Re: My Highlights from the book

by Guest 21.09.11 15:45

Moa wrote:
I can not in anyway understand why Kate and Gerry not are locked behind bars and the key trown away...

You are not alone Moa. We just have to keep chipping away every day by discussing these things, until someone does something to bring about justice for Madeleine.

by lj 22.09.11 17:10

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"

"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

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

I also do think that what you say and how you say it, tell a lot about you and what really happened, or what you really want to say.

There is a nice blog about that at http://seamusoriley.blogspot.com/.
ETA, I see you found it! Sorry I get very confused with those "new post" squares, they are a bit random for me.

The problem with the book however is that it must have been heavy edited for language and legal reasons. Kate can't build a normal sentence in general. As PeterMac showed the improvement in the "crying" statement.

They must haven't gotten tired early on though, because there are still a lot of the plain lies, convoluted stories, and "little incongruences" left, that expose Kate for the nutcase she is.

by Guest 22.09.11 20:31

I had to take a little break from the book as it irritated me a little to much censored

Wanted to share a vid I stumbled across on youtube

by Guest 25.09.11 22:06

Found it on youtube just wanted to share .. (It is not mine)

by littlepixie 25.09.11 23:07

Moa wrote: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.

There is a picture of a girl of Maddies' age here taken from Paynes' camera doing just that - opening the door http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GREYSCALE_SNAPS.htm (scroll down to picture 14)

I don't think for a second that Maddie walked and wandered but what a strange photo to take of your child "trying" the door. I often wonder who that girl is and if she is the same girl who Payne is clutching tightly in the various other photos along with the other little girl.

by russiandoll 26.09.11 19:03

is not the point of the plea bargain scenario to imply even though it does not exist in law.the pj is corrupt and offered her a deal despite this?
there are all sorts of scenarios craftily laid out from which an easily manipulated reader can draw the inferences Kate McCann desires

by russiandoll 26.09.11 19:06

and there are quite a few.........an example of extreme narcissm in a nutshell, when Kate complains that the pj smoked, wore t shirts, didnt offer her and her party food or a drink..
" OUR DAUGHTER HAD BEEN STOLEN AND I FELT AS IF I DIDNT EXIST"
NO REFERENCE TO GERRY AND NONE TO THE VICTIM, NO " SHE DIDNT EXIST"

THIS LITTLE NUGGET SAYS IT ALL TO ME.

by russiandoll 26.09.11 19:10

very bizarre,,,,,in the poolside photo section madeleines bare left arm seems to show the edge of a sleeve at the wrist.

by russiandoll 26.09.11 19:17

i should have enlarged photo.....just fat at the wrist joint the way she has placed her hands. i wondered what the heck it could be

by **tigger** 26.09.11 19:26

russiandoll wrote:i should have enlarged photo.....just fat at the wrist joint the way she has placed her hands. i wondered what the heck it could be

compare to the left arm and how the arm fills up the sleeve, right arm cannot be that far back without taking sleeve with it.
Blow it up and you'll see the blurred section of deleted arm, why I have no idea! Was Amelie shopped in or Gerry?

by Angelique 27.09.11 16:11

Stella wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

How did she know a couple took Maddie?
Good question.

Isn't Kate quoted in one of the T7 statements as saying "They've taken her, they've taken her. And Gerry says something like "She can't be there, she can't be" . I think this has now evolved into something quite different now though.

This is only a possible scenario - not my definite feelings or something that I have given any credence to. Just thinking about for some time. That it may be possible that someone else caused the accident with Madeleine and the Mccanns are covering up for them instead.

by Guest 05.10.11 7:36

and within
an hour of their arrival, Uncle Pat, an ex-professional
footballer, collapsed with a heart attack. When he slumped
on Alexis’s shoulder we thought at first he was just messing
about. We soon realized he wasn’t. As Gerry phoned for an
ambulance and I worried that I was going to need to begin
CPR – which would have been pretty difficult given that my
belly was the size of a small barn and I could hardly move –
a delivery man came to the door with a Chinese takeaway
we’d ordered. Amid the pandemonium, Madeleine
appeared, pushing her Early Learning Centre medical
trolley, placed her toy stethoscope on Uncle Pat’s chest
and said, ‘Boom, boom!’ Talk about surreal

Plenty of things to point out here I think, but mainly this:

If someone had collapsed in my home with a heart attack, the first thing I would do beside calling an ambulance, was to make sure my kids didn't have to see this. I think that can be traumatic for a little child, and in this stage Madeleine was not even two years old... First it sounds surreal that she does what they say she did, and second, why on earth allow your child to "play" with a man fighting for his life?

It might just be me but im shocked by this...

also have to point out this:

Why is Kate worried about having to do CPR ? Gerry is there, and also other friends are present. And she beeing pregnant with twins in last stage, why would any one even expect her to do it? I feel she say it in the book more to highlight her self. And who cares about the chinesfood you ordered ?

by **tigger** 05.10.11 7:54

So, whilst pretty well everyone there was capable of phoning an ambulance but not skilled at CPR, the only expert went off to do the phoning, children were playing around and it was so chaotic that a tiny 2 year old could start playing with the collapsed man.

Never seen a photograph of Maddie with her early Learning Centre Medical Trolley. Which geek designed that toy?

by Guest 05.10.11 8:13

[img]

My Highlights from the book - Page 2 Images10

[/img]

They dont seem very popular any more googling it this was one of two pictures I found..Good for a child thats 20 months old to operate it and for understanding the situation and acually chek his heart when his having a heartattack.
And yes Tigger, why where Gerry the one calling, why didnt Kate think :" I can call an ambulanse, im fat as an elephant but pick up the phone that I can do and leave the CPR to Gerry ",.

by **tigger** 05.10.11 9:21

Moa wrote:[img][/img]

They dont seem very popular any more googling it this was one of two pictures I found..Good for a child thats 20 months old to operate it and for understanding the situation and acually chek his heart when his having a heartattack.
And yes Tigger, why where Gerry the one calling, why didnt Kate think :" I can call an ambulanse, im fat as an elephant but pick up the phone that I can do and leave the CPR to Gerry ",.

I still think it weird to be so proud of your profession that you introduce a 2 year old to the use of a stethoscope and a complete medical trolley. I commented earlier on Gerry saying 'she was lying in the recovery position' and Kate explaining to us, simple readers, what a double blind study is, as it is known in the medical profession. O now I remember, you're doctors!

by russiandoll 05.10.11 13:16

like quite a bit in the book, it's a mix of fact and fantasy. I can believe there was a collapse, I do not believe the expert heart specialist phoned the ambulance instead of attending to the patient, I think there might have been a food delivery sometime around the time of this episode but not when it was in progress and I am pretty certain the stuff about Maddie is a complete fabrication.
what is our Kate trying to get over in this little piece of theatre I wonder? She puts in and omits things in her book with an agenda.

by Guest 24.10.11 18:52

"We soon found out that Murat had been made an
arguido. This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime. It also confers various
rights, such as the right to remain silent and entitlement to
legal representation. For this reason it is possible and
indeed not unheard of for a person being questioned as a
witness,with less protection from the law, to declare
himself arguido, for example if he feels that the line the
police are taking suggests they suspect him."

What is Kate saying with this?She is implaying that Murat made himself Arguido because he had something to hide.
Second, hasn't K+G always said that beeing a Arguido is like beeing a witness but with rights. Making it all sound like it doesn't matter if you are a Arguido or a witness. Still she claims in her book that a arguido is : This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime..And with this, what else would she believe people and media would treat her with ?

by **tigger** 24.10.11 19:00

Moa wrote:"We soon found out that Murat had been made an
arguido. This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime. It also confers various
rights, such as the right to remain silent and entitlement to
legal representation. For this reason it is possible and
indeed not unheard of for a person being questioned as a
witness,with less protection from the law, to declare
himself arguido, for example if he feels that the line the
police are taking suggests they suspect him."

What is Kate saying with this?She is implaying that Murat made himself Arguido because he had something to hide.
Second, hasn't K+G always said that beeing a Arguido is like beeing a witness but with rights. Making it all sound like it doesn't matter if you are a Arguido or a witness. Still she claims in her book that a arguido is : This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime..And with this, what else would she believe people and media would treat her with ?

So in Murat's case she hints that he may have asked for arguido status to protect himself because even being a suspect is better because of the protection you do not have as a witness.
I think she's hinting that the arguido status was something they asked for or could have asked for. She is saying it is a good thing because of the rights it infers. So some might interpret that as the McCanns having decided for themselves to be arguidos. I'm sure that will crop up sometime.

by Guest 24.10.11 19:03

tigger wrote:
Moa wrote:"We soon found out that Murat had been made an
arguido. This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime. It also confers various
rights, such as the right to remain silent and entitlement to
legal representation. For this reason it is possible and
indeed not unheard of for a person being questioned as a
witness,with less protection from the law, to declare
himself arguido, for example if he feels that the line the
police are taking suggests they suspect him."

What is Kate saying with this?She is implaying that Murat made himself Arguido because he had something to hide.
Second, hasn't K+G always said that beeing a Arguido is like beeing a witness but with rights. Making it all sound like it doesn't matter if you are a Arguido or a witness. Still she claims in her book that a arguido is : This formal status meant he would be officially
treated as a suspect in the crime..And with this, what else would she believe people and media would treat her with ?

So in Murat's case she hints that he may have asked for arguido status to protect himself because even being a suspect is better because of the protection you do not have as a witness.
I think she's hinting that the arguido status was something they asked for or could have asked for. She is saying it is a good thing because of the rights it infers. So some might interpret that as the McCanns having decided for themselves to be arguidos. I'm sure that will crop up sometime.

Maybe thats what she want us to think, hoping they will look more innocent...

by Guest 01.11.11 18:45

If we believe the dog Madeleine was dead in the apartment most likely. The dogs could be wrong, but as a dog owner I totaly trust them doing their job.
if she then died there, how and when and what motive if it was planned.

could it be Kate?

Think of it, she wanted a child so desperatly, and was also deeply in love with G.
After lots of tries and years , finally shes there, a little baby girl, a mothers dream. Maybe this dream later on became her worst nightmare.? Madeleine beeing a cry baby (kolikkbaby) thats hard for any new parents, getting little sleep and all that crying, on top of that Madeleine seems to become Daddies girl. Putting Daddie higher than mum. Must be very hard for a mum wanting a child that much. Did she start to resist ,dislike, even hate her ? She getting less attention from G. then she get pregnant with the twins and its a girl and a boy. How perfect except... From all her writing , describings and her book she do not seem truly attached or in to her daughter. It is not written from her heart or told from heart when she talks about Madeleine. it do not sound personal..Some woman get( dont know what you call it in English,) but its a depression u get when you giving birth, and then you have a hard time to love and share that bond with your child.. It can last upto a year or two...Could kate be jealouse of their relationship.? jealouse on Gerrys affection for Madeleine?

Maybe Kate made it look like Gerry did it accidently?

Im sure there are many more motivs to check out, this motive where not based on money or pre planned believes, I tried to think of an emotional motiv. In many cases the motiv is emotional. And IMHO there is something about K.....I also haven't considered any other evidence other than the dogs to make a base to think of an emotional motive...

This is just a thought I had , nothing more than that... lots of other interesting motives are discussed on this forum. I wonder if we'll ever find out wich one of them are right.

A third witness said the turning point of the investigation came following a tearful call from Mrs McCann who, after a dream, told police where to search for her daughter’s body.
Police Inspector Ricardo Paiva, who acted as a liason between the McCanns and Portuguese police in the days following their daughter’s disappearance told the court he had received the phone call in late July 2007.
“Kate called me, she was alone as Gerry was away and she was crying,” he said. “She said she had dreamt that Madeleine was on a hill and that we should search for her there.
“She gave the impression that she thought she was dead – it was a turning point for us.”
The senior detective said the land was searched but nothing was found. “That is when we decided to send the specialist dogs in. British police informed us about how they could detect the scent of death.”

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/europe/portugal/6974917/Madeleine-McCanns-death-covered-up-by-parents-who-faked-kidnap-court-hears.html

by rainbow-fairy 03.11.11 17:27

Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

How did she know a couple took Maddie?

I believe she said this for the same reason after four years telling the world they never went out searching for Maddie, in the book she now states 'as soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search'. Yes Kate dear, whatever. You know you only say that now because a couple (strangely resembling yourself and Gezza!) were spotted by a man driving a car - they were out and about in Luz VERY early and ducked into an alley when they spotted the car headlights. If anyone knows where this statement is from, could they post it, please?
I think Kate didn't mention this in the beginning as she was hedging her bets - not sure if they'd been spotted or not. Covered their as**s nicely, eh?
Deceitful pair of... (insert preferred name here)

by **tigger** 03.11.11 20:55

rainbow-fairy wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

How did she know a couple took Maddie?
I believe she said this for the same reason after four years telling the world they never went out searching for Maddie, in the book she now states 'as soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search'. Yes Kate dear, whatever. You know you only say that now because a couple (strangely resembling yourself and Gezza!) were spotted by a man driving a car - they were out and about in Luz VERY early and ducked into an alley when they spotted the car headlights. If anyone knows where this statement is from, could they post it, please?
I think Kate didn't mention this in the beginning as she was hedging her bets - not sure if they'd been spotted or not. Covered their as**s nicely, eh?
Deceitful pair of... (insert preferred name here)

This is not the George Burke sighting was it? It would make sense if they were seen in PdL, possibly near the flats that GA took an interest in. Or is they had to meet up with Murat for a briefing.

by truthseeker 18.11.11 19:45

My highlight of the book is an excerpt from the official submission of the Leicestershire Police to the court (p. 316):

"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."

So the British police came to the same conclusion as the PJ: the McCanns cannot be eliminated.
This makes it of course difficult for Kate to put any blame exclusively on the PJ.

She seeks a way out by arguing: "Whether or not, that line stuck in our head as "guilty until proven innocent". (p. 316)
Imo this is throwing sand into the eyes of the reader, for it cleary downplays the evidence the police must have had to indicate the McCanns' possible involvement, coupled with the absence of clear exonerating evidence that would eliminate them.

by rainbow-fairy 18.11.11 20:17

truthseeker wrote:My highlight of the book is an excerpt from the official submission of the Leicestershire Police to the court (p. 316):
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
So the British police came to the same conclusion as the PJ: the McCanns cannot be eliminated.
This makes it of course difficult for Kate to put any blame exclusively on the PJ.

She seeks a way out by arguing: "Whether or not, that line stuck in our head as "guilty until proven innocent". (p. 316)
Imo this is throwing sand into the eyes of the reader, for it cleary downplays the evidence the police must have had to indicate the McCanns' possible involvement, coupled with the absence of clear exonerating evidence that would eliminate them.

She actually put that in the book? I'm amazed! But I guess I shouldn't be really, seeing as it seems she's twisting it for sympathy - 'poor me, poor us, how could they suspect us? We have to prove our innocence...blah de blah de blah'
Hold on tight - you may get dizzy. They be spinning again! Wink

by truthseeker 20.11.11 14:09

rainbow-fairy wrote:
truthseeker wrote:My highlight of the book is an excerpt from the official submission of the Leicestershire Police to the court (p. 316):
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
So the British police came to the same conclusion as the PJ: the McCanns cannot be eliminated.
This makes it of course difficult for Kate to put any blame exclusively on the PJ.

She seeks a way out by arguing: "Whether or not that line stuck in our head as "guilty until proven innocent". (p. 316)
Imo this is throwing sand into the eyes of the reader, for it cleary downplays the evidence the police must have had to indicate the McCanns' possible involvement, coupled with the absence of clear exonerating evidence that would eliminate them.
She actually put that in the book? I'm amazed! But I guess I shouldn't be really, seeing as it seems she's twisting it for sympathy - 'poor me, poor us, how could they suspect us? We have to prove our innocence...blah de blah de blah'
Hold on tight - you may get dizzy. They be spinning again!

Kate tries to present themselves as 'victims of injustice', no doubt.
But nowhere does the statement submitted to the court by the Leicestershire Police suggest that the McCanns have to prove their innocence. What the statement does point out is that the McCanns cannot be eliminated as suspects. Big difference. Kate tries to twist it as good as she can, but her attempt at damage control has not been successful.

[edited to add: I accidentally left out the part "it was his intention" in the passage quoted from the book, and forgot the plural "s" in heads, sorry].
Here is the correct quote: Whether or not it was his intention, that line stuck in our heads as 'guilty until proven innocent'. (p. 316)

by rainbow-fairy 20.11.11 19:44

truthseeker wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
truthseeker wrote:My highlight of the book is an excerpt from the official submission of the Leicestershire Police to the court (p. 316):
"While one or both of them may be innocent, there is no clear evidence that eliminates them from involvement in Madeleine's disappearance."
So the British police came to the same conclusion as the PJ: the McCanns cannot be eliminated.
This makes it of course difficult for Kate to put any blame exclusively on the PJ.

She seeks a way out by arguing: "Whether or not that line stuck in our head as "guilty until proven innocent". (p. 316)
Imo this is throwing sand into the eyes of the reader, for it cleary downplays the evidence the police must have had to indicate the McCanns' possible involvement, coupled with the absence of clear exonerating evidence that would eliminate them.
She actually put that in the book? I'm amazed! But I guess I shouldn't be really, seeing as it seems she's twisting it for sympathy - 'poor me, poor us, how could they suspect us? We have to prove our innocence...blah de blah de blah'
Hold on tight - you may get dizzy. They be spinning again!
Kate tries to present themselves as 'victims of injustice', no doubt.
But nowhere does the statement submitted to the court by the Leicestershire Police suggest that the McCanns have to prove their innocence. What the statement does point out is that the McCanns cannot be eliminated as suspects. Big difference. Kate tries to twist it as good as she can, but her attempt at damage control has not been successful.

[edited to add: I accidentally left out the part "it was his intention" in the passage quoted from the book, and forgot the plural "s" in heads, sorry].
Here is the correct quote: Whether or not it was his intention, that line stuck in our heads as 'guilty until proven innocent'. (p. 316)

Yep. Yet more smoke and mirror tactics. Poor Kate seems to think she is so clever at twisting the words and hiding the real meanings of things. Newsflash Kate - its all about as obscured as a 20st man 'hiding' behind a lamppost! We can still see it - and we can still see you and your husband (unfortunately) jumping on bandwagons and lying your faces off...
You never allowed yourselves to be investigated or eliminated - now why would that be?!? Hmmm...

by truthseeker 24.11.11 22:11

Another highlight is Kate explicitly listing the Irish family as witnesses who saw a man carrying carryig a child. (p. 371)
Has she forgotten that the family, four months later, as they saw on TV Gerry McCann go down the stairs from the plane, carrying one of the twins, believed to have recognized him as the man they had seen on that night?

by anil39200 25.11.11 13:18

truthseeker wrote:Another highlight is Kate explicitly listing the Irish family as witnesses who saw a man carrying carryig a child. (p. 371)
Has she forgotten that the family, four months later, as they saw on TV Gerry McCann go down the stairs from the plane, carrying one of the twins, believed to have recognized him as the man they had seen on that night?

ah, but is she 60% or 80% sure they saw a man at all? I guess this is what someone meant when they said the story has evolved to fit the agenda---good marketing ploy

by Ollie 27.11.11 14:09

Kate and Gerry McCann while in Berlin receive a message from the British Police to go immediately to the British Embassy. The Spanish Police had received a phone call from someone called Walter by mobile phone that he had information about Madeleine but would only speak to Gerry or Kate. They are briefed, have two German kidnap specialists with them and others who ooze professionalism and experience.

"At 5pm local time, the Spanish police rang Walter. There was no answer." B****y typical!! I know it wasn't Kates intention but this made me laugh (I know, I am supposed to be constantly wiping away the tears while reading the bewk!).

by truthseeker 27.11.11 20:06

tigger wrote:
rainbow-fairy wrote:
Get 'em Gonçalo wrote:
During the conversation the mother told her that she did not understand why a couple had abducted her daughter.

How did she know a couple took Maddie?
I believe she said this for the same reason after four years telling the world they never went out searching for Maddie, in the book she now states 'as soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search'. Yes Kate dear, whatever. You know you only say that now because a couple (strangely resembling yourself and Gezza!) were spotted by a man driving a car - they were out and about in Luz VERY early and ducked into an alley when they spotted the car headlights. If anyone knows where this statement is from, could they post it, please?
I think Kate didn't mention this in the beginning as she was hedging her bets - not sure if they'd been spotted or not. Covered their as**s nicely, eh?
Deceitful pair of... (insert preferred name here)

This is not the George Burke sighting was it? It would make sense if they were seen in PdL, possibly near the flats that GA took an interest in. Or is they had to meet up with Murat for a briefing.

Here is what it says in the McCann files about the George Burke sighting:

A Briton, who runs a company in the Algarve, has told police he spotted a couple carrying a young child, early on Friday morning 04 May 2007.

George Burke, from Liverpool, was driving home from nearby Lagos around 6.00am when he caught the two people in his car headlights. "I couldn't see them clearly because it was dark and windy.

They scurried down a side road and out of sight."

The sighting was subsequently taken up by Metodo 3 and provided a lead story in many newspapers on 28 November 2007.

Except this time, the story was presented in a much more dramatic light with the child, now almost certainly Madeleine, being 'cruelly dragged along' by a 'vicious-looking man'.

However, nowhere in the quotes attributed to Mr Burke does he mention that the child was being 'cruelly dragged along the road' or does he use the phrase 'vicious-looking man'.

He says: "It was very, very dark and it was hard to make out exactly what the couple looked like.
But through the gloom I could see a very suspicious-looking man and woman, with a child who fitted Madeleine's description.Though there was nobody else on the road, they were hurrying across a road that leads straight to the train station and marina."

He adds (but only reported in The Sun): "They were trying to carry the kid without anyone seeing."