My Highlights from the book

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.

is not the point of the plea bargain scenario to imply even though it does not exist in law.the pj is corrupt and offered her a deal despite this?
there are all sorts of scenarios craftily laid out from which an easily manipulated reader can draw the inferences Kate McCann desires

and there are quite a few.........an example of extreme narcissm in a nutshell, when Kate complains that the pj smoked, wore t shirts, didnt offer her and her party food or a drink..
" OUR DAUGHTER HAD BEEN STOLEN AND I FELT AS IF I DIDNT EXIST"
NO REFERENCE TO GERRY AND NONE TO THE VICTIM, NO " SHE DIDNT EXIST"

THIS LITTLE NUGGET SAYS IT ALL TO ME.

very bizarre,,,,,in the poolside photo section madeleines bare left arm seems to show the edge of a sleeve at the wrist.

i should have enlarged photo.....just fat at the wrist joint the way she has placed her hands. i wondered what the heck it could be

russiandoll wrote:i should have enlarged photo.....just fat at the wrist joint the way she has placed her hands. i wondered what the heck it could be

compare to the left arm and how the arm fills up the sleeve, right arm cannot be that far back without taking sleeve with it.
Blow it up and you'll see the blurred section of deleted arm, why I have no idea! Was Amelie shopped in or Gerry?

Stella wrote:

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.

Isn't Kate quoted in one of the T7 statements as saying "They've taken her, they've taken her. And Gerry says something like "She can't be there, she can't be" . I think this has now evolved into something quite different now though.

This is only a possible scenario - not my definite feelings or something that I have given any credence to. Just thinking about for some time. That it may be possible that someone else caused the accident with Madeleine and the Mccanns are covering up for them instead.

and within
an hour of their arrival, Uncle Pat, an ex-professional
footballer, collapsed with a heart attack. When he slumped
on Alexis’s shoulder we thought at first he was just messing
about. We soon realized he wasn’t. As Gerry phoned for an
ambulance and I worried that I was going to need to begin
CPR – which would have been pretty difficult given that my
belly was the size of a small barn and I could hardly move –
a delivery man came to the door with a Chinese takeaway
we’d ordered. Amid the pandemonium, Madeleine
appeared, pushing her Early Learning Centre medical
trolley, placed her toy stethoscope on Uncle Pat’s chest
and said, ‘Boom, boom!’ Talk about surreal

Plenty of things to point out here I think, but mainly this:

If someone had collapsed in my home with a heart attack, the first thing I would do beside calling an ambulance, was to make sure my kids didn't have to see this. I think that can be traumatic for a little child, and in this stage Madeleine was not even two years old... First it sounds surreal that she does what they say she did, and second, why on earth allow your child to "play" with a man fighting for his life?

It might just be me but im shocked by this...

also have to point out this:

Why is Kate worried about having to do CPR ? Gerry is there, and also other friends are present. And she beeing pregnant with twins in last stage, why would any one even expect her to do it? I feel she say it in the book more to highlight her self. And who cares about the chinesfood you ordered ?

So, whilst pretty well everyone there was capable of phoning an ambulance but not skilled at CPR, the only expert went off to do the phoning, children were playing around and it was so chaotic that a tiny 2 year old could start playing with the collapsed man.

Never seen a photograph of Maddie with her early Learning Centre Medical Trolley. Which geek designed that toy?

[img][/img]

They dont seem very popular any more googling it this was one of two pictures I found..Good for a child thats 20 months old to operate it and for understanding the situation and acually chek his heart when his having a heartattack.
And yes Tigger, why where Gerry the one calling, why didnt Kate think :" I can call an ambulanse, im fat as an elephant but pick up the phone that I can do and leave the CPR to Gerry ",.

Moa wrote:[img][/img]

They dont seem very popular any more googling it this was one of two pictures I found..Good for a child thats 20 months old to operate it and for understanding the situation and acually chek his heart when his having a heartattack.
And yes Tigger, why where Gerry the one calling, why didnt Kate think :" I can call an ambulanse, im fat as an elephant but pick up the phone that I can do and leave the CPR to Gerry ",.

I still think it weird to be so proud of your profession that you introduce a 2 year old to the use of a stethoscope and a complete medical trolley. I commented earlier on Gerry saying 'she was lying in the recovery position' and Kate explaining to us, simple readers, what a double blind study is, as it is known in the medical profession. O now I remember, you're doctors!

like quite a bit in the book, it's a mix of fact and fantasy. I can believe there was a collapse, I do not believe the expert heart specialist phoned the ambulance instead of attending to the patient, I think there might have been a food delivery sometime around the time of this episode but not when it was in progress and I am pretty certain the stuff about Maddie is a complete fabrication.
what is our Kate trying to get over in this little piece of theatre I wonder? She puts in and omits things in her book with an agenda.

"We soon found out that Murat had been made an
arguido. This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime. It also confers various
rights, such as the right to remain silent and entitlement to
legal representation. For this reason it is possible and
indeed not unheard of for a person being questioned as a
witness,with less protection from the law, to declare
himself arguido, for example if he feels that the line the
police are taking suggests they suspect him."

What is Kate saying with this?She is implaying that Murat made himself Arguido because he had something to hide.
Second, hasn't K+G always said that beeing a Arguido is like beeing a witness but with rights. Making it all sound like it doesn't matter if you are a Arguido or a witness. Still she claims in her book that a arguido is : This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime..And with this, what else would she believe people and media would treat her with ?

Moa wrote:"We soon found out that Murat had been made an
arguido. This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime. It also confers various
rights, such as the right to remain silent and entitlement to
legal representation. For this reason it is possible and
indeed not unheard of for a person being questioned as a
witness,with less protection from the law, to declare
himself arguido, for example if he feels that the line the
police are taking suggests they suspect him."

What is Kate saying with this?She is implaying that Murat made himself Arguido because he had something to hide.
Second, hasn't K+G always said that beeing a Arguido is like beeing a witness but with rights. Making it all sound like it doesn't matter if you are a Arguido or a witness. Still she claims in her book that a arguido is : This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime..And with this, what else would she believe people and media would treat her with ?

So in Murat's case she hints that he may have asked for arguido status to protect himself because even being a suspect is better because of the protection you do not have as a witness.
I think she's hinting that the arguido status was something they asked for or could have asked for. She is saying it is a good thing because of the rights it infers. So some might interpret that as the McCanns having decided for themselves to be arguidos. I'm sure that will crop up sometime.

tigger wrote:

Moa wrote:"We soon found out that Murat had been made an
arguido. This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime. It also confers various
rights, such as the right to remain silent and entitlement to
legal representation. For this reason it is possible and
indeed not unheard of for a person being questioned as a
witness,with less protection from the law, to declare
himself arguido, for example if he feels that the line the
police are taking suggests they suspect him."

What is Kate saying with this?She is implaying that Murat made himself Arguido because he had something to hide.
Second, hasn't K+G always said that beeing a Arguido is like beeing a witness but with rights. Making it all sound like it doesn't matter if you are a Arguido or a witness. Still she claims in her book that a arguido is : This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime..And with this, what else would she believe people and media would treat her with ?

So in Murat's case she hints that he may have asked for arguido status to protect himself because even being a suspect is better because of the protection you do not have as a witness.
I think she's hinting that the arguido status was something they asked for or could have asked for. She is saying it is a good thing because of the rights it infers. So some might interpret that as the McCanns having decided for themselves to be arguidos. I'm sure that will crop up sometime.

Maybe thats what she want us to think, hoping they will look more innocent...

If we believe the dog Madeleine was dead in the apartment most likely. The dogs could be wrong, but as a dog owner I totaly trust them doing their job.
if she then died there, how and when and what motive if it was planned.

could it be Kate?

Think of it, she wanted a child so desperatly, and was also deeply in love with G.
After lots of tries and years , finally shes there, a little baby girl, a mothers dream. Maybe this dream later on became her worst nightmare.? Madeleine beeing a cry baby (kolikkbaby) thats hard for any new parents, getting little sleep and all that crying, on top of that Madeleine seems to become Daddies girl. Putting Daddie higher than mum. Must be very hard for a mum wanting a child that much. Did she start to resist ,dislike, even hate her ? She getting less attention from G. then she get pregnant with the twins and its a girl and a boy. How perfect except... From all her writing , describings and her book she do not seem truly attached or in to her daughter. It is not written from her heart or told from heart when she talks about Madeleine. it do not sound personal..Some woman get( dont know what you call it in English,) but its a depression u get when you giving birth, and then you have a hard time to love and share that bond with your child.. It can last upto a year or two...Could kate be jealouse of their relationship.? jealouse on Gerrys affection for Madeleine?

Maybe Kate made it look like Gerry did it accidently?

Im sure there are many more motivs to check out, this motive where not based on money or pre planned believes, I tried to think of an emotional motiv. In many cases the motiv is emotional. And IMHO there is something about K.....I also haven't considered any other evidence other than the dogs to make a base to think of an emotional motive...

This is just a thought I had , nothing more than that... lots of other interesting motives are discussed on this forum. I wonder if we'll ever find out wich one of them are right.

A third witness said the turning point of the investigation came following a tearful call from Mrs McCann who, after a dream, told police where to search for her daughter’s body.
Police Inspector Ricardo Paiva, who acted as a liason between the McCanns and Portuguese police in the days following their daughter’s disappearance told the court he had received the phone call in late July 2007.
“Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying,” he said. “She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.
“She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”
The senior detective said the land was searched but nothing was found. “That is when we decided to send the specialist dogs in. British police informed us about how they could detect the scent of death.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html