Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken

Having just seen this on twitter, it reminded me of just how impossible this scenario of Madeleine and twins being drugged. This part in particular makes my jaw drop, and I cannot believe a doctor would say that, and not get them checked out..... with your younger daughter missing, and you think she has been abducted, with all the panic going on, you would have the time to keep checking on the children who you thought may be drugged...........   




[snipped]

Asked if the twins had been drugged, she said on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour today: 'On the night I just remember the twins lying in the cot and not moving - with lights going on and people moving around.

'There was a lot of noise and they just didn't move and I remember several times checking for chest movements. I did feel it was a bit strange that they were not moving let alone waking up.


'I did consider with Madeleine perhaps she had been given something too.'







Kate McCann: I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken

By Daily Mail Reporter
Updated: 07:42, 13 May 2011

• McCanns hope book will raise £1m to be spent on hunt for Madeleine
  
  
• Parents say David Cameron has 'suffered his own loss as a father' as they make a personal plea for his assistance in hunt
  
  
• Downing Street responds, saying Government will do 'all it can to help'
  
  
  
• Maddie's siblings asked only yesterday: 'How tall is she now?'
  
  
• Mrs McCann: 'Kidnapper may have approached the night before snatching'
  
  
• She also revealed that she won't have any more children
  
  
• Husband says: 'As long as Maddie is missing, we will never give up search'
  
  
  

Kate McCann said the kidnapper who seized Madeleine may also have drugged her other two children, as she launched a new appeal in the hunt for her missing girl today.


Mrs McCann said she had to check that twins Sean and Amelie were still breathing because they did not wake as they began a frantic search for the missing three-year-old.


And the mother revealed she believes the man who snatched Maddie may have approached their Portuguese holiday flat the night before - but fled when he was disturbed.








She carried out a fresh round of media interviews today as she publishes a new book about her daughter's disappearance, called Madeleine.


Kate and husband Gerry hope sales will raise £1million to provide continued funding for their private investigation.








Asked if the twins had been drugged, she said on BBC Radio 4's Woman's Hour today: 'On the night I just remember the twins lying in the cot and not moving - with lights going on and people moving around.


'There was a lot of noise and they just didn't move and I remember several times checking for chest movements. I did feel it was a bit strange that they were not moving let alone waking up.



<img src="http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2011/05/12/article-1386093-00B4454B000004B0-400_306x616.jpg" height="616" width="306" alt="New outfit: Kate McCann writes that she admired Madeleine in her new pink outfit - but fears someone else did too" class="blkBorder"/>
New outfit: Kate McCann writes that she admired Madeleine in her new pink outfit - but fears someone else did too

'I did consider with Madeleine perhaps she had been given something too.'

Madeleine disappeared from her bed on May 3, 2007, during a family holiday in the Algarve, and has not been seen since.

The mother added the morning before Maddie vanished she had been crying and complained that she had not slept.


Mrs McCann said: 'I just think it is too much of a coincidence but I never thought for one moment that there was anything sinister.'


She added: 'When we discovered she had gone it seemed very likely that someone had tried the same thing the night before.'


Today, as the McCanns mark Madeleine's eighth birthday, Kate revealed that the missing girl's siblings Sean and Amelie asked only yesterday: 'How tall is Madeline now?'

As she held her husband's knee, she said on Daybreak this morning that the family still feel the presence of the missing girl four years on.

She said: 'Madeleine is everywhere, she is with us all the time and it was only yesterday that Sean and Amelie were asking "how tall is Madeline now?".

'I was trying to explain she will be a bit taller than you but a bit shorter than her best friend.'

And in a pre-recorded interview with the BBC, Madeleine's mother, a doctor, said that medics don't stop treating the sick if they cannot diagnose the condition.

She asked: 'Why is it with a missing child you can stop going?'

She revealed this morning that she does not intend to have any more children.

The McCanns fear that potentially vital information given to Portuguese and British police has been ignored, and are calling for an independent review of the case.




They have written to David Cameron calling for a 'transparent and comprehensive' review of all the information about their daughter's disappearance.

In their letter to the Prime Minister, published in The Sun, the McCanns wrote: 'One call might be all that is needed to lead to Madeleine and her abductor.


'To this end we are seeking a joint independent, transparent and comprehensive review of all information held in relation to Madeleine's disappearance.








'Thus far there has been no formal review of the material held by the police authorities.'

This afternoon they made a personal appeal to David Cameron to assist them.

Referring to the tragic death of the Prime Minister's son Ivan, Gerry told a London press conference: 'he has suffered his own loss' as a father.


A spokesman for David Cameron said he would do 'all he can' to assist the McCanns.

'The Prime Minister met Kate and Gerry McCann while he was Leader of the Opposition, and he has followed their plight very closely,' he said.


'He and the Home Secretary want to make sure the Government does all it can to help them'.

A Downing Street spokesman later added: 'We are considering what the McCanns have said and we will see if there is any more we can do. We want to help.'





In her new book, serialised in The Sun, Mrs McCann told of her fear that the ‘lovely’ sight of Madeleine in a new outfit may have tempted someone to kidnap her.

She said the pink smock top and shorts were bought specially for the family holiday in Praia da Luz.

Her final photo of her daughter shows her wearing the new outfit and sitting with Mr McCann, 42, and younger sister Amelie by the pool just hours before she disappeared.


In an extract from the book, Mrs McCann described Madeleine’s Monsoon shorts and Gap smock, saying: ‘A small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in them and I was right.’

She adds: ‘I was following her with my eyes admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same.’ 


Mrs McCann told The Sun that she and Gerry remain convinced their daughter is still alive, and cannot give up just because she has been missing for four years.


She said: ‘Certainly in my heart I feel she is out there. We’ve never given up on finding her. What parent would give up on their child?’





The McCanns insist there is no evidence to say Madeleine is dead, and so they have to assume she is not.

They have embarked on a marathon round of TV appearances to rekindle worldwide interest, including an hour-long interview with Piers Morgan, televised in the U.S. last night.


Mr and Mrs McCann cling to examples of children being returned home many years after going missing, such as American Jaycee Dugard, abducted at 11 in California and freed aged 18.


The couple have also drawn inspiration from meeting another girl, Elizabeth Smart, who was snatched from her home in Salt Lake City, Utah, at the age of 14 and found after a year.


Pre-order sales of Mrs McCann’s book mean it has already topped the bestseller list on Amazon.co.uk.

All profits will go to the Find Madeleine fund, which employs a team of private detectives to comb through clues, and funds a hotline to gather information.








In her book, Mrs McCann also reveals that her family nearly chose to holiday at Center Parcs in the UK before making the fateful decision to switch to the Algarve instead.


‘It was the first in a series of apparently minor decisions I would give anything to change now,’ she says.


During the CNN interview, the McCanns were asked why they had not hired a nanny to look after their three children while they went out for dinner with friends.


Mr McCann replied: ‘It’s not a question of money. Child abduction is so rare. It didn’t enter our head.’







http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1386093/Kate-McCann-Kidnapper-drugged-twins-night-Madeleine-taken.html

Yes, so concerned about their twins, they were dumped at the creche the next day.

More Kate brain leakage. It sounds to me, rereading all of this nonsense, that she bought the new outfit specifically so she could show Madeleine off at the resort. Now why would that be...?

Snipped from Candyfloss post above: As she held her husband's knee, she said on Daybreak this morning that the family still feel the presence of the missing girl four years on  is it just me or is that a ridiculous statement? Who holds their husband's knee in public nowadays?

Normally she would hold his thigh...or thereabouts.

Post being checked..

It's a classic case of misdirection by KM and I'd really like her to expand a little, wearing her trained anaesthetist hat and tell us which form of sedative the bungled burglars favoured. Did they rouse the children, administer sedative orally and then wait for it to take effect? That would account for the fact they did not notice any pungent smelli on their return. Did they happen to have chloroform, more complex to administer but an instant effect - but why then didn't they notice the lingering, pungent smell?

She has admitted IMO that the twins were sedated, now all she needs to do is give us a rational explanation of who administered it and what form of sedative was used.

Mr McCann replied: ‘It’s not a question of money. Child abduction is so rare. It didn’t enter our head.’

This is how the McCanns shoot themselves in the feet again and again in my opinion.

Kate in her book writes of how she thought that what they were doing - leaving the children alone and checking on them periodically - exposed them to no risk. This is quite clearly a nonsensical thing to say. It is true that the risk of abduction was probably the least likely scenario. But there were other more likely risks that they were exposed to by being left alone.

The greatest risk, logically speaking, would be that one of the children would wake up and be distressed that there was no known and trusted adult there to look after them. Why did the parents not carefully explain where they were, in the event of any of the children waking up, and how they could be contacted? While still negligent, imo, this at least would provide a means of communication. But they didn't even do that. They apparently didn't have their mobiles on them at dinner.

Yet we know, from Kate's book, that the creche had their mobile numbers during the day so they could be contacted. How is it logical that during the day, when the children are being well looked after by nannies in the safe creche environment and thereby exposed to very little risk, the parents still take the precaution of making sure they can be contacted? (I presume it was a requirement of the creche/mini club that the parents provide contact details in the event of an accident or in the event of the child becoming distressed.)

Yet at night, when the children are left alone in a strange apartment in a strange environment, there is no way for the children to contact them or to find them. And it was not 'like eating in your back garden' because if you are in your back garden the children can come and find you.

At the very least, why did they not leave a mobile near Madeleine and make sure she could make contact with one of the adults in the group who was carrying a mobile? How is it logical for none of the adults to have mobiles at dinner when their children are being left alone? They had them during the day when their children were being looked after? Yet don't have them when they are not being looked after?

Or why not use a baby monitor? That is just plain cruel. Of course it would be distressing for any of the children to wake up and find themselves alone in a strange apartment with no means of finding their parents. The McCann parents try to claim that Madeleine and Sean woke up and cried one evening but the following day Madeleine was not bothered by this. Again, this is illogical and defies any sense. It is simply not credible.

Nothing that they say makes sense.

If, as the parents both claim, they considered the risk of abduction to be so slight as to not consider it to be a risk, then why, on finding Madeleine not in the apartment, did both parents almost immediately claim she had been abducted? That is illogical. Within the space of a few moments, the parents go from child abduction not having entered their heads to child abduction being the only possible scenario.

That is just nonsense, as GM might say. It defies all logic.

And why does Kate write that: "I have always found the third suggestion insulting to our intelligence (the possibility that she had wandered off by herself") insulting to our intelligence, frankly."

Again, KM is talking complete nonsense, imo, and showing remarkably little intelligence. By her own admission, they left the three children alone without a babysitter or any means of contacting or finding their parents. This exposed the children to the risk of waking up and becoming distressed as they had effectively been left alone without responsible care. Logically, given this situation, you would expect one of more of the children, if they woke up, to become distressed. Logically, you might expect Madeleine to be very worried and scared and to try to get out of the apartment and find her parents.
This would be a logical thing for a nearly four-year old to do, given the situation she 'found herself in'. The twins were both in cots, which would mean they could not get out. Suppose one of them woke up and was distressed? Is Madeleine supposed to be the babysitter and go and comfort them? She would not be able to pick them out of their cots. The logical thing would be for her to want to go and find her parents.

So why is the suggestion that Madeleine left the apartment of her own accord 'insulting' to their intelligence?

Possibly because it is an intelligent suggestion, given how the children had been left alone?

How oh how have this pair got away with all this nonsense for so long?

A really good post poster, highlighting just how the McCanns were not at all child centred. A baby monitor makes sense, you could communicate using it. JT said that her daughter was used to the baby monitor and would communicate down it if necessary, alerting them to her being awake.

The twins were less safe in the cots than if they were in beds. If a child can walk and climb, leaving them for long periods in a travel cot is unsafe as if distressed, they could attempt to climb out, or an older child could attempt to lift them out. Travel cots come with explicit instructions that they are not safe for toddlers, if unsupervised.You also have hard, tiled floors - surfaces most British pre-schoolers are not used to at home and it's far more dangerous if you fall on a tiled floor.

There was, as you say, clearly no communication. The anecdote by KM that Madeleine  asked, "Where were you last night?" is revealing because the parents didn't feel the need to offer an explanation. I would never put myself in this situation, I'm too risk averse but at minimum I would have thought the parents would want  to investigate this comment because of they are truthful about doing half-hourly checks, that doesn't make sense.

 Another issue that crops up is the not locking of the doors, all of the tapas group, apart from the McCanns locked the doors on leaving the apartment. You have to ask, why didn't they do this? Whilst KM is quick to react in horror at the discovery the receptionist wrote a note to explain the group would be dining each night in the tapas because of their baby listening arrangements, she fails to acknowledge the casual way she left the apartment exposed by not locking it. Even worse, she claims they left the patio doors unlocked but a child gate was closed, with very steep steps behind, again meaning if Madeleine managed to open the patio doors and get out, she would have encountered further hazzards. 

Like you say, it is illogical. There was absolutely no risk assessment, no basic safety precautions made and not even basic communication with an articulate child who was almost four. On top of this you've got to add the star chart on the kitchen wall of the family home in Rothley, rewarding Madeleine for staying in her bed all night and the comment made by one of the relatives that Kate used Calpol to aid Madeleine's sleep. Are we somehow supposed to believe that a child who regularly left her bed at home would be less likely to do so in a foreign country, that she would somehow settle more easily? If so, why? Always with the McCanns, if you scratch beneath the surface you find things just don't stack up.

In her new book, serialised in The Sun, Mrs McCann told of her fear that the ‘lovely’ sight of Madeleine in a new outfit may have tempted someone to kidnap her.

She said the pink smock top and shorts were bought specially for the family holiday in Praia da Luz.

Her final photo of her daughter shows her wearing the new outfit and sitting with Mr McCann, 42, and younger sister Amelie by the pool just hours before she disappeared.


In an extract from the book, Mrs McCann described Madeleine’s Monsoon shorts and Gap smock, saying: ‘A small extravagance, perhaps, but I’d pictured how lovely she would look in them and I was right.’

She adds: ‘I was following her with my eyes admiring her. I wonder now, the nausea rising in my throat, if someone else was doing the same.’

I can't believe her book was serialized in the Sun! What a scam...

I wonder if this outfit really was on that holiday? Why does Kate include this detail? Given that I believe the 'last photo' to be as fake as they come, what is the significance of this outfit?

If the kiko theory has any merit, could it have been an outfit worn by another child? If it is true that the creche staff muddled up Madeleine with another child or even several other children? Certainly not impossible even if there was nothing suspicious going on. I do think that a couple of the creche signatures look very similar, though.

In other photos of Madeleine, she often looks to be quite scruffily dressed and unkempt. The 'playground' photo, for instance. It's interesting that Kate refers to this outfit as an 'extravagance.' Neither Monsoon or Gap is especially expensive and they often have sales when you can buy clothes at big discounts. This does reinforce me view, though, that neither Kate or Gerry liked spending money on their children. And I don't think either of them realize what is age-appropriate. For instance, in the context of not hiring babysitters, she writes: "Bringing up children - like all aspects of life - involves making hundreds of tiny and seemingly minor decisions every single day, balancing the temptation to mollycoddle them with the danger of being too laissez-faire."

I don't think there is any evidence that these parents 'mollycoddled' their children. On the contrary, a decision to leave them alone appears neglectful in the extreme. Most parents would not consider hiring a babysitter as 'mollycoddling'. It would be considered a necessity. I suspect both parents had pretty spartan childhoods, particularly GM who, according to Kate in her book, lived in a one-bedroom tenement with his four brothers and sisters and 'the occasional lodger'. That is spartan in the extreme - where did they all sleep? GM's father was away working a lot (I wonder if this is true - no wonder he was away, it can't have been much fun living in a one-bedroom tenement?) and his mother also worked intermittently so GM was often left with his elder siblings.

I think, given the above, it is not that surprising that the pair did not consider forking out for childcare to be a particular priority.

The question was raised recently as to whether the McCanns had a nanny who, at the last minute, was unable to go on holiday with them.

Is there any mention in the book of having one? She surely would have been mentioned if she existed.

Freedom wrote:The question was raised recently as to whether the McCanns had a nanny who, at the last minute, was unable to go on holiday with them.

Is there any mention in the book of having one? She surely would have been mentioned if she existed.

No, there is no mention of this in Kate's version of the truth as set out in her book - but you cannot rely on what is or is not in the book.

After dismissing the free evening creche as unsuitable as her children were in bed by the time it opened, she states she would not have left her children with a babysitter which neither she or they would have known. She does not point out that the nannies that minded the children in the day were available to babysit in the evenings. As it was early in the season it is highly unlikely that all the nannies were booked by other guests. She must have known they were available - probably it was mentioned at the welcome meeting, and it would have been in the Mark Warner brochure.

Hi poster - the Monsoon outfit is interesting as it looks like the sort of thing to be worn on a very warm, sunny day. It doesn't look like an outfit you would dress a small child in to go out on a boat in during the beginning of May. It also looks too nice for nursery where you are going to be potentially messy, using glue and paint and generally mucking about. I think it's strange she would wear her new outfit on a busy, active and very wet day with both a boat trip and a swim, she would want something warm for both of those activities. I think it's more probable, weather permitting, she would wear this on a non-creche day, perhaps the previous weekend? Madeleine looks less tired here than in the tennis photo. When KM talks about "a small extravagance" alarm bells ring for me. I remember talking to someone who worked in child protection who told me abusive and negligent parents invariably had very large portrait photographs of the child they were harming, on prominent display. I think for most parents, the outfits would be insignificant but for KM she is very proud of this extravagance, which is really sad.

I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
For 1] I haven't been able to find on the net these Monsoon & GAP outfits in 2007. Nor in 2006 or 2005 [hand-downs] ...
For 2] I know for SURE, that a 4-year-old girl wouldn't have waited for wearing new clothes until the quasi end of their holidays and would have screamed down the place, if she couldn't.
It's one of the many reasons, I think the photo is from Sunday and only the date has been altered.

Freedom wrote:The question was raised recently as to whether the McCanns had a nanny who, at the last minute, was unable to go on holiday with them.

Is there any mention in the book of having one? She surely would have been mentioned if she existed.

There was something in the paper definitely at the time, a lady interviewed who spoke of this nanny, long since whooshed of course. It was spoken of a lot on the forums in those days, here is one place where they discuss it briefly.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A9mSs3VETQ9ZP0QAO0BLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByZm5kMHEyBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--?qid=20070523051624AAXt9Zj&p=mccanns%20private%20nanny%20at%20home

Châtelaine wrote:I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
For 1] I haven't been able to find on the net these Monsoon & GAP outfits in 2007. Nor in 2006 or 2005 [hand-downs] ...
For 2] I know for SURE, that a 4-year-old girl wouldn't have waited for wearing new clothes until the quasi end of their holidays and would have screamed down the place, if she couldn't.
It's one of the many reasons, I think the photo is from Sunday and only the date has been altered.

Why should we assume Kate is telling the truth about where she bought Madeleine's clothes? She hasn't told the truth about anything else.

Could these be the shorts? Or something similar?
https://www.fashiola.co.uk/minnie-broderie-anglaise-cotton-shorts-227485699.html

Thanks!

What's_up_doc? wrote:A really good post poster, highlighting just how the McCanns were not at all child centred. A baby monitor makes sense, you could communicate using it. JT said that her daughter was used to the baby monitor and would communicate down it if necessary, alerting them to her being awake.

Agree - not just not child centred but they talk nonsense half the time. What they say simply doesn't make sense. Why not at least have taken a baby monitor and then pretended it malfunctioned on the night of the alleged abduction? It would make them look slightly less negligent. Slightly.

The twins were less safe in the cots than if they were in beds. If a child can walk and climb, leaving them for long periods in a travel cot is unsafe as if distressed, they could attempt to climb out, or an older child could attempt to lift them out. Travel cots come with explicit instructions that they are not safe for toddlers, if unsupervised.You also have hard, tiled floors - surfaces most British pre-schoolers are not used to at home and it's far more dangerous if you fall on a tiled floor.

I suspect that, despite what Kate writes in her book, the twins and Madeleine were not in the same room that week apart from Saturday night. As I think something had gone wrong by late Sunday night/early Monday morning. I know there has also been speculation about empty apartment 5C and about what might have happened at Burgau. I think it would be foolish to ignore the Gasper statements, irrespective of what might have happened this week.

There was, as you say, clearly no communication. The anecdote by KM that Madeleine  asked, "Where were you last night?" is revealing because the parents didn't feel the need to offer an explanation. I would never put myself in this situation, I'm too risk averse but at minimum I would have thought the parents would want  to investigate this comment because of they are truthful about doing half-hourly checks, that doesn't make sense.

You can see by the airport bus video that GM is quite detached from family life. He makes no attempt to engage and no-one seems in the least surprised by his behaviour, so it must be normal. This of course also applied to what the Gaspers observed on that holiday in Majorca. None of the other adults appeared shocked which might suggest that what they saw was normal behaviour.

Not only did the parents not offer an explanation but they did exactly the same thing the following evening by their own admission. This just beggars belief. Of course the whole story is full of fabrications but the point is that it appears not to occur to them how very negligent this makes them look. And also such bad liars, imo. Because their account of the crying incident in which Madeleine was not upset the next morning is just implausible.


 Another issue that crops up is the not locking of the doors, all of the tapas group, apart from the McCanns locked the doors on leaving the apartment. You have to ask, why didn't they do this? Whilst KM is quick to react in horror at the discovery the receptionist wrote a note to explain the group would be dining each night in the tapas because of their baby listening arrangements, she fails to acknowledge the casual way she left the apartment exposed by not locking it. Even worse, she claims they left the patio doors unlocked but a child gate was closed, with very steep steps behind, again meaning if Madeleine managed to open the patio doors and get out, she would have encountered further hazzards. 

There are hazards associated with locking doors as well as leaving doors unlocked. If the doors are locked, what if there had been a fire? I know Kate claims that Madeleine couldn't get out but this seems unlikely. A nearly four year old can easily negotiate a child gate a flight of stairs and various doors. Some are like escapologists! If unlocked it would mean that Madeleine could get out and encounter any number of hazards. Much less likely, it could mean that someone could enter and do harm to the children. Obviously, this is the McCann story - despite the fact that they claim they thought that the risk of an abduction was so low as to not being worth worrying about.

Like you say, it is illogical. There was absolutely no risk assessment, no basic safety precautions made and not even basic communication with an articulate child who was almost four. On top of this you've got to add the star chart on the kitchen wall of the family home in Rothley, rewarding Madeleine for staying in her bed all night and the comment made by one of the relatives that Kate used Calpol to aid Madeleine's sleep. Are we somehow supposed to believe that a child who regularly left her bed at home would be less likely to do so in a foreign country, that she would somehow settle more easily? If so, why? Always with the McCanns, if you scratch beneath the surface you find things just don't stack up.

Totally agree. It does make you wonder. At the least you would expect Kate, in her book, to have given a lengthy explanation about how she explained to Madeleine where they were each evening and how Madeleine could communicate with them in the event of anyone waking up or in the event of an accident. There is no such explanation. This is extraordinary and I think it indicates that the McCann children and perhaps other Tapas children were given help to get to sleep. Calpol isn't a sedative but obviously it will aid sleep if a child has a cold or is under the weather. I suspect they were given something stronger than Calpol.

canada12 wrote:

Châtelaine wrote:I've said this before, but I'll say it again:
For 1] I haven't been able to find on the net these Monsoon & GAP outfits in 2007. Nor in 2006 or 2005 [hand-downs] ...
For 2] I know for SURE, that a 4-year-old girl wouldn't have waited for wearing new clothes until the quasi end of their holidays and would have screamed down the place, if she couldn't.
It's one of the many reasons, I think the photo is from Sunday and only the date has been altered.

Why should we assume Kate is telling the truth about where she bought Madeleine's clothes? She hasn't told the truth about anything else.

Could these be the shorts? Or something similar?
https://www.fashiola.co.uk/minnie-broderie-anglaise-cotton-shorts-227485699.html

I think the clothes may have been worn by another child that week. Kate is 'landing someone in it' imo. A device much loved of TM. If the photo had been taken on the Sunday then why wait so long to release it? Also, I don't think the bougainvillea would have been in such bloom so early on in May given that the weather had been cold. And the water temperature in early May that year was freezing, according to Kate. It would not have been comfortable to be sitting at the pool edge with legs dangling in freezing water. Sunday of that week was not especially warm - no need to cool off with legs in freezing water.

I think a photograph of the pool area was taken later on in May and then, after GM returned to the UK, GM, Madeleine and Amelie were added. All of their poses look awkward. There is no engagement with the photographer apart from GM who looks quite manic, imo. It is the most peculiar photo.

I read this article today and I thought It was relevant to this thread, because it apoears the PJ thought KM was obsessed with sleep. It does seem that way, looking at her diary entries, so much of what she says focuses on the issue of sleep. It seems that after Madeleine's disappearance, the regimented routine of bed at 7.30 crumbles, understandably perhaps but it does make me wonder about the role sedation played in controlling sleep before this. Here is the article. It's quite short!

Original Source: ANTENA3: 11 SEPTEMBER 2008 Espejo Publico Madrid, 11.09.2008 | 11:39 h.

With thanks to Ines for translation

The 140 pages of the diary of Madeleine's mother, considered vital by the PJ for the investigation of the case, reflect a woman obsessed by her children's sleep, as well as an extreme concern to place the blame on Murat and by what she describes as "sloppiness" on the part of the Portuguese and British police.   "4th May. Barely having slept, I woke Amanda. Gerry and I began to search the streets at six in the morning when dawn began to break. We didn't find anything. I'm desperate".   These are the first words that Kate wrote in her diary. This is the Portuguese translation of this diary, that is not included in the case, which Maddie's mother began to write upon the suggestion of Philomena McCann, also following the advice of a psychologist.   Almost 140 pages in which Kate addresses Maddie with sentences such as: "We have to keep looking, we have to find you, sweetheart. I love you Madeleine".   An essential document in the police's view in order to define Kate's profile as a mother. Analysed by police psychologists, the different sentences of the diary show the facet of a caring and patient mother that contrast with other notes that reflect what the officers define as Kate's other face: the mother, extremely exhausted by caring for three children whom she daily takes to the Ocean Club crèche, before and after the disappearance.   A mother obsessed by her children's sleep, noted in expressions such as these: "Sean slept with us for most of the night after half an hour of hysteria at 12.30". Or on another page: "I tried to take Sean and Amelie to bed at 9.30, but it became very late again, especially with Amelie".   A week later she notes in her diary: "Sean and Amelie's biological clocks have altered. They go to bed later and get up later. They seem to have become Portuguese!" The investigators are surprised that Maddie's mother writes details such as these: "Sean and Amelie in their beds (with blankets) after the confusion of the last seven days". Why this obsession with the time and the way of getting the children to sleep? Why does Kate note the detail of the blankets? These are some of the investigators' questions.

candyfloss wrote:

Freedom wrote:The question was raised recently as to whether the McCanns had a nanny who, at the last minute, was unable to go on holiday with them.

Is there any mention in the book of having one? She surely would have been mentioned if she existed.

There was something in the paper definitely at the time, a lady interviewed who spoke of this nanny, long since whooshed of course.  It was spoken of a lot on the forums in those days, here is one place where they discuss it briefly.

https://answers.yahoo.com/question/index;_ylt=A9mSs3VETQ9ZP0QAO0BLBQx.;_ylu=X3oDMTByZm5kMHEyBGNvbG8DaXIyBHBvcwM3BHZ0aWQDBHNlYwNzcg--?qid=20070523051624AAXt9Zj&p=mccanns%20private%20nanny%20at%20home

I don't think the comments on that links establish a nanny. From what I can gather the childminding arrangements when at home were - the children were in a nursery some of the time, the cleaner also did some childminding and kate who worked part-time had some child minding duties; and Gerry did damn all! And perhaps Granny Healy helped on occasion.

I don't see Gerry paying a salary for a nanny together with employers NHI contributions....A nanny normally means someone with childcare qualifications who is an employee of the family with the costs that involves. Much cheaper to have a childminder who is 'off the books' and paid cash - even better if she is also your cleaner and maybe doesn't even get a higher hourly rate because she watches the children while she hoovers?

What's_up_doc? wrote:It's a classic case of misdirection by KM and I'd really like her to expand a little, wearing her trained anaesthetist hat and tell us which form of sedative the bungled burglars favoured. Did they rouse the children, administer sedative orally and then wait for it to take effect? That would account for the fact they did not notice any pungent smelli on their return. Did they happen to have chloroform, more complex to administer but an instant effect - but why then didn't they notice the lingering, pungent smell?

She has admitted IMO that the twins were sedated, now all she needs to do is give us a rational explanation of who administered it and what form of sedative was used.

WHAT GERRY McCANN TOLD POLICE (the night in question )
Gerry told police: "When I arrived at the apartment I was surprised to see that Kate had taken care of the children and had even had a shower.
"At 7.15pm we put them to sleep.” Not to Bed ?

That is an unfortunate expression, being a euphemism for what vets do with animals when they are beyond help.

Does anyone here ever say it in relation to children?

I might say "settle down to sleep" but never "put to sleep".

Is the quote 100% accurate?

‘At 7.15 we put them to sleep’

As it stands that reads like a vet referring to putting down animals

But if he said

‘at 7.15 we had them asleep’

or

‘at 7.15 we put them down to sleep’

then the situation IMO is different.

Saying we had them asleep implies to me that the parents had read stories, relaxed the children by chatting about the day etc and therefore the children had gone off to sleep naturally

To 'put down to sleep' is quite different in meaning to 'put them to sleep.'

If the quote is 100% correct then it may well be significant.