The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann™
Welcome to 'The Complete Mystery of Madeleine McCann' forum 🌹

Please log in, or register to view all the forums as some of them are 'members only', then settle in and help us get to the truth about what really happened to Madeleine Beth McCann.

When you register please do NOT use your email address for a username because everyone will be able to see it!

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Mm11

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Regist10

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Page 11 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

View previous topic View next topic Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by Miraflores on 28.10.14 9:37

@AndyB wrote:Because you've been  moved to Port Moresby in Papua New Guinea?

I was surprised to find myself there too. I am now back on UTC, (or GMT if you prefer.)
Miraflores
Miraflores

Posts : 845
Join date : 2011-06-20

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by Brian Griffin on 29.10.14 19:11

The review war is still going on on Amazon. It's worth a look to see how well Vten is so eloquently putting down the - dare I even use the word? - 'trolls' who are still trying to defend the indefensible by attempting to put down those who tell the truth about the book, in relation to the facts. Who is Vten, by the way? Is he or she also represented on here? I've gained some interesting insight.

The book has failed to do what it was apparently supposed to do. That's two years of work down the drain plus the reputations of two previously credible authors. Was it really worth it?

In my opinion.

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)
Brian Griffin
Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Join date : 2013-10-15

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by canada12 on 29.10.14 19:44

I wonder if the book was also meant to swell the coffers of The Fund... as in, we'll commission you (S&S) to write this bewk, and we'll pay you X number of dollars (or pounds) to do so, but let's be sensible and make it a percentage commission based on sales. After all, it'll be an instant best seller. Look how well Kate's bewk did! And then you can give us a percentage of the percentage, and we'll all be very happy.
avatar
canada12

Posts : 1461
Join date : 2013-10-28

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by PeterMac on 29.10.14 21:25

Latest decent review

Looking For Madeleine (Paperback)
"Definitive"? "Independent"? "Objective"? "Impartial"? "Neutral"?

3 Oct 2014 By Textuseless

The first indication that there is something strange about this book comes in the `Authors' Note', before Chapter 1, in which the authors state that they "wish to make clear at the outset" that they have not seen "a shred of evidence to indicate that Kate and Gerry McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance or the repercussions that followed".
Why the wish to make that clear at the outset?
I suppose it might be helpful as a one-sentence précis for someone who glances at it in a shop, weighing up whether to buy the book, as it would save them the trouble of buying and reading the whole thing. The "Authors' Note" at the start of their 9/11 book didn't say "We wish to make clear at the outset that we think the CIA did/didn't do it", or anything like that, so why do it with this one? It's a bit like John le Carre giving away a secret to one of his novels on the front cover, or the St Martins Theatre putting a large billboard at the entrance of the building telling people how the Mousetrap play ends - with predictable results, judging by the sales figures of the book so far.
The Authors' Note also states that the book "has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann".
OK, fine.
Except that the `About the book' note preceding the Authors Note already stated that the book is the first "independent, objective account of the case".
But then at the end, the `Note on Sources' yet again states that the authors "conducted this project completely independently" of the McCanns.
Why the need to keep saying it? How many times does something have to be repeated before it sounds as if someone is protesting too much?
The endless repetition (even of the same words!) continues throughout the book in relation to the lack of evidence of anything in relation to the McCanns - "not a shred of evidence", "no evidence", "no factual evidence", "no evidence at all", "without any evidence", "never the smallest shred of fact or evidence", "no evidence whatsoever", "not a jot of evidence", "not an iota of evidence", "no such evidence", "not a jot of evidence" (again!). Overkill, much?
Why not just stick with the claim that it was a definitive account, `simply tell the story', and let people read it and make up their own minds? Are readers really unable to read a book and draw their conclusions without the 'aid' every few pages of hints as subtle as a flying mallet?
Another sign that something is not normal: partial quoting. As an example, the authors partially quote a piece of graffiti on a wall in Praia da Luz near one of the sites searched by Scotland Yard. The book quotes the part of the message about the English police, but not the other part, which was about the parents. The authors claim to be "entirely impartial" and that "Our aim in the book is in the main simply to tell the story" - but this is only telling part of the story. If a piece of graffiti was felt worthy of inclusion in a definitive account, why only quote half of it? Or did the authors only see the photographs of part of the message, and were unaware of the rest?
There is also a rather strange combination of partial quoting and added wording, with this interestingly worded sentence: "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that 'This is a criminal act [by] a stranger who has taken Madeleine McCann.'" This appears to refer to comments by Redwood to the press and TV in April 2012 that "It is our belief that that is a criminal act...that she has been taken by a stranger". Now, the Redwood quote in this book starts with "This is a criminal act [by] a stranger...". Starting the quote in that way, and omitting Redwood's widely-reported remark about it being Operation Grange's belief, makes it look more like a statement of fact. And why did the authors insert "the probability is that..."? None of the press reports nor the TV interview with Redwood I have seen mentioned anything about probability. If the authors have seen a statement by Redwood to that effect, why not quote it properly? If he didn't say it, why do the authors say "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that..."?
Another indication as to the position the authors take is in their repeated use of the `haters' term, which the pro-McCann forums have made their own. On two occasions the authors enclose the term `haters' with inverted commas, indicating that it is a term used by others. But on the other occasion they seem to have forgotten to do so.
Oh dear... this makes the book appear as if it was written by a pro-McCann forum.
Another strange comment appears in Chapter 1, where the authors state that they will "in this chapter relate events very neutrally". Well, firstly, why WOULDN'T they relate events very neutrally, as they claim that it is an independent, objective account? Secondly, why relate events very neutrally in only one chapter?
Neutrality is certainly not evident when the authors describe an interview with psychologist Christian Ludke. Instead of just relating what Ludke said (or, in their words, `simply telling the story'), the account is coloured to a considerable extent by pejorative phrases like "by the fourth question he had lurched into outrageous innuendo", "the psychologist replied darkly", "Ludke was still not finished", "Then, a final flourish". Hardly a case of `simply telling the story'.
What about the claim that the book is a definitive, researched account? The authors set out in detail a description of an incident 10 years ago by a `friend' of the family in question. The friend's account includes phrases like "From what the children told their parents, it seemed...", "the older girl told her sister something like...". Are the authors really putting forward what is little more than third-hand, vague, hearsay (from someone who even admits to not being sure what was said!) as a serious contribution in a book like this?
Much of a book supposedly dealing with a serious treatment of the case is devoted to page after page of rehashed tabloid stories and endless detailed accounts of non-sightings and other reports long since ruled out by the police. Here, I think, the explanation may be more straightforward - it is simply not possible to write a "definitive account" of a disappearance of which neither the investigating authorities nor the authors know any more than on the night it happened, 7 years ago. The official conclusion of the Portuguese authorities was "Type of crime - unknown", so the only `definitive account' at this stage is "Madeleine disappeared 7 years ago and the combined efforts of two police forces are no nearer solving the mystery", but that obviously needs an enormous amount of padding to fill enough pages for a book.
As for this (on the night Madeleine disappeared): "There is movement in the darkness. Undetected movement", and "The something appears to be a small child, warm from its slumber" - sheer speculation.
A serious book? "Independent"? "Objective"? "Impartial"? "Neutral"?

That isn't how it comes across to me at all.

____________________

PeterMac
PeterMac
Investigator

Posts : 10435
Join date : 2010-12-06

http://whatreallyhappenedtomadeleinemccann.blogspot.co.uk/

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by MRNOODLES on 30.10.14 0:46

I seriously wonder if Jim Gamble had some kind of a stake in the book. Otherwise it's a mystery why he's so keen to promote it and make references to it on Twitter.
MRNOODLES
MRNOODLES

Posts : 748
Join date : 2013-07-04

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by Angelique on 30.10.14 2:35

PeterMac

Thanks for the review by Textuseless - who is one of contributors on Amazon discussion.

I am glad I didn't buy this Book as it would have made me very angry. It's just more "networking" for the McCanns IMO. As though they need every Tom, Dick and Harry to ram it down our throats that there is no evidence. If one didn't know about the Masons before they must surely understand now. One supposes it is going to continue like this until we all give up otherwise we will continue to battle on until we meet our maker! Perhaps this is what they intend!




____________________
Things aren't always what they seem
Angelique
Angelique

Posts : 1396
Join date : 2010-10-19

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by aiyoyo on 30.10.14 9:53

@MRNOODLES wrote:I seriously wonder if Jim Gamble had some kind of a stake in the book.  Otherwise it's a mystery why he's so keen to promote it and make references to it on Twitter.

These questions need to be asked of Jim Gamble.

Is he friend of the S & S ?

Did he commission S&S (on behalf of the McCanns) to write such a book  ? 
As in did he (with consensus of the McCanns) moot the idea to S & S to write a book on the McCanns case then influence the authors on the direction to slant the book? 
 (If the initiative for the book was mooted by the authors themselves it appears strange they approached Jim Gamble to interview for the book ---  as in why would authors consider JG's opinion and input on the McCanns to be important for inclusion in the book?)

Why did he appear (with S & S) on TV for preview promotion of the book ? 

What's the vested interest in it for him to go that extent to support the authors (and by extension the McCanns) when the investigation is still ongoing and no closure is had one way or another yet, considering he's police officer he should be seen to be neutral ?

Is there any other books he'd helped promote in the past?

If not, why S&S book on the McCanns ?

Why is this particular book so important to him that not only provided authors with his input but also help to promote it on Twitter?


Was he interest to promote the book to support the Authors or to support the McCanns?
If it is to support the authors, why?
If it is to support the McCanns, why?


His over-and-above-normal-attention to the McCanns case and his seemingly obsessive personal interest to protect the McCanns image is abnormal.  Hence in the same vein as he terms McCanns doubters as 'haters',  it would not be wrong to term him as Madeleine McCann Hater since he's going against Madeleine interest.
aiyoyo
aiyoyo

Posts : 9610
Join date : 2009-11-28

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by Snifferdog on 30.10.14 10:22

@Brian Griffin wrote:The review war is still going on on Amazon. It's worth a look to see how well Vten is so eloquently putting down the - dare I even use the word? - 'trolls' who are still trying to defend the indefensible by attempting to put down those who tell the truth about the book, in relation to the facts. Who is Vten, by the way? Is he or she also represented on here? I've gained some interesting insight.

The book has failed to do what it was apparently supposed to do. That's two years of work down the drain plus the reputations of two previously credible authors. Was it really worth it?

In my opinion.
I had a look Brian, and I
agree that vten did an admirable job fighting off the trolls there, and as you say, some interesting insights from vten.

____________________
“‘Conspiracy stuff’ is now shorthand for unspeakable truth.”
– Gore Vidal
Snifferdog
Snifferdog

Posts : 1008
Join date : 2012-05-11
Location : here

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by Brian Griffin on 31.10.14 3:26

@PeterMac wrote:Latest decent review

Looking For Madeleine (Paperback)
"Definitive"? "Independent"? "Objective"? "Impartial"? "Neutral"?

3 Oct 2014 By Textuseless

The first indication that there is something strange about this book comes in the `Authors' Note', before Chapter 1, in which the authors state that they "wish to make clear at the outset" that they have not seen "a shred of evidence to indicate that Kate and Gerry McCann, any member of their holiday group, or Robert Murat, were at any stage - in May 2007 or subsequently - guilty of malfeasance of any kind in connection with Madeleine McCann's disappearance or the repercussions that followed".
Why the wish to make that clear at the outset?
I suppose it might be helpful as a one-sentence précis for someone who glances at it in a shop, weighing up whether to buy the book, as it would save them the trouble of buying and reading the whole thing. The "Authors' Note" at the start of their 9/11 book didn't say "We wish to make clear at the outset that we think the CIA did/didn't do it", or anything like that, so why do it with this one? It's a bit like John le Carre giving away a secret to one of his novels on the front cover, or the St Martins Theatre putting a large billboard at the entrance of the building telling people how the Mousetrap play ends - with predictable results, judging by the sales figures of the book so far.
The Authors' Note also states that the book "has been researched and written independently of Gerry and Kate McCann".
OK, fine.
Except that the `About the book' note preceding the Authors Note already stated that the book is the first "independent, objective account of the case".
But then at the end, the `Note on Sources' yet again states that the authors "conducted this project completely independently" of the McCanns.
Why the need to keep saying it? How many times does something have to be repeated before it sounds as if someone is protesting too much?
The endless repetition (even of the same words!) continues throughout the book in relation to the lack of evidence of anything in relation to the McCanns - "not a shred of evidence", "no evidence", "no factual evidence", "no evidence at all", "without any evidence", "never the smallest shred of fact or evidence", "no evidence whatsoever", "not a jot of evidence", "not an iota of evidence", "no such evidence", "not a jot of evidence" (again!). Overkill, much?
Why not just stick with the claim that it was a definitive account, `simply tell the story', and let people read it and make up their own minds? Are readers really unable to read a book and draw their conclusions without the 'aid' every few pages of hints as subtle as a flying mallet?
Another sign that something is not normal: partial quoting. As an example, the authors partially quote a piece of graffiti on a wall in Praia da Luz near one of the sites searched by Scotland Yard. The book quotes the part of the message about the English police, but not the other part, which was about the parents. The authors claim to be "entirely impartial" and that "Our aim in the book is in the main simply to tell the story" - but this is only telling part of the story. If a piece of graffiti was felt worthy of inclusion in a definitive account, why only quote half of it? Or did the authors only see the photographs of part of the message, and were unaware of the rest?
There is also a rather strange combination of partial quoting and added wording, with this interestingly worded sentence: "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that 'This is a criminal act [by] a stranger who has taken Madeleine McCann.'" This appears to refer to comments by Redwood to the press and TV in April 2012 that "It is our belief that that is a criminal act...that she has been taken by a stranger". Now, the Redwood quote in this book starts with "This is a criminal act [by] a stranger...". Starting the quote in that way, and omitting Redwood's widely-reported remark about it being Operation Grange's belief, makes it look more like a statement of fact. And why did the authors insert "the probability is that..."? None of the press reports nor the TV interview with Redwood I have seen mentioned anything about probability. If the authors have seen a statement by Redwood to that effect, why not quote it properly? If he didn't say it, why do the authors say "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that..."?
Another indication as to the position the authors take is in their repeated use of the `haters' term, which the pro-McCann forums have made their own. On two occasions the authors enclose the term `haters' with inverted commas, indicating that it is a term used by others. But on the other occasion they seem to have forgotten to do so.
Oh dear... this makes the book appear as if it was written by a pro-McCann forum.
Another strange comment appears in Chapter 1, where the authors state that they will "in this chapter relate events very neutrally". Well, firstly, why WOULDN'T they relate events very neutrally, as they claim that it is an independent, objective account? Secondly, why relate events very neutrally in only one chapter?
Neutrality is certainly not evident when the authors describe an interview with psychologist Christian Ludke. Instead of just relating what Ludke said (or, in their words, `simply telling the story'), the account is coloured to a considerable extent by pejorative phrases like "by the fourth question he had lurched into outrageous innuendo", "the psychologist replied darkly", "Ludke was still not finished", "Then, a final flourish". Hardly a case of `simply telling the story'.
What about the claim that the book is a definitive, researched account? The authors set out in detail a description of an incident 10 years ago by a `friend' of the family in question. The friend's account includes phrases like "From what the children told their parents, it seemed...", "the older girl told her sister something like...". Are the authors really putting forward what is little more than third-hand, vague, hearsay (from someone who even admits to not being sure what was said!) as a serious contribution in a book like this?
Much of a book supposedly dealing with a serious treatment of the case is devoted to page after page of rehashed tabloid stories and endless detailed accounts of non-sightings and other reports long since ruled out by the police. Here, I think, the explanation may be more straightforward - it is simply not possible to write a "definitive account" of a disappearance of which neither the investigating authorities nor the authors know any more than on the night it happened, 7 years ago. The official conclusion of the Portuguese authorities was "Type of crime - unknown", so the only `definitive account' at this stage is "Madeleine disappeared 7 years ago and the combined efforts of two police forces are no nearer solving the mystery", but that obviously needs an enormous amount of padding to fill enough pages for a book.
As for this (on the night Madeleine disappeared): "There is movement in the darkness. Undetected movement", and "The something appears to be a small child, warm from its slumber" - sheer speculation.
A serious book? "Independent"? "Objective"? "Impartial"? "Neutral"?

That isn't how it comes across to me at all.
It's the comments on reviews, even the one-liners, that are most telling and interesting.

____________________
"Looking for Madeleine"? - Lying for the McCanns! (In my opinion)
Brian Griffin
Brian Griffin

Posts : 577
Join date : 2013-10-15

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by brixham on 31.10.14 19:54

@canada12 wrote:I wonder if the book was also meant to swell the coffers of The Fund... as in, we'll commission you (S&S) to write this bewk, and we'll pay you X number of dollars (or pounds) to do so, but let's be sensible and make it a percentage commission based on sales. After all, it'll be an instant best seller. Look how well Kate's bewk did! And then you can give us a percentage of the percentage, and we'll all be very happy.
The fund could certainly do with a boost,in the last reported tax year to 31/03/13  it made a £68K loss after turning over £70K. The turnover was down app 92% from the previous tax year, the year that included the release of the book 'Madeleine.'
brixham
brixham

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-10-03

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by brixham on 31.10.14 20:18

Textuseless wrote;



Another sign that something is not normal: partial quoting. As an example, the authors partially quote a piece of graffiti on a wall in Praia da Luz near one of the sites searched by Scotland Yard. The book quotes the part of the message about the English police, but not the other part, which was about the parents. The authors claim to be "entirely impartial" and that "Our aim in the book is in the main simply to tell the story" - but this is only telling part of the story. If a piece of graffiti was felt worthy of inclusion in a definitive account, why only quote half of it? Or did the authors only see the photographs of part of the message, and were unaware of the rest?
There is also a rather strange combination of partial quoting and added wording, with this interestingly worded sentence: "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that 'This is a criminal act [by] a stranger who has taken Madeleine McCann.'" This appears to refer to comments by Redwood to the press and TV in April 2012 that "It is our belief that that is a criminal act...that she has been taken by a stranger". Now, the Redwood quote in this book starts with "This is a criminal act [by] a stranger...". Starting the quote in that way, and omitting Redwood's widely-reported remark about it being Operation Grange's belief, makes it look more like a statement of fact. And why did the authors insert "the probability is that..."? None of the press reports nor the TV interview with Redwood I have seen mentioned anything about probability. If the authors have seen a statement by Redwood to that effect, why not quote it properly? If he didn't say it, why do the authors say "As Operation Grange chief Andy Redwood has said, the probability is that..."?



Partial quoting was evident too when the Faro holiday bus video is mentioned, DP's comments are quoted but not GM's, which are obviously not the sort of comment that show GM in a good light, so are just left out.
brixham
brixham

Posts : 42
Join date : 2013-10-03

Back to top Go down

BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! ! - Page 11 Empty Re: BOOK ALREADY HALF PRICE ON AMAZON ! !

Post by ultimaThule on 10.11.14 5:19

I missed this extract http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/newstopics/madeleinemccann/11077525/Madeleine-McCann-I-listened-for-15-seconds-and-knew-they-were-innocent.html but if it's representative of Goose & Winters' book as a whole, it's not surprising it was remaindered within days of its publication.

Note to Mrs non-Uncle Brian Kennedy: I would have suggested you buy your hubby a hearing aid for Christmas but, as that's unlikely to be an event celebrated in your household, why not get him one now before he squanders any more of your children's inheritance on unlikely tales?
ultimaThule
ultimaThule

Posts : 3355
Join date : 2013-09-18

Back to top Go down

Page 11 of 11 Previous  1, 2, 3 ... 9, 10, 11

View previous topic View next topic Back to top


 
Permissions in this forum:
You cannot reply to topics in this forum