Amazon comments on THAT book
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3 
Amazon comments on THAT book
Here they are before someone at Amazon goes: 'Whoosh - CLUNK':
+++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++
Initial post: 29 Nov 2010 00:32 GMT
Last edited by the author on 29 Nov 2010 00:35 GMT
Sugar Plum says: Madeleine
When there is so much doubt surrounding the night of May the 3rd 2007 wouldnt the McCann's time have been, better spent returning to Portugal and helping to re-open the case by taking part in a reconstruction of the events of that evening rather than writing some self- serving tome that will help not one jot in the search for Madeleine ?
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse
7 of 10 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 09:37 GMT
Unhappy Customer says: Perhaps the McCanns and their seven friends should have agreed to help the police and they should have taken part in a reconstruction. Rather than refusing to take part - as this didn't help the "search" and only added to the suspicions surrounding them and their seven friends. Their version of the events of the 3rd of May 2007 is confusing and at times contradictory. Perhaps this book will be a way of them "re-explaining" their version of the story. But wouldn't helping the police be easier and better and quicker? I mean - a child is missing.
Your reply to Unhappy Customer's post:
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 17:59 GMT
Last edited by the author 19 hours ago
Somewhere says: I can't help but think that the book will exist entirely of a long-winded monologue on the subject of how hard done by the McCanns have been. Forget the fact that millions of pounds have been raised with the help of schoolchildren and OAPs, some of which was used to pay the mortgage of the McCann's house, and to pay for the robust defense of the McCanns 'good name'; I think the McCanns must feel very hard done by the fact a few people choose not to forget that a *three year old child* and *two year old twins* were left unattended on a dark night - the fact that Kate and Gerry were drinking the night away only makes the situation more heinous. And now she is gone. How can Kate blame the police, when she refused to answer the 48 questions asked of her?
Your reply to Somewhere's post:
4 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 19:48 GMT
Last edited by the author 17 hours ago
Not Impressed says: The parents never refused to take part in a reconstruction, that's an outright lie. Not even possible legally! Some of the other witnesses did refuse to go, their reasons for doing so may be read in full at the Maddiecasefiles site. And no, I wouldn't have gone either in their shoes.
I very much look forward to reading the book, it's about time their side was heard above the din of the self-opinionated and partially informed who have fallen willing victim to a sustained campaign of vilification started in Portugal by elements of the police. A campaign which was noted and exposed by the President of the Portuguese Bar Association, among many others.
Your reply to Not Impressed's post:
Reply to this post
Permalink | Report abuse
3 of 6 people think this post adds to the discussion. Do you?
Posted on 29 Nov 2010 23:33 GMT
Last edited by the author 13 hours ago
Sugar Plum says: The PP made it implicit in his archiving dispatch that by not attending the reconstruction the MCCanns had failed clear up major discrepancies that existed in their statements and therefore had given up the chance to clear themselves of all suspicion.
To say that the McCanns did not refuse to go to the reconstruction, while technically true, belies the hard reality that they colluded with their holiday friends in order to scupper the reconstruction from the very beginning. Why were they so scared to reconstruct that night ? Surely if they were telling the truth about the sequence of events a reconstruction would have removed all suspicion from the McCann and helped to re- focus the investigation in another direction. Of course if their had been a reconstruction perhaps the PJ may not have been so willing as Edgar in the mockumentary to accept Gerry's claim that he was on the right side of the road during the Tanner sighting . This was in spite of Tanner and Wilkins both saying he was on the left hand side.
Also if the reconstruction had gone ahead it would have been abundantly clear that Tanner could not have walked past Gerry and Wilkins on the narrow street they were chatting on and not be noticed and could not have made out the details she claims to have seen regarding both Madeleine and the alleged abductor, due to distance and poor lighting.

Tony Bennett- Posts: 5908
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Re: Amazon comments on THAT book
so many times they have voiced their concerns that this that and the other could harm the search for maddie....yet they themselves could have proved beyond doubt they were not involved....by answering questions/reconstruction/lie detector....yet chose to not do any of them ...because they know they are involved........it can only be the one reason they know they are lying.....
one thing alone in my mind ...the fact they left the twins in the creche when they were away ...said it all [apart from the other 101 things]....they knew it was safe to leave them ..there was no abductor....and the book they have wrote is only going to continue the lie...until some one has the courage [who can] stop them in their tracks ...and start caring what has happened to maddie....want answers .....not what is happening to the mccs
may i take this opportunity also thank and admire you for all that you do on behalf of maddie and us tony x

garfy- Posts: 72
Join date: 2010-07-08
Location: yorkshire
Re: Amazon comments on THAT book
Last edited by saloongirl on Tue Nov 30, 2010 4:42 pm; edited 1 time in total (Reason for editing : spelling)

saloongirl- Posts: 73
Join date: 2010-10-11
Re: Amazon comments on THAT book
saloongirl wrote:Where these comments under customer reviews? If so they have disappeared.
Another disappearance? There seem to have been far too many disappearances in this case. One was only speaking to somebody recently with regard to some photographs of FSS workers having disappeared from the internet. There is no doubt that the many media monitors are being vigilant in their work to make all comments about these people disappear. Prime Ministers and Presidents have rarely been afforded this level of protection.
It may be a good idea to hoist all material directly into Wikileaks for safe-keeping. Albeit various governments are branding them a terrorist organisation en ce moment.
Transparency and democracy seem destined never to marry.

Judge Mental- Posts: 2765
Join date: 2010-03-17
Age: 76
Location: Chambers
Re: Amazon comments on THAT book
saloongirl wrote:Were these comments under customer reviews? If so they have disappeared.
Here you go sg:
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=ntt_mus_ep_cd_tft_tp?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdThread=Tx3V9M9SOXCI5FM

maebee- Posts: 236
Join date: 2009-12-03
Location: Ireland
Re: Amazon comments on THAT book

garfy- Posts: 72
Join date: 2010-07-08
Location: yorkshire
The response to censorship
garfy wrote:May I take this opportunity also thank you for all that you do on behalf of Maddie and us Tony x
Well, that is kind, but as I'm sure you know there are hundreds out there who contribute, in all sorts of ways, to the search for final answers about what really happened to Madeleine McCann. Take the superlative work done at mccannfiles, for example, and on other research forums.
I think we have a message - and I believe in trying to get that message out from the forums and over to the general public.
That is necessary whenever the mainstream media censor proper debate and discussion of an important subject.
Those who make dubious claims about what has happened to their missing child should expect to be challenged.

Tony Bennett- Posts: 5908
Join date: 2009-11-25
Age: 65
Location: Harlow, Essex
Re: Amazon comments on THAT book
Why is it only the pros are making a fuss over anti abduction comments.
Anyway, if the posts were not abusive, only fair views of readers, how can any media justify the whoosh clunck?
Even if the mccanns personally lodged those complaints that still does not justify the deletion because surely people are entitled to their opinions so long as the posts are not derogatory.

aiyoyo- Posts: 5351
Join date: 2009-11-28
Re: Amazon comments on THAT book
aiyoyo wrote:What I dont understand who whoosh clunck those comments at Amazon, because they are not UK based are they? Well, even if they are, then it wont be wrong to assume complaints were received by Amazon.
Why is it only the pros are making a fuss over anti abduction comments.
Anyway, if the posts were not abusive, only fair views of readers, how can any media justify the whoosh clunck?
Even if the mccanns personally lodged those complaints that still does not justify the deletion because surely people are entitled to their opinions so long as the posts are not derogatory.
Perhaps they - Amazon UK itself AND the pros - are justified because the book hasn't even been published yet; how can anyone comment on it? Once it is published, that will be a different matter.
Incidentally, I've checked the Amazon USA and France sites and they, too, are listing that book. Other Amazon sites presumably have it too. We'll have fun


espeland- Posts: 45
Join date: 2010-10-31
Re: Amazon comments on THAT book
http://www.amazon.co.uk/gp/forum/cd/discussion.html/ref=ntt_mus_ep_cd_tft_tp?ie=UTF8&cdForum=FxQ9BDPD12JT49&cdThread=Tx3V9M9SOXCI5FM

maebee- Posts: 236
Join date: 2009-12-03
Location: Ireland
Page 1 of 3 • 1, 2, 3 
Similar topics» Amazon readers' negative comments on McCanns new book
» Enter a book review on AMAZON
» Why was my Madeleine McCann Book Banned?
» Jenny Murat on Kate McCanns book
