Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
Page 1 of 1 • Share
Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by Tony Bennett 11.03.11 22:38
22 people have visited Amazon to comment on the McCanns’ forthcoming book.
16 of the 21 (76%) who left comments are clearly McCann-sceptics, or McCann-doubters: Sugar Plum, Unhappy Custoner, somewhere, casey, Aitch, R. Meek, J.W. von Goethe (mild sceptic), R. Murphy, lizzie, Mr D.P. Crisp, L. Hugues, Mrs E. Newman, Carol Lambert, watcher, bookreader and Fred.
By contrast, only 5 were penned by McCann-believers: Not Impressed, L. Agnew, Helen of Troy, A. Brewer and Maggs.
[Another, Anne. A. Correa Guedes, withdrew her post].
This is broadly in line with the 80% of British people who in 2007 said they thought the McCanns were not telling the whole truth, and the 70% who watched them in a TV interview on Spanish TV and adjudged them to be ‘lying’.
Judging by the negative comments about the McCanns and their book, sales are likely to be well below expectations, and Transworld might well regret having invested in this ‘very truthful’ book.
Here are all the comments posted on Amazon so far
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Initial post: 29 Nov 2010 00:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 00:35 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
Madeleine
When there is so much doubt surrounding the night of May the 3rd 2007 wouldnt the McCann's time have been, better spent returning to Portugal and helping to re-open the case by taking part in a reconstruction of the events of that evening rather than writing some self- serving tome that will help not one jot in the search for Madeleine ?
35 of 47 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 09:37 GMT
Unhappy Customer says:
Perhaps the McCanns and their seven friends should have agreed to help the police and they should have taken part in a reconstruction. Rather than refusing to take part - as this didn't help the "search" and only added to the suspicions surrounding them and their seven friends. Their version of the events of the 3rd of May 2007 is confusing and at times contradictory. Perhaps this book will be a way of them "re-explaining" their version of the story. But wouldn't helping the police be easier and better and quicker? I mean - a child is missing.
35 of 47 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 17:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 18:00 GMT
Somewhere says:
I can't help but think that the book will exist entirely of a long-winded monologue on the subject of how hard done by the McCanns have been. Forget the fact that millions of pounds have been raised with the help of schoolchildren and OAPs, some of which was used to pay the mortgage of the McCann's house, and to pay for the robust defense of the McCanns 'good name'; I think the McCanns must feel very hard done by the fact a few people choose not to forget that a *three year old child* and *two year old twins* were left unattended on a dark night - the fact that Kate and Gerry were drinking the night away only makes the situation more heinous. And now she is gone. How can Kate blame the police, when she refused to answer the 48 questions asked of her?
28 of 40 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 19:48 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 19:48 GMT
Not Impressed says:
The parents never refused to take part in a reconstruction, that's an outright lie. Not even possible legally! Some of the other witnesses did refuse to go, their reasons for doing so may be read in full at the Maddiecasefiles site. And no, I wouldn't have gone either in their shoes.
I very much look forward to reading the book, it's about time their side was heard above the din of the self-opinionated and partially informed who have fallen willing victim to a sustained campaign of vilification started in Portugal by elements of the police. A campaign which was noted and exposed by the President of the Portuguese Bar Association, among many others.
11 of 40 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 23:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 23:34 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
The PP made it implicit in his archiving dispatch that by not attending the reconstruction the MCCanns had failed clear up major discrepancies that existed in their statements and therefore had given up the chance to clear themselves of all suspicion.
To say that the McCanns did not refuse to go to the reconstruction, while technically true, belies the hard reality that they colluded with their holiday friends in order to scupper the reconstruction from the very beginning. Why were they so scared to reconstruct that night ? Surely if they were telling the truth about the sequence of events a reconstruction would have removed all suspicion from the McCann and helped to re- focus the investigation in another direction. Of course if their had been a reconstruction perhaps the PJ may not have been so willing as Edgar in the mockumentary to accept Gerry's claim that he was on the right side of the road during the Tanner sighting . This was in spite of Tanner and Wilkins both saying he was on the left hand side. Also if the reconstruction had gone ahead it would have been abundantly clear that Tanner could not have walked past Gerry and Wilkins on the narrow street they were chatting on and not be noticed and could not have made out the details she claims to have seen regarding both Madeleine and the alleged abductor, due to distance and poor lighting.
31 of 42 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 30 Nov 2010 15:18 GMT
Not Impressed says:
Perhaps you would like to produce evidence for the claim that the McCanns 'colluded' with their friends to scupper the reconstruction? There isn't any, as you well know. Are the people making these biased comments the same warped individuals who gave this book such inappropraite tags that Amazon had to remove them? Don't answer, it's obvious.
8 of 33 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 30 Nov 2010 18:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 30 Nov 2010 18:21 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
I would appreciate it if you would stop using personal insults in an attempt to derail this discussion. You know as well as I do that if the McCanns had asked their friends to put Madeleine's welfare before their personal reservations the reconstruction would have gone ahead. The fact that they didn't must raise questions in any fair minded person. I notice the points I made regarding the Tanner sighting have been met by only a deafening silence from you. The devil is in the detail they say and the McCanns will have to be very careful regarding what the actually put into print in order not to be hoisted by their own petard .
26 of 34 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Nov 2010 19:49 GMT
Casey says:
Given a similar scenario if my friends refused to take part in a police reconstruction which just might throw some light on the mysterious disappearance of my much loved daughter I would at the very least never speak to them again, why do the McCanns? Oh, I forgot - they trust their friends 100%, seemingly no repeated questioning of the last man to check their kids, no long drawn out searches for Madeleine. They went to bed around 2.30, yes, all of them!! Will the book tell us exactly how much money was actually spent on the search and how much money has been spent on extremely expensive lawyers? I have my doubts.
26 of 35 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 30 Nov 2010 19:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 30 Nov 2010 20:01 GMT
Aitch says:
I think the time spent in writing the book would have been better spent asking for the case to be re-opened. As a parent I would want to know what happened to my child. Surely the parents of Madeleine want to know.......or..........?
24 of 33 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Nov 2010 22:00 GMT
Anne A. Correa Guedes says:
[Deleted by the author on 30 Nov 2010 22 GMT]
++++
Posted on 1 Dec 2010 16:11 GMT
R. Meek says:
Will Kate answer the 48 questions she was asked to help find her daughter? Will the McCanns explain where all the fund money was spent, in layman's terms? Will they explain why they have not asked the appropriate authorities to re-open the case?
22 of 30 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 1 Dec 2010 20:53 GMT
L. Agnew says:
Very much looking forward to reading this book.
6 of 24 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 1 Dec 2010 21:18 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
Sorry the McCanns haven't written this earlier but I can understand it must be horrendous to go over it all again. I wish them luck with their petition to get the case completely reviewed by Portuguese and British police. Petition can be accessed on www.findmadeleine.com
Tens of thousands of signatures already. If it succeeds they may yet get the truth about what really happened to Madeleine,
7 of 27 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2010 23:16 GMT
Somewhere says:
I hope that the Portuguese police get to the truth, and may the truth ring loud. Despite the passage of time, I only feel sorry for the child, left alone night after night. Her parents have recourse to state their case, but little Madeleine was not to have that privilege herself...
22 of 29 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Dec 2010 00:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Dec 2010 00:07 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
Two points I would like to raise in answer to your post Helen :
1. The case was reviewed by Rebelo, the co-ordinator who replaced Amaral, and he also came to the same conclusions as the original investigation. If Kate would answer the 48 questions she failed to answer when questioned by the PJ or the McCanns and their friends would agree to the reconstruction that has already been refused it would constitute new evidence which could re-open the case. There would then be no need for them to write this book to raise money for their own PIs as the PJ would take over the financing of the case.
2. Why didn't the McCanns submit their petition to the official site of the prime minister's office instead of the tuppenny ha'penny one they chose ? Could it be that they were aware that it was possible for multiple signatures to be submitted by a single person on their chosen site which is, I think you'll agree, ideal if you wish to manipulate the public into believing you have more support than you actually have ?
18 of 25 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 3 Dec 2010 16:20 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
Sugar Plum.
Only one signature is allowed per email address. There's a warning that duplicate signatures will be removed. The petition is addressed to both the British AND Portuguese authorities asking them to review the case so it wouldn't be quite right to use the British PM's office, especially as there are a number of signatures from outside the UK. I've seen ipetitions used for lots of petitions. You'd use the PM one more for things you wanted to change about British law or British systems.
I think you just have to accept that the McCanns do have a lot of public support. Not far off 36k signatures now, and still growing steadily, and that's only the ones online. People sometimes have paper copies as well for anyone who doesn't have access to the net.
IMO the other things you mention are just the usual cranky conspiracy stuff you get with all big cases, same as we saw with Diana's death, Kennedy assassination etc. Always happens. Some people just enjoy fantasy, don't they? No way would the Portuguese police have let them get away with a crime. If there was evidence they'd have been arrested ages ago. In the end the Portuguese authorities said there was no evidence of any crime committed by anybody at all and they just did not know what had happened to Madeleine.
7 of 22 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 00:08 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
While I agree that the site allows only one signature per email address I am aware of bogus emails being registered and the signatures from these emails being accepted on the petition and while I accept the McCanns have a certain amount of support I understand Hitler, a fellow propagandist and xenophobe, also retained the belief of the people right up until he squashed that small poison capsule between his lips. A certain Joseph Goebbels postulated that the essence of propaganda consisted of winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it. I'm sure the McCanns would identify with this ethos. That they can still garner any support from the populous is purely down to their masterly PR campaign and manipulation of the press and has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
I found it interesting that you described the salient points I made above as 'cranky, conspiracy stuff ' when you seem not to realise that the only way apologists for McCanns can, and do, explain the various indicators of the couples guilt such as discrepancies in statements, the cadaver and blood dog alerts etc is to weave them into a conspiratorial narrative involving the Portuguese police, Martin Grimes, Uncle Tom Cobbley et al.
13 of 20 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 09:46 GMT
Aitch says:
The book is to be published, written by Kate McCann. We have not had the full facts, as they stand, reported in the UK. Why not?
All we have heard is one sided reporting or none at all! Goncalo Amarals book was banned thanks to the McCanns but is now able to go back on sale thanks to another Hearing. I know which book I would prefer to read and it won't be the one written by a parent who admitted she didn't look for her child the night she was reported missing.
18 of 22 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 10:36 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
But it would be astonishing if there were no discrepancies in their statements. If there ARE any discrepancies, they would only show that they are basically telling the truth but not remembering everything exactly or all at once. That's what happens in real life. Ask any policeman who is used to taking witness statements. Ask any lawyer who is used to hearing witnesses in court. Only witnesses who are in league and lying give exactly the same story because they've concocted it beforehand.
The 'evidence" you talk about was discounted by the police because it wasn't sound. Otherwise they'd have arrested the McCanns. Makes sense to me. Are we saying the Portuguese police were idiots?
The awful thing is that the police had got the report discounting the so-called forensic evidence when they pulled the McCanns in for interrogation and tried to intimidate them with the very evidence which they, the police, already knew to be unsound. As for your comparison between the McCanns and Hitler and the Nazis, well, I think I've heard everything now! Preposterous. Cranky, even!
The reason they have support is simply that most ordinary people would naturally sympathise with parents in their position, and, of course, with the child. By the way, what do you think happened? Perhaps you know. I have never heard one single plausible theory as to how they could possibly have been involved. Not one. In fact, not even a hint of one. They all sound ludicrous, laughably unlikely. Even before the police removed their arguido status, nobody could believe the melodramatic rubbish in the press. That's another reason why they have public sympathy. And another reason why, in the absence of any evidence, the police abandoned the idea that they'd been involved. How could they have been?
7 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Dec 2010 15:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Dec 2010 17:56 GMT
Somewhere says:
I would suggest, respectfully, that everyone reads the released files of the Portuguese police before anyone comments on the veracity of the McCanns or the newspapers...everyone seems to be going round in circles...its making me quite dizzy...
Plus, I think a few people discount the influence of the politicos such as Gordon Brown et al, when one considers the facts. The McCanns may very well have been charged with child neglect. Counter their situation, if you may, with a working-class couple. Was Gerry not a member of a Nuclear Board, and an distant acquaintance of Gordon Brown's brother?
I must admit, I was led by their arguably repugnant behaviour, to consider that all was not what it seemed.
I think the Goebbels comparison was a PR one, not one exclusively attributable to the McCanns personally. One might say the same of Hollywood PR and the persistent rumours of alleged homosexuality on the part of a star. What Goebbels was saying that if you espouse one position so aggressively, and so to the detriment of another, the postulated position is wont to become universally accepted, since you are saturated with the message.
I, personally (and many others I know - quite a few, even) only feel sorry for the child, because she had no choice as to whether she was left alone at night - I feel sorry for her. The McCanns are big and ugly enough to state their own case. In my opinion, it is entirely of the parents own making - leaving them unattended in an unlocked room must have been very scary - in the darkness - and Madeleine must have been quite scared..., quite apart from our own opinions...
17 of 23 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Dec 2010 20:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Dec 2010 20:12 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
I have indeed asked several policemen's opinion on this very subject and to a man they have commented that so many discrepancies within single statements is not usual. Several also commented on the fact that the memories of several of the interviewees seemed to change or even become more vivid with the passage of time a phenomena which, they assured me, is highly unusual and deeply suspicious.
As to the evidence collected by the PJ being discounted that simply is not true.
The McCanns were made arguidos, in effect arrested, on the basis of this
evidence. The fact that the PP, not the PJ, felt the evidence was not strong
enough to bring a winnable prosecution against the McCanns at that time does not mean the evidence was discounted but merely of inadequate strength to proceed to trial
My reason for using Hitler was merely to demonstrate the fact that your assertion that public support is somehow an indicator of an individuals purity of purpose is
demonstrably false. The McCanns understand, as Hitler did, that in the battle to win, and retain, public support propaganda ( or it's more modern incarnation
public relations ) is the most important weapon. Controlled perception not truth is propagandas only goal and the McCanns, along with their advicers, seem masters of that dark art.
Finally in answer to your question I have no idea what really happened to Madeleine on that fateful May evening. How could I ? What I do know though without a shadow of a doubt is that we have not, as yet, been told the truth and I believe we, unfortunately, may never be.
19 of 23 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 21:11 GMT
J.W. von Goethe says:
I have to say that I am astonished about the venom sprayed by those who support the McCanns on those who disagree. The parents may be perfectly innocent and there is no evidence whatsoever for the opposite- of course that also works the other way round. I do not know who is trying to make more money out of this sad story, the policeman, who feels wronged and who believes that the record of his findings should be heard, or the parents, who feel wronged and who also (rightly) insist that their side should be heard. All this would be better done in court than via books. A shame only that Amazon still (seemingly) refuses to sell Amaral's book (even though he has a perfect right for publication). Opinions can only be formed by comparisons. To accuse people of incompetence can also form a basis for a libel suit - I wouldn't waste my money
17 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 22:31 GMT
R Murphy says:
I also think that Amazon should sell Goncalo Amaral's book "The Truth of the Lie". It is only fair and just that readers have a choice to read both sides of the situation.
21 of 28 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 5 Dec 2010 14:13 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
Sugar Plum, to be fair, you do call Hitler a "fellow propagandist and xenophobe" of the McCanns. I think some people might think it offensive to suggest that they resemble a dictator whose xenophobia led to the slaughter of millions.
I have never said that the number of people supporting a petition indicates any "purity of purpose". I merely indicated, in response to your comment that the petition is a scam, that you ought perhaps to simply accept that they do have a lot of public support and I said that, in my opinion, that's probably because most people's natural instinct would be to sympathise with parents in their position. Incidentally, last night at one point it stood at 35980 something, and this morning at 35971. That seems to show that they deal efficiently with duplicate signatures as they go along. May not be cheating anyway. When you sign, your signature doesn't come up immediately. Some people may think it hasn't worked and then sign again. Either way, it's being dealt with.
My question about what you thought might have happened is very serious. I too was suspicious when they were made arguidos and assumed they must be guilty, although with some surprise because they appeared to lack either motive or opportunity and not one single family member, colleague or close friend had ever voiced the slightest doubt about them. Their oldest friends from England (not the ones on holiday with them) never doubted them for a moment and neither did those got to know them in Portugal, like the vicar and his wife who seem to have remained supportive friends. I was puzzled but waited to hear what crime they'd committed, and how. Then it became clear, from the highest scientific authorities, that the so-called evidence was quite unreliable, a fact which the Portuguese police already knew before interrogating them as arguidos. I looked very carefully at the suggestions as to how the McCanns might have been involved. There were scores of suggested theories, each one more outlandish and unlikely than the last and none of them logistically possible anyway. Some were based on total ignorance of the facts, others simply on rumour, gossip, prejudice or plain old-fashioned nastiness, or "venom", to quote one poster.
You are right, there was no evidence to form the basis of charges, so the right thing was for the arguido status of Murat and the McCanns to be lifted. That's what the Portuguese did, having tried, quite reasonably, but failed, to find satisfactory evidence against any of them, or against anyone else, and having failed to find Madeleine alive or dead. If Rebelo had been in charge from day one, that last point might have been different, I don't know. Thankfully, in democratic countries we all have the protection of the law. None of us should fear charges unless there is reliable evidence against us. We don't after all live in Hitler's Germany.
For the moment I'll stick with the final Portuguese report on this case, ie. no evidence of any crime and no idea what happened to Madeleine. I hope we now get a full Portuguese/British review of the case, of ALL the evidence, undertaken by the police of both countries, which is what the McCanns are asking for. That's right and proper and what Madeleine deserves, whatever mistakes her parents made. I wish their petition success, though not with a lot of hope, and I await the book with interest but sadness too.
4 of 15 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 5 Dec 2010 19:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 5 Dec 2010 19:36 GMT
Somewhere says:
What is it about the McCanns? Why are so many people given to such differing opinions? I admit that people must be sympathetic that they have lost a child, under albeit mysterious circumstances, and they want the best for the family.
The McCanns have only asked for a review - they have not asked for a reopening, i.e. no need to keep spending money on what seems, to me to be arguably incompetent PIs, and the possibility of actually finding new evidence in a legal and state-sanctioned way. I would support the McCanns if they asked for a reopening.
I am sorry, but by the way, I would take issue with the stance that leaving your children alone for nights on end would be 'no evidence of a crime'. Like it or not, the sniffer dogs are a part of the case, circumstantial though this 'evidence' may be - i.e. the McCann's car boot, the apartment.
I would posit the theory that people find themselves in extraordinary situations and behave accordingly. I am sure the McCanns are well-liked by their friends, but it is not this likeability factor that makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. Humans are strange creatures. The fact remains that no-one outside the investigation really knows for sure what is going on, and I think a degree of measure is called for.
11 of 13 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 6 Dec 2010 10:17 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
Somewhere
You make good points. Of course it proves absolutely nothing that the McCanns are a well-liked and respected couple, and well-loved by their families. Nothing at all. But I just thought it rather strange that, although they were inundated with visitors from the very beginning, as well as having the world's media camped at their front door for months, not one single voice of suspicion was raised by anyone who knew them or stayed with them in Portugal, either at the time or since. I just can't see how that could happen if there had been any involvement on their part. Surely someone would have suspected something? I can't even see how they could have kept up an act 100% of the time with their own close family and oldest friends. i can't see how they could have fooled their holiday friends on the night itself and later. I certainly can't see how or why those friends could have risked their own lives by protecting the McCanns if they knew anything shady had happened. You just wouldn't do it. And even if they did, one of them would have cracked by now, and nobody has. I can't see how Kate or Gerry McCann could fooled their own mothers or siblings over the years since.
All very unlikely if they were involved in any way.
The Portuguese authorities said in their final report that the case can be reopened if there is significant new evidence. When Gerry McCann went to Portugal some months ago hoping for some move in that direction, the Attorney General repeated that the case would not be reopened without such new evidence. A couple of weeks ago, Gerry McCann said on TV that they hoped the review they are asking for might turn up some piece of evidence which could persuade the Portuguese authorities to reopen the case. Of course, they also want all the evidence to date to be put together on one database. Apparently this has never happened.
Myself, I can't see how you could have a total review without reopening. You can't review it if it's closed and gathering dust on a shelf. So I don't really see the difference anyway.
I do understand why they want proper police forces working on it again rather than just PIs. PIs have limited authority and don't have access to everything they might need. The police are in a much better position to work on it. I assume that's why they want the police involved. I hope their petition works to get the review, although I think it's a forlorn hope that much will come of it. Too many errors and too much time wasted in the early days of the investigation, I suspect. But you never know. It should at least be tried for Madeleine's sake.
3 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 8 Dec 2010 18:23 GMT
A. Brewer says:
There have been some good points made by both sides of the massive divide that is the "McCann Case" in the above posts.
For my part, as a staunch believer in the English legal maxim "innocent until proven guilty", it is my view that we must be very careful in how we express our views on the disappearance of Madeleine and not allow perfectly natural, but raw emotions, to supplant rational and objective thought. At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, we also need to remind ourselves that Portugal does not operate under the English system of law or policing.
In the UK the Police, I have very good reason to believe, would have been much more robust in their investigation of a similar case and would not have shelved it after such a short time, as have the Portuguese authorities - that is not a criticism of Portugal, or its judicial system, just an observation of fact.
There are any number of discrepancies from both sides that one can highlight with the Maddie case, from the initial handling of the crime scene; failure to search possible disposal points for a body; the obtuse behaviour of the parents and their friends on the night of the disappearance; conflicting accounts of what actually happened or was witnessed; etc.; etc. All of these things are now a matter of public record and most of them are detailed in the PJ's files, or can be found in media reports from the time. (I have read the lot and I am STILL confused!)
The one clear, unassailable FACT, is that the McCanns left their 3 children (all under the age of 4) in an apartment, some distance from where they were eating and drinking and, as a result of that arrangement, Madeleine disappeared.
We can all, with 20/20 hindsight, declaim authoritatively on what we would have done differently in similar circumstances. But the fact is we were not there; we know absolutely NOTHING other than what we have read/watched/heard of the case since 4 May 2007.
Having said that we can, with some justification I believe, criticise the emphasis on spin and fund-raising that has uniquely been applied to this case by those closest involved - all to zero effect in relation to finding Maddie! The writing of this proposed book seems to me to be part of continuing that process, and I would respectfully suggest that perhaps a more constructive use of the McCanns' time would be for them to actually go to Portugal and physically look for their missing daughter. After all, hasn't one of their own PIs stated that he believes Maddie is being held within a certain radius of PdL?
10 of 12 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 9 Dec 2010 21:24 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
I'm not sure how much point there would be in going back to Portugal to search. They are not the police. Neither they nor their PIs have search warrants. They would not have the right or resources or time to dig up every field and garden, to blow up roads and drains, to enter every house, outhouse, stable, barn and shed, to look in every basement, to examine every pig stye, to drain every lake and pond, to remove every grain of sand from the beaches. Where would they start a search? Even the police couldn't do that. Kate and Gerry could aim to walk through every field and wood, climb every hill, look under every bush and rock, dive in the waters around Portugal, of course, but it would take scores of lifetimes to do that, and even then it couldn't be complete.
The police could at least reopen the investigation if they felt it justified after a full review of all the evidence from the very beginning to the present date.
4 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.
MORE COMMENTS TO FOLLOW
16 of the 21 (76%) who left comments are clearly McCann-sceptics, or McCann-doubters: Sugar Plum, Unhappy Custoner, somewhere, casey, Aitch, R. Meek, J.W. von Goethe (mild sceptic), R. Murphy, lizzie, Mr D.P. Crisp, L. Hugues, Mrs E. Newman, Carol Lambert, watcher, bookreader and Fred.
By contrast, only 5 were penned by McCann-believers: Not Impressed, L. Agnew, Helen of Troy, A. Brewer and Maggs.
[Another, Anne. A. Correa Guedes, withdrew her post].
This is broadly in line with the 80% of British people who in 2007 said they thought the McCanns were not telling the whole truth, and the 70% who watched them in a TV interview on Spanish TV and adjudged them to be ‘lying’.
Judging by the negative comments about the McCanns and their book, sales are likely to be well below expectations, and Transworld might well regret having invested in this ‘very truthful’ book.
Here are all the comments posted on Amazon so far
++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Initial post: 29 Nov 2010 00:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 00:35 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
Madeleine
When there is so much doubt surrounding the night of May the 3rd 2007 wouldnt the McCann's time have been, better spent returning to Portugal and helping to re-open the case by taking part in a reconstruction of the events of that evening rather than writing some self- serving tome that will help not one jot in the search for Madeleine ?
35 of 47 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 09:37 GMT
Unhappy Customer says:
Perhaps the McCanns and their seven friends should have agreed to help the police and they should have taken part in a reconstruction. Rather than refusing to take part - as this didn't help the "search" and only added to the suspicions surrounding them and their seven friends. Their version of the events of the 3rd of May 2007 is confusing and at times contradictory. Perhaps this book will be a way of them "re-explaining" their version of the story. But wouldn't helping the police be easier and better and quicker? I mean - a child is missing.
35 of 47 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 17:59 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 18:00 GMT
Somewhere says:
I can't help but think that the book will exist entirely of a long-winded monologue on the subject of how hard done by the McCanns have been. Forget the fact that millions of pounds have been raised with the help of schoolchildren and OAPs, some of which was used to pay the mortgage of the McCann's house, and to pay for the robust defense of the McCanns 'good name'; I think the McCanns must feel very hard done by the fact a few people choose not to forget that a *three year old child* and *two year old twins* were left unattended on a dark night - the fact that Kate and Gerry were drinking the night away only makes the situation more heinous. And now she is gone. How can Kate blame the police, when she refused to answer the 48 questions asked of her?
28 of 40 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 19:48 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 19:48 GMT
Not Impressed says:
The parents never refused to take part in a reconstruction, that's an outright lie. Not even possible legally! Some of the other witnesses did refuse to go, their reasons for doing so may be read in full at the Maddiecasefiles site. And no, I wouldn't have gone either in their shoes.
I very much look forward to reading the book, it's about time their side was heard above the din of the self-opinionated and partially informed who have fallen willing victim to a sustained campaign of vilification started in Portugal by elements of the police. A campaign which was noted and exposed by the President of the Portuguese Bar Association, among many others.
11 of 40 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 23:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 23:34 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
The PP made it implicit in his archiving dispatch that by not attending the reconstruction the MCCanns had failed clear up major discrepancies that existed in their statements and therefore had given up the chance to clear themselves of all suspicion.
To say that the McCanns did not refuse to go to the reconstruction, while technically true, belies the hard reality that they colluded with their holiday friends in order to scupper the reconstruction from the very beginning. Why were they so scared to reconstruct that night ? Surely if they were telling the truth about the sequence of events a reconstruction would have removed all suspicion from the McCann and helped to re- focus the investigation in another direction. Of course if their had been a reconstruction perhaps the PJ may not have been so willing as Edgar in the mockumentary to accept Gerry's claim that he was on the right side of the road during the Tanner sighting . This was in spite of Tanner and Wilkins both saying he was on the left hand side. Also if the reconstruction had gone ahead it would have been abundantly clear that Tanner could not have walked past Gerry and Wilkins on the narrow street they were chatting on and not be noticed and could not have made out the details she claims to have seen regarding both Madeleine and the alleged abductor, due to distance and poor lighting.
31 of 42 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 30 Nov 2010 15:18 GMT
Not Impressed says:
Perhaps you would like to produce evidence for the claim that the McCanns 'colluded' with their friends to scupper the reconstruction? There isn't any, as you well know. Are the people making these biased comments the same warped individuals who gave this book such inappropraite tags that Amazon had to remove them? Don't answer, it's obvious.
8 of 33 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 30 Nov 2010 18:14 GMT
Last edited by the author on 30 Nov 2010 18:21 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
I would appreciate it if you would stop using personal insults in an attempt to derail this discussion. You know as well as I do that if the McCanns had asked their friends to put Madeleine's welfare before their personal reservations the reconstruction would have gone ahead. The fact that they didn't must raise questions in any fair minded person. I notice the points I made regarding the Tanner sighting have been met by only a deafening silence from you. The devil is in the detail they say and the McCanns will have to be very careful regarding what the actually put into print in order not to be hoisted by their own petard .
26 of 34 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Nov 2010 19:49 GMT
Casey says:
Given a similar scenario if my friends refused to take part in a police reconstruction which just might throw some light on the mysterious disappearance of my much loved daughter I would at the very least never speak to them again, why do the McCanns? Oh, I forgot - they trust their friends 100%, seemingly no repeated questioning of the last man to check their kids, no long drawn out searches for Madeleine. They went to bed around 2.30, yes, all of them!! Will the book tell us exactly how much money was actually spent on the search and how much money has been spent on extremely expensive lawyers? I have my doubts.
26 of 35 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 30 Nov 2010 19:58 GMT
Last edited by the author on 30 Nov 2010 20:01 GMT
Aitch says:
I think the time spent in writing the book would have been better spent asking for the case to be re-opened. As a parent I would want to know what happened to my child. Surely the parents of Madeleine want to know.......or..........?
24 of 33 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 30 Nov 2010 22:00 GMT
Anne A. Correa Guedes says:
[Deleted by the author on 30 Nov 2010 22 GMT]
++++
Posted on 1 Dec 2010 16:11 GMT
R. Meek says:
Will Kate answer the 48 questions she was asked to help find her daughter? Will the McCanns explain where all the fund money was spent, in layman's terms? Will they explain why they have not asked the appropriate authorities to re-open the case?
22 of 30 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 1 Dec 2010 20:53 GMT
L. Agnew says:
Very much looking forward to reading this book.
6 of 24 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 1 Dec 2010 21:18 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
Sorry the McCanns haven't written this earlier but I can understand it must be horrendous to go over it all again. I wish them luck with their petition to get the case completely reviewed by Portuguese and British police. Petition can be accessed on www.findmadeleine.com
Tens of thousands of signatures already. If it succeeds they may yet get the truth about what really happened to Madeleine,
7 of 27 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 1 Dec 2010 23:16 GMT
Somewhere says:
I hope that the Portuguese police get to the truth, and may the truth ring loud. Despite the passage of time, I only feel sorry for the child, left alone night after night. Her parents have recourse to state their case, but little Madeleine was not to have that privilege herself...
22 of 29 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 2 Dec 2010 00:01 GMT
Last edited by the author on 2 Dec 2010 00:07 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
Two points I would like to raise in answer to your post Helen :
1. The case was reviewed by Rebelo, the co-ordinator who replaced Amaral, and he also came to the same conclusions as the original investigation. If Kate would answer the 48 questions she failed to answer when questioned by the PJ or the McCanns and their friends would agree to the reconstruction that has already been refused it would constitute new evidence which could re-open the case. There would then be no need for them to write this book to raise money for their own PIs as the PJ would take over the financing of the case.
2. Why didn't the McCanns submit their petition to the official site of the prime minister's office instead of the tuppenny ha'penny one they chose ? Could it be that they were aware that it was possible for multiple signatures to be submitted by a single person on their chosen site which is, I think you'll agree, ideal if you wish to manipulate the public into believing you have more support than you actually have ?
18 of 25 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 3 Dec 2010 16:20 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
Sugar Plum.
Only one signature is allowed per email address. There's a warning that duplicate signatures will be removed. The petition is addressed to both the British AND Portuguese authorities asking them to review the case so it wouldn't be quite right to use the British PM's office, especially as there are a number of signatures from outside the UK. I've seen ipetitions used for lots of petitions. You'd use the PM one more for things you wanted to change about British law or British systems.
I think you just have to accept that the McCanns do have a lot of public support. Not far off 36k signatures now, and still growing steadily, and that's only the ones online. People sometimes have paper copies as well for anyone who doesn't have access to the net.
IMO the other things you mention are just the usual cranky conspiracy stuff you get with all big cases, same as we saw with Diana's death, Kennedy assassination etc. Always happens. Some people just enjoy fantasy, don't they? No way would the Portuguese police have let them get away with a crime. If there was evidence they'd have been arrested ages ago. In the end the Portuguese authorities said there was no evidence of any crime committed by anybody at all and they just did not know what had happened to Madeleine.
7 of 22 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 00:08 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
While I agree that the site allows only one signature per email address I am aware of bogus emails being registered and the signatures from these emails being accepted on the petition and while I accept the McCanns have a certain amount of support I understand Hitler, a fellow propagandist and xenophobe, also retained the belief of the people right up until he squashed that small poison capsule between his lips. A certain Joseph Goebbels postulated that the essence of propaganda consisted of winning people over to an idea so sincerely, so vitally, that in the end they succumb to it utterly and can never escape from it. I'm sure the McCanns would identify with this ethos. That they can still garner any support from the populous is purely down to their masterly PR campaign and manipulation of the press and has absolutely nothing to do with the truth.
I found it interesting that you described the salient points I made above as 'cranky, conspiracy stuff ' when you seem not to realise that the only way apologists for McCanns can, and do, explain the various indicators of the couples guilt such as discrepancies in statements, the cadaver and blood dog alerts etc is to weave them into a conspiratorial narrative involving the Portuguese police, Martin Grimes, Uncle Tom Cobbley et al.
13 of 20 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 09:46 GMT
Aitch says:
The book is to be published, written by Kate McCann. We have not had the full facts, as they stand, reported in the UK. Why not?
All we have heard is one sided reporting or none at all! Goncalo Amarals book was banned thanks to the McCanns but is now able to go back on sale thanks to another Hearing. I know which book I would prefer to read and it won't be the one written by a parent who admitted she didn't look for her child the night she was reported missing.
18 of 22 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 10:36 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
But it would be astonishing if there were no discrepancies in their statements. If there ARE any discrepancies, they would only show that they are basically telling the truth but not remembering everything exactly or all at once. That's what happens in real life. Ask any policeman who is used to taking witness statements. Ask any lawyer who is used to hearing witnesses in court. Only witnesses who are in league and lying give exactly the same story because they've concocted it beforehand.
The 'evidence" you talk about was discounted by the police because it wasn't sound. Otherwise they'd have arrested the McCanns. Makes sense to me. Are we saying the Portuguese police were idiots?
The awful thing is that the police had got the report discounting the so-called forensic evidence when they pulled the McCanns in for interrogation and tried to intimidate them with the very evidence which they, the police, already knew to be unsound. As for your comparison between the McCanns and Hitler and the Nazis, well, I think I've heard everything now! Preposterous. Cranky, even!
The reason they have support is simply that most ordinary people would naturally sympathise with parents in their position, and, of course, with the child. By the way, what do you think happened? Perhaps you know. I have never heard one single plausible theory as to how they could possibly have been involved. Not one. In fact, not even a hint of one. They all sound ludicrous, laughably unlikely. Even before the police removed their arguido status, nobody could believe the melodramatic rubbish in the press. That's another reason why they have public sympathy. And another reason why, in the absence of any evidence, the police abandoned the idea that they'd been involved. How could they have been?
7 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Dec 2010 15:20 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Dec 2010 17:56 GMT
Somewhere says:
I would suggest, respectfully, that everyone reads the released files of the Portuguese police before anyone comments on the veracity of the McCanns or the newspapers...everyone seems to be going round in circles...its making me quite dizzy...
Plus, I think a few people discount the influence of the politicos such as Gordon Brown et al, when one considers the facts. The McCanns may very well have been charged with child neglect. Counter their situation, if you may, with a working-class couple. Was Gerry not a member of a Nuclear Board, and an distant acquaintance of Gordon Brown's brother?
I must admit, I was led by their arguably repugnant behaviour, to consider that all was not what it seemed.
I think the Goebbels comparison was a PR one, not one exclusively attributable to the McCanns personally. One might say the same of Hollywood PR and the persistent rumours of alleged homosexuality on the part of a star. What Goebbels was saying that if you espouse one position so aggressively, and so to the detriment of another, the postulated position is wont to become universally accepted, since you are saturated with the message.
I, personally (and many others I know - quite a few, even) only feel sorry for the child, because she had no choice as to whether she was left alone at night - I feel sorry for her. The McCanns are big and ugly enough to state their own case. In my opinion, it is entirely of the parents own making - leaving them unattended in an unlocked room must have been very scary - in the darkness - and Madeleine must have been quite scared..., quite apart from our own opinions...
17 of 23 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 4 Dec 2010 20:08 GMT
Last edited by the author on 4 Dec 2010 20:12 GMT
Sugar Plum says:
I have indeed asked several policemen's opinion on this very subject and to a man they have commented that so many discrepancies within single statements is not usual. Several also commented on the fact that the memories of several of the interviewees seemed to change or even become more vivid with the passage of time a phenomena which, they assured me, is highly unusual and deeply suspicious.
As to the evidence collected by the PJ being discounted that simply is not true.
The McCanns were made arguidos, in effect arrested, on the basis of this
evidence. The fact that the PP, not the PJ, felt the evidence was not strong
enough to bring a winnable prosecution against the McCanns at that time does not mean the evidence was discounted but merely of inadequate strength to proceed to trial
My reason for using Hitler was merely to demonstrate the fact that your assertion that public support is somehow an indicator of an individuals purity of purpose is
demonstrably false. The McCanns understand, as Hitler did, that in the battle to win, and retain, public support propaganda ( or it's more modern incarnation
public relations ) is the most important weapon. Controlled perception not truth is propagandas only goal and the McCanns, along with their advicers, seem masters of that dark art.
Finally in answer to your question I have no idea what really happened to Madeleine on that fateful May evening. How could I ? What I do know though without a shadow of a doubt is that we have not, as yet, been told the truth and I believe we, unfortunately, may never be.
19 of 23 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 21:11 GMT
J.W. von Goethe says:
I have to say that I am astonished about the venom sprayed by those who support the McCanns on those who disagree. The parents may be perfectly innocent and there is no evidence whatsoever for the opposite- of course that also works the other way round. I do not know who is trying to make more money out of this sad story, the policeman, who feels wronged and who believes that the record of his findings should be heard, or the parents, who feel wronged and who also (rightly) insist that their side should be heard. All this would be better done in court than via books. A shame only that Amazon still (seemingly) refuses to sell Amaral's book (even though he has a perfect right for publication). Opinions can only be formed by comparisons. To accuse people of incompetence can also form a basis for a libel suit - I wouldn't waste my money
17 of 21 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 4 Dec 2010 22:31 GMT
R Murphy says:
I also think that Amazon should sell Goncalo Amaral's book "The Truth of the Lie". It is only fair and just that readers have a choice to read both sides of the situation.
21 of 28 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 5 Dec 2010 14:13 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
Sugar Plum, to be fair, you do call Hitler a "fellow propagandist and xenophobe" of the McCanns. I think some people might think it offensive to suggest that they resemble a dictator whose xenophobia led to the slaughter of millions.
I have never said that the number of people supporting a petition indicates any "purity of purpose". I merely indicated, in response to your comment that the petition is a scam, that you ought perhaps to simply accept that they do have a lot of public support and I said that, in my opinion, that's probably because most people's natural instinct would be to sympathise with parents in their position. Incidentally, last night at one point it stood at 35980 something, and this morning at 35971. That seems to show that they deal efficiently with duplicate signatures as they go along. May not be cheating anyway. When you sign, your signature doesn't come up immediately. Some people may think it hasn't worked and then sign again. Either way, it's being dealt with.
My question about what you thought might have happened is very serious. I too was suspicious when they were made arguidos and assumed they must be guilty, although with some surprise because they appeared to lack either motive or opportunity and not one single family member, colleague or close friend had ever voiced the slightest doubt about them. Their oldest friends from England (not the ones on holiday with them) never doubted them for a moment and neither did those got to know them in Portugal, like the vicar and his wife who seem to have remained supportive friends. I was puzzled but waited to hear what crime they'd committed, and how. Then it became clear, from the highest scientific authorities, that the so-called evidence was quite unreliable, a fact which the Portuguese police already knew before interrogating them as arguidos. I looked very carefully at the suggestions as to how the McCanns might have been involved. There were scores of suggested theories, each one more outlandish and unlikely than the last and none of them logistically possible anyway. Some were based on total ignorance of the facts, others simply on rumour, gossip, prejudice or plain old-fashioned nastiness, or "venom", to quote one poster.
You are right, there was no evidence to form the basis of charges, so the right thing was for the arguido status of Murat and the McCanns to be lifted. That's what the Portuguese did, having tried, quite reasonably, but failed, to find satisfactory evidence against any of them, or against anyone else, and having failed to find Madeleine alive or dead. If Rebelo had been in charge from day one, that last point might have been different, I don't know. Thankfully, in democratic countries we all have the protection of the law. None of us should fear charges unless there is reliable evidence against us. We don't after all live in Hitler's Germany.
For the moment I'll stick with the final Portuguese report on this case, ie. no evidence of any crime and no idea what happened to Madeleine. I hope we now get a full Portuguese/British review of the case, of ALL the evidence, undertaken by the police of both countries, which is what the McCanns are asking for. That's right and proper and what Madeleine deserves, whatever mistakes her parents made. I wish their petition success, though not with a lot of hope, and I await the book with interest but sadness too.
4 of 15 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 5 Dec 2010 19:33 GMT
Last edited by the author on 5 Dec 2010 19:36 GMT
Somewhere says:
What is it about the McCanns? Why are so many people given to such differing opinions? I admit that people must be sympathetic that they have lost a child, under albeit mysterious circumstances, and they want the best for the family.
The McCanns have only asked for a review - they have not asked for a reopening, i.e. no need to keep spending money on what seems, to me to be arguably incompetent PIs, and the possibility of actually finding new evidence in a legal and state-sanctioned way. I would support the McCanns if they asked for a reopening.
I am sorry, but by the way, I would take issue with the stance that leaving your children alone for nights on end would be 'no evidence of a crime'. Like it or not, the sniffer dogs are a part of the case, circumstantial though this 'evidence' may be - i.e. the McCann's car boot, the apartment.
I would posit the theory that people find themselves in extraordinary situations and behave accordingly. I am sure the McCanns are well-liked by their friends, but it is not this likeability factor that makes a difference in the grand scheme of things. Humans are strange creatures. The fact remains that no-one outside the investigation really knows for sure what is going on, and I think a degree of measure is called for.
11 of 13 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 6 Dec 2010 10:17 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
Somewhere
You make good points. Of course it proves absolutely nothing that the McCanns are a well-liked and respected couple, and well-loved by their families. Nothing at all. But I just thought it rather strange that, although they were inundated with visitors from the very beginning, as well as having the world's media camped at their front door for months, not one single voice of suspicion was raised by anyone who knew them or stayed with them in Portugal, either at the time or since. I just can't see how that could happen if there had been any involvement on their part. Surely someone would have suspected something? I can't even see how they could have kept up an act 100% of the time with their own close family and oldest friends. i can't see how they could have fooled their holiday friends on the night itself and later. I certainly can't see how or why those friends could have risked their own lives by protecting the McCanns if they knew anything shady had happened. You just wouldn't do it. And even if they did, one of them would have cracked by now, and nobody has. I can't see how Kate or Gerry McCann could fooled their own mothers or siblings over the years since.
All very unlikely if they were involved in any way.
The Portuguese authorities said in their final report that the case can be reopened if there is significant new evidence. When Gerry McCann went to Portugal some months ago hoping for some move in that direction, the Attorney General repeated that the case would not be reopened without such new evidence. A couple of weeks ago, Gerry McCann said on TV that they hoped the review they are asking for might turn up some piece of evidence which could persuade the Portuguese authorities to reopen the case. Of course, they also want all the evidence to date to be put together on one database. Apparently this has never happened.
Myself, I can't see how you could have a total review without reopening. You can't review it if it's closed and gathering dust on a shelf. So I don't really see the difference anyway.
I do understand why they want proper police forces working on it again rather than just PIs. PIs have limited authority and don't have access to everything they might need. The police are in a much better position to work on it. I assume that's why they want the police involved. I hope their petition works to get the review, although I think it's a forlorn hope that much will come of it. Too many errors and too much time wasted in the early days of the investigation, I suspect. But you never know. It should at least be tried for Madeleine's sake.
3 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 8 Dec 2010 18:23 GMT
A. Brewer says:
There have been some good points made by both sides of the massive divide that is the "McCann Case" in the above posts.
For my part, as a staunch believer in the English legal maxim "innocent until proven guilty", it is my view that we must be very careful in how we express our views on the disappearance of Madeleine and not allow perfectly natural, but raw emotions, to supplant rational and objective thought. At the risk of stating the blindingly obvious, we also need to remind ourselves that Portugal does not operate under the English system of law or policing.
In the UK the Police, I have very good reason to believe, would have been much more robust in their investigation of a similar case and would not have shelved it after such a short time, as have the Portuguese authorities - that is not a criticism of Portugal, or its judicial system, just an observation of fact.
There are any number of discrepancies from both sides that one can highlight with the Maddie case, from the initial handling of the crime scene; failure to search possible disposal points for a body; the obtuse behaviour of the parents and their friends on the night of the disappearance; conflicting accounts of what actually happened or was witnessed; etc.; etc. All of these things are now a matter of public record and most of them are detailed in the PJ's files, or can be found in media reports from the time. (I have read the lot and I am STILL confused!)
The one clear, unassailable FACT, is that the McCanns left their 3 children (all under the age of 4) in an apartment, some distance from where they were eating and drinking and, as a result of that arrangement, Madeleine disappeared.
We can all, with 20/20 hindsight, declaim authoritatively on what we would have done differently in similar circumstances. But the fact is we were not there; we know absolutely NOTHING other than what we have read/watched/heard of the case since 4 May 2007.
Having said that we can, with some justification I believe, criticise the emphasis on spin and fund-raising that has uniquely been applied to this case by those closest involved - all to zero effect in relation to finding Maddie! The writing of this proposed book seems to me to be part of continuing that process, and I would respectfully suggest that perhaps a more constructive use of the McCanns' time would be for them to actually go to Portugal and physically look for their missing daughter. After all, hasn't one of their own PIs stated that he believes Maddie is being held within a certain radius of PdL?
10 of 12 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 9 Dec 2010 21:24 GMT
Helen of Troy says:
I'm not sure how much point there would be in going back to Portugal to search. They are not the police. Neither they nor their PIs have search warrants. They would not have the right or resources or time to dig up every field and garden, to blow up roads and drains, to enter every house, outhouse, stable, barn and shed, to look in every basement, to examine every pig stye, to drain every lake and pond, to remove every grain of sand from the beaches. Where would they start a search? Even the police couldn't do that. Kate and Gerry could aim to walk through every field and wood, climb every hill, look under every bush and rock, dive in the waters around Portugal, of course, but it would take scores of lifetimes to do that, and even then it couldn't be complete.
The police could at least reopen the investigation if they felt it justified after a full review of all the evidence from the very beginning to the present date.
4 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.
MORE COMMENTS TO FOLLOW
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
The rest of the comments on Amazon
by Tony Bennett 11.03.11 22:45
THE REST OF THE COMMENTS
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2010 14:09 GMT
Casey says:
There has already been a review of the case. Paulo Rebelo was brought in to do exactly that when Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case and he and his team came to exactly the same conclusion as had Senor Amaral. As also did the British police by the way who were involved in this case right from the beginning. Don't forget how Leicestershire police had to go to court to prevent disclosure of their own case files to the McCanns and Justice Hogg had to agree that the original order she had made had to be varied to exclude these files. Why was Madeleine made a Ward of Court anyway? It's unprecedented as far as I know unless it's a parental abduction or the parent can't cope.
The McCanns had the right to stop the case being archived but they chose not to. They could reopen the case if they would return with their mates and take part in the police reconstruction or Kate would answer the questions she refused to answer at the time. But again they wont.
And they could have searched when Madeleine disappeared but they didn't. Instead of swanning off to see the Pope and becoming celebrities they could have had teams of relatives combing the whole area piece by piece, instead of jogging they could have shifted some of those stones they always said they would overturn but never did. Poor Madeleine, she deserved better.
11 of 13 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 5 Jan 2011 19:10 GMT
Lizzie says:
Looking forward to Amazon selling 'The Truth of the Lie' Goncalo Amarals book.
If they can stock the McCanns book then it is only right and proper they stock his book too
10 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 5 Jan 2011 19:24 GMT
Aitch says:
Completely agree lizzie. The McC's speak of their book as being the truth. Surely if that's the case the truth has already been told...or has it?
Kate refused to answer 48 questions knowing that it would help the investigation for her daughter.
Goncalo Amaral has been allowed to have his book sold by 3 Judges.....as it is based on the Official Files.
Why hasn't the news that the banning of his book has been upturned been evident in our media?
9 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 20:53 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Hear, hear!
3 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 20:54 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Quite agree! Excellent post!
3 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 21:02 GMT
Mr D.P. Crisp says:
It's about time their side was heard?! The British public have ONLY heard thier version of events (or rather their many versions of events!) Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions from the police and neither her nor her husband have ever physically searched for Madeleine since she disappeared. The Wikileaks article has proven that it was the British police who inititally suspected the McCanns so it wasn't just "villification from elements in Portugal's police force." Please get your facts straight before you post !
6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 18 Jan 2011 21:23 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Which version of what Kate believe happened to Madeleine will we hear? On every press/media interview or police statement there have been major discrepancies. Will Kate finally provide the evidence she says she already has to "prove" there was an abduction? Will the money raised be used to finance new independent investigators with experience in missing persons (eg: ex-FBI) with a mandate to investigate everyone involved including the Tapas 9 (even the McCanns) so as to "leave no stone unturned" or will it spent on dodgy PI's (at least two companies are being investigated for fraud) or expensive extradition lawyers and libel lawyers?
7 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 21:26 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Quite agree! Amaral's book is based on the police files NOT on the words of the former chief suspect!
8 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 21:27 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Well said!
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 16:59 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I agree another money making scheme
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:02 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I agree i am appalled by the fact that they are hounding the portugese policeman and have no concern for him or his family, despite the amount of compassion they have been shown. They have no good word for anyone who has tried to help them
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:08 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Do you have children. if you lose one would you have the presence of mind to set up a fund within 3 days, it would be the last thing on my mind. Bearing in mind these were not poor people and their dedication to making money out of their daughter has to be applauded. What could they possibly have to say that they have not already said. They have used the catholic church to put a saintly face on their plight. They sicken me. God help the children who are left.
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:11 GMT
L. Hughes says:
The chummy letters between the police and the tapas 7 a matter of public record the witness statements which the same police did not turn in. The arrest of the deputy police chief blah blah blah can you read
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:14 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I saw a video of this woman giving her so called evidence, it was obvious she did not know what she was saying at one point she says I was carrying her like this not he was carrying her
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:20 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I think a full investigation should be made into the parents and the other 7 personally I think once you have children you should have grown out of holidayingh with friends. I have holidayed with family and with small children, the children went where we went. There are sacrifices to be made when travelling with children. You dine much earlier, you go very easy on the alcohol, you cherish what god has given you. If they did not want strangers to look after their children surely one couple a night could be on chilminding duty or are they all as selfish as the mccanns appear to be
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:22 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Bless you my dear I think they know perfectly well what has happened to their child> Its the rest of us they dont want to know
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:25 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I dont think she will answer the questions especially the awkward ones like why was she handing the care of her daughter over to a relative.The money has been used in my opinion to create such a large media circus that any evidence against them will be lost
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:25 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Me too interesting the word truth in the title
2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:30 GMT
L. Hughes says:
They have been too busy travelling and collecting funds . Why wouldnt they want to go over it again the story dies the money dies with it. The petition is a fake that has already been proved I would like a petition to open the case not an independant review orchestrated by gerry mccann. The british police have already been implicated in a cover up. I think they know exactly what happened to madeline. They are a suspicious couple. Things like 14 sightings in Malta prompting them to fly to Germany leave me a bit doubtful about these people. Just as a matter of interest what makes you such a fan
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:31 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I hope with you
1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:33 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I agree. there has been documentation of the invalidity of this petition
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:39 GMT
L. Hughes says:
rubbish a friend of mine put 15 signatures to this unchallenged.They had no qualms about getting the pm involved when they were in portugal. I dont think they would have so much support if they answered the questions A lot of people were sucked in by them and do not want to look gullible so continue to support them.I think you are quite dismissive of a young woman who died in a tragic accident. and a young man who was slaughtered before his time. No comparison in my opinion,
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:41 GMT
L. Hughes says:
well said
2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:45 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I have read amarals book i will not be buying the mccann book and many of my friends agree.
5 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:50 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Amazing you have never heard of anyone getting away with anything. where there is a child involved there will always be a surge of sympathy. If that child died accidently because of their neglect it would put into focus the fact that these people in a caring profession cant even care for their own. They were definately guilty of neglect no doubts there why werent they charged. I find the idea that a complete stranger entered a hotel room and took the only child who could speak for herself even more laughable
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:51 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I have read the files and i agree with everything else you say
1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:53 GMT
L. Hughes says:
why do grieving parents need a pr company
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:55 GMT
L. Hughes says:
amazon should not sell one book and not the other. I am sorry but i do not feel they want to tell the truth whatever that is they want to cointiinue to fund a lifestyle and a celebrity which they have grown used to
6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:55 GMT
L. Hughes says:
exactly
1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:01 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Im sorry but there child went missing after being left alone this is against the law they should not be able to profit from this crime by writing a book
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 24 Jan 2011 18:13 GMT
L. Hughes says:
The plain fact is leaving children is a crime they are lucky to still have their twins. Myself and many other people are asking why they are being allowed to write a book and profit from this crime. If they want to be heard let the case re=open. Answer the questions asked . No right thinking person will buy this book. Amazon should be ashamed to publish it. I wont be a customer of theirs gain
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:16 GMT
L. Hughes says:
the mccanns scorned both the portugese and british police and always maintained they wanted their own investigators. of course the publics money gave them the means for this indulgence. other people do not have this.
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:18 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I think they committed a crime and if they had been office cleaners not doctors they would have been charged
6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:18 GMT
L. Hughes says:
my friends an i agree
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:52 GMT
L. Hughes says:
most of us are tired of hearing their side
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:53 GMT
L. Hughes says:
they apparently can use the publics money in any way they choose
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 11 Mar 2011 11:43 GMT
Mrs. E. Newman says:
I have not believed a word the McCanns said since viewing photographs of them coming out of church on what would have been Madeleine's 4th birthday. No parent of a child who had only been missing a few days could act in such a way. Those smiling faces told a thousand stories. As for Kate McCann telling the truth, are we being told that her statements to the Police are a lie? Has anyone read their statements, and can make head or tail of them? If one tells the truth you do not have to remember anything, also words come easy when you are telling the truth, which is something the McCanns find very hard to do. As for the fund, I think this should be stopped now, all the money spent on their legal fees and PR is totally imoral, the fund should never have been used for this. Also I do think that it should be publised now as a PLC as this is what it is. Kate and Gerry can spend that money on what and who they want, its time to stop asking the public for money in the search for their child as this is not what the money is being 100% used for!
5 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2011 12:07 GMT
Carol Lambert says:
Bravo. As a Mum I have followed this case quite closely and I simply do not recognise, in either McCann, the demeanour of a parent who has lost the most precious thing anyone can have. Perhaps their instant transformation into a pair of well scrubbed, well orchestrated, media savvy, image obsessed individuals, bloated with hubris, is there way of dealing with their loss. Personally I would have been under sedation and, by now, possibly under a train.
4 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2011 17:39 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Agree totally, Carol
2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 11 Mar 2011 19:58 GMT
watcher says:
If you were a police officer investigating the disappearance of a child, and it transpires that not only has the child been left unattended, along with her even younger brother and sister, but also that the parents claim they did not lock the door to the apartment - what would you think? And who, in the absence of any evidence of an intruder, would you be taking a close look at? If it happened in the UK you can bet your life that the police would consider those parents to be suspects.
Let's not forget that after several months of no progress in the case, a specialist dog - from the UK, incidentally - signalled the presence of a dead body in the apartment and in other places or on items associated with the McCanns. That would definitely make me suspicious.
So it seems to me to be extremely churlish of the McCanns to complain so bitterly that the police had them in the frame for this. If you are the kind of parent who puts dinner before daughter you have to expect that you throw suspicion upon yourself when she vanishes. That child deserved better
2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2011 20:19 GMT
bookreader says:
Usually if the people concerned are not there to take part in a reconstruction then they get actors to do it. Sometimes the people are dead and cannot do a reconstruction!! So the excuse that the Tapas 7 refused does not wash with me > The McCanns could have done one and as I say actors taken on to do the rest obviously sticking to the police statements.
Ohhh I forget they did their own I think it was on channel four. Actors were employed then, taking the part of the Smiths if I remember right. Pity they got what the Smith's saw wrong as in the position of the child oh well. Call it poetic licence
1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2011 20:25 GMT
Last edited by the author 31 minutes ago
Maggs says:
Have you horrible lot got nothing better to do? Who's paying you lot?
Try thinking about Madeleine, and what Amaral was up to at the time. Now there's pure evil for you.
0 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 11 Mar 2011 20:48 GMT
Fred says:
Being a previous visitor to the Ocean Club in PDL with a young daughter, I was intrigued with the one sided reporting of this "abduction" When Gerry stood on the steps of the apartment and said he had a clear view of the apartment from the Tapas bar, alarm bells rang!! I knew that was impossible so what else wasn't true? Quite a lot to be honest, why? Well let's hope, although, I very much doubt that the book will tell us. I won't buy it, as I prefer my money to go towards a good cause. Media manipulation has played a huge part of this whole circus. If kate wanted the truth to be told, then why didn't she answer the 48 questions that the PJ wanted her to? To many questions and no answers, just my opinion of course, in case Carter Ruck are reading. (How much have the McCanns paid that firm?)
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? [0 comments so far]
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3V9M9SOXCI5FM
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Dec 2010 14:09 GMT
Casey says:
There has already been a review of the case. Paulo Rebelo was brought in to do exactly that when Goncalo Amaral was removed from the case and he and his team came to exactly the same conclusion as had Senor Amaral. As also did the British police by the way who were involved in this case right from the beginning. Don't forget how Leicestershire police had to go to court to prevent disclosure of their own case files to the McCanns and Justice Hogg had to agree that the original order she had made had to be varied to exclude these files. Why was Madeleine made a Ward of Court anyway? It's unprecedented as far as I know unless it's a parental abduction or the parent can't cope.
The McCanns had the right to stop the case being archived but they chose not to. They could reopen the case if they would return with their mates and take part in the police reconstruction or Kate would answer the questions she refused to answer at the time. But again they wont.
And they could have searched when Madeleine disappeared but they didn't. Instead of swanning off to see the Pope and becoming celebrities they could have had teams of relatives combing the whole area piece by piece, instead of jogging they could have shifted some of those stones they always said they would overturn but never did. Poor Madeleine, she deserved better.
11 of 13 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 5 Jan 2011 19:10 GMT
Lizzie says:
Looking forward to Amazon selling 'The Truth of the Lie' Goncalo Amarals book.
If they can stock the McCanns book then it is only right and proper they stock his book too
10 of 11 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 5 Jan 2011 19:24 GMT
Aitch says:
Completely agree lizzie. The McC's speak of their book as being the truth. Surely if that's the case the truth has already been told...or has it?
Kate refused to answer 48 questions knowing that it would help the investigation for her daughter.
Goncalo Amaral has been allowed to have his book sold by 3 Judges.....as it is based on the Official Files.
Why hasn't the news that the banning of his book has been upturned been evident in our media?
9 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 20:53 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Hear, hear!
3 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 20:54 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Quite agree! Excellent post!
3 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 21:02 GMT
Mr D.P. Crisp says:
It's about time their side was heard?! The British public have ONLY heard thier version of events (or rather their many versions of events!) Kate McCann refused to answer 48 questions from the police and neither her nor her husband have ever physically searched for Madeleine since she disappeared. The Wikileaks article has proven that it was the British police who inititally suspected the McCanns so it wasn't just "villification from elements in Portugal's police force." Please get your facts straight before you post !
6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 18 Jan 2011 21:23 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Which version of what Kate believe happened to Madeleine will we hear? On every press/media interview or police statement there have been major discrepancies. Will Kate finally provide the evidence she says she already has to "prove" there was an abduction? Will the money raised be used to finance new independent investigators with experience in missing persons (eg: ex-FBI) with a mandate to investigate everyone involved including the Tapas 9 (even the McCanns) so as to "leave no stone unturned" or will it spent on dodgy PI's (at least two companies are being investigated for fraud) or expensive extradition lawyers and libel lawyers?
7 of 8 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 21:26 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Quite agree! Amaral's book is based on the police files NOT on the words of the former chief suspect!
8 of 9 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jan 2011 21:27 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Well said!
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 16:59 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I agree another money making scheme
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:02 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I agree i am appalled by the fact that they are hounding the portugese policeman and have no concern for him or his family, despite the amount of compassion they have been shown. They have no good word for anyone who has tried to help them
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:08 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Do you have children. if you lose one would you have the presence of mind to set up a fund within 3 days, it would be the last thing on my mind. Bearing in mind these were not poor people and their dedication to making money out of their daughter has to be applauded. What could they possibly have to say that they have not already said. They have used the catholic church to put a saintly face on their plight. They sicken me. God help the children who are left.
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:11 GMT
L. Hughes says:
The chummy letters between the police and the tapas 7 a matter of public record the witness statements which the same police did not turn in. The arrest of the deputy police chief blah blah blah can you read
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:14 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I saw a video of this woman giving her so called evidence, it was obvious she did not know what she was saying at one point she says I was carrying her like this not he was carrying her
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:20 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I think a full investigation should be made into the parents and the other 7 personally I think once you have children you should have grown out of holidayingh with friends. I have holidayed with family and with small children, the children went where we went. There are sacrifices to be made when travelling with children. You dine much earlier, you go very easy on the alcohol, you cherish what god has given you. If they did not want strangers to look after their children surely one couple a night could be on chilminding duty or are they all as selfish as the mccanns appear to be
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:22 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Bless you my dear I think they know perfectly well what has happened to their child> Its the rest of us they dont want to know
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:25 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I dont think she will answer the questions especially the awkward ones like why was she handing the care of her daughter over to a relative.The money has been used in my opinion to create such a large media circus that any evidence against them will be lost
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:25 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Me too interesting the word truth in the title
2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:30 GMT
L. Hughes says:
They have been too busy travelling and collecting funds . Why wouldnt they want to go over it again the story dies the money dies with it. The petition is a fake that has already been proved I would like a petition to open the case not an independant review orchestrated by gerry mccann. The british police have already been implicated in a cover up. I think they know exactly what happened to madeline. They are a suspicious couple. Things like 14 sightings in Malta prompting them to fly to Germany leave me a bit doubtful about these people. Just as a matter of interest what makes you such a fan
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:31 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I hope with you
1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:33 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I agree. there has been documentation of the invalidity of this petition
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:39 GMT
L. Hughes says:
rubbish a friend of mine put 15 signatures to this unchallenged.They had no qualms about getting the pm involved when they were in portugal. I dont think they would have so much support if they answered the questions A lot of people were sucked in by them and do not want to look gullible so continue to support them.I think you are quite dismissive of a young woman who died in a tragic accident. and a young man who was slaughtered before his time. No comparison in my opinion,
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:41 GMT
L. Hughes says:
well said
2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:45 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I have read amarals book i will not be buying the mccann book and many of my friends agree.
5 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:50 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Amazing you have never heard of anyone getting away with anything. where there is a child involved there will always be a surge of sympathy. If that child died accidently because of their neglect it would put into focus the fact that these people in a caring profession cant even care for their own. They were definately guilty of neglect no doubts there why werent they charged. I find the idea that a complete stranger entered a hotel room and took the only child who could speak for herself even more laughable
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:51 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I have read the files and i agree with everything else you say
1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:53 GMT
L. Hughes says:
why do grieving parents need a pr company
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:55 GMT
L. Hughes says:
amazon should not sell one book and not the other. I am sorry but i do not feel they want to tell the truth whatever that is they want to cointiinue to fund a lifestyle and a celebrity which they have grown used to
6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 17:55 GMT
L. Hughes says:
exactly
1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:01 GMT
L. Hughes says:
Im sorry but there child went missing after being left alone this is against the law they should not be able to profit from this crime by writing a book
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 24 Jan 2011 18:13 GMT
L. Hughes says:
The plain fact is leaving children is a crime they are lucky to still have their twins. Myself and many other people are asking why they are being allowed to write a book and profit from this crime. If they want to be heard let the case re=open. Answer the questions asked . No right thinking person will buy this book. Amazon should be ashamed to publish it. I wont be a customer of theirs gain
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:16 GMT
L. Hughes says:
the mccanns scorned both the portugese and british police and always maintained they wanted their own investigators. of course the publics money gave them the means for this indulgence. other people do not have this.
5 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:18 GMT
L. Hughes says:
I think they committed a crime and if they had been office cleaners not doctors they would have been charged
6 of 7 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:18 GMT
L. Hughes says:
my friends an i agree
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:52 GMT
L. Hughes says:
most of us are tired of hearing their side
4 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 24 Jan 2011 18:53 GMT
L. Hughes says:
they apparently can use the publics money in any way they choose
3 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 11 Mar 2011 11:43 GMT
Mrs. E. Newman says:
I have not believed a word the McCanns said since viewing photographs of them coming out of church on what would have been Madeleine's 4th birthday. No parent of a child who had only been missing a few days could act in such a way. Those smiling faces told a thousand stories. As for Kate McCann telling the truth, are we being told that her statements to the Police are a lie? Has anyone read their statements, and can make head or tail of them? If one tells the truth you do not have to remember anything, also words come easy when you are telling the truth, which is something the McCanns find very hard to do. As for the fund, I think this should be stopped now, all the money spent on their legal fees and PR is totally imoral, the fund should never have been used for this. Also I do think that it should be publised now as a PLC as this is what it is. Kate and Gerry can spend that money on what and who they want, its time to stop asking the public for money in the search for their child as this is not what the money is being 100% used for!
5 of 5 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2011 12:07 GMT
Carol Lambert says:
Bravo. As a Mum I have followed this case quite closely and I simply do not recognise, in either McCann, the demeanour of a parent who has lost the most precious thing anyone can have. Perhaps their instant transformation into a pair of well scrubbed, well orchestrated, media savvy, image obsessed individuals, bloated with hubris, is there way of dealing with their loss. Personally I would have been under sedation and, by now, possibly under a train.
4 of 4 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2011 17:39 GMT
Mr. D.P. Crisp says:
Agree totally, Carol
2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 11 Mar 2011 19:58 GMT
watcher says:
If you were a police officer investigating the disappearance of a child, and it transpires that not only has the child been left unattended, along with her even younger brother and sister, but also that the parents claim they did not lock the door to the apartment - what would you think? And who, in the absence of any evidence of an intruder, would you be taking a close look at? If it happened in the UK you can bet your life that the police would consider those parents to be suspects.
Let's not forget that after several months of no progress in the case, a specialist dog - from the UK, incidentally - signalled the presence of a dead body in the apartment and in other places or on items associated with the McCanns. That would definitely make me suspicious.
So it seems to me to be extremely churlish of the McCanns to complain so bitterly that the police had them in the frame for this. If you are the kind of parent who puts dinner before daughter you have to expect that you throw suspicion upon yourself when she vanishes. That child deserved better
2 of 3 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2011 20:19 GMT
bookreader says:
Usually if the people concerned are not there to take part in a reconstruction then they get actors to do it. Sometimes the people are dead and cannot do a reconstruction!! So the excuse that the Tapas 7 refused does not wash with me > The McCanns could have done one and as I say actors taken on to do the rest obviously sticking to the police statements.
Ohhh I forget they did their own I think it was on channel four. Actors were employed then, taking the part of the Smiths if I remember right. Pity they got what the Smith's saw wrong as in the position of the child oh well. Call it poetic licence
1 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
In reply to an earlier post on 11 Mar 2011 20:25 GMT
Last edited by the author 31 minutes ago
Maggs says:
Have you horrible lot got nothing better to do? Who's paying you lot?
Try thinking about Madeleine, and what Amaral was up to at the time. Now there's pure evil for you.
0 of 2 people think this post adds to the discussion.
++++
Posted on 11 Mar 2011 20:48 GMT
Fred says:
Being a previous visitor to the Ocean Club in PDL with a young daughter, I was intrigued with the one sided reporting of this "abduction" When Gerry stood on the steps of the apartment and said he had a clear view of the apartment from the Tapas bar, alarm bells rang!! I knew that was impossible so what else wasn't true? Quite a lot to be honest, why? Well let's hope, although, I very much doubt that the book will tell us. I won't buy it, as I prefer my money to go towards a good cause. Media manipulation has played a huge part of this whole circus. If kate wanted the truth to be told, then why didn't she answer the 48 questions that the PJ wanted her to? To many questions and no answers, just my opinion of course, in case Carter Ruck are reading. (How much have the McCanns paid that firm?)
Do you think this post adds to the discussion? [0 comments so far]
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_pg_pg1?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=1&cdSort=oldest&cdThread=Tx3V9M9SOXCI5FM
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by PeterMac 13.03.11 8:00
Is this new ?
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/234197/Kate-McCann-s-helps-search-for-MaddieKate-McCann-s-helps-search-for-Maddie#ixzz1GROU5aouKATE MCCANN'S HELPS SEARCH FOR MADDIE
Kate McCann has chosen the world-famous picture of daughter Madeleine as the cover for her book
Sunday March 13,2011
By Tracey Kandohia
KATE McCANN has chosen the world-famous picture of daughter Madeleine as the cover for her book.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: “This is the picture that everyone remembers of Madeleine.
“Although age-progression photos of how she may look nowadays have been released, her parents thought the original photo would be more appropriate.”
Kate’s decision to relive her nightmare by telling the story of Madeleine’s abduction in her own words has been heartbreaking for her.
She hopes her account will raise millions of pounds for the dwindling Madeleine fund, which will pay private investigators to continue the search.
A friend said yesterday: “The book is taking up nearly all Kate’s time.
“She is finding it very emotional and has been in tears at times when she has been remembering the worst of it all.
“She looks a bit stressed out but she has put her heart and soul into the book and is determined to give it her best shot for Madeleine.”
Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine
Kate McCann
Kate, 42, a doctor from Rothley, Leicestershire, said: “Publishing this book has been a very difficult decision and is one that we have taken after much deliberation and with a very heavy heart.
“Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.”
The 384-page hardback Madeleine will be published on Madeleine’s eighth birthday, May 12, price £20.
END
?Maddie? I thought they didn't call her that.
Book it taking up nearly all of Kate's time ? It surely should have been finished a long time ago. There is a small matter of printing, publishing, distributing and so on before the deadline, so what can that mean.
Every penny to be spent on the search ? We should all be safe from Carter-Ruck in that case.
And by the way, how long is the story of the abduction? "I went back and she wasn't there and I knew at once she had been abducted," should about cover it.
http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/234197/Kate-McCann-s-helps-search-for-MaddieKate-McCann-s-helps-search-for-Maddie#ixzz1GROU5aouKATE MCCANN'S HELPS SEARCH FOR MADDIE
Kate McCann has chosen the world-famous picture of daughter Madeleine as the cover for her book
Sunday March 13,2011
By Tracey Kandohia
KATE McCANN has chosen the world-famous picture of daughter Madeleine as the cover for her book.
Family spokesman Clarence Mitchell said yesterday: “This is the picture that everyone remembers of Madeleine.
“Although age-progression photos of how she may look nowadays have been released, her parents thought the original photo would be more appropriate.”
Kate’s decision to relive her nightmare by telling the story of Madeleine’s abduction in her own words has been heartbreaking for her.
She hopes her account will raise millions of pounds for the dwindling Madeleine fund, which will pay private investigators to continue the search.
A friend said yesterday: “The book is taking up nearly all Kate’s time.
“She is finding it very emotional and has been in tears at times when she has been remembering the worst of it all.
“She looks a bit stressed out but she has put her heart and soul into the book and is determined to give it her best shot for Madeleine.”
Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine
Kate McCann
Kate, 42, a doctor from Rothley, Leicestershire, said: “Publishing this book has been a very difficult decision and is one that we have taken after much deliberation and with a very heavy heart.
“Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.”
The 384-page hardback Madeleine will be published on Madeleine’s eighth birthday, May 12, price £20.
END
?Maddie? I thought they didn't call her that.
Book it taking up nearly all of Kate's time ? It surely should have been finished a long time ago. There is a small matter of printing, publishing, distributing and so on before the deadline, so what can that mean.
Every penny to be spent on the search ? We should all be safe from Carter-Ruck in that case.
And by the way, how long is the story of the abduction? "I went back and she wasn't there and I knew at once she had been abducted," should about cover it.
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13589
Activity : 16578
Likes received : 2065
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Whatever happened to 'Leaving no stone unturned'?
by Tony Bennett 13.03.11 15:54
The comments on Amazon continue to flow in.
Here's a sensible contribution from a Mrs E Newman:
QUOTE
I will certainly not be buying the book, I will read the version in the Sun however.
As for the fund, it is a business, a PLC. As for claims that it is 'used in searching for Madeleine', only a very small proportion is used for that, the rest is spent on top-notch lawyers and PR. Why innocent people would need such high profile lawyers is another story.
The Portugese Police have told the McCanns they are more than happy to help them with a review, however, in order for this to happen, they will have to partake in a reconstruction of that night to sort out all the inconsistencies.
As yet the McCanns have refused. Whatever happened to 'Leaving no stone unturned'?
Surely they would do this for their daughter; it would also cost nothing.
UNQUOTE
Here's a sensible contribution from a Mrs E Newman:
QUOTE
I will certainly not be buying the book, I will read the version in the Sun however.
As for the fund, it is a business, a PLC. As for claims that it is 'used in searching for Madeleine', only a very small proportion is used for that, the rest is spent on top-notch lawyers and PR. Why innocent people would need such high profile lawyers is another story.
The Portugese Police have told the McCanns they are more than happy to help them with a review, however, in order for this to happen, they will have to partake in a reconstruction of that night to sort out all the inconsistencies.
As yet the McCanns have refused. Whatever happened to 'Leaving no stone unturned'?
Surely they would do this for their daughter; it would also cost nothing.
UNQUOTE
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by PeterMac 14.03.11 8:01
Also, it is already remaindered, at only 3/4 of the original price.
Madeleine by Kate McCann (Hardcover - 12 May 2011)
Buy new:£20.00 £14.99
Available for pre-order. This item will be released on 12 May 2011
Madeleine by Kate McCann (Hardcover - 12 May 2011)
Buy new:
Available for pre-order. This item will be released on 12 May 2011
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13589
Activity : 16578
Likes received : 2065
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by kangdang 14.03.11 15:56
Having read those comments I would say that few, likely none, are people who do not frequent and discuss the case in mccann forums - Thus, their views cannot be construed representive of the wider public.
____________________
Indeed, I swallow a textbook everyday….a fact of which I am proud
By far preferable and productive than wasting precious hours concocting and launching vitriolic attacks against others in the hope of gaining a few claps on a board frequented by lesser life form.
kangdang- Posts : 1680
Activity : 1845
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-01-29
Age : 46
Location : Corona Mountain
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by PeterMac 14.03.11 23:01
kangdang - Indeed so, but the comments are there for people who are interested in looking at the book with a view to buying a copy. I don't think anyone would suggest that the views were representative. They are, however, there. In the public domain. And so far not Carter-Rucked or Whoosh-Clunked. Which is itself fascinating at a different level.
For the record - I have ordered a copy, at 14.99, and with luck will bore people to tears with analysis of the 'truth' as it is finally revealed by Kate.
In English law, and in most legal systems in the civilised world, which in this case includes Portugal, the prosecution has to prove
1 - that a crime has been committed
and
2 - that the accused person committed it.
I, like many others, am still, 4 years later, waiting for the proof of No. 1. The McCanns have that evidence. They have told us repeatedly that they have it, but they have never revealed exactly what it was. Not to the public, not to the press and crucially, not to the police in all their various statements. So at 4 years' remove, I am hoping that they will now tell us why Kate "knew immediately" that there had been an "abduction".
Then, and only then, can we begin to move to the second stage. That of trying to find out who did it.
For the record - I have ordered a copy, at 14.99, and with luck will bore people to tears with analysis of the 'truth' as it is finally revealed by Kate.
In English law, and in most legal systems in the civilised world, which in this case includes Portugal, the prosecution has to prove
1 - that a crime has been committed
and
2 - that the accused person committed it.
I, like many others, am still, 4 years later, waiting for the proof of No. 1. The McCanns have that evidence. They have told us repeatedly that they have it, but they have never revealed exactly what it was. Not to the public, not to the press and crucially, not to the police in all their various statements. So at 4 years' remove, I am hoping that they will now tell us why Kate "knew immediately" that there had been an "abduction".
Then, and only then, can we begin to move to the second stage. That of trying to find out who did it.
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13589
Activity : 16578
Likes received : 2065
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by kangdang 15.03.11 7:50
So at 4 years' remove, I am hoping that they will now tell us why Kate "knew immediately" that there had been an "abduction".
Indeed I would like the answer to this question too, if you find it in the book please let me know.
I will not be buying a copy of the book, I shall loan it from my local library instead.
____________________
Indeed, I swallow a textbook everyday….a fact of which I am proud
By far preferable and productive than wasting precious hours concocting and launching vitriolic attacks against others in the hope of gaining a few claps on a board frequented by lesser life form.
kangdang- Posts : 1680
Activity : 1845
Likes received : 4
Join date : 2010-01-29
Age : 46
Location : Corona Mountain
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by PeterMac 15.03.11 12:10
I am sure I shall find it in the book. We are told it is going to be "very truthful", so the evidence relating to the abduction surely must be included.
The evidence was clearly strong enough to report the incident immediately to the press as a confirmed abduction, regardless of what anyone else actually thought.
It has taken 4 years for Mitchell to say it might have been an assumption, or a working hypothesis, but this book is about what happened on the night in question, and so the public are entitled to know the full evidence.
They surely can't now admit that the hypothesis was wrong. They surely cannot now admit that they have been blindly following the wrong trail for 4 years, and that suddenly they are going to start again along a different track.
I can't wait !
The evidence was clearly strong enough to report the incident immediately to the press as a confirmed abduction, regardless of what anyone else actually thought.
It has taken 4 years for Mitchell to say it might have been an assumption, or a working hypothesis, but this book is about what happened on the night in question, and so the public are entitled to know the full evidence.
They surely can't now admit that the hypothesis was wrong. They surely cannot now admit that they have been blindly following the wrong trail for 4 years, and that suddenly they are going to start again along a different track.
I can't wait !
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13589
Activity : 16578
Likes received : 2065
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by zodiac 15.03.11 14:36
Amazon have deleted a pro post!
Eleanor says:
[Deleted by Amazon 3 hours ago]
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2011 22:54 GMT
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_pg_oldest?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx3V9M9SOXCI5FM
zodiac- Posts : 73
Activity : 77
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-01-31
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by Guest 15.03.11 14:44
zodiac wrote:Amazon have deleted a pro post!
Eleanor says:
[Deleted by Amazon 3 hours ago]
In reply to an earlier post on 14 Mar 2011 22:54 GMT
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=cm_cd_pg_oldest?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdPage=1&cdSort=newest&cdThread=Tx3V9M9SOXCI5FM
Guest- Guest
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by theolivebranch 15.03.11 17:32
Good afternoon everyone. PeterMac I do wish that I had your conviction that this book is going to give you some more to work with. I just feel it will be full of wind and whims.
It used to say OXO on the side of the red double decker buses but I never found any in one.
I suppose though that if you bought one and it didn't deliver what it said it would then you could return it for a refund/
It used to say OXO on the side of the red double decker buses but I never found any in one.
I suppose though that if you bought one and it didn't deliver what it said it would then you could return it for a refund/
theolivebranch- Posts : 557
Activity : 565
Likes received : 1
Join date : 2010-09-19
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by PeterMac 15.03.11 22:20
They have promsed that it will be "very truthful". For the moment let us reserve judgement, and wait with eager anticipation and bated breath for the full details of the evidence which led Kate to say she knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted.
If she should fail to provide those details, and we bear in mind that she failed nearly 4 years ago to provide them to the police in Portugal, and has refused to provide them to anyone since, we shall be entitled to ask, publicly, loudly and without fear of being Carter-Rucked what they have been doing for the last 4 years, and crucially, why many millions of donated pounds have been wasted on what their official spokesman has recently admitted was just an "assumption" and a "working hypothesis".
We can ask, and the press can also legitimately ask not only of the MCCanns but also of the other trustees, past and present, what they have been dong with the money.
Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion. Not for murder, extortion, drugs, alcohol, or anything else. The revenue got him. Sleep well.
(My tongue is getting sore through being pushed so forcefully into my cheek !)
If she should fail to provide those details, and we bear in mind that she failed nearly 4 years ago to provide them to the police in Portugal, and has refused to provide them to anyone since, we shall be entitled to ask, publicly, loudly and without fear of being Carter-Rucked what they have been doing for the last 4 years, and crucially, why many millions of donated pounds have been wasted on what their official spokesman has recently admitted was just an "assumption" and a "working hypothesis".
We can ask, and the press can also legitimately ask not only of the MCCanns but also of the other trustees, past and present, what they have been dong with the money.
Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion. Not for murder, extortion, drugs, alcohol, or anything else. The revenue got him. Sleep well.
(My tongue is getting sore through being pushed so forcefully into my cheek !)
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13589
Activity : 16578
Likes received : 2065
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by DocMartin 15.03.11 22:31
PeterMac wrote:They have promsed that it will be "very truthful". For the moment let us reserve judgement, and wait with eager anticipation and bated breath for the full details of the evidence which led Kate to say she knew immediately that Madeleine had been abducted.
If she should fail to provide those details, and we bear in mind that she failed nearly 4 years ago to provide them to the police in Portugal, and has refused to provide them to anyone since, we shall be entitled to ask, publicly, loudly and without fear of being Carter-Rucked what they have been doing for the last 4 years, and crucially, why many millions of donated pounds have been wasted on what their official spokesman has recently admitted was just an "assumption" and a "working hypothesis".
We can ask, and the press can also legitimately ask not only of the MCCanns but also of the other trustees, past and present, what they have been dong with the money.
Al Capone went to prison for tax evasion. Not for murder, extortion, drugs, alcohol, or anything else. The revenue got him. Sleep well.
(My tongue is getting sore through being pushed so forcefully into my cheek !)
DocMartin- Posts : 39
Activity : 52
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-01-15
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by sharonl 02.04.11 8:27
The comments seem to have been whoosh cluncked
But we have this from Kate and Bill Scott-Kerr
From press release dated 18 November 2010.
Transworld acquires ‘Madeleine’, Kate and Gerry McCann’s personal account of the disappearance and continuing search for their daughter.
“There are several different reasons as to why I finally came to the decision with my husband Gerry to write and publish this book,” said Kate McCann. “This decision has not been an easy one. Many factors needed to be given thorough and careful consideration, not least the impact of such a book on the lives of our three children. My reason for writing is simple; to give an account of the truth.
Publishing this book has been a very different decision and is one that we have taken after much deliberation and with a very heavy heart. However, in the last few months with the depletion of Madeleine’s Fund, it is a decision that has virtually been taken out of our hands.
Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.”
Gerry McCann said: “We are hopeful that this book may help the investigation to find Madeleine in other ways too. Our hope is that it may prompt those who have relevant information (knowingly or not) to come forward and share it with our team. Somebody holds that key piece of the jigsaw.”
Bill Scott-Kerr, Publisher at Transworld, bought the book from the Christopher Little Literary Agency for publication in Spring 2011. All royalties will be donated directly to Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.
Bill said: ‘It is an enormous privilege to be publishing this book. We are so pleased to be joining Kate and Gerry McCann in the Find Madeleine campaign."
The McCanns' Literary Agents, Christopher Little and Neil Blair, said: "We are honoured to be part of this emotive project and to support the McCanns in their search for Madeleine."
But we have this from Kate and Bill Scott-Kerr
From press release dated 18 November 2010.
Transworld acquires ‘Madeleine’, Kate and Gerry McCann’s personal account of the disappearance and continuing search for their daughter.
“There are several different reasons as to why I finally came to the decision with my husband Gerry to write and publish this book,” said Kate McCann. “This decision has not been an easy one. Many factors needed to be given thorough and careful consideration, not least the impact of such a book on the lives of our three children. My reason for writing is simple; to give an account of the truth.
Publishing this book has been a very different decision and is one that we have taken after much deliberation and with a very heavy heart. However, in the last few months with the depletion of Madeleine’s Fund, it is a decision that has virtually been taken out of our hands.
Every penny we raise through its sales will be spent on our search for Madeleine. Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.”
Gerry McCann said: “We are hopeful that this book may help the investigation to find Madeleine in other ways too. Our hope is that it may prompt those who have relevant information (knowingly or not) to come forward and share it with our team. Somebody holds that key piece of the jigsaw.”
Bill Scott-Kerr, Publisher at Transworld, bought the book from the Christopher Little Literary Agency for publication in Spring 2011. All royalties will be donated directly to Madeleine’s Fund – Leaving No Stone Unturned Limited.
Bill said: ‘It is an enormous privilege to be publishing this book. We are so pleased to be joining Kate and Gerry McCann in the Find Madeleine campaign."
The McCanns' Literary Agents, Christopher Little and Neil Blair, said: "We are honoured to be part of this emotive project and to support the McCanns in their search for Madeleine."
sharonl- Forum Owner
- Posts : 8560
Activity : 11199
Likes received : 1397
Join date : 2009-12-29 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by Jill Havern 02.04.11 8:42
sharonl wrote:Publishing this book has been a very different decision and is one that we have taken after much deliberation and with a very heavy heart. However, in the last few months with the depletion of Madeleine’s Fund, it is a decision that has virtually been taken out of our hands.
But Kate said she believed the book would find Madeleine, because it's "an account" of the truth, so why write it with heavy heart?
Why didn't she pay a ghost writer 4 years ago, instead of using some of the Fund money to pay her mortgage, and demand the ghost writer type faster to get it finished so it could be distributed without further ado around the secret lairs in the lawless hills of PDL where Maddie is believed to be giving her tuppence worth to some paedophile who Kate hopes is treating her daughter with the love and respect she deserves?
Oh, sorry, just read the last bit about the fund running out which of course is the real reason for the book.
Jill Havern- Forum Owner & Chief Faffer
- Posts : 28848
Activity : 41575
Likes received : 7715
Join date : 2009-11-25
Location : Parallel universe
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by DocMartin 02.04.11 9:02
Why indeed write the book with a heavy heart. For Kate to realize that the book would find Madeleine surely should have made her feel very enthusiastic about writing it and excited that her daughter should be coming home soon after its publication.
But then didn't she say that Madeleine was very difficult to control and didn't Madeleine's own grandmother say that she could throw a tantrum if she wanted to? That kind of behavior, whilst normal for a small child, might have given one a heavy heart.
But then didn't she say that Madeleine was very difficult to control and didn't Madeleine's own grandmother say that she could throw a tantrum if she wanted to? That kind of behavior, whilst normal for a small child, might have given one a heavy heart.
DocMartin- Posts : 39
Activity : 52
Likes received : 6
Join date : 2011-01-15
The book will tell us definitely, once for all, unequivocally, leaving no doubt, who it is that we are supposed to be looking for. MInd you, they could just tell us today without publishing the book
by Tony Bennett 02.04.11 10:59
What I am really looking forward to, indeed EAGERLY ANTICIPATING, is Dr Kate McCann's disclosure as to which of the 17 different suspects, persons of interest, and 'people we wish to eliminate from our enquiry' we are actually supposed to be looking for.sharonl wrote:The comments seem to have been whoosh cluncked
But we have this from Kate and Bill Scott-Kerr
From press release dated 18 November 2010.
Gerry McCann said: “We are hopeful that this book may help the investigation to find Madeleine in other ways too. Our hope is that it may prompt those who have relevant information (knowingly or not) to come forward and share it with our team.
15 of them men, two of them women I believe.
In particular, I would like to know if the man featured in the Channel 4 'Mockumentary' of May 2009 is still being sought. You know, the one featured on the video clip that is still I think on the official 'Find Madeleine Fund' website.
You don't remember??
I'll give a deascription:
White (not swarthy)
About 5' 10" to 6' 0"
Was wearing a yellow T-shirt
Was wearing blue jeans
Sometimes put a black leather jacket on
Sometimes wore sunglasses
Was portrayed as hanging around Apartment G5A of the Ocean Club on several occasions, looking towards the apartment and peering over walls.
Maybe it really was him that saw Dr Gerald McCann leave his apartment at 9.11pm, when it was almost dark, decided now was the moment to strike, walked in the apartment through the open patio door, found Madeleine in the dark, without switching the light on, picked her up without disturbing her or the twins, opened the curtains, opened the windows, opened the shutters, climbed out, walked out of the apartment, was seen momentarily by Jane Tanner at around 9.15pm but not by Dr Gerald McCann or Jeremy (call me Jez) Wilkins, and accomplished all this without anyone else (apart from Tanner) seeing him or hearing him, and without leaving any forensic trace whatsoever?
Presumably he also changed from his jeans to wearing his mustard chinos to execute the abduction.
Tony Bennett- Researcher
- Posts : 16906
Activity : 24770
Likes received : 3749
Join date : 2009-11-25
Age : 76
Location : Shropshire
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by PeterMac 02.04.11 11:04
"with a heavy heart" because..
1 I have been pressured into writing it by my husband,
2 everyone realises it is purely to boost the 'Fund'
3 everyone realises that it will not help to bring Madeleine back
4 everyone realises that that would need a miracle - a real one not a metaphorical one
5 I know that the content will be picked at until it bleeds
6 I know that the media will have a field day
7 I know that it will be virtually impossible to stop Clarence M saying even more stupid things in response to questions from the press
8 I know that putting anything on paper could ultimately lead us to face justice
Yes, I write it, or allow it to be ghost written, with a heavy heart.
1 I have been pressured into writing it by my husband,
2 everyone realises it is purely to boost the 'Fund'
3 everyone realises that it will not help to bring Madeleine back
4 everyone realises that that would need a miracle - a real one not a metaphorical one
5 I know that the content will be picked at until it bleeds
6 I know that the media will have a field day
7 I know that it will be virtually impossible to stop Clarence M saying even more stupid things in response to questions from the press
8 I know that putting anything on paper could ultimately lead us to face justice
Yes, I write it, or allow it to be ghost written, with a heavy heart.
PeterMac- Investigator
- Posts : 13589
Activity : 16578
Likes received : 2065
Join date : 2010-12-06 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by ufercoffy 02.04.11 12:25
PeterMac wrote:"with a heavy heart" because..
1 I have been pressured into writing it by my husband,
2 everyone realises it is purely to boost the 'Fund'
3 everyone realises that it will not help to bring Madeleine back
4 everyone realises that that would need a miracle - a real one not a metaphorical one
5 I know that the content will be picked at until it bleeds
6 I know that the media will have a field day
7 I know that it will be virtually impossible to stop Clarence M saying even more stupid things in response to questions from the press
8 I know that putting anything on paper could ultimately lead us to face justice
Yes, I write it, or allow it to be ghost written, with a heavy heart.
You did it again PeterMac...you cracked me up!
And
@ Tony Bennettand without leaving any forensic trace whatsoever?
Presumably he also changed from his jeans to wearing his mustard chinos to execute the abduction.
I love it here, I really do! 
____________________
Whose cadaver scent and bodily fluid was found in the McCann's apartment and hire car if not Madeleine's?
ufercoffy- Posts : 1662
Activity : 2101
Likes received : 32
Join date : 2010-01-04
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by sharonl 06.04.11 22:25
Oh dear
here are Amazons latest tags on Kate`s very truthful book
‹ Return to Product Overview
here are Amazons latest tags on Kate`s very truthful book
Tags Customers Associate with This Product (What's this?) Click on a tag to find related items, discussions, and people. Check the boxes next to the tags you consider relevant or enter your own tags in the field below
|
sharonl- Forum Owner
- Posts : 8560
Activity : 11199
Likes received : 1397
Join date : 2009-12-29 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by zodiac 06.04.11 22:33
sharonl - I was just reading them. They are not very helpful are they.
zodiac- Posts : 73
Activity : 77
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-01-31
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by sharonl 06.04.11 22:40
It seems that paperback is no longer available
Hardcover is now available at £12.40, last week that was the cost of the paperback.
Is it not selling well?
Hardcover is now available at £12.40, last week that was the cost of the paperback.
Is it not selling well?
sharonl- Forum Owner
- Posts : 8560
Activity : 11199
Likes received : 1397
Join date : 2009-12-29 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by sharonl 06.04.11 22:49
zodiac wrote:sharonl - I was just reading them. They are not very helpful are they.
No, not at all
I am sure that the McCanns can rely on the editor of the Sun to boost their sales.It would be very interesting to see the figures.
Does anyone know how the Team McCann book "Incompetence or Corruption" is doing?
sharonl- Forum Owner
- Posts : 8560
Activity : 11199
Likes received : 1397
Join date : 2009-12-29 -
Re: Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
by Roland Butter 08.04.11 18:36
sharonl wrote:Does anyone know how the Team McCann book "Incompetence or Corruption" is doing?
Roland Butter- Posts : 9
Activity : 9
Likes received : 0
Join date : 2011-03-19
Page 1 of 1
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
