Re: Remarkable children

by Kololi 16.06.11 13:11

I certainly would not judge her by her appearance and have wondered in the past why people felt the need to poke fun of her shoes and her cardigans.

I think any bad opinion I may have of her is similar to Carly's in so much as she behaved very selfishly in putting her children at risk and does not appear to honestly accept responsibility for her decisions. On the other hand this is equally true of her husband and all their pals so that makes them all as bad as each other in my eyes.

Why target Kate McCann in particular? The other mothers there that night were just lucky if the abduction theory turns out to be true.

by Guest 16.06.11 13:22

kololi- I certainly would not judge her by her appearance and have wondered in the past why people felt the need to poke fun of her shoes and her cardigans.

I personally have never been happy with posters making personal attacks on anyone such as what they wear etc., it is imo acceptable to attack the selfish behaviour, arrogance, non co-operation, discrepancies in statements and interviews etc., but not make personal remarks about what someone looks like or wears.

by **PeterMac** 17.06.11 17:35

Let us remember
p. 26 "Our daughter was perfect."
p. 37 "For my part, I was a little shocked inially by this boy of mine lying on my tummy. He wasn't the prettiest, God bless him: he was squashed from the birth and his head was lopsided. But I loved him regardless and I'm glad to say he's a really handsome chap these days, just gorgeous. Amelie was beautiful from the start - petite with a lieel rosebud mouth."

So Madeleine, who had a coloboma, or at least a highly visible eye defect which should have, abd probably did lead the paediatricians to do further urgent tests, and who had colic and screamed constantly for 6 months - was Perfect.
But Sean, who had a slightly mis-shapen head - which is very normal in any child at birth, forceps or not, - wasn't the prettiest BUT she loved him regardless. Neither of those children is described as "perfect".

Are we supposed to feel compassion for Katey, having to go through the unbearable and unimaginable trauma of having to love her own newborn child with a slightly squashed head ?

Did no one with an ounce of humanity or decency proof-read this book ?

by pauline 17.06.11 18:08

PeterMac wrote:

Did no one with an ounce of humanity or decency proof-read this book ?

I agree about the proof reading though i think you really mean editing. Proofing is correcting grammar and typos.

You would think that the publisher having invested so much money in the book would have their top editor on it.

The part about rejecting Yvonne Martin's offer of help should have been heavily edited. She admits Yvonne identified herself and showed her qualifications but then dismisses her as almost a pest and says she didn't know who she was and didn't want to get involved. Now she had to mention Yvonne given that she had made an official statement that was not good for Kate. But why did the editor not persuade her to soften this section by saying that this professional offered her support and help but that she did not take it up prefering to stay in the close circle of her good friends (tapas friends) and the relatives who came out to support her. She could say that she perhaps in her distress was off hand with Yvonne and this was not intended.

by widdishins 17.06.11 18:19

PeterMac wrote:p. 26 “Our daughter was perfect”

p. 47 “Madeleine immediately wanted me to go swimming with her, I was not exactly keen... The water was absolutely freezing, but Madeleine went straight in there, even if her voice disappeared for a second or two with the shock of it. So Coime on Mummy !” she called when she’d got her breath back I tentatively inched my way in....”

p.116 “...the fact that Madeleine is such a beautiful girl.”

p. 148 ...”he was incredibly touched to see a message from one of Madeleine’s best friends from Nursery who had recently moved to Yorkshire“.

These children are 3 years old ! Literate, and already good and hardy swimmers.

i'm having difficulty in relating to this swimming session,
between all the creche sessions..bath,story and bed routine,
being left alone in the apartment....
when exactly did kate and madeleine go swimming?

they couldn't be exaggerating could they? Remarkable children - Page 1 94409

by **PeterMac** 17.06.11 20:50

According to p. 47 as soon as they had been allocated to their apartment.

"After reorganising the sleeping arangements and unpacking some essentials, we went down to the pool area at the back of the apartment to join the rest of the holiday group. ... Madeleine immediately wanted me to go swimming with her. I was not exactly keen. But she was so excited about the pool. I took one look at her eager little face and went off to put on my costume."
Went off where ? Where was her costume, and her towel ? Madeleine must already have been in her costume, to be able to jump in ahead of the adults, and into water so cold it stops her breathing for a couple of seconds, and causes serious hypothermia, which they are still suffering three hours later.

"Even if it did take us both the best part of three house to warm up afterwards.
We were still shivering when we went off to a 'welcome' meeting with the Mark Warner team, who outlined the facilities and events on offer."

Exaggerating ? Surely not. If Madeleine really were still shivering after 3 hours she should have received medical attention. Katey was an anaesthetist. She is specially trained to deal with this sort of thing.

by **PeterMac** 17.06.11 20:52

And they swam later in the week, I think, and went sailing in the open sea. The North Altantic, remember, not the Med. The kiteboarders on the long beach round Tarifa wear wet suits

by littlepixie 18.06.11 0:15

I agree about personal attacks regarding what someone wears. I think sometimes there is nothing wrong in pointing out that Ms McCann may wear certain clothes to convey a certain image.
I think she adopts a different image depending on what she thinks her "audience" is. I have noticed on more than one occassion that she uses her scouse accent to her advantage and drops it when it suits.
That personally irks me as I moved in professional circles in my youth where my strong Manchester accent was frowned upon. I was pre-judged on the way I spoke and was told to my face by those in authority to drop the accent. I resisted and continue to do so.

As for perfect babies or children - in the real world there is no such thing. I think describing babies as perfect stems from them being born with ten fingers and ten toes and everything in the right place physically.
We learn what they are really like as they get older and none of them are or ever will be perfect.

by ROSA 18.06.11 0:26

A baby born with a coloboma needs check ups every six months and often need corective glasses the medical records will show the check ups ? i dont think so
Kate now refers to Madeleines serious coloboma as just a fleck
A coloboma can also be the result of a injury to the eye

by juliet 21.06.11 21:19

I don't know what she says about Madeleine's birth in the book but in interviews etc all she has said is that Madeleine "appeared" and was "perfect". There is one pic supposedly taken after the birth, and Kate looks in no way like an exhausted new mother.

Re swimming: Kate a year or so ago blathered on about Madeleine going swimming in a big local pool, with Kate watching from the gallery. IIRC Madeleine looked incredibly sweet and brave in her swimming-cap, with huge eyes, and Kate was so touched she had to e-mail Gerry.

A swimming cap??? Must be the only child in Britain to wear one. And how does Kate always seem so exaggeratedly fond of this child she left alone or in creches all the time?

by ufercoffy 21.06.11 21:23

juliet wrote:And how does Kate always seem so exaggeratedly fond of this child she left alone or in creches all the time?

A VERY guilty conscience. yes

by juliet 21.06.11 21:36

In the tennis court photo, Madeleine looks quite scruffy and unkempt, for all their talk of cherishing this child.

She also has rather worrying marks and bruises.

In other pics of Madeleine, even from the early days, she doesn't look as if they cared that much. Half the time she's in some sort of fancy dress.

Kate boasts about her Monsoon outfit for the Last Photo, but it's most unusual that she seems to be dressed fashionably or nicely.

And that pic where she's riding a bike with ribbons flying from the handlebars? I'd guess that was Amelie's bike. It's far too small for Madeleine. Was she the Cinderella in that family, always second best to the twins?

Oh, not even to go into the photos where someone seems to have put make up on this poor child.

by ROSA 21.06.11 23:24

The older children of the group who was in the creche why were they not asked questions about Madeleine a child expert could have asked them carefully and got them to draw pictures etc it could of showed that Madeleine never was in creche the kids are a witness to

by lj 22.06.11 5:05

ufercoffy wrote:
juliet wrote:And how does Kate always seem so exaggeratedly fond of this child she left alone or in creches all the time?

A VERY guilty conscience.

Or someone who has no idea what real love is. What real feelings real mothers have for their children.
Iaw: a sociopath who thinks she fools the world this way.

Her behavior made most already suspicious, her diary was very suggestive, but with this book Kate made it clear to the world she is a real sociopath.

by lj 22.06.11 5:57

ROSA wrote:The older children of the group who was in the creche why were they not asked questions about Madeleine a child expert could have asked them carefully and got them to draw pictures etc it could of showed that Madeleine never was in creche the kids are a witness to

It is equally, or maybe even more strange the twins were never interviewed,

Madeleine was, if we have to believe their parents, kidnapped under their noses and according to grandma Healy she would not go without a fight.

Reasons allover to interview them.

by scrants 22.08.11 11:28

What I immediately found odd in the statements of both Gerry Mccann and David Payne was how they carefully inserted the comments - in Gerry's case - about how, when he was checking on the children, he though how beautiful they were and how lucky he was; and in David Payne's case - how happy and beautiful they all looked when he says he went to call on Kate on 3rd May. Both statements seem to jar somehow in a formal statement.

What does anyone else think?

by Gillyspot 22.08.11 11:51

Having thought about it I probably agree.

Both David Payne and Gerry McCann go to great pains to describe the children as angelic etc in the same way as Jane Tanner repeatedly states pink pyjamas almost in a effort to make you believe their statements.

Remember also that Kate states that Gerry is not a touchy feely new man so I am amazed he used these words to the police in an official statement particularly as what feelings he had were not relevant to the case.

by **Tony Bennett** 22.08.11 12:59

PeterMac wrote:p. 26 [of Dr Kate McCann's book] “Our daughter was perfect”

This comment was mirrored by the following comments made by Dr Kate McCann in interviews she gave to the Sunday Mirror and the Independent on Sunday on 5 August 2007, when she said:

"There came a point when we admitted we needed help. I was so desperate to have a child I'd try anything. I know IVF isn't everyone's choice but I wanted to try it. We had one unsuccessful attempt before Madeleine and that was very hard. When I got pregnant with Madeleine it was just fantastic. It didn't seem true. I did a test at home so I could handle the result if it wasn't good. I was looking at it thinking, 'I don't believe that'. Then I went to the hospital and they checked it. I was really excited. Smiling at the happy memory of her birth, she went on: 'There she was - perfect. She was lovely. She had the most beautiful face'."

It was noted that she said nothing else in this article about her pregnancy - and indeed photographs of her pregnant have never been shown by the McCanns. This has led some to speculate as to whether she really ever was pregnant with Madeleine.

by **PeterMac** 22.08.11 13:02

In a formal police statement it is irrelevent, and would not normally be included, unless it were ther reported speech of another person . (e.g I heard Gerry say "XYZ")
The insistence on the PINK pyjamas is most strange, since the bits Tanner said she could see - the legs - were clearly WHITE.
even Kate tries to hush this up in the book
p. 171 "it had been incorrectly stated in some press reports that her pyjamas were white."
But the photo of the items in question - or one supposes an identical pair which just happened to be lying around - was shown by the couple and the leggings are clearly WHITE.
And both said so in their original PJ statements
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id231.html

by Gillyspot 22.08.11 13:12

[quote="PeterMac" "it had been incorrectly stated in some press reports that her pyjamas were white."[/color][/i]
But the photo of the items in question - or one supposes an identical pair which just happened to be lying around - was shown by the couple and the leggings are clearly WHITE.
And both said so in their original PJ statements
http://www.mccannfiles.com/id231.html
[/quote]

From an article by the BBC.

"In the Crimewatch appeal, Mrs McCann, 38, held up a light-pink pyjama top with capped sleeves and a picture on it of the cartoon character Eeyore, who is curled up with the words "Sleepy Eeyore" written underneath.

She also produced white cotton pyjama bottoms, covered with small flowers and carrying another Eeyore motif on the right leg.

The pyjamas are identical to those Madeleine was wearing and belong to her two-year-old sister Amelie."

Also a couple of interesting comments from the McCanns from this article

Kate McCann: "She said she hoped Madeleine was taken by someone "sad" who will not harm her." "There are a few bad people in the world but also there are a few sad people and I guess I'm hoping that it's someone sad who just wanted our daughter." ??

Gerry McCann "The four-year-old's father Gerry said he believed a sighting of a man on the night of 3 May carries "some weight". -

by **tigger** 22.08.11 14:02

PeterMac wrote:p. 26 “Our daughter was perfect”

p. 47 “Madeleine immediately wanted me to go swimming with her, I was not exactly keen... The water was absolutely freezing, but Madeleine went straight in there, even if her voice disappeared for a second or two with the shock of it. So Coime on Mummy !” she called when she’d got her breath back I tentatively inched my way in....”

p.116 “...the fact that Madeleine is such a beautiful girl.”

p. 148 ...”he was incredibly touched to see a message from one of Madeleine’s best friends from Nursery who had recently moved to Yorkshire“.

These children are 3 years old ! Literate, and already good and hardy swimmers.

Well,you can't have it both ways. Allegedly Maddie was petrified and crying at the seaside when they were going on the boat on the 3rd of May. Not that I believe that she was there at all at that time.

by **tigger** 22.08.11 14:15

PeterMac wrote:More worrying, if we believe it, is letting a 3 year old jump into a pool so cold that her breathing stops, without the parent having checked the temperature first.
I hope we can say we don't believe this bit, nor that their hypothermia took 3 hours to resolve.
p. 47 "Even if it did take us both the best part of three hours to warm up afterwards."

For a 3 year old child this is very worrying. Their metabolism is not as far advanced as that of an adult. An infant still cold after 3 hours probably needs medical attention.

The above quote doesn't ring true either. A child jumping into a freezing cold pool, will scream and splutter and perhaps laugh. 'Come on...' is a bit matey.

No conversation with her children rings true at all. Typically they seem to be there to show us Madeleine's attention for her mother, not the other way round. Even the crying incident, the remark from Madeleine 'in passing'.
Quick parenting lesson: children do NOT say things in passing, they tend to communicate in a direct manner. But we're all agog: what was your answer?
Just as children have little concept of past and future. So 'I've had the best day ever', can be thrown out with the rubbish as well IMO.
If she did have a particularly good day, her main idea would be to have another one the following day. Even the day after tomorrow is hard to explain to children.
And another thing: when they just learned a new little dance, they don't make an appointment with you to show you the next day. They tend to say:"look what I can do!' - Not: 'I will show you my new dance routine tomorrow'.
All this is purely academic anyway. It never happened.