Re: Dr Roberts again - just a short one. Logical, Captain.

by Guest 05.12.13 21:12

They f**ked-up big time with the window and shutters - a bad story badly told. Kate mentioned later that the open window might be left by the abductor as a "red herring". In fact, they've been mopping up the floor with the tap still running for 6+ years now ...

ETA : IMO, of course smilie

by Guest 05.12.13 22:59

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
PeterMac wrote:
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
04 December 2013

THE 'GET OUT' CLAUSE

Excerpt from Fiona Payne's Rogatory Interview (10.4.08)

1485 - "What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that?"
Reply - "She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh".
1485 - "So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?"
Reply - "Yeah".
1485 - "Did she say whether she had locked or?"
Reply - "No, that was the point, I think they said they'd left it, well she'd said she'd left it unlocked".

The key question paraphrased
What was better for Madeleine if she woke up: That she could get out or, finding the door locked, she could not?

The decision
They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked. (KM witness statement 6.9.2007)
'...a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked'. (GM witness statement 4.5.2007)

The resultant status
Balcony door left unlocked, therefore Madeleine could get out if she woke up.

Question 1.
If the sliding glass door was 'always unlocked', then why should the question as to what was best for Madeleine have arisen that Thursday evening? Supposing 'always' to have applied from the outset of the holiday, the decision had long since been made. Wasn't day six leaving it rather late to openly ponder the option of locking the patio door?

Question 2.
Given the resultant status of the apartment (unlocked patio door so that Madeleine could get out if she wanted), why have you since insisted that there was 'no way' Madeleine could get out of the apartment unaided?

Question 3.
Exactly why could Madeleine McCann not have walked from her bed to the patio door, left unlocked for her benefit?
Question 2 sums up a lot for me, why I don't tend to believe a single word from Team McCann. It is completely frustrating that they have used litigation to silence dissent, when their own words and explanations for things are completely and utterly contradictory. Why on earth have their numerous advisors and lawyers not pointed out this simple fact? They left the door unlocked so Madeleine could escape a fire or look for her parents yet they claim it was impossible for her to leave the apartment by herself? WTF???

Absolutely ludicrous.

Of course it has occurred to you, as it has to many, that these paid flunkeys just lined their own pockets, disregarding the McCs strategic interests, let alone the ultimate safety aspects of little Maddie?

by listener 05.12.13 23:50

Châtelaine wrote:They f**ked-up big time with the window and shutters - a bad story badly told. Kate mentioned later that the open window might be left by the abductor as a "red herring". In fact, they've been mopping up the floor with the tap still running for 6+ years now ...

ETA : IMO, of course

'Language' please Chatelaine (sorry, no circumflex), but I agree - that was a big f**k-up!

by Nina 06.12.13 0:01

listener wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:They f**ked-up big time with the window and shutters - a bad story badly told. Kate mentioned later that the open window might be left by the abductor as a "red herring". In fact, they've been mopping up the floor with the tap still running for 6+ years now ...

ETA : IMO, of course
'Language' please Chatelaine (sorry, no circumflex), but I agree - that was a big f**k-up!

Listener to do Châtelaine, when doing the â just hold down Alt and type 131 from the number pad on the right of the keys, not the ones at the top and you will get the â. If you go to this site www.primaryfrench.net you will get many more.

by Okeydokey 06.12.13 1:06

PeterMac wrote:
EXCLUSIVE to mccannfiles.com

By Dr Martin Roberts
04 December 2013

THE 'GET OUT' CLAUSE

Excerpt from Fiona Payne's Rogatory Interview (10.4.08)

1485 - "What were the circumstances regarding her telling you that?"
Reply - "She did, she brought it up and that she, I mean, this is awful in retrospect as well, she asked what my opinion was on, erm, tut, on whether they were okay leaving the, the doors unlocked, because she was saying 'Is it better that if Madeleine wakes up she can get out and find us or', erm, 'or locking it and, you know, finding that we're not there and the door's locked if she woke up', because Madeleine had woken up, what I thought was the night before. Erm, tut, and it was in that context really, just asking, you know, what I thought. So it was obviously something that was on her mind a bit, huh".
1485 - "So she asked you what your thoughts were regarding locking?"
Reply - "Yeah".
1485 - "Did she say whether she had locked or?"
Reply - "No, that was the point, I think they said they'd left it, well she'd said she'd left it unlocked".

The key question paraphrased
What was better for Madeleine if she woke up: That she could get out or, finding the door locked, she could not?

The decision
They left through the balcony door, which they left closed but not locked. (KM witness statement 6.9.2007)
'...a sliding glass door at the side of the building, which was always unlocked'. (GM witness statement 4.5.2007)

The resultant status
Balcony door left unlocked, therefore Madeleine could get out if she woke up.

Question 1.
If the sliding glass door was 'always unlocked', then why should the question as to what was best for Madeleine have arisen that Thursday evening? Supposing 'always' to have applied from the outset of the holiday, the decision had long since been made. Wasn't day six leaving it rather late to openly ponder the option of locking the patio door?

Question 2.
Given the resultant status of the apartment (unlocked patio door so that Madeleine could get out if she wanted), why have you since insisted that there was 'no way' Madeleine could get out of the apartment unaided?

Question 3.
Exactly why could Madeleine McCann not have walked from her bed to the patio door, left unlocked for her benefit?

Question 4 - Why do the UK Media never ask these important questions?

by ultimaThule 06.12.13 4:08

Châtelaine wrote:They f**ked-up big time with the window and shutters - a bad story badly told. Kate mentioned later that the open window might be left by the abductor as a "red herring". In fact, they've been mopping up the floor with the tap still running for 6+ years now ...

ETA : IMO, of course

They sure did - and in spectacular fashion with red herrings, proud moments while abductors lurked in wardrobes, inconsistent accounts, photo-shopped pictures, the rapid creation of a website* which was registered in 2006, the lingering odour of cadaverine...and other faux pas too numerous to mention.

Despite GM's obvious belief in what he considers to be his superior intellect, this long running production plays out more like amateur night at a murder mystery event than a professional tableau conceived by the Machiavellian machinations of a mastermind, and the abysmally untalented thespians have continued to tread ~~water~~ the boards in similar vein ever since. yes

However, it seems to me the non-domestic goddess and her spouse delegated the mopping up to the ever willing char that is JT who, as evidenced by her rog. statement in which 'after speaking to Russell over lunch', remembered that the 3rd was the night KM told her Madeleine had asked why she didn't come when she and Sean cried although she was 'not sure when abouts in the meal' this conversation took place.

*Am I alone in thinking the ongoing 'updating' of this website's online donation and shop pages is taking longer than it originally took to get the whole caboodle up, running, and cashing in on the sympathy of the gullible?

by listener 06.12.13 8:44

Nina wrote:
listener wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:They f**ked-up big time with the window and shutters - a bad story badly told. Kate mentioned later that the open window might be left by the abductor as a "red herring". In fact, they've been mopping up the floor with the tap still running for 6+ years now ...

ETA : IMO, of course
'Language' please Chatelaine (sorry, no circumflex), but I agree - that was a big f**k-up!
Listener to do Châtelaine, when doing the â just hold down Alt and type 131 from the number pad on the right of the keys, not the ones at the top and you will get the â. If you go to this site www.primaryfrench.net you will get many more.

Thank-you Nina :flower:

by **PeterMac** 06.12.13 9:04

â â â

It wôrks ¡¿ yöû ç

by bobbin 06.12.13 9:08

listener wrote:
Nina wrote:
listener wrote:
Châtelaine wrote:They f**ked-up big time with the window and shutters - a bad story badly told. Kate mentioned later that the open window might be left by the abductor as a "red herring". In fact, they've been mopping up the floor with the tap still running for 6+ years now ...

ETA : IMO, of course
'Language' please Chatelaine (sorry, no circumflex), but I agree - that was a big f**k-up!
Listener to do Châtelaine, when doing the â just hold down Alt and type 131 from the number pad on the right of the keys, not the ones at the top and you will get the â. If you go to this site www.primaryfrench.net you will get many more.
Thank-you Nina :flower:

It doesn't work on AppleMac......I've found all sorts of lovely squiggly things, but no ^
that I can find attached to the letter A. I usually cheat and highlight the name, copy and paste. I'll go looking properly now, rather than remain lazy... big grin

by Penfold 06.12.13 9:20

Here you are bobbin! http://french.typeit.org/

From a fellow iMac user!

by **PeterMac** 06.12.13 9:46

â

On a Mac it is 'alt i'
then a

by bobbin 06.12.13 12:58

Thanks penfold and PeterMac.
the http://french.typeit.org/ is very useful if needing lots of different language symbols.
In the meantime I had found a convoluted way of opening Word, then Insert, then Symbol, then Special Character, searching for it, then pressing Insert. The instructions for making a shortcut gave very differing results, completely random.
The above Word/Insert method is only useful if wanting symbols other than language accents, otherwise I'll now use the french.typeit method. high5

by suep 15.12.13 7:04

Bishop Brennan wrote:If this is a logic thread, then:

Q. How many people leave their holiday house / apartment unlocked when they go out?
A. None

Q. How many of the T7 left their patio doors unlocked?
A. None.

Q. How many of the previous nights in the holiday did the McCanns leave it unlocked?
A. None.

Q. How many times did any 'watching abduction gang' see them use the patio for the 'checks'?
A. None.

And then:

Q. If Maddie had a history of waking up / crying / getting up. How many think it's a good idea to leave the doors open?
A. No-one

Q. If there had been a fire, how many think Maddie could have escaped - presumably getting the twins out their cot first?
A. No-one

The McCanns are smart people. They are middle class, home-owning professionals. They lock their doors, cars, windows, offices. They've done it all their life. They see 'thieves' everywhere - especially abroad. And especially if their apartment leads directly onto a side-street.

It is just not logical (or credible) to believe that on one night they changed the habits and logic of a lifetime and left that patio door unlocked.

Q. Chances of McCanns leaving the patio doors unlocked that night for no apparent reason?
A. Zero.

QED.

I totally agree with the logical conclusion reached here. Its the very reason why the 'abduction' had to happen through the window with the 'jemmied' open shutters. Unfortunately Jes Wilkins happened along and prevented GM from setting this up and the plan became a 'disaster'. I wonder, though, how he would have made it look like the window was opened from the outside of a locked apartment.

by bobbin 15.12.13 8:50

suep wrote:
Bishop Brennan wrote:If this is a logic thread, then:

Q. How many people leave their holiday house / apartment unlocked when they go out?
A. None

Q. How many of the T7 left their patio doors unlocked?
A. None.

Q. How many of the previous nights in the holiday did the McCanns leave it unlocked?
A. None.

Q. How many times did any 'watching abduction gang' see them use the patio for the 'checks'?
A. None.

And then:

Q. If Maddie had a history of waking up / crying / getting up. How many think it's a good idea to leave the doors open?
A. No-one

Q. If there had been a fire, how many think Maddie could have escaped - presumably getting the twins out their cot first?
A. No-one

The McCanns are smart people. They are middle class, home-owning professionals. They lock their doors, cars, windows, offices. They've done it all their life. They see 'thieves' everywhere - especially abroad. And especially if their apartment leads directly onto a side-street.

It is just not logical (or credible) to believe that on one night they changed the habits and logic of a lifetime and left that patio door unlocked.

Q. Chances of McCanns leaving the patio doors unlocked that night for no apparent reason?
A. Zero.

QED.

I totally agree with the logical conclusion reached here. Its the very reason why the 'abduction' had to happen through the window with the 'jemmied' open shutters. Unfortunately Jes Wilkins happened along and prevented GM from setting this up and the plan became a 'disaster'. I wonder, though, how he would have made it look like the window was opened from the outside of a locked apartment.

I think the 'shutter event' reported in Kate's diary as at the beginning of the week, was a test/trial run to discover how to 'manage' shutters for 'special effect'.
Whenever Kate mentions something I take it as a 'sensitive' point and these for me are important 'markers'
...Gerry being heavy handed and breaking the back shutter and the maintenance men needing to come and mend it....
Madeleine's bed was completely unlike a bed that a little child would have slept in. Cuddle cat beautifully posed....then later, on the top shelf out of Maddie's reach, (the high shelf that didn't exist, at least not in 5a) yet still somehow still there beside the pillow, for the police to photograph in situ.
Gerry had described Maddie as 'on' the covers, Kate 'underneath' them. So no convincing proof there, that Madeleine was in that bed seeing as though it clearly was a 'presented' picture and not a 'real / lifelike' one.
Yet the bed under the window was all rumpled. With all the children / parent (s) reading a story on Maddie's supposed bed, that would be the rumpled one.
But Kate claims later to have slept in the bed under the window because of either (a) Gerry was snoring or (b) because Kate was miffed that he had eyed the big bosom lady up. A bit of 'transferring' of time or events....there's quite a lot of that 'salted and peppered' throughout the Gerry blogs, Kate's book, her diary, their videos etc.
So a rumpled bed. Possibly the knees of persons trying to manipulate a window open, from the inside, and work the shutters up somehow, since they would not obligingly stay up when opened / forced up, from the outside?
If the shutters had obliged and stayed open when pushed up from the outside, by the supposed 'abductor' then it would not have been difficult for the parents to say something like, 'but we left the apartment locked, we are responsible parents, and we'd left the window open just a crack, for fresh air for the children, not wanting them to suffer from a deprivation of good clean fresh air'.
They could insist that they thought the closed shutters were safe and no-one would be able to get access to the window.
Ah, what thoughtful parents that would be, clearly within the bounds of 'responsible parenting' as far as any lawyer-type would be able to claim, according to Kate.
So, if only the shutters had been forced up, i.e. broken, smashed, jimmied, whatever, then Philomena's immediate blabbing about the place having been broken into, would have been in order.
But Gerry states 'It's a disaster'. What, a little girl has gone missing, or the plan went wrong and now it's the 'biggest f**k up' ever because the rest of the story has to be constantly modified and back-filled to try to iron out the 'inconsistencies' that abound, from any and every angle one might choose to look at the total scenario.
After 6 1/2 years of analysing the information that was first there and which has come out since, there are two things that come out tops.
1. What Kate/Gerry et alia do say, has some significance, highlighting sensitive areas.
2. What has 'been whooshed', put out of sight, denied, highlights sensitive areas.
That's good. That gives quite a lot, in fact masses, of valuable 'sensitive' indicating for an analyst to be focusing on.
Keep talking Gerry, Kate and assembled supporting team, friends, family, people who have something they want desperately enough to keep covered up.
The truth, like water under growing pressure, will always find a way out.... AIMO as always.

by suep 15.12.13 9:22

I agree with everything you say here, bobbin. I only really started to read the available material a few weeks ago, so you have a much better grasp than I do. But it didn't take long to realise that the McC's claims simply couldn't be true. And it amazes me that there are people out there who still believe it.

by worriedmum 15.12.13 10:06

Great post bobbin. I apologise if this has already been addressed, but is there a record of when the sheets were last changed in the apartment?

If the sheets on Madeleine's bed yielded none of her DNA, is it because fresh sheets had been used?
Something niggles me about the bed and I mean something more than the neatness/cuddlecat/pink blanket.
Does anyone remember seeing that rather absurd little youtube video someone made to show how easy it was to lean through the window and take a sleeping ~~pillow~~ child through the gap - they timed it to reinforce the feasibility of the 'abduction'. Well the niggle is, why didn't they say that Madeleine had slept in the bed under the window? It was messy, it was slept in, it fitted the abduction story better than some-one paragliding over the twins' cots and back out again without leaving forensic traces...and Madeleine obviously did get out of bed sometimes. She was never seen in bed by any of the checkers that night apart from her parents...

by suep 15.12.13 12:13

worriedmum wrote:Great post bobbin. I apologise if this has already been addressed, but is there a record of when the sheets were last changed in the apartment?

If the sheets on Madeleine's bed yielded none of her DNA, is it because fresh sheets had been used?
Something niggles me about the bed and I mean something more than the neatness/cuddlecat/pink blanket.
Does anyone remember seeing that rather absurd little youtube video someone made to show how easy it was to lean through the window and take a sleeping ~~pillow~~ child through the gap - they timed it to reinforce the feasibility of the 'abduction'. Well the niggle is, why didn't they say that Madeleine had slept in the bed under the window? It was messy, it was slept in, it fitted the abduction story better than some-one paragliding over the twins' cots and back out again without leaving forensic traces...and Madeleine obviously did get out of bed sometimes. She was never seen in bed by any of the checkers that night apart from her parents...

That's an excellent point, worriedmum. Maybe they realised that Madeleine's DNA wouldn't be found on that slept in bed under the window but, if KM's telling the truth about sleeping there the Wednesday night hers would be. If so,this means that they were forensically aware enough not to claim what you rightly point out would be the obvious scenario that Madeleine slept in it. And it also means that all their messing up of the scene before the police got there was definitely not bungling but a deliberate attempt to pervert the course of justice.

by Guest 15.12.13 13:19

Alternatively: wasn't there a cleaning lady in the apartment on Wednesday morning? Who observed that one of the cots was in the master bedroom? Maybe that day the bedlinen was changed? That could implicate Madeleine didn't sleep in "her" bed on the Wednesday night ...

by Monty Heck 15.12.13 13:30

PeterMac wrote:My answer to Q 3
Because she and the twins were so heavily sedated that they were not going to wake for the next 10 hours.

Given an apparent lack of any concern regarding the twins waking (which Sean reportedly also did) the point of KM's dilemna re leaving the door locked/unlocked could be to indicate that:
a) M was alive that evening
b) M was not sedated

FP would surely not willingly expose her friend as an arrogant fool, fussing about leaving open a door which had apparently already been left open numerous nights in a row, unless a very important point had to be put across which was worth sacrificing KM's reputation for.

by Guest 15.12.13 13:43

Monty Heck wrote:
PeterMac wrote:My answer to Q 3
Because she and the twins were so heavily sedated that they were not going to wake for the next 10 hours.

Given an apparent lack of any concern regarding the twins waking (which Sean reportedly also did) the point of KM's dilemna re leaving the door locked/unlocked could be to indicate that:
a) M was alive that evening
b) M was not sedated

FP would surely not willingly expose her friend as an arrogant fool, fussing about leaving open a door which had apparently already been left open numerous nights in a row, unless a very important point had to be put across which was worth sacrificing KM's reputation for.

Good point. And most people, listening to Fiona, would overlook the fact that she's talking hearsay.

And you do not object to editing ' to indicate' to ' to suggest' ?

by currio 15.12.13 14:19

PeterMac wrote:My answer to Q 3
Because she and the twins were so heavily sedated that they were not going to wake for the next 10 hours.

IMO answer to Q.3

Because Maddie was not there to walk out.

The tots were heavily sedated to ensure they wouldn't blab a few words relating to what they had witnessed earlier..

by suep 18.12.13 4:12

I think sedation is a central factor, not least because the McCs made a point of suggesting that an abductor may have done it - something that is clearly impossible in the time available and as Petermac has also previously demonstrated in his ebook, what possible means could they have used to do it?
Its my opinion that the McCs were the only couple actually leaving their children totally unattended. The Paynes had their baby monitor (for me not ideal at all but better than nothing at least) and I think the other two couples with the allegedly sickly babies were actually taking turns to go for dinner while the other partner stayed with the kids. It seems very odd to me that those babies were only sick at night yet were fit enough to go to the creche every day. I wouldn't want to take a vomiting child or one with diarrhoea to a creche in case they infected other children there and I'd want to keep a close eye on them myself anyway. So I think the sickly baby story was 'purported' after the fact to make it look like the leaving of children alone with 'regular checks' was a perfectly acceptable group thing to do. And if MO, RM,RO and JT were taking turns to have dinner every night a casual observer would have got the impression of a lot of coming and going at that table.

So we're left with the McCs on holiday with three small children under four who both want to enjoy some adult time with their mates. This is fine during the day but what do they do at night? Its clear from the creche records that whilst Gerry does his share of dropping off its Kate who gets lumbered with most of the picking up. IMO Gerry isn't big on childcare (I'm hypothesising here). Maybe his petulant outburst on the airport bus about not being there to enjoy himself had something to do with a discussion of what to do about the kids at night. Maybe Kate had insisted on a similar arrangement to MO/RM etc and he didn't like it. Who knows? For whatever reason it turned out that they did leave those children alone.

So, on to the issue of sedation. Again I'm speculating, but in my own experience of very young children bedtimes were always difficult. My first born was a wanderer and would regularly find her way into our bedroom at some point in the night. Because of this even after she'd learnt to climb stairs safely we needed the stair gate at the top of the stairs to prevent her possibly falling down them during the night. She gradually grew out of it but even after she reached the age for school I could never be absolutely certain she wouldn't do it. Which is why I'm not convinced by Kate's assertion that her reward chart worked and why I think its possible they left Madeleine sleeping in one of those cots when they went out. And, given the amazing sleeping abilities of the twins on 3rd May 2007, why I think its likely those children were sedated. So, the possibility remains for me that Madeleine could have woken up and tried to climb out and somehow hurt herself.

As for Calpol, well its just paracetamol and as far as I'm aware paracetamol doesn't have great sedative properties. There used to be a paediatric medicine on the market called Calpol Nightime which contained a mild sedative but I'm not sure if it was available in 2007. Even that though wouldn't have kept those twins so well sedated as they appear to have been on that terrible night.

by AuldWan 18.12.13 4:45

greetings from an avid reader of this forum

my son recently had to attend hospital with a badly infected finger, The doctor in A & E recommended that my son was sedated in order that he got a good nights sleep. He was given an OTC anti histamine by the hospital. My son fell asleep within 30 minuites of taking the medicine at 11.00 pm and went into a very deep sleep until approx 10.00 the next morning. He was in such a deep sleep that he slept through an I/V drip being inserted into his vein.

by suep 18.12.13 5:20

Just had another thought about Madeleine and the cot. Apologies for going on so much.What follows is purely hypothetical and my own opinion.

If Madeleine was used to sleeping in a bed she may not have been very co-operative about sleeping in a cot like her baby brother and sister. The transition from a cot to a bed is a big step for a toddler and you can imagine her parents 'selling' the idea to her by telling her how she was a big girl now, not a baby like the twins, so she needed to sleep in a big girl's bed (I've done it myself). This could have been part of the reason for the reward chart. So if when on holiday they insisted she slept in a cot, being a bit of a 'screamer' you can imagine she'd make a big fuss.After all she's a big girl not a baby!
So...perhaps they put her down to sleep in the bed initially and transferred her to the cot once she was fast asleep, just before they went out. Its easy to then imagine that if she were to wake up and find herself in the cot she'd be disorientated and pretty upset.

On Tuesday 1st May 2007 Mrs Fenn in the flat above heard a child 'screaming and crying' for well over an hour. Its also been established from phone records that Kate's phone was used in the apartment some time before this crying started, suggesting that Kate was there. So here's the hypothesis...Madeleine wakes up discovers she's in the cot and starts to cry. Kate's upset over Gerry's alleged behaviour with the quiz woman. She's phoning or texting a friend and ignores the crying. She's too upset to go to Madeleine who tries to climb out of the cot, topples out and bangs her head on the hard tiled floor, Kate finds her and shouts 'Maddie! Maddie!' which Mrs Fenn hears and in the context of a child crying and with the muffling effect of being upstairs interprets as 'Daddy, Daddy'. The child is unconscious but now Kate is crying. Gerry comes homes. Kate stops crying. They attend to Madeleine.

They move the twins in their cot into their bedroom and one of them stays in the children's room in the bed by the window in order to observe Madeleine overnight. Maybe they take turns. At some point Madeleine dies of her injury. They know the cleaner will be coming in so they place her behind the sofa where said cleaner is unlikely to look. Blood from her head injury seeps onto the tiles and the bottom of the curtain. The cleaner notices that one of the cots is in the parent's bedroom.

They spend the Wednesday deciding what to do. The rest is ~~history~~ sorry - a mystery.

by Woburn_exile 18.12.13 11:54

suep wrote:I think sedation is a central factor, not least because the McCs made a point of suggesting that an abductor may have done it - something that is clearly impossible in the time available and as Petermac has also previously demonstrated in his ebook, what possible means could they have used to do it?
Its my opinion that the McCs were the only couple actually leaving their children totally unattended. The Paynes had their baby monitor (for me not ideal at all but better than nothing at least) and I think the other two couples with the allegedly sickly babies were actually taking turns to go for dinner while the other partner stayed with the kids. It seems very odd to me that those babies were only sick at night yet were fit enough to go to the creche every day. I wouldn't want to take a vomiting child or one with diarrhoea to a creche in case they infected other children there and I'd want to keep a close eye on them myself anyway. So I think the sickly baby story was 'purported' after the fact to make it look like the leaving of children alone with 'regular checks' was a perfectly acceptable group thing to do. And if MO, RM,RO and JT were taking turns to have dinner every night a casual observer would have got the impression of a lot of coming and going at that table.

So we're left with the McCs on holiday with three small children under four who both want to enjoy some adult time with their mates. This is fine during the day but what do they do at night? Its clear from the creche records that whilst Gerry does his share of dropping off its Kate who gets lumbered with most of the picking up. IMO Gerry isn't big on childcare (I'm hypothesising here). Maybe his petulant outburst on the airport bus about not being there to enjoy himself had something to do with a discussion of what to do about the kids at night. Maybe Kate had insisted on a similar arrangement to MO/RM etc and he didn't like it. Who knows? For whatever reason it turned out that they did leave those children alone.

So, on to the issue of sedation. Again I'm speculating, but in my own experience of very young children bedtimes were always difficult. My first born was a wanderer and would regularly find her way into our bedroom at some point in the night. Because of this even after she'd learnt to climb stairs safely we needed the stair gate at the top of the stairs to prevent her possibly falling down them during the night. She gradually grew out of it but even after she reached the age for school I could never be absolutely certain she wouldn't do it. Which is why I'm not convinced by Kate's assertion that her reward chart worked and why I think its possible they left Madeleine sleeping in one of those cots when they went out. And, given the amazing sleeping abilities of the twins on 3rd May 2007, why I think its likely those children were sedated. So, the possibility remains for me that Madeleine could have woken up and tried to climb out and somehow hurt herself.

As for Calpol, well its just paracetamol and as far as I'm aware paracetamol doesn't have great sedative properties. There used to be a paediatric medicine on the market called Calpol Nightime which contained a mild sedative but I'm not sure if it was available in 2007. Even that though wouldn't have kept those twins so well sedated as they appear to have been on that terrible night.

Sorry to point out surep but Doctors have access to loads of drugs and can write prescriptions for anything they want without fear of investigation. Many Doctors do this to keep their children quiet at night. It's pretty obvious to me and my opinion is that the children were under some form of sedation otherwise they would all have woken up with all the disturbances. Because 2 of them had woken up the night before (I don't believe Mrs Fenn was involved until after the event) a decision was made to up the dose and this is what ultimately caused the fatality.
This would have been discovered during a post mortem , (deleted), So imo, all of them got together, signed a pact of secrecy, disposed of the body then alerted everyone on their extended network to publicise the abduction before the police could investigate the facts.

W_E please be very careful what you post and how you post it. This is a warning as I have deleted many of your posts to date