Re: One of the best sighting yet. - Maddie seen in the U.S. - Sun 3/6/13

by bobbin 09.06.13 14:32

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:Thanks for that PM.

I'd forgotten that the reference to singing Pussycat Dolls songs was at the same time.

A reminder of one of their hits.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YNSxNsr4wmA

And just a few photos of the pussycat dolls. For the little 4 year olds to put on their bedroom walls.....aaaaaaaaah.... whatever happened to colouring in, oh I remember, that book was torn up to write the two versions of the 5A visits on. Madeleine stood no chance against her dream-head mother.
http://www.google.fr/search?q=pussycat+dolls+2007&client=firefox-a&hs=S4g&rls=org.mozilla:en-US:official&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ei=AIK0UdSFOYaN7AaJ-oGoDQ&ved=0CDgQsAQ&biw=1280&bih=666

by Guest 09.06.13 14:56

The story might be simply the product of Kate's imagination, along with her telling of events that supposedly happened in PDL.

The Carter-Ruck drones missed the opportunity to remove it when they were checking the contents of the book but I guess that, if page 129 was considered okay, their standards are on a level with Kate's!

The McCanns must surely be falling about laughing, knowing that their inappropriate comments and photos of their daughter have been accepted without question, other than by we vile trolls of course.

by Liz Eagles 09.06.13 15:10

No Fate Worse Than De'Ath wrote:The story might be simply the product of Kate's imagination, along with her telling of events that supposedly happened in PDL.

The Carter-Ruck drones missed the opportunity to remove it when they were checking the contents of the book but I guess that, if page 129 was considered okay, their standards are on a level with Kate's!

The McCanns must surely be falling about laughing, knowing that their inappropriate comments and photos of their daughter have been accepted without question, other than by we vile trolls of course.

Didn't Isabel Martorell say in court she hadn't read Kate's book?

by **PeterMac** 09.06.13 16:05

aquila wrote:Didn't Isabel Martorell say in court she hadn't read Kate's book?

She did. But unfortunately for her Kate included this in the book

Not only had I never expected to get to know so many lawyers, I didn’t expect to like quite so many of them. Ed Smethurst, Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson [now Matorell] and Isabel Duarte in particular have laboured faithfully out of the goodness of their hearts, on Madeleine’s behalf and ours, regardless of the day or the hour. Their priceless expertise and commitment has extended to the completion of this book.

It may, of course, be technically and legally correct, in that she did not pick up a copy and read every single word in it, but whether a jury would believe that having worked on the case for 5 years, or even longer, she would not have glanced at the important parts of book and be broadly aware of its contents is entirely another matter. But then she did also admit that the stuff about an "abduction" was based on uncorroborated hearsay and no more, so let us take the charitable view and say perhaps it was just incompetence.

by Snifferdog 09.06.13 18:58

PeterMac wrote:
aquila wrote:Didn't Isabel Martorell say in court she hadn't read Kate's book?
She did. But unfortunately for her Kate included this in the book
Not only had I never expected to get to know so many lawyers, I didn’t expect to like quite so many of them. Ed Smethurst, Adam Tudor, Isabel Hudson [now Matorell] and Isabel Duarte in particular have laboured faithfully out of the goodness of their hearts, on Madeleine’s behalf and ours, regardless of the day or the hour. Their priceless expertise and commitment has extended to the completion of this book.
It may, of course, be technically and legally correct, in that she did not pick up a copy and read every single word in it, but whether a jury would believe that having worked on the case for 5 years, or even longer, she would not have glanced at the important parts of book and be broadly aware of its contents is entirely another matter. But then she did also admit that the stuff about an "abduction" was based on uncorroborated hearsay and no more, so let us take the charitable view and say perhaps it was just incompetence.

Nah she should be charged with perjury. IMO Isabel M lied. I cannot believe that she did not read the book from cover to cover. Surely she needed to know what was written in it to cover all possible bases even if Kate lied about the editing.

by **PeterMac** 09.06.13 22:23

Snifferdog wrote:Nah she should be charged with perjury. IMO Isabel M lied. I cannot believe that she did not read the book from cover to cover. Surely she needed to know what was written in it to cover all possible bases even if Kate lied about the editing.

No. Please let us all be charitable and say it may be professional incompetence. Then she herself can decide which way she wants to go.
We know the firm Carter-Ruck are apologists for abandoning children five nights in a row, we know they advocate leaving apartments unlocked, we know they blindly follow the instructions of their esteemed clients in many ways without troubling themselves with the problems of evidence - so long as the money continues to flow in -

One day, perhaps soon, DV, Mrs Matorell may become a mother.
I wonder if her professional antennae will begin to twitch is a different direction then?

That will be an interesting one. Will Mrs M leave her new born child alone in unlocked apartment , night after night, crying . . .
And if not, WHY NOT ?

by sheila.edwards 15.06.13 20:17

yes why not mrs martorell !

Latest topics