Case Files discussions

Is this the Margaret that Gerry was refering to when we all thought he had made a gaffe? Maybe she is another long lost daughter of his.

[quote="FreddieFireHog"]I thought the Tapas 9 said how dark it was around the apartments. I of course I may be wrong.

freddie[/quote

It was dark with security lights cool but warm ,deserted but awash with abductors,it was surveiled by the Americans ,but they're saying nought because they're miffed with us re torture revelations and the like.

halfamo wrote:I've seen this statement before,but until today did'nt pay much attention to trip lights,wonder why the T9 have'nt mentioned them in their statements.Odd.

only Rachel Oldfield in her rogatory, no mention by any others.

“Mmm yeah, I mean the patio doors were locked, erm yeah I didn’t really like going up there by myself, it was, like going through that car park was quite dark and there was never anyone around, it was a bit, you know made me feel a bit uneasy”.
1578 “Okay. What about the lighting there”?
Reply “Well there were lights, there were street lights along the road as you came out of the Ocean Club, erm sort of orangey you know street lights and along the main road at the back and the car park was quite dark cos there were quite a lot of trees that were sort of on that corner, erm and so the car park was quite dark and then when you actually got, you came down a ramp, or down some steps into the sort of area in front of the apartments and erm you know they were, there were sort of lights, you press a button and they come on for a certain length of time, so you know, you put those on to get to the front door, it wasn’t pitch black but I’m not keen on the dark anyway so erm”.

ann_chovey wrote:

halfamo wrote:I've seen this statement before,but until today did'nt pay much attention to trip lights,wonder why the T9 have'nt mentioned them in their statements.Odd.

only Rachel Oldfield in her rogatory, no mention by any othersthere were sort of lights, you press a button and they come on for a certain length of time, so you know, you put those on to get to the front door, it wasn’t pitch black but I’m not keen on the dark anyway so erm”.

And rats activated them according to Margaret Hall ,wow ,how high were these buttons,did they stand on each others shoulders.

I have to say I thought JT mentioned it as well, not sure if it was in the statements or on a documentry. Didn't she say some where it was dark.

freddie

As early as that ,it must have all been worked out the way they were going to play this.

typical cowardly mccanns covering their backs so their drugging kids could be explained by the nasty phantom abductor,s actions

The drugging thing is of interest, definitely. Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:

'she(Kate) kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing,'

So why would Kate do that? If anyone thought their children could have been sedated by an intruder they'd hardly wait to see if they'd stop breathing, would they? That would be foolhardy in the extreme. They'd be off to hospital asap to have the children checked out properly and where equipment would be available if needed.

So, why didn't Kate do so? What was she waiting for - a twin to stop breathing?

No, makes no sense, this idea of suspecting the twins were drugged by an intruder.

Dimsie wrote:The drugging thing is of interest, definitely. Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:

'she(Kate) kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing,'

So why would Kate do that? If anyone thought their children could have been sedated by an intruder they'd hardly wait to see if they'd stop breathing, would they? That would be foolhardy in the extreme. They'd be off to hospital asap to have the children checked out properly and where equipment would be available if needed.

So, why didn't Kate do so? What was she waiting for - a twin to stop breathing?

No, makes no sense, this idea of suspecting the twins were drugged by an intruder.

No makes more sense if you've drugged them yourself.

halfamo wrote:

Dimsie wrote:The drugging thing is of interest, definitely. Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:

'she(Kate) kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing,'

So why would Kate do that? If anyone thought their children could have been sedated by an intruder they'd hardly wait to see if they'd stop breathing, would they? That would be foolhardy in the extreme. They'd be off to hospital asap to have the children checked out properly and where equipment would be available if needed.

So, why didn't Kate do so? What was she waiting for - a twin to stop breathing?

No, makes no sense, this idea of suspecting the twins were drugged by an intruder.

No makes more sense if you've drugged them yourself.

And you are trying to implant the likelyhood of the abductor doing a dummy run on the 1st May, or having to abandon an abduction then so as to be able to drug the children at the second attempt.

Why try to get the UK police to find out from the PJ. IIRC, the McCanns, complete with their lawyer/media spokesperson/Ambassador, whoever, were having direct meetings with the PJ at this time. Why not ask them directly? Why not voice their concerns to the PJ and have the twins tested? Why not inform the media about the crying incident, as they were quick to do with all the various abductors, just in case someone in the vicinity had also heard or seen something? This could have been more important than pinky aspect pyjamas with frilly bottoms.

I seem to recall there was talk of a police officer removing an item of evidence from the scene. Then, of course, there is the case of the officer who is alleged to have acquired a large amount of money. Perhaps an officer did remove an item of evidence and was persuaded to keep quiet or was persuaded to remove it in return for financial recompense. The McCanns, a couple of days later, may have asked that question in an attempt to cover their asses and to find out if said officer had actually decided to be honest so that an explanation could be formulated for any evidence the police may or may not have had!

Yet from Kate's own mouth on the Video she said Madeleine said why did you not come when Sean and I cried.
Saying two different things then.

If an abduction scenario was true any normal Parent would have woken their other Children up and checked them over fully, if they thought drugs were involved they would have had them checked out and requested Toxicology Tests to be carried out.
Kate was checking their breathing because she knew what was in their system.

Perhaps another reason the Twin's were not woken up or carried back to the Tapes Bar a drug induced sleep the Twin's would have been a dead weight, also coming around from a heavily induced drug sleep the Twin's would have shown signs of a drug induced sleep, People/Police would have picked up on the that.

The McCann's did not what any Test's done at the time and suggested this only at a much later time, with Gerry's crafty sentence in the car saying he wondered if the Twin's were drugged.
Drugs can show in the hair if givin over a period of time.

Hi to Mo \o.

halfamo wrote:

Dimsie wrote:The drugging thing is of interest, definitely. Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:

'she(Kate) kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing,'

So why would Kate do that? If anyone thought their children could have been sedated by an intruder they'd hardly wait to see if they'd stop breathing, would they? That would be foolhardy in the extreme. They'd be off to hospital asap to have the children checked out properly and where equipment would be available if needed.

So, why didn't Kate do so? What was she waiting for - a twin to stop breathing?

No, makes no sense, this idea of suspecting the twins were drugged by an intruder.

No makes more sense if you've drugged them yourself.

They absolutely did drug them. That, to me, is the most logical explantation.

eddie wrote:

halfamo wrote:

Dimsie wrote:The drugging thing is of interest, definitely. Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:

'she(Kate) kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing,'

So why would Kate do that? If anyone thought their children could have been sedated by an intruder they'd hardly wait to see if they'd stop breathing, would they? That would be foolhardy in the extreme. They'd be off to hospital asap to have the children checked out properly and where equipment would be available if needed.

So, why didn't Kate do so? What was she waiting for - a twin to stop breathing?

No, makes no sense, this idea of suspecting the twins were drugged by an intruder.

No makes more sense if you've drugged them yourself.

They absolutely did drug them. That, to me, is the most logical explantation.

I think you're right Eddie. IMO whe can start from 2 facts : the children were drugged, probably by the parents, and the dogs found cadaver odour. Unless I forget another fact, these are the things to go by.

Premeditated???

Lilemor wrote:Premeditated???

Problem with premeditated is there is no time limit on that. It could be planned a few months earlier, a few days or a few hours. It would still be premeditated.

I'm not sure where i'm going with this just thinking aloud ,but maybe something went wrong ,best laid plans etc.Because in one sense there is a plan,then you have contradictions in their and the T7 statements.I think something went bums up but what i have no idea. AA

halfamo wrote:I'm not sure where i'm going with this just thinking aloud ,but maybe something went wrong ,best laid plans etc.Because in one sense there is a plan,then you have contradictions in their and the T7 statements.I think something went bums up but what i have no idea. AA

I'm inclined to think so too. If everything went according to plan, they wouldn't have made such a mess of it. Something along the way must have gone wrong. I think Jeremy Wilkins was the 'unplanned' factor.

Christine wrote:

eddie wrote:

halfamo wrote:

Dimsie wrote:The drugging thing is of interest, definitely. Fiona Payne said in her rogatory interview:

'she(Kate) kept putting her hands on the twins to check they were breathing,'

So why would Kate do that? If anyone thought their children could have been sedated by an intruder they'd hardly wait to see if they'd stop breathing, would they? That would be foolhardy in the extreme. They'd be off to hospital asap to have the children checked out properly and where equipment would be available if needed.

So, why didn't Kate do so? What was she waiting for - a twin to stop breathing?

No, makes no sense, this idea of suspecting the twins were drugged by an intruder.

No makes more sense if you've drugged them yourself.

They absolutely did drug them. That, to me, is the most logical explantation.

I think you're right Eddie. IMO whe can start from 2 facts : the children were drugged, probably by the parents, and the dogs found cadaver odour. Unless I forget another fact, these are the things to go by.

Lilemor wrote:Premeditated???

Christine wrote:

Lilemor wrote:Premeditated???

Problem with premeditated is there is no time limit on that. It could be planned a few months earlier, a few days or a few hours. It would still be premeditated.

No! Not a premediated murder!! I think it was an accidental over-dose or a bad reaction to somethign they gave her.
And it wasn't Calpol either.

I found this on drugging children :
Drug Reactions
It is possible for your child to have a reaction to any medication that he takes, including over the counter medicines. To help prevent drug reactions, you should not medicate your child unnecessarily (especially overusing antibiotics for viral illnesses).
Adverse reactions or side effects to taking medications can include allergic reactions, with hives, wheezing, and or difficulty swallowing (activate your emergency services immediately), or your child may have a non-allergic reaction, including vomiting, irritability, lethargy, or diarrhea. Consult your doctor if you think that your child is having a drug reaction.

Wasn't O'Brian child vomiting? Didn't the Oldfield children have diarrhea every morning? Makes me wonder if they al drugged their children.

It would certainly be something to have bound them all together.

Christine wrote:

halfamo wrote:I'm not sure where i'm going with this just thinking aloud ,but maybe something went wrong ,best laid plans etc.Because in one sense there is a plan,then you have contradictions in their and the T7 statements.I think something went bums up but what i have no idea. AA

I'm inclined to think so too. If everything went according to plan, they wouldn't have made such a mess of it. Something along the way must have gone wrong. I think Jeremy Wilkins was the 'unplanned' factor.

I'm wondering where Gerry was heading when he bumped into Wilkins.I keep going back to reports that the alarm was raised before 10pm ,was'nt there a report that says Gerry was seen in the pool area searching before 10pm.What if he was'nt on his way back to the Tapas.

It seems rather odd that Mr Smith says he saw Gerry just before ten, Russell gets back to the dining table just before ten, and Kate supposedly raises the alarm at 10. Too many coincidences for me. In real life without any pre planning you do not get such immaculate coincidences of time. Given I feel Gerry is quite a control freak, I think he would have wanted things to go off like clockwork. Just to dissuade us a little from that idea, he gets his paid mouthpiece who now seems to have fell out of favour to tell us they had no mobiles and watches. That makes it even more extraordinary I never did see Gerry without a watch on, and I saw him even standing in the sea with his trusty mobile

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1563090/Madeleine-McCann-died-from-overdose.html

still there, not retracted , not sued upon !!!!!!

viv wrote:It seems rather odd that Mr Smith says he saw Gerry just before ten, Russell gets back to the dining table just before ten, and Kate supposedly raises the alarm at 10. Too many coincidences for me. In real life without any pre planning you do not get such immaculate coincidences of time. Given I feel Gerry is quite a control freak, I think he would have wanted things to go off like clockwork. Just to dissuade us a little from that idea, he gets his paid mouthpiece who now seems to have fell out of favour to tell us they had no mobiles and watches. That makes it even more extraordinary I never did see Gerry without a watch on, and I saw him even standing in the sea with his trusty mobile

Viv, IMO Gerry tried to get Maddie out of the apartment when he bumped in to Jeremy Wilkins. He put Maddie in the bushes (hence the dogs cadaver smell), talked to Wilkins, and took Maddie back in the apartment when Wilkins was out of sight. I think the original plan was to get rid of the body around 9. Plans had to be changed then, but Jane Tanner didn't know that. Maybe that's when the first search started, but was quickly silenced.