PeterMac's theory of what really happened to Madeleine McCann.

Over the past decade I have looked at this case and dissected bits of it, trying to decide what parts of the story are credible and to distinguish them from what is frankly not, and to try to see which parts were pure fabrication.

So I am now prepared to rise to the challenge, and to present my “purported’ theory.

I thank all those who have led me to this point, but stress that this, and all the mistakes and inaccuracies which may be found are entirely mine.

I would hope that any inaccuracy or misinterpretation could be pointed out or explained, so I may revise my idea, as everyone should on being confronted with new evidence.


On Saturday night she did not sleep - a combination of excitement and her documented habit of wandering into the parents’ room during the night

Discussion - Kate tells us this in her book, (p. 59) and there is evidence from the “Star Chart” in the Rothley house, and family members. Excitement and over-tiredness on the first day of a holiday is normal

On Sunday evening she and the twins were therefore all given a sedative with their documented ‘cup of tea and a biscuit’. The twins sleep. This continued during the week.

Discussion - Kate tells us in the book that she suspected sedation from the start. Both she and Fiona Payne are qualified anaesthetists; Kate specialised in paediatrics. Strangely neither report that they took any of the medically appropriate steps towards the twins on the night of 3/5/7, leading to a inference that both know exactly what had been given and therefore had no concerns.


Madeleine did not sleep well and during the evening got out of bed, went into the parent’s room, found they were not there, and climbed onto the sofa to look out of the window to see where they were.

Discussion - One of the early theories involved Madeleine ‘wandering off’. Even if those particular shutters had been closed she would not be aware of them, only of the curtains, and would have tried to look out. We were told definitively that Madeleine could not have opened the sliding doors, even though they were allegedly unlocked.

She fell down the back of the sofa, and because the gap was narrow and she was sleepy, was unable to break her fall with her hands. She may have struck her head or face first on the sill as she slipped forward. She landed head first on the terrazzo floor, and some time during the night died of a sub-arachnoid haemorrhage, with light bleeding from the ear and possibly the nose and mouth.

Discussion - The ‘Eeyore’ pyjamas were washed because of the “large brown stain” (p.63) and then dried and photographed on the blue sofa, but then they became confused about what they had said, and why they would have taken a photo of the pyjamas in the first place, and subsequently held them up at a news conference in Berlin on 6th June 2007, describing them as “the ones she was abducted in”. This was confirmed by uncle John McCann when he reported that Amelie had been dressed in the garments and had immediately identified them saying “Maddie’s jammies. Where is Maddie ?”

Bleeding would have been confined to some small leakage from an ear - possibly including cerebrospinal fluid, typical of brain damage - and from the mouth and nose, which stops once the heart stops.

The parents came back late, crept very quietly into their room and went to bed without checking the children

Discussion - There is evidence from other sources that on some nights the parents stayed out into the early hours, and in the book this is admitted (p.60)

In the morning they see the empty bed, and during the frantic search find Madeline’s body behind the sofa, by now stiff and cold and leaking bodily fluids.

In her grief Kate holds and cuddles the body tightly to herself, covering her own clothes and cuddle-cat in cadaverine, which is detected a long time later. She then stays with the twins in the bedroom, getting them dressed and ready, and cuddling them both, holding them all tight to her. Cadaverine is transferred to the red T shirt worn by Sean at this stage, which was alerted to later, and to whatever Amelie was wearing.

Meanwhile Gerry puts Madeleine’s little body into the blue Tennis bag, and places it under the bushes in the garden, so that it will not be seen by the cleaner - if she comes, nor by the twins.

Discussion - The little gate at the bottom of the steps keeps everyone out. In Spain and Portugal there are very few dogs roaming around. The chances of a random intruder entering, searching, finding a bag of ‘stuff’ under a bush and deciding to steal it - without looking inside are - in the author’s estimation, slightly less than the chances of an abduction = 0.

During Monday the bag is left in the flower bed, and the cleaner does not see it. The sofa is pushed fully back against the curtains and the cleaner does not bother pulling it out to clean behind it. Kate goes to the supermarket to make purchases (p. 56) - perhaps including cleaning fluids.

Discussion - The bag may have been brought indoors for Monday night, and placed on the shelf. Bodies do not begin to smell strongly for some time. But if left in the garden it would have assisted the cooling, as the air temperature fell to 10º C (50º F) during the night of 30/4/7/- 1/5/7

There was a suggestion that the cleaner might have been sent away on the Monday. In any event a quick clean two days into a one week holiday does not involve anything much more than beds, bathroom and kitchen area. Moving furniture and cleaning underneath and behind it is confined to the day of departure or a deep “spring’ clean. Even if the cleaner did move the sofa, she would simply mop with bleach.

Personal problems, stains, spills, leakages, soiled sheets and towels are nothing to comment about if you are a cleaner in a holiday resort. The amount of leakage is unlikely to have been much, would probably have been mopped up by the parents, and with three very young children, two in night-time nappies, in an apartment a certain amount of ‘soiling’ would be well within a middle aged Portuguese cleaner’s comprehension and be totally unremarkable.

Robert Murat is summoned, and arrives early on Tuesday. He offers the assistance of a nearby hotel, which has outhouses and chest freezers. Gerry, in full tennis kit, and carrying the tennis bag is able to take Madeleine there and conceal her. Possibly by taxi, or perhaps in Murat’s rented car, and giving some meaning to Gerry’s quote: “I’m not going to answer that . . .” when asked whether he knew Murat previously.

Discussion - Murat had rented a car, as his own was allegedly in for repair (according to his statement). Some may argue that the body might have started to smell by that stage, but Tuesday is only 36 hrs post mortem. Some studies of dead piglets have reported that putrefaction only starts being noticeable to humans at 2-3 days, (but discoverable by dogs within 90 minutes of death ). https://australianmuseum.net.au/image/

Bin liners and air fresheners are on sale in the supermarket.
Gerry’s answer may be viewed at https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6qNhoWz0rQw&feature=related

Gerry returns and spends much of the next few days playing tennis at every opportunity to establish his credentials. The now empty tennis bag is placed on the shelf, and the process of scent transference starts

Discussion - despite the denials, the blue tennis bag is clearly visible on the photos taken during the night of 3-4/5/7. It then disappears from the record and like the pink Princess blanket has never been traced. The spot on which the blue tennis bag is shown is the exact point at which the cadaver dog alerts - and it alerts to no other place in that room. The depth of detail in the book about each of the tennis sessions is extremely suspicious. On one day he was reported to have had an injury to the Achilles tendon, which prevented his playing tennis during the afternoon, but was able to resume later that same day. This has not been confirmed.

The conspiracy is hatched with the entire group. After the dreadful event of the Sunday night they all pull together and ensure nothing else could ever happen like that to the other children . . . and begin to work out the strategy. This includes all the children being looked after by one adult every evening.

Discussion - There is much circumstantial evidence to support this theory. It is concealed in statements about recurrent illness accounting for the absence at dinner every night of at least one of the group.

The planning stage concentrates on large issues, but neglects details like cuddle cat, the pink blanket, and the pyjamas. It also neglects the weather, ambient temperature, evidence to be deduced from the lack of photographs and video recording, and the sheer implausibility of the half hourly checks being made by everyone every evening. It becomes overcomplicated with far too much detail and precision being offered.

Discussion - At some stage during that week the Pool Photo - which may be the last or penultimate photo of Madeleine, is selected as ‘proof’ of her continued existence on 3/5/7, and an elaborate strategy is developed, firstly to ensure the Polícia Judiciária never obtain a copy, (included in GM’s second statement in which he affirms and signs that he has no further photos in his possession, only to produce the Pool Photo via Mitchell exactly three weeks later ) and secondly to falsify the time and date. It is clear that the Pool Photo CANNOT POSSIBLY have been taken at lunchtime on 3/5/7, and is most likely or almost certainly - considerably beyond the test of the ‘balance of probabilities’ - to have been taken at lunchtime on Sunday 29th April.

The date for the discovery is deliberately chosen to allow the Police one whole day to take statements before they had to allow people to leave on Saturday, but not to allow them two whole days to conduct follow up interviews or detain witnesses when inconsistencies began to show.

Discussion - The Tapas 7 mostly return to the UK on Saturday 5/5/7 as planned and are replaced with close McCann family members who close ranks


I think this fits with what we know. Whether it is accurate or near the truth is an entirely different issue.
What I do not know is WHY ?

Sorry PeterMac, I don't go along with this theory at all - apart from the groups apparent attempts to stage the scene of abduction on the night of Thursday 3rd May and the many indicatives that suggest Madeleine 'disappeared' earlier in the week i.e. between the morning of Sunday 29th April and Tuesday 1st May.

It's too reliant on speculation and Kate McCann's autobiography for my liking.

Does anyone know whether the Eeyore pyjamas were made available for examination by Eddie? If so, and if Madeleine had been wearing them when she died, then Eddie would have alerted to them even after washing since cadaver odour reportedly survives laundering.

Whenever there is a case of paedophilia which may involve high profile people there will always be attempts to cover up things.

I truly believe that the underlying cause of the lies surrounding this disgraceful farce is far more than kids left to their own devices, asleep in bed whilst parents went on a jolly and checked on 'em every few minutes, elder child fell over a sofa and was declared abducted.

I cannot for the life of me understand why so many high profile, powerful people were in place within an instance on foreign territory.

I am always willing to be proved wrong of course.

For now, I don't accept the simplistic view.

Peter Mac's piece above ends by asking - why- ?  He has given a clear reason as to why the parents could not report the death so I presume the "why" refers to what happened in the aftermath of the abduction announcement.

 Imagine, just for a minute, that a note had been found on Madeleine's empty bed stating that she had been taken by the writer/s to be sexually abused. Imagine that the parents then claim (as they did) that the local police are in denial because of the potential damage to tourism and are not moving heaven and earth to secure her immediate safe return. If the British government was not seen to be doing everything in its power to help the parents and to put pressure on Portugal in such a scenario there would have been public and political uproar. There was no note. However the McCanns, their family and influential friends behaved as if there had been, actively convincing the media and public of a helpless three year old British child at the mercy of rapist monsters. The vast majority of the public believed them and the family was inundated with offers of support and donations. How could the government of the day be seen to do anything but pull out all the stops to help?

Aquila - I broadly agree. The assets and speed with which they arrived (or possibly already in the locale ?) has always bothered me and, IMO, is an indicator of something so big, involving a number of powerful individuals, that the truth will never be known.

Madeleine’s body can/will never be found and none of the minions dare step out of line.......it’s so much bigger than all of them. They are easily dispensable

Peter wanted to keep his theory as short and simple as possible, using Occam. He did write: "And so the conspiracy was hatched"... He merely described what he believes is 'How' and ended with not knowing the answer to 'Why'.

Of course, all this (below) needs to be taken into account, when thinking about the 'Why', which is based on research already on this forum:

Here is a list (not necessarily exhaustive) of the questions which we must ask about that week’s events:

When was Murat asked to come over to Praia da Luz?

By whom was he asked?

Why was he asked? And moreover, why would there be that prodigious effort to rush over to Praia da Luz by literally dozens of Foreign Office staff, Ambassadors, Consuls and their staff, police officers, lawyers, MI5, security service staff, criminal profilers, advisers, counsellors, Control Risks etc.? Was something much more serious behind her death?

What was Murat REALLY doing on the Tuesday, Wednesday and Thursday, when he lied at least 17 times about his movements on those days?

Did he already know the McCanns? Since when had he known them?

Why were hairs of his haplotype found in Wojchiech Krokowski’s holiday apartment?

How do we account for the crèche records showing that Madeleine was at the crèche all week?

Did Cat Baker agree to forge the records that week?

Who else at the Ocean Club/Mark Warner knew that she was forging those records? (if she was)

What is the role of Wojchiech Krokowski in all of this?

What is the role of Nuno Lourenco in all this?

When was Nuno Lourenco told to ‘frame’ Krokowski?

When were Nuno Lourenco and Jane Tanner both briefed to come up with the same description of an abductor? (based on Krokowski) – ‘not a tourist’, ‘cloth clothes’, ‘classic shoes, same height, build and age etc. etc.

Who co-ordinated and planned the Nourenco/Krokowski deception?

When did Nuno Lourenco take a photo of Krokowski’s car on his mobile ‘phone?

Was Krokowski a ‘willing patsy’? – or did he really have no idea he was being framed?

Why were hairs of the same haplotype as Jane Tanner found in Krokowski’s holiday flat.

Was Krokowski a paedophile? Why did he readily admit to The People in 2015 that he liked taking pictures of children on holiday?

What really happened on the Sunday?

Was the Make-Up Photo taken on Sunday 29 April?

Was Madeleine already being ‘dressed up’ on Sunday lunchtime? (pink smock, hair beads)

Where was Madeleine that Sunday afternoon? Was she really in the crèche that day?

Where was the Make-Up Photo taken?

Why the sudden rush to book a table every night at the Tapas restaurant?

Was it because they needed a private room to discuss what had happened to Madeleine?

Why the immediate change of routine on the Monday morning: breakfast and lunch in their own apartment instead of at the Millennium

On Sunday evening, did they all ‘dine out’, whether or not there was a ‘checking regime’ in place?

After Sunday, did they ever have a ‘checking regime’ in place? Or was it just a ‘checking charade’ on the Thursday night?)

When and where did the McCanns, the Tapas 7 and any other ‘advisers’ meet to plot the abduction hoax on the Thursday night?

Remember that all these elements of the abduction hoax had to be in place before Thursday evening:

A Faked abduction scene in the children’s bedroom
B Nuno Lourence told to lie about Krokowski
C Jane Tanner also given a description of Krokowski
D A plausible cover story to explain how Madeleine could have been left alone (the half-hourly checking regime)
E A detailed regime of checking on the Thursday evening
F Someone looking after all the children on that Thursday evening
G The lie about David Payne visiting Kate McCann rehearsed (though obviously not very well)
H Cat Baker briefed to lie about the ‘high tea’ (probably Charlotte Pennington was briefed to lie about this on a subsequent occasion)
I Cover story for what Gerry was actually doing on the Thursday afternoon (endless tennis lessons)
J Photo taken on Sunday by the pool, just before she died, chosen to be altered, so the date and time stamp to read so it looked like it was taken on Thursday
K Tennis Balls Photo faked (not sure how yet) and Kate rehearsed about when it was taken (again not very well)
L Shutters repaired that week (so that they could fake a break-in later in the week?)
M ‘Deep clean’ of the blood and DNA that week (Monday?)
N Holidaymakers lined up to tell lies about seeing Madeleine that week (Philip Edmonds and the photo, Vicky Boyd’s lies about the Wednesday in First Magazine)
O Key media people briefed?
P Old 6” x 4” pics of Maddie ready and prepared
Q Timelines prepared and scribbled out
R Murat ready to be appointed one of the PJ translators
S Madeleine’s body hidden in a place where no-one could find it

Just how many meetings and ’phone calls and discussions would have to take place that week to plan all this? I suggest LOTS. Where and when were they held?

The above is a provisional list of points. Further additions to the hoax occurred afterwards, e.g.

Smith ‘sighting’

Mrs Fenn allegedly hearing Madeleine – Robert Murat ’phones police to say an ‘English woman ’phoned me’

‘McCanns seen at Sagres’ hoax developed the weekend of 12/13 May in the British press.


All of this could not have been organised on the Thursday evening, surely?

And we’re meant to believe there was no pre-planning ? Pre-planning = pre-meditation = murder

Phoebe wrote: How could the government of the day be seen to do anything but pull out all the stops to help?

Quite easily! 

Rather than pulling out all stop to help the parents, they should have remained neutral and left the case in the hands of the Portuguese police to investigate - as international law and routine policing dictates.

The focal point is a little three year old girl who vanished off the face of the earth whilst holiday with her parents and siblings in Portugal.  She is the only one, the only one,  that should be supported and protected.

It would be extremely helpful if people would understand that a case such as this is a policing matter, it has nothing whatsoever to do with the government.
 
My first thought on hearing the news of Madeleine's disappearance was - suspicion!  I'm sure I'm not the only one who could see the unlikely event of a child sharing a bedroom with another two children, being snatched from her bed in the parent's absence.  However, that's an aside - the British government should never have become involved with this case short of routine consular assistance.

Hogwash!

Dr. Amaral himself stated that there was "too much politics" in this case. I agree that this should not have been so but there is no denying that this case generated an unprecedented political response. I find it hard to accept that this could actually have been  "in defense of the realm". In what way could poor Madeleine herself have been of such importance? Yes, I've heard the conspiracy theories of cloning and well-connected paedophiles and swingers but I find them too unlikely. I think the parents were believed and the immediate wall-to-wall international media coverage caused the U.K. government to react in a knee jerk way. Once in, like Macbeth they were "stepped in so far" that "returning were as tedious as go o're".

While there were those, like Verdi who were immediately sceptical of the likelihood of a child being snatched from a room occupied by other children I am sure the U.K. authorities were mindful of a case which had just ended just over six months earlier - 

 Press Association
Friday 20 October 2006 11.18 BSTFirst published on Friday 20 October 2006 11.18 BST
A predatory paedophile was convicted today of raping a six-year-old girl he snatched from her bath two days after Christmas Day last year. ...  After today's verdict, a statement from the girl's mother said the attack was "every mother's nightmare".
She said: "My little girl was in the bath in her own home within earshot of everyone else in the flat, the back door was shut and I'd only just left the bathroom to go to another room when she was snatched."
They would also remember the huge international interest in the case of Polly Klass (Oct. 1st 1993) which has, in its reaction to her abduction, marked similarities to Madeleine. 
" Twelve-year-old Polly Hannah Klaas was having a slumber party when a strange man holding a knife entered her bedroom, tied up all the girls and put pillow cases over their heads. The intruder then took a sobbing Polly off into the night.
Her friends stood back-to-back trying to untie themselves. When that didn't work, one girl was able to bring her hands under her feet to free herself. The girls then awakened Polly's mother, who immediately called the police. A stranger had invaded a private home in Petaluma, CA and snatched an innocent child from her very own bedroom. There were witnesses to tell the story. People in her home town and throughout the world helped search for her. By the time Polly's body was found on December 3, 1993, over 2 billion images of Polly Klaas had been distributed worldwide. .... The world's press came to Petaluma, covering this kidnapping as they had no other.......Polly's missing child poster had been spotted in Mogadishu and Nairobi. When her remains were found, the headline of a newspaper in Munich, Germany was, "America Cries: Polly is Dead."

Phoebe wrote:
Dr. Amaral himself stated that there was "too much politics" in this case.

That's moving away somewhat from PeterMac's theory, the subject of this thread .

Phoebe wrote:While there were those, like Verdi who were immediately sceptical of the likelihood of a child being snatched from a room occupied by other children I am sure the U.K. authorities were mindful of a case which had just ended just over six months earlier - 

You are not listening - it has nothing to do with the UK authorities.  It is a matter for the police and the police only, pure and simple.

Press reports about this case or that case have no bearing on reality. 

NB:  Be very cautious about quoting Snr Amaral.  Parts of the content of his book 'The Truth of the Lie' do no strictly accord with the PJ files.  In short, the book is a generalization of his conception of the case whilst serving as case coordinator - not a strict record.

Back to PeterMac's theory.

PeterMac theorizes, from all evidence available and other intelligence and indicatives, that Madeleine's death was the result of sedation by the parents which led to a tragic accident.  I totally disagree.  There are too many contra-indications (pun intended) that make such a simple explanation unlikely, if not impossible.

The theory is very much in line with Snr Amaral's conclusions way back in the summer of 2007, before he was removed from the case.  In the light of all subsequent research and analysis of the case which has highlighted so much fresh evidence to consider, I'm astonished that thought hasn't moved forward.

No disrespect to PeterMac .

Verdi - perhaps in view of your comments above, it would be useful to have your own summation of what happened to Madeleine.

Phoebe wrote:Dr. Amaral himself stated that there was "too much politics" in this case. I agree that this should not have been so but there is no denying that this case generated an unprecedented political response. I find it hard to accept that this could actually have been  "in defense of the realm". In what way could poor Madeleine herself have been of such importance? Yes, I've heard the conspiracy theories of cloning and well-connected paedophiles and swingers but I find them too unlikely. I think the parents were believed and the immediate wall-to-wall international media coverage caused the U.K. government to react in a knee jerk way. Once in, like Macbeth they were "stepped in so far" that "returning were as tedious as go o're".

Careful there Phoebe, or you'll find yourself on Jim Gamble's Christmas card list - he's been doing his darndest to convince people things were a bit of a cock-up Blighty-side with everyone pitching in and trying to do their best but things were uncoordinated!

CEOP immediately jumped in with both feet and if I recall correctly, asked people to send them their holiday photographs - even giving people the opportunity to go to the High Street stores of Jessopps who would assist.

Then there is the CEOP manual allegedly in the possession of the McCanns.

Oh Pheobe, this is so much more than a knee-jerk reaction in my opinion and Brenda Leyland's demise was probably considered collateral damage when she challenged things.

I haven't got a theory about how Madeleine died, but I'm always interested in reading stuff from people who do. 

So in this one, the children are left alone, sedated while the parents go on the razz on Sunday evening. They stumble home late and drunk, fall into bed and it's not until Monday morning when they discover their eldest has fallen off a sofa and is dead.

I don't believe any of the children were left unattended on any night, while the parents dined anywhere. So I can't go along with a theory that includes an unsupervised child falling on a hard floor and not being discovered for hours.

Neither can I imagine why Gordon Brown/Tony Blair would be interested, or why successive governments, a couple of police forces and numerous old detectives would get involved in a cover up for a scenario based on child neglect.
I can't imagine their friends forming a pact of silence, if Madeleine had simply fallen off a sofa, surely they'd just throw them under a bus, so to speak?
Is this the secret one or two will take to their graves? I can't see that being the case either.

I'd be interested to know why all the governments men (and women) swarmed all over this case for 10 years and more, and why Operation Grange has spent £12 million of tax payers money on a sham, if it's just to hide from us all... a child fell off a sofa and banged her head and died and nobody noticed for a few hours.

JRP!

There are many thoughts that make this hypothesis most unlikely.  I've said in the past, if Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion, this could easily be passed-off by the parents as accidental.  I believe somewhere along the line Kate McCann made a point of emphasizing how they put all their medication in a zipped bag placed in a cupboard (don't quote me).  Nothing is sacred when little sticky fingers are off on an adventure.

Their professional status would have remained intact.  Doctors in the past have got away with far worse and allowed to continue practicing.  Surely having this cloud of suspicion hanging over them is far more damaging to their reputations than a tragic accident resulting in the death of their child.

Most important - why the monumental cover-up and protection of this nondescript couple from the little England midlands.  Most certainly wouldn't be relative to such a scenario as suggested by PeterMac's theory.

"...if Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion, this could easily be passed-off by the parents as accidental"

Unless, Mr Verdi, if it was terfenadine, (sure I heard that Uncle John's firm manufactured that stuff, somewhere), which I think they may have found in 5A. Terfenadine was banned from use in the UK just before the turn of the century owing to one side effect (a very serious one) that could cause ventricular arrhythmia - surely something a cardiac consultant would be aware of, which kind of negates my own argument!
Nevertheless, that is the only way I can imagine why they would not concede to: an over or incorrect or even accidental medication.
To add:
In the very early days there was also mention of Piriton well before Calpol.

Mark Willis wrote:"...if Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion, this could easily be passed-off by the parents as accidental"

Unless, Mr Verdi, if it was terfenadine, (sure I heard that Uncle John's firm manufactured that stuff, somewhere), which I think they may have found in 5A. Terfenadine was banned from use in the UK just before the turn of the century owing to one side effect (a very serious one) that could cause ventricular arrhythmia - surely something a cardiac consultant would be aware of, which kind of negates my own argument!
Nevertheless, that is the only way I can imagine why they would not concede to: an over or incorrect or even accidental medication.
To add:
In the very early days there was also mention of Piriton well before Calpol.

 Hi Mark. Out of interest, do YOU believe that the children were regularly drugged? And, if so, do you believe it was so that they could be left not to wake? What I'm interested in is why the need to drug the children, unless of course the children were left alone each night. Sedation theory =neglect. Do you believe the children were indeed neglected each night?

Julie wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:"...if Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion, this could easily be passed-off by the parents as accidental"

Unless, Mr Verdi, if it was terfenadine, (sure I heard that Uncle John's firm manufactured that stuff, somewhere), which I think they may have found in 5A. Terfenadine was banned from use in the UK just before the turn of the century owing to one side effect (a very serious one) that could cause ventricular arrhythmia - surely something a cardiac consultant would be aware of, which kind of negates my own argument!
Nevertheless, that is the only way I can imagine why they would not concede to: an over or incorrect or even accidental medication.
To add:
In the very early days there was also mention of Piriton well before Calpol.

 Hi Mark. Out of interest, do YOU believe that the children were regularly drugged? And, if so, do you believe it was so that they could be left not to wake? What I'm interested in is why the need to drug the children, unless of course the children were left alone each night. Sedation theory =neglect. Do you believe the children were indeed neglected each night?

Given the twins did not wake up "that" night I believe that, yes, they had been sedated.
Handy having an anaesthetist as a Mother...
Also, given MBM's propensity for "wandering off out of bed" and her star chart it may have occurred to the good doctors to administer a handy solution to that.
Now that above suggests that I might think they were left alone at night.
All nights? Some nights? I don't know. There is the view that "neglect" was their alibi, what with their proposed checking routine to allow for an abduction scenario.
My view is they probably would or could have used sedation as and when they felt it convenient (for them, not the kids).
It could be that the children were never left alone at night but on the night of the 3rd maybe they sedated the twins as they didn't want to be interrupted whilst concocting their story/fable?
Given they used the creche/babysitting services in the day time why was it they did not in the evenings?

Who said Madeleine was a bad sleeper, it wouldn't be the parents would it? And when was the chart made, before the holiday or after?

Mark Willis wrote:"...if Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion, this could easily be passed-off by the parents as accidental"

Unless, Mr Verdi, if it was terfenadine, (sure I heard that Uncle John's firm manufactured that stuff, somewhere), which I think they may have found in 5A. Terfenadine was banned from use in the UK just before the turn of the century owing to one side effect (a very serious one) that could cause ventricular arrhythmia - surely something a cardiac consultant would be aware of, which kind of negates my own argument!
Nevertheless, that is the only way I can imagine why they would not concede to: an over or incorrect or even accidental medication.
To add:
In the very early days there was also mention of Piriton well before Calpol.

Yes, I know this terfenadine malarky has been discussed before on the forum.  I didn't pay heed to it then - I don't now .

There is sufficient evidence in my opinion to consider that far out weighs what medication the McCanns and/or their friends might or might not have packed in their sports holdall, or Gerald's back-pack. 

I don't credit the McCanns with a great deal of intelligence, certainly not common sense, however, I can't believe for a moment they would be daft enough to use a drug that's been removed from the market.

Verdi wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:"...if Madeleine died as a result of drug ingestion, this could easily be passed-off by the parents as accidental"

Unless, Mr Verdi, if it was terfenadine, (sure I heard that Uncle John's firm manufactured that stuff, somewhere), which I think they may have found in 5A. Terfenadine was banned from use in the UK just before the turn of the century owing to one side effect (a very serious one) that could cause ventricular arrhythmia - surely something a cardiac consultant would be aware of, which kind of negates my own argument!
Nevertheless, that is the only way I can imagine why they would not concede to: an over or incorrect or even accidental medication.
To add:
In the very early days there was also mention of Piriton well before Calpol.

Yes, I know this terfenadine malarky has been discussed before on the forum.  I didn't pay heed to it then - I don't now .

There is sufficient evidence in my opinion to consider that far out weighs what medication the McCanns and/or their friends might or might not have packed in their sports holdall, or Gerald's back-pack. 

I don't credit the McCanns with a great deal of intelligence, certainly not common sense, however, I can't believe for a moment they would be daft enough to use a drug that's been removed from the market.

...and even if you did, you wouldn't leave it around, you'd have thought. Although the "reading material" left behind was, shall we say, a tad arcane and eyebrow raising ...
Incidentally, I agree about the McIntelligence; some of the doctors I have known are, yes, qualified to the hilt, but have the common sense of your average banana.

JRP wrote:Who said Madeleine was a bad sleeper, it wouldn't be the parents would it? And when was the chart made, before the holiday or after?

One assumes before. Having said that, it probably is best not to assume anything is as it seems with the Mcs.
Good point.

Mark Willis wrote:

JRP wrote:Who said Madeleine was a bad sleeper, it wouldn't be the parents would it? And when was the chart made, before the holiday or after?

One assumes before. Having said that, it probably is best not to assume anything is as it seems with the Mcs.
Good point.

I always found the chart to be an odd thing:



I used a star system with my daughter when she was younger, and we would place stars horizontally, with her being very proud when she could count how many she had. Horizontal makes sense as its the same age they are learning to read, left to right. Here in the 'sleeping chart' not only are the stars vertical, they are also out of proportion with the numbers to the left of them. Not a great aid.

Also the title, 'Stars for staying in her own bed' makes sense in that she's being rewarded for not getting in other beds, but it also sounds cold and impersonal, in much the same way that constantly referring to her as 'someone's daughter' does. Take away the 'her own' and it reads very differently. I have no idea why 'staying' and 'bed' both begin with capitals.

Neither of these observations do anything to say that the chart wasn't real or was made later, that kind of determination is probably impossible to make. But the chart seems odd to me at the very least.

At any rate, I think Verdi makes a good point in that if we are going to doubt the parents accounts of things such as the last photo (which I agree was taken early), we can't selectively make decisions about things like sleep disturbances being truthful. Especially when there could be good reasons to add or exaggerate such a comment.

It always stood out to me that Russell made a similar claim about the Payne daughters, which noone else ever corroborated (May 11th statement):

The deponent furthers that the daughters of David and Fiona Payne are very agitated, and that they preferred to be the closest possible to the apartment. All the couples agreed, without objections.

Very interesting, April28th.
It reminds me that I should be wary of absolutely anything that derives from the Mcs themselves; everything they say is suspect. 
Anything they proffer usually turns out to have an ulterior motive. Like too much information about the angle of the bedroom door left open. It's immediately suspicious to be so precise.
You know, I actually noticed the stars didn't line up the very first time I saw that. I didn't think much of that at the time - but I did notice.
I have never seen such a self-incriminating couple when on camera. Yet for all their evident inconsistencies and almost zero emotion Op Grange will not touch them.

The two observations I would make about the Star Chart are
a) staying in HER OWN bed and

b) the inappropriate capital letters-is this the punctuation and grammar of a doctor? Or was there a nanny?

'Her own' to me implies that she is getting in to some-one else's bed. Otherwise it would just say 'staying in bed'. So whose bed did she get in? Surely not the twins...

I would be really interested to explore the nanny situation. I remember reading , long before I joined the forum, that a nanny accompanied them on holiday. Which flight was Charlotte Pennington on?

Mark Willis wrote:Very interesting, April28th.
It reminds me that I should be wary of absolutely anything that derives from the Mcs themselves; everything they say is suspect. 
Anything they proffer usually turns out to have an ulterior motive. Like too much information about the angle of the bedroom door left open. It's immediately suspicious to be so precise.
You know, I actually noticed the stars didn't line up the very first time I saw that. I didn't think much of that at the time - but I did notice.
I have never seen such a self-incriminating couple when on camera. Yet for all their evident inconsistencies and almost zero emotion Op Grange will not touch them.

The angle of the door is a corker.

aquila wrote:

Mark Willis wrote:Very interesting, April28th.
It reminds me that I should be wary of absolutely anything that derives from the Mcs themselves; everything they say is suspect. 
Anything they proffer usually turns out to have an ulterior motive. Like too much information about the angle of the bedroom door left open. It's immediately suspicious to be so precise.
You know, I actually noticed the stars didn't line up the very first time I saw that. I didn't think much of that at the time - but I did notice.
I have never seen such a self-incriminating couple when on camera. Yet for all their evident inconsistencies and almost zero emotion Op Grange will not touch them.

The angle of the door is a corker.

Isn't it just? Over embellishment. Indicative of mendacity; that's just not my opinion.