Re: How's the Book selling, Kate?

**dazedandconfused** Thu 7 Jun - 9:10

snowflake wrote:
The evidence wrote:
snowflake wrote:More than the hard cover priceof Kate's " beeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeeewk"?

Yup.

Snowflake, i dont reply very often. I am quite unwell at the minute, but am reading all the time.

You always seem to reply, with what i can only describe as............................ support for Kate McCann.

I dont know what other way to put it, other than that.

There are an awful lot of people who want to read Amaral's book. Many many more people than had wanted to read Kates book.

I have read both (paid for neither, and i can tell you Amaral's book is a book, Kates is a self self self self load of nonsense!

I'm sorry you are unwell.
I hope your health improves very soon.
There is no other "way to put it other than that"
I've bought Kate's book and don't agree with your wiew but each to their own views
Her book has sold well.
Personally i know of not one person who wants to read amaral's book but let'swait and see how well it sells.

You must lead a sheltered life snowflake, I know of many people who can't wait for Snr Amaral's book to be published in English and ready to buy it.

Lillyofthevalley Thu 7 Jun - 9:15

Snowflake
"I've bought Kate's book and don't agree with your wiew but each to their own views
Her book has sold well.
Personally i know of not one person who wants to read amaral's book but let's wait and see how well it sells".

How's the Book selling, Kate? - Page 3 956518

How's the Book selling, Kate? - Page 3 294124

**mara thon** Thu 7 Jun - 9:17

Perhaps Kate's book should have a free copy of the police files with every sale so that people can compare what she says in the book with the discrepancies in the files.

Lillyofthevalley Thu 7 Jun - 9:18

malena stool wrote:
The End Is Nigh wrote:I'm not sure what all the hidden meanings or implications are in Snowflakes obsession with Kate Healy's Book but, cutting a swathe through it, I am greatly interested in the prospect of being able to buy and read Amaral's book - but suspect that won't happen until after the Case brought against him by Healy & McCann.

The playing field is not yet level , and Amaral is behaving with dignity in the face of the self-interested actions of the former Arguidos.
Totally agree TENI, it would be interesting also to know why Amaral's book cannot find a publisher prepared to make it available in English, when Kate's latest revelations of narcissistic drool is seemingly on tap for £1, but only if you buy a real book....

Mr Amarals book will fly off the shelves here in the UK that we all know. How's the Book selling, Kate? - Page 3 944533

Lillyofthevalley Thu 7 Jun - 9:23

mara thon wrote:Perhaps Kate's book should have a free copy of the police files with every sale so that people can compare what she says in the book with the discrepancies in the files.

What a brilliant idea mara, then all the McCann supporters who have purchased either book can then compare and see for themselves how Gerry and Kate have never lied and there is no discrepancies at all, well only from the naughty fat beer swilling, sardine munching PJ.
Then it will prove once and for all that us nutters........ are in fact nutters How's the Book selling, Kate? - Page 3 613255

How's the Book selling, Kate? - Page 3 613255

Guest Thu 7 Jun - 9:37

I would say to Snowflake that the world is larger than her local branch of WHSmith and her circle of acquaintances so they cannot be used as a measure of how things are nationally.

I live in hopes that Dr Amaral's book is publicised fairly when it's published in the U K (not just along the lines of a childish rant from Antonella Lazzeri that it should still be banned) but sadly I cannot imagine that the mainstream media will do so.

**Keela** Thu 7 Jun - 12:20

I wonder if Snowflake's bith name is Kate. She seems very supportive of the McCanns and can obviously see no wrong in them. I personally know both here in Portugal and in the UK of more people who want to read Goncalo's book than want to read Kate's. The same people believe in what he says and not what Healey says and writes. In fact I have heard of more people who wouldn't buy the book if it came with a free three bed detached house.

Guest Thu 7 Jun - 12:36

I welcome a broad range of views, but it would be of immense interest to know on what basis some people swallow Kate's words as being irrefutable and wholly true in the face of the opinions of the PJ, the Police files themselves,the glaring inconsistencies and variability over time in the Witness Statements, the findings of the dogs, the undeniable statistics and probabilities regarding likely culprits in such Cases etc. etc. etc.

Sadly, the adherents of the Healy mantra merely keep repeating the fact of their belief without ever qualifying it in any cogent way. Which is a shame, as those of us who try to consider Intelligence and Evidence in a logical and proportionate manner ought to appreciate a worthwhile counter, so as not to be led to enduring false conclusions.

Guest Thu 7 Jun - 13:37

snowflake wrote:
Iris wrote:In our WH Smith this morning, if you buy any other book, you can get Kate's one for £1.

Mine is in a fairly large city centre branch and that offer is not there.......................just one buy one paperback and get one paperback half price

Mine is also a fairly large branch and clearly it has different offers from yours. Perhaps you would like me to go up there and take a photograph.

Guest Thu 7 Jun - 13:55

Well said The End is Nigh. While it is a pleasant surprise to encounter a McCann supporter who is polite - I still cringe at my first encounter with the infamous Jay Elles! - it is very hard to fathom how anyone can be taken in by the McCann circus. Just because you yourself or anyone you know isn't capable of committing a crime, doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 7 Jun - 15:08

Not Born Yesterday wrote:Well said The End is Nigh. While it is a pleasant surprise to encounter a McCann supporter who is polite - I still cringe at my first encounter with the infamous Jay Elles! - it is very hard to fathom how anyone can be taken in by the McCann circus. Just because you yourself or anyone you know isn't capable of committing a crime, doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.

I think there are simply some very kind-hearted people around who find it impossible to accept that two educated people could have any involvement in a child's disappearance.

**dazedandconfused** Thu 7 Jun - 16:01

AnnaEsse wrote:
Not Born Yesterday wrote:Well said The End is Nigh. While it is a pleasant surprise to encounter a McCann supporter who is polite - I still cringe at my first encounter with the infamous Jay Elles! - it is very hard to fathom how anyone can be taken in by the McCann circus. Just because you yourself or anyone you know isn't capable of committing a crime, doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.

I think there are simply some very kind-hearted people around who find it impossible to accept that two educated people could have any involvement in a child's disappearance.

My elderly mother is one of the above. She's of the generation who have huge respect for doctors and convinced (despite Dr Shipmann) that they would have no involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

**AnnaEsse** Thu 7 Jun - 16:04

dazedandconfused wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Not Born Yesterday wrote:Well said The End is Nigh. While it is a pleasant surprise to encounter a McCann supporter who is polite - I still cringe at my first encounter with the infamous Jay Elles! - it is very hard to fathom how anyone can be taken in by the McCann circus. Just because you yourself or anyone you know isn't capable of committing a crime, doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.

I think there are simply some very kind-hearted people around who find it impossible to accept that two educated people could have any involvement in a child's disappearance.

My elderly mother is one of the above. She's of the generation who have huge respect for doctors and convinced (despite Dr Shipmann) that they would have no involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

There are members of my family who are of similar mind and that's OK. We just don#t talk about it! How's the Book selling, Kate? - Page 3 294124

Guest Thu 7 Jun - 16:09

That's the nub of it, though: "They wouldn't do that" is, in reality, irrelevant. It's what people actually did do (or not do) that matters and sentiment ultimately cannot take sway over the facts.

**wjk** Thu 7 Jun - 16:15

AnnaEsse wrote:
dazedandconfused wrote:
AnnaEsse wrote:
Not Born Yesterday wrote:Well said The End is Nigh. While it is a pleasant surprise to encounter a McCann supporter who is polite - I still cringe at my first encounter with the infamous Jay Elles! - it is very hard to fathom how anyone can be taken in by the McCann circus. Just because you yourself or anyone you know isn't capable of committing a crime, doesn't mean that everyone else is the same.

I think there are simply some very kind-hearted people around who find it impossible to accept that two educated people could have any involvement in a child's disappearance.

My elderly mother is one of the above. She's of the generation who have huge respect for doctors and convinced (despite Dr Shipmann) that they would have no involvement in their daughter's disappearance.

There are members of my family who are of similar mind and that's OK. We just don#t talk about it!

Same here, Anna and d&c! My parents! It's a subject that cannot be mentioned without it getting heated How's the Book selling, Kate? - Page 3 294124

So we just avoid it now.

**Keela** Thu 7 Jun - 16:36

My parents are in our camp - they firmly believe that McCanns and co are involved up to their pretty little necks. I can't see how people can be blinded by the belief that doctors can do no harm. History is littered with murderous doctors.

Guest Thu 7 Jun - 18:12

I'd be interested to know what kind-hearted people who can't believe that respected professionals can be guilty of anything think of the Philpotts who, without wishing to be rude, are at the opposite end of the social scale.

They haven't of course been found guilty yet but are the kind-hearted people saying that they can't possibly have had anything to do with the deaths of their children?

**dazedandconfused** Thu 7 Jun - 19:04

Not Born Yesterday wrote:I'd be interested to know what kind-hearted people who can't believe that respected professionals can be guilty of anything think of the Philpotts who, without wishing to be rude, are at the opposite end of the social scale.

They haven't of course been found guilty yet but are the kind-hearted people saying that they can't possibly have had anything to do with the deaths of their children?

My mother would. She doesn't see bad in anyone.

cherry1 Thu 7 Jun - 19:31

What I dont understand is that statistics have shown in most cases where a child goes missing or
there is harm done to a child it is a parent, parents, relative or someone known to the family who
is responsible therefore it should not be so shocking that anyone cant possibly contemplate that a family member could be involved. There has been enough publicity about parents for example who have harmed their children. (that is not to say I am saying that is applicable in this case, only that for some not even to entertain possible involvement, I find strange although I know there are some who only want to believe good in people).

Also people can guess at what may have happened based on what is known, people can give theories and opinions but there are certain FACTS to this case. Facts which can be ascertained by anyone doing the most basic research if they have access to the internet. Anyone can look at many interviews that have been done,they can research magazine and paper articles, they can look at what Kate has written in her book. people can read the FACTS of the PJ files which contains much factual information. The statements taken are factual, that is what was said by those giving the statements.

Just taking that information alone shows quite clearly there are too many discrepancies, changes of statements, changes in what is said, contradictions, refusal to answer questions, do reconstruction etc. to be able to eliminate the parents and friends from any involvement or knowledge of what has happened. It has been said many times people who tell the truth say the same thing, it doesnt change from one minute to the next. In this case right from the beginning information was given out by them which was blatantly untrue.

While people who do not go online may not be aware of the FACTS of the case as the Press have suppressed a lot of information, I find it hard to understand that when those who support the Mccanns and their friends talk about the case online they never seem to question the lies, the contradictions, the changes etc., If a person really wanted to know what happened to Madeleine why wouldnt this be questioned, why would they want to intimidate, harrass and lie about people who do ask valid questions to try and stop them from asking questions. Why would they want to prevent information from coming out (like info re Gaspar statements, Yvonne Martin etc.) I have also noticed most of the time on forums, twitter etc., that many of those who support the Mccanns more often than not are just attacking personally those who dont support them, and some rarely are bothered about discussing anything to do with the case, it is all about abusing the poster who has a different view from them.

If a person really wants to get to the truth then surely you would not do your best to suppress relevant information, you would not try and prevent people from asking justifiable questions, so it does make one wonder have some people been paid, put up to intimidating other posters who dont believe the fairy tale, are some of these posters people involved with the family/friends, because the behaviour of many I have come across is illogical, and I would say totally abnormal if someone genuinely wants to find out what happened to Madeleine. As soon as someone asks a question or queries certain behaviour many of the Mccann supporters brand posters as abusing the family, abusing the parents, - when has asking a question being interpreted as abuse!!

However when there IS abuse as in neglect which the parents have said they left the toddlers alone and neglect is child abuse - not a single word is said!! (although neglect could well be a cover for something else!)

what they dont seem to realise is that everyone can see that many have no interest in the truth coming out and therefore have no interest in what really happened to Madeleine. I am also aware that the Police are being informed of their threats, abuse and intimidation and I sincerely hope that action is taken against them.

cherry1 Fri 8 Jun - 0:23

Had Kate been reading Sara Payne's book to get inspiration for her own book.

Sara Payne's book 'Shouting 'Sarah Sarah' at the top of our voices we frantically searched up and down Peak Lane, pulling aside brambles with our bare arms and looking under hedges'.

Kate's book 'As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes'.

The difference however, Kate admitted in a tv interview she didnt physically search for Madeleine! the Paynes did physically search for Sarah.

Why did Kate write in her book she searched when she admitted she didnt. When people dont tell the truth they slip up because they forget what they previously said.

jd16 Fri 8 Jun - 1:16

david payne also says in his RI that he went down to the beach at 4am with gerry mccann where he broke down....what a bare faced lie this is

Good point about " pulling aside brambles with our bare arms and looking under hedges' from Sara Paynes book...Sounds very much the same does't it (almost identical) even though kate mccann has admitted she never searched. None of the statements say she searched either!

tigger Fri 8 Jun - 7:17

cherry1 wrote:What I dont understand is that statistics have shown in most cases where a child goes missing or
there is harm done to a child it is a parent, parents, relative or someone known to the family who
is responsible therefore it should not be so shocking that anyone cant possibly contemplate that a family member could be involved. There has been enough publicity about parents for example who have harmed their children. (that is not to say I am saying that is applicable in this case, only that for some not even to entertain possible involvement, I find strange although I know there are some who only want to believe good in people).

Also people can guess at what may have happened based on what is known, people can give theories and opinions but there are certain FACTS to this case. Facts which can be ascertained by anyone doing the most basic research if they have access to the internet. Anyone can look at many interviews that have been done,they can research magazine and paper articles, they can look at what Kate has written in her book. people can read the FACTS of the PJ files which contains much factual information. The statements taken are factual, that is what was said by those giving the statements.

Just taking that information alone shows quite clearly there are too many discrepancies, changes of statements, changes in what is said, contradictions, refusal to answer questions, do reconstruction etc. to be able to eliminate the parents and friends from any involvement or knowledge of what has happened. It has been said many times people who tell the truth say the same thing, it doesnt change from one minute to the next. In this case right from the beginning information was given out by them which was blatantly untrue.

While people who do not go online may not be aware of the FACTS of the case as the Press have suppressed a lot of information, I find it hard to understand that when those who support the Mccanns and their friends talk about the case online they never seem to question the lies, the contradictions, the changes etc., If a person really wanted to know what happened to Madeleine why wouldnt this be questioned, why would they want to intimidate, harrass and lie about people who do ask valid questions to try and stop them from asking questions. Why would they want to prevent information from coming out (like info re Gaspar statements, Yvonne Martin etc.) I have also noticed most of the time on forums, twitter etc., that many of those who support the Mccanns more often than not are just attacking personally those who dont support them, and some rarely are bothered about discussing anything to do with the case, it is all about abusing the poster who has a different view from them.

If a person really wants to get to the truth then surely you would not do your best to suppress relevant information, you would not try and prevent people from asking justifiable questions, so it does make one wonder have some people been paid, put up to intimidating other posters who dont believe the fairy tale, are some of these posters people involved with the family/friends, because the behaviour of many I have come across is illogical, and I would say totally abnormal if someone genuinely wants to find out what happened to Madeleine. As soon as someone asks a question or queries certain behaviour many of the Mccann supporters brand posters as abusing the family, abusing the parents, - when has asking a question being interpreted as abuse!!

However when there IS abuse as in neglect which the parents have said they left the toddlers alone and neglect is child abuse - not a single word is said!! (although neglect could well be a cover for something else!)

what they dont seem to realise is that everyone can see that many have no interest in the truth coming out and therefore have no interest in what really happened to Madeleine. I am also aware that the Police are being informed of their threats, abuse and intimidation and I sincerely hope that action is taken against them.

How's the Book selling, Kate? - Page 3 463742

Great post and so clearly put - wouldn't it be great if a newspaper published it. DT letters to the editor?
Still, imo the deployable troops of TM are much depleted.

**Keela** Fri 8 Jun - 12:50

cherry1 wrote:Had Kate been reading Sara Payne's book to get inspiration for her own book.

Sara Payne's book 'Shouting 'Sarah Sarah' at the top of our voices we frantically searched up and down Peak Lane, pulling aside brambles with our bare arms and looking under hedges'.

Kate's book 'As soon as it was light Gerry and I resumed our search. We jumped over walls and raked through undergrowth. We looked in ditches and holes'.

The difference however, Kate admitted in a tv interview she didnt physically search for Madeleine! the Paynes did physically search for Sarah.

Why did Kate write in her book she searched when she admitted she didnt. When people dont tell the truth they slip up because they forget what they previously said.

Makes you wonder doesn't it. What I can't understand is how the hell could she put in the book about them searching ( which they didn't) and then quite clearly state in interviews ( like the Jane Hill one) that they didn't physically search. I don't know any other way to search but physically! Why hasn't anyone picked this blatent lie and challenged them.

Guest Fri 8 Jun - 13:01

Apologies for going off topic but the mention of Sarah Payne has prompted me to post a link to this fairly recent programme about the case.

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=I2eEXQ306rs

It's genuine cases like this one which accentuate how everything was so unusual and unnatural with the McCanns right from the start. No actual searching, ridiculous stories and, oddest of all, a limited company set up in near record time with long-term fundraising plans.

cherry1 Fri 8 Jun - 13:35

It is bad enough that Kate has lied in her book about searching when she told Jane Hill
she didnt physically search but the way she has embelished it with the jumping over walls and raking
through undergrowth.

If someone lies they dont normally stop at one lie as is the case we have seen here with the interviews etc., and what she has written in the book. I have to ask myself what kind of person writes lies in a book about her child's disappearance. The sad thing is also that there are people who dont have the internet and people who may not be aware of what she said in the tv interview if they didnt originally see it. those people may genuinely believe about all this jumping over walls (reminds me of cuddlecat jumping onto a non existent shelf when he was supposed to have been lying on the bed!).

The public are clearly being deceived by her book just as they have been deceived by the fund with their constant references to charity when talking about the fund. It also makes one question her state of mind when she knows that some people must have seen her admit on tv she didnt physically search yet states in her book she did!

Sponsored content