BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

JanKnight wrote:I am not surprised that the book was reduced to £9 almost immediately by Amazon because as soon as it hit the shelves at Asda it was priced at £10.  What does surprise me however is that it has disappeared locally from the shelves at Asda.  Has anyone else noticed this?  Even if their stock had sold out - and there was no indication that people were buying it - they've had plenty of time to restock.  Even when a book is not selling well, it usually remains on the shelf for a least a month.  I think this one was on the shelf for about  two weeks.

Brian Griffin wrote:New cover, dramatic new tagline? Same book block? New edition with 'New, All-Important Facts'?
.

PeterMac wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:New cover, dramatic new tagline? Same book block? New edition with 'New, All-Important Facts'?
.

Just one book with ANY Facts would be most welcome.
The only ones so far are TB's pamphlet and Dr Amaral's, both of which are no longer available in the UK.
Kate's autobiography is sparse on important facts; other attempts have similarly not been able to grasp the central issues
and the Winters and Goose simply skirted round anything which might have thrown some light on what happened.

And when we have His Honour Mr Justice Tugendhat saying that facts themselves are capable of being defamatory . . .  !

The internet is the only way forward.   It will always be a long way ahead of any legal jurisdiction's attempts to control it.   Luckily.

You Tube is a very powerful tool. People like to see and hear, even if they don't want to read.  
Watch Brunt reporting the 100%DNA matches, and saying that the McCanns were involved in Madeleine's DEATH !    You Horrible troll, Martin !
Brilliant, and there is more to come.
2&2 have 2 more to come, and if they are building up the tension, they might be on to something.  (For those who missed part 2 they have destroyed Tanner and Gerry with Tanner's "Kate was moaning about Gerry being so long in the apartment she thought he might have been watching the football", and Gerry's quick check, quick pee, and out.)
And HiDeHo is always worth following.  He / she appears afraid of no one.

Keep following.

jeanmonroe wrote:PMac:
2&2 have 2 more to come
-------------------------------------------------
Well 2&2 got one thing 'wrong'!
When they said they didn't 'think' the McCanns would 'respond'!
Just look at the 'activity' by TM, ( and i'm including S News 'in' TM) this last week!

Brian Griffin wrote:Hold everything...

From a comment response by Vten on an Amazon review by a Jean Sasson


"The case, arguably, did not produce 'inconclusive evidence.' It failed to bring, under Portuguese law, prosecutable evidence. In other countries of the world, however, the fact that EVRD and blood dogs alerted so positively to multiple locations within the holiday apartment and no others, the evidence of the apartment being extensively cleaned so recently that the forensic detectives could barely find a trace of the family that had stayed there for several days already, the dogs alerting to the hire car rented some time later, and finding blood and hair samples which had a 75% match to the child's genotype, combined with the bizarre observations of witnesses which the McCann's gave the most preposterous excuses for (cadaver in the boot of the car was actually traces of sea bass from the dietary demands of an 18 month old (not to mention the google searches for how and what causes cadaverine to be formed), the stench from the back of the car which had to be washed, deodorised and aired out for several nights in the driveway was actually some blood from steak that spilled and went off, the contradictory timelines, the false leads and misdirection, the unusual phone activity) would be enough to gain a conviction even in the absence of a body."

Google searches for cadaverine? seriously? I hadn't heard about this before. So am I reading this right? The McCanns searched Google for cadaverine and the police have records of their doing it? When was this? What explanation did the McCanns give for it? I suppose they could get away with the rotting meat and the dirty nappies excuse, but if they had made these suspicious searches on Google then how could they explain that away and get away with it?

WMD wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:Hold everything...

From a comment response by Vten on an Amazon review by a Jean Sasson


"The case, arguably, did not produce 'inconclusive evidence.' It failed to bring, under Portuguese law, prosecutable evidence. In other countries of the world, however, the fact that EVRD and blood dogs alerted so positively to multiple locations within the holiday apartment and no others, the evidence of the apartment being extensively cleaned so recently that the forensic detectives could barely find a trace of the family that had stayed there for several days already, the dogs alerting to the hire car rented some time later, and finding blood and hair samples which had a 75% match to the child's genotype, combined with the bizarre observations of witnesses which the McCann's gave the most preposterous excuses for (cadaver in the boot of the car was actually traces of sea bass from the dietary demands of an 18 month old (not to mention the google searches for how and what causes cadaverine to be formed), the stench from the back of the car which had to be washed, deodorised and aired out for several nights in the driveway was actually some blood from steak that spilled and went off, the contradictory timelines, the false leads and misdirection, the unusual phone activity) would be enough to gain a conviction even in the absence of a body."

Google searches for cadaverine? seriously? I hadn't heard about this before. So am I reading this right? The McCanns searched Google for cadaverine and the police have records of their doing it? When was this? What explanation did the McCanns give for it? I suppose they could get away with the rotting meat and the dirty nappies excuse, but if they had made these suspicious searches on Google then how could they explain that away and get away with it?

If they had googled,it would have been in Portugal wouldn't it,maybe they were being watched?

WMD wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:Hold everything...

From a comment response by Vten on an Amazon review by a Jean Sasson


"The case, arguably, did not produce 'inconclusive evidence.' It failed to bring, under Portuguese law, prosecutable evidence. In other countries of the world, however, the fact that EVRD and blood dogs alerted so positively to multiple locations within the holiday apartment and no others, the evidence of the apartment being extensively cleaned so recently that the forensic detectives could barely find a trace of the family that had stayed there for several days already, the dogs alerting to the hire car rented some time later, and finding blood and hair samples which had a 75% match to the child's genotype, combined with the bizarre observations of witnesses which the McCann's gave the most preposterous excuses for (cadaver in the boot of the car was actually traces of sea bass from the dietary demands of an 18 month old (not to mention the google searches for how and what causes cadaverine to be formed), the stench from the back of the car which had to be washed, deodorised and aired out for several nights in the driveway was actually some blood from steak that spilled and went off, the contradictory timelines, the false leads and misdirection, the unusual phone activity) would be enough to gain a conviction even in the absence of a body."

Google searches for cadaverine? seriously? I hadn't heard about this before. So am I reading this right? The McCanns searched Google for cadaverine and the police have records of their doing it? When was this? What explanation did the McCanns give for it? I suppose they could get away with the rotting meat and the dirty nappies excuse, but if they had made these suspicious searches on Google then how could they explain that away and get away with it?

If they had googled,it would have been in Portugal wouldn't it,maybe they were being watched?

aiyoyo wrote:http://www.mirror.co.uk/news/uk-news/alice-gross-missing-madeleine-mccann-4348073

Gerry's claim that dogs are notoriously unreliable has no leg to stand on.  
The same dogs used to search for Alice Gross were used by OG in Portugal to search for Madeleine remains.  It shows Met Police not only rely on dogs, they trust the dogs reliability.

Given that, it's hard to believe OG would discount the dogs evidence in MBM case.  The focus has got to be on where and by implication who the dogs indicated.

Brian Griffin wrote:The dogs are reliable and everyone knows it, including Gerry McCann! Ask him to prove they are unreliable - 'notoriously unreliable' and he won't have a leg to stand on because all the evidence (one of our Gezza's favourite words) points to their being 'famously' reliable, infallible in the case of Eddie and Keela as far as I know. It's only in this Maddie case where all the rules seem to have changed.
Why?

In my opinion.

Brian Griffin wrote:The dogs are reliable and everyone knows it, including Gerry McCann! Ask him to prove they are unreliable - 'notoriously unreliable' and he won't have a leg to stand on because all the evidence (one of our Gezza's favourite words) points to their being 'famously' reliable, infallible in the case of Eddie and Keela as far as I know. It's only in this Maddie case where all the rules seem to have changed.
Why?

In my opinion.

aiyoyo wrote:

Brian Griffin wrote:The dogs are reliable and everyone knows it, including Gerry McCann! Ask him to prove they are unreliable - 'notoriously unreliable' and he won't have a leg to stand on because all the evidence (one of our Gezza's favourite words) points to their being 'famously' reliable, infallible in the case of Eddie and Keela as far as I know. It's only in this Maddie case where all the rules seem to have changed.
Why?

In my opinion.

Gerry was doing damage limitation when he poo poo the dogs. He knows it and we know it.  He was fooling no one.

Okeydokey wrote:
One wonders if there is a scandal lurking here? Are the Met Police deliberately holding back on use of sniffer dogs because they don't want to give credence to the use of the dogs in the McCann case? 

Brian Griffin wrote:

Okeydokey wrote:
One wonders if there is a scandal lurking here? Are the Met Police deliberately holding back on use of sniffer dogs because they don't want to give credence to the use of the dogs in the McCann case? 

It wouldn't surprise me given the sheer effort being put in, on so many levels, to protect a negligent couple of doctors on holiday. Sure this is unprecedented. The scale and intensity of it are mind-boggling!

In my opinion.