"The Book"

i bought a copy of "The Book" last week, second hand as I didn't want to donate anything to the Ltd Company! I read it over the weekend and several times uttered 'wtf', at which my husband looked at me, shook his head and said 'what's she said now?'! There were several things that stood out throughout the book, but one thing in particular I can't get out of my head and it's when she's talking about praying every night. She quotes the prayer that she said every night and then goes on to say that when she was praying she was thinking (and this is only one line) "please don't let them fall off something and bang their heads". Does anyone else find this strange, or is it just me?

She (KM) quotes the prayer that she said every night and then goes on to say that when she was praying she was thinking (and this is only one line) "please don't let them fall off something and bang ( 'bump/bumped'? ) their heads".
--------------------------------------------------------
RO.

1578 “Okay. Did you want to mention something about Doctors in the group”?

Rachael Oldfield: (Reply) “Yeah I was just going to say that, you know Kate and Gerry are both Doctors and you know there were three other medics in the group, erm four others actually sorry, four others, erm, you know, so, IF BY ANY CHANCE they’d accidentally done anything TO Madeleine or she was ill or erm you know something wasn’t quite right, I mean they wouldn’t have just left her and sort of tried to cover it up as an accident or you know, they would of sort of you know, come and got Matt and Russell and Dave and Fi, erm I mean you know, not just because they are Doctors, because you know they’re parents and you’d kind of go to anyone to see who could help but if you’ve got, you know Doctors as friends who were there as well, erm you know there were kind of six people there who if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head or you know whatever the theories are supposed to be, erm you know, there were plenty of people there who could of you know, tried to revive a child, erm”.

(13, THIRTEEN....'you know's'!)

AND

The seven witnesses include Rachael Oldfield, who has given her first ever interview to this programme.

Searching for Madeleine - Radio 4 documentary, 24 April 2008
Searching for Madeleine - Radio 4, 24 April 2008

By Steve Kingstone
24 April 2008

(Rachael Oldfield) "I was there on the night. I spent time with Gerry and Kate during the week, you know, before the 3rd of May and afterwards. You know, their emotions and their reactions was just agonising. It was just no way they’re involved in anything to do with Madeleine’s disappearance."

"You know, if you take the common sense approach as well and just look at, you know, timings of how things happened and the fact that they’re both medics, there are four other medics in the group, they would know what to do to resuscitate a child… or anyone else for that matter. Anyone with an ounce of common sense really would be able to see that they couldn’t have done it. I was there and I know that they didn’t do it."

Rachael Oldfield NEVER, EVER, 'explained', what 'IT' was they 'didn't do', or couldn't have 'done'.

jta: The 'interviewer' never ASKED RO about 'resuscitating/reviving' a 'child', she 'mentioned/volunteered' THAT, all by herself, 'out of the blue'.

I wondered if by some chance she was trying to say something subliminally (if that's the right word)?

Another stand-out remark for me comes on page 75 of the book.....

"Then a lady appeared on a balcony - I'm fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived - and, in a plummy voice, inquired, "Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?" I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, "Oh, I see," almost as if she'd just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf."

I notice the passivity of the can of beans falling off the shelf as if it had a life of its own. Just like I notice Rachael Oldfield's peculiar use of the passive mood with .... "if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head."

Kathian1997 wrote:I wondered if by some chance she was trying to say something subliminally (if that's the right word)?

No.

It's called 'leakage'.

She, imo, 'knows' EXACTLY 'where' Madeleine IS, 'dead' or 'alive' ('hidden' until the big 'reveal'?).... 'you know'!

Yes that's what I thought but I was trying to be, 'you know'!

I wonder whether the tapas quiz night was Sunday? And was that the night the pair fell out for the first time ever and KM slept in the children's room?

All the above bolded bits in various posts tell a story. It reminds me of the Eric Morecambe/André Previn sketch. "Listen, Sunshine. I'm playing all the right notes, but not necessarily in the right order."

Listen to David Payne putting the tin lid on when asked about Gerry's sports bag ...    "....There was nothing of that size that you could hide a, a tennis racquet in or anything like that ....."

Forgive me for stating the bl**din obvious here, but the object of a sports bag IS to be big enough to put/hide a tennis racquet in! They hang themselves every time they open their mouths. Why can we see it but the powers that be can't?

Mirage wrote:Another stand-out remark for me comes on page 75 of the book.....

"Then a lady appeared on a balcony - I'm fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived - and, in a plummy voice, inquired, "Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?" I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, "Oh, I see," almost as if she'd just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf."

I notice the passivity of the can of beans falling off the shelf as if it had a life of its own. Just like I notice Rachael Oldfield's peculiar use of the passive mood with .... "if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head."

 From Mrs Fenn:
Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted............................................. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios....

This is no doubt precisely what was said, and it's not what Kate "they've taken her" claims was said (imo).

Kathian1997 wrote:Forgive me for stating the bl**din obvious here, but the object of a sports bag IS to be big enough to put/hide a tennis racquet in! They hang themselves every time they open their mouths. Why can we see it but the powers that be can't?

They can see it Kathian1997 but have to ignore it.

I've never read the " bewk " , don't think I could bring myself to !

From posts on here quoting parts I have to question , did nobody read it before publication and say to Kate , " you cannot put a , b, c in it " ? 

Especially when the PJ files were available online and contradicted almost everything she said .

Or is Kate so arrogant in their " celebrity , victim " status that she had a hissy fit about her " version of the truth " and demanded it stay as " wot she wrote " ( back to Morecambe and Wise again !) 

It stuns me that people can read this me , me ,me , I, I , I , we we , me me , poor us drivel and actually believe it . 

Where is Madeline in the book ? 

No sorry it's madeleine .

TBH there isn't much about Madeleine in the book. I would say 95% is about K&G. I was surprised how little there was about Madeleine to say that the book is actually called Madeleine! Actually when she goes back to the Tapas bar to let them know that Madeleine is missing she didn't actually say 'They've taken her' she says 'Madeleine's gone, someone's taken her'. So even that's changed. All I can say is that this is her version of the truth imho.

Kathian1997 wrote:TBH there isn't much about Madeleine in the book. I would say 95% is about K&G. I was surprised how little there was about Madeleine to say that the book is actually called Madeleine! Actually when she goes back to the Tapas bar to let them know that Madeleine is missing she didn't actually say 'They've taken her' she says 'Madeleine's gone, someone's taken her'. So even that's changed. All I can say is that this is her version of the truth imho.

Please look at the jacket cover of the book.

KATE MCCANN

madeleine

aquila wrote:

Kathian1997 wrote:TBH there isn't much about Madeleine in the book. I would say 95% is about K&G. I was surprised how little there was about Madeleine to say that the book is actually called Madeleine! Actually when she goes back to the Tapas bar to let them know that Madeleine is missing she didn't actually say 'They've taken her' she says 'Madeleine's gone, someone's taken her'. So even that's changed. All I can say is that this is her version of the truth imho.

Please look at the jacket cover of the book.

KATE MCCANN

madeleine

 I noticed this observation some time ago. To be fair, it may not have been her say-so, it may have been her publishers. Or do you know differently? If so, I stand corrected.

wallad wrote:

aquila wrote:

Kathian1997 wrote:TBH there isn't much about Madeleine in the book. I would say 95% is about K&G. I was surprised how little there was about Madeleine to say that the book is actually called Madeleine! Actually when she goes back to the Tapas bar to let them know that Madeleine is missing she didn't actually say 'They've taken her' she says 'Madeleine's gone, someone's taken her'. So even that's changed. All I can say is that this is her version of the truth imho.

Please look at the jacket cover of the book.

KATE MCCANN

madeleine

 I noticed this observation some time ago. To be fair, it may not have been her say-so, it may have been her publishers. Or do you know differently? If so, I stand corrected.

Er, don't you think Kate would have let them know if she didn't like the cover? The same mum who muttered'f****ing t***ers' under her breath at the policeman trying to find out where her daughter was?

worriedmum wrote:

wallad wrote:

aquila wrote:

Kathian1997 wrote:TBH there isn't much about Madeleine in the book. I would say 95% is about K&G. I was surprised how little there was about Madeleine to say that the book is actually called Madeleine! Actually when she goes back to the Tapas bar to let them know that Madeleine is missing she didn't actually say 'They've taken her' she says 'Madeleine's gone, someone's taken her'. So even that's changed. All I can say is that this is her version of the truth imho.

Please look at the jacket cover of the book.

KATE MCCANN

madeleine

 I noticed this observation some time ago. To be fair, it may not have been her say-so, it may have been her publishers. Or do you know differently? If so, I stand corrected.

Er, don't you think Kate would have let them know if she didn't like the cover? The same mum who muttered'f****ing t***ers' under her breath at the policeman trying to find out where her daughter was?

Er, I don't know, that's why I asked. Her F-T remark, however outrageous it was, has no bearing on it. I asked if anyone knew differently, and you clearly don't. But perhaps someone will.

walla wrote: I noticed this observation some time ago. To be fair, it may not have been her say-so, it may have been her publishers. Or do you know differently? If so, I stand corrected.

Couldn't give a kipper's doodah who is responsible for the book cover design - fact remains this is it..



Who is to take responsibility for the misleading information on the front cover - who is to take responsibility for the content between front and back cover?

It is Kate McCann's book whichever way you try to excuse the presentation.

I hadn't noticed the type set on the cover until you pointed it out. But now you have it seems to me that she puts herself above her daughter AGAIN even though Madeleine's name is above hers!

pennylane wrote:

Mirage wrote:Another stand-out remark for me comes on page 75 of the book.....

"Then a lady appeared on a balcony - I'm fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived - and, in a plummy voice, inquired, "Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?" I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, "Oh, I see," almost as if she'd just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf."

I notice the passivity of the can of beans falling off the shelf as if it had a life of its own. Just like I notice Rachael Oldfield's peculiar use of the passive mood with .... "if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head."

 From Mrs Fenn:
Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted............................................. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios....

This is no doubt precisely what was said, and not what Kate "they've taken her" claims was said (imo).

astonishing foreknowledge at that time that "a girl had been abducted"  or perhaps arrogance?

sar wrote:

pennylane wrote:

Mirage wrote:Another stand-out remark for me comes on page 75 of the book.....

"Then a lady appeared on a balcony - I'm fairly certain this was about 11pm, before the police arrived - and, in a plummy voice, inquired, "Can someone tell me what all the noise is about?" I explained as clearly as I was able, given the state I was in, that my little girl had been stolen from her bed, to which she casually responded, "Oh, I see," almost as if she'd just been told that a can of beans had fallen off a kitchen shelf."

I notice the passivity of the can of beans falling off the shelf as if it had a life of its own. Just like I notice Rachael Oldfield's peculiar use of the passive mood with .... "if Madeleine had accidentally been bumped on the head."

 From Mrs Fenn:
Mrs Fenn asked the father, Gerry, what was happening to which he replied that a small girl had been abducted............................................. She found it strange that Gerry when said that a girl had been abducted, he did not mention that it was his daughter and that he did not mention any other scenarios....

This is no doubt precisely what was said, and not what Kate "they've taken her" claims was said (imo).

astonishing foreknowledge at that time that "a girl had been abducted"  or perhaps arrogance?

Very damning that the McCanns didn't ask a potentially important witness loated in the immediate vicinity, if she'd seen or heard anything; they also didn't wake their seemingly comatose twins to check their health, or gently inquire if they had been frightened by a man; and then they proceeded to stay hauled up in the apartment whilst everyone else searched for their 3 year old child on that oh 'so dark night.' 

I don't think they've ever physically searched for her have they? They went jogging, played tennis, went to church, did interviews, went jetting around the world and came home, all whilst other people searched for her, even the staff of the complex!

Was the first edition of the book called Madeleine - A Version of The Truth? Or have I somehow imagined that?

MrsC wrote:Was the first edition of the book called Madeleine - A Version of The Truth?

I don't think so, at least not that I've ever seen.

Whatever, there can be no denying that was roughly the agenda, if you consider the book's introduction..

ABOUT THE BOOK

‘The decision to publish this book has been very difficult, and taken with heavy hearts ... My reason for writing it is simple: to give an account of the truth ... Writing this memoir has entailed recording some very personal, intimate and emotional aspects of our lives. Sharing these with strangers does not come easily to me, but if I hadn’t done so I would not have felt the bookgave as full a picture as it is possible for me to give. As with every action we have taken over the last four years, it ultimately boils down to whether what we are doing could help us to find Madeleine. When the answer to that question is yes, or even possibly, our family can cope with anything ...

What follows is an intensely personal account, and I make no apology for that ...  Nothing is more important to us than finding our little girl.’

Kate McCann, May 2011
----------

‘It is a sad fact that not a single police force anywhere is proactively looking for Madeleine (as is the case for many other missing children). I am sure this book will re-energize the search for our daughter and the public will get behind the Find Madeleine campaign once again. It is simply not acceptable that the authorities have given up on Madeleine – especially when no comprehensive review of the case has been undertaken. Our daughter, and whoever took her, are out there. We need your help to find them.’

Gerry McCann, May 2011

[Note:  This extract from the book is for research purposes only]
----------

What I find interesting, if not amusing, is both Kate McCann and Gerry McCann's little spiel are dated 2011 - coincidentally the very same month that Operation Grange was launched, the planning of which apparently commenced in 2010, at least according to ex-DI Colin Sutton.  Using that cry to re-energize the search for your daughter and the public to get behind the Find Madeleine (Co Ltd) campaign?  Tch tch tch!

Not a single police force proactively searching for Madeleine, eh - so what exactly do you think Operation Grange where/are doing Professor McCann?  Bugger all?  Foot and mouth disease!

Not 'the book' as such but..... 'a book'

UK 'only'!

Perhaps 'our Danny' could tell DCI Nick 'em @OG and the PJ what he personally 'knows' about............the 'FULL story of Madeleine McCann'

Then 'arrests' can be made, can't they?


And there I was 'thinking' that S&S had already 'written' the 'most definitive, EVER, account, EVER, of what DEFINITELY 'happened' to Madeleine'

@Verdi - Thank you.

Gerry McCann's vision..

So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces– the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of that weekend to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press, based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of metres away’, that we could face prosecution for negligence.

After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN  [extract for research and debate only]
----------

There is a pair of birds nesting locally, guarding the nest night and day to protect their little fledglings (I can hear them) - there is also a resident kestrel on the prowl night and day licking his beak in anticipation of bagging one of the little fledglings.  I can't help but feel for the little'uns and their parents being constantly harassed by the dangers of predators and other natural threats.  The chances of survival for the whole brood are doubtful with all the perils they face but the parents can't be faulted for their 24 hour vigil to protect their young against all adversity.

They don't need a barrister to tell them their behaviour is well within the bounds of reasonable parenting - they are governed by instinct not money and man-made rules and regulations.

Seems to me that human beings think themselves superior to the laws of nature.

Verdi wrote:Gerry McCann's vision..

So on the afternoon of Friday 11 May, the paralegal, accompanied by a barrister, flew out to Portugal. We’d warned them to keep their arrival at our apartment low-key, so as not to attract any unwanted attention from the media lying in wait outside. In they came, dressed in bow ties and braces– the barrister was even wearing a panama hat. I heaved a sigh. They might as well have had great big arrows pointing at their heads reading ‘lawyer’. Not to worry: it was their presence and input that were important.

As well as this initial meeting we had two further sessions with the lawyers over the course of that weekend to explore how they might be able to assist us. There had already been some speculation in the press, based on those erroneous reports that when Madeleine was taken we were dining ‘hundreds of metres away’, that we could face prosecution for negligence.

After examining the proximity of the Tapas restaurant to apartment 5A, the barrister first of all assured us that our behaviour could not be deemed negligent and was indeed ‘well within the bounds of reasonable parenting’.

madeleine by KATE MCCANN  [extract for research and debate only]
----------

There is a pair of birds nesting locally, guarding the nest night and day to protect their little fledglings (I can hear them) - there is also a resident kestrel on the prowl night and day licking his beak in anticipation of bagging one of the little fledglings.  I can't help but feel for the little'uns and their parents being constantly harassed by the dangers of predators and other natural threats.  The chances of survival for the whole brood are doubtful with all the perils they face but the parents can't be faulted for their 24 hour vigil to protect their young against all adversity.

They don't need a barrister to tell them their behaviour is well within the bounds of reasonable parenting - they are governed by instinct not money and man-made rules and regulations.

Seems to me that human beings think themselves superior to the laws of nature.

Is the extract above about the barristers really from Kate McCann's book? The register  feels all wrong to me.It's so ...jaunty..

worriedmum wrote:
Is the extract above about the barristers really from Kate McCann's book? The register  feels all wrong to me.It's so ...jaunty..

Careful how you ridicule Exhibit A !  Who needs the PJ files or any other evidence when you've got 'the book'?

Bow ties , braces , a Panama hat !

Do barristers , lawyers Really dress like that outside Mills and Boon fiction ?