AFTER? Neglect was the reason

Title: AFTER? Neglect was the reason - Bren
MadeleineMcCann > DISCREPANCIES > When Did Madeleine 'Disappear' BEFORE 5.30pm or AFTER?	Go to subcategory：

Author	Content

TinLizzy

Rank：Diamond Member
Score：1787
Posts：1787
From：Canada
Register：11/07/2008 1:17 AM

Date Posted：06/19/2010 5:52 AMCopy HTML

http://www.the3arguidos.info/topic6682.html

I was reading the Telegraph mid may and came across this article http://www.telegraph.co.uk/comment/colu ... andal.html by Christopher Booker

Quote:

Is any human instinct more fundamental than the love of a mother for her children? Last week I reported how Maureen Spalek from Liverpool had been arrested and held in a cell for 24 hours for sending a birthday card to her son, one of three children taken away from her by a family court, despite its agreeing that she was "an excellent mother".

In Runcorn magistrates' court on Wednesday Mrs Spalek was told she must return for a pre-trial hearing, before her criminal charge of sending a birthday card goes for trial at a Crown Court. Last month, Mrs Spalek was one of 200 mothers who gathered in Stafford to set up a group known as Child Snatching by the State. They were addressed by Ian Josephs, a businessman based in Monaco, who has championed the cause of parents whose children were unjustly removed by social workers ever since he was a Tory county councillor in the 1960s.

As Mr Josephs describes on his Forced Adoptions website, he has dealt with hundreds of such harrowing cases (always being careful to check that there was no evidence of physical or emotional harm to the children). One is that of Sarah White, repeatedly arrested for attempting to contact her "stolen children", including an instance when she was jailed for a month for waving to her son when she unexpectedly saw him across the street. Two weeks ago, she was again held in custody for five hours, after her brother posted a YouTube video describing her plight.

Julie Cipriani is another mother arrested for waving to her child in the street and forbidden from further contact after reading out in court her daughter's loving birthday card.

When another mother threatened with having her baby abducted recently fled to Ireland, her family were repeatedly visited by police, demanding to know her whereabouts. She is now receiving much more humane treatment from Irish social services. (Britain is almost the only country in Europe that permits forced adoptions against the wishes of loving parents.)

In the Commons last October, the Tory MP Tim Yeo described a case where Suffolk social workers waited until the father was out of the house to snatch an 11-week-old baby from the arms of its distraught mother, in order to put the child out for adoption. Until recently social workers were set "adoption targets" by the government, as part of a system where it seems they, the courts and the police are too often conspiring to abduct children from loving parents in the name of what amounts to heartless "social engineering". Few scandals call for more urgent attention by our new Parliament than this.

From there I googled Maureen Spalek and read her story
http://www.google.co.uk/search?aq=f&sou ... een+spalek

Maureen is from Liverpool, basically her story is Maureen had a messy divorce whose ex told her that he was untouchable. One day in a park one of her children is run over by a bike, he is taken to hospital. From there the story goes that the nurses contacted Social Services. They lied to Social Services and her children were taken into care.

Maureen wanted to speak to the nurse and ask her why she lied, the nurse was murdered. The guy who murdered the nurse was convicted and sentenced to prison. Maureen tried to get visiting rights to ask him why he killed the nurse but before she could obtained visiting rights he was murdered by another prisoner.

From then on I started to google Forced Adoption and my god the stories I have read from various sites is disturbing and alarming.

Someone said on this forum that we are getting too complicated and looking too deeply when the whole key to this case will be simple. Yes it is simple.... neglect... the McCann's were petrified of being charged with neglect. If they were charged with neglect and convicted there is a good chance that their children would be taken into care with an agenda of final adoption by another family.

But what about the Tapas members, well they were all guilty of neglect for leaving those children, especially Rachel whose child was ill and Jane whose daughter was being sick and bad.

The fear of "Forced Adoption" and charges of possible neglect is in my opinion what held this group together. I think an accident happened, and they feared for their children. Even Diane Webster advocated the neglect because she was at that meal table and that would have shown Social Services that she did not care about leaving children.

The Lawyers in the beginning in my opinion were brought in because of neglect. Madeleine being made a Ward of Court could have been on the advice of their lawyers. Better you make her a Ward of Court than Social Services.

The Social Services visit when they returned was put out in the press as being at the request of Kate. I do not think that I think Social Services became involved once they were made arguidos. Up until then they were monitoring the case but no actual file was opened on them. But now they were technically Official Suspects, Social Services were duty bound to ascertain whether the other children were at risk.

Quote:

Indeed, two social workers spent an hour with the McCanns on Thursday last week - during which time they asked the couple about their childcare techniques.
However, a spokesman for the family confirmed that following that visit, social services now do not consider the twins to be in danger.
She said: "The family pro-actively went to social services to make sure they were being seen as responsible parents. Social services have contacted the family since then and said it went very well."
Asked whether the children are now safe from being taken away, she said simply: "It is no longer a threat."

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... z0qdQKUYHT

There it is the news in the nutshell the spokesman's words up until that visit from Social Services the fear of losing the children was a threat to them.

I can remember an interview (documentary) where Gerry was asked "why they left Portugal so quick", he replied something like "we had to get the twins home and think of them".

Now just think what would have happened if they had been charged in Portugal during those interviews or the coming days. They would have been arrested and probably held if it was for concealment and Social Services in Portugal would have received instructions probably from the UK to take the children into care.

Neglect is what binds this whole group together, including aunts, uncles, grandparents, nieces and nephews and cousins. Fear of the children being removed, possibly adopted by another family and them never seeing these children again.

If people do not think it does not happen it does, an elderly couple received a letter from Sheffield Social Services telling them to arrange a final visitation to see their grandchildren so that they could say goodbye as they will never see them again.

Honestly until you really read up and digest what Social Services do and how they are ripping families apart do you understand what lengths people go to to keep their children. In the case of the McCann's I now believe all the inconsistencies, all the discrepancies were due to the fact that they were all scared that they could lose their children.

Reply from HIDEHO
Bren, as you know I am a believer that neglect was not the issue...BUT...originally I referred to it in terms of May 3rd.

I believe Madeleine was dead and that that night was a planned abduction and therefore no children were (necessarily) left alone as it was a 'contrived' night.

I always recognised that my theory did not pertain to the other nights as I had not researched them and of course its possible if there was an accident that it happened while she was left alone.

However, as you know, I posted a thread where many of the T7 alluded to needing and wanting to be 'together' because it would help with the child care issues.

Looking aafter their children appeared to be imoprtant to them and there is a possibility that this was done to some degree.

If that were the case and for whatever reason (Goncalo Amaral said) they were maybe 'asked' to say something else which would have created a dilemma for them...

To support G & K at the expense of declaring their (relatively) responsible method of looking after the children, but covering for it by claiming the checking system which was acceptable for MW protocol (even though it was meant for 'closed' clubs.)

If they claimed the truth that children were being watched then no abduction could have taken place.

If they claimed they were leaving their children alone then they, too, would have been targeted for neglect.

The compromise was, maybe, to lie about leaving the children alone but acknowledging the checking to prevent being accused of neglect.

Part of the reason I feel they were watching the children....

MO sick Sunday
ROB looking after sick daughter Tuesday
RMO sick on Wednesday
Contrived actions because of abduction on Thursday

(We don't know anything about Monday)

It's not only the sickness and that they were very concerned about the childcare before arriving on the holiday....but on Thursday after the 'mens social' tennis...Rachael claims that, maybe, E**a and E**ie had a bath with G***ce, leading me to believe it may have been a normal thing to share evenings and baths together and then, maybe have one person looking after them

Quote:

Reply “Yeah. Erm we went back to the apartments, erm I think err, we all headed off at the same time I think and erm, can’t remember whether that night E**a and, E**a might have had a bath in our apartment with G***e, not sure, I think it might have been that night , but we headed back, yeah probably about half seven, half seven, twenty to eight, which was kind of later than we would normally”.
1578 “Who’s we”?
Reply “Erm well G***e and I went back to our apartment and Jane went back with E**a and E**e to theirs and Diane and Fi and Lilly and Scarlet went up to theirs, erm”.

On the other hand Bren, I agree that neglect would certainly be important to avoid as it would result in some serious consequences and it may very well have been the reason for the accident!

Hiya HiDeho, yes it does seem really stupid, but unless you really start looking into this "forced adoption" being done by Social Services, do you not understand it's complexity.

Literally families are being torn apart, no chance of getting their children back, the Family Court held in Secret and where the Judges listen to Social Services and not the family or other's speaking up for the family. It is really draconian and honestly you would think it was something from the 18th century and not the 21st century.

The whole system is corrupt and as Doctors they would have known how Social Services work and when you really look at this, this is what united them in my opinion. Jane Tanner openly admitted that she was getting to know Kate and Gerry on that holiday, so why would she risk everything for someone she was getting to know? You wouldn't and I wouldn't but you would if you knew how Social Services worked and of past case histories of people having their kids removed for no reason at all.

Kids are being removed from families because SS thinks the mother is "thick" and because they have a low IQ. It is really frightening stuff and as Doctors they would have known what happens and some of them probably witnessed it or in Kate's case as a GP could have even had to give evidence as a Family Doctor in Court.

This is my opinion why the family have stuck by them so much, because they know if those children are removed from them they might never be able to see them again.

I could give you an example but it is pure speculation and it involves drink. Wasn't there mention of New Zealand wine on that holiday and how they drank wine in that apartment.

Kate has openly admitted they had a row, yet in another interview with the media Kate says they never row, so that is a contradiction. People from that group have said Gerry is rather loud, now I can imagine Gerry being a right control freak and wanting to be the centre of attention. Now what if that row actually started on the Tuesday night when the Quiz mistress joined them and continued through Wednesday.

Gerry on that holiday seemed to want to do this and that, now I think this Tapas group were split into two groups, Jane and Rachel being close and Kate and Fiona being close. Kate I think was left out a bit, both by the group and by Gerry.

There was mention she was upset when she went jogging on that Thursday and they were down the beach. I think Kate is "ice cold" because she has had every emotion drained from her, Kate I feel is a victim of circumstances, married to a self-centred arrogant man who only really cares for himself and what he is doing. A daughter of parents who I feel the mother is a control freak, always pushing Kate to do better and a father that she loves and adores but who is also under the thumb of her mother and never fights back. And then you have the McCann family, who are always right and brother Gerry never does wrong.

What if on that Thursday she returned to that apartment and decided to have a drink, fed up with life and had one too many and fell asleep, the kids were playing and then she was awoken by an accident and there was nothing she could do.

Remember the diary and the confusion of the bath and shower, was it because she was given a cold shower to help sober her up a bit.

Come on if this had happened earlier in the week and they had waited till Thursday to report it, there would not be a flaw in their plan, there would be no inconsistencies and discrepancies. They are there because of it being a rushed plan, not thought out well and because it had to be carried out as soon as possible.

And if this was Government involvement, you would not have heard a thing in the papers. It would have been hushed up and hidden. The only thing I think why Mitchell was involved is because this was a great opportunity to get the whole nation concentrating on a pretty 3 yr old missing in Portugal and more concerned about Madeleine McCann than the headlines that could and probably would have been on the front pages that could have forced a General Election and headlines that could have destroyed a Government. ie. the credit card fraud in operation ore, forced adoption, the death of David Kelly, The Cleveland Abuse Scandal and the victims speaking out.

If the meal on Thursday where they were all there was designed so that they could all have alibis at the table, still meant they left children alone that night. Even the Payne's baby monitor is not designed for you to use in the pub down the road, it is designed for internal use in your own home. They all committed neglect that night.

There was talk of O'Brien and Tanner being ill after their return from PDL, O'Brien not being able to work and Tanner was said to have felt suicidal (whether a forum myth I don't know) but I think this was not due to what happened to Madeleine this was fear of their children being removed from them and probably because Jane agreed to be the person spotting the so-called abductor. And remember one of them saying that night Kate checked the children's breathing, imo honest opinion if she did this it was because this was the first time they used sedation.

Also the timeline drawn up, they are saying it was written after the event, but in fact it could have been written before that evening meal so they all knew what they were doing. Remember the Rog Ints and Gerry kept looking at his watch and telling looking at Kate to go and check and Mat said he would. IMO the finding of her missing should have been earlier but Mat checking ruined the plan.

I am not saying what they did was right, but why they did it is understandable and I do not think that they all knew about what happened, but they were all told we could all lose our kids over this and this is what held the group together in that "pact of silence".

_________________
<script type=text/javascript src="http://w.sharethis.com/button/sharethis.js#publisher=f2d970cb-567f-4689-94ce-566afe17d237&type=website"></script>ShareThis
Twitter: http://twitter.com/Bren_bjr
Forced Adoptions: http://forcedadoptions.wordpress.com/

You raise some very good points Bren.

Athough I haven't yet read the above quote I feel sure it reflects what you have been saying.

I have agreed with you regarding the neglect being an issue on other nights, but indirectly, because although they would be subjected to accusations by claiming they only checked their children, at the end of the day if the truth was to unfold and they HAD looked after their children then they would not have that fear from Social Services.

Where we disagree is that you suggest the motivation was the neglect in 'supporting' the McCanns (and of course you may very well be correct) but because I really believe the chances of ALL of the T7, (knowing the children were important to them) leaving them alone is unlikely (along with other indications) I feel there may have been other issues that created their support.

I am not looking at any dark deep secret (although nothing can be ruled out)

At that time, and, maybe not knowing any details, and certainly not knowing the impending media frenzy, they may have been 'encouraged' to just say 'such and such' and not to worry because as long as they claimed the consistent checks then neglect wouldn't be an issue.

I have seen many occasions where some very controlling people can be very persuasive and as illogical as it may seem, its possible.

If Madeleine died on one of the other nights because she was left alone there IS the possibility that the others 'helped' (with little actual knowledge) but with hindsight would have made the logical choices we discuss.

Before they had time to think the snowball started rolling and theres no looking back now...

However, I have not fully read the article yet and may see more behind your 'argument' than I have at present.

Its a very possible reason...I need to answer a few of my discrepancy issues before I could be in total agreement with you though.

HiDeHo wrote:

At that time, and, maybe not knowing any details, and certainly not knowing the impending media frenzy, they may have been 'encouraged' to just say 'such and such' and not to worry because as long as they claimed the consistent checks then neglect wouldn't be an issue.

You have got it there HiDeHo, the lawyers were out there very quickly, yes we all think it was to set the Fund up but I think primarily it was to do with the "neglect" issue and they were taking legal advice, yes lawyers would probably say to them "providing you can show you were doing adequate checks they can't do you for neglect", but on saying that now reading how SS fabricate reports and take children into care, it would not surprise me in the slightest if they felt that was adequate enough to stop a prosecution but not adequate enough to stop SS.

From the Times

Quote:

A spokeswoman for the family said: “As responsible parents concerned for the welfare of their twins, on return from Portugal Gerry and Kate contacted social services to arrange a meeting to discuss their wellbeing.”

Trish Cameron, a sister of Mr McCann, is expected to care for Sean and Amelie if their parents have to leave the country. She went for a walk with the twins for an hour before the meeting with the social workers.

Other visitors at the house included Mr McCann’s brother, John, and Mrs McCann’s parents, and Brian and Susan Healy, and her uncle, Brian Kennedy. John McCann said: “Kate has invited social services round to make sure that everything is OK. That was at her behest. They will co-operate with anyone who has the family’s best interests at heart.”

From the Mail

Quote:

The parents of missing four-year-old Madeleine McCann met social services at their home today to discuss their case.

It is standard procedure for a mother or father named as a suspect overseas to have their case considered by the authorities in their home county on child protection grounds.

It is understood Kate and Gerry McCann, who have two-year-old twins, Sean and Amelie, were keen to meet officials from Leicestershire County Council and were given the choice of doing so at home or at County Hall, in Glenfield.

Now that marked in red does not sound to me as someone ringing up SS and saying we would like you to check our family out. That reminds me of someone being told to contact SS about a meeting.

Remember the spin, John McCann saying that it was at Kate's request but the initial investigation could have been started by SS and the McCann's knew they were being investigated and on legal advice were told to contact SS first.

Remember the Doctor leaving the McCann house on the 10th September 3 days before the Social Workers arrive. Why the need for the GP to attend? Was he asked to attend on behalf of SS?

Once you find the reason why they have done what they have done, you then find the pieces all falling into place.

The Ward of Court
The Pact of Silence
It is a disaster
The inconsistencies
The refusal to return for a reconstruction
The refusal to answer the questions
The touting for money for the fund

MCXLIII, I wish Social Services in the UK were like that but I am afraid they are not. One person had their child taken away, because the husband had a run in with social services in their previous marriage. The child from the first marriage was never removed but when the guy remarried and they had a child they removed the child from them..... the case to google is Crystal Walton.

Lianne Smith, who worked in Child Protection, had never harmed her children, she was described by her ex-husband as a brilliant mother, but she feared that Social Services would remove her children from her because of the impending case against her husband. That is what drove her to kill her children and attempt suicide.

Social services in the UK do not await outcomes of cases, once they deem a child is at risk in their opinion they will remove that child, and it is done under a what if these people harmed these children... not on the fact that children have been harmed.

Children have been taken to hospital and over zealous nurses have informed Social Services and families have been removed and they have had to fight to get their children back from foster care. One family was separated for more than 6 months.

Honestly it is so hard to believe in this day and age, but it is happening right under our noses and I bet many members of this forum and other forums and blogs do not even know this is happening. Tony Blair was awarding local authorities on reaching their adoption targets. FFS children are not targets. Kent County Council received over £2.2 million pounds for adopting children in care. Yet they have cases in Kent where children are being abused and nothing is done about it. Why was Baby P allowed to suffer like he did and why other children. Surely these are the children that should be adopted and given to families, yet social services have since arranged for Tracey Connelly to have a meet up with her remaining children. My god that woman knew what was happening, she is not fit to have children and those children should be adopted but no Social Services do all they can to help there. But when it comes to normal families they do everything they can to remove those children.

Edited to Add

As HiDeHo said perhaps they never bargained on the media frenzy that ensued, we do not know who got the ball rolling, could it have been Aunt Phil that was contacting everyone and Jill Renwick.

I am not defending the McCann's but in a way I suppose I am, but if you knew about "Forced Adoption" and the working practices of Social Services and you found yourself in a situation that you knew could result in you losing your other children would you try and find a solution where you limited the possibility of losing your kids.

Lots of members of forums in posts have made pleas to the Grandparents, the Aunts and Uncles to speak out, the friends even Kate and Gerry and I admit I have to, but could any of us speak the truth if it meant that we would lose forever the children that were our own, or our grandchildren, our nieces, our nephews?

I am sorry to say but look at your own children, your grandchildren and imagine being in a situation where the truth could have them removed from your family and then think could you go through with it and risk losing them forever and never seeing them again? I know I could not .... and every parent here could not face losing their kids or their grandkids.

Site link for Crystal Walton http://crystalwalton.com/

Link for Crystal being advertised in Daily Mirror in August 2006

http://www.hope4kidz.org/stories/crysta ... ystal.html

And a gag order was placed on the parents and family members of Crystal Walton.... they could not even speak out about what was happening to them.

http://www.hope4kidz.org/news/press/wal ... 6%2007.pdf

Kerry, I think you are so right, these are the cases they should be concentrating on, but unfortunately the reality is these kids are probably emotionally and physically disturbed and are probably the hardest to integrate into a new family. Whereas children that are loved and wanted are easier to integrate.

I always thought that Social Services were there if you needed help and were not to be feared but I can tell you what they scare the hell out of me now. I would not want them within 2 feet of me or my children for fear of what they could do.

And I found out all of this by reading one article in the Telegraph and searching Maureen Spalek. If I had never read that article then I would never have found all these sites where the truth is being told and where parents and grand parents are asking for help and telling the world what has happened.

But the more I read, the more I was reading, even down to Social Workers taking children from hospitals and Police are on the every exit just incase the parents try to stop them.

These were professional people and they would have known all about this, doctors are trained in spotting child abuse and Social Services procedure. They knew what was at risk and it is hell of a price to pay for leaving your children. As I have said before up until I started reading all this stuff I thought if they were ever found guilty of neglect they would just have been monitored by Social Services, I never knew they could lose their children forever.

No matter what the McCann's have or have not done, they do not deserve to lose their children and those children are loved and cared for and personally they must be living with hell never knowing if someone is going to crack or whether social services are going to knock on their door.

They are now in a fight where they could lose those children and they can't even unburden what has happened because if they do they could pay the ultimate price.

(...) a child that lives in squalid conditions, that has 60 odd visits from Social Workers and yet still dies from abuse is an abnormal family to me and a gross failing by Social Services.

A family that love their children, have NEVER harmed their children, have cared for them, loved them and yet are separated from their children because of a social worker thinking about a "what if" to me means something is not right with Social Services.

You come onto this forum and question everyone about what they believe in and their views, can I ask you a question, "do you think it is healthy and in the best interests of your own family to hate the McCann's as much as you do?".

All I have provided here is a reason for the whole lot of them sticking together, no reasons or motives for what happened to Madeleine. Maybe the time I have had away from this case and forums and blogs discussing and reading all about the McCanns has done me some good, I can see things now from a whole new perspective without the hate and having to blame the McCann's for everything that happens in this world and without having to read about theorists trying to tie the McCann's into what happens in this world. There is life after the McCann's and sometimes your own family has to come first especially the elderly that need your help.

I do not know what happened in that apartment, and neither does anyone else. The only person that can tell us is not here and there is no body, but until someone in a professional capacity can provide forensics to show me 100% that the McCann's harmed Madeleine intentionally and it was premeditated, I will not condemn them as murderers like some people are doing. All we can do is speculate about what happened and speculation is not the truth.

I do not agree with them leaving those children but I can understand now why they have never publicly admitted to it being so wrong. Once they admit it was wrong and they knew it was wrong then they are actually admitting in a round about way to neglect.

I tell you what whilst everyone is at, blame them for the Oil disaster, after all the McCanns are flying here there and everywhere and that just might have forced BP to have to dig for more oil.... who knows but this hatred is not normal in my honest opinion.

But did they leave the patio doors open? First of all they were locked and it was said they used the key and the shutters were jemmied, but when proven the shutters could not be jemmied, that left a problem, who had access to the key to be able to get in if nothing was forced. Which then led them to have to go with the patio doors were unlocked.

That is why I am saying whatever happened, it was a spur of the moment plan and was executed promptly without thinking things through. If this was pre-meditated my god they would have had a more secure alibi for each and everyone of them than playing musical chairs at the dinner table, and the morphing of the so-called abductor.

Once they told the first lie, they were committed, they had to continue to keep lying. The key to solving this whole case is why one group of people would consider lying to Police which could possibly land them in a court of law for perjury.

Diane Webster had no children to worry about so why would she even contemplate lying. She was not doing any wrong. She was entitled to be there on her own, she was not neglecting any children of her own. She could have drank as much as she did without being charged with drunk in charge of children. So why would she go along with all of this, and the only thing I can see that would keep this group of people together is the risk of losing those children.

Many ask why Aunty Phil has been quiet. Just imagine they were in Portugal, they did not know if they were being phone tapped, they could not text incase of interception, their emails could have been read, and they were scared of being overheard. The running and jogging were a risk for them because even then there are listening devices that could have overheard them, but that is when they probably were coming up with the next set of inconsistencies to cover the first set. Aunty Phil could not go jogging when she was in Portugal, but once they returned from Portugal and they could make contact easier with the family and probably did, that is when they started to say look we all could have lost the children and tell the family an accident happened and we were scared of losing the kids. Now knowing what really happened the family are not saying much because of fear of rocking the boat.

To take this one step further, each and everyone who knows the truth could be charged with aiding and abetting and harbouring a criminal.

They have all had to make a choice IMO, save the children and bury the truth or tell the truth and risk losing the children. Just imagine now what would happen if anyone of them spoke the truth. They have proven that they are not bringing up the children with right and wrong and morals and each and everyone really do risk losing their children. They are in effect all living a sentence and that sentence will not end until each and everyone of those children reach adulthood.

From Alex Woolfall in the Times

Quote:

One bone of contention has been whether Mrs McCann, when raising the alarm that Madeleine was missing, screamed: “They’ve taken her.” Some have questioned why a mother would leap to the conclusion that a child had been abducted.

Mr Woolfall says that he heard no suggestion in the early days that the girl had been snatched. “Certainly I did not hear any discussion that this could be a paedophile or an aggravated robbery. All the time I was around it was whether she could have wandered off and had an accident or somebody had actually taken her in, perhaps not with ill-intent.

“During the first 48 hours the word being used was ‘missing’ rather than ‘abducted’ or any link with a paedophile or any sort of crime. Towards the end of the second week I detected a shift towards there being a consciousness that she had probably been taken rather than wandered off, just on the assumption that anybody would have found her by now.”

I do not agree with what they have done over the last three years, but understanding the initial reason why they did it, makes sense to some of the things that has happened. When they were thrust into this position, they did not know the media frenzy that would surround this case. Also none of us know what the state of their marriage was. Was it strong and good or was it a shambles? Was Kate happy or was she sad? Was their marriage on the verge of collapse?

We have been told snippets of things but nobody has really come out and done a kiss and tell. There was just that article in the beginning about Kate and Uni and her being known as hot lips Healy. Which has now been pulled. All these things help build a profile of a couple, whether they have a volatile relationship, there is a lot we don't know about any of them but there is a lot of useless information we do know.

Each and every one us could come up with our opinions as to what they were like, what the state of play was in their marriage but again it is speculation.

We each come up with our impressions of each of them but my impression might be completely different from yours or someone elses. But I see Gerry as a narcissistic, arrogant, control freak. Someone that would tread on everyone and anyone to get to the top, someone that craves power and someone that is loud, and a male chauvinistic pig that does not respect women and their opinions but loves to play jack the lad and flirt.

Kate I see as "Ice-cold" emotionless, frightened of Gerry, controlled by Gerry and by her mother. I also see Kate as someone that thinks she is a failure. But I also see her as a mother that loves her children but is also scared of the tempers of her husband.

Remember the interview we don't row, we have never rowed but then in a statement told people they had a row. Now either you row or you don't it is as simple as that. To say you have never had a row with your partner is something I find unbelievable we all have our arguments at times. We don't agree all the time. I think Kate really meant to say we don't row because there is no point what Gerry says goes.

Initially when this all happened they were fearful of losing their children. The Police were involved, they were frightened in case they were overheard and I think it was the likes of Aunty Phil and others that started the ball rolling with the media frenzy without knowing the full story and without knowing what really happened. That is why I think Aunty Phil is now quiet because since their return to England Phil has been told the truth and is now silent like a lamb because she does not want to lose her niece and nephew. The family are not saying much now because they don't want to rock the boat.

Remember the photo shoot with the twins, we all found that sickening but could it have been done so that Social Services can see a happy set of twins with their mum and dad. The photos released of them laughing with the twins, showing that they are not burdening the twins with their troubles.

Remember the documentary where Gerry knocked at the patio doors, and she said to the twins something like "shall we let daddy in". I am sitting here with my back door unlocked, my french doors unlocked and they will remain like that until we lock up tonight. Even when I had my son young the only door that was bolted was the front door so he could not escape into the street, but the back door was open and he was in and out. Was that comment put in that documentary to show Social Services, look we are protective of our safety and the safety of the twins.

There is an interview from the early days where Gerry speaks about the fund and he openly admits a lot of the fund will be used on legal fees. What legal fees? Why would they need lawyers? What were they expecting? Their child was supposed to be abducted you don't need lawyers you need the cops. Or was it a case they were petrified of getting done for neglect and needed the lawyers to help them possibly in the future to fight the neglect. Is this why the lawyers went out in the first place, we were told by them they went out about the fund, but what if it was to do with giving them legal advice on the neglect issue? Lawyers were there very early on in Portugal.

Maddie went missing on the night of the 3rd. It was bank holiday weekend in the UK. Many people never heard about it until the Friday morning, during Friday people were hoping she was found. Those that wanted to donate something to help them find their daughter would not have been able to until Tuesday when the banks reopened. Then they needed account nos for them to pay money into. Logically speaking there would not have been much in the fund for the lawyers to even bother yet with making the Fund a company. But if they were petrified of being done for neglect then the money people possibly donated would be handy to fight such a case.

We never heard much from them the first few days, it was after the lawyers where there that we started to hear from them. First of all it was public statements and that was it. But then it was the interviews, with comments "like dining in your back garden". Where they told by lawyers providing you can show you did adequate checks they can't do you for neglect. But the truth of the matter is no matter what lawyers say Social Services can do what they like with the aid of the secret family courts.

Also when family courts are dealing with cases from Social Services, judges put a gagging order on the case so parents can't go running to the media and cause a public frenzy of hysteria. Normally this lasts until the case is concluded. Now if Social Services had become involved the courts would have issued a gagging order. This could have included not speaking out about what happened in Portugal. Now the McCann's wanted their names in the media in the end because they saw the media as some sort of protection.

Can you just imagine what would have happened, people in the UK were being fed the abduction story, even though they did not agree with the McCann's on leaving those children, people still felt sorry that they made a mistake and their child was abducted. Most of us never fell for it, we all thought something was not right and to this day I still do think something happened but it was an accident and panic and fear caused them to start on the path of deceit. I do not think now this was premeditated or planned. I think now we had a group of people on holiday being very lackadaisical with their childcare and something tragic happened and then the panic ensued.

As I said could you imagine if Social Services then got the Social Services of Portugal to walk into their villa and take Sean and Amelie from them and return them to the UK under the care of social services in the UK. In 2007 the whole "forced adoption" attitude of Social Services was being uncovered and reported in papers and before our eyes if Social Services had done this it would have been played out in the worlds media. Something that would have called problems for the Government. Can you imagine the headlines and the following headlines from other couples who were victims of "forced adoption". McCann's lose their remaining children. Social Services remove twins from the McCann's due to neglect. The media were a sort of protection for them. Even though the stories were bad as long as the media was focussing on them nothing untoward could happen.

This is something the Government could not afford to happen, honestly how many people knew this was actually happening in our society today, this would have caused public outcry and could have forced a General Election, something Labour did not want because the country had just been given a Prime Minister nobody liked and nobody wanted.

But Social Services would not have just looked at the evening times would they? They would have looked at the whole holiday. What have many of us been saying here? Those poor kids shoved in creche all day and they are out doing what they want. They would have seen it by the creche records alone it was more of an adults holiday and the kids were placed in creche. Which again does not look like normal parenting and a normal family holiday.

Many of us have said when we had our children young, sometimes we were more tired than the kids, because they were still all excited and we were completely cream-crackered. Even if we many of us have used the kid's clubs at holiday complexes it is probably been down to either bad weather or just the occasional visit. Not treating it like a child-minding service like this lot were doing.

We do not know what the state of play was as I have said before in their marriage. Was it on the rocks was this a make or break holiday for them as a couple, that is why the kids were always in creche? Now we have Kate telling us they rowed the night before. Was Wednesday a day of silence between the couples, did something happen on Tuesday night and the row continued to Wednesday night?

By Thursday we have some of the group playing on the beach with their kids, Gerry off doing what he wanted to do and Kate having a run and getting a bit upset that they did not ask her to go to the beach. This holiday could have been turning into her realising that nothing was going to change in her life. There would still be no help from Gerry and then she felt trapped, worn down by the years of his arrogance and knew she would not have the strength to leave and felt alone just like she has felt on many occasions in her life and did she return to that apartment, collected the children and saw a bottle of wine and decided to have a few glasses?

From Vanity Fair article

Quote:

Kate and Gerry McCann are both Roman Catholic, the children of carpenters, and products of Scottish medical training, but there the resemblance ends. Gerry, the youngest of five children, is by far the more ambitious and confident of the couple, secure always in the knowledge, as his sister Philomena explains, “that he was absolutely the pet of the family.” As a result, his brother, John, tells me, he grew up “very sociable, always involved in clubs—football clubs, athletic clubs. He likes mixing with people. And like most of us in the family, quite competitive.”

Kate Healy, a deeply religious only child from Liverpool, once confided to her sister-in-law, “There were too many times when I’ve been alone,” and that solitude evidently left its mark. On meeting her in 1992 the boisterous McCanns found her, John recalls, “reserved.” (Although this reserve was apparently not impenetrable. At the University of Dundee, as the Mail on Sunday recently discovered, Kate’s nickname was “Hot Lips Healy,” and she was renowned, according to her yearbook, for leading friends astray during “alcoholic binges.” When asked about this recently by a friend, Kate groaned and said, “My God! I hope they don’t get the rest of that part of my life.”)

When Payne arrived at that apartment had something happened? Had Kate fallen asleep and an accident occurred? Come on if Kate had alcohol on her breath and a child had died, irrespective of what her reasons for drinking it then became gross neglect. Perhaps unknowingly to the McCann's one of the other couples had secrets that they did not want exposed. David Payne seemed to take control of everything. Even down to getting rid of Yvonne Martin, now why was it because Yvonne Martin worked in Child Protection and they were the people they were trying to avoid. Did someone from that group help them to save their own backs because of things no-one else knew about?

Now another way of looking at this when Gerry made that comment on the shuttle bus to the plane "I am not here to enjoy myself" was that really meant in reference that is was a make or break family holiday and he had to play sandcastles and on the beach and they were a family whereas what he wanted to do was play Tennis, Golf etc things he wanted to do. Is that when Kate realised that nothing was going to change? Kate definitely had bruises on her arms and they were not from banging the walls as it was stated. Did the argument really start when they got to the apartment, Kate knowing that nothing was changing and she could not cope properly with 3 young children then decided that creche was best and she tagged along with Gerry doing what he wanted because she knew damn well she would not make it on her own with the kids.

as part of a report, it would be taken into consideration. Kids always at creche, left in the evening, parents enjoying holiday, and then there is this from Vanity Fair

Quote:

When asked about this recently by a friend, Kate groaned and said, “My God! I hope they don’t get the rest of that part of my life.”

Openly she acknowledges the "binge drinking", what was she so scared of them finding out.

I envisage Kate a lonely child, the apple of her father's eye but ruled by her mother, pushed and pushed by mother to do better. Whatever she did was never good enough for her mum she could have done better. A father that understood what she was going through but was not strong enough to stand up to mother.

Even when they came to take her in for questioning she was worried "what her parents would think". My god she was nearly 40 she was not a child she was a grown woman. I suspect Kate had School friends but limited time to play. Her friends were mainly at school. Kate I bet felt the affects of being an only child and very lonesome.

When she went to Uni I think this is when she got her wings and freedom. No mother behind her saying you are not doing that, or come on Kate study better. She was free from that and hence the rebellion, she could do what she wanted when she wanted and there was no one to stop her. I think she got through Uni and passed her exams with ease, but she still could have done better in her mums eyes and her carefree ways at uni and her reputation was a let down to her mother. (Daily Mail Article)

She met Gerry and he got her out of her ways as being a party-goer and settled her back down, I think then Ma Healy did not like Gerry because he was one she was not going to be able to control but he was serving a purpose he was her replacement and settling Kate back down. I think then they encouraged her to go to New Zealand, a) getting her away from gerry and the old crowd and b) hoping she would do better in New Zealand. Gerry I think loved Kate but he was not used to rejection. Nobody had rejected him and he was not having it. I think Gerry would have always been the one to do the rejection. He travelled to NZ and then they were married. Kate was lonely, alone again, another cycle in her life where the dread of being alone was too much, Gerry arrived, a friendly face (well sort of) and bang she felt happier again. They married and Gerry was the dominant partner.

I can imagine him being a control freak, and when they failed to have children I can imagine him blaming Kate, it was all her fault. She had a fear of her mother and a fear of being alone. That is why when Madeleine was born, I think she was spoilt. Kate wanted the relationship with her daughter like the relationship she so craved from her mother. She wanted to be her friend and do things together, she imo never wanted the relationship she had with her mother to be the same as she had with Madeleine.

Madeleine I think then became rather spoilt by both Gerry and Kate, because I think they feared there would be no more children, she was a treasure and they spoilt her rotten and I think the Healys did too because she was their first grandchild. But when they went for IVF again and it succeeded and they had the twins, that is when the real problems started. Madeleine probably could not accept that Kate had to spend time with the twins. Madeleine became jealous and played Kate up. I also suspect that she did what some children do, play mum up and when dad arrives they act as if butter would not melt in their mouths, making mum look like she is exaggerating and a liar.

Gerry I think was so busy with promoting his career and doing what he wanted, that he did not care if Kate could not cope, and again Kate felt alone, abandoned and run ragged. That is why family and friends helped out, because they could see what Gerry refused to see, after all if he could juggle this and that in his life then so should Kate.

I think Trish Cameron was the one that was helping out with the children, but it was getting to much for her, trying to help Kate and run her own family and I do wonder if a proposition was put that Madeleine spent the week with Trish and weekends with Kate and Gerry as Gerry would be around more.

Kate imo was still working because work was the only place where she felt her worth and felt on equal pegging with people. At home I think she was treated by all of them as some sort of incapable woman. But at work she was treated as an equal. Her job was her sanity.

Edited to Add

If Social Services had become involved and really started to delve into the background of this couple we could have had a father that displays "temper tantrums" in front of his children (yes there is a case where a child was going to be removed because the mother allowed the partner to shout at her) and a mother that had to have assistance and could not cope with 3 children under 4 and had a reputation in the past as being a "binge drinker" which then would have made Social Services possibly think the mother was a drinker.

That is why we are seeing the press being kept quiet and not doing kiss and tells and the backing from contacts they have or their families have, because this could turn into 2 children being removed and then investigations probably into the rest of the group and god knows what skeletons some of them might have in their cupboards.

Edited to Add link to story - apologises the Mother went on the Run because they threatened to take child away because husband shouted
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/worldne ... hout-.html

Interesting read from Daily Mail

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... ption.html

This is forced adoption for you from that article above. Is this the society we are supposed to be living in. Look at the date of the article 2008 not 1908

Quote:

"One baby was forcibly removed in the maternity ward by social workers before the mother had even finished the birth process and produced the placenta."

Here is another tragic story of forced adoption, yes the guy docked a puppies tail, something that has been done in breeding for generations up until recently. Is that such a crime to have your 5 yr old daughter removed.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/artic ... pted-.html

This was not your common council estate family but still they were victims of Forced Adoption. They might not have been doctors but the McCann's at the end of the day were never heard of until the 3rd May 2007. Yes an article about Gerry McCann being involved with sports injuries and his name on the COMRE sub committee, but they were not really known to us all. They were just an ordinary family that could have fallen foul of this corrupt system of Social Services.

In the previous link I gave, the reports say that children over the age of 7 are harder to place in adoption, toddlers and young babies were found to be easier. Children from abused families are even harder to find care for because of the emotional baggage that comes with them.

How can it be right to remove a child from a mother before she even delivers the placenta of that child?

Well I am a bit amazed, some people are willing to accept that child abuse was the cover-up and hang all their theories on a statement, some are convinced or sex, drugs and rock and roll but the majority of antis are unwilling to open their minds to a far more simplistic reason as to why there could have been a cover-up. The fear of losing their children and this is the reason today why they continue, even now in 2010 cases of kids being taken into care for no apparent reason are still hitting the papers.

What is the betting that the McCann's have and possibly read these stories and their fears become more impounded and more of a reality so they keep going.

Some people are willing to try and work out if she died before the 3rd May and was hidden because that is more macarbe and sinister and paints the McCann's even more sadistic. But reality is if Mrs Gaspers statement is found to be true and not investigated, children out there are suffering and possibly being abused. How sad is that really when you think about it? Yet the police are willing to let this happen and do nothing and not even investigate David Payne and Gerry McCann, no I don't believe it. I just hope and pray Mrs Gasper had an over active imagination and saw things that were not there not for the McCann's or David Paynes sake but for the sake of the children that could have been involved.

And if the McCann's had pre-meditated murdering their daughter or her dying 2 -3 days before do you not honestly think their stories would have been better. My god they would have had nearly 76 hours to work through the plan, find the pitfalls and amend it.

The inconsistencies tell you one thing and one thing only, whatever happened to Madeleine happened during late afternoon when she returned from the creche and before being found missing. Giving you a time frame from roughly 5.30 pm to 10 pm. The plan was botched and rushed and as things were being proven to them that that could not have happened their stories changed.

Once they told the first lie they were committed, there was no turning the clock back and saying this is what happened, there is no way now they can change their story because one change of story will land them all with a) possible charges and imprisonment and b) losing their kids. But on saying that it is not true, the first lie was told at 10 pm but if they care responsible for concealing Madeleine they became committed to the plan not from when they raised the alarm but from the very second they started to bring the plan into reality.

If it is found that friends and family suspected or knew what happened then do you honestly think Social Services would agree to let those children remain with them. They are still at the right age for adoption where it would be classed as easy integration into a new family.

Yes the McCann's may lose all their life's perks and their priviledges but two children lose their mother and father and possibly their aunts, uncles, grandparents, cousins, because of what really happened. An accident and a group of people trying their hardest to keep their kids.

Afterall I have been saying the McCann's were the ones initially that were thinking of losing their children but for all we know it could have been another member of that group that had far more to fear if Social Services were involved who could have forced the issue, the McCann's had already lost a daughter probably through a tragic accident, were probably distraught and not thinking straight and then they could have been saddled with the thought of we could all lose our kids, there is nothing we can do for Maddie but we have to save our children and that scenario placed the McCann's in an even more precarious position.

Here is another link, a couple went through IVF costing £38,000 to have twins, the mother joked to her child about the Caesarean ruining her body and eventually her twins were removed. http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article ... -body.html

They said she was not feeding them enough or changing them enough. Remember these babies were born weighing 3 lb, put into incubators and probably the parents were petrified of hurting them, the mother said nobody helped them.

Quote:

On January 29 a senior nurse referred the family to social services.

Mrs N said: 'The hospital could see we were struggling but they made no attempt to help us. They just decided we didn't have the parenting skills to look after the babies.

'They wrote down everything we did and said so they could use it against us. They twist everything. I remember talking to my son while he was in his cot, and saying jokingly, "You want to see what you have done to your Mummy's body".

'It didn't mean I felt bitter towards him or didn't want him - I've never wanted anything as much as I wanted children - I was just joking about the state of my stomach.'

HiDeHo Reply

Thanks for some great posts Bren.

I agree with you on most things, but I cannot agree on the T7 support and the reason to go to these extreme lengths to hide Madeleine's death.

It would have been difficult to prove neglect, considering the to-ing and fro-ing from the restaurant.

If neglect was THE issue then they wouldn't have been 'telling' all and sundry that they left the children alone and would never have admitted to leaving the door unlocked. They would have denied that, although I suppose it was necessary to counteract the improbability of the window scenario.

I don't believe the children from all the group were left alone, and, although Kate and Gerry seemed to be at a distance to the group throughout the holiday, my thoughts are that it was because something happened earlier.

If it was a 'normal' holiday then I feel that there would have been something in place for ALL the children.

Rachael and Matt were in the adjacent apartment and could hear crying through the walls.

They were 'home' Sunday and Wednesday (possibly Tuesday also) and as it was not unusual for Jane Tanner's children to have their evening bath in Rachael's apartment I suspect they shared child minding as this was an issue when they booked as to why they needed to be placed together.

That leaves only Monday night that they may not have been near an adult and we don't know what happened that night as there is no information available.

Someone may have been looking after the children.

In those circumstances I cannot see how neglect could have been the MAJOR issue.

Thanks HiDeHo, but neglect was an issue that night. Also we know Social Services were involved. It is standard practice if something happens to a UK child abroad and all this with John McCann about it being at Kate's behest well I put that down to spin. They knew once they returned that Social Services would be straight round to see them and the children. Hence the phone call, strike first, before they strike. IMO once they returned they knew damn well the way things worked so they contacted Social Services first.

Children are not being removed so much on the "neglect" issue as you and I see neglect, they are being removed on the "emotionally harmed" issue.

From this article dated 2009 referring to 2008 figures

Quote:

Last year, 6,700 ‘emotionally harmed’ children were placed on the protection register. There were 2,600 registrations for sexual abuse and 5,100 for physical abuse.

Parents who social workers say might shout at, or even loudly reprimand, their children in the future have been branded as potential emotional abusers and had their toddlers or newborn babies removed from them.

‘Emotional harm’ is the latest buzz phrase in the social workers’ lexicon – one that can condemn almost any family. Yet it has no strict definition under British law.

Frightening figures isn't it? What does constitute as emotional harm, being shoved in creche all day, parents liking a drink, a family that may have argued over something?

http://www.baaf.org.uk/info/stats/england.shtml

Figures for 2007
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR ... ndex.shtml
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR ... 007rev.pdf

Figures for 2008
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR ... ndex.shtml
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR ... _Final.pdf

Figures for 2009
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR ... ndex.shtml
http://www.dcsf.gov.uk/rsgateway/DB/SFR ... rsion2.pdf

From Halton Borough Council, Runcorn (Maureen Spaleks area) and Widnes

Quote:

Q. What are Child Protection Enquiries?

Child Protection Enquiries are made when information is received by Social Services that a child is:
Being neglected at home - not getting the basic care every child needs (this can include being left alone)
Being emotionally harmed
Being physically harmed at home
Being sexually abused

HiDeHo Reply

certainly agree with you about how shocking the figures are.

As you know, I have never believed that neglect was an issue on May 3rd because I believe that Madeleine was already dead and the 90 minutes they were away from the apartment was a 'set-up' for the abduction and the 'timeline' was not true.

Whether the 'Smith' sighting is true or not, there would still have not been enough time to show the children were neglected.

Whether Madeleine was dead before or it happened during those 90 minutes, there were far worse activities to worry about than neglect.

The police are probably aware of that too.

I am even more convinced now in my opinion that what happened, probably happened in Kate's care after 5pm and before David Payne arrived.

Apart from the jemmied shutters the first biggest inconsistency appeared.... Madeleine crying which gives me the impression that this was a rush botched plan to cover up possibly an accident happening and probably they were pre-occupied for a certain period of time and did not realise an accident had occurred.

When the police come and the doctor to confirm the death the first thing they take from a body is liver temperature, from that they can determine a close time to death. In my opinion they could not call anyone because once they arrived they could NOT say the accident had just happened, the liver temperature test could have shown the deceased died earlier than maybe a parent was saying, which left consequences, what was the parents doing for xxx amount of minutes and who was looking after the child.

Kate has told us on Sky News are various TV stations that Madeleine had said to HER "why did you not come whilst Sean and I were crying". This statement is completed fabricated in my honest opinion because during the interviews just over 13 hrs later from Madeleine being reported missing the first biggest inconsistency was being reported in a Statement to Police.

During Gerrys interview at 11.15 am on Friday 4th May 2007 Gerry states this. post23666.html#p23666

Quote:

Between April 28th, the day of arrival, and the time when MADELEINE disappeared, the deponent reports having noticed nothing unusual, except that on the morning of May 3rd, MADELEINE asked her father, GERALD, why he had not come into her bedroom when the twins were crying. The deponent had heard nothing and therefore had not gone into the room, yet he thought his daughter’s comment was strange, even because it was the first time that she made it.

At 2.20pm on the same day, 4th May 2007 Kate McCann says this in her statement post23667.html#p23667

Quote:

Between the day of the arrival, April 28th, and the time at which the disappearance was discovered, the witness says that she noticed nothing unusual. She reports only one episode where, on the morning of Thursday the 3rd, Madeleine asked the witness why she had not come to look in the bedroom when the twins were crying. The witness states that she had heard nothing and had therefore not gone into the bedroom, nevertheless she found her daughter’s comment strange because it was the first time she had made it.

So who did Madeleine say it to. Kate or Gerry?

This leads me to believe what happened probably happened early evening around about tea-time and they knew they could not phone for help because they did not know when the accident occurred. There was also mention once of the confusion in her diary about the bath/shower she was having that day.... was a cold shower needed?

By the time the lawyers arrived the following week, they probably knew that they would not get done for neglect but they could still lose their children because of "emotional harm" is constituted as a valid enough reason for Social Services to remove children. Emotional harm, a child crying for over an hour with no-one attending her. The descriptions of Madeleine, active, extrovert yet the news reports stated that Madeleine was rather quiet and only played with the English kids, a reserved child. Not the same child as her parents were describing.

Hence Gerry having the vision, we will show the world how much Madeleine means to us, we will run, jog, raise funds, do all we can, we will show the world how much we enjoy our time with the twins. We will sue anyone that says we harmed our daughter.

When their lawyers said they did not know

Estimating the time of death for the deceased is something else that the pathologist will have to do during the course of his autopsy procedures. In addition to this he or she may be called upon at the scene of a crime whilst carrying out their external examinations to try and judge - or best guess - when the victim died.

At the Scene
It may sound silly but one of the first things to do once a crime scene has been secured and all relevant details documented; is to check for a watch. If the victim does have a watch is it broken? If it is then the watch will more than likely have stopped at the time of the individual's death, especially if they have had a heavy impact or long fall.
In these instances, which, it must be said, are quite rare the time the body was found minus the time the watch stopped working is the period of time the body has been deceased. As we have mentioned instances of this happening are rare so the pathologist is called upon to estimate the time of death to the nearest time possible.

It must be said however that the time the individual took their last breath is not necessarily the time at which they died. This may sound bizarre but taking into consideration the human body can function for a period of time without oxygen - the human brain reportedly surviving several minutes without it - then it is reasonable to assume that the time of death may not always be accurate.

Categorising Time of Death
Time of death is categorised in three ways:

Physiological time of death: The point at which the deceased's body - including vital organs - ceased to function.
Estimated time of death: A best guess based on available information.
Legal time of death: The time at which the body was discovered or physically pronounced dead by another individual. This is the time that is shown - by law - on a death certificate.

Methods Used
One method of estimating the time of death is to measure body temperature. The normal equation for this is:

37.5oC - 1.5 oC

This formula equates to the body temperature (37.5oC), which loses 1.5 oC per hour until the temperature of the body is that of the environment around it; known as the ambient temperature. This ambient temperature - depending on how low it is - may take minutes or hours to be reached and this is a good indicator as to how long a body has been in situ. Additionally it is worth noting that a body's temperature will drop much more slowly if the body has been exposed to extreme cold; such as being left outdoors, submerged in water or icy conditions.
The most common way of taking the temperature of the deceased is to use a rectal thermometer or to take a temperature reading from the liver, which can achieve a more realistic core body temperature.

Rigor Mortis also acts as a good measuring stick for estimating the time of death. This natural process which occurs in all of us when we die and is the natural contracting and relaxation of the body's muscles caused by changes in the body's chemical balances.

Rigor normally occurs in the smaller muscles such as those in the face and neck and will work its way down through the body as the muscles become larger. The process normally begins roughly two hours after death and can last for anything from twenty to thirty hours. It is a common misconception that rigor does not leave the body; it will after these time frames have elapsed.

Rigor is one of the most used ways of estimating death as it occurs in the body during the first thirty-six to forty-eight hours.

http://www.exploreforensics.co.uk/estim ... death.html