Calpol

[brit1981]

A prescription would be picked up on easily, records are kept. It would have made the PJ's life a lot easier if they had been doing that since as well as a record, it is a crime to prescribe things in this way and it would have been an easy way to have them charged in the UK.
As for getting things without a prescription, doctors do not have easy access to medications. Most GP's surgeries do not have their own pharmacies, and those that do will keep exact records of what they use, and will not just let the GPs wonder in and take what they want. The same goes for hospitals, the drugs are in pharmacies and the doctors cannot just wander in and take them. It is the pharmacists that give out the drugs, and they must have audits.
Also in the UK prescriptions for children are free, (and for adults are a set price regardless of the cost of the drug), so that is another reason why very careful records are kept, as the pharmacy will bill the local NHS trust and the cost will come out of the budget of the practice of the prescribing doctor.

There are also plenty of sedatives available OTC, but no trace of these were found. Does not mean they never had them, just there is no evidence of it.

 

[SapphireSteel]

A prescription would be picked up on easily, records are kept. It would have made the PJ's life a lot easier if they had been doing that since as well as a record, it is a crime to prescribe things in this way and it would have been an easy way to have them charged in the UK.
As for getting things without a prescription, doctors do not have easy access to medications. Most GP's surgeries do not have their own pharmacies, and those that do will keep exact records of what they use, and will not just let the GPs wonder in and take what they want. The same goes for hospitals, the drugs are in pharmacies and the doctors cannot just wander in and take them. It is the pharmacists that give out the drugs, and they must have audits.
Also in the UK prescriptions for children are free, (and for adults are a set price regardless of the cost of the drug), so that is another reason why very careful records are kept, as the pharmacy will bill the local NHS trust and the cost will come out of the budget of the practice of the prescribing doctor.

There are also plenty of sedatives available OTC, but no trace of these were found. Does not mean they never had them, just there is no evidence of it.

Assuming, of course, whatever drug it was, was prescribed for their children, and not for some third party then misappropriated.

Further, GPs and surgeons are bombarded by free samples from drug companies. They also have access to drugs at their workplaces and I personally can assure you that these things do go missing at a busy hospital.

Regardless, the PJ had no access to the British records. The British police themselves had developed the evidence that indicated the McCanns, and have also withheld some of it, for political reasons. We can only speculate what other incriminating evidence is in the hands of the British Police, but medical/prescription records would fit the bill. The British government is notoriously uncooperative in this regard and when diplomatic pressure came to bear on this case via the US Ambassador, the PJ abruptly stopped investigating.

:banghead:

 

[brit1981]

I do not know what it is like in an American hospital, but if in a british pharmacy drugs went missing there would be trouble. Also doctors do not get given free drug samples in Britain. Reps will sell them samples, but these all have to be accounted for. It is illegal for them to give away anything free other than things like pens.

can I just ask where you are getting your information, because a lot of it is pure fabrication - such as claiming the british police are withholding evidence for political reasons, that they developed the evidence against the McCanns (they helped with the dog searches and FSS), claiming the FSS is a privately owned company with links to the mccanns and did not have a right to examine DNA, now you are claiming the US ammbassador was involved in a conspiracy? Are these all your own ideas, or is someone telling you them? I can understand your confusion about DNA and genetics, but these other things are fabrications rather than just incorrect. It is worrying that someone is making up these lies, and getting people to spread them on the internet.

 

[SapphireSteel]

I do not know what it is like in an American hospital, but if in a british pharmacy drugs went missing there would be trouble. Also doctors do not get given free drug samples in Britain. Reps will sell them samples, but these all have to be accounted for. It is illegal for them to give away anything free other than things like pens.

can I just ask where you are getting your information, because a lot of it is pure fabrication - such as claiming the british police are withholding evidence for political reasons, that they developed the evidence against the McCanns (they helped with the dog searches and FSS), claiming the FSS is a privately owned company with links to the mccanns and did not have a right to examine DNA, now you are claiming the US ammbassador was involved in a conspiracy? Are these all your own ideas, or is someone telling you them?

Someone is telling me them. Specifically, confidential documents posted on Wikileaks, which to date have NOT been denied by any of the involved parties.
I can understand your confusion about DNA and genetics, but these other things are fabrications rather than just incorrect. It is worrying that someone is making up these lies, and getting people to spread them on the internet.[/QUOTE]

It is indeed worrying if your British Ambassador to the US is "making up lies", but perhaps even MORE worrying if they are "making up" the truth!

I have posted the source information on every thread in response to your copy-paste questions, apparently it has not been read so I will post it again for you.

British police helped to "develop evidence" against Madeleine McCann's parents as they were investigated by Portuguese police as formal suspects in the disappearance of their daughter, the US ambassador to Portugal was told by his British counterpart in September 2007.

The meeting between US ambassador Al Hoffman and the British ambassador, Alexander Wykeham Ellis, took place a fortnight after Kate and Gerry McCann were formally declared arguidos, or suspects, by Portuguese police. The McCanns have said that there was "absolutely no evidence to implicate them in Madeleine's disappearance whatsoever."

In a diplomatic cable marked confidential, the US ambassador reported: "Without delving into the details of the case, Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."

The comments attributed to the ambassador appear to contradict the widespread perception at the time that Portuguese investigators were the driving force behind the treatment of the McCanns as suspects in the case.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/uk/2010/dec/13/wikileaks-madeleine-mccann-british-police

 

[brit1981]

I aked can I just ask where you are getting your information, because a lot of it is pure fabrication - such as claiming the british police are withholding evidence for political reasons, that they developed the evidence against the McCanns (they helped with the dog searches and FSS), claiming the FSS is a privately owned company with links to the mccanns and did not have a right to examine DNA, now you are claiming the US ammbassador was involved in a conspiracy? Are these all your own ideas, or is someone telling you them?

You replied Someone is telling me them. Specifically, confidential documents posted on Wikileaks, which to date have NOT been denied by any of the involved parties.

But the wikileas cable states "Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."

There is no indication that this evidence was anything more than the dog and FSS results, no mention of a cover-up, no mention of the FSS being a private company? One cannot read that statement and then claim there is other evidence being held by British police, that there is a conspiracy, that the FSS is a private comapny etc?

 

[SapphireSteel]

I aked can I just ask where you are getting your information, because a lot of it is pure fabrication - such as claiming the british police are withholding evidence for political reasons, that they developed the evidence against the McCanns (they helped with the dog searches and FSS), claiming the FSS is a privately owned company with links to the mccanns and did not have a right to examine DNA, now you are claiming the US ammbassador was involved in a conspiracy? Are these all your own ideas, or is someone telling you them?

You replied Someone is telling me them. Specifically, confidential documents posted on Wikileaks, which to date have NOT been denied by any of the involved parties.

But the wikileas cable states "Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents, and he stressed that authorities from both countries were working co-operatively."

There is no indication that this evidence was anything more than the dog and FSS results, no mention of a cover-up, no mention of the FSS being a private company? One cannot read that statement and then claim there is other evidence being held by British police, that there is a conspiracy, that the FSS is a private comapny etc?

No, but one can read Amarals book, written BEFORE wikileaks, and confirm his frustration and disbelief when political pressure came from above to halt his investigation.

First Amaral states political interferance occured, then we have PROOF that it occured.

By the way, how do you know what is pure fabrication? The only people who know where Madeline is, and what is fabrication and what is not,are the persons who caused her to disappear.

I place much more faith in the writings of the chief investigating officer than I do in anything published by the McCann Corporation. He has no motive to fabricate anything.

 

[SapphireSteel]

You said

a lot of it is pure fabrication...that they developed the evidence against the McCanns

Then you said

But the wikileas cable states "Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents,

So which is it?

 

[brit1981]

So where is your proof of political interference? Where is your proof the british police back in 2007/2008 did more than provide the dogs and FSS services that the PJ incorrectly thought was evidence against the mccanns, where is your proof that the British and Portuguese government is involved in a coverup, where is your proof the FSS was involved in a cover-up, where is your proof the government and FSS lied about FSS being a government owned agency charged with examining forensic evidence and maintaining the dna database and was instead a privately owned company with links to the Mccanns?
All you have is a cable stating the british police devloped the evidence written by someone not involved in the case so not a primary source (and the british police do not deny they provided the dogs and helped with the FSS, and the PJ do not deny the evidence they thought went against the mccanns was the dogs and fss results), and a criminal, with convictions for falsifying evidence, claiming it in a book which in a few months is going to be subject of a libel trial, and the crminal in question subject of a criminal assault trial, as well as certain tax problems, and whose former co-accused is now facing a criminal investigation for blackmail. Amaral got a suspended sentence for his previous criminal conviction, it was suspended because this was his first conviction. This means there is a very real chance that if he is found guilty of anything in the assault case he will face a prison term.

 

[brit1981]

You said

a lot of it is pure fabrication...that they developed the evidence against the McCanns

Then you said

But the wikileas cable states "Ellis admitted that the British police had developed the current evidence against the McCann parents,

So which is it?

First the wiki cable (which for some reason you claim is proof of a huge conspiracy) is not a primary source. It was not written by anyone directly involved in the case. It was not written by the British police, and the police have never actually confirmed anything more than they provided the dogs and helped with the fss. The british police played no active role in the investigation until the recent sy review.

secondly the british police provided the dogs and the report on the dogs findings, they also helped get the FSS (not police department) to look at the evidence and provide a report. neither of these were actually evidence against the mccanns. However, the PJ and Amaral admit that they believed the reports on the dogs and the FSS was evidence against the Mccanns.

The cable provides no evidenc eor hint that the british police provided anythign more than the dogs and FSS. It is also worth noting they say the CURRENT evidence, and at this time the evidence used against them was the dogs and FSS.

 

[SapphireSteel]

First the wiki cable (which for some reason you claim is proof of a huge conspiracy) is not a primary source. It was not written by anyone directly involve din the case. It was not written by the British police.

secondly the british police provided the dogs and the report on the dogs findings, they also helped get the FSS (not police department) to look at the evidence and provide a report. neither of these were actually evidence against the mccanns. However, the PJ and Amaral admit that they believed the reports on the dogs and the FSS was evidence against the Mccanns.

I don't actually know what you are trying to say here...what exactly would you consider evidence?

Just because it's circumstantial, doesn't mean it's not evidence....30 years ago it's all we had, there was no such thing as DNA.

On the contrary, there is a MOUNTAIN of evidence...not just a couple of explainable incidents, but indicator after indicator of what actually happened that night.

 

[brit1981]

There is no circumstantial evidence against them either.

But I woudl nto consider the FSS saying that material that could have been donated to by madeleine, but equally be her family members as evidence madeleine contributed to the material.

I woudl not consider the dogs as evidence, as it is illegal for them ti be used as evidence, the handler admits they need cooroberating evidence, and the evrd alerts to bodily fluids according to his handler.

There is not one piece of circumstantial evidence against them, and I certainly would not consider anything a convicted criminal (convicted for falsifying evidence) as evidence.

 

[saggymoon]

There is no circumstantial evidence against them either.

But I woudl nto consider the FSS saying that material that could have been donated to by madeleine, but equally be her family members as evidence madeleine contributed to the material.

I woudl not consider the dogs as evidence, as it is illegal for them ti be used as evidence, the handler admits they need cooroberating evidence, and the evrd alerts to bodily fluids according to his handler.

There is not one piece of circumstantial evidence against them, and I certainly would not consider anything a convicted criminal (convicted for falsifying evidence) as evidence.

Do take a breath wont you LOL

 

[SapphireSteel]

I find it very very odd that LE found absolutely no medications in 5a at all.

I would never travel anywhere with little kids without panadol, that's paracetamol, back in the day. Two and three year olds are getting teeth which HURTS and would be enough to ruin anyone's holiday.

As it was, they only found one pack of bandaids.

Very, very odd. The only reason LE knew about the calpol and Madeleines sleep problems is because Kate's father told them.

 

[brit1981]

Her grandfather never said she used calpol for sleep problems (it is not a sedative), the grandparents said the only medication they could think of the children being given was calpol (commonly used in the UK) and that they were never given sedatives. But why would they take medication with them. They were not in the back of beyond, so if they needed it they could just go a chemists and buy something.
Maybe it is a cultural thing, many people in the UK, like myself, are used to travelling between EU countries, so would not rush about stocking up on medications for a week long holiday in Portugal. I did have some friends who come over from the US, and for them going abroad was a really big deal and they spend about half a year planning it, and were stocking up on things because they did not know whether you could get them here. Obviously I do not know if that is a general thing for Americans, but I know that for many people in the UK, they would just rely on buying things whilst on holiday.

 

[SapphireSteel]

Perhaps it is a cultural thing, to be prepared for middle of the night teething emergencies, in a very small foreign town without a 24 hour chemist, when you have small babies. Or common sense.

Indeed, it is a cultural thing and a common sense thing where I live not to leave your babies alone while you go off for dinner, too. And a legal thing.

 

[brit1981]

Perhaps it is a cultural thing, to be prepared for middle of the night teething emergencies, in a very small foreign town without a 24 hour chemist, when you have small babies. Or common sense.

Indeed, it is a cultural thing and a common sense thing where I live not to leave your babies alone while you go off for dinner, too. And a legal thing.

Well in Portugal and the UK it is legal to be fifty metres away from a sleeping child checking on them every half an hour.

But yes as many people in the EU are used to travelling we do not tend to rush around stocking up for a week away as if we were going to the middle of nowhere - most normal people will not have the attitude that because something is foreign then they will be so backward as to not have medicines. But I went through the files the other day, and apparently the mccanns had brought some childrens medicine with them. I will have to double check that though.

 

[brit1981]

In the EU you can buy things like calpol in supermarkets. Most people would not get medication like this from a pharmacy as it is otc.

But I do not know why you are saying no medication was found. I read they did take children's medication with them.

 

[SapphireSteel]

In the EU you can buy things like calpol in supermarkets. Most people would not get medication like this from a pharmacy as it is otc.

But I do not know why you are saying no medication was found. I read they did take children's medication with them.

Please provide link.

tia

 

[fabgod]

http://www.netdoctor.co.uk/aches-and-pains/medicines/calpol-night.html

snipped and highlighted by me
"The combination of active ingredients in this medicine is useful for relieving mild to moderate pain such as teething pain, headaches and sore throat, and for relieving the symptoms of feverish colds and flu in children. The relief from symptoms and the mild sedative effect caused by the medicine can also be helpful for aiding restful sleep. "

I dont even know if it was available in 2007,
Just saying!

 

[brit1981]

that is calpol night you are talking about, which was not on the market at the time, and is no longer available in the UK. It is not the same as calpol.