Shop now Shop now Shop now Up to 70% off Fashion Shop All Amazon Fashion Cloud Drive Photos Amazon Fire TV Amazon Pantry Food & Drink Beauty Shop now Shop Fire Shop Kindle Shop now Shop now Shop now
Customer Review

5 of 23 people found the following review helpful
5.0 out of 5 stars Walk in Kate's shoes, 11 July 2011
This review is from: Madeleine (Hardcover)
I read this book in the hope that I would find out what evidence had emerged about what has happened to Madeleine McCann. Sadly, there appears to be no evidence uncovered by the police at all apart from a few dodgy-looking blokes having been seen lurking around the McCann's holiday accommodation before she was snatched.

Like millions of people in the UK, I have always felt heart-broken and anxious about what on earth could have happened to Ben Needham and Madeleine McCann. Kate McCann is an accomplished writer and in this account of her life she bares her soul. What ever you might opine about the need for people to be within earshot of their sleeping babies to protect them or not, you'd be a hard-nut not to forgive the McCann's for their horrendous error after reading about the hell on earth experienced by them since their child was abducted.

I was very reticent about reading this book as I was worried it would make me feel depressed. It did, and I certainly have no intention of ever travelling to Portugal after seeing what a shoddy mess the police there made of investigating this highly unusual crime. But the most interesting thing for me, as an athiest, was to witness the internal struggle of a mother who has had her child stolen from her and her relationship with her belief system. This is a deeply frank, deeply personal and profoundly honest account of every parent's worse nightmare.
Help other customers find the most helpful reviews 
Was this review helpful to you? Yes No

[Add comment]
Post a comment
To insert a product link use the format: [[ASIN:ASIN product-title]] (What's this?)
Amazon will display this name with all your submissions, including reviews and discussion posts. (Learn more)
Name:
Badge:
This badge will be assigned to you and will appear along with your name.
There was an error. Please try again.
Please see the full guidelines ">here.

Official Comment

As a representative of this product you can post one Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
The following name and badge will be shown with this comment:
 (edit name)
After clicking on the Post button you will be asked to create your public name, which will be shown with all your contributions.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.  Learn more
Otherwise, you can still post a regular comment on this review.

Is this your product?

If you are the author, artist, manufacturer or an official representative of this product, you can post an Official Comment on this review. It will appear immediately below the review wherever it is displayed.   Learn more
 
System timed out

We were unable to verify whether you represent the product. Please try again later, or retry now. Otherwise you can post a regular comment.

Since you previously posted an Official Comment, this comment will appear in the comment section below. You also have the option to edit your Official Comment.   Learn more
The maximum number of Official Comments have been posted. This comment will appear in the comment section below.   Learn more
Prompts for sign-in
 

Comments


Sort: Oldest first | Newest first
Showing 1-10 of 11 posts in this discussion
Initial post: 13 Jul 2011 09:48:43 BDT
Weisenwolf says:
How do you know that Kate McCann is being 'profoundly honest'?

In reply to an earlier post on 13 Jul 2011 18:11:18 BDT
Last edited by the author on 14 Jul 2011 16:36:43 BDT
Ms Beaumaris says:
I think Ms Perez is being plain silly, I've never seen it suggested by anyone that parents should "sit by their sleeping babies to protect them". What has reasonably been expected is that these parents should, at the very least, be in the same apartment or on the balcony of the apartment in which their children are sleeping. The parents could easily have made use of the available childcare at the resort or paid a small fee for an adult to babysit in the apartment, if they wanted to dine out. Not exactly rocket science is it?

Furthermore, it is the McCanns who are perpetuating the claim of a "few dodgy-looking blokes having been seen lurking around the McCann's holiday accommodation" to add credence to their `Madeleine was stolen scenario' not the police - who mounted the most expensive and extensive investigation in the history of Portugal, in order to find Madeleine.

Posted on 14 Jul 2011 15:10:03 BDT
Weisenwolf says:
I like the title 'Walk in Kate's shoes' (Boots)

Is she now too big for them?

Posted on 15 Jul 2011 10:10:14 BDT
e11 says:
The police made a mess of this case? if anything I believe it's down to the failure of the McCann's not providing everything they know, and being 100% forthcomign with them from the get-go, a primary reason why they were eventually made suspects later on.

The police spent a fortune on this case. They were there in reasonable response time for a call such as this (depsite the McCann's taking 3 quarters of an hour to phone them after they realised she was gone) They would instantly contact other forces, and get them prepared for searches, inquiries, questioning, files on employees at the complex, deploying 2 boats (with an addition 4 later in the week) canine detection teams - all within 24 hours. I can't see the shambles from that???

All I see though is neglectful parents who messed up more than one occasion, failed to be up front and honest to the authorities from the get go when it could have helped the case, or ignited new ideasorareas to focus on and now they finger point to all the forces who tried to help them, and shift attention to make it look like it was the carelessness of the police being the main reason why Madeleine is still out there.

This book is nothing more than another piece of propaganda to make them look like the victims and the police look like the bad guys in all of this, and everyone dumb enough to buy it only fund their bank accounts with more cash to protect these idiots from prosecution, and a dubious public eye

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2011 13:12:25 BDT
hotrod. says:
So you think it normal to fail to alert the borders for eighteen hours normal then? Or accept as normal not making the apartment a crime scene for three months? I find it scandalous myself.

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2011 13:46:21 BDT
J. Newbound says:
is it normal to not bother searching for your missing daughter and instead phone your friends and the media claiming an abduction without any proof, and then to subsequently delete the majority of your phone records except that of a wrong number..

In reply to an earlier post on 15 Jul 2011 15:00:41 BDT
Last edited by the author on 15 Jul 2011 15:01:32 BDT
hotrod. says:
[Customers don't think this post adds to the discussion. Show post anyway. Show all unhelpful posts.]

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2011 12:11:04 BDT
J. Newbound says:
why did it take over an hour before anyone rang the police? and what happened between 10pm and 6am - I would not have been ringing all my friends back in the uk and found time for a few hours nap... I would have been searching the streets myself

as for the phone : http://www.mccannpjfiles.co.uk/PJ/DELETED_CALLS.htm

well worth taking the time to read, if you havent got the time here is a little snippet :

Her mobile memory held details of 39 calls from 18.28 on Wednesday 25th April to 16.35 on 27th April 2007. After her arrival in Portugal on 28th April 2007, with the exception of one incoming call on Wednesday 2nd May 2007 at 11.21 (which, very interestingly, was the Swansea 'wrong number'), and one call from her husband at 23.17 on Thursday 3rd May 2007, everything else has been 'whoosh-clunked' from memory. These deletions could have been accidental, but a high degree of cunning could be implied. Why would she selectively delete everything up to Thursday 3rd May 2007 with the exception of one wrong number and what was her reason for deleting three of the four calls, between 23.14 and 23.17, from her husband on that critical night'. A possible answer is that she wished to avoid alerting the PJ to evidence that details of around 40 calls had been erased and she felt happier leaving something uncontroversial (or misleading) in memory for them to find. Another answer is that, unsurprisingly, she was under the most extreme stress imaginable following the disappearance of her daughter: but why, in that case, give priority to deleting anything. It is the last thing most parents would think about in the circumstances.

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2011 12:31:41 BDT
Weisenwolf says:
Is hotrod ill or is there simply no counter argument to this point?

In reply to an earlier post on 18 Jul 2011 19:22:48 BDT
Last edited by the author on 18 Jul 2011 19:26:14 BDT
honeybunny says:
In the absence of hotrod defending this point I do recall the official 'pro' line regarding the deleted phone calls,K Mc deleted them under extreme stress,I could have almost accepted that if she had not cynically and deliberately kept an innocuous wrong number and a recent one from the night of the disappearance from her husband which would have been seen as normal by the police.A bit of amateur tactics on Kate's behalf to fool the police, another example of the MC's breathtaking arrogance when trying to convince the world they are entirely innocent in the disappearance of Maddie.I would love to know to whom those deleted phone calls were directed.Once this NOTW scandal has died down there may be an ex journalist willing to blow the 'secret'.
‹ Previous 1 2 Next ›

Review Details

Item

Reviewer


Location: London, England

Top Reviewer Ranking: 28,870