A VERY QUICK FIRST SCAN OF 'LOOKING FOR MADELEINE'

Book arrived less than an hour ago and I have to go out shortly for the rest of the afternoon.

But here's a very quick run through what I've seen so far.

The book has 24 chapters - all numbered, no headings.  At the end is an 'Afterword' which was obviously written in the run-up to publication, and then a list of acknowledgements.

The book is mainly laid out in chronological order, but stopping now and then to examine particular themes. The 'haters' (that's us here and on other Madeleine McCann forums) are heavily criticised in two chapters, 15 and 16.

There is an index.       

From a quick run-through, the chapters deal with the following issues:

1 - Background and the first part of 3 May

2 - Evening of 3 May. NOTE there is NO REFERENCE WHATSOEVER to the alleged visit of Dr David Payne to the McCanns' apartment around 6.30pm on 3 May and hence no analysis of the 20 or so contradictions about that claimed visit (see recent thread on this forum)

3 - May 4

4 - Early developments in the investigation

5 - 'Sightings' of suspicious men, Gail Cooper, 'monsterman' etc.

6 - The reaction of the McCanns to early developments - this includes a 3-page reproduction (pp. 73-75) of the typewritten 'finally agreed written timeline of events' produced by the McCanns and their Tapas 7 friends a week or two after 3 May

7 - Robert Murat, who claims his life was 'shattered' and that his life will go back to normal 'only if they catch the abductor' (Oh dear!)

8 - The McCanns' campaign

9 - McCanns' reactions to the police action

10 - More on the McCanns' campaign

11 - Growing police suspicions and dogs

12 - Lots more on the dogs, concluding with 'there was no evidence to back up their alerts'

13 - More about the McCanns, mentions Kate's 'deeply-held Christian faith'

14 - Portuguese decision to make the McCanns arguidos (translated by Summer & Swan not as 'suspects' but as 'named persons'. Decision to make them suspects described as 'premature'

15 - No shred of evidence against the McCanns, followed by half a chapter on the haters with a detailed review of my chequered career and various campaigns

16 - Blistering chapter against the 'haters' as 'cowards who hid behind their computer screens', though they do add this: "Tony Bennett of the Madeleine Foundation acted openly, not hiding behind a computer screen, nor did enthusiastic supporter Jill Havern, a Birmingham-based driving instructor with a grudge against the National Health Service and Leicester' Glenfield Hospital in particular". A bit about the 'NHS - McCanns' Abuse of Power' blog follows: 'black background, lurid content, distorted photographs of the McCanns'. The word 'haters' seems to appear several times on every page of this chapter

17 - Kennedy and Metodo 3

18 - Kevin Halligen and Oakley      

19 - Events in 2010

20 - Joyous news of the setting-up of Operation Grange

21 - What really happened: They say: "There are no significant inconsistencies in the statements of the McCanns and their friends" and, p. 261: "All the accumulated evidence indicates that Madeleine was abducted"  

22 - Chapter about sex offenders which begins with this most strange opening sentence (p. 272): "Within days of Madeleine's disappearance, Gerry and Kate McCann had found themselves poring, hour after hour, over photographs of known sex offenders". Que? I don't recall that being mentioned before in Gerry McCanns' blogs? Raymond Hewlett and most of the other named paedophiles we know about are given a mention in this chapter 

23 - More about sex offenders ad paedophilia. It's claimed that Portugal Police requested CEOP, who supplied Joe Sullivan and Graham Hill (see my articles on this forum about Jim Gamble, Mark Williams-Thomas and Joe Sullivan)

24 - Chapter about events on or about 3 May 2014

Afterword - Lots about Ernie Allen, ICMEC, Missing People, PACT, Amber Alert etc.

Acknowledgements: Generous praise for 'help and advice' from Martin Brunt and several others.

++++++++++++

My brief observation so far: This is a seriously dishonest book - much more dishonest than I can ever have imagined.

How can they get away with saying there are 'no significant inconsistencies'? - and how can they get away with not even mentioning the alleged visit to David Payne at 6.30pm on 3 May - with its 20 flat contradictions? There MUST be a fight-back against this wicked book


ETA:

There may be an index - but, unlike PeterMac's articles on this forum, statements and assertions made in the book are unreferenced

Go get,em tony and remember you are never alone.Jesus is with you always.

Tony Bennett wrote:
22 - Chapter about sex offenders which begins with this most strange opening sentence (p. 272): "Within days of Madeleine's disappearance, Gerry and Kate McCann had found themselves poring, hour after hour, over photographs of known sex offenders". 

Er... to what end? They didn't themselves witness anything untoward.

Anyway, sounds like a real hatchet job. Anything in there you could consider personally libelous?

Wow, thanks - Tony, am mightily   impressed by your ability to digest an summarise all that in an hour!!!!!

Chapter 12 - Dogs - 'there was no evidence to back up their alerts'. WTF - I thought the alerts themselves were the evidence! It's like saying 'he came into the room and farted but as there was no evidence I had to agree that he hadn't'.

Did I read Tony correctly? Why are people on serious sites like this one referred to as 'haters' in the S and S book?  I understand there are poisonous anti McCann 'haters' on Twitter but IMHO and experience this is a moderated site and hate comments would be deemed out of line by the administrators.

Book pages suitable for wrapping the compostibles in for the green bin, then...

Legally, Roy, dogs evidence is 'only indicative' which means it is not able to be quoted in court unless there is forensic or other back up. None was found. Indicative is just that... it gives a clue as to where to look further. Martin Grime said as much and very clearly too. It does not mean that the dogs were falsely guided, or that what they did was a con in some way. They alerted in the pattern that they did and, highly significantly, they alerted only to places and the car associated with the McCanns and no other places or cars they were put in front of.

How did he get in
How did he get out
When did he get in
When did he get out

?

Precisely!

Who would have predicted all that about the book?

Oh.. hang on...

comperedna wrote:Legally, Roy, dogs evidence is 'only indicative' which means it is not able to be quoted in court unless there is forensic or other back up. None was found. Indicative is just that... it gives a clue as to where to look further. Martin Grime said as much and very clearly too. It does not mean that the dogs were falsely guided, or that what they did was a con in some way. They alerted in the pattern that they did and, highly significantly, they alerted only to places and the car associated with the McCanns and no other places or cars they were put in front of.

One thing that never ceases to strike me about the video of Martin Grimes chatting calmly while the dog alerts all over 5A is just how resigned to the whole thing he seems to be. OK, so he's seen it all before, but he talks through the alerts to the possible demise of a young child in the fashion of a washing machine repair man wearily explaining to you where your problem lies. If he's even remotely surprised by the dog's reaction then he doesn't show it.

21 - What really happened: They say: "There are no significant inconsistencies in the statements of the McCanns and their friends" and, p. 261: "All the accumulated evidence indicates that Madeleine was abducted"  

If they make that claim it's pretty incredible and easily rebutted.

Are they for real?

How do they sleep?

OK.. can someone invite Summers and Swann to debate the inconsistencies here?

Would they have the guts to face people who actually know the case?

If they`ve used the word `haters` for all the thousands of people who don`t believe the McCanns, they immediately lose credibility IMO.  It just shows their bias (and childishness) before even completing a proper investigation.

I can only come to the conclusion that this book was definitely commissioned by someone desperate to prove the McCann`s innocence.  And as always it begs the question - why?

I'm looking forward to Tony Bennet's and Peter Mac's reviews on Amazon.

Naz_Nomad wrote:I'm looking forward to Tony Bennet's and Peter Mac's reviews on Amazon.  

I bet they`re not going to be the only ones. Amazon - be prepared for pages and pages of negative reviews.

21 - What really happened: They say: "There are no significant inconsistencies in the statements of the McCanns and their friends" and, p. 261: "All the accumulated evidence indicates that Madeleine was abducted"
---------------------------------------------------------

What all ACCUMULATED EVIDENCE would that be then?

ONLY the McCanns.....'SAYING SO'....dosen't count as 'evidence' i'm afraid.

What 'abduction' would that be then?

And who 'indicated'?

SCOOBY DOO?

We all KNOW how UNRELIABLE he is, don't we?

eta: One wonders if Summers&Swan would stand up, in a High Court, and STATE as TRUE, under OATH, that "Madeleine McCann WAS abducted"?



Silly me, of COURSE they WOULD!..........................er, wouldn't they?

Tony, thank you for the chapter summary.

You don't mention if they have commented on the speedy setting up of the Fund, the commitment to being open and transparent whatever it cost and then filing the minimum information required by law at the last possible moment to avoid a fine for late filing. I had hoped they would have solved the mystery of the 'experienced Fund administrator' who the official website said from the start (and still does) was appointed to ensure the highest standards of transparency and accountability but who doesn't appear to have existed as the auditor's note to the accounts says there are no employees.

When you have time to review in detail Tony perhaps you would post what, if anything the authors say about the Fund.  

The authors certainly did not contact me to ask to discuss the reports I have written on the background to the setting up of the private limited company known as the Fund and the audited accounts (which are available from Companies House but not on the official website) . My reports are available on http://www.mccannfiles.com/

PeterMac wrote:How did he get in
How did he get out
When did he get in
When did he get out

?

He put his left leg in,
His left leg out,
In out, in out, shook it all about,
He did the hokey cokey,
And he turned right round,
Then left the apartment without making a sound.

Whoa-o Mr Pimple,
Whoa-o oh so simple,
In through the patio door, out through the window,
Knees bent, arms out stretched,
Rah! Rah! Rah!

PERCEIVED 'DISCREPANCIES'

On p. 172 Summers and Swan tackle the 'perceived discrepancies in the testimonies of the friends who dined with the McCanns'.

Tavares de Almeida's report of 10 September 2007 is quoted: "From the declarations of the group results a total incoherence, in the context of which it is obvious that everyone is lying".  

Summers and Swan come back with: "The chief inspector did not appear to consider the possibility that there might be entirely innocent reasons for the apparent discrepancies". 

A SILLY IDEA

Some of Tavares de Almeida's headline conclusions are listed, with for example 'the child might have died as the result of an accident, and the McCanns hidden the body' (p. 172). Summers and Swan go on to say that a PJ source told the Sunday Times that the body could have been stored 'in a refrigerator' (I thought that they suggested a 'freezer'?). Summers and Swan dismiss this as 'an idea based on no evidence at all - a silly idea'.

PREMATURE

The decision to make the McCanns susepcts was 'premature' (Chapter 14, p. 175). This conclusion, say Summers & Swan, was based on their 'careful reading of the case files'.  The premature decision to make them suspects 'grew out of an understandable Portuguese misinterpretation of a poorly-worded forensic finding...'  (There is a then a fair bit about the DNA evidence which will be no surprise to any of us here - nothing new that I can see so far. 

BLOOD IN 5A

Most of p. 177 is taken up with previous occupants of G5A (the McCanns' apartment) who had sprayed blood all over the place.

Simon Fawkes and his teacher wife Claire had hired the apartment a month earlier; their 3-year-old daughter 'had cut her chin while at the Ocean Club creche badly enough to need stitches - and may have bled later at the apartment'.

Then came 'accountant Paul Gordon and his flight-attendant wife Saleigh. Paul had cut himself shaving and had 'walked around the apartment with paper tissues trying to stop the blood for about 45 minutes'.

More later

THE HATERS

This chapter (p. 193) begins with this sentence:

"There was never the smallest shred of fact or evidence to inculpate Maddie's parents in any way at all".

Then:

"Yet they have faced a host of detractors and critics".

Anne Enright's article in the London Review of Books is quoted, where she wrote, inter alia: "Guilt and denial are the emotions we smell off Gerry and Kate McCann". Summers & Swan point out that she later apologised for that article (p. 193).

Various news items are listed on the next three pages.

Pat Brown gets a good mention on pp. 196-7. Summers and Swan quote Pat Brown as saying: "The presence of Madeleine's DNA in the Renault Scenic would mean the McCanns are guilty". Summers and Swan: "It would not mean that..."  (one of many 'straw man' arguments I have read so far).

There is a dismissive paragraph about Pat Brown 'equipped with a metal detector, soil probe and a spade', visiting Portugal in 2012: "The adventure only produced substantial self-publicity", say Summers & Swan.

Dr Christian Ludke's book is given a brief airing on pp. 197-9. He was guilty, say Summers & Swan, of 'outrageous innuendo'. Some of Ludke's most trenchant comments about the McCanns are quoted, e.g. "There are parents [speaking generally] who had little or no emotional bond with a child". Ludke had also said: "I believe both parents at least have particpants' knowledge of what occurred".  

More strong quotes from Ludke are added, summed up by Summers and Swan as follows: "Maybe this - maybe that - on the basis of not an iota of evicence".

Four pages (pp. 199-203) follow about me, not very complimentary, except for 'A bright man with an excellent academic background' - but then, say Summers & Swan: "...long a bete noire [black beast] for the McCanns".

Tony Bennett wrote:
Four pages (pp. 199-203) follow about me, not very complimentary, except for 'A bright man with an excellent academic background' - but then, say Summers & Swan: "...long a bete noire [black beast] for the McCanns".

That has always puzzled me.
Why did they not consign you to the outer darkness as a nutter ?
Why did they not merely ignore you ?  (I spent thirty years in the Force ignoring nutters, and getting on with my job.)
Why did they respond ?
Why did they not go down the route of "masterly inactivity" over the book ?
Why did they dignify what you had said with a response.
Why did they spend a third of a million pounds getting you before the High Court, when you were merely repeating what the first head of the investigation, his successor, their entire team, LeicPol, NPIA, the prosecution authorities and many more were saying and furthermore COMMITTING to paper ?

These are all rhetorical questions.  The answer is obvious.

I think to be a genuine and their official bête noire is a considerable accolade.  Congratulations.
Tony Bennett, MA, BN to the McCanns, FRCBN

MORE ABOUT 'THE HATERS' (CHAPTER 17)

++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

Some nasty letters from people are quoted.

Murderer John Hirst gets a mention on pp. 205-6 for his opposition to the McCanns.

Steve Marsden’s book ‘Faked Abduction’, written under the pen-name of Brian Johnson, gets a mention on p. 206.

‘Pamalam’, named as ‘retiree Pam Watson’. Is accused of ‘creating an illusion that the site was Gerry McCann’s’ (p. 207). Anonymous translators ‘Ines’, ‘Albym’ and ‘Luz’ get mentioned.

Nigel Moore’s ‘mccannfiles’ site gets a mention on pp. 207-8. Both Pam Watson and Nigel Moore ‘did not respond to requests by the authors to discuss their work’.

Nigel’s site is referred to as ‘a vast compendium of McCann-related press reports and videos’ and includes ‘Moore’s own take on the case’. Moore is criticised (p. 208) for having the following caption - The Blue Fairy speaking to Pinocchio  -  under a photograph of Gerry McCann: “A lie keeps growing and growing until it’s as plain as the nose on your face”. This, say Summers and Swan, is contrary to the stated purpose of his site, which proclaims it exists: “To find out what really happened to Maddie and bring her home”. Summers and Swan moan about Nigel’s ‘Donate’ button: “The donate button was still there in 2014”.

Joana Morais gets the Summers & Swan treatment on pp. 208-9: ‘A prominent online dissenter’. Morais “is another of those who did not reply to the authors’ correspondence”. Joana is allowed to speak, however, with an 11-line direct quote from her, in which she says: “I’m very proud of ,my small and beautiful country, and even prouder of my people and history, and though by writing my blog and using my real name I’m running a risk, I’ll keep on defending my country”.

Next up is ‘Bren Ryan’ (pp. 209-210), summed up as ‘an Englishwoman in her mid-fifties’. The chapter concludes with Ryan’s repentance. “I took time to read he files carefully…I started to think that Kate and Gerry and their friends are innocent in all this…a forum like ‘The 3 Arguidos’ should never in this world have been given an inch of cyberspace…there was no evidence to support the many allegations pertaining to the theory that Kate and Gerry McCann were involved in their daughter’s disappearance”. Ryan wrote to the authors earlier this year and said: “I did something that that was morally wrong…I apologised to [the McCanns] in an open letter…”


More later


Chapter 17 begins:

“All along, while the McCanns’ haters were propagating their poison, Madeleine’s father and mother never ceased doing what they could to move the investigation forwards”.

Control Risks are given a mention on page 213: “In the UK, with the McCanns at home again, Control Risks checked the house in Rothley for possible bugs. The company also arranged for forensic analysis of the samples of the twins’ hair - in case it might be possible to find evidence that an abductor had sedated them on 3 May…the results of the tests were negative [carried out over 4 months after 3 May - TB].

ETA:


Metodo 3 is now discussed. Summers and Swan leave out huge swathes of information about Metodo 3. Almost nothing negative about them is mentioned.

On p. 215, we are told: “Brian Kennedy, meanwhile, cast around for suitable private investigators to hire, and picked Metodo 3”. The way this is handled in the book suggests that this ‘casting around’ came after several events in Morocco in September 2007. This is misleading. There is ample evidence, and it is confirmed by Chapter 10 of Gary Hagland’s book, that Metodo 3 was hired in September (as was Gary Hagland), and maybe even before that.

The passages in the book about Marcos Aragao Correia, from page 218 to 220, are very interesting. Having personally studied this man in depth. I know that a vast amount of relevant facts about this man and how he came to be appointed by the McCann Team are left out.

The searches for Madeleine’s bones in January and March 2008 are mentioned. But Summers and Swan omitted the all-important pre-search meeting on 10 December 2007 at the Arade Dam between Marcos Aragao Correia and two men from Metodo 3, their boss Francisco Marco and the soon-to-be-arrested Antonio Giminez Raso, their top investigator. All three were employed by the McCann Team.

Naturally Antonio Gimenez Raso doesn’t get a mention in the entire book, despite the fact that he was the lead, and most active, Metodo 3 investigator in that all-important phase of the investigation, early September 2007 to 17 February 2008. I say ‘17 February 2008’, of course, because that was the day Antonio Giminez Raso was arrested and remanded in custody for the next four years on very serious criminal charges.

The day after was the day that the McCanns’ public relations spokesman, Clarence Mitchell, angrily denied that Giminez Raso had anything to do with the McCann Team’s private investigations. Many facts about Giminez Raso’s actions in those four months tell a very different story.    

This is yet another example of facts being buried by the authors, who claim that Metodo 3 believed Marcos Aragao Correia’s account of Madeleine being abducted, raped, killed and ‘thrown into a reservoir ‘was ‘a significant lead’. Marcos Aragao Correia later admitted that this was a total lie, a fact lightly skimmed over by the authors (p. 219), who reproduce his second claim, that his information actually  “came in a vision following a spiritualist meeting two days after Madeleine went missing”. Summers and Swan fail to tell their readers that Marcos Aragao Correia later admitted that this, too, was a lie.

It angers me no end that the authors and publishers of this book have described it as ‘the most definitive account yet’. So much has been left out.  

 

     

           

I am wondering-  if there could be reasons for the apparent discrepancies why don't they take a lie detector and publicly explain what the reasons could be.   Wee Kelly's sofa would surely be available??????

Is there any mention of Rocky in the book?  

Tony the "black beast".        Never heard anything like it in me life guv.  ha ha ha.   Another pair need to jog on, keep on jogging, cos who cares what their opinions are?

Did the authors ask TM "what do you want us to write"?

I bet Bren Ryan has a story to tell if she could.

Authors Summers and Swan reply to critics of their book about Madeleine









The best-selling authors Anthony Summers and Robbyn Swan have responded to criticisms that their new book Looking for Madeleine, published today (September 11), amounts to a pro-McCann ‘whitewash’ rather than the first in-depth, independent and objective analysis of the disappearance and search for the little girl. The criticisms come from people who reject the theory that Madeleine McCann was abducted.


In their first interview with the media in Portugal, the authors told me they had in the past tackled controversial subjects, “but never have we encountered this degree of intense reaction to a book even before it has been published. It underlines, we think, why authors who do our kind of intensive investigative work needed to tackle this story.”

How, I asked, did they decide on this subject in the first place?

“In May 2012, readers may recall, the UK’s Scotland Yard released an age progression image of Madeleine as she might have looked if still alive. Robbyn was watching the news with our own young daughter, who is a little older than Madeleine McCann, and whose middle name happens also to be Madeleine.  

“Her interest was piqued by hearing her own name, and she asked: ‘What really happened to that little girl? Do her parents really believe she is still alive?’  

“And – this really got us: ‘How long would you look for me, Mummy?’ Robbyn realised she didn’t have good answers, and we started tentatively digging. We starting a first scan of the massive police dossier, read Kate McCann’s published account - and took on board the voluminous criticism and analysis of the case, and of the McCanns themselves, that was available online.  

“We soon realised as we talked to people from all walks of life that many, many people seemed to suspect there was something wrong with the parents’ account and – and we started to think we could bring something to this almost unique story by drilling down to the best evidence. Our publisher agreed. That’s how it started, and here we are more than two years later.”

The authors are adamant they have not been influenced  at any stage or in any way by the McCann family or anyone close to the investigation. “As you will see in the Notes section of Looking for Madeleine, we felt at the outset that it was only right to advise Madeleine’s parents and London’s Metropolitan police that we planned to investigate with a view to a book.

“We had a single meeting with the McCanns and one with the Met – both of them early in our research. The parents, and then the police, made only one request of us – a fair one given the parents’ hope and the Met’s working thesis that Madeleine may still be alive –  that we do nothing that might hinder or interfere with the ongoing investigation. We have been careful to abide by that request.”

How much cooperation did they get from Kate and Gerry McCann during their research and writing?  

“We have been totally independent of the McCanns – and we emphasise this, given the torrent of internet innuendo to the contrary even before Looking for Madeleine was published.  

“An initial meeting aside, a meeting at which Madeleine’s parents made no attempt at all to influence our thinking, there was no cooperation. The parents believed we should work independently of them, and we would not have wanted it otherwise.”

Since the couple began working on the book, both the Portuguese Polícia Judiciária and the Metropolitan Police Service have moved from ‘reviewing’ to renewed investigation and so they have had no more information from either force than was “ethically correct.”  

However, they said they have had senior contacts with former senior law enforcement officers in both countries and these have served as a valuable guide to the early investigation, and to some degree to what has been going on more recently.  

The authors said that before they started their research they had no opinion on whether Madeleine had been abducted or not. And after two years of non-stop work, they have an opinion but not a definitive one.

“We were open - and still are - to anywhere the evidence might lead us. When Madeleine vanished we were deep into the research for our previous book, on the September 11 attacks. That also involved reading many tens of thousands of documents, travel, etc. So, like millions of others, we only had the blurred impression gained from the welter of media coverage and the torrent of rumour. It is only now after looking at every angle that we can justify expressing an opinion. We do that in Looking for Madeleine.”

Anthony Summers and his wife Robbyn Swan think the most likely scenario is that Madeleine was indeed abducted. There is a “cogent skein of evidence” pointing to the notion that she was a carefully selected target, very possibly of a paedophile.”

Does the book contain any real revelations? In other words have Summers and Swan uncovered any previously unknown facts that bring us closer to understanding what really happened to Madeleine?

“Looking for Madeleine is shot through with new information and analysis. In particular, we obtained information not seen publicly before that throws vivid new light on the activity and modus operandi of the intruder who perpetrated at least one of the child sex attacks in the period preceding Madeleine’s disappearance.  

“As important, we obtained detailed information on an incident in Praia da Luz that may suggest one of the phoney “charity collectors” may have had a sexual motive. This episode, in particular, coupled with analysis of the overall jigsaw of testimony, contributes to a new understanding of a possible abduction scenario.

“Another key element is the first ever in-depth interview with Brian Kennedy, the wealthy benefactor who throws light on the McCann’s private investigation effort. And much, much more.”

As to the serious doubts about independence and objectivity expressed before the book’s publication, especially by critics who totally reject the abduction theory, the authors responded: “The notion of criticising authors about a book even before it has been published may speak volumes about the biases of those levelling the criticisms

http://algarvenewswatch.blogspot.co.uk/2014/09/authors-summers-and-swan-reply-to.html?spref=tw

So, these pair didn't become interested in this case until 2012? And now they are experts on it? They say they have found "new evidence" Anyone know what this new evidence is?

How much contact did the authors have with the Media Monitoring Unit though?

Lots of get outs in that interview.