The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!


Sedation of twins

Post new topic   This topic is locked: you cannot edit posts or make replies.

View previous topic View next topic Go down

Sedation of twins

Post by PeterMac on 06.06.11 7:27

I am copying these entries, as they inadvertently ended up on the Fraudulent Fund thread,

PeterMac on Mon 23 May 2011 - 16:40

ufercoffy wrote:
So you've got Kate's book then PeterMac, I'm looking forward to hearing what you have to say about it from a policeman's point of view

Yes, I got it this morning. £9 with free postage to Southern Spain. There is no 'free' P&P, so I doubt whether Amazon will have got more than £ 6.50.
Initial thoughts,
The only interesting bit is on pages 70 to 73
Page 70 and the top of page 71 is hearsay,
Bottom of 71 and top of 72 is the only bit we get about the abduction, and yet again, there is nothing.
top of Page 73
"I'd done that, and I knew, I knew, that Madeleine had been abducted."
Putting it in italics does not turn it into evidence, and the fact remains there is still nothing concrete.

But apart from that there seem to be some serious questions raised. I had not realised, or had forgotten that Fiona was also a trained anaethetist. So there were two anaesthetists present when two children failed to respond to stimuli, and neither bothered to rouse them, or make any proper checks for vital signs.
Kate says (p 75) that she placed her hand on the twins BACKS, to check for CHEST movement., "basically, for some sign of LIFE" but she does nothing else, no pupil response, no check of pulse, no smelling of their breath for ketones, nothing.
And the next sentence is "Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins too?"

http://www.rcn.org.uk/__data/assets/pdf_file/0004/114484/003196.pdf
is about checking vital sign in children and says simply
Infants and children less than six to seven years of
age are predominantly abdominal breathers
therefore, abdominal movements should be counted

So Kate, a qualified anaesthetist, with the independent assistance of Fiona - ditto - suspects sedatives, but then fails to do any of the proper checks on the twins, or even to turn them over. A hand on their back is enough.
Is this credible ?
If it is true, then for this alone she and Fiona should be struck off.

lj wrote:
Kate dabbled in anaesthesiology, but was not a registered anaesthesiologist. Fiona was iirc.
The first snippets about Kate checking "professionally" came from Fiona. It is my personal opinion that these people are so far removed from what a true motherly care would be that they come up with the only care they know: the one they were trained for. Thus" Kate checked on the twins with the finder under their nose, or according to Kate by putting her hand on their back.
If they really had concern about the twins why not have them checked out as was offered?
Could you tell us what's on page 70 and on top of page 71? I understand that according to fair use you can quote small pieces.


Importantly, Ij, you are wrong.
Kate tells us at P 20 :" I had first met Fiona in December 2000 in the staff coffee room at the Leicester Intensive Care Unit, where we were both anaesthetic registrars. It was the day after I passed my anaesthetic fellowship..." A registrar is only one step away from Consultant. It is the second most senior post, far removed from trainee, and certainly not "dabbling". (information for our overseas readers)

And the fact that you are wrong makes the situation even more incredible, fantastic, and reprehensible. TWO registrars in that very speciality do nothing to assess the twins, even though Kate states very clearly that she suspected, (even at that time, rather than the months later when they were interviewed), that they had been sedated.

As a young cop I went to a chimney fire which the Fire Brigade dealt with. (Oh those happy days of Forces and Brigades !) The house was full of smoke, the three children were asleep upstairs and I knew enough to tell the babysitter to help me get them up and take them downstairs and run them round in the garden until they coughed, and started complaining about being thirsty. And I was just a young cop, not a Registrar !

The fact that Fiona says hand under nose, and Kate says hand on back, is odd, to say the least. The fact that they were not roused is serious professional negligence.

Pages 70 and 71 involve Kate telling us in detail about the details of Gerry's visit. "He entered the apartment ...he looked at the children... he did this... he did that. Gerry saw Jes ... " which is all reported evidence and therefore hearsay. We can assume that Gerry has helped put it together and has proof read it, but nevertheless it comes from Kates pen.
But she then brushes aside the most important part of that Gerry/Jes meeting by adding
"for the record, there was subsequently some uncertainty about which side of the road Jes and Gerry were actually on. Jane and Jes remember it as the same side as the Tapas entrance, whereas Gerry is sure he crossed the street. Either way exactly where they were standing is not crucial. What may be important is that all three of them were there."

Let us just look at that again. Where they were standing is NOT crucial. Yes it is. It is absolutely vital since neither Gerry nor Jes even admit that Jane went past them, at all, ever. .
What may be important is that all three of them were there. It may indeed be important. Particularly if Jane was not. Why does Kate say 'may be important" rather than a more decisive, "What is important is that all three were there." Why is she hedging her bets ? Why have the proof readers and lawyers let her slip this in ?
  


PeterMac on Mon 23 May 2011 - 21:44

And yes, before anyone jumps in, I accept there is a difference in seniority between Registrar and Senior Registrar, but the principle is exactly the same.
They know what they are doing.
Or are supposed to.
But they didn't do it.
Either of them.
Is that credible, or is the story itself slightly incredible ?

lj on Mon 23 May 2011 - 22:47

Thank you PeterMac for that correction. I always thought that it was only a year she worked in anaesthesiology when she stopped because of the pregnancy of Madeleine. But again, I say that from memory. In the Netherlands many specialism require additional years in other specialisms and doctors often do some extra to get an allround training.

Don't get me started about the quality of their medical knowledge and ethics. You have probably in your career seen the freak accidents young kids can get in when left alone. I can't believe that anyone who has worked one weekend on an emergency room can leave their kids out of earshot, especially not in a strange room in a strange house in a strange country. And everytime they do this "who could know they would kidnap her" I think: idiots, effing idiots, you should know better. This latest coloboma thing finished it for me. They both should loose their license or registration. What if indeed Madeleine was kidnapped and brought to Morocco. They see a child there, bring her to the local or police doctor who will say "no, it is not Madeleine, she has no coloboma". They deliberately created a situation where Madeleine could not be identified. How evil.

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10179
Reputation : 196
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

Re: Sedation of twins

Post by PeterMac on 06.06.11 9:39

And this is from Oldfields Rogatory

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id219.htmlMatthew Oldfield - Part II
Matthew Oldfield interview at Leicestershire Police Headquarters II  Duarte Levy Wordpress

4078 "Is there anything else, that you smelt, could you smell anything?"
 
Reply "No, no, we've talked about that before, I didn't smell anything, I mean, I could see the children breathing, but I didn't clock it as abnormal, erm, it'd be completely to speculate to say whether their breathing was fast or, I couldn't say, I mean, they were breathing and that's what, you know, and that was what I was there to check, erm, no, no funny sort of smells, no sort of funny draughts, no sort of funny sort of noises, no, erm, nothing that I can think of for that. I mean, it was a complete just a shock out of the blue when, you know, I'd been in and then suddenly somebody's saying Madeleine's missing, there was nothing that made me think, oh".


So there was no chloroform, ether, Nitrous Oxide, or anything else used at 9.30,
Which means any anaethesia mus have been extremely fast acting
 

____________________

avatar
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10179
Reputation : 196
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum