In this study we attempt
to answer three questions
1 Were the twins sedated
on the night of 3rd May 2007?2 If so, were they sedated by an intruder ?
3 If so, but not by an intruder, then by whom ?
The question of sedation
of the three McCann children
is one which has caused problems since
the very beginning.
Reported facts.
Around 10 pm 3rd May 2007
Kate McCann entered the apartment in the holiday resort and reported
Madeleine missing. The younger twins were still in their travel cots
in the same room, and were asleep.
What followed is a matter
of public record. The apartment was searched, several times, by many
people, the surrounding area was searched by large numbers of police
and ex-pats and villagers, and huge amount of activity was directed
to discovering Madeleine’s whereabouts. All were in vain.
BUT . . . during all of
this commotion - despite a window and
shutters having been open (soi-disant) for an hour on a cold night, the door slamming
shut, curtains blowing
into the room, their mother
frantically opening and closing wardrobes and cupboards, their mother
rushing out screaming for help, the entire Tapas
7 group searching throughout the apartment (non), Kate (non) and the
Tapas group shouting Madeleine’s name outside, Gerry McCann’s
closing and opening the shutters multiple times, Dianne Webster’s
similarly attempting to open the shutters but failing, the Police
investigating the scene, Gerry’s
“roaring like a lion” and then prostrating himself on the floor, both parents
repeating this action and wailing, Kate’s checking
the twins for vital signs, the twins being
lifted from their cots by people not their parents, and their being
carried out into the cold night air, and to another apartment.
Despite all of this . . .
the twins did not wake.
Kate McCann stated 13.05.2011 that she had suspected sedation from the very first. Given the above perhaps this is understandable. In "Madeleine", which she described as “A Version of the Truth”, she says this explicitly.
3 May 2007 (NOTE: this information was not released until May 2011) p. 75 “Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins, too ?” She also reported this to the Officer in the case.3 August 2007 (NOTE: this information was not released until June 2008)
“due to which she now presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to be able to abduct Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible . .” Voir le rapport de R. Paiva qui se réfère à août 2007.
The McCanns then
organised their own drug tests on 24 September. Forensic scientist from
Control Risks take hair samples from Kate and the twins at the
McCanns’ own request.
Family member was ‘allowed’ to release this to the press. 02 October 2007 “Madeleine was drugged by her abductor”, says her grandmother.
Mais, dans le premier cas, il s'agit de contrer les soupçons des Portugais quant à la sédation légère d'enfants hyperactifs, alors que, dans le second, il s'agit d'insinuer que l'hypothétique ravisseur a drogué 3 enfants pour en prendre 1.
Gerry McCann reconfirms their suspicions in Panorama, 19 Nov. 2007
Family member was ‘allowed’ to release this to the press. 02 October 2007 “Madeleine was drugged by her abductor”, says her grandmother.
Mais, dans le premier cas, il s'agit de contrer les soupçons des Portugais quant à la sédation légère d'enfants hyperactifs, alors que, dans le second, il s'agit d'insinuer que l'hypothétique ravisseur a drogué 3 enfants pour en prendre 1.
Gerry McCann reconfirms their suspicions in Panorama, 19 Nov. 2007
The twins were still sleeping in the their cots so . . . we tried to leave it as undisturbed as possible, and they slept very soundly until we moved them out their cots into another apartment . . which does make you wonder if there was [sic] any substances used to keep them asleep.
Independent witnesses (les officiers de liaison) report and confirm the McCanns’ suspicions - 25 April 2008 (referring
to early May 2007)
They also wanted to know
whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person
who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the
abduction. Outre le témoignage de Stephen Markley, il y a celui de Jim McGarvey, ici.11.04.2008 ROG - Diane Webster : Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something. . .
Q: “So how would you imagine that they may have been drugged?”
DW: Err by the abductor. I think Madeleine would have been drugged as well.
10.04.2008 ROG Fiona Payne: But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird . . . they didn’t wake up and, again, that was quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people that weren’t their parents, they didn’t, they didn’t wake up.
Their own private detectives make a statement 11 Oct. 2009. David Edgar and Arthur Cowley are convinced the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children. The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged.
And just before the release of her book ‘Madeleine’, Kate says she believes they were drugged. 13 May 2011 :
I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken. 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. [1.12]
Those then are the facts
relating to the McCanns’ belief in sedation of the twins, and by
extension, of Madeleine.
NOTE
Levels of sedation are
assessed according to the The Ramsay Sedation Scale. RSS. This was
the first scale to be defined for sedated patients and was designed
as a test of rousability. The RSS scores sedation at six different
levels, according to how rousable the patient is. It is an
intuitively obvious scale and therefore lends itself to universal
use, not only in the ICU, but wherever sedative drugs or narcotics
are given. It can be added to the pain score and be considered the
sixth vital sign.
1 Patient is anxious and agitated or restless, or both
2 Patient is cooperative, oriented and tranquil
3 Patient responds to commands only
4 Patient exhibits brisk response to light glabellar (forehead) tap or loud auditory stimulus
5 Patient exhibits a sluggish response to light glabellar tap or loud auditory stimulus
6 Patient exhibits no response
The twins are clearly in
point 6 on the scale. They are failing to respond to external
stimuli, cold, light, noise - including screaming, the inevitable
jolting of the cots placed so close together in a small room during
the search and window / shutter procedures, human touch, being picked
up by person other than their own parents, and so on. [1.14]
We should remember that
Kate McCann and Fiona Payne are both qualified anaesthetists. Even a
non qualified parent should recognise the difference between a child
which was merely asleep, and one that was sedated. or unconscious. We
return to this aspect in the third question.
So to restate the
original question - were the twins sedated ?
The reply must surely be,
that having regard to all the available evidence, we can confirm the
parents’ and witnesses original and subsequent thoughts and say
that on the balance of probabilities - the twins Amelie and Sean
McCann were sedated
2 Were the twins sedated
by an “intruder”
Medical note for
non-medical readers
There are five routes for the administration of sedation.
There are five routes for the administration of sedation.
Injection, inhalation of
gas, or by mouth are the most common three.
Absorption per rectum or
per vaginam are possible, but specialised and rare.
All methods require some
co-operation on the part of the patient.
* Injection of three
small children without raising the alarm is almost unthinkable.
Intra-muscular injections take between 3 and 15 minutes to work.
Intravenous injection is difficult. (Paediatric anaesthetics is a
specialised subject: finding a vein is more difficult than with an
adult )
Injection of three
children, in turn, in silence, is a suggestion which is difficult to
accept by anyone with experience of children.
* Administration of
sedative by mouth would require all three to be at least half awake,
so they could sit up to drink and swallow, and in any event drugs
taken in this way require time to act. The fastest acting such drugs
in regular use take around 20 minutes to begin acting.
Each child, in turn,
would need to have the drug administered.
* Anaesthetic gas
requires equipment for its effective administration, and leaves a
distinctive smell. The classic “filling the room with chloroform”
, or other gas exists only in Victorian novels, and in any event
would overcome the intruder himself, unless he had breathing
equipment, in addition to the equipment for administering to the
children. (It would incidentally also require the window and door to
be shut ! ) Even properly administered gas inhalation normally
requires time, measured in minutes, before sedation begins.
Again, each child would
have to be sedated in turn.
Because it has been
raised, we must briefly consider the McCanns’ principal private
detectives, Edgar and Cowley, and their statement that chloroform was
used on all three children. [2.1}
Chloroform is the stuff
of Victorian melodrama, and like ether has no place in modern medical
practice. It has a distinctive sweet smell that lingers for a very
long time. Inhalation of the vapour gives an ice-cold feeling that
can cause immediate vomiting. Any doctor, and indeed any O level
chemistry student knows and can immediately identify chloroform. The
liquid produces burn marks on the sensitive skin round the nose and
mouth, [2.2]
What is interesting is
that the McCanns have allowed this suggestion to remain in the public
consciousness, and have never corrected the impression given. Even
less have they specifically repudiated the possibility of the use of
chloroform. Matthew Oldfield was asked in detail about any unusual
smell in the apartment when he entered. He stated he detected
nothing. [2.3]
As on commentator has
aptly said, an intruder would need nothing more than a bottle of
chloroform, a rag, and a kidney dish for the vomit. [2.4]
Given a sufficiently
heavy dose a child could be unconscious in 15 seconds.
But importantly it would
start to wake immediately the anaesthesia were stopped. It would
wake, cry, and probably vomit. It would NOT remain comatose for three
or more hours, then drift into normal sleep, and then wake the next
morning with no after effects. [2.5]
Observation
Jane Tanner’s
description of the “abductor’ did not include anaesthetic
equipment or gas cylinders, nor even a backpack in which they might
be carried, and nothing was found in the apartment or the immediate
surrounding area.
3. The “Window of
Opportunity”
The window of opportunity
for an intruder has been discussed in another study. This is a
straightforward assessment based on the times taken from Gerry
McCann’s leaving the Tapas bar, walking to the apartment, entering,
seeing the children, completing the tasks he reports, and then
leaving by the patio doors. Jane Tanner who left the table five
minutes later by her own account, saw him talking to Jez Wilkins the
street a few seconds before she saw the person who the McCanns now
insist was the ‘abductor’ of Madeleine. [2.6]
Allowing for the time to
exit the apartment and cross the car park to the point where he was
seen, gives the window of opportunity inside the apartment of around
1 minute and 20 seconds.
In that time he has to
• Enter the apartment
• Sedate all three children - in the dark
• Select Madeleine as the victim - in the dark
• Open the shutters and
window - if he used the front door to enter• Enter the apartment
• Sedate all three children - in the dark
• Select Madeleine as the victim - in the dark
• Pick Madeleine out of her bed - in the dark
• Turn her round so that her head is now to his left, rather than to his right, which is the way he would have approached her in the bed.
• Exit the apartment, either through the opened window and shutters, or through the front door, which he must then close silently behind him.
and then
• Walk to the left
along the path in front of the apartment, walk straight ahead across
the car park, and then walk to the right along the road, and cross
the street in front of Jane Tanner, the father of the very child he
had just abducted, and another man who has his own child in a buggy.We repeat, taking into account the travelling time, he has around one minute and twenty seconds in which to achieve the first seven items on the list
• No equipment or paraphernalia was found.
• There was no smell of anaesthetic gas
• Two children aged 2 years were left comatose for 10 hours
* When they woke no after effects were recorded. [2.7]
So far as can be
ascertained - there is NO substance or technique known to medical
science which can do this.
So to restate the
original question - were the twins sedated by an intruder ?
The answer must be, that
having regard to all the available evidence, we can surely say that
on the balance of probabilities - the twins Amelie and Sean
McCann were not sedated by an intruder.
In fact the evidence and
logic is such that this conclusion moves on the legal continuum a
long way from merely “On the balance of probabilities” and very
much further towards “Beyond a reasonable doubt”.
4. If the twins were
sedated, but not by an ‘intruder”, then by whom ?
Specifically we must ask
whether the parents were involved
This is a more
problematic issue. The parents clearly now accept that the twins were
sedated, and if they wish to deny the second answer will have to draw
on their medical and expert anaesthetic knowledge to show why that
conclusion is wrong, how it might have achieved, and what substance
or technique might have been used.
In the absence of such an
explanation, however, it is surely justifiable to continue to examine
some features of this extraordinary case.
The McCanns have wavered between initial acceptance, through a period of stout denial during which they aggressively threatened to sue, and ultimately back to a clear statement that they now believe the children were indeed sedated.
The McCanns have wavered between initial acceptance, through a period of stout denial during which they aggressively threatened to sue, and ultimately back to a clear statement that they now believe the children were indeed sedated.
This is part of the
genesis of the story. It repeats some of what was seen earlier.
Initial recognition and
acceptance
3 May 2007 (NOTE: this
information was not released until May 2011)
p. 75 “Had Madeleine
been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet ? Had the twins,
too ?” [3.1]
5 May 2007 (NOTE:
statement dated 25 April 2008)
“They also wanted to
know whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the
person who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the
abduction.” [3.2]
3 August 2007 (NOTE: this
information was not released until June 2008)
“due to which she now
presumes that they were under the effect of some sedative drug that a
presumed abductor had administered to the three children in order to
be able to abduct
Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible . .” [3.3] - August 2007
Madeleine, a situation which Kate refers to being possible . .” [3.3] - August 2007
Q: Do you think the
children were sedated?
A: There is no doubt.
(Here he told an anecdote: that Kate called a colleague of Gonçalo
Amaral's in the PJ, in August, to ask them to check the twins for
traces of sedation. Apparently Kate was alone when she called, and a
bit upset. That same afternoon, Gerry called and cancelled the
request.) [3.4]
First denials that the
parents had used sedation - August 2007
See previous entry. “That
same afternoon, Gerry called and cancelled the request.” [3.5]10 August 2007 ( or
thereabouts)
Gerry: “you know we’re
not gonna comment, on anything but you know there is absolutely no
way we use any sedative drugs or anything like that an’ you know we
we have co-operated with the police we’ll answer any queries ermm …
any tests that they want to do. . . “ [3.6]
Implied acceptance of
possibility
24 September 2007
Forensic scientist from
Control Risks take hair samples from Kate and the twins at the
McCanns’ own request [3.7]2 October 2007
“Madeleine was drugged by her abductor”, says her grandmother [3.8]
Resumed denials
20 October 2007
Scientific tests now
support the denials by Gerry and Kate McCann that they ever sedated
their children, it emerged yesterday. [3.9]
25 Oct. 2007
The McCanns, of Rothley,
Leics, were asked if reports that they sedated their children were
true. Cardiologist Gerry replied:
It is ludicrous. These sort of questions are nonsense and we shouldn't be giving them the time of day. There is absolutely no suggestion that Madeleine, or the children, were drugged. It's outrageous. [3.10]
Oprah Winfrey "And then, there were the... the hurtful rumours that you drugged Madeleine or that you gave her sedatives; that you accidentally caused her... her death..."
KM: (After a long pause) "I mean we know it's all lies."
GM: "It's just nonsense you know, there's no... that people can have theories and that's all it is, there's no evidence to suggest any of that and it's absolute ludicrous, you know, and it's..." [3.11]
Second acceptance of
possibility - 19 Nov. 2007
Gerry McCann: The twins were still sleeping in the their cots so . . . we tried to leave it as undisturbed as possible, and they slept very soundly until we moved them out their cots into another apartment . . which does make you wonder if there was [sic] any substances used to keep them asleep. [3.12]
Independent Witnesses - 25 April 2008 (referring
to early May 2007)
They also wanted to know
whether the PJ had any evidence that would suggest that the person
who took Madeleine had used any substance to facilitate the
abduction. [3.13]
5 Nov. 2007 Diane Webster - Fiona
Payne’s mother:
Err the twins were still asleep in the cot and I, with all the noise going on I don’t know how they slept through it which makes me think there was, they must have been err drugged with something.” . . .“So how would you imagine that they may have been drugged?”
“Err by the abductor. I think Madeleine would have been drugged as well. [3.14]
10 April 2008 - Fiona Payne:
But they were okay, I mean, they were fine, they didn’t, they were asleep, but at the time it did seem weird . . . they didn’t wake up and, again, that was quite strange, even in the transfer and, and being handled by people that weren’t their parents, they didn’t, they didn’t wake up. [3.15]
NOTA BENE: July 2008
Documents in the case
including witness statements were released to the public. At this
point Diane Webster’s and Fiona Payne’s statements (above) became
public knowledge, and may have been seen by the McCanns for the first
time.
Public statements that it
MUST have happened 11 Oct. 2009
Former police detectives
David Edgar and Arthur Cowley . . . are convinced
the abductor went to the family’s apartment on May 3 2007 fully prepared with sufficient drugs, probably chloroform, to knock out all three children. The fact that Sean and Amelie, then just 18 months old, failed to wake when the alarm was raised, nor even as they were taken to another apartment in the cold night air, has persuaded the detectives that they, too, must have been drugged. [3.16
13 May 2011 - Kate McCann:
I believe kidnapper drugged my twins on the night Madeleine was taken. 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. [3.17]
How then are we to make
sense of this ?
Firstly we note that on
occasion the question being asked is whether the children were
sedated, but the McCanns answer a totally different one. The parents
deny sedating the children themselves, but often do not address the
question of whether they were sedated by someone else.
Some forensic linguistics
analysts have proffered views on why this might happen.
It is also striking that
we are never told of the laboratory which performed the analysis on
the hair samples, we are never shown the results, and in fact we have
to turn to an Indian newspaper to find these details. Here it is
stated that a company called TrichoTest performed the analysis.
[3.18] [3.19]
And yet even then we have
this strange passage,
“All the hair samples
produced negative results. While this didn’t totally exclude the
possibility that the children had been sedated, especially given the
time that had elapsed, it meant nobody else (including the PJ and the
media) could prove otherwise.” [3.20]
The emphasis is not on
the twins’ welfare or whether some noxious substance had been
administered. Kate McCann is purely concerned with whether there is
sufficient “proof” against the parents. But at the same time she
is by implication admitting that the twins might have been sedated.
There are other bizarre
aspects of the hair analysis. Laboratories advertise their ability
for analyse for a period of 90 days. The McCanns’ samples were not
taken until 24th September, almost six months = 144 days later.
Although it is possible at that stage to test for continuous drug
use, it is not believed in any event that a single dose of a drug,
given in the tiny amount appropriate to a 2 year old would be
sufficient for successful identification on analysis.
Kate describes the
process as leaving her looking as it she had alopecia. [3.21] The
laboratories state they need one sample taken from close to the
scalp, no larger than “a shoelace tip” [3.22] Whilst this may
simply be “journalistic licence” to evoke sympathy from the
reader, or to add some human interest, that could be accepted if the
book were not described as “very truthful”.
In each of the statements made by the MC in
relation to the continued sleeping of the twins through the entire
episode, and the possibility of sedation there is precisely -
NOTHING.
The whole issue is simply
side-stepped. Even in the book it is glossed over
p. 75 I wandered into the children’s bedroom several times to check on Sean and Amelie. They were both lying on their fronts in a kind of crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked under their tummies. In spite of the noise and lights and general pandemonium, they hadn’t stirred. They’d always been sound sleepers, but this seemed unnatural. Scared for them, too, I placed the palms of my hands on their backs to check for chest movement, basically, for some sign of life. Had Madeleine been given some kind of sedative to keep her quiet? Had the twins, too? It was not until about 11.10pm that two policemen arrived from the nearest town, Lagos, about five miles away. To me they seemed bewildered and out of their depth, and I couldn’t shake the images of Tweedledum and Tweedledee out of my head. I realise how unfair this might sound, but with communication hampered by the language barrier and precious time passing, their presence did not fill me with confidence at all. [3.23]
There are some strange
and worrying aspects to this extract. The use of “wandered”
as a verb of motion during this frantic phase of a search for a
missing child. On the previous and
adjacent pages we find ”Yelled”, “hitting out at things”,
“banging my fists on the railings”, ” running from pillar to
post”, “ran back”, “dashed over”., “throwing open”
“hurtling out” “started screaming”,” was hysterical”,
“sprinted back” and many other more intensely active verbs
clearly carefully selected to give a real impression of terror, speed
and urgency. [3.24]
Here we are given
“wandered into the bedroom” as the verbal phrase defining the
action of the mother of a missing child checking that her two
remaining children who she suspected had been anaesthetised, were
still alive ! [3.25]
A number of other points
surely present themselves for further comment.
• The strange way in
which the children were lying,. Though this position is in itself not
unusual, there is the fact that both were lying in the same way
• The fact that
“despite the noise and pandemonium they hadn’t stirred” still
less woken.
• Kate describing this
as “unnatural”.
• Kate placing the
palms of hands on their backs, to check for “chest movement”.
• Her chilling use of
the phrase “. . .basically, for sign of life”
• Her thoughts “Had
the twins too [been given some kind of sedative] ?”
For many people this
passage will sound quite extraordinary. Doctors, nurses, police
officers, ambulance crews, fire officers, paramedics, St John
Ambulance staff, and many others are taught in their basic training
about the importance of rousing people. Drunks, drug addicts, people
with head injuries, and those who have suffered smoke inhalation are
roused, and in some cases are to be shaken into consciousness.
Failure to rouse a patient should lead to immediate medical
assistance being sought, or transportation to the nearest casualty
department.
Failure regularly to
rouse someone in a police cell is a very serious disciplinary
offence, the penalty for which may be dismissal from the service.
But we are told that a
qualified anaesthetist merely “. . placed the palms of my hands on
their backs to check for chest movement, basically, for some sign of
life”. [3.26]
The Royal College of
Nursing is quite clear about this.
In “Standards for
assessing, measuring and monitoring vital signs in infants, children
and young people - RCN guidance for children’s nurses and nurses
working with children and young people”
they say, very simply
Infants and children less than six to seven years ofage are predominantly abdominal breatherstherefore, abdominal movements should be counted.
They emphasise “the
particular vulnerability of infants and young children to rapid
physiological deterioration”
And later discussing
recovery room protocols
• following a simple
procedure – vital signs should be recorded every 30 minutes for two
hours, then hourly for two to four hours until the child is fully
awake, eating and drinking. [3.27]
When we add to this the
curious way the children were lying, on their fronts in a kind of
crouch, with their heads turned sideways and their knees tucked under
their tummies.“ which clearly must restrict the abdominal breathing
in a child of that age, the failure by either of the parents or the
other qualified anaesthetist present to modify this posture is very
difficult to understand.
Levels of sedation are
assessed according to the Ramsay Sedation Scale (RSS)
1 Patient is anxious and
agitated or restless, or both
2 Patient is cooperative,
oriented and tranquil
3 Patient responds to
commands only
4 Patient exhibits brisk
response to light glabellar (forehead) tap or loud auditory stimulus
5 Patient exhibits a
sluggish response to light glabellar tap or loud auditory stimulus
6 Patient exhibits no
response [3.28]
The twins are clearly in
point 6 on the scale. They are failing to respond to external
stimuli, cold, light, noise - including screaming, the inevitable
jolting of the cots placed so close together in a small room during
the search and window / shutter procedures, human touch, and then
being picked out of their cots by persons not their parents, taken
outdoors into the dark and cold air, into the light and warmth of a
neighbouring apartment, where they are placed in different cots.
it is hard to believe
that neither parent would have picked them up, but there is no
evidence that they did. It is also worthy of note that Dr. Fiona
Payne was with Kate McCann at this time. It seems no one was with the
twins. Although it is capable of
interpretation this piece is placed in the narrative of the book
around 11:00pm, an hour after the discovery. It is placed between the
incident when both Kate and Fiona Payne shout “something short and
to the point” at Mrs Fenn, and the arrival of the police at
11:10pm. [3.29]
Kate herself states
p. 74 “He’d [Gerry
had] asked Fiona to stay with me. I was in our bedroom, on my knees
beside the bed, just praying and praying and praying. . . “ [3.30]
The next paragraph talks
of Kate’s “sitting on the bed” whilst Emma Knights from Mark
Warner came in, and then goes on to talk about Kate’s being out on
the veranda when another woman appeared, and so on.
In other words neither
doctor was in the twins’ room performing any clinical checks for
vital signs, or carrying out any procedures for rousing them. Both doctors, each of
whom is a qualified anaesthetist, failed to address the simplest but
the most important questions. Why can they not be
roused ? And then - Given that they cannot be
roused, what procedure, and/or what substance has been used to
sedate these two children to this extent ? We now know that any
sedation must have been administered within 1 minute and 20 seconds,
in a narrow time window between Gerry McCann’s leaving the
apartment, and Jane Tanner’s seeing the abductor carrying
Madeleine, so obviously the substance was extremely fast acting, and
very powerful.
The two anaesthetists did
not have that information, but must nevertheless have believed that
sedation had occurred within the previous half hour between
Oldfield’s visit and Kate’s. So what precisely did the
two qualified anaesthetists assume had been used, and how did they
suppose it had been administered ? Why did they accept that
the dosage had been exactly correct for children of this age and size
? Was it still being
absorbed and was the level in the tissues still increasing ? Were
they coming round, or were they drifting into even deeper level of
unconsciousness, coma, and possible death ? What were the likely or
possible side effects - vomiting, breathing difficulties, lung
congestion, ventricular or atrial fibrillation, brain damage, liver
or kidney failure, or any of the many other possible sequelae that
both will have studied at length and been examined on in detail. What precisely did they
identify or diagnose?
Medical Note for
non-medical readers - shortened
There are five routes for
the administration of sedation.* Injection
* By mouth
* Inhalation of anaesthetic gas
being the three most usual.
Observation
Jane Tanner’s description of the “abductor’ did not include anaesthetic equipment or gas cylinders, nor even a back pack in which they might be carried, and nothing was found in the apartment or the immediate surrounding area.
Reminder
The McCanns, and many of their Tapas7 friends are medically trained.
Both Dr. Kate McCann and Dr. Fiona Payne are trained to a high standard in anaesthetics.In fact both were Junior Registrars.
Their continued
insistence on sedation by an ‘intruder’ as a viable proposition,
when combined with the unambiguous admission in their statements, in
interviews, and in the book, of clearly defined professional
negligence in their manifest failure to provide, or even consider,
any form of resuscitation or aftercare, is baffling.
But these qualified
anaesthetists simply put a palm on a child’s back, or a finger
under its nose, (according to Dr Fiona Payne). There is no record of
whether each child was turned, undressed and examined minutely for
needle stick marks, or had its mouth, nose and throat cleared or
checked for the presence of a chloroform soaked rag, had its breath
smelled for evidence of drugs, gas or ketones, had its pupil response
monitored, had its heart rate taken, had other reflexes tested, or
was roused until fully conscious. These would be standard procedures.
There is no record of
proper and medically correct post-anaesthesia care. None. Nothing.
On the contrary, what
evidence there is points to the twins’ having simply been left for
a considerable period unattended, and then some two hours later
scooped up out of their travel cots, in the bedclothes in which they
slept, and being carried, still sleeping, out into the cold night air
and round to an adjacent apartment where they were again left to
sleep. [3.31]
Neither doctor performed
any of the usual and medically required tests or procedures
appropriate to recovery from anaesthesia. It is a matter of record
that the twins were not taken to a hospital for assessment.
On the facts therefore
the doctors were in serious and negligent breach of a whole series of
medical protocols for which people have been struck off the register.
[3.32]
And even more strangely,
they have admitted this in statements and in the book. They have made
no attempt to suggest that they acted correctly.
If we rely purely on what
they have said, we find that it is corroborated by independent
witnesses, and it leads to the following conclusion -
They would be guilty of a
most serious breach of professional standards, so serious that
striking off the Medical Register would be appropriate.
We are given many
instances in her own book of Kate McCanns’ loss of control, kicking
out at inanimate objects, hitting railings with her fists, throwing
herself on the floor, wailing and so on. We are however also given
clear examples where she was not acting in this way, being more calm
and professionally purposeful, going out into the street to see what
was happening, having a blunt discussion with a witness in the
apartment above, “wandering” into the twins’ room, and
ultimately “keeping vigil” in total silence for the rest of the
night. [3.33]
However, it must be said
• For a normal
distressed and anxious parent to behave in this way towards two
apparently anaesthetised children would be unforgivable.
• For an educated
professional person it would be grossly negligent.
• For two qualified
anaesthetists it is absolutely unthinkable.
If we find that it is
indeed unthinkable, then we must wish to believe that their actions
were not negligent, that they were not in breach of any protocols,
and that their apparent lack of action does not bear any negative
interpretation.
But for that to be true
they would have to have known precisely why the twins were
unconscious, what substance had been administered, in what dose, by
whom, and when.
And they have always
denied this.
But despite that, and to
address the original question, having regard to the available
evidence, we may be tempted to take the charitable view, and to
conclude that, on the balance of probabilities, the parents may have been
involved in the sedation of the twins.
PLEASE NOTE: I am fully
aware that this logical progression may offend, and that lawyers may
wish to say it is defamatory.
If so, I not only
apologise unreservedly and withdraw it, but on receipt of any
complaint of defamation will immediately refer the matter to the GMC,
with a view to the striking off the Medical Register of
Dr Fiona Payne and Dr
Kate Healy / McCann.
The GMC is the proper
authority in matters of this nature.
This is not a matter for
legal argument.
It is a question of
professional competence.
What was the weather on
the evening of Thursday 3rd May 2007. We examine an interesting
anomaly.
On Thursday 3rd May 2007
Madeleine and the twins are prepared for bed.
p. 68 “I took them all into their bedroom. Madeleine got into her bed and then Amelie, Sean and I settled ourselves on top of it, with our backs against the wall, for our final story.” [1]
Madeleine is now in bed.
p. 69 Then we kissed the twins, and kissed Madeleine, already snuggled down with her ‘princess’ blanket and Cuddle Cat – a soft toy she’d been given soon after she was born and never went to bed without. [2]
Madeleine is not only in
bed, but “snuggled down” This carries a very recognisable
connotation in English. Snuggle - To settle or move into a warm
comfortable position. You can snuggle into something, or under
something. The connotation implies a nest, and all enveloping warmth.
The word “nestle” is given in the OED as a definition.
But a short time later
p. 70 “Gerry left to do the first check just before 9.05 by his watch . . .Madeleine was lying there, on her left-hand side, her legs under the covers, in exactly the same position as we'd left her." [3]
Now Madeleine is reported
to be on top of the bed, with only her legs covered, and it is said
that this is how she had been left. But this contradicts the clear
use of the expressions in bed and snuggled down. Lying on top of the
bed with only the feet under neatly folded-back bedclothes cannot be
described as “snuggled”, nor yet as “in bed”. Normal English
usage permits “on top of the bedclothes”.
From Gerry McCann’s
statement to police, on 10th May, 2007:
'Concerning the bed where his daughter was on the night she disappeared, he says that she slept uncovered, as usual when it was hot, with the bedclothes folded down'. [4]
But was it hot, as Gerry
clearly insists ?
The word used is hot, not “warm enough to sleep with only a light cover, or on top of the bedclothes”.
Kate McCann is very clear
that outside, the weather was cold.
p. 73 “It was so cold and so windy.” [5]
Jane Tanner is equally
insistent
JT: . . . and I just thought that child's not got any shoes on because you could see the feet, and it was quite a cold night in Portugal in May it's not actually that warm, and I'd got a big jumper on, and I can remember thinking oh that parent is not a particularly good parent, they've not wrapped them up.
Richard Bilton Could you tell . . .?
JT: . . . It was actually quite cold. [6]
and again
“Yeah, and there were some people inside because it was quite chilly by, by this, it was actually quite, quite cold”.
and again
I remember I was wearing, because it was cold, I’d got Russell’s big, I’d borrowed one of his, erm, fleeces,
and again
I’d got Russell’s big jumper on, cropped trousers and flip-flips and, yeah, it was quite, you know, sort of cold”
and again
4078 “. . . at that time, didn’t really think anything of it other than the child might have cold feet?”
Reply “Yeah, and just”.
and yet again
4078 “So you went on the wrong day.”
Reply “Yeah, I think err so it wasn’t, that’s one reason why we didn’t open the shutters to open the window or anything in that room, it wasn’t actually really hot at all, it was actually quite cloudy in the days and at night it was actually quite chilly.” [7]
Russell O’Brien : The
nights were quite chilly [8]
Matthew Oldfield in the
evenings it was very cold, [9]
Rachel Oldfield it was
really cold in the evenings [10]
David Payne it was quite
cold some nights and you know perhaps nearly too cold to be sat
outside [11]
Fiona Payne it was still
very cold [12]
Diane Webster when they
were brought up to our apartment and they would have to come out into
the cold [13]
Only one person in the
entire group of 9 adults insists that the weather was hot enough for
Madeleine to have been put to bed lying on top of the bedclothes.
Every one of the other
eight adults say it was cold, in many cases they lay emphasis on the
extra clothing they themselves were wearing.
Only Gerry McCann
disagrees.
The weather report for
that day is that at 9 pm, 3 May 2007 the temperature recorded at Faro
airport was 57º F, 14º C [14]
On any test this is cold.
WIKI give this “Room
temperature is a colloquial expression for the typical or preferred
indoor (climate-controlled) temperature to which people are generally
accustomed. It represents the small range of temperatures at which
the air feels neither hot nor cold, often approximated at 21°C or
70°F. In more rigorous scientific contexts it may denote the range
between 20 and 23.5 °C (68.0 and 74.3 °F) with an average of 21 °C
(70 °F).
Suite ici
