Second reading of the Book

I am now reading the book for the second time so I will not be scanning over things as I usually do. ( Thank you for the online copy fellow member)

Is anyone else reading it at the moment as I would like to exchange views on a few things and as most members on here have debated these to death I do not wish to bore anyone , however I am like a dog with a bone on this one and would appreciate new eyes also on it ... TY

tuom wrote:I am now reading the book for the second time so I will not be scanning over things as I usually do. ( Thank you for the online copy fellow member)

Is anyone else reading it at the moment as I would like to exchange views on a few things and as most members on here have debated these to death I do not wish to bore anyone , however I am like a dog with a bone on this one and would appreciate new eyes also on it ... TY

I for one would love to read your theories etc tuorm, and remember that there are new members here, apart from many visitors so please go ahead.

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-2180250/Kevin-Wells-book-Father-murdered-Soham-schoolgirl-Holly-coming-terms-death.html

Oh dear, I have every respect for the Wells family but I feel that their comments about the McCanns will reinforce the idea in tabloid readers' minds that both sets of parents are equally blameless in whatever happened to their daughters.

Jean wrote:Oh dear, I have every respect for the Wells family but I feel that their comments about the McCanns will reinforce the idea in tabloid readers' minds that both sets of parents are equally blameless in whatever happened to their daughters.

One of the many recorded instances of Gerry barely able to keep a straight face. The smirk is there for all to see, bereft father - no! Someone who is getting away with it - yes!

Pity they didn't field the Everton shirt photographs - people might wonder then why a three year old was a football fan.

The newspapers didn't breathe a word on Madeleine in the first article on the Soham case. Considering that Clarrie was involved in that I'd think it likely it slipped past him and this was a corrective measure to shoehorn the McCanns in. So Kate is ambassador, Gerry will be getting his kudos elsewhere out of the public eye and despite SY's fence-sitting, it's now allowed to surmise death. Coming from the mouth of people not likely to be sued and reported as such in a pro-McCann paper.

Quote from the article:

Despite many leads, Madeleine remains missing. As outsiders to this tragedy, we can only conclude with heavy hearts that there will not be a happy ending. Please do not think about criticising the McCann family.
unquote
IMO this has the Pink One's footprints all over it.
This is a corrective measure - I think it deserves a topic of its own - this is an official article by DM - allowing Madeleine to be dead. Not for a minute do I think that the red highlighted sentence was uttered by those parents.

The copy I borrowed has been back at my local library for months, but I have just remembered something I found strange.......Kate mentions more than once if I remember correcty that she is " not good" when she has not had food. Not an important issue at all, or is it?
Please direct where I can read book online !

russiandoll wrote:The copy I borrowed has been back at my local library for months, but I have just remembered something I found strange.......Kate mentions more than once if I remember correcty that she is " not good" when she has not had food. Not an important issue at all, or is it?
Please direct where I can read book online !

Didn't she mention somewhere (in an interview maybe) that she was annoyed with the PJ when she was taken in for questionning that she was not offered any food or drink, she was criticised heavily by many people on the forum that her daughter had gone missing and all she was worried about was not been given anything to eat - her way of covering up for her "me, me, me" attitude perhaps? She obviously reads all the criticisms and is now backtracking.

russiandoll wrote:The copy I borrowed has been back at my local library for months, but I have just remembered something I found strange.......Kate mentions more than once if I remember correcty that she is " not good" when she has not had food. Not an important issue at all, or is it?
Please direct where I can read book online !

RD I will post the quotes on the above , will need to poke around a bit to find them...

tuom wrote:

russiandoll wrote:The copy I borrowed has been back at my local library for months, but I have just remembered something I found strange.......Kate mentions more than once if I remember correcty that she is " not good" when she has not had food. Not an important issue at all, or is it?
Please direct where I can read book online !

RD I will post the quotes on the above , will need to poke around a bit to find them...

Hi tuom, take care re copyright we are being watched.

tuom wrote:

russiandoll wrote:The copy I borrowed has been back at my local library for months, but I have just remembered something I found strange.......Kate mentions more than once if I remember correcty that she is " not good" when she has not had food. Not an important issue at all, or is it?
Please direct where I can read book online !

RD I will post the quotes on the above , will need to poke around a bit to find them...

It’s hard to remember how I managed when I look back and picture myself buttering a piece of toast with one hand (I am very
bad at going without food), holding Madeleine in the other arm and never being able to answer the phone or even go to the
toilet unaccompanied.


[size=7][size=7]
During the second month, I craved high-fat foods. I don’t know how many text messages Gerry received begging him to get
me some chips on his way home. The thought of so much fat is quite repulsive to me normally but at the time my body was
telling me I needed it. Gerry and my friends will testify that any combination of the words ‘Kate’ and ‘hunger’ represents a kind
of emergency at the best of times, but at this stage of my pregnancy there seemed no limit to the amount of chips, sausage
rolls, pizzas and Mars bars my body cried out for.

The above are from the book RD , I am sure there are some more .
[/size][/size]

New poster here, but does anyone else find this account odd, it's when Kate was shown the video of Eddie the cadaver dog searching their apartment?

"At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site. The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not an exact science”.

Your daughter has been abducted, you believe/hope she is still alive, you watch a cadaver dog & blood hound 'alert' at the last place she was seen alive and you report that your reaction is to relax a little??

To my mind, fear, horror & dread would seem more of a normal reaction, particularly so if you were an innocent person being treated as a suspect. Why does Kate appear think she knew better than the dogs, that the dogs were not 'exact', if allegedly she knew nothing at all about what happened in the room when Madeleine was unattended?

Nina wrote:

tuom wrote:

russiandoll wrote:The copy I borrowed has been back at my local library for months, but I have just remembered something I found strange.......Kate mentions more than once if I remember correcty that she is " not good" when she has not had food. Not an important issue at all, or is it?
Please direct where I can read book online !

RD I will post the quotes on the above , will need to poke around a bit to find them...

Hi tuom, take care re copyright we are being watched.

Oh My !!! I bad I quote no more ..........

thanks tuom [ btw I thought it was ok to quote here, am curious as to why it is a problem, quoting from something in the public domain, I am curious about that one]
about the food issue...I knew there was something apart from the police station complaint. That in itself was strange to me as the statement was given after breakfast if I recall correctly. Presuming she had any appetite, she should not have needed food again until lunch, but I am amazed that the thought of food made her feel anything but sick given that her stomach was probably churning. So thanks for those 2 quotes..the words Kate and hunger equal emergency at the best of times... her friends will testify. Now is that not an interesting nugget...............does she have a short fuse if her blood sugar is low I wonder?
the other quote in the book of the truth.I am very bad at going without food. Now that is quite a statement imo. Not quite bad or bad.....but very bad, so extreme. I would like to know how this badness manifests itself.

from the Huffington Post
Is Hunger Making You Angry?
Ever wondered why you find it hard to keep your temper under control when you haven't eaten for a while?

According to researchers at Cambridge University, when the body starts to feel hungry, levels of the brain chemical serotonin, dip, causing a whirlwind of uncontrollable emotions including anxiety, stress and anger.

These fluctuating serotonin levels affect the brain regions that enable people to regulate anger, making us prone to aggression when hungry.

The findings were discovered after researchers altered the volunteers' diet, feeding them foods that affected the levels of serotonin, such as essential amino acid tryptophan, and then taking it away from their diet to monitor the change.

Their brain reactions were then scanned after they viewed angry, sad and neutral facial expressions. The results showed that those with low serotonin levels communicated with the amygdala (the system that controls emotion in the brain).

Because Kate McCann does not elaborate on how she is very bad when she goes without food, she leaves us room to speculate. She does not say she feels dizzy or faint, she says she is very bad. What does she mean?
Her book imo gives major clues about what happened to her child. Sometimes in what is said, other times what is left unsaid.

aquarius2 wrote:New poster here, but does anyone else find this account odd, it's when Kate was shown the video of Eddie the cadaver dog searching their apartment?

"At one point, the handler directed the dogs to a spot behind the couch in the sitting room, close to the curtains. He called the dogs over to him to investigate this particular site. The dogs ultimately ‘alerted’. I felt myself starting to relax a little. This was not an exact science”.

Your daughter has been abducted, you believe/hope she is still alive, you watch a cadaver dog & blood hound 'alert' at the last place she was seen alive and you report that your reaction is to relax a little??

To my mind, fear, horror & dread would seem more of a normal reaction, particularly so if you were an innocent person being treated as a suspect. Why does Kate appear think she knew better than the dogs, that the dogs were not 'exact', if allegedly she knew nothing at all about what happened in the room when Madeleine was unattended?

She relaxed, surmising doghandling not to be an exact science, but something else, an amateurish trick to be ridiculed by your lawyers.

That's why she is stressing that the handler directs the dogs. He calls them over to a particular site.

KH suggests his active participation in the search process inferring he actually wants them to search a particular site.

In other words: she wants us to believe that the so-called particular site is known to the handler beforehand. Also, that he knows that when he calls the dogs over to it, they will probably find something.

KH wants us to believe that the particular site has been prepared beforehand, that the handler is part of the cpmplot, and that as a comploteer he calls the dogs where other comploteers want them to alert. She discredits the dogs, which, in her view, do not find this site independent of their handler.

They have to be called, and directed before ultimately ' alerting' Ultimately: time and again they have to be called and directed before they ultimately 'alert'. Their barking is not a spontaneous reaction, but a very heavy birth: ULTIMATELY, God knows how many times the particular site had to be pointed out to them, how many times the film had to be re-started until the final cut. Final bark.

Bark: yes. Ultimately, they produced a bark.
But what is the meaning of such a bark? Happiness, elation, joy at pleasing (!) their handler. Were they awaiting a reward? Had they not had anything to eat that day and were they finally to be fed, barking at the appointed special site?

Who knows?

Who is to know for sure the dogs meant their barking as an alert? Does anyone in the audience speak Dog? Oh, come on!

And therefore, dear fellow sleuths, isn't KH perfectly justified to place alert between '...', minimizing it, demeaning it, ridiculing it, and breathing a sigh of relief having been told by her lawyers what their line of defence against the findings of the dogs would be?

The Bewk is, after all, if not written by, thans at least censored by, vetted by and finally given the go-ahead by these self same lawyers.

Someone called it the longest suicide note in history, someone else: a full and complete blueprint for their defence.

Time will tell.

If you see the whole video, it will be clear that the dogs are called over to places where they don't alert at all.

tigger wrote:If you see the whole video, it will be clear that the dogs are called over to places where they don't alert at all.

I know.

You know.

But not everyone reading the Bewk has seen the whole video.

I hadn't noted the emphasis the Kate McCann book statement had placed on the notion that the dogs had been "directed", but very fair point, she does seem to go out of her way to state this intellectual point (at the expense of achieving congruence in emotional affect).

The effectiveness of epilepsy "seizure dogs" has been challenged in the scientific literature on that very issue and of course the case of Clever Hans the "counting horse" who responded to his master's suggestions is in every Animal behaviour 101 course for psychology undergraduates. However, no one is more aware of these kind of arguments and potential failures in their method than dog handlers and training methods do try and minimise this risk. Nevertheless, cadaver dogs are not 100% reliable, their alerts are not beyond doubt (but whether they are beyond "Reasonable doubt is for a lawyer to show and a jury to assess). It should also be borne in mind that while every dog has a chance of being wrong, the chance of two dogs being wrong in the same location, at the same time, is considerably smaller. Additionally, while not claiming consistent 100% reliability, there is recent research evidence out there from the peer-reviewed literature which does rate cadaver dog 'alerts' very highly. See:

http://www.fsijournal.org/article/S0379-0738(07)00134-X/abstract

"The results of this study indicate that the well-trained cadaver dog is an outstanding tool for crime scene investigation displaying excellent sensitivity (75–100), specificity (91–100), and having a positive predictive value (90–100), negative predictive value (90–100) as well as accuracy (92–100)"

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_44/iss_2/JFSCH27405X.pdf

“Ten blind field tests were then conducted which simulated actual search conditions. Recovery rates ranged between 57% and 100%, indicating that properly trained the initial search, handlers were advised of the location of the cadaver dogs can make significant contributions in the location and recovery of scattered human remains”

http://library-resources.cqu.edu.au/JFS/PDF/vol_48/iss_3/JFS2002296_483.pdf

"The detection of human remains that have been deliberately buried to escape detection is a problem for law enforcement. Sometimes the cadaver dog and handler teams are successful, while other times law enforcement and cadaver dog teams are frustrated in their search. Five field trials tested the ability of four cadaver dog and handler teams to detect buried human remains. Human and animal remains were buried in various forested areas during the summer months near Tuscaloosa, Alabama. The remains ranged in decomposition from fresh to skeletonized. Cadaver dogs detected with varying success: buried human remains at different stages of decomposition, buried human remains at different depths, and buried decomposed human and animal remains. The results from these trials showed that some cadaver dogs were able to locate skeletonized remains buried at a significant depth. Fresh and skeletonized remains were found equally by the cadaver dogs along with some caveats. Dog handlers affected the reliability of the cadaver dog results. Observations and videotape of the cadaver dogs during field trials showed that they were reliable in finding buried human remains."

Human eyewitness statements (pretty much the only support for the abduction theories) are the sort of thing we, as humans have a tendency to believe, especially if authoratively framed in an emotive atmosphere (like law court) but as any psychologist will tell you, they are notoriously unreliable even without the presence of active deception.

I wouldn't bet my life (or anyone else's life) but If I had to place a bet, I'd bet on the dogs.

Does anyone know which order the dogs were sent in? The reason I ask is that traces of blood could probably found in most houses; which of us hasn't cut ourselves sometime or other, or had nosebleeds (as Madeleine was supposed to have done), so on its own, an alert by a blood dog may not be all that significant. However, if this is then backed up by a cadaver dog, it puts a different complexion on it.

I'd like to ask the mccanns why was Maddie having nosebleeds on the floor 'behind' the sofa??

jd wrote:I'd like to ask the mccanns why was Maddie having nosebleeds on the floor 'behind' the sofa??

Of sufficient severity that the blood seeped between the grouting and under the tiles.

http://ricardopaivakatesfingtosser.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/mccann-ricardo-paivo-mccanns-curious.html

You'll have to read on a bit to see where the suggestion of a nosebleed first appears - v. interestingin view of the fact that Gerry could not say whether she had a nosebleed as it depended on what would appear in the press....

Nina wrote:

jd wrote:I'd like to ask the mccanns why was Maddie having nosebleeds on the floor 'behind' the sofa??

Of sufficient severity that the blood seeped between the grouting and under the tiles.

Which falls within the laws of physics of a head bump directly onto the floor tiles

tigger wrote:http://ricardopaivakatesfingtosser.blogspot.com.es/2012/05/mccann-ricardo-paivo-mccanns-curious.html

You'll have to read on a bit to see where the suggestion of a nosebleed first appears - v. interestingin view of the fact that Gerry could not say whether she had a nosebleed as it depended on what would appear in the press....

Reading the articles and links goes into the drugs sedation of Maddie and the twins. Two things:

1. If the abductor drugged them then he would have had to have done his deed & for the drugs to take effect within a 5/10 minutes time frame. From 'after' gerry mccann leaving the apartment and meeting Jez Wilkins outside on his 9.05 check. Absolutely preposterous of any time for the drugs to take any sort of effect in such a short space of time. Ridiculous

2. Nobody seems to mention Maddie or twins being sedated in their initial statements. Diane Webster first mentions it in her RI a year later in April 2008!! (after the brian kennedy meeting). Given the opportunity, gerry mccann says nothing about it in his police statement on May 4th 2007...."He adds that his daughter is not suffering from any illness or take any medication."....gerry mccann obviously would have known about it then when giving this statement

On his May 10th statement gerry mccann says "He followed the normal route up to the rear door, which being open he only had to move [slide] it, that being the way in which he entered [was entering] the lounge, he noted that the children's bedroom door was not ajar as he had left it but half-way open, which he thought strange, having then put together the thought of MADELEINE having got up to go to sleep in his bedroom so as to avoid the noise produced [created] by her siblings. ".....She can't have been sedated then gerry! You are a doctor, why did not say anything at the time and not until months later about such a vital piece of information of your children being drugged by an abductor??....only suddenly remember this when you are under the cloud of suspicion yourself is when you remember!!

Reading the Paynes & Webster original statements, they too do not mention the twins being sedated. Its interesting because a year later in April 2008 they are full of it when the twins were brought back to their apartment, but at the time in May 2007 not a mention about the abductor giving them drugs

Diane Webster 11th May 2007 "Regarding the bedroom previously occupied by Madeleine, she does not remember if the lights were lit, but knows that when she entered the twins were still sleeping in their beds, which makes her think that maybe those lights were switched off. She added that, for her to see the twins and their cradles, and the bed of MADELEINE, the darkness would not be complete, but that the room had some coming from the light of the lounge.".....So its the dark room which makes her think they were asleep, not being drugged by an abductor

Fiona Payne 4th May 2007 "She knew Madeleine well and describes her as very intelligent and she would not go with stranger without screaming or protesting unless she was very tired or sleeping."...Again the opportunity is right there to say something but she says nothing