Re: Prosecution Exhibit 1: 'madeleine' - What's in the book?

by plebgate 14.08.13 21:14

I agree with RD. Who would let a young child near a person who was having a suspected heart attack let alone allow the child to get out a toy stethoscope and shout boom boom. At less than 2 years old when this supposedly happened it might be that Maddie was mimic(k)ing Basil Brush. big grin

by Guest 14.08.13 23:02

I cannot escape the feeling that she/they have been making up the character, life and likes of a child they didn't really know ...

by aiyoyo 15.08.13 6:19

Of course she's making up the character and embellishing it ......just stories to sell the bewk.

What strikes me is there is no quote from anyone who knows Madeleine, nothing from play mates, friends, or teachers etc.

It's as if she didn't go anywhere or play with anyone.

Not even a quote from the part time Nanny/au pair at Rothley nor creche staff, not even from the Friends on Hol with her.
It as if Madeleine did not ever have a conversation or not capable of communicating with people.

All very STRANGE.

by **tigger** 15.08.13 7:44

Russiandoll wrote:
It was the scene with the toy stethoscope which I found insulting to my intelligence. A crisis and we are meant to accept that a 3 year old realised it was a medical situation, a collapse ? I accept with parents as doctors that Maddie at some time was told how to use the toy stethoscope and that the beating heart noise was made so she could understand : boom boom. But that she was allowed anywhere near a person in distress?

She would have been picked up or taken by the hand by someone before she got anywhere near the collapsed man I am sure.
But that does not make for an interesting anecdote.

Also, key points in her young life...her 1st birthday, when she started nursery. I would have expected some memories of those in the book.
unquote

She was at most 20 months old at the time.

The lack of anecdotes is telling. I could bore you with masses of about my younger sister or even my cats.
A saying in Dutch is 'It's not coming out in the paint'. Meaning a portrait which may have been well executed but fails to give a sense of the subject.

Once we know the real Maddie, we will know pretty nearly all I think.

by russiandoll 01.09.13 9:10

Something from the book which I find very intriguing - Kate's wishing that it were possible to rewind......IF ONLY FOR AN HOUR.

Makes me wonder which day and which hour she might be referring to.

by possumsall 09.11.13 18:43

maebee wrote:Pages from the book:

page 79: (re: Yvonne Martin) "(...) and I still don't really know who she is and what she was trying to achieve".

page 97: (re: father Pacheco coming to meet them on the evening of may 5th) "My first impression was of a very cheery chap. Nothing wrong with that, but at the time his smiling face seemed out of place in the grief-laden atmosphere of our apartment".

Most likely he was a Jesuit and those of us who know all about the Jesuit-to-be-Vatican-training will know how they are specially trained to look at people, how to smile, how to laugh, how to humble oneself in other peoples company (non-Jesuits) how to pray, how to do everything deceitfully.

by possumsall 09.11.13 18:46

possumsall wrote:
maebee wrote:Pages from the book:

page 79: (re: Yvonne Martin) "(...) and I still don't really know who she is and what she was trying to achieve".

page 97: (re: father Pacheco coming to meet them on the evening of may 5th) "My first impression was of a very cheery chap. Nothing wrong with that, but at the time his smiling face seemed out of place in the grief-laden atmosphere of our apartment".

Most likely he was a Jesuit and those of us who know all about the Jesuit-to-be-Vatican-training will know how they are specially trained to look at people, how to smile, how to laugh, how to humble oneself in other peoples company (non-Jesuits) how to pray, how to do everything deceitfully.

So deceitful in fact was the mischief done by the Jesuits, that they were expelled from over 70 countries. Protestant Switzerland was the country that acted most decisively against them, and for longest, but even there the ban was lifted only very recently

by Guest 09.11.13 20:17

My late husband went to a Jesuit college. I haven't noticed any mischief upbringing, au contraire. My parents in the 60's used to have regular meetings with Jesuits at our home. They've been telling me uplifting stories of their intellectual debates. No offense meant, but what are you after, if I may ask?

by **Hobs** 09.11.13 20:53

I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I'd think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes.

This is a very telling statement.
If it were you or i, we would turn back time and change what we did prior to the event.
We wouldn't leave the children alone, we would use the evening creche, hire a babysitter, have one of the group babysit all the children in one place, stay in and eat with the children or take them with us.
By changing what we did there could be no abduction and Madeleine would still be with them.
An abductor isn't going to take on an adult to get to a child, if the children were in one apartment,the creche or at the tapas bar, Madeleine wouldn't be available to abduct and thus still be alive today.

Instead kate tells us she would look around, see who is watching...

Why this and not what the rest of us would do if given the opportunity?

There was no abduction.

Whatever happened happened, changing their routine to prevent an abduction would have made no difference, Madeleine would still be dead.

It doesn't cross her mind to change their routine, it would have made no difference, she is stuck with the abduction as claimed thus all she has left open to her is the spiel about looking around to see who was watching.

Kate told us whatever happened wasn't because they were sleeping, it was something else, she knows, she was there

I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances.

I know the situation we were in that night,

So kate what were the other circumstances?
If the children weren't alseep when you left they had to be awake which contradicts your claim they were asleep when you left them.

The brain knows the truth, it wants to tell.
Lying is stressful and, as we have seen particularly this year, you look now like you should have looked when Madeleine went missing.
The guilt and stress are eating you alive.
So much so you telegraphed to the world about you suiciding after killing the children and gerry when you spoke about pressing a button and you would ALL be togeather.

The time is now to admit the truth and bring this charade to an end.

It will come to an end and it won't be in favor of you and gerry.

It is easier to admit what happened, give madeleine the decent burial you desperately want for her allowing you to grieve publicly.
Talking now and ending this means you have a bargaining chip, something to use for a plea deal.

Not talking now means more and more stress, paranoia wondering who is watching you, tailing you, listening to your calls, intercepting emails, seeing who you meet.
Wondering if today it comes crashing down with the early morning knock on the door.

The tapas 7 will cover their own butts first and foremost, they will blame you and gerry minimising their own involvement.
There was little to connect you before, you weren't even close friends, just aquaintences, they owe you nothing and if push comes to shove, you will be thrown under the bus post haste.

Your own words reveal the truth of the lie, your own mouth betrays you, crimes like this are never closed, they will be forever open and oneday knock knock and it's game over.

Think about it.

by possumsall 09.11.13 22:28

Châtelaine wrote:My late husband went to a Jesuit college. I haven't noticed any mischief upbringing, au contraire. My parents in the 60's used to have regular meetings with Jesuits at our home. They've been telling me uplifting stories of their intellectual debates. No offense meant, but what are you after, if I may ask?

I'm sorry, but I see it as I see it.

Quote: I do further declare that I will help, assist, and advise all or any of His Holiness's agents, in any place where I should be, in Switzerland, Germany, Holland, Ireland or America, or in any other kingdom or territory I shall come to, and do my utmost to extirpate the heretical Protestant or Masonic doctrines and to destroy all their pretended powers, legal [state powers/laws] or otherwise .

http://www.theforbiddenknowledge.com/hardtruth/jesuit_extreme_oath_of_induction.htm

What I'm after is truth rather than stories about a couple being uplifted every now and then or you or your husband not noticing any of these kind of going-on. Smiles are all very well - but even they can hide a multitude of sin's - ask your Jesuit friends.

by Liz Eagles 09.11.13 22:34

My heart sinks everytime I hear religious zealotry (is that a word?) on this forum.

by Guest 09.11.13 22:40

Back to the topic please, this is not about Jesuits. offtopic

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 09.11.13 22:43

Hobs wrote:I wish I could roll back time and go back to the day before Madeleine was abducted. I would slow down time. I would get a really good look around and have a really good think. And I'd think: Where are you? Who are you? Who is secretly watching my family? Because someone was watching my family very, very carefully. And taking notes.

This is a very telling statement.
If it were you or i, we would turn back time and change what we did prior to the event.
We wouldn't leave the children alone, we would use the evening creche, hire a babysitter, have one of the group babysit all the children in one place, stay in and eat with the children or take them with us.
By changing what we did there could be no abduction and Madeleine would still be with them.
An abductor isn't going to take on an adult to get to a child, if the children were in one apartment,the creche or at the tapas bar, Madeleine wouldn't be available to abduct and thus still be alive today.

Instead kate tells us she would look around, see who is watching...

Why this and not what the rest of us would do if given the opportunity?

There was no abduction.

Whatever happened happened, changing their routine to prevent an abduction would have made no difference, Madeleine would still be dead.

It doesn't cross her mind to change their routine, it would have made no difference, she is stuck with the abduction as claimed thus all she has left open to her is the spiel about looking around to see who was watching.

Kate told us whatever happened wasn't because they were sleeping, it was something else, she knows, she was there

I know that what happened is not due to the fact of us leaving the children asleep. I know it happened under other circumstances.

I know the situation we were in that night,

So kate what were the other circumstances?
If the children weren't alseep when you left they had to be awake which contradicts your claim they were asleep when you left them.

The brain knows the truth, it wants to tell.
Lying is stressful and, as we have seen particularly this year, you look now like you should have looked when Madeleine went missing.
The guilt and stress are eating you alive.
So much so you telegraphed to the world about you suiciding after killing the children and gerry when you spoke about pressing a button and you would ALL be togeather.

The time is now to admit the truth and bring this charade to an end.

It will come to an end and it won't be in favor of you and gerry.

It is easier to admit what happened, give madeleine the decent burial you desperately want for her allowing you to grieve publicly.
Talking now and ending this means you have a bargaining chip, something to use for a plea deal.

Not talking now means more and more stress, paranoia wondering who is watching you, tailing you, listening to your calls, intercepting emails, seeing who you meet.
Wondering if today it comes crashing down with the early morning knock on the door.

The tapas 7 will cover their own butts first and foremost, they will blame you and gerry minimising their own involvement.
There was little to connect you before, you weren't even close friends, just aquaintences, they owe you nothing and if push comes to shove, you will be thrown under the bus post haste.

Your own words reveal the truth of the lie, your own mouth betrays you, crimes like this are never closed, they will be forever open and oneday knock knock and it's game over.

Think about it.

Good stuff Hobs. thumbsup

I'm thinking about it.

by plebgate 09.11.13 22:53

possumsall wrote:
maebee wrote:Pages from the book:

page 79: (re: Yvonne Martin) "(...) and I still don't really know who she is and what she was trying to achieve".

page 97: (re: father Pacheco coming to meet them on the evening of may 5th) "My first impression was of a very cheery chap. Nothing wrong with that, but at the time his smiling face seemed out of place in the grief-laden atmosphere of our apartment".
Most likely he was a Jesuit and those of us who know all about the Jesuit-to-be-Vatican-training will know how they are specially trained to look at people, how to smile, how to laugh, how to humble oneself in other peoples company (non-Jesuits) how to pray, how to do everything deceitfully.

Re. red highlighting - I wonder what she made of Mr. in that clip of him on the balcony laughing only days after Maddie went missing?

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 09.11.13 23:20

plebgate wrote:
maebee wrote:Pages from the book:

page 97: (re: father Pacheco coming to meet them on the evening of may 5th) "My first impression was of a very cheery chap. Nothing wrong with that, but at the time his smiling face seemed out of place in the grief-laden atmosphere of our apartment".
Re. red highlighting - I wonder what she made of Mr. in that clip of him on the balcony laughing only days after Maddie went missing?

Good point.

She must have been bloomin' furious that the Priest didn't show until the evening of the 5th. How dare he take so long!

Dianne Webster's statement:

4078    ”Once they arrived at your apartment did they stay there a while or do you remember them leaving?”
Reply    ”What, that night?”
4078    ”Mm.”
Reply    ”Err I think, I think, I think they stayed there because it was very late or you know early, early morning and Kate wanted a priest, they couldn’t find a priest which, well I won’t, I won’t say what her language was but I’m, you know, Portugal’s a Catholic country and err no priest.”

by plebgate 09.11.13 23:27

I wonder whether Mrs. Webster told her daughter's bessie mate that the language she was apparently using was not acceptable to her. Certainly imo she should have told Fi to have a word with her.

Who would imagine, seeing them on tv, like butter wouldn't melt, just how bad their language appears to be in private and around children? Mr. on the bus springs to mind.

by Guest 09.11.13 23:34

candyfloss wrote:Back to the topic please, this is not about Jesuits.

***
Thank you, Candyfloss. I was nearly tempted to reply again ...

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 10.11.13 0:05

plebgate wrote:I wonder whether Mrs. Webster told her daughter's bessie mate that the language she was apparently using was not acceptable to her. Certainly imo she should have told Fi to have a word with her.

Who would imagine, seeing them on tv, like butter wouldn't melt, just how bad their language appears to be in private and around children? Mr. on the bus springs to mind.

Indeed. Middle class intellectuals? pah! A docker & his fish wife wouldn't have the potty mouth these two do around their kids & elders.

by worriedmum 10.11.13 0:30

Daisy wrote:
plebgate wrote:
maebee wrote:Pages from the book:

page 97: (re: father Pacheco coming to meet them on the evening of may 5th) [size=18]"My first impression was of a very cheery chap. Nothing wrong with that, but at the time his smiling face seemed out of place in the grief-laden atmosphere of our apartment".
Re. red highlighting - I wonder what she made of Mr. in that clip of him on the balcony laughing only days after Maddie went missing?

"My first impression was of a very cheery chap. Nothing wrong with that, but at the time his smiling face seemed out of place in the grief-laden atmosphere of our apartment"

Things have changed a lot by the time this picture was taken, looking at Father Pacheco and Gerry, IMO

Prosecution Exhibit 1: 'madeleine' - What's in the book? - Page 4 Ragdoll2_small

Prosecution Exhibit 1: 'madeleine' - What's in the book? - Page 4 Ragdoll2_small

Friedrich Nietzsche · by Daisy 10.11.13 0:37

worriedmum wrote:
Daisy wrote:
plebgate wrote:
maebee wrote:Pages from the book:

page 97: (re: father Pacheco coming to meet them on the evening of may 5th) [size=18]"My first impression was of a very cheery chap. Nothing wrong with that, but at the time his smiling face seemed out of place in the grief-laden atmosphere of our apartment".
Re. red highlighting - I wonder what she made of Mr. in that clip of him on the balcony laughing only days after Maddie went missing?
"My first impression was of a very cheery chap. Nothing wrong with that, but at the time his smiling face seemed out of place in the grief-laden atmosphere of our apartment"

Things have changed a lot by the time this picture was taken, looking at Father Pacheco and Gerry, IMO

If you're cutting someones post you should really cut their name too else it causes confusion. Ta

by **tigger** 10.11.13 6:58

Châtelaine wrote:I cannot escape the feeling that she/they have been making up the character, life and likes of a child they didn't really know ...

Spot on! It also gave them the opportunity to select the 'best selling' description:
Beautiful
Lovely
Happy
Clever
Special
Bundle of fun
Articulate
Loving
Caring

From the Big Book of Advertsing ?

Please look for Madeleine, she's lovely.

Wantig Maddie back because otherwise you're not 'a family' doesn't work for me either.

Hobs may come to the rescue.

by comperedna 10.11.13 13:22

I bought and read 'Madeleine,' and other than the fact that she had colic for a while as a baby like so many do. I felt I knew less about MBM at the end of reading than I had before I started. It is almost as if she were a phantom child... and yet there are lots of lovely happy photos in the book. Very puzzling. I had two children and so far have five grandchildren, and I could have written an encyclopaedia about the character, looks, likes, sayings, preferences, antics and adventures of each one by the age of almost four. Bloody hell! I could have done so for each at the age of six months! It seems as if KM hardly knew MBM as a person at all... at least as far as she is telling the rest of us... Very odd indeed.

by plebgate 10.11.13 15:22

Daisy wrote:
plebgate wrote:I wonder whether Mrs. Webster told her daughter's bessie mate that the language she was apparently using was not acceptable to her. Certainly imo she should have told Fi to have a word with her.

Who would imagine, seeing them on tv, like butter wouldn't melt, just how bad their language appears to be in private and around children? Mr. on the bus springs to mind.
Indeed. Middle class intellectuals? pah! A docker & his fish wife wouldn't have the potty mouth these two do around their kids & elders.

You're right I think Daisy, a docker and a "fish wife" would be hard pressed to use that language around children and their elders. Mrs. Fenn came into a bit of verbal also, I understand, (from Mrs. and Fi) so maybe Mrs. Webster knew she couldn't really comment on the language given the actions of her daughter as well.

by Guest 10.11.13 15:25

Yet Mrs Fenn in her statement only mentioned speaking to Gerry. You'd think she'd have remembered being sworn at - maybe she didn't understand the Scouse accent!

by plebgate 10.11.13 15:30

Mrs. Fenn was a rather refined lady by all accounts NFWTD, shame two middle class female doctors don't appear to be the same.

I think the whole group must use that sort of language. If I heard it in front of my children I would tell the offender to shut up straight away.

by Guest 10.11.13 15:36

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yet Mrs Fenn in her statement only mentioned speaking to Gerry. You'd think she'd have remembered being sworn at - maybe she didn't understand the Scouse accent!

Probably she wasn't sworn at or spoken to by KH at all;

This little cameo just aims to discredit her after the fact; after KH read the PJ files and learnt of mrs Fenns' existence and could figure out that mrs Fenn had heard the protracted wailing of an abandoned child going on in the apartment below her.

Knowing about mrs Fenn and what she could have heard, what could KH do but pre-empt her further testimonies and throw her under the bus?

by **tigger** 10.11.13 17:15

11.10.2013

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Yet Mrs Fenn in her statement only mentioned speaking to Gerry. You'd think she'd have remembered being sworn at - maybe she didn't understand the Scouse accent!

Ah! She thought Kate was reciting a poem in her own language...

by Guest 10.11.13 18:05

Further to my last post: didn't Textusa purport that mrs Fenn was not one, but two floors up from apartment 5A?
This, from looking at the surrounding area

If so, how would KH & crony Fi have been able to do their alleged swearing at all?

Ah, just a passing thought: how could anyone in his right mind surmise it makes a good impression on people to portray yourself as an uncouth buffoon? Effing tosser being a case in point. Why does the woman claim we don't love her enough, while she is obviously not a pleasant person?

by secrets and lies 14.11.13 15:26

I honestly can't get my head around what was written on page 129. I haven't read the book-I hastily pass by in book stores, but I cannot imagine any editor allowing a book to go to press with such a paragraph written in it. Was Pinkie not keeping an eye on the scud missile that is Kate McCann?

If someone else had written such a thought on a blog or forum I would have felt uneasy. But for her mother to write it. Yes, if you believed a paedophile had abducted your daughter the thought might occupy you, but to write it down in a book? As we know, there WAS no paedophile so this thought has been invented and written about with the intention to either A. shock (and be quoted in order to sell the book?) or B. is the sort of thought that occupies this woman anyway. Perhaps to write about such violence and to share such graphic images was in some way cathartic for her. Perhaps she has witnessed such physical wounds. But I won't even go there..

As I write and read on here, I've come to see these two people (and also their friends, families and protectors) as less and less human with all the human frailties and failings and more and more callous and depraved. Whenever possible I try not to use the word evil, but..