The case of Madeleine McCann

[lookout]

 Mike,the twins were tested for drugs,but none were found,so that would mean the same for madeleine,as it was, because her hair tested negative for any substance. So drugs can be ruled out.

[lookout]

Lookout, did you watch the Richard D Hall videos I uploaded.  It might be worth watching them even though they would challenge your views.

No,Roch,I haven't seen them,but will have a go. Thanks.

[lookout]

I've just skimmed the Pat Brown theory,and I must admit,I don't believe a word that comes from that woman. I remember reading quite a lot of her articles back in 2007 and her writings immediately had my heckles rising. The most neurotic of writers I've ever come across and she's totally wrong about the McCann case.
If Richard Hall is from the " same stable ",then I flatly refuse to be drawn into something which I know in my mind to be supposition and more neuroses on cobbled-up theories about the McCanns.

Not your fault,Roch,but I've been a staunch supporter of the family,not because of who they are,as this can happen to anyone,but when a case is re-opened it means that someone wants to get to the truth and because they crave the truth,they wish to be kept in the public eye as I would,as Jeremy is trying to do.
My take is that had there ever been any jiggery-pokery,they'd have hoped that the matter got buried ( sorry ) never to be heard of again.

For instance,Rolf Harris dropped his latest appeal ? Because he knew he was guilty,so therefore wouldn't persue it. It's as simple as that. Nobody wants,nor wishes to be reminded of their crime.

[mike tesko]

Mike,the twins were tested for drugs,but none were found,so that would mean the same for madeleine,as it was, because her hair tested negative for any substance. So drugs can be ruled out.

Hi Lookout,

any of Maddies hair used in such tests would have not had sufficient time to shows the signs of drug abuse if the day of her disappearence was the only occasion that recreational drugs or similar had been used to subdue her...

[lookout]

Hi Lookout,

any of Maddies hair used in such tests would have not had sufficient time to shows the signs of drug abuse if the day of her disappearence was the only occasion that recreational drugs or similar had been used to subdue her...

Hair on her pillow Mike ? Hairbrush,before she was put to bed ?

[mike tesko]

Hair on her pillow Mike ? Hairbrush,before she was put to bed ?

Yes, I understand, but there would be no evidence of drugs administered that day, or night, in her hair from the pillow...

To get a result at such short notice would I think be nigh on impossible...

[mike tesko]

Anyway, at least SY are now aware of the British Couple, and are actively trying to identify them. The sooner David Payne is re-interviewed about his connections with the couple, the better...

[lookout]

Yes, I understand, but there would be no evidence of drugs administered that day, or night, in her hair from the pillow...

To get a result at such short notice would I think be nigh on impossible...

Mike,you'd be surprised what a strand of hair could tell you,honestly. It could virtually tell you what medication you take,providing the root's there.

[tyler]

Hi Lookout. I had been under the impression that you had researched this case fairly deeply? No hair of Madeleine's was found on her hairbrush nor her pillow. Gerry had to return to England in order to collect something of Madeleine's to hand over a hair sample.

[mike tesko]

Mike,you'd be surprised what a strand of hair could tell you,honestly. It could virtually tell you what medication you take,providing the root's there.

I have no doubt that what you are saying is true, however, lets for arguments sake say that after 5pm on that last day of Maddies known whereabouts, somebody administered drugs to her, or as the case may be, she accidentally swallowed recreational drugs, I cannot see how any trace of these drugs being detectible in the roots of any of her hair in the few hours which elapsed until the alarm was raised  by Kate at around 10pm, that a couple "had taken" Maddie...

Any hair which might have been found could have fallen from her head, or been brushed from her head, prior to any drugs being administered, or taken. How does anyone know when a particular hair from a childs head fell from the childs head, or was brushed off? I should think you would need the body of the child and to remove hairs from the head whilst the hair in question is still rooted insitu, to be able to even start arguing a case for or against the victim having been drugged at all. And in that case, toxicology tests on the childs blood would determing a presence of drugs in the victims blood, if drugs was a determining factor in the death. Since, we have had no body to examine or investigate in this case, it must still be a possibility that Maddie could have been under the influence of drugs at the time she vanished, or died, or whatever...

[mike tesko]

I believe that when Kate went back to apartment 5A at around 10pm to check on the couple who were baby sitting, that the roadside door was wide open, and the poolside patio door was also unlocked. If Kate entered 5A via the sliding patio door on the poolside of the apartment, and because the roadside door was wide open, it would have created a vacuum which slammed the roadside door shut, or as the case may be, any other door in the path of the vacuum. I do not believe the bedroom window was open, and I do not believe the steel shutter of that bedroom window had been forced open by any cat burglar, of gang of drug crazy burglars...

I believe Kate opened the curtains, and the sliding bedroom window, and that she released the window shutter and raised it up after discovering the couple were no longer there, and there was no sign of Maddie...

[mike tesko]

Not only do I believe there were a couple involved at the scene that evening, I also strongly suspect that the crime scene was stage managed before the alarm was raised by any of the group...

[Roch]

The babysitting theory would make sense and would explain as you say "They've taken her" and also why the shutters weren't raised and there was no crime scene to talk of either a burglary or kidnapping gone wrong (or right if it was a kidnapping), if she was kidnapped, Maddie had to be alive-who'd steal a dead little girl?

Interesting Jo.

[Roch]

I've just skimmed the Pat Brown theory,and I must admit,I don't believe a word that comes from that woman. I remember reading quite a lot of her articles back in 2007 and her writings immediately had my heckles rising. The most neurotic of writers I've ever come across and she's totally wrong about the McCann case.
If Richard Hall is from the " same stable ", then I flatly refuse to be drawn into something which I know in my mind to be supposition and more neuroses on cobbled-up theories about the McCanns.

Not your fault,Roch,but I've been a staunch supporter of the family,not because of who they are,as this can happen to anyone,but when a case is re-opened it means that someone wants to get to the truth and because they crave the truth,they wish to be kept in the public eye as I would,as Jeremy is trying to do.
My take is that had there ever been any jiggery-pokery,they'd have hoped that the matter got buried ( sorry ) never to be heard of again.

For instance,Rolf Harris dropped his latest appeal ? Because he knew he was guilty,so therefore wouldn't persue it. It's as simple as that. Nobody wants,nor wishes to be reminded of their crime.

Hi Lookout,

I apologise.  You should only watch the videos if you want to.  I'm not sure what stable he is from, though I suspect he has links to the alternative media circles that are growing in influence due to the power of the internet.  Some of his opinions and research are likely to be controversial, though not necessarily regarding the McCann case. His films cite that the mainstream media have buried much of the true story of the case and instead regurgitate falsehoods relating to the 'official line'. One of the films deals with assistance given by UK authorities directly/indirectly and it is an eye opener.  What Clarence Mitchell was doing there at all or at such an early stage is a mystery.  He was a top level government spin doctor.  He replaced the original diplomat on the scene after she expressed concerns that the parents may have been involved and that the UK could damage its' relations with the Portugese authorities if it persisted in acting to the contrary.

[Roch]

My take is that had there ever been any jiggery-pokery,they'd have hoped that the matter got buried ( sorry ) never to be heard of again.

For instance,Rolf Harris dropped his latest appeal ? Because he knew he was guilty,so therefore wouldn't persue it. It's as simple as that. Nobody wants,nor wishes to be reminded of their crime.

My take on this Lookout.  The McCann's know that any amount of enquiries are going to come to nothing.  The McCann's received an enormous amount of assistance from elements linked to UK authorities.  The reasons for this assistance are murky.  But there is an official line to be peddled in accordance with that assistance, via the mainstream media.  What we are witnessing is an illusion.