On Sky News this morning

Wintabells wrote:

widowan wrote:

Chloroform is also present in household cleaning supplies and the dogs don't alert to those when at the dump. All those bottles of Febreeze and Windex and Chlorox with a bit left at the bottom... or the anti freeze bottles...

What are you getting at, that Kate used Chloroform to remove the stain on Maddie's pj top?

Or that the stain WAS chloroform?

An abductor could have come in and tried to drug her the night before? And she didn't remember this and passed it off with the where were you when we cried comment and Kate as an anesthesiologist would not recognize the odor?

The other thing about the dogs was that the one in Caylee Anthony case said the dog could alert to a drop of human blood that was from a live person and decomposing on the ground. However he also said that in all cases but this ONE where the dogs alerted they did have a "find."

Take your point about household cleaning products and dogs.

No, I'm suggesting that given chloroform can have an 'innocent' use, the 'tea stain' explanation could be a cover for the presence of chloroform (used to sedate or whatever...)

Wouldn't Kate have better sedatives than liquid chloroform?

Could Madeleine have imbibed something else left laying around, I have wondered. Why does Kate mention this stain, if the child spilled tea so what. If she had vomitted and Kate didn't want people to know that the pale, tired child she carried home from creche was ill, the girl who pitifully asked her where she'd been when they were crying, yet theyleft her again... a lot of others were ill on that holiday. Tanners left theirs alone ill and recovering from surgery, as did Oldfields.

Kate seems to mention things for a reason I can't figure this one out. If she is implying a bad guy came in and drugged Maddie and she did not mention this to her parents I think that is a huge stretch.

Just watched it on latest news and again they mention 'likened to McCann case', and they mentioned that cadaver dogs alerted etc...

Roasted Arizona wrote:Just watched it on latest news and again they mention 'likened to McCann case', and they mentioned that cadaver dogs alerted etc...

THAT is not a good comparison for McCanns.

Like Cipriana -and that parallel is one they seemed to have drawn themselves or paid their lawyer to do, to discredit Amaral - and yet that mother was guilty of murdering her child.

Maybe just the media trying to sell papers or get clicks on their site or spur a comment battle that keeps people on their site so their advertisers have to pay them? It is certainly an apt time to put things things out there now NSY is on the case - what if McCanns were to be found involved and the papers and media had all missed out on this in their editorial zeal to kiss their rear ends, maybe now they will have to be a little more even handed.

Wintabells wrote:

widowan wrote:

Chloroform is also present in household cleaning supplies and the dogs don't alert to those when at the dump. All those bottles of Febreeze and Windex and Chlorox with a bit left at the bottom... or the anti freeze bottles...

What are you getting at, that Kate used Chloroform to remove the stain on Maddie's pj top?

Or that the stain WAS chloroform?

An abductor could have come in and tried to drug her the night before? And she didn't remember this and passed it off with the where were you when we cried comment and Kate as an anesthesiologist would not recognize the odor?

The other thing about the dogs was that the one in Caylee Anthony case said the dog could alert to a drop of human blood that was from a live person and decomposing on the ground. However he also said that in all cases but this ONE where the dogs alerted they did have a "find."

Take your point about household cleaning products and dogs.

No, I'm suggesting that given chloroform can have an 'innocent' use, the 'tea stain' explanation could be a cover for the presence of chloroform (used to sedate or whatever...)

Maybe chloroform was used when they possibly had to perform a trachy.

Don't think doctors would travel with that stuff. A bottle of chloforom in case they had to do an emergency procedure in a resort on holiday? They had corn plasters and something for indigestion. If any of the kids were ill enough to require sedation or easy sleep, any one of the set of parents would be able to get it, they all had a doctor in the family.

I think the dogs hit on an actual cadaver, or something that had been in contact with one, not on chloroform.

Could it be that Kate washed the pajama top in fact because there was blood or sick on it and at the time they were afraid the body would be found with a stain on the pj top that had been washed out - something an abductor would not bother to do?

I didn't expect them to take chloroform with them but they could have got it from a chemist with their prescription pads. This could be checked in a chemist's records.

I think it was Rachel who mentioned that a resus could have been performed had it been necessary. Why mention this ?

whatsupdoc wrote:I didn't expect them to take chloroform with them but they could have got it from a chemist with their prescription pads. This could be checked in a chemist's records.

I think it was Rachel who mentioned that a resus could have been performed had it been necessary. Why mention this ?

Not only that but if they did have other sedatives with them and it was an overdose by mistake and an accident ensued - they would have disposed of any evidence before alerting the PJ. If we credit them with having engineered themselves out of any responsibility for the disappearance of Madeleine they must have realised they couldn't go leaving incriminating evidence around.

whatsupdoc wrote:I didn't expect them to take chloroform with them but they could have got it from a chemist with their prescription pads. This could be checked in a chemist's records.

I think it was Rachel who mentioned that a resus could have been performed had it been necessary. Why mention this ?

They had no time to go get chloroform that night to do an emergency resus. They could have gotten some earlier to put the kids to sleep with - or in planning to use it to kill someone - but I think they'd take their own preferred sedatives in the first instance and certainly in the second, why would you go around using your own verifiable prescription pad? If Madeleine needed some type of drug however and if UK docs can get prescriptions filled in PT, that would be a good place to look - local chemists -

Of course an even better source of what kind of meds these people had and regularly took and may have had with them, would be in the medical records in the UK - someone could get into mummy's pills and think they are candy... or be adminstered them... PJ found nothing but corn plasters and tummy pills. No anti depressants, no Paxil or Valium. If they had prescriptions for these and did not have them with them on the trip then why not.

.

widowan wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:I didn't expect them to take chloroform with them but they could have got it from a chemist with their prescription pads. This could be checked in a chemist's records.

I think it was Rachel who mentioned that a resus could have been performed had it been necessary. Why mention this ?

They had no time to go get chloroform that night to do an emergency resus. They could have gotten some earlier to put the kids to sleep with - or in planning to use it to kill someone - but I think they'd take their own preferred sedatives in the first instance and certainly in the second, why would you go around using your own verifiable prescription pad? If Madeleine needed some type of drug however and if UK docs can get prescriptions filled in PT, that would be a good place to look - local chemists -

Of course an even better source of what kind of meds these people had and regularly took and may have had with them, would be in the medical records in the UK - someone could get into mummy's pills and think they are candy... or be adminstered them... PJ found nothing but corn plasters and tummy pills. No anti depressants, no Paxil or Valium. If they had prescriptions for these and did not have them with them on the trip then why not.

.

I've always thought that Madeleine died on the day b4 as they needed plenty of time to plan and do all the necessary things such as arrange for her collection and disposal, write scripts for the tv interviews the next day, set up a Fund, who to phone etc... I don't think she got as far as going to bed on the Thursday.

Gerry had Terfenadine with him on the holiday for his hay fever.

http://www.zimbio.com/Madeleine+McCann/articles/s82nSogs2Rn/Gerry+McCann+Arguido+Questioning+7+9+07

According to Wiki, it was superseded by fexofenadine in the 1990s due to the risk of cardiac arrhythmia caused by QT interval prolongation.

Long QT is associated with coloboma, by the way.

Wintabells wrote:Gerry had Terfenadine with him on the holiday for his hay fever.

http://www.zimbio.com/Madeleine+McCann/articles/s82nSogs2Rn/Gerry+McCann+Arguido+Questioning+7+9+07

According to Wiki, it was superseded by fexofenadine in the 1990s due to the risk of cardiac arrhythmia caused by QT interval prolongation.

Long QT is associated with coloboma, by the way.

Which Madeleine didn't have

http://www.thelancet.it/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60823-X/fulltext

carmen wrote:

Wintabells wrote:Gerry had Terfenadine with him on the holiday for his hay fever.

http://www.zimbio.com/Madeleine+McCann/articles/s82nSogs2Rn/Gerry+McCann+Arguido+Questioning+7+9+07

According to Wiki, it was superseded by fexofenadine in the 1990s due to the risk of cardiac arrhythmia caused by QT interval prolongation.

Long QT is associated with coloboma, by the way.

Which Madeleine didn't have

http://www.thelancet.it/journals/lancet/article/PIIS0140-6736(07)60823-X/fulltext

Indeed. Just a 'fleck'.

So no coloboma just a fleck - no body to check one way or the other. So not expecting to have this challenged then.

Madeleine won't be returning to prove this one way or the other. Finding a body would be irrelevant too.

Even I can see the child has a coloboma.

You'd think, would you not, that medical people would have such a thing fully investigated to determine whether or not it is in any way significant. But to hear Kate talk, you'd think these were a pair of idiots who have noticed something funny about their child's eye, put it down to 'probably nothing', called it a 'fleck' and hoped for the best.

Ridiculous.

Wintabells wrote:Gerry had Terfenadine with him on the holiday for his hay fever.

http://www.zimbio.com/Madeleine+McCann/articles/s82nSogs2Rn/Gerry+McCann+Arguido+Questioning+7+9+07

According to Wiki, it was superseded by fexofenadine in the 1990s due to the risk of cardiac arrhythmia caused by QT interval prolongation.

Long QT is associated with coloboma, by the way.

I looked up coloboma and didn't see that, but where are we getting the statement that Maddie didn't have this - she clearly did - when did it become a "fleck?"

So Gerry takes an antihistamine that is cardiotoxic - I know some people give their kids this sort of thing as it makes them sleepy like Benadryll.

If coloboma is associated with a long QT rhythm and the drugs he had would worsen that further I would be surprised he would keep any in the place for the cops to find.

That interview of his by the way seems to be a very bad one in terms of his answers in particular baffling in a couple respects, first around his claims about Maddie's sleep habits and why they still thought it would be okay to leave her as she was known to wake and wander and had done so even on this holiday. He states as if this makes sense it was okay to leave her because she usually would do so between 11PM -12 AM - at which time they were still clearly out enjoying themselves so this makes no sense. This would be exactly the time their child would awaken.

Secondly when he refuses to answer the question had she been injured. Now why on earth would you say No Comment rather than No. Or, yes she might have scraped her knee or bumped open an earlier scrape. "No comment" is bizarre when answering questions about your child - then goes on to say he doesn't want to be influenced by the press stating that her blood was found in the apt as he doesn't KNOW if she bled or not but did have nosebleeds. These questions and the dogs' alerts terrified him so much he was crying on the floor to his wife that their lives were over -and they fled as soon as they could get permission?

What a father, doesn't know if his child was injured or bled in the apt on holiday!? - when she wasn't in the creche one of them supposedly was with her, so SOMEONE ought to know unless of course she fell behind the sofa that he thinks but isn't sure if it was further from the wall and that he might have but doesn't really recall if he maybe had pushed it back -

and states that on the night she cried for 75 minutes that couldn't have happened because she wasn't alone in the apt. And he doesn't mean Sean and Amelie. WHo else was there hearing her cry and ignoring it or becoming enraged that she would not stop her "brat crying" -and possibly determined to leave her to cry it out? At the risk of waking the twins?

he seems to be lying. That is what I would think if I asked these ?s and got these answers.

His concept of why it took Payne so long to walk the one minute to their flat and thirty seconds with Kate and one minute back to the tennis court was that Payne had gone home to change in the meantime.

So Payne went to the court to play tennis but wasn't in his tennis gear. Then leaves to see to Kate at his own suggestion not Gerry's and returns half an hour later. A full hour late to play tennis that he himself had requested be moved to 6 PM on their behalf.

Wintabells wrote:Even I can see the child has a coloboma.

You'd think, would you not, that medical people would have such a thing fully investigated to determine whether or not it is in any way significant. But to hear Kate talk, you'd think these were a pair of idiots who have noticed something funny about their child's eye, put it down to 'probably nothing', called it a 'fleck' and hoped for the best.

Ridiculous.

Not ridiculous, Winta

Naive is the word they prefer.

A couple of 40 year old naive people with 50 years of education between them, ten of them in med school.

Quite interesting vid about her eye

mcscam

Thank you for the video - the biggest scam of all really. Who is this clever - that's what I want to know.

whatsupdoc wrote:I didn't expect them to take chloroform with them but they could have got it from a chemist with their prescription pads. This could be checked in a chemist's records.

I think it was Rachel who mentioned that a resus could have been performed had it been necessary. Why mention this ?

Chloroform is not available in the UK even on prescription. It is a very hazardous liquid which requires the user to wear protective clothing, safety goggles and use a respirator with an organic vapour cartridge.

Calpol Night contains a sedative and is more likely to have been given to the children. It will also leave a reddish brown stain on clothing.

Gerry McCann Arguido Questioning 7.9.07
Report
Email Written by BrenR on Sep-25-10 3:29am
From: headlines-today.co.uk
Gerry McCann Arguido Questioning 7.9.07


Volume IV, pages 2569 – 2578

Arguido questioning of Gerald Patrick McCann, on the 7th of September 2007, at 11 a.m.
Location: CID Portimão

Of British nationality, the arguido cannot speak or write Portuguese, therefore an interpreter is present, Armanda Duarte Salbany Russell, chosen by the arguida from a list provided by the Consulate.

The arguido’s legal representative, Dr Carlos Pinto de Abreu, is also present.
He now possesses arguida status, and the rights and duties that assist him are explained to him, and he is subject to TIR [“termo de identidade e residência”, the lowest coercion measure that is automatically applicable, and consists of stating one’s name and residence].He fully confirms the contents of the statements that he has previously given to this Police, on two occasions, and has nothing further to add.

After being made aware of the facts that befall him, he says that he wishes to make a statement.

When asked if he had any responsibility or participation in the disappearance of his daughter Madeleine, he peremptorily denies this.

When asked if on the night of May 1, 2007 he went to have dinner at the Tapas with Kate, he says yes. As usual they would come and check on the children every half hour, usually alternating. They arrived at the Tapas around 20:30, and then went to the apartment every half hour, until they arrived back, at around 23:00, plus or minus 10 minutes. Occasionally one of the others in the group made the check, he does not remember if this happened on the 1st. It is not true that Madeleine had been crying that night for an hour and 15 minutes, because she was not alone all that time.
Why does her crying have to coincide with her being alone? He's so worried about covering his own deceitful azz about doing proper checks it doesn't occur to him that someone could have been with her making her cry? Why is that?
When questioned, he said that on the day they arrived, April 28, they removed two cots that were in their room, and placed them in Madeleine’s room. He is unable to confirm, but it could be possible, that there were 3 cribs, and they asked for one to be removed.

It is not true that on a certain day they placed one crib in their room, leaving the other in Madeleine’s room.

He does not know what days were scheduled for cleaning the apartment.

But yet the day the cot was in his room it was seen by the cleaner...

He now states that he also pushed the two single beds in his room together, which had been separated by a night table. He did that to transform the two beds into a double bed.

Regarding the windows, he says they were normally closed, he does not know if they were locked, with the shutters also closed. Regarding Madeleine’s window he says that he made sure the shutters worked so as to darken the room for the children.

On the day of arrival, he does not know if the shutters in Madeleine’s room were open, and if they were, he closed them. He did not open them again, and does not know if somebody else did. When confronted with a testimony that states having seen the shutters to that window open after their arrival, he says that it was not him who opened them.

Did he mention fiddling with them the night of the 3rd?When asked about the window behind one of the sofas in the living room, he says that yes, he remembers the window but does not remember if the shutters were also closed.

Regarding this sofa, he remembers it was drawn against the window. He is not sure, but thinks that this sofa was probably a bit further away from the window, and he vaguely remembers pushing it back a bit, because his children threw objects behind it, namely playing cards. When asked, he does not know if any of the children was behind the sofa or passed behind this sofa.

Only coincidental that he pushed it over the spot where the blood was found.

When asked, he says that on one night, he cannot say which, Madeleine slept in his room and in his bed. He thinks it might have been shortly after their arrival at the apartment. Madeleine came to his room saying that Amelie was crying and she couldn’t sleep. He thinks that he didn’t hear the crying before, and was alerted to this by Madeleine. He does not know if it was him or his wife that comforted Amelie. That night Madeleine slept in his bed.

Concerning his wife, he says that on the Wednesday she slept in the children’s room in the bed next to the window. He doesn’t know why, but thinks it could have been because of his snoring. Also on that day, after dinner, he returned to the apartment sooner than Kate.

Doesn't remember huffing out leaving her standing there to be teased about "she's not that bad Gerry" - or think that might be why she slept apart?

Regarding the episode where he spoke to David on the 3rd of May, he says that he was playing tennis at 18:30 when David appeared near the tennis court and asked him through the net if he was going to continue playing. The deponent said he didn’t know because Kate might be needing help to look after the three children, even more so because they intended to bring them to the recreation area after their showers. He thinks that David offered to check if Kate needed help, which he did, and returned minutes later. Concerning his previous statement, where he states that David returned half an hour later, at around 19:00, he says that he returned to the tennis court after half an hour, as this time frame refers to the second time he returned to the tennis court, after dressing up for the game.

So Payne, late for tennis, makes himself additionally late by going to check in with Gerry before changing then going to check in on Kate before changing anbd doesn't return for half an hour.

When questioned, he says that Madeleine usually sleeps well at night. During the first months of her life she had some difficulties sleeping, due to feeding problems. After moving to their house in Rothley in April 2006, twice a week Madeleine woke up, left her bed and went into their room; this sometimes happened between 23:00 – 24:00 for no apparent reason, maybe because she was used to sleeping with (*** blank ****).

When asked about a chart highlighting the characteristics of the children, at the house in Rothley, he says that he does in fact have such an object, where several stars show the nights when Madeleine did not get up, as she was rewarded this way.

When questioned if it was therefore safe to leave Madeleine in the apartment, given the fact that she woke and got up at night, he says that this rarely happened, and then only after her parents were in bed.

So if the parents go to bed in Rothley at ten but don't go to bed on holiday til one AM, the fact that they are not in bed yet will drive Madeleien's sleep and waking patterns - not the time of night or amount of sleep she has had?

When questioned about whether the couple’s and the children’s life was peaceful, namely regarding the work that three children can give a couple, as well as the stress this can cause, he replies that in fact since the birth of the twins their life has been very busy, and that especially during the twins’ first year life was difficult. He states that since the twins were born, he and Kate have gone out in the evening only once, leaving the children with relatives. He adds that in spite of this he never saw Kate depressed as a result of too much work. He denies that Kate changed her work habits for reasons related to depressions. He asserts that his wife never suggested to him that at some time she had the intention of handing Madeleine into the care of a family member.

Does coming home from work to find your wife and baby both crying not count as depression?

When questioned, he says that he works at the Emergency Room of the hospital where he works every 15 days, however he is not usually called out at night, and if this happens then it is once for 4 days’ prevention. Kate’s specialty is general medicine, but she only works two days a week. After the birth of the twins, Kate did not work for a year, on maternity leave, and currently works part-time as mentioned above.

When questioned, he states that none of his children takes any kind of medication regularly in England.

And then refuses to provide their medical charts.

When they travelled on holiday to Portugal they brought several medicines, namely Calpol, Nurofen, for fevers and pains, both for adults and children, Losec for gastric problems that he occasionally suffers from, and an anti-histamine called Terfenadine, for hay fever. He did not give any of these medicines or any others to the children while on holiday in Portugal.

Maybe.

When asked at what time he went to check on the children the night Madeleine disappeared, he recalls that this was around 21:04 according to his watch. He remembers that once inside the apartment he was surprised that the door to the children’s room was slightly more open than how he had left it when he and Kate left for dinner. However, it could have been Madeleine who had opened the door after waking and getting up, eventually to go to her parents’ room.

But, it wasn't eleven yet! How odd of her. So she did maybe get up and open the door and go in to their room to look for them and finding herself alone yet again just went back to bed - maybe fixed herself a cuppa or played a few hands of solitaire with those cards behind the couch, then went back to bed and lay down in her same position as when he had left. He doesn't think of another explanation for why the door is open since Matt did a listening check and they had the window to account for the abductor getting in, he wouldn't have been inside yet under this scenario. Most bizarre, father thinks she could have been up and about and back to bed on her own and doesnt strike him as odd

On this occasion, the three children were lying in their beds asleep, he is sure of this. Moreover, he says that with respect to Madeleine she was in the same position in which he had left her at the beginning of the night. Madeleine was lying down on her left side, completely uncovered, i.e. lying on top of the covers, with the soft toy and blanket, both pink, next to her head; he does not know if they were in the position that can be seen in the photograph attached to the files

So he doesn't remember what the bed looked like when looking at a photo but does remember how it looked when he looked at it when lookin at Madeleine but can't say if the toy and blanket were the same way they had been when he "checked " - gah, he must've been ready to sh*t himself at this line of questioning. Make something up for us, arguido


The second person to go and check on the children should have been Kate, but Matt offered to go as he was going to check on his own daughter. When Matt returned to the restaurant the arguido asked him if all was well; Matt replied that all was quiet. The arguido is not absolutely sure, but he is under the impression that he asked Matt if he entered their apartment, to which Matt replied yes.

Why "should it" be Kate? She'd never checked her before. He doesn't recall on the night his daughter went missing if he asked Matt if he had entered the apt and Matt said yes? He knows from the timeline that Matt said he went in, they had to do two timelines to account for Matt seeing only the twins and not Maddie, so why prevaricate now? This reminds me of his not seeing Jane, he isn't going to give them anything they can check, and get a conflicting answer, is he?

The third check was made by Kate at around 22:00. He does not know how long it was before Kate returned, but he does remember that shortly before she returned he was thinking of going to see what was going on, as it seemed a long time and he thought that one of children might have woken up.

Very good of him since he sends Payne to help her normally or Matt to do the checks but give him husband points, he considered thinking about helping her.

He does not remember if he had taken his mobile phone to the restaurant. He is under the impression that he did not take anything with him, except maybe his wallet. He was wearing tennis shoes, blue jeans and a light brown polar top. He does not remember what Kate was wearing that night. The arguido did not take a camera and does not remember if Kate did. He does not remember if anybody in the group took any photograph that night.

I'm sure - why would you remember what your wife had on the night, it was only the night your child disappeared- this too could be checked later against the clothes the dogs alerted to - I would think the moment she ran into that bar screaming would be etched on your retinas for eternity along with every detail of standing in the kids' room with her looking for your absent daughter

He remembers that after it was known that Madeleine had disappeared he looked for her all over the apartment. He particularly remembers having looked under all the beds, inside the wardrobes in all the rooms at the same time that Kate told him she had looked everywhere already.

He remembers that at one time the lady who lived in the apartment above theirs, went onto her balcony and asked what was going on. He does not remember specifically who replied to this lady, but he remembers that somebody spoke to her, and he admits it could have been himself.

So, not Kate, as she claims in the BOOK. And does he recall telling her not to bother calling the police as it'd already been done?

When questioned, he states that from the first moment, after the first fruitless searches, he thought that Madeleine had been abducted and it was this information that he gave to everyone to whom he spoke. He reached such a conclusion because he did not think it possible that she had gone out on her own or opened the bedroom shutters and window.

She went out every day, out a door your wife left unlocked- for her safety so she could come find them - she was known to wake and get up so why couldn't she wake and walk out? Was she unable to waken, like her siblings?

When questioned, he says that on that night he made several phone calls, namely to two sisters, a couple of Kate’s uncles, his brother, or certainly sent him a message, father PAUL SEDDON who baptized Madeleine and married the deponent. When questioned, he says he did not get in touch with any media and does not know if anyone did. In the morning his family did contact the press. The deponent spoke of contacting the press, however he never did so.

Just made the suggestion and left it at that, how many people did he speak to of contacting the press out of the six he called?

When questioned he says that it was not him who requested a priest, but rather Kate, to seek spiritual help.

Regarding the disclosure of Madeleine’s photograph, he says that he gave the authorities a photograph from a digital camera, and he thinks it was Russell who printed it at the main 24-hour resort reception. He made the delivery of this, or those, pictures on A4 paper to this Police, but he is absolutely certain that he never delivered any of these photographs to the GNR.

Around 19:00 this interview was interrupted for a rest period, to be recommenced at around 19:40.

When questioned if the twins woke up during the searches in the apartment, he replied negatively. When they were taken to another apartment he does not know if they woke, as he did not take them. When asked, he says that this was not normal, but he can find no reason for it happening. Yet, at that moment he thought that the twins might have been drugged by the possible abductor, even if he only mentioned this to the Police several days later.

Good thinking.

When questioned, he says he never gave his children anything to help them sleep, nor did Kate. When asked why he did not ask the twins what happened to their sister, he says that when the events took place they still did not speak fluently, which they now do, and that such is part of normal development. At that point and at this point he did not ask them because he thought that they would not have the correct perception of what had happened, in addition to thinking that they would have been sleeping.

Bizarre, they might have a "wrong perception" - such as what?One that could get him in trouble? that maddie wasn't there in her bed at all? That mummy made maddie cry? That maddie fell in the tub? That they might have been sleeping - MIGHT HAVE BEEN? so they wouldn't be worth asking in case they were not asleep when "it" happened?

When asked why instead of scouring the land next to the complex they remained inside the apartment, he replies that it did not happen that way. While the guests and resort workers were searching, he went to the main reception to check whether they had called the Police, and told Kate to wait inside the apartment. After returning from the reception he went back into the apartment where he stayed in the living room and in their bedroom.

Not really an answer to why you didn't search, is it. DID he stay in the apt?

When asked if he has life insurance, he says that he does, and so does Kate. The children do not have any life insurance, nor are their parents, Gerry and Kate, the beneficiaries of any insurance regarding the children.

No but they didn't do badly off the Fund they set up, though.


When asked about the contents of the wardrobe in his room that can be seen in the photographs, he says that on top there is a suitcase and below a pile of dirty clothes that he cannot make out. This wardrobe was opened to look for Madeleine.

When asked if in fact they went to the apartment every half hour, he says it is true, and that this was never forged to justify absences during dinner.

Lying Mrs Fenn, I guess.


When asked what the expression “we let her down” means, he says that it has to do with the fact that they were not present when Madeleine was abducted. It was Kate who first used this expression.

I have to laugh, I'd have smacked him if I were Kate. SHE called the priest not me, SHE said we let her down, not me!

During this interview several films of a forensic nature showing sniffer dogs were shown to him, where they can be seen signalling human cadaver odour and also human traces of blood, and only of a human nature, as well as the comments made by the expert in charge of the procedure.

After viewing the films and after the signalling of cadaver odour in their room next to the wardrobe and behind the sofa against the window in the living room, he says that he has "no comments", neither has he any explanation for this fact.

The dog that detects human blood signalled human blood behind the sofa mentioned above, as well, he says that he cannot explain this fact.

Regarding the signalling of cadaver odour in the vehicle that was rented in late May, license plate 49-DA-27, he says he cannot explain more than what he already has.
Which was what? Nappies, fish blood?

Regarding the signalling of human blood in the boot of the same vehicle, he says that he has no explanation for this fact.
When confronted with the fact that Madeleine’s DNA was collected from behind the sofa and in the boot of the vehicle, and analyzed by a British laboratory, situations that had already been described before, he says that he cannot explain.
When asked if on any occasion Madeleine was injured, he says that he has no comments.
When questioned, he said that he is the usual driver of the car. In addition to the deponent, the car was also driven by his wife Kate, his sister in law Sandy, and a cousin of Kate’s by the name of Michael.

When asked if he has anything to add, he said that he has not seen any proof that his daughter Madeleine is dead, and therefore he will continue to search for her in the hope she is alive. He knows nothing more than what has been said.

No questions about these findings? Just "no comment" and "I can't explain" ? And later telling Kate, we're f*cked, our lives are over? Not "Maddie could have been killed in the apt," just let's get the hell out of here?

The defence lawyer said that he wishes the arguido to be asked again if Madeleine bled. To which he said it was common for Madeleine to have nosebleeds. He says that he doesn’t know if in fact his daughter bled while on holiday in Portugal, because he does not want to be influenced by the news in the Press, regarding the detection of human blood in the apartment where his daughter disappeared.

Yes give him another shot at that one, please. No comment was a bit cold.

During this interview the arguido was informed of his duty to respect the secrecy of justice, as well as the consequences of not complying with it, stipulated in current law.

At around 22:50 the present interview was ended.

He said nothing further.

-----------------------------------------

They always say that GERRY answered the 40 questions, they don't say his answers were this bad, I can't believe I've never seen this before, and then Kate's lawyer tells HER not to answer lest she incriminate herself, which makes more sense now.

Issalind wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:I didn't expect them to take chloroform with them but they could have got it from a chemist with their prescription pads. This could be checked in a chemist's records.

I think it was Rachel who mentioned that a resus could have been performed had it been necessary. Why mention this ?

Chloroform is not available in the UK even on prescription. It is a very hazardous liquid which requires the user to wear protective clothing, safety goggles and use a respirator with an organic vapour cartridge.

Calpol Night contains a sedative and is more likely to have been given to the children. It will also leave a reddish brown stain on clothing.

I don't think they use it much here anymore either and for the same reason, I had chloroform as a child to have my tonsils out and I recall it was done through a horrible rubber mask in a hospital, it is highly dangerous, you wouldn't take it on holiday. I think it more likely she had fought taking the Calpol night or spit it out onto her pajamas. But if the stain had to be explained then that means they were afraid the police could find her. Otherwise there is no point mentioning it.

I will say after reading Gerry's sad excuse for a arguido interview that at least Kate had the b*lls to refuse to answer, rather than make up this kind of thing.

Madeleine couldn't have been crying May first for 75 minutes -because she wasn't ALONE, we were checking every half hour I swear. I don't remember if I moved the couch or not - might have, might NOT have, Don't recall what my wife was wearing the last night we had a real family and didn't ask the kids about what happened in case they mightn't have noticed cos they might have been asleep or could have a wrong idea that involves us not being there or being there at the wrong time. And I didn't say Madeleine hadn't bled in the apartment, or rather, when I said no comment, I only meant or would like to say now she may probably have done, but I wouldn't know, cos I wasn't there, she could have - and FYI, it was Kate who called for the priest!

widowan wrote:....I looked up coloboma and didn't see that,

Well, you'd have to do more than look up coloboma. It's associated with something called 'CHARGE syndrome' and an amount of tedious digging around on the internet would be required to uncover the connection. I'm not suggesting Madeleine suffered from this syndrome, but there is certainly sometimes an assocation between coloboma and heart abnormalities - sometimes very serious. I have read posts from people who have direct experience of coloboma where there were fortunately no associated problems, but I think it very unlikely that doctors with a child with a coloboma would ignore it, especially a child born as a result of IVF (where there can be a higher chance of genetic problems because of the absence of natural selection... apologies if this sounds insensitive).

whatsupdoc wrote:I didn't expect them to take chloroform with them but they could have got it from a chemist with their prescription pads. This could be checked in a chemist's records.

I think it was Rachel who mentioned that a resus could have been performed had it been necessary. Why mention this ?

Ive always thought that there is a ring of truth in whatever they speak, lets hope as soon as NSY start on the PJ Police files they too will start to question some of their, erm! hmm! erm! strange comments from the Mcs and their friends, including Clarence Mitchell.

Issalind wrote:

whatsupdoc wrote:I didn't expect them to take chloroform with them but they could have got it from a chemist with their prescription pads. This could be checked in a chemist's records.

I think it was Rachel who mentioned that a resus could have been performed had it been necessary. Why mention this ?

Chloroform is not available in the UK even on prescription. It is a very hazardous liquid which requires the user to wear protective clothing, safety goggles and use a respirator with an organic vapour cartridge.

Calpol Night contains a sedative and is more likely to have been given to the children. It will also leave a reddish brown stain on clothing.

But is chloroform available in hospitals for "qualified doctors" to use or even take on holiday with them???