Re: 'Faked Abduction' Book - The Sun 27.01.2010

by aliberte2 27.01.10 23:40

it's a Disgrace that Stevo did Not Contact Amaral, has no Permission from Amaral, Didn't even Get it Really Translated from the Portuguese and is Hawking this As His Book. Period. It will Go Nowhere and Do nothing In the States or Any other English Speaking Country FOR these Reasons.

by Pascal 27.01.10 23:44

vaguely1 wrote:
Autumn wrote:
vaguely1 wrote:You think it was booked after the court appearance?

Who knows but, they may feel on cloud nine tonite but theyl be back to reality with a bump come the conclusion of the hearing. Amaral doesn't go in for the tacky publicity courted by the McCanns, he remains quietly dignified and confident - that is what appeals to the public.

I can't imagine they're feeling on cloud nine.

No matter what side of the fence you're on - at the end of the day Madeleine has been missing for 1000 days. 1000 days without your baby daughter.

That's not what cloud nine is about.

it sure aint. Wink

by bellatrix 28.01.10 0:18

Autumn wrote:
bellatrix wrote:Truth? What truth? Everything is speculation,opinion and theory.IIRC stevo had some very bizarre ideas about Madeleine,I wonder what he is going to do with the profits ( :ambersuz: )?

Yet you have nothing to say about the McCanns' shameless use of their daughter as a 'cash cow'.

http://store.findmadeleine.com/

Because I dont see it the same way you do.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.10 17:37

jkh wrote:I think Stevo has merely pinched the translation of Goncalo's original book done by AnnaEsse and put a new cover on it. I don't think he even got Goncalo's permission to do it.

It is for these reasons that The Madeleine Foundation cannot support this book.

No matter how accurate the facts in the book, and no matter how good the interpretations of those facts, our understanding is that he is simply reproducing Goncalo Amaral's book lock, stock and two smoking barrels without his permission (if we're wrong no doubt Steve Marsden will tell us). But in addition, it appears that according to statements Mr Marsden has made in the past that he is lifting word-for-word AnneEsse's own translation, no doubt painstakingly done, again without permission (once more, we are open to being corrected). The only changes he said he is going to make is to convert a few words from AnnaEsse's English into Americanisms.

It is doubtful whether anyone should buy a book that is guilty of such a double plagiarism.

In addition, there was a suggestion that he was going to reproduce '60 Reasons' within 'Fake Abduction'. If he does that without our written and express consent, that would be a third reason why this book should not be supported.

by Autumn 28.01.10 19:59

aliberte2 wrote:it's a Disgrace that Stevo did Not Contact Amaral, has no Permission from Amaral, Didn't even Get it Really Translated from the Portuguese and is Hawking this As His Book. Period. It will Go Nowhere and Do nothing In the States or Any other English Speaking Country FOR these Reasons.

Im not convinced that this book actually exists, we'v heard it all before. The cover itself is bizarre and off-putting and don't think many would be tempted to pick it up off the shelf to leaf through it, let alone buy it. I'l wait until the injunction is lifted from Snr Amaral's book, which surely if there is any justice in the world it will be, and buy up enough to give as presents. I don not like the way that Stevo has gone about this and, from what Tony says, has been most unfair in his dealings with the Madeleine Foundation. I beleive, also, that Stevo has set up an online shop selling tacky items - as with the McCanns, I do not think that this is right and feel that the online Madeleine shops are distasteful.

by **Tony Bennett** 28.01.10 20:18

Autumn wrote:
aliberte2 wrote:it's a Disgrace that Stevo did Not Contact Amaral, has no Permission from Amaral, Didn't even Get it Really Translated from the Portuguese and is Hawking this As His Book. Period. It will Go Nowhere and Do nothing In the States or Any other English Speaking Country FOR these Reasons.

Im not convinced that this book actually exists, we'v heard it all before. The cover itself is bizarre and off-putting and don't think many would be tempted to pick it up off the shelf to leaf through it, let alone buy it. I'l wait until the injunction is lifted from Snr Amaral's book, which surely if there is any justice in the world it will be, and buy up enough to give as presents. I don not like the way that Stevo has gone about this and, from what Tony says, has been most unfair in his dealings with the Madeleine Foundation. I beleive, also, that Stevo has set up an online shop selling tacky items - as with the McCanns, I do not think that this is right and feel that the online Madeleine shops are distasteful.

I think the book exists, Stevo spoke of it being printed by Mexican printers - or should I say a printers in Mexico.

I agree with you about the strange cover.

Why not a 'pic' of Madeleine, if it's about her?

by Cath 29.01.10 1:15

Copyright issues perhaps.
But that doesn't seem to stop him copying someone else's work.

by vaguely1 29.01.10 1:19

Actually I think it's more the case that it has sweet FA to do with Madeleine and everything to do with the authors of these bloody books.

by aiyoyo 30.01.10 9:01

So when is this so talked about book going to hit the shelves?

by Cath 30.01.10 12:09

According to the site, Mid January.
According to Debbie (in a post a few days ago) in three weeks.

by Autumn 30.01.10 12:25

Is this a joint venture with Debbie?

by bellatrix 30.01.10 14:04

I dont believe so,I have never read about it being by the 2 of them just him.

by Autumn 30.01.10 14:38

Just wondering as lynx infers in his/her post that Debbie is better informed about the book than the rest of us.

by bellatrix 30.01.10 15:05

I think they were quite close at one time so perhaps they are still in touch.

by Cath 30.01.10 19:44

As far as I know there's only one author, Stevo.
Debbie posted that information over at MissingMadeleine.
Oh I forgot, Autumn, you're banned over there.
Don't ask me how she knows it and don't ask me if it's true, because I don't know.

by marigold 31.01.10 0:17

vaguely1 wrote:Even if you believe she did in an accident, they wouldn't be on cloud nine.

They certainly don't look to be on cloud nine in that photo.

Strange how they don't look on cloud nine now and yet looked so happy and relaxed a few days after their daughter 'disappeared'. Perhaps then they were confident that they would get away with it and now they're not so sure.

by Autumn 31.01.10 0:25

Inyx wrote:As far as I know there's only one author, Stevo.
Debbie posted that information over at MissingMadeleine.
Oh I forgot, Autumn, you're banned over there.
Don't ask me how she knows it and don't ask me if it's true, because I don't know.

Yeh and proud to be banned from that cesspit, I might add. Ambersuz only wants those she can manipulate and brainwash on her forum :ambersuz:

by Pascal 31.01.10 0:30

Marigold I did wonder why they were grinning like maniacs, days after their daughter went missing. But wasn't there something about them being advised not to blubber and show their true feelings incase the 'abductor' would get off on their grief?

by twinkle 31.01.10 0:41

Come on, any reference to how they appeared to look is just rubbish.
Which one of you has the "how to look handbook when you child disappears"
Nobody can predict what behaviour is acceptable or not when your child has gone missing.
Would you really like to be in that position to be able to give an informed opinion. no nobody would.

by marigold 31.01.10 1:33

Pascal wrote:Marigold I did wonder why they were grinning like maniacs, days after their daughter went missing. But wasn't there something about them being advised not to blubber and show their true feelings incase the 'abductor' would get off on their grief?

Yes what a load of tosh said to cover the fact they were cold and unemotional. There is now way any normal parent wouldn't have broken down. Once again they were lying.

by Pascal 31.01.10 1:35

How do you know they didn't break down?

by marigold 31.01.10 1:46

twinkle wrote:Come on, any reference to how they appeared to look is just rubbish.
Which one of you has the "how to look handbook when you child disappears"
Nobody can predict what behaviour is acceptable or not when your child has gone missing.
Would you really like to be in that position to be able to give an informed opinion. no nobody would.

You don't need a handbook to know, as a parent, how you would feel and react to such a hellish situation. I know with certainty that I would have to be knocked out cold as I just couldn't cope. I have had friends who have had stillborn children and they have been zombies for months. The Mccanns behaved and spoke in a way that was jaw dropping in its coldness. Utterly incomprehensible. How can you sleep a few days after your child has gone? A child you think is being molested by paedophiles. No normal, caring parent can ever come close to understanding the mentality of a couple who act as if they are having a fabulous time in such a situation. Unbelievable.

by marigold 31.01.10 1:54

Pascal wrote:How do you know they didn't break down?

Maybe they did when the cheques weren't coming in fast enough.

by Autumn 31.01.10 2:37

marigold wrote:
Pascal wrote:How do you know they didn't break down?

Maybe they did when the cheques weren't coming in fast enough.

Brings to mind something Gerry said when asked to describe how he felt about his daughter's disappearance - he compared the feeling to going to the cash machine and discovering his balance had gone into the red.

No-one will ever convince me that they ever cared about Madeleine.