Yes you are wrong Angelo - the word she used was ''devastated'' not 'disgusted'.
I think it was unfortunate that the PJ did not make it clear that they were being asked to return to look at a picture of a child who might be Madeleine - especially as there doesn't appear to be any reason why they should not have been told.
Even if it was unintentional - it was an example of gross insensitivity IMO - due in part to the lack of any 'official procedure' being in place at the time for the PJ to follow and ( I presume) no officers with specific training in this area to advise them. I sincerely hope that has changed for the better over the last 10 years.
It is certainly used as a further example to portray the PJ in a negative light, one which did not act in a manner deemed fit by Kate. The focus of this passage yet again seems to be Kate and Gerry suffering, not Madeleine.
From the totality of the supporter comments there is still a distinct aroma of things would have been different if it had happened in the UK, IMO.
The reality of the event is simple. There are two sources for 200kph/125mph. These speeds, or even 120kph, on the N125 are fatal. These speeds, on the A22 are not life threatening.
On the 4th May, to expect Kate to be emotionally stable is unrealistic. To expect Kate to interested in an opportunity to progress the case is realistic. Yet it got portrayed as PJ bashing, just one of many such examples in her book.
Therein lies the point. Supporters are doing the 'poor Kate' bit, and asking that others accept that which Kate wrote as entirely true. Evaluation of the facts shows that something in Kate's account has to give way. Anyone swallowing it whole is less than fully interested in the truth.
Kate's book has numerous instances where Kate's claims do not match reality. I have yet to find one which is not portrayed as favourable to Kate. And that is why I consider the book has a large slab of McCann PR in it, and should be treated accordingly.
Anything less critical is doing Madeleine no favours. IMO
