So what is your definition of open minded?
In the case of a book review,, someone who gives a balanced appraisal, who seeks to present the good as well as the bad, and clearly there must be something to recommend Kate's book as 71% of reviews make clear. The fact that this book is so often cited on this forum means that it is an invaluable source of information on the case, much of which is used by some to damn the author herself (just think of the mileage provided by f..king tosser, tweedle dee, and genitals - it's been a boon and a gift to those who never cease going on about those particular excerpts). For example if I were reviewing Amaral's book I would recognise that it is a valuable insight into the thinking of the PJ at the time the McCanns were made arguidos, despite the fact that that thinking was clearly muddle-headed and just plain wrong in some aspects. I would highlight the fact that it is written in an economical style which means it is (mercifully) short, but to the point. I would finish by urging the author to update his book with his current thinking on the case (such as MI5 know where the body is - everyone loves a conspiracy theory).
As for the review that was presented as "open minded" it simply trots out the same old baloney we can see written on all the usual internet chat rooms on the case. Open minded would be giving due consideration to the abduction theory, instead the reader has come to the bizarre conclusion from reading the book that Madeleine came a cropper days before the 3rd! It would reserve judgement on the author herself, rather than obviously judging her whilst laughably claiming not to be judging anyone, or speculating luridly about what may have happened to her in her earlier life. All in my humble opinion.
