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.