If anyone is interested this is my review of Kate's book

by euphrosene 22.02.17 19:51

An Amazon review has to be primarily about the book in question but, having finally finished Kate McCann’s book, it is simply not possible to step away without a view one way or the other about missing Madeleine or indeed Gerry and Kate McCann.

At the time in May 2007, my initial thoughts were that the parents were abysmally negligent. Actually, I remember being quite shocked at the distance between their apartment and the tapas restaurant where they dined each night. However, apart from praying that little Madeleine would be found, I didn’t read much if any detail. I do recall briefly reading some of Gerry McCann’s blogs and finding them embarrassingly trite, but that was about it.

Then, last year, my interest piqued reading that taxpayers have forked out close to £12,000,000 on this one child yet barely a word of reproach was made about parental negligence. Not only that, but they seem to be mixing with the powerful and influential at the top of the food chain to the manner born and appeared to blame others but not themselves for their small child going missing.

So I googled… and was overwhelmed at the endless volume of opinions – both pro and con – on this one case and this one couple. Not only that but there was a massive complexity in terms of their army of lawyers, the company they set up for funds, the family and friends involved, the PR machine, the subtle (or not?) move from finding Madeleine to being about all missing children, and much more.

The pro-McCanns didn’t really offer anything apart from unwavering loyalty to their cause, while most anti-McCanns spoiled their arguments with offensive remarks or conspiracy theories which turned me off. But a small handful did put together lucid and, for the most part, feasible arguments disputing the McCann’s claims.

Meanwhile, even an unobservant reader would have noticed the almost immediate and subsequently consistent involvement of the British Government. That still bothers me greatly, even now. Anyone would think this couple had done something heroic, not leave three very small children unattended, out of sight and out of hearing, for several nights on the trot!

Yet our Government - from Blair, Brown, Cameron and now May - has ignored the many inconsistencies as well as litigious nature of the McCanns, throwing yet more taxpayers’ money on this one case. Why?

So that in turn lead me to buying Kate’s book. A small attempt at trying to be fair to her and them.

I particularly wanted to read, in her own words, how Gerry and Kate had reacted when they found Madeleine missing though I realise the book was written a good few years after the disappearance when emotions are no longer raw.

And the book certainly reads well. I actually wanted to read more due its easy writing style. However, it is nothing like her more staccato diary kept at the time. I got the distinct impression it was written by at least two people, possibly more. Kate’s ‘voice’ based on her diary, jumped out and I could actually hear it – including the Scouse intonation. Other passages had a different ‘sound’ – to me, that is.

Almost immediately, despite still being onside, I noticed the marked lack about Madeleine while there was a lot about Kate and a little about Gerry. It read rather like a response to the multitude of conspiracy sites. But mostly it is about Kate. So why call it ‘Madeleine’?

Thirty-six pages in came the first jarring passage, with Kate centre-stage: an uncle has a heart attack. She worries about having to give him CPR as she is ‘the size of a small barn’. No mention that Gerry is there, and Gerry is actually the practising cardiologist.

Having been brought up a Roman Catholic, all references to that faith also jar as it’s clear it appears to mean very little to them. They do not appear to go to Sunday Mass until after Madeleine disappears. Praying does not appear to be part of the children's bedtime routine. And I have never known a Roman Catholic call Our Lady ‘Mary’.

Also, as Catholics, they’d know small children would go straight to Heaven on dying, but she prefers to think of Madeleine as being alive, regardless of how frightening that might be for the bright little girl.

She is ‘annoyed’ with God. I rage at my God when life’s challenges become too much to bear. To be ‘annoyed’ sounds like a missing child is a small blip in an otherwise perfect life that God has dared to dump on them. (Anger at God appears at the end of the book.)

By the end of 'Missing', it becomes more obvious that the tone is now one of counteracting the various negative theories found on the internet. This may, however, not be so evident to those who have never read alternative views or even those of the original policeman in charge. They will no doubt read everything at face value. Understandably so.

But I still believe her. And then I don’t. And then I do again. My mind is being played with but I don’t fully realise it till later on in the book. The reader is being given an economic version of the facts – which are available in mainstream media as well as the ‘conspiracy’ sites.

Kate blames almost everyone for Madeleine’s disappearance, but barely a word of self-reproach about their parental negligence. A good few chapters in there is mention of it but once again in answer to the rebukes rather than any guilt over their parenting skills.

The word ‘abduction’ constantly repeated is now also jarring. Keep repeating it, seems to be the legal or editorial or PR commandment - or so it sounds to this reader.

Until halfway through, I felt the McCanns were being falsely accused despite still believing them negligent. After all how could they have moved the body so quickly? Where did they put it and then move it? And with the world’s press watching their every move? How could they keep sticking their heads above the parapet if they really were involved even if it was clearing up an accident? Why not just keep quiet and let it fade from people’s minds?

Instead (to this day) they keep taking legal action against almost anyone who dares to disagree with their version of events even if their version – and that of their friends – is riddled with inconsistencies.

Yet, the tone did distinctly change and I realised I didn’t actually believe her any more. Not that I think murder was involved then or now. But desire to believe her seemed to evaporate.

Her child is missing and she comes across as arrogant, petulant and stroppy with the police when they try to do their job: how dare they question her and not take her at her word despite the many discrepancies in their testimonies (the couple and their friends). She gives the PJ orders and is affronted when they do not keep them updated on their findings.

This book only includes a few snippets from her diary. She writes as if she and Gerry should take no real responsibility for their various actions both before Madeleine was acknowledged as missing and prior to calling the PJ : “…Portuguese police had stated that the crime scene had been contaminated 'because of us' and that fundamental evidence had been lost. How dare they insinuate that our daughter's life could be put in danger because of us. Very angry. Very upset.”

Didn’t they call the media, the government, family and friends before calling the police? And wasn’t it someone at the Ocean Club who actually did call the police? And didn’t they allow streams of people into 5a prior to the police turning up, meaning the crime scene was already contaminated due to their actions and choices?

She doesn’t explain these choices and actions in this book but continues to blame the PJ for being, to her way of thinking, inept.She seems to have missed the point that she and Gerry left three small children alone, with an unlocked door, out of sight and out of hearing.

Her book constantly dismisses the PJ (who may indeed have been sloppy) while not mentioning how British Govt officials were constantly around in effect directing the flow of the investigation. (Why?)

Being told over and over again what to believe – an abduction – served only to reinforce suspicion in this reader. How would they know what had happened? The child could have wandered off. (Ten years on, this may now be the latest theory.)

No explanation is given why the Tapas group all seem to give conflicting evidence.

Shifting focus from being only about Madeleine to missing children in general showed a definite lack of self-awareness let alone putting the little child first. All very odd and not answered in her book.

Both McCanns displayed rather strange behaviour even if doctors are cooler customers than most normal human beings. An IVF baby should have been doubly precious, so why stick the children at the unseen front of the apartment? Why did they appear to dump off all three children for major parts of the day? And that didn’t change after the little one went missing, but Kate offers no explanation either.

Aside: she herself writes that after checking the apartment she was “hurtling out through the patio doors and down towards Gerry and our friends. As soon as our table was in sight I started screaming. ‘Madeleine’s gone! Someone’s taken her!’”

So, with a presumed ‘abductor’ around, she left the twins with a window open, and only screamed for help when ‘our table was in sight’. Her own words.

Their many political and celebrity benefactors and friends – including Clement Freud – get mentions, as if they conferred a seal of approval.
But still there is quite a lot that Kate McCann has left out or just mentions fleetingly, as if of little importance in their scheme of things or no business of the reader. Her aim is not to set our minds at rest about the many discrepancies related to the disappearance but to talk about Kate and the impact on Kate (so why call it ‘Madeleine’?).

Madeleine was, by all accounts, a noisy little thing with strong lungs. Yet if she was taken, how come she didn't create a ruckus? When would ‘abductors’ have had the time to drug all three children with the Tapas Crew regularly checking on them? And how could someone abduct a small girl and leave absolutely no trace? None whatsoever, it seems.

If you read this book and nothing else, Kate McCann (or her editors/PRs) will have mostly succeeded in getting the reader on side. Yet despite my earlier empathy towards them, I am now less convinced.

But then how could she/they lie quite so blatantly if involved? Perhaps Kate McCann does present a partial version which resonates with some truth? Why do I no longer believe her yet cannot fathom how the child was moved post-mortem/post-disappearance?

If they were indeed responsible for Madeleine's accidental death and subsequent cover-up, how did they manage to keep that from the hordes of family and friends who turned up in Portugal to support them? And over five months?

They are not actors so their anger and emotions, when dealing with the police and others to do something to find their little girl, seem very real. And yet there is still a feeling they know more than they are letting on and that some of that anger and high emotion is due to being questioned when the British Government is, and continues to be, so unquestioning of them.

Their litigious nature leaves a sour taste. Surely all publicity is good publicity if it brings their child back? And why deprive a Portuguese ex-copper of both his views and his livelihood? Her dislike of the PJ comes over loud and strong but mostly for questioning her view of things it seems.
Final thoughts on the book and the Kate presented in it: she barely mentions Madeleine despite the title; Kate is either innocent, lacking in self-awareness - and rather dim - or somehow involved in her daughter’s disappearance and very manipulative.

One thing leaps out, she definitely does not think they did anything wrong: “…considered by many to be guilty of something”. (Her italics.)

Yes, guilty of parental negligence.

She moans “what have we ever done to deserve all this?” as if leaving her children night after night wouldn’t have consequences; as if involving political contacts and media within hours of the child going missing would have no consequences. And bear in mind, this book was written a good few years after the sad incident.

She clearly leaves out a lot, being economic with what she has chosen to share - even small facts like Fr Pacheco giving her keys to the church. Why? It makes me distrust her account.

This is more than the sad disappearance (for whatever reason) of little Madeleine, and more like a conspiracy thriller.

There are so many questions left unanswered in this book, like the influence of Brian Kennedy, the multi-millionaire, appearing to suggest both the creation of the Madeleine Fund and using Metodo (still highly praised by KM in this book).

Questions remain about the links to Robert Murat who their friends fingered as the ‘abductor’ but who gets a slight thumbs up in this book when he won a huge payout for libel. Now they are “false claims” despite some of them originating from the McCann camp. But no explanation is given in the book.

This book is undoubtedly an intriguing read, but it remains to me principally a PR job created to influence minds along a particular track.

She refutes comments about using sedatives on the children as “outrageous fantasies”, despite her own father confirming it. There again, she does use the word ‘tranquilliser’ so could claim it as a fantasy if one must be picky about words.

Then it is back to believing her, so steadfast is her belief in this abduction. Till she spoils it by then again mentioning the Jane Tanner sighting – so comprehensively debunked by police and indeed by Tanner’s ever-changing evidence.

Her utter belief would be almost compelling if not for the many ambiguities and half-truths as well as cadaver dogs and DNA. Yet, based on this book, she is intransigent in her belief that Madeleine is alive and everyone is not doing enough to find her. (This may have changed at the current time – February 2017 - though.)

So did it sway me? Yes and no. As one of the PJ commented, she is either a great actress or innocent. Yet protesting too much also springs to mind.

There is though another angle if one wants to be kind to her. Maybe she really does believe unswervingly as a coping mechanism?

She, in her own words, doesn’t really discuss what happened with Gerry so it is always possible her mind has created a situation she could live with and it has become ever more real to her. This is her book, her version, not Gerry’s.

As part of this new mindset, it is other people who have let them down, “the very people who ought to be acting in Madeleine’ best interests”. Not a peep about their own negligent behaviour during their holiday which lead to this outcome.

To be honest, by the time I finished the book, I had an appalling headache from trying to get behind this massive wall she or they have created. For her future sanity, I pray the truth will out as clearly we all have been told half-truths, and Kate’s book has, for me at least, confirmed that.

by MayMuse 22.02.17 19:58

Gosh that's a lengthy review and I've only got part way, will continue shortly, is this a review you have put on Amazon or just on the forum?

by euphrosene 22.02.17 20:01

MayMuse wrote:Gosh that's a lengthy review and I've only got part way, will continue shortly, is this a review you have put on Amazon or just on the forum?

Heh! On Amazon (as I bought Kate's book) but since this seems to be the 'go to' forum, I thought it might be of interest here too!
Euphrosene

by MayMuse 22.02.17 20:03

euphrosene wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Gosh that's a lengthy review and I've only got part way, will continue shortly, is this a review you have put on Amazon or just on the forum?
Heh! On Amazon (as I bought Kate's book) but since this seems to be the 'go to' forum, I thought it might be of interest here too!
Euphrosene

Well done for writing such an in-depth review.

by euphrosene 22.02.17 20:20

MayMuse wrote:
euphrosene wrote:
MayMuse wrote:Gosh that's a lengthy review and I've only got part way, will continue shortly, is this a review you have put on Amazon or just on the forum?
Heh! On Amazon (as I bought Kate's book) but since this seems to be the 'go to' forum, I thought it might be of interest here too!
Euphrosene
Well done for writing such an in-depth review.

Thank you! Just spotted some typos though ;^)

Still have headache and off to bed.

Cheers!

by Guest 22.02.17 21:39

Hi I really enjoyed your review - really thoughtful and perceptive with some poignant observations. Thanks for sharing it.

by euphrosene 22.02.17 21:41

What's_up_doc? wrote:Hi I really enjoyed your review - really thoughtful and perceptive with some poignant observations. Thanks for sharing it.

Many thanks! Still up ... and still have a headache but that made me feel good :)

by **Jill Havern** 22.02.17 21:55

Welcome euphrosene and thank you muchly for posting your review thumbsup

by whatsupdoc 23.02.17 10:26

Thank you for a very interesting review, euphrosene. I read the review all the way through and I commend you on a good job.

Kate's book is called "madeleine" which we all thought was very strange for a parent but as you say the book concentrates on Kate. It started out as if it was Kate's biography. I didn't read much of the book and I didn't buy it.

I think the title is something other than a misprint although Kate's written English is not brilliant.

If you look at the letter she wrote to the then Home Secretary, TM, going from memory , she wrote...

...hope you don't mind me writing to you...

So, she obviously hadn't covered the use of gerunds in her English lessons. It should , of course, be "my writing to you".

by euphrosene 23.02.17 11:55

whatsupdoc wrote:Thank you for a very interesting review, euphrosene. I read the review all the way through and I commend you on a good job.

Kate's book is called "madeleine" which we all thought was very strange for a parent but as you say the book concentrates on Kate. It started out as if it was Kate's biography. I didn't read much of the book and I didn't buy it.

I think the title is something other than a misprint although Kate's written English is not brilliant.

If you look at the letter she wrote to the then Home Secretary, TM, going from memory , she wrote...

...hope you don't mind me writing to you...

So, she obviously hadn't covered the use of gerunds in her English lessons. It should , of course, be "my writing to you".

Yes, the writing styles do slightly vary but the editors must have been very good.

by The Rooster 23.02.17 14:00

Nice contribution thanks for your observations.

by euphrosene 23.02.17 15:12

The Rooster wrote:Nice contribution thanks for your observations.

Thank you. I thought I had been fair to Kate as well as highlighting my concerns about her economy with the truth but it seems someone who looks into this forum ("hugely nasty CMoMM forum") thinks I am a liar and have it wrong on several counts (he posted on my Amazon review).

TBH I haven't delved into this forum in great depth but the posts I have read have not been 'hugely nasty' and anyone who calls me a liar will get short shrift from me as I tend to be rather too outspoken and honest for my own good sometimes.

by Guest 23.02.17 16:15

euphrosene wrote:
The Rooster wrote:Nice contribution thanks for your observations.

Thank you. I thought I had been fair to Kate as well as highlighting my concerns about her economy with the truth but it seems someone who looks into this forum ("hugely nasty CMoMM forum") thinks I am a liar and have it wrong on several counts (he posted on my Amazon review).

TBH I haven't delved into this forum in great depth but the posts I have read have not been 'hugely nasty' and anyone who calls me a liar will get short shrift from me as I tend to be rather too outspoken and honest for my own good sometimes.

I think they are fire fighting euphrosene - your review will have probably spooked them because you make your case intelligently and they want to perpetuate the myth that anyone who challenges their script must be a bit dim!

by **Jill Havern** 23.02.17 16:47

Interesting that the John G. who responded, has put responses on a further five or six reviews, all in the same vein, and all around 3 hours ago.
On duty - clearly !

John G.2 hours ago

Report abuse

Too many points to really respond to here but I did read it on the hugely nasty CMoMM forum where you have also posted this.
I find your points baffling as a lot of what you have stated I have personally never seen, having followed the case for 10 years and having read the book twice.. For instance, what you mentioned above about Kate not discussing the case with Gerry. Where did this emerge from?

On the comment about Kate administering sedatives according to her father...why lie about it? You know full well this was NEVER stated by her father. he did say she had used Calpol when the children needed it, as most parents do. What he didn't state was that she had used it on the children in Portugal and Kate states she hadn't. I believe most parents carry this kind of medication "just in case". And since when did Calpol sedate any child? it is more likely to make them more lively! Did Kate use the word "tranquilliser" and if so where?

When have the police debunked the sighting of the man carrying a child as given by Jane Tanner? As far as I recall the officer stated there had been a man come forward and he felt he might be the man in question but what isn't explained by the detective is why this man kept the clothes for 8 years and why he was with his wife walking and yet Jane Tanner saw no woman. So debunked....not really and this person will continue to be a suspect.

I agree the people who let her down were the officers who were tasked with trying to help find Madeleine...too little and much too late.

In all truth your review leaves a lot to be desired and meant to turn people off, especially as posted on one of the most libellous forums on the internet just to gain their praise and applause.

John G.3 hours ago

Report abuse

How was it supposed to bring answers? There are no answers even today although the police in 2 countries are still working on finding them and are now looking into the very real probability Madeleine was the victim of traffickers.

John G.3 hours ago

Report abuse

Not as poorly written as the book produced by the lead detective on the case though. Now Kate never professed to be a writer but it was a very heartfelt account on life up to the time Madeleine was taken and in that respect a very good read.

John G.3 hours ago

Report abuse

You have to ask yourself what brought Kate to do this...the terror of what her child may have been enduring under monstrous paedophiles perhaps? Maybe you hadn't given this a thought?

John G.3 hours ago

Report abuse

Ah one of the nasty people who talk about narcissists I see. We all live in hope of the truth being found soon and it won't be what you lot (on social media hate groups) who have come here again recently believe in your bizarre minds.

by **Jill Havern** 23.02.17 17:03

Some more reviews before they get whooshed.

Top Customer Reviews

1.0 out of 5 starsDisgusting rubbish.
By r a healey on 10 Feb. 2017
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Bought for kindle. Took me an age to actually start reading it as the whole case has sickened me as well as the behaviour of the parents here. Who on Earth talks about their 3 year old daughters "perfect genitals" either in public or private? It's very coldly and calculatingly written. I bought it to see if my opinion of them has changed but reading this calculated rubbish only cements my opinion of them more firmly. Don't bother reading this, read Gonçalo Amarals book online instead.
1 Comment  13 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No  Report abuse

1.0 out of 5 starsPage 129 is disgusting! As a mother reading that page of what ...
By Amazon Customer on 20 April 2016
Format: Paperback
Page 129 is disgusting! As a mother reading that page of what another mother wrote about her "missing" daughters private parts I find horrifying. And why didn't the msm report the Gasper statements?
3 Comments  69 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No  Report abuse
2.0 out of 5 starsCouldn't get into this book, gave up after about ...
By 2312 on 3 May 2016
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
Couldn't get into this book, gave up after about a 1/4 of it. Its not really about Madeleine as the title suggests, more about how her mother felt more sorry for herself than her missing 3 year old. Probably wont get round to finishing it.
Comment  66 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No  Report abuse
1.0 out of 5 starsdogs that did great work for the F
By Ms L. R. Neal on 13 May 2016
Format: Paperback
read this book as i had read all the police files and wanted their side ,what i found was a bitter woman unable to take the blame for something they caused,a woman who refused to answer 48 question's and slated Martin Grimes dogs, dogs that did great work for the F.B.I. SORRY KATE DOGS DON'T LIE
2 Comments  87 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No  Report abuse
1.0 out of 5 starsSimply Kate.... not madeline
By KT on 3 April 2016
Format: Kindle Edition Verified Purchase
I've been somewhat amused by how narcissistic this woman is... she blames the police and or anybody for the disappearance of an innocent little toddler. The book is about her and what she demands people to think, it doesn't answer any questions and she still maintains that they did nothing wrong and were correct in leaving their babies sleeping in an unlocked foreign apartment so they could drink alcohol and socialize with their friends (who also all left their children alone and unsupervised). I have no sympathy for her and certainly did not want to read about her bazaar thoughts regarding paedophiles or references to her sex life. It's pathetic to be force fed into what we must think and believe, she dismisses the dogs and seems to be trying to account for her callous behaviour after the disappearance - she's nit picking the police statements when she should be reading those of her friends and analysing those in the first instance. If she truly is sorry and anxious to find the innocent little girl she should answer those all important questions and then the public may be more sympathetic. Also the matter that she will sue anyone one voicing opinions is suspicious.
6 Comments  126 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No  Report abuse
1.0 out of 5 starsTotally self serving, Madeleine hardly gets a mention. ...
By kmn on 23 Aug. 2015
Format: Hardcover
Totally self serving,Madeleine hardly gets a mention. I know nothing more than I already did by looking at the PJ files and Gerry's blogs. In fact just read Gerry's blogs as some are reproduced almost verbatin in Kates book. But she gives herself the credit as the one who wrote everything down so meticulously in her diary.
Comment  40 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No  Report abuse
1.0 out of 5 starsWhy no lie detector?
By Greeneha on 4 Dec. 2013
Format: Paperback
I think I would have demanded I got a lie detector done if people thought I may have killed my own daughter. Why haven't the McCanns done one? I wonder......
6 Comments  108 people found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?  Yes No  Report abuse
1.0 out of 5 starsDisturbing and sickening to the stomach. I have no sympathy for the McCanns now!
By beckiebubbles on 16 Oct. 2014
Format: Paperback Verified Purchase
Horrible read, not for the horrific incident that happened to Madeleine but to the way her so called 'loving mother' portrayed everything in the book, it is a book very much focused on, "please feel sorry for me, I'm a poor victim." There are some very disturbing quotes in this book which made me feel sick to my stomach, I don't understand how a mother could talk about (a three year old) saying "her little vagina being hurt" or words to that effect? What mother would say that in a book that her other children will probably read at some point in the future? The McCanns take anyone that tries to say that it was an inside job to court, sues them, or gets a court order to silence to them. But does no one think it is strange how many people related to the case gave tried to say something against them and they get silenced. Anyway I have my own opinion on this situation which has only been increased by reading this book, anyone interested should google the McCann files and read the Portuguese police files and make your eon opinion. *Please note this us my own opinion and is in no way harassing, trolling or attacking the McCanns I am just giving my own opinion. Read the book also and see how disturbing it is.

Not in the top list

1.0 out of 5 starsDont bother
ByLindsayon 22 February 2017
Format: Paperback
Poorly written. Rambling attempt at a book.

Bought after reading all the case files from the Portuguese police to get the other side of the story but was a complete waste - talking about madeleines genitals and 3 pages wasted on Jane Tanners fake witness statement.
The book also seems to contain some discrepancies ans untruths!
When south Yorkshire Police too their sniffer dog to work on the case, they found cadaver scent and madeleines DNA. Gerry set about to discredit their work by researching a case from 30 years earlier. A dog had found cadaver scent in the home of a missing woman. A judge wouldn't allow this to be used in court as no body was actually discovered. The dog indicated a few different spots at different locations indicating the body being moved but never found the body itself. Gerry used this case from 1970s America to discredit the work of police sniffer dogs in general and used this as his defence. Bear in mind the particular dog used in maddies case had never been wrong in over 200 cases.
After Gerry made these statements, the husband of the woman who had been missing for 30 years in America went and made a full confession. This confession proved that all along the dog had actually been 100% right. For
Fair enough to Gerry, the confession came after he had looked into the case ans referenced it. HOWEVER this book by Kate Mccann was written AFTER the confession- yet she still uses this case to discredit the work of dogs in her book and doesn't mention the outcome and that the dog was right! Makes you wonder. People lie. Dogs don't

The only plus is that MAYBE the money I spent on it may help the search for Madeleine but I don't think so
1 Comment|One person found this helpful. Was this review helpful to you?Yes No Report abuse
5.0 out of 5 starsFive Stars
ByRosemaryon 16 February 2017
Format: Kindle Edition|Verified Purchase
made me realise two sides to every story and nothing is always as it seems

by Guest 23.02.17 23:05

Seriously - I thought this book was out of print months and months ago. if not years.

Any time I look in at Amazon to check, it's always only a few (anything between 3 and 13 but more on the way) copies available. Apart from that you can buy second hand ranging from 1p to 30 quid, that to me screams out of print!

The reviews have been jogging along on a negative bias ever since the book was first published in May 2011 - apart from a few known McCann'ites who argue the toss at every opportunity and a few known faux scientists whose opinions are questionable to say the least.

I'm astounded that anyone would actually pay for this book at this late stage, knowing full well that the proceeds will go straight into the dubious Find Madeleine Co. Ltd. Even curiosity wouldn't persuade me to pay good money for Kate McCann's autobiography slash chiclit. I'm even more astounded that Amazon continue to publish reviews after nigh on six years - can't be bad I guess as the majority are critical!

by plebgate 23.02.17 23:18

euphrosene wrote:
The Rooster wrote:Nice contribution thanks for your observations.

Thank you. I thought I had been fair to Kate as well as highlighting my concerns about her economy with the truth but it seems someone who looks into this forum ("hugely nasty CMoMM forum") thinks I am a liar and have it wrong on several counts (he posted on my Amazon review).

TBH I haven't delved into this forum in great depth but the posts I have read have not been 'hugely nasty' and anyone who calls me a liar will get short shrift from me as I tend to be rather too outspoken and honest for my own good sometimes.

Sorry if I have misread your post but someone who LOOKS into this forum (hugely nasty CMMOM forum")
So this someone doesn't POST here but LOOKS at the forum.

I do not understand what you mean when you say from what you have read the posts on this forum have not been "hugely nasty".

If any nasty comments have ever been posted they have quickly been removed as
genuine posters here are quite outspoken and honest too and pick up very quickly when posts seem genuine or not.

by Roxyroo 24.02.17 0:32

Well, he's maybe posted his review somewhere such as twitter or facebook and has been told by some Pro that we are "hugely nasty". But once europhosene has actually had a browse of the forum he's discovered exactly what you've said, Plebgate, that we are not nasty, vindictive or the cesspit that Pros are so desperate to paint us all as.
That is how I have read europhosene's post about his book review. I.m glad to see newcomers who show us that they are willing to spend the time doing anything at all to get the word out, and a lengthy, and fair imo, book review on Amazon is a good way to do it, when you think about Amazon's global reach and how many ppl still not familiar with the case may stumble across it.
I had never used Twitter before but signed up as I was campaigning about NHS cuts, and finally having a small victory, i found that I quite like twitter now, and instead of deleting it I have used it to tweet about this case.
I.m sure the combined effort from us all helps, even if its just talking to a neighbour or friend and pointing them in the right direction.
Which is this forum! Obviously!
big grin