My Highlights from the book

I posted this the other day on the discrepencies thread, where did the twins really sleep - sharing a bed, or in cots?

candyfloss wrote:Completely different stories, - so were the twins on one bed, or in cots? - the quote is directly from GM in Vanity Fair and says the twins were actually in one bed ...................

GM Witness statement 10th May 2007

[snipped]


At around 19H00, he made his way to the apartment, finding KATE and the children playing on the sofa. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they took the children to the bedroom and they all sat on MADELEINE's bed to read a story. At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door. He does not know if they were asleep but from the silence he presumed that they were. As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already done so, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.

[further on in the statement snipped]

When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE's bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cots.
He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scenario that she found when she entered the apartment.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta1


From Vanity Fair interview.................

WEB EXCLUSIVEJanuary 10, 2008
Crime
Unanswered Prayers


d]][snipped]

Thus the most important clue to the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance was initially ignored. At around 9:15, another friend, Jane Tanner, emerged from her own villa to see a white man in beige trousers—five feet six, brown hair (longer in the back), and perhaps 35, she later told the police. In his arms he cradled a child wearing pink-and-white pajamas.
It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “ Madeleine has gone! ”
page 2[/i]

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802#gotopage2

candyfloss

Thank you for the article from Vanity Fair.

snip from your post:

WEB EXCLUSIVEJanuary 10, 2008
Crime
Unanswered Prayers


d]][snipped]

Thus the most important clue to the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance was initially ignored. At around 9:15, another friend, Jane Tanner, emerged from her own villa to see a white man in beige trousers—five feet six, brown hair (longer in the back), and perhaps 35, she later told the police. In his arms he cradled a child wearing pink-and-white pajamas.
It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “ Madeleine has gone! ”
page 2[/i]

This was way back in 2008 so it's just possible that certain bits of truth kept slipping out - as they do. So may be this is in reality where the twins slept, that particular night.

tigger wrote:moa wrote: quote " Our own appartment was only thirty to forthy-five minuets away, and altough there were some bushes inbetween it was largely visible from the Tapas restaurant. We where sitting outside and could just as easily have been eating on a fine spring evening in a friends garden, with the kids asleep upstairs in the house."
First and last highlight in bold , Taking 30 - 45 second to go from a house and out in the garden, well thats a VERY BIG house..And why does she compare it to beeing in a friends garden? Why not just say, like eating in my backyard, or my garden..? Again she seems distance to what shes telling.
For the second higlight "LARGELY visible" well was it? Again it seems like shes trying to convince someone that it was a lot more visible than it was. And the kids where a sleep on the other side of the house that where not visible, so what value had that visibility anyway?

unquote

_______________________________________________

First: three children. Why does she need to tell us there were three? We decided to put the children in ....etc. would be normal.
But have a look at Dr. Roberts' analysis of the rogatory interview of David Payne, where numbers again are very important, he saw all three of the children, looking very healthy apparently......


They have a problem with the distance between the Tapas bar and 5a. Kate informs us it is 49.2 metres, but that is across the swimming pool and through the bushes, ending up at the balcony. The childrens' room isn't visible from the bar, the window is at the side. The actual distance to be walked is about 100 metres, longer if they go through the front door.
Their excuse was that it was like dining in 'your back garden'. By now and in the book I gather it has progressed to dining in your neighbours' garden. Both excuses are usually trotted out in the first minute of any interview. I bet they could do it in their sleep by now.

There is an early video of Martin Brunt trying this out in PdL.Sorry haven't got the link, but I think youtube.

And also when you lie and there are numbers involved, the number three is the number liers pick most often. And here we have three children, 3 may, the time on the last photo shiftet from 2 too 3 and so on.. May be a coinsident but....

I would also like to thank Moa for this thread as I can't bring myself to read Katey's book because when I tried I read it in a Liverpudlian accent which drove me nuts

I also appreciate PeterMac and Tony's threads too

Gerry and I have always quite liked having a routine,
though I wouldn’t say we were obsessed by it, and our
children, like most children, seemed to like it, too. This
holiday was no exception. It’s hard to accept that living our
lives in such an ordinary way might have been our downfall.
Was someone watching us that week? Watching
Madeleine? Taking note of the pattern of our days?

Feel likes shes trying really hard to make them seem so normal and innocent...And again asking questions for the reader to answer.

"At the end of their session, the children had been
asked to run around the court and pick up as many balls as
they could. Madeleine had done really well and was very
pleased with herself. Gerry loves that picture."

Why Gerry, why the ... do you love that picture? And can a nearly four year old be PLEASED with her self ? Wouldnt she be proud or happy instead of pleased`? ( to me it gives like a sexual undertone..But then English isnt my first language so maybe im reading it wrong?)

"The children and I sat
down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The
shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to
me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams
he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the
children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried
across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for
ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking
arrangement we had at dinner? I haven’t ever been able to
rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own
satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of
three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or
being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle
of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping
children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on
regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head
it would have been in the former situation

This was a long snip, but again she asking question instead of telling what her toughts where. Saying, Perhaps,if,, I havent ever, and so on.. Typical for liars as they disdent them self from answering. Leaving ,it up to the reader to answer. If she really had that moment she would also know what her thoughts where. And she would then say. I never feard an abduction and not " if the fear of abduction". And also just said : in my subconscious or in my mind instead of Perhaps in my subconscious. The word Perhaps dont need to be in that sentence if you are truthful. Either you think something or you dont, you dont perhabs without knowing think something... And also saying How could I , instead of saying what she acually was thinking...

" This could
have been my one chance to prevent what was about to
happen, and I blew it."

She's writing this talking about MAy 3 in the morning when Madeleine asked why they didnt come when she and Sean was crying.
Did she never think that NOT LEAVING the kids alone maybe was the biggest and only chance she ever had to prevent it?
And why she say: What was about to happen.? Why not just be honest and truthful and write : Prevent the abduction. One not lying would say just that, simply stupid and truthful..No shes not ,so she says prevent what was about to happen, beeing truthful yet not saying what happend but knows most readers will automaticly think the abduction...I wonder what was about to happen...

The icecream episode annoys me, because it never happened in the first place. It was to prove that Maddie was alive at that point. It was for Gerry to notice an unsavoury guitar player (well done G!) and for Kate to have a little performance of anguish.
It makes absolutely no sense that the children were more likely to come to any hard at a distance of 25 feet! My sitting room is 28 feet long, two seconds from one end to the other.
They were very likely to come to harm alone in a dark flat with the patio doors open. There had been a spate of burglaries at OC, even Mrs. Fenn I believe was burgled. The T9 were warned about keeping their valuables secure. That didn't include the children apparently.

Well, it's all nonsense, it was only Maddie who was neglected, none of the other children were, but this whole exercise is to show themselves in a better light. The lie about the neglect could not be avoided, thus showing them in a bad light. This is damage limitation. Boring woman. (I mean K)

"A middle-aged British lady suddenly materialized beside me and introduced herself. She announced that she was, or had been, a social worker or child protection officer and insisted on showing me her professional papers, including, I think, her Criminal Records Bureau certificate. She asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me and told me she wanted me to go through everything that had happened the previous night. She was quite pushy and her manner, her very presence, were making me feel uncomfortable and adding to my distress. David was standing nearby. Concerned, he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credentials were, it was an inappropriate intrusion. And something
about it, something about her, just didn’t feel right. I was glad I extricated myself. This woman would pop up several times in the days and months to come and I still don’t really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve."

First, if this lady is just doing her job, I dont see why she is so angry at her. Shes there to help, and she has this attitude about her. Hating on her because shes asking about the night Madeleine disapeared. She goes on and on how bad this woman makes her feel, if your daughter just was abducted I wouldnt think any feelings could top them, but this British lady could it looks like.

On the other hand, if that woman made her feel that bad and concern, saying she "poped up several times over the weeks and months to come" then why the h*** hasn't she done more to find out who that woman is? As I read it it sounds like shes trying to make that woman (that is probably just doing her job) sound suspect in some unsaid way...And Dave is there giving advise not to speak to her?

Yes unbelievable Moa, - I started a thread a while ago on extracts about people who offered to help and were written about in the book...............

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2896-people-who-tried-to-be-helpful-3-4th-may?highlight=the+people+who+offered+to+help

Moa wrote:

"A middle-aged British lady suddenly materialized beside me and introduced herself. She announced that she was, or had been, a social worker or child protection officer and insisted on showing me her professional papers, including, I think, her Criminal Records Bureau certificate. She asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me and told me she wanted me to go through everything that had happened the previous night. She was quite pushy and her manner, her very presence, were making me feel uncomfortable and adding to my distress. David was standing nearby. Concerned, he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credentials were, it was an inappropriate intrusion. And something
about it, something about her, just didn’t feel right. I was glad I extricated myself. This woman would pop up several times in the days and months to come and I still don’t really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve."



First, if this lady is just doing her job, I dont see why she is so angry at her. Shes there to help, and she has this attitude about her. Hating on her because shes asking about the night Madeleine disapeared. She goes on and on how bad this woman makes her feel, if your daughter just was abducted I wouldnt think any feelings could top them, but this British lady could it looks like.

On the other hand, if that woman made her feel that bad and concern, saying she "poped up several times over the weeks and months to come" then
why the h*** hasn't she done more to find out who that woman is? As I read it it sounds like shes trying to make that woman (that is probably just doing her job) sound suspect in some unsaid way...And Dave is there giving advise not to speak to her?

That was Yvonne Martin, who recognised David Payne and left a statement with the PJ to that effect. Very interesting reading.
So is this bit from Kate, because she uses David Payne to warn her off this woman, should anything ever come of it, it will be down to him, not her.
But the truth is, that the last person in the world she needed at that time was a child protection officer!
The way she describes the meeting wasn't at all the way Yvonne Martin described it. On her return to the UK she went through the records to find David Payne, she is still sure she has met him before.
Look at the PJ files in McCannfiles.

Yvonne Martin statement on link above your post tigger.

candyfloss wrote:Yes unbelievable Moa, - I started a thread a while ago on extracts about people who offered to help and were written about in the book...............

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2896-people-who-tried-to-be-helpful-3-4th-may?highlight=the+people+who+offered+to+help

Hadn't seen that one,, thank you :)

To give any credence whatsoever to the idea that Madeleine could
have walked out on her own you would have to accept that
she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sittingroom
curtains and drawing them again, then opening the
patio door, the child-safety gate at the top of the stairs on
the veranda and the little gate to the road – and carefully
closing all three behind her. What three-year-old do you
know who would do that?

See how little dramatic wordings there are here (compered to most of the book). How secure she is stating this. That's because she's telling the truth here. Because no way did Madeleine wander off..And obviously a three year old would not do what she here describes..
Finding a truthful statement from her makes it easier to spot the ones full of lies.

Yvonne Martin was on her holiday. Who do you know takes all their paperwork and 'credentials' away with them? If you are suddenly taken very ill and a Doctor pitches up in front of you, how many people would ask for their credentials before allowing them to help you?
Yvonne wasn't buying their story. She recognized David Payne somehow through her work and the group knew they had a problem, which is why they turned her away.
This is real reason Kate wrote what se did in her book.

Stella wrote: She recognized David Payne somehow through her work and the group knew they had a problem, which is why they turned her away.
This is real reason Kate wrote what se did in her book.

And David Payne recognised her, which is the key thing, because he is the one responsible for turning her away. On her own Kate might even have accepted help.

Stella wrote:Yvonne Martin was on her holiday. Who do you know takes all their paperwork and 'credentials' away with them? If you are suddenly taken very ill and a Doctor pitches up in front of you, how many people would ask for their credentials before allowing them to help you?
Yvonne wasn't buying their story. She recognized David Payne somehow through her work and the group knew they had a problem, which is why they turned her away.
This is real reason Kate wrote what se did in her book.

So what you saying is that Kate lie about that women showing her all her paperwork and credentials?
Did YM ever find out from where she recognized David Payne?

Moa wrote:

Stella wrote:Yvonne Martin was on her holiday. Who do you know takes all their paperwork and 'credentials' away with them? If you are suddenly taken very ill and a Doctor pitches up in front of you, how many people would ask for their credentials before allowing them to help you?
Yvonne wasn't buying their story. She recognized David Payne somehow through her work and the group knew they had a problem, which is why they turned her away.
This is real reason Kate wrote what se did in her book.

So what you saying is that Kate lie about that women showing her all her paperwork and credentials? Yes
Did YM ever find out from where she recognized David Payne? Not that we know about

Taken from Yvonne Martin's statement:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

- She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.

- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

- However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.

During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

How did she know a couple took Maddie?

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:

During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

How did she know a couple took Maddie?

Good question.

I read this book sincerely hoping it would grip me [it did, I read it in
2 days] enlighten me as to what probably happened [ it convinced me
even more that things do not add up, if and it is a big if in my
mind...any abduction took place it was not as it has been described]. I
did not approach it as an amateur sleuth, I have 2 vivid memories, one of the
day this story broke [ tv on in a cabin on a cruise ship as I was
unpacking] and the day my Dad died. September 6th....would you believe on the day
before he died and we were reading of how the couple would be
interviewed as arguidos, one of the very last things he said to me was
about that vulnerable child, he was convinced she would bever be found
alive if found at all. However much I have read in the files, it was this
book which upset , angered and truly disturbed me so much that I wanted
to put my thoughts and beliefs on here.
I am neither pro nor anti
McCann, I am pro Madeleine who appeared in this book bearing her name as
a title as not much more than an abstract. While expecting elements of
potted biography, the book would have had more authenticity had it
opened and closed with chapters about her child, although I understand
the bookending style of how life changed in a moment.
I am pretty
sure that psychologists working with the police are reading
the book forensically. And I would be surprised if they are not
profoundly disturbed at the truly hbarrowing dream sequence, this
shouted out grief . loss and was truly authentic, but I do not believe
this was an account of a dream but had a different more awful narrative.
To people who understandably praise the book's raw emotion and whose
heart goes out the the couple I reply that in some ways I feel for them
also, but advise them to look out for what you would expect in this book
but what is missing, for what has been distorted, for how each chapter
opens and closes because to my mind that shouts out what is important to
the author. To take account of what is authentic and what is
self-serving, of the narcissism, sense of entitlement, xenophobia and
arrogance that oozes from many pages. And to take on board that in the
chapter entitled " Madeleine" there are one and a half pages at the end
devoted to her daugher, it is mostly about conception and pregnancy.
That when she has the opportunity to paint a vivid picture of her
daughter in the next chapter it opens with the mundane fact that she had
colic for much of her first couple of years. While I understand how
painful some of her memories are and how she might feel unable to commit
them to paper, there is a real sense of a lack of maternal bond with
her child that can clearly be no better stated than in these shocking
stand -alone lines which are repeating a diary entry or part of an
internal monologue. Even accounting for see sawing emotions and how the
loss of a child can affect a parent I can not get my head around these
lines in italics in the book
Returning to PDL from Lisbon where she ahd attended a meeting
" A bit upset on the way back.......I had ' flashes' of Madeleine in
my head being hurt, abused and screaming for us-- but we weren't there. So awful."
A bit upset? this is a person inhabiting a different planet, surely given the imagery she conjures up here?

Stella wrote:

Moa wrote:

Stella wrote:Yvonne Martin was on her holiday. Who do you know takes all their paperwork and 'credentials' away with them? If you are suddenly taken very ill and a Doctor pitches up in front of you, how many people would ask for their credentials before allowing them to help you?
Yvonne wasn't buying their story. She recognized David Payne somehow through her work and the group knew they had a problem, which is why they turned her away.
This is real reason Kate wrote what se did in her book.

So what you saying is that Kate lie about that women showing her all her paperwork and credentials? Yes
Did YM ever find out from where she recognized David Payne? Not that we know about

Taken from Yvonne Martin's statement:
http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm

- She identified herself and presented her credentials and immediately began talking to the mother of the missing child as she was visibly upset with the situation.

- During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

- However, the third individual overheard this conversation and interrupted Ms. Martin and took the McCann couple away from her.

TY for that link :) Havent read it before. Strange how they view the situation totaly different. And why does Kate pretend in the book that she does not know who this lady is? She really implies that no one ever found out who she was. But clearly we know , since she also left her statement and was just doing her job?
I can not in anyway understand why Kate and Gerry not are locked behind bars and the key trown away...

Ps good point also, how did she know a couple took her? This meeting was on may 4th i think, and then Kate new about Jane Tanners lieSighting and should for that reason believe it was one man that took her... :please:

Moa wrote:
I can not in anyway understand why Kate and Gerry not are locked behind bars and the key trown away...

You are not alone Moa. We just have to keep chipping away every day by discussing these things, until someone does something to bring about justice for Madeleine.

Moa wrote:I've started to read the book Madeleine and noo I have not paid a penny to get it..
Im only just got to chapter 5 wich is about the day she went missing. Up til now I do have som highlights that I find strange. By that I mean the words they are using, what she saying, and so on. My oppinion/ reaction is from thinking in wich perspective the book is written and compered to what would I have written in the same situation (if my child REALLY was abducted.)
I also believe that if a person is lying, your unconsiousness will use words different from if you are telling the truth..Hope you guys understand what I mean..

First I must say, from what I read so far in the book, there is a awful lot about Kate herself, and also she uses to much humor explaining things, putting Gerry on high pidestall and her self for that matther.. I dont find it very emotional tough she uses emotional words it just dont go very deep I think..

Here are some highlights:

( Maybe some fint the sentence to be taken out of context, but I think the sentence are telling a story by the words they have used and that has nothing with the context it is written in )
"Deep Down , Gerry Understood. We are both "finishers" Gerry and I .Neither of us give up anything easily"

"As our invetigation is still ongoing ,and for leagal reasons,some opinions and episodes can not be shared until
Madeleine is found"

" And here she was, not our little boy but our little girl. I'm not sure quite why this came as such a big surprise to us - after all there are only two flavourse"

" The party would consist of David, Fiona, Lilly, who was two, and Scarlett nearly a year old. Matt and Rachel and their toddler Grace, Jane and Russel with Ella who, coming up to four, was almost the same age as Madeleine, and Evie, another toddler, the five of us and and Fi's mum Dianne. ( Why describe everyone by age and so and then suddenly: and Evie, another Toddler. Is Evie another toddler or is there another toddler and Evie? Just something about that sentence that I cant forget)

" Even if there had been a baby -listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did." ( How can she know that when there wasnt a baby listening service there? and checking them every hour / half hour is that givng your kids a lot of attention?)

Well I stop here, I have to manually write in as I cant copy paste text from the kindle. Hope Im not doing anything wrong in quoting from the book

I havent added my opinion to every sentence, as to why I react on them. I will answer if someone ask, but I think most people will understand what im reacting on...And maybe someone don't find anything wrong with them at all...

Reading more from the book later this evening

I also do think that what you say and how you say it, tell a lot about you and what really happened, or what you really want to say.

There is a nice blog about that at http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/.
ETA, I see you found it! Sorry I get very confused with those "new post" squares, they are a bit random for me.

The problem with the book however is that it must have been heavy edited for language and legal reasons. Kate can't build a normal sentence in general. As PeterMac showed the improvement in the "crying" statement.

They must haven't gotten tired early on though, because there are still a lot of the plain lies, convoluted stories, and "little incongruences" left, that expose Kate for the nutcase she is.

I had to take a little break from the book as it irritated me a little to much

Wanted to share a vid I stumbled across on youtube

Found it on youtube just wanted to share .. (It is not mine)

Moa wrote:To give any credence whatsoever to the idea that Madeleine could
have walked out on her own you would have to accept that
she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sittingroom
curtains and drawing them again, then opening the
patio door, the child-safety gate at the top of the stairs on
the veranda and the little gate to the road – and carefully
closing all three behind her. What three-year-old do you
know who would do that?

See how little dramatic wordings there are here (compered to most of the book). How secure she is stating this. That's because she's telling the truth here. Because no way did Madeleine wander off..And obviously a three year old would not do what she here describes..
Finding a truthful statement from her makes it easier to spot the ones full of lies.

There is a picture of a girl of Maddies' age here taken from Paynes' camera doing just that - opening the door http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GREYSCALE_SNAPS.htm (scroll down to picture 14)

I don't think for a second that Maddie walked and wandered but what a strange photo to take of your child "trying" the door. I often wonder who that girl is and if she is the same girl who Payne is clutching tightly in the various other photos along with the other little girl.