Kate McCann London Marathon interview and abuse on internet on Daybreak 17/4/13

It's good that she says something should be done about the internet trolls...that must include the likes of muratfan then as he's the worst of the lot.

Now then, now then, it doesn't work that way for vile trolls who support the McCanns!

Just back to the McMetre.

Later, a member of the group, Russell's partner Jane, when she went to her apartment to see her children at around 9.15pm, saw from the back [rear] about 50 metres away, on the perimeter road of the club, a long-haired person, in what she thinks were jeans, with a child in his arms and walking very quickly. But she is better able to tell you about that herself.

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/KATE-MCCANN.htm

it is "EMPHASISED" that one of the members of the group, Jane, at about 21.10 - 21.15 when she was going to her apartment to check on her children, she saw from the back, at a distance of about 50 metres, on the road bordering the club, an individual carrying a child, wearing pyjamas, Jane will be able to clarify this situation.[/size]

http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/GERRY-MCCANN.htm


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_38.jpg

"cerca de cinquenta metros"

SIGNED BY GERRY MCCANN AS A TRUE STATEMENT


http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/P1/01_VOLUME_Ia_Page_62.jpg

"cerca de cinquenta metros"

INITIALED BY KATE MCCANN AS A TRUE STATEMENT

50
Cardinal Cinquenta
50
(cinquenta, L) é um número natural

Could anybody tell me how far DOWN the street from the top 'junction', where JT saw bundleman, is the Ocean Club entrance?
Is it about 50 metres?
If it's LESS then JT went DOWN the street when she came out of the OC, to get to her 50 mcmetre sighting,as supplied by G&K, then about turned to walk UP to the junction, sneaking passed JW/GM without them seeing her.

From 50 meters away - in the dark unless there was a spotlight or very bright light on the 'abductor' - one can see a person but not much detail at all, certainly in that light one cannot see colour very well but no detail as to pattern.
From that distance it is absolutely impossible to identify anyone clearly - it's about 160 feet!

It should be fairly easy to determine the distance from a good map of the Ocean Club and PdL.

PeterMac wrote:Thanks hiDeHo

A couple of comments
Fast delivery, with almost no hesitation. Very few errrs, umms, y'kno's,
So when she is talking about herself and her future and raising money she is articulate.
When she is asked about Madeleine and the events in PdL, she is not. Why ?

Still the strange gurning, pulling her mouth around and tossing the head back, and from time to time a squeaky voice.

For me, again she looks seedy there. She did not maintain eyes-contact with her interviewers.
She was doing all those things you listed in a squeaky voice while bobbing her head up and down (down mostly) during initial bits of her answers and only looked at the interviewers from time to time,mid way through every answer, to avoid being too dodgy.
In every interview it is the same pattern - neither Mr or Mrs is able to maintain genuine or comfortable level of eyes contact with their interviewers.

Maybe that is a plus point to them that they dare not maintain a steady level of eyes contact with their interviewers knowing they were lying through as many teeth in their mouth.

Nina wrote:

PeterMac wrote:HiDeHo has put it up.
https://www.youtube.com/watch?feature=player_embedded&v=UaPqeSwCYjM

Many, many thanks.

'How are the children?
'They are fine, they are eight now, so her children are eight now are they, what about the one who is to be ten shortly? Doesn't she count, nah, thought not.

She didnt even mention Madeleine.
You would have expected her to break down when asked about her children because Maddie is one of them too, and would have been 10.........and should have been with her .........

candyfloss wrote:



Tomorrow (Friday) front page

Now that is taking the biscuit. Next they would be demanding round the clock police protection for the twins.

Op grange better hurry up and get the charges over with, or the mcporkies are going to cost the taxpayers plenty more money.

tigger wrote:From 50 meters away - in the dark unless there was a spotlight or very bright light on the 'abductor' - one can see a person but not much detail at all, certainly in that light one cannot see colour very well but no detail as to pattern.
From that distance it is absolutely impossible to identify anyone clearly - it's about 160 feet!
It should be fairly easy to determine the distance from a good map of the Ocean Club and PdL.

go to google maps and blow it up so that the bottom scale is 20m, or even 10m. It is still a useable image.
It is 50 metres from the ENTRANCE to the tapas bar / pool complex. and so called reception, to the top of the road
It is 25 metres from the bottom of the steps and the little gate of 5A to the top of the road.

aiyoyo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:



Tomorrow (Friday) front page

Now that is taking the biscuit. Next they would be demanding round the clock police protection for the twins.

Op grange better hurry up and get the charges over with, or the mcporkies are going to cost the taxpayers plenty more money.

Sorry to correct you Ayoio, but some might consider it necessary not to have the twins go on the Internet and find out. So what do you do? You invent trolls and non-existing death threats. An perhaps a Thought Police to bar them from the access to the Internet?

So now the focus has shifted to the twins. Meanwhile I found this:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1561428/McCanns-frustrated-over-Madeleine-inquiry.html

"While in Britain at the weekend Mr McCann offered his sympathy to the parents of 11-year-old Rhys Jones, who was killed in Liverpool last week.
"Kate and I were incredibly shocked to hear of the news," he said. "It is a terrible waste of a young life. They, of course, have our sympathy.
"Both sets of parents are in the middle of terrible traumas. They, however, will have closure. We don't."

A curious use of grammar 'will have' related to 'we don't'. Might it be that GM meant 'we won't?'

Because public closure would mean the truth is out and that must never happen? So public closure is out of the question for the McCanns. Forever.

The only option is to shift focus - don't mention the war Maddie and put the spotlight on yet another bunch of mythical creepy, hairy monsters.
But the twins aren't afraid of monsters - aged about six they were told by their parents a monster took their sister, terrific bedtime story Drs. McCann!

aiyoyo wrote:

candyfloss wrote:



Tomorrow (Friday) front page

Now that is taking the biscuit. Next they would be demanding round the clock police protection for the twins.

Op grange better hurry up and get the charges over with, or the mcporkies are going to cost the taxpayers plenty more money.

I think kate mccann is a danger to the twins,what ever must she filling thier little heads up with. Not good.not good at all

[youtube][/youtube]



Kate McCann: 'Press a button, and we're all gone, and it's all finished, and we're all together and gone......whatever

PeterMac wrote:

tigger wrote:From 50 meters away - in the dark unless there was a spotlight or very bright light on the 'abductor' - one can see a person but not much detail at all, certainly in that light one cannot see colour very well but no detail as to pattern.
From that distance it is absolutely impossible to identify anyone clearly - it's about 160 feet!
It should be fairly easy to determine the distance from a good map of the Ocean Club and PdL.

go to google maps and blow it up so that the bottom scale is 20m, or even 10m. It is still a useable image.
It is 50 metres from the ENTRANCE to the tapas bar / pool complex. and so called reception, to the top of the road
It is 25 metres from the bottom of the steps and the little gate of 5A to the top of the road.

So, according to McCann statements Jane Tanner saw the 'abductor' the very moment she stepped into the street from the Ocean Club entrance and looked left up the street.(50 McMETRES)
So the 'abductor' kindly STOPPED/PAUSED 'crossing the road' and WAITED until Jane had passed GM/JW chatting away outside the gate of 5A (25 McMetres) from OC entrance and waited and waited until Jane was just 10-15 FEET (3-5 McMetres) away from him and could see him clearly before he continued across the road.?
Searching for Madeleine - Radio 4, 24 April 2008

By Steve Kingstone
24 April 2008
(Archive clip Jane Tanner) "Well as I was
walking up the road, this man was walking across the top of the road. Probably
about 10 or 15 feet, I was a reasonable distance away from them, and that person
was carrying a child I could tell it was a child, and I could see the feet, the
feet and the bottom of the pyjamas. The pyjamas had a pinky aspect to them, so
you would presume a girl.

OK. Thankyou. that is as clear as mud! lol.

I gritted my teeth and watched the vid. Kelly is trying to lionise this woman imo. " You will do it, you will, you have always been strong" yeah yeah yeah.

Mrs. says - Cowards who hide behind computers. She and her friends always seem to be name calling, cowards, nutters, eerrrr remind us please who are the child neglectors who put their own needs first. By their own admission. JOG ON JUST JOG ON.

Damage to her achilles tendon. Well doesn't that make her look like the "hero" who will carry on at all costs.

Please woman, JOG ON and take Kelly with you. Oh forgot Kelly can't do the marathon this year cos the wee beautiful woman (Kelly says this about celebs guests lol) fell off a horse and damaged her leg. Inuries, injuries, but never mind they are bwave and stwong and will carry on. P EERR LEASE let it stop. aggghhh.

JOG ON, JOG ON.

Kate McCann hit by vile web ‘trolls’ over marathon run

KATE McCann revealed yesterday she has received sickening internet abuse as she prepares to run the London Marathon.

By: David PilditchPublished: Fri, April 19, 2013
0Comments
Kate McCann talks about the London Marathon on ITV

Kate – whose daughter Madeleine went missing in Portugal six years ago – spoke out ahead of Sunday’s race. In one incident last month police investigated after an internet “troll” threatened to gun her down during the gruelling event.

Police traced the Facebook abuser and issued a warning.

It comes as Scotland Yard stepped up security for the race in the wake of the Boston Marathon bombing.

Other abuse has repeatedly been targeted at Kate and cardiologist husband Gerry.

Kate, who is also mother to eight-year-old twins Sean and Amelie, told ITV’s Daybreak programme: “We have obviously had a lot of abuse over the last six years, so in some ways it’s nothing new.”

She added: “It is internet abuse and we both feel very strongly that more should be done about internet abuse.
She is supposed to be searching for Maddie, not searching the internet for trolls? Her priority is all wrong?


“People wouldn’t get away with behaving like that on the street and yet they feel like they can hide behind a computer at home.”

Again, if she herself wasn't hiding behind a PC at home trolling fora, how did she come across internet abuse? If she is not proactive or interactive with the trolls why should it bother her?

Kate, 45, added: “Sometimes I just think they’re cowards and I think I’m not even going to go there, then I think about my children. I think it’s not right that they should come across stuff like that as well.”

Kate will be cheered on by her children, family and friends when she takes part in the 26.2 mile race to raise money for the charity Missing People.

[color=blue] Desmond must be having a good laugh.
Does it mean the twins will be there to cheer her on? Despite the death threat ? [color]

Madeleine McCann vanished six years ago in Portugal

People wouldn’t get away with behaving like that on the street and yet they feel like they can hide behind a computer at home
Kate McCann
The race takes place 12 days before the sixth anniversary of Madeleine’s disappearance from a holiday villa in Praia Da Luz in Portugal’s Algarve.

Kate told how the Boston bombing had raised concerns but vowed she would go ahead with the race.

She said: “I think the sensible thing is to go. We know security will be good. We can’t live in fear.”

saintly kate? I bet she thinks she's Mother Teresa incarnate.

Earlier this week Kate spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void” without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight.

Snipped from Aiyoyo's post:

"
Earlier this week Kate
spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void”
without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight. "

and don't forget she is now able to smile for the first time in six years!!! Say WHAT. I really cannot believe what I read at times.

Forget to mention, that article is accompanied by a pic of a laughing kate.
Maybe someone who is good at posting up pics would be kind enough to post it up alongside with the other Amsterdam's bewk signing pic. Funny why she did not protest to Desmond about taking down the pic?

Hi I dont know hwere to post my questions so please bear with me? What has happened to Blacksmith and when will the Libel trial begin?

aiyoyo wrote:Forget to mention, that article is accompanied by a pic of a laughing kate.
Maybe someone who is good at posting up pics would be kind enough to post it up alongside with the other Amsterdam's bewk signing pic. Funny why she did not protest to Desmond about taking down the pic?

See 'it must be book time again', thread

[quote="plebgate"]Snipped from Aiyoyo's post:

"
Earlier this week Kate
spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void”
without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight. "

and don't forget she is now able to smile for the first time in six years!!! Say WHAT. I really cannot believe what I read at times.[/quote

Not quite the same as the agony depicted on p129 of her book. She wrote that....and can forgive?
Let me get this straight, a man who has harmed Maddie in a brutal way [ " whatever the circumstances" your words Kate...] can be forgiven.
A man who has harmed only the search for her, has not harmed a hair on her head........he can't be forgiven?

You have one bizarre moral compass Kate.

[quote="russiandoll"]

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Aiyoyo's post:

"
Earlier this week Kate
spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void”
without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight. "

and don't forget she is now able to smile for the first time in six years!!! Say WHAT. I really cannot believe what I read at times.[/quote

Not quite the same as the agony depicted on p129 of her book. She wrote that....and can forgive?
Let me get this straight, a man who has harmed Maddie in a brutal way [ " whatever the circumstances" your words Kate...] can be forgiven.
A man who has harmed only the search for her, has not harmed a hair on her head........he can't be forgiven?

You have one bizarre moral compass Kate.

... and at first glance I thought the 'void' she was referring to was GM.

[quote="T4two"]

russiandoll wrote:

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Aiyoyo's post:

"
Earlier this week Kate
spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void”
without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight. "

and don't forget she is now able to smile for the first time in six years!!! Say WHAT. I really cannot believe what I read at times.[/quote

Not quite the same as the agony depicted on p129 of her book. She wrote that....and can forgive?
Let me get this straight, a man who has harmed Maddie in a brutal way [ " whatever the circumstances" your words Kate...] can be forgiven.
A man who has harmed only the search for her, has not harmed a hair on her head........he can't be forgiven?

You have one bizarre moral compass Kate.

... and at first glance I thought the 'void' she was referring to was GM.

She didn't say that did she? 'forget Maddie's plight.????' Tell me it isn't true! Please..

[quote="T4two"]

russiandoll wrote:

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Aiyoyo's post:

"
Earlier this week Kate
spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void”
without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight. "

and don't forget she is now able to smile for the first time in six years!!! Say WHAT. I really cannot believe what I read at times.[/quote

Not quite the same as the agony depicted on p129 of her book. She wrote that....and can forgive?
Let me get this straight, a man who has harmed Maddie in a brutal way [ " whatever the circumstances" your words Kate...] can be forgiven.
A man who has harmed only the search for her, has not harmed a hair on her head........he can't be forgiven?

You have one bizarre moral compass Kate.

... and at first glance I thought the 'void' she was referring to was GM.

Must be, hence the agony, as it must be agony to live with an arrogant twat. That said, kate is no better.
If Gerry is a void to her; what is she to Gerry - a waste of space perhaps!
They deserve each other. They are a match made in hell.

[quote="tigger"]

T4two wrote:

russiandoll wrote:

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Aiyoyo's post:

"
Earlier this week Kate
spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void”
without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight. "

and don't forget she is now able to smile for the first time in six years!!! Say WHAT. I really cannot believe what I read at times.[/quote

Not quite the same as the agony depicted on p129 of her book. She wrote that....and can forgive?
Let me get this straight, a man who has harmed Maddie in a brutal way [ " whatever the circumstances" your words Kate...] can be forgiven.
A man who has harmed only the search for her, has not harmed a hair on her head........he can't be forgiven?

You have one bizarre moral compass Kate.

... and at first glance I thought the 'void' she was referring to was GM.

She didn't say that did she? 'forget Maddie's plight.????' Tell me it isn't true! Please..

Come on Tigger, if saint kate isn't prepared to forget Maddie's plight, how come she can forgive the man who snatched her for no other reason than to satisfy his sexual gratification, therefore logic dictates Forgive & Forget goes hand in hand in this instance. When kate forgives Maddie's snatcher she's prepared to forget Maddie's plight.

That's why it is such a thoughtless, insensitive, and disrespectful to Maddie thing to say she prays for Maddie's snatcher and forgives him. It does not make sense no matter how one tries to rationalise it. When your child is still missing, and you live in a void not knowing the fate she is suffering, there is no way in a zillion years you are going to forgive her perp; not UNLESS you already knew she's dead, and you are thus forgiving a non-existence abductor.

There is no way to reconcile Kate's indifference to Maddie's plight (frigid to Maddie) and her forgiveness of Maddie's snatcher (warmness to the abductor). Unless, Kate suffers from a delusional disorder largely ( I suspect) caused by abuse of substance; that, or she's suffering from a manic state of bipolar disorder, then that might explain her bizzare behavior.

If Kate harms those twins in any way- be it physically or mentally- the likes of Lorraine Kelly will have to bear some responsibility for not heeding the alarming warning signs.

is is only me, or does it read as if the twins have been threatened by trolls?
I have never read anything where someone threatens these children. Why would Kate think anyone would want to harm them? Have I misunderstood?

worriedmum wrote:is is only me, or does it read as if the twins have been threatened by trolls?
I have never read anything where someone threatens these children. Why would Kate think anyone would want to harm them? Have I misunderstood?

The threat to the twins is something in kate's head, something she imagines .............
That mcstick woman is sick and desperately needs medical attention. She should be in an asylum for the safety of the twins.

[quote="aiyoyo"]

tigger wrote:

T4two wrote:

russiandoll wrote:

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Aiyoyo's post:

"
Earlier this week Kate
spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void”
without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight. "

and don't forget she is now able to smile for the first time in six years!!! Say WHAT. I really cannot believe what I read at times.[/quote

Not quite the same as the agony depicted on p129 of her book. She wrote that....and can forgive?
Let me get this straight, a man who has harmed Maddie in a brutal way [ " whatever the circumstances" your words Kate...] can be forgiven.
A man who has harmed only the search for her, has not harmed a hair on her head........he can't be forgiven?

You have one bizarre moral compass Kate.

... and at first glance I thought the 'void' she was referring to was GM.

She didn't say that did she? 'forget Maddie's plight.????' Tell me it isn't true! Please..

Come on Tigger, if saint kate isn't prepared to forget Maddie's plight, how come she can forgive the man who snatched her for no other reason than to satisfy his sexual gratification, therefore logic dictates Forgive & Forget goes hand in hand in this instance. When kate forgives Maddie's snatcher she's prepared to forget Maddie's plight.

That's why it is such a thoughtless, insensitive, and disrespectful to Maddie thing to say she prays for Maddie's snatcher and forgives him. It does not make sense no matter how one tries to rationalise it. When your child is still missing, and you live in a void not knowing the fate she is suffering, there is no way in a zillion years you are going to forgive her perp; not UNLESS you already knew she's dead, and you are thus forgiving a non-existence abductor.

There is no way to reconcile Kate's indifference to Maddie's plight (frigid to Maddie) and her forgiveness of Maddie's snatcher (warmness to the abductor). Unless, Kate suffers from a delusional disorder largely ( I suspect) caused by abuse of substance; that, or she's suffering from a manic state of bipolar disorder, then that might explain her bizzare behavior.

I just thought I'd missed it, of course it's implied. Then there is Maddie 'with her fear of pain' which is changed in the book to 'fear and pain' - too late. So forgive the vile paedo, he can't help himself? Maddie - imprisoned like Kampush as was said to be possible by you and Gerry - with her fear of pain and her little body abused? Forgive? I'd kill the guy - if that were my child I really would. I know that 100% sure. I'm pretty sure I'd get help too.

When I see Kate talk about internet trolling and the effect it will have on the twins it evokes two emotions.

The first is total agreement, because whatever feelings the McCann case generates in the minds of the observer, I think we are all united in NOT wishing any additional stress to these two poor children, who lets face it, have lived the last six years in the shadow of their sisters disappearance. It must be quite hard on young children growing up feeling that some evil man has stolen their sister, they must be pretty fearful of the world. Whatever the public think of the parents, no child deserves this as a backdrop to their childhood, I doubt anyone would disagree with this sentiment.

The second emotion that it evokes for me if sheer frustration. The reason this case is pored over and discussed ad nauseum all these years later is the simple fact that certain key points don't add up from what is available in the public domain - the witness statements, cadaver dogs, lack of evidence of an abduction and all the numerous things which we all know and which don't need to be listed here.
The McCanns need to acknowledge the information that is out there for public consumption and also acknowledge that had the matters been thoroughly and credibly explained all those years ago, there would not be the level of discussion today. It is obvious that they or those associated with them trawl the net in order to find the so-called trolls in the first place. Why do this? If you don't like what you are finding, don't make the conscious choice to seek it out and read it. Simple. It is very obvious that the questions being asked will continue to be asked and discussed until the matter is adequately settled. Simply brushing off the inconsistencies and the video of the Cadavar dogs as absurd is simply not good enough. One cannot simply sweep these things away because they are inconvenient, they are there in police files and form a significant part of the investigation. The vitriol levelled at the McCanns is a direct result of a stubborn refusal to air these matters. They are there, they exist, they fill thousands of pages. Apart from Jane Tanners really rather dubious and unreliable statements (the variants of her "sighting" are there as public record, from her own mouth), the evidence for the abductor is pitiful thin on the ground, if any exists at all.

So I would urge the McCanns, if you REALLY want to protect the twins from emotional harm resulting from internet content, then it really is time to acknowledge publicly, that the material available in the PJ files, their own interviews and the many recent successes of cadaver dogs in securing murder convictions, (Pilley, Prout et al) DOES leave plenty of scope for speculation and discussion, that there ARE serious inconsistencies across the board. Like it or not, I am afraid the internet discussion WILL continue until these issues are adequately settled. People are still discussing cases from over a hundred years ago. While there are loose ends, there will be theory and discussion.

Simply using broad brushstrokes to condemn those who doubt or are frustrated by the McCanns lack of public acknowledgement of the inconsistencies is a sure fire way to ensure that the internet discussion continues indefinitely. If they truly want it to stop, to protect their children, then they really must start to take a more intelligent approach and answer the unanswered questions thoroughly and truthfully. Stopping the "trolling" is in their own hands, if they can take a more intelligent approach.

[quote="tigger"]

aiyoyo wrote:

tigger wrote:

T4two wrote:

russiandoll wrote:

plebgate wrote:Snipped from Aiyoyo's post:

"
Earlier this week Kate
spoke movingly of the continuing agony of “living with this void”
without Madeleine, whose 10th birthday is on May 12.

Despite the agony, she was willing to forgive the snatcher and forget Maddie's plight. "

and don't forget she is now able to smile for the first time in six years!!! Say WHAT. I really cannot believe what I read at times.[/quote

Not quite the same as the agony depicted on p129 of her book. She wrote that....and can forgive?
Let me get this straight, a man who has harmed Maddie in a brutal way [ " whatever the circumstances" your words Kate...] can be forgiven.
A man who has harmed only the search for her, has not harmed a hair on her head........he can't be forgiven?

You have one bizarre moral compass Kate.

... and at first glance I thought the 'void' she was referring to was GM.

She didn't say that did she? 'forget Maddie's plight.????' Tell me it isn't true! Please..

Come on Tigger, if saint kate isn't prepared to forget Maddie's plight, how come she can forgive the man who snatched her for no other reason than to satisfy his sexual gratification, therefore logic dictates Forgive & Forget goes hand in hand in this instance. When kate forgives Maddie's snatcher she's prepared to forget Maddie's plight.

That's why it is such a thoughtless, insensitive, and disrespectful to Maddie thing to say she prays for Maddie's snatcher and forgives him. It does not make sense no matter how one tries to rationalise it. When your child is still missing, and you live in a void not knowing the fate she is suffering, there is no way in a zillion years you are going to forgive her perp; not UNLESS you already knew she's dead, and you are thus forgiving a non-existence abductor.

There is no way to reconcile Kate's indifference to Maddie's plight (frigid to Maddie) and her forgiveness of Maddie's snatcher (warmness to the abductor). Unless, Kate suffers from a delusional disorder largely ( I suspect) caused by abuse of substance; that, or she's suffering from a manic state of bipolar disorder, then that might explain her bizzare behavior.

I just thought I'd missed it, of course it's implied. Then there is Maddie 'with her fear of pain' which is changed in the book to 'fear and pain' - too late. So forgive the vile paedo, he can't help himself? Maddie - imprisoned like Kampush as was said to be possible by you and Gerry - with her fear of pain and her little body abused? Forgive? I'd kill the guy - if that were my child I really would. I know that 100% sure. I'm pretty sure I'd get help too.

If that were my child, I'd kill the guy, pluck out his eyes, and cut off his balls, then fed them to pigs.
Forgive the vile sicko? No way hosey, not even after I've killed him.

What kate said is not normal, not in the circumstances. She is mentally ill and needs help.