PeterMac: Back to the beginning - McCann's lies

suep wrote:
Terfenadine was sold in the US as Seldane and in the UK as Triludan, so if the pack on the dresser in the photo is Seldane it originates from the US. This website suggests you can buy still buy it online:
http://www.doctorsolve.com/canada-pharmacy/brand/buy-cheap-Seldane-online

If you try to buy it you get this in the next screen

Seldane No Generic Alternative Available
This medication is discontinued and cannot be supplied by DoctorSolve.com

On a different topic but a lie imo.  The buggy. It featured in the very first shot in the CW reconstruction. Thousands in the UK have read the book, these same people no doubt had enough interest in the case to watch CW and would have recalled the no buggy and why not from Kate.

 I have no reason to doubt that East Midlands has the same policy as Manchester, whose opening line in the section of its website devoted to travelling with families states that they are aware of the problems and do everything they can to minimise them

  
At the airport
Where you can take your buggy
We know that you need your child’s buggy until you board the plane, so you can take it right through security to the departure gate where airline staff will take it from you and return it to you at your destination.


 Families will list the pros and cons of taking/ not taking a buggy to the airport and on their holiday. This one had 3 under 4s, one of whom was a 3 year old live-wire and 2 year old twins, excited by the novelty and maybe even tired, not a good combination. Between them the adults had 4 arms and 4 hands and had to load /unload  airport transport, get a trolley when they arrived at both airports, manage this and all 3 very young children until check-in which would probably have been 2 HOURS before take-off.
Left with hand luggage and 3 children after check in, with the prospect of passport control where there would have been a queue,  busy duty free and shopping areas then boarding gate area..........some or all children prone to over-excitement, fatigue, needing probably for some of that time to be resting or under control for their safety, maybe even a fall meaning a sore leg and so no walking.... to take or not to take the buggy?

 No wonder it appeared in the CW programme even though it was absent from the book.

 CW began by showing the viewer the first lie.

russiandoll wrote:On a different topic but a lie imo.  The buggy. It featured in the very first shot in the CW reconstruction. Thousands in the UK have read the book, these same people no doubt had enough interest in the case to watch CW and would have recalled the no buggy and why not from Kate.

 I have no reason to doubt that East Midlands has the same policy as Manchester, whose opening line in the section of its website devoted to travelling with families states that they are aware of the problems and do everything they can to minimise them

  
At the airport
Where you can take your buggy
We know that you need your child’s buggy until you board the plane, so you can take it right through security to the departure gate where airline staff will take it from you and return it to you at your destination.


 Families will list the pros and cons of taking/ not taking a buggy to the airport and on their holiday. This one had 3 under 4s, one of whom was a 3 year old live-wire and 2 year old twins, excited by the novelty and maybe even tired, not a good combination. Between them the adults had 4 arms and 4 hands and had to load /unload  airport transport, get a trolley when they arrived at both airports, manage this and all 3 very young children until check-in which would probably have been 2 HOURS before take-off.
Left with hand luggage and 3 children after check in, with the prospect of passport control where there would have been a queue,  busy duty free and shopping areas then boarding gate area..........some or all children prone to over-excitement, fatigue, needing probably for some of that time to be resting or under control for their safety, maybe even a fall meaning a sore leg and so no walking.... to take or not to take the buggy?

 No wonder it appeared in the CW programme even though it was absent from the book.

 CW began by showing the viewer the first lie.

The Paynes had a buggy on the airport bus with a child in it, same flight, so same possibility of buggy for McCs.
Furthermore, the rubbish about not wanting to go to Millenium, because of no buggy, yet later on it appears that buggies could be borrowed from Mark Warners and after Maddie's disappearance, the McCs were photographed with single and double buggies.
I think they didn't want Millenium because the Tapas restaurant had better food, was closer to hand for whatever nefarious to-ings and go-ings were needed to visit the apartment more frequently and easily, it had more allure than dining with the hoy-polloy other tourists, and there was some kudos in them being so important a bunch of "doctors" that they managed to argue a justification, and get their own way, to be able to make a block booking for the week, whereas others were turned away if not in the 'queue' early enough each day to beg a place for that evening.

Does anyone know when the McCanns moved to the Rothley house?

From memory, January 2006.

Thanks,NFWTD. Am I right then in thinking that they went to Holland almost immediately after the upheaval of moving house? That must have been stressful for Madeleine.

They had all three children in 2006.

Are you thinking of when Kate went to Holland for IVF treatment in 2004?

Yes, I'm getting mixed up! Thanks, NFWTD. For some reason I thought it was the Rothley house they rented out.

What follows is pure speculation on my part. When confronted with a complete mystery its what I’m prone to do…I often get it wrong.

Dr Ian Richard Schofield, the McCann’s current GP, said in his statement of 14th May 2008 that he’d been their family doctor for 14 months which means the McCanns changed their GP in March 2007. Why change? Dr Schofield’s surgery is a little bit nearer to their home in Rothley but since they stayed with their old GP,Dr Phillip Hussey, for over a year after they moved there its hard to believe they made the change simply because of this. This may be of no significance but it niggles me.

Dr Schofield makes a point of saying that he ‘never’ treated the twins for anything before Madeleine disappeared. He doesn’t include Madeleine in this. He avoids including her in that ‘never’. Why? Does this mean that he had treated Madeleine for something in that short period he was their new GP before their holiday? And if so why not mention it? He could have done so without revealing details.

Dr Hussey. their former GP, also avoids mention of any direct contact with Madeleine. He says,
“Madeleine was seen by the duty doctor when born and by our nurses during the routine vaccinations.”
This is very odd since we were told early on by her parents that Madeleine was born ‘almost perfectly formed’ but with the rare condition of coloboma of the iris, a fact they undeniably made excessive use of as a ‘good marketing ploy’ in the months following her disappearance. The numerous websites I’ve visited dedicated to giving advice and information about this condition all advise that a child with coloboma will need to undergo several tests and examinations to ascertain whether she has any of the other defects sometimes associated with it. These include MRI scans as well as extensive examination of the eye itself and possibly hearing tests since the condition is sometimes associated with deafness. These tests would require a GP referral to a hospital consultant. Did the McCanns simply neglect to get it checked out? I find that doubtful. So why didn't Dr Hussey include himself in the list of professionals at his practice who'd dealt with Madeleine? After all the whole world knew about her coloboma by the time he made that statement so he wouldn't have breaking any confidentiality rules.Dr Hussey also says ,“The last time I saw Kate as a patient was on March 10, 2006.” which suggests he saw her in another capacity… such as the mother of a child he was treating.

Why do both these GPs appear to be lying by omission? What was so sensitive about Madeleine’s health?
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic88.html
http://themaddiecasefiles.com/topic474.html

There’s another interesting reference to Madeleine’s health in the statement of Sharon Lewin, the teaching assistant who looked after her at nursery school and who, like so many others, automatically refers to Madeleine in the past tense.

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t7574p10-the-mccann-s-nanny-in-rothley?highlight=rothley

“I always think of Madeleine as an alert and affectionate girl who liked to live. She was very advanced for her age and independent. She liked to dance and to dress up…Madeleine was quite a healthy girl…During the six months she was under my care she was absent five times because of being unwell, but they were just small colds with a high temperature…At the nursery medication could only be administered by the senior members of staff and with the agreement of the children's parents. The only medication that I recall Madeleine taking was Calpol to lower her temperature.”

First of all she describes Madeleine as ‘quite healthy’. Which definition of ‘quite’ did she intend? Did she mean fairly, rather, somewhat, slightly, relatively, comparatively, moderately, reasonably, or to a certain extent? Whichever it was she didn’t feel able to simply say Madeleine was ‘healthy’.
Then she reveals that the child was absent due to illness FIVE times in just six months although she minimises these illnesses as ‘just small colds’. (This must have been very disruptive for Kate from a work perspective if she had to stay home and look after her herself). And what exactly is a ‘small cold’? It seems these trifling infections were significant enough to be the cause of ‘a high temperature’. And it seems from the subsequent comments that Ms Lewin makes that Madeleine sometimes attended nursery in such a febrile state she was given Calpol there to relieve her fever. Or was she prone to spike a fever unexpectedly so that ‘senior members of staff’ were instructed to keep an eye on her and administer Calpol if her temperature went up?

Not only did she have frequent fevers but Gerry is on record somewhere, I believe, saying that it was ‘common’ for Madeleine to have nose bleeds.

She had a ‘sunburn’ that could have been a bruise.

She was so tired on the day she disappeared she had to be carried yet from what we can gather her day was no more demanding than normal.

Given all of the above, is it possible she had leukaemia? Was she terminally ill?

As I write this, running through my head are Kate’s words on the phone to her mother that night which always sounded to me like the announcement of a death… “She’s gone, Mum, she’s gone”

suep wrote:

Given all of the above, is it possible she had leukaemia? Was she terminally ill?

As I write this, running through my head are Kate’s words  on the phone to her mother that night which always sounded to me like the announcement of a death… “She’s gone, Mum, she’s gone”

suep, for what it's worth, that is my theory also. I personally believe that she was too ill to travel but the Mcs were for some reason compelled to be there.

To me, "She`s gone" means that someone who was dying, has in fact died. It is a euphamism which can be used where the listener understands the context and there is no need to be more explicit.

It certainly is a strange expression to use about a child who has supposedly been abducted or even just simply wandered off.

Maybe that was only part of what Kate said - if she said that "she's not in the apartment where we left her, she's gone", that would be more reasonable.

Wasn't sure where to put this so hope this thread is ok.

I came across this Mirror article date May 5th 2007.

http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/maddy-3-goes-missing-472340.

Some interesting details that have perhaps been lost over time. Of course it could just be a case of the Newspaper making an error....yet again.

'Heart specialist Gerry  McCann rang his sister Trish in Scotland after Madeleine vanished from her COT PLACED INBETWEEN THE TWO YEAR OLD TWINS SEAN AND AMELIE.
Madeleine was small for her age, could it be that she was placed in a cot instead of the bed? Could this also be the reason one cot was in the parents bedroom? did other couples have extra cots? Perhaps there were more cots in 5a than previously thought.

'A trail of her scent which was picked up by the Police dogs outside the flat were followed to a supermarket just 400 yards away where it disappeared'.
Now that is interesting. Perhaps need to look again at the relationship between Murat and the owner of the supermarket. Jane Tanner initially stated that the man she saw carrying a child-wrapped in a blanket-was rushing towards the Baptista supermarket. This got changed to.... the man rushing towards Murat villa. The sudden change in the story makes me wonder if Madeleine was indeed taken in this direction. 

'A woman friend of the McCann's-ONE OF THEIR HOLIDAY PARTY OF NINE ADULTS- said "we went to dinner at 8.45 in a restaurant near the apartment as we've done every night. A parent from each family went back to check on the children every half hour. Someone checked at 9.15. But when Kate went later Madeleine had gone. The window shutters, which had been closed since we arrived Saturday, were open. They can be opened from the outside. The windows open onto a car park. *THE DOOR TO THE ROOM WAS SHUT*.It looks as if someone came in through the window and possibly left by the door.
But hang on a minute...Kate definitely said 'the door was opened much further than we left it'!

"We never called her Maddie "
We didn't make much of the coloboma - to be honest "  !

" />


Why do they do it ?
Have they gone beyond the point where they can even begin to remember what their first or second story actually was ?

PeterMac wrote:"We never called her Maddie "
We didn't make much of the coloboma - to be honest "  !

" />


Why do they do it ?
Have they gone beyond the point where they can even begin to remember what their first or second story actually was ?

If you speak the truth you never have to worry about what you previously said.

If you lie you always have to remember.

And they never 'made much of the coloboma'  ?

I wonder if the Look campaign was Clarrie's insistence, not theirs?

Dee Coy wrote:I wonder if the Look campaign was Clarrie's insistence, not theirs?

Very probably.
And is that why they can say "WE never made much of it . . .  'cos it was him"
Just as Gerry can say "I have no more photos in MY possession," when Kate is sitting in the same police station with the camera full.

" />

PeterMac wrote:

Dee Coy wrote:I wonder if the Look campaign was Clarrie's insistence, not theirs?

Very probably.
And is that why they can say "WE never made much of it . . .  'cos it was him"
Just as Gerry can say "I have no more photos in MY possession," when Kate is sitting in the same police station with the camera full.

" />

Didn't Gerry say in an interview 'ultimately we make the decisions'?

PeterMac wrote:"We never called her Maddie "
We didn't make much of the coloboma - to be honest "  !

" />


Why do they do it ?
Have they gone beyond the point where they can even begin to remember what their first or second story actually was ?

plebgate wrote:

PeterMac wrote:"We never called her Maddie "
We didn't make much of the coloboma - to be honest "  !

" />


Why do they do it ?
Have they gone beyond the point where they can even begin to remember what their first or second story actually was ?

In spite of Mr Mitchell's words, all the nannies who came into contact with Madeleine at the Ocean Club claim that Madeleine was presented to them under the diminutive "Maddie".

 

Indeed, the rest of the family, including Gerry and the twins, all refer to Madeleine as 'Maddie'.

 

Which begs the question: Why is Kate now saying that they "never called her anything like that" and that 'Maddie' was a name "invented" by the media?


http://www.mccannfiles.com/id169.html

This wish to deny she was known by the name of 'Maddie' is interesting.  Is it because of the possibility that GM signed in that other girl Madeleine (or different spelling) and she was only known as Madeleine in full? There has to be a reason why they would find it so important to stress she was Madeleine. They dont do anything without a reason..

HelenMeg wrote:This wish to deny she was known by the name of 'Maddie' is interesting.  Is it because of the possibility that GM signed in that other girl Madeleine (or different spelling) and she was only known as Madeleine in full? There has to be a reason why they would find it so important to stress she was Madeleine. They dont do anything without a reason..

Because of Mrs Fenn, IMO. Mrs. Fenn claimed she heard a child crying "Daddy! Daddy!" This could just as easily have been a child (or, indeed, Kate) crying "Maddie! Maddie!".

canada12 wrote:

HelenMeg wrote:This wish to deny she was known by the name of 'Maddie' is interesting.  Is it because of the possibility that GM signed in that other girl Madeleine (or different spelling) and she was only known as Madeleine in full? There has to be a reason why they would find it so important to stress she was Madeleine. They dont do anything without a reason..

Because of Mrs Fenn, IMO. Mrs. Fenn claimed she heard a child crying "Daddy! Daddy!" This could just as easily have been a child (or, indeed, Kate) crying "Maddie! Maddie!".

With regards to the 'We never called her Maddie' business, back when these claims were first put out there I recall talking to my best friend about it and we both clearly remembered the LØOK FOR MADDIE press conference and related promotional info in the media (including the Coloboma).

It soon became apparent to me when this came up in conversation- as Madeleine often did at the time, it was/is huge news- that it was the opinion of a few people I know that Kate was copying Denise Fergus, James Bulger's Mum, to align herself with that case. Several people brought this up as a reason for the change of tack.
Right from when he went missing, all the papers and news programmes were calling James 'Jamie', and Denise was at pains to make it very clear that he was not Jamie, the family had never called him Jamie, her son's name was James. Mrs Fergus rightly wanted the correct tributes payed to her son in the aftermath of his murder. Nobody can fail to be moved by James' murder, feelings of intense anger and heartbreak are aroused today as much as back then.

However, as we have seen and heard, Madeleine WAS evidently called Maddie. (There is also Gerry's friends reunited page).

Also, there was a photo released of Maddie in a football shirt which was very evocative of the Soham murders to many people.

The point brought up by Canada12, the Daddy/Maddie theory is something I have pondered a lot since first reading about it here. Is this why they protest too much?
Just my opinions and the opinions of people who reacted to this as it happened at the time.

As any researcher worth his/her salt will know, every so often it is important to go back to the beginning, because what may not have seemed important at that time will be invaluable a year or so later. That is the time when people's thoughts are at their clearest and most accurate. With the McCann saga now going into its ninth year, a lot of water has gone under the bridge, and many myths have grown up along the way. We have got to the point where, maybe, we should take another CLEAR look at the PJ files.

One witness's statement in particular, stands out, and that is Silvia Maria Correio Ramos Batista and this is part of her statement:

She remembers Gerry gave the Commandant of several photographs of the missing girl. They were postcard-like pictures, taking into account their size and shape and seemed all the same to her.
She understood also that since the very beginning either Gerry or the others insisted on stating that Madeleine had been snatched, all using the word "abducted" instead of missing, and all showing much interest in informing the press of the situation.
She also recalls entering in the room where Madeleine should be sleeping and remembers now that the door was closed. The room was dark. The blinds were down, some light entering through their holes. The windows were closed and the curtains slightly open. Gerry, who followed her and the elements of the GNR, said he did close the window because of the babies sleeping in the room, a fact she confirms.
Gerry said that when he discovered the disappearance of Madeleine he noticed that the window and the blinds were open and the curtains fluttering.
She recalls that the beds which were in the middle of the room and used by the babies
were aligned and therefore found it strange that someone had taken Madeleine from the bed where she would be sleeping and had gone to the window because there was no space to pass.
She opened the wardrobes of that room in order to confirm that Madeleine wasn't eventually hiding there.
Then everyone left the room and someone shut the door. She remained for some time in the living room, near the GNR elements, Gerry and other elements of the group
who got in and out and spoke on their cellular phones.
She observed that none of the elements of the group including the father and mother
of the child was concerned with looking for her.
The mother was sitting on the bed of her room, the father was with her (the witness) and the elements of the GNR, and other elements of the group got in and out
and spoke on the phone, anxious, in her opinion, to tell the press what happened.
She thought that the child's mother was devastated, the father was worried and
also asked to notify the press and to get dogs to search.
About the others she only remembers that Fiona and her husband, Payne, were hysterical with the situation.
At a certain time, after the arrival of the PJ elements, the parents removed the twins
from the beds in which they were still sleeping and took them to the first floor flat.
At the request of Kate she (the witness) to remove their puppets drink and a blanket that she took to the first floor flat. Only the mattresses remained.
She wanted to mention that around 3h00 Madeleine's parents asked for a priest to be present. They didn't explain why they wanted a priest but she (the witness) was amazed, because there were no indications that the little girl was dead and only in these circumstances is usually asked the presence of a priest.


 At some point she translated the statement of one of the ladies who belonged to the group and that she describes as a brunette one. This lady said to the GNR elements, and she (the witness) translated, that she had seen a man on the road who might have carried a child.
This situation surprised her because she (the witness) was convinced that when the lady saw the man, the lady was in a place from where she had no angle of vision for the place where she saw the man. She doesn't know exactly what was the position of the lady when she saw the man, but she knows that the lady said she saw the man in the street in front of the Madeleine's bedroom window, walking in the direction of the street that then leads to the Baptista supermarket.
Asked about the way the members of the group were dressed up in that night, she only remembers that Fiona was wearing a green blouse, that Geny was wearing a dark shirt
and the husband of Fiona wearing clear pants, beige she thins.



END



So, according to the above witness's statement, a lady who she describes as brunette (is this Jane Tanner?). The brunette, according to the witness, said that saw a man in front of "Medeleine's bedroom window walking in the direction of that street that leads to Baptista supermarket".  Have I got the wrong end of the stick, because I thought that JT had said in HER statement that she saw the man walking across the top of the street going in the other direction. Please correct me if I am wrong.



http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/SILVIA_BATISTA.htm

Edited to add, wasn't it Kate McCann who "discovered Madeleine's disappearance"?