'Looking for Madeleine' by Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan - My response to their enquiries

aquila wrote:

dantezebu wrote:
But if it libels GA let's hope he sues them.

Unlike the McCanns who seem to have endless support financially and in terms of top lawyers, Goncalo Amaral does not have this luxury.

You can't spend your life suing people (unless you are the McCanns).

Even if he has the money I doubt GA is the kind who would sue people any old how just because people exercise their freedom of expression or opined negative about him. It would take more than that.

This suing the mcs thing must have been a pondering thought for a long while but whether he carries it through would depend imo on the verdict of the trial and how quickly he reclaim his assets.
If it happens it would be more than justified reason because the mcs vindictively set out to destroy him. He has been the victim of mccanns persecution and prosecution, and was forced to change lifestyle, was inconvenienced in more than a few ways, found his personal and domestic life turned upside down because he refused to cave in.

I hope he includes that pink slug in his countersuit if it comes to that.

Just what did this little 3yr old girl do to deserve this? We know that answer, nothing, nothing at all. The real question is what did her parents do to need her concealed? Death after accident IMO wouldn't count as we all know how curious little ones can be, but, neglect, accident then death would be a lot worse. It could be this scenario as I think scientists can get close to the hour of death or closer even? Another question would be why the help afterwards? This tiptoeing around the parents needs to stop for maddie, she's the one that's suffered.
For anyone to earn money form maddie, without stating the truth for her, is not right, including her own mother. All IMO 

Goncalo Amaral has done so through the files, good on him, madeleine by KATE MCCANN was about her IMO

Maybe Summers will have the non-existent abductor hiding in apartment 5A

The Independent
By Tom Mangold
Sunday 8 December 2013
Stephen Ward wasn't murdered. I was there
Journalism is further discredited by half-baked claims that the osteopath at the centre of the Profumo affair, was killed

Whether Andrew Lloyd Webber's musical which opens next week about the life and death of Stephen Ward succeeds or fails it is a generous gesture for the impresario to use this device as the platform to campaign for a judicial review of the conviction half a century ago of the society osteopath. It was an event which led directly to his suicide. He was at the centre of the Profumo sex and spies scandal which rocked Britain in 1963 when the War minister had an affair with the showgirl Christine Keeler who claimed to be sleeping with a London-based Russian intelligence officer Eugene Ivanov at the same time. Ward killed himself having been targeted by a vindictive state seeking a scapegoat for Profumo's behaviour; was prosecuted for crimes that it is now generally accepted he did not commit, facing evidence from witnesses who were coerced by police into lying; and pilloried by a hysterical tabloid press. Fearing contamination, most of his many "friends" deserted him, and British intelligence agencies who had been happy to use him failed to speak up for him in court. Ward was a broken man when he took an overdose of sleeping tablets while staying with one last friend in a flat in Chelsea. I know. I was with him that night.

The anniversary has been celebrated by conspiracy theorists crawling, blinking into the light to announce to stunned newspaper readers the sensational revelation that Stephen Ward "may" have been murdered by MI5. A former colleague of mine from 40 years ago, the author Anthony Summers, a man with some form when it comes to conspiracy theories, has now determined that: "One can see why it may, repeat may, have been necessary to remove Ward from the scene … this was apparently a man with dangerous knowledge … he had inside information of MI5 efforts to manipulate Ivanov and the seamy activities of Establishment figures." Summers has lent his reputation to a conspiracy theory – please don't giggle – which has an MI5 contract killer hiding in the Chelsea flat all night, then waking the drowsy Ward every few hours and inciting him to take ever increasing overdoses of the sleeping tablets which eventually killed him. The alleged killer is now conveniently dead but allegedly told a gabby friend on his deathbed…

Summers's interviews on this well publicised theory, published by two reputable national newspapers last week, brim with weasel words. "The story ends with a question mark," says Summers darkly. No it doesn't. It is junk journalism at its very worst, complete piffle, a disgrace to our trade. Believe it if you believe Lord Lucan and Elvis are living under pseudonyms in a mud hut in Uganda. We are in so many ways the first and often the last draft of history; newspaper records and their on-line spill-over really do matter. Lies and rotten journalism go viral in seconds. We really do have a clear compact with our readers, listeners and viewers to get it right. We are in enough trouble with Leveson and hacking and the shame of neurotic celebrity worship, without allowing so-called investigative journalism reaching "maybe" and "could have" conclusions without a shred of primary source evidence. And even less so when the "revelation" is tied in with a re-hashed book release.

What baffles me is that Summers did not bother to make the two simple "check your facts" phone calls, one to me and one to the other man in the flat that night, the tenant Noel Howard-Jones. They would have brought his loony-tunes theory crashing to the ground. Summers also seems to have forgotten that MI5 and MI6 don't do assassinations. Period. State-sanctioned killings, invariably against major terrorist organisations or well-armed enemies of the state, are done by others. So let me try to set the record straight with some facts.

What did happen on the night of Tuesday 30 July 1963 at Vale Court, 20 Mallord Street, Chelsea? Stephen was overnighting there with his friend Noel Howard-Jones. That evening Stephen called me in the Daily Express newsroom and asked me to come over to Mallord Street. I arrived there about 8.30pm. He was writing what I now know were his suicide notes. A friend Julie Gulliver was in the kitchen cooking dinner. Howard-Jones was out. I stayed with Stephen for several hours during which he gave me the note addressed to me, which regrettably I didn't read till later. At about 11.35pm, I left him, and he left the flat to drive Julie back to her flat in Bayswater. Howard-Jones returned a few minutes later, and was there to let Ward in on his return at about midnight before going to bed. Ward then continued writing notes including one to Howard-Jones saying "delay resuscitation as long as possible".

There was no MI5 assassin hiding in the flat when Stephen, Julie and I were there; and there was no assassin when Howard-Jones returned. So we can account for the entire evening from 8.45pm to the moment Howard-Jones found Ward unconscious on the living-room divan in the morning. We know, for certain that no MI5 murderer was hiding in the tiny flat. Even the alleged "instrument of murder" – the Nembutal sleeping tablets, were Stephen's own. Does all this matter – half a century later? Very much so. In a democracy, a free press must be trusted. Once we break down the firewalls between truth and conspiracy theory, once we enter the wilderness of unreality, paranoid fantasy will become our guide. Yes, this stuff sells more papers than the grey truth. But that makes it no less a form of editorial pornography. Don't believe all you read in the press? Sadly true.
Tom Mangold, former senior correspondent for BBC TV's 'Panorama', covered the Profumo Affair for the Daily Express in 1963
http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/comment/stephen-ward-wasnt-murdered-i-was-there-8990737.html


Mangold co-wrote The Tsar (1976) with Anthony Summers.
Not so sure I believe Mangold's claim that MI5 and MI5 'don't do assassinations' though.

Headline (publisher) Rights Guide (P37)
LOOKING FOR MADELEINE

PUB DATE: EXTENT: ILLUSTRATIONS: FORMAT: BINDING: IMPRINT: CATEGORY: MATERIAL:

11th September 2014 352 pages TBC Royal Hardback Headline Non-Fiction TBC

 
Anthony Summers & Robbyn Swan
The definitive book on the Madeleine McCann case.
It is almost seven years since a four-year-old girl named Madeleine McCann vanished from her bed in a Portuguese holiday resort. The case was an instant sensation – the British equivalent of America’s Lindbergh kidnapping – and remains the subject of intense public interest.
The Portuguese police investigation moved within months from investigation of an apparent abduction to naming parents Gerry and Kate McCann as suspects – the chief investigator has publicly stated that they may have caused their own daughter’s death. Later, however, the parents’ status as suspects was removed and the case closed - unsolved.
Parents Gerry and Kate McCann, however, have never given up. They hired private detectives, and have kept the case in the public eye every way they could. As the result of speculation and rumour, though, many people still wonder whether the McCanns had something to do with their daughter’s disappearance. !n 2011, the British government ordered Scotland Yard to mount an "investigative review". Operation Grange, as it is called, has identified nearly 200 leads - never before properly investigated. The Detective Chief Inspector heading the probe has said the little girl may still be alive.
The Author
Anthony Summers is the award-winning author of seven bestselling non-fiction books. Originally a journalist, he covered events in the United States and the conflicts in Vietnam and the Middle East for the BBC's flagship current affairs programme Panorama. Robbyn Swan, his co-author and wife, has partnered Summers on three previous books - biographies of Richard Nixon and Frank Sinatra and The Eleventh Day, an examination of the events of 9/11, which was a finalist for the Pulitzer Prize. They have been consultants on documentaries for the BBC, the History Channel and CNN.
US Rights: Headline/Available
Translation Rights: Headline/Available
http://akcalicopyright.com/files/katalog/headline-london-2014.pdf

Jeff Farrell
Pulitzer finalist sees ‘hope’ for investigative journalism
July 8th, 2014
An award-winning author has admitted investigative journalism has been starved of resources but said he saw “a glimmer of hope” it would continue and even thrive into the future. Pulitzer finalist Anthony Summers said book advances have fallen and media outlets have been paring back on costly investigations – meaning the future for the discipline was uncertain. Summers, whose book on the 9/11 attacks – The Eleventh Day – is described as a “definitive account” of the tragedy, said one book investigation can involve up to a 1,000 interviews. But despite such journalism was time-consuming, there was “a glimmer of hope” it would continue. The Telegraph, he said, was as an example of a newspaper with a dedicated investigations unit. In recent weeks the London broadsheet published an exclusive revealing an international match-fixing scandal involving the president of Ghana’s Football Association.

Robbyn Swan, Summers’ co-author on The Eleventh Day, was not optimistic for the future of independent investigative journalism, and said freelancers should find other sources of income. “Look at Giganomics,” she said, referring to multiple-jobbers who earn a living through a variety of work. Discussing the problems faced in complicated investigations, Swan said journalists “have to go down rabbit holes (and then) often found nothing.” But this was necessary to eliminate ‘hunches’. Summers and Swan were speakers at a masterclass in investigative journalism on Saturday in the Hay book festival in Kells, County Meath. It was chaired by broadcaster Myles Dungan.

Long-time collaborators, Summers and Swan have worked on projects including biographies of Frank Sinatra and Richard Nixon.

The award-winning authors are in the final stages of a book on the Madeleine McCann disappearance.
http://jefffarrelljournalism.com/book/investigative-journalism-difficult-to-fund-says-911-author/

By an amazing coincidence the book is to be published in the same month as the libel trial is expected to conclude.

Justformaddie wrote:Just what did this little 3yr old girl do to deserve this? We know that answer, nothing, nothing at all. The real question is what did her parents do to need her concealed? Death after accident IMO wouldn't count as we all know how curious little ones can be, but, neglect, accident then death would be a lot worse. It could be this scenario as I think scientists can get close to the hour of death or closer even? Another question would be why the help afterwards? This tiptoeing around the parents needs to stop for maddie, she's the one that's suffered.
For anyone to earn money form maddie, without stating the truth for her, is not right, including her own mother. All IMO 

Goncalo Amaral has done so through the files, good on him, madeleine by KATE MCCANN was about her IMO

I think that the parents' and their friends' claims (whether or not wholly or even partially true) that they left their children unattended in unlocked apartment while they dined well out of sight and sound need to be explored more closely.

WHY would the McCanns admit to this? I know that it allows for the 'random abduction' story, but a child could be kidnapped while the parents are in the house. At night, for instance, when everyone is asleep. Burglaries happen at night sometimes when the house is occupied. If a television, jewellery and so on can be stolen while people are sleeping, so could a child. It's not impossible. I used to be a very heavy sleeper as a child - I would not have woken up even if someone carried me out of the bed!

The McCanns, could, for instance, have claimed that when they woke up in the morning, Madeleine wasn't there. And they couldn't account for it. There would have been far fewer lies needed to be told. It is a more plausible story as it keeps wide open a huge range of possibilities. If she was a child who woke in the night and got out of bed (the 'star chart' for sleeping suggests this) maybe even a child who sleepwalks, then it is perfectly feasible that she could have got up and wandered off. And come to some harm - accident, picked up by a malevolent stranger, fell down a well. Found by a childless couple etc.

Why did the parents hatch such an elaborate plot? All the 'checking' nonsense and the doors being partially open, or closed, and the windows being open, or closed. And the curtains being open or closed or billowing in the wind. And so on. And who went back to the apartment when, at what time and so on. They have all managed to contradict themselves so much over all this. 

There must be a reason for all this. 

I am extremely suspicious about the role of the friends in all this. Why would they go to such lengths  to cover up an accident? All of them have come up with incredibly dodgy and incriminating statements, in my opinion.

Matthew Oldfield and Jane Tanner even agreed to return to Luz with Gerry to stage a completely farcical 're-enactment' with Gerry. The way it is filmed  is melodramatic, creepy and suspicious. Jane Tanner's joking attitude as she banters with Gerry about Kate 'moaning that Gerry was taking too long watching footie' shows a deeply contemptuous attitude given that she is purportedly taking part in the re-enactment of a very serious crime. Matt Oldfield gives a risible performance of how he stood at the children's bedroom door and how he saw that the twins were breathing but unfortunately he didn't take that one step into the room to check if Madeleine was breathing as well or indeed had been abducted. Which of course, if we believe Jane Tanner's fairy tale, happened at 9.15pm. Matt in his police statement even flags up the name of a road - Cemetery Road - where he went searching for Madeleine that evening. At this stage it was supposed to be a missing child, not a dead child, Matt. 

Russell O'Brien and his partner Rachael both make peculiar statements to the police. Claiming that their daughter had chronic diarrhea all week. Which meant there was a horrendous smell in the apartment and they had to presumably do a lot of washing of clothes and bedding. Rachael recalls how the route to the apartment at night was dark and isolated so she didn't like going there alone. But obviously it was fine to leave their child alone there. Russell in one police statement uses the expression 'clobbering a child' to helpfully point out to the police that statistically when there is a problem it is most likely to be an adult that is related to the child or knows the child well that is responsible. That was thoughtful of him to point that out. I'm sure that had never occurred to the sardine-munchers.

Kate and Russell recount a charming conversation they had with another father at the resort in which they appear to have some light-hearted banter about how ridiculous it is that parents are so paranoid about paedophiles.

Kate and Gerry claim that they considered the risk of their children being abducted from the apartment by someone to have been non-existent. 

"Speaking for myself, I can say, hand on heart, that it never once crossed my mind that this might not be a safe option. If I'd had any doubts whatsoever, I would simply never have entertained it. I love my three children above everything. They are more precious to me than life itself. And I would never knowingly place them at risk, no matter how small a risk it might seem to be."

This is just such a stupid thing to write, given that within moments of finding Madeleine out of her bed, Kate reaches a conclusion she has been abducted. How could her mind switch from considering there was no risk of that, to considering that that was the only plausible explanation?

In any event, given that Madeleine had a 'star chart' to encourage her to stay in her bed, and given that Kate and Gerry both admit to the children waking up and crying at night that week (and them not going to them) we know that is a lie that Madeleine could not have got up to try to find them. As Kate herself has told us in her book, and as the evidence from a neighbour suggests, neither Kate or Gerry went back to the apartment when Madeleine or the twins cry. So all the more likely for Madeleine to wake up and try to find her parents, seeing as she knows, from at least one prior incident, that her parents won't come back to her or the twins.

The reason, imo, that Kate is so adamant that Madeleine would not have got up and wandered off is I would imagine almost certainly because Madeleine been sedated on Thursday night and probably the night before too, imo. Which, in typical Kate fashion, she tries to pin onto the random 'abductor'. I suppose to cover any evidence of sedation should the twins have been taken to hospital to be checked. Which, of course, they should have been. So why did none of those doctors, including Madeleine's parents, suggest this? Not exactly responsible behaviour given that a (paedophile) abductor has been in the bedroom.

And why would Kate and other members of the Tapas flag up the possibility of abduction by a paedophile? Was it not Kate herself who said: 'People with dirty thoughts have dirty minds.'

Insufferable, the lot of them. And still working for the NHS! Let's hope they don't try and change jobs, because I imagine the pool of people prepared to give them 'exemplary' references is growing smaller by the minute.

In my opinion only.

That's a good question, why not say, they went to bed she was there, with the twins sleeping soundly? The only reason I can think of was the note at the tapas booking, that kids were sleeping in the apartment, therefore, they needed to eat close each night. So, they had to admit they left them each night. Time of checking is a whole other ball game, which IMO, they messed up.

Justformaddie wrote:That's a good question, why not say, they went to bed she was there, with the twins sleeping soundly? The only reason I can think of was the note at the tapas booking, that kids were sleeping in the apartment, therefore, they needed to eat close each night. So, they had to admit they left them each night. Time of checking is a whole other ball game, which IMO, they messed up.

In her book Kate writes, while combing through the Portuguese police files, she discovers the note requesting the block booking written in the staff message book which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day.

"This book was by definition accessible to all staff and, albeit unintentionally, probably to guests and visitors, too. To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."

I wonder if this is true? Would the receptionist really have written that?

I too have my doubts.

"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."


If it exists then this must be in the files somewhere?


Kate doesn't have anything that is not in the public domain does she?

BlueBag wrote:I too have my doubts.

"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."


If it exists then this must be in the files somewhere?


Kate doesn't have anything that is not in the public domain does she?

I was just about to ask the same. I've looked over the files and can't find anything about this. Some other members here are very familiar with the files and IIRC
the only source of this story is Kate's book. Could be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever posted a link to this in the files.

KH1 P.56
 
‘It wasn’t until a year later, when I was combing through the Portuguese police files, that I discovered that the note requesting our block booking was written in a staff message book, which sat on a desk at the pool reception for most of the day’.
 
I do not believe there is any sign of this in the published PJ files, although whether TM had anything different to what was publicly available we do not know. All we do know is that they say they paid £100k to have them 'properly' translated.

The Tapas booking sheets are in there but funnily enough KM is the only person to have found this message or any mention of it, but without confirmation that they received exactly the same selection of published documents we cannot be sure.

Jauna Loca wrote:

BlueBag wrote:I too have my doubts.

"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."


If it exists then this must be in the files somewhere?


Kate doesn't have anything that is not in the public domain does she?

I was just about to ask the same. I've looked over the files and can't find anything about this. Some other members here are very familiar with the files and IIRC
the only source of this story is Kate's book. Could be wrong, but I don't think anyone has ever posted a link to this in the files.

I really don't think this is plausible. How would this entry read?

table 14. 7.30 Mon-Thurs for McCann party. Reason - all members of the party are leaving babies alone, but are definitely checking on them regularly.

Please. I don't think so. At most the reason given could have read something like 'due to childcare arrangements'. 

I too find it very confusing that TM didn't decide to say Madeleine woke and wandered during the night. If she died earlier in the day or a previous day, then they could have either cancelled their reservation for that evening or still gone to eat, but gone home relatively early, woke up in the morning to find her 'gone'. I'll never understand why they didn't do this. It makes me think sometimes that it wasn't planned, and they really did come back at some point during that evening to find an accident.

"To my horror, I saw that, no doubt in all innocence and simply to explain why she was bending the rules a bit, the receptionist had added the reason for our request: we wanted to eat close to our apartments as we were leaving our young children alone there and checking on them intermittently."

[/quote]

Own goal that.
Announcing to the the world they left the children alone every night and not afraid to tell staff about it, even using that as excuse to force reservation.

It's a contrived account to try and excuse their behaviour. Instead it makes them look irresponsible, no reflection on the staff whatsoever as they were only doing their job to accommodate difficult customers.

Presumably any note was written in Portuguese.
If so,

a) how did Kate know what it said

b) how many guests at the tapas were Portuguese/Portuguese speakers?

worriedmum wrote:Presumably any note was written in Portuguese.
If so,

a) how did Kate know what it said

b) how many guests at the tapas were Portuguese/Portuguese speakers?

c) And could read a diary that presumably was upside down.

d) Was it a day per view diary so it was written in everyday? If it was a weekly diary how would anyone zoom into that section given points a, b and c?

JRob wrote:
"There must be a reason for all this."
Yes there is. It's called an alibi.

   

j.rob wrote:

Justformaddie wrote:Just what did this little 3yr old girl do to deserve this? We know that answer, nothing, nothing at all. The real question is what did her parents do to need her concealed? Death after accident IMO wouldn't count as we all know how curious little ones can be, but, neglect, accident then death would be a lot worse. It could be this scenario as I think scientists can get close to the hour of death or closer even? Another question would be why the help afterwards? This tiptoeing around the parents needs to stop for maddie, she's the one that's suffered.
For anyone to earn money form maddie, without stating the truth for her, is not right, including her own mother. All IMO 

Goncalo Amaral has done so through the files, good on him, madeleine by KATE MCCANN was about her IMO

I think that the parents' and their friends' claims (whether or not wholly or even partially true) that they left their children unattended in unlocked apartment while they dined well out of sight and sound need to be explored more closely.

WHY would the McCanns admit to this? I know that it allows for the 'random abduction' story, but a child could be kidnapped while the parents are in the house. At night, for instance, when everyone is asleep. Burglaries happen at night sometimes when the house is occupied. If a television, jewellery and so on can be stolen while people are sleeping, so could a child. It's not impossible. I used to be a very heavy sleeper as a child - I would not have woken up even if someone carried me out of the bed!

The McCanns, could, for instance, have claimed that when they woke up in the morning, Madeleine wasn't there. And they couldn't account for it. There would have been far fewer lies needed to be told. It is a more plausible story as it keeps wide open a huge range of possibilities. If she was a child who woke in the night and got out of bed (the 'star chart' for sleeping suggests this) maybe even a child who sleepwalks, then it is perfectly feasible that she could have got up and wandered off. And come to some harm - accident, picked up by a malevolent stranger, fell down a well. Found by a childless couple etc.

Why did the parents hatch such an elaborate plot? All the 'checking' nonsense and the doors being partially open, or closed, and the windows being open, or closed. And the curtains being open or closed or billowing in the wind. And so on. And who went back to the apartment when, at what time and so on. They have all managed to contradict themselves so much over all this. 

There must be a reason for all this. 

I am extremely suspicious about the role of the friends in all this. Why would they go to such lengths  to cover up an accident? All of them have come up with incredibly dodgy and incriminating statements, in my opinion.

Matthew Oldfield and Jane Tanner even agreed to return to Luz with Gerry to stage a completely farcical 're-enactment' with Gerry. The way it is filmed  is melodramatic, creepy and suspicious. Jane Tanner's joking attitude as she banters with Gerry about Kate 'moaning that Gerry was taking too long watching footie' shows a deeply contemptuous attitude given that she is purportedly taking part in the re-enactment of a very serious crime. Matt Oldfield gives a risible performance of how he stood at the children's bedroom door and how he saw that the twins were breathing but unfortunately he didn't take that one step into the room to check if Madeleine was breathing as well or indeed had been abducted. Which of course, if we believe Jane Tanner's fairy tale, happened at 9.15pm. Matt in his police statement even flags up the name of a road - Cemetery Road - where he went searching for Madeleine that evening. At this stage it was supposed to be a missing child, not a dead child, Matt. 

Russell O'Brien and his partner Rachael both make peculiar statements to the police. Claiming that their daughter had chronic diarrhea all week. Which meant there was a horrendous smell in the apartment and they had to presumably do a lot of washing of clothes and bedding. Rachael recalls how the route to the apartment at night was dark and isolated so she didn't like going there alone. But obviously it was fine to leave their child alone there. Russell in one police statement uses the expression 'clobbering a child' to helpfully point out to the police that statistically when there is a problem it is most likely to be an adult that is related to the child or knows the child well that is responsible. That was thoughtful of him to point that out. I'm sure that had never occurred to the sardine-munchers.

Kate and Russell recount a charming conversation they had with another father at the resort in which they appear to have some light-hearted banter about how ridiculous it is that parents are so paranoid about paedophiles.

Kate and Gerry claim that they considered the risk of their children being abducted from the apartment by someone to have been non-existent. 

"Speaking for myself, I can say, hand on heart, that it never once crossed my mind that this might not be a safe option. If I'd had any doubts whatsoever, I would simply never have entertained it. I love my three children above everything. They are more precious to me than life itself. And I would never knowingly place them at risk, no matter how small a risk it might seem to be."

This is just such a stupid thing to write, given that within moments of finding Madeleine out of her bed, Kate reaches a conclusion she has been abducted. How could her mind switch from considering there was no risk of that, to considering that that was the only plausible explanation?

In any event, given that Madeleine had a 'star chart' to encourage her to stay in her bed, and given that Kate and Gerry both admit to the children waking up and crying at night that week (and them not going to them) we know that is a lie that Madeleine could not have got up to try to find them. As Kate herself has told us in her book, and as the evidence from a neighbour suggests, neither Kate or Gerry went back to the apartment when Madeleine or the twins cry. So all the more likely for Madeleine to wake up and try to find her parents, seeing as she knows, from at least one prior incident, that her parents won't come back to her or the twins.

The reason, imo, that Kate is so adamant that Madeleine would not have got up and wandered off is I would imagine almost certainly because Madeleine been sedated on Thursday night and probably the night before too, imo. Which, in typical Kate fashion, she tries to pin onto the random 'abductor'. I suppose to cover any evidence of sedation should the twins have been taken to hospital to be checked. Which, of course, they should have been. So why did none of those doctors, including Madeleine's parents, suggest this? Not exactly responsible behaviour given that a (paedophile) abductor has been in the bedroom.

And why would Kate and other members of the Tapas flag up the possibility of abduction by a paedophile? Was it not Kate herself who said: 'People with dirty thoughts have dirty minds.'

Insufferable, the lot of them. And still working for the NHS! Let's hope they don't try and change jobs, because I imagine the pool of people prepared to give them 'exemplary' references is growing smaller by the minute.

In my opinion only.

In my opinion J Rob your opinion is wonderfully incisive! I'd thrown in the mystery of why, despite Jane Tanner have allegedly seen the abduction take place and the direction in which the abductor headed off, and despite JT having realised this at or soon after 10pm by their account, none of them made an organised search in the direction taken by the alleged abductor. Truly incredible!

No doubt Anthony Summers will deal in detail with all these inconsistencies and allay all our concerns!    

Risky putting another book out that only shows the McCanns ina  good light. It will be torn to shreds in the comments section of Amazon if it doesn't cut the mustard. Kate's books have already been under considerable attack. Noone's going to risk a defamatory account, so, as far as I am concerned, the hype is going to be nothing more than the hype of that new Crimewatch report last year, i.e. nothing new of note. I, for one, won't be buying it! There'll be nothing new of any significant interest in this case until the police start to turn their attention towards the McCanns and Tapas Cronies as suspects. But that will never, ever happen.

You could invite all your friends round and have an 'Anthony Summers' party. 

Various items available such as books, good quality cock rings...for your birds to play with, of course! I dunno, you and your filthy mind!

I know I shouldn't mock, but I just can't take this seriously anymore. Years of trying to find a Sinderella that fits an imaginary (allegedly) shoe...

I wonder if this book will mention the lie detector results? .......The new computer generated one that featured on t.v not so long ago.

Just to correct a bit of confusion in j rob's post yesterday - and copied by Okeydokey - that Rachael is not the partner of Russell O'Brien.

It's Jane Tanner who is. Rachael is married to Matt Oldfield.

Brian Griffin wrote:Risky putting another book out that only shows the McCanns ina  good light. It will be torn to shreds in the comments section of Amazon if it doesn't cut the mustard. Kate's books have already been under considerable attack. Noone's going to risk a defamatory account, so, as far as I am concerned, the hype is going to be nothing more than the hype of that new Crimewatch report last year, i.e. nothing new of note. I, for one, won't be buying it! There'll be nothing new of any significant interest in this case until the police start to turn their attention towards the McCanns and Tapas Cronies as suspects. But that will never, ever happen.

I'm sure your right. I have a suspicion the book might not get reviewed too well...there are going to be a lot of jealous critics - people who write in this area - who are not going to like Summers trying to corner the McCann market without undertaking any searching evaluation of the Tapas 9 narrative. They won't be able to say anything anti-McCann but they will be able to say plenty anti-Summers.

Of course the book will be a love fest . as they stated they will de bunk all the rumours . but there account will be out there and  it WILL be tested .

 I fully expect a chapter on the dogs trying to totally discredit there findings . 

Even so it will serve its purpose ,because most people take things at face value . 

But it will be interesting to see if / when GA wins his case , will his book be in the true crime section and there account ,in  fiction  .