My Highlights from the book

by Guest 18.09.11 11:21

I've started to read the book Madeleine and noo I have not paid a penny to get it..
Im only just got to chapter 5 wich is about the day she went missing. Up til now I do have som highlights that I find strange. By that I mean the words they are using, what she saying, and so on. My oppinion/ reaction is from thinking in wich perspective the book is written and compered to what would I have written in the same situation (if my child REALLY was abducted.)
I also believe that if a person is lying, your unconsiousness will use words different from if you are telling the truth..Hope you guys understand what I mean..

First I must say, from what I read so far in the book, there is a awful lot about Kate herself, and also she uses to much humor explaining things, putting Gerry on high pidestall and her self for that matther.. I dont find it very emotional tough she uses emotional words it just dont go very deep I think..

Here are some highlights:

( Maybe some fint the sentence to be taken out of context, but I think the sentence are telling a story by the words they have used and that has nothing with the context it is written in )
"Deep Down , Gerry Understood. We are both "finishers" Gerry and I .Neither of us give up anything easily"

"As our invetigation is still ongoing ,and for leagal reasons,some opinions and episodes can not be shared until
Madeleine is found"

" And here she was, not our little boy but our little girl. I'm not sure quite why this came as such a big surprise to us - after all there are only two flavourse"

" The party would consist of David, Fiona, Lilly, who was two, and Scarlett nearly a year old. Matt and Rachel and their toddler Grace, Jane and Russel with Ella who, coming up to four, was almost the same age as Madeleine, and Evie, another toddler, the five of us and and Fi's mum Dianne. ( Why describe everyone by age and so and then suddenly: and Evie, another Toddler. Is Evie another toddler or is there another toddler and Evie? Just something about that sentence that I cant forget)

" Even if there had been a baby -listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did." ( How can she know that when there wasnt a baby listening service there? and checking them every hour / half hour is that givng your kids a lot of attention?)

Well I stop here, I have to manually write in as I cant copy paste text from the kindle. Hope Im not doing anything wrong in quoting from the book pray2

I havent added my opinion to every sentence, as to why I react on them. I will answer if someone ask, but I think most people will understand what im reacting on...And maybe someone don't find anything wrong with them at all...

Reading more from the book later this evening pop2

by **tigger** 18.09.11 12:07

Moa wrote:I've started to read the book Madeleine and noo I have not paid a penny to get it..
Im only just got to chapter 5 wich is about the day she went missing. Up til now I do have som highlights that I find strange. By that I mean the words they are using, what she saying, and so on. My oppinion/ reaction is from thinking in wich perspective the book is written and compered to what would I have written in the same situation (if my child REALLY was abducted.)
I also believe that if a person is lying, your unconsiousness will use words different from if you are telling the truth..Hope you guys understand what I mean..

First I must say, from what I read so far in the book, there is a awful lot about Kate herself, and also she uses to much humor explaining things, putting Gerry on high pidestall and her self for that matther.. I dont find it very emotional tough she uses emotional words it just dont go very deep I think..

Here are some highlights:

( Maybe some fint the sentence to be taken out of context, but I think the sentence are telling a story by the words they have used and that has nothing with the context it is written in )
"Deep Down , Gerry Understood. We are both "finishers" Gerry and I .Neither of us give up anything easily"
You're right. Impersonal. something like 'I knew Gerry would understand etc.
"As our invetigation is still ongoing ,and for leagal reasons,some opinions and episodes can not be shared until
Madeleine is found"

" And here she was, not our little boy but our little girl. I'm not sure quite why this came as such a big surprise to us - after all there are only two flavourse" So they didn't have the sex checked? Especially with having IVF, why not?

" The party would consist of David, Fiona, Lilly, who was two, and Scarlett nearly a year old. Matt and Rachel and their toddler Grace, Jane and Russel with Ella who, coming up to four, was almost the same age as Madeleine, and Evie, another toddler, the five of us and and Fi's mum Dianne. ( Why describe everyone by age and so and then suddenly: and Evie, another Toddler. Is Evie another toddler or is there another toddler and Evie? Just something about that sentence that I cant forget) It does stand out doesn't it? I saw that before I read your comment.

" Even if there had been a baby -listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did." ( How can she know that when there wasnt a baby listening service there? and checking them every hour / half hour is that givng your kids a lot of attention?)

Well I stop here, I have to manually write in as I cant copy paste text from the kindle. Hope Im not doing anything wrong in quoting from the book

I havent added my opinion to every sentence, as to why I react on them. I will answer if someone ask, but I think most people will understand what im reacting on...And maybe someone don't find anything wrong with them at all...

Reading more from the book later this evening

Thanks.

by Guest 18.09.11 13:00

tigger wrote:
Moa wrote:I've started to read the book Madeleine and noo I have not paid a penny to get it..
Im only just got to chapter 5 wich is about the day she went missing. Up til now I do have som highlights that I find strange. By that I mean the words they are using, what she saying, and so on. My oppinion/ reaction is from thinking in wich perspective the book is written and compered to what would I have written in the same situation (if my child REALLY was abducted.)
I also believe that if a person is lying, your unconsiousness will use words different from if you are telling the truth..Hope you guys understand what I mean..

First I must say, from what I read so far in the book, there is a awful lot about Kate herself, and also she uses to much humor explaining things, putting Gerry on high pidestall and her self for that matther.. I dont find it very emotional tough she uses emotional words it just dont go very deep I think..

Here are some highlights:

( Maybe some fint the sentence to be taken out of context, but I think the sentence are telling a story by the words they have used and that has nothing with the context it is written in )
"Deep Down , Gerry Understood. We are both "finishers" Gerry and I .Neither of us give up anything easily"
You're right. Impersonal. something like 'I knew Gerry would understand etc.
"As our invetigation is still ongoing ,and for leagal reasons,some opinions and episodes can not be shared until
Madeleine is found"

" And here she was, not our little boy but our little girl. I'm not sure quite why this came as such a big surprise to us - after all there are only two flavourse" So they didn't have the sex checked? Especially with having IVF, why not?

They say this is the reason in the book : Neither Gerry or I wanted to know wheter we where expecting a boy or a girl. I'm well known for liking surprises - one of those people who refuses to open even a single presents before christmas day. I also thought of the baby as a boy. Iv'e no idea why - perhaps simply because i'd visualized myself in many a dreamy moment with a little boy - who knows? we'd settled on the name aiden.

" The party would consist of David, Fiona, Lilly, who was two, and Scarlett nearly a year old. Matt and Rachel and their toddler Grace, Jane and Russel with Ella who, coming up to four, was almost the same age as Madeleine, and Evie, another toddler, the five of us and and Fi's mum Dianne. ( Why describe everyone by age and so and then suddenly: and Evie, another Toddler. Is Evie another toddler or is there another toddler and Evie? Just something about that sentence that I cant forget) It does stand out doesn't it? I saw that before I read your comment.
It does stand out

" Even if there had been a baby -listening service it would not have given our kids as much attention as our own visits did." ( How can she know that when there wasnt a baby listening service there? and checking them every hour / half hour is that givng your kids a lot of attention?)

Well I stop here, I have to manually write in as I cant copy paste text from the kindle. Hope Im not doing anything wrong in quoting from the book

I havent added my opinion to every sentence, as to why I react on them. I will answer if someone ask, but I think most people will understand what im reacting on...And maybe someone don't find anything wrong with them at all...

Reading more from the book later this evening

Thanks.

by Guest 18.09.11 13:24

[quote Moa]

They say this is the reason in the book : Neither Gerry or I wanted to know wheter we where expecting a boy or a girl. I'm well known for liking surprises - one of those people who refuses to open even a single presents before christmas day. I also thought of the baby as a boy. Iv'e no idea why - perhaps simply because i'd visualized myself in many a dreamy moment with a little boy - who knows? we'd settled on the name aiden.

If they had settled on the name Aiden, and seemed to like it, why wasn't Sean named Aiden?

by Guest 18.09.11 13:28

candyfloss wrote:[quote Moa]

They say this is the reason in the book : Neither Gerry or I wanted to know wheter we where expecting a boy or a girl. I'm well known for liking surprises - one of those people who refuses to open even a single presents before christmas day. I also thought of the baby as a boy. Iv'e no idea why - perhaps simply because i'd visualized myself in many a dreamy moment with a little boy - who knows? we'd settled on the name aiden.

If they had settled on the name Aiden, and seemed to like it, why wasn't Sean named Aiden?

Ohhh That I never thought about, very GOOD point, yeah why wasnt Sean named Aiden? Espacilly since their where twins Aiden and Amelie both starting with the name A would be cute..Very good point there Candyfloss..

by Guest 18.09.11 18:42

i will continue to post my highlights as im reading the book and have the time to post them.

" Gerry had also managed to to break the window shutter mechanisme in our bedromm shortly after we'd arrived, in spite of the sign asking guests to be gentle with it. What can I say ? It's the Gerry touch...." ( Tells me Gerry do what he wants and dont respect autorities. And since the book is suposed to be about a daughter missing I dont find it appropiate to try to be funny(posibly in a sexual way or violant). "its Gerrys touch" )

" The travel cot's we'd requested for Sean and Amelie had been placed in the back bedroom. As there where full length Patio doors here, too, and it was bigger and brighter , we decided to put the three children in the front of the bedroom, knowing they would only be using their room to sleep in, and to take this one our self."
Why write "the three children", instead of all our / all my children / all of them ? Thas typical making a distance from the children like they where someone elses. like they ment nothing more than a table. You would say " I moved the three tables in to another room" you would not say my three tables. Or you would never say " i moved my two parents or my one parent over to another room would you? NO you would say " my parents ".
Second higlight in bold They would only use their bedroom to sleep in, sooo what where Gerry and KAte supposed to do in their bedroom beside sleeping? Spe cialy beeing known for routine sleeping early people..(then dining up to that sleep in bed by 11 o clock ) What and WHEN where they supposed to do in their bedroom since they needed a bigger room that their children? Only greed or is she unconsiously saying something here?

" Our own appartment was only thirty to forthy-five minuets away, and altough there were some bushes inbetween it was largely visible from the Tapas restaurant. We where sitting outside and could just as easily have been eating on a fine spring evening in a friends garden, with the kids asleep upstairs in the house."
First and last highlight in bold , Taking 30 - 45 second to go from a house and out in the garden, well thats a VERY BIG house..And why does she compare it to beeing in a friends garden? Why not just say, like eating in my backyard, or my garden..? Again she seems distance to what shes telling.
For the second higlight "LARGELY visible" well was it? Again it seems like shes trying to convince someone that it was a lot more visible than it was. And the kids where a sleep on the other side of the house that where not visible, so what value had that visibility anyway?

That was all for now... angrypcuser

by Guest 19.09.11 13:59

Interesting link, thats what im trying to find in the book.

http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/2011/09/why-liars-issue-challenges.html

Example - "Did you kill your wife?" giving us an opportunity to analyze his answer to this great question. It is a great question since my reference point is modern media in which investigative journalism has become rare, and soft questions are instead asked in hopes of 'landing' the big interview.

He said, "I would never hurt her..." which shows:

a. He did not deny killing her.
b. He used the words "would never" which is not past tense and is not a denial.
c. He changed "kill" to "hurt", which is minimizing language.

These three elements are often present in guilty statements regularly. Why?

Anyone has easy acces to what the mccanns has answered on simular question?

Edit Gerry asked about giving sedatives

“On that evening did you give to your kids something like calpol to help them sleep?”

Gerry Answer: you know we’re not gonna comment, on anything but you know there is absolutely no way we use any sedative drugs or anything like that en you know we’ll we have ( co-operated with the police we’ll answer any queries ermm …any tests that they want to do en.”

Not a truthful answer it seem? Look at the question then the answer, she askes spesific about that night, and he answer we dont USE. Shouldnt he answered(if he answerede truthful) ": no way we USED any CALPOL or anything like that"

Liars cannot abide the 'insult' of not being believed and will go public, at their own detriment, to defend themselves. Their pride of a lifetime of successful lies leads to the inevitable fall.

by **tigger** 19.09.11 14:22

Just as an aside, if we could formulate questions which will incriminate you whether you reply yes or no would be marvellous!

Such as: 'Have you stopped beating your wife?'
Yes: I used to beat my wife.
No: I'm still beating my wife.

by **tigger** 19.09.11 14:37

moa wrote: quote " Our own appartment was only thirty to forthy-five minuets away, and altough there were some bushes inbetween it was largely visible from the Tapas restaurant. We where sitting outside and could just as easily have been eating on a fine spring evening in a friends garden, with the kids asleep upstairs in the house."
First and last highlight in bold , Taking 30 - 45 second to go from a house and out in the garden, well thats a VERY BIG house..And why does she compare it to beeing in a friends garden? Why not just say, like eating in my backyard, or my garden..? Again she seems distance to what shes telling.
For the second higlight "LARGELY visible" well was it? Again it seems like shes trying to convince someone that it was a lot more visible than it was. And the kids where a sleep on the other side of the house that where not visible, so what value had that visibility anyway?

unquote

_______________________________________________

First: three children. Why does she need to tell us there were three? We decided to put the children in ....etc. would be normal.
But have a look at Dr. Roberts' analysis of the rogatory interview of David Payne, where numbers again are very important, he saw all three of the children, looking very healthy apparently......

They have a problem with the distance between the Tapas bar and 5a. Kate informs us it is 49.2 metres, but that is across the swimming pool and through the bushes, ending up at the balcony. The childrens' room isn't visible from the bar, the window is at the side. The actual distance to be walked is about 100 metres, longer if they go through the front door.
Their excuse was that it was like dining in 'your back garden'. By now and in the book I gather it has progressed to dining in your neighbours' garden. Both excuses are usually trotted out in the first minute of any interview. I bet they could do it in their sleep by now.

There is an early video of Martin Brunt trying this out in PdL.Sorry haven't got the link, but I think youtube.

by Angelique 19.09.11 15:06

Moa

I am glad you are posting these snippets as I have not read the Book and you are showing how the McCanns operate.

" Gerry had also managed to to break the window shutter mechanisme in our bedromm shortly after we'd arrived, in spite of the sign asking guests to be gentle with it. What can I say ? It's the Gerry touch...."

The bit about the shutter. I think this is to let us know that they can be easily damaged for obvious reasons.

" The travel cot's we'd requested for Sean and Amelie had been placed in the back bedroom. As there where full length Patio doors here, too, and it was bigger and brighter , we decided to put the three children in the front of the bedroom, knowing they would only be using their room to sleep in, and to take this one our self."

I agree that this has also seemed odd to me. Is it possible they used the bedroom during the day.

Why write "the three children", instead of all our / all my children / all of them ?

I agree with Tigger its to emphasise three

" Our own appartment was only thirty to forthy-five minuets away, and altough there were some bushes inbetween it was largely visible from the Tapas restaurant. We where sitting outside and could just as easily have been eating on a fine spring evening in a friends garden, with the kids asleep upstairs in the house."

This again I agree with Tigger.

IMO they do this........they progress the information along and have been doing this since Madeleine went missing. After getting everyone on-side with the abduction, they gradually change the information. But they do it very slowly, its insipid IMO. So that the "reading public" of the propaganda machine that is our Press eventually are led in whatever direction they want them.

by Guest 19.09.11 15:14

I posted this the other day on the discrepencies thread, where did the twins really sleep - sharing a bed, or in cots?

candyfloss wrote:Completely different stories, - so were the twins on one bed, or in cots? - the quote is directly from GM in Vanity Fair and says the twins were actually in one bed ...................

GM Witness statement 10th May 2007

[snipped]

At around 19H00, he made his way to the apartment, finding KATE and the children playing on the sofa. About 10 to 15 minutes later, they took the children to the bedroom and they all sat on MADELEINE's bed to read a story. At 19H30, the twins were already in their respective cots and MADELEINE in the bed next to the bedroom door. He does not know if they were asleep but from the silence he presumed that they were. As it was still early he took a bath, he thinks that KATE had already done so, they talked a little and drank wine or beer.

[further on in the statement snipped]

When he arrived at the bedroom he first noticed that the door was completely open, the window was also open to one side, the shutters almost fully raised, the curtains drawn back, MADELEINE's bed was empty but the twins continued sleeping in their cots.
He clarifies that according to what KATE told him, that was the scenario that she found when she entered the apartment.

http://www.mccannfiles.com/id192.html#sta1

From Vanity Fair interview.................

WEB EXCLUSIVEJanuary 10, 2008
Crime
Unanswered Prayers

d]][snipped]

Thus the most important clue to the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance was initially ignored. At around 9:15, another friend, Jane Tanner, emerged from her own villa to see a white man in beige trousers—five feet six, brown hair (longer in the back), and perhaps 35, she later told the police. In his arms he cradled a child wearing pink-and-white pajamas.
It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “ Madeleine has gone! ”
page 2[/i]

http://www.vanityfair.com/culture/features/2008/02/mccanns200802#gotopage2

by Angelique 19.09.11 16:07

candyfloss

Thank you for the article from Vanity Fair.

snip from your post:

WEB EXCLUSIVEJanuary 10, 2008
Crime
Unanswered Prayers

d]][snipped]

Thus the most important clue to the mystery of Madeleine’s disappearance was initially ignored. At around 9:15, another friend, Jane Tanner, emerged from her own villa to see a white man in beige trousers—five feet six, brown hair (longer in the back), and perhaps 35, she later told the police. In his arms he cradled a child wearing pink-and-white pajamas.
It wasn’t until Kate walked into the villa at 10 and felt a sickening breeze—the front window had been jimmied open—that she realized something terrible had happened. “The scene was stark,” Gerry tells me. On one bed the twins lay sleeping. In the next lay only the plush cat toy Madeleine was never without. That was when Kate came out screaming, “ Madeleine has gone! ”
page 2[/i]

This was way back in 2008 so it's just possible that certain bits of truth kept slipping out - as they do. So may be this is in reality where the twins slept, that particular night.

by Guest 19.09.11 19:32

tigger wrote:moa wrote: quote " Our own appartment was only thirty to forthy-five minuets away, and altough there were some bushes inbetween it was largely visible from the Tapas restaurant. We where sitting outside and could just as easily have been eating on a fine spring evening in a friends garden, with the kids asleep upstairs in the house."
First and last highlight in bold , Taking 30 - 45 second to go from a house and out in the garden, well thats a VERY BIG house..And why does she compare it to beeing in a friends garden? Why not just say, like eating in my backyard, or my garden..? Again she seems distance to what shes telling.
For the second higlight "LARGELY visible" well was it? Again it seems like shes trying to convince someone that it was a lot more visible than it was. And the kids where a sleep on the other side of the house that where not visible, so what value had that visibility anyway?

unquote

_______________________________________________

First: three children. Why does she need to tell us there were three? We decided to put the children in ....etc. would be normal.
But have a look at Dr. Roberts' analysis of the rogatory interview of David Payne, where numbers again are very important, he saw all three of the children, looking very healthy apparently......

They have a problem with the distance between the Tapas bar and 5a. Kate informs us it is 49.2 metres, but that is across the swimming pool and through the bushes, ending up at the balcony. The childrens' room isn't visible from the bar, the window is at the side. The actual distance to be walked is about 100 metres, longer if they go through the front door.
Their excuse was that it was like dining in 'your back garden'. By now and in the book I gather it has progressed to dining in your neighbours' garden. Both excuses are usually trotted out in the first minute of any interview. I bet they could do it in their sleep by now.

There is an early video of Martin Brunt trying this out in PdL.Sorry haven't got the link, but I think youtube.

And also when you lie and there are numbers involved, the number three is the number liers pick most often. And here we have three children, 3 may, the time on the last photo shiftet from 2 too 3 and so on.. May be a coinsident but....

by IAmNotMerylStreep 19.09.11 19:40

I would also like to thank Moa for this thread as I can't bring myself to read Katey's book because when I tried I read it in a Liverpudlian accent which drove me nuts big grin

I also appreciate PeterMac and Tony's threads too roses

by Guest 19.09.11 20:06

Gerry and I have always quite liked having a routine,
though I wouldn’t say we were obsessed by it, and our
children, like most children, seemed to like it, too. This
holiday was no exception. It’s hard to accept that living our
lives in such an ordinary way might have been our downfall.
Was someone watching us that week? Watching
Madeleine? Taking note of the pattern of our days?

Feel likes shes trying really hard to make them seem so normal and innocent...And again asking questions for the reader to answer.

"At the end of their session, the children had been
asked to run around the court and pick up as many balls as
they could. Madeleine had done really well and was very
pleased with herself. Gerry loves that picture."

Why Gerry, why the ... do you love that picture? And can a nearly four year old be PLEASED with her self ? Wouldnt she be proud or happy instead of pleased`? ( to me it gives like a sexual undertone..But then English isnt my first language so maybe im reading it wrong?)

"The children and I sat
down on a bench and Gerry went off to fetch them. The
shop was only about 25 feet away, yet when he called to
me asking me to give him a hand with the five ice-creams
he was paying for, I was momentarily torn. Would the
children be OK on the bench while I nipped over? I hurried
across, watching them all the time.
How could I balk at leaving the kids to run a few yards for
ice-creams and feel comfortable with the child-checking
arrangement we had at dinner? I haven’t ever been able to
rationalize this discrepancy in judgement to my own
satisfaction. Perhaps in my subconscious the prospect of
three active children squabbling, hurting themselves or
being hurt by somebody else in a public place in the middle
of the afternoon rang more alarm bells than three sleeping
children, safely tucked up in bed, being checked on
regularly. If the fear of abduction had ever entered my head
it would have been in the former situation

This was a long snip, but again she asking question instead of telling what her toughts where. Saying, Perhaps,if,, I havent ever, and so on.. Typical for liars as they disdent them self from answering. Leaving ,it up to the reader to answer. If she really had that moment she would also know what her thoughts where. And she would then say. I never feard an abduction and not " if the fear of abduction". And also just said : in my subconscious or in my mind instead of Perhaps in my subconscious. The word Perhaps dont need to be in that sentence if you are truthful. Either you think something or you dont, you dont perhabs without knowing think something... And also saying How could I , instead of saying what she acually was thinking... bomb

" This could
have been my one chance to prevent what was about to
happen, and I blew it."

She's writing this talking about MAy 3 in the morning when Madeleine asked why they didnt come when she and Sean was crying.
Did she never think that NOT LEAVING the kids alone maybe was the biggest and only chance she ever had to prevent it?
And why she say: What was about to happen.? Why not just be honest and truthful and write : Prevent the abduction. One not lying would say just that, simply stupid and truthful..No shes not ,so she says prevent what was about to happen, beeing truthful yet not saying what happend but knows most readers will automaticly think the abduction...I wonder what was about to happen... violin

by **tigger** 19.09.11 20:18

The icecream episode annoys me, because it never happened in the first place. It was to prove that Maddie was alive at that point. It was for Gerry to notice an unsavoury guitar player (well done G!) and for Kate to have a little performance of anguish.
It makes absolutely no sense that the children were more likely to come to any hard at a distance of 25 feet! My sitting room is 28 feet long, two seconds from one end to the other.
They were very likely to come to harm alone in a dark flat with the patio doors open. There had been a spate of burglaries at OC, even Mrs. Fenn I believe was burgled. The T9 were warned about keeping their valuables secure. That didn't include the children apparently.

Well, it's all nonsense, it was only Maddie who was neglected, none of the other children were, but this whole exercise is to show themselves in a better light. The lie about the neglect could not be avoided, thus showing them in a bad light. This is damage limitation. Boring woman. (I mean K)

by Guest 20.09.11 19:03

"A middle-aged British lady suddenly materialized beside me and introduced herself. She announced that she was, or had been, a social worker or child protection officer and insisted on showing me her professional papers, including, I think, her Criminal Records Bureau certificate. She asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me and told me she wanted me to go through everything that had happened the previous night. She was quite pushy and her manner, her very presence, were making me feel uncomfortable and adding to my distress. David was standing nearby. Concerned, he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credentials were, it was an inappropriate intrusion. And something
about it, something about her, just didn’t feel right. I was glad I extricated myself. This woman would pop up several times in the days and months to come and I still don’t really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve."

First, if this lady is just doing her job, I dont see why she is so angry at her. Shes there to help, and she has this attitude about her. Hating on her because shes asking about the night Madeleine disapeared. She goes on and on how bad this woman makes her feel, if your daughter just was abducted I wouldnt think any feelings could top them, but this British lady could it looks like.

On the other hand, if that woman made her feel that bad and concern, saying she "poped up several times over the weeks and months to come" then why the h*** hasn't she done more to find out who that woman is? As I read it it sounds like shes trying to make that woman (that is probably just doing her job) sound suspect in some unsaid way...And Dave is there giving advise not to speak to her?
grrrrr

by Guest 20.09.11 19:21

Yes unbelievable Moa, - I started a thread a while ago on extracts about people who offered to help and were written about in the book...............

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2896-people-who-tried-to-be-helpful-3-4th-may?highlight=the+people+who+offered+to+help

by **tigger** 20.09.11 19:32

Moa wrote:

"A middle-aged British lady suddenly materialized beside me and introduced herself. She announced that she was, or had been, a social worker or child protection officer and insisted on showing me her professional papers, including, I think, her Criminal Records Bureau certificate. She asked me to sit down on a low wall, plonked herself next to me and told me she wanted me to go through everything that had happened the previous night. She was quite pushy and her manner, her very presence, were making me feel uncomfortable and adding to my distress. David was standing nearby. Concerned, he took me aside and pointed out that we didn’t know who this woman was or what she was doing there. He reassured me that I wasn’t obliged to speak to her if I didn’t want to. And I didn’t want to. Whoever she was, and whatever her credentials were, it was an inappropriate intrusion. And something
about it, something about her, just didn’t feel right. I was glad I extricated myself. This woman would pop up several times in the days and months to come and I still don’t really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve."

First, if this lady is just doing her job, I dont see why she is so angry at her. Shes there to help, and she has this attitude about her. Hating on her because shes asking about the night Madeleine disapeared. She goes on and on how bad this woman makes her feel, if your daughter just was abducted I wouldnt think any feelings could top them, but this British lady could it looks like.

On the other hand, if that woman made her feel that bad and concern, saying she "poped up several times over the weeks and months to come" then
why the h*** hasn't she done more to find out who that woman is? As I read it it sounds like shes trying to make that woman (that is probably just doing her job) sound suspect in some unsaid way...And Dave is there giving advise not to speak to her?

That was Yvonne Martin, who recognised David Payne and left a statement with the PJ to that effect. Very interesting reading.
So is this bit from Kate, because she uses David Payne to warn her off this woman, should anything ever come of it, it will be down to him, not her.
But the truth is, that the last person in the world she needed at that time was a child protection officer!
The way she describes the meeting wasn't at all the way Yvonne Martin described it. On her return to the UK she went through the records to find David Payne, she is still sure she has met him before.
Look at the PJ files in McCannfiles.

by Guest 20.09.11 19:49

Yvonne Martin statement on link above your post tigger.

by Guest 20.09.11 20:00

candyfloss wrote:Yes unbelievable Moa, - I started a thread a while ago on extracts about people who offered to help and were written about in the book...............

https://jillhavern.forumotion.net/t2896-people-who-tried-to-be-helpful-3-4th-may?highlight=the+people+who+offered+to+help

Hadn't seen that one,, thank you :)

by Guest 20.09.11 20:19

To give any credence whatsoever to the idea that Madeleine could
have walked out on her own you would have to accept that
she had gone out the back way, pulling aside the sittingroom
curtains and drawing them again, then opening the
patio door, the child-safety gate at the top of the stairs on
the veranda and the little gate to the road – and carefully
closing all three behind her. What three-year-old do you
know who would do that?

See how little dramatic wordings there are here (compered to most of the book). How secure she is stating this. That's because she's telling the truth here. Because no way did Madeleine wander off..And obviously a three year old would not do what she here describes..
Finding a truthful statement from her makes it easier to spot the ones full of lies.

by Guest 21.09.11 10:04

Yvonne Martin was on her holiday. Who do you know takes all their paperwork and 'credentials' away with them? If you are suddenly taken very ill and a Doctor pitches up in front of you, how many people would ask for their credentials before allowing them to help you?
Yvonne wasn't buying their story. She recognized David Payne somehow through her work and the group knew they had a problem, which is why they turned her away.
This is real reason Kate wrote what se did in her book.

by Miraflores 21.09.11 10:16

Stella wrote: She recognized David Payne somehow through her work and the group knew they had a problem, which is why they turned her away.
This is real reason Kate wrote what se did in her book.

And David Payne recognised her, which is the key thing, because he is the one responsible for turning her away. On her own Kate might even have accepted help.

by Guest 21.09.11 10:23

Stella wrote:Yvonne Martin was on her holiday. Who do you know takes all their paperwork and 'credentials' away with them? If you are suddenly taken very ill and a Doctor pitches up in front of you, how many people would ask for their credentials before allowing them to help you?
Yvonne wasn't buying their story. She recognized David Payne somehow through her work and the group knew they had a problem, which is why they turned her away.
This is real reason Kate wrote what se did in her book.

So what you saying is that Kate lie about that women showing her all her paperwork and credentials?
Did YM ever find out from where she recognized David Payne?