3 new Lazzeri-lies . .

jeanmonroe wrote:Poe
"I'd be quite happy for the Healys and the McCanns to tear chunks out of each other if it wasn't for the twins and the other kids who would end up caught in the crossfire."
----------------------------------------------

And, sadly, Madeleine could have been 'caught in the crossfire' when KM 'confronted' her husband, the next day, over his 'roving eye' towards a certain, extremely well 'endowed', female aerobics instructor who HE 'invited' to their tapas table, with the 'less fortunately blessed' KM 'sitting' right there!

I seem to recall this was a scenario, or one not dissimilar to it, which Leicestershire police envisaged may have occurred, but I can't recall the McCanns instituting proceedings for libel against them.

jeanmonroe wrote:Poe
"I'd be quite happy for the Healys and the McCanns to tear chunks out of each other if it wasn't for the twins and the other kids who would end up caught in the crossfire."
----------------------------------------------

And, sadly, Madeleine could have been 'caught in the crossfire' when KM 'confronted' her husband, the next day, over his 'roving eye' towards a certain, extremely well 'endowed', female aerobics instructor who HE 'invited' to their tapas table, with the 'less fortunately blessed' KM 'sitting' right there!

Wrong.

KH was absent from the table, leaving one empty seat where Oochi Coochi could park herself;

But OC noticed, and reported noticing, a second empty seat

So, when she was there at the table, not one but two Tapasniks were away on some errand

KH was absent from the table, leaving one empty seat where Oochi Coochi could park herself;
----------------------------------------

THAT makes it WORSE!

    

Dee Coy wrote:

Woofer wrote:@ PeterMac -  "The suicide note (Prosecution Document Exhibit KH 1 refers) is a mine of information.
I wonder if G is entirely happy with K's version of events, or whether he would have preferred to proof read the book himself."

It has always rung a big bell for me that he let her publish such twaddle, to the extent one would almost believe he was letting her drop herself in it.  He must have read it - he`s a control freak remember.  Was he, at that point in time, fed up with her living in la-la-land and had decided to give up on protecting her ?

I have often wondered that too. I do too wonder if whatever befell Madeleine was caused by Kate and she therefore has most to lose and would be most culpable. I can quite well believe Gerry has a get-out strategy planned, if it becomes necessary, to leave Kate holding the can.

I can quite well believe that both of these self-absorbed individuals have get out strategies planned and my imagination has extended to numerous scenarios, including lightning striking twice, which make me fear even more for the welfare of the twins.

ultimaThule wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:

Woofer wrote:@ PeterMac -  "The suicide note (Prosecution Document Exhibit KH 1 refers) is a mine of information.
I wonder if G is entirely happy with K's version of events, or whether he would have preferred to proof read the book himself."

It has always rung a big bell for me that he let her publish such twaddle, to the extent one would almost believe he was letting her drop herself in it.  He must have read it - he`s a control freak remember.  Was he, at that point in time, fed up with her living in la-la-land and had decided to give up on protecting her ?

I have often wondered that too. I do too wonder if whatever befell Madeleine was caused by Kate and she therefore has most to lose and would be most culpable. I can quite well believe Gerry has a get-out strategy planned, if it becomes necessary, to leave Kate holding the can.

I can quite well believe that both of these self-absorbed individuals have get out strategies planned and my imagination has extended to numerous scenarios, including lightning striking twice, which make me fear even more for the welfare of the twins.

In view of this (possibility of conflict of interest) it's surprising they continue to be represented by single lawyers for the two of them together

These lawyers, either in the UK or in Portugal, must be privy to very, very delicate information

As soon as we see either of the couple engage their own lawyer, the end spiel is in sight, as it would be if one of the single lawyers (ID or mr Abreu) recused her/himself inexplicably. Interesting times ahead.

In civil proceedings in the UK it's not unusual for couples/groups to instruct one firm of solicitors who, in turn, brief one or more barristers to present the case, Portia. 

In criminal proceedings where the charges are not materially different from each other,  it wouldn't be unusual for a married or cohabiting couple to instruct one firm of solicitors while each of them has their own barrister to represent them in court.

Question... 

If your daughter has died accidentally, and you're looking for a way to cover it up, would you perhaps sign your daughter into kids club each day in the hope that a kids club official might check the records, do a head count and say 'where the hell is Madeleine' thereby turning you into a victim and having the operator of the resort do the 'headless chicken' routine? Is it possible that what we now know as the 'official story' is a frustrated, cobbled together attempt to draw attention to the intended disappearance because the MW staff were not judicious or observant enough to notice. Either way it seems certainly that the lackadaisical oversight by MW staff was observed, noted and then exploited to give rise or background to this shambolic boll-ox.

That would be clever but, as we know, the wee one is not very clever and neither is his spouse, hence the amateur nature of the production and its performance, Al.

Dee Coy wrote:I believe so, Tiny, which answers the question about whether the 7 really did know what happened or just a few of them on a 'need to know basis', as has been mooted.

I think it is possible that some of the friends who have covered up for them are not aware of the 'bigger picture'. Not saying I know what the 'bigger picture' is - but I think there is one for the McCanns. And I would say that David Payne might be part of a bigger picture - not necessarily the entire picture. Maybe Russell O'Brien too.

Jane Tanner, in particular,  seems to have been landed with a loaded grenade.

All have played some parts (as Gerry might say) some bigger than others.

It is possible that the friends were prepared to help cover up because there was an unforeseen accident or an adverse reaction to a drug or sedative or some other mishap. However the grim determination with which the McCanns have ensured that no body will be found does lead to suspicions of molestation, or grossly negligent drugging.

Then again, even if the cover up is *only* because of an accident or an adverse reaction to a sedative, you could postulate that if Madeleine had received timely emergency treatment at an accident and emergency unit, the outcome might have been different.  However well qualified the doctors were (leaving aside their lack of ethical/moral judgement) whatever first aid treatment they might have been able to administer is no substitute for intensive care, for instance.

Even if the adults were *just* sedating their children, this is risky outside a controlled setting. There are plenty of studies of adverse outcomes for children who have inadvertently been overdosed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11015502

However, it appears that timely emergency treatment is crucial and in this small study even children that had received as much as 100 times the correct dose survived without adverse outcomes - but of course they had all been taken to accident and emergency where they could be monitored and receive appropriate treatment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10499950

I always suspected that this was (in part) a medical negligence case, albeit a very strange one indeed. However, I do believe it is more complex than that and, while I think the McCann children were sedated (the twins were effectively in a coma on Thursday night) I still cannot help thinking that the McCann agenda (whatever it was) was not for a corpse to be taken or hidden in the apartment/resort.

I still think it is possible that the intention was for Madeleine to be removed from the Ocean Club alive, but sedated. Were this to have happened, there would be no sniffer dog evidence and very little evidence indeed to incriminate the McCanns in the 'disappearance' of their daughter.

j.rob, Kate's repetitive shrieking of "We've let her down" haunts me. If it is 'doctor speak' for 'the patient has died' this would fit with the removal while alive theory.

Trouble is, I've never been able to confirm if "We've let her down" is recognised medical in-house jargon or not. Forum myth, again?

j.rob wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:I believe so, Tiny, which answers the question about whether the 7 really did know what happened or just a few of them on a 'need to know basis', as has been mooted.

I think it is possible that some of the friends who have covered up for them are not aware of the 'bigger picture'. Not saying I know what the 'bigger picture' is - but I think there is one for the McCanns. And I would say that David Payne might be part of a bigger picture - not necessarily the entire picture. Maybe Russell O'Brien too.

Jane Tanner, in particular,  seems to have been landed with a loaded grenade.

All have played some parts (as Gerry might say) some bigger than others.

It is possible that the friends were prepared to help cover up because there was an unforeseen accident or an adverse reaction to a drug or sedative or some other mishap. However the grim determination with which the McCanns have ensured that no body will be found does lead to suspicions of molestation, or grossly negligent drugging.

Then again, even if the cover up is *only* because of an accident or an adverse reaction to a sedative, you could postulate that if Madeleine had received timely emergency treatment at an accident and emergency unit, the outcome might have been different.  However well qualified the doctors were (leaving aside their lack of ethical/moral judgement) whatever first aid treatment they might have been able to administer is no substitute for intensive care, for instance.

Even if the adults were *just* sedating their children, this is risky outside a controlled setting. There are plenty of studies of adverse outcomes for children who have inadvertently been overdosed.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/11015502

However, it appears that timely emergency treatment is crucial and in this small study even children that had received as much as 100 times the correct dose survived without adverse outcomes - but of course they had all been taken to accident and emergency where they could be monitored and receive appropriate treatment.

http://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/10499950

I always suspected that this was (in part) a medical negligence case, albeit a very strange one indeed. However, I do believe it is more complex than that and, while I think the McCann children were sedated (the twins were effectively in a coma on Thursday night) I still cannot help thinking that the McCann agenda (whatever it was) was not for a corpse to be taken or hidden in the apartment/resort.

I still think it is possible that the intention was for Madeleine to be removed from the Ocean Club alive, but sedated. Were this to have happened, there would be no sniffer dog evidence and very little evidence indeed to incriminate the McCanns in the 'disappearance' of their daughter.

IMO David and Fiona Payne are pivotal because of their relationship with MO and RO'B which goes back many years before the McCanns arrived on the NHS Leicester scene and Fiona's particularly close relationship with Kate and that, at the very least, the Paynes acted as go-betweens to facilitate a cover up.  

Again IMO, if all of the group's children were being sedated on a nightly basis and JT/ROB and the Oldfields were told Madeleine had died due to an overdose or unexpected reaction to the drug used, I suspect it would not have been overly difficult to convince them that reporting her death to the relevant authorities, with the inevitability of autopsy and the probability that all of the children would be tested for ingestion of drugs, would not be either in their best interests or in the best interests of the group as a whole.  

I consider it entirely probable that what may have been presented to the above two couples as the bigger picture was an illusion which diguised the true picture, that Leics police were on the money, and that the PJ were far too kind to the McCanns and their pals.

Fwiw, I think it likely Dianne Webster was initially kept out of the loop but I would regard her as being entirely lacking in imagination if she hasn't had any suspicion that she and others were duped.

That's one possible reason for a cover-up and a "pact" indeed ...

Dee Coy wrote:j.rob, Kate's repetitive shrieking of "We've let her down" haunts me. If it is 'doctor speak' for 'the patient has died' this would fit with the removal while alive theory.

Trouble is, I've never been able to confirm if "We've let her down" is recognised medical in-house jargon  or not. Forum myth, again?

There has been debate about these words on another thread whose title escapes me, and the general consensus is that letting a patient down is most definitely not medical in-house jargon for patients dying of preventable causes - medics being far more likely to cover each other's backs with 'we did everything we could' and other such platitudes.  

Having given these words some thought recently, it occurs to me they could be seen in context as Kate's expression of regret that her daughter could not be accorded the funeral rites of the Catholic church in which faith she was baptised. 

While I suspect emotions such as guilt and grief are not ones which come easily to Kate, neverthless I find it hard to believe she hasn't been subject to the odd imp pricking her conscience on occasion, albeit a glass of NZ wine soon puts a stop to any such activity.

Châtelaine wrote:That's one possible reason for a cover-up and a "pact" indeed ...

IMO the pact was sealed at the Rothley meeting later in the year and set in cement on the day the Tapas 7 accepted Richard Desmond's money. 

Thereafter they've been stuck with it because once each of them told their first lie, Gerry had them over a barrel and their subsequent actions ensured they became flies trapped in amber.

If Madeleine died because of neglect that came about because Kate and Gerry had been fighting for several days, then "We've let her down" makes perfect sense.

What type of neglect would cause a child to die within a period of 'several days'?

ultimaThule wrote:What type of neglect would cause a child to die within a period of 'several days'?

Not sure what you mean, but to guess I'll answer with - the type of neglect that leaves children on their own, sedated, allowing them to climb up on things and fall to their death. I'd suggest that that is neglect.

ultimaThule wrote:What type of neglect would cause a child to die within a period of 'several days'?

Being drugged up and sexually abused.

Speaking generally, an untreated bang on the head or blow to the stomach could lead to a fatality several days later.

J_S, you need to change your avatar to something less controversial.

Off topic but J - Shatter, that's a disgrace. So wrong and not sure what goes on in that warped mind of yours. 

Suggest you get that changed a.s.a.p.

I also find that avatar offensive , I thought this situation  had been dealt with ? , for some reason the poster seems to court negative response .

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Speaking generally, an untreated bang on the head or blow to the stomach could lead to a fatality several days later.

J_S, you need to change your avatar to something less controversial.

I'll change it if you really want but in my view the only difference between the de-ath of tia sharp and as we believe the death of Madeleine aside from the age is that one comes from Rothley with sheds of money and government support, the other comes from some loser estate in Croydon.
   

Am I the only one to take offense at JS?

Thought not.

Bah!

I'll not post till it's been got rid of

Sorry but I don't understand why a picture of Tia Sharp is offensive. Given the subject matter of this forum, a subtle reminder of the harm that parents can cause their children, or allow to be caused to them, is surely both valid and appropriate. It certainly doesn't cause me any offence, although I accept I might be out of step with the consensus

@ j.rob

I'm very much in agreement with your interpretation of Russell's statement versus Kate's book version of the videoing incident.
To me it sounds like she is putting a pre-emptive and less worrying gloss on what may have been - if I read Russell's statement correctly - one of their party videoing someone else's daughter, either by design or simply incidentally. The connotations however, especially given their screaming of 'paedophiles' at every opportunity, being rather unfortunate for their own image.

In relation to that it is clear that one of their party DID have a video camera. It was handed to DC Stewart Martin of the Hampshire police at 21:00 on May 8th, along with a video tape from it - it was a Sony Handycam. This is the guy with the record of tech knowledge in recovering digital imagery etc, and at the same time he took delivery of the Olympus C50 camera and its memory cards (or at least those that were handed over / surrendered).
Whilst he inspected the images from the cards for the Olympus camera, he did not inspect the Sony Handycam or its accompanying tape and delivered it to the Hampshire police support HQ Imaging Unit at 8:00 on May 9th. I cannot find a record of the results of any further examination.

You can see these details here:
 http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/VIDEO_MEMORY.htm


Another point that has been raised in this thread is Kate's highly vocal placing of Madeleine at the beach bar in the late afternoon of the 3rd - and carrying her back, with her sudden and overwhelming tiredness. And of course everyone very specifically seeing Kate jogging on the beach.
One person who very specifically does NOT place Madeleine - or Kate or Gerry - there for hight tea that afternoon is Diane Webster in her rogatory statement...
(Note - in these snippets below she is specifically discussing the afternoon of the 3rd only...)

DW
"We went down to the beach that day and just played around for a bit err  and then the men came in from their activities and we then went, because it was quite late, we decided rather than rush the children, to high tea at the Ocean Club. We’d just give them high tea in this beach restaurant that we’d been to before. So the children had high tea, or their tea, in this err restaurant, beach café, err…”


4078
"Who else was there around that time?”


DW
"Who else? Well it was, it was all of us err apart from Kate and Gerry and their children, yeah we were all there and err the men, I think because err Dave, I don’t know if the other two had them as well, they had to be back for tennis or something or some tennis thing, I don’t know if its due to start at six or something like that...”


4078
"It’s perfectly understandable that you can’t. Did you see Kate and Gerry at all during the day that day?”


DW
"Err well only in the morning when, at the tennis, err I’m get, do you know I’m getting confused because I know there was one err evening where they were, they were all playing, and they were playing tennis and we were, there’s the tennis courts were down a few steps that was more than the rest of the area and err we were with the children watching the men play but I can’t remember what night that was.”


4078
"Do you remember if you saw Madeleine that day?”


DW
"I don’t think I did see her that day because the fact that we’d gone down to the beach in the afternoon and we hadn’t got the kid, the high tea, had we gone to the high tea err with the children then yes we would have seen her, but err I don’t recollect err seeing her because in the morning at the tennis she would have been in the kids club.”


Diane's rogatory in full here: http://mccannfiles.com/id254.html

@AndyB - I agree that particular pic is less offensive than the others and justified in that it is another child that has died.  It is more to do with the history of pics J_S has used and his/her motivations to post here.  Although a picture of Tia is not offensive in itself, it could be construed that MBM vanished in a similar manner and we do not know that for sure.

Woofer wrote:@AndyB - I agree that particular pic is less offensive than the others and justified in that it is another child that has died.  It is more to do with the history of pics J_S has used and his/her motivations to post here.  Although a picture of Tia is not offensive in itself, it could be construed that MBM vanished in a similar manner and we do not know that for sure.

Agreed, but people should be allowed to believe that to be the case and to express that belief. Would it have caused offence if J_S had written something drawing parallels between the fate of Tia Sharp and what they believe has happened to MM rather than using a picture? I hope not but then I clearly think/feel differently to those who find the picture offensive.

Perhaps someone who is offended by the picture could explain why they feel that way. (I'm not trying to be confrontational or argumentative. Its just that I really don't understand why anyone would take offence)

Woofer wrote:@AndyB - I agree that particular pic is less offensive than the others and justified in that it is another child that has died.  It is more to do with the history of pics J_S has used and his/her motivations to post here.  Although a picture of Tia is not offensive in itself, it could be construed that MBM vanished in a similar manner and we do not know that for sure.

Changed to stop affecting sensitivities but we all know that if the killer of tia sharp whether by excess accident or not, had access to money and powerful friends then we would be having a speculative forum about her as well. The police didn't even bother to check upstairs when she was first reported missing and now we have the same Police service investigating the Portuguese?

AndyB wrote:Sorry but I don't understand why a picture of Tia Sharp is offensive. Given the subject matter of this forum, a subtle reminder of the harm that parents can cause their children, or allow to be caused to them, is surely both valid and appropriate. It certainly doesn't cause me any offence, although I accept I might be out of step with the consensus

it does not offend me either,its a beautiful picture of a child who was let down by those that were supposed to have taken good care her  just like Madeleine should have been

I can see both opposing views re the Tia Sharp picture but, now that it has been removed, please let's move on.