Re: Have we been too harsh on the book ?

by Mrs Holmes 25.09.14 22:05

Could it be that the authors have left themselves wiggle room for future developments and their next version?

I believe they've already hinted at an updated edition to be published should new facts come to light.

by Brian Griffin 25.09.14 22:37

The facts are all there to see in the police records online. Most of the key issues that, at the very least, suggest looking at the McCanns as possible suspects rather than innocents have been deliberately ignored. It could be that S&S didn't realise how badly their book would be received, but I doubt anyone will take any future work by them seriously. In my opinion.

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 13:21

Anyone in any doubt as to whether there was an abduction should read just TEN pages of the Winters and Goose book.
In a short ten pages they lay out to anyone who bothers reading it that there is no possible Window of opportunity for pretty well anything, let alone Abduction and sedation.
They start on p. 73 by pasting in a fuzzy copy of the agreed TM timeline, the typed one submitted after joint talks among the entire group.
This one
Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 Tapastimeline2

Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 Tapastimeline2

Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 Tapastimeline3

Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 Tapastimeline4

what they then spectacularly fail to do it to examine it in any detail as we have done over the years.
To re-cap and state it in a different way
Apartment 5A is guarded both front and back at the following times by people passing, re-passing, or physically entering, remaining and exiting.
Only the slivers of time between those passes and visits are therefore available.

2105 to 2115 GM and JT going , and GM then standing around chatting
2120 JT returning so passing 5A front 2118, back 2119)
2125 to 2127 MO and RJO passing front and back
2135 MO returning (so passing 5A frront 2132, back 2133)
2140 JT passing
2145 RJO returning, (so passing 5A front 2143, back 2144)
2155 KM
every one of these times must be expanded by a minute or so in either direction, since on exiting the Pool area one can see the entire street, and see whether the gate is open or the light on
One can also see clearly whether anyone is around (lurking in TM-speak).

So where precisely is the Window of opportunity for anyone go in through the side gate, close it behind them climb the stairs, open the baby gate, close it, open the patio doors, close them, push aside the curtains, close them, sedate three small children, select one, go out the same way, or via the front door, turn left along the path, cross the car park,
in the teeth of a gale of humans passing and re-passing.
And that is just the Tapas group. Remember there were also other stray people, JW, and Tannerman for example passing and re-passing and generally seeing what was going on and chatting to people they hardly knew.

And then by p. 78 they start talking about the sedation of the children, and finish a rambling passage by saying that it could not have been done by an Amateur, whilst observing that FP and KM are professionals in this specialty.
Is there any point in reading anything else.
They seem to have proved the total impossibility of the McCanns purported scenario - such as it is.

by Guest 26.09.14 13:45

I can only think that a Ninja did it. (Trained in anesthetics).

Did Gerry check the ceiling when he went in?

Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 River_ceiling2

Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 River_ceiling2

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 15:00

BlueBag wrote:I can only think that a Ninja did it. (Trained in anesthetics).

Did Gerry check the ceiling when he went in?
" />

Or Shelob !
Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 <a href=

Have we been too harsh on the book ? - Page 2 Spider10

" />

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:05

I this deliberately dishonest and deliberately trying to mislead . .
Or just dreadful writing and barely literate use of English

p. 284
Chaper 23
Kate McCan had got wind of the fact that there had been previous assaults on little girls the very morning after her daughter's disappearance."
Similar to the old chestnut
I saw a man in the street with a dog wearing no trousers\
The lack of punctuation and the sloppy juxtaposition within the sentence of previous assaults . . the very morning after . . .is capable in the mind of someone who is not examining it in detail of implying that there had been assaults that very morning. Just as the dog was wearing no trousers.

Better surely, and more accurate, to have written
Kate McCann had got wind the very morning after her daughter's disappearance of the fact that there had been previous assaults on little girls."

Sloppy, or a deliberate twisting ? For a professional writer it is inexcusable either way.

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:05

and again

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:05

duplicate, sorry

by Guest 26.09.14 21:10

Something repeating on you Peter?

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:17

"The authors wish to make it clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCanns, . . .were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance of the repercussions that followed."

Which one supposed makes it CarterRuck proof.
what about
Children and Young Persons Act 1933
1933 CHAPTER 12 23 and 24 Geo 5
1 Cruelty to persons under sixteen.
(1)If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding ten years;

Three children, on SIX consecutive nights, even after the eldest one has specifically complained about being abandoned in that way . . .

what about
Perverting the Course of Justice
English Common Law
"Between 4 May 2007 and 4 May 2007 you with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice, in that you provided the police with two statements which were inaccurate." [taken from the charges against Briscoe, see http://ukcriminallawblog.com/tag/perverting-the-course-of-justice/]
Start with front door -v- patio door, Gerry, then curtains wide open -v- tight closed and whoshing, Kate, and go on from there.

what about
Oh what's the point !

by **PeterMac** 26.09.14 21:28

p. 284
"Relevant material, Redwood thought, might be lying forgotten 'in police exhibit stores somewhere in the Algarve'.
If such evidence does exist, could be retrieved, and if - the big 'if' - it led to identification of an individual, the investigation might take a great leap forward. "

What then if the relevant material lies, not in an Exhibit store, but in Dr Amaral's personal files ?
What if such material already lies in the Prosecution Authorities' computers, waiting only for the single piece of necessary corroboration ?
What if the material already lies in any of the books the McCanns have tried so hard to ban, and at such great cost.
What it the material lies within their own book, and by publishing it they have drawn attention to a juxtaposition and corroboration no one had spotted, but now do.
What if the person identified turned out to be someone Winters and Goose had already tried to exculpate ?
Then they would be absolutely correct.
The investigation could take a great leap forward.

by plebgate 26.09.14 21:45

I feel PeterM is hinting at something, oh can't wait to know what he has seen ref. his post earlier in the week. How much longer do we have to wait PeterM?

by Guest 26.09.14 21:51

PeterMac wrote:"The authors wish to make it clear at the outset that, after more than two years studying this controversial case, they have seen not a shred of evidence to indicate that Gerry and Kate McCanns, . . .were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance of the repercussions that followed."

Which one supposed makes it CarterRuck proof.
what about
Children and Young Persons Act 1933
1933 CHAPTER 12 23 and 24 Geo 5
1 Cruelty to persons under sixteen.
(1)If any person who has attained the age of sixteen years and has responsibility for any child or young person under that age, wilfully assaults, ill-treats, neglects, abandons, or exposes him, or causes or procures him to be assaulted, ill-treated, neglected, abandoned, or exposed, in a manner likely to cause him unnecessary suffering or injury to health (including injury to or loss of sight, or hearing, or limb, or organ of the body, and any mental derangement), that person shall be guilty of a misdemeanor, and shall be liable—
(a) on conviction on indictment, to a fine or in addition thereto, to imprisonment for any term not exceeding ten years;

Three children, on SIX consecutive nights, even after the eldest one has specifically complained about being abandoned in that way . . .

what about
Perverting the Course of Justice
English Common Law
"Between 4 May 2007 and 4 May 2007 you with intent to pervert the course of public justice, did a series of acts which had a tendency to pervert the course of public justice, in that you provided the police with two statements which were inaccurate." [taken from the charges against Briscoe, see http://ukcriminallawblog.com/tag/perverting-the-course-of-justice/]
Start with front door -v- patio door, Gerry, then curtains wide open -v- tight closed and whoshing, Kate, and go on from there.

what about
Oh what's the point !

Along with Plebgate I think you are leading us to something.

by Guest 26.09.14 21:53

plebgate wrote:I feel PeterM is hinting at something, oh can't wait to know what he has seen ref. his post earlier in the week. How much longer do we have to wait PeterM?

Plebs, would you kindly c/p PeterM's post you've mentioned?

by plebgate 26.09.14 21:55

Ladyinred wrote:
plebgate wrote:I feel PeterM is hinting at something, oh can't wait to know what he has seen ref. his post earlier in the week. How much longer do we have to wait PeterM?

Plebs, would you kindly c/p PeterM's post you've mentioned?

I would LIR if I knew how to find it. smilie

Maybe someone else will do it as I can't remember the exact wording of the post, but something PeterM has seen and will be revealed, but didn't say when.

by Guest 26.09.14 22:09

PeterMac wrote:
Or as we know - NOT very strange.

It must rank alongside the inability of the McCanns to write TB off as a nutter, and to refuse to dignify his pamphlet with a comment.
It must rank alongsire the inability of the Mccanns to write Dr Amaral off as merely incompetent and wrong.
But they didn't and can't
Because, as with Summers-and-rex-Swann, people are saying things which hit home, and are too uncomfortable for them all.

Now watch and wait. Something else is being prepared by someone else, and I have been allowed a sneak pre-view.

Was it this from the 'half price' thread?

I note as well that PeterMac finds the thought of the mysterious video due to be released by a new Twitter user on October 12 to be 'tantalising'...

PeterMac....???

by plebgate 26.09.14 22:13

Thank you Dee Coy, that's it.

I think, having read it again, it's the 12th October vid.

by Guest 26.09.14 22:14

Thank you.

by **PeterMac** 30.09.14 14:31

It seems the authors have been harsher on their 'work" then we have.
And the S&S video looks as it it may turn out to be disappointing, and just a re-hash of what we already know, made by someone who didn't.

Ah well, back to patient analysis !

by Dont Make Me Laff 30.09.14 18:46

PeterMac wrote:It seems the authors have been harsher on their 'work" then we have.
And the S&S video looks as it it may turn out to be disappointing, and just a re-hash of what we already know, made by someone who didn't.

Ah well, back to patient analysis !

sorry for late response.
Many posts today re various subjects.
I agree that S&S (or as you call them W&G sooo funny PM - my view of them is Turkey and Chicken) have shot themselves in the foot and scored a massive own goal

Am I correct that you were going to start a NEW thread? if so APOLOGIES FOR MISSING IT....

by Brian Griffin 30.09.14 22:11

'Turkey'? Is that an old-man flabby neck joke?

Just wondered.

by aiyoyo 01.10.14 11:40

Mrs Holmes wrote:Could it be that the authors have left themselves wiggle room for future developments and their next version?

I believe they've already hinted at an updated edition to be published should new facts come to light.

Like what? Write a post-mortem book of the case after it is solved, prosecution had, and closed?

Another definitive account?

They would have to redeem themselves from this dented reputation first before they can hope to attract readership.

Winters is well past his prime. It would be left to Goose and we know the quality (lack of) of the end product to expect. Besides, come post mortem time competition will be stiff. Many more will be writing book about the McCanns. I suspect some may already have started on the manuscripts waiting for it to go to print.

by **PeterMac** 01.10.14 13:06

aiyoyo wrote:
Mrs Holmes wrote:Could it be that the authors have left themselves wiggle room for future developments and their next version?
I believe they've already hinted at an updated edition to be published should new facts come to light.
Like what? Write a post-mortem book of the case after it is solved, prosecution had, and closed?
Another definitive account?

fairly easy really, given the format of the book.

They simply take each of the plagiarised or copied and pasted sentences and instead of "she recalled later" or "she was to say"
they replace with "She LIED"

Then it would be definitive !

by The....truth 01.10.14 13:28

Precisely !!

It is all cobblers, its obvious, in my opinion.

Once you take the view, as I do, based on the facts before me, that the whole story is just that, then it all changes. In my view there was no abduction, just an staging, led by a Director who is referred to in T9 statement somewhere. It all happened several days before, whatever it was.

This forum would therefore be better served IMHO by focussing patient analysis on the expats who were involved, the cars, the trip to Sagres, the phone logs. The trips around the barn. The coincidences.

The was he or was he not discussion around Smithman is time consuming and interesting but, who put Smithman in the frame so to speak. Why, it was Redwood of course and is he and Grange are about to nail UK based perps ? I don't think so.

To return, the Winters and Goose twaddle was designed to coincide with closure of the damages trial IMO. Grange final visit was also lined up, IMO for the same time. UK sheeple then get serialized W&G with their cornflakes, it was Mummyman wot did it, everybody happy. Dissenters put on third and final warning then closed down, or banged up. Tony's hate preaching over intelligent design should be enough to send him down I would have though !! Don't grow a beard Tony whatever you do !

by Brian Griffin 01.10.14 17:42

aiyoyo wrote:Another definitive account?

You can only cry 'Wolf!' so often though.

I think even George Lucas realised he was pushing it with release after release of 'Limited Edition' Star Wars trilogy sets - the new version, the undoctored version without all the silly added slapstick (obviously not the tag-line he went for - the edition with extra footage - the first director's cut - the second director's cut - the definitive director's cut - the director's cut before the other director's cuts...well, I'm exaggerating slightly but you know what I mean! People start to feel like suckers!

In my opinion.