KM's Paperback (PB)

[Erngath]

I'm right.
I'm not sure I have the constitution to read some self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, Janet and John / Mills and Boon, semi-fictional, ghost-written, charity shop two-bob tat account.

Wow!
You should do book reviews on Amazon.
Many do so and  also without reading the book.

[Mr Gray]

I'm right.
I'm not sure I have the constitution to read some self-aggrandising, self-indulgent, Janet and John / Mills and Boon, semi-fictional, ghost-written, charity shop two-bob tat account.

It's only two lines... But I agree.. Life's too short to bother

[G-Unit]

'Always found'. So why bother searching initially then? Who automatically jumps to abduction in that moment? Who's 'nutty' now?

According to Kate she, as opposed to the PJ, had the intelligence required to work out what happened.

Reasons to reject woke and wandered.

1. Jane Tanner's sighting.
2. The open window and shutters, which Madeleine couldn't have managed.
3. The patio doors, child gate and garden gate being closed.
4. She knew Madeleine well enough to know she wouldn't wander off.
[madeleine chapter 7]

In my opinion that may all make sense to Kate McCann, but not necessarily to anyone else. It has nothing to do with intelligence either.

1.            The Tanner sighting was highly likely to be a red herring, it transpires.
2, 3 & 4.  Madeleine wouldn't be the first child to surprise her parents with her capabilities.

The McCann's friends, Mark Warner staff, the local people and the Portuguese Police were correct to make searching PdL their first priority imo.

[The General]

Wow!
You should do book reviews on Amazon.
Many do so and  also without reading the book.

You see, Ern, I have an innate mistrust of Amazon book reviews. Not because of fraudulence per se, but because the very fact that a. someone has bought the book and b. deemed it necessary to leave a review, automatically taints impartiality, as the vast majority will be familiar with the case and sympathise, and the majority of the remainder will be suitably moved by the emotive content, given their position in the demographic who are drawn to buying the book in the first instance.

[Erngath]

'Always found'. So why bother searching initially then? Who automatically jumps to abduction in that moment? Who's 'nutty' now?

Within a very short time one does automatically jump to the thought that one's child/grandchild has been taken.

[Erngath]

You see, Ern, I have an innate mistrust of Amazon book reviews. Not because of fraudulence per se, but because the very fact that a. someone has bought the book and b. deemed it necessary to leave a review, automatically taints impartiality, as the vast majority will be familiar with the case and sympathise, and the majority of the remainder will be suitably moved by the emotive content, given their position in the demographic who are drawn to buying the book in the first instance.

I'm very pleased to report that although I have bought many a book from Amazon, including Kate's book, as of yet I have never been inclined to publish a review .

[The General]

According to Kate she, as opposed to the PJ, had the intelligence required to work out what happened.

Reasons to reject woke and wandered.

1. Jane Tanner's sighting.
2. The open window and shutters, which Madeleine couldn't have managed.
3. The patio doors, child gate and garden gate being closed.
4. She knew Madeleine well enough to know she wouldn't wander off.
[madeleine chapter 7]

In my opinion that may all make sense to Kate McCann, but not necessarily to anyone else. It has nothing to do with intelligence either.

1.            The Tanner sighting was highly likely to be a red herring, it transpires.
2, 3 & 4.  Madeleine wouldn't be the first child to surprise her parents with her capabilities.

The McCann's friends, Mark Warner staff, the local people and the Portuguese Police were correct to make searching PdL their first priority imo.

I'd go one further. It would be illogical to consider anything else at that stage - window or no window. You'd be going scatty running around like a nutty person searching everywhere. Unless you were too intelligent, of course.

[The General]

I'm very pleased to report that although I have bought many a book from Amazon, including Kate's book, as of yet I have never been inclined to publish a review .

Yeh, I've bought many books from Amazon, it's great. I've also never left a review. Which sort of reinforces my point - a certain demographic will be moved to buy the book, then subsequently leave any review. I have no data to support this, but the I assume the overwhelming majority of sceptics won't buy it, for fear of swelling the McCann coffers - so the review data is automatically biased and tainted.

[Erngath]

Yeh, I've bought many books from Amazon, it's great. I've also never left a review. Which sort of reinforces my point - a certain demographic will be moved to buy the book, then subsequently leave any review. I have no data to support this, but the I assume the overwhelming majority of sceptics won't buy it, for fear of swelling the McCann coffers - so the review data is automatically biased and tainted.

Have you read  the book which is the focus of this thread?

[The General]

Have you read  the book which is the focus of this thread?

No. For fear of swelling the McCann coffers. Joking. No, I haven't. I'll be honest, I don't think I'll be able to stop laughing. I've obviously seen many excerpts posted here. It's terribly remiss of me to espouse some knowledge of the case without comprehensive reading, I understand that, but so be it.
Having said that, I read Amaral's book and thought it was rubbish.

[Erngath]

No. For fear of swelling the McCann coffers. Joking. No, I haven't. I'll be honest, I don't think I'll be able to stop laughing. I've obviously seen many excerpts posted here. It's terribly remiss of me to espouse some knowledge of the case without comprehensive reading, I understand that, but so be it.
Having said that, I read Amaral's book and thought it was rubbish.

I have read Kate's book, still have it.
I didn't find anything funny, nor screamingly objectionable as in Tweedledum/Tweedlee/ plummy voice/reference to genitilia etc.
Perhaps I should study it further.

[jassi]

I have read Kate's book, still have it.
I didn't find anything funny, nor screamingly objectionable as in Tweedledum/Tweedlee/ plummy voice/reference to genitilia etc.
Perhaps I should study it further.

Now that's what I call above and beyond the call of duty

[Venturi Swirl]

Mad and nutty used to describe the mentally ill.  She's lucky it fell under the radar. 

https://miscarriageofjustice.co/index.php?topic=11064.msg558772#msg558772

Nope, that won’t do.  Try again, highlighting specifically where she refers to mentally ill people as mad. 

[Venturi Swirl]

You stating I have misunderstood something doesn't make it so.

Why would a qualified medi doctor and former GP describe theories sent to her in confidence and good faith by the mentally ill as 'nutty'?

Because they are?  Since when has “nutty” been an offensive term?  Are you mentally ill or just expressing faux indignation on behalf of those who are?

[Venturi Swirl]

Yeh, I've bought many books from Amazon, it's great. I've also never left a review. Which sort of reinforces my point - a certain demographic will be moved to buy the book, then subsequently leave any review. I have no data to support this, but the I assume the overwhelming majority of sceptics won't buy it, for fear of swelling the McCann coffers - so the review data is automatically biased and tainted.

How so?