My Highlights from the book

Absolutely.
And quite intelligently perceived [and most eloquently written] by Dreyfuss in his book "Belle Famille" ...

Châtelaine wrote:The title of this thread brought a joke back to memory. A critic wrote about the film "Alexander", featuring Colin Farrell: "There are many highlights in this film. And they're in all in his hair."

***
Perhaps I should be less subtle when jesting ...
Film - highlights - hair
Book - hair - highlights


Oh, forget.
Bed-time.
Good night all.
zzzzzz

Sorry to jump back a few pages to discuss the '3 children' issue but I've just joined and wanted to add something about '3 children' and what it means.
I was a first born child and my mother had twins when I was very small. Basically, I believe that my extended family all felt the reverberations of this, as accusations flew and sides were taken through the years. This is likely to be a long post and I apologise for that but it is something that I have wanted to get out since reading about the case in depth and I feel I can add something to the discussion by virtue of being a first born child whose younger siblings were twins.
When a new mother has her first child it is generally very difficult for her, as many of us will know. It is exacerbated when the baby is one who cries a lot and has sleep problems, etc. Usually, the mother will eventually learn to cope admirably and by the time the second child is born the mother can expertly divide her time between two small children.
When a mother of a small child goes on to have twins, it can be a very different story. I'll just give my own experience of that situation here and let you draw your own conclusions.
I grew up with a very strong sense of being marginal to the family. My mother was always busy with the twins and only had two available hands which were needed to administer to the needs of two small babies. I was the 'fetcher' and was even being sent to the shops with a shopping list at four years old. No bond existed between my parents and myself but a huge bond existed between them and the twins.
Perhaps when I was very small I was very jealous of all the (necessary) attention being paid to the twins and maybe I acted up a lot because of it. Maybe this led to my parents feeling irritation towards me rather than love and perhaps this became a self-perpeptual cycle? I'm skating over a lot of this as it was actually much worse than I'm portraying it. It was so evident that my parents felt no love for me and a lot of love for the twins that my entire extended family ostricised them.
I just want to point out that in SOME cases, parents of three children where the younger two are twins show differential treatment towards the elder one.
With reference to why the Mccann children were referred to as 'the three children' and not simply as 'the children' (as discussed earlier in the topic):
When I was a child, my siblings were referred to as 'the twins' or 'the children'. The term 'the children' simply meant 'the twins' i.e all (both) of the children and not myself.
I was referred to as 'the big 'in' (pronounced 'biggin')
If my parents referred to myself AND my siblings they would use the term 'the three children'. However, as I said earlier the term 'the children' referred to the twins alone.
I know it all sounds far fetched as it is difficult for anyone who was not a first born child with younger sibling twins to understand the dynamics that evolve in this sort of family structure.

I'd just like to add to my above post that I NEVER doubted that the McCanns were innocent until I found out that the younger siblings were twins, when I discovered that - huge alarm bells went off and I started to look at the case closely. I own a Children's Day Nursery. In all the time I have owned the nursery two of the children have become the elder sibling of twins. I have watched and monitored those two children with a zeal that could not be matched by Social Sevices.

That's interesting and welcome!

This is a very important psychological phenomenon. Although I haven't read up on it much. However, Gerry is the youngest with some 9 years between him and John M. Kate was an only child. Both had 'preferential' treatment.
Maddie was only 20 months older and Kate is on record in an early interview as saying 'they never had much to do with her' (on being asked it the twins missed her).

You will enjoy reading Dr. Roberts (McCannfiles.com) 2009 articles he particularly (as he's a psychologist) goes into the sibling relationships:

GM: "Just think of all the times... the nice times that we've had in our house, and in her playing, in the playroom with her... with her... the twins."

Look at the end of this sentence. Madeleine in the playroom with what? Her toys? Her guinea pig? No. With the twins. Why did GM fight desperately to articulate, or rather not to articulate, the phrase so obviously synonymous with 'the twins', i.e. 'her brother and sister.'? People strongly resist lying under interview, remember. Would this identification have been a lie despite GM's considering how lucky he was "to be the father of three children."?

What a strange thought this is to have arisen spontaneously whilst on a family holiday, emphasising, as it does, the three aspect? The notion of children is not qualified in any way. They are not 'fine', 'beautiful', 'adorable' – 'challenging' even. They are simply 'three.' And, taking up from the lack of any regret from the moment of Madeleine's disappearance, we can additionally observe that they were not three after all, but two plus one.
unquote

The acknowledgement section of Kate's book is interesting. She thanks everyone from her editor to lawyers, supporters and those 'playing their part in buoying up my wellbeing and resilience'. Then:

'Finally, I would like to thank my husband, Gerry - for his love, support and companionship. We've been in this together throughout and always will be. And, of course dear Amelie and Sean, my amazing little rocks.'


For me this statement says family of four. No mention of Madeleine, which I find quite cold, especially if her hope is that Madeleine will one day read her book.

What does she mean Sean and Amelie as her amazing little rocks.

Errrr the children in a family should be able to lean on their parents not vice versa. The more snippets I see from this book the more I am glad I did not buy it.

plebgate wrote:What does she mean Sean and Amelie as her amazing little rocks.

Errrr the children in a family should be able to lean on their parents not vice versa. The more snippets I see from this book the more I am glad I did not buy it.

Strongly suggest you read it plebgate, possibly one from a Charity shop? It taught me more about this case, than six years of reading files and forums. It certainly clears up the question Kate raised when at Leveson, she described her book as 'our account of the truth'.

Borrow it from the Library, as I did.

Cristobell wrote:

plebgate wrote:What does she mean Sean and Amelie as her amazing little rocks.

Errrr the children in a family should be able to lean on their parents not vice versa. The more snippets I see from this book the more I am glad I did not buy it.

Strongly suggest you read it plebgate, possibly one from a Charity shop? It taught me more about this case, than six years of reading files and forums. It certainly clears up the question Kate raised when at Leveson, she described her book as 'our account of the truth'.

...and Madeleine was 'a tower of strength' and her 'best friend'. There's nothing you can do about a mindset like that.

Don't worry Plebgate, when you do read the book (it's best to buy because you'll make lots of notes in the margin) you'll find it's all about Kate and how the cruel, cruel world treated her.
I believe if you buy remaindered books from e.g. World of Books or such outlets, no royalties are paid to the author.
Incidentally, the first book the two of them said they were going to write as early as April 08 would have been titled 'Our year of Hell'.
You can't make it up....

sallypelt wrote:"p. 66 Having arranged for Gerry to meet the children, I opted to go for a run along the beach, where I spotted the rest of our holiday group. They saw me and shouted some words of encouragement. At least, I think that’s what they were shouting! I remember feeling fleetingly disappointed that we hadn’t known they were all heading for the beach, as it might have been nice to have joined them, especially for the kids. I wondered whether Madeleine had been OK about staying behind at Mini Club when Russ or Jane had collected Ella. I wasn’t to know at that stage that in fact they had only just arrived when I ran by. It’s hard work being a mum sometimes, fretting about the possible effects of the smallest of incidents on your children. I’m sure a lot of these worries are unfounded but it doesn’t stop us having them, and we’ll probably go on having them for the rest of our lives".
I find the above post somewhat disturbing. It implies that Kate is very insecure, as she states that the other members of the group were trying to isolate her, or at least that's what she is thinking. Then it seems Kate is blaming Madeleine for the others isolating her, otherwise, why would she worry if "Madeleine had been ok" and bewas concerned that Russel and Jane hadn't collected Madeliene when they had collected Ella?
So, the question is, what was causing the insecurity, and was Madeleine a bit of a handful, and Kate was blaming her for the rest of the group keeping their distance?

KM:
1.
I arranged for my husband to meet the (?!) children.

I lord it over my husband. But for my command, it probably wouldn't have occurred to him to pick them up himself.
I am absent on purpose when he meets them.
I don't have a clue what he does with them after meeting them.

I am absent, because:

2. I opted to go for a run along the beach.

So: I opted not to meet 'the' children a/o my husband.

3. To my surprise/dismay, I suddenly saw all the other members of 'our group' on the beach.
They had omitted to tell us that they were off to the beach together, as one party.
They shouted at me.

So:

"Strange, that they hadn't invited Gerry and me to come with them to the beach. Why would that be?

"They had even brought their own children with them.
They omitted to bring my child Maddie.
Now why would they have omitted bringing my daughter Maddie as they were ALL going to the beach?
They are not unpleasant people. They are our friends. We are one group. We belong to their Group, don't we?

"Now why would they risk hurting Maddies feelings (too, they clearly hurt mine!) when picking up Ella and abandoning Maddie at the Mini Club?" End of possible line of KH-thinking.

My questions:

So the complete group of friends goes of to the beach without warning the McCs a/o taking little Maddie with them.
Why would they do that?
If she had been there, when they picked up Ella, would they have been so callous as to leave a lonely but charismatic etc etc 3 yr old Maddie behind?

And, more to the point: when did they go?

As far as KH knew, Maddie was being 'met' by GM. Per her arranging. As the 'rest of our holiday group'-cum-offspring was already on the beach, obviously they had departed before the moment when GM was set to do his own meeting with 'the' children.

Before they could stumble on GM, having to face him?

Did they want to avoid that happening, did they need some time off together, out of sight, out of earshot of the McCs: at an out of the way location -all of them together, inclusive of their children- where the McCs could not overhear them, could not approach them without the Group spotting them from a distance?

Did the "Group' perchance need to draw up their own contincency plan and did they omit telling the McCs that they were going and when they were going? Did they want to distance themselves, both socially and mentally, from the McCs?

Anyone on the Forum has a believable answer to the question why the Tapasniks purposely omitted to inform the McCs they were ALL going to the beach, a supposedly happy and joyfull group excursion?

Or wasn't it envisaged to be so happy and joyful?
Kate after all concedes it might have been nice to join them, especially for the kids.

Not for the parents then?
Is she telling us that in her heart of hearts she understood they were being cut, and why that was the case?

She just ran on, didn't she?
She didn't turn back, pick up het own kids and her husband, and join the Group.

She didn't even make any attempt to speak to them.

The shock of seeing them all together there, must have been mindboggling.

[quote="Portia"]

sallypelt wrote:"p. 66 .. .It’s hard work being a mum sometimes, fretting about the possible effects of the smallest of incidents on your children. I’m sure a lot of these worries are unfounded but it doesn’t stop us having them, and we’ll probably go on having them for the rest of our lives".

Kate, if you are reading this . . .
Did you "fret" about the possible effects of leaving three tiny children in an unlocked apartment ?
And if you did, was that worry "unfounded" ?

tigger wrote:That's interesting and welcome!

This is a very important psychological phenomenon. Although I haven't read up on it much. However, Gerry is the youngest with some 9 years between him and John M. Kate was an only child. Both had 'preferential' treatment.
Maddie was only 20 months older and Kate is on record in an early interview as saying 'they never had much to do with her' (on being asked it the twins missed her).

You will enjoy reading Dr. Roberts (McCannfiles.com) 2009 articles he particularly (as he's a psychologist) goes into the sibling relationships:

GM: "Just think of all the times... the nice times that we've had in our house, and in her playing, in the playroom with her... with her... the twins."

Look at the end of this sentence. Madeleine in the playroom with what? Her toys? Her guinea pig? No. With the twins. Why did GM fight desperately to articulate, or rather not to articulate, the phrase so obviously synonymous with 'the twins', i.e. 'her brother and sister.'? People strongly resist lying under interview, remember. Would this identification have been a lie despite GM's considering how lucky he was "to be the father of three children."?

What a strange thought this is to have arisen spontaneously whilst on a family holiday, emphasising, as it does, the three aspect? The notion of children is not qualified in any way. They are not 'fine', 'beautiful', 'adorable' – 'challenging' even. They are simply 'three.' And, taking up from the lack of any regret from the moment of Madeleine's disappearance, we can additionally observe that they were not three after all, but two plus one.
unquote

Thank you Tigger. The final sentence in this piece sums up perfectly what it feels like to be the first born sibling to younger twins, '...not three [children] but two plus one.'
I have no doubt whatsoever that first born siblings of younger twins will find themselves placed by their parents on a spectrum ranging at best from having to grow up quickly to at worst, being hated. In-between are states such as irritation, dislike, etc. Perhaps there are some special parents out there who do not differentiate between the first born and the subsequent twins. I would love to think so and would love somebody to prove me wrong.

K deciding to go for a run on the beach just around the time when their children were due to be collected from the creche does strike as rather odd. What would be the compulsion to go running after a day of sporting activity, and especially at a time which left her partner to collect twin toddlers and an under four year old on his own? A run could surely have been fitted in earlier in the day, thus enabling child pick up duties to be shared. Equally odd, once K returns, G then leaves her alone with the children to prepare them for bed while he has yet another game of tennis. All this after a day's activities apart from the children and an evening ahead without their presence also, but still it seemed to have been necessary for both to extend the time away from their children as much as possible.

whmon wrote:I'd just like to add to my above post that I NEVER doubted that the McCanns were innocent until I found out that the younger siblings were twins, when I discovered that - huge alarm bells went off and I started to look at the case closely. I own a Children's Day Nursery. In all the time I have owned the nursery two of the children have become the elder sibling of twins. I have watched and monitored those two children with a zeal that could not be matched by Social Sevices.

I have found your posts fascinating reading whmon. I have always wondered about the dynamics of the family, and your sharing of your own experience tells us much.

@Cristobell, Miraflores and Tigger

I have read the statements and that was enough for me.

I am glad there are many people who have read the book, watched the various tv interviews and watched the mockumentary and reported on them as it does make for fascinating reading on the forum to see how many times their account of things have changed.

Thanks to all who have read and watched and posted, but I just cannot bring myself to do it.

Monty Heck wrote:K deciding to go for a run on the beach just around the time when their children were due to be collected from the creche does strike as rather odd. What would be the compulsion to go running after a day of sporting activity, and especially at a time which left her partner to collect twin toddlers and an under four year old on his own? A run could surely have been fitted in earlier in the day, thus enabling child pick up duties to be shared. Equally odd, once K returns, G then leaves her alone with the children to prepare them for bed while he has yet another game of tennis. All this after a day's activities apart from the children and an evening ahead without their presence also, but still it seemed to have been necessary for both to extend the time away from their children as much as possible.

***
I remember comments from members on various past and present fora, suggesting that K's run on the beach was to give to all of the "others" an "all clear" sign ...

Plebgate, I know exactly what you mean!

Recently I was loaned the book but I just couldn't settle down and read it from the start. I could almost hear Kate's voice with every whingeing, self-pitying word - as my son would say, my brain started to ooze out of my ears......

For me, it disproves my user name - to read Kate's book from cover to cover would truly be a worse fate!

Miraflores wrote:Borrow it from the Library, as I did.

Hell no, I paid euro zero five zero for it.
And you know what?

Put it in a hold-all with some other stuff, and when unearthing it for the first time after a month or so,
a ballpoint had unexplicably emptied itself in its vicinity and half of the pages were destroyed.

Such a thing has never happened to me a/o any of my books in the 70-odd years I walked this earth.

The Return of The Omen, surely?

Monty Heck wrote:K deciding to go for a run on the beach just around the time when their children were due to be collected from the creche does strike as rather odd. What would be the compulsion to go running after a day of sporting activity, and especially at a time which left her partner to collect twin toddlers and an under four year old on his own? A run could surely have been fitted in earlier in the day, thus enabling child pick up duties to be shared. Equally odd, once K returns, G then leaves her alone with the children to prepare them for bed while he has yet another game of tennis. All this after a day's activities apart from the children and an evening ahead without their presence also, but still it seemed to have been necessary for both to extend the time away from their children as much as possible.

I thought about this queer passage for some time. What does it do, what is its purpose?

1. Kate was not with Maddie;
2. Maddie was not in the creche;
3. "Our holiday friends' including their children, all of them inquit Kate, were not with Maddie

So: neither the creche people, nor Kate, nor 'the holiday friends plus offspring' could be held to account about what happened to little Maddie at the described time.

Maddie was godknowswhere, as all of them are concerned. Kate has given them an alibi here.

Only Gerry -according to Kate- could vouch for her presence, her safety, her whereabouts, and for what happened to her when she was on his watch.

After that, it's only Kates word that she looked after Maddie till first DP and after that GM dropped by.

And DP cannot have seen Maddie, from where he was outside the patio door, his assurances to the contrary notwithstanding.

So: there is no one that can vouch for little Maddie after she was met at the gates of the Mini Club by her father on the day of her disappearance. Which would be at what time?

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Plebgate, I know exactly what you mean!

Recently I was loaned the book but I just couldn't settle down and read it from the start. I could almost hear Kate's voice with every whingeing, self-pitying word - as my son would say, my brain started to ooze out of my ears......

For me, it disproves my user name - to read Kate's book from cover to cover would truly be a worse fate!

Oh do I agree, NFWTD, (aaargh your old name was so much easier lol) I have read key bits in the supermarket and that was enough! I used to think if anyone saw me peeking at it 'I hope they don't think I believe this c**p!'

rainbow-fairy wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Plebgate, I know exactly what you mean!

Recently I was loaned the book but I just couldn't settle down and read it from the start. I could almost hear Kate's voice with every whingeing, self-pitying word - as my son would say, my brain started to ooze out of my ears......

For me, it disproves my user name - to read Kate's book from cover to cover would truly be a worse fate!

Oh do I agree, NFWTD, (aaargh your old name was so much easier lol) I have read key bits in the supermarket and that was enough! I used to think if anyone saw me peeking at it 'I hope they don't think I believe this c**p!'

@NFWTD I agree a very worse fate by the sound of it.

@RF Yes it does sound a load of carp from the snippets I have read.

I have read the book, what struck me most about it was the amount of detail it included. Unfortunately, the details are all superfluous. It is as if the author is trying to hide the fact she is giving no details at all about what really happened by giving the reader a lot of unnecessary details. For example, she describes her own pink running shoes at great length, what she thought about her shoes, how they got dirty by running in the sand, and even what a dog she passed must have thought of her shoes! A very good way of filling up a book that tells the reader nothing!
And yet, despite all of the unnecessary details she includes - the events of the evening of May 3rd, prior to leaving for the tapas bar are almost given in list form. She talks ad nauseum about her pink running shoes and then the evening of May 3rd (which should be the focal point of the book) is recorded as something like (I haven't got the book in front of me) 'Bathed the children, milk and biscuits, put them to bed.' And that's it! Nothing else.

whmon wrote:I have read the book, what struck me most about it was the amount of detail it included. Unfortunately, the details are all superfluous. It is as if the author is trying to hide the fact she is giving no details at all about what really happened by giving the reader a lot of unnecessary details. For example, she describes her own pink running shoes at great length, what she thought about her shoes, how they got dirty by running in the sand, and even what a dog she passed must have thought of her shoes! A very good way of filling up a book that tells the reader nothing!
And yet, despite all of the unnecessary details she includes - the events of the evening of May 3rd, prior to leaving for the tapas bar are almost given in list form. She talks ad nauseum about her pink running shoes and then the evening of May 3rd (which should be the focal point of the book) is recorded as something like (I haven't got the book in front of me) 'Bathed the children, milk and biscuits, put them to bed.' And that's it! Nothing else.

Please do not forget that the book was put together in full possession of the PJ files, and as a desperate attempt to pre-empt and smother the evidence contained therein.

It was written after the facts, to be more precise: after the facts became known all over the world.

No one -NO ONE- had envisaged the PJ files to come out into the open.

High time of those most in danger of becoming nailed starting to call their lawyers: "My dear expensive lawyer friend, why did you not warn me about this?"

I noticed the book in the True Crime section of my local library today. I think that's a good description of the book itself!