My Highlights from the book

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Plebgate, I know exactly what you mean!

Recently I was loaned the book but I just couldn't settle down and read it from the start. I could almost hear Kate's voice with every whingeing, self-pitying word - as my son would say, my brain started to ooze out of my ears......

For me, it disproves my user name - to read Kate's book from cover to cover would truly be a worse fate!

Oh do I agree, NFWTD, (aaargh your old name was so much easier lol) I have read key bits in the supermarket and that was enough! I used to think if anyone saw me peeking at it 'I hope they don't think I believe this c**p!'

rainbow-fairy wrote:

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Plebgate, I know exactly what you mean!

Recently I was loaned the book but I just couldn't settle down and read it from the start. I could almost hear Kate's voice with every whingeing, self-pitying word - as my son would say, my brain started to ooze out of my ears......

For me, it disproves my user name - to read Kate's book from cover to cover would truly be a worse fate!

Oh do I agree, NFWTD, (aaargh your old name was so much easier lol) I have read key bits in the supermarket and that was enough! I used to think if anyone saw me peeking at it 'I hope they don't think I believe this c**p!'

@NFWTD I agree a very worse fate by the sound of it.

@RF Yes it does sound a load of carp from the snippets I have read.

I have read the book, what struck me most about it was the amount of detail it included. Unfortunately, the details are all superfluous. It is as if the author is trying to hide the fact she is giving no details at all about what really happened by giving the reader a lot of unnecessary details. For example, she describes her own pink running shoes at great length, what she thought about her shoes, how they got dirty by running in the sand, and even what a dog she passed must have thought of her shoes! A very good way of filling up a book that tells the reader nothing!
And yet, despite all of the unnecessary details she includes - the events of the evening of May 3rd, prior to leaving for the tapas bar are almost given in list form. She talks ad nauseum about her pink running shoes and then the evening of May 3rd (which should be the focal point of the book) is recorded as something like (I haven't got the book in front of me) 'Bathed the children, milk and biscuits, put them to bed.' And that's it! Nothing else.

whmon wrote:I have read the book, what struck me most about it was the amount of detail it included. Unfortunately, the details are all superfluous. It is as if the author is trying to hide the fact she is giving no details at all about what really happened by giving the reader a lot of unnecessary details. For example, she describes her own pink running shoes at great length, what she thought about her shoes, how they got dirty by running in the sand, and even what a dog she passed must have thought of her shoes! A very good way of filling up a book that tells the reader nothing!
And yet, despite all of the unnecessary details she includes - the events of the evening of May 3rd, prior to leaving for the tapas bar are almost given in list form. She talks ad nauseum about her pink running shoes and then the evening of May 3rd (which should be the focal point of the book) is recorded as something like (I haven't got the book in front of me) 'Bathed the children, milk and biscuits, put them to bed.' And that's it! Nothing else.

Please do not forget that the book was put together in full possession of the PJ files, and as a desperate attempt to pre-empt and smother the evidence contained therein.

It was written after the facts, to be more precise: after the facts became known all over the world.

No one -NO ONE- had envisaged the PJ files to come out into the open.

High time of those most in danger of becoming nailed starting to call their lawyers: "My dear expensive lawyer friend, why did you not warn me about this?"

I noticed the book in the True Crime section of my local library today. I think that's a good description of the book itself!

Perhaps David Payne felt that Yvonne Martin could have recognized him that morning and that is why he called the British police (Yard?) late on the evening of the 4th, and spoke to the abuse or child abuse department.
He felt that, if he was known by the Yvonne Maritin's institution, the police could suspect him and he decided to tell the truth.
And the British government held the information because News of the World and the Sun needed to sell papers.

Time will tell.

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:I noticed the book in the True Crime section of my local library today. I think that's a good description of the book itself!

True Crime as in non-fiction? Which bit of the crime is true?

The abduction? Or the death of the Child and several suspects still at large?

Guest 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?

It's ridiculous for her to pretend she didn't "really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve". Firstly, if she turned up many times and it bothered her so much, why not tell the police?  Secondly, later on in the book she states she has read the PJ files, and her name and statement appears in it.  I can only put her feigned ignorance down to a childish discourtesy.

wallad wrote: It's ridiculous for her to pretend she didn't "really know who she is or what she was trying to achieve". Firstly, if she turned up many times and it bothered her so much, why not tell the police?  Secondly, later on in the book she states she has read the PJ files, and her name and statement appears in it.  I can only put her feigned ignorance down to a childish discourtesy.

For once, I say this only once, I have to agree with Kate McCann - who was Yvonne Martin and what was she doing at the crime scene ?!?  Her appearance runs parellel with that of Robert Murat.   Uninvited, no apparent official connection yet there they were, at the scene of a serious crime offering their services, or I might suggest muscling in, unofficially.

Back in May 2007, Yvonne Martin claimed to have offered herself in a professional capacity to assist fellow compatriots in their hour of need (my words).  Is it professional to write and send an anonymous letter to the British police making accusatory comments relative to a Portuguese police investigation into a missing child?

Processos Vol XIII Page 3421

Date : 2007-11-14

To: The Coordinator of the Criminal Investigation Paolo Rebelo

From: Paolo Ferreira, Inspector

Service Information

Subject: Expedient related to Yvonne Warren Martin

In the sequence of the contents of the service information in annex, which was prepared by Inspector José Monteira on 12-06-2007, the questioning of Yvonne Warren Martin was twice begun, according to the files that are also joined to this.

The statement relates in detail her intervention with the McCann couple after having heard about Madeleine's disappearance.

She adds that on one occasion, because it had occurred to her that the parents and the friends could eventually be involved in the child's disappearance, she wrote an anonymous letter to the British police.

The statements given to the PJ today by Yvonne Martin provide a concrete clarification of the reasons for her suspicions, which in my opinion, do not point to any concrete element that could, in any way, make other inquiries directly related to her statements, viable.

With nothing further to add.

Signed

Inspector Ferreira


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/YVONNE-WARREN-MARTIN.htm


Who was Yvonne Martin and what was she doing there in the first place is the pertinent question.  I can only agree with Kate McCann on that point.  I strongly suspect, like Robert Murat, she was sent by prior arrangement - with or without the knowledge of the McCanns, I know not.  Either that or it was a personal vendetta against David Payne for some reason - he was said to resemble Robert Murat from a distance.

The link provided reveals a lot of information concerning this witness that's worthy of close scrutiny and casts a deep shadow over her motives.  That however is not a subject for this thread.

Hi Verdi,Just suppose that Yvonne Martin and Robert Murat are plants within this case,for what reason as you have stipulated,are they, 
(1)Robert Murat and David Payne bare resemblance from a distance,25 meters,JT,witness Abductor?
(2)Yvonne Martin picking out David from past history as a Social Care Worker,David immediately recognising Yvonne Martin from the past,then his sudden call to the UK Police,for advice?
(3) The Gasper Statements and the upholding of these statements by UK,Police,suppression for Months and only sent after the original detective is removed from his role,Goncalo Amaral?
(4) The UK Police interview DP,in full knowledge that the Portugal PJ had wished to be present at this interview in April 2008,that for some unknown reason the DVD recording device suddenly goes on the blink,which leaves the question,why would you(UK,Police) interview under caution a person without the Portugal PJ present,knowing they wished to be present?  didn't want the Portugal PJ asking rather relevent impertinent questions,eh Dave?
If you dismiss Yvonne Martin from the scenario and what she(YM)has put on record.
Then where does that leave you with(RM)?
Introduced to Gerry McCann 4 May 207 by (SC) for the first time?
Sandra Felgueres,video Do you know Robert Murat and the reply given?
Portugal PJ question RM over Child Porn,pornography?
I do not know if"Child abuse"is part of this case and I am not insinuating it is part of this case!?
We are where we are today thanks to the Portugal legal system,other than that,the UK public would have been kept firmly in the dark,just like mushrooms,being fed UK Media Bull shit on the case?

One question that sticks in my mind is the Thursday 3 May afternoon Sailing by Russell O'Brien and Matt Oldfield?
Yet Madeleine is supposed to have gone to the same beach with friends from the Creche,did Russell,Matt go sailing on other days,a bit of a coincidence that Two Beach outings on the same day,then a child is reported missing the same day known to all parties?
The Parents were either playing tennis or jogging on the Beach(KH)did Kate bump into Russell or Matt on the beach?
Then after Madeleine's reported disappearance, certain people(GM,Michael) were caught by the press using electronic devices,"Searching For Madeleine" on the Sea Shore line,who very quickly abandoned their search,when they realised they were the Press??
Also refer to a Freudian slip by Kate to someone,"if they have Madeleine,to put her in a safe place"?
Ah,but as Assistant Commander of the Metropolitan Police Service Mark Rowley has stated,the Tapas 7/9 McCann parents are Not suspects in Madeleine's disappearance.okay Mark we believe you?

Posted by one of my admin on CMOMM facebook:

Mikki Wells
Admin · 17 mins · Perth, WA, Australia
madeleine - the Gospel According to Saint Kate - the first 50 pages

Last week I wrote a few provisional notes about my first impressions of this book, notably how it compares to a book of poetry about the loss of a child:
https://www.facebook.com/groups/JillHavernCompleteMysteryofMadeleineMcCann/permalink/1996545423923274/


This was perhaps a little unfair, as it's comparing a professional poet with a woman who has never claimed to be a writer, but now I've read (more than once) the first 50 pages of 'madeleine', I am astonished at the lack of warmth. The words are clinical, self-conscious and clunky, Kate resolutely paints herself as The Unquestionable Protagonist (her children, even the twins who she has obvious preference for over Madeleine, are merely begrudging co-stars in this Tale of The Brilliant and Beautiful Ms Healy and Her Marvellous Spouse), and all attempts to sound maternal are forced and unnatural.

The first three chapters are called "Gerry", "Madeleine" and "A family of five". Kate has written virtually nothing in her book about the period 2004-2006, other than to focus predominantly (and conspicuously) on the conception, gestation, birth and personalities of her twins ("this boy of mine" and "beautiful Amelie with her little rosebud mouth"), rather than on the development and emerging quirks and personality of the child the book is named after.

What do we really find out about the little girl called Madeleine Beth McCann, the person she was, before she innocently wheeled her little pink princess case onto that Portugal-bound aeroplane, never to return?
Answer: so far, virtually nothing, and this book - the perfect opportunity to properly introduce the public to Madeleine the "special, endearing, engaging little girl" as opposed to just the recognisable face behind a tragic news headline - offers us only the barest and sketchiest details. As a baby, she screamed loudly. When she was born, she was 'not at all squashed'; she had 'no marks', she had 'big, big eyes' and a 'lovely, compact body'; her head was perfectly round; she was, oh yes, beautiful. Of course she was beautiful. Apart from these 'facts', all we are told about Madeleine and her development from a screaming, demanding, colicky baby into a characterful toddler (between pages 32 and 48) is:
⁃ her sleeping patterns started to improve from September 2003 (she was only four months old; so why did Kate McCann feel the need to labour the point about what a bad sleeper she was? Most babies disrupt their parents' sleep patterns for at least 6-12 months, often much longer.)
⁃ Madeleine was very bright, in fact preternaturally intelligent; so much so that by the mere age of three, she liked Harry Potter, books aimed at children more than twice her age
⁃ She liked chocolate, biscuits and sweets and could hear confectionery being unwrapped from "500 yards away"
⁃ She liked to visit the local farm and feed the animals and ride on the tractor,
⁃ She didn't like to be called 'Maddie' (apparently - although this odd little 'fact' comes later in in the book), and
⁃ she *definitely* wasn't shy.

There are just 17 pages out of these first 50 that discuss, mention or (less frequently) actually describe Madeleine in any detail for the period between 12th May 2003 (her birth) and the preparations for the Portugal holiday in early 2007. That means more than three and a half years is almost entirely glossed over. The most important years of Madeleine's early development are not explored or explained even superficially. WHY?

The chapter called 'Madeleine' is mostly about the struggle to conceive her, the pain of infertility (especially for one as motherly as Saint Kate!), and generic narrative about the wonder of parenthood; there's virtually nothing personal or heartfelt about Madeleine.

Madeleine herself, the longed-for baby, doesn't make an appearance until page 32, and then the next chapter, starting on page 35, is called "a family of five', and as such focuses just as much (if not more so) on the twins.

... And on Kate and Gerry, of course; those aspirational, inspirational, righteous, hard-working and thoroughly decent parents, blessed with each other's love and with three perfect children.

"Those first few months were quite an isolating time for me on the whole. While almost all my friends in Liverpool and Glasgow had children, my Leicester friends did not, which meant they were working and not around during the day. Mostly, then, it was just me and my special little buddy." (Page 37)
You see, Kate refers to Madeleine here as "my special little buddy" without having given her readers the slightest clue *how* or *why* the two of them became "buddies". She doesn't bother describing any of those precious, intimate mother/daughter moments; developmental milestones such as her first smile, her first steps, her first words and first taste of solid food; her favourite stories/songs/games/toys/movies/programmes; dressing up/role play; her best friends and the shenanigans they got up to... and what excited her? Comforted her? What about all that priceless parent-child bonding through shared experiences? Kate tells us that she breastfed Madeleine but only as a passing remark (to use her own phrase): "I breastfed Sean and Amelie as I had Madeleine" (p.44), as if this is a completely irrelevant and unimportant fact... So what about all those gorgeously hazy, blissful hours she surely had snuggled up in bed with a milk-drunk, soft, sleepy bundle in her arms, lying sweetly across the warmth of her chest? My second son had terrible reflux for the first six months and was very bad-tempered but nevertheless we enjoyed countless wonderful, peaceful, precious skin-to-skin times like that, sometimes spending entire days in bed together just completely immersed in each other... Where are those ordinary but crucial bonding times between Kate and her firstborn? Are we just to assume them? And what about those hilarious misnomers and mispronunciations that all little children delight us with? (As a personal example, my first son called aeroplanes and helicopters 'abbadas' and 'ockatas', and my second son said 'dickifult' instead of 'difficult' and 'on-ginge' instead of 'orange'... adorable!)

We are just expected to simply expect and assume that a woman who is clearly very self-involved by nature will have automatically bonded and fallen helplessly in love with her daughter, just because.... why? Because she always wanted children? Because she went through IVF to have her? Because she actually tells us, plainly, on page 33, that she loves her daughter *even more than Gerry*. "...And I love Gerry a lot, believe me."

Yeah - I believe you Kate. Right from the start, she places her husband on such a lofty pedestal (honestly her gushing, fawning descriptions of him are totally unnecessary in a book that's supposed to be *about their daughter*), I really would hate to think he might come crashing down from there one day....

One of the first rules of writing is "show, don't tell". Kate McCann breaks this rule on every page, in fact almost every sentence is a flouting of this golden rule. She repeatedly TELLS us how to feel, and what to believe. She doesn't show us, through heartfelt specific recollections, or gently guide us towards making our own visualisations and impressions. The result is that she insults the intelligence of her readers.

Furthermore, there is a jarring disconnect between what she TELLS US and how the book makes us FEEL. It's excruciatingly uncomfortable and this is why it's taken me two weeks to absorb just the first 50 pages.
Kate seems more preoccupied (throughout the entire book, not just these first 50 pages) with making sure we all identify with (or preferably ADMIRE) this Awesome Couple, these Awesome Parents Gerry and Kate - just look at them, you peasants! They're clever, well-educated, well-travelled, classy, well-off, ever-so-good-looking, ever-so-in-love-with-each-other, sexy, courageous, EXCELLENT parents and a million times better than every single one of us hopeless plebs who buy this book.

And if we are not being unsubtly indoctrinated into the "Gerry and Kate Show" during those first 50 pages, we are hearing complaints: about the unfairness of their childlessness, then later about Madeleine's colic and the lack of sleep experienced by poor old Kate and Gerry due to their firstborn's powerful lungs.

Many of those pages (from p.35 onwards) are actually devoted to her siblings rather than to the little girl who was developing from a noisy, demanding infant into a vibrant personality, for example:
"It was fascinating watching how the children interacted with one another as they developed and how different their personalities were. When they were small, Sean and Madeleine were the closest in nature, and early on they formed a natural alliance, although later, Madeleine and Amelie began to do lots of girly things together. Amelie was confident, brave and a bit mad, and initially the one in whom I saw myself least but always admired. In the garden she would run up the steps of the slide and hurl herself down the chute with a crazed cry of exhilaration: ‘Ha, ha, ha!’ Sean – Cautious George to Amelie’s Fearless Fred – would often climb the steps carefully, then, on reaching the top, have second thoughts, turn round and come back down the same way. When they did jigsaws, Amelie would use brute force to wedge any old pieces together. Sean would meticulously study all the pieces before completing the puzzle unaided. He is probably the more academic and methodical of the twins; Amelie the more intuitive and artistic. They’ve changed a little now, of course. Sean has grown in confidence – the Gerry genes coming to the fore! – and his obsessive need for order has receded. Amelie has lost her mad edge (much to my relief) although she’s still adventurous. She has also grown into the most loving, sensitive and caring six-year-old I know. And they remain the best of friends."

Okay, so I'm a bit familiar with what the twins are like (or were like)... but what about their big sister? There's very, very little about Madeleine herself - *only* about how her existence impacted on other members of the family (especially her parents), or how she compared to or interacted with her brother, her sister, her mum or her dad.

I have no doubt that there were many editorial meetings about this book (I used to work in publishing and am an author, so I'm familiar with the process). I can just picture the editor saying to the rest of the team "This book is called Madeleine, but there's sweet FA in there that actually paints a vivid or convincing picture of the girl. Someone please get on the phone to Kate and ask her to include something, just a couple of paragraphs will do, between pages 30 and 40... make something up if you have to. As it stands, this could be about any little girl in the world, apart from the goddamn Harry Potter stuff."

And I suspect this to-ing and fro-ing between author and publisher went on for some time, until the editor herself (or himself) felt obliged to elaborate on a couple of sentences here and there, just to breathe a little authenticity into a flat, one-dimensional character that *should* have irresistibly burst with effervescent life from every page.

There is no love here. None. If there was, we (the readers of the book) *would* sense it, we'd feel it. With just a little editorial guidance, even someone with no writing skill whatsoever should have no problem expressing and conveying their love for their missed and missing child. In fact it would be impossible not to. IF they really did have love for that child.

But Kate goes on and on about how loving, functional, and *happy* they were, the three of them and then the five of them, in their family home. Too loving, functional and happy to be considered normal or ordinary.

So yes, one impression I do certainly come away with is that this really is no normal, ordinary family:
"Obviously ours was a very busy household, but it was full of love and laughter." (Page 44)
So far, I'm sensing little laughter and even less love. But let's give Kate a chance - I've still got 413 pages left.

This post is just about the first 50 pages. Chapter four, from page 51, is entitled "The Holiday", and I have a sinking feeling I already know what to expect.... it's not gonna be a normal, ordinary holiday... right?

jd wrote:

"It chokes me remembering how my heart soared with pride in Madeleine that morning. She was so happy and obviously enjoying herself. Standing there listening intently to Cat's instructions, she looked so gorgeous in her little T-shirt and shorts, pink hat, ankle socks and new holiday sandals..."

Is this nanny that kate is purring on about the same one she could't trust to look after their kids while she got sloshed

Who "looked so gorgeous"? Madeleine or Cat?

Are sandals acceptable footwear for tennis?