Munchausens Syndrome by Proxy

I have to admit tigger you were rather harsh with your post. FH has his/her opinions you have yours, there is really no need for sarcasm. By all means discuss and debate but please keep to the post in question and not the poster. As to Doctors looking things up on the internet, yes they do. I have sat in the GP's surgery, when she looked up on the internet, and her little book, which drugs could be taken together, as sometimes it can be either dangerous or one can cancel out the effects of another.

candyfloss wrote:I have to admit tigger you were rather harsh with your post. FH has his/her opinions you have yours, there is really no need for sarcasm. By all means discuss and debate but please keep to the post in question and not the poster. As to Doctors looking things up on the internet, yes they do. I have sat in the GP's surgery, when she looked up on the internet, and her little book, which drugs could be taken together, as sometimes it can be either dangerous or one can cancel out the effects of another.

Candyfloss, I do realised I'm rather sharp at times, but FH doesn't often answer my posts or indeed other posters that often. Early on I went to the trouble of finding and posting something which was dismissed out of hand and no thanks. The item FH then found from UnterdenTeppich gekehrt wasn't posted - so I looked it up and wrote a short post. No answer. FH posed a question on Maddie's eye in a photograph, I answered, looked it up and so on. I do answer posts.

FH started with two extremely long posts which covered several topics. Then inserted the entire banner topic in one post - these don't make topics any easier to read. Last week I had several posts of LH under my name - it took quite a few posts to get even a hint of an apology. As most of these posts have now been deleted, I can't prove that.

Re the remark about the 7 children - there is no reaction when the PJ report on it is posted from FH. Which imo is the norm, one posts an opinion, someone posts proof of the contrary, one thanks the other poster for their trouble.

tigger wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I have to admit tigger you were rather harsh with your post. FH has his/her opinions you have yours, there is really no need for sarcasm. By all means discuss and debate but please keep to the post in question and not the poster. As to Doctors looking things up on the internet, yes they do. I have sat in the GP's surgery, when she looked up on the internet, and her little book, which drugs could be taken together, as sometimes it can be either dangerous or one can cancel out the effects of another.

Candyfloss, I do realised I'm rather sharp at times, but FH doesn't often answer my posts or indeed other posters that often. Early on I went to the trouble of finding and posting something which was dismissed out of hand and no thanks. The item FH then found from UnterdenTeppich gekehrt wasn't posted - so I looked it up and wrote a short post. No answer. FH posed a question on Maddie's eye in a photograph, I answered, looked it up and so on. I do answer posts.

FH started with two extremely long posts which covered several topics. Then inserted the entire banner topic in one post - these don't make topics any easier to read. Last week I had several posts of LH under my name - it took quite a few posts to get even a hint of an apology. As most of these posts have now been deleted, I can't prove that.

Re the remark about the 7 children - there is no reaction when the PJ report on it is posted from FH. Which imo is the norm, one posts an opinion, someone posts proof of the contrary, one thanks the other poster for their trouble.

I started with 2 long posts, because I have 5 years of frustration about the situation to unload.

I don't have a lot of spare time and I didn't want to clutter up threads with thank you's every time someone posts a response. I do read and take the content on board.

I publicly explained the multiple copies of the banner was a mistake - I held my hands up and said it was me that did it guv, but I still have no idea how. I tried to cut and paste a small amount of text out of the banner and the multiple copies didn't show up in preview and I apologised for that already.

I also apologiesed publicly for the fact that I don't know enough HTML yet, so when editing a quote it looked like my opinions came from Tigger. I thought I apologised as soon as I understood what the problem was and where I had gone wrong.

All these were mistakes by a newbie getting to grips with the technology and the social protocols. Tigger, a gentle reminder is all that is needed. I'm not perfect and I do make mistakes.

However, Tigger, your post was a full on personal attack about me and my opinions and experiences and , not about my ineptitude in a new medium. BTW IMHO that isn't sarcasm. Sarcasm has an element of humour. I didn't find anything humorous in your post - it was totally derogatory and quite unpleasant. Just as well I have broad shoulders. I do not really know where it came from, but I'm sorry if anything I have said/done/not done has upset you. That has never been my intention.

Tigger, a little bit of advice for you from my Mum "if you can't think of something nice to say, best to say nothing"

I have been reading all morning not only about the McCann case, but other cases in general. One good thing coming out of all of this (Do I sound like Gerry hehe) is not confusion though, but I have learned a lot about different things. I have picked up this article (There is a tremendous amount of information about Munchausen Syndrome by proxy) and other related stuff.

Please not that even though the word "murder" is used in this paragraph its purely to demonstrate where Munchausen Syndrome fits into death in children:

"One of the most influential classifications of child murder was created in 1969 by Phillip Resnick.9 He reviewed 131 cases of filicide committed by both men and women that were discussed in psychiatric literature dating from 1751 to 1967. He developed five categories to account for the motives driving parents to kill their children:

• Altruistic filicide—The parent kills the child because it is perceived to be in the best interest of the child.

• Acts associated with parental suicidal ideation—The parent may believe that the world is too cruel to leave the child behind after his or her death.

• Acts meant to relieve the suffering of the child—The child has a disability, either real or imagined, that the parent finds intolerable.

• Acutely psychotic filicide—The parent, responding to psychosis, kills the child with no other rational motive. This category may also include incidents that occur secondary to automatisms related to seizures or activities taking place in a post-ictal state.

• Unwanted child filicide—The parent kills the child, who is regarded as a hindrance. This category also includes parents who benefit from the death of the child in some way (e.g., inheriting insurance money, marrying a partner who does not want step-children).

• Accidental filicide—The parent unintentionally kills the child as a result of abuse. This category includes the rarely occurring Munchausen syndrome by proxy.

• Spouse revenge filicide—The parent kills the child as a means of exacting revenge upon the spouse, perhaps secondary to infidelity or abandonment"

It might be an idea to close this topic down soon unless I can find [ because I started it!] something concrete in words or actions that point to MSP as being in any way relevant here. Anyone else feel free but I take the responsibility for finding something more than vaguely suggestive of it, as it is a controversial topic .
There is a strong suggestion though of "within the family setting " treatment of childhood illness.
This might be nothing sinister, but it is only puzzling because it appears Maddie never saw the GP she was registered with.
If this is the case,questions only arise because it is unusual and against advice of medical defence union leaders.
No questions would be asked had there been evidence of Maddie's visits to her doctor and had her health records been made available.

FH wrote:

tigger wrote:

candyfloss wrote:I have to admit tigger you were rather harsh with your post. FH has his/her opinions you have yours, there is really no need for sarcasm. By all means discuss and debate but please keep to the post in question and not the poster. As to Doctors looking things up on the internet, yes they do. I have sat in the GP's surgery, when she looked up on the internet, and her little book, which drugs could be taken together, as sometimes it can be either dangerous or one can cancel out the effects of another.

Candyfloss, I do realised I'm rather sharp at times, but FH doesn't often answer my posts or indeed other posters that often. Early on I went to the trouble of finding and posting something which was dismissed out of hand and no thanks. The item FH then found from UnterdenTeppich gekehrt wasn't posted - so I looked it up and wrote a short post. No answer. FH posed a question on Maddie's eye in a photograph, I answered, looked it up and so on. I do answer posts.

FH started with two extremely long posts which covered several topics. Then inserted the entire banner topic in one post - these don't make topics any easier to read. Last week I had several posts of LH under my name - it took quite a few posts to get even a hint of an apology. As most of these posts have now been deleted, I can't prove that.

Re the remark about the 7 children - there is no reaction when the PJ report on it is posted from FH. Which imo is the norm, one posts an opinion, someone posts proof of the contrary, one thanks the other poster for their trouble.

I started with 2 long posts, because I have 5 years of frustration about the situation to unload. We all do have that frustration.

I don't have a lot of spare time and I didn't want to clutter up threads with thank you's every time someone posts a response. I do read and take the content on board. The forum is for discussion, there can be no discussion is there is no reaction.

I publicly explained the multiple copies of the banner was a mistake - I held my hands up and said it was me that did it guv, but I still have no idea how. I tried to cut and paste a small amount of text out of the banner and the multiple copies didn't show up in preview and I apologised for that already.
I also apologiesed publicly for the fact that I don't know enough HTML yet, so when editing a quote it looked like my opinions came from Tigger. I thought I apologised as soon as I understood what the problem was and where I had gone wrong.
All these were mistakes by a newbie getting to grips with the technology and the social protocols. Tigger, a gentle reminder is all that is needed. I'm not perfect and I do make mistakes. I posted a step by step example of how to do it with my following post.

However, Tigger, your post was a full on personal attack about me and my opinions and experiences and , not about my ineptitude in a new medium. BTW IMHO that isn't sarcasm. Sarcasm has an element of humour. I didn't find anything humorous in your post - it was totally derogatory and quite unpleasant. Just as well I have broad shoulders. I do not really know where it came from, but I'm sorry if anything I have said/done/not done has upset you. That has never been my intention.
Tigger, a little bit of advice for you from my Mum "if you can't think of something nice to say, best to say nothing"

I was struck by the uncanny parallels you supplied. Your sister has twins and an older child of about the same ages as the McCs. The 3 year old would be sent to stay with other family from time to time. You are the daughter of a doctor, sister of a nurse and pharmacist and aunt to another doctor. You breed springer spaniels. You feel it is normal for doctors not to consult colleagues when their children are ill, you also posted that 'I have been abroad with 3 small children many times and I don't ever recall being in an apartment big enough to fit that number of small people/cots .

I am now replying to a post that seems to have appeared and been whooshed in the last 15 minutes or so.
I shall drop this now, this answer would not even have appeared were it not for the bolded bit in your post, which would be a suitable reprimand for a five year old, I'm rather past that. Besides, this has nothing to do with the topic. It's nothing personal at all, I can't dislike you because I don't know you.
I will PM you and copy the PM to Candyfloss.

russiandoll wrote: It might be an idea to close this topic down soon unless I can find [ because I started it!] something concrete in words or actions that point to MSP as being in any way relevant here. Anyone else feel free but I take the responsibility for finding something more than vaguely suggestive of it, as it is a controversial topic .
There is a strong suggestion though of "within the family setting " treatment of childhood illness.
This might be nothing sinister, but it is only puzzling because it appears Maddie never saw the GP she was registered with.
If this is the case,questions only arise because it is unusual and against advice of medical defence union leaders.
No questions would be asked had there been evidence of Maddie's visits to her doctor and had her health records been made available.

Maybe they were not released because there is nothing in them which would have sent warning bells ringing. I would like to know what was given to baby Madeleine throughout her months of the pains of colic during her 18 hours a day of screaming. And frequent nose bleeds, what was the cause of those and what treatment was given.

What post has been whooshed??

quote Nina :
" Maybe they were not released because there is nothing in them which would have sent warning bells ringing. I would like to know what was given to baby Madeleine throughout her months of the pains of colic during her 18 hours a day of screaming. And frequent nose bleeds, what was the cause of those and what treatment was given. "
It is police procedure in cases of suspected abduction of a child or vulnerable adult to request medical records to build a full picture of the abductee and to assess just how vulnerable that person is. It is not to the best of my knowledge up to a medical body to decide whether or not the records contain anything to set alarm bells ringing , that is a decision for the police.
It is hindering the investigation to withhold medical records.......I am astounded this was allowed to go unchallenged.

candyfloss wrote:What post has been whooshed??

I've just PM'd you.

For any interested avid readers out there, I have a book called 'Sickened' by Julie Gregory - survivor of a mother with MSbP.
Here are a couple of reviews:

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


Plot Summary of Sickened

"Julie Gregory was a victim of a sickness as a child through to her late teens. Her mother always believed, or tried to convince other people that there was something wrong with her daughter's health and was forever taking her to see doctors and specialists and suggesting that they perform open heart surgery on her. Whenever the doctors said that there was nothing wrong with Julie, her mother would become enraged and take Julie to another hospital. Because of these numerous hospital visits Julie hardly went to school and would be too tired to concentrate in lessons because her mother would put her on a special diet.
When she was a young adult she found it difficult to cope with life without her mother, even after she discovered what her sickness was. The illness was not so familiar to many people when she first found out. Nevertheless, Julie went back to her mother, who had remarried and adopted some more children. She left after she discovered that her adopted daughter was suffering from the same treatment from her mother that she was given herself, and decided to prosecute her mother."
Liza Rosette, Resident Scholar


"Julie Gregory was a victim of Munchaused by Proxy. From a young age, her mother would take her to specialized doctors to find out what was wrong with her. However, it wasn't something which was wrong with Julie, it was a mental condition which affected her mother. She tried to break free from her mothers constant trips to the doctor, but she doesn't want to hurt her mother.
As she grows up, she realises that because she is a small, frail child, her mother takes advantage of this and 'creates' illnesses for her. Her siblings are also affected, but it is usually Julie who has to put up with it. Her siblings help her and give her the courage to fight back and get mental help for their mother.
Julie, however, loves her mother. She is easily angered by her mothers condition but she doesn't want to hurt her. This is a book which tells of a lost childhood and the World's most hidden and dangerous type of child abuse."
Marie Smith, Resident Scholar

russiandoll wrote: quote Nina :
" Maybe they were not released because there is nothing in them which would have sent warning bells ringing. I would like to know what was given to baby Madeleine throughout her months of the pains of colic during her 18 hours a day of screaming. And frequent nose bleeds, what was the cause of those and what treatment was given. "
It is police procedure in cases of suspected abduction of a child or vulnerable adult to request medical records to build a full picture of the abductee and to assess just how vulnerable that person is. It is not to the best of my knowledge up to a medical body to decide whether or not the records contain anything to set alarm bells ringing , that is a decision for the police.
It is hindering the investigation to withhold medical records.......I am astounded this was allowed to go unchallenged.

On reading what I said again it doesn't sound like I meant it to. I meant the records would be empty as she hadn't been to a doctor and this lack of content would/should have set the alarm bells ringing to the police.

russiandoll wrote: quote Nina :
" Maybe they were not released because there is nothing in them which would have sent warning bells ringing. I would like to know what was given to baby Madeleine throughout her months of the pains of colic during her 18 hours a day of screaming. And frequent nose bleeds, what was the cause of those and what treatment was given. "
It is police procedure in cases of suspected abduction of a child or vulnerable adult to request medical records to build a full picture of the abductee and to assess just how vulnerable that person is. It is not to the best of my knowledge up to a medical body to decide whether or not the records contain anything to set alarm bells ringing , that is a decision for the police.
It is hindering the investigation to withhold medical records.......I am astounded this was allowed to go unchallenged.

But surely a child with nosebleeds, sleepwalking, colic, crying awake and for 18 hours! probably over active, ADS? and never consulted a colleague?
The refusal of medical records wasn't the only one - the financial records were denied as the PJ had asked for the past 3 months I believe. The Home Office found this too intrusive and told the PJ to reconsider - I think the PJ didn't bother, I would have expected the normal procedure to involve at least a years' records.
So was it the same with the medical records, not exactly denied, but only the period which they covered?

tigger wrote:

russiandoll wrote: quote Nina :
" Maybe they were not released because there is nothing in them which would have sent warning bells ringing. I would like to know what was given to baby Madeleine throughout her months of the pains of colic during her 18 hours a day of screaming. And frequent nose bleeds, what was the cause of those and what treatment was given. "
It is police procedure in cases of suspected abduction of a child or vulnerable adult to request medical records to build a full picture of the abductee and to assess just how vulnerable that person is. It is not to the best of my knowledge up to a medical body to decide whether or not the records contain anything to set alarm bells ringing , that is a decision for the police.
It is hindering the investigation to withhold medical records.......I am astounded this was allowed to go unchallenged.

But surely a child with nosebleeds, sleepwalking, colic, crying awake and for 18 hours! probably over active, ADS? and never consulted a colleague?
The refusal of medical records wasn't the only one - the financial records were denied as the PJ had asked for the past 3 months I believe. The Home Office found this too intrusive and told the PJ to reconsider - I think the PJ didn't bother, I would have expected the normal procedure to involve at least a years' records.
So was it the same with the medical records, not exactly denied, but only the period which they covered?

Interesting theory, I suppose the family Dr. could have put a letter together covering a set period of time and just outlining anything that may be relevant in the hunt for a missing child. Perhaps the PJ did get something and of course wanted to see more and then the McCanns pulled ranks and made Madeleline a ward of court - no more info.

As for the financial records being denied I never knew that and I wonder if those were ever seen, now if they were in great difficulty financially was someone helping them out? I think that question goes with my post on the priests and is very relevant to the theory that is building - were the Catholic Church (seeing as they knew so many Priests) helping them out of a serious financial difficulty, I know that this goes on within church communities.

There are three main strands to health protection in children: screening, surveillance and
immunisation.
1.3.1 Screening
Screening is defined by the UK National Screening Committee as a ‘public health service in
which members of a defined population, who do not necessarily perceive they are at risk of,
or are already affected by a disease or its complications, are asked a question or offered a
test, to identify those individuals who are more likely to be helped than harmed by further
tests or treatment to reduce the risk of a disease or its complications’.
[You must be registered and logged in to see this link.]
The aim of screening is to identify children at risk of a particular condition. Screening is not
diagnostic; it only identifies those who are likely to benefit from further investigation or
treatment. A screening test may consist of a question identifying a child with a specific risk
factor. Some of those identified by screening will be found not to be at increased risk when
they have further investigations. These children are called ‘false positives’. There will also
be people who are at increased risk but are not identified by the screening programme.
These are called ‘false negatives’. Parents, where appropriate, should be made aware of
the benefits and limitations of screening tests so that they can make informed decisions
about whether or not to participate.
If children who screen negative present later with symptoms consistent with the condition
screened for, they should be referred as appropriate. (For example, a negative neonatal
blood spot screen for cystic fibrosis does not exclude cystic fibrosis in a 3-year-old child
with multiple chest infections and failure to thrive). Parents should be made aware of the
signs and symptoms of the specific conditions for which the child has been screened and
advised to contact their GP or other health professional if they have any concerns, even if
the screening test did not identify a problem. Health professionals should be equipped to
advise and support parents who have concerns. They should also know when, where and
how to refer the child.
Health visitors, school nurses, community paediatricians, allied health professionals and
GPs are likely to be the first point of contact when parents have concerns. Parents may
also raise their concerns with staff in their child’s nursery, pre-school or school.
Population screening involves more than applying a screening test to an individual. To
achieve its aims, a population based screening programme needs to be provided in a
systematic way by appropriately trained staff. The target population needs to be defined,
as does the timing of the test. The test needs to be applied in a uniform way with agreed
positive or negative result. These parameters should be set according to the best available
evidence. The referral pathway for screen positive individuals should be clearly defined.

1.3.2 Surveillance
There should be ongoing surveillance of the general health and development of the child.
Health professionals must listen to parental concerns and respond appropriately including
onward referral and future assessment. They should work in partnership with parents to
support them in making healthy choices for their children. That partnership should be
based on trust. It is also essential that parents know where to go for advice when they
have a concern about their child.
The development of a family-centred public health role for health professionals will support
a more proactive approach to promoting child health with a reduced emphasis on routine
systemised surveillance.
Where there is a concern about a child’s development, formal assessment to confirm or
refute these initial suspicions is essential. This should be undertaken as part of a more
comprehensive assessment involving a network of child development services and should
include consideration of referral to a community paediatrician.
Local care pathways and protocols should be monitored and evaluated on an ongoing
basis to ensure their effectiveness

1.3.3 Immunisation
Health professionals can contribute to improving the health and quality of life of children by
promoting the uptake of safe and effective vaccines.
All children should be offered immunisation in line with the current national
immunisation schedule. Contact with the family at the time of immunisation provides the
health professional with the opportunity to provide relevant health promotion and carry out
general health surveillance, including growth monitoring of the child

1.4 Information sharing
From the antenatal period onwards and during the first few weeks of a baby’s life, there
must be an effective transfer of information between the midwife and the health visitor. The
midwife should complete a transfer record for inclusion in the personal child health record
(PCHR).
The health visiting record should be completed at the end of the pre-school period and
passed onto the school health service. The transfer of information from the pre-school
health visitor to the school nurse must be carried out in line with organisation protocols for
transfer of information.
The transition from early years to primary school, primary school to post-primary school,
and from post-primary school to employment or further education or training have been
identified as vulnerable stages of development for children and young people. It is
essential that there is an exchange of relevant information within, and between agencies to
allow them carry out an integrated assessment of need and to meet the needs of these
individuals, particularly for those who have special needs e.g. disability.

1.5 Summary of Hall 4 programme
1. Every child and their parent(s) should have access to a universal core programme of
preventive health care.
The content of this is based on three considerations:
a) The delivery of agreed screening procedures;
b) Evidence-based health promotion; and,
c) The need to establish which families requires additional support.
2. The core programme includes:
Pre-school 0-5
• Antenatal visit / contact
• Neonatal examination
• Newborn hearing screening
• Newborn blood spot screening
• Primary visit
• 8 week developmental review
• The national immunisation programme and growth
monitoring, 8 weeks, 3 months, 4 months, 12 months
(immunisation only), 15 months and 4 years.
• Record review at 2 years.
• School readiness assessment at 4 years
The personal child health record [PCHR] will provide parents with a comprehensive health record for their child. It will also provide a core child health data set.

Contact between 15 months and 4 years – 2 year record review:
At the 15 month review, the health visitor in partnership with the parent(s) should agree the
schedule for future contact and subsequent reviews.
At 2 years the health visitor will exercise his/her professional judgement to decide if a contact is
required.
The health visitor is responsible for reviewing the child’s record (family health needs assessment,
child’s health record, risk factors, hospital A & E referrals, hospital correspondence, paediatric
referrals, outcomes of referrals, and child health system summary record (if available)).
A formal contact may not be necessary for all families. When no formal face-to-face contact is
planned the health visitor should ensure that there is liaison with other members of the primary
care team and other agencies as required. Local arrangements within Trusts should be in place
to ensure effective liaison between early years services and health visiting teams to ensure that
no new problems have emerged.
In other cases contact by telephone, letter or email may be sufficient, whereas some families
may require face-to-face contact.
Record action taken.

At 2 year record review, the health visitor should assess children with risk factors for congenital
heart disease, vision, hearing –

4 years – school readiness assessment
Action: Health visitor-led service Venue: Clinic/other
Review, discuss, record and refer onwards (where appropriate):
• Review and discuss any parental concerns/ review child’s progress e.g. family health
needs assessment, child’s health record, hospital correspondence, outcomes of referrals,
and child health system summary record).
• Review and discuss maternal and family mental health and well-being history and current
status.
• Additional support required.
• Review and discuss risk factors for TB, hearing, vision, and refer as per locally agreed
protocols. Record TB Risk status (for targeted population).
• Review and update family health needs assessment.
• Observe parent(s) child interaction.
• Discuss involvement with local support networks.
• Discuss confidentiality and consent (as required).
Physical examination/growth monitoring:
• Growth monitoring: weight and height – see appendix ii
• Plot, interpret centile and take appropriate action.
• Age appropriate vision screening for those children with risk factor (1st degree relative with
amblyopia, squint, high refractive error or nystagmus and act according to locally agreed
protocols). See appendix x – xi.
Immunisation:
• Identify infants requiring extended pneumococcal programme and arrange for
immunisations to be given.
• As per JCVI National Immunisation Schedule given by GP, practice nurse, treatment room
nurse or health visitor.
• Health professionals should take this opportunity to ensure that the preschool
immunisation schedule is complete.
• Identify and follow-up on incomplete immunisations.
Health promotion should be targeted towards the individual family’s needs.
Health promotion should complement regional and local strategies and targets to improve the health and well-being
of children. See appendix i.
Risk factors:
• Review and update risk assessment. See appendix ii-xii.
• Identify parent(s) who may need additional support (e.g.
substance abuse, learning difficulties, and mental health).
Children suspected of having special educational needs or child's development deviated
from the normal, refer to community paediatrician.
Identify and follow up incomplete preschool screening.
• Identify and follow up non-compliance with reviews and referrals.
• Review family health needs assessment and arrange for transfer of files to school health department.
Record any additional health visitor visits.

Quite Russiandoll. I dont think there was nothing in the medical records. Much of what you posted would be in there including vaccinations. It remains though that there is no record in the files of the records being requested. It could be in the withheld part of the files.

friedtomatoes wrote:Quite Russiandoll. I dont think there was nothing in the medical records. Much of what you posted would be in there including vaccinations. It remains though that there is no record in the files of the records being requested. It could be in the withheld part of the files.

The Truth of the Lie:

P. 81
"The medical registries (of Madeleine) requested with insistence were not given to us, due to great difficulties raised in England".

tigger wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:Quite Russiandoll. I dont think there was nothing in the medical records. Much of what you posted would be in there including vaccinations. It remains though that there is no record in the files of the records being requested. It could be in the withheld part of the files.

The Truth of the Lie:

P. 81
"The medical registries (of Madeleine) requested with insistence were not given to us, due to great difficulties raised in England".

I wonder who they asked for them. Possibly through the LP? I have no reason to doubt what is in Mr Amarals book, I guess the requests are in the unreleased part of the dvd files along with responses. The fact that when Rebelo took over and requested the dental records amongst other things suggests the medical records were refused before then as the book details only things that happened before Mr Amaral got taken off the case. And as said before, they couldnt be empty. PS IIRC Mr Amaral wrote about how requests were made to the BMA regarding the coloboma condition and they never replied.

friedtomatoes wrote:

tigger wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:Quite Russiandoll. I dont think there was nothing in the medical records. Much of what you posted would be in there including vaccinations. It remains though that there is no record in the files of the records being requested. It could be in the withheld part of the files.

The Truth of the Lie:

P. 81
"The medical registries (of Madeleine) requested with insistence were not given to us, due to great difficulties raised in England".

I wonder who they asked for them. Possibly through the LP? I have no reason to doubt what is in Mr Amarals book, I guess the requests are in the unreleased part of the dvd files along with responses. The fact that when Rebelo took over and requested the dental records amongst other things suggests the medical records were refused before then as the book details only things that happened before Mr Amaral got taken off the case. And as said before, they couldnt be empty. PS IIRC Mr Amaral wrote about how requests were made to the BMA regarding the coloboma condition and they never replied.

so sorry, but these unreleased files. Will SY have access to them, then in turn the McCanns?

Nina, Im only guessing but I would imagine SY would have access to the lot. As for the Mccanns, there are two things that suggest they had too

1) this note that Kate wrote about in her book that the receptionist had written saying they were leaving their kids alone and checking them hence requiring the whole week booking at the oversubscribed Tapas restaraunt, which in itself sounds odd, eta: which no one can find in the files available to us

2) when the Maddie was Here C 4 documentary was aired, the camera zoomed into some of the documents in the files, and the names were blanked out, some poster reckoned they were the files with the investigations into sex offenders

I find it odd that the Mccanns would begiven the whole lot if they were previous arguidos and never exonerated. Perhaps they werent after all. Someone must know.

Nina wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:

tigger wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:Quite Russiandoll. I dont think there was nothing in the medical records. Much of what you posted would be in there including vaccinations. It remains though that there is no record in the files of the records being requested. It could be in the withheld part of the files.

The Truth of the Lie:

P. 81
"The medical registries (of Madeleine) requested with insistence were not given to us, due to great difficulties raised in England".

I wonder who they asked for them. Possibly through the LP? I have no reason to doubt what is in Mr Amarals book, I guess the requests are in the unreleased part of the dvd files along with responses. The fact that when Rebelo took over and requested the dental records amongst other things suggests the medical records were refused before then as the book details only things that happened before Mr Amaral got taken off the case. And as said before, they couldnt be empty. PS IIRC Mr Amaral wrote about how requests were made to the BMA regarding the coloboma condition and they never replied.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] so sorry, but these unreleased files. Will SY have access to them, then in turn the McCanns?

I thought the Court refused the McCanns access to the files ? That being the case, can SY go against a court order and hand out files to who the feel like ?

sami wrote:

Nina wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:

tigger wrote:

friedtomatoes wrote:Quite Russiandoll. I dont think there was nothing in the medical records. Much of what you posted would be in there including vaccinations. It remains though that there is no record in the files of the records being requested. It could be in the withheld part of the files.

The Truth of the Lie:

P. 81
"The medical registries (of Madeleine) requested with insistence were not given to us, due to great difficulties raised in England".

I wonder who they asked for them. Possibly through the LP? I have no reason to doubt what is in Mr Amarals book, I guess the requests are in the unreleased part of the dvd files along with responses. The fact that when Rebelo took over and requested the dental records amongst other things suggests the medical records were refused before then as the book details only things that happened before Mr Amaral got taken off the case. And as said before, they couldnt be empty. PS IIRC Mr Amaral wrote about how requests were made to the BMA regarding the coloboma condition and they never replied.

[You must be registered and logged in to see this image.] so sorry, but these unreleased files. Will SY have access to them, then in turn the McCanns?

I thought the Court refused the McCanns access to the files ? That being the case, can SY go against a court order and hand out files to who the feel like ?

In my opinion this is why the McCanns were bleating about wanting a review, to somehow get hold of the files to see what is actually in them. What was released has proved to be very damning of their account of what happened, though you would never realize that when you see them basking in their own celebrity status.

sami the uk courts refused to hand over all the files the Leicester Police had on the case, which the mccanns requested using made,eines ward of court status, nothing to do with the PJ files, they gVe them 81 pieces of information only which was mainly stuff they already knew about

I dont think for a sec SY are sharing info with the Mccanns, I hope not anyway, they have never been cleared.

`They always kept me, social services and other authorities informed on the progress of the investigation that followed the disappearance of Madeleine.`

(Part of Dr Schofield`s testimony prepared from a series of questions raised by DC Ferguson and DC Holliday of the Leicestershire police, following the request by the Portuguese PJ.}

It intrigues me that the two people being investigated are providing information to the doctor about the investigation.

Whether it has been by suing, gagging, withholding or informing Kate and Gerry have always worked hard to control the flow of information about the case.

Since there will only be routine information in Madeleine`s record, and not a history of illnesses, what is there to hide?

tigger wrote:That simply doesn't square with Kate's own testimony in the book that Maddie cried non stop for 8 months? That they thought she might have colic and that she was a hyperactive and even difficult child, needing constant attention.

Surely some visits to the doctor would be advisable if she cried so much and even her doctor parents couldn't establish the cause?

Sorry to resurrect the witheld records, the colic, the ADHD etc. I'm still not convinced that there is anything like enough evidence to deduce this and we may be doing a perfectly normal little girl a great disservice by labelling her in this way. It could be taken by some as an explanation for her parents apparent indifference in the face of her disappearance, and others may use it to justify their parental neglect.

As far as the medical records go. They certainly will exist, but there may not be anything in them of any great relevence. details of vaccinations, health checks, etc. The letters from the GP do not indicate the children were taken often, which I have already said doesn't surprise me as they were both Dr's. There may be hospital records which have something very relevent in them, but these haven't been released, so we don't know. Then again there may not be anything of any importance. If they are being witheld for any reason, it may be because there is something important in there to the investigation , or it may be because there is something in there that could be distressing to M should she ever be found, or to S+A. Think back to NI forcing GB to admit to his baby as having cycstic fibrosis. How is that anyone's business but theirs.

WRT the colic issue, K and G would well know that colic is very common -around 20% of babies get it and that here is very little available in the way of medication - except perhaps antacids to rule out reflux. There are OTC medications like gripe water and infacol, feeding techniques, massage/baths for relaxation and avoiding sensory overload, but the main advice given to parents of babies that have colic is that it is an unfortunate and very stressful thing to have to cope with, but it is not going to kill the baby and that they eventually grow out of it. It doesn't even stop them thriving. I doubt K+G would have taken it any further with other medical professionals because K herself would have issued this advice to the numerous distraught parents of crying babies that she saw as a GP. Colic is fairly easy to diagnose, but horrible to live with and the resultant stress/ lack of sleep is something you are told to get on with as it passes eventually. As it obviously did in this case. Life returns to normal and the brain forgets -otherwise no-one would ever have more than one baby.

ADHD - We don't know that M had ADHD, she may have been difficult when the twins arrived, but that is probably the norm rather than the exception. Most first borns feel their noses are slightly out of joint when sibling number 2 (and 3 in this case arrives). Toddlers who are potty trained often have accidents and revert to babyish attention seeking behaviour. Some can even be aggresive to the new born. A lot are just difficult because they are not getting their parents full attention anymore. As any parent will confirm, they tend to play up when you are not at your best and with 2 newborns, no-one would be at their best. This behaviour is normal.

I have read that K says in her bewk M had colic, but is this a fact? We only have her word for it. It would engender sympathy from all those parents who have driven round the block at 3am trying to shut up a crying baby. Does it also say in the the bewk if she was difficult before the twins arrived, or was it only afterwards? If she was difficult before and did indeed have ADHD, or autism, or some other behavioural problem and they were really struggling to cope with her, then one would wonder why on earth they would put themselves through more rounds of IVF, which is by all accounts rather unpleasant and has the potential for multiple births. Especially knowing , as they would , that colic and ADHD, behavioural problems etc often run in families. If she was REALLY so bad, then why would they even consider having another one/two/or even three so soon.

Anyway, even if she was really difficult, there are so many parents out there who cope with much , much worse. K+G would have seen this everyday. Surely it would have put their own issues into perspective. They didn't have to spend a lot of time with her - with the nanny, the nursery, the creche. I'm struggling to see how she was spoiling their lives so much they would need to plan her demise.

Sorry Tigger, but I think we will have to agree to differ on this.