Translate

Monday, 4 June 2018

Testing, testing.....

The next passage we are going to look at deals with the testing the McCanns apparently undertook more than four months after Madeleine disappeared



 And on 24 September, a forensic scientist from Control Risks came to take samples of hair from Sean, Amelie and myself.
So this was close to five months after the date Madeleine disappeared. There is no explanation offered as to why they waited so long. Of course, it is worth noting they were back in the UK by this point.
On the night Madeleine was taken, you may remember, Gerry and I had been very concerned that Sean and Amelie had hardly moved in their cots, let alone woken up, despite the commotion in the apartment.
Okay, so this confirms that they had observed something abnormal. She says they were ''very concerned'' which does rather beg the question why they did nothing that night 
Since Madeleine was snatched apparently without making a sound, we had always suspected that all three children might have been sedated by the abductor.
I find this a very odd passage. "Apparently snatched without making a sound''

How would they know? There was no-one there to hear her, even if she did make a sound, was there? It just strikes me as odd that they are in effect claiming knowledge that could only be known to the person responsible. Also, I would be very interested to know how, other than by injection, one sedates a child without waking them. (I should say I am ruling out chloroform or any similar agents; they are far too short-acting to fit the profile here). In addition, the mention of a silent Madeleine seems strange - I don't really see why someone finding two unconscious children assumes the missing one was also drugged. 
We mentioned this to the police that night and several more times in the following weeks, but no testing of urine, blood or hair, which could have revealed the presence of drugs, had ever been done.
Well, as I have already covered, there is no record of them 'mentioning' it to the police that night. One could hypothesise that the police didn't make a record of it, but they seem to have recorded lots of other things - the praying, the falling to the knees, the request for a priest - so I find it odd that they would forget all about this, especially when they noted that the children were out for the count

There is mention of sedatives in the file, but it takes the form of the McCanns asking if the PJ were considering that the children might have been drugged.

None of that sounds like a request to test. They seem to have been happy to demand helicopters and closed borders, so I find it strange that they should have been so reticent.

There was absolutely nothing preventing them insisting the twins were tested, or taking them to hospital themselves
Apparently, hair grows at a rate of approximately 1cm per month, so it was possible that hair samples taken even four months later could provide us with additional information.
The rate of hair growth is relevant for determining the date of the drug event. Most drug testing on hair by independent labs looks at the previous three months only and is often done to ensure people are keeping to the terms of a probation order. Also, one has to specify what the lab should test for

A proper forensics lab would have been able to test for any substance and over a much longer period 
It was worth a shot, at least. I asked for samples of my own hair to be taken as well simply because I was fed up with the constant insinuations that I took tranquillizers, sleeping pills or any medication, for that matter.
And that really is the thing, isn't it? They had the twins tested not because they wanted to see if it could confirm a stranger had drugged them, but because of the constant speculation that THEY had 
The process seemed to take ages and we all lost loads of hair. I couldn’t believe they had to take so much.
This is total bollocks. The testing does not require that much hair, it's about the thickness of a shoelace 
The scientist cut chunks of it from Sean and Amelie’s heads while they were sleeping. I cried as I heard the scissors in their baby-blond hair. I felt angry that the children had to go through this further insult.
I can't see how it is an ''insult''. That makes no sense whatsoever. 
As for me, I looked as if I had alopecia.
Now, I am sorry, but this is a very well-photographed couple. I have never seen a photograph of Kate McCann looking as if she had alopecia, and as I say, the sample of hair required is very small, so I call nonsense
Though I cursed the abductor and the PJ, I had bigger things to worry about.
That sounds like she has just remembered that she is supposed to be worried about her daughter and that the whole point was supposed to see if the drug could be identified 
All the hair samples produced negative results.
That actually tells us nothing. Even if they had been drugged, some of the results would have been negative, only the ones relating to the specific time frame would be expected to return a positive result. I would have expected to see "All the tests were negative", if they actually were.

Now - I would like you to read this next sentence carefully. 
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.
 This seems a very odd statement

It did not exclude the possibility of sedation

But the PJ wouldn't be able to prove otherwise

But I thought the idea was to provide additional information? It didn't do that

Maybe it's me, but she seems to be saying "We say the abductor drugged them, and you can't prove otherwise"


It also confirmed that I didn’t ‘abuse’ sedative medication. It is sad that we had to go to such lengths to demonstrate this; sadder still that such tests weren’t carried out at the time.

It is sad. It is sad for many reasons, not least that to claim to be very concerned about your unconscious children, yet not take them to hospital, seems unfathomable

It is also sad because it could have shown us immediately what had been used, and identified who had access to such a substance.  

27 comments:

  1. NT
    That is a very interesting passage NT ,that nobody – PJ and Media - would be able to prove otherwise. Thank you for that.

    I always took KM’s book as The Corrections. Things where they had failed had to be corrected and conveyed to the public. We can see that in the sedation issue and also in other incidents such as describing how Matt cried under questioning and poor Matt had nothing to do with it , how Jane Tanner never identified Murat in the surveillance van or how Kate was offered a deal ( denied by her own lawyer). This below is another little snippet of an attempt to justify why they left the country after being made arguidos:



    “On Monday 27 August I had a call from Esther
    McVey, a Liverpool friend from my late teens, by
    then a television presenter and Conservative
    parliamentary candidate. Esther was on the board of
    Madeleine’s Fund. She said she was scared by our
    current situation and uncomfortable with what she felt
    was a ‘political shift’. For our own safety, and ‘to
    protect Madeleine’s good name’ (I wasn’t quite sure
    what she meant by that), she thought we ought to
    come home. It seemed I was being pressurized from
    all quarters and I didn’t like it.
    As it happened, however, the very same day we
    learned that we would need to vacate our villa by 11
    September – news that put a different complexion on
    matters and forced Gerry and me to tackle this
    difficult and emotionally charged issue. We could
    have rented somewhere else in Praia da Luz, of
    course, but it would have been a lot of hassle for not
    much gain if we were intending to leave before long
    anyway. We had waited in vain for the police to call
    us back for interview. Finally, and very reluctantly, I
    agreed to set a date for our departure. Monday 10
    September it would have to be. It was one of the
    toughest decisions I’ve ever had to take”


    The book is like the preparation of a defence strategy for a trial. Sadly for Kate McCann, she suffers from self centered petulant child syndrome, and that transpires in her book or anytime she makes a statement. What she wrote as corrections turned out to be quite the opposite.

    There are simple things in this case that are damning . One is the sedation and lax attitude to the twins , unless of course they know precisely what they took, as approached by you in this blog. Other small details ring alarm bells as well:

    The fact the twins went back to the crèche the next morning, despite of an alleged abduction of their other child
    The fact that with the exception of the Paynes the McCanns didn’t really know the other elements in the group well and despite that, they never suspect them (as we may see by the Matt passage in the book) and despite the fact the friends refused to come back for a reconstruction.

    “...When he finally returned to the apartment he related
    how Matt had been almost hysterical during his
    interview. Gerry had heard him shouting and crying.
    Apparently, it had been put to Matt that he’d handed
    Madeleine out through the window to a third party. It
    was like something out of Life on Mars.”

    That 9 adults leave their 8 toddlers for 5 consecutive nights and go out to dinner certain they won’t get up, wake up, leave the house, fall, turn on the gas. In my view that is only possible if the group knew they would be asleep . That is only possible if the children were given some sleeping medication.

    If one day the case is resolved, we will see how simple and clumsy the actual crime was , aided by a high element of luck and not being caught. Born of pure negligence and common fears . What comes after , yes, it is calculated and perverse, but that is another crime in itself. Alice

    ReplyDelete
  2. You've picked out some interesting extracts again, my first question would be is it usual for control risks to employ scientists I know Wikipedia isn't always correct but I can't see anything about them employing scientists. Also, why did Kate feel the need to have her hair tested, could she have been calculating that she would need those tests in the future and ensured that all tests that could be done were done because in the early days a lot of negative press was about Kate, it's only speculation but could this have been some sort of insurance policy to protect herself from any possible lies that may get told. To not be able to trust anyone around you must be a terrible way to live.

    Cat

    ReplyDelete
  3. Good points, NT.

    "It is also sad because it could have shown us immediately what had been used, and identified who had access to such a substance."

    Quite so. Which was why it wasn't demanded by the parents at the time. While I agree with Cat that Kate must have had a reason to have HER hair tested as well I think she may have done so in order to reassure the twins about the procedure. Being such a good mother and all.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. It's the one bit of forensic evidence which would be worth testing again - except unfortunately it wasn't tested as part of the investigation or subjected to chain of evidence procedures, but if any of those hair samples remained which were taken from the twins, I would want to test them again.They could provide new information.

      For example:

      Imagine you have to test athletes' urine samples looking for prohibited substances. Generally you would use a piece of equipment called a mass spectrometer which would give you a printout showing a number of 'peaks'. Each peak corresponds to a different substance so you can see immediately if Athlete A has taken Steroid B

      Some years ago, it became obvious that a group of US-based sprinters were using a performance enhancing drug but the authorities did not know what t was or have a reference sample. But they are not daft - they kept the print-outs. Eventually, a coach came forward who knew what was going on and gave them a syringe of the stuff. Now they had the reference sample. All they had to do now was go back and see whose readouts revealed they had taken it.

      So when the hair samples from the twins were tested, we don't actually know what they were tested for. In fact, we know nothing, all we have is the McCann's word. But if the were done through a commercial lab the likelihood is they they screened for a panel of, say, ten drugs, probably opiates. If they all draw a blank then that's a negative result.

      A more thorough test would have looked for anything which basically shouldn't have been there.

      So if it was possible to find the remainder of the hair which was taken for analysis, it would be worth checking again. However, under modern protocols they have probably been destroyed. But the results might not have been. That's where I would be starting, if it was up to me. Which it isn't.

      Delete
  4. Hi. Yet again good to read your clear and simple explanations of a subject that one is not master of oneself.

    I don't remember you explaining things like this in quite so relaxed and clear a manner when you were posting on the Verdi-stalked site. [For those who don't know, Verdi from the Pit, plus a sock of hers invented to give her credibility, obsessively stalked NT and another poster like a particularly stupid and insanitary dog desperately in need of a good sniff, for over a year.I am not exaggerating.]

    Leaving the dog aside, I wonder if the fact that the usual pro-McCanns came in determined to misunderstand you every time - hello Misty - to get their own obsessions in and turn everything factual into a battle of personalities, had an effect - because their voices always drowned out the questions of people who were
    genuinely interested in what you had to say but couldn't bear the confrontational atmosphere. I know it affected me.

    It is extraordinary what a difference it makes when one can deal with nasty critics, however aggressive they are, in one's own time - as one can now when they are saying similar things but on other sites, not here - rather than suffering the strange, mentally disruptive effects of having to deal with them immediately while keeping one's train of thought.

    The pro-McCanns used the tactic of "drowning out thought" by making discordant, concentration-sapping and ad hominem "noise" very widely until 2015, mostly copied from US troll sites where such tactics were evolved and openly discussed as a means of sabotage.

    The "noise" is coming from another source now - the pros simply don't matter anymore - but it's a blessing to be free of it here, at least.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Evening JB and thanks for that.
      Really interesting to read your analysis - I hadn't thought of it in those terms, but you are absolutely spot on; it is rather like the difference between Prime Minister's questions, which is a bun fight of braying twats and lickspittles, and the peaceful courtesy of a select committee.
      Either that or I've just got better at it in my old age.

      Of course, the fact that I can refer to Verdi as a gruesome arse-wart clinging to Baldylocks' backside without getting banned probably helps too :)

      (And for anyone wondering, this was not in the Pit, where I have never been a member. So if you were scrolling through a vast membership list - currently about 12 - you can stop now)

      Delete
    2. New Troll on the Block6 June 2018 at 00:32

      I know what you mean about Verdi.
      Am not a member of that dump although I do read it from time to time.
      Talk about over posting and delusions of importance.
      As bad as that Bowie wannabe idiot who used to infest Cristobell Unbound.

      Delete
    3. Hi, JB.

      Would you be so kind as to tell me what “the Pit” was/is and post a link to a records of the stalking you speak of.

      Many thanks.

      Ag

      Delete
    4. Where was this where Verdi plus sock, were stalking you as JB states?

      Do you have a link for any of that?

      Delete
    5. Hi,

      The Pit is Chez Baldylocks & Confessions of a driving Instructor Jill

      Verdi, in her previous guise of ''Bluesy'' followed me around the Amazon forum for years, being a pain in the arse and smelling strongly of cabbage.

      Delete
    6. New Troll on the Block6 June 2018 at 10:27

      Blimey, just goes to show how hard it is to tell over the net, I have spent years thinking Verdi was a man.
      Textusa lol ????.

      Delete
    7. Amazon forum? Were you the captain? That would be too funny

      Delete
    8. :D
      Did you ever see it? Was a really good forum, I was very sad to see it go. There were some epic discussions over the years and some absolutely hilarious ones too.

      Happy days

      Delete
    9. The captain cracked me up...but he was right...especially about getting treated as you asked for lol. I used to play"spot the amazon plant"
      Happy days indeed...didn't realise forum was by.

      Delete
    10. Not Textusa6 June 2018 at 09:50

      Thanks for that, NT. :D

      Ag

      Delete
    11. New Troll on the Block6 June 2018 at 00:32

      “that Bowie wannabe idiot”

      Please don’t make me cry, dear! Please! You have so much to learn.

      Ag

      Delete
  5. Just a quick note to the facebook poster who mentioned not being able to get on the blog - Hi, I don't know what's happened there, as I haven't binned any comments, but if you want to have another try I'll look out for it. Sorry about that.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Made a post...or attempted to...on textusa trying to reasonably explain why your position on what happened to maddie made more sense. Surprise surprise didn't pass moderation. The deliberate misrepresentation of what you are saying is ridiculous. You are only playing devils advocate and showing what evidence would stand in court. You are not the one expounding a theory as fact but merely as what can be used by prosecution and defence. Putting forward a defence that would be usex by the mc canns does not make anyone a pro...it merely shows the problems a prosecution lawyer would have to overcome.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Hi Nick

      I made it clear to her that I wasn't going to discuss her nonsense any further, so in my opinion the laughable misrepresentation of what I said - in fact, downright lies - is a pathetic attempt to lure me into an argument.

      I have no hesitation in inviting her to fuck off at her earliest opportunity :)

      Delete
  7. Multiple hours on and textusa still hasn't put up my post about misrepresenting your position. Its either getting ignored or a diatribe prepared against it. Waiting patiently.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. When she disappears for that long it's usually because she's writing one of her dissertation-length posts.

      My guess is she will use all this as an excuse to return to writing new posts. She might as well, she has never been busier:))

      Delete
    2. New Troll on the Block7 June 2018 at 00:32

      I have a sixth sense Texusa is going to bite the bullet and abandon her swinging lark.

      Look out for super long post where she/ he blames everyone else for the 'error'.

      Delete
    3. New Troll on the Block8 June 2018 at 05:09

      I see Bennett and Textusa are at it again over the last photo.

      To be fair to Textusa I do think she/he might have something with the photo being staged and 'doctored' after the event.

      I'm useless with cameras but it seems more plausible to me than faked before the 'event' as the Bennett crowd say. Or rather a real photo just date changed with no image altering involved.

      She/he must be right about something surely with the law of averages and all that?

      Delete
  8. DE F
    Thanks for your post, and welcome

    I have held it back for now simply because I think it is borderline and not actually supported by the evidence. I am quite happy to publish posts provided they do not stray into potentially libellous areas.

    If you would like to rephrase it with that in mind, I'll be happy to publish it.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks NT. I'll leave it for now if I may. Strayed over here from other for a and, apart from giving me a fuggin' giggle (one needs fuggin' giggles in these times of Textusa), I find it very informative especially your latest post on cadaverine.
      Toot toot

      Delete

Leave a message. If you're a conspiraloon, we might publish it, but we reserve the right to take the piss mercilessly. Have a nice day.