the statements that it was Dr Philip Hussey who the Mc's had socialised with prior to Madeleine's disappearance.

However, I beg to differ regarding your opinion that the GP's statements have no significance regarding Madeleine's health. Their statements show that neither of the doctors had seen MBM in their capacity as the Mc's GP. We are told that MBM was apparently only seen once by a duty GP in the UK between her birth and her disappearance - which seems unusual. Also, it confirms that she absolutely did not have a colomboma.

As stated, my main query was why the change in GP's more than 2 years after the move to Rothley and just before the Ireland/Luz holidays. It may be it was merely down to dissatisfaction with the Syston Practice.

With respect, I think you're missing the point. Firstly, the McCanns are in no position to refuse access to family medical records, if required by law in connection with a criminal investigation, law enforcement agencies would be authorised to requisition information that might normally be considered confidential. The question is why they were not made available to the PJ following their request.

Secondly, I didn't opine that the rogatory statements in question concerning Madeleine's health are of no significance, I said they have no connection. Meaning the purpose of the questioning of the two doctors was not to ascertain Madeleine's state of health, nor that of the rest of the nuclear family but purely as character witnesses, hence I suggested the reason for them being called upon by the McCanns to testify as friends or close acquaintances. Either way they're unlikely to say anything derogatory about the McCanns.

Sorry if I didn't make myself clear, I hoped by posting up the reasoning behind the particular rogatory interviews (as contained in the PJ case files) it would be self explanatory. As for the reason for their changing doctors - your guess is as good as mine.

by j.rob 17.12.15 22:49

As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children.
--------

Really - so if someone is a 'general practitioner' there would be no doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents'?

Wow - amazing!

But, hang on, wasn't Harold Shipman a general practitioner? And isn't he on record as being a massive serial killer?

by Guest 17.12.15 23:11

j.rob wrote:As Kate and Gerry are general practitioners I never had any doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents to their three children.
--------

Really - so if someone is a 'general practitioner' there would be no doubt about their capacity or mental abilities as individuals or as parents'?

Wow - amazing!

But, hang on, wasn't Harold Shipman a general practitioner? And isn't he on record as being a massive serial killer?

Indeed! Rather like suggesting that Kate McCann was an excellent loving devoted mother because she was so desperate to have children. Duh...

ETA: In the interest of accuracy, Gerry McCann is/was not a general practitioner. Good mates and can't even get that right?

by skyrocket 18.12.15 8:31

@Verdi - as usual your post was clear, thanks. My point was that whatever the initial motivation for the GP's interviews the outcome told us quite a lot of information about Madeleine's apparent health in her first few years.

Regarding the medical records - I don't know what the official protocol would be with the crime having been committed on foreign soil and the main investigation being led by that countries police force. The remit of the 2 current investigations appears to be/has always been very different. Can a foreign force ask and expect to receive medical records, in law? If so, what's going on? If not, the Mc's may have asked for them not to be handed over for several different reasons ranging from privacy; to them containing something potentially incriminating; or to simply giving the PJ the finger. Has OG got the records I wonder? Do we know? The Mc's have opted not to co-operate with the Portuguese investigation from day one so it is no surprise really.

by Guest 18.12.15 14:11

@skyrocket wrote: Can a foreign force ask and expect to receive medical records, in law?

Yes! In this instance can - and did if Gocalo Amaral is to be believed. If a particular request can't be resolved through the respective police forces, then the formal channel must be adopted in the form of an official 'letter of request', in a case such as that of Madeleine McCann the UK Home Office would be the recipient.
----------

FIRST INTERROGATIONS AND REQUESTS TO THE BRITISH POLICE FOR INFORMATION

Friday May 4th May

We need information about the parents and their friends, to know who they are, what they do, if they have problems in their country, if the children were victims of abuse, if the family, neighbours, friends could have noticed any suspicious behaviour, what are their jobs, if they work full-time, etc. Is any member of their family depressed or suffered from depression in the past? Do the couple maintain good relationships? Are they implicated in serious litigation? Do they have enemies? For what reason? So, I telephone Glen Powers, the English liaison officer in Portugal, inform him of events and request that he relay our requests for reports. We consider these to be of the greatest importance and await sensitive responses to guide our investigation.

THE VISITS BY THE CONSUL AND THE AMBASSADOR; INFORMATION IS TAKING A LONG TIME TO COME FROM GREAT BRITAIN

We’re not getting any response from Great Britain. We’ve had no reports on the subject of the couple, their children and their friends, which doesn’t help us to tighten up the investigation. We would like, for example, to know if Madeleine was adopted by the couple, which would allow us to eliminate the hypothesis of parental abduction. If the information is not reaching us, it’s obviously reaching the British Ambassador. We are astonished by this prompt mobilisation of the English authorities. So, who are the McCanns? Who are their friends? We don’t need diplomatic intervention: what we would like, is answers to the questions sent to the British police authorities by Glen Power.

MADELEINE SLEEPS BADLY

Other than her sleep problems, it is possible that Madeleine suffered from an illness, a hypothesis that was never confirmed. Immediately after the discovery of traces of blood in the apartment, the mother, in the course of an interview with a Portuguese magazine, revealed that Madeleine had a nose bleed. But the bleeding could be associated with certain pathologies.

Her parents have always insisted that Madeleine was in good health. The medical files, requested several times from Great Britain were never sent to us. These could have been deciding factors. Why didn’t we have access to them? We never knew the truth of the matter. It’s deplorable that the British legal system could be quite so uncooperative in this type of situation. In the course of the investigation, a doctor pointed out to us that Madeleine had a mark in her eye, described by some as a coloboma of the iris, which can be associated with other disorders, for example cardiac insufficiency. In spite of repeated requests to the British Medical Association, we were never able to confirm that hypothesis, a simple photo not being sufficient to establish a medical diagnosis.

http://truthofthelie.com/the-book/

by cbeagle 29.12.15 23:44

Testimony from Ian Richard Schofield 14 May 2008

I am currently, and have been for 14 months, the GP of the McCann family. Before Madeleine's disappearance, I had only consulted Kate McCann once and never had assisted Gerry, nor ever had reason to deal with the twins Sean and Amelie and only saw them once after the disappearance of Madeleine.

Interesting that he left out any details about seeing or not seeing Madeleine.

by loopzdaloop 31.12.15 1:05

12.31.201:01:42skyrocket wrote:@woodpecker

I agree - 2 main reasons would be change of address or a disagreement of some sort.

Bear in mind that the Mc's:

- lived in Queniborough and registered themselves and Madeleine with the Syston Practise of Dr Hussey (about 2 km away);

- they then went to Amsterdam for about a year and returned when Madeleine was 19 months old in Dec 2004. They bought a house in Rothley (about 6/7km from the Syston Practice) but stayed with Dr Hussey in Syston and registered the twins with this practice when they were born in Feb 2005;

- they remained with Dr Hussey's practice in Syston (as you say no problem to get to with transport) for over 2 more years;

- they transferred to the nearer Mountsorrel Practice of Dr Schofield just 6 weeks prior to Luz in the middle of March 2007. One has to assume there was a good reason rather than location or it would have been done on buying in Rothley.

So it is to be assumed they had fertility treatment in Amsterdam or specialist medical care for M's eye?
I get that they changed the doctor as he became known to them following the dinner engagement. He still hedged his bets though by giving a good medical get out of jail free court card by leaving the door open to place blame at the hands of the nurses for not communicating suspicions of child abuse to him!

by dottyaussie 26.02.16 12:35

Ok so this is briefly what I found out about Dr Hussey:

Leicester Mercury Sept 14 2009 case against Dr Hussey after a Mr Ray Clarke died of heart attack. His wife wanted him struck off. She was awarded a payout Jan 2008.

Telegraph Dec 15 2011 case against Dr Hussey after Mrs Alison Taylor died of DVT 31st Mar 2010.

Review on Barkby.co.uk SM Randal-Friday on 25 May 2010 was 'Under his care until he disappeared from the practise a couple of weeks ago'

Very curious !!!!!

by lj 27.02.16 22:22

skyrocket wrote:@Verdi - I agree that the fact the Mc's refused to give access to their families medical records may very well be significant. Also, that it would be unlikely that the Mc's would have asked for the interviews if they had any doubts about the outcome. Infact, we learn from the statements that it was Dr Philip Hussey who the Mc's had socialised with prior to Madeleine's disappearance.

However, I beg to differ regarding your opinion that the GP's statements have no significance regarding Madeleine's health. Their statements show that neither of the doctors had seen MBM in their capacity as the Mc's GP. We are told that MBM was apparently only seen once by a duty GP in the UK between her birth and her disappearance - which seems unusual. Also, it confirms that she absolutely did not have a coloboma.

As stated, my main query was why the change in GP's more than 2 years after the move to Rothley and just before the Ireland/Luz holidays. It may be it was merely down to dissatisfaction with the Syston Practice.

Where did you get that she "absolutely" did not have coloboma?

by skyrocket 28.02.16 10:06

@lj - morning

Re: your question, I think it has been accepted for several years that the coloboma was non-existent.

Here's a link to another post on here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2757-did-madeleine-have-coloboma

The above link discusses the interview the Mc's had with Piers Morgan in 2011 when both Mc's, but particularly GM, state that Madeleine had a 'fleck' in her iris rather than any medical condition.

I brought it up in reference to the Mc's family GPs for 2 reasons. Firstly, even small colobomas have some impact on health/vision and would have presumably had some need for medical monitoring (surely the family GP would have had some involvement in this). Secondly, a change in GP often triggers a check on those family members with health problems.

Beyond that - I also feel there is a real question as to whether there was even a marked fleck in MBM's right iris. There are many conflicting photos - some with flecks in the 6 position (on a clock face), some at the 7 position, some thin some thick, some extending beyond the iris and some non-existent.

by lj 28.02.16 15:33

skyrocket wrote:@lj - morning

Re: your question, I think it has been accepted for several years that the coloboma was non-existent.

Here's a link to another post on here: https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2757-did-madeleine-have-coloboma

The above link discusses the interview the Mc's had with Piers Morgan in 2011 when both Mc's, but particularly GM, state that Madeleine had a 'fleck' in her iris rather than any medical condition.

I brought it up in reference to the Mc's family GPs for 2 reasons. Firstly, even small colobomas have some impact on health/vision and would have presumably had some need for medical monitoring (surely the family GP would have had some involvement in this). Secondly, a change in GP often triggers a check on those family members with health problems.

Beyond that - I also feel there is a real question as to whether there was even a marked fleck in MBM's right iris. There are many conflicting photos - some with flecks in the 6 position (on a clock face), some at the 7 position, some thin some thick, some extending beyond the iris and some non-existent.

Hi skyrocket: good morning to you too.

Maybe some accepted it was non existent, I don't and I have seen no proof it was.
I think they tried to downplay it when it became know the PJ advised against using that fact because it would probably mean the death of Madeleine.

Colobomas exist as single abnormality, and are per se not a reason of bad health.

There must be a reason the conning couple refused access to their medical files. So it's very likely that these 2 GPs, who were called by Kate & Gerry, had very strict instructions what they can and could not say. If anything these statements were important of what was NOT said.

Last but not least: a GP who says quote "Knowing how much the couple wanted a family, I do not believe that they would have had any kind of involvement in the disappearance of Madeleine." shows enough of his lack of knowledge of psychopathology and can't be trusted in anything else he says.

by skyrocket 28.02.16 17:32

@lj

I respect your opinon and the right to it. I'll refrain from using 'absolutely' in future and perhaps stick to IMO instead!

One of the all-pervading problems with this case is that things, such as the presence of a coloboma, which should be completely objective, somehow have become subjective. How can parents say that their child has a visible medical eye condition one minute (and build an entire media campaign on the fact) and then retract the statement sometime later in such a blase manner, apparently without any concern about repercussions or awkward questions from the investigating team? The Mc's have always appeared supremely confident, no matter what they say. If they are entirely innocent of any wrongdoing, why the fanciful statements? And, if they aren't entirely innocent, why/how do they have such confidence? Richard's next film is eagerly anticipated.