Comments

View comments: 1108 to 1078 - 1077 to 1048 - 1047 to 1018 - 1017 to 988 - 987 to 958 - 957 to 928 - 927 to 898 - 897 to 868 - 867 to 838 - 837 to 808 - 807 to 778 - 777 to 748 - 747 to 718 - 717 to 688 - 687 to 658 - 657 to 628 - 627 to 598 - 597 to 568 - 567 to 538 - 537 to 508 - 507 to 478 - 477 to 448 - 447 to 418 - 417 to 388 - 387 to 358 - 357 to 328 - 327 to 298 - 297 to 268 - 267 to 238 - 237 to 208 - 207 to 178 - 177 to 148 - 147 to 118 - 117 to 88 - 87 to 58 - 57 to 28 - 27 to 1
1. 627 firestar says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:50 pm

   639
   the only other sentance i can think of using it involves UFO’s

2. 626 firestar says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:49 pm

   639
   or more likely they wouldn’t know what the portuguese would test for in an unexpected death.

3. 625 Ade says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

   I’m still annoyed about the words they use. “Ludicrous” has clearly been taken on board from our postings here and is now verboten in the McCann Junta’s Ministry for People’s Enlightenment and Propaganda. According to Auntie Phil’s opening of her heart to the today’s People: “There is nothing to suggest she is dead. The next sighting could lead to something positive.”

   Wot’s this about NEXT sighting. Maddie has not been seen since 3 May so there has been NO sighting - therefore how can there be a NEXT sighting? And what the hell is a sighting anyway?

   C’mon Mr Comical - you can dump “ludicrous” now come up with a better word than “sighting” so we know what the hell you are on about…

4. 624 firestar says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:48 pm

   638
   or maybe because the others were still drugged, like they said the twins wouldn’t wake up.

   and maybe the other tapas kids.

5. 623 DeeDeeDee says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:46 pm

   Miss Match is bringing up some very valid points.

   If they were aware a toxicology screen would not be routinely preformed (and being Dr’s one could presume they would be aware of that) then what exactly were they trying to coverup. Maybe something that would be obvious to someone performing an autopsy.

   So maybe Kate did lose her temper and there may have been bruises on the child that may have suggested prior beatings/abuse.

   If you had a child’s body on the autopsy table that had died from a fall down the stairs - what sort of evidence would you need to request a toxicology report?

6. 622 firestar says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:44 pm

   595
   put this in your connection settings in internet explorer then tick use configuration script.

   sky news should think you’re in england.

   http://www.cam.ac.uk/proxyconfig.pac

7. 621 Judith C says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:43 pm

   42 milisoreja Says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 10:58 am
   “found a page about methods to conserve corpses:
   It’s in german, a part of it translated by google:”

   ——then follows all the rather distasteful details —-

   What point are you making Milisoreja?

8. 620 Tony Bennett says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:40 pm

   ANWERS TO QUESTIONS FROM STEVO, BULLDUMP AND FIRESTAR (AND OTHERS)
   ============================================================
   Stevo asked (September 28th, 2007 at 1:49 pm) “Tony Bennett - What exactly is your intense interest in the case?”

   REPLY: It began in the first few days after 3 May with the excessive amount of publicity about this case. It increased the more I realised that the McCanns were spending huge amounts of time away fom their 2-year-old twins in order to ‘pursue their campaign’.

   I saw pictures of them taking the twins to the kid’s club for the day in Praia da Luz ‘in order to continue their campaign’. I wondered about their relationship with their children as the age of 2 is a fantastic time for a parent when they’re learning new things so fast and you just want to be part of it all – and of course to help them bond with you. How did it feel for them suddenly to have no Madleine and then for their parents to be away from them so much?

   Then they jet-setted across the globe, met the Pope and appeared at the White House etc., spending still more time away from their kids.

   But my interest was fully awakened as the leaks started to pour in from the PJ. I concedd that not all were genuine and some may have been exaggerated. At that point I began to research the case much more thoroughly. From what I observed, there seemed to be only two options:

   1. This was a genuine abdiuction (though there was preciius little evidence of it apart from the McCann’s own statements), or

   2. The McCanns had begun the abduction story as a bold and wicked hoax to cover up something very bad connected with Madeleine’s disappearance, perhaps even a death. I discount Madeleine just ‘wandering off’.

   I then began exploring whether anyone else apart from me shared severe misgivings about the McCann’s version of events and by googling something like ‘McCann’ ‘killed’ ‘Madeleine’ I was directed first of all to this site (it came up in the first 10 Google listings).

   From there on, the more I have read about the case – and analysing contributions both from the ‘pro’ and ‘anti’ McCanns has helped me in this repsect - the more I am sure that Madeleine died in Apartment 5A at Mark Warners at Praia da Luz and that the McCanns have knowledge of or direct involvement in what happened to her. That then led me on, as I’ve explained before, to the thought that the ‘Find Madeleine Fund’ is not only a hoax but also a gigantic fraud on a willing but perhaps gullible British public and that the intention of the McCanns all along in setting up this fund was to get lots of money in to contiunue the abduction theory and sustain it as long as possible and to get money in to defend themselves.

   Everything I now see on a daily basis regarding this truly amazing case only confirms that. On the way, I have discovered others that feel similiar to me about the whole case – they have for example started petitions wanting to know the real truth about Madleine’s disappearance and asking for the McCanns to be prosecuted by Social Services for their admitted child neglect. I confess that researching what I conclude was a similar giant smokescreen in the Lubbock/Barrymore case (see below) stimulated my interest in this case.

   ==============================

   I see you wrote a book about the Barrymore pool incident. Are you looking to write a book about the McCann Mystery?

   REPLY: No. And let me just briefly clear up some possible misconceptions about my involvement in the Stuart Lubbock case and the writing of the book. Here is a very brief summary of my involvement with Terry Lubbock, Stuart’s father.

   1. I live in the same town as Terry Lubbock, about 2 miles away from him, hence my unusual interest in the circumsatnces of the death of Stuart Lubbock. The local papers have been full of the case over the past few years, and most of the 9 so-called ‘party-goers’ that night were from the Harlow and Roydon area where I live.

   2. Many times from 2001 to 2006 I had considered offering any help I could to Terry Lubbock, who knew his son had been violently done to death and wanted justice for him. I was prompted to do so eventually in January 2006 because I was appalled at Michael Baarymore (a) deciding to appear on Celebrity Big Brother and (b) announcing he was going to cash in on Stuart Lubbock’s death (he didn’t put it like that, of course) by devoting three whole chapters of his new autobiography ‘Awight Now’ to his version of what happened to Stuart Lubbock that night.

   3. Cutting a long story short, he and I and one other person, a publicist called Harry Cichy, formed a Trust to pursue the case. Terry Lubbock then gave me all the olice papers he had on the case – which he had retained from the Inquest into his son’s death in 2002. In short, my conclusion from reading hundreds of pages of evidence was that this had been a cunning cover-up of a violent death - and that Stuart Lubbock had never even been in the swimming pool that evening. Four witnesses claimed to have either seen him in the pool and rescued him from it, but their stories wildly contradicted each other and their second versions were not the same as the first they gave to the police – in some cases they were wholly different. The constant changing of their stories to make them ‘fit’ with other witnesses’ stories was first of all a giveaway, and also showed probable collusion after the event as wel as prior to the alarm being raised at 5.46am that morning.

   4. I prepared an analysis, later called a ‘dossier’ by the News of the World (which ran two chunks of the book in a serialisation of it in January this year), which exposed these massive contradictions and other signs of their having been a hoax ‘drowning’ the night Stuart died and passed my file to Essex Police.

   5. Essex Police were thereby prompted into carrying out a review and then began a re-investgation into Stuart’s death in November 2006.

   6. Alongside these developments, Terry Lubbock and Harry Cichy, on behalf of The Lubbock Trust, asked me to write a book on the case. They decided on this primarily in response to what we all believed was a tissue of lies by Michael Barrymore about Stuart Lubbock’s death in his autobiography, prompting us to choose the tilte ‘Not Awight’.

   7. In response to a question posed on another Anorak thread back in June, I think it was, I was paid £2,500 by The Lubbock Trust for the time spent writing the book, writing up Terry Lubbock’s life story as a ‘ghost writer’ and arranging for three proof-readers to proof read the book and then editing all their comments and corrections (plus quite a bit else). The book is published by Harry Cichy and I should be receiving around a further £2 for each book sold, though Mr Cichy has not paid anything yet and I don’t know how many books have been sold.

   8. Since July this year I no longer represent Terry Lubbock in any capacity.

   9. There is no prospect of me writing a book about Madeleine McCann.

   The whole situation in this case is so fluid that no book of any kind is possible from anyone. If the McCanns are never charged – and it’s a distinct possibility that they never will be – it will be very difficult for anyone to write a book about the case, though I’m sure it will be done by someone eventually. There is a criminological aspect to this case, matters of criminal and interenational law, a media aspect, a political aspect, a psychological aspect (the McCanns’ conduct), lots of material on body language and verbal cues as to when someine’s lying, and much more besides. I’m sure that several books about the McCann case will be written.

   My book on the Lubbock death was based on what I could amass of much of the raw material in the case – dozens of witness statements, pathologists’ reports, forensic data etc. (though not all of it). It would be impossible to do the same in this case because I don’t have the raw data. I hope there is a case brought against the McCanns for lots of reasons; that way we shall know what the PJ have got in their 4,000-page dossier.

   =============================

   I also notice you’re a solicitor. In that capacity, can you give us a brief overview of what the police here could be doing in the case at the moment - if anything?

   REPLY: Primarily collecting evidence at this stage. And discussing it with the equivalent of the Crown Prosecution Service in Portugal – i.e. an investigative judge – who will ask for more and more evidence until he is satisfied that there is enough to charge the McCanns with one or more offences.

   The absence of a body gives them grave difficulties in attempting any prosecution for e.g. negligent accident, manslaughter or murder. As ‘Murder’ has already discussed on an earlier thread, they will also be looking at where to prosecute – in Portugal or the U.K., there being, I believe, concurrent jurisdiction in such a case to try it in either country. I doubt if they will be doing much with all the ‘sightings’ of young girls with blonde hair – 252 so far according to one paper (which makes nearly two a day since Madeleine ‘disappeared’.

   Researching all these sightings would be a massive diversion from their real task – a deliberate diversionary tactic of the McCanns IMO.

   =============================

   233 (Maria – from Friday) said: “Tony Bennett, I think most of what you call “facts” in your earlier post today are also only from newspaper reports, leaks etc, ie. speculation.

   REPLY: No. THe McCanns’ reactions to certain allegations are themselves facts in this case. The involvement of the British sniffer dogs in searching Apartment 5A and a car are also confirmed facts, from which one can draw certain inferences, though I agree that what they are alleged to have found is stil speculative albeit very credible IMO.

   ==============================

   215 bulldump says (September 28th, 2007 at 1:35 pm) “tony bennet, i agree with you that the mccanns are guilty of something. this is not an attack but i would like to know, you went along with a prosecution against barrymore for buggering stuart lubbock to death,”

   REPLY: No, absolutely not. To put it clearly on the record, I have never, ever, suggested that Michael Barrymore did anything of the sort. And neither has Terry Lubbock nor any other member of the Lubbock family. The claim I have made on the record and in my book is thay he actively participated in the cover-up of Stuart’s death, which was most likely perpetrated by two other men who were arrested on suspicion of murder in June 2001 and again in June 2007.

   ==============================

   …because you were their solicitor.

   REPLY: I acted as Terry Lubbock’s legal representative in connection with his son’s death pro bono – that is, for free. I remain a Solicitor of the Supreme Court, but since I accepted a full-time political research/secretary post in 1999 I have been engaged in political research, child protection work and freelance journalism and have not actually practised as a Solicitor since then. It would be best, therefore, to describe me as a ‘retired Solicitor’.

   ==============================

   …you then wrote a book with terry lubbock about the terrible fate the buggered boy

   REPLY: Violent assault, as the Coroner and Essex Police agree. But not necessarily ‘buggered’

   ==============================

   and his family suffered. terry lubbock ( the father of the deceased) then met up with with the mccanns to offer his support.

   REPLY: If I had anything to do with Terry Lubbock any more, I would have strongly cautioned him against it – in fact I didn’t even know he had met up with the McCanns or was thinking of doing. Did he? Terry was always very keen on the publicity angle and I disagreed with him when he wanted to draw in Mohammed al Fayad (‘another grieving father’) to support his campaign).

   ==============================

   What is father lubbocks view now, about:
   A) the mccanns?

   REPLY: No idea

   ==============================

   B) you broadcasting and threatening to bring action against the mccanns since you seemed to have a fairly close relationship with the lubbocks?

   REPLY: Again, no idea. I worked closely with Terry Lubbock and his other son Kevin. But not with Stuart’s mother (they are divorced)

   ==============================

   The Real Stig says (September 30th, 2007 at 12:44 pm) - 81 firestar: “Oh I got there before any of you. Days ago I likened Tony to people who stood around at witch urnings of yore, selling wood and matches to the mob. The civil action he is trying to organise would need a solicitor to push it - he’s a solicitor. They usually get paid,”

   REPLY: I could not accept payment in my capacity as a Solicitor unless I elect to renew my practising certificate. I could do this tomorrow. But I am now semi-retired and have no intention of doing so

   ==============================

   so you need donations - someone in Ireland, a retired solicitor, offerd €50K.

   REPLY: Who said anything about donations? - only you. The stage we are at is discussing what kind of campaign we could mount to oppose the campaign of Team McCann. No appeal for money of any kind is being made or even considered at this stage.

   ==============================

   Looks to me like someone might be trying to do what the McCanns have been accused of vis a vis the M fund - organising a fund and using it for personal gain.

   REPLY: Incorrect. It is not a FUND we want to set up, ‘The Real Stig’, but a CAMPAIGN. A campaign, in short, for truth and about justice concerning what happened to Madeleine McCann.

   ==============================

   I posted all these ideas days ago but I’m just the dumb pro-innocent until proven guilty real Stig so no one pays attention to anything I say - well almost

   REPLY: Noted

   ==============================

   THE ‘MOHAMMED’ PAMPHLET

   In response to the person who brought up my writing a pamphlet about Islam six years ago, the following should be noted: 1. It was written three months after ‘9/11’ and accurately predicted the rise of Islamist extremism and terrorism in this country 2: It did not call the Prophet Mohammed a ‘paedophile as was claimed by the earlier poster, but DID print the historical fact – stated in all authoritative Islamic writings for centuries – that Mohammed consummated his betrothal (at age 6) to Aisha when she was 9 (possibly 8 and he was either 53 or 53. It said that if this had happened in the U.K today, he would have prosecuted for child sexual abuse.

   ==============================

   BACK TO MADELEINE

   If there are any other relevant questions, I’ll try to answer them. In the meantime, back - I hope - to what happened in the McCann apartment during 3 May 2007.

   ===============================

   MEMO TO FIRESTAR

   Memo to firestar: Well, you criticise me for long and too many postings and then for not replying to people. You can’t really have it both ways.

   Just to remind you (you may not have seen the exchange to be fair), people were openly asking on the Forum how to contact me, because they too felt that the deception of the McCanns had to be exposed for what it is. I then openly posted my name, address, ’phone number and e-mail on the Forum. Both ‘Mods and Admin’ and another poster to the Forum then contacted me and strongly advised me to remove those details. I agreed.

   I was then left with only one realistic option for people to contact me without disclosing al my personal details, namely to post details of the website of which I am a webmaster – and which relays messages to my e-mail.

   My reason for posting here is to exchange information and ideas about what appears to be to be a wicked hoax, and I’m very interested, just as you are, in the political and media dimensions of this quite extraordinary affair. It is not about selling books, nor trying to get funds, nor writing another book.

   I do understand why some of these thoughts may have occurred to you.

   I simply want to join with anyone else who wants to get at the truth of what happened on May 3 and expose what I claim is an abduction hoax. I’ve tried to contribute facts to the debate and where I’ve given an opinion, I’ve tried to back it up.

   If you still have any lingering questions, you can e-mail me at the address I’ve given. Btw, from 4 to 12 October inclusive I’ll be involved as part of the legal team of Mr Les Balkwell, who has been waiting for over 5 years for an Inquest into his son’s death on 18 July 2002.

   This appears to be yet another ‘smokescreen’ case where a violent killing was covered up by his death being made to look like an accident of being caught up crushed in a concrete mixer, where he was lying when the alarm was raised at 1.03am. It’s another clue as to why I’m interested in the Madeleine McCann case, which seems to me to be to be one of the most audacious hoaxes ever.

   So if I’m not posting and answering questions much from here on, the time that I have to take on that case will be the reason

9. 619 Miss Match says:
   September 30th, 2007 at 8:38 pm

   618 Starsky

   I think the sedation theory is one of the most believable at the moment. What I am trying to get across, and very badly it seems, is that had they sedated their children, and Madeleine had wandered off, fallen down the stairs as a result of being sedated, sustained massive fatal head trauma, the McCanns would have ‘got away’ with the fact that they sedated their children because at the subsequent post mortem, a toxicology screen would not have been performed as the cause of death would have been obvious. Her death certificate could have possibly read, ‘Massive extradural heamorrhage, secondary to falling down steps’. The sedation would not have been revealed and it would have been put down to a tragic accident.

   They claim abduction and have let the world know that they left their children alone whilst they went out to eat and drink, with negative consequences that they possibly never imagined. Had Madeleine died due to being left alone, sedated and then falling down stairs, the only thing that would have come out would have been that the child woke up, wandered off and sustained a fatal head injury. The friends of the McCanns, the attending physician at the ER in Portugal and the doctor who performed the postmortem, possibly the police as it is an unexpected death, would be the ones that know.

   The fact that they appear to be hiding something makes me think that Madeleine died due to the actions of her parents, and isnsuch a way, that the death could not be explained as an accident in a subsequent postmortem. Suffocation, strangulation, sedation overdose are examples of something that could not be explained.

10. 618 Ian says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:38 pm

    It does get boring, the way people keep making the same tired old argumants about bodies couldnt possibly be moved becasue they get smelly!

    Lets get back tot he basics, the Mccanns neglected their children - FACT
    They dont admit that - FACT

    Anyone other than me think that Martin Brunts ’search for the truth’ was anything but a search for the truth? Is Brunt now in the pocket of the Mccanns?

    Oh and that ’self satisfied’ old man on the program set up a department or was he one of the people it caught? He seemed to have an unhealthy interest in the idea that Maddie was abused.

    Anyway, I think that Maddie was abducted and that Kate Mccann had known that it was not safe to leave her kids. She has to avoid that accusation as it would open her to charges of neglect. Someone needs to advise her that being charged with murder or illegally disposing of a body is probably considered more serious than neglect.

11. 617 Judith C says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:37 pm

    (34)Tony Bennett

    “Branson said, adding that he has ‘helped a bit behind the scenes’ with high-profile cases involving cot deaths, but declining to name the women he has assisted”

    Did I detect a smidgeon of irony here? Did the vulpine Branson’s “help behind the scenes” come before he “assisted” the women? The mind boggles.

12. 616 Rory says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:33 pm

    It was big fill ma can who spilled the beans about the 40 questions and the non existent deal offer.

13. 615 Ade says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    To mods and admin

    Nobody takes any notice of what I wtite anyway but…

    Ade didn’t write 555.

    Two words from me - you’re having a laff…

14. 614 Elton J says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:31 pm

    Arse,

    Hi Sweety, take no notice of starsky and sheikh. I would luv to meet up with you any time.

    I can show you my websites, i am sure you would be well impressed darling.

    Will give you my email if you wish. Have to go beddy buys now though.

    Speak to you soon sweat pea.

15. 613 DeeDeeDee says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:30 pm

    Ade, I’m so jealous!!!

16. 612 Ian says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:29 pm

    615 Miss Match, just what is your point?

    Are you saying the Mccanns wouldnt hide the body of their neglected daughter (please dont waste time arguing ‘neglected’ - they admit leaving her alone with two other tiny kiddies, just didnt admit it was not acceptable - presume this is to avoid charges of neglect) becuse they didnt fear tests?

    Dont forget that being responsbile for her death by accident would not look good on the CV of a doctor. They may well decide to hide the body and shout ‘abduction’.

17. 611 Ade says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:28 pm

    Blood on the stairs… Anyone remember “Blood on the Rooftops” by erm… Genesis (not my cupps, M’Lud)?

18. 610 Andy says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    Any ideas about when this stairs incident could have happened and which of the McCann party discovered it?

    Was it O’Brien or Oldfield who was gone the longest from the restaurant?

19. 609 plod says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    I always find it hilarious and very irritating simultaneously when “friends of the Mc Canns” say they can’t discuss the case and refute the slurs. Has there EVER been a case in modern history where suspects in a serious case have had the opportunity to give their own version of events in such (ever changing) detail via an apparently unsceptical mainstream media via their unnamed sources not to mention full time PR??

    When all this is done and dusted, and it will be, the role of the tabloids, SKY et al should be the subject of an independent inquiry: what an abysmal shower - perverting the course of justice is still taken seriously in the UK (ask Archer or Aitken). A few expensively manicured palms getting sweaty in media land at the moment I suspect…

    I feel sorry for the good hacks on those grubsheets though - I bet they’re just dying to spill some juicy beans.

20. 608 Starsky says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:27 pm

    613

    Please find your own name and stop using mine do not want to meet up to discuss maddie with you unless you sign on as yourself.

    I know this is form of flattery when someone uses your identity but please use your own from now on, starsky is mine and only mine.

21. 607 m.e. says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    611 Jolie

    I’ll never be allowed back

22. 606 DeeDeeDee says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:25 pm

    Thanks Miss Match!!!!

    And the T9 all would have know that? Right?

    But that does bring up more questions now. So what then were they hiding???

23. 605 Ade says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:24 pm

    517 firestar
    fine stuff and very floyd. Saw them in 67 (as a young teenager) with Syd still hanging in by the skin of his teeth. he didn’t do a lot except glare at people. Saw them a few more times later with dave gilmour. Then there was James Marshall Hendrix, 70, The Cream in 68, The Who (many), Led Zep(many)… Ah the benefts of being old… Roy Harper, John Martyn, John Renbourn still more my cuppa (and bread and butter) nowadays…

24. 604 Rosemary says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:23 pm

    345, Judge Dread
    After an hour an a half a child’s corpse would give off an identifiable scent to a cadaver dog, even after the body had been removed. That still doesn’t prove the McCanns were involved in the death of their child.

25. 603 Starsky says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    597 Miss Match

    They may not be guilty of murder but they are guilty of neglect and possibly drugging their three children.

    How on earth do you manage to get three childern under the age of four to sleep at one time.

    Im a parent and I know how hard it is to get one child to sleep and stay asleep let alone three,with people in and out checking on them as they said they were doing. Surley if she was abducted as they said the twins would have heared something and would have been screaming for their parents like any other infant would have.

    Did she manage to sleep through her own abduction?

26. 602 Portia says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:22 pm

    Different case, death of 3 1/2 year old girl solved in Oct 2006. Stairs were part of the cover-up. Interesting because of the location.

    http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/england/leicestershire/6086484.stm

27. 601 DeeDeeDee says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:21 pm

    Horse, the stairs were enclosed and it would have been dark, easy to clean up with out being noticed. They did clean up the blood in the apartment so surely they would have cleaned the steps too.

    However the clothing is interesting… did anyone change clothes that night????

28. 600 Miss Match says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:20 pm

    606 Dee - Toxicology screening is not as simple as seen on CSI, etc… It is a very lengthy process and only done when there is a clear indication. Obviously, fatal road accidents would indicate the need for a narcotic and alcohol screen for the driver for example. A child’s death as a result of falling down stairs resulting in massive head trauma and possible broken neck would not indicate a toxicology screen unless evidence comes to light that the child had been medicated by the carer. In the McCann case, if Madeleine had died from falling down the steps, had they called an ambulance and a subsequent postmortem had been carried out, there would have been no indication to perform a tox screen.

    Remember all Dr Shipman’s victims? Some bodies were exhumed later to find proof of narcotic overdose. It is not a routine part of a postmortem and the McCanns would know this. The only reason a tox screen would be carried out on a child is if a cause of death cannot be established, or if the reason for the cause of death, ie respiratory depression, could possibly be secondary to drugs.

29. 599 Simon says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:18 pm

    605 m.e.

    We are very short of genuine evidence one way or another. It is true. In the absence of evidence, some folk are applying careful thought to the situation. Others don’t like the way the McCanns look, or speak, or work the media, plus a whole bunch of other indicators, and form anopinion that way.

    The parents surely know a lot of things we don’t. One thing that we dont know and they possibly don’t know is what actually happened that night. That can’t tell us what they know, because they would face imprisonment. Portuguese law stops them.

    I too have at least one theory about what happened that I will not post.

    Many on here want a conviction at any price. That’s just the way it is.

30. 598 Rosemary says:
    September 30th, 2007 at 8:15 pm

    307, Stevo,
    Judge Dread is being deliberately thick

View comments: 1108 to 1078 - 1077 to 1048 - 1047 to 1018 - 1017 to 988 - 987 to 958 - 957 to 928 - 927 to 898 - 897 to 868 - 867 to 838 - 837 to 808 - 807 to 778 - 777 to 748 - 747 to 718 - 717 to 688 - 687 to 658 - 657 to 628 - 627 to 598 - 597 to 568 - 567 to 538 - 537 to 508 - 507 to 478 - 477 to 448 - 447 to 418 - 417 to 388 - 387 to 358 - 357 to 328 - 327 to 298 - 297 to 268 - 267 to 238 - 237 to 208 - 207 to 178 - 177 to 148 - 147 to 118 - 117 to 88 - 87 to 58 - 57 to 28 - 27 to 1