MADELEINE MCCANN BOOK WAS FOR TWINS' EYES ONLY

by ROSA 22.05.11 0:34

WAS FOR TWINS’ EYES ONLY

MADELEINE MCCANN BOOK WAS FOR TWINS' EYES ONLY 248058_1

Madeleine has already become one of the fastest-selling non-fiction books ever

Sunday May 22,2011

By David Paul

KATE McCann wanted Madeleine’s younger siblings, twins Sean and Amelie, to be the only ones to read her heartbreaking book about her daughter’s abduction.

But a desperate cash shortage facing the fund set up to find Madeleine forced her to publish the intimate memoir to raise money, Kate’s mother Susan Healy has revealed.

The harrowing book, called simply Madeleine, also describes within its 384

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/248058/Madeleine-McCann-book-was-for-twins-eyes-onlyMadeleine-McCann-book-was-for-twins-eyes-only#ixzz1N26K5BzPpages the botched Portuguese police investigation and how Kate was vilified after being wrongly accused of killing her child.

“If Kate and Gerry were going to have to keep up the search on their own they needed money for the fund,” said Susan, of Allerton, Liverpool.

“But Kate probably would have written this book for her children anyway, though not for publication.

“It’s a very intimate book and I know what my daughter is like, she is a very private person.”

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/248058/Madeleine-McCann-book-was-for-twins-eyes-onlyMadeleine-McCann-book-was-for-twins-eyes-only#ixzz1N264WFetMadeleine has already become one of the fastest-selling non-fiction books since records began, with 72,500

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/248058/Madeleine-McCann-book-was-for-twins-eyes-onlyMadeleine-McCann-book-was-for-twins-eyes-only#ixzz1N25t5e6ycopies sold in its first week.

MADELEINE MCCANN BOOK WAS FOR TWINS' EYES ONLY ApostropheLeft

Kate probably would have written this book for her children
MADELEINE MCCANN BOOK WAS FOR TWINS' EYES ONLY ApostropheRight

Madeleine McCann's grandmother

It has ended the 32-week run at the top of the UK best-sellers list for chef Jamie Oliver’s 30-Minute Meals

Read more: http://www.express.co.uk/posts/view/248058/Madeleine-McCann-book-was-for-twins-eyes-onlyMadeleine-McCann-book-was-for-twins-eyes-only#ixzz1N25mtiki

by ROSA 22.05.11 3:15

ROSA wrote:
WAS FOR TWINS’ EYES ONLY

KATE McCann wanted Madeleine’s younger siblings, twins Sean and Amelie, to be the only ones to read her heartbreaking book about her daughter’s abduction.

But a desperate cash shortage facing the fund set up to find Madeleine forced her to publish the intimate memoir to raise money, Kate’s mother Susan Healy has revealed

Desperate doesnt even begin to describe the cryptic babel of Kate McCann nothing this woman says makes any sense oh except a desperate cash shortage

by lj 22.05.11 3:23

Didn't I say so.

She knows the twins will bring justice for their sister. This is her final trick to fill their minds with the suffering of Kate.

The woman should be locked up.

ETA: lock grammy up too, preferably the 2 in the same cell, they are cut from the same cloth.

by **HiDeHo** 22.05.11 3:49

Leg and bells comes to mind...

by Guest 22.05.11 9:33

You really couldn't make this story up. Oh wait, someone already has!

by ufercoffy 22.05.11 10:21

For twins eyes only? bigshock

Of course, Kate, money had nothing to do with it did it? Why not self publish and just keep it for the twins eyes only then?

Why did Kate think the twins would want to read about their sister's genitals?

by Guest 22.05.11 10:25

Ufercoffy, let's not forget either that reading about their parents' sex life is sure to appeal to children of all ages!

by littlepixie 22.05.11 10:37

Why are they desperate for money? I wish someone would actually ask them why they need so much money. They dont have to pay private investigators anymore so why have they flown to Portugal to push the book?

Its all very strange. They cannot use the "no-one looking for Maddie" excuse for their begging anymore, so any money made off the book now goes straight in their pockets - to be spent on what?

by Guest 22.05.11 10:47

Excellent points Little Pixie. I think this was all about money right from the start. Apologies for raising a question which has been asked elsewhere but are there any I T specialists out there who can explain why, on the McCanns' online shop, the copyright date 2007 is correct on the home page but on everything else it's 2006? If this is just the same as a normal clerical error then that's no problem.

by maebee 22.05.11 13:24

I wonder what the twins will think when they read page 129 and the ramblings of their mother about their parents sex lives?

by lj 22.05.11 16:57

I acn hear the twins asking "but mommie, why didn't you come when we were crying"?

by scotclogs 22.05.11 21:11

littlepixie wrote:Why are they desperate for money? I wish someone would actually ask them why they need so much money. They dont have to pay private investigators anymore so why have they flown to Portugal to push the book?

Its all very strange. They cannot use the "no-one looking for Maddie" excuse for their begging anymore, so any money made off the book now goes straight in their pockets - to be spent on what?

THEMSELFS

by Guest 01.08.11 21:27

To caution them on internet use:

"The internet has provided individuals like this with largely unregulated opportunity to set up websites and forums and blogs where they can share their bile and hate with other faceless, anonymous lowlife, all locked away in their bedrooms talking to each other online."

EM, I think Katie found out about Gerry's blog.

by LG78 18.08.11 22:43

Marian wrote:Excellent points Little Pixie. I think this was all about money right from the start. Apologies for raising a question which has been asked elsewhere but are there any I T specialists out there who can explain why, on the McCanns' online shop, the copyright date 2007 is correct on the home page but on everything else it's 2006? If this is just the same as a normal clerical error then that's no problem.

Good observasion , well it is strange that the other pages has 2006 and are 2007 only on the front page... U usually type in the copyright when u make the page, has to be done manually and are a type error deffently... Could they really have made such a big error, was the shop up and running from the start ? Someone should take a screen shot of that before they correct it...

by Guest 18.08.11 23:19

Hello LG78. The question with the website date was resolved in another topic, can't remember which one. There is a site where it tells you when a website name was first registered and, in the case of Find Madeleine Fund, it was a few days after 3rd May 2007; I can't recall the exact date.

by LG78 19.08.11 19:13

Marian wrote:Hello LG78. The question with the website date was resolved in another topic, can't remember which one. There is a site where it tells you when a website name was first registered and, in the case of Find Madeleine Fund, it was a few days after 3rd May 2007; I can't recall the exact date.

I dont understand ? Its not the date its the year 2006 .. that indicate they made the site or the name a year BEFORE she disapaired?

by LG78 19.08.11 19:14

LG78 wrote:
Marian wrote:Hello LG78. The question with the website date was resolved in another topic, can't remember which one. There is a site where it tells you when a website name was first registered and, in the case of Find Madeleine Fund, it was a few days after 3rd May 2007; I can't recall the exact date.

I dont understand ? Its not the date its the year 2006 .. that indicate they made the site or the name a year BEFORE she disapaired?

Edit : After some thinking I think I understand what you mean..Still something feels not right..

by Guest 20.08.11 21:32

LG78: there's some more information on the date query under the topic "A few oddities".

by Olympicana_Reloaded 03.02.13 20:06

ufercoffy wrote:For twins eyes only?

Of course, Kate, money had nothing to do with it did it? Why not self publish and just keep it for the twins eyes only then?

Why did Kate think the twins would want to read about their sister's genitals?

Good question

http://thisisabuse.direct.gov.uk

Myth:A rapist is likely to be a stranger who rapes someone in a dark alley

Fact: The majority of rapes are committed by people who know and trust each other. They could be friends, partners, family members or know each other from school, college or work.

Myth: Rape is only rape if someone gets physically injured

Fact: In some cases people who have been raped have injuries outside or inside their bodies, but not always. Just because someone hasn't got any injuries doesn't mean they weren't raped

Myth: Rape is only rape if someone gets physically forced into sex

Fact:This is not true. Rapists often use emotional pressure and manipulative techniques to intimidate and pressure their victims into sex, rather than physical force.

http://thisisabuse.direct.gov.uk/worried-about-abuse/view/rape-sexual-assult/myths

by **PeterMac** 03.02.13 22:10

Good point.
Kate felt "violated", (which in other languages is the word used for Rape (German for example))
when her secret diaries were publicised without her permission,
but obviously not quite so 'Violated' when they were published for profit by Kate herself, and serialised by the very same Newspaper Group from which she had received substantial damages the first time round, - - - If you follow that.
It's not easy to understand, I admit !
I still have problems with it. My background in logic gets in the way, I suppose.

by Smokeandmirrors 04.02.13 6:39

Molly wrote:To caution them on internet use:

"The internet has provided individuals like this with largely unregulated opportunity to set up websites and forums and blogs where they can share their bile and hate with other faceless, anonymous lowlife, all locked away in their bedrooms talking to each other online."

EM, I think Katie found out about Gerry's blog.

I see, this is distinct from those who spend tens of thousands on a rubbish website to promote misinformation in the name of £m's for questionable usage. Bile and hate are quite strong words to describe those who care what happened to a small child.True, the vast majority might well feel such emotions towards those who wilfully endanger children and then seek to mislead and profit from such actions, but the accuser in this instance would be wise to keep their head down and mouth closed. This sort of talk makes the inquisitor more inclined to refocus their investigative microscope to an even higher magnification.

by ufercoffy 04.02.13 6:54

Smokeandmirrors wrote:
Molly wrote:To caution them on internet use:

"The internet has provided individuals like this with largely unregulated opportunity to set up websites and forums and blogs where they can share their bile and hate with other faceless, anonymous lowlife, all locked away in their bedrooms talking to each other online."

EM, I think Katie found out about Gerry's blog.

I see, this is distinct from those who spend tens of thousands on a rubbish website to promote misinformation in the name of £m's for questionable usage. Bile and hate are quite strong words to describe those who care what happened to a small child.True, the vast majority might well feel such emotions towards those who wilfully endanger children and then seek to mislead and profit from such actions, but the accuser in this instance would be wise to keep their head down and mouth closed. This sort of talk makes the inquisitor more inclined to refocus their investigative microscope to an even higher magnification.

I think she's talking about muratfan and Bonnybraes isn't she?

by Guest 04.02.13 6:57

I really hope the twins don't read the book, they will be shocked to read about mum and dads sexlife, their sister genitals and all the jokes their mum has written in their book. Like " what can I say, it's Gerry's touch" all she missed was the smile in the end ...

Poor kids,they are probably brainwashed by now....

by ufercoffy 04.02.13 7:00

I have no doubt they've been brainwashed. They were taught, at a very early age, that a monster had taken Maddie and Sean said he and Amelie are going to find the monster and fight him.

by sheila.edwards 25.04.13 2:09

ufercoffy wrote:For twins eyes only?

Of course, Kate, money had nothing to do with it did it? Why not self publish and just keep it for the twins eyes only then?

Why did Kate think the twins would want to read about their sister's genitals?