Transcript of Panorama

I have been reading lots on the MM case, have just finished 60 reasons booklet (amongst other things) and am going to read it again!

Just found this link to Panorama transcript from 2007, sorry if it has been posted before but thought I'd pop it up here anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

Does anyone know if Madeleine had another sister who we never hear about (apart from the twins)?

Fee45 wrote:I have been reading lots on the MM case, have just finished 60 reasons (amongst other articles) and am going to read it again!

Just found this link to Panorama transcript from 2007, sorry if it has been posted before but thought I'd pop it up here anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

Does anyone know if Madeleine had another sister who we never hear about (apart from the twins)?

Why is there some reference to one in the transcript ?

Fee45 wrote:I have been reading lots on the MM case, have just finished 60 reasons (amongst other articles) and am going to read it again!

Just found this link to Panorama transcript from 2007, sorry if it has been posted before but thought I'd pop it up here anyway.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/programmes/panorama/7106086.stm

Does anyone know if Madeleine had another sister who we never hear about (apart from the twins)?

One has heard about a possible brother being mentioned in the past, although it may have been a rumour. Other siblings ahve certainly been discussed here and there, and indeed it was posed that this may be the reason why the PJ were never allowed to see the medical records of the McCann family. Of course this is absolutely unprecedented in a major crime, so the medical records still cause a bit of a stir here and there.

YNG wrote:
Why is there some reference to one in the transcript ?

No there isn't but I do have a vague reason for asking but might be totally wrong,

Judge Mental wrote:
One has heard about a possible brother being mentioned in the past, although it may have been a rumour. Other siblings ahve certainly been discussed here and there, and indeed it was posed that this may be the reason why the PJ were never allowed to see the medical records of the McCann family. Of course this is absolutely unprecedented in a major crime, so the medical records still cause a bit of a stir here and there.

Thanks JM, very interesting.

Fee45 wrote:

YNG wrote:
Why is there some reference to one in the transcript ?

No there isn't but I do have a vague reason for asking but might be totally wrong,

I'd be interested to know what your vague reason is if you care to share it .

YNG wrote:

Fee45 wrote:

YNG wrote:
Why is there some reference to one in the transcript ?

No there isn't but I do have a vague reason for asking but might be totally wrong,

I'd be interested to know what your vague reason is if you care to share it .

I would be happy to share but have pmd my reason to an admin as I'm not too sure what I can or can't write on a forum.
(plus I could be and most probably am totally wrong!)

Fee45 wrote:

YNG wrote:

Fee45 wrote:

YNG wrote:
Why is there some reference to one in the transcript ?

No there isn't but I do have a vague reason for asking but might be totally wrong,

I'd be interested to know what your vague reason is if you care to share it .

I would be happy to share but have pmd my reason to an admin as I'm not too sure what I can or can't write on a forum.
(plus I could be and most probably am totally wrong!)

I see, it's an interesting notion

I was wondering if the case was reopened could the Portuguese courts
order the British to hand over the medical records and financial records?

Cherry wrote:I was wondering if the case was reopened could the Portuguese courts
order the British to hand over the medical records and financial records?

I wonder that too.
Why on earth didn't/don't the McCanns just let them have the records, surely you would allow any form of access to private records if you hadn't a thing to hide, plus you would want to be able to stick two fingers up at any doubters??

Are we absolutely certain that Madeleine's medical records were not released ?

I had an idea that Mr. Amaral had alluded to it but not one hundred percent
sure. But if they were not released, as you say if nothing to hide why wouldnt the
Mccanns in the interests of helping the investigation just hand them over.

Cherry wrote:I had an idea that Mr. Amaral had alluded to it but not one hundred percent
sure. But if they were not released, as you say if nothing to hide why wouldnt the
Mccanns in the interests of helping the investigation just hand them over.

This is what I can't understand , and surely the police would have been able to access them without any consent, though I maybe wrong there ?

YNG wrote:

Cherry wrote:I had an idea that Mr. Amaral had alluded to it but not one hundred percent
sure. But if they were not released, as you say if nothing to hide why wouldnt the
Mccanns in the interests of helping the investigation just hand them over.

This is what I can't understand , and surely the police would have been able to access them without any consent, though I maybe wrong there ?

Yes I would have thought that they would have the powers to have access, especially in such a case as the McCanns.

(This is Fee45, there was a glitch and I had to re-register!)

Fee46 wrote:

YNG wrote:

Cherry wrote:I had an idea that Mr. Amaral had alluded to it but not one hundred percent
sure. But if they were not released, as you say if nothing to hide why wouldnt the
Mccanns in the interests of helping the investigation just hand them over.

This is what I can't understand , and surely the police would have been able to access them without any consent, though I maybe wrong there ?

Yes I would have thought that they would have the powers to have access, especially in such a case as the McCanns.

(This is Fee45, there was a glitch and I had to re-register!)

Welcome back Fee45(46)

candyfloss wrote:
Welcome back Fee45(46)

Many thanks.
I was wondering if I would please be able to have access again to the Jo Yeates forum etc, like I did as Fee45?

Fee46 wrote:

candyfloss wrote:
Welcome back Fee45(46)

Many thanks.
I was wondering if I would please be able to have access again to the Jo Yeates forum etc, like I did as Fee45?

It's very quiet in there at present. However CJ has been released from bail today, so it may get busy again. Will ask admin for you.

Thank you kindly.

Fee46 wrote:

YNG wrote:

Cherry wrote:I had an idea that Mr. Amaral had alluded to it but not one hundred percent
sure. But if they were not released, as you say if nothing to hide why wouldnt the
Mccanns in the interests of helping the investigation just hand them over.

This is what I can't understand , and surely the police would have been able to access them without any consent, though I maybe wrong there ?

Yes I would have thought that they would have the powers to have access, especially in such a case as the McCanns.

(This is Fee45, there was a glitch and I had to re-register!)

This happened to me last week also , it must be somesort of glitch.

Welcom Back.

Fee45 wrote:

Cherry wrote:I was wondering if the case was reopened could the Portuguese courts
order the British to hand over the medical records and financial records?

I wonder that too.
Why on earth didn't/don't the McCanns just let them have the records, surely you would allow any form of access to private records if you hadn't a thing to hide, plus you would want to be able to stick two fingers up at any doubters??

Precisely Fee46. Usually, medical records are sent immediately, so that the ''true'' parentage can be established, and of course to ensure that parents are not lying about a child's medication or behavioural problems. Also, it is very important that the police know there is no history of depression, baby blues or violence in the parents. There have been cases in families where other children have already ''disappeared'' or died from cot death, and this is why it is imperative that the police and all authorities submit the data immediately.

Over the years, one has seen a tremendous amount of police time wasted, simply because a father has been denied access to children from his children for so long, that he impulsively or otherwise, comes along one day and ''abducts'' his own child or children. Of course it is not exclusively men who do this. The mother, grandparents and siblings are also known to do this.

It is especially important in this case, that the police are given the McCann family's medical records, due to Madeleine's grandparents advising the media that Madeleine was given drugs to enable her to sleep. The fact that Madeleine would not stay in her own bed and had to be cajoled with gifts and stars to force her to behave and stay in bed is very important. The police need to know if the McCanns had discussed Madeleine with their own GP in the past, and if she or the family had any past or ongoing problems. The stars on the fridge caused a ripple now and then on the internet.

A piece of A4 paper with a few details is simply not enough. The fact that the Home Offie has deliberately prevented their release has caused great consternation, and damned rightly so! The UK cannot be seen to have one rule for people who live at the bottom of the ladder, and another rule for those who have managed to climb up a couple of rungs. Nobody else would have got away with this. When we have some moments spare, we should reflect on the definitives of the rules concerning the UK's own policy on the steps to be taken when a child is reported missing. This was a joint investigation remember, with CEOP crawling over the place.

Please PM any of the Mods with regard to anything you are worried about submitting. To date, we have not had anything submitted here which could be considered outrageous, defamatory or libellous, and one doubts very much that you will be the first to let us down.

If it's possible, probable, or theoretical, there is absolutely no problem, but we must be cautious how we write it down. We have friend and foe lawyers reading here all the time, to ensure that anyhing dubious will always be backed up with a video of the McCanns speaking or the police files.

IVF very frequently produces multiple births, because the expense involved 'forces' the people involved to use more than one fertilised egg, in case not all implant.
properly. The McCanns second IVF round did exactly that.

PeterMac wrote:IVF very frequently produces multiple births, because the expense involved 'forces' the people involved to use more than one fertilised egg, in case not all implant.
properly. The McCanns second IVF round did exactly that.

Good afternoon PeterMac. I have read also that the eggs are sometimes sold, the sperm is also sold, and some woman carry the baby to then hand over at birth.

theolivebranch: There are surrogate mothers who carry a child for another woman, perhaps unable to bear a child to term, who may be bearing a child of their own ovum with donated sperm, possibly from the father, or perhaps a zygote from the intended parents' own gametes.
And infinite numbers of ways of paying, selling, harvesting and so on.
I do not know enough about the McCanns' personal situation to be able to say whose ovum or whose sperm was involved. I do not think the idea of a surrogate parent has even been mooted however.
My point was that if there was ever reference to a brother to Madeleine, it might easily have been in the context of "you also had a twin brother, but he died", which might imply miscarriage or stillbirth. And nothing more sinister or unusual in the context of IVF than that.

PeterMac wrote:theolivebranch: There are surrogate mothers who carry a child for another woman, perhaps unable to bear a child to term, who may be bearing a child of their own ovum with donated sperm, possibly from the father, or perhaps a zygote from the intended parents' own gametes.
And infinite numbers of ways of paying, selling, harvesting and so on.
I do not know enough about the McCanns' personal situation to be able to say whose ovum or whose sperm was involved. I do not think the idea of a surrogate parent has even been mooted however.
My point was that if there was ever reference to a brother to Madeleine, it might easily have been in the context of "you also had a twin brother, but he died", which might imply miscarriage or stillbirth. And nothing more sinister or unusual in the context of IVF than that.

Well there was talk of donated sperm then it was said that GM was the man to father Madeleine. The mooting of the surrogate parent was a suggestion that Madeleine could have had siblings that were frozen and then planted into other mothers.

I saw a programme yesterday where a lady on the Isle of Lewis was expecting twins. One baby was born but there were serious difficulties with the second baby so she was air lifted to the mainland and had the twin 36 hours later if I remember correctly. But they were twins but born on different days. Now I know this is nothing to do with IVF and surrogacy but interesting that they were still classed as twins.

So Madeleine could have had a twin from her own IVF cycle but born of another mother.

Just shows you how easy it can be....

http://www.ivfcostworldwide.com/2009/02/south-africa-nurture-south-africas.html

I cannot do links and text so please just take time to have a read, raised my eyebrows. Seems as easy as having a haircut.